Today is one of my favorite Saturdays of the year: the Great American Brass Band Festival in Danville, KY. Every year on this weekend the town spiffs up, the stage is built on the Centre College quad, and ten thousand plus come to enjoy our Norman Rockwell town and hear the best brass bands in the world. For free.
This weekend the weather is gorgeous – seventies and dry. Last night, at the gallery hop (featuring the work of junior Gruntled #2), the streets were lined with folks just milling and talking, eating strawberries, drinking lemonade, and enjoying some pretty good local art.
As I write, the coffee house is full. Soon there will be a parade down Main Street, led, as always, by the Olympia Brass Band from New Orleans. All day long, bands will fill the stage, and crowds will fill the college lawn. Groups of friends rent picnic tables decorated to a theme. Sunday morning the Salvation Army band will provide the music for an ecumenical church service.
One of the nicest features of the Brass Band Festival is how kid-friendly it is. On the college lawn there is a low spot in the middle where the little kids play, surrounded by ramparts of adults watching them, and watching out for them. The bigger kids just roam the town with their friends, buying funnel cakes and curly fries and other high-tone food. Parents stake out a spot with blankets and chairs, making a base for the kids to return to.
This year, or some year, come on down to Danville.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Friday, June 09, 2006
Gay vs. Ex-Gay Christians 3: What is Success?
More than 3/4ths of gay men and lesbians who wanted to change through sexual reorientation therapies "satisfied the criteria for good heterosexual functioning." That is the conclusion of Robert Spitzer, the Columbia University psychologist who led the movement to delist homosexuality as a psychological disorder, an expert who no one would call a homophobe. Michelle Wolkomir, in Be Not Deceived, does not have a comparable study of the specific ex-gay ministry she studied, but the director estimated that perhaps a third gave up and returned to homosexual activity.
75%-plus seems like a pretty good success rate to me. Yet until reading this study, I had seen the routine summary that sexual reorientation or reparation therapies and ministries work with only a small percentage of people.
I think the gap between these two assessments depends on whether the aim of such programs is to change gays' and lesbians' orientation, or to help them get control of their behavior. Spitzer reports that for gay men, only 11% reported that they had changed their orientation, while 37% of the women changed theirs. However, an additional 66% of the men, and 44% of the women were functioning well as heterosexuals.
So, what is the right measure of success – changed orientation, or changed behavior?
The analogy that occurs to me is Alcoholics Anonymous. They do not aim to help people stop desiring alcohol. No matter how many days or years a member has been sober, they still introduce themselves as, "Hello, my name is Bill, and I am an alcoholic." Success for AA is helping people stop drinking.
Groups like "Expell," the ex-gay ministry that Wolkomir studied, are for people who are trying to resist temptations that they don't want to give in to. If most of them succeed in reaching that goal, that would seem like a successful ministry to me.
75%-plus seems like a pretty good success rate to me. Yet until reading this study, I had seen the routine summary that sexual reorientation or reparation therapies and ministries work with only a small percentage of people.
I think the gap between these two assessments depends on whether the aim of such programs is to change gays' and lesbians' orientation, or to help them get control of their behavior. Spitzer reports that for gay men, only 11% reported that they had changed their orientation, while 37% of the women changed theirs. However, an additional 66% of the men, and 44% of the women were functioning well as heterosexuals.
So, what is the right measure of success – changed orientation, or changed behavior?
The analogy that occurs to me is Alcoholics Anonymous. They do not aim to help people stop desiring alcohol. No matter how many days or years a member has been sober, they still introduce themselves as, "Hello, my name is Bill, and I am an alcoholic." Success for AA is helping people stop drinking.
Groups like "Expell," the ex-gay ministry that Wolkomir studied, are for people who are trying to resist temptations that they don't want to give in to. If most of them succeed in reaching that goal, that would seem like a successful ministry to me.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Gay vs. Ex-Gay Christians 2: What Wives Do
The most interesting feature to me of Michelle Wolkomir's Be Not Deceived is the role of the ex-gay men's wives. The gay men, many of whom had been married, left their wives and girlfriends when they decided to accept being gay as a defining identity. For most of the ex-gay men, on the other hand, what motivated them to continue to struggle against their homosexual desires was that they loved their wives and wanted to stay married to them.
