Blog 14 - Extended Families

Blog 13 - Family Transitions

Questions: (1.) According to the research presented by Stephanie Coontz, how does divorce affect children, and what factors account for the variation in these effects? (2.) According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, what factors affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce? (3.) According to Carr, what three factors are the most important influences on spousal bereavement? How does gender shape the experience of spousal loss?

In Stephanie Coontz’s article, Putting Divorce in Perspective, she examines the variety of affects divorce has on children. She points out that people are usually quick to infer that all children of divorced parents turn out worse than those whose parents stay together. Coontz, however, provides information that illustrates that while some children are significantly affected by divorce in a negative manner other children’s well-beings were hardly affected. Some of the factors that were determined to cause the variations in these effects include: number of divorces and/or remarriages, poverty, financial loss, school relocation and prior history of severe martial conflict (101).
In a number of studies conducted it has been concluded that more children of divorced parents have problems. For example, “it is true that children in divorced and remarried families are more likely to drop out of school, exhibit emotional distress, get in trouble with the law and abuse drugs or alcohol than children who grow up with both biological parents” (99). Furthermore, it has also been reported, in a long-term study published by Judith Wallerstein, that almost half the children from divorced families experienced long-term pain, worry and insecurity that adversely affected their love and work relationships. Some of these problems can be attributed to the fact that divorces can interfere with effective parenting and deprive children of parental resources (98).
Coontz emphasizes the fact that while divorces possess the potential to have disastrous consequences for the children involved it is unfair to say that these problems are caused by solely by the divorce; “many of the problems seen in children of divorced parents are caused not by divorce alone but by other frequently coexisting yet analytically separate factors” (101). Divorce usually triggers financial loss, withdrawal of parental attention, and change of residences or schools. “In this sense it is fair to say that divorce causes many childhood problems by creating these other conditions. But it makes more sense to adopt policies to minimize income loss or school and residence changes than to prohibit divorce across the board, for these are no hard and fast links between family structure, parental behaviors, and children’s outcome” (101). Furthermore, a particular study found that “experiences in a one-parent, mother-headed family seemed to have a positive effect for girls” (103). These girls were found to be caring, competent children who were exceptionally popular, self-confident, well-behaved and academically adept. These girls had the most stable peer friendships and solid relations with adults.

Several studies have been conducted to pinpoint what factors affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce. The majority of the studies show a wide range of responses to divorce; some children do very well while others fare poorly. Some factors, however, have been isolated to improve the affects divorce has on children.
The first two years following a separation have been labeled by psychologists as a ‘crisis period’ for children as well as adults. In effort to aid children in the short-term adjustment to divorce two essential needs must be met. “First, they need additional emotional support as they struggle to adapt to the breakup. Second, they need the structure provided by a reasonably predictable daily routine” (493). Consequences of the crisis period include both external and internal disorders. External disorders are characterized by heightened levels of problem behavior directed outwards, such as aggression, disobedience, and lying. Internal disorders refer to heightened levels of problem behaviors directed inward, such as depression, anxiety or withdrawal (493). There have been other studies conducted that provide evidence indicating that boys might do worse during this two-year period because they typically live with their opposite-sex parent, their mother.
While almost all children are moderately or severely distressed and experience sadness, confusion and anger when their parents separate many parents are eventually able to stabilize their own as well as their children’s lives. Some children, however, suffer long-term harm; but it is hard to determine the exact problems caused by the divorce because more times than not “all of the problems that emerge after the breakup are blamed on the divorce,” (495). Nonetheless, Sara McLanahan and her colleagues have reported that, “persons who reported living as a child in a single-parent family were more likely subsequently to drop out of high school, marry during their teenage years, have a child before marrying, and experience the disruption of their own marriages” (495). Research has been conducted to help identify factors that affect children’s long-term adjustment to divorce. A critical factor in both short-term and long-term adjustment is how effectively the custodial parent, usually the mother, functions as a parent. The way in which mothers cope with the distress has effects on the children’s well-being. “Quite often their distress is rooted in, or at least intensified by, financial problems. Loss of the father’s income can cause a disruptive, downward spiral in which children must adjust to a declining standard of living, a mother who is less psychologically available and is home less often, an apartment in an unfamiliar neighborhood, a different school, and new friends” (496). Low-level conflict between the mother and father in the subsequent years of a divorce is also a crucial factor to determining children’s long-term adjustment to divorce. Although many researchers have noted that the maintenance of a continuing relationship with the non-custodial parent is critical for children’s successful adjustment, recent studies have concluded that there is not enough evidence to determine whether or not retaining a stable and close relationship with the non-custodial parent significantly influences long-term adjustment.

In Deborah Carr’s article, Good Grief: Bouncing Back from a Spouse’s Death in Late Life, the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple’s life was like prior to the death are the most important factors that influence spousal bereavement.
The age of the husband and wife is an important factor for a number of reasons. First, losing a spouse is simply inevitable for most older married couples. Older grieving spouses have an important coping resource that is seldom available to younger widows and widowers: friends, peers, and siblings who are also adjusting to such a loss (24). The meaning of life and death also differs for older and younger persons; “death may be viewed as the natural conclusion to an elderly spouse’s long and meaningful life, rather than the interruption of a life yet to be lived” (24).
In addition to age, cause of death also influences spousal bereavement. Many older spouses die of chronic illness, or a long-term illness that causes physical pain or disability and often requires intensive care. As a result of advances in medical technology the life-span of ailing adults has increased; while also increasing the burden on spouses to manage complex care and medication regimes. For example, “many caregivers report high levels of strain and depressive symptoms when their spouses are still alive, yet many bounce back shortly after their spouses die” (25). In conclusion, “for many bereaved spouses, the event of the loss is not as painful as the long death watch period, which is often filled with drawn-out suffering” (25).
What the couple’s life was like prior to the death of a spouse also impacts spousal bereavement. Studies have reported that “people with the most close-knit, loving marriages experience the most severe symptoms of sadness and yearning in the first six months after their loss” contrary to couples who experienced problematic marriages (25). In addition, further studies “show that widows and widowers who had the most problematic marriages show better psychological health following their loss than do their married peers who remain in such troubled relationships (25).
Gender also shapes the experience of spousal loss. The traditional division of labor (men: making home repairs, paying bills, managing finances; women: meal preparation, child care, housework) means that widows and widowers face different challenges. After their husbands die, many widowers experience distress and anxiety about money because their husbands were usually the main source of income. Widowers on the other hand, tend to lose their social networks since their wives the family ‘kinkeepers.’

Blog 12 - Childhood

Questions: (1.) According to Thorne and Luria, what aspect of childhood experience serves as one of the main sources of gender differences? How does it operate? (2.) According to Goldscheider and Waite, how much housework do children do in contemporary families? How does it vary by child’s gender and type of family? (3.) What are the signs of commercialization of childhood presented in Juliet Schor’s article? How does this commercialization affect children’s well-being?

Children’s social relations during play time are an aspect of childhood experiences that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences. “Boys tend to interact in larger and more publicly-visible groups; they more often play outdoors, and their activities take up more space than those of girls. Boys engage in more physically aggressive play and fighting; their social relations tend to be overtly hierarchical and competitive” (139). Girls on the other hand tend to interact in much smaller groups or friendships. “Girls more often engage in turn-taking activities like jump-rope and doing tricks on the bars, and they less often play organized sports. Girls describe their relations using language that stresses cooperation and ‘being nice’ (139). These initial roles act as scripts that they will follow into adulthood. Both girls and boys are helping to socialize one another into primary adult gender roles.
The segregation that girls and boys experience during their childhood greatly influences their experiences later in life. “In their separate gender groups, girls and boys learn somewhat different patterns of bonding – boys sharing the arousal of group rule-breaking; girls emphasizing the construction of intimacy, and themes of romance. Coming to adolescent sexual intimacy from different and symmetric gender subcultures, girls and boys bring somewhat different needs, capacities, and types of knowledge” (147).

In the Goldscheider and Waite article they examined the amount of housework done by children and how their work varies by the child’s gender and family type. It was found that children take relatively little responsibility for most household tasks, about 15% of the total household labor (811). They housework that is performed by children usually consists of washing dishes, cleaning the house, doing laundry, and doing lawn work. Goldscheider and Waite also determined that most families do not give children any responsibility for paperwork, or much responsibility for grocery shopping or child care (811).
The particular tasks of housework performed by children were also found to be significantly dependent on one’s gender and family situation. For example, “families with teenage girls report sharing five times more of these other tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age. In fact, girls ages 12-18 seem to carry the largest share of housework of all children” (813). Furthermore, young adult males contribute no more to housework than do preteen children and do significantly less cooking and child care than children 6-12 years old. “This childhood socialization helps to reproduce the sex segregation of household labor found among husbands and wives. The family is a “gender factory,” serving as a focal point where the importance of the division of labor between the sexes is most strongly reinforced” (813).
Specific family situations/types also influence how much housework is performed by children and who in particular performs those tasks. For example, “families headed by unmarried women, have both less money and less of the mother’s time at home than do families headed by couples. Under these circumstances, families may feel more need to turn to the labor power of the children, both in the home and in market” (814). Furthermore, Goldscheider and Waite reported that many of these mothers say they cannot function without the children’s labor. Although the children in mother-only families take nearly twice as much responsibility for household’s tasks as those in standard nuclear families, there was no change reported in the traditional allocation of tasks between boys and girls. These children, of mother-only families, however, were clearly more central to the family economy in a way that they are not in other families, and as a result, they are likely to feel needed and more responsible (815). Children who live with their mother and stepfather also take a greater role in household chores than do children who live with both their biological parents.

In the contemporary age there are many signs of the commercialization of childhood. “A 2000 Griffin Bacal study found that nearly two-thirds of mothers thought their children were brand aware by age three, one-third said it happened at age two. Kids have clear brand preferences, they know which brands are cool, they covet them, and pay attention to the ads for them. Today’s tweens are the most brand conscious generation in history” (7). This commercialization is due to a variety of factors, however, “underlying them all is a marketing juggernaut characterized by growing reach, effectiveness and audacity” (2). Many companies are investing a lot of time and money into learning more about this new and upcoming market. For example, “hundreds of companies’ representatives come to hear the latest findings about what kids are up to from researchers, psychologists, and ad agency reps” (3). In addition to listening to the latest findings of professionals, “marketers are videotaping children in their private spaces, providing-in-depth analysis of the rituals of daily like. They are taking the streets, to stores, and even going to schools to observe and record. Researchers are paying adults whom kids trust, such as coaches, clergy and youth workers, to elicit information from them. Online, they’re offering money, products, and prizes directly to kids in return for salable consumer information” As a result of all this children-intensive research, marketers now had a better idea of how to reach their potential consumers. Recently, it was found that children now have more of an influence in parental purchases; particularly within the food market. For example, when Fruit Roll-Ups were first introduced the ads had both kid and mom appeal; for moms they called the attention towards the fruit aspect of the snack. After a while however, Fruit Roll-Up marketers realized that this dual messaging was unnecessary. Consequently, ad agencies moved toward targeting their advertisements directly at kids while worrying less about Mom.
The commercialization of childhood has also found been found to affect children’s well-being. Increasingly, children are now found to be suffering from more emotional and mental health problems. “Rates of anxiety and depression went from negligible to 3.6%; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder rose from 1.4% to 9.2%. Estimates of major depression are as high as 8% for adolescents. [Furthermore] in recent decades, suicide rates have climbed, and suicide is now the fourth leading cause of death among 10-14 year olds” (13). These new statistics are less than comforting and visibly illustrate that children’s mental and psychological health are much worse today than they were ten to twenty years ago.

Blog 11 - Fatherhood

Questions: (1.) According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the United States over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations? (2.) According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family? (3.) According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?

In Joseph Pleck’s chapter, “American Fathering in Historical Perspective,” he clearly illustrates how the role of fathers changed in the Untied States.
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the father was viewed as the moral overseer. The father was the main parent in the lives of his children. He was seen as the “ultimate source of moral teaching and worldly judgments” (352). The church, a major influential factor, believed that fathers “ought to concern themselves with the moral and religious education of the young and teach reading and writing” (352). Furthermore, the father played a key role in the courtship and marriage making of his children and usually was assigned custody in cases of marital separation.
In the early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries the predominant role of father began to change. Gradually the role of the mother increased while the more direct role of father decreased. As a new gender ideology emerged, specifically the purity of the female sphere, “the interests of the child were interpreted as justifying if not requiring maternal custody” (353). The effect of industrialization also impacted the role of the father; instead of being the extremely involved in the lives of his children, “being fully a father [now] meant being separated from one’s children for a considerable part of each day” (354). Although the father continued to set the official standard of morality and to be the final arbiter of family discipline, on the whole the father’s authority was reduced significantly.
Today, the dominant model is the father as the bread-winner. However, the image of the “new father” is on the rise: “he is present at the birth, he is involved with his children as infants, not just when they are older; he participates in the actual day-to-day work of child care, and not just play; he is involved with his daughters as much as his sons” (358).
I think that the article emphasizes the “new father” model as an expectation for fathers to emulate today; a sort of balance between the extremely involved father of the colonial period and frequently absent bread-winner father of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I agree with Pleck’s “new father” model and the expectations of fathers today. The balance between the two extremes seems to be a happy medium.

Many couples with children decide to work alternating shifts for different reasons, but mainly because of monetary issues. In Francine Deutsch’s article, “Halving it All: The Mother and Mr. Mom,” the majority of couples attributed their decision to working alternate shifts because it is cheaper to avoid using paid child care. Deutsch even mentioned the tight financial situation of these couples, “the alternating shifters have the lowest incomes among the groups I interviewed” (117). Although many of these couples couldn’t afford child care and thus had to work alternating shifts, there were many couples who “reasoned that it was impractical to spend so much of their income on day care” (117).
Couples also chose to work alternating shifts because they believe that children should only be cared for by family. Many middle class parents avoid day care and opt to work alternating shifts because for psychological reasons; for example, “they believe it doesn’t promote the child’s optimal development or because they think it will damage the bond between parent and child” (118). Furthermore, they also believe that “terrible dangers await children who are cared for by strangers” (118).
Among the working class there is more support for traditional gender ideology than among the more highly educated groups in the United States. “Many blue-collar couples carry with them images of an ideal of traditional family life, featuring the men going to work while their wives stay at home to tend young children” (125). As a result, Deutsch found that among middle class couples, “an overwhelming majority emphasized that, though both parents are employed, the men are the breadwinners in their families” (125). Furthermore, “in almost all the alternating-shift families, the parents stressed men’s breadwinning roles by treating the father’s job as the more important job in the family” (126).
The reality of the mother who works alternating shifts contradicts the ideal of the mother without paid employment. Although many of these alternating-shift mothers work to maintain the family’s economic well-being, many of them stated that given the choice the majority of them preferred being in the paid labor force and wouldn’t chose to be home full time – “yet the prevailing myth in these families is that the mothers work only for financial reasons” (126).
Mothers in alternating-shift families are still regarded as the number-one parent, regardless of how much time fathers spend with their children; “being there when children arrive home from a day at school is part of their image of being a good mother” (129).
Alternating-shift families are breaking grounds by developing new parenting techniques however there is an emphasis on traditional gender identities that there couples tend to hang on to. “They manage marked difference between their behavior and their ideology by maintaining core aspects of parental gender identity. Despite their nontraditional arrangements, they still regard the father as the breadwinner and the mother as the central parent” (132).
I am not sure what I would do in terms of selecting an alternating-shift arrangement for my family. It is extremely economically beneficial and also allows both parents to spend time with their children; however I would imagine that it might put a strain on the relationship between husband and wife. It seems that the time they would have together would be limited and when they find the time to be together either one or both are probably going to be exhausted. The pros and cons seem to be equal so I guess it would depend on the specific situation I found myself to be in at the time.

In Dorothy Roberts’ chapter, “The Absent Black Father,” she notes while black fathers are disparaged for their absence in the family, there are a number of societal factors that discourage family participation of black fathers. First, she points to a Black cultural tradition that is more accepting of unmarried mothers. Along similar lines, people tend to view Black single mothers as resistors against patriarchy. Roberts also indicates that joblessness and incarceration are also strong societal factors that discourage participation of black fathers. The unemployment rates for Black men “are more than double those of White men, and in 1988, there were more Black women in the labor force than Black men” (150). Black men’s declining ability to contribute financially to their households is a major cause of fatherlessness in Black homes. Additionally, Black fathers are also separated from their families by imprisonment; “Blacks, mostly men, make up over half of the one million inmates in American jails” (150). These incarceration rates “not only result from the disproportionate poverty and desperation that plagues Black communities but also from federal and state sentencing policies that are tougher on Black drug offenders” (150). When these Black men are finally let out of prison, ex-convicts have a hard time finding a decent job, which makes it difficult for them ever to become the ideal father.
An important element of Black fatherhood that led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father is that Blacks were not included in the separate spheres ideology; “black men fail to fit the patriarchal model of the husband who sustains his family economically” (151). Furthermore, the term ‘fatherlessness’ is often used interchangeably with ‘single motherhood’ and ‘illegitimacy’ demonstrating that people seem to be far more concerned with castigating unmarried fathers than with examining the actual contributions of married fathers to their children’s well being.
"Many presumably “absent” Black fathers actually play an important role in child rearing. Many Black men stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or are unable to provide financial support” (153). Stephanie Coontz even points out that in one national study, “poor African-American, officially absent fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them informal support than did White, middle-class absent fathers” (153).

Blog 9 - Motherhood

Questions: (1.) According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends? (2.) In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her? (3.) According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"? (4.) According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?

