domestic partnership

Sentences to Ponder During the Holiday Season

Sun, 2010-12-05 14:31

Photo by Flickr user slgckgc. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photo by Flickr user slgckgc. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Kaili Joy Gray of Daily Kos, who's husband died this year, says

It’s mind-numbing how often a widow is forced to prove her husband is dead.

Source: Daily Kos

The rest of her post sadly and sweetly make real and personal for me the history and significance of Chanukah, which was familiar to my family's tradition only as another story in the Old Testament.

Are Marriage Rates At an All-Time Low, or Just Lower Than They've Been in More Than a Century?

Thu, 2010-09-30 22:40

Dating Pools
Source: XKCD. Click for larger image.

So here’s an intriguing lead paragraph from Erik Eckholm of The New York Times (emphasis mine)

The United States crossed an important marital threshold in 2009, with the number of young adults who have never married surpassing, for the first time in more than a century, the number who were married.

He said it here.

So… since I happen to know the Census Bureau’s been tracking married vs. single young people since at least 1860 I’m curious what circumstances were like when previous records were set more than a century ago.

Any American History or Gender Studies whizzes who read this should feel free to chime in.

There’s a possibility that Eckholm’s “more than a century” remark was more of a rhetorical flourish than a comparable fact. The Population Reference Bureau report he cites merely says

Among the total population ages 18 and older, the proportion married dropped from 57 percent in 2000 to 52 percent in 2009. This is the lowest percentage recorded since information on marital status was first collected by the U.S. Census Bureau more than 100 years ago.

Oh well. While was unable to quickly search marriage rates from the 19th Century I did find a chart for the 20th Century on the website Coffee Grounds that shows marriage rates weren’t much higher at the bottom of the Great Depression.

(This is going even deeper in apples-and-oranges territory but the same chart shows that marriage rates dropped fairly precipitously in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but that could be explained by the incredible… and also historically anomalous… spike in marriages, and especially younger marriages, between roughly 1945 and 1950. With everyone already married it might have taken years to replenish the supply of eligible marriage partners.)

One possibility for the recent decline, which seems to have only been accelerated by the recent economic crisis, might paradoxically be the appropriation of marriage as a political symbol of intolerance and conservatism.

Or it could have something to do with commercialization of weddings and the corresponding increase in cost to do it “right.” Back in 2007 the average price was trending rapidly towards $30,000! (Hint: That would be roughly equivalent to the average college student-load debt.)

Note: there’s no evidence that all long-term heterosexual domestic partnerships is in decline, just the percentage where the couples are married. Considering that roughly half of all marriages end before the average loan for a $30,000 wedding would be paid off that’s probably not actually a bad thing.

After that big digression, though, I’m still curious about my original question: were marriage rates more than a century ago ever lower than they are today?

Who's the Real Enemy of Full Frontal Fathering?

Wed, 2010-03-03 13:25

Hugo Schwyzer, a proud father and a committed feminist calls out a particularly vicious principle of antifeminism: that men are actually weak, sniveling, useless, worthless bags of dirt for whom, as Hugo nicely summarizes it, “male responsibility is contingent on female vulnerability.”

In the strange math of social conservatives, it’s all a zero-sum game: the greater the freedom of women to divorce, exercise reproductive sovereignty, and earn money outside the home, the less self-worth their male partners will invariably feel.

... Only when women defer to men, submit to men, allow men to take the proverbial reins — only then will men “feel” valued, feel needed. According to this tired bit of wisdom, men get confused and alienated when they are denied the opportunity to shoehorn themselves into a traditional masculine role. The notion that gender identity is a continuum rather than a dichotomy, the notion that men and women can possess different plumbing but the same skill set — all this is too much for the be-penised to grasp. Fathers have abandoned their families, the lie goes, because they no longer feel needed or valued as men.

Read the quote in context here.

Sweet mother of pearl! And these are the folks who say feminists hate men!

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a two way street. The whole “Second Shift” phenomena suggests that many women, no matter how productive their work or how high their financial contribution, feel valued or needed as women only to the extent they also cook or clean or nurture when they “finally” get home. We all need to deal with that, but at the moment I want to deal with this.

Listen gang, if men are abandoning their families because they’re feeling “unneeded” they’re men who… sorry… have already abandoned their families the “traditional conservative” way by… working outside the home, by staying out late with friend or overtime, by abdicating domestic responsibility, by – in other words – already providing no more than they would with post-divorce “visiting rights.” Because there’s a heck of a difference between “bringing home the bacon” and “dropping the bacon off before heading back out again.” And there’s a heck of a lot more to fathering than ballgame, park excursions, and being the “wait till your father gets home” backup in an otherwise completely autonomous household.

