…In 2010 for the first time, married mothers were more likely to be employed than single mothers. That trend became more pronounced in 2011. Last year, 63.4% of mothers living alone had a job, compared to 64.6% of married mothers. That was largely because single moms are having a much harder time finding employment. Their unemployment rate was 15% in 2011, compared to 6% for their married counterparts living with a spouse.

…Part of that reason for the disparity is demographic differences. Single mothers are more likely to be minorities or have lower levels of education than their married counterparts. Women with just a high school diploma had an 8.7% unemployment rate in 2011, compared to 4.3% for college graduates. Meanwhile, black women had an 11.9% jobless rate, while white women’s rate was 6.5%.

“The recommended changes are contained in a white paper, “Breaking the Social Security Glass Ceiling,” sponsored by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare Foundation, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, and the National Organization for Women Foundation.

Women continue to earn nearly 20 percent less money than men, the paper says. In addition, many women stay at home for parts of their careers to raise families, further reducing their lifetime earnings. As a result, they have smaller nest eggs when they retire and also have earned permanently smaller Social Security checks as well. Retired women outlive men by an average of 2.5 years, it adds, and their financial disadvantage worsens in widowhood.

“In 2009, the average annual Social Security income of a retired man was $15,620, while the average yearly income of a retired woman was $12,155,” the paper says. “In 2010, 46 percent of elderly unmarried women, and 58 percent of elderly unmarried women of color, relied on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their total income.”

“Even with Social Security,” it adds, “12 percent of older women still live in poverty; for widows, the rate is worse, at 15 percent. This is 50 percent higher than the poverty rate for all people 65 and older.” The problem is especially severe for women of color. Poverty rates in 2009 were more than 26 percent for African American women who were 75 and older, the paper says, and more than 21 percent for older Hispanic women….”

and

“Here are some of the changes the groups propose:

Survivor benefits. Increase the benefit paid to a surviving spouse to an amount that is equal to 75 percent of the total combined benefits that were paid to the couple prior to the spouse’s death, capped at the benefit level of a lifelong average earner (roughly $1,585 a month for an individual claiming benefits in 2012 at the age of 66).

Credits for caregivers. Credits would be provided for up to five years for a person caring for young children or family members who are elderly or disabled. The credit would be an imputed wage for caregiving work which, when added to any actual earnings, would total no more than half that year’s average annual wage. In 2011, half the annual wage equaled $21,758.

Disabled widows and widowers. This proposal would end benefit reductions, age restrictions, and eligibility time limits, and treat these beneficiaries the same as other people receiving Social Security disability payments.

Student benefits. Restore benefits to children up to the age of 22 instead of the current limit of 19. Such benefits were once permitted, but removed in 1981.

Same-sex married couples and partners. Remove gender from Social Security rules and provide equal benefits to all couples and their children, regardless of the sexes of the couple.” Read more…

Today on my way to the grocery store I talked on the phone with Megan, a 24 year old woman that I interviewed in Ohio and who has since become a friend. She and her fiancé, Troy, recently broke up. He told her—the day after they had just finished paying off her wedding dress—that he just wasn’t happy in the relationship anymore.

She’s since posted on Facebook a photo of her, him, and her newborn daughter (they started dating when she was eight months pregnant) at the hospital with this caption: “I’m missing this so much! I hope he comes back!”

Veronica, Megan’s one year old, hopes Troy comes back, too. Although he’s not her biological father, he was the first person to hold her after Megan’s c-section, and he spoke to her while she was in the womb. Megan tells me that Veronica, who is just starting to talk, has been saying “da-da” often and asking for him.

Veronica also has been asking for “pawpaw,” Troy’s dad. Troy’s parents tell Megan that they still want to be nana and pawpaw to Veronica—and Troy’s dad’s Facebook is still plastered with photos of his “granddaughter”—but one can imagine the complications, especially considering that Troy still lives with them. In fact, Troy’s mom is stopping by tomorrow to give Megan back the baby items that they kept for Veronica at their home.

