Battleground: The Family Volumes 1 & 2

BATTLEGROUND THE FAMILY

This page intentionally left blank

BATTLEGROUND THE FAMILY VOLUME 1 (A–G)

Edited by Kimberly P. Brackett

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Battleground : the family / edited by Kimberly P. Brackett. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–313–34095–6 (set : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–34096–3 (vol. 1 : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–34097–0 (vol. 2 : alk. paper) 1. Family—Encyclopedias. I. Brackett, Kimberly P. HQ515.B38 2009 306.8503—dc22 2008038759 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2009 by Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2008038759 ISBN: 978–0–313–34095–6 (set) 978–0–313–34096–3 (vol. 1) 978–0–313–34097–0 (vol. 2) First published in 2009 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48 –1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS Guide to Related Topics Series Foreword Preface

ix xiii xv

Entries: Abortion

1

Addiction and Family

9

Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce

15

African American Fathers

24

Arranged Marriage

33

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

40

Battered Woman Syndrome

49

Benefits of Marriage

56

Biological Privilege

63

Birth Control

67

Birth Order

76

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

81

Changing Fertility Patterns

89

v

vi

|

Contents

Child Abuse

98

Child Care Policy

105

Child Support and Parental Responsibility

112

Childbirth Options

117

Childfree Relationships

125

Children as Caregivers

134

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage

139

Common Law Marriage

145

Corporal Punishment

152

Cosleeping

157

Covenant Marriage

163

Culture of Poverty

167

Dating

177

Day Care

185

Deadbeat Parents

191

Developmental Disability and Marital Stress

196

Divorce and Children

201

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

206

Domestic Partnerships

215

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes

221

Domestic Violence Interventions

228

Elder Abuse

239

Elder Care

247

Employed Mothers

252

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

257

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

265

Family Roles

269

Fatherhood

279

Fictive Kin

285

Foster Care

289

Gay Parent Adoption

297

Grandparenthood

304

Contents | vii

Grandparents as Caregivers

311

Homeschooling

319

Housework Allocation

326

Infertility

333

International Adoption

346

Juvenile Delinquency

355

Mail Order Brides

363

Mandatory Arrest Laws

369

Marital Power

375

Marital Satisfaction

383

Marriage Promotion

394

Mate Selection Alternatives

400

Midwifery and Medicalization

405

Mommy Track

414

Motherhood, Opportunity Costs

418

Nonmarital Cohabitation

423

Only Child

431

Overscheduled Children

436

Parenting Styles

443

Pet Death and the Family

450

Plural Marriage

457

Poverty and Public Assistance

464

Premarital Sexual Relationships

472

Prenuptial Agreements

478

Preparation for Marriage

485

Religion and Families

493

Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence

499

Remarriage

504

Same-Sex Marriage

515

Sibling Violence and Abuse

521

Stay at Home Dads

526

Surrogacy

532

viii

|

Contents

Teen Pregnancy

543

Transition to Parenthood

552

Transracial Adoption

558

Wedding and Eloping

567

White Wedding Industry

572

Bibliography

579

About the Editor and Contributors

617

Index

625

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS dating and relationship formation Cohabitation Effects on Marriage Dating Fictive Kin Mate Selection Alternatives Nonmarital Cohabitation Prenuptial Agreements

domestic violence Battered Woman Syndrome Child Abuse Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes Domestic Violence Interventions Elder Abuse Mandatory Arrest Laws Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence Sibling Violence and Abuse

ending personal relationships Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce Divorce and Children Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

family and other institutional connections Biological Privilege Child Care Policy ix

x

|

Guide to Related Topics

Culture of Poverty Foster Care Homeschooling Marriage Promotion Poverty and Public Assistance Religion and Families

family formation options Changing Fertility Patterns Childbirth Options Gay Parent Adoption International Adoption Midwifery and Medicalization Surrogacy Teen Pregnancy Transracial Adoption

family work, family crises, and caregiving Addiction and Family Children as Caregivers Elder Care Grandparents as Caregivers Housework Allocation Juvenile Delinquency Pet Death and the Family

fertility and sexuality in relationships Abortion Birth Control Extramarital Sexual Relationships Infertility Premarital Sexual Relationships

parenting and child rearing issues African American Fathers Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Birth Order Breast Feeding or Formula Feeding Child Support and Parental Responsibility Corporal Punishment Cosleeping Deadbeat Parents Fatherhood Grandparenthood

Guide to Related Topics |

Only Child Overscheduled Children Parenting Styles Transition to Parenthood

relationship and marital processes Benefits of Marriage Childfree Relationships Developmental Disability and Marital Stress Family Roles Marital Power Marital Satisfaction

traditional marriage and its alternatives Arranged Marriage Common Law Marriage Covenant Marriage Domestic Partnerships Mail Order Brides Plural Marriage Preparation for Marriage Remarriage Same-sex Marriage Wedding and Eloping White Wedding Industry

work and family links Day Care Employed Mothers Family and Medical Leave Acts (FMLA) Mommy Track Motherhood, Opportunity Costs Stay-at-home Dads

xi

This page intentionally left blank

SERIES FOREWORD Students, teachers, and librarians frequently need resources for researching the hot-button issues of contemporary society. Whether for term papers, debates, current-events classes, or to just keep informed, library users need balanced, in-depth tools to serve as a launching pad for obtaining a thorough understanding of all sides of those debates that continue to provoke, anger, challenge, and divide us all. The sets in Greenwood’s Battleground series are just such a resource. Each Battleground set focuses on one broad area of culture in which the debates and conflicts continue to be fast and furious—for example, religion, sports, popular culture, sexuality and gender, science and technology. Each volume comprises dozens of entries on the most timely and far-reaching controversial topics, such as abortion, capital punishment, drugs, ecology, the economy, immigration, and politics. The entries—all written by scholars with a deep understanding of the issues—provide readers with a nonbiased assessment of these topics. What are the main points of contention? Who holds each position? What are the underlying, unspoken concerns of each side of the debate? What might the future hold? The result is a balanced, thoughtful reference resource that will not only provide students with a solid foundation for understanding the issues, but will challenge them to think more deeply about their own beliefs. In addition to an in-depth analysis of these issues, sets include sidebars on important events or people that help enliven the discussion, and each entry includes a list of “Further Reading” that help readers find the next step in their research. At the end of volume 2, the readers will find a comprehensive Bibliography and Index.

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE Families are inherently interesting because we have experiences, positive and negative, of them. But that also means we have lots of baggage that accompanies our consideration of families as well. When we think of something that is a battleground, it implies that there is debate, but beyond that it suggests a moral or ethical stand that is worth fighting for. There is a struggle required to resolve a battle and in family what we quickly learn is that the values and stereotypes that we hold toward how family life should occur may be the ammunition. Battleground: The Family recognizes the contentiousness of issues that impact family life and attempts to synthesize the current debates for the reader. An initial question you might have is why family issues are so contentious. Family life has undergone a radical transformation in the last half century, challenging what most persons thought they knew about how to form a partnered relationship, have and rear children, and grow old together. Among the important trends have been an increase in the numbers of single people in the United States, later ages at first marriage and delayed childbearing in marriage, decreasing family size, more women working for pay, higher rates of divorce, and more participation in remarriages and stepfamilies. Greater openness about sexuality, increased birth control options, higher numbers of nonmarital births, and a push for greater acceptance of homosexuality have left the country in a moral quandary. Despite the expectation that families are private, battles over family issues play out in the public domain. Political ideology and domestic policy have coalesced around various family values camps. Family is undoubtedly essential in the lives of humans. We begin and generally end our lives within the confines of family. Family, then, has a great deal of power over us and a prominent place in our lives. But what do we individuals

xv

xvi

|

Preface

mean when we talk about family and what do researchers and politicians mean when they talk about family? The answers might surprise you because they can be so similar and so different all at the same time. If you were to ask three friends to list who is in their family and provide a definition of family, you would get three different answers. However, the definition would probably sound something like, “a group of people who love and support each other and are related in important ways.” That is a reasonable way to approach a family and the majority of people in the United States would define family in a similar manner. In our personal definitions we generally include an affective component, one based on emotional bonds, though we tend to be much less specific about how the partners are related, whether it is by marriage, blood, or some other criteria. However, if you were to ask those same friends what “the family” or the “ideal family” is all about, their definitions, although quite likely similar to each other, will be a bit different than how they described their own families. While an element of affection is likely to be included, so are more traditional conceptions of family as composed of dad, mom, kids, pet, and white picket fence. This second definition is culturally determined and provides a general guide for the model that families are expected to follow. This is the definition for the family as a social institution. The ideal family for most Americans, what Dorothy Smith calls the Standard North American Family, is a nuclear family composed of a legally married, heterosexual couple and their children. These partners are similar in age, education level, income, religion and racial or ethnic category. They have adequate income and generally divide the labor along gender lines. The resulting pattern is one in which men work away from the home for pay, and women work in the home for no pay. Clearly, the addition of one little word, “the,” to family has a marked influence on the answer provided. This volume is called Battleground: The Family. That is important because it draws our attention to one of the primary sources of debate in family life, how families today conform to or diverge from the expected ideal family, and whether this is a positive or negative occurrence. The use of “the family” suggests that families are monolithic, exhibiting the same patterns of membership and function regardless of social circumstances. “The Family” represents normative family life. The battle over preferred family patterns begins when comparisons are drawn between actual families and the cultural ideal. The more divergent from the cultural expectations the family type seems, the more likely it is to generate controversy. As increasingly diverse family forms have emerged over the last half century, questions over family life have become more common and more challenging. Changing family patterns exist alongside a standard of family life that has not changed. In her work, Stephanie Coontz suggests that Americans get trapped by the cultural ideal. Seeing few families in our personal experience that exactly fit the cultural ideal, we assume that there must have been more families that fit the model in the past, and that family life then was significantly better than it is today. By longing for the so-called good old days we get caught in a nostalgia trap that makes today’s families seem like dysfunctional nightmares. When we rely on

Preface

the family as our standard, there are likely to be many more emerging controversies as families forge new paths to help them compensate for changing social conditions. How one defines family is not just an academic exercise. It has real-life consequences for the types of family associations that are considered valid and those that are likely to be supported by other institutions, such as government and religion. For example, if a particular view of family, one that defines family in terms of two married parents, is the preferred model then more societal support and encouragement will be offered to those types of families, despite the fact that families that do not fit the model are more likely to need outside support. It is common in our society to talk about the family as if there were only one model, approach, or formula. In other words, as if it is a separate entity quite apart from the individuals who live it. While it is true that there are consistent patterns of interaction that people who are bonded by blood or marriage demonstrate, there is only the idea known as the family. Again, this can demonstrate where many of the controversies in family originate. When we think about family as something beyond ourselves, we fail to recognize that family is something we do everyday as we interact in family-like associations with others. In other words, we take family for granted, assuming that all families work like ours. That is, until someone else’s view or experience of family is radically different than our own and causes us to question what we have assumed to be true. In recognition of the increasingly diverse and controversial experiences of family life that have emerged in recent years, the most prestigious academic journal of family research changed its name from Journal of Marriage and the Family to Journal of Marriage and Family. Not only does the controversy over the way family is defined influence the field of family studies in general, it influences the way that many different constituencies approach family life. Questions over definition inform many of the controversies discussed in Battleground: The Family, but there are more practical concerns raised as well. One of the important things to do before studying the controversies that abound regarding family life in the United States is to ask what your personal definition of family contains. Who is in your family? Who is included and who is excluded? How does this relate to who ought to be in a family? This latter question is of key importance for the debates that rage in the areas of family studies, family relationships, and family policies today. One of the tensions apparent in any exploration of family life is the difference between the way that families are and that way that we might like them to be. The chasm between our ideal image of family life and our reality of family experiences can leave us in turmoil. It is in the challenge of reconciling the realities of family life today with the cultural models of the perfect family that the conflicting viewpoints are most evident. At the societal level common areas of conflict include divorce, unwed motherhood, housework, day care, and public assistance. But these issues of ideal and real are just as important in examining the stress that results on the individual level from, for example, rearing a developmentally disabled child or deciding whether to breast feed or bottle feed. Families today no longer fit neatly into the models of the past. They are significantly more complex, more likely to be formed outside of a traditional mar-

|

xvii

xviii

|

Preface

riage and to end more easily. Additional controversies that inform the debate about family in the United States reflect the links between family and other social institutions. Thinking about the role of intervention and social policy in the lives of families indicates the links between government and family life. How involved should government be in what have been described as private decisions? Also on the institutional level, the links between family and religion are ripe for controversy. With family assigned the role of moral steward for children, debate emerges about whether any group other than a traditional two-parent, married heterosexual family can rear a morally conscientious child. The suggestion is routinely offered that changes to family signal a moral decline in the society. Controversy in family often revolves around stereotypes. Such is the case with African American fathers or gay parents. One continuing debate emphasizes family form compared to function by asking which types of families are best suited to fulfill the socially assigned tasks of having and rearing children, providing emotional and financial support to the members, and regulating sexual activity. For persons who presume that the two parent family is best, social problems can be seen as resulting from the increasing number of single parent families and the failure of many noncustodial parents to pay child support. For persons who consider alternative family forms equally effective at fulfilling these tasks, the critical issue is one of acceptance and support. One of the hottest family debates among the political establishment is whether marriage would be a viable solution for some social problems, especially those resulting from divorce, single parenting, and teen pregnancy. Other areas where the role of marriage is controversial include covenant marriage and poverty and public assistance. Additional debates arise over the privileging of biology or society when making decisions about family life. Various groups on each side can be found examining the circumstances under which children should be removed from the care of their biological parents and placed in a foster home, whether surrogacy arrangements should be upheld by the courts, or whether children should only be placed for adoption with parents who are their same race. Given the influence of psychology in our lives today, controversies arise as to the best strategies to accomplish certain parenting or growth and development objectives. What types of families or socialization experiences provide the best paths to rearing well-adjusted adults? Topics such as cosleeping, corporal punishment, and divorce and children draw on psychological traditions to debate outcomes. A number of different constituencies have a stake in the form, organization, and function of family. Anytime there is rapid and continuing social change there is likely to be ongoing conflict. Family fits these criteria for debate perfectly. There is a great deal of public anxiety that surrounds the state of contemporary families. The themes discussed above emerge throughout the topics chosen for inclusion in Battleground: The Family. The two volumes of the set Battleground: The Family are designed to provide extensive coverage of critical issues in U.S. culture concerning family life currently and into the future. The issues raised are not likely to be solved to everyone’s satisfaction, and certainly not within the next few years. The goal of this

Preface

work is to serve as a starting point for those who want to learn more about specific aspects of family life and the controversies that surround family construction, interaction, and processes. Advanced high school students and beginning undergraduates will find the work particularly useful because of the extensive cross references at the end of the entries that indicate the complex interwoven patterns of family life and choices. The lay reader may be intrigued to learn more about the different approaches to family life and the passion with which family is debated. Likewise, at the end of each entry, the accessible “Further Readings” note both academic and popular press sources for additional information and reflection. These further readings represent sources that the author consulted to complete the entry as well as materials that will be helpful as one begins to explore the various sides to the topic’s debate on a deeper level. At the end of the work there is a general bibliography that the reader will find contains a variety of sources from traditional research journal articles, to popular self-help books, to Internet sites. The range of sources for more information about family life is intentional and represents the ubiquity of family concerns. Across the spectrum of family life from family formation, to relationship maintenance, and dissolution of family through death or divorce, there are debates of the who, what, how, and why of family. Broad topics that find detailed coverage in this reference are dating, marriage, parenting, work and family, and divorce. While these are obvious topics for which debate is clearly ongoing and expected, other less popular topics are also included. Some of these are pet death and the family, children as caregivers, and mail order brides. These again highlight the range of issues that families encounter on a daily basis and the differing strategies they may employ to perform their evolving role in the culture. Just like different branches of the family tree, these topics converge at the common ancestor of family life. One may notice that the authors for this work are very diverse in their educational attainment and background. Some are professors, some are graduate students, some work with families in the community, and most are undergraduates. Each brings to the table a desire to understand more about family life, attempting to share their broad knowledge of a topic with inquiring readers. The sharing of information by these different constituencies makes the work very accessible. It also allows a tremendous diversity of topics and views to emerge. The authors and I invite you to question what you know about family. Do your perspectives come from your actual experiences of family life or what you would like for those experiences to be? As with any work that tries to be inclusive, there are limitations. Astute readers will find that there are more views on individual controversial issues than just those discussed here. We have attempted to present the most common opposing ideas, but know that we could not possibly have included them all here. Likewise, there are more topics in the broad category of family that are controversial than could be included. I suspect that even four volumes would be insufficient to fully catalog the political and lay disagreements over particular aspects of family life. Again, the goal has been to introduce enough substantive issues to adequately inform the novice family professional.

|

xix

xx

|

Preface

This work would be incomplete without offering thanks to some of the many people who have contributed to its success. First, thank you to the contributors who worked hard to fully explain sometimes unwieldy arguments and disparate approaches to family topics. Second, groups deserving special recognition are students who were enrolled in my classes in Sociology of the Family and Sociology of Gender Roles during fall 2007. Many of them find their work published here because they took seriously my encouragement to write an article. I am very proud of their efforts. Third, there are several persons who contributed portions of what would become entries. They include Shannon Houvouras, Jessica Akau, Leslie Langston Fussell, Bridget Amerson, and Melisa Quattlebaum. I thank them for their contributions as well. Fourth, thank you to my mentor, Connie Shehan. Fifth, at Greenwood Press Kevin Downing and Lindsay Claire were always available and extremely helpful. On the home front, thank you to my colleagues at Auburn University at Montgomery. Finally, it goes without saying that no work on family would be complete without a special acknowledgment of one’s own family; without the love and support of my family this work would not have been possible. Kimberly P. Brackett, June 2008 Further Reading: Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books, 1992; Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America’s Changing Families. New York: Basic Books, 1997; Gubrium, Jaber F., and James A. Holstein. What is Family? Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1990; Levin, Irene and Jan Trost. “Understanding the Concept of Family.” Family Relations 41 (1992): 348–351; Smith, Dorothy E. “The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an Ideological Code.” Journal of Family Issues 14 (1993): 50–65.

A ABORTION Abortion refers to the premature end or termination of a pregnancy after implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus and before fetal viability or the point in fetal development at which a fetus can survive outside a woman’s womb without life support. The term refers to the expulsion of the fetus, fetal membranes, and the placenta from the uterus, and includes spontaneous miscarriages and medical procedures performed by a licensed physician intended to end pregnancy at any gestational age. ABORTION PROCEDURES An early abortion procedure, performed during the first trimester, or the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, is one of the safest types of medical procedures when performed by a trained healthcare professional in a hygienic environment. The risk of abortion complications is minimal, with less than 1 percent of all patients experiencing a serious complication. In the United States the risk of death resulting from abortion is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. The risks associated with abortion are less than those associated with childbirth. There are two major types of procedures used to terminate a pregnancy. These procedures include both medical abortions and surgical abortions. The type of procedure that will be used is selected by the physician and the patient after determining the stage of pregnancy. Early-term abortions, or those occurring in the first trimester of pregnancy, may be either medical or surgical. Surgical abortions are used in later-stage abortions, or those occurring in the second or third trimester.

1

2

| Abortion

Early First-Trimester Abortions Early first-trimester abortions are defined as those performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Two procedures may be used: medical (nonsurgical) or surgical abortions. Medical abortions include the administration of a combination of one of two oral medications that causes expulsion of the fetus from the uterus (miscarriage). Medical abortions include the use of RU-486, commonly referred to as the abortion pill, as well as the use of other combinations of drugs, depending on the stage of pregnancy. Typically, a combination of methotrexate and misoprostol are used to end pregnancies of up to seven weeks in duration. RU-486, a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is used to terminate pregnancies between seven and nine weeks in duration. Women opting for a medical abortion are typically administered methotrexate orally or by injection in a physician’s office. Misoprostal tablets are administered orally or vaginally during a second office visit that occurs five to seven days later. The procedure is then followed up with a visit to the physician to confirm complete expulsion of the fetus and the absence of any complications. Many women find that medical abortions are more private and more natural than surgical abortions. A surgical abortion involves the use of suction aspiration to remove the fetus from the uterus. Surgical abortion is generally used to end pregnancies between 6 and 14 weeks duration. Vacuum aspiration uses suction to expel the contents of the uterus through the cervix. Vacuum aspiration is performed in a doctor’s office or clinic setting and typically takes less than 15 minutes. Patients receive an injection into the cervix to numb the cervical area. The physician inserts dilators to open the cervix where a sterile cannula is inserted. The cannula, attached to tubing that is attached to a vacuum or manual pump, gently empties the contents of uterus. The procedure is highly effective and is used most often in firsttrimester abortions. Second-Trimester Abortions Second-trimester abortions refer to abortions performed between the thirteenth and twentieth weeks of pregnancy. In some cases, second-trimester abortions may be performed as late as the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. Second-trimester abortions include a greater risk of complications due to the later stage of fetal development and are performed under local or general anesthesia. The cervix is dilated and a curette or forceps are inserted through the vagina, and the fetus is separated into pieces and extracted. Second-trimester abortions are typically performed in cases where a woman has not had access to early medical care and has only recently had a pregnancy confirmed, or in cases where a recent diagnosis of genetic or fetal developmental problems has been made. The available abortion procedures provide many options to women. Pregnancy terminations performed between the sixth and twelfth weeks of pregnancy are safe and include both medical and surgical procedures. Medical abortions, induced by a combination of drugs that induce a miscarriage, provide women with the option of ending a pregnancy in the privacy of her home in a more natural way. Surgical abortion, by using vacuum aspiration, gently removes the

Abortion

fetus from the uterus and includes minimal risks. These risks are usually limited to cramping and bleeding that last from a few hours to several days after the procedure. Most women who abort during the first trimester are able to return to their normal routines the following day. Antibiotics are generally prescribed following a first-trimester abortion to decrease any risk of infection and a follow up visit several weeks later makes first-trimester abortions safer than childbirth. ABORTION AS A SOCIAL ISSUE As a contemporary social issue, elective abortion raises important questions about the rights of pregnant women, the meaning of motherhood, and the rights of fetuses. Since the late 1960s, abortion has been a key issue in the contemporary U.S. culture wars. The term “culture wars” refers to ongoing political debates over contemporary social issues, including not only abortion but also homosexuality, the death penalty, and euthanasia. Culture wars arise from conflicting sets of values between conservatives and progressives. The culture war debates, particularly those surrounding the issue of abortion, remain contentious among the American public. The debates have resulted in disparate and strongly held opinions among the American public and have resulted in the emergence of activist groups taking a variety of positions on abortion. Activists include those who support a woman’s right to abortion (epitomized in groups such as the National Abortion Rights Action League—NARAL Pro-Choice America) and those who oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds (such as right-to-life organizations). Researchers suggest that the continuing debates over abortion have called into question traditional beliefs about the relations between men and women, raised vexing issues about the control of women’s bodies and women’s roles, and brought about changes in the division of labor in the family and in the broader occupational arena. Elective abortion has called into question long-standing beliefs about the moral nature of sexuality. Further, elective abortion has challenged the notion of sexual relations as privileged activities that are symbolic of commitments, responsibilities, and obligations between men and women. Elective abortion also brings to the fore the more personal issue of the meaning of pregnancy. Historically, the debate over abortion has been one of competing definitions of motherhood. Pro-life activists argue that family, and particularly motherhood, is the cornerstone of society. Pro-choice activists argue that reproductive choice is central to women controlling their own lives. More contemporary debates focus on the ethical and moral nature of personhood and the rights of the fetus. In the last 30 years these debates have become politicized, resulting in the passage of increasingly restrictive laws governing abortion, abortion doctors, and abortion clinics. EARLY ABORTION LAWS Laws governing abortion up until the early nineteenth century were modeled after English Common Law, which criminalized abortion after “quickening” or

| 3

4

| Abortion

the point in fetal gestational development where a woman could feel fetal movement. Prior to quickening, the fetus was believed to be little more than a mass of undifferentiated cells. Concurrent with the formal organization of the American Medical Association in the mid-1800s, increasingly restrictive abortion laws were enacted. In general, these laws were designed to decrease competition between physicians and mid-wives, as well as other lay practitioners of medicine, including pharmacists. A few short years later, The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice successfully lobbied for passage of the Comstock Laws, a series of laws prohibiting not only pornography but also banning contraceptives and information about abortion. With the formal organization of physicians and the enactment of the Comstock Laws, pregnancy and childbirth shifted from the realm of privacy and control by women to one that was increasing public and under the supervision of the male medical establishment. Specifically, all abortions were prohibited except therapeutic abortions that were necessary in order to save the life of the pregnant woman. These laws remained unchallenged until the early 1920s when Margaret Sanger and her husband were charged with illegally distributing information about birth control. An appeal of Sanger’s conviction followed and contraception was legalized, but only for the prevention or cure of disease. It was not until the early 1930s that federal laws were enacted that prohibited government inference in the physician-patient relationship as it related to doctors prescribing contraception for their female patients. Unplanned pregnancies continued to occur and women who had access to medical care and a sympathetic physician were often able to obtain a therapeutic abortion. These therapeutic abortions were often performed under less than sanitary conditions because of the stigma attached to both the physicians performing them and to the women who sought to abort. By the 1950s, a growing abortion reform movement had gained ground. The movement sought to expand the circumstances under which therapeutic abortions were available; it sought to include circumstances in which childbirth endangered a woman’s mental or physical health, where there was a high likelihood of fetal abnormality, or when pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. The abortion reform movement also sought to end the threat of “back-alley abortions” performed by questionable practitioners or performed under unsanitary conditions that posed significant health risks to women and often resulted in death. By the 1960s, although the abortion reform movement was gaining strength, nontherapeutic abortion remained illegal and therapeutic abortion was largely a privilege of the white middle to upper classes. A growing covert underground abortion rights collective emerged in the Midwest. Known as the Jane Project, the movement included members of the National Organization for Women, student activists, housewives and mothers who believed access to safe, affordable abortion was every woman’s right. The Jane Project was an anonymous abortion service manned by volunteers who provided counseling services and acted in an intermediary capacity to link women seeking abortions with physicians who were willing to perform the procedure. Members of the collective, outraged over the exorbitant prices charged by many physicians, learned to perform the

Abortion

abortion procedure themselves. Former members of the Jane Project report providing more than 12,000 safe and affordable abortions for women in the years before abortion was legalized. Activists involved in the early movement to reform abortion laws experienced their first victory in 1967 when the Colorado legislature enacted less restrictive regulations governing abortion. By 1970, four additional states had revised their criminal penalties for abortions performed in the early stages of pregnancy by licensed physicians, as long as the procedures followed legal procedures and conformed to health regulations. These early challenges to restrictive abortion laws set into motion changes that would pave the way to the legal right to abortion. THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ABORTION Two important legal cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s established the legal right to abortion. In the first and more important case, Roe v. Wade, the court overturned a Texas law that prohibited abortions in all circumstances except when the pregnant woman’s life was endangered. In a second companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the high court ruled that denying a woman the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term violated privacy rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. These decisions, rendered by a 7 to 2 vote by the Supreme Court justices in 1973, struck down state statutes outlawing abortion and laid the groundwork for one of the most controversial public issues in modern history. The Supreme Court decisions sparked a dramatic reaction by the American public. Supporters viewed the Court’s decision as a victory for women’s rights, equality, and empowerment while opponents viewed the decision as a frontal attack on religious and moral values. Both supporters and opponents mobilized, forming local and national coalitions that politicized the issue and propelled abortion to the forefront of the political arena. Opponents of abortion identified themselves as “anti-abortion” activists while those who supported a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term adopted the term “prochoice” activists. These two groups rallied to sway the opinions of a public that was initially disinterested in the issue. THE EARLY YEARS POST ROE Following the Roe decision, anti-abortion activists worked to limit the effects of the Supreme Court decision. Specifically, they sought to prevent federal and state monies from being used for abortion. In 1977, the Hyde Amendment was passed by Congress and limits were enacted that restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. In the ensuing years, the amendment underwent several revisions that limited Medicaid coverage for abortion to cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. The Hyde Amendment significantly impacted low-income women and women of color. It stigmatized abortion care by limiting federal and state health care program provisions for basic reproductive health care.

| 5

6

| Abortion

As anti-abortion and pro-choice advocates mobilized, their battles increasingly played out in front of abortion clinics throughout the country, with both groups eager to promote their platforms about the legal right to abortion. Abortion clinics around the country became the sites of impassioned protests and angry confrontations between activists on both sides of the issue. Confrontations included both anti-abortionists who pled with women to reconsider their decision to abort, and pro-choice activists working as escorts for those who sought abortions, shielding the women from the other activists who were attempting to intervene in their decision. Many clinics became a battleground for media coverage and 30-second sound bites that further polarized activists on both sides of the issue. Moreover, media coverage victimized women who had privately made a decision to abort by publicly thrusting them into the middle of an increasingly public battle. By the mid-1980s, following courtroom and congressional defeats to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and a growing public that was supportive of the legal right to abortion, anti-abortion activists broadened their strategies and tactics to focus on shutting down abortion clinics. Moreover, anti-abortionist groups began identifying themselves as “pro-life” activists to publicly demonstrate their emphasis on the sanctity of all human life and to reflect their concern for both the pregnant woman and the fetus. The change in labels was also an attempt to neutralize the negative media attention resulting from a number of radical and militant anti-abortion groups that emerged in the 1980s, many of which advocated the use of intimidation and violence to end the availability of abortion and to close down clinics. For these more radical groups, the use of violence against a fetus was seen as justification for violence that included the bombing and destruction of abortion clinics and included, in some cases, the injury or murder of physicians and staff working at the clinics. The polarization of activists on both sides of the issue and the increased incidence of violence at abortion clinics resulted in the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance Act (FACEA). FACEA prohibited any person from threatening, assaulting, or vandalizing abortion clinic property, clinic staff, or clinic patients, as well as prohibited blockading abortion clinic entrances to prevent entry by any person providing or receiving reproductive health services. The law also provided both criminal and civil penalties for those breaking the law. Increasingly, activists on both sides of the issue shifted their focus from women seeking to abort and abortion clinics to the interior of courtrooms, where challenges to the legal right to abortion continue to be heard. Meanwhile, increasingly restrictive laws governing abortion and abortion clinics were passed. THE LATER YEARS POST ROE With the legal right to abortion established and the battle lines between prolife and pro-choice activists firmly drawn, key legislative actions impacting the legal right to abortion characterized the changing landscape of the abortion debate. In the 1989 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services case, the Supreme Court affirmed a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facil-

Abortion

ities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling about abortion. The decision for the first time granted specific powers to states to regulate abortion, and has been interpreted by many as the beginning of a series of decisions that might potentially undermine the rights granted in the Roe decision. Following the Webster case, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed and ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a case that challenged five separate regulations of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act as being unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. Specifically, the Pennsylvania act required doctors to provide women seeking abortion with a list of possible health complications and risks of abortion prior to the procedure, required married women to inform their husbands of an abortion beforehand, required parental or guardian consent for minors having an abortion, imposed a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could have an elective abortion, and mandated specific reporting requirements for clinics where abortions were performed. The court upheld four of the five provisions, striking down the spousal consent rule, which was found to give excessive power to husbands over their wives and possibly exacerbate spousal abuse. Moreover, the Court allowed for waivers for extenuating circumstances in the parental notification requirement. Casey was the first direct challenge to Roe and the court modified the trimester framework that Roe had created. It also restructured the legal standard by which restrictive abortion laws were evaluated. Casey gave states the right to regulate abortion during the entire period before fetal viability, and they could do so for reasons other than to protect the health of the mother. The increased legal rights provided to states to impose restrictions on laws governing abortion resulted in a tightening of the requirements for clinics providing abortions and adversely affected many women who sought abortions, particularly low-income women and women who lived in rural areas. As a result of the increased power granted to states to regulate abortion, women were required to attend a preabortion counseling session before the procedure, in which they received information on the possible risks and complications from abortion and they were required to wait at least 24 hours after the counseling session to undergo the procedure. For poor women or for women who lived in states where there were no abortion clinics available, the costs associated with the procedure rose dramatically because of the associated travel and time off from work. Since Casey, the Supreme Court has heard only one case related to abortion. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the constitutionality of a Nebraska law prohibiting partial birth abortions was heard by the high court. The Nebraska law prohibited partial birth abortions under any circumstance. Physicians who violated the law were charged with a felony, fined, sentenced to jail time, and automatically had their license to practice medicine revoked. Partial birth abortions are performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth weeks of pregnancy by using a medical procedure referred to “dilation and extraction.” The procedure is generally performed in cases where significant fetal abnormalities have been diagnosed, and represents less than one-half of one percent of all abortions performed. The pregnancy is terminated by partially extracting the fetus from the uterus, collapsing its skull and removing its brain. In the Stenberg case, the court ruled that

| 7

8

| Abortion

the law was unconstitutional because it did not include a provision for an exception in cases where the pregnant woman’s health was at risk. However, in 2007 the decision was reversed in Gonzales v. Carhart. THE SHIFT IN RECENT DEBATES The differences between activist groups involved in the abortion debates have traditionally crystallized publicly as differences in the meaning of abortion. Prolife activists define abortion as murder and a violation against the sanctity of human life. Pro-choice activists argue that control of reproduction is paramount to women’s empowerment and autonomy. More recently the issues have focused on questions about the beginning of life and the rights associated with personhood. Technological advancements in the field of gynecology and obstetrics are occurring rapidly and influencing how we understand reproduction and pregnancy. Advances in the use of ultra-sound technology, the rise in fetal diagnostic testing to identify genetic abnormalities, and the development of intra-uterine fetal surgical techniques to correct abnormalities in the fetus prior to birth each contribute to defining the fetus as a wholly separate being or person from the woman who is pregnant. These new constructions of the “fetus as a separate person,” coupled with visual technologies that allow for very early detection of pregnancy and images of the developing fetus, give rise to debates about what constitutes “personhood” and the rights, if any, the state of personhood confers upon the entity defined as a person. The issue of viability, defined as the developmental stage at which a fetus can survive without medical intervention, is complicated in many respects by these technological advances. Those who define themselves as pro-life argue that all life begins at the moment of conception and point to technology to affirm their position. Many pro-life activists argue that the fetus is a preborn person with full rights of personhood—full rights that justify all actions to preserve, protect, and defend the person and his rights before and after the birth process. Others who define themselves as pro-choice argue that personhood can only be conferred on born persons and that a developing fetus is neither a born person nor a fully-developed being. These contemporary debates concerning personhood and rights continue to divide the public and are particularly germane to the issue of fetal surgery. Fetal surgery is cost-prohibitive, success rates are very low and some argue that the scarcity of medical resources should be directed toward a greater number of patients or toward the provision of services that have greater success rates. THE IMPACT OF RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LEGISLATION Abortion is one of the most common and safest medical procedures that women age 15 to 44 can undergo in the United States. Approximately 1.2 million abortions were performed in the United States in 2005. Among women aged 15 to 44, the abortion rate declined from 27 out of 1000 in 1990 to 19.4 out of 1000 in 2005. The number of abortions and the rate of abortions have declined over

Addiction and Family |

the years, partly as a result of improved methods of birth control and partly as a result of decreased access to abortion services. The number of physicians who provide abortion services has declined by approximately 39 percent, from 2900 in 1982 to less than 1800 in 2000. Although some of the decline is the result of a shift from hospital-based providers to specialized clinics offering abortion procedures, this shift is further exacerbated by the number of clinics that have closed in recent years due to increased regulatory requirements that make remaining open more difficult. Moreover, the decline in providers of abortion services means that some women will experience a more difficult time in locating and affording services. Today, only 13 percent of the counties in the United States provide abortion services to women. Abortion services are unavailable in 87 percent of the counties in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of Plan B, an emergency contraceptive best known as “the morning after pill” and mifepristone (RU-486) for early medication induced abortions may be shifting the location of abortion procedures away from abortion clinics to other locations such as family planning clinics and physicians’ offices. However, neither of these recent FDA approvals eliminates the need for reproductive health care that includes abortion care. While the issue of abortion may spawn disparate opinions about the meaning of motherhood, family values, the changing dynamics of male-female relations, and sexual morality, as well as raise issues about personhood and rights, unintended pregnancies disproportionately impact women and their children. This is especially true of poor women and women of color whose access to reproductive healthcare may be limited or nonexistent. Historically, women from the middle and upper classes have had access to abortion—be that access legal, illegal, therapeutic or nontherapeutic—while women from less privileged backgrounds have often been forced to rely on back-alley abortionists whose lack of training and provision of services cost women their health and, oftentimes, their lives. See also Birth Control; Changing Fertility Patterns; Premarital Sexual Relationships; Religion and Families; Teen Pregnancy. Further Reading: Ginsberg, Faye, D. Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989; Luker, Kristen. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984; Maxwell, Carol J. C. Pro-Life Activists in America: Meaning, Motivation, and Direct Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Riddle, John M. Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997; Wedam, Elfriede. “Splitting Interests or Common Causes: Style of Moral Reasoning in Opposing Abortion,” in Contemporary American Religion: An Ethnographic Reader, ed. Penny Edgell Becker and Nancy Eisland, pp. 147–168. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press, 1997.

Jonelle Husain ADDICTION AND FAMILY Addiction has become an increasingly large problem in the United States over the past few decades. Jails have become overcrowded with those who are

9

10

| Addiction and Family

caught selling and using addictive substances. It has become the social norm for celebrities to be in and out of Addiction Rehabilitation Centers every other week, and activities such as gambling and overeating have been labeled, along with substances such as alcohol and cocaine, as potentially addictive. Once a narrowly defined term, addiction, or dependence, has been expanded to describe behaviors or activities that one wouldn’t normally think of as being addictive. Among the more recent uses of the term are food addicts, sex addicts, and Internet addicts. With this expanding definition has come a heightened desire to uncover the causes behind addiction, whether it is to a traditional addictive drug or to a certain behavior. While the use of certain substances and certain activities often become addictions, not everyone that engages in these activities or consumes these substances becomes addicted to them, further complicating the issue. As a result, addiction counselors believe that there are certain reasons why one person becomes addicted more easily than another. Personality and biological factors are among some of the proposed reasons. Research into the topic has produced many debates over the subject of dependency and addiction, including conflicts over the cause and treatment of addiction and whether the term should apply to behavioral issues as well as to mood-altering substances. Addiction has begun to play a large role in family life in the United States. Conceptions of harmonious family life suggest that serious problems such as addiction exist only in other people’s families. As a consequence of this view, many families fail to recognize, deal with, and recover from a problem in their midst. The development, maintenance, and treatment of substance abuse are intimately connected with families. Families that have an addicted individual undergo a large assortment of effects, ranging from children lacking a parent due to addiction, to parents struggling to help their child to overcome an addiction, to divorce of marital partners when the lack of communication inherent with addiction leads to a breakdown of the marriage. Regardless of the stance one takes on the origin of addiction, it is important to remember that all addictions can be managed, and overcoming addiction is often achieved with the help of loved ones. Thus family plays a central role in the recovery process. BACKGROUND Addiction is a recurring compulsion or need by an individual to engage in some particular activity, or to consume some specific substance. The activity or substance becomes the sole focus in an addicted individual’s life. He or she begins to lose interest in other activities, loses focus on goals that were once important, and will begin to abandon normal behavior in order to gain access to the addictive activity. As the need for the activity or substance grows, the individual will do anything for the substance. In extreme cases the addict even breaks laws in order to continue engaging in the activity or substance. Family is often the target of the illegal activity and may pay stiff penalties in personal and financial security as an addiction (particularly to illicit drugs) escalates. When the term addiction was first coined it clearly referred to the use of a tolerance-inducing drug. This definition recognizes that humans can become

Addiction and Family |

quickly addicted to various drugs. The modern understanding of chemical transmission in the brain, and how substances can lead to addiction, began in the middle 1800s in France. From this initial research by Claude Bernard, scientists began to discover how the body responds to drugs. Addictions develop because the substance or activity produces a pleasure response in the individual who then wants to receive more of the pleasure. For example, if an individual ingests a substance such as crack cocaine he or she will feel a euphoric “high” feeling. As the drug enters the brain it triggers the body’s natural pleasure sensor to release endorphins, which results in a pleasurable sensation. The individual wants to continue to feel this euphoric high, but as the addiction builds the individual’s tolerance to the substance grows. Over time, greater dosages of the drug must be used to produce an identical effect. Over the years, however, as a medical model of behavior gained prominence, addiction began to be defined as a disease. This is in reference to the physiological changes that occur when one becomes addicted to a substance. The influence of both the medical and the psychological communities has been crucial in the area of addiction research. Two different types of addiction, physical dependence and psychological dependence, have been identified through their combined efforts. Physical Addiction Physical addiction is determined by the appearance of withdrawal symptoms when the substance is suddenly discontinued. Withdrawal refers to the symptoms that appear when a drug that is regularly used for a long time is suddenly discontinued or decreased in dosage. The symptoms of withdrawal are often the opposite of the drug’s direct effect. Sudden withdrawal from addictive drugs can be harmful or even fatal, so the drug should not be discontinued without a doctor’s supervision and approval. Part of the rehabilitation process is to wean the addict off of the drugs in a safer and less traumatic manner. Alcohol, nicotine, and antidepressants are examples of substances that, when abused, can produce physical addiction. The speed at which an individual develops an addiction depends on the substance, the frequency of use, the intensity of the pleasure that the drug induces, the means of ingestion, and the individual person. Psychological Addiction Psychological addiction is the dependency of the mind, and leads to psychological withdrawal symptoms such as cravings, insomnia, depression, or irritability. Psychological addiction is believed to be strongly associated with the brain’s reward system. It is possible to be both psychologically and physically dependent at the same time. Some doctors make little distinction between the two types of addiction because they both result in substance abuse. The cause and characteristics of the two types of addiction are quite different, as are the types of treatment. Psychological dependence does not have to be limited only

11

12

| Addiction and Family

to substances; activities and behavioral patterns can be considered addictions within this type of dependency. The popularity of Internet chat rooms, pornography, and social networking sites such as MySpace have all been characterized in this manner. MEDICAL DEBATES Not all doctors agree on what constitutes addiction. Traditionally, addiction has been defined as only possible when a substance is ingested that temporarily alters the natural chemical behavior of the brain in order to produce the euphoric “high” associated with these drugs. However, over time people have begun to feel that there should be an alteration of the definition of addiction to include psychological dependency on such things as gambling, food, sex, pornography, computers, work, exercise, cutting, shopping, and so forth. These activities do not alter the natural chemical behavior of the brain when they are preformed, thus they would not fit into the traditional views of addiction despite their impacts on social interactions and family life. Those who support the contemporary view of addiction show that symptoms mimicking withdrawal occur when the individual stops the addictive behavior, even if it is not a physiologically acting substance. Those who believe in the traditional view purport that these withdrawal-like symptoms are not strictly reflective of an addiction, but rather of a behavioral disorder. Proponents of the traditional view say that the overuse of the term may cause the wrong treatment to be used, thus failing the person with the behavioral problem. The contemporary view of dependency and addiction acknowledges the possibility that individuals who are addicted to a certain activity feel a sense of euphoria, much like the euphoria received from addictive substances. For example, when a person who is addicted to shopping is satisfying his or her craving by engaging in the behavior, chemicals that produce a “feel-good” effect, called endorphins, are produced and released within the brain, enforcing the person’s positive associations with the behavior. Additionally, there could be negative, real-life consequences to participation in the activity including isolation from family and friends, increased debt, and so forth. DEBATE OVER THE CAUSES OF ADDICTION The causes behind addiction have been debated for years within the scientific community. There is one school of thought that believes that addiction is a disease that cannot be controlled by the individual. This theory states that addiction is an inherited disease and an individual with the inherited trait of the disease is permanently ill with the addiction located at a genetic level. Even those with long periods of overcoming the addiction will always contain the disease. This belief states that if one’s parent was addicted to something, whether a substance or an activity, he or she is predisposed to also develop the addiction. Even if the person avoids the substance or activity he or she still technically has an addiction to it. The idea that “alcoholism runs in families” has a long tradition in the

Addiction and Family |

substance abuse field. Studies that compare alcoholism rates of natural and adopted children indicate that the adopted children of alcoholics have significantly lower rates of alcoholism than do their biologically related progeny. Additionally, a family history of alcoholism has been linked to a younger initial age of alcohol consumption. Another school of thought argues that addiction is a dual problem caused by both a physical and a mental dependency on chemicals along with a preexisting mental disorder. This theory says that addiction isn’t caused by one factor alone, but instead by many factors combined. Addiction is caused not just by the fact that a person’s family member had the disease of addiction, but because the person’s family member had the disease of addiction in addition to being emotionally unstable and prone to finding quick ways to happiness. Clearly, when a parent is “absent” due to his or her use of mood-altering substances, the socialization of the children is affected. The Social Learning model suggests that the pattern of addiction is learned by watching or modeling the behavior of others. In families where addictive behaviors and substance abuse occur, children see role models of how to participate in addictive activities. This occurs even when parents attempt to hide their addictive behaviors. The fact that persons tend to share addictions over time through the process of assortative mating provides support for the idea that two persons with similar tendencies toward addictive behaviors will likely become partnered. There is scientific research to support all concepts of the causes of addiction. No one theory has emerged as having greater veracity in explaining and predicting dependency. EFFECTS WITHIN THE FAMILY Addiction is the number one disease in America with one in three families having at least one addicted member. With the problem of addiction so widespread, the effects on the family have become an important subject. Addiction effects the family in many ways. An addicted individual puts stress on the rest of the family. There is often a stigma of shame associated with addiction; this shame burdens the family and makes it harder for the family to seek help for the individual because of the fear of ridicule from the outside world. There is a substantial fear of discovery, and many families may hide the addiction for years without seeking the medical attention needed to help the addicted person. A significant loss of self-esteem in the addicted individual is noticed and may cause the addiction to get worse and the addicted individual to further deteriorate. Many families that have an individual who has the disease of addiction are overcome by denial. They try to deny that there is a problem to everyone they know, including themselves. This act of denial will often lead to exaggerated feelings and may result in explosive behavior to which the family can become emotionally exhausted. One of the most concerning aspects of addiction in the family is that most illicit drug users are fairly young, of childbearing age (18 to 35 years), and thus are exposing children to addictive substances, behaviors, and outcomes.

13

14

| Addiction and Family

Addiction may sometimes produce physical effects. Domestic violence, whether physical, emotional, or sexual, is increased in families that have an addicted member, particularly alcoholism. Domestic violence can occur in welleducated families as well as families with less professional backgrounds. It is predicted that members of families where abuse due to addiction takes place are more likely to require medical care. Additionally, children of substance abusers who experienced physical or sexual abuse are more likely to experience psychiatric symptoms and marital instability than those persons in whose family there was not addictive behavior. Typically families experiencing substance abuse witness the allocation of the addict’s role to others in the family. Often this “absent parent” cedes his or her responsibilities to a child. The child then must assume duties that are inappropriate to his age, even having to “raise” himself because the parents were unavailable to nurture the child. As one can imagine, this leads to strained relationships even as the child reaches adulthood. Resentment for a lost childhood is not uncommon. Families with an individual who is an addict often withdraw from their community, are distrustful of others, and have severe financial difficulties. The fear of exposure and subsequent stigma may force the withdrawal. If the addict is engaging in illegal activities it is possible that he or she will be caught and sentenced to jail. Indeed, 80 percent of female inmates are mothers, and the vast majority has children under the age of 18. If the individual has no one to care for the children during the incarceration, the children might be left alone, placed in foster care, or put into state-run childcare facilities. Another issue that families with an addict must face is the fact that children could be born to an addict and be drug-dependent themselves. In these cases, the infants must go through detoxification and often have a low birth weight or other lingering physical and behavioral manifestations of the addiction. If the mothers remain addicted, they may have tremendous difficulty meeting the care needs of their child. One of the factors most associated with an increase in infants addicted to substances is the wide availability and low-cost of crack cocaine. FAMILY AND RECOVERY The family often plays a large role in the recovery process for the family member that is an addict. Because denial is the primary barrier to effective treatment for addiction, the addict must admit that there is a problem. It is usually the family members who help the addict admit their addiction and realize that it is something they must overcome. Wives routinely encourage husbands to seek treatment for alcoholism, for example. Today, most recovery programs involve the family members in counseling and behavior modification, suggesting that fewer relapses occur when family support networks are readily available. In order for an addict to successfully overcome an addiction he or she must have the support of his or her family. It is very important to find a treatment center or a recovery program that is a good fit for the person. There are now

Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce |

programs available that can easily be adjusted to better suit the person undergoing the treatment. Online programs as well as weekly meetings with other recovering addicts are useful methods. There are also live-in treatment centers that take a drastic approach to help the person recover, though they may be avoided due to the stigma of their “hospital-like” approach. CONCLUSION Addiction is only one of many subjects relating to the importance of one’s family in the world today. The debate over what specifically constitutes an addiction, its precise causes, and which disease metaphor is the most appropriate will likely continue for some time. The focus of these debates should transition into how to prevent addiction and to diminish the damaging effects that it has on the family. We now live in a society where it is the social norm to associate addiction with a negative stigma. Ideally we would live in a society where those with an addiction were embraced so that the recovery process could happen immediately with no shame or blame given to the family of the addict. When we reach this point, family members will be better able to relate to one another and will be more emotionally stable. See also Child Abuse; Children as Caregivers; Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes; Juvenile Delinquency. Further Reading: Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referrals. http://www.alcohol-drug-treat ment.net/causes_of_addiction.html; Dowling, Scott. The Psychology and Treatment of Addictive Behavior. Madison, CT: International Universities Press, Inc., 1995; Goldstein, Avram. Addiction: From Biology to Drug Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2001; Peele, Stanton. Seven Tools to Beat Addiction. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004; Texas Medical Association. http://www.texmed.org; University of Pennsylvania Health System. http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/addiction/berman/treatment/.

Angela Sparrow ADVERSARIAL AND NO-FAULT DIVORCE Divorce, also known as dissolution of marriage, is the ending of a marriage before the death of either spouse. Divorce rates in the United States have increased markedly in the twentieth century making it a commonplace occurrence. A divorce must be certified by a court of law because a legal action is needed to dissolve the prior legal action of marriage. Most often, the terms of a divorce are established by the court and may take into account prenuptial agreements or simply certify terms that the spouses have worked out and agreed upon privately. Often, however, spouses disagree about the terms of divorce, which can lead to stressful and sometimes expensive litigation. Divorce is a difficult situation for all parties involved and can result in hurt feelings, the destruction of a relationship, and the painful issues of assets division and custody battles. Because divorce has become so frequent and can be so destructive, less adversarial approaches to divorce and settlements have emerged.

15

16

| Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce

Today there are two kinds of divorce: (1) contested or adversarial divorces and (2) uncontested or no-fault divorces. In an adversarial divorce, the parties cannot come to a private agreement on issues related to the termination of marriage and the resolution is decided in a court of law. In a no-fault divorce, the marriage parties need not show who or what was at fault in order to obtain a termination of the union. They agree to end the marriage without accusing the other of a violation of the marital contract, or to say that they were both equal in the decision. Both types result in a legal dissolution of marriage. The question for spouses seeking divorce is which process would satisfy their personal settlement outcomes. By examining the history of divorce, one can see how adversarial and no-fault divorces emerged and can compare the economic, emotional and health costs of both adversarial and no-fault divorce proceedings. BACKGROUND Divorce existed in antiquity, dating back at least to ancient Mesopotamia. The ancient Athenians allowed divorce but requests had to be submitted to a magistrate who would determine if the reasons for the requested divorce were sufficient. Divorce was rare in early Roman culture but as the Roman Empire grew in power, Roman civil law embraced the concept. Both spouses could renounce the marriage at will; however, Roman social and familial taboos guaranteed that divorce occurred only due to serious circumstances. The Christians restricted grounds for divorce to grave cause, but this was relaxed in the sixth century. After the fall of the Roman Empire, familial life was regulated more by ecclesiastical authority than by civil authority. By the ninth and tenth centuries, the frequency of divorce had been greatly curtailed by the influence of Christianity, largely via the Catholic Church. The Christian church considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ and was indissoluble by human action. Divorce, as we know it today, was generally prohibited after the tenth century. An annulment of the marriage could take place where the husband and wife physically separated by not living together, but the marriage did not end and the husband had to continue to support his wife financially. Until the eighteenth century, annulment was the only way a marriage could be dissolved and the grounds for an annulment were solely within the control of ecclesiastical courts. The common-law courts had no power over marriage because it was a status granted by the Church and the circumstances for an annulment were determined by church authority. According to the Church, the Sacrament of Marriage produced one person from two. Marriage eventually came to be considered a civil contract, and civil authorities gradually asserted their power to grant divorce. Because there were no precedents that defined the circumstances under which marriage could be dissolved, civil authorities relied heavily on the ecclesiastic courts and adopted the requirements set down by those courts. Because marriage could not be dissolved except in the most extreme of circumstances, common-law courts refused to grant a divorce if there was any hint of complicity between the husband and wife, or if

Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce |

they attempted to manufacture the grounds for a divorce. Divorce was granted only because one party to the marriage had violated a sacred vow to his or her innocent spouse. Eventually, the idea that marriage could be dissolved because of a violation of a sacred vow allowed other grounds, such as abandonment, adultery, or extreme cruelty, to be accepted as grounds for granting a divorce. Before 1970 in the United States, due to the ways that the laws were written, getting a divorce meant proving that one spouse had done something wrong or had acted in a way that caused the breakdown of the marriage. Someone had to be at fault, which meant that grounds had to be established. Such legal and permissible grounds for a divorce petition might include adultery, physical or mental abuse, abandonment, confinement or holding against one’s will, insanity, or the inability to be sexually intimate with your spouse. The fault had to be something more than not loving one another. When the proceedings ended in front of a judge, the judge might find that the accusation was not true and find both spouses at fault for the dysfunctional nature of the marriage and would refuse to dissolve the marriage. These rules presented problems in cases where both spouses were at fault, or where neither one of the spouses had committed a truly sinful act but simply could not get along with the other. Lawyers began to craft creative methods to bypass the rules. Some lawyers went so far as to create a situation that proved adultery. Such as situation could be where one spouse would deliberately come home at a certain time and discover the other spouse committing adultery with a person obtained for the occasion. The cheating spouse would admit to the facts, the judge would convict the spouse of adultery, and the couple would be granted the divorce. The extent to which a husband and wife might go in order to establish grounds for divorce was alarming to both judges and lawyers. These charades put the couples and their counsels at risk of perjury, fraud, and collusion charges. Judges feared making a decision to grant a divorce based on manufactured grounds and lawyers feared that they might be representing a divorce case based on untruths. Neither judges nor lawyers wanted to jeopardize the integrity of the courts and the divorce laws by making perjury a common and accepted practice for obtaining a divorce. In response to the liberalizing social climate, they realized that something needed to change. In the early 1960s many in the legal institution recognized that two spouses who were determined to end their marriage would get what they wanted by any means necessary. Therefore, it was argued that the law should adapt by providing straightforward procedures for ending a marriage rather than forcing a couple who just couldn’t get along to choose between living together in conflict or lying under oath in open court. Thus began what is commonly known as the Divorce Revolution in the United States. Most states substantially amended their divorce legislation and enacted various forms of no-fault divorce laws. Specifically, no-fault divorce ground laws allowed spouses to initiate divorce proceedings without proof of marital wrongdoing, removing fault as a consideration in the couple’s division of assets, property settlements, and alimony awards.

17

18

| Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce

NOFAULT DIVORCE No-fault divorce was pioneered in the United States by the State of California with the passage of the Family Law Act of 1969. The Act was signed by thenGovernor Ronald Regan and took effect on January 1, 1970. It abolished old common-law action for divorce and replaced it with proceedings for dissolution of a marriage on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. By 1983, every state but South Dakota had adopted some form of no-fault divorce. The revolution was complete when South Dakota finally adopted no-fault divorce in 1985. As conceptualized at the time, no-fault divorce procedures would not only reduce the likelihood of perjury and hypocrisy in the courts on a routine basis, but would permit separated couples to formalize their status, thus allowing them permission to remarry if they so chose. In a majority of states the no-fault divorce laws are very similar. New York, however, is currently the only state without a true no-fault divorce provision and debate continues about whether it would be advantageous to institute one. Currently, couples can blame one of the partners through finding grounds or can separate for a year and live apart before a divorce will be granted. Southern states such as Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia have the most relaxed divorce laws and, interestingly, have the highest divorce rates in the country. A few states, like Louisiana, Arkansas, and Arizona, have laws that give couples the option to choose before they marry, through provisions of covenant marriage, which laws they want to apply to their divorce in the event the marriage ends. No-fault divorce proceedings appear to be a popular process and are accepted across the nation. There are Internet sites that even offer so-called nofault divorce kits that can be ordered and submitted online, and some even offer free gifts with the order. A divorce, whether granted under an adversarial or nofault divorce statute, is legally binding. The question for couples and attorneys is when to use which process. Contemplating a divorce is always difficult. The dissolution of a marriage involves a number of legal and financial issues that must be considered before a settlement is achieved. Before a divorce is granted, the typical issues that must be resolved are alimony, spousal support, property division and, if there are children, custody, visitation, and child support. A couple that agrees in writing on all of those issues will likely be granted an uncontested divorce and avoid adversarial litigation. If there is disagreement on any of the basic issues, an adversarial divorce may be necessary. In either case, divorce is a disruption of the collective interests of the family and marks a marriage that is irretrievably broken.

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF NOFAULT DIVORCE The primary benefit of no-fault divorce is that the divorce can be accomplished more quickly and at lower cost than in the adversarial model. Divorces costing as little as $250 are available in some states. For couples who have few assets and no children, no-fault divorce helps them sever ties and move on with their lives. For someone experiencing domestic violence, no-fault divorce may

Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce |

permit a quicker way to escape the control of the partner. Feminist groups in the 1970s touted no-fault divorce as a way for women to gain equality with men, stressing that they would not be seen as victims in the courts. The idea that couples could agree to divorce does have benefits. Under the fault-based system, just discussing the grounds by which one was petitioning for divorce has been known to increase hostilities among couples. In favor of retaining the option of no-fault divorce, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead suggests that adversarial options invite ongoing legal battles that result in increased hostility. In contested divorces, the establishing of fault is a timeconsuming and costly matter. Additionally, Whitehead proposes that if there were no options for no-fault divorces some young people would refuse to get married. She argues that the biggest problem is not with divorce, but with how few people are truly prepared to make a lifelong marital commitment. Critics of no-fault divorce argue that it has led to the breakdown of the family unit. The critics, made up primarily of religious and right-wing groups, blame the decreasing number of traditional nuclear families on no-fault divorce laws. These groups are advocating a renewed commitment to traditional family values that they believe will reverse society’s seemingly wholehearted approval and support of divorce and remarriage. They also believe that by toughening divorce laws to make a divorce harder to get, it will eventually change social and cultural acceptance of divorce, lower the divorce rate, and thereby keep families intact and strengthen family values. The critics of no-fault divorce also feel that a no-fault divorce gives the spouse who wants out of the marriage the power to end the marriage, while the nonconsenting spouse has no recourse. Only three states, Mississippi, New York, and Tennessee, refuse to grant unilateral divorces. Critics argue that no-fault divorce reduces both spouses’ commitment to the marriage because a no-fault divorce is so easily obtained and that, as it stands today, marriage carries very little social weight. “Couples can be married today, have a divorce tomorrow, and be remarried the next day” seems to sum up their perspective on the nofault divorce process. These no-fault divorce opponents suggest that the threat of divorce makes people act selfishly in their personal relationships and contend that more wives would stop working to stay home and care for children if they were more secure that the relationship would last. Politicians also blame no-fault divorces for the current high divorce rates, even though divorce rates have leveled off in the past 10 years and have even decreased from the rates seen when no-fault divorces first became widely available. Researchers suggest that the reason divorce rates were fairly high around the time no-fault divorce provisions were first introduced was because no-fault divorces merely sped up the pipeline for those who were already planning to and preparing for divorce. Politicians that seem to be at a loss for solutions to profoundly serious social issues such as the high cost of health care, lack of affordable health insurance for all citizens, or the funding of social security usually find a scapegoat in the high divorce rate. They often suggest that many social problems could be solved if couples renounced their romantic notions and remained married. They

19

20

| Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce

also blame the no-fault divorce process for making it easier to obtain a divorce, which creates higher rates of persons seeking divorce as a quick solution. More importantly, divorce breaks up families and contributes to the emotional and the financial stress already faced by all families. The politicians contend that divorce makes family ills worse and that laws should be changed to make divorce harder to come by so that families would stay intact. Divorce, in general, does seem to make family situations and issues worse. It is hard for some two-parent households to make ends meet today. After a divorce, single parents (especially mothers) and their children are at greater financial disadvantage. One parent is trying to do what two did. Studies suggest that after divorce the average annual income for a household comprised of the custodial mother and her children drops roughly 30 percent while the husband’s finances rise by 10 percent. Women often have lower earning potential after a divorce because of their historical role in rearing children. In many cases, the mother has been the primary caregiver for the couple’s children and has not had the outside work experience that the father had. This is sometimes referred to as the problem of displaced homemakers. Likely the costliest aspect of no-fault divorce has been the dramatic reduction in alimony (spousal support) payments. One of the assumptions that undergirds no-fault divorce is the equality between women and men. At the inception of no-fault divorce, the assumption was that the sexes had, or would soon have, equal earning power. Thus, women could support themselves as well as men could support themselves. As a result, fewer than 12 percent of divorces today involve awards of spousal support. Given that mothers have custody of children after the divorce far more often than do fathers, their burden of supporting themselves includes their children and the challenge is often difficult to meet. Caring for children reduces mothers’ opportunities and abilities to pursue high-paying employment because the costs of child care are often prohibitive. Likewise, women generally earn about 75 percent as much as comparably trained men do. Divorced women in most cases are not able to achieve the same standard of living they had during marriage. Lenore Weitzman’s findings, published in The Divorce Revolution, concluded that the majority of women could not sustain themselves financially after a divorce without assistance. This caused supporters of no-fault divorce and women’s independence to rethink the value of no-fault divorce for women. While many had claimed that women gained freedoms and equality under no-fault divorce provisions, consistent with the objectives of the women’s movement, they also lost financial standing. Many national and local governments have responded to this issue by providing some kind of assistance for divorced mothers and their children. Most interesting is that such public support for male-headed households is far less common. Divorce is the number one contributor to bankruptcy in the United States. Divorce can have severe financial consequences but there are emotional costs as well. Divorce is often one of the most traumatic experiences a family can go through. Separation of the family can be filled with emotions, sadness, depression, and anger. Most children of divorce have no choice but to endure the

Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce |

process of their parents’ separation and many children may suffer long-lasting emotional consequences. According to a study by the Domestic Policy Studies Department of the Heritage Foundation, over one million American children annually suffer from the divorce of their parents. The study also predicted that half of the children born to parents in 1996 (the year of the study) would experience the divorce of their parents before they are 18 years old. The research also showed that the effects of the divorce on children will continue into adulthood and have an effect in the next generation as well, suggesting that divorce, rather than commitment and working out difficulties, will be the norm. This is a common viewpoint of those who oppose divorce in general and no-fault divorce in particular. A child of divorce is commonly subjected to abrupt and traumatic changes; loss of a father (in most cases) in the home on a regular and consistent basis, and potentially his replacement by a stepfather or by mother’s live-in boyfriend. The absence of the father may leave the children feeling less protected and more vulnerable. These children often perform less well in school and there is a 10 to 15 percent higher rate of delinquency in single-parent homes than in intact homes. Current findings indicate that significant numbers of children of divorce have difficulty in establishing relationships. They are two to three times more likely to dissolve their own marriages than are children whose parents remained married. The divorce process itself has a profound effect on children. Almost no child wants his or her parents to divorce. It does not take much imagination to determine the damage to a child whose parents are publicly struggling over him or her. The children may have a parental preference but do not want to offend either parent by making a choice. One of the criticisms of no-fault divorce is that while the divorce proceedings have gotten less contentious, divorcing partners who are determined to publicly place blame for problems in the marriage might fight the battle through protracted child-custody suits instead. The more adversarial the process of divorce and family dissolution, the greater chance there is for emotional damage from which the family will have to recover. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ADVERSARIAL APPROACHES Divorce, no matter by what process, is not cost-free. An adversarial divorce can cause resentment, revenge, anger, fear, stress, anxiety, depression, low self esteem, grief, guilt, and hate between people who used to love each other enough to get married and have a family together. Contested proceedings can result in mental and emotional crisis, loss of business, job, and income. Family support can diminish as the process wears on. Most of all, damage to children that may witness screaming and abuse between parents may foretell life-long consequences. When married people are unhappy, their first unhappiness is at the level where they are fighting openly, frequently, and with hostility in front of the children. This conflict between the parents usually moves to the courtroom as the divorce process continues. Becoming completely divorced is an emotional as well as a legal process.

21

22

| Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce

The drama of the adversarial divorce takes its toll on all concerned. It may also cost a lot of money. A significant financial impact of divorce is the actual cost of the divorce itself. Court costs and attorney’s fees are high and are often an extreme hardship at a time when the divorcing couple begins to incur expenses in excess of the budget that they had during the marriage. This is particularly common when one of the partners has moved out and has expenses from living elsewhere. Parties to an adversarial divorce must retain litigating divorce lawyers in addition to any support experts, such as accountants, that must become party to the proceedings. Each lawyer’s attempt to protect his client’s rights can lead to increased conflict with the spouse and to a feeling of a loss of control over the process. Therapists, social workers and psychologists may also be required to assist with custody battles and visitation. All these specialists and expert witnesses are expensive and may leave the divorcing couple with debt and unpaid bills or even bankruptcy. The proceedings and consequences may also result in increased health hazards, from weight loss to increased cigarette and alcohol consumption to lower immune function. One of the concerns that some persons have about adversarial divorce is the need to assign blame and sue the partner. Revelations about the relationship may become public record and, depending on career or social standing, this could be damaging to someone’s future prospects. Not to mention that it might simply be embarrassing to have private matters revealed. These legal battles can be protracted, delaying the healing process. Blaming the partner for past marital problems also makes it hard to co-parent when future issues arise in decisions about shared children. While adversarial divorces have their share of problems, they do have some benefits relative to no-fault divorces. First and foremost is the issue of spousal support, or alimony, which was more likely to be granted in the past than it is today. When alimony is awarded today, it is usually for a limited time and is a much smaller amount than in the past. Another key loss under the no-fault divorce system involves the idea of equal property division. Today couples often have to sell their joint property and divide the profit. Selling the family home when minor children reside there is difficult because it adds the stressors of moving to a new neighborhood, changing schools, and having to establish new friendship networks. Additionally, new mortgage payments may be higher compared to those for a house purchased some years ago. Under the adversarial system, title to the family home was often given to the dependent wife and children, keeping consistent part of their lives after the divorce. Given the emotional and financial costs of divorce that have been well established, there are groups that would like to see significant changes in the divorce laws in the United States. They call for the repeal of the no-fault divorce option, suggesting that when divorce is too easy to attain, couples marry before being fully committed. When problems arise later, they don’t work very hard to iron out their differences. Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for American Values has routinely taken this position. Other conservative groups would even like changes made to the adversarial or so-called fault divorce. There is support for toughening the divorce laws to include the intervention of trained divorce mediators in

Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce |

the process. Supporters of changes in divorce laws want to give nonconsenting spouses more power to fight for their marriage. They are also looking for ways to protect children from the scars of divorce through more equitable settlements of issues like child support and division of assets. These measures, they suggest, would prevent the emotional battles that cost money and prolong the settlement. For example, in the state of Oklahoma practicing matrimonial lawyers are supporting mediation as a less adversarial way to complete a divorce. Mediation can help marriage partners in the voluntary cooperation that Oklahoma’s proposed reform laws would require. Supporters of this divorce law reform feel that there would be support for improving a fragile marriage through marriage counseling and mediation so a divorce may not be necessary. Premarital counseling is already mandated in some states and support is growing for provisions that would require counseling by ministers or therapists to be attempted before a divorce is granted. Couples seeking a divorce sometimes resent being ordered to attend such programs, but most of them eventually realize the emotional effects of divorce and are willing to cooperate with the process. CONCLUSION With the advent of no-fault divorce, blame is no longer essential in receiving a divorce. The goal of no-fault divorce legislation was to simplify the divorce process by reducing conflict and cost. Critics argue that no-fault divorce has driven up the divorce rate and shifted the acrimony from the battle over who is to blame for ruining the marriage to battles over child support, visitation, and custody. However, no-fault divorces appear to be less expensive and less stressful to accomplish than adversarial divorces. In no-fault divorce proceedings, the husband and wife accept that the marriage is broken and have come to terms with how assets and debts should be divided. They also usually agree on the custody of the children, including child support and visitation. In an adversarial proceeding, intervention by an attorney is usually needed to push the divorce process along to the final decree. Attorneys can be expensive and the process can be prolonged by disagreement about the settlement issues. This adversarial proceeding is more likely to cause resentment, revenge, anger, fear, stress, and anxiety. These emotions leave the parties depressed and less reasonable regarding the settlement and getting on with their lives after the divorce is final. Divorce may not be popular but it is common. In any given year the number of divorces that are finalized are equivalent to about half the numbers of marriages that are contracted. The stigma of divorce may have lessened considerably over time, but the effects can no longer be ignored. Divorce, even if amicable, alters the fundamental unit of American society, the family. The family transmits values, socializes children, and protects us as adults. Trauma, hurt, and physical separation of a family is the result, regardless of the process used to grant a divorce. There are no easy answers to preventing divorce or to minimizing the costs of a divorce once it is granted. Alternatives like mediation before divorce should be considered to minimize conflict and perhaps save the marriage and family.

23

24

| African American Fathers

Marriage and the collective interests of the family must be invested with at least as much value as the right of spouses to abandon the marriage. See also Covenant Marriage; Deadbeat Parents; Divorce and Children; Divorce as Problem, Symptom, or Solution; Marital Satisfaction; Preparation for Marriage; Remarriage. Further Reading: Ahrons, C. The Good Divorce. New York: Harper Perennial, 1994; Fagan, P., and R. Rector. “The Effects of Divorce on America,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 1373, June 2000, www.heritage.org/research/family/BG1373.cfm; Gest, Ted. “Divorce: How the Game Is Played Now.” U.S. News and World Report, November 21, 1983, pp. 39–42; The National Marriage Project, www.marriage.rutgers.edu; www.divorce reform.org; Phillips, R. Untying the Knot: A Short History of Divorce. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Wallerstein, J., and J. B. Kelly. Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce. New York: Basic Books, 1980; Wallerstein, J. S., Lewis, J. M., and S. Blakeslee. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25 Year Landmark Study. New York: Hyperion Books, 2000; Weiztman, L. J. The Divorce Revolution. New York: Free Press, 1985; Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. The Divorce Culture: Rethinking Our Commitments to Marriage and Family. New York: Vintage Books, 1998.

Stephanie “Christy” McCalman

AFRICAN AMERICAN FATHERS The modern-day African American father has come under much scrutiny in recent years. Most notable is the attention given to nonresidential fathers (those who don’t live in the same home as their child), or what are sometimes referred to as absentee fathers. From the rise in African American juvenile crime to the increase in single-parented homes headed by black women, the African American male as a father has been consistently labeled and blamed for such occurrences. Statistics affirm that the majority of black children are without the presence of a father. About 70 percent of all African American births occur to unmarried women and over 80 percent of African American children will spend some years of their childhood without a father in the home (Nelson, ClampetLundquist, and Edin 2002). With statistics such as these, the black father’s role in the family has been closely examined. Although the validity of a number of arguments that blame black male fathering is seemingly legitimate, there are in contrast a number of speculations that are false. As with all fathers, there are those who perform well and those who do not excel at the task of fatherhood. The role of black fathers is one of the strongest and most important traditions in the black community. BACKGROUND Historical Influence There is no question that in their earliest years in the New World enslaved African Americans were concerned about their fathers. Their loyalty to their

African American Fathers

fathers (and mothers) served as a target in the efforts of their white slaveholders to break their family bonds. In her book Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism, bell hooks asserts that scholars have examined and emphasized the impact that slavery has had on the consciousness of the black male. These scholars argued that black men, more so than black women, were the primary victims of the institution of slavery. She documents the actuality that “chauvinist historians and sociologists” have provided the American public with a perspective on slavery in which the most malicious and dehumanizing impact of slavery on the lives of black people was that black men were stripped of their masculinity. Historians and psychologists have argued that the overall interruption, but particularly the disbanding, of preemancipation black family structure has had an undeniable effect on family life. The fact that the African American father is a viable and resourceful entity in the home in many ways remains undeniable. Media Influence The traditional as well as unorthodox depictions of the strong African American father of the late 1970s and early 1980s in such programs as Goodtimes (James Evans) and The Jeffersons (George Jefferson), provided a glimpse into the more socially predominant view of the black father as strong, stern and often times frustrated due to his status as a black man in America. Although many of these stereotypes would have been true and relevant to the times, they also created a stigma of anger and questionable judgment on behalf of the notable black fathers that were portrayed. One who has viewed the program may recall the countless slurs George Jefferson would aim at his white counterparts as a means of expressing his distrust or dislike of them. Parallel to this was the consistent dejection, anger, and disappointment portrayed through James Evans, a barely-making-ends-meet father of three living in a public housing facility in Chicago. While these portraits and personalities were scripted, they were reflections of a society marked by inequity, social dysfunction, and frustration. However daunting these portrayals may have been, there was an alternate side to the coin. There was strength, resilience, and determination to provide for and keep the family afloat and together through the harshest of times. This view would, however, shift as times have progressed into a more socially equitable age. As a result, along came The Cosby Show. This was the portrayal of the contemporary black father at his best. Here was a family headed by both parents, whose professions were doctor and lawyer. Above all, viewers saw a father that was not angry or frustrated; he was affluent and funny. This portrayal remains utopian and was, neither then nor now, as socially accepted as the aforementioned perspectives. Undeniably, the postemancipation African American father had to be of a stronger and stricter variety, but this was of necessity by his circumstances and not the result of natural inclination. To imply, as some have done, that such experiences as the Cosby’s did not exist throughout the course of African American history would be false.

| 25

26

| African American Fathers

PRESENT CONCERNS As society has progressed into a more technologically advanced social, economic, and academic age, the multiple uncertainties and social ills surrounding the family unit have come into focus. Likewise, attempts to fix what does not work in today’s families have become more common. The black family and its supposed dysfunctions have been a prominent area of inquiry and concern, probably because of the continued higher numbers of such families in poverty. The absence of the black father in the home has been tagged as cause for a myriad of increasing social problems and irritations, including rises in black male juvenile crime, an increased number of black male juveniles with criminal records, an increase in the number of homes parented by single black mothers, increased amounts of illegitimate children, and the increased dependency of black women-headed households on the state. All of these can be attributed to the black fathers’ recent absence from the home. In order to determine the effects of father absence it is just as vital to denote the causes or sequential happenings that have lead to the absence. Possible Causes of Paternal Delinquency In The Woes of the Inner-City African-American Father, renowned social inequality specialist William J. Wilson argues that there are structural and cultural explanations for the lack of black fathers in inner city African American homes. He contends that structural economic forces such as deindustrialization and globalization have decreased the number of high-paying manufacturing jobs in America, which were replaced by lower-pay employment. Wilson argues that low pay and limited education have made it increasingly difficult for black men to marry. Also, the lack of employment and educational opportunities create a cultural environment that allows black men to personally assimilate racist sentiments and negative attitudes about themselves. As a result, these African American men view fatherhood and marriage as burdens that they are unwilling to assume. Wilson also suggests that there needs to be a policy that addresses black men’s self-esteem and creates readily available, higher-paying employment opportunities (Wilson 2002). There is also the issue of divorce or separation that influences absence. Approximately two in three divorces are initiated not by the husbands but by the wives, and the children remain living with their mothers in 93 percent of these cases. Encouraged by the government, family courts have consistently taken the stance that if the mother does not want the child to see the father any more, then that must be what is best for the child. Consequently, following divorce or separation, 60 percent of fathers have no further meaningful relationship with their children. These fathers may be in many ways walking away and exhibiting negligence, but they are also being pushed out of their children’s lives. Black Family Awareness There is a question of accountability and responsibility that the black male has to answer regarding the present state of many African American families,

African American Fathers

but as a culture and society there has to be a reciprocal solution. In a 2005 Chicago Sun-Times poll, of 11 different response categories to the question “What is the most important thing you do for your children?” the largest response (25 percent of the total responses) was to the category “provide.” When asked what the idea of a good father meant, the category of nine possible answers that received the most responses was “being able to provide and protect.” When asked about the worst aspect of having and raising children, 26 percent of the fathers responded that it was not being able to provide for them. The issue of basic needs provision was chosen most often in all conditions. With so many African American fathers desiring to support their children, but finding it difficult to do so, there has to be a strategy to combat the absence of black fathers and the systemic ills that accompany it. As an advocate of strengthening African American families, famous black actor and comedian Bill Cosby has been involved on many occasions in recent years in discussions about the role of black fathers. He has gone on speaking tours, appeared on television news programs, and penned books on the subject. With Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor Alvin Poussaint he coauthored the book Come On, People: On the Path from Victims to Victors in which he argues that children in singleparent homes often don’t get the guidance they need or deserve. He suggests that if you have this generational, fatherless situation, regardless of whether or not the father was married to the child’s mother, where the male is not present the child perceives the situation as abandonment. While his harsh criticism of some black families has not always been well received, he has done a very good job bringing the issue to the public’s attention. Regarding family and personal relationships, today’s African American males are no less sensitive than their forefathers. According to black psychologist Marvin Krohn, black men come to the psychiatrist’s office in large numbers, in pain and genuinely seeking help. Krohn goes on to assert that African American fathers have little or nothing to say about the statistics, myths, and other sociological indictments so often made about them. Rather, many of them come in speaking of depression, unease, aggravation, fear, shame, esteem issues, and anger that are most often associated with the close, ongoing relations (child’s mother) in their lives. This suggests that black males are as frustrated over their absence in their children’s live as is the rest of society.

BLACK FATHER ABSENTEEISM Formal Statistics Father absenteeism has been explored by examining the physical and financial presence of the father in the home. Eighty percent of all African American children will spend part of their childhood living apart from their fathers. Seventy percent of African American children are born to unmarried mothers and 40 percent of all children regardless of race live in homes without fathers. Further studies of African American fathers do indeed suggest that many young African American fathers are relatively uninvolved in the lives of their children.

| 27

28

| African American Fathers

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES Although black father absenteeism is a significant problem, there are a number of individuals and community organizations attempting to limit or even eradicate this phenomenon. Programs like the Academy of Black Fathers in Boston, Massachusetts and the Father Focus program located in Baltimore, Maryland are counseling programs that support, encourage, and help fathers develop and maintain close relationships with their children and families. These organizations also provide a society of men who can talk about the experiences of fatherhood. There are also many government agencies that aid black fathers. One such office is the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership. Its mission is to improve the management and administration of nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations and strengthen community leadership through family and neighborhood empowerment. However the most recognizable and easily accessible institution with programs aimed at helping fathers is the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association). A very prominent YMCA fatherhood program based in Cleveland, Ohio recently met with a number of public health officials to discuss programs that would help to prevent absenteeism or fatherlessness in the black community. The conference participants developed a three-level preventative solution to this problem. The first level educated black fathers about the positive side of fatherhood. The next level covered the needs of at-risk men who were consistently underemployed or involved in the criminal justice system. The third level counseled about the importance of relationships. Henry E. Edward, author of Black Families in Crisis: the Middle Class, constructed a forum of solutions to possibly alleviate the current strife in the black family as a societal unit. The initial solutions presented were to reach out to black fathers and to offer them support. Religion and spirituality were highlighted as a source of strength that could be used in order to aid in morality and accountability for these men. Because of a false sense of masculinity and manliness, black fathers may not want to acknowledge the need for religion. Indeed, rates of church attendance are significantly higher for black women compared to black men. He also discussed at length the effects that mass media has played in the desecration of the black male image and the African American father. Boycotts of radio stations, talk-show hosts, newspapers, and businesses that slander black fathers were proposed to draw attention to the issues. Ultimately, African American men and women were urged to oppose further cuts in jobs and social service programs, to support those programs and policies that allow black fathers to earn the money necessary to provide for their families, and to encourage full-time dads to join a black men’s group, such as those structured in the inner cities. These programs help black men support other black men to be better fathers.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Market Experience of Youth (NLSY) indicated that of African American children with mothers of age 20 to 25, about 40 percent primarily lived with both parents, compared to about 90 percent of

African American Fathers

non-African American children. Of the nonresident fathers, 20 percent had never visited in the past year or had seen their child only once (Lerman and Sorensen 2003). In a sample of 100 fathers and a comparison group of nonfathers, all but one of whom was African American, 18 months after the child’s birth, only about 25 percent of the nonresident fathers reported seeing their children daily. A follow-up study of 110 male children mostly born to African American teen mothers in the Baltimore Parenthood Study revealed that more than half of these young males have never lived with their father, and most of the nonresident fathers had irregular contact with their children. Only 20 percent of young fathers were living with their children 5 years after the child’s birth, and an additional 20 percent visited regularly. As it relates to economic support, there is even less information on child support payments by African American fathers. National studies tend to show that about 50 to 75 percent of fathers paid the full amount of court-ordered support in the preceding year. A study based on the Current Population Survey found that minority group fathers of children born to never-married mothers are less likely, overall, to pay child support. In short, previous research has generated a rather negative image of young African American fathers. Additionally, the portrayals of these men in the media highlight their struggles and absence as normative. They may even be shown as sexual predators, seeking personal gratification and likely to abandon the child and the child’s mother when a better opportunity comes along. This image has found its way into the nation’s consciousness about race and family, perhaps to the extent of influencing public policy on public assistance and associated issues. One of the most important limitations of much research on fatherhood is that nonresident fathers are highly underrepresented in household surveys and therefore their perspectives are underrepresented in the literature. Data on young, urban, nonresident African American fathers are particularly thin and the limited research that has focused on them continues to employ generally small, unrepresentative samples. It is also often the case that African American fathers are seen as deadbeats due to their lack of economic support in the home, but it would be a bit fairer to say that they are dead broke as well. Seventy percent of the child support debts owed in 2003 were accumulated by men earning $10,000 a year or less. Over 2.5 million nonresident or absentee fathers of poor children are poor themselves, thus making it extremely difficult for them to fulfill the father role as it is currently conceived in U.S. society (Furstenberg and Weiss 2000). Informal Statistics Statistics that account for father support of children have largely been derived from formal child support payments, however the unaccounted for informal child support, which may constitute a significant percentage of the mother’s resources, has been overlooked in many cases. Some researchers have suggested that the nonresident status of the fathers may not forecast their lack of involvement, as was previously believed. Some studies have indeed suggested

| 29

30

| African American Fathers

that the contribution of both financial and nonfinancial support by nonresident African American fathers has exceeded expectations. Many African American men are practically involved in their children’s lives and make nonfinancial contributions to their children. Diapers, milk, toys, and baby clothes are only a few of the noncash provisions. Many have asked why these fathers who provide some basic items do not simply pay child support. There are a number of reasons why they do not. Many of the items a father brings to his children are physical support of his efforts to provide for them, despite his dismal economic conditions. In return, the bits and pieces have greater significance, visibility, and permanence than cash payments. Such cash payments often vanish almost instantaneously as bills are paid, are misused by the custodial parent, or, in the case of children receiving public assistance, used to reimburse the government for necessities it has provided the children. It is quite likely that black fathers have been assaulted, and their contributions in a number of categories have been unjustifiably denigrated. Research supports many assertions about the positive contributions of African American fathers. African American fathers in two-parent families spend more time with their children than do Hispanic or white fathers. African American fathers and black fathers in the Caribbean are more likely than white fathers to treat boys and girls similarly when they are babies. They also interact just as frequently with their young daughters as they do with their young sons. On the other hand, in the United States, black families have higher divorce, separation, and neverliving-together rates than white families. However, a top predictor that a black couple will stay together is the black man’s enjoyment of, and interest in, being a father and sharing in the day-to-day care of his children (www.marylandbfa. org 2006). Rates of nonresident fathers being involved with very young children are surprisingly high among nonresident African American fathers, but father involvement drops off considerably as the children age. Correspondingly, as the time since the father has lived with his child increases, father involvement decreases. Most nonresident African American fathers speak movingly of the meaning of their children in their lives, even if they rarely see them. African American fathers sometimes say that when they cannot contribute financially, they feel too guilty to have ongoing contact with their children. Many times a pregnancy and the ensuing birth provide African American fathers who have been participating in frequent illegal activity a strong motive to leave their hazardous street lives. Because of this, African American fathers often claim that their children have literally saved them (www.marylandbfa.org 2006). However, low-income African American fathers are more likely than both black and white higher-income fathers to place an equal value on the breadwinning, provider role and on the relational functions of fatherhood. Both structural and behavioral factors, such as unemployment, drug use, criminal activity, and conflicts with their child’s mother hinder black fathers from fulfilling the duties they say are necessary to be an adequate or good father.

African American Fathers

CONCLUSION There is a question of accountability and responsibility that black males have to answer regarding the present state of many African American families. At the same time, social and cultural supports could be enacted that would assist black males in more fully meeting their obligations. Given the constraints of living in poverty, many African American fathers are torn between their desires to effectively parent and their need for their own survival. The general public, influenced by the stereotypical portrayals of black males in the media, may not recognize the roles that black men do play in the lives of their children. Having an involved father has noticeable benefits to children. Fathers are important because they help to teach children values and lessons in solving the problems they may face, and they do so in a way that differs from what mothers contribute. Fathers also serve as role models in their children’s lives that affect how well they relate to peers and adults outside the home and in society. When speaking of the benefits of being an involved father, focus is placed on the benefits that children receive from such a relationship. Being an involved father means being actively involved in nearly every aspect of a child’s life, from direct contact, play, and accountability for childcare, to making oneself available to the child. Black men’s social situations influence how well they may or may not meet these demands. While the common stance regarding African American fathers today is that their absence results in significant financial and social harm to their offspring, it may not be universally true. Researchers studying the issue of paternal involvement for a substantial amount of time have found concise evidence supporting the importance of paternal participation. Recently, some researchers have found that African American fathers can contribute to the health and well being of their children, even if they do not live in the same household. The results of investigations of the influences of nonresident father involvement on children indicate that positive father involvement relates to better child outcome. Researchers note that it is the quality rather than quantity of time that youth spend with their fathers that is important for their well being. Research has also shown that children whose fathers are involved in rearing them score higher on cognitive tests (they appear smarter) than those with relatively uninvolved fathers. These improved cognitive abilities are associated with higher educational achievement. In fact, fathers who are involved in their children’s schools and academic achievement, regardless of their own educational level, increase the chances that their child will graduate from high school and perhaps go to a vocational school or a college. A father’s involvement in his children’s school activities protects at-risk children from failing or dropping out. Research shows that fathers who are more involved with their children tend to raise children who experience more success in their careers. Career success can lead to greater income and greater financial stability. Involved fathering is related to lower rates of teen violence, delinquency, and other problems with the legal system. Furthermore, paternal involvement is associated with positive child

| 31

32

| African American Fathers

characteristics such as understanding, self-esteem, self-control, psychological well-being, social competence, and life skills. Children who grow up in homes with involved fathers are more likely to take an active and positive role in raising their own children. For example, fathers who remember a safe, loving relationship with both parents were more involved in the lives of their children and more supportive of their wives. Finally, being an involved father brings benefits to the dads themselves. When fathers build strong relationships with their children and others in the family, they receive support and caring in return. Research has shown that healthy family relationships provide the strongest and most important support network a person can have, whether that person is a child or an adult. Being involved in their family members’ lives helps fathers to enjoy a secure attachment relationship with their children, cope well with stressful situations and everyday problems, feel as if they can depend on others, feel more comfortable in their occupations, and feel that they can do their parenting job better. The benefits listed above are in reality only a small portion of what accrues for fathers and children in a healthy relationship. There may be others that the research has yet to uncover. Nevertheless, all of the aforementioned benefits for both fathers and children in the African American community will require hard work, patience, support, and diligence. It seems a more prudent use of resources to determine how African American males can be assisted to be present in their children’s lives, rather than denigrated for their absence. See also Child Support and Parental Responsibility; Family Roles; Fatherhood; Marriage Promotion; Parenting Styles. Further Reading: Biller, Henry B. “A Note on Father Absence and Masculine Development in Lower-Class Negro and White Boys.” Child Development 39, no. 3 (1968): 1003–1006; Brott, A. A. The New Father: A Dad’s Guide to the First Year. New York: Abbeville Press, Inc. 1997; Cosby, Bill, and Alvin F. Poussaint. Fatherhood. New York: Penguin Group, 1987; Cosby, Bill, and Alvin F. Poussaint. Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007; Furstenberg, Frank E., and Christopher C. Weiss. “Intergenerational Transmission of Fathering Roles in At Risk Families.” Marriage and Family Review 29 (2000): 181–202; hooks, bell. Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press, 1981; Hossain, Z., and J. L. Roopnarine. “Division of Household Labour and Child Care in Dual-earner African-American Families with Infants.” Sex Roles 29 (1993): 571–583; Lerman, Robert, and Elaine Sorensen. “Child Support: Interactions Between Private and Public Transfers.” In Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the U.S., ed. Robert Moffitt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003; Marsiglio, W., Day, R. D., and M. E. Lamb. “Exploring Fatherhood Diversity: Implications for Conceptualizing Father Involvement.” Marriage and Family Review 29 (2000): 269–293; Maryland Black Family Alliance. http://www.marylandbfa. org; Mogey, J. M. “A Century of Declining Paternal Authority.” Marriage and Family Living 19, no. 3 (1957): 234–239; Nelson, T. J., Clampet-Lundquist, S., and K. Edin. “Sustaining Fragile Fatherhood: Father Involvement among Low-income, Noncustodial African American Fathers in Philadelphia.” In A Handbook of Father Involvement, ed. Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda and Natasha Cabrera. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 2002; Pleck, J. H. “Paternal Involvement: Levels, Sources and Consequences.” In The Role of the Father in Child Development, 3rd ed., ed. Michael E. Lamb. New York: Wiley, 1997; Smith,

Arranged Marriage | Carolyn A., Marvin D. Krohn, R. Chu, and O. Best. “African American Fathers: Myths and Realities about Their Involvement with Their Firstborn Children.” Journal of Family Issues 26, no. 7 (2005): 975–1001; Wilson, William J. “The Woes of the Inner-City African-American Father” New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Zimmerman, Marc A., Deborah A. Salem, and Paul C. Notaro. “Make Room for Daddy II: The Positive Effects of Fathers’ Role in Adolescent Development.” In Resilience across Contexts: Family, Work, Culture, and Community, ed. R. Taylor and L. Wang. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2000.

Aaron D. Franks ARRANGED MARRIAGE ARRANGED MARRIAGES, SEMIARRANGED MARRIAGES, AND LOVE MARRIAGES Subject to cultural conventions, partners meet and marry through a variety of traditional and nontraditional means. One that is quite familiar among Indian Americans, second-generation Asian Indians who are born and raised in the United States, is arranged marriage. As an exemplar, this group will be examined to highlight the phenomenon. Arranged marriage is not an antiquated, tyrannical concept, but an ever-evolving one that is constantly being reworked by Indian Americans to suit their changing requirements. These transformations can be explained by examining the various forms marriage takes in this ethnic group: arranged marriages, semi-arranged marriages, and love marriages. Arranged Marriages. Arranged marriages are those marriages generally organized by parents and elderly kin and, at times, with the young couple having little choice in the matter. Such marriages are not entirely foreign to Western cultures. In the past (and perhaps even today, though rarely acknowledged) families sought to preserve or enhance their financial, political or economic positions with judicious marital alliances. While this motive no doubt plays its part in arranged marriages among Indians and Indian Americans, the demand for such arrangements stems also from a perception that marriage is a covenant and a lifelong commitment. Thus, in the Indian ethos, divorce is regarded as a shameful calamity, casting doubt on the morality and chastity of the couple, especially the woman. Further, arranged marriages address cultural concerns with the family unity, honor and the preservation of the chastity of women. Indians and Indian Americans recognize that individuals are a part of a larger organism such as a family, tribe or caste, and ethnic group. Ties between the individual and the extended family (uncles, cousins, second cousins) remain strong and are perceived as important among Indians. Marriage is therefore regarded as a joining of not merely the individual partners, but also of their families and kindred. Given this, arranging marriages in the traditional way is considered to be the most effective, as it ensures that potential mates are carefully sought out according to identified criteria. Their individual personalities and family backgrounds are thoroughly investigated to ensure compatibility with the extended family, and the union is sanctified by the gods to assure its permanence and reduce the probability of divorce.

33

34

| Arranged Marriage

Thus the first step in many (if not most) Indian arranged marriages is the matching of horoscopes. Horoscopes plot the effect that the configuration of the nine planets has on a person’s life from birth to death. Ideally, the weaknesses in one horoscope should be compensated by the strengths in the other so that the union, so to speak, has both human and divine approval. This horoscope matching necessarily has to precede the meeting of the two partners and, quite often, takes precedence over personal preferences. While anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that horoscope matching is diminishing in importance (particularly in inter-faith, inter-caste marriages) many Indians and Indian Americans continue to believe in the importance of horoscopes. Many arranged marriages are decided on the basis of horoscopes alone with the personal preferences of the partners coming second. Parents and extended kin consider a range of criteria when arranging marriages. Some of the most important criteria include the families’ religion, caste, social class, and region of India, which serves as a means of ethnic group classification among Indians. Additionally, the attributes of the couple in question, such as their physical appearances, education (including culinary skills, artistic achievements), and occupational background, are also considered. The idea of endogamy— marrying within one’s caste, sub-caste, social class, religion and ethnic group—is very much emphasized in arranging a marriage. Consequently, arranging marriages outside one’s group rarely occurs. As is evident from this list, love does not figure as a criterion in arranging marriages. Rather, it is assumed that love would grow after marriage if the couple is matched on the above-mentioned points. It is important to note that identifying the individual as a component of a larger organism also permits independent verification of her or his character and family background from other sources. This gathering of feedback from family and societal networks is an important part of the arranged marriage process. Once young Indians and Indian Americans have reached marriageable age, a sort-of all-points bulletin is broadcast through a network of family and friends in the Indian community, announcing the availability of the person for marriage. This involves the circulation of the person’s horoscope, a listing of the attributes of the young person along the criteria mentioned above, and is, at times, accompanied by a photograph of the eligible person. This is called a proposal and these proposals are exchanged between eligible parties who are interested in marriage. Traditionally, a proposal is advertised in the community by word-of-mouth, a practice that continues today. Proposals are also carried in matrimonial advertisements in Indian and ethnic newspapers. In a traditional arranged marriage, proposals are developed and reviewed by family members who identify a suitable match, sometimes without the input of the prospective partners themselves. At this point, a formal meeting is organized by the family where the prospective partners are introduced to each other, negotiations (about dowry, gifts of jewelry that would be given to the bride by her parents, marriage expenses, etc.) are conducted and arrangements for the wedding are made by identifying the most auspicious date, time, and location for the union. In some cases, this formal meeting occurs before deciding upon the marriage, allowing the prospective partners to interact with each other and offer some input on the decision.

Arranged Marriage |

Indian parents in the United States experience difficulty in implementing the above form of marriage in the case of their second-generation children. While some Indian Americans continue to prefer this form of marriage for all of the reasons stated earlier, a significant proportion of Indian Americans refuse to marry without their choices being accounted for or without them consenting to it. Thus, while the practice of arranging marriages in the traditional way described here continues to exist, it has been steadily declining. In its place is the more recent version of arranged marriage—the semi-arranged marriage. Semi-Arranged Marriages. Semi-arranged marriage is the transformed version of the traditional arranged marriage described above. In this form of marriage, men and women who pass the eligibility criteria (matching of horoscopes, background checks by the societal network) are introduced to each other and then allowed a courtship or engagement period during which they decide whether or not they are suitably matched for marriage. This form of marriage is highly popular among Indian Americans as it facilitates the simultaneous retention of parental control in the choice of their children’s spouses while accommodating the second-generation’s desire to make an independent decision and for love. It is important to note that this form of marriage is not only popular among Indian Americans in the United States, but also among the young, educated, urban, and middle-class in India. Among Indian Americans, semi-arranged marriage reflects their attempts to adapt Indian values and traditions to the Westernized society in which they live, while in India it is an indicator of the rapid social change that is underway. The method of orchestrating a semi-arranged marriage is very similar to the traditional arranged marriage described above with a few key differences. First is the issue of choice of marriage partner. Semi-arranged marriages also depend on the exchange of proposals between families. However, unlike the traditional arranged marriage, in semi-arranged marriages Indian Americans often develop their proposals themselves or in conjunction with their families and exercise significant control in choosing their spouses. While Indian Americans continue to rely on the criteria identified above, they also place emphasis on the individual attributes of potential spouses rather than only familial ones. Thus, physical attraction, mental and emotional compatibility, and similarity of interests and values between potential partners are becoming more important in semiarranged marriages. The second difference concerns the decision to marry. Similar to the traditional arranged marriage, suitable couples that are matched according to proposals are introduced to each other by their families. However, once this occurs, parental involvement in arranging the marriage diminishes. Unlike the traditional arranged marriage, the decision to marry is made by the potential partners themselves and not by their families. Following the introduction, should the partners like each other, a fairly long courtship period, which can be understood as dating, ensues. While in some cases this courtship is supervised, research indicates that most second-generation Indian Americans have the freedom to date or court, as long as it occurs within the semi-arranged framework, without supervision. This courtship period allows the couple to get to know each other on

35

36

| Arranged Marriage

an individual basis and fall in love prior to deciding to marry. Should this not occur, or should the couple decide that they are incompatible as life-partners, the relationship is ended without pressure to marry. Once the couple decides to marry, their families are approached so that arrangements for the engagement and wedding can be made. It is for this reason that semi-arranged marriages are also called assisted marriages or introduced marriages; familial involvement in arranging the marriage ends after the couple is introduced to each other. As the structure of arranged marriage continues to be transformed to suit the times, as is evident in semi-arranged marriages, so have the methods of seeking suitable spouses. In addition to the methods described earlier, more modern methods like matrimonial Internet and social networking websites (such as shaadi.com, bharatmatrimonials.com, indianmatrimonials.com, orkut, friendster, Facebook) are being embraced by young, technology-savvy Indians and Indian Americans. Online matrimonial sites serving Indians in India and the diaspora are highly organized. The proposals on these sites are categorized according to caste, Indian ethnic group, religion, educational background, age, and profession, facilitating the use of the traditional criteria in seeking a mate. Social networking sites, in contrast, allow Indian Americans to network among themselves, particularly in professional settings and on university campuses, and thereby seek out their own mates. Internet matrimonial Web sites are especially appealing because of their wide reach. These can be scanned in any part of the Indian diaspora. Likewise, their easily accessible convenience permits proposals from a wide range of prospective partners by advertising on multiple matrimonial sites. Furthermore, couples who find each other through these sites often communicate electronically via email for a while before progressing to exchanging phone conversations, and eventually to a formal introduction along the lines described earlier, followed by a formal courtship period. Of course, this is all dependent on whether they consider themselves suited for each other based on their early email communications. Should this not occur, email communication is terminated and the following stages do not play out. With its anonymity, the Internet enables young Indian Americans to undertake what was not possible earlier; to screen and communicate with a number of prospective partners, with relatively little risk to their reputations, before encountering the one they would like to meet. Love Marriages. Love marriages are also known as marriages of choice. This form of marriage involves Indian Americans choosing their own spouses and deciding to marry with little or no parental involvement. This form of marriage makes Indian parents in the United States uneasy as it gives them no opportunity to check potential spouses, and this may increase the probability of divorce. However, these marriages are becoming common among Indian Americans as they are accepted by the larger American society and culture. Additionally, as Indian Americans seek higher education and professional employment, there is an increased probability of meeting their future spouse on university campuses or through their professions. Unlike the traditional arranged or semiarranged marriage, love marriage involves potential partners seeking each other and dating without disclosure to their parents. Indian Americans who have had

Arranged Marriage |

37

love marriages indicate that they disclose their relationship and informal engagement to their parents only after having dated for a couple of years and after having decided to marry. Needless to say, the chances of parental disapproval of the marriage are much higher in these cases, often causing intergenerational conflict over whether the marriage should proceed.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SEMI-ARRANGED MARRIAGES Indian American women encounter a different level of social and familial pressures in marriage. Women enter marriage age before men (21 to 25 years and 26 to 28 years respectively) and encounter greater pressure to make a decision about marriage. The most important reason cited for this disparity includes a fear among families that as the women get older, there is a diminished probability of finding a suitable spouse. Additionally, the expectation among Indian families that men will be the primary providers for their families means they need longer years of study and professional employment in which to build a monetary base for family life. While a fairly long courtship is accepted among Indian Americans, the average duration of courtship for couples who are introduced to each other through a semi-arranged method is six months to one year. By this time, a decision as to whether or not they will marry needs to be made. Indian American women, however, encounter greater pressure to make this decision in a timely manner as their reputations are on the line with prolonged dating. To a large extent this occurs because the Indian American community continues to prize sexual chastity among second-generation women, embodied in her unblemished social reputation at the time of marriage. Oftentimes women who have courted without the relationship culminating in marriage are, regardless of their actual sexual experience, perceived as unchaste, which considerably reduces their future marriage prospects.

CURRENT CONTROVERSIES A major point of controversy about arranged marriage is on the issue of imposition of marriage on a couple versus a choice in marriage by Indian Americans. The imposition camp perceives arranged marriage to be imposed on Indian Americans by their parents. Accordingly, young Indian Americans are believed to be powerless, with no choice in determining the direction of their married lives. This camp argues that this imposed parental preference has to be understood in the context of the rationale for arranged marriage described above, and of the challenges of being Indian in the United States. Indian parents in the United States believe arranged marriages to be a mechanism of preserving Indian culture and ethnicity in the United States while limiting the Americanization of their children. This occurs in two ways. One, arranging marriages ensures that Indian Americans marry endogamously, thereby ensuring ethnic and cultural continuity between generations. Two, parents believe that this prevents Indian Americans from indulging in American-style

38

| Arranged Marriage

dating, thereby preventing Americanization. Arranged marriages are particularly preferable for Indian American daughters as it ensures their unblemished reputations. It is important to note that imposition in this case is not synonymous with force as Indian Americans often refuse to be forced into an arranged marriage. However, oftentimes imposition takes the form of parental expectations of an arranged marriage. This translates into subtle pressures to begin the process of arranging a marriage (like developing a proposal, screening eligible candidates, communicating with eligible candidates, etc.), and disapproval of exogamous marriages with which Indian Americans have to contend. As opposed to the imposition camp that believes Indian Americans are powerless against their parents, the choice camp holds that Indian Americans have the power of choice, and a significant proportion choose arranged marriages. Critical to this choice is the perception of arranged marriage by Indian Americans. Some indicate that their preference for a traditional arranged marriage, as fulfilling familial expectations in marriage, is important to them. However, a significant proportion who choose an arranged marriage define it along the lines of the semi-arranged marriage, which is acceptable to them for the reasons above. Additionally, some Indian Americans are ambivalent about Americanstyle dating which they perceive as lacking commitment, and trust the logic of the arranged marriage institution (i.e., prescreened couples being introduced to each other with the goal of marriage and the reliance on the experience and judgment of elder kin) in ensuring their marital happiness. Indian Americans also desire to preserve ethnic culture in their married families and thus choose semi-arranged marriage with its emphasis on, and assurance of, endogamy. It is important to note here that semi-arranged marriage, even as a choice by Indian Americans, is not without its tensions. Indian Americans are quick to point out that parents do not always get it right when introducing them to eligible parties, in some cases resulting in divorce. Others talk of being frustrated with the process (reading numerous proposals, communicating via email, meeting several candidates) or with pressures they encounter to make a decision, particularly if they have been seeking partners unsuccessfully for a couple of years. Indian American women in particular mention apprehensions, such as the process beginning much earlier for them than for their male counterparts, encountering greater pressure to marry before they move out of the marriage age, and sometimes feeling displayed as goods on the market of marriage. Another controversy in arranged marriage lies in the question of whether an arranged marriage can be a love match as well. The controversy is contextualized in a tendency to classify arranged and love marriages as being in complete opposition to each other. This is embodied in the arranged versus love and arranged with love marriage camps. Critical to resolving this controversy is each camp’s definition of arranged marriage and accompanying ideas of love. The arranged versus love marriage camp continues to perceive arranged marriage in its most traditional form without the consent and choices of Indian Americans being accounted for. The argument thus made is that arranged marriages are unemotional business arrangements between families who seek to match Indian Americans along relatively objective criteria (horoscope, family’s

Arranged Marriage |

religion, ethnicity, class, caste, etc.). Love, by contrast, is perceived as a quixotic criterion and not sufficient on which to base a life-long commitment. Hence love marriages are associated with divorce and betrayal of parental expectations. According to this camp, it is only in this form that an arranged marriage is authentic and can thus preserve ethnic culture. The other side of this debate, referred to here as the arranged with love marriage camp, holds that in its transformed version, that is, a semi-arranged or love marriage, love is an integral component of the arranged marriage system. Falling in love with, and being attracted to one’s prospective spouse, is critical to the decision of whether or not to marry. Indian Americans who hold this view argue that they are not willing to settle for the probability of love developing after marriage, and thus often define their semi-arranged marriages as love marriages. An interesting development in this debate has been the navigation of a love marriage that is undertaken without parental involvement. Indian Americans who have chosen this option attempt to circumvent potential parental disapproval by following very closely the mate selection criteria prized by their parents in choosing with whom to fall in love. Thus, they are careful to fall in love with only the “right” kind of Indian to ensure parental support of their marriage. This camp also argues that Indian parents in the United States are realizing the second generation’s desire for love and choice in marriage, and are thus developing methods to orchestrate an arranged with a love marriage. One of the most interesting new methods is the emergence of marriage conventions that are often organized by Indian ethnic groups, facilitating endogamous marriages. A marriage convention is a national, annual event, organized in key cities with the purpose of gathering marriage-minded Indian Americans and their parents in one location to meet prospective candidates and exchange necessary information. Thus, in sum, this side of the debate answers yes to the question of whether an arranged marriage can be a love match as well. In summary, arranged marriage is being transformed by Indian Americans, taking on the forms of the semi-arranged and love marriage. However, even as these changes occur, the perception of arranged marriage as antiquated, oppressive, and lacking love persists both among Americans and Indian Americans. This generates controversies about whether or not Indian Americans choose these marriages for themselves, and whether love can be integral to these marriages. Indian Americans are choosing arranged marriages but in the form that enables them to be true to both parental and personal expectations of marriage. See also Dating; Mail Order Brides; Mate Selection Alternatives; Prenuptial Agreements. Further Reading: Bellafante, Gina. “In the U.S., Assisted Marriages for South Asians.” The International Herald Tribune, August 24, 2005, News section: 2; Divakaruni, Chitra. “Arranged Marriages Can Provide Couples Stronger Relationships: South Asian Families are Adopting an Updated Version of the Old Custom.” The Standard, June 23, 2001, Viewpoint section, St. Catherines, Ontario edition: A13; Fidelman, Charlie. “Arranged Marriages Still Very Popular: New Generation Yearns for Their Roots.” The Gazette, April 27, 2003, News section, Montreal, Quebec edition: A10; Khandelwal, Madhulika S. Becoming American,

39

40

| Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Being Indian: An Immigrant Community in New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002; Leonard, Karen I. The South Asian Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997; Lessinger, Johanna. From the Ganges to the Hudson: Indian Immigrants in New York City. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995; Magnusson, Tony. “What’s Love Got to Do With It?” Sunday Magazine, February 12, 2006, Magazine section: 20; Netting, Nancy S. “Two-Lives, One Partner: Indo-Canadian Youth Between Love and Arranged Marriages.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 37, no. 1 (2006): 129–146; Rangaswamy, Padma. Namasté America: Indian Immigrants in an American Metropolis. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000; Sheth, P. Indians in America: One Stream, Two Waves, Three Generations. Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications, 2001; Sprecher, Susan, and Rachita Chandak. “Attitudes about Arranged Marriages and Dating among Men and Women From India.” Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 20, no. 1 (1992): 59–69; Uddin, Mohammad S. “Arranged Marriage: A Dilemma for Young British Asians.” Diversity in Health and Social Care 3 (2006): 211–219; Vaidyanathan, Prabha, and Jospehine Naidoo. “Asian Indians in Western Countries: Cultural Identity and the Arranged Marriage.” In Contemporary Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology, ed. N. Bleichrodt and P. J. Drenth. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1990; Zaidi, Arsha U., and Muhammad Shuraydi. “Perceptions of Arranged Marriage by Young Pakistani Muslim Women Living in a Western Society.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 33, no. 4 (2002): 495–514.

Namita N. Manohar ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD) Parents often agonize over a child’s behavior, wondering if their child is just unruly or if there might be a medical cause to problems experienced in school and other rigid settings. Increasingly parents are finding a diagnosis, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), to account for some of the behavior issues that make parenting a particularly challenging activity. According to the medical community, ADHD is a neurological disorder primarily characterized by inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD is generally detected in childhood, but increasing numbers of individuals are being diagnosed in adulthood. The vast majority of identified ADHD sufferers are male. A heated debate centers on the nature of the disorder, including whether a medical label is appropriate and how it should be treated. ADHD is being given increasing attention in the professional and popular literature. Most sources agree that ADHD diagnoses are on the rise in the United States. Comparing two similar data sources illustrates this increase. According to a 1987 study, the weighted national estimate of children receiving treatment for ADHD was approximately one-half million. A follow-up to this research in 1997 reported a weighted national estimate of children receiving ADHD treatment of more than two million. These figures can be loosely compared to the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the number of United States children ever diagnosed with ADHD. According to this source, this distinction applied to greater than four million youth in 2003. From this illustration emerges a general idea of the rate of change surrounding ADHD diagnoses in the United States.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) |

THREE CONTESTED PERSPECTIVES A crucial element of the ADHD debate involves its definition. Many physicians and psychologists believe that ADHD is a medical issue with neurological implications and genetic causes. Others, those who favor a more holistic approach to life, or may not have parented, feel that ADHD is a creation of overzealous practitioners and pharmaceutical companies. Still others see the phenomenon as social in origin, arising from changing values and ideals regarding childhood. Thus, three main perspectives exist in the ADHD controversy. The first is the medical perspective that views ADHD as a physiological disease. The second perspective describes ADHD as subject to the medicalization process that transforms many behavioral issues into medical problems. The third perspective portrays ADHD as a social issue arising from changing interpretations of behavior rather than children’s physical disabilities.

ADHD As a Disease The underlying assumption of a medical model of a disorder is that some recognized standard of behavior, one that is displayed by the majority of the populace, is absent in an individual. The absence of the expected behavior is attributed to an illness or disease, which, once properly diagnosed, can be treated to help bring about more desired behavior. Many psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, and other clinicians, as well as parents, teachers, and members of the general public, believe this model is appropriate for ADHD. The idea that inattentiveness and hyperactivity in children indicate a disorder originated near the turn of the twentieth century. The condition, then termed “Hyperkinetic reaction of childhood” was officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association in the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II) in 1968. For the DSM-III, the label was revised to attention deficit disorder (ADD). The terminology changed again for the revision of the third addition, the DSM-III-R, when the disorder was given the more inclusive title of ADHD. The current DSM-IV lists inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and impulsivity as the three primary characteristics of ADHD. The manual also indicates that an ADHD diagnosis is not appropriate unless symptoms have been present for at least six months, these symptoms occur to a degree that is developmentally deviant, and these symptoms were developed by the time the individual was seven years old. The medical community has been searching for a verifiable physiological cause of ADHD for some time. Although no exact biological origin has been determined, researchers and clinicians have focused their efforts on the brain for answers to the root of the disorder. Among the proposed possibilities are chemical imbalances and brain deficiencies that may arise from low birth weight or premature birth. Some notable investigation has also been done on the frontal lobe, the area of the brain responsible for behavioral and emotional regulation. As this area matures, individuals gain the ability to plan before acting, and, when necessary, to ignore the desire to act. Scientists have observed a difference

41

42

| Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

in the size and shape of the frontal lobe in ADHD individuals compared to nonADHD individuals. These variations may indicate a diminished capacity for self-control in people with the disorder. Yet this research has also proven inconclusive, even leading some who accept the medical view of ADHD to admit that no irrefutable biological cause has been discovered to explain it; a point that critics and skeptics are quick to point out. In addition to the argument for neurological markers of ADHD, researchers have also proposed a genetic factor for the disorder. As science learns and understands more about human DNA, the quest to locate particular genetic sources for illnesses has expanded beyond physiological disease to behavioral disorders like ADHD. No one has yet pinpointed an ADHD gene, but many believe it will be discovered eventually. Other proponents of the medical understanding of ADHD see it as more complicated than that, feeling that a single ADHD gene is not likely to be identified. These claimants point out that science is beginning to realize that mental disorders originate from complex interactions of genes, chemicals, and other neurological components, meaning that the isolation of a specific ADHD gene is not likely. Strong arguments asserting that ADHD is a disease come from individuals, or from the relatives of individuals, who have ADHD. According to many of these advocates, ADHD causes much pain for those it touches, especially when not diagnosed and medical treatment can bring relief. ADHD literature contains a large number of personal stories by individuals dealing with the disorder. Many of these report that they were considered stupid, lazy, and unmotivated as children. They also describe deep feelings of guilt and isolation because they were unable to meet academic and social expectations. For these individuals who found relief and understanding after being diagnosed with ADHD, the validity of the medical model is unquestionable. The stories of ADHD sufferers can often be found alongside reports from family members who describe distress over not knowing how to relate to or help their ADHD loved one. These personal accounts available in the literature give human voices to an issue that is dismissed by some critics as a myth and others as invention. The Medicalization of ADHD Another perspective on ADHD is that it, like a number of other social issues, has been subjected to the process of medicalization. Prominent medicalization researchers, along with others, cite as key elements of the medicalizing of ADHD the changing views of children in the United States, the unprecedented power of the medical profession, and the clout of pharmaceutical companies offering so-called miracle drugs to fix behavioral problems. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, children were seen as miniature adults rather than members of a special life stage prior to adulthood. These children were considered responsible and were expected to become productive members of society at early ages, for most this meant joining the labor force or helping on the family farm. At this time, the realms of childcare and management rested squarely within the family.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) |

But with urbanization came a decreased need for child labor and a greater emphasis on education. Eventually society came to see children’s proper place as in the classroom and compulsory education arose. At the same time, youth were being thrust into schools, their parents were coming to view them as innocent creatures with little social power, dependent on the protection and care of adults. Over time, as people began to place more stock in the word of professionals and specialists over the teachings of folkways and tradition, parents more often sought out these specialized groups for ideas about how to properly rear children. This view of youth as innocent and dependent coupled with a loss of authority in the family is described by claimants as a prime contributor to the medicalization of untoward child behavior. Furthermore, as children are not considered mature enough to be culpable, their unacceptable actions cannot be labeled crimes, leaving only illness labels to explain their deviant conduct. Before medicine gained respect as a scientific field, bad children were thought to be under the devil’s influence, morally lacking, or subject to poor parenting. Those were times when religion and the family had the main responsibility for shaping society’s views on appropriate and inappropriate behavior. However, once physicians began to make medical breakthroughs, including the advent of vaccinations, the profession began to build expert power. Over the last century or so, the medical field has acquired great authority and now has almost absolute control over how U.S. society defines disease, illness, and treatment. Due to this, when physicians approach behavioral difficulties, such as those displayed with ADHD, as medical issues requiring medical treatment, most people accept this definition without question. The makers of pharmaceuticals have also been gaining influence in society. Some now see these companies as a driving force behind the medicalization of a host of issues, including ADHD. Many people believe that if a drug exists that treats symptoms then it proves disease is present. Such is often the case with ADHD. Psychostimulants, such as Ritalin and Adderall, have been shown to be very effective at helping children calm down and pay attention. Because of this success, despite the positive effects found for alternative treatments such as parent training programs, medications are considered the most useful method of curbing ADHD difficulties. Critics contend, however, that the efficacy of psychostimulants for adjusting the behavior of children diagnosed with ADHD is not valid evidence of a biological deficit because these drugs produce similar results in non-ADHD children as well. Following the view of some proponents, one primary reason aspects of human behavior are being increasingly tied to genetic explanations is because this is financially beneficial for drug manufacturers who are supposedly able to offer the only solutions to medical defects. Supporting this argument is the fact that, in the 1960s, pharmaceutical companies began to aggressively market psychostimulants for ADHD children by using print advertisements in medical journals, direct mailing, and skilled representatives who promoted their products to doctors. These tactics proved effective as more doctors and clinicians looked to psychostimulant medications as solutions for problematic behavior in children. Today, millions of people in the United States take these medications, causing

43

44

| Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

some to fear that drugging children has become a new form of social control or that doctors are handing out prescriptions haphazardly to anyone claiming to have trouble concentrating or sitting still. ADHD as Social Construction In addition to the perspectives of ADHD as disease and the medicalization of ADHD is the view of ADHD as social construction. According to social psychology, humans are driven by the desire to make sense of the world around them. Individuals observe one another’s behavior, interact in situations, and perform acts all to which they constantly try to attach definitions to help them understand the world and their place in it. This process is social and varies based on situational, historical, and other factors, which means that society’s understandings can change over time. Several authors believe this has occurred with the interpretation of youthful conduct. Ideas about desirable and undesirable child behavior vary within and between cultures. Thus, no universal definitions of good and bad conduct exist. Some claim that, in the United States, children’s actions have not changed so much as society’s interpretations of them. United States society used to be more understanding of variations in children’s behavior and allowed them outlets for excess energy, such as time for recess and physical education built into the school day. Recently, however, following the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the thrust to improve standardized test scores, most schools have done away with these sanctioned play times. In a scholastic atmosphere now calling for more productivity from even the youngest students, inattentiveness and hyperactivity are being considered more of a problem than they were formerly. Some critics of this social development, such as Armstrong (2005), are troubled by the demands that they believe society places on children to be more like machines than human beings. Following this and some others’ views, society, with pressure from experts, no longer sees disruptive students as exuberant or eccentric but rather as sick and in need of medication to put them back on the path to success, almost as if these children are broken and in need of repair. The emergence of the field of developmental psychology may have also engendered a change in the social definitions of childhood conduct (Timimi 2005). Developmental psychology offers standardized ideals for child development. Milestones are prescribed based on age, and deviation from these standards is considered cause for alarm and is often approached from a medical standpoint. This discipline promotes developmental markers not only for areas such as physical growth, language use, and motor skills but for maturity, ability to attend to stimuli, and social interaction. Some argue that due to the prescriptions of developmental psychology parents, teachers, and physicians are now more likely to view behaviors that are not deemed age-appropriate or acceptable as highly problematic. What may have once been considered simply a difficult personality is often pathologized today. Authors who hold this view seem to apply a version of the Thomas Theorem to the issue, the basic idea of which is that anything perceived as real is real in its

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) |

consequences. Following this, it appears to some that people, accurately or not, view ADHD as a real disorder and thus look for symptoms confirming it, causing real consequences for children who are given the resulting pathological label. A final illustration of society’s changing definitions surrounding this issue deals with the locus of blame for children’s misbehavior. Some researchers today support the view that poor home environments can impact children such that they display symptoms of ADHD. According to these authors chaos, disharmony, hostility, and dysfunction at home can cause children to have trouble focusing in class or to act out irrationally. Claimants supporting this view, however, are in the minority. Furthermore, prior to the medical diagnosis, behavioral difficulties characterizing ADHD were frequently thought to result from poor parenting, especially by mothers. Today, however, the general professional feeling is that mothering behaviors are a consequence, not a cause, of children’s behaviors. Thus, less desirable actions and reactions on the part of parents are now seen as a consequence of stress that builds up from dealing with a troubled child, rather than a poorly behaved child being seen as a symptom of poor parenting. The emphasis on biology over parenting has taken responsibility away from parents and placed it on intangible sources deep within the child’s brain.

PARENTS AND ADHD CHILDREN While the debate rages on about the proper conceptualization of ADHD behaviors, parents and children are caught in the middle. Much research has found that actions consistent with ADHD in a child have negative implications for that child’s relationship with his or her parents. In general, households with ADHD children are characterized by higher parental stress and distress and more parent-child conflict than households without ADHD youth. Studies of parents’ self-reports find that mothers and fathers of these children have trouble relating to their offspring, often lack a sense of closeness with the child, and view themselves as less skilled and competent as parents. Commonly, these parents experience feelings of hopelessness and desperation to find help. In efforts to address the challenges they face, some parents display negative reactions to their children, including being excessively controlling, viewing the youths less positively, and resorting to more authoritarian discipline styles. In addition to these joint concerns, studies have found issues unique to mothers and to fathers regarding their ADHD children. For example, research has found a correlation between depression in mothers and parenting ADHD children. Following a social tradition of disproportionate responsibility for rearing children, many mothers internalize the notion that they are to blame when their sons or daughters misbehave. This history of mother blaming has been somewhat relieved by the rise of the medical model for ADHD which takes the liability away from mothers and places it on the child’s internal defects that are outside their control. Despite this, a number of mothers today are still deeply troubled when their children behave negatively, both out of concern for the quality of life of the child and for others’ potentially hurtful perceptions about their parenting.

45

46

| Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

A DEBATE WITHIN THE DEBATE Millions of children in the United States are currently taking Ritalin, Adderall, or some other psychostimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). While other treatment methods exist, medication is by far the most often used. This rise in psychostimulant prescriptions, which has corresponded with the rapid increase in ADHD diagnoses, has sparked a strong debate within the overall ADHD controversy. Although the conceptualization of a disorder called ADHD was decades in the future, a scientist in 1937 was the first to test the results of stimulants on children with behavioral problems. He was surprised to discover the seemingly illogical effect these drugs had of subduing unruly children. The number one prescribed ADHD drug, Ritalin, was created in the 1950s and was approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in children in 1961. Since then, innumerable studies have been conducted to test the effects of psychostimulants on ADHD children. The majority of this research has reported these drugs as successful at calming children down, helping them concentrate, and improving their short-term memory. Supporters of psychostimulant use see this as evidence of the medications’ appropriateness and usefulness. They also report the extended effects of helping children learn and socialize better with peers, both of which improve self-esteem. Additionally, they claim that medications improve outcomes of other therapies when they are used in combination. Critics of psychostimulant use point to the negative effects these drugs can have, some of which are rare. These include lethargy, compulsiveness, slight growth inhibition, appetite loss, dry mouth, seizures, and tics. They also note that the drugs’ benefits are short-term. Once patients stop taking them, their ADHD difficulties return. This means that children, once placed on medication, have little hope of ever getting off of it and functioning effectively. Skeptics also point out that psychostimulants have been found to have similar calming and attention-focusing effects on people not considered to have ADHD as they have on those diagnosed with the disorder. They believe this disproves the belief that a disease is present if medications can successfully treat it.

