Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Family and Children

New at IWF: Charlotte's Web

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:47:00 EST

In her weekly column, Charlotte Hays discusses the bizarre case of Banita Jacks.

Read Charlotte's Web here.

The Fight Against "Bubble-Wrapped" Kids

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:54:00 EDT

Milwaukee radio host Charles Sykes is taking on the trend of "bubble-wrapped" kids in his new book, 50 Rules Kids Won't Learn in School. My personal favorite is rule number nine: "Your school may have done away with winners and losers. Life hasn't." Skyes explains:

The modern ‘bubble wrap' mentality assumes that children are so frail and easily bruised that they have to be insulated...from life. No losing, no disappointments, no harsh reality checks. But like a child who grows up in a bubble without immunities to the outsides world, a child raised in bubble wrap is not prepared for the symptoms of life: failure, frustration, and having to make choices tougher than the color of their new iPod sleeve.

And if you think that's over exaggerating, I dare you to start up a game of dodgeball, tag, or even Legos at an elementary school nowadays. Come to think of it, I don't even know if you're allowed to dare anyone anymore.

Misusing Mother's Day

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT

National Review

There are many things to like about Mother's Day: tulip bouquets, elegant brunches, and home-made cards from the kids. After all, the idea of honoring Mom for nurturing the next generation is as all-American as apple pie and, well, motherhood.

Yet Mother's Day also has its unseemly under-belly. It's not the commercialism of another holiday brought to you by Hallmark, although certainly one can find plenty evidence of consumerism run amok. Dads can be made to feel like cads if they aren't planning to buy their wives the "Mother's Day Spa Package," which, according to Elizabeth Arden's Red Door, "is everything a mother deserves" and starts at $210. But few families really fall into this trap, and most moms are content receiving cards of pasta glued to construction paper.

What's really in poor taste are the attempts to use Mother's Day to push a political agenda. Teresa Heinz Kerry, for example, seized the occasion to pen an op-ed for the Boston Herald, entitled "For mother's sake, tweak Social Security." She writes: "Unfortunately there is one entity that doesn't seem to share this respect for the work our mothers do: the U.S. government and the Social Security system."

Mrs. Kerry's chief complaint is that Social Security benefits are calculated based on 35 years of earnings, and since many women take years out of the workforce to care for children, they have several years of "zero" earnings, reducing their monthly payments. Mrs. Kerry offers this tear-jerking policy solution: "We should allow women to drop out the 'zero years' instead of telling them that their care for their young children and elderly parents is worth zero when it comes time to calculate Social Security benefits."

It sounds very nice, but it's terrible public policy. What would this mean for the millions of single and low-income moms who have to work to make ends meet, paying thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes each year, but would much prefer to be home with their kids? Under Mrs. Kerry's defined benefit-system, many of these women would get lower benefits than the stay-at-home moms since their extra years of earnings and taxes wouldn't yield any additional benefits.

Ms. Heinz also ignores the fact that on average women already have higher rates of return on their Social Security payments than men do, and couples with a stay-at-home mom tend to do better than couples in which both spouses work. Undoubtedly, Social Security's defined benefit-system is inherently arbitrary and unfair: the formula used to calculate benefits ends up rewarding some groups and penalizes others. And married, stay-at-home moms are generally among the advantaged. Social Security provides a spousal benefit, so a stay-at-home mom who never enters the workforce will receive fifty percent of the benefit generated by her husband's earning history. Working wives, in contrast, get a much worse deal. They get either the higher of the two--the spousal benefit or a benefit based on their own earnings history--which means that many working moms get no additional benefits for their years of work and taxes.

One of the many virtues of creating personal accounts within the Social Security system would be that they would avoid such unfair quirks. At least that portion of a worker's Social Security contribution that is put into the personal account would fund his own retirement benefits, rather than someone else's, and with a fair return, too. But Mrs. Kerry would prefer instead to tweak the current system to further favor particular groups like stay-at-home moms. If she looked at the recent report by Social Security's Trustees, she'd realize that it's irresponsible to talk about raising anyone's benefits at a time when the system is spiraling toward financial ruin: It's the equivalent of a woman demanding her day at the Red Door spa when the bank is preparing to foreclose on the family home. If Mrs. Kerry is concerned about women's retirement security, she should encourage her husband and the Democrats in Congress to discuss ways to reform the system to reduce Social Security's unfunded liabilities-- something they have steadfastly refused to do.

