Strollerderby : marriage

They Say: Staying Together for the Kids? Don't

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:01:00 GMT

How many times have you heard someone in marital distress say they're just trying to make it through for the kids? Might want to give them a hug next time and tell them they shouldn't worry about it.

A new study has found what plenty of kids of bitter, bickering parents already knew: staying together for the kids doesn't work.

Looking at teens from almost two thousands households and tracking them through to their early thirties, the study out of Cornell University in New York linked "exposure to parental conflict in adolescence . . . with poorer academic achievement, increased substance use and early family formation and dissolution, often in ways indistinguishable from living in a stepfather or single-mother family."

Again, not totally surprised here. But it's an important finding FOR parents who have long sought comfort as they navigate the difficult road of divorce. The dissolution of a relationship is almost never easy, and blame is quite often the name of the game. When kids are involved, the ante is upped as couples have to factor in more than just the two people in the marriage itself.

Studies have already found that divorce does not change the way a person parents. If you're doing a good job before the split, there's no reason to think you'll fall down on the job after the decree becomes final.

Parents should also take a long, hard look at their kids pre-split. Poor behavior that parents have often associated with post-divorce stress has been found to be something parents were overlooking in the midst of their marital discord. It was already there. The good news? Researchers say it doesn't actually get worse.

At the end of the day, I could never tell someone, "hey, yeah, get divorced." That's a very personal decision. But knowing you're worrying about your kids in the process means you're already far ahead of a lot of parents.

Image: OrlandoNest

Jon & Kate Plus 8 Premiere Snags 9.8 Million Viewers

Brett Singer — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So you know this Kate Gosselin we've been hearing so much about? Mother, reality show star, husband may or may not be cheating on her? Lots of backlash against her?

After all the sturm und drang that the Gosselins have generated in recent weeks, you might think that would hurt their ratings. But you would be wrong.

The season premiere of "Jon & Kate Plus 8" was watched by 9.8 million people. That's not only the largest audience for a cable show on Monday. It was the largest audience for ANY show that evening.

People, negativity sells. Big time.

Yes, it was Memorial Day. But "Jon & Kate" isn't even on a network. It's on cable. Which means that not everyone -- most people, but not everyone -- can see the show. To me, this was an astonishing feat.

I have a confession to make. I don't watch "Jon & Kate Plus 8." I don't watch any reality shows regularly, which isn't a judgment on those of you that do. It's just not my thing. (If they could make a reality show with superheroes in it, that I might watch.) But all of the tabloid news has been oddly fascinating to me. I read the People Magazine article. Someone left a copy of US Weekly in my house and I read the "Jon & Kate" article. (Well, I started it. But I'll finish it.) And I have to admit that I might just check out a few minutes of the show.

Did you watch the "JK8" premiere? Did the recent scandals surrounding the couple make you more interested in the show?

Source: Hartford Courant

Morning News - California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

Kate Gosselin - Mom or Monster?

Gosselins are Good for a Gander (big roundup of stories on Famecrawler)

Mom Arrested for Having 555 Pound Son

Morning News - Mike Tyson's Daughter Injured

Best of FameCrawler - Week of May 22nd

Whit Honea — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Gosselins are Good for a Gander

Katie Holmes Sets a Bad Example For Suri

Mormon Marie Osmond Supports Her Gay Daughter!

Stars Come Out For American Idol Finale: Brad Garrett and Kids Max and Hope

Barbara Walters To Interview John Edwards' Mistress Rielle Hunter!?

Bristol Palin and Son Tripp Cover People

Angelina Catches Brad and Jen Aniston Together!

Kate Gosselin Blogs Her Troubles Away

Matt Damon: Bourne to Be a Dad

Pregnant Lauren London & Lil Wayne Will Raise Baby Together!!!

Kelly Clarkson Looks Like She's Pregnant!

Caption This, Julia Roberts (or Don't)

Poll - Portia and Ellen Most Trusted Moms

Brett Singer — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

ParentDish did a Mother's Day poll. Over 10,000 people voted. (For an Internet poll, that's a lot, trust me. Or as Paris Hilton might say, "huge.")

The first question on the poll was the following: "Which celebrity would you most feel comfortable leaving your kids with?"

You know who won? Drum roll, please...

With 31%, Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi took the top spot. Rounding out the list were Jennifer Aniston (22%), Rachel Ray (20%), Angelina and Brad (18%) and coming in last was Oprah Winfrey with 9%.

The results are interesting. I probably would have put Rachel Ray first, and Ellen and Portia second. (Carrie Prejean, methinks, would put Ellen and Portia dead last.) Putting Jennifer ahead of Angie and Brad seems odd, but I guess that's the way the celebrity winds are blowing this week.

Obviously the fact that the top choice was a same-sex couple is worth mentioning. Or is it? Have a majority of us progressed past the point where we care what sort of family we would leave our kids with? (In theory of course -- as far as I know, none of the famous folks in this poll are offering babysitting services.)

Out of this group, who would you leave your kids with? Would the sexual orientation of the parents factor in to your decision?

Source: ParentDish

image: Daily News

American Incest Dad Gets 109 Years In Jail

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

Jon Gosselin a Cheater, But a Good Dad?

JeanneSager — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:27:00 GMT

Haters of Jon and Kate Plus 8 (and we've found out there are many) got the confirmation they've all been waiting for: Jon Gosselin is a total tool. The hair plugs didn't clue you in?