Many fathers of ADHD children experience their role differently from mothers. For example, one study found that fathers were much less willing to accept the medical view of their children’s difficulties than were mothers. Additionally, this research noted that a high number of fathers were not active in the diagnostic and treatment process of their children’s disorder, but they did not stand in the way of it either. Often they were sidelined during this progression, some by choice and others in an effort to avoid conflict in the marital relationship. One notable finding by researchers, such as psychiatrist Ilina Singh, is that a number of fathers feel guilt in connection to their sons’ ADHD. The medical model for this behavioral disorder proposes a genetic linkage that passes ADHD from father to son. Due to this, some fathers blame themselves for causing their

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) |

sons’ problems. One consequence of acknowledging their possible responsibility is that men think back to their own childhoods, in which they behaved similarly to their sons, and question whether they should have been given the same diagnosis. Finally, discord can arise between a husband and wife as they struggle to deal with their ADHD child for a number of reasons. One example is a disagreement over the true nature of their offspring’s problems. Also, trouble can emerge simply from the general stress of the environment. Partners who are feeling upset about issues with their child may take their emotions out on one another. Another source of conflict might be a husband’s opinion that his wife is at least somewhat responsible for their child’s unruly behavior because she is too indulgent, a sentiment some fathers report they have. Critics of the medical model and of the medicalization of ADHD sometimes condemn parents for their willingness to accept such a label for their children. Some of these critics believe that parents today take the easy way out, choosing to take their children to a doctor for medication rather than altering their parenting styles to address more difficult behavior. Contrary to this perception, however, many parents report experiencing great worry over the decision to seek treatment for their children. Many would likely report that these actions were a last resort. A great number of ADHD diagnoses are initiated at school. Parents are often called to school repeatedly to address a child’s unruly behavior, and eventually a teacher or administrator suggests an ADHD evaluation. If a parent is reluctant, this suggestion may continue to be made until he or she gives in. Whether they feel the ADHD label is appropriate or not, if a practitioner tells a parent that a son or daughter has ADHD, that parent has additional pressure to take steps to address it. Many parents, who may see themselves as grossly unqualified to determine the nature of their children’s problems, eventually defer to the opinion of the experts (teachers, doctors, psychologists) and accept the ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Despite critics’ claims, these parents would surely report that this decision is anything but easy. IS ADHD HERE TO STAY? ADHD is an issue touching more and more lives in the United States each day. Extensive research has been done on this topic, ranging from medical investigation to social interpretation, yet it remains an area ripe for exploration and debate. Science continues to seek definitive proof that a deficiency or imbalance in the brain, transmittable by DNA, causes recognizable unwanted behaviors that can be labeled and treated as a disease. At the same time, those opposed to this view continue to study and question the social factors surrounding this issue and disprove any biological basis. Neither side has had absolute success, so the controversy continues. Regardless of where one stands in the debate, it is hard to deny that an increasing number of parents and children are being faced with the ADHD label. Those parents who hear competing information from various sources in the controversy often feel torn over the right thing to do and experience negative feelings,

47

48

| Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

regardless of their decision. Perhaps one day an irrefutable medical discovery will be made to mark ADHD as a disease. Perhaps social opinion on children’s behavior will shift, and more rambunctious or unruly behavior will not be considered as problematic as it is today. Either of these events could result in an end to the debate surrounding ADHD. However, at this point there is no indication that either type of solution will occur any time soon. Thus, ADHD diagnoses are sure to continue, with proponents’ blessings and critics’ curses. See also Child Abuse; Developmental Disability and Marital Stress; Homeschooling; Juvenile Delinquency; Parenting Styles. Further Reading: Armstrong, Thomas. “ADD: Does It Really Exist?” In Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issue in Abnormal Psychology, 3rd ed., ed. Richard P. Halgin. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Duskin, 2005; Barkley, Russell A. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment, 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2006; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Mental Health in the United States: Prevalence of Diagnosis and Medication Treatment of AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder—United States,” 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre view/mmwrhtml/mm5434a2.htm (accessed April 2008); Conrad, Peter, and Joseph W. Schneider. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992; Corkum, Penny V., M. Margaret McKinnon, and Jennifer C. Mullane. “The Effect of Involving Classroom Teachers in a Parent Training Program for Families of Children with ADHD.” Child and Family Behavior Therapy 27 (2005): 29–49; Detweiler, Robert E., Andrew P. Hicks, and Mack R. Hicks. “A Multi-Modal Approach to the Assessment and Management of ADHD.” In ADHD: Research, Practice and Opinion, ed. Paul Cooper and Katherine Bilton. London: Whurr Publishers, 1999; Douglas, Anne. “A Mother’s Story—Beyond the Debate: Living with the Reality of ADHD.” In ADHD: Research, Practice and Opinion, ed. Paul Cooper and Katherine Bilton. London: Whurr Publishers, 1999; Hallowell, Edward M. “What I’ve Learned from ADD.” In Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issue in Abnormal Psychology, 3rd ed., ed. Richard P. Halgin. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Duskin, 2005; Leo, Jonathan. “American Preschoolers on Ritalin.” Society 39 (2002): 52–60; Malacrida, Claudia. “Alternative Therapies and Attention Deficit Disorder: Discourses of Maternal Responsibility and Risk.” Gender and Society 16 (2002): 366–383; Mattox, Renee, and Jeanette Harder. “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Diverse Populations.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 24 (2007): 195–207; Olfson, Mark, Marc J. Gameroff, Steven C. Marcus, and Peter S. Jensen. “National Trends in the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” The American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 1071– 1076; Panksepp, Jaak. “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders, Psychostimulants, and Intolerance of Childhood Playfulness: A Tragedy in the Making?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 7 (1998): 91–98; Purdie, Nola, John Hattie, and Annemaree Carroll. “A Review of the Research on Interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: What Works Best?” Review of Education Research 72 (2002): 61–99; Singh, Ilina. “Boys Will Be Boys: Fathers’ Perspectives on ADHD Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Drug Treatment.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 11 (2003): 308–316; Thomas, William I., and Dorothy S. Thomas. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928; Timimi, Sami. Naughty Boys: Anti-Social Behavior, ADHD and the Role of Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005; Wegandt, Lisa L. An ADHD Primer, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.

Nicole D. Garrett

B BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME While few people would say that it is acceptable to abuse women, and while most would say that a woman who is being victimized has a right to defend herself, there is considerable controversy over women using past victimization as a justification for retaliation. Claims of battered woman syndrome are often derided as an attempt to get out of legal punishment. These claims may appear false as persons are skeptical of the battered woman defense. BACKGROUND Females, throughout history, have been seen as the subordinate of the two sexes, making them an easier target for abuse. While laws against physical violence toward women have been around for centuries, they have not been necessarily vigorously enforced. Stereotypically, females have also seemed needy and ultimately dependent on the “stronger” sex, thus allowing the men in power to make laws that contribute to the victimization of women. Women have dealt with this victimization in many different ways, from fighting against it to accepting it and therefore conforming to the stereotype. Women are more likely to be victimized by family members than strangers. Spousal abuse used to be looked at as a private matter, and one that should be taken care of in the home. As late as the 1980s, some police officers were looking at spousal abuse as a necessary way to, so to speak, keep wives in line. Thus, they were slow to intervene on domestic disturbance calls. The crime of spousal abuse used to be classified as a misdemeanor offense, meaning that a police officer would need to see a crime in progress in order to make an arrest. Because most 49

50

|

Battered Woman Syndrome

domestic violence crimes occur within the home, the police were unable to see the crimes, and this made it very hard to convict an abuser in domestic violence cases. In the early 1980s, there was a domestic violence police experiment in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The police used a lottery system that determined how they would treat domestic violence cases that were called in to dispatch. The results of this study showed that when the offender was arrested at the scene, there was a significant decrease in repeat offences. Since this study, there has been a major shift in classifying domestic violence from a misdemeanor to a felony, and also including mandatory arrests of offenders. While the law has changed to help battered women in an immediately threatening situation, a lot of the stereotypes of battered women and personal feelings of employees within the justice system have been slow to change. Some legal professionals, including lawyers and judges, based on their past experiences feel that a battered woman will not help in the prosecution’s case against an offender, so they are reluctant to prosecute any domestic violence cases. The legal system is trying to bridge the gap between the mandatory arrests required of police officers and the reluctance of prosecuting lawyers and judges to charge the offenders by introducing a so-called no drop policy in some states. The no drop policy means that when a domestic violence case comes before a prosecutor, he must prosecute the offender regardless of the victim’s willingness to testify. Another way the legal system is trying to help battered women is by increasingly allowing experts to testify about the phenomenon of battered woman syndrome, sometimes known as the battered-woman defense, as an explanation for why women stay in an abusive relationship or why they themselves may become abusive in self-defense. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME The so-called mother of the term battered woman syndrome (BWS) is psychologist Lenore Walker. She specializes in the psychological treatment of victims, specifically victims of spousal abuse. In 1979, Walker wanted to examine the different factors in the psychological responses of domestic violence victims. She interviewed 1,500 women and found that there were some similar experiences among the victims. She found that a lot of these women go through three different stages of abuse. These stages have come to be known as the battering cycle. Before discussing the controversies with BWS, the result of long-term physical or psychological abuse, we first need to look at the patterns of the battering cycle, and definition and causes of BWS. The Battering Cycle Walker contends that there are three cycles or phases of abuse that a victimized woman experiences. Repeated exposure to the cycle may result in the condition of BWS. The first phase consists of minor battering incidents where the victim is complacent, and hoping to appease the batterer so there is no more battering. The first beating in a relationship often occurs for minor offences, like burning dinner, or not having beer in the home when the partner would like one. When these minor wrongdoings set the batterer off and he hits the woman, if she stays,

Battered Woman Syndrome

she will make sure not to burn dinner next time, and will ensure that the beer is constantly stocked. This starts the complacency on the part of the victim and increases the power that the batterer has over the victim. The second phase is generally an escalation in tensions, capped of with an acute battering incident during which the woman feels helpless and isolated. An example of this would be when following an outing in which they both participated, they return home and the victim is beaten for supposed flirting, even though she never left the batterer’s side. This second phase is also accompanied with threats against her family and friends, and controlling to whom the victim talks and for what length of time. Threats may also be made and enacted against any children that are part of the household. The third and final phase is called a conciliation period (also know as a “honeymoon” phase), where the batterer shows remorse for the beatings and the woman is forgiving and understanding. Often he promises the abuse will never happen again and may be solicitous and fawning in his attempts to regain her trust. Following this last element of the cycle, the abused woman believes that she may have misjudged the offender and will take him back, for one more attempt at a harmonious relationship without seeking outside help. Shelter-Seeking It was not until the late 1980s that the United States Surgeon General classified family violence and violence against women as an epidemic and one that should be looked at as a health problem. It was then that many community programs, interventions, and prevention programs were founded or expanded to try to combat the problem. These programs tended to examine factors related to women’s risk of victimization as well as their resilience to abuse rather than illness and cure factors. Giving girls and women the strength and training to spot domestic violence, or an abusive spouse, is a good policy in the short run, but it is a strategy that is unlikely to stop abuse in the long run. These initial attempts to monitor and educate were targeted at particular groups of women, but they did little beyond that. Without going to the source of the problem and examining the reasons that men batter and women stay, this strategy was equated with putting a band-aid on a severed limb. One just has to hope it holds and everything works out. Noticeable in the prevention and intervention of domestic violence has been the shelter movement. In the whole United States in 1976 there were only six shelters or safe houses. But thanks to the awareness raised by the Surgeon General and others, by 1994 at the time of the passage of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) there were over 1000. Shelters are a wonderful option when available; however, they have a hidden problem in that women can not stay there indefinitely. BWS Patterns When the batterer starts to control the female victim, and starts to isolate the woman from her friends, she feels there is no one left to turn to. The battered

| 51

52

|

Battered Woman Syndrome

woman starts to feel extremely isolated and as if the only person that can understand her is the batterer, with whom she lives and of whom she is in constant fear. Women also start to exhibit feelings of so-called learned helplessness. This is where the psychological pressures of living in constant fear make the woman cope with the abuse rather than finding a way out. The man’s efforts to isolate the abused woman from her family, finances, and friends make it extremely difficult for the woman to request any outside help from anyone else. Unusually low self-esteem interacts with fear, depression, confusion, powerful anxiety, feelings of self-blame, and a general sense of helplessness to create BWS, in which an abused woman feels incapable of making any positive changes in her life, not the least of which is leaving her batterer. Another contributing factor to the woman staying might be the tendency of women to invest themselves deeply into the relationship, as well as for family or religious beliefs. For example, if the abused woman was raised Catholic, a religion that frowns on getting divorced, she would be less inclined to seek help, not wanting to go against her religion or her family if they held a similar belief. This can also contribute to the syndrome. BATTERED WOMEN AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM The first time most battered women go to a courthouse it is to obtain a restraining order against an abusive partner. Often this is done with the help of advocates from a domestic abuse shelter. The language of the restraining order, however, leads some to believe that it may actually be harder to obtain one than ever before. Some of the court officials, judges included, claim that women make up stories, or exaggerate the beatings to win custody hearings and divorce cases. Some judges have indicated they believe that it is the women causing the problems and the men are being falsely charged to get them out of the home so that the wife can do what she wants. Within the restraining order wording, the victim must talk about the abuser’s tactics and strategies used in the attacks against her. This can lead to problems if the woman doesn’t know her abuser’s intent, or the reasons he attacks her, or feels that she deserved the beating. The next step is the court system’s response to the information that the battered woman provides about her attacker. Despite numerous medical records, police reports, and court proceedings, courts have occasionally found that the woman is the aggressor and the male was only trying to defend himself. Prosecutors are wary of trying an abusive spouse, many times because of the stereotypes they hold about the battered woman. If a woman who has decided to press charges against her attacker decides later, maybe as a result of pressure from the abuser, that she does not want to testify, she could be charged with contempt of court and thrown in jail. Once she gets out, an arrest record will make it that much harder for her to be believed or even subsequently listened to because of her lack of follow-through the first time. It is not just the prosecutors that have a stereotype against battered women; judges have them as well. Some judges feel that proceedings where battered women come into the courtroom to get protective orders against their significant

Battered Woman Syndrome

others are trivial and not worth the taxpayers’ time. It is common for the judge to blame the victim for the incident in order to justify dismissing the charges against the abuser and sending him back into the home. The problem with sending the abuser back into the home is that researchers can predict with almost certainty that there will be extreme violence or retaliation from the abuser for the victim’s bold action of seeking legal recourse. Judges have also been known to threaten the abused wife with jail if she returns with a similar claim, or to admonish her to be an adult and handle it on her own. Such an admonishment had disastrous consequences when a judge scolded a woman who, after receiving an order of protection, asked for a police escort to remove her belongings from her home. The judge scolded her and her victim advocate, citing that this matter was trivial and that there were bigger cases out there that needed the taxpayer’s attention. Five months after the judge made that statement, the woman was found stabbed, beaten, and strangled in the city dump; killed by the husband from whom she tried so desperately to get away. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A LEGAL DEFENSE Given the historical lack of support from the legal system, it is no wonder that many women are reluctant to press charges. The shelters that are available are usually temporary measures that allow women to stay for a finite time before seeking alternative living arrangements. Additionally, the private nature of family life ensures that many women keep their victimization hidden from others. These situations leave some women feeling desperate and helpless and often push them to make difficult choices about how to end the abuse. Some women choose violence against their abuser. Lenore Walker has said that a battered woman who kills does not do so for malice, but rather because the woman can take no more beatings. After repeated losses to her self-worth, she perceives no other way out of her desperate situation. The statement a battered woman makes by stopping her attacker is “I’ve had it and realize that you can not or will not change. You can’t beat, hurt, or control me any more.” The use of battered woman syndrome as a defense in court is quite controversial. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as a greater awareness of domestic violence was occurring in the United States, lawyers began to explore the possibility of being a victim of battering as a defense for some women’s illegal actions. What has become known as the battered-woman defense is nothing more than a woman claiming self-defense in the context of her experience as a battered woman. This means that BWS helps to account for the woman’s actions and assists in providing a justification for her behaviors. It was first employed in domestic homicide cases, but has since been used in some assault cases as well. Opposition to the Battered-Woman Defense There are some negatives to using BWS as a legal defense. There are some who believe that the battered-woman defense is actually hurting the victim rather

| 53

54

|

Battered Woman Syndrome

than helping her by cutting off other avenues of defense, simply by resting all her hopes on this one defense. A big problem with BWS is it relies heavily on the victim being the stereotypical battered woman. This includes a woman who was either abused as a young child or witnessed abuse as a young child, thus making that part of her upbringing and leading her to look for a controlling person to fit that model as an intimate partner. Skeptics abound among persons who have never been abused, leading some to even suggest that women fabricate stories of abuse to terminate unsatisfactory relationships and avoid future punishment. To combat this stereotype lawyers attempt to get as much evidence and expert testimony in support of their clients’ claims of BWS as possible. Additionally, skeptics charge that the crime may not have been done in self-defense, but women have the advantage over men in having BWS as an option in defense. They suggest that the problem of men who are victims of domestic violence is hidden when BWS cases receive media attention. Research data does suggest, however, that more than 90 percent of spousal or partner assaults are committed by men. Among the criticism of the battered-woman defense is that BWS is a constellation of psychological symptoms that can not be diagnosed definitively. This leads to questions over its legitimacy. While BWS is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (the definitive guide for psychological illness) as a separate ailment, it is mentioned in conjunction with PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Some legal scholars have argued that the self-defense provision that already exists in the legal system should be enough to support these women’s cases, although others suggest that there is a gender bias in favor of males in the way that most self-defense statutes are worded. Support for the Battered-Woman Defense Many feminists believe that the self-defense law is male-biased, and leaves battered women out of the equation. Because a fair amount of abused women who kill their spouses kill them when they are not being harmed or threatened, some feminists believe that without introducing the battered-woman defense into the trial, the abused woman is almost certainly condemned to death. The law of self-defense itself, some argue, is a male biased law and doesn’t take into consideration the battered woman. The self-defense law states that a person has the right to defend themselves only if they are in imminent danger, and can only use deadly force when all other avenues of escape are exhausted. Ideally one has a witness that can corroborate the account, something battered women can virtually never produce. When an opponent outweighs a victim by 200 pounds, and she is seriously afraid of retaliation, it is no wonder that most women who kill their abusers do so in non-confrontational situations. A woman in jail awaiting trial for shooting and killing her husband while he was sitting down claimed that she was afraid that he would get up and beat her for causing a mess on the carpet. Such psychological abuse battered women suffer at the hands of their attacker is comparable to that of a prisoner of war. With this type of abuse, coming

Battered Woman Syndrome

at the woman from all angles, a woman could break at anytime, finding the window of opportunity when the abuser is docile. Even BWS researcher Lenore Walker says that not all abused women should have a right to kill their attackers. A battered woman, however, lives in fear and is always in danger of a future attack. It is important that the woman feel her life is in danger. Walker suggests that courts have to consider if it is a reasonable perception of danger from the viewpoint of the battered woman. Advocates for abused women suggest that the battered-woman defense, although not perfect, provides at least some footing for women in a legal system that has neither treated domestic violence as a serious problem nor responded to it appropriately. Police and courts have been inconsistent in their responses, although some courts permit civil law suits against police failure to protect. There is good evidence that while not all women who claim BWS in their defense are exonerated of their crimes, they can have charges and sentences reduced in recognition of the extreme circumstances. CONCLUSION There are many stereotypes about abused women, and how they will handle themselves in the courtroom. It’s the lack of support many battered women feel that leads them not to outside legal help, but to take matters into their own hands. Societal response to domestic violence has improved, but many more improvements are needed as even today there are fewer than 2000 domestic violence shelters in the United States. Those that are available might only have a few rooms in which to house victims and, less often, their children. There is a continuing need to examine self-defense law and to definitively determine if the advent of the battered-woman defense has helped or hurt the battered woman. There has been talk that BWS targets those women who were predisposed to familial violence, and therefore are easier to fit into the cycle in a neat package for a jury. As we all know, not everyone fits the same kind of mold. One could argue that being in an abusive relationship is like a long term self-defense law in action. Women try everything to get away from their attacker, whether it is police reports, orders of protection, or prosecution. When using BWS as a legal defense, the defendant must recognize and accept the idea of helplessness as the reason that they couldn’t get out of the situation without killing the abuser. This too causes problems because it places the blame on the abused for not getting out of the situation, rather than placing the blame on the legal system for not standing up for the battered woman or on the perpetrator of the abuse. Community views of battered women also follow the same injustices that await the woman in the courtroom. The community, more importantly the jury, brings stereotyped notions of abused women to their jury work. Some lawyers have indicated that the most important step in using the BWS as a legal defense is to carefully vet the jury to determine their receptivity to such claims. Unfortunately, the long tradition of domestic violence has meant that some in the community view these offenses as trivial, and not worthy of their time. There

| 55

56

|

Benefits of Marriage

are both positive and negative outcomes of using the battered-woman defense within a legal context. See also Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes; Domestic Violence Interventions; Mandatory Arrest Laws; Marital Power; Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence. Further Reading : Downs, Donald Alexander. More Than Victims: Battered Women, The Syndrome Society, and the Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996; Dutton, Donald G. Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2006; Gillespie, Cynthia K. Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense and the Law. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989; Maschke, Karen J. The Legal Response to Violence Against Women. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997; Ptacek, James. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999; Walker, Lenore E. A. The Battered Woman Syndrome, 2nd ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2000; Walker, Lenore E. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1989.

Njeri Kershaw BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE The climate surrounding marriage in contemporary America is one of great debate. Many feel that a so-called marriage war is taking place between those who say marriage is a fundamental, irreplaceable institution of American society and those who feel that it is just one of many possibilities for family formation, and not necessarily the best one. The former group sees the rising divorce, cohabitation, and unmarried parent rates in the United States as detrimental to individuals, family, and society as a whole. They stress marriage as a beneficial institution that can improve people’s lives in a variety of ways. The latter group is less concerned with the actual form of relationships and families than they are with the content of them (what the environment is like). Some with this viewpoint also say marriage can actually be harmful to those involved, especially women. Those holding the pro-marriage position cite copious amounts of research that concludes that marriage is beneficial to those involved, and that these benefits span many areas. They point to studies showing that married people are generally physically and mentally healthier, do better financially, and rear happier and healthier children than their unmarried counterparts. They support the marriage protection effects stance that claims that marriage is good for one’s health. Prominent voices for this argument include Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, James Dobson and the Family Research Council, and the Institute for American Values. Another strong force for this side of the debate is the current administration of the U.S. government under George W. Bush. With the opposing view is the pro-alternative relationships side. These individuals disagree with the notion that American society will crumble if the more traditional family structure is not upheld. In fact, they point to studies showing that, while marriage does appear to benefit men greatly, it does not have equal

Benefits of Marriage | 57

advantages for women. Moreover, some research has found that marriage can be harmful to women. This group also raises the argument that the financial and societal benefits afforded to married couples are discriminatory toward other couple and family types. They contend that the seemingly better lives of married people are not a direct result of the act of getting married but that those who marry are generally healthier, happier, and better off to start with. This is known as the marriage selection effects stance, which holds that healthy people are more likely to get and stay married. Some proponents of this perspective are Jessie Bernard, Susan Maushart, Delma Heyn, the Council on Contemporary Families, and Thomas Coleman with Unmarried America.

THE PROMARRIAGE ARGUMENT Physical Benefits Does getting married improve one’s health? This is a question that has been widely researched. Many positive correlations between tying the knot and good health have been found. One finding that marriage advocates point to is that married people have a longer life expectancy than unmarried people, and that they are less likely to die of all causes. Although true for women to a degree, the greatest health advantages are for men. This is often explained with one of two considerations. First, while living the bachelor life, men often take risks with themselves. Single men are more likely to have a poor diet, to drink to excess, to smoke, to speed, to have multiple sexual partners, and to engage in other behaviors that, while they may be pleasurable at the time, can have dire consequences for both the immediate and long-term futures of these men. But marriage seems to turn this around for a lot of males. Research has shown that as the wedding date approaches, men become more responsible with their behavior, and once the rice has been thrown, they settle into a much safer lifestyle. Researchers often accredit this change to a realization of responsibility on the part of the husbands and the realization that someone else now has a stake in their lives. Also contributing to this is the fact that married men often spend much more time at work than do unmarried men. A second factor of married life that helps husbands improve health is the involvement of their wives. Besides discouraging risky bachelor behaviors such as drinking and smoking, wives often take an active part in the maintenance of their husband’s health. As the majority of women have primary responsibility for planning and preparing the family’s meals, wives can impact the amount of fruits and vegetables their mates eat and they can cook overall healthier meals. Wives also may encourage their husbands to adopt better sleeping habits. Possibly the most influential things wives do for their spouses’ health is to “nag” them about seeing the doctor. They often take an active part in scheduling doctors’ visits and following up on doctors’ orders. Some even accompany their mates to appointments and many act as liaisons with medical bureaucracies. Although not as great as for men, marriage has been found to improve the physical health of married women over unmarried women. This is often

58

|

Benefits of Marriage

attributed to women’s improved financial resources and the availability of better insurance and healthcare that comes with access to their husband’s income. It has been found that men do not take as active a role in their wives’ physical health as their wives take in theirs. Psychological Benefits Pro-marriage individuals assert that not only are married people healthier, but they are happier too. Evidence shows that married men and women are less depressed, stressed, and prone to other psychological disorders than are their unmarried peers. One study found that married women reported a greater purpose and meaning in life and several other studies indicate that married men and women self-report higher levels of happiness. One theory behind these findings says that the support and understanding of a loving and intimate partner improves their spouses’ mental health. Acts of self-disclosure, developing deep trust, and cultivating a strong bond with a mate can all improve an individual’s peace of mind. Self-esteem and feelings of acceptance that come from such a relationship also enhance men and women’s psychological well-being. The better mental health of married people can also be attributed to societal factors. Although less so than in past eras, cohabitation, divorce, unwed pregnancies, and the choice to live life alone are still stigmatized in American society, while marriage is praised. The decrease in stress that comes with the acceptance of society for their chosen lifestyle can better a married couple’s outlook on life. Financial Benefits Although they don’t claim that getting married will necessarily make a person rich, marriage advocates do say that matrimony leads to firmer financial footing. These monetary rewards are reaped in a few different ways. One is the pooling of resources. Two people can often live as cheaply, if not more so, than one. Frequently, prior to marriage the man and woman are handling separate rent or mortgage payments, utility payments, grocery bills, and other costs of living with only one income. Once they take up a household together, the bills associated with the two separate lives are consolidated into one, generally with two incomes to support it. Another financial advantage comes from the government and employers to married people. For starters, the tax advantages are numerous. These include the option to file joint tax returns, the ability to divide business income among family members, and exemptions from estate and gift taxes for property transferred to a spouse. Men and women can also receive Social Security, Medicare, disability, veterans’, and military benefits for spouses. Employers tend to favor married employees as well. For instance, it is commonly recognized that married men earn a so-called marriage premium that places their salaries between 10 and 40 percent higher than single men doing the same work. A study in the mid-

Benefits of Marriage | 59

1990s by Robert Schoeni put the number at 30 percent. Besides this, marriage allows family rates on insurance and makes a husband or wife’s wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plans available to surviving spouses should the employee pass away. For women, who regularly earn less at work than men, most economic gains come from access to their husband’s earnings. This is especially true for those wives who cut back or choose not to work at all upon marriage or the birth of a child. Benefits for Children In addition to the myriad improvements marriage can make in a couple’s lives, marriage supporters also claim that wedding bells are good for children too. This group points to investigations that find two married parents in a home has a positive correlation with numerous measures of child wellbeing. Children of these families are said to have less physical and psychological ailments, better behavior, and less involvement in crime and promiscuity as youngsters and as adults. They are also said to go on to have better educational outcomes, higher occupational statuses, and more stable marriages themselves. A reason for this is that having two parents in the home has been found to give children more supervision, support, and help with school, and to improve the youths’ ability to form strong bonds with others because they first experience such a relationship with their parents and their parents’ marriage. Faith-based groups, such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and others of the promarriage opinion feel that providing children with anything but this type of environment is setting them up for failure in many areas of life. A point advocates make is that children are more likely to experience abuse in a home including a stepfather or mother’s boyfriend than they are in a home with their biological parents living together. Proponents of marriage will cite facts such as this when arguing that an unhappily married couple with children will do less harm to their offspring by staying together than by divorcing and possibly remarrying. Another point is that never-married or divorced mothers who do not remarry are likely to live below the poverty line. This socioeconomic status can have dire consequences for the educational, behavioral, and other outcomes of their sons and daughters. Overall the pro-marriage perspective says that a home headed by a married mother and father is the ideal environment that produces happy and healthy children. Marriage Protection Effects An idea that weaves together many of the aspects of the pro-marriage argument is the notion that marriage provides protection effects to husbands and wives. This presents marriage as an insulator to the outside world that bonds two people together who can provide companionship, intimacy, emotional fulfillment, and support to one another in a way that is not achieved by other

60

|

Benefits of Marriage

relationships. In sum, matrimony becomes a buffer against physical, mental, and emotional pathology for the man and the woman involved. MARRIAGE WARNING LABELS In the past decade and a half several states have proposed, and some have passed, legislation requiring the presence of a marriage warning label of sorts to all marriage applications. Among these states are Washington, Massachusetts, and South Dakota. The language of the warning on South Dakota’s application reads: The laws of this state affirm your right to enter into this marriage and at the same time to live within the marriage free from violence and abuse. Neither of you is the property of the other. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, battery, and assault of a spouse or other family member, as well as other provisions of the criminal laws of this state, are applicable to spouses and other family members and violations thereof are punishable by law. All the labels generally include a statement regarding neither partner owning the other upon marriage and against either partner physically abusing the other.

THE PROALTERNATIVE RELATIONSHIPS ARGUMENT The group that opposes many of the pro-marriage camp’s viewpoints can not accurately be described as “anti-marriage.” Although some may feel that marriage is an outdated institution that no longer serves a viable purpose in society, the majority is not against marriage as a rule. In general, these individuals desire society to embrace relationships and families in all the myriad forms they come in today; to accept that traditional ideas about marriage and family are no longer the norm, and to adapt to meet the needs of these types of relationships as they exist today. Therefore, a more correct label for those with opposing arguments is pro-alternative relationships. Unequal Benefits Alternatives advocates often accept research that shows the positive results marriage can bring to husbands. It is the wives, however, that they say are at risk. Originally proposed was the idea that a marriage is actually two separate relationships, a his and a hers, that are experienced very differently by the man and the woman involved. While the husband gets a companion who will take on the majority of housework and child rearing responsibilities, be a guardian over his health, and tend to basic relationship maintenance, the wife gets to be all these things to her husband without receiving equal reciprocity in these areas in return. They give as evidence for this the fact that women initiate divorce at much higher rates than do men and then remarry at much lower rates. Others say that marriage limits women’s opportunities, especially once children are added, because many put their careers on hold to take care of the family. In the United States, single women are often found to have higher educational

Benefits of Marriage | 61

attainment, a higher occupational status, and a higher median income than married women. Some also claim the marriage convention crushes women’s emerging identities as they assume the behavior society expects of one in the role of wife and mother. These expectations are born out of some major assumptions found in American marriage laws, which include the following: the husband is the head of the household, the husband is responsible for the economic support of his wife and children, and the wife is responsible for domestic services and child care. Some research has found that married women are more likely to be depressed than are unmarried women, and that they are up to twice as likely to be depressed than are married men, indicating that marriage has negative psychological and emotional effects for females. Others would agree with this standpoint and explain that women experience a gradual and subtle suppression of individuality after marriage, which is a contributing factor to their unhappiness. Others of this opinion would say that these findings also come from the added stress and burden of a disproportionate amount of family responsibilities assumed by the wife in comparison to her husband. In addition to psychological testing, some physical testing indicates that marriage can be disadvantageous to women’s health as well. Despite the generally accepted fact that a wife will likely outlive her husband by a number of years, married women experience more chronic conditions and seek more medical attention than do married men. Some proponents of this view would say that the only advantage women acquire from getting married is access to their husband’s financial resources. But this too, they often warn, can hurt many wives in the long run should the marriage end in divorce or the husband pass away. The loss of a mate by either method can be financially devastating for a woman, especially if she has children, and many women end up in poverty. One recent research study found that divorced women are five times more likely to be below the poverty line than other women. Although in contemporary America the majority of wives work outside the home, it is still commonplace for the husband to be the primary wage earner. The alternatives advocates argue that during marriage women may work only part-time or put their careers on hold altogether in order to take care of a family, or they may specialize in ways that leave them worse off if the marriage ends due to death or divorce. The alternatives advocates also point out that another strain on women following the dissolution of a marriage is the inadequate legal protection available to them under no-fault divorce. Another area of concern involving wives is that being married puts them at risk for violence perpetrated by their husbands. Domestic violence is a major area of concern for American society, with the majority of victims being women. In fact, women are much more likely to be abused or murdered by a male with whom they are intimately involved, including husbands, than they are by a stranger. It has been written that marriage as an institution is still structured in such a way as to encourage male dominance, and such dominance makes high rates of battering inevitable. Whatever the explanations behind it, some people warn that becoming a wife can be a very dangerous status for a woman to take on.

62

|

Benefits of Marriage

Marriage Rights are Discriminatory Another case made by those who favor the pro-alternative relationship perspective is that federal and state laws and employment policies that encourage marriage—cited as some of the institution’s benefits by pro-marriage advocates— are discriminatory to single adults, homosexual couples, and their children. This group resents the societal implication that married people are better, more productive citizens and better parents and are thus more deserving of legal and financial consideration than are unmarried people or those in alternative relationship styles. Entities like the American Association for Single People and individuals like Arlene Skolnick claim that it is not family composition but rather family dynamics and relationship environments that affect the lives and futures of family members, especially children. They point to poverty and inadequate income as major threats to children’s well-being and development, not having unwed parents or not living in a two-parent household. Therefore, denying single parents, homosexual couples, or individuals in other alternative relationship structures the same rights as married people is discriminatory and has no justifiable basis as a part of American society in the twenty-first century. Marriage Selection Effects In all the areas that advocates cite the positive influences of marriage protection effects (physical, psychological, financial, and child rearing), pro-alternative relationship advocates refer to evidence that the benefits are actually a result of marriage selection effects. It makes sense, they argue, that healthier, happier, more financially secure people, and those with better parenting skills, would be more likely to attract, wed, and keep a mate than their peers who do not posses attractive traits in these crucial areas. Members of the opposing perspective have even had to give some ground and admit that selection effects do likely contribute to some of the benefits they find to marriage. Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher write that some of the advantages married people have is undoubtedly due to selection, and the Center for Marriage and Families admits that selection effects exist, but claim they do not tell the whole story themselves. One criticism the alternative relationships group has of studies ruling out selection effects and boasting protection effects is that these studies are too often performed cross-sectionally as opposed to longitudinally. Due to this, the research often includes a disproportionate number of newly married couples that may initially report various gains from marriage because the so-called honeymoon phase is not over and they have yet to set the long-term patterns of their wedded partnering. THE DEBATE CONTINUES Although pro-marriage advocates are worried about its downfall, marriage remains an important institution in American society. Surveys find that most Americans plan to marry and count having a happy marriage among their crucial

Biological Privilege

life goals. Yet, a high number of marriages and remarriages eventually end in divorce, and the idealized traditional family form, if it ever really existed, has died a death from which it almost surely will not be resurrected. In its wake, many different relationship structures have emerged, reflecting the diversity that is present in so many other aspects of American culture. As change occurs, there are always some who want to halt it and others who want to further it, and it is no different for the issue of marriage. The pro-marriage versus pro-alternative relationships debate will likely continue into the unforeseeable future. The marriage war has dedicated soldiers on each side continuously seeking researched ammunition to help their cause. Whether common ground will ever be acknowledged and compromises reached, only time will tell. See also Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage; Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution; Marital Satisfaction. Further Reading: Baxter, Janeen, and Edith Gray. “For Richer or Poorer: Women, Men and Marriage.” http://lifecourse.anu.edu.au/publications/Discussion_papers/NLCDP012.pdf (accessed September 1, 2006); Burton, Russell P. D. “Global Integrative Meaning as a Mediating Factor in the Relationship Between Social Roles and Psychological Distress.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 39 (1998): 201–215; Jacobson, Neil, and John Gottman. When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998; Lamb, Kathleen A., Gary R. Lee, and Alfred DeMaris. “Union Formation and Depression: Selection and Relationship Effects.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65, no. 4 (2003): 953–962; Maushart, Susan. Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for Women. New York: Bloomsbury, 2001; Shehan, Constance L. Through the Eyes of a Child. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1999; Waite, Linda J., and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. New York: Broadway Books, 2000; Wilson, Chris M., and Andrew J. Oswald. How Does Marriage Affect Physical and Psychological Health? A Survey of the Longitudinal Evidence. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=735205 (accessed September 19, 2006).

Nicole D. Garrett BIOLOGICAL PRIVILEGE Biological privilege refers to the commonly held idea that children are inherently better off when raised by their biological parents. Many current social policies endorse this perspective, particularly those that are designed to maintain the family unit despite problems that may be present. Suggesting more restrictive divorce laws when children are present in the marriage is one indication of the sway of biological privilege. In those instances where families are divided it is the presumed closer biological link between mother and child that is privileged, resulting in the greater likelihood of mothers receiving primary custody, for example. However, there are voices and initiatives starting to question the extreme emphasis placed on biology. In some situations, it is not in the child’s best interests to remain with his or her biological parents, such as when the environment is highly abusive or drug use is present. Given the increasingly flexible way that

|

63

64

|

Biological Privilege

Americans define family, reflected in the notion of fictive kin, overemphasizing biology has become problematic. Areas in which questions of biological primacy have been raised include adoption, surrogacy, child custody, and foster care. Recently critics of biologically based social policies have highlighted their discriminatory nature, noticing that they privilege the relationships of heterosexual couples who can conceive and give birth. SOCIAL POLICY Social policies related to family life can be of two types, those that focus on social relationships and those that focus on biological relationships. A common phrase employed in favor of the former is what is in the “best interests of child,” regardless of whether that is with a blood relative or not, married or not. The emphasis on birth or biological ties is often couched in terms of what is most natural. Consequently, as a result of biological ties, the birth parent is defined as the one most suited to raise a child. In the United States today, most legal policies related to family place greater emphasis on biological ties. This suggests that birth ties are more powerful, as well as more appropriate, than other bonds and therefore they must be stronger. This legal emphasis on biology is clearly seen in child custody decisions where mothers are overwhelmingly the primary custodial parent. A woman would have to be proven particularly unfit to parent or had to have abandoned the child for the pattern to waiver. Part of this preference for mothers relates to the ways that motherhood has been viewed in the culture. VIEWS OF MOTHERHOOD Mothering is viewed in many instances as natural, universal, and unchanging as women’s biology sets them up for this expectation. The biological imperatives for women are to conceive, birth, and nurse the infant. Males can not biologically do these things, but can do all of the other tasks that have historically been defined as mothering. However, most persons are not comfortable with men in the caregiving role and insist that women are somehow biologically programmed to do these tasks, which they will enjoy more than will men, and will be better at when compared to men. Increasingly, motherhood researchers stress that mothering and what is considered good mothering is culturally determined. Our culture views the bond between mother and child as inviolable. However, our culture divides mothers into four different types. In order of cultural acceptability, these are married and financially secure women, single or lesbian women, welfare mothers, and then teen mothers. While every woman has a fundamental right to raise her own child, how acceptable this is depends on into which category she falls. Married, heterosexual women with sufficient resources are certainly seen as having the right, even the obligation, to raise their own children. When these financial resources are not available to the mother, however, the situation is often seen much differently. This is especially true with regard to teen mothers. In these circumstances, material well-being takes priority over the

Biological Privilege

connection between biological mother and child. The same is true under other conditions, such as addiction, mental illness, rape, or if the mother is not married. Thus, in such cases, a woman defined as a good mother would not choose to keep her child, but would place it for adoption instead. To raise the child on her own would likely be seen as selfishness on her part; a trait seen as unforgivable in a mother. Society is quick to ask where her maternal instinct is and if she wants the best for her child. These expectations for motherhood result in different attitudes toward behaviors when a mother, compared with a father, participates. For example, social stigma is much greater for a mother who abandons her child than for a father. Because the mother is presumed to be tied to the child through the biological pull to nurture him, witnesses ask how she could be so cruel as to cede her parental right. Likewise, when a mother voluntarily relinquishes custody of her child to a former spouse, she faces much more negative attentions than does a father who has relinquished custody to an ex-wife. CHILD CUSTODY Child custody decisions in the United States provide clear evidence of the privilege afforded to biological ties. Children are most frequently placed with the mother. In nearly 90 percent of divorce cases involving children, it is the mother who receives primary residential custody. This preference for the mother suggests that she is somehow better for the child. The link implies that her biological ties to the child are closer as a result of her birth experience and the presumption of strong maternal instincts. Additionally the concept of “tender years doctrine” supports the granting of custody to mothers. Again supporting the supposed closer biological tie between mothers and children than between fathers and children, the assumption is that when children are in their tender, formative years they benefit more from the nurturing that only their mother presumably can provide. She is therefore seen by the legal system as the superior parent for younger children. The second most likely person to be granted custody for a child is the biological father, followed by another relative by birth or marriage. This pattern of privileging biology has been particularly distressing for grandparents, who often do not have any contact with grandchildren if sole custody after divorce has been granted to the parent that is not their child. When attempting to gain visitation rights, the vast majority of these grandparents find their requests denied. On the agenda of many men’s organizations is a request for states to revisit child custody criteria to give fathers a greater chance to be granted primary custody of minor children. FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION Foster care is designed to provide a family-like environment for children who must be removed from their parents’ custody due to mistreatment. While claims of child abuse are being investigated, for example, children may be placed with

|

65

66

|

Biological Privilege

a temporary foster family. There must be reasonably strong evidence for a child to be removed from the home initially. While most people put the safety of the child above other concerns, there is the suggestion from the biological family preservation camp that social workers and children’s advocates find it easier to remove a child from the home than to find ways to support the family so that the child can stay. Therefore, they argue, more children are placed in state custody than should be, leading to a backlog of cases and an overcrowded foster care system. Social workers counter that their interests are with the child first, but ideally remaining in the home with the parents would be the outcome. The one consistent exception across all sides is in cases of severe abuse or neglect of the child. In these situations alone, the family preservationists argue, would it be in a child’s best interest to be removed from his or her parents and placed elsewhere. Once a child has been removed to foster care as a result of neglect or abuse, there are two schools of thought as to where he or she should be permanently placed. Family preservationists argue that, in all but the most severe cases, the child should not be removed from his family home at all; rather, intensive counseling with the family as a whole is called for. They purport that it is less stressful for the family if the children remain at home (NCCPR 2006), and any support provided through counseling is therefore likely to be much more effective. Others claim that this is potentially dangerous for the child. Because time spent in foster care is certain to have detrimental effects on a child’s happiness and wellbeing, the child should thus be placed for adoption as soon as it has become reasonably obvious that their present circumstances are unlikely to provide them with all they need in order to thrive and grow into productive, well adjusted adults. This should be done as soon as possible because children are not only more likely to be adopted at younger ages, but studies have shown that the earlier a child is placed in a stable and nurturing environment the better off they are. In response, Robinson (2000) has argued that in fact there are no circumstances which would ever call for a child to be placed for adoption and raised by someone genetically unrelated. Adoption out of the foster care system is not the only situation in which biology is at issue. In several cases, most notably the 1993 case in Michigan of Baby Jessica, the birth parents’ rights have been given more weight in adoption proceedings. At any point prior to an adoption becoming final birth parents can contest the adoption and will likely regain custody of the child they surrendered for adoption. Given that many times the adoptive parents are the only parents the child has ever known, favoring the role of psychological parent over biological parent may be in the best interest of the child. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE Arlene Skolnick has argued that a new biologism is emerging in which biological ties are given privilege over social ties, even when evidence to support social influences is present. This is of great concern to family professionals who focus on the role of persons in the family rather than their biological ties to one

Birth Control |

another. One of the primary limitations of privileging biology is that it limits the persons who are seen as appropriate to care for children and establish a loving, effective home life. As alternative family forms become more visible in the culture, through media presentation and individual awareness, it remains to be seen if public policy with lean more toward relationships and away from biology as the most important criteria for children’s care. Expanding definitions of family, including cohabitation and gay marriage, force policy makers to reconsider the utility of a strictly biological model of kinship. It will be interesting to see if wider knowledge of alternative family forms will challenge expectations of biological privilege in the laws and lives of individual Americans. See also Fictive Kin; Foster Care; International Adoption; Surrogacy; Transracial Adoption. Further Reading: Bartholet, Elizabeth. Nobody’s Children: Abuse, Neglect, Foster Drift, and the Adoption Alternative. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000; Hall, Beth, and Gail Steinberg. “Adoptism: A Definition.” Pact, an Adoption Alliance, http://www.pactadopt.org; Lowe, Heather. “What You Should Know If You’re Considering Adoption for Your Baby.” Concerned United Birthparents, http://www.cubirthparents.org; March, Karen, and Charlene E. Miall. “Reinforcing the Motherhood Ideal: Public Perceptions of Biological Mothers Who Make an Adoption Plan.” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 43 (2006): 367–386; Marshner, Connie. “Reform the Nation’s Foster Care System Now.” Family Research Council. http://www.frc.org; Mason, Mary Ann, Arlene Skolnick, and Stephen D. Sugarman. All Our Families: New Policies for a New Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998; National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “Foster Care vs. Keeping Families Together: The Definitive Study.” National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. http://www.nccpr.org; National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. “What is ‘Family Preservation’?” National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. http://www.nccpr.org; Robinson, Evelyn Burns. Adoption and Loss: The Hidden Grief. Christies Beach, Australia: Clova Publications, 2000; Smith, Susan. “Safeguarding the Rights and Well-being of Birthparents in the Adoption Process.” Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. http://www.adoptioninstitute.org.

Kimberly P. Brackett

BIRTH CONTROL Birth control is the control of fertility, or the prevention of pregnancy, through one of several methods. Another common name for birth control is contraception, because that is precisely what the various birth control methods do; they prevent the viable sperm and egg from uniting to form a fertilized embryo. Though discussing birth control is no longer likely to lead to an arrest, as in the days of birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger, public debates remain. Some debates address which methods of birth control are the most effective at attaining one’s reproductive goals, while others address whether insurance benefits should include the cost of birth control, the likely long- and short-term effects of their use, how to increase the use of birth control among sexually active young

67

68

|

Birth Control

people, and questions over why there are still so many more methods that focus on female fertility compared with those that focus on male fertility. INTRODUCTION Controlling fertility affects the well-being of women, men, children, families, and society by providing methods and strategies to prevent unplanned pregnancies. Planned fertility positively impacts the health of children, maternal longevity and the empowerment of women. Access to birth control provides women and men with choices regarding family size, timing between pregnancies, and spacing of children. Additionally, controlling fertility reduces the prevalence of chronic illness and maternal death from pregnancy-related conditions. Globally, approximately 210 million women become pregnant each year. Of these pregnancies, nearly 40 percent are unplanned. In the United States, 49 percent of pregnancies are estimated to be unplanned. Research shows that unintended pregnancies can have devastating impacts on not only women but also children and families. An unintended pregnancy places a woman at risk for depression, physical abuse, and the normal risks associated with pregnancy, including maternal death. Pregnancies that are spaced closely together present risks to children including low birth weight, increased likelihood of death in the first year, and decreased access to resources necessary for healthy development. Unintended pregnancies can have devastating impacts on the well-being of the family unit. An unplanned pregnancy often pushes families with limited economic resources into a cycle of poverty that further limits their opportunities for success. Although control of fertility spans approximately 30 years of the male and female reproductive life, preferences for birth control methods and strategies vary among individuals, across the life course, and are influenced by multiple social factors. These factors may include socioeconomic status, religious or moral beliefs, purpose for using birth control (permanent pregnancy prevention, delay of pregnancy, or spacing between births), availability of birth control products, access to medical care, willingness to use birth control consistently, concern over side effects, and variability in the failure rates of different types of birth control products. Although the primary purpose of birth control is to control fertility, increases in the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), have created pressures to develop new pregnancy prevention options that combine contraception and STI prevention. The availability of contraceptive options allows women and men the opportunity to maximize the benefits of birth control while minimizing the risks of contraceptive use according to their needs. The availability of birth control has raised important questions about reproductive control and the relationships between men and women. Traditionalists argue that pregnancy and childrearing are the natural or biologically-determined roles of women, given their capacity to become pregnant and give birth. Opponents of this view argue that reproduction and motherhood are one of many

Birth Control |

choices available to women. Providing options to women and men that allow them to control their fertility has shifted pregnancy and motherhood from a position of duty to one of choice. This shift is a consequence of changes to the work force, increased opportunities for women, and changes in the economic structure of contemporary families. These changes, along with ongoing developments in fertility control research, provide women and men today with many innovative choices concerning birth control. These choices allow women and men to tailor birth control to their individual needs and life circumstances. Today, birth control debates focus on the advantages and disadvantages of different birth control methods. The most common debates focus on the merits of temporary versus permanent methods of pregnancy prevention. Other debates examine the benefits of natural versus barrier methods of controlling reproduction. Still other debates examine the advantages and disadvantages of male and female contraception. With the growing pandemic of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and the increasing prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases that threaten world health, contemporary debates about birth control focus on the feasibility and practicality of combining STI prevention and contraception. BRIEF HISTORY OF CONTRACEPTION Although women have sought to control their fertility since ancient times, safe and effective contraception was not developed until this past century. The large influx of immigrants in the 1900s and the emergence of feminist groups working for women’s rights helped bring to the forefront large-scale birth control movements in the United States and abroad. Ancient forms of birth control included potions, magic charms, chants, and herbal recipes. Ancient recipes often featured leaves, hawthorn bark, ivy, willow, and poplar, believed to contain sterilizing agents. During the Middle Ages, potions containing lead, arsenic, or strychnine caused death to many women seeking to control their fertility. Additionally, crude barrier methods were used in which the genitals were covered with cedar gum or alum was applied to the uterus. Later, pessary mixtures of elephant dung, lime (mineral), and pomegranate seeds were inserted into a woman’s vagina to prevent pregnancy. Other barrier methods believed to prevent pregnancy included sicklewort leaves, wool tampons soaked in wine, and crudely fashioned vaginal sponges. Later birth control developments were based on more accurate information concerning conception. Condoms were developed in the early 1700s by the physician to King Charles II. By the early 1800s, a contraceptive sponge and a contraceptive syringe were available. By the mid-1800s, a number of more modern barrier methods to control conception were available to women. However, it was illegal to advertise these options and most were available only through physicians and only in cases that were clinically indicated. Thus, early modern conception was limited to health reasons. Modern contraceptive devices such as the condom, diaphragm, cervical cap and intrauterine device (IUD), developed in the twentieth century, and represented a marked advance in medical technology. Effectiveness was largely

69

70

|

Birth Control

dependent on user compliance. While these methods represented a significant improvement over more archaic methods, contraceptive safety remained an issue. Other modern methods included the insertion of various substances (some toxic) into the vagina, resulting in inflammation or irritation of the vaginal walls, while other devices often caused discomfort. The birth control pill, developed in the 1950s by biologist Dr. Charles Pincus, represented a major advance in fertility control. Pincus is credited with the discovery of the effects of combining estrogen and progesterone in an oral contraceptive that would prevent pregnancy. The development and mass-marketing of the birth control pill not only provided women with a way to control their fertility but also to control their lives. OVERVIEW OF TRADITIONAL CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS Traditional contraception includes both temporary and permanent methods of controlling fertility. Temporary contraception provides temporary or timelimited protection from becoming pregnant. Permanent contraception refers to surgical procedures that result in a lasting or permanent inability to become pregnant. The choice of contraception takes into consideration several biological and social factors, including age, lifestyle (frequency of sexual activity, monogamy or multiple partners), religious or moral beliefs, legal issues, family planning objectives, as well as medical history and concerns. These factors vary among individuals and across the life span. Traditional Contraceptive Methods Traditional contraceptive methods provide varying degrees of protection from becoming pregnant and protection from STIs. While some of these methods provide non-contraceptive benefits, they require consistent and appropriate use and are associated with varying degrees of risks. Traditional contraception includes both hormonal and non-hormonal methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. These methods provide protection as long as they are used correctly but their effects are temporary and reversible once discontinued. Traditional contraceptive methods include sexual abstinence, coitus interruptus, rhythm method, barrier methods, spermicides, male or female condoms, IUDs, and oral contraceptive pills. Sexual abstinence refers to the voluntary practice of refraining from all forms of sexual activity that could result in pregnancy or the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence is commonly referred to as the only form of birth control that is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs; however, failed abstinence results in unprotected sex which increases the risks of unintended pregnancy and transmission of STIs. Coitus interruptus is the oldest method of contraception and requires the man to withdraw his penis from the vagina just prior to ejaculation. Often referred to as a so-called natural method of birth control, coitus interruptus is highly unreliable because a small amount of seminal fluid, containing sperm, is secreted

Birth Control |

from the penis prior to ejaculation and can result in conception. This method offers no protection from sexually transmitted diseases. The rhythm method of birth control developed in response to research on the timing of ovulation. Research findings indicate that women ovulate approximately 14 days before the onset of their menstrual cycle. The rhythm method assumes that a woman is the most fertile during ovulation. To determine an individual cycle of ovulation, this method requires a woman to count backward 14 days from the first day of her menstrual period. During this time period, a woman should abstain from sexual activity or use another form of birth control (such as condoms) to avoid pregnancy. The rhythm method is another natural form of birth control that is highly risky. Few women ovulate at the exact same time from month to month, making accurate calculations of ovulation difficult. Additionally, sperm can live inside a woman for up to seven days, further complicating the calculations of safe periods for sex. Finally, the rhythm method does not provide protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Barrier methods of contraception prevent sperm from reaching the fallopian tubes and fertilizing an egg. Barrier methods include both male and female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, and vaginal sponges. With the exception of the male condom, these methods are exclusively used by women. Barrier contraception is most often used with a spermicide to increase effectiveness. Spermicides contain nonoxynol-9, a chemical that immobilizes sperm to prevent them from joining and fertilizing an egg. Barrier methods of contraception and spermicides provide moderate protection from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases although failure rates (incidence of pregnancy resulting from use) vary from 20 to 30 percent. Condoms, a popular and non-prescription form of barrier contraception available to both men and women, provides moderate protection from pregnancy and STIs. The male condom is a latex, polyurethane, or natural skin sheath that covers the erect penis and traps semen before it enters the vagina. The female condom is a soft, loosely fitting polyurethane tube-like sheath that lines the vagina during sex. Female condoms have a closed end with rings at each end. The ring at the closed end is inserted deep into the vagina over the cervix to secure the tube in place. Female condoms protect against pregnancy by trapping sperm in the sheath and preventing entry into the vagina. Used correctly, condoms are between 80 and 85 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. Risks that decrease the effectiveness of condoms include incorrect usage, slippage during sexual activity, and breakage. Natural skin condoms used by some males do not protect against the transmission of HIV and other STIs. The female diaphragm is a shallow, dome-shaped, flexible rubber disk that fits inside the vagina to cover the cervix. The diaphragm prevents sperm from entering the uterus. Diaphragms are used with spermicide to immobilize or kill sperm and to prevent fertilization of the female egg. Diaphragms may be left inside the vagina for up to 24 hours but a spermicide should be used with each intercourse encounter. To be fully effective, the diaphragm should be left in place for six hours after intercourse before removal. Approximately 80 to 95 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and the transmission of gonorrhea and

71

72

|

Birth Control

Chlamydia, the diaphragm does not protect against the transmission of herpes or HIV. Cervical caps are small, soft rubber, thimble-shaped caps that are fitted inside the woman’s cervix. Cervical caps prevent pregnancy by blocking the entrance of the uterus. Approximately 80 to 95 percent effective when used alone, effectiveness is increased when used with spermicides. Unlike the diaphragm, the cervical cap may be left in place for up to 48 hours. Similar to the diaphragm, the cervical cap provides protection against gonorrhea and chlamydia but does not provide protection against herpes or HIV. Vaginal sponges, removed from the market in 1995 due to concerns about possible contaminants, are round, donut-shaped polyurethane devices containing spermicides and a loop that hangs down in the vagina allowing for easy removal. Sponges prevent pregnancy by blocking the uterus and preventing fertilization of the egg. Vaginal sponges are approximately 70 to 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy but provide no protection against STIs. Risks include toxic shock syndrome if left inside the vagina for more than 24 hours. Barrier methods of birth control provide moderate protection from pregnancy and STIs but are not fail-safe. Effectiveness is dependent on consistency and proper use. Advantages include lower cost, availability without a prescription, and ease of use (with the exception of the diaphragm). Disadvantages include lowered effectiveness as compared to other forms of birth control and little or no protection against certain STIs. Non-Barrier Contraceptive Methods Two other traditional contraceptive methods are the IUD and oral contraceptive pills. Both of these methods are characterized by increased effectiveness if used properly. The IUD is a T-shaped device inserted into a woman’s vagina by a health professional. Inserted into the wall of the uterus, the IUD prevents pregnancy by changing the motility (movement) of the sperm and egg and by altering the lining of the uterus to prevent egg implantation. The effectiveness of IUDs in preventing pregnancy is approximately 98 percent, however, IUDs do not provide protection from STIs. Oral contraceptive pills are taken daily for 21 days each month. Oral contraceptives prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation, the monthly release of an egg. This form of contraception does not interfere with the monthly menstrual cycle. Many birth control pills combine progesterone and estrogen, however, newer oral contraceptives contain progesterone only. Taken regularly, oral contraceptives are approximately 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy but do not provide STI protection. NEW CONTRACEPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES In spite of the availability of a broad range of contraceptive methods, the effectiveness of traditional contraceptive methods is largely dependent on user consistency and proper use. Even with consistent and proper use, each method

Birth Control |

is associated with varying degrees of risk. Risks include the likelihood of pregnancy, side effects, and possible STI transmission. New developments in contraceptive technology focus on improvement of side effects and the development of contraceptives that do not require users to adhere to a daily regiment. These new technologies are designed to make use simpler and more suitable to users’ lives. Additionally, many of the new technologies seek to combine fertility control with protection from STIs. The vaginal contraceptive ring is inserted into a woman’s vagina for a period of three weeks and removed for one week. During the three week period, the ring releases small doses of progestin and estrogen, providing month-long contraception. The release of progestin and estrogen prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg and increases cervical mucus that helps to prevent sperm from entering the uterus. Fully effective after seven days, supplementary contraceptive methods should be used during the first week after insertion. Benefits include a high effectiveness rate, ease of use, shorter and lighter menstrual periods, and protection from ovarian cysts and from ovarian and uterine cancer. Disadvantages include spotting between menstrual periods for the first several months and no protection against STIs. Hormonal implants provide highly effective, long-term, but reversible, protection from pregnancy. Particularly suitable for users who find it difficult to consistently take daily contraceptives, hormonal implants deliver progesterone by using a rod system inserted underneath the skin. Closely related to implants are hormonal injections that are administered monthly. Both hormonal implants and injections are highly effective in preventing pregnancy but may cause breakthrough bleeding. Neither provides protection from STIs at this stage of development. Contraceptive patches deliver a combination of progestin and estrogen through an adhesive patch located on the upper arm, buttocks, lower abdomen or upper torso. Applied weekly for three weeks, followed by one week without, the contraceptive patch is highly effective in preventing pregnancy but does not protect against the transmission of STIs. The use of the patch is associated with withdrawal bleeding during the week that it is not worn. Compliance is reported to be higher than with oral contraceptive pills. Levonorgestrel intrauterine systems provide long-term birth control without sterilization by delivering small amounts of the progestin levonorgestrel directly to the lining of the uterus to prevent pregnancy. Delivered through a small T-shaped intrauterine plastic device implanted by a health professional, the levonorgestrel system provides protection from pregnancy for up to five years. It does not currently offer protection from STIs. New contraceptive technologies are designed to provide longer-term protection from pregnancy and to remove compliance obstacles that decrease effectiveness and increase the likelihood of unintended pregnancies. The availability of contraceptive options provides users with choices that assess not only fertility purposes but also variations in sexual activity. However, until new contraceptive technologies that combine pregnancy and STI prevention are readily available,

73

74

|

Birth Control

proper use of male and female condoms provides the most effective strategy for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. ABORTION Abortion, defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy, was legally established in 1973 with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113). The decision spawned disparate and strongly held opinions among the American public and the emergence of activist groups taking a variety of positions on abortion. The availability of elective abortion has called into question traditional beliefs about the relations between men and women, has raised vexing issues about the control of women’s bodies, and has intensified contentious debates about women’s roles and brought about changes in the division of labor, both in the family and in the broader occupational arena. Elective abortion has called into question long-standing beliefs about the moral nature of sexuality. Further, elective abortion has challenged the notion of sexual relations as privileged activities that are symbolic of commitments, responsibilities, and obligations between men and women. Elective abortion also brings to the fore the more personal issue of the meaning of pregnancy. Historically, the debate over abortion has been one of competing definitions of motherhood. Pro-life activists argue that family, and particularly motherhood, is the cornerstone of society. Pro-choice activists argue that reproductive choice is central to women controlling their lives. More contemporary debates focus on the ethical and moral nature of personhood and the rights of the fetus. In the last 30 years, these debates have become politicized, resulting in the passage of increasingly restrictive laws governing abortion, abortion doctors, and abortion clinics. Currently, South Dakota is the only state that has passed laws making abortions illegal except in cases in which the woman’s life is endangered. Other states are considering passage of similarly restrictive legislation. The consequences of unintended pregnancy are well documented and contribute to the need for the continued development of contraceptive options that will meet the needs and goals of diverse populations whose reproductive needs change throughout their life course. By definition abortion is not a type of contraception but is an option when contraceptive efforts did not prevent pregnancy.

PERMANENT CONTRACEPTION Permanent contraception refers to sterilization techniques that permanently prevent pregnancy. Frequently referred to as sterilization, permanent contraception prevents males from impregnating females and prevents females from becoming pregnant. Tubal ligation refers to surgery to tie a woman’s fallopian tubes, preventing the movement of eggs from the ovaries to the uterus. The procedure is considered permanent and involves the cauterization of the fallopian tubes. However, some women who later choose to become pregnant have successfully had the procedure reversed. The reversal of tubal ligation procedures are successful in 50 to 80 percent of cases.

Birth Control |

Hysterectomy refers to the complete removal of a woman’s uterus or the uterus and cervix, depending on the type of procedure performed, and results in permanent sterility. Hysterectomies may be performed through an incision in the abdominal wall, vaginally, or by using laparoscopic incisions on the abdomen. Vasectomy refers to a surgical procedure for males in which the vas deferens are tied off and cut apart to prevent sperm from moving out of the testes. The procedure results in permanent sterility although the procedure may be reversed under certain conditions. Permanent contraception is generally recommended only in cases in which there is no desire for children, family size is complete, or in cases where medical concerns necessitate permanent prevention of pregnancy. EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION Emergency contraception, commonly referred to as post coital contraception or the so-called morning after pill, encompasses a number of therapies designed to prevent pregnancy following unprotected sexual intercourse. Emergency contraception is also indicated when a condom slips or breaks, a diaphragm dislodges, two or more oral contraceptives are missed or the monthly regimen of birth control pills are begun two or more days late, a hormonal injection is two weeks overdue, or a woman has been raped. Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy by preventing the release of an egg from the ovary, by preventing fertilization, or by preventing attachment of an egg to the uterine wall. Most effective when used within 72 hours of unprotected sex, emergency contraception does not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterine wall. Emergency contraception does not induce an abortion or disrupt an existing pregnancy; it prevents a pregnancy from occurring following unprotected sexual intercourse. CONCLUSION Ideally, birth control should be a shared responsibility between a woman and her partner. In the U.S., approximately 1.6 million pregnancies each year are unplanned. Unplanned pregnancies position women, men, and families in a precarious situation that has social, economic, personal and health consequences. An unintended pregnancy leaves a woman and her partner facing pregnancy termination, adoption, or raising an unplanned child—often times under lessthan-ideal conditions. Contraceptive technologies and research developments in the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases represent increased opportunities for not only controlling fertility but also improving safe sex practices. See also Abortion; Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding; Changing Fertility Patterns; Only Child; Premarital Sexual Relationships; Teen Pregnancy; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading : Connell, Elizabeth B. The Contraception Sourcebook. New York: McGrawHill, 2002; Ginsberg, Faye, D. Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989; Luker, Kristen. Abortion and the

75

76

|

Birth Order Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984; Maxwell, Carol J. C. Pro-Life Activists in America: Meaning, Motivation, and Direct Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Weschler, Toni. Taking Charge of Your Fertility. New York: Harper Collins, 2006.

Jonelle Husain BIRTH ORDER One of the many things that can affect who we are and how we relate to the people in our family is birth order. Birth order refers to the numerical place of a person in the order of births in his or her family. Birth order is determined by the order in which a child is born into the family. For centuries people have supposed that the order in which a child is born into a family changes the way others relate to the child as well as how the child sees himself or herself. Though some evidence exists to suggest that siblings develop particular characteristics based on their status as the oldest, middle, or youngest child, questions remain about the predictability of these findings. Birth order remains a popular topic on most parenting websites and in most childrearing manuals. BACKGROUND One of the first modern psychologists to address the influence of birth order was Alfred Adler in the 1920s. He argued that birth order could leave an indelible impression on the individual’s style of life. Style of life is a habitual way of dealing with the tasks of friendship, love, and work. There are five basic positions and accompanying personalities associated with birth order: the first-born, the middle child, the later-born, the youngest, and the only child. Adler thought that birth order played a significant role in people’s lives. Psychologists have continued to be interested in birth order studies, even incorporating the ideas into clinical practice with clients. Where a child places in the birth order can have an effect on how he sees himself, as well as how others view him. Research on birth order, sometimes referred to as ordinal position, shows that first-born children are more likely to go to college than children in any other position in the family. The middle child often seems to have the most negative impressions of her lot in life. Younger children always want to be able to do the things that older siblings are allowed to do, while older siblings may feel that the younger children get away with all the things that they were not able to when they were the same age. Data suggest that these may be more than just casual coincidences and sibling observances. Each birth order personality is distinct. In very large families the behaviors associated with different ordinal positions repeat first- through fourth-born. Exceptions do occur so that personality may not match birth order position in the family, but trends can be observed. Psychologists suggest that birth order personality is established by the age of two for most children. The most plausible explanation for the influence of birth order is that its effects result from coping with life situations, and not from programming by parents, that differ signifi-

Birth Order | 77

cantly from one child to the next. Birth order personality affects every area of life and includes strengths and weaknesses. FIRSTBORN CHILDREN The life of a first-born child is characterized by the existence of a period of being an only child, by a transition phase as siblings are born, by the fact of being the oldest sibling, and by a lack of having any older siblings. Anything a first-born child does is a big deal because it is a first for their family. Family and friends usually shower the first-born with attention until the second child comes along, when this behavior may be curtailed somewhat. As a result of this attention, many first-born children develop a great deal of confidence in their abilities and worth. More first-borns are perfectionists and are often described as conscientious and responsible. It is true that parents often rely on the first-born when a task needs to be done. One of the characteristics of first-born children is their desire to always be right. The competition for attention drives most first-borns’ desire for success in their education and occupation. They tend to advance farther in their education and to stay in school longer. This birth position generally has higher incomes and IQs than later-born children. First-born children are more likely to join social organizations and generally try to avoid conflict. Because first-borns are favored by their parents and achieve more in their professional lives, they are often considered the most fortunate birth position. However, depression and anxiety patterns tend to be higher in first-borns than in their siblings. Their moods range from highly sensitive to extremely serious. More than half of the U.S. presidents have been first-born children, including Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. More than 50 percent of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies are first-born, and more Nobel Prize winners have been first-born than any other birth order ranking. Other well-known first-born children include: Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey and J. K. Rowling. MIDDLEBORN CHILDREN The middle-child position is considered the most difficult of all birth positions. Being stuck in the middle can make that child very competitive as they try to keep up with the accomplishments of the oldest child and garner some of the attention usually reserved for their younger sibling; the so-called baby of the family. The addition of any sibling results in significant changes in the family’s environment and interaction. Middle children are thought to struggle with finding their place in the family, and sometimes feel as if they are invisible. This is known as middle child syndrome. They also have a diverse range of personalities. Birth order theorists suggest that the middle child tends to be more excitable, demanding, attention getting, and undependable than the older and younger siblings are. Middle children are the least likely position to attend college or to attain high academic degrees. They are, however, reported to be the

78

|

Birth Order

most monogamous birth position and are motivated to make their marriages and families work successfully. Middle-born children are thought to be the least likely group to procrastinate. Middle-born children are likely to look outside of the family for significant relationships, forming close associations within peer groups that can be especially influential during adolescence. Parents, who themselves have stereotyped expectations of what their children will be like, may have fewer expectations for who the middle child will become, leaving her the freedom to create her own place in the family. Because middle children often see themselves as underdogs compared to their older sibling, they are more likely to develop a genuine interest in others and demonstrate more empathy for those who are less fortunate. Like other children who are born later, parents are less strict on the children after the oldest. While middle-born children receive less of their parents’ attention than the oldest child, like other later-born children they may enjoy the benefits of being born when the family is well-established, has more money, resides in a larger house, or has worked out some of the challenges of being in a young family. Some famous second-born children include: George Washington, Cindy Crawford, Donald Trump, Madonna, and Barbara Walters. YOUNGEST CHILDREN The youngest child is sometimes referred to as the baby of the family and has been stereotyped as the spoiled child. Youngest children tend to be charming, people-oriented, tenacious, affectionate, and attention seeking. By the time the youngest child is born, parents tend to be more relaxed and less strict. So it is true that they allow the youngest to get away with more than the older siblings. Unlike their first-born siblings, youngest children tend to lack concern for academic achievement and struggle to excel further in school. They tend to be viewed as more popular and accepted by their peers than are their older siblings. The youngest child is the so-called party animal and entertainer, who is not afraid to test his or her luck with parents and others in authority. They are more likely than their older siblings to take risks and be adventurous. This is reflected in their higher high school drop-out rates. If teased, the youngest may become irritable, extremely aggressive, and prone to escalate to violence more quickly than her older siblings. While not true of all youngest children, proponents of birth order theory state that the youngest in a family is an endearing and delightful friend. Among the famous rule-breaking youngest children was Copernicus, who in 1530 said that the earth revolves around the sun. His theory was in direct opposition to the popular thinking at that time, so much so that those who followed his work were punished for supporting his ideas. Another well-know rebel youngest child was Harriet Tubman. Thanks to her father’s training as a scout, at the age of 30 she escaped slavery by traveling alone and navigating via the North Star. Her underground railroad was responsible for ferrying numerous escaping slaves to safety in the northern United States.

Birth Order | 79

Many actors, entertainers, and comedians are the youngest children in their families. Some famous “babies” include: Mark Twain, Drew Carey, Jim Carrey, Stephen Colbert, Eddie Murphy, and Whoopi Goldberg. BIRTH ORDER DEBATE From the examples of each birth position mentioned above, one’s place in the family does seem to have an influence on the type of person one becomes and the type of activities that one pursues. While Alfred Adler was among the first to recognize and consider birth order as a significant factor in personality, Walter Toman is a more recent theorist of birth order. His book, Family Constellation, discusses 11 birth positions instead of four. Many therapists and psychologists have been interested in birth order studies because of the idea that different familial positions are subject to different experiences and pressures, brought by both the family and society as a whole. There are many studies involving birth order that indicate no significant results, but theories abound about a connection between birth order and many other facets of life including achievement, interpersonal relations, self-esteem, risk-taking, conformity, and so forth. While the effects of birth order are generally small, it is important to keep in mind that families themselves are smaller today than in the past. As a consequence of smaller family size, the effects of birth order may be less robust. With the tendency of most American families to have two children, the effects of birth order may be mediated. It also seems to be the case that total family income mediates the effects, with children from wealthy families demonstrating less influences related to birth order than do children from low-income families. There are some aspects of ordinal position that are well documented. More recent examinations of birth order suggest that changes in parenting from one child to the next have the greatest effect on the differing birth order personalities. One of the aspects of parenting that is noticeably different from the first child to subsequent children is discipline. It seems that parents want to set the example with the oldest child by punishing him more harshly. The oldest bears the brunt of the parental strictness, while the younger siblings generally coast on through. Perhaps parents are just practicing on the first child, or perhaps they get tired of the following through with the discipline. This tendency of parents to be stricter with the first-born is reflected in the finding that first-born children are typically more rule-abiding and responsible than their later-born siblings. They are less likely to drop out of school and less likely to experience a premarital pregnancy than is the youngest in a family. One study found that those first-born children who dropped out of school were 20 percent less likely than their younger siblings in the same situation to be getting most of their income from their parents. Among daughters who were pregnant as teens, first-born girls were 30 percent less likely to be getting money from their parents than were later birth order girls. While it may seem that all of the parenting directed at first-born children is strict, there are benefits to being the oldest in the family. Leman (1998) indicates

80

|

Birth Order

that first-born children get more time with and attention from their parents than do later-born children. At the same ages, oldest children get 30 percent more time with their parents. This adds up to at least three thousand more hours, indicating that the difference in attention continues even after subsequent children are born. There may not yet be enough hard evidence to support that birth order really does matter in one’s future outcomes. Dalton Conley, sociologist at New York University, suggests that birth order is of most significance in very large families (four siblings or more) which constitute only a small percentage of American families today. Anecdotally, parents often indicate that their children follow the patterns predicted by their birth order. Perhaps some of this is due to their expectations for their children and the roles that they encourage them to play. Some of the debate may come from the belief that most people have about their uniqueness and desire to be seen as individuals, not positions. Thus, more importance is given to personal choices rather than predetermined factors attached to one’s hierarchy of birth in a family. CONCLUSION Birth order personalities are formed early in life as each child has to solve particular problems by using a set of coping skills at her disposal. Psychologists suggest that first-born children come to feel unloved initially following the birth of a younger sibling because there is a perceived redirection of mother’s love from them to the new baby. The child mentally trades love for attention in the forms of respect, admiration, and approval. The second-born child must cope with the oldest child taking away attention by outperforming him or her. The child feels inadequate and tries to overcome the feeling by choosing perfectionism in some area of life. The second born feels that nobody cares about how she feels; the oldest child clearly does not care. Consequently, in an attempt to avoid emotional pain, the middle child tries to suppress her own feelings. The third-born, often the youngest child, must cope with the second-born picking on him to pass on the feelings of inadequacy. The persecution by the middle child makes the youngest feel vulnerable, as if anyone can get to him anytime they want. The youngest decides to cope by being strong. The thirdborn child who succeeds at being strong becomes fearless; the child who fails becomes fearful. While birth order does not predict the future, it can help to explain why people are drawn down certain paths. Because the dynamics of the family differ at the time of each child’s birth, the personalities each develops and the opportunities available to each will necessarily differ. See also Only Child; Parenting Styles; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Adams, Leslie. “The Effects of Birth Order on Procrastination.” Missouri Western State University. http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/14. asp; Guastello, Denise D., and Stephen J. Guastello. “Birth Category Effects on the Gordon Personal Profile Variables.” Reyson Group. http://www.jasnh.com/a1.htm;

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

|

81

Leman, Kevin. The New Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell Books, 1998; Putter, Philip. “The Effects of Birth Order on Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescence.” Perspectives in Psychology (2003): 9–18. http://bespin. stwing.upenn.edu/~upsych/Perspectives/2003/Putter.pdf; Schilling, Renee M. “The Effects of Birth Order on Interpersonal Relationships.” McKendree University. http://fac ulty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2001/Schilling.htm; Sulloway, Frank J. Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Vintage Books, 1997; Toman, Walter. Family Constellation: It’s Effects on Personality and Social Behavior. New York: Springer Publishing Group, 1992.

Britten Allison Brooks BREASTFEEDING OR FORMULA FEEDING Every so often, news stories circulate in the media about women who breastfeed in public. A breastfeeding woman is escorted off a plane, another is asked to leave a restaurant, a woman in a shopping mall is asked to nurse her infant in the public bathroom. These stories raise many questions. Why is breastfeeding widely unaccepted in American culture? Why don’t the women just give the infant a bottle? Why is it such a big deal? Not all of these questions can be addressed in this entry, but the advantages and disadvantages of bottle feeding and breastfeeding will be discussed, along with areas that will need to be addressed as this debate continues. It’s important to note that the debate about breastfeeding is multifaceted—part of it deals with health issues and the medical field, part of it deals with formula companies and marketing techniques, and other parts of it deal with aspects of social support. The issue of breastfeeding is quite complicated, but it’s useful to begin with an overview of current recommendations regarding infant feeding. EXPRESSING BREAST MILK AND TERMINOLOGY It is important to recognize that many women use a breast-pump to express breast milk. Many women combine work and breastfeeding in this way, and it also allows the father to be more involved in the feeding of young infants. However, expressing milk is also challenging—it requires time to pump, careful cleaning of the components, and attention to storage details. Additionally, pumps can be quite expensive. Because pumping milk and then giving breast milk in a bottle is common, it is important to distinguish between bottle feeding and formula feeding. Bottle feeding can be used to refer to either breast milk or formula, but formula feeding refers only to feeding an infant formula.

BREASTFEEDING IN THE UNITED STATES The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among other organizations, recommend that infants are breastfed. The current recommendation is to include only breast milk in a baby’s diet for the first six months and to begin offering supplements such as baby cereal at six

82

|

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

months. Breast milk should remain in the baby’s diet for at least a year, and it is beneficial to continue to breastfeed as long as it is mutually desired by both the mother and the infant. These recommendations are based on an abundance of literature about the health benefits of breastfeeding. Breastfed babies tend to have fewer ear infections, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer cases of diarrhea than formulafed infants. Human milk is designed specifically for humans, and therefore it contains the nutritional properties that babies need and that babies can digest. Breastfeeding may also offer some protection against sudden infant death syndrome, diabetes, and obesity. In addition to the benefits for infants, breastfeeding can also be beneficial for the mother. It seems to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and osteoporosis. While those are somewhat long-term advantages, there are also short-term health benefits for women. Breastfeeding helps the uterus contract after giving birth, and it generally seems to help women lose more of their pregnancy weight faster because of the calories expended to create the milk. Another important health aspect to breastfeeding is the psychological bond that is developed between the mother and the infant. Breastfeeding is recommended for all of the above reasons, but few women in the United States are breastfeeding as suggested. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 74 percent of women in the U.S. will breastfeed during the early postpartum period. Approximately 42 percent are breastfeeding at six months, and 21 percent are breastfeeding at a year. When looking at rates of exclusive breastfeeding, the rates drop to only about 30 percent at three months and 12 percent at six months. Exclusive breastfeeding refers to not offering the baby any supplemental foods or liquids, however one limitation of research in this area is that the term “exclusive” is often not well defined. Breastfeeding rates also vary by mother’s age, educational attainment, race, income level, and the mother’s geographic location within the United States. Women are more likely to breastfeed if they are older when the child is born; women under age 20 are the least likely to breastfeed whereas women over age 30 are the most likely. As far as educational attainment, women who have a high school degree are the least likely to breastfeed while women who have graduated from college are the most likely to do so. Asian women are the most likely to breastfeed, and African American women are the least likely to do so. Women in lower income brackets are less likely to breastfeed than wealthier women. Lastly, when geographic location is taken into consideration, women in rural areas are less likely to breastfeed than those in more suburban areas. Additionally, women in the south-central United States have the lowest rates of breastfeeding (CDC 2007). CHALLENGES OF BREASTFEEDING There are many reasons why women stop breastfeeding before it is recommended to do so, and reasons for stopping vary with the infant’s age. Accord-

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

ing to the Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System, when women stop breastfeeding within the baby’s first week, 34 percent of women experienced sore, cracked, or bleeding nipples, and 48 percent cited the baby having difficulty nursing as a reason for stopping. When women stopped nursing the baby between one and four weeks old, the most common response was because they weren’t producing enough milk. Lastly, when women stopped nursing after the baby was four weeks old, the most common response was because the baby wasn’t satisfied with breast milk. In addition to sore nipples and difficulties with the baby getting enough milk, many women stop breastfeeding because of work or school responsibilities. Another difficulty women have with breastfeeding is the limitations it places on them as far as what they can eat and drink. Everything that is in a mother’s system could be passed on to the infant through the breast milk, so mothers must be careful about what they consume. Some say that breastfed babies will eat a wider variety of food because they were exposed to more flavors through the mother’s breast milk, but this situation can also cause a great deal of stress for a mother. Babies can have allergies to things in the mother’s diet, such as dairy, and sometimes foods such as broccoli cause an infant to have painful gas. Some women will go on elimination diets and keep food diaries while they are breastfeeding to try to find the source of the infant’s discomfort. In addition to everyday foods such as green vegetables and dairy, women are restricted in the amount of caffeine they should consume and the amount of alcohol they can drink. Breastfeeding mothers can drink alcohol, but it is recommended that they drink one drink for every two hours the baby won’t nurse. If a baby won’t nurse again for four hours, it is generally considered safe for the mother to drink two alcoholic beverages. These limits placed on a mother’s consumption can frustrate some women and can be seen as a disadvantage to breastfeeding. Another important aspect to consider when looking at breastfeeding rates in the United States is the acceptability of breastfeeding in public. According to the Healthstyles 2000 national mail survey, 31 percent of respondents felt that one-year-old children should not be breastfed, and 27 percent felt it was embarrassing for a mother to breastfeed in front of others. More negative attitudes toward breastfeeding were held by people with lower household incomes and less education, and by those who were non-white and who were under 30 years old or over 65 years old (Li 2002). Many women do not feel comfortable nursing in public because of other people’s reactions and will instead go to public restrooms, to their cars, carefully time trips out, or give the baby a bottle when they are in public. Women who nurse older children in public are even more likely to experience a feeling of inappropriateness based on other’s looks, comments, or body posture, and women have said that their experiences nursing in public have lessened the enjoyment of breastfeeding. Overall, breastfeeding is the recommended way to feed an infant because of its numerous health benefits. However, many variables, such as mother’s age, race, and income level influence the decision to breastfeed. Many women stop breastfeeding because of sore or cracked nipples, milk supply concerns, and

|

83

84

|

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

returning to work, and restrictive diets and nursing in public also complicate the breastfeeding experience. Formula Feeding While some women breastfeed successfully, and others turn to formula feeding after breastfeeding fails, others choose to formula feed from the beginning. Before looking at the disadvantages and advantages of bottle feeding, it is important to recognize that the sources of breast milk and formula are fundamentally different. Part of this breastfeeding or bottle feeding debate focuses on the fact that formula companies are inclined to sell a product and that their primary goal is to make money. Some claim that for every dollar charged for formula, only 16 cents is used to cover the costs of production. Another concern with the business side of formula is that free gifts are often given to obstetricians, birthing units in hospitals, and pediatrician offices. Having these free samples makes it easier for women to supplement with formula in the very beginning, which reduces rates for both the exclusivity and duration of breastfeeding. REGULATING FORMULA COMPANIES The Infant Formula Act was created as an amendment to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1980. It named infant formula as a separate category of food and was the first in a series of major legislative and regulatory steps taken to ensure the safety of infant formulas. The act requires that infant formulas meet specified standards of quality and safety. Another interesting aspect of regulation is that formula companies are required to state that breast milk is the optimal source of nutrition for infants on their products. Source: Food and Drug Administration. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/inf-toc.html.

Advantages of Bottle Feeding Despite the official recommendations regarding and the health benefits of breastfeeding, there are also advantages to bottle feeding an infant. Newborn babies usually need to breastfeed every two hours, and this can be overwhelming for mothers. Formula is digested more slowly by infants, and therefore feedings can be spaced farther apart than with breastfed infants. Additionally, bottle feeding offers the possibility of someone else giving the baby a bottle, allowing the mother to rest. Some couples are concerned about the father’s role in a breastfeeding relationship and worry that he might be excluded from bonding with the child. If a father wants to be an active caregiver, bottle feeding offers one avenue for such action and can give the mother some respite at the same time. Another benefit of bottle feeding is that caregivers can know exactly how much an infant is receiving. Many women experience anxiety about whether or not their baby is receiving enough breast milk because there is not an exact way to know at every feeding. Many lactation consultants will help women with

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

this by inviting them to nurse while at an office visit. The baby is weighed before nursing and again after, and this can give an estimate to how much milk the baby received. However, there is concern that some mothers may mistakenly believe that the baby is receiving enough milk when in fact the baby is not. This is a serious concern because infants become dehydrated very quickly and their ability to thrive is negatively impacted. Thus bottle feeding can help mothers with this anxiety and can allow caregivers certainty in knowing the baby is receiving enough. In addition to women who want to bottle feed, some women are advised against breastfeeding. For instance, women who are taking some medications should not breastfeed because amounts of the medication are transferred to the baby through the breast milk. Likewise, women who use drugs or drink a lot of alcohol should not breastfeed. In the United States, it is recommended that women who are HIV positive not breastfeed because the virus could be transmitted through the breast milk. Additionally, studies have shown that women who have received breast implants often have more difficulty with breastfeeding and with levels of milk production. Disadvantages of Bottle Feeding There are also some disadvantages to bottle feeding. Regardless of whether breast milk or formula is used, careful attention must be given to how it is stored and the cleaning of equipment and bottles. There are strict guidelines as to how long prepared bottles can be stored in the refrigerator or kept at room temperature. If bottles are being heated, this too, must be done carefully to ensure the liquid does not become too hot. Sanitizing bottles and equipment can be time consuming but must be done thoroughly to ensure the quality of the baby’s food. Summary Overall, then, there are advantages and disadvantages to bottle feeding. Disadvantages include not offering the infant the health benefits of breastfeeding, or if breast milk is being expressed, the time and effort required to do so can be seen as a disadvantage. Formula can be quite expensive (several hundred dollars a month) whereas breast milk is free, and if the baby is nursed at the breast, no cleaning or sterilization of bottles is necessary. Advantages of bottle feeding include being able to involve other caregivers, especially fathers. Each woman will ultimately need to decide what is best for her and her family in each situation, but there are additional structural factors that need to be addressed as the breast or formula feeding debate continues. Structural Factors It seems that while there is stigma associated with breastfeeding in public, there is also stigma associated with formula feeding. The messages promoting

|

85

86

|

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

breastfeeding as the optimal way of feeding an infant are quite widespread, and many people today are aware that breastfeeding is medically recommended. Many women feel that being a good mother is synonymous with breastfeeding, and when they encounter difficulty with breastfeeding and turn to formula, they feel guilty that they were not able to give their baby the “best.” It is important to keep in mind that almost every mother wants what is best for her child, and that formula feeding is sometimes necessary. Another issue relevant to the debate about breast or bottle feeding is the extent to which people are knowledgeable and comfortable talking about breasts and breastfeeding. Often children learn things from their parents, even as adult children. When a woman first has a child, it is not uncommon for one of the grandmothers to come and stay with the new mom. This serves several functions—being there to help the mom during the recovery period after childbirth, as well as to teach the new mom about caring for a baby. An issue here is that many women did not breastfeed because the previously accepted message was that formula feeding was better than breastfeeding. Thus, there is a gap in knowledge and because it is missing, it can’t be passed on to the next generation. In addition, breasts are highly sexualized in American culture, and because of this, many women might be uncomfortable talking with other women or men about breastfeeding. Both of these factors lead to the idea that breastfeeding is something that must be figured out without much social support, and this could lead to more frustration with the situation. A third issue worth discussing is the work-family combination that many women face. In the United States, the Family and Medical Leave Act allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave after a child is born. While some companies might offer some paid time off, overall, women feel pressured to re-enter the workforce quickly because they can’t afford the loss of income. It is possible to combine work and breastfeeding through pumping, but not every workplace will offer women a quiet and private place to express her milk. Onsite childcare could also help with combining work and family in that the mother could take breaks to go and feed the baby. This, too, is left up to workplaces to develop and trying to combine breastfeeding and work is stressful for many women. All three of these issues point to important policy recommendations if breastfeeding is to be promoted. For one, perhaps a more nuanced view of exclusive breastfeeding is called for. Many women give up completely because they are experiencing difficulties or because they have to return to work. However, wouldn’t even including some breast milk in the baby’s diet be beneficial? This might allow the baby to get at least some of the health benefits, and it would also allow the mother a little bit of a break and space for the father to become more involved. Additionally, something must be done to open up the discussion of breastfeeding beyond lactation consultants and small groups of female friends. Socially, it must become acceptable to breastfeed in public and to have conversations about breastfeeding. These changes might happen slowly, with each of us doing our part to promote a breastfeeding-friendly environment. Lastly, we should examine how family-friendly some of our policies are and see if changes should be made. Offering paid time off would greatly influence many women’s

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

lives, and more on-site childcare programs might support an increase in breastfeeding duration. CONCLUSION Many people tend to think of breastfeeding as a very personal decision, and there are many influences on a mother’s decision. Ultimately, each woman must decide what she feels is best for her and her family in their situation, but many things, both individual and societal, influence that decision. See also Birth Control; Cosleeping; Midwifery and Medicalization; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Ahluwalia, I., B. Morrow, and J. Hsia. “Why Do Women Stop Breastfeeding? Findings From the Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System.” Pediatrics 116, no. 6 (2005): 1408–1412. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/116/6/1408 (accessed April 2007); American Academy of Pediatrics. “Children’s Health Topics: Breastfeeding.” http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/breastfeeding.cfm; Baumslag, N., and D. Michels. Milk, Money, and Madness: The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 1995; Blum, L. At the Breast: Ideologies of Breastfeeding and Motherhood in the Contemporary United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Breastfeeding Practices—Results from the National Immunization Survey.” http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/NIS_data/data_ 2004.htm (accessed November 2007); Hausman, Bernice. Mother’s Milk: Breastfeeding Controversies in American Culture. New York: Routledge, 2003; Homeier, Barbara P., “Breastfeeding vs. Formula Feeding,” Kids Health, 2005. http://www.kidshealth.org/par ent/food/infants/breast_bottle_feeding.html; Kellymom. “Pumping & Bottle Feeding.” http://www.kellymom.com/bf/pumping/index.html; La Lache League International. http://www.llli.org/; Li, R., F. Fridinger, and L. Grummer-Strwn. “Public Perceptions on Breastfeeding Constraints.” Journal of Human Lactation 18, no. 3 (2002): 227–235; Sears, W., and M. Sears. The Breastfeeding Book. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2002; Simpson, Kathleen. “Formula Companies and their ‘Free’ Gifts.” http://www.breastfeed ingonline.com/free.shtml (accessed November 2007); Stearns, Cindy A. “Breastfeeding and the Good Maternal Body.” Gender and Society 13, no. 3 (1999): 308–325; World Health Organization. “Breastfeeding.” http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/.

Jeanne Holcomb

|

87

This page intentionally left blank

C CHANGING FERTILITY PATTERNS Patterns of family life are not just the result of choices that individuals make, but they reflect changes and trends on a societal level. During the past century two family fertility patterns have had significant impacts on social life. They are the baby boom and the birth dearth. As the names suggest, the baby boom was an unexpected increase in birth rates and birth dearth was a greater than anticipated decrease in birth rates. While the effects of the baby boom generation (sometimes referred to as boomers) have been occurring for some time, the consequences of and for the birth dearth generation (occasionally referred to as the baby bust) are still being examined. There are debates about which cohort will ultimately have the greatest effects on United States population patterns. THE BABY BOOM In twentieth-century America fertility hit an all time high during the years 1946 to 1964, when approximately 75 million babies were born. In fact, this period was an anomaly in a century-long decline in fertility rates. Persons born during this time period make up the baby boom. This time in America focused on the birth and development of children, how they were reared and the way that they continued to progress in the rest of their lives. Thus, familism, placing a high value on family, was a hallmark of this generation. In 1955, near the peak of the baby boom, the birthrate was 25 births per one thousand people. Though this cohort was born after World War II, the war is considered a critical historical event impacting their lives. When the War started, many women whose husbands were called to military service had to take charge and become

89

90

|

Changing Fertility Patterns

the head of the household. They entered the work force to do their patriotic duty, some even raising children alone while their husbands were overseas. As a result of the flurry of weddings at the start of the war, many newlywed women had to make the best of their situations as not only wives whose husbands were unavailable, but some as soon-to-be mothers. The war was a difficult time for the whole country, with shortages of some key products, such as gasoline, having an effect on how people lived their lives. Following World War II, birth rates rose sharply. Some of this rise has been linked to a desire for a more peaceful, simple lifestyle following the sacrifices of war. Other factors included readily available jobs and government benefits. Fueled by a strong economy, young men and women married early and could afford to start families. It was reasonable for a high school graduate to get a high-paying manufacturing job right out of school because of the demand for products that had been unavailable during the war time economy. Coupled with the strong economic prospects, a number of government initiatives were aimed at creating normalcy, with its reliance on family as its cornerstone, in postwar America. Not only were most veterans eligible for educational benefits under the GI Bill, but federal housing loans, low interest rate mortgages, and increased income tax credits for dependent children fed young families’ dreams of a harmonious home life. The post–World War II era also ushered in the planned subdivision development, the bastion of family living. The idea behind this type of housing was a family-friendly location that could provide more space for the larger families. Though some were reasonably priced, low interest Veteran’s Administration loans for former GIs certainly helped families acquire these new properties. Additionally, when men returned from military service, they moved back into the jobs they had held prior to their military duty. Because many women had held those jobs while the men were away, they were displaced by the men’s return and many women found themselves back home. With this move home, there was social pressure on women to have children. Some of this pressure was generated by the government, by Hollywood, and by the women themselves. Content analyses of popular women’ magazines at the time revel that a primary cultural goal was family, particularly traditional motherhood. However, women increasingly expected the men to help in rearing the children, just as women had helped maintain the economy while the men were away fighting the war. The Baby Boom Family Marriage was more important for women in the 1940s and 1950s than it has become today. Most conservative pundits consider the 1950s the “golden age” of family life and suggest America would be better off if more families today looked and acted like families in the baby boom era. At the time, most young people wanted and expected to marry. Likewise, early marriage was expected. The average age at first marriage for females marrying in the 1950s and 1960s was 20; for males it was 22.5 years of age. These couples would marry young and become part of the “American Dream” that included several children in a family operating under a traditional gender role model. Males were the breadwinners,

Changing Fertility Patterns

away from the home working to earn a living while women stayed home as housewives. Given the low reliability of birth control (the birth control pill was not available until 1960), families also tended to be larger than families today, with the majority having more than 2 children. While this pattern characterized much of middle class white America at the time, it was not a universal experience. Women, who seemed to have everything such as children, homes, and marriages, were sometimes unhappy with this arrangement and their discontent would sow the seeds for the Modern Women’s Movement. This conflict between utopia and reality pushed family to center stage. Families were supposed to be the dream that everyone wanted and the unhappiness and disharmony that some families faced was not supposed to be occurring. Families struggled with the issues of child rearing and who held the power in the family. Betty Friedan discussed these issues in her classic work The Feminine Mystique. Childhood for the Baby Boom The childhood experience of the baby boom generation was different than the experiences of children today. The children were often expected to contribute work to whatever the family did for a living. In the Depression of the 1930s many children had worked in the fields with their families. When these children became parents they wanted their children to go to school and receive an education. The psychological effect of growing up during the Great Depression has been linked to the increase in nurturing parenting styles and a greater desire to experience normative family life. After the school day, children were expected to help their family in whatever way that the family needed. They were to do their chores and their homework. At this time many families had radios in their homes and the children were likely allowed to listen to the radio before they went to bed. In the 1950s some families had television sets and the children were allowed to watch some shows during the day and after the chores were completed. The television shows that were popular during this time were Queen for a Day, Dragnet, Leave It to Beaver, Father Knows Best, and Man against Crime. Given that so many children were born in such a short time period, and parents were in favor of their children receiving a good education to prepare them for a good career, it became a top priority and necessity for America to build more schools. Elementary schools were full of students during the 1950s and 1960s. Children were taught the basic subjects such as reading writing, and arithmetic. As the baby boomers aged they continued to be a challenge for society because there were so many of them. When they left the overcrowded elementary schools, they moved on to crowded junior and senior high schools. Adolescence for the Baby Boom The baby boomers entered adolescence in the 1960s. During this time the United States experienced difficult times dealing with social and cultural changes

| 91

92

|

Changing Fertility Patterns

such as the Vietnam War, the Modern Women’s Movement, and the Civil Rights struggle. Many of these changes helped define the baby boomers. One of the major events was the Civil Rights struggle. As a result of institutionalized segregation, blacks were not allowed to use the same restaurants, schools, or bathrooms as whites. African Americans wanted to be treated as the equals of whites; after all, they had fought as bravely as whites in World War II and many had died for America. They also wanted permission for their children to attend the same schools as white children, thereby receiving the same opportunities for success. Boomer children were exposed to freedom marches, violent protests, Martin Luther King, Jr., and police responses through the medium of television. However, in contrast to the events that were occurring in the larger society, television during this time was fixated on the stereotypical family shows such as Leave it to Beaver and Lassie. As Hollywood tried to show Americans how families were supposed to be and encouraged shared family values and morals, families that did not fit the stereotype were left to assume they had somehow failed at providing a perfect family life. Another major event affecting the generation of baby boomers was the death of President John F. Kennedy. Boomers recall this event in different ways. Most were shocked about what happened and others watched in disbelief. With the death of the president many boomers began to wonder what kind of world they were living in and to question their own safety. The turbulence of the 1960s and the wide range of social changes that occurred paved the way for a questioning of ideology and the status quo. This resulted in young people having a lot of influence in the culture. The large numbers of teenagers meant that there was a market for products and entertainment directed specifically at them. Enter rock and roll music and the Beatles. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, and Elvis Presley all proved challenging for parents as young people’s interests began to diverge significantly from those of their parents. Drug experimentation was more widespread during this period as an attempt to remove oneself from what was happening in the world. The classic activity of American courtship, the date, was also prominent during this time period. With male adolescents getting jobs in the strong economy, many had money to spend on leisure. They had greater access to automobiles than had previous generations and they found many more activities geared toward daters. Drive-in movies, concerts, local soda shops, and community activities all served the function of getting young people involved in relationships that would hopefully lead to marriage and a continuation of the American Dream. While the activities in which young people participated were fairly scripted along gender lines, there was more freedom in partner selection and opportunities for social interaction. This carried over into the high schools. There the boomers were able to continue to develop close friendships and participate in acceptable activities. Organized by gender, boys were able to participate in football and basketball and many girls were cheerleaders. As was the case with their earlier schooling, the numbers of young people reaching high school age simultaneously meant that

Changing Fertility Patterns

schools were often crowded and communities had to build new schools rapidly to account for the large population. After high school many boomers went straight into the workforce. The economy was strong, particularly for the oldest boomers, and they could earn money to make a solid middle class living through factory and skilled labor positions. Trade school and college were also viable options for a number of boomers, many of whose fathers had attended universities under the provisions of the GI Bill. Just as had been the case when they began elementary school, the large number of people in this birth cohort necessitated an increase in the number of colleges and universities, and class sizes also increased. Adult Baby Boomers As the majority of boomers moved into adulthood, they pushed for a new type of society. The social movements for peace, women, and racial equality ushered in more job and educational opportunities for a wider cross-section of the population. Women, in particular, began to push for equal rights. They wanted to earn the same wages as their male counterparts for the same work and to be treated fairly. The traditional model that mothers of the baby boom cohort experienced, where men received the better jobs while women were supposed to take the less important occupations, was unsatisfactory for baby boom women. All of the talk about equality in the larger society resulted in similar discussions about equality in family life. Many men decided that they wanted more from life than just work. Some had seen their fathers only rarely due to the long hours often needed to maintain a family with only one earner; others may have been involved with a fledgling men’s movement that encouraged men to devote themselves to caring for their children in more ways than just financially. Even the women’s movement and the feminist rhetoric encouraged men to take a more active role in the lives of their children. Although many mothers still continued to be stay-at-home mothers and homemakers, employment was a more viable option. For those women who did work, their options for what to do with their preschool-age children during the workday brought forth the issue of day care. People began to use facilities that specialized in childcare. Recognizing that providing their children with the best care possible would help women feel more comfortable with the decision to work, the National Organization for Women included a strong statement about the need for quality child care in its Bill of Rights. These changing patterns would influence the Birth Dearth. THE BIRTH DEARTH Changes in society that began in the 1960s and picked up steam in the 1970s and 1980s began to influence family size and there was a noticeable decline in the numbers of births. This lower-than-anticipated birth rate is known as the birth dearth or baby bust. As more women were choosing to attend college and move into careers, marrying young was no longer seen as the ideal, nor were

| 93

94

|

Changing Fertility Patterns

families with large numbers of children highly desirable. The total fertility rate, or the number of births that a woman is likely to experience over her reproductive lifetime, fell from a high of 3.8 in 1957 to 1.7 in 1976. Like with the prior baby boom, this precipitous decline in births was not anticipated. Reasons for the Birth Dearth Demographers have suggested several reasons for the drastic decline in and continued low numbers of births in the United States. One important change came from more women in the workforce. Resulting from the political strides of the women’s movement, attitudes regarding the place of women in society and the family were changing. More women were attending graduate and professional schools. Additionally, these educated women were moving into new career fields that went beyond the traditionally female occupations of nursing and teaching. As newcomers to the professions, many women sensed that they would not be taken seriously as professionals if their family life was to impinge upon their work responsibilities. This contributed to a greater likelihood of postponing marriage until a later age, although postponement was not as large a contributor to changing fertility patterns then as it is today. Unlike in previous generations where women who worked outside the home were usually single, it was married women who increasingly moved into the labor force in the 1970s. Because fewer women were choosing to be stay-at-home mothers, families were generally smaller. Fertility and sexuality options were enhanced in the post baby boom era. Abortion has been hypothesized as playing a role in the lowered fertility rate. In 1973 the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade dealt with a woman’s legal right to choose a safe abortion. This increased acceptability and access to abortion helped some women end an unplanned pregnancy and permitted a greater level of control over motherhood. Contraception options were also increasing during this time, with the birth control pill being introduced in 1960 which made it possible for women to participate in sexual encounters with less threat of an unintended pregnancy. Other contraceptive methods were enhanced and perfected, and better manufacturing techniques meant that condoms and diaphragms were more reliable. There was also an increase in sterilization as vasectomy and tubal ligation procedures received more attention. These options gave couples more direct control over parenthood timing and family size. As cohabitation, or living together in a marriage-like relationship without being legally married, became more of an option, it had impacts on fertility. Couples that are not married, but just living together, may decide not to bring children into the relationship because they fear that the relationship may not be permanent. There is another social trend regarding permanency that should be considered: divorce. At the time that birth rates were declining, divorce rates were increasing. Because marriages were of shorter duration, families were smaller. The late 1960s through the 1980s witnessed a slowing of the economy in the United States. When economic times are hard, couples may carefully consider

Changing Fertility Patterns

the financial costs of having additional children. Today, few Americans live on farms where the labor of children can enhance the productive capabilities of the family and where large numbers of children are assets. Children are liabilities today because they do not contribute appreciably to the family economy until well into their teenage years, and the modern standards of childhood push families to acquire many additional goods and services directed solely at the children. Finally, due to enhanced medical technology, the infant mortality rate has declined. Even compared with the baby boom generation, the likelihood that an infant will survive the first year of life has increased. THE EFFECTS OF FLUCTUATIONS IN FERTILITY Both the baby boom and birth dearth have had effects on American social life, although which will ultimately have the greatest influence remains to be seen. The baby boom changed the social landscape because of the sheer numbers within the age cohort. Everywhere they have gone, at each life stage, there have been too many of them. From a dramatic need to increase educational facilities when they started school to the projections regarding the bankrupting of Social Security when they retire, there is little doubt that their influence has been high. For example, one of the reasons that the 1960s were so turbulent may be linked to the age of the baby boom cohort at that time. Historians Bidwell and Vander Mey suggest that there is a correlation between high numbers of young adults in a society and high degrees of social change. Young adults are old enough to be aware of the economic and social injustices that exist in the world and perhaps translate their knowledge into social action. Older persons often have more preoccupations with issues directly influencing their daily lives, such as work and family obligations, which prevent activist activities. The baby boomers make up approximately one-fourth of the current United States population. Most of the baby boomers are now in their middle-age years and the first boomers will reach age 65 in the year 2011. This occurrence will have a huge impact on the Social Security program. Social Security payments are funded by taxes collected from employers and employees. This money represents a percentage of one’s earnings and is based in the idea that the people who are currently working can help to support those who are not working. The expectation is that population increases will mean that there will always be workers whose taxes can pay for the support of the older generation. Social Security is a major source of income for approximately 80 percent of the elderly persons in the U.S. and serves as the only source of income for about one-half of the nation’s retirees. As the number of retirees expecting to receive payments increases as the boomers retire, the baby bust generation will still be in the work place; there will be fewer people paying into the system yet payments will be made to a greater number of people than now. Some agencies, such as the Government Accountability Office, and many economists predict that there will not be enough funds to go around, leading them to wonder where the money to pay basic benefits will come from. Medicare will also face pressures from the baby

| 95

96

|

Changing Fertility Patterns

boomers’ retirement. Medicare is a program that helps older people who do not have enough insurance or money to pay for their medical costs. With medical costs increasing by double-digit percentages each year, any increase in the number of beneficiaries will strap the system. Thus, persons who are still in the employment sector will likely see an increase in the payroll taxes that support medical benefits. Boomers themselves wonder if there will be any money left for them when they reach their golden years. They have paid taxes into the programs during the years that they worked and want to count on the program to help them when they need it most. With life expectancy increasing over time, and currently being higher than at any other prior time, people realize that they are going to need some help with medial treatments and medications in the future. This has prompted the introduction of individual retirement investments and options such as individual retirement accounts (IRAs and Roth IRAs) and medical savings accounts. Boomers have been prominent in shaping the social agenda for many years and currently hold many of the most important positions in the economy and government. The past two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, are both baby boomers, as are many people in Congress. As these and other folks retire, there are concerns that there will not be enough highly trained workers to take their places. The birth dearth is affecting, and will continue to affect, America as well. Sociologists have been discussing the changing patterns of social life through the phrase “the graying of the United States.” This is a reference to the increasing average age of the population. Rather than being a youth-centered society, we are a middle-age-centered society. As the boomers retire, we will be an older-age centered society, with already powerful lobbying groups such as the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) continuing to influence social and governmental policy. The need for increased medical intervention, daily elder care, and financial support for the elderly will impact the lives of the baby bust cohort. Many will find that as their aging parents live longer, they will have the responsibility of caring for their parents as well as for their own children, many of whom are living at home for longer periods than in the past. These birth dearth children will do double-duty caregiving. The birth dearth is currently affecting America in a shortage of skilled workers. Unemployment rates have remained fairly low in recent years and many work places have to rely on one person to do the work of two or three people. The decline in population has meant that corporate America has sought other solutions to an undersupply of workers, including outsourcing and overseas expansion. Americans are realizing the great effect that the birth dearth has had on our economy. More families today follow the precedent established during the birth dearth and decide to only have only one or two children or to remain childless. Among the issues that demographers consider concerning changing fertility patterns is zero population growth, and replacement level. Zero population growth refers to the situation where the number of births and deaths are

Changing Fertility Patterns

approximately equal, so that the total change in population in the society is negligible. Replacement level indicates what the total childbearing rate would need to be to fully replace the population as older persons die. The generally accepted replacement level is a total fertility rate of 2.1. In 2004 the total fertility rate was 1.9, or below the rate needed for population replacement. In principle, then, the United States population as a whole should be declining. However, the numbers of immigrants to the U.S. in any given year are enough to increase the total size of the U.S. population. The current birthrate, on the other hand, is not leading to an increase in population. Following the period of declining fertility known as the baby bust, there was a slight increase in the birth rate in the early 1990s. Researchers were immediately intrigued. Was another baby boom about to happen? The consensus at the present time is no. This birth rate increase, dubbed the so-called baby boomlet or baby echo, resulted from the fact that there were so many persons in the baby boom generation. When even a small number of these women had children or had more than the expected number of children, it over-inflated the birth rates. Perhaps this increase was due to an upturn in the economy, but the total fertility rate has hovered just below replacement level since the 1970s. According to the experts, it is not likely to change much in the coming years. CONCLUSIONS Choices that persons make regarding child bearing are often driven by factors outside of the couple. As World War II ended and the U.S. experienced a pronounced period of economic stability, having a large family seemed affordable. In today’s economic climate, partners may be less likely to opt for large families due to the cost of items in the desired lifestyle. The baby boom and birth dearth cohorts represent adaptations to the larger social world in which persons find themselves. The final influences of these very different fertility patterns have yet to occur, but one must include both of them when exploring the current population characteristics and influences on American social life. See also Abortion; Birth Control; Elder Care; Grandparenthood; Grandparents as Caregivers; Only Child. Further Reading: Bidwell, Lee D. Millar, and Brenda J. Vander Mey. Sociology of the Family: Investigating Family Issues. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000; Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books, 1992; Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America’s Changing Families. New York: Basic Books, 1997; Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1963; Gross, Michael. The More Things Change: Why the Baby Boom Won’t Fade Away. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 2000; Harris, Leslie M. After Fifty: How the Baby Boom will Redefine the Mature Market. Ithaca, NY: Paramount Market Publishing, Inc., 2003; Harris, Fred R. The Baby Bust: Who Will Do the Work? Who Will Pay the Taxes? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005; Smith, J. Walker, and Ann Clurman. Generation Ageless: How Baby Boomers are Changing the Way We Live Today . . . And They’re Just Getting Started. New York: HarperCollins, 2007; Wattenberg, Ben J. The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People

| 97

98

|

Child Abuse in Free Countries Don’t Have Enough Babies. New York: Ballantine Books, 1987; Weiss, Jessica. To Have and To Hold: Marriage, the Baby Boom and Social Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Jessica Sexton

CHILD ABUSE Child abuse is generally defined in two ways. One is the nonaccidental injury to a child that requires medical attention. These are acts of commission. The second part of the definition is neglect, acts of omission where parents and other adults fail to meet the basic needs of the child. Nearly all experts concur that neglect is far more likely than other forms of abuse. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that in 2004 there were approximately 872,000 victims of child abuse and neglect; 1500 of whom died as a result of the abuse. Sixty-two percent of the total victims experienced neglect, 18 percent were physically abused, sexual abuse harmed 10 percent, 7 percent were psychologically mistreated, and medical neglect accounted for 2 percent. As with any abuse situation, the child abuse may be physical, psychological, emotional, sexual, or some combination. Clearly these are broad categorizations for what constitutes the complex phenomenon of abuse and this has made the whole domain of child abuse controversial. The societal expectation that parents are nearly exclusively in charge of the care and rearing of their children, has meant that interventions into the private family setting have only been likely when abuse is very serious and can be documented. The controversies surrounding child abuse are grounded in the question, “Does the child stay in the home or get removed from the home?” Society has made it known that abuse of a child is horrific. The problem is in how to stop the abuse with a solution that will best benefit the child. Specifically the concern is over whether a child should be completely removed from the home or whether attempts should be made to maintain the family unit. When considering the solutions to child abuse, among the primary controversies are questions about exactly what constitutes abuse, particularly with regard to physical discipline, and how do other forms of domestic violence complicate the scene. CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE The causes of child abuse are many and not all are found in all cases. Child abuse is mainly perpetrated by an adult who wields physical and emotional control over a child. Many factors can relate to someone’s risk to abuse children. Some of the factors at work in child abuse are cultural, social, and personal. In very early studies of child abuse, the assumptions were that abusers must be mentally ill. While that is an easy supposition, the evidence suggests that only around 10 percent of abusers have psychoses or severe personality disorders. Reliance on mental illness as an explanation has hindered a more complete understanding of child abuse. This has lead recent researchers, such as Richard

Child Abuse |

Gelles, to broaden the discussion to include other factors that might make one prone to abuse a child. Personal psychological factors in parents can play a significant role in the risk of abuse. However, these factors usually relate to the stressors that parents might experience. Stress can arise from many sources, not the least of which is the task of parenting itself. It is a permanent status that at times can seem overwhelming, particularly for persons with inadequate support networks. Some children with special needs require additional care that heightens caregiving stress. Not all babies are equally easy-going and those that seem more prone to crying can lead parents to question their skills. Stress is increased when one is a single parent, has lower income or is unemployed, is ill, or experiences conflict with a romantic partner. Furthermore, environmental stressors such as the family ideal, work, finances, and even health issues can cause a large amount of stress. The use of alcohol or drugs reduces inhibitions and heightens the abusers’ awareness of personal insecurities. Both alcohol and drugs can, through aggravating stress and impairing judgment, cause an abuser to verbally or physically attack a child for some perceived wrong. If an individual is a victim of prior abuse, he or she is more likely to become an abuser, too, although the individual is not destined to be abusive. Estimates are that 30 percent of abused children will grow up to be abusers, in contrast to 3 percent of persons who were not abused. Low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy have also been linked to a greater tendency to abuse when compared with persons with higher levels of self-esteem. After prolonged exposure to negative opinions, an individual may become violent as a way of venting the built-up pressure and anxiety caused by low self-esteem. Abuse is also used as a method to gain control over a child. A person who has a poor self-concept, low self-esteem, or has been a victim of prior abuse has a stronger need for control and power because it is the ability to gain power and control that validates the abuser. This cyclical pattern is difficult to break. Often parents have very little preparation for the tasks of parenting, have unrealistic expectations about what it entails, and have little understanding of how children can be expected to behave at various stages of development. While the images of babies in most parenting magazines show a smiling, cooing cherubic face, they don’t show the child crying with a runny nose, messy diaper, or other distasteful daily occurrences of child rearing. Abuse may occur as an attempt to gain conformity from unruly children. For whatever reason, studies suggest that abusive parents tend to be much more demanding than nonabusive parents. Society’s focus on the ideal family creates stress when an individual realizes that he or she is not living up to society’s standard of the modern family, be it by not making enough income, not living in the right neighborhood, or having to have a two income household in order to get by. Also, pressure from a boss at work may cause tension that adds to the build-up of stress. These stressors may create a volatile home life where abuse is the outlet for a massive release of pent-up stresses. And unfortunately, children are likely to be the targets for the abusive release. This inclusion of economic status in the likelihood of abuse is important. A number of studies suggest that child abuse is more likely in families from low

99

100

|

Child Abuse

socioeconomic backgrounds, although they differ on the reasons for why this is so. One explanation posits that it only appears that the rates are higher in poor families because they seek treatment in settings, such as public hospitals, in which the suspicion of abuse is likely to be reported. Wealthy families may seek care from a private physician who may be more reluctant to label a suspicious injury as abuse. So, wealthier families may be better able to hide abuse. Another explanation for the link between poverty and abuse is the stress that accompanies poverty. Additionally, low-income parents have less education, inadequate support systems, higher rates of substance abuse, and are more likely to be young. Compounded, these risk factors make being a lower-class child a potentially harmful position. Low-income parents tend to be single parents. The risk of neglect among low income children is an astounding 44 times higher than among middle- and upper-income children. Contrary to the stereotype of women’s constant nurturing, evidence indicates that in cases of child abuse women are as likely as men to be the perpetrators. The majority of low-income families are mother-only families. Some of these women are no doubt forced into the mothering role by a lack of well-paying or fulfilling employment, as well as by unplanned pregnancies. Unwanted children are an added mental and economic burden, making them prone to abuse.

CHILD ABUSE ADVOCACY GROUPS Child abuse prevention and advocacy websites have proliferated in recent years. Some are the websites of well established nonprofit organizations and others are solely cyberspace creations. Nearly all encourage visitors to the site to donate money to help the cause of education and advocacy. Because child abuse is an issue that commands attention and garners sympathy, particularly from those who identify with the child, it is a cause that persons are likely to donate toward. The so-called innocence of childhood is a strong cultural image and it is easy to sell abuse as violating that innocence. This model of innocence is used as a contrast for data on abuse. Some particularly useful websites and organizations devoted to child welfare include www.childhelp.org and www.cwla.org. Childhelp is a large nonprofit organization that uses celebrity ambassadors, product partnerships, and media outlets to spread the word about child abuse. Their hotline 1–800–4-A-Child is a well publicized reporting mechanism. The Child Welfare League of America is the oldest and largest child abuse information and prevention organization in the country. In contrast to these long-standing organizations (Childhelp was founded in 1959; the Child Welfare League in 1920), www.childabuse.com is purely an online venture and promotes prevention through education and awareness.

CONSEQUENCES OF CHILD ABUSE Because the causes of abuse are many, it follows that the consequences of abuse are just as numerous. While statistics can not tell the whole story of the

Child Abuse |

consequences of child abuse, they can give insight into the frequency and severity of the problem. However, statistics about child abuse have to be viewed with caution. Given the unacceptability of harming a child, parents are often inaccurate in their reporting of such behaviors, fearing legal reprisal and social condemnation. A lot of the statistics, then, come from the reports of teachers, physicians, social workers, and others who must make assumptions about the origin of injuries. There are nearly three million reports of child abuse made each year, suggesting that awareness of the issue is resulting in some action. However, estimates are that the actual rates of child abuse are at least three times what are reported. According to Childhelp, one of the largest and oldest nonprofit organizations dedicated to the issue of child abuse, children between birth and age three are the most likely group to experience abuse. They are victimized at a rate of 16.4 per 1,000 children, compared with a rate of 12.3 per 1000 children for all children under age 18. This means that for every 1000 infants and toddlers, more than 16 of them will be abused. Around four children die everyday from abuse or neglect and 79 percent of these juvenile homicide victims are children younger than four years old. Consequences also encompass the likely future outcomes for the victims of abuse. According to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there can be many long-term consequences for children who are abused. Among them is a 25 percent greater likelihood of teen pregnancy, abused teens being three times less likely than nonabused teens to practice safe sex, increasing their risks of STDs and AIDS. Abused children are nearly 30 percent more likely to abuse their own children. Victimization through child abuse is also correlated with more contact with the criminal justice system. Children who experience child abuse and neglect are 59 percent more likely to be arrested as juveniles, 28 percent more likely to be arrested as adults, and 30 percent more likely to commit violent crime than are nonabused persons. Data indicate that among the prison population, 36.7 percent of female inmates were abused as children, while 14.4 percent of male inmates were. Psychological and psychiatric outcomes also are linked with child abuse. Eighty percent of young adults who had been abused met the diagnostic criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder at the age of 21. Common disorders among this group included depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Sexual abuse compounds these issues. Children who are victims of sexual abuse are 2.5 times more likely to abuse alcohol and 3.8 times more likely to become addicted to drugs than their nonabused peers. In fact, nearly two-thirds of those persons in drug abuse treatment programs report having been abused as children. CONTROVERSIES Controversies have surfaced when determining healthy solutions for child abuse victims. The key controversies concerning child abuse are the definition

101

102

|

Child Abuse

of abuse, the presence of other risk behaviors and factors, and whether the child should remain in or be removed from the home. Solutions to child abuse are difficult to create because each child abuse case is different and the solution that works for one child may harm another child even more. When handling child abuse cases, caseworkers must do their absolute best not to add to the child’s trauma. It is this desire to minimize an abused child’s trauma that makes finding solutions to these controversies difficult. Defining Abuse The definitions of child abuse have changed significantly over time. No longer do parents have rights of life and death over children, as was common in the days of the Roman Empire where children not blessed by their fathers were left to die through neglect. Nor can parents in the United States turn their children into commodities by selling them to the highest bidder. Today the question of abuse is focused on the point of where a parent crosses the fine line between acceptable use of force and unacceptable abuse, and with what frequency. At what point should a neighbor, teacher, physician, or social worker intervene? Extreme cases, such as burning, imprisoning, or beating are easy to define as child abuse. However, there is much grey area in what is acceptable behavior of a parent toward a child. Definitions that focus only on physically hurting the child might be too broadly interpreted. The result is that any physical act, such as tightly holding a toddler during a tantrum, becomes defined as abuse by some. The legal standard recognizes that it is not always easy to distinguish between physical discipline and abuse. The former condition is the result of what is considered reasonable by the cultural context. While 90 percent of parents of three- and four-year-olds have used spankings on their child and nearly that many consider it acceptable to do so, does that mean 90 percent of parents are abusive? This question is not easily answered, but is important because the definition of abuse that is applied by social workers, courts, and so on can determine whether children are permitted to remain with the parent or whether they are taken in by the state. In fact the American Bar Association has no universally recognized definition of child abuse to use in court settings. As difficult as defining physical abuse is in practice, defining neglect is even more difficult. While abandonment or gross failure to provide for the basic needs of a child are clear, statutes that define parental negligence in broad ways may mean that different parenting models than the community norm, or failure to instill morals, or even permitting truancy are seen as negligent. In the early days of the homeschool movement some parents were considered neglectful for not sending their children for standard classroom instruction. Defining Abusers and Settings For many years there have been concerns over who is most likely to abuse a child. Stereotypes hold that the particularly likely culprit is a stepfather. While it

Child Abuse |

seems easy to place the blame on a male, nonbiological family member because of the expectation that males are more violent than females, and the supposition that biological ties are stronger than social ties, this is inaccurate. Biological parents are more likely than other persons to abuse a child and it is the mother who is most likely to do so. This pattern is particularly true for African American families that have a greater proportion of single parent homes. Does this then mean that single black mothers are profiled as child abusers? Police who are called to homes to investigate domestic disturbance calls are taught to pay attention to any children who are present for signs of abuse. Statistics indicate that when women are abused in a domestic setting, their children have a higher likelihood of being abused as well. This might be abuse from the woman’s abuser, or paradoxically abuse from the woman herself. It is often extremely difficult to determine who in a household is abusing whom. Interventions Since the 1950s both private and public agencies have dedicated themselves to helping children. One of the primary tasks of the agencies involves educating the public about the issues surrounding child abuse and proposing specific solutions. It has only been recently that laws have been developed to aid children, such as the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974. The goal of this act was to encourage states to develop their own laws and strategies to protect children from maltreatment and neglect. While every state handles child abuse cases in a slightly different way and relies on slightly different administrative structures, they have been fairly successful in their assault on child abuse and neglect. One of the most traumatic aspects of child abuse and neglect is the decision to remove the child from the home, even on a temporary basis. This is granted under the states’ rights to protect the interest of the child, but the question that is raised is what to then do with the child. Options are limited. For infants and young children, the foster care system is their destination, at least on a temporary basis while abuse claims are investigated. For adolescents and severely disabled children, the care is frequently provided in a group home where a small number of similar children are tended by a staff of child care workers. These decisions to remove children from the care of their biological parents are controversial for several reasons. First, the expanding definitions of child abuse mean that children can be removed with far less proof than was needed in the past. Additionally, the numbers of cases that social workers and child advocates are saddled with mean that it takes some time for the data regarding each case to be gathered, leaving the child in foster care for longer periods of time than most state regulations initially intended. Second, parents may be encouraged not to contest the child’s removal in order to avoid damaging allegations of abuse. After an assessment, the child may be sent back home, sometimes with court supervision and followup services, but sometimes without. When individuals hear about a case of child abuse, they automatically want the child removed from the home. It is true that removing the child from the

103

104

|

Child Abuse

home the most effective way to stop the abuse. But is tearing a child away from the only home he or she has known really helping the child? Young children are particularly prone to be victims of violence, but there is a common cultural idea that very young children need their parents (particularly their mothers) more than at any other age. Indeed, federal laws governing foster care encourage states to work vigorously to reunite children with their parents. Unfortunately, the frequent court reviews of the cases often just mean moving the child to a new foster placement. In extreme cases of child abuse where the child’s life is at risk, removal is the only option. However, temporary removal or family counseling might be more productive in the end if the abuser is taught alternative ways of managing anger and stress, instead of using abusive measures. These types of interventions require a great deal of time, effort, and energy on the part of the abuser and the state counseling agencies, and are often something that cash-strapped states are unable to provide. Critics of the foster care system suggest that the system is broken and badly needs repair. Children are moved from one foster family to another on a frequent basis. Due to an overwhelming need for foster care providers, many foster families receive little training for their role, and may be caring for too many children. One of the great concerns is what happens to children who age out of the foster care system. At age 18 they are no longer under state care, but may be poorly prepared to live as independent adults. In some cases parents must give up their rights to a child when the abuse has been determined to be too severe to attempt reuniting the family. However, it is extremely difficult for this to happen because there is a high legal burden of proof for the court to terminate parental rights. Sometimes, the threat of criminal charges will push parents to voluntarily terminate their rights. When a child cannot be returned to the biological family and parental rights are terminated, adoption becomes available to the child. Adoption is another area of controversy. The majority of individuals in society see being adopted by a blood relative as the most beneficial for the child. However, abuse is a learned behavior. If a child’s parent is the abuser, the assumption is that the parent’s parent was probably abusive as well. In such a case, being adopted by a blood relative may be placing the child back in a potentially abusive situation. The underlying problem of these controversies remains, and until abuse can be prevented no amount of intervention will be adequate. See also Addiction and Family; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); Corporal Punishment; Developmental Disability and Marital Stress; Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes; Domestic Violence Interventions; Foster Care; Parenting Styles; Sibling Violence and Abuse. Further Reading: Child Welfare Information Gateway. http://www.childwelfare.gov; Child Welfare League of America. http://www.cwla.org; Childhelp USA Foundation. http:// www.childhelpusa.org; Crosson-Tower, Cynthia. Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2007; Farmer, Steven. Adult Children of Abusive Parents: A Healing Program for Those Who Have Been Physically, Sexually, or Emotionally Abused.

