 |
|
Saturday, December 06, 2003
OUTKAST: The hip hop duo Outkast is the best group in pop music today. Slate has called them �America�s greatest rock band.� They just received six Grammy nominations, and their song �Hey Ya!� is up for Record of the Year. It�s a great, super-catchy track. It also includes these lines: Thank god for mom and dadKinda speaks for a generation, no? P.S. You can listen to �Hey Ya!� here. You will be cooler for having done so. VALUING FAMILIES: The New York Times reports, "Democrats Try to Regain Ground on Moral Issues." ...in New Hampshire, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut cast an array of policy proposals, like expanded access to health insurance and child care, as proof of his dedication to family values. "It's a basic commitment," he said, "a moral commitment that we should make to all of our families."...This week, he highlighted an array of proposals including paid medical leave for family emergencies and a requirement that the government create standards for food sold in schools as an "agenda for valuing families." FROM DOWN UNDER, THE SAME OLD STUFF Positive parenting a key to child's wellbeing, with or without dadThis article contains nearly every well-worn "argument" used by defenders of family diversity. For example, Flood writes: ...neither divorce nor fatherlessness by itself determines children's wellbeing. Most of the harmful effects divorce appears to inflict on children do not come from subsequent fatherlessness. They come from the stress and hostility that too often precede a divorce and the economic decline which often follows it. (emphasis added)As we've pointed out countless times on this blog, almost nothing "by itself" determines something as complex as child well-being. And, yes, some of the observed effects of divorce are from pre-divorce family conflict, but Andrew Cherlin's research has shown that the divorce itself matters, too. And if a family's economic decline almost always follows divorce, how can divorce not matter? Losing one's job almost always leads to economic decline. But some people find jobs right after getting laid off; some rich CEOs get golden parachutes. Therefore, losing one's job by itself does not determine if one suffers a drop in economic status. Dr. Flood ends his op-ed by suggesting that divorce (by itself, of course) doesn't do much to inhibit father involvement: Fathers' positive involvement in families after divorce is being hindered, but not by selfish mothers, nor by the Family Court. Fathers face the same obstacles to involvement they did before divorce: the excessive demands of family-hostile workplaces, the economic disadvantages of involved parenting (which many mothers already suffer), and policy barriers to shared care.Now there's a courageous position--calling for "sophisticated" understanding and a commitment to take on the "real" obstacles. Yeah, yeah, it's often complex. But if a father no longer lives with his children, that should darn well count as a "real obstacle to involved fathering." "RETRONYM" "Retronym: a word or phrase created because an existing term that was once used alone needs to be distinguished from a term referring to a new development or variation."(Link via Throop Logs) Friday, December 05, 2003
'Fatherhood' appeals to sperm-donor candidate Letter to a Tennessee advice columnist: A remarkable letter, and yet another example of the lousy advice that advice columnists almost universally give on matters like this. The columnist patronizingly soothes the woman that she�s �right to be bothered,� then suggests only that the woman ask her husband to attend a counselor together to talk over the implications of the matter. Huh? A married man saying �it�s my sperm and I can do what I want with them�? A guy saying he�d like to �father� a kid without having the �day-to-day responsibility of fatherhood�? And, most of all, all these adults tossing around the idea of creating a new, fatherless child as if it were no more weighty than going in together on a time-share. IN CANADA: Study aims to salvage image of fatherhood University researchers hope to debunk the pop-culture image of fathers as incompetent bumblers with the first major national study of male parenting. Criminalizing Motherhood, in The Nation Regina McKnight is doing twelve years in prison for a stillbirth� Her crime? Giving birth to a five-pound, stillborn baby. As McKnight grieved and held her third daughter Mercedes's lifeless body, she could never have imagined that she was about to become the first woman in America convicted for murder by using cocaine while pregnant. These are tough cases, but I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with the state sending women to prison because their baby may have died as a result of illegal drug use. Cocaine is illegal but alcohol isn't and many more babies are harmed by alcohol. It is legal, though not advisable, for pregnant women to drink, but no one knows exactly what level starts bringing harm to the fetus. So at what level do pregnant women's inadvisable activities become criminal? And what pregnant women would go in for montly prenatal visits if she was afraid of conviction in the event of a complication or fetal death? How about this: Let's try assuming that a pregnant woman who would do cocaine has some serious problems. Let's help her with her problems before the baby dies, and before we send her to jail. Motherhood Makes Teens More Responsible: Study finds they're less likely to take part in delinquent