Mrs. Kerry is just one example of using Mother's Day as a political tool. Code Pink is holding a "peace festival" with Gloria Steinem to call for an end of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Activities include "speakers, music, arts and crafts and perhaps even imPEACHment pies!" The National Organization for Women's website urges visitors to honor their mothers by signing their "Mothers Matter and Caregivers Count" petition, which urges Congress to adopt legislation to "increase work/life balance" --code words for more government regulation of the workplace and mandated benefits.

Perhaps it's inevitable that groups will use any media hook to push their cause. There seems something vaguely sexist, however, in this use of Mother's Day, which consistently puts women in the position of clamoring for more benefits from Uncle Sam. Father's Day doesn't occasion such an unseemly push for favors for men.

Women deserve better on Mother's Day. No, we don't all expect full-day spa treatments, but a little respect would be nice.

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

In the News: IWF Special Report on Indecency.

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST

The Insider

Solveig Singleton, in a new report for the Independent Women's Forum, says government regulation of media content is a bad idea, concerns about indecency notwithstanding. Among the important points she makes:

Parents today have many tools for making sure material they find objectionable does not reach their kids.

Government regulation of content is unlikely to influence personal behavior significantly:

Public policy makers often make decisions based on individuals who are at risk and who are likely to benefit from government intervention. But would a kid who is at risk because of absent or uninvolved parents benefit from a top-down approach to media regulation? It is highly unlikely; media consumption is a relatively small factor in determining an individual's life outcome, and entertainment programming is only part of the media.
Treating the entire country as if it were a dysfunctional family on the off chance of having a minimal impact on a minimal number of youngsters is a dangerous direction for our republic. There are many better ways to help at-risk kids, starting with school vouchers to improve the quality of educational opportunities and to bring safer schools and better role models within kids' reach.

The Federal Communications Commission acknowledges that it cannot define indecency once and for all. Yet, it is contrary to historical experience to expect that regulators would not abuse the power to decide on a case-by-case basis what is indecent:

Presidents Nixon and Kennedy both ordered crackdowns on radio stations critical of their policies under the now defunct "Fairness Doctrine." How far could newspapers have pursued their aggressive reporting on the Watergate scandal if there had been "public interest" controls on the print media?

Saving Our Daughters, One Day At A Time

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:00:00 EST

National Review

When it comes to children's prospects, the real dividing line between the haves and the have-nots isn't money-- it's parents. Children raised by a single parent are more likely than their peers raised by married parents to drop out of school, abuse drugs, get drunk, smoke, have sex, get pregnant, commit a crime, attempt suicide--the list could go on and on.

Simply put, children need their fathers as well as their mothers. This may sound like common sense, but it's common sense that's increasingly ignored. Today, more than one-third of American children are born out of wedlock. More than half of teenagers live in homes without married biological parents. Reversing this trend is critical to our society's long-term health. Policymakers have taken notice, as they grapple with proposals and initiatives aimed at encouraging men to become more actively involved in their children's lives.

But what about dads who are already committed to fatherhood? With pop culture sending mixed messages about what's expected of fathers, many men are understandably confused about how to be a good father to their children.

In her new book, Strong Father, Strong Daughters: 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know, Dr. Meg Meeker provides a helpful road map for concerned fathers. She focuses on the father-daughter relationship and tackles difficult issues, from teaching your children about God to strategies for discussing (and preventing) sexual experimentation.

Dr. Meeker's advice to fathers is both reassuring and challenging. She urges men to spend time with their daughters, to listen intently to them, and to realize that they will set their daughters' expectations for future relationships with men. It's up to dad to show his daughter what a responsible, humble, courageous, and good man really is.

Dr. Meeker emphasizes that dads don't have to give up being men to nurture their daughters-- in fact, their maleness is their strength:

Most of you out there are good men as well, but you are good men who have been derided by a culture that does not care for you, that, in terms of the family, has ridiculed your authority, denied your importance, and tried to fill you with confusion about your role. But I can tell you that fathers change lives' You are natural leaders, and your family looks to you for qualities that only fathers have. You were made a man for a reason, and your daughter is looking to you for guidance than she cannot get from her mother.

Yet she also paints a bleak picture of the difficult road facing fathers of daughters. Fathers will confront a culture hostile to many of the values they want to impart. This is particularly true in the sexual arena: girls still in elementary school are regularly confronted with messages from magazines, television, and music preaching the importance of being sexy. Dr. Meeker presents the disturbing facts about how sexually transmitted diseases ravage America's youth-- one in five Americans over age twelve tests positive for genital herpes; nearly one in four sexually active teens is currently living with an STD; nearly half of high school students become sexually active before they graduate.