Child Care Policy | New York: Ballantine Books, 1989; Flowers, R. Barri. Domestic Crimes, Family Violence and Child Abuse: A Study of Contemporary American Society. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2000; Gelles, Richard J. Intimate Violence in Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997; Kurst-Swanger, Karel, and Jacqueline L. Petcosky. Violence in the Home: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Monteleone, James A. A Parent’s and Teacher’s Handbook on Identifying and Preventing Child Abuse. St. Louis, MO: G. W. Medical Publishing, Inc., 1998; National Association to Protect Children. http://www.protect.org; The National Children’s Advocacy Center. http:// www.nationalcac.org; Prevent Child Abuse America. http://www.preventchildabuse.org.

Amanda Singletary CHILD CARE POLICY Child care policy provides an excellent venue for understanding the intersection of multiple institutions, social structures, and organizations in the lives of individuals. The institutions of race, class, gender, family, education, the state, and the economy intersect in the decision to work or not to work, the parameters of that decision for a given family, and the subsequent choices regarding care for children in the absence of a parent. For many families, the public policies surrounding child care determine whether they can work and shape the child care choices before them. Child care decisions are deeply personal choices, but for many, the decision to work requires access to child care. Debates surrounding child care policy tap deeply rooted ideologies about gender, family, work, and public and private responsibility. These discussions often evoke deep-seated race and class ideologies because child care choices reflect labor market and income inequalities that are linked to long-standing race and class inequalities. Critics of public support for child care suggest that child care is a private issue in which the state should play no role beyond regulation for public health and welfare. Others posit that the same arguments that undergird compulsory public education for kindergarten through twelfth grade should lead us to universally available, publicly funded child care from birth to age five. Between these two extremes lies the discussion of the role of states and markets and the intersections of race, class, and gender in educational attainment, labor force participation, and child care choices. RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER The last 40 years have seen a dramatic increase in women’s labor force participation. For many women the move to paid labor was a matter of choice; an opportunity won by hard-fought battles of the women’s movement of the 1970s. But for poor, working class, and lower-middle-class families, the move was often borne of necessity. Stagnant wages, the decline of the family wage (a wage intended to cover the costs for a family with one working parent and one stay-athome parent), and employment instability brought about by major economic shifts mean that, for many families, electing to stay home is a luxury of the past. For parents, the decision to work is accompanied by the need for child care, at

105

106

|

Child Care Policy

least for children under the age of six. In the low-to-middle wage sector of the labor market, the economic tradeoff that child care costs present leads women to opt out of the labor force until their children reach school age. One low-tomiddle wage income is insufficient to comfortably support a family, but lowskilled occupations simply do not pay enough to cover the cost of child care and still contribute meaningfully to the household budget. In other words, it simply does not pay to work. At the other end of the labor market, professional women can choose to work and pay for the child care option of their choice. In the case of poor women with limited skills, the decision to opt out of the labor market is a rational economic choice. Because African American women are disproportionately represented among poor women and among singleparent householders, they are more likely to be faced with both the low-wage work child care dilemma and to rely on state assistance if they opt out of the paid labor force. Despite the logic of these choices and the reality of the larger structural factors that leave a disproportionate number of black women at the low end of the labor market, politicians and citizens often see the over-representation of black women on the welfare rolls as an indicator of racial inferiority. This overrepresentation is the result of a complex set of social and economic factors that create a stratified labor market and shape both perceptions and policy debate. Race and class ideologies are present in discussions of child care policy, but gender may be the primary axis on which the issue turns. It has been argued that the historical absence of aggressive child care policies in community economic development movements is a function of the failure to include gender as a primary axis for analysis in community economic development circles. It has been suggested that race and class consistently trump gender in community economic development discussions, masking the potential impacts of policies that can fundamentally shift women’s relationships to and roles in both the public and private spheres. The failure to fully appreciate the role of gender inequality in hampering development is embedded in long-standing gender ideologies that maintain that the economy is either a male sphere or is gender-neutral. Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has the potential to reduce gender inequality because it may reduce or eliminate the child and family penalties that women pay in the labor market. Greater labor force attachment among mothers could help close the wage gap. Improved funding for child care also affects women’s wages by increasing the earnings of child care workers who are mostly women. Moreover, public ECEC can reduce family income and human capital inequalities as poor parents are able to move into the labor force and provide their children and themselves with greater opportunities to acquire experience and education. In addition to obscuring the significant impact of child care policy on women’s participation and performance in the economy, traditional gender ideologies suggest that the debate has the potential to disrupt treasured images of motherhood. In several European social democracies, the state provides high-quality child care to all families or provides an allowance to support a stay-at-home parent’s decision not to work. In the liberal democratic United States the state provides assistance, but the lowest paid workers are still only able to access the

Child Care Policy |

107

lowest quality care. The subsidy does not level the playing field by ensuring that all children, regardless of family income, have access to high-quality, safe, and reliable care that prepares them for productive futures. Rather, it simply gives low-income families access to the market and may well contribute to depressed wages in that market. Low-income families face multiple disadvantages that may reproduce themselves in their children if they are unable to access better opportunities. Race, class, and gender intersect at all income levels to fundamentally shape workers’ labor market participation and child care options. The child care choices and employment decisions faced by professional women are fundamentally different than those faced by low-level service workers.

THE GENDER OF CHILD CARE Child care is a family issue, not a women’s issue. However, the entire discussion surrounding child care revolves around the notion that women are responsible for children, and child care decisions that result from a woman’s decision to work are therefore her responsibility. While increasing numbers of men now stay home to care for children, debates surrounding child care policy continue to employ gendered language. The gendered nature of the discussion is problematic, but it also reflects three important realities: (1) the gender gap in pay often means that women’s wages are seen as supplemental to the family’s income and therefore women’s work is seen as optional, (2) the cultural reality that women are seen as primary care givers and are therefore held responsible for child care decisions and for any negative impacts that parental employment may have on children, and (3) the statistical prevalence of female-headed households among single parent households means that more women than men are solely responsible for child care decisions.

FAMILIES, STATES, AND MARKETS Child care is a public good; it provides diffuse benefits to society as a whole. Child care provides early childhood education and socialization that produces social stability as children learn to interact and function in social groups. Quality child care programs can lower demand for special education as children move into school, lower juvenile delinquency and crime rates, produce a more stable and productive work-force, and produce higher educational attainment. The benefits of early childhood education and high-quality child care are innumerable, but the cultural and political debates that surround it create an atmosphere of tension. Cultural values and images of the ideal mother and of the ideal childhood are challenged by images of young children spending much of their time in day care centers. After all, if the first three to five years of a child’s life are the most important, parents should be with their children during those formative years. Research indicates, however, that children from low-income families that are able to access high-quality child care experience better outcomes in health and

108

|

Child Care Policy

educational attainment than low-income children who are cared for at home during their preschool years. The assumption that a stay-at-home parent is always best does not hold. High-quality center-based care provides opportunities for socialization, education, and artistic stimulation that are difficult to replicate at home. In addition to being a private family benefit and a public good with huge future returns, the child care industry is a key element in sustainable economic development as child care providers not only assist workers, but they are workers. Child care generates income for providers and thus spurs both institutional and individual spending in communities. Estimates of the economic impacts of quality child care vary, but recent economic models suggest that the development impact on a local economy for each dollar spent on child care is significant. Despite the potential positive impacts of quality child care, the U.S. child care industry operates in a dysfunctional market. Market competition should create an environment where people will pay for quality and where supply and demand will intersect at a logical threshold price that meets the needs of buyers and sellers. This does not happen in child care. The problem is not a lack of demand, but rather the lack of effective demand. For many professional women with long work schedules and possible travel, private nannies present an option that best approximates the alternate reality of a stay-at-home mother. Because those who can afford to pay for high quality often choose this private, individualized route, their participation in the child care market does little to help build a viable market in high-quality center-based child care. The opportunity for high-earning families to cross-subsidize and demand quality care is lost. Those relying on center-based care are those most likely to face economic pressure to seek out the cheapest option rather than be discriminating buyers. They are unable to use their consumer dollars to effectively demand high-quality care. One solution to a dysfunctional market is state support. In the United States public spending for anything thought to be personal in nature is not usually supported. We believe in personal responsibility, both for rearing our children and for paying others to help us rear our children. But child care is not simply a family dilemma. The private choices of families may revolve around personal values and individual needs, but these choices are also facilitated or constrained by market conditions because a family’s location in the socioeconomic structure determines the choices available to them. Furthermore, decisions that families make are of great consequence to both the current and future economy. Arguments in favor of increased government supports for quality child care need not look far for examples of how the state might play a role in the child care market. During World War II the federal government encouraged American women to support the war and keep the U.S. economy going by entering the labor force. The U.S. government offered state-sponsored child care and encouraged women to use it as an act of patriotism. When the war ended the state discontinued their extensive child care programs and encouraged women to return to their households so that veterans could reclaim their place in the labor market. The women who remained in the labor force after the war were

Child Care Policy |

primarily working-class or African American women; women whose needs and interests were not well-represented in state decision-making or in the women’s movement that would follow just two decades later. The social upheaval of the 1960s increased awareness of gender inequality and developed leadership and social movement skills among college women who were involved in the labor and civil rights movements of the time, and helped bring about the women’s movement of the 1970s. Economic stagnation and rising inflation marked the late 1970s and early 1980s and working and middle-class families, feminist or not, found they needed two incomes to make ends meet and to ensure some measure of protection against unexpected layoffs. The women who made the greatest strides in the professions either made the decision to forego family for the liberation of career success or were earning enough money to hire full-time nannies to support their work outside the home. In the early days, the former was far more common than the latter. But poor families were not left in the dust. Head Start emerged as part of the war on poverty and served to offer a preschool option that would better prepare poor children to enter kindergarten on an even playing field, but it did not, and still does not, provide full-time child care. Moreover, access to Head Start requires that a family meet a low-income ceiling and space is limited. Between the extremes, high-earning women either with no children or with full-time nannies, poor women able to qualify for Head Start, and a remaining contingent of stay-athome moms, a broad-based child care policy never gained significant traction. But child care did not simply suffer as a policy issue; the failure of business and political leaders to recognize the importance and necessity of quality child care for working families contributed to the creation of the dysfunctional market in child care. CURRENT POLICY, DEBATES, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS Ideological discussions of motherhood, childhood, gender, and family will continue, but working families, in both single-parent and two-parent households, are the current norm. Families that are able to and choose to have one parent stay home with their children during the early years may well enjoy great benefits for both parents and children. But under our current economic and policy structure, not all families have or can even make that choice and continue to maintain a decent standard of living. Child care policy will have to contend with this reality. State support for child care currently takes the form of federal block grants to the states combined with state money, which the states disperse according to their child care subsidy, welfare, and grant-making policies. Federal grants focus on availability and quality. Private child care providers are able to package funds made available through a variety of programs including Temporary Aid to Needy Families, Community Development Block Grants, Head Start funds and federal food programs. Criteria for access to and use of these funds may vary by state, depending on the program. Subsidy rates are based on market analyses of the cost of child care. In some states, inconsistent updates to market studies

109

110

|

Child Care Policy

mean that subsidies fall short of the basic costs to provide care. Subsidy shortfalls mean that centers are less likely to serve low-income families and those that do serve poor families bear the costs when parents cannot pay. In an industry with a dysfunctional market that already reaps low returns for the goods provided, child care centers whose primary clientele are low-income families are unable to maintain quality standards and in some cases are forced to close. Policy discussions surrounding child care include a variety of options that accommodate a range of parenting and labor market choices. Some of these policies focus on building a functional market in child care through refundable tax credits for parents, increased state subsidies to better fund quality care, tying subsidies to quality standards to ensure that public dollars are spent on programs that will improve children’s future performance in school and in their adult lives, and support for child care center operators in the form of small business planning and development programs. In order for the market for child care to be functional, there must be effective demand for quality. In addition to supporting the demand for quality and the capacity for centers to provide quality care, public policy can provide incentives for improving the quality of the child care labor force. Because the market for child care is dysfunctional, pay is low and turnover is high. Under these conditions, the industry attracts an under-qualified low-skilled labor force. Several states currently support continuing education through licensing requirements and provide grants for child care staff to earn certification. The rewards are often too small to provide any significant incentive beyond personal improvement, and if child care centers and parents are unable to pay more for workers with more education and experience then there is little impetus to build either. Some countries offer child allowances that acknowledge the public goods provided by those who choose to have children and to offset the costs of quality parenting regardless of child care choices. Under such programs, the allowance may be used to allow a family to forego one income for a year, or the family may use the allowance to purchase quality child care and continue to work. Such policies meet criticism from those who argue that parenthood is a personal choice and financial responsibility lies solely in the hands of those who choose to have children. One current movement that has the capacity to fundamentally shift public policy, in favor of high-quality child care, is the pre-kindergarten movement for high-quality, universally available programs for four-year-olds. The so-called formative years rationale behind these programs requires that we think carefully about integrating our approach to infants and toddlers with our approach to four-year-old preschoolers and school-age kids. The period from birth to age three is the most important to human brain development. This scientific fact combined with market demand and current policy debates suggests that the time is right for major advancements in public support for our child care system. This shift brings its own set of debates around states and markets as policy makers, advocates, and child care providers wrestle over whether expanded services will be delivered through public schools, private child care providers, or some combination of the two.

Child Care Policy |

111

CHILD CARE PROVIDES PUBLIC GOODS Public goods have two properties: nonexcludability and nonrivalness. Nonexcludability means that there is no way to direct the goods exclusively to those who have paid for them. The problem of nonexcludability opens the door to free riders—people who enjoy the benefits of the goods without paying for them. Nonrivalness means that as one person consumes the goods, their use does not limit anyone else’s use of the goods. “Many people share in the benefits when children are brought up to be responsible, skilled, and loving adults who treat each other with courtesy and respect” (England and Folbre 1999). To be clear, the public goods provided by child care include such things as a more highly educated workforce and citizenry, lower crime rates and a more reliable and productive workforce.

CONCLUSION The social structures, institutions, organizations, and cultural ideologies that feed debates about child care policy in the twenty-first century provide an excellent example for understanding how history and biography intersect in the decisions and experiences of individuals. Child care does not fall neatly into either the public or the private sphere. The factors that shape individual family decisions are social and structural, as are the consequences of those family choices. Current child care policy seeks to address issues of access and quality, but fails to sufficiently support a market in quality child care. Proposals for supporting the child care market include a range of policies from per-child subsidies to systemwide extensions of our public education system to include the first five years of life. The decisions we make as a society will affect the lives of individuals, institutions, the labor market, and the social and cultural landscape of the United States. As a society, we are responsible for the next generation of parents, partners, workers, and citizens; as an economy, we need a well-trained, healthy, and reliable workforce; and as a polity, we need strong and healthy citizens and future leaders. What we choose to do about child care may be one of the most important policy decisions we make as we plan for and manage economic development and democracy in the twenty-first century. See also Day Care; Employed Mothers; Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); Mommy Track. Further Reading: Blades, Joan, and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner. The Motherhood Manifesto. New York: Nation Books, 2006; Blau, David M. The Child Care Problem: An Economic Analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001; Caporaso, James A., and David P. Levine. Theories of Political Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2001; England, Paula and Nancy Folbre. “The Cost of Caring.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 561 (1999): 39–51; Folbre, Nancy. “Rethinking the Child Care Sector.” Community Development 37 (2006): 38–53; Fry Konty, Melissa, and

112

|

Child Support and Parental Responsibility Jonathan Harrison. Child Care in Appalachian Kentucky: Financial Sustainability in a Low-income Market. Berea, KY: Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, 2007; Helburn, Suzanne Wiggons, and Barbara Bergmann. America’s Child Care Problem: The Way Out. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003; Kelly, Erin. “The Strange History of Employer-Sponsored Child Care: Interested Actors, Uncertainty, and the Transformation of Law in Organizational Fields.” American Journal of Sociology 109 (2003): 606–649; Leavitt, Jacqueline. “Where’s the Gender in Community Development?” Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29 (2003): 207–231; Meyers, Marcia K., and Janet C. Gornick. “Public or Private Responsibility? Early Childhood Education and Care, Inequality, and the Welfare State.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 34 (2003): 379–406; Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., M. R. Burchinal, R. M. Clifford, M. L. Culkin, C. Howes, S. L. Kagan, N. Yazehian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and J. Zelazo. The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go to School: Executive Summary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, 1999; Polakow, Valerie. Who Cares for Our Children? New York: Teachers College Press, 2007; Warner, Mildred. “Overview: Articulating the Economic Importance of Child Care for Community Development.” Community Development 37 (2006): 1–6; Warner, Mildred, Shira Adriance, Nikita Barai, Jenna Hallas, Bjorn Markeson, Taryn Morrissey, and Wendy Soref. Economic Development Strategies to Promote Quality Child Care. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension, 2004.

Melissa Fry Konty CHILD SUPPORT AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY Over the past few decades America’s thought and behavior toward so-called deadbeat parents has become more aggressive. Deadbeat parent is a pejorative term to describe parents who fail to take responsibility for their children’s basic needs. Despite the broad definition of deadbeat, the use of the term has been limited to noncustodial parents, mainly fathers, who fail to take financial responsibility for their children, placing a heavy burden on the custodial parent. Parental responsibility, that is, caring for your children, is an important value in America. In fact, it is so important that President Clinton signed two major pieces of legislation regarding parental responsibility—the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 and the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (DPPA) of 1998. Both pieces of legislation seek to make parents more financially responsible for their children by setting strict child support enforcement rules and consequences, including imprisonment. ENCOURAGING PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY Parental responsibility has a long history in the United States. Since the arrival of settlers in America, parental responsibility has always been at the heart of child support collections, having its foundations in the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601, sometimes referred to as the English Poor Laws. The English Poor Laws were a system of relief to the poor that was financed and administered at the local level. Under the English Poor Laws, a father had a nonenforceable duty to support his children; child support was considered a civil matter. Although desertion

Child Support and Parental Responsibility

was rare, when a man did desert his family, the local community would provide for the mother and child to prevent destitution. In return, local communities would attempt to recover from the father those monies spent in support of the mother and their child. The money collected from the father was put back into the poor relief system’s reserves to be used for the next needy child. However, the revolutionary changes brought about by the industrialization and urbanization of the nineteenth century also disrupted family processes. This move to greater mechanization in production and concentration of work in cities changed family life dramatically. For instance, many fathers were working in cities away from their families for long periods of time. Some scholars suggest that exposure to the city life, coupled with the relief from domestic duties of family life, may have played a role in some men abandoning their families, leaving many mothers and their children dependent on the state for survival. Therefore, it became necessary for courts to strengthen the child support system by formally making fathers financially responsible for the children they abandoned. States began to make child support a criminal matter by establishing a legally enforceable child support duty. Desertion and nonsupport statutes were passed that criminalized and punished fathers for refusing to support their child, especially if the mother and child were recipients of public child support. Although states improved their efforts to enforce child support obligations and to reduce public child support expenditures, parental irresponsibility continued to be problematic. A host of destitute mothers and children were overwhelming the public welfare services as some fathers and husbands moved from one state to another to avoid their parental responsibility for child support. In the mid-twentieth century, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act implemented federal guidelines that made fathers who moved from state to state to avoid child support still responsible for their children through both civil and criminal enforcement. Yet, the confusion between states regarding the jurisdiction of child support provided irresponsible fathers with a means to continue avoiding their child support obligations. States, the federal government, and children’s rights advocates persisted in their effort to make parental responsibility a national initiative. Consequently, PRWORA emphasized parental responsibility for the financial support of their children as well as implemented more aggressive enforcement techniques and some additional provisions that unified state collection efforts. DPPA made it a federal offense for a noncustodial parent to willfully fail to pay a past-due child support obligation due to a child residing in another state. FATHER’S CONCERNS Many Americans have reservations about the punitive nature of child support enforcement legislation. These critics argue that the legislation assumes that these deadbeat dads are able to pay the court ordered child support, when in fact many of them are unable to pay their child support, especially when it is coupled with steep interest charges for falling behind. In addition, some ask the question, “How does it benefit the child or the state to throw the father in

|

113

114

|

Child Support and Parental Responsibility

jail for defaulting on child support they cannot pay?” Each incarceration for child support noncompliance lessens the father’s chances of obtaining gainful employment that can be to the benefit of the child. Moreover, incarcerating these fathers adds to jail overcrowding. In addition to questioning the wisdom of incarcerating parents for failure to pay child support, fathers’ rights activists suggest that child support enforcement is not distributed equally. While there is little data on the incidence of deadbeat dad incarceration, activists contend that fathers are incarcerated disproportionately more than are mothers. Another issue of concern, especially among fathers’ rights activists, is that the national initiative to make parents, especially fathers, pay is limited in its focus. Because maternal custody is awarded more often than paternal custody in this nation, it is fathers who would be the most affected by the recent parental responsibility legislation. However, some activists insist that any discussion of parental responsibility must take into account other ways of demonstrating parental irresponsibility, to which mothers are more susceptible; yet mothers are not incarcerated, to a large degree, for these behaviors. In fact, activists argue that the laws that govern these irresponsible behaviors seek to work with families by providing support in various forms to keep the family together. One irresponsible behavior that activists identify is baby abandonment. Baby abandonment is when an infant under the age of 12 months is discarded or left alone for an extended period of time in a public or private setting with the intention of disposing of the baby. In 1998, 30,800 babies were abandoned in hospitals, a 43 percent increase from 1991. That same year, 105 babies were abandoned in public settings, a 62 percent increase from 1991. While all states have laws that prohibit leaving babies unsupervised and unprotected, there are only 28 states that have baby abandonment laws. Baby abandonment laws tend to focus on providing a process for legally abandoning a child, with the intent of giving parents an avenue to safely turn over their child to a third party. States hope that such laws will encourage responsible behavior among those individuals not willing or able to care for their babies by assuring that the child is left safely in the hands of caretakers who can provide appropriate care. Yet, fathers’ rights activists suggest that this response to parental irresponsibility gives mothers a legitimate way out of being responsible for their children, while no such law exists for fathers who owe child support. Child neglect is another form of parental irresponsibility that is not treated as punitively as is defaulting on child support payments. It is the most common form of child maltreatment reported to child protective services. Child neglect is a type of maltreatment that refers to the failure to provide needed ageappropriate care, such as shelter, food, clothing, education, supervision, medical care, and other basic necessities for the development of physical, intellectual, and emotional capacities. Child neglect is closely correlated with poverty, with the majority of cases of child maltreatment occurring at the hands of mother. A major assumption underlying the child protection law governing child neglect is that living in a permanent family relationship is in the best interest of children. Therefore, the law seeks to promote and protect that kind of living situation for all children. In seeking to simultaneously protect children and support families, mothers are offered a variety of services to assist in developing their parenting

Child Support and Parental Responsibility

|

115

skills. In addition, other services are offered to help lift the family out of poverty. Fathers’ rights advocates argue that men are offered limited services to assist them in finding gainful employment, and when those services are offered, fines and penalties still accrue to the amount of support owed, thus making it difficult to catch up on child support obligations. Finally, some activists have pointed to infanticide as another form of a mother failing to take responsibility for her children. Homicide is the fifteenth leading cause of infant death in the United States, with the most homicides occurring during the first four months of life. With little ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy safely, some troubled parents may have little choice but to wait until full-term delivery before disposing of the conception. In these cases, the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators were mothers, many of whom were later criminally convicted. However, activists have pointed out that millions of unwanted pregnancies result in abortions each year. The focus is not on the issue of abortion itself, but that mothers have the right to choose not to be responsible for their child, without fear of penalty, while fathers are penalized for their inability to pay child support obligations.

POVERTY AND PARENTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY Parental irresponsibility is a social problem that, in many cases, is linked to other more persistent social issues. Infanticide, child neglect, baby abandonment, and noncompliance with child support have been found to be related to factors such as poverty, unemployment, low educational attainment, and drug or alcohol abuse. What’s more, despite the controversy over how to define poverty in either absolute or relative terms, strong correlations exist between all of the above factors and poverty. In fact, unemployment, low educational attainment, and drug or alcohol abuse can be both the cause and effect of poverty. Absolute poverty refers to the numbers of persons below a specified income level where they cannot meet their basic needs. Relative poverty refers to how a group compares to the median income of the society. The issue of poverty in the United States has been debated for decades. There has been debate over how poverty is defined. Because poverty measures can be either absolute or relative, advocates for a relative measure of poverty believe that poverty statistics are overstated, while proponents for an absolute measure of poverty argue that statistics are often understated. Despite the definition of poverty, the effect of poverty in the lives of millions of Americans, including their ability to successfully parent their children, is real. Hence, America has to come to terms with how we will handle poverty, so that American citizens, especially children, will have better life chances and life choices.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: ANOTHER VIEW Fathers’ rights activists’ concern for equal treatment in child support enforcement as well as the expansion of deadbeat to include mothers whose behaviors can be considered irresponsible spawns much debate. However, child advocates

116

|

Child Support and Parental Responsibility

are mainly concerned with ensuring the health and well-being of children and thus parental behaviors that promote the well-being of children are seen as good. Like fathers’ rights activists, child rights advocates do hold our social institutions partly responsible for creating an environment that is conducive to healthy parenting and parental responsibility. Shared Parenting Recognizing that divorce does occur, child advocates support shared parenting, which has been shown to have significant benefits for children. Shared parenting helps provide emotional stability for children by promoting the involvement of both parents. There are two aspects to shared parenting in divorce: joint legal custody, which refers to shared decision-making responsibility between divorced parents, and joint physical custody, which provides children with a more balanced living arrangement than was allowed under sole custody. With joint physical custody, children spend at least 33 percent of their time with each parent. Presently, about 30 states have case law statutes that are compatible with shared parenting. Child Neglect Although the full extent of child maltreatment is not known, based on information from child protective services, child maltreatment is a serious problem for some families. Of reported cases of child maltreatment, the majority are child neglect cases. Child advocates support child abuse prevention and education programs that work directly with parents and community leaders to strengthen and hold families together. In addition, efforts are focused on support legislation that is in the best interests of the children and the families. Child advocates argue that through prevention, education, and research families will receive the services needed to navigate the challenges of family life. Moreover, if at-risk parents can be identified, we will reduce the need to remove children from their homes or to place parents in jail for violent behavior. Baby Abandonment Child advocates agree that baby abandonment is a problem in the United States based on the data we do have available. Child advocates argue that mothers who abandon babies are often experiencing social, economic, and psychological difficulties that interfere with their ability to adequately provide for a child. With a focus on the health and well-being of children, advocates support so-called safe haven laws that allow a parent to anonymously leave an unwanted newborn baby in a safe place, such as a hospital, emergency medical services, police station, or fire station, and not have to worry about getting in trouble with law enforcement. The baby is then given to the state’s child welfare department to find a loving family environment for the child. Unfortunately, young mothers who typically abandon babies are not very well informed about safe haven laws; therefore, the evidence available suggests that

Childbirth Options |

such laws have not impacted the number of babies being abandoned in unsafe places. Child advocates are in favor of increased publicity, so that people are aware of this option to help ensure that unwanted babies are left in a safe place and not abandoned where they may not be found until it is too late. Infanticide Unwanted pregnancies and unwanted births are particularly difficult for mothers. Child advocates note the correlation between infanticide and a host of social problems, such as poverty, alienation (living in rural areas), low level of education and employment, alcoholism, drug abuse, or other criminal behavior. Infanticide is classified as a homicide. Depending on state laws, those who commit infanticide may be eligible for the death penalty. Most of the mothers convicted are granted suspended sentences or probation; however, fathers are generally not afforded the same leniency. Prevention of infanticide is difficult. Several scholars argue that the legalization of abortion has resulted in decreased rates of infanticide. Yet pro-life supporters contend that abortion is infanticide. Given that many abortions are available but not utilized, some suggest that the best form of prevention for young women most at risk for neonaticide (killing of a newborn) is abstinence or effective contraceptive use. See also African American Fathers; Deadbeat Parents; Divorce and Children; Foster Care; Poverty and Public Assistance. Further Reading: Alliance for Non-custodial Parents’ Rights. http://www.ancpr.org; Chichetti, Dante, and Vicki Carlson. Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Child Welfare League of America. http://www.cwla.org; Downs, Susan Whitelaw, Ernestine Moore, Emily Jean McFadden, and Susan Michaud. Child Welfare and Family Services: Policies and Practices, 7th ed. Boston: Allyn-Bacon, 2003; Father’s Rights. http://www.fathersrightsinc.com; Gross, James J. Fathers’ Rights: A Legal Guide to Protecting the Best Interests of Your Children. Naperville, IL: Sphinx Legal Publishing, 2004; Spinelli, Margaret G. Infanticide: Psychosocial and Legal Perspectives on Mothers Who Kill. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2002.

Annice Yarber CHILDBIRTH OPTIONS Among women in the United States there is increasing talk about the choices that they have and would like to have regarding childbirth. U.S. women have many options for how to give birth. Women can decide to give birth in a hospital, birth center, or at home. They can choose to have a doctor or a midwife as their primary healthcare provider. They can decide to give birth naturally, meaning without the use of pain-relief medications, or they can choose to use medications to reduce pain. Beyond these considerations about medical issues, women face increasing choices about the details of the birth, from whom they

117

118

|

Childbirth Options

would like to attend the birth to whether the newborn stays with the mother or in the hospital nursery. As mothers have started to demand more control over the birthing setting and process, a childbirth industry has started to emerge to accommodate their wishes. One of the most important decisions a woman can make that determines the type of birth she will have is selecting a healthcare provider. CHOICES OF CHILDBIRTH HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS The choice of healthcare provider is important because there are certain assumptions that each provider brings to the birth event. The philosophy of birth followed by the health care provider can be an important part of a woman’s overall plan for how she would like the birth to proceed. One of the critical elements in how much choice the woman has, however, is whether her pregnancy is considered low- or high-risk. A pregnancy is defined as low-risk when the mother is pregnant with only one child (no twins or multiple births) and the mother does not have any serious illnesses that will interfere with her ability to give birth. For a birth to qualify as low-risk, the mother must begin labor when she is between 37 and 43 weeks gestation. Women who do not meet the qualifications of lowrisk must seek care from a physician. For most women in the United States, their first choice for care is from an obstetrician, a medical doctor who specializes in providing care for pregnant, laboring, birthing, and postpartum women. Obstetricians usually provide healthcare for women birthing in hospitals, so most women who chose an obstetrician will give birth in a hospital or other clinical setting. Some internal medicine and family medicine physicians also attend to birthing women, although their ranks are declining due to the push to specialize and the increasing malpractice insurance premiums for those who assist at births. Some women in the United States choose to give birth with a midwife. Midwives are healthcare providers who are trained to assist women while they are pregnant, in labor, giving birth, and postpartum, but they are not medical doctors. There are two types of midwives: nurse midwives and certified professional midwives. Nurse midwives are trained as nurses first and then obtain additional training in midwifery. They are required by law to work under the supervision of a medical doctor. Most nurse midwives work in hospitals or birth centers that are affiliated with hospitals. Some nurse midwives work in free-standing birth centers that are not affiliated with hospitals. Very few nurse midwives work in home-birth practices. Certified professional midwives are also called professional midwives, direct-entry midwives, or licensed midwives, and are trained only in midwifery. They are not required to work under the supervision of a doctor, and generally work in free-standing birth centers and home-birth practices rather than in hospitals. Only women who have low-risk pregnancies are allowed by law to give birth in an out-of-hospital setting with a midwife. Some hospitals may allow women with high-risk pregnancies to be cared for by both a nurse midwife and an obstetrician. This option depends on the availability of nurse midwives and the routine practices of the hospital. A high risk pregnancy

Childbirth Options |

is one in which there is a better than average chance that medical intervention in the birth will be necessary. DIFFERING BIRTH EXPERIENCES One of the most significant differences between the medical and midwifery models of care is the experiences women have when they are in labor and giving birth. When a woman is admitted to a hospital in labor, one of the first occurrences is that she is given an intravenous infusion (IV). The purpose of the IV is to provide the woman with adequate nutrients and hydration throughout her labor and birth. The medical model of care uses IV because food and water can negatively interact with anesthesia that may be used in the event of a cesarean section. Most women who give birth within the medical model are not allowed to eat or drink during labor and birth. Midwives encourage women to eat and drink during labor, comparing labor to a marathon during which one needs sustenance. Laboring women in hospitals are usually also connected to an electronic fetal monitor, a device that measures the baby’s heart rate, and a device that measures the strength and length of contractions. Both the baby’s heart rate and the woman’s contractions are visible on a screen in the hospital room. Midwives typically use fetal monitors to measure the baby’s heart rate only at certain times throughout labor rather than continuously. Midwives do not use contraction monitors because they believe that they can tell the strength and length of a woman’s contractions by paying attention to the woman’s verbal and nonverbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, sounds, movements, etc.). Midwives also say monitors can distract people’s attention to the screen instead of focusing on the laboring woman. Women laboring in hospitals are usually confined to a hospital bed. Because women are hooked up to an IV, fetal monitor, and contraction monitor, it is difficult for them to move around. Midwives typically encourage their clients to move around during labor. They encourage women to walk, bathe, and move in any way that they want. Because midwifery clients are not attached to any devices, they can move about freely. The medical model of care suggests that women should be in labor for a total of 12 hours. They believe that a woman’s cervix should dilate at least one centimeter each hour (full dilation is ten centimeters), and the woman should push for no more than two hours. If a woman does not labor according to this timeframe (called the Freedman’s Curve), medical technologies are often used to speed up the labor. The most common medical technologies used to speed the pace of labor are synthetic hormones, such as pitocin, commonly administered through an IV. The midwifery model, however, believes that each woman’s body is different and uses a different timeframe to labor and give birth. As long as both the woman and her baby are healthy, midwives typically will not interfere with the pace of labor or birth. Medical and midwifery models of care also differ in their pain management techniques. Women who give birth in the medical model are typically offered

119

120

|

Childbirth Options

medication to relieve the pain of labor contractions. The most common pain relief medication is epidural anesthesia, a continuous anesthesia that is administered through a needle inserted between two vertebrae in the lower part of the woman’s spine. Epidural anesthesia numbs the woman from her waist down, which reduces or eliminates the pain she feels from uterine contractions. Midwives encourage women to use nonmedical forms of pain relief. Women who give birth with midwives often use water, such as a bath, shower, or heated massage bath, to reduce pain. Other pain relieving techniques midwives encourage include physical movement (such as walking or rocking), heating pads, massage, aromatherapy, homeopathy, herbal remedies, or teas. Some midwives even use acupuncture, acupressure, or hypnosis. Women in hospitals typically give birth in the supine position—lying on their back with their feet in stirrups. Midwives allow women to give birth in whatever position they feel is most comfortable, typically encouraging women to try giving birth in a position that works with gravity, such as standing, squatting or sitting. Some midwives have special stools or birth balls that women can sit on or lean against when giving birth. Some midwives also encourage women to give birth in water, such as in a bathtub. As interest in these methods has increased, some hospitals have begun to offer water births for their low-risk patients. A procedure commonly used in hospitals is episiotomy. An episiotomy is a small incision that is cut through the skin and muscle tissue between the vagina and anus, or perineum, to enlarge the space through which babies exit women’s bodies. Some doctors perform episiotomies as a regular part of all childbirths, although this as a routine practice is decreasing. Midwives argue that because women’s bodies were created to stretch during childbirth, episiotomies are not necessary for most women. Midwives perform episiotomies only in the rare circumstance that a woman’s perineum is not stretching adequately to release the baby from her body. Women who give birth within the medical model are more likely to have their babies extracted from their bodies by the use of forceps, vacuum extraction, or cesarean section than women who give birth within the midwifery model of care. The fact that more high-risk pregnancies are attended by obstetricians might also play a role in the use of these medical interventions. Forceps are metal devices shaped like salad tongs that are enclosed around a baby’s head and used to help pull the baby out of the birth canal. Vacuum extraction is when a suction device is attached to a baby’s head to help suction the baby out of the birth canal. A cesarean section is a surgical procedure where a baby is removed from a woman’s body through an incision that is cut through the woman’s abdomen and uterus. While women do not generally expect to have these types of procedures, with the notable exception in elective cesarean sections, it is important that they consider what options they would like used first in the event intervention becomes necessary. Women birthing in hospitals are more likely to need these technologies to help them give birth because they are more likely to use epidural anesthesia. Epidural anesthesia numbs a woman’s body from the waist down, which makes it more difficult for her to push a baby out of her body. Women who give birth with midwives rely on their own physical strength to

Childbirth Options |

push the baby through the birth canal. Because women who give birth within the midwifery model of care do not use pain relief medications, they are able to use their whole bodies to give birth. After women weigh the above information, they must decide what the right combination of provider and birth setting is for them. About eight percent of births today are attended by a midwife, but this has significantly increased since the early 1970s when only one percent of women were attended by a midwife. Women who use a midwife tend to feel more knowledgeable about and more in control of their choices and more satisfied with their delivery decisions. CHOICES OF PAIN CONTROL One of the most ubiquitous ideas about childbirth in the United States is that it is a painful experience. Many women fear having children because of the pain associated with labor contractions and giving birth. The choice to intervene in pain is, however, quite controversial. Some in the natural childbirth and midwifery camp would go so far as to suggest that pain medication dampens the whole birth experience making for a second-rate delivery. They are critical of women who have pain medication in all but the most extreme circumstances. On the other hand, physician Gilbert Grant at New York University Medical Center has argued that opposition to women receiving pain medication, specifically epidurals, in child birth is misogynistic because there is no other situation in medicine where pain relief is routinely withheld. Medical Pain Control Physicians and pharmacists have been able to develop methods of pain relief that permit the laboring woman to be awake and aware, but to not feel pain. This has been one of the most attractive elements of hospital birth. The availability of medical technologies that reduce pain from labor and birth help some women feel comfortable and confident about the childbearing process. Many women today, however, are seeking even greater choices in pain relief. The most common strategy today, epidural anesthesia is very effective at reducing pain, but does not permit mobility, often for some time after the birth. Prepared Childbirth Prepared childbirth, also known as natural childbirth was popularized by Grantly Dick-Read in the 1970s. Dick-Read suggested that fear, a common element in childbirth, would cause a woman’s muscles to tense, thus increasing the pain and stress experienced during childbirth. He argued that the more informed women were about the process of birth and the more they were educated on the stages and likely experiences the more likely they would be to control the stress responses. Thus, teaching women relaxation techniques and tensionreducing exercises would make labor and birth less painful. A predecessor of Dick-Read, Ferdinand Lamaze, focused on the idea of conditioned reflexes as an

121

122

|

Childbirth Options

element of labor and delivery pain. He suggested that teaching women to mentally separate the physical stimulus of uterine contractions from the conditioned response of pain would make labor and birth much less uncomfortable. The breathing exercises that Lamaze developed have been incorporated into more modern prepared childbirth classes. These classes, often attended by both partners, do help laboring women handle pain more successfully in that those who have had the courses use less medication and express more satisfaction with the birth process. Another pioneer in this area, Robert Bradley, is know for the Bradley Method in which fathers take a pivotal role as child birth coaches for their laboring partners. WITNESSES TO THE BIRTH Among the choices arising in recent years involves who should be present at the birth. While home births have been attended by whomever the laboring woman wished to have present, hospital births have been limited by who was permitted to attend. Obviously medical staff would be present, but what about the woman’s partner, or the children she had previously birthed, family members, or hired help? As part of the natural childbirth movement of the 1970s, fathers were encouraged to be in the delivery room with their wives. Some physicians were at first reluctant to permit this because the delivery room was a sterile environment that might be contaminated by the father’s presence. It has become standard practice in the United States for fathers to be in attendance, even at cesarean births. This was historically not the case. When most women were sedated for delivery, fathers were isolated in a waiting area while they anticipated the physician’s pronouncement of the child’s sex and safe arrival. The presence of fathers can be particularly helpful to laboring mothers and establish a positive tone to parenting. When fathers are nervous about being present, however, they can increase the mother’s stress. There is an increasing movement to provide paid assistance to mothers during labor and birth. Doulas are birthing assistants, sometimes referred to as labor coaches. However, they are present in addition to a woman’s partner, not in place of the partner. They are not physicians, nurses, nor midwives, but women who act as private labor assistants, tending to the comfort of the mother. The doula, a Greek word that means in support of, provides encouragement and support that can extend even after the birth. An international organization for doulas, Doulas of North America (DONA), indicates that the women are trained as resources for pregnant and laboring women, providing information on choices during labor and delivery on a whole host of topics. Movement, relaxation, breathing, and positioning are just a few of the pieces of advice that doulas might provide. DONA also certifies doulas through a 16-hour course. One of the tasks of a doula is to provide continuous emotional support and encouragement. This means that unlike nursing staff that might change shift during the course of a woman’s labor, the doula stays with the laboring woman for as long as the process takes. While the practice of having women attend birth

Childbirth Options |

123

in a supportive capacity is centuries old, it is enjoying a heightened interest in the United States. While only a few hospitals provide doulas, nearly all permit them to attend births, though there is some resistance. Doula fees range from $200 to $800 depending on region and demand. The price is well worth the service when one considers that births attended by doulas have lower rates of medication use, cesarean sections, and other minor complications.

ROLE OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN CHILDBIRTH OPTIONS The United States is the only developed country in the world that does not have a nationwide health care system. Health insurance is mainly provided by a citizen’s employer. The average American, however, has three to five careers and from 10 to 12 jobs. Americans’ fluctuating careers and the dozen different jobs they are expected to hold in a lifetime lead to a dizzying number of different insurance plans, providers, benefits and deductibles. As of 2005 over 46.6 million Americans lacked health insurance. This figure is especially surprising because the United States has the priciest healthcare in the world. Health care expense is due to the rising cost of medical technology, prescriptions, and high administrative costs. The uninsured also contribute to these costs because they often refuse to seek care at the start of illness and then are forced to use emergency services that cost more than routine care. Even those middle-class Americans with HMOs (health maintenance organizations) have limited choices in which doctors they can see or what treatments are allowed. HMOs have been accused of influencing doctor decisions in treatment plans and even initial diagnosis if it would mean greater cost. America’s healthcare system has a great impact on post- and prematernity care. Those who are uninsured or on strict managed health care plans rarely, if ever, have a choice in the obstetricians they see or in the clinics or hospitals in which they can give birth. Very few private health insurance companies will pay for births that take place in out-of-hospital settings. Only 9 of 24 states where professional midwifery is legal and regulated will allow women to pay for professional midwife-assisted births with Medicaid funds. Thus, many women who choose to give birth with professional midwives must pay out of their own pockets for their healthcare. Because not all women can afford to pay for healthcare expenses, a woman’s financial status limits her childbirth options. Upper-class women are afforded more attention and greater freedom in choosing their providers when giving birth.

MEDIATING THE CHOICES: THE BIRTH PLAN Many pregnancy guides and Internet parenting sites encourage pregnant women to create a birth plan. It is a document that allows a woman to express her wishes for an ideal birth experience and includes useful data that can help the physician or midwife determine the best care for the laboring woman. The primary benefit of a birth plan is in discussing the options and contingencies in advance. Given the range of options in childbirth today, considering one’s

124

|

Childbirth Options

preferences is probably a very smart thing to do. Not only can the woman and her partner consider how they would like the birth to go, the birth attendant can discuss with them what is most likely to occur. It is recommended that a copy of the birth plan go to the physician or midwife, to the hospital or birth center, and kept with the woman’s partner. Topics commonly covered in a birth plan include who the woman would like to have present at the birth and who she would not like to have attend, which might include students and interns if it is a teaching institution. Provisions for photography, music, lighting, food, and other environmental elements are usually included. Additionally, there are places to specify one’s preferred medical treatment, such as no IV fluids, intermittent fetal monitoring, permission to labor as long as neither the mother nor baby are experiencing distress, and so forth. These plans also discuss attitudes toward pain management, attitudes toward episiotomy, and contingencies for a cesarean section. Issues related to the baby are also likely to be included, such as viewing the birth with a mirror, breastfeeding, rooming in, and, in the case of a male child, circumcision. A criticism of birth plans is that they give the woman a sense of control that realistically may not exist in most pregnancies. There has yet to be a birth that proceeded exactly according to plan. However, some women may feel quite troubled if their labor and delivery does not proceed according to the map that they have created. Rather than enjoying the birth, they focus on how things went awry. This is why they are encouraged to focus on the end product, their amazing new baby, rather than the path to get there. FUTURE OF CHILDBIRTH OPTIONS In recent years families have demanded that hospitals reconsider their policies regarding birth as well as the environment in which the birth occurs. Hospitals have been quick to respond, making birthing rooms more homelike, comfortable, and attractive. Additionally they have loosened restrictions about who can be present in the room for the birth. Many options for low-risk births include laboring in water, alternative positions for delivery, and staying in one room for the whole labor, delivery, and postpartum time. Hospital nurseries and neonatal services have also been revamped in line with the increasing demands of mothers. Increased security measures have been instituted after media reports of strangers and even some nurses walking out of hospitals with patients’ newborns. New mothers often have the option of keeping their infants in the room with them, rather than having to call the nursery for visits with their own child. The practice of rooming-in allows the mother and child ready access for breastfeeding and starts the bonding process. These patterns of choice are likely to be expanded as older first-time mothers, who have a clearer image of their desired experience of childbirth, demand the services, and constitute a significant percentage of those giving birth in American hospitals. For women who might choose to use a midwife instead of an obstetrician, the legal status of midwifery might limit their options. While nurse midwifery is legal in every state, certified midwifery is not. Certified midwifery is legal and

Childfree Relationships |

regulated by the government in 24 states. Fourteen states either have laws that are interpreted to mean that midwifery is legal but not governmentally regulated, or have no laws defining midwifery as either legal or illegal. Two states have laws that say midwifery is legal with a specific state licensure that is not actually available. Ten states and the District of Columbia have laws that specifically prohibit the practice of professional midwifery. This means that women must live in a state that allows the practice of professional midwifery in order to give birth with a professional midwife. Even in states where professional midwifery is legal, midwifery services are not offered in all communities. As more women pursue care in this format, laws regarding midwifery will likely be challenged. Given the suggestion by some choice advocates that childbirth is at a crossroads in the United States today, American women are demanding more options and choices of services in conjunction with the birth event. Women want the technological interventions when medically necessary, but want to maintain as much autonomy as possible about deciding when to employ them. Of increasing concern to women is the decline in physicians who are willing to deliver babies. As a result of costly malpractice suits and hefty insurance premiums, many physicians have decided to no longer delivery babies, resulting in few options for women when they select an obstetrician. See also Midwifery and Medicalization; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: American Pregnancy Association. http://www.americanpregnancy.org; Baby Center. www.babycenter.com; Davis-Floyd, Robbie E. Birth as an American Rite of Passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004; Doulas of North America. http://www.dona.org; Goer, Henci. Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities: A Guide to the Medical Literature. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 1995; Goer, Henci. The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth. New York: Perigee, 1999; Grant, Gilbert. Enjoy Your Labor: A New Approach to Pain Relief for Childbirth. White Plains, NY: Russell Hastings Press, Ltd., 2005; Kitzinger, Sheila. The Complete Book of Pregnancy and Childbirth, 4th ed. New York: Knopf, 2003; Mitford, Jessica. The American Way of Birth. New York: Penguin, 1992; Rooks, Judith Pence. Midwifery and Childbirth in America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997; Sears, William, and Martha Sears. The Birth Book: Everything You Need to Know to Have a Safe and Satisfying Birth. New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994; Sears, William, and Martha Sears. The Pregnancy Book: A Month-by-Month Guide. New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 1997; Simkin, Penny. Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Newborn, Revised and Updated: The Complete Guide. Minnetonka, MN: Meadowbrook Press, 2001.

Kimberly P. Brackett

CHILDFREE RELATIONSHIPS In today’s society there are many diverse options a person can choose in life. A lifestyle choice that is quickly gaining popularity and attention is the childfree lifestyle. Childfree is a social movement that includes men and women who do not want children, either biologically or through adoption. There are many

125

126

|

Childfree Relationships

issues childfree individuals deal with on personal and societal levels. The childfree movement is becoming a more accepted lifestyle choice, although many who choose to remain voluntarily childless must still face misunderstanding and criticism from some within society. WHAT IS CHILDFREE? The term childfree was coined by Leslie Lafayette in the 1990s and is used to describe a person who does not ever want to have children, whether biologically or through adoption. Lafayette created the Childfree Network, which was formed to be a group for childfree individuals. Childfree individuals distinguish themselves from those who are considered childless because the childfree feel that the term childless denotes that something is missing, whereas those who consider themselves to be childfree are voluntarily without children and feel no sense of loss. Childfree individuals feel that their lives are just as fulfilling and rewarding as the lives of parents. There are many different reasons why individuals choose to be childfree. Medical, personal, environmental, financial, and religious explanations are commonly given as reasons by the childfree when asked about their choice to not have children. Most childfree individuals do not have only one reason for their decision, because deciding whether or not to have children is a complex one. There are also many issues that are of great concern to childfree men and women worldwide, including reproduction, contraception, inequalities within the workplace, and social issues that affect them on a daily basis. There is no cookie-cutter mold of what a childfree person is or is not. Some childfree individuals are well educated and have lucrative careers, while others may have less formal education and modest career aspirations. Some childfree men and women are rich, while others are poor. Some who consider themselves to be childfree know early in their lives that they do not wish to have children, while others may decide later in life that they do not want to become parents. Probably the most important point about a childfree lifestyle is that not all childfree individuals dislike children. Today’s society has a very negative perception of persons who are childfree as being child-haters who disdain all children. Many times it is actually the bad behavior of children that childfree people feel frustrated with, not the children themselves. The reality is that some more militant childfree people do not like children, but there are also many childfree people who do like children and enjoy being around them. The choice to remain childfree is a complex one with many different variations. The common denominator among the childfree is the desire to never have children. Although there are many distinctions among the childfree, statistics and studies have shown that men and women who choose to be childfree are generally well educated people who live in urban areas of the United States. Childfree women are often very career-oriented and may hold professional positions in their workplace. According to a report published in June 2002 by the Fertility of American Women, 44 percent of women 15 to 44 years of age were childless and 71 percent of those childless women were members of the labor

Childfree Relationships |

force. These numbers, while they do not distinguishing childless from childfree, show that many women without children are entering and participating in the workforce. WHAT IS CHILDLESS? Childless individuals are those who do not currently have children, but would like to in the future. The term childless includes those who wish to have biological children at some later point in life and also those who choose to adopt. Childfree men and women make a point to distinguish themselves from those who are considered childless and do not consider themselves to be in the same situation as childless individuals. WHAT IS A FENCE SITTER? A fence sitter is a person who has not decided whether or not he or she wants to have children. Fence sitters are not considered childfree because they have not made the decision to not ever have children. Fence sitters are also not considered childless, because childless individuals eventually want children. REASONS FOR REMAINING CHILDFREE There are many reasons cited by childfree individuals explaining their choice to remain childless by choice. Some individuals know from an early age that they want to be parents and conversely many childfree individuals know from a very early age that they do not want to have children. Other men and women decide later in life that they do not want to be parents. The reasons are numerous and varied but they are all valid explanations for choosing to remain childfree. Medical Reasons The first reason given by childfree individuals when asked why they do not want children deals with medical problems. Childfree people who have hereditary diseases or mental disorders do not want to pass on their disorders to any child. Those childfree individuals who have lived through the pain of hereditary disorders of any kind realize that they could pass on the same pain to a child. Some common medical disorders are diabetes, depression, and other hereditary diseases. There are also childfree men and women who are unable to have children for various reasons and choose not to adopt. Women who are unable to carry a pregnancy to term may choose to become childfree because of their medical condition. For other childfree women, pregnancy may be an option but due to risks and complications caused by various health problems it is recommended that these women not become pregnant. Some childfree women are simply incapable of becoming pregnant. Some childfree men are also sterile and are unable to impregnate their significant other.

127

128

|

Childfree Relationships

Another physical reason given by childfree individuals as to why they do not want children has to do with pregnancy itself. The damage that can be done to a woman’s body during pregnancy is a deterrent to having children for many women within the childfree community. The distended stomach of the pregnant woman, stretch marks, changes in the breasts, and damage done to the reproductive system during childbirth are all reasons that some childfree women cite. There are also childfree individuals who are disgusted by the whole pregnancy and childbirth experience. While some people may see pregnancy and childbirth as a beautiful and natural experience there are those who do not share the same feelings about the process of becoming a parent. Personal Reasons Some childfree persons are also concerned that they will not enjoy being a parent, which is an irreversible decision. The idea of not enjoying children may seem strange to some people, but childfree individuals feel that it is better to realize their feelings before a child is born than to decide later that they do not wish to be a parent. Childfree individuals may feel that they cannot be effective and responsible parents and decide to remain childless. There are also childfree men and women who feel that their relationship with their significant other could suffer if children were introduced into the relationship. Many childfree individuals value the intimate relationship with their partner and do no want to jeopardize their relationship. The desire to concentrate on careers is another reason cited by childfree individuals when explaining why they do not want to have children. Many childfree individuals feel that having a child would reduce their ability to advance within their career field. Because many childfree individuals are well-educated they can be very focused on their work and do not want to jeopardize any future career opportunities. Childfree individuals have the ability to change their career or their city of residence easily because they are not tied to any one area. This can become an important factor for career-oriented individuals because many jobs require frequent moves and business trips. The long hours required for many careers also play into the decision not to have children. Men and women who are fully committed to their career feel that they do not have time to be a devoted parent so they opt not to have children. Parents often have to take time off work because of their children and childfree workers do not want to do this. A time constraint due to work obligations is an important factor that is taken into consideration by those deciding whether or not they truly want to become a parent. Volunteering with organizations that give the individual a rewarding sense of accomplishment have also been cited as a reason for remaining childfree. Childfree men and women who choose to devote their lives to philanthropic pursuits often feel that they are fulfilled by helping others. There are childfree individuals who volunteer with many charitable organizations and use their energy, time, and resources to help those in their communities.

Childfree Relationships |

Childfree men and women also value their independence and carefree lifestyle. Many childfree people do not wish to change the way their life is structured in order to have children. Having a child takes sacrifice that many childfree do not feel is worth the reward. Some childfree individuals also prefer the company of adults to the company of children; therefore, they do not feel that children would fit into their lifestyle. Travel and spontaneity are also valued by many childfree men and women and they feel that this would end if they had children. Many in the childfree community feel that their current way of life would be drastically altered if they were to have children. Because most childfree people enjoy their lives so much, they do not want to have children and take the risk of decreasing their quality of life. Another reason for choosing the childfree lifestyle is a dislike of children. There are childfree individuals who do not feel comfortable around children. Some childfree women have even described a lack of maternal instinct or the lack of a biological clock as reasons why they choose to remain childfree. The dislike of children is the reason the childfree are labeled as child-haters, by some, though many childfree individuals do not openly express their dislike of children. Even though there are some childfree men and women who do not like children, there are also many childfree individuals who do. Childfree people do not automatically hate children just because they choose not to have any of their own. Many childfree men and women are happy to be god-parents, mentors, aunts or uncles, or educators to children instead of having their own children. Many childfree do not dislike all children, but do not like the behavior of some children. Most childfree individuals admit that it is bad parenting that they hate, not necessarily the children exhibiting the bad behavior. Environmental Reasons An additional reason given by some childfree individuals when questioned about their decision to not have children is that the world is already overpopulated. This line of reasoning has been described as an environmental reason for being childfree. Those childfree individuals who feel that the world is overpopulated feel that it is unfair to put a strain on the environment in order to reproduce. Diminished natural resources, pollution, global warming, and other environmental factors that affect our world today can also be considered environmental reasons for not having children. Financial Reasons There are also financial reasons that are taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to have children. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated in 2005 that families making $70,200 a year or more will spend $279,450 to raise a child born in 2005 to age 17. Families earning $41,700 to $70,200 will

129

130

|

Childfree Relationships

spend $190,980 and families earning less than $41,700 will spend $139,110. The cost of raising a child is significant and there are childfree individuals who take into account the financial responsibilities involved when making their decision to not have children. Religious Reasons The final reason some men and women choose to be childfree is for religious reasons. Nuns and priests are not allowed to have children because of their commitment to their faith. There are other people who choose to remain celibate, whether for personal or religious reasons. For nuns, priests, and any others who might choose celibacy, remaining childfree is done so because of their calling to that path in life. THE CHILDFREE MOVEMENT The childfree movement is a social movement that has gained strength and popularity in recent years. The formation of childfree organizations has helped provide the general public with a better understanding of what being childfree really means. There are also numerous groups that are accessible through the Internet that provide a social outlet for childfree men and women. Internet resources also offer a wealth of information regarding the childfree lifestyle. Childfree Organizations There are numerous organizations that have been formed to offer information and support to childfree men and women worldwide. Support networks have been developed in recent year to connect childfree people all over the world. These networks help bring childfree people together and also help childfree men and women see that they are not alone in their decision. A few childfree organizations are: No Kidding!, The World Childfree Association, and Kidding Aside. Childfree Slang Terms The childfree community has an entire vocabulary of slang terms that are used in communication with other childfree individuals and with non-childfree people. The slang terms used by childfree individuals are used to discuss parents, children, and even remarks the childfree receive about their lifestyle choice. The terms that childfree men and women use in conversation can be found widely on Internet communities and are also used in everyday conversation with other childfree individuals. The term childfree is generally abbreviated as CF and is distinguished from childless, which is abbreviated as CL. There are terms that distinguish between parents and what childfree call “breeders,” which are people who do not effectively parent their children. In childfree slang terminology parents are good and are referred to as PNBs

Childfree Relationships |

131

(Parents, Not Breeders) and breeders or BNPs (Breeders, Not Parents) are bad. There are also terms that differentiate between male and female breeders. In childfree slang terminology a female breeder is referred to as a “moo” and a male breeder is called a “duh.” The term “baby rabies” is a childfree term used to describe women who continually have children, talk about children, or want to have children. There is also terminology used to discuss children. A common term used by childfree men and women to describe children is “sprog.” There are many other more derogatory terms used to distinguish children who misbehave and are considered annoyances from those who are well behaved. In general, most childfree individuals have no problem with children and parents, but they do dislike breeders and their offspring. The child-hater term that is usually attached to childfree individuals can be attributed to the reaction by the childfree to poor parenting and the results of that parenting that become evident in their children.

CHILDFREE SLANG TERMS Baby Rabies—Used to describe women who continually have children or want to have children. Also, women who continually talk about children can be said to have the “baby rabies.” Bingo—Commonly heard phrases made by non-childfree individuals regarding childfree choices not to have children. Examples include: “You’ll want children when you meet the right person”, “It’s different when they’re your own,” “Who will take care of you when you get old?” “You were a child once too!” “It is the most important job in the world” and “People who don’t want kids are selfish.” BNP (Breeder, Not Parent )—Individuals who are not active in parenting and who do not discipline their children; in other words bad parents. Breeder—Bad parents. CF—Abbreviation for the term childfree. CL—Abbreviation for childless. DINK—An abbreviation for Dual Income No Kids. This term is used by many married childfree to describe their status. Duh—A male breeder (father). Fence Sitter—A person who has not decided whether or not they want children. Moo—A female breeder (mother). PNB (Parent, Not Breeder )—Individuals who take an active role in parenting and discipline their children; in other words good parents. SINK—An abbreviation for Single Income No Kids. This term is used to describe childfree individuals or couples who only have one source of income. Sprog—A child. SUV Stroller—Any large, oversized stroller.

132

|

Childfree Relationships

IMPORTANT CHILDFREE ISSUES Reproductive Issues Childfree individuals are concerned with many issues that affect different people throughout the United States, not only those within the childfree community. The issue of sterilization is one of growing concern among the childfree. Many childfree men and women want to be able to be rendered permanently unable to have children, but there is hesitation and resistance among many in the medical field. Many doctors refuse to perform tubal ligations or chemical sterilization procedures on women who have not had children, who are considered too young, or who are unmarried. Some doctors also fear that women will change their minds after the procedure and will sue the physician who performed the operation. Childfree individuals who have been denied sterilization argue that it is their choice and their bodies and they should be able to have sterilization procedures if they request it. Many childfree women feel patronized and belittled by doctors who are unwilling to perform sterilization procedures. Childfree men also seek permanent sterilization in the form of vasectomies. The ability to take control of one’s own reproductive life is an important issue among childfree men and women. Many childfree people are also very interested in contraception and abortion issues. Like many around the world, childfree individuals feel that safe, effective contraception options should be available to all who need them. Opinions on abortion vary, but there is a strong pro-choice voice among the childfree community. Issues dealing with sterilization, contraception, and abortion are all heavily debated by and at the heart of many childfree individuals. Workplace Issues Childfree men and women within the American workforce are also campaigning for changes in the treatment of the childfree compared to the treatment of parents in many businesses. Childfree men and women who feel that they are treated unequally in the workplace want to be able to have the flex time and comparable benefits that are offered to many workers with children. Childfree workers believe strongly in equal work for equal pay, but many feel that pay is not currently equivalent in many respects. Childfree individuals may be asked to take on a heavier workload because working parents have to take more time off from work. Childfree workers may have to work longer hours, take on extra responsibilities, and travel more than those who have children. Childfree individuals also want to be afforded some tax breaks that are comparable to those available to couples who have a child or children. There are certain tax breaks, such as a dependent exemption and the child tax credit, that are only available to those with children. Parents also have access to public education for their children from kindergarten through twelfth grade that is paid for with taxpayer dollars. Parents may also receive other incentives from the government or from their employers for having children. Many workers who do

Childfree Relationships |

not have children but who have the responsibility of taking care of sick family members feel that they should be offered similar benefits for their dependents as parents receive for their children. Social Issues Another set of issues that affect childfree men and women are the remarks made by non-childfree people concerning their childfree status. Many people feel that becoming a parent is an important part of life and do not understand why some choose to remain voluntarily childless. Childfree men and women deal with comments and questions frequently regarding their decision to remain childfree. Questions and remarks made by non-childfree people are used very often in an attempt to change the minds of the childfree, but they are heard so often that they become frustrating. There are religious groups who disagree with childfree individuals because they feel that those who choose not to have children are rebelling against God. There are those in the religious community who feel that people should not have the option to remain childless if they are capable of becoming parents. Opposition to the childfree lifestyle by religious groups causes Christian childfree individuals to feel the need to justify their choices in light of their religious beliefs. Married childfree couples who are members of the Christian faith especially feel pressured to procreate because of the teachings of the church. Childfree men and women are frequently called selfish for their decision not to have children. Childfree people are many times labeled as immature, unhappy, unnatural, unfeminine, abnormal, child-haters, and so on. Childfree individuals, on the other hand, do not feel that children are an obligation that all people must fulfill. Childfree individuals see their contribution to society as being through their volunteer efforts, their career, or their other interests and talents that can improve society as a whole. Many childfree individuals are devoted to their careers and philanthropic work, and while they do not wish to have children of their own, they may enjoy other people’s children. Other childfree individuals choose to work with children as mentors, teachers, or caregivers while choosing to remain voluntarily childless in their personal lives. In today’s society, deviating from the norm of having children, whether they are biological or adopted, is seen as abnormal no matter what reasons are given to justify the action. SUMMARY The term childfree is used to describe a social movement of men and women who do not want children, either biologically or through adoption. Childfree individuals distinguish themselves from those who are considered to be childless because the term “less” implies that something is missing, when childfree individuals do not feel they are missing out on anything. Childless differs from childfree in that childless men and women do not presently have children, but they want to in the future.

133

134

|

Children as Caregivers

Childfree individuals deal with issues on many levels and are many times viewed negatively by others in society. There are numerous reasons for an individual to choose to be childfree, including medical, personal, environmental, financial, and religious reasons. Being childfree is a personal choice that is not reached without much thought and consideration. Men and women who are childfree have made a choice and want to live their lives as they wish, without being pressured to have children they do not want. See also Infertility; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Bartlett, Jane. Will You Be Mother? Women Who Choose to Say No. New York: New York University Press, 1995; Burkett, Elinor. The Baby Boon: How FamilyFriendly America Cheats the Childless. New York: The Free Press, 2000; Cain, Madelyn. The Childless Revolution. Boston: Perseus Publishing, 2001; Defago, Nicki. Childfree and Loving It! London: Vision, 2005; Lisle, Laurie. Without Child: Challenging the Stigma of Childlessness. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996; Safer, Jennifer. Beyond Motherhood: Choosing Life Without Children. New York: Pocket Books, 1996; Shawne, Jennifer L. Baby Not on Board: A Celebration of Life without Kids. San Francisco: Chronicle Book, LLC, 2005.

Anne Strickland CHILDREN AS CAREGIVERS When thinking about the role of children in society, one rarely expects that children will be caring for others. The cultural model supposes that children are the ones in need of care. However, an estimated 1.4 children in the United States provide care for a parent or other adult. They may help a grandparent with dressing and feeding or help a parent with household chores and meal preparation. For some children, the experience is stressful, isolating, and its negative effects may persist into adulthood. For other children, the experience can be an opportunity to build life skills, to help a family member, and to feel useful and important. The duration of the caregiving experience and the support and recognition provided to the child can help to determine whether the caregiving experience is a positive or a negative one. CHILD CAREGIVERS AND PARENTIFICATION The National Alliance on Caregiving and the United Hospital Fund define a child caregiver as anyone aged 8 to 18 “who provides unpaid help or care to anyone in the household or any relative, whether or not the relative lives with the caregiver” (National Alliance on Caregiving 2005). Caregiving activities can include helping with meals, personal needs, household chores, shopping, transportation, medicine, and emotional support. The concept of parentification is related to the experience of child caregiving. Parentification involves a reversal of roles in which children set aside their own needs to address the emotional or physical needs of a parent or sibling. Parentification can take different forms—children can experience instrumental,

Children as Caregivers |

emotional, and destructive parentification. Instrumental parentification refers to the experience of children who assume household duties such as completing chores, preparing meals, and paying bills. Children who experience emotional parentification respond to the emotional needs of family members and may take responsibility for resolving conflicts in the home. Finally, destructive parentification occurs when there is a lack of boundaries between family members, and children assume a disproportionate amount of caretaking responsibilities. PREVALENCE OF CHILD CAREGIVING The National Alliance on Caregiving and the United Hospital Fund estimate that as many as 1.4 million children in the United States provide care to a relative. About three percent of all U.S. households with children have a child carer as a member (National Alliance on Caregiving 2005). A variety of factors contribute to the need for child caregiving. Longer life expectancies and increases in the prevalence of chronic diseases have led more adults to live longer but to require more care as they age. This trend is likely to continue and warrants greater involvement of children in caring for older family members. Shifts in the health care system, including shorter hospitalizations and rising nursing home costs, have increased the need for home care. Based in the notion that persons are more comfortable recuperating at home and consequently will heal more quickly there, patients are unlikely to spend protracted time in a medical facility. As medical costs and insurance premiums have increased, a cost saving measure has been to decrease the number of hospital days covered by insurance, thus forcing some persons home early when their ability to pay for treatment ends. At the same time, increases in the prevalence of single-parent families and the number of adults working outside the home have decreased the number of adults who can assume caregiving responsibilities. Traditionally an adult daughter would be caring for aging relatives, but as these women are increasingly in the labor force, the task may be assigned to her child. CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD CAREGIVERS Children of all ages offer caregiving assistance. Nearly one-third of child caregivers in the United States are between the ages of 8 and 11. Close to 40 percent are aged 12 to 15, and 31 percent are between the ages of 16 and 18 (National Alliance on Caregiving 2005). Contrary to the findings regarding adult caregivers, nearly equal numbers of child caregivers are female and male. Child caregivers tend to live in homes with more children than do noncaregiving children. However, over one-third of child caregivers are the only child under 18 in their household, and over 60 percent are the only children providing care in their home. Child caregivers also are more likely to live in a home with a single parent and are more likely to live in households that earn less than $25,000 per year, compared to noncaregiving children (National Alliance on Caregiving 2005).

135

136

|

Children as Caregivers

CHARACTERISTICS OF CARE RECEIVERS Most child caregivers care for a parent or grandparent. Of these, children usually care for a female relative—a mother or grandmother—and usually care for someone who lives in their home. Child caregivers who are part of a minority racial or ethnic group are more likely to provide care for their mother than nonminority child caregivers. Nearly one in nine child caregivers care for a sibling and fewer numbers provide care for other relatives or nonrelatives (National Alliance on Caregiving 2005). Child caregivers provide assistance to adults with a wide range of physical, mental, and emotional needs. According to one survey, children are most likely to provide assistance to adults who have Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia; heart, lung or kidney disease; arthritis; and diabetes. Physical conditions for which children provide care also include the functional decline of older adults who cannot complete certain tasks due to old age; back, bone, or joint injuries; paralysis or spine injury; stroke; fibromyalgia; cancer; and mental retardation. Other children provide care to family members with HIV and alcoholism. Over one-half of child caregivers assist with at least one activity of daily living (National Alliance on Caregiving 2005). These include feeding, dressing, bathing, and helping the care recipient get into and out of beds and chairs. In addition to assisting with physical activities, many child caregivers also provide emotional support to the care receiver. Children may serve as the peacemaker in the family or spend time listening to the ill family member. YOUNG CARERS PROJECTS Young caregivers in the United Kingdom (UK) can find support and resources through the Young Carers Projects, local organizations that were created to provide child-centered support to young caregivers and their families. There are approximately 100 Young Carers Projects in the UK (The Young Carers Initiative 2008). These organizations provide opportunities for young caregivers to meet other children who are caring for an older relative and provide muchneeded free time for young caregivers. The projects sponsor activities, such as evening clubs, day and weekend trips, and some even provide respite care. In addition, the projects provide a place where children can access information about the caregiving process as well as learn about available government services and benefits. Some projects have a befriending component, where adults volunteer to mentor and provide respite activities for young caregivers. Several of the organizations have their own kid-friendly websites. Among them are the Gloucestershire Young Carers Project (http://www.glosyoungcarers.org.uk/) and the Dundee Young Carers Project (http://www.youngcarers.co.uk/).

EFFECTS OF CAREGIVING ON CHILDREN Effects of child caregiving are varied and are just beginning to be studied. Early research on child caregiving did not occur until the late 1980s and focused

Children as Caregivers |

on assessing the extent of child caregiving and child caregivers’ needs in the United Kingdom. Subsequent studies have focused on quantifying the number and characteristics of child caregivers in the United States and describing the experiences and effects of child caregiving. Research into the phenomenon in the United States has demonstrated that caregiving experiences can have both positive and negative effects for child caregivers. Positive Effects Caregiving can provide children with a sense of responsibility, help them feel like they are contributing to their family, and allow them to gain important life skills. When adults who had cared for family members with chronic physical illnesses as children were asked what they liked about caregiving, they said that the experience gave them opportunities “to be part of the family” and to feel “appreciated,” “important,” and “useful” (Lackey and Gates 2001). Many of the adults currently were employed in careers that involved caregiving, such as nursing or teaching, suggesting that their caregiving experience may have had an influence on their career choice. Children who helped to care for grandparents with Alzheimer’s Disease also reported feeling that their caregiving activities were helpful and beneficial. Some grandchildren also said that they developed closer relationships with grandparents during the caregiving period. They described the coping skills they gained from their experience, and several offered advice to families facing a similar situation. Negative Effects The experience of caregiving is a stressful one for many children. Many child caregivers feel helpless because they lack information about the family member’s illness. Others describe increased stress and tension due to the combination of providing care and adjusting to their family member’s illness. Anxiety and fear about aging was common among those children who care for grandparents with Alzheimer’s Disease. As a result of their experiences, some child caregivers suffer from chronic psychological problems, such as depression and separation anxiety. The effects of caregiving on school and social life are profound for some child caregivers. Care responsibilities leave children with less time for after school activities and homework. In some cases, adults have reported that they dropped out of high school as teenagers to care for a family member with a chronic physical illness. Other child caregivers have expressed that school provided a needed break from caregiving responsibilities and that the ill family member encouraged them and helped them with schoolwork. Some child caregivers choose not to tell their friends about their caregiving experience or their ill family member, while others find that their friends are supportive. Child caregivers who are of dating age may choose not to date or date early to “get out of the home.” The negative effects and burden of caring for

137

138

|

Children as Caregivers

another person when one is at a young age can be difficult. One child caring for an adult with a chronic physical illness reported that she “married the first person I dated to escape” (Lackey and Gates 2001). For some children, the negative effects of child caregiving can persist into adulthood. Fear of developing a chronic or terminal illness themselves and unresolved feelings of anger and guilt over the task can remain with child caregivers long after the caregiving experience has ended. In addition, some young caregivers show symptoms of depression in adulthood. WHEN DOES CAREGIVING BECOME A NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE? In general, the longer the duration of the caregiving experience, the more likely child caregivers are to experience negative outcomes. Child caregivers who are female, live in single parent families, and care for their nonworking mothers are more likely to have long-term or disproportionate care responsibilities. In addition, children who care for an adult with unpleasant symptoms and who lack adequate information about the disease are more likely to report negative effects of caregiving, suggesting that at minimum child caregivers should be given useful knowledge about the person for whom they are caring and the basic facts about their condition. Child caregivers’ relationships with their parents are associated with adult mental health outcomes. Adults who cared for a parent or adult relative as a child received less warmth and caring from their parents than did noncaregiving adults. Children who cared for alcoholic parents and experienced destructive parentification were more likely to develop a negative self-concept than were children who cared for alcoholic parents and whose contributions were supported and recognized. Constructive caregiving experiences usually occur when children have clearly defined tasks, provide care under adult supervision, and receive assurance that they are not solely responsible for providing care. In addition, receiving recognition for their contributions and participating in supportive services also help children have positive caregiving experiences that can have benefits in their adult lives. See also Addiction and Family; Elder Abuse; Elder Care; Grandparenthood; Grandparents as Caregivers; Housework Allocation; Pet Death and the Family. Further Reading: Akerman, Sherri. “Young Caregivers Face Many Challenges.” Tampa Tribune, January 29, 2007; Aldridge, Jo. “The Experiences of Children Living with and Caring for Parents with Mental Illness.” Child Abuse Review 15, no. 2 (2006): 79–88; Aldridge, Jo, and Saul Becker. “Befriending Young Carers: A Pilot Study.” Loughboro University. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/youngCarersDown load/pilot%20study.pdf; Aldridge, Jo, and Saul Becker. “Inside the World of Young Carers.” Loughboro University. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/young CarersDownload/ Children%20who%20care.pdf; Austin, LeAne. “Children as Caregivers.” Caregiver.com. http://www.caregiver.com/articles/children/children_as_care givers.htm; Bauman, Laurie J., Ellen J. Silver, Barbara H. Draimin, and Jan Hudis. “Children of Mothers With HIV/AIDS: Unmet Needs for Mental Health Services.”

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage | Pediatrics 120, no. 5 (2007): 1141–1147; Becker, Saul. “Young Carers in Europe: An Exploratory Cross-National Study. Young Carers Research Group.” Loughboro University. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/youngCarersDownload/Young %20Carers%20in%20Europe1.pdf; Blum, Jonathan. “Caring for Dad.” Scholastic Action 30, no. 1 (2006): 14–16; Chideya, Farai. “When Children Must Care for Others.” NPR News and Notes, October 12, 2006; Dearden, Chris, and Becker, Saul. “Young Carers and Education.” Carers UK. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/young CarersDownload/yceduc[1].pdf; Godsall, Robert E., Gregory J. Jurkovic, James Emshoff, Louis Anderson, and Douglas Stanwyck. “Why Some Kids Do Well in Bad Situations: Relation of Parental Alcohol Misuse and Parentification to Children’s Self-Concept.” Substance Use and Misuse 39, no. 5 (2004): 789–809; Hooper, Lisa. M. “Expanding the Discussion Regarding Parentification and Its Varied Outcomes: Implications for Mental Health Research and Practice.” Journal of Mental Health Counseling 29, no. 4 (2007): 322–337; Kornblum, Janet. “When Child Cares for Parent.” USA Today, September, 14, 2005; Lackey, Nancy R., and Marie F. Gates. “Adults’ Recollections of their Experiences as Young Caregivers of Family Members with Chronic Physical Illnesses.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 34, no. 3 (2001): 320–328; National Alliance on Caregiving and the United Hospital Fund. “Young Caregivers in the U.S.” http://www.caregiving.org/data/ youngcaregivers.pdf; Newton, Betty, and Saul Becker. “The Capital Carers: An Evaluation of the Capital Carers Young Carers Project.” Loughboro University. http://www.lboro. ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/youngCarersDownload/capital%20carers.pdf; Orel, Nancy A., and Paula Dupuy. “Grandchildren as Auxiliary Caregivers for Grandparents with Cognitive and/or Physical Limitations: Coping Strategies and Ramifications.” Child Study Journal 32, no. 4 (2002): 193–213; Pollack, Eunice G. “The Children We Have Lost: When Siblings were Caregivers, 1900–1970.” Journal of Social History 36, no. 1 (2002): 31; The Princess Royal Trust for Carers. “Who Does What?: Young Carers Projects,” 2004–2007. http://www.youngcarers.net/who_can_help_me/86/92; Shifren, Kim, and Lauren V. Kachorek. “Does Early Caregiving Matter? The Effects on Young Caregivers’ Adult Mental Health.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 27, no. 4 (2003): 338–346; Social Care Institute for Excellence. “The Health and Well-Being of Young Carers.” Research Briefing Number 11 (2005). http://www.scie.org.uk/publi cations/briefings/briefing11/ index.asp; The Young Carers Initiative. “Projects A-Z Index.” http://www.youngcarer.com/showPage. php?file=projects.htm.

Katie Kerstetter COHABITATION, EFFECTS ON MARRIAGE Cohabitation literally means living together. In our society this term is most often used to refer to persons who are in a romantic or sexual relationship, reside at the same residence, but are not legally married. The influence of nonmarital cohabitation on a subsequent marriage continues to be hotly debated. Does cohabiting with one’s partner prior to marriage lead to a decrease in marital quality and a greater likelihood of divorce? Or does cohabiting allow partners to determine if they will be good spouses prior to committing to marriage, and therefore decrease their chances of marital dissolution? Not only is there concern about divorce being greater for couples that cohabited prior to marriage, but there is a concern that all aspects of the marriage might be altered by the cohabitation experience.

139

140

|

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage

Beginning in the 1970s, as cohabitation rates increased in the United States, researchers began to examine the effects that cohabitation might have on marriage. This examination considered how cohabitation might have an impact on the institution of marriage as well as how individual marriages might be different if partners cohabited prior to their marriage. The assumption that under-girds this research is that cohabitation and marriage are qualitatively different experiences. In other words, marriage can not be completely replaced by cohabitation because marriage is somehow unique. Therefore, comparisons of cohabitors and married couples would support the notion that the two statuses differ in significant ways, beyond the obvious legal difference. COMPARISONS OF MARRIED AND NONMARRIED COHABITANTS As options for conducting a personal relationship, marriage and cohabitation share many similarities. They are both expected to be sexual relationships, partners have some idea that their obligations are drawn along gender lines, and there is the presumption of some stability and attachment among the partners. However, cohabitation and marriage hold different status in the culture. While cohabitation has gained in acceptability as more persons have experienced it as a lifestyle in recent decades, it has neither the legal status nor moral acceptability of marriage. As a result, the legality of the status is in doubt in some states and the morality of the choice continues to be debated. The rise in cohabitation among persons claiming a religious affiliation, particularly among Protestants, has led to an emphasis on evaluating how Christian principles disagree with cohabitation. The book Living Together by Jeff VanGoethem is a good example of the pastoral approach to cohabitation. In marriage, the obligations of the partners to each other are prescribed in tradition as well as the law. Cohabitors do not have such an institutionalized set of roles, so they often must make things up as they go along. Because couples are most familiar with them, expected marital roles might sometimes guide a cohabiting relationship. While persons recognize that marriage is a relationship designed to last forever, many ambiguities surround cohabitation. For some partners, cohabitation will lead to marriage, for others it is only likely to last as long as both partners are benefiting from the arrangement. Thus, cohabiting relationships often begin and end in rapid fashion, as there are no legal requirements to get into or out of them. As a group, cohabiting partners have less traditional attitudes toward gender roles than do married partners. This means that they are more likely to be egalitarian about the roles of males and females. Most cohabiting partners are both employed outside the home, but just as in a marriage, women do more of the domestic labor. Despite having two earners, cohabitors tend to have lower incomes and more economic instability when compared with married couples. Cohabitants tend to keep their financial lives separate from each other and are less likely to own their residence than are married partners. Questions about differences in the quality of marital and cohabiting relationships indicate that married persons are happier overall and express more

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage |

relationship satisfaction than do cohabitors. Both married and cohabiting partners experience health benefits from being in a partnered relationship, but cohabitors have higher overall rates of domestic violence. Spouses claim higher levels of commitment to the partner and the relationship than do cohabitants, resulting in higher rates of dissolution for cohabiting relationships compared with marriages. Most persons who cohabit are not doing so as a lifelong alternative to marriage. Many are doing it as a prelude to marriage or an extension of a dating relationship. Cohabiting relationships are fairly short-term relationships overall, with the average length of a relationship being 1.5 years. Many cohabiting partners never intend to marry; they may simply be in the relationship because it is convenient. In fact, within three years of their beginning to live together, only half of the couples that expect that their cohabitation will lead to marriage actually end up married to each other. Cohabiting couples have a rate of separation that is five times that of married couples, and in the event of separation, cohabitors have a rate of reconciliation that is only 33 percent as high as that of married couples. COHABITATION STRENGTHENS MARRIAGE While few experts would argue that cohabitation strengthens subsequent marriages, lay persons often provide anecdotal evidence of cohabitation as being the right choice for them. Consistent with the testing model, persons who choose to cohabit often say that they are doing so to weed out any potential problems with the partner before the marriage occurs. In this way they might hope to save themselves from future divorce. If couples wish to try out the partner as a spouse before marriage, it may indicate that they place a strong value on marriage and do not want to enter a marriage unwisely. Thus, the motive is to strengthen the subsequent marriage. The directors of the Alternatives to Marriage Project have suggested that cohabitation can be helpful for subsequent marriages provided that partners enter cohabitation with the right approach. Essentially, cohabitation must be undertaken thoughtfully rather than casually. Partners need to clarify their motives for cohabiting and have a date in mind to re-evaluate the choice or set a marriage date. Partners are encouraged to talk about how their relationship might change after marriage and to even write a living together agreement that outlines the expectations for each partner. There is a growing body of evidence that under certain circumstances prior cohabitation has little, if any, discernable effect on subsequent marriages. In a recent study published in the well respected Journal of Marriage and the Family, when a woman’s cohabiting relationship or premarital sexual relationship was limited to the future husband, there seemed to be no effects of cohabitation on likelihood of divorce. This finding points toward the circumstances of the cohabitation itself being a far more critical consideration than whether or not the cohabitation occurred. When partners who cohabited prior to engagement were compared with those who cohabited postengagement, the group that cohabited

141

142

|

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage

after a specific commitment to marry were positive, committed, confident and experiencing as high of a quality relationship as a control group that had not cohabited. This lends further support to those persons who say that the motives for cohabitation and circumstances surrounding it are critical in whether it strengthens or weakens a subsequent marriage. Due to the fact that cohabitation is often a stage in courtship, one must be wary of comparisons between cohabitors and noncohabitors. For example, some researchers have suggested that the most accurate comparisons would be between persons who are married and those who have selected cohabitation as a permanent alternative to marriage. A researcher wishing to uncover any benefits that cohabitation provides for marriage would be best served by studying only cohabitors in a trial marriage or testing relationship.

TRIAL MARRIAGE One of the more controversial suggestions for determining compatibility over the last century was proposed by anthropologist Margaret Mead. She suggested that society would be best served by two distinct stages or steps in marriage. In the first step, partners would be committed to each other, but would not be permitted to have children. In other words, they would agree to make sure their bonds would be permanent first. Mead called this first step individual marriage. After demonstrating their commitment to each other and the relationship, partners could move to the second stage, parental marriage. In the second step, partners indicated their intent to have children. This new component to the marriage would be marked by a formal ceremony and an expectation for permanence. In some limited ways it could be argued that we have a de facto two-stage marriage system now with the high numbers of persons who cohabit prior to marrying. Persons who do cohabit often postpone having children until after being legally married, or marrying once a pregnancy has occurred.

COHABITATION WEAKENS MARRIAGE One of the arguments on the institutional level of society suggests that marriage is suffering as a result of cohabitation. As rates of cohabitation have increased steadily during the last 30 to 40 years, rates of marriage have gone down. It is accurate to say that nearly as many young people are partnered today as in the past. They are, however, marrying at lower rates and postponing marriage until later ages. The alternative behavior that they are engaging in is cohabitation. The concern among those most critical of the increases in cohabitation, particularly conservative religious and political groups such as the Institute for American Values, Focus on the Family, or the Moral Majority, is that persons are rejecting a traditional legal marriage in favor of a fad in relationships. Persons who are more liberal on family issues agree that young people are cohabiting in greater numbers rather than marrying. They argue, however, that the young

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage |

people are concerned over the high rates of divorce and lack confidence in the institution of marriage. The link between marriage and childrearing has been the most fruitful for critics to pursue. Marriage is touted as the best environment in which to protect and rear children in U.S. society. Most cohabiting persons who desire to bring children into their relationship will marry before the child is born. This pattern does not, however, hold true for African Americans who are less likely than other racial or ethnic groups to marry following a nonmarital conception. Studies conducted in the United States and elsewhere with both small and large samples have found evidence that cohabitors report being less happy when compared with married couples and that cohabitation leads to lower-quality marriages. Perhaps this is a result of what some conservative advice columnists assert, that cohabitation takes the mystery away from marriage. You don’t get to learn all those special things about the partner after marriage. It short-changes the partners. Most religiously conservative groups equate cohabitation with a cheapening of the sexual bond that is supposed to develop between couples after the marriage in a traditional model of family life. The saying “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” reminds couples that there is potential for sexual exploitation in a cohabiting relationship. Additionally, partners who cohabit are more likely to be unfaithful at some point during the marriage. Rates of divorce for partners who cohabited prior to marriage are higher than for partners who did not live together before the wedding. This pattern holds true even after taking age at marriage and education level, factors that are known to be associated with divorce, into account. However, there does seem to be a decrease in the difference between cohabiting and noncohabiting groups in more recent studies. While the pattern was clearly established for those who cohabited in the 1970s and 1980s, persons who have cohabited more recently have not shown as dramatic a difference with regard to likelihood of divorce. It is suggested that this decreasing of the effect of divorce has resulted not from any major changes to marriage, but to the greater acceptance of cohabitation as a lifestyle choice. The group for whom the divorce rate remains high is a subgroup that has experienced multiple cohabiting relationships prior to marrying. This group is referred to as serial cohabitors because when one cohabiting relationship ends, they move right into another. Selection Effect or Experience Effect? Is the slightly greater chance of divorce for couples who cohabit prior to marriage linked to the selection effect—the suggestion that those who cohabit hold unique characteristics compared with those who do not cohabit—or to the effect of the experience of the cohabitation relationship itself? The selection idea that persons who choose to cohabit are somehow different than those who do not cohabit has merit. Selection effects that make data on cohabitation particularly hard to interpret are of two types. First, persons in the cohabiting group may have background

143

144

|

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage

characteristics that make them less likely to have positive relationships. Persons who cohabit are more likely than those who marry without cohabiting to have lower economic standing, less education, and a greater likelihood of a premarital conception. All are factors that can lead to fewer resources and greater stress in relationships. These persons may have difficulty maintaining any relationship, a fact that might actually push them to choose cohabitation. Second, persons who choose cohabitation are less conventional in their beliefs and might, therefore, hold attitudes that would be counterproductive in marriage. For example, if a couple is liberal enough in their attitude toward marriage and family to be willing to cohabit, then if things do not work out as they would like, they may be liberal enough to select divorce as a way to end an unsatisfactory marriage. The experience effect, on the other hand, posits that there is something about cohabiting relationships that changes the participants and makes couples behave differently in the marriage or be more likely to seek divorce. One theory of how the experience effect might work suggests that because of the relatively commitment-free nature of cohabitation couples do not work to stay together in a cohabiting relationship. Persons who cohabit learn that if things are not working out, the partner should just leave and go on to a new relationship. Therefore, if these partners marry they are less likely to try to work through any problems that arise in their relationship. The interaction styles learned through cohabitation influence how the couple will relate to each other when a marriage is contracted. Additionally, because cohabitation is still viewed by many as a deviant relationship, the partners may view themselves as more deviant and take on other behaviors that are unconventional. Another way in which future marriage may be influenced by prior cohabitation is through the social support that couples receive. Studies suggest that cohabitors have more distant relationships with their families, thus reducing the support network that might be available if problems arise in a subsequent marriage. When thinking about the likelihood of divorce following cohabitation it is particularly relevant that cohabitation is more common before a remarriage than it is before a first marriage. In this instance selection and experience effects are both involved. FUTURE OF MARRIAGE Whether marriage is strengthened or weakened by cohabitation continues to be debated on moral, practical, and legal grounds. What is difficult to dispute is the fact that cohabitation is a part of most persons’ relationship experiences today and the trends suggest that this will continue. Estimates are that 60 percent of marriages begun in the 1990s were preceded by cohabitation. Most of these data were gathered by examining the addresses couples used when they applied for a marriage license. If the address was the same, researchers assumed that the couple was cohabiting. Some researchers predict that more than 70 percent of couples that marry during this first decade of the twenty-first century will cohabit prior to marriage.

Common Law Marriage | 145

See also Benefits of Marriage; Common Law Marriage; Family Roles; Nonmarital Cohabitation. Further Reading: Alternatives to Marriage Project. http://www.unmarried.org; Ambert, Anne-Marie. Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related? Ottawa, Ont.: The Vanier Institute of the Family, 2005; Casper, Lynne M., and Suzanne M. Bianchi. Continuity and Change in the American Family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001; Kamp Dush, Claire M., Catherine L. Cohan, and Paul Amato. “The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change Across Cohorts.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2003): 539–549; National Marriage Project. http://www.marriage.rutgers. edu; Popenoe, David, and Barbara Defoe Whitehead. Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage—A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research, 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: The National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, 2002; Solot, Dorian, and Marshall Miller. Unmarried to Each Other: The Essential Guide to Living Together as an Unmarried Couple. New York: Marlowe and Company, 2002; VanGoethem, Jeff. Living Together: A Guide to Counseling Unmarried Couples. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2005; Waite, Linda, and Maggie Gal lagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-off Financially. New York: Broadway Books, 2001; Wilson, James Q. The Marriage Problem. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.

Kimberly P. Brackett COMMON LAW MARRIAGE A common law marriage is a marriage without a state recognized ceremony for the purpose of establishing the relationship of husband and wife. These marriage are not formalized by traditional ceremonies, but are entered into with “a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1991). In a limited number of states, heterosexual couples can become legally married without a license or ceremony. Common law marriage is also known as an informal marriage or, in legal terms, “marriage by habit and repute.” Why people enter into legal marriages as opposed to common law marriages varies with social and personal perceptions. Marriage is regarded by some as a publicly sanctioned institution that should be documented in the same public fashion. Others consider marriage a civil contract which requires registration in order to settle legal issues and formalize familial obligations. Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman with governmental, social, or religious recognition, and is created as a contract or through a civil process. Such marriages are also called statutory or civil marriages because they use the statutory law system in which a license is required prior to the lawful rite of the marriage. When people consider common law marriage, they often include domestic partnerships and cohabitation. Domestic partnerships are relationships between individuals who live together and share a common domestic life, but are not

146

|

Common Law Marriage

joined in a traditional civil marriage. This type of arrangement includes samesex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or local jurisdiction, so there is no nationwide consistency on the rights, responsibilities, and benefits for these couples. The terminology for such unions is still evolving, and the exact level of rights and responsibilities granted by a domestic partnership varies widely from place to place. Cohabitation is two people living together as husband and wife. This arrangement is an emotional and physical relationship which includes a common living place and usually exists without any legal or religious sanction. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, cohabitation includes the mutual assumption of marital duties and obligations that occur with married people, including, but not necessarily dependent on, sexual relations. In the social science literature, cohabitation is generally referred to as a marriage-like relationship. Some couples prefer cohabitation because it does not legally commit them for an extended period of time, and because it is easier to establish and dissolve than a legal marriage. Partners often use this arrangement to test the likelihood of future marital success with the partner. Today the most commonly accepted method of marriage is to acquire a state civil marriage license. Modern American society has changed in its social attitudes toward both common law marriage and civil marriage with regards to gender, age, religion, and social class which add to the ever-changing posture of relationships. Supporters of common law marriage may see requirements of a state license as surrendering personal independence to the government. Opponents feel that any method short of legal marriage will neither support family stability nor afford couples legal protection. BACKGROUND The idea of common law marriage began in medieval England, where couples got married by methods that had developed from local customs. Clerics and justices who performed ceremonial marriages were not always able to travel to rural locations where some couples lived, so couples established a marriage by habit and reputation. This marriage by “habit and repute” was seen as legal under England’s Common Law. In the mid-1500s, the Council of Trent outlawed common law marriages and established the necessity of a Roman Catholic priest to witness a legal marriage ceremony. This law was not accepted in the Protestant nations of Europe, Protestant colonies in the Americas, nor by Eastern Orthodox Christians. Nevertheless, all Protestant and Eastern Orthodox countries in Europe eventually abolished marriage by habit and repute, with Scotland being the last to do so, in 2006. At present all 50 states in the United States have marriage licensing laws, but not all of the state’s laws are the same. In 1923, the federal government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. In the United States, the theory of common law

Common Law Marriage | 147

marriage is one of estoppel—meaning that parties who have told the world they are married should not be allowed to claim that they are not married in a dispute between the parties themselves. Common Law States Currently, only 10 states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and the District of Columbia recognize common law marriages contracted in their respective states. In addition, The National Conferences of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org) has listed five states that have “grandfathered” common law marriage, allowing those unions established before a certain date to be recognized. These states include Georgia (if began before January 1, 1997), Idaho (if began before January 1, 1996), Ohio (if began before October 10, 1991), Oklahoma (if began before November 1, 1998), and New Hampshire (only at death). Common law marriage can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then as a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), New Jersey (1939), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917). Some states have never actually permitted common law marriage. They are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Individual states have also amended the local laws to specify conditions to regulate the conditions of common law marriages. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate after death (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann 457:39), and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order (Utah Code Ann. 30–1-4.5). Alabama amended its state constitution to specify all marriages (including common law marriages and transferring out-of-state marriages) must be between a man and a woman, therefore excluding same-sex marriages (Alabama Constitutional Amendment #774). In 2002, Kansas law prohibited recognition of common law marriage if either party was less than 18 years of age (Kansas Session Laws, SB 486, §23–101). Law The elements of a common law marriage vary only slightly from state to state among those states that permit common law marriage. The elements are capacity (age, mental health, and no prior contract requirements), cohabitation, and that the parties tell the world that they are husband and wife. The couple tells the world that they are husband and wife through their conduct, such as the woman using the man’s surname, and the couple filing a joint federal income

148

|

Common Law Marriage

tax return. A statutory or civil marriage is the result of a man and a woman applying for a state marriage license. Through that license the parties enter into a three party contract, which includes the husband, the wife, and the specific state. Each specific state, because of contract record keeping, knows of the marriage’s existence. In common law marriage, the state has no record of the marriage so the marriage is not invalid or illegal; it simply is not known to exist, therefore, is not recognized even if the couple has created a private written contract. Contrary to popular belief, two people simply living together for a certain number of years does not constitute a common law marriage. Of course, many disputes arise when facts, such as intentions of the parties or statements made to third parties, are in controversy. State laws do not interfere with a common law marriage or any other marriage unless there is a problem or until the validity of the union is challenged in a court of law. If the union is presented to the state, the court will use the English common law standards that are recommended to decide if the specific common law marriage was actually established. The key requirement is cohabitation while acting as a married couple, so simply living together without holding themselves out to the community as a married couple does not constitute marriage. Once a common law marriage is established between two people in court, the state officially recognizes the union and the couple receives the same legal treatment as a married couple. Whether recognized by the court or not, if a couple wishes to end their common law marriage they must obtain a legal divorce. There is no such thing as a common law divorce. Once parties are married, regardless of the manner in which they were married, they can only be divorced by appropriate methods. In all 50 states of the United States, that means only in a court of law. People who marry in the common law tradition must petition the correct court in their state for termination of marriage. CONTROVERSY OVER COMMON LAW MARRIAGE Common law marriage supporters are often more concerned with the extensive government control on their personal conduct than with the conduct itself. These allies of alternative marriages see a common law marriage as a private contract between two parties and as binding and legal as a civil marriage even when the state is not involved. They do not want to surrender their personal independence to the State. Therefore, supporters have been known to quote from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (1877). In the Meister v. Moore case, it is remarked that any directions to render invalid marriages illegal are simply suggestions, and not law because “marriage is a thing of common right.” According to this argument, individual states can only direct suggestion or instruction with no obligatory force because marriage is a common right that is not subject to interference by the government. Supporters have warned that once a common law marriage issue goes to court, whether family law court or local jurisdiction court, couples are bound by the decisions of the court just like entering into a statutory marriage, because the state is afterward the superior party of interest.

Common Law Marriage | 149

Supporters of alternative marriages see marriage as a God-given right that has existed since before the formation of state or national government. Therefore, it should be beyond the government’s control to alter, abolish, or interfere with such a right. No state can show that common law marriage is unlawful, only that it is not recognized by the state. Any law to make common law marriage illegal would be hard to uphold, considering the Meister v. Moore case in the United States Supreme Court. Meister v. Moore has never been overturned or revised and is still considered in case law relating to the fundamental right to marry without state interference. Meister v. Moore did establish that states do have the right to ban or restrict common law marriage. However, unless the state in question does not explicitly ban common law marriage, then there is a general presumption that such marriages are not illegal. The issues of this case differ between the actual state case law and the recommendations of the judges involved. These comments were added after the rendered case decision by the judges and are the judge’s personal opinions’ about the legal direction and intent of the specific laws. Opposition to common law marriage comes mainly from conservative religious and family ethics groups. According to their argument, the total and absolute commitment of marriage strengthens a couple’s relationship and makes the partners feel more secure, relaxed, and happier than those who choose not to marry. Data from the U.S. Division of Vital Statistics show that both characteristics of individuals and the communities in which they live are often important factors in understanding cohabitation and types of marriage. The community around a couple, including religious and family ethic groups, relate not only to a couple’s success rate but also the true benefits to be gained from being married as opposed to being unmarried. People tend to stay away from common law marriage today because they feel it is nothing more than so-called shacking-up covered by common law respectability. Those in opposition to cohabitation of any kind usually argue that living together, as opposed to legal marriage, is more unstable and harmful for both partners, as well as for any children from the union. Statistics show that couples who have lived together, whether by common law or by cohabitation, before legally marrying are more likely to divorce after the first 10 years. Unhappiness, bad health, poverty, and violence are more common in cohabiting unmarried couples than in married ones. According to The National Center for Health Statistics, unmarried and divorced couples exhibit lower levels of well-being, more health problems, more social isolation, less satisfying sex lives, more negative expectation of life, greater levels of depression, higher alcohol use, and lower levels of happiness and self-acceptance. Supporters of cohabitation cite research claims that these statistical differences are due to factors other than living together, such as race, ethnicity, age, poverty, education, employment, and income. Common law marriage advocates, however, do not often include their marriage type with the cohabitation statistics because they view themselves as husband and wife regardless of the government’s analysis of their marriage. Common law marriage affords no legal protection concerning property rights and child custody issues until settled through long and costly court disputes.

150

|

Common Law Marriage

For example, the state of Alabama’s constitution declares that marriage is a sacred covenant, which is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, the state of Alabama has a “special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children” (State of Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment #744). The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains that “many states have abolished common law marriage by statute, because common law marriage was seen as encouraging fraud and condoning vice, debasing conventional marriage, and as no longer necessary with increased access to clergy and justices of the peace” (www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm). Common law marriage is controversial; even religious figures will disagree, sometimes drastically, about the virtues of common law marriage. Rev. William J. McRae in his book, Preparing for Your Marriage, states that “Parent/child relationships are temporary; husband/wife relationship is enduring. Cleave to your wife legally [author’s emphasis]—Common law marriages are sin!” (p. 80). Pastor Matt Trewhella gives a very different viewpoint with his brochure “5 Reasons Why Christians should not obtain a State Marriage License.” Pastor Trewhella suggests that when Christian parents “give” their children to be married, a pastor of God unites the couple, the marriage is recorded, as simply as recording their names in the family Bible, and the two individuals are a married couple by contract. Trewhella leads his followers to create a bond with God and not with any state. This is done not only for religious freedom but also to allow parents to dictate the education and discipline of their children. This, in specific states, is a common law marriage. If one considers common law marriage a type of personal contract marriage by reputation and habit then some feminists favor this arrangement. In the book Marriage Proposals: Questioning a Legal Status, Martha Albertson Fineman writes about the feminists’ point of view concerning out-of-date relations between husbands and wives and the resulting dependency of the wives. Wives are no longer totally dependent on their husbands in modern American society, and so there is no longer any appropriate rationale for the state’s involvement in marriage. Given modern society’s and the government’s aspirations of gender equality, which assumes that couples are capable of creating marital terms, it should be the couples, not the states, who make determinations about contracted relationships. When it comes to issues like child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance, immigration, owning property, taxes, survivors’ benefits, and Social Security, legal marital status does matter. In general, married people receive legal rights and protections that unmarried people don’t get automatically. These and other issues not only affect those couples who consider themselves married by common law but those persons who live together and wish not to be considered married. If a couple lives in one of the common law states and does not want their relationship to become a common law marriage, they must be clear with their

Common Law Marriage | 151

intention not to marry. Attorneys recommend a written agreement, signed and dated by both partners indicating whether a couple intends to remain unmarried or to become married by common law. For example, couples who wish to remain as unmarried might approve the following statement: “We have been and plan to continue living together as two free, independent people and that neither has ever intended to enter into any form of marriage, common law or otherwise.” For a couple that desires to be considered married under common law status, a simple certification of marriage signed by the couple and witnesses is recommended. Due to the greater acceptance of cohabitation in society today, senior citizens, as well as younger adults, opt for less formal living arrangements. For many seniors, any type of marriage is not financially or emotionally practical. Older couples might choose living together rather than marriage because of financial reasons including tax disincentives, loss of military and pension benefits, fear of incurring liability for the partner’s medical expenses, or credit rating protection. Additionally, cohabiting provides ability to share expenses, to retain Social Security benefits, and to control asset protection, and also prevents the loss of alimony and health benefits. Personal reasons seniors are cohabiting may include lack of concern about what others think, love and friendship, and their children’s inheritance concerns. Many people simply use the principles of common law marriage as a socially acceptable and convenient cover for cohabiting without any intention of entering into a legal marriage. It is also true, that the state courts have been filled with people alleging to be the spouse of a deceased person in order to get the decedent’s property. These conditions and others have led our nation’s courts to begin creating specific standard measures for establishing common law marriages, a pattern that will likely continue. See also Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage; Domestic Partnerships; Fictive Kin; Nonmarital Cohabitation. Further Reading: Alternatives to Marriage Project. http://www.unmarried.org; Anonymous. The American Bar Association Legal Guide for Women: What Every Woman Needs to Know about the Law and Marriage, Health Care, Divorce, Discrimination, Retirement, and More. New York: Random House Reference, 2004; Bible Based Marriages, 2000. www.bible.ca/marriage; Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary, abridged 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1991; Bride to Be.Com. http://www.1800bride2b. com/articles/marriagelaws_chart.htm; Constitution of Alabama 1901, “State of Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment #744.” http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm; Divorce Net. Family Law Information, Solutions, News, and Community. http://www.divorcenet.com; Fineman, Martha Albertson. Marriage Proposals; Questioning a Legal Status. New York University Press, 2006; Justia.com. “United States Supreme Court Meister v. Moore, 1877.” http://supreme.justia.com/us/96/76/index.html; Krause, Harry D., and David D. Meyer. Family Law: In a Nutshell, 4th ed. Stamford, CT: Thomson West, 2003; McRae, William J. Preparing for Your Marriage. Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 1980; National Center for Health Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm;

152

|

Corporal Punishment National Conference of State Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org; Trewhella, Matt. “5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License.” http://www.mercy seat.net/BROCHURES/marriage_license.htm.

Linda Pope Jones

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT One of the most divisive debates in contemporary family sociology and child psychology centers on corporal punishment, known to most persons as spanking. Corporal punishment is the most widespread and well-documented form of family violence. In recent years, scholars as well theologians have debated the question of whether or not corporal punishment is an appropriate form of child discipline. This debate is particularly interesting in that it is relatively new and it taps into an area of firmly entrenched beliefs and values held by most Americans: that family is a private institution and that government should be minimally involved in guiding or mandating parenting practices. Furthermore, for most of American history, it was assumed that good parents used physical discipline and that an absence of physical punishment would be detrimental to the normal development of children. Indeed, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was established prior to any such organization formed on behalf of children’s welfare. Both social as well as religious ideologies strongly legitimated the use of physical punishment in the home. The debate over corporal punishment is so volatile that the few scholars who dare study it empirically seldom have intellectual comrades. This is one area of social life in which even the most progressive-minded individuals find themselves in dissension with academia and perhaps personally conflicted. Indeed, one of the most prominent and widely recognized scholars in this area confronted quite a bit of resistance from publishers when attempting to market his book. The scholarly study of corporal punishment is relatively new, with the vast majority of empirical studies conducted since the late 1950s. However, a few references to corporal punishment or harsh parenting appeared as early as the 1920s. Interestingly, in the 1960s, a popular magazine reported that there were more child deaths due to parental infliction than due to diseases. Despite this claim, many parental advice books make no mention of corporal punishment whatsoever, suggesting that the decision of whether or not to use it is a private one and must be decided by individuals. Culturally as well, the phenomenon is often either ignored or presumed normal and inevitable. Not surprisingly, most of these early works found that the vast majority of parents queried admitted to the use of physical punishment. Furthermore, in the early- to mid-1900s, the majority of child psychologists approved of or ignored corporal punishment. To be sure, the trend among early scholars and child experts was either to actively endorse or tolerate the use of corporal punishment by parents against children, at least on occasion. One notable exception to this was Dr. Benjamin Spock, who was perhaps the most well known pediatrician and parenting expert of the twentieth century. In his popular book, Baby and Child Care, he argued against

Corporal Punishment |

the use of corporal punishment unless absolutely necessary. Spock later changed his position, arguing against the use of corporal punishment under all circumstances. Critics of Spock suggest that he led the trend toward more permissive parenting. Today, experts are divided on the issue, although awareness of the potentially harmful consequences of corporal punishment is higher today than ever before. Consequently, disapproval of corporal punishment seems to have grown somewhat among scholars and those who offer parenting advice, although even as late as the early 1990s relatively high levels of support have been found among general practitioners and pediatricians. ATTITUDES TOWARD CORPORAL PUNISHMENT The vast majority of American parents are supportive of the use of corporal punishment. This is peculiar in light of the purported overwhelming concern that Americans have about violence in society generally and certainly in relation to children and adolescents. In fact, parents who choose not to spank their children are in violation of a strong social norm and often encounter conflict with others. They may feel the need to justify their decision not to spank, whereas no justification for spanking is required. Overall, corporal punishment is still commonly being used against American children. A number of Americans actually favor corporal punishment over other methods of child discipline. Most studies of the incidence of corporal punishment reveal that more than 90 percent of children and adolescents have experienced some form of physical punishment. What may be surprising, however, is that the use of corporal punishment is fairly common across the life course of a child, often beginning during infancy and continuing well into adolescence and even into young adulthood. Approximately three-quarters of American parents believe that spanking or slapping a 12-year-old child is necessary sometimes. Furthermore, studies of college students, for example, reveal that a significant proportion of them report having been slapped or hit by a parent in the recent past. One study found that one in four 17-year-olds is still being hit by a parent. The only significant decline is in the use of the most severe kinds of child discipline. It should be noted, however, that attitudes and actions can be incongruent with regard to corporal punishment. Many Americans who do not verbally endorse corporal punishment do, in fact, spank or slap their children. On the other hand, some of those who endorse it may not use it. Interestingly, attitudes do not predict behavior for parents of toddlers. Almost all American parents of four-year-olds spank regardless of their approval or disapproval of corporal punishment. On the other hand, when looking at older children, attitudes are predictive of behavior. Parents of 16-year-olds who score high on approval of corporal punishment are more likely to use it. Personal experience with corporal punishment does seem to be a rather strong predictor of attitudes as well as actions. Individuals who were themselves spanked or slapped by a parent are more likely than others to indicate that they favor spanking. Furthermore, those who say that they were hit by a parent are in fact more likely to hit their own

153

154

|

Corporal Punishment

children, regardless of the children’s age. Interestingly, in one study of parents who were hit but later chose not to hit or spank their own children, the influential variables seemed to be the educational level of the parents as well as their age at parenthood. The parents who decided to go against their upbringing—those who chose not to hit—were more highly educated and became parents at later ages. All states give parents the right to use physical punishment against their children, regardless of the children’s age. It may be surprising to learn that even spanking or hitting with an object such as a belt remains legal in the United States. More than 95 percent of parents of three-year-olds reported that they had been hit by their parents. Approximately 60 percent of parents admit to hitting their 10- to 12-year-old children. The lasting effect or mental imprint of having been physically punished is evident in the finding that 40 percent of adults over the age of 60 can recall being hit by their parents. Little difference has been found between single-parent and two-parent families when it comes to the use of corporal punishment. It does appear that boys are hit more often than girls, although rates are not vastly discrepant. Adolescent boys are hit by both mothers and fathers, while adolescent girls are more often hit by mothers. There is evidence to show that mothers, in general, use corporal punishment more often than fathers, but this is generally assumed to be a consequence of the different amounts of time parents spend with children, with mothers spending considerably more time with children than fathers. Since it is known that men are more physically aggressive and more violent in all other areas of social life, it is assumed that if men spent as much time with children as women did, the use of corporal punishment by fathers would exceed that of mothers.

RELIGIOSITY, REGION, AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT American support for corporal punishment historically has always been high, and is often linked to religious or regional factors. Violence against children and babies is well documented and dates back to the biblical period. Historically, most forms of child punishment would today be considered severe child abuse. Parents were instructed to chastise and control errant children through such methods as swaddling, whipping, burning, drowning, castration, and abandonment. Puritans held a strict belief in original sin and parents were instructed to, in a very literal sense, beat the devil out of their children. Early American schools used corporal punishment so frequently that the birch rod became a symbol of education. In the not too distant past, there were even reports of special education teachers twisting and grabbing students’ arms, hitting or banging their heads onto desks, and smearing hot sauce into their faces and mouths. In the 1970s, it was found that Baptists were more likely to have experienced physical punishment at home than were persons from other denominations. In general, corporal punishment is more strongly supported by conservative or “fundamentalist” Protestants than by others. This association is explained by the emphasis on biblical literalism, biblical inerrancy, and original sin found among

Corporal Punishment |

155

ALTERNATIVES TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT Past studies have considered the effects of using various methods of discipline on child outcomes. For instance, the use of reasoning alone has proven to be just as effective in correcting disobedience as the use of reasoning combined with corporal punishment. Time-out is a type of punishment in which a child is removed from a volatile situation for a short period of time. The rationale underlying time-out is that removing someone from a reinforcing situation deters and discourages him or her from repeating the offense. Time-out is based on a contingency model of human behavior that suggests that some combination of removal of or provision of valued or devalued resources will shape behaviors. Parents and teachers may increase good behaviors and decrease bad behaviors by either giving the child something he or she values, such as praise, toys, or tokens, or by removing something important or by removing the child from a pleasurable or enjoyable experience. It has been shown that mothers who use time-out without physical correction are just as effective in controlling their children as mothers who use time-out with physical enforcement. Long-term studies reveal that behavior problems improve if and when parents desist in the use of corporal punishment. Today, many parenting experts and family scholars recommend some combination of providing clear guidelines, role modeling, rewarding good behavior, and demonstrating love and affection to children as the most effective ways to elicit good behavior. Screaming, criticizing, and limiting recognition to bad behavior are all discouraged as they exacerbate behavior problems in children. In general, children whose parents give them prescriptive or affirmative instructions (telling children what to do rather than what not to do), praise them often, model appropriate behavior, and use calming reinforcements, such as time-out, are more well adjusted and better behaved than children whose parents rely on escalating methods such as yelling and spanking. Over time, children’s noncompliance may result in the parents intensifying these methods, which increases the risk of physical or verbal abuse against the child.

these religious traditions. In addition, Christians from more conservative traditions often embrace a view of the family that is hierarchical—with children, as well as wives, subsumed under the headship of men. Fundamentalist Protestants and conservative Catholics are also more likely than others to support the use of corporal punishment in schools. Not surprisingly, it has also been found that conservative Protestants are, for the most part, not persuaded by social science research to modify their familial practices. On the contrary, conservatives may identify social science scholarship, as well as intellectual pursuits more generally, as antithetical to Christian beliefs and threatening to family life. Popular theologian and author, James Dobson, for example, has explicitly rejected the use of scientific inquiry to explore the appropriateness of various parenting practices. Dobson has also suggested that children suffer from an inherent predisposition toward selfishness and rebellion. Attitudes toward corporal punishment have been found to vary regionally as well. In general, persons living in the Southeast are more likely to approve

156

|

Corporal Punishment

of corporal punishment, both at home and in schools. This is not surprising in light of other findings which reveal that Southerners hold more conservative attitudes in many areas, including gender roles, sexuality, race, and religion. In particular, the association between region and approval of corporal punishment has been linked to the predominance of religious conservatism and biblical literalism found in the southern region of the United States. In fact, a small number of states concentrated in what is commonly referred to as the Bible Belt, including Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina, account for the majority of school spankings nationally. Interestingly, recent studies demonstrate that the most noteworthy aspect of regional variation in corporal punishment attitudes does not center on the South’s approval of corporal punishment, but rather the rejection of corporal punishment found in the Northeast. In general, the Northeastern region has the least amount of legitimate, or culturally sanctioned, violence. Southern support for corporal punishment has also been linked to lower levels of education, lower household incomes, and racial composition. It should be noted, however, that research in this area has resulted in a myriad of findings, some of which are complex and contradictory. For example, African American parents have been shown to express approval for corporal punishment at higher levels than whites, although some studies find that white parents are more likely than African American parents to use corporal punishment. In addition, some studies find little or no correlation between the use of corporal punishment and socioeconomic status, presumably because support for corporal punishment in the United States has been, and continues to be, extremely high due to a variety of social, cultural, and religious reasons. In conclusion, it has been found that mothers spank more than fathers and younger parents more than older parents. Individuals who were spanked as children are more likely than others to spank their own children. Also, spouses involved in violent marriages are more likely to hit their children than spouses in nonabusive relationships. The relationship between social class and use of corporal punishment has been researched extensively and this research has produced mixed findings. Perhaps an accurate summary statement is that while some studies find greater approval and more usage of corporal punishment among lower income households, corporal punishment is so widely accepted and approved in American culture that it is commonly found among and across all social classes. EFFECTS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT The effects of corporal punishment are well documented and sobering. Studies reveal that individuals who were physically punished by parents or caregivers are more likely to be physically aggressive with others, including one’s spouse; to severely attack one’s siblings; to imagine or engage in masochistic sexual practices; to physically abuse one’s children; to have depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts; to become delinquent as a juvenile; and to have lower lifetime earnings. The more often one was subjected to corporal punishment

Cosleeping

during adolescence, the lower the chances of being in the top twenty percent of all wage-earners. It is worth reiterating that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a number of studies demonstrate that spanking children actually places them at greater risk for adjustment and behavior problems. It has also been found that states in which teachers are permitted to hit children have a higher rate of student violence as well as a higher homicide rate. Nations that approve of the use of corporal punishment by teachers have higher infant murder rates than do other nations. This association is explained by using a so-called cultural spillover theory. That is, nations that strongly support corporal punishment in schools tend to have wide levels of support for the practice and consequently high rates of its usage at all ages and across varying circumstances and situations. Therefore, the likelihood that someone, a parent, teacher, day care worker, or clergy person, will use corporal punishment, even against an infant, is higher in such societies. Furthermore, the likelihood of corporal punishment resulting in death is obviously much higher for infants than for other age groups. See also Child Abuse; Parenting Styles. Further Reading: Bitensky, Susan H. Corporal Punishment of Children: A Human Rights Violation. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2006; Crary, Elizabeth. Without Spanking or Spoiling: A Practical Approach to Toddler and Preschool Guidance. Seattle, WA: Parenting Press, 1993; Gelles, Richard J., and Donileen Loseke. Current Controversies in Family Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1993; Hyman, Irwin A. Reading, Writing, and the Hickory Stick. The Appalling Story of Physical and Psychological Abuse in American Schools. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990; Spock, Benjamin. Baby and Child Care. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996; Straus, Murray A. Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and its Effects on Children. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001; Straus, Murray A., Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New York, NY: Doubleday/Anchor, 1980; Straus, Murray A., and Richard J. Gelles. Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989; Wyckoff, Jerry L., and Barbara C. Unell. Discipline Without Shouting or Spanking: Practical Solutions to the Most Common Preschool Behavior Problems. Minnetonka, MN: Meadowbrook Press, 2002.