activities. Hmm, and the policy implications are�? IN UGANDA: The Domestic Relations Bill has attracted fresh interest this past week. The main issues emerging seems to center around whether polygamy should be allowed in the law or not, and if so, who the key players should be in introducing polygamy in the home. An issue in the draft Domestic Relations Bill that has not attracted as much interest as polygamy, is divorce. Yet divorce is not only related to polygamy, but its proposed procedures are so liberal and permissive, that they make some western divorce laws seem conservative in comparison. LOST IN TRANSLATION Sofia Coppola's marriage has been lost in the translation. Later in this piece the journalist speculates that the coming divorce could be seen in Coppola�s portrayal of the �workaholic, emotionally absent husband� of the young main character played by Scarlett Johansson in her new movie Lost in Translation. I guess I shouldn�t take entertainment news �analysis� too seriously, but what struck me when I saw the movie was the sweet portrayal of a very real seeming young marriage. Johansson�s character, a recent Yale grad, is bright and sensitive but a little �lost,� not sure yet what she wants to do with her life. She�s come along for the ride on her young photographer husband�s business trip to Tokyo. True, he�s always rushing out but he really seems to love and care for her. At the end of the movie he sends her a fax, a big hand-drawn heart and a message that he can�t wait to see her when he returns from a short business trip to a different part of the city. That seems to hold out hope that love and desire is still there, they�re just having a hard time �clicking� at the moment. Sure, in the movie he�s a workholic, but she is doing nothing and literally along for the ride. Her current malaise isn�t his fault. I saw the movie more as a portrayal of the temporary lows that pretty much all marriages go through. If she left this husband would the next one strike that perfect balance of highly successful in his career and utterly devoted to his wife�s every emotional flutter? One thing that did rub me the wrong way: the Bill Murray character, married for 25 years and with three children, tells the young Johannson that �the day you have a baby is the most terrifying day of your life.� She nods knowingly, absorbing his every word. My husband and I turned to each other in the movie theater. �That�s not true!� we said to each other. I thought of all the young, professionally ambitious women who will go see this film, hear that message and take it to heart, letting it confirm everything else they hear that a baby will destroy everything so put it off as long as you can. What a shame. IN INDIANAPOLIS STAR: "Divorce is not just a private matter. The rise in the divorce rate in recent decades has been followed closely by increased government spending to combat poverty, crime, substance abuse, teen pregnancy and mental health problems. The editor at the Indianapolis Star seems to be keyed in to the consequences of a decline of a marriage culture. A recent well-done editorial was called, �It�s Time to Talk about Marriage.� Thursday, December 04, 2003
IS IT A PRIVILEGE TO HAVE YOUR OWN TWO PARENTS? At marriagedebate.com Eve Tushnet wrote about the difference between the real and the ideal � that the ideal is for children to have their own, two parents, and we need to support that, but this in no way implies that we should take children away from parents who fall short of that ideal or stigmatize those families. Her interlocutor, Gabriel Rosenberg, responded: Studies have shown that the ideal situation for raising children is one in which the parents are well-off and more educated. Should we require that at least one spouse have a college degree and a minimum income before granting a marriage license? Other couples could raise children, but we would only give the special honor of marriage to those in the ideal situation. Here is my response: Gabriel Rosenberg apparently thinks that being raised by your two biological parents is a privilege, otherwise he could not compare it to being raised by well-off, educated parents. And maybe he�s right that at this point in our history it is a privilege to be raised by your own two parents; it�s true that I�ve heard some young adults from intact families acknowledge with embarrassed pride that they were lucky that their parents stayed together. But we didn�t used to think of being raised by your mother and father as a privilege, we thought of it as a birthright, one that all children, no matter their family�s wealth or social standing, had a good chance of attaining. Maggie Gallagher has written persuasively that the decline of a marriage culture is creating a new generation of �have� and �have not� children � those who have married parents and all the security that brings, regardless of social standing, and those who lack married parents and, on almost every social indicator, fall behind. Maybe you're onto something, Mr. Rosenberg, but are you proud of what you're found? DOES HAVING SEX WITH A CHILD�S PARENT MAKE YOU THE CHILD�S PARENT? A reader responds to a question posed by Mike Pignatello (see his full post below): "When same sex couples can already legally raise families, why do the children of same sex couples not deserve the same legal protections through their parents that are afforded the children of opposite sex couples?" And my thoughts: It is funny point we�ve reached, when a sexual relationship between two adults is somehow