Demography and Economy:

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

The release on March 18, 2009, of preliminary childbirth data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) for 2007 has yielded mixed news – some good but most providing troubling insight into potentially crippling problems for American society and the American economy. These data suggest that 2007 was a very bad year, indeed. While most media focused on the teen pregnancy data, they missed the bigger picture. Here is the bigger picture.

The Good news in the NCHS report is that more warm cuddly babies were born in 2007 than ever before in American history -- barely eclipsing the previous high exactly a half-century earlier in 1957. We will call 1957 Baby Boom I and 2007 Baby Boom II.   

The Bad news is the timing of these births. For the economic viability of our society, it would have been better had they arrived a quarter century earlier. Unfortunately, it will be at least 18 to 22 years before the Baby Boom II generation shifts from being an economic liability to an economic asset. This is relevant because Baby Boom II is needed to contribute to the support of Baby Boom I. Phrased in terms of baby booms and busts, what we have today is a bimodal distribution with the largest “modes” at the opposite ends of the life-span: Baby Boom I is on the cusp of retirement and Baby Boom II is on the cusp of the terrible two’s.

In fall 2007, the Social Security Administration made a big deal out of the first member of the Baby Boom I generation to file for Social Security. But fall 2007 also was the beginning of our slide into our current recession/depression. As the Baby Boom I generation prepares to retire, they are watching the value of their personal assets, 401k investment retirement plans, and the value of their homes plummet. More of this generation will require government assistance with their retirement health care, housing, and income than either they or the government ever had in mind.

The Ugly news is that 40% of the births in 2007 were to unmarried women. By contrast, in the 1950’s the unmarried birth rate hovered around 4% -- a tenfold difference. A large number of the unwed mothers and their children will require significant government financial support for unknown portions of their life-spans. And, despite claims for the delights of cohabitation and the joys of single motherhood by choice, the hard social science and economic realities are that children of unwed mothers – as a group – fare more poorly than their intact family counterparts on virtually all measures, including their eventual social and economic contributions to society.  The prospects for this 40% of the Baby Boom II generation, based on social science research, would be worrisome in good economic times -- and likely will be worse in hard economic times. As they enter adulthood, these children are much more likely to become criminals and unproductive economically than children of married parents. As always, dads matter.

In sum, the NCHS data show us where we are and where we are going as a Nation. The feet of Baby Boomers I and II already are on the ground. We ignore these demographic realities at our peril. Finally, and perhaps most critically, the last and current federal administrations have used deficit financing at unprecedented levels. If they are counting on Baby Boom II to pay back federal indebtedness, they are going to have to wait a very, very long time -- at best.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami. 

Faculty web page: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm

 Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2008 -- California Leads the Way

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

The saying “As goes California, so goes the Nation,” never has been more true than for Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2008. On October 14, the California courts led the nation in bringing public awareness to a previously hidden Domestic Violence issue -- that of battered men -- and subsequently ruled that battered men deserve equal protection under the law.   

Facing squarely the reality of Domestic Violence against men, the California Court of Appeals ruled that: “We find the gender-based classifications in the challenged statutes that provide programs for victims of domestic violence violate equal protection.  We find male victims of domestic violence are similarly situated to female victims for purposes of the statutory programs and no compelling state interest justifies the gender classification.  We reform the affected statutes by invalidating the exemption of males and extending the statutory benefits to men, whom the Legislature improperly excluded.” (page 2). (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C056072.PDF).

The California court ruling was based, in part, on empirical research undertaken by hundreds of social scientists who have helped to provide “the rest of the story.”  This research has demonstrated that both men and women initiate Domestic Violence at roughly equal rates with some recent studies suggesting that the initiation rates for girls and women may be increasing. Furthermore, approximately 40% of the physically harmed victims of Domestic Violence are men (www.mediaradar.org).

The implications of the California Appellate Court ruling are clear, compelling, and require a fundamental revision of all State and Federal Domestic Violence legislation to fully recognize the need for equal treatment of battered men under the law.  It is particularly important to revise the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and replace it with a Domestic Violence Act that stands in compliance with the California court ruling.  By its name alone, the Violence Against Women Act now is both Unconstitutional and scientifically misleading. 