Susan Cody-Rydzewski

COSLEEPING New parents have many decisions to make about caring for their infant children. Sleeping arrangements may not be on the top of their list of major decisions, but there is considerable controversy in the United States about the safest options when it comes to infant sleep. Most parents spend months creating a peaceful soothing nursery for their child. Some of these perfectly planned nurseries will end up as a sleeping haven for a child, but other nurseries will be utilized only as a tidy storage room for baby paraphernalia because the child actually sleeps in the parents’ bed. The practice of an infant or child sharing a bed

| 157

158

|

Cosleeping

with one or both parents is called cosleeping. Cosleeping is also known as the “family bed,” “bed sharing,” and even “sleep sharing.” Through information provided to new parents by physicians and other health care providers, as well as print and online parenting magazines, most new parents are aware and concerned about the phenomenon of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), formerly known as crib death. In SIDS a seemingly healthy infant dies of unknown causes while sleeping. Cosleeping has been blamed for an increase in SIDS, though the supporting evidence for this assertion is sketchy. This supposed link has raised the stakes in the debate over the benefits and risks of cosleeping. Parents who choose to cosleep with their babies may receive criticism from friends and family. This negative criticism has influenced some cosleeping parents to stop the practice and place the child in his or her own room. Cosleeping parents learn to be cautious about revealing their sleeping arrangements because of the negative opinions that others express. Many closeted cosleepers will admit to their sleeping arrangements if they find other cosleepers in their social setting. Some seek support at internet sites sympathetic to their parenting choices. Parents who choose to have their infants sleep with them, however, may just be following the patterns established by human ancestors. BACKGROUND Cosleeping has a long history in non-Western societies. In fact, a majority of the world’s societies continue to embrace the practice. Ethnographic reports indicate that bed sharing is the preferred sleeping arrangement for mother-baby pairs, and approximately 90 percent of the world’s population considers it a cultural norm. Estimates are that training children to sleep independently through the night is a relatively recent phenomenon, emerging in western societies approximately 200 years ago, but becoming the norm only in the last 100 years. Prior to that time, homes were very small (many had only one room), privacy was nonexistent, and family bed sharing was common, if not a necessity. With children seen as a natural extension of the mother for the first few years of their lives, and with prolonged breastfeeding commonplace, the custom of cosleeping was widespread. James McKenna, anthropologist and cosleeping researcher, has suggested that cosleeping made sense initially because it increased the survival odds of the infant, serving to protect the health of both mother and baby. His data suggest that mothers and babies have coordinated sleep-wake cycles when they are bed sharing and that this helps both to sleep more restfully. Additionally, mothers are very aware of the baby’s physical condition during the night, ready to respond if the child becomes ill or has other difficulties. Heart rate and breathing patterns also become synchronous between the two. SIDS deaths are virtually nonexistent in most of the traditional cosleeping societies. Some of the controversy over cosleeping has come from the culturally accepted practice of separate sleeping in the United States, but also derives from different parenting strategies. Controversial in their own right, different parenting ethics or strategies are espoused by various pediatricians, child development

Cosleeping

specialists, and psychologists. Nearly all provide suggestions for sleeping options. Attachment parenting is a model of childrearing that has been closely linked with cosleeping. Originating from the work of John Bowlby about the positive outcomes of strong mother-child attachment, attachment parenting promotes using one’s intuition to respond to the infant in the most effective way. In other words, parents should pay attention to the cues provided by the child, trust their judgment about what is best, and strive to know their child better than anyone else could. One of the controversies about attachment parenting is its assertion that parents should avoid separations from their infants and should not cede child care to anyone else, a task that is difficult in families that rely on the income earned by both parents. Attachment parenting purists strive to be constantly present in their children’s lives, with the goal of fostering emotionally stable and secure children. Cosleeping is one element of this attachment. Those who follow the attachment parenting model hope to provide consistent, attentive responses to an infant’s needs. This responsiveness fosters in the child a sense of attachment to the stable caregiver, allowing that child to later demonstrate empathy and confidence at higher rates than among children who were not so closely attended. Among the proponents of the attachment parenting approach are William and Martha Sears. William Sears, a pediatrician, has written or cowritten more than 30 books designed to help parents with different aspects of parenting. The popularity of attachment parenting increased in the 1990s, perhaps as a result of the many contributions of Dr. Sears to popular parenting books, magazines, and child rearing advice segments in the mass media. Many parents do not plan on a cosleeping arrangement. Parents usually have their new baby in their room for the first few weeks and then move him or her into a separate room. Having a baby in another room that wakes in the night for care requires someone, usually the mother, to get out of bed and care for the baby. By the time the baby is cared for and resettled in bed the mother is fully awake. Because this pattern is repeated several times a night while the infant is very young, the next morning the mother is exhausted. She may have a hard time starting the day knowing that at night the same thing is going to happen all over again. Mothers, especially nursing mothers, may decide to take the baby into bed to just lie down for a few minutes while the baby eats. They both fall asleep and if the baby wakes again the close proximity makes caring for the baby easier than going into another room. Some babies do sleep better being close to their parents. This allows the parents to sleep better as well. Parents who did not plan to cosleep or may not have coslept with previous children can find themselves with a child in their bed. ADVANTAGES OF COSLEEPING There are many advantages to cosleeping which families experience. They include attachment parenting, more restful sleep for the parents and babies, convenience for breastfeeding, and quick response to problems when they arise in the night. Attachment parenting is a popular strategy and cosleeping extends

| 159

160

|

Cosleeping

this technique into the nighttime, not just the daytime waking hours. Parents are readily available to respond to and care for their child’s needs easier if the child is in the same room instead of in another location in the house. Dr. William Sears advises parents to be as available as possible to meet the needs of their infants, and with a few basic safety precautions this can include cosleeping. Most babies and parents sleep better in a cosleeping environment. Babies feel safe and fall asleep easier in the arms of a parent. A mother is able to get more sleep if the baby is in her room because she is usually aware of the baby’s wakefulness before the child cries out for assistance, does not always have to get out of bed, and need not go into another room to care for the baby’s needs. Babies cry significantly less in a cosleeping environment compared to one where they are physically separated from their mothers. Parents who have toddlers sleeping with them can monitor a child who may wake in the middle of the night and try to leave the family room. Children can be soothed quickly when bad dreams occur and may not be quite as frightened because they are with their parents. Both mothers and fathers report that sharing a bed with their children is generally an enjoyable experience and leads to feeling more bonded to them. Breastfeeding mothers tend to get more sleep if their baby is in bed or close to them. The world’s leading breastfeeding organization, La Leche League International, recommends that cosleeping occurs, beginning at birth. Breastfed babies nurse more often than bottle-fed babies, so lactation consultants offer their clients cosleeping as a way to meet this need. Mothers are able to nurse right away before the baby is fully awake, thus decreasing the impact on both of their sleeping. Medical science suggests that the health benefits of breastfeeding for the child lead to a decrease in childhood illnesses as the mother’s antibodies can help provide some immunity against common infections. Because breastfeeding is often seen as a critical step in establishing the mother-child bond, it is also a critical element of attachment parenting. If the child is sleeping with the parents, any problems that might occur in the night will be quickly noticed. Parents will know right away if a child gets sick, spikes a fever, vomits, or even chokes and they can respond to the situation immediately. If a child is in another room, the parents may not realize he or she has had problems until the next morning. One highly controversial aspect of sleep choice involves the research of medical anthropologist James McKenna of the University of Notre Dame. McKenna’s research suggests that SIDS rates are lower in cosleeping infants, when safety measures are taken, than in those infants who sleep independent of their parents. There is some research evidence that points to arousal difficulties as a risk factor for SIDS. This means that some infants sleep too soundly and may have difficulty awakening if they have trouble breathing. McKenna found that cosleeping babies spent less time in the deepest levels of sleep and therefore woke up more often. This would be beneficial for babies with a higher risk of SIDS. A cosleeping infant patterns its respiratory and central nervous system response after its mother’s. Thus, their ability to rouse from sleep is aided by the presence of the parent. Additionally, children with special needs may particularly benefit from cosleeping. A child with disabilities who needs nighttime care can be tended to

Cosleeping

and children with sleep disorders may experience better sleep. Studies show that babies pattern their breathing to the breathing of their parents, especially the mother’s because the baby usually sleeps closer to the mother. DISADVANTAGES OF COSLEEPING While the advantages of cosleeping are many, particularly for breastfeeding mother-child pairs, there are also disadvantages to this arrangement and reasons for families not to cosleep. Among the organizations that have come out against cosleeping are the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Both groups have expressed concern over the safety of the practice for infants. Media reports from the CPSC stress the dangers of cosleeping infants becoming trapped in bedding, between mattresses and bed frames, falling off of beds, and suffocating in waterbeds. Additionally, infants might be suffocated by a cosleeping parent accidentally lying on top of them, a phenomenon known as overlying. Because products for juveniles, such as baby furniture and cribs, must go through special testing, the assumption is that they are somehow safer than products available for general use. The AAP has opposed cosleeping for similar reasons including a concern over SIDS. Instead, the AAP recommends that infants sleep in the same room as their parents, but in their own designated place such as a crib or a bassinet. Parents are encouraged to keep the infant in the same room with them until the infant is at least 6 months old. Among the experts supporting this stance have been Dr. Benjamin Spock and Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, both well know child care advisors. These authors encouraged parents to help their children sleep independently because cosleeping was thought to foster in the child an unhealthy dependency on the parents, as well as to create sleep difficulties and bad sleep habits in the children. A controversial figure in his own right, Dr. Richard Ferber has been a supporter of solo sleep, particularly as it relates to his method of helping children self-sooth at the time for sleep. The so-called cry it out method that he advocates has been well publicized and remains a hot topic of discussion among parents. Cosleeping will not be beneficial if one of the parents is against the idea. Parenting decisions that are agreed upon by the couple are easier to implement. Some parenting experts have even suggested that cosleeping might be harmful to the marital relationship by decreasing spontaneous intimacy between the parents. Many critics, friends, family, and those new to cosleeping believe the sex lives of cosleeping parents are virtually nonexistent. Another argument against cosleeping acknowledges that some babies move around and make noises during sleep, particularly as they age, which can keep one or both parents from sleeping. FUTURE OF COSLEEPING Despite the official policy against cosleeping disseminated by the AAP, the medical organization devoted to child health and well-being, the practice

| 161

162

|

Cosleeping

remains controversial. As the AAP has encouraged more breastfeeding of infants, many mothers have rediscovered the convenience and utility of cosleeping with their infants. While the official AAP policy opposes cosleeping, many individual pediatricians take a less prohibitive position and may be unlikely to chastise the parents of healthy infants for participating in the family bed. This ambiguity has led parents to wonder which expert’s advice is right for them. Contrary to popular belief that the family bed causes stress on the partners’ sexual relationship, marital intimacies are often strengthened in cosleepers. The family bed is not the only place a couple can have private time. Children can be moved to another room after they fall asleep or parents can make use of the other rooms in the home. Parents can plan date nights where the family car is not just used for transportation. While some cosleeping parents have difficultly adjusting, many say creativity is the key and oftentimes this helps spice up their relationship. For parents who are concerned about the safety of a cosleeping child, placing the child in a separate bed or even separate room will allow the parents to sleep better. Babies can suffocate in thick bedding and waterbeds. They can get stuck in an open space somewhere on the bed and strangle themselves. Babies could get injured by falling off of the bed. There are potential accidents that can occur in a family bed, but if a family uses some safe-guarding techniques, accidents can be minimized. Drug and alcohol use could impair a parent’s awareness of the child next to them, so they should not be used when cosleeping. Obese parents may find having the child sleep in a crib nearby a better arrangement due to fear of overlying. Big firm beds are ideal for cosleepers as they allow plenty of room for movement during the night and less chance of overlying. Parents who wish to cosleep but are afraid of the baby falling out of the bed can place their mattress on the floor. Even in a cosleeping arrangement, babies should always sleep on their backs to reduce the risk of SIDS. Baby product manufacturers are responding to the questions that parents have about the appropriateness of cosleeping. Parents who are still concerned about sleeping with their baby can purchase things to help them feel more comfortable with a baby in their bed. Guardrails can help prevent a baby from falling off the bed. A three-sided baby bed that attaches to the parents’ bed resembles a sidecar and allows the baby to be close to the parent without the fear of overlying. A popular brand, the Arms Reach Co-Sleeper, is heavily marketed in parenting materials. Parents spend significant amounts of time reading guides on how to be better parents and learning the newest trends on child rearing. They try to learn all the pros and cons of the numerous proven techniques that result in a happy adjusted independent child. Many parents choose cosleeping with their children as a way to further strengthen the bond between each family member, whereas other parents believe that children will become too dependent if they share a room for a long period of time. Until a definitive link is established between infant health and sleep situation, the decision to cosleep is likely to remain controversial.

Covenant Marriage |

See also Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding; Midwifery and Medicalization; Parenting Styles; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Ask Dr. Sears, 2006. http://www.askdrsears.com; Attachment Parenting International. http://www.attachmentparenting.org; Aware Parenting Institute. http:// www.awareparenting.com/comfort.htm; Ferber, Richard. Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems: New, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Fireside, 2006; Gordon, Jay, and Maria Goodavage. Good Nights (The Happy Parents’ Guide to the Family Bed). New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002; Karp, Harvey. The Happiest Baby on the Block. New York: Bantam Dell, 2002; La Leche League International, Inc. The Womanly Art of Breast Feeding, 6th ed. Schaumberg, IL: La Leche League International, Inc., 1997; LaLeche League International. http://www.llli.org; MacGregor, Cynthia. Mommy Rescue Guide: Getting Your Baby to Sleep. Avon, MA: Adams Media, 2007; McKenna, James J. Sleeping With Your Baby: A Parent’s Guide to Cosleeping. Washington, DC: Platypus Press, 2007; Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Laboratory. http://www.nd.edu/~jmckenn1/lab/mck enna.html; Nemours Foundation. http://www.kidshealth.org; Sears, William, M. D., and Martha Sears, R. N. The Attachment Parenting Book. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2001; Task Force on Infant Positioning and SIDS, 1999. http://aappolicy.aappubli cations.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B105/3/650; Thevenin, T. The Family Bed: An Age Old Concept in Childrearing. Wayne, NJ: Avery Publishing Group, Inc., 1987; Young, J. “Babies and bedsharing . . . Cosleeping.” Midwifery Digest 8 (1998): 364–369.

Taralyn Watson COVENANT MARRIAGE Beginning in the late 1990s several states enacted covenant marriage provisions that were aimed at elevating the status of marriage and making divorce harder to attain. This is an optional marriage contract that is completed in addition to the requirements for issuing a standard marriage license. In effect, when couples in those states with covenant marriage provisions elect a covenant marriage rider on their marriage licenses, they agree to give up their right to a quick, no-fault divorce and to follow certain provisions designed to increase the long-term stability of the marriage. In some ways covenant marriage is akin to prenuptial agreements in that couples are choosing to agree in advance on the rules that will govern their relationship. Unlike prenuptial agreements that have been used to specify the distribution of assets when a relationship ends, covenant marriage emphasizes the steps that partners will take to remain in their relationship, including premarital and relationship counseling and a waiting period should a divorce be seriously considered. BACKGROUND The idea of covenant marriage was first conceived of and presented in the Florida legislature in 1989. While the idea was discussed, the bill died in committee and was forgotten. Part of the problem for its cool reception may have been that it was targeted at strengthening marriage, rather than as a divorce

163

164

|

Covenant Marriage

preventative. In the Louisiana legislature covenant marriage was couched largely in terms of divorce reform legislation making the idea quite palatable and intriguing to southern conservatives. Introduced by state representative Tony Perkins, the bill was passed in June 1997 and the first covenant marriages were available August 15 of the same year. While it sounds like a covenant marriage would only be performed by a religious official, anyone who is licensed to wed couples in Louisiana can officiate at such a marriage ceremony. Following the example of Louisiana, between 1997 and 2001, twenty-six states considered some form of covenant marriage laws. Only two states have followed Louisiana’s lead: Arizona in 1998 and Arkansas in 2001. It is the responsibility of court clerks, who issue marriage licenses, to inform couples of the option of covenant marriage. Definitions and Provisions Covenant marriages follow certain rules. While the details vary slightly between each of the states, there are some common elements. First, partners agree to some type of premarital preparation or counseling. Some of this counseling includes information about the law itself and is designed to ensure that couples enter the agreement with full knowledge of what it might mean for their future together. Second, partners take an oath of lifelong commitment to marriage that is in addition to what they might say in the wedding vows. Third, the partners agree to accept limited grounds upon which a divorce may be granted, including a trial separation period. And fourth, they agree to seek marital counseling for a specified period if problems threaten the marriage or they contemplate divorce. Part of the reason for the counseling about the law is to clarify for couples that no-fault divorce will not be an option for them unless they are willing to go to counseling and try a two-year separation period first. To divorce prior to that, they must demonstrate grounds to do so. Examples of grounds for divorce under covenant marriage provisions are adultery, abuse of the spouse or child (physical or sexual), conviction of a felony, incarceration or abandonment of at least a year, and addiction. Characteristics of Covenant Marriage Choosers Researchers at Louisiana State University have been interested in the effects of covenant marriage as well as the characteristics of persons choosing this option. They have conducted several different types of studies including content analysis of marriage license applications and interviews with marrying couples. Several clear findings have emerged from their research. Across all three states only a fraction of the couples who marry select the covenant marriage option. Those who do, however, tend to be more religious on average. They are also more likely to be from Southern Baptist or Nondenominational conservative Christian groups. They are more politically conservative as a group, but they do have fairly high levels of education. This led the researchers to estimate that

Covenant Marriage |

engaged persons who were white, fundamentalist, and educated have a 25 percent chance of entering a covenant marriage. Covenant marriage choosers are more traditional on issues of gender roles in the family, strongly agreeing with the statement that the husband is the head of the family. Most also saw divorce as a very serious problem nationally and agreed that society would be better off if divorce were harder to attain. They suggested that divorce was largely due to selfishness and a lack of family values. Not surprisingly, persons who had cohabited before marriage were very unlikely to choose the covenant marriage option. PROPONENTS OF COVENANT MARRIAGE Proponents of covenant marriage, many of whom are members of conservative Christian organizations, explain that a basic reason for the push toward covenant marriage laws is a concern for the welfare of children born to the union. They cite the sometimes dramatic decline in women and children’s standard of living following divorce as support for the idea that two parents are better than one. Covenant marriage, by forcing partners to seek counseling, increases the likelihood that they will see the benefits of staying together, for themselves as well as for the good of the family. While not perfect, a two-parent family can insulate children from some of the difficult outcomes of a divorce. There is some evidence to suggest that couples who stay together for at least a year during difficult relationship times are more likely to see increases in their marital happiness and stay together. Proponents also argue that too much individualism and too little familism are destroying the American family. Drawing on the ideas that marriage is about family goals and not individual desires, the practical aspects of marriage are highlighted. Covenant marriage is an attempt to legislate people’s option in such a way that they can publicly choose familism over individualism. It reflects the sanctity of marriage through a public affirmation, the law, of its importance. Proponents also see the passage of covenant marriage provisions as a backlash against the proliferation of no-fault divorce and the doubling of the United States divorce rate since no-fault divorces became available. Ideally, then, covenant marriage will lead to a decrease in divorce. Fred Lowery, a Baptist minister in Louisiana, has been a strong supporter of covenant marriage, providing guidance to the legislature when the statute was being constructed. Additionally, he has written materials to help couples who want to live a covenant marriage life stressing their commitment not only to each other, but to God and the institution of marriage. CONCERNS WITH COVENANT MARRIAGE Just as some religious leaders and groups support covenant marriage, others oppose it, going so far as to refuse to marry couples who want a covenant bond. Particularly strong in this camp are Catholics. This is most likely due to the fact that covenant marriage counseling and affidavits talk so much about divorce.

165

166

|

Covenant Marriage

Concerns have also been voiced by some in the legal profession. Some legal scholars at Tulane University and elsewhere have expressed concern that such legislation would lead to three disturbing legal trends. The first is an increase in annulments (a declaration that says that a marriage was never legally valid) as couples try to skirt the two-year waiting period for divorce. The second is a return to fabricated reasons for divorce, such as were common in the days before no-fault divorce provisions, where couples might lie about negative aspects of their marriage so that a divorce would be granted. And third is an increase in migratory divorce, where couples go out-of-state and get a divorce in a state where covenant marriage is not recognized. Additional criticisms from the legal arena suggest that it is an unconstitutional state support of religion. Given that the origin of the term covenant marriage is Biblical and the connotation has been a religious one, this suggests that the founding principles of the current legislation are religious and therefore in violation of the separation of church and state. Some groups argue that covenant marriage leads to too much state involvement in marriage; that attempts are being made to govern how couples live their lives on a daily basis by limiting how they would get out of an unsatisfactory marriage. Marriage is redefined as the state sees fit, rather than how the participants would like it to proceed. On the other end of the argument is the idea that it infringes on the right to marry initially. If a person permitted to perform weddings won’t marry you without the covenant marriage affidavit, then that limits your choices. Finally, in opposition to the argument that covenant marriage protects women and children, Domestic Violence Groups and others have proposed that covenant marriage, with its waiting periods and required counseling sessions, is harmful to women and children. It keeps them in the abusive situation longer, and forces them to prove that abuse occurred. FUTURE TRENDS While the covenant marriage movement seems to have stalled in recent years, there is still a small but committed group working for its expansion. Perhaps there will be some changing statistics that will add fuel to the fire, though at the present time that does not seem very likely. Questions remain about the viability of these marriage licenses. If all covenant marriage offers is inconvenience as an obstacle to divorce, it doesn’t really solve the problem of high divorce rates, it just prolongs the process. Family professionals hope to see other solutions in the works that better solve the problem of too-easy divorce. Most suggest that it is better to make marriage harder to enter so that couples would be better prepared, and have thoroughly considered their decision to wed. Questions remain for researchers to explore. One is whether the persons who have opted for covenant marriage so far will stay together. Another asks that if they stay together, will it be because of the type of marriage that they selected, or did they select the marriage because they were persons who would have been more likely to stay together anyway? Enacting laws on a wide scale that make it harder for couples to both get into and get out of marriages will bring divorce rates down. However, it seems

Culture of Poverty |

unlikely that these measures would increase marital satisfaction or quality in any appreciable way. This is an area for future researchers to explore. See also Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce; Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution; Religion and Families. Further Reading: Hawkins, Alan J., Steven L. Nock, Julia C. Wilson, Laura Sanchez, and James D. Wright. “Attitudes about covenant marriage and divorce: Policy Implications from a 3-Stage Comparison.” Family Relations 51 (2002): 166–175; Hawkins, Alan J., Lynn D. Wardle, and David O. Coolidge. Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the 21st Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage. New York: Praeger, 2002; Lowery, Fred. Covenant Marriage: Staying Together For Life. West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing Co., Inc., 2002; Nichols, Joel A. “Louisiana’s Covenant Marriage Law: A First Step Toward a More Robust Pluralism in Marriage and Divorce Law?” Emory Law Journal 47 (1998): 929–930; Nock, Steven L., James D. Wright, and Laura Sanchez. “America’s Divorce Problem.” Society 36 (1999): 43–52.

Kimberly P. Brackett

CULTURE OF POVERTY The so-called culture of poverty is a social theory developed to explain why some individuals and groups are poor. Historically, and presently, this approach has been used to explain the behaviors of persons in poverty and to make public policy decisions, often with harmful consequences. Competing approaches to examining poverty focus on conditions in society as a whole and the consequences of the social class system, rather than just the socialization that occurs in poor families and communities. While explanations for poverty that deal with the cultural messages transmitted in poor families tend to blame those in poverty for their own circumstances, other explanations for poverty tend to view the poor as victims of social forces or structural changes beyond their own control. Both schools of thought have adherents and each can contribute to a more complete understanding of poverty in American society. Poverty, according to culture of poverty adherent Oscar Lewis, is both an adaptation and reaction of the poor to the conditions of poverty. The culture of poverty is a way of life and a set of learned behavioral traits that enable the poor to survive. The family is largely responsible for transmitting the traits to younger generations. These behavioral survival traits include an inability to control one’s impulse, a focus on the present and lack of planning for the future, and the failure to defer gratification and plan for the future. While a focus on the present is an adaptive trait for someone whose future is bleak with little or no opportunity, living in the moment and little planning for the future are self-limiting behaviors in the long term and result in individuals becoming trapped in poverty. ORIGINS OF THE CULTURE OF POVERTY Some of the major concepts underlying the culture of poverty were first developed by the African American sociologist E. Franklin Frazier in his book, The

167

168

|

Culture of Poverty

Negro Family in the United States, where he explores why African Americans did not develop the skills necessary for success. He found the problem to lie in behavioral traits that were counterproductive and trapped them in poverty. Frazier believed that the pathological nature of the African American family was a result of the social conditions present in larger society. He found that the family structure and cultural patterns that guided black families in Africa were totally destroyed by slavery, emancipation, and urbanization. These social conditions destroyed male dominance and encouraged the matriarchal organization of the family. Frazier argued that beginning with slavery and being reinforced by emancipation and urbanization, the family became matriarchal, and the position and authority of black males in the family was weakened. The matriarchal organization left the family dysfunctional and impacted the family well into the twentieth century. The outcome was a pathological family system resulting in poverty, illegitimacy, crime, and juvenile delinquency. Frazier posited that the problems of African Americans were a result of a cultural pathology, and the pathology was passed on through generations creating a self-perpetuating cycle of hopelessness. It is believed that the poverty of African Americans is the result of social conditions that both influenced and reinforced individual traits that led to trapping people in poverty. Lewis (1966) found similar individual traits that trapped people in poverty when comparing a slave’s way of life in the antebellum south with the families he was studying in Mexico, Puerto Rico, and New York. It was in Lewis’s book, Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty, where the term “culture of poverty” originally appeared. From this study, he wanted to see if the same behaviors he found in his study on Mexican families were also present in another group. In order to do a comparative analysis on families in poverty, he expanded his next study to 100 Puerto Rican families in four slum areas in San Juan, Puerto Rico plus their relatives in New York. The objective was to gain an understanding of urban life and develop new methods of studying the family. Accordingly, the culture of poverty is useful because it shows that poverty is not a problem limited only to African Americans or other ethnic minorities, but is a way of life; a culture. It was concluded that even if physical poverty were eliminated it may not be enough to eliminate the culture of poverty. The culture of poverty is a whole way of life to which the poor become accustomed. He concluded that the behavioral traits found among the poor went beyond regional differences and rural-urban distinctions to suggest that all poor were reacting and adapting to problems in a similar manner. The culture of poverty, then, is both a reaction and adaptation of the poor “to their marginal position in a class-stratified, highly individuated, capitalistic society.” The poor person adapts with a list of 70 interconnected social, economic, and psychological traits that include, but are not limited to, the following: poor integration into society including involvement in major institutions such as political parties, welfare agencies, hospitals, department stores, museums, or art galleries; low wages, chronic underemployment or unemployment; little or no property ownership; absence of savings; production of very little wealth, and low levels of literacy and education.

Culture of Poverty |

APPLYING THE CULTURE OF POVERTY IN AMERICAN SOCIETY The culture of poverty’s focus on behavioral traits (i.e., culture) makes it convenient for both public policy makers and professionals. For policy makers, an individual’s behavior is the reason he or she is poor; therefore, if a policy can be written that could change a person’s behavior then the person will no longer be poor. The reasoning that policy can change individual behavior can be seen in the changes in welfare policy starting in the 1960s. Welfare services and policies originated with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Great Depression programs of the 1930s and were designed to help unemployed workers and their families. These programs became collectively known as welfare. One program in particular was the Social Security Act of 1935. From the Social Security Act developed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and for 61 years this federal program provided governmental aid to single mothers with children. In 1996, AFDC—the cash payment that most Americans think of when they hear the word “welfare”—was changed to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) as part of the federal welfare reform legislation. One of the major incentives for the changes in TANF was to reduce the welfare rolls by putting a five-year limit on all welfare benefits. Advocates of the culture of poverty approach believe the poor are poor because of certain behavioral traits and choices. In other words, this approach would say the poor lack initiative in the labor market, leading to increases in rates of outof-wedlock births, teen pregnancy, long-term unemployment, crime, and drug use. The hope of policy makers, and certainly that of TANF advocates, is that required employment would break the cycle of dependency by putting limits on welfare benefits and by teaching recipients a new life style. Starting in the 1960s, welfare policy was largely shaped by the ideas of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. As the assistant secretary of labor for policy in the Kennedy administration, he believed that the government could use information from the social sciences to deal with social problems. Moynihan’s ideas laid the foundation for the War on Poverty and his report was titled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” The report focused on female-headed households, matriarchy, economic dependency, unemployment, crime, and juvenile delinquency. His intention was to create an environment suitable to discussing poverty and developing policies that helped the black community. The Moynihan Report, as it became known, was built on Moynihan’s belief that “at the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of [African American] society is the deterioration of the [black] family.” The report and his recommendations were based on the following characteristics of African American households: (a) nearly a quarter of marriages had dissolved, (b) nearly one quarter of births to African American women were illegitimate, (c) low rates of intact marriages, high rates of out-of-wedlock birth led to one fourth of families being headed by females, and (d) the breakdown in family structure had led to stark increases in welfare dependency. From these statistics Moynihan concluded that the direct cause of poverty was a family pathology created by female-dominant families,

169

170

|

Culture of Poverty

dysfunctional households, poor values, and a lack of aspirations that kept African Americans firmly rooted in poverty. The report marks a change from the government’s focus on changing laws to improving living conditions for African Americans. Moynihan felt that barriers such as discrimination that prevented African Americans from living as well as middle-class whites had been lifted, but the long-term effect of inequality was going to make it difficult for the majority of African Americans to take advantage of the new laws. The report was an update to findings reported 30 years earlier by Frazier. Moynihan’s goal had been to retest Frazier’s predictions about the “intertwining effects of socioeconomic deprivation and family disorganization.” For sociologists and psychologists, the report presented nothing new or startling and was a policy-oriented view of the problems that were affecting African Americans; however, publicly the report was controversial. Moynihan’s intentions were to help the black community, but his work was misunderstood. Three of the main criticisms consisted first of people who felt his work blamed the victim and portrayed the poor as responsible for their own misfortune. Second, press coverage primarily focused on the high number of children being born out of wedlock, which supported the views of racists. Third, by focusing on the unstable African American families, stable families that were not pathological felt it ruined the reputation of all African American families. Today, the culture of poverty’s easily understood and straightforward tenets have been applied not only to public policy but also in other areas, such as medicine and education. For example, physician Dr. Dale S. Benson offers advice to other physicians on how to provide health care to people living in poverty. He says, “the culture of poverty impacts everything patients in this socioeconomic group think and do. If what a poor patient says doesn’t make sense it doesn’t mean he/she is wrong. Physicians have to adjust their mental models and think in different cultural terms.” Educators use the culture of poverty to enable teachers to close the gap between the white middle class and their students who are living in poverty. The National Education Association (NEA) has developed a workshop called “A Framework for Understanding Poverty.” The framework instructs educators on the so-called hidden rules present in every social class. The developers of the workshops believe that students living in poverty are unaware of the middleclass rules and educators are not knowledgeable about the rules of living in poverty. For example, the workshop teaches that for people living in poverty all of their energies are focused on finding food and keeping the lights on in the house, but for the middle class whose basic needs are easily met they focus on achievement. This workshop asserts that if educators understand the culture of poverty and understand the hidden rules of poverty, educators can instruct students on the cues and rules of the middle class and act as models for all the students. QUESTIONING THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CULTURE OF POVERTY APPROACH An alternative approach to understanding poverty deals with the institutional features of the social class system. Rather than an emphasis on lifestyle and

Culture of Poverty |

lifestyle choices, the structural approach suggests that it is one’s position in the social class system that enables or restricts access to key social resources including education and occupations. Poverty then is more the result of a knowledge base that is possessively maintained by those in power than the result of individual choices that poor persons make. Education is important as a source of jobs, but jobs are essential because they not only provide families with income to meet the needs of their members, but they also link them in important ways to the larger social structure. Adherents of the structural approach to poverty use terms like class privilege to indicate the advantages that are available to persons in the middle and upper levels of society. Family plays a key role in this system of privilege because it is family that passes along wealth and other valuable resources to future generations, thus maintaining their positive standing in society and helping to prevent a downward movement into poverty. A structural approach to explaining the causes of poverty can be found in William Julius Wilson’s book The Truly Disadvantaged. This book outlines how African American poverty is a result of economic changes that have disproportionately affected African Americans. Economic shifts away from manufacturing have disproportionately affected African Americans resulting in joblessness and subsequent poverty. Without a means to support their families, African America men are likely to turn to drugs and crime and less likely to stay with their families, resulting in the high rate out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood. Persons who prefer a structural approach are critical of the culture of poverty’s reliance on several key assumptions. The primary assumptions of the culture of poverty are: (1) one group’s way of life is superior to another’s, (2) the black family is pathological because of the loss of male dominance and the matriarchal nature of the family and (3) there are specific behavioral traits that the poor possess. Way of Life The idea that one group’s culture, or way of life, is considered superior to another originated with Charles Darwin’s survival of the fittest concept. This assumption leads to the following questions: What are superior survival skills? What can be defined as a better or more successful way of life? What are the markers of success—higher income, occupational success, education, relationships with extended family, or survival despite adversity? In answering these questions the culture of poverty considers the middle-class white emphasis on achievement as the superior survival skill, and the nuclear or conjugal family as the only appropriate way to organize the family. Proponents of the culture of poverty believe an emphasis on the nuclear family is the model that all families should aspire. The nuclear family is based on husband, wife, and children as the central organizing components of the family. A weakness of the approach is the belief that there is one superior model of the family that denies not only the richness of different groups’ cultural heritages, but also the strength gained when ethnic families rely on family networks. Other ethnic groups that behave counter to the middle-class white norm are seen as deviant and disorganized.

171

172

|

Culture of Poverty

African American and Latino families are seen as deviant because they are organized around the extended family. For middle-class whites, marriage joins two individuals, and they become the nuclear family; however, for African Americans two families are united through kinship ties that merge to form an extended support system. The strong extended ties can be traced back to tribal Africa. While middle-class white individuals define family values as chastity before marriage and child-bearing within marriage, African Americans define family values as commitment to the informal support system gained through networks of family, friendship, fictive kin, and church. The family offers an extended mutual-aid system that has for a long time been an important feature of the black family. The extended family offers financial aid in terms of food and transportation, emotional support through advice, counseling, visiting and companionship, and care for aging parents. The extended family, or kin networks, often live in close proximity and include frequent interactions, reciprocity of aid, and a feeling of closeness. Friendship networks can even take on the role of kin networks. All of these networks intersect at the black church, which holds networks together and redistributes resources. The extended family is a key component not only for African Americans but also for Latino families. Familism, a key feature of Hispanic families, can be characterized by face-to-face interaction, supporting behaviors such as participation in relatively large kin networks, and engaging in high rates of visiting and exchange. Extended ties and networks include contacts with grandparents, aunts, uncles, and married sisters and brothers. Strong ties outside of the family link community members together through roles as co-parents (compadres) and godparents (padrinos). In comparison, whites maintain ties with fewer kin and the relationships are more likely to be long distance. Those who criticize the culture of poverty approach conclude that African American and Hispanic families are culturally different and middle-class white families are not superior. Pathology Frazier believed the black family to be pathological because of the loss of male dominance, and the matriarchal nature of the family. One of the main assumptions of the culture of poverty is that the loss of male dominance and move to a matriarchy has led to poverty. Does this assumption regarding the division of power in the African American family hold up under closer scrutiny? If the problem is lack of male dominance, then a cultural group that is male dominated should not be perceived as being pathological. However, Hispanic males are seen as domineering, and they are blamed for the plight of the Hispanic family. Contrary to early reports, historical research has found that men played a dominant role in the family and slave families were not matriarchal in form. Families were listed in the planters’ records by the husband’s name, and the men were recognized as heads of the family. While there is plenty of evidence to support that the male slave played an active and leadership role in the family, it is difficult to ignore that there are long-term cultural and structural differences

Culture of Poverty |

between black and white families. Many of the differences relate to the ways the African American family is organized. As early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, African Americans had higher rates of births outside of marriage, more females as head of the family, a higher divorce rate, and a greater tendency to remain single. These differences are related to three social conditions that are experienced differently by blacks and whites and include the marriage squeeze, labor-market success, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. A long history of African American women working for pay has resulted in a more equal division of household labor and an increased likelihood of African American couples being dual-career compared to white middle class couples. These factors and a higher rate of single motherhood (due to cultural and structural differences between blacks and whites) do not translate into African American families being more matriarchal. Sociological research finds little evidence of African American families being matriarchal. Rather than finding the problem to be matriarchy, it has been found that patriarchy is the problem with the Hispanic family. More specifically, family disorganization and poverty for Hispanics was due to hegemonic masculinity or machismo. The Hispanic male is seen as an individualist with rampant and out of control sexuality, who acts in a domineering manner, engages in too much drinking, and produces illegitimate children. Latino women are seen as too selfsacrificing, submissive, morally weak, and unable to protect themselves from their aggressive husbands. The combination of the aggressive male and passive female results in family violence and poverty. Behavioral Traits There are 70 psychological traits that the poor are believed to possess. Are these traits only found among the poor or are the poor more likely to have fewer safety nets and resources to protect them? It would be extremely difficult to identify specific traits demonstrated by only those in poverty. The signs of pathology noted by the culture of poverty school as afflicting African American and Latino families have also been present in white families, that is, increases in divorce rates, female-headed families, and out-of-wedlock births. White, Hispanic, and African American families have all seen dramatic changes in the last couple of decades, and these changes have affected all families no matter what their race, ethnicity, or social class standing. Structural explanations would point toward the fact that individuals who are middle class have luxuries such as automatic bank deposits, bill due-date reminders, and low-interest credit cards. People who have more money are better sheltered from making a serious financial error and shortages in cash flow. For example, about 10 percent of households, many of them poor, do not use a bank. In the place of banks, the poor rely on check cashiers to process checks, and when they are in the need of emergency money they use payday loans or borrow from relatives and friends. Nontraditional financial institutions charge high fees and the poor do not have the financial protections that are available to the middle class. Many of the poor are hourly employees and a shortage of hours

173

174

|

Culture of Poverty

due to illness, injury, or market changes can create hardship. For financial emergencies, the middle class is protected by credit cards, sick leave, medical and disability insurance, retirement plans, and savings. Culture of poverty supporters would say that not placing one’s money in a bank and the poor rate of savings is an example of the poor living for the moment, and their inability to plan for the future. Another approach would be to reason that the poor make a rational choice not to use banks. With little money to save plus the cost of maintaining a bank account (such as minimum balance fees), and with few banks located in poor areas the poor make a rational choice to keep cash on hand. CONCLUSION Today, the culture of poverty approach is most often represented by those who talk about persons making bad choices and being part of the underclass, groups persisting in poverty over several generations. The idea that persons become trapped in poverty as a result of their defective or dysfunctional upbringing was a popular stance for welfare reform proponents who suggested that AFDC payments become a way of life and an intergenerational pattern, despite evidence from those favoring the structural approach that less than 10 percent of current welfare recipients were reared in families that consistently received welfare payments. Some social scientists and media analysts continue to discuss urban poverty in cultural terms. Even comedian Bill Cosby cited a culture of poverty argument in chastising young blacks for their failure to rise above their circumstances. While maintaining either a cultural or structural approach to explaining poverty is possible, these two approaches do not fully capture the complexity of poverty and family life. One example of a new approach to understanding poverty is Intersectionality Theory. Intersectionality Theory highlights how the family is experienced differently in different social classes, by different race and ethnic groups, and by women and men. Family lives are affected by class hierarchies (stratification), racial hierarchies, and gender hierarchies. See also Deadbeat Parents; Poverty and Public Assistance. Further Reading: Benson, Dale. “Providing Health Care to Human Beings Trapped in the Poverty Culture.” The Physician Executive 26, no. 2 (2000): 28–32; Bertrand, Marianne, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Eldar Shafir. “Behavioral Economics and Marketing in Aid of Decision Making Among the Poor.” American Marketing Association 25 (2006): 8–23; Cabaniss, Emily, and Jill Fuller. “Ethnicity, Race, and Poverty.” Race, Gender, and Class 12 (2005): 142–162; Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1990; Dickson, Lynda. “The Marriage and Family in Black America.” Journal of Black Studies 23 (1993): 472–491; Eitzen, Stanley, and Maxine Baca Zinn. “Contemporary Family Policy: An Alternative Vision.” Michigan Family Review 2 (1997): 7–24; Eitzen, Stanley, and Maxine Baca Zinn. “The Missing Safety Net and Families: A Progressive Critique of the New Welfare Legislation.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 27 (2000): 53–72; Fogel, Robert W., and Stanley Engerman. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1974; Frazier, E. Franklin. The Negro Family in the

Culture of Poverty | United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966; Lewis, Oscar. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty—San Juan and New York. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1966; Lewis, Oscar. A Study of Slum Culture: Backgrounds for La Vida. New York: Random House, 1968; Long, Cindy. “Understanding Poverty.” NEA Today 24, no. 7 (2006): 16–17; Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1967; Pagnini, Deanna, and Philip Morgan. “Racial Differences in Marriage and Childbearing: Oral History Evidence from the South in the Early Twentieth Century.” The American Journal of Sociology 101 (1996): 1694–1718; Rainwater, Lee, and William L. Yancey. “The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy.” In The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1967; United States Department of Labor, Office of Policy Planning and Research. http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-moynihan.htm; Vega, William. “Hispanic Families in the 1980s: A Decade of Research.” Journal of Marriage and Family 52 (1990): 1015–1024; Wilson, William Julius. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990; Wilson, William Julius. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage, 1997.

Christy Haines Flatt

175

This page intentionally left blank

D DATING In Western society, mate selection, or choosing a socially approved partner to marry, has been the responsibility of young people. The primary way in which mate selection proceeds in the United States and other Western countries is dating. Scholars and lay persons have debated whether dating is an adequate way to select one’s mate. Particularly, they have asked whether dating is the best way to choose someone with whom to form a lifetime bond. Is there anything about the process of dating that adequately prepares one for marriage? Dating as an activity is embedded in the framework of partner selection and teenage ritual. Dating is the process whereby young people are expected to select a suitable life time partner and to learn how to be involved in an intimate relationship. By dating a variety of potential partners, the young person would theoretically arrive at a greater knowledge of who would make the best marital partner, and would select that one perfect person. This romanticized notion assumes that rationality prevails in the dating arena. However, dating is also an activity that is subject to group norms and is a way to gain popularity and status. When young people are asked about the reasons why they date, few respond that it is to find a life partner. Most mention reasons like fun, companionship, sexual encounters, to fit in with the group, and because it is expected of them. The most frequently cited way in which young people meet their dating partners is through friends. This disconnect between dating as mate selection and dating as a source of fun has always existed in American society but has become more pronounced in recent decades when young people are marrying at later ages, and a larger percentage of young people choose not to marry at all. While people do tend to

177

178

|

Dating

marry later in today’s society, they begin dating earlier in their lives. This contributes to why dating is done for reasons other than mate selection. HISTORY OF DATING AS PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE History of Dating: Courtship In the United States, dating has evolved over time. The first transition was from a fairly autonomous mate selection system in the colonial era to a more restrictive and formal system in the 1800s referred to as courtship. The second transition occurred in the era of industrialization, specifically in the first two decades of the 1900s. This move away from courtship resulted in behaviors that today we would call traditional dating. One of the cornerstones of modern dating, traditional or nontraditional, is that it occurs in those places where mate selection is predominantly, if not completely, under the control of young people rather than their parents. Dating continues to evolve as younger people participate today and daters use different terms, such as “hanging out” or “getting together” to describe their experiences. Parental control was very strong in the colonial era, although it was the strongest in wealthy families with strong European ties. Persons of more modest economic means were likely to have enjoyed significant freedom in the selection of a mate. The nature of colonial life meant hard work, long hours, and little leisure. For young men the choice of a mate was more closely tied to the mate’s ability to help out, to run the household efficiently, and to be a good wife rather than to his love for her. Love was expected to come after the marriage; not to be a basis for it. The arrival of single persons in America, through immigration or indentured servitude, made a formal system unwieldy because there often was no one to perform introductions or act as a chaperone. Nuclear families that had left kin behind in Europe faced a similar situation. Following the colonial era and through the 1800s, what is commonly considered formal courtship was the norm, particularly among the middle class. At that time, there was a strong belief in separate roles for men and women in society, resulting from the presumption that the sexes were completely different in nature, spirituality, morality, temperament, and so forth. Consequently, there was a separation between males and females in daily activities. This meant that there would be fewer opportunities for chance meetings between potential partners, unlike in the colonial era where men and women often worked sideby-side in commercial endeavors. This necessitated formal introductions of the couple by a third party who was acquainted with both of them. While general compatibility and mutual respect had been key criteria for marital partners in the colonial era, during the 1800s it was increasingly expected that the romantic love component would enter the relationship prior to marriage. The process of selecting a suitable spouse became quite formal, reflecting a trend toward formality that was present in society as a whole. This resulted in engagement announcements, formal exchanges of engagement tokens, and formalized wedding ceremonies. It was during this time that the white wedding gown first appeared in popular women’s magazines.

Dating

The trend toward formal interactions was reflected in the expected behaviors of young people as well. Thus, formal introductions occurred. Accepting a young man’s attentions was seen as a serious decision because it was expected to ultimately lead to marriage. As a result, a female had to like the male, or at least believe she would learn to like him, before agreeing to a first date. At this time, dates centered on the woman’s family and it is likely that the young man had to plead his case for marriage to the family as well as to the young woman. Parents played an important role in planning activities and encouraging the couple. The involvement of parents also helped to prevent sexual intimacies from being a part of the dating relationship. During the period of courtship, women had a great deal of power in mate selection. A woman had to give some indication that she was willing to have the man call on her before he would ask for permission. Mothers and daughters would make themselves available at social occasions and would decide from which gentlemen visits would be accepted. Many women announced the days on which they would be home to receive visitors, both male and female, and a formal system of calling cards was used to announce one’s presence as a visitor. There was a lot of control of courtship by women partly because of the permission a woman could grant a visitor, but also because the activities generally occurred in the realm of women, the home. The parlor and front porch were popular places for young couples to share refreshments and conversation. These places were approved by the parents because they were not particularly private and parents could usually remain inconspicuously nearby to monitor the interaction and conversation of the couple. Once a couple was engaged, they were given considerably more privacy. During this time, typically lasting two years, couples began to know each other well. While the visiting and courtship system was quite common for middle class young people, it presented problems for less wealthy families who did not have the extra room in which to allow a couple to get acquainted in semi-privacy. For these couples, courting began to occur in public places. For young people who worked in cities, public courting became commonplace because respectable girls would have lost their respectability if they entertained men in their private quarters, whether that was a dormitory, apartment, or boarding house. History of Dating: Traditional Dating Dating began about the time of World War I and by 1920 it had become the way to court a potential mate. The reasons for the shift to dating are diverse, but tend to revolve around two key changes that were happening in society at that time: industrialization, or the move to greater technology and a manufacturing economy, and urbanization, or the movement of people from farms to urban communities to live and work. People moved to cities in large part because this was where the better jobs could be found. Living in an urban environment brought young men and women in closer contact with each other because of the proximity of residences and the likelihood that both would hold jobs. Living in a more densely populated

|

179

180

|

Dating

area expanded the chances for meeting potential partners with whom one could interact. Generally these city jobs, mostly factory, skilled labor or service positions, compensated workers well with both money and leisure time. The result of these better-paying jobs and limited work days was the opportunity to meet and spend time with potential partners and to have money to spend on them. Industrialization meant that most persons no longer worked from home. Women as well as men could be paid for work outside the home that they had formerly provided in the home for no compensation. Working away from home took young women out of the direct control of their parents and permitted them to interact daily with a wide variety of individuals, including single men. Women working for pay and the women’s equality movement in the 1920s likely contributed to women’s acceptance of dates and generally more brash behavior. More women were also being educated. The advent of free-access, public coeducational high schools also gave dating a push. Males and females had daily contact with each other and participated in classroom activities together. The new technology of the industrial revolution spawned the widespread availability of two inventions that are critical for daters: the telephone and the automobile. The telephone was a way for a man to ask a woman on a date, have her accept, and arrange the details of the meeting. The telephone also allowed couples to communicate even when they might not be currently in the same location or able to spend time together. The automobile provided transportation to dating events such as dances, movies, or parties. Daters could travel farther from home and participate in a wider variety of activities. Additionally, the car afforded couples privacy for not only conversation but sexual intimacies. History of Dating: Current Dating Through the 1900s and to today, dating has continued to evolve and change. During the 1950s dating was characterized by a strict set of behaviors for both males and females. Couples were, however, permitted privacy and going steady, or dating only one partner for a length of time, was an indicator of one’s commitment to the partner and intention to marry. A popular activity for daters was cruising, highlighting the importance of the automobile in dating activities. In the 1960s and 1970s dating became less formal, with mixers and informal gatherings being common places to meet and mingle. Based on criteria from early courtship and dating rituals, current dating is very relaxed by comparison with few, if any, prohibitions. Formal introductions are not necessary and chaperones are an anomaly. Either partner may do the asking or paying, and intimacies are permitted by the partners as they deem appropriate. Dating occurs for a longer period in one’s life now than in the past because people are waiting until they are older to marry or are choosing to remain single. In addition, many persons participating in dating today are divorced or widowed and may bring new criteria for partners, goals for dating, norms for behavior, and expectations to the dating scene. Several trends have been happening in dating over recent decades. Dating begins at younger ages today, such as 13, compared with 16 in 1920. People have

Dating

progressively had more dating partners through the last 100 years, have gotten into relationships sooner, and have experimented with sexual intercourse in dating relationships sooner. Some experts suggest that the focus of dating is no longer on looking for a mate, but on looking for someone with whom to have fun. The language that couples use to talk about their dating relationships has also changed. Are these couples “seeing each other,” “just talking,” or “going out”? These different descriptions of dating make it difficult to determine the nature of the relationship. Each might have a slightly different level of sexual involvement or exclusivity, for example. In today’s dating arena, participants often avoid the term “dating” because it sounds too formal or old fashioned. A phenomenon spurred by the increase in younger daters is group dating. In group dating a network of males and females often go places together as friends who may or may not develop romantic relationships among some of the group. Recent research on college women by the Center for Marriage and Families confirmed that the phenomenon of hanging out has made dating roles and expected behaviors ambiguous and difficult to navigate. Given the interest in and the confusion over dating, a new industry has emerged to help daters navigate the process. Long a staple of late night radio talk show programs, dating advice has become mainstream through its inclusion as a topic in the popular Dummies and Idiots guides. Each is respectively penned by a noted dating advisors Joy Browne and Judith Kuriansky. As dating has moved into arenas beyond the traditional face-to-face meeting, many advice manuals for these alternative locales have emerged. Most have focused on the rapidly expanding area of online dating. DATING IS GOOD PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE Dating is good preparation for marriage because dating is under the control of young people who are expected to eventually form permanent personal relationships. They need to learn how to relate to each other under many different circumstances and activities and dating can assist in this task. The freedom that is allowed daters today gives them ample opportunity to see how partners react in a variety of situations. Couples in committed dating relationships must work out disagreements and differing desires to keep their relationships intact, much as they would need to do in a marital relationship. With fewer interventions by outsiders and parents today, daters meet a variety of persons who expand their experiences. They can take advantage of a wide variety of personality types and relationship styles. Often these are dating partners that would not have received approval in the past because they are of a different race, ethnicity, age, or social class. Because today young people date for longer periods of time before they marry than in the past, they have many more experiences to help prepare them for marriage. Because those outside of the relationship may make the assumption that the couple are eventually planning to marry, they will let the couple know how they feel, either positively or negatively, about the association. In today’s nontraditional dating, there is less pressure on either partner to perform a specified role. Either person may ask, pay, plan, drive, or initiate

|

181

182

|

Dating

sexual contact. These patterns appear to be more common among persons who are dating after a divorce or who are not currently looking for a marital partner. The incidence of asking by women seems to be fairly high, although women do not always pay the expenses of the dates they initiate. Many women today may choose to pay their own way on a date, referred to as going “dutch treat,” so they will not feel obliged to participate in sexual activities with the partner as part of the date script. Likewise, today’s emphasis on group dating may shield young people from the traditional expectations of sexual intimacy on a date. Thus, couples must negotiate the nature of the dating experience just as they would ultimately have to construct a meaningful marriage in a society of diverse opinions on the topic. FOLLOWING THE RULES OF DATING First introduced onto the dating scene in 1996, The Rules: Time-tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider was at once both embraced and vilified. Among the shots lobbed by critics was the notion that the book advocated tricking the man into marriage and that the techniques advocated by the authors would erase everything that the women’s movement had fought for regarding women’s relationship choices. In a word, the ideas were too old-fashioned. Women who took the advice of the authors to heart and found a partner argued that the success of finding a marriageable partner outweighed any stodgy techniques. Among the more than 30 pieces of advice aimed at women that are supplied by Fein and Schneider are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Never call a man first. He needs to be the pursuer and chase the woman. Never accept a date for Saturday night if the invitation is extended after Wednesday. A woman will seem more special if a man has to think ahead to see her. Don’t talk to the man first; he should approach the woman. No sexual contact on the first date. The longer the couple waits for the physical to catch up to the emotional connection, the better. Never date a married man.

DATING IS POOR PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE On the other hand, the skills that make one a good dater may not be the skills that make one a good marital partner. In dating, the popular dater is the one who dates many different persons and is considered a desirable partner by many suitors. Good daters are fun and entertaining. Likewise they may be romantic with their partners and good at establishing a special mood. Because dating partners generally see each other in the best light, when they have dressed in nice clothes, prepared for an activity, and are excited to be together, they may not see the real personality of the partner. The good marital partner is one who is faithful and is not participating in other romantic relationships. Likewise, marital partners see each other when times are both good and bad, thus they are not able to simply

Dating

put on their best faces. There is a falsehood in dating that is linked to expected roles and a predictable progression of relationship activities. Couples often respond to each other based on preconceived ideas about what each partner’s responsibilities are in a dating relationship. Traditionally in heterosexual dating, men are to ask women out on a date, plan what the activities of the date will be, drive both participants to the activities of the date, and pay the financial cost for the dating activities. It is also considered the task of the male partner to initiate sexual contact. Women in a traditional dating situation are expected to let the partner know, through subtle hints and comments, that she would be willing to accept a date with him. Therefore, she has the responsibility to accept the date or decline it if she is not interested. In the event her decision is to decline, she is to do so tactfully so that the male’s confidence is not shattered by the rejection. She is additionally responsible for looking nice and being typically feminine on the date. She is also responsible for setting the sexual limits, or determining how much sexual contact will occur on the date. Women usually follow the norms of their social group in this area. Persons outside of the couple also have a stake in who eventually marries whom. Those observing the dating couple may be more permissive of who the dating partner is if they think that the relationship is not a serious one, as compared with when the couple is serious. While both daters and observers may be more willing to accept a partner who differs on social characteristics such as age, race, ethnicity, religion, or social class when the association is a casual one, they may be less willing to accept differences in these areas in a marital partner. THE DATING GAME In some instances dating has been characterized as a game, with participants making carefully planned and researched strategic moves. The male works to impress the female and gain sexual favors while the woman works to limit her sexual favors and maintain her social position. This dating game is based on the assumption that, traditionally, males and females have wanted different things from dating relationships. Whereas women hoped that dating would lead to marriage and involved a romantic notion of the future with the partner, men wanted the company of the woman and the possible sexual relationships that dating might provide. As with any game, dating has rules. Gendered rules have been a key component of the dating game from the beginning. While under the courtship system, women had significant control over the initiation, activities, and intimacies of getting to know a partner. This was in large part due to the location of the courting, her home. In the system of dating that emerged in the 1920s, the power and influence of women had declined in the area of mate selection. A woman had to wait to be asked out by a man. She might give subtle hints of her interest, but could not appear too eager. She rarely had anyone announcing her willingness to receive callers. Men, through the mechanism of asking, became the dominant partners in dating relationships because they had control over which women

|

183

184

|

Dating

dated and which sat home waiting for a date. Additionally, dating took place in the world of men, the public sphere. Men were responsible for asking for the date, planning the activities, paying for any expenses, and choosing the most popular partner that they could. An important resource for daters was money. Because men generally had more of it than did women, he could control what the couple did together. A man with money could date frequently and could expect to have the “best dates” accept his invitations. Some dating scripts also list making sexual advances as the man’s responsibility. The primary tasks of the female partner in a traditional date situation were to accept dates selectively so that she would not appear too eager (or to decline graciously if that was her decision), let the partner know that care had been taken to look nice for the occasion, behave in a typically feminine manner, and set the sexual limits of the date. She must rebuff, at least in a token way, the sexual advances of the partner. This female role of sexual gatekeeper has been a theme throughout the history of dating. Some feminist authors have suggested that dating is legalized prostitution. In exchange for his financial investment in the date, the man expects sexual favors from his female partner. Young people might find it necessary to put on a false face to the partner to get the desired outcome. Advice manuals of the past, as well as a few current ones, even suggest a specific number of dates that should occur before any sexual intimacies are permitted. For example, dating advice manuals of the 1950s and 1960s indicate that women should permit no kisses until after the third date. Intimate touching and intercourse would only be permitted after additional milestones had passed. The idea of engagement as a rite of passage to greater sexual intimacy has some support in the advice manuals as well. Both males and females were aware of when behaviors would be permitted and generally acted accordingly. By the early 1980s a majority of both males and females felt that kissing was appropriate on the first date and nearly all indicated it was acceptable by the fourth date. This idea of limiting the female’s sexual expression to keep a male partner interested in the relationship is still being marketed to modern daters, most notably in the widely read The Rules series. Among those authors currently offering dating advice are Barbara DeAngelis, Susan Forward, and John Gray. See also Arranged Marriage; Mate Selection Alternatives; Premarital Sexual Relationships; Preparation for Marriage. Further Reading : Bailey, Beth. From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth Century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988; Browne, Joy. Dating for Dummies, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2006; DeAngelis, Barbara. The Real Rules: How to Find the Right Man for the Real You. New York: Dell Books, 1997; Fein, E., and S. Schneider. The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right. New York: Warner Books, 1996; Kuriansky, Judith. Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dating, 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books, 2004; Laner, M. R. Dating: Delights, Discontents and Dilemmas. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co., 1992; Rothman, E. A. Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in America. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Kimberly P. Brackett

Day Care

DAY CARE Parents—especially mothers—have historically been deemed responsible for the night-and-day care of younger children. Since prehistoric times when men went off to hunt and the women gathered, gave birth, and guarded young children, motherhood has been the primary function of womanhood. The world has changed and contemporary culture is now much more accepting of women working out of the home. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, as of 2006 women made up 46 percent of the total U.S. labor force. Women are no longer strangers to the workforce and a woman without a job is considered atypical. The previous truism that a woman’s place is in the home has been invalidated. Now a new challenge arises for women who are expected to be wage earners as well as the primary caregivers for their young children. Some are opposed to the idea of a new mother returning to work and leaving her offspring in the care of relative strangers. For many, however, institutionalized care is the only option. The previous convention of the stay-at-home mom has given way to that of the working mother. As a result, young children formerly raised at home are now spending significant portions of their time in child care centers, commonly known as day care. Although many see day care as a relatively new phenomenon, it has roots in nineteenth-century society. It was introduced primarily with the onset of the industrial revolution in the Western Hemisphere. However, day care existed in smaller and more elementary forms in both Europe and the United States even before the revolution. Advocates of day care see it as a necessity—without mothers free to earn wages families would slide into poverty. Naysayers believe that raising children in a nontraditional setting is detrimental to the development and eventual cognitive and social abilities of these children. Research supporting both viewpoints exists while other studies demonstrate no conclusive findings. The debate over institutionalized care and its purported benefit or detriment to children is currently being waged with no side being able to declare clear victory. INSTITUTIONALIZED CARE OF CHILDREN Child care is defined as the nonparental care of children. Day care is the nonparental care of children in an out-of-home facility or establishment. It is important to note that in many sociological studies institutionalized care is broadly defined as care provided by anyone else other than the mother. Child care includes the day care industry but also includes preschool and kindergarten institutions and orphanages. Preschool and kindergarten institutions are focused on the educational development of children while day care and orphanages concentrate on child well-being more than pedagogical activities. The current controversy over nonparental care focuses mainly on day care. Day care is primarily for the benefit of infants and toddlers. In the United States, day care centers are regulated by each state and providers are required to obtain licenses. However, some providers can be exempt from licensing based on the number of children that will receive care. As a result

|

185

186

|

Day Care

of the existence of 50 different licensing processes and regulations, as well as the nonlicensing of certain providers, the United States has a veritable hodgepodge of laws and requirements for its day care centers. This has made research and conclusions about the effects of institutionalized care on young children often unreliable and conflicting.

DAY CARE HISTORY EUROPE Day care emerged out of necessity during the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was responsible for major technological and socioeconomic changes in Western countries during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was the triumph of the middle-class business owners and managers at the wide expense of the labor force. The mechanization of industry and advent of new coal and steam power forced many cottage industries out of business because the factories produced more products at a faster pace. Those families, thus disenfranchised, had to seek outside employment, often at the very factories and mills that had scuttled their own businesses. They found themselves in the predicament of what to do with infants and young toddlers while they labored. Slightly older children were not a problem because they often worked in the same factories as their parents. In 1816 infant schools were started in Scotland in order to control street preschool-age children during the day. Infant schools were seen as a way to solve the urban infant care problems that resulted from industrialization and were established in England, the United States, and France. Currently infant schools still exist in the United Kingdom but have become more similar to the American kindergarten. In France, crèches were established in the mid-1800s as a full-day institution geared toward the children of working mothers. It became a very popular model of care and spread as far as China and Belgium. Because the emphasis of crèches was merely on daily supervision of children and mostly unconcerned with their emotional well-being, crèches often resulted in large groups of children in unsanitary buildings being watched by untrained and poorly paid caregivers. Both crèches and infant schools were supported by local charities before being incorporated into state or local government funding.

DAY CARE HISTORY UNITED STATES Before the arrival of the industrial revolution, colonial America continued a model of child care born in England—the apprenticeship model. Apprenticeship is the indenture of a child to a tradesman in order to learn a trade. It was mostly utilized by the poor and could even be considered a type of foster care. Young children, often barely older than toddlers, were sent to their master who often served as their father until they were old enough to be on their own or, if they were girls, until they married. Apprenticeship declined with the beginning of the industrial revolution and was almost obsolete by the Civil War. The mid-nineteenth century saw the advent of the so-called cult of domesticity. This movement portrayed women only as tireless mothers and faithful

Day Care

|

187

THE EXPERTS, AND THE MEDIA, WEIGH IN Broadcast and print media outlets often report contentious studies that claim to expose the dangers or benefits of day care and further exacerbate the polemical issue. The aroused anger, anxiety, and worry among the nation’s parents and caregivers further inflame this already heated debate. Jay Belsky, professor of psychology at Birbeck College in London, has authored many articles purporting the dangers of child care and encourages the idea of extending maternity leave and enforcing part-time work for new parents. His paper, “Infant Day Care: Cause for Concern,” published in 1986 terrified many parents and he has followed it up with the more recent “Development Risk (Still) Associated with Early Child Care.” Belsky is a media favorite in child care research but many accuse him of chasing the spotlight by exaggerating results and using alarmist tactics. Sarah Friedman, a developmental psychologist with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, states that the results of the study do not warrant policy recommendations and that those results would limit new parents’ time to work as economically dangerous. Linda Hirshman, a law professor and working mother, is an advocate of the working mother. She believes that women leaving the workforce to care for their children are hurting themselves and setting unhealthy examples for their children. Hirshman sees the college-educated woman ceasing to work because of offspring as a direct challenge to the idea of gender equality and causing women to lead lesser lives. There are several groups of mothers that are completely against Hirshman and see staying at home as a job. They feel that to be there for their children every day as an attentive mother is essential for the healthy emotional and intellectual growth of their children. In the aptly named “Mommy Wars” the battle is continually supplied by the fevered interests of television and radio stations, newspapers, and Internet sources. Despite the warnings of naysayers and the support of advocates, institutionalized care for children is a modern reality. For over 200 years day care and its antecedents have filled a vital need for society during national emergencies and for individual families during times of economic stress. Despite its longevity, results assessments of the benefits and harms of institutionalized care remain mixed. What does appear clear is that the quality of the infant-mother attachment depends more on the responsiveness of the mother than on the amount of time spent in day care or even the quality of the day care setting. While day care appears to give a boost to the acquisition of cognitive skills to children who are from a deprived home setting, this effect appears to level out in later years. Children spending greater amounts of time in day care are sometimes considered by their observers to be more disobedient. Despite conflicting research and continuing parental concerns about the effect of institutionalized care on children, day care is a fact of life in contemporary society.

and supportive wives. Women were not expected to work unless it was in the home. The initial popularity of these beliefs hindered the creation of any new day care ventures. The 1850s also saw the emergence of the controversial Oneida Community. In the community, once children were weaned they became the

188

|

Day Care

responsibility of the whole community and were housed and raised communally. Parents were permitted to visit their children but if they were suspected of forming a special bond visitation was no longer allowed. It was around this time that settlement houses were beginning to develop. These settlement houses included day nurseries for young children whose mothers were working. They closely resembled current conceptions of day care as they also allowed drop-off and even sick care, as well as the fact that caretakers occasionally made home visits. Orphanages were previously mentioned as a form of child care. They were even further utilized beyond a day care setting when working-class families chose to put their child into an orphanage temporarily. This often occurred when the family was impoverished and financially unable to provide and care for their children. Parents would maintain contact with their children and the children would return home when financial situations improved. The 1930s witnessed the devastating effects of the Great Depression, and the Works Progress Administration started an emergency day care system in an attempt to give jobs to unemployed teachers and make child care services available to poor families. Child care centers were built for children of migratory farm workers by the Farm Security Administration. In 1943 these centers became Lanham Act centers geared toward the children of mothers working in defense and war-related industries. Across America 3,102 centers attended to about 600,000 children during World War II in communities that were deemed sufficiently war-impacted. Many felt that this government support of mothers working outside the home was only justified in light of the current national emergency of war. As soon as the war ended federal funds were terminated and the only sites that survived had to receive other forms of local or state support. Since the Second World War the influx of women into the workforce has steadily increased. With increasing numbers of single mothers, child care became a necessity rather than a choice. The Aid to Families with Dependent Children Act had been in place since 1935 (it began as the Aid to Dependent Children Act) but many challenged it because it provided little incentive for further job training and education, and some saw that the birth of more children prolonged the provided benefits. Mothers in the predicament of having young children, having no money, and having no husband were considered undeserving of these monetary allowances given by the government for them to stay at home with their children. Policymakers and reformers decided it was time that individuals were assisted to secure their own future. As a response to this particular welfare reform, the Family Support Act was passed in 1988. The act emphasized a person’s return to basic education and job training in order to receive benefits. Child care was guaranteed for mothers and fathers who were working or returning to school. The Family Support Act offered the first comprehensive support of child care by the federal government. However, many still remained concerned because the act offered child care primarily to keep parents in productive work or education activities, and did not heavily promote child development.

Day Care

EFFECTS OF DAY CARE Those against the institutionalized care of children believe that day care is harmful to the cognitive, behavioral, and social development of children. Certain studies have linked day care to an increase in aggression in children as well as a weakening of mother and child attachment. Promoters of day care point to other studies that have linked day care with an increase in language and cognitive skills. Most of these studies focus on infants and toddlers and the care they receive as these years are considered the most formative and the most developmentally significant. These studies stress high-quality care as an indicator of positive results. The quality of care in a child care center is often based upon the child-to-caregiver ratio and education of the adult caregivers. When caregivers are responsible for fewer children, they can provide more individual care to each of them. A highquality child care center features large amounts of caregiver-child verbal and social interaction as well as responsiveness to the child’s needs. Several studies have delved into the effects of institutionalized care on the mother-child relationship. The most comprehensive has been a study conducted by the National Institute of Human Health and Development Early Child Research Network. The study investigated claims that the time a child spends away from his or her mother in a day care center weakens the attachment between infant and mother. Some go as far as to say that young infants who experience this daily separation perceive it as a form of maternal rejection. However, the study concluded that mothers who do not see their children during the day often make a greater effort to spend more time with them at night and on the weekends. This increase in attention seems to almost make up for a marked absence during the day. The study’s most conclusive finding is that the child’s attachment is directly related to the sensitivity and responsiveness of his or her mother. The amount of time spent in, and the quality of, the child care is secondary. Less sensitive and unresponsive mothers were more likely to put their children in low-quality childcare. Therefore attachment already weakened by the mother’s behavior is compounded by the addition of low-quality care. Conversely, it was shown that the effect of high-quality child care may have a moderating effect on a child whose mother is insensitive. It has been suggested that parental involvement (this includes fathers) plays a much bigger role in a child’s development than does day care. It is the mother’s interaction with the child and her utilization of time spent outside of day care that seems to decisively dictate the quality of attachment between parent and child. Attempts to determine the effect day care has on the development of children’s cognitive abilities and behavioral tendencies have always been at the forefront of child care research. It is at the end of early infancy, when a child is one or two years old, that speech develops and emerges. When a child is two years old his or her vocabulary is continually expanding and the use of grammar is introduced. Symbolic thought and language are in the early stages at this time, a precursor to the development of logic that will occur around seven years of age. Most studies examining the effect of institutionalized care concentrate on children between

|

189

190

|

Day Care

15 and 36 months old because this is when critical linguistic and cognitive development occurs. Several theories exist that alternately denounce and praise institutionalized care and its effects. One opinion is that children from low-income families with little opportunity for cognitive stimulation benefit more from high-quality care than do more advantaged children. The opposite of this hypothesis states that high-quality child care centers are substandard to the care well-off children receive in a home environment, and therefore do not provide any extra cognitive advancement opportunities. Some studies suggest that the higher-quality child care results in better acquisition of language and cognitive skills. Despite common fears that the more time children spend in day care the more deprived they become, there is no evidence that the amount of time spent in day care is related to poorer cognitive skills or decreased language development. In fact, when comparing the cognitive and language performances of children in maternal care with children in nonmaternal care, children in medium- and highquality child care centers performed better. Despite any improved language and cognitive performance that may be apparent between one and three years of age, many question the sustainability of these advanced skills as the child becomes older. Some studies show these advanced skills dissipating through early school years and others claim they remain through to adulthood. In other words, the apparent increase or decrease of cognitive and language skill development, as a result of day care, may or may not become moot in later years due to time and other factors in early school education. Researchers often question if the more time a child spends in a child care center the more they are likely to suffer from behavioral problems. This is a tricky effect to analyze because behavior analysis is considered to be very subjective. The term aggressive behavior is used most often but can have different meanings to different people. According to one study, time spent in child care had no relation to behavioral problems that warranted any clinical or professional care. Based on the reports of caregivers, teachers, and mothers, children in kindergarten who spent 30 hours or more in an institutionalized care setting were less cooperative and more disobedient. However, as with the strength or weakness of the motherinfant attachment, family influence played more of a role in a child’s behavioral development than any amount of time spent in nonparental child care. After reviewing a plethora of studies with conflicting and coinciding results, it is obvious that there is no definitive research on the effects of day care on child development. The studies that do exist have not provided conclusive answers. Several variables including the quality of the day care institution, the amount of time spent in day care, the age institutionalized care starts, and the quality of care a child receives at home from parents are all factors that determine a child care institution’s benefit or detriment. See also Child Care Policy; Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Further Reading: Clarke-Stewart, A., and V. Allhusen. What We Know About Childcare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005; Cohen, Abby. A Brief History of Federal Financing for Child Care in the United States. Financing Child Care 6, no. 2 (1996).

Deadbeat Parents http://www.futureofchildren.org; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. “The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD): Findings for Children up to Age 4 1/2 Years (05-4318).” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. “The Effects of Infant Child Care on Infant-Mother Attachment Security: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.” Child Development 68, no. 5 (1997): 860–879; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. “The Relation of Child Care to Cognitive and Language Development.” Child Development 71 (2000): 960–980;

Margeaux Corby DEADBEAT PARENTS A question that has appeared in recent years, largely as a result of the increases in divorce and nonmarital child bearing, is the question of whether child support enforcement leads to an increase in deadbeat parents. Over the last few decades, the United States has witnessed an increase in the number of parents, mainly fathers, who are not taking responsibility for their children. Many of these parents have come to our attention through the child support system. The child support system is fundamentally an economic phenomenon run by the various states with federal oversight and guidelines. Historically, its focus was on either recovering welfare money for the government or on preventing the government from having to expend money on single mothers and their children. However, in recent years, the focus has expanded to include ensuring the health and well-being of the nation’s children. Along with this expanded focus has come an increase in the strict enforcement of child support obligations. Consequently, some parents who fail to comply with their child support obligations, for whatever reason, are at risk for fines and imprisonment and are labeled as so-called deadbeat parents. In fact, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act makes it a federal offense for a noncustodial parent to willfully fail to pay past-due support obligations for a child residing in another state. Referring to these parents as deadbeats has spawned great debate regarding how we conduct child support in America. On one side of the debate are child advocates who suggest that we need to be more aggressive with our child support policies in an effort to reduce childhood poverty. On the other side are fathers’ rights activists who argue that the current child support system is unjust in that it favors women in most actions that pertain to the child, leaving fathers out. CHILD SUPPORT Child support is the transfer of resources to a child living apart from a parent. The most common type of transfer is direct financial payment to the custodial parent on behalf of the child. However, child support can be indirect in the form of medical insurance and care, dental care, child care, or educational support. The transfer of resources occurs at both the private or public level. Private child support is paid by the noncustodial parent to the custodial parent. The

| 191

192

|

Deadbeat Parents

majority of custodial parents have some type of agreement or court award to receive financial and nonfinancial support from the noncustodial parent for their children. In most cases, these are legal agreements established by a court or other governmental entity, such as the local child support agency. Although the majority of custodial parents have legal agreements for child support, about 40 percent of custodial parents do not have such agreements or have informal agreements with the noncustodial parent. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the three most-often cited reasons for the lack of child support agreements are: (1) custodial parents did not feel the need to go court or to get legal agreements; (2) the other parent provided what he or she could for support; and (3) the other parent could not afford to pay child support. On the other hand, public child support is paid for by the state on behalf of a child living in poverty in the form of public assistance, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Food Stamps, Medicaid, or Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Roughly, about one-third of all custodial parents receive some form of child-support-related assistance from the state. Historically, child support was a means for the state to receive reimbursement from noncustodial fathers for public child support expenditures. In the case of public child support, it is the government and not the custodial parent who is the direct beneficiary of the noncustodial parent’s financial payment. In fact, some scholars and fathers’ rights activists suggest that it is the reimbursement of public child support which has stimulated interest in stricter child support enforcement. THE TRANSFORMATION OF CHILD SUPPORT IN AMERICA Child support in its present form has not always existed. Initially child support was considered a civil matter. Since the arrival of settlers in America, child support has existed in some form, with parental responsibility at the heart of collections of aid. Child support has its foundations in the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601, sometimes referred to as the English Poor Laws. The English Poor Laws were a system of relief to the poor that was financed and administered at the local level (parishes). The poor were divided into three groups: able-bodied adults, children, and the elderly or non-able-bodied. The overseers of the poor relief system were to put the able-bodied to work, to give apprenticeships to poor children, and to provide “competent sums of money” to relieve the non-able-bodied. It is this system of assistance to the needy that British settlers brought with them to America. Child Support in Colonial America Colonial child support had a slow start. In colonial America, when a couple married, the wife’s identity merged with that of her husband. Women did not have the right to hold property, therefore the husband controlled and managed all property. In return, the husband was obligated to provide for his wife and children. Fathers had a nonenforceable duty to support their children. Under the Poor Laws, child support was considered a civil matter. Although desertion was rare, when a man did desert his family, the local community would provide for

Deadbeat Parents

the mother and child to prevent destitution. In return, local communities would attempt to recover from the father monies spent in support of the mother and child. The money collected from the father was put back into the poor relief system’s reserves. However, near the end of the eighteenth century, as the population increased, there was an accompanying increase in the numbers of individuals needing assistance, which eventually caused a breakdown of the colonial poor relief system. Child Support Enforcement and the Making of the Deadbeat Dad The revolutionary changes brought about by the industrialization, or the movement to greater technology, and urbanization, or movement to the cities, of the nineteenth century encouraged courts to strengthen the child support system. During this period, divorce and child custody laws were transformed. For instance, child custody laws that had previously favored the fathers in divorce began to favor the mother, increasingly granting custody of the child to mothers. Therefore, when divorce and desertion rates increased, many mothers and their children became dependent on the state for subsistence. In response to this rise in the utilization of and dependency on public resources, states began to make child support a criminal matter by establishing a legally enforceable child support duty. State legislators passed desertion and nonsupport statutes that criminalized and punished fathers for their refusal to support their child, especially if the mother and child were recipients of public child support. Fathers who failed to comply with child support were either fined or imprisoned. Despite states’ efforts to improve child support enforcement and to reduce public child support expenditures, a sizable number of fathers and husbands fled the state to avoid their child support obligations, leaving a host of mothers and children destitute and dependent on public child support services. In the mid-twentieth century, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act implemented federal guidelines that made fathers who moved from state to state to avoid child support still responsible for their children through both civil and criminal enforcement. Yet these guidelines caused confusion between states regarding the jurisdiction of child support; hence, some fathers could have multiple child support orders. Throughout the remainder of the twentieth century, state and federal child support enforcement programs continued to address interstate inconsistencies that provided irresponsible parents with a means of avoiding their child support obligations. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, known to most Americans as “welfare reform,” emphasized parental responsibility for the financial support of their children as well as implemented more aggressive enforcement techniques, and additional provisions that unified state collection efforts. For instance, to reduce delay in establishing wage-withholding for parents who are delinquent in their child support payments, PRWORA requires employers to report all new hires to child support enforcement authorities. As a result, The National Directory of New Hires, a centralized electronic system, was developed to match all employees with

| 193

194

|

Deadbeat Parents

parents who owe child support and are listed in the federal case registry. In fiscal year 1998, the National Directory of New Hires located 1.2 million parents who were delinquent in their child support payments; in fiscal year 1999, the directory identified an additional 2.8 million delinquent parents. The most recent child support enforcement effort focused on curtailing deadbeat parents is the creation of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (DPPA), which makes it a federal offense for a noncustodial parent to willfully fail to pay a past-due child support obligation, with respect to a child residing in another state. Under the DPPA, if the obligation remains unpaid for longer than one year or is greater than $5,000, then a misdemeanor charge may be considered. On the other hand, behaviors that constitute a felony offense are: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation, if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than one year or is greater than $5,000; or (2) willfully failing to pay a support obligation regarding a child residing in another state if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than two years or is greater than $10,000. Maximum penalties for a misdemeanor are six months incarceration and/or a $5,000 fine. Maximum penalties for a felony offense are two years and/or a $250,000 fine. The past few centuries have seen a noteworthy transformation in the child support system in the United States. Yet, there is scholarly and political debate about whether our current system works and if so, for whom. POLITICS AND CHILD SUPPORT The issue of child support is just one of many topics related to the changing family. Scholars and politicians continually debate whether the traditional family is in decline. On one side of the debate are those who think the family is in decline. Proponents of this perspective hail the traditional family, that is, a breadwinner husband, a stay-at-home wife and mother, and children, as the best environment for children. Along with this perspective comes terms such as “family values” or “families first” that are used to affirm and clarify the merits of the two-parent home. Thus, the federal government spends millions of dollars on marriage promotion programs that are mainly aimed at the poor. Some argue that if marriage promotion works, we will witness more stable families and a reduction in government spending on public child support related services. On the other side of the debate are those who argue that the family is not in decline, but is changing in response to societal shifts. This perspective also contends that it is unlikely that American families will ever return to the traditional family. Therefore, terms such as “family values” and “families first” should be used in relation to all family types. If we accept all families, then more aggressive efforts will be made to support single-parent households and to assist in moving families out of the poverty trap.

CHILD ADVOCATES Child advocates argue that the child support system has improved but suggest that more changes are needed to improve the health and well-being of children

Deadbeat Parents

and to lift families out of poverty. For instance, the number of custodial parents receiving full private child support payments has increased over the last ten years, from 36.9 percent to 45.3 percent. In contrast, among custodial parents who live below the poverty line, only 35 percent received all the private child support that was due. In terms of public child support-related services, advocates argue that these services rarely prevent poverty, and in fact, are a poverty trap. Public child support services provide meager, below-poverty-level benefits, reduce benefits when mothers earn more, and take away medical benefits when a mother leaves welfare. A strategy such as this promotes dependency and perpetuates the cycle of poverty. However, child advocates note that closely related to the poverty trap is the child support enforcement trap. Specifically, advocates are concerned that custodial parents receiving public child support such as TANF are required to assign their right to private child support to the governmental welfare entity before cash assistance can be received. Moreover, custodial parents must pursue child support from the noncustodial parent, which is then diverted to the welfare assistance program instead of the custodial parent. Child support payments that are used to reimburse government public assistance costs deprive many poor children of much of the child support paid on their behalf. Even after the family leaves welfare and is struggling to avoid return, in some circumstances child support collections will go to repay government arrears before going to the family. What’s more, child advocates note, if the amount of private child support paid equals or exceeds the public child support assistance, the family is moved off of TANF, the cash assistance part of the program. Finally, the federal government through the Social Security Administration provides up to $4.1 billion in financial incentives to states that create child support and arrearage orders. Again, child advocates argue that this type of child support enforcement system is a trap that perpetuates the cycle of poverty and is more beneficial for the state and federal government than for children and families. FATHERS’ RIGHTS ACTIVISTS Overall, fathers’ rights activists find that the current child support system is a gender-biased system that discriminates against men. However, these activists’ dissatisfaction with the child support system begins prior to the child support order, with the divorce proceedings. Many divorced men argue that awarding sole maternal custody denies a father equal rights. Yet, many fathers admit that they don’t want the responsibility of caring for their children on a daily basis but do want to continue the parenting role and visit with their children regularly. A second issue that concerns fathers’ rights activists is that mothers are awarded unjust child support payments; that is, more money than is needed to care for the child. Furthermore, fathers seem to resent that they have no control in the manner in which support payments are spent. Even more, fathers who pay child support become angry when visitation with their children is limited, again blaming a gender-biased system for these problems.

| 195

196

|

Developmental Disability and Marital Stress

Activists also take issue with the term “deadbeat dad.” They contend that the concept of deadbeat dad carries the connotation of an affluent man who fails to meet his parental responsibility to provide for his children. However, some activists suggest that the majority of dads who are labeled as deadbeats do not fit this image. In fact, they argue, many fathers just are not financially able to provide for their children, yet the court awards child support payments that he is unable to afford. For instance, activists assert that men characterized as deadbeats are either (1) remarried and the second family is worse off financially than the original family because the father is supporting his biological children and several stepchildren; (2) living in poverty, homeless, or incarcerated; (3) fathers who are providing indirect support to the child and custodial parent such as repairing items around the custodial parent’s house; (4) fathers who can’t find their children because the mother has moved, but the mother has filed a case with the local child support enforcement entity; (5) fathers with high arrearages in relation to their current economic circumstance; and (6) fathers who are truly child support resistors, that is, deadbeat dads. Finally, some activists claim that child support enforcement benefits all entities related to the divorce industry. They point out that the divorce and child support industry creates jobs for many. For example, family court judges earn $90,000 to $160,000 per year and each judge requires a staff, not to mention child support staff, social workers, private collections agencies, and attorneys. In addition, they note the availability of federal funding for the administration of child support enforcement programs under the Social Security Act. Federal funding incentives have led a number of for-profit and privately-held corporations to offer services to state and local child support agencies ranging from consultation to payment processing. Thus, fathers’ rights activists argue that the current child support system actually tears families apart while benefiting government and child support related businesses. See also Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce; Child Support and Parental Responsibility; Culture of Poverty; Divorce and Children; Fatherhood; Marriage Promotion; Poverty and Public Assistance. Further Reading: Alliance for Non-custodial Parents Rights. http://www.ancpr.org/; Braver, Sanford L. Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth. New York: Putnam Special Markets, 1998; Crowley, Jocelyn. The Politics of Child Support in America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Father’s Rights. http://www.fathersrightsinc.com/; Mobilia, Marcia, and Joel Bulmil. Deadbeat Dads: A National Child Support Scandal. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996.

Annice Yarber DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY AND MARITAL STRESS The typical American family struggles with the prospects of divorce, even when life appears relatively stable or normal. The union of two people is in part built out of compromise and negotiation. When persons marry, they expect a wonderful life together. How does the introduction of a child with a develop-

Developmental Disability and Marital Stress | 197

mental disability influence the lives of the parents and subsequent family? Is it simply an added stressor or can it be an opportunity for personal growth and fulfillment? BACKGROUND A developmental disability is a severe, chronic disability of a person that (1) is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or a combination of mental and physical impairments; (2) is manifested before the person attains age 22; (3) is likely to continue indefinitely; (4) results in substantial functional limitation in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: self-care, receptive expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency; and (5) reflects the person’s need for a combination and sequence of special interdisciplinary or generic care, treatment, or other services that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. Since the early 1970s, the emphasis in American politics has been to integrate those with disabilities into mainstream society. This began with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The last of that era’s Civil Rights legislation, this act emphasized training people with disabilities to work. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act expanded the rights of people with disabilities even further, addressing such things as access to services, access to buildings and other structures, accommodations for those disabled, including the use of communication devices, and many other actions. The act also made discrimination of any kind against people with disabilities a crime, as well as protecting family members of, and those that work with, people with disabilities. During this time subsequent lawsuits have closed long-standing state institutions that housed people with developmental disabilities. Social movements have emphasized “people first” movements, stressing that we must think of those with disabilities as human beings first and foremost. But have these changes influenced how people maintain their lives apart from protection under the law? Does the stigma attached to those with developmental disabilities have long-lasting consequences for parents and the stability of their families? NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON MARRIED LIFE Traditionally, the research on families or marital partners where there has been a child with developmental disabilities present has suggested that giving birth to a child with a developmental disability was a tragedy. As late as the 1980s, the term “baby doe” was used to identify babies born with a developmental disability that were then left unaided in the hospital until they died. The research often emotionally equated the birth of a child with a developmental disability with death. While this perspective is not as common within the literature today, it is still generally accepted that parents caring for a child with a developmental disability will have a more difficult time. Much of the literature addresses four key areas to reflect this view: (1) the parent of a child with a developmental disability

198

|

Developmental Disability and Marital Stress

will experience more stress than the typical parent; (2) parenting a child with a developmental disability is believed to lead to more time and energy parenting, as well as to more family routines and activities subject to frequent disruptions; (3) single mothers of a child with a developmental disability are more likely not to marry; and (4) married couples with a child with a developmental disability have a greater chance of divorce within a two-year period. Another component that these partners and families experience is stigma. Stigma is a devalued attribute directed toward or identified with an individual or group of people. It can include a flaw of character or intelligence, as well as a flaw of the body. Typically, once a stigma is identified a person is then labeled with a master status, which is an identity that supersedes all other identities. It is what most people see or acknowledge first when they meet someone with a stigma. When coming into contact with someone who has cerebral palsy, we would notice the wheelchair, the slight disfigurement, and the inability to move or talk in a manner similar to the rest of the population. So we would treat that person first with those things in mind. With the typical person, most likely we would not take notice of those things because they would be viewed as normal. To have a child with a developmental disability would be to recognize that your child has this stigma, yet at the same time acknowledge that those around you will also look at you, the parent, differently. This creates some uneasiness, at least temporarily, as parents are forced to deal with a new identity associated with them. As mentioned, the early research focused on the parental stress involved when a child with a developmental disability is present. This form of research is still found today. Much of that research found that parents of a child with disabilities were indeed more stressed than the parents of a child without a disability. Likewise, these same studies identified that the mother of the child with the developmental disability was more likely to have to quit her place of employment to focus on the needs of the child. Unable to afford the care from professional services, it was more cost-effective for one of the parents, in this case the mother, to leave work and take care of her child. Parents suffer more from depression if they have a child with a developmental disability. As many as 20 percent of parents with a child having a developmental disability score above the clinical cut-off for depression (Feldman et al. 2007). The explanation for this has typically been that the parents are suffering due to the tragedy involved in their lives, and this does not match the expectations parents had when they thought of having a child. There has been an alternative explanation that has carried some weight involving support groups. Because there is a wide array of disabilities categorized as developmental disabilities, parents have a difficult time finding others with similar children. There are not as many people around with which to compare notes, as well as to create a sense of camaraderie. This phenomenon has led to a belief that without such support-based relationships, parents experience more instability. Because people with developmental disabilities have the most stigma attached to them, this isolation for parents can be devastating. Likewise, another aspect has to do with marriage or the likelihood of marriage after giving birth to a child with a developmental disability. Unmarried

Developmental Disability and Marital Stress | 199

mothers who give birth to a child with a developmental disability are less likely to marry. The rationale for this outcome is that part of the union of marriage in the United States involves the contributions of children to marital stability. This is based on the Judeo-Christian belief that we are to populate the earth, as well as act as stewards in that endeavor. When a child has a developmental disability, there appears to be a disruption to the natural order; a disruption to the American Dream. The child is not only different, but he or she cannot contribute to the stewardship of earth. Early research found that parents of a child with a developmental disability were more likely to divorce. New research suggests a slight change with a 10 percent greater likelihood that parents of a child with a disability will divorce within the first 12–18 months (Reichman et al. 2004). This outcome is explained by societal expectations as well as by the tendency that when life does not unfold as expected, it is not unusual for people to reassess their positions and seek change to form some kind of stability. Divorce would fall into this realm. POSITIVE EFFECTS ON MARRIED LIFE To focus entirely on the negatives is misleading. As research on people with disabilities has increased, findings have become more inconsistent and some even contradict research from the past. Some studies have demonstrated no significant differences in parental stress compared to other parents. In addition, socioeconomic status (SES) has been identified as contributing to problems within the relationships of parents with a child with a developmental disability as it does in any relationship. Lower SES contributes to lack of parental satisfaction and general malaise, which could also indicate depression. There are identified positives for families with a developmentally disabled child. They include the lack or absence of stress and depression in families where a child has a developmental disability, the recognition of the common benefits found when a family member has a developmental disability, and the special benefits of having a family member that has a developmental disability. First, there remain questions about whether parents or family members do in fact suffer from depression, as well as stress, when a child with a developmental disability is present. The key variable, as mentioned above, is SES. While many studies show that parents who have a child with a developmental disability suffer from more stress and more depression, the trends are less clear when one looks closely at SES. People that are in the lower economic classes suffer more stress and depression from their financial situation than from the developmental abilities of their children. Earlier, less-sophisticated studies ignored factors beyond the disability that could better explain the outcome. One such variable beyond SES is behavioral problems. When behavioral problems become the dependent variable, meanwhile holding constant other variables such as level of mental retardation, SES, and physical ability, there is a positive correlation with depression and stress of the parents. Second, common benefits are typical for parents of a child with a developmental disability, regardless of the type of developmental disability. Common

200

|

Developmental Disability and Marital Stress

benefits include such things as increased sensitivity to people’s needs, tolerance and a changed perspective on life. The rationale for these outcomes involves being exposed to a new world of existence. Many parents, especially those in the middle and upper classes, learn to understand the stigma attached to being different in a negative manner. They see that the world is not as easy as they once thought, and that not all people are created equal within societal norms and laws. To be different and therefore marginalized can come as a shock to these parents who may have never experienced nor acknowledged such phenomena. The result is that these parents tend to see many more people needing to be included within public policy; they recognize the shortcomings of the law. Third, special benefits are connected intrinsically to the common benefits, and often times are talked about interchangeably. Special benefits are when parents, family members, and caregivers learn new things. This goes beyond seeing the world and others differently. This is a phenomenon where parents, family members, and caregivers learn the ins and outs of the social services business, recognize the politics involved with and against people with developmental disabilities, and develop the technical competency needed to assist people with developmental disabilities. They may learn sign language, about services available or not available to assist children with developmental disabilities, the necessity for wider bathroom stalls, the need for handicapped-accessible parking, how the brain works, how the body works, and about how much the medical field still is uncertain about specific developmental disabilities. In all, some parents, family members, and caregivers utilize this as an opportunity to expand their knowledge of life at a multitude of levels. FUTURE PROSPECTS One of the key areas within disability studies recently has been the distinction between impairment and disability. Impairment is defined as a physical condition that prohibits a person from participating in a type of activity. Disability, on the other hand, is defined as a social constraint placed on a person or persons who are defined differently from the majority within that population. So instead of seeing diversity of the human body, we place labels on these individuals that carry meanings that suggest they are not good enough to go to the same schools, date, marry, or have children in the same manner as the rest of the population is. The term “disability” continues to facilitate social outcomes that limit or remove the civil rights and liberties of those defined as having a disability. In this case, many marginalized groups have much in common with those defined as having disabilities. Nevertheless, the difference in these terms has allowed people with disabilities in general to recognize that like everyone in society, limitations are part of the human condition. This is an area to watch as families adjust to the changing roles, definitions, and expectations imposed by society. See also Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); Child Abuse; Family Roles; Marital Satisfaction, Parenting Styles. Further Reading : Baumeister, Alfred A. Mental Retardation: Appraisal, Education, and Rehabilitation. Chicago: Aldine, 1968; Berry, Judy O., and Michael L. Hardman. Lifespan

Divorce and Children | Perspectives on the Family and Disability. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998; Blacher, Jan, and Bruce L. Baker. “Positive Impact of Intellectual Disability on Families.” American Journal on Mental Retardation 112 (2007): 330–348; Boyce, Glenna C., Brent C. Miller, Karl R. White, and Michael K. Godfrey. “Single Parenting in Families of Children with Disabilities.” Marriage and Family Review 20 (1994): 389–409; Davis, Lennard J. The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 2006; Edgarton, Robert B. The Cloak of Competence: Stigma in the Lives of the Mentally Retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967; Feldman, Maurice A., and Shannon E. Werner. “Collateral Effects of Behavioral Parent Training on Families of Children with Developmental Disabilities and Severe Behavior Disorders.” Behavioral Interventions 17 (2002): 75–83; Feldman, Maurice A., L. McDonald, L. Serbin, D. Stack, M. L. Secco, and C. T. Yu. “Predictors of Depressive Symptoms in Primary Caregivers of Young Children with or At Risk for Developmental Delay.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 51 (2007): 606–619; Francis, Leslie Pickering, and Anita Silvers. Americans with Disabilities: Exploring Implications of the Law for Individuals and Institutions. New York: Routledge, 2000; Goffman, Erving. Stigma: Notes on Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963; Hastings, Richard P., and Helen M. Taunt. “Positive Perceptions in Families of Children with Developmental Disabilities.” American Journal on Mental Retardation 107 (2002): 116–127; Hayden, Mary F., and Brian H. Abery. Challenges for a Service System in Transition: Ensuring Quality Community Experiences for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 1994; Hegeman, Mary Theodore. Developmental Disability: A Family Challenge. New York: Paulist Press, 1984; Olsson, Malin B., and C. P. Hwang. “Depression in Mothers and Fathers Rearing Children with Intellectual Disabilities.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 45 (2001): 535–545; Reichman, Nancy E., Hope Corman and Kelly Noonan. “Effects of Child Health on Parents’ Relationship Status.” Demography 41 (2004): 569–584; Risdal, Don, and George H. S. Singer. “Marital Adjustment in Parents of Children with Disabilities: A Historical Review and Meta-analysis.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 29 (2004): 95–103; Smith, J. David. In Search of Better Angels. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2003; Stainton, Tim, and Hilde Besser. “The Positive Impact of Children with an Intellectual Disability on the Family.” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 23 (1998): 57–70; Viesson, Marika. “Depression Symptoms and Emotional States in Parents of Disabled and Non-disabled Children.” Social Behavior and Personality 27 (1999): 87–97.

David G. LoConto DIVORCE AND CHILDREN In any given year, about one million children discover that their parents are divorcing. Approximately 60 percent of all divorces in the United States involve children. Prior to the 1970s, social scientists believed, as did the general public, that for a person to have an adult life without added emotional and behavioral problems, they had to grow up living with their biological parents. Early studies seemed to substantiate this, showing that children were scarred by divorce and left with emotional insecurities that continued when they became adults. Later research has not shown this blanket concept to be true. Research shows that out of the one million children of divorce created each year, about 750,000

201

202

|

Divorce and Children

to 800,000 will suffer no long-term effects as they transition into adulthood. These children are able to function in the same way as those children reared by two parents. Indeed, many of these children may end up better off than they would have if their parents had remained together (see the sidebar “Staying Together for the Children”). Even if the long-term effects of divorce are not universal, this still leaves the 20 to 25 percent who do suffer from these effects. Additionally, most of those who do not suffer long-term effects still have an emotional adjustment period of one to two years immediately following the separation and divorce of their parents. This is often the period with the most intense conflict between the parents and the period when younger children most often believe that their parents will come back together. While it should be noted that adolescents adapt emotionally more readily than younger children, this period is frequently marked by depression, sleep disturbances, and general feelings of insecurity and confusion for both older and younger children. LONGTERM EFFECTS A variety of effects are noted among those children with adjustment problems to parental divorce. Compared as a whole with the general population of children, they are more likely to have emotional problems. It was commonly thought that during a divorce boys were more likely to experience symptomatic problems than girls. Studies have shown that they suffer equally but differently, probably due to gender socialization differences. Boys’ emotional symptoms are external, such as angry, violent, impulsive, or oppositional behaviors. In contrast, girls’ emotional reactions to divorce are most often internalized and can be expressed as depression, headaches, and changes in sleeping and eating habits. In the segment of children who do suffer long-term effects, these symptoms and others are more likely to be acute and more likely to carry over into adulthood. Statistically, children of divorce are more likely to have emotional problems as children and adults. They are more likely to commit acts of juvenile delinquency, abuse drugs and alcohol, and have early or increased sexual activity as youths. Educationally, children of divorce tend toward higher absentee rates from school and lower levels of academic performance. This makes them less likely to graduate from high school or to attend or graduate from college. All of these factors compound the likelihood that they will have lower earning potential as adults. Difficulty making personal relationships is also noted among children of divorce. This can manifest itself generally as a reluctance to join organizations or even to have a religious affiliation. More personally, children of divorce are less likely as a whole to marry, but those who do marry are more likely to do so at an early age and are more likely to get divorced themselves. This has been seen to actually lead to a ripple effect across generations where even the grandchildren of divorce, not just the children, have a greater likelihood of divorce.

Divorce and Children |

203

“STAYING TOGETHER FOR THE CHILDREN” The concept of “staying together for the children” was born out of the popular belief of the need for two parents in the household. It was thought that a child had to grow up under the direct influence of both of their parents in order to mature socially and emotionally. Additionally, staying together for the sake of the children was generally considered to be noble and selfless. Parents were expected to sacrifice their personal happiness as a way of protecting their children from the stress of being part of a divorce. During much of the twentieth century in the United States, divorce was stigmatized. It was discouraged by many religions and often viewed as deviant by the public. Because of this atmosphere, the existence of children in a marriage was often used as an excuse to not get a divorce. While on the decline as an idea, “staying together for the children” was common prior to the 1970s when divorce became more publicly acceptable. However, for proper development, a child needs to grow up in a warm and loving environment that may not exist in a household racked by conflict. In these cases, the emotional wellbeing of children may be better if their parents divorce, at minimum reducing much of the daily discord and possibly even allowing the parents to find happier relationships elsewhere. “Staying together for the children” may do more harm than good in these situations.

PROCESSES OF DIVORCE EFFECTS Many recent studies of the effects of divorce on children have stopped looking at the harmful effects and have started looking behind them to discover the actual processes that cause the harm. A survey of recent studies reveals several important factors. First, divorce is stressful for the parents and tends to upset both the quantity and the quality of parenting from both parents, but especially the parenting from the adult who no longer lives in the household. Parents tend to become so involved in the divorce process themselves that they are unable to prepare the children for it or to help them through it. Second, any conflicts that led the parents to divorce are made worse by the divorce itself. This often leaves the children in the middle of an emotional “no man’s land,” unsure of whether they should pick a side. The choice is often made to side with one parent and to reject the other. This often leads to having less contact with one of their parents, even as an adult. Third, divorce is likely just the first of a series of disruptive and stressful events for the child. A shortened list of events can include moving away from the house and friends they have always known, remembering what bed they are sleeping in each night based on custody schedules and—often most devastating for younger children—the possibility of one parent re-marrying. The final process appears to be the most important: the decline in the child’s household income after the divorce. Many of the basic insecurities and emotions that come out of divorce can be tempered by support from peers along with relatives and other adults. The decline in income often cannot be so easily rectified and represents lost opportunities in both the present and future of the

204

|

Divorce and Children

child. Even some forms of emotional support such as therapeutic interventions are affected by the economic decline. THE ECONOMIC FACTOR Divorce has huge economic consequences for the family, although the change is not as great for men as it is for women and children. Men, often the former primary breadwinner in the family, generally see an improvement in their standard of living, while women and children see a decline. The three major reasons for this are interrelated, and are that women are more than four times as likely as men to get custody of the children, women are paid less on average than men, and only about two-thirds of divorces involving children have child support awarded by the court system. Even when alimony and child support are awarded, the payments tend to not be linked to cost of living allowances and one-quarter of the payments granted are not even paid. Obviously, single-parent families typically have less household income than two-parent families, but the single-parent families are more likely to live in poverty. These families are more likely to be headed by women who were not the main source of income before the divorce. These women experience an average of a 30 percent drop in income in the first year. The employment that is available to them may be restricted by their education and skill levels leading to lower-paying positions. These jobs are not as likely as higher-paying positions are to allow for the flexible hours and time off that are needed for child care and maintenance of the household. Often a large percentage of the salary goes to pay for the most basic child care while they work, and misfortunes as simple as a flat tire can be devastating for the family’s finances. Educational and extracurricular activities for the children can become luxuries in these situations. In these circumstances it is easy to see why divorce can make it difficult for a parent to provide physical and emotional support for his or her family. As a whole, the lower the income of the parent who is awarded custody of the children, the more likely those children are to experience problems. MINIMIZING THE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE Feelings of closeness and affection with the parents are one of the most important ways for the emotional effects of divorce to be minimized. Children who feel close to both parents make the best adjustment, as opposed to situations where the parents use the children as weapons against each other. The next-best situation is when children feel close to one parent—this is the most common pattern. Children who feel close to neither parent fare the worst. Children react better if there is a second adult that they can count on for support. This person can act as a surrogate for the custodial parent, relieving some pressure on them, but they are more important as a confidant for the child. This allows the child to talk over their feelings and problems that may involve the custodial parent. This adult can be anyone in the child’s life: a relative, a

Divorce and Children |

neighbor or a family friend, but the best choice is the parent with which they do not live, most often the father. Unfortunately, only one out of six children who live apart from their fathers sees them as often as one time a week. Most divorced fathers stop seeing their children at all. The emerging trend of serial fatherhood plays a part in this. In this trend, the father maintains close contact with his children after divorce for the first one to two years. This close contact begins to fade as the father begins a relationship with another woman, with the father either having new children or taking over the role of father with the other woman’s children from previous relationships. In either case, his level of contact with his previous children declines and may completely end. If the current relationship ends, this cycle can repeat itself. Children react better if they experience little conflict from the divorce itself. Some research suggests that some of the emotional and behavioral problems are caused by exposure to parental conflict both before and after the divorce. Because of the emotional stress and anger associated with the divorce, children tend to do better if they live with the parent who is adjusting better to the divorce. Quite often children do better if they live with the parent of the same sex. This is especially seen in boys who sometimes do not seem to manage as well if they are living with their mothers. During and after the divorce, children should have consistent routines. Children crave consistency and structure to their lives. It should be understood that the parent’s life transitions are also the child’s transitions, so effort should be made to remember this and incorporate structure into the children’s lives so that they feel secure. People, even children, worry about money. In addition to the obvious economic consequences of the divorce, there are emotional consequences that can have a more immediate impact on children. These can range from embarrassment or disappointment over clothing and entertainment budgets to feelings of guilt or empathetic worry due to their perception of the parents’ fears over finances. Feeling that the family has adequate money for its needs is an emotional relief to the child. The most noticeable effect that carries over into adulthood is the difficulty that is experienced in relationships, including an increased likelihood of divorce. Adult children’s difficulty in relationships often depends greatly on their mother’s adjustment to the divorce. If the mother establishes stable, intimate relationships after divorce, an environment is created where the children learn to create intimate relationships themselves. The children experience the greatest difficulties if the mother did not re-marry, the mother remarried and then divorced again; or the mother interfered with the children’s relationship with their father. Additionally, the likelihood of divorce can go down if the adult child marries someone from a nondivorced family of orientation. The spouse and their parents can provide new role models of relationships for the adult child. It is not the absence of the father that is at the root of the symptoms that affect children from divorced families. Instead, it is more often low income and

205

206

|

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

the lowered standards of living and the lowered parental supervision that come with it. These same factors often affect children from two-parent families that have similar problems in their development. Child rearing, whether part of a two-parent family or as a single parent, is not easy. But with parental care and the support of others, children of divorce can grow up and prosper in healthy environments. See also Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce; Child Support and Parental Responsibility; Deadbeat Parents; Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution. Further Reading: Ahrons, Constance. We’re Still Family: What Grown Children Have to Say About Their Parents’ Divorce. New York: Harper Collins, 2004; Amato, Paul R., and Alan Booth. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000; Emery, Robert E. Marriage, Divorce and Children’s Adjustment, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999; Furstenberg, Frank F., and Andrew Cherlin. Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991; Hetherington, E. Mavis, and John Kelly. For Better or Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2002; Wallerstein, Judith S., Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25 Year Landmark Study. New York: Hyperion, 2001.

Donald Woolley DIVORCE, AS PROBLEM, SYMPTOM, OR SOLUTION The answer to the question of whether divorce in the United States is best viewed as a problem, symptom, or solution, often depends on who is answering. Different stakeholders are concerned with the quality of family life and the effects that divorce might have on individuals and the culture as a whole. Among the groups with a vested interest in divorce are politicians, religious groups, counselors, educators, and families themselves. Persons viewing divorce as a problem tend to focus on statistics indicating a high likelihood of divorces for first marriages and direct much of their concern toward the effects of postdivorce circumstances on children. These stakeholders have been very successful at getting their message to a wide audience. Among those viewing divorce as a problem are clinical psychologist Judith Wallerstein, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and the Institute for American Values. Persons who indicate that divorce is a symptom, express the sentiment that modern society is too quick to seek easy solutions to problems and suggest that couples’ expectations of marriage are too idealistic. Additionally, those who see divorce as a symptom of a larger problem argue that the moral standards and values of society as a whole are in decline. They also tend to focus on individualism, secularization, and instant gratification as responsible for the increases in divorce. Advocates for this approach include the Institute for American Values, Maggie Gallagher, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. Persons who emphasize the solution elements of divorce often point to decreases in violence and anger between the former partners as the biggest benefit to divorce. Likewise they would suggest that divorce is a solution for persons

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution | 207

who entered a marriage unwisely or who were unprepared to assume the responsibilities of a life-time commitment. Divorce is seen as a solution when the environment at home is one of constant tension and anger. Persons coming from this perspective tend to emphasize constructing a meaningful life after the divorce for both the couple and any children and include Constance Ahrons, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and Mavis Hetherington. BRIEF HISTORY OF DIVORCE It seems that persons of all recent societies place value on a marriage-like or lasting union between a man and woman. As a result, most societies historically and presently have frowned upon the ending of such unions and have generally put barriers in the way of dissolving the relationships, although surviving documents indicate that divorces occurred at least as far in the past as ancient Mesopotamia. While the process is formal and legal in the United States and other westernized societies, at other historic periods and places the mechanism has been quite different. Ancient Greeks were unlikely to place a high premium on marriages for other than the legitimating of heirs and divorce was available provided the reasons a person was requesting a divorce were approved by a governmental official. In the later years of the Roman Empire a couple could simply agree to divorce and it would be done. In other societies, the husband was the only party who could petition for and receive a divorce. For the most part the widespread acceptance of Christianity in the middle ages served to decrease the availability of divorce and to enact stringent limitations on the rare instances when it would be permitted. This pattern reflects the fact that marriage at the time was a religious sacrament and under the control of the church, rather than the civil authority. Annulment was the more available path to marital dissolution. In an annulment granted by the church, the marriage was declared null, as if it had never occurred. This stance regarding divorce remains a hallmark of Roman Catholicism. Even today, devout Catholics and clergy chastise those Catholic lawyers who facilitate divorce proceedings. Annulment is also a legal term that is used when a condition existed prior to the marriage that would have prevented the marriage from being legally permitted or recognized. Thus, in the eyes of the law, the marriage never existed. Divorce has always been available in some capacity in the United States, although the ease with which one could attain divorce and the likelihood of social rejection for doing so has varied over time. The United States has a more liberal history of divorce than does Great Britain and other Western European countries, despite the reliance on English Common Law as the basis for American civil authority. The first recorded divorce in what is now the United States was granted in the Plymouth Colony in 1639 to a woman whose husband had committed bigamy (was married to two women simultaneously). Divorces were rare, however, in the colonial period. This is likely due to the influence of religious beliefs, but also to the economic necessity of partners working together to survive the sometimes harsh conditions of colonial life. A wife was sometimes referred to as a “help-meet” in colonial literature, reinforcing the role that she assumed in the success of the farm or family business.

208

|

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

While the United States was more liberal than many of the European countries regarding divorce, grounds for divorce had to be established before a divorce would be permitted. Traditional grounds for divorce included adultery, cruelty, nonsupport, desertion, incarceration, and so forth. It was not until 1970 that any state statutes permitted divorce simply because the partners were incompatible. The bold move by California of instituting the first so-called no-fault divorce laws paved the way for partners to divorce for other than traditional grounds. By 1985, when South Dakota became the last state to permit no-fault divorce, all states had some provisions for these divorces, although a few states (such as New York) required a mandatory waiting period before such a divorce could occur. No-fault divorce meant that neither partner had committed a crime against the other, thus the traditional grounds for divorce had not been met. Under no-fault divorce, couples agreed that they could no longer be married and would like to have their legal marital contract dissolved. DIVORCE AND THE INTERNET The Internet has been blamed for ending more than a few marriages due to chat room infatuations that lead to affairs. However, there is another link between the Internet and divorce. Resources for divorce information and divorcing couples have flooded the Internet. Among the active sites are: preventingdivorce.com, divorcereform.org, divorceinfo.com, and divorceonline.com. Most provide a supportive community and others provide practical advice for those contemplating or experiencing divorce. There are even sites that will help couples select a lawyer to use for the divorce proceedings.

DIVORCE STATISTICS Divorce is measured by using several different statistics. One of the most widely used is the crude divorce rate. This tells the number of divorces in a given year per 1000 population. This rate was 4.2 for the year 1998. This statistic makes divorce look fairly uncommon and is not very useful because it includes all persons in society, whether married or not. Another measure of divorce, which academics feel is a more accurate way to measure divorce, is known as the refined divorce rate. It considers the number of divorces in a given year divided by the number of married women in the population. By focusing on married couples (women) it includes only those persons who are eligible to divorce. In the United States for the year 2004 the refined divorce rate was 17.7. This statistic allows for more comparisons between countries and periods to determine meaningful differences in divorce. A statistic often quoted in the discussions of divorce is that 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce. This statistic is rather misleading, if not wholly inaccurate, because it is very difficult to predict what will happen over the duration of a marriage. In an average year in the United States there are about 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. It is from these data that the 50 percent figure is derived. However, experts who take into account the factors that lead to divorce

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution | 209

for given social groups and historical eras put the likelihood of marriages beginning today and subsequently ending in divorce at around 40 percent. For women who are college-educated and have family incomes over $30,000 the likelihood of divorce decreases to around 25 percent. Race and ethnicity play a part in the likelihood of getting a divorce as well. After ten years of marriage, 32 percent of non-Hispanic white women’s first marriages end in divorce, compared with 34 percent of Hispanic women’s first marriages, approximately 50 percent of black women’s first marriages, and 20 percent of Asian women’s first marriages. Current dissolution rates for first marriages indicate that approximately 20 percent of first marriages end within five years. For the past 100 years there has been a generally upward trend in divorce in the United States. A slight decrease in divorce occurred during the early years of the 1930s. The economic troubles of the Great Depression likely influenced the divorce rate, but economic recessions since that time have not showed the same pattern regarding divorce. While divorce declined in the 1930s, it spiked dramatically in the second half of the 1940s. This change has been attributed to the effects of World War II. It seems reasonable that some partners found others during the time they were apart, women discovered independence through their work in the war effort, or persons were changed by the separation so that they were no longer compatible. Another probable explanation for the spike was that marriages contracted hastily before or during the war were no longer appealing to the partners when the war was over. Despite the changes brought about in the era immediately following World War II, the time of most rapid increase in divorce was from the early 1960s to 1980, when the divorce rate more than doubled. Factors that have been proposed to account for the increase in divorce include the Second Wave of Feminism (also known as the Modern Women’s Movement), an increase in women attending college and perceiving options outside of married life, increases in the accessibility and effectiveness of birth control, increases in opportunities for cohabitation (living together without being married), and the introduction of no-fault divorce statutes. During the most recent 20 year span, the divorce rate has declined from its all time high, but continues to be high when compared with the rates of divorce in other countries. Among the factors related to the recent decrease in divorce is that persons are waiting until later to marry for the first time. Early marriages, particularly among those under age 20, have a much higher chance of ending in divorce.

DIVORCE AS PROBLEM While divorce rates in the United States have been stable or declining for 20 years, Americans express an overwhelming anxiety about the state of marriage. The rate of divorce peaked around 1980, but persons from all across the political spectrum propose that divorce is a serious problem in the United States today. Persons who see divorce as a problem come from the perspective that current divorce rates are unnaturally high and that society should work to reduce

210

|

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

KEY MOMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF DIVORCE 529 Byzantine emperor Justinian, no doubt influenced by his Christian beliefs, issues a strict anti-divorce decree. 1439 Marriage is declared a sacrament by the Roman Catholic Church. It is therefore indissoluble for any reason. 1529–1534 When the Catholic Church refuses to grant King Henry VIII a divorce, he breaks away to form the Church of England. He then marries Anne Boleyn. 1857 A divorce court is established through the British Parliament’s Act of 1857. The U.S. would eventually follow this model. 1936 King Edward VIII of Britain abdicates his throne to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson. 1949 South Carolina is the last of the states to give its citizens permission to divorce. 1957 The television courtroom drama Divorce Court begins. 1967 The number one song for four weeks on the country music charts is Tammy Wynette’s “D-I-V-O-R-C-E.” 1970 California starts a trend that will carry into all other states by enacting the first nofault divorce laws. 1997 Covenant Marriage, a voluntary marriage provision that makes divorce harder to attain, is enacted in Louisiana.

them. There is a long history stemming from religious prohibitions and middle class morality, suggesting that divorce is a problem. Divorce is defined as a problem because of the trauma of the breakup as well as the after-effects for both the partners who divorce and any children that are involved. Divorce is a problem for couples through both psychological and financial costs. Divorce is seen by many, including the divorcing partners, as a failure of the couple. They experience guilt, loss of self esteem, and anger. Divorced people are more likely to commit suicide than are married people. Additionally, divorce has financial consequences for couples. Many times they sell their jointly held assets to divide the results equally. Because males provide on average more than 60 percent of household income, women may face a difficult decline in standard of living following divorce. Research suggests that more than 25 percent of divorced women experience at least some time in poverty during the five years following the divorce. Financial concerns are perhaps heightened for women because they are more likely to receive custody of and be caring for children than are their former husbands. This situation leads to an increase in the numbers of single parent families in society. Society’s concern with the effects of divorce on children has been a recent phenomenon, but has been a politically useful tack. The presence of children does little to prevent parents from divorcing; it only seems to delay it. Each year more than one million children are involved in the divorce of their parents. For those advocates who see a two-parent home as essential for rearing well adjusted children, divorce creates additional problems by creating single parent families.

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution | 211

Divorce decreases the economic and social resources available to children. In terms of economics, children reared by only one parent are far more likely to live in poverty than those reared in a two-parent home. There is less disposable income available to splurge on leisure activities or academic endeavors. Among the potential social consequences of divorce are problems in school, marrying at a young age or never marrying, and abusing alcohol or drugs. Children may experience depression and have less chance to be equally bonded with both parents. Usually it is the father who misses out on the experiences of the child’s life. Some older studies of the consequences of divorce for children pointed to divorce as a factor in children’s delinquency, truancy, and difficulty with peer relations. Judith Wallerstein has been particularly vocal about the long term consequences of divorce for children, including the increased chance that their marriages are more likely to end in divorce than those of children whose parents did not divorce. Those most likely to view divorce as a problem in society are groups that desire to strengthen marriage as an institution. Marriage is viewed by many as the only acceptable way to live an adult life and the only situation in which to rear children. It is in the context of a nuclear family that children learn the skills that will enable them to be successful and productive members of society. One of the primary concerns of those who oppose divorce is that the option of divorce weakens the institution of marriage. In other words, as more couples divorce, the decision to get a divorce is more acceptable. Religious organizations, such as Focus on The Family, have been critical of divorce for not only the negative consequences for adults, children, and society, but for issues of morality as well. Given Christian ideals that marriage is a sacrament before God lasting a lifetime, the only reasonable ending for a marriage is the death of one of the partners. There are, therefore, moral or religious consequences for the violation of holy law by divorcing. One of the most intriguing questions researchers are currently exploring with regard to divorce is how persons who hold some of the most conservative views on divorce have divorce rates higher than the national average. Born again Christians and Baptists had divorce rates of 27 and 29 percent, respectively, in a study by the religionmotivated Barna Research Group. The conservative religious right opposes divorce, but the Southern Bible belt states have the highest rates. The Catholic Church has been a harsh critic of divorce and lobbied hard to keep divorce options out of countries around the world.

DIVORCE AS SYMPTOM Divorce is a symptom of the pressure that Americans put on the marital relationship to be all things to the partners. The romantic notion of marriage that says marriage to that one perfect person will make all of your dreams come true may be partly responsible for the high rates of divorce. Asking one person to be your everything is putting a lot of faith in and pressure on that one individual. While partners are expected to marry for life, they are given very little preparation, other than what they have witnessed in the marriages of their parents

212

|

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

and other adults, about how to make a marriage work. Divorce is a symptom of the inadequate preparation for marriage that exists in our society. To combat this, clergy and counselors have developed programs for persons contemplating marriage in attempts to strengthen marriages. One popular program is known by the acronym PREPARE. Pamela Paul has suggested that because cultural notions of marriage have changed very little over time, while society has changed a great deal, Americans are particularly likely to find that marriage is not meeting their needs. She suggests that several trends in society today are largely responsible for why marriages are likely to end in divorce. Among these trends are (1) people are living twice as long as they did 100 years ago, (2) the most intensive active parenting takes only about 20 years, so the couple likely has 40 or more years without children in the home, (3) persons are likely to have multiple careers over their lifetimes, so change becomes normative, (4) persons who marry today have grown up in a time in which the stigma of divorce has decreased and they may have personally experienced divorce as a young person and (5) the increased likelihood that both spouses are employed frees women to explore nonfamilial roles and to experience economic independence from their husbands. Given these changing circumstances of social life, Paul suggests that it may be unrealistic for spouses chosen while people are in their twenties to be appropriate partners at other life stages. The Family Research Council has argued that divorce occurs because people are misguided about the purpose of marriage. Marriage is the institution in which children are to be reared and that is the primary function of marriage. It is not for the fulfillment of the couple, but rather for the fulfillment of procreation that marriage is intended to provide. The phrase “divorce culture” reflects the notion that in today’s world divorce might be seen as a rather common, even expected, occurrence. The cavalier attitude Americans display toward divorce, argue the critics, makes the harmful effects of divorce seem small. Thus, divorce might be chosen even when a couple has not seriously tried to resolve any difficulties. This choice locates the desire of the individual above the good of the family group. This is particularly criticized when children are involved. Divorce, then, is a sign of selfishness and individuality. Others would argue that it is the no-fault divorce provisions themselves that make divorce quick and easy and thus permit Americans to have a selfish attitude toward marriage. If no-fault divorces were not an option and couples had to go through the court system to end their marriages, they would work harder to keep them together and resolve any difficulties. Organizations such as the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project routinely suggest that the increases in divorce and continuing high divorce rates are the result of a loosening of the moral code in the United States and an increase in individuality. The freedoms that Americans have to conduct personal relationships today have consequences for the individuals and the whole society. One area of concern is the prevalence of media images that depict divorce positively and marriage negatively. Additionally, a more secular society, one that is less apt to follow all aspects of religious teachings, has been blamed

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution | 213

for an increase in divorce. Likewise, they suggest that removing the stigma from divorce has meant there is less social pressure to stay in a marriage. One of the behaviors related to an increase in divorce and a questioning of morality is cohabitation. Cohabitation, living with a partner in a marriagelike relationship without being married, has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. There are now around 5.5 million households of heterosexual cohabitors in the U.S. In some communities as many as 60 percent of couples marrying in a given year are currently cohabiting at the time they apply for the marriage license. Research suggests that despite the common rationale for cohabitation, testing the relationship for compatibility, persons who cohabit before marriage are more likely to divorce than those who do not live together first. DIVORCE AS SOLUTION For partners who do not grow together in terms of interests and expectations, married life can be stifling. Divorce permits those couples in unhappy unions to end their relationships and start anew. While ending a marriage is a difficult, even traumatic, life transition, it does permit persons to make meaningful life changes and experience a renewal in their lives. This notion of being renewed after severing ties from an unsatisfactory relationship has been particularly likely to be mentioned by women after a divorce. In some communities, a woman’s female friends might even throw her a liberation party to celebrate her newly single status. Despite the potential for some women to experience financial difficulties after divorce, when dealing with their children divorced women are often calmer and more effective parents than when they were in the conflicted marriage. Women also tend to have decreased tension and fewer bouts of depression when single. Clearly for women (and children) who were victims of abuse during a marriage, divorce is a solution to the daily threat to their safety. Children who experience high levels of conflict or even violence in their families enjoy an increase in well-being after a divorce has occurred. Most children from divorced families, even those without a violent past, live good lives after overcoming some initial difficulties. Staying together for the sake of the children, while a politically provocative idea, does not seem to have the desire outcomes. In fact, Constance Ahrons has indicated that a good divorce is much better for kids than a bad marriage because they see a healthier way to interact that validates the feelings of the partners and permits them to strive for greater happiness in their lives. Divorce may even lead to better parenting because the time with the children is coordinated and special. Partners no longer have to disagree about the problems of the marriage, but can work on the most effective way to parent the children that they share. Positive outcomes are particularly likely when parents and children attend special classes on how to build their skills in dealing with family issues. Persons who view divorce as a solution tend to point to studies that argue that not only can children be reared successfully in arrangements other than a traditional two-parent family, but that adults can also find fulfillment in situations

214

|

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

other than marriage. Those taking this view would not suggest that divorce or its consequences are easy; it is a highly stressful transition. However, it does permit adults a second chance at happiness and permits children to escape from a dysfunctional home life. In fact, Stephanie Coontz argues that we have made the traditional two-parent family look so good in our nostalgic yearning for the past that even the most functional of families would have difficulty living up to the expectations. Perhaps it is the unrealistic expectations of married life that push some people to marry in the first place. While there are no overt penalties for singlehood nor current laws in the United States that indicate that one must be married by a certain age, there may be social pressure to demonstrate adult status by marrying. For these persons, marriage may not meet with their expectations, they may have married the wrong person, or they may have married too early. Research consistently shows that persons who are teenagers when they marry have far higher rates of divorce than do persons who wait until they are slightly older to marry. For these persons divorce may be a solution to a decision made when they were not yet mature. Likewise, persons who marry due to a premarital conception have higher rates of divorce than those whose children are conceived after the wedding. Divorce may be characterized as a problem, symptom, or solution. At the present time, popular conceptions of divorce have given more support to the notion of divorce as a problem to be solved. It is a problem of both long-term and short-term consequences. It is a problem of individuals, as well as society. It is also a symptom of how much we might value personal relationships. We value them so highly that we want them to be all things to all persons and feel betrayed when they are not. Perhaps it is a symptom of the freedoms that U.S. society permits its citizens. Divorce is also a solution for those situations and times in which no other options seem to work, or when staying in the marriage might have devastating emotional or physical consequences for the participants. See also Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce; Benefits of Marriage; Covenant Marriage; Divorce and Children; Marital Satisfaction; Prenuptial Agreements; Religion and Families; Remarriage. Further Reading: Ahrons, Constance. The Good Divorce: Keeping Your Family Together When Your Marriage Comes Apart. New York: Harper Collins, 1994; Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Harper Collins, 1992; Hetherington, E. Mavis, and John Kelly. For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2002; Paul, Pamela. The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony. New York: Villard, 2002; Swallow, Wendy. Breaking Apart: A Memoir of Divorce. New York: Hyperion, 2001; Tesler, Pauline, and Peggy Thompson. 2006. Collaborative Divorce: The Revolutionary New Way to Restructure Your Family, Resolve Legal Issues, and Move on With Your Life. Los Angeles: Regan Books, 2006; Wallerstein, Judith, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. New York: Hyperion, 2000.

