The Empty Nest And Its Effect On Marriage Quality

The most distinctive trait of American family life, then the trait that differentiates it from family life in other western countries, is sheer movement: frequent transitions, shorter relationships. Americans step on and off the carousel of intimate partnerships (marriages and cohabiting relationships) more often. Whether an American parent is married or cohabiting or raising children without a partner, she or he is more likely to change living arrangements in the near future than are parents in the rest of the western world. It is consequential and we should be concerned about it, both as parents and as a nation, because it may increase children’s behavioral and emotional problems. Simply pu, some children seem to have difficulty adjusting to a series of parents and parents’ partners moving in and out of their home. It is not just parental divorces and breakups that are hard for children. Even transitions that bring a new partner or stepparent into the home can be difficult to cope with. Children whose parents have remarried do not have higher levels of well-being than children in lone-parent (a parent who is neither married nor living with a partner) families, despite the addition of a second parent. One reason is that new

Chief amongst these are that families have two goals: in raising children and establishing solid and stable adult relationships (Parsons and Bales 1955). The way families achieved these goals was by establishing specific roles for each member of the family, specifically the two parents. This structure, with a man in the workforce and woman at home, was very prevalent in the 1950s. In 1960, according to Phillip Cohen (2014), 65 percent of children lived in homes with married parents where only the father was employed. At this point, with a majority of children living in such situations, it seemed valid to define families using these households. However, this household structure quickly fell out of prominence: by 2012, only 22 percent of children lived in such homes. The most common household type — 34 percent — involved married parents where both adults worked. With families now being arranged in such varied ways, it is more difficult to generalize about family structures as you and Bales do, Dr. Parsons (Cohen 2014: 2-3).

For example, Kingsolver defends the notion that families of nontraditional arrangements do not need to be examined, ridiculed or treated differently with pity or tolerance as traditionally married families when she says, “Arguing about whether nontraditional families deserve pity or tolerance is a little like the medieval debate about left-handedness as a mark of the devil” (Kingsolver 16). By this statement, the author clearly expresses her belief that nontraditional families are just as successful in their roles as traditional or married families, though evidence gathered has rejected Kingsolver’s argument. In an article by Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian, the authors present the benefits of marriage as opposed to divorced or single parenthood families. Naomi Gerstel writes that, “advocates [of marriage] such as David Popenoe and Linda Waite assert that marriage is good for one’s pocketbook, health, happiness, sex life, and kids. Both men and women who are married tend to have higher incomes, more wealth, better health, and more property than those who are not.” The article goes on to describe the negative impacts of divorce and nontraditional families by introducing National Census statistics of relationships between married parents and their children compared with

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

　　First, the author states that those married couples who directly married without cohabitation have a lower divorce rate than those having cohabitation before marriage. Warren intends to prove that marriage provides stable relationship between a couple and cohabitation undermines such a relationship. The premises Warren used to support his claim are a result from one study and David and Barbara’s review. The problem here is based on the evidence Warren provided; it is difficult to conclude that marriage can hold people together and cohabitation may destroy such stable relationship between a couple. One reason is the sample size used in the study is too small compared to the millions of people who cohabit. Hasty generalization makes this premise questionably lead to the conclusion. The other premise which is the review from David and Barbara is also not trustable because no detailed evidence is provided to

Once, one of people’s greatest life achievements was getting married, more so for women. It is considered the ultimate form of love between two people, however, the motives for getting married are widely varied. As we evolve as a society, so do our outlooks on love and marriage. In 2014, one half of adults do not live with a spouse, as opposed to one third of adults in 1967. Therefore, fewer than 70 percent of children younger than the age of 18 currently live in two-parent households, as opposed to 90 percent in 1960. Many children in single-parent households are reported to be living with their mothers, which only amplifies the poverty rise in single mother’s demographic. Another factor is the role race plays in this statistic, with 18 percent of white children living only with their mothers, opposed to 51 percent of black children living only with their mother. (Socioeconomic Patterns of Marriage and Divorce, 2016). These changes in definitions of family life will undoubtedly play a role in altering the future of American economics, as well as redefined the concepts of marriage to reflect modern-day standards of

The instability and increased negative interaction caused by cohabitation both contribute to higher divorce rates among couples who cohabited before marrying. Macklin’s studies have shown that married couples who lived together before getting married disagree more often over finances, household duties, and even recreational activities. Not only this, but couples in this situation are typically less dependent on their spouses and a higher percentage of these couples seek marriage counseling than couples who did not live together before marriage (1978).

