Family Structure in the Nineteenth Century Essay

Family structure has been changed and there is about one and a quarter million single parents. A family making up to 19% of all families with children, the number of single parents has almost doubled since the early 1970s. According to census 2001 report and labor force survey, the rate of married couple (marriages) has decreased over the last ten years, (accounting for 71 per cent of families in 2006, compared with 76 per cent in 1996). In the same period, the proportion of cohabiting couple increased to 14 per cent from 9 per cent. The proportion of lone parent families increased by less than one per cent over this period, but the

Throughout human history individuals around the world, of various ethnic, racial, cultural backgrounds have linked together to form what people call today families. A lot of questions come to mind when contemplating the complex relationship people have. Since families have a direct bearing on society now and on future generations it is essential to take seriously what is happening to the family. Is the American family in decline, and if so what should be done about it? “Traditionally, family has been defined as a unit made up of two or more people who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption: live together; form an economic unit, and bear and raise children (Benokraitis, 3).” The definition of decline is to “fail in strength, vigor, character, value, deteriorate, slant downward.” The traditional nuclear family consists of a father provider, mother-homemaker, and at least one child (Brym and Lie, 252).” The nuclear family is a distinct and universal family form because it performs five important functions in society:sexual regulation, economic cooperation, reproduction, socialization, and emotional support. Research from the 1950 's to the present will emphasize what trends are taking place among American families. Family trends might not have expected???

All across the globe, there are children growing up in single-parent households, and through some research

Reeves, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Co-Director, Center on Children and Families they state that “There is a growing marriage gap along class lines in America. This may be bad news for social mobility, since children raised by married parents typically do better in life on almost every available economic and social measure.” (Howard and Reeves para. 1) This first portion of the article talks about how not a lot of people are getting married and people not getting married may be causing a whole dilemma within social and economic mobility which in result leads to more families living in poverty. In addition, Howard and Reeves written “In 1950, almost 90 percent of children age 0-14 lived with married parents-- now that proportion has fallen to less than two-thirds of children. The gap in marriage is growing, especially in terms of childbearing. While marriage is struggling against cultural, social and economic headwinds in poorer communities, it is flourishing among affluent, well-educated Americans who are both more likely to marry and more likely to stay married.” (Howard and Reeves para 3.). In paragraph 3 of “The Marriage Effect: Money or Parenting?” they write about how back in the 1950s 90 percent of children grew up in a parenting household but now two parenting house has decreased than two thirds of the

Also, according to PWP (Parents without Partners) International, in the article “Facts about Single Parent Families,” says that single parent households increased from 9 percent to 16 percent of all households by 2000. Moreover, in big cities and in small towns families are single moms.

Family structure is important for developing stability for a child. Its is also a factor in the way a child will themselves feel about the institution of marriage. Likewise, children from ‘non-normal' households are more likely to develop ‘nonnormative' attitudes towards family life. The divorce rates among the impoverished are higher than those of other classes. Higher than that are the divorce rates of African-Americans of the impoverished class. Rector states that "blacks have higher poverty rates, mainly because blacks have lower marriage rates"(Rector, 27 ).

They do not have a significant other 37 percent of single-parents families lack self sufficiency and are officially poor compared with 7 percent of married-couple families (Rector). Welfare can help the underachieving single parents that do not have a stable income. This proves and shows that some individuals can and want to be

American families have never been as diverse as they are today. There is a constant changing definition of what we call “family”. We as Americans are straying further and further from the idea of a classic nuclear family. One of the biggest reasons is a dramatic rise in kids living with a single parent. In 2014, just 14% of children younger than 18 lived with a stay-at-home mother and a working father who were in their first marriage (Livingston, 2015). This research will address in depth why households are now more diverse than ever, what’s the normal family now, and why aren’t the laws adjusting to how the average American family lives today.

This paper will discuss the differences between families from the 1960’s and the families of today. There are many differences between the different times. I have focused on the parentage portion of the families. I explained what the ideal family is and how it is different today. I’ve also included ways that will help these families of today become stronger as a family.

Indeed, they help to explain why family structure is such an explosive issue for Americans. The debate about it is not simply about the social-scientific evidence, although that is surely an important part of the discussion. It is also a debate over deeply held and often conflicting values. How do we begin to reconcile our long-standing belief in equality and diversity with an impressive body of evidence that suggests that not all family structures produce equal outcomes for children? How can we square traditional notions of public support for dependent women and children with a belief in women's right to pursue autonomy and independence in childbearing and child-rearing? How do we uphold the freedom of adults to pursue individual happiness in their private relationships and at the same time respond to the needs of children for stability, security, and permanence in their family lives? What do we do when the interests of adults and children conflict? These are the difficult issues at stake in the debate over family structure.

In her book The Unfinished Revolution, Kathleen Gerson argues that today, family pathways are more important than family structure. In this context, family structure refers to the organization of a family, and the way that it has been changing as a result of the gender revolution. For example, some nontraditional family structures that are explored in the book include double parent families with both parents earning, single parent families (mostly single mothers), and families with same-sex parents. Gerson argues that while family structures are not negligible, it is family pathways that are more important for the children of the gender revolution. That is to say, the children value the dynamics of their family more than the structure. They are more concerned about how well their parents are able to provide them with the necessary emotional and financial support than they are about how well their families follow a norm. For them, it is more about feeling like they’re part of a family rather than just physically being in one. Gerson emphasizes this when she explains that the people she interviewed “focused on the long-term consequences of parental choices, not on the specific form or type of home these choices produced at any one moment in time.” One important implication of this argument is the way in which the children of the gender revolution imagine their own romantic relationships unfolding. Even there, they prioritize a feeling rather than a format. For example, one

Secondly, Women‘s liberation also made a big “bang” in family’s function. Recall to the traditional nuclear family, the position of women is being as a “good wife or a good mother” and limited within household’s area and husband’s authority, so Women’s liberation changed this image into a “potential good worker” because it lifted women’s position into a higher level. Starting at the 1960s, women had more chances to enrol in the paid work world and to join in more social activities. David Popenoe (1991) has investigated that women employment rate is increasing twice as much as it used to be. Therefore, this permutation of women’s social position also affects and changes the function of the nuclear family.

Single parent households are a sensitive topic that is highly debated today. This topic is one that has repercussions for both the parents and the children involved. However, regardless of the different consequences, these households continue to grow in the coming years. “In 1970, traditional two-parent married households dominated, making up 81 % of all households in the United States (US). By 2012 this number dropped to around 66 % … In 2012, approximately 21 million children, or 28 % of all children in the US, lived with one parent” (Kramer, 2015). It is interesting to look at the way the single parent households continue to grow throughout the years, all while being a hot topic for discussion on its consequences. When thinking about a book to read for this course, there was no real choice. I stumbled upon this book and knew right away that I could benefit from this book, as well as connect to it on a deeper level and relate to it personally.

Married couples make up 68% of all families with children under 18, compared to 93% in 1950 (US 2015 Census). This demonstrates that more and more children are living in households with single parents. Single parents have to deal with jobs and other sources of stress making it difficult to give their children the attention they need. Additionally, single parents are the only ones that are providing for the family so they have a lot on their plate. This can provide stress on the child because they can feel unloved or even hated. As the rate of single parents go up, so does the amount of children that are not receiving enough

As family structure has changed in the UK, so child care arrangements have become more diverse and complex. What are the implications of these changes for children?