Wolkomir's initial study worked just with the men in gay and ex-gay support ministries. When she realized how important the wives were to the ex-gay men, she wanted to interview the women, too. To her surprise, though, the leader of the ex-gay group was very reluctant to connect Wolkomir with the wives of the men in that group, and the women themselves, when the leader asked them, did not want to be interviewed. I think I understand this. For all of these women, the fact that their husbands sexually desired other men – and often did not have much sexual desire for their wives – was a shocking discovery and a painful ongoing fact of their lives. Talking to another woman who probably knew their husband's sexual experiences and desires even better than the wives knew it themselves would be, I think, more than most people would want to bear.
Fortunately for us, Wolkomir was resourceful and persistent. Eventually, through an internet query to a national network of ex-gay men's wives, she was able to interview 15 of them.
Here is the crucial thing these wives said: they stayed committed to their husbands because they were first committed to God. They did love their husbands, and did work with them in dealing with the men's struggles and inevitable setbacks. But their marriage was not simply for their own satisfaction, or even for their kids' sake. The ex-gay men and their wives regarded their marriage as part of their commitment to God.
Setting their struggle within their larger, deeper, and prior commitment to God made the struggle seem winnable, and really did strengthen them to succeed.
Wolkomir's initial study worked just with the men in gay and ex-gay support ministries. When she realized how important the wives were to the ex-gay men, she wanted to interview the women, too. To her surprise, though, the leader of the ex-gay group was very reluctant to connect Wolkomir with the wives of the men in that group, and the women themselves, when the leader asked them, did not want to be interviewed. I think I understand this. For all of these women, the fact that their husbands sexually desired other men – and often did not have much sexual desire for their wives – was a shocking discovery and a painful ongoing fact of their lives. Talking to another woman who probably knew their husband's sexual experiences and desires even better than the wives knew it themselves would be, I think, more than most people would want to bear.
Fortunately for us, Wolkomir was resourceful and persistent. Eventually, through an internet query to a national network of ex-gay men's wives, she was able to interview 15 of them.
Here is the crucial thing these wives said: they stayed committed to their husbands because they were first committed to God. They did love their husbands, and did work with them in dealing with the men's struggles and inevitable setbacks. But their marriage was not simply for their own satisfaction, or even for their kids' sake. The ex-gay men and their wives regarded their marriage as part of their commitment to God.
Setting their struggle within their larger, deeper, and prior commitment to God made the struggle seem winnable, and really did strengthen them to succeed.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Gay vs. Ex-Gay Christians 1: Defending Christianity
Gay Christians defend their faith against other Christians, who think the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. No surprise. But ex-gay Christians also defend their faith against other Christians who think the Bible condemns homosexuality as a worse sin than other sins. Men in both kinds of ministries support one another as they share the work of making a place for themselves in the church.
This is the interesting finding of Michelle Wolkomir, a sociologist at Centenary College, in Be Not Deceived: The Sacred and Sexual Struggles of Gay and Ex-Gay Christian Men. She spent several years as an observer and, where possible, participant in two parallel ministries for gay men, one with the pro-gay Metropolitan Community Church, the other with the ex-gay Exodus International ministry. Wolkomir describes herself as a married non-religious Jewish woman, so it is a real testimony to her skills as an ethnographer that she was accepted and trusted in both groups.
Wolkomir shows how strongly similar the two groups of men are. Likewise, both ministries are strikingly parallel in helping these men bond by re-interpreting their Christian experience. Both the Metropolitan Community Church and Exodus International are conservative Protestant ministries – a point not always appreciated about the MCC even by its secular allies. The men in both groups are trying to be faithful, Bible-believing Christians, while wrestling with homosexual desires. Many in both groups are or were married, and have children. These are not the gay men who reject the Bible and Christianity as oppressive; instead, they are arguing with their fellow conservative Christians about how their homosexual desires should be understood and dealt with.