thought to coincide with each person being considered the �parent� of whatever children happen to be on the scene. As if the sex act somehow has any bearing on the sex partner�s dedication to the children or fitness as a parent. We�ve taken a core, biological fact � that sex between heterosexuals produces children, i.e., sex equals parenthood of any children who might appear � and stretched it to assume that any partner a mother or father brings home, whether of the opposite or same sex, somehow gains �parent� status in the child�s life. This reader has a good point. If we define parenthood only as having a caring relationship with a child (a pretty weak definition) then a good nanny who�s been with the family for a year should have much higher standing as a potential parent than a boyfriend brought home last week. BOSTON GLOBE: FOR GAYS, DIVORCE MAY SOON BE A USEFUL RIGHT As the Supreme Judicial Court decision allowing same-sex marriage was being hailed as a huge victory for gay and lesbian couples, largely lost in the celebration was recognition of an equally powerful benefit that flows from the ruling: the right to divorce�. IN NEW ZEALAND: Divorce is as harmful to some children as a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet, a visiting family expert warns. Professor Paul Amato of Pennsylvania State University told the Strengthening Family Relationships Conference in Wellington yesterday that the effects of divorce on children could be as harmful as a "high-fat, high-cholesterol diet". SSM DEBATE AT UCLA LAW SCHOOL WITH MAGGIE GALLAGHER � Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, noted other laws did provide certain benefits to only one group of people but were not considered discriminatory. SSM IN AMERICA: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE Muslims� find themselves in the unusual position of being on the side of President Bush on this issue who has voiced his strong opposition to the decision. �The [Massachusetts] ruling does little to improve America�s image throughout the Muslim world simply because it cuts against the grain of one of the most time-honored covenants known to man�. SSM IN HONG KONG AND TAIWAN: Gay marriage is becoming an issue among north Asia�s Chinese. While Taiwan may soon recognize the rights of same sex couples, a gay Hong Kong couple fights to have their Canadian marriage recognised. SOCIALISTS ON SSM �Of course, all people should be entitled to marry, if they choose to. But the eagerness of mainstream gay rights organizations to embrace this "vital social institution"--one that fails more than 50 percent of the time for straight couples and that is a significant source of violence against women and children in society--shows how far they have drifted from predecessor groups like the Gay Liberation Front that fought in the 1960s and �70s for a revolutionary restructuring of society. BOSTON GLOBE: DNC WARY OF GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE National Democrats planning to launch their presidential nominee from the home state of the historic gay marriage decision either want to recast the issue as one of basic civil rights or to ignore gay marriage entirely during next summer's convention. As I said in an earlier post, if we�re going to view SSM as a rights issue, at least admit there are competing rights in question. There is the right of adults to form relationships as they wish and the right of children to have what they need. Children of straights and gays have a right to live in a society that firmly recognizes � in law, policy, and culture � their fundamental need for their mother and father. CELEBRITY NEWS OF THE MORNING: Gwyneth Paltrow expecting a babyAt least "Are you getting married?" still seems to be the typical follow-up question. Wednesday, December 03, 2003
CIVIL UNIONS ANYONE? (CONT.): A new National Post poll suggests Canadians' views on same-sex marriage have shifted markedly in recent months, with a solid majority now opposed to the notion. That compares to an almost even split -- with a slight advantage to supporters of gay and lesbian marriage -- in other polls this summer and fall. But the new COMPAS Inc. survey, conducted in October and November, also indicates many of those who are against recognizing same-sex couples under the existing marriage law would agree to endorsing such unions in a separate legal category. NORMS AND �BABIES OF DIVORCE�: At this site we�ve been talking a lot lately about SSM, marriage, and norms. Some say that if we allow divorce and single parent childbearing then we should also allow SSM, because none of these other examples secure a mother and a father for children. David and I have each written that divorce and single parent childbearing are failures to achieve the norm, but leave the norm itself at least fairly intact; SSM throws the norm itself � and the societal value behind it, of children being raised by their own biological parents � out the window. In the Warshak article I blogged below, Warshak supports his case for overnight visitations of babies with their divorced parents by saying that plenty of babies sleep in daycare. If there�s no problem napping in daycare, he reasons, then what�s the problem routinely sleeping at another parent�s home? Here, Warshak is taking an exception to the norm � napping at daycare � and making it the new norm, so that he can then stretch the norm further to include a practice that strikes many people as a bad idea, that is, shuttling a baby between two parents� homes. Why do