On top of all this, Veronica is teething, and so she hasn’t been feeling well or sleeping well. Megan notes, sadly, that Veronica hasn’t been acting herself. She thinks that it’s more than just the teething—she thinks she’s been missing the man she knows as “da-da.”

Next week in New York the major networks will announce a slate of new shows, including a sitcom on NBC that features a gay couple and their surrogate. The title: “The New Normal.”

The new normal: when we’re supposed to agree it’s ok to say a mother is not a mother but rather a “surrogate,” and that it’s ok for (wealthy) men to hire women (with little money or social power) for the use of their bodies to gestate babies.

Meanwhile, in the swing state of North Carolina, apparently most people didn’t get the memo.  On Amendement One, which would constitutionally ban not only gay marriage (which is already illegal  in NC) but also civil unions and domestic partnerships, the antis were working with a major fundraising advantage (apparently a 2 to 1 advantage, ht to out-of-state liberals) and the support of great numbers of  oh-so-impressive-at-least-so-they-think elites and other commentators, both in the state and outside of it (including yours truly and Elizabeth Marquardt), but today the people of North Carolina actually got to vote, and the yeses have won, apparently decisively.

I’m not sure, but my sense is that elites in most places in both parties are now essentially pro-ssm, either because they believe in it, or because they don’t want to fight it anymore.  But most grass roots voters, including super-strong majorities in many parts of the Sunbelt, clearly aren’t buying, at least yet, notwithstanding the larger trends in national pubic opinion toward greater support for recognition of gay and lesbian families and for gay rights in general, especially among the young.  Are we now headed for a long end-game, blue/red-state culture war that also sharply pits the two parties against one another?  (Sigh.)  What do you all think?

Recently I came across an article entitled  “Mommy’s House and Daddy’s House Revisited” by Dr. Arlene Unger. The article’s conclusion is that continuity rather than similarity is in the best interest of a child of divorce.

The article quoted a paper presented at a forensic conference by Dr. Debra Gordon on Developmental Issues and Outcomes of Children of Divorce “What is more important is that there be a high degree of cooperation between parents regardless of the variability of their lives/schedule.”

The purpose of creating the  “Mommy’s House and Daddy’s House” concept was to give those parent who were granted joint custody of their children in the divorce the chance to “live” 24/7 with each child even if the length of time with each was not equal. A noble attempt at justice.   But the real issue is how children of divorce best adjust to the division of their two living situations.

Many divorce parents assume if their children appear to have adjusted, any further concern is unwarranted.   However the adjustment to a families divorce continues long after the granted decree.  Which means that parents and grandparents of children of divorce must keep continually vigilant of the day-to-day adjustment each child of divorce is continually required to make due to the dichotomy of two different living situations.

My concern is the necessity of parents and grandparents to remain ever alert for signs that the children have not yet made a total adjustment to their separated lives. Family members will have many opportunities to help their children of divorce  make that adjustment more successful if they are willing to take advantage of them.

The  problem to be solved is that the children, as they grow older, may not find it easy to unite their two parts of “WE” into a “ME.”  The healthiest  “ME” includes realizing it takes both sides of his or her family to make a whole.   This is not a problem that the children can easily accomplish by themselves, it requires help from their family.

In my book “IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU: A Grandparent’s Guide to Surviving Divorce in the Family I explain the child of divorce’s dilemma:

“The task of forging one life out of two backgrounds, once belonging to their parents, has been turned over to the children themselves, regardless of their age. Parents, failing to manage that merger in their marriage by divorcing, somehow expect their children to pick up the challenge without complaint and succeed.  This very much necessitates the children of divorce to develop their own identities without too much assistance from the outside..”

My son was divorced 6 years by the time my book was published but the learning experiences continue.  Now 7 years has elapsed and I was beginning to relax that my grandsons were doing well, with  both of their parents doing their part in working toward, what I refer to in my book as a “successful divorce.”

