DIVORCE ON PBS: Press release

...In Kids & Divorce: For Better or Worse, airing Thursday, September 14, at 10p.m. on PBS (check local listings), host Dave Iverson explores the highly charged issue of divorce and asks what parents and the legal system can do to minimize the negative impact on children. Through a mix of in-studio discussion and documentary reports, this one-hour television special takes a closer look at innovative approaches to divorce education, debates whether or not current custody laws should be changed, and offers sound advice from nationallyrecognized experts who demonstrate how families can communicate, co-parent, and heal.

"While the aftermath of a failed marriage generates strong emotions for the parents, what does divorce really mean for children?" asks host Iverson. "A recent long-term study at the University of Virginia found that while the majority of children do well following a divorce, about one quarter experience significant emotional or behavioral problems. That's about double the rate for kids whose parents don't divorce. What can we do to improve these odds?"

In Kids & Divorce: For Better or Worse, an esteemed panel of experts from the fields of family counseling, law, and psychology debates the most critical question facing divorcing parents: What's best for kids? These experts include: Dr. Peter Jaffe, academic director for the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children at the University of Western Ontario; Dr. Isolina Ricci, author of Mom's House, Dad's House: The complete Guide for Parents Who Are Separated, Divorced or Remarried; Ernest Sanchez, senior mediator for the Los Angeles Superior Court; Andrew Schepard, director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at Hofstra University; Marjorie Slabach, family court commissioner in San Francisco, California; and Dr. Richard Warshak, psychologist and author of Divorce Poison.

more
posted by Eve at 11:00 AM | Link |

Brad Pitt on When He Will Tie the Knot

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19."
posted by maggie at 8:44 PM | Link |

Biological Clock Ticking?

Quick, you're a thirtysomething unmarried woman who wants to start a family: what should you do?
posted by maggie at 1:03 PM | Link |

Men Against Divorce Courts

More Stephen Baskerville on divorce as a violation of men's rights in of all places Movie Guide
posted by maggie at 11:04 AM | Link |

Are Men Smarter than Women?

A new study says yes, on average, calling the gender IQ difference "not large" but "real and non-trivial."
posted by maggie at 10:59 AM | Link |

It's Picasso's World

We all just live in it. An unusual paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research:

"This paper surveys 31 new genres of art that were invented during the twentieth century, chronologically from collage, papier colle, and readymades through installation, performance, and earthworks. This unprecedented proliferation in art forms was a direct consequence of the dominant role of conceptual innovation in the century's art, as a series of young iconoclasts deliberately broke the conventions and rules of existing artistic practice in the process of devising new ways to express their ideas and emotions. . .The proliferation of genres has fragmented the advanced art world. A century ago, a great painter could influence nearly all advanced artists, but today it is virtually impossible for any one artist to influence practitioners of genres as diverse as painting, video, and installation. This survey also underscores the central role of Picasso in the advanced art of the past century, as he not only created the first, and one of the most important, of the new genres, but in doing so he also provided a new model of artistic behavior that became an inspiration for many other young conceptual artists."

posted by maggie at 9:40 AM | Link |

New Study Brings Marriage Movement to Britain?

From a September 7 story in the Telegraph, "Marriage is best for bringing up children, says Tory study:"

"Marriage is the best environment to raise children and offers the greatest chance of a stable upbringing, an independent study commissioned by the Tories reveals today.

Unmarried parents are up to five times more likely to experience family breakdown, according to the survey of 15,000 families carried out for the social justice policy review group headed by Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader.

The findings will put intense pressure on David Cameron to offer voters a cast-iron guarantee that he will put marriage at the heart of Tory policies on the family. Some of the Conservative leader's advisers want him to tone down the party's support for marriage because they fear the party risks alienating support from unmarried families.

But the study said that such a strategy was misguided. . .

The findings are based on a study of 15,000 mothers who gave birth during 2000-01 - the so-called Millennium Cohort Study. It found that cohabiting couples were twice as likely to experience a family breakdown during the early years of parenthood than married couples of a similar income.

