A Standard is a Standard Even If Exceptions Are Allowed

The debate over the Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Presbyterian Church is heating up, as we get closer to the General Assembly a few weeks from now.

The Task Force proposes two crucial ideas:
1) that the church leave in place its existing ordination standards; and
2) that the ordaining body decide if any particular candidate's scruples about those standards touch on essential tenets of the Reformed faith.

Some conservative groups in the church say the Task Force's two recommendations contradict one another. Either a standard is a standard, or it isn't. In their reading, a standard is an absolute requirement, set from the center, that every individual must meet.

In the Presbyterian Church, the central body is not where candidates are examined and, if they pass, ordained. There is no bishop, and certainly no Vatican, in the Presbyterian Church. The body that examines and ordains ministers is the regional presbytery. The presbytery, not surprisingly, is the central unit of the Presbyterian Church, the level where church leaders live with one another the most, and the unit that any unspecified powers are reserved for in the church. The General Assembly, with the agreement of most presbyteries, can set the standards for the church, but the presbyteries are where they are applied. In nearly all cases, that is where it ends: the church as a whole accepts the presbytery's judgment.

Still, since the first two presbyteries were brought together in this country, the church has faced the problem of presbyteries interpreting and applying the standards differently. In those cases, the church has had two mechanisms to smooth out the conflict or, if smoothing out is not possible, for deciding the contested issue. The main mechanism is to trust each presbytery to ordain well. That ordination is for the whole church. However, if a minister wants to "labor within the bounds" of another presbytery, he or she must be examined and approved by that new presbytery. The second presbytery can't change an ordination granted by the first one, but it can say, "you may be ordained for the whole church, but you can't work in this corner of the church." This is a long-established tradition of the Presbyterian Church in this country, going back to the first synod in 1729.

The second way the church deals with a conflict of standards between two ordaining bodies is to hold a trial in the higher governing bodies (the synod, and then the General Assembly). This trial is not about the particular minister's beliefs, but rather is about whether the presbytery applied the church's standards correctly. The presbyteries are given a great deal of leeway in applying the standards, but ultimately there are limits.

Existing church standards would, among many other things, forbid the ordination of practicing, unrepentant homosexuals. Some presbyteries think this prohibition is clearly required by the Bible, and therefore is essential. Other presbyteries have made it clear that they do not think such a prohibition is essential, or even just, regardless of what the Bible appears to say.

The Task Force says this standard is still the standard for the church. They also call on the whole church to trust the local presbytery to apply that standard properly. However, if the presbytery does not apply that standard (or any other standard) correctly – or worse, denies the standard altogether – then the presbytery can be tried by a higher governing body. If necessary, the presbytery's ordination decision can be overturned. That is the way things are now. That is what the Task Force is proposing to keep and strengthen.

A standard is a standard, but every organization needs some way to judge whether a particular case comes under the standard or not.

Hail the Graduate!

The eldest junior Gruntled graduated from high school with great ceremony and a fine speech. She called upon Captain Planet to remind her fellow graduates that "the power is theirs." And they danced all night.

The best joke from the senior speeches: "Yo mama is so fat, she went swimming in the Atlantic Ocean and Spain claimed her for as part of the New World."

The Dad Revolution, Part Two

By guest bloggers Kim Hall and Anne Guagliardo from the family life class.
(Part two of two)
This concludes the series of guest blogs from the family life class - my thanks to all.

In Austin Murphy’s How Tough Could it Be?, the author exposes his negative view of stay-at-home dads by assuming that the only way for a man to achieve domestic success is to follow the path set by stay-at-home moms. Obviously, this is problematic in itself as men must define their role in their own terms. For instance, most men who provide primary childcare find that obsessive cleanliness is not a necessary feature of the staying in the home. It was even seriously suggested at a convention for at-home dads that “household toy cleanup be conducted with a rake." These fathers also found that they were able to hold onto a lot of their traditional roles and were not set in their ‘fathering’ ways all the time. On the weekend or after work, most dads have no problem letting their wives take over as the primary caregiver. The imitation of stay-at-home moms could never produce fulfilling, long-term results for these men.

The advantages of fathers taking the stay-at-home role are incomparable for both the men themselves and their entire family. Stay-at-home dads often comment that this job changes their character in a very positive way. Men become more caring and understanding, as they are more attached and committed to their role, but the fathers are not the only beneficiaries of their new job. Their wives, who are usually spending most of their time at work, feel less guilt and worry knowing their husband is caring for the children. These women are able to focus more on their career, which, in turn, creates a larger income for the entire family. The equalitarianism of the marriage also benefits both parents. For example, in ‘traditional roles’, if a child wakes in the night the mother is 80% more likely to go tend to the problem. With reversed roles, the likelihood of each parent taking care of the child at this point is completely even. Not only does this demonstrate a more involved father, but it also confirms that the mother is not being replaced in the home. Increased contact with their fathers benefits the child as well. Children who have a close relationship with both parents are less likely to use drugs and become pregnant as teenagers. Children with stay-at-homes dads also perform better at school that those with less attachment to their fathers.

Although there are many advantages of stay-at-home dads, this role reversal has its downside. Isolation seems to be the “biggest hurdle for at-home dads." Even though there has been a recent increase of stay-at-home dads, the number is still relatively small. These fathers, who are often ashamed of their job, are reluctant to reach out to other men in the community who are in the same position. Instead, these men usually isolate themselves from the community of stay-at-homes, father or mothers. The children are often affected by a lack of stimulation and connection with others. Another problem of stay-at-dads is the difficulty faced when trying to return back to the workforce. Employers often question the man’s previous job by either assuming that it is simply a cover-up for unemployment or an alternative to his inability to handle a workload. Mother’s guilt can also be problematic with stay-at-home dads. With the cultural norms as they are, women sometimes feel that being the primary breadwinner, while their husbands are doing ‘her’ job, is unacceptable. These women often envy their husbands, wishing to reverse these roles once again.

With a goal of equality of the genders, the social stigma of stay-at-home dads must be replaced with open-mindedness. What is best for the family is most important. One should not be limited to traditional views and a fear of social change. As humans change and grow, society is forced to adapt by throwing out the idea of a ‘social norm’ in hopes of finding a reasonable resolution in a case-by-case process.

What Men Really Want, Part Two

By guest bloggers Angie Bohnen and Laura Walters from the family life class.
[I got a little ahead of myself yesterday - this is part two of Tuesday's post.]

Overall, what men seek in women is the indication that they are fertile. However, what men seek in women and what women think men seek can often differ. A study done in 1993, found that men tend to have a preference for women with a waist- to- hip ratio centering near 0.70. Psychologist Devendra Singh argues that the waist-to-hip ratio can be viewed as a reliable marker of age. Before puberty, boys and girls show a similar fat distribution. After puberty, boys lose fat from their buttocks and thighs. Androgens (especially testosterone) cause them to gain fat in their abdominal region. Estrogen is released in girls and this causes them to gain fat in their hips and thighs, which may be an independent criterion of fertility. A study performed on Dutch women found that a 0.1 unit increase in waist-to-hip ratio led to a 30 % decrease in probability of conception per cycle after adjustment for age, fatness, reasons for artificial insemination, cycle length and regularity, smoking, and parity (Zaadstra et al, 1993). This means that a woman with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.80 instead of Singh’s advised 0.70 would have a 30% lower chance of becoming pregnant. Singh conducted a study on the waist-to-hip ratio of Miss America pageant winners and Playboy centerfold winners over the past thirty years. Although both models and beauty contest winners got thinner over the time span, their waist-to-hip ratio remained exactly in the 0.70 range. This information serves as evidence that although the idealized female body types may have changed over the past decades, the waist-to-hip ratio has remained the same.

Knowing that men prefer a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.70, women should come to the realization that men actually prefer a more average sized body frame. Although women are often led to believe, by such influences as the media, that men prefer super skinny women; this is not the case. Waist-to-hip ratios that are below 0.70 could serve as evidence that a woman is not fertile. On the other hand, when women are pregnant, their waist-to-hip ratio becomes much greater that 0.70. If a woman has a ratio that is much greater than 0.70, it mimics pregnancy and therefore may render her less attractive as a mate or sexual partner.4

Overall, women should be thankful that men prefer a waist-to-hip ratio of around 0.70. The waist-to-hip ratio is one that indicates not only physical attractiveness, but also is an indicator of long-term health status. In trying to attain or maintain a waist-to-hip ratio of around 0.70, women make themselves attractive to men, but more importantly will be maintaining a healthy size. Diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, heart problems, stroke, and gallbladder disorders have been shown to be linked with the distribution of fat, as reflected by this ratio. Women who are much larger or much smaller, are indicative of poor health.

Men have consistently found a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio as attractive in women over many decades. This ratio is not only an idealized number, but also, as Zaadstra et al demonstrated, it is an indicator of health and fertility; therefore, women should not resent it. In actuality, women should embrace it as nature’s way of helping them attract mates and be healthy and fertile.

