In these tough economic times, the news headlines are filled with stories of laid-off men returning home to care for the children as their wives take on new breadwinner roles or are suddenly their families’ sole breadwinners (often with a job previously considered the less "important" of the two). Some men tell of difficulty making this transition – of losing their identities and scrambling to learn skills they had not honed – and others write of new-found joy in their Daddy focus. Some women enjoy their new work status and others speak of resenting the shift in responsibility and loss of time with their kids.

It’s a brave new gender-bending world!

But yet, it isn’t. Even with these role switches becoming more common, the questions our culture asks women are still built on old assumptions. Will she work or stay home? Does she work because she wants to or because she has to? Can she find a job that gives her enough flexibility now that she’s a mother? We don’t ask these questions of men – still. Even as men are being laid off at rates far exceeding women’s lay-offs, our culture still considers the work/life puzzle to be mainly one that a woman must try to solve - either by finding a way to stay in the workforce full-time, downsizing her career, or staying home. All while society expects a man to march on in his usual breadwinning mission...until some outside force (maybe a lay-off, or perhaps the overwhelming logic of a wife with a far bigger paycheck) stops him.

And it’s not only the burden of ‘balancing it all’ that is still given primarily to women. The privilege of opting out of paid work – for those of us who aren’t forced out and can afford this option – also goes to women in our culture. We’ve all heard stories of new mothers who had planned to go back to work after their maternity leaves but then decided to stay home because they couldn’t bear to be away from their babies. While this may sound sweet, can you imagine a new father announcing to his wife that he will be quitting work to stay home, especially if his proclamation goes against their plans? Society gives this option to women, but not to men.

On either side of the issue, the work decision (with all its possible and imperfect results) is still very gendered. While we are beginning to play in earnest with the surface roles that men and women can take on at home – a wonderful step toward full gender equality – the underlying gender assignments are still forceful.

I hope someday that the decision to work or not work, to work part-time or full-time, or to find a flexible career or not, are automatically taken up by both partners as equals. Whether any family’s ultimate decision is traditional, reverse traditional, equally shared parenting, or dual-earner, I hope that it can be made by two people thinking together as a team about what makes both of them – and their children – happiest. That unilateral burden and privilege are not assumed. And that gender is taken out of the equation.

Are we ready for that?

A colleague was recently telling me about her experience potty training her young son. “I can’t believe I actually told my husband he needs to start keeping the door open when he goes to the bathroom! We are both modest people, so we naturally keep the door shut when we are in there. It dawned on me the other day that my son probably has no idea what the toilet is for!”

Parents understand that they are always on stage and they teach by doing. In her book, If You’ve Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything, Ann Crittenden points out that, whether we like it or not, we are constantly setting an example. Valerie Hudson, a political science professor at Brigham Young University suggests we tend to pay closer attention to the moral weight of our actions, once we realize we are under the steady gaze of our impressionable children. She calls this “habits of integrity”.

The same is true at the office. As managers, we continually guide our people, not so much by what we say, but by what we do. Our conduct sets the tone for everyone else.

If you want your employees to behave a certain way, you must model that behavior. If you want your employees to have a healthy work-life balance, don’t work until 8 pm every night. Conversely, if you want your team to go above and beyond, don’t spend long lunch hours at the shopping mall or duck out early to golf. If you want your department to get along well with others, don’t speak disparagingly of anyone not present. If you want your staff to own up to their mistakes, be the first to apologize when something goes wrong.

Give careful thought to the kind of team you are working to build. Take every attribute you want to see in others and build your habits of integrity around them.

I love the bumper sticker “Lord, please let me be the person my dog thinks I am”. Once I had children, my mantra became, “Lord, please help me be the person I want my children to be”. The same can be said at work. Be the employee you want your staff to be.

Storm blogs on work-life issues at Motherhood is the New MBA.

But it sure isn’t easy. “Caring for an aging and frail parent or disabled relative may be the hardest thing you’ll ever do in your life,” says Howard Gleckman, author of the newly published Caring for Our Parents: Inspiring Stories of Families Seeking New Solutions to America's Most Urgent Health Crisis. “But it can also be the most rewarding.” Gleckman, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute and former BusinessWeek senior correspondent, talks about the “silent society” of some 44 million Americans now caring for some 10 million elderly and disabled friends and relatives.

Our family is now a member of that society. Since September I’ve been commuting by car or plane at least once a month to see my ailing father 700 miles away as my brother, mother, and I face end-of-life issues head-on: Through episodes ranging from dehydration to surgery (at his request) to replace a broken hip joint so he wouldn’t be bedridden, my father has defied the odds and tenaciously journeyed through his 62rd year of marriage. Each crisis has weakened him, yet with his humor, logic, and longer-term memory mostly intact, he remains at core the kind-hearted man who raised me.

I consider our family to be among the fortunate: Years ago my father, a white-collar engineer, ensured that his wise investments would allow my parents to spend their later years in a highly rated, soup-to-nuts retirement community. But smart planning still doesn’t prepare a family for the reality of elder care. Decisions made long ago about interventions are no longer abstract—and are revised (no, now, to CPR; yes to antibiotics). Costs that can be pared (a private or shared bathroom?) are weighed; quality of life decisions often trump pocketbook concerns, at least for now. Even a caring staff seasoned in end-of-life care —doctors, nurses, chaplains, social workers, medical assistants—can’t predict how each individual will slowly fail.

Meanwhile, as President Obama takes the lead in an historic debate about reforming health care, questions abound about end-of-life care and its demands on caregivers and resources. Warning that “the weight of 77 million aging Baby Boomers will devastate our nation's already fragile system for funding this critical day-to-day assistance,” Gleckman provides ideas about how to repair the safety net essential to the nation’s aged and disabled, as well as resources. Organizations like the International Longevity Center take on such notions that putting limits on health care for the very old would save Medicare significant amounts of money. “Limiting acute care for the very old at the end of life would save only a small fraction of the nation’s total health bill,” said the center in a study debunking financial myths about health care for older adults.

Human dignity has no expiration date. That much has become clear to me as I sit in my father’s skilled nursing dining room while policy wonks in Washington debate their abstract questions. To outsiders, the bibbed, napping diners—many are former professionals—may seem lost to life as we know it. Spend meals with them, though, and the small gestures of pride (“Did I spill that?”), compassion (a resident helping another with her wheelchair), and companionship among the residents gently tug you into a world where time is irrelevant and human connections precious. My brother, who lives nearby and visits often, and I slip into the elder zone with ease. Using Styrofoam pool noodles, he engages in mock swords fights with our wheelchair-bound dad—at least for the few minutes that Dad has the strength to play the game.