Kimberly P. Brackett

Domestic Partnerships

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS Over the last 25 years, numerous legal options have emerged for same-sex and opposite-sex couples wishing to legitimize their intimate unions in ways other than through heterosexual legal marriage. Four of these options are civil unions, same-sex marriages, reciprocal beneficiaries, and licensed domestic partnerships. LEGAL OPTIONS Civil Unions Three states (Vermont in 2000, Connecticut in 2005, and New Jersey in 2007) have implemented civil union legislation. In all three states, only same-sex couples are eligible to enter into a civil union; with the exception of sexual orientation, they must also meet the eligibility requirements for legal marriage. At the state level, civil unions are the functional equivalent of legal marriage, in that they provide to couples all of the benefits and protections of marriage afforded to spouses. Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, which defines marriage as consisting of the legal union of one man and one woman, these couples do not enjoy any of the benefits or protections at the federal level afforded to the legally married. Furthermore, while nonresidents are eligible to form civil unions in these three states, only in New Jersey do they receive any legal acknowledgment, benefits, or protections associated with their unions (Vermont and Connecticut do not grant legal acknowledgment to civil unions contracted elsewhere; nor does any state without civil union legislation). Legally dissolving a civil union involves the same process as dissolving a marriage, in that one partner must file for divorce. In Vermont, for example, at least one partner must reside in the state for a minimum of six months prior to filing for dissolution, and that partner must reside in Vermont for at least one year prior to the hearing date for final dissolution of the civil union. If a couple that entered into a civil union either relocates to or are residents of another state, and they wish to legally dissolve their union, the lack of acknowledgement of civil unions in other states means that a legal divorce is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Indeed, two couples who entered into civil unions in Vermont currently are struggling to dissolve their unions in other states (one in Connecticut, initially heard before the court in 2002, and one in Texas, initially heard before the court in 2003). In both cases, decisions as to whether the unions may be legally dissolved in these states are yet to be rendered. Same-Sex Marriage Another legal option made available in 2004 only to couples residing in Massachusetts is same-sex marriage. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state in the United States that permits same-sex couples to legally marry. Furthermore, the federal Defense of Marriage Act dictates that states are not required to legally

| 215

216

|

Domestic Partnerships

recognize the same-sex marriages contracted in any other state, and no other state legally acknowledges the same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts. New Jersey, however, legally translates these marriages, in addition to the legal same-sex marriages contracted in other countries (same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, Belgium in 2003, Canada and Spain in 2005, and South Africa in 2006), into civil unions if the couples relocate there, and provides to these couples all of the state-level benefits and protections of legal marriage. Similar to civil unions, same-sex marriage in Massachusetts grants to couples all of the benefits and protections afforded to the legally married at the state level, but these couples do not enjoy any of the benefits or protections afforded to the legally married at the federal level as a result of the Defense of Marriage Act. Furthermore, because no other state legally acknowledges the same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts, couples may be prohibited from divorcing if they relocate to another state. Reciprocal Beneficiaries A third legal option, available only in the State of Hawaii, is reciprocal beneficiaries. According to Hawaii’s Reciprocal Beneficiaries Law, implemented in 1997, same-sex couples, as well as unmarried relatives and friends of heterosexual and homosexual individuals legally barred from marrying each other, are eligible to register with the Hawaii Department of Health as reciprocal beneficiaries. Hawaii’s policy is unique because it extends eligibility to those not in an intimate union. The law grants some of the benefits of marriage to reciprocal beneficiaries, including property rights, protection under the state’s domestic violence laws, the ability to visit a beneficiary in the hospital and to make medical decisions for him or her, to sue for the wrongful death of a beneficiary, and to inherit property without a will. Because individuals in reciprocal beneficiaries are legally single, dissolving the relationship legally simply involves informing the Hawaii Department of Health of its termination. Licensed Domestic Partnerships A fourth legal option is licensed domestic partnerships. These partnerships were first instituted in Berkeley, California in 1984, and were originally intended to grant public acknowledgement to the unions of same-sex couples. Local government officials at that time determined that unmarried opposite-sex couples also needed legal acknowledgement of their unions, particularly with regard to protecting the so-called weaker party in the relationship upon the dissolution of it; thus, eligibility for participation in licensed domestic partnerships was extended to them as well. Since then, two states (California in 1999 and Maine in 2004) and the District of Columbia (in 2002) have implemented domestic partnership ordinances, as have 11 counties and 55 cities. An analysis of the domestic partnership records provided by most locales (some do not release this information due to confidentiality concerns) indicates that most licensed couples are in same-sex unions.

Domestic Partnerships

Domestic partnership ordinances typically define partners as two financially interdependent adults who live together and share an intimate bond, but are not related by blood or law. Couples wishing to license their cohabiting unions complete an affidavit attesting that they are not already biologically or legally related to each other or legally married to someone else, that they agree to be mutually responsible for each other’s welfare, and that they will notify the local government records office if there is a change in the status of the relationship, either by dissolution or by legal marriage. Along with a fee, the affidavit is then submitted to the local records office or, in some locales, may be notarized to register the partnership. To dissolve a licensed partnership, one partner simply must inform the office where the partnership was registered. Within six months after this notification, an individual in most locales may then register another domestic partnership. As stated above, the first state to implement a domestic partnership ordinance was California in 1999; in that state, both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are eligible to become licensed partners, although the age-eligibility requirements differ. Specifically, both partners in a same-sex couple must be at least 18 years of age to become licensed partners. One partner in an opposite-sex couple, however, must be at least 62 years of age and meet eligibility requirements for old-age benefits under the Social Security Act. These differing eligibility requirements were implemented to encourage legal marriage among opposite-sex couples, while also recognizing that remarrying after the death of a spouse imposes financial costs in terms of reductions in Social Security benefits to those remarrying as opposed to remaining single. Upon implementation of the legislation, licensed domestic partners in California received a number of tangible benefits that the legally married enjoyed; since 2005, essentially all state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage were extended to licensed partners. In the State of Maine, both opposite- and same-sex couples are eligible to register as licensed domestic partners, with the same age-eligibility requirements (both partners must be at least 18 years of age). To become licensed, both partners must be residents of Maine for at least one year. Licensed partners in Maine also enjoy limited benefits, including protection under the state’s domestic violence laws, the right to inherit property from a partner without a will, making funeral and burial arrangements for a partner, entitlement to be named the partner’s guardian in the event he or she becomes incapacitated, and to make decisions regarding organ or tissue donation for a deceased partner. According to the District of Columbia’s domestic partnership ordinance, both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are eligible, and there are no differentiating age-eligibility requirements. Only district government employees first employed after October 1, 1987, however, are eligible to participate. While a handful of benefits were initially included in the legislation upon its implementation, the Domestic Partners Equality Amendment Act of 2006 dictates that licensed partners must be treated similarly to how spouses are treated in nearly all cases concerning rights and protections. Three of the 11 counties and five of the 55 cities that have implemented domestic partnership ordinances restrict eligibility to same-sex couples. Further-

| 217

218

|

Domestic Partnerships

more, in 13 locales, both partners must be either residents of the city or county or couples must include at least one partner who is an employee of the city or county. Thus, couples throughout the United States may become licensed domestic partners in many locales, although they do not reside there. Their home city or county will not acknowledge their licensed status, however, and they will receive no benefits or protections as a function of being licensed partners. Most locales, however, do not offer any tangible benefits or protections to licensed partners anyway, regardless of where the couple resides. The benefits granted by the handful of counties and cities that do provide them include health insurance coverage for a partner, visitation rights in hospitals and correctional facilities, and bereavement leave. Current Controversies. Those most concerned with the implementation of policies legitimizing various coupling options are divided along ideological lines to form two competing camps. The pro-marriage camp consists of those promoting legal marriage as the sole form of public acknowledgement of intimate unions. Individuals and organizations in this camp may be divided further into two classes: one that promotes heterosexual marriage and desires the exclusion of legal recognition of all other types of unions based on religious beliefs (referred to here as the “religiously-oriented”), and one fearing that the institution of marriage, along with its beneficial aspects to men, women, children, and society, are threatened by legally acknowledging other forms of relationships (referred to here as the “family decline-oriented”). Specifically, those motivated by religious arguments assert that only heterosexual relationships within the context of legal marriage are natural or ordained by God, and that recognition of same-sex unions and nonmarital forms of heterosexual unions undermines the inherent value of legal marriage and violates the will of God. They view marriage as much more than simply a civil contract; rather, it is a holy sacrament. Those motivated by concerns over family decline assert that there are tangible and emotional benefits to marriage that accrue only to individuals residing within the context of legal marriage, and that all of society benefits from the well-being these individuals enjoy. Those in this class are concerned that legal acknowledgement of other forms of coupling undermines marriage as the so-called gold standard, and that couples will be less likely to aspire to marriage as a result, leading to a host of social ills. The other side involved in this debate, referred to here as the pro-inclusivity camp, advocates for legal recognition of both marital and nonmarital relationships. They assert that legal marriage for many couples is either unavailable or undesirable as an option to legitimizing a union. They argue that other forms of legitimization must be made available to these couples as a civil rights issue. Advocates of inclusivity argue that the well-being of men, women, children, and society would be advanced by the implementation of policies promoting their choices and protecting their interests, whereas denying them either the opportunity to legitimize their unions or forcing them into an all-or-nothing situation, where they must either marry and receive benefits and protections, or do not marry and receive no benefits or protections, harms the individuals in these families as well as the well-being of society.

Domestic Partnerships

The success of both the pro-marriage and the pro-inclusivity camps in promoting their views is mixed. As stated above, an increasing number of locales are implementing legislation that grants acknowledgement to various forms of coupling. At the same time, however, an increasing number of states have implemented their own Defense of Marriage Acts or amended their state constitutions to define marriage as consisting of the legal union of one man and one woman. Currently, only ten states do not have a version of this act or a substantively similar constitutional amendment. Clearly, the most controversial issue surrounding the implementation of policies legitimizing various methods of coupling concerns public acknowledgment of same-sex unions. States in particular have struggled with determining what type of acknowledgment to provide, if any, and what terminology should be employed to grant this acknowledgment (e.g., civil unions, licensed partnerships). As noted above, only the State of Massachusetts has made legal marriage available to resident same-sex couples. Other states have attempted to strike a compromise in this debate by implementing very similar legislation, but referring to it as something other than legal marriage. The result of the compromise, however, is that parties on both sides of the debate are left dissatisfied. Pro-marriage advocates are alarmed that the unions of same-sex couples are receiving any acknowledgement all; for many same-sex couples and their advocates, however, anything short of legal marriage is simply not enough, as marriage enjoys a cultural aura and subsequent social support that is bolstered by history and religion, and that does not exist in any other form of coupling. It is important to note that even homosexual individuals and organizations promoting their civil rights and well-being are divided on the issue of whether marriage should be extended legally to same-sex couples. Some argue for equal legal treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, whereas others argue that legal marriage has never been an institution in which spouses, especially wives, enjoy equality and the benefits and protections of marriage that have been traditionally enjoyed by husbands. It appears, however, that most organizations serving as advocates for homosexual individuals and their intimate unions are fighting for access to legal marriage. While receiving much less public attention, heterosexual licensed domestic partnerships are also a source of controversy. Those promoting heterosexual legal marriage on the basis of family decline concerns argue that opposite-sex couples are engaging in a rational-choice approach to coupling, looking to attain the benefits of marriage while attempting to avoid its costs and obligations. For example, they assert that cohabiting couples, licensed and otherwise, wish to enjoy the financial benefits of marriage by sharing household expenses, while also maintaining financial independence from their partners. Similarly, they are looking to attain the companionship found in marriage while also desirous of more emotional independence from their partners than spouses have from each other. Those in the family decline camp assert that by licensing heterosexual cohabitation, and thereby encouraging couples to cohabit rather than marry, legal marriage is losing its social status as the ultimate method of coupling in society,

| 219

220

|

Domestic Partnerships

and is being redefined as simply one of several equally valid and valued coupling options. The repercussions, they argue, are significant: adults reduce their sense of commitment and are less likely to fulfill their obligations to others, leading to less security for both adults and children. Advocates of licensed domestic partnerships, however, assert that emotional commitment and the sense of obligation to partners and children do not differ among licensed partners or the legally married. Instead, marriage is associated with baggage that may be avoided in licensed partnerships without undermining the quality of or obligations in intimate unions. For example, in legal marriage, spouses are responsible for each other’s debts, whereas in licensed domestic partnerships, because the partners are legally single, the financial well-being of one partner is protected from the financial problems of the other partner. Because the partners reside together, the economic well-being of both partners and any children residing with them is protected. Similarly, marriage for some is associated with the oppression of women. Some women in licensed domestic partnerships believe that they are able to avoid what they see as the patriarchal nature of marriage by becoming licensed partners instead. As a result, they assert that they have attained equitable relationships that would not be possible in legal marriage. In summary, civil unions, same-sex marriage, reciprocal beneficiaries, and licensed domestic partnerships provide some, but not all, of the legal benefits and protections of heterosexual marriage. As a result, these options are not, to date, the legal equivalent of marriage. Furthermore, these couples do not enjoy the social or cultural support promoting the maintenance of their unions that the legally married enjoy. If indeed individuals in families engaging in nonheterosexual or nonmarital forms of coupling experience lower levels of well-being, (and to date, research has not been conducted exploring this issue), the reasons should not be surprising. See also Common Law Marriages; Fictive Kin; Nonmarital Cohabitation; SameSex Marriage. Further Reading: Human Rights Campaign. “HRC: Domestic Partners. http://www.hrc.org/ Template.cfm?Section=Domesticpartners1&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDis play.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=103; Human Rights Campaign. “HRC: Civil Unions.” http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Civil unions1&Template=/Tagged Page/Tagged PageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=21804; Human Rights Campaign. “Massachusetts Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law.” http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec tion=Center&CONTENTID=27640&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/Content Display.cfm; Pinello, D. R. America’s Struggle for Same-sex Marriage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006; Popenoe, D. State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, 1999. New Brunswick N.J.: The National Marriage Project, 1999; Willetts, M. C. “An Exploratory Investigation of Heterosexual Licensed Domestic Partners.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 939–952; Willliams, H. K., and R. E. Bowen. “Marriage, Same-sex Unions, and Domestic Partnerships.” The Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law 1 (2000): 337–359.

Marion C. Willetts

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes | 221

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BEHAVIORS AND CAUSES Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence, is a significant concern in society today. It is estimated that 9 million couples, or 1 in 6 marriages, experience some form of intimate partner violence, with 21 percent of all violent crimes committed against women perpetrated by a romantic partner (Strong, DeVault, and Cohen 2001). Although violence against women in intimate relationships has existed for centuries, it has only widely become acknowledged as problematic since the latter half of the twentieth century. Many credit this increased awareness to social and political movements such the second wave of feminism, also known as the modern women’s movement, that have argued for equality and basic rights regardless of gender. Also, in association with an increase in activity in the academic, medical, social, and political communities legislation has been enacted for the purposes of domestic violence protection, prevention, and education. Policies such as the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) help to empower women through the funding of prevention and intervention programs. Despite the fact that social change has been credited with spurring protective legislation and social awareness concerning intimate partner violence, many claim that there has been a limited social understanding of the experiences of women in violent relationships, and there remains a victim-blaming bias in the ways we’ve responded to domestic violence as a society. As an aside, it is thoroughly acknowledged that women are not the only victims of domestic violence because this is a social problem that victimizes men as well. However, research shows that the vast majority of reported domestic abuse victims in our society are female. Additionally, the injuries suffered by females tend to be more severe than those suffered by males. Therefore, we will focus on domestic violence as it affects women primarily. ABUSE BEHAVIORS Overall, behaviors associated with intimate partner violence are usually categorized into the following groups: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and financial abuse. While all are harmful, when there are limited resources in a community leaders must choose where to direct these resources so as to do the most good. The most visible category is physical abuse, which has received the most attention from research and advocacy groups. This does not, however, imply that it is the most harmful or important abuse behavior. The following definitions of abusive behaviors have been taken from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and will be described here in greater detail. Physical Abuse Physical violence is defined as the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury, or harm. Physical violence includes, but is not limited to, scratching, pushing, shoving, throwing, grabbing, biting,

222

|

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes

choking, shaking, slapping, punching, burning, use of a weapon, and use of restraints or one’s body, size, or strength against another person. Consequences associated with physical abuse are severe and far reaching, resulting in death in extreme cases. This is what most persons stereotypically picture when they hear the phrase “battered wife.” Emotional Abuse Psychological or emotional violence involves trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics. This can include, but is not limited to, humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, threatening or terrorizing, and denying access to basic resources. Scholars have reported that as many as 80 to 90 percent of women will experience psychological maltreatment at some point in an intimate relationship (Neufeld et al. 1999). The consequences of such abuse have been found to have devastating impacts on survivors as well. In fact, due to the devastating consequences of emotional abuse, many survivors report that they would rather be physically hit than emotionally abused by an intimate partner. Sexual Abuse The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, a subgroup of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, defines and divides sexual abuse into three categories: (1) the use of physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against his or her will, whether or not the act is completed; (2) an attempted or completed sex act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, to decline participation, or to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act (e.g., because of illness, disability, the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or because of intimidation/pressure); and (3) abusive sexual contact. Studies show that between 10 and 14 percent of wives have been forced into sexual activity by their partners (Strong, DeVault, and Cohen 2001). It is often difficult for women who are sexually abused by an intimate partner to seek help because it is often the case that sexual activity within relationships, whether voluntary or coerced, is not recognized as abusive. Although this has gotten better through more research and media attention given to sexual abuse in intimate relationships, it is still often very difficult for a victim to seek help or to receive the validation needed to overcome such traumatic experiences. Financial Abuse Financial abuse is usually characterized by an abuser withholding funds, stealing assets, stealing property, or compromising a partner’s financial liberties. It can be difficult for the victim to seek relationship alternatives in situations where financial abuse is present, as the victim is often totally dependent

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes | 223

on the abuser to provide for basic needs. This is especially true when children are involved. With this lack of resources available to the victim, there is also an increased risk of homelessness for the women and children impacted by violent relationships; an issue that will be discussed in further detail later. COMMON COUPLE VIOLENCE VERSUS INTIMATE TERRORISM Among the issues that have made it difficult over time to get the needed attention for domestic violence is the wide range of behaviors that fall under the umbrella of abuse. For many years there was a stereotypical image of a battered woman who was the victim of abusive beatings. However, recent thinking about domestic abuse has expanded to be more inclusive of a variety of unwanted violent acts. Intimate partner violence takes many forms, and involves many behaviors that are detrimental to the victim. In addition, some theoretical and methodological considerations in relation to intimate partner violence must be examined. Based on the work of Michael Johnson (1995), several theoretical distinctions have been made regarding domestic abuse. These categories originally arose during a comparison of domestic violence victims sample groups gathered from the general population and those from shelters. They also differ in areas related to power dynamics and behavioral characteristics, as well as on overall outcomes for victims. Johnson terms them as common couple violence and as intimate terrorism. Common Couple Violence Common couple violence is considered the most common type of violence that occurs in relationships, and is a less dangerous form of intimate partner violence. In situations where violence is present, conflict usually arises from a mutual disagreement between the partners and is considerably equally perpetrated among partners, although women are more likely to be injured during violent episodes. It is important to recognize that both partners can be violent in this scenario. This form of violence rarely escalates over time, and is more likely to be identified through surveys of the general population. Intimate Terrorism Intimate terrorism, also referred to as patriarchal terrorism, on the other hand, is very severe and can be highly lethal in nature. In situations where intimate terrorism is present, the abuser usually demonstrates power and control in order to dominate their partner. Conflict in these relationships is usually onesided and can be very severe. In these forms of relationships, conflict usually escalates over time and increases in both frequency and intensity. Intimate terrorism is frequently characterized by a physical or emotional domination of the victim, and often involves social isolation, financial dependence, emotional degradation, and is characterized by feelings of fear and hopelessness of the victim.

224

|

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes

Finally, Johnson reported that victims of intimate terrorism are more likely to be identified through research that focuses on specific samples, such as that taken in shelter settings. While Johnson’s work has been credited with uncovering a broad range of domestic violence types, there is some concern with defining domestic violence in this way. For example, the use of common couple violence suggests that all partners participate and it must then be normal to do so. If we assume that it is a normal part of relationships, that changes how society is willing to respond. There is a concern that a partner’s requests for help may not be taken seriously if she were violent against her spouse. This could set up a situation in which only victims of intimate terrorism may be seen as worthy of assistance by shelters and other agencies. A victim of common couple violence, then, may be blamed for putting herself in a situation in which she and the partner resorted to violence. WHY DOESN’T SHE JUST LEAVE? A common question that arises in relation to domestic violence is why doesn’t she just leave? Surely women don’t enjoy to be treated this way, so why don’t abused women get out? Many feel that if a victim of domestic violence really wanted to leave the relationship, she would just move on. However, as will be discussed further here, the circumstances that often surround domestic violence, especially situations where intimate terrorism are present, tend to be very complex, and choosing to just leave can be much more difficult, if not more lethal, than most people may realize. The suggestion that she should just leave blames any future abuse on her decision to stay, thus the victim blaming becomes acute. BARRIERS TO SEEKING HELP Due to various social barriers, many abused women don’t perceive their decision to remain in a violent relationship as a choice at all because few, if any, reasonable alternatives may be available to her. Common barriers that exist for victimized women include: social isolation, financial dependence, fear of repercussions, pressure to keep the family together, and a lack of appropriate community response. Advocates for the victims of domestic abuse debate which of these exerts the biggest pressure on women to stay in abusive situations. Social Isolation As previously stated in the discussion of Johnson’s concept of intimate terrorism, social isolation is a common factor found in most cases of domestic abuse. It is quite common in situations of intimate terrorism, because isolating one from the external support system enables the abuser to maintain power and control through forcing dependency of the victim on the abuser. This can include instances in which the victim is moved, often repeatedly, from place to place to ensure a lack of social contacts such as friends and family and external

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes | 225

support such as community resources. In our individualistic society, this isolation is especially problematic because of cultural norms regarding the right to privacy of the family. The practice of purposeful isolation usually involves limiting access to friends, family, coworkers, or forbidding outside employment altogether. Increasing isolation of the victim greatly decreases the perceived and actual availability of support in situations of abuse. Therefore, escape from abusive relationships can become very difficult. In fact, isolation increases the likelihood that a woman will live with an abusive partner from 12 to 25 percent (Bosch and Schumm 2004). Financial Dependence Studies show that domestic violence is more likely to occur in situations where couples are less educated and live in poor economic conditions. Poverty, which is directly correlated with lowered levels of education, is also a strong predictor of domestic violence. In fact, among all couples, a top cause of conflict is related to economic stress and strain. In addition, a woman living in poverty is also more likely to be financially dependent on her abuser, especially if she is unable to work. Therefore, for many women, the reality is that if she chooses to leave her abuser, the alternative is an inability to provide for her children and herself, or experiencing homelessness. Fear of Repercussion Many women remain in violent relationships because they are afraid to leave because the abuser has threatened severe violence, or he has threatened to kill the woman or her children. This fear may be quite valid because most of the severe acts of violence tend to be perpetrated against women who have left or attempted to leave a violent relationship. Furthermore, a woman is more likely to be murdered during the first six months following her exit from an abusive relationship than at any other time in her life, and at least 67 percent of female homicide victims had a history of physical abuse by an intimate partner (NCVC 2004). Many women who exit abusive relationships are stalked by their abuser. Stalking is an issue of significant concern because it often results in psychological problems including anxiety, insomnia, fear, depression, loss of work time, and the need for legal protective orders. Furthermore, the risk of homicide for stalked women is substantial; 76 percent of women who are murdered were stalked by their killer during the year prior to their death (NCVC 2004). Pressure to Keep the Family Together Societal norms and values concerning the family often create pressure for women to keep their families together. Therefore, if a woman, especially a married woman, is in an abusive relationship she may find it difficult to separate her family. Many women believe that if their children are not being directly

226

|

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes

physically assaulted, they are being protected from the abuse. This is seldom the case because most children are much more aware of domestic violence than their parents realize. Furthermore, many women have been raised to believe that the outcomes of raising children in a single-parent home would be a far worse alternative to the abuse. Also, many abused women receive messages from friends, family members, or members their religious community that steps must be taken to ensure the family is kept together, regardless of the presence of abuse. This not only places women and children at risk, but also places responsibility for the family health on the abused women. Lack of Appropriate Community Response Another barrier that domestic violence victims face is a lack of appropriate community response. Often, the seriousness of abuse situations is underestimated, or blame is placed on the victim. Survivors of abuse often report that they experienced being mocked, blamed, or completely ignored by law enforcement. It is also common for abuse victims to not report the abuse because they feel hopeless about the situation; like it wouldn’t make a difference or things would only worsen. Thus, abused women may be abandoned by the system, and left in a more dangerous situation with a perpetrator who has been agitated by her attempts to seek help. In addition, a common concern experienced by abused mothers is that she will lose her children if she attempts to sever ties with the abuser. This concern is valid because there are many documented cases of women losing custody of the children to an abuser, especially when domestic violence is present. A common misconception in society seems to be that mothers are favored for custody within the court system. However, on an increasing number of occasions, we see abused women losing custody of their children on the basis of an inappropriate judicial response to domestic violence. For example, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a scientifically invalid condition in which a woman is accused of making up accusations of violence and abuse with the expressed purpose of alienating her children from the abuser. Although PAS has been debunked and deemed as so-called junk science, it still remains one of the most widely used arguments in our legal system today to award primary child custody to abuse perpetrators. LEARNED HELPLESSNESS? A commonly taught principal on college campuses today regarding domestic violence victims is that of learned helplessness. The theory, originally derived from Seligman’s experiments with dogs, has been applied to abused women and was commonly accepted as an explanation regarding why she might not leave an abusive situation. In developing her concept of battered woman syndrome, psychologist Lenore Walker drew heavily on this idea. The argument is that a victim who has been repeatedly worn down both physically and emotionally by an abuser will reach a psychological state where she no longer perceives that she

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes | 227

is able to or worthy enough to escape her situation. Consequently, she loses her will to leave the relationship. Therefore, learned helplessness focuses a great deal on the psychological condition of victims, who commonly report having feelings of low self-esteem, depression, self-blame, and passivity and guilt, as well as experiences of repeated victimization, including those during childhood and adulthood. In contrast, many argue that learned helplessness fails to take into account the fact that women often remain in relationships for rational reasons, such as those discussed previously, and not for psychopathological reasons. In addition, many criticize the approach that learned helplessness takes to domestic violence victimization in that it places the primary reasoning behind and responsibility for abusive relationships on women. This constitutes just another form of blaming the victim. Those who are skeptical of the learned helplessness argument suggest that domestic violence should be viewed in terms of the context of the situation and the resources, or lack thereof, available to the victim, including the social response to domestic violence, as opposed to the characteristics of the victim. WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE? In many communities, domestic violence organizations exist in some capacity. Common services provided by these groups may include: adult victim counseling, child counseling, legal assistance, voucher plans (for necessities such as food, clothing and furniture), shelter services and protection if deemed necessary, transitional housing for women and children, safety planning, and coordination or participation in community activism on behalf of domestic violence victims. Many online educational resources exist pertaining to domestic violence as well. Some focus exclusively on the victim by providing information on abuse signs and symptoms, safety planning and tips, building healthy relationships, and prevention by providing information on local community resources. Such resources can be found through the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Womenshealth.gov, or MEDLINEplus. Other services, such as the cell phone program, include those sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The cell phone program is a national program that accepts donations of old cell phones to provide means of emergency communication for domestic abuse victims in need of immediate help. In addition, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE) exists for anyone who may be in need of help or advice pertaining to domestic abuse. It is advisable that anyone who suspects that they, or someone they know, may be in an unhealthy or abusive relationship seek the guidance of one of the above listed organizations. Taking a step that is as simple as making a phone call can save a life. Finally, national movements such as Take Back the Night exist to provide individuals and communities with the opportunity to be empowered through providing a voice to victims to be heard and to live lives that are free from violence and abuse.

228

|

Domestic Violence Interventions

CONCLUDING REMARKS A common critique pertaining to research on and response to domestic violence lies in that most approaches to this social problem are oriented from a victim blaming perspective. Even in discussing this topic here, which focuses on the awareness of such a bias, domestic violence must still be approached largely from this perspective. This emphasis on the role of the victim is very difficult to avoid because a substantial portion of what we know about domestic violence comes from examination of the victim’s choices as opposed to those of the perpetrator. This perspective is also not an inherent flaw because understanding the issues facing domestic violence victims is critical to providing assistance and increasing awareness. However, caution must be taken when examining abuse from this perspective if we are to avoid placing primary responsibility for the occurrence and continuation of domestic violence on one partner (i.e., the victim). This is critical because it is through an examination of this social problem from multiple perspectives that we will be better equipped to address ending domestic violence as a responsibility of society as a whole. See also Addiction and Family; Battered Woman Syndrome; Child Abuse; Domestic Violence Interventions; Mandatory Arrest Laws; Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence. Further Reading: Bosch, Kathy, and Walter R. Schumm. “Accessibility to Resources: Helping Rural Women in Abusive Partner Relationships Become Free from Abuse.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 30 (2004): 357–370; Family Shelter Service. “On Learned Helplessness.” http://www.familyshelterservice.org/pdf/survivor.pdf; Johnson, M. P. “Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women.” Journal of Marriage and Family 57 (1995): 283–294; Johnson, M. P., and K. J. Ferraro. “Research on Domestic Violence in the 1990s: Making Distinctions.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2000): 948–963; The Leadership Council. “On Parental Alienation Syndrome,” 2005. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/faq.htm; The National Center for Victims of Crime. “Stalking Fact Sheet.” http://www.ncvc.org/Src (accessed May 15, 2008); The National Domestic Violence Hotline. http://www.ndvh.org; Neufeld, B. “SAFE Questions: Overcoming the Barriers to Detecting Domestic Violence.” American Family Physician 53 (1996): 2575–2581; Strong, B., C. DeVault, B. W. Sayad, and T. F. Cohen. The Marriage and Family Experience, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., 2001; Take Back the Night. http://www.takebackthenight.org; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Preventing Violence against Women,” 2001. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/01fsdomviolence.html; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health. “Violence against Women.” http://www.womenshealth.gov/violence/index.cfm.

Rachel Birmingham

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTIONS Interventions in domestic violence refer to the ways in which the situation can be altered to change the course of action. In other words, an intervention is the means by which persons outside of the coupled relationship or agencies respond to domestic violence in such a way as to keep the abuse from continuing. Some-

Domestic Violence Interventions | 229

times, it is only the victim who is able to intervene because others are unaware that the abuse is occurring. There are many factors that make intervening in domestic violence situations difficult. Not only is there the expectation of privacy in one’s family life, but society still has far to go to fully assist victims and offenders. INTRODUCTION For decades, domestic abuse has been one of those taboo subjects that no one wants to talk about. People know it exists, but when confronted with the effects of domestic abuse they prefer to look the other way. However, after many years of society directly and indirectly telling families that what happens in the home stays in the home, the societal and familial consequences of domestic abuse are coming to light. Domestic abuse takes many forms and has many consequences for the physical and emotional well-being of individuals. Most of the time when people hear the term domestic abuse they automatically think of abuse between persons in a marital relationship. Violence between partners in a marital relationship, referred to as spouse abuse, is only one aspect of domestic violence. In fact research suggests that other intimate relationships such as cohabitation as well as homosexual partnerships are even more prone to abuse than are marriages. Thus the term domestic violence or interpersonal violence is more accurate to describe the phenomenon than is the traditional term spouse abuse. Domestic violence also encompasses child abuse, sibling abuse, and elder abuse. Each facet of domestic abuse harms the society, the family, and the individuals involved. The causes of each form of domestic abuse might vary, but the end conclusion and its resulting consequences are quite similar. The controversies surrounding abuse between intimate partners have varied little over time. However, the media attention domestic violence receives varies by the latest trend, hot topic, heinous domestic crime, or celebrity escapade. When domestic violence is prominent in the media, such as with the recent case of Laci Peterson, questions of prevention and intervention abound. While more media attention is paid to abuse cases currently than in previous years, no recent case has captured American’s attention quite like the O. J. Simpson case. When individuals in society take a position on the intervention issues, they become separated by their differing views on five key controversies concerning spouse abuse: (1) divorce is the best solution for abused spouses, (2) arrest deters the behavior from occurring in the future, (3) government should or should not intervene in private family matters, (4) mandatory arrest should be universal policy, and (5) the shelter movement is the most effective solution. BACKGROUND Throughout history, women have generally been subjected to harsher living and working conditions than men. Surviving in the early days after the establishment of the United States not only meant carving out a living for herself and her family, but often meant enduring the physical punishments of first a father and later a husband. Those same physical punishments that women of the

230

|

Domestic Violence Interventions

past endured are now defined by today’s criteria as spouse abuse. The women subjected to spouse abuse in the early days of American society had nowhere to run. Likewise they may have expected the abuse in light of their lower social standing compared to men. There were no advocacy programs, shelters, or counseling groups from which to get help or advice. The privacy of the family was sacred ground not to be trespassed upon. Those who saw the plight of the women and children in society, and aimed to make changes, often became victims themselves. It wasn’t until the battered women’s movement, also known as the domestic violence movement, began that change started to take place. As an offshoot of the women’s equality movement, originating in the 1960s, domestic violence awareness began to have positive effects. Society’s views concerning domestic abuse began to be more concerned with victims’ safety and causes of abuse, most notably a patriarchal model that assigns all power to men, were identified. Publicly recognized shelters were first opened for abused women at this time. Arizona’s Rainbow Retreat and California’s Haven House were two of the first. They began treating women who were victims of spouse abuse by alcoholic partners. After people started acknowledging spouse abuse as a social issue, one that had been happening in their own backyards for years, strong opinions clashed and social policies developed. The public and the government agreed that spouse abuse could have serious repercussions if not addressed efficiently. Over the years, opinions and domestic abuse policies have changed, but the heart of the issue remains—love should not hurt. A relationship between two consenting adults should not cause harm, and any relationship that causes physical or emotional distress is not a healthy relationship. However, it is hard to determine when a relationship is unhealthy because people outside of the home cannot tell just by looking if someone is an abuser or not. Abusers do not wear signs around their necks or have a scarlet letter of some sort emblazoned upon them. An abusive spouse could be a relative, a friend, or a neighbor. The media also plays a part in how domestic violence is defined. Society interprets the severity of the issue based on the amount of media coverage the offense generates. The more detailed and graphic the media coverage, the more we understand that society disapproves of domestic violence. The media is further powerful as a mechanism to transmit information about prevention and intervention. This is important because spouse abuse takes several different forms and is defined by different behaviors. Categories of Spouse Abuse The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cite four types of spouse abuse: physical violence, sexual violence, threats of violence, and psychological or emotional violence. According to the CDC website, physical violence includes any physical show of force toward a partner that intentionally inflicts harm. Sexual violence is divided by the CDC into three categories: rape, a sexual encounter with a mentally or physically incapacitated individual, or contact with an individual that is both sexual in nature and abusive. It is any sexual encounter

Domestic Violence Interventions | 231

in which the victim does not or can not consent. Threats are tactics of intimidation that may involve weapons or other shows of force, but do not culminate in physical abuse. It could involve a partner indicating the abuses that would be perpetrated on the partner if she were not to follow his wishes. Sociologists have done considerable research on domestic violence and categorize spouse abuse as originating in the following ways. From the structural functional perspective of society, sociologists explain that spouse abuse is a method used by abusers to sustain what they consider to be the proper functioning of the family. The abuser functions as the authoritarian head of the household. Gender roles are emphasized under the structural functional perspective because the threat of the abuse creates a sense of fear that causes the female victim to want to please the male abuser in order to avoid punishment. Men and women are thought to best fulfill the goals of family life when they conform to a traditional model of breadwinner husband and house-manager wife. Deviations from the pattern create role difficulties. Conflict perspective adherents argue that abuse is used to re-gain power. A relationship between two people that is not egalitarian usually consists of one individual exerting control or influence over the other individual. However, when the dependent person attempts to gain some influence or control, the independent person—the abuser—uses abuse to force the other person back to dependent status. The power struggle between the two individuals is cyclic and, therefore, creates a cycle of abuse that is hard to escape. From the symbolic interaction approach, spouse abuse can be a result of miscommunication or misinterpretation of the messages being passed between two people. Every message a person sends and receives contains numerous meanings, both verbal and nonverbal. If the meanings in the messages are not the same for both of the individuals involved, one person may construe a message negatively. Therefore, when an individual is misunderstood, frustration mounts and can lead to an outburst of violence. Relevant Domestic Abuse Statistics While the differing explanations for abuse and the different categories of behavior may make it hard to know what intervention tactics would be the most effective, the data below indicate that something must be done. The likelihood of victimization, as well as the costs to society, families, the economy, and individuals demands that interventions at least be attempted. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, under the umbrella of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), refers to spouse abuse as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The rates of IPV are hard to determine because intimate partner violence is defined differently in different areas and, importantly, not all instances of IPV are reported. For example, the best estimates indicate that only about 20 percent of sexual assaults or rapes, 25 percent of physical assaults, and 50 percent of stalking directed toward women are reported. Even fewer incidents of IPV against men are reported. In the category of physical abuse, nearly 5.3 million incidents of IPV occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. Fortunately, most assaults are

232

|

Domestic Violence Interventions

relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting. IPV accounted for 20 percent of the nonfatal violence against women in the year 2001. There are, however, nearly 2 million injuries and 1,300 deaths nationwide every year as a result of IPV. A national study found that 29 percent of women and 22 percent of men had experienced physical, sexual, or psychological IPV during their lifetime. Up to 8 percent of pregnant women are abused at least once during pregnancy. A particularly concerning aspect of physical abuse is intimate partner homicide. From the years 1976 to 2002, approximately 11 percent of homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner, however the total numbers of victims did decrease some over time. The decrease was higher for male victims than for female victims who remain far more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner. For the year 2002, of those victims of intimate partner homicide, 76 percent were female. Firearms are the predominant weapon used. In the cases of intimate partner violence resulting in homicide it is not the first occurrence of violence between the partners. Forty-four percent of women murdered by their intimate partners had visited an emergency department within 2 years of the homicide. Of these women, 93 percent had at least one injury visit. Sexual abuse also affects women more often than men. Every year in the United States there are about 1.5 million women and more than 800,000 men who are raped or physically assaulted by their partner. This translates into a victimization rate of about 47 intimate partner assaults per 1,000 women and 32 per 1,000 men. Stalking rates also reflect this gender difference with estimates of more than 1 million women and 371,000 men stalked by intimate partners each year. Previous literature suggests that women who have separated from their abusive partners often remain at risk of violence. Therefore, even though the facts about IPV are disturbing, what is even more troubling is the likelihood that IPV in the United States is worse than the official measures can uncover. This underreporting has lead to a strong push by advocates to educate the public. One of the best avenues is through the media. Thus, when domestic violence cases make the news, they are often followed with facts about the frequency of domestic violence and information about how to get help if one is in a similar position. Ideally, this recognition in a public forum of the problem of domestic violence would make a victim less embarrassed to reveal the abuse. Furthermore, letting the victim know some of the wide-ranging causes of the problem can be helpful. CAUSAL INFLUENCES The causes of spouse abuse are many and are not all-inclusive. A lot of people in today’s society have the misconception that abusers must have psychological problems in order to be abusers. However, there are many other factors that either cause or create an environment conducive to spouse abuse. The abuse of alcohol and drugs reduces inhibitions and heightens the abuser’s awareness of personal insecurities, lowering inhibitions and resulting in an abuser verbally or physically attacking the victim.

Domestic Violence Interventions | 233

If an individual has been a victim of prior abuse, that person is more likely to become an abuser. As contrary as it seems, being a victim teaches a person that that is how relationships work. If abuse is all an individual has known throughout life, then abuse is normative to that person. Low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy have also been linked to a greater tendency to abuse compared with persons of higher self-esteem. When an individual has a poor self-concept and low self-esteem, he or she tends to think everyone around them shares the same opinion about him or her. After prolonged exposure to negative opinions, an individual may become violent as a way of venting the built-up pressure and anxiety caused by low self-esteem. Abuse is also used as a method to gain control or power over another individual. A person who has a poor-self concept, low self-esteem, or been a victim of prior abuse may have a stronger need for control and power because it is the ability to gain power and control that validates the abuser. This cyclic pattern is difficult to break. Furthermore, environmental stressors such as the family ideal, work, finances, and even health issues can cause significant amounts of stress. Society’s focus on the ideal family creates stress when an individual realizes that he or she is not living up to the standard of the modern family by not making enough money, not having the right possessions, or requiring a two-income household to get by. Also, pressure from a boss at work may cause tension that adds to the build-up of stress. An unplanned pregnancy that would add to financial stress may be an additional factor. These stressors may create a volatile home life where abuse is the outlet for a massive release of pent-up stresses. Because the causes of abuse are many, it follows that the consequences of abuse are just as numerous and likely compound over time. COMPOUND EFFECTS Abuse is not an action that happens and then is forgotten. Every act of abuse leaves its mark. Repeated abuse lowers the self-esteem of the abused spouse. As a result of the lowered self-esteem, the abused spouse may seek comfort in activities such as drug use, alcohol consumption, and promiscuity. Spouse abuse may also cause depression that can lead to neglect of children who may be present in the home. The abused spouse may also begin to live a lie by presenting a false front of happiness to the outside world to keep others from knowing her internal conflict. The abused spouse may even deny the abuse when confronted about it. Avoiding the abuse becomes a means of self-preservation for the victim. The victim may even fear the discovery of the abuse by her peers more than the abuse itself. After an individual’s self-esteem has declined due to the abuse, the idea of others thinking badly of the victim causes more distress. Therefore, the abused spouse might withdraw from friends and family to keep the lie a secret. By witnessing the abuse of a parent and being subjected to negative attitudes and perceptions on a daily basis, children in the home learn negative relationship skills and values. They are also likely to be victimized themselves, if not directly through a personal attack against them, perhaps as a bystander injured by an errant attack with fist or object. If a child grows up with abusive role models

234

|

Domestic Violence Interventions

then that child might believe that abuse is acceptable and could become either the abuser or the abused. Statistics show that children who witness abuse are more likely to become abusers than are children who did not witness abuse in their formative years. The lasting effects on children who witness abuse are behavioral changes and learning problems. These children do not know how to control or express their emotions in a constructive and nonthreatening manner. Therefore, they act out or withdraw from group activities. Many children from abusive homes are hyper-vigilant and easily distracted because they feel the need to constantly be on the lookout for any sign of a threat. Spouse abuse does not only affect the partners in the relationship, it affects everyone within the family and is why solutions for spouse abuse are needed. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE MEDIA Because it is everywhere and readily captures the public’s attention, the media have a unique opportunity to influence society. With regard to domestic violence, however, some critics contend that the media focuses only on the most sensational and unusual cases rather than the experiences of “every woman.” In the recent past, several prominent domestic violence cases have received considerable media attention. They are illustrative, however, of how a chance for advocacy is lost when sensationalism takes over. Two of the more sensationalized domestic violence cases in recent years are the cases of Laci Peterson and Nicole Brown Simpson. According to www.courttv.com, Laci Peterson was a pregnant 27-year-old in Modesto, CA. While no one can confirm that she and husband Scott had a history of abuse, she was reported missing with few leads. Her husband, Scott Peterson, was initially questioned by police and suspicions seemed to be directed toward him. As evidence emerged, it was revealed that he was having an affair with another woman. While there were receipts to corroborate his alibi, there were no witnesses and a neighbor saw him removing something heavy from his home about the time of Laci’s disappearance. When the body of a woman and baby washed onto the beach nearly four months after Laci was reported missing, DNA testing confirmed it was the missing woman and child. Peterson was arrested. He had $10,000 in cash on his person. Peterson was later convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection. The O. J. Simpson case is discussed in several ways. One questions the role of race in the criminal justice system. Another considers how social class of defendant matters in acquittal. A third deals with domestic violence. In the Simpson case, the victims Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, the former wife of the defendant, were found murdered outside of her condominium in 1994. This was two years after her divorce to Simpson, who was described as abusive. In a recorded 911 call introduced at the trial, there was evidence that Simpson was stalking his former wife. While Simpson was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, in a civil trial brought by the victims’ families he was found liable for their deaths and order to pay more than $33 million to the families. The Brown family established the Nicole Brown Charitable Foundation to assist victims of domestic violence.

Domestic Violence Interventions | 235

INTERVENTIONS Solutions and interventions are controversial in themselves. Solutions to spouse abuse have been hard to create because the same solution will not work for every situation. Among the proposed solutions are divorce from the abuser, arrest of the abuser (sometimes mandatory), government policies and programs, and the shelter movement. Divorce People argue that divorce is the best solution for abused spouses because then a victim is removed from the situation. It does decrease the daily contact between victim and offender, providing a hope that both can move on to nonabusive relationships. One of the concerning aspects of this approach is that it may remove the spouse from daily contact with the abuser but does little to prevent the pattern from being repeated with another victim. It is passing the problem to the next unlucky person. While on the surface divorce seems reasonable for a given woman in an abusive marriage, that conclusion is not always accurate. Divorce is only a reasonable solution when the abused spouse has income available that allows her to leave. This situation does not happen very often. Most often by the time the abused woman leaves the home, she has been a victim for so long that she has no outside resources and has become a prisoner within the home. In extreme cases, the victim may not even have a purse or keys to a vehicle because the abuser gains his power from the victim’s lack of control and helplessness. Money is the means to escape and if a victim doesn’t have money, then divorce is not a very real possibility. Additionally, she may feel incapable of supporting herself with few if any marketable skills with which to acquire a job. Another argument against divorce comes from the conservative religious camp and suggests that couples can overcome the abuse and its negative effects on the family by prayer and worship. With God’s help the family can be maintained and divorce is unnecessary. Often divorce is seen as the greater evil to persons from this perspective. Conservatives of all faiths are concerned that divorce would result in single parent-families and they tout the benefits to children when two parents are in the home. In cases where a break-up does not involve counseling for both victim and offender, there is a legitimate concern about the victim’s future safety. If the abuser feels that there is unfinished business in the relationship, he may stalk the victim. Given that some states permit one person to file and receive a divorce without the consent of the other this is a legitimate concern. Many women are particularly likely to be victimized when they are attempting to leave, and divorce is a clear marker of the leaving. Arrest of Offender Arrests of offenders have been popular for some time. However, historical evidence suggests that many police officers were unlikely to do so. Individuals that support arresting the abuser have contended that arrest offers a chance to

236

|

Domestic Violence Interventions

rehabilitate the abuser. There is little evidence to support that this occurs. As more persons are jailed for drug and other offenses, the prison population has swelled and the resources for rehabilitation are very limited. Removing the abuser from the situation and sentencing him to jail time very rarely is effective at reducing violence. Most often the abuser has a tendency to become more abusive after incarceration because of the experiences associated with the prison system. For some groups, arrest does seem to lessen the behavior. For employed men who have a lot to lose by being arrested or labeled an abuser, the rates of abuse do go down after an arrest. For men who are unemployed however, arrest significantly increases abuse. One of the positive things that abuse does is to serve as a visible display that the community takes domestic violence seriously. In those jurisdictions where district attorneys are required to prosecute these offenders, the arrest can have valuable symbolic value. One of the issues that has made many domestic violence advocates the most distressed is that when convictions for domestic violence do occur, the sentences are usually comparatively light. In some municipalities there are stiffer penalties for animal cruelty than for domestic violence. Government Policies and Programs Governments have a vested interest in ensuring the safety of the citizenry. With regard to domestic violence, government programs have been largely focused on education, with the emphasis on spotting the signs of domestic violence and reporting the abuse to the proper authorities. Due to its greater resources, however, the government can provide support to programs that assist victims, record statistics, and provide counseling. The money from these federal sources is far greater than what is available to most nonprofit organizations through donations or grants. Governments might also wield influence to publicize the problem and increase awareness, thus influencing social norms of acceptability or unacceptability for behaviors. Government has a vested interest in reducing the rates of domestic violence because of the costs to the nation as a whole. The CDC estimates indicate that domestic violence cost $8.3 billion in 2003. This figure included the costs of medical care, mental health services, and loss of economic productivity, particularly through time off of work. Among the sticking points of critics of government policies is the contention that they may violate the traditional expectation of family privacy. Relationship matters are held to be personal matters and government policies make them public. While most individuals today view domestic violence as unacceptable, there are still those who believe that marriage and what goes on within the family behind closed doors is private. At what point does spouse abuse override the privacy of the family? This concept in itself contributes to the controversies of mandatory arrest laws and the shelter movement. Mandatory Arrest Mandatory arrest laws require that a police officer make an arrest in a domestic violence case if he or she witnesses any evidence that abuse has occurred. The

Domestic Violence Interventions | 237

idea originated in Minneapolis where an intervention program was designed to remove offenders from the home for at least a minimum amount of time. While the principle of protecting the victim from immediate future abuse is a good one, there may be later consequences for her. Also, the victims have been known to come right down to the police station and bail out the offenders. Mandatory arrest laws have lead to a backlog of court cases in some municipalities, overburdening scarce resources. This is more likely to be true where nodrop clauses mean all domestic violence arrests must be prosecuted. Critics of mandatory arrest contend that it is a government-instituted policy that disregards the sanctity of the family by making decisions for the family that may or may not be beneficial to all of the individuals involved. By arresting the abuser, who is most often the breadwinner of the family, the government institution is breaking the financial backbone of the family when mandatory arrests are enforced. If the abused spouse does not work or her income is a supplemental income, the family may suffer financial strain. Occasionally both partners are arrested on domestic violence charges due the requirement to arrest and the inability of law enforcement officers to determine a victim and offender. If the situation involves common couple violence and she defends herself, she may be charged with abuse. This leaves any children in the home without supervision, at least temporarily, so they may be sent into state custody through the foster care system or sent to live with relatives. Shelter Movement The shelter movement also violates the private sector of the home by offering abused spouses and children a place to go for a safe haven. Therefore, some family advocates have suggested that they harm the family by removing even the tenuous stability of the abusive home. One of the most common criticisms against shelters is that they are only a temporary solution. When a woman returns home to abusive partner to give him one more chance the violence may intensify. Shelters can be expensive to operate and are constantly in need of donations. They rely largely on volunteer staff, but do usually have some paid staff for continuity. The shelter movement was one of the first attempts to improve the lot of abused women and to ensure their safety. As such, they have a loyal following and strong advocacy tradition. With the creation of domestic violence shelters, abuse victims regained a small amount of control over their and their children’s lives. Abuse victims did not have to wait until they squirreled away enough money to be able to run in the middle of the night; shelters made it possible to just leave and not look back. Shelters that have excellent resources are able to provide both personal and legal counsel to abused women. They are generally successful at seeking and acquiring restraining orders and helping victims get back on their feet if they leave their abusers. One of the most disconcerting things about the shelter movement is that it has not yet been able to fully meet demand. There are shelters in more than 1400 counties in the United States; however, this is less than half of the 3000 counties in the country, leaving some women with extremely limited options for leaving an abusive situation.

238

|

Domestic Violence Interventions

FUTURE DIRECTIONS The controversies over various interventions show that domestic violence is still misunderstood and misrepresented in the culture. Given the broad effects of abuse, workable solutions are needed. Future policies and programs targeting domestic violence will likely place an increased emphasis on prevention. One of the government-sponsored programs of the CDC takes this approach. While the interventions are still needed, the hope is that prevention will decrease the need for additional interventions in the future. The current emphasis on prevention targets young people encouraging and empowering them to create healthy relationships and patterns of interaction. One of the elements involves strategies for dating that help weed out potential abusers and focus on respect. Additionally, men and women can model good relationship patterns for young people through mentoring youth, thereby reinforcing the idea that violence is not acceptable. See also Battered Woman Syndrome; Child Abuse; Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes; Mandatory Arrest Laws; Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence; Sibling Violence and Abuse. Further Reading: Buzawa, Eve S., and Carl G. Buzawa. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003; Family Violence Prevention Fund. http://www.endabuse.org; Feminist Majority Foundation: Working for Women’s Equality. http://www.feminist.org/911/crisis.html; Flowers, R. Barri. Domestic Crimes, Family Violence and Child Abuse: A Study of Contemporary American Society. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2000; Jones, Ann. Next Time She’ll Be Dead: Battering and How to Stop It. New York: Beacon Press, 2000; Kelly, Kristin A. Domestic Violence and the Politics of Privacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003; LaViolette, Alyce D., and Ola W. Barnett. It Could Happen to Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000; Mills, Linda G. Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. http://www.ncadv.org; National Network to End Domestic Violence. http://www.nnedv.org; National Sexual Violence Resource Center. http://www. nsvrc.org; NOW: National Organization of Women. http://www.now.org/issues/vio lence/; Stop Family Violence. http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org.

Amanda Singletary

E ELDER ABUSE Elder abuse is a very serious issue that affects families and society. Elder abuse involves the acts of commission (abuse) and omission (neglect) as do other definitions of domestic violence. Unlike spouse and child abuse, which were defined as key social issues in the 1960s, elder abuse did not surface as a social problem until the late 1970s in congressional hearings examining the status of aging in the United States. The awareness generated through government and the media brought attention to the phenomenon. There are many questions about the prevalence of elder abuse and the vulnerability of certain categories of elders to abuse. One thing that makes elder abuse difficult to discuss is that it is difficult to measure. Because domestic issues remain largely private, the true prevalence of elder abuse is not known. The best estimates, based on national samples and state data, indicate that about five percent of persons over 65 will be abused in some way. It seems that spouse abuse is the most common abuse of those past retirement age, although abuse by adult children does contribute to the problem. Given the dependencies that most aged persons have, their reliance on others sets the stage for exploitation. Elders are potential victims whether they are being cared for in their own homes by family or at a nursing home by paid staff. There is evidence to suggest that as today’s elders are more likely to have retirement accounts and pension plans, their likelihood of being a victim of financial abuse is increasing. WHAT IS ELDER ABUSE? Elder abuse is the sometimes intentional, but often times unintentional, mistreatment of a person over the age of 65. Elder abuse involves several aspects

239

240

|

Elder Abuse

including financial, physical, and emotional abuse. A special subcategory of physical abuse is sexual abuse. An inclusive definition of elder abuse would also consider neglect and self-neglect as additional aspects. Abuse of elders can lead to a worsening of the elder’s health or even to death. Questions surround the causes of elder abuse as well as the ways that treatment and prevention should be approached. The different categories of abuse do not affect all elders in the same way. TYPES OF ELDER ABUSE Physical Abuse Physical abuse can be any of the following: pushing, kicking, slapping, choking, beating, punching, pinching, throwing, hitting, paddling, shoving, inappropriate restraints, assaulting, or harming with hand or objects. This force can lead to pain, injury, impairment, and disease of an elderly person. Given that humans get weaker and frailer as they age, abuse of elderly persons is particularly likely to result in injury. Additionally, these persons are less likely to be strong enough to defend themselves from attack and may even be confined to a wheel chair or bed due to their physical conditions. For the oldest old persons, age 85 and over, the consequences of physical beatings can be severe. The physical indicators of abuse are dehydration, malnourishment, sprains, dislocations, bite marks, internal injuries, unexplained bruises and burns, welts, skull fractures, lacerations, black eyes, and abrasions. Older persons, due to dementia or other memoryimpairing conditions, may be unable to explain how their injuries occurred, making them a safe victim because they may find it difficult to get assistance or intervention from law enforcement. Sexual Abuse Sexual abuse is any sexual activity performed on an elder without consent. Sexual abuse can be sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, or oral sex. Other sexual behaviors, however, can also be termed abuse if the elder is not a willing participate or is unable to provide consent. These activities include displaying ones genitals or making the elder display theirs, watching while the elder does sexual things, or making the elder watch while the perpetrator does sexual things. It can even include watching pornography, taking pictures, and sex talk. The most likely perpetrator of sexual abuse is a family member. This is because the elder has trust in the family member and lets them get close without knowing that they want to do harm. It is also possible for an elder to be abused in a nursing home or for an outside caregiver to be the perpetrator of sexual abuse, but these cases are more limited. An elder with a severe disability is more likely to be abused because of dependency on the help of the nursing home staff or outside caregiver. Indicators of sexual abuse include: genital or urinary irritation, frequent infections, vaginal or anal bleeding, bruising on the inner thighs, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, conversation regularly is of a sexual nature, severe agitation when being bathed or dressed, agitation during medical

Elder Abuse | 241

examination, and sudden confusion. Depending on the circumstances, sexual abuse can involve both physical and emotional elements. Emotional Abuse The elder is distressed, upset, depressed, experiencing withdrawal, and in emotional pain in this nonverbal or verbal situation. When elders are emotionally abused they become unresponsive, fearful, lack social interests, and evade others. Emotional abuse is equally likely to be perpetrated by a family member, nursing home staff and outside caregivers. Elders may be particularly prone to emotional abuse because they question their role in the family and society. Many persons perceive that as they age they are more of a burden on the family and have a harder time fitting in. They may feel that they deserve any treatment they receive because they can not keep up mentally and physically with the younger generations. Some common types of emotional abuse include ignoring the elder, harassment and intimidation, insults and yelling, embarrassing or humiliating the elder, odd forms of punishment, and blaming. Also included are isolation from others or activities, and not attending to the elder when necessary. Financial Abuse Financial abuse is the improper or illegal use of an elder’s money and property. The financial abuser can be anyone, but is most likely a family member as they have more direct access to aged family members’ resources. For various practical reasons, including fear of money management, tax savings, and inheritance, among others, elders may ask family members to tend to their financial concerns. Sometimes this takes the form of a power of attorney where the family member is the legal guardian of the older person’s estate and authorized to act as his or her agent. Other times the arrangement is informal, and the older person just asks someone else to keep their bank accounts and take care of daily financial transactions. Government estimates indicate that approximately five million elders are victims of financial abuse each year, with most cases going unreported. A dishonest person can take advantage of the elder, misinforming them about their assets, or using the money for their own needs. They may even get the elder to give their consent to such things through threatening them, or constantly harassing the elder about his or her financial status. Elders can be financially abused in many different ways. They include exploitation and fraud by both primary and secondary contacts, signature forging, embezzling, and theft of property. Certain areas of fraud have targeted older persons and include home repair fraud, insurance fraud, medical fraud, telemarketing, and confidence games. Another egregious component is nursing home theft. Considering that most very old people are females, who often have fewer funds available at retirement than do males and often relied on their husbands to manage their funds prior to his death, the costs of financial abuse can be very high.

242

|

Elder Abuse

Neglect Neglect of the elder can occur when the elder is in isolation, has been abandoned, or a caregiver refuses to provide the elder with essential needs, including physical and emotional needs. Just as neglect is the most frequent type of child abuse, neglect is considered the most common type of elder abuse. Self-neglect has also been a problem with elders. This can occur when an elder neglects his own needs. There are two types of neglect, active and passive. Active neglect is defined as refusal or failure to fulfill the needs of the elder. This would be intentional neglect. Passive neglect is also failing to fulfill an elder’s needs, but this type is unintentional. It has been known to occur in nursing homes that do not have the most qualified staff or the resources to meet the needs of the elder residents. Neglect is also done by family members and by outside caregivers. Examples of neglect include denial of needs such as food and water, lack of assistance with food and water (if required), improper supervision, inappropriate clothing for the type of weather, or inadequate help with bathing or other hygiene practices. Other examples are lack of access to the toilet, lack of diaper changing, strong smell of urine or feces, and physically restraining the elder without medical cause. Finally, refusing to seek required medical care for the elder is a type of neglect. BRIEF HISTORY Elder abuse first appeared on the public radar in the 1970s. However, many professionals did not care about abuse of the elderly at the time, but were more concerned with child abuse and abuse against women. Consequently, elder abuse was not taken very seriously. There was inadequate knowledge about the scope of the issue and what to do for such situations. There were few ways that family professionals could intervene in such cases. In the late 1970s Congress began to hear of “granny battering” and became interested in this issue. As groups began to testify in congress in defense of older Americans, the tide began to turn. In 1989 the Older Americans Act was proposed. While there was not a lot of money available to assist in stopping elder abuse, it was recognized as a problem and over time more and more people became interested in this issue. The media helped to spread the word about elder abuse, getting the attention of medical professionals and the criminal justice system. Researchers began to attend to the issue as well. However, the extent of the problem remains hidden. The best estimates indicate that for every abuse case reported, there are about five more that are not reported. CONTROVERSIES IN ELDER ABUSE While it is generally accepted that abuse is a problem in the culture that needs to be eradicated, the paths to decreased violence are often contradictory. Often experts suggest that one cannot end abuse without knowing the causes of abuse. Elder abuse shares some links with domestic violence causes in general, but because of the intergenerational nature of the abuse, there are some important

Elder Abuse | 243

differences. Another area of controversy involves whether gender plays a role in the status of both victim and perpetrator. Other questions remain as to the best course of action when dealing with older persons who have been abused and the role that the state plays in providing assistance to them. Contributing Factors in Elder Abuse There have been wide-ranging suggestions as to the factors that contribute to elder abuse. Not only have the ideas of “violence as a way of life” in American society been blamed, but the cultural belief in the value of youth and devaluing of elderly, referred to as ageism, have been touted as a contributing factor. It seems likely that there are factors both within the culture as a whole and in the personal interactions of families that make abuse more likely to occur. Among the explanations in the literature are caregiver stress, victim disability, social isolation, perpetrator deviance, and victim-perpetrator dependency. Situational factors can make caring for an elder particularly difficult. The caregiver may have emotional, psychological, financial and mental problems of her own. These can become compounded when caring for an elderly person. A family member caring for an older relative may experience financial problems due to the material needs of the elder or missing work to care for the elder. The caregiving is particularly likely to compound any financial problems that were already there, leading to increasing stress for the carer. If the physical space is inadequate for the caring tasks, any poor housing conditions can become more concerning. Additionally, caregiving is stressful work and many caregivers will feel overburdened after an extended time in the role. It is quite hard if persons are caring for more than one dependent at a time, such as caring for one’s child and aging parent simultaneously. The more dependent on a caregiver the elder person is, the more the stress for the person caring for the elder. Some of the dependencies that exist between an abusive caregiver and victimized elder relate to the tactics and responses developed in family life that can carry over into adulthood. For example, a history of psychological or mental health problems, physical abuse, or poor communication or relationships in a family may continue. There may also be personality problems and difficult behavior displayed by the elder that compounds the problem. Abuse in an institutional setting such as a nursing home might occur because an elder is cared for in an institution that lacks proper resources. This might refer to the physical structure of the facility, but also includes a lack of training for the staff, inadequate staffing relative to need, and stressful work conditions. It is important to remember that there is a component of today’s society that argues the elderly are not important. They can no longer contribute to the economy and become costly. This approach suggests that elders feel unimportant as they age, less critical in the operations of community life. The removal of older members from society and into nursing homes marginalizes elders, making them ripe for exploitation. While each of these approaches may contribute to the abuse of any given elder, there is no definitive statement about which is the most powerful in explaining

244

|

Elder Abuse

the phenomenon. Another variable in the abuse model is the gender of the victim and perpetrator. Gender Issues in Elderly Abuse Are elders at differential risk of abuse by gender? Because the population of elderly is comprised of more women than men, due to women’s greater life expectancy, women have a higher chance of becoming a victim. Not only are there more women, but in general women have less power in society. Research on violent crime shows that women are more likely the victims of assaults perpetrated by family members and acquaintances than those by strangers. Does this pattern hold for elders? One of the critical elements in elder abuse seems to be dementia. Those elders with dementia and related problems are more likely to be victimized. In three out of four cases where the wife abused her husband, he was suffering from severe dementia. In those cases where the son was the abuser the man also suffered from mild dementia. Dementia featured less prominently in the cases of men being psychologically abused. Daughters, fathers, and sons all abused mothers with severe dementia. For most of the elderly women who are abused, it is generally by someone they live with. Regardless of sex, the worse the health of the elder is the more likely that the elder will be abused. Overall, women are abused more than men. This is partly because women live longer but they suffer from different health issues. Elder women’s health deteriorates more over the years, which makes them more prone to being abused. Males and females are not equally likely to abuse elders. As the ones primarily responsible for caregiving, females have a greater likelihood of abusing elders. This is a point that has been quite controversial, due to the assumption that males are more likely to use violence than females and that women are more nurturing than men. While female relatives outnumber male relatives as abusers, it is wives who constitute the majority of abusers. In some studies males have been found to be more likely to neglect an elder than are women. It is more likely that men financially abuse elders, and women physically abuse elders.

HELP FOR THE ELDERLY The type of help proposed to counteract and decrease elder abuse depends on which of the explanations for abuse is applied. When the abuse is thought to be the result of caregiver stress, which is often associated with neglect, the abuse may be ameliorated by reducing how dependent the victim is on the caregiver. One way to assist is to bring services into the home so that the caregiver does not have to do everything. Meals-on-wheels, respite care, skilled nursing care, housekeeping services, and so forth have all been proposed as strategies to reduce caregiver stress. Another component in reducing stress is the use of adult day care. Skill building and counseling for the caregiver have also been recommended.

Elder Abuse | 245 ELDER ABUSE IN OTHER SOCIETIES Elder abuse is not limited to the United States, but has been defined as a problem in other societies including: South Africa, Australia, Greece, Hong Kong, Finland, Israel, India, Poland, Ireland, and Norway. Many countries do not have a consistent definition for elder abuse nor do they research its prevalence and societal impacts. The least-common type of abuse reported in other countries is physical abuse. Some definitions ruled out self-neglect as a type of abuse. Physical abuse is very rare in some countries because the culture espouses keeping harmony rather than using violence. Thus, abuse is culturally specific to the values and morals of the society. Some countries have few health care institutions available for the elderly. Failure to define behaviors as abuse may result from economic issues in different countries. They may not have adequate resources to take proper care of the elderly population that has increased as a result of longer life expectancy and lower mortality rates. Three themes related to elder abuse that many countries have in common are dependency, economic conditions and cultural change. Each of these can contribute to the likelihood of elder abuse. Dependency is a problem due to more responsibilities and demands placed on caregivers. Economic conditions are a problem because of unemployment, reductions in incomes, reductions of programs and services, and cutbacks of government assistance. Cultural change is a problem because of different traditions, industrialization, and new technologies. Differing values are also a problem because the elder may still believe in doing things the way they were brought up, but their adult children may have a different way of doing things, creating conflict between elders and their family. In order to assist elders and prevent abuse, countries should first define and address the problem at hand. Second they have to understand the problem, know why it occurs, and want to end it. And lastly they have to get assistance from the government, economy, and media so that it will be taken seriously.

If the abuse or mistreatment has more to do with the dependency, emotional or financial, between the perpetrator and the elder, which is often linked to physical abuse, the strategies change. Successful interventions might include mental health services, alcohol or drug treatment, job placement, housing assistance, or even vocational training. Sometimes emergency intervention is necessary and courts may have to assign a guardian for the elderly person. The National Center on Elder Abuse, part of the Administration on Aging of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has been active in providing assistance to both caregivers and elders. It educates and advocates for better circumstances for senior citizens and is among the many groups focusing on elder abuse. It may be hard for an elderly person to come forward and ask for help after abuse because they may not be able to do so, or may be afraid they will get hurt even worse. They can also have feelings of embarrassment, being ashamed of their victimization and expecting that no one will believe in them. There is a lot that can be done to help. Abuse reporting hotlines are available to help caregivers and the elderly. Volunteer work at nursing homes can

246

|

Elder Abuse

help identify problems or just be a friendly face who can listen to elders’ concerns. One group called Beyond Existing was formed for victims of elder abuse. This group determines the exact abuse problem, talks over the problem with the elder, lets the elder meet others that were in their position, and helps them plan for the future. Finally, there is also help for elders through physicians, nurses, social workers, and case management workers. As a public health issue, elder abuse is not expected to end but to increase. Elders are treated by health care professionals, social workers, and case management workers to make sure their needs are met. Health care professionals indicate that elder abuse adds to a health care system already experiencing problems. Nurses play a very important role in the detection and resolution of elder abuse. They work as individuals or in a team setting to assess elder mistreatment. If any degree of abuse is present, the most important goal of the nurse is to maintain the safety of the elder and possibly remove him from that care setting. It is also the nurse’s job to teach the caregiver proper caring procedures for an elderly person because they may lack the proper knowledge needed to care for an elder. Physicians have an ethical and, in most states, a legal role in the recognition of and intervening in suspected cases of elder mistreatment. To be fully successful, physicians should be aware of legal issues, ethical issues, communication needs and have a solid base in principals of geriatric care. Physicians must be able to detect mistreatment bruises from normal bruises. The presence of physical abuse marks and the stated causes of them must be documented. If a physician suspects mistreatment, she is expected to report it. It is also the responsibility of the physician to interview the elder to assess the elder’s relationship with the caregiver. Social workers also have an important role in assessing elder abuse. Their main goal is to investigate any allegations of harm being done to an elder. CONCLUSION Elder abuse is a very serious issue that society and families must examine and end. Today, there are a large number of elders that are dependent upon others for daily care; however, as U.S. society continues to age that number will only increase. To ensure that the aged are properly cared for caregivers need support and training from a variety of sources and settings. Institutions should be monitored to ensure that they have all the proper resources to care for elderly patients, including a well-educated staff that is not over-burdened. The government plays a role through monitoring and legal regulation. Health care professionals should properly assess mistreatment of the elderly and get help right away. See also Children as Caregivers; Elder Care. Further Reading: Aitken, Lynda, and Gabriele Griffin. Gender Issues in Elder Abuse. London: Sage, 1996; Anetzberger, Georgia J. The Clinical Management of Elder Abuse. New York: The Haworth Press, 2003; Biggs, Simon, Chris Phillipson, and Paul Kingston. Elder Abuse In Perspective. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995; Bonnie, Richard J., and Robert B. Wallace. Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America. Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press, 2003; Brownwell,

Elder Care Patricia J., and Stuart Bruchey. Family Crimes Against the Elderly: Elder Abuse and the Criminal Justice System. New York: Garland Publishing, 1998; Garcia, Juanita L., and Jordan I. Kosberg. Elder Abuse: International and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New York: The Haworth Press, 1995; Hoffman, Allan M., and Randal W. Summers. Elder Abuse: A Public Health Perspective. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 2006; Kakar, Suman. Domestic Abuse: Public Policy/Criminal Justice Approaches Towards Child, Spousal and Elderly Abuse. San Francisco: Austin and Winfield, 1998; Payne, Brian K. Crime and Elder Abuse: An Integrated Perspective. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2005; Pillemer, Karl A., and Rosalie S. Wolf. Helping Elderly Victims: The Reality of Elder Abuse. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989.

Lasita Rudolph ELDER CARE At both ends of the life course, infancy and old age, the question of care is paramount. Not only do discussions revolve around the quality of care available to assist with the needs of these groups, but costs and moral obligations compound the debate. Just as young parents must decide whether to place a child in day care or find an alternative so that the child may be cared for at home, adult children and their aging parents must decide how best to care for the aged. Is home care by a family member or skilled nursing care in an institutional setting most appropriate? Often families agonize over the decision of how to care for their loved one. Many times, financial limitations determine the options more than does personal preference. BACKGROUND Even though the nuclear family has been the norm in American society, caring for ill and elderly kin in one’s home was common. Few options existed until the early twentieth century when nurses, who were concerned about the health and care of elder citizens, began to operate elder care facilities. Accelerated by the Great Depression, they opened their homes at a time when the elderly had few other choices but to accept their care. Nurses could use the meager income that elderly residents could provide from federal Old Age Assistance (OAA) funds. Thus nursing homes began as a for-profit enterprise. Nurses were the first professionals to begin research in the area of aging. At the founding of the United States, there were few options to care for the elderly aside from their own wealth, or the generosity of their children. Those who had neither were usually at the mercy of the poorhouses or almshouses that generally were responsible for all those who had no means of support, not just the frail elderly. By the early 1800s many young folks were moving west to seek their fortunes, often leaving older relatives behind to fend for themselves. In the mid- to late-1800s residential homes for the elderly began to appear. These were largely the result of benevolent societies such as the Masons and the Knights of Columbus. These voluntary and charitable residences were unlikely to provide medical care, but were simply a place to live. Some may have had

| 247

248

|

Elder Care

separate hospital areas where ill persons were housed. Some of the wealthier elderly began to live in so-called rest houses, which were often several rooms for rent in private homes. By the end of the nineteenth century, more options were emerging for elders. However, care in an institutional setting would not emerge en masse until the 1950s, largely as a result of changes to Social Security programs. In 1954, for example, a national survey found 9,000 nursing homes housing about 270,000 residents. Elder care today has changed in response to the needs of patients, as well as to their desires. There are many different levels of care that are available, and families often find that they need to research them thoroughly to determine which is the most appropriate for their elder relative. Aside from care by a family member, or care in the elder’s own home, options include adult day care, assisted living, continuous care communities, independent living, and nursing homes. Adult day care provides respite care. This means the regular caregiver can use services to take a break from the rigors of caring. In independent living, residents live in a community setting where all of the maintenance is performed for them. Lots of amenities and the ability to furnish one’s residence as he desires make these attractive for healthy elders. There is generally no medical staff on site, however. Very similar to independent living is the continuous care community. These are sometimes touted as the most luxurious option for retirement living because of the desirable amenities. These communities provide, for a fee, the health care support and assistance that will change with the needs of the resident. Assisted living facilities provide significant support with the tasks of daily living, changing the services as needed by the resident. There is 24-hour security and support staff presence, food service, daily task assistance, and personal support like assistance in dressing, bathing, and so forth. In nursing home care, there is medical assistance available on site, more direct supervision of daily activities, personal support, and end of life care. CAREGIVER STRESS Caring for a loved one is stressful. The literature suggests that the arrangement works best when there is at least some time for the caregiver and patient to be away from each other. This is where adult day care and other caregiver support tools can be particularly helpful. There are positive aspects to taking care of a loved one at home, usually because of the relationship between the caregiver and the elder. The satisfaction the caregiver feels, knowing that she is taking care of and helping the loved one, can help reduce the stress of the task and can improve her outlook on the role. People with higher rates of positive aspects of caregiving report less depression and more feelings of fulfillment. When the patient is mentally sharp and the relationship between caregiver and patient is close, the caregiving is viewed more positively. Likewise, the attitude one has going into the caregiving task is important in determining the attitude toward the task later. A difference between the races has been found for positive aspects of caregiving. African Americans report higher positive affect toward caregiving and lower anxiety. They also have comparatively lower socioeconomic status.

Elder Care

| 249

Older caregivers tend to view the caregiving more positively than do younger caregivers, who might see the task as a burden or interruption of their lives. Caregivers are particularly concerned with the quality of life that they can provide for their patients. When they feel that the loved one’s quality of life is deteriorating, they may be more likely to see alternatives to home care.

THE GENDER OF CAREGIVING Women do more than their share of caregiving. Today men contribute to caregiving more than ever before, but women are still in the primary caregiver role. Estimates are that more than 70 percent of caregivers are women. This disproportionate burden on women might be the result of their socialization. Gender role attitudes are learned early in life and often indicate a gender-based division of labor in families. The most likely provider of care is a spouse. However, when that person becomes unable to provide care, an adult daughter is usually tapped to fulfill the tasks. The order of care providers reflects this gendered expectation: daughter, daughter-in-law, son, younger female relative, younger male relative, and then female nonrelative. Not only do daughters perform more health care, they do it earlier in life and for longer periods of time than do men. Men usually provide financial and maintenance assistance, not direct personal care. Spouses are the most dependable caregivers and because women generally live longer than men, this usually means that wives are doing the bulk of the caring. Spouses generally provide care until the spouse dies or their own health deteriorates significantly. They report seeing the caring as part of the marriage contract. Spouses feel less role conflict and burden in taking care of the partner than do other family members.

NURSING HOME ISSUES Often the decision to use a nursing home is seen as a last resort. Much of this comes from the stigma of being in an institutional setting. There are circumstances, however, in which a nursing home can be the most beneficial option. While most assume that care outside the home is chosen because the elder relative requires a level of care that can no longer be provided by family, there may be other factors that make nursing home care and similar supportive options attractive. Unlike with other housing options, true nursing homes admit residents only with a physician’s order. Nursing home is used here to refer to both assisted living and nursing home type care settings, what is more generally termed institutional care. Many elderly people do not want to impose on their families and want to remain independent as long as they can. When they can no longer live independently the family is faced with the choice to care for the loved one at home or employ some type of residential facility, such as a nursing home. In some cases, particularly where there are few financial resources, a nursing home may be the most cost-effective option. Most residents have their care paid for by federal or state

250

|

Elder Care

subsidies such as Medicare or Medicaid. While this may necessitate the surrender of all the elder’s assets to the nursing facility, it may be the best long-term option. Many of the benefits of nursing home care relate to the tasks of daily living that may become increasingly challenging as persons age. Included would be assistance with dressing, bathing, toileting, and other hygienic self-care. Additionally, for patients who are infirm, changing positions on a routine schedule and diapering can be hard for families, but more easily managed with a trained staff. Other daily living tasks that nursing homes provide include food service and assistance with feeding, if needed. They also do laundry for residents and provide housekeeping services in their rooms or apartments. Among the factors that are comforting to residents and family members are 24-hour security and trained staff caregivers. Additionally, social and recreational activities are available to provide leisure and enjoyment for residents. Given that the oldest and sickest elderly are likely to be in nursing care, the provision of medical supervision, including physician and other health care provider visits, is of benefit to the residents and families. Assistance is just a call button away and someone can respond rapidly should an emergency occur. Socially, many residents of institutional care are very satisfied with the situation. In a nursing home there are staff and other residents with whom to interact, rather than just one caregiver. Communal living creates a bond with the other residents who have for the most part had similar life experiences. This socially stimulating situation provides a daily activity schedule and residents are encouraged to participate in it as they are able, thereby providing benefits to physical and psychological health. Even watching television is often done in a group context, thus encouraging interaction and shielding the elder from depression and loneliness. There is a long standing fear that nursing homes and other institutional settings are simply warehousing the elderly and they do not take care of the elder as well as family members would. This stereotype leads to stress over the decision and fear of additional harm occurring as a consequence of the living situation. Most persons have a fear of institutionalization and prefer to stay in a familiar setting. Staying at home might also provide the elder with a sense of independence. Occasional reports of abuse of nursing home residents also make families and elders leery of such settings. While the abuse in these places draws media attention, elders are more likely to be abused by a family member at home than by a staff member at an institution. HOME CARE ISSUES Reciprocity, giving back to those who have given to you, plays a role whether consciously or unconsciously in the decision to care for an older relative at home. When one is a child, parents provide care; as parents age, children provide care. This creates a sense of being responsible for the care of one’s elders. This can lead to guilt when factors limit the amount of care that a child can reasonably provide. This obligation is also mirrored in societal expectations that nursing care is a last resort.

Elder Care

Home care works best when there are multiple people in the family who can help provide it, including household maintenance, transportation, stimulation, and direct physical care. Loved ones who are in poor health necessitate more of a commitment on the part of caregivers. Caregiving involves much more than just providing medical assistance. Family roles and relationships may become altered in the process: economic difficulties, curtailed work and social activities, and exacerbation of family conflicts can all change the interaction dynamics in a family. It is, however, becoming increasingly possible for family caregivers to acquire the needed support to care for the elder at home. When care is directed from home, family can set up who the additional caregivers are, when they provide care, and under what circumstances. This sense of control can be positive for the family and the elderly relative. It is sometimes less expensive to care for an elderly family member at home than in an institutional setting. Particularly if funds have been established for such purposes, family members can stretch the budget by performing tasks themselves rather than hiring them out. There may, however, need to be actual physical changes to the home to accommodate adequate care for the elder. The costs of remodeling may be prohibitive. Having the elder at home makes it easier to interact with that person on a daily basis and monitor their health. This is much more convenient than having to arrange a time to travel to another location to visit and interact. Additionally, more family bonding can occur in the home compared with institutional setting. From the standpoint of the elder, it is a comfortable situation because they can retain more of their personal belongings and may not have to consolidate items like persons in institutional care must do. A benefit of home care that is sometimes overlooked is the ongoing contact that the elder has with the community. Rather than being forced to conform to a totally different routine, as occurs in some institutional settings, home care permits the elder to remain an enmeshed participant in the social life of the family and community. This occurs through continuing to see the same health care providers, attending the same church, visiting the same recreational facilities, and so forth. FUTURE DIRECTIONS There are many issues that will continue to influence the way that families make the decision about institutional care compared to home care. Among the most critical are the changing demographic patterns of the society. As the U.S. population continues to age there will be more concern about having enough spaces for all those who wish to or need to reside in nursing homes. For persons who are older but still highly functional, having some decision-making ability over their own health is expected. One of the concepts that will likely be discussed more in the coming years is aging in place. Growing older without having to move to secure necessary support services as one’s needs change can be beneficial. Advocates (such as the National Aging in Place Council) suggest that efforts should be made to support older persons remaining active participants

| 251

252

|

Employed Mothers

in their communities and experiencing fulfilling interactions by living independently as long as their health permits them to do so. An intergenerational environment is the likely outcome. This approach is particularly supportive of those of low to moderate incomes because they experience more financial constraints in the selection of care options. More institutional facilities recognize this desire for independence and longterm participation in a residential community. Subsequently, they may offer a variety of services to provide long-term options for clients as they move from lower levels of care need to higher levels. For persons who are fortunate to be financially prepared for retirement and longevity expenses, the option of assisted living and other nursing home alternatives is attractive, suggesting that these types of facilities will be increasingly popular because residents are usually active participants in making the decision to live there. As today’s elders age, they are in fact living longer than past generations due to increased nutrition, medical knowledge, and positive lifestyle choices. This means there are more so-called oldest old (persons 85 years and older) who are likely to have several medical issues with which they are contending and require more complex chronic disease management. As family size has decreased, the persons who can share the burden of caregiving, both financially and directly, are fewer in number, requiring a greater commitment from those providing care. Likewise, the continuing high rates of women’s employment suggest that there will be fewer traditional caregivers available to assume in-home care giving. Increased mobility for the population means that older people may not live in the same general locale as their potential family caregivers, giving more support to the idea that institutional care will increase as a percentage of all care for elders. Just because nursing and other institutional care is likely to increase, that does not mean that the decision about how to best care for elders will become any easier for families. Social pressures still suggest that the preferable pattern is for family to provide care as long as it is possible to do so. See also Changing Fertility Patterns; Children as Caregivers; Elder Abuse; Grandparenthood. Further Reading: AARP. http://www.aarp.org; Baumhover, Lorin A., and S. Colleen Beall. Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of Older Persons. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press, 1996; Berg-Weger, Marla. Caring for Elderly Parents. New York: Garland Publishing, 1996; Caplan, Arthur L., and Rosalie A. Kane. Everyday Ethics: Resolving Dilemmas in Nursing Home Life. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1990; The Caregiver Initiative. Johnson and Johnson. http://www.strengthforcaring.com; Digregorio, Charlotte. Everything You Need to Know about Nursing Homes. Portland, OR: Civetta Press, 2005; National Aging in Place Council. http://www.naipc.org.

Kimberly P. Brackett EMPLOYED MOTHERS Maternal employment has been the subject of considerable debate for many years. Women’s labor force participation rates have been steadily increasing

Employed Mothers |

since before the turn of the twentieth century. In fact, over the past 100 years, the number of women who are employed for pay, or seeking paid employment, has increased from about 4 million in 1890 to almost 63 million in 2001. Furthermore, between 1980 and 2000, the paid labor force participation rate for mothers of school-aged children increased from 64 to 79 percent. For mothers of preschool children, the rate increased from 47 to about 65 percent. In 2005, over half of married mothers with children under the age of one were in the paid labor force. The percentage of mothers who return to work within one year after their child’s birth has dropped slightly since the late 1990s, however. This has led some to suggest that there may be an increase of so-called neotraditional families—families in which women opt out of the labor force and in which spouses prefer traditional gender roles. Evidence seems to suggest that this opting out may be the result of a weak labor market more than a genuine change in gender role ideologies or a concern with family well-being. Labor force participation among women who must work—single parents and those with low levels of education—has continued to grow. There is a popular misconception that women, especially wives, primarily worked inside the home until the second wave of the women’s movement in the 1960s. This myth is largely based on American nostalgia surrounding the period after World War II, in which women were encouraged to leave their jobs to make room for men and return to the home in fulfillment of their natural roles as wives and mothers. It should be made clear, however, that this return to homemaking and domesticity represented a reversal from previous, longstanding patterns. In preindustrial America, almost everyone, including children, worked. Survival in agrarian economies depends on a stable and predictable supply of food; thus, all members of society must contribute, in some way, to food production. While some tasks were associated more with women than with men, there was considerable overlap in roles and most work, including parenting, was performed by both women and men. Industrialization and urbanization led to an initial segregation of gender roles and of work. Men, single women, and women of color were expected to enter into the new paid jobs while affluent, married women were expected to perform unpaid labor at home. This division of gender roles was supported by a belief system known as the “ideology of separate spheres,” which posits that work and family are separate domains and that each is better suited to the strengths and skills of either men or women. In summary, expectations for women and mothers vary according to current economic demands. Women’s employment is dependent on various social-context variables, including available opportunities for women, economic constraints more generally (on men and women), as well as the perceived rewards and costs of the homemaking role. Despite economic and social changes, this ideology has remained deeply embedded in the culture and minds of most Americans. It appears that many continue to believe that women’s natural place is at home. Even among dual-earner couples, it is more common for husbands to describe themselves as primary providers and for husbands and wives to describe wives as secondary providers or

253

254

|

Employed Mothers

to describe their earnings as supplementary. Generally speaking, most couples consider housework and childcare to be the province of women. As such, the domestic burden carried by wives results in a reinforcing cycle in which women’s contributions to the paid labor force are severely compromised, and their commitment to it perceived as weak. In other words, if women perform more housework, they are less able to contribute to their jobs or careers. This inability to contribute may be perceived as an unwillingness to contribute and thus a lack of professional commitment. Both the family and the workplace are so-called greedy institutions, demanding a great deal of time and energy from individuals. In fact, in the United States the full-time work week is quite a bit longer than in many western European countries. Furthermore, individuals often find that these domains require the most from them during the same period of their lives. That is, the demands of work and family peak around the same time. Thus, many women and men feel that it is difficult to balance the demands of career, marriage, and family. This is particularly true of women because they are expected to be the “kinkeepers”— maintaining a happy marriage, a stable and successful family, routines, rituals, and extended family ties. Not surprisingly, balance may be most difficult to achieve among dual-earner couples with preschoolers. To help achieve balance, one spouse, typically the wife, may choose to limit the time spent in the paid work force. Other strategies include seeking more flexible work schedules, although historically in the United States flexible options in the workplace have been scant. Some spouses may opt to work from home. However, studies have shown that women who work from home contribute more to housework than do men who work from home. Another consequence of the inability to balance work and family is a lack of leisure time, especially for wives. In one study, it was found that while husbands tend to relax in the evenings or enjoy a personal hobby, wives tend to be focused on housework and childcare. Because a belief in separate spheres remains firmly entrenched in American ideals, employed women, and especially mothers, often find that they not only confront conflicting role expectations but also social disapproval. Approval for working mothers seems to be on the increase, however. A 2001 survey of women found that over 90 percent of them agreed that a woman can be successful at both career and motherhood. Today, a majority of mothers are employed. This trend has prompted a significant amount of negative attention, especially from social and religious conservatives. The primary concern seems to revolve around the potentially negative effects of maternal employment on child development and on family relationships more generally. The current ideal and expectation for so-called intensive mothering requires that women be available and receptive to their children’s needs for most, if not all, hours of the day, every day of the week. There is no comparable expectation for fathers. Good fathering is normally defined as stable providing; thus, there is no contradiction between the roles of father and employee. For women, however, employment presents a challenge, at least ideologically, to the mothering role because good mothering is not equated with providing. In fact, commitment to paid work is typically viewed as posing a

Employed Mothers |

threat to successful mothering. Women who wish to pursue both a career and motherhood may feel that they must choose between two opposing, mutually exclusive alternatives. The cultural contradiction of being a working mother has negative economic and professional ramifications for women. It has been found that not only does being married reduce the chances that a woman will be promoted, but being a mother does so as well. Women with preschool-aged children have lower rates of promotion than do other women, whereas the opposite is true for men. Motherhood has a definite negative impact on lifetime earnings—this is known as the motherhood penalty. This penalty has not declined significantly over the years. Many of the concerns surrounding mothers’ employment are unfounded; there is little, if any, empirical support for them. The primary concern surrounds the effects of maternal employment on the well-being of children. Furthermore, this seems to have been prompted by a larger concern with the rise of women’s equality, threats to the masculine gender role, especially men’s role as providers, and what some believe are the long-term, negative effects of the feminist movement. For the most part, Americans are accepting of mothers’ employment if and when it is absolutely necessary to provide for basic necessities. Attitudes become more intolerant, however, of mothers who have careers and work for personal fulfillment. In fact, in recent years, there have been several instances of highly publicized cases in which children were harmed while under the supervision of a paid caregiver, such as a nanny. In such instances, it was the employed mother, not the hired caregiver or the employed father, who was held responsible for the child’s well-being. Rarely, if ever, are fathers implicated in such cases. A number of research studies have examined the question of what effect, if any, maternal employment has on child well-being. Among mothers who work outside the home during their child’s first year of life, some negative outcomes have been found. However, many factors, such as the type and quality of child care, home environment, spousal attitudes toward women’s employment, and gender role ideology need to be considered as well. After careful consideration of many of the studies examining the effects of women’s employment on child outcomes, some have concluded that, in and of itself, maternal employment has little, if any, negative impact on child development or on child-parent relationships. In fact, some studies find that children benefit from maternal employment or from high quality child care. Interestingly, a number of studies indicate that parents today spend as much or more time with children than in the past. For instance, it has been shown that in 1975 married mothers spent about 47 hours per week with their children whereas in 2000 they spent 51 hours per week with them. This increase seems to be the result of a decrease in time spent on personal care, housework, and marital intimacy. Regardless of the child care arrangement, employed mothers may feel as if they are being asked to juggle and manage multiple roles—to do it all. The idea of the “supermom” is that of a woman who successfully manages a marriage, a family, and a career with time left over for herself. The reality is quite different from the image, however. Working mothers often report feeling overwhelmed with the kind and quantity of responsibilities they maintain. Not only are mothers

255

256

|

Employed Mothers

expected to manage and execute tangible tasks such as meal preparation and transportation, but also psychological tasks such as planning and preparing for family routines. While husbands may serve as occasional pinch hitters, wives typically have an executive function, meaning that it is ultimately their responsibility to see that the household runs efficiently. Furthermore, the demands of the household are continuous and unrelenting; thus, household executives are never off duty. While women have made a substantial entry into the public sphere of paid work, men have not made a comparable entry into the private sphere of unpaid work. Even among dual-earner couples, wives perform the majority of unpaid labor in and around the home; this extra shift of work for employed wives has been referred to as the “second shift” or “double day.” Ironically, just being married seems to increase the amount of housework that women perform, as single mothers spend less time in housework than do married mothers. Because of the uneven distribution of household labor and childcare, there is a considerable leisure gap between mothers and fathers; that is, mothers have much less free and discretionary time than do fathers. Employed mothers often report feelings of physical and psychological exhaustion. Affluent couples may decide to hire outside help to assist with childcare, household chores, or both. However, research indicates that it is still wives who initiate and coordinate such services. Other couples may rely on older children to assist with housework. This may be more common among single-parent households. Over 40 percent of children have been in some sort of nonrelative childcare arrangement by the time they enter school. About 40 percent of children age 12–14 and 8 percent of those age 5–11 whose mothers were employed were in unsupervised self-care arrangements. Self-care is more common among white upper-middle and middle-class families. Lower income, single-parent, and Latino families are much more likely to involve extended family members in the care of children. Encouragingly, husbands’ contributions to unpaid work have increased somewhat over the past 20 years or so. Husbands’ involvement in household labor and parenting varies somewhat by race or ethnicity. African American couples, for example, are characterized by greater sharing and more egalitarianism. This may be due to higher rates of labor force participation among women of color as well as more cultural approval for a communal approach to parenting. Participation in housework is generally related to the relative earnings of spouses. That is, husbands of wives who earn a significant share of the total family income generally perform more housework than do husbands of wives who earn very little. Ironically, men may actually do less housework if and when they become unemployed. This may be an attempt to reclaim or hold onto an already threatened masculine identity. See also Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); Family Roles; Housework Allocation; Marital Power; Marital Satisfaction; Mommy Track; Motherhood, Opportunity Costs; Stay at Home Dads. Further Reading: Blair-Loy, Mary. Competing Devotions: Career and Family among Women Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003; Crittenden, Ann. The Price

Extramarital Sexual Relationships of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001; Galinsky, Ellen. Ask the Children: The Breakthrough Study that Reveals How to Succeed at Work and Parenting. New York: HarperCollins, 1999; Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996; Hesse-Biber, Sharlene, and Gregg Lee Carter. Working Women in America: Split Dreams. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997; Landry, Bart. Black Working Wives: Pioneers of the American Family Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000; Padavic, Irene, and Reskin, Barbara. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2002; Williams, Joan. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Susan Cody-Rydzewski EXTRAMARITAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS Extramarital sexual relationships, known to some as the forbidden sexual relationship, affairs, cheating, or infidelity, are relationships that involve sexual contact with someone other than the spouse. According to historical evidence there has always been and probably always will be marital infidelity. Opinion polls routinely find that more than three-quarters of American adults disapprove of extramarital relationships, indicating a strong cultural prohibition on participation. In an open marriage, however, an extramarital sexual relationship is acceptable to both partners despite not being accepted by social custom. Controversy surrounding extramarital sexual relationships in part depends on whether one views the practice as harmful or helpful to a marriage. While affairs are often anecdotally cited as a reason for divorce, sexual infidelity is not a primary factor in marital breakups. BACKGROUND The biblical proscription of “thou shalt not commit adultery” entreats Christians to be sexually faithful in marriage. Even though most Americans are taught that adultery is unacceptable, it occurs nonetheless, and more commonly among the male population. Reports in the United States alone show the percentage of married men and women who have had at least one incidence of extramarital sexual relations ranges from 13 to 50 percent or even higher. The debates about extramarital sexual relationships center on a person’s perception of, and beliefs toward, extramarital sexual relationships as well as the legal status of these relationships. Gender certainly plays a role in the differences in participation rates and responses to these relationships, with males more interested and likely to participate in them. According to a recent National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study based on a representative sample of the U.S. population, approximately 25 percent of married men and 15 percent of married women reported having engaged in extramarital sex at least once. Some traditions believe it is the nature

|

257

258

|

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

of the man and is expected. They are not emotionally committed, whereas females are more emotionally involved, searching for a committed long-term relationship. Males are more likely to have an outside sexual relationship at an early stage of marriage whereas females are most likely older when becoming involved in an extramarital sexual relationship. Studies show that the older the woman gets, the more likely she is to participate. Additionally, women are more likely than men to end an existing relationship (perhaps even through divorce) before becoming involved in a new one. Looking at extramarital relationships from an evolutionary gender perspective, researchers can rationalize the male involvement in an extramarital sexual relationship. To be successful in the biological reproductive process, the male has to produce as many offspring as possible to avoid being a genetic dead end. Therefore, the evolutionary model suggests that men are genetically programmed to cheat. On the other hand, the female should be the long-term committed partner in the relationship that produces offspring. She will have no more children by being promiscuous than by being faithful. Researchers Oliver and Hyde suggest that because she needs help rearing very young children and providing for her own needs, she seeks a partner who will be stable with her for at least some time. Men receive positive reinforcement for engaging in extramarital sexual relationships while women receive reinforcement for keeping their sexual activity confined to a loving, committed relationship involving a single partner. REASONS FOR INVOLVEMENT When looking at the different reasons for why males and females become involved in extramarital sexual relationships, most married men say they enter into the relationship for one reason—simple pleasure. For females, getting involved in a relationship is often done for commitment and love. The spouses’ willingness to stray and opportunity to do so are major factors to consider in determining involvement in an extramarital sexual relationship. Some relationships can be short-term, others long-term. There can be long-term effects on the family as a result of the extramarital affair. Not only can the marriage be damaged, the children can be damaged also. An affair can cause mistrust in the marriage, something that can linger for years and may never be repaired. Among other things to worry about, the uninvolved spouse runs the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. For many spouses the concern about contracting HIV/AIDS means that the anger over the affair in the marriage intensifies. While extramarital sexual relationships are generally unacceptable, and a large majority of people disapprove, affairs still happen. Research suggests that when husbands and wives become involved in these relationships, they are looking for satisfaction that is missing in the marriage. A wife who feels emotionally detached from her husband feels alone and unwanted. Searching for the attention lacking in her relationship with her husband, she finds it in someone else. Research suggests that the motivation for women to stray is to establish

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

an emotional connection rather than a desire for sexual gratification. For the husband, having an affair is primarily for sexual satisfaction. It is not necessarily that he wants to leave his wife for another woman but he wants to try something new and different. The new relationship is exciting because they may not see each other often and it has a forbidden quality. Couples may seek outside relationships due to the frequency and quality of sexual intercourse in the marriage. Most couples who have sexual affairs report feeling as if something was missing in their sex lives, so they turn to someone else. Many felt that the marriage was boring and all the excitement that was once there was gone. OPEN MARRIAGES Although society disapproves of extramarital relationships, some couples hold attitudes that permit partners in addition to the spouse. These couples permit, and even encourage, extramarital sexual encounters. Open marriage refers to an honest and open relationship between two people, based on the equal freedom and identity of both partners. It involves a verbal, intellectual, and emotional commitment to the right of each to grow as an individual within the marriage. An open marriage occurs when a married couple has a mutual understanding that each may be involved in a relationship outside the marriage without viewing this situation as adultery. While both open marriages and extramarital sexual relationships involve a sexual relationship outside the marriage, the former has the approval of the spouse and the latter does not. For most American couples, the idea of one’s partner having a sexual relationship with someone else is hurtful and damaging. Open marriages, where both partners agree that participating in an extramarital relationship is acceptable, are based in the idea that either partner may explore their sexual interests. Individuals condone the behavior; society at large does not. Because society disapproves of open marriages, couples are more likely to hide these relationships from their family, friends, and the people they work with daily. “Openly” married spouses describe engaging in extramarital sexual relationships as a key to maintaining their marital satisfaction, while other advocates view it as an opportunity for personal growth within a marriage. Generally, couples who participate in open marriage are not religious because the behavior opposes the principles presented in the Bible and practiced through tradition. Open marriages are specified by the terms polyamory and swinging. STYLES OF OPEN MARRIAGES There are different styles of open marriages. These are distinctions between open marriages based on the motive for participating and in the nature of the extramarital relationships. Couples whose extramarital relationship is based in love and emotional involvement with the nonmarital partner are experiencing a polyamorous style of open marriage. Couples whose extramarital relationship deals with sexual gratification and friendship are experiencing a swinging style relationship.

|

259

260

|

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

POLYAMORY Polyamory refers to marriages in which one or both spouses retain the option to sexually love others in addition to their spouse. According to Rubin, “Polyamorists are more committed to emotional fulfillment and family building than recreational swinging” (Rubin 2001). Polyamorists follow the philosophy and practice of loving more than one person at the same time. In other words, you can’t help with whom you fall in love and you may love several people at the same time. Polyamory is about a stable relationship, commitment, and an emotional attachment, unlike the uncommitted sexual gratification pleasure of swinging. People of this ilk have formed and organized their own society to promote the polyamorous lifestyle. Organized on June 6, 1996 in Washington, D.C., the Polyamory Society was created to bring positive social change for the institution of marriage. The objective of the Polyamory Society is to educate those who are not yet part of the society about the rules of polyamorist relationships. Another objective of the society is the social and economic support for polyamorists and polyfamilies. They are involved in the creation of a day where the families come together and celebrate and honor families and friends for their support. Classic polygyny, or one man with multiple wives, as practiced by fundamentalist Mormon groups in the United States would fall under the category polyamory. According to the Polyamory Society, polyamorists believe that extramarital sex is not the problem when falling in love with someone other than your spouse; it is the lying and betrayal. They also say that sex can be something positive if it is done with honesty, trust, and responsibility for one’s actions. Because these persons feel that love has no boundaries or limits, polyamorists can get help from the outside lover to meet the needs of his or her partner. The need can range from sex to going to a movie or just hanging out together. Jealousy is something that often occurs in the polyamorous relationships. Looking at it positively, polyamorists do not see jealousy as an emotional reaction that is impossible to overcome but, rather, as a feeling of joy from knowing the one you love is loved by someone else. It is the belief of the Polyamorist Society that they represent family values. For example, the more parents a child has to take care of him, the less likely he is to feel abandoned if someone leaves. In other societies this lifestyle is condemned and disapproved. Polyamory is not the answer if one is having relationship problems or wants a quick fix to a bad marriage. Neither is swinging, sometimes confused with polyamory. SWINGING While the two alternative relationship patterns have a lot in common, swinging is a marriage arrangement in which couples exchange partners in order to engage in recreational sex. It is also known as wife swapping or spouse swapping. Some might think of it as cheating but it is not. It is in the open because all parties involved are aware of what is going on. Couples openly agree to participate and discuss this relationship.

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

In the late 1960s and early 1970s swinging gained media and research attention as one of several alternative lifestyles. It was estimated that during that time, approximately 2 percent of the adults in the United Stated had participated at least once in swinging. It was also at this time in Berkeley, CA that the first swinging club was opened. The Sexual Freedom League later formed an umbrella organization called North American Swing Club Association (NASCA) to provide information regarding the lifestyle of swingers. People who are classified as swingers come from all economic levels, races, nationalities, and job classifications. The great majority of swingers, however, are Caucasian and of middle- to upper-middle socioeconomic class. Those who participate in swinging suggest that it helps them to see their mate as an individual and not as a possession. Sometimes couples get bored in the marriage so they look somewhere else to put a spark back into their life and into the marriage. Experiencing jealousy is common in swinging, just as it is in polyamory. This is a normal feeling, a feeling of hurt knowing that instead of reassuring you of the love and commitment your partner has for you, he or she looks somewhere else for a sexual experience. If a marriage is already in trouble, then swinging may not be the lifestyle to choose. Although it may not save a bad marriage, it may very well strengthen a good one. Interestingly, swingers often advertise for partners. Through newspapers and magazines couples advertise for partners of the same lifestyle. Psychologist Shelley Peabody found that sometimes it is not just sex that a coupled partner is looking for; they might search for intimacy as well. Combining the two, sex and intimacy, is a way to increase the number of one’s friends as well as the number of sex partners. However, it is believed that when the friend aspects develop more fully, the sex aspects decrease. HEALTH RELATED DANGERS OF OPEN MARRIAGES Extramarital sexual relationship in marriages can lead to increased health concerns, especially regarding the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Thirty-three percent of male swingers and 10 percent of female swingers feared catching a sexually transmitted disease (Jenks 1998). In another study, sexually transmitted diseases topped the list of disadvantages of swinging, and 58 percent of swingers expressed some fear of catching HIV/AIDS. Sexually transmitted diseases like HPV (human papilloma virus) and herpes are transmitted from partners who don’t know that they are infected with the diseases because there might be no signs or symptoms. The safest way to stop the spread of sexually transmitted infections without giving up the relationship is to practice safe sex. A TRADITION OF MONOGAMY Monogamy refers to the marriage of one man to one woman and this has been the preferred pattern of social life in Western society for centuries. Religious and legal prescriptions support the one man, one woman doctrine. Not only are the couple to be practical helpers for each other, but they are to be each

|

261

262

|

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

other’s sole source of sexual satisfaction, an idea referenced at several points in the traditional Christian marriage vows. Prohibitions on adultery and sex outside of marriage have a strong tradition in Judeo-Christian teaching and in legal statutes. When looking at extramarital sexual relationships from a Christian perspective, many faith traditions say everything God created is good when it is used properly, including sex. He gave humans the capacity to enjoy sex so he made it a vital part of us, wanting it to be as rewarding and pleasurable as possible. Christians are admonished to make careful and wise choices, so when choosing a partner, be selective. This is the person to whom one will be bound for the rest of their lives. The Bible teaches that sex outside the marriage is wrong. The marriage is between the man and the woman and their needs, not those of the couple and their external lovers. In the Bible Ephesians 5:31 says of marriage that, “the two shall become one flesh.” This being true, man should be of one woman and woman should be of one man. Christian teachings stress that when two people are joined together they are joined physically; sharing multiple partners dilutes one’s soul by allowing bits and pieces of oneself to spread socially. Also, Christianity addresses the health issues regarding how this relationship can affect the entire family. LEGAL ASPECTS While extramarital sexual encounters do not generally lead to one’s arrest, there can be legal consequences. Most notable among them is that adultery is traditionally among the grounds for divorce under the fault-based divorce model. While most divorces today are filed as no-fault divorces, where the reason for the divorce need only be the couple’s inability to get along, some persons still pursue a traditional divorce. They may petition for divorce based on the partner’s infidelity. In a case such as this, the alimony payments from a husband to his former wife represent his reparations for the commission of the crime of adultery against the spouse; they are the punishment inflicted upon him for violating the marital contract. Because adultery was worthy of inclusion in the law as grounds for divorce, as a society we must think it harms marriages and should be discouraged. Another legal issue to consider in extramarital relationships is paternity. While illegitimacy was traditionally viewed more negatively than it is today, the assignment of paternity matters as it has financial obligations for the male even if he is not legally married to the mother of the child. AFTER EXTRAMARITAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS When one partner discovers that the other has been having an affair, there are many questions that arise. One may ask: Are there problems in our marriage? Did I drive him or her to someone else? Are we not satisfying each other? Moreover, upon discovery of the affair, the partners may ask if they will we ever be able to regain the trust that had been broken. Many times the couples say that

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

they cannot love and trust the partner again because doubt or suspicion will always be there. Depending on the persons involved, the circumstances surrounding the affair, and whether there was trust there to begin with, the trust can be regained. Because adultery accounts for only a small percentage of the reasons for divorce, it is clear that many persons try to work through this obstacle with the help of marital counseling. Therapists suggest that the following are required in rebuilding the marriage. The spouse responsible for the affair must sincerely apologize, and should try not to be defensive about his or her behavior. He or she must listen to the offended spouse, allowing the spouse to scream and yell, and to get all the feelings in the open. Care must be taken not to allow it to become physical. The responsible spouse needs to be patient and allow time to try and rebuild trust, as trust rebuilding does not happen over night. The responsible spouse needs to help in rebuilding the trust by not giving the other reason for suspicion. The offended spouse needs to decide if the marriage is really worth fighting for or if too much damage has been done. The couple should consider ongoing counseling. Therapist Douglas Snyder maintains that sexual infidelity is the most difficult relationship issue to treat. Unfortunately couples experience relationship betrayals. Psychotherapists at the University of Colorado examined annual evidence of extramarital sexual relationships and found that approximately 2 to 4 percent of all married men and women had engaged in an extramarital relationship in the past year (Treas and Giesen 2000). With today’s technology, having an extramarital relationship can be done with just the click of a button. Cyberspace relationships, or online affairs, are easy to initiate and have increased in number. A person can meet a partner online in a chat room and chat as long as he or she wants. Knowing that they may never get to meet the actual person, participants may not provide accurate information. One or both parties might lie about their age, occupation, attractiveness, marital status, and so forth. Despite the format and lack of physical contact between the participants, even when this affair is discovered it can destroy a marriage. Because cyberspace relationships are anonymous and so easy to initiate, researchers have yet to determine how much participation is occurring. CONCLUSION There are different levels of concealment and consent of extramarital sex. In a clandestine affair, neither spouse is aware of the other’s involvement and would disapprove if they did. In an ambiguous affair the noninvolved spouse is aware of the extramarital sex but does not confront the partner. The partner may experience pain over the affair but is likely to stay in the marriage rather than seek a divorce. A last type of affair, consensual sexual relationship, is when both spouses know and approve of the outside relationship. Each spouse may at some point participate in this type relationship. Today’s data on extramarital sexual relationships suggests spouses are torn between the commitment and sexual exclusivity of marriage and desire for

|

263

264

|

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

outside sexual relationships. However, when most couples decide to get married it is with the intent to avoid outside sexual relationships. Fidelity in a marriage means being committed to the partner and to the relationship. Despite a loosening of sexual standards in regard to premarital sexual encounters, Americans as a group still disapprove of extramarital sexual relationships. Despite the benefits that some who participate attribute to these encounters, this type of relationship seems destined to remain on the fringes. Both socially and personally, participants pay a price for their choices. Even though this type of relationship may be accepted by the partners that are involved, it may never be accepted by society. See also Marital Satisfaction; Plural Marriage. Further Reading: Cloud 9 Social-Networking site. http://www.cloud9social.com; Frinz, Iris, and Frinz Steven. Secret Sex: Real People Talk About Outside Relationships They Hide from Their Partners. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003; Jenks, Richard J. “Swinging: A Review of the Literature.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 27 (1998): 507–520; McCullough, Derek, and Hall, David S. “Polyamory-What it Is and What it Isn’t.” Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 6 (2003). http://www.ejhs.org/volume6/polamory.htm; North American Mission Board. “Extramarital Sex: A Christian Perspective,” 2007. http://www.namb.net; Oliver, Mary Beth, and Janet Shibley Hyde. “Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Metaanalysis.” Psychological Bulletin 114 (1993): 29–52; The Polyamory Society, Inc. http:// www.polyamorysociety.org; Rubin, Roger H. “Alternative Lifestyles Revisited, or Whatever Happened to Swingers, Group Marriages, and Communes?” Journal of Family Issues 22 (2001): 711–726; Sprechcer, Susan, Pamela C. Regan, and Kathleen McKinney. “Beliefs about the Outcomes of Extramarital Relationships as a Function of the Gender of the ‘Cheating Spouse.’ ” Sex Roles 38 (1998): 301–311; Treas, J., and D. Giesen. “Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (2000): 48–60; Whisman, Mark A., and Tina Pittman Wagers. “Assessing Relationship Betrayals.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 61 (2005): 1383–1391; Winking, Jeffery, Hillard Kaplan, Michael Gurven, and Stacey Rucas. “Why Do Men Marry and Why Do They Stray?” Proceeding: Biological Sciences 274, no. 1618 (2007): 1643–1649.

Linda J. Rudolph

F FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (FMLA) The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in 1993 to help employees balance the responsibilities of work and family. By 1984, 42.1 percent of all women were in the workforce. The traditional family, comprised of a breadwinner father and a homemaker mother, was no longer the norm. Women were not just choosing to work; many needed to work to help support their families. However, the workplace had not adjusted to help employees balance work and family. Many women and men were losing their jobs because they took time off to care for a newborn baby or a sick child. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW Soon enough, the United States government took notice of this problem and the Parental and Disability Leave Act was introduced in Congress in 1984 by Republican Howard Berman. The bill requested 18 weeks of unpaid leave upon the birth, adoption, or serious illness of a child, along with six months short-term disability leave, with no job loss, for employees in workplaces that had at least five workers. If an employer failed to allow employees these rights, employees could file a right of action in civil court against their employers. The bill also would commission a study on wage replacement for individuals taking leave. The name of the bill was subsequently changed to the Parental and Medical Leave Act in 1985, and then to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1987. Many of the earlier witnesses who testified to Congress in favor of the FMLA represented women’s groups, who saw the bill as a way to reduce gender inequality. Even though the FMLA was a bill to support both parents, women’s 265

266

|

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

groups acknowledged that women were the ones most likely to be taking care of children. Yet the message of gender equality was silenced early in the bill’s life when Representative Pat Schroeder stated about the bill, “Here people want to play like it is women’s legislation. Well, I mean, it’s parents’ legislation. All these children have fathers too.” From this point on, the FMLA was characterized as gender-neutral legislation that would help both mothers and fathers take care of newborns or sick children. The biggest opponent to the FMLA was small business. In fact, small business interests all but took over the conversation about the FMLA in 1987. Witnesses testifying on the behalf of powerful groups such as the Chamber of Commerce argued against a government mandate that would force businesses to allow workers time off work for the care of infants or sick family members. Small business groups believed that the cost of the FMLA to businesses would be twofold. First, they argued that they would spend a great deal of money trying to replace workers who take time off and to hire personnel to deal with the paperwork usually involved with new government policies. Second, small business representatives believed that replacement workers who were less experienced and less dedicated to their jobs would not be as productive as regular employees. On the other hand, groups that represented workers, such as unions, women’s groups, and the elderly, as well as state and local government officials, argued in support of the FMLA. They believed that the FMLA set a minimum standard that would protect workers who took time off for family concerns from unjust firings or demotions. Although small business interests could not stop the bill from being enacted, many changes were made to the bill from its beginnings to its passage. The small business lobby influenced a change in the proposed bill that reduced the number of weeks off of work allowed to 12 per year, and increased the firm size that must adhere to the bill to 50 employees. The House and Senate first passed the FMLA in 1990, but then-President George Bush vetoed it twice before he was defeated in the 1992 presidential election. By this time, the small business community no longer saw family leave as a threat to its interests after many changes to the bill. President Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act on February 3, 1993. The final version of the act allows women and men to take time off for family-related concerns. Individuals who have been employed more than 12 months with a company that employs at least 50 people may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year. Employers must permit leave to care for newborn or newly adopted children, to care for ill children or parents, for recovery for their own serious illnesses, and for maternity leave. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, individuals are allowed leave under the guidelines mentioned, but must give 30 days notice or as close to 30 days as possible if that amount of time is not feasible. Employers may request certification from the employee’s health care provider. Additionally, workers have the right to return to the same or similar position and must not be treated differently upon return to work. However, if the employee or an immediate family member of the employee becomes seriously ill and does not return to work,

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

the employee is responsible for repaying his or her share of health care benefits upon employer request. Workers are also allowed a period of time to become requalified for the job if the employee’s qualifications were not maintained as a direct result of taking leave. Finally, employers must continue paying their share of health benefit premiums; however, employees must continue to pay their share if they were obligated to do so before the leave. RESEARCH AFTER FMLA On the surface, the FMLA appears to support the roles of both men and women in the workplace. Women should not lose their jobs due to a maternity leave. Men are able to spend time with newborn children without penalty. Because the policy is relatively new, little research has looked at its results and what actually predicts leave taking. However, studies that have been performed highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the law. Studies have found that women are more likely to take leave for others (children, elderly parents, etc.), while men are more likely to take leave for themselves (“sick days”). They also discovered that women and whites are more likely to take leave and that married women who report needing leave take leave more often than married men. Having children, belonging to a union, caring for an ill family member, and working 25 or more hours per week were associated with taking longer leaves for women. Having children decreased leave length for men. Women were also more likely to say that they needed a leave but did not take it. Men working in a company with 50 or more employees, caring for a baby, caring for an ill family member, working 25 or more hours per week, being a salaried employee, and over 38 years old were also more likely to take leave than other men. Certain states also seem to be more generous and allow more time off for family issues. The more time a woman’s home state allowed for leaves, the more likely she was to take leave following the birth of a child or within the first three months of birth. There has also been research on employee attitudes toward leave takers, although the results are mixed. Men felt that their employers would look down upon them for taking leave. Although leaves are allowed, men often felt discouraged to take leaves and pressured to stay at work, a reflection of the gendered norms of the workplace. A study of one company covered by the FMLA revealed that none of the men (10) with young children had taken advantage of the FMLA. Although 14 women had taken leave, most women and men in the company believed they would be perceived as uncommitted to their work. Workers felt that if they took leave, they would not have a job when they returned to work. In these studies, both men and women felt the pressure to stay at work, but women were taking more and longer leaves. This reflects notions that women see responsibility for caregiving as primarily theirs because they feel the task would not be completed otherwise. On the other hand, government-funded research revealed that employee attitudes toward leave have been favorable thus far, with 72.6 percent of respondents somewhat or very satisfied with the FMLA. The majority of those

| 267

268

|

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

who have taken leave report few worries about losing their positions, find leave easy to arrange, and have few complaints about the amount of time taken off. If women are the leave takers, and caregiving is seen as an essential characteristic of women, it is not surprising that leave takers (women) do not have trouble arranging their time off. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Very few changes to the FMLA have been adopted since the law was passed in 1993. In January 2008, Congress approved a change to the law that requires employees to call their employers before requesting family leave. Before this, employees could take two days off before requesting that their time off fall under FMLA. Additionally, FMLA has been extended to military families, who can take up to 26 weeks off of work to care for a sick family member who is a member of the armed forces. Although there has been a proposal to allow employers to discuss employees’ health with their health care professionals, because employers fear abuse of the law, this has not yet been added to the law. Questions about how this could be reconciled with federal health care privacy statutes remain. While employers are still arguing that the FMLA gives workers too much time off, the post-FMLA research suggests the law has not done enough. Women’s groups note that the FMLA has not helped married women involve their husbands in childrearing. Some critics believe that this is because family leave is unpaid. If married couples are starting a family, and, with the wage gap, men are likely to be making more money than their wives, men are going to be less likely to take leave. Others say that the cultural and workplace constraints limit men’s leave taking. If Americans accept women as natural nurturers, women are going to take more time off, and employers may reflect cultural beliefs by discouraging married men from taking leave.

DID YOU KNOW? The United States and Australia are the only Western nations that do not provide paid maternity leave to citizens. On the other hand, Sweden provides paid maternity and paternity leave, where couples can split up to 16 months of a leave at 80 percent of their salaries or wages. Unpaid leave is also discouraging for single parents and the poor. Families with lower incomes are less likely to take advantage of leave. There is also a gray area when it comes to gay and lesbian couples. Because most states do not recognize their marriages, the majority of gay and lesbian couples are unable to take advantage of the FMLA. Thus, critics have noted that the FMLA is most usable for married, middle-class, heterosexual couples. The provisions of the FMLA reflect a traditional family structure and do not help the balance of work and family for those living in nontraditional families. Critics believe that paid family leave for both men and women would alleviate many of these problems.

Family Roles |

See also Child Care Policy; Day Care; Employed Mothers; Mommy Track. Further Reading: Commission on Leave. A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical Leave Policies. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1996; Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers. Families that Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003; Gowan, Mary A., and Raymond A. Zimmerman. “The Family and Medical Leave of 1993: Employee Rights and responsibilities, Employer Rights and Responsibilities.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 9 (1996): 57–71; Han, Wen Jui, and Jane Waldfogel. “Parental Leave: The Impact of Recent Legislation on Parents’ Leave Taking.” Demography 40 (2003): 191–200; Marks, Michelle Rose. “Party Politics and Family Policy.” Journal of Family Issues 18 (1997): 55–70; Marks, Michelle Rose. Business, Labor, Gender, and the State: The Shaping of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 1995; Prohaska, Ariane. The Gendered Division of Leave Taking. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States; U.S. Congress House of Representatives. Committee on Education and Labor. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1987, 100th Cong., 1st sess., February 25, 1987, March 5, 1987; U.S. Congress House of Representatives. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Parental and Disability Leave Act of 1985. 99th Cong., 1st sess., October 17, 1985; U.S. Department of Labor. The Family and Medical Leave Act. http://www.dol.gov/ esa/whd/fmla/ (accessed February 2008); Waldfogel, Jane. “Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from the 2000 Surveys.” Monthly Labor Review124 (2001): 17–23; Wright, David W., and Earl Wysong. “Family Friendly Workplace Benefits: Policy Mirage, Organizational Contexts, and Worker Power.” Critical Sociology 24 (1998): 244–276.

