In the first article by Stephanie Coontz, entitled "The Future of Marriage," she discusses how many groups such as the Council on Families in America want to reinstitutionalize enduring marriage. The first issue is what exactly is the institution of marriage. "Social scientists believe that something institutionalized means it comes with a well-understood set of obligations and rights, all of which are backed up by law, customs, rituals, and social expectations. In this sense marriage is still one of America's most important and valued institutions" (78). "There are many indicators of the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Marriage has become and option rather than a necessity for men and women, even during the child-raising years" (79). "Divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and single motherhood are other factors responsible for the deinstitutionalization of marriage as the primary instituion for organizing sex roles and interpersonal obligations in America today" (79). "Also more people are living on their own before marriage, so that more young adults live outside a family environment that in earlier times" (79). Coontz points out that there are problems with the proposal to reinstitutionalize marriage. "There is a limit to how many people can be convinced to marry and how many marriages can be made to last when women have the option to be economically self-supporting" (81). Coontz states, "Trying to reverse a historical trend by asking individuals to make personal decisions opposing that trend is usually futile," (81). One idea to reinstitutionalize marriage is to make divorce harder to get (82). However, making divorces harder to get would often "exacerbate the bittereness and conflict that are associated with the worst outcomes of divorce for kids" (83). Coontz's point is that we can't bring back the nineteenth century.
The next topic had to do with the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. The two articles dealing with this topic are "Can Marriage be Saved," by Elise Harris and "Marriage: the good, the bad, and the greedy," by Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian. Lets take a look at the good first. Harris states "that married men are half as likely as single men to commit suicide. Single men aslo drink twice as much as married men of the same age" (28). Gerstel and Sarkisian write that "some see marriage as a way out of poverty for young single mothers and route to responsibility for young unmarried fathers" (16). "They also state that marriage is good for one's health, happiness, sex life, and kids. Married couples cozying up at home have sex more often than singles who party until dawn" (16). "There are also physical and mental health benefits of marriage. Good marriage protects against everything from cavities to murder and suicide. Also marriage keeps adult men out of crime and their kids out of delinquency" (16). Then there is the bad. Gerstel and Sarkisian state "that women's housework increases after marriage" (16). "There is domestic violence that way too many married women endure and the isolation that violent husbands impose" (16). "Also bad marriages can be hazardous to mental and physical health. Also some people see marriage as a greedy institution demanding undivided commitment" (17). "Marriage can demand a kind of intense emotional involvement that by itself detracts from collective life. Married people lose touch with their parents and siblings more so than single people" (17). It is obvious that marriage can have good and bad elements.
The next article had to deal with cohabitation. It was by Susan Brown and entitiled, "How Cohabitation is reshaping american families." There are multiple different reasons why people cohabitat. "One half of cohabitators are in a "precusor to marriage", characterized by definite plans to marry one's partner" (34). "30 percent of cohabitators are people for whom cohabitation was essentially an alternative to singlehood. 15 percent of cohabitators are people who are not committed to their relationship but believed in marriage and hoped to marry someday. They are called trial cohabitators" (34). "The last 10 percent of cohabitators are those involved in cohabitation as a long term alternative to marriage" (34). Interestingly, "the well-being of cohabitators tends to be lower than that of married couples. Married individuals are psychologically better adjusted and adept at coping with stress and strain. Cohabitators report more psychological distress than married couples" (35). "Also, cohabitators are not as happy and experience more conflict in their unions than their married counterparts. And finally the economic well-being of cohabitators does not match that of married people" (35).
The last thing that must be addressed is the issue of selection effects on the benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation, as well as what selection effects means. The problem has to do with a self-selecting sample. Does marriage make people healthier, happier, and richer, or do healthy, happy, rich people get married more often than sick, miserable, and poor do? In the article by Gerstel and Sarkisian, skeptics say that marriage itself has no salutary effects. "The healthier, wealthier, sexier, and more law abiding are more likely to find and keep spouses. men with higher earnings are more likely to marry. Those in trouble with the law are less likely to go to the altar" (16). "The sick and the poor are more likely to divorce" (16). When dealing with the comparison between the well-being of those who cohabitate and those who are married, you run into this same problem. You are looking at a select sample that may not back up the claims being made.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Saturday, February 10, 2007
High School and College Dating
The first article by Barbara Risman and Pepper Schwartz was entitled, "After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating." The main issues that this article deals with are whether teens are returning to conservative sexual values and how the main trends in sexual activity have changed. This article also takes a close look at the different statistics between gender and race.
"Much reasearch suggests that teens became more sexually conservative during the last decade of the 20th century" (16). "The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, designed by the Center for Disease Control, showed that the percentage of high school students, ages 15 to 17, who reported they had engaged in sexual intercourse dropped from 54.1 percent in 1991 to 48.4 percent by 1997. This is a dramatic decrease of 5.7 percent in a short period of time" (17). "Another trend that was apparent was that the serious problems that can result from irresponsible teenage sexuality declined. The teen pregnancy rate showed an impressive 14 percent reduction. Most research also finds that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases also declined throughout the 1990s" (17).
These trends, or findings, have many explanations. Risman and Schwartz write, "The various speculations for the decline in sexual activity and the problems associated with it include the following: the success of abstinence education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, the positive effect of comprehensive sex education, and the fear of disease" (17). "The authors also state that today's teens looked at the disaters of their parent's generation, including divorce and disease, and decided to reestablish their power through less, not more sexuality" (17).
The other big issue of this article was the gender differences. "Several studies indicate that the number of high school boys, but not girls, under 18 who remain virgins dramatically increased. Boys' sexual behavior is becoming more like girls' behavior" (18). Along with the differences in gender, they also look at the difference between races. "The rate of sexual activity among white and Hispanic girls has remained generally the same; however, black girls reduced their rates of sexual activity, moving towards levels comparable to that of white and Hispanic girls" (18). "Furthermore, among whites, boys are less likely than girls to be sexually active by age 17. Black and Hispanic boys are still more likely than girls to report sexual intercourse, but the gaps are closing here" (18). "One explanation for the decrease in boys' activity could have to do with girls' increasing control over the conditions of sexual intercourse. Girls' increasing ability to define sex as part of a relationship is one of the reasons for more responsible teen behavior" (19).
"While the incidence of sexual intercourse among teenage boys under age 18 has decreased, by the end of the teen years nearly all American youth are sexually active" (21). "Nine out of ten Americans are sexually active by the time they are 20" (21).
In regards to the sexual revolution, no counterrevolution has taken place. "Instead the revolution was such an overwhelming success that it has revised the entire framework of how American society thinks about sex" (21). "It is actually the gender revolution that is unfinished and still progressing. The sexual revolution redefined sexual activity as a right of individuals and not mearly a means for reproduction or marital intimacy" (23).
The second article by Paula England and Rueben J. Thomas was entitled "The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up." This article focuses on the change from dating to hook ups. "It states that dates are no longer that common and that people mostly hang out with friends or hook up" (151). This article also focuses on the discrepencies surrounding gender.
"England states at the beginning of the article that the demise of the date and the rise of the hook up is a national trend, probably starting in the 1980s" (152). "In the 1950s and 1960s, dates were pretty much the only way to move in the direction of sex. Today, students on college campuses state that the traditional date is nearly dead" (152). "In a survey done by England and Thomas, they asked students how many dates they had been on since they came to college with someone they weren't already in a relationship with. 21 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women hadn't been on any dates! Only 7 percent had been on more than 10" (152). "But when he asked how many dates they had been on since coming to college with someone they were in an exclusive relationship with, the numbers were much higher. It showed that 45 percent had been on more than 10 dates. This shows that today, dating is much more common after than before exclusive relationships are formed" (152).
The other trend, besides the decline of the traditional date, is the rise of the hook up. In a survey they asked students how many hook ups they had been on. "Over a third had hooked up more than 10 times. About half of these started at a party and about a quarter started when two people were hanging out in a dorm" (153). "England also found that sometimes a sequence of multiple hook ups with the same person ultimately leads to an exclusive relationship. The other statement England makes is that hook ups often follow lots of drinking" (153). England clarifies that "the term hook up implies that something sexual happened, but not necessarily that you "had sex", by which she means sexual intercourse" (154).
The other interesting trend that England and Thomas discovered was "that 44 percent of relationships in college are started by one or more hook ups first" (155).
The other big issue present in this article is the topic of gender and the hook up. "The big thing here was that hook ups involve orgasm for men twice as often as for women. The orgasm disparity is much worse than gender gap in pay in the labor market; women have less than half the orgasms of men on hook ups, but women earn more than three-quarters as much as men" (156). Another issue having to do with gender differences is how women get a bad reputation if they "hook up too much, or with too many men who know each other, or have sex too easily" (158). "Men who do the same thing sometimes get a bad reputation also, but if they do it doesn't last as long as women" (158). "Meanwhile, men gain status from talking to other men about their exploits. It would seem more consistent if both men and women got an equally bad reputation for the same behavior, or if neither got a bad reputation at all" (158). The double standard is an area where cultural changes have not liberated women much at all. "Another gender disparity is that more men than women think casual sex is okay. In England and Thomas's study, women showed more interest in turning hook ups into relationships than men, and more women wanted to limit sexual intercourse to relationships" (159).
In conclusion, among college students "traditional dating is on the wane" (161). "The hook up is much more common. The term dating has come to refer more to couples already in an exclusive relationship" (161). Lastly, the hook up scene creates a large gap between men and women. Women are still held to the traditional double standard.
In my own high school experience, dating was more common than the hook up scene. Yes, hook ups definitely happened but they were not as prevelant as traditional dating. However, since I have come to college it is definitely the hook up that is much more common, so based on what I have experienced since coming to Boston College, I would agree with this article and study by England and Thomas. In regards to the first article, from what I experienced as a teen in high school I belive it is true that teens are becoming more sexually conservative. At my high school, hearing about students having sex was not very common. It was common to hear about students doing other things associated with sex, but not actually having sexual intersourse.
"Much reasearch suggests that teens became more sexually conservative during the last decade of the 20th century" (16). "The Youth Risk Behavior Survey, designed by the Center for Disease Control, showed that the percentage of high school students, ages 15 to 17, who reported they had engaged in sexual intercourse dropped from 54.1 percent in 1991 to 48.4 percent by 1997. This is a dramatic decrease of 5.7 percent in a short period of time" (17). "Another trend that was apparent was that the serious problems that can result from irresponsible teenage sexuality declined. The teen pregnancy rate showed an impressive 14 percent reduction. Most research also finds that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases also declined throughout the 1990s" (17).
These trends, or findings, have many explanations. Risman and Schwartz write, "The various speculations for the decline in sexual activity and the problems associated with it include the following: the success of abstinence education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, the positive effect of comprehensive sex education, and the fear of disease" (17). "The authors also state that today's teens looked at the disaters of their parent's generation, including divorce and disease, and decided to reestablish their power through less, not more sexuality" (17).
The other big issue of this article was the gender differences. "Several studies indicate that the number of high school boys, but not girls, under 18 who remain virgins dramatically increased. Boys' sexual behavior is becoming more like girls' behavior" (18). Along with the differences in gender, they also look at the difference between races. "The rate of sexual activity among white and Hispanic girls has remained generally the same; however, black girls reduced their rates of sexual activity, moving towards levels comparable to that of white and Hispanic girls" (18). "Furthermore, among whites, boys are less likely than girls to be sexually active by age 17. Black and Hispanic boys are still more likely than girls to report sexual intercourse, but the gaps are closing here" (18). "One explanation for the decrease in boys' activity could have to do with girls' increasing control over the conditions of sexual intercourse. Girls' increasing ability to define sex as part of a relationship is one of the reasons for more responsible teen behavior" (19).
"While the incidence of sexual intercourse among teenage boys under age 18 has decreased, by the end of the teen years nearly all American youth are sexually active" (21). "Nine out of ten Americans are sexually active by the time they are 20" (21).
In regards to the sexual revolution, no counterrevolution has taken place. "Instead the revolution was such an overwhelming success that it has revised the entire framework of how American society thinks about sex" (21). "It is actually the gender revolution that is unfinished and still progressing. The sexual revolution redefined sexual activity as a right of individuals and not mearly a means for reproduction or marital intimacy" (23).
The second article by Paula England and Rueben J. Thomas was entitled "The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up." This article focuses on the change from dating to hook ups. "It states that dates are no longer that common and that people mostly hang out with friends or hook up" (151). This article also focuses on the discrepencies surrounding gender.
"England states at the beginning of the article that the demise of the date and the rise of the hook up is a national trend, probably starting in the 1980s" (152). "In the 1950s and 1960s, dates were pretty much the only way to move in the direction of sex. Today, students on college campuses state that the traditional date is nearly dead" (152). "In a survey done by England and Thomas, they asked students how many dates they had been on since they came to college with someone they weren't already in a relationship with. 21 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women hadn't been on any dates! Only 7 percent had been on more than 10" (152). "But when he asked how many dates they had been on since coming to college with someone they were in an exclusive relationship with, the numbers were much higher. It showed that 45 percent had been on more than 10 dates. This shows that today, dating is much more common after than before exclusive relationships are formed" (152).
The other trend, besides the decline of the traditional date, is the rise of the hook up. In a survey they asked students how many hook ups they had been on. "Over a third had hooked up more than 10 times. About half of these started at a party and about a quarter started when two people were hanging out in a dorm" (153). "England also found that sometimes a sequence of multiple hook ups with the same person ultimately leads to an exclusive relationship. The other statement England makes is that hook ups often follow lots of drinking" (153). England clarifies that "the term hook up implies that something sexual happened, but not necessarily that you "had sex", by which she means sexual intercourse" (154).
The other interesting trend that England and Thomas discovered was "that 44 percent of relationships in college are started by one or more hook ups first" (155).
The other big issue present in this article is the topic of gender and the hook up. "The big thing here was that hook ups involve orgasm for men twice as often as for women. The orgasm disparity is much worse than gender gap in pay in the labor market; women have less than half the orgasms of men on hook ups, but women earn more than three-quarters as much as men" (156). Another issue having to do with gender differences is how women get a bad reputation if they "hook up too much, or with too many men who know each other, or have sex too easily" (158). "Men who do the same thing sometimes get a bad reputation also, but if they do it doesn't last as long as women" (158). "Meanwhile, men gain status from talking to other men about their exploits. It would seem more consistent if both men and women got an equally bad reputation for the same behavior, or if neither got a bad reputation at all" (158). The double standard is an area where cultural changes have not liberated women much at all. "Another gender disparity is that more men than women think casual sex is okay. In England and Thomas's study, women showed more interest in turning hook ups into relationships than men, and more women wanted to limit sexual intercourse to relationships" (159).
In conclusion, among college students "traditional dating is on the wane" (161). "The hook up is much more common. The term dating has come to refer more to couples already in an exclusive relationship" (161). Lastly, the hook up scene creates a large gap between men and women. Women are still held to the traditional double standard.
In my own high school experience, dating was more common than the hook up scene. Yes, hook ups definitely happened but they were not as prevelant as traditional dating. However, since I have come to college it is definitely the hook up that is much more common, so based on what I have experienced since coming to Boston College, I would agree with this article and study by England and Thomas. In regards to the first article, from what I experienced as a teen in high school I belive it is true that teens are becoming more sexually conservative. At my high school, hearing about students having sex was not very common. It was common to hear about students doing other things associated with sex, but not actually having sexual intersourse.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Response to John D'Emilio
The first piece by John D'Emilio is entitled "Family Life and the Regulation of Deviance." It focuses on the subject of sexuality in colonial America. D'Emilio works to refine the stereotypical view of colonists as prudish and anti-sexual. He states that "an accurate portrayal of sexuality in the colonial era both incorporates and challenges the puritanical stereotype" (15). "Early Americans payed close attention to sexual behaviors of individuals, not in order to squelch sexual expression, but rather to channel it into what they considered to be its proper setting and purpose. This setting and purpose was as a duty and joy within marriage, and for the purpose of procreation" (16).
"The Puritan approach to sexual desire was to socialize children to channel sexual desire toward marriage. For colonial America the organizing principle of sexual relations was reproduction" (16). Children learned early on that sexual behaviors ought to be limited to marriage. "The harsh language directed at those who defied this model, gave the children one kind of moral lesson" (17). As it can clearly be seen the ideal of sexuality in colonial America was that of marriage. Puritans were not anti-sexual as they often are stereotyped as. However, sexual behavior was only to be experience through marriage, and nothing else was acceptable.
"Children learned about sexuality from two primary sources. They were observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and church" (16). "Children learned about sex in the home. The small size of colonial dwellings allowed children to see and hear sexual activity between adults" (17). "These observations implemented the lesson that sexual activity was restricted to marriage. Formal moral teaching confimed the children's observations. Clergy and lawmakers warned that sexual behavior was not meant for enjoyment but was meant for procreation" (18).
Colonial society dealt with sexual "deviance" in various ways. "Fornication carried heavy penalties, including fines, whipping, or both. Throughout New England, a fine of nine lashes awaited both parents of a child born to soon after marriage" (22). "Through confession and repentance, colonial society offered a means to clear the stigma associated with premarital pregnancy" (23). "It was very common for lawmakers to sentence offenders to some type of public humiliation, such as whipping at the post or stting in the stocks" (27). "The regulation of deviance served the larger function of reminding the community that sexuality belonged within marriage for the purpose of producing legitimate children" (27). "The other main goal of regulating sexual deviance was to maintain white dominance over blacks" (37).
The second piece by John D'Emilio is entitled "Capitalism and Gay Identity." D'Emilio states that "the expansion of capital and the spread of wage labor have effected a profound transformation in the structures and functions of the nuclear family, the ideology of family life, and the meaning of heterosexual relationships" (102). He states "that is these changes in the family that are most directly linked to the appearance of a collective gay life" (102). "As wage labor spread and production became socialized, it became possible to release sexuality from the "imperative" to procreate" (104). "Individuals who made there living through wage labor, instead of through an interdependent family, were now able to let their homosexual desires turn into a peronal identity. This identity was based on their ability to stay outside the traditional heterosexual family" (105).
D'Emilio makes an argument that the relationship between capitalism and family is contradictory. "On one hand, capitalism (as mentioned above) has undermined the material basis of the nuclear family by taking away the economis functions that cemented the ties between family members. On the other hand the ideology of capitalist society has enshrined the family as the source of love, affection, and emotional security" (108). As one can see there is an evident contradiction between capitalism and family.
D'Emilio also discusses the relationship between capitalism and gay identity. "Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as the central component of some people's lives. Capitalism has lead to the separation of sexuality from procreation" (110). "Gay individuals embody the potential of this split, since the gay relationships stand entirely outside a procreative framework" (110). I believe that D'Emilio's argument does have some credence, as without the separation of sexuality and procreativity, gay couples would be seen as impossible since they do not have the ability to procreate. So in that sense I do agree with his argument.
"The Puritan approach to sexual desire was to socialize children to channel sexual desire toward marriage. For colonial America the organizing principle of sexual relations was reproduction" (16). Children learned early on that sexual behaviors ought to be limited to marriage. "The harsh language directed at those who defied this model, gave the children one kind of moral lesson" (17). As it can clearly be seen the ideal of sexuality in colonial America was that of marriage. Puritans were not anti-sexual as they often are stereotyped as. However, sexual behavior was only to be experience through marriage, and nothing else was acceptable.
"Children learned about sexuality from two primary sources. They were observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and church" (16). "Children learned about sex in the home. The small size of colonial dwellings allowed children to see and hear sexual activity between adults" (17). "These observations implemented the lesson that sexual activity was restricted to marriage. Formal moral teaching confimed the children's observations. Clergy and lawmakers warned that sexual behavior was not meant for enjoyment but was meant for procreation" (18).
Colonial society dealt with sexual "deviance" in various ways. "Fornication carried heavy penalties, including fines, whipping, or both. Throughout New England, a fine of nine lashes awaited both parents of a child born to soon after marriage" (22). "Through confession and repentance, colonial society offered a means to clear the stigma associated with premarital pregnancy" (23). "It was very common for lawmakers to sentence offenders to some type of public humiliation, such as whipping at the post or stting in the stocks" (27). "The regulation of deviance served the larger function of reminding the community that sexuality belonged within marriage for the purpose of producing legitimate children" (27). "The other main goal of regulating sexual deviance was to maintain white dominance over blacks" (37).
The second piece by John D'Emilio is entitled "Capitalism and Gay Identity." D'Emilio states that "the expansion of capital and the spread of wage labor have effected a profound transformation in the structures and functions of the nuclear family, the ideology of family life, and the meaning of heterosexual relationships" (102). He states "that is these changes in the family that are most directly linked to the appearance of a collective gay life" (102). "As wage labor spread and production became socialized, it became possible to release sexuality from the "imperative" to procreate" (104). "Individuals who made there living through wage labor, instead of through an interdependent family, were now able to let their homosexual desires turn into a peronal identity. This identity was based on their ability to stay outside the traditional heterosexual family" (105).
D'Emilio makes an argument that the relationship between capitalism and family is contradictory. "On one hand, capitalism (as mentioned above) has undermined the material basis of the nuclear family by taking away the economis functions that cemented the ties between family members. On the other hand the ideology of capitalist society has enshrined the family as the source of love, affection, and emotional security" (108). As one can see there is an evident contradiction between capitalism and family.
D'Emilio also discusses the relationship between capitalism and gay identity. "Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as the central component of some people's lives. Capitalism has lead to the separation of sexuality from procreation" (110). "Gay individuals embody the potential of this split, since the gay relationships stand entirely outside a procreative framework" (110). I believe that D'Emilio's argument does have some credence, as without the separation of sexuality and procreativity, gay couples would be seen as impossible since they do not have the ability to procreate. So in that sense I do agree with his argument.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)