I say napping at daycare is an exception to the norm? Many mothers of babies try their best to stay out of the work force for a while, for precisely reasons such as not wanting their babies to have to try to sleep at daycare. Others have to or want to work, but usually the last option of choice is daycare � parents look first to in-home care if they can afford it, or care by relatives, or a small home-based day care. Why? Partly because it seems some babies sleep fine at day care, but a good many don�t. A friend of mine has her baby in day care three days a week. On �day care days� he won�t nap, and he�s cranky and doesn�t sleep well that night because of it. I respect and understand her choice, and I don�t think he�s being all that harmed by it, though it is rough for their family life on those days. But it�s the kind of reason why I am grateful I was able to work out a shared-babysitter arrangement at home, and I feel my baby and I are lucky. Indeed, if we want to take any practice that happens to occur and say it justifies changing the norm, why not look at car sleeping? Practically every baby in America sleeps in their car seat during at least some point in the day. But do we think they should sleep in the car all night long? And should the state require many babies to sleep in their cars all night long � or shuttle between two parents� homes � for no better than reason than because some babies seem capable of doing such a thing, at least in small doses? "NECESSARILY": Below, in Elizabeth's post, Richard Warshak reports that shuttling babies back and forth between two homes doesn't "necessarily" harm them. Here's my rule: When anyone discussing family structure says that some trend doesn't "necessarily" harm children, I know that this person cannot be trusted. Using that word in that way -- and it happens frequently enough -- is the cheapest, most misleading kind of point-scoring. Almost NO social science proposition about causation is "necessarily" true in all cases. Some smokers don't get lung cancer. So smoking is not "necessarily" harmful to one's health. Some children in concentration camps don't die. So concentration camps are not "necessarily" harmful to young children. Amazingly, there was a professional baseball player a few years ago, a pitcher, who had only one arm. Really. So having two arms is not "necessarily" a necessity for professional baseball players. See? You can stick that word into almost ANY sentence about causation, no matter how weird or improbable, and the sentence suddenly becomes technically true ... as well as almost completely worthless as a way of accurately conveying the actual probabilities and risks involved. Using that term in that way is necessarily harmful to social science research. THE COLLECTIVE VOICE OF CHILDREN? A new article by Richard A. Warshak in the October �03 issue of Family Relations is titled �Payoffs and Pitfalls of Listening to Children.� The entire issue is devoted to children of divorce, but this title in particular caught my eye since I wondered what kind of case he might make against listening to children. As summarized in the abstract, Warshak acknowledges that �children�s perspectives can enlighten decisions regarding custody and parenting plans,� but the problem is that children in the midst of divorce can also be subject to �parental pressure, loyalty conflicts, inhibitions, and limitations in perspective and articulation.� True enough. Ask a child who has grown up living with both parents which parent he prefers and all kinds of problems can arise. So what�s Warshak�s solution? That in custody decisions the voices of �individual� children should be balanced against the �collective voice of children, as revealed in research on such topics as joint custody, overnight stays, and relocation, to help understand what children might say about these issues with the hindsight of maturity�� It is only too perfect, then, that Warshak summarizes some of this research in the same article and makes his preferences known. For instance, when it comes to overnight stays for babies (see my earlier blogging on �babies of divorce�) Warshak summons the evidence and concludes, �The weight of empirical evidence supports clinical and common experience that sleeping away from their mothers does not necessarily harm young children�� Two things here. 1) The experts are actually quite divided on whether �babies of divorce� are harmed by traveling routinely between two homes. 2) My common sense makes me look at the same evidence that Warshak cites and think that babies routinely spending the night away from their mothers is a bad idea. So, professor, which of us is speaking for the �collective voice of children?