Parenting

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares159 Views

    Johnson Moves to Block a Bill Allowing New Parents in the House to Vote by Proxy

    by

    A long-simmering fight over whether to allow members of Congress to vote remotely after the birth of a new child is coming to a head on Tuesday afternoon, when Speaker Mike Johnson’s behind-the-scenes efforts to quash the majority-supported change to the chamber’s rules will be tested on the House floor.The quiet push from a bipartisan group of younger lawmakers and new parents started more than a year ago, when Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, began agitating for a change to House rules that would allow new mothers to designate a colleague to vote by proxy on their behalf for up to six weeks after giving birth. Ms. Luna landed on the idea after her own child was born.There is no maternity or paternity leave for members of Congress, who can take time away from the office without sacrificing their pay but cannot vote if they are not physically in the Capitol. Proponents of the change have called it a common-sense fix to modernize Congress, where there are more women and more younger members than there were 200 years ago.Democrats including Representatives Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, who gave birth to her second child earlier this year, and Sara Jacobs of Colorado joined Ms. Luna’s effort, expanding the resolution to include new fathers and up to 12 weeks of proxy voting during a parental leave.But Mr. Johnson has adamantly opposed them at every turn, arguing that proxy voting is unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court refused to take up a Republican-led lawsuit challenging pandemic-era proxy voting rules in the House. Mr. Johnson and his allies have argued that any accommodation that allow members to vote without being physically at the Capitol, no matter how narrow, creates a slippery slope for more, and that it harms member collegiality.“I do believe its an existential issue for this body,” Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said on Tuesday. “Congress is defined as the ‘act of coming together and meeting.’” Changing that, she said, “undermines the fabric of that sacred act of convening.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Shaming Child-Free People Doesn’t Raise the Birthrate

      by

      On Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new data on fertility trends from 1990 to 2023, showing that the birthrate declined slightly in 2023 to 1.62 from 1.66 in 2022. The demographer Jennifer Sciubba summarized the statistics in her newsletter, noting that overall, fertility has declined 22 percent since 1990 in the United States but that “the real decline is much more recent, taking a turn around 2007, just before the Great Recession.”The biggest drop in fertility is among teenagers, Sciubba writes, and the birthrate among women over 30 has increased, with a particular surge in births among women over 40. Sciubba predicts that the birthrate overall will plateau, continuing to hover between 1.55 and 1.7 for the next decade.Being below replacement birthrate presents economic challenges, including to Social Security, though this may not yet be cause for immediate alarm. I don’t know how you can argue that fewer teenage parents is a bad thing, since very few teenagers are emotionally or financially equipped to raise children.I’m not worried that the United States is going to become South Korea. That country, which has the world’s lowest birthrate at 0.75, is the subject of a recent article by The New Yorker’s Gideon Lewis-Kraus, who does a good job describing what a truly anti-natal society looks like. A 20-something South Korean woman tells him: “People call moms ‘bugs’ or ‘parasites.’ If your kids make a little noise, someone will glare at you.”Governmental and societal pressure has not really worked to increase the birthrate in South Korea. It’s a society that enforces traditional gender roles and that blames feminists and working women for the decline in fertility. “The insinuation that women are at fault for the demographic crisis has turned gender friction into gender war,” Lewis-Kraus writes, with women swearing off men entirely with the 4B movement rather than become tradwives.In the United States, we see our own very muted version of this dynamic playing out. Religious conservatives slam “childless cat ladies,” and in return, some liberal young women are going “boy sober.” Again, I do not predict that this is going to greatly affect the birthrate in the near term; the United States is a much more gender-progressive and diverse country than South Korea is.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Steeling My Daughters Against a New Kind of Misogyny