When the sample was expanded to include all unmarried couples — including those cohabiting and "closely involved" — family breakdown is five times more common than among married couples.

Almost 3,000 of the women involved in the study had become lone parents during the first three years of their child's life.

However, analysis of the figures reveals that six per cent of married couples had experienced a family breakdown compared with 32 per cent among all unmarried couples. When the unmarried figures are broken down, they show that 20 per cent of cohabiting couples experienced breakdown while the figure among "closely involved" couples was 74 per cent. . .

"This is a serious study and will help the policy group establish the causes of the UK's very high levels of family breakdown," he said. "What is particularly interesting is the way the report shows that the Government's assumption that children's outcomes are solely dictated by socio-economic factors is wrong.

"The structure within which they grow up and are nurtured is vital to their well-being.

"The Government's corresponding attempt to airbrush out references to marriage from family research is a form of censorship."

posted by maggie at 9:15 AM | Link |

What is the Purpose of Marriage?

In the the Jerusalem Post, from the chief rabbi of Efrat in a discussion: What is the Purpose of Marriage? (Thanks Rachel for the link):

"However, despite what I have just recorded, there is a fascinating disagreement among our Sages (12th-16th centuries) as to whether or not there is in fact a commandment to get married. R. Asheri, (known as the Rosh, 1250-1327), insists that there is no such commandment; the only real command is to have children ("Be fruitful and multiply," Gen 1:28), and the natural - and legal - preparation for procreation is marriage. If one does not wish to - or is biologically incapable of - having children, marriage is not at all necessary."

I am shamefully ignorant about Judaism. But every time I read something about it, I'm struck by the great truth that Catholic thinking is a survival of Temple Judaism. In this case, see the discussion of the difference between betrothal, or the giving of marriage, and the "completion" of the marriage through sexual relations, a distinction which marks much medieval Catholic thought.
posted by maggie at 4:47 PM | Link |

Who Says Sex Ed Doesn't Work?

Via The Smoking Gun via The Drudge Report, a man who became so enamored with a young woman's obituary photo, he plotted to rob her grave to have sex with her corpse:

"In a police interview, Radke said that he and the Grunke brothers stopped at a Wal-Mart to buy condoms on their way to the cemetery.. ."

posted by maggie at 3:48 PM | Link |

Curse of the 9/11 Widows?

Via the Drudge Report: The curse of 9/11 widows: 'Wrecked marriages. Shattered families. Adultery and sheer greed'...If true, this looks a lot like the social science literature on lottery winners.
posted by maggie at 3:43 PM | Link |

More Response to Judge Wilkinson

From Daniel Lowenstein, a law professor at UCLA, via a private informal listserve (with his permission of course):

"But when the proposal is to eliminate mankind's most ancient and fundamental institution and replace it with something different, I see no objection to imposing a difficult-to-surmount, super-majority requirement on those who would effectuate such a change. The change is not only fundamental but very difficult to reverse. And the impairment of marriage from one or several states adopting the change affects everyone. It would not have and did not occur to anyone that such a provision in the Constitution was necessary until the judiciary started going haywire. But now that they have, the issue seems to me to have all the characteristics that make a constitutional amendment appropriate."

posted by maggie at 2:56 PM | Link |

Beyond Babies or Islamic Oppression?

The NYT piece on Zoroastrianism sparks a vigorous blogosphere debate, via Amy Welborn.
posted by maggie at 2:53 PM | Link |

SSM Debate: Response to J. Harvey Wilkinson III

A New York lawyer (who prefer anonymity) writes of Judge Wilkinson's WaPo op ed:

"It is a fair point with respect to a federal constitutional amendment that, because such amendments are so hard to enact, they are also hard to repeal, such that a current strong majority might wish to consider the possibility that future generations ought not have their hands tied. But it's a silly point with respect to state constitutional amendments, both because state constitutions are easier to amend and because they are often stuffed full of extraordinarily humdrum and specific provisions. New York's, for example, has very lengthy provisions about permissible ski trails in the Adirondacks, the extent to which the state government can guarantee debt issued by the Port Authority, and similarly transient and non-exalted subjects. Of course, the federal constitution has a lot of small-change stuff as well. Judge Wilkinson should either be willing to regret the adoption of many of the current provisions of the federal constitution (which would undercut his historical argument) or be prepared to explain why, e.g., the no-third-term-for-Presidents amendment and the votes-for-18-through-20-year-old amendment are of a more permanent, exalted, and general nature than the definition of marriage. The no-third-term provision may be an interesting analogy (although it lacks the federalism angle), because a well-established norm had developed that the country had never bothered to constitutionalize because no one had seriously challenged it. Once a challenge arose (in the form of FDR), constitutionalization followed.

I also don't know what to do with the claim that such amendments are bad ideas because they are (gratuitously?) offensive to the minority of the electorate that might wish to benefit from the legislation that is rendered impermissible. Any constitutional provision that bars the legislature from adopting policy X through the ordinary political process can be construed as "sending a message" to those members of the public who support policy X and/or believe they would benefit from its adoption that their views and interests are somehow considered out-of-bounds and not fit to be recognized by the law. Pretty much by definition, the "victims" of such a message will be a comparatively socially marginal and/or politically powerless group, or else their policy adversaries would not have been able to get the relevant constitutional provision enacted. Perhaps there are good arguments that the sense of rejection and alienation that the potential losers in this particular political struggle might feel should be given greater weight than has been customary in such struggles in the past, but Judge Wilkinson has not elaborated on what those arguments might be."

posted by maggie at 11:12 AM | Link |

Beyond Babies: Zoroastrians Dwindle

Another NYT story suggesting the cultural effects of generativity, in this case on Zoroastrians. I know very little about this ancient religion of Persia, except that Nietzche appropriated its chief prophet for "Also Sprach Zarathustra," (and that in India they are called "Parsis") but somehow I have to believe there is more to the faith than that, as this article describes it, they believe one should "do good." I wish the reporter had been more curious about their theology, cosmology etc, esp. if it's a faith now doomed to death by its members failure to reproduce.

Like Judaism and Hinduism (other surviving religions of equal antiquity), Zoroastrianism is essentially tribal in nature: a people were defined by their faith, and vice versa. Credal religions (such as Christianity and Islam)by contrast have two methods of reproduction: generativity and conversion. Anyway back to the Zoroastrians fate, after surviving 3000 years, in the modern world:

Zoroastrians Keep the Faith, and Keep Dwindling

Sept 7, 2006 NYT

". . .While Zoroastrians once dominated an area stretching from what is now Rome and Greece to India and Russia, their global population has dwindled to 190,000 at most, and perhaps as few as 124,000, according to a survey in 2004 by Fezana Journal, published quarterly by the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America. The number is imprecise because of wildly diverging counts in Iran, once known as Persia — the incubator of the faith.

'Survival has become a community obsession,' said Dina McIntyre, an Indian-American lawyer in Chesapeake, Va., who has written and lectured widely on her religion.

The Zoroastrians' mobility and adaptability has contributed to their demographic crisis. They assimilate and intermarry, virtually disappearing into their adopted cultures. And since the faith encourages opportunities for women, many Zoroastrian women are working professionals who, like many other professional women, have few children or none.

Although the collective picture is bleak, most individual Zoroastrians appear to be thriving. They are well-educated and well-traveled professionals, earning incomes that place them in the middle and upper classes of the countries where they or their families settled after leaving their homelands in Iran and India. About 11,000 Zoroastrians live in the United States, 6,000 in Canada, 5,000 in England, 2,700 in Australia and 2,200 in the Persian Gulf nations, according to the Fezana Journal survey. . . .

The Zoroastrian magazine Parsiana publishes charts each month tracking births, deaths and marriages. Leaders fret over the reports from Mumbai, where deaths outnumber births six to one. The intermarriage rate there has risen to about one in three. The picture in North America is more hopeful: about 1.5 births for one death. But the intermarriage rate in North America is now nearly 50 percent. . .