� Here�s my take: The �collective voice of children,� mediated as it is through the ears and mouths of adults, and too often reflecting the adults� own needs, preferences, and agendas, may add little more �true� insight into children�s needs following divorce that what these stressed children themselves can tell us. To ask a child what he needs, and then to say, well, I�m going to balance this now with evidence that shows what you�ll say years from now, with the �hindsight of maturity,� is insulting. Yes, a child may say he doesn�t need vegetables when we adults know he does. But when it comes to divorce, the adults are pretty clueless and awfully caught up in their own agendas. And finally, a radical idea: How about saying that, barring a high degree of conflict, the �collective voice of children� would say that they would prefer their parents to stay married? LESBIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: At her blog, Lynn Gazis-Sax writes: Elizabeth Marquardt ...wonders about the absence of lesbian voices in the SSM debate. SAME-SEX PARENTING: At MarriageDebate.com, Mike Pignatello continues our conversation: I appreciate and share Elizabeth's concern for children. Yet it's apparent from her argument that none of her points are specific to same sex marriage. Her issue seems to be primarily with the divorce culture, reproductive technologies, and how these things have produced families with only one biological parent. These are corollary and important issues, but are not determinative of the civil rights question at hand. We can debate those points until the cows come home. The issue at hand is this: I think Mike Pignatello has correctly clarified my concern here, and I appreciate him taking the time to consider my arguments. But I don�t think my concerns are merely corollary or academic. I think they go to the heart of the issue, and here it why. There are currently many family models that deprive children of at least one biological parent. Aside from adoption, which I have already said is a unique, child-centered case, these other family models � single parent and divorced families, and families created through use of radical reproductive technologies � are accepted, supported, but not considered normative. Divorced couples tried and failed at the norm, marriage. Even �single mothers by choice� usually say they made their decision only when it became obvious that they weren�t going to find a guy to marry. Heterosexual couples don�t go first to radical reproductive technologies, they first try to have children by having sex. Norms are bad when they are used to cruelly stigmatize families that are different, but norms have an important, positive function of encouraging people to aim for a behavior that society has decided is of critical importance � that is, trying to secure for children the two parents who created them. This is what marriage tries to do. Changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same sex marriage will be the first time we have changed the norm itself to accommodate an alternative family form. Same sex marriage says that children don�t need either a mother or a father, when children tell us otherwise. Marriage has taken many blows in recent years, all from heterosexual adults, but it has still managed to retain some connection to the idea that when heterosexuals have sex and produce children, marriage is a good idea because it keeps those two people together for the sake of the children. When we change the norm itself in such a way we can no longer legally support the idea that children need their mother and father, an important legal and cultural idea will be lost and many children will be affected, not just the children of gays and lesbians. I write about children of divorce. I can foresee a time when someone will say to me, �Why does it matter if a kid�s parents are divorced, or never married at all? After all, same sex couples don�t have the child�s mother and father in the same home. Are you saying there�s something wrong with them?� Yes, lesbians and gays are already raising children and they need legal protections. Civil unions are a good idea. But if the family form cannot even attempt to secure for children their mother and father, it shouldn�t be called marriage. Pignatello emphasizes this is a civil rights question. It�s fine if you want to look at it from a rights point of view, but admit there are competing rights in question � the rights of adults to form relationships however they please, and the rights of children to have what they need. Children of straights and gays have a right to live in a society that firmly recognizes their fundamental need for their mother and father. I�m trying to consider both groups. From the LA Times: "To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business," By Alan M. Dershowitz. One of the problems with offering public comments on nearly every issue under the sun, as Alan Dershowitz does, is that often you just have to phone it in. Dershowitz doesn't even address the question of whether dejuridifying marriage would weaken marriage as an institution, and seems to be laboring under the idea that marriage, as opposed to cohabitation, is a distinctly religious idea, which of course is not true. Responding to an earlier linking of an article in Foreign Affairs on "Japan's Hybrid Women," Trish Wilson writes in: I recently heard from an Indian woman who described similar problems in her marriage. Her brother-in-law moved in with her and her husband for two years ago, and her in-laws lived with them for six months. Her husband supports the family because he's the eldest son. That's part of Indian culture. She's at her wit's end ... [There are] programs on the east coast, at least, that deal specifically with women from South or South East Asian countries who are in those kinds of [abusive] situations. One near me in Salem, MA, helps Korean women. There are others in New York, New Jersey, Chicago, and out west. The National Domestic Violence Hotline can link these women to these programs, and it can provide free translators for up to about 150 languages. Sarah Woods, who runs a community-based marriage and fatherhood program in Maryland, writes in on the Cherlin article: Nowhere in the ACF documentation are sites encouraged to "urge single parents to marry." If this were the big idea