The gay Christians interpret their homosexual desires as something that God made them with, which they should therefore accept. The ex-gay Christians interpret their homosexual desires as the result of bad experiences – molestation, or unloving fathers, or the like – which they should seek God's help in resisting and healing.
The crucial question for Wolkomir is, why do some of these men choose a gay ministry, and others an ex-gay ministry? Her answer is that they join these ministries for the same reasons they joined the church in the first place. The gay Christians tend to be men who were raised conservative Christians. They are trying to find a way to stay in the church they have always known. The ex-gay Christians tend to be men who were isolated from others, by their homosexuality and for other reasons. They are trying to find a community that will accept them and help them wrestle with their particular sins.
I find this pattern to be parallel to what I have found in studying the Presbyterian Church, which I am sure is true for all mainline churches. Most members in the vast middle of the church are converts. They chose to join because they accept the traditional beliefs of the church, as they sometimes hazily understand them, and are looking to find a community that they want to fit into. The Presbyterians who describe themselves as "extremely liberal," on the other hand, are much more likely to have been raised in the church. They assume that they are Presbyterians almost by definition, and are trying to change the church to be more like them.
For all of these folks, their life in the church is more about what group they want to belong to than it is about their theological beliefs.
This is the interesting finding of Michelle Wolkomir, a sociologist at Centenary College, in Be Not Deceived: The Sacred and Sexual Struggles of Gay and Ex-Gay Christian Men. She spent several years as an observer and, where possible, participant in two parallel ministries for gay men, one with the pro-gay Metropolitan Community Church, the other with the ex-gay Exodus International ministry. Wolkomir describes herself as a married non-religious Jewish woman, so it is a real testimony to her skills as an ethnographer that she was accepted and trusted in both groups.
Wolkomir shows how strongly similar the two groups of men are. Likewise, both ministries are strikingly parallel in helping these men bond by re-interpreting their Christian experience. Both the Metropolitan Community Church and Exodus International are conservative Protestant ministries – a point not always appreciated about the MCC even by its secular allies. The men in both groups are trying to be faithful, Bible-believing Christians, while wrestling with homosexual desires. Many in both groups are or were married, and have children. These are not the gay men who reject the Bible and Christianity as oppressive; instead, they are arguing with their fellow conservative Christians about how their homosexual desires should be understood and dealt with.
The gay Christians interpret their homosexual desires as something that God made them with, which they should therefore accept. The ex-gay Christians interpret their homosexual desires as the result of bad experiences – molestation, or unloving fathers, or the like – which they should seek God's help in resisting and healing.
The crucial question for Wolkomir is, why do some of these men choose a gay ministry, and others an ex-gay ministry? Her answer is that they join these ministries for the same reasons they joined the church in the first place. The gay Christians tend to be men who were raised conservative Christians. They are trying to find a way to stay in the church they have always known. The ex-gay Christians tend to be men who were isolated from others, by their homosexuality and for other reasons. They are trying to find a community that will accept them and help them wrestle with their particular sins.
I find this pattern to be parallel to what I have found in studying the Presbyterian Church, which I am sure is true for all mainline churches. Most members in the vast middle of the church are converts. They chose to join because they accept the traditional beliefs of the church, as they sometimes hazily understand them, and are looking to find a community that they want to fit into. The Presbyterians who describe themselves as "extremely liberal," on the other hand, are much more likely to have been raised in the church. They assume that they are Presbyterians almost by definition, and are trying to change the church to be more like them.
For all of these folks, their life in the church is more about what group they want to belong to than it is about their theological beliefs.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Washing Out the Jewishness of "The Squid and the Whale"
One advantage of coming to a film late is that the DVD has extras. In a straight fictional film I just skip these parts – I want to see the finished work, not the rough drafts. In documentaries, though, the extras are often interesting, adding further detail to the reality of the subject, not just to the craft of moviemaking. "The Squid and the Whale" is in between fact and fiction. It is clearly based on the writer/director Noah Baumbach's real life, and the mess made by his parents' divorce. The interesting extra on the DVD is an interview of Baumbach by Philip Lopate.