Despite, or because of, the high intermarriage rate, some Zoroastrian priests refuse to accept converts or to perform initiation ceremonies for adopted children or the children of intermarried couples, especially when the father is not Zoroastrian. The ban on these practices is far stronger in India and Iran than in North America.

'As soon as you do it, you start diluting your ethnicity, and one generation has an intermarriage, and the next generation has more dilution and the customs become all fuzzy and they eventually disappear,' said Jal N. Birdy, a priest in Corona, Calif., who will not perform weddings of mixed couples. 'That would destroy my community, which is why I won’t do it.'. . ."

posted by maggie at 10:09 AM | Link |

New Study: Women Bored by Sexy Looks

A new study reveals that, unlike say (male) monkeys, women prefer to look at photos of females who are "wholesome" rather than "sexy." But the males who run the fashion indsutry don't apparently have a clue:

"For female magazine readers, sex doesn’t sell so much as it -- bores.

So conclude three University of Florida advertising professors in a new study that gauged young women’s emotional responses to ads featuring beautiful women from Vogue, Allure and other women’s magazines.. . .

. . .The researchers launched the study with the original goal of determining what sort of models epitomized six different types of beauty -- “classic feminine,” “sensual exotic,” “trendy,” “cute,” “girl next door” and “sex kitten”–– that had been identified as advertising archetypes by earlier researchers.

Some 258 women looked at an identical set of photos and rated the models for how well the six types described each. All of the photos, which included celebrities such as Uma Thurman and Lindsay Lohan, had appeared in fashion magazines aimed specifically and uniquely at female consumers, including Vogue, Cosmopolitan and Allure.

Analysis of the numbers soon revealed that the six types collapsed into two much more general categories: sexy and wholesome. 'When Uma was rated high 'classic beauty,' she was also rated high 'cute' and high 'girl next door,' so there's not six types, there’s really only two,' Sutherland explained.

The researchers then had 127 women give their emotional responses to the models that best fit these two descriptions.

The results were unambiguous. The more lustful the models' expressions and spare their attire, the more the women’s emotional reactions revealed that they were bored or uninterested. The more the models smiled naturally and displayed a minimum of skin, the more positive the women’s reactions. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:46 AM | Link |

U.K. Christian Arrested for Distributing Bible Quotes

From a Sept. 6, U.K. Daily Mail story:

"South Wales police admitted evangelical Christian Stephen Green was then charged purely because his pamphlets contained anti-gay quotations from the Bible. . .A spokesman for the police said the campaigner had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but that officers arrested him because 'the leaflet contained Biblical quotes about homosexuality'. . .

Colin Hart of the Christian Institute think tank said: 'This was a very gentle leaflet. There was no use of words like "perversion". I have to wonder if churches, bishops and archbishops are now vulnerable to arrest for their views on homosexuality.'"

posted by maggie at 9:27 AM | Link |

HELPING KIDS HANDLE DIVORCE, GRIEF TAKES TIME: From Catholic Digest

[via Child of Divorce/Child of God ---Eve]

...Children grieve about divorce differently than their parents do. First, for children there is no finality. The marriage may be over for the adults, but the child-parent relationship still exists. Second, since children are still maturing, the various stages of their development bring new grief experiences relating to the divorce.

While the grief of adults has a beginning, middle, and end, the grief of children has a series of beginnings, middles and ends. ...

Don't stifle or deny youthful sorrow by saying: "I know how you feel" or "you should be stronger than this." Instead, encourage children to express their feelings. Tell them: "I'm sure this is very difficult for you"; "I wish I could take the pain away"; or simply "What can I do to help?" ...

Show them how to take responsibility for negative feelings. Reinforce positive attitudes. Do not let them off the hook for their need to improve their situation. Expect them to do their best and show an optimistic attitude. ...

