 |
|
Saturday, December 27, 2003
CHILD SUPPORT: "St. Luke's Community Medical Center in The Woodlands is one of 62 hospitals in Texas to be honored by the Attorney General's office for identifying the fathers of at least 70 percent of births to unmarried parents." These kinds of hurray-for-them statements always leave me with mixed feelings. Yes, "identifying" the fathers is better than not doing so. But paternity ID as a goal in itself is a pitiably small one. About one of every three births today is to an unmarried mother. What these millions of children want and need is not a name on a form or a promise that the sheriff will arrest these guys if they don't pay child support. What they want and need is in-the-home, love-the-mother fathers, and I think that in these programs we need to say that much more directly, if only to be clear with ourselves and with these young parents-to-be about what is really important. By themselves, paternity ID and child support payments matter. But not very much, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. This story says: "Establishing children's paternity is one of the most important steps to ensure that children reap the lifelong benefits of having both parents, state officials say." But as far as I know, that's not true at all -- or at least I know of no evidence to suggest that it's true. I would bet that, in most of these programs, there is a connection between paternity ID and more child support payments, at least for a while. But what we are after, fellas, is fatherhood -- the father loving, nurturing, and helping the mother to raise his child. And there is precious little evidence, unfortunately, that these paternity ID programs are producing much of that. Update: I know that Wade Horn at HHS and others in the Administration are as aware of this issue as anyone. For all I know -- and I hope this is happening already, at St. Lukes and elsewhere -- a lot of these hospital-based paternity ID programs will be broadening their focus and enlarging their goals, going for the real thing instead of near-beer. We might even hear a word or two now and then about ... marriage. Interesting op-ed in the Boston Globe: "Defining marriage is legislators' job," by Richard A. Hogarty. Friday, December 26, 2003
"Women's perception that they take the end of relationships harder than men is supported in research published today. They are more likely to suffer depression in the aftermath of a partnership breakdown and are happier when they are married rather than cohabiting. But men who choose to marry fare less well emotionally than those who simply live with a partner. The study, by academics at Queen Mary, University of London, and funded by the Medical Research Council, was based on interviews with 4,430 people over nine years of the British Household Panel Survey." From Australia: THE BIPARTISAN Federal committee investigating child custody arrangements is expected to reject the controversial proposal for automatic 50/50 joint custody when parents separate. Prime Minister John Howard asked a House of Representatives committee to investigate "rebuttable joint custody" in June after declaring divorced fathers got a raw deal in the Family Court. The committee, which hands down its report on Monday, will propose "significant changes" to the Family Law Act, which could include the introduction of a special tribunal to decide custody outside the courts. It is likely, however, to unanimously reject ordering a child's time automatically be split evenly between separated parents.I'm glad they are going to reject this proposal. Joint custody can be the best choice in some cases, but establishing a legal presumption in favor of it is not in my view in the best interests of children, or of fatherhood as an institution, notwithstanding the complaints of the fathers rights advocates and organizations. Thursday, December 25, 2003
TWO IS A TREND: The NYT tunes into the season with sociology-lite pieces on divorce and remarriage at Christmas: "Divorce Decor" and "Around Tree, Smiles Even for Wives No. 2 and 3" The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram has a debate on the desirability of a federal marriage amendment: yes vs. no. Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Should Favre have played? What he did was so amazing, I'm sure his dad would have approved and been proud. Here's another story on it. From Ohio: Clark County officials want to develop a community program to strengthen marriages in the hope that increasing two-parent families will benefit children and reduce poverty. County commissioners on Tuesday approved a $62,000 contract with the Nehemiah Foundation to develop a community marriage policy and to begin organizing churches and other groups to participate in marriage preparation and enrichment ... The Bush administration has proposed spending $300 million a year to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Suver said his department has applied for $1 million over four years to participate in the national initiative. Tuesday, December 23, 2003
