Marriage and Cohabitation

Many sociologists refer to marriage as an institution. By this they mean that marriage is a well-established pattern of behavior that forms a fundamental part of our culture and is backed up by laws, customs, and social expectations. Sociologists have recently been discussing the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage in America. Stephanie Coontz points to the increase in divorce, single-parent families, and unwed motherhood as indicators of this deinstitutionalization of the family. Coontz also places emphasis in women's rise in the workforce. She supports the idea that the availability of economic self-sufficiency for women through the workforce makes marriage less imperative and appealing. She also believes that marriage has become less indispensable for males as well, with the rise of products and services that can take the place of a wife in fulfilling household tasks. These changes in our culture make the reinstitutionalization of marriage difficult unless the government institutes laws to make divorce harder and allow job-discrimination in the workforce, which Coontz does not support in the least bit. She writes, "Divorce rates are the products of long-term social and economic changes, not of a breakdown in values," making it very difficult to reverse historical changes and reinstitutionalize marriage.
In Harris' article, she uses research conducted by two sociologists to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. In general, based on the studies of sociologist Linda Waite, Harris argues that married people are healthier, wealthier, have better sex, and are better parents than unmarried people. The first benefit cited regards the division of labor and specialization allowed by marriage. Harris argues that this allows both members of the marriage to accomplish more. Married men statistically are in better health than unmarried men. Although marriage has less of an effect on women's health, it does provide better financial situations and the availability of better health care. Both married men and women seem to be mentally healthier and happier than single people. When it comes to the financial benefits and disadvantages of marriage, they affect the genders differently. Married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than single men. Childless wives benefit more financially than child-bearing mothers. Mothers tend to stay home for child-rearing and earn less money in the work force, but if they remained married they tend to become more affluent than single women.

In Gerstel and Sarkisian's article, the benefits of marriage are considered, but the focus of the article is a critique of marriage. They argue that marriage takes away from community and social connections. Surveys show that married men and women have less ties to their kin than unmarried people. Married couples also detach themselves from neighbors and the surrounding community, more with childless men and women, though. Gerstel and Sarskisian attribute the isolation of married couples from their relatives and community to the greediness of marriage. Marriage requires a lot of time, emotion, and energy from both the woman and the man. Arguments are also made against the beneficial claims made by Linda Waite. They find that women's finances decrease with marriage and the onset of domestic work. Domestic violence and isolation increase in unhappy marriages. Critics also argue that only marriages with low levels of hostility reap any health benefits.

In Brown's article, she discusses the rise of cohabitation in America. The primary reason for cohabitation is to test out a relationship to see if it can withstand a successful, happy marriage. Many people also cohabit rather than marry due to a lack in income. Studies show that as the man becomes more educated and earns more money, the more likely a marriage will ensue out of cohabitation. Others cohabit due to a disinterest in the institution of marriage. Many that have previously married cohabitate after their marriage ends because they are wary about marriage after a failed attempt. Whatever the reason for cohabitation, the well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than that of married couples. They report more psychological distress, more conflict in their unions, and less economic well-being. Children living with cohabiting parents also exhibit lower levels of well-being. The growing acception of cohabition is one of the factors leading to the decline of marriage.

Many critics of the findings on the benefits and disadvantages of marriage claim the statistics are affected by selection. Namely, they argue that marriage and cohabitation don't actually give way to the benefits, rather people that already have the economic stability, emotional and physical health are more likely to get married. I believe this is a valid argument. Like Brown said in her article, many people cohabit and remain unmarried until they amount enough economic stability to enter into a marriage. I don't disagree, however, that once in a marriage, economic status and health remain stable or even increase. There must be a certain level of economic stability and good health and emotion in order for people to get married, making a valid argument that the research cited in the articles are subject to selection.

Trends in Sexuality Among Teens

In their article, Risman and Schwartz analyze and discuss the research that shows a decline in the sexual activity of teens in the late 20th century. Research shows that the trend of sexual conservatism holds true more for whites than for blacks and for boys more than for girls. In general though, research shows that the percentages of sexually active teenagers have decreased significantly over the latter part of the 20th century indicating a trend of sexual conservatism, at least compared to the highly sexual beginning the 1900s. In correlation to the decrease of sexual activity among teenagers, the percentages of teenage pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases have decreased as well. The numbers speak for themselves as an indication of the growing trend, but why the decline in teenage sexuality? A conservative's ideal response would be the success of abstinence education, and many have claimed this, but Risman and Schwartz find this conclusion inaccurate. They account for the decline in teenage sexuality by an increased fear of pregancy and disease. The growing abstinence among boys seems to be a result of girls' growing control in relationships. Girls seem to exert more control over what sexual activity occurs. Also, casual sex is looked down upon more among girls in fear of being marked as a slut, so sexual activity is more confined to relationships. Based on my experience in high school and the beginning of college, I find it quite surprising that teenage sexuality is in decline. In high school I constantly heard stories of sexual encounters and shockingly heard about younger and younger kids engaging in some form of sexual activity. For the most part though, the sexual activity was confined to relationships like the article said.

The major trend that Thomas and England discuss in their article is the decline of dating on college campuses and the increase in "hook-ups." Traditional dating was more similar to a courting process in which the individuals got to know one another and progress into a relationship if a connection and attraction was there. Nowadays, surveys show that on college campuses this traditional form of dating rarely ever occurs. Dating is now confined more to people that are already in exclusive relationships. More college students engage in hooking up, often as a result of consuming alcohol. The study shows that in many cases multiple hook-ups eventually lead to exclusive relationships, taking the place of the traditional dating that led to relationships. Thomas and England's research has also found a change in culture that has afforded women of more sexual options. More sexual behavior on the part of the woman has become accepted. The study shows a substantial desparity between the sexual stimulation received by men and women mostly due to the fact that women perform more oral sex than men. Although a cultural change has allowed women more options for sexual activity, a double standard still exists. Women are more often labeled as slutty, easy, or promiscuous than men. When a woman hooks up too much with too many guys or has sex too easily she is labeled a slut, by men and women. However, a man is often applauded for his promiscuity by his fellow males and a bad reputation doesn't stick long in the minds of women. My experience in college definite correlates with Thomas and England's observations. Dating rarely occurs, and if it does it's often between two people that are already in a relationship. The double standard also definitely exists. Women get looked down upon for excessive promiscuity and men are applauded for their sexual endeavors with numerous women.

"Family in the News"

For this week's exercise, I chose to focus on the issue of divorce in America, seeing that its increasing rate is often referenced as proof that the American family is in decline. As a child coming from a family of divorce, I was interested to read various articles about the subject.
"For their sake" ANG Newspaper, May 4, 2006
In this article, written by a pastor, he refers to his experience as a pastor for forty years as a source of his observations on divorce within his own church. To grasp the issue of divorce on a national scale, he references a survey done by the Institute for American Values, and cites his findings accordingly. The survey provides statistical information on the effect of divorce on children. The author enables the reader to check the validity of the survey that provides the article with much of its statistics by including in parentheses the website of the institution that conducted the survey. The majority of the research findings are a result of the author's observation in his church. As readers, we don't have a way to really validate his findings. The pastor's religious beliefs appear to be the driving forces in the article. Divorce is looked down upon by religion, and it is clear that the pastor feels the same way.

"Getting hitched" National Review, January 24th, 2007
This article actually takes the form of an interview between the editor of National Review Online and the author of a book about marriage in America. The introduction clearly states that the information in the article is gathered from an interview between two clearly stated individuals. Should the reader want to consult further findings or to evaluate the quality of the research, the name of the author's book is stated in the article. The article provides many statistics about divorce rates, out-of-wedlock birth rates, and percentages of marriage of educated and un-educated women to name a few. The article also consults surveys, however, the exact surveys taken are not specified. Much of the information in the article seems to come from the research conducted by the author in writing her book, but the reader does not know exactly how that research was conducted. Part of the article discusses politics, making it clear that the author's political beliefs plays some role in her view on marriage and divorce in America. The author has a specific interest in the effects of socio-economics on divorce that drives her beliefs.

"Till death, or living in America, do us part" Fort Worth Star, July 27th, 2006
This article takes a look at America's problem with divorce by making comparisons between native-born Americans and immigrants. Like the other articles, it gains strength from offering up a slew of statistics about various divorce rates and other numbers to draw a contrast between the culture of divorce plaguing America and the lower divorce rates in other countries. The author scarcely offers the source of his statistics, though, causing the reader to question the validity of the facts. A bit more convincing is his direct reference, through quotations, to a specific family of Mexican immigrants. Although the reader is unaware of how this family was chosen, he/she at least knows the source of the information. There doesn't seem to be a predominant set of beliefs or ideologies that guides this article, just an awareness of the differences in cultures between the U.S. and other countries, specifically Mexico.

"Collaborative divorce" Primedia Business Magazine, March 1st, 2006
This article discusses an alternative type of divorce called collaborative divorce, which the author believes helps to eliminate some of the harmful hostility that traditionally accompanies a normal divorce. The author quotes many various attorneys and divorce representatives from around the country in providing information about the new type of divorce through sharing their experiences. Clearly, the research was conducted by contacting numerous experts within the field and interviewing them. The author makes specific reference to a few court cases to show the positive effects of filing a collaborative divorce. The author of this article seems to be driven by the benefits a collaborative divorce can have for the attorney and divorce coaches involved more than the actual family involved. It seems to be more about business, law, and making more money with less work.

"Divorce New York Style" The New York Times, February 19th, 2006
Of all of the articles, this one takes the firmest stance on the subject of divorce. It states how the state of New York's acceptance of unilateral no-fault divorces is an extremely bad idea. Only one paragraph in the entire article contains statistics. The source of the statistics is stated as a study conducted in Connecticut, giving the reader limited information to assess the quality of the information. The majority of the "facts" in the article are presented in a very opinionated way with no indication of where they came from. The article seems to be more of a persuasive piece than an informative piece. A feministic set of beliefs seems to guide the article in that the author is the president of New York's National Organization of Women and focuses on the negative effects that unilateral no-fault divorce have on women.

All of the articles, however different their focuses are, agree upon the fact that divorce is a highly important issue that is currently plaguing many families throughout the United States. Some major debates that appear in the articles include what is causing the high divorce rates, how divorce should be approached, whether it should be accepted, and its effects on the members of the family. It is clear from the various authors' stances, that their positions in these debates greatly affect how they present their facts and conclusions. For example, the author of the first article's strong religious beliefs cause him to focus on divorce in the light of religion, using his observations of his parish as his source of information. The author of the last article presents many statistics to show the negative effects of unilateral no-fault divorce on women rather than exposing its effect on children due to her interest in feminism. After realizing the many biases presented in these five articles, it becomes apparent that one must take into consideration the values of the author of articles about controversial issues when formulating one's own opinion. You can't always trust everything you read because the authors pick specific statistics and facts to present the issue in a way that conforms to their personal opinion. Of course, some articles are more objective than others, and vice versa. I think the popular media tends to cover familial issues in a negative way, always highlighting the worst-case scenarios, which leads us to think the family is in more trouble than it actually is in reality.

First Readings-Popenoe, Cowan, Stacey

The assigned readings for this week discuss the controversial topic of whether or not the American family is in decline and if so, the causes for the decline. David Popenoe clearly voices his concern about the decline of the family in America as an institution and its harmful effect on children. He uses various statistics to prove that the family has lost its traditional functions, power and authority, and that people have become too interested in themselves and their own interests to invest time, money and energy into family life. Although Popenoe ostensibly backs up his claims about the causes of the decline of the family with statistics, he makes very bold and unsound statements that his critics pounce on. I, along with his critics, agree that the American family is declining. Statistics on the increasing divorce rate, decreasing marriage rate, and decrease in childrearing clearly show that the family is on the decline, leaving his most avid critics no room to disprove the statement. It is however, his explanations for the decline that leave the critics room to disagree. Popenoe turns correlations into causations without enough evidence to soundly prove his claims. Like Cowan says, Popenoe needs to collect more data in order to make such claims.
Stacey points out three flaws in Popenoe's argument. First, Stacey argues that Popenoe's definition of the family as an institution is flawed. Based on anthropological and historical studies, Stacey views the family as an idealogical, symbolic construct rather than an institution. Secondly, Stacey criticizes Pompenoe's use of the 1950s as a baseline for assessing the decline of the family in following decades. Lastly, Stacey claims that Popenoe does not offer a complete consideration of the alternative beliefs about the decline of the family as an institution. He insists that the opposition must believe either that the family has strengthened or has just remained the same.
Like Stacey, Cowan also agrees that the family is in decline. Cowan, however, rejects his causal analysis of the decline. He believes Popenoe focuses too much attention on the increasing "me-generation" and not enough on the societal forces that affect the family. Cowan also believes that Popenoe only focuses on the flawed families who succumb to the outside pressures instead of trying to learn from those who manage to overcome adversity.
Like all three authors, I completely agree that the American family is in decline, creating a cause for concern. In the debate, I would have to support Cowan's claims that Popenoe's causal analysis is flawed. Popenoe ignores many crucial factors that can cause the family to decline and he fails to provide enough sound evidence to back up his claims on how the various factors cause the decline.