The brother of the woman he's supposedly shtupping says, well, that he's shtupping his sister. And this isn't Kate Gosselin's bro talking, so it would stand to reason that the star of TLC's reality show is cheating on his wife (allegedly, natch).

But while all that uproar is going on over his extra-marital activities, his friends are rushing out to say, "wait, Jon is a good dad to his eight kids!" Are the two even related?

People who cheat on their spouses are scum buckets. I was raised with the mantra, if you are going to step out on your marriage then WALK out of your marriage. If he's unhappy with the woman many watchers say is a shrew, then, by all means, take a hike buddy. But cheating would make him a bad husband.

Does it make you a bad parent too? Besides the admittedly bad example you're setting for your kids, I'm inclined to say not really. Especially when you have young children. When you have teens who are more aware of what you're doing, then there's even more pressure to act as a "role model." Even then, if your kids DON'T know, I'd tend to say you're still just a bad spouse and rather rotten person.

But unless Jon Gosselin was having sex with a woman other than his wife in front of his kids, I don't see how it affects his parenting skills. In fact, if he's having sex WITH his wife in front of his kids, I'd have a bit of a problem with that (g-ross people). But cheaters still get up and make breakfast in the morning. They still pour sippy cups and read bedtime stories. They are still parents - as long as they keep the mistress (or the other man) away from the kids.

What do you think parents? Does cheating make you a bad parent or just a bad spouse?

Image: Zap2It

Mom Uses Breastfeeding as Weapon in Custody Battle

Confirmation: Jon Gosselin of “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” Cheated

Amy Winehouse Writing a Children's Book

Two Parents Passing in the Night: Staggered Parenting

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:31:00 GMT

It's a concern that's become even bigger than ever, but the stories of parents getting creative to avoid daycare costs are only getting wilder.

Take the parents who work opposite shifts, rarely getting to spend real quality time together in their marriage, because it enables at least one parent to be home with their two kids almost every moment of the day.

Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode took a look at Megan and Tim Garrett this past week, a couple who surmises in a good week they're able to limit the use of actual (paid for) daycare to six to nine hours. How do they do it? "Staggered parenting," Belkin calls it. One works nine to five, the other in swing shifts. Just not at the same time (if they can help it).

It's something like what I talked about in my own Bad Parent essay last week in honor of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. Daycare is so cost-prohibitive, that I worked out a deal with my boss - I go into an office twice a week while she goes to an actual (again, paid for) daycare. The rest of the time, I take my daughter to work. Some say I've got it easy because I can do this, and I will certainly say I am lucky to have this time with my daughter.

But neither I nor the Garretts have it easy. And unless you're one of those lucky ducks still swimming in the big bucks in this economy, I dare say you don't either.

It's why we're all thinking outside that proverbial box to get the daycare bills paid - or better yet, to avoid them at all. I'm a proponent of paying people what they're worth, so it's hard to come up with a solution for the high costs of daycare. We can't very well expect these people to watch our children for free.

But what of the mom who works nights, the dad who works days, so one can be home with their son at all times? Should they simply be expected to accept the strain that puts on their marriage and their family because, well, "they are doing what should be done when we decide to have children" as one commenter over on the Motherlode said? What about the Garretts, who are ensuring their kids get to spend almost all of their time with mom and dad, but who get almost no time alone to just be adults? Not to mention virtually no "family time." This isn't a knock on single parents, but when there ARE two parents in the situation, it's hardly optimal for the kids to never see them interact.

Daycare is expensive. Daycare is often inflexible. And daycare is not created equal. My friend pays $30 a day for her son to go to a small registered daycare with a nursery school curriculum and both breakfast and lunch provided. That's $150 a week - not too bad, but not available to too many families. She's popular, and fills up fast. In the same town, another friend pays $490 a week for the same service. The disparity is hard to fathom.

For parents who work part-time, the problem isn't just expense but finding a program that will accept their child. We need the money, but few daycares want to take on a child who will not be bringing in steady income for them (can you blame them?) to the tune of five business days, and many are loathe to take on a child at the tail-end of toddlerhood because they know the money will soon dry up once the child is enrolled in "real" school. Infants are tough to place too - in many places they take the place of two older children. In other words, the provider can charge the parent of an infant one fee, or they could take in two toddlers and get two fees - but not both. Again, you can't fault the provider (I'd prefer a limit in kids, wouldn't you?) but it certainly doesn't make life any easier for parents.

So what do you do? Many of us go unregistered, which carries with it its own problems - when I recently wrote about setting up a quid pro quo system with an unemployed friend (cash in exchange for their babysitting time), a commenter pointed out that flies in the face of attempts to professionalize the industry. Again, I agree that daycare workers shouldn't be treated like scut labor, but "non-professional" daycare providers can provide top notch care too.

So what's the fix? Employer-sponsored daycare (um, yes)? Government intervention? For one, I'd like to see the childcare tax write-off system change so we can write off ALL daycare expenses (rather than the "up to $6,000 for families with two children under age thirteen"). Not to mention paid paternity leaves, lengthier paid maternity leaves, and . . .

For all those, of course, there are the arguments from the same people who popped up on the Motherlode citing the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for our kids. But let me ask: would they rather provide universal programs for parents to keep us in the job market or pay for us all to sit at home with our kids all day being unproductive and FEELING unproductive? Might I point out, those kids are American citizens and future taxpayers too. So how about a little help?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Me and My Shadow

Do You Love Your Children More Than Your Spouse?

