Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Chapter 11: Families and Intimate Relationships

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter 11: Families and Intimate Relationships"— Presentation transcript:

1 Chapter 11: Families and Intimate Relationships
Today I will be talking about the family. Talking about family can be a lot of fun—we all have one so we all have experiences and impressions to share. But I’ll need for you to try to take a step back from your own families. We will be talking about the family in two basic ways: as one of the most important of all social institutions and as a small society with roles and relationships all its own. In approaching the family in this way, we can see how it has looked throughout history and in varying societies and cultures worldwide. Chapter 11: Families and Intimate Relationships

2 I want to start our conversation about families and intimate relationships with the two couples introduced in your textbook: Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky, and Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. In some superficial ways, one could say that the two young women have some shared traits: both are daughters of highly charismatic, national politicians, ;both had to cope with media exposure that was often unkind; and more recently both have seen their personal lives analyzed in excruciating detail in the media. But beyond that, Chelsea Clinton and Bristol Palin share very little—at least sociologically. Their family backgrounds were very different, in ways that dramatically shaped the kinds of opportunities and options they would have along the way. What might some of these differences be? Start by thinking about differences between Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin. What does all this have to do with the topic at hand? The choices that we make regarding courtship (dating), mate selection, marriage, child-rearing, and more, are not nearly as individualized as we may think. In fact, such decisions (think about Chelsea and Bristol) are powerfully structured by culture, social class, geography, and family of origin. As we discuss this chapter, I will show you just how socially structured families and the choices individuals make within and about them really are.

3 The big issues What do sociologists mean by family?
What have families looked like across time and space? What are current trend in families in the United States and around the world? What are alternatives to traditional families? Let’s start with some important issues. To begin, we need to have a sociological definition of the family. This matters a great deal, particularly so that we are all clear on what we mean here in the classroom versus what you might mean when talking to your friends, watching TV, listening to the radio, and so on. Once we are all on the same page, I’ll offer a quick survey of family structures, both throughout history and in different countries. This helps to illustrate the variable of family forms. Then we can spend some time thinking about what’s going on in families today: What are the big trends? What trends are considered problems? Is the family in crisis as some social commentators suggest, or is it just changing? There are many topics that we could cover, but let’s get started with the basics.

4 What is “the family”? The family is a critical social institution that functions as part of society. The family is also a distinct social group with its own roles, patterns, and behaviors. Family is a cultural universal, though its structure varies across time and space. So what is the family? For our purposes, the family is a universal social institution that plays a major role in organizing many important aspects of our society. These include mate selection, inheritance, and child socialization, among others. The family is also a small society, a social group, with its own culture, norms, roles, relationships, patterns, and behaviors. It’s important to understand, however, that families are also part of larger societies and, as such, do not exist in a vacuum. They are, of course, intimately related to, and affected by, their broader societies. It’s important to have a definition for “the family” as a social institution: A family is two or more people who consider themselves related by blood, marriage, or adoption. There are those who further expand the definition to anything an individual defines as family, but for us, that makes it very difficult to compare structures, patterns, and trends. There are those who add a shared residence, but that limits us too quickly. As sociologists, we need a definition broad enough to transcend ethnocentric ideals or preconceived notions but narrow enough to have an analyzable category. This is because the family is socially constructed and varies across time and space. 4

5 Family concepts Kinship Marriage Nuclear versus extended family
Family of orientation versus procreation Monogamy versus polygamy Not surprisingly, there is a vocabulary that comes along with the sociological study of the family. Let’s walk through these important terms: Kinship is another way of thinking about family, but normally in a broader way. Kinship ties are all of those found in families—blood, marriage, adoption—but in a somewhat extended way. Marriage is a relationship between individuals—usually two, but not always—that entails both a social and legal status. It is often understood as a religious status, but that is just one of many social possibilities. When we think about nuclear and extended families, we are talking about the people we actually live with. A nuclear family is made up of an adult and or adult couple, and their children. An extended family is one that goes beyond those two generations or that includes, aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on. A family of orientation is the family into which a person was born, while a family of procreation is the family one creates via marriage, childbearing, and/or adoption. Monogamy is marriage/relationship between just two people at once. Polygamy is a form of marriage/relationship that allows for multiple partners. Polygyny, multiple women, is more common than polyandry, multiple men. 5

