[SOLVED] paper about marriage and family, sociology homework help – Humanities

Marriage has been the
fundamental social arrangement throughout much of American history, providing
structure and meaning in people’s lives. 
It has marked entry into adulthood – the point at which children gain
economic independence from their parents, leave the family home to forge their
own families, and engage in sexual activity. 
Traditional gender roles have provided scripts that guided and organized
how work, both inside and outside the home, would be divided and how children
are raised.  Recent trends over the last
60 years have seen major shifts in the way marriage and family life are
conceptualized, leaving many wondering what those changes will mean for the
future of families.  Are those changes working
against families or are they signs of increased diversity and a need to think
more broadly about what family life means?
For this assignment
you will need to reflect on these issues and take a stand on one side of the
argument: are families in decline or are they resilient? The paper must be:  two to three pages, 12-point Times New Roman font with
double-spaced lines and standard one-inch margins on all sides.  The articles associated with this assignment
are uploaded and should be used to reflect both arguments.  you should use correct APA style and include the following:
1.Title page
2.Running head
3.Page numbers
4.Headings (optional)
5.Works cited page(use the text book and articles only)
coontz.article_positionpaper_.pdflebey.article_positionpaper_.pdffamily_studies_101_.pdfCOONTZ I The American family
The American Family
By Stephanie Coontz
r ROM: Life, November 1999
CON T EXT: This piece was originally published in Life magazine in November 1999.
Life magazine was founded in 1936 and is known for its blend of traditional values
and excellent photography. According to its media kit, the magazine “delivers over
27 million affluent, educated, action-oriented decision makers” to its advertisers. The
median age of the readership is 48.4. the average household income is $67,908, and
its readers are split almost equally between men and women. Stephanie Coontz is a
professor at The Evergreen College in Washington state. She also has taught at uni­
versities in Hawaii and Japan and is a former Woodrow Wilson Fellow. She is the
director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families,
which awarded her the first Visionary Leadership Award in 2004. Her book Marriage,
A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage (2005) was
selected as one of the best books of 2005 by the WaShington Post. She has testified
before the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families; she speaks
about family issues on national television – on CNN and on shows such as Oprah and
the Today show. As you read this article, consider the data Coontz cites to argue that
our contemporary families are in better shape than we think and how this is a particu­
larly appropriate focus for Life magazine.
AS THE CENTURY COMES TO AN END, MANY OBSERVERS FEAR
for the future of America’s families. Our divorce rate is the highest in
the world, and the percentage of unmarried women is significantly
higher than in 1960. Educated women are having fewer babies, while
immigrant children flood the schools, demanding to be taught in their
native language. Harvard University reports that only 4 percent of its
applicants can write a proper sentence. There’s an epidemic of sexu­
ally transmitted diseases among men. Many streets in urban neigh­
borhoods are littered with cocaine vials. Youths call heroin “happy
94
dust: Even in small towns, people have easy access to addictive drugs,
and drug abuse by middle-class wives is skyrocketing. Police see
sixteen-year-old killers, twelve-year-old prostitutes, and gang mem­
bers as young as eleven. America at the end of the 1990s? No, Amer­
ica at the end of the 1890s.
The litany of complaints may sound familiar, but the truth is that
many things were worse at the start of this century than they are
today. Then, thousands of children worked full-time in mines, mills,
and sweatshops. Most workers labored ten hours a day; often six days
a week, which left them little time or energy for family life. Race riots
were more frequent and more deadly than those experienced by re­
cent generations. Women COUldn’t vote, and their wages were so low
that many turned to prostitution. In 1900 a white child had one
chance in three of losing a brother or sister before age fifteen, and a
black child had a fifty-fifty chance of seeing a sibling die. Children’s­
aid groups reported widespread abuse and neglect by parents. Men
who deserted or divorced their wives rarely paid child support. And
only 6 percent of the children graduated from high school, compared
with 88 percent today.
Why do so many people think American families are facing worse
problems now than in the past? Partly it’s because we compare the
complex and diverse families of the 1990s with the seemingly more
standard-issue ones of the 1950s, a unique decade when every long­
term trend of the twentieth century was temporarily reversed. In the
1950s, for the first time in 100 years, the divorce rate fell while mar­
riage and fertility rates soared, creating a boom in nuclear-family liv­
ing. The percentage of foreign-born individuals in the country
decreased. And the debates over social and cultural issues that had
divided Americans for 150 years were silenced, suggesting a national
consensus on family values and norms.
Some nostalgia for the 1950s is understandable: Life looked
pretty good in comparison with the hardships of the Great Depres­
sion and World War II. The GI Bill gave a generation of young fathers
a college education and a subsidized mortgage on a new house. For
the first time, a majority of men could support a family and buy a
home without pooling their earnings with those of other family mem­
bers. Many Americans built a stable family life on these foundations.
But much nostalgia for the 1950s is a result of selective amnesia the same process that makes childhood memories of summer va­
cations grow sunnier with each passing year. The superficial sameness
of 1950s family life was achieved through censorship, coercion, and
discrimination. People with unconventional beliefs faced governmen­
tal investigation and arbitrary firings. African Americans and Mexican
Americans were prevented from voting in some states by literacy tests
5
95
CHAPTER 2
»
THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF FAMILY
that were not administered to whites. Individuals who didn’t follow the
rigid gender and sexual rules of the day were ostracized.
Leave It to Beaver did not reflect the real-life experience of most
American families. While many moved into the middle class during
the 1950s, poverty remained more widespread than in the worst of
our last three recessions. More children went hungry; and poverty
rates for the elderly were more than twice as high as today’s. Even in
the white middle class, not every woman was as serenely happy with
her lot as June Cleaver was on TV. Housewives of the 1950s may have
been less rushed than today’s working mothers, but they were more
likely to suffer anxiety and depression. In many states, women couldn’t
serve on juries or get loans or credit cards in their own names.
And not every kid was as wholesome as Beaver Cleaver, whose
mischievous antics could be handled by Dad at the dinner table. In
1955 alone, Congress discussed 200 bills aimed at curbing juvenile
delinquency. Three years later, Life reported that urban teachers were
being terrorized by their students. The drugs that were so freely avail­
able in 1900 had been outlawed, but many children grew up in fami­
lies ravaged by alcohol and barbiturate abuse.
Rates of unwed childbearing tripled between 1940 and 1958, but
most Americans didn’t notice because unwed mothers generally left
town, gave their babies up for adoption, and returned home as if
nothing had happened. Troubled youths were encouraged to drop out
of high school. Mentally handicapped children were warehoused in
institutions like the Home for Idiotic and Imbecilic Children in
Kansas, where a woman whose sister had lived there for most of the
1950s once took me. Wives routinely told pollsters that being dispar­
aged or ignored by their husbands was a normal part of a happier­
than-average marriage. Denial extended to other areas of life as well.
In the early 1900s doctors refused to believe that the cases of gonor­
rhea and syphilis they saw in young girls could have been caused
sexual abuse. Instead, they reasoned, girls could get these diseases
from toilet seats, a myth that terrified generations of mothers and
daughters. In the 1950s, psychiatrists dismissed incest reports as
Oedipal fantasies on the part of children. Spousal rape was legal
throughout the period, and wife beating was not taken seriously by
authorities. Much of what we now label child abuse was accepted as
a normal part of parental discipline. Physicians saw no reason to
question parents who claimed that their child’s broken bones had
been caused by a fall from a tree. Things were worse at the turn of the
last century than they are today. Most workers labored ten hours a
day. six days a week, leaving little time for family life.
There are plenty of stresses in modern family life, but one reason
they seem worse is that we no longer sweep them under the rug.
96
COONTZ I
The American Family
Another is that we have higher expectations of parenting and mar­
riage. That’s a good thing. We’re right to be concerned about inatten­
tive parents, conflicted marriages, antisocial values, teen violence, and
child abuse. But we need to realize that many of our worries reflect
how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.
Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any other point in the past 100 years. Although the num­
ber of hours the average woman spends at home with her children
has declined since the early 1900s, there has been a decrease in the
number of children per family and an increase in individual attention
to each child. As a result, mothers today. including working moms,
spend almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in
the 1920s. People who raised children in the 1940s and 1950s typically
report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate
far better with their kids and spend more time helping with home­
work than they did even as they complain that other parents today
are doing a worse job than in the past.
Despite the rise in youth violence from the 1960s to the early
1900s, America’s children are also safer now than they’ve ever been.
An infant was four times more likely to die in the 1950s than today. A
parent then was three times more likely than a modern one to preside
at the funeral of a child under the age of fifteen, and 27 percent more
likely to lose an older teen to death.
If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families
have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have
solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges.
What works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn’t
work for a family in another. What’s helpful at one stage of a family’s
life may be destructive at the next stage. If there is one lesson to be
drawn from the last millennium of family history; it’s that families are
always having to play catch-up with a changing world.
Many of our worries today reflect how much better we want to be,
not how much better we used to be. Take the issue of working mothers.
Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they
do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout
most of the last two millennia. In the nineteenth century; married
women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce,
but for most families this was made possible only by sending their chil­
dren out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married
women began reentering the workforce in ever larger numbers.
For a few decades, the decline in child labor was greater than the
growth of women’s employment. The result was an aberration: the
male breadwinner family. In the 1920s, for the first time a bare ma­
jority of American children grew up in families where the husband
10
97
CHAPTER 2
»
provided all the income, the wife stayed home full-time, and they and
their siblings went to school instead of work. During the 1950s, almost
two-thirds of children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet
that same decade saw an acceleration of workforce participation
wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm,
a trend not likely to be reversed in the next century.
What’s new is not that women make half their families’ living, but
that for the first time they have substantial control over their own in­
come, along with the social freedom to remain
or to leave an
unsatisfactory marriage. Also new is the declining proportion of their
lives that people devote to rearing children, both because they have
fewer kids and because they are living longer. Until about 1940, the
typical marriage was broken
the death of one partner within a few
years after the last child left home.
Today; couples can look forward to spending more than two
decades together after the children leave. The growing length of time
partners spend with only each other for company has made many in­
dividuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while
women’s economic independence makes it less essential for them to
do so. It is no wonder that divorce has risen steadily since 1900. Dis­
regarding a spurt in 1946, a dip in the 1950s, and another peak around
1980, the divorce rate is just where you’d expect to find it based on
the rate of increase from 1900 to 1950. Today; 40 percent of all mar­
riages will end in divorce before a couple’s fortieth anniversary. Yet
despite this high divorce rate, expanded life expectancies mean that
more couples are reaching that anniversary than ever before. Fami­
lies and individuals in contemporary America have more life choices
than in the past. That makes it easier for some to consider dangerous
or unpopular options. But it also makes success easier for many fam­
ilies that never would have had a chance before interracial, gay or
lesbian, and single-mother families, for example. And it expands hori­
zons for most families.
Women’s new options are good not
for themselves but for
their children. While some people say that women who choose to
work are selfish, it turns out that maternal self-sacrifice is not good
for children. Kids do better when their mothers are happy with their
lives, whether their satisfaction comes from being a full-time home­
maker or from having a
Largely because of women’s new roles at work, men are doing
more at home. Although most men still do less housework than their
wives, the gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today; 49 percent of
couples say they share childcare equally; compared with 25 percent in
1985. The biggest problem is not that our families have changed too
much but that our institutions have changed too little.
98
COONTZ I The American Family
THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF FAMILY
15
Men’s greater involvement at home is good for their relationships
with their partners and also good for their children. Hands-on fathers
make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurtur­
ing and childcare: They raise sons who are more expressive and
daughters who are more likely to do well in school, especially in math
and science.
In 1900, life expectancy was forty-seven years, and only 4 percent
of the population was sixty-five or older. Today; life expectancy is
seventy-six years, and by 2025, about 20 percent of Americans will be
sixty-five or older. For the first time, a generation of adults must plan
for the needs of both their parents and their children. Most Ameri­
cans are responding with remarkable grace. One in four households
gives the equivalent of a full day a week or more in unpaid care to an
aging relative, and more than half say they expect to do so in the next
ten years. Older people are less likely to be impoverished or Ul’L.U~JU'”
itated by illness than in the past and they have more opportunity to
develop a relationship with their grandchildren.
Even some of the choices that worry us the most are turning out
to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely to remain high, but more
noncustodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child­
support receipts are up. And a lower proportion of kids from divorced
families are exhibiting problems than in earlier decades. Stepfamilies
are learning to maximize children’s access to supportive adults rather
than cutting them off from one side of the family: Out-of-wedlock
births are also high, however, and this will probably continue because
the age of first marriage for women has risen to an all-time high of
twenty-five, almost five years above what it was in the 1900s. Women
who marry at an older age are less likely to divorce, but they have
more years when they are at risk or at choice for a nonmarital birth.
Nevertheless, births to teenagers have fallen from 50 percent of
all nonmarital births to just 30 percent today: A growing proportion of
women who have a nonmarital birth are in their twenties and thirties
and usually have more economic and educational resources than
unwed mothers of the
While two involved parents are generally
better than one, a mother’s personal maturity; along with her educa­
tional and economic status, is a better predictor of how well her child
will turn out than her marital status. We should no longer assume that
children raised by single parents face debilitating disadvantages.
As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes, and colors
that today’s families come in, we find that the differences within fam­
ily types are more important than the differences between them. No
particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is
doomed to fail. How a family functions on the inside is more impor­
tant than how it looks from the outside.
99
CHAPTER 2
»
THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF FAMILY
The biggest problem facing most families as this century draws to
a close is not that our families have changed too much but that our in­
stitutions have changed too little. America’s work policies are fifty
years out of date, designed for a time when most moms weren’t in the
workforce and most dads didn’t understand the joys of being involved
in childcare. Our school schedules are 150 years out of date, designed
for a time when kids needed to be home to help with the milking and
haying. And many political leaders feel they have to decide whether
to help parents stay home longer with their kids or invest in better
childcare, preschool, and afterschool programs, when most industri­
alized nations have long since learned it’s possible to do both.
So America’s social institutions have some Y2K bugs to iron out.
But for the most part, our families are ready for the next millennium.
100
25
2
LIFE IN AMERICA
AMERICAN FAMILIES
Are Drifting Apart
The sexual revolution, women’s liberation, relaxation of divorce laws, and
greater mobility are fracturing the traditional family structure.
BY BARBARA LEBEY
A
VARIETY OF REASONS-from
petty grievances to deep-seated prejudices,
misunderstandings to all-out
jealousies, sibling rivalry, inheritance
feuds, family business disputes, and homo­
sexual outings-are cause for families to
grow apart. Family estrangements are bemore numerous, more intense, and
more hurtful. When I speak to groups on
the subject, I always ask: Who has or had
an estrangement or knows someone who
does’? Almost every hand in the room goes
up. Sisters aren’t speaking to each other
since one of them took the silver when
Mom died. Two brothers rarely visit be­
cause their wives don’t like each other.
A son alienates himself from his family
when he marries a woman who wants to
believe that he sprung from the earth. Be­
cause Mom is the travel agent for
trips, her daughter avoids contact with her.
A family banishes a daughter for marrying
outside her race or religion. A son eradi­
cates a divorced father when he reveals his
homosexuality. And so it goes.
The nation is facing a rapidly changing
family relationship landscape. Every as­
sumption made about the family structure
has been challenged, from the outer bound­
aries of single mothers raising out-of-wed­
lock children to gay couples having or
adopting children to grandparents raising
their grandchildren. If the so-called tradi­
tional family is having trouble maintaining
imagine what problems can and
do arise in less-conventional situations.
Fault lines in Americans’ family structure
were widening throughout the last 40 years
of the 20th century. The cracks became ev­
ident in the mid 1970s when the divorce
rate doubled. According to a 1999 Rutgers
University study, divorce has risen 30%
since 1970; the marriage rate has fallen
faster; and just 38% of Americans consider
themselves happy in their married state, a
drop from 53% 25 years ago. Today, 51 %
of all marriages end in divorce.
How Americans managed to alter their
concept of marriage and family so produring those four decades is the
subject of much scholarly investigation
and academic debate. In a May, 2000, New
York Times Magazine article titled “The
Pursuit of Autonomy,” the writer main­
tains that “the family is no longer a haven;
all too often a center of dysfunction, it has
become one with the heartless world that
surrounds it.” Unlike the past, the job that
fits you in your 208 is not the job or career
you ‘II likely have in your 40s. This is now
true of marriage as well-the spouse you
had in your 20s may not be the one you
will have after you’ve gone through your
m idlife cri sis.
In the 1960s, four main societal
changes occurred that have had an enor­
mous impact on the traditional family
structure. The sexual revolution, women’s
7
liberation movement, states’ relaxation of
divorce laws, and mobility of American
families have converged to foster family
alienation, exacerbate old family rifts. and
create new ones. It must he
however, that many of these
positive outcomes. The nation
a strengthened social conscience. women’s
to war. and a
constraints on
tolerance for
but society
a price.
1960s perpetuated the notion that
we are first and foremost entitled to
ness and fulfillment. It’s positively Ul1­
American not to seek it! This idea goes
back to that early
of our history
when Thomas Jefferson dropped the final
term from British philosopher John
Locke’s definition of human rights-“life,
liberty, and … property”-and replaced it
with what would become the slogan of our
new nation: “the pursuit of happiness.” In
the words of author Gail Sheehy, the 1960s
generation “expressed their collective per­
sonality as idealistic, narcissistic, anti-es­
tablishment, hairy, horny and preferably
Any relationship that was failing to de­
liver happiness was being tossed out like
an empty beer can, including spousal ones.
For at least 20 years, the pharmaceutical
industry has learned how to cash in on the
American obsession with feeling good
hyping mood drugs to rewire the brain cir­
ANNUAL EDITIONS
cui try for happiness through the elimina­
tion of sadness and depression.