The four main historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17 – 20^th centuries were the pre-revolutionary era (late 17^th /early 18^th century), ‘Cult of Domesticity’ era (late 18^thth century), Progressive Era (late 19^th century) and the Permissive Era (early – mid 20^th century). /early 19
During the first historical stages there was a prevalent belief that childhood was a special and distinct stage; “it was the stage when the child needed to be ‘redeemed’ through strict discipline, molded by means of physical punishment, religious instruction, and participation in work life” (27). Women and mothers did not have an active role in the child’s rearing because women were thought to be “particularly susceptible to ‘passions’ and ‘affections,’ and given to ‘indulgence’ and ‘excessive fondness’” (27). As a result the child rearing depended more on the authority of the church, the community, and the male head of the household.
Notions of appropriate motherhood took a turn however during the late 18^th early 19^th century. The mother was no longer seen as a passive figure but rather the main overseer of childrearing. Fathers stepped aside as mothers assumed their new role of shepherdesses “leading their flocks on the path of righteousness” (30). There was also an evident explosion of domestic novels and child rearing manuals directed at mothers rather than at fathers or parents. Overall, “child-rearing came to be understood as a task that was best done primarily by the individual mother – without reliance on servants, older children, or other women. The mother was instructed to bring all her knowledge, religious devotion, and loving capacities to bear on the task, and she was urged to be consistently affectionate, constantly watchful of her own behavior, and extremely careful in guiding the child” (33).
During the period known as the “Progressive Era,” at the end of the 19^th century, “a mother’s instincts, virtue, and affection were no longer considered sufficient to ensure proper child rearing; she now had to be ‘scientifically’ trained” as a result of the growing belief in child-rearing as a science (39). Many psychologists of this period believed that “women in general and mothers in particular were irrational and emotional, but they also implied that, with careful expert guidance, it might be possible to educate them” (40). During this period, a mother was expected “to know all the latest information on physical, emotional, and cognitive development. She had to keep a tight rein on displays of affection in order to do her job properly. And she had to be objective, detached, and insightful in responding to her child’s needs” (44).
The final stage in the development of appropriate mothering, Hays points out, is known as the “Permissive Era”. During this particular period a mother’s love and affection was again emphasized; warning mothers that “unvarying obedience is not desirable and training should not come too early or be too strict” (45). Although, this era seems to be similar to the second stage of appropriate mothering development, it was not until the ‘permissive era’ that “child rearing became child-centered in the sense of being explicitly determined by the needs and desires of the children” (45).
Intensive mothering is a historically constructed cultural model for appropriate child care (21). This particular model “tell us that children are innocent and priceless, that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers and that it should be centered on children’s needs, with methods that are informed by experts, labor intensive, and costly” (21). I believe that parts of this particular model apply both to my mother and the mothers of my friends. I think that all mothers, especially in the United States, have been either consciously or unconsciously affected by this particular parenting model to some degree. I know that my Mom definitely read the available literature on child-rearing around the time my three other sisters and I were born and probably adopted some of the methods that were suggested.

In Ann Crittenden’s view there are many indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States. Although many people say that child-rearing is the most important job in the world, the majority of society believes otherwise. There is a prevalent belief in our society that if women choose to stay home and raise their children instead of working a full time job they are labeled as being lazy and people who sit around all day doing nothing.
It is evident “across the board, individuals who assume the role of nurturer are punished and discouraged from performing the very tasks that everyone agrees are essential” (5). For example, many inflexible workplaces guarantee that women will have to cut back on, if not quit, their employment once they have children. “The result is a lost of income that produces a bigger wage gap between mothers and childless women than the wage gap between young men and women” (5).
Another indicator of the de-valuing of motherhood is the fact that marriage is still not an equal financial partnership. “Mothers in 47 of the 50 states do not have unequivocal legal right to half of the family’s assets” (6). Furthermore, “a family’s primary caregiver is not considered a full productive citizen, eligible in her own right for the major social insurance programs” (6). The only safety net for a caregiver who loses her source of support is welfare, and even that is no longer assured. Overall, it is evident that there is a huge economic burden placed on mother’s who choose to spend any serious amount of time with their children.
I fully agree with Crittenden’s argument. It again emphasizes the huge contradiction in our society between the equal importance placed on family and work. While the future of the world depends on women procreating as well as performing adequate child-rearing our society seems to dismiss this notion in all institutions. I heartily agree with Crittenden when she writes, “what is needed is across-the-board recognition – in the workplace, in the family, in the law, and in social policy – that someone has to do the necessary work of raising children and sustaining families, and that the reward for such vital work should not be professional marginalization, a loss of status, and an increased risk of poverty” (10).

According to Edin and Kefalas, in their article Unmarried with Children, the poor women’s attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing are contrary to what the majority of people would think.
First, the stigma of a failed marriage is far worse than an out-of-wedlock birth. “Poor women do not reject marriage; they revere it. It is the conviction that marriage is forever that makes them think that divorce is worse than having a baby outside marriage” (22). Poor women are not willing to make promises they are not sure they can keep. Poor women also do not want to rush into marriage because, “like their elite counterparts, disadvantaged women set a high financial bar for marriage” (18). They are not content to rely on a man’s earnings; instead, they insist of being economically ‘set’ in their own right before taking marriage vows. Economic independence provides a kind of insurance against a marriage gone bad.
Secondly, although most people would think that when poor women were asked about what their life would be like without children they would express regret over foregone opportunities for school and careers; however, many poor women believed that having children saved them. For most poor women there was a prevalent belief that their children gave their life purpose, a purpose that was lacking in their previous life: “children are far from being liabilities, instead they provide crucial social-psychological resources – a strong sense of purpose and a profound source of intimacy” for their poor mothers (19). Edin and Kefalas also note that “until poor young women have more access to jobs that lead to financial independence the poor will continue to have children far sooner than most Americans think they should, while still defying marriage” (22).

Blog 8 - Childbearing & Childrearing

Questions: (1.) According to Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, what are the reasons why some prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife? What is your opinion about the best setting for giving birth? (2.) How did the legal ties between parents and children change over time? How did the adoption laws changed? Historically, what was the purpose of formal adoptions? (3.) According to Sharon Hays, what are the conservative and liberal views of welfare? What are the main differences between the requirements introduced by the welfare reform of 1996 and the earlier welfare policies? What are the two contradictory visions represented in the welfare reform? What does the welfare reform tell us about the values of our society? (4.) According to Block, Korteweg and Woodward, how do countries such as Norway understand poverty? And what is the prevailing theory of why poor people are poor in the United States? How does this theory operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy? According to the authors, what can we do to make American Dream more accessible to the poor? (5.) According to Clawson and Gerstel, how can we improve the child care system in the U.S.?