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:30:00 GMT

Strollerderby writer, Jeanne Sager, has been moonlighting this week over at Your Tango, where she's let it slip that she loves her child more than her partner. If you read her thoughtful piece, you'll find it's not a bit scandalous, alas. Instead, Jeanne reasons that the love of a parent for a child is greater because the parent produced the child and therefore the two can never be separated:

"But perhaps the biggest difference lies as much in the past as it does in the future. With a child, you will always be her parent. Without me, there is no her. With a spouse, there is still that life before you met, the period of time when you were two distinct people. I am still me without my husband. Our daughter isn't."

I could take issue with this sentiment as an adoptive mother, as it seems to make parental love dependent on the biological connection between a parent and child. I love my children as much as anyone loves her children, but they definitely would exist without me. In fact, they'd probably be as lovable and wonderful with or without me. I know them as someone who met them and got to know them after someone else's body created and produced them. Even though they came to me days after birth, directly from the hospital, they are the strangers I came to know and love (admittedly, at first sight).

But I don't think you have to be an adoptive mother to think differently about the love of a parent for a child than Jeanne's explanation. I think lots of parents feel their children are strangers even if they grew them in their own bodies for nine months. Not every parent falls in love with his or her child at first sight and that's okay too. It doesn't mean the love that does grow is any less.

I also don't think Jeanne means to diss parents--adoptive or biological--who experience falling in love with their children in a different way than she describes. I think it is just really hard to explain parents' love for their children. Most parents describe an overwhelming instinct to protect their babies at first sight, even if it didn't feel exactly like "love." And yet, it is one of the most powerful feelings humans ever experience. And "love" stands in for powerful feelings in our culture.

I don't know how useful or important it is to compare the feelings one has for a partner and the feelings one has for a child. At different moments, I find I prefer the company of one or the other, and then at other times, I delight in all of us spending time together. But as with close friends and family, I get very different things from my relationships with my partner and my children. My children are dependent on me and I feel the obligation to care for them. This can create a bond of titanium. My relationship with my partner is unfettered by obligation and depends instead on mutual desire, which can make it more "fun" at times than parenting.

I think the two things are very different. I honestly couldn't tell you who I love more--my children or my partner. If they were all drowning, I'd reach to save the children, but that is as logical as it is love-based. My children would need my help whereas my partner could probably (okay definitely--she's a former swim star!) make it to safety on her own.

What about you? Do you find the comparison useful? If so, who comes out on top?

image: artchive.com

They Say: Kids Who Smile Big Will Marry Well

Jen Chaney — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:02:00 GMT

You may want to look at some of your family pictures after this post. Or, for that matter, dig out some childhood photos of your own.

According to a recent study conducted at Indiana's DePauw University, children who smile brightly in photographs are less likely to get divorced later in life. No, I'm not kidding. The researchers looked at the high school photos of several subjects, ages 21 to 87, and found that those with dimmer grins tended to have at least one broken marriage under their belts. They also found similar results using photographs of kids as young as five.

So let's break this down. In essence, this confirms something that, as this piece in the Telegraph points out, is basic, common sense: happy people tend to have happy marriages. That may be because they are more positive and willing to work at their relationships, or (and this is my hypothesis here) because upbeat individuals attract, and are attracted to, other upbeat individuals.

But what this study doesn't address is the issue of faking. Plenty of people can plaster dazzling smiles across their faces when a photo is being snapped. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are happy people. I guess children are less likely to put on a front, especially when they're very young. But I do wonder how clear-cut the relationship is between a smile and reality.

In any event, if this study really is accurate, it tells us something pretty important about appearances: perhaps you can not only judge a book by its cover, but predict its marital satisfaction, too.

Image: Getty Via The Telegraph

Did Having a Baby Make You Start Thinking About Your Ex?

JeanneSager — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:30:00 GMT

I wasn't thinking about much when my daughter was three months old. My maternity leave was over, and I was back at work - albeit at a reduced thirty-hour schedule. I didn't have time to think about sex, nonetheless an ex.

Turns out some parents have turned the seven-year itch into the three-month itch. Their baby hits three months, and as exhausted and un-sexy as the mothers feel, they start thinking about what their life could have been if they took a different path. Namely, if they picked another partner.

In the New York Times this week, essayist Anna Solomon says she couldn't help romanticizing her exes when her daughter was still a newborn, when she hit that three-month mark everyone told her would be a turning point, when she would start to get her life back:

"I was certain that I’d ruined my life, and I was thinking — with alarming frequency — of men who were not my husband, men who seemed suddenly more attractive than they’d actually been, or kinder, or braver — men who would never have gotten me into this mess."

I always thought it was just in the movies that women turned on their husbands during childbirth, that they started screaming, "I hate you, I can't stand you, get away from me, you did this to me." But here that same feeling is, rearing its ugly head three months on, when the pain of delivery is gone and the reality of being a mother has set in. You aren't you anymore, and as long as you're stuck in this bleary-eyed state with this little person who can reach top volume and turn tomato red in the blink of an eye, it's hard to imagine you ever will be again.

Is it any wonder some women fantasize their way out of it? Even for a few moments? It's not sexual fantasies of exes past, because, frankly, sex is what put you in this predicament. It's emotional escapism, the kind that nourishes the body in what can be a very dark time for a parent, especially a stay-at-home parent or a woman still nursing a baby through the night (and hence getting no sleep). And that's why, for most of us - including Solomon, it's fleeting. Your baby grows, you get some sleep, and you realize you are pretty darn OK where you are - if not completely and wonderously in love with where you are.