Young people fled from the confines of
whose members were frantic, wor­
rying about exactly where their adult chil­
dren were and whatthey were doing. There
were probably more estrangements be­
tween parents and adult children during the
1960s and early 19705 than ever before.
In the wake of the civil rights move­
ment and Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s Great
Society came the women’s liberation
movement, and what a flashy role it played
in changing perceptions about the
structure. Women who graduated from
college in the late 1960s and early 1970s
were living in a time when they could es­
tablish and assert their independent identi­
ties. In Atlanta, Emory Law School’s 1968
graduating class had six women in it, the
largest number ever to that point, and all
six were in the top 10%, including the
number-one graduate. In that same period,
many all-male colleges opened their doors
to women for the first time. No one could
doubt the message singer Helen Reddy
proclaimed: “I am woman, hear me roar.”
For all the self-indulgence of the “hippie”
generation, there was an intense awaken­
ing in young people of a recognition that
civil rights must mean equal rights for ev­
eryone in our society, and that has to in­
clude women.
Full equality was the battle cry of every
. a status that women claimed de­
spite their majority position. As they had
once marched for the right to vote, women
began marching for sexual equality and the
same broad range of career and job oppor­
tunities that were always available to men.
Financial independence gave women the
freedom to walk away from unhappy marThis was a dramatic departure from
the puritanical sense of duty that had been
woven into the American fabric since the
birth of this nation.
For all the good that came out of this
movement, though, it also changed forever
traditional notions of marriage, mother­
hood, and family unity, as well as that
overwhelming sense of children first. Even
in the most-conservative young
wives were letting their husbands know
that they were going back to work or back
to school. Many women had to return to
work either because there was a need for
two incomes to maintain a moderate stan­
dard of living or because they were di­
vorced and forced to support their
offspring on their own. “Don’t ask, don’t
tell” day-care centers proliferated where
overworked, undertrained staff, and two-
income yuppie parents, ignored the chil­
dren’s emotional needs~all in the name of
equality and to enable women to reclaim
their identifies. Some might say these were
the parents who ran away from home.
Many states began to approve legisla­
tion that allowed no-fault divorce, elimi­
nating the need to lay blame on spouses or
stage adulterous scenes in sleazy motels to
provide evidence for states that demanded
such evidence for divorces. The legal sys­
tem established procedures for easily dis­
solving marriages, dividing property, and
sharing responsibility for the children.
There were even do-it-yourself divorce
manuals on bookstore shelves. Marriage
had become a choice rather than a neces­
sity, a one-dimensional status sustained al­
most exclusively by emotional satisfaction
and not worth maintaining in its absence.
Attitudes about divon.:e were becoming
more lenient, so much so that the nation fi­
elected its first divorced president in
I 980–Ronald Reagan.
With divorced fathers always
the risk of estrangement from their chil­
dren, this growing divorce statistic has had
the predictable impact of increasing the
number of those estrangements. Grandpar­
ents also experienced undeserved fallout
from divorce, since, almost invariably, they
are alienated from their grandchildren.
The fourth change, and certainly one of
the most pivotal, was the increased mobil­
ity of families that occurred during those
four decades. Family members were no
longer living in close proximity to one an­
other. The organization man moved to
wherever he could advance more quickly
up the corporate ladder. College graduates
look the best job offer, even if it was 3,000
miles away from where they grew up and
where their family still lived.
Some were getting out of small towns
for new vistas, new adventures, and new
job opportunities. Others were fleeing the
overcrowded dirty cities in search of cleaner
air, a more reasonable cost of living, and
retirement communities in snow-free,
warmer, more-scenic locations. Moving
from company to company had begun,
reaching what is now a crescendo
young people chose to
marry someone who lived in a different
location, so family tics were geographi­
cally severed for indeterminate periods of
time, sometimes forever.
According to Lynn H. Dennis’ Corpo­
rate Relocation Takes Its Toll on Society.
during the 10 years from 1989 to 1999,
more than 5,000,000 families were relo­
cated one or more times bv their
8
ers. In addition to employer-directed
moves, one out of five Americans relo­
cated at least once, not for exciting adven­
ture, but for economic advancement and/or
a safer place to raise children. From
March, 1996, to March, 1997, 42,000,000
Americans, or 16% of the population,
packed up and moved from where
were living to another location. That is a
striking statistic. Six million of these peo­
ple moved from one region of the country
10 another, and young adults aged 20 to 29
were the most mobile, making up 32% of
the moves during that year. This disburse­
ment of nuclear families throughout the
country disconnected them from parents,
brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, un­
cles, and cousins~the extended family
and all its adhesive qualities.
with cell phones, computers,
faxes, and the Internet. the office can be
anywhere, including in the home. There­
fore, we can live anywhere we want to. If
that is the case, why aren’t more people
choosing to live in the cities or towns
where they grew up? There’s no definitive
answer. Except for the praise heaped on
values,” staying close to family no
longer plays a meaningful role in choosing
where we reside.
These relocations require individuals to
invest an enormous amount of time to rees­
tablish their lives without help from family
or old friends. Although nothing can com­
pare to the experience of immigrants who
left their countries knowing they probably
would never see their families again, the
phenomenon of Americans continually re­
locating makes family relationships diffi­
cult to sustain.
Our culture tends to focus on the indi­
viduaL or, at most, on the nuclear family,
the benefits of extended fam­
ilies, though their role is vital in shaping
our lives. The notion of “moving on”
whenever problems arise has been a time­
honored American concept. Too many
people would rather cast aside some family
member than iron out the situation and
keep the relationship alive. If we don’t get
along with our father or if our mother
doesn’t like our choice of mate or our way
of life, we just move away and see the fam­
once or twice a year. After we’re marwith children in school, and with both
parents working, visits become even more
difficult. If the family visits are that infre­
quent. why bother at all? Some children
grow up barely knowing any of their rela­
tives. Contact ceases; rifts don’t resolve;
and divisiveness often germinates into a
full-blown estrangement.
r
Article 2. American Families Are Drifting Apart
In an odd sort of way, the more finan­
cially independent pcople become, the
more families scatter and grow apart. It’s
not a cause, but it is a facilitator. Tolerance
levels decrease as financial means increase.
Just think how much more we tolerate from
our fami lies when they are providing finan­
cial support. Look at the divorced wife who
depends on her family for money to
ment alimony and child support, the stu­
dent whose parents are paying all college
expenscs, or the brother who borrows fam­
money to savc his business.
Recently, a well-known actress being
interviewed in a popular magazine was
asked, if there was one thing she could
change in her family, what would it be?
Her answer was simple: “That we could all
live in the same city.” She understood the
importance of heing near loved ones and
how, even in a harmonious family, geo­
graphical distance often leads to emotional
disconnectedness. When relatives arc reg­
ularly in each other’s company, they will
usually make a greater effort to get along.
Even when there is dissension among fam­
members, they are more likely to work
it out, either on their own or heeause an­
other relative has intervened to calm the
troubled waters. When rifts occur, rela­
tives often need a real jolt to perform an act
offorgiveness. Forgiving a family member
can be the hardest thing to do, probably be­
cause the emotional bonds are so much
deeper and usually go all the way back to
childhood. Could it be that blood is a
thicker medium in which to hold a grudge?
With today’s familics scattcred all over
the country, the matriarch or patriarch of
the extended family is far less able to keep
his or her kin united, caring, and supportive
of one another. In these disconnected nu­
clear families. certain trends-workahol­
ism, alcoholism, depression, severe stress,
isolation, escapism, and a push toward con­
tinuous supervised activity [or children-­
are routinely observed. What happened to
that family day of rest and togetherness?
We should mourn its absence.
For the widely dispersed baby boomers
with more financial means than any prior
generation, commitment, intimacy, and
togetherness have never been high
on their list of priorities. How many times
have you heard of family members trying to
maintain a relationship with a relative via e­
mail and answering machines? One young
man now sends his Mother’s Day greeting
by leaving a message for his mom on his an­
swering machinc. When she calls to scold
him for forgetting to call her, she’ll get a
few sweet words wishing her a happy
Mother’s Day and his apology for being too
to eall or send a card! His sister can ex­
pect the same kind of greeting tiJr her bi11h­
but only if she bothers to call to find out
why her brother hadn’t contacted her.
Right now, and probably for the foresec­
able future, we will be searching for an­
swers to the burgeoning problcms we
created by these societal
changes, but don’t bc
Those who have studied and understood the
American psyche are far more ~
The 19th-century French historian and
Alexis de Tocqucville once said of
Americans, “No natural boundary seems to
be set [0 the effort of Americans. and
their eyes what is not yet done, is only what
they have not yet attempted to do.” Some
day, I hope this mindset will apply not to
political rhetoric on family values. but to
families back together
Ga.-based
attorney andformer judge, is the author
Family Estrangements-How They Begin,
How to Mend Them, How to Cope with
Them.
rrom USA Today magazine. September 2001. © 2001 by the Society for the Advdncemenl of Education. Reprinted by permission.
9
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to
Marriage and the Family, Eleventh Edition
David Knox and Caroline Schacht
Senior Publisher: Linda Schreiber-Ganster
Acquiring Sponsoring Editor: Erin Mitchell
Assistant Editor: Linda Stewart
Editorial Assistant: Mallory Ortberg
© 2013, 2010 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein
may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying,
recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks,
or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under
Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Associate Media Editor: Melanie Cregger
Marketing Program Manager: Tami Strang
Project Management: PreMediaGlobal
Design Director: Rob Hugel
Senior Art Director: Caryl Gorska
For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706.
For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.
Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to
permissionrequest@cengage.com.
Print Buyer: Karen Hunt
Senior Rights Specialist: Dean Dauphinais
Cover Design: Brie Hattey/Riezebos/Holzbauer
Cover Image: Coco Marlet/Photolibrary
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011932999
Student Edition:
ISBN-13: 978-1-111-83322-0
Compositor: PreMediaGlobal
ISBN-10: 1-111-83322-2
Loose-leaf Edition:
ISBN-13: 978-1-111-83950-5
ISBN-10: 1-111-83950-6
Wadsworth
20 Davis Drive
Belmont, CA 94002-3098
USA
Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with
office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom,
Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local office at
www.cengage.com/global.
Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.
To learn more about Wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/wadsworth.
Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred
online store www.CengageBrain.com.
Printed in the United States of America
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 14 13 12 11
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
1
C H A P T E R
Choices in Relationships:
An Introduction
It’s choice—not chance—that
determines your destiny.
Jean Nidetch, Founder of Weight Watchers
Sybrand Cillie
Learning
Objectives
Review the various elements of marriage.
List and define the various types of families.
Identify the theme of this text.
Summarize how marriage and the family have
changed in the last 60 years.
Name the various theoretical frameworks for
viewing marriage and the family.
Describe the steps in the research process and
the caveats to be kept in mind.
Predict the future of marriage.
1
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
TRUE OR FALSE?
1.
Having no close relationship connections (e.g. marriage, family, kinship) can be
compared to smoking 15 cigarettes a day and being an alcoholic in terms of the
effect on one’s health.
2.
Marriage is no longer a dominant lifestyle goal. By age 65 only about half of
Americans have ever married.
3.
Sharing funds or exchanging financial support is a “marker” that two individuals
are becoming a “couple.”
4.
A web-based marriage education course is just as effective as a traditional face to
face class and both are more valuable than no course at all.
5.
Marriage education classes are helpful only for individuals BEFORE marriage
(once a couple is married, involvement in these types of programs shows little to
no effect).
Answers: 1. T
2. F
3. T
4. T
5. F
n aging professor of marriage and family revealed a pattern of always giving the same tests each year. Colleagues thought the teacher both lazy
and unfair since the old tests would get out and be used by new students.
But the teacher justified giving the same exams every year on the premise that
while the questions were the same, the answers kept changing. For example, in
1960, two-thirds (68%) of all twenty-somethings were married. More recently,
just over a fourth (26%) in this age category was married (Pew Research Center
2010a). The rush to marry soon after high school has been replaced by great
caution and delay.
What has not changed is the importance of family. All of us were born into a
family and will end up in a family (however one defines this concept) of our own.
Indeed, “raising a family” remains one of the top values in life for undergraduates.
In a nationwide study of 201,818 undergraduates in 279 colleges and universities,
73% identified this as an essential objective (77% for financial success) (Pryor
et al. 2011). In a study of 2,922 undergraduates, a “happy marriage” (50%) was the
top value in life over “having a career I love” (28%) and financial security (17%)
(Knox and Hall 2010). In this chapter we review the meaning of marriage and family
and the choices we make in regard to these and other relationship options.
A
Getting married is a way
to show family and friends
that you have a successful
personal life. It’s the
ultimate merit badge.
Andrew Cherlin, sociologist
Marriage a legal relationship
that binds a couple together for
the reproduction, physical care,
and socialization of children.
Marriage
The federal government regards marriage as a legal relationship that binds a couple together for the reproduction, physical care, and socialization of children.
Each society works out its own details of what marriage is. In the United States,
marriage is a legal contract between a heterosexual couple (we discuss same-sex
marriage later in the chapter) and the state in which they reside that specifies the
economic relationship between the couple (they become joint owners of their income and debt) and encourages sexual fidelity. Various elements implicit in the
marriage relationship in the United States are discussed in the following.
National Data
Over 95% of U.S. adult women (96%) and men (95.6%) aged 75 and older report having
been married at least once (Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011, Table 34).
2
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Elements of Marriage
No one definition of marriage can adequately capture its meaning. Rather, marriage might best be understood in terms of its various elements. Some of these
include the following.
Legal Contract Marriage in our society is a legal contract into which two people of different sexes and legal age (usually eighteen or older) may enter when
they are not already married to someone else. The marriage license certifies that
a legally empowered representative of the state married the individuals, often
with two witnesses present. The marriage contract actually gives more power to
the government and its control over the couple (Aulette 2010). The government
will dictate not only who may marry (e.g. heterosexuals in most states, age 18 or
above, not already married) but also the conditions of divorce (e.g. alimony and
child support).
Under the laws of the state, the license means that spouses will jointly own
all future property acquired and that each will share in the estate of the other.
In most states, whatever the deceased spouse owns is legally transferred to the
surviving spouse at the time of death. In the event of divorce and unless the
couple had a prenuptial agreement, the property is usually divided equally regardless of the contribution of each partner. The license also implies the expectation of sexual fidelity in the marriage. Though less frequent because of
no-fault divorce, infidelity is a legal ground for both divorce and alimony in
some states.
The marriage license is also an economic license that entitles a spouse to
receive payment for medical bills by a health insurance company if the partner
is insured, to collect Social Security benefits at the death of the other spouse,
and to inherit from the estate of the deceased. One of the goals of gay rights
advocates who seek the legalization of marriage between homosexuals is that the
couple will have the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals.
Though the courts are reconsidering the definition of what constitutes a
“family,” the law is currently designed to protect spouses, not lovers or cohabitants. An exception is common-law marriage, in which a heterosexual couple
cohabits and presents themselves as married; they will be regarded as legally
married in those states that recognize such marriages. Common-law marriages
exist in fourteen states (Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, and Texas) and the District of Columbia. Some states have
restrictions—e g. Pennsylvania only recognizes common law marriages created
before 2005.
Emotional Relationship Most people in the United States regard being in
love with the person they marry as an important reason for staying married.
Forty percent of 2,922 undergraduates reported that they would divorce if they
no longer loved their spouse (Knox and Hall 2010). This emphasis on love is
not shared throughout the world. Individuals in other cultures (for example,
India and Iran) do not require love feelings to marry—love is expected to follow, not precede, marriage. In these countries, parental approval and similarity
of religion, culture, and education are considered more important criteria for
marriage than love.
Common-law marriage a
heterosexual cohabiting couple
presenting themselves as married.
The heart has its
reasons that reason
knows nothing of.
Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 1670
National Data
In regard to reasons to get married, adults point to love (93%), making a lifelong commitment (87%) and companionship (81%) rather than having children (59%) or financial
stability (31%) (Pew Research Center 2010a).
Marriage
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
3
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Colleen Breen
Eighty percent of first
marriages occur in a religious
context. The ceremony is a
joyous occasion attended
by friends, family, and well
wishers. No one attends an
individual’s divorce.
Sexual Monogamy Marital partners expect sexual fidelity. Over half (54%) of
2,922 undergraduates agreed, “I would divorce a spouse who had an affair,” and
over two thirds (67%) agreed that they would end a relationship with a partner
who cheated on them (Knox and Hall 2010).
Love: a temporary
insanity, curable by
marriage.
Ambrose Bierce, journalist
Legal Responsibility for Children Although individuals marry for love and
companionship, one of the most important reasons for the existence of marriage from the viewpoint of society is to legally bind a male and a female for the
nurture and support of any children they may have. In our society, child rearing
is the primary responsibility of the family, not the state.
Marriage is a relatively stable relationship that helps to ensure that children
will have adequate care and protection, will be socialized for productive roles in
society, and will not become the burden of those who did not conceive them.
Even at divorce, the legal obligation of the noncustodial parent to the child is
maintained through child-support payments.
Announcement/Ceremony The legal binding of a couple is often preceded
by an announcement in the local newspaper and then followed by a formal ceremony in a church or synagogue. Such a ceremony reflects the cultural importance of the event. Telling parents, siblings, and friends about wedding plans
helps to verify the commitment of the partners, and signifies that the marriage is
a social event. The custom of gift giving after the ceremony also helps to marshal
the economic support to launch the couple into married life.
Benefits of Marriage
Most people in our society get married, which has enormous benefits. Researchers Holt-Lunstad et al. (2010) emphasized the value of marriage as a social context conducive to one’s mental as well as physical health and mortality. Their
conclusion is based on a review of 148 studies involving 308,849 participants,
which showed a 50% increase in the likelihood of survival for both women and
men who had high social connections with family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Low social interaction/involvement had negative consequences and
could be compared to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, being an alcoholic, not exercising, and being obese.