Though marriages end, children have relationships with both parents. Even if you have reason to believe the other parent will let your children down, don’t interfere with their relationship. Children have to learn skills for handling people with shortcomings. This experience will help them learn to put forgiveness into practice. ...

We cannot hurry young people through the grieving process. They must move through it at their own pace. This could be much slower than we would like or expect, because their grief is intertwined with their ongoing personal development. If your children refuse to talk about the separation or the divorce, honor their wishes. They may be defending themselves against emotions that seem overwhelming. They may also be searching for a way to let these feelings out while protecting themselves at the same time.

more
posted by Eve at 1:19 AM | Link |

UK SISTERS SUE FOR PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS: From the Telegraph

Two sisters in their eighties, who face a hefty bill for inheritance tax when the first of them dies, will accuse the Government of discriminating against heterosexuals when their challenge comes before the European Court of Human Rights this month.

The test case is the first of its kind since the law was changed to allow gay and lesbian partners the same inheritance rights as married couples. ...

They have lived together all their lives and made wills in favour of each other.

Their house, which cost £7,000 to build in 1965, is valued at £875,000. But the sisters fear it will have to be sold when one of them dies in order to pay inheritance tax estimated at £236,000.

Property left by one spouse to the other or inherited by a civil partner is exempt from the tax. However, close relatives, such as siblings and descendants, are not eligible to register as civil partners.

Joyce Burden said she thought people like her were deliberately excluded from the recent Civil Partnership Act because there were so many homosexuals in Parliament.

"I don't have the status of a lesbian," she said. "This is an insult to single people who have looked after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."

She and her sister had been trying for 31 years to get the law changed. She hoped that a victory at the court would help others in their position. ...

Emma Stradling, the sisters' lawyer, said they had spent their lives in a stable, committed, supportive and loving relationship with each other.

The Government's position was that the relationship between siblings was different from that of couples.

"Couples enjoy a relationship of choice. Siblings however, enjoy a relationship of consanguinity. Further, the relationship between siblings is for ever, whereas couples may part."

In the Government's view, she said, a couple made a financial commitment by making a personal commitment to each other. This was not the case with siblings.

more
posted by Eve at 1:16 AM | Link |

Federal Judge Opines Against Constitutionalizing Marriage

A surefire way to get into WaPo! (And I wonder if this means he doesn't expect to rule on a case any time soon. . .) But a thoughtful op ed by J. Harvey Wilkinson III, on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, against constitutionalizing gay marriage:

". . .To constitutionalize matters of family law is to break with state traditions. The major changes in family law in the 19th and 20th centuries, such as the recognition of married women's property rights and the liberalization of divorce, occurred in most states at the statutory level. Even the infamous bans on interracial marriage were adopted nonconstitutionally by 35 states, and by constitutional amendment in only six.

Where is the threat that justifies so radical a break with our constitutional heritage? State courts in Georgia, New York and Washington have recently rejected invitations to follow Massachusetts and find a right to same-sex marriage in their constitutions. The great majority of state court judges -- more than 80 percent by some counts -- are subject to election in some form and unlikely to overturn state legislatures on so volatile a matter as same-sex marriage. States have numerous tools that enable them to reject objectionable marriages from other jurisdictions -- tools that have long been the basis for refusing to recognize marriages involving polygamy, incest, and underage or mentally incompetent parties.

I do not argue that same-sex marriage is a good or desirable phenomenon, only that constitutional bans on same-sex unions carry terrible costs. Partisans see only one side of a profound controversy when in fact there are two. It is not wrong for gay citizens to wish to share fully in the life of this country, to partake of its most basic and sacred institution, and to experience the intimacy, bonding and devotion to another that only an institution such as marriage can bring. To embrace this view one need not believe that sexual infidelities will disappear but only that many gay couples will make good on their vows and lead fuller, richer and more productive lives as a result.