So when I made my next visit ,I was  surprised when I encountered the existence of the two parts of “WE” my grandchildren were dealing with. It was a subtle sign that the adjustment is still continuing. It also indicated that  each of them was probably encountering the two “WE” parts of “ME”, frequently.

Before I arrived , my youngest grandson said to his father.” I don’t want  to celebrate half- birthdays any longer because “WE” don’t observe them.”  The problem with that statement was that “WE”, being his father and me, always celebrated half-birthdays when I came to town.  My oldest grandson’s birthday was always celebrated because it fell during my visit but  sadly ,since the divorce, I have never been able to be with my youngest grandson on his birthday.  A half-birthday celebration seemed a great idea.

With this declaration I had to step back and take a deep breath so I wouldn’t take it personally. You see the half- birthday celebration was continued after the divorce so that I would be able to celebrate both of my grandson’s birthdays when I was with them each spring and yes presents were involved.

I knew he hadn’t said that to hurt me, but rather he was saying that the “WE” with his mom didn’t celebrate half-birthdays. So when the opportunity presented itself, I took my grandson aside and told me it was all right if his Mom no longer observed half- birthdays but that it was our way for making- up for the fact we couldn’t be with him on his actual birthday. After all we loved him so much that it made his dad and I happy to celebrate too.

After that my antenna was raised and ready when my oldest grandson made the next “WE” comment.  His father had recently acquired two adorable little dogs.  They were curled around his feet when my grandson said “We have three dogs.”  My antenna started to quiver. “Isn’t your math kind of off,” I said. “Don’t you actually have 5 dogs.”   He thought for a minute and with a wide smile he answered, “I really have five dogs don’t I?”  From that moment on he kept comparing all his  dogs size and personality.

It doesn’t take big things to get the point across that it is all right for children of divorce to combine their two “WE” parts of their lives into a whole. But  it is up to the parents and grandparents to take those opportunities that present themselves to help with their child’s continuing math problem, “Mommy’s House” plus “Daddy’s House” equals the two  “WE” parts of “ME.”

“It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay,” one Republican adviser said. “They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right” … As the critiques from conservatives intensified, Mr. Grenell pressed senior aides to allow him to speak about national security issues, arguing that the best way to soothe the ire over his appointment would be to let him do his job …  He [Christopher Barron] added, “It doesn’t bode well for the Romney campaign going forward if they couldn’t stand up to the most outrageous attacks about him being gay.”

If Grinell was hounded out of his job for being gay, it’s an outrage, and one about which all Americans of good will, and particuarly conservative Americans, and most particularly the leaders of what is often called “the religious right,” should be troubled and ashamed. 

I have only one question about this, and it’s purely factual.  We are a very large nation of more than 300 million souls, many of whom are deeply interested in politics, and almost of whom, it often seems to me, blog, tweet, speak, write, and comment about contemporary politics more or less constantly.   And yet, in two lengthy articles on this story in the NYTs (including today’s on p. 1), the reporters were able to identify by name exactly one American — an individual named Bryan Fischer, who works for the American Family Association — who attacked Grinnell for being gay. 

In fact, it might be some kind of record:  One one-sentence tweet by one mid-to-low level guy constitutes the entire on-the-record basis of evidence for not one, but two, major stories in the paper of record.   And from this seemingly paper-thin foundation of evidence  comes the forbidding phrases from the reporters:  ”confront the religious right” … “As the critiques from conservatives intensified” … “the most outrageous attacks about him being gay.”

The story does refers to a column in the online “Daily Caller,” but there is no direct quote (or even summary) by which to make a judgement, and no disclosure of who even wrote the article.  And the story also cites a comment at NRO by Mathew J. Franck, but in this case we see the actual quote, and Franck’s comment seems clearly to be about the politics of gay marriage, not an attack on Grinell for being gay, or an attack on Romney for hiring a gay aid. 