At the same time as our culture has become more tolerate of sexually activity among teens, it has conspired to make parents less comfortable with setting boundaries and enforcing rules. Dr. Meeker insists that parents are the best defense against these forces:

Many parents make the mistake of trying to stay in the background. Parents fear being too controlling or overprotective. We don't want to embarrass our daughters. Every model for Playboy is someone's daughter. Don't let it be yours. Protect her beautiful body as only you can. She may hate it in the short term, but when she is an adult she will thank you. Stay in the battle.

If you're hoping to become a grandparent anytime soon, this isn't a book to give your son-- it's scary stuff. If you're a man who loves the daughter in your charge, this book will remind you of the importance of your relationship with her and help you realize that you already have the tools to be a great father. You just have to use them.

To purchase a copy of the book, visit IWF's bookstore.

Indispensable

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:00:00 EDT

National Review

Father's Day tends to get treated as just another "Hallmark Holiday." And we have so many: Grandparents Day, Secretary's (now the more politically correct "Administrative Professional's") Day, National Teacher's Day, Take Your Daughter to Work Day-- the list goes on. Yet if ever there was a need for a Hallmark Holiday, Father's Day is it.

The last few decades have been rough for fathers. If dads once were idealized in popular culture as all-knowing patriarchs, today they're usually the butt of the joke. The Simpsons, comedy classic though it is, probably is the best known example. Marge is a relatively positive role model; a caring, generally sensible figure (in spite of the hair). Homer is stupid, childish, undisciplined, and completely incompetent. From Malcolm in the Middle to The Family Guy, the modern TV dad is more idiot than ideal. Just as any fictional battle-of-the-sexes today is invariably won by women, positive images of dads in entertainment are rare.

Our media culture's disrespect for dads certainly stems from the sad reality that men increasingly are absent from their children's lives. In this sense, television is relatively kind to fathers: They may be clownish, but at least they're there-- a dream for a growing portion of American children. Today, one in three children lives without his father. According to the National Fatherhood Institute, roughly one in ten children won't see his father at all this year, and two in ten have never been to dad's home.

Two trends have contributed to this burgeoning crisis of fatherhood: the divorce rate and out of wedlock births. Divorces grew precipitously during the late 1960s and early 1970s-- from 27 per hundred marriages in 1965 to 50 per hundred marriages in 1980, where the number remains today. As recently as 1970, just one in ten babies born in the United States was born outside of wedlock. Today, more than one out of every three is born to a single mother.

Government predictably has made the problem worse, addressing the problem of absent fathers primarily through welfare for single moms. Programs have been put in place to help single parents afford daycare, housing, and healthcare. The state has stepped up enforcement against deadbeat dads, compelling them to honor at least their financial obligations to their children-- although often this means merely reimbursing the government for services rendered.

The impulse behind these policies is understandable: Fatherless children need proper care and ought not suffer for their parents' follies. Yet the unintended consequences have been staggering. Government has made it easier for women to have babies without husbands and has essentially told fathers that their only responsibility is to be an ATM.

Clearly, a father has a moral obligation to provide for his children financially, and the mass failure on this front has had devastating social consequences. A child raised by a never-married mother can expect to spend more than half of her childhood living in poverty-- seven times longer than a child raised in an intact family. A never-married single parent's income on average is less than 40 percent of the income of married parents.

But fathers provide more than just a paycheck.

Dads parent differently than moms. In Taking Sex Difference Seriously, Steven Rhoads highlights how fathers help children, boys in particular, learn to channel and control their natural aggression. While women may complain that fathers whip an already rambunctious son into a frenzy, so-called "rough-and-tumble play" serves an important purpose in teaching when aggression is appropriate. Children learn how to calm down and how to judge when a game becomes too rough or upsetting.

Fathers also specialize in teaching children certain skills. They are more likely to teach children how to play sports and how to build and repair things. Dads tend to encourage children to work through problems to find a practical solution and to tackle tasks on their own.

Put simply, children need their fathers. Anyone familiar with social policy today knows the litany of ills caused by their absence: Children raised outside of marriage are more likely to drink to excess, smoke, use drugs, drop out of school, be victims of abuse, have mental problems, and commit crimes. Reformers of the Left and Right increasingly agree that reducing the number of children growing up outside of marriage is an important goal. So a national debate will continue to rage about how government can bring back fathers, either by scrapping programs that subsidize single parenthood or by encouraging marriage.

The hard truth is that no program or policy will fix America's broken homes until society gets back to valuing dads as indispensable role models. Father's Day is a good time to start.