Hopefully, the long-term impact of the California ruling will be to raise public and political awareness to the reality that Domestic Violence truly is an equal opportunity affliction.  Since the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden both is the father of VAWA and a self-defined Constitutional scholar, let us hope that he will take advantage of the closing days of the campaign to propose a revision to VAWA along the lines of the California Appellate Court ruling. Voters should be listening for such a proposed revision. 

Such an action also would be in the spirit of the words of Presidential candidate Sen. Obama* that: “…we must fight to bring domestic violence out of the darkness of isolation and back into the light of justice…” On October 14, 2008 the California courts ruled that justice must serve and protect both men and women. 

May it continue to hold that:  “As goes California, so goes the Nation.” 

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.  

 Macy’s DisRESPECT for Men

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

One thing that major retailing giants and politicians have common is a concern with their image in the hearts and minds of customers and voters.  They are concerned with the percentage of the population which views them positively as well as negatively.  In my view, and in today’s highly uncertain economic environment, I believe that Macy’s has made a major mistake by aligning itself with the radical feminist Family Violence Prevention Fund and their new ultra high-tech campaign titled RESPECT.

To fully comprehend the impact of this campaign on men and the women who love them, one must go to the Press Release issued jointly by Macy’s and the Family Violence Prevention Fund and listen more than once to the powerfully negative audio which accompanies the text:  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/9/prweb1326494.htm 

Most readers already will have an image of Macy’s.  Here is the image Macy’s new partner self-promotes:  “For more than two decades, the Family Violence Prevention Fund has been one of the world's leading organizations working to prevent violence against women and children (bold added). Instrumental in developing the landmark Violence Against Women Act (bold added) passed by Congress in 1994, the FVPF has continued to break new ground by reaching new audiences including men and youth, promoting leadership within communities to ensure that violence prevention efforts become self-sustaining, and transforming the way health care providers, police, judges, employers and others address violence. For more information, visit www.endabuse.org.” (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/9/prweb1326494.htm) 

In the same Press Release, Terry J. Lundgren, chairman, president and CEO of Macy’s, Inc. writes: “…As part of its continued work to end violence against women and children (bold added) Macy's will support the campaign…”

The problem, of course, is that Macy’s has left out the other half of the adult population harmed by domestic violence -- men.  Personally, I find it tragic that a major retailing giant would knowingly support and propagate such propaganda.  Macy’s cannot claim ignorance given that the empirical research reality is well known, well documented, and readily available.  Briefly -- and contrary to the RESPECT falsifications -- sound empirical research reveals that both females and males initiate domestic violence at about equal rates and with the most recent studies suggesting an escalating rate of violence initiation by girls and women.  Further, at least 38% of the physically harmed victims of domestic violence are men.  Finally, data from the Department of Health and Human Services indicate that for most forms of abuse, children are much more likely to be harmed or killed by their mothers than by their fathers.  For more information see:

www.mediaradar.org.

If Macy’s wants to maintain a positive image, it cannot afford to support harmful campaigns that damage and degrade men.  The same holds for politicians (see “Obama/Biden: Escalating the War on Fathers and Families” on various Google websites).

In my view, facing and accepting the empirical research reality on domestic violence is in the best interests of children, women, men, candidates, and corporations.  Let’s get on with it.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

Obama/Biden: Escalating the War on Fathers and Families

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Tragically -- but true to the radical feminist agenda -- the Obama/Biden Democratic ticket portends an escalating war on boys, men, fathers, and families.  On Father’s Day 2008, Sen. Obama could have spoken on any number of topics.  His choice was to castigate African-American fathers and blame fathers, and fathers alone, for the ills of the African-American family. 

He called upon African-American fathers to be more involved in their children’s lives (certainly a worthwhile call) but he also castigated them for failing to endorse “responsible fatherhood” which essentially means signing up for 18 years of overly highly calculated child support.  Economists understand, but Sen. Obama ideologically overlooks, the reality that child support currently is calculated at a level far above what the majority of fathers -- including poor and unemployed fathers -- actually are capable of paying or that children require (see W. S. Comanor, The law and economics of child support payments, 2004). 

So, what then does Sen. Biden bring to the ticket?  Sen. Biden brings the divisive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which he originated, expanded, and vigorously supported in subsequent years.  Unfortunately, substantial evidence now indicates that VAWA not only fails to protect women from domestic violence but in many cases increases their risk of harm and contains much fraud (www.mediaradar.org).  What VAWA does best, however, is squander billions of taxpayer dollars annually to finance the war on fathers and families.

