It is not everyone’s idea of an occasion to celebrate but a publisher named Alyson Books has brought out a twentieth anniversary edition of the famous child’s primer on same-sex relationships: Heather Has Two Mommies.

In full colour! gasps New Republic reviewer Ellen Handler Spitz delightedly. She observes:

This deceptively simple percept marks a two-decades-long saga of social change: when Heather first saw the light of day, it had been rejected by over fifty publishers, was eventually printed through donations, and the four thousand dollars that were raised proved insufficient to produce a coloured picture book.

Even now, though, this “passionate and brave story” of two women who “fall in love and decide to bring a child into the world and raise her together” has been produced minus eight “crucial” pages -- by an LGBT publisher, no less -- as was the tenth anniversary edition. Author, Leslea Newman, cut them when she was told they were a “deterrent” to introducing the book into classrooms.

The pages deal with “the friendship of two women, Kate and Jane—their growing love for one another, the joining of their lives, their desire for a child, the pregnancy of Jane, and the birth of little Heather.” These pages are critical, says the reviewer, to explain the shock and dismay of Heather when she realises at school, “I don’t have a daddy.”

No worries. The politically correct teacher is there to reassure the little girl that all families are different and every family is, in that wonderfully inclusive term, “special”. In her introduction Ms Handler Spitz, Honors College Professor at the University of Maryland, takes this idea as her theme:

Twenty-first century American families come in a dazzling array of sizes, shapes, colors, and gender-slash-generational patterns. This reality deserves to be reflected in the literature children read. Until fairly recently, however, children’s books have privileged a paradigm of homogeneity and heterosexuality.

She takes the opportunity to talk about two other books in this genre: And Tango Makes Three -- a “true story” about two supposedly homosexual penguins and their chick, published by Simon and Schuster - and In My Mother’s House, published last year by Puffin, which makes a point of portraying “homophobia”. If you don’t know these books the review will give you an idea of what the major publishers, and schools, are now prepared to take on.

When will young adults get the message that living together does not increase their chances of a lasting marriage? New analysis of US national data shows that, on average, cohabitation actually decreases by 6 percentage points the likelihood of marriage lasting 10 years or more.

Despite earlier research showing this same pattern, more and more young adults delay marriage and cohabit: nearly two out of three women in their late 30s have done so, according to this study of 2002 data by the National Centre for Health Statistics.

However, the effects vary by education:

Half of couples who cohabit marry within three years, the study found. If both partners are college graduates, the chances improve that they will marry and that their marriage will last at least 10 years.

“The figures suggest to me that cohabitation is still a pathway to marriage for many college graduates, while it may be an end in itself for many less educated women,” said Kelly A. Musick, a professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell.

This means, of course, that an increasing number of children are born to unmarried parents who are likely to stay that way, often with the parents living apart. Black children in the US are particularly at risk in this respect: their parents are less likely to get married (only 39 per cent of black women have married by age 44) and even if they do, the likelihood of their remaining married for 10 years of more is only 50 per cent.

Interesting intergenerational effect of marital instability noted:

Women who were not living with both of their biological or adoptive parents at 14 were less likely to be married and more likely to be cohabiting than those who grew up with both parents.

Also interesting the messages in headlines used for different reports -- as noted by the folks at Smartmarriages.com

NY Times: Living Together First Doesn¹t Make Marriage Last, Study Finds

USA Today: Report: Cohabiting has little effect on couples' success in marriage

MSNBC: Living together does lead to marriage 2 in 3 who cohabit tie the knot within 5 years, CDC says

Reuters: Marriages last longer than living together?

ABC NEWS: Moving In Together Before Wedding Can Decrease Chances of Having a Lasting Marriage, Study Says; CDC Survey Says Cohabitation Isn't Always a Good Thing, Couples Say It's All About Love

 

Art imitates life and research imitates common sense, it seems. A new study has found that the more young people watch television, the poorer their relationships with both their friends and parents.

Evidently, some parents worry that their kids might feel excluded if they were not watching the same programmes as their friends. But lead researcher Dr Rose Richards of the University of Otago, New Zealand, says that limiting TV viewing “may result in stronger relationships between young people, their friends and their parents."

The study involved 3043 New Zealand adolescents aged 14 to 15 in 2004. The teens completed a confidential questionnaire about their free-time habits, as well as an assessment of their attachment to parents and peers.

The researchers also assessed interview responses from 976 members of the Dunedin study who were 15 years old between 1987 and 1988.