Again, if this happened in this way, it’s terrible.  And in general, I thought the NYTs stories were balanced and fair-minded.  But I find myself very much wanting to know the actual names and actions of those leaders of the “religious right” who “intensified” pressure on Romney last week to fire Grinell and who in the process perpetrated “outrageous attacks about him being gay.”  If and when we learn their names,  I’ll be fully satisfied about the accuracy of this story, and I’ll be troubled and ashamed, as I think most people will be.

P.S.  Some of this controversy seems to have stemmed from Grinell auditioning, via Twitter, for a job as a comedian (and I do agree his tweets are funny) combined with Bryan Fischer (whose tweets are not funny) deciding regularly to opine on the world’s condition via Twitter.  Good grief.  If you were a visting anthropologist from Mars, trying to decide if America in 2012 was essentially serious or essentially frivolous, what would you make of the fact that we now regularly tie ourselves into knots over something called tweeting?  I think it was before the advent of tweeting that Fran Leibowitz wisely observed that “a fleeting thought should rarely be detained,” but I offer it here as a nugget of wisdom for our post-conversation Age of Tweet.

Ever read one of those comments and you’re agreeing with it, agreeing with it, and then the writer yanks the rug out from under you?

So I was reading this comment from Jessica, on a NOMblog entry about Dan Savage’s speech that some Christian teenagers walked out of (more on that in a moment). A teacher implied that Savage’s comments were bullying, and Jessica wrote:

Bullying, bullying, bullying,

He bullies she and she bullies he and everyone bullies and get bullied.

Bullying has become politicized. That is, everyone is accusing everyone else of bullying. It is the latest tin word, thoughtlessly shot across to the other side’s ranks.

And I am so in agreement. (Perhaps because I had just read this post, by a Catholic blogger who is furious at Savage for “bullying” but sees no problem with his charming habit of calling gay and lesbian folks “brownshirts.”)

Jessica continues:

Well, I’ll tell you something, I was really bullied, at school, many years ago…

Again, I’m totally with you, Jessica. I lived your pain. I know where you’re coming from.

…and there only way yo cure it is not to have lectures and diversity meetings and talk, the only way to cure bullying is to hang the bullies from lampposts with a sign around their neck, I am a rotten bully and deserve worse.

Any survivor of bullying can tell you this, if you are willing to listen.

Eeeeek!

Jessica, please get off my side thanks so much.

Anyhow, about that Dan Savage speech. I’d like to post the video here on FSB, but I can’t; however, you can see a video of the relevant portion of Savage’s speech, plus a transcript, over on my blog.

Thoughts:

1) Credit to the videographer: That is a gorgeously framed shot.

2) The thing I found most objectionable, on first listen, was Savage’s use of the term “pansy” — an attack Savage has since apologized for, while standing by the rest of his speech (although admitting that his use of the word “*******” may not have been wise).

3) Is there really a case for calling what Savage did “bullying?” I guess it was rude to use the word “*******” — a common swear word used to be “something that is not true” — when referring to someone’s religion. But the actual content of Savage’s statement is an argument. And I have trouble accepting that disagreeing with (some) Christians is tantamount to bullying Christians.

Although there are many Christians with other, sometimes more sophisticated, anti-gay arguments, you don’t have to talk to opponents of lgbt rights much to see that the “I believe it because it’s what’s in the Bible” comes up a lot. It’s legitimate of Savage to respond to that argument.

4) I can see an argument that Savage was wrong — rude, uncivil, and insensitive — to use the word “*******” three times. Savage isn’t an average man on the street; he’s a professional and seasoned speaker, who was invited to speak to an audience of minors. Under those circumstances, it’s reasonable to hold Savage to higher standards than we’d hold folks to in an average political disagreement in a bar.

5) On the other hand, this wasn’t a school assembly with a captive audience. It was a journalism conference that student journalists chose to attend; and as far as I know, all of the students had the option of simply not attending Savage’s speech. That Savage uses swear words while speaking and writing is hardly a surprise to anyone; and future journalists shouldn’t spontaneously blanch and flee because someone uses the word “*******” three times while making an argument they disagree with.