As promoted by divorce lawyers (see The American Bar Association’s position on Domestic Violence at www.mediaradar.org) and domestic violence shelter operators, mothers are advised that the surest path to fortune and child custody is to obtain a restraining order through VAWA by telling a judge that they are “afraid” of their husband.  No physical evidence of violence or abuse is required, only her claim of “fear.”   Based on this “evidence,” judges routinely and immediately grant ex-parte temporary restraining orders against husbands.

With the restraining order in hand, Sen. Biden’s VAWA removes the father from his home at any hour of the day or night, separates him from his children, requires him to stay away from his wife, and immediately orders him to begin paying child support to his wife based only on her self-reported “fear.”  VAWA explicitly denies the father his Constitutionally guaranteed due process protections.  Children explicitly are denied the love and companionship of fit fathers.  In short, the feminist objective of destroying family life is achieved and the only real beneficiaries are the lawyers.

While Sen. Biden’s contribution to the war on fathers and families is clear, much remains to be learned about Sen. Obama and his attitudes towards fathers and families. The problem is that Sen. Obama’s book Dreams from My Father and material emanating in the media and on the web differ very substantially from one another. 

In closing, and of critical importance for the balance of the presidential race, it must be noted that “change” was the seminal issue which propelled Sen. Obama from obscurity to the Democratic Nomination. Is it then not fair to ask-- after three decades in the Senate -- where voters are going to find “change” in Sen. Biden? And, above all else, what does Obama’s selection of Sen. Biden portend for his future appointments and the future of the American family?

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

Facing Reality on Domestic Violence

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

The very high profile case of Fort Lauderdale police Chief Frank Adderley whose wife Eleanor Leisa Adderly shot at him, missed him by inches while he lay in bed, and then continued to fire at him while he fled the house provides South Florida and the nation with a unique opportunity to face squarely three realities regarding Domestic Violence

First, we must overcome our gender based stereotypes that men always are the perpetrators and women the eternal victims.  While many similar individual cases could be cited -- including the woman who shot her husband in the back with a shotgun while he slept in bed to the wife who ran over her husband multiple times in her Mercedes --what is important for social policy are not individual cases but rather the findings of social science research.  The empirical research reality is that decades of sound studies reveal that men and women initiate Domestic Violence at about equal rates with the most recent studies suggesting an increase in the initiation rates for Domestic Violence by girls and women.  Further, about 40% of the physically harmed victims of Domestic Violence are men.  Summaries of and the sources for this research can be found at:  www.mediaradar.org. 

Second, once we have overcome our stereotypes we must face a second reality that existing Domestic Violence programs, from the local to the federal levels, virtually never serve boys over the age of twelve and men (such as Chief Adderley) who unambiguously are victims of Domestic Violence.

Finally, two items about this particular case are noteworthy because they mirror national trends.  First women tend to get diagnosed and released.  Critically, can you imagine a man who engaged in exactly the same behavior as Eleanor Adderley being diagnosed and released?  Second, whether perpetrator or victim and whether in Domestic Violence or in Divorce, women virtually always get the house.

Sadly, when it comes to gender, the lofty words “Equal Justice Under Law” engraved above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court only rarely reach ground in real life.

Domestic Violence always is tragic not only for the parties involved but also for society as a whole.  Even more tragic in the face of the nation’s economic downturn is the fact that our government has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on failed Domestic Violence programs which are based on false feminist ideology and stand in direct opposition to empirical research reality.  Not only do taxpayer supported programs such as The Violence Against Women Act fail to provide services for all victims who need them – including boys and men – but because the existing Domestic Violence programs are ideologically based, rather than social science based, they fail to provide the much needed social and psychological services that genuinely would help all victims of Domestic Violence – both female and male.

The national implications of Chief Adderley’s case are that we must forgo our gender based stereotypes, face squarely the empirical research reality of Domestic Violence, and completely revise Domestic Violence policy and law.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

Tim Russert and Fatherhood: A Tribute

Gordon E Finley, Ph.D.

Tim Russert, internationally respected political analyst and moderator of NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press,’ died unexpectedly and prematurely at age 58 on Friday the thirteenth of June 2008 -- the day preceding the Father’s Day weekend -- at work.  Russert likely best will be remembered as the longest-running host of one of television’s most intensely incisive political interview programs.  In my view, however, he should best be remembered as a son, father, and one of the most positive exemplars of and advocates for fathers and their importance in children’s lives.