And what about the generational squeeze? I find habits from not-too-distant child raising come back quickly, such as this past weekend when I was able to reschedule my visit. Singing “Hush Little Baby,” I massaged my father’s thin shoulders as he soaked up the sun on a patio. At lunch as I gently suggested he eat a few more morsels, I ran a mental search of feeding strategies (and rejected “open wide, here comes the airplane!”). But there’s no greater evidence of how welcome this squeeze is than seeing my dad’s thin face, most often nodding these days with his eyes closed, lift up and brighten with a wide smile when he hears my 11-year-old on the phone. “Hello,” he says in a voice muffled with age but suddenly stronger, “And how is my grandson?”

Reader, are you a member of that “silent society” of caregivers? And do you have advice about coping with elder care as well as the generational squeeze?

For information about long-distant caregiving, see the Web site of Caring from a Distance. "Whether you live across-the-world or an hour away," the site says, "you and your family face special challenges. Where can you find the local resources they require? How can you, family and friends communicate in an emergency? What can you do to help when you visit?" CFAD provides links to information and services.

Study after study has found that overweight children are more likely to become obese as adults, and obese children are almost certain to remain that way. "There is a huge wave of obese adults coming that will bankrupt us as a nation unless we get this under control now," said Dr. James S. Marks, senior vice-president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

We might be inclined to blame the schools for filling them up with unhealthy lunches and cutting phys ed programs. But a 2007 study discovered that home may be far more dangerous to our children's waistlines. Body-mass index (BMI) gains were greater during summer vacation than during the kindergarten and first grade school years. We have met the enemy and it is us, the increasingly-fatter parents.

So what do we do? A New York City councilman, Eric Gioia, has proposed a bill banning fast-food chains from opening new restaurants within one-tenth of a mile of a school. He was inspired by a recent California study that found that when fast food outlets were in a short walking distance to a school the student obesity rate was 5.2% higher than those schools without such easy access.

In fact, according to the BusinessWeek story Alcohol, Then Tobacco. Now Fast Food? , consumer advocates are calling for regulations that would make children off-limits to fast food marketers, much as they are to alcohol and tobacco companies.

The food and restaurant industry needs to be responsible in how they market to children or else the government will step in and then require them to," says Dr. Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Lots more could be done, according to the researchers who put together the state-by-state survey. Despite the fact that every state has some form of phys ed requirements for its schools, nationwide less than one-third of all children age 6 to 17 engage in vigorous activity for at least 20 minutes a day. Activity rates by state range from a low of 17.6% in Utah to a high of 38.5% in North Carolina. Perhaps we shouldn't count on the schools, and instead make sure our kids spend some time running around at home, instead of vegging out in front of a screen.

Parents can also agitate for healthier school lunches and a ban on soda in schools, although that won't do much good if they don't follow through at home. Does anyone else have suggestions on how to combat the obesity crisis swamping our children, and ourselves? Because we will all pay the cost, economically and physically, if this problem isn't addressed now.

If you want to see how your state stacks up on the obesity rankings, check out the full report, titled F As In Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing In America, by clicking here or just roll your cursor over this interactive map.

Let’s park our ideologies at the door and talk facts for the moment. Fact number one: The United States rations health care now, and anyone who doesn't think that's true has never come into contact with the medical system--or is very, very rich. But we ration on an ad hoc basis, with little to no honesty around the process. Has your insurer or doctor ever used the word “ration” when discussing the reasons why you should or shouldn't have a certain procedure? I didn't think so.

So let me ask you: How should we ration?

First, let's look at how the U.S. rations today. We start by limiting access to health care for the 40 million to 47 million Americans who do not have insurance. Many people insist that these uninsured do have access to high quality healthcare, in an emergency room or wherever; they just don't pay for it. Not true. Study after study has found that the uninsured get sicker, die earlier and get lower quality treatment than the insured, precisely because they can't afford to pay. From an Urban Institute report last year:

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. Since then, the number of uninsured has grown. Based on the IOM's methodology and subsequent Census Bureau estimates of insurance coverage, 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006.

Other researchers have estimated that the death rate could be reduced by 5% to 15% if the uninsured had the same access to care as those with coverage.

Those of us who are insured don't have to worry, though, right? Well, earlier this month three insurance executives testified before Congress that their companies routinely deny coverage to policy holders with pre-existing conditions, a practice called rescission, and they have no intention of stopping. From the LA Times:

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

For a view from inside the rescission process, read the Congressional testimony of Wendell Potter, former insurance industry executive:

My name is Wendell Potter and for 20 years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick – all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors. I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry. Insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand—or even to obtain—information we need.

There are other ways we ration. We limit the number of doctors that can be trained each year, and effectively limit the numbers of primary care physicians by reimbursing them at much lower rates than specialists, thus encouraging medical students to avoid that path. The result is doctor shortages and long wait times for appointments, often longer than Europeans and Canadians, the ones with universal health care, have to put up with.
Insurers also typically do not pay for preventive care, which might save money in the long run but not in the short term. And as New York Times economics columnist David Leonhardt points out, by allocating 18% of our gross domestic policy to health care we are devoting fewer dollars to salaries, savings and other social goods like college loans.

A 10% increase in health premiums leads to a 2.3% decline in inflation-adjusted pay. Victor Fuchs, a Stanford economist, and Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist now in the Obama administration, published an article in The Journal of the American Medical Association last year that nicely captured the tradeoff. When health costs have grown fastest over the last two decades, they wrote, wages have grown slowest, and vice versa. So when middle-class families complain about being stretched thin, they’re really complaining about rationing. Our expensive, inefficient health care system is eating up money that could otherwise pay for a mortgage, a car, a vacation or college tuition.

Then there is the way the U.S. chooses to spend the $2.3 trillion it will allocate for health care this year. We have decided that our top priority is to help the dying--studies estimate that 10% to 12% of U.S. health dollars are spent on end-of-life care. About 25% of Medicare's budget is spent on patients in their final year of life, and almost half that amount is spent on the final 30 days.

That makes little sense to me, and I speak from experience. When my grandmother was a frail 96-year-old, she fell and broke a hip. Despite our family’s better judgment, doctors talked us into hip replacement surgery, from which she never fully recovered. She did not walk again, she quickly fell into dementia, and died with six months. I doubt very much she would have had that wasteful operation in a European nation. Then there was my mother, who died of an asthma attack at age 64. But first, the hospital was able to revive her enough to put her on a ventilator. Although she had a living will, and her family wanted the machinery disconnected, she lived in a deep coma for another five weeks, unresponsive, essentially a vegetable. I cannot imagine the financial cost, and I am all too aware of the emotional cost. Again, I do not think that would happen in a European nation. But take a look at England, home of “socialized medicine.” My husband died of a brain tumor in London despite the uniformly excellent care he received, all free thanks to the National Health Service. In his final month cancer was found in his liver, but the doctors felt there was no point in putting him through any more painful treatments. We agreed and he died peacefully in hospice.