6 Theory and family Functional theories see two primary roles of family:
Primary socialization of children Personality stabilization of adults Feminist approaches often focus on the ways in which “traditional” models of family reinforce our system of gender inequality. As with other kinds of social relationships, theorists have spent a good deal of time considering the family. Functional theorists focus on the family as a social institution that has a role to play in society. In other words, when examining families, these theorists want to know what the family does to help societies maintain equilibrium. Talcott Parsons, an important American functionalist, identified two significant roles: the socialization of children and the stabilization of adults. Socialization is fairly obvious: Children must be socialized to function appropriately in society, and families are where children spend their time. The personality stabilization of adults is a bit different, emphasizing the way that the roles and responsibilities that constitute families require people to grow up and settle down, and that this benefits both the individuals involved and society at large. Functionalist theories of the family have been in relative disrepute in recent years, in large part because they, in effect if not intention, justify unequal relationships between men and women in the name of societal harmony. Feminist approaches to the family tend to focus on the dynamics within the family and the relationship between those dynamics and other social institutions. We’ll talk in a bit about the relationship between family and work, and right now, about the division of labor within families.

7 Division of labor (DOL) in families
The DOL in families is a frequent topic of concern for feminist scholars. Arlie Hochschild, The Second Shift (1989, with Anne Machung) Although both parents typically work outside the home today, it is women who do the bulk of the domestic work. This is one of the more common ways that feminist scholars think about family. The classic story, told so well in research done by Arlie Hochschild in the 1980s, is that even though nearly three-quarters of women with children are now working outside the home, they still take on the majority of the domestic work. This work that happens after the paid work is called the second shift. The second shift includes cleaning, cooking, child care, family business (communication, holidays, carpools, etc.), yard work, and more. While men do more now than they did in the 1980s, the pattern remains that women do more and the tasks they are responsible for tend to have less flexibility and more frequency. For obvious reasons, this presents itself as a problem to feminist scholars. It is, however, also a real problem in marriages today. Hochschild found that couples who shared this second shift were happier in their marriages. Though men certainly participate far more today than they did in the 1980s, there remains a significant gap in leisure time for husbands and wives within families. The biggest change is that when asked about these issues today, men indicate that they know they should be contributing more to domestic labor. That may not sound like much, but it makes a difference that men realize that family life has changed and that they should be working toward making that changed life good for everyone—themselves included. 7

8 The American family over time
The structure of families has varied throughout U.S. history. Colonial families were organized around work and community obligation and were kept in line with highly structured authority. You have a small sense now of what theory tells us about the family; now let’s think about what the American family has looked like over time. To begin, you have to understand that what constitutes the family, as well as its roles and structure, has changed over time. During the colonial period, the family was a public institution. It was an integral part of the community. Each family was an economic unit that played a role in, and had obligations to, the community. Equally, all members of the family played a crucial role within that family economy. Men, women, and children all played a role in production. Society was clearly patriarchal, but in terms of economic functions, all members of the family were crucial. Men did most of the heavy agricultural work but also participated in the child care. Women’s work included food production and preparation; caring for livestock and garden; helping in the fields at harvest time; and of course, child care. Children were also expected to participate whenever and wherever they were needed. What’s important to understand is that this division of labor (DOL) was different from that of the modern world, where the men leave the home and the women do housework. In the colonial period, men and women both worked for the same economic unit: the family.

9 The American family over time
With modernity came a separation of spheres for men and women: Men went to work for capitalists and women stayed in the home. This was not a matter of choice. Child labor was commonplace. The “traditional” 1950s family was less golden than current nostalgia suggests. Example: Women often felt trapped in the home. The family changed a great deal with industrialization. Many of the changes were a direct result of the shift from rural to urban life that accompanied broader societal shifts. Men now left the home and went to work in factories, while women and children were left in the home. When families needed more income, children were sent out before women, because at the same time as all of this, a new family model, the breadwinner-homemaker, was emerging. This meant that for men to display their success as a family man, women needed to stay home. Of course this was not possible for the majority of families, but it was increasingly becoming the family ideal. Another couple of changes at this point were a significant decrease in family size and an increase in marriage based on affection. The former came as a result of new living arrangements. In urban areas the large families of an agricultural era became an economic liability. The latter came as marriage was less and less linked to land and community obligation, coupled with the broader trend toward individualism. The 1950s family, which our society has both glamourized and made the object of nostalgia, was a further exaggeration of these trends. The breadwinner-homemaker model was then the societal ideal, and women were now understood to be delicate and in need of protection from the world and, correspondingly, from work. Women’s work was now to make the home a refuge for men and family, but little notice was taken of how trapped many women felt in that situation. The flip side was that men, too, were trapped in the role of sole provider, but at least that role came with power and status. 9

10 Changes in families worldwide
The spread of Western culture appears to be affecting families around the globe. Example: increased attention to romantic love In some countries there have been systematic efforts by governments to alter family size and structure. Rural-urban migration has led to a change in family structure. Worldwide shift toward the nuclear family model With globalization, and more specifically with the expansion of Western lifestyles, families have changed a great deal around the world. As countries become more developed/industrialized, family models tend to mimic the changes seen earlier in northern and Western Europe and in North America.

11 Seven important global trends
Declining influence of clans and kin groups Increasing freedom of mate selection Expanding rights for women Fewer kin marriages From the 1950s onward, families have continued to change, both in the United States and abroad. I want to talk about some of the more significant trends we have seen. First, clans and kin groups are less and less influential in people’s lives. Second, individuals are increasingly free from arranged marriages, though they remain common in some cultures. Third, in most parts of the world, women have more rights and freedoms than ever before. Fourth, marriages between members of the same kin group are declining. So far, you may have noticed that the expansion of individualism and decline of traditional authority are related to each of these trends. 11

12 Seven important global trends
5. Increasing degree of sexual freedom 6. Declining birthrates 7. Increasing room for children’s rights Fifth, we see the expansion of sexual freedom, even in countries that have previously been quite strict. Sixth, birthrates are continuing to decline. And seventh, children have gained expanded rights and recognition. It is important to note that these trends are not happening evenly throughout the world, but they are happening. Again, they tend to illustrate the spread of individualism and the shrinking of traditional authority. What also accompanies these trends is the expansion of the nuclear family as the primary structure of families around the world.

13 Trends in U.S. families today
Rising age at first marriage Increasing numbers of people living alone Sharp rise in cohabitation Increasing numbers of single-parent and stepfamilies Ongoing high rate of divorce Sharp rise in dual-earner families There are also trends right here in the United States that are worth mentioning. First off, the age at first marriage continues to rise. This is correlated with the increasing educational and occupational opportunities for women, and also with two other trends, the increase in numbers of people living alone and the rise in cohabitation before marriage. Other trends are related to the ongoing high rates of divorce, a percentage now in the mid-40s. The numbers of single-parent and stepparent families continue to rise. I will come back to divorce in a few minutes, but let’s just say that the numbers of children who spend some of their lives in single-parent and stepfamilies may surprise you. Finally, we have had a sharp rise in the percentage of families where both parents are working. Changes in the economy, reductions in governmental and corporate support, and increased opportunities for women have all contributed to this pattern. One last thing: despite some of the media and political rhetoric about people staying single, even now over 90 percent of Americans still get married at least once, and those who have been divorced are actually more likely to marry (again) than those who have never been married.

14 Figure 11.1 Percentage of Twenty- to Twenty-Four-
One dramatic shift worth noting in recent years is the percentage of people, particularly women, who have never been married by age 24. In 1960 that number was only 28%, while in 2010, it was 88%. That’s a 60% point jump in just 50 years, and it also virtually closes the gap with men. Figure 11.1 Percentage of Twenty- to Twenty-Four- Year-Olds Who Have Never Married

15 Other trends in families
Only one-fifth of households are the “traditional” family. More people are living alone than ever before. Dual-career and single-parent families are now numerically normal.

16 Figure 11.2 The Changing Structure of American Families with Children
Visual representation of the trends I was just discussing. Figure 11.2 The Changing Structure of American Families with Children © 2013 W. W. Norton Co., Inc.

17 Families in poverty Poor families often adapt by creating extensive kin and quasi-kin networks. Pros and cons to this kind of support structure For poor, young women there is typically high value placed on having and raising children. Children can elevate a woman’s social value and self-esteem One group that has developed a unique family structure here in the United States is the poor. Poor families, in large part because they cannot afford to purchase family-related services like day care or babysitters, have innovated by building large kin and quasi-kin networks to assist one another. Much of the early research looking at these extended family networks focused on African American women (Stack 1975), but more recent research suggests that poor women of other groups are doing the same thing. The pros, of course, are the shared support and the day-to-day help. The cons discussed in some of the research and discourse have to do with these networks making it difficult for people to get out of poverty and placing added stress on those in already difficult situations. A question that comes up again and again both in public discourse and in policy decision making is why poor, young women have babies outside marriage. There are many personal reasons these young mothers might give, but recent research has suggested that there are some more concrete reasons. For some women, the reasons have to do more with not wanting to marry the man who is the father for fear of a bad marriage or future problems. For others, it has to do with the very high value placed on children in the vacuum of other sources of value and esteem. These young women also tend to feel very confident in their ability to take care of a child because they have often been helping others in their kin group for most of their lives. 17

18 Figure 11.4 Divorce Rates in the United States
Shifting gears some, let’s talk a bit about divorce. Here you are looking at the U.S. divorce rate per 1,000 people. As you can see, it peaked in the late 1980s, and has essentially plateau’d, with small declines. There is also a seemingly odd spike in the 1940s. Does anyone know what caused that spike? What about the rapid increase from the 1960sto the 1980s? [equal rights movement, women entering labor force, no-fault divorce laws, reduced stigma surrounding divorce, increased emphasis on personal happiness as opposed to external obligation, reduced social emphasis on intergenerational inheritance of property/work, etc. This will be discussed a few slides from here.] Figure 11.4 Divorce Rates in the United States © 2013 W. W. Norton Co., Inc.

19 After divorce Women and children often experience a significant decline in economic status. Men often experience an improved financial situation. The majority of divorced individuals will remarry. Obviously, there are large numbers of divorced people in the United States, so I want to talk about what happens to them following the dissolution of their marriages. Women and children tend to bear the brunt of problems following divorce, especially where economics are concerned. Immediately after the divorce, women and children must cope with a significant decline in living standards—your textbook puts the figure at a 27 percent loss. Men, on the other hand, experience an economic boost, with a standard of living increase of approximately 10 percent. This, of course, makes an already difficult situation worse for women, as they try to reorganize their lives with less. This is not helped by the fact that, for example, in 2005, census data showed that fewer than 50 percent of custodial mothers had been paid the full amount of child support they were due. A more positive thing, perhaps, that typically happens after divorce is remarriage. A single, divorced person is actually more likely to marry than a single, never-married person of the same age. With the exception of African American women, more than 50 percent of all divorced people will remarry. Two-thirds of women will do so, and three-quarters of men will.

20 Effects on children There is disagreement on this topic among scholars of divorce and family. Some research—which is mostly psychological in nature—suggests that a period of initial trauma followed by adjustment is the norm. Children, however, do not have nearly as many choices as their divorced parents. Over the past few decades, there has been,a great deal of concern about the impact of divorce on children, and today there is still no consensus. For one thing, it depends a great deal on what kinds of effects one is interested in. It appears that from an individual, psychological perspective, most children of divorce experience a period of trauma followed by adjustment. 20

21 Effects on children Other research suggests that there continue to be deficits in some outcomes: Education Occupation Future marital success The cause of these differences appears to be economic and social. When looking at social outcomes such as educational and occupational attainment, along with chance of future divorce, the signs are less promising. While it is difficult to determine the exact causal agents, it appears that the problems children often face are the result of declining standard of living and loss of stability. Because of these concerns, some scholars have taken the position that while divorce is likely beneficial in situations of high conflict, it is less so in low-conflict families.