Russert was born on May 7, 1950.  By historical and social chance, his life spanned the golden years of fatherhood beginning in the decade of the 1950’s -- when fathers and married family life were portrayed in the most positive of lights -- and continued through two score and eight years during which fathers increasingly were depreciated, demeaned, marginalized, and deemed irrelevant both to children and to society. 

Blowing against the ideological winds of his adolescent and adult years, Russert wrote two bestselling books which, should his own wishes be granted, will be his most positive and long lasting legacy.  Big Russ & Me – Father and Son: Lessons of Life was published in 2004.  From the dust jacket:  “I have learned so much from Big Russ, and I feel so grateful to him, that I wanted to write a book about the two of us, and also about the other important teachers in my life, who have reinforced Dad’s lessons and taught me a few new ones…I hope this book will encourage readers to think about the things they learned from their father.  Whatever we achieve and whoever we are, we stand on their shoulders.”

The responses of sons and daughters everywhere to this book were overwhelming and these spoken, scribbled, and written commentaries about their own fathers became the foundation of his second book published two years later:  Wisdom of Our Fathers:  Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons.  Of the many quotable quotes here are three from the Introduction: “By writing a book about my father, I was affirming not only his life, but the lives of many other fathers as well”; “Thank you for talking about your dad in such a positive way, because that was my experience too”; and “If real estate is about location, location, location, fatherhood is about time, time, time.”

In a life by all accounts well lived, Tim Russert represents a man who not only talked the talk in two bestselling books but also walked the walk in his relationships with his own father and son.  May the written word outlive the spoken and may his books influence not only fathers and children today, but also society for generations to come. 

Entombed in Wisdom of Our Fathers is Russert’s own obituary:

“When my life is over, I know that the most important thing I’ll be judged on is what kind of father I was.”

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

Tim Russert and Fatherhood: A Tribute

Gordon E Finley, Ph.D.

Tim Russert, internationally respected political analyst and moderator of NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press,’ died unexpectedly and prematurely at age 58 on Friday the thirteenth of June 2008 -- the day preceding the Father’s Day weekend -- at work.  Russert likely best will be remembered as the longest-running host of one of television’s most intensely incisive political interview programs.  In my view, however, he should best be remembered as a son, father, and one of the most positive exemplars of and advocates for fathers and their importance in children’s lives.

Russert was born on May 7, 1950.  By historical and social chance, his life spanned the golden years of fatherhood beginning in the decade of the 1950’s -- when fathers and married family life were portrayed in the most positive of lights -- and continued through two score and eight years during which fathers increasingly were depreciated, demeaned, marginalized, and deemed irrelevant both to children and to society. 

Blowing against the ideological winds of his adolescent and adult years, Russert wrote two bestselling books which, should his own wishes be granted, will be his most positive and long lasting legacy.  Big Russ & Me – Father and Son: Lessons of Life was published in 2004.  From the dust jacket:  “I have learned so much from Big Russ, and I feel so grateful to him, that I wanted to write a book about the two of us, and also about the other important teachers in my life, who have reinforced Dad’s lessons and taught me a few new ones…I hope this book will encourage readers to think about the things they learned from their father.  Whatever we achieve and whoever we are, we stand on their shoulders.”

The responses of sons and daughters everywhere to this book were overwhelming and these spoken, scribbled, and written commentaries about their own fathers became the foundation of his second book published two years later:  Wisdom of Our Fathers:  Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons.  Of the many quotable quotes here are three from the Introduction: “By writing a book about my father, I was affirming not only his life, but the lives of many other fathers as well”; “Thank you for talking about your dad in such a positive way, because that was my experience too”; and “If real estate is about location, location, location, fatherhood is about time, time, time.”

In a life by all accounts well lived, Tim Russert represents a man who not only talked the talk in two bestselling books but also walked the walk in his relationships with his own father and son.  May the written word outlive the spoken and may his books influence not only fathers and children today, but also society for generations to come. 

Entombed in Wisdom of Our Fathers is Russert’s own obituary:

“When my life is over, I know that the most important thing I’ll be judged on is what kind of father I was.”

