Coffin Corner

From http://familyscholars.org

Elizabeth Marquardt 02.23.2011, 12:33 PM

 

I wanted to share with our readers obituaries at the Austin American-Statesman and the University of Texas at Austin website.

Also, at my earlier post on the loss of Norval Glenn others are adding their thoughts in the comments section.

By Tom Bartlett

New York

Lucas Sherman and Aniyah McKenzie are building a house in Central Park. It is small, even by Manhattan standards, and the amenities leave something to be desired. But Lucas, who is 6, and Aniyah, who is 7, seem pleased with their handiwork. The house has a skylight (a hole torn in cardboard) and a flat-screen television (a black square of fabric). Lucas is too busy to answer a stranger's annoying questions, but Aniyah, who is holding a feather duster, explains that she must clean the walls because they are very dirty.

Lucas's father, Dan, observes the project from a nearby bench. "It's amazing what you can do with boxes and junk," he says.

Much more here http://chronicle.com/article/The-Case-for-Play/126382/

 

A Tarnished Silver Anniversary

What is destroying marriage in the West — and what has sustained my husband and me through several potentially marriage-destroying events.

by Christine A. Scheller-->

Christine A. Scheller

A silver anniversary isn’t what it used to be. I know this from experience, having celebrated mine last month, but the data speaks for itself. According to a 2005 U.S. Census Bureau report, only 33 percent of us reached the milestone 10 years ago, whereas 70 percent of those who married in the late 1950s did. For previous generations, a 25th wedding anniversary was as much a simple consequence of time as it was cause to celebrate. Surrounded by as many divorcing and non-marrying loved ones as I am, I was a little embarrassed to draw attention to our special day. And like the older brother in the story of the prodigal son, I harbored some resentment about this fact.

My husband and I have been through a series of potentially marriage-destroying events in recent years, and I would have appreciated some salutations acknowledging our accomplishment. On Facebook, where I shared photos from our wedding day to mark the occasion, only a few long-married female friends and one never-married person posted well wishes. We received one card in the mail, from my parents. Perhaps we should have thrown a party, but that would have been insensitive given that two of our siblings finalized divorces in 2009. Of the 15 middle-aged siblings and step-siblings in our combined families, only 4 of us are currently married.

A recent Pew Research Center / Time magazine study indicated that over the past 50 years, “a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race,” with lower levels of income and education correlating with lower marriage rates.

The executive summary further states that “even as marriage shrinks, family — in all its emerging varieties — remains resilient.” But wait. More respondents said they would feel “very obligated” to help a parent (83%) or adult child (77%) in need than said this about a stepparent (55%) or a step or half sibling (43%), and only 39% would feel similarly obligated to a best friend. The old definition continues to have traction when it matters most.

The key finding of a 2010 study conducted by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia is that divorce, non-marital childbearing, and unmarried cohabitation have led to a dramatic increase in “fragile” and “typically fatherless” families over the past five decades. The executive summary includes this dire warning: “Today's retreat from marriage among the moderately educated middle is placing the American Dream beyond the reach of too many Americans. It makes the lives of mothers harder and drives fathers further away from families. It increases the odds that children from Middle America will . . . lose their way.” As marriage increasingly becomes an institution aligned with wealth and eduction, the divide “threatens the American experiment in democracy and should be of concern to every civic and social leader in our nation.”

In a blog post about the Pew study, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler declared, “Marriage was given to us by our Creator as the central institution for sexual relatedness, procreation, and the nurture of children. But, even beyond these goods, God gave us marriage as an institution central to human happiness and flourishing. Rightly understood, marriage is essential even to the happiness and flourishing of the unmarried. It is just that central to human existence, and not by accident.”

I believe this. So, although my 49-year-old husband is unlikely to ever work again because of a physical disability that has fundamentally changed both our marital and financial health in ways I didn’t anticipate, divorce is no more an option than it ever was. What is a daily choice is how we live together in light of these and other challenges. Not only do love and faith constrain us, so do the above cited personal and professional stats.

I am simultaneously compelled to resist the encroaching pressure of the easy out and feel a deep obligation to model fidelity and stability to the next generation in light of it. This is no easy task. I vowed to love my husband in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer and can say unequivocally that rich and healthy is a whole lot easier than sick and poor. I can also affirm that hardness of heart is the fastest route to marital decline (Matt. 19:8).