More and more couples today live together or "play house" before taking the matrimonial plunge. Living together before marriage has become so popular that approximately half the couples in America participate in this activity (Gorrell 16). Some couples choose to live together to test their compatibility and possibly avoid an unsuccessful marriage. With the number of marriages ending in divorce these days, it sounds reasonable that many couples want to give marriage a trial run before making any formal commitment. But do the chances of a successful marriage actually improve by cohabiting?

The concept of a traditional American family has been profoundly changed over the last 100 years. Fewer marriages are forming, divorce rates are higher than ever, and childlessness is much more common. The decline of marriage and family life seems to be the inevitable product of progressive ideas and modern socio-political conditions. Feminist and contemporary liberal critics of marriage and family life appeal to individual rights, liberty, consent, equality, and love as they seek to dismantle and undermine commitment to marriage and family life. However, some scholars would propose that the actions and words of America’s Founders show how to reconcile marriage and family life with the same modern ideas of equality, individual rights, and

Only the adults from these households were asked. Of the 30,000 that were in the study, only 817 were divorced and fit the requirements of the study. They were asked to rate, on a scale of 0 to 10 how content they were in their lives, each year. The author had 3 models to test his hypothesis. The first model tested whether or not satisfaction was based solely on the individual, before the divorce or after it happened. It was meant to test different periods of the divorce. The second was to see how the level of contentment with level was when the divorce happened and if it got better after. The third tested if the past had an effect on happiness level for married or divorced

The pain of separation with our kids can go far beyond simply missing your son or daughter after they're gone. Some parents do feel a very real sense of grief and loss; I know I sure will.

The empty nest – a feeling of grief and loneliness that many parents feel when their children grow up and leave home – is becoming rare, mainly across the entire Western countries. In reality, the nest has never been so ordered. Insofar as this is the case, that the possibility to find young adults still living in parental home is increasing globally, moreover the demographic prognosis show the continuity of these trends, according to recent studies. This behavior’s increment has been a modern phenomenon - so-called ‘boomerang kid’ (a young adult who returns after leaving) or ‘failure to launch children’ (the ones who never leaved) - and has fast growing in the last decades. Parents, educators and researches debate whether living with parents into adulthood might affect the capability to slide into real ripe world with all new challenges of independence. Although coexisting with parents into adulthood occasionally yields negatives consequences, many researches and also adults and parents is this situation can provide assorted advantages of family togetherness. On the surface at least, this behavior seem totally inappropriate and could have a widespread negative stigma; however, not only young adults and their families but also modern society have several reasons to celebrate this phenomenon, once benefits usually overwhelm negative aspects. This essay will explore the issues surrounding young adults still living in parental home and analyze the impact regarding social,

     Marital satisfaction and the contributing factords are of extreme importance at this juncture in our society, though it has become obvious that there is a degeneration of communication and a lack of satisfaction in today’s married couples. This disatisfaction results in the divorce rate being sohigh that it begs the question: how does this marital satisfaction originate?

Although marriage has been a central factor and gives meaning to human lives, the change in people’s lifestyles and behaviors through a long period of social development has resulted in alternate choices such as being single or nonmarital living. As a result, cohabitation has become more popular as a trendy life choice for young people. The majority of couples choose cohabitation as a precursor to marriage to gain a better understanding of each other. However, there are exceptions, such as where Thornton, Azinn, and Xie have noted: “In fact, the couple may simply slide or drift from single into the sharing of living quarters with little explicit discussion or decision-making. This sliding into cohabitation without

Cohabitation is defined as a man and woman living in the same household and having sexual relations while not being married. There is relatively little data on health outcomes for people who have cohabitated, although there is some evidence that cohabitating couples have lower incomes (15% of cohabitating men are jobless while 8% of married men are jobless) and there may be negative academic effects for children of cohabitating mothers (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation rates are highest among those who have never married with just over a quarter of people surveyed reporting cohabitation before their first marriage (Jay, 2012). Of these, half reported that they expected their cohabitation to end in marriage; about one quarter to one third of cohabitations end either in marriage or dissolution of the relationship within 3 years (Jay, 2012). Further, cohabitation rates are highest for those who have not completed college, accounting for all but 12% of men and women reporting that they are living with their partners (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation and marriage are two significant decisions college students will make, but very little is known about what college students think about living together before marriage. Given the nearly 50% divorce rate in the United States (Jay, 2012), understanding how young adults view cohabitation as on option for life relationships needs further investigation.