Who? / Take a poll / Workplace Epiphany/ Comments/ Red & Blue States / - 12/22/06

[Smartmarriages]

- DESIRE SURVEY
- WHO IS IN THE COALITION?
- WORKPLACE REPLIES
- WORKPLACE EPIPHANY
- PREMARITAL SEX SURVEY COMMENTS
- LIFESTYLES, CHILD REARING DIFFER BASED ON POLITICS

############################
- DESIRE SURVEY
Help Redbook and Michele Weiner-Davis who is working on a new sex book by
taking this anonymous on-line poll. It's a quickie, takes less than 5 mins.
- diane 
> Click here: The REDBOOK Desire Poll
> <http://redbook.ivillage.com/sex/0,,b1phq7zh,00.html>

#############################
- WHO IS IN THE COALITION?
I'm getting LOTS of replies to this one. Some contradictory. See if I
understood your suggestions/edits and check the growing list at:
http://www.smartmarriages.com/divergent.members.html

I expect I'll continue to receive new categories and better ways to "name"
them.  Not sure what to do with some of these. Like this one: "I work at a
domestic violence women's shelter and my husband is a plumber. Are you going
to list occupations?  You list social worker and attorney." Hmmmmmm.  And,
how should I list Domestic Violence folks?  - diane

###############################
-   WORKPLACE REPLIES

> Regarding unhappiness about spouse-less cruises and such, a letter to the
> supervisor's boss with a cc: to the corporate HR office might be in order.
> I'm sure the HR officer doesn't want to deal with the potential problems
> that could arise from the "situation".
>  

Got an email from someone that said "outsourcing to India" and cutting jobs
is also a terribly marriage-unfriendly policy.  I guess so. Unemployment
never makes marriage easier.

And, now I'm starting to receive emails that are naming names - naming
corporations and companies.  Not sure what to do with these. Guess I'll just
collect them.  - diane

##############################
-  WORKPLACE EPIPHANY

> Diane, I had what I will call an "EPIPHANY" this morning.  I thought about how
> industries approach niche advertising - by inserting various 'people group'
> photos into a unified slogan.  In the attached word document I found clip art
> that could work for healthcare or an office environment.  Others to include
> may be factory, retail, travel, hospitality, etc.
> 
> Next to this industry specific poster, I envision a wall pocket of
> supplemental support material.  It might say "Marriage is hard. Let us
> help."   Now you have a poster that makes someone 'think twice' about a
> workplace affair and you provide generic as well as targeted support
> services to that employee (ie mine provides up to 12 free visits to an
> approved counselor).  We could populate this document with tips for
> success, pitfalls to avoid, and leave the back panel free for employer
> personalized data to include hotlines or counseling benefits.  For
> businesses without such benefits, we would format a generic page of
> suggested books / websites.
> 
> I also spoke to my office HR guy about the topic.  Outside of
> potentially being seen as killjoys to a "fun" environment he couldn't
> imagine folks being against such a campaign. He also suggested that
> "entry" of our topic to the annual SHRM conference would best be
> achieved through a local SHRM office champion.
> 
> Hope this helps!  Merry Christmas!  Jennifer

Beautiful! And a shining example of how this Coalition thing works.  All
thinking/rowing together and reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "Never
doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world, in
fact, it's the only thing that ever has."  Think of it, changing the
workplace culture. 

I love your poster and turned it into a pdf and posted it so others on the
list can see what you're talking about.  (note that it's two pages.)
http://www.smartmarriages.com/not.this.workplace.pdf

Instead of (or in addition to) the handout "Marriage is Hard" I suggest we
provide one about why "Infidelity is Stupid" and list 20 reasons WHY they
want to do what they can to avoid infidelity (the long-term consequences of
divorce and family breakdown) with, as you suggest, a bunch of very
practical pointers (like the Shirley Glass 'Walls and Windows' model) for
"HOW to" avoid it.  We've certainly got the experts - just need someone to
pull this together.  And there should be a poster to "Rate your workplace.
Is it Marriage-Friendly?" and include bullets like: Spouses are included in
retreats and office parties. I wonder if your workplace HR department would
be our guinea pig - let you put up such posters? See what happens? I KNOW
there would be media interest in this "movement".  And we have to help
educate people to the facts: infidelity rarely happens because there is a
problem with the marriage.  It's usually just fraternization; AND the
excitement of the new thang; AND the workplace lack of stigma about
infidelity; AND the lack of support for fidelity.  Humans can justify
anything after the fact: "There must be something missing in my marriage or
I wouldn't be able to feel all this for a new person."  People definitely
need a reality test about the likely scenario if they turn that hot new
thang into a stepmother or stepfather....and how that will play out in their
family tapestry. 