4
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
TABLE 1.1
Benefits of Marriage and the Liabilities of Singlehood
Benefits of Marriage
Liabilities of Singlehood
Health
Spouses have fewer hospital admissions,
see a physician more regularly, and are
“sick” less often.
Single people are hospitalized more often,
have fewer medical checkups, and are “sick”
more often.
Longevity
Spouses live longer than single people.
Single people die sooner than married
people.
Happiness
Spouses report being happier than single
people.
Single people report less happiness than
married people.
Sexual satisfaction
Spouses report being more satisfied
with their sex lives, both physically and
emotionally.
Single people report being less satisfied
with their sex lives, both physically and
emotionally.
Money
Spouses have more economic resources
than single people.
Single people have fewer economic
resources than married people.
Lower expenses
Two can live more cheaply together than
separately.
Cost is greater for two singles than one
couple.
Drug use
Spouses have lower rates of drug use and
abuse.
Single people have higher rates of drug use
and abuse.
Connected
Spouses are connected to more individuals
who provide a support system—partner,
in-laws, etc.
Single people have fewer individuals upon
whom they can rely for help.
Children
Rates of high school dropouts, teen pregnancies, and poverty are lower among children reared in two-parent homes.
Rates of high school dropouts, teen pregnancies, and poverty are higher among
children reared by single parents.
History
Spouses develop a shared history across
time with significant others.
Single people may lack continuity and
commitment across time with significant
others.
Crime
Spouses are less likely to be involved in
crime.
Single people are more likely to be involved
in crime.
Loneliness
Spouses are less likely to report loneliness.
Single people are more likely to report
being lonely.
When married people are compared with singles, the differences are strikingly in favor of the married (see Table 1.1). The advantages of marriage over
singlehood have been referred to as the marriage benefit and are true for first
as well as subsequent marriages. Explanations for the marriage benefit include
economic resources (e.g. higher income/can afford health care), social control
(e.g. spouses ensure partner moderates alcohol/drug use, does not ride motorcycle) and psychosocial support and strain (e.g. in-resident counselor, caring
partner) (Carr and Springer 2010). However, just being married is not beneficial to all individuals. In fact, being in a stressful marriage is associated with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, which collectively have been
shown to increase risk for heart attack, diabetes, stroke, and mortality (Whisman
et al. 2010).
Marriage benefit when compared to being single, married
persons are healthier, happier, live
longer, less drug use, etc.
Types of Marriage
Although we think of marriage in the United States as involving one man and
one woman, other societies view marriage differently. Polygamy is a generic term
for marriage involving more than two spouses. Polygamy occurs “throughout the
world . . . and is found on all continents and among adherents of all world religions” (Zeitzen 2008). There are three forms of polygamy: polygyny, polyandry,
and pantagamy.
Polygamy a generic term for
marriage involving more than two
spouses.
Marriage
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
5
Stephanie Sinclair
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Polygyny in the United States
Polygyny involves one husband and two
or more wives and is practiced illegally
in the United States by some religious
fundamentalist groups. These groups
are primarily in Arizona, New Mexico,
and Utah (as well as Canada), and have
splintered off from the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly
known as the Mormon Church). To be
clear, the Mormon Church does not
practice or condone polygyny. Those
that split off from the Mormon Church
represent only about 5% of Mormons
in Utah. The largest offshoot is called
the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
Christ of the Latter-day Saints (FLDS).
Members of the group feel that the
practice of polygyny is God’s will. Joe
Joe Jessop, an elder of the FLDS, has 5 wives, 46 children and 239
Jessop, age 88, is an elder of the FLDS.
grandchildren.
He has 5 wives, 46 children, and 239 grandchildren. Although it is illegal, polygynous individuals are rarely prosecuted since a husband will have only one legal
wife and the others will just live with and be a part of the larger family. Women
are socialized to bear as many children as possible to build up the “celestial family” that will remain together for eternity (Anderson 2010a).
National Data
There are an estimated 38,000 breakaway Mormon fundamentalists who practice plural
marriage in North America. FLDS is the largest group which was founded in Hildale and
Colorado City astride the Utah-Arizona border. There are about 10,000 FLDS members who
live in the western U.S. and Canada (Anderson 2010a).
Polygyny type of marriage involving one husband and two or
more wives.
Polyandry type of marriage in
which one wife has two or more
husbands.
It is often assumed that polygyny in FLDS marriages exists to satisfy the sexual desires of the man, that the women are treated like slaves, and that jealousy
among the wives is common. In most polygynous societies, however, polygyny has
a political and economic rather than a sexual function. Polygyny, for members
of the FLDS, is a means of having many children to produce a celestial family. In
other societies, a man with many wives can produce a greater number of children
for domestic or farm labor. Wives are not treated like slaves (although women
have less status than men in general), all household work is evenly distributed
among the wives, and each wife is given her own house or own sleeping quarters.
Jealousy is minimal because the husband often has a rotational system for conjugal visits, which ensures that each wife has equal access to sexual encounters.
DIVERSITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa, has 5
wives, 19 children, and a fiancée. In the West African
country of Mali, 43% of women live in polygamous marriages. Infertility is the number one reason that women allow
co-wives in their marriages—they are necessary to protect
the marriage rather than divorce. Though the majority of
the women disapprove of polygyny unions, divorce is not an
option (Tabi et al. 2010).
6
Polyandry The Buddhist Tibetans foster yet another
brand of polygamy, referred to as polyandry, in which
one wife has two or more (up to five) husbands. These
husbands, who may be brothers, pool their resources to
support one wife. Polyandry is a much less common form
of polygamy than polygyny. The major reason for polyandry is economic. A family that cannot afford wives or marriages for each of its sons may find a wife for the eldest
son only. Polyandry allows the younger brothers to also
have sexual access to the one wife that the family is able
to afford.
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Pantagamy Pantagamy describes a group marriage in which each member of
the group is “married” to the others. Pantagamy is a formal arrangement that
was practiced in communes (for example, Oneida) of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Pantagamy is, of course, illegal in the United States.
Our culture emphasizes monogamous marriage and values stable marriages.
One expression of this value is the concern for marriage education (see the
Social Policy feature on pages 8–9).
Family
Most people who marry choose to have children and become a family. However,
the definition of what constitutes a family is sometimes unclear. This section examines how families are defined, their numerous types, and how marriages and
families have changed in the past sixty years.
Pantagamy a group marriage in
which each member of the group
is “married” to the others.
Call it a clan, call it a
network, call it a tribe,
call it a family. Whatever
you call it, whoever you
are, you need one.
Jane Howard, journalist
Definitions of Family
The U.S. Census Bureau defines family as a group of two or more people related
by blood, marriage, or adoption. This definition has been challenged because
it does not include foster families or long-term couples (heterosexual or homosexual) that live together. The answer to “who is family?” is important because
access to resources such as health care, social security, and retirement benefits is
involved. Cohabitants are typically not viewed as “family” and are not accorded
health benefits, social security, and retirement benefits of the partner. Indeed,
the “live-in partner” or a partner who is gay (although a long-term significant
other) may not be allowed to see the beloved in the hospital, which limits visitation to “family only.” Nevertheless, the definition of who counts as family is being
challenged. In some cases, families are being defined by function rather than by
structure—what is the level of emotional and financial commitment and interdependence? How long have they lived together? Do the partners view themselves
as a family?
Family a group of two or more
people related by blood, marriage,
or adoption.
National Data
Eighty six percent of U.S adults say a single parent and child constitute a family; nearly as
many (80%) say an unmarried couple living together with a child is a family. Sixty three
percent say a gay or lesbian couple raising a child is a family (Pew Research Center 2010a).
Friends sometimes become family. Due to mobility, spouses may live several
states away from their respective families. Although they may visit their families
for holidays, they often develop close friendships with others on whom they rely
locally for emotional and physical support on a daily basis.
Sociologically, a family is defined as a kinship system of all relatives living
together or recognized as a social unit, including adopted people. The family is regarded as the basic social institution because of its important functions
of procreation and socialization, and because it is found in some form in all
societies.
Same-sex couples (for example, Ellen DeGeneres and her partner) certainly define themselves as family. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa recognize marriages between same-sex individuals.
Short of marriage, New Jersey recognizes committed gay relationships as civil
unions (pair-bonded relationship given legal significance in terms of rights
and privileges).
Civil union a pair-bonded relationship given legal significance in
terms of rights and privileges.
Family
7
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
SOCIAL
POLICY
Marriage Education in Public Schools, Community,
and Churches
ocial policies are purposive courses of action that
individuals or groups of individuals take regarding a
particular issue or problem of concern. The U.S.
government actively supports and encourages marriage via
its National Health Marriage Resource Center (see website
listing at end of chapter). Public schools are a major source
for socialization of values and skills in American youth.
With almost half of new marriages ending in divorce, politicians ask whether social policies designed to educate youth
about the realities of marriage might be beneficial in promoting marital quality and stability. Might students profit
from education about marriage, before they get married, if
such relationship skill training is made mandatory in the
school curriculum? Such marriage education courses might
occur in a traditional face to face class or by means of a
web-based self-directed Internet course. Both have been
found to be equally effective over no instruction (Duncan
et al. 2009). In addition, 1,409 individuals were exposed to
marriage preparation information in four contexts: in a
seated class, at a workshop sponsored by a community or
church, as premarital counseling, and self-directed. While all
contexts were helpful, the seated class and self-directed
learning rated more highly than counseling and workshops,
independent of gender.
The philosophy behind premarital education is that
building a fence at the top of a cliff is preferable to putting
an ambulance at the bottom. Over 2,000 public schools
nationwide offer a marriage education course. In Florida, all
public high school seniors are required to take a marriage
and relationship skills course. Kerpelman et al. (2010) examined the effectiveness of a relationship education curriculum in a sample of 1,430 adolescents attending health
classes across 39 public high schools. Results revealed that
those who took the class, compared to those who did not,
could recognize faulty relationship beliefs.
Adler-Baeder et al. (2010) studied 1293 ethnically and
economically diverse adults participating in relationship and
S
Domestic partnerships
relationships in which cohabitating
individuals are given some kind
of official recognition by a city or
corporation so as to receive partner benefits (for example, health
insurance).
8
marriage education (RME) programs and noted that both
men and women showed gains (e.g. couple functioning/
confidence in one’s relationship) from such exposure.
Women reported the greatest change if their partners attended and persons who were married showed more gains
that those who were single. Morris et al. (2011) compared
the backgrounds of participants who do and do not attend
marriage education workshops and found that those who
do attend report lower levels of self-esteem, marital communication quality, marital commitment, marital satisfaction and increased levels of marital conflict. Hence, these
programs seem to be reaching the intended audience.
Finally, Halpern-Meekin (2011) compared mandated and voluntary programs and found greater gains by students in
mandated programs and students from two parent homes.
Students from severely economically disadvantaged homes
showed no gains. The federal government has a vested interest in marriage education programs. One motivation is
economic. The estimated cost for divorce to U.S. society is
almost $35 billion (Wilmoth et al. 2010) because divorce
often plunges individuals into poverty, making them dependent on public resources. Hence, to the degree that people
enter marriages that turn out to be stable, there is greater
economic stability for the family and less drain on social
services in the U.S. for single-parent mothers.
Another motivation for concern about marriage education
courses in the public schools is control of the content. The
School Textbook Marriage Protection Act, considered in the
House education committee in Arkansas, would require that
marriage textbooks define marriage as between one man and
one woman. While the bill was defeated in the senate, its
existence emphasizes the political incentives behind interest
in these courses and the desire to normalize/influence youth
about marriage (and exclude/deny same sex relationships).
There is also opposition to marriage education programs.
Opponents question using school time for relationship
courses. Teachers are viewed as already overworked, and an
Although other states typically do not recognize same-sex marriages or
civil unions (and thus people moving from these states to another state lose
the privileges associated with marriage), over twenty-four cities and countries
(including Canada) recognize some form of domestic partnership. Domestic
partnerships are relationships in which cohabitating individuals are given
some kind of official recognition by a city or corporation so as to receive partner benefits (for example, health insurance). Disney employees recognizes
domestic partnerships.
Some individuals view their pets as part of their family. In a Harris Poll
(2007) survey of 2,455 adults, 88% regarded their pets as family members—
more women (93%) than men (84%), and more dog owners (93%) than cat
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
additional course on marriage seems to press the system to
the breaking point. In addition, some teachers lack the
training to provide relationship courses. Although training
teachers would stretch already-thin budgets, many schools
already have programs in family and consumer sciences, and
teachers in these programs are trained in teaching about
marriage and the family. A related concern with teaching
about marriage and the family in high school is the fear on
the part of some parents that the course content may be
too liberal. Some parents who oppose teaching sex education in the public schools fear that such courses lead to
increased sexual activity.
Marriage education is also offered in various communities and through various churches. Wilmont et al.
(2010) observed that 86% of weddings are performed by
clergy, who often provide marriage education prior to
the wedding. Such clergy may take various courses in
counseling and use standardized marriage material in
their programs.
Regardless of the source—school, communication, or
clergy—marriage education has positive outcomes at any
time in a couple’s relationship. Stanley et al. (2010) conducted a study on married U.S. Army couples who were assigned to either PREP for Strong Bonds (n = 248) delivered
by U.S. Army chaplains or to a no-treatment control group
(n = 228). One year after the intervention, couples who received PREP for Strong Bonds had one-third the rate of
divorce of the control group. Specifically, 6.20% of the control group divorced, while 2.03% of the intervention group
divorced. These findings suggest that couple education can
reduce the risk of divorce. Other researchers have confirmed
the value of marriage education programs on participants
(Calligas et al. 2010).
Your Opinion?
1. To what degree do you believe marriage education
belongs in the public school system?
2. What evidence reveals that marriage education is
effective?
3. Should marriage be encouraged by the federal
government?
Sources
Adler-Baeder, F., A. Bradford, E. Skuban, M. Lucier-Greer, S. Ketring, and
T. Smith. 2010. Demographic predictors of relationship and marriage
education participants’ pre- and post-program relational and individual
functioning. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 9: 113–132.
Calligas, A., F. Adler-Baeder, M. Keiley, T. Smith, and S. Ketring. 2010.
Examining change in parenting dimensions in relation to change in couple
dimensions. Poster, National Council on Family Relations annual meeting,
November 3–5. Minneapolis, MN.
Duncan, S. F., G. R. Childs, and J. H. Larson. 2010. Perceived helpfulness of
four different types of marriage preparation interventions. Family Relations
59: 623–636.
Duncan, S., A. Steed, and C. M. Needham. 2009. A comparison evaluation
study of web-based and traditional marriage and relationship education.
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 8: 162–180.
Halpern-Meekin. 2011. High school relationship and marriage education:
A comparison of mandated and self-selected treatment detail. Journal of
Family Issues 32: 394-419.
Kerpelman, J., J. F. Pittman, F. Adler-Baeder, K. Stringer, S. Eryigit, H. Cadely,
and M. Harrell-Levy. 2010. What adolescents bring to and learn from relationship education classes: Does social address matter? Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy 9: 95–112.
Morris, M. L., H. McMillan, S. D. Duncan, and J. Larson. 2011. Who will
attend? Characteristics of couples and individuals in marriage education.
Marriage & Family 47: 1-22.
Stanley, S. M., E. S. Allen, H. J. Markman, G. K. Rhoades, and D. L. Prentice.
2010. Decreasing divorce in U.S. Army Couples: Results from a randomized
controlled trial using PREP for strong bonds. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 9: 149–160.
Wilmont, J. D., S. L. Smyser, T. Staier, and T. M. Phillips. 2010. Influence of a
statewide marriage initiative on clergy involvement in marriage preparation. Marriage and Family Review 46: 278–299.
owners (89%). Weinstein and Alexander (2010) found that cat owners report that they have personalities similar to their cats. Mooney et al. (2010)
studied attachment as the benchmark of the human-companion animal
bond and found that, in a sample of 250 adults who had an animal, women,
those not married, those over 65, and dog-only owners reported the greatest
attachment.
Examples of treating pets like children include buying presents for the pet
at birthdays, buying “clothes” for one’s pet, and leaving money in one’s will for
the care of a pet. Some pet owners buy accident insurance—Progressive© insurance covers pets. Gregory (2010) noted that pets are now the legal subject of
divorce—that parents are granted custody and visitation rights.
Family
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
9
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
David Knox
This Labrador retriever is
part of the family. Recently
he ate a six foot dog leash,
which required surgery and
hospitalization. This “mother”
took care of the “baby” during
the dog’s recovery.
Types of Families
There are various types of families.
Family of orientation also
known as the family of origin, the
family into which a person is born.
Family of Origin Also referred to as the family of orientation, this is the
family into which you were born or the family in which you were reared. It
involves you, your parents, and your siblings. When you go to your parents’
home for the holidays, you return to your family of origin. Your experiences
in your family of origin have an impact on your own relationships. Chiu and
Busby (2010) found that individuals reared in homes where their parents
had a high-quality relationship were likely to have a similar high-quality marriage and to be familisticly oriented. Similarly, Reczek et al. (2010) documented how the relationship with one’s parents affects the quality of one’s
own marriage.
The degree to which your family of origin was open about emotional expression also has an effect on your openness. See the Self-Assessment on Family of Origin Expressiveness Scale to assess the degree to which the family in
which you were reared encouraged open emotional expression. Twenty-six
undergraduate males and 85 undergraduate females (in the authors’ classes)
completed the scale with average scores of 79.73 and 85.40, respectively. Since
the lowest possible score was 22 (reflecting low expressiveness) and the highest
possible score was 110 (reflecting high permissiveness) with a midpoint of 66,
both sexes tended to come from emotionally expressive homes, women more
than men.