[Works cited:
Zaadstra, B. et al. 1993. Fat and female fecundity: Prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. British Medical Journal, 306: 484-487.

Buss, David M. The Evolution of Desire. Pp.55-57. Basic Books. New York, 1994.]

The Dad Revolution

By guest bloggers Kim Hall and Anne Guagliardo from the family life class.
(Part one of two)

Over the past few decades, women have begun placing more emphasis on the advancement and progression of their career. These women often assume the husband and having children will eventually follow suit. Since the feminist movement, the number of these high achieving women has increased drastically, which has caused a simultaneous increase in the number of childless high achieving career women. According to David Buss in The Evolution of Desire, women most often seek male mates who are more achieving than themselves. Thus, the selection pool for the high achieving career women is limited as there are fewer men available. Even the businesswomen who end up finding a mate often are childless due to their overwhelming schedules. Sylvia Ann Hewlett in Creating a Life found high achieving women are continuously increasing, which, in turn, increases the number of childless couples.

A possible solution may be a role reversal of the men and women. High achieving women must begin looking for men who are not as high achieving and would be more likely to consider a majority of the childcare duties. If more men would be willing to take on the nurturer role and let the woman become the primarily breadwinner, the number of high-achieving women with children would likely rise. Ideally, if this role swap of husband and wife occurred at the same rate as the increase of the high achieving women, most women in the workplace would be able to ‘have it all’, the job and the children. Some fathers have already started to take on this role of nurturer. The career sacrifices of these men in order to raise their children have created a movement in a positive direction.

Although stay-at-home is naturally followed by the word mom, a slow, steady stream of acceptance towards fathers who choose to raise their children in the home has brought the alternate possibility of child-raising to light. By March 2002, there were 189,000 children with stay-at-home dads, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Although this amount seems completely over-shadowed by the whopping 11 million stay-at-home moms, there has been an apparent increase in this recent role reversal over the past decade. There has been an 18% rise of stay-at-home dads within eight years, from 1994 to 2002. With this sudden revolution of societal norms, these men are faced with a constant battle for “acceptance and understanding in a stay-at-home mom world.”

The traditional roles of women and men are thrown out the window with this rise of nurturing fathers and ruthless businesswomen, but one must wonder what has caused this reversal of societal norms. One possibility is the repercussions of feminist movement. As women attempted to gain a foothold in the ‘man’s world’ and quest for equality, men were forced to react to this increase in competition and initial role reversal. The slow movement of gender equality in the business world pushed towards egalitarianism in all areas of societal life, such as in the home. With more commonality of women in the workplace, a prioritization of the male career seemed highly illogical. Instead, the family must carefully choose the best option for the entire family, which is increasingly the stay-at-home dad as in the United States where two out of five women out earn their male counterparts.

Another spark for stay-at-home dads may have been the alteration of the public view of these men. Before 1980s, stay-at-home dads or at least the acknowledgement of them were a rarity in pop cultural. At least until 1983, when “Mr. Mom” starring Michael Keaton made stay-at-home fathers more well-known. Although it featured a “bumbling dad with virtually no clue about how to raise children” and put an almost negative spin on these men, the movie created an admission to stay-at-home dads as a career choice. Ten years later, “Mrs. Doubtfire” shed a softer light on the issue of men raising their children. Even more recently, television shows such as “Daddio” and “My Wife and Kids” show an even more acceptable version of the stay-at-home dad. Whether this alteration in the public view helped create the cultural movement or the media reflected the change at the time may never be known, but either way the increased acceptance is notable in all areas of today’s society.

What Men Really Want

By guest bloggers Angie Bohnen and Laura Walters from the family life class.
(Part one of two)

Sociology of Family Life began with probably the most interesting topic to present day college students, sex. David Buss, in The Evolution of Desire, introduced us all to sex. A more intricate form of sex than what was learned in elementary school, Buss informs us of the development of sex, starting with our ancestors. One sub-theme explored in the book is what men want. Buss makes it clear that men want beauty and that all men have standards of what beautiful is. Beauty encompasses many characteristics such as full lips, lustrous hair, clear and smooth skin, and body shape. The idea of body shape is of utmost importance in today's society due to the alarming rate of females who partake in eating disorders in response to the sociocultural pressures that emphasize small equals beautiful.

Body shape and size are the most variable characteristics of beauty and vary from culture to culture. For example, some cultures view beauty in the form of a plump body rather than a slim body. In the United States, the rich distinguish themselves through a thin body. Men have evolved to prefer women with features of status, and thus have developed the mentality to seek thinness. There are huge discrepancies, however, as to what women think men want and what men actually look for in women. In chapter three, Buss cites a study performed by Paul Rozin who investigated women’s and men's perceptions of the desirability of plump versus thin body types. Women were asked to indicate their ideal body image and the ideal body image that men want. Women consistently chose images that were thinner than average. These results indicate that women believe that men desire thin women. Another study that investigated these differences was that of Drs. Wendy Stuhldreher and William Ryan (1999). The researchers analyzed the actual and ideal body images of undergraduate college women. The conclusions of their study showed the same female gender pattern. This pattern was that women not only perceived themselves as being heavier than they wanted to be, but also thought of themselves as heavier than what men found attractive. What the women did not know was that the undergraduate men in the study were actually attracted to a heavier figure than what the women chose to be ideal.

Distortion in women's body image is an extremely important health concern. Mossavar-Rahmani, Pelto, Ferris and Allen (1996) found a positive correlation between inaccuracy of body size and dieting. Women who think they are bigger than what they are tend to diet more frequently. Further conclusions of the Stuhldreher and Ryan study include patterns of women wanting to lose weight, recent dieting to lose weight, avoiding fast food, and avoidance of high fat foods. Also common to those who wanted to lose weight was the use of diet pills, laxatives, and purging after meals.

It has been discovered that distortions in body size and shape begin to develop in childhood. It has been documented that young girls favor more thin bodies and adjust their eating towards that form. Gustafson-Larson and Terry (1992) found that 60% of fourth grade girls wanted to be thinner and participated in weight-related behaviors. As a result, some of these girls will inevitably develop anorexia or bulimia later in their lives. Why does this happen though? Certainly, it must not come from the male population as reported studies have shown that men prefer a heavier body type than the actual ideal form that women choose. Men actually tend to like what women most dislike.

[The cited articles are:
Stuhldreher, W and Ryan, W. Factors Associated with Distortion in Body Image Perception in College Women. American Journal of Health Studies. 1999; 15:8-13.
Mossavar-Rahmani, Y, Pelto, G. H., Ferris, A. M. & Allen, L. H. (1996). Determinants of
body size perceptions and dieting behavior in a multiethnic group of hospital staff
women. Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 96(3), 252-256.
Gustafson-Larson, A.M., & Terry, R.D. (1992). Weight-related behaviors and concerns of fourth-grade children. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 818-822.]

Does "Medium" Show the Best Marriage on Television?

The Washington Post had a story this week on the upcoming television season, which is almost devoid of functional families. I have noticed that there have been almost no competent fathers on television in the past decade, and one of them, Steven Camden on "Seventh Heaven," wrapped up the series last week (though another network may bring them back one more time).

The Gruntleds watch quite a range of shows, driven in part by the disparate interests of the kids as well as the parents. Still, I may have missed a few good family portrayals. But a look at the list of most popular shows reveals just about zero strong marriages.

My nominee for the best marriage on television: the DuBoises of "Medium." The main gimmick of the show is that Alison DuBois can communicate with the dead. The best part of the show, from my perspective, is the portrayal of their marriage and the ordinary travails of a two-career couple raising three kids. Even if one of the careers involves ghosts.

I would welcome other nominees for strong marriages on television today. And let me say that I don't think the Sopranos are anyone's role models.

"The Da Vinci Code" is a Competent B Movie. Period.

Dan Brown ingeniously combined the "buried treasure" plot with the "secret conspiracy" plot. As a buried treasure movie, it is better than, say, "National Treasure" or "King Solomon's Mines." On the other hand, when they eventually film "The Rule of Four," that has the potential to be a richer thriller.

Conspiracy theories have the advantage of providing an enemy worth fighting, which every good thriller needs, while at the same time explaining why you have never heard of them before. Their fatal flaw, though, is that the more the audience knows about how human history is actually shaped, the less likely they are to believe that there is one organizing intelligence behind it.

Still, some people like conspiracy theories because they bring history down to a scale they can grasp. The Priory of Sion has been exposed as a hoax as thoroughly as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were, but some people still believe in both.

I was surprised at the politically correct twist in this particular conspiracy plot. According to "The Da Vinci Code," the church's conspiracy to suppress the sacred feminine also, somehow, is behind the oppression of people of the "wrong color," or who are just "different." I think the casting of a well-known anti-religious gay activist to articulate this point was not accidental.

So, to give the film its due, the lead actors did a decent job, the plot moved right along, and the settings were glorious. A fine popcorn movie. It is not in any way a serious critique of Christianity or the church.