Ariane Prohaska FAMILY ROLES As the family form undertaken by the majority of the United States population has shifted in the last several decades, many people have begun to question the state of families and the roles being fulfilled by their members. Today, considerable controversy surrounds family roles. Questions emphasize whether the family roles performed both historically and currently among more traditional couples are healthier or more functional than the family roles of more egalitarian couples. Each member of a family fulfills one or more roles to accomplish the tasks of family life. Thus, a husband generally has certain expectations regarding his place in the family and the duties he should perform. The same is true of a wife, who has her own expectations about her place and duties within the family. Arlie Hochschild referred to this as “gender ideology,” saying that every man and woman has one and that it consistently impacts how each feels and behaves within the family. In addition, individuals have gender ideologies for their partners, expressed as opinions regarding the other’s proper roles and responsibilities. These ideologies are shaped by often-conflicting forces that include individual personality, societal pressure, influence of parents or other role models, and life experience. The term family roles is relatively new. As husband and wife roles have historically been divided between the sexes, family roles have traditionally been synonymous with gender roles. Gender roles may be defined as the tasks, behaviors,

269

270

|

Family Roles

rights, and responsibilities sanctioned by society and deemed appropriate for males and females. Gender roles in this context are usually assumed to be opposite one another and to have strict boundaries. This is expressed through the femininity-masculinity dichotomy. Therefore, a so-called real man would never present characteristics belonging to a woman, and a lady should never take on any characteristic considered manly. But as society changes, gender roles are becoming more fluid. As people are beginning to accept that men and women may share tasks and responsibilities without compromising their individual identities the term gender roles is being replaced with the idea of family roles. FAMILY ROLE CATEGORIES Within the current lexicon surrounding family roles, husband-wife partnerships are typically lumped into two major models: traditional or egalitarian. The Traditional Model Traditional marriages are described as nuclear families (mother, father, and children in one household with no other family members present) in which the mother cares for the home and the father works outside of it. In this motheras-homemaker and father-as-breadwinner model, male and female spheres are completely separated and partners view their roles as complementary. The woman is responsible for all home-care tasks, with the exception of some chores deemed man’s work, such as repairs or yard upkeep, and child rearing. She does not earn a wage. She is expected to put the needs of her husband and children before her own and to be an emotional support for her husband who, in return, supports her financially. The man shoulders the entire economic burden of the household. He is expected to work hard and earn enough money to give his dependents a comfortable lifestyle. Not upholding this requirement is detrimental to his place in society and to his self-esteem as a man. As the head of the household, he has the majority of decision-making power and all others are expected to defer to him. The traditional model is the idealized family form in United States society. For proponents of traditional marriage, any other family form is considered deviant, unhealthy, and dysfunctional. The Egalitarian Model In egalitarian marriages, partners view themselves as having more equal roles. However, this does not mean that everything in these marriages is evenly divided. Rather than necessitating an exact division of tasks and responsibilities, though this is possible, egalitarianism indicates a feeling of equity between mates. This means spouses feel they have achieved a balance in their relationship that is fair to both partners. Rather than assigning chores and responsibilities based on gender, egalitarian couples might divide tasks based on areas of interest, competence, or expertise. A spouse who is good at managing money

Family Roles |

could take over bill-paying duties, while one who is a good cook might prepare most meals. The responsible party for either task could be the husband or the wife. Also characteristic of these relationships is a balance of decision-making power and an equal value placed on meeting the wants and needs of both individuals. The number of people who consider egalitarian marriage the best model has grown considerably in the last several decades, and this form’s popularity is expected to continue to expand. The general categories of traditional and egalitarian marriages are at opposite ends of a spectrum along which family roles usually fall. The controversy surrounding family roles arises when people label one or the other end of the spectrum as better or right. Proponents on each side of the controversy present various arguments as to why one model is healthier or more functional than the other. Those of the traditionalist viewpoint have included Talcott Parsons, Dan Quayle, Pat Buchanan, and James Dobson. Advocates for egalitarian partnerships have included Stephanie Coontz, Arlie Hochschild, Pepper Schwartz, and Jessie Bernard. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHANGING FAMILY ROLES The main thrust for the shift in family dynamics and role expectations was the Industrial Revolution. This movement, which began for the United States in the early 1800s and ended around 1910, revolutionized the way North Americans related to work, society, and family. Three distinct stages of society are often identified in relation to this unprecedented upheaval of human life: preindustrial, industrial, and postindustrial. Preindustrial Times The preindustrial age can be described as all human history prior to the Industrial Revolution, but it is often taken more specifically as beginning with hunting and gathering societies. Within this era, the United States is a special case. Although native inhabitants lived for centuries in hunting and gathering tribes or bands in North America, the predominantly European peoples who colonized the land were agriculturalists. Thus, the literature on United States family forms often ignores Native American family structures and begins with the family models presented by European farmers. Consequently, beginning with the colonial period and spanning the centuries until the Industrial Revolution, the locus of economic productivity in North America was the family. Husbands, wives, and children were generally self-sufficient in meeting survival needs, both physical and emotional. Everyone worked for the good of the group, and while men’s work tended to focus in the fields and women’s in the home, both sexes pitched in with tasks in the other’s realm. Both male and female labor was crucial for life, and each sex valued the other’s contributions. A system of exchange was enjoyed by family members where each worked and produced in order to advance the survival of all. In this

271

272

|

Family Roles

way, rather than based on romance, marriage was an economic contract between two individuals or those individuals and their families. Although nuclear families predominated, the full traditional model did not exist at this time. Women held a subordinate position in society as their husbands’ helpers, but their labor within the home was well-valued. In addition to producing vital materials and providing services, many wives also participated in the cottage industry. This involved the household production of goods, such as candles or cloth, which could be traded within the community. Thus, in preindustrial times women’s domesticity and work were merged. Industrial Times The dawning of the Industrial Revolution in North America brought extraordinary change within society. As everything around them transformed, families had to adapt and the familial landscape was radically altered as a result. The nexus for this was the advent of the mass production of goods that were previously produced within individual households. As wage work within factories took over, people came to depend on it as a means for survival. Although many women worked in factories, especially in the beginning, eventually the idea of separate spheres emerged. Under this ideal, men became responsible for the instrumental role of tending to their families’ financial needs. Women took over the expressive role, tending to the emotional, social, and moral needs of their families. Because of this, husbands’ and wives’ roles were divided between work and home respectively, with clearly delineated boundaries between them. Men were given the duties of social production, or the work of making goods or providing services for a wage, and women took up the work of social reproduction, or the duty of caring for family and home. These separate spheres marked the heyday of the traditional family. During this time, more families accurately fit the description of this model than had ever previously or since. Found among the majority of middle- and upper-class families, though rarely in working- or lower-class families, the traditional family became so idealized that people seemed to forget that it had only recently come into functional existence. As husbands became responsible for the financial well-being of households, they were thrust into what is known as the good provider role. The ideology of this role connected a man’s self-worth to how well he could provide for his family. Men were considered tireless machines of production whose most vital function was to bring wages into the home. Finding a well-paying job was crucial, and any male who could not support his family financially was labeled as less than a man. Women, in turn, became subject to the Cult of True Womanhood. This ideology, put forth by the media, ministry, and other authority figures, emerged to justify the position of women in the home. Women were told the best service they could do themselves, their families, and their communities was to uphold the four virtues of True Womanhood—piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity—and that they would find true fulfillment and happiness in doing

Family Roles |

so. By endowing women with such high morality, society tried to disguise their true place of subordination to men. Much later, in the 1970s, a different ideology arose with the same goal. During World War II, the domestic labor shortage from the deployment of men to war in Europe and the Pacific changed the lives of countless women forever as they left their homes to fill empty manufacturing, service, and other positions across the nation. While society encouraged this for the duration of the war, when the soldiers returned women were expected to give their positions back to men and return to the home. When many were reluctant to do so, an ideal that Betty Friedan called the feminine mystique was used to encourage them to return to domesticity and subordination. This ideology told women that their true identities were those of wife and mother and that they would find satisfaction only in those roles and not in the world of paid labor. Postindustrial Times In contemporary North America, the postindustrial era has brought another wave of change affecting all aspects of society, including the shape of families. The crux of this transfiguration is the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy. Under this service economy, the value of men’s labor has suffered. Many in manufacturing industries have lost and continue to lose their jobs and find their skill sets do not allow them access to well-paying positions in the new economy. Also, service industry work is generally lower-paying than manufacturing for both sexes, and the potential money to be made by working has decreased. Adding increased unemployment and underemployment characteristic of this service economy to higher goods costs and the unchecked consumerism that has also developed creates a reality in which dual incomes seem necessary for a family’s survival. Therefore, the traditional model, with only the husband employed, is rarely a feasible or sufficient lifestyle in the United States today. But even if it were, research has shown that the majority of women would prefer to stay in the labor force rather than returning to or entering a homemaking role. The number of women holding jobs has steadily increased since the 1950s, with the majority of women earning an income today. Coinciding with this has been an increasing number of women completing higher education, which often encourages them to use their talents and skills in paid labor in addition to being part of a family at home. Despite this, women’s increase in outside work has not been balanced by an equal increase in men’s work inside the home. In this postindustrial era, the egalitarian relationship model has gained many active participants and others attempting some form of it. Although the shift to egalitarianism has often been led by a woman’s desire for equality, research has found that a number of men have discarded traditional ideals to seek more equitable relationships. Many men today report that they like for their wives to work, and that they enjoy and want to share more household and parenting tasks.

273

274

|

Family Roles

DEBATING FAMILY ROLES Arguments for the Traditional Model The 1950s, commonly called The Golden Age of Family, has become an almost mythical era in the minds of many Americans. Large numbers of people, even those who were born much later, look back on this period with nostalgia. This decade symbolizes a simpler time, the so-called good old days, when the family was an institution of stability, comfort, and reprieve. For some, these qualities are indivisibly linked with the traditional model of separate family roles for males and females. These individuals often feel that the blending of home and work responsibilities for both sexes has created confusion about expectations. They say consequently that neither home nor work is being given adequate attention in many households. When making the case that traditionalism is the best model, advocates cite varying arguments. One is the conception proposed by structural functionalism that traditional family roles provide stability, not only for individual families, but for society in general. According to structural functionalists, such as Talcott Parsons, gender stratification arose as ancient men and women undertook the tasks for which they were most suited. In these societies, due to the limitations of child care, it was functional for women to focus their energies in or around the dwelling. Men, who were not constrained by pregnancy or nursing infants, were free to travel to meet their function of acquiring meat or making war. Structural functionalists feel that the separate spheres continue to be a stabilizing force today. They propose that rigid family roles create harmony between the sexes because expectations for husbands and wives are clear under this system. Men and women both know the responsibilities and tasks that they must fulfill to perpetuate their own survival and that of their loved ones. Advocates of this view decry the blending of roles under egalitarianism, citing this change as a major contributor to the high divorce rate in the United States. In relation, some traditionalists argue that women’s entrance into the labor force has been a driving factor behind rising divorce. Popular among some politicians is the idea that the movement of wives and mothers out of the home has left a void of morality and cohesion in its wake. The absence of a full-time, homemaking wife has been blamed for marital dissatisfaction, juvenile delinquency, children’s low academic achievement, teenage pregnancy, and a number of other social ills. Proponents of this view reiterate the problem of unclear family role expectations as leading to divorce. They feel that when one of the sexes takes on the tasks of the other, confusion and marital tension result. One issue associated with rising tension and discord due to women’s work is that some husbands feel less masculine when their wives take jobs outside the home. This feeling is compounded when the woman’s employment is economically necessary for the household’s endurance, and it is often heightened when their wives earn more than they do. Due to the strong connection between identity, self-esteem, and being good providers found within several generations of American men, it can be difficult for a husband to feel good about himself or his marriage if his wife works. Additionally, in some cases, a husband may become

Family Roles |

violent toward his family, leading his wife to seek divorce. Therefore, some traditionalists might contend, the potential negative consequences of wives’ work outweigh the possible positive economic impact. The solution proposed by some traditional model advocates is the return of the family wage economy, under which a husband alone could earn enough money to support a family, and the exodus of wives from the paid labor force. A few have cited a correlation between increases in women’s employment and the current necessity for two-earners in most households. The Family Research Council, for example, has blamed women’s work for the earnings power drop among male workers, as well as the emergence of a household consumption rate that cannot be sustained by a single income. An assertion most often made by religious (notably Christian) denominations, organizations, and individuals is that traditional family roles are sanctioned by God. The creation story, found in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is given as evidence for this. Following the belief that Eve, the first woman, was created from the rib of Adam, the first man, these advocates validate males’ superior position in society. According to the Bible, Eve was made as a companion to Adam, to care for, follow, and support him, and to bear his children. Thus, traditional role supporters, such as Marabel Morgan, claim it is natural and within God’s plan for a wife to serve her husband and defer to him on all things. Likewise, God intends for men to be sole providers for their wives and children. A final contention supported by empirical research is that working women who are also wives or mothers can face negative psychological effects, such as stress and depression, from the burden of multiple roles. Supporting this are a number of studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s that discovered high stress levels in dual-earner households, especially for wives. This research found a correlation between women’s efforts to fulfill work and family duties simultaneously and the high stress they reported experiencing. Upon repeated publication of such findings, the idea of work-family conflict began to appear in the literature and media surrounding family life. A few variables have been found to add to the anxiety or depression of working wives. The first is if the woman holds traditional values about her role in family and society. When a woman must enter the labor force due to economic necessity when she feels it is wrong to do so, she faces increased guilt and anxiety. She may also resent her husband for his inability to properly provide for her. Likewise, when the husband is a traditionalist, he may react negatively to her working outside the home, thus contributing to her guilt and stress. Working wives also face added strain when their husbands do not support their work by taking over more home and child care responsibilities. The result is the so-called second-shift phenomenon, first identified by Arlie Hochschild, in which women work their first shift for an outside employer and then begin their second shift upon returning home. Men, in general, are not subject to this dual demand on their time and energy, and often feel they have fulfilled their duties by attending to the first shift only. Many women try to fully accomplish the requirements of both shifts and experience significant stress when they cannot.

275

276

|

Family Roles

Traditionalists, therefore, propose a return to divided family roles to improve the psychological health of married individuals. Overall, some feel the modern egalitarian family model puts avoidable pressure on both women and men in the form of less leisure time, increased parenting conflicts, and an elevation of general stress due to a more harried lifestyle. They claim that by reinstating the separate spheres spouses could better attend to all the tasks and responsibilities of life and would ultimately be more satisfied. TRADITIONAL FOR WHOM? SOCIAL GROUPS WHO NEVER FIT THE IDEAL Although many supporters present traditional family roles as applicable to all demographic categories of the past, overall this model was a phenomenon of the Caucasian middle and upper classes. Specifically, the traditional paradigm was one rarely realized by African Americans. African American women, in general, have always worked outside the home, first within the slavery system and later in paid labor. African American men have continuously faced outright and institutionalized racism barring their access to well-compensated employment. As a result their wives’ wages have been necessary for family survival. Therefore, African American women often do not share the personal and cultural gender ideologies which cause Caucasian women guilt over dividing energy between work and home. Instead, African American women are more likely to view working as just another integral component of their family role. Another demographic group whose majority experience has never been that of the father-breadwinner and mother-homemaker is the working class. Working-class women, a large number of whom have been African American, have rarely had the option of staying at home. Far from being averse to hiring females, during the Industrial Revolution factories regularly recruited women from the lower class. Moving from the home production of goods and services to manufacturing jobs, many less fortunate girls, wives, and mothers had to learn to combine home and work responsibilities to take care of themselves and their families. This effort continues for many today as the working class is hit hard by the shifting economy and the rising cost of living. Finally, homosexual partnerships by the very nature of the relationship have never been traditional. The basis for traditional roles is a legal marriage contract between a man and a woman. Homosexual couples are deficient on both counts of this requirement because they are composed of either two men or two women, and to date the United States as a whole does not allow them to legally marry.

Arguments for the Egalitarian Model While traditional model advocates argue that rigid family roles are more stable, healthy, and functional, egalitarian model advocates provide evidence contesting these claims. Many refute the assertion that the father-breadwinner mother homemaker-structure is the traditional American way of life. Researchers, such as Stephanie Coontz, say that the 1950s family was more myth than reality, and that the family roles that became popular during that decade were

Family Roles |

an anomaly within U.S. history. For these supporters, traditionalism is but one of several possible models that individual families might follow, any of which could be stable, healthy, or functional for the particular people involved. However, those on this side of the debate often offer the egalitarian model as the most promising standard, citing many arguments as to why this structure might be better than the others, especially the traditional model. Refuting the allegation that equal roles and women’s paid work create discord and instability for marriages, egalitarian supporters suggest that traditional roles are a source of spousal conflict. They claim that troubles may arise if a husband becomes domineering to the point of abuse, taking his authority as head of the household to the extreme, or if a wife feels her complementary role is not valued by her husband. Traditional family roles can also be problematic if one spouse, usually the wife, feels that they are imposed upon him or her. Studies have shown marriages in which one spouse holds traditional ideals while the other holds egalitarian ideals to be the most subject to conflict, dissatisfaction, and eventual divorce. A possible basis for a homemaking wife’s distress is the lack of power in her subordinate position. More equitable roles can reverse wives’ feelings of despair by giving them more decision-making authority and marital power, which in turn could lead fewer of them to seek divorce. Considering traditionalists’ claim that women’s entrance into the workforce was a major contributor to increasing divorce, egalitarian advocates assert that the reverse correlation is true. Rather than seeing a woman’s increased labor participation as a cause of marital unhappiness, egalitarian advocates say that increases in women in the workforce was a symptom of preexisting discord at home. In their view, women used paid work as an opportunity to escape unhappy situations at home or to build economic and social resources they would need to survive after a divorce. Another argument presented by egalitarian supporters is that more equitable roles bring spouses together, not tear them apart. Egalitarian partners view one another as equals. They place value on sharing decision making, working together in the home, and being involved in the varied aspects of one another’s lives outside the marriage. Due to the increased contact these couples have when reaching decisions, working together on tasks, or being together in leisure, they are better able to communicate, have more to talk about, are more empathetic toward one another, and are better able to avoid or overcome dissatisfaction than are traditional couples. While their opponents feel that women find true satisfaction only in homemaking, egalitarianists say that a woman whose station is the home is subject to great dissatisfaction. Many researchers, including Jessie Bernard, have reported that marriage in general is more beneficial, physically and psychologically, for a husband than for a wife. Some also argue that this disproportion can be exacerbated when the wife stays at home. Although traditionalists feel a woman will find happiness and fulfillment in the home, a number of egalitarian role advocates argue that it can make for a lonely and unrewarding existence. Studies have shown that paid work, especially a career, is often a source of self-esteem, purposefulness, and identity for women. Employment can also be a venue for

277

278

|

Family Roles

social connections and mental growth. Those who stay at home are cut off from these employment benefits. Another issue affecting homemakers’ feelings of self-worth is the sense that the roles they fulfill in the home are devalued by their loved ones and society. While a husband may put in 40 to 50 hours weekly in the workplace, a homemaking wife is on the clock 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, some husbands have a tendency to downplay the demanding nature and importance of their wives’ responsibilities because they “get to stay home all day.” Feeling that her husband does not value what she does can have negative psychological consequences for a wife. Whether or not they have supportive husbands, homemakers generally face devaluation by society. For several decades homemaking has been portrayed and perceived as nearly effortless. Because caring for the home and children are viewed as natural actions for a woman, homemaking is considered a simple occupation. Thus, the impression continues today that women who stay at home have it easier than those who do not. This can lead homemakers to question their true usefulness and place in society. In sum, some egalitarian claimants feel that being a homemaker severely limits a woman in life goals and accomplishments, denies her a social network, and causes her feelings of loneliness, isolation, devaluation, and distress. While traditionalists’ claim that the strain of multiple roles causes stress and depression in working wives, women in egalitarian relationships experience these states less than do those in traditional arrangements. Many wives who are free to work have reported contentment with doing so. A lot of women are exhilarated by the various sides of themselves they engage when meeting the demands of being an employee, wife, and mother. Large numbers also enjoy the more balanced responsibilities and marital power they gain in egalitarian relationships. Increased marital satisfaction for spouses, especially wives, has been linked to a husband’s greater participation in housework and childrearing, actions often found in egalitarian marriages. In addition to the benefits egalitarian roles may have for women, advocates of this model point to positive psychological results for men as well. Studies find that husbands who are active in the home report greater happiness, less stress, and better sex lives than their traditional counterparts. In addition, for a number of men having a working wife eases the pressure associated with being a provider. Sharing the financial burden gives men a sense of improved wellbeing and more time to pursue personal interests. Finally, being more involved at home can help fathers have closer relationships with their children and gain more pleasure from the parenting experience. THE FUTURE OF FAMILY ROLES Family forms are not static. As long as society evolves, families will change and adapt. At no point in history has every U.S. family been defined by the same expectations, demands, or roles, nor will they ever be. Variation is an undeniable characteristic of the American familial landscape. Despite this, people will likely continue to lobby for the greater functionality of one family model over

Fatherhood

another, whether traditional, egalitarian, or some structure that has yet to be labeled. However, within the heated debate over whether traditional or egalitarian roles are better, some make the more neutral argument that the most satisfied couples are those who agree on expectations and negotiate roles, be they equal or complementary, with their marriages’ best interests at heart. See also African American Fathers; Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage; Developmental Disability and Marital Stress; Employed Mothers; Housework Allocation; Marital Power; Marital Satisfaction; Marriage Promotion; Preparation for Marriage; Religion and Families; Stay at Home Dads. Further Reading: Bernard, Jessie. The Future of Marriage, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982; Carlson, Allan C. “Love is not Enough: Toward the Recovery of a Family Economics.” The Family Research Council. http://www.frc.org (accessed September 2007); Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Penguin Group, 2005; Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books, 2000; Dobson, James C. Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle. Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group, 2007; Hochschild, Arlie. The Second Shift. New York: Penguin Books, 2003; Landry, Bart. Black Working Wives: Pioneers of the American Family Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000; Lindsey, Linda L. Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997; Popenoe, David. Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1988; Schwarz, Pepper. Peer Marriage. New York: The Free Press, 1994; Steil, Janice M. Marital Equality: Its Relationship to the Well-Being of Husbands and Wives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1997; Warren, Elizabeth. The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke. New York: Basic Books, 2004.

Nicole D. Garrett FATHERHOOD In current American society mothers often receive both the praise and criticism when it comes to rearing children. They also receive the most research attention, but scholars are beginning to more fully explore the role that fathers play in the lives of their children and in children’s growth and development. As a brief history of fatherhood in the United States suggests, there are multiple ways in which fathers can positively and negatively impact the lives of their children. The fatherhood role and definitions of good fathering have changed over historical periods, with dramatic effects on fathers’ interactions with their children. Currently, some fathers have embraced an expanded fatherhood role encapsulating more than just physical presence while others have maintained a more traditional fatherhood role as financial provider, an idea with roots in the Victorian era. It should be noted that there is tremendous variability in the behavior and notions of fatherhood throughout history. Historical resources are often limited to white middle-class sources, so the portrait of changing roles of fatherhood presented here is bound by these same limitations.

| 279

280

|

Fatherhood

SOCIAL HISTORY OF FATHERHOOD ROLES Colonial Period: Father as Primary Parent The fatherhood role has changed dramatically over time. Contrary to many current parenting and gender roles, fathers played the primary role in the home in the colonial period. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, fathers were immensely involved in the lives of their children. Fathers were in charge of the moral and religious education of their children, teaching them to read and write if they were literate themselves, and even playing a large role in the courtship and marriage process, including approving or disapproving of a potential match and providing part of the family property for the couple’s future. At the time, men were understood as having a greater aptitude for intelligence, reason, and moral character than women. Women were seen as intellectually and morally inferior to men because of the perception that women had weak powers of rational thinking that would make them more easily misled by passions and affections and that women were more likely to indulge and spoil children, so men held the power in domestic affairs. Children spent a great deal of time with their fathers and often developed closer relationships to them than to their mothers. Because of the perceived moral superiority of men, they were in charge of the moral supervision of their children and monitored their behavior. Work was typically carried out at home, so it was normal for both male and female young children to spend much of the day with their father and often assist him on the farm or in his shop. Personal correspondence letters show that children, especially sons, were closer to their fathers than to their mothers. Sons who were away wrote to the family often through the father, asking only to be “remembered” by their mother. Sons were seen as continuing the father’s legacy and good name into the future, so fathers took responsibility for their successes and failures. Mothers did play a role in parenting. Daughters were more likely than sons to spend longer amounts of time with their mother and develop a closer relationship. Daughters would often do household tasks with their mother, preparing for their future roles as wives and mothers. Mothers were also in charge of taking care of infants and breastfeeding them. However, once they were weaned off of breastfeeding, children were more likely to be looked after by their fathers. Fathers in the colonial period were largely seen as the primary parent. The moral and intellectual superiority attributed to men made them the best candidates to be a role models and supervisors of the moral conduct of their children. The importance placed upon fathers as parents is demonstrated by the fact that in the event of a marital separation, fathers were typically awarded the overall rights of child custody. Victorian Era: Separate Spheres Separating Fathers from Family The nineteenth century experienced rapid change on many levels. One of the most fundamental changes during this period was the increasing separation of work and home. With industrialization, men had to leave the home for income-

Fatherhood

producing work. Previously, most working activity occurred at home, especially on farms. This transition to work outside the home led to separate spheres of domain for women and men. The female domain became the home while “the world,” or everything outside of the home, became the domain of men. Women became the primary parents in charge of rearing children. Not coincidently, the cultural conception of female character changed as well. Women were no longer seen as morally inferior, and instead were now seen as pure and virtuous, which made them especially qualified to care for the children. A new emphasis in fatherhood emerged in this new economy—that of father as provider. In this period, the main role of fathers was to provide for the economic needs of the family. This was not always easy to do in nineteenth century America because of limited opportunities. Failure to provide for his family affected a man’s sense of self-worth. On the other hand, success as a provider could lead to more time spent at work, and limit, to an even greater degree, how much time men could spend with their families. This, of course, affected the relationships of fathers to their children. Contrary to the colonial period, children were more likely to be closer to their mothers than their fathers. Men became part-time parents, and the fatherhood role emphasizing interaction with children became less prominent. Men had to leave home for long periods of time during the day to work, and thus could only spend limited amounts of time with their children. Fathers would still play with children and interact with them to some extent when they were home, including providing discipline. They would also provide advice and guidance to their sons regarding occupations. Because of the sacrifices men made to work outside the home and bear the risks associated with the world outside the home, fathers expected respect, affection, and deference from their families when they came home. The world was associated with disorder, temptations, and vice, whereas the home was seen as pure and innocent. Many of the characteristics leading to success in the outside world were too harsh for the purity and sacredness of the home. Men had competing cultural messages regarding the way they were supposed to behave in work settings versus in the home. All of these developments led to a pattern of more limited fathering and an increased domestic role for women. Consequently, nineteenth century child custody patterns increasingly shifted toward entrusting children to their mothers rather than their fathers. Modern Era: Slowly Shifting Fatherhood Roles Just as the shift toward more limited fathering was related to changes in the types of employment for men, shifting fatherhood roles in the modern era are related to changes in the rates and types of employment for women. During the Great Depression and World War II, women found themselves in a position in which they were encouraged to work outside of the home. During the Depression, it was difficult to find employment, so the family often welcomed any opportunity for one of their members to work. During World War II, as men left to fight in the war, there was a demand for female labor to fill the positions

| 281

282

|

Fatherhood

left vacant when men went overseas. Even married women, often with children under 14 years old, became employed for pay. The cultural myth is that once the war ended, men went back to their jobs and women went happily back to the home. However, the reality is that not only did most women not leave the workforce, but the rates of female employment actually increased after the end of World War II, which was a period of great prosperity and consumerism. People who had suffered through the difficulties of the Depression now wanted to buy all of the luxuries and material goods they previously could not afford. Despite postwar inflation driving prices up, they wanted to engage in the consumerism of the era. Women could work to help families afford these goods. Men typically were still the main breadwinners of the family, but a single income could no longer suffice if a family wanted to keep up with this consumerism. Soon, women were working for reasons other than just the support of the family’s consumer habits. Many found working outside the home fulfilling, and as the number of single mothers rose, many had to work to support their family without the income of a husband. Despite these structural realities, the cultural message continued to suggest that the ideal family would have a breadwinning husband and a homemaker wife and mother who was not employed. An important characteristic of female workers is that many of these women were married with small children. Many women outsourced child care through family members or child care facilities. Fulfillment of gender roles became less clear as women wanted a larger part in the outside world. It became increasingly difficult for middle-class families to live off of one income, that of the father, and still maintain their standard of living. Consequently, the father as the provider ideal diminished somewhat as mothers played a larger role in providing for the family. Although there is evidence of a second shift, in which women take care of family and household responsibilities after they have put in their time at work, some fathers are slowly increasing their roles as parents. Cultural patterns, although with some vestiges of norms from the Victorian Era, are shifting to recognize and even to accept that women are sharing in the economic productivity of the family and encouraging men to take on more household and parenting responsibilities. However, increased fathering is still more of a voluntary role than a cultural prescription. Because child care can also be outsourced to daycare facilities, nannies, and the like, fathers do not necessarily experience the same pressure to provide more child care with the employment of their wives as mothers did in the Victorian Era when their husbands left the home to work. There is a subset of fathers who have wholeheartedly embraced an expanding role of fatherhood. They spend more time with their children and are more involved in their daily activities, such as helping with homework, time spent in leisure together, going shopping together, going to religious services or church-related events together, and talking about achievements and problems with each other. These fathers often have more egalitarian gender roles and believe in sharing the responsibilities of children, household, and finances with their wives. On the other hand, with the increasing incidence of divorce and single parenthood, there has also

Fatherhood

been an increasing trend of absent fathers. These fathers may be absent from both the home as well as from involvement in the lives of their children. However, the men’s liberation movement and the Fatherhood Foundation encourage men to shed the oppressive cultural attitudes that prohibit them from becoming good fathers. They provide goals and models for fatherhood today. FATHER ABSENCE AND ITS EFFECTS These historical trends summarized above have influenced the roles that fathers play in their children’s lives today. There is both an increasing trend of a subset of fathers playing larger roles in the lives of their children and in the household and another increasing trend of a subset of men who are absent fathers. With increasing divorce and nonmarital childbirth in recent decades, as well as child custody typically being awarded to mothers, fathers are increasingly absent from the home. It may become more difficult for fathers who do not reside in the same household as their children to play a larger role in their children’s lives on a daily basis because they may have to contend with financial, distance, and time issues when trying to visit their children. Father absence, typically measured in terms of fathers not residing in the same household as the child, has a myriad of negative consequences for children. Children with absent fathers tend to have lower academic achievement, to be held back a grade, and to be suspended from school. In terms of higher education, they are more likely to drop out of high school, less likely to attend college, and more likely to drop out if they do attend college. There are also numerous social consequences for children with absent fathers. They are more likely to experience problems such as insecurity, immaturity, and disobedience. Children without fathers residing in the household are more likely to run away from home and to get into trouble with the police. Children with absent fathers also have higher rates of early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy, and they are more likely to lack steady employment. Clearly, having an absent father can lead to negative ramifications affecting the life chances of children in many ways. There are, of course, financial ramifications for children with absent fathers as well. Although some fathers pay adequate child support, a large subset of fathers pay nothing or very little. This phenomenon of many fathers not providing much money for child support, combined with lower overall earnings of women in the labor market compared with men, produces difficult situations for single mothers trying to support their children, which can affect the life chances of children in many ways. Single-mother households are more likely to be living in poverty than two-parent households, which often leads children to attend schools with fewer resources. Lack of child support payments have been linked to lower grades for children and increased behavior problems at school. Having an absent father reduces the chances of children going to college, which has many ramifications on future earnings. In short, the absence of fathers from the household can lead to many negative psychological and financial consequences, which can reduce the life chances of children.

| 283

284

|

Fatherhood

FATHER PRESENCE AS A MORE MEANINGFUL MEASURE The primary measure of a father’s contribution to the lives of his children has often been whether he financially provided for them and lived in the same residence with them and their mother. Father residence has often become synonymous with father presence. The assumption in most research studies of fatherhood has been that fathers who live with their children are always better fathers than those who reside apart from their children. However, this assumption may not necessarily reflect reality. Noted fatherhood researcher Michael E. Lamb suggests that a broader and more inclusive conception of fatherhood will provide greater insight into the fatherhood role. Researchers are beginning to define father presence in more meaningful terms than residence in the same household as his children. It is a reasonable scenario that a father may be present in the household, but he may not be present to his children. He could be emotionally unavailable and uninvolved, which can have devastating effects on children. It is also a reasonable scenario that children may maintain a close relationship with a father who is present in their lives despite not being present in their household. Some nonresident fathers are still able to spend a large amount of time with their children. Fathers may be an integral and influential part of a child’s life without having to live with that child. Thus, an important development in research on the effects of father presence on children is the use of more meaningful measures of father presence than merely residence in the household. There have been a number of ways researchers have begun to redefine father presence beyond residence in the household. Some studies have examined father presence in terms of father involvement such as spending time with children, helping with everyday activities such as homework, supervision or monitoring of the children’s behavior, as well as satisfaction with children’s relationships with their fathers and in terms of closeness to fathers. Adolescents who are more satisfied with their relationship with their fathers are likely to have fewer symptoms of depression, greater well-being, and higher self-esteem. Fatherhood researcher Paul Amato found that closeness to the father is related to children’s better academic performance and fewer externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors. In addition to measuring father presence in more meaningful ways, it is also important to take into account whether or not fathers reside with their children. If we take, for example, the more meaningful measure of closeness to the father as defining father presence, and it is still significant after taking into account father nonresidence, then that shows that these new ways of measuring father presence may be more important for children’s outcomes than father nonresidence. This has been done in a recent study that found that children who are closer to their fathers engage in significantly fewer delinquent activities than those who are not as close to their fathers, even after controlling for whether or not the father resided in the household with his children. Thus, children who were still close to their nonresident fathers were better off in terms of committing fewer delinquent behaviors, which can have a positive impact on their life

Fictive Kin |

chances. This phenomenon demonstrates the importance of defining father presence in more meaningful terms than merely father-child residence. CONCLUSION Finally, when thinking about fathering, we need to remember that fathers learn their role from their culture, including their own fathers. The changing roles of fathers over time have lead to much debate about the way to perform the role of father today. Noted fatherhood researcher, Frank Furstenberg, has suggested that fathers are viewed in two opposing ways, as either “good dads” or “bad dads.” He identifies the growing divergence of the behaviors of fathers who are present in their children’s lives and those who are absent (not merely nonresident). Due to the positive impact that present fathers can have on the lives of their children, it is important for more fathers to embrace the expanded fatherhood role that fosters the father-child relationship and can have enormous effects on the life chances of children. See also African American Fathers; Deadbeat Parents; Marriage Promotion; Parenting Styles; Stay at Home Dads. Further Reading: Coltrane, Scott. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; Demos, John. Past, Present, and Personal: The Family and the Life Course of American History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986; Fatherhood Foundation. http://www.fathersonline.org/; Furstenberg, Frank. “Good Dads—Bad Dads: Two Faces of Fatherhood.” In The Changing American Family and Public Policy, ed. Andrew J. Cherlin. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1988; Marsiglio, William, Paul Amato, Randal D. Day, and Michael E. Lamb. “Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s and Beyond.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, no. 4 (2000): 1173–1191; United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Fatherhood Reports.” http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/_/topic/subtopic.cfm?subtopic=376; Whyte, Paul. “An Introduction to Men’s Liberation.” http://www.gelworks.com.au/MENDO CUM.NSF/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/befd776247d76f99ca2566430043201 b!OpenDocument.

Patricia A. Thomas FICTIVE KIN Throughout history the kinship group has been necessary for survival. Kinship is defined as a form of social organization that ties individuals to others by marriage or descent. In tribal societies the tribal elders set laws and the kinship group defended themselves from outsiders, provided order, helped the less fortunate, and recruited outside members through marriage. Today, the functions of the kinship group have been replaced by the state that makes the laws, protects its members from enemies, and provides for the poor. Fictive kin extends the functions of the kinship group to describe a relationship that consists of nonrelatives, has many characteristics of kin relationships, and is based on religious rituals or close friendship ties. Other terms for fictive kin include pseudo-kin, quasi-kin, or social families.

285

286

|

Fictive Kin

FICTIVE KIN THROUGH HISTORY Dating back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Northwest Europe, colonial America, and early twentieth century America unrelated nonblood relatives can be found living together. In Northwest Europe, particularly England, as far back as perhaps the fifteenth century servants or apprentices lived in the homes of persons to whom they were not related. This pattern continued in Colonial America. In Northwest Europe and Colonial America these servants or apprentices were considered a part of the household, lived as members of the family, and even participated in meals. Social class or money was not a limitation for having servants in the household or sending children to work in another household. A peasant would send out his own children to work as a servant and bring in other young men and women to work the land or as an apprentice with craftsman such as a butcher, baker, mason, or other skilled tradesman. One of the arguments for why families of the time were so large is that they expected to cede at least some of their children to others to care for because apprenticeships beginning by the age of 10 were not unheard of. Unrelated individuals can be found living together in the urbanizing America of the late 1800s and early 1900s, though the apprentice system had largely dissolved by this time. As America urbanized, become more industrial, and jobs moved from the small towns and farms to the growing cities, unmarried young adults moved to the new urban areas. During this time wages were low, the United States was experiencing an influx of immigrants creating a housing shortage and driving up the cost of rent. Furthermore, modern convenience technologies such as refrigerators, microwaves, and inexpensive fast food did not exist and food preparation was a time-consuming process. The expense of setting up a household and the time it took to complete chores made establishing a household as a young adult an expensive if not impossible undertaking. In order to compensate for the economic shortfalls, most young adults became either a boarder or lodger in someone’s home. A boarder is someone who stays in a nonrelative’s home and eats food (room and board), and a lodger is someone who only rents a room and meets other daily needs elsewhere. Other options included boarding houses, where large numbers of young people would pay for room and board in the same physical space. The family that took in these young people benefited because the money contributed by the boarder replaced the income that was lost when a child moved out of the home. FICTIVE KIN CROSSCULTURALLY In addition to the historical presence of fictive kin relationships, fictive kin relationships can be found worldwide. Fictive kin relationships can be found in Spanish-speaking countries, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. Anthropologists completed the first study on nonblood relationships based on the Catholic ritual of baptism. The practice, known as compadrazgo, consists of a godparent being appointed to oversee the well-being of the child. The godparent is appointed at baptism and is to instruct the child in spiritual matters, also providing material and emotional support. Compadrazgo exists throughout Latin America, is

Fictive Kin |

supported by Catholic doctrine and ritual, and is required under Canon Law. Anthropologists have documented customs similar to compadrazgo in Spain, eastern Turkey, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, Sri Lanka, and Belgium. Not all fictive kin relationships are tied to religious traditions. Ddharmaatmyor of rural Bangladesh have a kinship structure that ties together diverse groups. Muslims may have fictive kin ties to Hindus, or an upper-class individual may develop a relationship with a member of the lower class. The ties are both among and between these groups. The fictive kin relationships may include godmother, godfather, godbrother, godsister, or friend and offer social and economic advantages. A couple without children may have a godchild or a poor family may establish a fictive kin relationship with a wealthier family who will exchange financial support for taking care of them in their old age. There are endless forms and ways fictive kin relationships are organized, but many of the fictive kin relationships replace the functions of the family, such as providing spiritual growth, social control, financial, and social support. THE LANGUAGE OF FICTIVE KIN RELATIONSHIPS Fictive kin relationships have a historical and cross-cultural significance, and evidence of the importance of these relationships can be found in language. Language showing familiarity without legal and biological ties can be found among African Americans, Hispanic Americans, European Americans, Japanese Americans, Haitian immigrants, and gays and lesbians. The use of family terms for nonfamily members is a verbal way of showing closeness, and reinforces to the individuals involved and others the significance of the relationship. A woman using the term “sis” to address another woman does so in order to signify an additional level of closeness. African Americans, especially poor African Americans, rely heavily on aid from family members and extended friendship networks. The friendship networks are built, reinforced, and held together through the black church. A set of terms has developed that represents these extended networks. The terms used by African Americans include “play mother, sister, brother,” and so on, “like a second mother,” “godmother,” or “godfather,” “church mother, aunt, or uncle,” or “going for brothers.” These terms signify to the participants and observers of such relationships that the relationship has family-like feelings and functions, even if the participants are not linked by traditional family means. Hispanic Americans have a similar group of terms including “compadrazgo,” “la familia,” “hijos de crianza,” “comadre” and “copadre” while European Americans use “godparent,” “adopted daughter,” “aunt,” “sister,” “uncle,” and so forth. Gay families use the term “quasi-kin,” the Japanese use “brother by religion” or oyabun-kobun, and Yoruba and Haitian immigrants use kouzin. THE FUTURE OF FICTIVE KIN RELATIONSHIPS One battleground for the study of fictive kin relationships is whether these types of kin relationships will increase or decline in importance. Fictive kin

287

288

|

Fictive Kin

relationships have served many purposes and can be found in a number of historical time periods, in different countries, and in a variety of cultural and ethnic groups. For example, in one of the most extensive studies of modern fictive kin relationships, Carol Stack reported that these relationships were crucial in providing emotional and financial support for inner-city black women. Of particular importance were the child care and financial support functions that older women provided to younger single women with children. What about the future role that fictive kin are likely to play in the lives of families? Will fictive kin become less or more important as society changes? In traditional communities kinship groups regulated marriage, fulfilled religious and ceremonial functions, and satisfied social and economic needs. As societies move to become more modern, secular, and urban, the family may no longer be able to meet these needs. It is well documented that more competing forces and alternative ideas are present in modern society compared to premodern society. According to a study of 21 rural Mexican communities, fictive kin relationships played the biggest roll in the organization of the communities that were in the transition to modernization. One future possibility is that fictive kin relationships will continue to play a crucial roll in those communities that are transitioning to a more modern state. Once modernization occurs, however, the family may be replaced by domestic groups, governmental agencies, and occupational and social associations. In this scenario fictive kin relationships would become less important over time as formal institutions more directly govern the lives of individuals. The opposing argument suggests that social change may increase the need for fictive kin. The American family has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. Among the most notable changes is increasing ethnic diversity that exposes all of society to different cultural norms and family organizations that they may wish to adopt. Demographic changes have a strong potential to necessitate fictive kin arrangements. As declines in fertility and mortality rates continue, the result is people have smaller families and live longer. With more generations alive at one time, this results in the family tree becoming more vertical, thus sibling type relationships might be sought outside of the biological family. Among the factors that have been proposed for the present rates of social family formation in the United States is high geographic mobility. With more persons moving away from their families of orientation for work or educational opportunities, family members are increasingly dispersed over a wide distance and have less physical contact and ability to help with crises that arise. As rates of marriage remain low, one should remember that people who are single, divorced, or never married are less likely to maintain family relationships, but often form very close and supportive friendships. Divorce and remarriage create complex living arrangements where there are few standards for postdivorce familial ties. As divorce rates remain historically high, questions over dissolved kinship become important. While no longer ones in-laws, the affective and practical bond may remain between former partners’ families. In remarriage, children in particular may adopt the parents of their new step-parent as grandparents, even using the familial language to classify the relationship.

Foster Care |

All of the family change indicated above has created complex living arrangements with few rules and norms. With all of these changes, alternative family forms will continue to be present, will increase in importance, and take the place of the traditional family. Clearly families of choice have come to fulfill some of the myriad functions that biological families have played over time. See also Biological Privilege; Common Law Marriage; Domestic Partnerships; International Adoption; Nonmarital Cohabitation; Pet Death and the Family; Plural Marriage; Transracial Adoption. Further Reading: Demos, John. A Little Commonwealth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970; Ebaugh, Helen Rose, and Mary Curry. “Fictive Kin as Social Capital in New Immigrant Communities.” Sociological Perspectives 43 (2000): 189–209; Hajnal, John. “Two Kinds of Preindustrial Household Formation System.” Population and Development Review 8 (1982): 449–494; Ibsen, Charles, and Patricia Klobus. “Fictive Kin Term Use and Social Relationships: Alternative Interpretations.” Journal of Marriage and Family 34 (1972): 615–620; Johnson, Colleen. “Perspectives on American Kinship in the Later 1990s.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2000): 623–639; Liebow, Elliot. Tally’s Corner. Boston: Brown and Company, 1967; Stack, Carol B. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Christy Haines Flatt FOSTER CARE Defining foster care is a challenge in itself. The most often stated definition for foster care is “care given outside a child’s natural home for more than 24 hours when the child’s home is not available to him or her excluding children at camps, in hospitals, or on weekend visits” (Stone 1970). This definition implies that the parents cannot provide adequate care for some serious reason. The essential element of foster care is childrearing responsibility shared with the child welfare agency, the original parents, as well as the foster parents, the child care staff, and social workers. Foster care also has an expectation that it is of a limited duration; it is not a permanent method of childrearing but a temporary solution to a crisis in the home. A simpler definition for foster care is simply “a generic term for children living in out-of-home care” (Curtis, Dale, and Kendall 1997). Historically, foster care was referred to as boarding out, implying that foster parents were almost always nonrelatives. These persons were reimbursed the expenses of caring for dependent children residing in their household on the assumption that the arrangement was a temporary one. The four basic types of foster care in the United States are: family (nonrelative) foster care, kinship (relative) care, therapeutic foster care, and residential group care. A thorough examination of the child welfare system, or foster care, in America finds that problems in foster care are similar to the issues that need to be addressed in the larger society as well. These issues include race, class, gender, government funding or lack thereof, acceptance of people with mental and physical disabilities, among other issues.

289

290

|

Foster Care

The foster care system is imperfect because it has to deal with a myriad of complex social problems. When one is dealing with imperfection, it would be impossible to create a perfect system. Our foster care system works with the worst aspects of social problems within our society. As a result, a social worker’s job is not easy. A child welfare worker, during the course of a typical workday, could have to remove a child from a family that has physically, emotionally, or sexually abused the child, and then turn around and go to another house and attempt to find a solution for a child who has severe physical or emotional disabilities. Social workers are constrained by laws that limit what they can do. While they are thought to be the last line of defense in the care of a lost child, they rarely have adequate resources and community support to protect children who are in the direst situations. Roughly 500,000 children are in foster care in America. African American children make up two-thirds of the foster care population and stay in foster care longer than the average child. About 30 percent of children in foster care have emotional, behavioral or developmental problems and the average age of a child in foster care is 10.1 years old. The number of children in out-of-home care is enormous. According to the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), in 2006 the national mean per state was 9,993 and the national median was 6,803. California had 92,344 children in foster care, the largest total in any state. Wyoming had the fewest children in foster care with 1,209. Any attempt for a state to create a better foster care environment must first recognize the number of the children in foster care and then budget accordingly for an adequate caseload per social worker. The Child Welfare League of America has set up recommended caseload standards for each state to follow. The CWLA recommends that one social worker should have at most 12 to 15 children that are in foster family care. The CWLA also recommends one supervisor for every 5 social workers. Additionally, there are guidelines suggesting that more than 12 initial assessments or investigations per month would be too much for one social worker. Many states have strains on their budgets, which cause these recommendations to go unfulfilled. Instead the state follows the guidelines that they have already established, which are likely to be less stringent than the CWLA recommendations. There is very little uniformity in foster care among the states. Our system of federalism as well as budgetary constraints in each state strain the uniformity in the child welfare process; therefore varying standards of care among each state are bound to occur. In a way, each state is its own laboratory of experiments working to design a child welfare system that is responsive to each child within the budget limitations that each state has to work with. BACKGROUND English colonists arriving in the United States brought the Poor Law System with them. Long after the American Revolution, the well-established tradition continued to inform poverty practices. During the beginning of the nineteenth

Foster Care |

century, adults and children were cared for with very little or no distinction. Almshouses were gaining in popularity for the care of both the children and the elderly in large cities. Almshouses were privately funded (usually through churches) houses that cared primarily for the poor and destitute. Agencies that cared for destitute children tended to spring up from two sources. The first of these was from public bodies that would act as representatives for the community as a whole. The second was from private donations and was exercised by benevolent individuals or associations. In 1853 Charles Loring Brace began the free foster home movement. Brace was concerned at the large numbers of homeless children in the streets and wanted to find families for them in the United States. He started advertising all across the country and would send children in groups of 20 to 40 in trains to their new destinations. Reverend Brace’s work lead to the creation of the Children’s Aid Society, as well as provided a framework for the establishment of a permanent foster care system in the United States. In 1868 Massachusetts became the first state to pay for children to board in private family homes. In 1885 Pennsylvania became the first state in the United States to pass a licensing law. This law made it a misdemeanor for a couple to care for two or more unrelated children unless they were licensed to do so by the state. In 1910 Henry Chapin circulated statistics showing that orphanages sickened and killed large numbers of children. It was Chapin’s belief that a poor home is better than a good institution. However, it wasn’t until 1950 that the number of children in foster care outnumbered the number of children in institutions. In 1935 Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), which later became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was established through the Social Security Act of 1935. What AFDC and other antipoverty programs did was give financially struggling families an alternative to placing their children in institutions or losing them forever. The program was later expanded in the 1960s and with that expansion federal funding for foster care was added. While foster care has come a long way in the United States, there are still a host of problems that are present within the current system. Many of these problems are still vestiges of our old child welfare system. However, there are also new problems that social workers are just now beginning to see and researchers are just now beginning to understand. With all these problems there will still be a long history that will be written about foster care. FOSTER CARE VALUES Foster care can be based on eight values. The first five values are described below. Maternal deprivation in the early years of life has an adverse effect on personality development, and later difficulties of the individual can be traced to a breakdown in this early relationship. This value shows the focus on child development at an early age and the need of social workers to become more engaged early with children from troubled homes. The second value maintains that the parent-child relationship is of vital importance; all efforts must be made to restore it. No child should be deprived of

291

292

|

Foster Care

his natural parents for economic reasons alone. If, for some extreme reason, a child’s own parents cannot take care of him or her, another family is the best place for him or her. The child’s own extended family is preferable to complete strangers. The fourth and fifth values speak to the role of the foster parents in the foster care process. The fourth value maintains that the rights and interests of the child take priority over those of the parents in any plans affecting him or her. Natural parents and foster parents are to be understood as individuals with their own needs, but these needs cannot be permitted to affect the future of the child. If a child cannot be returned to his or her own family, whatever the reasons, the goal is to afford the child the needed security and feeling of belonging within the foster home by making arrangements permanent, preferably through legal adoption. In addition to these five values some scholars acknowledge three other values for foster care. One value maintains that there should be a responsibility assumed by every community for seeing that a continuum of care and service is provided for children who must live outside their homes. No child should be lost because referrals are not made or adequate services are not available. Another value sets the goal for all children at minimal reasonable parenting, and this may not necessarily be tied to middle-class childrearing patterns. The final value is that criteria for evaluating foster parents should focus on their parenting abilities and their capacity to share these abilities with parents and agencies. These values have helped to shape laws in the states and helped to define ways in dealing in a foster care relationship. However, these values are not without debate. For example, how can one define what is in the best interests of the child? Is the best interest of the child going back to his natural parents? What if there is a history of abuse and domestic violence? These are all questions that have no easy answers. While one may be able to say that these values, in an ideal situation, may be good values, as was mentioned earlier, the foster care situation is not an ideal situation. Another thing to consider about these values is that different decision makers may interpret these values differently. For example, what constitutes an extreme reason for taking a child away from his natural parents? What one person views as an extreme reason may be different than what another person views as an extreme reason. Another example would be what constitutes good parenting? Is spanking good parenting? Some may consider it to be so, while others may not. While the values may be perfectly reasonable, the interpretation of those values can turn into something that may be unreasonable. THE FOSTER FAMILY Research has indicated that “children who are placed in group homes are more likely to experience emotional disturbance and behavioral problems than those who are placed with families” (Perry 2006). According to Perry this is because the foster family will provide a less disruptive environment for a youth than a group home because a family environment is more structured to his or

Foster Care |

her normal life. Most social workers want to put children in the least disruptive environment possible in order for them to either keep or regain stability in their life. So how can a foster family do this? There are five things that a foster family must do in order to be successful, which are communication, integration, flexibility, compassion, and patience. How a child reacts to a new environment will be based on the amount of success the parents, social workers, educational administrators, and other members of the community react to the child based on these five factors. It is important that before the child even reaches the foster family’s home that there is an open line of communication between all the people involved in the child’s life. This includes the foster parents, the child’s caseworker, the school administrators of where the child is moving, and the relatives of the child if possible. The caseworker is the person who needs to start the communication line but it is the responsibility of everybody involved, and especially the foster parents, to maintain that communication line through the child’s stay with their family. Successful communication leads to the next step, which is successful integration. This integration process can take several forms based on the child’s background and emotional experiences. One also has to be careful in this process because if there is a possibility, as is in most cases, that the child will go back to a natural parent then the integration must be flexible to make sure that the child can re-establish those ties to the natural parents. What a successful foster family must do is to treat the foster child as if he or she was a member of their immediate family. They must realize, however, that this child’s needs may be different than their own children’s (if they have children), so the structure the foster child lives under could possibly be different than the structure their natural child lives under. This also needs to be explained to the natural children or other foster children in the household before the foster child comes to live with them. Once they arrive and are put in school the communication line must hold firm to make sure that the teachers understand the child’s problems and the best ways to address those problems. Parents and teachers need to make sure that they have adequate records from the child’s past schools and they need to speak regularly to see how the child is integrating into the classroom, such as with making friends, doing schoolwork, and getting involved in extracurricular activities. The administrators at the school also need to be made aware of any special medications or learning disabilities the child has in order to set acceptable guidelines for the child to follow and create the best learning environment possible. A foster family has to be flexible. Children coming into their care will come with a wide range of social problems. These parents must be flexible enough to know that you cannot deal with a child who has been sexually abused in the same way you deal with a child who has lost both of his or her parents in a car accident. The school system also must be flexible enough to work with the parents and social workers in order to make the child’s transition as smooth as possible.

293

294

|

Foster Care

The last two factors are interrelated: compassion and patience. If a foster family has compassion they can begin to understand the problems the child is facing and work to find him the help he needs. However, they must also be patient and realize that there are going to be bumps in the road. The process for a child whose social network has been severely disrupted is not short but a journey that the family will have to take with him or her throughout the child’s entire stay. AGING OUT Aging out refers to children who reach adulthood while in the foster care system. Each year there are 20,000 children that age out of the foster care program, and many of these children are still in need of support or services. Imagine a child who has just turned 18 and has just been told to go out in the world with little to no social network. Imagining this leads a person to wonder not how a child learns to survive but how a child who is aged out is able to maintain his or her mental sanity. The unfortunate fact is that many of these children have a hard time coping with going out in the world without a social network. Only two percent of children who have aged out of foster care obtain a four-year college degree. Thirty percent of these children are without adequate health care and 25 percent of these children have been homeless at some point in their life (Child Welfare League of America 2007). These numbers for youths transitioning out of foster care are dramatic. It also causes one to pause and to ask, what are the options? A system that can keep the children in foster homes a few more years in order to ease into the transition away from the foster care system would probably be one avenue that needs to be examined. Also, scholarships for children in foster care for college or job training may be another area that might be beneficial in assisting the transition from foster care to adult hood. Encouraging adoption may be another step in helping children to find a permanent family. However, while the ideas above may ameliorate a crisis, it still does not get to the root of the social problems that are causing children to get placed in foster care. There needs to be an increased emphasis not only on what happens to children after they get out of foster care, but also preventing them from getting into foster care. Foster care is the intersection where all social problems meet and in order to stop children from entering the system society has to confront the social and structural problems within the country that created this intersection. FUTURE PROSPECTS The future of foster care is complex because it is not a uniform system. Each state has its own idea about how the system should be working. While there are certain values that all foster care agencies try to maintain, who interprets those values is a big issue and each state and even each judge can vary on those interpretations. Also, the state and federal funding that is devoted to foster care is unstable and prone to budget cuts. The future of foster care is also going to be based on how well society handles other social problems. If society confronts

Foster Care |

the challenges of poverty, homelessness, health care, and so forth, then the future of foster care may be optimistic. However, if society does not confront these challenges then the future may not be as bright. So what can we predict about the future of foster care in the United States? We know already that there is a strong correlation between race, poverty, and entry into the foster care system. With the growing ranks of minorities in the United States, especially minorities from Central and South America, it could be possible that minorities will come to dominate the ranks of children in foster care even more than they do presently. Immigration also brings about a whole host of questions about the legal status of immigrants in the U.S. How the states handle the children of immigrants could often depend on citizenship status. This classification of children who may be undocumented will probably lead to a host of other issues within the foster care realm. Not least among the issues could be a language barrier between the child and available foster families. No discussion about foster care can be complete without discussing the Personal Responsibility and Workforce Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) also called welfare reform. The goals of welfare reform were to promote two parent families and work among single mothers. However, an unintended consequence of this reform may have been an increase in the children who enter foster care. In 1984, 2.5 percent of children under the age of 18 lived in families where neither parent was present. There was an almost 60 percent increase from 1984 to 1998 where 4.2 percent of children lived in families where neither parent was present. While only a portion of this increase can be attributed to the federal welfare reform that was passed in 1996, there were many states that experimented with various elements of welfare reform beforehand. The increase in children in foster care from various welfare reform initiatives could lead to a decline in child well-being within the country, especially among poor families. The challenges facing social workers all across the country are not going to get any easier. In order for foster care to improve, the system has to be more flexible, but at the same time more structured, focused on prevention, address aging out, and less prone to budget instability at the federal and state levels. Policy makers are going to have to become aware of the dilemmas that social workers face on an everyday basis and create laws accordingly. Foster care is a complicated system and one that will have huge social implications for children well into the twenty-first century. See also Biological Privilege; Child Abuse; Child Support and Parental Responsibility; Gay Parent Adoption; Grandparents as Caregivers; Juvenile Delinquency; Poverty and Public Assistance. Further Reading: Administration for Children and Families. 2007. “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption.” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm; Adoption History Project. 2007. “Timeline of Adoption History.” Eugene Oregon, University of Oregon. http://www.uoregon.edu/˜adoption/timeline.html; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. “Facts for Families: Foster Care.” http://www.

295

296

|

Foster Care aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/foster_care; Bernstein, Nina. The Lost Children of Wilder: The Epic Struggle to Change Foster Care. New York: Vintage Books, 2001; Brown A. W., and B. Bailey-Etta. “An out of Home Care System in Crisis: Implications for African-American Children in the Foster Care System.” Child Welfare 76 (1997): 65–83; Children’s Defense Fund. http://childrensdefense.org; Child Welfare Information Gateway. http://childwelfare.org; Child Welfare League of America. http://cwla. org; Child Welfare League of America. CWLA Standards of Excellence for Family Foster Care, Washington D.C., 1995; Child Welfare League of America. CWLA Standards of Excellence for Services for Abused or Neglected Children and Their Families. Washington D.C., 1999; Child Welfare League of America. Special Tabulation of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System. Washington D.C., 2006. http://ndas.cwla. org/data_stats/access/predefined/Report.asp?PageMode=1&%20ReportID=379&%20G UID={4859F5C2-DD74-4AF0-AD55-8360140347E3}#Table; Child Welfare League of America. Quick Facts about Foster Care. Washington D.C., 2007. http://www.cwla.org/ programs/fostercare/factsheet.htm; Courtney, M. E., R. P. Barth, J. D. Berrick, D. Brooks, B. Needell, and L. Park. “Race and Child Welfare Services: Past research and future directions.” Child Welfare 76 (1996): 99–137; Curtis, Patrick A., G. Dale, and J. Kendall. The Foster Care Crisis Translating Research into Policy Practice Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997; Folks, Homer. The Care of Destitute, Neglected, and Delinquent Children. London: Macmillan Company, 1978; Foster Care Month. http://fostercaremonth.org; George, R. M., F. H. Wulczyn, and A. W. Harden. Foster Care Dynamics 1983–1993: California, Illinois, Michigan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1995; Jagannathan, R., M. Camasso, and S. McLanahan. “Welfare Reform and Child Fostering: Pinpointing Affected Child Populations.” Social Science Quarterly 86 (2005): 1081–1103; Lindsey, D. The Welfare of Children. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Meisels, Joseph, and Martin Loeb, “Foster Care and Adoption: Unanswered Questions About Foster Care” The Social Service Review 30, no. 3 (1956): 239–246; National Association of Former Foster Care Children of America. http://www.naffcca.org; National Foster Parent Association. http://www.nfpainc.org; National Foster Parent Association. History of Foster Care in the United States. Washington D.C., 2007. http://www.nfpainc.org/con tent/index.asp?page=67&nmenu=3; Perry, Brea. “Understanding Social Network Disruption: The Case for Youth in Foster Care.” Social Problems 53, no. 3 (2006): 371–391; Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. http://pewfostercare.org; Stone, Helen D. Foster Care in Question: A National Reassessment By Twenty-One Experts. New York: Child Welfare League of America Inc., 1970.

Derrick Shapley

G GAY PARENT ADOPTION Gay parent adoption or same-sex adoption refers to the adoption of children by individuals who prefer romantic partners of the same sex—gays and lesbians. Same-sex adoption is portrayed by the media as being a potentially good thing but with potentially detrimental side-effects, most notably for the adopted children themselves. This type of adoption is generally made to look as if it could be done but should not be for the sake of the children involved. With groups such as the religious Right, fundamentalist Christian denominations, and private religiously-affiliated adoption agencies backing the opposition to adoption by gays and lesbians, and the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, and various LGBT (lesbian gay bisexual transgender)-friendly groups of the liberal Left making up the proponents, the battle over same-sex adoption is well-defined and entrenched in a deep and long-standing debate. That battle begins with the media and its portrayal of gay parent adoptions versus the agencies and advocacy groups and their perspective on placing children in the homes and care of homosexual individuals. BACKGROUND Adoption remained for a long time a rather homogeneous action, with the placement of children in the homes of middle-class, married couples. Over the course of the last three decades, adoption went through a metamorphic change, from being merely a source for married, middle-class couples to create families to being a pathway for a number of diverse and sometimes marginal populations to establish families of their own. According to the Adoption and Foster Care

297

298

|

Gay Parent Adoption

Analysis and Reporting System, 127,000 children in the public child welfare system were waiting to be adopted in late 1999. As of 1999, the average age of children awaiting placement in adoptive homes was between 7 and 8 years of age. Many of these children who were awaiting adoption spent more than 36 consecutive months in foster care. That same year, only 46,000 children were adopted from public welfare agencies. Those that were adopted ranged in age from infants to teenagers and differed in race from Latino to Caucasian to African American. The adoptive parents were also diverse: 31 percent were single women, 2 percent were single men, and 1 percent were unmarried couples. Among these adoptive parents was also a select group of gay and lesbian individuals and partners. In the early 1990s the term gayby boom (like baby boom) was coined to recognize the increasing visibility of gay and lesbian partners having and adopting children. According to Ada White, the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) director of Adoption Services, there are many agencies that do make placements with gay or lesbian parents, but they do not necessarily talk about these adopters. Agencies are not specifically tracking such adoptions and don’t intend to track them. Consequently, the practice of adoption with many of these agencies is that they may place these children in homosexual homes but are not willing to make it public knowledge that they are doing so. The adoption of children by homosexual parents is often done so that others’ knowledge of its occurrence remains minimal. The practices of adoption vary greatly from state to state and region to region and even from judge to judge. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest gay and lesbian advocacy organization, has conducted research to determine that 21 states and the District of Columbia allow gay adoption. This wouldn’t be the case if the religious Right had its way. It is suggested that the ability for gay and lesbian individuals to adopt would become much more limited, with a minimal number of states being welcoming of gay adoption. LAWS New Jersey was the first state to specify that sexual orientation and marital status could not be used against couples seeking to adopt. New Jersey also allows second-parent adoption, a legal procedure in which a coparent can adopt the biological or adopted child of his or her partner. New York soon followed, granting second-parent adoptions statewide and forbidding discrimination in adoption proceedings. California joined the party by enacting new domestic partnership legislation that legalized second-parent adoptions. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are a number of states that exclude gays and lesbians from adopting either as primary or as secondary adoptive parents. Florida stands out among the states in that gay adoption has been banned since 1977. Utah prohibits adoption by any unmarried couple or individual, regardless of sexual orientation. While Mississippi does not actually ban gay and lesbian individuals from adoption, same-sex couples are absolutely prohibited from adopting. The laws regarding same-sex adoption within most states aren’t even actually on the books, and are similar to accepted or nonaccepted practices within each respective state, based more on tradition than on legal precedent.

Gay Parent Adoption

After the turn of the millennium, there has been an increase in the number of children within the child welfare system in need of homes and a growing acceptance of nontraditional families looking to adopt them. However, among the opposition, with groups such as the religiously-based Focus on the Family and the judges who support them, there is a strong sentiment that placing children in the care of gay and lesbian individuals or partners is not in the best interest of the children involved in the respective cases. In April of 2001, researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California published their findings in the prestigious journal American Sociological Review. The duo examined 21 studies regarding the effects of gay parenting. Their meta-analysis concluded: “There were subtle differences in gender behavior and preferences. Lesbian mothers reported that their children, specifically their daughters, were less likely to conform to gender norms in dress, play or behavior; more likely to aspire to nontraditional occupations, such as doctors or lawyers. They also discovered that children of gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian than the children of heterosexual parents” (Stacey and Biblarz 2001). The latter part of their summary corresponds to what one might consider to be a fear among a majority of adoption agencies and judges— that by placing children in homosexual-parented homes, the children are thus in danger of so-called coming out as homosexuals themselves. This suggests that the environment of a homosexual family is instrumental in the child becoming gay. This argument is considered a fallacy on all levels by the liberal Left and by more and more of the general public as a biological origin model of sexual orientation gains support. Another facet of the Right’s argument regarding the placement of children in homosexual-parented homes is that being raised by these individuals will have psychologically detrimental effects on the children. Stacey and Biblarz found that children of homosexual parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance but do show a higher level of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children, as well as seeming to exhibit impressive psychological strength. Stacey and Biblarz also report that gay parents were found to be more likely to share child care and household duties. In addition to this, the children of gay partners reported closer relationships to the parent who was not their primary caregiver than did the children of heterosexual couples. The fact that this study shows an increase in affection and higher psychological strength is just part of the positive effects that gay adoption can have on children. However, in opposition to the findings of Stacey and Biblarz, there are a great many arguments made against gay and lesbian adoptions including: “Feeling that only heterosexual couples should adopt. . . . people continue to believe that a two-parent (mother/father) household is best. Homosexuality is morally wrong, which is predominantly a personal opinion and not necessarily a fact. . . . gays and lesbians may abuse their children” (Stacey and Biblarz 2001). This argument has become known as the so-called best interest argument. The American Psychological Association (APA) has proven to be a proponent of same-sex adoption, as long as it is in the best interest of the children. In their

| 299

300

|

Gay Parent Adoption

Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, from July 2004, they noted that in the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. There are a number of concerns regarding this idea of a minor living in a homosexual-parented household. First, these concerns are in contradiction to the APA statement that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Second, there is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents based solely on their sexual orientation, as many provide stable and supportive households much like their heterosexual counterparts. The APA’s Resolution entailed 13 statements, including one which explicitly reads “The APA supports policy and legislation that promotes safe, secure, and nurturing environments for all children. The APA has a long-established policy to deplore ‘all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians’ and urges ‘the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men.’ ”(Paige 2005) The proponents of same-sex adoption argue in favor of the practice on the basis that both past and present research regarding gay parenting shows that there is no difference in the health and success of the children of lesbian and gay parents compared with the children of their heterosexual counterparts. There was no definitive indication of a disadvantage of children of gay and lesbian parents on the basis of the parents’ sexual orientation. Home environments with gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to provide solid foundations of comfort and compassionate understanding as the homes of heterosexual couples. Data such as these supported the decision by the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a policy statement endorsing adoption by same-sex couples. In the opposition’s corner, the article “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” from American Sociological Review argues that homosexual parents do not act in the best interest of the child (see Stacey and Biblarz 2001). A number of scholars, theorists, and researchers have posted the claim that gay parents subject children to unnecessary and increased risks. One notable suggestion is that children of gay parents are more likely to suffer confusion over their own gender and sexual identities, thus becoming more likely to claim a homosexual status farther in maturity. There are also claims from the opposition that homosexual parents are more likely to molest their children, as well as that these children are more likely to lose a parent to AIDS, substance abuse, or suicide, as well as to suffer from depression or other emotional disturbances. Arguments like these abound in the opposition’s court arguments regarding the placement of children with gay or lesbian parents, as well as the transfer of custody from lesbian or gay parents to heterosexual couples. While somewhat narrowly focused, this is still one of the most widely-used arguments against gay and lesbian parents throughout the court system in the United States. AGENCIES Regardless of the position within the argument of whether gay parents should be permitted to adopt, there is still a distinct difference in how each side

Gay Parent Adoption

is portrayed via the media and the Internet in the form of advocacy groups’ websites. Agencies reside on both sides of the issue of same-sex adoption. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute has done extensive work in improving the knowledge of the public in the area of adoption and even more precisely in same-sex adoption. Recently, the Institute published a national survey entitled “Adoption by Lesbians and Gays: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies, Practices, and Attitudes.” Drawing on a number of surveys and studies, the Institute gives a plethora of statistics regarding the acceptance and placement of children into homosexual homes. Among the findings from the Institute study are: (1) lesbians and gays are adopting regularly, in notable and growing numbers, at both public and private agencies nationwide; (2) assuming that those responding are representative (and the results show that they are), 60 percent of U.S. adoption agencies accept applications from homosexuals; (3) about two in five of all agencies in the country have placed children with adoptive parents who they know to be gay or lesbian; (4) the most likely agencies to place children with homosexuals are public, secular private, Jewish-and Lutheran-affiliated agencies, and those focusing on special needs and international adoption. In addition to the specific findings, the study’s results led to several major conclusions on the levels of policy and practice: (1) for lesbians and gay men, the opportunities for becoming adoptive mothers and fathers is significantly greater than is generally portrayed in the media or perceived by the public; (2) although a large and growing number of agencies work with or are willing to work with homosexual clients, they often are unsure about whether to or how to reach out to them; (3) because so many homosexuals are becoming adoptive parents, it is important for the sake of their children that agencies develop preplacement and postplacement services designed to support these parents. In addition to the various types of programs that the adoption agencies utilize, ranging from special needs to international adoptions or a mixture of both, there is also a definite difference in the overall acceptance of adoption applications from homosexuals on the basis of the agency’s religious affiliation. While Jewishaffiliated agencies were almost universally willing to work with LGBT clients, as were the majority of public agencies, private nonreligious and Lutheran-affiliated agencies, only samples of Methodist and Catholic agencies were willing to consider applications from homosexuals. Twenty percent of all agencies responding to the study acknowledged that they had rejected an application from homosexual applicants on at least one occasion. Not all of the agencies surveyed through the Donaldson Institute survey actually responded to the questions presented to them. Of those who willingly responded, an estimated two-thirds of the agencies had actual policies in effect on adoption by gays and lesbians. Of those, an estimated 33.6 percent reported a nondenominational policy, 20 percent responded that placement decisions were guided by the children’s country of origin, and another 20 percent said that religious beliefs were at the core of rejecting the homosexual applications. More than one-third of the responding agencies reported in follow-up phone calls that they did not work with homosexual prospective adoptive parents. On the opposite side of the situation, an estimated two in five, or 39 percent, of all agencies

| 301

302

|

Gay Parent Adoption

had placed at least one child with a homosexual adoptive parent between 1999 and 2000. Due to the fact that fewer than half of all agencies collect information on the sexual orientation of potential adoptive parents and do not actively track the statistics regarding the placement of children with adoptive parents who are homosexual, the Donaldson Institute was forced to estimate the number of such placements made. One adoption placement with a homosexual client per year was counted for statistical purposes. Based on these assumptions, there were an estimated 1,206 placements with homosexual parents (or roughly 1.3 percent of the total placements). This number is actually much higher in reality. One aspect not yet discussed is the input of the birth parents in the proceedings of the adoption of their child. The Donaldson Institute delved into this issue and released the following findings: (1) about one-quarter of respondents said that prospective birth parents have objected to the placing of their child with gays or lesbians, or have specifically requested that their child not be placed with homosexuals. At that time, nearly 15 percent of all agencies said birth parents had requested or chosen lesbian or gay prospective adoptive parents for their child on at least one occasion; (2) Although most agencies worked with lesbians and gays, only 19 percent sought them to be adoptive parents and the vast majority of these (86.6 percent) relied on word-of-mouth for recruitment. Outreach efforts were made most often at agencies already willing to work with homosexuals (41.7 percent of Jewish-affiliated, 29.9 percent of private, nonreligiously affiliated, and 20 percent of public); (3) Similarly, adoption agencies focused on children with special needs were the most likely to make outreach efforts (32.1 percent) to gays and lesbians, followed by international-focused agencies (19.7 percent); (4) nearly half (48 percent) indicated an interest in receiving training to work with lesbian and gay prospective parents. Most likely to be interested were agencies already working with them; public, nonreligiously affiliated, Jewish-and Lutheran-affiliated agencies. Additionally, special needs programs and those with mixed needs were more likely to be interested in training than were those focusing on international and domestic infant adoptions. There seems to be a growing interest and flexibility toward the idea that homosexual prospective parents may be a viable option for the placement of children into homes to ultimately give them a more stable and nurturing environment than one would find in child welfare systems. However, religious affiliation of the agency remains an important and prominent issue. Over half of the agencies held no religious affiliation (55.38 percent), while the rest represented a variety of faiths, the largest of which was Catholic-affiliated at 14.8 percent, with various other denominations reporting 5 percent or less. As one can see, with as many placements as are being made, it is clear that somewhere along the line the individuals who work in these agencies do actually want to place these children in good, stable, nurturing homes. However, a number of the agencies to which this survey was sent declined to participate. Their reasons for declining ranged from: (1) agency does not make adoption placements (36.7 percent); (2) agency does not work with homosexual clients (34.1 percent); (3) interested but agency director too busy (13.3 percent); (4) no reason given or not interested in the study (12.5 percent); (5) incomplete data from returned survey (3.0 percent). While

Gay Parent Adoption

there is still 0.4 percent missing from this data set, it does give some pretty startling ideas about the various agencies’ reactions to this survey. At the time of this survey, only Florida, Mississippi, and Utah had statutory bans on or prohibitive barriers to homosexual adoption. One of the more shocking discoveries of the Donaldson Institute research is that 17 adoption directors from other states incorrectly reported that lesbians and gays were barred from adopting children in their states; another 31 respondents were unsure of the states’ law on adoption by homosexuals. This is slightly alarming, considering the work that has been done to include homosexuals in the adoption process, and yet it would seem that they are being excluded yet again but this time by ignorance. Despite being somewhat unaware of their states’ legislation on homosexual adoption, there was a clear distribution of policy acceptance levels regarding homosexual adoption. According to the Donaldson Institute research, about 20 percent of all respondents said that their agencies, on one or more occasions, had rejected applications from gay or lesbian individuals or couples. The reasons for the rejections were as follows: (1) unrealistic expectations, (2) psychological problems, (3) questionable motives for adopting, (4) relationship problems, (5) placement with homosexuals violates agency policy, (6) applicant’ lifestyle incompatible with adoption, (7) placement with homosexuals prohibited by country of origin, (8) sexual orientation of applicant incompatible with adoption, (9) lack of adequate social support, (10) financial problems, (11) placement with homosexuals violates community standards, and (12) medical problems with the applicant. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Generally, the presentation of gays and lesbians as adoptive parents has been biased by the group doing the presenting. Conservative media outlets and family values camps such as the Family Research Council predictably argue that the best home for a child is with two heterosexual married parents. These groups cite well-used arguments against homosexuality in general, such as the so-called unnaturalness of choosing a same sex partner and fears of deviant sexual choices, as evidence for why homosexuals should be excluded from the pool of adoptive parents. Increasingly, however, because there are many more children awaiting adoption than homes into which they can easily be placed, gay and lesbian individuals and couples may represent an untapped market. Anecdotal evidence suggests that not only have gays and lesbians been more willing to adopt special needs children, sometimes because those were the only children agencies would make available to them, but the outcomes are more positive than many critics predicted. As pressure mounts on states to solve some of the child welfare problems in the foster care system, an additional group of potential loving parents may be seen as a beneficial resource. For most, the best interests of the child means that the child is always better off in a permanent home setting than a temporary foster care setting. Additionally, the opinions of the general public toward LGBT issues and individuals have become more accepting and positive over time. With increased

| 303

304

|

Grandparenthood

media coverage, same-sex adoption and LGBT issues as a whole have gained a great deal of attention over the last two decades, with no real end in sight. With questions about homosexual marriage being debated across the country, the next step in the American dream is children. Consequently, we can anticipate more debate in the coming years about the characteristics of desirable adoptive parents. See also Foster Care; International Adoption; Same-Sex Marriage; Transracial Adoption. Further Reading: American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org; Drescher, Jack and Deborah Glazer. Gay and Lesbian Parenting. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Medical Press, 2001; Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. “Adoption by Lesbians and Gays: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies, Practices, and Attitudes.” 2002. http://www.adoptioninstitute.org; Family Research Council. http://www.frc.org; Kreisher, Kristen. “Gay Adoption.” Children’s Voice Magazine 17 (January/February 2002). http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm; Mallon, Gerald P. Lesbian and Gay Foster and Adoptive Parents: Recruiting, Assessing, and Supporting an Untapped Resource for Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Inc., 2006; Paige, R. U. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 2004. Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Representatives July 28 and 30, 2004, Honolulu, HI, 2005. http://www.apa.org/governance/; Sember, Brette McWhorter. Gay and Lesbian Parenting Choices: From Adopting or Using a Surrogate to Choosing the Perfect Father. Franklin Lakes, NJ: The Career Press Inc., 2006; Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66, no. 2, (2001): 159–183.

Jeffery Jones

GRANDPARENTHOOD At the beginning of the twentieth century, many people did not live long enough to reach grandparenthood. If longevity prevailed, grandchildren were born well into the latter part of the grandparent’s life. In current times, grandparenthood typically occurs in mid-life and is now commonplace primarily due to the increase in life expectancy. Many more people are experiencing grandparenthood and for greater lengths of time. In fact, it is not extraordinary for someone to spend half of his or her life as a grandparent. It may not be shocking, then, to learn that about 50 percent of grandparents are under age 60. Some are even part of five-generation families. The greater likelihood that grandparenting will be a part of one’s family life has led to questions about the role that grandparents should assume in the family. BACKGROUND Grandparenthood is a time when at least three generations of a family are present. For most of us, we think of older men and women in their late 60s when we think of grandma and grandpa, but because some parents do not delay

Grandparenthood

childbearing, grandparenthood can occur as early as the mid-30s. It is estimated that over three-fourths of those aged 65 and over are grandparents and many get to see their grandchildren on a regular basis. Grandparents can share their love, understanding and knowledge with their grandchildren and have been shown to contribute to the well-being of grandchildren. Many people remain active well into their 70s and 80s and may know the joys of being a part of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren’s lives. For a percentage of grandparents, grandchildren are the center of their world because they have taken on the primary responsibility for their grandchildren. On the other hand, some grandparents may be estranged from their grandchildren due to family conflicts. Typically, parents determine the interaction that grandparents have with grandchildren when they are younger but do not determine the relationship when the grandchildren are older. Family size may also influence grandparent-grandchild relationships. Grandparents have an important symbolism in our culture. They are the link to previous generations and may be the oldest living relative in a family. For some, they are the matriarchs and patriarchs of their families and communities and are role models and mentors to those around them. They also pass down family stories and traditions. In many cases, grandparents are the only contact young people have with older individuals. For some, grandparenthood is a time when they pass along their wisdom to younger generations, especially grandchildren. Grandparenthood can be a time where the older generation imparts the family history, educates or otherwise prepares grandchildren for the future. For the grandparents who are fortunate enough to retire, they can enjoy a life without schedules or a workplace for one-third of their lives. They can take in the world around them and appreciate it. Some choose to give back to their communities and volunteer in the local government or programs such as grandparent fostering. Becoming a grandparent in later life can add a new dimension to retirement. It can be a fulfilling role for both the grandparent and the grandchild. Most grandparents idealize their new role and this can lead to a detrimental experience if they are unaware of their boundaries. Also, there can be conflict between grandparent and parent when parenting styles differ. In fact, there are two primary factors that influence the amount of time spent with a grandchild: the geographic location of the grandparent to the grandchild and the relationship with the parent. STEREOTYPES While popular conception does not typically show any negativity, becoming a grandparent may have its drawbacks. In a society that does not value becoming older, becoming a grandparent can signify being elderly. That is why becoming a grandparent in your 30s is viewed as off-time and nonnormative. Delight in being a grandparent can be overshadowed by the societal image of an old lady with gray hair, sitting in a rocking chair, knitting after she had just baked some cookies.

| 305

306

|

Grandparenthood

There can also be some resentment of the expectations that grandparenthood entails. A stereotype exists of grandparents where it is believed that much of their time is devoted to caring for and servicing their grandchildren’s needs. As discussed earlier, some grandparents may be too involved in their grandchild’s life, to the point of impeding the parents. On the other hand, some grandparents feel that there is an unspoken and undeniable requirement to baby-sit their grandchildren. Some research has shown that grandparenthood and the expectations that come along with this status are not supported by all grandparents and that many are unwilling to take this status as assumed. Certainly grandparenthood has changed over the years, but the images and expectations surrounding the status of grandparents are slow to evolve. For example, grandparenthood is occurring in mid-life, and the status is not as tied to old age as it was in the past. Partly this is due to life enhancements that lessen the ill effects of the aging process. In addition, there is huge diversity in the ways in which people enact the grandparent role. One major reason there is so much diversity is due to the age of onset of this new status. A younger grandparent may still be in the workforce versus an older grandparent who may be retired. Yet the stereotypical images that are associated with this status have not changed. Because some grandparents may still be in the workforce when they become a grandparent, this may hinder their availability to be on-call to babysit. Moreover, because many contemporary families are in dual-earner households, grandmothers are more likely to be working. Many factors such as these can influence one’s style of grandparenting, and in turn impact the grandparentgrandchild relationship. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE GRANDPARENTING STYLES There are a number of grandparenting styles and meanings associated with grandparenting. In the 1960s five different grandparenting styles were identified that are still important today: reservoir of family wisdom, formal, surrogate parent, fun seeker, and distant figure. The reservoir of family wisdom is when the grandparent expects the parent to seek advice from them. They also have certain skills and resources that could benefit the parent. The formal grandparent creates a clear line between parenting and grandparenting. They are active in the grandchild’s life but do not take on parenting, nor do they give advice. The surrogate parent is when a grandparent takes on caring for the grandchild during the time in which the parent is working. The fun seeker has a fun and casual relationship with the grandchild. There is an emphasis on a mutually beneficial relationship. The distant figure is the grandparent who does not have contact with the grandchild outside of special occasions. These styles of grandparenting have been found to be associated with age. Formal grandparents have been found to be older while distant figures and fun seekers are usually younger. The reduction in the average size of families, the increasing ease in which to be geographically mobile, increasing rates of divorce, and more single-parent homes have all complicated grandparenthood, especially as it relates to contact

Grandparenthood

and interaction with grandchildren. Technological breakthroughs and wider access to mass transit have served to alleviate some of these confounds; however, grandparenthood has changed considerably relative to the early-twentieth century largely due to these aforementioned trends. Other changes over time may not seem as obvious. For example, grandparents today are probably healthier than ever before due to the increase in health awareness. We can expect to see grandparents and grandchildren acting in ways that we do not stereotypically think about. It is not atypical to witness grandparents mountain-biking with their grandchildren. Indeed, grandparents today are wealthier, healthier and more active than those of previous generations. Gender also impacts grandparenting. Grandfathers play more of an instrumental role in grandchildren’s lives by providing advice while grandmothers emphasize an expressive approach to grandparenting through expressions of love and caring. Indeed, most stereotypes of grandparents focus on grandmothers. Grandmothers describe their relationships with grandchildren as close, warm, and fun. Because women have stronger bonds with family, adult daughters and mothers tend to have the closest relationship. Furthermore, while grandmothers and grandfathers both report closer relationships with granddaughters, grandmothers and granddaughters tend to be the closest. In the African American community, grandmothers play an important role in caregiving of grandchildren, great-grandchildren and fictive kin—people considered family without necessarily being blood-related. According to studies, African American grandmothers have been a major influence in stabilizing black families and socializing children since the days of slavery. Another factor that contributes to the diversity of grandparenthood is the changing structures of families. Divorce and remarriage have changed the ways in which grandparents may be viewed and how their roles may be enacted. Divorce can create a stronger bond for the custodial grandparent-grandchild relationship while weakening the noncustodial grandparent-grandchild relationship. Because mothers tend to receive custody it is the maternal grandparents who benefit from divorce while paternal grandparents have a harder time sustaining a relationship. Blended families may make a grandparent’s role unclear. Research has shown that in blended families paternal grandmothers are more likely to maintain relationships with daughters-in-laws and the new family members than are maternal grandmothers to maintain relationships with sons-in-law. Grandparents can be providers of useful advice for their children to utilize in raising their own children. Grandparents must, however, be careful to wait until they are asked for this advice. Grandparents can be the ones to help bring together the family and keep communications open. At the same time, grandparents must face the fact that their children may have a different parenting style than they did and should respect their child’s decisions on how to raise their grandchild. Grandparenting is different than parenting, and some grandparents welcome the opportunity to be the fun grandparent while others may not be able to take a backseat as an authority figure, especially when they wholeheartedly disagree with their child’s choices.

| 307

308

|

Grandparenthood

GRANDPARENTS AND TECHNOLOGY One of the interesting changes in the lives of grandparents has been the increases in technology such as the Internet. There are many organizations and web sites that are devoted to helping grandparents get the most out of their role in the family. Some of the well-known sites include: AARP.org, Grandparenting.com, Grandboomers.com, Grandparentsmagazine. net, Grandparents.com, Grandkidsandme.com, Grandtimes.com, Grandparentvisitationblog. com, WholeFamily.com: Senior Center Section. In addition to readily available information on grandparenting, today’s grandparents may find that geographic distance is not as great a barrier to establishing a strong grandparent-grandchild bond as it would have been in the past. With email, web-cams, and photo sites among the technology readily available to a majority of American families, older Americans have sought computer training to keep up with the younger generations. Some senior citizen centers across the country have instituted courses on using these new technologies and have made computers available for the use of their members.

GRANDPARENTS RAISING GRANDCHILDREN According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, in 2000 over 6 percent of children under the age of 18 live with a grandparent. At least one-third of these families are known as skipped generation families where neither parent is living in the household. The growth in skipped generation families has been attributed to incarceration of parents, child abuse and neglect, a rise in single parent households, divorce, parent drug use, crime, AIDS, physical and mental illness, and teen pregnancy. There are a myriad of reasons why the parent is unwilling or unable to raise their child and a grandparent takes on this responsibility. Even when a grandparent is willing to take on the responsibility of being the primary caregiver of their grandchild, financial and health problems may complicate the situation. Also, social isolation may occur due to the fact that these grandparents are different than their counterparts because they are taking on the nonnormative life transition of becoming a parent to their grandchild at a time when their peers are enjoying a child-free lifestyle. Grandparents face many challenges when caring solely for their grandchildren, such as adding their grandchildren to health insurance policies, enrolling them in school, and finding affordable housing. These issues can be even more difficult when the grandparent does not have legal custody of the grandchild. Four categories have been discovered that are affected by being a caregiver to grandchildren: changes in lifestyle, changes in relationship with spouse, changes in relationships with family, and changes in relationships with friends. They emerged from 114 in-depth interviews with grandparent caregivers. For surrogate grandparents, there was a decline in privacy, less time available for oneself, less money, less time spent and attention given to spouse, less time for leisure activities, less time spent with friends, and not enough time to get everything

Grandparenthood

done that is needed to get done because of the time required to take care of their grandchildren. The surrogate grandparents also reported feelings of increased concern about things, feeling emotionally strained, feeling more physically tired, having to continuously change plans and routines, and having greater purpose for living since they became caregivers to their grandchildren. The structure of the family and the resources available to the grandparent may either help to alleviate or cause more problems. Studies have found that family structure, the marital status and gender of the grandparent, and whether the parents are present in the home influence what problems arise. In 1997, over half of grandparent-headed households had both grandparents in the home, 6 percent were grandfather-only and the remainder were grandmother-only homes. Overall, grandparent households are usually composed of younger, better educated, working, and healthier grandparents. Only 15 percent of grandmothers and 21 percent of grandfathers are age 65 and older (Bryson and Casper 1999). There are many different problems and challenges that can arise for surrogate grandparents as primary caregivers to their grandchildren. First of all, health problems are exacerbated by taking on this new role. Grandparents who raise their grandchildren usually also have financial strain due to the fact that many have a low-income status. Also, younger grandparents may have to quit their jobs or change their hours in order to provide child care. Retired grandparents who live off of a limited amount of money to begin with now have to make sacrifices, such as not shopping for themselves or selling off items to take care of the grandchild. Furthermore, many grandparents feel isolated when they take on the new role because they spend less time with family and friends to be able to take care of their grandchildren. For example, grandparents who are active in their churches may not be able to spend as much time there as they would like due to the everyday responsibilities of having to take care of a child. Also, they may not be able to connect with friends any longer because their friends may grandparent differently. The family structure and the resources available to the surrogate grandparents are extremely important factors in how successful and happy a grandparent is in enacting the role of surrogate parent as a grandparent. Social support can help alleviate the stress that is incurred by surrogate grandparents. Researchers have found that grandparents are better able to cope with becoming surrogate parents to their grandchildren when they have the resources to alleviate the stress associated with taking on this nonnormative transition. Stress for the grandparent is negatively correlated with happiness and generativity (the desire to help the younger generation), but social support was found to help alleviate these negative associations. Stress is not the only problem that surrogate grandparents face when they become the primary caregiver to their grandchildren. Grandparent Visitation Rights For a majority of grandparents there is no question about whether they can visit with their grandchildren. Commonly, grandparents enjoy going on trips with grandchildren, provide needed day care, and in some cases become the

| 309

310

|

Grandparenthood

primary caregivers. But some grandparents may be denied access to their grandchildren by the parents or legal guardians. This may be due to conflict between the parents and grandparents; the grandparents’ child may have died or lost custody in a divorce and the other parent may refuse visitation. The laws regarding visitation rights for grandparents vary by state. None of the states automatically give visitation rights to grandparents so they must research the laws in the state in which the child lives in order to determine their course of action. Before 2000, all of the states gave grandparents the ability to go to court to request visitation. In 2000, there was an influential case in Washington State that changed grandparents’ visitation rights. The case decided that the broad visitation rights, which could be extended to nonrelatives, impeded on parental rights. In the last decade, many states have ruled that visitation rights have been too broad and may violate a parent’s right in deciding who may be active in the child’s life. In those states, grandparents must work with the parent for visitation. In states that still allow a grandparent to petition for visitation, grandparents must prove that they should have the right to visit with their grandchild and the courts must find it in the best interest of the child. The most recent case in Hawaii has made visitation rights for grandparents more difficult to obtain. The courts decided that the grandparents had to prove that harm would come to the child if the parent’s wishes were upheld. This means that grandparents must present evidence that the decision that the parents make regarding their child will bring harm to the child, otherwise the parent has the right to make decisions. As of 2007, the highest courts of 23 states have looked into their visitation laws. The visitation laws have been reworked to give greater power to the parents’ decisions on visitation. All in all, grandparents’ visitation rights have dramatically changed in the last decade. There are still possibilities for grandparents to fight for visitation under certain situations. For example, grandparents have been given visitation rights when a parent has died or been incarcerated, have been raising their grandchildren for a certain amount of time in which they were suddenly cut off from seeing their grandchildren, or where the courts deem that the grandchildren’s well-being would be compromised if they were disconnected from their grandparents. There are arguments for and against grandparent visitation rights. People who advocate for grandparent visitation rights feel that grandparents can provide stability for a grandchild after a family crisis such as divorce or death of a parent. Also, it can be traumatic for a grandchild who has developed a relationship with the grandparents to be suddenly cut off from them. Furthermore, they point out that a divorce, incarceration, or death of a parent should not automatically grant the surviving parent the right to disunite a beneficial relationship between the grandchild and grandparent. On the other hand, there are people who oppose grandparent visitation rights. They feel that states should not interfere with a parent’s child-rearing rights. In addition, there may be good reason why the parent has deemed it inappropriate for the grandchild to visit with the grandparent. For example, the grandparents may have been abusive to the parents and so they do not want them around their children, or in the case of lesbian and gay

Grandparents as Caregivers

parents, the grandparents may not agree with their lifestyle and the grandchildren may be caught in the middle. Moreover, the grandparents may not be respecting the parents’ parenting style or may be bad-mouthing them to the grandchild. Lastly, these advocates feel that the mere fact of the court being involved can cause havoc to the grandchild’s home life. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), a nonprofit organization for persons over the age of 50, recommends trying to work out issues between grandparents and parents before it escalates to a battle in courts since it is costly, time consuming, and can rip families further apart. In tough situations a less hostile and less costly solution may be mediation. A mediator helps both parties compromise where each may have to give a little to get a little. If mediation does not work, grandparents may then contact a family lawyer in the state in which the grandchild lives to explore what the visitation laws and rulings on grandparents visitation rights are in that jurisdiction. See also Changing Fertility Patterns; Children as Caregivers; Elder Care; Grandparents as Caregivers. Further Reading: Bryson, Ken, and Lynne M. Casper. “Coresident Grandparents and Grandchildren.” US Census Bureau: US Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics Administration (1999): 1–10; Falk, Ursula A., and Gerhard Falk. Grandparents: A New Look at the Supporting Generation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2002; Hayslip, Bert, and Robin Goldberg-Glen. Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: Theoretical, Empirical, and Clinical Perspectives. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2000; Jendrek, Margaret P. “Grandparents Who Parent Their Grandchildren: Effects on Lifestyle.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55, no. 3 (1993): 609–621; Landry-Meyer, Laura, Jean M. Gerard and Jacqueline R. Guzell. “Caregiver Stress among Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: The Functional Role of Social Support.” Marriage and Family Review 37, nos. 1/2 (2005): 171–190; Minkler, Meredith, and Kathleen M. Roe. “Grandparents as Surrogate Parents.” Generations 20, no. 1 (1996): 34–39; Neugarten, B., and K. Weinstein. “The Changing American Grandparent.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 26, no. 2 (1964): 199–204; Smith Ruiz, Dorothy. Amazing Grace: African American Grandmothers as Caregivers and Conveyors of Traditional Values. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004; Szinovacz, Maximiliane E. Handbook on Grandparenthood. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998; U.S. Census Bureau. “QT-P18. Marital Status by Sex, Unmarried-Partner Households, and Grandparents as Caregivers: 2000.” http://factfinder.census.gov/home/ saff/main.html; Westman, Jack C. “Grandparenthood.” In Parenthood in America: Undervalued, Underpaid, Under Siege, ed. Jack C. Westman. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001.

Orli Zaprir GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS Grandparents play a variety of roles in the lives of their grandchildren. From playmate to confidante, as grandparents live longer and enjoy better health as they age, they have increased opportunities for contact with their grandchildren. One of the trends changing the nature of grandparent-grandchild relationships, however, is when grandparents routinely provide basic care for their

| 311

312

|

Grandparents as Caregivers

grandchildren, sometimes called surrogate parenting. From serving as substitute caregivers while parents work to rearing their grandchildren on their own grandparents are finding that sometimes parenting tasks do not end when their children leave the home. There are both positive and negative consequences for the care that grandparents provide, and questions remain as to whether this is the best option for both the grandparents and the children for which they care. BACKGROUND Over the last decade, there has been a 40 percent increase in the number of grandchildren being cared for full time by their grandparents according to the United States Census Bureau. Currently in the United States, more than 3.6 million grandchildren under 18 years of age (around 6 percent on all minor children) are being cared for by their grandparents. There are many reasons why this arrangement occurs. For children who are not yet of school age and in need of day care, staying with the grandparent while the parents are working may be an economical option. However, grandparents may themselves be employed and this may put a strain on their resources and time available for work. Some grandmothers may be reluctant to refuse this task due to the cultural expectation that grandparents will provide baby-sitting. The expectation for child care assistance seems to be one of the few cultural norms of grandparenting, which overall is a rather freeform role where participants set their own goals and objectives. This lack of standardization is likely due to the widely varying ages at which persons enter the role, gender differences, and personal experiences of having been a grandchild. While some research has focused on this routine care by grandparents, more research attention has been given to situations in which the grandparents are the primary caregivers for the grandchild and the consequences of such arrangements. In this scenario, the household is marked by a so-called skipped generation, where neither biological parent is present in the home. Major reasons that grandparents care for grandchildren in this way are the result of unfortunate circumstances that families experience. For example, the parent of the grandchild might have been involved with drugs, suffered mental illness, experienced extreme financial strain, be incarcerated, have died, or the child has suffered abuse or neglect from the parent. There are positive and negative consequences for both grandchild and grandparent.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS Researchers are beginning to explore the negative effects that caring for one’s grandchildren in the capacity of parent have on the grandparent and on the grandchild. Among the areas that are of concern are the grandparent’s health, financial status, mental health and role expectations, and legal right to care for grandchildren.

Grandparents as Caregivers

| 313

VARIATIONS IN GRANDPARENTING The age, race, and gender of the caregiving grandparent play a significant role in the way a grandchild will be raised. According to Thomas et al. (2000), a grandparent that is under the age of 65 that has a more relaxed, playful relationship with their grandchildren are said to be fun seekers. For those grandparents over the age of 65, their grand-parenting was said to be more formal. It could be concluded that the younger the grandparent is, the easier it might be to raise the grandchild with less of a generation gap. An interesting fact in regards to race is that African American grandparents have reported greater levels of both fulfillment and aggravation with the relationships with their grandchildren than their Caucasian counterparts. It seems that African American grandmothers have more support from their friends and other family members than the Caucasian grandmothers, perhaps due to the fact that more African American families experience grandmother care. African American grandparents represent 12 percent of those who care for their grandchildren while Caucasian grandparents represent four percent. Hispanic grandparents, with the exception of Cuban Americans, are likely to be involved on an everyday basis with their grandchildren. With regard to gender, grandmothers cared more for the grandchildren than did the grandfathers. The grandfather’s role was to offer advice and take responsibility for the grandchild but they note receiving less emotional fulfillment than do the grandmothers. Grandfathers’ advice would center on future jobs, education, and financial decisions. Grandmothers would advise their grandchildren on more personal decisions in understanding life, love, and relationships. The grandmothers reported a stronger motherly bond when grandparenting. Finally, it should be noted that women’s greater life expectancy compared with men means that they will spend more years of their lives in the grandparent role.

Health Concerns Grandparents arrive at the point of parenting their grandchildren by many paths, nearly all of which have produced significant stress in the family prior to the parenting task. Among the stressful situations that necessitate grandparents stepping into the parent role are AIDS, divorce, teen pregnancy, mental illness, and so on. The stress of caring for the grandchild can be a huge burden for the grandparent—impacting the grandparents’ health. Some studies have suggested that some grandparents are afraid to admit to health problems for fear of their grandchildren being removed from their custody. Health costs are most noticeable when grandparents are older at the time they begin caring for grandchildren. The fatigue of caring for very young children may take a toll on older grandparents, causing them to feel overtired and more vulnerable to illnesses in general. It is true that children get sick; the presence of children in the home increases the likelihood that grandparents will get more colds and other communicable diseases. The need to care for children may push grandparents to delay needed health care. Having to pick up the grandchild,

314

|

Grandparents as Caregivers

help with homework, or working more hours to financially support the child, if necessary and possible, can interfere with obtaining needed healthcare. Focusing on the aging grandparent’s health, stress over the obligation of caring for the child can manifest itself in physical ailments. Lack of leisure time, leading to more stress, can further harm the health of the grandparent. If a grandparent has worked for 40 years or more, it will be time for them to retire and retirement is affected by having to care for the grandchild on a fulltime basis. A delayed retirement is detrimental to the health of an aging person, particularly exposing him or her to more chances for on-the-job injury, and can cause more stress which could lead to more health problems. Financial Concerns Being both a grandparent and the sole caregiver for a grandchild means more financial stress as well. They may have planned and saved for retirement or wanted to travel and live abroad, but now they are caring for the grandchild. Depleting the savings account, taking out loans, going bankrupt or living a lifestyle of financial worry are all consequences of becoming a new parent. Most persons who have planned for retirement have enough saved to cover their projected expenses, not the additional expenses accrued during childrearing. Because children often become more expensive as they enter the teen years, as the grandparent is aging the financial burden may be increasing. Particularly if the grandparent has already retired, it may be quite difficult to find work to supplement with extra money; indeed grandparents sometimes have to rely solely on outside sources, such as public assistance programs, to help with the financial burden of caring for their grandchildren. According to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), grandparents can turn to government or private agencies to assist in the time of financial stress. The AARP suggests that the grandchild might be able to file for their own social security or receive money from the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. But this program is as its title states: temporary. The grandparent might qualify for food stamps or be able to inquire with the Internal Revenue Service about a tax credit or exemption for the grandchild. Another financial strain may come from the grandparent’s home. Will it be big enough to accommodate this new family arrangement? As persons retire they often downsize into smaller residences to make their upkeep tasks fewer as they age. Again, The AARP has a suggestion, recommending that the grandparent seek out special housing for grandfamilies. Or, the grandparents can take out a reverse mortgage, which only applies to those 62 years or older. This would provide some money for support of the grandchild out of the equity in one’s home. As long as they live in that house, the money does not have to be paid back until they move, or die. But the debt is passed on or if the money is paid back it will leave less of a buffer for the grandchild to inherit. Another issue of finances relates to the working grandparent. For many grandparents who have retired, the rehiring of the elderly is a major concern in the United States. Although there are laws providing protection against age

Grandparents as Caregivers

discrimination, many cases go unreported. As a result, many retired grandparents are unable to return to work to earn sufficient income to support the addition of the grandchild. Even those fortunate to return to work full-time will face issues that add to their already overtaxed new situation. Some of these concerns include, but are not limited to, the following. Will the company provide time off for the new employee (the grandparent) to attend to the grandchild’s school or medical affairs? Will the grandparent (the new employee) be able to have access to medical insurance that covers the grandchild? Will the grandparent (the new employee) be paid a wage sufficient to support the newly structured family? Emotional Concerns Of added concern is the emotional toll this arrangement will have on both the grandparents and the grandchild. Often grandparents were put under more emotional stress due to the behavioral or physical health problems of the grandchild. Many grandbabies that were born addicted to a drug cry excessively or need special attention for their care. The combination of less sleep, more worry, and concern for the grandchild who has an addiction or other chronic problem adds a significant level of stress to the caregiving. However, another emotional issue the grandchild may deal with is trying to understand why he or she no longer lives with the parent. For particularly young children who may not fully grasp the situation, grandparents may have to be extra-reassuring about the stability of their home. Likewise, grandparents may be grieving over the situation with their own child and have a hard time providing the emotional support to the grandchild. If there is high emotional attachment between the grandparent and grandchild, sometimes when a grandparent is significantly aged, the grandchild may be particularly concerned about the longevity of the caregiver. In one sample of African American grandmothers, a group very likely to be caring for grandchildren, 36 percent admitted to more strain on their mental health. Depression and anxiety were the most commonly reported mental health symptoms for those grandparents raising their grandchildren. With so much pressure to emotionally, financially, and educationally care for the grandchild one could only expect higher levels of stress. In the same study, African American grandparents whose grandchildren were the offspring of drug-addicted parents reported that 86 percent felt depressed and 72 percent suffered from anxiety frequently. Another emotional concern involves how closely the situation fulfills the expected role of the grandparent. Culturally, there is no clear set of roles for grandparents, but generally grandparents are exempted from the routine care of grandchildren, often preferring a friendship-type relationship. By definition, parenting is not about friendship so some grandparents feel deprived of that experience; most never expected to be fully responsible for the care of their grandchildren. Middle-class society has created a role for grandparents in which they tell stories about the past exploits of the family, host holiday functions, travel extensively, and generally enjoy their golden years. The reality for many is quite

| 315

316

|

Grandparents as Caregivers

different. Contrary to the belief, some grandparents now have new expectations and play new roles in society. Grandparents who become primary caregivers migrate from the role of grandparent to full-time parent at 50 or 60 years old. Once the grandparent becomes the primary caregiver for the grandchild, there are many problems that may surface. For example, because grandparents are much older than the grandchild, the grandchild may feel a strong sense of a generation gap in being raised by people who are not as close to them in age as their parents. The children are not alone in feeling isolated. Grandparents rearing their grandchildren may experience a loss of friends and other important social relationships because they are not doing the same things that others their age are doing. In particular, their parenting responsibilities may keep them from participating in social activities with others of their cohort, thus decreasing their available support network. Legal Concerns The generational differences between the grandchild and grandparents may also create legal problems. For the grandparent who desires custody of the grandchild, the law has generally not been supportive. There are good legal reasons to assign custody to grandparents. Notable among them would be so that important decisions regarding health care or schooling for the grandchild can be made by the grandparent. The establishment of legal guardianship also helps with tax and inheritance benefits and application for public assistance. This shift from grandparent to caregiver needs to be addressed on a number of legal fronts to ensure that the rights of both parties are preserved. POSITIVE ASPECTS Becoming parents again with grandchildren doesn’t have to be a negative event for most grandparents. Becoming a parent again can have a direct impact on mental health. For grandparents it can give a sense of renewal and provide them with an opportunity to do things differently than they may have done with their own children. It also allows for a connection with the past family history and many report improved life contentment and drive for satisfaction after parenting grandchildren. Raising grandchildren can be a wonderful experience, and there are positive aspects relating to one’s health and caring for a young grandchild. Some studies have found that some grandmothers lost weight when they began caring for their grandchildren due to increased levels of physical activity and some ceased smoking for the sake of the grandchild’s health. One study reported that 28 percent of African American grandmothers felt more joy and self-esteem regarding their mental health when they were caring for their grandchildren. They worried less for the safety and well being of the grandchild when the child was not in the care of a negligent biological parent. The idea that grandchildren keep one young does seem to be occurring. With increased levels of activity, both physical and mental, grandparents can see an

Grandparents as Caregivers

overall increase in their health status. A positive aspect for grandparents is that they experience their grandchild more directly. This may increase the closeness between them and form a different kind of bond than had they not resided together. Additionally the grandparent can impart to the child the positive aspects of the skipped generation, which can be particularly important if the child’s parent is deceased. Both child and grandparent may come to appreciate and respect the cohort differences between their age groups. A generation gap does not have to be viewed negatively. Of note, is the benefit to society when a child that might otherwise have been placed in foster care is parented by a family member biologically related to him. FUTURE PROSPECTS Given the increases in parenting by grandparents, one can expect the trend to continue. As a consequence, websites and books have begun to be widely available that may assist the grandparent who has begun parenting again. Just as parenting is a complex activity with many different styles, researchers are just beginning to understand the ways in which Americans do grandparenting. As a topic for exploration, grandparenting is new and unique. As more evidence emerges, we can expect that more benefits, particularly when the grandparents are younger and have more financial resources, will likely emerge. See also Changing Fertility Patterns; Children as Caregivers; Foster Care; Grandparenthood. Further Reading: AARP. www.AARP.org; All Family Resources. www.familymanagement. com; Berman, Eleanor. Grandparenting ABC ’s: A Beginners Handbook. New York: Perigee, 1998; Edwards, O. “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Emotional and Behavioral Functioning of Children Raised by Grandparents.” Psychology in the Schools 43 (2006): 565–572; Fay, Jim. Grandparenting with Love and Logic: Practical Solutions to Today’s Grandparenting Challenges. Golden, CO: Love and Logic Press, 1998; The Foundation for Grandparenting. www.grandparenting.org; Grandparents Raising Grandchildren. www.raisingyourgrandchildren.com; Kornhaber, Arthur. The Grandparent Guide: The Definitive Guide to Coping with the Challenges of Modern Grandparenting. New York: Contemporary Books, 2002; Thomas, J., L. Sperry, and M. Yarborough. “Grandparents as Parents: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations.” Child Psychiatry and Human Development 31 (2000): 3–22.

Tera Rebekah Scott

| 317

This page intentionally left blank

BATTLEGROUND THE FAMILY

This page intentionally left blank

BATTLEGROUND THE FAMILY VOLUME 2 (H–Z)

Edited by Kimberly P. Brackett

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Battleground : the family / edited by Kimberly P. Brackett. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–313–34095–6 (set : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–34096–3 (vol. 1 : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–34097–0 (vol. 2 : alk. paper) 1. Family—Encyclopedias. I. Brackett, Kimberly P. HQ515.B38 2009 306.8503—dc22 2008038759 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2009 by Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2008038759 ISBN: 978–0–313–34095–6 (set) 978–0–313–34096–3 (vol. 1) 978–0–313–34097–0 (vol. 2) First published in 2009 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48 –1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS Guide to Related Topics Series Foreword Preface

ix xiii xv

Entries: Abortion

1

Addiction and Family

9

Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce

15

African American Fathers

24

Arranged Marriage

33

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

40

Battered Woman Syndrome

49

Benefits of Marriage

56

Biological Privilege

63

Birth Control

67

Birth Order

76

Breastfeeding or Formula Feeding

81

Changing Fertility Patterns

89

v

vi

|

Contents

Child Abuse

98

Child Care Policy

105

Child Support and Parental Responsibility

112

Childbirth Options

117

Childfree Relationships

125

Children as Caregivers

134

Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage

139

Common Law Marriage

145

Corporal Punishment

152

Cosleeping

157

Covenant Marriage

163

Culture of Poverty

167

Dating

177

Day Care

185

Deadbeat Parents

191

Developmental Disability and Marital Stress

196

Divorce and Children

201

Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

206

Domestic Partnerships

215

Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes

221

Domestic Violence Interventions

228

Elder Abuse

239

Elder Care

247

Employed Mothers

252

Extramarital Sexual Relationships

257

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

265

Family Roles

269

Fatherhood

279

Fictive Kin

285

Foster Care

289

Gay Parent Adoption

297

Grandparenthood

304

Contents | vii

Grandparents as Caregivers

311

Homeschooling

319

Housework Allocation

326

Infertility

333

International Adoption

346

Juvenile Delinquency

355

Mail Order Brides

363

Mandatory Arrest Laws

369

Marital Power

375

Marital Satisfaction

383

Marriage Promotion

394

Mate Selection Alternatives

400

Midwifery and Medicalization

405

Mommy Track

414

Motherhood, Opportunity Costs

418

Nonmarital Cohabitation

423

Only Child

431

Overscheduled Children

436

Parenting Styles

443

Pet Death and the Family

450

Plural Marriage

457

Poverty and Public Assistance

464

Premarital Sexual Relationships

472

Prenuptial Agreements

478

Preparation for Marriage

485

Religion and Families

493

Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence

499

Remarriage

504

Same-Sex Marriage

515

Sibling Violence and Abuse

521

Stay at Home Dads

526

Surrogacy

532

viii

|

Contents

Teen Pregnancy

543

Transition to Parenthood

552

Transracial Adoption

558

Wedding and Eloping

567

White Wedding Industry

572

Bibliography

579

About the Editor and Contributors

617

Index

625

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS dating and relationship formation Cohabitation Effects on Marriage Dating Fictive Kin Mate Selection Alternatives Nonmarital Cohabitation Prenuptial Agreements

domestic violence Battered Woman Syndrome Child Abuse Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes Domestic Violence Interventions Elder Abuse Mandatory Arrest Laws Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence Sibling Violence and Abuse

ending personal relationships Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce Divorce and Children Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution

family and other institutional connections Biological Privilege Child Care Policy ix

x

|

Guide to Related Topics

Culture of Poverty Foster Care Homeschooling Marriage Promotion Poverty and Public Assistance Religion and Families

family formation options Changing Fertility Patterns Childbirth Options Gay Parent Adoption International Adoption Midwifery and Medicalization Surrogacy Teen Pregnancy Transracial Adoption

family work, family crises, and caregiving Addiction and Family Children as Caregivers Elder Care Grandparents as Caregivers Housework Allocation Juvenile Delinquency Pet Death and the Family

fertility and sexuality in relationships Abortion Birth Control Extramarital Sexual Relationships Infertility Premarital Sexual Relationships

parenting and child rearing issues African American Fathers Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Birth Order Breast Feeding or Formula Feeding Child Support and Parental Responsibility Corporal Punishment Cosleeping Deadbeat Parents Fatherhood Grandparenthood

Guide to Related Topics |

Only Child Overscheduled Children Parenting Styles Transition to Parenthood

relationship and marital processes Benefits of Marriage Childfree Relationships Developmental Disability and Marital Stress Family Roles Marital Power Marital Satisfaction

traditional marriage and its alternatives Arranged Marriage Common Law Marriage Covenant Marriage Domestic Partnerships Mail Order Brides Plural Marriage Preparation for Marriage Remarriage Same-sex Marriage Wedding and Eloping White Wedding Industry

work and family links Day Care Employed Mothers Family and Medical Leave Acts (FMLA) Mommy Track Motherhood, Opportunity Costs Stay-at-home Dads

xi

This page intentionally left blank

H HOMESCHOOLING Homeschooling is enjoying increasing popularity in Westernized countries around the world, including South Africa, Israel, and Canada. In the United States, an adequate understanding of the homeschooling movement requires an understanding of compulsory public education. Because this topic may be contested between different interest groups (educators, legislators, politicians, and parents), a critical stance is warranted when reviewing statistics regarding the academic performance of homeschooled children. Factors that could strongly qualify statistical findings are often not detailed when advocates present data, or may be under-emphasized when studies are publicized. HISTORY America has valued education from the time of its first colonists. In Puritan times, the supervision of children’s education was considered the responsibility of the family, and in particular, the father. Although the Plymouth Colony would take 40 years to establish a school, the faster-growing Massachusetts Bay Colony opened a school in 1636, roughly 7 years after obtaining a royal charter. In 1647, the Old Deluder Satan Act required families in settlements of certain sizes to provide reading and writing education to the children. Families were financially responsible for this charge, but the towns were subject to fines if the families there did not comply. This was an important law because it highlights that the community, rather than individual families, was responsible for the form of education. Homeschooling was still important because children often began learning to read at home or under the instruction of a literate neighbor. 319

320

|

Homeschooling

Enactment of compulsory education laws began in industrializing states, where the lure of factory jobs brought many rural and immigrant families. The middle and upper-middle classes supported the legislation, not only from their fear that unwashed, unsupervised, and impoverished youth would degrade their society, but also out of a growing public support for the poor. Those opposed to compulsory education included parents who needed their children’s earnings as well as those with libertarian leanings. Compulsory attendance laws, first enacted in 1852, were at first rarely enforced because local school officials were charged with, but not compensated for, enforcing them. As public schools accommodated ever-larger student enrollments, a bureaucratic, rules-based discipline emerged in the classrooms. Standardized punctuality, regularity, obedience, and silence from pupils were expected and rewarded. Coupled with this was increasing commitment from teachers to institute a set of factory-like rules to help manage the classroom. After Reconstruction, southern states (except Tennessee) were forced to institute free public schools as part of their states’ constitutions in order to be readmitted to the Union, which was the first interference of the federal government in the schooling policies of states. Although illegal in most states by the 1970s, homeschooling is now legal in all states, as well as the District of Columbia. Homeschooling is either explicitly mentioned as a type of private education or it is included under statutes designed for religious and private schools. It is estimated that the number of homeschooled students has virtually tripled in the years from 1990 to 2001 (Collom 2005) to perhaps as many as 1.35 million at present (Cooper and Sureau 2007). The movement, originated by those on the political left and Libertarians in the 1960s and 1970s, has grown into a powerful grassroots movement now more politically diverse and often led by social conservatives. Court rulings in favor of homeschooling have often cited the first amendment rights to religious freedom. Perhaps for this reason the public may often assume that parents home-school due to their religious beliefs. States that do not have particular homeschooling statues include rules about homeschooling in their rules on private or alternative schools. PARENTAL MOTIVATIONS FOR HOMESCHOOLING Although religious freedom was often cited in the early days of homeschool acceptance, researchers now find several motivating factors for parents of these children. Several factors are identified related to parental choice of homeschooling, finding that concerns about academic and teaching standards are the most influential. Although some parents do show concern about values degradation in the public schools, this is not always accompanied by a strong religious faith. For example, some parents are concerned about school violence, low educational standards, and whether their children can get their special needs met in the public schools. One Canadian study examining the motivations of 203 families found none that reported religion as their primary motivation for choosing to homeschool. It is still the case, however, that the majority of homeschool families are Evangelical Christians. Homeschooling parents are likely to believe that

Homeschooling |

they should be active in their roles as parents and that they are effective at teaching. Whether this is an artifact of having homeschooled or a factor motivating the choice is not clear. Homeschooled families are notoriously difficult to locate. Because many states do not require that homeschooled children register with public agencies, it can be impossible for researchers to discern whether they have obtained a reasonable response rate. If only 1 percent of the homeschoolers are sent questionnaires, for example, and then only 50 percent of those are willing to complete and return the surveys, it is unlikely that the researcher’s sample will be representative of the population of homeschooled children or their parents. One researcher examined home charter school students, who are required to take standardized achievement tests but aren’t strictly homeschooled, and have an actual campus, unlike the traditional notion of homeschool. The response rate was high and the results were intriguing. It was found that minority parents and parents with a spouse involved in the teaching were more likely to be motivated by criticism of public schools. He also found that parents with higher levels of reading achievement are more critical of public schools. Homeschooled children in higher grades did better on the assessment instruments than did those in lower grades. The most stunning finding, however, was that there were no meaningful differences between the performance of children by race or class. He writes “student race also has no statistical relation to achievement here. The two great divides that public school children face—race and class—are inconsequential for student achievement among home-educated children” (Collom 2005). Two other investigators claim that parents decide to homeschool based on the quality of education they expect to be able to give relative to the quality of education that the public school offers. If they believe that they can give better quality, they are more likely to opt to do it themselves. The same investigators also claim that the more widely distributed income is in a school district, the more likely there are to be homeschooling parents, and that stricter regulations on homeschooling are associated with a decrease in homeschool enrollments. Where the state requires testing of homeschooled children there are fewer enrolled at home. They also found that in districts where more women are employed there is a lower probability of public schooling, and suggest that this is because those families have more income and are able to send their children to traditional private schools. Also, the more money that is spent on children in public schools the less likely parents are to choose homeschooling. Finally, they note that where there are high concentrations of Catholics in a school district, there is a higher proportion of children enrolled in private school relative to homeschool. In other words, Catholics may be more likely to choose a private school when making nonpublic schooling decisions (Houston and Toma 2003). ARGUMENTS One argument against homeschooling is that the teachers are largely unqualified; without degrees in education. Some studies, including those noted below

321

322

|

Homeschooling

on student performance, suggest that homeschooling teachers are just as effective as salaried teachers. Homeschooling may be better for precocious children, because less time is spent on the curriculum, and more time can be allotted for the child’s particular interests. It has noted that the lower student-teacher ratios may be a determining factor in the performance of homeschooled children on standardized tests. STUDENT PERFORMANCE Some researchers have argued that homeschooled children have higher levels of academic performance than children educated in public schools. But any research findings, and particularly those concerning issues that are highly charged politically, should be able to answer some basic questions. QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THESE RESEARCH STUDIES Did a lot of people or only a small percentage of people respond to the questions in each category? This matters because there might be something special about homeschooling families that make them less likely to respond to questions about their education choices. Perhaps public school families are more likely than homeschooling families to respond to these studies. For example, if only 10 percent of homeschooling families responded, it would be very difficult to say that we really know very much about homeschooling families. That would mean that for some reason we don’t yet understand, the vast majority of homeschooling families share some trait that makes them less likely to want to answer the questions of researchers. And this trait might be the very one that would reveal the underlying differences between homeschooling and public schooling families. In other words, we may be able to say a lot with a healthy sense of confidence about groups that have high response rates, or large percentages of completed questionnaires returned. But if the group has very low response rates, we don’t end up knowing very much about the group, but only about the few who returned the questionnaires. If one group has an extremely low response rate compared to the other group, as may be the case with homeschooling and public schooling families, it may be impossible to compare them in a meaningful way. In fact there is usually a low response rate on homeschool research. This may be because the families are more suspicious of outsiders, because they disapprove of questionnaires, or for some other reason. We can’t even know for certain why they have refused if they do not respond. But for whatever reason homeschooling families are less likely to use standardized achievement measures such as exams using multiple choice questions, and unless the school districts require that homeschooled children be registered, it may be impossible to estimate the number of children who are homeschooled in an area. If they are not required to register, the researchers do not know what the response rates are. Do the children in the study have parents with similar incomes and education levels? Factors such as parents’ income and parents’ education are ex-

Homeschooling |

tremely important to know when making predictions about how well a child will perform in an academic setting. One researcher has noted that the two most popular articles that are used to prove the superiority of homeschooling over public schooling are biased because they don’t take this into account. That report claims that in both those studies the parents of the homeschooled children were more educated, had higher incomes, and had fathers who were much more likely to be employed than did the public schooled children. So the children in homeschooling families already started with an advantage, even before their families decided not to use public schooling. In general, children whose parents are better educated and who have higher incomes and higher rates of employment for the fathers do well academically whether they are schooled at home or in public schools. This report also tells us that it is reasonable to assume that the homeschooling families may be more interested in their children’s education than average families. That is because homeschooling requires so much work from parents. When parents take an active role in their children’s education, whether at home or in public schools, we should expect high achievement from the children. While homeschooling parents must be motivated and involved this is not necessary for parents of publicly schooled children. Are the students in the studies matched? Homeschooled children have academic advantages. They enjoy small classrooms, individualized attention, close parental involvement, and above-average family background characteristics. With all those advantages, their academic gains should be even better than current research shows. So we should ask whether the research studies are comparing public school students in crowded classrooms and poor family backgrounds with homeschooled students. In other words, is it being schooled at home that makes the difference in academic performance or is it having individualized attention from the instructors that matters most? COMMUNITY/SOCIETY CONCERNS AND CRITICISMS Although homeschooling is considered by many to be a private matter, it has become a powerful force in the public sphere. Homeschooling parents are voters who make a point to tell their legislators what they want. Democracy Since Plato’s time, social thinkers have agreed that leaders must be educated. Because democracies place power in the hands of their citizens, education of the masses is extraordinarily important. But this is an area of much disagreement. Some argue that homeschooling is merely one more educational option. But others note that it is an option that only a few families can afford, that is, only those families who can afford to have a parent at home, not working. This argument also states that it’s not good for competition to exist in children’s educational “options.” Public schools cannot compete with the tiny classrooms found in homeschools.

323

324

|

Homeschooling

The families most likely to leave unsatisfactory schools for homeschooling will take with them a pool of students whose presence as peers could improve education for all. This argument says that homeschooling is just a part of a much bigger trend in the United States; privatization. Privatization is a process in which private groups take over public services. But privatizing education is bad for us as a group because it prevents us from all participating together in the discussion of how we want our country’s education to proceed. By making education private, we make it into something we can buy or sell—a commodity. If all public goods and institutions that were begun to make this a better society become commodities, then we may not really be true citizens anymore; we will be just consumers. This calls into question whether we have a true democracy. The parents may argue that it is their right to homeschool without interference from the government, but parents must obey outside authorities in many situations. For example, they may be prohibited by law from neglecting their children, and they may not abuse them, even if they believe it is their right to do so. Why, we may ask, should parents have any more rights to educational choices than they do to disciplinary choices? Fairness Homeschoolers sometimes sue for access to public educational facilities. When they sue for the rights to participate in school sports and other extracurricular activities they typically lose their cases. It is paradoxical that they sue to use public goods at the same time they demand to have their individual rights away from the public resources. Culture Homeschooled children, while not social misfits, may be less likely to experience the diversity of mainstream U.S. society. Although they do participate in social outings, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether parents choose homeschooling as a way to limit their children’s exposure to values, beliefs, and behaviors that are different from their own. In other words, in our culturally diverse society, homeschooled children learn to reproduce their parents’ beliefs and practices, even if these are extremely different from those of our general culture. For example, if their parents are racist, they will be more likely to reproduce the racism if they are prevented from participating in the broader culture. U.S. society celebrates individual choice, but because homeschooled children may not be exposed to the diversity present in public schools, their own adult choices may be limited. This is because they will have had limited exposure to the possibilities available to them. Universal education is one way that our society insures that we all start out on an equal footing. Homeschooling leads to a situation in which an individual’s family background is the primary factor in determining future success in life. In other words, homeschooling insures that we do not start out on an equal footing.

Homeschooling |

Health Some studies suggest that homeschooling parents are less likely to have their children immunized than parents of children enrolled in either public or private schools. This is because homeschooling parents are less likely to believe that vaccines are safe or that the government is telling the truth about them. Parents must have their children vaccinated before they are allowed to enter public or private schools. Requiring these vaccines is the main way that health care authorities make sure that we will not experience outbreaks of deadly and crippling diseases from the past. Some states have procedures to ensure that even homeschooled children receive vaccinations, but most do not. It is possible (although not demonstrated at present) that homeschooled children may be more vulnerable to diseases from which other children are protected by vaccinations. It is also possible that children schooled at home have a lower risk for certain common diseases because they may be less likely to be exposed to them. Welfare of Children Children may suffer in other ways through homeschooling. One small study has suggested that children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may do better in home than in public or private schools. It is suggested that this is because students in homeschools get individualized attention. In fact, because the student-teacher ratio is so low in homeschools, another problem is avoided. Teacher certification courses involve learning some type of classroom management. Classroom management is necessary when classes are large, but home educators do not need these skills because classes are small. For this reason, the problem of uncertified teachers in homeschool environments is moot. Also, some argue that parents are the people best qualified to determine what will most help their children, and to identify their individual needs. So homeschooling might be better on all these counts. Yet homeschooling can also make it possible for child abuse and neglect to flourish. In those places where families are not required to register their homeschooled children, the children may never have regular consultations with public officials. Abuse and neglect may go unnoticed by authorities in these situations. While these examples may be few, that they exist at all is a source of concern for many critics of the homeschool movement. See also Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); Parenting Styles; Religion and Families. Further Reading: American Homeschool Association. http://www.americanhomeschoolas sociation.org/; Brabant, Christine, Sylvain Bourdon, and France Jutras. “Home Education in Quebec: Family First.” Evaluation and Research in Education 17, nos. 2/3 (2003): 112–131; Collom, Ed. “The Ins and Outs of Homeschooling.” Education and Urban Society 37, no. 3 (2005): 307–335; Cooper, Bruce S., and John Sureau, John. “The Politics of Homeschooling-New Developments, New Challenges.” Educational Policy 21, no. 1 (2007): 110–131; Duvall, Steven F., Delquadri, Joseph C., and D. Lawrence Ward. “A Preliminary Investigation of the Effectiveness of Homeschool Instructional Environment

325

326

|

Housework Allocation for Students With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.” School Psychology Review 33, no. 1 (2004): 140–158; Green, Christa L., and Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey. “Why Do Parents Homeschool?” Education and Urban Society 39, no. 2 (2007): 264–285; Home School Legal Defense Association. http://www.hslda.org/; Houston R. G., and E. F. Toma. “Home Schooling: An Alternative School Choice.” Southern Economic Journal 69, no. 4 (2003): 920–935; Kennedy, Allison M., and Deborah A. Gust. “Parental Vaccine Beliefs and Child’s School Type.” Journal of School Health 75, no. 7 (2005): 276–280; Lyman, Isabel. “Homeschooling: Back to the Future?” The Cato Institute, 1998. http:// www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-294.html; National Home Education Network. http://www. nhen.org/; National Home Education Research Institute. http://www.nheri.org/; Sheehan, Michele. “Dancing With Monica: Personal Perceptions of a Home-School Mom.” Roeper Review 24, no. 4 (2002): 191; Urban, Wayne and Jennings Wagoner Jr. American Education: A History. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.

Carolyn F. Pevey

HOUSEWORK ALLOCATION The word “housework” normally refers to the unpaid labor done inside, or as a part of, the home. Housework includes not only household chores such as cooking and cleaning, but also child care, caregiving for elderly dependents, supervision and entertainment of family members, coordination of routines and family rituals, preparation and planning for events, and generally managing home and family life. In addition, many scholars recognize that household labor also includes the provision of indirect economic support. A spouse who manages the household and rears children makes it possible for the other to attend school, gain valuable work experience, and climb up the occupational ladder. When a wife is employed and has to come home to complete the bulk of housekeeping chores, it is often termed the second shift. The central debate in this area is the question of how unpaid labor is distributed among family members. Consistently, researchers find that wives, even those employed outside the home on a full-time basis, perform significantly more housework than husbands. The consequence of this is that wives and mothers, especially those who are employed, feel tired, anxious, overworked, and undervalued. Husbands grow accustomed to an unfair division of labor and may seldom recognize their wives’ contributions as work. The unpaid work done by wives and mothers is taken for granted and for some is assumed to be a natural consequence of women’s nurturing and nesting nature. Religious conservatives, especially those who are biblical literalists, stress that women and men are innately distinct from one another and that women are naturally inclined to care for others and cultivate family life. Sons and daughters witness and experience the unequal division of labor in their families of orientation and consequently model this in their own relationships. Thus, a gendered and unequal distribution of household labor is perpetuated, unchallenged, and over time is viewed as natural and normal. A further consequence of this pattern is that employers may feel justified in paying women less because they assume that all women will assign priority to home and family,

Housework Allocation |

thereby putting less time and effort into their occupations. In addition, women may choose occupations that they view as more flexible or less demanding so that they may accommodate the needs of their husbands and children. Women are more likely to choose part-time or flex-time employment and to work closer to home. Husbands rarely have to make such a choice between the demands of career and those of family. In the United States, the housewife role is imbued with contradictions. Girls are often encouraged, subtly or explicitly, to pursue a domestic course in life. This is reinforced through toys, books, mass media, and parental socialization. On the other hand, unpaid labor is not regarded as real work and women who stay home to raise children are, perhaps, one of the most powerless groups in our society. Past and present studies of women’s well-being find that the homemaker role is disadvantageous to women. Compared with their employed counterparts, women who stay home suffer more from depression, anxiety, and poor physical health. OVERVIEW OF WOMEN AND WORK It is difficult to discuss and understand contemporary patterns in housework without first considering the historical trends in paid and unpaid work. It is generally believed that American women have always borne a greater share of the burden for domestic work. Historical records reveal that during colonial times, some tasks in and around the home were more often performed by either men or women. Men performed the heavy, agricultural work of the fields and barn while women performed tasks such as spinning and weaving, making lace, soap, shoes, candles, and transporting water. However, before industrialization, most goods were produced in the home or nearby and all family members participated in the production of goods to some extent, even children. Families were primarily economic units where members spent a considerable amount of time engaged in essential tasks, such as the production of food. Because modern conveniences were unavailable and food surpluses uncommon, all members of the family participated in domestic labor and the divisions between women and men, as well as adults and children, were not as common as they are today. In colonial America, women were not excluded from working outside the home. Colonial women engaged in a great variety of occupations, such as shopkeepers, crafts workers, nurses, printers, and teachers. Women also acted as physicians and midwives in all of the early settlements. In the South, slave women worked in both the private and public spheres. The so-called ideology of separate spheres, a belief system regarding the proper and natural roles of women and men, emerged first in England and then spread to the United States around the time of Industrial Revolution. Women were thought to be inherently weaker, more submissive, and more adept at domestic work whereas men were considered stronger, more competitive, and more comfortable in dangerous situations that may arise outside the home. With the creation of new types of jobs, the roles of women and men became increasingly

327

328

|

Housework Allocation

distinct, with women being encouraged to devote most of their time and energy to the private, domestic sphere. Despite the growth of this belief system, women as well as men were invited to work in the factories during the early years of industrialization. Most women employees were young, single, and well-educated for the times. The work of women was highly valued and encouraged, in part because men continued to perform most of the heavy labor on farms. Women’s employment accelerated during both World Wars. It was during this time that married women entered the labor force in sizable numbers. Women worked as switch operators, tool makers, lumberjacks, and stevedores. However, after the war ended, there was a shift in cultural norms and women were encouraged to return to their traditional roles as wives and mothers. This shift occurred as a response to the growing fear that women would compete with men for jobs. As the economy strengthened, the necessity for all family members to work lessened. During this time, men earned a family wage, therefore wives’ wages were increasingly thought to be unnecessary. A new cultural ideal for women emerged during the mid-1800s and continued into the early-1900s known as the “cult of true womanhood.” Women were applauded for fulfilling what was viewed as their natural role; that of domestic work and caregiving. Husbands with nonworking wives gained prestige, and wives acquired status via their working husbands. Furthermore, middle-class wives were now in a position to acquire the status of lady, a title normally reserved for the most elite women of society. Unmarried and minority women continued to have higher rates of labor force participation. While the image of Rosie the Riveter took hold during the 1940s, the ideology of separate spheres reemerged strongly during the 1950s and 1960s. Popular television programs glamorized stay-at-home mothers and women were encouraged to seek fulfillment through marriage and motherhood. Middle-class women who wished to pursue careers felt their femininity was called into question. Nevertheless, women’s labor force participation rates continued to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, creating what some refer to as a stalled revolution. While the women’s movement expanded opportunities for women outside the home, it did not change the ideologies or expectations of men to a great extent. Contemporary studies reveal that husbands often resist their domestic obligations through feigning incompetence or performing tasks incorrectly—a type of playing dumb. CHILDREN AND HOUSEHOLD LABOR The greatest difference between wives and husbands in time spent in paid and unpaid work occurs when their children are under three. Even couples with relatively egalitarian marriages often find that the division of labor becomes quite segregated with the birth of the first child. When children are born into a marriage, women tend to work less outside the home and more inside the home. Only about 35 percent of married women with children under the age of six work full-time, but most of them do work at least part-time. Further-

Housework Allocation |

more, women are much less likely today to interrupt their employment because of children. Interestingly, older children often perform more housework than do fathers. Mothers report being responsible for the daily tasks associated with rearing children, while fathers are more likely to parent on an as-needed basis. Thus, women may be more likely to experience parenting as hard work, while men are more likely to describe parenting as fun and to view parenting as a temporary distraction from their primary obligations. Younger and more educated men perform more housework than do other men. Generally, these men hold less-traditional gender role attitudes. Employment status and relative earnings influence husbands’ share of housework. Husbands of employed wives perform more housework than husbands of nonemployed wives, although the distribution is still far from equitable. Husbands whose earnings far exceed their wives do less housework than other husbands. The recent increase in men’s contribution to domestic labor is primarily in child care, especially of older children, not in housework typically described as feminine. When fathers do watch children, they often do so in the absence of other activities or obligations whereas mothers watch children while shopping or attending to household chores. Culturally, it is assumed that good fathering is measured through good providing; thus, men are unlikely to experience conflict between their occupational and familial roles. On the other hand, good mothering is defined as being constantly available and accessible to children. Consequently, working mothers are very likely to experience conflict in their paid and unpaid work obligations. Indeed, a strong commitment to paid work on the part of mothers is likely to be viewed as incompatible with good mothering. In recent years, there has been a slight increase in the amount of housework performed by men. However, it is likely that this increase in husbands’ contribution to housework is actually the result of a decrease of the wives’ contribution resulting from their employment; this results in a relative increase in husbands’ contribution. Otherwise stated, less housework is being done in total by dualearner couples. Therefore, women and men may feel that some of the household work is simply left undone. It is still common for husbands as well as wives to describe men’s contributions as helping out. Some fathers even describe time spent with children as babysitting. Descriptions such as these reinforce the belief that housework and child care are inherently and inevitably women’s work and that wives whose husbands participate in these roles are the beneficiaries of their husbands’ generosity. RACE, ETHNICITY, AND SOCIAL CLASS African American and Latino men perform a greater share of housework than do white men. In large part, this is due to the economic necessity for many African American and Latina wives to work outside of the home as well as wage similarity between women and men of color. African American and Latino families are more egalitarian than white families, and more so than most stereotypes suggest. In terms of expressed beliefs, working-class couples often prefer a more

329

330

|

Housework Allocation

traditional division of labor, although they are more likely than middle-class couples to have an egalitarian division of labor. Middle-class couples, on the other hand, are more likely than working-class couples to express a preference for an egalitarian division of labor, while maintaining a traditional division of labor. When comparing various types of intimate relationships, lesbian couple households appear to be the most egalitarian of all. This is most likely due to gender role ideology as well as wage similarity. CONSEQUENCES OF THE UNEQUAL DIVISION OF LABOR Despite the fact that women have entered the paid labor force in increasing numbers since before the turn of the twentieth century, it is well-known and widely accepted that American women continue to bear the brunt for work done inside the home. Several studies have computed the difference between men and women in terms of time spent in unpaid labor. Wives spend two to four times as much time in domestic labor as husbands, and this is true even when wives are employed. One consequence of the increase in women’s labor force participation rates and the rise in dual-earner couples with children is that parents are more likely to work different shifts, alternating the responsibilities for child care somewhat and spending less time as a couple. Most marriages today are dual-earner, meaning that both husbands and wives work outside of the home for pay. Nevertheless, women spend more time each week in housework and childcare, and the difference is significant enough that scholars now acknowledge a so-called leisure gap between American husbands and wives. Married women, especially those with children, have substantially less free or leisure time than their male counterparts. Like paid work, unpaid work is differentiated based upon conventional, gendered assumptions. Some tasks are considered women’s work, while others are thought to be more masculine. Although there is this dividing of household tasks along gender lines, women perform the majority of the most time-consuming and least discretionary responsibilities. For instance, women do most of the food preparation, shopping for groceries, laundry, dish washing, clean-up, and child care, while men are more likely to do household repairs, yard work, and to play with children. Laundry is the task most often performed by women, with women doing about seven times as much. Women are more likely to multi-task in the household; they prepare meals while watching and entertaining children. Wives are also the kin-keepers of families, planning and coordinating family routines and rituals such as holiday get-togethers with extended family members. Thus, women work even when it appears to others that they are not working. They carry the psychological burden for anticipating and organizing family work. In short, men generally have more flexibility to participate in personal interests and to not work when they are at home. Married men actually create as much household labor as they perform. Indeed, married women spend more time in household work than do single mothers. Sociologists now refer to the combination of wives’ paid and unpaid labor as the double day or second shift, comprised of housework and child care. The de-

Housework Allocation |

mands of housework are monotonous and continuous, leaving married women with little time for personal hobbies, friendships, or relaxation. Women’s obligation to the second shift reveals our culture’s reluctance to relinquish them from what is seen as their primary role, even when they are successfully involved in other nondomestic pursuits. The second shift performed by wives has significant implications both for wives’ well-being as well as for marital quality. In one well-known study, it was reported that many married women, especially those who were mothers, talk about sleep the way a hungry person talks about food. Married women who are just beginning their families are especially vulnerable to stress and lack of sleep. HOUSEWORK AND MARITAL QUALITY On average, men report higher levels of satisfaction with their marriages than do women. Marital quality is compromised when spouses hold divergent views on gender roles. Wives generally make more compromises and adjustments in marriage and this is reflected in their lower marital satisfaction scores. The most distressing role combination for spouses is the combination of a traditional husband and a modern or liberal wife. It comes as no surprise that those wives in households with an equitable division of labor report higher levels of job satisfaction and well-being. These women are less anxious and have fewer depressive symptoms than other women. It may come as a surprise, however, that husbands who participate more equally in the division of household labor also report higher levels of well-being. Husbands who share more equally in housework report happier marriages, less anxiety, and higher levels of satisfaction with their sex lives. Men who resist social change and attempt to maintain conventional gender roles report high levels of distress. OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES Recognizing that they will most likely be unfairly burdened by domestic responsibilities, some women may opt to delay marriage or parenthood. Highly educated, successful career women are the most likely group to remain single, marry late, and remain voluntarily childless. Highly paid, dual-career couples may elect to hire outside help to offset some of the burden for housework and childcare. Unfortunately, this option is not available to most working-class couples or single mothers. Furthermore, the responsibility for locating and screening housecleaners, baby-sitters, and nannies falls to wives, thereby constituting another inequity. Also, a large proportion of domestic workers and nannies are lower-income women of color. Thus, reliance on such services continues to reinforce gender inequality for another class of women. See also Children as Caregivers; Employed Mothers; Family Roles; Marital Power; Stay at Home Dads. Further Reading: Coltrane, Scott. Gender and Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1998; Coltrane, Scott. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity.

331

332

|

Housework Allocation New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; Focus on the Family. http://www.family.org; Hesse-Biber, Sharlene, and Gregg Lee Carter. Working Women in America: Split Dreams. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; Hochschild, Arlie Russell, and Anne Machung. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking, 1989; McGraw, Philip. http://www.drphil.com; National Organization for Women. http:// www.now.org; Padavic, Irene, and Barbara Reskin. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2002; Schlessinger, Laura. http://www.drlaura.com.

Susan Cody-Rydzewski

I INFERTILITY Most persons take their fertility for granted and expect that conception will occur naturally and easily when they choose to pursue pregnancy. In reality fertility and child bearing can be a difficult and painful phenomenon for many couples who attempt to become pregnant. This situation is known as infertility and the rates of infertility have been increasing in the United States in recent decades, although definitive explanations for the increase are lacking. Infertility is a diseased condition of the reproductive system, usually diagnosed after a couple has experienced one year of unprotected sex, with welltimed intercourse, and failed to conceive or if a woman suffers from multiple miscarriages. Infertility is not a condition that only affects women, it also affects men. Lack of ability to conceive can be related to either partner’s health deficiencies. It is a disease that not only affects a couple physically, but it also affects them emotionally. There is considerable controversy surrounding the question of infertility. Not only are there physiological aspects to infertility, but emotional and social aspects as well. Couples must find ways to manage problems with infertility or they will suffer relationship consequences. Some persons would argue if a couple is infertile, it was not in life’s plan for them to have children. They should, according to some, remain childless. In opposition are those who favor the sometimes costly and painful medical interventions. Other controversial issues associated with infertility include both internal and external pressures. Internal pressures are associated with the idea of immortality and someone to carry on the family name and heritage. For women, internal pressure is associated with the idea of a ticking internal clock. As mythological

333

334

|

Infertility

as the concept may seem, it is very real according to physicians. External pressures stem from society. As a society, we still have a pro-natalistic approach when considering family and what we define as family. If you have no children society thinks that there is something wrong with you. You are not within the defined norms of family in society if you have no children. Time is another controversy related to infertility. In recent years people have delayed child bearing in pursuit of their own progress and goals as individuals. This delay could be potentially costly to a couple’s fertility. This controversy can be directly related to or correlated with the economy; more women today work and pursue education than ever before. It is important to note, however, that infertility affects people of all socioeconomic levels with no distinction between races, ethnicities, or religious predispositions. WHO IS FERTILE? As a method of evaluation doctors consider a couple infertile if they have been trying to conceive through unprotected intercourse for 12 months with no success and the female is under 35 years of age. This is known as subfertility. In some cases a couple may have one child already and are having difficulty conceiving another, this is known as secondary infertility. If the female is over 35 years of age, and the couple has not conceived after 6 months of unprotected intercourse, they too are considered infertile. Females incapable of reaching term in pregnancy are considered infertile as well. Healthy couples in their mid20s have a greater chance, one in four, of conceiving in one year’s time than do older women. This ability to conceive is known as fecundity. INFERTILITY DIAGNOSIS IN AMERICA/EPIDEMIOLOGY The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that 1 in 8 couples are infertile; 7.3 million Americans are not able to conceive. This is approximately 10 percent of the reproductive age population. Thirty-five percent of infertility is due to the female and another 35 percent is due to the male. The remaining cases are either unexplained or involve problems with both partners. There are four types of infertility, the male factor, the female factor, and two unexplained factors. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine indicated common health factors that lead to infertility are age, sexuality, tubal diseases, endometriosis, diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. It is important to receive early diagnosis because several intervention methods may eventually result in a successful pregnancy. Over time nearly one-half of infertile couples will conceive. FEMALE REPRODUCTION Understanding female infertility involves understanding the female reproductive system. It is complex to determine infertility in females because although their systems are alike, not every woman’s system functions in the same way.

Infertility

An individual trying to conceive needs to understand exactly how her system functions. Basic biology and reproduction is important to know and understand when considering the problems of infertility. For an individual to get pregnant she must understand the complex cycle of her body’s rhythm. Ovulation is the most fertile time in a woman’s cycle. The hypothalamus gland in the brain regulates functions in the body, everything from hunger to the libido. For the purpose of reproduction the hypothalamus gland controls endocrine functions. The hypothalamus releases a chemical messenger called follicle stimulating hormone releasing factor (FSH-RF). FSH-RF tells the pituitary gland, also located in the brain, to execute the next step. The pituitary gland then secretes the follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and a little luteinizing hormone (LH) enters into the bloodstream that causes the follicles (where the eggs are) to begin to mature. When the follicles mature they release the hormone estrogen. The follicle ripens in a seven-day period and releases more estrogen into the bloodstream. Estrogen causes the lining of the uterus to thicken and the mucous of the cervix to change. When the level of estrogen rises the hypothalamus gland releases large amounts of hormones from the pituitary gland, known as the LH surge. This surge of LH triggers the most mature follicle to burst open and release an egg. This is called ovulation. The prevention of pregnancy with birth control pills utilizes medications that block the LH surge, thus inhibiting the release of the egg. Prior to ovulation a woman’s cervix secretes an abundance of fertile mucous, which by character is a stretchy substance. This substance is important because it helps facilitate the sperm’s travel to the egg. Daily mucous testing is used to monitor the most fertile time of the month, along with basal body temperature. Once ovulation begins, about 14 to 16 days before the menstrual flow, the blood supply to the ovary increases and the ligaments contract, pulling the ovary closer to the fallopian tube. This allows the egg, once it is released, to enter into the fallopian tube. After ovulation, basal body temperature rises by about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Tracking basal body temperature elevation can provide helpful information about the day of ovulation. Once the egg is released it lives for 24 hours. Once inside the fallopian tube the egg is carried along by the tiny hair-like projections called cilia toward the uterus. A woman can become pregnant from intercourse with a fertile male for about 7 to 10 days in the middle of her cycle. Fertilization occurs if the sperm are present as the live egg reaches the uterus. The corpus luteum (yellow body) forms in the ovary from the ruptured follicle where the egg is released. As it heals it produces the hormone estrogen and progesterone in larger amounts which are necessary for maintenance during pregnancy. If any breakdown occurs in the process, the possibility for infertility increases. FEMALE FACTORS IN INFERTILITY A couple who has experienced infertility will be evaluated by a physician. This evaluation includes an analysis of each partner’s health and medical history. The evaluation of both individuals is similar. A physical examination, an evaluation

|

335

336

|

Infertility

of the reproductive hormones, and other analyses of the reproductive organs is performed. Medical history is an important part of the physical examination. The notation of history of menstrual cycle, pregnancy, birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, and surgical procedures are important for analysis. A physician will take into consideration such fertility inhibitors during his analysis as medications, sexual patterns, other significant health problems, lifestyles, and work environment. As the discussion of the common tests below indicates, identification and treatment of infertility is very complex and costly, leading some to question whether the desire of a couple to conceive is enough to warrant expensive medical tests, particularly those covered under insurance and Medicaid. The physical examination of a woman includes a thyroid, hair distribution, breast, and pelvic examinations. When checking the thyroid, the doctor will examine the thyroid with fingers, feeling for any abnormalities. If there is excessive hair growth on the face and body, this might indicate the presence of male hormones. Breast examination includes observation of size and shape. The breast might also be squeezed to see if any liquid comes out of the nipple. This liquid could be an indication of the presence of increased prolactin, a hormone that prevents ovulation. The physical examination can conclude with a pelvic examination to inspect the cervix. The physician is looking for signs of unusual growths, sores, discharge, or infection. A pap smear is conducted to check for cervical cancer. Cervical mucous is examined for possible infections. Additional Testing for Females Ovarian Function Tests Ovarian function tests are a series of blood tests taken to determine certain hormone levels. Day 3 FSH tests are taken on day 3 of ones menstrual cycle to measure the level of FSH. If there is an increase in FSH it could be an indication that there is a decrease in the production of good-quality eggs and embryos. Day 3 estradol tests measures the amount of estrogen in one’s blood. A high level of estrogen could indicate poor egg quality. Inhibin-B levels tests are tests that determine if inhibin-B is being produced at too low a level. Both inhibin-A and inhibin-B are hormones secreted by the gonads (by seroli cells in males and the granulose cells in females) that inhibit the production of FSH by the pituitary gland. The inhibin also plays a role in the control of gametogenesis as well as embryonic and fetal development. Inhibin-A is elevated in the blood serum of women carrying fetuses with Down syndrome. Finally, to complete the ovarian test a trans-vaginal ultrasound is performed several days after the LH surge to determine if ovulation has occurred. Luteal phase testing includes additional blood tests and a biopsy. Plasma and progesterone levels are tested through blood tests in the last part of the female’s menstrual cycle. High levels of progesterone indicate that ovulation has occurred. Hormone tests measure the amount of prolactin, androgen, and thyroid stimulating hormones. An endometrial biopsy is performed after day 21. This test involves taking small pieces of tissue from the uterine lining. These tissue

Infertility

samples help to determine if the lining of the uterus is thick enough for a fertilized embryo. The results will indicate endometrial development. A postcoital test (PCT), performed mid-cycle and shortly after intercourse, tests and evaluates the quality and quantity of cervical mucous. Additionally, it documents the presence of live, motile sperm in the mucous. EVALUATION OF REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS A series of x-rays, scopes, and ultrasound examinations are conducted on the reproductive organs. Hystreosalpingogram (HSG) is an x-ray procedure that is performed in the first half of the cycle by using a water- or oil-based dye to identify any structural abnormalities in a woman’s uterus or fallopian tubes. A hysterscope is a tiny telescope mounted with a fiber optic light. It is used to examine uterine abnormalities if such have been indicated by the HSG. Laparoscopy is a surgical procedure performed under general anesthesia before or around ovulation. This procedure gives the doctor a clear view of the pelvic cavity, which includes ovaries, fallopian tubes, and the uterus. The laparoscopy will allow the doctor to intervene if a problem is recognized. If adhesions or endometriosis is discovered, a laser may be attached to remove growths. Sonohystogram is an ultrasound that utilizes saline to inflate the cavity of the uterus for careful observation. Vaginal and abdominal ultrasounds are used to visualize the uterus and ovaries. They are also helpful to monitor the growth of follicles on the ovary during the cycle to detect fibrosis or ovarian cysts. OTHER FACTORS Abdominal factors that infer with infertility are called peritoneal factors. Two of these problems include pelvic adhesions and endometriosis. Pelvic adhesions are thick fibrous scars that can result from a past infection, particularly by a sexually transmitted disease. Such infections as pelvic inflammatory disease or infection following abortions or prior births create scaring. Previous surgeries can also leave behind scars. Complications from appendicitis and certain intestinal diseases can also result in pelvic adhesions. Endometriosis, when uterine tissue is located outside of the uterus, results in pelvic adhesions. When endometrial tissue implants itself in other areas of the pelvis it creates an irritation. This irritation, tissue, and bleeding create scarring. Pelvic adhesions contribute to infertility because they block the fallopian tubes. When the fallopian tubes are blocked, the ovum is prevented from traveling down the fallopian tubes from the ovary. It also prevents sperm from traveling up the fallopian tubes from the uterus. Ultimately, this blockage can prevent a blastocyst, a thin-walled hollowed structure from which the embryo develops, from entering the uterus where it implants. The outer layer of blastocyst cells gives rise to the placenta and other supporting tissues needed for fetal development. At the same time, the inner cell mass cells gives rise to the tissue of the body. Uterine factors contributing to infertility include tumors, other abnormal growths within the uterus, chronic inflammation of the uterus, abnormal

|

337

338

|

Infertility

structures of the uterus, and a variety of endocrine problems (problems with the secretion of certain hormones) that prevent the uterus from developing the thick lining necessary for implantation by the blastocyct. MALE REPRODUCTION Male reproduction is equally as complex as female reproduction. Hormones released by the pituitary gland also regulate the male system. FSH stimulates sperm production in the testicles while LH stimulation produces testosterone. The spermatozoa then develop through several stages, gaining motility after 24 hours. Stored in the epididymis, at ejaculation the sperm pass through the vas deferens, which assists in their expulsion. Sperm must be motile, morphologically sound, and plentiful in order to fertilize the egg. Any disruption in the male reproductive cycle can lead to problems with fertility as well. MALE FACTORS IN INFERTILITY The most important factors in determining male infertility are illness and sexual history. Such illnesses include mumps after puberty, hernia repairs, athletic injuries to the groin, and history of un-descended testicles. Sexual history plays an equally important role. Such things as possible sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), urinary tract infections, prostatitis or ejaculatory problems, impotence, certain prescription medications, as well as excessive smoking, drinking, or drug use can effect sperm quality. To evaluate male factors physicians generally conduct a physical examination, semen analysis, and reproductive hormone evaluation. Reproductive hormones include FSH, androgen level-testosterone, and protactin. Additional sperm analysis testing takes into account sperm antibodies, sperm penetration, and cervical mucus penetration test. Physicians are looking for the sperm count, ability of the sperm to swim, velocity of forward progress of the sperm, size and shape of the sperm, total semen volume, and the liquefaction of the semen, or the ability of the semen to go from gel-like state at ejaculation to a liquid state. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND TESTS The physical examination entails observation of the hair growth patterns in the genital area, which should be diamond shaped, extending upward toward the navel. A general examination for abnormalities of the penis, scrotum, and testes is conducted. The examination concludes with the examination of the prostate. Normally, semen analysis includes volume, sperm number, motility, forward progression, and morphology. Normal sperm number should be 200 million or more per ejaculation, and at least 50 percent or more should be motile. Additionally, there should be no significant sperm clumping or agglutination, no significant white blood cells or red blood cells, and no hyper-viscosity (thickening of the seminal fluid).

Infertility

Semen analysis is usually done in a laboratory or physician’s office where a man ejaculates into a cup. Within a few hours the sperm are analyzed. If the volume of semen is low this may indicate that the ducts are blocked or that there is some problem with the prostate gland. If a man’s sperm count is below 10 million, which is considered poor, this could signal a problem. Sperm counts of 20 million or more are considered healthy as long as motility and morphology are normal. For motility and velocity two aspects are considered. Motility involves the number of active cells as a percentage of total numbers, and should be at least 50 percent active. Quality of movement is indicated by a rating of 0 to 4 with a score of 2 or more being acceptable. A Kruger morphology test examines the shape and size of sperm head. Normal morphology is when 14 percent or more of the sperm heads are shaped normally. Otherwise normal men with less than 4 percent normal shape are considered to have a significant fertility problem. A liquefaction test of semen is used to indicate if ejaculate immediately coagulates into a pearly gel that liquefies within 20 minutes. Failure to coagulate and then liquefy may indicate a problem with the seminal vesicles. A too-thick or too-thin consistency in this seminal fructose can indicate a problem. If no fructose is present, a congenital defect in the vas deferens or seminal vesicles or obstruction of the ejaculatory duct is the problem. ADDITIONAL SPERM TESTING Analysis of sperm antibodies examines if the sperm movements are agile. If the sperm don’t move well, the physician may order tests that can localize and quantify specific antibodies in the blood and on the sperm’s surface. If there is a problem with antibody attachment, the following can be affected: if they stick to the head of the sperm, the sperm may be not able to penetrate; if they cover the tail of the sperm, the sperm may not be able to swim fast enough or in the right direction. A penetration assay is a test that evaluates the sperm’s ability to break through the outer membrane of an egg and fuse with the egg cytoplasm. A cervical mucous penetration test is a test conducted in the laboratory that uses cow’s mucous to evaluate the sperm’s ability to move through the women’s cervical mucous. A physician may take cultures of semen and other cultures of the urethra to test for the presence of bacteria or other STDs. In sum, male infertility is commonly associated with no sperm production or inadequate sperm production. Sometimes sperm cells are malformed or they die before they reach the egg. In rare cases, infertility in men is caused by genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis or a chromosomal abnormality. Female infertility factors can include ovulation or other cycle disorders. Female infertility factors can include blocked fallopian tubes that can occur when a women has had pelvic inflammatory disease or endometriosis. Congenital abnormalities (birth defects) involving the structure of the uterus or uterine fibroids can be associated with repeated miscarriages.

|

339

340

|

Infertility

EFFECTS OF INFERTILITY ON THE COUPLED RELATIONSHIP Society plays a major role in the emotional state of couples who are having difficulty conceiving. According to the ascribed roles of society, women are caregivers, thus the assumption that she has a greater investment in being able to conceive. Women are more skilled at concealing the anger, fear, and resentment of infertility. Consequently, she takes responsibility for the problem, and often she attempts to face infertility alone, withdrawing from the partner. Some women in this position will become depressed. As infertility is often interpreted negatively by society and the individuals experiencing it, neither person knows how to comfort the other. Hiding their true feelings has significant effects on a couple. Men in the role of the protector, problem solver, and provider often become helpless when infertility is an issue. They experience feelings of inadequacy, disappointment, and fear. The ability to father a child is rarely even considered, and just assumed to happen when the male desires. Men are trained to take charge and solve problems, so that emotional reactions are not acceptable. When men find themselves in a state of helplessness they may have difficulty expressing that to a partner. Infertility issues can affect a couple’s self-esteem as well as their hopes and dreams for their future lives together, making it difficult to comfort each other. Because infertility is such an emotional subject, each partner will likely face emotional consequences. Couples begin to feel a sense of inadequacy. Women describe feeling hollow inside and men feel like they are shooting blanks after failed attempts to get pregnant. They share a diminished sense of masculinity and femininity. The behavioral effects are numerous as well. Couples begin to feel that sexual intercourse is a chore, not a spontaneous act of love that takes place between two individuals; sex becomes like homework. Their entire lifestyles become dictated by schedules, appointments, and calendar dates. Couples experiencing infertility problems go through many emotional stages. STAGES OF EMOTIONS Some practitioners believe that couples go through various emotional stages when faced with the problem of infertility. Those stages are: realization and acknowledgement, evaluation and diagnosis, treatment, and resolution. In realization stage, couples are shocked to realize that they can’t get pregnant on their own. When they attempt to get pregnant after discontinuing birth control they become more and more anxious at each failed attempt. During this stage the feelings of frustration, anger, denial, guilt, shame, self-pity, and jealousy begin to occur. Disagreements about issues in the marriage become more obvious. Men may need convincing that intervention and treatment are necessary. To cope with these emotions couples need to communicate their feelings openly, make appointments to see physicians, and embrace their mixed emotions. The second stage is evaluation and diagnosis. Couples experience mixed emotions in this stage. Although this is a very stressful time, it should offer the couples hope because they will find out what their health problems are and what

Infertility

solutions may be available. Because the couples have to record all their behaviors and coordinate their sexual activities on a schedule to assist the doctor in evaluating the problem, couples may sense a loss of control. Couples generally develop a sense of resentment for couples who are pregnant or those that have children. Sexuality starts to diminish as spontaneity is no longer an option. To conquer these emotions, couples need to maintain good communication. They should also become educated on infertility by learning as much as they can. Joining a support group and keeping all doctors appointments should help them cope with stress and emotions. Couples who don’t receive the proper amount of support can find themselves growing apart as they handle the situation in their own way. By the time a couple reaches the third stage, treatment, they may feel that infertility is dominating their lives. To become pregnant with schedules and timetables becomes very demanding. To add to the frustration, anger, and resentment that each may be experiencing, now the mates have to deal with the emotions associated with hormonal treatments. These drugs generally magnify the emotions already present. There is an increasing sense of vulnerability and sensitivity and couples often feel like other aspects of their lives have been put on hold, waiting for the conception. They may begin to resent intercourse, thinking more of it as a chore than something to strengthen their relationship. They might also experience feelings of self-punishment (e.g., maybe we don’t deserve a child) of feelings of self-blame (e.g., if only we’d done this or that, then we would have a baby). Handling these emotions requires counseling and support. Again, communicating frustrations, instead of holding emotions in, helps to keep stress manageable. Couples should attempt to have fun sex, not so-called baby-making sex. The final stage is resolution. Once a couple reaches this stage they have endured intense emotional and physical strain. This gives the couple a sense of renewed self-esteem and confidence because they have survived this traumatic experience. Their emotions range from exhaustion and a need to move on to a realization that you cannot control every aspect of your life. Some couples feel relieved that they will not have to endure the strenuous schedules anymore. Other couples feel a sense of closeness and have more empathy for the other person’s problems. As they deal with conception or not conceiving, they gain some sense of normalcy in their lives. Those who are unable to conceive either decide to try again later or explore other options for having a family like specialized treatment or adoption. THE CONTROVERSIES All of the testing, trauma, and invasion of privacy beg the question, why don’t people just give up? The question of parenting creates a dilemma stemming from many personal and societal controversies. Controversies surrounding infertility are of several different types. Some originate with the couple’s desire to have a child. Perhaps it relates to their ideal image of family life or the ways that they see themselves. Some controversies over infertility relate to the larger societal and cultural expectations on couples to parent. Both areas prompt questions

|

341

342

|

Infertility

about the causes of the infertility, the acceptability of childlessness in a marital relationship, and decisions to seek medical intervention. Whose Fault is it? Historically, the question of fault has been central in discussions of infertility. The fault was assumed to be with women, as the bearers of children, whose failure to become pregnant must mark a fundamental problem with their physiology, or even their psychology. In biblical times, for example, women who were barren were ostracized and bore their shame alone. In more recent years, the question of fault has become less accusatory, but no less important. Women are stereotypically still thought to be the problem more often than men. The partner diagnosed with the problem may choose to undergo expensive and sometimes painful treatments. The assignment of fault is important for knowing what medical intervention to seek. However, this can lead to feelings of letting the partner down, being inadequate, or broken. If the inability to conceive results from previous infections, such as STDs or abortion complications, the placement of blame can create relationship problems. Given that males and females have very similar rates of infertility problems, it is important that one not be more readily blamed as the source of problems The problem of infertility has become more controversial in some ways because we live in a time in which couples are waiting longer to have children. When issues of lifestyle choice are invoked, the debates can become quite heated. Some camps are less sympathetic to childless couples because they argue that it is their own selfishness that led to the problem. Had they had children when they were younger, they may not have had conception difficulties. The deferment of bearing children is due to fulfilling other life ambitions, obligations, and commitments. Critics suggest that couples just want to have it all and that is impossible. They have to choose and they chose unwisely. Here again women receive more blame than do men. Author Sylvia Ann Hewlett suggests that this is resulting in an epidemic of childlessness. Increases in women’s participation in the job market have been blamed for accompanying increases in infertility. Beginning in the early twentieth century, increased numbers of women in the labor force lead to increases in the age at which women decided to bear children. Society’s transition from a manufacturing-centered economy to a service-oriented economy demanded a supply of women to work. In 1940, less than 20 percent of the female population age 16 and older participated in the labor force. By the year 2006, that figure had risen to 59 percent compared with 79 percent of men. Women of childbearing age have the highest rates of labor force participation. The year 1980 marked the first time that the number of full-time working women exceeded the number of full-time stay-at-home mothers. Families could not survive on one income and found themselves in need of dual-income households. Women, bolstered by the equality strides of the Women’s Movement, began to delay childbearing because of the rewards associated with the independence of working, including pride, self-worth, and an identity apart from their husbands.

Infertility

The long-term economic benefits also played a role in the decision to work. The desire for education can not be overlooked in women delaying childbearing. While on average women are around age 25 at the time of their first birth, the numbers of women delaying well into and beyond their 30s has seen a dramatic increase in the last 20 years. This has been credited with the increasing rates of infertility seen today. Some alarmists have suggested that the most important issue facing married Generation X couples is not waiting too long to attempt conception. The fecundity rate indicates that one-half of women in their 20s will conceive within three months. For women in their early 30s the comparable data are that one-half will conceive within five months, and for women in their late 30s, one-half will conceive within nine months. There is evidence that fertility declines significantly past age 35 because an older woman’s eggs, all of which are produced before her birth and age as the woman ages, are more prone to problems. In addition to maternal age, blame has been directed toward environmental contaminants like chemicals and radiation that can build up in the body over time and lead to difficulty conceiving. While this may be beyond the control of the partners, waiting seems to exacerbate the problem. Another lifestyle element that can lead to blaming is the scarring from a sexually transmitted disease. Another controversial question arises regarding whose fault infertility is. For some fundamentalist Christians, infertility is seen as God’s punishment of a couple or perhaps part of his plan for them. This explanation might retain some blame on the couple, as they search for explanation in a past transgression, but it also absolves them of some of the self-doubt. It provides a coping strategy. Is It Okay for the Relationship to be Childless? Pressure to bear children comes from both internal and external sources. The internal pressure centers on the biological need to reproduce and not become a genetic dead end. It may also arise from a sense of what is the right thing to do. For example, the lack of a child to carry on the family name marks the end of their family linage. Birth of a child tends to give people the idea that they are immortal as a part of themselves will live on in the child. External pressures come from the pro-natalist society in which we live. Ours is a society that places a great deal of emphasis on couples having children. There is a negative stigma attached to being married without a child; or being a couple who has been in a long term relationship and not had children. It is against the norms of society. There is a significant percentage of the United States population that would not describe the couple as being a family unless they had at least one biological or adopted child. The presence of children in a marriage goes a long way toward defining that marriage within the norms of the culture. Many persons suggest that the primary reason to marry is to have and rear children. Biblical pronouncements such as “be fruitful and multiply” abound and couples take them to heart, so that infertility may cause the couple and observers to question the quality of the marriage. A question that young married couples often hear is, “when are you going to start a family?” This seemingly innocent

|

343

344

|

Infertility

question tells us much about what we expect of married adult persons and what constitutes acceptable behavior. Studies conducted by the University of Michigan and Wayne State University reveal that infertility creates stress that has the effects of increased marital conflict, decreased sexual self-esteem, decreased satisfaction with one’s own sexual performance, and decreased frequency of sexual intercourse. Furthermore, infertility has both indirect and direct effects that decrease evaluations of life as a whole, self efficacy, marriage, intimacy, and health. The negative affects on life quality of females is greater than that of males, again demonstrating how infertility is more of a blow to women than to men. Researchers further believe that the affects of infertility cause emotional problems. Initially, it was believed that infertility was created by psychological problems, now it is believed that infertility causes psychological problems, although this cannot be definitively proven. This question of whether biology or the couple’s stress over not conceiving is the source of the infertility has been debated for some time. It certainly is true that biological research on aging eggs and sperm have indicated that conception does become more unlikely. However, the general happiness of infertile couples declines as their efforts to conceive fail. The most significant drop in the quality of life is seen in cases involving depression in women. This is an indirect effect of infertility. The ability to socialize, work, maintain relationships, and self-esteem issues become an additional burden in conjunction with infertility. Couples often find it quite difficult to interact with friends who have children. When fertile persons learn of the infertility difficulties of the childless, they are likely to feel pity as they surely cannot be happy without children. While it is more acceptable to be childless (without children due to infertility) than childfree (without children through personal choice), neither are considered ideal. Couples with fertility problems can easily find themselves being asked highly personal questions to which they must determine how to respond appropriately. Does one wish to share the information regarding infertility, offer a witty retort, or ignore the question altogether? Many websites offer advice to couples about how to respond to the curiosities of those who wonder why they have not yet begun to parent. Other topics that are covered include handling unsolicited advice such as “you just need to relax” or “go on vacation.” Should We Look to Science for Solutions? Couples who are infertile often look to science as a way to solve the problem. As increases in reproductive technology have made conception at later ages more successful, more couples take advantage of them. This is, however, quite controversial. At what age should persons be ineligible for fertility assistance? Is there a point when a couple is simply too old to parent? For some younger couples, who want everything in a hurry, have all other avenues been examined first? Fertility drugs can have some unwarranted side effects. In cases where multiple viable embryos are fertilized, should a couple elect to abort some of them to give the remaining embryos a better chance to become full-term babies? Or

Infertility

should we follow the example of Kenny and Bobbi McCaughey, whose premature septuplets captured national attention? For some couples infertility is just a matter of donated sperm or eggs, but questions about the acquisition of these can arise. Sperm banks have been around for many years, but the harvesting of a healthy woman’s ova for surrogate use or implantation in an infertile female is relatively new and remains controversial. One particularly interesting aspect of egg donation is the cost. Some couples turn to science first for a solution, and when that is not successful or prohibitively expensive, they consider adoption. One of the biggest concerns with adoption, however, is the extremely small numbers of infants available in the United States. It has been suggested that if a couple is infertile, it is a clear indication that they were just not meant to be parents. It is God’s plan for the couple. Technology today can allow any couple to test, question, and challenge this theory. However, there are some who believe that trying to challenge what they think is the presence of God’s wisdom is not practical. The medical intervention in infertility may be considered a sin in some conservative groups. The only acceptable solution to the problem is prayer. CONCLUSION Infertility is a life-altering realization for couples. It can lead to psychological turmoil as well as financial difficulty given the cost of infertility treatments. This psychological turmoil can lead to emotional discomfort. A couple may find it stressful as they journey from evaluation to treatment in their efforts to conceive. When initial efforts for conception fail, couples might find themselves utilizing a reproductive specialist. Reproductive specialists assist with aggressive conception methods like hormone stimulation, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. Couples facing infertility have many options for conception. The question usually is whether they can endure the steps it will take to conceive. With infertility being covered in some portion by insurance companies, infertility problems today are more manageable, although infertility itself raises many challenging questions about the definition of family, the role of women in society, and reliance on science. See also Childfree Relationships; International Adoption; Surrogacy; Transition to Parenthood; Transracial Adoption. Further Reading: American Pregnancy Association. “What is Infertility?” 2007. http://www. americanpregnancy.org/infertility/whatisinfertility.html; Beer, Alan E., Julia Kantecki, and Jane Reed. Is Your Body Baby-Friendly? Unexplained Infertility, Miscarriage, and IVF Failure. LaSalle, Ont.: AJR Publishing, 2006; California Cryobank, Inc. http://www.cryo bank.com; Domar, Alice. Conquering Infertility. New York: Penguin Books, 2002; Endometriosis Association. http://www.endometriosisassn.org; Feminist Women’s Health Center. “Menstrual Cycles: What Really Happens in those 28 Days?!” http://www.Fwhc. org/health/moon.htm; Fertile Thoughts. http://www.fertilethoughts.com; Hewitt, Sylvia Ann. Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children. New York: Miramax Books, 2002; interMDnet Corporation. “The Doctor Will See You Now.” 2008.

|

345

346

|

International Adoption http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com; IVF-Infertility.com. http://www.ivf-infertility. com/; RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. http://www.resolve.org; Saake, Jennifer. Hannah’s Heart: Seeking God’s Hope in the Midst of Infertility. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005; Toth, Attila. Fertile vs. Infertile: How Infections Affect Your Fertility and Your Baby’s Health. Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2004.

Nataylia Ketchum INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION International adoption, also known as transnational adoption or intercountry adoption, is the process of a prospective adoptive parent seeking and obtaining a child for legal adoption from a country other than that of the parent’s citizenship. For residents of the United States, children are available for adoption from over 50 countries. However, U.S. residents are ineligible to adopt from Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. Residents of the United States adopt more children through intercountry adoption than do the residents of any other nation. The practice has garnered more attention in recent years as Hollywood celebrities flaunt their adoption-created families. Parents in the United States are turning increasingly to international adoptions as a way to create their families. Since 1971, more than 330,000 children have been adopted from foreign countries. Recent numbers indicate nearly 23,000 international adoptions by American parents in 2005 (www.travel.state.gov). Comparably, in 1994 there were approximately 8,000 international adoptions. The dramatic rise in international adoption can be attributed to war, poverty, and the lack of social welfare in the children’s home countries. Factors in the United States that contribute to the increase in international adoptions are a disinclination toward foster care adoptions, perceived difficulties with domestic adoptions, and preference toward adopting infants in lieu of older children. As fewer healthy white infants became available in the United States, parents seeking children with these characteristics began to look elsewhere. Additionally, prospective parents in the United States have a greater amount of expendable income compared with couples from other developed countries. These financial resources are necessary because an average international adoption processed through a private agency can easily cost between $7,500 to $30,000, depending on the child’s country of origin and adoption service used (www. statistics.adoption.com). INTRODUCTION In the United States, the vast majority of children who are in need of adoptive parents are older children. Statistics on the ages of children adopted in the United States gathered in 1998 by the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), showed that fewer than 2 percent of children that were in need of adoption were two years old or younger. For families seeking an infant, international adoption is increasingly becoming the answer. Most international adoptions are of infants and toddlers, with the majority of these children

International Adoption |

adopted from China, Guatemala, Russia, and South Korea. The number of children adopted from each of these countries varies from year to year, but these countries have been generally supportive of international adoptions. Increased infertility rates have also played a role in the rise in international adoptions. Infertility rates have been on the rise as more and more couples in the United States choose to postpone having children until later in life. For some of these couples, their goal of having a family can only be realized with an adoption. With the large number of internationally adopted children entering the United States each year come many challenges concerning cultural socialization, developmental delays as a result of poor health, and potential behavioral issues. The language barrier alone causes many of the educational and social problems faced by children adopted from other countries. Additionally, these children sometimes face medical issues. According to the International Adoption Guidebook, children who are adopted from other countries are at risk for numerous medical conditions with the five most prevalent being hepatitis, HIV, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, reactive attachment disorder, and sensory integration disorder. This creates special challenges for these families once they have navigated the bureaucracy to add the child to their family. BACKGROUND The history of international adoption in the United States began in earnest after World War II and continued during the early Cold War years. These two events served to globalize the adoption market as the plight of orphaned children overseas became more visible to Americans. Many of the orphaned children were the byproduct of relationships between U.S. soldiers stationed in foreign lands and local women. The story of these half-American children who were often cruelly treated in their home countries attracted the attention of people back home in the United States. Many of these early international adoptions were the result of religious motivation. Lutherans, Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists were among the many religious groups that mobilized to facilitate international adoptions. Religious groups were also responsible for the formation of such organizations as the League for Orphan Victims in Europe (LOVE) and the American Joint Committee for Assisting Japanese American Orphans. The goal of these groups was twofold. Benevolence definitely played a huge part in that these people genuinely wanted to help with the plight of the orphaned children. Secondly, they could make healthy infants available to Americans who wanted to adopt. Religious conviction to provide assistance was not the sole reason for international adoptions. Many American couples who wanted children of their own were pleased to discover areas such as the newly created West Germany where thousands of healthy children had been abandoned as a result of the war. The first families to adopt these children were military families stationed abroad, but the story quickly spread to the American media. In 1949 Readers’ Digest published an article chronicling one of these families in an article entitled “Our International Family.” In the 1950s, U.S. citizens were allowed to adopt children in

347

348

|

International Adoption

foreign courts in absentia. These proxy adoptions were a popular way to adopt internationally, making it easy for parents to do so. Many child welfare advocates disliked this type of adoption because they felt it lacked regulation. The chief of the U.S. Children’s Bureau at the time, Katherine Oettinger, believed that internationally adopted children were more likely to suffer abuse and disruption because their adoptions did not adhere to even minimum standards. Oettinger argued that while the government, philanthropies, and parents all respond to the idea of rescuing helpless children from likely deprivation (their hearts were in the right places), problems that exist in adoption are significantly harder to resolve in adoptions that span the ocean. Beginning in the 1990s, Americans started adopting children from Central and South America. Guatemala has been very high on the list maintained by the State Department of countries that provide large numbers of children for adoption by American couples. Due to the end of Communism in countries such as Romania and the former Soviet Union, there has also been a dramatic rise in the number of adoptions from these countries. At the end of the Cold War, the United States sent numerous news correspondents to document social life in these places. Human interest stories served to publicize the plight of these children. Many times the children were living in deplorable conditions, lacking basic medical care. As a result, American couples began adopting these children in record numbers. In 2005, there were 4,639 Russian children adopted by American families (compared to 12 children of Russian origin adopted in 1991). By 2002, children from China, Russia, South Korea, Guatemala, and Ukraine accounted for 75 percent of foreign adoptees.

POPULAR INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION COUNTRIES South Korean Adoptions The Korean War (1950–1953) began the largest wave of international adoptions. In 1955 Harry Holt, an Oregon farmer and his wife Bertha, were so touched by the situation of the orphans from the Korean War that they adopted 8 of these children from South Korea. This story sparked widespread media interest around the country and many other Americans became eager to adopt these children. In response, the Holts created Holt International Children’s Services, which as of 2007 had placed around 60,000 Korean orphans into American homes. Foreign adoptions became so prevalent after the war that a special agency was created under the Ministry of Social Affairs in South Korea. In the 1950s the majority of children adopted overseas were the mixed-race children of Korean women and American male service members. These children were referred to as the dust of the streets, and were often treated cruelly in Korea. Eventually the practice of adoption became so widespread in South Korea that not only mixedrace children were sent for adoption, but children of poverty-stricken families were put up for adoption as well. South Korea became the largest supplier of children to the United States and other developed countries. Since the end of the Korean War, over 200,000 Korean children have been sent overseas for adop-

International Adoption |

tion, 150,000 of them to the United States. To this day, Koreans comprise the largest group of adoptees in both the United States and Western Europe. Because unmarried Korean women often face a severe social stigma for nonmartial births, they are likely to put their children up for adoption because this makes the women eligible for substantial financial support. Vietnamese Adoptions In the 1970s the Vietnam War was responsible for another wave of international adoptions by American families. In 1975 Operation Baby Lift brought 2,000 Vietnamese and mixed-race children to the United States for adoption during the final days of the war. Critics questioned whether this hasty evacuation was in the best interest of the children. The most contentious point was whether these children were technically orphans who qualified for adoption. This operation was plagued with lost and inaccurate records, casting a negative light on international adoption. In several well-publicized instances birth parents or other relatives later arrived in the United States requesting custody of children who had already been adopted by American families. This effort was also criticized as another example of American cultural imperialism. Guatemalan Adoptions As previously stated, Guatemala has become a popular country for adopting American couples; however, the number of Guatemalan adoptions is set to dramatically decrease due to a pronouncement from the president of Guatemala, Oscar Berger. He has announced, according to the Guatemalan Department of State, that effective January 1, 2008, all intercountry adoptions will be suspended. Due to this announcement, over 5,000 Guatemalan children who have already been matched with prospective adoptive parents will be without a family. This effectively leaves them in a state of uncertainty because they no longer have contact with their birthparents and also have no hope of being united with their adoptive parents in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, due to the instability in Guatemala, many agencies can no longer offer Guatemalan children a refuge with American parents. Guatemala is considered a third-world country and they do not have the financial resources, as in other countries, to support these children for the expected extended period of time it will take until adoptions are reopened. One of the primary reasons that so many children were available for so long in Guatemala relates to high levels of poverty where birth parents may not be able to adequately care for all of their children and perceive adoption as a way to better their child’s life. There has also been a long-standing concern that many Guatemalan children offered for adoption were actually stolen from their birth parents who did not wish to tender them for adoption. As a result of this, recently Guatemalan children entering the United States via adoption have been subject to DNA testing to ensure that they are, in fact, eligible for adoption and that they were not kidnapped from their birth parents.

349

350

|

International Adoption

Chinese Adoptions China routinely has a high number of children adopted by U.S. parents. This is due in part to China’s one-child policy. In the 1950s Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-Tung encouraged Chinese families to have as many children as possible because he believed that this would strengthen the country. As a result, a huge population boom occurred. In the 1970s, however, the Chinese government began to fear that there would not be enough food or other resources for its growing population and something needed to be done to curtail the birth rate. This is how the one-child policy came into existence. In 1979, the Chinese government determined that Chinese couples residing in urban areas could only have one child without penalty. If these couples had more than one child they could receive jail time, pay heavy fines, and be ostracized from the community (china.adoption.com). If they chose to have only one child they, and the child, would be rewarded. Additionally, China is a country where baby boys are revered and baby girls are seen as burdens on society. Inheritance and ties to the ancestral family are passed along the male line, so parents have a preference that their one child be a son. This is a very important element in Chinese society. As a consequence of the preference for male heirs, there are many more baby girls to be adopted than baby boys. Historically, female fetuses were more likely to be aborted and some female infants were killed by their parents. Rather than becoming the victims of infanticide, many times baby girls in China are abandoned in temples and hospitals or in subways or railway stations. When found, these children are taken to orphanages where they can become eligible for adoption. While Chinese law permits adoption of both male and female children to international parents, statistically many more female than male children are available. Despite the adoptions by U.S. families and other foreign parents, the problems facing female infants in China remain severe. Former Soviet States and Adoption In the early years of this decade, the former Soviet States, including Russia and Ukraine, were competing with China for the place from which the most children were being adopted by Americans. More recently, however, the numbers of children being adopted from Russia have declined significantly. One of the reasons was a stricter enforcement of adoption standards and additional required paperwork instituted by the Russian government. Also, adoptions were to be handled in a uniform way. Additionally, in 2006 the Russian government required a registration and re-accreditation for all foreign not-for-profit organizations operating in the country. This included adoption agencies. So there was a time, at least, where few agencies were available to assist clients. Some agencies are again being permitted to conduct business, although the accreditation process is slow moving. On the social policy front, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law in late 2006 measures designed to enhance families in the country. In particular,

International Adoption |

subsidies for having additional children have meant that parents may be receiving support to care for their offspring rather than offering them for adoption when they are unable to provide for them. While some of this may have been done to sustain population growth, it might also have been the result of increasing Russian nationalism. Skepticism of American motives for adopting so many Russian born children can not be discounted. BENEFITS OF INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION There are many challenges that parents face when attempting to adopt internationally. But the benefits may outweigh the difficulties in many cases. Among the most attractive reasons for international adoption is that the children are legally available for adoption before being advertised or listed with agencies. This means that there is very little chance that birth parents will change their mind and take back the child at the last minute, as has happened with some open adoptions in the United States. While the bureaucratic aspects of international adoption make it unlikely that one can adopt directly at a child’s birth, as can happen in open adoptions in the United States, nearly one-half of the children who are adopted internationally are under the age of one when they meet their new parents and almost all are under the age of four. This factor is very appealing to American parents who would have many options for domestic adoptions if they preferred older children, but few when they prefer the youngest children. There is a tremendous variety in the children that available for adoption. They are from different countries, of different ages and genders, and they have many different needs that adoptive parents might be able to fulfill. This variety means that parents can generally find the child with whom they will have the best fit. Multicultural families lead to greater tolerance and acceptance, supporting the politics of community and unity. Famous adoptive parents Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have such a multicultural family. Parents who have adopted children from poor countries often cite the opportunity they have to provide for the underprivileged child as a motivating factor in their decision. While many domestic adoption agencies have limitations on who is eligible to adopt, some foreign agencies have less stringent guidelines, perhaps permitting older parents or singles to adopt when other avenues for domestic adoption are closed to them. CONCERNS OF INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION Because everyone dreams of a healthy, happy child, potential adoptive parents need to recognize that they may not know about medical problems. While generally parents get information about the child’s health, they rarely know about the birth parents’ health and backgrounds. The concerns extend to whether any prenatal care was available or attained by the birthmother. Children who were cared for in orphanages may have some additional special needs related to mental

351

352

|

International Adoption

health and adjustment as a result of the institutional environment, though these are often resolved relatively quickly upon arrival in their new home. International adoption remains costly, but again this varies by country. Agencies usually provide a list of expenses up front so that prospective parents can plan accordingly. The costs, however, do limit those persons eligible to adopt in this manner. This has led to the suggestion that international adoption agencies sell children to the highest bidders who can pay for fees, travel, and sometimes extended stays in foreign locales. Extortion has even been reported with some agencies. These scams claim a child is available, send details about the child, and get a commitment from prospective parents who send money to the agency only to be told later that the fees have increased and more money is needed, or the child is no longer available. Adopting internationally can be a time-consuming and tedious process. The Unites States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) is a federal agency within the Justice Department that is responsible for overseeing citizenship issues for foreign-born persons who wish to enter the United States, including children. The USCIS must provide permission for the adoptive child to lawfully enter the United States prior to the adoption being finalized in the child’s country of origin. The average time frame for an international adoption is 12 to 18 months, but much of this depends on the country of origin and whether the U.S. paperwork is prepared properly. Some persons do not like to travel abroad. Although the amount of time that one must spend in the country of adoption varies, it is usually for a minimum of one week. A challenge for travel, however, is when one doesn’t speak the language and requires the services of interpreters. Generally part of the agency fee goes toward providing facilities and services for the adoptive parents while they are in the country. THE STATE OF INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION TODAY International adoption continues to be a subject that is fraught with questions and remains controversial. These questions are important as the number of international adoptions continues to rise. It remains to be seen whether international adoptions are in the best interest of the child. Even though conditions may not be perfect in their home country, would it not be of benefit to be raised in the culture to which one is born? Will the child suffer discrimination or have difficulty identifying with their American-born parents? With all of the millions of dollars spent on legal processing, could it be better spent to improve conditions in these countries so that adoptions are no longer necessary? These questions, and others, remain unanswered. Although, they are very important to consider because there are hundreds of thousands of children, and their adoptive families, that would like to know the answer. While in the earliest years of international adoption the concerns expressed by adoptive parents and the general public were primarily about transitioning to the new family and adjustment, with an occasional question about transmitting cultural heritage, today the concerns are expanded.

International Adoption |

The concerns have shifted to include legal, criminal, and ethical issues affecting both birth and adoptive parents and the children. The options for parents who would like to adopt internationally are many, but they are always in flux. For example, as countries’ laws regarding immigration or their political regimes change they are more or less likely to permit children to be adopted to foreign families. Not only do policies, laws, and procedural requirements change in other countries, they change in the United States as well. The Hague Treaty on International Adoptions, when ratified by all Hague Convention nations, is designed to help ensure ethical adoption practices so that all parties will benefit and have their rights maintained. One of the primary goals was to prevent the abduction, trafficking, or sale of children through intercountry adoption. Additional provisions were designed to protect both the birth and adoptive parents’ rights. The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 was passed in the United States to implement the provisions of the Hague Convention Treaty, ratified by the United States in April 2008. These provisions are forcing some changes in the ways that international adoptions occur. Specifically, agencies must have a national accreditation with consistent standards of practice, and there must be a mechanism for filing complaints. As the procedure for international adoptions changes in response to the Hague Convention, this is a confusing time for those wishing to adopt internationally. As the nations adhering to the Convention change, so do those nations’ policies. There are also some shifts in which of the countries are being explored by prospective American parents. In 2007, according to the U.S. Department of State, there were 1,255 Ethiopian children adopted by U.S. Citizens, a three-fold increase from 2005. Changing patterns of adoption will be interesting to monitor. See also Fictive Kin; Gay Parent Adoption; Infertility; Mail Order Brides; Transracial Adoption. Further Reading: Adoption.com. “Cost of Adopting,” 2007. http://statistics.adoption.com/ information/statistics-on-cost-of-adopting.html; Adoptive Families Magazine. http:// www.adoptivefamilies.com; Berquist, Kathleen Ja Sook. International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-year History of Policy and Practice (Haworth Health and Social Policy). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2007; Cartwright, Lisa, Kay Kendall Johnson, Laurel and Barbara Yngvesson. Culture of Transnational Adoption. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005; Center for Adoption Support and Education. http://www.adoptionsupport. org; Davenport, Dawn. The Complete Book of International Adoption: A Step by Step Guide to Finding Your Child. New York: Broadway Press, 2006; Falkner, Elizabeth Swire. The Ultimate Insider’s Guide to Adoption: Everything You Need to Know about Domestic and International Adoption. New York: Wellness Central Publishing, 2006; Gray, Deborah. Attaching in Adoption: Practical Tools for Today’s Parents. Indianapolis, IN: Perspectives Press, 2002; Internation Adoption Center. http://www.adoptionclinic.org; Joint Council on International Children’s Services. Guatemala 5000. http://www.jcics.org (accessed November 2007); Knoll, Jean, and Mary-Kate Murphy. International Adoption: Sensitive Advice for Prospective Parents. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1994; Miller, Laurie C. The Handbook of International Adoption Medicine: A Guide for Physicians, Parents, and Providers. New York: Oxford University Press. 2004; National Council for Adoption. http://www.adoptioncouncil.org; Schwartz, Margaret L. The Pumpkin Patch: A

353

354

|

International Adoption Single Woman’s Adoption Journey. Chicago: Chicago Spectrum Press, 2005; Trenka, Jane Jeong. Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2006; Uekert, Barbara. 10 Steps to Successful International Adoption: A Guided Workbook for Prospective Parents. New York: Third Avenue, 2007; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. http://www.uscis.gov; U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Consular Affairs. http://www.travel.state.gov.

Hayley Cofer

J JUVENILE DELINQUENCY The role of the family, as a social institution, is to essentially prepare children for adulthood. To accomplish this task, the family is comprised of values and norms and different statuses and roles, all of which are devoted to achieving the goals of the family as well as that of society. However, this is no easy task. Families are often scrutinized when a child displays delinquent behavior. Of particular concern are the ways that families might promote or prevent juvenile delinquency. Among the areas of concern when examining the link between family and delinquency are traditional family values, child-rearing practices, the influence of the mass media, and parental responsibility. However, social scientists have identified a variety of other possible factors that they believe contribute to juvenile delinquency. These other factors include: the lack of parental supervision; a lack of discipline; a lack parental monitoring; the lack of attachment to pro-social institutions like school, community, and church; low income; poor housing; a large family size; low educational attainment; associations with other delinquents; drug or alcohol abuse; and the criminal behavior of parents and siblings. Social scientists suggest that it is not just one single factor, but many factors in conjunction with one another, that increase the likelihood of juvenile delinquency. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY In the United States, juvenile delinquency is a social problem affecting families, communities, and society as a whole. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics show that violent crime accounts for approximately 12 percent and that 355

356

|

Juvenile Delinquency

property crime accounts for approximately 88 percent of all serious crime in the United States. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) estimate that 1,417,745 violent crimes and 9,983,568 property crimes occurred nationwide in 2006, with 10,472,432 people arrested for both types of offenses. Of those arrested in 2006 for violent and property crimes, 372,559 (approximately 23.5 percent of the arrests) were persons under the age of 18, and of these arrests, 119,810 (approximately 32.2 percent) were of persons under the age of 15 (http://www.fbi. gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_38.html). Given these statistics, it is understandable why there is concern over juvenile delinquency. Juvenile delinquency refers to persons under a state-established age limit who violate the penal code. This means the law breaking was done by a child. In the eyes of the law, the only difference between a criminal and a delinquent is the person’s age, and the state-established age limit varies from state to state. In the eyes of the law, a juvenile officially becomes an adult at 16 in three states, at 17 in seven states, at 18 in 39 states, and at 19 in one state. Furthermore, delinquency is comprised of two parts. The first part includes property crimes like arson, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft, while violent crimes include assault, robbery, rape, and murder, all of which would be considered crimes if committed by adults. The second part includes status offenses that are law violations that only apply to juveniles. This would include curfew violations, running away, and truancy. These status offenses are not violations of criminal law, but are undesirable behaviors unlawful only for juveniles. It is believed that these offenses, if not dealt with, may lead to more serious delinquent behaviors in the future. Therefore, the juvenile justice system takes steps to correct the behavior of juveniles and to try to change their behavior before they get involved in more serious property or violent crimes. It is the goal of juvenile courts, and has been since the first juvenile court was established in 1899, to prevent delinquent behavior and rehabilitate juvenile offenders as apposed to just punish them. This is why juveniles are not labeled “criminal” and their hearings are conducted in an informal atmosphere where testimony and background data are introduced as opposed to a trial that simply determines guilt or innocence. In addition, the juvenile-court judge plays more of a parental role, reviewing the behavior of the juvenile offender in a less threatening environment than that of an adult criminal court. The juvenile court judge then determines an appropriate form of discipline, if any, and a course of action designed to prevent future delinquent behavior. Interestingly, many researchers believe that the majority of serious delinquent offenses are committed by a relatively small group of offenders and expect this delinquent population to maintain the antisocial behavior into adulthood.

ARENAS FOR DEBATE Family Values The debate over the family’s role in juvenile delinquency covers a variety of areas such as family values, child-rearing, the influence of the mass media, and

Juvenile Delinquency | 357

parental responsibility. The central focus of this debate is on the lack of traditional family values in a so-called traditional family. Conservatives believe that alternative family forms like single-parent families, blended families, cohabiting families, and gay and lesbian families fail to instill traditional values in children. They believe that the traditional family is the foundation for strong values, norms, and an overall healthy society. Therefore, they push for a return to the traditional family, where mothers stay home and fathers are breadwinners, with a focus on traditional family values. In addition, they encourage parents to spend more time with their children and focus more on the family’s needs as opposed to the individual’s needs. For them, anything that threatens the family is considered a social problem. As a result, they believe that living together without marriage (i.e., cohabitation), premarital childbearing, divorce, and single parenting are social problems that weaken society and place children at risk. Conservatives point out that children are most affected by these social problems in that these factors not only increase their chances of ending up in a single-parent family, but they also increase their likelihood of living in poverty and put them at a higher risk for divorce as adults. The solution, according the conservatives, is to abolish no-fault divorce laws and discourage couples from living together in low-commitment relationships that favor so-called me first values that support individualism over commitment. Liberals, on the other hand, are more tolerant and supportive of the various alternative forms of families such as singlehood, cohabitation, single-parent families, blended families, and same-sex families. They believe people have the right to choose what type of family is right for them. They point out that family diversity is not new and that a variety of family forms have existed throughout history. In addition, liberals believe that this diversity is actually a solution to the historical problem of male-dominated households. They believe that the traditional family limits the opportunities of women and traps them in a maledominated environment, which, in some cases, can be an abusive environment. According to liberals, alternative family forms are not the problem. The problem lies in the lack of tolerance for alternative family forms, in the push for the ideal traditional family (which discourages opportunities for women), and in poverty, that have a greater impact on women and children. Therefore, liberals feel the solution is to encourage more tolerance for alternative family forms, expand affordable child care programs so more women can work, and to enforce antidiscrimination laws so working women will be paid as much men. Child-Rearing Much of the debate over child-rearing in single-parent families is focused on the lack of parental supervision and the lack of guidance. Critics point out that in many cases single parents simply do not have enough time to meet the demands of adequate child-rearing because of the demands placed on them to be the breadwinner and head of household as well as still maintain somewhat of a personal life. Unfortunately, the result is that children may not receive the parental supervision, guidance, and the emotional support they need to develop

358

|

Juvenile Delinquency

into law-abiding adolescents. Consequently, more delinquent children come from single-parent families than two-parent families. Estimates are that children from single-parent families are about 10 to 15 percent more likely to become delinquent than are children with similar social characteristics from two-parent families (Coleman and Kerbo 2006). Children who are raised in an affectionate, supportive, and accepting home are less likely to become delinquents. Moreover, children whose parents model pro-social behavior in addition to adequately supervising and monitoring their children’s behavior, friends, and whereabouts, as well as assist their children in problem solving and conflict resolution are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior. The bottom line is that parents have the ability to teach their children self-control, right from wrong, and respect for others, or they can teach their children antisocial, aggressive, or violent behavior. Therefore, children who grow up in a home with parents that are uninvolved or negatively involved are at greater risk for becoming juvenile delinquents. Of course, critics of child-rearing in single-parent families are not simply advocating more discipline. If parental discipline is too strict or too lenient it can promote delinquency. There is strong evidence to show that children raised in single-parents families, specifically mother-only homes, are at a greater disadvantage than those raised in two-parent families. Single-parent neighborhoods, particularly with high levels of mother-only households, have a higher rate of delinquency because working single-mothers have less opportunity to adequately supervise their children, leaving them more vulnerable to the influences of deviant peers. Critics also point out that in addition to higher rates of delinquency, children reared in single-parent families, specifically mother-only homes, are more likely to live in poverty, to score lower on academic achievement tests, make lower grades, and to drop out of high school. The Mass Media Another area for debate is the influence of the mass media in juvenile delinquency. The concept of mass media refers to television, movies, music, video games, print media, sports, and the Internet. All of these have considerable influence over our attitudes and behavior, especially for those under the age of 18. Not surprisingly, the mass media is the most controversial agent of socialization because of how much it influences our attitudes and behavior. Because we live in a society that seems to crave violence, it is no surprise that these different forms of mass media cater to the desires of the public by producing violent television shows, movies, music, video games, and overzealously cover violent incidents in the news media. This excessive exposure to violence not only desensitizes us as a society, but for those in under the age of 18, these influences seem to have a number of serious effects. Some of the effects include: (1) aggressive behavior: media violence teaches children to be more aggressive so they tend to be less sensitive to pain and suffering; (2) fearful attitudes: media violence causes children to be more fearful of the world around them; and (3) desensitization: media violence desensitizes children to real-life and fantasy violence, making it seem a

Juvenile Delinquency | 359

normal part of everyday life. Exposure to media violence also increases a child’s desire to see more violence in real-life and in entertainment, influencing them to view violence as an acceptable way to handle conflicts. Other studies link excessive exposure to media violence to health problems, alcohol and tobacco usage, sexual activity, poor school performance, and more. These studies show that the effects of excessive exposure include: (1) decreased physical activity, which leads obesity and other health problems; (2) photic seizures; (3) insomnia; (4) a decreased attention span; (5) impaired school performance; (6) decreased family communication; (7) increased sexual activity, which may lead to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases; and (8) an increased usage of alcohol and tobacco. Children ages 8 to 18 spend on average 44.5 hours per week (equivalent to 6.5 hours daily) in front a computer, watching television, or playing video games, so that by the time a child reaches age 18, he or she will have witnessed on television alone, with average viewing time, over 200,000 acts of violence which include 40,000 acts of murder (http://www. mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml). Children will view more than 100,000 acts of violence, including 8,000 acts of murder, by their first day in junior high school (Kirsh 2006). Given the frequency of exposure to violence, children’s violence and delinquency should not be surprising. All media violence is not equal in its effects, however. The violence portrayed in cartoons is most often presented in a humorous fashion (67 percent of the time) and is less likely to depict long-term consequences (5 percent of the time) (http://www.babybag.com/articles/amaviol.htm). Considering that the average preschooler watches mostly cartoons, this poses a greater risk for younger children because they have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Therefore, they are more likely to imitate the violence they have seen. Researchers indicate that parents can be effective in reducing the negative effects of violent media viewing. Some of this can occur by parental understanding and utilization of television ratings. Other suggestions include watching television with one’s child to permit discussion of difficult issues, turn the television off if the program is unacceptable, limit the time and type of programs watched, prescreen programs with a VCR, and explain the differences between fantasy and reality. In summation of the effects of the mass media, Leonard Eron and Rowell Huesmann, psychologists at the University of Michigan who have studied the viewing habits of children for decades, found that the single factor most closely associated with aggressive behavior in children was watching violence on television. In testimony before Congress in 1992, they stated that “television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all socio-economic levels and all levels of intelligence. The effect is not limited to children who are already disposed to being aggressive and is not restricted to this country” (http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm). It is interesting that this has been a major issue for decades and that many key people, including former Surgeon General Dr. Jesse Steinfeld, have testified in numerous hearings on the topic yet it is still a major issue.

360

|

Juvenile Delinquency

Parental Responsibility Parental responsibility is yet another area of concern regarding juvenile delinquency. Fundamentally, parental responsibility suggests that parents are to ensure that their children are protected, their needs are met, and their behavior is monitored. In addition, parents are responsible for socializing their children by instilling in them a sense of right, wrong, and the norms of society, helping them develop the skills they need to participate in society and shaping their overall development so that they are productive, law-abiding adolescents and adults. However, when parents fail to ensure that their child or children develop into law-abiding adolescents, who is to blame? To what extent are parents responsible for their children’s behavior? This has actually been an issue throughout our nation’s history, and over time various types of legislation have addressed this specific question. Historically, the overall objective of these various laws was to require parents to provide the necessities for their children and to prohibit abuse or abandonment of minor children. However, due to the growing concern over juvenile delinquency, legislators have been prompted to expand laws regarding parental responsibility. More recently, parental responsibility goes beyond simply feeding, clothing, and loving your children. Recent laws hold parents accountable for their child’s actions by imposing various sanctions, including possible incarceration, fines, community service, and restitution. In addition, many states have enacted laws that require more parental involvement in juvenile court dispositions such as hearings, court-ordered treatment, counseling, training, rehabilitation and educational programs, and probation. Unfortunately, there is not enough comprehensive research on this subject to fully understand the effectiveness of parental responsibility laws. Whether the laws accomplish their intended purpose and have an effect on juvenile crime rates remains to be seen. CONCLUSION Solutions to the problem of juvenile delinquency are varied and have shown limited success at reducing crime among youth. Perhaps the slow pace of change is the result of the different schools of thought regarding the origins of delinquent behavior working in opposition to each other. Family, as the primary institution for rearing children, has been targeted as both the cause of and a preventive measure for juvenile delinquency. For some constituencies, the solution is encouraging traditional two-parent families with traditional values while discouraging other families forms such as single-parent families, cohabitating families, and same-sex families. For others, the solution is tolerance of alternative family forms and more focus on the overall well-being of children regardless of their parent’s marital status or sexual orientation. Social scientists have determined that it is not just one single factor that increases the likelihood of juvenile delinquency, but rather many factors in conjunction. Of the many factors, advocates have determined that a healthy home environment is the single most important factor and that adequate parental

Juvenile Delinquency | 361

supervision is the second most important factor in decreasing the likelihood of delinquent behavior. Understandably, parents play a crucial role in a child’s moral development, so it is their job to instill in their children a good sense of right and wrong and to promote healthy development in a healthy environment. Therefore, adolescents who live in a home environment with a lack of parental supervision and monitoring, poor or inconsistent discipline, a lack of positive support, a lack of parental control, neglect, and poverty are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior. On the other hand, for those adolescent’s in a positive home environment, which includes family support, nurturance, monitoring, and involvement, statistics show they are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior. In other words, children need parental affection, support, love, cohesion, acceptance, and parental involvement. When these elements are missing, the risk of delinquency increases. See also Addiction and Family; Foster Care; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); Parenting Styles; Sibling Violence and Abuse. Further Reading: Albanese, Jay S. Criminal Justice, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005; Babybag.com. “Facts About Media Violence and Effects on the American Family.” http://www.babybag.com/articles/amaviol.htm; Brown, Kevin D., and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis. 2005. “The influences of violent media on children and adolescents: a public health approach.” Lancet 365 (2005): 702–710; Caldwell, Roslyn M., Susan M. Sturges, and N. Clayton Silver. “Home Versus School Environments and their Influences on the Affective and Behavioral States of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 16 (2007): 119–132; Children and Television Violence. http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm; Coleman, J. W., and H. R. Kerbo. Social Problems, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006; Focus on the Family. http://www.family.org/; Kirsh, Steven J. Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence: A Critical Look at the Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 2006; Media Awareness Network. http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/ issues/violence/index.cfm; National Institute on Media and the Family. http://www. mediafamily.org/facts/facts_vlent.shtml; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP): A Component of the Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/; Quinn, William H. Family Solutions for Youth at Risk: Applications to Juvenile Delinquency, Truancy, and Behavior Problems. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2004; Quinn, William H., and Richard Sutphen. “Juvenile Offenders: Characteristics of At-risk Families and Strategies for Intervention.” Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling 15 (1994): 2–23; Siegal, Larry J., and Joseph J. Senna. Essentials of Criminal Justice, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Inc., 2004; Territo, Leonard, James B. Halsted, and Max L. Bromley. Crime and Justice in America: A Human Perspective, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2004; U.S. Department of Justice. “Crime in the United States, 2006.” http://www.fbi. gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_38.html; Wells, L. Edward, and Joseph H. Rankin. “Families and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Broken Homes.” Social Problems 38 (1991): 71–93; Wright, Kevin N., and Karen E. Wright. Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymaker’s Guide. Research Summary. Rockville, MD: Juvenile Justice Clearing House, 1994.

Tonya Lowery Jones

This page intentionally left blank

M MAIL ORDER BRIDES A mail order bride is a woman who advertisers herself as eligible to wed. These advertisements are usually, though not exclusively, directed toward men in more developed countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. In some instances the men might advertise themselves as available husbands and list the social standing they can provide for wives. This is seen in the Philippines due to current prohibitions on women’s advertising of themselves. In the United States, a famous outlet for men seeking wives in this manner is Alaska Men magazine. During the early 1900s mail order brides were referred to as picture brides because the relationship may have been initiated by the man with only a picture of the bride. He would likely never have spoken to her face to face until she arrived in the United States. Today, the Internet may provide the picture, but the principle is similar. INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of globalization has led to more than just the integration of business and culture. It has afforded greater opportunity to people throughout the world. Along with the ease of transporting goods half-way around the world, it has also become much easier and increasingly common for people to migrate to foreign countries in search of the prosperity Western nations can offer. The desperate and destitute conditions brought about by political turmoil, economic downfalls, and extreme poverty have led many to take drastic measures to achieve this dream. Each year, thousands of women arrive in the Untied 363

364

|

Mail Order Brides

States, mostly from nations such as the Philippines, Russia, and Ukraine. Drawn by promises of gainful employment, education, and a better, more comfortable life, these women seek a husband as a means of entrance into the United States. Often, the men are seeking partners who are willing to master the domestic sphere rather than those who seek entrance into the professional world. Proponents of the industry assert that these services offer opportunities for women that would otherwise be unattainable. Participation in looking for a partner through this method is left up to the discretion of the women who make the decision to become involved. Women are also given the opportunity to meet men with different personalities and lifestyles with which they are not acquainted. This path to citizenship has drawn criticism from various human rights organizations and recently from governmental agencies. Opponents argue that services such as those offered by mail order bride agencies are doing nothing more than exploiting impoverished, ill-informed women for their own financial gain. Because of the lack of regulation of the industry, women risk lives of slavery, abuse, and virtual imprisonment instead of the riches they were promised. This, many argue, amounts to nothing more than human trafficking, an operation more prosperous and treacherous than the infamous slave trade of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. BACKGROUND The mail order bride industry has existed, in various shapes and forms, for centuries, and has been a part of the American landscape since the colonial days. Early settlers, men seeking prosperity as the United States continued to conquer the West, found themselves sending back home requests for a bride to come and join them. Through the pioneer era, as a consequence of there being disproportionately more men on the frontier than women, men would write home or even to Europe in search of a wife. These women not only provided some of the comforts of home for the men, but much-needed companionship during very difficult times. Men’s magazines contained advertisements for marriage brokers who could assist in finding a suitable partner. In the early eighteenth century colonization of Louisiana, for example, King Louis XV sent French girls to wed Louisiana colonists. These girls where known as casket girls in reference to the small trunks that they used to bring their belongings with them. This somewhat primitive form of the industry has morphed into one of global proportion. MAIL ORDER BRIDE AGENCIES The functions of mail order bride agencies have adjusted as technology has revolutionized the world. Originally, contacts were made through pen-pal clubs in which men and women would be matched through agency officials and then communicate through letters. If both parties agreed that the relationship was something that they wished to pursue, then the agency would assist them in

Mail Order Brides | 365

arranging a face-to-face meeting that would ideally result in marriage. In many locales this is still the case because the potential brides may be from very poor countries with little access to telephones, not to mention the Internet. With the advent of the Internet and e-commerce, however, the process has been modernized. Pen pal set-ups still exist, but are now more often in the form of e-mails. Today, both parties have the chance to see pictures of the other and a description of their lifestyle, personality, and what they are looking for before a relationship begins. Although today’s technology has enabled greater independence during this process, mail order bride agencies still hold a vital role in arranging meetings and beginning new relationships. Not only do they maintain the listing of available women through websites and notebooks, but they may help to complete some of the paperwork necessary to gain a temporary visa for the woman to visit the United States. Some agencies, such as A Foreign Affair, offer so-called dating tours where men who are seeking wives travel to different locations to interact with many different potential partners, perhaps making a love or like match at that time. The costs vary by the agency used, but generally from first search through to marriage, the process costs roughly $10,000. In the United States it is estimated that there may be as many as 400 international marriage brokers. The industry is minimally regulated by only a few nations. While several nations have begun to consider enforcing minimum standards of practice, the movement to establish an international protocol is in its infancy. In the United States, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) attempts to safeguard foreign women through several provisions. Brokers are now required to obtain their male clients’ criminal histories, including sex offender status, which is translated into the woman’s native language and is given to her. It also limits the number of fiancée visas that a man can petition for. Finally, if an engagement occurs, the woman must be given information about domestic violence resources.

THE PARTIES It is difficult to determine the prevalence of foreign women who enter the United States as brides because there are few hard statistics available. Estimates are that 4,000 to 6,000, or less than one percent of marriages each year, are arranged through foreign agencies. However, at the time of the IMBRA it was estimated that 8,000 to 12,000 men were using brokers to find mates. Statistics also indicate that brokered marriages have a lower divorce rate compared to other marriages. When a marriage does occur, spouses apply for citizenship for the wife and minor children, if she brings any to the marriage. Investigations and personal interviews are utilized by the Immigration and Naturalization Services in an effort to determine the legitimacy of the relationships on the behalf of both the man and the woman. This is to ensure that it is a bona fide marriage, and not just a tactic to attain citizenship for the woman. Often times, women seeking the assistance of mail order bride agencies sincerely believe that this is their key to a better life both for them and their

366

|

Mail Order Brides

FILIPINO MAIL ORDER BRIDES The majority of women who are married as mail order brides around the world each year are from the Philippines. This has been the trend for some years. In the 1970s the government of the Philippines was looking for ways to expand the economy. They realized that they had a surplus of workers who could travel to countries with a deficit of workers. Many Filipinos living abroad in this capacity were able to send monies home to significantly elevate the economic standing of their families and country. This pattern has continued such that the most profitable export from the Philippines today is people. While not all of the women who leave the Philippines are mail order brides, this group does contribute significantly. Despite laws banning the advertising for brides in the country and the official government policy condemning the practice, there is little enforcement because the agencies in question are located outside of the Philippines or because they advertise the available husbands; a practice that is not banned. Exporting Filipinas for brides has existed in the Philippines since the 1950s; however it was accelerated and became a business following the Vietnam War. During the war, some 10,000 American soldiers per day visited the Philippines and many married the women that they met there. After returning home, sometimes friends would see the positive relationship and desire to marry a Filipina themselves. Friends and family members of the wife were often selected to come to the United States to marry the husband’s friends. Formal matchmaking companies soon followed. The internet has proven to be a very useful tool in international marriage markets. Two of the websites that specifically focus on Filipinas are www.filipina ladies.com and www.filipinawives.com. Today, the issues for Filipinas are similar to those of all mail order brides; avoid exploitation while you try to make a better life for yourself and your family. An organization known as the Gabriela Network hopes to help them do just that. This is an international nonprofit organization founded by a Filipina that aims to end the trafficking of women.

family members remaining in their home country. Overwhelmingly they are from countries in Southeast Asian, Eastern Europe and South America. Most are in their late teens or 20s and, just as in the Western world, are bombarded daily with media images of the riches available in other lands, including those of a financial, educational, and personal nature. These types of advancements are often unfathomable in their country of origin. In an effort to lure the man, the women often play into gender stereotypes of ultra-femininity. There are websites, such as www.goodwife.com, that provide information to these women about what American men desire in a partner. Many of the men to whom this industry caters have sought out such services due to their dissatisfaction in relationships with women in their own culture. At the heart of this is usually value differences, primarily the emphasis modern women put on educational and occupational advancement as opposed to placing family life as their top priority. These men, primarily Caucasians, come from

Mail Order Brides | 367

all walks of life, socioeconomic classes, backgrounds, and are generally between ages 30 and 60. They do tend to hold conservative political views. In many cases they are distressed with the independence of American women and are looking for a more traditional marital model. Social critic Marc Rudov argues that American woman make it too hard on American men, that they are too demanding, and are unwilling to fulfill traditional roles in the home. His website reflects the merging of twenty-first century hyper-sexuality with the gender role model of the 1950s. While the majority of men seeking mail order brides are from Western Europe, North America, and Australia, it is a significant practice elsewhere. Currently a marriage brokerage system exists between Vietnam and Taiwan in which over 80,000 Taiwanese men have purchased Vietnamese brides in the last 10 years. THE DEBATE OVER THE INDUSTRY Support for International Marriage Brokering Supporters of the mail order bride industry point to the large number of women who voluntarily register to participate in the programs as evidence of their legitimacy and social value. By providing a link to the Western world, they are simultaneously assisting them in improving their own, as well as their families’, social position. They argue that without such services the women would have no escape from the hopelessness of poverty and oppression. Indeed, many of the women who have participated in the programs credit the agencies for exactly that. They are grateful for the opportunities that have been afforded them. Since their introduction to the Western world, they have experienced prosperity to the extent of being able to assist family members, either financially or with an ability to help them gain citizenship. Another reason for appreciation that is often cited is the preferable characteristics of men in America as opposed to the men in their native country. American men, they claim, treat women better. They are more appreciative of how hard the women work managing the household, are more responsible citizens, and are less likely to be abusive or to drink excessively. Similarly, many have argued that these marriages are healthy for the U.S. economy and society as a whole. By finding wives who value the traditional roles of homemaker and mother, they assert that they are creating a positive and more stable environment for their children than is widely found in the modern dual-earner relationships. The potential long-term courtship of a mail order bride and spouse can allow them a reasonable opportunity to know one another. Particularly in cases where men live in remote areas, they may have difficulty finding a partner locally. Likewise if he is shy or not a particularly good conversationalist, he may be much more comfortable expressing himself via correspondence. Criticism of International Marriage Brokering Criticism of the mail order bride industry often centers on the concern over the safety, well-being, and potential exploitation of the women who are involved.

368

|

Mail Order Brides

Until quite recently, the lack of regulation has meant that men could participate without background checks or even a face-to-face evaluation to determine financial or psychological stability. Indeed, currently men are just required to disclose a criminal history, but not barred from meeting potential partners. Men who seek to prey on naïve women, it is argued, are strongly attracted to organizations advertising women available for relationships and even marriage. These women, unfamiliar with American customs or the English language, become largely helpless when they entrust themselves to men who have the capability to control their access to vital social, educational, health, and legal resources. Consequently, they become sitting ducks for whatever treatment the husband wishes to bestow upon his wife. This inherent ease in seeking a partner, not for love but for self-gratification and exploitation, has led numerous global human rights organizations to label the mail order bride industry as a socially unacceptable form of human trafficking. Women can become coerced into participating through empty promises of safety and prosperity. Company officials are often aware of the potential dangers of marrying a man one knows nothing about. Unfortunately, these concerns are rarely relayed to the vulnerable women. In fact, it has been reported that women have been told by company officials that any attempt to seek legal or medical assistance would at best result in disbelief and would likely lead to deportation, although this is inaccurate. Layli Miller-Muro, founder and executive director of Tahirih Justice Center, has been concerned with these exact issues. Her organization was instrumental in writing the IMBRA after a Ukrainian woman came to her organization seeking help to escape her abusive American husband. Because women may know virtually nothing about the men because all of the information provided by the agencies is about the women, they are at a serious disadvantage. Many men who have been accused of domestic violence against wives whom they have met through international matchmaking agencies claim that the charges were falsified solely as a means of gaining citizenship independent of a marriage. They have developed internet discussion boards to share their stories. They perceive themselves as the exploited victim, having given their love away only for it to be ultimately denied and to be accused of heinous crimes. If a marriage ends because of domestic abuse, the alien spouse can apply for a waiver which could possibly allow her to remain in the United States. An emerging criticism of the dating tours, where men spend several days in a foreign country being introduced to many eligible partners, is that they amount to sex tourism rather than a legitimate attempt to find a suitable partner. In this case, it is argued, prostitution is just using a different name. Again the woman are exploited due to their hope for financial or lifestyle improvements. CONCLUSION Mail order bride agencies provide services which can serve a vital role in the lives of many women who have no other opportunity to seek asylum from a life of poverty and hardship. An unfortunate consequence of this is that the

Mandatory Arrest Laws |

occasional woman will find not a loving husband but an abusive and exploitive relationship. It is a risk the participants take when they agree to participate. However, it has also been well documented that the agencies often do a poor job of honestly explaining the dangers to these women, or even worse, they refuse to admit that dangers exist. Because of the global expanse of the trade and the vast majority of providers, regulation of the industry has proven all but impossible. While more countries are considering, and even passing, legislation to monitor the programs, international standards of practice are far from a reality. International marriage brokering, accelerated by the Internet, has become big business and is growing all the time. Not only is the industry growing, but it is moving away from the fringe of society and becoming more mainstream. Present estimates suggest that there are over 100,000 women around the world that are listed as available for marriage to Western men. See also Arranged Marriage; International Adoption; Marital Power; Mate Selection Alternatives. Further Reading: Constable, Nicole. Romance on a Global Stage: Pen Pals, Virtual Ethnography, and “Mail-Order” Marriages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003; Enss, Chris. Hearts West: True Stories of Mail-Order Brides on the Frontier. Guilford, CT: Two Dot Press, 2005; Larsen, Wanwadee. Confessions of a Mail-Order Bride: American Life through Thai Eyes. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1989; Minervini, Bibiana Paez, and Francis T. McAndrew. “The Mating Strategies and Mate Preferences of Mail Order Brides.” Cross Cultural Research 40 (2006): 111–129; In The Name of Love: Modern Day Mail Order Brides (Film). 2005. Harriman, NY: New Day Films; Susie’s Alaska Men Magazine. http://www.alaskamen-online.com.

Courtney Blair Thornton MANDATORY ARREST LAWS With the dubious distinction as one of the most common forms of violence in human history, domestic violence continues to disrupt lives and stir controversy in the twenty-first century. Also referred to as intimate partner violence, domestic violence has been both celebrated and condemned across time and cultures. As globalization continues to occur and various groups attempt to assimilate into U.S. society, domestic violence is destined to remain an important issue for generations to come because different attitudes toward domestic violence remain in competition in the culture. A wide range of tactics have been employed to reduce the incidence of such crimes, ranging from treating it as a private matter that is to be dealt with solely within the confines of a family to obliging the arrest of those accused. The former strategy, the standard historically, has all but vanished today while the latter, known as mandatory arrest, is thriving. Questions remain about mandatory arrest policies, including their origins, purposes and criticisms, as well as other intervention techniques that compete with these zero-tolerance statutes. Many religious texts, including the Bible and the Koran, have been interpreted as supportive of a male’s domination

369

370

|

Mandatory Arrest Laws

over his wife. Centuries of so-called honor killings have been cheered by communities around the world who subscribe to the belief that a perceived violation of religious morals is justification for the violent murder of female family members. English Common Law of the 1700s introduced the rule of thumb law. This law allowed husbands to beat, or discipline as it was often referred to, their wives with a stick without fear of castigation, so long as the rod was no larger in circumference than the man’s thumb. For decades after such actions were no longer deemed socially acceptable, and were even publicly condemned, the legal system continued to turn a blind eye to domestic violence. Such unfortunate circumstances of battering were seen as private matters, ones in which police intervention served as more interference than intervention. With the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment, women not only gained the right to vote but also began to advance awareness of the seriousness of domestic violence. The decades to come brought about drastic changes in how both the public and policy makers looked at these crimes. Family courts were developed and abuse became legal grounds for divorce in New York. Police in Washington, D.C. were given the authority to make an arrest without a warrant in these situations, although they rarely exercised that ability. It was not until the 1980s, after significant gains to the social status of females had occurred through the Women’s Rights Movement, that more restrictive legal consequences became expected policy. The primary means of such reform was through the implementation of mandatory arrest policies. This meant that law enforcement officers who arrived at a scene and determined that domestic violence had occurred, or was occurring, were required to arrest the offending party. These laws were enacted in much of the country and were designed to provide protection for the victim while simultaneously serving social justice. Recently, however, such strategies have come under heavy criticism from the same victims’ rights groups who once urged the passage of such laws. One illustration of the failure of such prevention and intervention strategies is the widely publicized case of professional football player and actor O. J. Simpson. Despite years of documented violence against his wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson, he was found not guilty of her murder and the murder of Ron Goldman. Two years after this verdict, however, he was found civilly liable for their deaths and ordered to pay $33 million to the victims’ families. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: BASIC FACTS The majority of victims in reported cases of domestic violence are women. For this reason, future references herein will refer to women but should be equally applied to any victim, regardless of gender. The spectrum of domestic violence is broad and includes physical, psychological, and sexual mistreatment or exploitation as well as forced economic, social, and spiritual isolation. Although expansive, all of these acts include some degree of intimidation, aggression, and trauma—often expressing an attempt to control. While some argue that one type

Mandatory Arrest Laws |

371

of intimate partner violence is more damaging than another, it is difficult if not impossible to form a sound conclusion as to the difference in overall impact on the victims’ psychological well-being. Indeed, it varies by intrapersonal and sociocultural factors. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 2 million injuries and 1,300 deaths in the United States alone could be attributed to incidences of intimate partner violence. Although research has identified several characteristics that have been shown to increase the likelihood of a domestic violence situation, it is a problem that cannot be connected with a specific social, economic, or religious group. Rather, it is a vice seen across all reaches of the population. Parenting children before age 21 has been found to be a positive correlate, as has low socioeconomic status, low levels of education, and alcohol or drug use. Traits of the abuser include low self-esteem, mental illness, and a history of having been abused themselves. The consequences of domestic violence are often overlooked by the public, discarded as relevant only to the individual. But, as new policies continue to be developed to address this problem, a thorough and empathetic understanding becomes increasingly important. In addition to physical injuries, many victims also experience long-term physiological difficulties, such as cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disorders. Domestic violence has also been related to symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), an increase in suicide among females, and involvement in dangerous activities such as high-risk sexual behavior, use of mood-altering substances, and eating disorders. Because such costs could be used to endorse the belief that domestic violence is a personal issue, it is important to note the impact it has on the United States economy and society as a whole. The CDC estimates that the cost of these crimes exceeds $8.3 billion annually, in addition to the amount of workplace and household productivity lost. This cost is in medical treatment, police protections, and court resources.

CHILDREN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Unfortunately, children often witness the violence between their parent and the parent’s partner. In fact, it has been found that the majority of men who abuse women also abuse children. It is therefore vital to weigh the impact of domestic violence on children when developing policies to address it. Annually, more than three million children are the victims of abuse or neglect. The effects of these experiences are no less devastating than those suffered by the adult victims. A particularly debilitating injury specific to this population involves a disruption in early brain development that is often the result of severe trauma. Longitudinal studies have found that these children are more likely than children who neither witnessed nor experienced domestic violence to be involved in tumultuous relationships in adulthood, thus continuing the cycle of domestic violence and abuse.

372

|

Mandatory Arrest Laws

MANDATORY ARREST: THE PARADIGM SHIFTS In the 1980s, feminist groups pushed law enforcement agencies across the nation to examine alternative approaches to domestic violence that would have a more significant and lasting impact on the problem than traditional hands-off practices, such as allowing the matter to be resolved in private or suggesting a cooling-off period. One such jurisdiction was Minneapolis, Minnesota. Known as the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (1981–1982), the project was intended to determine whether mandatory arrest policies were more effective than current practices in reducing the rates of repeat offending. The experiment was a joint venture between the National Institute of Justice, the Minneapolis Police Department, and the Police Foundation along with procedural recommendations by the psychological community to ensure the best possible response. The random assignment, or lottery, format required responding officers to apply one of three research interventions: removing the offender from the scene for eight hours, counseling the family on strategies for deescalating the situation, or actually arresting the offender. Follow-up interviews with victims were conducted by specially trained female interviewers to determine the extent to which they were satisfied by the intervention technique as well as what, if any, impact it had on continued violence in the relationship. Experts concluded from the Minneapolis Experiment, among others, that mandatory arrest policies were the most effective strategy for handling domestic violence situations because they simultaneously lowered the likelihood of repeat offenses and served to empower the victim by being attentive to her needs and sympathetic to her concerns for her safety and the safety of her nonoffending family members. Since this experiment, many states have adopted mandatory arrest policies in an effort to increase public approval of their handling of intimate partner violence. Advocates claim that mandating the arrest of perpetrators protects the victim from further injury during the time immediately following the offense. By removing the victim from the decision-making process, a great deal of emotional distress is removed. The perpetrator may be less likely to blame the victim for his arrest, and perhaps be less likely to increase violence toward her at a later time. Proponents also claim that, due to the trauma and oppression they have faced at the hands of the abuser, women are unable to make an informed decision because their confidence and feeling of control over their lives has been attacked and crippled. Many women are satisfied with the police response when the offender is arrested and feel that law enforcement is truly concerned for their well-being. Conversely, other victims felt abandoned if they felt the offender was not treated harshly enough. Mandatory prosecution policies often go hand in hand with mandatory arrest. The motivation for such legislation is similar to the rationale of law enforcement interventions; to empower the victims by proving that the justice system does indeed recognize the danger they face and will protect them from the perpetrator through any means necessary. Prosecutors in jurisdictions with hard socalled no-drop policies are required to pursue charges against all those accused

Mandatory Arrest Laws |

of domestic violence, regardless of the victim’s wishes. Protection of the public from a violent criminal is the primary concern in regards to such prosecutions, viewed as supreme to the concerns of a single person. Many groups, including some victim’s advocates and men’s rights organizations, are upset with policies requiring the arrest of all those accused of domestic violence, claiming they are easily and often manipulated. While mandatory arrest laws have minimized the effect of police discretion on the outcome of a domestic violence situation, it is not uncommon for both partners to be arrested whether they were the aggressor, acted in self-defense, or were wrongly accused. On-sight evidence need not be found to substantiate claims of abuse in many states, and policies that require that the cases be prosecuted have dealt a handicapping blow to the legal system because time and manpower are spent on cases with little or no evidence supporting the charges. Another criticism of mandatory arrest laws is that there are other, arguably more serious, crimes for which police are not required to make an on-the-spot arrest. Also, mandatory arrest does not allow for consideration of the victims’ wishes. Police must arrest the offender even if the victim does not wish to press charges. For some, finding a way to come up with bond money for an unwanted arrest can be as damaging as the violence itself. Conversely, many women fear having their abuser arrested because of the threat of revenge upon his return to the home. As a result, they may choose not to report these crimes at all and, hence, not receive help because they see law enforcement not as an ally but as another controlling, authoritative figure. Additionally, many officers dread domestic violence calls because of the higher chance of injury to the officer in such a setting. VICTIM EMPOWERMENT MODELS: A NEW PHILOSOPHY EMERGES Victim empowerment models are becoming an increasingly popular form of domestic violence intervention being considered and implemented in many jurisdictions. The foundation of these strategies rests on making the victim feel as if he or she is in charge of the outcome of the situation, a position that often is entirely opposite of the deeply engrained victim mentality of someone who has been abused. Another research study in Minnesota, also during the early 1980s, was known as the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. This experiment combined various community resources available to domestic violence victims including counseling, protective shelters, and legal advice so as to provide the most efficient response to this traumatized population. The findings of the Duluth Project led to an increased focus by corrections agencies on domestic violence offenders to decrease recidivism rates as well as highlight the unique needs of the victim. The goal was for offenders to offend less and victims to have all of their unique needs met by available agencies and resources. The cycle of violence that often traps generations of families can be broken only through the determination of the victim(s) to learn from their experiences and prevent similar circumstances from surfacing in the future. Victim

373

374

|

Mandatory Arrest Laws

empowerment models respond to this sentiment. Often combined with softdrop or victim-decided prosecution policies, the abused is encouraged to exercise control over many parts of her life which she may not have been able to do for quite some time. This can easily become overwhelming and it is common for women to be unable to follow through with charges and a trial the first time they attempt to do so. If the abuser violates her again, she is able to start the process anew with the knowledge that she was able to stand up for herself before. This leads to increased levels of confidence and a greater likelihood that she will seek restitution. Victim empowerment intervention strategies have also been found to increase the public’s confidence in the justice system by demonstrating empathy for the victim and determination in deterring future crimes. Researchers found in a 2003 study that victims who were allowed to drop charges against their offender were significantly less likely to suffer additional violence six months after the arrest than were victims who were forced to follow through with charges. These techniques, much like mandatory arrest laws, have come under intense criticism. It is argued that women, frozen in the role of victim, are incapable of making an appropriate decision in regard to their safety and the consequences of their action or inaction. They may blame themselves or fear reprisal from the abuser and decline to have him arrested even if encouraged to do so by police. This often places officers in a delicate position where they must balance satisfying the wishes of an individual complainant and protecting the public. CONCLUSION There is little doubt that the United States, and indeed the world, has made tremendous strides in dealing more effectively with the epidemic of domestic violence. Law enforcement responses at the beginning of this century were almost nonexistent, sometimes perceived as condoning intimate partner violence and certainly keeping it in the private realm of family life. Through decades of activism by feminist organizations and victims’ rights groups, both the public and the government have become aware of the enormity of the problem as well as the difficulties faced by those who find themselves in these relationships. In addition to the proliferation of domestic violence shelters and counseling centers offering emotional support and recovery, many legal statutes have been passed that have sought to offer much-needed assistance to these families. One such policy, mandatory arrest, has increased the faith of many victims in the criminal justice system by acknowledging their struggles and working to ease their plight. Still others criticize the strategy as continuing the controlling schema of the abuser by not allowing the victim to have input on the outcome of the situation. Other intervention strategies, known collectively as victim empowerment models, are becoming increasingly popular. They help to diffuse the primary criticism of mandatory arrest, that the victim has no power to determine the fate of the offender, by encouraging the victim to be the decision maker about whether an arrest is made or prosecution results. Supporters say that this allows

Marital Power |

victims to begin to take back control over their lives while critics argue that the victim mindset is not an appropriate one for making decisions that could potentially determine the fate of one’s abusive partner. See also Battered Woman Syndrome; Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes; Domestic Violence Interventions; Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence. Further Reading: Break the Cycle: Empowering Youth to End Domestic Violence. http:// www.breakthecycle.org; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Child Maltreatment.” http://www.cdc.gov/injury; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Intimate Partner Violence: Overview.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvoverview. htm (accessed May 15, 2007); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Understanding Child Maltreatment, 2006.” http://www.cdc.gov/injury; Ford, D. A., and S. Breall. “Violence against Women: Synthesis of Research for Prosecutors.” National Institute of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/nij/grants/199660.pdf; Geffner, Robert A., and Alan Rosenbaum. Domestic Violence Offenders: Current Interventions, Research, and Implications for Policies and Standards. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc., 2002; Han, E. L. “Mandatory Arrest and no Drop Policies: Victim Empowerment in Domestic Violence Cases.” http://www.bc.edu/ schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/ journals/bctwj/23_1/04_TXT.htm (accessed May 19, 2007); Legal Momentum, Advancing Women’s Rights. http://www.legalmomentum.org; Mills, L. G. “Mandatory Arrest and Prosecution Policies for Domestic Violence: A Critical Literature Review and the Case for More Research to Test Victim Empowerment Approaches.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 25, no. 3 (1998): 306–319; Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse. “History of Domestic Violence: A Timeline of the Battered Women’s Movement.” http:// www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html (accessed May 26, 2007); National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. http://www.ncadv.org; National Network to End Domestic Violence. http://www.nnedv.org; Roberts, Albert R. Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; Sherman, L. W., and R. A. Berk. “The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment.” Police Foundation Reports (1984); Shoop, J. G. “Children in Violent Homes Need Better Protection, Report Says.” Trial 30, no. 11 (1994): 114–116; Support Network for Battered Women. http://www.snbw.org; VAWFV: Violence Against Women and Family Violence. “NIJ’s Violence Against Women Research and Evaluation Program: Selected Results.” http://www.ojp.gov/nij/vawprog/selected_ results.html (accessed May 16, 2007).

Courtney Blair Thornton

MARITAL POWER When most people think about marriage, they rarely consider that power differences between marital partners exist, and they are even less likely to believe that they matter for how couples construct their daily lives. Many family researchers, however, believe that the power balance in a relationship is critical for many aspects of marital success, including how the couple handles childrearing, finances, and even their sexual relationship. One of the biggest controversies in a discussion of marital power is the source of the power differences. Other questions revolve around whether power should be equally shared between spouses.

375

376

|

Marital Power

Research has focused on how power influences the decision making in personal relationships. INTRODUCTION Power refers to the ability that one person has to influence another. When you can influence someone else’s attitude, behavior, or outcome, we say that you have power. Despite most marital partners’ reluctance to talk about which partner holds more power in the relationship, perhaps ignoring the presence of power in a quest for equality, all relationships include a power component. Bosses have more power than employees, parents have more power than children, and husbands have more power than wives. Power has been a key sociological concept since the beginning of the discipline. It has been defined in a number of ways and researchers have not always agreed about the most appropriate definition. Two of the approaches to the concept of power can be traced back to sociological founders Karl Marx and Max Weber. Karl Marx defined power in terms of class relations between the rich and poor and the relative economic power that each possessed. Max Weber on the other hand defined power as a person’s ability to control people and to enforce one’s will despite opposition or resistance. Weber’s definition is based on social relationships and includes the ability to shape people’s beliefs and values. Sociologists approach the study of marital power from both perspectives and each can contribute to an understanding of how power matters in personal relationships, especially marriage. More recent conceptions of power attempt to move beyond a strictly economic (Marxian) or relationship (Weberian) standpoint with regard to power between spouses. These researchers show how marital power is negotiated by the participants in the marriage and has led to significant consideration of whether there could be a marriage based on equality; a peer marriage. MARITAL POWER AND GENDER INEQUALITY Scholars may disagree on the specific economic or ideological antecedents of marital power, but most start with the assumption that variations in power are due to one’s gender, with men having more power than women. One controversy within the study of social stratification, or how various characteristics are differentially valued by society, asks whether race, social class, or gender is the characteristic that results in the most prominent form of discrimination based on power. Race, a categorization of various physiological traits, the most visible of which is skin color, has been a stratification variable in the United States from the beginning of the nation. Social class refers to a person’s standing as poor, in the middle, or wealthy, and is usually determined by some type of income measure. In the United States, those persons who are lower class and poor have the least amount of power. Gender is being masculine or feminine and is the social role that one is expected to play based on being biologically male or female. Noted researcher William Julius Wilson studies the link between race and social class and argues that race is less significant than social class. Cynthia Fuchs

Marital Power |

Epstein, however, finds that gender is the most fundamental, persistent and arguably the deepest divide in the world today. This divide is visible when looking at the extent of inequality women face inside and outside the family. Women’s inequality relative to men can be found world wide. Women earn less income compared with men, women run a risk of being subjected to physical violence and emotional abuse by men, women are more likely to lack adequate heath care (large number of women still die in child birth), and women around the world are more likely to be illiterate. SOURCES OF POWER There are a number of different sources of power in marriage. It is important to remember that power must be given or granted to another person through interactions with them. It is quite difficult for someone to just take power or exercise more power without someone giving them permission to do so. For personal relationships this means that one partner permits the other to be in control of certain things. For example, if a wife does not like to discipline children, she may cede the power to do so to the husband by using the classic phrase “wait till your father gets home.” While the expectation is that fathers are more powerful at discipline than mothers, this tactic reinforces that approach. Over time, the mother’s power to discipline would decline significantly. The sources of power in relationships relate to the partners’ interactions with each other as well as to the cultural expectations for who is in control. Common sources of power are economics, status characteristics like gender, cultural norms, physical attributes, and relationship dynamics. Economic Power Economic power influences inequality. This was a central concern of the work of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. They suggest that before the advent of capitalism and the presence of private property the division of labor within the family was based on communal sharing of responsibilities and resources. Communal division of labor and resources means that ownership and use of property belong to all members of the group equally. Capitalism and private property, however, lead to the creation of wealth that had to be passed on to future generations. The new wealth and the need to preserve the wealth for future generations required developing rules for a clear line of inheritance. Men wanted the line of heritance to pass from themselves to their sons. In order to make sure these men were caring for their biological sons, women were sexually controlled, marriage was monogamous, and the traditional nuclear family became standard. Economic standing as a source of power relies on the concept of limited resources. Certain resources are more valued than others and everyone does not have access to the same resources. Men and women have historically had different resources. With men more likely to be working, they have enjoyed more financial resources than have women. Additionally, the resource of education that allows one to get a more lucrative job until recently has been more accessible to men.

377

378

|

Marital Power

The impact of resource distribution has been tested in the division of household labor literature. The idea is that because men have greater economic resources, their work outside the home is highly valued. Women, even when they work for pay, tend to earn less income in the marketplace, therefore their contributions outside the home are less valued. With men’s higher economic value, they are able to be released from chores at home, thus they do less housework. Blood and Wolf in Husbands and Wives and Schwartz and Blumstein in American Couples present a theoretical argument that the division of labor in the household is related to resource distribution. The research became known as resource theory, and the authors speculated that the balance of marital power is established through exchanging resources between the husband and the wife. The person who brings more resources to the marriage, and is less dependent on the partner, will have greater power in the decision-making process. Thus, husbands traditionally have more decision-making power than do wives. Gender Ideology Marx focused on power defined in terms of access and control of economic resources; however, Max Weber approached power as a social relationship and the ability to influence one’s beliefs and attitudes. Some scholars have continued the economic argument as the driving force behind marital power, but other scholars point to gender ideologies. Gender ideology refers to a person’s beliefs and attitudes toward men’s and women’s roles and responsibilities concerning marriage and the family. Gender ideology is usually seen as either traditional or nontraditional, sometimes called egalitarian. Gender traditionalism gives men and women different responsibilities. Women’s responsibilities are in the home and include housework and child care, while men are expected to be the primary wage earners, the ultimate decision-makers, and are seen as being more suitable for political leadership. Individuals who believe in gender egalitarianism strive for a more equal division of household and family responsibilities than one based solely on gender. Religion plays an important role in influencing gender ideology. Religion offers a script that defines beliefs, norms, and values that are supportive of family beliefs. This script is reinforced in theological messages communicated by formal and informal means, and interactions and networking that occur with members of the church that all support the best model of family life. The beliefs, norms, and values enforced in the script are conservative and liberal at opposite extremes and lie along a continuum between the two based on the church’s approach to family issues such as gender roles, abortion, and sexuality. For example Jews, unaffiliated persons, and Episcopalians are on the liberal end of the continuum while Southern Baptists are on the conservative side of the continuum. Thus religion can have a significant impact on the ways that males and females view their roles within the family. This is quite evident through the Promise Keeper’s Movement that encourages men to be the leaders in their homes and take back the formal authority that they are supposed to have according to biblical prescription.

Marital Power |

Cultural Norms Based on gender ideology, the culture transmits information about the proper roles of men and women, husbands and wives. With regard to expectations of power, cultural prescriptions indicate that the power is supposed to be held by men. A system in which males dominate is referred to as a patriarchy. This argues that men have a legitimate right to exercise power over women. In the most extreme form of patriarchy, males have life and death power over females. In the United States today, patriarchy remains the norm, though is has been tempered over time by the gains of the women’s movement and equality legislation. Areas where we see the continuing influence of patriarchy is the tendency to give children, even those conceived and born out of wedlock, the last name of the father, and women’s likelihood of taking the husband’s last name upon marriage. Owing to the fact that men today are more likely to desire that their wife works than that she stays home, patriarchy may be transitioning into a more androgynous society in which roles are no longer totally defined as belonging to males or females, but should be fulfilled by the persons with the most skill or interest in performing them. One demonstration of this is a greater number of stay-at-home fathers today. While never the norm in the United States, there have been societies in which women have held the majority of the power. The pattern in which women are the more powerful sex is known as matriarchy. In this instance, based on their biological birth characteristics, women have a legitimate right to exercise power over men. Anthropologists have suggested that women’s style of power is different than men’s in that women attempt to build more coalitions and elicit cooperation, rather than using force to attain their objectives. Physical Attributes One’s physical size and strength are a source of power, particularly of coercive power. Given that husbands are typically physically larger, taller, heavier, and stronger than their wives, this is a source of power that enhances men’s position. Unfortunately, the physical differences between husbands and wives means that should he use that physical strength for violence and physical aggression, he is more likely to injure her. The intimidation she may feel based on his size relative to hers may be enough to swing the power to him. Appearance, however, is a physical trait that historically has been equated with women’s power over men. A particularly attractive woman may use her beauty to influence the choices that her partner makes or even which partner she can form a relationship with. The stereotypical idea that a wealthy man, regardless of his looks, will be able to acquire a more beautiful woman does have some merit. Relationship Dynamics Within the relationship, couples may not discuss power very often for obvious reasons, but it plays a role in how they relate to each other. One of the ways

379

380

|

Marital Power

AFRICAN AMERICANS AND MARITAL POWER The discussion of the distribution of marital power in the United States frequently surrounds white men and women; however, the distribution of marital power has been different for African Americans. Growing out of a legacy of slavery, African Americans traditionally have not engaged in the gender-driven division of labor. As a result of long-term discrimination and subsequent poverty, African American women have always worked for pay, requiring men to participate in the household and creating a more equal sharing of power and decision making. Today, African American males are more likely to hold liberal attitudes toward gender roles and equal division of household labor. For example, African American males outperform white males in cooking, shopping, and caring for children. Despite the long-term sharing of power, some African American males are beginning to report more conservative gender ideologies. The increasing belief in traditional gender roles may signify a new trend that reflects changes in the economic resources available to African American males. More African American males have achieved a middle-class standing with the resources to support a wife in a traditional fashion and some men are becoming more traditional in the expectation of power sharing. Just as the Promise Keepers encouraged men to be responsible to their wives and families and aspire to traditional male roles the Million Man March, organized by the Nation of Islam and targeting black males, emphasized how African American men should be better breadwinners and providers.

that power operates in relationships is through the principle of least interest. The relative love and need that each feels for the other has a lot to do with the interaction. For example, if a wife perceives few options outside of her marriage, she may be more inclined to acquiesce to her husband’s wishes. She loses power because if the relationship were to end, she would be in a difficult situation. For women who have been homemakers for most of their adult lives, the loss of the husband’s income and standing would be traumatic. The partner that has the most options outside of the marriage (for love, financial stability, personal growth, etc.) is able to demand more from the other partner and has more power to set the tone for the relationship. NEGOTIATING MARITAL POWER Thus far we have illustrated how power in a marital relationship can be driven by either access to economic resources or by the ability to influence cultural beliefs. These factors are based on structure. Structural factors are external to the individual and can constrain and determine opportunities available for individuals. An ongoing debate in the discipline of sociology that is important for understanding the way that power works in marriage is called the structure versus agency debate. The structure side of the argument posits that humans are

Marital Power |

like robots that are nonthinking and act only within the society’s structure. In other words, individuals must act in a routine way, and have little awareness that they are doing so. Contrary to the structural argument is the concept of agency. Rather than advocating that people act within the limits of structure, agency argues that individuals are capable of acting independently and exercising free will. An agency argument with regard to power suggests that power is not rigid or absolute, but fluid and defined within relationships, emerging within a certain context, and being created and re-created. John Bartkowski, in the book Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families, argues that sociological research has presented marital power in evangelical families as a neatly packaged unified belief system with men wielding all of the power over women. However, he found the following three patterns of power negotiation within evangelical families: (1) husband headship/wifely submission—the husband could consult the wife, but the man had the final decision; (2) the moderates—submit to each other with both partners submitting to Christ; and (3) servant/leadership—the husband is the leader but also a servant to his wife. In the servant/leadership model husbands lead by discussing matters then reaching a final decision. These patterns suggest that there is a great deal of flexibility with regard to how individual couples negotiate their power, even when a model is provided. Ultimately, Bartkowski suggested that the patterns of power negotiation among couples are ambiguous and full of exceptions. CHANGING GENDER IDEOLOGY Support for individual coupled negotiations of marital power may not be surprising given how dramatically gender ideology changed during the twentieth century. Throughout the first half of the century, wide support existed for a traditional division of labor, in which men made the money in the workplace and women were responsible for household tasks and child care. In the last half of the century, researchers documented the shift toward a more egalitarian gender role ideology. Egalitarian attitudes started to increase in the 1960s, with married women, especially those with younger children, moving into the workplace. Beliefs about appropriate gender behaviors continued to liberalize for three decades, from the 1970s through the 1990s; however, a slowing of those changes occurred in the 1980s and 1990s due to what Faludi calls a “backlash” against equality. Factors influencing a changing gender ideology can be divided into micro (on the level of the individual) and macro (on the level of the social structure) components. Individual changes in gender ideology show that men’s attitudes have remained more conservative on gender issues and their attitudes have changed more slowly than women’s. Other individual changes can be attributed to broader social change, including shifts in attitudes toward religious beliefs, political allegiance, socialization values, and support for civil liberties. In addition, other micro-level factors found to influence gender ideology include youth labor experience, educational attainment, and mother’s gender-role attitudes.

381

382

|

Marital Power

Changing gender ideology can be attributed not only to changes in individual attitudes but also to changes in the makeup of the population due to births and deaths, or to historical and cultural contexts. Among the ideas supporting a structural change in gender attitudes is cohort replacement. A cohort is a group of persons of the same age and historic experience. Cohorts come of age in an historical context and are eventually replaced by younger cohorts who are raised in a different time within a different historical context. For example, cohorts who reached adulthood between 1985 and 1996 are the children of mothers who first entered the labor force in the 1960s and 1970s. Subsequently, the more liberal attitudes of the 1985 to 1996 cohort, persons who are negotiating marital power and decision making today, would be a result of their personal experience growing up. FUTURE DIRECTIONS One of the most contentious issues in discussions of marital power involves whether the power should or could be equally shared. Those who favor sharing say that the equality leads to a greater identification with the partner and stronger sense of fairness. However, couples who negotiate their own power arrangements may find it difficult to maintain and persons outside the relationship may question their choices. In her book Peer Marriage: How Love Between Equals Really Works, Pepper Schwartz interviewed couples who have created and managed equal relationships. Important elements of the peer marriage included putting the marital relationship first even before children and careers, having the marital partner as one’s best friend, and developing a deep and true partnership based on equality, equity, and intimacy. Couples who choose a peer marriage must be constantly vigilant to avoid falling into familiar cultural patterns that divide power unequally. Those in favor of a traditional arrangement, one that relies on a gendered division of labor, suggest that it is the best distribution of power because it has a long tradition of success. Among the more widely cited arguments is that a traditional division of labor is helpful for rearing children and takes advantage of men’s greater earning capacity relative to their wives. When discussing factors that influence marital inequality, one may wish to ask what society with more power equity would look like. It might be a lot like Sweden. Sweden has been described as the most egalitarian society on Earth and a leader in the modern women’s movement. Equal rights for Swedish women has a long history with the right to an inheritance (1845), legal independence (1858), suffrage (1862 and 1918), university enrollment (1870), independence for married women (1890), political equality (1920s), sexual and reproductive rights (1930s), and access to equal education (1920s) coming much earlier there than in the United States. In addition to legal measures of equality, the family is less traditional with young adults more likely to cohabit than to marry, most babies born out of wedlock, and 70 percent of women with families holding full-time jobs. Some of these trends are no doubt the result of generous maternity and family leave policies by the Swedish government.

Marital Satisfaction

Despite the gains Swedish women have made, they still have not gained completely equal sharing of power. Swedish women still are more likely to experience employment discrimination (earning lower incomes than men), to work in traditional female jobs such as teaching, nursing, and social work, and are more likely to do more and carry the heavier burden of the housework than men. Even though Swedish women have not gained full equality, the family is certainly less traditional and gender roles are more egalitarian in comparison with other industrialized countries. See also Battered Woman Syndrome; Employed Mothers; Family Roles; Housework Allocation; Mail Order Brides. Further Reading: Bartkowski, John. Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001; Bartkowski, John. Promise Keepers: Servants, Soldiers, and Godly Men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004; Blood, R. and D. M. Wolf. Husbands and Wives. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1960; Blumstein, Philip, and Pepper Schwartz. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 1985; Brewster Karin, and Irene Padavic. “Change in Gender-Ideology, 1977–1996: The Contributions of Intracohort Change and Population Turnover.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (2000): 477–487; Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, 2000; Epstein, Fuchs Cynthia. “Great Divides: The Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women.” American Sociological Review 72 (2007): 1–22; Greenstein, Theodore N. “Gender Ideology, Marital Disruption, and the Employment of Married Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 (1995): 31–42; Hartmann, Heidi. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union.” In Social Stratification: The Sociological Perspective, ed. D. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001; Hertel, Bradley, and Michael Hughes. “Religious Affiliation, Attendance, and Support for ‘Pro-Family’ Issues in the United States.” Social Forces 65 (1987): 858–883; Johnson, Leanor Boulin, and Robert Staples. Black Families at the Crossroads: Challenges and Prospects. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2005; Nordstrom, Byron. The History of Sweden. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002; Schwartz, Pepper. Love Between Equals: How Peer Marriage Really Works. New York: Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 1994; Thornton, Arland. “Changing Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51 (1989): 873–893; Wilson, William Julius. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978; Wilson, William Julius. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993; Wright, Erik Olin, Karen Shire, Shu-Ling Hwang, Maureen Dolan, and Janeen Baxter. “The Non-Effects of Class on the Gender Division of Labour in the Home: A Comparative Study of Sweden and the United States.” Gender and Society 6 (1992): 252–282.

