A Middle Child is a Bridge Between Siblings by Dr. Alan Singer

Here's what I wrote in the Home News Tribune on 01/11/07 when New Jersey Transit announced it's new double-decker trains. Night and day in the tri-state area, all you heard in the media was that the new trains eliminate those dreadful "middle" seats and it made me feel sorry for middle children, so I did some research and also got some insightful comments from brother and my daughter.

You no doubt are aware of the most exciting arrival in New Jersey for new millennium: New Jersey Transit's new double-decker trains! The enthusiasm is palpable. Last week, when I was New York-bound at 6:50 a.m. (and asleep) the conductor woke us up using the public-address system just so we could look out the window and see a westbound double-decker; a truly forgettable experience.

But the feature that is getting all the attention on the new trains is not safety or capacity. It is "No Middle Seats." Being in the middle is seemingly the bane of our existence, because commuters will end up sandwiched between two sumo wrestlers for an hour ride to or from work. As a family therapist and social science researcher for 30 years, I am sensitive to the unique and often misunderstood position of middle children, which is the topic of this column.

Why does the middle spot get such a bad rap? And with nicknames like "middleitis" and "middle child syndrome" it sounds like scientists are working around the clock to find a vaccination for this dreaded disease. Why do some people assume that since the oldest is independent and the youngest gets all the coddling, therefore the middle child must be neglected and dysfunctional?
In Frank Sulloway's book on birth order titled "Born to Rebel," he states: "The toughest minded individuals are first-borns. Youngest children hold their own ground because parents and sometimes other siblings intervene on behalf of the "baby' of the family. As a result of such tactical constraints, middle children do well to develop diplomatic skills and to cultivate coalitions with other siblings.

"Compared with other siblings," Sulloway indicates, "middle children are more flexible and favor compromise." An excellent example of an individual who favored nonviolent methods of political protest is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was the second of three children.

In order to uphold the high standards of this column, I contacted two distinguished experts in the field of middle children: my brother and my daughter. My middle brother Marc is the founding partner of SingerXenos Wealth Management in Miami. He asserts, "The positive benefit for middle children is they learn to be expert negotiators and navigators." Marc cleverly observes: "Middle children can find allies in either older siblings or younger siblings depending on the circumstances that best suit them at the time, which teaches them diplomatic skills. Middle children quickly learn to avoid mistakes that the less experienced older child may make." (Yikes that's me — the oldest brother.) He adds, "Middles also don't suffer from the "our youngest child is so cute so let's spoil him' syndrome." Thanks for the insight, bro.

My middle daughter Dee is a psychology major at Stern College in New York. She relates that her older sister assumes the role of peacemaker. "However, being that I am in the middle," commented Dee, "I sometimes feel like I'm a bridge between all the siblings and will often be the one to facilitate communication amongst the siblings."

Dee described a visit to her teacher's home when her teacher's baby dropped her pacifier on the floor. My daughter went to wash it off and the woman commented, "That's OK, you can just rub it off; by the third child you don't do that anymore." My daughter felt slighted. "Just because I was born third, I don't get clean pacifiers? What else didn't I get that I should have?" Dee believes that middle children often think in terms of "rights" or things they are entitled to. "Middles don't want to be cheated," she concludes, "and often may feel like they are since their position in the family is not as unique as the others."

What are we to learn from these experts? This is certainly not a disease or a syndrome. As with many other patterns of behavior, it may describe you but it shouldn't define you.

"Be Counted" columnist Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park and can be reached at DrAlanSinger@aol.com.

Lifestyles, Child Rearing Differ Based on Politics by Dr. Alan Singer

Here is an essay I wrote in the Home News Tribune on 12/20/06 regarding the 2006 Elections. To see this essay on the SmartMarriages website click here.

Red States have higher divorce rates? Blue states have smaller families? Read on if that sounds intriguing.....

Consider two unusual political trends relating to marriage and children. Red states have higher divorce rates than democratic states and blue states have smaller families than republicans. What's behind these trends?