[SPOILER WARNING: Don't read further if you don't want to know an important bit at the end of the movie.

I thought that Dan Brown missed an opportunity in his choice for the final codeword. "Apple" is cute, in context, but pedestrian. He made a lame effort to tie it back to Eve, but he had not set up the Magdelene/Eve connection sufficiently. I thought the codeword was going to be "Sofia." This would have tied the central woman of the movie together with a sacred feminine image that really does have some currency in the church.

And while we are talking about missed opportunities in holy grail movies, I thought "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" would have been much better if Dr. Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery) had remained in the cave as the knight guarding the grail.]

Nevaeh

This is the fastest rising girl's name in the century that the Social Security Administration has been keeping track of these things. From zero to 70th in six years.

It's "heaven" spelled backwards.

So what comes next?

Anavrin? Sounds like a painkiller.

Ayla, for Muslim girls (and her friends the 72 siruoh)?

Hallahlav? Maybe, though it sounds like a Cockney greeting ("'ello, luv")

Supmylo? Maybe, though it sounds like a ghetto greeting ("'S up, Mylo")

And why stop with heavens? Obmil, anyone? Yrotagrup?

Y, indeed?

Centre as a Level 3 Family, Part Two

By guest bloggers Amanda Nall and Teather Sanders from the Family Life class
(Part two of two)

One would think that because upperclass men live near the freshmen women and upperclass women live near the freshman men that interaction may occur between these groups. However, both male and female upperclassmen have already been socialized through their Greek affiliation and Centre’s other level 3 roles they must conform to, so interaction seldom occurs between these groups, although we must admit it is more probable for interaction to occur between these groups than between men and women from the same class. Upperclassmen, both male and female, tend to stick to their own gender, groups they have been socialized with since day one. After a year or more in the system, upperclassmen know their roles and hesitate to deviate from them, never knowing what might occur if they did.

The divided gender interactions may also occur because of Greek affiliations. Although becoming Greek is a valuable experience that many students enjoy, it may create tension and boundaries between the sexes. Members of Greek affiliations are encouraged to sit together and socialize together. Drinking and other social events, whether official parties or unofficial “get-togethers,” are held within each Greek organization, but never with several organizations combined.

As a level 3 rule-bound family, Centre has established rules regarding intimacy between members of the opposite sex as well. The rule is that there is to be no intimacy unless you can blame it on alcohol, which therefore creates an escape and banishes the rules for the night. Once the next morning arrives, however, the rules are immediately snapped back into place and everyone acts as though intimacy never existed. This creates a sense of awkwardness when the couple passes each other soberly the next week or so and must act as though they do not know each other. The only exception to this is when, miraculously, a relationship does blossom, usually from such an encounter that eventually leads to something more. In this situation, the relationship must be hidden from everyone, including friends, until it is officially serious, usually marked by the changing of “facebook relationship status.” If this rule is not followed, many unwanted questions and rumors will abound.

After interviews with current freshmen, we concluded that the rules are learned and imposed from the very beginning, starting with orientation. Boys and girls are segregated from the very beginning: boys live in Nevin and girls live on North side (with two blocks separating them). Although hall events during orientation may include a co-ed “mixer” or two, these events always take place at night. This teaches the new students that appropriate interaction with the opposite sex occurs at night during parties, never during the day. Intentional interactions taking place in Cowan or elsewhere on campus during orientation may lessen the tension that occurs between the sexes in the dining hall or at Centre in general. If we started sitting together and speaking with each other from day one, we may be more likely to continue this habit.

On the other hand, the absence of such a structure, just as the absence of rules in the level 3 rule-bound family, would inevitably lead to a state of chaos and despair unless a more mature, optimal level of functioning can somehow develop. According to www.family-rules.com, “the absence of structure itself invariably will lead the family further down the spiral of despair, dysfunction, disease, and delinquency.” This would undoubtedly only serve to bring more problems to Centre. As the parents in a traditional family must set the rules and the standards by which others follow, the upperclassmen at Centre must set the standards for its incoming classes. Unless these roles can somehow be changed and a higher functioning social structure can be created, Centre College must continue having such unwritten rules for each of its students to follow.

Centre College: the Typical Level 3 Family

By guest bloggers Amanda Nall and Teather Sanders from the Family Life class
(Part one of two)

Maggie Scarf writes about level 3 families as a stable, nontyrannical form of governance with an unresolved problem of intimacy. With the range of families on the Beavers scale stretching from “severely disturbed” (level 5) to “optimal” (level 1), it seems that level 3 might not be the best, but it is definitely a step up from the confusion and control that are found in the lower levels. Rules for a family are the glue that holds the family out of chaos. According to www.parentleadership.com, “every healthy family lives by a set of rules in the home, some high standards for attitudes and conduct directed toward the welfare of others.” Rules also let each member of the family live in the environment with a set role that comes with a set of specific rules about how to perform that role. In a level 3 family where rules are abundant, there is no confusion about where each member fits or what their responsibilities are for the family. Everyone’s behavior is effectively regulated and there is predictability, order, and control built into the family system. With letting rules dominate the family, an important sacrifice is made: intimacy.

We would like to suggest that Scarf’s Beavers scale can be used as a model for more than families. All interactions within a community can be fit into these five levels with the dominating characteristics seen as the norm within that community. Centre College, the wonderful institution that we attend, is just like a level 3 family. Not purposely, but the relations among the students are defined by rules, or as we like to call them, social commandments, leaving little room for intimacy.

The social commandments of Centre College:
1. Men and women are not to consume food at the same table in Cowan
2. Do not show affection for the opposite sex in public. This includes:
a. Holding hands
b. Kissing
c. Talking
d. Eating together
3. If you’re in an actual relationship, hide it from the general public until it is considered serious
4. “Hooking up” is okay while intoxicated, but this does not change the rules of sober interaction

There are a few circumstances where the above rules may be set aside temporarily:
1. Athletic teams may eat together and communicate with any gender as long as it is in direct conjunction with a practice or sports event
2. “Wingnuts,” who sit in the outer wings of the hall, do not follow the Cowan seating rules
3. The Cowan seating rules may be set aside during Saturday/Sunday brunch or during breakfast
4. Drunken interactions may or may not follow the rules

The Cowan seating chart is the most obvious place to view Centre’s display of the level 3 rule-bound family. Freshmen first enter Cowan thinking they can sit wherever they want and with whomever they want. They soon learn that this is not the way Centre works; there are certain rules that must be followed. Men and women are supposed to sit at separate tables, with the women sitting on the inside of the circular main room, and the men sticking to the outside tables. Looking around the outside of the room there are tables for each of the fraternities, with the inside tables designated for the sororities, freshmen women, and sports teams. Sports teams are the only ones that are allowed to sit with the opposite sex, but only if the interaction is in conjunction with a sporting event or practice. The rules are sometimes set aside during weekend brunch, when topics of conversation concern only the events of the past night, or during breakfasts, when everyone present is studying for the same upcoming test. The only way the rules can be broken during weekday lunch or dinner is if you allow yourself to be considered a “wingnut,” which is basically defined as those who prefer to sit in the wings, rather than the large main room of Cowan.

Divorce Effects, Part Two

By guest bloggers Will Adams and Ellie Guy from the Family Life class.
(Part two of two)

A recent study conducted by Norval Glenn at the University of Texas at Austin has some surprising things to say about the effects of divorce on children relative to the quality of divorce. Glenn says that children of good divorces are caught off guard by the divorce and have long-term damage to their views of marriage as an institution. Children of a bad divorce see the conflict leading up to the divorce and can justify the divorce in their minds and, while they may blame one or both parents for their actions, their faith in the institution of marriage is maintained. The children of bad divorce, however, experience a much greater psychological trauma as they are often “torn between two worlds” worse than children of good divorce are.

What Glenn’s research shows is that both good and bad divorces have detrimental effects on the children involved. He, like most researchers in the field, concedes that there are examples of abusive marriages where the parents and children are better off with a divorce, but that this population is a small minority. Save those few situations, most divorces have an overwhelmingly negative effect on children. What we see is that divorced children, having either been disillusioned by marriage or made to fear divorce in their own relationships, will have a greater likelihood of themselves either never getting married or ending a marriage in divorce.

This trend seems to indicate that we may begin to see a cyclical pattern in families that have experienced divorce. Because of this, we believe it would be interesting to conduct a study that looks at marital happiness and success based on the family history of the two people in the marriage: whether both come from intact or divorced families or if one comes from each. Our belief is that the findings would show that both spouses from intact families would be the happiest and successful, both from divorced families second, and mixed spouses the least happy. Our reasoning for listing two children-of-divorce spouses as the next happiest behind the dual-intact spouses is that we believe a percentage of dual-divorced marriages would be both so turned off by their parents’ experiences that they would be willing to do anything to make their own marriages work. Furthermore, if they both came from this background they would understand each other’s mentalities. Our reasoning for placing a mixed family history marriage as the least likely to be happy/successful is that we feel the intact-family spouse would not fully understand where the divorced-family spouse had grown up with. Furthermore, one spouse would have experienced his or her parents dealing with situations while the other one would not have that knowledge. The result would be that the two come to the marriage with unequal marital skills and knowledge.