You are very creative and you have clearly got the picture. You've already
talked to your HR guys.  Want to take this on?  You can start on the
Infidelity page  http://www.smartmarriages.com/infidelity.resources.html

And, then you might want to contact Peggy Vaughan (visit her site:
http://www.dearpeggy.com), Frank Pittman, Barry McCarthy, Anne Bercht,
Michele Weiner-Davis, Dave Carder, Pat Love, etc.

I can see this as a great poster session in Denver or maybe you'll be part
of the workshop on The Marriage Friendly Workplace.  Or, part of the
"resources plenary" where we'll showcase brochures, billboards, PSAs,
posters, quizzes - all the tools of our trade.  - diane

#############################
- PREMARITAL SEX SURVEY COMMENTS

I've received dozens of comments about the premarital survey and articles.
I appreciate the heartfelt and well written "essays".  I shared two articles
from the initial media flurry surrounding the report's release: 1) because
the list serv functions to keep us up on issues of interest in the marriage
arena (though know this one was hard to miss - it made all the morning
shows, evening news, cable debates), and 2) because, as I understand it,
abstinence policy and Congressional funding will be reconsidered in the next
term. I then shared one representative article that criticized the survey. I
will print this one comment (below) as an example of the many rejoinders.
Most of us have strong, entrenched opinions.  I suggest we pause on this
thread and wait for the next round of news out of Congress.    - diane

> Dear Diane

>> Stanton said the study ignores consistent research findings over the last few
>> decades that prove the most sexually satisfied people today are faithfully
>> married men and women who come to marriage with no previous sexual
>> experience.
> 
> In this polarized world, it's interesting what people do with research
> findings they don't like. First, they cast aspersions on the motivation of the
> researchers, a little bit like attempting to kill the messenger. Then, they
> refer to "consistent research" findings that state the opposite, but I never
> see the actual sites. I would love to see references for Stanton's assertion
> that the most sexually satisfied people today are faithfully married men and
> women who come to marriage with no previous sexual experience, a very small
> group if the Guttmacher survey is to be believed.
> 
> What I'm describing here also happens on the liberal side with research
> findings they don't like.
> 
> In the context of research Stanton's observations that the Guttmacher numbers
> "seem a little high to me" is not really relevant to the question of whether
> the research yields accurate data. In fact, that's why people do research, so
> that we don't have to rely on people's impressions.
> 
> Stanton is right about one thing. Just because "everyone [almost] does it"
> doesn't make it right. But the grounds of argument have to shift to moral
> values rather than research evidence. At the very least the research evidence
> suggests that those who promote programs for  premarital abstinence are
> rolling their boulder up a very large mountain.
> 
> Phil Cowan 
> Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
> University of California Berkeley

#############################

- LIFESTYLES, CHILD REARING DIFFER BASED ON POLITICS
Home News Tribune (New Jersey)
12/20/06
Alan M. Singer

Consider two unusual political trends relating to marriage and children. Red
states have higher divorce rates than democratic states and blue states have
smaller families than republicans. What's behind these trends?

Divorce first: Wouldn't you think that California, the "left" side of the
country with its free-spirited open-mindedness and "splitsville" movie
stars, has a high divorce rate? Conversely, shouldn't Bible belt states like
Arkansas and Mississippi, with their family values, have low divorce rates?
Wrong on both accounts.

California has one of the lowest divorce rates and Mississippi and Arkansas
two of the highest (Census Bureau). Pam Belluck of the New York Times
observed: "The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the
Northeast and the Upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate
(5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people) was Massachusetts, home to John
Kerry and the Kennedys."

"The higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the
income, the less likely you are to divorce," said William V. D'Antonio, a
sociologist at the Catholic University of America, noting that Massachusetts
has the highest rate of high school and college completion. Kids who drop
out of high school and get married very quickly suffer from the strains of
not being emotionally mature and not having the income to help weather the
difficulties of marriage," Belluck wrote.

