Discussion 4

Sociology of

Families

Angela Barian

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 2

Sociology of Families

A N G E L A B A R I A N

WHAT MAKES A FAMILY?

‘Traditional families’ & the nostalgia trap

Evolution of the American family

Divorce and the typical American family

MEETING, MATING, & MULTIPLYING – OR NOT

Mate selection in the 21st century

The cohabitation revolution

The wedding industrial complex

Fertility and reproduction

INSTITUTIONAL & INTERPERSONAL CHALLENGES TO FAMILIES

The division of household labor

Parenting in the modern world

Intimate-partner violence

Divorce and remarriage

THE FUTURE OF FAMILIES

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 3

INTRODUCTION

 How do you make a family?

Sebastian Stadil was single. After a

breakup with his girlfriend, he was eager to

move on and find “the one.” But as “a fat,

bald, short guy whose only quality is that he

isn’t an ax murderer,” Sebastian decided to try

to increase his chances of finding a mate. He

went to the dating app Tinder and wrote a

program that would “swipe right” on everyone.

In other words, Sebastian expressed interest in

every single person who passed by his phone’s

screen. By the time he finished his experiment

at “engineering love,” Sebastian went on 150

dates in four months. Despite all these dates,

he says he didn’t find his soul mate through his

Tinder experiment.1 Sebastian Stadil is still

single.

Even though Sebastian failed in his quest,

a recent study showed that the number of

couples who meet online has soared. More

people now meet online than through family, church, or even college.2 In fact, for both same-

sex and heterosexual couples, more people meet online than any other method.3 But is this

really that different from older, more “traditional” ways of finding a partner? What is traditional

in terms of families, anyway? How do families come together — and come apart? And how

do societies shape even the most personal aspects of our lives, like love and marriage? These

are the types of questions family sociologists investigate.

In this chapter, we’ll explore these questions and more by looking at the work of a wide

range of scholars, social commentators, and critics. Some of them study family structure and

formation over hundreds of years and across the globe. Some investigate how housework gets

divided. Some are interested in how race, class, and gender affect who we marry and how

our children are raised. Some study how family traditions we take for granted can result in

social control and domination. But all of these researchers stress that the family isn’t a rigid,

unchanging institution, always and everywhere the same. Instead, it’s a dynamic, constantly

Dating apps have become popular in recent years.

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 4

evolving social institution, interpreted through the lens of lived experience and shaped by

power dynamics.

I have two goals for this chapter. The first is

to introduce you to the ways that the

institution of the family changes us. This

“cornerstone of American society”4 shapes

how we live and relate to one another. What

family forms are most common, and where?

What is a “traditional” family? How do we

meet our spouses? How can we explain that

the U.S. currently has the lowest teen

pregnancy rate in over three decades? Do

rich and poor parents raise their children

differently? These are some of the questions

we’ll tackle.

The second goal of the chapter is to consider how the family changes. People don’t

always follow social norms, so “the family” is constantly changing, in sometimes inconsistent,

contradictory ways. Why are there more single women than married women in the U.S. now,

for the first time in history? Is the legalization of same-sex marriage comparable to the

legalization of interracial marriage? Why do Baby Boomers have the highest divorce rates?

So as you read, imagine how individuals and social structure intersect to create the

families we know — and love.

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 5

WHAT MAKES A FAMILY?

 What are some different ways of defining the family?

 How did different family systems throughout history interact to create what we currently

understand to be a family?

 What do American families look like today?

What makes a family? The answer

depends on when and where you’re asking

the question. In North America, children are

less likely to live with two parents than they are

in parts of the Middle East or Asia.5 In Europe in

the 1600s, “family” sometimes referred to a

man and his children – but not his wife.6 And

the Mosuo people of China, an ethnic group

living close to the border of Tibet, don’t

necessarily consider marriage to be a part of a

family at all; in their tradition of zuo hun, or

“walking marriages,” women and their lovers

may have children, but sibling groups raise

them.7 All men in the family are referred to as “uncles.”8 Clearly, there is no one definition of

family. But in modern America, we can say that a family refers to a group of people who are

connected by blood, a sexual relationship, or the law.

A number of traditions contribute to what we call a family. In the book To Kill a

Mockingbird, the character Jem says, “You can choose your friends but you sho’ can't choose

your family.”9 Jem is sort of correct; you can’t control who is born into your family. But we do

have some control over who makes up our family: The most basic form of human relationship is

referred to as kinship, and it includes relationships defined by blood, affinity (affection), and

adoption. In other words, our kin are made up of people like our parents, sisters and brothers,

aunts and uncles, and also people to whom we choose to be related.

The Mosuo, who often call themselves Na, practice

“walking marriages.” (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 6

How do we create a family? One way is through

marriage, a socially sanctioned union that includes legal

rights and responsibilities of the spouses to each other, their

children, and the larger society. Another is through

adoption, the process of parents voluntarily choosing to

have a legal parent-child relationship with a child who isn’t

related to them by blood. In the last 50 years in the U.S., the

number of blended families, a family with a step-parent,

step-sibling, or half-sibling, has been on the rise. Almost 40%

of new marriages involve a partner who has been married

before.10 At the same time, the number of two-parent

families is declining. In fact, we’ve made so many changes

that in the United States, there is no longer a single

dominant family form.11

Societies exert control over how families form and

grow through social norms that evolve over time and place.

For example, some societies are matrilineal; they determine

kinship between generations through the mother’s line. In

these societies, women may get their names from their mothers, as well as property and titles.

Remember the Mosuo? They are a matrilineal society: lineage is traced through female

ancestors, and property is passed down through women.12 Conversely, patrilineal societies

determine kinship, names, property, and titles through the male line. The broader Chinese

family system is patrilineal: names, kinship, and property pass from father to son. The Chinese

family system also practices patrilocal residence, a system in which a wife moves in with her

husband’s family after getting married.13

Some norms are considered universal – that is, they exist in virtually all societies. One of

these is the incest taboo, the cultural prohibition against sexual activity between relatives.

According to anthropologists who gathered longitudinal data (gathered at different points in

time) on family formation around the globe, the incest taboo is one of only a few universal

taboos. All cultures have rules about which kinship relations are appropriate and inappropriate

as sexual partners. But that doesn’t mean the content of the rules is the same. For example,

while contemporary Americans would never consider marrying their siblings, Cleopatra, who

ruled Egypt from 51 to 30 BCE, was married to two of her younger brothers (at different

times).14

Kinship can be defined by blood,

affinity, and adoption. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 7

Figure 1: Diversity in Family Forms15

Other family variations that may seem strange

or “wrong” to us were exceedingly common at other

times and in other places. For example, though

societies have been more disapproving in the past

century or so, polygamy, or having multiple spouses at

the same time, used to be much more common. The

more frequent type of polygamy is polygyny, in which

one man has multiple wives. Less common is

polyandry, where one woman has multiple husbands;

it is still practiced in Tibet.16 Before the Industrial

Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, polygyny was

accepted in 75% of the upper classes in traditional

societies.17 This makes polygamy the most common

form of marriage found in world history! While in

contemporary American society, the idea of having

multiple spouses at once might sound unusual or even

immoral, in other cultures, people find it completely

normal. Have you ever heard the saying, “a woman’s

work is never done?” In Botswana, they say, “Without

co-wives, a woman’s work is never done.”18

The point? Defining “the family” is much more

complicated than it seems at first, and there is no

single, universal, unchanging version of it.

‘Traditional’ families & the nostalgia trap

When you hear “the traditional family,” what image comes to mind? Who are

the people? What do they look like? If you imagined an old TV show (perhaps Leave It to

Beaver) with a nuclear family – a married couple and their dependent children – you wouldn’t

be alone. That is one of the most popular understandings of a “traditional” American family: a

working father, a stay-at-home mother, and two children. Often, this popular image of the

family is White and middle-class as well.

Or maybe your image was different, like the Pritchetts in the TV show Modern Family, a

family that is not only blended but has adopted children, a May-December relationship (a

relationship with a large age gap between partners), and same-sex marriage.

Source: Pew Research Center, 2015

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 8

The image of the traditional, eternally happy nuclear family is shaped in part by popular

culture, politics, and news media. But this image is mostly a fiction. Widely varying formal and

informal norms guided what is considered appropriate behavior in families at various times

and places:

• In Europe in the 1700s, the age of sexual consent was ten.19

• During the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, American

cultural anxieties linked “deviant” sexual behavior to treason, or an act

against the state.20 This included being gay, having children out of

wedlock, and simply not getting married by the time it was expected!

• In colonial America, stepfamilies were pretty common, mostly because

people died from diseases, leaving their spouses to remarry.21

• Until fairly recently, husbands in the U.S. were believed to have a right

to have sex with their wives, and so could not be prosecuted for raping

their spouse. Marital rape didn’t become a crime in all 50 states until

1993.

• In late-1800s America, many parents sent their children to work 12-hour

shifts in hot and crowded sweatshops, mines, and factories. Some of

these children were as young as six years old.22

• In the 1800s and early 1900s, doctors encouraged pregnant women to

drink alcohol for morning sickness, to calm their nerves, and to help

invigorate and strengthen them for labor and childbirth.23

• Until fairly recently, American married couples couldn’t get divorced

without proving that one (and only one) of the spouses had violated

the vows of marriage by committing adultery, mental cruelty, or other

such acts.24 If the judge found that both spouses had acted improperly

and so were both “at fault,” the judge could deny the divorce.

• For the last 150 years, the American family has been slowly but steadily

shrinking. But the coming decade will probably be the first in a while to

buck that trend; households are now increasing in size for the first time

since 1850–60.25

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 9

Typically, what people mean when they talk about the

“traditional” family is 1950s America. But even this image of the

happy 1950s nuclear family is largely a fiction. For example, while

stay-at-home moms might seem to have been the rule in 1950s

and 1960s America,26 there were important differences by race

and class. Dual-earner partnerships, where both spouses work for

income, have been common in African American families going

back hundreds of years. In fact, Blacks were at the forefront of

creating what we now know as a “modern egalitarian marriage,”

where both spouses work outside the home and do housework

and childcare.27 From the 1800s through today, the financial

challenges facing working-class and poor families dictated that

everyone had to contribute to running the household.28 As family

historian Stephanie Coontz noted, “Contrary to popular

belief, Leave it to Beaver was not a documentary.”29

Obviously, one of the biggest problems with longing

for a “return to a simpler time” is that this perfect family

never really existed. Indeed, some families looked like the

family in Leave It to Beaver. But the American family has

never taken only one form. Families have always been

changing and adapting – and often struggling – and

connections between people tend to help families during

these struggles. Imagining that it was all so much easier

“back then” blinds us to the strategies families have used

for generations that have made them so resilient.

In addition, there is evidence that Americans are just

fine with the changing American family. According to a

Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2019,

“three-in-ten U.S. adults think it’s a good thing that there is

growing variety in the types of family arrangements people

live in, while about half as many (16%) say this is a bad

thing. The largest share (45%) don’t think it makes a

difference.”30 As you can see in the chart on the left, this

represents a change over the course of the last decade: in

general Americans are moving away from concern and

toward acceptance.

The cast of Leave It to

Beaver, a TV show that aired

from 1957-1963. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 10

Evolution of the American family

“Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage. This I tell

you, brother: you can’t have one without the other.” So goes the old Frank Sinatra song.31 In

order to get married, should you be in love with your partner? That may sound like a stupid

question. Americans today tend to choose our partners based on feelings of affection and

connection. Cultural notions even regard love as the primary driver of a successful relationship.

The saying “love conquers all,” common in popular culture, reflects a belief that the existence

of companionate affection, based on a deep emotional commitment, can help a couple

weather any storm.

But according to family sociologist Andrew Cherlin, we may take the link between love

and marriage for granted. Before the 20th century a lot of people would have been puzzled

by our modern belief that “you can’t have one without the other.”32 At that time, Americans

needed their spouses for financial security – to tend to the homestead, to care for children, to

bring home money. And while you may fall out of love, you never fall out of the need to feed

and clothe yourself. So at that time, marrying for love seemed risky and foolish.33 As Stephanie

Coontz says in How Love Conquered Marriage, “[f]or most of history it was inconceivable that

people would choose their mates on the basis of something as fragile and irrational as love….”

Depending upon the culture and time period, love in a marriage was seen as a pleasant by-

product, a distraction, or even a threat to society itself.34But just because people didn’t marry

for love, it didn’t mean they didn’t fall in love. For many societies, love was and is important. It

just wasn’t considered necessary for a successful marriage.

Moral concerns about family forms and how they affect society are as old as families

themselves. In the U.S., a narrative has emerged that the family is in a cultural and moral crisis.

This isn’t a new argument. For decades, some politicians, journalists, and sociologists have held

up the family as a central social institution through which we can gauge cultural values. For

example, in 1986, President Ronald Reagan reflected upon the importance of families in a

radio address, saying, “all those aspects of civilized life that we most deeply cherish—freedom,

the rule of law, economic prosperity and opportunity—…all these depend upon the strength

and integrity of the family.”35

Advocates for the so-called traditional family point out ways families are changing.

They have noted that as cultural values changed, traditional nuclear families have become

less common. They argue these changes in family form indicate cultural, social, and moral

decline. For example, in a 2008 op-ed, then-Senator from Kansas Sam Brownback wrote:

…[W]e need to rebuild the family and renew the culture in America…Marriage

is in crisis. Divorce and adultery, cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births, and a

mentality that views children as a burden are all part of the problem…The best way to

reduce poverty, fight crime and improve education is to rebuild the family…We need

a culture that knows right from wrong, encourages virtue and discourages vice.36

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 11

For their part, sociologists debate how to interpret family change. Take the fact that

more kids are growing up in single-parent households. According to the U.S. Census, while the

majority (69%) of America’s children live in families with two parents, 23% live with a single

mother, making it “[t]he second most common family arrangement.” This is a change from

1960, when 87% of children lived with two married parents and only 9% lived with a single

parent.37 How do sociologists interpret this fact? What are its effects?

It’s more complicated than it may seem at first. Single parents are more likely than

married parents to be younger, to have less education, and to be from more disadvantaged

backgrounds. The challenge for researchers is to determine whether single parenthood itself

has any impact on children’s outcomes, or whether it is all of those background factors that

are truly important to children’s successful development.38 In other words, is single parenthood

simply correlated (that is, associated) with worse outcomes for children, or does it cause worse

outcomes? Sociologist Sara McLanahan argues that even when controlling for a wide range

of background factors, there is evidence that growing up without a father results in a number

of disadvantages for children. These disadvantages include increased likelihood of dropping

out of college, having a child before turning 20, and being neither employed nor in school in

their teens and 20s. McLanahan and other researchers argue that children who grow up with

a single parent are denied a number of important social and economic resources. This

impedes their chances of success.39

Figure 2: Children Living with Two Parents, One Parent, and Other Relatives, 1960-2016

Source: U.S. Census data

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 12

Other scholars make a case for the negative consequences of family changes. David

Popenoe has argued that the family as an institution continues to weaken. He claims that our

culture no longer places a central focus on the importance of the family, and that self-

fulfillment has taken its place; we’re investing less time, money, and energy into our families

and investing more in ourselves. Popenoe suggests that this harms children and families in

catastrophic ways that signal the “end-of-the-line” for families as we know them.40

But this interpretation is debated. Sociologists like Judith Stacey share a concern for the

fate of children but see a different source for the family distress we see today. Stacey argues

that our society has failed to support the family. She points to economic decline and

reductions to many public assistance programs, resulting in a less secure safety net for

struggling families. Stacey suggests that scholars like Popenoe confuse the impacts of this lack

of social support with cultural decline, and that the nuclear family is not natural – in fact, no

single family is the “natural” form. 41 Instead, diversity is natural.42 Despite this, we idealize the

nuclear family both in policy and rhetoric. According to Stacey, instead of preferring one

family form over all others, we should support what works for each family.43

Unmarried fathers face stereotypes about their commitment to their families. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 13

Often, “absentee fathers” are blamed for the rise of single-parent families; Kathryn Edin

and Timothy Nelson note, “…unwed fatherhood is denounced as one of the leading social

problems of our day.”44 Unmarried fathers are portrayed as irresponsible men who are only

interested in sex. The stereotype of these men is that they “flee the scene” when their partners

get pregnant, that they simply don’t care. These stereotypes often intersect with race, as

African American men are often viewed as being primarily responsible for the situation.

However, a lot of these “absentee fathers” may play a larger role in their child’s life

than previous generations of fathers who were present physically, but not emotionally or

otherwise. Edin and Nelson’s study of 110 White and Black inner-city fathers shows that fathers’

involvement is highly dynamic; most of the fathers were in relationships of some degree of

seriousness when their partners got pregnant, and most took the pregnancy very seriously.

Many were eager to be fathers and showed a strong longing to parent their children and be a

good example for them. While many of the fathers didn’t provide a lot in the way of financial

support, they rejected the idea that this should be the primary way of judging them as fathers.

These men meant well – as many noted, they were “doing the best they can” – but for some

of them, cultural changes in the idea of the family, financial difficulties, and a lack of

institutionalized support such as guaranteed visitation rights made it difficult to stay involved in

their children’s lives.45

Divorce and the typical American family

Have you ever heard that half of all marriages end in divorce? As it turns out, that’s only

part of the story. It’s no longer true that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, the legally

recognized termination of a marriage; in fact, it hasn’t been true for some time. The U.S.

divorce rate actually hit a 40-year low in 2018, with 15.7 divorces per 1000 married women,

down from a high of 22.8 divorces per 1000

married women in 1980.46 This decline

occurred across racial groups, educational

levels, and total years married.47

What happened? The divorce rate

peaked during the 1970s and early 1980s.

That means Baby Boomers, the generation

born after World War II, have divorced the

most. There are multiple reasons for this. The

1970s saw the emergence of no-fault

divorce, which allowed couples to divorce

without having to prove that one of them

broke their marriage vows or acted

irresponsibly. This made it much easier to get Source: National Center for Family & Marriage

Research

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 14

a divorce. At the same time, feminist consciousness-raising groups became popular. These

groups led some women to challenge longstanding divisions of housework and childcare that

resulted in gender inequality. Additionally, as women increasingly entered the workforce,

more married women became economically independent. This economic independence

made it more likely that women could leave an unhappy, unequal, or abusive marriage. Each

of these factors may have contributed to higher divorce rates in the 1970s and 1980s.

Though the divorce rate in the U.S. has declined overall, among those over 50 years old,

the rate has doubled in the last 30 years, a phenomenon researchers refer to as gray

divorce.48 Jocelyn Crowley argues that many of these divorces happen after decades

together. She attributes this phenomenon to a couple of factors. First, changes in individual

priorities led Americans to understand marriage through a different lens than previous

generations and to focus more on personal contentment and fulfillment than previous

generations. Second, Crowley notes that there has been a dramatic increase in life

expectancy among Americans, so couples have more years to spend together than in the

past. Divorce affects older men and women differently: in general, divorced men over 50 may

have a better financial situation to lean on; on the other hand, women enjoy a greater

amount of social support to lean on after a gray divorce. Ultimately, Crowley argues that

these costs are not a given. Instead, they reflect the social and political realities we have

constructed; smart public policy can help lessen the strain — financial, social, or

otherwise — that divorcees over 50 experience.49

In sum, declarations of “the decline of the American family” may be eternal — and

eternally premature. That doesn’t mean families haven’t changed. As economies,

demographics, and ideologies change, families change too, and these changes shape our

individual family experiences. So what does a “typical American family” look like now?

Today, the typical family is smaller than in previous generations. Forty percent of babies

are born to parents who are not married, and 40% of mothers are now the primary

breadwinners of their families.50 Parents have more schooling than they used to, and

they’re older.

Andrew Cherlin argues that in the U.S., “people partner, unpartner, and repartner faster

than do people in any other Western nation.”51 His observation, and the changes that I’ve

outlined, may simply reflect the ongoing evolution of the family – an evolution that really is

eternal, but that is moving especially quickly in the United States.

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 15

REVIEW SHEET: WHAT MAKES A FAMILY

CLICK THE LINK FOR:

LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY QUESTIONS

AUDIO KEY POINTS

PRACTICE QUIZ KEY PEOPLE

VOCABULARY CROSSWORD PUZZLES KEY TERMS

MEETING, MATING, & MULTIPLYING – OR NOT

 How do Americans meet and partner up in the 21st century?

 What types of partnerships are common, and why?

 How do capitalism and consumption habits affect cultural traditions surrounding

marriage?

 Under what circumstances are people having – or not having – children?

Mate selection in the 21st century

Remember Sebastian, the guy who tried to find a partner by swiping right on everyone

on Tinder? His method may have been extreme, but finding a partner online is becoming

more and more common in our complicated, spatially scattered society.

Émile Durkheim, one of the founders of sociology, argued that as societies grow more

economically complex and diffuse, and as our daily environment involves fewer close

connections and more strangers, we lose bonds to family and community. In previous

generations, people lived close to one another and had more regular face-to-face

interactions. Advancements in internet technology have expanded our society a great deal,

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 16

making our connections more geographically dispersed. Many of us now spend more time in

virtual contact with each other than in face-to-face contact. In other words, we may be losing

social integration, or the degree to which people are connected to each other and to social

institutions. Social integration is important in part because it provides us with connections to

potential mates.

Many people still meet their partner through friends, which has been the most common

method for the last 75 years. But in the last decade, online dating has grown exponentially. This

makes sense; the internet permeates nearly everything we do. We can do our schooling,

working, banking, and socializing online. Technology and society scholar Danah Boyd argues

that in large U.S. cities where people don’t have the same kind of close-knit social connections

their ancestors did, dating apps can help them find someone to date.52 This assistance comes

in very specialized forms: there are dating websites and apps for specific groups like Grindr for

gay or bisexual men, Match.com and eHarmony for those who want long-term partners,

BlackPeopleMeet for African Americans, JDate for Jewish people, and even Farmers Only for

the rural set.

According to Rosenfeld and

Rubin, online dating has been particularly

useful for LGBTQ+ people, who may face

a thin market for partners (one in which

the cost of finding potential partners

presents a barrier to forming

relationships). Gay, lesbian, trans, and

other queer people are almost always in

thin markets. Additionally, they are less

likely to be set up on dates by family

members and are often reluctant to

meet people at school or work because

of very real fears of discrimination once

their sexual orientation or gender identity

is known. So it’s unsurprising that they meet and couple up online at especially high rates.53

Online dating may be a relatively new frontier, but preferences, prejudices, and other

social relations are still very much in play. The people at dating site OKCupid have been doing

research on their users’ habits for years, including who sends messages of interest and who

responds to those messages. What they found among heterosexual users is that the biases and

stigmas that exist in the physical world don’t disappear when we go online. In their own words,

“The takeaway here is that although race shouldn’t matter in messaging, it does. A lot.”54

OKCupid matches people through an algorithm that measures their interests, habits,

and personalities. The algorithm matches people pretty evenly throughout all races; users

LGBTQ folks are more likely to use dating apps and websites

than their straight counterparts. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 17

aren’t more likely to match with people of their own race than any other. Because matches

are evenly spread out across racial groups, we could reasonably expect that responses to

messages of interest would be, too.

But they’re not. In fact, the OkCupid data point to clear racial preferences in responses.

When men do the asking, White men are more likely to get responses from women of all races;

Black and Asian men are far less likely. When women do the asking, men are dramatically less

likely to respond to Black women. The OkCupid data also echoes what we see more broadly

in American relationships: all groups say they think interracial relationships are theoretically

acceptable, but Whites are the least likely to actually be in an interracial relationship.55

Overall, the data indicate that online dating both modifies and reflects our larger social

concerns about relationships.

But have OkCupid and other online dating sites changed the nature of our romantic

relationships – that is, the way we interact with each other once we meet in person? One

Reddit user’s story, which he told jokingly in response to a question about the worst

experiences with online dating, suggests that our face-to-face experiences are sometimes

very different than our best-laid plans online: “I joined OKC [OkCupid] four years ago hoping

to hook up with a bunch of girls. I spent a week messaging a few girls and decided to meet

the first of these girls to put my plan into action. We ended up hitting it off and started dating

exclusively. Four years later, and we are still dating. She completely ruined my plan.”

This user’s “plan” reflects another

hallmark of the modern meet-up culture:

the hook-up, a sexual encounter

characterized by a lack of longstanding

commitment. Kathleen Bogle’s Hooking

Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on

Campus suggests that two factors have

led to increases in casual sexual

encounters: first, people (especially

Millennials) are delaying marriage, and

second, an increasing number of people

spend their early adulthood in college –

and on college campuses, a lot of young people are in close proximity, with fewer rules than

they’ve ever had before. Instead of panicking about the existence of hook-ups, Bogle argues

that students tend to overestimate the amount of sex their friends are actually having.

However, she notes that even in the hook-up scene, which is potentially less dependent

on gendered norms and old-fashioned roles, there is still a double-standard for sexual

behavior: women’s reputations still suffer more for engaging in hook-ups than men’s do. And

Bogle’s female respondents frequently said they wanted relationships, because hook-ups

College campuses have a lot of young people in close

quarters, with few rules. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 18

usually led to “nothing.”56 Additionally, research shows that heterosexual hook-ups are less

likely to lead to an orgasm for women than sex in relationships does, in part because both

partners are more dismissive of women’s pleasure in hook-ups, but believe strongly in women’s

entitlement to sexual pleasure within a relationship.57

Despite the attention given to hook-ups, casual encounters may become less common.

An OkCupid report from February 2017 showed that “most singles are interested in deeper

connections…And the number of people who feel this way is increasing year after year.”58 The

percentage of the site’s users who say they enjoy “meaningless sex” has fallen since 2008,

slowly for men and more sharply for women. The report suggests that more people are using

the site for long-term matches rather than hook-ups. So, technology affects our romantic

relationships in large and small ways. But it also presents us with an opportunity. We have

relationships with each other, but we all have a social relationship with technology. We have a

choice in how to respond to technological advancements. Whether those responses increase

or decrease our social integration is up to us.

The cohabitation revolution

Despite Beyoncé’s claim that “if you liked it, then you should’ve put a ring on it,”

increasingly couples are skipping the wedding altogether. Scholars refer to this as the

“cohabitation revolution.” Cohabitation – or, simply, living together – was relatively rare even

30 years ago; now, it’s downright typical. According to the National Center for Family &

Marriage Research, more than 14.5 million unmarried partners live together in the United

States.59

According to Pamela Smock and Wendy Manning’s extensive research on

cohabitating heterosexual couples, cohabitation is now the most common form of romantic

relationship where people live together.

There are some common factors we can use to predict whether someone will cohabit.

For example, compared to married couples, cohabiting couples have lower incomes, are less

likely to have college degrees, and their unemployment levels are almost twice as high.

Why do cohabiting couples struggle more financially? Smock and Manning’s

respondents often said they wanted their finances “in place” before they got married.

Younger people thought of cohabiting as sensible and pragmatic; living together means they

can spend more time together, pool financial resources, and evaluate their marriage

compatibility. They were also aware of high divorce rates. This made them wary of stepping

into a marriage without having the relationship experience that living together brings.60

Scholars used to argue that cohabitation before marriage meant that couples were

more likely to break up. There’s some truth to this claim. National survey data have

documented a cohabitation effect; marriages that begin with cohabitation are more likely to

end in divorce.61 We know the effect is divorce, but what is the cause? Are cohabiting couples

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 19

more likely to get divorced because cohabiting itself eventually leads to divorce? Or are there

personality and cultural factors that make some people more likely to consider cohabitation,

and more likely to consider divorce?

No single, straightforward factor accounts

for the cohabitation effect. Some research points

to the idea that cohabitation creates a sort of

relationship inertia: cohabitation encourages

people to “slide” into marriage, rather than

“decide” to marry.62 Couples who otherwise

wouldn’t get married can end up doing so

because living together makes it easier to stay

together.63 Another factor may be the result of

social change. Since relationship types and

boundaries are becoming more ambiguous,

couples may not be on the same page about what cohabiting means for them.64 This can

reduce their feelings of commitment toward each other, and obscures the transition that

occurs when “you and I” become “us.”65

Attitudes may play a role as well. Feelings and expectations about being a couple are

present in both the decision to live together and the decision to get married. Imagine

someone who believes that living together before marriage is absolutely unacceptable, even

immoral. That person is likely to be less accepting of divorce, too.66 On the other hand,

couples who cohabit before marriage do have a lower chance of staying together, but it may

not be living together itself that causes the breakup; perhaps the very fact that they were

willing to live together meant they were more likely to get divorced as well, even if they hadn’t

lived together first.

The wedding industrial complex

What do you think the average wedding costs? Consider the venue. Food and drinks.

Music. The dress. The cake. Photography. Flowers. Adds up fast, right? The Wedding Report, an

industry website, provides widely reported statistics on wedding costs. They say the average

cost of a wedding in 2017 was almost $26,000, with the median hovering around $14,000 (so

half of weddings cost more than $14,000 and half cost less). That’s a lot of money. In recent

generations we’ve seen a change from weddings as a community-based event to a

consumer-driven one. We’ve seen the emergence of the wedding-industrial complex, the

merging of industry with social rituals surrounding marriage.

The wedding-industrial complex has resulted in the dramatic expansion of a wedding

industry that has commoditized the social ritual of the wedding, turning weddings into events

that have economic value because of the products and services we purchase for them. This

Cardinals mate for life. Humans? It depends.

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 20

results in a blurring of the line between profit and cultural customs. The extent of the bridal

market today and the wide range of businesses that cater to this market suggest that

consumers readily accept the commercialization of their marriage rituals. Simply put,

Americans love big weddings. The rise in wedding-related consumption has been

accompanied by a seemingly endless appetite for weddings in popular culture. We see this

on reality shows, in magazines and newspaper features on celebrity weddings, and in a host

of wedding-themed movies and toys for young girls.

Vicki Howard shows that as the 20th century progressed, weddings became

increasingly surrounded by consumer rites, or elaborations of older customs as businesses

attempted to create new markets for their services and products. Over the course of the

1900s, the wedding industry developed a tremendous amount of power in shaping what we

now understand to be “typical” for a wedding. But this consumerist turn wasn’t always the

accepted way to do things. And the fact that we have such elaborate and expensive

weddings in the 21st century wasn’t inevitable.67

In the early United States, weddings were mainly a community project. In some cases, it

took weeks to get everything together. There was sewing and foraging to do. People had to

make the booze and food. But these early weddings had no professionals, no commercial

services. The labor was expensive, to be sure, but not in the way we might think today.

Weddings took a lot of time and family labor (or, for the wealthy, servants’ labor). But as our

economy grew more complex, some of the tasks and products associated with weddings

became commoditized, even for the middle class.68 Instead of sewing dresses, having a

The average cost of a wedding gown is over a thousand dollars. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 21

community potluck, or having cousins play music, we started buying dresses, ordering food,

and hiring deejays.

The commercialization of weddings coincided with a new tradition, the wedding gift.

This custom began among elites and, like many elite customs, trickled down to the rest of us.

Howard argues that the tradition of obligatory wedding presents took hold because of mid-

19th century gendered relations. Gifts were a more modern form of monetary exchange,

replacing a dowry (a negotiated payment between the bride and groom’s parents). As far

back as the 1800s, there are records of couples’ families inviting many more people to the

wedding than they knew could be there – to increase the number of wedding gifts they

received.69

Of course, not everyone was in favor of wedding gifts, especially if they were used for

social climbing. Critics believed these exchanges of wealth put consumption on display and

turned sacred marriage rites into a marketplace where “sentiment was for sale.” Howard notes

that at that time, we begin to see fictional accounts of out-of-control brides. Yes, you read

that correctly: the concept of the “bridezilla” began in the 1800s.70

Both then and now, a lot of the organizational work involved with a wedding falls to

women: entire industries rely on the notion that a wedding is all about the bride and it had

better be The Best Day of Her Life. This is a considerable amount of social pressure.

Sociologically, it’s worth noting just how much the wedding industry (not to mention

Instagram) supports the idea of “one perfect day.”

As a result, there is a “constant string of events taking place that calls for…

merchandise that does not end until the last anniversary of the wedding is celebrated.”71 And

it begins with a ring.

In the 1930s, an ad campaign argued that a diamond ring was really necessary to show

your love. As with many of the traditions surrounding weddings, the account of its importance

is both gendered and heteronormative – that is, reflecting the attitude and assumption that

heterosexuality is normal and natural. As the website for the American Gem Society notes, “A

diamond's purity and sparkle have now become symbols of the depth of a man's

commitment to the woman he loves in practically all corners of the world…. Diamonds still

signify the celebration of a union and cherished memory.”72

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 22

Ever hear of the tradition that a

diamond engagement ring should cost a

few months’ salary? This “tradition” is the

result of yet another wildly successful ad

campaign, this one running as late as 1980.

The “diamond is forever” ad states, “You

can't look at Jane and tell me she's not worth

2 months’ salary.”

The history of the American wedding

reveals how capitalism and our national

culture of consumption helped define and

shape the institution of marriage. Our

conceptions of what marriage and relationships mean are absorbed and reflected in the

things we buy and sell and the ways we buy and sell them. Because of the efforts of

advertisers and marketers, Americans who may be thinking of popping the question are now

considered a key market.

Fertility and reproduction

On the subject of not having children, feminist Gloria Steinem once said, “I accepted it

for a long time and I thought that ‘OK, I'm getting married. I'm having children. I'm definitely

doing that, just not right now….’ I'd put in in the future and then, fortunately, the women's

movement came along and made me realize I was actually happy and that there were more

ways to live than one.”73

One of the ironies of fertility is that many women in the United States spend most of their

sexually active lives trying not to get pregnant. Most women, unlike Steinem, do eventually

have children – the share of women who never have children is at its lowest point in nearly 20

years.74 But women are also having children later than ever: from 1970 to 2006, the average

age of first childbirth for U.S. women rose from just over 21 years old to 25.75 What are some of

the factors that affect if, when, and how we have babies? And how does that affect families?

For one thing, families now are smaller than they were in previous generations. In 1976,

40% of mothers had four or more kids. Now, only 14% do. This is likely due to three factors: First,

women have increased their educational attainment and labor force participation, and more

time spent in school and at work may reduce their willingness to have children. Second,

improvements in the reliability of contraceptives, including increased use of long-term, very

effective contraceptive forms like the Intra-Uterine Device (IUD), may allow women to control

their fertility more effectively. Third, the marriage rate is also at an all-time low76 – and

decreased marriage may lead to decreased fertility.77 It’s not that women aren’t having

A diamond ring. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 23

children at all anymore. But they’re having fewer children and waiting longer than ever to

have them.

There is also evidence that some of these factors are shaping young people’s

experiences. For example, the teen pregnancy rate has reached its lowest point in nearly 40

years. Once again, a combination of factors is at play. The percentage of teens who say

they’re having sex has declined slightly (about five to six percentage points). Teens also report

having fewer partners.78 And teens who are having sex are using birth control more reliably

and effectively.79

There may be media effects as well. By analyzing Google Trends data and social media

mentions against birth data, Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine looked at the MTV reality show

16 and Pregnant and what, if any, effect the show had on teens’ perceptions and behavior.

16 and Pregnant follows a few teenagers through their pregnancy and motherhood. While the

Parents Television Council criticized the show for what they see as glamourizing teen

pregnancy, Kearney and Levine’s research found that 16 and Pregnant “ultimately led to a 5.7

percent reduction in teen births in the 18 months following its introduction. This accounts for

around one-third of the overall decline in teen births in the United States during that period.”80

Shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom might make teen parenthood look so difficult that

they deter young adults from having children.

In fact, overall fertility rates, or births per woman, have declined steadily for decades in

many countries around the world. The global fertility rate is so low that Harvard sociologist

Mary Brinton argues that the threshold at which the population will replace itself isn’t being

met anymore.81 Brinton suggests that intersections between the economy and gendered

Today, most American families are smaller than this happy bunch. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 24

norms contribute to the trend. If societies don’t have effective policies that support having

both a career and children, more and more families will choose a career over children.

Relevant policies include flexible work hours, allowing employees to work from home, family

leave, and gender equality in childcare. Another factor is that when economic conditions are

uncertain, people delay childbirth. All of this adds up to declining birthrates worldwide.82 Thus,

while some norms and cultural traditions are persistent, complexity and change marks the

ways we meet, mate, and multiply – or not.

Many moms are forced to choose between work and children. (Source)

REVIEW SHEET: MEETING, MATING, & MULTIPLYING – OR NOT

CLICK THE LINK FOR:

LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY QUESTIONS

AUDIO KEY POINTS

PRACTICE QUIZ KEY PEOPLE

VOCABULARY CROSSWORD PUZZLES KEY TERMS

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 25

INSTITUTIONAL & INTERPERSONAL CHALLENGES TO FAMILIES

 How do families divide up housework?

 What challenges are unique to parents of different ethnic and socioeconomic

backgrounds?

 What is intimate-partner violence, and under what conditions does it occur?

 How have social norms of divorce changed over time?

In the 1970s in Iceland, women were responsible for the lion’s share of housework and

childcare. Many grew frustrated that this household labor left them without enough time to

get decent jobs outside the home. Those who did work outside the home were tired of making

less than 60% of what Icelandic men did for the same jobs.83 So on October 24, 1975, Icelandic

women went on strike for a day. They did no housework, no childcare, and no wage-earning

work. In all, 90% of Icelandic women participated in the “day off” (named because labor laws

dictated that the women could have been fired for striking, but not for taking a day off) to

protest the household and wage-earning labor arrangements. The strike had an immediate

impact:

There was no telephone service. Newspapers were not printed because all the

typesetters were women. Theaters shut down because actresses refused to work.

Schools closed, or operated at limited capacity, because the majority of teachers were

female. Airline flights were cancelled because flight attendants did not work that day.

Bank executives had to work as tellers to keep the banks open because the female

tellers had taken the day off.

Meanwhile the men had to take their kids to work and provide them with food

because daycares were closed and women would not do any of the work they

normally did at home.84

The shockwaves generated by the national day off didn’t fade away once women

went back to work. Since the strike, Iceland has become known as “the world’s most feminist

country.” It is one of the few nations to have had a woman as a long-term leader (Vigdis

Finnbogadottir, a divorced single mother who led the country for 16 years). It introduced paid

paternal leave for fathers in 2000.85 And in 2010, Iceland became the first nation to ban the

stripping lap dance for feminist (rather than religious) reasons.86 Of course, things aren’t

perfect in Iceland, but the country has been recognized for promoting specifically woman-

friendly policies.

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 26

Sociologists seek to understand how power relations play a role in how we live

our lives, including challenges that families face in their day-to-day lives. Power relations act

on an individual level, shaping our daily decision-making. But they also affect groups and

institutions, like the family, the economy, and politics. And individuals can disrupt power

relations in institutions. As the Icelandic women’s strike shows us, resistance is one way that

institutions change. In this section, we’ll examine these individual, group-level, and institutional

power relations that challenge the family in profound ways.

The division of household labor

Think back to when you were growing up. Who did the cooking, the cleaning, the

yardwork? Who got you dressed in the morning when you were a little kid? Who made sure

you did your homework at night? The primary understanding of family structure in the past was

a breadwinner-homemaker model, a gendered labor arrangement in which one partner

(usually the man) worked outside the home to earn money, and another partner (usually the

woman) stayed at home to do the housework, childcare, and other household labor. But in

the last 30 years, we’ve seen a transformation in the roles that men and women play in the

family. Now, many families have a dual-earner arrangement, in which both spouses have

wage-earning jobs. Feminist family sociologists have called this a revolution in the division of

household labor. But they warn us that in some ways, this revolution may be “stalled,” or at

least incomplete. Think of it this way: if both partners are working outside the home earning

money, who is doing the housework and childcare?

Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild

set out to answer just that question in her

landmark study, The Second Shift.

Hochschild knew that falling wages for

male breadwinners led more women than

ever to join the workforce. So she and her

research associates conducted in-depth

interviews with 50 couples over multiple

meetings. They also closely observed a

dozen households. They asked questions

about who does what in each household,

including cooking, cleaning, doing taxes,

household repairs, and even tasks like

writing thank-you cards.

Hochschild found that the working women in her study performed a second shift of

work. Once the husband and wife came home from their wage-earning jobs, the wife bore

the brunt of performing the childcare and housework. These housework hours added up to an

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 27

extra month of work each year for working women – a significant burden that resulted in their

being tired more often and more likely to get sick. But the women interviewed perceived their

second shift as being a micro-level, or individually-experienced, difficulty, rather than the

institutional-level challenge that Icelandic women did in 1975.87 The perception that problems

are unique to individuals, and not collective social challenges, may be one of the reasons the

gendered division of household labor persists and the revolution has stalled.

More recent research follows up on Hochschild’s classic study. Sarah Thébaud analyzed

data from 18 countries to understand how the relative amount of income earned by a man

and woman within a couple affects how much housework the man does. Her research

indicated that the second shift is magnified the more successful the woman is at work: men

whose wives earned more money than them actually did less housework than men who

earned more than their wives. Thébaud argued that social understandings of masculinity

played a significant role. Since our culture values the ability to make money as a duty and

hallmark of manhood, making less money than their wives felt like a threat to the husbands’

masculinity. Feeling threatened, the men did less household labor to re-assert this threatened

masculinity. Thèbaud’s results highlight the importance of cultural context in working toward

an equitable division of household labor.88

For same-sex couples, the picture is more egalitarian, especially in lesbian relationships.

A study of 80 gay and lesbian partners showed that lesbian partners reported more tasks were

done equally by both women, compared to households with two male partners. Overall,

same-sex partners did household labor simply when they found it needed to be done. This

matters for their relationships, because the fairer the share of housework is perceived to be,

the happier the couple is.89

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 28

An equal division of household

labor takes work. But evidence shows

that this effort pays off. Couples who

consciously work toward an equal

division of labor are more successful

at achieving it. Research explicitly

links couples’ household labor

arrangement satisfaction with their

commitment to discussing how they

want to divide up the work.90 There is

also good news for those concerned

about the gender imbalance: in

each generation, the division of

household labor becomes more

equal. Dads are now doing more

housework and childcare, and the

majority of young people say they

want an equal division of labor in their

household. In fact, a 2019 Pew Center

survey conducted among 38,426

people in 34 countries shows that the

majority of men and women think

that overall there is roughly gender equality in household decision-making, and “[i]n nearly

every country surveyed, majorities say that a marriage where both the husband and wife

have jobs and take care of the home is more satisfying than one where the husband provides

for the family and the wife takes care of the house and children.”91

Source

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 29

Parenting in the modern world

Figure 4: Maternity Leave in Select Countries

Have you ever heard someone

say that parenting is “the toughest job in

the world?” What makes it so tough? Of

course, parents have to feed, clothe,

and care for their children. Increasingly,

more of them are working outside the

home. And there’s that housework we

just talked about. But when we look at

parenting with a sociological lens, we

can see that challenges to parents

aren’t simply individual-level. Institutional

realities can pose formidable challenges

for parents.

In addition to parents, the state

also plays a role in childcare. Public

policy can support parenting, or it can

provide hurdles to raising children. These

policies powerfully affect parenting

choices, especially for women. Let’s look

at an example.

As we discussed, more American

women hold jobs outside the home than

ever before, and a growing share of

women are their family’s primary

breadwinner. But scholars have argued

that even now, U.S. policies assume that

a parent stays at home with the children.

A study of 41 developed nations found

that the United States is the only one that

has no mandated paid leave for new

parents.92 In fact, of the 193 countries in

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 30

the United Nations, the only ones without national paid leave are New Guinea, Suriname, “a

few South Pacific island nations,” and the United States.93

Family leave policy affects how people parent. In the U.S., the Family and Medical

Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires that people who have worked for at least 12 months at

certain businesses are entitled “to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and

medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms

and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave.”94 Notice that the law guarantees

unpaid leave. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that roughly 13% of U.S. workers have

access to paid family leave.95 (Paid family leave includes parental leave as well as time off to

care for ill or aging parents or spouses.) This leaves out a lot of parents. And the effects are

even stronger for women, because mothers are still more likely to be responsible for childcare.

So what do the 87% of parents without paid leave do? Some quit their jobs.96 This can

have devastating effects on future earnings, since it can be difficult to get a job after a period

of unemployment. Many women cobble together a combination of vacation time and sick

days.97 But nearly a quarter of moms simply go back to work earlier than they’d hoped. In fact,

almost a quarter of new mothers go back to work within two weeks of giving birth.98

In other countries, parental leave varies. Parental leave may

be provided for both or either parent, depending upon the country.

Maternity leave provides protected leave for women who have just

given birth (or adopted children, in some countries). In Sweden,

Iceland, and other countries, new dads can take paternity leave,

which is usually shorter than maternity leave.

For children to succeed, parents matter too. Annette Lareau’s

Unequal Childhoods found that parents of different social classes use

different approaches to raise their children. Middle-class families

engage in concerted cultivation, nurturing their child’s talent and

educational development. This is markedly different than the

parenting style of working-class and poor families. Lower-income

parents give kids free time and trust schools to foster their child’s

success. Lareau calls this approach the accomplishment of natural

growth. You’ll learn more about these parenting methods in the

chapter on education.

Intimate-partner violence

Some family challenges are so serious, they threaten our physical and mental health.

One such problem is intimate partner violence (IPV), or “physical violence, sexual violence,

stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive acts) by a current or former

intimate partner.”99 IPV is often thought of as a private problem experienced by individuals in

Concerted cultivation

pays off for children.

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 31

abusive relationships. But we can also think about IPV as a public health crisis, a complex

phenomenon that arises because of cultural norms and social policies around gender,

inequality, and violence. Intimate partner violence is a worldwide problem. The World Health

Organization estimates that globally, about 35% of women have experienced IPV.100 In the

United States alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that “[o]n

average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an

intimate partner.” That means over 12 million people a year are hurt by intimate partner

violence in the U.S.101 Individuals may experience the effects of violence, but the causes,

consequences, and solutions implicate all of us.

There are four main types of IPV:

1. Physical violence, or “intentional use of

physical force with the potential for causing

death, disability, injury, or harm.” This includes

things like punching and hitting, scratching,

burning, and choking, or coercing someone

to engage in violence.

2. Sexual violence, sexual acts that occur

without consent (including being unable to

consent due to being drunk or unconscious

through drug or alcohol use), and threats of

or intimidation or pressure to engage in

unwanted sexual acts.

3. Stalking, “a pattern of repeated, unwanted, attention and contact that causes fear or

concern for one’s own safety or the safety of someone else.” This includes continually

showing up where the victim is, repeatedly sending unwanted gifts, repeated

unwanted texts or calls, and spying.

4. Psychological aggression, or communicating with a person (by speaking to them or

otherwise) with the purpose of hurting or controlling them, including name-calling,

coercion, exploitation, and gaslighting, a means of psychological manipulation in

which a victim is lied to, with the intent that they question their own sanity. 102

The CDC estimates that about 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have experienced severe

physical violence by an intimate partner, and almost half of American women and men have

experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner. Almost one in ten women have

been raped by a partner.103 The high number of victims of IPV means that the consequences

are also widespread. These health consequences are serious. They include emotional

problems like depression and anxiety. They also include physical complications like chronic

headaches, pain, and difficulty sleeping. Even asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, and

diabetes are more likely in people who have suffered abuse.104 What’s worse, these mental

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 32

and physical health issues can persist over the course of the victim’s life, long after the IPV

ends.

In general, the World Health Organization says effectively reducing IPV will require a

combination of efforts. Criminal reform, strengthening women’s civil rights globally, providing

early interventions in families at risk, and creating community-based programs that offer

resources can all help reduce rates of IPV, and provide support to those affected.105

Divorce and remarriage

Divorce is one of the biggest disruptions for a family. Divorce is associated with a

number of negative consequences. Some of these problems are mental, like increased stress.

Increased stress has the short-term effect of increasing emotional suffering, as well as

increasing long-term mental and physical health problems.106 For children, divorce can be

especially disruptive. Children of divorced parents are more likely to suffer lower levels of

psychological well-being all the way into adulthood.107 Children’s own accounts of their

parents’ divorce shows that they suffer from fear, shame, aggression, and resentment toward

their parents, as well as declining academic success.108

Can divorce ever be a good thing? Sociologist Virginia Rutter asked just this question in

her research on divorce. Her evidence indicates that under certain conditions, divorce may

reduce unhappiness and stress.109 How? Think of it this way: we imagine the stress of divorce in

comparison to a happy, healthy marriage. But many marriages about to end in divorce

already have extremely high levels of stress. When someone is in a miserable marriage,

divorce may be the best decision.110 Ultimately, the effects of divorce vary from person to

person. As family researcher Paul Amato notes, “[d]ivorce benefits some individuals, leads

others to experience temporary decrements in well-being that improve over time, and forces

others on a downward spiral

from which they might never

fully recover.”111

Perhaps due to the

relatively high number of

divorces, remarriage is on the

rise. Census data show that

most men and women remarry

within five years of divorce.112

The trend in remarriage is

especially strong for those over

55, in part because of extended

lifespans. The longer you have More couples are remarrying at older ages. (Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 33

to live after a divorce, the more likely you are to remarry. In fact, 67% of divorced people 55

and older remarry.113

Recent cultural trends may be lending evidence to Rutter’s claim that divorce isn’t

always catastrophic. One example is the “divorce party.” Some parties are tongue-in-cheek,

but others are sincere, even including the couple’s children and friends. This is intended to

emphasize to the child that despite the divorce, the parents love their children and are

committed to them. This trend may seem silly at first. But think about other major family events

like weddings and anniversary parties, birthday parties, and funerals: happy or sad, we

observe their importance through social rituals. These social rituals can provide a sense of

community and closure to those who may be struggling through the end of a relationship.

All families have their challenges. Some threaten partnerships. Others threaten the

health and happiness of family members. Some are created or complicated by individual

factors. Others are institutional in nature. In all cases, solving them will take sustained collective

effort.

REVIEW SHEET: INSTITUTIONAL & INTERPERSONAL CHALLENGES

TO FAMILIES

CLICK THE LINK FOR:

LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY QUESTIONS

AUDIO KEY POINTS

PRACTICE QUIZ KEY PEOPLE

VOCABULARY CROSSWORD PUZZLES KEY TERMS

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 34

THE FUTURE OF FAMILIES

 What areas of social change will affect families most?

 What will the future of the family look like?

In this chapter we’ve talked about families of the past and present. But societies are in

a constant state of change. These changes affect individual families and institutions alike.

What about the future? How will social change affect families to come? Even though

demographers Ann Berrington and Agnese Vitali argue “only the foolhardy would try and

predict the future of family groups,” there are some trends that point to interesting ways in

which family structure and relations will continue to change.114 Since 2009, the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has studied these trends. They predict four

big areas of change.115

One rapidly changing area of social life is economic. In the U.S., economists and

sociologists note that socioeconomic disparities have been rising in the last four decades, and

we currently have the most severe inequality in generations. Economic inequality is

entrenched, meaning it is deeply ingrained in our social institutions and thus unlikely to change

without large-scale efforts.

While those Americans at the very top have seen their wealth increase in the last 40

years, those at the bottom have lost ground, and many argue that the middle class is

disappearing. Sociologist Theda Skocpol referred to this as the missing middle. She claims that

politicians primarily talk about policies that affect the very rich and the very poor. This leaves

“average working people” out of the conversation. Ignoring this group obviously hurts the

middle class. And Skocpol argues that leaving their voices off the table could have even more

dire consequences for the nation: eliminating the voice of working people in political decision-

making threatens the strength of American democracy.116

As work hours, the cost of college tuition and subsequent student loan debt, and health

care costs rise and real wages fall, how will families get by? Take the example of Millennials.

They’re fast becoming the largest demographic group in the U.S. and make up a huge

segment of the American workforce. But many can’t afford to buy homes. In fact, they’re the

generation most likely to live in multi-generational households. Politicians, pundits, and scholars

disagree about precisely how this will affect families. But they all agree: this is big.

A second area of change is demographic. Recent research notes marriage between

mixed-race couples is at an all-time high. Additionally, the number of immigrants in the U.S.

continues to rise. One of the most widely debated aspects of the 2016 Presidential election

was the way the U.S. should handle immigration. Discussion has centered on undocumented

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 35

immigrant families in particular. In recent years, undocumented immigrants who were

deemed to pose no threat to public safety or national security may have found themselves

under surveillance, but were generally low priority for deportation, or being forced to leave the

country.

Recent discussion has centered on the rights of immigrants. (Source)117

But this may be changing. Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos came to America in the 1990s,

when she was 14 years old. She’s been living in Arizona since then, and is now a 35-year-old

mother of two American children. Ever since she was caught using a fake Social Security

number in 2008, she has checked in with authorities at Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(ICE). She was always questioned a bit and then went back home. But in February 2017,

Garcia de Rayos was deported to Mexico. This shocked many in the community. As she was

driven away, her children and others protested the deportation, holding signs that read, “No

human being is illegal.”

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 36

Since deportations are expected to increase, it’s important to think about what effects

they have on families. What happens to children when their parents are deported? Recent

evidence shows that kids of deported parents suffer extreme stress, which is related to a host

of mental and physical health problems such as headaches, anxiety, and even digestive

issues.

On the other hand, a recent Supreme Court decision upheld Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, allowing thousands to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation

– at least for now. According to the Center for American Progress, a quarter of a million U.S.-

born children have at least one parent with DACA status, and one and a half million

Americans reside in households with a DACA recipient.118 It is important to consider how

immigration policy affects families, both undocumented individuals and citizens.

A third area of change affecting families is sociocultural. Interpersonal relationships and

boundaries are evolving. As Kathleen Gerson notes in The Unfinished Revolution:

[s]ince marriage has become just one among many options, [children] must

decide not only what kind of lasting intimate bond to create but whether they want

one at all. Since work and family life both demand more time, they must decide how to

balance earning a living with caring for others. And since gender boundaries are no

longer clear, they must decide how to apportion work and family tasks.119

This cultural evolution has also changed public opinion on sexuality. Compared

to opinions about interracial marriage, U.S. public opinion on same-sex marriage

changed quickly. A majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, and it

became the law of the land through a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014. We’ve

already seen some cultural movement, but what will the long-term changes be in, for

Public opinion on same-sex marriage changed relatively quickly.

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 37

example, child adoption? Television shows like Modern Family have made new family

forms more visible to a wide audience. Will that lead to more support for anti-

discrimination legislation? Will increases in same-sex marriage change the economy?

(In 2015, when same-sex marriage became legal, New York state’s economy got a $260

million boost from all the goods and services purchased for weddings, honeymoons,

and the like.)120 What other changes might we see in the future, as cultures continue to

shift?

A fourth area of social change is technological. Americans are living longer and having

fewer children than ever before. The population is getting older, and older people have

different needs than the young. Will these trends usher in an increase in multi-generational

households, families in which multiple generations live under the same roof? Will Social Security

be sufficient to support them? We’ve already seen evidence of a sandwich generation, a

group of people who are responsible for the care of both their children and their elderly

parents. Will that increase? Will advances in technology allow working conditions to become

more flexible, providing some relief for the child- and elder-care conundrum? Will we one day

see robot caregivers that take blood pressure, dispense medication at correct times, and

even read to people? (Here’s a hint: we’re already there!) The invention of the birth control pill

has been called the most significant advancement in gender equality of the 20th century. Will

the 21st century see new technologies, including a birth control pill for men?

One thing is sure: family change is

inevitable. As Andrew Cherlin writes, “This

churning, this turnover in our intimate

partnerships is creating complex families on a

scale we’ve not seen before… It’s a mistake

to think this is the endpoint of enormous

change. We are still very much in the midst of

it.”121

My hope is that in reading this chapter,

you’ve begun to think about the ways in

which societies shape families, and also

about the ways families shape society. Part of

the task of sociology is to understand the

whys, hows, and “under what circumstances” of social relations. While we all experience

families as individuals, we can’t fully comprehend their impact without an appreciation of the

institutional and historical power relations that intersect to create them. As you continue to

think about the family sociologically, I hope you keep in mind how families are dynamic,

constantly evolving, and shaped by forces larger than any one of us.

(Source)

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 38

REVIEW SHEET: THE FUTURE OF FAMILIES

CLICK THE LINK FOR:

LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY QUESTIONS

AUDIO KEY POINTS

PRACTICE QUIZ KEY PEOPLE

VOCABULARY CROSSWORD PUZZLES KEY TERMS

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 39

REFERENCES

1 Stadil, Sebastian. 2016, July 23. “Looking for the One: How I Went on 150 Dates in 4 Months.” Retrieved from

https://medium.com/the-mission/looking-for-the-one-how-i-went-on-150-dates-in-4-months-

bf43a095516c#.mnx6t9kva 2 Rosenfeld, Michael J. and Reuben J. Thomas. 2012. “Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social

Intermediary.” American Sociological Review 77(4): 523–47. See also Rosenfeld, Michael J.; Reuben J. Thomas;

and Sonia Hausen. "Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of

meeting." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2019, 116 (36). 3 For same-sex couples: Rosenfeld & Rubin, 2012, p. 530. For heterosexual couples: Rosenfeld, Michael J.; Reuben J.

Thomas; and Sonia Hausen. "Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other

ways of meeting." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2019, 116 (36). 4 Risman, Barbara. 2010. “Families: A Great American Institution,” in Families as They Really Are, 1st edition. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company, p. 453. 5 Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Penguin Books. 6 Coontz, 2005. 7 Coontz, 2005. 8 Shaitly, Shahesta. 2010, December 18. “Is China’s Motsuo Tribe the World’s Last Matriarchy?” Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/19/china-mosuo-tribe-matriarchy 9 Lee, Harper. 2014. To Kill a Mockingbird. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Kindle Version, chapter 23. 10 Livingston, Gretchen. 2014, November. “Four-in-Ten Couples Are Saying ‘I Do,’ Again.” Washington, D.C.: Pew

Research Center, p. 4. 11 Pew Research Center, 2015, December 17. “Parenting in America: Outlook, Worries, Aspirations Are Strongly

Linked to Financial Situation,” p. 15. 12 Coontz, 2005. 13 Harrell, Stevan. N.D. “Patriliny, Patriarchy, Patrimony: Surface Features And Deep Structures In The Chinese Family

System.” Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/PPP.html 14 Middleton, Russell. 1962. Brother-Sister and Father-Daughter Marriage in Ancient Egypt,” American Sociological

Review 27: 603–11. 15 Pew Research Center, 2015. 16 Middleton, 1962. 17 Coontz, Stephanie. 2006, May 8. “Polygamy: A Historical Background A Fact Sheet Prepared for the Council on

Contemporary Families.” Retrieved from https://contemporaryfamilies.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/10/Coontz2006_Polygamy-fact-sheet.pdf 18 Coontz, 2005. 19 Farmer, Lindsay. 2016. Making the Modern Criminal Law: Criminalization and Civil Order. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, p. 268. 20 Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and The Nostalgia Trap. New York, NY:

BasicBooks, p. 33. 21 Kulikoff, Allan. 2000. From British Peasants to Colonial Farmers. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina

Press. 22 Coontz, 1992. 23 Paul, Annie Murphy. 2011. Origins: How the Nine Months Before Birth Shape the Rest of Our Lives. New York: Free

Press, p. 77. 24 Levy, Robert J. 1991. “A Reminiscence about The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act-and Some Reflections About

Its Critics and Its Policies. BYU Law Review 43: 44 25 Fry, Richard. “The number of people in the average U.S. household is going up for the first time in over 160 years.”

Retrived from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-number-of-people-in-the-average-u-s-

household-is-going-up-for-the-first-time-in-over-160-years/ 26 Cohn, D’vera, Gretchen Livingston; and Wendy Wang. 2014, April 8. “After Decades of Decline, a Rise in Stay-at-

Home Mothers.” Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-

stay-at-home-mothers/ 27 Franklin, Donna L. 2015. Ensuring Inequality: The Structural Transformation of the African American Family. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. 28 For a thorough review, see Kessler-Harris, Alice. 1993. Women Have Always Worked: An Historical Overview. New

York, NY: The Feminist Press. Also see the work of Amanda Wilkinson.

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 40

29 Coontz, 1992. 30 Thomas, Deja. “As family structures change in U.S., a growing share of Americans say it makes no difference.”

Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/10/as-family-structures-change-in-u-s-a-growing-

share-of-americans-say-it-makes-no-difference/ 31 "Love and Marriage," 1955. Lyrics by Sammy Cahn, music by Jimmy Van Heusen. Published by Barton Music

Corporation (ASCAP). 32 Cherlin, 2009. 33 Cherlin, 2009. 34 Coontz, 2005, p. 15-20 35 Reagan, Ronald. 1986, December 20. “Radio Address to the Nation on Family Values.” Retrieved from

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=36826 36 Brownback, Sam. 2008, March 2. “A Family Crisis.” The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02brownback.html 37 Livingston, Gretchen. 2014, December 22. “Fewer than Half of U.S. Kids Today Live in a ‘Traditional’ Family.”

Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-

traditional-family/ 38 Haskins, Ron and Isabel V. Sawhill. 2016. “The Decline of the American Family: Can Anything Be Done to Stop the

Damage?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1): 16. 39 McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. 1997. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts? What Helps?

Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 40 Popenoe, David. 1993. “American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal.” Journal of Marriage and

Family, 55(3): 527-542. 41 Stacey, Judith. 2012, May 1. “The Best Family System is Diversity.” Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0_KJasTQTY 42 Stacey, Judith. 1993, August. “Good Riddance to ‘The Family’: A Response to David Popenoe.” Journal of

Marriage and Family, 55(3): 545-547

43 Stacey, 2012. 44 Edin, Kathryn & Timothy Nelson. 2013. Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City. Berkeley and Los

Angeles, CA: University of California Press, p. 2. 45 Edin, & Nelson. 2013, pp. 215-16, 219, 222. 46 Allred, Collette. 2018. “Divorce Rate in the US: Geographic Variation, 2018.” Retrieved from

https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/allred-divorce-rate-geo-var-2018-fp-19-23.html 47 Cohen, Philip N. 2017, April 14. “Marriage Update: Less Divorce and Less Sex.” Retrieved from

https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/marriage-update-less-divorce-and-less-sex/ 48 Allred, Collette. 2019. “Gray Divorce Rates in the U.S.: Geographic Variation, 2017.” Retrieved from

https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/allred-gray-divorce-rate-geo-var-2017-fp-19-20.html 49 Crowley, Jocelyn. 2018. Gray Divorce: What We Lose and Gain from Mid-Life Splits. University of California Press. 50 Pew Research Center. 2015, December 17. “Parenting in America: Outlook, Worries, Aspirations Are Strongly

Linked to Financial Situation.” Retrieved from file:///Users/angelabarian/Downloads/2015-12-17_parenting-in-

america_FINAL%20(1).pdf 51 Cherlin, 2009, location 249 of 4480 (Kindle Edition). 52 Boyd, Danah. 2003, June 29. “Online Dating Sheds Its Stigma as Losers.com.” Retrieved from

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2003/06/29/online_dating_sheds_its_stigma_as_loserscom.html 53 Rosenfeld, Michael J. and Reuben J. Thomas. 2012, August. “Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a

Social Intermediary.” American Sociological Review, 77(4): 523-547.

54 Rudder, Christian. 2009, October 1. “How Your Race Affects the Messages You Get.” Retrieved from

https://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/ 55 Rudder, 2009. 56 Bogle, Kathleen. 2008. Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: NYU Press. 57 Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Paula England, and Alison C. K. Fogarty. 2012. “Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and

Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American Sociological Review,77(3): 435–462. 58 Reynolds, Jane. 2017, February 7. “In 2017, Substance Is In. Casual Sex is Out.” Retrieved from

https://theblog.okcupid.com/https-theblog-okcupid-com-casual-sex-and-politics-in-2017-eadbeaee0c4d 59 Reynolds, Leslie and Susan L. Brown. 2020. “Age Variation in Cohabitation, 2018.” Retrieved from

https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/reynolds-brown-age-variation-cohabitation-2018-fp-

20-12.html

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 41

60 Smock, Pamela and Wendy Manning. 2010. “New Couples, New Families: The Cohabitation Revolution in the

United States.” Pp 131-139 of Risman, Barbara ed., 2010. Families as They Really Are. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 61 Copen, Casey E. et al. 2012, March 22. “First Marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006–2010 National

Survey of Family Growth.” CDC National Health Statistics Reports, Retrieved from

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf 62 Stanley, Scott M., Galena Kline Rhoades and Howard J. Markman. 2006, October. “Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia

and the Premarital Cohabitation Effect.” Family Relations, 55(4): 499-509

63 Stanley et al 2006, p. 503. 64 Stanley et al 2006, p. 503. 65 Stanley et al 2006, p. 503. 66 Lye, D. N., & Waldron, I. (1997). Attitudes toward Cohabitation, Family, and Gender Roles: Relationships to Values

and Political Ideology. Sociological Perspectives, 40: 199-225.

67 Howard, Vicki. 2006. Brides, Inc.: American Weddings and the Business of Tradition. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press. 68 Howard, 2006 69 Howard, 2006. 70 Howard, 2006. 71 Howard, 2006, p. 32 72 American Gem Society. “History of the Diamond as an Engagement Ring.” Retrieved from

https://www.americangemsociety.org/en/the-history-of-the-diamond-as-an-engagement-ring 73 Video of the 2014 Feminist Makers Conference, Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SKxyxFY_18 74 Livingston, Gretchen. 2015, May 7. “Childlessness.” Pew Social Trends, retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/childlessness/ 75 Mathews, TJ. 2009. "Delayed Childbearing: More Women Are Having Their First Child Later in Life.” CDC. Retrieved

from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf 76 Weng, Wendy and Kim Parker. 2014. “Record Share of Americans Have Never Married: As Values, Economics and

Gender Patterns Change.” Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends project.

Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/ 77 Pew Research Center. 2015, December 17. “Parenting in America: Outlook, Worries, Aspirations Are Strongly

Linked to Financial Situation,” p. 20. Retrieved from file:///Users/angelabarian/Downloads/2015-12-17_parenting-

in-america_FINAL%20(1).pdf 78 Kaiser Family Foundation. “U.S. Teen Sexual Activity Fact Sheet.” Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20070317060746/http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-

Fact-Sheet.pdf 79 Kost, Kathryn, and Isaac Maddow-Zimet. 2016, April. “U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2011:

National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity.” Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us-teen-

pregnancy-trends-2011 80 Kearney, Melissa S and Phillip B. Levine. 2015. "Media Influences on Social Outcomes: The Impact of MTV's 16 and

Pregnant on Teen Childbearing." American Economic Review, 105(12): 3597-3632. 81 Brinton, Mary C., and Dong Ju Lee. 2016. “Gender-Role Ideology, Labor Market Institutions, and Postindustrial

Fertility.” Population and Development Review 42(3):405-433. 82 Soezean, Martha. 2017, January 20. “Harvard Professor: Fathers Should Take Childcare Leave to Raise Fertility

Rates.” Retrieved from https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/01/20/harvard-professor-fathers-should-take-

childcare-leave-to-raise-fertility-rates/ 83 Global Nonviolent Action Database. “Icelandic Women Strike for Economic and Social Equality, 1975.” Retrieved

from http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/icelandic-women-strike-economic-and-social-equality-1975 84 GNVAD 85 Brewer, Kristie. 2015, October 23. “The Day Iceland's Women Went On Strike.” Retrieved from

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34602822 86 Bindel, Julie. 2010, March 25. “Iceland: The World’s Most Feminist Country.” Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country 87 Hochschild, Arlie Russell, & Anne Machung. 2003. The Second Shift. New York: Penguin Books. 88 Thébaud, Sarah. 2010. Masculinity, Bargaining, and Breadwinning: Understanding Men’s Housework in the Cultural

Context of Paid Work. Gender & Society 24(3): 330-54. 89 Kurdek, Lawrence A. 2007. “The Allocation of Household Labor by Partners in Gay and Lesbian Couples.” Journal

of Family Issues, 28(1).

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 42

90 Matos, Kenneth. 2015. Modern Families: Same- and Different-Sex Couples Negotiating at Home. Families and

Work Institute, Retrieved from http://www.familiesandwork.org/downloads/modern-families.pdf 91 No Author. April 29, 2020. “Majorities think men and women have about the same influence in making important

family decisions.” Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/04/30/worldwide-optimism-about-

future-of-gender-equality-even-as-many-see-advantages-for-men/pg_2020-04-30_global-gender-equality_0-05/ 92 OECD - Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. 2017, March 15. “Key

Characteristics of Parental Leave Systems.” Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf 93 Deahl, Jessica. 2016, October 6. “Countries Around The World Beat The U.S. On Paid Parental Leave.” Retrieved

from http://www.npr.org/2016/10/06/495839588/countries-around-the-world-beat-the-u-s-on-paid-parental-leave 94 United States Department of Labor. “Family and Medical Leave Act.” Retrieved from

https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/ 95 Lerner, Sharon. 2015, August 18. “The Real War on Families: Why the U.S. Needs Paid Leave Now.” Retrieved from

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18151/the-real-war-on-families 96 Sandberg, Sheryl. 2013. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 97 Lerner, 2015. 98 Lerner, 2015. 99Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. “Intimate Partner Violence: Definitions.” 2016, July 20. Retrieved from

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html 100 World Health Organization. 2016, November. Media Fact Sheet. “Violence Against Women.” Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ 101 Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, Chen J, Stevens MR. 2010. “The National

Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report.” Atlanta, GA: National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

102 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. “Intimate Partner Violence: Definitions.” 2016, July 20. Retrieved from

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html 103 CDC, 2016 104 World Health Organization. “Intimate Partner Violence.” Retrieved from

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77432/1/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf 105 WHO, “Intimate Partner Violence.” 106 Lorenz, F., K. A. S. Wickrama, Rand D. Conger and Glen H. Elder Jr. 2006. “The Short-Term and Decade-Long

Effects of Divorce on Women's Midlife Health.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47(2), 111-125. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/stable/30040305 107 Amato, Paul R. and Juliana M. Sobolewski. 2001, December. “The Effects of Divorce and Marital Discord on Adult

Children's Psychological Well-Being.” American Sociological Review, 66(6): 900-921 108 Oppawsky, Jolene. 2000. “Parental Bickering, Screaming, and Fighting: Etiology of the Most Negative Effects of

Divorce on Children from the View of the Children.” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 32(3/4): 141-147. 109 Rutter, Virginia E. 2009. "Divorce in Research vs. Divorce in Media." Sociology Compass 3(4): 707-720. Retrieved

from http://digitalcommons.framingham.edu/soc_facpub/16 110 Rutter, 2009. 111 Amato, 2001 p. 916. 112 Kreider, Rose M. 2006, August. “Remarriage in the United States.” Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-remarriage-poster.pdf 113 Livingston, Gretchen. 2014, November 4. “The Demographics of Remarriage.” Pew Social Trends, retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/11/14/chapter-2-the-demographics-of-remarriage/ 114 Berrington, Ann and Agnese Vitali, 2016. “What will the family of the future look like?” World Economic Forum,

retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/what-will-the-family-of-the-future-look-like/ 115 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development International Futures Programme. 2011. “The Future

of Families To 2030: Projections, Policy Challenges, And Policy Options, A Synthesis Report.” Retrieved from

https://www.oecd.org/futures/49093502.pdf 116 Skocpol, Theda. 2000. The Missing Middle: Working Families and the Future of American Social Policy. New York:

W. W. Norton. 117 Photo by Ray LAC. No changes were made to the original image. Image license at

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Original image at

https://www.flickr.com/photos/15132846@N00/4569096825/ 118 Svajlenka, Nicole Prchal. September 5, 2019. “What We Know About DACA Recipients in the United States.”

Retreived from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2019/09/05/474177/know-daca-

recipients-united-states/

Sociology of Families (Fall 2021)

Page 43

119 Gerson, Kathleen. 2010. The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is Reshaping Family, Work, and

Gender in America. Oxford University Press, Kindle Edition, p. 103. 120 Lipp, Murray. 2013, June 2. “Seven Ways the U.S.A. Benefits from the Legalization of Gay Marriage.” Retrieved

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/gay-marriage-is-great-for_b_3370173.html 121 Angier, Natalie. 2013, November 25. “The Changing American Family.” Retrieved from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/health/families.html

Cover photo by Brett Sayles from Pexels