This is all obviously theoretical. We would like to see the results of such a study and believe that it will be conducted someday and anticipate its results.

Divorce Effects, Part One

By guest bloggers Will Adams and Ellie Guy from the Family Life class.
(Part one of two)

In life, statistics do not lie, and divorce has become a large part of our life in today’s culture. Since the 1960’s and 70’s divorce rates have been on the rise in society. It has, in a sense, become more acceptable to enter into marriage knowing that there is a future possibility of divorce. But this of course does not come without consequences. Researchers have been studying the effects of divorce on families, especially those on children, and have found some overwhelming evidence that divorce is harmful for children. Many believe that by ending a conflict laden marriage they are freeing their children of the chaotic and unhealthy family structure. In reality, they are freeing their children from family structure. Parents think that children can sense the unhappiness and tension in the household, while in reality children think that their family situation (barring excessive violence or abuse) is the norm and that mommy and daddy are merely having disagreements. Furthermore, studies have shown that parental conflict does not end with divorce, but only increases the harmful effects on children as they are caught between the two parents and the two households.

While much research has been done on the harmful effects of divorce on children, led by such researchers as Judith Wallerstein, little has been done on the effects of divorce on the children after they grow up. The effects of divorce don’t cease when the child becomes an adult. The reason that little research has been done in this area is that the effects may not be apparent until decades after the initial divorce, and since divorce did not become widely accepted until the late 80s-early 90s, we have only recently been able to see the long-term effects. Only recently has data started to emerge showing that the marriages of children of divorce are traumatized by the divorce of their parents. And while the negative effects on children of divorce’s future marriages has been recognized, little has been done to attempt to explain the psychology of these effects let alone how to properly prevent them. Furthermore, recent research has begun to show surprising effects on children’s marriages based on the type of divorce experienced, which will be discussed in tomorrow’s post.

In a 1995 study reported in the American Journal of Sociology, Webster, Orbuch, and House showed that among unhappy marriages, those who had grown up in divorced families and those who had never known their fathers were much more likely to end up divorced than were those in unhappy marriages who had grown up in a two-married-parent household. This study does report several different theories put forth by other scholars pertaining to the relationship between family history and marital stability, but determines that empirical evidence does not conclusively support any of these theories.

In addition, in the 1987 Journal of Marriage and Family, Glenn and Kramer found evidence in US national surveys conducted from 1973 to 1985 that children of divorced families are more likely to divorce in the future. They supported these findings with a plethora of reasons for why this correlation might occur. Some of their theories include that children with divorced parents have inappropriate modeling for spouse roles, less social support from parents, a lower level of education, the greater likelihood of resorting to divorce, and a lower average age of getting married which ultimately leads to higher rates of divorce. Glenn and Kramer used these statistical findings to formulate a variety of conclusions that demonstrated the detrimental effects of children of divorce on their marital future.

Elizabeth Marquardt covers in depth the effects of divorce on children in their early childhood, psychologically and emotionally. She asserts that though some believe divorce is the best plan of action to avoid future disaster, in reality there is no such thing as a ‘good’ divorce that leads to a positive outcome. Moreover, as we are beginning to see with new and upcoming research, the effects do not end in childhood; they are carried throughout life and are evident in the children’s married lives and families. Which begs the question, what can be to avoid this detrimental outcome in our families and our society as a whole?

"Close Relations" Theory Pours Acid on Family Roles

Dan Cere wrote a fine essay on how the "close relations" theory is quickly displacing the conjugal theory of marriage in the laws of this country and Canada. I have written about it before. For their final examination, my family life students had to consider all we had studied in light of this conflict of paradigms. I learned something, as I always do, from these examinations.

One of the ideas we spent some time with is the Beavers Scale of Family Functioning, a family systems account that divides families into five large categories of functioning from chaotic to optimal. One of the points that Robert Beavers emphasizes (as does the author who popularized his view, Maggie Scarf) is that well-functioning families have clear boundaries around their various roles. The boundaries should not been too rigid, but neither should they be too permeable. But in order to have boundaries around family roles, you need to have some dependable roles to begin with. Beavers builds on the boundaries around the marriage, around the parent-child groups, and around the family as a whole, in addition to subsidiary roles.

The conjugal theory is, obviously, built around the roles of husband and wife. In the more amorphous world in which any close relationship is as good as any other, and none are assumed to be permanent, "family roles" melt away. In fact, under a close relations model, I don't see how we could talk about functional and dysfunctional families at all. This may be part of the appeal of the close relations paradigm to postmodernist intellectuals. The freedom from defined roles is likely to be cold comfort, though, to children caught in the chaos of a formless family.

Mom and the Prom

My mother went to Swarthmore at 17. I have seen pictures of her then – a very pretty brown-eyed girl who, well, had a figure pleasing to men. I learned what the word "chic" meant when I read the description of her in the college yearbook. She met my father at a freshmen mixer dance, and they went on to a long and successful marriage. I talked to my mother yesterday, as I do every Saturday, and we went over the news of family, friends, and the big world. My mother is part of my wisdom circle, and I am proud to be part of hers.

My daughter just turned 18, and will go to Swarthmore in the fall. She is a very pretty brown-eyed girl who, well, has a Marilyn figure. Last night my wife and I had the pleasure of enacting a classic scene with her as she got ready for the prom. She had been to the hairdresser, and came back with what she has taught me is an "up-do." Her mother had latched that hard-to-reach hook in the back, and our eldest was before us in a halter dress like the one that Marilyn Monroe wore in "The Seven Year Itch" in the famous updraft scene, except our girl's dress was black. We watched her put the last touches of her makeup on, a skill she certainly did not learn from her nerdy parents.

As I watched my daughter get ready, I thought of my mother, whom she resembles.

Thank you delightful daughter.

Happy Mothers' Day, Mom.

The Hummer Bites the Dust

The gigantic Hummer – now the H1 of the Giant Dinosaur Burner series from General Motors – has been killed. They sold 12,000 of them (that's about 50,000 VW Bugs, according to the Universal Car Mass Conversion Chart) since they began as Gulf War I chic in the early nineties.

Now that it costs $150 to fill one up (seriously), they have lost some of their charm.

Hey, maybe a Hummer Hybrid? You could even plant a whole switchgrass field on top of the car, and burn that as it matured.

But What’s in it for Dad? The Transformative Power of Fatherhood

By guest bloggers -Natalie Frost and Adam Heckmann from the Family Life class.
(Part two of two)

While fatherhood is infinitely beneficial to children, what do men gain from being active fathers in an era when it would still be fairly easy to walk away? There are many benefits to those fathers that choose to marry, or stay married to, their child’s mother. Most strikingly, there is a health correlation. Men tend to be healthier when they are fathers because of the added responsibility. They often give up bad habits like smoking and excessive drinking with the realization that they are not only role models, but their health affects their ability to care for and provide for their children. Similarly, men often become more active and eat better as fathers. There is also a mental health benefit: men who are involved with their families are less likely to suffer from stress-related health problems like dizziness and chest pain. Children also bring a sense of purpose into their father’s lives; as a result, men are often more joyful and optimistic in their new role as fathers. In short, fathers tend to live healthier, happier lives.

In addition, while fathers must carefully balance their roles at the workplace and home, fatherhood appears to be a benefit to their working lives as well. Married fathers are the hardest working, highest paid members of society. Their newfound sense of purpose contributes to an unmatched work ethic. The way fathers think is also affected- men tend to become more creative and have more flexibility in the way that they think (Brott). Fatherhood also inspires a higher level of patience and a greater sense of humor-both invaluable coping skills for parents. Becoming a father also forces men to clarify their beliefs and values; most political or moral issues can be seen in a new light and with added importance when considering the possible effects on one’s children.

Despite the overwhelming advantages of fatherhood both to the child and the father, around 34% of children live without their biological father. The rate of fatherlessness is a very real problem in the United States. Change is needed. Organizations such as the National Center for Fathering and the National Fatherhood Initiative are taking steps in that direction, offering resources to help fathers become better fathers. These organizations and experts in the field of family life are also pushing for legislation to strengthen fatherhood, including incentives for fathers to marry and altering no-fault divorce law to become more child-focused. Grassroots initiatives may prove to be the most successful, with churches, schools and local organization sponsoring activities and offering resources to fathers in their area. There are numerous ways we can offer support and encouragement to fathers. Teachers can be sure to give two copies of school handouts to children whose parents are unmarried, one for Mom and Dad. Schools can sponsor father volunteer days or invite men to be leaders on PTA and other school decision making councils. Hospitals can hand out special kits with information and encouragement to fathers of newborns in their maternity wards. Churches can sponsor seminars about fatherhood.