So, how would you like to die, and live? Should our health care dollars be spent on prenatal care or end-of-life care? How about preventive care, mental health care, dental care--how much are they worth? Should we insure everyone, or just those who can afford the premiums? Be upfront about rationing, or continue on an ad hoc basis?

It's time for an honest and open debate, don't you think?

For some great insights into how America rations, bookmark The Covert Rationing Blog by DrRich, a former cardiologist and medical professor who now works as a consultant.

Also, if you want to learn about one model under consideration for lowering health care costs, read my story on patient-centered medical homes: The Family Doctor: A Remedy For health Care Costs?

Growing Old in America, a just-released study by the Pew Research Center, shows that parents and their adult children are relying on each other in many ways. Aside from the interesting retirement data in the study, what caught my eye is that 36% of respondents ages 65 and older say they help with their children with childcare. In addition, 51% of them say they have given their children money in the past year. And 32% of respondents 65 and older have provided help with errands, housework, and even home repairs.

Housework and financial support is definitely nice, but I’ve always been envious of the working parents who can rely on their own parents for childcare (and work-life balance). This week my son’s sitter is away on vacation, and because school is finished but camp hasn’t started, we had a problem. It would be so wonderful if one of his many grandparents could step in. But they are all at least two hours away. Luckily, our neighbor is watching him, which is arguably the next best thing to family.

Even so, I’m envious of the strong bonds children have with the grandparents who babysit for them on a regular basis. For example, a colleague’s mother-in-law just came to visit from the Czech Republic for two months, which made caring for his daughter, who is almost 2, a lot simpler. In the beginning, his daughter wouldn’t go to her grandmom, but, by the end of the visit, she was calling out her grandmother’s name (Baba) from the moment she woke up. Even more amazing: Baba got her potty trained.

Another editor here at BusinessWeek has what seems like an ideal set up: her mother-in-law is her daughter’s primary caregiver, and the mother-in-law does it for free. By now everyone in America knows that Michelle Obama’s mother Marian Robinson (pictured here) is helping out with caregiving for first daughters Sasha and Malia.

I realize the grass is always greener. Indeed, family tensions can flare up When Granny is Your Nanny, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Sue Shellenbarger. In her newspaper article and a follow-up piece on the Juggle blog, Shellenbarger writes about the complicated cross-generational child-rearing dynamic. Parents and grandparents may have conflicting views on food, sleep, homework, TV and computer use. For example, one grandparent lets her grandson eat ice cream while he is watching TV. Although his mother doesn’t let him do that, she often looks the other way.

Despite the potential for family clashes, it seems like more households are opting for what is considered an “old world” childcare solution.

The proportion of preschoolers cared for primarily by their grandparents while their mothers work rose to 19.4% in 2005, the latest data available, from 15.9% in 1995, the Census Bureau says. A wave of closings and cutbacks in child-care facilities suggest the trend is continuing.

Do you think your parents or in-laws can provide ideal childcare? Why or why not? Feel free to air your clean (or dirty) laundry here.

"I'm astounded at how heated the working mom debates are," says Eileen Caines, a writer for the Orlando Examiner, in an email. "It's not just working moms vs. stay-at-home moms anymore. It's working moms vs. child-free coworkers. It's working moms vs. working dads. It's working moms vs. recently laid-off dads. Apparently, working moms can't win." (Caines also offers smart resume advice for working moms here.)

What sparked this dialogue was a study from researchers who used fake resumes for two equally qualified women–one childless, one a mom. The only way hiring managers could tell the difference is that the mom said she was an officer in an elementary school PTA on her resume. Yet, the non-parent, who listed that she was a volunteer with a community group, received 100% more callbacks from employers. Mothers also were consistently ranked as less competent and less committed than non-moms.

Although this research isn't new, it's fascinating to see how the conversation continues play out on The Wall Street Journal's Juggle blog and Shine.

I checked back with lead researcher Shelley Correll, a professor of sociology at Stanford University’s School of Humanities and Science, with some follow up questions from readers.

Why is this a hot-button topic?
A lot of women make personally difficult choices whether to devote time to work or family. I think it makes them harsher on people who may make other choices. Let's say you decide to leave a great job because you need childcare for kids. For some women, (that decision) can create tension between working and nonworking mothers.

Several readers wanted to know more about the “fake” resumes which included the PTA affiliation.
There are different stereotypes associated with motherhood and fatherhood. If a father says he is involved in the PTA, he is seen (by hiring managers) as more stable and committed to his job. But a mother is perceived to be less committed.

Why do you study gender disparities?
What got me interested is the data out there that show the pay gap between working mothers and childless women is larger for many segments of the population than the gender wage gap. I wanted to understand what is special about mothers that leads to disadvantages in terms of pay and promotion.

How do those disadvantages play out?
There is a face time penalty. People who spend long hours at work seem more committed, even if they aren’t working while at work. Men waste a lot more time at work than women. Mothers with children work much more efficiently. Observational studies have found that the amount of stuff working mothers get done when they are at work is higher compared to other people. But we value is face time, not efficiency.

These kinds of biases against mothers can be reduced when workplaces attempt to do so. With workplaces increasingly needing to hire the best people possible, it makes no sense to discriminate against the person who is a productive employee.

What other topics are you looking at?
I’m interested in men who take time off for eldercare, and how they are penalized. In my study, I found fathers experience no disadvantage for being a father, but other studies show if a father takes extended time off, he’s penalized. If he takes time off to care for an elderly parent or children, he is actually penalized worse than women are.

Do you have children?
No, I don’t, but I get asked this question a lot.

Do you think First Lady Michelle Obama will influence the way people think about work and family?
Michelle Obama passionately articulates that we need policies to promote work and family balance for men and women. Work-life balance is about sanity, and sanity is good for everyone. She’s lived that life. She is really going to make a difference in this way

Work-family balance is one of goals of the White House Council on Women and Girls. Michelle Obama came and spoke to the council. If she’s out talking about work-life issues, it’s really going to have an impact.

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. It is wonderful to see you. I see some familiar faces in the house. Rev, how are you doing? It is great to have all of you here today as we gear up to celebrate Father’s Day and to recognize the vital role that fathers play in our communities and obviously in our families.

This town hall marks the beginning of a national conversation that we hope to start about fatherhood and personal responsibility -- about how fathers across America are meeting the challenges in their families and communities, and what government can do to support those who are having a difficult time. Today, you’ve had a chance to hear from five of those fathers, men who are doing an outstanding job of meeting their obligations in their own lives.

And when fathers are absent -- when they abandon their responsibilities to their children -- we know the damage that that does to our families. Some of you know the statistics: Children who grow up without fathers are more likely to drop out of school and wind up in prison. They’re more likely to have substance abuse problems, run away from home, and become teenage parents themselves.

And I say this as someone who grew up without a father in my own life. I had a heroic mom and wonderful grandparents who helped raise me and my sister, and it's because of them that I'm able to stand here today. But despite all their extraordinary love and attention, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t feel my father's absence. That's something that leaves a hole in a child’s heart that a government can't fill.

Our government can build the best schools with the best teachers on Earth, but we still need fathers to ensure that the kids are coming home and doing their homework, and having a book instead of the TV remote every once in a while. Government can put more cops on the streets, but only fathers can make sure that those kids aren’t on the streets in the first place. Government can create good jobs, but we need fathers to train for these jobs and hold down these jobs and provide for their families.

If we want our children to succeed in life, we need fathers to step up. We need fathers to understand that their work doesn’t end with conception -- that what truly makes a man a father is the ability to raise a child and invest in that child.

We need fathers to be involved in their kids’ lives not just when it’s easy -- not just during the afternoons in the park or at the zoo, when it’s all fun and games -- but when it’s hard, when young people are struggling, and there aren’t any quick fixes or easy answers, and that's when young people need compassion and patience, as well as a little bit of tough love.

Now, this is a challenge even in good times. And it can be especially tough during times like these, when parents have a lot on their minds -- they're worrying about keeping their jobs, or keeping their homes or their health care, paying their bills, trying to give their children the same opportunities that they had. And so it's understandable that parents get concerned, some fathers who feel they can't support their families, get distracted. And even those who are more fortunate may be physically present, but emotionally absent.

I know that some of the young men who are here today might have their own concerns one day about being a dad. Some of you might be worried that if you didn’t have a father, then you don't know how to be one when your turn comes. Some of you might even use that as an excuse, and say, “Well, if my dad wasn’t around, why should I be?”

Let’s be clear: Just because your own father wasn’t there for you, that’s not an excuse for you to be absent also -- it’s all the more reason for you to be present. There’s no rule that says that you have to repeat your father’s mistakes. Just the opposite -- you have an obligation to break the cycle and to learn from those mistakes, and to rise up where your own fathers fell short and to do better than they did with your own children.

That’s what I’ve tried to do in my life. When my daughters were born, I made a pledge to them, and to myself, that I would do everything I could to give them some things I didn’t have. And I decided that if I could be one thing in life, it would be to be a good father.

I haven’t always known exactly how to do that. I’ve made my share of mistakes; I've had to ask a lot of questions. But I've also learned from men that I admire. And one good example is Michelle’s father, Frasier Robinson, who was a shining example of loving, responsible fatherhood. Here is a man who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when he was 30 years old, but he still got up every day, went to a blue-collar job. By the time I knew him he was using two crutches to get around, but he always was able to get to every dance recital, every ballgame of Michelle's brother. He was there constantly, and helped to shape extraordinary success for his children.

And that’s the standard that I strive for, though I don’t always meet it. And as I’ve said before, I've made mistakes as a parent, and I'm sure I will make plenty more. There have been days when the demands of work have taken me from my duties as a father and I’ve missed some moments in my daughters’ lives that I’ll never get back. So I’ve been far from perfect.

But in the end, it’s not about being perfect. It’s not always about succeeding; but it’s about always trying. And that's something everybody can do. It’s about showing up and sticking with it; and going back at it when you mess up; and letting your kids know -- not just with words, but with deeds -- that you love them and that you're always -- they're always your first priority.

And we need dads -- but also men who aren’t dads -- to make this kind of commitment not just in their own homes to their own families, but to the many young people out there who aren’t lucky enough to have responsible adults in their lives. We need committed, compassionate men to serve as mentors and tutors, and big brothers and foster parents. Even if it’s just for a couple hours a week of shooting hoops, or helping with homework, or just talking about what’s going on in that young person's life. Even the smallest moments can end up having an enormous impact, a lasting impact on a child’s life.

So I am grateful to many of the organizations that are here, that are working on these issues. Some are faith-based; some are not. Some are government funded; some are privately funded. But all of you have those same commitments to making sure that we are lifting up the importance of fatherhood in our communities.

This is not the end, this is the beginning, of what I hope is going to be a national dialogue. And we're going to have regional town hall meetings, as Mike may have mentioned, to make sure that participants all across the country are starting to have that positive effect in their communities.

And I especially want to thank the young people who are here today, because you're the ones who are going to have to carry -- (applause) -- this forward.

So with that -- I know we've already had some discussion, and what I want to do is to see if we can expand the conversation. We should have some microphones in the audience so that everybody can be heard. Am I correct? Mike, are you going to be like Oprah?

MR. STRAUTMANIS: I'm not going to be like Oprah. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. So what I want to do is just call on some folks. They can ask a question. They can share a story. Organizations that are doing great work on fatherhood, please tell us a little bit about the work that you are doing. And I want to especially hear from some of the young people who somehow ended up sitting in the back. (Laughter.) I don't know how that happened. I'm going to start with this young man right here.

Go ahead. Introduce yourself. Stand up, please.
Q Yes. My name is Roland Warren. I'm president of an organization called National Fatherhood Initiative. And first, just thank you for what you're doing on this issue. And a lot of folks have been sort of toiling on this issue for a number of years, and to have you come forward and step up and make this a national priority is really important.

And one of the things I just want to say to you, that your message, in terms of the fact that even though you've had obviously tremendous success without your dad, the fact that you really needed him and that kids have a hole in their souls essentially in the shape of their dad I think is pretty important, because we really need to focus on that issue; that we got to change the legacy and help our kids pass on the legacy -- have our dads pass on a different legacy than maybe they inherited.
I grew up without my dad, as well, and went to Princeton and things of that nature, but still needed him. That's one of the reasons I do the work that I do. So I really am delighted that you're doing the great work that you're doing around this issue.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. Yes, I really want to emphasize this point about how just small moments and gestures can make a huge difference. A lot of folks know I love playing basketball. But it was my father who gave me my first basketball. Even though he wasn't a part of my life, in the few weeks that I was with him, he gave me a basketball.

A lot of folks know I love jazz. It turns out he took me to my first jazz concert. I didn't remember this until later on in life, but just that imprint is powerful. And imagine if that's sustained every day. And especially, young men, when they hit the teenage years, to have somebody there who is there to steady them and to provide them with some guidance, that makes all the difference in the world.

And again, this is not to take away from the heroic work that moms are doing. It's to emphasize moms need some help -- because if you're a single mom like mine was, and maybe they're going to school or working -- the pressures are enormous. And having somebody else there who's able to carry on that child-rearing responsibility is absolutely critical.

Anybody else? Let me get one of these young people here. Go ahead.

Q Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Larry Holmes. I attend St. Albans School for Boys. And I would like to ask you a question.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead.

Q Traveling from state to state, country to country, being the President, which one is funner -- being a father or being a President? (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well -- well, I mean this: Nothing is more fun than being a father. Now, my kids aren't teenagers yet so I don't know -- (laughter) -- I don't know whether that will maintain itself. (Laughter.) But right now the greatest joy I get is just hanging out with the girls and talking to them and watching them grow and succeed.

Probably the most fun that I've had since I've been President was actually at a parent-teachers conference where the teachers were bragging on my children. (Laughter.) And I just sat there and I just basked in the glory of -- (laughter.) And now nothing is more important than that. And I think a lot of fathers can relate to that.

But here's the important point, is that, with as many responsibilities as I have -- and I've got a huge support structure and staff and whatnot -- it turns out that you can still carve out time to make sure that you're having a conversation with your kid.

And what it does mean is, is that fathers sometimes have to give up stuff that they'd like to do instead, like just sit there and watch Sportscenter. (Laughter.) And I know we got D. Wade here -- I like watching the highlights -- but sometimes instead of watching the third, fourth -- (laughter) -- fifth time Sportscenter, I just watch it once -- (laughter) -- so that I can then spend time with the girls -- because they don't like watching basketball that much. But being President is pretty fun, too, no doubt about it.

All right. Great question. Next. Yes, sir -- right here.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Here, you got a microphone.

Q Hi, Mr. President. My name is Chris Maples. I founded an organization in Indianapolis called Dads, Inc. -- four years ago today, actually. And I hope that these dialogues continue to let everybody know that this isn't a rich or poor, a North or South, a black or white; this is -- this affects everybody from the upper class to the lower class. And that's who we work with, that broad range. And over these four years, I've heard dramatic stories of -- just so appreciative that we have a service in Indianapolis for all fathers, and that everybody is appreciative of that. And I hope we can keep that up on a national level, too.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think this is really important to emphasize -- 23 percent of young people are growing up without fathers. Now, in the African American community, it's close to 50 percent, maybe a little over, depending on the statistics that you look at. So there is a real crisis going on the African American community on this issue, but it is a more pervasive issue.

And I just went to a wonderful organization called Year Up that has young people who are getting trained after high school, most of them, on specific job-training skills, computer skills, but also how to conduct themselves in an office and write an email, et cetera. And it was wonderful talking to these young people. But one of the things I said specifically to the young men is that you can't use anything as an excuse not to be involved with your children. Because kids -- they won't judge you based on whether you're wealthy or poor. They will judge you if you are abusive to their mother. They will judge you in terms of you not showing up when they need you. That's what makes a difference.

And kids will respect their fathers if their fathers are showing kindness and are modeling -- that they're working hard and trying to do what's right for their families. And kids will understand that sometimes families fall on hard times. They get that. Joe Biden is here -- and, Joe, actually, I want to talk to you, because you had a terrific relationship with your dad, but there was a time where your dad fell on some hard times, and yet you still talk about him all the time as the most important guiding role model in your life.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. President, I think it's great what you're doing, by the way. This is a big deal. Folks, you know, the President said sometimes fathers make mistakes, and I've made my share. But one thing my father told me -- there's a mistake a father should never make, and that is communicating to his child there's anything other than total unconditional love. If there's total unconditional love -- that includes discipline -- but if there's total unconditional love, it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, whether or not you're a real smart dad or you're not such a smart dad, whether you're handsome or you're not so -- it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Kids need love.

And as a single parent, Mr. President -- I did that for a while, having two sons, as Evan knows. And what I can say to you is -- my mom has an expression. He's always kidding me, I'm always saying my mom and dad's expressions. But my mom has an expression. And she said -- I could hear her when she was a kid -- when I was a kid, saying it to her peers. She said, "Be careful how you treat your children, you may need them some day." (Laughter.)

And I want to tell you, the President knows my sons and my daughter. It doesn't change -- the happiest thing in the world is being a father. This day my 40-year-old son is attorney general of the state of Delaware. The President sees it in my 39-year-old son and my 27-year-old daughter. If my son, Attorney General, Captain Biden walked in the door from Iraq today, the first thing he'd do is walk up and give me a kiss. I mean it. And this is not -- a kid who knows how to handle himself.

But the point is it gives me more joy, and I think it gives every father in this room more joy than any other thing that happens in your life, whether your son or daughter does that.

So, Mr. President, you're a great President. You're a great dad. And you're really good to be doing this. It's a big deal. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) All right. (Applause.) Thank you. (Applause.) All right. Anybody back here want to comment on some of the things they heard or saw? Go ahead.

Q I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. President. At one point you had to decide you wanted to run for President, with two young daughters. Can you share with us how you had to wrestle with that decision?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a great question and I think I've said this publicly before -- the first question, the threshold question that I had to ask in conjunction with Michelle -- because this was a joint decision -- was could our family handle it? And frankly, if it hadn't been for Michelle's extraordinary strength and commitment, I could not have done it and would not have done it. And she was able to handle, for big chunks of time, being like a single mom.

Now, I want to emphasize we are luckier than most; we've got more resources than most. And so I don't want to diminish how tough it is if you're working two shifts, you're coming home beat, and then suddenly you're also expected to help on the homework and do all these things. It's a big challenge for a lot of families. And we had more resources than most, but it was still a very difficult decision.

Frankly, I don't think we would have made the same decision if our kids were a little older. Part of the reason it was okay was because when I started running, Sasha was five, Malia was eight, and they were still in Chicago; they had my mother-in-law, and they had a whole network and a community and a family that could help and support them. And so as a consequence we figured out they would thrive.

The person who suffered the most was me, because I would be calling from God knows where and they'd be having fun and laughing and -- (laughing) -- and kids don't talk on the phone that well. (Laughter.) So I'd be, "Sasha, how was your day?" "Fine." (Laughter.) "What did you do?" "Nothing." (Laughter.) You guys have had those conversations. (Laughter.)

And so there were times where just physically I wanted to just be with them, and just couldn't. And so it was the hardest part of deciding to run for President.

The best thing about being President, by the way, is having a home office, because that means that -- (applause) -- that means that I get home for dinner and -- even if I have to go back to work, and then that makes all the difference in the world.
So, okay. Ed, got one right behind you. No, no, got one -- right back.

Q I'm used to you throwing my questions away.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I wouldn't do that. Go ahead.

Q I'm kidding. Listen, I just wanted to thank you very much. We started an initiative with Al Dotson and a hundred black men called "Daddy's Promise," which really takes a look at fathers involving themselves in their daughters' lives, and you've been a great image for that. And what I just wanted to tell everybody is the service that you've given us, just with the image of you and your family and your daughters, has gone and made tenfold in terms of it being easier to tell men to involve themselves, because as we know, the media and the image is so powerful. And A, I'd like to thank you very much --

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that.

Q -- for that, and being upfront on that -- and encourage everyone to do so in your neighborhoods, because as much as we look to this man and others in the media, it is those of you who are there on an everyday basis. And when you see parents with children, it goes a long, long way. So we thank you for that.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. But I think you made the right point, Ed, which is it's one thing seeing people on TV; it's another thing seeing that young father down the street who's just like you, except he's holding his baby in his arms, or taking that toddler to the park, or participating in the Little League. That's where young people get sort of their images, what it means to be a man, more than they do from whatever is on the screen. But I very much appreciate what you said.