Did you ever fantasize about the ex when your child was young, or daydream about going back to the pre-pregnancy days?

Image: DailyMail

Your Kid's Mouth Stinks: Here's Why

Also on Babble:

The New Celibacy

No Sex Please, We're Parents

Dad Accused of Selling Daughter For Beer and Meat

Brett Singer — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 GMT

So here's one you haven't heard before. At least I hope not. Because it's a bummer.

California resident Marcelino de Jesus Martinez was charged with selling his 14-year-old daughter in for, and I quote, "$16,000, beer and meat." He first pled not guilty, but that plea was switched to no contest, meaning that he will be sentenced on May 7. The penalty is deportation and up to a year in jail. Had he been found guilty of the initial charges, he could have spent ten years in jail.

Martinez reportedly "sold" his daughter to the family of Margarito de Jesus Galindo, and she lived with them for a week. The plan was marriage, the cash, beer and meat were the dowry. When Martinez didn't get his cash (it's not clear if he ever got the beer or the meat), he called the cops, who presumably were somewhat less than sympathetic.

The last part creates an interesting question explored at this USA Today blog entry. Apparently this practice is not uncommon in indigenous Mexican communities. For this reason, police dropped an initial charge of human trafficking. The Californian quotes Honorary Mexican Consul Blanca Zarazua as saying that "This whole case is a convergence of multiple layers of misunderstandings."

So I think I'll take back my opening paragraph. For some people, the only weird part of the story is the involvement of the police.

In general I'm pro-cultural sensitivity, but in this case, it's trickier. On the one hand, selling your daughter into marriage is something we clearly frown upon in this country. On the other hand, the father clearly had no idea that what he was doing was illegal, as shown by the fact that he went to the police in order to get paid.

What do you think? Should people who live in the United States be bound by our laws? Or can we make exceptions?

Source: AP via Google

Image: The Californian

Finish Line - April Fools And More

Family Awarded Millions For Circumcision Mistake

Spiderman Rescues Autistic Boy

Parenting Techniques Work for Grownups Too

Amy Kuras — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:31:00 GMT

On the face of it, this sounds horrible: using parenting techniques on your spouse. I get deeply, deeply irritated by the “sitcom dad” stereotype which holds up all husbands and fathers as bumbling childlike idiots who just need to shut up and listen to their ever-wise wives. This is wrong on many levels: first, it’s untrue. Most of the guys I know (and the one I am parenting with) are as good with their kids as the women in the family.

Also? People behave to the level you expect of them. Your flaky friend who always shows up late? Leave without her and she will change her ways fast (as I know from personal experience of being that friend). Act like your partner is an idiot and guess what? That’s exactly the kind of behavior you’ll get.

But this is actually kind of intriguing. The writer used things like distraction, choosing your battles, and “creative discipline,” i.e. coming up with solutions to problems together, in her relationship with her husband for a week and found it actually worked very well in terms of both of their relative happiness. Some of it seemed a little too “Surrendered Wife” to me – there are some battles worth choosing – but in all, it’s an interesting idea. We all try so much to deal with our kids with respect, kindness and understanding but often have trouble dealing in the same way with the other grownup in the house. If using a parenting technique helps aid respectful adult communication, so much the better.

Husband Loses Job, Wife Loses Respect For Him

Brett Singer — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:00:00 GMT

We all know how tough it is out there. The number of jobs is shrinking by the day, and layoffs are common. Many families still follow the traditional model where the husband is the breadwinner and the wife takes care of the children and housekeeping duties. Nothing wrong with that. But let's say dad loses his job. He didn't quit because he missed out on a promotion, nor was he fired for making photocopies of his butt. He was laid off. It happens. Mom should be supportive, right? Flexible. Do what needs to be done to keep the family together.

Well, yes. Of course. But in the case of this couple that was profiled on ABC's Good Morning America, wifey has lost respect for her fella. She's not attracted to him anymore. In fact, they are sleeping in separate beds.

The wife in question, Eleanor Hemmert, had this to say about her husband Rick: "It's the respect. I wish I could say something different, but I've lost so much respect for him. And I think the dynamics with a man and a woman is a woman has to respect her husband. And if she doesn't, that relationship just goes away."

In an illustration of what I meant when I questioned a passage from Kate Gosselin's book, Eleanor also said: "That's one of the basic things that little girls grow up thinking - that the man is going to put the roof over her head, he is going to support the family." And when it doesn't happen, you get angry. Expectations can be bad when the person is inflexible.

I'm not in their marriage, so I don't know what else is going on. But this couple chose to put themselves on TV, so I'm commenting. Anytime I hear a woman complain that her husband isn't doing the manly work that she expects her man to be doing, it really irks me. If a woman were told to stay home and get pregnant, and that her place was in the kitchen, preferably barefoot, would she like that? Or that it was perfectly reasonable to pay her less money than a man who does the same job? Granted, those things happen all the time. But they're wrong. So is this woman's attitude.

Of course, Husband Rick isn't helping matters. "I think it is in every man's DNA to be the breadwinner. It's very humbling for me. It changes the dynamic of our relationship immensely. There is a wedge that has appeared. I feel the anger. I feel the tension. This house is not as joyous as it should be."