Penn State sociologist Stacy J. Rogers is co-author of Alone Together: How Marriage in America Is Changing. She explained the National Marriage Project findings to the Huffington Post by saying that education, first marriage, no children from previous relationships, and financial health produce fewer external stressors. She also concluded, “We put a lot of emphasis on the marriage to make us happy, and fulfill our lives. We're victims of unrealistic expectations.”

As much as I affirm lofty marriage ideals like Mohler’s, I believe discipleship in our age inevitably involves putting unrealistic expectations to death. Consider how we enthusiastically memorize a verse like Psalm 37:4 because it tells us that if we delight in God, he will fulfill our desires. We would do well to keep reading. Verses five and six add, “Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn, your vindication like the noonday sun.”

When my husband and I were in pre-marriage counseling, our pastor noted our mutual realism as an indicator of relational health. Twenty-five years later, reality is much more insistent and the truths of 1 Corinthians 13 are much more compelling.

share this

Posted by Katelyn Beaty on January 4, 2011 9:30 AM

The CT Interview

Sex Economics 101

Mark Regnerus, the early-marriage sociologist, shares his latest research on young adults' sexual attitudes and behavior.

Katelyn Beaty | posted 2/18/2011 10:15AM

 

 

No News Flash: The West is facing an economic collapse whose effects will stretch on for decades. News flash: The West is also facing a challenging marketplace economy in sex and marriage, at least according to Mark Regnerus. "Neither a strong gender constructionist nor a strong gender essentialist, but a sociologist" (at the University of Texas-Austin), Regnerus describes the traditional marriage economy this way: Most men want sex more than do women and have traditionally gained access to sex via marriage. In turn, most women have given sex for marriage, which has brought economic security and commitment.

Now, says Regnerus—whose 2009 "case for early marriage" in Christianity Today made quite a splash—women are expected to commence sex early, with little promise of commitment. And this hurts everyone, but especially women. Speaking with CT associate editor Katelyn Beaty, Regnerus explained this and other findings from his new book, Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press), coauthored with Jeremy Uecker.

You frame your research using sexual economics theory: Sex is a transaction in which men pay, via economic stability or education or as little as dinner, to get access to sex, while women pay with their sexuality to get goods that men can offer. Describing sex this way seems pretty cynical. Why use this theory to explain your research?

Because it's accurate. There are lots of lenses to use to evaluate how people make decisions about sex and relationships. Some of them are far more idealistic than realistic. I find the economic theory [developed by psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs] to be remarkably astute in its general description of how people make such decisions. My students—who can spot a pathetic argument on this stuff a mile away—almost always confess that this way of understanding relationships is consonant with their experience.

People will cringe to listen to it, but when they think about it, it's remarkable how accurate it can be. It works because it's rooted in basic differences between men and women and basic different interests in sex, marriage, and long-term relationships. As a Christian, none of it surprises me or discourages me. There's an inherent good and functional tension between men and women in this domain. Historically, sex was a key motivator for men to marry. Try to reduce that tension, that function, and all hell breaks loose—which is what we are witnessing.

That tension has been reduced, in part, by the fact that women now have much greater chances to pursue higher education and financially support themselves compared with 50 or even 20 years ago. But you say that women's education and the sex ratio imbalance it's created on college campuses comes at a cost.

Relationships that form under the current conditions of imbalance tend to become sexual more quickly than when they form under more balanced gender ratios, or when there are a lot more desirable men than women. Because whoever is the minority gender, so to speak, has more power, and especially in this sense, because women want marriage more than men do. So when there are more women in the pool, it lends itself to women competing for men rather than the other way around.

The imbalanced ratio indicates remarkable achievements for women's continued push for social and economic equality with men. But it spells something altogether different for their romantic relationships with men, which have become considerably more difficult to generate and maintain. As women who are highly educated and successful outnumber men, this drives down the "market price" of sex. There are plenty of women who are in sexual relationships that they aren't crazy about, who would like to be legitimately asked out, but they feel like they can't get it. He texts, and they "hang out." How lame is that?

share this page

|

]]>--> 3 more pages here http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/february/sexeconomics.html

February 2011, Vol. 55, No. 2