Many prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife rather than delivering in a hospital. Contrary to what many might believe, giving birth at home is as safe a practice as giving birth in a hospital. In fact, “at no time in the past or present and in no country have medical interventions made childbirth safer for most mother and babies” (816). For the majority of history midwives acted as the “baby catchers”, however in the 1700s male physicians began to replace female midwives. As a result of advances in technology, the profession began to require its own schools, many of which forbade the entry of women (815). “As the twentieth century progressed, physicians accrued increased “social” and “cultural authority” in addition to medical authority”; along with further technological advances obstetricians became more distant from their patients and “ensured that the process of birth itself is interpreted as inherently dangerous, requiring medical monitoring and intervention” (816).
Midwives, on the other hand, approach the process of childbirth with an entirely different attitude. They view the mother as an active, rather than passive, participant in the birth. Midwives believe that they are more attuned to the psychological and physical needs of women giving birth. Furthermore, “midwives have a noninterventionist philosophy and do not “deliver babies,” but instead teach women how to give birth” (819).
Overall, midwives and the home seem to provide a more conducive environment for childbirth rather than a hospital. In addition, many studies have demonstrated that home births are as safe, and sometimes safer, than hospital births which have encouraged many to give birth at home instead. For example, “studies clearly show that planned home births have lower intervention rates, lower complication rates, and lower morbidity rates than do either hospitals or unplanned home births” (818). Furthermore, the study also showed “that the hospital birth group had a more than tenfold increase in cesarean section delivery compared with the home births” (818).
Personally, I believe that childbirth is an experience that most women look forward to and thus should take place in an environment where the mother is most comfortable, whether that be in the home or the hospital. It is a subjective decision that the mother-to-be should decide. Midwives as well as obstetricians are both well trained and qualified for childbirth situations even if problems should arise.

Legal ties between parents and children have changed significantly over time. It is difficult to image today that at one point parental control over children continued as long as the children lived. However, over time there has been an evident trend that demonstrates “emancipating the child from its father and from the family in general” (272). Adults have less responsibility towards their parents in many respects. First, they are no longer obliged to obey their parents, and secondly, adults no longer have to worry about supporting their aging parents (because the government has taken over that duty). Adult children are also more likely to leave home and live by themselves. Government intervention in many once considered familial duties, like schooling, has definitely weakened the authority of the family.
In addition to the changes to the legal ties between parents and children, adoption laws have also experienced great modification. Many countries and cultures have different views of adoption. For example, English common law did not recognize adoption at all. The concept was so foreign to them because there was such an emphasis on “blood relations”. In contrast however, adaptation in Roman society was a well known feature which guaranteed that a family with no blood children would not die out. In France, there were two types of adaptation. First, there was simple adoption – which essentially allowed families to adopt (even adults) in order to carry on the family name. The second type of adoption was full adoption – which always involved adopting young children by adoptive parents who were almost always childless. In the United States the first adoptive laws were passed in Massachusetts in 1851. “Adoption laws reject the classic common law understanding that blood relationship is crucial, and that people are joined by blood or marriage or not all” (274). Adoption laws were also very concerned with inheritance and the right to property. Initially there was a distinction made between biological children and adoptive children and usually the latter would be disadvantaged. However, now there is no distinction made between children who were adopted and children who were biological offspring.
Initially in Missouri, the procedure for adopting was analogous to the procedures of buying a cornfield. However, in 1917 Missouri enacted a more modern adoption law “instead of a deed, adoption now required a court proceeding; the judge was to decide whether the adoptive parents were of good character and of sufficient ability to properly care for, maintain and educate said child, and if the welfare of said child would be promoted by the adoption” (275). The adoptive parents had rights too. For example, “adoptive parents had the option to annul the adoption if within five years the child developed feeble mindedness or epilepsy or venereal infection” (275).
Today there is a great difficulty in making fair laws, protecting the child as well as the rights of the birth mother and the adoptive parents, especially when adoption decisions are heavily influenced by social norms and prejudices.
Historically, the purpose of formal adoptions was to meet the best interests of the child. When children of the city were orphaned they were sent to the country to live with farm families. However, “the farm families rarely adopted these children legally, in many cases, they were little better than servants, cheap labor for the farm” (276).

The conservatives and liberals of the United States have extremely different views on welfare. In Hays’ article she states that the majority of conservatives “accused welfare recipients of being lazy, promiscuous, and pathologically dependent, and they argued that the welfare system encouraged those bad values with overly generous benefits and permissive policies that provided incentives for family dysfunction and non-work. According to these thinkers, the welfare system thereby not only perpetuated poverty but, by promoting laziness and single parenting, actually caused it to increase” (12). Liberals agree with the conservatives that there are definitely problems with the welfare system however, “they have consistently argued that any problems of morality that existed among poor families were primarily the result, rather than the cause, of economic hardship” (12).
There have been some changes made in the welfare system along the years but the main differences in the new system were the results of the “feminization of poverty, the increase in single parenting and the changing shape of the workforce and economy” (14). In 1996 welfare changed dramatically renaming welfare as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Along with the renaming a number of other changed were implemented. For example, there was an “absolute demand that mothers participate in the paid labor force, offering no exceptions to the more “virtuous” or more vulnerable women among them” (15). There were also federal time limits placed on benefits. For example, “after five years, all welfare recipients are expected to be self sufficient – and no matter how destitute they might be, they will remain ineligible to receive welfare assistance for the rest of their lives” (16). The increase of single mothers on welfare has also initiated the government to removing the safety net of welfare benefits which they believe will make welfare mothers rethink their commitment to marriage and the family.
The two contradictory visions represented in the welfare reform are the Work Plan and the Family Plan. “In the Work Plan, work requirements are a way of rehabilitating mothers, transforming women who would otherwise “merely” stay at home and care for their children into women who are self-sufficient, independent, productive members of society. The Family Plan, on the other hand, uses work requirements as a way of punishing mothers for their failure to get married and stay marred” (19).
The welfare reform tells us a lot about the society we live in. Our society is made up of a diverse group of people who have conflicting ideas about how to solve the problems that we all face. Although, it is good that they are working to elevate our troubles it is evident that compromise is not possible. It also seems a little unfair because people in the government, who are creating these reforms, tend to usually be from middle to upper class backgrounds, and have no true conception about what it is like to be a poor single mother who wants to care for her family but is forced to work numerous jobs.