See, that's a choice. It's not in any man's "DNA" that he has "to be the breadwinner." It's in his mind, and the mind of his wife. Sometimes things change. Is it unpleasant? Sure. Is it worth ruining your marriage for? No way.

I understand that it's probably very frustrating for any couple when the primary breadwinner loses their job. But it's not like Mr. Man decided to quit being a salesman in order to pursue his dream of being a rodeo clown. Wife Eleanor is also complaining that she has to work more hours now, and that Rick cooks dinner poorly. But is that really fair? If he's just sitting around the house all day with his feet up, I can see being annoyed about that. But that's different from being so furious about something that was outside of you and your husband's control that you can't even sleep in the same room anymore.

Their daughter Elizabeth is "picking up" the tension between mom and dad. While both husband and wife are angry at each other and feel "underappreciated", their daughter is "suffering silently," says ABC News. "If the kids sense that you are unhappy and you don't talk to them about it, they may incorrectly blame themselves," they say. Good advice. Maybe the Hemmerts will take it.

Source: ABC News

Morning News - iPhone Gets Feature Other Phones Already Have

UPDATE - Josef Fritzl Sentenced To Life In Psychiatric Institution

Kate Gosselin Dreamt Of A Husband and Children - Did You?

They Say - Older Fathers Spawn Dumber Kids

GMA Tweets Details On Levi Johnston And Son

4 Year Old Brings Pot To School, School Bans Backpacks

Oprah Gets It Right On Chris Brown

Kate Gosselin Dreamt Of A Husband and Children - Did You?

Brett Singer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Christianity Today has an excerpt from Kate Gosselin's book "Multiple Blessings":

"I'll say it again: Like most little girls, I had dreamed of the day when I would meet my husband, have children, and settle down to live a happily-ever-after kind of life."

Is that what "most little girls" dream of? Getting married and having kids? Am I living in some fantasy world where women have moved beyond the notion that this is what they should do? I realize that Kate isn't saying "all little girls" or even "women belong at home in the kitchen." And most of the rest of the excerpt (I didn't read it all) talks about Kate and her faith, which is a different topic. But isn't this notion that little girls dream of getting married (perhaps in a princess gown) and making babies kind of 1950's? Is "today's Christian woman" (the slogan on the website) the same as yesterday's Christian woman? What the heck, Kate?

Oh, and while you're up, could you get me a beer? Thanks babe.

Source: Christianity Today

TV Is Neither Good Nor Bad For Babies

Fun Stuff To Do When The Kids Get Older

Expose Puts Another Spin on Jon and Kate Plus 8

God's Army

Five Minute Time Out: Kate Gosselin

Census Woes: Defining Parenthood

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:03:00 GMT

It's census time again, folks, and you know what that means! Lots and lots of us trying to fit ourselves into a limited range of government-defined categories, whether on race, family structure, or goodness knows what else.

Let me preface this by saying that even though it's going to be a long time before my family is accurately captured by the census, I am actually more sympathetic to the challenges of the Census Bureau than many. I've had to use Census data a lot, and one of the main uses for it is to study changes over time. But if you keep changing the categories, you can't do that, at least not as well. Thus, when you add "mixed-race" as a category, and then you try to determine the shifting racial composition of an area, you can't really do it, because you don't know what the people identifying as mixed race previously identified as, etc. This doesn't mean I don't think the categories should change to reflect reality (and please someone, kill the whole "female-headed household" claptrap already!); the census should be about describing what is, not what someone thinks ought to be. But I understand why they are awfully feet-dragging about making big changes.

Such caveats aside, it does seem like some easy chances to get more useful data have been skipped this time through. Choosing to identify same-sex legally married couples as "unmarried partners" seems more lazy than anything—here's new information and we won't record it. It's not like this one would screw up the data anyway—you can always sort those couples separately using gender. Mombian, in a roundup of census issues for queer families, notes an important take-away: If you record yourself as "wife and wife" or "husband and husband" at least some hard-working researchers might be able to pull the info out later. So if it applies, by all means do it.

And then there's defining parenthood. What are you: biological parent, adoptive parent, or stepparent?

Those are your choices. How about non-bio parent, married to a bio parent, on the birth certificate so didn't have to adopt? (Could be a same-sex couple, could be a surrogate/donor kind of situation.) Or how about non-bio parent not able to adopt for some reason? (For example, laws against same-sex parents adoption or having more than two legal parents.) Will Cat Cora and her wife's data be thrown out if they both declare themselves bio parents?

If this applies to you, what will you put down?

Photo by takomabibelot.

More by this author:

These Seven Kids Have Had Twenty Stepfathers

JeanneSager — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:23:00 GMT

There's been plenty of talk about Linda Wolfe lately - the Indiana woman who holds the dubious record of twenty-three marriages, the most by a single woman (or rather a very non-single woman, get it? yeah, I crack myself up).

Here's the thing that hasn't been widely reported. Wolfe gave birth to seven kids over the course of her first three marriages - including her first, at sixteen, to a Baptist minister. Then she kept on getting married (and divorced). Which means those seven kids have had, at a minimum, twenty stepdads.

Yes, twenty.

And she wonders why they don't visit very often?

To be fair - one stepdad made a repeat performance. Wolfe married Jack Gourley three different times. So maybe there were just eighteen stepdads for the kids born of the third marriage? I'm not sure if that's any better - the kids had to get immune to it at some point.