Strong relationships with parents and friends were important for healthy development from teenage years into adulthood, Dr Richards said.

OK, we knew that, and we also knew that you cannot build strong relationships with people if you never spend face-to-face time with them. So why is this pair of studies significant?

Because it shows that, if the advent of laptops and cellphones in teenagers lives has not worsened the effect of media on family relations, neither has it improved them. Even if the kids claim they can talk to you and update their Facebook pages at the same time, the relationship is likely to suffer:

The studies were conducted 16 years apart and show that, although the nature of screen-based entertainment has changed, the association with family relationships appears to be the same.

Spain may be floundering economically and its birth rate one of the lowest in Europe, but that has not stopped its government passing a law to eliminate more unplanned and imperfect babies before birth.

Last week the Senate approved a sweeping new law that, in the name of women’s rights, allows abortion without restrictions up to 14 weeks and gives 16- and 17-year-olds the right to have abortions without parental consent, AP reports. Abortions are also allowed in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy if the fetus has a serious or incurable disease.

The Socialist-led government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero went ahead with this liberalisation in spite of huge rallies against it, the opposition of the Catholic Church, and polls that showed the nation was split down the middle over the issue.

But after adding liberal abortion to quick divorce and gay rights in the school curriculum, Zapatero probably feels he and Spain are now fully paid up members of the European secularist club.

 

Good news about young adults in the United States: research shows that their top priority is being a good parent. In the latest Pew Report on the Millennials (18- to 29-year-olds) 52 per cent of them chose that over owning a home (20 per cent), having a high-paying career (15 per cent) and becoming famous (1 per cent) as the most important thing in their lives.

Unfortunately, some of the aspiring parents put it far ahead of having a successful marriage (only 30 per cent) -- not to mention living a very religious life (15 per cent). How do they think they can be good parents without a good marriage?

One explanation for their naivety is this: “Only about six-in-ten were raised by both parents -- a smaller share than was the case with older generations,” says the report. And they are not rushing to say “I do”:

Just one-in-five Millennials (21%) are married now, half the share of their parents' generation at the same stage of life. About a third (34%) are parents, according to the Pew Research survey. We estimate that, in 2006, more than a third of 18 to 29 year old women who gave birth were unmarried. This is a far higher share than was the case in earlier generations.

Last week Pew reported that this generation are-- to no-one’s surprise -- “the least overtly religious American generation in modern times.”

One-in-four are unaffiliated with any religion, far more than the share of older adults when they were ages 18 to 29. Yet not belonging does not necessarily mean not believing. Millennials pray about as often as their elders did in their own youth.

[Their] beliefs about life after death and the existence of heaven, hell and miracles closely resemble the beliefs of older people today. Though young adults pray less often than their elders do today, the number of young adults who say they pray every day rivals the portion of young people who said the same in prior decades.

By and large Pew finds these young people “confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change”.

They embrace multiple modes of self-expression. Three-quarters have created a profile on a social networking site. One-in-five have posted a video of themselves online. Nearly four-in-ten have a tattoo (and for most who do, one is not enough: about half of those with tattoos have two to five and 18% have six or more). Nearly one-in-four have a piercing in some place other than an earlobe -- about six times the share of older adults who've done this. But their look-at-me tendencies are not without limits. Most Millennials have placed privacy boundaries on their social media profiles. And 70% say their tattoos are hidden beneath clothing.

Here’s a little mystery: fully 37 per cent of them are unemployed or out of the workforce (around 40 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds were in college in 2008) but 90 per cent of them say they have enough money and expect to meet their financial goals.

They get along well with their parents. Actually, they need to, because one in eight have boomeranged back to their parents roof during the recession. (Part of the secret of having enough money, no doubt.) But they seem to really value family:

They respect their elders. A majority say that the older generation is superior to the younger generation when it comes to moral values and work ethic. Also, more than six-in-ten say that families have a responsibility to have an elderly parent come live with them if that parent wants to. By contrast, fewer than four-in-ten adults ages 60 and older agree that this is a family responsibility.

There are other interesting observations about the Millennials in the latest report. What is encouraging is that they seem less ideological than elders and betters and more open to new ideas -- some of which may be old, but new to them.

 

A lawsuit in Pennsylvania over a school district’s remote monitoring of student laptops shows there is a price to pay for digital learning -- and not just the initial price of a MacBook. There are ongoing maintenance and theft costs, and, as this case shows, there can be costs in trust and community relations. And lawyers.