That, however, is hardly the end of the matter. Marriage between male and female is more than a matter of biological complementarity -- the union of the two has been thought through the ages to be more mystical and profound than the separate identities of each alone. Without strong family structures, there will be no stable and healthy social order, and alternative marriage structures might weaken the sanction of law and custom necessary for human families to flourish and children to grow. These are no small risks, and present trends are not often more sound than the cumulative wisdom of the centuries. . ."

posted by maggie at 2:28 PM | Link |

Bond Goes Bisexual?

That's as in James Bond, according to the Boston Globe.
posted by maggie at 2:21 PM | Link |

The 29 Year Old Virgin and her Pimps

Dawn Eden in the New York Daily News on Jane Magazine's latest campaign: to deflower one of its editors:

Women's glossies traditionally aim to be a reader's best friend, but that's not enough for Jane magazine. With its campaign to find the "first one" for a woman it labels "The 29-Year-Old Virgin," Jane goes one step further: It wants to be a reader's best pimp.

"Meet Sarah," reads the introduction to the "Sarah Needs You" section of Jane's Web site (www.janemag.com). "She's funny, gorgeous and hopes to lose her virginity by her 30th birthday in November."

Sarah DiMuro is an aspiring comic/girl Friday who, according to a Jane press release, approached the magazine because she "decided that enough time has been wasted." Jane, for its part, is wasting no time hooking up the blond, blue-eyed young woman, giving her a blog on its Web site - "The Virgin Chronicles" - to detail her exploits. To ensure sufficient material, the site exhorts readers to nominate their bachelor pals as potential dates - and vote on which one will be DiMuro's next companion for dinner and, possibly, the proverbial "more." Would-be suitors are urged to "learn all about her quest and, uh, enter to win. A date, that is."
It's the Chicken Ranch, Condé Nast style - but the meat on display is more wholesome-looking than usual. That the wide-eyed and seemingly innocent DiMuro appears more like the former Catholic schoolgirl that she is than a wanton woman doesn't bother Jane's editors. In fact, the contrast between her background and her quest seems to make Jane's editors salivate all the more as they plan her debauchment. . ."

posted by maggie at 2:13 PM | Link |

Beyond Gay Marriage Discussion Continues

Walter Dynes sent me this post from his blog. One way of interpreting the Beyond Marriage statement, and the ensuing discussion, is that the gay left, having agreed to keep quiet in order to further SSM, now recognizes that SSM will be a very long battle and is unwilling to stay in the closet about what it believes for the duration:

"Same-sex marriage: the atmosphere changes

Looking over a decade or so of the gay-marriage movement, its contours are coming to form a discenable triadic sequence. In Phase One there was division, with some favoring gay marriage, while others were indifferent or opposed. In Phase Two the cause triumphed, among lesbians and gay men (though not in the society in general). Now we have entered Phase Three, where there is doubt and division again.

. . .Now Phase Three is upon us. It has been signaled by two developments. In the first those who had thrown themselves into the struggle for gay marriage were compelled to admit that the legal-activist strategy of obtaining results by court order wasn't working. In my view this was always bad strategy, as it was undemocratic. As we have seen with the civil rights and the women's movements, the American people will accept major change. If they sense that it is coerced, though, they will rebel. At all events, it is increasingly clear that in a number of states we must settle (at least pro tempore) for civil unions, in the hope of upgrading them later.

The second major development is the appearance this summer of a manifesto, 'Beyond Same-Sex Marriage' (BSSM), written and circulated by a group headed by Joseph DeFilippis of New York City. The manifesto complicates the matter by citing a number of side issues. Nonetheless, the main contention, that gay marriage needs to be implemented in tandem with a number of other options—including domestic partnership and civil unions-—seems sound to me. As a general rule, it is better to have several options instead of just one. After all, homosexuality and bisexuality are options that we have struggled for decades to gain recognition as equal in dignity to heterosexuality. By the same token, why should marriage be the only alternative to bachelor status?

. . .Let me say for the hundredth time: I favor gay marriage. And as for me undermining some major social movement, I don’t think that there is much to worry about there.

