Modern Family Myth Essay

If people believed what is shown on television re-runs of classic shows from the 1950s, that would mean the conventional American family has two children, a stay at home mother, who cleans while wearing pearls, and a father who works hard and yet constantly has time for his kids. The big issue with the idea offered in those old television shows is that the classic family portrayed is actually nothing more than a miss myth. Stephanie Coontz claims that

Recently, people have been arguing with respect to the definition of marriage. To get married is a very important event for almost everyone. Particularly for women, marriage and giving a birth could be the two major events of their lives. Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett are authors who are arguing about homosexual marriage. Sullivan believes in same-sex marriage because he thinks everyone has a right to marry. On the other hand, Bennett speaks out against Sullivan’s opinion. Bennett makes a claim that marriage is between a man and a woman structuring their entire life together. Both authors’ opinions differ on same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, their ideas are well recognized.

Stephanie Coontz in “The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the Traditional Family” emphasizes that the traditional and ideal nuclear family widespread in media and textbooks are false and far from reality. In fact, it is common to see more similarities to the traditional family consistent of “male breadwinner and nurturing mother” (1) today than in the past.

The ’50s boasted the archetype for the model family. As document H exemplifies, suburban families, coined the nuclear family, resided in ideal neighborhoods for raising the family, were

For the past 3 decades the views surrounding marriage has undergone a great deal of change (Lennox, 2015, p. 1101). This shift is due to the continual discussion of gay marriage. The interplay of religion and politics has led for much controversy. In the United States, the use of Christian and Jewish biblical texts are the main sources drawn upon for opposition, but have also been used as a supportive means of equality. Beyond the religious there are also psychological and physical health arguments, as well as civil rights arguments. Same sex marriage is examined through different paradigms, thus giving rise to religious, political/legal, and religious arguments surrounding the legalization of this institution for gay and lesbian couples.

In an ever changing atmosphere where there are numerous definitions of family, why would it be important to have the right to have an official union? That civil right, to same sex couples, means that they are recognized equally to all other couples in this nation. In “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage”, Theodore Olson discusses California’s Proposition 8 and its ramifications on the value of marriage. Olson states, “Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation”. Same sex couples want to share in this value that having the right to marry gives them. Legalizing same-sex marriage according to Olson would, “represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights” (Olson, 76). Having all the aspects of a model family are just as important to all types of couples in today’s diverse

The article Family and Social Memory: Why History Matters mentioned the concept of the nuclear family. The ideal white-picket fenced family, with a mother, father and children who happily live together in privacy. It was during the postwar era when technological discoveries were rapid and mind-blowing, an era where hope was renewed and the ideal family was remodeled. It involved a father being the head of the house, and the mother being the primary caretaker. It was this notion that reigned as the ideal family for a long period of time. However, I find this stereotype to be rather poisonous because, as the article also mentioned, soon the media uncovered the dark realities behind the nuclear family. During the post-war era, abuse and sexism

Depictions of families in the 1950s were extreme in a myriad of ways. The notion of a “nuclear family,” in which a husband, wife and their children were considered the smallest unit of our society, became incredibly popular. Husbands and wives each seemed to have particular roles and duties from which they couldn’t stray. The husband, of course, was a working man responsible for bringing money to the household. His wife worked on something else: their household itself. She cleaned, cooked, and decorated. She bought groceries and clothing for everybody. She watched their children, fed them, and took care of them. In the 1950s, advertising advocated these roles and these roles alone: straying from them was rather unthinkable. The “nuclear

In the 1950s, she was pitied if she did not want what was expected of her.” (Coontz, A Strange Stirring 75) This growing discontent resulted in a push toward newly built suburbia‒ where eighty-five percent of new homes were built‒ as an answer to their search for belonging (Coontz, The Way We Never Were 24). This shifting focus to the nuclear family complete with the concept of the male as breadwinner and head of household and a fixation on finding happiness within the “traditional family” was new in America (Coontz, The Way We Never Were 27). The tight knit nuclear family was considered a weapon in the fight against communism, and a push towards capitalism through the “American Dream” (Hellman 1).

Coontz once again shows skepticism as she says “Even people who do pick the 1950s as the best decade generally end up saying, once they start discussing their feelings in depth, that it’s not the family arrangements in and of themselves that they want to revive” (Coontz). Coontz finally shows the reason for her skepticism of the 1950s family. As Coontz says that “They don’t miss the way women used to be treated, they sure wouldn’t want to live with most of the fathers they knew in their neighborhoods” (Coontz). Coontz starts to paint an ugly picture of the 1950s American family. And Coontz backs up her statement about women with an article from Judith Wallerstein “The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts” says that “100 spouses in “happy” marriages, she found that only five “wanted a marriage like their parents’.” The husbands “consciously rejected the role models provided by their fathers. The women said they could never be happy living as their mothers did” (Wallerstein) Coontz goes on to say that really “What most people really feel nostalgic about has little to do with the internal structure of 1950s families” (Coontz). So maybe it was not all it was cracked up to be maybe it was more a “belief that the 1950s provided a more family-friendly economic and social environment, an easier climate in which to keep kids on the straight

Times have changed; the nuclear family is no longer the American ideal because family needs have changed since the 1950's. This American convention of a mother and father and their two children, were a template of films and early television as a depiction of the American family life. Now seen as archaic and cliché by today’s standards, but the idea is common throughout many of the first world nations in the world. This ideal was a vast departure from the past agrarian and pre industrial families, and was modeled and structured as the ‘American dream’ father working, mother maintaining the household and children molded to be simulacra of the parents. This portrayal was not the standard; many communities throughout America had a different

Marriage, by definition, is the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. In today’s society however, things are changing. People of all genders are forming bonds with one another, and homosexuals are vying for the right to have their love established as marriage as well. Should men and men, and women and women, be allowed the right of marriage just like heterosexual couples in America? Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett have opposing opinions on this subject, however are more alike in opinion than they know. Their articles tell different stories, with the same general underlying tone.

In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz suggests that society romanticizes past generations of family life and points out that these memories are merely myths that prevent us from “dealing more effectively with the problems facing today’s families” (Coontz x). Coontz proposes that researchers can take empirical data and create misleading causality for that data, thus feeding cultural myth and/or experience. Coontz believes that “an overemphasis on personal responsibility for strengthening family values encourages a way of thinking that leads to moralizing rather than mobilizing for concrete reforms” (Coontz 22). She calls on us to direct our attention to social reforms, which can be accomplished by avoiding victim-blaming

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled all state bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed nationwide (Ersing). LGBT communities have altered gender roles because they “preconceived ideas out of the window and totally reject the “should” in our relationships in favor of the innate desire to provide one anotherER. ” In the same article, John Ersing proposes same-sex couples neither adopt nor appropriate gender roles (ErsinG). This social change alters the categorizing of genders and people on sexes because in same-sex relationships, labeling what is or should be expected is useless. the acceptance of same-sex marriages shows that people do not have to follow the ideal American family. Instead, LGBT communities are creating their own ideas on what their American family

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and