I understand what you mean regarding assumptions about singletons versus parents, etc. There are assumptions both ways. "The single mom? Oh, she won't be able to commit to this assignment. Let's assign it to someone else." And the assignment would have been a great advancement opportunity. And, of course, the situations to which you allude where single and/or childfree workers get the short end of the stick.

Overall, companies/people need to stop making assumptions, they need to respect work-life balance, and stop making value judgments about what people do outside of the office. By which I mean, what if you need time off to care for a friend post-surgery? "Oh, that's just a friend. Not a serious commitment." With the evolving definitions of family and people spending less of their adult life married, they can still have meaningful commitments to other people.

There shouldn't be an adversarial dynamic between childless singles & parents. In many ways, they're just the same people at different times. Marriages begin and end. Children grow up. And all along the way, both groups of people have obligations to other people and other issues outside of work.

1. Can you describe examples of how these laws could likely be enacted such that women would be the sole beneficiaries?

2. What do you mean by "enabling single motherhood?"

3. S-CHIP stats for FY 2006 according to Health & Human Services

• Children enrolled nationwide: 6,624,152
• Adults enrolled nationwide: 700,596, or less than 10% of total
• Adult enrollment occurs in 12 states, the biggest numbers from Arizona, Michigan, New Jersey and Wisconin (each with 100,000) and Illinois with 200,000.

I'd have to dig a little deeper to see how many pregnant women are included among the adults (because they are included).

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/home/schip.asp

Hell, one-third of the country probably believes in "Bat Boy" and would vote for him for president.

Oh heck, who am I kidding. After 6 1/2 years of Bush Trauma Syndrome, I'd vote for Bat Boy.

Check out today's "Human Nature" on Slate:

Why we believe gossip instead of facts. By William Saletan

http://www.slate.com/id/2175899/

-

Also, a Washington Post article last month showed that when people were instructed that various ideas about flu shots were "myths," 30% remembered the myths as "facts" within 30 minutes. The article also references 9/11. When urban legends are repeated to people with the notation that the urban legend is not true, all people tend to remember is the urban legend, not the all-important "not."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html

So the key to winning over the 30% might be a little psychological manipulation. Corrective therapy, as it were. Get them to believe the truth with the same ease they believe the lie...

1. Apologies, correction: can you describe examples of how these laws could likely be enacted such that women disproportionately benefit? And under those laws, what would be the problem if women did benefit more? For example, women are disproportionately the primary caregiver. If women were to benefit more under new caregiver laws, it could be proportional to their disproportionate representation among caregivers.

2. What AKA Smith said.

3. On adults and SCHIP: I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing excluding those adults from SCHIP until I know more about them. Again, some of those adults are pregnant women. And perhaps some of those adults have children who were suffering because the adult caregiver didn't have care. I need more data to make an informed decision.

The odd thing has been that my wife gets along better with my mom than I do, and I get along better with her mom than she does.

Perhaps not so odd. It might be why you and your wife connect.

MWise, I agree that love can't be forced, but the in-law relationship should still be something beyond "friend." Friends you can dump, but you're basically stuck with family even if you don't like them. And in-laws are family. So, of course, friendly demeanor, but with the recognition that the in-laws are (within reason) part of the package deal in getting married.

The post did not read "fit and able," it read, "fit, willing and able." I don't see the double standard.

And I don't fear The Wrath.

The government can not continue to be the daddy to irresponsible women.

Holy crap, that's one of the most offensive things I've heard in awhile. By and large, it's the men being irresponsible (although possibly in addition to said women).

Men who like to have sex without a condom. Men who like to spread their seed and make babies, but who have no interest in actual parenting. Men who say in the divorce, "take the kids. I don't want them." Men who are abusive drunks who should be nowhere near their children. Men who are supposed to be paying court-ordered child support but are months in arrears. Men who are in jail (although certain unfair drug laws have something to do with that).

And then there are widows and women who are effectively single moms because their spouse is in the service. There are lots of reasons why daddy might not be in the picture.

If you believe more men should be taking advantage of family caregiver policies, perhaps you ought to encourage more men to be primary caregivers. Do irresponsible women exist? Of course. Do good men and fathers exist? Of course. So let's stop painting all men and women with the same broad brush and start looking for actual solutions to immediate problems.

Aside to AKA Smith: thanks for those points about SCHIP. I know of what you speak. My own mother had an unsual disability and it took almost a year and the diligent work of a lawyer to get her benefits.