In the film and in real life, the parents are both writers living in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn in the mid-'80s. They think of themselves as intellectuals and live a somewhat bohemian life – bohemian for married people with kids and a house and cars. The father contrasts what he wants his sons to be with "philistines," which he defines as "people who aren't interested in books and interesting movies." In the film, the parents, Bernard and Joan Beckman, are excellentlyl played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney. As the IMDB review put it, casting Jeff Daniels as the aging, and declining, writer will make many viewers see his character through the lens of Flap Horton, the hapless, adulterous English professor that Daniels played in "Terms of Endearment."
Lopate, though, who knows Noah Baumbach's real father, noted that Jonathan Baumbach said everything in "double inverted commas." He would make the kind of pompous pronouncements that Bernard Beckman says, but at the same time he would have a knowing critical detachment from them. Lopate asks if Noah Baumbach meant to take the "Jewishness" out of the family? In the interview, Baumbach was taken by surprise by this question. It seemed to me that, in the director's mind, the most salient fact about his family was not Jewishness, but intellectuality. He says that all families think of themselves as superior to others. He means that in class terms – as intellectuals and writers, his family is above the normal rules.
I think Lopate reads "Jewishness" as meaning the same thing that Baumbach means by "intellectual." Lopate, a noted writer himself, opens the interview by announcing to the audience that "all writers are bastards." He is certainly not saying that all Jews are bastards. He is suggesting, I think, that secular Jewish intellectuals are really above the rules of normal bourgeois life, but they do so knowing that that superiority is itself a cliché. Played by Daniels and Linney, the parents come off as hapless WASPs, not fully aware of the effect they are having on the children. The movie would feel different if the director had cast toward the ethnic reality behind the movie. I imagine that another layer of meaning would have been added if Baumbach had cast, say, Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates, the real parents of Owen Kline, who plays the younger son in the film; or Jennifer Jason Leigh, the director's wife, who played Dorothy Parker [Dorothy Rothschild] so well in "Dorothy Parker and the Vicious Circle"; or any of the literally dozens of well-known Jewish actors from New York.
As "The Squid and the Whale" itself shows, divorced kids want to keep points of connection with their parents, even if they criticize the divorce itself. I read Noah Baumbach as making this film as a "Brooklyn intellectual," just like his parents, without fully seeing that Brooklyn intellectual is a more specific and distinctive ethnic and class location than he knows.
In the film and in real life, the parents are both writers living in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn in the mid-'80s. They think of themselves as intellectuals and live a somewhat bohemian life – bohemian for married people with kids and a house and cars. The father contrasts what he wants his sons to be with "philistines," which he defines as "people who aren't interested in books and interesting movies." In the film, the parents, Bernard and Joan Beckman, are excellentlyl played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney. As the IMDB review put it, casting Jeff Daniels as the aging, and declining, writer will make many viewers see his character through the lens of Flap Horton, the hapless, adulterous English professor that Daniels played in "Terms of Endearment."
Lopate, though, who knows Noah Baumbach's real father, noted that Jonathan Baumbach said everything in "double inverted commas." He would make the kind of pompous pronouncements that Bernard Beckman says, but at the same time he would have a knowing critical detachment from them. Lopate asks if Noah Baumbach meant to take the "Jewishness" out of the family? In the interview, Baumbach was taken by surprise by this question. It seemed to me that, in the director's mind, the most salient fact about his family was not Jewishness, but intellectuality. He says that all families think of themselves as superior to others. He means that in class terms – as intellectuals and writers, his family is above the normal rules.