The Lower Merion School District has a policy of providing all students with laptop computers and has bought 2,620 of them over the last two years at a cost of $1000 each. They come with webcams installed, and the district’s technology department has used tracking software in the webcams to locate 42 laptops reported lost or stolen during the current school year.

Couldn’t they see this is an invasion of privacy, even if the person was guilty of theft? Did they really not think of what images might be captured in students’ homes or other locations, and how damaging that could be to the dignity of individuals and trust between them and the school?

The lawsuit against Lower Merion was instigated by the complaint of 15-year-old Blake Robbins, a student at the district’s Harriton School, that the school spied on him at home. His family claims that he was confronted by an assistant principal, Lindy Matsko, about using drugs when, his lawyers assert, he was eating candies.

Mrs Matsko, who has two 15-year-old sons, has hotly denied in court this week that she ever monitored a student via a laptop webcam or ever authorised such a thing. Robbins says that “someone accessed my webcam and provided Ms Matsko with a screenshot and a webcam picture of me alone in my bedroom.”

His sister told a radio station that she and all her girlfriends at Harriton were “very scared, because we don’t check to see if the lid [of the laptop] is closed when we’re changing. We take them in the bathroom when we’re in the shower to listen to music.”

What do you expect when you give a kid a free laptop?

The complaint has been filed in federal court and is no doubt being carefully watched, not only by schools. Aside from privacy issues it raises a number of questions -- not least about using expensive technology with students and then trying to limit the costs by spying on suspects. Is it really worth treating all your students as potential offenders in order to train them in one learning method -- assuming that it is even effective?

For all that I have done, I am so sorry.... I have a lot to atone for... I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.

Tiger Woods' "confession" is a full and frank admission of personal responsibility for doing wrong (not just "unacceptable" things) and a clear statement of his determination to make up and do better. As such it is a pretty impressive apology, one that beats most of what we have heard lately from public figures who have betrayed their wives and families. So what, if it was scripted for him -- he has made it his own.

This apology is a model; it covers all the bases -- like, exactly how it happened:

I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them. 

And he recognises that he needs a belief system and to look after his spiritual life:

I am the one who needs to change. I owe it to my family to become a better person... Part of following this path for me is Buddhism... It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint... In therapy, I've learned the importance of looking at my spiritual life and keeping in balance with my professional life. I need to regain my balance and be centered so I can save the things that are most important to me -- my marriage and my children. 

The golfing star has set a standard not only for himself to live up to, but for all those who are sure to follow him into the rough. The complete apology follows.

 

TIGER WOODS: Good morning, and thank you for joining me. Many of you in this room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me or you've worked with me or you've supported me.

Now every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each of you, simply and directly, I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.

I know people want to find out how I could be so selfish and so foolish. People want to know how I could have done these things to my wife, Elin, and to my children. And while I have always tried to be a private person, there are some things I want to say.

Elin and I have started the process of discussing the damage caused by my behavior. As Elin pointed out to me, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words; it will come from my behavior over time. We have a lot to discuss; however, what we say to each other will remain between the two of us.

I am also aware of the pain my behavior has caused to those of you in this room. I have let you down, and I have let down my fans. For many of you, especially my friends, my behavior has been a personal disappointment. To those of you who work for me, I have let you down personally and professionally. My behavior has caused considerable worry to my business partners.

To everyone involved in my foundation, including my staff, board of directors, sponsors and most importantly, the young students we reach, our work is more important than ever. Thirteen years ago, my dad and I envisioned helping young people achieve their dreams through education. This work remains unchanged and will continue to grow. From the Learning Center students in Southern California to the Earl Woods scholars in Washington, D.C., millions of kids have changed their lives, and I am dedicated to making sure that continues.

But still, I know I have bitterly disappointed all of you. I have made you question who I am and how I could have done the things I did. I am embarrassed that I have put you in this position.

For all that I have done, I am so sorry.

I have a lot to atone for, but there is one issue I really want to discuss. Some people have speculated that Elin somehow hurt or attacked me on Thanksgiving night. It angers me that people would fabricate a story like that. Elin never hit me that night or any other night. There has never been an episode of domestic violence in our marriage, ever. Elin has shown enormous grace and poise throughout this ordeal. Elin deserves praise, not blame.

The issue involved here was my repeated irresponsible behavior. I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.

I stopped living by the core values that I was taught to believe in. I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have to go far to find them.

I was wrong. I was foolish. I don't get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me. I brought this shame on myself. I hurt my wife, my kids, my mother, my wife's family, my friends, my foundation and kids all around the world who admired me.

I've had a lot of time to think about what I've done. My failures have made me look at myself in a way I never wanted to before. It's now up to me to make amends and that starts by never repeating the mistakes I've made. It's up to me to start living a life of integrity.

I once heard, and I believe it's true, it's not what you achieve in life that matters; it's what you overcome. Achievements on the golf course are only part of setting an example. Character and decency are what really count.

Parents used to point to me as a role model for their kids. I owe all those families a special apology. I want to say to them that I am truly sorry.

It's hard to admit that I need help, but I do. For 45 days from the end of December to early February, I was in inpatient therapy receiving guidance for the issues I'm facing. I have a long way to go. But I've taken my first steps in the right direction.

As I proceed, I understand people have questions. I understand the press wants to ask me for the details and the times I was unfaithful. I understand people want to know whether Elin and I will remain together. Please know that as far as I'm concerned, every one of these questions and answers is a matter between Elin and me. These are issues between a husband and a wife.

Some people have made up things that never happened. They said I used performance-enhancing drugs. This is completely and utterly false. Some have written things about my family. Despite the damage I have done, I still believe it is right to shield my family from the public spotlight. They did not do these things; I did.

I have always tried to maintain a private space for my wife and children. They have been kept separate from my sponsors, my commercial endorsements. When my children were born, we only released photographs so that the paparazzi could not chase them. However, my behavior doesn't make it right for the media to follow my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter to school and report the school's location. They staked out my wife and they pursued my mom. Whatever my wrongdoings, for the sake of my family, please leave my wife and kids alone.

I recognize I have brought this on myself, and I know above all I am the one who needs to change. I owe it to my family to become a better person. I owe it to those closest to me to become a better man. That's where my focus will be.

I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously, I lost track of what I was taught.

As I move forward, I will continue to receive help because I've learned that's how people really do change. Starting tomorrow, I will leave for more treatment and more therapy. I would like to thank my friends at Accenture and the players in the field this week for understanding why I'm making these remarks today.

In therapy, I've learned the importance of looking at my spiritual life and keeping in balance with my professional life. I need to regain my balance and be centered so I can save the things that are most important to me -- my marriage and my children.

That also means relying on others for help. I've learned to seek support from my peers in therapy, and I hope someday to return that support to others who are seeking help. I do plan to return to golf one day, I just don't know when that day will be.

I don't rule out that it will be this year. When I do return, I need to make my behavior more respectful of the game. In recent weeks, I have received many thousands of e-mails, letters and phone calls from people expressing good wishes. To everyone who has reached out to me and my family, thank you. Your encouragement means the world to Elin and me.

I want to thank the PGA Tour, Commissioner Finchem and the players for their patience and understanding while I work on my private life. I look forward to seeing my fellow players on the course.

Finally, there are many people in this room, and there are many people at home who believed in me. Today, I want to ask for your help. I ask you to find room in your heart to one day believe in me again.

Thank you.

From tigerwoods.com 

Here’s a nice change. Usually it is Christian families causing a sensation by having extra large families (Remember the Duggar family of Arkansas? More about them later.) But this story in the New York Times is about a Hasidic Jewish woman who died last month aged 93 leaving probably 2000 living descendants.

Hungarian-born Yitta Schwartz was a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, whose couples have nine children on average, but even by those standards her fertility was remarkable. She bore 18 children in total, two of whom died when she and her husband Joseph and their first six children were held in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II.

In 1953 Yitta and Joseph emigrated to the United States with 11 children and proceeded to have five more. One died during a summer camp aged 8. Their 15 surviving children have had more than 200 children -- and so the number of their descendants has grown exponentially. Joseph died 34 years ago. But this is how things were earlier on:

While her husband sold furniture on Lee Avenue, Williamsburg’s commercial spine, Mrs. Schwartz, who never learned English well, tended the family. She sewed her daughters’ jumpers with mother-of-pearl buttons and splurged for pink-and-white blouses — 20 for 99 cents each — at that late lamented discount emporium on Union Square, S. Klein.

With so many children, Mrs. Schwartz had to make six loaves of challah for every Sabbath, using 12 pounds of dough — in later years, she was aided by Kitchenaid or Hobart appliances. (Mrs. Mayer said her mother had weaknesses for modern conveniences, and for elegant head scarves.) For her children’s weddings, Mrs. Schwartz starched the tablecloths and baked the chocolate babkas and napoleons.

Mrs Schwartz was not keen on being photographed. “Just keep me in your heart,” she used to say. “If you leave a child or grandchild, you live forever.”