I'm all for parents finding happiness after divorce, and I know plenty of stepfamilies who are much happier than they would have been if Mom and Dad had stayed husband and wife. In general, parents who are happy are better parents - even if that means breaking up the nuclear family.

But when does it become too much? When should your happiness be set aside in favor of the kids? Would it be so bad to just remain single until they're out of the house?

Image: Indianapolis Star

Little Girls Really Do Marry Their Daddies

They Say: Kids Might Not Doom a Marriage

Would you Cheat FOR the Kids?

Endangered Species Watch: Parents

JeanneSager — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:28:00 GMT

My fellow parents, I've got bad news: we're officially outnumbered.

The U.S. Census Bureau announced this week that those of us with kids under eighteen living at home is at the lowest number in a decade.

Until the mid-1980s, we were the largest sector of the American population, but the numbers are dipping as baby boomers' kids age out (not necessarily MOVING out) and fertility rates steadily decline. At the latest count, the census counted twenty-five million married couples living with kids, a decline of a million from 2008. It's the lowest the number has gone since 1999.

The numbers only account for married couples - so this doesn't actually mean there are fewer children today. What about all the single parents, the parents living together without a marriage certificate (either because they don't want one or because they're gay)? In fact, the survey specifically left out same sex couples, which is another governmental snub to the non-traditional family.

It did note that of sixty-seven million opposite-sex couples living together, sixty million were married. For a racial break-down, check out the New York Times piece here.

Do you feel like a minority? Or is our family-centered culture keeping the parent power alive?

Image: MentalHealth.org

Little Girls Really Do Marry Their Daddies

JeanneSager — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:01:00 GMT

Did your daughter ever inform you when she grows up she's going to marry her Daddy?

It turns out she probably will - or at the very least his doppelganger. Your son, by the way? He might well grow up to marry a woman is a heckuva lot like his Mom.

Recent research and surveys have come up with the same answers - an overwhelming number of people grow up and fall in love with someone who shares either facial characteristics or personalities with one of their parents. Some researchers say it has to do with familiarity, others because they are following set patterns in their lives (ie. a girl with a missing dad might marry an emotionally unavailable man).

Let's face it, kids inherit traits from their parents. So it only stands to reason that the traits they inherited from one parent would be the same kinds of traits that drew that particular parent to the other. If a girl is more like her mother, for example, wouldn't it make sense that she'd be attracted to a guy like her father?

Is one of your kids more like you? Do they have the kind of personality that would mesh with their other parent better? Who is your little one going to grow up to marry?

Image: Sydney Morning Herald

Twenty Reasons Not to Have a Baby

Amy Kuras — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:02:00 GMT

I can't possibly be the only person who made the decision to become a parent with my heart as much as my head, right? I mean maybe I run with a remarkably touchy-feely crowd, but most of us didn't lay out pros and cons and weigh all the options and so on; we just did, because it felt like it was time and because the idea of not having kids felt so much more awful than the consequences of having them.

But this list from the Guardian in London made me wonder, along with the baby budget post I posted last week. They cite "Twenty Reasons Not To Have a Baby," and yeah, they are good ones - it wrecks your sex life and makes your marriage strained for awhile, you never have money to spend on yourself and your wants, your carbon footprint balloons, and the lack of sleep is truly astounding.

But, but, really? Isn't part of being a grownup the idea that you actually are not the center of the universe, and so such things as the marked decrease in spending on dining out and food for yourself, the lack of "me time" and the lack of sleep sort of pale in comparison to the idea that you're helping to nuture another human being to their fullest potential and engage in a relationship like none other. If you're seriously the kind of person who could be swayed by a list like this, maybe you shouldn't be having a baby right now. There are really no logical reasons to become a parent, and about a million emotional ones to do so.

Was parenting a logical or emotional decision for you? Can it really be simple logic?

They Say: Kids Might Not Doom a Marriage

JeanneSager — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:02:00 GMT

Good news parents! A new study says the old studies that blamed our marital discord on our decision to have kids were one parent hooey, one part truth.

In other words - twenty-five separate studies that said the quality of marriage drops significantly after "baby makes three," were too vague. They lumped us all together.

The hooey? University of California at Berkeley researchers Philip and Carolyn Cowan, will soon make a presentation to the Council on Contemporary Families asserting that never before did researchers account for the parents who had an accidental pregnancy or who had disagreed before conception about whether both spouses actually wanted children.

Think about it. If one parent wants kids and the other doesn't, shouldn't it stand to reason that the arrival of said kid is going to make one spouse unhappy? And one unhappy spouse generally makes for an unhappy marriage. Say the Cowans, "couples who planned or equally welcomed the conception were likely to maintain or even increase their marital satisfaction after the child was born."

The problem with most studies are the broad, sweeping generalizations, and parenting studies are no different. A rock-solid marriage will likely struggle after the birth of a child - parents are sleepless, therefore parents are stressed. Throw in say a sick child or a job loss (we have a lot of those these days), and who knows what might happen. But is that the fault of having kids? No. It might be kid-related, but not the fault of the decision to procreate or adopt.

In my personal experience, I know parents who had the "oops pregnancy" and rushed to get married who have now found the marriage is on the rocks. I also know a couple who were divorced within two years of their son's birth because they had an oops pregnancy during marriage - and he wasn't crazy about it. But my colleagues here on the 'derby say they know couples who were fine . . . until they had the second child. That's when life went haywire and the divorce man cometh.

