Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The city of Washington, D.C. has announced a $1 million initiative to combat father absence. Yet the initiative's overseer, Keith Cross, says that the program will not encourage couples to get or stay married: "We're going to focus on co-parenting...The elimination of father-absence is what we're focused on."
Good luck eliminating father absence without mentioning marriage. How can people pretend that marriage is only tangential to father absence? Research shows that married fathers are much more likely to be involved with their children than unmarried dads. So does common sense. It's like a anti-poverty program that doesn't deal with employment, as in: The Mayor's office emphasized that the initiative will not encourage individuals to get or keep jobs. "We're going to focus on income issues. The elimination of poverty is what we're focused on." Posted by Tom Sylvester, 5/29/02 | Link.
An article in today's New York Times reports on a typical day at family court -- overtaxed judges and attorneys, overcrowded hearing rooms and waiting areas, and animosity spilling out of every corner: "The system was devised before the days of crack and the divorce epidemic. Add to that a more litigious society, a greater willingness to report abuse and no compunction about airing arguments in the post-Jerry-Springer world, and you have the modern Family Court."
Family courts were devised decades ago to represent and advocate for minors who were vulnerable at the hands of their families -- children who had been abused, abandoned, or otherwise victimized by the very people who were supposed to protect them. Then came the divorce revolution, and family courts were handed a whole new mission: to clean up the messes left by family dissolution and divorce. Adults who decide they can no longer live together, and cannot agree on how to share money and time for their children, now bring their problems before the state and ask judges and attorneys -- strangers -- to make these decisions for them.
When families no longer take responsibility for their private matters, those private matters become public business. The divorce revolution may have brought more freedom for adults, but mostly freedom of an illusory kind. What kind of freedom is it when you must stand before a judge and share the details of your love life, your financial statements, and more? When you risk losing the most important thing in your life, your child, unless you prove to a judge's satisfaction that you love the child? Posted by Elizabeth Marquardt, 5/28/02 | Link.
A number of family researchers have suggested that child well being in stepfamilies is typically no better than, and, according to some measurements, worse than, child well being in mother-headed households. But a new study (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) of African American families with adolescent daughters in three high-poverty neighborhoods in Chicago finds that daughters in married-couple (not cohabiting) stepfamilies are less likely to have had sexual intercourse, and are less likely to become pregnant, than daughters in mother-headed homes. Some scholars who have reported little or no benefit to children in what they call "stepfamilies" have in fact lumped together, for purposes of analysis, mothers who marry and those who are cohabiting with boyfriends. The significance of this study is that is that it focuses specifically on the consequences of marriage, and finds that "the introduction of a marital union to a single-mother household might increase family economic and social stability, support, and household maintenance." Thanks to Bill Doherty of the University of Minnesota for bringing this information and analysis to the attention of those who subscribe to the Smart Marriage e-letter. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 5/23/02 | Link.
Scott Coltrane of the University of California, in his recent presidential address (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) to the Pacifica Sociological Association, criticizes the fatherhood and marriage movements which in recent years "have gained widespread support." In Coltrane's view, the scholars connected to these movements are basically in the service of something called the "Christian Right," which in turn is busily imposing "narrow religious agendas" and "nostalgic exclusionary family policies." Coltrane also argues that he and his colleagues at the Council on Contemporary Families are true scientists who appreciate "complexity," whereas scholars associated with the the fatherhood and marriage movements know only "simplistic interpretations" stemming from "pseudoscience." Oh, dear. I welcome serious criticism, but I found very little complexity, and nothing substantively challenging, in Coltrane's essay. Orlando Patterson's moving tribute to David Riesman (who was a teacher of mine) in the May 19 New York Times was titled "The Last Sociologist." Coltrane's method of arguing, in which academic content loses out almost completely to windy political pontification and name-calling, makes me fear that Patterson is right. The decline of this once-great discipline continues. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 5/21/02| Link.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation will release the 2002 KIDS COUNT Data Book on May 23. This new state-by-state study profiles the well-being of America's children. It ranks states on 10 key measures and also provides data on the economic conditions of families, child health, and education. To request a free copy of the Data Book, call the Foundation's publications line at 410.223.2890 or visit their website at www.aecf.org/publications. Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/21/02 | Link.
Despite the usual, irritating name-calling -- `mullahs of marriage', `right-wing' everything -- The Nation has an interesting assessment of the marriage movement: ``Over the past ten years, a `marriage movement' has evolved; no longer the subject of widespread liberal disdain, marriage advocates dominated the 1996 welfare reform debate and are now key players in the debate over welfare reauthorization...New policy initiatives developed into legislation; the media changed its tune. The `marriage movement' had completed its circle of influence. President Bush's current marriage initiative is not an aberration; it is the natural extension of this work." From an article in TheNation.com, May 17, 2002. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 05/17/02 | Link.
``While politicians squabble over whether welfare recipients should be encouraged to marry, marriage itself is enjoying something of a cultural comeback. No one is calling for the return to 1950s style marriage, but there is a growing sense that marriage might be worth saving after all." From David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's op-ed in the Boston Globe, May 12, 2002. Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/13/02 | Link.
A rejoinder to David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's article (above) from two members of the Council on Contemporary Families: ``One of the objectives of federal welfare legislation passed in 1996 was ''to end dependence by promoting marriage.'' Now, with this legislation coming up for reauthorization, President Bush has called for spending up to $300 million a year to promote marriage among poor people. Should the government promote marriage? And, if so, how can our tax dollars be spent effectively?" From Philip Cowan and Carolyn Pape Cowan's op-ed in the Boston Globe, May 12, 2002. Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/13/02 | Link.
Three newspapers on ``the marriage movement" ``The [marriage] movement is a loose, grassroots coalition that seeks to reduce the divorce rate and promote marriage as the best arrangement for the raising of children. It is on a roll, gaining clout across the country." From Karen Peterson's article in USA Today, March 25, 2002. ``In the United States, unlike here, the idea of marriage renewal has grown into a full-scale movement." From Mark Abley's article in The (Montreal) Gazette, March 24, 2002. ``Even those who don't agree on the cause agree on the results: children who grow up with only one parent are more likely to be poor, drop out of school, have emotional problems and commit crimes. These trends have precipitated a movement -- a marriage movement -- that has gained adherents in the state house and the White House" From Patricia Cohen's book review in The New York Times, March 24, 2002. Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/13/02| Link. |