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

Hillary:  “No Woman is Illegal”

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

With unsurpassed campaign brilliance, Sen. Hillary Clinton managed to confluence two of her most critical campaign themes -- Gender Politics and Immigration – into four words:  “No woman is illegal.”  She also threw in Health Care to make it a Trifecta.  All this was reported in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on January 11, 2007 in an article titled “Las Vegas Stop:  Clinton pitch hits home – Democratic hopeful goes door to door” (http://www.lvrj.com/news/13702902.html). 

So, as a man, I am kind of wondering how this would work if Senator Clinton became President Clinton.  Presumably, every mode of transportation would be full of women from every corner of the earth flocking to America because they would not have to worry about trifling matters such as immigration status, citizenship, and health care.  Presumably also, any man swimming upstream against the inflowing tide of women would be declared “illegal” and sent back to wherever.  Do I read it right:  “Men need not apply?”  Men, you still are illegal? 

Critically, how would the United States -- which most people believe is sliding into a recession – support this incoming tide of women?  Easy, they would be supported by another of Hillary’s favorite programs – the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  It works this way.  All non-illegal women would immediately marry (or at least have a child with) any available legal United States Citizen – male, of course.  At anytime of her choosing following the delivery of her baby, the newly minted non-illegal woman simply goes to any local Family Court Judge and declares that she is “afraid” of her formerly legal male citizen.  The Family Court Judge, without hearing the man’s side of the story, immediately issues a restraining order making the formerly legal male citizen now a non-legal male citizen. What a VAWA restraining order means to the man is that he is thrown out of the house, required to stay away from his non-illegal wife and child, and immediately required to begin paying exorbitant child-support to this non-illegal woman for 18 years.

Problem solved!  And, with this flood of non-illegal women entering the country, being supported by formerly legal male citizens, there also is a huge pool of Democratic voters just itching to develop more of these kinds of programs which have served them so well.  Perhaps even more importantly, it provides a gigantic bastion of women inclined to vote more women into office who will give them even more of what women want.

So, if you think that this is a great idea, Vote Hillary.  Otherwise, start looking around for candidates who believe in equality, equal opportunity, and support the old fashioned notion that boys and men deserve the same chance for a good life in America as do girls and women. 

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.  His faculty web site is: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm

One Path to the Presidency

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Both leading Democratic candidates repeatedly have emphasized “change” as a core theme in their campaigns for the presidential nomination.  They talk of changes to improve the lives of women, Blacks, Hispanics, and children -- but I still am waiting to hear what changes they have in mind to help me, other white men, and boys specifically.

In October, 2007 David Paul Kuhn published The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.  The most important statistic in this book is that white males constitute the second largest voting bloc in America:  “They [white males] make up between 36 and 39 percent of voters, roughly five times more than Hispanic male and female voters combined.  White women are about a 5 percent larger voting bloc than white men…” (p. 6). 

Listening to the acceptance and concession speeches following the Democratic primary in South Carolina last night, I heard no candidate speaking to us.  Not surprisingly, Kuhn argues, white men vote Republican.  Democrats seeking to win big on Super Tuesday next week might well want to begin by reading Kuhn’s book today.

To help them along, here are three critical issues for men.  The first is job outsourcing and the economy -- focusing on jobs for men as well as jobs for women.  The next is divorce and child support.  The biggest negative consequence for men of past presidential pandering to the women’s vote is that federal law now funds the divorce and domestic violence industries that separate fathers from their children and transfer wealth from men to women.  To regain the male vote of all racial and ethnic groups, Democrats must come to value boys and men, support marriage, discourage divorce by leveling the legal playing field, and encourage father-child relationships.

If this does not constitute change, I don’t know what would.  

The third and most important long-term issue is the boy and man crisis in education.  As widely documented, in K through 12, boys are losing ground to girls on virtually all indices. At the undergraduate, level men constitute at best 40% of college students, and at the graduate and professional levels they constitute distinct minorities in most fields. 

What boys need is a massive change in social attitudes giving them the same kinds of social support and encouragement now given to girls.  At the federal level, boys also need the same kinds of interventions designed to remedy and enhance educational attainment currently offered to girls.

So, what’s all this got to do with the path to the presidency in 2008?  In my view, just as candidates began attending to the needs, wants, and aspirations of girls and women in the 1960’s, so too today, do candidates need to attend to the needs, wants, and aspirations of boys and men not only if they wish to win the Presidency – but far more importantly – if they wish to improve the quality of life for all citizens in 2009 and beyond.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.  His faculty web site is: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm