On mothers and children and disadvantages

Reading this article on msnbc.com, I couldn’t help thinking that someone skipped math or logic or something in college. Read this opening:


     "One in five of all American moms have kids who have different birth fathers, a new study shows. And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men."

Really? When you eliminate all the women who couldn’t possibly have children by more than one man, the proportion of the remaining women who have children with more than one man is higher than when you include all women? Say it ain’t so! Basic logic: it is the same number of women, just a smaller pool that is calculated to make the proportion higher. It’s like saying that if you have 3 apples, 3 oranges, 3 lemons, and 3 plums, 25% of the fruits are oranges, but if you remove all non-citrus fruits, the proportion is even higher: now 50% of the fruits are oranges! There are 3 oranges both times, you haven’t added any new information.

I don’t really understand the purpose of this study, entirely. From the article, it seems to be looking at why women with multiple fathers for their kids are disadvantaged, but it is hard to tell. It seems to me to be pretty out of touch with reality all around, although that may be the reporting, not the study. Take this quote: “An important message that doesn’t appear to be getting through is just how hard it is to raise a child as a single parent.” I think most women know single parenthood isn’t easy, even when they don’t have a college education. There are lots of reasons women may end up a young single parent, and they are not all due to poor choices on the mother’s part, especially since the researcher does say that 43% of women in this situation were married when their first babies were born.

I find it interesting that there is absolutely no mention of men with children with different mothers in this article. The obvious inference from this lack of focus is that these men do not suffer the same disadvantages that the mothers do. If so, seems to be a much more interesting line of research. Why don’t they? What can we do as a culture that evens out this disparity, if it is there? And, how do the children of the fathers in this situation do? Are they disadvantaged in the same ways that children of mothers with multiple mates are? And, are all of the children of the fathers with multiple mates similarly disadvantaged, if the disadvantage exists? I suspect that it is often the case that the children in the men’s current relationship do not suffer as much as their children from a previous relationship. Obviously, this would not always be true; I know many divorced dads that are good fathers, even if they remarry and have more children. However, there is a reason why the unhappy child from dad’s first marriage is a stock character in books, tv, and movies.

But, even if we stay within the limits of the current study, I wonder what impacts the fathers of these children have. The only reference to this is in the article talks about the stress that the mothers feel trying to meet the needs and demands of more than one father, which is just odd to me. Why is it the mom's problem entirely? Why aren't the mothers and the fathers trying to meet the demands and needs of the children involved? It is the same problem with cultural attitudes to fatherhood I talked about earlier--the mother is set up at the person responsible for meeting all needs, those of her children, and also all fathers involved. She has to make sure everyone is happy and has their needs met. Of course that is stressful!

I would love to see a study on how to limit the disadvantages that children and parents experience when parental relationships don’t work out, and their parents dare to try again to have a fulfilling relationship, one that may include additional children. It seems like too many studies are about bad outcomes—this many people suffer because of whatever social situation—rather than looking at good outcomes—here is what people who don’t suffer have in common. We already know what the problem is. Let’s look at what we can do to fix the problem instead.

Today's GN

Hays published three nonfiction books: "G-2: Intelligence for Patton" (1971), "Country Editor" (1974) "State Science in Illinois" (1980) and "A Race at Bay" (1994) and edited another nonfiction book, "Early Stories From the Land."

I am not sure that an inability to count is actually a grammar issue, but it is certainly an appalling editing issue. This in an article where a character in the book being discussed is referred to one time as D. J., and one time as J. D.

Today's grammar nazi

One of the rotating headlines on our local paper's website:

Watching the Looop

I know, it is tempting to just keep pushing that 'o' key once you get started, but really, why doesn't anyone READ these things before posting them? It's a major headline being featured on the website, for pete's sake. How long would it take to just look it over before posting?

Today's grammar nazi

In an article on Lori Drew's MySpace hacking trial:

The circumstances caused significant public outrage. But state and federal prosecutors here said they found no law that had broken.

Why would they be looking for a broken law? Don't they mean they found no law that had been broken?

Grammar Nazi, taking over my blog...

Okay, when I came across the first really bad sentence on my local paper's site today*, I decided to ignore it. I mean, maybe I am being too picky. Sure, these people write for a living and the editors are specifically paid to look over these articles, but I don't intend to be mean about it. I know they have had a lot of layoffs over at the Post-Dispatch, and they clearly got rid of a lot of experienced (some might say qualified) people. So, I was going to just read on and get on with my life. Then I came across this gem:

Police arrested two of his sons -- ages 19 and 21. Police also took away a back of evidence.

What the heck is a back of evidence? Sure, I know they meant bag of evidence, so this may be quibbling, but really, why can't they say what they mean? It is not my job to interpret what the writer means, it is their job to be clear.