      by

      Since President Trump started announcing his cabinet picks, I have been trying to write a Very Serious Essay about the Current State of Feminism.When Pete Hegseth was confirmed, even after so many horrifying details of allegations of sexual assault and harassment, that seemed like an obvious blow to the basic ideals of gender equality. In a marginally just world for women, credible allegations of sexual or domestic violence would prevent a person from being considered for such a vaunted position in the first place.I started trying to write this essay by gathering data about women’s progress and trying to quantify how it has stalled. Though the vibes seem truly awful, I didn’t want to go by just potentially illusory internet trends or the vile choices of our commander in chief.Yet it would be disingenuous to ignore how far we have come since the 1970s, when most women didn’t even have access to credit. Women now outnumber men at American colleges and in the college-educated labor force. A higher percentage of Gen Z women say they’re feminists than women of any other generation.But: Roe is dead. Who knows what might happen with access to contraceptives or abortion medication in the next four years?We’re in a period of backlash against women’s progress, beyond what is happening in and around the Oval Office. “Surveys from 2024 show that support for traditional gender roles is increasing” among both Republican men and Republican women, according to the political scientists Michael Tesler, John Sides and Colette Marcellin in a guest essay for Times Opinion. They conclude that “any growing gender traditionalism may be a reaction to societal trends and not a cause of these trends.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Why Doesn’t My Son’s Adviser Understand That Boys Will Be Boys?

      by

      A father objects to his son’s punishment after a rowdy “tickle fight” in a darkened room, but an adviser isn’t budging on the decision to bar the boy from a future activity.In December, my son attended a religious retreat away from home. When some of the high school boys were in a room alone with girls, the boys got overexcited, turned off the lights and yelled “Tickle fight!” One of the girls was touched on the shoulder, but nothing remotely sexual happened. The adviser to the group has barred the boys involved from the next retreat. But I think it’s important for them to attend and discuss what happened rather than suffer an exclusionary punishment. Excluding the boys will only make things worse for the girl: Everyone knows she is the reason the boys won’t be there. I think it would be better to have the girl explain to the boys (with adult support) why their behavior was wrong. But I can’t convince the adviser. Thoughts?DADI think your love for your son is impeding your judgment. When children are at home, their parents are the arbiters of appropriate discipline. But when they go off with youth groups, for instance, those organizations assume responsibility for the welfare of all attendees. My first job was as a teacher at a Swiss boarding school. And chaperoning mixed groups of teenagers overnight was the worst: I was often the lone adult charged with preventing a dozen wily students from drinking, having sex or sneaking off at night.So, if the retreat organizer has decided to exclude the boys who made trouble on the last trip to send a strong message about inappropriate behavior (or because of limited resources for supervision), I find that reasonable. And I disagree with much of your position: You fail to acknowledge that the episode may have been frightening for some girls, even if nothing sexual happened. You are incorrect in stating that the girl is “the reason” for the boys’ punishment; the boys’ behavior is. And no girl is responsible for explaining to teenage boys why unwanted touching is wrong. That is your job!It sounds as if you have already made your pitch to the organization and it was rejected. So, rather than clinging to a minimizing “boys will be boys” argument, I suggest that you sit your son down to discuss the contours of appropriate behavior and the seriousness of unwanted touching.Miguel PorlanBefore ‘I Do,’ Try ‘I’ll Allow It’My partner and I plan to be married soon. I am child-free; he has five children from his previous marriage. He is close with all of them and has several grandchildren, ranging in age from 6 months to 21 years old. Both of my previous weddings were adult-only (17 and up), and I feel strongly about doing that again for our wedding and reception. But this would exclude some of my partner’s grandchildren, and he feels this would be insulting to his children. Advice?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trading Hope for Reality Helps Me Parent Through the Climate Crisis

      by

      When I gave birth to my first child, in 2019, it seemed like everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong. He came out white and limp, his head dangling off to the side. People swarmed into the hospital room, trying to suction his lungs so he could breathe. Hours later, my husband and I stood in the NICU, looking down at this newborn baby, hooked up to wires and tubes.We had spent months talking about how to protect him from various harmful influences, and here we were, an hour out of the gate, dealing with a situation we hadn’t even considered. Had his brain been deprived of oxygen for too long? Would there be lifelong damage?That night in the hospital, I learned the first lesson of parenting: You are not in control of what is going to happen, nor can you predict it. This applies to your child’s personality, many of his choices and to some extent his health. It also applies to the growing threat of climate change.The climate crisis is bad and getting worse. Here in Oregon, we’ve endured several severe heat waves and wildfires in recent years. As the impacts compound, it’s clear a lot of people around the world — many of them children — are going to suffer and die.Globally, one in three children is exposed to deadly heat waves, and even more to unclean water. A study estimated wildfire smoke to be 10 times as harmful to children’s developing lungs as typical pollution. Researchers also concluded that nearly every child in the world is at risk from at least one climate-intensified hazard: extreme heat, severe storms and floods, wildfires, food insecurity and insect-borne diseases.If you are someone like me who has children and lies awake terrified for their future, you should not let hopelessness about climate change paralyze you. In fact, I would argue that right now the bravest thing to do — even braver than hoping — is to stop hoping.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Teens Are Getting Botox. I’m Going Full Crone in 2025.