I think Lopate reads "Jewishness" as meaning the same thing that Baumbach means by "intellectual." Lopate, a noted writer himself, opens the interview by announcing to the audience that "all writers are bastards." He is certainly not saying that all Jews are bastards. He is suggesting, I think, that secular Jewish intellectuals are really above the rules of normal bourgeois life, but they do so knowing that that superiority is itself a cliché. Played by Daniels and Linney, the parents come off as hapless WASPs, not fully aware of the effect they are having on the children. The movie would feel different if the director had cast toward the ethnic reality behind the movie. I imagine that another layer of meaning would have been added if Baumbach had cast, say, Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates, the real parents of Owen Kline, who plays the younger son in the film; or Jennifer Jason Leigh, the director's wife, who played Dorothy Parker [Dorothy Rothschild] so well in "Dorothy Parker and the Vicious Circle"; or any of the literally dozens of well-known Jewish actors from New York.
As "The Squid and the Whale" itself shows, divorced kids want to keep points of connection with their parents, even if they criticize the divorce itself. I read Noah Baumbach as making this film as a "Brooklyn intellectual," just like his parents, without fully seeing that Brooklyn intellectual is a more specific and distinctive ethnic and class location than he knows.
Monday, June 05, 2006
College Reunion for the Married
We spent the weekend at Mrs. Gruntled's college reunion. This is always a happy time – we see old friends, walk the gorgeous campus, hear how much better the student body has become over the years, and eat cheesesteaks (one of the very few important deficiencies of central Kentucky). I also get to engage in the sociologist's favorite pastime: finding patterns in groups.
Two strong patterns stood out. First, no one smoked. In our college days, a fifth of the class smoked some, maybe even a fourth. This weekend, I did not see smoking by anyone in the class, and indeed almost none by alumni in any class. Mostly, I think, we grow up and put away adolescent things. But it is also likely that the smokers are just less likely to come back. The people who seemed most alienated from the college at the time were also very likely to be heavy smokers.
The second strong pattern was how married the returnees were. Now, most college graduates get married, so it is not surprising that a college reunion is mostly a gathering of married people. But this group was almost completely married. In fact, nearly all (approaching 90%) were married parents, and kids' schooling was the default topic of conversation.
I can see a two opposing factor that would make reunions disproportionately married. Reunions draw pro-institutional people; so does marriage. This goes double for people who marry classmates or college-mates like the Gruntleds – their marriage loyalty reinforces their alumni loyalty. The opposite force comes from divorce, especially for those divorced from classmates. There are happy exceptions – we ate with a woman who had served as "best man" at her ex's second marriage. At the same table were her ex and her new husband, all swapping stories.
Next year is my reunion. I do want to see my married classmates. I want to see the others, too. I guess I had better volunteer for the committee, to encourage everyone to come.
Two strong patterns stood out. First, no one smoked. In our college days, a fifth of the class smoked some, maybe even a fourth. This weekend, I did not see smoking by anyone in the class, and indeed almost none by alumni in any class. Mostly, I think, we grow up and put away adolescent things. But it is also likely that the smokers are just less likely to come back. The people who seemed most alienated from the college at the time were also very likely to be heavy smokers.
The second strong pattern was how married the returnees were. Now, most college graduates get married, so it is not surprising that a college reunion is mostly a gathering of married people. But this group was almost completely married. In fact, nearly all (approaching 90%) were married parents, and kids' schooling was the default topic of conversation.
I can see a two opposing factor that would make reunions disproportionately married. Reunions draw pro-institutional people; so does marriage. This goes double for people who marry classmates or college-mates like the Gruntleds – their marriage loyalty reinforces their alumni loyalty. The opposite force comes from divorce, especially for those divorced from classmates. There are happy exceptions – we ate with a woman who had served as "best man" at her ex's second marriage. At the same table were her ex and her new husband, all swapping stories.
Next year is my reunion. I do want to see my married classmates. I want to see the others, too. I guess I had better volunteer for the committee, to encourage everyone to come.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Off to Reunion
The Gruntleds are off to alma mater for a 25th reunion, so I will take a couple of days off from the blog. We will return with family tales on Monday.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
"The Squid and the Whale" is a Harrowing Divorce Movie
I know I am six months behind on this discussion, but one of the very few drawbacks of living in a small town is that we get to movies a bit late. This one, though, is not a blockbuster that defines a season. It is not a general-audience movie. It is a film for people who need to think about and chew over how divorce works on kids.