Your family of origin also affects your access to resources. Fairlie et al.
(2010) found that teenagers who have access to home computers are 6 to
8 percentage points more likely to graduate from high school than teenagers who do not have home computers. Home computers are associated with
graduating from high school in that they make completing homework assignments easier and students doing homework on computers are not engaging in
criminal activitity.
10
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
SELF ASSESSMENT
Family-of-Origin Expressive
Atmosphere Scale
Directions: The family of origin is the family with which you spent
most or all of your childhood years. Each family is unique and has
its own ways of doing things. What is important is you respond as
honestly as you can. Apply the following statements to your family
or origin.
Key:
1 5 Strongly Disagree that it describes my family of origin.
2 5 Disagree that it describes my family of origin.
3 5 Neutral: sometimes yes, other times no.
4 5 Agree that it describes my family of origin.
5 5 Strongly Agree that it describes my family of origin.
1. My family members usually were sensitive to one another’s feelings.
_____ 2. In my family, I felt that I could talk things out.
_____ 3. I found it easy in my family to express how I thought
and felt.
_____ 4. My attitudes and my feelings frequently were ignored or
criticized in my family.
_____ 5. In my family, I felt free to express my own opinions.
_____ 6. The atmosphere in my family was cold and negative.
_____ 7. The members of my family were very receptive to each
other’s feelings.
_____ 8. I found it difficult to express my own opinions in my
family.
_____ 9. I remember my family as being warm and supportive.
_____ 10. My family had an unwritten rule: Don’t express your
feelings.
_____ 11. My parents encouraged me to express my views openly.
_____ 12. We usually were able to work out conflicts in my family.
_____ 13. Sometimes in my family, I did not have to say anything,
but I felt understood.
_____ 14. In my family, certain feelings were not allowed to be
expressed.
_____ 15. Conflicts in my family seldom got resolved.
_____ 16. The atmosphere in my family was usually unpleasant.
_____ 17. In my family, no one cared about the feelings of other
family members.
_____ 18. My parents discouraged us from expressing views different from theirs.
_____ 19. In my family, people took responsibility for what they
did.
_____ 20. My parents encouraged family members to listen to one
another.
_____ 21. Mealtimes in my home usually were friendly and
pleasant.
_____ 22. My parents openly admitted it when they were wrong.
The new 22 item measure “FAMILY-OF-ORIGIN EXPRESSIVE ATMOSPHERE SCALE”
13 Positive items are: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22
9 Reversed items are: 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Change the reversed items (1=5, 5=1, etc.) and add all 22 items for
the score.
High score means expressive atmosphere.
Low score means lack of expressive atmosphere.
Source
The Family of Origin Expressiveness Scale by Yelsma, P., Hovestadt,
A. J., Anderson, W. T., & Nilsson, J. E. (2000). Family of origin expressiveness: Measurement, meaning, and relationship to alexithymia.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 26: 353–363. Used by permission of Blackwell Publishing Co.
Siblings represent an important part of one’s family of origin. Meinhold
et al. (2006) noted that the relationship with one’s siblings, particularly sistersister relationships, represent the most enduring relationship in a person’s lifetime. Sisters who lived near one another and who did not have children reported
the greatest amount of intimacy and contact. Myers (2011) studied 124 adults
who provided an explanation for why they maintained their relationship with one
of their siblings. “We are family” was one of the major categories of reasons.
To our children, we give
two things, one is roots,
the other is wings.
Family of Procreation The family of procreation represents the family that
you will begin should you marry and have children. Of U.S. citizens living in the
United States, 95.83% marry and establish their own family of procreation (Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011, Table 34). Across the life cycle, individuals
move from the family of orientation to the family of procreation.
Family of procreation the
family a person begins typically
by getting married and having
children.
Nuclear Family The nuclear family refers to either a family of origin or a family of procreation. In practice, this means that your nuclear family consists of
you, your parents, and your siblings; or you, your spouse, and your children.
Unknown
Nuclear family consists of you,
your parents, and your siblings
or you, your spouse, and your
children.
Family
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
11
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Lisa Emmott
The relationship with one’s
sibling, particularly sistersister (as in this photo) is likely
to be the most enduring of
all relationships, longer than
with one’s parents, spouse, or
children.
DIVERSITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Sociologist George Peter Murdock’s classic study
(1949) emphasized that the nuclear family is a “universal social grouping” found in all of the 250 societies he
studied. Not only does it channel sexual energy between two
adult partners who reproduce, but also these partners cooperate in the care for and socialization of offspring to be productive members of society. “This universal social structure,
produced through cultural evolution in every human society,
as presumably the only feasible adjustment to a series of
basic needs, forms a crucial part of the environment in which
every individual grows to maturity” (p. 11).
Generally, one-parent households are not referred to
as nuclear families. They are binuclear families if both
parents are involved in the child’s life, or single-parent
families if one parent is involved in the child’s life and
the other parent is totally out of the picture.
Traditional, Modern, and Postmodern Family
Silverstein and Auerbach (2005) distinguished between three central concepts of the family. The traditional family is the two-parent nuclear family, with the
husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker. The
modern family is the dual-earner family, where both
spouses work outside the home. Postmodern families
represent a departure from these models, such as lesbian or gay couples and mothers who are single by choice, which emphasizes
that a healthy family need not be heterosexual or include two parents.
Binuclear family a family in
which the members live in two
households.
Blended family a family created
when two individuals marry and at
least one of them brings a child or
children from a previous relationship or marriage. Also referred to
as a stepfamily.
Binuclear Family A binuclear family is a family in which the members live
in two separate households. This family type is created when the parents of
the children divorce and live separately, setting up two separate units, with the
children remaining a part of each unit. Each of these units may also change
again when the parents remarry and bring additional children into the respective units (blended family). Hence, the children may go from a nuclear family
with both parents, to a binuclear unit with parents living in separate homes, to
a blended family when parents remarry and bring additional children into the
respective units.
Extended family the nuclear
family or parts of it plus other relatives such as grandparents, aunts,
uncles, and cousins.

Extended Family The extended family includes not only the nuclear family (or parts of it) but other relatives as well. These relatives include grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. An example of an extended family living
together would be a husband and wife, their children, and the husband’s
12
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
parents (the children’s grandparents). The extended
family is particularly important for African-American
married couples. Marks et al. (2010) observed that
the willingness to help extended kin financially makes
it very difficult for the African-American married couple to get ahead financially. “Knocks of need” come
often and African-American couples often respond as
generously as they can.
When Families Are Destroyed—
The Australian Aboriginal Example
DIVERSITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Asians are more likely than Anglo-Americans to live with
their extended families. Among Asians, the status of the
elderly in the extended family derives from religion. Confucian
philosophy, for example, prescribes that all relationships are of
the superordinate–subordinate type—husband-wife, parentchild, and teacher-pupil. For traditional Asians to abandon their
elderly rather than include them in larger family units would
be unthinkable. However, commitment to the elderly may be
changing as a result of the Westernization of Asian countries
such as China, Japan, and Korea.
In addition to being concerned for the elderly, Asians are
socialized to subordinate themselves to the group. Divorce is
not prevalent because Asians are discouraged from bringing
negative social attention to the family. Having the extended
family involved with the young couple and their children (e.g.
Brazil) has also been associated with positive outcomes for
the couple and their children (Ostenson et al. 2010).
In Australia, between 1885 and 1969, between 50,000
and 100,000 half caste (one white parent) Aboriginal
children were taken by force from their parents by the
Australian police. The rationale by the white society
was that it wanted to convert these children to Christianity and to destroy their Aboriginal culture which
was viewed as primitive and without value. The children
walked or were taken by camel hundreds of miles away from their parents to
church missions.
Bob Randall (2008) is one of the children who was taken by force from his
parents at age 7, never to see them again. Of his experience, he wrote,
Instead of the wide open spaces of my desert home, we were housed in corrugated iron
dormitories with rows and rows of bunk beds. After dinner we were bathed by the older
women, put in clothing they called pajamas, and then tucked into one of the iron beds
between the sheets. This was a horrible experience for me. I couldn’t stand the feel of
the cloth touching my skin (p. 35).
The Australian government subsequently apologized for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that inflicted profound grief,
suffering, and loss on the Aborigines. He noted that the Aborigines continue
to be marginalized and nothing has been done to compensate for the horror of
taking children from their families.
David Knox
Bob Randall is an Australian
Aboriginal and was taken at
age 7 from his parents by the
government and brought up in
missionary camps. He never
saw his parents again.
Family
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
13
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Differences between Marriage
and Family
The concepts of marriage and the family are often used in tandem. Marriage
can be thought of as a set of social processes that lead to the establishment of
family. Indeed, every society or culture has mechanisms (from “free” dating to
arranged marriages) of guiding their youth into permanent emotionally, legally,
or socially bonded heterosexual relationships that are designed to result in procreation and care of offspring. Although the concepts of marriage and the family are closely related, they are distinct. Sociologist Dr. Lee Axelson identified
some of these differences in Table 1.2.