* In an article about goalball, a ball sport for blind people: And even though not all students at the Missouri School for the Blind play goalball, or are physically unable to because of other disabilities, the playing field remains even for players and spectators alike. I think it is pretty obvious that not all students at the Missouri School for the Blind are physically unable to (play) because of other disabilities, isn't it? Didn't the writer mean that even though not all students play, including some that have other physical disabilities that mean they are unable to play, the playing field is level? Whatever that means--the playing field is level for players and spectators alike? Except for those that can't play, I guess, and I have no idea what she means about the spectators.

And, in the same article: The kids who play goalball together since seventh grade form tight bonds,... I don't know the name of this problem, but it should be: The kids who have played goalball together since seventh grade have formed tight bonds, or Kids who play together for long times, some since seventh grade, form tight bonds, or something else. It would also help if we knew what grade these kids are in now, or if every team member has been on the team since seventh grade, which is implied but not stated.

Again with the Grammar Nazi

Two posts in a row on this! This sort of thing just drives me crazy!

From my local online paper:

The bishops discussed their failure to convincingly impress upon the country's 67 million Catholics the church's teaching that abortion (and, by extension, embryonic stem cell research) is "intrinsically evil" and must be the pre-eminent issue — above even than the economy — Catholics carried with them into the voting booth. [emphasis mine]

With a great amount of effort, I am going to put aside my feelings on the message of the sentence as a whole and focus on the grammar issue here. Above even than the economy? I think they mean 'above even the economy', or 'even more than the economy'. I am not sure if the issue is that the writer's grasp of English is that bad that he doesn't know the phrases, or if it is a editing issue, and I am not sure which is worse. I am guessing, though, that this is a careless editing mistake--switching from 'even more than the economy' to 'above even the economy' and forgetting to erase the 'than'.

Now, I do this sort of thing all the time in conversation. I have both phrases in mind, and I come out with a combination of them. But that's in casual conversation, not in a professional article that I wrote down, read over, and submitted to an editor. And, I wouldn't even care as much about it in the paper if it were a fluke (although I would still notice, because I am that kind of a picky person), but it's not, as evidenced by my second post in a row on this. I could come up with more examples off the top of my head, but I will spare you for now. I am sure there will be more examples to infuriate me soon, ;-).

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Argh! I really don't go looking for errors on my local paper's website. I only read articles that I am interested in, and I am not trying to proofread them as I go. These things jump out at me, because they are so obvious and sometimes they are actually confusing. Here's another one, from a photo caption:

Michael Gerstner comforts Lisa Kaucher, a close friend, of his brother Mark Gerstner, who was remembered during a candle light vigil outside Steak N' Shake Tuesday night.

What is so hard about using commas properly? Putting 'a close friend' in commas makes it seem that Lisa is a close friend of Michael, but the sentence then goes on to say 'of his brother Mark', which means 'a close friend of his brother Mark Gerstner' is actually the phrase that goes together. As you can tell here, I am not an English teacher, and I don't know the technical terms that describe all of these grammar rules, but I know how to use English nonetheless. Why don't the people who get paid to work with words know how to use it?

Grammar Nazi (an occasional feature)

On the front page of my local paper's website:

Joe's Movie Lounge: The guessing game beings on holiday box office winners.

Ah, the perils of spell-check....

Or maybe it's just bad typing skills. Whatever. Doesn't anyone READ these things before posting them on the site?

Grammar Nazi

These things drive me crazy! Take a look at this cartoon: http://www.uclick.com/client/slp/tmsho/2008/10/26/

For those of you who come by after this link no longer works, the punchline at the end is: I’m so boring that if I were ever in eminent danger, somebody else’s life would flash before my eyes.

What the heck is eminent danger?

From dictionary.com:

em-i-nent
–adjective
1.
high in station, rank, or repute; prominent; distinguished: eminent statesmen.

2.
conspicuous, signal, or noteworthy: eminent fairness.

3.
lofty; high: eminent peaks.

4.
prominent; projecting; protruding: an eminent nose.

Doesn’t sound very boring to me.

Now, obviously, the cartoonist meant imminent danger (which would make a life less boring as well, but let’s not quibble…more than we already are…), but that’s not what was said. This kind of thing drives me crazy. I don’t make my living with words, but I know the difference between eminent and imminent. Why don’t they?

Honestly, I don’t expect everyone to have perfect grammar and word choice all the time. When people send me emails or instant messages or (especially) text messages, I don’t think poorly of them if there are a few misspellings or grammar errors. Casual conversation is not terribly formal, and I don’t think people should necessarily spend a lot of time making sure their writing is perfect. But when you are publishing something formally, it should be right! Drives me crazy!

So, in order to get this out of my system, I am going to start posting examples that I see here. I know, this is only tangentially related to books, but it is about reading.