      by

      Whenever I can, I try to deprogram my daughters from the overwhelming cultural imperative to look conventionally hot forever. Sometimes this involves showing my eldest daughter videos of women older than me who I admire. This is my way of pushing back against the idea that we should do everything in our power to look younger.A recent standout of the genre is a TikTok I found of Shirley Manson, the lead singer of the band Garbage, talking about being in her 50s. “I understand why women are scared to admit what age they are, but my feeling is that will never change until women change it,” she says, with her trademark blazing red hair pulled into a high, off-center ponytail, revealing a shaved undercut.My older daughter, who is in middle school, sat silently through the two-minute video. I thought she was deeply and mindfully considering Manson’s message, until she turned to me when it was over and said: “I hate her eye shadow.”Honestly, I get it. My older girl has always been able to sniff out a Very Important Maternal Lecture from 100 paces away, and because she’s inherited her mother’s innate skepticism, she rejects any of my overt attempts to indoctrinate her. I remember being in the middle school Thunderdome in the 1990s. If my mother had tried to talk to me then about beauty by showing me Joni Mitchell or whoever I would have laughed her off the face of the planet. Her entreaties would have been so irrelevant to my daily experience among tween insult comics — I was dishing it out as well as taking it, and an earnest call to hippie values would have been ridiculous to me.Normal preadolescent dismissal won’t deter me, because the pressure to look good in a hyper-conventional way is only getting worse and feels more overwhelming than it did when I was growing up. Women’s magazines don’t even seem to bother being mildly critical of plastic surgery or injections anymore, the wonky logic being that it’s anti-woman to be judgmental of anything a woman does. A recent article in The Cut about the “best” age to inject your face with the same toxin that causes botulism quotes a dermatologist who says, “I’m conservative by nature, so for Botox, I usually say late twenties at the earliest.”And the sad thing is that dermatologist is being conservative. In The Atlantic in September, Yasmin Tayag explained that “baby Botox” really is a thing: “The number of Americans ages 19 and under who got injections of Botox or similar products rose 75 percent from 2019 and 2022 — and then rose again in 2023.” Tayag then quotes another dermatologist who says, “There’s no age that’s too early,” before clarifying that it wouldn’t be appropriate to treat a teenager. Though as she also points out, when England banned fillers for the under-18 set, they simply traveled to Wales for treatment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Is Paying Kids to Read a Wise Strategy?

      by

      More from our inbox:Trump and the Psychiatrists: Is He Unfit to Serve?The Folly of a Second DebateA Heartwarming Story of Immigrants in the Heartland Tara BoothTo the Editor:Re “To Persuade a Reluctant Tween to Read, Try Cash,” by Mireille Silcoff (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 8):While I appreciate Ms. Silcoff’s desire to have her daughter experience the joys of reading, I seriously doubt that paying her daughter to read “worked.” While the monetary reward persuaded her daughter to read the book in the short term, it was unlikely to facilitate the motivation to read, which must feel like a choice and unpressured.Decades of research have shown that paying people to do things they love undermines their subsequent motivation, and paying them to complete tasks they do not enjoy keeps the motivation tied to rewards so that they are less likely to value the activity and choose to engage in it on their own.The belief in rewards as an effective motivator is a myth; other strategies are more likely to facilitate long-term motivation. Rewards are a simple fix that is likely to backfire.Wendy S. GrolnickLongmeadow, Mass.The writer is professor emeritus of psychology at Clark University and co-author of “Motivation Myth Busters: Science-Based Strategies to Boost Motivation in Yourself and Others.”To the Editor:I loved this guest essay because that’s precisely what I did 20 years ago when my husband and I traveled for our yearly two-week vacation to the beach with my daughter, two nephews and three other children who often vacationed with us.I offered each child a new book of their choice and $20 if they finished it before the trip was over. All of the kids got the $20 to use during two hours on their own at souvenir shops, and this reading challenge became a standard of our summer vacations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Sean Combs and the Limits of the ‘Family Man’ Defense