On a national level, there is the possibility to reach fathers in a big way. The National Fatherhood Initiative has created PSAs for the web, TV, radio and print. These ads would be ideal for publication/airing in venues such as BET, ESPN, Sports Illustrated magazine, and USA Today. If a fatherhood initiative could gain sponsorship from a large corporation, there is no limit to how much publicity could be gained, with billboards, primetime TV spots and celebrities chatting about fatherhood on talk shows.

The power of involved, caring fatherhood is unmatched. We know the importance of the role fathers play, as well as the benefits to the man himself, now we need to spread the word. Every movement begins with a single person- a blogger choosing to have a National Fatherhood Initiative web banner PSA on his site, one involved father encouraging another to join the PTA, or one poster placed by a nurse in a waiting room. We can all work to support and encourage the fathers we know become stronger forces in their children’s lives and in doing so, improve the lives of all.


“My father didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it”. Clarence B. Kelland 1881-1964

These Times Are A-Changin’: Trends in Fatherhood

By guest bloggers Natalie Frost and Adam Heckmann from the Family Life class.
(Part one of two)

Legendary anthropologist Margaret Mead once noted that fathers, while biologically necessary, were “social accidents.” We now know nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, young children benefit from their fathers’ involvement; fathers help foster verbal skills and emotional security. School-age children with involved fathers receive better grades, are less likely to be held back in school, and are less likely to be expelled (Nord, Brimhall & West, 1997). In adolescence, the closer children feel to their fathers, the less likely they are to participate in delinquent activities such as theft, violence, running away, disorderly conduct and weapons use (National Fatherhood Initiative). In addition, fathers help importantly shape the development of their children’s gender identities (Lamb 1997).

Most professed, however, are the failings of many fathers to play active roles in their children’s lives and the consequences that accompany such disengagement. Books like David Blankenhorn’s Fatherless America and David Popenoe’s Life Without Father expose the “crisis of fatherlessness” that has contributed to the various problems associated with youth: low academic performance, teen pregnancy, drug use and violence. These reasons, among others, prompted the development of the National Fatherhood Initiative in 1994, with Blankenhorn himself presiding as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Since then, there has been increasing research regarding the importance of fathers, the consequences of their absence, as well as a proliferation of resources that encourage dads to become active participants in their children’s lives. The National Fatherhood Initiative is at the forefront of the revolution to involve dads in whatever station of life they may be, whether incarcerated, divorced, or a single dad. While the absence of fathers remains an important concern, the burgeoning body of knowledge concerning their role appears promising by educating and informing the public.

The changing view of fatherhood can further be seen in its impact of the working lives of men. Before, men often defined themselves by their occupations and their ability to provide for their families. There has been a shift in men’s self-perception; where once they might have seen providing as their most important role, the necessity of their parental involvement is now clear, especially as more mothers than ever before are working. Society has accommodated these new views with paternal leave for fathers of new babies, more flexible work schedules, and wider acceptance of stay-at-home dads. Even the ultra-macho Men’s Health Magazine has jumped on the fathering bandwagon with an “All-Star Dad” contest, as well as a quiz, “Are You a Good Dad?” and an interview with singer Tim McGraw about his relationship with his own absent father and his young daughters. Restaurants and stores are keeping up with the times by installing changing tables in men’s restrooms across the country. Everywhere, communities are transforming to become “father-friendly.”
-

[Not all of their citations are available today. I will add them later. Ed.]

The Global Face of Feminization of Poverty

By guest bloggers Megean Kincaid and Meg Ivey from the Family Life class.
(Part two of two)

Feminization of poverty extends into the global community. Worldwide, women earn on average slightly more than 50% of what men earn. Women who live in poverty are often denied access to credit, land, and inheritance. The factors that most often contribute are migrations, divorce, abandonment, civil strife, widowhood, unpartnered adolescent parenthood, and the general notion that children are women’s responsibility. A 1992 UN report found that “the number of rural women living in poverty in the developing countries has increased by almost 50% over the past 20 years to an awesome 565 million -- 374 million of them in Asia, and 129 million in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Women who head households have greater constraints in obtaining resources and services in housing and agriculture. Because women have less access to land, credits, capital, and jobs with good incomes, and because they are likely to have dependent children, they are disadvantaged and more vulnerable to poverty. The majority of women in female-headed households in developing countries are widowed, and to a lesser extent divorced or separated. In the developed countries most female-headed households consist of women who are never married or who are divorced.

Cross-national comparisons show us that the feminization of poverty is avoidable. The Netherlands keeps the sex-poverty ratio low by establishing a high income floor; the welfare state does not allow anyone to be poor, regardless of family status or employment situation. Sweden keeps the sex-poverty ratio low by subsidizing employment and by keeping wages high through union agreements. Since women’s labor force participation is very high, this insures that few women are poor. Unlike the Netherlands or Sweden, Italy has fairly high levels of poverty but the high marriage rates keep sex differences in poverty very low.

In addition to government programs and initiatives, education is a major factor in eliminating the feminization of poverty. The intergenerational transmission of poverty (i.e., from mothers to daughters) is characteristic of households maintained by women who have had early childbearing experience and incomplete secondary education. The less education a woman has, the more likely she is to live in poverty (Scales, Scales, and Morse, 1995). In a study conducted in New York State for the Center for Women’s Policy, 100% of the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) recipients who received a 4-year degree and 81% of those who received a 2-year degree began earning incomes well above the poverty level.

As we have seen in countries like Sweden, the feminization of poverty is not inevitable. With government programs providing assistance, better jobs opportunities for single mothers, and more educational resources, we can help ensure that the gap between the sexes decreases.

(Cited, not available online: Bryan Scales, Kathy Scales, and S. Morse. "Education and Training: The Path Out of Poverty for Women." AAUW Outlook, 1995, Summer, pp. 19–24.)

The Domestic Face of Feminization of Poverty

By guest bloggers Megean Kincaid and Meg Ivey from the Family Life class.
(Part one of two)

The term feminization of poverty was first used in 1978 in order to describe the inequality in poverty rates between men and women. The leading cause of the feminization of poverty in the United States is single motherhood. “The United States has one of the highest percentages of children living in poverty among the industrialized nations, because the majority of them are living in mother-headed households” (DiNitto and McNeece, in Tiamiya and Mitchell). The complications that exacerbate the situation are no-fault divorces, child support laws, and “pink collar” jobs. The no-fault divorce movement has “weakened women’s bargaining position” when it comes to maintaining the standard of living post divorce (Schrag). The amount of labor and capital built up by the women in these relationships is often overlooked in the divorce settlement, and therefore undervalued overall. For instance, a woman may sacrifice time and money in order that her husband may become better educated and establish a lucrative career. This sacrifice leaves the woman unprepared for work and unable to provide for her children post divorce. Following divorce, women experience a 30% drop in the standard of living. At the same time, men see a net gain of 8% (Henderson). Both men and women experience loss to begin with, but men bounce back with a vengeance. The final implication of no-fault divorce is that it most often impoverishes women and children.

Current child support laws work in conjunction with no-fault divorces to add to the plight of single mothers. 90% of divorced children stay with their mothers. In many states, child support laws do not take into consideration the rising costs of education and care for children as they age. Inflation is also commonly ignored. Therefore, a fixed amount of child support received by mothers is no longer adequate as children grow older. Sadly, this is one of the better scenarios for single mothers. “Only half of divorced women who are entitled to child support receive the full amount. One-quarter receive none. Nationally, defaulting fathers owe $4.6 billion in child support” (Henderson). For many women faced with defaulting fathers and insufficient child support payments it would be too costly and time consuming to pursue justice through the court system.

Single mothers have to work more in order to provide for their children than they would if married. These mothers often work part time to be with their kids, or, more likely, in low paying “pink collar” jobs. These jobs denote low-skill, low-wage, female-dominated positions. “Among all low skill jobs women’s wages are less than 60% of the typical blue collar jobs held by men” (Sapiro). “Pink collar” jobs don’t offer many health benefits for the women or their families. Many mothers enter into these jobs because the positions are entry-level and the women have previously been absent from the work force. However, these jobs do not often lead to higher paying jobs with better benefits. In these cases it is difficult for any single mother to support her family without the benefit of federal aid money.

It is our conclusion that the movement to no-fault divorce has done more harm than good for the freedom of women. It places single mothers at the mercy of inefficient child support laws and their ex-spouses. In every case, it is the children of these divorces that suffer the most. In addition to losing valuable time spent with their parents, these children feel the financial effects of divorce. In a “pink collar” job a woman must work more, and spend more time away from her children, to earn the same amount of money as a man in the same situation. The plight of impoverished single mothers would be improved with a change in no-fault divorce laws, encouragement for delinquent fathers to pay child support, and improvements in health benefits for single mothers in “pink collar” jobs.

