Article 1: Till-death-or-living-in-America-do-us-part
by: Patrick Mcgee
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
This article discusses the growing divorce rate in America and its effects on immigrants. It especially focuses on the comparison between marriages of Latin American origins and marriages in America. It explains the shocking influence America has on immigrants, who come from countries with much lower divorce rates. The author of the article utilized a variety of sources and provides information via quotations, interviews, and research results. Sources include Coalition for Marriage Family and Couples Education in Washington, D.C, Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, U.S. Census Bureau, professors, direct interviews with immigrants. The ideology behind this article seems to suggest that children are harmed by divorce. It suggests that adults are better of staying in struggling marriages so as to avoid harming their children in the long run. It also seems to hint that Americans are influencing immigrants in a somewhat negative way. “The culture that we are adapting to is changing us," Carlos Espinoza said. "We should fight more to maintain the marriage, to maintain the family."
Article 2: Money to Fight Divorce
The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
by: Evan Lehmann
This article reports on the growing rate of divorce in America since the 1960s. It presents the government initiative to put a halt and hopefully help the problem. It discusses the federal governments to put money towards programs on the importance of marriage at schools to help “soften the divorce rate.” The facts collected in the article are presented as direct quotes from interviews, government statements, research from the census bureau and from the Massachusetts Institiute of Marriage and Family. It places import on maintaining a strong marriage and teaching it to children. Since the article praised Massachusetts and was written in Massachusetts it was written perhaps with a slight bias towards this state. However, it was well researched.
Article 3: What's Indiana's divorce rate? Nobody knows.
Journal Gazette
by: The Associated Press State & Local Wire
This article discussed the fact that Indiana along with four other states including California, Georgia and Hawaii do not share or take note of their divorce rate. This has caused problems in the greater United States especially when trying to propose marriage bills. It is impossible to do this if the rate is unknown. The article uses various sources. They include Indiana speaker of the House and the Legislative services agency. They have been interviewed quotes have been used in the article. The ideology behind this article seems to suggest the importance of having factual information for each state as a way of getting a better understanding of knowledge on the United States divorce rate.
Article 4: High divorce rate will likely affect caregiving
by: : JANE GLENN HAAS
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
This article discusses the high divorce rate in conjunction with finance. It explains that America is becoming more financially secure and more educational savvy. However, with the growing divorce rate there is a higher growth in long term financial problems within families. The author uses an interest way of describing the problem. She talks about a friend of hers under an alias and describes this woman’s experiences with marriage. She then uses research from interviews and research from the U.S. Census Bureau and representatives from various groups. The belief behind this article is to suggest the economic benefits to staying in a marriage, it does not present the emotional benefits or the benefits for the children.
Article 5: Couple fix broken marriages
by: Beth Anspach
Dayton Daily News
This article focuses on the salvation of marriage. It states the increase in divorce and offers hope to those who are struggling. The article focuses on a couple who suffered in their marriage. They were close to divorce until they attended a marriage workshop. After this workshop their outlook on marriage changed. The hoped to reaffirm their committmetn and decided to create something for others who were in the process of divorce. They created a Marriage Ministry at the Christian Life Center in Ohio. The facts provided in this article spring only from direct interviews with this couple. Although it provides facts about divorce the sources are not given. The ideology behind this article seems to be a Christian one, and therefore it is somewhat biased and based on Christian views.
Conclusion: There were a variety of debates brought up in the various articles about divorce, divorce rates and marriages in America. Main issues include the affects on children of divorce, the differences in the divorce heavy America of the present and the past and also alternatives to divorce. The overall consensus though was that with the growing divorce rate in America, something needed to be done or improved or changed. However, it is clear that people are very biased. Their biases are based on geographical location, economic background and personal situation. Although they all provide facts it is interesting to see how the facts have been somewhat skewed and altered in order to support the argument. For instance an article written in Texas focuses a great deal on Latin American immigrants and divorce effects on family, while an article in Bergen County focuses more heavily on the economic strains of divorce. I do believe that the facts from the U.S Census Bureau and other reputable sources such as thought are trustworthy; however it is hard to determine the accuracy of the information which is unsupported. It was important to read from a variety of families and backgrounds in order to get a broader understanding. I believe that location, environment and personal experience greatly affects our knowledge of families.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
American Family Decline: A Debate
Explain the debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families (“American Family Decline” debate). According to Popenoe, what indicates that American family is in decline? What are the Stacey’s and Cowan’s critiques of his argument? What position would you take in this debate and why?
David Popenoe writes on his disappointment and unhappiness about the current state of the American family. His argument presents many comparisons to the “traditional nuclear family” of the 1950s and the immense changes that today’s family suffer. He dubs today’s society the “me-generation” and argues that it is because of this, that family has so greatly been altered. He explains that part of the decline in family is greatly due to the fact that the “child centered” focus in family has been lost, and the as a whole the family has become less authoritative and less focused on the children. He defines the family, explaining that a main part of it includes the idea of “dependents.” He explains that he does not consider a married couple alone as a family, because they lack domestic kin and thus lose the important family function of domestic care. He also states that families today are less concerned with their duties as a whole. He states that two of the main reasons accounting for this decline in family are the rising divorce rate and the decreasing fertility rate. This is due partially to the decision to get married later in life thus causing the first child to be born later. He also believes there to be a decrease in positive feelings towards motherhood and a positive feeling surrounding childlessness. Because of this there are fewer children in the population. Popenoe also sees the traditional family, that is the nuclear family of “mother at home, father at work” to be tremendously decreased. Today mothers are working much more than ever before and older males are working less. He also points out a shift from the nuclear family of yesteryear to the “step-parent family” and the “single-parent family.” These families are seen as problematic, because they are results of what he deems as most plaguing, the rise in divorce. Popenoe explains how divorce has replaced death, and how there is an increase in the probability that marriage will end in divorce. He goes on to state a number of causes for the increase in divorce, highlighting those related to the self-centered nature of today’s society. His unhappiness with this leads into his description of the place of marriage today. He believes that there is a different stigma surrounding the unmarried, it is no longer a problem to be single. Rather than marry for society’s need for procreation, he sees people as choosing to decide whether to marry based on self fulfillment and desire rather than need. He also looks negatively upon the idea of cohabitation before marriage, as it often leads to independent life rather than married life. He highlights his argument by explaining that “the family as an institution has weakened” (p.36). He believes this due to demographic shifts, women working more and depending less on marriage for economic support, a decrease in parent and child connection, less influence by older generations on children, decline in parental involvement in terms of sexual behavior with their children, and loss of power over as the family as a source of authority. Popenoe is focused on the shift from the family as a “whole unit” to the function of the individual, “me.”
Stacey responds to Popenoe by explaining that his view is far too conventional. He needs to broaden his horizons and view the possibility of different types of family. The concept of family is much more open than he has defined it and in this ever changing world he needs to account for these differences. He sees family not as an institution but rather a symbol. It is far too difficult to place on set definition on this vague and ever changing idea. He in turn does agree with some of what Popenoe says, however he believes that some of his claims are “anthropologically incorrect” since he lacks statistics and research from the post 1960 era. He also fails to analyze the post industrial changes in society that are reason for the change in familial structure. He also points out that unfortunate way in which divorce is viewed as worse than equality between men and women in the work force. Although women working is beyond the traditional view of the family it gets closer to a more equal balance between man and women in today’s society. His belief is that Popenoe and many others are too focused on the ideal vision and the nostalgia of the past, the “Ozzie and Harriet” family of the 1950s and ignoring the psychological, geographically and social changes that account for the new type of family. For him it is necessary to restructure social policy in terms of work schedules and unemployment in order to “restore” what has been lost. We need to have a broader view of what is acceptable in terms of a family, and diversify our view according to today’s needs and ever-changing society.
Cowan also finds Popenoe to be far too nostalgic. He states that his argument lacked data and ignores many of the differences people are faced with today. It is necessary to recognize the economic necessity for both parents to work. He also fails to realize that what he deems as negative (women in the workplace) is a positive stride for women’s equality. He also believes that his arguments lack research because as Cowan discovered, people’s reasons for having fewer children or having no children at all are based on their desire to be good parents. Cowan also finds political neglect to be a large problem as well. Cowan believes it is necessary to look at patterns as well as other reasons for this change in family including the developmental psychopathology approach. We need to do more research, listen to what families are saying and experiencing and recreate a new definition. We cannot generalize as Popenoe did and we must be open to new visions.
After reading all three of the articles I was struck by many of the same feelings. I too agree that there does seem to be a trend towards parent and child separation. I feel lucky to come from a family in which both of my parents are equally involved in my life. However, I disagree with Popenoe’s argument that a single parent family is not a good one or strong. One of my best friend’s has grown up with her mother only, since her parents were divorced at a young age and it has proved to be a wonderful and nurturing experience. I do agree that divorce can sometimes be detrimental for children, but it is necessary to do further research and studies on the subject as a whole. I hope that there can be a balance and an increase in marriages that stay strong, but I also think that has a lot to do with the people involved rather than the society as a whole. I think it would be interesting to conduct interviews with children of all parenting backgrounds in order to discover a better sense of how children are feeling in today's world.