It seems very likely, indeed, that there will be descendants of that couple for a long time to come. Especially if they stick to their faith in the biblical command: “You should not forget what you saw and heard at Mount Sinai and tell it to your grandchildren.”

To return to Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar: the Christian couple had their nineteenth child, a very premature little girl they have named Josie, at the end of January. She is still in intensive care. People magazine ran a cover story titled, “Duggars under fire: How many kids are too many?” The question is inevitable given the family’s media profile:

“Having a mega-family turned the devoutly Christian couple into reality sensations: Their TLCshow 19 Kids and Counting... is in its 3rd season.... But for every fan of the show - the TLCspecial covering Josie's birth garnered more than 3 million viewers - there have been detractors in online chat rooms, on parenting Web sites and within the medical community, who have been critical each time Michelle has announced a new pregnancy on average every 18 months....”

The couple have agreed to make their fertility, their faith, their parenting capacity, their ability to provide, very public issues. It almost seems they have made it into a numbers game themselves. I think this is regrettable because it distances them from real “reality” and perhaps from ordinary couples who might otherwise be encouraged by their generosity and optimism. The media would have hounded them anyway, I suppose, but inviting television into the home seems over the top.

Lucky for Yitta Schwartz that she brought up her family before the era of reality TV, I say. What do others think?

It was worth bringing an expert halfway round the world to speak on the subject so perhaps it is worth noting here that spending time with your children is more important than giving them the chance to become a musical prodigy or an Olympic medallist.

“Simple quality time” is what Ottawa psychology professor Catherine Lee was talking about at a parenting conference in Brisbane last week.

"Sometimes they might just want to play Lego with you, or throw a ball around or do something silly and that can be just as important, if not more important, as the lessons and the clubs and the activity.

"If we don't have the basics, like enough sleep, if they're not spending time on those simple meals together, then I think we're missing something.

"We know what kids need. Kids need one-on-one with parents and they also need down-time, they need unstructured time and they need to be able to deal with boredom.

"If you ask kids to think about a happy Christmas, they usually won't think about what they were given at that Christmas, it will be what they were doing and it's the time that is the important thing."

Isn’t it great that academics are rediscovering the basics of a happy family life?

Prof Lee also highlighted the changing role of fathers -- from breadwinners and soccer mates to parents more intimately involved with their children. She says mums should leave dads to work out their style for themselves. And she believes researchers need to keep an eye on this development.

Well, it can’t do any harm and the results might even be quite interesting. We can certainly do with more recognition of the role of fathers and more insights into what children miss out on when they are not there.

“Safe abortion” has always been a deceitful term, since it is lethal for the unborn child. It is used as propaganda to push for legalisation of abortion in developing countries, on the ground that since abortions are happening anyway they ought to be brought within the health system and made safe for the mother. It thus becomes part of a high-minded campaign for “safe motherhood”. But evidence is coming to light that safe childbirth owes nothing to legalised abortion.

In Chile, for example, maternal mortality declined over the last century regardless of whether abortion was legal or illegal, reports C-FAM. Between 1960 and 2000 the rate dropped from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births to 18.7 deaths even though Chile tightened its restrictions on abortion in the late 1980s.

Dr Elard Koch, a biomedical researcher at the University of Chile, puts the dramatic fall down to a “breakthrough” in the public health system and primary care since 1960 (before abortion was liberalised) and a more educated population. Many primary health centres were built where women could have medical checks during pregnancy and access to skilled birth attendants.

Statistics released the World Health Organization (WHO) support such conclusions. In South America, according to WHO, Chile boasts of the lowest rate of maternal mortality, whereas Guyana, which significantly liberalized its laws in the mid-1990s citing concern over maternal deaths, has the highest.

This news follows a report from the World Economic Forum in December which showed that countries with restrictive abortion laws are often the leaders in reducing maternal mortality. Ireland, which is under pressure to change its Constitutional protection of the unborn child, leads the world in maternal health performance, with 1 death for every 100,000 live births. Poland, which has tightened its abortion law, ranks 27 on the WEF list with 8 deaths per 100,000. In the United States, where there are virtually no restrictions on abortion, the ratio is 17 deaths per 100,000. C-FAM cites other examples from its analysis of the WEF report which prove the point.

The point being, that pregnancy care, skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care should be the focus of safe motherhood campaigns, not legal abortion. It is also obvious that development assistance that really delivers primary health care and education will provide the basic conditions for maternal health. It might be quicker to kill babies, but it won’t make the odds of a safe delivery better for mothers in general.