Works cited:
Henderson, Zorika Petic. “Divorce impoverishes women and children.” Human Ecology,
1993, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p2

Sapiro, V. (1999). Women in American Society: An Introduction to Women’s Studies, 4th ed. London

Schrag, Peter. “Going for Broke” Nation, 1985, 12/7/1985, Vol. 241 Issue 19, p620

Tiamiyu, Mojisola and Shelley Mitchell. Urban Review; Mar2001, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p47

When Imagining Their Future, Men See Clear Jobs and Hazy Families; Women See the Reverse.

I asked my family life class, none of whom are older than 23, to imagine their lives at 45. I wanted them to think of what kind of marriage, family, and career they would have then, then work backwards to think about what milestones they would need to meet along the way to get there. This is a sobering exercise for most students. Nearly all of my students, male and female, want it all – marriage, kids, and career. Men and women, though, respond to the exercise in different ways.

The men have detailed plans for what sort of work they would like to do, and what next steps they will need to take to get there. They know that they would like to marry and have kids along the way. After a term of family life class they know that most fathers need to become the main providers for their families when their kids are little, and they are starting to think about how to meet that responsibility. The career and provider path is pretty clear. They know they want a wife, even if they don't know who yet. Kids come with the wife. Both wife and kids, unless they already have a specific woman in mind, are pretty hazy.

The women have detailed plans for when they would like to have kids, how many, their ideal birth order, and, while they are at it, their names and personalities. They often have a notion of who they would like to marry, and have thought about what kind of father that fellow would make. In a separate track, they have been preparing for a career, though after a term of family life class they have a more realistic idea of what is involved in juggling a career and kids. If they don't have a husband picked out, they usually still have a pretty clear notion of the kids they would like.

Most of the men, and all of the women, assumed that their spouses would work. None of the men, and very few of the women, mentioned what kind of work they wanted their spouses to do.

Colleges spend a great deal of time on career preparation for students. Students, though, when you ask them to think about it, put much greater emphasis on the family they want than the career they want.

A Glimpse of Islamic Women in Small-Town America

My students are visiting unfamiliar religious services as part of our American religion course. Several have been to a small-town mosque, tucked away in an unmarked building amidst an office park on the edge of town. One woman attended Friday prayers on the women's side of this mosque. Afterwards, the Muslim women generously talked with her about their lives and experience of the faith in America. I was particularly struck by two sociologically interesting snippets reported by Jessica Woodworth.

After the service ended, the women gathered around us, talked to us about Islam, and answered any questions we had. The imam [a man, heard through the intercom], they said, was a doctor and usually left quickly after the prayers ended. In fact, three of the six women there were physicians but currently choose to be stay-at-home mothers instead. They feel that their families are financially stable enough to make that decision, and they value family life more than earning more money.

Most Muslims in Kentucky are immigrants and their children. These immigrants are admitted for their professional skills, especially in medicine, and perform a valuable service in underserved areas, such as Eastern Kentucky.

The United States will reap a great harvest for generations to come from this wave of smart, educated, disciplined Muslim families.

The Muslim women wanted to explain to the Centre College women their distinctive customs.

Foremost, they explained why they chose to wear a hijab. The woman whose husband is Pakistani and who accepted Islam several years ago, said that the hijab is worn for modesty. … All of the women were dressed modestly. … The two Indian-looking women wore beautiful clothing from overseas. Two other women with “ethnic” backgrounds wore pants, a long-sleeved shirt, and a large headscarf that covered their hair and upper body. One woman wore jeans and a full-length dress and hijab; the woman still accepting Islam wore long-sleeved nursing scrubs and also put on a homemade skirt and hijab before the prayers began. For these women, it is hard to find clothing modest enough in America. The one woman who initially greeted us said she is almost six feet tall and has much trouble finding clothes in which she feels comfortable. She said she drove to Michigan once to pick up some clothes she ordered and otherwise she often depends on the two older Indian women to find her clothes from abroad.

I appreciate the emphasis on modesty, especially as a father, and commend the Islamic community for holding up that issue for everyone. A hijab is more covering than I think my daughters need, but in the great religious ecology of America, it is good to have a group of women who choose that discipline in dress for themselves. In other countries we might believe that men, backed by the religious police, impose these standards. This group of doctors, on the other hand, clearly choose their dress themselves.

I also enjoy the detail of how foreign customs get indigenized and made natural to Americans. The dress over the jeans is wonderful; the homemade skirt pulled on over nursing scrubs is touching. Islam is here to stay in small-town America.

[I thank Jessica for these details, which I would not have been able to collect myself.]

Same-Simian Relations in Spain

This one is almost beyond parody:

Madrid, April 25, 2006. The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.

Fascinating question immediately arise. What is the age of consent for a chimp? Will PETA and ETA join forces for a Great Ape Autonomous Region in northern Spain, since they already speak an unintelligible language?

Most importantly, will apes continue to vote Socialist, or will they be lured away by the conservatives' promise of a reduced tax on bananas?

Effects of China’s One-Child Law

By guest bloggers Alex Plamp and Mary Jo Tewes from the Family Life class.
(Part two of two).

Most young people in China grew up as only children. Two thirds of them report feeling lonely as children, and wishing they had had a brother or sister. Since parents are only allowed to have a single child, all of the family’s resources and emotional investment get funneled into this one child. They are considered, with almost worshipful language, the “sun” of the family. Chinese only children are often described by others as willful and selfish because of this upbringing. When factored in with the fact that this generation is also mostly male, it can be guessed that the effect of this kind of childhood is likely to combine with the general nature of bachelors to trigger ever more destructive behaviors.

Related to the one-child law, divorces in middle-aged couples are increasing greatly in China as well. Divorcees between 30 to 40 years of age account for 46.5 percent of divorces in 2003, up 9.5 percent from 1981 (the article is here). These middle-aged couples are the parents of the present overwhelmingly male generation. I wonder if the divorces are another unexpected effect of the one-child law. Miscarriages, infertility, and the death of a child have been shown to exert considerable stress on marriages generally, so what effect does it have on a couple when they feel pressured into choosing an abortion? The ironic thing is that, though many of these couples paid the ultimate price in order to have a son who could care for them in their old age, that arrangement is now jeopardized by the divorce. Will the son bring both parents into his own house, as is the tradition, to care for two parents who will not speak to each other? Or will he be forced to pay for not just one but two or even three households, in order to maintain peace through separation?

Incidentally, the marriages of the present unbalanced generation are often more stable than those of their parents. Only 6.6 percent of couples younger than 30 got divorced in 2003, which is a big drop from 37 percent 22 years ago (see previous link). The older couples’ marriages are generally troubled by the infidelity of the husband. However, younger married men may have trouble finding a mistress, even if they want to cheat. Because of the shortage of women, men feel lucky to be married at all, and are more likely to value their wives as a blessing.

According to Maggie Scarf’s Intimate Worlds, the most important characteristic of Level 1 families is flexibility. The one-child law keeps families from exercising the natural flexibility that would otherwise allow them to accept female children, and just generally function normally. While the law has kept the country’s population under control, which is good, the effects it has had on individual families have been very detrimental.

What the Chinese need now is to learn to be flexible in reconciling this law with their tradition. The current demographic crisis is a sign that the law and tradition have not been reconciled to each other sufficiently. Both factors must become less rigidly defined in order to coexist without causing too much suffering for the families. Recent additions to the law, such as providing tuition discounts and other incentives for raising girls, and allowing parents in specific communities who are both only children to have two children instead of one, are steps in the right direction toward flexibility. A welfare system would ease the children’s burden of caring for aging parents, and the parents’ worries that if they have a girl they will not be cared for in their old age. In certain situations, a wife’s parents should be allowed to live with their daughter instead of the husband’s parents living with them, if that arrangement is more convenient for that family. Parents of girls should be allowed to feel just as secure about their retirement as parents of boys.

China’s Surplus Men

By guest bloggers Alex Plamp and Mary Jo Tewes from the Family Life class.
(Part one of two).

A recent post on Familyscholars.org discussed a CBS news report detailing the immense overpopulation of men currently plaguing China (the post is here; the original CBS story is here). According to the article, an average of 120 boys are born for every 100 girls, and China faces an overhang of 40 million bachelors.

As Dr. Weston stated in class earlier this semester, “An unmarried man is the most dangerous thing in the world, and large groups of them break things.” China's overpopulation of men has already led to dramatic increases in social problems, including a huge, floating population of 140 million migrant workers, as well as higher rates of crime, prostitution, and bride kidnappings. Perhaps most frightening, according to the original blog post, is the fact that societies with surpluses of men have historically engaged in expansionist foreign policies – that is, they invade their neighbors. Overpopulations of men are also a problem in India and most Muslim countries, which could lead to some nasty testosterone-fueled conflicts in the Eastern part of the world in the near future.

For 25 years, China has enforced a rule of one child per family, in order to curb its dangerously high population growth. Given the option of having only one child, families have favored boys overwhelmingly – The news article cites a traditional preference for boys in Asian societies, noting that it is men who usually care for their parents when they get older.

The one-child policy, which is enforced with sterilization and/or mandatory birth control, has decreased China’s potential population by 300 million people, which is not a bad thing in itself. But if families are forced to choose, they are much more likely to choose a boy over a girl, simply because men have a higher chance of success in society – they have more opportunities to earn money and gain power, thus providing security for their families. Therefore, rather than doing away with the one-child rule, China is making attempts to change the anti-female sentiment in the country. The CBS article says “school fees for girls have been reduced, and laws changed so daughters can inherit land,” indicating that the key to equal preference for boys and girls is going to depend on increased opportunities for women’s social, economic, and political advancement in Chinese society. That is, if women are more capable of succeeding on their own and acquiring the resources necessary to take care of their families when they get older, then parents will be much more likely to have girls.

Personally, we think this development is inevitable. Men don’t like to share women, and Chinese men are eventually going to realize that they need many, many more of them around. However, unless the anti-girl sentiment changes overnight, the one-child rule is not going to encourage much change, and it’s probably going to take a substantial amount of time to change the mindset of over a billion people.

In the meantime, here is a suggestion: What if China changed the law so that families had to stop having children after they had one girl and one boy? Naturally this is not a perfect solution – it would not help the overpopulation problem, and might lead to even more abortions (say, for example, a family already has a boy, keeps trying, but keeps having boys?) Still, something must be done to get some more women into China, before all the unmarried men go crazy and kill each other.

Divorce is Not the Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow

By Ginny Anderson and Rebecca Bush, guest bloggers from the Family Life class
(Part two of two)

In our family life class, we have seen that divorce has far-reaching negative consequences for adults, children, and society as a whole. Why then, do half of all American marriages continue to end in divorce?

During the divorce revolution of the 1970’s, popular theory purported that spouses had a responsibility to themselves and to their children to end a reportedly unhappy marriage. This quickly became conventional wisdom. In discussing her own parents’ 1970’s era divorce, Elizabeth Marquardt, author of Between Two Worlds, says

“leading experts assured parents that as long as they found happiness their children would be happy too. Some experts even insisted that parents in unhappy marriages had a duty to divorce or they would irrevocably damage their children. More nuanced ideas about happiness—that there are degrees of unhappiness in marriages, that marital happiness can go in cycles, that divorce doesn’t necessarily make adults happy, that children’s natural inclination is not to worry about their parents’ happiness so much as their own—did not have much influence in the early seventies.”

In a 2002 study by the Institute for American Values, family scholars supported these statements. They determined that divorce, just like the illustrious BMW, does not make unhappy couples as happy as they think it will. One finding stated that, “Unhappily married adults who divorced or separated were no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stayed married.” Again, we see that there is a discrepancy between the predicted outcome and the actual outcome of an important choice. The lives of divorced spouses, and indeed their entire families, are no more gratifying post-divorce. This brings us to one of the study’s other key findings: “Divorce did not reduce symptoms of depression for unhappily married adults, or raise their self-esteem, or increase their sense of mastery, on average, compared to unhappy spouses who stayed married.” Ultimately, divorced couples reaped none of the benefits that they expected, such as personal satisfaction and self-fulfillment and instead found themselves facing a battery of unexpected negative consequences.

If divorce is not the solution to marital dissatisfaction, what hope then exists for unhappy couples? This is where we return to our earlier discussion on the transitory nature of happiness itself. If happiness is an internal function, subject to frequent highs and lows over the course of one’s life, then we can predict that happiness in marriage will follow this same pattern. The study confirms this hypothesis: “Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later.” Furthermore, if the decision to divorce is made in an emotional “hot” state, even a sustained emotional hot state, the couple is unlikely to give heed to all of the potential outcomes, such as economic instability, loneliness, depression, diminished physical health, and emotionally divided children.

For unhappy couples seeking to improve their marriages without suffering the unhappy consequences of a divorce, there are ways to foster lasting feelings of satisfaction. The marital tensions can be waited out, worked through, or worked around. Cliché though it sounds, “time heals all things” can be applied to most marriages, as evidenced by the two-thirds of unhappy couples who reported greater satisfaction after five years. The study calls this the “marital endurance ethic.” The less passive approach, “the marital work ethic,” can be to directly combat the sources of unhappiness through changed behavior. Finally, if happiness appears unattainable within the relationship, it is at least attainable for each individual through meaningful actions and interpersonal relationships, again confirming that lasting happiness is an internal state of mind rather than a result of external conditions.

Chasing Rainbows: The Search for Happiness

By Ginny Anderson and Rebecca Bush, guest bloggers from the Family Life class
(Part one of two)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “happy” as “Having good ‘hap’ or fortune; lucky, fortunate; favoured by lot, position, or other external circumstance.” The underlying assumption of this definition is that the condition of happiness is derived from the fulfillment of outside desires—the next promotion, the better body, the new spouse, the beach vacation, the crème-filled donut. However, we purport that this is an archaic definition for one of humankind’s most fundamental emotions. Happiness is far more ephemeral: it is El Dorado, it is Brigadoon, it is Shangri-la.

In a 2004 New York Times article entitled “The Futile Pursuit of Happiness,” Jon Gertner discusses a study by eminent psychologists and economists on the human ability to predict future happiness. The study concluded that humans often overestimate the intensity of their emotions toward any given event and the duration that they will experience those emotions. There is always a discrepancy between what people predict that they will feel in response to something and what they actually experience. Gertner uses the example of purchasing a new car, saying, “We might believe that a new BMW will make life perfect. But it will almost certainly be less exciting than we anticipated; nor will it excite us for as long as predicted….[This] characterizes how we experience the dimming excitement over not just a BMW but also over any object or event that we presume will make us happy.” Instead of material gains or fleeting experiences, the study shows that friendships and social interaction are among the few things that give “lasting pleasure.”

According to the study, happiness is a temporary state, much like anger, infatuation, anxiety, or lust. It has far less to do with the good and bad events that occur over the course of one’s life than it does with the human brain’s very cyclical regulation of emotional highs and lows. Decisions made in an emotional “hot” state rather than in a “‘cold’ state of rational calm” do not result in the pleasurable outcome that one envisions at the time, often bringing unforeseen consequences. Thus, it is unwise and even potentially detrimental to make serious life decisions based on transient and anticipated emotions like happiness. It is, therefore, not surprising that in the context of marriage and family life, we find that marital satisfaction is also of a cyclical nature. This has significant implications for the choice to divorce and the future effects thereof.

The Gruntled Center in May

My Family Life class has been working hard all term. One of the new skills of the term has been to learn how to read and write blogs. For the rest of this month, you will see the best fruits of their labors.

Starting tomorrow, and running Tuesday through Friday each of the next four weeks, I will be posting the best blogs from my class. Their assignment was to write a two-day post on a family topic of their choosing. They are pretty good, I think. I will let you be the judge.

I will keep my regular Saturday to Monday pattern (and I have a doozy for next Saturday …). See you then.

Need to Balance The Church Headquarters Budget? Fire the Prophets

The Presbyterian Church (USA), my denomination, will announce another $9.5 million dollars in cuts to headquarters operations tomorrow. This will be the third or fourth major downsizing (I have lost track) since the reunited church created the Presbyterian Center in Louisville in 1988. It probably won't be the last. The Presbyterian Church loses a small city's worth of members every year. As the base shrinks, the money flowing downstream to HQ dries up, too.

The church's membership losses have not been the main reason that the denominational center faces another budget crisis, though. The money going to local congregations has actually been pretty steady. However, fewer and fewer congregations have been willing to send their per capita tax – ok, it isn't really a tax, but it is a highly suggested voluntary contribution – down the line to the higher judicatories, the more centralized offices of the denomination. And while there are many members who give extra gifts to their own congregations, and even to the presbyteries (regional bodies) that make up the Presbyterian Church, fewer and fewer give directly to the denomination.

I think the main reason that headquarters is being starved for money is that the rank and file don't trust that their gifts will be well spent. Let me be clear here – I have many friends in the Presbyterian Center, and I think HQ does many important jobs for the church. The quiet work of supporting congregations gets few headlines, but is most welcome to those who get helped.

The headlines, though, go to the self-styled prophets who work for the church, who "get out ahead" of the denomination to lead the church into social changes that the prophets know Jesus – or JusticeLove – would want us to do. In my church these change just so happen to always be in a leftist direction. I would have the same objection, though, to rightist prophets working in the central church staff.

Church bureaucrats should not be prophets; prophets should not be church bureaucrats.

As a rule of thumb, I would say that people who tell you that they are prophets, aren't. In the Bible, the kind of official prophets who work for the establishment get shown up by the real prophets who are sent by God.

The church needs prophets, as does society as a whole. That is why God keeps sending them. The place of prophets is outside the house of power, speaking truth. The Presbyterian Center is a house of power. It needs servants who the local congregations can trust. If the church trusted the HQ, the money would flow.