David Popenoe writes on his disappointment and unhappiness about the current state of the American family. His argument presents many comparisons to the “traditional nuclear family” of the 1950s and the immense changes that today’s family suffer. He dubs today’s society the “me-generation” and argues that it is because of this, that family has so greatly been altered. He explains that part of the decline in family is greatly due to the fact that the “child centered” focus in family has been lost, and the as a whole the family has become less authoritative and less focused on the children. He defines the family, explaining that a main part of it includes the idea of “dependents.” He explains that he does not consider a married couple alone as a family, because they lack domestic kin and thus lose the important family function of domestic care. He also states that families today are less concerned with their duties as a whole. He states that two of the main reasons accounting for this decline in family are the rising divorce rate and the decreasing fertility rate. This is due partially to the decision to get married later in life thus causing the first child to be born later. He also believes there to be a decrease in positive feelings towards motherhood and a positive feeling surrounding childlessness. Because of this there are fewer children in the population. Popenoe also sees the traditional family, that is the nuclear family of “mother at home, father at work” to be tremendously decreased. Today mothers are working much more than ever before and older males are working less. He also points out a shift from the nuclear family of yesteryear to the “step-parent family” and the “single-parent family.” These families are seen as problematic, because they are results of what he deems as most plaguing, the rise in divorce. Popenoe explains how divorce has replaced death, and how there is an increase in the probability that marriage will end in divorce. He goes on to state a number of causes for the increase in divorce, highlighting those related to the self-centered nature of today’s society. His unhappiness with this leads into his description of the place of marriage today. He believes that there is a different stigma surrounding the unmarried, it is no longer a problem to be single. Rather than marry for society’s need for procreation, he sees people as choosing to decide whether to marry based on self fulfillment and desire rather than need. He also looks negatively upon the idea of cohabitation before marriage, as it often leads to independent life rather than married life. He highlights his argument by explaining that “the family as an institution has weakened” (p.36). He believes this due to demographic shifts, women working more and depending less on marriage for economic support, a decrease in parent and child connection, less influence by older generations on children, decline in parental involvement in terms of sexual behavior with their children, and loss of power over as the family as a source of authority. Popenoe is focused on the shift from the family as a “whole unit” to the function of the individual, “me.”
Stacey responds to Popenoe by explaining that his view is far too conventional. He needs to broaden his horizons and view the possibility of different types of family. The concept of family is much more open than he has defined it and in this ever changing world he needs to account for these differences. He sees family not as an institution but rather a symbol. It is far too difficult to place on set definition on this vague and ever changing idea. He in turn does agree with some of what Popenoe says, however he believes that some of his claims are “anthropologically incorrect” since he lacks statistics and research from the post 1960 era. He also fails to analyze the post industrial changes in society that are reason for the change in familial structure. He also points out that unfortunate way in which divorce is viewed as worse than equality between men and women in the work force. Although women working is beyond the traditional view of the family it gets closer to a more equal balance between man and women in today’s society. His belief is that Popenoe and many others are too focused on the ideal vision and the nostalgia of the past, the “Ozzie and Harriet” family of the 1950s and ignoring the psychological, geographically and social changes that account for the new type of family. For him it is necessary to restructure social policy in terms of work schedules and unemployment in order to “restore” what has been lost. We need to have a broader view of what is acceptable in terms of a family, and diversify our view according to today’s needs and ever-changing society.
Cowan also finds Popenoe to be far too nostalgic. He states that his argument lacked data and ignores many of the differences people are faced with today. It is necessary to recognize the economic necessity for both parents to work. He also fails to realize that what he deems as negative (women in the workplace) is a positive stride for women’s equality. He also believes that his arguments lack research because as Cowan discovered, people’s reasons for having fewer children or having no children at all are based on their desire to be good parents. Cowan also finds political neglect to be a large problem as well. Cowan believes it is necessary to look at patterns as well as other reasons for this change in family including the developmental psychopathology approach. We need to do more research, listen to what families are saying and experiencing and recreate a new definition. We cannot generalize as Popenoe did and we must be open to new visions.
After reading all three of the articles I was struck by many of the same feelings. I too agree that there does seem to be a trend towards parent and child separation. I feel lucky to come from a family in which both of my parents are equally involved in my life. However, I disagree with Popenoe’s argument that a single parent family is not a good one or strong. One of my best friend’s has grown up with her mother only, since her parents were divorced at a young age and it has proved to be a wonderful and nurturing experience. I do agree that divorce can sometimes be detrimental for children, but it is necessary to do further research and studies on the subject as a whole. I hope that there can be a balance and an increase in marriages that stay strong, but I also think that has a lot to do with the people involved rather than the society as a whole. I think it would be interesting to conduct interviews with children of all parenting backgrounds in order to discover a better sense of how children are feeling in today's world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)