22 Why so much divorce? Implementation of no-fault laws Declining stigma
Less connection to extended family obligations or to property between families Women’s economic independence Unrealistic expectations plus an easy escape hatch When we think about the potential negative consequences of divorce, it brings up the question: why are there still so many divorces? There are many explanations, ranging from the superficial—”people don’t really take marriage seriously anymore”—to the complex, so let us think about some of these. In some ways it is hard to argue against the reality that the implementation of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s made getting a divorce much easier. Perhaps just as many people were in unhappy, difficult, and maybe even violent marriages before that time, but the barriers to divorce were too high. As divorce became easier to obtain and more common, it also lost a great deal of the social stigma once attached to it. Two other explanations are related to changes that have been part of the process of modernization. As I mentioned earlier, marriages and families today are less connected to extended family and community obligation. This makes it easier to cut ties without major disruption to others. Women in modern societies have more independence both economically and socially. As such, they are more able to walk away from difficult marriages with the knowledge that they will not be utterly without the means to support themselves and their children. Finally, I suggest, as does your textbook, that another factor contributing to our high divorce rate is the unrealistic expectation individuals have for marriage. We expect to have the perfect partner and the perfect life, and when that doesn’t happen, our ideal of what marriage is supposed to be—a culturally produced ideal—is shattered. And so, since it is relatively easy to do so, we leave.

23 Risk factors for divorce
Which of these increase one’s risk of divorce? Which decrease risk? Married at a young age (under age 21) Have divorced parents Lived with your romantic partner prior to marrying Have been divorced at least once Had a child prior to marrying Have a childless marriage Knew your partner for a short time prior to marrying Experience financial hardship Have less than a college degree You and your partner are similar with respect to social class background, age, and religion You or your partner is depressed You or your partner frequently drinks alcoholic beverages You fear disapproval from family and friends You believe married people should stay together “for the sake of the kids” [Have the students number their papers and write “increase” or “decrease” for each.] 23

24 Risk factors for divorce
IF YOU CHECKED YES: Married at a young age (under age 21) Increase risk Have divorced parents Increase risk Lived with your romantic partner prior to marrying Increase risk Have been divorced at least once Increase risk Had a child prior to marrying Increase risk Have a childless marriage Increase risk Knew your partner for a short time prior to marrying Increase risk Experience financial hardship Increase risk Have less than a college degree Increase risk You and your partner are similar with respect to Social class background, age, and religion Decrease risk You or your partner is depressed Increase risk You or your partner frequently drinks alcoholic beverages Increase risk You fear disapproval from family and friends Decrease risk You believe married people should stay together “for the sake of the kids” Decrease risk [Walk students through the correct answers.] 24

25 Figure 11.5 Number of Single-Parent Families, in Millions
Here we are looking at the number of single-parent families in the U.S., in millions, from 1970 to You can see the slight dip from 2006 to 2010, most likely related to difficult economic conditions, which tend to suppress divorce, as a family needs dual incomes. Figure 11.5 Number of Single-Parent Families, in Millions © 2013 W. W. Norton Co., Inc.