Many other countries, including Norway, believe that poverty is not caused by bad behavior, but rather “they assume that it is caused by economic and structural factors” (17). For example, “the fact that single-parent households are more common in the United States than in many of these countries where the poor receive greater assistance undermines the claim that more generous policies will encourage more single women to have children out of wedlock” (17). Opposite of Norway, the prevailing theory of why people are poor in the United States is rooted in bad behavior. The majority view African-American and Hispanic women and men, as well as single mothers of all ethnicities, (who are disproportionately represented among the poor) as people who are morally deficient. They argue that “poor people bear children irresponsibly and that they lack the work ethic necessary for economic success” (16). Furthermore, the poor “are scolded and told that they have caused their own misfortunes” (14).
This prevailing theory, that poverty is rooted in immorality, operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy because when help is reduced and becomes inadequate, “the poor can no longer survive by obeying the rules; they are forced to break them…as a result these infractions become the necessary proof that “the poor” are truly intractable and their desperate situations are rightly ignored” (14).
Block, Korteweg, and Woodward offer a couple of suggestions that put the possibility of achieving the American Dream back into the reach of the poor. One of these suggestions is that our society move toward a more universal way of thinking in areas such as health care, higher education, high-quality health care, and housing. In addition, they also suggest that the government reforms policies that target the poor more directly. For example, this includes restoring the value of the minimum wage and making sure that the minimum wage rises with inflation. Finally, the authors tell us that to make all these suggestions feasible, society needs true compassion. Our society needs to recognize “that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that in the wealthiest nation in the world there are not million of people going hungry, millions without health insurance, and hundreds of thousands without homes.

Dan Clawson and Naomi Gerstel present the child care systems in France and other European countries as a model in which the United States should strive to emulate. By comparing the different systems Clawson and Gerstel came up with a couple suggestions to improve the child care system in the United States. For example, “the programs would be publicly funded and universal, available to all, either at no cost or at a modest cost with subsidies for low income participants. The staff would be paid about the same as public school teachers. Participation in these programs would be voluntary, but the programs would be of such high quality that a majority of children would enroll. Because the quality of the programs would be high, parents would feel much less ambivalence about their children’s participation, and the system would enjoy strong public support” (34-35). In addition, all parents would be offered a significant period of paid parental leave. Clawson and Gerstel stress that although the cost of this kind of system would be expensive it would be economically smart in the long run because “not caring for our children is in the long term, and probably even in the short term, even more expensive” (35).

Blog 5 - Marriage, Cohabitation, & Partnership

Question: What does it mean when sociologists say, “marriage is an institution”? According to Stephanie Coontz, what are the indicators of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage? Explain what problems Coontz finds in the proposals to “reinstitutionalize marriage.” According to the articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian, what are the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for women and men? According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit, and what are the effects of cohabitation on well-being? The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what that means.

In the Stephanie Coontz article, “The Future of Marriage”, she discusses the phenomenon of people, mostly Americans, supporting alternative methods of organizing parenthood and marriage. However, many people, like members of groups such as the Council on Families in America, are worried that these new methods will not provide an adequate nurturing environment for children and have thus pushed for re-institutionalizing marriage.
Marriage, in the fist place, is viewed as an institution by sociologists because it comes from “a well-understood set of obligations and rights which are backed up by laws, customs, rituals, and social expectations” (78). Marriage is in fact one of America’s most important and valued institutions. As a result, many people want to maintain marriage as life-long commitment and obligation to others.
However, over time, this institution has been becoming more and more deinstitutionalized. There are many indicators of this trend in today’s families. For example, “marriage has become an option rather than a necessity for men and women, even during the child-rearing years” (79). The high rates of divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and single motherhood in America are also other factors that contribute to marriage’s deinstitutionalization. Furthermore, “social institutions and values have adapted to the needs, buying decisions, and lifestyle choices of singles” (80). For example, Coontz points out that “elders increasingly depend of Social Security and private pension plans, rather than the family, for their care” (80).
Marriage is not what is used to be; neither men nor women need marriage as much as they used to, and “asking people to behave as if they do just sets them up for trouble” (81). In the many proposals to ‘reinstitutionalize’ marriage Coontz finds many problems. First, she makes the point that we could stabilize marriage by making divorce harder to get; enforce marriage like any other contract. However, by making divorces harder to get it “would often exacerbate the bitterness and conflict that are associated with the worst outcomes of divorce” (83). Furthermore, by making divorces harder to get does nothing to prevent separation of desertion. In fact, “divorce rates are the product of long-term social and economic changes, not of a breakdown in values” (85).

As pointed out in the Harris and Gerstel and Sarkisian articles there are both advantages and disadvantages for married men and women.
Waite and Gallagher have found that marriage causes more positive benefits than either living alone or cohabiting with a boyfriend or girlfriend (Harris, 26). Marriage is a bargain, for both men and women, and few of us can afford to pass it up. It is “good for one’s pocketbook, health, happiness, sex life and kids. [In addition], both men and women who are married tend to have higher incomes, more wealth, better health, and more property than those who are not” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 16). Many studies have proven that marriage has health benefits towards married men and women. For example, “cancer-care providers have long known that having a spouse vastly improves a patient’s chance of survival” (Harris, 28). Furthermore, “both married men and married women seem to be less prone to clinical depression, anxiety disorders, and suicide than the single or divorced” (Harris, 28). Marriage has also been proven to have economic benefits. For men, “married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than single men” (Harris, 29). On the other hand, it is believed that the “one of the greatest benefits marriage offers women is economic: flexibility in their work lives” (Harris, 31). In addition, marriage also increases men involvement in church and religious life.
Although there are evident advantages to marriage there are also some disadvantages. When a marriage is categorized as bad “marriages are hazardous to mental and physical health, increasing suicide, stress, cancer, and blood pressure – and even slowing the healing of wounds” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 17). For women, housework usually tends increases after marriage and poor women usually never see the benefits of marriage. It also seems that marriage, “competes with, and even undermines, relations in the wider community. Married people are less involved with their parents and siblings. The married are less likely to visit, call, or write these relatives” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 19).

According to Susan Brown’s article, “How Cohabitation is Reshaping American Families,” she highlights the different reasons why people cohabit and what the effects of cohabitation are on well-being. In a specific study conducted by Lynne Casper and Liana Sayer they found four main reasons why people cohabit. The first was categorized as precursor to marriage “characterized by definite plans to marry one’s partner and satisfaction with and commitment to the current relationship” (Brown, 34). People also cohabit because it offers an alternative to single-hood; “people who were uncertain about marriage and the quality of their relationship” (34). Trial cohabitors “were those who were not committed to their relationship but believed in marriage and hoped to marry someone someday” (35). The fourth reason to cohabit was found to be an alternative to marriage; “they were committed to their partners but less sanguine about the institution of marriage” (35).
Although cohabitation is becoming more and more popular people may want to rethink their plans and take a look at cohabitation’s effects of the well-being. Overall, “the well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than that of married couples across a variety of indicators” (35). For example, it was found that couples who cohabit report more psychological distress than married couples. In addition, “cohabitors report engaging in sexual activity more frequently than either married couples or singles, but married couples are happiest with their sex lives” (35). Although these are only a few indicators it seems obvious that cohabitation seems to negatively affect one’s well-being.