From NYTs: "More Teenagers Say No to Sex, but Experts Aren't Sure Why" The two sides are firm. Abstinence-only education, which the Bush administration supports, teaches that refraining from sex is the only way to prevent pregnancy and diseases. Programs that receive federal financing are not allowed to advise using contraception to reduce the risk of pregnancy or condoms to protect against disease. In 2003, the federal government devoted $117 million to abstinence education. At Men's News Daily, Carey Roberts has an essay on the marriage movement. It's full of sarcasm, polemic, and vitriol, as one quickly comes to expect from these quys. Since they tend to believe that the whole universe is a conspiracy to victimize males, Roberts believes, not surprisingly, that the marriage movement is basically ... a conspiracy to victimize males. The article in Commonweal to which she is respoding doesn't seem to be available online, but Peggy Steinfels has written an interesting reflection on Catholcism and the SSM debate. It strikes me on the surface as a bit dubious, but here's the write-up on this new study on the mental health effects of marriage and cohabitation for men and women. If anyone has read the study, I'd like to know what you think. Here's another story on it. Monday, December 22, 2003
From Britain: New fathers could be given six months off work to care for their babies, the Government said tonight. New mothers are now entitled to higher maternity pay for six months and six months' unpaid extra leave, bringing the total to a year. Now Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt is considering allowing fathers to take the second six months of unpaid leave off if their wives or partners want to return to work. She is looking at ways to allow fathers to play a more active role in their children's lives. "At the time we looked at extending maternity leave there were many people arguing that the extra six months we have now added on to maternity leave should be made available to the father," she told The Times.I think it's a good idea. The decision of who stays home or takes time off should be the couple's, not the state's. At the same time, check out that phrase "or partners." From 365 Gay.com: The push by conservative Congressmembers and right-wing political activists to amend the U.S. Constitution to permanently ban same-sex marriage -- and perhaps civil unions and domestic partnerships -- could inspire a burst of gay activism that rivals such gay milestones as Stonewall and ACT UP, activists and commentators say. "They'd better think long and hard before they push this because they're going to have a war on their hands," Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner told The New York Times. "A real movement for an amendment will electrify this community and bring about an entire new generation of dissent and civil disobedience."I suspect he's right. And although I usually like a good fight -- Bill Bennett once said that, when as a kid he saw two others kids fighting, he would say, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join?" -- I confess that the prospect of years of culture war over this particular issue leaves me ... a bit dispirited. My deepest worry: Will the marriage movement a whole -- a movement whose origins and essential purpose have vitually nothing to do with this issue -- be on hold, which is another way of saying atrophy, while the most battle-hungry among us slug it out over this issue? New Wisconsin poll: "Most Wisconsin residents are tolerant of homosexuality, but they don't approve of gay marriage, a survey released Monday says. In addition, a majority supports amending the state and U.S. constitutions to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, the Badger Poll found." Sunday, December 21, 2003
STUDIES SHOW: "As predicted, men who had seen pictures of pretty women discounted the future more steeply than they had done before -- in other words, they were more likely to take the lesser sum tomorrow. As Dr Wilson puts it, it was as though a special "I want that now" pathway had been activated in their brains. After all, the money might come in handy immediately. No one else was much affected. (Women did seem to be revved up by nice cars, a result the researchers still find mystifying. But the statistical significance of this finding disappeared after some routine adjustments, and in any case previous work has suggested that women are more susceptible to displays of wealth than men are.) Dr Wilson and Dr Daly speculate that the simple act of regarding beautiful women is able to engage and manipulate the male brain's reward centres. This idea is supported by earlier brain-scanning studies which showed that looking at beautiful women, but not plain ones, arouses a man's nucleus acumbens, the part of the brain that evaluates rewards. That structure, in turn, is tightly linked to the orbitofrontal cortex, which has been shown to be activated by monetary rewards. So, ladies, it looks as though you were right. Men are just as gullible as you thought they were." "According to a new book aimed at the young, childless and soon-to-be-single, the breakup of your marriage may be one of the major growth experiences of a lifetime. Or, as early divorcees Kay Moffett and Sarah Touborg, both 35, write in "Not Your Mother's Divorce: A Practical, Girlfriend-to-Girlfriend Guide to Surviving the End of an Early Marriage" (Broadway Books, $12.95), divorce is "the worst experience [you've] ever been grateful for." |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
