Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.

UC Students Protest Tuition Hikes: Why not....?

protest excessive spending? UC Students are protesting tuition hikes.   The University could hold the line on tuition, if they would just lower expenses.  Why don't the students remind them of the connection between expenditures and tuition? Now would be a good time to cut out all the Grievance Departments, that were established to appease various left-wing academic and politcal constituencies. We could get rid of Gender and Women's Studies, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Studies, and all the different Ethnic Studies.  Maybe the Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion could find something else to do.  UC Berkeley has a Gender Equity Resource Center: I wonder how much the taxpayers are paying for today's Transgender Day of Remembrance? Of course, if cutting the Grievance Groups is too radical, maybe the UC system could ask the tenured professors to each teach one more course per year. Just a thought...

Lamest Headline Ever!

Lesbians parents better at raising children - Times Online. This headline is lame because it suggests that there is some startling new research showing "lesbian parents better."  (Bottom line of this post: yet another reason the public holds the Main Stream Media in contempt.) However, when you actually read the story, you don't get any evidence:
Speaking at the launch at the think tank Demos of a report on the influence of character on life, Scott said: “Lesbians make better parents than a man and a woman.” His arguments are supported by experts who have found, over years of research, that children brought up by female couples are more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice. They show no more tendencies towards homosexuality than the offspring of heterosexual parents.
No new research. And since when is being "aspirational" and "confident in championing social justice" the high-water mark of good parenting?  But I digress. So, I looked to see if the "experts" are named, or any of the "years of research" are actually mentioned. No. Nothing specific. Nothing newsworthy. So, who is "Scott," the guy being quoted? He is Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners.  Who the heck are they? What is a Parenting Practioner? And why do they need a National Academy? Well, the were established by an agency of the British government:
The National Academy for Parenting Practitioners was set up in 2007 by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to provide the parenting workforce with objective evidence based support in order to improve the services offered to parents in England.
And they have a vision:
Our vision is that all parents who need it should be able to access quality support from trained practitioners capable of helping them to raise their children to be happy, healthy, safe, ready to learn and to make a positive contribution and achieve economic wellbeing.
Sounds more like a corporation designed to professionalize child care, rather than a charity designed to help flesh and blood families and real people.  Children need "trained practioners?"  I was thinking they need their moms and dads who love them. Silly me. And what was the occasion for his outburst of enthusiasm for father-absent households?  As near as I can tell, it was a meeting of group called Demos, which was highlighting its new publication called Building Character.  The point of this publication was to analyze the impact of different parenting styles on the children's character development. Evidently, the report concluded that the children of single parent households don't do as well. According to the Independent:
In a blow to the huge numbers of parents who are divorced or remarried, the study also found that children with married parents were twice as likely to develop good skills as those living with stepfamilies or single parents.
Could this have been the stimulus for an pro-non-traditional-family exclamation? Could be. Can't tell from the news reports. No new data on lesbian parenting. New data further demonstrating the superiority of married parents. One guy goes off at a technocratic gab-fest about lesbian parents.  And the headline reading "Lesbian Parents Better at Raising Children" goes all around the world. And the Main Stream Media wonders why the public holds them in contempt. Perhaps one of my readers can suggest a more colorful adjective than "Lamest"  for my headline.

