The Unhappy Injustice of Happy Meal Toys

One of the wackiest centers of public discussion today is the issue of gender. Examples of the silliness abound: Parents advocating for so-called “gender-free” bathrooms for their non-binary elementary aged children, letting their children choose their own gender when they’re ready, to allowing young children to undergo gender-reassignment so their bodies can come into line with who they “feel” themselves to truly be. The wackiness exists because the whole gender studies theory its based on is pure ideology divorced from any semblance of objective reality or human experience. Sadly it gets more silly by the day. Take the issue of McDonald’s Happy Meals.

A high school junior wrote an essay about her five-year battle with McDonald’s to have them stop asking parents whether they want a boy or girl happy meal toy for their child. Slate judged the essay worthy of their blog space. At age 11, she became so outraged at this sexist practice that she finally went right to the top, writing the CEO of McDonald’s explaining that this matter was as wrong as asking a prospective employee if they wanted a “man’s job” or a “woman’s job.”

The CEO’s answer was unsatisfying to her (Go figure.) so she embarked on a study of each of the other McDonald’s in her area (more than a dozen she tells us) to see if this transgression was normal business practice for the food-chain or only present at her local Mickey Ds. She found the chain was universally filthy with the problem and filed a formal complaint with Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Commission summarily dismissed her complaint as “absurd”. (Go figure again.) But Ronald McDonald underestimates the tenacity of this modern day Rosa Parks. “But I still couldn’t let it go” she explains and she hasn’t. Her campaign marches on, hence Slate helping her alert the world of the problem.

Now the proper response to such a story should be “She’s a high-school student. At least she has conviction and is fighting for her ideals. Let her be.” I tend to agree… if that were all there is to the story. It is not.

Not only has she obviously done this with her parent’s assistance, she’s done so with the very proud and cooperative support of her father who is no off the rack wackadoo. He’s a distinguished Professor at Yale Law School and a popular blogger at Freakonomics.com. His daughter’s fight for justice is a joint pursuit between them as he proudly tells us in his Freakonomics blog. In fact, they have co-written a serious academic paper detailing their crusade and the grave injustices discovered there. This is clearly serious business for these privileged New Haven burg dwellers.

I’m just glad some children will never be subjected to such indignities at the hands of the folks under the Golden Arches.

hungry-children

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Does it Mean to be a Boy or a Girl?

Brother & SisterWhat does it mean for a child to be a boy or a girl and how do we raise them to be such in a healthy way? This whole gender issue is huge and curiously so controversial in our culture today. But regardless, the question remains: How do we help our little boys and girls grow up to be good healthy men and women? What does that even mean?

I address this topic in a radio interview I did last week on my recent book Secure Daughters/Confident Sons with the nice folks over at Faith Radio in the Midwest area. It gives a good overview of the book and can be heard on their podcast here. (Scroll down to see the link for the podcast.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jumping Out of a Perfectly Good Plane at 13k Feet

Here’s the video my high-school / skate buddy Jim Woods made of his kindness in taking me on my first skydive with he and his Navy Seal colleagues on a beautiful day over San Diego. It was as thrilling as it was scary and as scary as it was thrilling! The approach to the wide-open side of a plane, wind blowing in, drawing closer to the door, tilting your body outside of the plane as you get in place, the actual leap and the first 3 seconds your feet leave stability is the most unnatural feeling in the world. It goes against everything you know to be right!

Jim had to give me the final nudge. I yelled “NO!” but he thought I said “GO!” so we did! (That was his joke!) As you can see, our initial direction is pretty much head-first down.

But I would recommend it to any and everyone.

Video | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Headlines: Cohabitation Doesn’t Cause Divorce. True?

A number of us who follow such things have been getting lots of questions about the news stories over the last two weeks reporting that research now proves that living together before marriage doesn’t cause divorce. A sampling of these stories are here, here and here. The headlines are stark and definitive: New Research Says Cohabitation Doesn’t Lead to Higher Likelihood of Divorce.

The reason this seems to be such big news is that a boat-load of published research over the past few decades by mainstream scholars has consistently shown that living together before marriage corresponds with a couple’s elevated risk of divorce. And dramatically so. This finding has been so significant and consistent that it’s earned itself a name among sociologists: the cohabitation effect. And the debate in the field has not been whether it exists, but why it exists. I give a thorough overview of this research in my recent book, The Ring Makes All the Difference.

So what do we make of this new study that supposedly proves that all this other research is wrong? A good place to start is to read the study, which would have been a good idea for the journalists who reported on it. The author of this article says unequivocally that her study proves “that cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce and probably never did.”

Before addressing the study itself, it is important appreciate a problem that the newspapers made in their reporting as well as this author in her quote above. In reading a great majority of all the published studies over the decades on the relationship between cohabitation and divorce, I don’t know of one that asserts that cohabitation causes divorce. The cohabitation effect asserts that premarital cohabitation seems to be associated with weaker, less healthy and shorter-lasting relationship both before and after marriage. As stated above, there has been little contest on whether the cohabitation effect is real and this study doesn’t challenge that fact. The big question among scholars is why; what is the linkage in this association? The author of this article, having done her Ph.D. dissertation in this field, knows the theory does not assume causation.

Her study does take an interesting and important approach to this topic in that it examines how age at cohabitation and later marriage impact the cohabitation effect as we know that couples who get married in their mid-twenties tend to have happier, more successful marriages. So it could be assumed that cohabiting couples who do marry at later ages would have lower likelihood of divorce than those cohabitors who married younger. And this is largely what she found. But note how it’s explained in her abstract:

“Analyses…revealed that age at coresidence [moving in together] explained a substantial portion of the higher marital dissolution rate of premarital cohabitors.”

She also begins her explanation in the conclusion of her article similarly,

“The findings discussed in this article indicated that the previously found association between premarital cohabitation and divorce in earlier decades can in part be attributed to the age at which premarital cohabitors began residing. These findings also suggest that the measurement of age has a considerable effect on the observed relationship between cohabitation and divorce.” (p. 366)

So what is she saying? That when you adjust for age at cohabiting and subsequent marriage, we find the risk of divorce is reduced. It is an interesting finding and not altogether surprising. And it clearly admits and affirms the cohabitation effect. But what it does NOT say – anywhere in the study, implied or outright – is that cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce and probably never did” as stated in the author’s press release from which most journalists based their stories.

And what else must be appreciated is that in most sciences, one new study – or even a small handful – does not overthrow the larger body of data that exists on a particular point. But this is precisely how most journalists played it: Newest study owns the field. A contrary finding must be replicated by many more studies over a longer period of time as we have in the literature leading to the truism of the cohabitation effect. As time goes on and more research is done regarding age at cohabitation, we might find that this study is onto something.

But not today. There is no research that even hints at the conclusion that cohabitors as a whole do not face a greater likelihood of relational instability and divorce once they do marry.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

He Is So Freakin’ Cool…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Divorce Among Conservative Protestants: What’s the Story?

There’s a new study out reporting that not only are divorce rates higher in parts of the country where there is a large concentration of Conservative Protestants, but that these people are also influencing their neighbors to be more divorce-prone. Very bad news indeed.

That is, if it were true, which there is good reason to conclude it is not. Here is a very good analysis of the study itself from the folks at the Institute for Family Studies.

It seem implausible that one could deduce a causational link between Conservative Protestants and higher divorce rates in a community. This has been done before by others and incorrectly. Many scholars have asserted that it is more of what I call a “mobile-home belt” problem, than a bible-belt problem. The authors of this study said they controlled for income/poverty, but I don’t think it can be dismissed that easily. Also it is, as this study admits, it is a “couples marrying and having babies very young” problem – which does increase likelihood of divorce – and they connect this with being consistent with Conservative Protestant teaching. This is a pretty creative leap.

And a side note worth mentioning: Jennifer Glass, who is a fine scholar, is also a leading scholar with the Council on Contemporary Families, a group of academics founded to explain that the married mom/dad/children family triad is certainly “not-all-that” and nearly all alternative family forms are worth being really excited about. This has no impact on how this particular study should be judged – as it should be on its own merits – but it does reveal clear partisanship of the author to a particular family ideal: traditional is bad, new alternative is good.

Anyway, the study is in the news this week, so thought I would offer some additional insight that students of the family should know about.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Are Young People Really Leaving the Church in Droves?

I have a piece at the First Things blog today on some new research that Andrew Hess and I have done here at Focus on the Family addressing two important questions.

Are young people really leaving the faith in droves? And does it really do any good for parents to work to teach their children a strong Christian faith.

The straight forward answers, coming from very strong mainstream research, are:

1) no they are not leaving, at least in some churches and

2) yes, the influence of parents on their child’s faith retention in young adulthood and beyond is positively HUGE.

Real, substantive faith in God and Christian discipleship are growing and parenting still matters a great deal. Take heart!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment