As Sept. 11 approached, this week’s Justice Friday installment, presented by Saint Mary’s junior and Justice Education Social Relations Officer Alex Shambery, served as a way to promote social awareness for Homeless U.S. Veterans.Shambery began by sharing statistics she found through the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) website.“Eleven percent of homeless adults are veterans,” she said. “Of those 11 percent, 51 percent have disabilities and 50 percent have serious mental illnesses. Seventy percent have substance abuse which ties into mental illness issues.”In the bigger picture, Shambery said 1.4 million veterans are at risk of living in poverty.“About 40,000 veterans are homeless on any given night,” she said. “America’s homeless veterans have been in World War II, the Korean War, The Cold War and Vietnam.”According to Shambery, one-third of the veterans who are homeless were directly in these war zones, although she added these numbers are approximations.“There’s no way of getting a very specific number,” she said. “It’s usually based on average and information they get from homeless shelters.”All of these statistics raises the question as to why these veterans are homeless. Shambery said the main reason is due to a lack of support.“Mainly because of an extreme shortage in affordable housing and a lack of family and social support,” she said. “You train to go over there and dedicate your life to try and save your country and then you come back and people tell you that your experience won’t help you find a job in America.”Saint Mary’s junior Alex Morales said she recently talked to someone who found himself in a similar situation after being deployed.“He said it almost felt like what would happen if you would die,” Morales said. “He said you lose all of those connections. It’s a weird gray area. I think it just spirals from there.”Justice Education president and senior Caylin McCallick agreed with Morales.“The training in the military isn’t necessarily transferring,” McCallick said. “When I was in ROTC, one of my military instructors was a captain in the army. He was an army ranger, but he couldn’t get a job better than working in a factory.”Shambery said it is the duty of students to reach out through volunteering at homeless shelters. In South Bend specifically she suggested the Center for the Homeless and the Robert L. Miller Senior Veterans Center.“A lot of people think the government is going to take care of it, but it’s all of our issues,” Shambery said. “Make a donation. If you can’t make a financial donation you can always donate your time. They’re going overseas to fight for us. An hour a week is nothing compared to what they’ve done for us.”Justice Education vice president and senior Katie Dwyer said spreading awareness among the community is key in helping the veterans.“I think it’s out of sight out of mind,” Dwyer said. “I think the first thing we should do is spread more awareness about it.”“[Veterans]need basic physical health care, counseling, job assessment, training, placement and assistance,” Shambery said. “But a top priority is a secure, safe, and supportive environment free of drugs and alcohol.”Justice Education secretary and junior Morgan Matthews said students can help give veterans part of the supportive environment they need by merely spending some time with them.“They are coming from a life style that is hectic,” Matthews said. “Then they come to a life of boredom in comparison.”“I think that’s where we as students should come in,” Shambery said. “We’re not family members, but we can provide that support for them — at least the social support aspect.”“I think also what needs to be established is veteran-on-veteran support,” Matthews said. “You can sit with a veteran for as long as you want and try to understand, but I think in some cases it might not be enough compared to veteran on veteran.”Since 2005, Shambery said the number of homeless veterans has been reduced by 70 percent since 2005, but she emphasized that this is not good enough.“We need to get all our homeless vets off the street,” Shamberry said.Tags: Justice Fridays, Saint Mary’s College, Veterans
Media Gush over New Study, Only to Find Same-Sex Parents More Irritated with Their ChildrenPublic Discourse 15 April 2016Family First Comment: Interesting summary by a researcher slammed simply for speaking the truth. “The children of divorce, which has been legal in the US now for many decades, have never appeared comparable—on average—to the children of stably intact households. (The same is true of adoption.) Nor did their advocates insist we agree that they are comparable. In reality, there are kids who navigate all manner of household upheaval and diversity, often emerging scathed but resilient, going on to live productive and emotionally healthy lives as adults. I know lots of them; we all do. They have lived in straight and gay households, as well as those of the rich and poor, black and white. No diligent scholar I know of has stated that same-sex couples make uniformly terrible parents whose efforts at childrearing are doomed to failure. No, what is new here is not the revelation of difference and the tacit acknowledgement that a stable, loving, married mother and father remains an optimal scenario. What’s new is that we are learning that legalized civil same-sex marriage and adoption laws are not enough. We have to agree that “the kids are fine.”A new study of 6-to-17-year-old children of female same-sex households has been rushed to publication and is now making the rounds at the typical outlets, which are proclaiming that now the social science here is truly, genuinely, totally, finally settled. The