You want to feel needed? You be there at o-dark o’clock when the baby needs changing. You be there, same time, a few years later when she or he or they are feverish, or restless, or fearful. You be there, and I mean right there with no video or camera between your face and them, when they take their first steps. You be there feeding them and talking baby talk to them. You be the one with spoonful after spoonful (after spoonful!) of strained carrots or rehydrated rice pablum saying “say ‘aah’ for Daddy” and smiling and giggling and engaging with them. And you know what? You do that and you wanna know what? Their first word is going to be “da-da.” And when they’re said they’ll call for Daddy. And when it’s bedtime they’ll want Daddy to read to them, or snuggle them. And later when you and your partner take them to daycare they’ll ask their teachers very hopefully, and equally happily, whether it’ll be mommy or daddy who’s going to pick them up today. And they’ll do that not because they’re scared of you. Not because you’re “the man of the house” Not because Mommy approves or told them they should “respect” you. But because you were there. And they won’t just want you, they’ll need you, like nobody’s ever needed you before and like nobody else ever will.

And how do you then balance that with the friends and work and outside interests you think you’re going to have to give up to have it all? The same way everybody should be able to, Samson: you share work and home life, you share parenting and partying, you share the cribs and the cabinets and the clubs with your partner, not your property!

Antifeminists are assholes. Stay as far away from those assholes as you can humanly get. You want to be a real man? A needed, and necessary, and wanted man at home, at work, and in bed? Pull your weight. Share the weight. Don’t just love your partner and home and family, don’t just be there for them — be there with them. You want that for yourself, and your family, and if you’re not a man then for the men in your life.

Domestic Experience and Taking *Yourself* For Granted

Wed, 2009-12-09 18:30

Just following up on my earlier post, Domestic Experience and Being Taken for Granted: It’s Not a Gender Thing, It’s Situational, the other, obvious thing is that it’s all my side of the story.*

Because if I would say the floor is not a closet my partner would say the dining room table (where I work) is not a recycling bin. And if I groused out loud to my children about them not liking the lunches I make them to take to school, my children would suggest they’d make lunches for themselves if I didn’t crab so much about the mess. And so on. And my children and partner would all probably say that when I’m not cooking, cleaning, shopping, managing their homework and/or computer time, or snuggling them at bedtime I’m nose-deep in a book, or laptop, or a musical instrument.

The point here is that we all have visions of how our lives are supposed to be, and part of that vision includes the roles we take on, the tasks we see as needed, and our understanding of how people around us to perceive what we do.**

In other words we don’t just stereotype other people we stereotype ourselves.

There’s nothing specifically wrong with stereotyping, by the way — our brains would slow to a crawl if we had to look at every instance of every thing as completely unique and previously unencountered. What is wrong, though, or at least unproductive, is to mistake our stereotypes for reality and either forget to examine and update them when reality conflicts with them… or, worse, to ask reality to adjust to our stereotypes. Including, our stereotypes of ourselves.

* By the way, no, I wasn’t prompted to mention this. :-)
** The Two Rules of Desire and the whole no-sex class thing work this way. Our expectations of how the world works condition us to miss cues that are given, and see cues that are not. Hilarity rarely ensues.

Incremental Progress But Still Progress: "Almost One-Third of Men Are Now Principal Shoppers in the Household"

Thu, 2009-07-02 07:45

Sadie of Jezebel says

n the last 20 years, household roles have shifted: whereas the supermarket used to be the woman’s domain, today “almost one-third of men are now the principal shoppers in the household.”

Read Sadie’s quote in context here.

This isn’t exactly breaking news to the principal shoppers in households. This is good news though.

The sooner we can get to really, serious equal divisions of labor the sooner we’ll get away from that egregious “there’s nothing sexier than a man doing [some item of housework].” And towards, oh, say, “there’s nothing sexier than having lots of spare time for each other because all domestic tasks done in half the time because we split the work.”

If you’re an adult you can click here to see a not-very-work-safe housekeeping image.

Partnerships, domestic and otherwise, civil and otherwise

Wed, 2007-11-28 16:11


Photo by Flickr user misterbisson. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Meghan O’Rourke of Slate’s XX-Factor blog says

Three cheers for Stephanie Coontz’s piece in the New York Times today in defense of taking marriage private. She asks:

Why do people—gay or straight—need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

She offers a persuasive case that in today’s climate—with divorce rates still high—we need to rethink the state’s involvement in marriage. And she points out the logical peculiarity of the fact that unmarried couples who’ve cohabited for 19 years might have no hospital visitation rights—while two kids who get married on a whim automatically do.

O’Rourke said it here.

All well and good in an abstract “right on / all wrong” sea of opinions left and right. But O’Rourke brings the point down to cold, hard brass tacks when she adds

These are all questions I’ve had on my mind, because I got married this summer after a six-year relationship. I’m happy to be married—in fact, this week, I’m particularly glad, because I’m scheduled to have surgery, and if I weren’t married, my partner might have met with far more resistance from Oxford Health Plans when he called on my behalf to investigate the fine points of the claims process. Being able to say the words my husband to doctors and nurses has made bureaucratic matters far easier to manage than the words my boyfriend ever did.

In the face of that it really isn’t ok that an unmarried couple of 19 years (or nearly 30) should face very real legal discrimination that a couple who’s marriage lasts less than 55 hours wouldn’t have to.

Knowuddamean?

User login