Final Paper

oao6t@virginiaxAsterisks Info

2/1 - Lec 1

· “Man is by nature a social animal.” - Aristotle, Politics.

· Coworkers are NOT there for you in the last chapter of your life

· Family often matters more than socioeconomic status

· Young adults who grew up with married mother and father have a 72% higher chance of graduating from an elite college than those from non-intact families

· The divorce rate for marriage is now about 37%

· Social structure and culture play a profound role in shaping the contexts of American family life

· Harvard economist Raj Chetty: Community family structure is the “single strongest correlate of upward mobility.”

· The family plays a key role in shaping the social and cultural welfare of the nations, including ours

· Core Class Objectives - Understand:

· How family shapes meaning & happiness in life

· How family shapes socioeconomic status

· How culture and social structure shape family life

· How family shapes the nation

2/3 - Lec 2

· Regnerus suggests many young adults have sex before any commitment/love has been established or without an interest in a relationship—this is an example of “cheap sex”

· Joined at the hip - Do everything together, highly independent 

· Dating - Taking it slow, no sex or slower onset of sex, maintain friendships with others 

· College courtship is de-institutionalized 

· No clear ends/functions, No clear norms, No clear beliefs, Leads to confusion 

· Social structural courtship function in marriage

· College women’s age at first marriage rose from 21 in 1970 to 28 in 2018, 23 to 30 for men

· Career and paramount 

· Institutional pressures:

· Parents and educators put emphasis on college and careers, not marriage and family life

· Sexual revolution broke links between sex, marriage, procreation, and love → cheap sex

· Social structural: college sex ration favors male sexual strategy

· 56% women, 44% men at U.V.a. (127 women ~ 100 men)

· No clear gender norms

· Implications for relationships:

· Cultural

· Bottom line: lack of gender norms makes for more confusion about what’s happening/how to proceed 

· Today’s low-commitment “hook-up culture” allows women to avoid a serious relationship that might derail their educational and professional ambitions 

· Gendered effects for women

· Social:

· Women more likely to lose respect in wake of hookup 

· Can generate expectations of commitment that is not shared by partner 

· Source: Stepp 2007

· Emotional:

· Higher risk of depression and suicidality 

· Hooking up and hanging out not likely to be conductive to forging good relationships and, down the road, strong marriages

· Courtship among college-educated in early 20s

· Focus for most is mix of fun, career/education

· Especially in early 20s

· But a significant minority on marriage track

· 50% of those who will marry will be married by age 30

· Social/cultural environment not focused on marriage for 20somethings

· Leisure and entertainment industries 

· Marriage not key value, concern

· How to Be Single

· Education and work

· Compete with family focus/orientation

· Annual income premium for college (23k), grad school (42k), compared to HS graduate (Hymowitz 2011)

· “The Dating Apocalypse”?

· Some like NPR contributor Hanna Rosin, see hookup culture as a boon: “The hookup culture is … bounded up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young women in 2012 - the freedom, the confidence

· But others lament the way the extremely cheap character of sex in the afe of Tinder leaves many women feeling de-valued. “It’s rare for a woman of our generation to meet a man who treats her like a priority instead of an option,” wrote Erica Gordon on the Gen Y Website Elite Daily, in 2014.

2/8 - Lecture 3

· Gender equality vs. gender specialization

· Liberals - Gender is socially constructed

· Conservatives - Gender/sex differences rooted to a degree, in biology 

· UVA’s rationale 

· 14% of collegiate women reported a sexual assault (DOJ 2007)

· About 34% of assaults were physical assaults

· About 70% of assaults involved alcohol ff

· Social problems don’t happen in a sociological vacuum

· Part of the social problem here is in tension with “consensual” sexual behavior. How?

· Another big problem:

· Courtship has become deinstitutionalized 

· Courtship (Leon and Amy Kass 1997)

· Courtship is the process of mate selection for marriage

· Function: a good marriage

· Sexual norms:

· Disciplined sexual desire and romantic attraction

· Gender norms:

· Script for male-female interaction

· Courtship roles:

· Wooer and wooed 

· Institutional setting:

· Furnished opportunities for mature learning regarding partner’s character

· Family, friends, and community strongly involved in courtship process

· Last century: courtship de-institutionalized

· Colleges went from in loco parentis to laissez-faire approach to relationships 

· Mix of hanging out, hooking up, joined at the hip, semi-traditional dating

· Hanging out - Spending time together without clear expectations/commitment 

· Hooking up - Some type of sexual/physical activity without commitment 

· Who hooks up?

· In any given year, most college students don’t hookup

· But, 40-64% report hooking up over college career (Regnerus 2011)

· No clear gender norms

· Two shifts:

· Gender equality taken to mean men and women basically same

· Women encouraged to focus on public success and independence, men not expected to follow distinctive relationship norms (e.g., chivalry) (Glenn 2001; Regnerus 2017)

· College women’s age at first marriage rose from 21 in 1970 to 28 in 2018, 23-30 for men

· Implications for relationships:

· Cultural:

1. Got rid of male initiation/protection ethos in relationships

1. College sex ratio favors male sexual strategy...56% women 44% men

1. Girl Project: women tough, independent, strong

1. Irony: women often left to DTR

1. Today’s low commitment “hook up culture” allows women to avoid serious relationship that might derail their educational and professional ambitions

1. Bottom line: lack of gender norms makes for more confusion about what’s happening/how to proceed

2/10 - Lecture 4 

· Regnerus suggests many young adults have sex before any commitment /love has been established or without an interest in a relationship—this is an example of “cheap sex”*

· •Cheap sex is sex or sexual activity w/out much given in the way of love, commitment or resources

· “Joined at Hip”: Almost half of college women (Glenn 2001)

· Joined at Hip:

· Do everything together, highly dependent*

· Sociological: In college no barriers to being together 24-7, so committed, not necessarily objective

· Dating:

· Taking it slow, no sex or slower onset of sex, maintain friendships with others*

· Sociological: marriage still in view, committed but trying to maintain sufficient distance in relationship to evaluate the future

· College courtship is De-institutionalized

· No norms, beliefs, view of future

· Marriage not on radar for most college women

· Social structural: College women’s age at first marriage rose from 21 in 1970 to 28 in 2018, 23 to 30 for men

· Graduate education more salient

· Takes more time to become professionally established in new economy

· Cultural

· Contraception, sexual revolution, divorce revolution, feminism

· 30% college students affected by divorce

· Children of divorce have more hookups (37% compared to 23% in intact families)

· College and career viewed as more important

· Parents & educators place emphasis on work and career, not family building

· Sexual revolution de-linked sex with marriage, procreation, and love in favor of “cheap sex”

· College sex ratio favors “male strategy” (Regnerus)

· UVA: 56% women, 44% male

· Cultural: 50% young adults say pre-marital sex not wrong, 83% do not judge other’s sexual conduct

· Institutional: college stopped being “in loco parentis” (in place of parents)

· No clear gender norms

· Men and women equal, upsets natural balances (men supposed to be protective, etc)

· BOTTOM LINE: confusion about how to proceed/what’s happening

· Alcohol exacerbates problems on college campuses

· CONS: Women

· Women more physically affected (pregnancy)

· Social: women more likely to lose respect, can generate expectations that are not shared by partner

· Higher risk of suicide and depression

· More likely to have a negative experience

· CONS: Men

· Nice guys finish last

· Sexually active do worse academically

· 1 in 3 students say relationships “hard” or “difficult to handle”

· Hooking up & hanging out does not end with good marriages

· MEG JAY

· 3 goals of 20s

· Build a family/marriage, Fun, Professional or educational success

· Early 20s more of a mix than late 20s

· 50% of people who will be married get married before 30

· Culture (movies, songs) emphasizes having fun

· Society emphasized educational and professional success

· Exceptions are religion and dating sites

· Erica Gordon: sites like tinder make women more likely to be treated as an option than a priority

2/15- Lecture 5

· Bottom line: your 20s set stage for professional and family future*

35) Courtship among College- educated in early 20s

· Focus for most is mix of fun, career/education

· Especially in early 20s*

· But a significant minority on marriage track

· Percentage grows in late 20s 

· 50% of those who will marry married by 30*

37) Social/Cultural Environment Not Focused on Marriage for 20somethings

· Leisure and entertainment industries* 

· Marriage not key value, concern 

· How to Be Single

· More about having a good time 

· Education & Work*

· Compete with family focus/orientation

· Annual income premium for college (23k), grad school (42k), compared to HS graduate (Hymowitz 2011)*

39) “The Dating Apocalypse”?

· But others lament the way the extremely cheap character of sex in the age of Tinder leaves many women feeling de- valued. “It’s rare for a woman of our generation to meet a man who treats her like a priority instead of an option,”* wrote Erica Gordon on the Gen Y Web site Elite Daily, in 2014.

45) Early 20s

· Professional advantages, at least for women*

· Social & emotional costs for men and women*

· Growing minority of 20something men are not working full-time and serious about life, in part because they are not married/aiming for marriage *

2/22- Lecture 6

1. Men without sufficient direction 

· Culture:

. Attractive electronic alternatives*

· Social Structure:

. Jobs take longer to get established in*

0. Courtship among college-educated in late 20s & 30s 

· Unmarried women sober up. Why?

· Pool of eligible & hi-quality men is shrinking*

· For men, 

· Realization that more to life than “fun”*

0. Marriage does take place by early 30s for most americans

· Marriage takes place for more than 75% of Americans (Martin et al 2014)*

0. The 20s something bottom line

· Two Bottom Lines:

· Relationships less marriage-minded in early 20s*

· Relationships more marriage-minded in late 20s*

0. 30 is NOT the new 20 

· Best time to work on your marriage is before you have one. Date intentionally in your 20s.*

The rules for contemporary courtship 

0. #2- take it slow*

•Cornell study:

•Moving quickly into sex & cohabitation may not give couples enough of an opportunity to establish a strong foundation of communication, trust, and emotional security:

•“It could be that deciding to live together quickly doesn't leave couples enough time to figure out if they are on the same page regarding values, goals, the future...’ ” (Sassler 2012) 

· Taking things more slowly may help in the long term 

0. #3- the value of symmetrical commitment (where both parties are invested equally in each other)

· Commitment is particularly important for men.*

· Why?

· Usually, women are more committed than men 

· Men are more likely to engage in infidelity 

0. #4- Don't wait too long

· But the happiest marriages seem to be made in mid-twenties*

· Mature

· But not too settled in their ways

· Also haven’t had as much opportunity to move in and out of a series of sexually intimate relationships 

0. #5- friends and family

· You should seek out the advice of wise friends and family members.*

· Their support will be invaluable later on

· More objectivity in viewing your romantic partner

0.  #7- don’t rely on chemistry 

· “Homogamy” (having similar interests & values to sustain a marital friendship) is one of the best predictors of marital happiness and stability.*

0. #8- Don’t marry a stonewaller/nagger

· Positive > Negative in Your Interactions*

· We tend to hang onto negative interactions more than positive 

· But we should focus on the positive 

· Source: Gottman 1998

0. #9- Don’t accumulate multiple partners*

More Divorce:

· Women who cohabited with 2 or more men prior to marriage 130% more likely to divorce*, compared to women who only cohabited with their future spouse 

. (Source: Lichter & Qian 2009; Teachman 2003)

. McNulty et al. 2018

0. Correlation does not = causation 

· Could be a 

· Selection effect*

· Types of people who select into a behavior explain the correlation between X and Y

· Causal effect*

· X causes Y, typically through some set of mechanisms

2/24- LECTURE 7

1. The Soulmate model: the idea that there is one person out there who will complete us, fulfill us, and make us happy in marriage

2. 10) A shared Faith: 

b. Many couples now look at marriage as an opportunity to enjoy a “super relationship” with a soul mate.*

i. This puts a heavy burden on the relationship.

i. No relationship or person is capable of providing us with ultimate happiness.

1. But couples who focus on something larger than themselves—e.g., a faith or common vision of good life—are, paradoxically, more likely to enjoy marital happiness and stability.*

ii. Relationships don't have to meet unrealistic expectations.

ii. More likely to see marriage as an opportunity to serve rather than to satisfy one’s own desires and needs.

i. Conclusions

1. Today, marriage is a daring and even dangerous adventure.

1. Marriage is especially challenging because we don’t have institutionalized “rules” to guide us into and within marriage (de-institutionalization of courtship).

1. The Sociological Bottom Lines: 

iii. This adventure is best undertaken in a community of friends and family that honors and values committed love, aka marriage.

iii. And… by going slowly to find a good friend who is symmetrically committed to you. Really, sold out for you!

i. BABIES

1. Most mothers have first child in 20s

1. One thing we haven’t talked about is babies

ii. One of courtship’s core classical functions was to connect sex, marriage & parenthood

1. But now Americans have increasingly disconnected marriage & parenthood*

iii. Culture:

1. 2007: only 41% of Americans think children are very important to successful marriage (Pew 2007)

1. 2004: 56% of high school seniors think nonmarital childbearing ok (Wilcox 2010)

i. Baby carriage before marriage

1. Family Structure

i. Today, 39% of children born outside of wedlock*

i. College-educated Americans are tolerant of nonmarital childbearing, but not for themselves and their children

i. The Success Sequence Guides Educated/Affluent*

1. First: Education (at least HS)

1. Second: Work full-time in your 20s

1. Third: Marry before having a child

i. So…

1. The success sequence is firmly entrenched among college-educated

i. Stigma to stepping outside sequence

i. Pragmatic guide.

1. But marriage preceding parenthood no longer has a strong, consensual hold on our public ethic.*

ii. Not a binding moral norm rooted in a belief that marriage is the venue for the bearing/rearing of children.

i. Consequences for College Educated

1. De-institutionalization of courtship for college educated has not had major consequences for marriage or childbearing prospects for majority* of college-educated (Rosin 2012).

1. Nevertheless, a minority who postpone marriage search to 30s and/or have multiple relationships may be

ii. Less likely to marry

ii. More likely to experience emotional difficulties

i. Courtship also institutionalized in Poor & Working-Class America

1. But the deinstitutionalization of courtship has had major consequences in poor and working-class communities across America.

i. Deinstitutionalization Consequences Differ by Class

1. Big point:

i. For college-educated, de-institutionalization of courtship affects a minority’s future family prospects 

1. BUT most make it

1. Clear majority of college-educated Americans marry, have kids in marriage, and don’t divorce* 

1. For less-educated and less-privileged, de-institutionalization of courtship affects majority

b. Marriage & family prospects

1. Many will have kids out of wedlock and most will not be stably married*

i. Back in the day

a. Most poor and minority communities were dominated by intact, married families and a common courtship system up through the late 1960s

i. Similarities & Differences*

a. De-institutionalization of courtship found among both poor and affluent young adults

1. No one set of norms

1. Partners may subscribe to different models

a. But, among poor & working class, more*

1. Infidelity/multiple partners

1. Gender Mistrust

1. Nonmarital childbearing

i. Lack of Clear Sexual Norms

a. No stable expectations when it comes to sex 

1. Sex not linked normatively to marriage

1. No stigma to sexual activity

1. Higher rates of infidelity among poor & w-c men

a. Consequences:

1. Distrust and confusion

1. Children by multiple partners

1.  Both reduce odds of entry into marriage

i. Lack of Clear Gender/relationship norms

a. Women strong, independent, economically self-sufficient

1. Don’t want to give men “control” of their lives

a. Men’s masculinity is precarious – oscillate between cool pose & lack of job opportunities

1. Afraid to commit/marry, sometimes resort to controlling/violent behavior

a.  Consequences:

1. High levels of distrust

1. Low hopes for relationships/marriage

i. Disconnecting Marriage and Parenthood

a. Courtship system was traditionally designed to integrate marriage, sex, and especially parenthood

1. Supposed to ensure that every child was born with a married mother and father

a. Even if by shotgun marriage

a. Breakdown of courtship system means that many young adults are having babies outside of marriage

1. Without the stability/security of marriage*

i. Why?

a. Many college-educated commentators couldn’t understand why poor women were having kids outside of marriage.

a. Why is there a huge class divide in marriage & family structure?

i. Less-educated & Minority Families More Vulnerable

a. Poor, working class and minority families more vulnerable to structural & cultural factors undercutting marriage

i. Social Structural

a. Men’s employment

a. Children’s family structure

a. Economic stress

a. Racism

i. Mens employment 

a. William Julius Wilson (2002): 

1. Black/less-educated men’s jobs and real income declined since 1970s*

1. Means: Men less “marriageable”*

a. But black/less-educated women’s education & employment improved since 60s

1. Now, about 66 black female college students for every 34 black male college students (Frierson 2009)

a. Sex ratio:

1. 50 young black employed men for every 100 young black women due to:

1. Unemployment, incarceration, work in illegal economy

i. Family Instability

a. Family structure:

1. Many boys and girls from less-educated homes can expect to spend a significant time of their childhood years living apart from their biological father

i. Less Money, More Racism = More Stress

a. Less-educated and minorities face more stress (Sassler and Miller 2017)

1. Less income

1. More income instability

1. Racism

1. Stress harms relationships

1. Stress fosters a short-term orientation

e. Maximize short-term pleasure at expense of long-term goods

i. Cultural

a. Legacy of slavery

a. Revolutions of ’60s & ‘70s

a. Secularization 

i. Slavery’s toll

a. AA family weakened by slavery*

1. Slavery didn’t allow men to be “decent” husbands and fathers

a. Slaves could not enter into enduring marriages

a. Men could not provide & protect for their partners

a. Men forced to endure long or permanent separations from partners

i. The Counter Cultures

a. Sexual revolution

1. Undercut norms against premarital sex, nonmarital childbearing*

1. Men no longer felt obligated to marry women they got pregnant (no more “shotgun marriages”) (Akerlof 1996)*

a. Divorce revolution

1. Young people’s faith in marriage diminished (Cherlin 2009)

a. Therapeutic (“Me First”) revolution

1. Do what feels good, regardless of traditional norms (Cherlin 2009)

i. What happened in the last 50 years to less-educated & minority families? Two pillars crumbled

a. Social structural pillar = Good job, stable marriage*

1. Sufficient economic opportunities for men to be good providers/breadwinner with stable family incomes

a. Cultural pillar =  Success Sequence & “decent” norms*

1. Children belong in marriage

1. Religion sanctifies marriage & decent behavior

i. De-Institutionalized Courtship Disparate Effects

a. For the affluent and the working class/poor, courtship today is less institutionalized. But the consequences are more serious for the poor and the working class.*

2/24- LECTURE 7

1. Why do people cohabit nowadays? 

a. Opportunity to evaluate potential spouse as a person, Share expenses, Convenient (sex), Find out if the relationship seems good, Family reasons: leave parents or pregnant, Breaking up is easy, Flexibility & freedom

1. 3 Central Points re: Cohabitation

b. For men and women, because of the pluralistic & low-commitment character of cohabitation:

i. No common functions & norms guide cohabitation*

i. Functions of cohabitation differ by class

i. Cohabitation without engagement does not increase your odds of marital success*

i. Cohabitation by the Numbers

1. 1960: 500,000 , 2016: 9 million couples

i. 75% of marriages now preceded by cohabitation in the U.S.* 

i. Especially common among lower classes

i. Even more common in Western Europe & South America

3. Sweden & Colombia: 

1. Clear majority of babies born to cohabiting unions

i. The Rise of Cohabitation

a. One consequence of deinstitutionalization of courtship is that cohabitation is on the rise. 

a. Cultural Factors 

1. Sexual revolution

a. No necessary  link between sex and marriage

1. Individualism

b. Commitment, sacrifice associated with marriage less important

1. Secularization 

c. Religion less likely to guide sexual/marital behavior

a. Social Factors

1. Divorce revolution

a. Cohabitation more common among children of divorce

1. Decline in men’s real wages

b. Men less attractive marital partners

1. Men and women aren’t getting established until late 20s

c. Cohabitation is a bridge relationship between hs/college and marriage/career

i. Convenience & Money

a. Many felt it was more convenient than dating

a. Way to save money (Sassler and Miller 2017)

i. Love and Sex*

a. Women more likely to mention love

a. Men 4 times more likely to mention sex

1. “Test Drive”  -> Marriage

a. Functions for some as form of courtship

1. Women are more likely to see relationship headed to marriage, as committed, & as an opportunity to test for marital compatibility

i. Men more Hesitant, less Committed*

a. But men less likely to connect cohabitation to marriage/commitment

i. Concerns about Divorce*

a. Fear of divorce encourages some to take more of a provisional approach to relationships & seek to “test drive” prior to marriage

i. How do the reasons vary by class?

i. The Pluralistic Character of Cohabitation

a. Cohabitation is another example of deinstitutionalized character of courtship

1. Here comes the boyfriend, all dressed in jeans & a t-shirt…

1. No common function, norms, behaviors, beliefs*

a. Different functions articulated by Sassler and Miller:*

1. Marriage in view 

a. Courtship, Prenuptial

1. Opportunistic  

b. Convenient, fun, economical, the sex

1. Alternative to marriage  

c. Ideological – middle & upper class

c. Practical – lower class

i. Does Cohabitation Influence Marriage?

a. In U.S., cohabitation without engagement* is linked to

1. Increased divorce risk (30% higher divorce risk)*

1. Lower levels of marital quality & more marital conflict;* but….

1. More equality in the division of household labor*

i. But there is a Debate

a. Some scholars argue that cohabitation now poses NO risk to future marital success (Manning et al 2020)

i. Selection Effects

a. Correlation doesn’t always equal causation

a. Certain types of people select into cohabitation

1. People who cohabit are more likely to have the risk factors that are associated with less marital stability and lower marital happiness later in life

a. Poverty, Less religious, Younger, Lower commitment to marriage

i. But Not Entirely Selection?

a. Number of studies find cohabitation associated with negative outcomes even after controlling for factors like (e.g., Dush, Cohan, Amato, 2003)

1. Education, race, religion

a. Link may be causal

i. Cohabitation May Have a Causal Impact

a. How?

1. Cohabitation can change persons & relationships

a. Less commitment, More confusion & conflict, More autonomy, Premarital birth, Multiple partners, Sliding- not deciding

a. Bottom line: cohabitation not same thing as marriage & doesn’t seem a good test for marriage

1. No communal ritual, no binding commitment

i. Less Commitment*

a. Test drive approach to relationships

a. Less trust & more anxiety

1. Worry that spouse will dump you for a sexier model

i. Confusion and Conflict

a. Because of the pluralistic character of cohabitation

1. Partners often have different expectations regarding what their relationship means & where it is headed

a. Generates confusion & conflict, Disillusionment with romantic relationship

i. Autonomy

a. Autonomy leads to:

1. Less identity as a couple – “weness”

a. Looking out for number 1

1. Separate checking accounts

i. Multiple Partners 

a. Multiple relationships:

1. Emotional baggage, Habituated behavior 

a. Women who cohabited with other men 2 x as likely to end up divorced (next slide)*

0. A Premarital Birth

a. Rhoades & Stanley (2014) find premarital birth linked to lower marital quality

1. Sliding, not Deciding*: The Cough Factor

a. People have lower standards for cohabiting partner

i. “Why did I move in with ‘Peter’ as opposed to getting my own place right away? Money.” – WF

b. But once cohabiting, can slide into marriage*

i. Never had serious conversation with family, friends, or even partner about whether they should marry

c. Once you are in a cohabiting relationship, there are more forces pushing you to slide into marriage (friends, parents, partner)

2. Cohabitation’s “effect”

a. Cohabitation is most risky when it is most disconnected from marriage’s norms, expectations, & the support of family/friends

i. Multiple cohabitations (2+)  *

i. Infidelity, disillusioned, habituated to breakups

ii. Cohabitation prior to engagement  *

ii. Sliding versus deciding

iii. Have a baby before marriage  *

iii. Parenting is hard!

3. Summing up

a. For men and women, because of the pluralistic & low-commitment character of cohabitation:

i. Cohabitation without engagement may increase your odds of marital failure

ii. Cohabitation is NOT the same thing as marriage

iii. Risky cohabitation more common in the working-class (Sassler & Miller 2017). WHY?*

3/01- LECTURE 8-Should we live together?

1. 3 central points re: Cohabitation 

a. For men and women because of pluralistic and low commitment

i. No common functions and norms guide cohabitation 

i. Functions of cohabitation 

i. Cohabitation without engagement does not your odds of marital success

i. The numbers of cohabitation

1. 1960: 500,000

1. 2016: 9 million 

1. 75% of marriages now preceded by cohabitation

i. Love and Sex 

1. Women are more likely to mention love

1. Men are 4 times as more likely to mention sex 

i. Men are more hesitant and less committed to Cohabitation

1. Men less likely to connect cohabitation to marriage/commitment

i. Concerns about divorce spark Cohabitation

1. Fear of divorce encourages some to take more of a provisional approach to relationships and seek to “test drive” prior to marriage

i. Cohabitation is a deinstitutionalized character of courtship

1. No common function, norms, behaviors, beliefs 

1. Different functions articulated by Sassler and Miller 

ii. Marriage in view 

1. Courtship 

1. Prenuptial 

ii. Opportunistic 

2. Convenient, fun, economical, the sex 

ii. Alternative to marriage 

3. Ideological-middle and upper class 

3. practical - lower class

i. Cohabitation without engagement 

1. 20% higher risk of divorce 

1. Lower levels of marital quality and more marital conflict 

ii. More equality in division of household labor  

1. (•Sources: CDC 2012; Dush et al. 2003;Brines & Joyner 1999; Rosenfeld & Roesler 2018; Stanley 2012)

i. Less Commitment 

1. Test drive approach to relationships 

1. Less trust and more anxiety

i. Women who cohabited with other men are 2 times as likely to end up divorced 

1.

i. Sliding Not Deciding

1. People have lower standards for cohabiting partner 

1. But once cohabiting thye can slide into marriage 

1. Once you are cohabiting there are more forces pushing you to slide into marriage-friends, parents, partner

i. Cohabitation’s effect 

1. Multiple cohabitations (2+)

i. Infidelity, disillusioned, habituated to breakups 

1. Cohabitation prior to engagement 

ii. Sliding vs deciding 

1. Having a baby before marriage 

iii. Parenting is challenging

i. Risky cohabitation more common in working-class (Sassler and Miller 2017

1. WHY*

i. Woking class use it for economic reasons, working class jobs not as reliable (need to check notes and come back)

3/03- LECTURE 9

1. How much of decline in marriage rate can be attributed to cohabitation?

a. Bumpas et al (1991) estimate 75% *

1. Children do not fare as well in cohabiting households 

b. More than 40% of children now spend some time in a cohabiting household *

1. Drugs, Drop outs, and Depression 

c. Substance abuse 

i. Teens in cohabiting households are 116% more likely to smoke pot compared to teens in married families

1. Schooling

ii. Teens are 60% less likely to graduate from high school if they come from a cohabiting households compared to teens in married households

1. Psychological well-being*

iii. 15.7% of school-age children in cohabiting households experienced serious emotional problems compared to 3.5% of peers in married families 

i. Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (2010)

1.

i. Cohabiting is less institutionalized than married unions* so it is more risky for kids with less commitment, trust, sexual fidelity, and more violence than married unions

1. Instability is linked to numerous problems for children like delinquency and sexual abuse especially for biological children making it more risky than a stable single parent home 

i. Instability for children: Cohabiting vs Married (3 times)

1. Smock and Manning 2004

i. Children born to cohabiting couples in Sweden are 

1. 75% more likely to see their parents split by age 15, compared to children born to married parents 

i. Does the “success sequence”* still work?

1. Education 

i. Getting a High School degree by mid-20’s 

1. Working 

ii. Working full-time in mid-20s or pursuing college/graduate school education or married, home with children 

1. Marrying 

iii. Marrying before having any children 

i. 97% of millennials who follow the “success sequence” are NOT in poverty*

1.

i. Success sequence linked to lower rates of poverty for young adults from low income families 

1.

i. Missing the success sequence is linked to poverty especially for African American young adults 

1.

i. Critics: “Work does all the work”

1. Matt Bruenig (2017): “full-time work is responsible for the low poverty results of the various success sequences”

i. Marriage = Stability; Baby First = Instability

1. Men and women who put childbearing before marriage are more likely to breakup and face 

i. child support

i. legal costs

i. single parenthood

i. Financial Flourishing 

1. Work doesn’t do all the work

1. Couples who have children in marriage are more likely to remain together and avoid incurring major costs of family instability 

1. So millennials who follow the success sequence are more likely to steer clear of poverty and realize the american dreams. 

3/08- LECTURE 10

1. Institutional Marriage 

a. Institutional model of marriage sees marriage as about many functions:

i. romance/friendship 

i. children/kin

i. money

i. social support and for some 

i. religion 

i. Anchored by an ethic of 

1. Commitment to marital performance 

i. Soulmate model > Institutional model in public/pop culture*

i. Causes of recent changes in marriage 

1. Economic 

i. Depend more on MARKET*

i. Men’s and women’s changing economic position

i. Depend more on STATE*

1. Cultural 

ii. Divorce revolution of 70s 

ii. Psychological revolution of 70s 

ii. Sexual revolution of 70s

ii. Secularism

1.     Soulmate model of marriage 

a.     A soulmate relationship that is about an intense emotional connection between two people 

b.     Function: directly seeking happiness, fufillment, actualization for one SELF 

c.     Ethic: Together so long as your love shall last 

d.     Less attentive to 

                                               i.     Children, money, social support, religion 

                                             ii.     Reject marital permanence ethic 

2.     Climbing mount maslow (Finkel 2017)

a.     Classical functions of marriage less important

                                               i.     Economics

                                             ii.     Children

                                            iii.     Kinship ties 

b.     Individual more important 

                                               i.     Emotional connection 

                                             ii.     Fulfillment

                                            iii.     Self-actualization

3.     Stephanie Coontz

a.     Soulmate model = happier couples 

b.     Marriage satisfies psychological and social needs

c.     Meets needs for intimacy, affection, and sex 

4.     Marital quality fell between 1973-1989

a.     

5.     Why are marriages less happy even as they are more selective 

a.     People expect a lot more of their marriages 

b.     Divorce revolution 

                                               i.     Undercut people’s faith in future of their marriage 

c.     Work-family conflict between men and women 

                                               i.     More stress and conflict over who does what 

6.     New Pew Report (2014): Men Working 

a.     

7.     The paradox of marital happiness 

a.     Husbands and wives who do not seek marital happiness directly but who embrace classic goods of marriage like:

                                               i.     Permanence

                                             ii.     Kids

b.     Usually enjoy greater marital happiness than do those who directly seek marital happiness and fulfillment for themselves 

c.     Institutional > Soulmate 

8.     In 1960s/1970s marriage became less institutional and more soulmate oriented 

9.     In recent years, institutional dimensions have regained strength, especially among college educated, religious, and Asian Americans

10.  Couples who embrace institutional model enjoy not just greatest marital stability but also marital quality 

11.  Married people are treated differently 

a.     We assume married people are different from unmarried people. Married people made a public statement about themselves to friends and family 

                                               i.     Ritual signals acceptance of marital norms 

                                             ii.     They are assumed to be mature, committed, faithful, etc, and wiling to abide by marital norms 

12.  How does time perspective of a married couple matter? (focus on shared past and imagined future together-present is viewed as less consequential)

a.     More commitment means 

                                               i.     A greater willingness to endure tough times together in the present in the name of a past and future 

                                             ii.     A greater investment in a common financial future 

                                            iii.     A greater willingness to specialize, knowing that one’s spouse can be counted on to perform his/her obligations

13.  Marriage vs Alternatives 

a.     More order than alternatives 

                                               i.     Clearer norms/practices/roles because its institutionalized 

b.     Two key functions better than alternatives 

                                               i.     Stable mutual aid and solidarity for 2 adults 

                                             ii.     Stable care of children

 

 

3/10 Lecture 11

14.  In the past, 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce 

15.  Now 37% end in divorce 

16.  Physical health

a.     Mortality rates 250% higher among unmarried men and 50% higher among unmarried women 

b.     Marriage adds about 9 years to men’s lives (waite and Gallagher 2000)

17.  Mental Health

a.     Suicide

                                               i.     Unmarried men more likely to commit suicide 

b.     Happiness 

                                               i.     Married men and women are 60% more likely to report very happy life 

18.  Some selection

a.     Married couples save at higher rates, get more wealth from families, benefit from economies of scale

19.  For both men and women 

a.     Marriage is associated with less autonomy and fewer choices 

20.  For women

a.     Marriage is associated with higher housework burden

21.  But sacrifices one makes for marriage usually bear considerable dividends

a.     Men especially: health, income

b.     Women especially: wealth 

                                               i.     Women get a family income premium of about $40,000

                                             ii.     Women's wage penalty is not about marriage but is about children

c.     Both: sex, mental health 

d.     Jesse Bernard’s Critique no longer holds

3/15- LECTURE 12

For both men & women:

· Marriage is associated with less autonomy & fewer choices*

For women:

· Marriage is associated with higher housework burden*

But the sacrifices one makes for marriage usually bear considerable dividends*:

· Men especially: health, income, Women especially: wealth, Both: sex, mental health

Jesse Bernard’s critique no longer holds*

The Harvard Study of Adult Development

Men thrive in institutions with clear norms, expectations, and roles that provide them with direction and status. -> Thrive in marriage.

Marriage focuses a man’s attention on one woman. 

Providership - Man has to deny his desire for adventurism. Today women still expect men to be a good provider. 

3/17- LECTURE 13: His/Her Marriage

· For men, love is action

· Side to Side (activities)

· Actions  = love *

· Sex

· For women, love is intimacy

· Face to Face (talking)

· Emotional expression = love*

· Cuddling

· Divorce

· 37% of first marriages end in divorce

· Two-thirds of divorces initiated by women

· Men’s bad behavior

· Today’s women expect a lot of men emotionally

2. Feeling like her husband is not sufficiently emotionally engaged

· Solutions

. Safe common ground: husband learns to express affection verbally and wife learns to see love in his deeds

1. Husband does more emotional work than he is inclined to

1. Wife doesn't expect husband to emote as much as a girlfriend, sister, mother

1. Wife reflects on his actions

· It’s not just émotions, it is also: Is He Responsible?

. Keeps a job (Killewald 2016)

. Brings something to the marriage/family

· Stable, Happy Families

. Women file for ⅔ of all divorces

· The End of the Gender Revolution?

. No compelling evidence of a substantial exodus of married mothers from labor force

. BUT evidence suggests gender revolution of last half of 20th century has indeed “stalled”

· Gender revolution in United States has left mothers with more opportunities, more choices, and → 

. No one strategy for juggling work and family

. Stalled revolution since the 1990s

· What do (Married) Women (With Children) Want?

. Married Mothers’ work family strategies

1. Preferred: 31% - Stay at Home; 40% - Employed Part Time; 28% - Employed Full Time

1. Actual: 30% - Stay at Home; 26% - Employed Part Time; 45% - Employed Full Time

· Not all Women are the Same <True for Our Class!>

. The gender revolution has stalled, in part, because different women want different things when it comes to combining work and family (Hakim 2000)

· Formal vs. Substantive Equality

. Formal Equality - 50-50 division of work inside and outside home

1. Liberals and Feminists support

. Substantive Equality - both spouses devote similar total effort to work inside and outside home

2. Conservatives support

2. Typically, divided along gender lines

2. Husband focuses more on breadwinning

2. Wife focuses more on childrearing/home

3/22- LECTURE 14

· What do (Married) Women (With Children) Want?

· Married Mothers’ work family strategies

· Preferred: 31% - Stay at Home; 40% - Employed Part Time; 28% - Employed Full Time

· Actual: 30% - Stay at Home; 26% - Employed Part Time; 45% - Employed Full Time

· Not all Women are the Same <True for Our Class!>

· Less educated and affluent mothers are less invested in work

· The gender revolution has stalled, in part, because different women want different things when it comes to combining work and family (Hakim 2000)

· Formal vs. Substantive Equality

· Formal Equality - 50-50 division of work inside and outside home

· Liberals and Feminists support

· Substantive Equality - both spouses devote similar total effort to work inside and outside home

· Conservatives support

· Typically, divided along gender lines

2. Husband focuses more on breadwinning

2. Wife focuses more on childrearing/home

· Way less than 1-in-2 marriages will end in divorce

· Nonmarital births make up less than 40% of all births from 1960 to 2018

· A growing share of children in the United States are poised to benefit from being raised by their own married parents

· Total fertility rate (TFR) now: 1.65

· “Bare Branches” Coming to America

. Fewer children and less marriage = kinlessness

1. For growing minority of adults in the United States, the meaning, direction, and solidarity of family life will not be theirs

1. 25% of young adults never have kids

1. 30% of young adults will never marry

· Since the Great Recession, parenthood has become more selective

. Fewer women putting motherhood before marriage

· The Neighborhood Lab: It’s About Class

. Neighborhoods like Wallingford, just to the west of Gottman’s Love Lab, overwhelmingly made up of 2-parent families

. Neighborhoods like Rainer Valley, to the south of the Love Lab, dominated by 1-parent families

· Utah County, UT is the county with the greatest share of married parents

· Asians are much more likely to get and stay married

3/24- LECTURE 15

· Greatest share of married parents: Utah County, UT

· Asians are much more likely to get and stay married.

· The Left

· America’s marriage divide all about class, structure, policy

· The Right

· America’s marriage divide all about values and virtues

· Dreamer’s familism

· Putting family first

· Striver’s amoral familism

· Reject a public ethic of familism but are privately familistic

· Publicly affirms family diversity, privately familistic

· Testing the theories about women’s marital happiness (Wilcox and Dew 2012)

· Soulmate Model (Eli Finkel 14)

· Spouses should focus on their own emotional, sexual, and individual needs

· Institutional Model (Wilcox)

· Kids, kin, and cash

· Social support for marriage from marriage-friendly institutions

· Egalitarian Model (Schwartz and Coontz)

· “More egalitarian marriages should be happier (Pepper Schwartz; Stephanie Coontz)

· 50/50 model of equality

· Gender Model of Marriage (Steven Rhoads)

· “Men & women are invested in ‘doing gender’” (Steven Rhoads 2005).

· Acting in stereotypical masculine and feminine ways”

· Institutional factors (especially for religious couples)

· Commitment to ethic of lifelong marriage and sexual fidelity

· Religious

· Work-family strategies are less important than emotional engagement, sex, commitment, & religion

· The Family-First Marriages founded upon 5 pillars:

· Communion

· Children

· Commitment

· Cash

· Community

3/31 LECTURE 16-What makes her happy?

1. Sharon Sassler on the egalitarian model

2. His practical/emotional engagement most important for her happiness

3. Progresive Secular Women 

c. Communion 

c. Children 

c. Partnership at home 

c. Cash 

c. Community 

1. Why would progressive marriages be better?

d. Women have more power and authority in and outside of the home 

d. Shared roles in and outside the home foster friendship with their husband

d. Their marriages conform to the egalitarian creed of contemporary liberalism 

d. Our biology has nothing to do with our sociology

Readings (Summary and 3 or more key facts per chapter)

2/1 Introduction: What is the Purpose of the Family?

From Feuds About Families (edited by Nijole V. Benokraitis) Norval D. Glenn, Chapter 1: “Who’s Who in Family Wars: A characterization of the Major Ideological Factions”

2/10 Emerging Adults & College

Regnerus, Ch 1, 2, 4.

· Chapter 1: Introduction

· CITATION:

. Emerging Adulthood → many American children are pressed forward unto adolescence and toward adulthood but then they’re halted before they actually self identify as adults 

. Remain in a holding pattern for several years 

. Characterized by freedom and an openness to new ideas 

· Chapter 2: The Partnerships and Practices of Emerging Adults

· CITATION:

· Emerging adult virgins can be classified into one or more of these categories: the very religious, the risk averse, those with high expectations, and those with limited attractiveness (Regnerus 19)

· Religion = primary reason for maintaining virginity into 20s 

· The risk averse and those with high expectations are often - but not always - the same people 

· Subjective attractiveness (what people think about their own attractiveness) usually matters more than objective attractiveness when it comes to whether or not someone has had sex (22)

· Women always have value on the sexual market → thus, usually their virginity is by choice 

· Serial monogamy → the primary sexual script among emerging adults today (23) 

· Men are game for more sexual partners than women (on average) but a women’s partner count can usually rise faster cuz her sexual marketability is greater than his 

· Most influential on # of sex partners are behavior patterns like frequent drunkenness and early sexual experience (26) 

· There is a social desirability bias and a double standard wherein men tend to claim more partners and women claim fewer than they have actually had (27)

· Common perspective among conservatives about sex → they’re selectively permissive: the moral rule remains right and good and in effect, yet it does not apply to them at present (35)

· Anal sex owes its recent growth in popularity to 2 phenomena: 1) ubiquitous access to porn 2) increasing normalization of gay male sex within popular imagination (37) 

· Oral sex is now foreplay more than an alternative to intercourse 

· Women are more susceptible to some STIs and get tested more (so #s are usually higher) 

· Chapter 4: The College Campus: Sex 101? 

· CITATION:

· The most active sexual behavior is actually found on average outside of college (102)

· Hooking up is more adequately understood as a strategy (for the active) or a pathway (for the passive) that can lead to more overt sexual activity 

· Hooking up as the preferred way to have sex is more characteristic of students in more competitive schools 

· 36% of college seniors in Paula England’s survey said they had never hooked up at all 

· Hamilton and Armstrong study (pg 107) made it clear that

. The sexual double standard is alive and well

. Any attempts to reduce the double standard are from women’s efforts to act more like men not vice versa

. Imbalance campus sex ratios work against wormen’s desire to control the course of relationships 

· Casual sex and hooking up as a sexual strategy is the preferred option only of a campus sexual elite 

· Sexual economics theory → demand for sex by men is very stable so women do not lack opportunities to have sex (117) 

· Students are apt to suspect other are more permissive about sex than they are 

· “Sex ratio hypothesis” → oversupply of women on campis? Men have control in relationships, translating into lower levels of commitment, worse treatment of women, and a sexually permissive climate where women receive less in exchange for sex (120) 

. Virginity more common where women are smaller share of student body 

2/3 - Family Controversies 

· “Feuds about Families” by Benok, Ch. 2/3: 4 Models of Family Change / Family Values

· CITATION:

· 4 perspectives about family change 

· Conservatives: Alarmed that family is declining morally because increased rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families 

1. Many of today’s problems are attributed to a demise of family values 

1. Centrists: Feel family changes reflect decline because the erosion of father-hood, lack of individual responsibility and selfish adults contributes to many current problems 

2. Communitarians see the family, not the individual, as the primary building block of a responsible society

1. Liberals: Family is changing not deteriorating because family and gender roles are adapting to economic transformations; government should solve family-related dilemmas  

1. Feminists: Family is strong because women and men have more options; family is an important institution in the US (conservatives), childrens’ well-being should have higher priority (centrists) and national policies have not helped enough people in need (liberals)

4. Believe women and children’s issues are often ignored despite rhetoric about family values 

. Love and courtship 

2. Conservative 

1. In the past, people would get married at young ages but today we think less about finding a marital partner in college

1. Courtship is essentially over

1. Sex without love makes real intimacy less likely for men and women 

1. The sexual revolution liberated female sexual desire from the confines of marriage 

1. The pill helped alleviate stress that comes with becoming pregnant and sexuality became unlinked to the future 

1. Divorce actually hurts the kid’s chances of marriage because there was not a good model and have a hard time committing as they want the one 

1. It is important for marriage to be the wanted from the start and not something that is drifted into

1. Feminism has damaged courtship as it promotes women becoming more independent  

2. Centrist 

2. Growth of individualism threatens our commitment to each other and our communities 

2. Since love and marriage are usually seen in terms of psychological gratification, they result in unstable relationships that dislodge people from family and other social obligations

2. Liberal

3. No differences in men and women in the emotions they feel or how strong they are 

3. Differences occur because women are supposed to show emotions while men are supposed to oppress them resulting in our stereotypes

2/22-Should we live together?- Sassler & Miller

Intext: (Sassler & Miller, 2017).

Website: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1525/9780520962101/html

· Chapter 1: Cohabitation: Exploring Contemporary Courtship Trajectories

· Number of unmarried cohabiting couples increased dramatically: as of 2010, 7.5 million heterosexual couples; 5.5 million in 2000; 3.2 million in 1990 (2)

· Less advantaged young adults more likely to cohabit (edu and social class) (4)

· Social class: “working class” more likely to cohabit; due to increase in technology, working class jobs are less stable ($) marriage is selective (7)

· Gender: cohabitors less likely to adhere strongly to traditional gender roles; more likely to adhere to egalitarian behaviors (11)

· Roles of cohabitation: precursor for marriage; alternative to singleness; alternative to marriage (13)

· Chapter 2: In the Beginning: Becoming a Couple 

· 1920s- Men were expected to pick up tab and initiate; women were expected to maintain “natural sexuality” and accept/decline men’s advances (21)

· The introduction birth contraceptives (1960s) and the sexual revolution for “free love” (1970s) shifted the rigid gender norms (22)

· “The Dance of Pursuit” =The blurring of gender roles have often led to confusion on both sides (27); yet in terms of relationship initiation, men are usually the initiator (29).

· Women more likely to suggest idea of cohabiting, but a less direct approach (30)

· Chapter 3: Shacking Up, Living in Sin, Saving on Rent? The Process of Living Together.

· Cohabiting as a precursor for marriage has seen mostly in the middle-class (39)

· Transitions into shared living occur relatively rapidly; service-class respondents progressed into cohabitation more quickly than middle-class counterparts (42)

·  Reasons for Cohabiting:

· Practical Reasons: convenience, economic, rationality, financial necessity (43)

· Housing need; expiration of lease (50)

· The “Next Step”; precursor to marriage; test for marriage (51)

· Family Reasons; conflict with family; pregnancy; avoiding moving back into childhood home (53)

· Service-class cohabitors were less likely to be satisfied with the quicker progression of the relationship than their college-educated counterparts

2/24 -  Should we live together? 

· Sassler & Miller, Chapter 5

· 40% of all U.S. births is from unmarried women-> attributed to growth in cohabitation which raises couples risks of conceiving

· The middle-class couples interviewed demonstrated more effective planning and communication skills than did their less educated counterparts regarding their reproductive choices. 

· But even service-class respondents who most strongly worked to prevent pregnancy often faced greater challenges to do so than their more advantaged counterparts, largely due to structural factors (like unstable jobs with inadequate health insurance coverage), but also resulting from interpersonal difficulties. 

· At the same time, middle-class couples exhibited a greater ability to work together as a team, and a larger number took personal responsibility to prevent pregnancy than was evident among service-class couples. ”

3. “As a result, their more consistent usage of birth control, reliance on the most effective methods, and greater willingness to utilize two methods of protection set their contraceptive behavior apart from their service-class counterparts. 

1. Couples’ reproductive strategies are yet another arena where social class differentiates the family trajectories of respondents from more and less privileged backgrounds. Even when the intentions of our service- and middle-class couples were largely the same, their behaviors and the resulting outcomes differed.”

. Social class plays a role in contraceptive efficacy:

2. “college educated are more likely to utilize contraception, and also experience lower levels of contraceptive failure”

2. Service women have poorer insurance coverage or did not have access to preferred birth control method/ cannot afford more expensive and more effective birth control methods

. College educated men and women have clearer social scripts about  “appropriate location and time for childbearing, as well as incentives (ex, career advancement) to defer childbearing. 

3. Their goals reinforce what were once normative sequencing behaviors of marriage prior to children. ”

· Sassler & Miller, Chapter 6:

. Comparing beliefs about the differences between dating and cohabitation, as well as between cohabitation and marriage between classes

1. “argue that differences in the attitudes the more and less advantaged have toward the benefits and drawbacks of marriage, as well as the appropriate location for bearing children, in part explain the diverging behaviors of young adults from different social class backgrounds.”

. “middle-class respondents, for example, generally viewed marriage as more desirable, both for themselves and for their (future) children, than did the service class. ”

. College educated cohabitors more frequently said that living together made life easier and better, and extrapolated that to marriage, than did their service-class counterparts”

3. Among less educated respondents, in contrast, each successive phase of relationships often seemed fraught with additional challenges.

. College-educated respondents were also more conventional regarding the sequencing of marriage and parenting.”

. College-educated cohabitors had greater opportunities to vet their relationships for the long run because they were involved for longer prior to moving in with their partners,”

5. also had clearer scripts for how relationships should unfold, from dating to living together to marriage and childbearing, with acknowledged tempos for various stages. 

. “Taken together, these attitudinal differences, in part, explain why college-educated cohabitors more often are headed down the aisle, while service-class cohabitors are biding their time.”

. Difference between dating and cohabitation:

7. “Service-class individuals more often identified ways that cohabitation was worse than just dating.

7. Middle-class respondents, in contrast, more frequently noted that either nothing had changed or that life had actually gotten easier once they moved in with their partners.”

2. “For the middle class, then, the overall ease of the transition from dating to cohabitation encouraged them to consider taking the next step. For our service-class respondents, on the other hand, the negatives that often accompanied moving in together made them even more reluctant to move their relationships to the next level.”

7. “The service-class couples we interviewed often had less family support and fewer financial advantages than our middle-class respondents.”

3. “moving in with their partners was a clear way to harness both additional financial and emotional support. ”

7. “Service-class respondents were more likely than their middle-class counterparts to mention that living together was a more committed union than was dating, ”

4. “discussed the greater commitment offered by cohabitation, however, it was in the context of being worried about the sexual fidelity of a partner. That is, they suggested that moving in together made it easier to ensure that their significant other’s potentially wandering eye did not get the best of them.”

7. The middle class also frequently mentioned that living together was more committed than dating. Rather than discussing sexual fidelity, however, they talked more about the deepening of positive feelings toward one’s partner.”

7. “On the whole, service-class cohabitors brought up the negatives of living together relative to dating far more often than did the middle class. 

6. Moving in, often quite quickly, with a partner you do not fully trust, hardly sets the stage for a successful relationship. But other elements of living together, such as an increase in arguments or a shortage (rather than an increase) in resources may deter some couples from wanting to formalize their relationships.”

7. “Service-class respondents, far more often than their middle-class counterparts, mentioned that living together was more financially costly for them than dating and living apart.

7. In addition to losing personal space and freedom, 40% of the service-class individuals noted that moving in together had actually hurt them financially, due to the expectation that they would help support their (poorer) partners to a greater extent than ever before.”

. Difference between cohabitation and marriage

8. Less educated were more wary of the changes marriage may bring, sharply contrasting the views expressed by many middle-class respondents, who more generally looked forward to the social and emotional changes they anticipated would result from getting or being married.”

8. “service-class respondents also anticipated negative changes that would come with marriage more often than did their middle-class counterparts. 

2. marriage has more undesirable than positive possibilities for service class respondents

8. “service class feared that they would have to act like “husbands” and “wives,” or even parents and would have to embrace the traditional gender roles that came with marriage 

3. “Service-class women often expressed concerns that marriage had a certain set of expectations for wives. In fact, most of these women already lived in households where they had taken on the majority of the housework, even as they, too, worked for pay. A number were both the primary earners and the primary homemakers in their relationships. They worried, then, that getting married would mean that their partners expected them to become even more “wifely” at home. ”

. Differences on beliefs about the optimal location for having children 

9. Female respondents, regardless of social class, believe that it would be better if marriage preceded childbearing

1. “For women, the stigma and challenges of single motherhood are greater than those faced by unmarried fathers, leading to their stronger sentiments that it was better to be married before having children.”

9. “men were less likely than women to view marriage as a necessary prerequisite for childbearing, service-class men were the least likely to adhere to that norm. 

2. Many had already become parents without marriage, or they did not foresee being able to marry in the near future. Only about a third of service-class cohabiting men believed that marriage before childbearing was optimal. ”

9. “Middle-class men far less often agreed with the idea that marriage is not a necessary prerequisite for child bearing.

3. Nearly half of the middle-class cohabiting men believed that parents should be married before having children together.”

9. Large contrast between personal attitudes and global attributes about parenthood may result in a greater number of middle class couples marrying.

4. ¼ of middle class respondents expressed the belief that couples did not have to be married before having children, most quickly mentioned that they, personally, wanted to be married before becoming parents.”

9. “The service class was less likely to express personal desires that differed from their global attitudes toward marriage before childbearing.”

. Difference between service-class and middle-class respondents on the solutions proposed should they get pregnant unexpectedly

10. Middle class: “marriage was still very much the expected outcome to an unplanned pregnancy, ”

10. Service class men “expressed greater ambivalence about jumping into marriage as a result of an unplanned pregnancy”

10. Many service class women expressed reservations about marrying because of a conception, they did not want to feel like they were forcing their partner’s hand but preferred to get married because of the “right” reasons- that their partners loved them and were ready to take the next step

. Conclusions:

11. Middle-class cohabitors were far more likely to envision marriage in their near future than were their service-class counterparts. 

1. Because of their more positive experiences, at various stages of their relationship, condition this willingness.”

11. Finances play an important role:

2. Service class cohabitors where coming in with financial difficulties in their relationship which accelerated the transition in to cohabitation

1. For many service-class couples and, notably, for our less educated women, moving in together often caused more problems than just dating, which caused some respondents to presume that getting married would only make matters worse.”

2. Contrastly, college-educated cohabitors took longer to move in, and had enough resources to live apart

2. “slower entrance into shared living may have helped filter out poorer matches”

2. “allowed the middle-class cohabitors more time to discuss future desires, as well as observe how their partner acted with regard to money, contraception, and disagreements”

. Communication plays an important role:

3. “communication skills, also played a strong role in the successful relationships of the middle class”

1. “the college-educated couples compromised more, argued less, seemed to engage less in magical thinking regarding the capacity of their partners for change, and worked together more frequently to come to consensus”

. college educated feel more strongly about having their children within marriage

· Chapter 8: Role of gender and social class in relations

· Cohabitations transitioning into engagement and marriage planning for middle class couples while very few serviceless couples were progressing to engagement/marriage or were doing it at a slower pace

· Service class couples tended to move in together relatively early on in their new relationships, frequently because of financial difficulties or housing needs. 

.  “Rapid transitions into cohabitation often set the stage for high levels of relationship conflict, communication differences, and contraceptive mishaps, sometimes making the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of cohabiting”

· College educated couples move in together more gradually and was often viewed as an improvement over dating and living apart

· Cohabitation allows couples to stimulate what marriage might be like

. But “the most economically strained respondents were often experiencing the most fiscally challenging, low quality, and poorly matched unions” which explains why many men and women express doubts about marriage

· at least among the less educated, cohabitation is weakening the institution of marriage, because it reveals how arduous it can be to remain together

. “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer” when it seems that the future holds more economic deprivation than wealth.”

· Among the college-educated respondents better financial trajectories combined with supported family, family friend, and community leads to a more positive view of the institution of marriage

. “As a result, rather than challenging the institution of marriage, cohabitation is part of the process. ”

. “Norms regarding the optimal location of childbearing remained broadly accepted, with marriage expected to precede childbearing. Men accepted marriage as part of the progression into adulthood. And college-educated women continued to attach great importance to marriage, even while valuing independence.”

· Growing class differences involve rapidly changing gender roles

. “acceptance of women’s greater role in decision making was stronger among our middle-class couples than among the service class”

. “College-educated women exhibited more agency than their less educated counterparts, on various fronts, 

. middle-class men were more receptive to their female partners’ opinions and desires than were service-class men”

. College-educated women more frequently initiated talk of moving in together or marriage

· “Traditional gender divisions were generally more firmly established among the service class, and less educated women often expressed frustration about their inability to attain their desires”. 

. “As a result, gender conflict emerged more consistently among service-class couples”

· Common gender norms in both classes:

. Responsibility of initiated dating and proposing marriage to men

. Women took control of their romantic lives in an indirect manner or “set the stage” and then left the final step to their male partners”

. Many women interviewed were able to persuade their partners to do what they wanted

. Most couples feel that the man had the final say

· “Many of the changes that distinguish the family-building patterns of the more and less educated are driven by differential access to resources—decent earnings or stable wages, health insurance coverage, housing support, and educational capital—that are the foundation for stable relationships. ”

. T“he service-class couples we interviewed were also far more likely to be living with children than were our middle-class couples“something that tends to make the household division of labor more unequal and decreases relationship satisfaction”

· The reason why college educated couples are more likely to get married but service-class couple aren’t is not only because of the material resources they have but “the strategies utilized within relationships by our service- and middle-class respondents, and the cultural toolkits men and women drew on to solve problems, helped create and reinforce different class trajectories. 

· Social class differences in the accumulation of relationship-enhancing skills begin early in life and increase over time.”

· “Compared to their middle-class counterparts, service-class cohabitors often failed to demonstrate mastery of important life skills increasingly central in both contemporary relationships and the work world: communication, cooperation, and negotiation.

· As a result, not only did our middle-class cohabitors have more in the way of structural supports, but they also exhibited more of the “soft skills” required to help them reach for and achieve what they desired. We distilled three important factors that differentiated the relationship experiences of our service-class and middle-class cohabitors.”

· Communication skills: college educated cohabitors had better communication skills, as a result “middle-class men and women expressed much greater levels of relationship satisfaction and were more likely to be engaged or talking about marriage than were their service-class counterparts.”

. College educated women had confidence in asking for what they wanted:

1. Able to “ask for more help with the housework, discuss their desires to utilize more than one contraceptive method to allay fears of unintended pregnancy, or initiate discussions of where their relationships were heading”

. “Middle-class cohabiting men were more receptive to their partners’ requests, such as taking on more of the housework when asked, than were their service-class counterparts”

. “less evidence of direct discussion, negotiation, and compromise among our service-class couples.”

· Support from family and friends:“Our college-educated respondents reported receiving substantial amounts of social and sometimes economic support from family and friends at numerous relationship stages, something which was mentioned far less often by the service-class couples. ”

. Middle class couple met through college or common people, increasing their chances in partnering from someone from a similar social class

. Service-class couples met in more anonymous settings, ex. Bars, online, etc  resulting in couples that were often “ of different racial or ethnic backgrounds, or differed in their parental status or age group, which some said influenced how parents or close friends perceived their relationships.”

. “middle-class respondents continued to receive familial encouragement, as well as fiscal support, to move a relationship along into an engagement and then marriage.”

3. Parents volunteering to share financial burden of weeding 

· Planning ahead: “the middle-class couples seemed more often to be “planners” than there service class counterparts

. “The college-educated, particularly the women, often had distinct time tables in mind about when certain events should take place.”

1. Ex. when to become sexually intimate, when to cohabit, when to get married

. “service-class respondents less often articulated clear plans for their lives, as individuals or as couples. ”

2. “many sought to defer serious talk of marriage until after they had attained particular markers they deemed to be necessary prerequisites—school completion and obtaining a stable job”

. “middle-class cohabitors reported having ongoing discussions of contraception, used the most effective means of prevention, and often utilized multiple forms of protection, many of the service-class cohabitors were more laid back about pregnancy prevention, even if they did not want to become parents.”

3. “Middle-class men and women both mentioned a desire to be married for a while before adding children to the mix. Many service-class men, in contrast, felt emotionally ready for fatherhood, if not marriage.”

· “structural disadvantages often interacted with behavioral factors to make attaining desired life goals more challenging for our less advantaged respondents than for our more educated ones.”

· “Service-class couples who had behaviors similar to their college-educated peers, still experienced greater challenges to attaining their goals.”

. “Most of those pursuing additional schooling in their early twenties or later frequently did so, however, without receiving much guidance or financial assistance from parents”

. College educated respondents with college-educated parents nevertheless assumed that additional schooling was the next step after high school and generally received assistance, both in terms of know-how and finances, to attend college.”

. “The majority of our service-class women reported being relatively vigilant about utilizing birth control but generally had less access to the most effective (hormonal) methods than their college-educated counterparts, often because of the nature of their jobs.”

. “for many of our struggling service-class couples, particularly those with children, existing tax policies served as a disincentive to formalizing their union via marriage. 

4. In particular, marriage was thought to reduce access to student loans, ultimately making a college degree more difficult to attain.”

3/1 - Cohabitation, Courtship & Divorce

· “The Case for Marriage” by Waite, Ch. 3: The Cohabitation Deal

· Summary

· Cohabitation is now extremely common, but people still see it as notably different from marriage

1. In current times, more couples are living together and are openly doing so. Cohabiting couples in the 70s used to present themselves as married because of the moral stigma. From surveys, nowadays most adults have either neutral feelings or mild disapproval of unmarried couples living together, so the stigma has weakened.

1. Disapproval is not as strong anymore, but the general public does not consider cohabitation and marriage the same at all. The main difference between them is that marriage is a public “vow of permanence”, while cohabitation is seen as temporary.

1. Single Parenthood with a Mate

2. The cohabiting partner is in an awkward position because he has no legal authority nor responsibility for the child

2. Future of the relationship is uncertain since they aren’t married, so it is a risk to get emotionally attached to the children

2. “Children living with cohabiting couples show poorer emotional development than children from married, two-parent families do.”

3. Lingxin Hao, "Family Structure, Private Transfers, and the Economic Well-being of Families with Children,".

. Fear of Fidelity

3. Cohabitors are less likely than spouses to consider the sexual relationship as “permanently exclusive”

1. therefore less faithful to their partners than married couples

. A Bank Balance of One’s Own

4. Cohabitors are less willing to support/be financially responsible for their partners

4. They usually take steps toward keeping their money separate 

2. vs most married couples have a single joint account

1. Judith Treas, "Money in the Bank: Transaction Costs and the Economic Organization of Marriage,".

. Lightening the Family Burden

5. Cohabitors value marriage less and are also more likely to value all familial relationships less

1. Clarkberg, Stolzenberg and Waite, "Attitudes, Values and Entrance,".

. The Benefits of Cohabitation

6. Most are short-term

6. “A readily available sex partner who will share the rent and do some of the cooking without making any longiterm promises”

6. Cohabiting women do less housework than married women

3. Scott J. South and Glenna D. Spitze, "Housework in 

3.  and Nonmarital Households,"

6. Cohabiting men have reduced family responsibility and therefore more time for themselves 

· Facts

· 4 million couples living together outside of marriage, 8 times as many as in 1970 (US Census 1998)

· In 1970: 1 cohabiting couple for every 100 married couples; at time of publishing: 8 cohabiting couples for every 100 married couples (US Census 1998)

· 81% of divorced and separated couples still believe marriage should be a lifetime commitment

· Dennis K. Orthner, "The Family in Transition,".

· Married couples are better off financially than cohabiting couples

· Catherine E. Ross, "Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Continuum of Social Attachment,".

· Some people try to avoid the pain and stigma of divorce by avoiding marriage altogether

· Alan Booth and David Johnson, "Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Success,".

· Feuds About Families by Benokraitis pp 146-147: Sex and Cohabitation

· Summary

· Liberal/Feminist views question the decision to get married

1. The economics of marriage are considered unfavorable; according to the reading, there is a 50% chance of marriage failure, and divorce is expensive.

1. Marriage also reduces welfare benefits, so some decide against it for this reason. This is seen by Joseph Spiers as the government disincentivizing stable families.

1. Middle aged divorcees or widows with college-age children also need to consider the fact that colleges factor in step-parent income if they decide to remarry. This fact makes it a decision between remarriage and their children’s education.

3/3 Cohabitation and Children

· “Family Structure and Child Well Being” Susan Brown, 2008

· CITATION: Brown, S.L. (2004), Family Structure and Child Well‐Being: The Significance of Parental Cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66: 351-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00025.x

· Children living in two‐biological‐parent cohabiting families experience worse outcomes, on average, than those residing with two biological married parents

· among children ages 6–11, economic and parental resources attenuate these differences

· Among adolescents ages 12–17, parental cohabitation is negatively associated with well‐being

· Child well‐being does not significantly differ among those in cohabiting versus married stepfamilies, two‐biological‐parent cohabiting families versus cohabiting stepfamilies, or either type of cohabiting family versus single‐mother families.

· “Child Deaths Resulting from Inflicted Injuries” Patricia G. Schnitzer and Bernard G. Ewigman, 2005

· Population based controlled study of all children less than 5 years of age who died in Missouri between Jan. 1992-Dec. 1999

· All cases involved where children were hurt by a parent figure in the house

· hypothesized that children in households with adults unrelated to them are at higher risk of inflicted-injury death than children residing in households with 2 biological parents

· Identified 149 inflicted injury deaths during the 8 years

· Kids in households with one non bio parent were 50 times more likely to die from this violence

· No increase for kids in single parent households

· Mainly male perpetrators 

3. Most were either the kid’s father or the mother’s boyfriend

3. Only two perpetrators were the biological parent

3/8 Marriage Since the 1950s

· “Marriage Go-Round” by Cherline chp. 3 The Rise of Companionate Marriages

· CITATION:Cherlin, Andrew J., 1948-. The Marriage-Go-Round : the State of Marriage and the Family in America Today. New York :Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.

· Rise of “being in love and married” during the middle of the twentieth century

· Prior, people questioned link to love and marriage

· Romance was seen as risky in a marriage 

· People needed stability

3. No welfare/Social Security at the time

. Diary of Isabell Maud Rittenhouse

2. Lady from the 1800s (diary from 1882-1884)

2. Illustrates the distrust of romantic love

2. She loved one man but decided to marry another because he was honorable (until he did some shady stuff)

2. She was part of the Progressive Era (1880-1920)

4. Time where the meaning of marriage began to change

1. “Overlapping of cultural values” in marriage - Elaine Tyler May

4. Married Women’s Property Acts being enacted at this time

2. Women had some control of their assets that they brought to the marriage, but their husbands still had authority

2. “If wives could control their own properties, they could leave the marriage if they were unhappy”

2. People (aka judges) would not like that

4. Thompson v Thompson

3. Court case in D.C. where a woman sued her husband for assault because of new laws

3. Ruled against the woman, saying this would open doors to false allegations everywhere

3. “Uphold domestic harmony”/ “marital privacy”

· Through the mid 20th century: courts dealt with marital violence as a private matter that called for counseling, NOT legal action

. Men were rarely prosecuted for beating their wives

. “Marital Rape” was not a thing

· “Marital Happiness” was an emerging concept in the Progressive Era

. Spread as the nation industrialized while fewer farmed

. In 1900: 40% of Americans lived in urban areas

. In 1950: 64% of Americans lived in urban areas

. In cities, there were more adults independent of their parents

4. This independence encouraged choosing a partner based more on emotional attraction

· Men still expected to be the breadwinners because of their factory or office jobs

. Women expected to take care of the children

1. Only 6% of married women in 1900 worked outside the home

. Husbands and wives depended on each other doing traditional gender roles

· Shift from farm to city changed the costs and benefits of raising children

. On farms: children were a part of the labor; the farm was a cooperative thing

. Industrialization (in the 20th century) declined the need for child labor in the family

. Parents realized children needed more school in order to get a good job

. This led to people having fewer kids

. Fewer children died

. This allowed people to realize that they could spend a few years together and not have children so soon

· Companionate Marriage

. Based on emotional ties between the husband and wife

. Gave idea that sex was for more than just kids

2. Sex was needed for a better/happier marriage idea (especially for the wife)

. By the 1920s: Stephanie Coontz said love and marriage became vital for identity; with attachments to kin; however the husband was still in charge

3. Tension with “husband as head” and “love based” marriages

. Male breadwinner ideal enhanced by Social Security Act of 1935, the GI Bill of Rights of 1944, and American tax laws in 1948

. 1950s: malebreadwinner roles reached their peaks

5. 95% of Americans were married

5. Half of all women were married by age 20

5. Had children at faster paces

5. Married men were deemed father to all of their wives children (even if they were not)

4. If an unmarried woman had a child, the father was a “legal stranger” (could not have contact)

5. “Shotgun marriages” became a thing

· A Spirituality of Dwelling

. Church memberships grew in the 1950s (59%)

1. This is because of competition

. Robert Wuthnow coined term “Spirituality of Dwelling”

2. It fit with the family-home centered decade

· The Distinctiveness of the 1950s

. Somethings about the family household in the 1950s that made it so stable

. Studies done that showed marriages do better if one person is assigned to make the money and the other is assigned to do the emotional stuff

. Impacts of the Great Depression and WWII

· “Masters of Marriage” Wilcox

· CITATION:

· UVA students are more focused on careers than marriage

. 32% of young adults 18-40 thought marriage was essential to a fulfilling life

. 64% said education

. 75% said making a good living

· Many things today tell young people to put marriage on the back burner

. Great Recession has impact on job focus

· “Man is by nature a social animal” - Aristotle 

· Being married is a good predictor of good economic, emotional, and health outcomes

. Men and women happily married are six time more likely to be “very happy” compared to their MARRIED counterparts and three times more likely to be “very happy” compared to their UNMARRIED counterparts

· Harvard Study of Adult Development

. Good relationships (including marriage) are important to us when we’re old

. Older people who had good marriages in their 50s had the best emotional and physical health in their 70s/80s

· Why Marriages Succeed or Fail

. Book by John Gottman

. States ½ marriages end in divorce

2. NOT ANY MORE

· Divorce increased during Divorce Revolution in the 1960s and 70s

. Peaked at about 23 divorces per married people in 1980

. Divorce rate has fallen more than 30% in 1980

. Come to around 15 divorces per 1,000 marriages in 2018 (1970 rate)

3. COVID also contributes to the decline in divorce rate

. Spencer James thinks only about 35% of marriages will end in divorce today

. Majority of kids today will not see their parents divorce, unlike kids born in the 70s

· Kids being born outside of marriage has fallen

. Since the Great Recession

. 1960-2009: nonmarital childbearing went up a lot

2. 5% in 1960 to 18% in 1980 and 41% in 2009

2. Since 2009, that rate fell to 39% in 2019

. Covid has made women more reluctant to have a kid because no one is there to lighten the workload

. Kids being born today are being raised by their married parents

4. 62% in 2013 to 64% in 2020

· Marital quality has stabilized

. Today, 65% of American husbands and wives say they are “very happy”

. Covid deepend commitment for both husband and wife

· The Bad News

. Not all family trends are taking a turn for the better

. The marriage rate has fallen more than 50% in the last 50 years

2. Recent peak of about 86 marriages for 1,00 unmarried couples in 1970 to about 34 marriages per 1,000 unmarried couples in 2019 (lowest level in the nation’s history)

2. Only ½ adults 18-70 are married currently, down from 75% in 1960

2. Decline can be due to people getting married later in life

3. Median age is 30

3. 35-55 year olds married has fallen from 84% in 1960 to 62% in 2018

2. With the trends, people say americans who ever marry will go from 80%  to 70%

2. Mainly it’s Covid’s fault

5. Economic fallout

2. More reluctant to get married if the man does not have a stable job

. Falling fertility rates

3. Lowered from 2.12 children per woman in 2007 to 1.65 in 2020

3. The birth rate has never been so low

3. Results in declining dynamism for the US economy

3. Millions of couples will not have the children they wanted

3. US will be a nation not populated by kin

3. Shows that family life is increasingly selective in America

3. Term for men without kin in China is “bare branches”

7. See this in Japan already

3/10 - Marriage Continued

· “The Case for Marriage” by Waite Ch. 1: The Marriage Wars ( 5 myths of the post-marriage culture)

· CITATION:

· Institution of marriage is being attacked

· People want to privatize marriage

· Marriage as an institution matters because it is supported by law, society, and custom. 

2. Because marriage is a public matter, it carries more meaning than it would if marriage were a private matter. Couples have the huge and meaningful choice of entering into a life long commitment till death with their significant other. It is recognized by law, the community, and social customs as something impactful. 

2. But if marriage were a private matter, couples could just end it whenever they feel like it and it wouldn’t carry the same meaning. Public marriage is more than the feelings of love. Private marriages would end whenever you lose the feeling of love. 

2. Paraphrased on page (11)

· Facts 

. “Ninety-three percent of Americans rate ‘having a happy marriage’ as either one of the most important , or very important objectives” (Waite Ch. 1 pages 2-3)

. In the late 80s the Center for Disease Control “reporting higher rates of infant mortality among unmarried mothers” which is due to economic and social factors (10-11)

. Public opinion shifted: “in 1962, 51 percent of young mothers interviewed disagreed with the notion that parents who don’t get along should stay together. Reinterviewed in 1985, 82 percent of these same women disapproved of staying together for the sake of the children.” 

· Wilcox, “Masters of Marriage”

· CITATION:

· Asians, the faithful, and the strivers

. The strivers are people who prioritize education, financial success, and hard work. These groups have the best results with stable family life because of several factors. A lot of it comes down to cultural values and practices. But also socioeconomic factors. These groups prioritize commitment and hard work and success for similar and different reasons. They also don’t practice the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse (stonewalling, defensiveness, criticism, and contempt). The 5-1 rule about positive to negative interactions are key to marriages. 

· Facts

. “regular churchgoers are between 30-40% less likely to get divorced.” (Wilcox 13)

. “Asian Americans as a whole, what you see is that only 15% of ever-married Asians ages 18-50 are divorced, compared to 32% of whites, 29% of Hispanics, and 42% of African Americans.[i] Longitudinal data tell us that Asians are 30% less likely to divorce than other Americans” (Wilcox 14)

. 69% of children with college-educated mothers are in intact, married families, compared to 51% of their peers from less educated homes (Wilcox 14)

. “higher-income neighborhoods are dominated by two-parent families—with about 80% of the families with children in these communities headed by such families. Lower-income neighborhoods, by contrast, are places where almost 50% of the families are headed by single parents.” (Wilcox 5)

. “In these top ten counties, more than half are among the most religious in the nation (in the top quartile—25%—for religiosity in the nation.” (Wilcox 8)

. “stable families are rarer in the South, Appalachia, and communities with more African Americans. These trends in family instability are beyond the scope of this book but when it comes to the South, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, lower levels of education, and a Scotch-Irish culture marked by higher levels of family dysfunction have all had a hand in fueling family instability south of the Mason Dixon Line. Scotch-Irish culture and less education have also left their imprint on Appalachian family life, and the cumulative effects of slavery and Jim Crow help explain why counties with more Black Americans have more single parents.” (Wilcox 10)

6. Unstable families

3/15 What is the purpose of marriage? (Waite Chapter 2) 

3/17 Marriage, Happiness, and Sex (Waite chapters 4-6)

Citation: (Wait & Gallagher 2000)

Waite- Chapter 4 In Sickness and in Health

· “Nonmarried… have higher rates of mortality than the married: about 50% higher among women and 250% higher among men” p47

· “Researchers found that having a spouse lowered a cancer patient's risk of dying of the disease by as much as would being in an age category ten years younger than he or she” p48

· The benefits could partly be from selection, but research supports marriage itself having a causal relationship on the health benefits. Furthermore, these benefits do not come from simply living with another adult- marriage is causally different to significant degree. 

· “Married men really do settle down, while men who aren’t married voluntarily behave in ways that endanger their own lives and health”  p53

· “As young men begin to think of themselves as husbands rather than bachelors, their values and their behavior apparently change” 54

· “Wives monitor both their own and their spouse’s health. Not only do they discourage drinking, smoking, and speeding, but they cook low-fat or low-cholesterol meals, add more fruits and vegetables to the family diet, and encourage regular sleeping habits” 55

· “The emotional support of a spouse seems to help people recover better when illness strikes or manage chronic disease (such as diabetes) better over the long term.” 56

· Marital quality can predict immune function 57

· Marital health advantages for women come more from more money- access to better neighborhoods, private health insurance, etc since they already have overall better rates of health and healthier habits than men 60

· “Marriage improves women’s health, but it improves men’s health more” 62

· “If marriage was just a piece of paper, then cohabiting couples who share a home and bed should behave just like married couples” but the research shows this is just not true 63

·

Chapter 5- Happily Ever After?

· “Marriage appears to be an important pathway toward better mental and emotional health” 67

· “Married men and women report less depression, less anxiety, and lower levels of other types of psychological distress than do those who are single, divorced, or widowed.” 67

· “The selection of happy and healthy people into marriage cannot explain the big advantage in mental and emotional health husbands and wives enjoy” 68

· “A spouse comforts partly because he or she has the knowledge that comes form long, emotional acquaintance but also because only a spouse can offer the peculiar reassurance tha whatever life tosses at you… at least you won’t face it alone” 69

· “Because they had people’s measures of mental health both before and after marriage, Marks and Lambert were able to rule out selection” 70

· “Married people have a starring role in the lives of their spouses; their shared universe would cease to exist if something happened to either one of them. Marriage improves emotional well-being f in part by giving people a sense that their life has meaning and purpose” 75

Chapter 6- With My Body I Thee Worship: The sexual advantages of marriage

· “Married people have both more and better sex than singles do. They not only have sex more often but they enjoy it more, physically and emotionally, than do their unmarried counterparts. Only cohabitors have more sex than married couples, but they don’t necessarily enjoy it as much” 79

· “Each act of sex for singles is costly, compared to that of married people” 80

· When one combines sex and satisfaction, the sexual advantage for marriage becomes even more pronounced: Married women are almost twice as likely as divorced and never-married women to have a sex life that (a) exists and (b) is extremely emotionally satisfying” 82

· “48 percent of husbands say sex with their partners is extremely satisfying emotionally, compared to just 37 percent of cohabiting men” 83

· Commitment is a key factor to sexual satisfaction for men AND women 86

· “ women who believed they’d spend their whole lives with thier current boyfriend were much more emotionally satisfied with their sexual relationship than were other single women” 86

· Married people have stronger incentives to learn what pleases their partner sexually, they also have more time to learn each other’s desires and “get in sync” 

· “Sex wtih someone you love literally doubles your sexual pleasure: you get satisfaction not only from your own sexual response but from your partner’s as well” 89

· “One reason men find married sex more satifying than we predicted is that it reduces the threat of outside competition, and hence, the performance anxiety associated with sex” 91

· “Married sex is better sex” because of the following reasons summed up into the following reasons on p96

· Proximity

· A long-term contract

· Exclusivity

· Emotional bonding

3/22 - Domestic Violence & Housework

· Waite chapter 11 - Domestic Violence

· CITATION:

· Women are as likely to be killed by husbands, boyfriends, exes as by strangers. (Waite, 151). {cohabitation and marriage data on domestic violence are treated as one}

· Both men and women are as likely to initiate violence, but wives are more likely to suffer injuries from domestic violence. (Waite, 153) Battery is primarily committed by men. (Waite, 154)

· Although they shouldn’t, experts imply that domestic violence is not linked to violent men but to marriage. (Waite, 150) 

· Women are safer in a marriage, far less likely to be crime victims (Waite, 152), and marriage is safer than cohabitation (155).

· A 1994 Justice Department report stated that in any given year, single or divorced women were 4 to 5 times more likely to be victimized. The widowed are least likely of all. Compared to wives, single & divorced women are almost 10 times more likely to be raped, and almost 3 times more likely to be victims of aggravated assault (Waite, 152).

· In marriages, a large majority of couples resolve their conflicts peacefully. In a 1994 survey, a reported 8% of wives and 6% of husbands said that their conflicts became physical. A little fewer said there was hitting, shoving or throwing of objects. Only 1.7% of wives and 0.75% of husbands suffered from battery - physical violence that results in injury. 

· Rates of rape against women, in 1992-93, husbands 5%; ex-spouses, boyfriends, ex-boyfriends 21%; 56% acquaintance, friend, other relative

· Cohabitating couples are more than 3 times as likely to say things get too violent than married couples, even after controlling for age, education, race, and gender. (Waite, 155) Men are less likely to attack wives than girlfriends because husbands are more committed so the costs aren’t as high. (Waite, 157)

· 2 Types of domestic violence: common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism

· Surveys can’t differentiate between the two well, and there is little known about the role of marriage in allowing or preventing the latter. 

· Men benefit from marriage

· Marriage aids men in reforming. Former juvenile delinquents who entered a good marriage saw a decrease in criminal activity. The drop was about ⅔ compared to those who didn’t marry or enter into a good marriage. (Waite, 158)

· Because marriage is a social institution, men are less likely to commit domestic violence due to the reputation, arrest, and other costs. (Waite, 158)

· Family structure matters when predicting future marital violence. 

· Children living with a biological parent and a stepparent are 40 times more likely to be sexually abused than one living with two biological parents. (Waite, 159) 

· A UIowa study found that non-biological male caretakers are 4 times as likely to sexually abuse children in their care. Unmarried mothers’ boyfriends commit almost ½ of reported cases of child abuse by nonparents. (Waite, 159) 

· Waite chapter 12 - His vs. Her Marriage

· CITATION:

· Both husbands and wives gain from marriage. Both live longer, healthier, wealthier lives. (Waite, 163) Popularized arguments from the past that women are worse off in marriage are false.

· Past studies examined the mental health differences between wives with children and childless single women which is not a fair comparison. (Waite, 165)

· Men gain greater health benefits because single men have the tendency for more antisocial and unhealthy lifestyles so being married reduces this. Thus, marriage has a more significant health effect on men than women.

· A study by Kessler & Essex found that the presence of kids in a marriage protects wives from depression.  

· A study from researchers at Rutgers found that marriage boosted mental health for both men and women compared to singles (after taking into account mental health and other factors) (Waite, 166). Another study by Waite & Hughes found that after controlling for a number of factors, married people (with or without children) were less depressed and emotionally healthier than their respective single counterparts. (Waite, 166)

· Both men and women’s health and earnings gain from marriage, but for men even more so. Both are safer, more sexually satisfied, wealthier, but for women even more so. Both equally benefit from emotional wellbeing. 

· His and her marriages are actually more similar than different. (Waite, 168)

· Differences in marital satisfaction for husbands and wives are too small to measure. In recent surveys, the married express very high and similar levels of satisfaction. (Waite, 169)

· Husbands and wives are equally dedicated to each other and marriage. (Waite, 169)

· Benok. Chapter 5 pages 86 - 99

· CITATION:

· Centrist view to family roles

· Men being breadwinners in a marriage provides women more options with their life because they aren’t being forced into work. (Benokraitis, 90)

· Choice for women is crucial to their happiness

2. Least depressed women are those who have the choice to either work or stay home, doing what they prefer; children suffer when women don’t have the choice. (Benokraitis, 90)

1. The recent increase of women in the workforce originated from the necessity for an income, not personal choice. 

3.  Millions of middle-class married mothers are being put into the workplace, whatever their preference on working is. (Benokraitis, 89)

1. “Full-time working women, especially women who are working against their wishes, may be more prone to divorce because they get less from marriage” (Benokraitis, 89).

4. This is because for women who stay at home, either part or full-time, divorce completely changes their way of life. For full-time employed women, their life doesn’t change as drastically. Many working women chose work out of fear of divorce. Because of more divorce from the Divorce Revolution, women are choosing to work to establish independence and self-reliance. More women in the workplace against their will, more divorce - vicious cycle. They suffer and their marriage suffers. (Benokraitis, 90).

1. Recent changes in erosion of the breadwinner role, increase in share of women in the workforce, decline in patriarchal authority did not affect the happiness of men, especially married men, but it decreased the happiness of women, particularly younger married women.

5. “In the most recent prestigious Roper polls, 53 percent of women said they would prefer to be at home” (Benokraitis, 89).

1. Married men make more than single men or women by 70%.  (Benokraitis, 88)

. Leftist/Feminist view to family roles

2. Family life is heavily influenced by culture and spouses’ families. (Benokraitis, 94)

2. Believe that …

2. Motherhood shouldn’t be different and more involved than fatherhood. Women are accepted as workers, but expected also to be homemakers as a result of a lag of men’s role in marriage. (Benokraitis, 96)

2. Men’s career should be affected as much as women’s careers. (Benokraitis, 95)

· Men don’t contribute enough at home, expected women to work and care for home

· Women joining the workforce and politics is a step forward, but men’s involvement is seemingly a step down. (Benokraitis, 96)

· Men are afraid of intimacy because it threatens their masculinity. (Benokraitis, 95)

· Men can gain more by having a stronger emotional engagement. However, society hasn’t helped or allowed them to change (Benokraitis, 96)

· Society drives us to be workaholics so family life suffers. (Benokraitis, 98)

· “In a Los Angeles Times survey, nearly 40 percent of men say they would change jobs to have more family and personal time; and in another survey, cited by Time magazine, half of the men interviewed said they would refuse a promotion that involved sacrificing family time” (Benokraitis, 98).

· Family values are privately created and a variety of family structures should be promoted. (Benokraitis, 99)

· The US’ economy has forced most married couples to work, but it doesn’t offer much social or workplace support for this. (Benokraitis, 95)

· Many companies don’t support work-family programs because of believed high costs although proven not to make companies lose money.

· Most bosses are male so they don’t see the worth of these programs. They think it’s up to the mothers to figure it out. Women don’t have enough authority in the professional world to change this mindset. 

· Suggestions to improve work-life balance (Benokraitis, 98)

· On-site daycare

· Flextime: allowing employees to pick their hours/days, compressed workweeks 

· No mandatory overtime

· Family Leave: some form of paid parental leave

· Telecommuting 

3/31 Marriage and Men

Waite Ch 7- “The Wages of Wedlock”

· CITATION:

· “Married couples are far more affluent, on average, than singles” -- this is particularly true for men (p. 96)

· Personal earnings affect men and women differently

· Married men make more money than single men (p. 99)

· Married women are financially better off then single women (because they share their husbands earnings), but if they get divorced, they are usually worse off than single women who have continued to work (p.99)

· Married men’s wages rise faster than single (p.100)

· Idea of specialization- married men make more because they specialize in making money, not housework, etc. (p. 102)

· Marriage increases women's time spent on housework by about 6 and a half hours a week (p. 106)

· Patterns in women are very complex- with children or not, divorced or not, the story is not always the same 

2/8 Love, Courtship, and Dating: How They’ve Changed

Benok pg 106-130: Feuds about families- conservative, centrist, and liberal perspectives 

Pg 106 

1. Battleground over family values 

2. Foundation of marriage is archaic 

b. Wooing, courting, etc. 

Pg 107

1. In past times, people groomed for marriage 

2. Very clear cultural guidelines 

3. At first, man would come to woman’s house

c. On the woman’s terms

1. Then, dates in public

d. Man had to have income 

d. On man’s terms more 

1. Then, dating became a social thing 

e. Popularity, not about suitability for marriage 

1. Finding a partner was a goal in high school/ college 

1. Now, many ppl go to college but the main goal or even a top goal is finding a partner 

g. Most ppl wait until a couple years after college 

1. Author says women are sad, lonely, confused

h. Want more (i.e. dates, courting ) 

Pg 108

1. First time in history where many women are living through their entire 20s without a relationship 

a. Peak fertility 

1. Author says their refuge is work and feminism ideology

1. If people do get married → enter into marriage suspiciously and nervous 

c. Pre nup, “sliding” after cohabitation 

1. Obstacles to courtship 

d. Higher rates of parent’s divorce 

d. Absent fathers

d. Female contraception 

d. Sexual revolution 

d. Changing educational and occupational role of women 

d. Infidelity

d. Abortion 

d. Increases in geographic mobility

d. Pop culture that celebrates youth and 20s instead of as a transition to adulthood 

d. Less virtuous women 

x. Less modest 

Pg 109

1. Sexual revolution mainly was revolutionary for women 

a. Probably wouldnt have occurred without access to birth control 

a. Female sexuality becomes unlinked to the future → dont have to worry as much about having kids 

1. Sex education in schools has goals for two things: 

b. Preventing unwanted pregnancy

b. Preventing diseases 

b. Same weight 

Pg 110 

1. Not very much taught about the emotional aspects of sex

2. Divorce plays an important role in shaping people’s views about relationships 

b. For many, traumatizing event that shaped their entire childhood 

1. A lot of ppl want to cohabitate as a “trial marriage” 

Pg 111

1. Marital life is the same as cohabitation for those couples that do get married 

2. Couples who live together before marriage have a higher rate of divorce 

b. Possible reasons: disenchantment, lack of wooing, too much familiarity 

1. Author says women being more assertive leads to men feeling less confident 

c. Women dont have to rely as much on a man 

c. However, higher educated women make for more engaging partners, can be friends with their husbands too bc have stuff to talk about 

Pg 112

1. Younger generations not as ready for adulthood as in past generations 

a. Holding onto youth longer, partying, etc. 

1. Not sure exactly what marriage entails 

b. b/c not as clear cultural norms 

Pg 113

1. Youth is celebrated now 

a. Reason for delaying marriage 

1. Male “liberation” from domestication 

b. Men less likely to commit 

Pg 114

1. Procreation still at the center of marriage 

Pg 115

1. Unification is amplified by raising the child together

a. Bonds couples 

1. Marriage and procreation are at the heart of human life 

1. Life gets serious when you are responsible for someone else’s life 

Pg 116 

1. Something needs to be done to conserve marriage and the attributes that come with it 

Pg 118 

1. Americans believe in love as the basis for an enduring relationship 

a. 1970 survey-- 96% of americans wanted someone to live with/ have a family with 

a. Same results for survey in 1980 

a. BUT in a 1978 survey, 60% of americans said most couples getting married today dont expect to spend rest of life together

Pg 119

1. Balance of: 

a. Spontaneity, solidity, freedom, intimacy 

a. Need to have own things going on in life

Pg 120 

1. Need to do things for yourself too 

a. Cant always be about your partner 

Pg 121

1. Relationships deepened by being part of a wider set of purposes (religion, politics, etc) 

2. Something beyond self 

Pg 123

1. Old stereotypes that men have better friendships 

a. Bonding over things like hunting, bars, politics, business, sports, etc. 

Pg 124

1. With rise of cultural feminism (60s and 70s), ppl said that women’s way of friendships and expressing love was healthier and better than men’s 

a. Their intimacy/ way of expressing love showed moral support 

Pg 125

1. Men and women express love differently 

a. For men → action 

a. For women → talking

a. Results in misunderstandings 

Pg 126 

1. Women report higher marital satisfaction when the husband expresses affection, regardless of what he did that day (i.e. cooking, fixing something around the house) 

2. men→ “side by side” 

3. Women → “face to face” 

Pg 127

1. Men talk about trivial subjects more 

2. Women are more likely to talk about fears, weaknesses, feelings (more vulnerable) 

Pg 128 

1. One of men’s love languages is teasing 

a. Hard for women to understand 

a. Often, there’s not a hidden meaning behind the jokes 

3/31 Marriage and Men : 

Benok. Pg 81-85

Conservative view: women should domesticate Men for marriage

Summary: 

Women’s role is to be a vessel of the ultimate values of the nation. Women teach the values of the community, and her ability to transmit these values to men determines the success of the society.(Women’s ability to domesticate men) Men, sacrifice their male sexuality and self-expression so that they may serve their wives and family for a lifetime. 

Citation: 

· Women’s Role 

· Women are in charge of the domestic values of the community- its moral aesthetic,religious , nurturant, social , and sexual concerns (Pg 81)

· Women teach men morality

· The success or failure of civilized society depends on how well the women can transmit these values to men. Pg 91

· Women’s morality is the ultimate basis of all morality. Pg 82

· The man’s recognition of the preciousness and quality of individuals is learned from women and originates with feminine concern for relationships, beginning in the womb and at the breast. Pg 82

· Women’s role is individual

· Only a specific women can bear a specific child  pg 82

· When women raise children, she imparts her own values.

· “She is the vessel of the ultimate values of the nation. The community is largely what she is and what she demands in men. “ (Pg 82) 

· If a child lacks close attention of mothers and the disciplines and guidance of fathers they tend to become barbarians who threaten society. Pg 82

· To prevent substantial decline in the quality of children (meaning, child’s willingness to work hard and contribute to society ) women must devote long hours to raising and disciplining the new generation. Pg. 83

· Gilligan’s point: Women make great sacrifices that are essential to society pg 83

· Female responsibility entails difficult sacrifices of freedom and autonomy pg 83.

· Maragaret Mead’s research in women happiness

· Women are most contended not when they are granted influence, power and wealth, but when the female role of wife and mother is exalted. Pg 83 

· Men make the greatest sexual sacrifice

· Sexual restraint for women is necessary for the fulfillment of their larger sexuality in families. A Man will not support women while she philanders. Pg 83

· In order to serve a woman and family for a lifetime, men sacrifice with pain their most profound yearning for sexual freedom and self-fulfillment, the combination of lust and wanderlust.  Pg 83

· This sacrifice is no less than women’s work in the home, and is essential to civilization pg 83

· Men sacrifice individuality to support wife and children pg. 84

· Men are likely to succeed precisely to the extent that he is willing to subordinate himself to the narrow imperatives of his specialty, Precisely to the extent that he forgoes the distractions and impulses of the full personality. Pg. 84

· They have to limit themselves, at great psychological cost, to fit the function of the economic division of labor. Pg 84

· Men make these sacrifices and endure this submission in order to make enough money for their families, earn a place in the household, and to be needed by women. Pg 84 

Waite CHA 7: Wages of Wedlock

Citations:

· Overall, both men and women who marry enjoy higher average household incomes than singles

· 1991 Statistical Abstract of the US gives the median income of married couples $47,129  compared to single men = $26,023 and single women= $15,892 (Pg 98)

· When it comes to personal earnings, marriage affects men and women differently(pg 98)

· Success and the Married Men 

· Husbands earn at least 10% more than single men, and perhaps as high as 40% more. (pg 99) 

· Wage gap between husbands and bachelors are bigger for older men  (pg99)

· Ages 55-64 married men earn 20-32% more than their unmarried counterparts (pg100)

· Same outcome shown in 14 other developed countries

· Every country studied, married men earned more than unmarried. (pg100)

· Rise in wages is not explained through discrimination by employers (pg 100)

· If it was discrimination by employers we would see one- jump in earnings as men swich from unwed to married. 

· However, we see a fast rise in wages for married men

· Rises in wage is at a faster rate for married men. 

· Why do married men earn more?

· Put higher premium on money 

· In order to provide for family , choose better paying jobs (pg 102)

· Power of specialization

· Women spend more hours in housework so that men can specialize in earning money. ( pg 102-103)

· Married men are more productive at work ( pg 104)

· Men with wife who received higher education make more 

· Wives monitor husbands, and help them succeed at work. ( pg 104-105)

· Wages of Wedlock for women

· Women do get a boost in earning (pg 105)

· <4% more for white childless wives

· 10% more for black wives without children

· Women may specialize in ways during marriage that leaves them worse off if the marriage ends in divorce ( pg 106)

· Marriage neither increases nor decreases women’s personal earning, Penalty comes mostly from motherhood. (pg 107)

· For black wives, kids reduce but do not eliminate wage premium they get from marriage (pg 108)

· Wite married women pay wage penalty that increases per child

2. White moms earn less because they choose to work less.  (pg 108)

. When married women cut back on work to care for children, the family may benefit, but the women are taking a risk that their marriage will last. (pg 108)

Waite 8 : For Richer or for Poorer

· Married couples have higher net worth ( pg 112)

· Married= $132,000

· Never married = $35,000

· Divorced individuals= $33,670

· Widows and widowers median net worth $47,000

· Why do married couples have higher net worth?

· Savings advantage

· Being married seems to encourage creation and retention of wealth, longer the marriage, greater the wealth accumulations. (pg 113)

· More productive together than either would be as a single individual 

· Even when both work, they can specialize and exchange in ways that leave the family financially better off. (pg 114)

· More responsibilities → behave more responsibly about money  (pg 116)

· Social norms associated with marriage encourage people to do things that build wealth (pg 116)

· Buy house, save for college, buy a car

· Marriage → trust and commitment→ allows pooling of money, labor, and time thus married people create more opportunities for building wealth. (pg 117)

· More financial help from extended families on both sides ( pg 117)

· Cost of Divorce 

· Two household need more money than one to have the same standard of living (pg 118)

· Even if income is divided fairly, the standard of living of the family drops by 25% after divorce.

· Mothers and children experience large drops in their income after a divorce (pg. 119)

· Effect of divorce on net worth is long-lasting, and early divorce has a greater impact than later-life divorce ( pg 120)

· Widows and Widowers

· Women see their standard of living fall on average ⅓ when their husbands die. (pg 120)

· About the same decline as the one that accompanies divorce. 

· Married-couples are less likely to slip into poverty than single people, especially single mothers. (pg 121)

· Single mothers are more likely to be poor because they are younger and less educated than married mothers. (pg 122)

· Marriage is an important road out of poverty for [female-headed families], though not as important as work.(pg 122)