The different effects that marriage and cohabitation have on particular people are discussed in the majority of all these articles. However, these findings can be, and probably are, manipulated by the selection effects, specifically the different social and economic standings of the people. Taking these socio-economic factors into account, however, can be very difficult, almost impossible to test. Harris brings it up in her article when she states, “does marriage make people healthier, happier, and richer, or do healthy, happy, rich people get (and stay) married more often than the sick, miserable and poor do?” (30)

Blog 4 - Dating & Mating

Question: According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.

In the Risman and Schwartz article, “After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating,” the authors point out and discuss the apparent sexual trends of teens of the late 20^th and early 21^st century. Although the majority of Americans regard teen sexuality as a social problem, Risman and Schwartz do not view teen sexuality as being that problematic.
These authors argue that “sexual exploration may in fact be part of the developmental journey of adolescence” (23). One of the main trends in sexual activity among teens is that teenagers, especially girls, are becoming more sexually responsible rather than less sexually active. Girls have been found to have an increasing control over conditions of sexual intercourse which have led to positive outcomes. Through studies it has been illustrated that women have responded to the threat of disease as well as pregnancy and insisted on the use of condoms (19). Subsequently, the insistence of wearing condoms has resulted in fewer teen pregnancies, fewer teenage mothers and fewer abortions. The ways in which teens are defining sex have also had a positive impact. More girls are now defining sex as part of a relationship. Girls are presumed sexually active inside, but not outside, romantic relationships. However, despite their success of sexual responsibility girls are still faced with the double standard. Many girls are still worried about being labeled a slut and seem to be more susceptible to being judged than are teenage boys.
Overall, Risman and Schwartz have concluded through their research that nearly all American youths are sexually active by the end of their teens. Since teens are becoming more sexually responsible and there has been a dramatic decline of negative consequence resulting from teenage sexual intercourse both authors agree that the rising trend of sexuality among teens is not a social problem, but rather a construction of the sexual revolution.

In the article, The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up, England and Thomas have concluded from their research that among college students traditional dating, as defined in the 20s and 50s, is virtually dead. Because dating was considered to be the most traveled pathway into romantic relationship England and Thomas were asking themselves: how do people end up in relationships if the usual considered method is categorized as being archaic? The answer, they discovered, is a hook up. A “hook up” is essentially something sexual that happens between two people while hanging out. “A hook up implies that something sexual happened, but not necessarily that you “had sex,” by which students mean sexual intercourse” (154). England and Thomas found that oral sex “which used to be less common, and practiced largely by couples who were already having intercourse, came to be much less serious or intimate” (161). Furthermore, “hooking up with someone doesn’t necessarily imply an interest in a relationship, although sometimes it leads to relationships” (153). More college students have formed relationships via a hook up than the traditional method of dating. In fact, more students considered themselves “dating” someone after they were already in an exclusive relationship.
Although current sexual trends among collegiate women demonstrate that women have the option of more sexual behavior than the past, “women are receiving less genital stimulation conducive to orgasm than men in hook ups” (157). For women, the double standard is also still present. “Students often talked about how women get a bad reputation – among men and women – if they hook up too much, or with too many men who know each other, or have sex too easily” (158). Women were also the ones who showed more interest in turning hook up into relationships and were also the ones who wanted to limit sexual intercourse to relationships.

As I was reading both of these articles I couldn’t help but be amazed about how true they were. It seemed as if England and Thomas could have conducted their study at Boston College or any other college for that matter. I do agree that while some people have pledged to stay virgin until marriage, I have noticed that people have become more sexually responsible (i.e. using birth control and condoms) than becoming less sexually active. Dating, in the tradition sense, has definitely been waned out and been replaced by the hook up. When people say that they are dating it really means that they are already in an exclusive relationship.

Blog 3 - History of the Family

Question: Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?

The Puritans, of early colonial America, strongly believed that sexual expression was “a duty and a joy within marriage, and for the purpose of procreation” (16). Furthermore, authority figures such as the clergy preached and emphasized “marriage as the only suitable outlet for sexual desire and warned against both masturbation and premarital sex” (16). Puritans believed that sex was to only occur between a married couple and for the purpose of reproducing offspring, rather than physical gratification.
People typically learned about sexuality “from two primary sources: observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and church” (16). Growing up in colonial America people could see that “procreation was everywhere, in the barnyard and in the house” (17). There were a number of accounted incidences where young boys would experiment sexually with farm animals. Young Puritans also learned about sexuality in the house from hearing or seeing sexual activity among adults. Colonial houses were usually rather small and it was normal to have all family members sleep in one room, and in some cases they would all share one bed. However, “whatever they observed, children learned early on that sexual behavior ought to be limited to marriage. Clergy and lawmakers of the time also played a role in teaching Puritan youth about sexuality – constantly aiding youths to channel their sexual desires towards marriage. Although the Puritan ideal of sexuality was extremely clear there were a number of individuals who defied the laws of the community when “they committed adultery, sodomy, incest, or rape, or when women bore bastard children” (27). Because the family was such an important component of colonial life and economic survival demanded family living authorities went to great lengths to regulate sexual deviance that threatened their ‘natural’ way of life. “Laws against extramarital sexuality carried harsh penalties – even behaviors that might lead to sex outside marriage required punishment” (28). Penalties usually included some sort of public humiliation, such as whipping at the post or sitting in the stocks (27). In other cases the offender would have to pay a certain fine. In many colonial developments “public confession and repentance both restored the individual to the congregation and at the same time confirmed the propriety of sexual rules” (27). In extreme cases of deviance however, such as sodomy, buggery, and bestiality the penalty of the crime was capital punishment because they defied the norm of reproductive sexuality. “The regulation of deviance served the larger function of reminding the community at large that sexuality belonged within marriage, for the purpose of producing legitimate children” (28). In the South, sexual offenses began to include those that threatened the racial dominance of whites over blacks. The punishment for black men who sexually assaulted white women were extremely harsh; usually “prescribing castration for blacks who attempted to rape white women” (31).
Colonial America had a clear notion of sexuality, “the family provided the only acceptable outlet for sex, with the primary goal of producing legitimate children” (38). Because the family was the central unit of life and survival people in colonial American went to extreme ends to protect and uphold these ideals.