So what to do, what to do? In her New York Times op-ed on the subject, Stephanie Coontz refers to psychologist Joshua Coleman suggestion: the airline warning to put on your own oxygen mask before you place one on your child also holds true for marriage.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Image: ThePetitionSite

Kids: Bringers or Destroyers of Marital Happiness?

Kate Tuttle — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:01:00 GMT

So, does a child bring greater love, happiness, and intimacy to his or her parents, or is having children instead a marital challenge only the strongest can endure? According to several new studies (discussed in a recent New York Times health column) marital happiness declines when children are born, and stays low until they grow up and leave the house. Empty nesters, whom popular media and self-help books would teach us to pity, turn out to be among the happiest of all married people!

As with so many "groundbreaking" new research results, this one leaves me surprised anyone is surprised. Of course having children is backbreaking, infuriating, heartbreaking and absolutely incompatible with so many of the things that make life truly fun (spontaneous travel, sex and drinking, for instance!). On the other hand, surviving the early years of parenthood and reaching a state of satisfiction with one's adult children and spouse would seem like a slam dunk in the happiness department. The studies cited in the Times article dealt mostly with women's happiness, which they described as peaking when women hit their 60s and presumably had launched their children into the world (although with many of us now having kids into our early 40s, some of us will still be scouting colleges and paying tuition deep into our mid-sixties). Less studied was the effect of having children on men's happiness, but one study seemed to address the gender inequality so common in family life:

The arrival of children also puts a disproportionate burden of household duties on women, a common source of marital conflict. After children, housework increases three times as much for women as for men, according to studies from the Center on Population, Gender and Social Equality at the University of Maryland.

Didn't Ann Landers famously ask people to write in and say whether or not they were glad they had had kids, and wasn't the nation shocked when a full 70% of her respondants (10,000 people!) said that if they had it to do over, they would not have had kids? Having children is hard work, folks, and while it's no surprise they put enormous pressure on our marriages while they're young, it's really kind of heartening to hear that maybe, when all these grueling years are past us, we can enjoy true marital bliss in our empty nests (if our 401Ks rebound enough by then for us to afford them!).

More by this author:

Would You Toilet-Train Your Child On National TV?

Biracial Twins -- Is One "Black" and One "White"?

Death by Peanut: Epidemic or Urban Myth?

Is This Baby Obese? Aussie Mom Says No

Smackdown: I Don’t Care If My Daughter Has Sex as a Teen

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:01:00 GMT

Progressive, feminist, supposedly sex-positive parents are, of course, pretty well united against the absurd excesses of abstinence-only education and the religious no-sex-until-marriage frenzy.

What continues to amaze me though, is how little the positions they do take really vary from the underlying values of the abstinence worshippers.

As a parent, I keep running into a nudge, nudge, wink, wink understanding that even though we know it’s not good to base policy on it, of course really we all want to put off our daughters’ sexual awakenings as long as possible (or at least until they’re out of the house). There are jokes about chastity belts and not letting boyfriends come over until age 30. Every once and a while I feel the urge to get out a calendar and check the year.

I confess that I don’t get it. Not a smidgen. (And neither, for the record, does her father.) I don’t think this is just a matter of my having a defective freak-out gene. I really think that this attitude is not in our daughters’ best interests.

Concerned and thoughtful parents like my colleague Shannon, argue that it’s not really about the squick factor. They think it’s important for their daughters to put off the confusion and emotional drama of sexual relationships in order to get solid in forming their own identities, to make sure that they don’t get distracted by serving other’s needs first.

It sounds good at first, but I have to disagree. It’s not sex that hampers girls’ development, sense of self, or progress toward a career. It’s negative, hysterical, sexist attitudes about sex. (And the unintended pregnancies, abusive relationships, etc. that follow.)

The self-esteem argument is really the religious right’s argument minus the God and marriage specifics. It says this: “Sex is such a god-awful big deal that it will necessarily consume you when it happens and so you must wait for some future time at which you will miraculously be able to handle it.”

I don’t buy it. Sex is a powerful force, sure, but we have a fair amount of control over how much power we really give it. Making it something dangerous to your very identity gives it just as much power as making it central to your very identity.

I think this attitude is partly to blame for teens continuing to mistake sex for love. It also still places far too much emphasis on the importance of the “first time,” leaving girls (and women) feeling attached to first lovers who don’t deserve a third glance (or feeling like failures for choosing a less-than-perfect first lover).

In its usual gender-specific form, this attitude also perpetuates the idea that girls can’t really want sex for their own reasons, that they must be succumbing to the media hype and trying to please someone else and they will automatically lose their sense of self in a sexual relationship.

(Yes, clearly, far too many girls are getting pushed into sex they don’t want. But telling them they should never say yes does not help teach them when/how to say no.)

Of course I also have to wonder why, if people think sex is such an overwhelming cognitive thing to get started at, the conclusion they draw from that is that it’s a good idea to put it off until kids leave the nest and are distanced from familial support systems and previous friends, have easier access to alcohol, are first learning to live on their own, and are facing academic and/or job pressure. Or, for that matter, until they are 30, feeling their biological clocks and suffering pressure (internal and external) to find “the one” and settle down.

Obviously I wouldn’t argue that everyone ought to start having sex in high school. “Ready” is a super complex and individual cocktail (and takes two). Not everyone over 18 or 20 is ready. Not everyone younger isn’t. But high-school does have some potential advantages: financial security, parental backup if needed, and some extra time to be processing, daydreaming (or angstfully writing in a journal). That could all actually form a safer place to experiment than newly adrift in the “real world.”