I ran this question by several experts in the field. Dr. David Popenoe, of
the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, reiterated, "The more
educated people found in the blue states have lower divorce rates and also
lower fertility rates; for less educated people, it is the reverse."

Dr. William Doherty, professor of family social science at the University of
Minnesota suggests, "The main issue for republicans and conservatives and
evangelical Christians is that the discrepancy between their self-appraisals
as the family values folks and the fact that being in those groups does not
seem to convey any benefits for marital stability."

My thinking is that divorce is not an exclusively conservative nemesis and
democrats have no reason to be smug. With the U.S. divorce rate hovering at
50 percent, we all have reason for serious concern.

"Larger social forces that fragment our marriages have far greater power
than the teachings of conservative (or liberal) faith communities," Doherty
said. 

Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman, from his 47 years of treating marriages,
explains: "We know that Southern Baptists have the highest rate of divorce
of any Christian group, perhaps because they believe that lusting in your
heart is as big a deal as doing it in public. The more conservative that
people are, the less tolerant they are of human frailties, their own or
those of others." 

Pittman concludes, "Marriage, to last, requires two imperfect people with
compassion for one another's struggles and conservatives can't always do
that." 

Liberal baby blues is a different matter. David Brooks of the New York Times
observed that birthrates are falling in Western Europe and many regions of
the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer children. "You
can see surprising political correlations," he said. "Bush (in 2004) carried
the 19 states with the highest fertility rates. Kerry won the 16 states with
the lowest rates." 

Arthur Brooks of the Wall Street Journal emphasized, "Liberals have a big
baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long
time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result."

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated
politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had between
them 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids.
That's a fertility gap of 41 percent.

What are some factors that influence family size? Philip Longman of USA
Today shed some light on this: "In the USA, 47 percent of people who attend
church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By
contrast, 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.'

Religious observance is a good predictor of ideal family size as well as
income, education and family-of-origin family size. Should liberals try to
persuade each other to have more children for the sake of their ideology?
Procreate for the cause? I don't think so. Many governments enduring
declines in fertility institute pronatalist policies. Incentives may include
child allowances, birth grants and paid maternity leave, and are meant to
increase family size. While these policies do not guarantee that family size
will increase, they are a guarantee of treating families in a manner that
makes child-rearing less of a financial burden, which is a welcome benefit.
Governments often want to increase family size to ensure that there are
enough soldiers for a formidable army and enough workers to pay taxes for
programs that sustain the elderly such as Social Security. I don't see
families having significantly more children for the sake of the Motherland
or for an ideology such as liberalism.

>From my two decades of research in family size and more practically
speaking, as the father of four children, I can say with full confidence:
The primary reason a couple should have a (another) child is because they
want to love, cherish and care for that child, not for the sake of any cause
or ideology. 

Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park and can be reached
at DrAlanSinger at aol.com

**************************
Send replies to this newslist to: diane at smartmarriages.com  Do not hit
"reply" - that goes to a filter.  This is a moderated list. Replies are read
by Diane Sollee, editor. Please indicate if your response is NOT to be
shared with the list.  PLEASE include your email address with your
signature. 

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
use the form at: http://www.smartmarriages.com. Click Newslist - in the
column under the puzzle piece.

This newslist shares information on marriage, divorce and educational
approaches.  Opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by members of the
Coalition.

To read ALL past posts to the newsletter, visit the Archive at:
http://archives.his.com/smartmarriages/

11th Annual Smart Marriages Conference, Denver Adam's Mark Hotel,
June 28-July 1, 2007
Pre-Conference Training Institutes June 26-28
Post-Conference Training Institutes July 2-3
Details: http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html
Subscribe to the FREE Smart Marriages e-newslist at
http://www.smartmarriages.com


List your program in the Directory of Classes at
http://www.smartmarriages.com
Order conference audio & video CD/DVD/MP3s: 800-241-7785 or
http://www.iPlaybackSmartMarriages.com

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd NW, Washington, DC 20015-1961
http://www.smartmarriages.com
202-362-3332
cmfce at smartmarriages.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: This e-newsletter/site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family
breakdown, etc. We understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.