Question: D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?

In his article Capitalism and Gay Identity, John D’Emilio argues against the common belief that ‘gay men and lesbians always were’ and instead asserts that gay men and lesbians have not always existed. D’Emilio claims that homosexuality is a by-product of history and has only come into existence since the industrial revolution and the development of capitalism. He also asserts that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. D’Emilio asks, “How is it that capitalism, whose structure made possible the emergence of a gay identity and the creation of urban gay communities, appears unable to accept gay men and lesbians in its midst” (108)? “On the one hand, capitalism continually weakens the material foundation of family life, making it possible for individuals to live outside the family, and for a lesbian and gay male identity to develop. On the other hand, it needs to push men and women into families, at least long enough to reproduce the next generation of workers” (110).
The expansion of capital, D’Emilio argues, has had a profound effect in the “structure and functions of the nuclear family, the ideology of family life, and the meaning of heterosexual relations” (102). These changes are what D’Emilio believes to be directly connected to the appearance of a collective gay life. In 17^th century colonial living the “family was truly an interdependent unit of production: the survival of each member depended on the cooperation of all” (103). In the 19^th century however, these family dynamics changed greatly: “men and women were drawn out of the largely self-sufficient household economy of the colonial era into a capitalist system of free labor” (103). “By the mid 1800s, capitalism had destroyed the economic self-sufficiency of many families, but not the mutual dependence of the members” (103). Gradually the family moved from a unit that produced goods to an institution that produced emotional satisfaction and happiness. Furthermore, as a result of moving away from a society where men and women needed the labor of children there was a significant decline in the birthrate. D’Emilio points out that, “the decline has been continuous for two centuries, paralleling the spread of capitalist relations of production” (104). By “fostering the separation of sexuality and procreation, capitalism has created conditions that allow some men and women to organize a personal life around their erotic/emotional attraction to their own sex” (104). As a result of capitalism survival was no longer based on one’s participation within a nuclear family and individuals were able to survive beyond the confines of the family.
D’Emilio uses the Kinsey studies of the 1940s and 1950s to further support his theory about capitalism and gay identity. “The Kinsey studies found significantly more men than women with predominantly homosexual histories, a situation caused, I [D’Emilio] would argue, by the fact that capitalism had drawn far more men than women into the labor force, and at higher wages” (106). Overall, D’Emilio’s main point in his article is that “capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as a central component of some individual’s lives” (109).
I think that D’Emilio, in his article Capitalism and Gay Identity, is convincing in his argument. It seems that homosexuals were able to identify more with their sexuality and establish gay/lesbian sub cultures as a result from capitalism; in the sense that survival no longer depended on one’s participation within the nuclear family. I agree with D’Emilio that capitalism was a key factor in enabling men and women to identify with their homosexuality; in “colonial society family was so pervasive that they even lacked the category of homosexual or lesbian to describe a person” (104).

Blog 1 - What is Family?

Question: Explain the debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families (“American Family Decline” debate). According to Popenoe, what indicates that American family is in decline? What are the Stacey’s and Cowan’s critiques of his argument? What position would you take in this debate and why?

In the past couple decades there has been a growing concern regarding the status of families in America. Many scholars agree that the contemporary family is something that should be monitored and studied because of recent changes that have taken place over past years. However, other scholars believe that the status of contemporary American families should cause alarm not only because it is changing but also because it is declining, and has been since the 1960’s. These familial changes, many argue, are producing serious consequences that need to be addressed now.
David Popenoe is one of the many scholars that fervently argues the side that the American family is in decline. He completely dismisses the idea or possibility that “the family is not declining, it is just changing.” In the beginning of his article Popenoe broadly lays out the framework for his argument by stating, “Families have lost functions, social power, and authority over their members. They have grown smaller in size, less stable and shorter in life span. People have been less willing to invest time, money and energy in family life, turning instead to investments in themselves” (528). In the following pages Popenoe continues to indicate that the American family is indeed in decline by emphasizing certain points such as: women are waiting longer to have children, women are having less children than before, there has been a decrease in positive feelings toward parenthood and motherhood, many mothers are in the labor market and work force, and there has been a growing acceptance of divorce.
Contrary to Popenoe, Judith Stacey and Philip Cowan try to conceive other alternatives to categorizing the contemporary American family in a state of decline. In response to Popenoe’s argument Stacey critiques his illegitimate use of certain historical claims. For example, she argues “Popenoe’s latter-day coda of the tired ‘loss of family functions’ lament rests upon a flawed history and anthropology of kinship” (546). Stacey also critiques Popenoe’s use of the 1950s as his template to draw conclusions about the decline of the contemporary family after he describes the 50s as being a ‘demographically and culturally anomalous decade in US family history’ (546). Stacy also critiques Popenoe’s narrow-mindedness; his inability to view the other side of an argument specifically with the effects of divorce on children.
Similar to Stacey, Philip Cowan agrees that Popenoe’s analysis is somewhat skewed. However, Cowan does agree that the status of the family is an important topic, especially in regards to the difficulties that many families are facing in the twenty-first century. One of Cowan’s main critiques of Popenoe is that he is consistently “blaming the victim and ignoring the synergy of social forces that place American families at risk” (549). Another critique that Cowan had with Popenoe’s article was he constantly used correlation as proof of causation. Along similar lines, Popenoe made many assumptions about how children were being affected negatively by family decline instead of demonstrating their affects with facts. For example, Cowan states “it is bad logic and bad science to draw causal conclusions about the consequences of family risk factors without a more detailed look at the patterns and processes that link risks and outcomes” (551). Furthermore, Popenoe also critiqued Popenoe’s failure to consider alternative causal hypotheses.
I would not consider the American family in decline as much as I would categorize the family as changing. The word decline is so blunt and seems to carry a stigmatism. However, I do believe that certain social constructs of today make for extremely hard times for all families. I agree with Stacey’s point that “family sociologists should take the lead in burying the ideology of ‘the family’ and in rebuilding a social environment in which diverse family forms can sustain themselves with dignity and mutual respect” (547).