Divorce first: Wouldn't you think that California, the "left" side of the country with its free-spirited open-mindedness and "splitsville" movie stars, has a high divorce rate? Conversely, shouldn't Bible belt states like Arkansas and Mississippi, with their family values, have low divorce rates? Wrong on both accounts.

California has one of the lowest divorce rates and Mississippi and Arkansas two of the highest (Census Bureau). Pam Belluck of the New York Times observed: "The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the Upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate (5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people) was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry and the Kennedys."

"The higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the income, the less likely you are to divorce," said William V. D'Antonio, a sociologist at the Catholic University of America, noting that Massachusetts has the highest rate of high school and college completion. Kids who drop out of high school and get married very quickly suffer from the strains of not being emotionally mature and not having the income to help weather the difficulties of marriage," Belluck wrote.

I ran this question by several experts in the field. Dr. David Popenoe, of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, reiterated, "The more educated people found in the blue states have lower divorce rates and also lower fertility rates; for less educated people, it is the reverse."

Dr. William Doherty, professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota suggests, "The main issue for republicans and conservatives and evangelical Christians is that the discrepancy between their self-appraisals as the family values folks and the fact that being in those groups does not seem to convey any benefits for marital stability."
My thinking is that divorce is not an exclusively conservative nemesis and democrats have no reason to be smug. With the U.S. divorce rate hovering at 50 percent, we all have reason for serious concern.

"Larger social forces that fragment our marriages have far greater power than the teachings of conservative (or liberal) faith communities," Doherty said.
Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman, from his 47 years of treating marriages, explains: "We know that Southern Baptists have the highest rate of divorce of any Christian group, perhaps because they believe that lusting in your heart is as big a deal as doing it in public. The more conservative that people are, the less tolerant they are of human frailties, their own or those of others."

Pittman concludes, "Marriage, to last, requires two imperfect people with compassion for one another's struggles and conservatives can't always do that."
Liberal baby blues is a different matter. David Brooks of the New York Times observed that birthrates are falling in Western Europe and many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer children. "You can see surprising political correlations," he said. "Bush (in 2004) carried the 19 states with the highest fertility rates. Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates."

Arthur Brooks of the Wall Street Journal emphasized, "Liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result."

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had between them 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent.
What are some factors that influence family size? Philip Longman of USA Today shed some light on this: "In the USA, 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.'

Religious observance is a good predictor of ideal family size as well as income, education and family-of-origin family size. Should liberals try to persuade each other to have more children for the sake of their ideology? Procreate for the cause? I don't think so. Many governments enduring declines in fertility institute pronatalist policies. Incentives may include child allowances, birth grants and paid maternity leave, and are meant to increase family size. While these policies do not guarantee that family size will increase, they are a guarantee of treating families in a manner that makes child-rearing less of a financial burden, which is a welcome benefit. Governments often want to increase family size to ensure that there are enough soldiers for a formidable army and enough workers to pay taxes for programs that sustain the elderly such as Social Security. I don't see families having significantly more children for the sake of the Motherland or for an ideology such as liberalism.

From my two decades of research in family size and more practically speaking, as the father of four children, I can say with full confidence: The primary reason a couple should have a (another) child is because they want to love, cherish and care for that child, not for the sake of any cause or ideology.

Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park and can be reached at DrAlanSinger@aol.com

Having Faith in Marriage Should Not Mix in Religion by Dr. Alan Singer

Here is my article that the Home News Tribune published on December 24, 2003. In it, I discuss the divorce rate and the impact, positive and negative, of religious groups which promote marriage.

Americans have become less likely to marry and fewer of those who do marry have marriages they consider to be very happy. The American divorce rate today is more than twice that of 1960. The desire of teenagers for a long-term marriage has increased, especially for boys, but girls have become more pessimistic about ever being able to have such a marriage.

It has become a little depressing to regularly hear these statistics about family life in America today. But there has also been a growing enthusiasm for strengthening marriage here in New Jersey and throughout the United States. The creativity and energy of these new groups is enough to turn depression into optimism.

In fact, thousands of delegates gather each summer under the auspices of the Coalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education (CMFCE) for the annual SmartMarriages Conference. Experts speak, ideas are exchanged and copious books and tapes are sold. The members of this interest group are convinced that family breakdown can be reduced through education and information.

One such gathering, the New Jersey Healthy Marriages Summit, took place recently in East Windsor and was sponsored by the New Jerseyan's for Healthy Marriages, Children and Families Coalition (NJ-HMCF). One of the highlights of the daylong conference was hearing professor David Popenoe of Rutgers University discuss the trends mentioned above. A well-known expert in this field, he is the co-director of the National Marriage Project. The participants in this summit, numbering more than 100, learned from plenary speakers and shared their experiences in workshops so that they could go back to their own organizations and hopefully put these ideas into action. Even healthy marriages need plenty of nurturing, and that is also part of the skills that participants gain from attending these conferences.

However, I had one major concern. Unlike the national SmartMarriages conference, the New Jersey summit had a very strong emphasis on religion. A coalition, by definition, is a temporary union for a common purpose. I worried, with a session titled "Interfaith Perspectives on Marriage," that the focus of the conference had shifted from helping individuals to sustain healthy relationships, to describing how the major faiths view marriage and family life. That would be fine if the conference were called The Interfaith Gathering for Healthy Marriages -- but it was not. An "ideas exchange," with presenters describing various programs of congregations, is much different (and I believe more useful) than a platform for elucidating theology and doctrine. Session leaders such as Mike and Harriet McManus and I have little in common when it comes to religion, but yet I learned a great deal from them when we sat together at lunch and discussed their new mentoring program for couples.

My primary concern is that individuals who have no religious affiliation whatsoever will distance themselves from this terrific effort and its foundation of solid social scientific data. It will be an "easy out" for the religiously unaffiliated who might perceive the marriage movement as a group of religious fanatics.

The stated mission of NJ-HMCF is "to help all individuals and couples to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain healthy relationships that will lead to healthy marriages and families." With this inclusive mission statement and ambitious goals such as "to reduce the overall divorce rate in New Jersey," there is much to be gained by not excluding any individuals or having them feel uncomfortable because of their different or nonexistent religious beliefs. Furthermore, I have observed that marriages can do just fine with out any religious observance whatsoever. On the other hand, for example, a marriage cannot thrive if there is no trust between spouses.

The strength of this coalition comes from the unity of purpose that individuals of vastly different backgrounds bring to the table. Participants are invigorated as members of this coalition and bring back the positive energy to their own individual organizations, be they secular or religious.
This seems to me, to be the best framework for making a dent in, better yet, reversing these negative trends that so adversely affect family life in America. Besides, as an observant Jew, I don't want to be the one to organize the New Jersey Atheists For Healthy Marriage, because my wife would kill me.

We Need to Read More Stories About Joys, Benefits of Marriage by Dr. Alan Singer

Here's my essay that was published in the Home News Tribune on June 18, 2006. You can see this essay on the SmartMarriages website by clicking here. You can also see how the ThinkMarriage blog made use of this essay by clicking here.
Newsweek's cover story admitted to their error in predicitng the odds of a woman getting married. I think their error was more basic: It wasn't a story about marriage, it was really a story about mating. See if you agree.

When a renowned periodical like Newsweek puts the words "Why We Were Wrong" in red, bold-faced type on its cover, it is bound to attract attention. The "wrong" is referring to a 1986 Newsweek article on getting married. The honesty and humility is inspiring, except that I believe they are still getting one significant aspect of the marriage story wrong. Let me explain.

In a June 2, 1986, cover story titled "The Marriage Crunch," Newsweek cited a research study that described the decreasing odds of women ever getting married as their age increases; victims of what demographers referred to as the "marriage squeeze." The main message of the study was "delaying marriage may ultimately mean forgoing it." And this was perceived as a "slap in the face" to the smartest women of this generation. But the phraseology that caused the most controversy was the statement, "40-year-olds are more likely to be killed by a terrorist: they have a minuscule 2.6 percent probability of tying the knot."