Then it is said that the signers of the manifesto tend to be on the left. So what? The left has made many important contributions to the gay and lesbian movement, starting with launching it in Southern California in 1950-52. Moreover, if gay conservatives are entitled to promote a particular concept of same-sex marriage that is aligned with their other beliefs, why shouldn’t progressive gays have the same privilege?

Finally, it is asserted that elements of the Christian Right will take advantage of the manifesto to attack gays. To me this is reminiscent of the claim that voting for Lamont instead of Lieberman will give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda. Such scare tactics must be resisted.

At all events there has been a major change in climate. The hopeful days of Phase Two are over. Now there is doubt and division, in some ways recalling the atmosphere during Phase One, where many gay and lesbian leaders were indifferent or hostile to same-sex marriage. That may not describe the situation now accurately, but things are complex. The advantage of this complexity is that it calls for thought, and not just endorsing slogans.

The downside is that the timetable for attaining same-sex marriage, as a national policy, will now be further delayed. That is unfortunate. Still, that is often the way social progress occurs in America--it shows many twists and turns. And that is how it should be. Gay marriage will come when enough people have been educated to see that it is right and just. As we move slowly toward that goal we must not allow any particular group to have a monopoly on the terms of the debate. That was the case in Phase Two. We are beyond that now."

posted by maggie at 3:39 PM | Link |

Beyond Babies in the New York Times

Several recent stories on the impact of depopulation in the New York:
Times:

"European Union's Plunging Birthrates"
NYT September 4, 2006

". . .In 1990, no European country had a fertility rate of less than 1.3 children per woman; by 2002, there were 15, with 6 more below 1.4. No European country is maintaining its population through births, and only France — with a rate of 1.8 — has even the potential to do so, according to a recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."

"In Greying Japan, Lower Shelves and Wider Aisles"
September 4, 2006

". . .With Japan now leading the world in aging — 21 percent of all Japanese are over 65 years old, and the overall population started declining last year for the first time since World War II — Japanese companies, from the low- to high-tech, are increasingly shifting their attention to older people. Researchers are developing robots that can serve as companions for the lonely elderly, carry them up stairs or act as bionic suits for enfeebled legs. . .

Businesses are scrambling to adapt themselves to changing demographics because Japan’s population aged rapidly over a short period, said Hiroyuki Murata, an expert on aging and business in Tokyo. In 1990, Japan had the same percentage of those over 65, a little over 12 percent, as the United States did. Today, while the rate has changed little in the United States, decreasing childbirth rates, longer life expectancy and no immigration have pushed up Japan's rate.

'The change was sudden,' Mr. Murata said. 'That's why the infrastructure and services haven't caught up yet.'. . ."

"A Younger India is Flexing its Industrial Brawn"
NYT, September 1, 2006

"A prime reason India is now developing into the world’s next big industrial power is that a number of global manufacturers are already looking ahead to a serious demographic squeeze facing China. Because of China's 'one child' policy, family sizes have been shrinking there since the 1980's, so fewer young people will be available soon for factory labor.

India is not expected to pass China in total population until 2030. But India will have more young workers aged 20 to 24 by 2013; the International Labor Organization predicts that by 2020, India will have 116 million workers in this age bracket to China’s 94 million."

posted by maggie at 2:12 PM | Link |

More Stupid Monkey Tricks

A new study shows that "Monkeys Will Pay to Look At Porn". . .and celebrities:

"In the new work, researchers Robert Deaner, Amit Khera and Michael Platt, all of Duke University Medical Center, tested this hypothesis by measuring how much fruit juice monkeys would accept or forgo to see photographs of familiar monkeys, permitting the researchers to compare monkeys' valuation of different types of social information. Male monkeys "paid" in juice to view female hindquarters or high-ranking monkeys' faces, but required "overpayment" to view low-ranking monkeys' faces. . ."

posted by maggie at 8:49 AM | Link |

Beyond Babies: Gary Becker in the WSJ

Gary Becker's take on "Missing Children: without mass immigration, low birthrates doom society."
posted by maggie at 8:44 AM | Link |