Of course we all use our own experience as a touchstone. I starting “fooling around” at 15 and having sex at 17 with someone trustworthy I’d been dating for many months and who served, as good friends and partners do, to help me learn more about myself as well as how to have a relationship. I made out with a jerk or two in there first and lived to tell the tale with my self-esteem intact. In fact, those early experiences gave me a very clear and relatively safe tutorial in the difference between attraction and love, flirtation and friendship, passion and trust that has served me well.

If my daughter has the chance to do the same—armed with the facts to protect herself and the solid knowledge that her worth doesn’t depend on her choosing one way or the other—it won’t bother me in the slightest.

Photo by Made Underground, via Flickr.

The Other Side:

Smackdown: Sex Before Twenty? Hopefully Not My Kids

More by this author:

Michigan to Parents: Get Married, Or Pay Up

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

The state of Michigan says Gary Johnson owes them $3,800 for the birth of his daughter. Unless, of course, he wants to actually marry her mother already.

How exactly do they rationalize this? Gary Johnson is not a deadbeat dad. He lives with Rebecca Witt, his daughter's mother, and they plan to marry someday, but they were hoping to wait until they were in a better financial position to do so. Right now, though, they're pretty poor, as evidenced by the fact that Witt was on Medicaid at the time of the birth. That's the payment that the state is trying to recoup from Johnson.

Now, I could understand if they thought the couple wasn't getting married in order to hide Johnson's income and qualify for Medicaid if they wouldn't otherwise. (I might argue, still, that that's the state's own fault for defining families the way they do, but I'd understand it from a self-interest perspective.) However, if they're willing to let him off the hook entirely if he just gets hitched, then clearly it's not just a matter of needing the money. Besides, the report I read made no mention of anything less than honest on the part of the couple.

It appears that this is one of those instances where the state has just decided it will help society to force people into legal marriage. For more examples, along with an explanation of why this is a dumb way to go about things, check out the splendidly named report Let them Eat Wedding Rings.

As for me, I might disagree with Witt about what constitutes a "really nice" wedding or how important it is, but I also understand wanting to make it special and not just exchange Cracker Jack rings in front of a judge. In fact, I think it comes down to this: Witt and Johnson appear to be (1) caring for their kid together (2) taking marriage seriously and (3) being prudent and trying to plan ahead rather than putting an expensive wedding on a credit card or something. Isn't that the sort of behavior Michigan ought to be supporting?

Image from Liam's Pictures from Old Books.

More by this author:

OK to Marry Off 10-Year-Olds -- Hurry, Get the Rice!

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:02:00 GMT

So good news for 10-year-olds who were just wishin' and hopin' and prayin' to be married off to a grizzled 50-year-old cousin -- a senior Saudi cleric declared it's just A-OK!

Who said there was no happily ever after?

According to the newspaper story, the cleric said anyone who stands in the 10-year-olds' way is doing the girls an "injustice." The ruling comes after a divorce petition by the mom of an 8-year-old was overturned. The girl was forced to marry a 50-year-old.

Says the cleric, "A female who is 10 or 12 is marriageable and those who think she's too young are wrong and are being unfair to her."

I agree. Isn't that what every 10-year-old dreams about? To be married off to a cousin for a hefty dowry or to prevent her from actually finding the love of her life?

This seems so much easier.

I can't wait till we have a country here full of electric cars and no longer have to look with a mostly blind eye to this type of shit because whoa there, hold on a second, we don't want to do anything that might stop the flow of precious oil. Anything like, you know, calling crap like this a human rights disgrace. (Or who knows, maybe that will just make it worse for the girls, if the world, no longer needing anything, turned away completely from countries with crazy customs.)

Is there a fix for this type of custom, or is that even anyone else's place?

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

JeanneSager — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:54:00 GMT

Since Californians who voted for Prop 8 late last year to strike down the rights of gays to marry said they were doing it for the children, there's a new movement afoot to keep kids safe:

Prohibit divorces. All of them. Keep heterosexual couples from breaking the bonds of holy matrimony.

After all - the sanctity of marriage and the children were at the heart of Prop 8, right?

A petition over at the Petition Site already has seven thousand some signatures, folks who signed their names to a letter proposing that divorce be stricken from the books to "keep the interests of children and families intact."

The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

Starting to sound familiar? Take out the word "divorce" and slip in "gay marriage."

Yup, they stole the whole thing from the Prop 8 folks over at ProtectMarriage.com; you know, the folks who warned Californians that "schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners." (sic)

I'd love to say they won't be able to weasel out of their own words, but as the masters of twisting things to send people running scared of "the gay," I'm betting the evangelicals will have a field day with this one too. Only this time, the joke truly is on them.

Image: ThePetitionSite

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

They Say: Shunning Gay Kids Bad for Their Health

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

Jon Stewart Slam Dunks the Argument for Gay Marriage

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:42:00 GMT

There are few things more satisfying than watching someone make a clear ethical and logical argument for something you believe in, particularly when that argument is being broadcast to living rooms around America--and is being made to Mike Huckabee.

Just one of the many reasons this video made me love Jon Stewart even more than I thought possible: "I would argue," he says, "that a loving gay family with a financially secure background beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline anyday." That is really just the tip of the iceberg of his eloquence.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Photo: sueschaub.com