      by

      On Monday, Sean Combs was arrested in Manhattan on racketeering and sex trafficking charges. If he’s convicted of the racketeering charge, it could potentially land him a life sentence. His legal team defended him that day with references to his role as a father. “Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs is a music icon, self-made entrepreneur, loving family man and proven philanthropist who has spent the last 30 years building an empire, adoring his children and working to uplift the Black community,” they said in a statement. “He is an imperfect person, but he is not a criminal.”Combs has pleaded not guilty to these charges. Last year, after being accused of sexual assault in four separate lawsuits, Combs defended himself in part by invoking his family: “Let me be absolutely clear: I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”The latest charges are vile, describing years of sexual and physical abuse, enabled by Combs’s vast fortune and the pull of his celebrity. The government outlines the way Combs and his staff allegedly used their power to “intimidate, threaten and lure female victims into Combs’s orbit, often under the pretense of a romantic relationship. Combs then used force, threats of force and coercion to cause victims to engage in extended sex acts with male commercial sex workers.”Combs was denied bail on Tuesday. His lawyers tried to appeal the decision with a letter to the judge. In this missive, Combs’s lawyers paint “victim 1” as simply a jilted, lonely lover. “That one person was an adult woman who lived alone, who never lived with Sean Combs. She had her own friends, she had her own life, as adults tend to do. Mr. Combs and this person were very much in love for a long time,” the letter states. “This one person often expressed anger and jealousy because Mr. Combs had another girlfriend, as will be testified to by many witnesses and as the written communications show.”Despite the fact that the world has seen video evidence of Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, his lawyers seem to believe that pitting Combs, a “loving family man,” against an “adult woman who lived alone” would be an effective defense.They’re trying it because, to some extent, we still assign a positive moral value to getting married and having children. It’s why Republicans keep using Kamala Harris’s lack of biological children to attack her character. Combs’s lawyers are also likely playing on built in prejudices against Black women in particular, who have always had a harder time being seen as respectable, aspirational or worthy of protection in the public eye.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Sarah Huckabee Sanders Jabs at Harris for Not Having Biological Children

      by

      Introducing former President Donald J. Trump at a town-hall event in Michigan on Tuesday, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas extolled the virtue of humility in politics with an amusing story: She once teared up while watching her daughter get ready for a father-daughter dance, and her daughter said, “It’s OK, Mommy, one day you can be pretty too.”“So my kids keep me humble,” Ms. Sanders said. Then, mispronouncing Vice President Kamala Harris’s name, she added, “Unfortunately, Kamala Harris doesn’t have anything keeping her humble.”The comment was widely interpreted as a reference to Ms. Harris not having biological children; she has two stepchildren. Coming from a surrogate for a campaign whose vice-presidential nominee, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, has been criticized for his past description of Democratic leadership as “childless cat ladies,” Ms. Sanders’s remark quickly prompted bipartisan backlash, including from Bryan Lanza, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign.Mr. Lanza said on CNN that the remark was “actually offensive” and that he was “disappointed in Sarah.”Several Democratic-aligned groups highlighted the remark on social media, including the super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, Young Democrats of America and Republican Voters Against Trump. So did TV commentators.“Whoa,” Mika Brzezinski said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday. “What is their obsession with women without children of their biological connection?” A spokeswoman for Ms. Sanders did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did Ms. Harris’s campaign.Kerstin Emhoff — the ex-wife of Ms. Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, and the mother of Ms. Harris’s stepchildren — defended Ms. Harris.“Cole and Ella keep us inspired to make the world a better place,” she said in a social media post, referring to her children. “I do it through storytelling. Kamala Harris has spent her entire career working for the people, ALL families. That keeps you pretty humble.”Mr. Vance has raised eyebrows on the matter of parenting before. In 2021, he said that perhaps parents “should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids,” a suggestion that he later said was a “thought experiment” and not serious.He has also said he wasn’t disparaging women without children, while doubling down on describing Democrats as “anti-family.”His “childless cat ladies” remark has become something of a cultural phenomenon among supporters of Ms. Harris. In one sign of its continuing resonance, Taylor Swift used it to sign off her endorsement of Ms. Harris last week. More