Everyday Sociology Blog

Phones, Families and Parental Control

By Janis Prince Inniss

A few weeks ago, I woke up at 4:30 in the morning to find my eighteen-year-old house guest chatting on her cell phone! She was laughing and talking like it was 4:30 in the afternoon. I had to force myself to close my gaping mouth. I’ve had teenagers in my home so I know many like talking on the phone late at night, but this was 4:30! 

Even if you’re young, you probably grew up in a home with one phone line—a landline. Although at home, telephone calls were “public”: Usually the phones were in public areas such as the family room or living room. Anybody was liable to answer incoming telephone calls, so friends might have an encounter with parents calling for their children. Parents could, and some did ask, “Who is calling please?” For many years, few homes had extra extensions and if they did, if a teen was speaking from the privacy of his or her bedroom, there was always the possibility that Mom or Dad might pick up the other extension and hear what she hoped would be a private exchange. 

For privacy, kids hung around the phone to try to keep their parents from answering calls that might land them in trouble, and used the phones when their parents were not at home or were sleeping. When kids monopolized the telephone, in the pre-call waiting days, how much time 'tweens and teens spent on the phone was more than an issue of how they occupied their time; it also impacted parents’ ability to use the telephone.
Ah, but technology churns on. During the 1990s many households started installing multiple landlines to have dedicated lines for dial-up internet service, and during that time many kids got their own telephone numbers and phones in their rooms. Kids could talk to whomever, whenever, with much less parental “interference”. 

Today, many homes don’t even have landline phones. Cell phone use has skyrocketed in this century and about half of all children aged 10 to 13, and 83 percent of teenagers in the U.S. have their own. Having cell phones takes the ability to communicate wherever and whenever to new heights. Today’s kids can talk from just about anywhere-- including while driving or sitting in a classroom. Increasingly, kids are using cell phones for text messaging, even more than for voice calls. Armed with the unlimited texting plans that parents have selected (after being shell shocked by exorbitant bills), many teens text into the wee hours of the morning, averaging 50-70 texts per day. Texting allows for even more covert communication than talking on the phone as it can’t be overheard. Researchers found that one quarter of kids in relationships admitted communicating with their partner by voice or text hourly between midnight and 5 a.m. Just as I would have been without my trip to the kitchen that morning, parents are pretty clueless about this all of this; 82% were unaware that their kids were being contacted 30 times an hour by text or email. 

How do cell phones and the freedoms that come with them affect parents’ ability to supervise their kids? Tipping my hand at my belief that parents should be authoritative—mind you, not authoritarian—shouldn’t parents know who their kids are spending their time with? How do parents do this in the cell phone age? 

Hopefully, the telephone was never the main way that parents met their children’s friends, but it kept them in the loop. “Nicole and Suzy seem pretty close. They talk on the phone most days after school.” Or, “Roger and his girlfriend Marilyn must be having a fight because she hasn’t called in a week.” Sometimes younger siblings gave up the goods with announcements such as, “It’s for Mary! And it’s Derek again!” 

The flip-side of all of this is that today, parents can read a transcript of their teenagers’ thoughts! Modern technology permits parents to peer at the backstage lives of their kids in ways that used to be impossible. GPS technology for cell phones allows parents to monitor kids’ every movement. Snooping parents scroll through text messages or purchase software that gives them transcripts of instant messages. At first glance, the cell phone seems to be a tool of independence for kids. They can communicate with anybody just about anytime and parents may be clueless about it. But considering the techno-trail that parents may follow, teenagers are knowable in a way that they never were in the past. How does a parent’s ability to know about these “private” communications affect their relationships with their teenagers? And for those parents who refrain from such spying, does it matter that they may be out of the loop? Does it matter if parents know who their kids are spending time with on the phone?

Is Marriage Under Siege?

By Karen Sternheimer

You know it’s summer when celebrity divorces become the biggest news stories of the day…they are easy to digest, gossip about, and there is always at least one happening at any given time. You can probably name at least two couples who have been in the news lately. Are they symbolic of the declining state of marriage?

In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). From the name of the legislation, it sounds like it might support marriage counseling, provide encouragement for staying together, or even make it harder for couples to divorce. Instead, this bill ensures that no state need recognize same-sex marriage, not exactly something that will “save” individual marriages. But its name, and those of many laws passed by states in recent years with similar intent, suggests that marriage needs defending.

The idea of “marriage in decline” has become a cliché. Let’s see what the data tell us about marriage in the United States, past and present.

 

As you can see from the data collected by Administration of Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), divorce rates jumped significantly between 1960 and 1980. Also notice that divorce rates spiked in the 1940s before falling after 1945. What’s likely behind these changes?

The obvious answer to the 1940s increase is World War II—separation, coupled with women’s increased participation in the labor force meant that more couples were no longer financially interdependent. Women’s earnings gave them greater ability to financially survive outside of marriage. Prior to the 1940s, it was common for couples to live separately but not divorce due to the costs going to court (there was no such thing as no-fault divorce yet) and have a judge grant the divorce. 

California became the first state to offer no-fault divorce in 1970, and other states followed suit. This meant that couples did not need to sue the other for divorce or prove any reason to a judge; if one spouse wanted out, that was enough. And clearly many did; rates tripled between 1960 and 1980, peaking in 1979 with nearly 23 divorces per thousand married women.

According to the U.S. Census, 5.3 per thousand Americans eighteen and over were divorced in 1979, roughly double the 1950 rate. But since that time, the rate has been declining: to 4.7 per thousand in 1990, 4.1 per thousand in 2000, and 3.6 per thousand in 2005, a rate similar to early 1970s levels.

Let’s also be clear on another point: the lack of divorce does not mean that a marriage was happy or even functional. My grandmother once told me a story of a friend of hers from early adulthood. The woman was married to a man who threatened to break her hands if she ever touched his money, which he kept in a box in their home. Apparently this was just one example of his cruelty and controlling personality, and she tried to obtain a divorce. But the judge ruled that this did not meet the legal definition of cruelty since she had no evidence he actually had struck her. So many marriages that ended by death instead of divorce were not necessarily success stories.

There are also several important predictors of divorce. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a comprehensive report in 2002 that examines who is more likely to get married and divorced. 

One key factor is age. Teens who marry are most likely to divorce within ten years (48 percent of those who marry before eighteen, and 40 percent of those who marry at eighteen or nineteen divorce) compared with 29 percent of those 20 to 24 and just 24 percent of those who marry after the age of 25. If couples grew up with parents who remained married, the likelihood of divorce is also lower (29 percent versus 43 percent). Also, the timing of children matters. Couples who have a child before they are married or within seven months of marriage are less likely to remain married after ten years than those who have children at least seven months after their wedding. 

One of the report’s findings is that race is also a significant factor. As the graph on the left details, African Americans are the most likely to divorce, and Asian Americans are the least likely to divorce after fifteen years. 

It’s hard to know exactly why this is the case, but it might have something to do with the fact that on average, Asian Americans have higher incomes and perhaps less money-related stress than other groups. While the graph below excludes Asian Americans, we can see that income level is related to divorce, and divorce levels are particularly high for African Americans. 

These racial disparities are very visible if we look at long-term trends, where African Americans were much more likely to experience divorce within ten years than whites.

So why the major disparity between African Americans and other groups? The authors of the report draw a very important conclusion—it is likely not race alone that matters. They note that “these differences may be related to higher rates of unemployment, incarceration, and mortality among the black population, their lower levels of educational attainment and earnings.” In other words, marriage may not bring 

economic stability to many African American women. 

This finding suggests that the federal government’s Healthy Marriage Initiative might be missing some of the key reasons marriages end. It’s not that people don’t value marriage, but the factors that contribute to stable family life are harder to come by in persistently poor communities. The biggest threat to marriage is probably unemployment or underemployment, experiences felt disproportionately by African Americans.

The prevalence of celebrity divorces may make it seem like every marriage is at risk for divorce, that marriage is just a fifty-fifty crapshoot. But as a 2005 New York Times article detailed, the percentage of marriages that end in divorce is actually lower than we have been told. The fifty percent divorce rate is based on a faulty calculation: there are about twice as many marriages in the U.S. as divorces each year, and that number was misinterpreted to mean that half of all marriages end in divorce. Most people don’t divorce in the same year as their marriage though. It’s like comparing births to deaths in any given year and presuming those that die are the same ones just born. The reality is, as usual, far more complex than we are often led to believe.

Sociology: It's What's For Dinner

By Karen Sternheimer

What did you have for dinner last night? Was it sociologically meaningful? 

Actually, all food is sociologically relevant in some way. It is a part of culture, tied to customs, religion, and ethnicity. What we eat, how we eat, and when we eat are intertwined with sociological issues like these.

Here are a few specific examples: what we eat may reflect our status, where we eat our income, and with whom we eat our family situation.

We have social rituals surrounding our meals too. Typically at a restaurant we use silverware when appropriate (I learned how embarrassing violating this could be when I first tried eating deep-dish pizza with my hands).

Eating off our own plates is another such ritual usually followed, and we usually avoid eating from strangers’ plates. Believe it or not, I saw this rule breached several years ago when having brunch. I was with a large group of mostly family members and of few of their friends whom I had never met. I hadn’t finished my toast because it was a little burnt and left the mostly-eaten crusts on the plate. 

The man next to me was a significantly older friend of a cousin, and I couldn’t believe it when he asked if I was finished and ate my scraps! It’s not as if this man couldn’t afford a meal himself; although we barely spoke, I knew he was a high-profile attorney, famous for multi-million dollar settlements. Perhaps his status—older, male, wealthy— made him feel like he was entitled. I don’t really know why he did it, but I still think it was sort of gross.

Eating also can stratify us; eating at a five-star restaurant is out of reach for most of us, but many people regardless of income might enjoy going to a diner now and then. The affluent thus have more dining choices and can much more easily “invade” some working class spaces than the other way around.

Material culture accompanies eating and has sociological importance as well. “Picking out China patterns” is a well-worn phrase indicating that people are planning to get married. Wedding registry lists are mostly filled with eating accoutrements: in addition to fine China, silver and everyday tableware, candle holders, crystal glasses, and serving platters are all pricey gifts to set the table for meals on special occasions.

When my grandmother passed away last year, family members sorted through her everyday items, the things too mundane to be listed in her will or given away before she died. My sisters each got a serving platter, my mother her crystal highball glasses. I wanted just one thing: her Black & Decker Handy Chopper. 

You are probably wondering why I would want this when a brand new one is less than fifteen dollars. And as a proud hostess for decades, my grandmother had lots of crystal serving bowls, silver platters, and other objects d’art, but still I wanted the chopper. 

My grandma used to make her famous tuna salad in that chopper. It was one of her many specialties that would often be our first meal at her home when we arrived from out of town. She would have it laid out perfectly on a bed of lettuce with sliced tomatoes making for a colorful garnish. On hot summer days when we would swim in her building’s pool she would wave us in from her seventh floor balcony, the signal that lunch was ready. We’d eat cold tuna sandwiches outside on the patio in our wet bathing suits, waiting until we could go back down to the pool.

I had tried on many occasions to replicate her recipe. Tuna never tasted as good when I made it myself at home. “You have to have a good chopper,” she would tell me, and ask what sort of chopper I used. I would show her my hands, since I manually chopped the ingredients. “You have to have a good chopper,” she repeated, shaking her head.

Now I do have a good chopper. It arrived in its original box, yellowed and taped together with disintegrating scotch tape. It needed a good cleaning, as my grandma’s eyesight had failed in the last of her 96 years. I knew all of the ingredients by heart: chopped sweet onion, white albacore tuna, hard boiled egg, and a spoonful of mayonnaise. When the chopper blended them all together I heard that familiar grinding sound, one I usually heard from a distance because until the end she made the tuna salad by herself without assistance. As if by magic, it tasted exactly as if my grandma was in my kitchen that day.

Sometimes a meal is more than a meal. It can evoke family traditions, reflect our ethnic heritage, or reveal our economic circumstances. Our family always had plenty to eat, but for families that don’t, food takes on different meanings.

For others, like my grandmother who emigrated from another country as a child, it can be a way to maintain a family’s traditions and culture in a new place. But the foods that I remember most--the tuna, her delicious Jell-O molds, fresh cornbread with actual pieces of corn, reflect her desire to be fully American. Above all, she loved apple pie. “It’s fruit, it’s good for you,” she would say with a wink.

Her definition of good might not match the FDA Pyramid, but food obviously does more than provide our bodies nutrients. It is, literally, who we are.

Supporting Traditional Values

By Sally Raskoff

With the introduction of same-sex marriage in California, we are hearing a lot of media reports and informal discussion on this issue. People are “for” it, people are “against” it, people are doing it, and people are picketing it. Polls have been conducted to show us what people in the state and nation think about this issue.

Here is a sampling of the poll results asking people their opinions on the California Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:

“Do you approve or disapprove of the recent California State Supreme Court ruling declaring the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as being unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex couples to marry?”

48% Agree; 46% Disagree (Field Poll, May 7-26 2008, 1052 CA Adult Reg. Voters, 3.2% margin of error)

“The California Supreme Court has struck down the ban on gay marriage in California. Do you agree? Or disagree with the court’s ruling?”

46% Agree; 46% Disagree (Survey USA, May 15 2008, 500 CA Adults, 4.5% margin of error)

“As you may know, last week the California Supreme Court ruled that the California Constitution requires that same-sex couples be given the same right to marry that opposite-sex couples have. Based on what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage in California?”

41% Agree; 52% Disagree (Los Angeles Times/KTLA , May 20-21 2008, 834 CA Adults, 3% margin of error)

These surveys were done at roughly the same time period and only people in California were contacted. Note the variation in the percent agreeing and disagreeing, the question wording, and the people whom they contacted. The wording of the questions, along with the types of people they contacted can help explain some of the differing percentages. On the other hand, opinions on this phenomenon may vary for many other reasons, such as religious and political affiliations and personal experience. 

To investigate the impact of how we ask about this phenomenon, let’s look at some of the other questions these polls asked.

When people are asked about their preferred form of partnering for same-sex couples, the results are equally varied although less favorable: 

“Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? ‘Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry’, or ‘Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but  not marry’, or ‘Same-sex couples should be not allowed to either marry or form civil unions.’”

35% Marry, 30% Civil Union, 29% Neither (Los Angeles Times/KTLA , May 20-21 2008, 834 CA Adults, 3% margin of error)

“Which of the following most closely resembles your own view about state laws regarding the relationships of two people of the same sex: a) gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry; b) gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not legally marry; c) there should be no legal recognition of a gay or lesbian couple’s relationship?”

45% Marry, 32% Civil Union or domestic partnership, 19% No legal recognition (Field Poll , May 7-26 2008, 1052 CA Adult Reg. Voters, 3.2% margin of error)

When asked about legal issues specifically, there is a wider variation in responses:

“Marriages between same-sex couples recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriage.”

40% Valid, 56% not valid (Gallup Poll, May 8-11 2008, 1017 U.S. Adults, 5% margin of error) 

“Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?”

51% Agree, 42% Disagree (Field Poll, May 7-26 2008, 1052 CA Adults Reg. Voters, 3.2% margin of error) 

“Should the decision to marry be strictly a private decision between the people who want to marry or if the government has the right to pass laws to prohibit or allow such marriages between two people who are of the same sex.”

63% Private, 33% Government (USA Today/Gallup Poll, May 30-Jun 1 2008, 1012 U.S. Adults, 3% margin of error)

(Note that the Gallup Poll is of adults in the United States, not just California.)

Some of the studies included questions that asked if the respondent has close family, friends, or co-workers who are gay or lesbian. (One may wonder why they didn’t ask about the respondent’s own sexual orientation.)

“Do you have a friend, family member or co-worker who you know is gay or lesbian, or not?”

69% Yes, 28% No (Los Angeles Times/KTLA, May 20-21 2008, 834 CA Adults, 3% margin of error)

“Do you have any friends or relatives or co-workers who have told you, personally, that they are gay or lesbian”

57% Yes, 42% No (USA Today/Gallup Poll, May 30-Jun 1 2008, 1012 U.S. Adults, 3% margin of error)

When assessing the context of these opinions, one may wonder how these issues resonate with each other. Would having friends or family members or co-workers who are open about their sexuality effect opinions on same-sex marriage? It seems likely, yet few of these polls actually included such a comparison in their findings.

The Pew Research Center for People & the Press issued a report that examined the effect of knowing gay/lesbian people on opinions about same-sex marriage.

They found in their national sample (2,007 adults, Dec 12-Jan 9, 2007) that those who agree that gays should be able to legally marry are more likely to be people who have a close gay friend or family member.  

Beyond the obvious percentage differences, we might as whether these patterns are statistically significant. Taking into account the margin of error (adding to and subtracting from the percentages listed with each poll) we see that perhaps there is less of a difference in opinion and even more variation in these opinions as measured by these surveys. We should use caution when interpreting these results, since any apparent differences could be due to chance, sampling issues, or other problems. Without a statistical test of significance, perhaps we shouldn’t even be talking about these survey patterns as real!

It will be interesting in the coming months and years to see how opinions change – and perhaps to compare these patterns to those of inter-racial marriage (especially from 1950 to the present time) and in other phenomenon we can measure with Social Distance Scales. Created by Emory S. Bogardus, the Social Distance Scale asks respondents how comfortable they are with particular groups, ranging from comfort as members of one’s family to members of society. Do you think people will become more comfortable with gay marriage in the future?

The Gloucester Pregnancy "Pact": When Gossip Goes Global

By Karen Sternheimer

Once upon a time, in a land not too far away, when teenagers gossiped about one and other the rumors stayed between teens. Not so today.

Combine a lull in a year of presidential election politics, the start of summer, and a principal’s comment to Time magazine, and voila, a rumor that seventeen pregnant girls from Gloucester, Massachusetts all made a pact to get pregnant and raise their children together spreads under the “breaking news” banner. 

I first heard about this when local radio hosts who usually focus on Hollywood gossip talked about the story, how naïve these girls must have been, and how they probably saw the movie Juno and thought it would be cool to get pregnant. (Of course if you saw the movie it would be hard not to notice how painful and isolating it was to be pregnant in high school, even if Juno did have a sharp wit). No no no, a co-host offered, it’s Jamie Lynn Spears’ fault: she got pregnant at seventeen and because she is famous she made it cool. 

The Gloucester story became a staple on the major networks and cable news outlets, complete with commentators offering their explanations: celebrity culture that gushes over any pregnancy, naïve teens who can’t understand the consequences of their actions, and whether or not there is too much/not enough birth control available for teens.

Left out of the story…the teens' thoughts. That is, until one pregnant girl appeared on Good Morning America with the baby’s father. She said she had been taking birth control pills and had not intentionally gotten pregnant, and there was no pact to get pregnant. Instead she told of a pact to help each other out to deal with the challenges that lie ahead—something that indicates an awareness that having a baby was more than just about buying cute little outfits and having baby shower parties.

The principal later stood by his statement to Time, asserting that there really was a pact to get pregnant. I have no inside information on what the pregnant girls may or may not have said to each other. But I have my doubts that the school principal would have been in on this sort of info either.

Pre-pregnancy pact or not, the reality is that many girls did get pregnant. While blaming Juno and Jamie Lynn make for interesting radio talk, sociologists have studied why teens get pregnant, and there are several more compelling explanations. Let’s consider some of them.

1. Real or perceived lack of opportunity

Yes, it seems counterintuitive, but the less economic opportunity the greater likelihood of early pregnancy. It may appear like an irrational decision, especially since having a child is a pretty expensive endeavor. 

But here’s why lack of opportunity and poverty predicts higher fertility rates in people of all ages (in the U.S. and globally): when people feel as though bearing a child will not jeopardize a clear, concrete, goal they are less likely to take steps to prevent pregnancy from happening. By contrast, when the prospect of attending college seems very likely and a fulfilling, lucrative career will follow, people are more likely to protect those opportunities.

When I was in high school, we had counselors cheering us through PSATs, SATs, walking us through the college application process and peers that we saw enter into the nation’s top universities. Most of our parents and other family members went to college and often graduate school in order to become professionals and top earners. Having a baby then would have been a devastating detour away from a path of near-certain upper-middle class status.

By contrast, in some communities counselors are few in number and perhaps only focus on a handful of the top students. I have had my own students tell me of high school counselors that actually dissuaded them from applying to college, suggesting it “wasn’t for them.” Pair that with little information about the all-important tests, how or when to fill out a college application, and not having a family member who ever attended college. Now higher education seems more like a fantasy than reality, especially in communities where they see few upper-middle class professionals in their daily lives. Yes, many people from working-class and low-income communities do go on to college and most do not get pregnant, but the stakes seem lower for them to begin with. Gloucester has traditionally been a working-class fishing community, and it has been struggling economically in recent years. While again this may seem counterintuitive, higher teen pregnancy rates are more likely in a community like this than they are in more affluent areas. 

2. Overall teen birth rates have been falling

You might have heard about the rise in teen birth rates in 2006. This was a shift from fourteen straight years of decline, but as the Centers for Disease Control(CDC) press release notes, “It’s way too early to know if this is the start of a new trend,” but it of course important to take a look at. 

