Marriage Markets : How Inequality Is Remaking The American Family

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

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

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

In Andrew J. Cherlin’s essay “American Marriage In Transition”, he discusses how marriage in America is evolving from the universal marriage. Cherlin’s definition of the universal marriage in his essay is the man is the breadwinner of the household and the woman is the homemaker. In the 20th century according to Cherlin, the meaning of marriage has been altered such as the changing division of labor, childbearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, gay marriage and the result of long- term cultural and material trends (1154). During the first transition of marriage, Cherlin discusses how in America, Europe, and Canada the only socially accepted way to have sexual relations with a person and to have children is to be married (1154). The second change in marriage occurred in 2000, where the median age of marriage in the United States for men is 27 and women is 25 (1155). Many young adults stayed single during this time and focused on their education and starting their careers. During the second change, the role of law increasingly changed, especially in the role of law in divorce (1155). It is proven in today’s research marriage has a different definition than what it did back in the 1950’s. Today marriage can be defined as getting married to the same gender or getting remarried to someone who already has kids. The roles in a marriage are evolving to be a little more flexible and negotiable. However, women still do a lot of the basic household chores and taking care of the

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate for single parents in 2009 was 37.1%, while the rate for married couples with children was 6.8%. This means that being raised in a married family reduces a child’s probability of living in poverty by 82%. Policies that can be implemented to strengthen marriage would be ones that educate the public on the benefits of marriage to financial stability and child development. Returning to economic policies, the welfare system has penalties against marriage within it that create incentives to not get married. Since benefits are reduced as a family’s income rises, a single mother will receive more benefits than if she had an employed husband in the home. For low-income couples, this means that marriage would cause a decline in welfare benefits and an overall decline in the couple’s joint income. In order to remove these disincentives, the welfare system could be changed to increase the value of earned income tax credit for married couples with children. Work requirements can again be of assistance by making it so able-bodied parents are required to or look for work in order to receive aid. This will prevent the appeal of using welfare as an alternative to work or marriage. By implementing these ideas, marriage will increase and poverty and welfare dependence will

About four in every ten children born in America in 2008 were born outside of marriage, and they are disproportionately minority and poor. “Only about 6 percent of college-educated mothers’ births are nonmarital versus 60 percent of those of high school dropouts” (5). Scholars responded to this by studying single-parent families.

Marriage has changed dramatically over time in the many years it has been around. What do think Marriage was like 100 years ago? The article, “American Marriage in Transition”, describes how many different types of marriage there are and how people have changed their view on it. Andrew Cherlin (the sociologist of the article) does a great job going in depth explaining American marriage. He arranges the different marriages in three different categories; Institutionalized which was the earliest type of marriage, then Companionship around World War II, and currently we are considered Individualized.

Currently we have many ways of viewing the word family. People are more accepting and used to different types of families and how other people live. Starting out in the 1950s, there was a very specific way a family should be. Many people still view this as family but as time went on, many people have changed their views on family. Going through each decade, there is a different way to picture what is considered to be “normal” family life.

One of the most romanticized family institutions in North American is the nuclear family. Although the nuclear family was created to appear as the ‘traditional’ and normative ideal, it has never been the reality for all families (Kimmel & Holler, 2011, 154). The nuclear family was created after the end of the Second World War when women were taken out of the workforce and placed back into their homes. “Men and women embraced this nostalgia, marrying and having children early, and divorcing little. The 1950s family model they created was almost immediately enshrined as the most ‘natural’ and healthiest form possible” (Kimmel & Holler, 2011, 185). In Kimmel and Holler (2011), they define the nuclear family of the 1950s as “a lifelong sexually exclusive, heterosexual monogamous marriage, based on affection and companionship, in which there is a sharp division of labour with the female as full time housewife and the male as primary provider and ultimate authority’” (Kimmel & Holler, 2011, 141). It is the family structure where women stay at home, do household chores and child care, while men work and be the sole breadwinner for the family. In North America, the ‘traditional’ family was characterized by:

In over half a century, marriage has transformed from being a social requirement to simply being an option in today’s society. What has caused this change? Many institutions in our society have changed drastically along with marriage. Although these institutions have not caused marriage to be optional, they do strongly correlate with the decreased value. The economy, education, religion, and government have all altered since the 1950s. When any institution encounters a change, all other institutions are affected. Family is a major institution in society, and I believe that marriage is an important aspect of this institution. Cohabitation, religion, women in the work world and divorce have all effected the way marriage is viewed today.

Cohabitating families are more likely than married families to be poor, and poverty harms children in many ways. Cohabitating parents also tend to have less formal education a key indicator of both economic and social resources than married parents do. And cohabitating families don’t have the same legal protections that married parent families have. Most important, cohabitation is often a marker of family instability and family instability is strongly associated with poorer outcomes for children (Manning

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.

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing are now epidemic in American society. Both forms of disrupted families are harmful to children and to society. The children of single parents are more likely to do poorly in school, commit crimes, and become single parents themselves. In addition, the increase in single-parent families contributes to such social problems as poverty, crime, and a decline in the quality of public education.

Most people argue that the family is in ‘crisis’. They point to the rapidly increasing divorce rate, cohabitation, illegitimacy and number of single parent families.

Each and every day a child somewhere in the world is experiencing major changes within their family. One of those major changes is divorce or separation of parents. Divorce is “the action or an instance of legally dissolving a marriage”(Webster, 2011 p1). Today’s reality shows that couples only have one in two odds of remaining together. “ The U.S. Census bureau – involved in research about counseling children of divorce- estimating that approximately 50% of all American children born in 1982 lived in a single-parent homes sometime during their first 18 years. Mostly are due to divorce”(Children of Divorce, 2008 p.1). The rapid increase in divorce rates is a factor that has contributed to the large decline of the typical family. “Over 1