Okay, I'm going to call on a token mom here just so that she can comment on these things.

Q I'm Reverend Dr. Barbara Williams Skinner.

THE PRESIDENT: It's great to see you.

Q Good to see you. I want to say for women -- I'm a mother and a grandmother -- this is a day of celebration for us. (Applause.) We just felt our shoulders lifted. Not having had a father, but I -- thank you for Bill Cowher and Mr. McDaniels from Run DMC, coming over to Ballou. The only time you hear about Ballou High School is when someone is shot or killed. Today the kids asked us -- they said, "They're coming to see us?" So I want to thank you on their behalf, that you cared enough about children who are on the other side of the river.

And now, my question is, how do we keep lifting up the stories of the kid who's not in trouble, who goes past the drug dealers, who decides to stay in school, as opposed to all the -- we spend so much emphasis on what's not working. How do we talk about what is working?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I think you make a great point. First of all, I do want to thank all these wonderful men who took the time to go out and -- Coach Cowher, this is the first time that you've seen Redskins fans cheer for you -- (laughter) -- that doesn't happen that often -- but these extraordinary men for taking the time to do this. Please give them a big round of applause. (Applause.)

But I think you're absolutely right, Reverend, that sometime we've got to lift up success instead of just remarking on failure, because -- the young men that I met at the trip that I took to Year Up, these were extraordinary young people. They were poised and they were polished and they were -- and these are all kids from the neighborhood, but they had -- somebody had reached out to show that they care.

And it turns out that young people are incredibly resilient. It doesn't take that much. All it takes is somebody to put a hand on them and say, "You know what? You're important. And I'm listening to you." And if it's the wrong person who's putting that hand on them, if it's the gang-banger that's putting that hand on them, then they'll respond to that. And if it's a person in the community who is working hard, they'll respond to that.
And so we do need to affirm positive behavior and not just condemn negative behavior, because a lot of times young people just -- they just need to be told that if you -- one of the neat things about this program that I was looking at was they had a whole code: The first thing that they trained young people on was how do you interact with others. So everybody that you met, they were shaking your hand and looking at you in the eye and they weren't mumbling. And there were certain words that they had banned from usage -- not just curse words, either. They were saying, you know, don't go around saying, "Shorty" and "What's up, G?" and -- because that's not professional. And all that was important to them, and they absorbed it very quickly. But it requires spending a little time and then lifting up some role models.

MR. STRAUTMANIS: Last question.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. This is always tough, the last-question thing. (Laughter.) I'm going to call on one of these young people again. Here you go. Go ahead. This young man right here, he had his hand up.

Q I was wondering --

THE PRESIDENT: What's your name?

Q I'm Nick, and I'm also from St. Albans.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, Nick. Yes, you're with this crew here.

Q And, Mr. President, I was wondering how you felt when you first became a father.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me tell you the story of me -- first of all, Malia was born on the Fourth of July. And every first father has this memory of you're waiting and you're waiting, and then suddenly Michelle woke me up at around 3:00- 4:00 a.m., and I was sleepy, and she says, "Hey, buster, I think this may be happening." And you jump out -- it was like a movie. I was jumping out of my bed and looking for my shoes and the bag.

And things went fairly smoothly. But the first time you see that child, and bringing her home, driving really slow -- (laughter) -- in that little car seat -- and then that night, knowing that there was this new life inside your house in a little bassinet, and remembering to check on them every five minutes to make sure they're still breathing -- (laughter) -- and then feeling them lying on your chest when you've fed them and they're falling asleep -- and you knew at that moment something had -- if you're not a father yet, people say and you don't believe, which is, at that moment, you realize you will do anything for that child. There's nothing you wouldn't do for them -- in a heartbeat.

And that bond between a parent and a child is something that is precious. It's sacred. And it's a true blessing.

And sometimes I think in the hustle of life you forget what a blessing that is, and that ultimately, after all this stuff is done, after Joe and I are retired and nobody knows our name -- (laughter) -- the one thing that we'll remember is -- are those moments when you were holding your kid, and watching them grow, and the first time they walked. And that's the stuff that will stay with you.

And that's why, if there's one last thing I want to communicate to those fathers who maybe haven't been involved in their child's life, it's to emphasize that this isn't an obligation. This is a privilege to be a father. (Applause.) And that's something that all of us should take on for themselves.

So, thank you, everybody, for participating. I appreciate you. Thank you. (Applause.)

Almost all the American parents I have met while living overseas say that the two things they miss most about the States are online shopping and Target (TGT), which in our times have become pretty much one and the same thing.

In the four years that I have lived outside the US, I, too, have missed the convenience of Target and its panoply of both store and online choices. But like every other American expat parent I’ve met, I also have a real fear of returning to that world of temptation, for I remember all too well setting out on shopping trips to buy, say, a pack of batteries, and returning home with all manner of things I had no intention of getting in the first place.

The greatest fear I and the fellow Americans I’ve met overseas share is the impact of the easy consumer culture that Target et. al. stand for on our children. Living overseas—particularly in The Netherlands, which is a very basic, no-frills-at-all kind of place—our kids have been shielded from the “I wants” and “I needs” that the world (myself included) associates with America. How easily can it ensnare these kids once they get back to the States?

I asked Allison Pugh, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and author of “Longing and Belonging: Parents, Children and Consumer Culture,” what advice she had for me, taking my two tabula rasa children—aged eight and five and with no recollection of America (they left the US in 2005)—back to New Jersey in a couple of months.

“Good luck,” she said with a laugh.

I told her my favorite European vs. American story: A French grandmother I know went to the States for her grand daughter’s (whose father is American) birthday. As the French and many other European grandparents do, she took one very exquisite and quite expensive dress for the little girl. But it was completely overshadowed by the American grandmother and her armfuls of gifts, tossed into a corner without a second glance. The French grandmother said she had never felt so embarrassed in her life.

“I’m quite frightened about the onslaught of mass consumerism-even though there’s a recession, I still feel that American children want and get so much more than children I have seen in Europe,” I told Pugh. “Should I be afraid of this?”

Yes, she says, there is definitely something to be scared of. The whopping $17 billion that’s spent on advertising geared specifically toward children—the giant monster that American parents I’ve had discussions with overseas are really afraid of—is certainly something to fear (I don’t think I have seen ads for kids stuff on Dutch TV, come to think of it). But although advertising certainly fuels kids’ “needs” and “wants,” Allison argues that it can’t be held wholly responsible for the impact of consumer culture on children.

