American Divorce in the News

The topic that I cover in this blog is that of divorce in the United States of America. It is unfortunately such a prevalent part of the American family, that I wanted to look into articles and statistics concerning the topic.

The first article I found written by Alex Ludka was entitled "Divorce more destructive to teenagers" and was published in The Capital (Annapolis, MD) on October 9, 2006. This article focused on how divorce has become an accepted and normal principle of a teen's life. This article used various statistics to implement their argument. The first statistics cited in the article were collected from a report in Divorce Magazine in 1997, which stated that roughly 50 percent of marriages ended in divorce in 1997. This source then compares this rate to the amazingly low rate of divorce in the 1950s of 2 percent (Ludka). I found the source of this information in the article a little unreliable, as it does not explain how Divorce Magazine obtained these statistics. However, the second use of statistics in this article came from the United Census Bureau, which I belive is very reliable. This information stated that in 2005, 53.4 percent of citizens age 15 and older were married and that the same year 18.2 percent were divorced (Ludka). This is an incredible statistic. The Census Bureau also stated that over one million children are involved in divorce every year. The beliefs that guide this article are that divorce has an amazing impact one everyone involved, especially teenagers. Adolescents whose parents are divorced often engage in destructive behaviors such as drinking, smoking, and self-mutilation (Ludka). Where this information comes from is unclear. A theoretical framework that is included is the idea that the younger the child is when the divorce or separation occurs, the easier it is to cope.

The second article was entitled "Only 16 Percent of Bereaved Parents Divorce, New Survey Reveals" and it was published in the Ascribe Newswire on October 12, 2006 with no specific author. The method of research applied in this article is the use of a survey. A survey released on this day revealed that divorces among bereaved parents are far lower than that of the general public, going against the conventional belief that couples who experience the death of a child are destined to get divorced (Ascribe). The survey shows a divorce rate of only 16 percent among bereaved parents, far below the 50 percent divorce rate cited for the public of the United States. This survey mentioned above was conducted earlier this year under the direction of The Compassionate Friends, the nation's largest self-help organization for families that have lost a child. This new information puts to rest the common myths that 70 to 90 percent of couples who have lost a child get divorced. The survey has a margin of error of +/-4.3 percent. The survey was given to 400 bereved parents (200 men and 200 women) from across the United States (Ascribe). This article includes detailed information on the conduction of the survey, and therefore I believe the statistics to be valid. The main point of this article is to dispell the incorrect information that floats around the public about the divorce rates of bereaved parents.

The third article, written by Jaime Malernee, is entitled "More Young Americans are in no rush to go down the aisle" published in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on November 19, 2006. This article focuses on the fact that younger people are tending to delay marriage out of a fear of divorce. This article interviews various people to support this claim, a different method then seen in the above articles. One lady who is interviewed states that she looks at marriage as a final thing, with divorce not an option, and because of her beliefs she has yet to get married because she fears the reality of divorce in America (Malernee). According to 2005 census numbers, in 1970 only 15 percent of Americans 25 to 29 were unmarried. Now nearly half are. However, The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University reports that while divorce rates are near 50 percent, couples cut that in half by waiting to marry after 25. The article also states that children of divorce are much more likely to delay marriage or never to marry (Malernee). The point of this article is to show that because of the ever increasing prevelance of divorce, it is actually affecting the number of young adults that are getting married, which is unfortunate.

The fourth article, written by Helena Oliviero, was entitled "Married-couple households no longer a majority" published by Cox News Service on November 27, 2006. This article does not exactly state concrete statistics to prove their claims however it makes some interesting conjectures. It states that while it appears that marriage is becoming "dead" in America, it is actually just a shift due to wariness over divorce (Oliviero). David Popenoe from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University states that in reality marriage is not dying because today couples who decide to get married stand a better chance than those in decades past. Divorce rates peaked in the 1980s and have actually been slowly decreasing in the past few years (Oliviero). This set of beliefs suggests that possibly american marriage is not in a complete decline. However, this article also supports the article above in stating that while divorce rates in the past years may have decreased slightly, the number of singles getting married has also decreased. This article shows a shift in attitudes.

The fifth article, written by Robin Fretwell Wilson, was entitled "Don't Let Divorce Off the Hook" published in The New York Times on October 1, 2006. This aticle switches gears a bit from the ones above and zeros in on the topic of no-fault divorce. Wilson states, "New York is one of the few states without unilateral no-fault divorce, which means that New York couples can get a no-fault divorce only by mutual agreement" (Wilson). One can see how this may lead to problems. For instance, if a husband abuses his wife and then obviously claims a no-fault divorce, this will cause serious problems for the wife who would obviously see it not as a no-fault divorce. However, she can do nothing because of the necessary mutual agreement. The article states that the reasons for the new resistance to no-fault divorce includes the growing evidence that divorce often hurts children and feminists' renewed recognition of the importance of legal protection for mothers raising children (Wilson). While this article does not supply statistics to back up the claims, the reasons stated above cannot be ignored. This article presents a political ideology, which I found intriguing as it differed from the other four articles that I read. It is the conflict between unilateral and non-unilateral no-fault divorce, something that is ongoing in many states.

Some of the main debates that can be included under the topic of divorce are that of whether or not there exists a decline in marriage and family directly due to divorce. Another debate is that of the affect of divorce on teenagers. Obviously in the first article was biased towards the assumption that teenagers suffer more so than younger children when a divorce occurs in the family. The second article focuses on the debate between whether or not bereaved parents inevitably will get divorced. This article did not appear to have any bias from the author as it simply presented hard statistics from a survey, leaving out any personal statements or opinions. In the fifth article the author has recently been through a divorce and had to deal with the issue of no-fault divorce, so obviously she will have opinions included in the article about the matter. From the second article on the rate of divorce of bereaved parents, I am very skeptical about the "trustworthiness" of the media when it somes to information on families. The statistics in that article firmly demolish the popular idea spread through the media that parents who loose a child are bound to get divorced. This is proven to be a common myth that has absolutely no truth in it. This article was much more objective than the others because it did just list statistics to back every claim made within. I think that coverage of family in the media most definitely affects our knowledge of families. So many Americans put their complete trust in the news without researching deeper to confirm or deny the given information. Methods of research such as surveys and census numbers are great ways to confirm ideas about the family that you hear thrown out their. I believe we all need to be careful about what we readily accept as fact, and learn to dig deeper.

American Family Decline

The first journal article by David Popenoe discussed the issue of american family decline over the second half of the 20th century. "Popenoe basically states that families have lost functions, social power and authority over there members. He belives that familism as a cultural value has diminished" (Popenoe 528). The articles by Philip Cowan and Judith Staccy are in response to Popenoe's claims about the decline of family. Both writers see weaknesses in Popenoe's arguement. Cowan points out that Popenoe provides a warning about family decline but provides no real guidance on what should be done. Staccy differs with Popenoe in her definition of the family. To her family is not an institution, but an "ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and a politics" (Staccy 545). The debate surrounding the contemporary changes in american family are between those like Popenoe who believe that family has taken a turn for the worst and is in a steady decline. However there are those, who Popenoe states, "believe that family decline is a "myth" and that "the family is not declining, it is just changing" (Popenoe 527). "The preferred term is change, leading to diversity. Popenoe indicates many factors in his article that he believes have led to the decline in family. Popenoe belives one such thing is the decline in the number of children in the typical family. He belives that this change is a result of a decrease in positive feelings toward parenthood and motherhood" (Popenoe 530). Cowan points out the flaw in this therory. "Popenoe fails to consider alternative casual hypotheses. He does not consider the role that modeern birth control now plays. The reduction in family size may not reflect a dislike of children as Popenoe suggests, but rather an ability to regulate and space children in a way that will give them the best quality of life" (Cowan 549). "Another reason Popenoe states for the decline of the American family is the shifting role of women in the family and workplace" (Popenoe 531). "Today mothers are in the labor market to almost the same extent as nonmothers. Popenoe thinks that having two parents working at the same time is a disservice to their children" (Popenoe 531). However, Cowan points out another hypothesis. He states "that Popenoe does not consider the worldwide economic upheaval that makes it necessary for two parents to work" (Cowan 549). Staccy aproaches Popenoe's arguement as anthropologically and historically flawed. "He compares the american family now to the families of the 1950s. That time period was an anomaly and should not be the sole time period that Popenoe compares today's situation to" (Staccy 546). This debate has many different angles and I don't know if I can take anyone side. I agree with Popenoe that there is an undeniable decline, which in my experience has been most evident through divorce. Divorce has replaced death as a dissolver of marriages. However, at the same time I understand the critical arguments that Cowan and Staccy take against Popenoe. I do belive that it is not simply a loss of respect for the institution of a family. Others factors must be considered as we do live in a very different world in th 21st century. I belive that it is both decline and change, not one or the other and that both terms can be used when discussing this issue.