Cohabitation is a Sin Against Social Justice

That's the title my editors over at the National Catholic Register gave my latest article.
 social science can now show that the “alternatives to marriage” don’t work. A recent news story brought this home in a particularly vivid fashion for that most fashionable of alternatives to marriage: cohabitation. In Dallas, a mother and her boyfriend were arrested after three of her children were found in a hotel room, starved and abused. The facts of the case fit in with the general pattern of knowledge about the hazards of cohabitation. This story puts a human face on the statistics.
First, we know that a cohabiting boyfriend is the person most likely to abuse a child. From British child-abuse registries, we learn that a child living with his or her mother and a live-in boyfriend is 33 times more likely to be abused than a child living with his or her biological married parents. From a study of inflicted injury deaths in Missouri, we learn that children living in households with unrelated adults were 50 times more likely to die of inflicted injuries than households with both biological parents present. In 82% of the cases, the “unrelated adult” was the mother’s cohabiting boyfriend. So I present this challenge to my young friends on campus: “You might get away with participating in social practices that become much more destructive as they trickle down into the lower classes. It is not social justice to claim for yourself the rights to behaviors that you can manage but are a disaster for the less fortunate. Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem?” So it was in this case. The boyfriend was the perpetrator. While the mother was out working, he sexually abused her daughter. And although the mother was certainly complicit in locking the kids in the bathroom, the boyfriend was the one beating them. Speaking of her working, this boyfriend stayed “home” in the hotel room, while the woman went out to work each day. This, too, fits the statistical pattern. Cohabiting men have half the income of married men and work fewer hours. Each one of the four children had different fathers. The boyfriend’s child, needless to say, was not locked in the bathroom with the other kids. This case illustrates the new phenomenon that demographers have identified. They call it “multiple-partner fertility.” One of the problems associated with multiple-partner fertility is the relationship of each new boyfriend to the children of the previous boyfriends. To not put too fine a point on it: He is interested in the woman, not in her children from past relationships. The children are leftovers from a previous relationship. You may object that some of these problems are associated with poverty. And that is partly true. But the deeper truth is that channeling sexual behavior and childbearing into marriage creates wealth rather than dissipates it. Men behave differently when they marry, especially when they become married fathers. When I give campus talks on the risks of cohabitation, I can always count on some smarty to challenge me saying that the risks are not really so great to people like himself. What he usually means (and it is almost always a “he”) is that the statistics are skewed by a large number of poor, uneducated cohabiting couples who are at higher risk for all sorts of problems anyway. Unspoken, but implied, is that he is cohabiting himself and plans not to change based on anything I say. So, he might argue, this particular boyfriend was just a loser, while the cohabiting men of his own social circle are not. Women of higher income and education will not face such serious problems as this woman living in a hotel room with a creep. But studies that control for education and income still find that cohabitation is risky. We have created a culture that says sex, marriage and childbearing have no necessary relationship to each other. This culture, like any culture, is made up of the decisions of all of us: the things we choose to do and not do, the justifications we offer for our actions, the things we celebrate and the things we condemn. We have an indirect impact on the culture and therefore on the people around us. Every problem of the poor is exacerbated by the failure of marriage. The “alternatives to marriage” are destroying the culture of the poor. So I present this challenge to my young friends on campus: “You might get away with participating in social practices that become much more destructive as they trickle down into the lower classes. It is not social justice to claim for yourself the rights to behaviors that you can manage but are a disaster for the less fortunate. Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem?”
This article appearred in the National Catholic Register, on November 15, 2009 issue.

DC City Council vs Catholic Church

The DC City Council is about to pass a gay rights bill that will force the Archdiocese of Washington out of the social services business. According to the Washington Post,

 The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care....  council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.  "They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.
No one is indispensible. However, Catholic Charities serves 68,000 people in the city each year. The city’s 40 Catholic parishes operate another 93 social service programs to provide crucial services. The Catholic Church may not be indispensible, but it is probably the largest single non-government organization providing social services within the District. But, the sex radicals on the city council don't care about that. They evidently have so many sources of money, and so many alternative private sector partners, and so few needy people in the District, that they can safely ignore the Catholic Church. The statements by sex radicals on the city council are  disgracefully misleading. The truth is that the city council and all its coercive machinery are the ones threatening people.  Comply with every aspect of our social engineering agenda, or be driven out of doing business with the city.  An e-mail from the Most Reverend Barry C. Knestout, Auxiliary Bishop of Washington stated:
Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services if a same sex marriage bill passes.  Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so.  Why is that so?  Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services. What we have said to the Council is this: While we are opposed to redefining marriage in the District of Columbia, if the Council moves forward to do so, we respectfully request that religious individuals and organizations be afforded protection from restrictions on their deeply held religious beliefs and that the Council preserve the ability of Catholic Charities and other providers to continue to serve the growing and unmet needs of the poor and most vulnerable residents of the District of Columbia.      
Of course, gay rights advocates will not have any of this. All or nothing. "Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for All D.C. Families accused the church of trying to "blackmail the city.""  City council member "David Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars' worth this year through his committee." And council member Mary Cheh, asked rhetorically, "Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue? I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat." In fact, the Catholic Church is not making any money from its contracts with the city. All that money gets pumped into programs to serve the needy and vulnerable of the District.  The Church contributes $10 million annually in donations and thousands of volunteer hours to its charitable work, over and above the money it gets from the city for social service contracts. (How many volunteer hours can the city council persuade individuals to contribute?  How many volunteer hours has the gay community contributed?) Those are the resources that the Church will continue to contribute, no matter what the council does or doesn't do. So let's get this in perspective: The DC city council is threatening to dislodge its largest single private social service provider, in order to placate its gay constituents. The council is planning to throw the poor and minorities of the city under the bus to accomodate its gay residents, who are politically powerful and for the most part, not poor. And this, during a period of economic hardship and fiscal stress. Who is being childish and petulant here?

I'm quoted

in this article in the Washington Examiner. The issue is why the Catholic Church is standing up for marriage in the District of Columbia:
Another factor in the church's heightened political engagement, in the view of Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, the education branch of the National Organization for Marriage, is a new generation of more orthodox and more spirited Catholic priests -- "a crop of John Paul II clergy," as Morse calls them, referring to the pope who inspired the young priests and ordained the current bishops.

In the dictionary, under "Question-begging,"...

you could find this statement by a Judge in Montana:  “Lesbians and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children, and to live with the same dignity that is accorded heterosexuals." It is begging the question for the judge to say, "to raise their children," because the question before the court was precisely, "Is this person the child's mother? Is this child "hers" in any meaningful sense?"  This same judge goes on to lecture the entire state of Montana:

"That lesbian and gay people still must fight for their fundamental rights is antithetical to the core values of Article II and speaks, in unfortunate clarity, of a prevalent societal cancer grounded in bigotry and hate.”  Again, question-begging: the question is precisely whether a person unrelated to a child by either biology or adoption has any "fundamental right" to visitation, custody or other parental rights. 

I don't know whether this judge is wrong as a matter of law. But it is certain that the judge is wrong as a matter of logic, not to mention common decency. You can read about this case in the Marriage Law Digest, published by iMAPP (look for the link on the right-hand sidebar) and written by the Ruth Institute's own Bill Duncan. This service of iMAPP is worth subscribing to, if you want the latest in marriage law developments.

Crack's Six Insane Laws We'll Need includes redefining parenthood.

One of the Six Insane Laws has to do with the definition of parenthood.
Yep, science is well on the way to reinventing the concept of family altogether. For instance we already know how to make sperm from stem cells. No need for a father at all. Before you feminists get all cocky, women are no longer really necessary either, as artificial ova and artificial wombs are now a reality. But wait--they'll still need DNA, right? Wrong. We have been working on making DNA in the lab since the 70s. The only reason we're not on the cusp of a factory that can turn out parentless kids is that nobody has figured out how to make money off such an operation. And We'll Need New Laws Because... Still, it seems like it's just a matter of time until someone does it. So who would the kid belong to? Do they become a ward of the state? Some of you may remember that immediately after the death of Michael Jackson there was some speculation about who exactly had guardianship of the kids, based on the fact that (rumor had it) they were carried by a mother Michael had never slept with, and was fertilized with sperm from some other dude. Meaning Michael had no more of a biological relationship to "his" children than you do. If one of the other two involved parties had asked for parental rights, on what grounds would he have objected? Likewise, if a wealthy man or a corporation manufactures a child and claims their rights as its parent, who's to say they can't? Don't be surprised if, based on the legal confusion created by a test tube orphan, we eventually get Organic Replacement Laws--if you want to make a kid, a penis and a vagina have to be involved. No sex, no kid. Hey, speaking of sex, we'll also see courts of the future...

No easy way out for Dems on Abortion

Thus sayeth Ray Flynn former Boston mayor and US Ambassador to the Vatican at Politico, quoted on Yahoo.
"They're looking for an easy way out. And there is no easy way out when it comes to right or wrong or true or false," said former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, an abortion opponent who served as ambassador to the Vatican during the Clinton administration. "On some of these issues, there's just no compromise."
The Democrats having been trying to have it both ways: run "moderate" candidates, from their traditional constituencies, who are pro-life. Flash their Life credentials during the elections, and once safely elected, hog-tie and muzzled them, and keep them on the Abortion Plantation. 'Cept it didn't work this time on Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, who
reshaped the legislative landscape when he offered an amendment restricting the sale of insurance policies covering abortion through the proposed national health insurance exchange — or to women who receive health care subsidies from the federal government. Stupak's proposal, which would also bar any public health insurance plan from covering abortion procedures, passed the House on Saturday over objections from a majority of Democratic lawmakers, who voted against the amendment. Supporters of abortion rights were outraged — especially House Democratic women, many of whom view Stupak's legislation as a betrayal of a key Democratic commitment.
Boo-hoo. Face it. The American public does not want to use taxpayer money for abortion. They haven't wanted that for years. they still don't want it. And now, the Democratic attempt to nationalize one sixth of the economy has people scared. Every village idiot can see that the greater the governmental control of the funding, the greater the governmental control of the actual decisions of actual patients, physicians and pharmacists.

Why Not Take Her for a Test Drive?