When the film came out it coincided with Elizabeth Marquardt's book Between Two Worlds, and much of the discussion on the Family Scholars Blog, which Marquardt is part of, turned on how well the film depicted the very thing she wrote about.
Noah Baumbach has written a nearly autobiographical fiction about his own parents' divorce, through the eyes of a Noah-like teenager and his little brother. As I wrote on the Family Scholars Blog, I thought it was a richly made movie of selfish parents destroying their children. Baumbach's parents are living, as are most of their friends. He was quoted as saying that when they saw the film for the first time, he looked back at them when it ended; they looked as if they had been flattened by G-forces.
Yet Baumbach was actually fairly gentle with the parents. He shows the mother as doting on her sons, and the father still having some tenderness toward his ex. In interviews Baumbach has been careful not to condemn his parents, or divorce in general. The tagline of the movie is "joint custody blows." The strongest critique he offers is of the tug-of-war between the parents that pulls the kids apart. These fictional parents are much better about that than many real parents manage to be.
Still, the older son is already on the road to emulating his father. He dumps his nice girlfriend because, in his father's estimation, the boy can "do better." At the same time, we see the father getting booted by his third wife and taking up with a woman half his age – who, just to make it worse, is his own student. The little brother is even more scarred – especially after both parents forget him and go away with their new paramours for a weekend. He is about ten, and cries when his parents have the "family meeting" to announce their divorce. He hardens, though, turning to drinking, public sex, and an extremely foul mouth. It is hard not to fear much worse in his future.
As a film, "The Squid and the Whale" is a bit rough around the edges. It has some unfinished parts that show a young director. More importantly, there are parts of the parents' relationship which simply can't be brought into focus when the director is working so close to his own life. Still, this is a rich movie for thinking about the effects of divorce and, therefore, of marriage, on kids.
When the film came out it coincided with Elizabeth Marquardt's book Between Two Worlds, and much of the discussion on the Family Scholars Blog, which Marquardt is part of, turned on how well the film depicted the very thing she wrote about.
Noah Baumbach has written a nearly autobiographical fiction about his own parents' divorce, through the eyes of a Noah-like teenager and his little brother. As I wrote on the Family Scholars Blog, I thought it was a richly made movie of selfish parents destroying their children. Baumbach's parents are living, as are most of their friends. He was quoted as saying that when they saw the film for the first time, he looked back at them when it ended; they looked as if they had been flattened by G-forces.
Yet Baumbach was actually fairly gentle with the parents. He shows the mother as doting on her sons, and the father still having some tenderness toward his ex. In interviews Baumbach has been careful not to condemn his parents, or divorce in general. The tagline of the movie is "joint custody blows." The strongest critique he offers is of the tug-of-war between the parents that pulls the kids apart. These fictional parents are much better about that than many real parents manage to be.
Still, the older son is already on the road to emulating his father. He dumps his nice girlfriend because, in his father's estimation, the boy can "do better." At the same time, we see the father getting booted by his third wife and taking up with a woman half his age – who, just to make it worse, is his own student. The little brother is even more scarred – especially after both parents forget him and go away with their new paramours for a weekend. He is about ten, and cries when his parents have the "family meeting" to announce their divorce. He hardens, though, turning to drinking, public sex, and an extremely foul mouth. It is hard not to fear much worse in his future.
As a film, "The Squid and the Whale" is a bit rough around the edges. It has some unfinished parts that show a young director. More importantly, there are parts of the parents' relationship which simply can't be brought into focus when the director is working so close to his own life. Still, this is a rich movie for thinking about the effects of divorce and, therefore, of marriage, on kids.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Three is the New Two
A new story in the Boston Globe reports the happy news that among educated marrieds, there has been a slight return to replacement-level families. Married people need to have a bit more than two kids per couple merely to replace the population. In recent years, though, the whole country has not been having enough kids to keep up. Among married people – those in the best position to care for kids on their own – the birth rate has dropped well below replacement level, and among educated marrieds the birth rate has fallen alarmingly. Even among educated married people who do have kids, there has some sense for the past generation that two was the maximum responsible number.