In her book—based on her doctoral dissertation—Pugh says that children’s desires stem less from striving for status or falling victim to advertising than from their longing to join the “conversation” at school or in the neighborhood. In turn, parents answer this yearning to belong by buying the particular goods and experiences that act as “passports” in children's social worlds, because they empathize with their children's fear of being different from their peers. They want their kids to belong, and this continues even under financial duress. Pugh studied children and parents from different socio-economic classes and found this pattern to be the same.

It’s okay to give into the “conversation” every now and then. Pugh says, and as a parent bringing my kids to a new place, I would be inclined to want to help them belong to that place as much as I can. But Pugh also says that she’s “quite pessimistic about individual kids’ abilities to withstand the pressures and fight against materialism and handle their differences.”

Parents are afraid of their children being excluded and left out, but ultimately “the solution will come from us not just talking the talk and walking the walk about difference, but actually celebrating it, in terms of ethnicity, social class, and all kinds of other differences,” Pugh says.

Many middle-class American parents I’ve met like to say they’re not materialistic, that they don’t buy their children anything. Yet when you walk into kids’ bedrooms they’re often filled to the brim—with stuff that’s rarely even touched. I find this—which Pugh says is “the honorable thing to say”—more pronounced among Americans than any other race I’ve met, so despite my discussion with her, I am still nervous about my childrens’ return to the US.

Do I have reason to fear or not?

Today, a third of wives earn more than their husbands. Eighty percent of mothers work. Meanwhile, 80% of the people being laid off in the current recession are men. Pay gaps persist between mothers and childless women—as well as between women and men—but the female breadwinner is here to stay.

And yet when I traveled around the country interviewing breadwinning moms for my new book, The Daddy Shift, I found that many of them were struggling with their role. “I feel happy at my job,” said Oakland mom Rachelle. “But all things considered, I’d give it up and stay home with [my son]. And that’s strange. I didn’t realize that I’d feel that way.” She was shocked to find herself feeling jealous of her stay-at-home husband.

Rachelle isn’t alone. In a 2007 essay for the New York Times, M. P. Dunleavey wrote that breadwinning moms “are seething—with uncertainty, resentment, anxiety and frustration.” While her own husband “cooks, cleans, shops and takes care of our son,” Dunleavey said that she was filled with “terror that I’ll be the breadwinner forever.”

The roots of this discomfort are not hard to understand. A series of studies by sociologist Joseph Pleck found that the more a mother is involved with the worker role, the less time she feels she has to enact the mother role. But this result did not apply to fathers, despite the fact that fathers reported working twice as many hours on average as mothers did. “These findings suggest that although caregiving and breadwinning behaviors may be competitively organized [internally] for mothers, they are not for fathers,” writes Pleck.

In other words, fathers tend to see breadwinning as part of parenting, while many mothers see working as a separate activity that takes time away from their children. These feelings are products of a sexual division of labor that is centuries old; they explain why both stay-at-home dads and their breadwinning wives struggle with feelings of inadequacy, even as they continue to grow into new roles.

But those struggles, I discovered, are only half the story. Many career-oriented women marry men who become primary caregivers, and they are extremely happy with the arrangement. What’s their secret? In an age when gender roles are open to negotiation, the first trick, I found, is to identify what you want and find a partner who knows what he or she wants, bargain openly for roles as changes like parenthood loom, and clearly identify what strengths each partner brings to the table.

I saw this principle in action with Chicago parents Misun and Kent Hoffman. Misun made it clear at the outset of the relationship that she wanted children but that she also wanted to pursue her career, and Kent responded that he wanted to raise the children himself if she would support him. If the couple had not been able to arrive at this arrangement, Kent and Misun both told me, the relationship would not have gotten to the next stage.

It’s a discussion that every modern couple must have. If the sexual division of labor is indeed in the early stages of dissolving and gender roles are up for grabs—which I argue is the case—couples must put their respective assumptions and innermost desires on the table. When they do not do this, the silence can become a liability in their marriages. Misun and Kent did, and it became a source of strength. And after the children were born, Kent was grateful for his wife’s success as a provider, and Misun expressed appreciation for her husband’s unique contributions as a caregiver.

This is also true of another Oakland couple, Gopal and Martha. “I’ve always wanted to be a father, since I was a teenager,” Gopal told me. “There was definitely an understanding that we would share parenting. I always knew that I wanted to stay home and she always knew that.” This combination of self-knowledge and honesty created the basis for a successful reverse-traditional partnership. “Having a partner who stays home helps tremendously,” said Martha, a public school teacher. “It’s easy to play the game of the overworked mother, but I’m not an overworked mother, because Gopal takes on so much care.”

In short, here's the formula for successful reverse-traditional families, especially those created by an unexpected layoff: prizing time with children and seeing the value in Dad learning to take care of the kids; respecting each other's roles, both breadwinning and caregiving; being grateful to each other's contributions; and being able to articulate what you're gaining through a reverse-traditional arrangement, even when it's involuntary.

The definition of fatherhood has expanded to encompass a capacity for caregiving, just as motherhood has expanded to include breadwinning. This expansion can create stress and unhappiness. But as I hope the stories in The Daddy Shift reveal, it doesn’t have to be that way. When parents like Gopal and Martha embrace their roles, it creates new examples—and new possibilities—for all of us.

You’re off on another business trip. Another three days away from your kids (oh yeah – and spouse). You pack your suitcase but have a hard time getting it shut, because it’s so full. Of guilt.

Absentee parentism is considered close to child abuse in some circles – especially in Disney movies, where nine times out of ten some moppet is bravely choking back tears because mom or dad is too busy to understand his need to sing, or need for a dog, or need for a cheering parent in the bleachers. Absent parents are bad parents, but by the end of the movie those “selfish” grown-ups have learned their lesson: Celebrate every gosh darn moment of your child’s life or consider yourself Facebook friends with Cruella de Vil.

But is that truly what children need? Constant parental presence? Historically and psychologically, no.

As I was researching my new book, “Free-Range Kids: Giving our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts with Worry,” it became obvious that many of the happiest, smartest, best-adjusted people you’ve ever heard had nothing remotely resembling a Disney childhood. From Ben Franklin, packed off to an apprenticeship at age 12 (as was common back then), to Barack Obama, abandoned by his dad at age 2, it seems pretty obvious that what a child needs is not a parent’s constant presence, but a parent-- or grandparent, or some other caring adult – who has confidence in them.

In fact, too much parental hovering can sometimes sap a kid’s confidence. “Was it mom’s special ice skate-tying technique that helped me win?” a child might wonder, “Or my own ability?” The only way to find out is to tell mom: Today I’m tying my skates myself. This happens to be even easier when mom isn’t there.

Because we live in a hot-house culture that has decided children need constant supervision (thanks to ramped up fears out of line with a crime rate actually back on par with 1970), parents have colonized almost every kiddie sphere. Birthday parties. Baseball practice. The park. But what we have to remember is: This hovering is new.