I originally wrote this article, back when Love and Economics first came out. It has been reprinted more than anything I have ever written. I publish it here, for the benefit of new readers, who have never visited my old website. You can also download this as a pdf. I hereby give permission to reprint this, anywhere and everywhere that it will be helpful! Research shows that cohabitation is correlated with unhappiness and domestic violence. Cohabiting couples report lower levels of satisfaction in the relationship than married couples. Women are more likely to be abused by a cohabiting boyfriend than a husband. Children are more likely to abused by their mothers’ boyfriends than by her husband, even if the boyfriend is their biological father. If a cohabiting couple ultimately marries, they have a higher propensity to divorce. Most of the recent reports and commentaries on cohabitation report these difficulties, and at the same time, tend to downplay them. Living together before marriage seems to resemble taking a car for a test drive. The “trial period” gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible. “You wouldn’t buy a car without taking it for a test drive, now would you?” Here’s the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn’t have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car. Yet this is the implication of the “test drive” metaphor. I am going to drive you around the block a few times, withholding judgement and commitment until I have satisfied myself about you. Pay no attention to my indecision, or my periodic evaluations of your performance. Try to act as if we were married, so I can get a clear picture of what you’re likely to be like as a spouse. You just pretend to be married; I’ll just pretend to be shopping. The contract analogy doesn’t help much either. Living together is fine as long as both people agree to it. The agreement amounts to this: “I am willing to let you use me as if I were a commodity, as long as you allow me to treat you as if you were a commodity.” But this is a bogus agreement. We can say at the outset that we agree to be the “man of steel”, but no one can credibly promise to have no feelings of remorse if the relationship fails. There is an essential difference between sexual activity and other forms of activity. The sexual act is by its nature, a gift of oneself to another person. We all have a deep longing to be cherished by the person we have sex with. That longing is not fooled by our pretensions to sophistication. Here is a better analogy: Suppose I ask you to give me a blank check, signed and ready to cash. All I have to do is fill in the amount. Most people would be unlikely to do this. You might do it, if you snuck out and drained the money out of your account before you gave me the check. Or, you could give me the check and be scared about what I might do. But what do you have in your checking account that is more valuable than what you give to a sexual partner? When people live together, and sleep together, without marriage, they put themselves in a position that is similar to the person being asked to give a blank check. They either hold back on their partner by not giving the full self in the sexual act and in their shared lives together. Or, they feel scared a lot of the time, wondering whether their partner will somehow take advantage of their vulnerability. No one can simulate self-giving. Half a commitment is no commitment. Cohabiting couples have one foot out the door, throughout the relationship. They rehearse not trusting. The social scientists that gather the data do not have an easy way to measure this kind of dynamic inside the relationship. In my view, this accounts for the disappointing results of cohabitation. I am sorry to say that I learned this from experience. My husband and I lived together before we were married. It took us a long time to unlearn the habits of the heart that we built up during those cohabiting years. The sexual revolution promised a humane and realistic approach to human sexuality. Ironically, the uncommitted-sex mentality has proven to underestimate both the value and the power of sexual activity. Lifelong, committed relationships are difficult, no doubt about it. But self-giving loving relationships still have the best chance of making us happy.   COHABITATION FAST FACTS • Cohabitors are more likely to be depressed than married couples. • The presence of children exacerbates depression among cohabitors, but not among married couples. • Cohabiting couples perceive their relationships as less stable. • Cohabitors report poorer relationship quality than married couples. • Cohabiting women are more likely to have “secondary sex partners” than are married women. • Cohabitors have lower commitment to the relationship, lower levels of happiness and worse relationships with their parents than married couples. • Cohabiting couples have higher rates of assault, and the violence is more severe, than among dating or married couples. • Cohabitors tend to be more socially isolated and this partially explains their heightened levels of domestic violence. • Prior cohabitants had a higher rate of pre-marital aggression than couples who did not live together. • According to a study of British child abuse registries, a cohabiting boyfriend is the most serious risk factor for child abuse. Children are safest living with their natural parents, married to each other, next safest living with their mother and her new husband, next safest living with their natural mother alone, still less safe with two natural parents cohabiting and the least safe with their mother and a cohabiting, but unrelated boyfriend. • Married couples whose marriages are preceded by cohabitation are more likely to get divorced and to report lower quality marriages. • The increased probability of divorce cannot be accounted for by systematic differences between those who choose to get married and those who choose to cohabit.

Accountability is the Key

One of the keys to sexual integrity, is accountability.  Small groups of like-minded men, keep each other honest, in their efforts to remain chaste. Here is how it works at the University of Maryland:
Fasting trains the person to deny his body something it wants so that the desires of the body are controlled by the will — and not the other way around. In the University of Maryland group, for instance, each member of the group forgoes dinner every time any member of the group “falls.” A fall is defined as viewing pornography, masturbating or engaging in sexual activity. These falls are discussed as part of the second pillar of purity groups, which is dialogue. As with a traditional 12-step group, open dialogue with people facing the same challenges is a huge source of help and support. Many groups sign confidentiality promises so that nothing short of criminal acts will ever be discussed outside of the group. In this community of trust, men are able to discuss challenges to their chastity and ways to face them.

Support the Ruth Institute