As I have argued for some time, though, it is precisely among educated marrieds - those people most likely to consider the impact of their family size on the world - that we need a few more kids. So it is encouraging that there has been a small but real uptick in the number of third-or-more births, from 26% in 1995 to 28% in 2004, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This statistic includes unmarried as well as married women, so is not exactly what this doctor ordered. But it is a movement in the right direction.
At a time when Russia and much of the former Second World is trying desperately to keep their population from collapsing, it is encouraging to see that more Americans vote for the future with a third child.
As I have argued for some time, though, it is precisely among educated marrieds - those people most likely to consider the impact of their family size on the world - that we need a few more kids. So it is encouraging that there has been a small but real uptick in the number of third-or-more births, from 26% in 1995 to 28% in 2004, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This statistic includes unmarried as well as married women, so is not exactly what this doctor ordered. But it is a movement in the right direction.
At a time when Russia and much of the former Second World is trying desperately to keep their population from collapsing, it is encouraging to see that more Americans vote for the future with a third child.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Loose Ends of the British Divorce Ruling
The Law Lords, Britain's highest court, upped the ante in two large divorce cases. They awarded much larger settlements than had been given in the past to two divorcing women. One couple had a childless short marriage; in the other, she had given up a career to raise the couple's children. Both involved significant amounts of money.
The principle at issue, though, is that both members of the marriage are entitled to part of the wealth and the future earnings that the marriage helped make possible. This seems to me eminently fair and long overdue. The buzz has been that now rich men will be less likely to marry at all, or to marry only with pre-nups. That would be sad. But what that really means is that up until now men, especially rich or high-earning men, have been more willing to marry because they knew they could dump their wives and still keep most of the marital assets. That is at least as sad.
There were two loose ends of this story, though, that have had me pondering. One is fault. The other is kids.
One of the divorces in the British case involved a couple who had been married for three years and had no kids. During the marriage, the husband had made a fortune as a fund manager, and would likely make even more in the future. The report of the decision cast the whole question as one of her share of his past and future earnings. As an aside, the reports mention that the marriage broke up because he had an affair. Now, the basic justice of the case is that she did contribute to his fortune by letting him invest in his career while she did everything else. But it seems to me that she is also entitled to something additional – Hazardous S.O.B. Pay, perhaps – for being cheated on, too.
The other issue is the role of custody in who initiates divorce. I have been convinced by Margaret Brinig's studies, which I have written about before, that women are more likely to file for divorce in jurisdictions in which they are almost automatically awarded custody of the children. It seems to me that justice would lead one to make custody awards on a case-by-case basis, so neither party would assume that they would get the kids.
SO, if kids are awarded based on what is good for kids, and money is awarded based on just contributions. This may make for more just divorces. Now if only we could find a way to make fewer divorces.
The principle at issue, though, is that both members of the marriage are entitled to part of the wealth and the future earnings that the marriage helped make possible. This seems to me eminently fair and long overdue. The buzz has been that now rich men will be less likely to marry at all, or to marry only with pre-nups. That would be sad. But what that really means is that up until now men, especially rich or high-earning men, have been more willing to marry because they knew they could dump their wives and still keep most of the marital assets. That is at least as sad.
There were two loose ends of this story, though, that have had me pondering. One is fault. The other is kids.
One of the divorces in the British case involved a couple who had been married for three years and had no kids. During the marriage, the husband had made a fortune as a fund manager, and would likely make even more in the future. The report of the decision cast the whole question as one of her share of his past and future earnings. As an aside, the reports mention that the marriage broke up because he had an affair. Now, the basic justice of the case is that she did contribute to his fortune by letting him invest in his career while she did everything else. But it seems to me that she is also entitled to something additional – Hazardous S.O.B. Pay, perhaps – for being cheated on, too.