6) I have some doubt that this was a spontaneous walkout; the walkout starts before Savage ever swears, the students in the video are often smirking, and the video is so very nicely framed. If this was, in fact, a planned protest, that wouldn’t delegitimize the protest, so it’s not an important point.

7) When I was a teenager, I swore constantly, except when I was around grownups. Hearing the word “*******” was not a shocker. Are teenagers now different? Are right-wing Christian teenagers different?

8 ) Although I don’t think Savage’s words were bullying, I can see an argument that they were insensitive. The truth is, Christians in the US are used to having their beliefs treated with a great deal of deference and respect; saying that some of the Bible is “*******” probably isn’t the smartest way to get the point across. Savage’s argument — which I think was legitimate — has been lost, because either out of sincerity or out of opportunism, right-wingers are now shocked (or, perhaps, “shocked! shocked!”) that Savage used cuss words while discussing the Bible. Or that he criticized the Bible at all – it’s hard to tell if people are objecting to his tone or to the argument itself.

9) Although I realize the title of this post could be seen as an invitation for a discussion of Dan Savage generally, I’d rather not go there. Let’s restrict discussion to this one particular incident, please.

He put together a little panel of two couples, one gay, one straight, both couples raising children, and both of whom were among the first couples to register for civil unions in IL. His research question — and the questions he asked them — center around why heteros might sign up for civil unions and if, and if so how, they might be different from same-sex couples who sign up.

It was a fascinating evening, in part because, from my point of view, a concern about civil unions is not how they would affect same-sex couples (they make sense to me as a useful route to legal protections) but how they might be used by straight couples. What I want to know is whether a straight couple signing up for a civil union is more like a cohabiting couple or a marrying couple. The latter breaks up far less than the former, so if you’re concerned about family stability and child well-being this is a pertinent question.

Culhane himself is a gay man in a civil union relationship and raising adopted children (he shared his personal experience as part of the talk). So there we were, him speaking, me listening, both asking the question about how marriage will be affected by all this, coming at if from different but I don’t think polarized perspectives.

One thing I came away with: The two couples on the panel, one gay and one straight, as well as an unmarried long term hetero couple in the audience, all had one member of the couple who was a lawyer and all three of them had done private contracts to help solidify their relationships (before civil unions were available or instead of marriage). They spoke knowingly, and the audience of lawyers and legal scholars nodded knowingly, about condo purchases, power of attorney, guardianship, trusts being better than wills, etc.

As a non-lawyer married hetero mom all I could think about was that it took until our kids were about 5 before my husband and I even managed to go find and pay a lawyer and do a will and figure out guardianship of our children if we were both to die or be incapacitated. And I know we’re pretty typical. Most people, that vast part of America that is “most” people, will never be able to manage to negotiate private contracts to figure all this stuff out. There’s got to be a simple clear way to sign up for it, some kind of institution that you say, yes, I agree to be a part of this, I’ve showed up at the court house and here’s my 45 dollars and my witnessed signature.

I still worry about an expanding menu of marriage and marriage-lite options and what that spells for a society in which marriage is already weakening and more than half of children born to women under 30 are born outside of marriage. I still worry about those who argue, as Culhane himself suggested last night, that perhaps these reciprocal agreements shouldn’t be limited to just two people in a sexual relationship. Culhane raised the example of two sisters or an aging parent and child. Why can’t they share benefits too? I had already talked enough for a mere audience member so I didn’t pipe up and say, “Why just two sisters? What if there are three sisters? What if a bunch of housemates want to do it? After we’ve taken the sex-that-happens-often-to-make-babies-and-what-do-we-do-about-that-fact out of the picture, what’s special about the number two?”

But I also know that same sex couples are and will continue to be raising children and as a parent myself I know you need some kind of a net and some kind of a name for what you’re doing.

So I’m listening. And thinking.