of the program I doubt many people would want to participate ... While we are going to be looking very closely at current practices and procedures regarding unmarried parents, and looking for ways to reduce barriers to marriage, this is but one component of a community-wide strategy to promote healthy marriages. In [our program] it is duly noted that encouraging marriage per se (single mothers marrying the next available guy) is not a good idea.I often see this kind of difference between, on the one hand, the people who actually run the programs, who tend to frame issues concretely and pragmatically, and on the other, academics and writers, who tend to frame issues more abstractly and ideologically. CHERLIN ON MARRIAGE PROMOTION: Andrew Cherlin is one of the leading family scholars around. In the latest issue of Contexts, he takes on the question, "Should the government promote marriage?" I've only skimmed it so far, but it seems like typical Cherlin: a cautious, judicious, other-people-are-ideologues-but-I'm-a-scholar approach. Sometimes I just wish he'd be a bit more direct. In the end, he eventually answers the question in a negative: [Pro-marriage] symbolism does not justify major new legislation. A new initiative should have the promise of efficiently meeting its goals, and the proposed marriage promotion policy fails this test. If low-income single mothers are urged to marry, the kinds of families that would be formed often would not match the healthy, two-biological parent, steady-breadwinner model that policymakers envision. Effective programs for promoting marriage among the poor do not yet exist. Even if they could be developed, fewer children would benefit from them than their supporters suggest. And if overdone, they could hurt some of the children they intend to help.But I found this excerpt to be the most interesting: Americans' view of marriage was also apparent in a 1999 New York Times national survey. Respondents were presented with a list of values and asked how important each was to them. After the replies were tallied, the values were ranked by the percentage of people who said each was 'very important.' The top-ranking values largely reflected self-reliance ('Being responsible for your own actions,' 'Being able to stand up for yourself') and self-expression ('Being able to communicate your feelings'). 'Having children' came in sixth. 'Being married' ranked tenth--below 'Being a good neighbor.' Marriage, it would seem, is valued as long as it is consistent with the expressive individualism that Americans hold most dear. Tuesday, December 02, 2003
From the National Catholic Reporter: "Bush's antipoverty weapon. Nonprofits say 'I do' to funds for strengthening marriages; critics see better uses for federal money" WELL, IT HAD TO HAPPEN: Convicted Utah man likens polygamy to homosexualityOffhand, I doubt the Supreme Court held that there were no compelling state interests in what consenting adults do in their own home (what about drug use, prostitution, etc.?) Rather, the government should not regulate the activities of consenting adults absent a compelling state interest. There are numerous reasons why the state has a compelling interest in outlawing polygamy. From Peter McDonald, head of the demography and sociology program at the Australian National University: The research dismisses the notion that there is a "magic bullet", a single policy approach that would turn fertility around. Instead, a holistic approach is required and several countries have taken steps to support the combination of work and family through packages involving better leave arrangements, financial benefits in the period of reduced employment, family-friendly workplaces, access to part-time work and access to affordable child care. The association between these initiatives and the achievement of relatively high fertility in advanced countries is strong. Kay Hymowitz reviews The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse, by Gregg Easterbrook Monday, December 01, 2003
LESBIAN MOTHER VOICES IN THE SSM DEBATE: Michael Triplett has some interesting comments on my earlier observations. At his blog he writes: Elizabeth Marquardt ...asks why it is mostly gay men who are arguing about same-sex marriage and whether lesbians, who are more likely to have children, have a different take on SSM and parenting. Marquardt has written passionately about single-parent families and that SSM will further erode the idea that children need a biological father and mother in the home. SAME SEX DIVORCES: A Washington Post Outlook piece which ran on Sunday. (Thanks to Michael Triplett, who posted the article at his site where I just saw it, and my dad, who told me about it Sunday night and I forgot. Sorry Dad.) NPR IT AIN'T: Re: Glenn Sacks's email below, yes, I have received a handful of thoughtful comments on fathers' rights issues. And Sacks was a fair host. But does he want a merit badge for treating guests fairly? Should one be proud of *not* being a loudmouth jerk a la O'Reilly? Actually, in the world of talk radio, yes. Then again, opinions differ. One listener wrote in: I just tried listening to your debate on "His Side" about the men's movement. The host of the show is such an unthoughtful loudmouth I could only stand him for about two minutes. Clearly not an intellectual debate worthy of [much] time. The radio host Glenn Sacks ("His Side with Glenn Sacks") writes in: I won't argue with your characterization of some of the Mens News Daily forum posters' reactions to Tom's