According to the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, between 1990 and 2004 the percentage of birth to women fifteen to nineteen dropped from thirty percent of all births to unmarried women to about 23 percent. In 2004 girls under fifteen accounted for .4 percent of all births to unmarried women, down from .9 percent in

1990. By contrast, births to unmarried women in their twenties increased slightly. Between 1990 and 2005 birth rates had fallen by fifty percent for those under fifteen, and by 34 percent for teens fifteen to nineteen. 

The 2006 data tell us that birth rates for those under fifteen continued to decline, and the biggest increase was in births to teens eighteen and nineteen. For fifteen to nineteen-year-olds, the rate rose from 40.5 live births per 1,000 in 2005 to 41.9 births per 1,000 in 2006.

As the CDC notes, “The birth rate for older teens aged 18-19 is 73 births per 1,000 population –- more than three times higher than the rate for teens aged 15-17 (22 per 1,000).” As we can see from the table on the right from the CDC, the fifteen- to seventeen-year-old rate was 77 in 1990, and the eighteen- and nineteen-year-old rate was 168, still substantially higher than in 2006. Abortion rates also fell substantially since the late 1980s. The CDC also found that fewer high school students are sexually active now than in the early 1990s: down from 54 percent in 1991 to just under 48 percent in 2007, and that condom use is way up (from 46 to 62 percent). So despite this high-profile case, the news is mostly good.

As you can see, teen pregnancy is a bit more complicated than a funny movie about it or a profile of a young celebrity would suggest. In addition to socio-economic status, dramatic racial/ethnic differences still persist: African American and Latina fertility rates are higher than that of whites, regardless of age. The reasons for this are complex, and probably related to higher poverty rates of African Americans and Latinos in the population.

And finally, what about the boys (and men) involved? When we talk about teen pregnancy, we often leave them out of the discussion. Despite the reports that practically ignored males, the girls did not get themselves pregnant. But girls are still the ones we gossip about.

Wombs for Sale? Gestational and Genetic Mothering

By Janis Prince Inniss

I used to think that there are several things we must do ourselves. You know, like die. Even if I wanted to, regardless of how wealthy I may become, I can’t pay someone to do that for me. And what about the basic bathroom functions? Same thing; must do those ourselves, right? 

But what about being pregnant and giving birth? I thought that those were on the “must do it yourself” list with no chance of changing. Having recently seen the film Baby Mama and a few recent news stories on surrogate mothers, I have to rethink my list of “must do yourself” things. 

A surrogate mother is a woman who becomes pregnant with a child to whom she may or may not be genetically related, with the  intention of turning the baby over at birth to others for rearing. A surrogate mother may have sperm or an embryo implanted into her uterus which means she may or may not be genetically related to the baby she carries. 

The first time that I remember hearing about surrogacy was when the Baby M case made headlines in 1986. In that instance, a couple—the Sterns—hired Mary Beth Whitehead to be artificially inseminated with the husband’s sperm. Whitehead was to carry the child, give birth to her and then hand the baby over to the Sterns. In other words, Whitehead was acting as a substitute for Mrs. Stern who had health issues that might be complicated by bearing and birthing a child. Whitehead had a change of heart about the arrangement after she gave birth which led to a contentious legal battle. Eventually, Mr. Stern was granted custody of the baby and Whitehead was granted visitation rights. 

Flash forward to another case in which the surrogate mother, Stephanie Eckard provided the egg; Eckard changed her mind about handing over the baby but in this case the judge ruled against the couple who hired Eckard and gave custody of the baby to the surrogate. Another noteworthy case on surrogacy is the 1990 case of Mark and Crispina Calvert. The fertilized embryo of the Calverts was implanted into the womb of Anna Johnson. Johnson was paid $10,000 to hand over the baby to the Calverts at his birth, but she too had a change of heart and wanted to keep the baby boy. In deciding this case, the court essentially looked at whose idea it was to have the child and gave custody of the boy to the Calverts. 

These cases are all of surrogate mothers in the U.S. but many Americans are turning to India for their surrogacy needs. Why? The almighty dollar! It’s cheaper. 

According to this MSNBC story, hiring a woman in India to act as a surrogate is almost a third cheaper than it is in the U.S.—about $30,000 compared to about $80,000 in the U.S.. Another reason to choose a surrogate in India: Indian women have no legal right to change their minds about babies they carry because they sign documents giving up their rights to the children. The U.S. has no across the board legal stand on this issue – some states have legalized surrogacy, others have outlawed it, while others refuse to recognize surrogacy contracts.

If the “commodity” under discussion was not such an emotional one, it might be reasonable to ignore emotions. But it is not. Can carrying a child simply be a transaction? 

Apparently, Whitehead’s contract specified that she would “form no ‘parent-child relationship’ with the baby. But doesn’t carrying a child constitute some form of parenting? If I raise a baby I adopted the question of motherhood—when asked of me and the birth mother—may be clearer. But at the time of birth in the surrogacy cases, it’s hard to imagine who else could have had a greater impact on the baby than the surrogate. This conclusion, assumes that nurture trumps nature even when the surrogate is unrelated to the baby.

Is surrogacy a version of asking my girlfriend to hold my purse while I go to the bathroom? (“Hold my baby until he’s born”). Is it reasonable to expect that a woman can carry a child—even if she is not genetically related to that child—and simply hand that child over and feel no bond? (Women who decide to give their babies up for adoption have described the difficulty some of them feel in giving up their babies, and some change their minds and keep their babies.)

Surrogate mothering is unique in that unlike other kinds of mothering, surrogate mothers exist to allow another woman to be a mother. So is that mothering at all or merely renting a womb? What else would we call this “service”?

Surrogacy forces us to think about what parenting is and about what we should be able to buy and sell. Should genetics trump gestation? Does gestation hold a superior claim to parenthood that genetics can’t touch? What principles do you think should decide these issues?

Free to Marry

By Sally Raskoff

The May 2008 California Supreme Court decision effectively adds a second state to the (short) list of states that do not prohibit marriage for consenting adults of the same gender. The ruling reflects the result of many years of social change that has pressured our country to live up to its ideals of freedom, equality, and justice for all. The Civil Rights Movement was the most visible event in recent history, as many radical changes occurred in a relatively short period of time. At that time, we effectively identified how race, ethnicity, and gender issues are rife with inequality and thus problematic for our country.

Social change does not move quickly or steadily. In stops and starts, forward towards new practices and backward to known traditions, society resists change at every step. Some refer to this dynamic as a dialectic process in which whatever exists creates its own contradictions, creating struggles which eventually “resolve” or morph into a new reality. Marx described the life span of capitalism as a dialectic process, for example. 

While societies do not change quickly, they are always changing. Things today are certainly not the same as they were fifty years ago, or even five years ago. With technological changes and resource pressures, the way we live our lives has changed and will continue to change. Younger generations grow up in altogether different circumstances than previous generations thus their ways of thinking and expressing themselves sets them apart from others.

With regard to marriage laws, it is clear that we have seen some changes and we’ll continue to do so.

Marriage has long been a relationship defined by property and resources. Marriage based on love, emotional ties, and individual choice is a relatively recent social invention. That notwithstanding, marriage still is a legal contract that involves ownership and property rights. At the same time marriage effectively gives people license to have sex – although that, too, is tied to ownership and property since our societal norms of marital sex assume subsequent procreation and offspring – with appropriate naming and rights of inheritance. 

Our heterosexual norms are tied to male dominance – clearly seen when looking at marital laws. Historically, brides are women or property transferred from fathers to husbands. One look at a traditional marriage ceremony confirms this symbolism when the parents hand over the bride to the groom at the start of the ritual. 

Since men marry women – and give them their name (identifying one’s property!) – the power relations are clearly defined. Men had not been able to marry other men (and women to marry women) because that would tamper with the power structure based on gender. Homophobia helps to maintain this structure since it makes people afraid of both the idea of and the people who may be participating in same-sex couplings. 

Seen in this light, allowing same-sex marriage is progress towards gender equality.

American society’s marriage laws have always reflected its evolving attitudes toward race, ethnicity, sex/gender, and sexual orientation.

Prior to the civil rights era, anti-miscegenation laws outlawed marriage between white and non-white people thus protecting the property rights and inheritance patterns that kept the dominant group white and all other groups, well, not-white. 

While the U.S. Supreme Court deemed those laws unconstitutional in the late 1960s, it took until 1999 for all fifty states to vote those laws off their books. After being sued by inter-racial couples having trouble getting the paperwork to legally wed, Alabama finally asked their voters in 1999 to weigh in on eliminating or keeping their state anti-miscegenation laws, even as the law had been unconstitutional for over thirty years. (It passed, 60/40.)

While most marriages are still endogamous – people still tend to marry people like themselves – in contemporary American society we have the right to marry whomever we choose no matter their ethnicity or racial identity—as long as they are they opposite sex ( unless you live in California or Massachusetts).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only two percent of marriage partnerships are inter-racial. This does vary by state and region, of course, but nationwide it is only two percent. In spite of the Supreme Court decision, most marriages are intra-racial. 

This is all part of the inevitable social changes that come about since we live in a country with an elective affinity between love-based marriages and a strong belief in individual freedoms. We socialize people to grow up and fall in love, marry their sweetheart, and settle down to create a family. Those norms have long been informed by norms of heterosexuality and cultural heterogeneity although the latter is not as strong a norm as it once was.

When states make their marriage laws based on sex or gender definitions, they often complicate things further. For example, Texas defines their marriage laws on chromosomes, thus an XX female can marry an XY female because they do have the expected chromosomal pairing. One wonders if someone with X₀ and other variations can marry in Texas at all!

Add to this transgender issues and we see that our culture has some distance to travel before we really do embrace equality and justice for all. It’s not just a matter of saying that people should be able to love whomever they want. It’s more a matter of equalizing our social categories and dismantling the privileges and barriers based on sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

From the 1960s U.S. Supreme Court to the 2008 California State Supreme Court decisions, the highest bodies in our legal system have so far demonstrated that we still do strive for these goals.

Stand By Our Man

By Sally Raskoff

Have you noticed that when politicians get into trouble for something they’ve done, more often than not, their wives appear with them for the public apology? This is particularly evident when the trouble is sexual. (Whether the husbands of politicians in trouble would show up isn’t clear since we don’t have as many women in office, let alone getting into trouble.)

Eliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, had his wife by his side when he acknowledged hiring prostitutes. Jim McGreevey, former governor of New Jersey, had his wife by his side when he acknowledged having an affair with a man and that he was gay. Hillary Clinton also appeared on 60 Minutes with her husband during his 1992 campaign for president when he was accused of having an affair.

We hold our elected officials to a very high standard. We require those who hold power in this country to display a “normal” life where they look and behave in accordance with our societal expectations. Historically and even now, most (nationally) elected officials, are male, white, protestant, heterosexual, married, and from the middle/upper class.

When these politicians deviate from these norms, typically through sexual activities with someone other than their wives, we call into question their character, their ability to hold office and to be effective leaders. Especially if politicians do not disclose this information prior to taking office and we find out about it later, they are not likely to keep their position and/or their political aspirations are severely impaired. 

Jim McGreevey and Eliot Spitzer both resigned their governorships. Senator Larry Craig resigned from his committee positions after public disclosure of his legal troubles stemming from public bathroom behaviors with an undercover cop. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick acknowledged an affair with his female chief of staff (who subsequently resigned), yet faces legal action and may lose his position pending the legal outcome. (Mayor Kilpatrick and President Clinton both faced legal action, not for their infidelity, but for lying under oath. However, their lies were in reference to their sexual liaisons.) Jack Ryan lost his candidacy for Senate in Illinois when his atypical sexual activities were disclosed during divorce proceedings. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa admitted an affair with a reporter and, although he kept his job, his divorce is pending and there is no longer talk of a run for governor.

Looking at these and the many other politicians whose sexual activities have ended or limited their careers, it is fascinating that upon first disclosure, the wives are there for the public apology yet later they may distance and/or divorce themselves from their partner. They stand by their man for the media frenzy yet after the public attention fades, they may not stay with their man.

When the wives appear, it is comforting to the public and reassures us that he may not be all bad since she’s staying with him. When the wife doesn’t appear, as with the L.A. Mayor’s situation, it can signal bigger problems that then may derail the politician’s career entirely.

Erving Goffman’s concepts of Front Stage and Back Stage can be helpful for understanding this dynamic. In this theory, we have front stage behavior to manage what we show to others and back stage behaviors to prepare the front stage and/or to deal with what we really feel or think. Back stage issues may be shared with others or they may play out with the one person alone. 

The politician and his wife have a lot of experience with the front stage; they need to perform their political roles no matter what happens. Back stage is another story. If the politician is having sexual affairs with people other than his spouse, the same may be true for the politician’s wife—although since their back stages are not public, we can speculate but we may never know for sure. In the cases above, we do find this out—yet they are both compelled to maintain the front stage as devoted companion and spouse.

Let’s think about the politicians who have had sexual affairs with other women, those who paid prostitutes for sex, and those who allegedly had affairs with men. 

Both politicians who prefer same-sex partners and their wives might suffer the greatest tension between their front and back stages. They feel that homophobia prohibits them from living their lives “out” and maintain public office. They therefore have to do a lot of back stage work to keep the public (and their wives) from finding out and moving the behavior to the front stage. 

Those who pay prostitutes get into trouble for illegal activity and work to keep this back stage (and from their wives). Politicians who have affairs with other women may keep their office although they may lose their wives. On the other hand, there may not be as large of a difference between what both spouses know back stage. Theirs may be a political marriage in which one or both partners seek any sexual liaisons are sought outside the relationship. 

If, however, sexual behaviors outside marriage or other non-normative behaviors are disclosed before taking office, do the dynamics change? It seems that they may, since then the non-normative behavior is already public, not secret, and not subject to surprise disclosure or legal action (for perjury). 

David Patterson, the new governor of New York, admitted upon Spitzer’s resignation that he and his wife both had affairs, received counseling, and have repaired their marriage. During his first presidential campaign, George W. Bush admitted his alcoholism and many polls found that this increased support for his leadership among some. His drinking and poor grades in college resonated with some and made him seem more accessible to them. 

If politicians admit to non-normative behaviors that are relatively common or otherwise familiar to us before they take office, we may respond by supporting them rather than condemning them. The difference seems to lie in whether or not they have been keeping such information secret or not and just how acceptable such behavior is in the public eye. 

We elect our politicians to use the power we give them wisely and do what we think is right. Thus when they behave outside those expectations, they act in ways to calm our responses, to let us know theirs are problems much like our own. Their front stage presentation is meant to reassure us that they are human and aren’t different from us and/or people we know-and not to question the job they do wielding the power we give them.

What other sociological theories can you apply to these situations of politicians in trouble for sexual activity and the ubiquity of wives standing by the men whom we elect?

Fiction Meets Fact: Juno and Teen Pregnancy

By Karen Sternheimer

I finally had the chance to see Juno this weekend after practically everyone has told me to go see it. Although I was miffed that I already heard all of the funniest lines on the commercials (but isn’t that always the case these days?), I found it to be a great movie and very different from the typical teen pregnancy morality tale. (Spoiler alert: I reveal some key plot points here, so if you haven’t seen it, go see it, and then come back and read this blog.)

Unlike the after school special genre I grew up on, this pregnant teen is not a “bad girl” or pariah—she is, after all, the character we are encouraged to most identify with. She is not the pregnant teen we have seen on Jerry Springer, Montel, or years ago on Ricki Lake, boldly promiscuous and claiming that she got pregnant on purpose, as the audience boos mercilessly.

Juno instead is everygirl, the girl who feels slightly out of place in high school (who doesn’t?) and finds the whole situation of adolescence a bit absurd. She is wise enough to know she lacks the maturity to be a mother or to make some of the decisions she now must make, but naïve enough to tell the infertile Jennifer Garner character (and potential adoptive mom) that she’s lucky not to be pregnant.

Juno isn’t the happy-go-lucky sexaholic many teens are portrayed as either. When she is offered flavored condoms at an abortion clinic by teen working at the reception desk, a repulsed Juno tells her she’s “kind of off sex now.” 

We see her deal with the judgmental stares of adults and peers at school and with an off-handed insult by a health care worker as she gets her first ultrasound. This film definitely does not make light of the fact that she is sixteen and pregnant, even if it does have its funny moments. Though the funny ads for the movie suggest otherwise, there are as many tears as laughs. Her pain is particularly evident after she gives birth and knows she won’t see the baby again. She weeps uncontrollably as the baby’s father holds her in the hospital.

I was surprised at first that her sort-of love interest, Paulie Bleeker (the father of the baby) isn’t a bigger part of the film. Played by Michael Cera of Superbad and Arrested Development, I thought for sure his great comic timing would be more central to the movie. 

But this is part of the beauty of the film—he’s not pregnant, and his life apparently isn’t affected too much. Juno’s father is obviously angry when he finds out who got his daughter pregnant, but he’s also a little impressed. “I didn’t think he had it in him,” he says of the pale, skinny boy.

When she tells first Paulie, he does ask her “what do we do?” and seems to be supportive (and totally freaked out). But she convinces her parents not to tell his, and as her belly grows she reminds him that she is the one who has to deal with the stares and insults, not him. Juno doesn’t even tell him when she goes into labor because he has a track meet that day. 

In fact, the only time a classmate mentions to Paulie that he heard he is the father of the baby, he seems impressed. The equally scrawny classmate comments that he will stop wearing underwear to improve his sperm count.

The truth is, when teenage girls get pregnant, they are the ones who bear not just the child, but the scorn of those around them and the broader society. Girls are the ones who get called “sluts” or “whores.” The boy fathers might instead be called "players” or “studs." Promiscuity is largely seen as a female stain; but remember that while females have more to lose by getting pregnant, they can’t get themselves pregnant.

In contrast to this movie, most babies born to teen girls are fathered by adult men, so “teen pregnancy” often involves an adult too. Teen girls are highly sexualized by the society (and adults) around them. The modeling industry, for example, relies on barely pubescent girls told to pout for adult (mostly male) photographers and sexy becomes defined as looking as young as possible.

But as Juno reminds us, teens are more than just naïve victims of the culture and society around them. As Janis Prince Inniss blogged about a few months ago, teen pregnancy rates are significantly lower than they were in past decades (despite a small increase in the last year data were available). Abortion rates have declined to their lowest level since 1974, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that teens are less likely to be sexually active compared with the 1990s (about 54% of high school students had sex in 1991 compared with 48% in 2005). When they are they are much more likely to use condoms (up from 46% in 1991 to 63% in 2005).

Even so, we have a much higher teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. compared with other industrialized nations (a topic for another blog), and getting pregnant at sixteen isn’t a great idea. Juno shows us why without being too preachy or requiring the girl to constantly suffer for her mistake. 

Valentine's Day: Barrier or Conduit to Romance?

 

By Janis Prince Inniss

A few days ago, my husband asked, “What date is Valentine’s this year?” Date, not day! How would you feel if your spouse or significant other asked that question? Would it be grounds for divorce? Confirmation that he or she is an insensitive and uncaring lout given that everybody knows Valentine’s is February 14^th? 

Not only do we (well, except my husband) know the date, but we know the “signs” that communicate Valentine’s: candles, Cupid, red roses, and boxed chocolates. It is the cultural event of romance! Last year the average American spent $120 on Valentine’s Day for a total of $16.9 billion. Valentine’s Day is the number one sales day for florists; almost three quarters (74 percent) of all Valentine’s Day rose purchases are made by men for women. Many men propose on this day, and restaurants are booked solid long in advance. Valentine’s Day is about passion, romance, and “true love.” 

Valentine’s Day seems to originate from a Roman fertility festival called Lupercalia that was celebrated on February 15. During the festival young women would place their names in a container and single men would draw the names of their companion for that year. Many of these pairs got married. St. Valentine, the Christian priest for whom the day was named, was martyred in A.D. 270. Some legends indicate that St. Valentine was executed for marrying Roman couples despite the edict by Emperor Claudius II not to do so; being married and having a family was thought to interfere with military service. In 498 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed February 14 St. Valentine’s feast day as a way to do away with Lupercalia because the pagan tradition reveled in romance - and the church held that marriage and romance should remain separate. 

Do you think that everyone falls in love? It’s natural as we mature, right? Western ideas about love, romance and marriage are relatively new, actually. Today, the mere thought of a loveless marriage is enough to make us shudder, but this was very desirable in earlier centuries.

Until the 1800s, marriages in the U.S. and Europe were often arranged by parents and other family members on the basis of pragmatic and economic issues such as property. Another primary purpose of marriage in these days was to rear children; if romantic love was considered at all, it was usually a secondary consideration. It is a modern, Western idea that marriage should be based on love and that young people should choose their own mates. 

Romantic love and its relationship to marriage have always been shaped by large cultural and societal influences. Even today romantic love is not a natural or universal experience across the world. Although many countries have similar Valentine’s Day celebrations, some Hindus and Muslims in Eastern countries—many of which continue to have arranged marriages, in which prospective partner opinions may or may not be taken into account—have been fiercely opposed to celebrating Valentine’s Day. With its emphasis on romantic love and passion, the celebration is perceived as a Christian/Western affront to Eastern values. 

In some societies where marriages continue to be arranged, the Valentine’s Day focus on romance and public declarations of love is considered at odds with or even offensive to that society’s values. In contrast, in modern western societies we expect happiness and fulfillment in marriage, and we don’t mind proclaiming those expectations publicly. 

What does passion and romance mean to you? How much of your definition of romance is based on what you see in the mass media? How much does what you see in mass media influence what you think about and expect on Valentine’s Day? Do you measure your significant other’s efforts based on those depictions? Considering how highly scripted this high holy day of romance is, is there room for individual expressions of love? Based on what I see all around me, I would expect my husband to not only know when Valentine’s Day is, but to appear before me on February 14^th with some token goodies (the aforementioned candy, flowers), and maybe even some diamond, heart-shaped jewelry! 

Valentine’s Day is the ultimate symbol of the passion and romance that we expect from relationships today. Paradoxically, many depictions of romance are hard to measure up to, given the heavy market emphasis on fantasy. It is difficult to feel positive about your partner and relationship—especially in relationships that are not going very well—when we compare ourselves and our mates to what we see in the media. We have to find realistic ways to make our marriages and relationships fulfilling, and that takes the year-round practice of responding to our partners’ needs. Like a garden, a marriage or other relationship cannot be tended one day a year. 

I appreciate romantic gestures, but expect them all year and don’t expect them to come only in red, heart-shaped packages. What’s meaningful to me? A regular supply of grocery store flowers—and groceries, since I detest grocery shopping!

Getting a Job: Weak Social Ties and On-Line Connections

By Bradley Wright

Last summer my wife was looking for a summer job, and she did the usual things—read the employment bulletins and sent out applications. Ultimately, though, she got a job through an acquaintance. We see this person a few times a year, and she heads up an administrative unit here on campus. My wife applied, got the job, and we all lived happily after.

This story illustrates the somewhat cynical mantra of all job seekers that it’s not what you know but who you know. Sociologists call this phenomenon the strength of weak ties.

A “weak” social tie, in every day language, is an acquaintanceship—someone with whom you are familiar with but not too close. In contrast, a “strong” tie would be a good friend or close family member, someone with whom you interact a lot. An “absent” tie would be someone who you know but don’t really have any kind of relationship with.

In a famous sociological study, Mark Granovetter interviewed several hundred business people and asked them how they got their jobs. Seventeen percent reported learning about their jobs from a close friend (strong tie), 28% reported learning about it from someone they barely knew (absent tie), and a full 56% of the respondents reported learning about it from an acquaintance (weak tie).

It’s a bit of a paradox: Why are acquaintances, people we sort of know, more important in the job search process than our close friends and family? Our strong ties, after all, care about us more and would be much more willing to help us.

The answer, according to Granovetter, is that weak ties are a unique social resource: they connect us with a wider set of social networks than do social ties. Your acquaintances each have their own strong ties—family and friends to whom they are very close to. Through your acquaintances, you gain access to their strong ties—and to the social networks to which they belong. All social networks offer various resources, such as information about job opportunities, and so by connecting with a greater number of social networks, via weak social ties, you gain access to more possible employment opportunities. 

Strong ties, in contrast, connect us with fewer social networks. Your best friend in the world would probably do anything for you, but chances are that the two of you know many of the same people. As such, it’s not that your close friends and family don’t want to help you in a job search; it’s just that they have less to offer because you probably already know about most of the contacts that they would offer. You already share many of the same networks with them. So, there’s a trade-off. Strong ties are more willing and available to offer help, but weak ties typically have more resources to offer.

In this context, it’s interesting to think about the many social ties created by the Internet. About a year ago, I started blogging, and through that I have had contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of people with similar personal and research interests as mine. Likewise, most college students have Facebook accounts in order to keep track of their friends and make friends with their friends’ friends (got that?). As a result of this on-line networking, this generation may have more casual social ties than any before.

The question, then, becomes the nature of these online ties. Granovetter studied fairly conventional acquaintances—people you see in person at places like the work place or social gatherings. Online acquaintances are different. If I met some of the people I know from online, I don’t think that I would even recognize them. Yes, we’ve exchanged many comments on our blogs, and I know a fair amount of information about them, how they think, what they do, but I’ve never met them in person.

Would these on-line ties be as useful in a job search? The answer is… I don’t know. The focus of these on-line relationships is social networking, getting to know each other pretty much for the sake of getting to know each other. The interactions with these people tend to be more social—what you’re doing, what interests you share in common. I’m not sure how often instrumental concerns come up. In everyday conversation, it’s easy to drop in the information that you’re looking for a job, but it might fit in more awkwardly in online interactions.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is that the social networks and resources offered by online connections are often too distant to be of much value. For example, one of the people I interact with online lives in Kenya. Now, he may know of great job opportunities for me, and be very willing to help, but unless I’m willing to relocate to Africa they don’t do me much good. This maybe why in-person acquaintances remain so important—by virtue of meeting them face-to-face, you occupy the same physical location, at least briefly. Chances are, therefore, that the social resources they have to offer would also be close and thus of greater value.

So, do you want to get a job? Make sure to let your acquaintances know since they may be very helpful. Your online connections might be as well, but probably not as much.

What Makes a Real Parent?

By Janis Prince Inniss

The stepmothers in popular children’s stories Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, and Snow White were wicked enough to make “evil“ and “stepmother” seem naturally linked. When I married a man who had custody of his two children, I became a stepmother but did not morph into pure evil. But did I become a parent? 

What makes a real parent? The answer may seem clear to you if you were raised by your (biological) parents. However, the U.S. Census Bureau’s records (4.4 million stepchildren in the U.S. in 2000) would suggest that it’s likely that many of you were at least partially raised by a stepparent. Who parented you? 

Over the years, people have asked me when I am going to have children, even when they are aware that I’m a stepparent. By this, they mean, give birth to children or as they sometimes ask, “When are you going to have your own children?” 

It’s a question that has led me to wonder how my life would differ if I parented children I birthed, rather than gained by marriage. Good parenting, from my experience, observation, and study, is in large measure service to one’s children—serving their needs, sometimes at the expense of your own. And since, alongside my husband, I have been doing this to the best of my abilities, what would be different when I gave birth to my “own children”?

Being a stepparent is a tough job, requiring heart, soul and mind, but we are not always recognized as parents. Parenting, particularly great parenting, is not universally recognized as the demanding job that it is, but at least biological parents are recognized as parents, often regardless of how they parent. This is not the case for stepparents, however. Although the word “stepparent” includes “parent”, it does not convey many of the essential qualities of parenthood. Upon learning that I have two stepchildren, people typically assume that they are occasional weekend visitors to our home. In fact, we all lived together and at least initially, and the children visited their biological mother’s home every other weekend, so they spent at least 85 percent of their time with my husband and me. 

In that time I reviewed homework, provided counsel on a variety of subjects, read bedtime stories, cooked tasty, nutritious, varied meals with youth appeal, corrected grammar, dreamt up projects to capture the interests of a teenage boy, taught both children how to use a number of computer programs, darned torn clothing, watched television programs I would ordinarily abhor, cheered participation in just about every sport, including football (although I neither understand or enjoy the sport), repeatedly watched the movie Annie, and sewed curtains that matched the whims of a little girl. You get the picture.

So-called “traditional families” are based on marriage and biology, and the law and public attitudes have reflected this belief. But when stepparents (and other non-biologically related people) parent, what legal and social rights and responsibilities should they have? If my husband and I were to divorce when the children are still minors, what legal claim should I have had to visit them or to gain custody of them? As far as I know, only 18 states recognize de facto parents (someone who acts as an actual parent) and my state of residence, Florida, is not one of them. Although not a stepparent case, one recent ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court addresses the title question:

In 1989, after dating for several months, Page Britain and

Sue Ellen ("Mian") Carvin began living together as intimates. Five years

later, they decided to add a child to their relationship and together

artificially inseminated Britain with semen donated by a male friend. On

May 10, 1995, Britain gave birth to a baby girl, L.B., and the partners

began actively coparenting her, both taking a committed, active, and loving

role in her nurturing and upbringing. Then, when L.B. was six years old,

Britain and Carvin ended their relationship and an acrimonious spate of

litigation over access to L.B. ensued.

Washington’s highest court ruled that Carvin, the non-biological parent was a “de facto parent”.

(T)he court held that a common law claim of de facto or psychological parentage exists in Washington separate and distinct from the parameters of the UPA (Uniform Parentage Act) and that such a claim is not an unconstitutional infringement on the parental rights of fit biological parents. Id. at 485. The Court of Appeals held that a de facto parent may prove the existence of a parent-child relationship by presenting evidence sufficient to prove: 

(1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship; (2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household; (3) the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood without expectation of financial compensation; and (4) the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the case and block Carvin from seeking parental rights. Lawyers for the girl’s biological mother commented that this decision “pave(s) the way for children to have an unlimited and ever-changing number of parents.” Given that biological parents can have an unlimited and ever-changing number of partners and spouses some of whom parent, in that context, I guess the attorneys express a valid concern.

So what makes a real parent? For men, is donating sperm sufficient? In other words, is the biological contribution of sperm sufficient for a boy or man to be a parent, regardless of his role in the life of the resulting child? And does giving birth make a girl or woman a parent, regardless of whether she has parented the child? Not contributing DNA does not absolve stepparents—particularly those whose stepchildren live with them—of the demands that children make on resources such as love, attention, time, and money. I remember attending Parent Involvement Week and being introduced by the then nine-year old girl’s teacher to the class as her Mom. Then there is the night that I attended a special performance by the same tyke. Her father was in class, her brother had no interest in her choice of activity, and her mother was unavailable. I was the girl’s sole cheer-leader. At the end of the group’s spirited performance, the gymnastics coach approached me beaming. “You’re her Mom!” she gushed. 

Due to my involvement with her, both the teacher and the coach saw me as the girl’s parent. Over the years, most teachers have chosen to continue referring to me as Mom (no step) or a parent (no step) even after learning that I am a stepparent. Their intention seems to be to say, “I see your role in this child’s life and step-parenting is not what I see you do. Parenting is what I see you do.”

What's Missing about Missing Children?

By Janis Prince Inniss

Regardless of where you live in the U.S.—or probably anywhere in North America—you are likely to recognize at least one of these names:

Danielle van Dam

Samantha Runnion

Jessica Lunsford

These are girls who we learned were missing because of widespread media coverage. Apart from the sadness I feel upon  learning about any of these cases, I am struck by their similarities: they are almost always girls, and always white, as is the missing character in the recently released film Gone Baby Gone. 

I can’t think of one missing minority child or young white boy whose story I know as well as any of these missing little white girls. Based on what is presented in the media (television, radio, newspapers, Internet, magazines, movies, CDCs, DVDs), it appears that young white girls are regularly abducted by strangers and that children of color and white boys are almost never missing. 

Does this misinformation about missing children contribute to a culture of fear – the creation or stoking of public anxiety by the manipulation of information? In an effort to learn more missing children, I looked at data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Data released in 2002 indicate that in 1999, an estimated 1,315,600 children (under age 18 years old) were missing, but less than 1 percent remained missing. What are the characteristics of missing children? More than three-quarters (76 percent) of all missing children are older than 12 years: 45 percent are 15 to 17 and 31 percent are 12 to 14. Although 57 percent of missing children are boys, statistically, they are not over-represented among missing children. 

The majority (57 percent) of missing children are white; however, one-third (34 percent) of the parents experiencing the anguish of having a missing child are parents of African American/Black and Hispanic children. 

Almost half (48 percent) of all missing children are runaways/thrownaways (kids kicked out of their homes)—and most (68 percent) of these are 15-17 year olds. Fifty-seven percent of the
group is white, with equal numbers of boys and
girls represented.

The second largest group of missing children has a benign explanation; 28 percent of children are thought to be missing because of miscommunications between children and their parents. Combined, runaways/thrownaways and the benign explanation group total 84 percent of missing children. (This estimate counts each child only once, although some children had more than one episode). 

Table 1. Characteristics of Nonfamily Abducted Children 1Estimate is unreliable as it is based on too few samples.
Child Characteristic	Nonfamily Abduction Victims (n=58,200)	Stereotypical Kidnapping Victims (n=115)
	Percent	Percent
Age (years)
0-5	71	19
6-11	121	24
12-14	221	38
15-17	59	20
Race
White	35	72
Black	421	19
Hispanic	231	81
Other	<11	21
Sex
Female	65	69
Male	351	31

Table 1 details kidnappings and abductions, which of course get the most media attention. An overwhelming majority of victims of both nonfamily abductions and “stereotypical” kidnappings (the kind we hear so much about on the news) are children over the age of 12.

Of non-family abduction victims, 81 percent are older than 12, with the majority (59 percent) between 15 and 17. Similarly, more than half (58 percent) of the victims of stereotypical kidnappings are older than 12, with 20 percent of these between ages 15 and 17. 

White children account for about one third (35 percent) of non-family abductions, while black children seem to be over-represented among this group; the estimate for black children, however, is based on too few cases to be reliable. White children were the majority (72 percent) of the stereotypical kidnapping victims; 19 percent were black. Girls of all races are more likely victims of both non-family abductions and stereotypical kidnappings than boys (65 percent and 69 percent respectively) and teenage girls in particular are targeted; sexual assault is often the motive for non-family abductions. 

Note that the total number of stereotypical kidnappings was 115. That’s 115 more kidnappings than a civilized society should tolerate, but this number does not suggest that there is the epidemic one might think there is from watching mass media coverage of such stories.

In the rare event that a child is abducted, he or she is far more likely to be taken by family or acquaintances than by a stranger; only 3 percent of missing children are abducted by strangers, yet this is the scenario that receives widespread attention. Although the news coverage suggests otherwise, when the perpetrator of abduction is not a family member, 99 percent of children are retur