Work/Marriage Balance / Helicopter Parents / Divorce-Depression and Workplace/State-level Divorce politics - 4/03/07

[Smartmarriages]

- MARRIAGES, KIDS AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE
- HELICOPTER PARENTS
- DEPRESSED, OR NORMAL REACTION TO DIVORCE?
- THE TRAGEDY AND POLITICS OF DIVORCE

###############################
- MARRIAGES, KIDS AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

What's fascinating about this post are the numbers of comments - reminds me
of why Bill Doherty's "Who's Got Time to Be Married?" 2003 keynote and his
book "Take Back Your Marriage" were such runaway hits. This is the issue
that gets couples where they live.  And, there's this, the change in how we
build relationships - we're definitely off the farm.

> The implications of this study on relationships and work are interesting. The
> researchers argue that couples are no longer creating relationships around
> strict divisions of labor. Relationships are now built more around what the
> academics call "leisure and consumption complementarities".


Marriages, kids and work-life balance
blogs.theage.com.au  (Blog site on The Age in Australia)
April 4, 2007 

The workplace is transforming because of changes in marriage, divorce,
childbirth and social patterns, according to a US study.
newweddings.jpg

The study "Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces" by two
Wharton business school academics, which you can also read about at the
Knowledge at Wharton series, says that the rising divorce rate, the declining
number of marriages, the Pill and labor-saving technologies like
dishwashers, dryers and washing machines have changed the way couples and
individuals go about work and pursue careers.

It not only means there are more women in the workforce. They're also more
skilled. And because people are living longer and having fewer kids, the
number of years you spend raising children is far less than the number of
years that you want to be productive. In other words, it's more costly for
women to stay out of the workforce.

The study also found that, contrary to some claims, women are not opting out
of the workforce. While some take time off to have children and don't come
back full-time, there's less of that happening. More are now going back
full-time.

The implications of this study on relationships and work are interesting.
The researchers argue that couples are no longer creating relationships
around strict divisions of labor. Relationships are now built more around
what the academics call "leisure and consumption complementarities". That
also means you're more likely to have couple meeting at the workplace which
raises questions about workplace rules and nepotism.

And it puts more pressure on employers to accommodate a melting of home and
work. Some companies now build lounges and kitchens that look like living
rooms. And work-life balance is likely to remain as a hot button issue. It
also means that couples might be under more of a strain to keep their
relationships together.

How is work life affecting your relationship? How relevant is this study to
what you've seen? How does it compare to when your parents were in the work
force? How doable is full-time work post-kids? Is it just as hard for the
blokes?
Posted by Leon Gettler
April 4, 2007 10:12 AM

To read dozens of comments, visit: http://tinyurl.com/2eyctq

###############################
- HELICOPTER PARENTS
Struck by another article in this morning's USA Today about helicopter
parenting - mostly as applied to kids in college.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-03-helicopter-study_N.htm

I flashed back to leaving for college as oldest of ten.  My parents were too
busy with what was still at home to do even wonder about my adjustment to
school.  So many of the articles/analysis, like the one above about managing
work and home, leave out that MAJOR change to two-parent families. Apples
and oranges.  - diane

#################################
- DEPRESSED, OR NORMAL REACTION TO DIVORCE?

Clip and keep this one for making the point with businesses/corporations
about why it makes such good sense for the bottom line to provide marriage
strengthening/marriage skills classes in the workplace!   - diane


New Grief Related Study Reveals Many People Grieving a Death or Divorce are
Wrongly Diagnosed as Depressed

Sherman Oaks, CA (PRWEB) April 4, 2007 -- A newly released grief related
study reveals that many people grieving a death or divorce are wrongly
diagnosed as depressed.

We have always believed that misdiagnosis was harming grieving people
"For 30 years we've been telling anyone who will listen that most grieving
people do not need to be treated with psychotropic drugs," said Russell
Friedman, Executive Director of the Grief Recovery Institute. On April 3,
the Washington Post published an article related to misdiagnosis of grievers
titled Criteria for Depression Are too Broad, Researchers Say.

The article, written by Shankar Vedantam, begins with this eye-opening
statement: "Up to 25 percent of people whom psychiatrists would diagnose as
depressed may only be reacting normally to stressful events such as divorce
or losing a job, according to a new analysis that reexamined how the
standard diagnostic criteria are used."

"We have always believed that misdiagnosis was harming grieving people,"
said Friedman.

The following symptoms are common to grieving people and to people suffering
from clinical depression:

· inability to concentrate
· upheaval of sleeping patterns
· upheaval of eating patterns
· roller coaster of emotions.
· lack of energy

When a medical or psychological professional hears a griever report those
symptoms in reaction to the death of someone important to them, or in
reaction to a divorce, they reflexively diagnose the griever as depressed,
because those reactions match up to several of the primary symptoms of
depression.

Is a griever clinically depressed? For the most part, the answer is NO,
especially if they weren't clinically depressed before the death. The leap
to clinically depressed, when based on normal reactions to a death or to a
divorce, is the result of misinterpretation and misdiagnoses of symptoms. It
is very dangerous. In part, the danger stems from the fact that most
clinical diagnoses of depression are accompanied by prescriptions for
mind-affecting drugs which cover-up the natural and necessary responses to
grief. 

For the full article: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/4/prweb516601.htm

##################################
- THE TRAGEDY AND POLITICS OF DIVORCE

This one sent by a list member who points out that the divorce issue is
alive and well at the state as well as the national level.  - diane

The tragedy and politics of divorce
Arkansas News Bureau
Wednesday, Apr 4, 2007
By David Sanders

Unfortunately, I'm left feeling like I was played now that Attorney General
Dustin McDaniel has filed for divorce from his wife, Amanda. It's not the
divorce itself that bothers me. It has more to do with what I was led to
believe last year about the McDaniels' marriage.

Divorce, on a human level, is completely tragic. Any time one or two
individuals feel compelled to end a union made before God and man, I can
only imagine that there is gut-wrenching hopelessness.

Like so many marriages that end in divorce, this one is complicated by the
fact that a child is involved. Having never experienced divorce's bitterness
directly, I cannot, and would not, judge either party.

For McDaniel's part, his only response has been a statement by his office
that the situation is intensely personal and that he would hope the public
and the news media would respect that. He's right that it's personal, but he
is still a public figure. Comfortable or not, sometimes the news media must
delve into things that otherwise might be very personal when those things
involve public people.

My discomfort relating to McDaniel is that less than a year ago he put his
family in front of cameras during his campaign to become the state's
attorney general. That by itself wouldn't trouble me, but rumors were
rampant that the marriage was on the rocks.

During the Democratic primary, some people loosely linked with his political
opponents were more than happy to spread tales of an impending marital
split. They also were ready to judge and assess blame for the breakup. I
found the rumors, which continued into the general election, to be very
unbecoming - not so much to McDaniel, but to those circulating them.

I cannot help but wonder now if those television ads and billboards
featuring McDaniel the family man weren't targeted at me and others who were
receiving phone calls from would-be "off-the-record" sources who wanted the
media to raise questions about his marriage. If so, they worked. I never
raised the issue and I don't remember any journalist, or even an anonymous
blogger, speculating about the state of McDaniel's marriage.

The ads led me to believe he had a strong marriage and family values.

Former state Rep. Mike Hathorn, a candidate in the Democratic primary for
lieutenant governor, who had endured the pain of his own divorce, had to
answer questions about his recent breakup.

At the same time, allies of another candidate in the lieutenant governor's
race were claiming Hathorn shouldn't spend time running for office, but
instead should focus on his family.

Would voters have made a different judgment about McDaniel if they had known
his marriage to the woman on the TV screen was headed for divorce?

The attorney general's problems, in terms of politics, are not rooted in the
past, but rather the future.

In 1999, my friend James Jefferson, formerly of The Associated Press and now
of Stephens Media, wrote a column speculating on whether Sen. Tim
Hutchinson's divorce from his wife of 29 years would hurt his chances for
re-election in 2002.

One of those interviewed thought three years might provide time for
Hutchinson to overcome potential political setbacks resulting from the
divorce. It also was suggested that his political future might depend on
"devilish details" that might come to light in the time between his divorce
and Election Day.

Jefferson's conclusion was that it could hurt him. We now know it did.

McDaniel potentially faces the same unfortunate situation in the next
election cycle. For now, voters simply may feel that he played them.

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

**************************
Send submissions and comments for the listserv to: diane at smartmarriages.com
Do NOT hit "reply". If you hit reply your email will go into cyberspace and
NO ONE will see your email.

This is a moderated list. Submissions and comments are read by Diane Sollee,
editor. Please indicate if your comment is NOT to be shared with the list.
PLEASE include your email address or url as part of your signature.

Please also understand that with thousands of subscribers, not all comments
can be shared. Also realize that opinions expressed are not necessarily
shared by members of the Coalition.

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.

To read past posts to the listserv, visit the Archive at:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/

11th Annual Smart Marriages Conference, Denver Adam's Mark Hotel,
June 28-July 1, 2007
Download a brochure: http://www.smartmarriages.com/Brochure.07.pdf


List your program and resources on 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

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.