problem is that the study doesn’t really accomplish anything near what its adoring fans claim it does. In fact, it all but undermines their wish for consensus.Here’s what the new study claims: “No differences were observed between household types on family relationships or any child outcomes.”Here’s what the study actually signals (and it didn’t take a PhD to see it): female same-sex parents report more anger, irritation, and comparative frustration with their (apparently misbehaving) children than do opposite-sex parents.The study in question was published recently in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, and is based on data from the National Survey of Children’s Health, a 2011-12 effort that yielded nearly 96,000 completed surveys of parents in households with children under the age of 18.In the pecking order of good study qualities, it has several things going for it, and I am happy to give credit generously where it is due. First, it focuses on “continuously coupled” households, which were profoundly rare in my 2012 study of 18-to-39-year-old adults answering questions about the households in which they had grown up. That is optimal, no doubt about it.Second, it originates with a nationally representative sample—another big plus. However, when you start with tens of thousands of eligible cases but whittle down to comparing 95 female same-sex households with 95 opposite-sex ones, you quickly arrive at territory where statistical significance is going to be hard to locate. (Indeed, reducing sample size further and further from my original study is exactly how analysts came to proclaim that there was little statistical difference after all.) Basically, (sample) size matters. Yet this one is over twice as large as Charlotte Patterson and Jennifer Wainwright’s matched pattern studies of 44 same-sex households compared with 44 opposite-sex ones.Locating an ample sample of same-sex households with children in population-based studies remains a challenge, inflated assumptions about their real numbers in the population aside. Hence it is still hard to randomly find stably-coupled same-sex households with children almost anywhere except in newspapers and on TV. Despite these common limitations, this study would seem to be an improvement. But it dismally fails to deliver what it proclaims, and it’s no stretch to say that. Why? Several reasons, the first of which is rather stunning.Despite claims to the contrary, same-sex-couple moms display a problem in the study on a measure the authors oddly decided to label “parental stress.” That is, (presumably) lesbian mothers display notably more of it than do opposite-sex parents. The oddity I speak of is why they call the measure “parental stress” in the first place. It is not a measure of stress, and it doesn’t take a psychometrician to see it. Each parent respondent was asked how often in the past month they have:– Felt that their child is much harder to care for than most children his/her age– Felt that their child does things that really bother you a lot– Felt angry with their childThe authors label as “stress” what is far more obviously a three-measure index of irritation and anger (at the child). Why are female same-sex parents more angry at their children than opposite-sex ones? I confess I don’t know. But this study unwittingly reveals that they clearly are. The effect size, moreover, is a “moderate” one, meaning it’s not tiny.The authors even make overtures toward blaming the absent father for the irritation female same-sex parents feel at their children’s behavior. They don’t cite his absence, though. (That cannot matter, right?) Rather, they question his unknown genes and their possible influence on their child’s behavior:The children of divorce, which has been legal in the US now for many decades, have never appeared comparable—on average—to the children of stably intact households. (The same is true of adoption.) Nor did their advocates insist we agree that they are comparable. In reality, there are kids who navigate all manner of household upheaval and diversity, often emerging scathed but resilient, going on to live productive and emotionally healthy lives as adults. I know lots of them; we all do. They have lived in straight and gay households, as well as those of the rich and poor, black and white.No diligent scholar I know of has stated that same-sex couples make uniformly terrible parents whose efforts at childrearing are doomed to failure. No, what is new here is not the revelation of difference and the tacit acknowledgement that a stable, loving, married mother and father remains an optimal scenario. What’s new is that we are learning that legalized civil same-sex marriage and adoption laws are not enough. We have to agree that “the kids are fine.”People think I have it in for the LGBT community(ies). I do not. I have it in for a science that refuses to proceed honestly, and instead shelters privileged groups—as it currently is doing—with a protective shell of administrators, grant-makers, and editors. Hence the Regnerus bashing will continue until further notice. So be it. I may be unpopular—there are more important things in life than that—but about the comparative advantages of stably-married households with mom, dad, and children, I am not wrong. It will take more than smoke, mirrors, and shifty rhetoric to undo the robust empirical truth.READ MORE: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16760/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute&utm_campaign=90e1f86c8c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-90e1f86c8c-84094405Keep up with family issues in NZ. Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.