Making bad choices today
will create skeletons in
your closet tomorrow.
Christy Borgeld, stepfamily
researcher
Changes in Marriage and the Family in the Last Sixty Years
Enormous changes have occurred in marriage and the family since the 1950s.
Among these changes, divorce has replaced death as the endpoint for the majority of marriages, marriage and intimate relations have become legitimate objects
of scientific study, feminism and changes in gender roles in marriage have risen,
and remarriages have declined (Amato et al. 2007). Other changes include a
delay in age at marriage, increased acceptance of singlehood, cohabitation, and
childfree marriages. Even the definition of what constitutes a family is being revised, with some emphasizing that durable emotional bonds between individuals
is the core of “family,” whereas others insist on a more legalistic view, emphasizing connections by blood marriage or adoption mechanisms. Table 1.3 reflects
some of the changes from the 1950s until now.
In spite of the persistent and dramatic changes in marriage and the family,
marriage and the family continue to be resilient. Using this marriage-resilience
perspective, changes in the institution of marriage are not viewed negatively nor
are they indicative that marriage is in a state of decline. Indeed, these changes
are thought to have “few negative consequences for adults, children, or the wider
society” (Amato et al. 2007, p. 6).
TABLE 1.2
Differences between Marriage and the Family in the United States
Marriage
Family
Usually initiated by a formal ceremony
Formal ceremony not essential
Involves two people
Usually involves more than two people
Ages of the individuals tend to be similar
Individuals represent more than one
generation
Individuals usually choose each other
Members are born or adopted into the
family
Ends when spouse dies or is divorced
Continues beyond the life of the
individual
Sex between spouses is expected and
approved
Sex between near kin is neither expected
nor approved
Requires a license
No license needed to become a parent
Procreation expected
Consequence of procreation
Spouses are focused on each other
Focus changes with addition of children
Spouses can voluntarily withdraw from
marriage
Parents cannot divorce themselves from
obligations via divorce to children
Money in unit is spent on the couple
Money is used for the needs of children
Recreation revolves around adults
Recreation revolves around children
Reprinted by permission of Dr. Lee Axelson.
14
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
TABLE 1.3
Changes in Marriages and Families—1950 and 2012
1950
2012
Family Relationship
Values
Strong values for marriage and the
family. Individuals who wanted to
remain single or childless were considered deviant, even pathological.
Husband and wife should not be
separated by jobs or careers.
Individuals who remain single or childfree experience
social understanding and sometimes encouragement. Single
and childfree people are no longer considered deviant or
pathological but are seen as self-actuating individuals with
strong job or career commitments. Husbands and wives can
be separated for reasons of job or career and live in a commuter marriage. Married women in large numbers have left
the role of full-time mother and housewife to join the labor
market.
Gender Roles
Rigid gender roles, with men dominant and earning income while
wives stay home, taking care of
children.
Egalitarian gender roles with both spouses earning income.
Greater involvement of men in fatherhood.
Sexual Values
Marriage was regarded as the only
appropriate context for intercourse
in middle-class America. Living together was unacceptable, and a child
born out of wedlock was stigmatized.
Virginity was sometimes exchanged
for marital commitment.
For many, concerns about safer sex have taken precedence
over the marital context for sex. Virginity is no longer exchanged for anything. Living together is regarded as not
only acceptable but sometimes preferable to marriage. For
some, unmarried single parenthood is regarded as a lifestyle
option. Hooking up is new courtship norm.
Homogamous
Mating
Strong social pressure existed to date
and marry within one’s own racial,
ethnic, religious, and social class
group. Emotional and legal attachments were heavily influenced by
obligation to parents and kin.
Dating and mating have become more heterogamous, with
more freedom to select a partner outside one’s own racial,
ethnic, religious, and social class group. Attachments are
more often by choice.
Cultural Silence
on Intimate
Relationships
Intimate relationships were not an
appropriate subject for the media.
Talk shows, interviews, and magazine surveys are open about
sexuality and relationships behind closed doors.
Divorce
Society strongly disapproved of
divorce. Familistic values encouraged spouses to stay married for the
children. Strong legal constraints
kept couples together. Marriage was
forever.
Divorce has replaced death as the endpoint of a majority of
marriages. Less stigma is associated with divorce. Individualistic values lead spouses to seek personal happiness. No-fault
divorce allows for easy divorce. Marriage is tenuous. Increasing numbers of children are being reared in single-parent
households apart from other relatives.
Familism versus
Individualism
Families were focused on the needs
of children. Mothers stayed home to
ensure that the needs of their children were met. Adult concerns were
less important.
Adult agenda of work and recreation has taken on increased
importance, with less attention being given to children.
Children are viewed as more sophisticated and capable of
thinking as adults, which frees adults to pursue their own
interests. Day care is used regularly.
Homosexuality
Same-sex emotional and sexual relationships were a culturally hidden
phenomenon. Gay relationships were
not socially recognized.
Gay relationships are increasingly a culturally open phenomenon. Some definitions of the family include same-sex
partners. Domestic partnerships are increasingly given legal
status in some states. Same-sex marriage is a hot social and
political issue. More states legalizing same-sex marriage.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” repealed.
Scientific Scrutiny
Aside from Kinsey, few studies
were conducted on intimate
relationships.
Acceptance of scientific study of marriage and intimate
relationships.
Family Housing
Husbands and wives lived in same
house.
Husbands and wives may “live apart together” (LAT), which
means that, although they are emotionally and economically connected, they (by choice) maintain two households,
houses, condos, or apartments. They may be separated for
reasons of career, or mutually desire the freedom and independence of having a separate domicile.
Differences between Marriage and Family
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
15
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
Choices in Relationships—View
of the Text
Whatever your relationship goal, in this text we encourage a proactive approach
of taking charge of your life and making wise relationship choices. The World
Health Organization defines health as a state of complete physical, mental, and
social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. This definition underscores the importance of social relationships as an important element
in our individual and national health. Making the right choices in our relationships, including marriage and family relationships, is critical to our health, happiness, and sense of well-being. Our times of greatest elation and sadness are in
reference to our love relationships.
The central theme of this text is choices in relationships. Although we have
many such choices to make, among the most important in our society are whether
to marry, whom to marry, when to marry, whether to have children, whether to
remain emotionally and sexually faithful to one’s partner, and whether to use
a condom. Though structural and cultural influences are operative, a choices
framework emphasizes that individuals have some control over their relationship destiny by making deliberate choices to initiate, respond to, nurture, or terminate intimate relationships.
When Do Two People Define Themselves as a Couple?
Chaney and Marsh (2009) interviewed 62 married and 60 cohabiting couples
to find out when they first identified themselves as a couple. There were four
“markers”: relationship events, affection/sex, having or rearing children, and
time and money.
1. Relationship events included a specific event such as visiting the parents
of one’s partner, becoming engaged, or moving in together.
2. Affection/sexual events such as the first time the couple had sex. Losing
one’s virginity was a salient event.
3. Children—becoming pregnant, having a child together, or the first time
the partner assumed a parenting role.
4. Time/money—spending a lot of time together, sharing funds, or exchanging
financial support.
The Applying Social Research feature (on pages 18–19) for this chapter reveals how partners in an ongoing relationship go about assessing the degree to
which the partner is committed.
Facts about Choices in Relationships
The facts to keep in mind when making relationship choices include the
following.
If you don’t design your
own life plan, chances are
you’ll fall into someone
else’s plan. And guess
what they have planned
for you? Not much.
Jim Rohn, business philosopher
Not to Decide Is to Decide Not making a decision is a decision by default.
If you are sexually active and decide not to use a condom, you have made a
decision to increase your risk for contracting a sexually transmissible infection,
including HIV. If you don’t make a deliberate choice to end a relationship that
is unfulfilling, abusive, or going nowhere, you have made a choice to continue
in that relationship and have little chance of getting into a more positive and satisfying relationship. If you don’t make a decision to be faithful to your partner,
you have made a decision to be vulnerable to cheating.
Some Choices Require Correction Some of our choices, although appearing
correct at the time that we make them, turn out to be disasters. Once we realize that a choice is having consistently negative consequences, we need to stop
defending the old choice, reverse the position, make new choices, and move for-
16
Chapter 1 Choices in Relationships: An Introduction
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
WHAT IF?
Licensed to: CengageBrain User
What if You Have Made a Commitment
to Marry but Feel it is a Mistake?
We know three individuals who reported the following: “On my wedding day, I
knew it was a mistake to marry this person.” Although all had their own reasons
for going through with marryin…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Why Choose Us

• 100% non-plagiarized Papers
• 24/7 /365 Service Available
• Affordable Prices
• Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
• Will complete your papers in 6 hours
• On-time Delivery
• Money-back and Privacy guarantees
• Unlimited Amendments upon request
• Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

• Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
• Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
• Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
• Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
• From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.