26 Single-parent families
Approximately half of children in the United States spend of part of childhood in single-parent families. These families are nearly always headed by women. There is a small movement of “single mothers by choice” made up of affluent, never-married women. For most, though, single parenting is related to divorce or factors related to poverty and deprivation. So as you’ve seen, the numbers of single-parent families have risen dramatically. The majority of these families are still the result of divorce, though out-of-wedlock births are also on the rise. Either way, the vast majority are headed by women, by a factor of nearly 7 to 1. Some out-of-wedlock births are part of the small, “single mothers by choice” movement, but more are the result of changing family structures in poor communities. The statistic that brings home this major shift in family structure is that approximately 50 percent of all children in the United States will spend part of their lives living in single-parent homes. 26

27 Change in Cohabitation in the U.S.
Total Unmarried Partners Living Together (Numbers in Millions) Now we are looking at data about cohabitation. We have total number of cohabiting couples, in the millions; percentage by gender and age; and employment and income data. Note: All data is for opposite sex couples. Source: Cohen 2010. © 2013 W. W. Norton Co., Inc.

28 Change in Cohabitation in the U.S.
Total Unmarried Partners Living Together (Numbers In Millions) 7.5 6.8 6 5.0 4.7 4.2 4 3.8 3.1 2.9 2 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Note: All data if for opposite sex couples. SOURCE: Cohen 2010 28

29 Change in Cohabitation in the U.S.
Percentage of 2010 Cohabitants EMPLOYMENT Both in Labor Force 66.6% One in Labor Force 25.7% Neither in Labor Force 7.7% WOMEN MEN Ages 15– % Ages 15– % Ages 30– % Ages 30– % Ages % Ages % HOUSEHOLD INCOME Earn under $20,000 12.1% Earn $20,000–$49,000 33.5% Earn over $50,000 54.4% Note: All data if for opposite sex couples. SOURCE: Cohen 2010 29

30 Cohabitation About 50 percent of you will cohabit prior to marriage.
Cohabitation is now understood as a stage in the relationship process preceding marriage. The main reason people give for cohabitation is to ensure future compatibility. Interestingly, statistics show that those who cohabit prior to marriage are more likely to divorce. Another major change in family structure has been the rise in cohabitation. As you can see on this slide, about half of you will cohabit with a partner prior to getting married (and most of you will indeed get married eventually!). Increasingly, cohabiting has become a phase in courtship, during which young people claim they are testing out their compatibility with a potential marriage partner. Unfortunately, data so far suggests that those who cohabit are more likely, not less, to divorce than those who do not. Do you have any ideas why? There are two basic schools of thought on this: People who cohabit are less traditional and thereby less bound to marriage than those who do not The actual process of cohabiting changes people’s views on the permanence of relationships Either way, cohabitation does not appear to help marriages stay together. 30

31 Figure 11.7 Reasons for Cohabiting
This bar graph shows some of the reasons people give for cohabiting, by gender. You can see that although there are some differences, men and women are pretty close together here, with the largest group of both expressing a desire to ensure marital compatibility. Figure 11.7 Reasons for Cohabiting

32 Gay-parent families Despite ongoing dissent, there is slow movement toward acceptance of gay marriage and gay parenting. This shift is taking place globally: the Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Uruguay, the United Kingdom, and others have already legalized either civil unions or gay marriages. In the United States, only Florida prevents gay couples from adopting children. A final change in family structure is one that only directly affects a fairly small portion of the population but has been a lightning rod in discussions of the well-being of families today. The question is about gay marriage and gay parenting. Should we allow one, both, or neither? Are “gay families” legitimate families? The trend worldwide, including the U.S., is that yes, gay couple should be allowed to both marry (whether it is called a union or a marriage varies) and raise children together. There are moral arguments on both sides, but from a strictly sociological perspective, gay couples are getting married and raising children (more than 900,000 such families exist in the U.S. alone), so gay families are a type of family today and need to be studied and understood. The data on children of gay parents is fairly promising in terms of child welfare and future outcomes. The Child Welfare League of America, for instance, has determined—using social science data—that gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents are just as capable of raising healthy children as heterosexual parents. Here in the United States, only Florida continues to prevent non-heterosexual couples from adopting children. 32

33 Chapter 11: Families and Intimate Relationships
You can see that families have changed throughout history and continue to change today. There are those who suggest that “the family” is in crisis. If we limit our definition of family to a narrow, “traditional” structure, that might be the case. The reality, however, is that the family comes in many shapes and sizes, both in the United States and elsewhere, and will remain a crucial social institution. We need to find ways to support families, even as there are new alternatives with which we are not entirely familiar.

34 Clicker Questions 1. How was the pre-modern family in the United States different from the modern family? a. The pre-modern family was an extended family, and the modern family is nuclear. b. The pre-modern family was more stable than the modern family. c. The pre-modern family was only slightly larger than the modern family. d. The pre-modern family was one in which the father and the mother went out to work. Answer: c Feedback: How Have Families Changed over Time? pp. 336–337. Sociologists once thought that prior to the modern period, the extended or multigenerational family was the predominant form of family in Western Europe. Research has shown this view to be mistaken. The nuclear family seems to have long been preeminent. Premodern household size was larger than it is today, but the difference is not especially great. 34

35 Clicker Questions 2. What is the family of orientation? a. The family of orientation is represented by childless couples. b. The family of orientation consists of the family into which a person is born. c. The family of orientation is represented by gay couples. d. The family of orientation is the family into which a person enters as an adult and within which children are raised. Answer: b Feedback: Introduction, p The family of orientation is the family into which an individual is born or adopted.

36 Clicker Questions 3. Why are families worldwide today adopting a nuclear family form? a. Because of shortened life expectancy, there are fewer grandparents around to provide extended family relationships. b. Because of warfare, families find it easier to survive as nuclear families. c. Because of the spread of Western culture, more people today are exposed to the ideals of romantic love and the nuclear family. d. Because of the rise of highly centralized national governments, new laws are undermining extended families. Answer: c Feedback: How Have Families Changed over Time? pp. 338–340. In addition to the spread of Western culture, the development of centralized governments and large-scale migration from rural to urban areas have influenced the worldwide movement toward the predominance of the nuclear family.

37 Clicker Questions 4. Which one of the following is true regarding important changes in families occurring worldwide? a. There is a general trend toward arranged marriages. b. The rights of women are becoming more suppressed. c. Kin marriages are becoming more common. d. Higher levels of sexual freedom are developing in societies that were very restrictive. Answer: d Feedback: How Have Families Changed over Time? p Families are being transformed throughout the globe today: there is a general trend toward the free choice of a spouse, kin marriages are becoming less common, higher levels of sexual freedom are developing in societies that were very restrictive, and birth rates are declining, meaning that women are giving birth to fewer babies.

38 Clicker Questions 5. Which of the following is a reason for the steep increase in divorce rates in the 1960s and 1970s? a. Changes in the law made divorce available for the first time. b. With few exceptions, marriage no longer had much connection with the desire to perpetuate property and status from generation to generation. c. As men became more economically independent, marriage was less of a necessary economic partnership for them. d. The stigma of divorce increased, but this only affected women and not men. Answer: b Feedback: What Do Marriage and Family in the United States Look Like Today? p Why did divorce rates increase so steeply in the 1960s and 1970s? First, changes in the law have made divorce easier. Second, except for a small proportion of wealthy people, marriage today no longer has much connection with the desire to perpetuate property and status from generation to generation. Third, as women become more economically independent, marriage is less of a necessary economic partnership. Fourth, the stigma of divorce has declined.

39 Clicker Questions 6. Increases in cohabitation among younger people, increases in postsecondary school enrollment (especially among women), and women’s increased participation in the labor force are all explanations for the trend toward _____ in the last several decades. a. remarriage b. later marriage c. single motherhood d. later divorce Answer: b Feedback: What Do Marriage and Family in the United States Look Like Today? p The age at which people first marry has risen over the past half century. In 1960, the average age at first marriages was 22.8 for men and 20.3 for women. The comparable ages in 2009 were 28 for men and 26 for women.

40 Clicker Questions 7. The most recent victory for same-sex couples came in July 2011, when ______ became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. a. Massachusetts b. Iowa c. New York d. California Answer: c Feedback: How Do New Family Forms Affect Your Life? p The most recent victory for same-sex couples came in July 2011, when New York became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.

Download ppt "Chapter 11: Families and Intimate Relationships"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google