Chances are when you were a kid, you walked to your friend’s house without a second thought. Now kids are driven. You played outside till the streetlights came on. Now kids stay inside, supervised. And if your dad worked late, or you were a latchkey kid, no one pitied you because your parent wasn’t there to check your every diagrammed sentence. You just did it on your own. In other words, you grew up confident in yourself and in your parents’ love. Maybe you even figured out why we diagram sentences.

So while you might feel bad leaving your kids for a few days – or more than a few days – it’s quite possible you’re giving those kids the rare but golden opportunity to muddle through on their own. When you come home, you’ll still be listened to. You’ll still be loved. And with one confident click, you can de-friend forever Cruella de Vil.

By the way, women should not think they'll escape this fat trip if they forget the marriage license and live in sin with the one they love. Women co-habitating with a romantic partner have a 64% greater risk of obesity. However, men co-habitating with a romantic partner have no increased risk at all--proving once again that life is damn unfair.

The researchers, from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, aren't sure why marriage might make you fat. They do note that the marital state confers other health benefits, including decreased smoking and longer life. "But we also see greater weight gain than in others of the same age, and greater risk of obesity," said Penny Gordon-Larsen, an associate professor of nutrition at UNC and co-author of the study.

According to Gordon-Larsen, when people are living together – married or not – they tend to share behaviors and activity patterns. They may chose to eat meals together, possibly cooking bigger meals or eating out more often than they did when they were single, and may watch TV together instead of going to the gym or playing a sport. Gordon-Larsen said that in subsequent interviews with both romantic partners, they found that couples who lived together for more than two years (especially those who were married) were most likely to display similar weight/obesity patterns and physical activity behaviors.

This particular marriage penalty could be part of the same trend picked up in a study reported two years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine--that obesity tends to spread among friends and family. If one of your friends becomes obese, the risk that you will also become obese in the next two to four years increases by 57%. The siblings of that friend have a 40% greater chance of becoming obese, and the spouse, 37%.

Nothing like being fat, happy and loved, I suppose. I'm not sure what the solution is here. The UNC researchers suggest that, just as spouses share unhealthy behaviors, they could learn to share healthy behaviors. Would the couple that runs together be as likely to stay together as the couple who shares a late night pig-out? Any thoughts, short of mass divorce?

Our interfaith family is attuned to the slings and arrows of bigotry: insulting assumptions about Jews—my husband’s family fled pogroms in Eastern Europe for New York more than 100 years ago; narrow stereotypes about the South, where my family has had Christian roots for 390 years. Yet a surge in extremism brought on by the recession and the election of our first African-American President, documented in April by the Homeland Security Dept. and in February by the Southern Poverty Law Center, seems far removed from our peaceful and diverse New Jersey suburb. That is until acts of violence like the museum attack expose the wired worlds of hate that course through the Internet.

As the President seeks mutual understanding on the world stage, it’s up to us as parents to ensure our children practice tolerance at home. Communities like mine, where the local memorial to the 700 New Jersey residents who died on September 11 is a daily reminder of the destruction hatred can unleash, have many cultural crossroads: the girls’ track meet last month, where two runners, worried they’d be late for their Hebrew high school confirmation class, watched as a head-scarved young woman from an area school sprinted across the finish lines; an interfaith meeting of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teens (“Mom, the Muslim girls and boys sat separately”) where the clergy did much of the talking.

On weekends, rotating congregations of Christians, Jews, and Hindus fill churches and synagogues strapped for cash that rent their space to other worshipers. The local Barnes & Noble looks like a U.N. library as kids of all colors, SAT prep books and Starbucks coffee at hand, fill every available seat and spill into the aisles. And the adjacent mall is a global bazaar of shoppers from all corners of the earth hunting for bargains or the latest trendy goods. But New Jersey is no stranger to bigotry: In 2008, it ranked first in the nation in reports of anti-Semitic incidents, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Although down from 2007, there were 238 incidents ranging from two assaults on Jews to vandalism and graffiti—much of it initiated by teens.

To cross the bridge from recognition to mutual understanding and cooperation, what can our communities do? Our schools have long-running anti-bullying programs. Our interfaith clergy association—featuring a well-known local imam, rabbis, priests, and ministers-- holds annual Thanksgiving and Holocaust memorial services. Teaching Tolerance, a program of the Southern Poverty Law Center, has teaching materials and its 101 Tools for Tolerance for individuals, homes, schools, workplaces and communities. Among them are No. 26, bookmark equity and diversity Web sites on your home computer; No. 27, point out stereotypes and cultural misinformation depicted in movies, TV shows, computer games, and other media; No. 57, invite bilingual students to give morning greetings and announcements on the PA system in their home languages; and No. 60, ask schools not to schedule tests or school meetings on the major holidays of any religious group. Develop a school calendar that respects religious diversity.

Sadly, some of kids’ best ideas are inspired after the fact—when acts of hate have taken their toll. Earlier this month in San Clemente, Calif., high school sophomores launched a peer-to-peer safety and support group, Cool 2 Be Kind Club, to honor their friend Daniel Mendez, who committed suicide over "relentless" bullying .

Readers, what kinds of things are your schools and communities doing to promote tolerance—and to prevent the hatreds so easily exploited on the Internet?

In the episode that aired on June 9, Teresa gets new “bubbies,” Danielle breaks up with her twentysomething boyfriend, and Jacqueline arranges a photo shoot for her teenage daughter with a celebrity photographer. You can find an extended recap here on Gawker.

However, one very “real” moment stuck out in the episode. Dina, who has a hybrid career as an event planner and decorator, reveals that she's tired of juggling work with her family responsibilities.

Granted, Dina makes this proclamation while she's away on a “girl's weekend” at a hot new Atlantic City restaurant as she is sipping what appears to be a mojito . But it was as close to reality as possible to hear that she fears she is missing out on her daughter Lexi's childhood.

She writes on her Bravo TV blog (yep, she blogs!) the following:

I am realizing that before I know it, (Lexi) will be out of the house and I can't get these precious years back. I'm starting to see that my career may have to take a back seat for a while. I could always pick up where I left off when she is 18 and off in college. I still have my days while she is in school to dabble, but I really want my nights and weekends that are usually spent at events back. Let's see what happens!

For a split second there, Dina almost seems like real housewife. From the promo for the season finale, it looks we'll have to wait until next season to see if reality bites.

I will be interviewing Stanford professor Shelley Correll, co-author of the study Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty? that sparked this debate. (For those of you who missed the discussion, Correll and her co-authors fournd that the pay gap between mothers and childless women is actually bigger than the pay gap between women and men.)

Several of you questioned how hiring managers knew the women who applied for jobs were moms in the first place. I emailed Correll and it turns out they listed "PTA officer" on fake resumes used in the study.

What other questions do you have about this research? Let me know, and I'll include them in my interview when I speak to Correll.