radio broadcast, though there have been a few thoughtful replies mixed in with all of the rude Tom bashing. I have written of this phenomenon before (see Confronting Woman-Bashing In the Men's Movement, iFeminists.com, 4/2/02) and I still believe such people are a fringe element, though I confess that recent events don't support my case very well. However, it seems fair enough that when you write about "what happens when you try to talk to these guys" you should also note that the host of the show was respectful to Tom and gave him a chance to speak. I've made many radio appearances and can think of few times when I appeared on a show as an opposition guest when I have been treated as fairly as Tom was on my show.Fair enough. A thoughtful blogger comments on my recent posts on children's needs for their biological father and mother: Marriage Debate has spent this past week debating the relevance of the question "Do children need a mother and a father?" to same-sex marriage. The comment that caught my eye was one by Elizabeth Marquardt over at Marriage Movement: I appreciate this reader's interest in my posts on the topic, and her thoughtful way of engaging the question. She is right that there may be some contradiction in my sudden public stance on radical reproductive technologies when straights use them disproportionately more. But I think there is something to my idea, posted here, that legalized SSM will instutionalize radical reproductive technologies in a way we have not seen before. Those technologies will be the only way that legally married SS couples can have their "own" children, and as such I can see greater state support and protections for those technologies, will little hope left for a true social debate about their implications for all children, whether of straights or gays, a debate unfortunately our society never had. This brings me to another point. When we talk about children of gays and lesbians, we're really talking mostly about children of lesbian couples, who raise children in much greater numbers than gay men do. Yet most of SSM advocates in the mainstream press are gay men, nnot lesbian women. And interestingly, interest in the experience of children is notably missing in most of these gay men's positions. It's all about adult rights. Where are the voices of lesbian women raising children? I suspect if I look harder I will find them too, perhaps on their own blogs and not, for whatever reason, in the mainstream press. But I suspect two things are going on here: One, lesbian women are raising the children and they're just plain busier than the average gay man -- they're working and taking care of the kids and don't have time to become visible activists on the issue. And two, because they are raising the kids, and listening to what the kids are saying, I suspect that lesbian women's feelings about the impact of SS parenting on kids is more nuanced. Yet those are exactly the voices we need to hear. Yes, the lead plantiffs in the Goodridge case were lesbian mothers. But almost all of the pro-SSM opeds writers I'm reading, and the activists I'm seeing on TV and hearing on the radio, are gay men who usually don't appear to have children. BOYS, VIOLENCE, AND FATHERLESSNESS: Responding to my earlier post, one reader quotes from my post and writes: " A child, especially a boy, who lacks the father he needs will, I fear,always be a target." My response to the reader: You�re right, that one sentence I ended with does oversimplify the whole thing, but the whole post made clear, I think, that the genesis of violence and experiences of violence among fatherless boys is complex. As I said, in some cases they look vulnerable, become targets, and then start fighting back themselves. I don�t doubt that some quickly become bullies themselves to short-circuit the process.Yes, children from intact homes experience many childhood problems too, but study after study shows that children from divorced and single parent homes experience serious childhood problems � delinquency, physical and sexual abuse, school drop out, depression, suicide, etc. � usually on the order of two to three times more often than children from intact families, depending on the specific issue in question. I worry about all children who experience these problems and traumas, and I worry about any social change that increases the risk that children will experience these things. ANOTHER BIG-FOOT DECLARES HIMSELF (SORT OF): Like George Will did yesterday, William Safire today in the NYT offers a series of (I thought) fairly disconnected observations on SSM, in which he comes close to endorsing (or at least accepting) SSM, without actually doing so. Safire is a libertarian conservative ("libcon") and a very smart guy. I see two main weaknesses in today's offering. First, though he does manage to state that "the primary purpose of society's bedrock institution is to conceive and rear children in a home of male and female role models known as caring parents," he goes on almost casually to dismiss this concern. Why? For the same reason that George Will dismisses it -- because the U.S. has a high divorce rate. I'm sorry, this is too easy. This argument has become a trope, used reflexively by people who ought to think about it a bit before trotting it out. Let's review. Among other things, divorce is a failure to achieve the norm -- no couple walks down the aisle planning to divorce -- whereas SSM, from the perspective of giving a child a mother and a father, changes the norm itself, such that