Recently, Newsweek's June 5, 2006, cover story admits that the situation looks far better 20 years later. The 1986 statistic "turned out to be too pessimistic: today it appears that about 90 percent of baby-boomer men and women either have married or will marry." This month's article cites 1996 census data, which indicates that "a single woman at 40 had a 40.8 percent chance of eventually marrying." And co-author of the 1986 article, Pamela Abramson, who penned the terrorist jibe admits, "It's true, I am responsible for the single most irresponsible line in the history of journalism, all meant in jest." The authors of the 2006 article added, "Most readers missed the joke."

I remember reading the 1986 article and still have the same question as I had 20 years ago. Why does Newsweek think that this is an article on marriage? Isn't an article that describes the odds of getting married and a trend such as the increasing median age at first marriage more about "mating" than about marriage? And if you decide to write about marriage, why not be upbeat and quote a significant finding that has, to date, not been revised or refuted? The most supportive household for a child is one with two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/).

I don't remember seeing any cover stories that mention this research finding, but I wish we did. Here's why: Whether a 40-year-old woman has a 2.6 percent or a 40.8 percent chance of getting married, it is a direct consequence of her decision to pursue career goals before family and/or to be absolutely sure of her choice of a husband in order not to "settle." I don't believe that if a woman reads one (more) article on her "ticking biological clock" that it will cause her to abruptly change course from career-track to mother-track.

Call me naive, but I do believe that if a husband or wife with marital problems reads one cover story that describes the most supportive household for a child, it could make a difference in their marriage. The reason is that the vast majority of us married folks have problems (I made up this statistic). Not serious problems like abuse, which should end a marriage, but less serious problems like in-laws or finances that should not end a marriage. Dr. John Gottman's research has shown, "Most of the time couples don't solve their problems and they have perpetual problems."

But couples today may not be familiar with Gottman's research, nor do they necessarily consider the long-term consequences of short-term decisions. With a spouse who does not realize that marriage means, "It's no longer all about me," or states, "I am not getting enough out of this marriage," then today's legal system makes it easier than ever before to throw in the towel and get a divorce. Professor Bill Doherty compares divorce to an amputation. Sometimes it is necessary, but, "It should be avoided if at all possible, because it brings about a permanent disability."

I suggest that the media spotlight the research findings on healthy family life because the divorce rate (close to 50 percent) affects millions of children in the United States; children who did not and would not make that decision. If couples know that two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage is better for their child than any divorce scenario, maybe they would get help in keeping the (normal) conflict in their marriage on the "low" setting. While it is true that more couples than ever before are participating in pre-marital education and married couples' classes and therapy, it is still common to hear, "I don't buy that "stick-it-out-for-the-kids' line because I deserve to be happy." As Dr. Frank Pittman is fond of saying, "Marriage is not supposed to make you happy; it's supposed to make you married."

But guess what researchers have found? Staying in a marriage is not only good for the kids; married couples are better off financially, emotionally and healthwise. The best source for this information is Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher's book, "The Case For Marriage." In these past 20 years, the message has changed to, stick-it-out-for-the-kids and especially you, too.
That's why I believe Newsweek was wrong about what they were wrong about. And while they're at it, maybe they can work on the article titles; "Marriage Crunch," "Marriage Squeeze," you'd think it was a discussion of Sumo-wrestling or breakfast foods.

Dr. Alan M. Singer is a marriage and family therapist in Highland Park.

An Important Research Finding re Family Size

Family Size Research is what fascinates me and is the reason I started this Blog.
After years of research that seems to indicate that larger families have children with lower IQs because of the number of children, these scholars come to a different conclusion.
Rodgers, Cleveland, Oord and Rowe's findings highlight the connection between the IQ of the parents and the IQ of the children, not the number of children.
To read about their interesting findings, click here