The other issue is the role of custody in who initiates divorce. I have been convinced by Margaret Brinig's studies, which I have written about before, that women are more likely to file for divorce in jurisdictions in which they are almost automatically awarded custody of the children. It seems to me that justice would lead one to make custody awards on a case-by-case basis, so neither party would assume that they would get the kids.
SO, if kids are awarded based on what is good for kids, and money is awarded based on just contributions. This may make for more just divorces. Now if only we could find a way to make fewer divorces.
Monday, May 29, 2006
The Harvard-Yale Study at 20: Still Missing the Point
Twenty years ago this week Newsweek's cover story, "The Marriage Crunch," reported the dire prospects for educated women who had not married by their mid-thirties. The most notorious line in the article – which did not come from the original report – was that a 40-year-old unmarried woman with a B.A. was "more likely to be killed by a terrorist" than ever to marry. This report was unlikely at the time, but the "Harvard-Yale Study" became notorious, attacked by marriage-ambivalent feminists and striking fear into the hearts of unmarried educated women everywhere. This story was particularly important to the Gruntleds because we were graduate students at Yale when that report was written, and one of the co-authors, Trisha Craig, was a college as well as a graduate school classmate of ours.
This week the magazine is running a follow-up story to show how silly the fears they fomented before were. Most of the single and worried women they interviewed in the story subsequently got married and stayed that way. The old rules, Newsweek intones, don't apply any more. Educated men want to marry educated women, and artificial reproductive technology means that women can have babies indefinitely.
The new story is a silly as the old one was. Yes, educated women are marrying later, and their marriages are more likely to last than those of less educated women. Yes, there are all kinds of expensive miracle treatments that extend fertility for a few years for some women. But biology has not been repealed, nor sociobiology. And Newsweek did not report that, ironically, Craig herself is unmarried (though she does not report that as a tragedy).
The main point, though, is that the "Harvard-Yale" demographers did not set out to study the marital chances of educated women, but of uneducated welfare mothers. Those were, and still are, slim. For comparison, they included numbers on the marital chances of educated women of different ages. But Newsweek isn't aimed at welfare mothers, and neither are the thousand and one women's magazines that picked up the story. For their readers, the footnote was the story. And Newsweek, like most news organizations, usually finds a way to turn every story into something readers can fear.
The good news is that educated women do have a good chance of marrying.
The bad news is that uneducated welfare mothers don't. And that is something that we as a society should be concerned about.
This week the magazine is running a follow-up story to show how silly the fears they fomented before were. Most of the single and worried women they interviewed in the story subsequently got married and stayed that way. The old rules, Newsweek intones, don't apply any more. Educated men want to marry educated women, and artificial reproductive technology means that women can have babies indefinitely.
The new story is a silly as the old one was. Yes, educated women are marrying later, and their marriages are more likely to last than those of less educated women. Yes, there are all kinds of expensive miracle treatments that extend fertility for a few years for some women. But biology has not been repealed, nor sociobiology. And Newsweek did not report that, ironically, Craig herself is unmarried (though she does not report that as a tragedy).
The main point, though, is that the "Harvard-Yale" demographers did not set out to study the marital chances of educated women, but of uneducated welfare mothers. Those were, and still are, slim. For comparison, they included numbers on the marital chances of educated women of different ages. But Newsweek isn't aimed at welfare mothers, and neither are the thousand and one women's magazines that picked up the story. For their readers, the footnote was the story. And Newsweek, like most news organizations, usually finds a way to turn every story into something readers can fear.
The good news is that educated women do have a good chance of marrying.
The bad news is that uneducated welfare mothers don't. And that is something that we as a society should be concerned about.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
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 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."
Friday, May 26, 2006
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.
(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.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
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.]
[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.]
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
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.
(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.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
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.]
(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.]
Monday, May 22, 2006
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 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.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
"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.]
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.]
Saturday, May 20, 2006
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