what was once "failure" is now ... normative. Surely people who use the "high divorce" argument in the way that Will and Safire do should demonstrate to us that they have wrestled with this fairly important distinction. More generally, since when do we -- since when do William Safire and George Will -- endorse a negative trend on the grounds that the trend is gaining momentum? What other trends in the past 50 years have they, or we, endorsed according to this criterion? Gotta think a little harder on this one, guys. Second, Safire seems suprisingly clueless, for a guy who wrote a book about Genesis, about the power of names and about why the word "marriage" matters. Because he really can't figure out why people are concerned about who gets to use the word "marriage," he falls back, as if by default, on the homophobia explanation. He writes that civil unions is "a euphemism for 'legal marriage but don't call it that because it makes most straight people angry.'" Oh, I see. His conclusion on the issue of naming is that civil unions suggest tolerance of homosexuality, whereas marriage suggests approval of homosexuality. And that might make most straight people angry. Sorry, not even close! In my experience, marriage nuts aren't marriage nuts because they have a certain view of homosexuality. For me -- and I think for many of us -- homosexuality is not the main issue at all. The main issue is mothers and fathers for children. More broadly, since when does it barely matter -- since when is it just a piece of rhetoric, or a fluttery "symbol" -- what a society calls something? As Maggie Gallagher powerfully points out, the label of "marriage" is a deeply potent cultural signalling device that orients and guides ideas and behavior at many levels. The name is how we know what the thing is -- how it looks and operates, how those who participate in it are supposed to act, what its essential goods and goals are. The name of the thing is the pathway to its ethical, social, and historical intelligibility. As Maggie Gallagher writes: What some dismiss as protecting "merely" the word marriage is actually 90 percent of the loaf. If a married couple no longer consists of a husband and wife, we lose the shared meaning of the word; we lose the ability to speak the idea in public and be understood. Such ideas are what culture is made of. Marriage is a word, yes, but so are property, freedom, democracy, morality, and love. The Ten Commandments are made of words.This marriage nut, in his frustration with what seems to be light-weight thinking from big-foots, searches for ... a simplistic analogy. I know that Will is a huge fan of Major League Baseball. I think Safire is, too. Suppose that the two of them served together on the Board of Directors of Major League Baseball. Then suppose that some would-be reformers came to the Board and said, We want to change the rules of MLB. This change would be good for the players and good for the game. But then suppose that Will and Safire carefully studied the proposed change and decided that, on the contrary, it would likely pose a risk to at least some of goods and goals of MLB. But wait! The reformers have a reply to this concern! Haven't we already, in recent decades, increased the very risks you are worried about? Remember the designated hitter rule? Cork in the bats? Since those (as you see them) negative changes have already happened, shouldn't you now, according to this logic, grant us the further change along these same lines that we demand? And then suppose that some ballplayers came to Will and Safire and said, We are going to start playing baseball games next year according to the new rules that we have invented. We are going to call our league by one of two names: either "The League With the New Rules" ... or "Major League Baseball." We're sure that you directors, along with your lawyers and the fans at large and everyone who isn't blinded by irrational bigotry, will agree with us that it doesn't matter which name we choose. After all, it's only a name. Sunday, November 30, 2003
From Australia, another report -- report ("Fatherhood and Fatherlessness") here, newspaper story here -- saying that fathers who want to see their kids after the divorce better be heavily involved in hands-on child care before the divorce. Amazing. Am I the only one who is outraged by this kind of argument? If one needs another reason to be skeptical, here it is: The research literature did not substantiate the assertion that fathers' absence from families, of itself, caused serious problems for children.No research showing that father absence is causing problems for children? I can hardly believe that, in 2003, a researcher would still be saying such a thing. It's so 1970s. Has this guy been asleep for the last two decades? CHILD SUPPORT: "It's a new approach to child support, one that helps fathers find jobs, set goals and be role models for their children. Funded by the Flint, Mich.-based Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Fathers at Work is being attempted at six sites across the country; Roanoke's Total Action Against Poverty runs the only site in the southeastern United States." "Divorce can be more painful than death because divorce, and the pain that it causes, is ongoing, and although it wounds many people in the process, children's lives change involuntarily and they are used as objects for continued battling between their parents. I coach divorcing parents to do the following." |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