Jane Jacobs Was an Urban Giant, Like King Kong

Ok, I just made that up.

Jane Jacobs, whose Death and Life of the Great American Cities is one of the most inspiring books I have ever read, died this week.

I was raised in the suburbs. For me, the city was a place for field trips and occasional cultural adventures. I never thought of it as a place people could actually live. Death and Life opened for me, as for the generation of new urbanists my age and older, the vision of cities as the most vibrant form of human existence. I have since lived in and enjoyed cities, as well as lamenting their defects (I did live in D.C. for three years, after all). And I am the first to say that small towns, like the one in which I am now blessed to live, is a great place to raise kids.

But cities really do drive civilization. I thank Jane Jacobs for convincing a generation of suburban kids like me that urbanity is vital for everyone.

College Drinking, Part 2: Same-Sex Intimacy

Yesterday's blog argued that college drinking lets people from families with intimacy-preventing rules to temporarily suspend those rules. With the "social lubricant," men and women are freer to get close to members of the opposite sex, without permanently undermining the rules. This brought some very interesting comments, especially from Ken Lammers, that another function of college drinking is to allow members of the same sex to bond with one another. I agree entirely with this point.

Peggy Sanday, in Fraternity Gang Rape, posits that fraternity members have a strong homosexual attraction for one another, which they ruthlessly suppress through shared lust for women. Thus, frat boys talk dirty, watch porn, brag about hook ups, and, in the extreme case she studied, gang rape women in the frat house. I think Sanday is wrong in her basic thesis. But she does point to a problem for fraternities and other men's groups.

Fraternity men do bond strongly with one another as brothers. Their brotherhood would be ruined by a hint of homosexual attraction (as literal brotherhood would). Fraternities need a way to temporarily suspend the strong rule against intimacy with other men without confusing that intimacy with sexual attraction. Drinking games and drunken revelry suit that need.

I still think my main point is right: people from the Level 3 Rule-Bound families most need a social lubricant to get close to others. Men, and to a lesser extent, women, from such families would find that alcohol would make other solidarity-building activities easier. Even for men from more flexible and intimate families, though, I suspect that the rules against intimacy with other men are pretty strong. This would explain why fraternities have such a strong drinking culture, even when women are not present. Sororities also drink quite a bit, but in my experience they do not do so when men are not going to be involved to nearly the same degree.

I thank Ginny Anderson and Ken Lammers, two fine examples of different eras of Centre students, for advancing this interesting discussion.

College Drinking: from Academic Pressure, or Family Functioning?

In my family life class we study the Beavers Scale of family functioning. In the middle of the Beavers Scale is the Level 3 family, which he describes as "rule bound." In such families, order is maintained by a set of rules, yet these same rules often prevent intimacy. I (not Robert Beavers) speculated that this kind of family is the most common kind, the kind that most Centre College students come from. This would explain to me why most, but by no means all, students drink so much alcohol: the "social lubricant" lets them suspend the rules and allow intimacy temporarily. In the morning, though, the rules, and their authority to create order, snap back into place.

Ginny Anderson, a fine student in that class, offered this further insight in her class journal:

You suggested in class today that your average “fraternity party-goer” comes from a Level Three family, using alcohol to suspend the inhibiting family rules and foster a sense of intimacy with others. Although this would never have occurred to me, I’m inclined to agree, because it fits so well into the pattern of alcohol use at this college.

In general, when Centre students drink, it isn’t a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer while the game is on. It is “split a pitcher” margaritas at dinner, rum and coke at the pre-party, and an extra helping in the solo cup as you head out the door. This isn’t about enjoying a refreshing beverage – it is absolutely about being at least moderately blitzed before you have to interact with people of the opposite gender. Groups like SMART (alcohol peer educators) and the Panhellenic Council [the sorority coordination board] sometimes postulate that this behavior is academic-related escapism – the “work hard, play harder” mentality. But I don’t think that really gets to the root of the problem. Alcohol (ab)use is fairly standard across the spectrum of colleges and universities (with notable exceptions, of course), even at schools where the workload is lighter than Centre students experience. The great equalizer in this case could be the number of the students that were born and raised in rule-bound families.

I feel like a lot of pieces of information start coming together when you consider college social scenes in this light. Alcohol use as a method of shedding inhibitions. The way that college women say it’s easier to sleep with a guy than have a genuine conversation with him. And a study that I read in intro psychology, which observed the “placebo effect” of alcohol. Women who thought they were drinking beer but were actually receiving a non-alcoholic substitute still act as if the rules are suspended (which is often manifested in provocative and forward behavior). All of these become “intimacy crutches” for people (especially women) who never learned how to find real intimacy. But with this behavior, all they ever get is the substitute, never the real thing.

Defending Opal Mehta

Kaavya Viswanathan, teen author of the best-selling How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, has been accused of plagiarism. She borrowed phrases and structure from other novels about young adult life, especially from Megan McCafferty's Sloppy Firsts. Viswanathan, who is very apologetic and calls herself a big fan of McCafferty's work, said the plagiarism was inadvertent. Some commentators and legal scholars have been skeptical of this defense.

I believe her.

I live with teenagers, who borrow and sample phrases from so many sources that they have no idea where they came from. They will take a line – from conversation, from reading, from the radio, from a movie – and use it as their instant message screen name for a couple of weeks, and move on. In the mean time, everyone they communicate with reads the phrase, perhaps dozens of times, without knowing where it originally came from.

My daughters introduced me to the wonderfully silly novels of Louise Rennison featuring English teenager Georgia Nicholson. Georgia has a distinctive way of speaking, and I find myself using her constructions – "My heart leapt like a leaping thing on leaping pills" -- without thinking of sources or attribution. Therefore I fully sympathize with an actual teenage author who has fully absorbed phrases from teen fiction in her own writing without knowing it.

I bought Opal Mehta, and await the end of our busy school term to enjoy it.

Students Show More Sense Than Grownups In T-Shirt Case

Tyler Harper, a student at Poway High School in Poway, CA, wore a shirt to school which read "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned'' on the front and "Homosexuality Is Shameful'' on the back. Not surprisingly, this provoked a response from some other students. They discussed the issue, stated their disagreement, and left it at that. No violence, no disruption, no breakdowns. "While words were exchanged, the students managed the situation well and without intervention from the school authorities. No doubt, everyone learned an important civics lesson about dealing with others who hold sharply divergent views.''

That is the assessment of Judge Alex Kozinski. Yes, the grownups turned this t-shirt into a federal case. Literally. The school banned the shirt on the grounds that it might injure homosexual students and might interfere with learning. When the case got to the notorious Ninth Circuit of the federal appeals court, the court sided 2 – 1 with the school's ban. Judge Kozinski issued a sharp dissent, partly quoted above.

Judge Kozinski is right. Tyler Harper expressed his views civilly. The other students, according to the record, responded the same way. Free speech wins. The marketplace of ideas is served. Students actually learn something in school.

The attempt to enforce anyone's political correctness in schools backfires. It teaches students that school officials are hypocrites when they talk about critical thinking, and cowards when they don't support actual critical thought. When the common schools are captured by one ideological faction, it fuels the movement to create separate schools and undermines support for the very idea of common schools and a common culture.

The remedy for speech you don't like is more speech.

The Bank of Mom and Dad is the Right Way to Transfer Wealth

The New York Times has a popular story now about parents continuing to subsidize their twenty-something and even thirty-something children. They cite a University of Michigan study by Bob Schoeni that found that 25 and 26 year olds get from their parents an average annual gift of $2,300. This is often in the form of payment for particular things, like cell phone bills, or childcare, or insurance, rather than a general cash subsidy.

Some lament this trend as exacerbating young peoples' "failure to launch." I think it is a good thing. Economists have been wondering for years how the Baby Boom's massive accumulation of wealth will get transferred to the next generation – or taxed, or just spent. Investing in your children so that they can begin adult life seems to me an excellent, nuanced way for this transfer to begin. People are at their most thoughtful in investing in, and for, their own families. I would trust parents to calibrate their support correctly much more than I would count on the government or the market to do so.

I now sit in a house made possible with a down payment loan from my parents, to whom we are all daily grateful. I have already begun to calculate how we can save for the junior Gruntleds once their massive tuition payments end. I see down payments on my hypothetical grandchildren's childhood homes in the dim distance. And that is a good next thing to save for.

Church Organists, Tremble

Sociologist Mark Chaves, in Congregations in America, reports that the largest 10 percent of congregations contain about half of all churchgoers on an average Sunday.

Scott Thumma, the leading expert on megachurches, found that about 80% of them use electric guitar or bass and drums “always” in their services, and over 93% do so “often” or "always." Megachurch attenders are notably younger and have more kids than the mainline denominations do, so this preference is likely to multiply in coming generations.

Add to this that Roman Catholics, the nation's largest denomination, do not rely on organs.

The era of the church organ, which we think of as ancient, but is really less than two centuries old, may draw to a close in a generation or two.