Christy Haines Flatt

MARITAL SATISFACTION Marital satisfaction is a measure of married partners’ feelings of fulfillment from their relationship, their enjoyment of being a couple, and their continued

| 383

384

|

Marital Satisfaction

commitment to one another. Some people fear that marital satisfaction among United States couples is in overall decline. One reason is that divorce rates from the second half of the twentieth century through today are unarguably higher than those of the first half of the century and earlier. Many people, linking this decline in stability with a decline in quality, lament the shift as evidence that high numbers of contemporary couples are experiencing dissatisfaction with the marital relationship. Opponents of this view argue that dissatisfaction rates were higher previously, although marriages were more stable, and the contemporary marriage climate is one of increased satisfaction with marriage for those who choose it. A major distinction between marriage then and now is a trend away from a traditional form of marriage toward more egalitarian unions. At no point in time have all marriages been alike. In earlier periods, during which so-called traditional marriage was popular, some couples likely chose to have more equal responsibilities and decision-making power. Similarly, today when more couples choose equitable, or what they consider fair or balanced, relationships, many partners still uphold conventional ideals. However, the general movement in relationship types has been away from models based on father breadwinner/ mother homemaker standards to newer models with dual-earners as the norm. Before the controversy surrounding the evolution of marriage and whether or not it has produced more satisfied couples can be considered, an explanation of the various measures of marital success and a brief description of how marriage in the United States has changed over time are worthwhile. MARITAL SUCCESS MEASURES When discussing marital success, researchers and others often refer to marital stability, marital quality, and marital satisfaction. Marital Stability Marital stability is the most concise of these success measures because it is based on the longevity of the relationship. Stable marriages are those which remain intact, with the ultimate durable union being one that continues until the death of at least one spouse. Although this measure is widely used by those who study and write about marital success, it can be misleading because couples who stay together are not necessarily satisfied. In the view of many people, a longterm marriage is not really successful if the partners are miserable throughout that time. Yet one helpful indicator for marital satisfaction comes from stability’s opposite, instability. While it cannot be assumed that all stable marriages are satisfying, it is safe to believe that the great majority, if not all, of those that end in divorce involve some level of dissatisfaction. Marital Quality The notion of marital quality is less distinct in its definition. When speaking of marital quality, researchers often refer to the partners’ reported level of

Marital Satisfaction

happiness and their positive or negative feelings about the experience of being married to one another. This measure might include many commonly studied correlates of marriage on which the partners rate themselves and their relationship, such as level of positive or negative interaction between them or level and frequency of conflict experienced. The terms marital quality and marital satisfaction are sometimes used as synonyms because these concepts have overlapping features. Marital Satisfaction Marital satisfaction is an indicator used for the positive feelings and fulfillment spouses experience as a result of being together, the opposite of which is marital dissatisfaction, a measure that identifies negative feelings and a lack of fulfillment. This concept is often related to some standard against which spouses judge their experiences and how they feel their relationship rates next to others they observe or hear about. Like marital quality, this measure depends on individuals’ reports about themselves, their partners, and their marriages. For the purposes of this discussion, marital satisfaction will be used as a blanket term to encompass the ideas generally held under this measure as well as those used to address marital quality. HOW MARRIAGE HAS EVOLVED The expectations, structures, norms, and ideologies for marriage are constantly in flux and have changed considerably over time. One illustration of this is the varying legal representations of the marital relationship by Western culture over the last few centuries. Under the doctrine of coverture, which appeared during the Middle Ages, wives were defined as belonging to their husbands. They had no legal rights to own property and were expected to turn any wages earned over to their spouses. Marriage was seen as the melding of two people into a single individual—the husband. In the 1800s many Married Women’s Property Laws were passed by some states giving wives the right to own property and keep any wages they earned. During this time, the conception of marriage shifted to acknowledge the existence of both individuals and gave a degree of equality to each. From this arose the norm of the wife who served her husband, who in return provided for her. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, other legal modifications affecting marriage took place. In general, these changes supported the emerging trends of more equalized relationships and spouses’ shared responsibilities for economic, household, and childcare tasks. One important change during this period was the enactment of the first no-fault divorce laws by California in 1970. On the whole, the evolution of marriage in the United States has involved two major shifts. The first was from the traditional, instrumental view of marriage to the more modern, expressive view. The instrumental view characterizing so-called then, or more traditional, marriages describes matrimony as a utilitarian and pragmatic undertaking. Partners form an economic union meant to provide for themselves physically and to meet the needs of society, including

| 385

386

|

Marital Satisfaction

reproduction of the species. Under this instrumental doctrine, the idea of marrying for love is foolish. During the period for which this view was the norm, men and women were taught to be objective when choosing a mate, to look for a spouse who, for example, had a strong body for labor, a good hand for sewing, or a physique conducive to bearing many children. Following instrumental norms, people considered their marriages satisfying if the unions produced heirs, economic stability, and interdependence. Love and intimacy were likely appreciated by those who developed them, but these components were not considered requirements or ends unto themselves. Relatively recently, so-called now, or more egalitarian, marriages have come to be characterized by the expressive view of marriage. This doctrine places primary value on the emotional satisfaction and intimate fulfillment couples gain from their interactions with one another. While social pressure persists for women to marry wealthy husbands or for men to seek wives who can keep a clean house, for example, a high number of people accept partners who offer few instrumental incentives. Furthermore, in today’s culture most people believe that love is a natural prerequisite for marriage. Therefore, for contemporary marriage the major criteria for satisfaction are intimacy and emotional gratification between partners. These factors are so important that many people report that a loss of either would lead them to discontinue their relationship. A second social shift affecting marriage has been from patriarchy to democracy within the family. Shown by laws such as the doctrine of coverture, Western culture, including the United States, has a long history of patriarchal dominance. This dominance pervaded society, giving males unquestioned authority in business, the courts, and the home. Women were considered second-class citizens, expected to defer first to the authority of their fathers and later to their husbands as the head of the household. The system of patriarchy was slowly eroded as women gained more legal and social ground. However, it remained largely intact until the 1960s when several movements and changes came together to give women more power than ever before. This shift resulted from catalysts such as the Women’s Movement, the availability of more educational opportunities for women, the invention and increased accessibility of contraceptives, especially birth control pills, and a dramatic rise in the number of women holding paid employment outside the home. As women gained more equal value in society as a whole, they began to expect more democracy at home as well. MARITAL SATISFACTION: THEN VERSUS NOW No two marriages have ever been exactly alike. Even when couples share the same ideals, perspectives, beliefs, and values, they interpret these elements differently and approach their relationships in subtly and significantly unique ways. Despite this, common characteristics can be identified among groups of married partners that create general categories under which they can be considered. Marriages of one period can be compared and contrasted with marriages of another in general terms. A current conceptualization is that unions of the

Marital Satisfaction

recent past are fundamentally different than unions of today, resulting in the categorization of then and now marital models. As is the case with many social dichotomies, controversy exists over whether one form is better, meaning more satisfying and less prone to divorce, than the other. Supporters and detractors on both sides of this debate present a variety of arguments. MARRIAGE WAS MORE SATISFYING THEN A major contention of those who believe that marriages of the past were more satisfying and stable is that the movement of women into paid labor has been disastrous for husbands and wives. These proponents point to historical data showing that increasing divorce in the United States has coincided with the rise in women working outside of the home. In the traditionalist view of then marriages, husbands are expected to be the sole wage earners and women are expected to be homemakers. In fact, they view the latter role as the greatest source of value and fulfillment available to wives. Keeping a home and taking care of a husband and children is an expression of true femininity. The movement of women into the workforce has upset the traditional gender division of labor, and left a void in the home as some wives give primacy to wage-earning. A more specific source of dissatisfaction cited by these claimants is that the movement toward working wives has caused partners to struggle with balancing work and family responsibilities. According to these proponents, conflicting loyalties for the husband and wife cause strain, stress, and overall dissatisfaction as each tries to manage multiple roles. Supporters point out that such a struggle was not present in then marriages when men and women upheld complementary roles, each caring for distinct elements of family survival. Husbands spent their days working in the fields, factories, and offices, earning the money needed to run the household. This undertaking was so demanding that it required the majority of their time. Wives, on the other hand, were responsible for maintaining the home and rearing the next generation. Thus, each sex could focus on separate life aspects, either work or home, without burdening one another with unnecessary concerns. Additionally, then marriage advocates say complementary husband and wife roles increase satisfaction with the marital relationship. They believe spouses are more comfortable when expectations and responsibilities are clearly defined. One of their biggest criticisms of egalitarian relationships is that spouses are confused about what they need to do for their marriage to function smoothly. Roles are blurred and expectations can change suddenly, they claim, leading to disappointment and discord. In addition, men are conflicted today by contradictory social instructions about the right way to be a husband. Often, husbands find themselves torn between upholding norms telling them to take wives as equal partners with whom they can share the burdens and joys of supporting the family and other norms that tell them their place is as head of the household with primary financial responsibility for the family. A final argument made by advocates of more traditional marriage is that people expect too much of marriage today. The contemporary notion of matrimony

| 387

388

|

Marital Satisfaction

is that partners will be everything to one another. People expect their spouses to meet all their physical, social, and emotional needs. They suggest that couples of the past were more realistic in their expectations. In these marriages, partners were expected to provide many physical and some emotional benefits to one another, but this was in tandem with the benefits to be received from the community, friends, and other family members. Critics of modern marriages believe that many couples become dissatisfied when their relationships cannot measure up to the mythical be all, end all standard and are encouraged to seek satisfaction elsewhere when a current marriage does not meet their unrealistic demands. MARRIAGE IS MORE SATISFYING NOW Many researchers and claimants provide evidence that contemporary couples are happier and more satisfied than those of the past. A key reason for this, they feel, is the equality modern couples often experience. Current marriage advocates identify the movement of women into the workforce, the need to balance work and family, and the sharing of household responsibilities as strengths of now marriages that engender fulfillment and satisfaction. The increased social power afforded to females as a result of paid labor is heralded by some as an overdue recognition of women’s value comparable to men. While then marriage advocates believe homemaking is the ultimate expression of femininity and the truest source of female contentment, opponents propose that earning their own wage is much more gratifying for women. Many studies have found women who report that their work gives them pleasure, a sense of identity, and improved self-efficacy. Working outside the home empowers women, providing them positive feelings about themselves that carry over to the marriage. Following the saying that one cannot love another person unless one loves oneself first, it is reasonable that women who feel good about themselves at work feel good about themselves at home too and are better able to get along with their spouses. Also in contrast to traditionalist claims, many people do not consider the need of partners to balance work and family as a catalyst for decreased satisfaction. Actually, some researchers, such as Milkie and Teltola, have found the opposite result in dual-earner families. These studies find that spouses gain a sense of accomplishment and success from negotiating multiple roles at work and at home. Contemporary society in general is encouraging, rather than condemning, of working parents and the dual-earner household is the norm. Couples who are able to do well at work while upholding household duties are likely to get a sense of satisfaction from meeting social expectations. Finding support for their lifestyle has positive implications for their marital satisfaction as well. Furthermore, where then supporters see complimentary roles, now advocates cite inequality and suppression for wives. They believe that women in general cannot truly be happy as servants of their husbands. The system of patriarchy that is perpetuated by traditional marriage places wives in a subordinate social position. While they agree that marriages of the past were more stable, they point out that longevity does not necessarily indicate satisfaction. Wives in then

Marital Satisfaction

marriages had fewer options for improving their situation and were overall unable to end their repressive unions. Happy or not, they were compelled by legal and social sanctions to stay with their husbands. A characteristic of modern marriages thought to have positive implications for marital satisfaction is a decrease in family size. Married partners today, on average, produce far fewer offspring than previous couples. This may improve feelings about the relationship because spouses with fewer children experience less stress over the marital life course. Research has consistently shown that satisfaction decreases when a child is born because parents no longer have time for one another, they face increased financial burdens, and the stress of caring for offspring engenders more negative interactions between them. This effect compounds with each subsequent child. Moreover, the more children a couple have, the later in life they will share space with and be responsible for those offspring. Thus, the modern trend toward smaller family size has positive implications for the marital satisfaction of now couples when compared with then couples. Finally, egalitarian marriage advocates point to couples’ self-reports of their experiences in these relationships as evidence of improved satisfaction. A number of husbands and wives consciously choose to have more equal relationships than did earlier generations. These couples often say that they are happy with their high levels of intimacy and with sharing, as opposed to delegating, the majority of responsibilities in their lives. Most would not want to give up joint household care, child rearing, and decision making, as these efforts allow them to act as a team, to value each other’s input, and to put the needs of the relationship before their individual desires. CORRELATES OF MARITAL SATISFACTION While the controversy surrounding then versus now marriages and which version produces more satisfied couples with better outcomes is often debated, many researchers choose to examine more general variables for marital satisfaction that relate to partners in any marriage type. A tremendous amount of research has been conducted to pinpoint the attitudes, behaviors, social characteristics, and other possible correlates of marital satisfaction. A comprehensive list of such factors is almost impossible to compile because researchers are continuously finding new areas to study. Some old areas are discarded only to be picked up again later. However, it is feasible to discuss a few of the more common correlates investigated. Some of the most famous ideas about marital satisfaction have been put forth by John Gottman. Among the more influential is Gottman’s proposal of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for happiness in marriage. He identified four behaviors partners could engage in that are highly damaging to their relationship: criticizing the spouse, displaying contempt for the spouse, becoming defensive, and stonewalling (refusing to talk to the spouse). By conducting longitudinal studies with married couples, using both observational and self-report techniques, Gottman concluded that the four behaviors, especially when used in combination, devitalized relationships and produced high dissatisfaction.

| 389

390

|

Marital Satisfaction

A second prominent result of Gottman’s research regards the ratio of positive to negative interactions between partners. According to many researchers some conflict is necessary for a healthy marriage. Perfect marriages in which couples never disagree are a myth. Thus, the presence of negative interactions is not necessarily detrimental to a relationship. Rather, it is the number of bad experiences versus the number of good ones that impacts a couple’s overall satisfaction. Gottman proposed that for a couple to be happy in marriage, they need to have five positive engagements for every negative one. Another well-researched area of marital satisfaction deals with the homogeneity of partners. Homogeneous partners are those who are alike in demographic and social characteristics. This means they are of the same racial, ethnic, or religious background, are from the same social class, have similar educational levels, and are near one another in age. Research has shown that when compared with heterogeneous spouses, homogeneous couples are better able to relate to one another and to get along. This increased harmony results from shared backgrounds, values, morals, and other fundamental expressions of self. For much of the history of the United States the vast majority of marriages were homogeneous unions. Contemporary marriages, however, are characterized by increasing heterogeneity. Much interest has been directed toward the correlation between sexual satisfaction and overall satisfaction with a relationship, particularly the search for a link between sexual frequency and satisfaction. Some have reported that happier couples are those who have sex more often. This link has also been approached in the opposite manner, with some researchers indicating that being happy with one’s relationship leads one to desire sex more frequently. Conversely, other findings indicate no direct relationship between intercourse frequency and satisfaction, noting that the quality of intimate contacts is more important than their frequency. Finally, a few who have investigated this area report that satisfaction is related more to how partners talk about sex than the act itself. Those couples who feel comfortable enough to be honest about their desires and feelings about intercourse and how they prefer for the experience to progress feel more positively about their marriage overall. Another major correlate of marital satisfaction found in the literature is communication. Marriage is a series of negotiations and problems to be solved. In order for couples to maneuver through their everyday interactions, they must communicate. Some couples develop effective communication styles whereas others do not. Many spouses adopt an open approach to communication in which they feel free to express their opinions and feelings and to bring up whatever topics they desire. Other partners are more closed in their communication, meaning they sometimes censor things they talk about with one anther. A number of communication behaviors have been found to be damaging to a marriage. These include Gottman’s Four Horsemen as well as placating, whining, nagging, and being verbally abusive. Communication actions that positively affect marital satisfaction involve praising the spouse, speaking to one another with respect, and expressing love and endearment.

Marital Satisfaction

Communication is a crucial component of conflict management, another variable related to spousal satisfaction. According to research, some of the more functional conflict approaches are those in which couples address issues directly and with a desire to have their own needs met without necessarily denying their spouses’ needs. On the other hand, using coercive communication in conflict, such as passive-aggressive strategies, personal attacks, and refusal to hear the other person’s side generally decreases satisfaction with the union. Finally, a number of studies have looked at the impact time spent together has on marital satisfaction. One such study reported that partners who spend 90 minutes of together time each day are often happier than those who spend less than an hour together per day. Furthermore, taking part in recreational activities as a couple is even more beneficial. Mere exposure to one another can have a positive impact on feelings about the relationship. Partners who spend time talking together about joint concerns as well as experiences while apart, such as one another’s day at work, have higher satisfaction levels than those who converse less often. For some time it was commonly believed that all satisfied marriages followed a similar structure and pattern and that dissatisfied marriages deviated from this model. More contemporary researchers, such as Cuber and Haroff, however, have determined that stable unions come in a variety of forms. This diversity makes determining exact correlates of happiness difficult. Satisfaction is relative; different individuals and couples define being satisfied in varied ways. Relationship characteristics that would lead some men or women to seek divorce are expected and even desirable to others. Therefore, no suggestions or techniques for improving satisfaction will ever work for all couples. LIFE COURSE CONSIDERATIONS Another way of looking at marital satisfaction is whether and how it changes over time. One popular method of illustrating this is the family life cycle model, first introduced in the 1950s. This model contains eight stages, each with unique implications for marital satisfaction. Stage one is beginning families. This stage, during which the wedding occurs and partners settle into their marriage, is thought to be highly satisfying. In stage two, childbearing families, the first offspring are born to the couple. As the financial burden and other stressors increase during this period, satisfaction decreases. The trend toward lessened satisfaction continues for stage three, families with preschool children, stage four, families with school children, and stage five, families with teenagers. The loss of satisfaction is connected to the high stress and financial worries found throughout these stages and peaking in stage five. Stage six is families as launching centers. The implications for satisfaction here can be positive or negative. Increased satisfaction can arise as children leave home and spouses find renewed time for and interest in their relationship. On the other hand, many partners end up in a marital crisis as they are no longer able to relate after many years of focusing on the children rather than each other. The results of stage seven, families in the middle years, can be likewise

| 391

392

|

Marital Satisfaction

variable. Retirement occurs during this stage for most people and couples find themselves spending more time together. This may revitalize the marriage for some while leading others to realize they do not enjoy being together as they once did. The eighth stage is aging families. The health of the partners has the biggest impact on satisfaction for this stage, with the poor health of one or both spouses causing potential strain. The family life cycle model ends with the death of one or both partners. Although it has been widely used for decades, the family life cycle model has received much criticism. Critics argue that the model does not fit all couples. For example, they claim it is often not applicable to now marriages resulting in nontraditional, modern families. They feel it is also not realistic for the lower classes that do not progress through the stages in the same way as the other classes, or for divorced or remarried individuals, as the model does not allow for stopping movement through the stages with one relationship and beginning again with another. More general explanations of changing marital satisfaction over the life course exist, arising from the work of researchers such as Norval D. Glenn. One common theme among these is that the presence of children decreases the positive feelings between husbands and wives. Following the birth of the first child, dissatisfaction may emerge due to the demands of the infant, fatigue, frustration, and a loss of time to focus on each other. These issues are generally only compounded with the birth of subsequent children which further divides adults’ time and energy. The situation usually declines rather than improves as the children age. The adolescent years are particularly stressful for parents as they try to set boundaries for children who are struggling to find their own identities. The effort spent worrying about teenage issues such as sexual activity, school achievement, and drug use leaves partners with little time or energy to tend to their marital relationship. Much of this tension is relieved when the children leave the home. Thus, a curvilinear relationship is generally proposed for marital satisfaction over time, with high points existing during the early and late years with a marked decrease throughout the years in between. Recent research has discredited the belief that elderly couples cannot have vigorous, satisfying relationships. A number of studies have found that older spouses can have increased intimacy and relatively frequent sexual encounters. Rather than resenting growing dependence on one another due to health problems or a shrinking social network, many older people are comfortable with their high interdependence and enjoy the sense of belonging with one another. WILL THE DEBATE END? The debate surrounding then and now marriages and which is the best method for couples to follow is not likely to end soon. The continued high divorce rate in the United States is valid evidence that a large number of couples are not finding the satisfaction they desire in marriage. Advocates of traditional and modern marriage both feel the model of matrimony they support is a viable solution to this problem. A major argument of then proponents is that the complementary

Marital Satisfaction

roles of father breadwinner/mother homemaker unions create clear expectations for spouses, and that contemporary couples experience conflict over role confusion. Now marriage advocates, on the other hand, believe it is the blending of marital roles that gives strength to modern couples, allowing them to share responsibilities and grow together in all aspects of their lives. Because each marriage form works for a number of couples giving strength to each proponents’ claims, the controversy surrounding the merits of the models is regularly refueled. The media play a role in this controversy. Television, movies, and other media are major sources of information about norms, expectations, and the way members of society live. From these informants people receive a variety of images that may cause confusion. For example, manly men are often portrayed by the media as the ideal. These men work 70 or more hours per week, ruthlessly strive to get ahead in their careers, protect their families against all dangers, and don’t know the difference between a mop and a vacuum. Such masculine portrayals are juxtaposed with the sensitive men. These characters, sharing power and duties with their mates, are depicted as weak individuals who are not taken seriously by their wives or children. Women are also illustrated in various ways. Some images present independent working wives as positive role models who know how to get what they want while still finding happiness at home. At the same time, these women can come to represent superwomen; individuals who are able to be everything to everyone and work tirelessly for others with little or no recognition. Finally, the media can create a view of women as subordinates, holding lower-level jobs or spending their husbands’ money faster than the men can make it. With all these mixed messages, it is understandable that people would be unsure of the right type of marriage and lifestyle to attempt. While couples receive pressure from the media, politics, religion and other influences to undertake marriage in a certain way, the ultimate choice of how to seek marital satisfaction is theirs. Contemporary couples display a multitude of forms. Rather than taking a strictly traditional or modern stance, most approach marriage in a way that combines both traditional and egalitarian ideas. For them, marital satisfaction is not a debate but a goal toward which they must work every day. See also Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce; Benefits of Marriage; Developmental Disability and Family Stress; Divorce as Problem, Symptom, or Solution; Employed Mothers; Extramarital Sexual Relationships; Family Roles; Remarriage; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Amato, Paul R., Alan Booth, David R. Johnson, and Stacy J. Rogers. Alone Together: How Marriage in America is Changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007; Buri, John R. How to Love Your Wife. Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing and Enterprises, 2006; Chapman, Gary. The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate. Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2004; Doherty, William J. Take Back Your Marriage: Sticking Together in a World that Pulls Us Apart. New York: Guilford Publications, 2001; Doyle, Laura. The Surrendered Wife: A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace. New York: Fireside, 2001; Fowers, Blaine J. Beyond the Myth of Marital Happiness: How Embracing the Virtues of Loyalty, Generosity, Justice,

| 393

394

|

Marriage Promotion and Courage Can Strengthen Your Relationship. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2000; Glenn, Norval D. “With This Ring: A National Survey on Marriage in America.” National Fatherhood Initiative. http://www.smartmarriages.com/nms.pdf (accessed January 2008); Gottman, John M. What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1994; Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999; Markman, Howard J., Scott M. Stanley, and Susan L. Blumberg. Fighting for Your Marriage: Positive Steps for Preventing Divorce and Preserving a Lasting Love. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2001; McCarthy, Barry, and Emily J. McCarthy. Getting It Right the First Time: Creating a Healthy Marriage. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2004; Morgan, Mabel. The Total Woman. New York: Pocket Books, 1990; Weiner-Davis, Michele. The Sex-Starved Marriage: Boosting Your Libido: A Couple’s Guide. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.

Nicole D. Garrett

MARRIAGE PROMOTION Marriage promotion is the introduction of social and political policies that encourage persons to marry. In particular, these policies are targeted at singleparent families and assume that marriage will help alleviate some of the challenges that these families typically face by providing for a more traditional family structure and opportunities for financial stability. A less-obvious goal of marriage promotion programs is to reduce the numbers of women and children receiving government-sponsored public assistance funds. INTRODUCTION Since the late 1960s, an increasing amount of attention has been given to the rise in the percentage of children who grow up in single-parent households. This attention has been driven by two main concerns: first, the recognition that, on average, children who grow up in single-parent homes are more likely to suffer negative outcomes, especially poverty, compared with children raised in twoparent homes, and second the view that the traditional family is rapidly disappearing. To address the problem of child poverty and to strengthen the family, Congress passed the Welfare Extension and Marriage Promotion Act, under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), popularly known as welfare reform, which emphasized marriage as critical to the well-being of children. Promoting marriage as a national agenda is quite controversial. On one side of the controversy are those who contend that promoting marriage is in the best interest of children and the family, while on the other side are those who argue that single-parent families can be beneficial for children as long these latter families receive adequate financial and social support. SINGLEPARENT FAMILIES Once a rare family type, single-parent families have become a notable and permanent feature of family life in the United States. Single-parent families, at

Marriage Promotion |

least historically, had been most often formed as a result of widowhood with many single-headed households being formed as a result of the death of the mother during childbirth or the death of the father in relation to occupational accidents or war. Although most often poor, these families were not necessarily seen as having been created by individual choice but through unforeseen misfortune. However, over the course of the twentieth century, virtually every aspect of modern society changed rapidly, as did the structure of the family. With family structure changing at such a swift rate, one growing and extremely important family structure has emerged in a variety of forms—the single-parent family. According to the “Family and Living Arrangements: 2006” report, released by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007, there are approximately 14 million single-parent households (10.4 million single-mother households and 2.5 million single-father households) in the United States today, and those parents provide care for approximately 21.6 million of the nation’s children age 18 years and younger. While most single-parent families were formed by marital disruption such as divorce, separation or widowhood in the 1960s and 1970s, the increase in the birth rates among unmarried women fueled the growth in single-parent families in the 1980s and beyond. In terms of female-headed households, 45.9 percent are currently divorced or separated and 30.5 percent have never been married. Of children living with one parent, 38 percent live with a divorced parent, 35 percent with a never-married parent, 19 percent with a separated parent, and 8 percent in other living arrangements. Family structure seems to play a role in the quality of life of children. For instance, children raised in mother-headed households are five times more likely to be poor than are children reared in married-couple households. Childhood poverty translates into a host of negative child outcomes such as poor health, low educational attainment, food insecurity, and housing instability. Children of never-married mother-headed households, on average, fare far worse than any of the other single-parent type families. Of those children living with nevermarried parents, the U.S. Department of Commerce reports that less than twothirds have parents who have completed high school and live in rented homes, 59 percent have unemployed mothers, and 69 percent live in poverty. MARRIAGE PROMOTION From an economic and social perspective, the spread of single motherhood and the persistence of childhood poverty have dominated the concern of family and child advocates, women’s right advocates, policy researchers, politicians, and governmental agencies. After much debate in Congress, on August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed PRWORA into law. PRWORA completely revamped the prior welfare system, which had been attacked for decades by policy-makers, the press, and the public for increasing government spending. Under this welfare reform legislation, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) replaced the old welfare programs known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program. With the creation

395

396

|

Marriage Promotion

of TANF, a new emphasis was placed on family formation, with the specific goals of providing assistance to needy families, ending dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, marriage, preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encouraging and supporting the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. In line with these goals, PRWORA required welfare recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance, and it put a five-year lifetime limit on the receipt of benefits. It also ended the entitlement status of welfare benefits. In addition, the act made other, less-publicized changes to several social welfare programs, both restricting the availability of benefits (making it harder for disabled children to qualify for assistance, limiting eligibility for food stamps, and denying welfare benefits to most legal immigrants) and strengthening programs that aid children (reorganizing and increasing funding for child care, as well as toughening the enforcement of rules for child support). In a 2001 policy speech, President Bush proclaimed that marriage promotion would be a focus of his administration. To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children, I have proposed a healthy marriage initiative to help couples develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible childrearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home. (http://www.acf.hhs. gov/healthymarriage/about/mission.html) The Healthy Marriage Initiative is a centerpiece of welfare-reform reauthorization bills. The initiative targets low-income couples because, unlike more affluent couples, low-income couples either do not have the resources to purchase marriage-education services or those services are not currently available in their communities. The aim is to give low-income couples greater access to marriage-education services and thereby improve their chances of forming and sustaining healthy, stable marriages. Healthy marriage promotion activities include: (1) public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health; (2) education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting; (3) marriage education, marriage skills, and relationship skills programs, that may include parenting skills, financial management, conflict resolution, and job and career advancement, for nonmarried pregnant women and nonmarried expectant fathers; (4) premarital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples or individuals interested in marriage; (5) marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples; (6) divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills; and (7) marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities.

Marriage Promotion |

397

FAMILY STRUCTURE VERSUS FAMILY PROCESS Throughout discussions related to the changing family in the United States is a debate concerning which is the most crucial variable, family structure or family process. The former focuses on who is in the family, suggesting that family form is crucial to success and positive outcomes. The latter highlights how the family works to meet the needs of the members, regardless of who they are. The Family Deficit Model (FDM) views the nuclear or two-parent family as the ideal family structure. According to this model, single-parent families have a negative impact on children simply because they do not have a nuclear family structure. Research using the FDM begins with the assumption that single-parenting is bad for children, and the results of these studies typically support this assumption. In fact, single-parent families have been accused of many social ills and these social ills were used to support marriage promotion. On the other hand, in the early 1990s, the Risk and Protective Factor Model (RPFM) was developed. This model does not regard single-parent families as irregular or bad because the assumption of this model is that all family types have both strengths and weaknesses. Rather than view single-parenting as the cause of negative outcomes for children in these families, the RPFM describes family structure as one of many risk factors. Risks in this model are either background characteristics or life events that may have a negative impact on child development. Protective factors are characteristics and events that positively influence children and help limit the impact of risks. Essentially, according to this model, risks are the weakness and protective factors are the strengths of any given family.

MARRIAGE PROMOTION: STRENGTHENING MARRIAGE AND FAMILY Marriage is a social good. An underlying view of marriage promotion supporters is that marriage is a fundamental social institution and safety net that provides important social and economic benefits for adults and children, as well as society as a whole. They argue that the erosion of the institution of marriage has had widespread negative consequences on children and adults. Supporters of marriage promotion have as a goal to defend traditional marriage, arguing that too many welfare programs undermine marriage among the poor. Advocates highlight a host of social science research, data, and government surveys that show that being reared during the rise in single-parent families, especially never-married types, is associated with an increase in a number of social problems. For example, this body of research indicates that children born out of wedlock are much more likely to experience poverty, need public assistance, have lower academic achievement, have behavioral and emotional problems, and use drugs more often than children raised in two-parent families. In addition, never-married younger mothers are less likely to have a high school diploma and more likely to be victims of domestic violence than are married mothers. With the rise of the above problems comes high governmental program cost paid by taxpayers to deal with the short-and long-term effects of these

398

|

Marriage Promotion

social problems. Federal and state taxes are used to support welfare, child care subsidies, child support collection costs, costs associated with court administration, foster care, and crime-control efforts. Advocates argue that it is reasonable for public policy to promote marriage because marriage protects children from the negative consequences associated with being raised in single-parent families. Marriages increase the economic and social well-being of the family by increasing family income. Couples who share in the economic stability of the family are able to amass more wealth and provide more resources (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, security, finances, and education) for their children than are single parents, especially young never-married mothers. In addition to the economic benefits, marriage provides social protection for both children and adults. Married couples offer social support to the family, which can help reduce the stress of everyday living. Married couples are more likely to provide social support to each other as well as to their children than are singe parents, who may or may not have a significant other on which they can rely, or who may be too stressed to give social support to their children. Moreover, married couples are able to access additional forms of social support from each other’s extended family, job connections, and friends. These additional levels of social support, which the children of singe parents may not have, are beneficial to the well-being of children, giving children others who are present to help. Finally, the children of married couples are offered social protection through parental supervision. Proponents maintain that the two-parent environment is optimal for providing parental supervision. Having two parents present in the home increases the level of supervision compared with single-parent families. The reduced level of supervision in single-parent families is associated with increased involvement in potentially life-altering behaviors, such as early initiation of sexual intercourse, teen pregnancy, violence, and drug and alcohol use. According to advocates, increasing marriage rates in low-income neighborhoods just makes sense. Children from married-couple families have better health and are less likely to be depressed, have higher rates of educational attainment, and fewer emotional and behavioral problems. Whether the problem is abuse, neglect, poverty, or emotional and behavioral problems, proponents highlight the host of research that suggests that the best living arrangement for children is with their biological parents who are in a stable, healthy marriage. MARRIAGE PROMOTION: MISSING THE REALITIES OF POVERTY Critics of marriage promotion also view marriage as a social good. However, while supporters of marriage promotion view marriage as socially beneficial for low-income single mothers, critics argue that the goal of strengthening families might be best served through a combined package of social and economic policies and programs that promote the familial, educational, and employment needs that are unique to low-income communities. The Healthy Marriage

Marriage Promotion |

Initiative takes money away from programs that create stable families. For instance, programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, publicly subsidized child care, fatherhood initiatives, job training programs, and efforts to reduce pay discrimination would assist low-income community members in stabilizing the family, while offering benefits to couples interested in matrimony. Critics assert that public policy that seeks to strengthen families by promoting marriage misses a critical point; that is, low marriage rates among the poor are a symptom of poverty and not the cause. Few persons would want to start a married life together when they are already having trouble meeting basic financial needs as single people. In addition, critics argue that marriage promotion should not be a major component of antipoverty policy. Because women in low-income communities are likely to date and marry men in their community, it is doubtful that if single mothers married the father of their child(ren) that the earnings of the fathers, which would be so low, would lift the family out of poverty. Research has consistently found that children raised in poverty, regardless of parent’s marital status, suffer a host of deleterious effects, such as delinquency, poor academic achievement, emotional and behavioral problems, poorer health, and drug use. In considering marriage as an antipoverty strategy as well as a means for strengthening low-income families, never-married mothers face many obstacles to forming and maintaining healthy marriages. Research shows that there is a substantial shortage of marriageable men for single mothers to marry. Lowincome men are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed, in poorer health, use drugs, become a victim of violence, and be arrested and incarcerated than are men in higher social classes. Similarly, young single mothers who lack a high school diploma and who are not gainfully employed may not be considered marriage material for men whose social standing is higher than their own. Finally, opponents contend that promoting marriage as public policy and specifically targeting low-income women puts governmental pressure on women’s intimate decisions and places victims of domestic violence at increased risk. In addition, the idea of strengthening families by promoting marriage is in essence favoring one family over another. Critics argue that there are policy changes that would go a long way in strengthening single-parent families without promoting marriage, such as removing time limits on vocational training, full funding for child-care subsidies, and eliminating the cap on the number of families who can receive education and training activities counted as work. See also African American Fathers; Deadbeat Parents; Family Roles; Fatherhood; Poverty and Public Assistance; Teen Pregnancy. Further Reading: Administration for Children and Families. “Healthy Marriage Initiative.” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/about/factsheets_hm_matters.html; American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep04/marriage.html; Coontz, Stephanie, and Nancy Folbre. “Marriage, Poverty, and Public Policy.” http://www.pros pect.org/cs/articles?article=marriage_poverty_and_public_policy; The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org; Institute for Women’s Policy Research. http://www. iwpr.org; Mincy, Ronald B. “Marriage, Child Poverty, and Public Policy.” http://www. americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv4n2mincy.pdf; National Association for

399

400

|

Mate Selection Alternatives Social Workers. http://www.socialworkers.org; National Organization for Women. http:// www.now.org;

Annice Yarber MATE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES Mate selection refers to choosing a marital partner. There are many different ways in which the selection of mates can proceed, some of which are very traditional and others are driven by technology. There are advantages and disadvantages to each mate selection method. In societies such as Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and the United States, young people are responsible for mate selection through dating. However, there are societies, mostly in predominantly Muslim countries, in which dating is forbidden. While dating is the most familiar method of selecting a mate in westernized countries, it is by no means the only method employed. In some cultures, marriages are primarily arranged, often based on tradition, and there is little input from young people. This may involve matchmakers, kinship driven alliances, or other procedures. As marrying for the first time has occurred later in the lives of young people in industrialized society in recent decades, people often date for longer periods of time and have more dating experiences with more different people. As people wait longer to look for a serious relationship or as they feel less pressure to marry, they often have more difficulty finding a suitable partner when they are ready to marry. When persons are actively seeking partners, they are said to be in the so-called marriage market. As a consequence of postponing marriage, the marriage market has changed so that persons may select their partners in a number of different alternative ways. Among the options for mate selection are matchmakers, computer match services, speed dating, Internet dating, and others. Many of these services cater to daters with specific needs. For example, they may be persons dating for remarriage, dating as single parents, or dating based on a specific leisure interest. For persons who travel extensively or who move frequently it may be difficult to find a partner in their locale. They may need an intermediary to give them a chance to encounter like-minded persons. In the case of those looking for a specific type of mate, marriage market intermediaries, who can weed out the ineligible partners quickly, can be quite helpful. Persons who desire partners of a particular social standing or ethnic affiliation may find it more expedient to seek the help of a professional rather than to chance meeting the right person. DATING In dating, young people gather to participate in leisure activities designed to help them meet potential partners and to get to know them better. Young people set the pace for these encounters and determine the level of involvement, both emotional and sexual, between the partners. The young people themselves determine what characteristics they would most like to see in their dating partners.

Mate Selection Alternatives |

401

TOP SOURCES OF DATES FOR U.S. YOUNG PEOPLE According to data published in the magazine American Demographics, when 1,500 young people were asked in the spring of 2001 where they met their current or most recent dating partner, several key sources of dates were mentioned. Most participants (65 percent) cited friends, coworkers, and family as good sources through which dates may be obtained. Meeting partners at work was next (36 percent), followed by in class or at school (27 percent), at a bar or coffee shop (26 percent). Bar or coffee shop tied with online (26 percent) as a source of dates. Church or religious services were mentioned by 20 percent of the young people. Places mentioned by fewer than 20 percent of the respondents were in line at the grocery store or in libraries or bookstores. Church was significantly more likely to be mentioned by black singles as a place to meet dates. Divorced persons were twice as likely as persons who had never been married to look online for partners.

The source of dates is most often friends, work associates, and chance meetings. The primary benefits to marriage that come from dating are that partners can know each other in a variety of contexts prior to making a permanent commitment to one another. Additionally, partners can terminate their relationship at any time and need never see each other again. Social pressures applied to dating couples often mean that they may introduce sexual contact as part of their dating relationship fairly early in the process. This sexual element has been a source of concern historically and presently. To counter some of the expectations of sexual intimacy that accompany dating in the United States, some organizations, primarily those with a fundamentalist religious orientation, have proposed a return to a courtship model of mate selection where parents are largely in control. Under courtship, young people are formally introduced to each other and their contact occurs under carefully chaperoned conditions. Sexual contact is not permitted until the couple is married. Interested young men must ask permission of a young woman’s father in order to court her. Courting implies that a young man would seriously contemplate marriage to the woman. Before being permitted to get to know the woman, the man must spend time getting to know her father and persons who know the suitor must vouch for his sincerity. If the father approves, and the daughter is interested in the young man, they then begin to spend time together. Dating is filled with challenges for young people. First, one has to select a partner and have him or her agree to the date. One issue that concerns many college students is having enough money to spend on dates to sufficiently impress the partner. Often partners who have been dating for some time have difficulty coming up with new and interesting activities to share. Others point to communication problems as a factor limiting their success on dates. More serious problems that may arise in dating include physical or sexual violence and emotional exploitation. Patterns of jealousy and domestic violence that begin in dating relationships are often carried over into marriages.

402

|

Mate Selection Alternatives

In today’s nontraditional dating, there is less pressure on either partner to perform a specified role. Either person may ask, pay, plan, drive, or initiate sexual contact. These patterns appear to be more common among persons who are dating after a divorce or who are not currently looking for a marital partner. The incidence of asking by women seems to be fairly high, although women do not always pay the expenses of the dates they initiate. Many women today may choose to pay their own way on a date. By going dutch (having each participant pay for his or her own expenses) they will not feel obliged to participate in sexual activities with the partner as part of the date script. Likewise, today’s emphasis on group dating may shield young people from the traditional expectations of sexual intimacy on a date.

DATE RAPE Also known as acquaintance rape, date rape involves unwanted sexual activity perpetrated by a date or acquaintance. More than one-half of college women indicate that they have experienced some form of sexual aggression while in a dating relationship. Among the factors that contribute to the likelihood of violence or date rape in a relationship include misunderstandings and arguments between the partners, feeling jealous or insecure about the relationship, experiencing rejection from the partner, and increasing power struggles in the couple. Another likely factor in date rape is brought about by women’s expected role of sexual-limit-setter and flirt. He may misinterpret her flirtation as an invitation to sexual activity. Routinely included in the research as a risk factor for date rape, drugs and alcohol inhibit good decision making among daters. The prevalence of date rape drugs has led many colleges and universities to institute safe partying programs for students. Chief among the advice is never to leave one’s drink unattended nor to accept a drink purchased by someone else.

ARRANGED MARRIAGES Arranged marriages have historically been the way mates were selected around the world. The exact procedures vary by group, but most societies have some mechanism for the older, established members of society to select partners for the younger members. Arranged marriages serve several key social functions. First, they help form alliances between groups. One example from history would be the aristocracy of Europe forming alliances to prevent war and share wealth. On a smaller scale, farmers might find that marrying their children will consolidate land holdings and keep them competitive. Arranged marriages provide older members of society with influence over who joins the family. This is particularly important in traditional economies where the family is the primary source of employment. In addition to the alliances formed by marriage, marriage is a positive relationship in that it reproduces society. Persons who are married are more psychological and economically stable and contribute more readily to

Mate Selection Alternatives |

the smooth functioning of society. Arranged marriage, as a social pattern, is not about the love between the partners, sexual desirability, or search for a soul mate. Rather, it is about the role each partner is expected to play in maintaining the orderliness of the culture. The bride and groom in an arranged marriage may have little or no contact with each other prior to the wedding. In most cases, once marital terms have been agreed upon, they are unlikely to be rescinded. While some societies permit young people to meet independently and the parents have the final veto power over partner choice, other societies take the opposite approach. In these cultures parents select potential mates and the young people have veto power over the marital choice. In other forms of arranged marriage, the position in the family determines with whom one will be partnered. One of the hallmarks of arranged marriages is that partners must have many social characteristics in common. While religion and race or ethic classification are likely the same among selected mates, economic standing is a key determinant in whether a partner is likely to be included in one’s field of eligible mates. Among recent immigrants to the United States who wish to maintain their marital traditions, a matchmaking service may be employed. Brokers, Internet advertisements, and magazine classified advertisements offer ways for families to identify suitable partners for their marriageable children, even if they live in a different country or part of the country from each other. This pattern is particularly common among Asian Indians. The traditional Indian caste system required that marital partners meet certain criteria. Because arranged marriages operate largely on an economic model, they can be quite useful at consolidating holdings and potent in creating political allies. They are, however, arrangements that may not serve the best interests of young people, particularly women. In most arranged marriages, it is customary for the bride or groom or both to contribute something financial to the new household or the parental household. That which the wife provides or brings with her to the marriage, often furniture or homemaking items, is referred to as the dowry. Families who can offer a high dowry are likely to attract a higher status groom for their daughters. Dowries can be quite extensive and are usually based on the economic prospects that the future groom has. Some evidence from India suggests that women have been murdered when the dowry that they brought was too little compared to what the groom felt he deserved. For males the economic cost is the bride price. A young man or his family would offer a certain amount of goods or money to a woman’s family in exchange for the permission to marry her. The idea is that he is compensating her family for the loss of her talents and economic productivity. In some societies, the young man’s family will assist him in gathering the items needed to meet the bride price. In instances where the extended kin may have financially contributed to the acquisition of the wife, they may feel entitled to her domestic skills. Often the girls are quite young when they are purchased and will marry and begin an adult life quite young. One of the consequences of such an arrangement is that girls remain very poorly educated when compared with males.

403

404

|

Mate Selection Alternatives

MISCELLANEOUS ALTERNATIVES Various alternatives to the traditional mating patterns of arranged marriage and Western style dating have emerged in recent years. All are really adaptations to the changing patterns of family life in the United States. Facilitated by waiting later in life to marry, many older persons who would like to be in a partnered relationship find that it is difficult to meet dates. Others claim that they have difficulty finding a suitable partner. A common complaint in the dating world is that all the good ones are taken. This desire to be in a partnered relationship pushes many singles to try alternative ways to selecting mates. New services, often facilitated by technology, have been developed to help these persons connect. Finding a partner when the time is right is a difficult proposition for persons who attempt to navigate the dating waters. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Internet became an increasingly popular resource for daters. Estimates are that more than 5 million people regularly consult online matching sites. These sites have gained legitimacy as respected academics have endorsed them. Perfectmatch. com has partnered with relationship expert Dr. Pepper Schwartz to tout a compatibility and matching system based on scientific research. Matchmaker versus dating service. Matchmakers are persons who attempt to find suitable partners for clients for a fee. Matchmakers are often successful because they take into account many aspects of a person’s life in addition to physical attractiveness and bank account. In a match service, whether an individual matchmaker or a computerized matching service (e.g., www.eharmony.com), the neutral third party does the selecting based on information provided by the clients. In a dating service the participants themselves do the selecting (e.g., www.americansingles.com). Often they must weed through hundreds of profiles of potential partners, usually with photographs attached, to find those persons with whom they might like to interact. This important difference between the two means that the criteria for partner selection that is readily available differs. Because the dating service and its clients are selective in the information that gets revealed, they may hold back any negative information in an attempt to attract as many potential dates as possible. In dating services, daters reveal only what they want potential partners to know, so they may not be as honest at revealing less-than-flattering information about themselves. Thus, users may have to date many different people before finding a good match. The matchmaker, in contrast, usually has extensive information about each potential partner and may be better able to assess the compatibility of the potentials. Personal Ads. Formerly viewed as a method of last resort and the only option available to persons who were lonely losers who could not otherwise meet partners, personal ads are much more common today because they have lost much of their earlier stigma. They are seen as an efficient way to select a partner because one indicates in the space of a few lines key qualities that are desirable in a mate, as well as ones that the advertiser can offer to potential partners. These ads are often stereotypical, however, in that traditional gender role descriptions are common and partners tend to play the stereotypical roles of passive female and aggressive male in their presentation of themselves.

Midwifery and Medicalization |

The acceptance of personal ads into mainstream partner selection is undisputed today and newspapers across the country (including the New York Times) list personals among their classified ads. Not all personal ads are placed in the newspaper today. Many websites are devoted to the task of helping partners connect. There are even books that tell potential advertisers how to be successful in the personal ad marketplace. Shorthand and abbreviations help readers to see at a glance if an advertiser might be right for them. In addition to electronic opportunities to connect, there are several magazines that help partners to connect. One of the biggest criticisms leveled against these tactics is that they have been employed to secure mail order brides. Speed Dating. In speed dating, persons interested in making a connection for romance are brought together and permitted a predetermined amount of time in which to introduce themselves and determine potential compatibility. Speed dating was first proposed by a rabbi concerned over the trend for Jews to marry outside the faith. The argument was that it was simply too hard for Jews in large cities to meet each other amid so many non-Jews and this would introduce them to other singles for potential dating and marriage relationships. The length of each speed date varies, but it conventionally has been under ten minutes (see www.8minutedating.com). After the time with each potential partner expires, participants rotate to meet the next eligible partner. At the conclusion of the evening, contact information can be shared between those persons with a mutual interest. Research suggests that persons can usually determine whether they are attracted to each other quite quickly (perhaps even within seconds), so there may be some utility to the efficient approach. See also Arranged Marriage; Dating; Mail Order Brides. Further Reading: 8 Minute Dating. http://www.8minutedating.com; Alaska Men (magazine); Calvo, Emily T., and Laurence Minsky. 25 Words or Less: How to Write Like a Pro to Find That Special Someone Through Personal Ads. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998; Deyo, Yaacov, and Sue Deyo. Speed Dating: A Timesaving Guide to Finding Your Lifelong Love. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2003; eHarmony, Inc. http://www.eharmony.com; Halbig, Marlene C. Personal Ads: Never Be Lonely Again. LaPuenta, CA: Baron Publishers, 1992. IndianMatchmaker.com. http://www.indianmatchmaker.com; Jeevansathi Internet Services. http://www.jeevansathi.com; Match.com, L.L.C. http://www.match. com; MatrimonialsIndia.com. http://www.matrimonialsindia.com; Perfectmatch.com. http://www.perfectmatch.com; suItablematch.com. http://www.suitablematch.com;

Kimberly P. Brackett

MIDWIFERY AND MEDICALIZATION For a number of years questions have been asked about the care provided to pregnant and laboring mothers by midwives. Many of the questions have come from the medical establishment. This leads women to ask whether the caregiver they have selected, be it a midwife or a physician, is a skilled attendant or whether the caregiver will insist upon dangerous interventions in childbirth.

405

406

|

Midwifery and Medicalization

Midwives attend 8 percent of the over four million births that occur annually in the United States. Midwives, or trained childbirth assistants, have historically been the primary caretakers of childbirth, but in the United States over the course of the twentieth century they have experienced continuous opposition and faced legal suppression. Only recently have they experienced a professional resurgence that has allowed them to carve a small but tenuous niche in the childbirth industry. While some types of midwifery are legally practiced throughout the United States, many states maintain a ban on other forms of midwifery, and, even where it is legal, the regulations and practices that govern it vary greatly. Despite the growing professionalization of natural health care and the development of consumer movements in health, midwifery remains at the nexus of a visceral debate regarding the appropriate authority over and practice of childbearing. On one side of this debate, midwives and their supporters contend that for most women, midwifery offers the ideal model of childbirth care producing healthier babies and happier mothers. On the other side of the debate, medical opponents argue that childbirth is a medical event and should be medically managed, with any practice of midwifery in child labor occurring only under medical supervision. MIDWIFERY The term midwife typically refers to two types of skilled birth attendants. The Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM) is trained first in an accredited nursing degree program with additional specialty training in childbirth assistance. CNMs legally practice throughout the United States, many of them working in hospitals or independent birth centers. A Direct Entry Midwife (DEM) has also received training in birth assistance, although this can be either through an accredited institution or an informal apprenticeship and is not preceded by a formal education in nursing. DEMs also practice throughout the United States although in 11 states this is explicitly prohibited, and in 17 states there is no legal, regulatory protection for practicing midwives. Midwives differ from medical providers in their underlying philosophical orientation to birth as a normal process, the ways in which they respond to the physiological changes that occur during pregnancy and labor, and the emphasis they place on the relationships they strive to build with their clients. Most midwives serve as women’s primary care attendants throughout pregnancy and labor and some also provide postpartum care. Prenatal care under a midwife focuses on building strong nutrition and overall health as well as fostering emotional empowerment and confidence in preparation for and throughout labor. Because physicians view physiological processes in terms of detecting pathology, the prenatal care they offer tends to center around identifying complications and is punctuated by a schedule of routine examinations and screening for abnormalities. Throughout the labor and birth, physicians often employ the routine use of technological interventions for monitoring and measuring the progress of the woman and the condition of the fetus. The duration of labor is also highly regulated by physicians and medically managed through the use

Midwifery and Medicalization |

of artificial hormones and the artificial rupturing of membranes. If dystocia, the failure of the woman to progress in labor, is diagnosed then physicians will perform a cesarean section to remove the fetus who they believe to be at risk. Midwives, especially DEMs, respond to labor pain and timing differently than physicians. Midwives offer natural remedies, nonmedical techniques to ease and tolerate contractions, and allow women to labor for longer periods of time before resorting to more serious interventions. The midwifery model of care emphasizes the importance of developing relationships of trust between providers and clients, and primary-care midwives attend to the laboring mother throughout her entire pregnancy, offering longer prenatal visits in an effort to establish closer relationships with their clients for whom they will serve as the primary caregiver at their clients’ labors. Some primary-care physicians will attend to their clients’ deliveries when they are on call, but often women are attended primarily by hospital nursing staff throughout their labors and the staffed hospital physician will attend their deliveries when the labor has advanced to the final stage. DEMs attend to their clients’ births at home, bringing some emergency equipment with them. Many physicians oppose this practice, arguing that homebirths are unsafe and giving birth outside of the hospital poses a serious risk to both the mother and the baby. However, the hospital as the principal locale for birth is a recent phenomenon, resulting from the rapid medicalization of birth in the United States during the twentieth century. HISTORICAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN MATERNITY CARE Midwives were once the dominant caretakers of childbirth in America. The practice of midwifery was a convention the colonists’ brought with them to the New World. Midwives, or female birth attendants, were the community specialists in childbirth, and often each community employed a full-time midwife to care for all labors and deliveries. Many women’s historians refer to the time before the mid-eighteenth century as the age of the midwife. The Japanese samba, French sage-femme, black slave’s granny, and Jamaican nana were all midwives. The term midwife literally meant “with woman” in Old English and “the childbirth assisting woman,” the hameyaledet, in Hebrew. In the Old Testament book Exodus midwives were not only mentioned but praised by God for their refusal to kill male Hebrew newborns. Beginning in the thirteenth century the guild of barber-surgeons existed in Europe. This guild, exclusively male, had the sole right to use surgical instruments. When birth was impossible the midwife had the barber-surgeon perform an embryotomy, killing the infant, or a caesarean-like procedure, after the death of the mother. These barber-surgeons were called upon only when the death of either the mother or child was inevitable. The invention of crude forceps provided a way for a baby to be delivered alive in formerly impossible births. Barbersurgeons coveted this instrument, often using it unnecessarily. Male surgeons were often unaware and unconcerned with the basics of the birthing process.

407

408

|

Midwifery and Medicalization

Having rarely seen normal births, they treated all births as difficult, using tools that were unnecessary and damaging to both woman and child. Childbirth was an entirely female matter in colonial America, and the women of the community would collectively help with preparation for the birth and care for the family and household during the labor and postpartum or lying-in period, often concluding the event with a so-called groaning party, which was a collective sharing of their own experiences in labor and motherhood. The midwife, who was commonly the primary general health care provider, was knowledgeable in natural remedies for many types of ailments and brought natural agents and techniques to aid in labor and recovery. Nevertheless, childbirth was a potentially risky event, marked by the element of unpredictability, and it was not uncommon for women or babies to die in childbirth. The midwife was therefore also respected as the guardian over the unknown and mysterious aspects of labor. The training of midwives varied greatly from woman to woman. The usual process involved a midwife training another as an apprentice but in many cultures it was just necessary for the midwife to be postmenopausal. The witch hunts that took place from the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries were concentrated in Europe but occurred in America as well. Midwives were often accused of witchcraft due to the mystic nature of their work and the desire of some male healers to take over their coveted profession. Midwives would keep the nail of their pinkie finger long and sharp in order to cut the umbilical cord of a newborn, which led to some of the common caricatures of witches with unnaturally long fingernails that exist in contemporary society. Midwives who delivered babies with deformities or even daughters instead of desired sons feared being branded a sorcerer or witch. In 1716, however, New York required the licensing of midwives, a step in undermining the autonomy midwives enjoyed. This licensing was more concerned with the midwives’ ethics and virtue rather than competence as a doctress. In America midwives were better tolerated and respected than their English counterparts. Colonial midwives, as well as those in Europe, were not just called upon to deliver babies. They were summoned by courts to take part in a jury of matrons that determined if a woman found guilty of a crime was pregnant or if a baby was a result of fornication. At the end of the eighteenth century, colonists who went to the mainland for medical training brought back the practice of a new male midwifery that laid the ground for the medicalization of childbirth. Professionally trained male midwives began to compete with traditional lay midwives for dominance in the new, professional sphere of childbirth care arguing that formal training and new technology made them safer providers during labor and delivery. Dr. William Shippen offered courses in human anatomy and midwifery to midwives in Philadelphia and Dr. Thomas Ewell attempted to get federal funding for a midwifery school geared toward women. Neither of these endeavors was very successful. Women were largely illiterate and did not have the time, money, or ability to participate in formal education. Many experienced midwives saw no reason to study under men who had not had their years of experience and who were relatively unfamiliar with the birthing process. Traditional lay midwives resisted

Midwifery and Medicalization |

the challenge and argued that as women, the skills they acquired from personal experience in giving and assisting with birth could not be attained through the study of texts or trial and error experimentation in the field. They were also skeptical about the use of the forceps (a large hinged instrument used for grasping the baby’s head to pull it out of the birth canal) that often resulted in damage to the fetus when misused. Government and philanthropic hospitals began in the eighteenth century and they were notoriously unhygienic. Fatalities of both mother and child were common and doctors remained largely ignorant of basic sanitation. In the mid-1800s hospitals began to become more aseptic and laboring middle-class women began to admit themselves into hospitals. Hospitals began to charge and it was only upper-class women that could afford better services. In 1894 the first documented caesarean was performed by using a method German doctor Max Sanger invented. Silk thread was used to suture the uterine and abdominal walls and both baby and mother survived. The lack of midwives, new drug concoctions that made labor free of most pains, and increasing prestige of doctors made hospitals more popular. However, with the inception of the field of obstetrics and the rapid professionalization of medicine through organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) in the late nineteenth century, the male obstetrician became the dominant provider, and scientific progress and advances in medicine offered promise to those who believed childbirth could be a safer event when managed by medical expertise and the use of new technologies. THE MIDWIFE “PROBLEM” At the beginning of the twentieth century, obstetricians began to encourage their clients to come to the hospital maternity ward, previously only used by research universities that served indigent women, because there physicians could treat a larger number of clients on a more regular schedule. This shift of childbirth into the hospital was followed by advancements made in technological interventions, such as the cesarean section and the introduction of drugs for relieving the pain of labor. Also by this time, the AMA had successfully campaigned to have midwifery outlawed in major urban areas, but lay midwifery was still practiced in immigrant enclaves, in rural areas, and in many regions of the segregated south. In the medical community this was perceived as a problem, even though few doctors wanted to travel long distances or across racial and ethnic divides to serve poorer clients. Doctors argued that midwifery was problematic because it was practiced without any standardized training or regulation, and this threatened the safety of their clients and the progress of medical advancement. Midwives argued that the only threat posed to doctors by the persistence of their practice was physicians’ superior vocational status. In response to the growing debate over the midwifery problem, medical authorities recommended that midwifery be regulated only until the introduction of obstetric charities would gradually eliminate the practice.

409

410

|

Midwifery and Medicalization

By the 1920s states began to implement laws that regulated the practice and training of midwifery. Meanwhile, another recommendation that the practice of midwifery become merged with that of nursing, as was occurring in Europe, soon developed into a new vocational training program and practice for professional nurse-midwives. Beginning with the Frontier Nursing School in rural Kentucky, several programs developed throughout the United States that trained women first in nursing and then in midwifery. During the 1950s and 1960s some nurse-midwives practiced as birth assistants under obstetrics’ supervision in hospitals and others as primary childbirth providers in rural or impoverished areas with poor access to quality health care. As the use of midwives in childbirth persisted through the latter half of the century, midwifery, once a problem that many sought to eliminate, became a question of how best to standardize and regulate midwifery alongside or in assistance to the practice of medicine. THE MIDWIFE “QUESTION” The practice of lay midwifery was popularized during the 1970s and 1980s. This occurred in response to growing discontents with care expressed by consumer movements in health care. Additional support grew from the influence of the ideals of natural childbirth that had gained momentum in the 1960s. Women, many having worked as childbirth educators, began to study midwifery manuals on their own and develop a new practice of homebirth. These new direct-entry midwives rejected the medicalization of birth practiced in the hospital and later organized to form accredited training programs that would not require students to pass through a formal education in nursing first but to focus solely on midwifery. DEMs soon petitioned for state licensing and the right to practice privately. Some medical professionals, like those involved in the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), opposed the licensing of midwives altogether and argued that childbirth is a medical event representing the best interest of quality patient care, while other organizations, like the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), worked toward licensing only CNMs who would work under obstetricians’ guidelines and supervision. In 1938 about half of American women were giving birth in hospitals. Currently in the United States, 99 percent of births occur in the hospital with 1 percent of births occurring at home. This figure has remained the same for more than 20 years. While midwives do attend to a small percentage of laboring women, over 90 percent of women give birth under the care of an obstetrician and over 95 percent of women experience medicated childbirth. Although midwives work in a small and marginalized niche of the market, a contentious debate continues reflecting three distinct opinions about midwifery and medicalization: (1) some physicians feel that childbirth is a physiological process that is best cared for entirely under the auspices of medical management and that midwifery has no place in a progressive medicalized health care practice; (2) many physicians feel that midwifery may be a good option for some low-risk women and support a limited practice of midwifery under the guidance and supervision of obstetricians; and (3) midwives and midwifery advocates argue

Midwifery and Medicalization |

411

that midwifery is the optimal health care choice for most women and that medical management should be reserved for worst-case scenario emergencies. This debate centers around two principal concerns with the outcome of childbirth. The first concern is the safety of the mother and the baby, and the second is the relational care providers may offer.

MALPRACTICE POLITICS AND MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS Parallel to the debate over the safety of routinely used medical interventions in childbirth is a discussion about the current state of professional risk in practicing obstetrics. In the 1980s, a malpractice crisis in obstetrics, and medicine more generally, marked the dawn of a new era of maternity care. The increased risk of being sued for prenatal or birth-related injury resulted in a widespread professional transition; the practice of prenatal and maternity care by the family physician became nearly obsolete and the cost of malpractice insurance for obstetricians skyrocketed. However, this period was also followed by the momentum gained in consumer movements that continued to demand greater accountability and safer outcomes in medical practice. In the mid-1990s widespread concern over rising cesarean rates, which had tripled between 1968 and 1977 and continued to rise throughout the 1980s, was evidenced in the U.S. Health Public Health Service’s 1990 objective to reduce the rate of cesarean section to 15 percent or less by the year 2000. The rate of cesarean sections did eventually lessen to 21.2 percent by 1994, as did the rates of other routine medical interventions in childbirth, but currently is climbing upwards of 30 percent and more in most U.S. hospitals. Through studies like those conducted by the World Health Organization, midwives and their advocates show that midwife-attended births yield one-third or less the standard rate of emergency operations, recommending that midwifery become the new convention for low-risk birth. While pundits on both sides of this debate point to the fear of malpractice as another form of professional risk in the childbirth industry, one that directly affects doctors’ diagnoses of physiological risk for their patients, consumer advocates hold the right to litigate as critical to their own safety, and obstetricians continue to perform interventions earlier and more often.

SAFETY AND RISK IN CHILDBIRTH ACOG’s Statement on Midwifery explains that, as a professional medical organization, they are committed foremost to safety in women’s health care. In the name of safety, ACOG supports the practice of midwifery only by those midwives who have passed an examination administered by the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) and hold certification under ACNM’s auxiliary certification board. Lay midwives or those who have not passed this certification and do not agree to adhere to the regulations specified for certified nurse-midwives are not deemed to be safe childbirth providers. Doctors who argue that unregulated practice is unsafe point to cases in which women

412

|

Midwifery and Medicalization

giving birth at home or without the care of a physician have experienced poor outcomes, often regarding the health of the baby, such as oxygen loss during or immediately after the birth, or the health of the mother who may experience hemorrhaging or other postpartum complications, both of which may result in the death of the infant or the mother. While midwives routinely transfer women who experience complications during or after their deliveries to the hospital, doctors argue that by the time they arrive under medical care it may be too late. Midwives offer several responses to accusations that midwifery is not safe. First, they argue that by accepting only women who are considered low-risk, in other words those who display a generally healthy constitution and have had no previous health problems that could affect their labor and delivery, they can avoid predictable complications. Second, midwives will refer to a physician those women who exhibit potential risks during the progression of their pregnancy, such as multiparous births (the presence of twins and multiples) and breech-positioned babies. Last, DEMs argue that by avoiding the cascade of interventions that women are routinely subject to in medical environments, midwife-attended births at home, in the birth center, or even in the hospital are safer alternatives than the medical norm. They point to statistics that show that low-risk births are as safe at home as they are in the hospital and that routine medical interventions lead to longer labors and are more likely to end in cesarean sections. They also garner legitimacy from international organizations like the World Health Organization that cites that the United States ranks twentyeighth in infant mortality and recommends midwifery as the preferred model of childbirth for low-risk women. In October 2006, ACOG released a statement describing homebirth as an unsafe option and prohibiting all elected officials and college staff from participating in out-of-hospital births while discouraging individual fellows from condoning or participating in out-of-hospital practices. In collaboration between ACNM and eight other national professional nursing and midwifery organizations, ACNM released a response to ACOG’s homebirth statement expressing concern that the policy implicated in the statement disregards scientific studies that demonstrate the safety of homebirth. They also express worry that recent indications of potential pandemic outbreaks of influenza and exposure to other harmful bacteria in hospitals poses serious risks to birthing mothers and infants, more so if the alternatives of giving birth at home or in birth centers were eliminated. THE MIDWIFERY MODEL OF CARE Citizens for Midwifery, a national organization of lay advocates for the midwifery model of care, articulates this childbirth philosophy as predicated on the belief that well-being throughout pregnancy and labor is physical, psychological, and social. The Midwives Alliance of North America describes midwifery care as “uniquely nurturing, hands-on care before, during, and after birth” (www. mana.org). They explain that developing a close and trusting relationship with

Midwifery and Medicalization |

one’s midwife is integral to achieving the holistic model of health that they profess. For many women, this holistic model of health is the most appealing selling point of midwife-providers and they embrace midwifery as the alternative to what they claim is cold, insensitive medical care where providers are little more than strangers attending a significant life event and making critical advice over a woman’s most intimate health care needs. Interestingly, this movement toward the midwifery model of care has been influenced by both traditionalists and feminists. Traditionalists, often religious midwives and their communities, believe that the intimacy of the birth act is something that should only be attended by intimate family members, other women of the community, and midwives, the female specialists in childbirth. Feminists argue that decisions over a woman’s intimate physiological processes should be made by the woman herself. The provider’s role, ideally a midwife, is to empower and support the woman to make her own decisions about her labor and birth and offer encouragement for the woman’s innate natural ability to give birth. Midwives remind clients that they are “with women” (the meaning of the word midwife) and their job is to assist the woman in her own delivery as opposed to the obstetrician who stands “before women” (the meaning of the word obstetrics) to delivery the baby for her. In connecting the importance of relational work to safety, midwives have also pointed out that women need to feel psychologically secure in order to have a safe and easier labor. To bolster this argument they reference studies that show that labors often slow or fail to progress upon entering the hospital environment, that anxiety and stress increases labor complications, and that the presence of a support person shortens the duration of labor and lessens complications. Midwives are adept at offering relaxation techniques and they sometimes are accompanied by doulas, a woman whose sole responsibility is to accompany a woman throughout her labor and offer encouragement and support. In contrast, some women prefer to deliver and to have medically managed births where physical pain is not experienced, and others now elect to have cesarean sections so that vaginal delivery may be avoided altogether. While the medical model has incorporated some of the language of the new midwifery movement advertising “sensitivity” and “human touch” coupled with their technological expertise, and hospitals have adopted some of the nonmedical practices for pain and relaxation, they remain focused on the instrumental aspects of physiological care. Because the medical model is the normative safe practice for birth in the United States and because of medical organizations’ political power in maintaining this image, few insurance providers allow women to elect to have a midwife as their principal provider in childbirth, and fewer still compensate for births at home, although the overall costs of this practice are minimal when compared with the costs of giving birth in a hospital. Advocates for midwifery and childbirth alternatives argue that countering the dominant medical practice will require cultural measures, such as educational reform in medical institutions and for the laity, as well as political measures, such as strengthening the legal monitoring and regulation of obstetric practices and taking political action for so-called humanized birth.

413

414

|

Mommy Track

See also Breastfeeding and Formula Feeding; Childbirth Options; Cosleeping. Further Reading: American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. http://www.acog.org/; American College of Nurse-Midwives. http://www.acnm.org/; Citizens for Midwifery. http://cfmidwifery.org/index.aspx; Katz Rothman, Barbara, Wendy Simonds, and Beri Meltzer Norman. Laboring On: Birth in Transition in the United States. New York: Routledge, 2006; Midwives Alliance of North America. http://www.mana.org/; Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1986; Rooks, J. P. Midwifery and Childbirth in America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997; Thurer, Shari L. The Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents the Good Mother. New York: Penguin Books, 1994.

Selina Gallo-Cruz

MOMMY TRACK Many women today face conflicting and constraining expectations regarding work and family roles. Surveys reveal that a significant percentage of working mothers feel torn between the demands of their job and the desire to spend more time with their family. Many women report feeling guilty about not having enough time or energy to one domain or the other. Mommy track is a term, often used in a derogatory manner, to refer to jobs that permit women to spend greater amounts of time with family. The term is also used to describe the women’s goals for employment as secondary to their goals for motherhood. BACKGROUND Today, women who choose to become mothers confront two dominant cultural scripts or images—that of a full-time mother who does not work outside the home, or that of a woman who adds employment to her primary role as a mother. Furthermore, there remains a certain amount of cultural ambivalence about mothers who choose to work outside the home. Some might say that all mothers, whether employed or not, face a no-win situation. If they remain at home, mothering full-time, they may feel unfulfilled or certainly unappreciated by those around them. They also pay a financial price in decreased retirement funds and benefits relative to employed women. On the other hand, if they work outside the home, either by choice or necessity, they may feel judged and criticized by others or believe that they are failing their children. This guilt, coupled with continuing discrimination in the workplace, can leave women questioning their decision to work. While there is a popular cultural sentiment that women can have it all, most workplaces have not caught up with changing social expectations, gender roles, and economic realities. For the most part, the workplace is still guided by traditional assumptions—that married men are the primary providers and that married women are caretakers of the home. Furthermore, employers may operate under the assumption that married women are being provided for and that their earnings are only supplementary. Convincing women that their primary

Mommy Track |

responsibility is to maintain the home and not to work outside of it may have a less obvious motive—it also ensures that many women will be willing to work for less because they believe that their earnings and professional ambitions are secondary to their husband’s and peripheral to their identity. Social psychological studies routinely find that women undervalue their contributions, relative to men’s, when given a group task. The labor market is not the only area of social life that continues to be guided by traditional gender roles and family expectations. The private sphere, family life, also appears to be reluctant to change. It is estimated that American women continue to perform about 80 percent of the childcare and over two-thirds of the housework. Interestingly, recent polls find that most fathers would like to spend less time at work and more time with their families. Also, while many Americans want fathers to be more involved with their children, most disapprove of a man who chooses his family over his job or takes time off from work simply to spend more time with his kids. Thus, women may feel compelled to squelch their career aspirations in favor of supporting their husband’s careers by performing traditionally female tasks. Our cultural image and expectations of the ideal worker are of someone who works at least forty hours each week with conventional or 9-to-5 hours with, at most, two weeks of vacation each year. Based on this definition, however, only about one-third of American women are so-called ideal workers. A significant percentage of women who are mothers work for pay part-time, which severely restricts not only their earnings but also their chances for promotion if and when they should decide to reenter the labor force on a full-time basis. The particular likelihood that white women will pursue part-time work while married and raising children helps to explain why, over the course of their work lives, white women will earn less than their black female counterparts who are more likely to work full time. It has been shown, for instance, that part-time lawyers who resume full-time work, even after a short period, are likely to earn considerably less than lawyers who have always worked full-time. Furthermore, the most challenging and interesting assignments are reserved for full-time attorneys, leading some to speculate that a so-called pink collar ghetto of women lawyers, most of whom are mothers, is emerging. Even when offered, many employees refuse a part-time employment option, fearing that it will prevent them from advancing in their fields. In a study of 188 Fortune 500 manufacturing firms, it was found that while 88 percent of the firms offered a part-time track, only 3 to 5 percent of the employees took advantage of it. Of course, it is possible too that parents fear the resentment of nonparents, who may feel that mothers and fathers are benefiting from special privileges such as flex-time. It is also important to consider that, for the most competitive and most remunerative positions, workers are still expected to work long days, to engage in weekend work, or agree to out-of-town travel. To be sure, workers who cannot work overtime often suffer negative professional consequences. Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, the vast majority of mothers in the United States are unable to work overtime. There is considerable evidence that having children has a

415

416

|

Mommy Track

definite negative effect on women’s lifetime earnings. Interestingly, the wage gap between working mothers and other workers has widened in recent years. Because of the gender expectations associated with housework and childcare, working mothers are at a considerable disadvantage professionally, as compared to working fathers. It is very difficult for women to aspire to the emerging ideal of the satisfied and driven professional in a culture that continues to assign primacy to marriage and motherhood. Recent surveys indicate that about twothirds of Americans believe it is best for women to stay home and care for family and children. While fathers are largely relieved of domestic responsibilities to pursue their primary obligation of providing, working mothers are either expected to do both or are expected to relinquish their paid work roles and devote attention to the family. THE MOMMY TRACK In an attempt to assist working mothers and employers to deal constructively with the competing role expectations facing women, corporate career consultant Felice Schwartz offered a proposal, which has since been labeled the mommy track. The phrase mommy track itself was actually coined when the New York Times ran an article about Schwartz’s proposal. The idea is that businesses and other professions create positions that demand less time and involvement for women who wish to make their primary focus home and family life (so-called career and family women). On the other hand, women who are more careeroriented (so-called career primary women) could select positions that are very time-consuming and more demanding, with the expectation of greater upward mobility and better compensation. In this way, family-focused women could still enjoy moderately demanding careers, at mid-level, for example, but would not be expected to compete with others who are more primarily focused on professional excellence at any cost. Women who pursue this mommy track would not feel pressured to mimic the career trajectories of those around them, nor would they feel that their positions were jeopardized by their lower commitment to paid work. In addition, businesses might be attracted to the idea, arguing that they should not have to invest in workers who will interrupt or terminate their careers when family obligations become too great. While Schwartz has been an advocate for women’s equality and rights in the workplace, especially the corporate world, her proposal has garnered a certain amount of negative attention from feminists, work and family experts, and political liberals. In fact, Schwartz has been accused of being antifeminist and for proposing that employers engage in gender-discriminatory hiring practices. The proposal is certainly appealing in some respects, but it warrants concern as well. Schwartz’s research has been criticized on several grounds—that she was somewhat vague in her descriptions of the data sources, vague in her reporting of the findings, and that she failed to offer alternative explanations beyond differential treatment of mothers for women’s professional outcomes. There is a concern that the idea of two tracks for working women—a mommy track and a fast track—perpetuates the belief and expectation that it is women,

Mommy Track |

and not men, who are expected to care for the family and who must decide between these competing domains. By extension, the proposal threatens to cast a negative light on all women workers by suggesting that women in general will have trouble meeting the demands of both work and family. The association of women with domesticity means that even those women who choose to pursue both domains will be assumed to be less committed to paid work, and perhaps less competent, and will be dubbed suitable for pink collar or mommy track positions only. Positions on the mommy track may be or may become dead-end. Because these jobs would not merit significant advancements in position in the company, an employer may feel no real obligation to professional development among these workers. Reserving such jobs for women perpetuates the belief that women do not care about paid work or professional advancement. Additionally, how having been on the mommy track would affect a woman after she had reared children and wished to enter a career primary track is uncertain. Employers may not be willing to invest in these women because they would likely be mid-career by that point. The other assumption made by Schwartz is that only women would want or opt for a less-demanding career track. Some have argued for a comparable daddy track. Indeed, a 1990s survey found that 39 percent of fathers said they would quit their jobs to have more time with their children. Another found that almost three-quarters of fathers preferred a daddy track job over a fast track job. Of course, the primary concern for these fathers was how to maintain adequate incomes to support their families if they were to exercise such an option. Perhaps the single largest concern of the proposal, to many, is that rather than tackle dominant ideologies regarding work and family (notions of the ideal worker, the conventional work day, gender roles, etc.), the proposal only reinforces such ideologies and perpetuates gender inequality both at work and at home. If not challenged, child-rearing and work ideologies serve to maintain the current power structure and to reinforce the subordinate status of women. Women are encouraged to subordinate their work-related aspirations to marriage and motherhood, and Schwartz’s proposal would seem to assist employers in facilitating this. Should they decide to combine work and family, they are penalized and judged for emphasizing one over the other (i.e., women who work too much are neglectful mothers and women who don’t work enough are uncommitted workers). The dominant ideology of child rearing also benefits the capitalist class—the employers—who enjoy the uncompromised commitment of male workers who are fortunate enough to have the emotional and practical support of a spouse at home. In addition, the current ideology ensures that men in the workplace are protected from the competition of many women workers. Work-family experts have offered a number of suggestions for how to avoid or minimize the effects of motherhood on employment. First, women planning to take maternity leave should communicate with their superiors regarding their planned dates of departure and return. Second, projects or clients should be transitioned in a timely and efficient manner. Employees should avoid missing or leaving work early to tend to child-related matters; whenever possible, the help of a family member or friend should be enlisted. Others suggest keeping family photos and phone calls to a minimum and maintaining professional dress once

417

418

|

Motherhood, Opportunity Costs

one returns to the workplace. Finally, while on leave, mothers should make an attempt to maintain contact with colleagues and supervisors. In addition, using email or other avenues of communication to maintain some level of professional activity helps to convey that one is not entirely disconnected from the workplace and has every intention to return. See also Child Care Policy; Employed Mothers; Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); Motherhood, Opportunity Costs; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Coltrane, Scott. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001; Galinsky, Ellen. Ask the Children: The Breakthrough Study That Reveals How To Succeed At Work and Parenting. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999; Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996; Hochschild, Arlie Russell, and Anne Machung. The Second Shift. New York: Penguin, 2003; Padavic, Irene, and Barbara Reskin. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2002; Schwartz, Felice N. “Management Women and the New Facts of Life.” Harvard Business Review 67 (1989): 65–76; Williams, Joan. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Susan Cody-Rydzewski

MOTHERHOOD, OPPORTUNITY COSTS While motherhood is exalted as a cultural ideal and the most fulfilling role for women, it carries with it many so-called opportunity costs, or missed opportunities. The term was originally used to refer to the economic opportunities, such as wage earning and money for investing, that parents give up when they are rearing children. Children’s needs and expenses decrease a couple’s standard of living significantly. In addition to the direct financial costs of raising children, which are staggering, becoming a parent also requires an enormous commitment of energy, time, and attention. As a result, many other areas of one’s life, such as career, earnings, marriage, or personal time may suffer. These expected lifestyle changes are also a form of opportunity costs and they are felt more acutely by mothers than by fathers. MOTHERING TASKS It is widely known that mothers are more involved in direct parenting than are fathers, especially when the children are young. While fathers today are more involved with their children than were fathers in the past, most often the type of involvement between fathers and children is one of accessibility rather than direct engagement or responsibility. It is not uncommon for men to pursue activities unrelated to child-rearing while in the presence of children, and to view this type of interaction as parenting. Women are much more likely to be engaged in hands-on activities with children and to feel ultimately responsible for their

Motherhood, Opportunity Costs |

entertainment, well-being, and self-esteem. Therefore, parenting is more costly for women than it is for men because women make more accommodations to their own schedules and commitments as well as experience the obligations of parenting more psychically. Women spend more actual time with children as well as more time preparing, planning for, and anticipating their needs. In other words, in addition to performing more of the daily tasks (e.g., clothing, feeding, bathing) that are sometimes known as maintenance care, women spend more time trying to coordinate their schedules with the activities and demands of their children. It is common for fathers to describe their contribution to parenting as helping out or baby-sitting. This reference to men’s parenting as baby-sitting angers some men because they feel that it denigrates the good parenting that they do. Some women are angered by the term baby-sitting because it serves as a reminder of the view that mothers are primarily responsible for parenting rather than the tasks being shared equally by both parents. Because baby-sitting is most often a paid task performed by someone outside the family with a lower investment in the developmental outcomes of the child, it can be an offense when used to discuss fathering. Women are assigned primary responsibility for parenting, especially with infants. Some women may feel threatened by the possibility that husbands display competence at dual roles—paid work and parenting. Thus, they may discourage or criticize fathers’ attempts at involvement. A common consequence of parenthood, especially for women, is loss of freedom and flexibility. While mothers may anticipate some of these changes, the societal pressures upon them to fulfill this role may come as a surprise. There is clearly a so-called leisure gap between fathers and mothers, with mothers having considerably less free time. Some organizations attempt to ameliorate the stress of mothering through programs designed to give full-time mothers a break, such as Mother’s Day Out. Culturally, there is a strong association of parenting with mothering and women are expected to curtail their other responsibilities and interests once they become parents. While it is socially acceptable for men to continue with professional, personal, or other pursuits once becoming fathers, women who attempt to maintain their preparental identities and involvements once they become mothers will likely encounter social disapproval. Career-oriented women who become mothers are in a lose-lose situation. They are discouraged from pursuing paid work on a full-time basis, unless they are working-class, even though it is paid labor that is most highly valued by society. On the other hand, should they decide to continue investing time and energy in their careers, they may confront a rather harsh social stigma for their supposed lack of commitment to motherhood. Stereotypes of employed women often relate to the negative outcomes that are supposed to befall their children. Interestingly, studies have found that children of working mothers experience certain benefits over those with stay-at-home mothers. When mothers work, their children tend to score higher on tests of verbal and mathematical ability, have higher self-esteem, view women more positively, and are generally more independent. The role of mothers is one fraught with inconsistencies and misunderstandings. Industrialization resulted in the notion of the unproductive housewife, a

419

420

|

Motherhood, Opportunity Costs

disparaging view of wives and mothers and the work that they do in and around the home. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, no such view existed because all family members worked and, for the most part, all work was domestic. Although housework is typically viewed as leisurely, unstructured, unintelligent, and unproductive, feminist scholars as well as economists have found that the monetary value of unpaid domestic labor is significant. Furthermore, without this labor the nation’s economy would be negatively affected. Increasingly, it is recognized that success in school and in the workplace begins with success at home—children who are reared in stable, happy homes are more likely to excel in the public domain. In fact, a majority of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) can be traced back to the skills and capabilities of individual persons. Unfortunately, however, unpaid domestic labor remains unseen, unappreciated, and undervalued. STRUCTURAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS In many ways, the opportunity costs associated with motherhood are socially structured; they are not the result of individual choices but rather of social factors and institutional practices. In the United States, for example, child care is not subsidized by the government as it is in many other advanced nations. The United States is only one of five countries worldwide that does not offer paid maternity leave. In addition, until recently, few employers in the United States offered flexible scheduling. Employees, even those with young children, have had to work rigid, inflexible schedules while trying to coordinate with child care agencies, baby-sitters, schools, and other institutions. Consequently, some workers, particularly women, have opted out of the labor force, at least for a while. Termination of employment, even on a part-time basis, results in reduced or lost Social Security and pension benefits. In addition, stay-at-home and part-time workers are not eligible for disability insurance or unemployment compensation. The loss of income experienced by women who choose to leave the labor force entirely when they have a child or for an extended period of time has been dubbed the mommy tax and is estimated to be in the millions. Unfortunately, the long-term economic and professional consequences of reduced or terminated employment are quite severe and often irreversible. Compared to their childless counterparts, and to working fathers, working mothers will very likely experience diminished opportunities for career advancement and substantial reductions in lifetime earnings. In fact, the wage gap between mothers and childless women now exceeds the gap between young men and women. Much more so than men, women who wish to become parents must often strategically plan when to have children. Some may opt to become mothers once their careers are well-established while others may wish to start their families before career opportunities peak. Women who return to work after being home with a young child may find that they are assumed to be on a mommy track, a professional pathway involving fewer challenges, lower compensation, and fewer promotional opportunities. Social attitudes toward working mothers

Motherhood, Opportunity Costs |

remain largely unsympathetic—it is assumed that women who become mothers made that choice freely and that they must live with its consequences, however dire. This has lead to an increasing support movement that seeks to educate the public and employers about the need for employment, but the inherent challenges of doing both paid employment and parenting well. One such organization, the Families and Work Institute, is a nonprofit organization that examines the changing nature of work and family life. RELATIONSHIP OPPORTUNITY COSTS In addition to the economic costs of parenthood, there are also a number of marital and personal costs associated with it. While children have a stabilizing effect on marriage (that is, they lower the risk for divorce), they generally have a negative effect on marital quality or happiness. In other words, while couples may stay together for the sake of the children, they may not be as happy or satisfied with their relationships as they were before they became parents. Children exact a heavy toll on marriage, financially and otherwise. Parents experience more stress, anxiety, and depression than nonparents; this is especially true for women. With children present, conflicts over work, finances, religion, education, extended family, and leisure time are much more likely to occur. Interestingly, the more children there are, the more that marital happiness declines. Marital happiness may be affected by changes in gender roles and in the division of household labor. While some couples are able to maintain a somewhat egalitarian division of labor prior to becoming parents, very few will maintain such a balance afterwards. Men tend to invest more time in paid work while women invest less. In fact, employers may actually view fathers as more committed employees than men who do not have children. This increased financial role for fathers make them more responsible. In addition to performing most of the childcare, or arranging for it, after having children, women typically assume a greater level of responsibility for the housework more generally, even if they continue to work full-time. This additional shift of work experienced by working mothers is well-documented and is known as the second shift. Gradually, partners may feel that they have less in common and are less able to relate to other another. The relationship may become less spontaneous and less intimate. Spouses often find that they do less together and that their sexual lives are negatively affected. Wives and younger spouses seem to be more vulnerable to the damaging effect of children. As mentioned earlier, women are more likely than men to experience dramatic life changes upon the birth of a child. Younger spouses are more likely to possess individualistic values and to believe that they can have it all. In the past, individuals placed less emphasis on personal happiness, freedom, and flexibility. Thus, younger spouses are more likely than older spouses, who were raised with more traditional and familial values, to experience a decline in marital satisfaction upon becoming parents. It may also be that younger parents have less experience working or playing with children than do older parents. A decline in family size, together with greater affluence, has resulted in less sibling care.

421

422

|

Motherhood, Opportunity Costs

Despite the negative effect of children on marital happiness, most Americans have more than one child. Furthermore, most women who have children say they would do it again if given the choice. Even while new parents describe the stresses and strains associated with having children, they also describe the experience of parenthood as deeply meaningful and joyful. Many persons seem to take pride and satisfaction in fulfilling such a highly valued social role. Parenthood, more than any other life transition, confers adult status. While the romantic aspects of marriage may decrease temporarily, the companionate aspects may increase as a result of becoming parents. In other words, partners may feel that their partnership is strengthened by parenthood. CONCLUSION Children make for substantial additional work in a home. This work involves the physical care of the child as well as the parenting tasks of developing mentally and emotionally healthy and responsible children. These tasks exact an emotional cost on parents. However, as children age they may become more of an asset by assisting in household tasks and adding emotional value to the family. While the opportunity costs remain, they are most acutely felt in the earliest years of parenting. While society continues to suggest that the individual choices of women are the most important component in their decision to work or not while rearing children, it is increasingly a choice based on economics. Publications, such as Working Mother magazine help mothers define their choices in a positive light. However, this is aimed at individual women, not social policy. As the numbers of mothers who are working stays high, we need social policies that support the successful combination of work and family roles. One option, flextime, has met with some success in recent years, as has telecommuting. These trends will likely continue as a way to do hands-on parenting while limiting some of the financial opportunity costs. See also Employed Mothers; Mommy Track; Overscheduled Children; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Blades, Joan, and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner. The Motherhood Manifesto: What America’s Moms Want—and What To Do About It. New York: Nation Books, 2006; Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job In the World is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001; Families and Work Institute. http://www.familiesandwork.org; Maushart, Susan. The Mask of Motherhood: How Becoming a Mother Changes Everything and Why We Pretend It Doesn’t. New York: New Press, 1999; Peskowitz, Miriam. 2005. The Truth Behind the “Mommy Wars”: Who Decides What Makes a Good Mother? Berkeley: Seal Press, 2005; Stark, Marg. What No One Tells the Mom: Surviving the Early Years of Parenthood With Your Sanity, Your Sex Life and Your Sense of Humor Intact. New York: Penguin, 2005; Steiner, Leslie Morgan. Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families. New York: Random House, 2007; Stone, Pamela. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007; Wolf, Naomi. Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected Journey to Motherhood. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Susan Cody-Rydzewski

N NONMARITAL COHABITATION Nonmarital heterosexual cohabitation refers to living with a partner in a marriage-like relationship without being married. Another common name for this behavior is living together. What role does cohabitation play in society and marriage today? Currently cohabitation is viewed by researchers in two primary ways. In one view it is seen as a stage in courtship where couples cohabit as part of a dating or other romantic relationship. In this way it is a prelude to marriage. The other view suggests that some persons choose cohabitation as a life-long alternative to marriage, and never intend to marry. For these persons cohabitation is a substitute for marriage. STATISTICS Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that about 4.7 million households of opposite-sex couples were cohabiting households in 2000. This is a dramatic increase from 30 years before when, in 1970, there were 523,000 such couples. This represents a nearly 900 percent increase from 1970 to 2000. This increase in nonmarital cohabitation has been occurring in most Western nations. In Canada and Western Europe, cohabitation rates are much higher than they are in the United States. In the United Kingdom, for example, cohabitation has become so commonplace that partners can gather information about options and the legal status of cohabitation through official government websites. In Sweden, for example, one in four couples are living together without being married, and virtually all Swedes cohabit prior to marriage.

423

424

|

Nonmarital Cohabitation

More than half of the cohabitants in the United States are younger couples under the age of 35, but persons might enter into such an arrangement at any age. Nearly 22 percent of cohabitants are under the age of 25, and 36 percent are between 25 and 34 years old. According to the census bureau, 4 percent of cohabitants were over the age of 65. The reasons that each age group chooses to cohabit are likely quite different, however. Rates of cohabitation vary by geographic region as well. More cohabiting couples are found in the West and the lowest rates of cohabitation are in the Southern states. The state with the smallest percentage of nonmarried cohabitors among its population is Alabama. The state with the highest percentage is Alaska. Most cohabitants are persons who have never married. Fifty-eight percent of cohabiting households contain partners who have never married, and 67 percent of cohabiting households do not contain children. Cohabitation is often an option for persons after divorce. In the United States 32 percent of cohabiting partners were divorced. Among those persons who were divorced, widowed, or cohabiting apart from a marital relationship, approximately one-third of them had children residing with them. THE EVOLUTION OF COHABITATION Although by no means a new phenomenon, heterosexual nonmarital cohabitation has changed in scope and frequency in recent decades. Formerly, living together without being married was an adaptation among the poor. Today cohabitation is more likely among lower-income and less-educated groups, although persons of other social classes do participate. While cohabitation is primarily a behavior of young people, cohabitors are of all ages. Cohabitation might be viewed as a reasonable alternative to marriage for lower-income persons because there is not the initial economic investment that there is with marriage. Cohabitation was formerly viewed as a wholly unacceptable lifestyle and was illegal in many states. The primary impetus for its unacceptability was the presumption that couples were engaging in sexual activities. As a consequence of this element, cohabitation has been termed living in sin or shacking up by some critics of the practice. This perception persists today among more religiously conservative Americans. The Catholic Church has been critical of the practice and parishes around the country have refused to marry couples until they spend at least some time living apart prior to the marriage. The unacceptability of cohabitation became institutionalized in many state laws in the 1800s. Several of these laws are still active today. In the 1960s and 1970s cohabitation was favored by persons in the antiestablishment movement as another way to resist the power of governmental institutions. Additionally, cohabiting couples are more likely than married couples to be of different races and ethnicities. Perhaps this is because a marriage is less likely to be supported by the family and friends of the couple. Thus perceptions of cohabitation as a marginal status remain in today’s society.

Nonmarital Cohabitation

In the past 30 years, there has been a dramatic shift in behavior and attitude regarding cohabitation. There are several factors that have contributed to decreases in disapproval of the practice. Among the key elements is an increasing freedom for young people in all aspects of their lives. As young people move away from parents and live in co-ed dormitories and apartments, they make choices about what they desire as individuals. This new-found freedom permits options outside of traditional parental control. A second element is that women’s roles continue to change and evolve with regard to economic independence and personal choice. As women increase their financial stability, they perceive financial and personal options beyond marriage. Divorce has played a role in cohabitation as well. As people are less confident about the stability of marriage, they may delay marriage for fear that they will end up divorcing. This factor has lead to more couples citing testing the relationship as their motivation for living together. Other reasons that more people cohabit today relate to economic and emotional benefits from such relationships. Cohabiting partners vary in terms of their level of commitment to one another, but some couples are clearly committed and experience emotional rewards from their association. In terms of economic benefits, partners can pool resources for daily living costs by maintaining one residence rather than two. The groups and organizations that have been most critical of cohabitation are those that place a premium on traditionally organized heterosexual marriages. Religious organizations, such as Focus on the Family, express concern over cohabitation as a factor that leads to weaker marriages and less structural support for marriage as an institution. Nonreligiously affiliated groups, such as the National Marriage Project and its cofounder David Popenoe have expressed a similar concern with cohabitation. The dominant approach of persons who would like to see lower rates of cohabitation and discourage the practice has been to cite a link between cohabitation prior to marriage and higher rates of divorce in the first few years after marriage has occurred. Those individuals and organizations that have been more supportive of cohabiting couples have couched their support in terms that focus on function, rather than form. Organizations such as the Alternatives to Marriage Project and its cofounder Marshall Miller stress the notion that a variety of relationship forms and circumstances might be equally suited to meet the needs of differing couples. The more important issue for this viewpoint is tolerance for relationships other than traditional legal heterosexual marriage. The Council on Contemporary Families is a well-known organization from this perspective. Among researchers, Pamela Smock, Andrew Cherlin, and Stephanie Coontz have pointed out positive aspects of and rationales for choosing cohabitation. COHABITATION AS A STAGE IN COURTSHIP One of the primary ways that cohabitation is discussed and viewed by persons in the United States currently is as a stage in a dating relationship. When researchers suggest that cohabitation is a stage in courtship, they are indicating that cohabitation may be one more component of a dating relationship that

| 425

426

|

Nonmarital Cohabitation

LIVING APART TOGETHER (LAT) Virtually all Swedish couples cohabit before marriage, and approximately one quarter of Swedish couples are in such a relationship currently. A phenomenon that is similar to cohabitation that many Swedes engage in is described by sociologist Jan Trost as LAT (living apart together). In these situations, partners are exclusive with one another and have a marriagelike relationship, but they choose to maintain separate residences. They might spend considerable time at one another’s residences, frequently staying overnight or for weekends, but each maintains his or her own space. These couples are generally viewed by themselves and others as married.

partners participate in on the way to finding the permanent mate. Courtship refers to the process whereby young people select suitable marital partners. Research suggests that living with a partner before marriage as part of a loving relationship is more common in society today. Estimates are that 60 percent of marriages begun in the 1990s were preceded by cohabitation. Most of these data can be gathered by examining the addresses couples use when they apply for a marriage license. If the address is the same, researchers assume the couple is living together. Some researchers predict that more than 70 percent of couples that marry this decade will cohabit before marrying. One of the reasons that partners might choose to live together at higher rates now compared with the past is that partners are single for longer periods of time today, but still are likely to be in a romantic relationship. While partners may not be ready for marriage, they do want to move to the next level of commitment with the partner. Since the 1960s the age at which men and women marry for the first time in the United States has been steadily increasing. On average in society today, males are 27 years old and females are 25 to 26 years old when they marry for the first time. This means that many young people could have been dating for some time prior to committing to marry, thus giving them the opportunity to cohabit as part of dating. Persons who are considering marriage may live together before the marriage for a variety of reasons. Among them is convenience, to test the relationship and ensure it is with the right partner, or to save for an expensive wedding. Cohabitation provides an opportunity to determine how the partner might act in a marital relationship. In essence the relationship acts as a trial marriage for the partners. It might also serve as a way to act married without all of the legal commitment to the partner that marriage entails. In this way partners might determine whether their choice of a mate is a good one and decide to proceed with or cancel any prior plans to wed. As persons in U.S. society are increasingly concerned about the experience and consequences of divorce, cohabitation may seem like a reasonable preventive measure on the pathway to marriage. Testing the relationship is one of the most popular reasons that cohabitors give for their behavior. The length of most cohabiting unions is limited. On average, cohabiting relationships last less than one year. One of the factors in their short duration is that

Nonmarital Cohabitation

| 427

partners often proceed to marriage, particularly if they had plans to marry prior to cohabiting. In other cases, partners may realize that they are not well suited and end the relationship before it becomes too serious, just like they might end any other dating relationship that does not involve living together. The pressure that couples who are cohabiting receive from friends and family might also be involved in the short duration of these relationships. Despite the increase in cohabiting relationships, couples often receive pressure to make the relationship legal or to end it. These pressures are particularly salient for women. Evidence for cohabitation as a stage in courtship also comes from the fact that most cohabiting partners are persons who have never married. Because cohabitation is a pattern entered into by younger persons, it is seen as a reasonable bridge between singlehood and marriage. It is also perceived as a stage in courtship for persons before remarriage as many divorced persons will cohabit with a partner prior to remarriage. THE LEGALITY OF COHABITATION While cohabitation is a common experience for U.S. couples today, the legality of cohabitation is still being debated in some states. Seven states have laws strictly forbidding cohabitation. Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia have statutes making the practice illegal. In North Carolina, for example, the issue reached the courts when Debora Lynn Hobbs was given an ultimatum by her employer to marry, move out, or leave her job.

COHABITATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO MARRIAGE Cohabiting as an alternative to marriage is more common among persons who have fewer financial resources and lower education levels. It is higher among African Americans, who as a group are much less likely to marry than are other ethnic groups. In these ways, cohabitation is true to its roots as a status with less support and legitimacy than marriage. The cohabiting lifestyle may be chosen by persons who are less committed to each other or who perceive some potential problems in their relationship. This could account for data that indicate that persons who cohabit prior to marriage have higher rates of subsequent divorce than those who do not live together before the wedding. Additionally, persons who choose to cohabit are likely to see divorce as an option if the marriage does not work out. The choice of an unconventional lifestyle, cohabitation, indicates they may be liberal on relationship issues as a whole. In addition, some cohabiting relationships proceed because they are convenient for the partners, not because there is any long-term commitment between them. These relationships are referred to as casual-convenience cohabitation. The partners are in the relationship as long as their needs are being met, but may not plan to be with the partner for the long term. It may be for sexual or for economic convenience.

428

|

Nonmarital Cohabitation

Given that a significant percentage of cohabitants have been divorced, they might perceive cohabitation as the best choice to help them avoid problems that precipitated their divorce. Likewise they may be concerned about a subsequent marriage being unsuccessful and having to divorce again. While the ties between cohabiting partners may be emotionally or financially difficult to sever, cohabitants do not have legal ties to dissolve like spouses do when a marriage ends. For some divorced persons the financial ties from the previous marriage might make cohabitation more attractive than remarriage. If one owes the partner alimony or other support, taking on the complete financial obligation of a new family situation may be cost prohibitive. The persons in the cohabiting relationships of longest duration are those who see cohabitation as a permanent alternative to marriage. These persons may reject marriage as a social institution, or remaining single could be part of their personal philosophy. Because marriage is an institution that has been demonstrated to be oppressive to women, those more staunchly supportive of feminism might choose to be coupled without the legal bonds of marriage. Persons who choose to permanently cohabit usually make it known to family and friends that they have no intention of marrying, but they are partnered. These are the cohabitants most likely to plan children together. They may be likely to seek some kind of legitimacy and legal protection for their relationship, such as registering as domestic partners. MOTIVES FOR COHABITATION While the reasons that persons cohabit are likely to be as varied as the persons themselves, research has uncovered a few very common reasons that partners elect to cohabit. Clearly the future relationship roles that the partners expect to play, whether they plan to marry or not, are important in their decision to cohabit. Gender issues. Males and females cite different reasons for their decisions to cohabit. Among males the convenience of living with the partner is a dominant factor in the decision-making process. Because men are still the ones most likely to travel to see a partner and provide transportation for a date, residing with the partner decreases these tasks. Cohabitation helps partners manage the logistics of seeing each other as frequently as possible. For women, cohabitation is often viewed as a prelude to marriage, thus subscribing to the cohabitation as a stage in courtship model. When women view cohabitation as a step toward permanence, they may be more dissatisfied than men are with the arrangement. Because the majority of cohabiting relationships do not end in the partners marrying each other, women’s expectations are often unfounded. Both males and females suggest that a primary motive for cohabitation is to spend more time with the partner because of attraction and affection. Testing. Among the primary motives for cohabitation is the testing of the relationship or evaluating the compatibility between partners. The rationale behind this motive suggests that you can only really get to know a partner when you

Nonmarital Cohabitation

reside together. Some research has considered this phenomenon a trial marriage. Therapists and others are recognizing that testing is a powerful motive, but they are urging their clients to tread cautiously because the data are inconclusive about any benefits or harms to their relationship that may result. For example, there are websites that warn cohabitors to make an informed choice about their lifestyle, and that suggest that the detrimental effects of cohabitation on marriage are probably small for all groups of cohabitors except serial cohabitors (those who have cohabited multiple times). Economics. Men and women who are economically unstable are more likely to cohabit. Couples might feel that their financial standing would not provide a good start to marriage and cohabit while working for better financial circumstances. As women have increased their participation in the labor force and their economic success, they may not want to fall into the traditional expectations of wifely duties so cohabitation is a way to maintain the romantic relationship without sacrificing career for a traditional role as wife and mother. Among persons who have no long-term commitment to each other cohabitation has practical benefits in terms of sharing expenses. This permits partners to maintain one residence rather than two and to share financial and domestic responsibilities. Cohabitants are much less likely to pool their resources than are married couples, preferring to maintain separate finances and responsibilities. This is particularly true when there is no specific commitment between the partners to marry in the future or when at least one of the partners is cohabiting after a divorce. See also Childfree Relationships; Cohabitation, Effects on Marriage; Common Law Marriage; Domestic Partnerships; Fictive Kin. Further Reading: Alternatives to Marriage Project. http://www.unmarried.org; Barlow, Anne, Simon Duncan, Grace James, and Alison Parks. Cohabitation, Marriage and the Law: Social Change and Legal Reform in the 21st Century. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2005; Hindin, Michelle, and Arland Thornton. The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (Social Institutions and Social Change). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction, 2000; Smock, Pamela. “Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000): 1–20; Solot, Dorian, and Marshall Miller. Unmarried to Each Other: The Essential Guide to Living Together as an Unmarried Couple. New York: Marlowe and Company, 2002; Stanley, Scott M. The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005; Waite, Linda, and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-off Financially. New York: Broadway Books, 2000; Whitman, Stacy, and Wynne Whitman. Shacking Up: The Smart Girl’s Guide to Living in Sin without Getting Burned. New York: Broadway Books, 2003; Wu, Zheng. Cohabitation: An Alternative Form of Family Living (Studies in Canadian Population). New York: Oxford University Press, 2001

Kimberly P. Brackett

| 429

This page intentionally left blank

O ONLY CHILD The only child is a truly unique position in the family. An only child is a child with neither biological nor adopted siblings. The influence of being an only child is controversial, with some experts suggesting that the personalities of only children are deficient as a result of their status and other family experts claiming that the benefits available to only children mediate any stereotypical negative outcomes. A considerable amount of theory exists about only children and the effects of having no siblings. FACTORS PROMOTING ONLY CHILD FAMILIES Only child families are becoming increasingly common in the United States. In 1972, there were between 8 and 9 million only children. In 1995 there were 13 million only children, and in 2000 there were 16 million only children. Today over 20 percent of families in the United States have only one child (Mancillas 2006). This is not the first time in the nation’s history, however, when only-child families were common. Families formed during the Great Depression were quite likely to be one-child families. Some of the factors that contribute to the increase in only child families in recent years include changing marital patterns, economic concerns, and new roles for women. The high divorce rate and couples choosing to marry later in life may contribute to shorter marriages and more only children as fewer persons spend an extended time in marriage during their most fertile reproductive years. Inflation and high unemployment rates reduce the family income and may encourage parents to have fewer children. Today families that are concerned over their 431

432

|

Only Child

ability to provide all of the things that are expected to be part of a middle-class childhood may choose to target their efforts to a smaller number of children or only one. As the costs of rearing a child to the age of 18 continue to climb, couples may consider it impossible to afford more than one. Additionally, as some women choose single motherhood, having only one child to provide for may be more attractive than multiple children. The majority of women are now employed before they have children. The added income and involvement with work helps push women to postpone childbirth and have fewer children as they may be reluctant to leave careers, even for a limited time. Additionally, as women increasingly find fulfillment in employment, they may not feel a strong need to gain identity through motherhood. STEREOTYPES OF ONLY CHILDREN Negative Stereotypes A traditional view commonly assumed that for a child to develop normally, he or she should have siblings. Without siblings, the child is expected to experience detrimental effects on adjustment, personality, and character. There is a belief that only children would be lonely, selfish, maladjusted, and deprived of opportunities to develop social skills. Only children may at times experience feeling lonely, and do compensate through fantasy play and the creation of imaginary friends. Because of this expectation of social deprivation, the parents automatically over-indulge and over-protect the only child and this produces an unhappy, maladjusted, selfish, and isolated individual. Only children are depicted as self-centered, anxious, domineering, and quarrelsome. Only children are often characterized as lacking social competence because they are deprived of the social experiences that siblings can give them. Concerns arise that only children can become difficult adults because they did not have to share with siblings or compromise for the sake of family harmony. Only children’s personalities are often categorized into two groups. The first is the spoiled, egocentric, difficult, and unsocial child. The second is the shy, sensitive, hesitant, and often excessively dependent child. The factors that cause the two groups of personalities are the lack of necessary association with other children and the receipt of too much attention from adults, mainly the parents. Often these children feel pressure to be perfect and to fit the mold that parents have for the ideal child. The only child does not receive adequate training in competing with his or her siblings and the parents are over-attentive. One area of concern beginning to appear in the literature involves parents doting on children that were conceived after a period of infertility. The negative stereotypes of only children are not exclusive to the United States, but are seen in other cultures across the world including Great Britain, Korea, the Netherlands, and China. Positive Stereotypes Contrary to Alfred Adler’s contention that only children would experience primarily negative outcomes, Toni Falbo, a well-know researcher of only children, suggests that only children are very adaptive. They learn to be children

Only Child |

on their own, are more dependent on themselves, and have no problem being alone. They are no more likely to be maladjusted than are children with siblings. Only children are the sole recipients of their parents’ resources and attention. This can have lasting positive outcomes. One of the most practical is that financial resources do not have to be shared. The targeted finances can be used to provide additional advantages such as private schooling, academic and leisure lessons, and cultural experiences that parents may have to limit when budgeting for multiple children. It is well-documented that first-born and only children are the birth positions that earn the highest incomes on average. Only children do not have to experience the conflict and competition that comes with having siblings. Because they do not compete with another child for their parents’ attention, they may maintain high self-esteem. Only children receive more of their socialization from adults than from peers. As a consequence, only children are believed to be more accustomed to dealing with adults than are children in other birth-order positions. Only children receive the advantage of the maximum parental attention. Because of this they are thought to have better health, safety, and security than children with siblings. The academic performance of only children is generally superior to children in larger families, due in part to parents’ availability to assist with homework and other school-related tasks. Only children have better language skills and develop high verbal ability, perhaps due to the majority of their social interactions occurring with adults. Only children’s personalities are often described as highly motivated, self-confident, and achievement-oriented. Given that so many children attend organized day care today, the traditional assumption that only children wouldn’t learn social skills and would experience higher levels of loneliness compared with their peers who have siblings seems unfounded. While there are not built-in playmates at home, parents of only children often make a concerted effort to expose their youngsters to other children. They learn the needed interaction skills; they just may learn them at a later age. Indeed, as adults, only children marry at approximately the same age as others and are no more likely to divorce than persons who were reared with siblings. Consequences of the Stereotypes It is quite reasonable that people’s beliefs about the differences children demonstrate based on their birth order influence the expectations that parents have for their own children, as well as what they expect about people in general. The stereotypes that emerge may encourage only children to internalize the expectations for their group and cause a negative effect on self-esteem and self-concept. Another possible consequence of the stereotypical thinking about only children is that some parents of only children may internalize the stereotypes and push their children to behave in accordance with the expectation. This can affect the parent-child relationship and the satisfaction of both parties. An additional potential consequence of the reliance on the stereotype is that parents may be pressured into having another child to prevent the first child from being saddled with the negative labels assigned to only children.

433

434

|

Only Child

THEORY ON THE ONLY CHILD Research into only children has largely come from a psychological tradition. Only children have been evaluated in five main areas: personality, intelligence, achievement, sociability, and general psychological adjustment. Three will be briefly discussed here. Adler’s Theory The concept of birth order as a device to understand children’s behavior was formally developed by Alfred Adler, an Austrian psychiatrist. He concluded that a child’s position in the family greatly influenced her overall development and attitude toward life. He believed that birth order would leave a permanent impression on the individual’s style of life by influencing the way one dealt with friendship, love, and work. According to Adler, only children are usually pampered, create unrealistic expectations of always being the center of attention, and create an exaggerated opinion of their own importance. He also suggested that only children tended to be shy and dependent. He indicated that this derived from the parents, who by refusing to have more than one child communicated their own anxiety, neuroses, and fears to their child. Adler did emphasize that there could be an exception to the rule, and noted that even a child born several years after the firstborn could be treated like an only child and develop some of the same patterns. Over the years, Adler’s negative view of only children has been debated and disputed. Other factors may be equally as important as birth order in personality development. Some of these factors include parents’ attitudes, illness and disability, gender roles, and social circumstances. Reviews of studies of only children, particularly with regard to personality traits, suggest that there is no maladjustment directly related to being an only child. It seems that only children are not that different from their peers with siblings. Only children do, however, seem to be higher in achievement motivation. Their lack of siblings also tends to enhance their performance on tests of verbal ability where only children, firstborn children, and children with only one sibling score significantly better than later-born children and those with multiple siblings. Confluence Model The confluence model is a theory about only children’s intellectual development, based on the idea that family composition influences intelligence. The confluence model began as an explanation for the findings that I.Q. and family size are inversely related. That is, children from larger families have lower I.Q. scores on average than children from smaller families. Based on this pattern, one would expect that only children, who come from the smallest families, would have the highest I.Q. scores. At very young ages this pattern holds. However, the results of three large-scale studies of young adults, conducted in the Netherlands and the United States, are consistent in placing only children lower than the prediction. In these studies only children scored at levels comparable to

Only Child |

435

CHINA’S ONE-CHILD POLICY China’s one-child policy represents a special case of the trend toward smaller families. It is a government policy implemented in 1979 that was designed to slow population growth in the already heavily populated country. It encourages couples, particularly those in urban areas, to have only one child by offering incentives to those families who voluntarily control their fertility and punishing those who do not. Families that have only one child can expect the child will receive preferential treatment in school, in later employment, and in housing. These families also receive financial incentives while the child is living at home. The policy has three main elements, promoted through media outlets, laws, policies, and members of the community who serve as compliance officers. The first aspect of the policy is to encourage young couples to delay marriage and subsequent childbearing. The second is the goal of fewer and healthier births across the Chinese population. The third is to strongly encourage couples to have only one child. Some exceptions to the one-child provision are available if the couples’ first child is disabled, for example, or if they live in a rural area and the first child born is a girl. As a patriarchal society, land holdings are generally passed along the male line and males can contribute more to the household economy. Families who violate the policy by having additional children are subject to a steep fine and the second or subsequent children are generally ineligible for the educational, health care, and social benefits made available to the only child. Perhaps more concerning to those outside of China is the human rights issues that have been raised. Because boys are seen as an asset and girls as a liability to Chinese families, male children are preferred. Due to the lack of recording of female births, selective abortion, abandonment, and even infanticide, there is a growing gap in the number of males and females of the same age. It is estimated that in some regions, boys outnumber girls by ten to one.

first-born children in families with from three to five children. This model, then, suggests that intelligence develops from a combination of factors, including how the child develops and the experiences that occur within the family. Being an only child is not a significant enough factor to predict intelligence outcomes. Achievement Motivation According to the achievement motivation theories, first-born and only children achieve more than their later-born siblings because they are more motivated to. There is some evidence to support this theory because only and first-born children score higher on the need for achievement than other birth-order positions. This theory provides evidence that higher achievement is due to greater pressure from parents on first-born and only children to behave in a more mature manner than later-born children. The higher educational ambitions of only and first-born children reflect this as well. When social class of parents is held constant in achievement studies, only children tend to complete more years of education and have more prestigious jobs than their counterparts with siblings.

436

|

Overscheduled Children

FAMOUS ONLY CHILDREN Some well-known only children include: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Greenspan, Tipper Gore, and Leonardo da Vinci. Sports figures Tiger Woods, Kareem-Abdul Jabbar, and Maria Sharapova are only children. Among the entertainers who are only-children are: Robert DeNiro, Robin Williams, Frank Sinatra, Samuel L. Jackson, and Natalie Portman. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Given the social trends toward smaller families in the United States and other western nations, only children will continue to be common. The reassurances from decades of psychological research on only children, demonstrating that they are generally well-adjusted members of society who are intelligent and successful, may help to assuage any guilt that parents feel for having only one child. Despite these positive outcomes there remains some stigma to this position in the family. However, as the only child becomes a more widely selected option, stereotypes regarding their selfishness and spoiled behavior seem likely to diminish. See also Birth Control; Birth Order; Changing Fertility Patterns. Further Reading: Adler, A. What Life Should Mean to You. New York: Perigee Books, 1931; Blake, J. Family Size and Achievement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989; Claxton, Reid P. “Empirical Relationships between Birth Order and Two Types of Parental Feedback.” The Psychological Record 44 (2002): 475–500; Ernst, C. Birth Order: Its Influence on Personality. New York: Springer, 1983; Falbo, Toni. The Single-Child Family. New York: Guilford, 1984; Herrera, N. “Beliefs about Birth Rank and Their Reflection in Reality.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (2003): 142–150; Mancillas, A. “Challenging the Stereotypes about Only Children: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice.” Journal of Counseling and Development 84 (2006): 268–275; McGrath, E. My One and Only: The Special Experience of the Only Child. New York: Morrow, 1989; Only Child Enterprises, Inc. http://www.onlychild.com; Sulloway, F. Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Pantheon Books, 1996.

Virginia Rutland OVERSCHEDULED CHILDREN In recent years, child psychologists have become concerned over what they see as a new, and troubling, parenting trend—the tendency for parents to overschedule or rush their children through childhood. Experts warn about the negative effects of overscheduling for children, such as fatigue, irritability, and disinterest in previously enjoyed activities, which may be symptoms of depression. In addition, overscheduling burdens the entire family. Parents, many of whom are themselves trying to do it all, struggle to live up to unrealistic expectations for what kind of childhood they should provide for their children. Middle-class families experience the consequences of being overscheduled both

Overscheduled Children | 437

psychologically and financially, as many children’s activities today are structured and supervised, and involve significant membership fees. This does not even include the expenses associated with traveling, eating on the go, uniforms, and equipment for some sporting activities. Parents may find that quality family time is difficult to achieve as each member of the family is obligated to a different activity, often several times per week, in varying locations. Child development experts caution that children today are often deprived of opportunities to develop their imaginations, to play flexibly and spontaneously, and to cultivate family relationships. BACKGROUND: CHILDHOOD THEN AND NOW Images and understandings of children and childhood have changed quite dramatically over the course of history. In preindustrial America, children were economic assets, contributing in important ways to the family economic unit. As industrialization took hold and technology advanced, a new view of childhood emerged. This one emphasized the fragility and innocence of children, as well as their need for protection and for formal education. Gradually, children were prohibited from factory work and were required to attend school. It was assumed that children and adolescents required a certain amount of leisure time and freedom from adult-like responsibilities. It was during the 1900s that many advances in child development occurred—educational attainment increased, infant and child mortality decreased, and overall health improved. The advances in education, health, and life expectancy were so great that the twentieth century has been described as the century of the child. Increasingly, however, children are dealing with adult issues such as violence, sexuality, poverty, mental illness, and troubled families. A significant proportion of children today express concerns over finances, health care, public safety, crime, war, and other mature matters. Involvement with the popular media, including the Internet, has resulted in exposure to a wide array of subject matter, prompting concern over Internet pornography and possible contact with child predators. Children today are exposed to too much and too complex information, much of which they are unable to accurately process. Body image and dieting have become significant concerns among young girls. Young children, boys and girls alike, are objectified and sexualized, especially in clothing advertisements. Kids growing up in single-parent homes often find themselves at home alone or assuming a large share of domestic responsibilities including child care for younger siblings. Millions of children are diagnosed with learning or mood disorders and are often prescribed strong, and potentially dangerous, drugs as the primary course of treatment. Substance abuse and teenage suicide rates are high. In addition, while the crime category juvenile delinquency was created in the early-twentieth century to protect child and adolescent offenders from the harsh punishments typically associated with adult crime, increasingly the public is outraged by what they see as lenient treatment of minor offenders and there is less support for rehabilitative programs. There are increasing instances of juvenile offenders being charged, tried, and convicted as adults. In many ways, the

438

|

Overscheduled Children

boundary line between childhood and adulthood is less clear than it was in the twentieth century. In fact, one psychologist recently coined the term kinderdult to refer to the simultaneous treatment of children as both kids and adults. Perhaps in a less obvious way, the kinderdult phenomenon is apparent in the manner in which children’s schedules are arranged. Many parents, especially those who are affluent, believe that rigid, full schedules are necessary for optimal child development. Thus, middle-and upper-middle-class children often find themselves involved in a number of scheduled, structured activities on a weekly or even daily basis. This phenomenon has led to the coining of several new expressions and syndromes, such as the overscheduled or overbooked child, hurried child syndrome, and hyper-parenting. Many writers have discussed the disappearance or erosion of childhood. Attention to the issue of overscheduled and hurried children originated out of concerns with changing school curricula, in which more advanced material was gradually required of lower grades and younger children and various forms of relaxed, spontaneous activity, such as recess, have been removed from the school day. At a minimum, unstructured recess or free play has been replaced with supervised, structured forms of physical activity. According to those concerned with the overscheduling of children, the hurried child is clearly a modern and culturally-specific phenomenon. As with adults, there is tremendous pressure on children to be over-achievers. Americans are highly competitive and most parents believe that it is imperative that children learn to follow rules, accept an imposed structure and schedule, get along well with others, work hard, and achieve. In fact, it appears that adolescents today are encouraged by their parents to seek employment at earlier ages. Opponents of youth employment contend, however, that the types of jobs available to the typical teenager are unlikely to foster appreciation for work or for the value of money. American public schools are largely governed by this belief system as well, emphasizing individual achievement, productivity, ambition, and competition among students. There is little emphasis on more passive forms of development, such as imagination, contemplation, or learning how to relax or keep oneself content. Time spent in such endeavors may be considered little more than idle time or leisure time, which for many Americans amounts to wasted time. Pursuits that are active, productive, and organized are highly valued. Thus, many children today find themselves with full, hectic schedules. In one qualitative study of middle- and working-class families, it was found that while working-class parents felt that kids should be kids, and that it is normal and natural for children to have quite a bit of unscheduled, unrestricted time to themselves or with other children, middle- and upper-middle-class parents tended to believe that in order to excel, children must be encouraged to pursue a number of structured activities, chosen either by the parents or by the children. Consequently, affluent parents spent a great deal of time each week shuffling children back and forth from one activity to the next as well as centering their family time and routines around the children’s schedules. In the end, parents and children were often physically and psychologically exhausted. Such families experienced little quiet time together and sibling relationships were often hostile as children competed against one another in performance aspects (i.e., athletics) and for parents’ ap-

Overscheduled Children | 439

proval. On the other hand, children in working-class families spent a good deal of time playing quietly alone or with other children in unsupervised, unstructured activities. In addition, children in working-class homes were a bit calmer and less likely to experience overt conflict with siblings. They also spent more time with extended family members. Some child advocates speculate that children from affluent homes may actually experience a kind of separation anxiety because they are spending significant amounts of time away from the home in the presence of coaches, teachers, tutors, day care workers, and other strangers. Child psychologists are increasingly concerned about the possible negative effects of overscheduling children. Overscheduled children are likely to report feeling tired, tense, or stressed. Involvement in multiple organized activities each week typically results in less quality time with immediate as well as extended family members. The formation of healthy family relationships is essential in learning how to form and maintain healthy peer, academic, and eventually intimate and professional relationships. Children who are overscheduled miss out on opportunities for self-reflection. It is vital that kids not only learn how to entertain themselves, at least temporarily, but also that they have time to reflect on who they are, what they enjoy, and the environment around them. An abundance of activities results in an abundance of actual, and psychological, noise— which makes it difficult to find time to ponder one’s experiences. THE OVERSCHEDULED CHILD: MYTH OR REALITY? There is some debate as to whether or not childhood is threatened today. Opponents of the idea contend that this argument is based upon faulty reasoning. The argument presumes the historical existence of a golden era, in which children were coddled and protected from the harsh realities of adult life. However, most evidence would seem to suggest the contrary. Throughout most of history, children as young as toddlers were exposed to much harsher realities than they are today including severe illness, hunger, over-crowding, and death. While contemporary parents may reminisce about their lazy, carefree childhoods, one must remember that preindustrial children spent hours each day involved in very difficult and time-consuming physical chores in the home and on the farm. It is leisure, not work, that is the exception. Proponents of the overscheduled child argument fail to acknowledge subgroup variations in the experiences of children. For instance, is the primary concern with hurried preschoolers or with adolescents? Are girls and boys rewarded similarly for early and advanced development or are they socialized to view productivity and upward mobility differently? The emphasis on overscheduled children fails to take into account class and race variations. While some children are forced into multiple, organized activities, these children are overwhelmingly middle- to upper-middle class, and it is quite possible that working-class children and parents might view their hectic schedules as a privilege rather than a burden or unnecessary obligation. A disproportionate share of African American children, especially those who reside in inner-city areas, confront much harsher realities than being overscheduled at school or in extracurricular activities. Also

440

|

Overscheduled Children

CHILDREN’S SCHEDULES: ADVICE FOR PARENTS Scheduled activities are not intrinsically bad for children and, if handled properly and done in moderation, may provide certain benefits to all family members. Involvement in sports, music, civic, or religious activities can boost self-esteem and provide a certain amount of structure that children require. Parents may want to use the following guidelines, however, to ensure that they do not over-extend their child. First, be sure that your child’s weekly schedule is age appropriate. Young children grow tired more quickly and involvement in too many activities can easily lead to feelings of frustration and exhaustion. Second, help your child identify his strengths and interests and then encourage him to select no more than two structured activities per week in which to participate. Beyond this, children’s and parents’ schedules become too hectic and children are often unable to develop skills and self-confidence in any one area. Third, if you notice changes in your child’s temperament, eating habits, or activity level, consider reducing the number of activities. Parents should discuss this with their children, being careful to explain that this is not a punishment but a way for them to spend more time doing what they really enjoy. Never mandate that a child participate in a long list of structured activities; doing so will most likely result in disinterest of the activity and a strained parent-child relationship. Most children will eventually gravitate toward at least one outside activity on their own. Finally, explain to your child that it is okay to begin something but then stop if it becomes unpleasant, stressful, or more work than fun. Kids should understand that there can be value in quitting an activity too. Finally, if it seems that your child is becoming distant from the rest of the family or that family time is clearly diminishing, a reduction in activities is most certainly in order.

concerning is that, either explicitly or implicitly, women’s employment has been identified as a factor contributing to the speed-up and disappearance of childhood. The increase in women’s labor force participation has been cited as a factor leading to so-called latch-key children (who are unsupervised for a portion of the day), and shortages of down time and quality family time because mothers who work are likely to be tired and frustrated at the end of the day. However, maternal employment, in and of itself, has not been found to result in any negative consequences for children. In fact, mothers’ employment, when viewed positively by husbands and wives, has been found to be beneficial for the development of children. This is particularly true when it contributes substantially to the household income and when high-quality care options are available for children. Finally, for under-privileged groups, the concerns associated with overscheduled or overburdened children are not necessarily new. Historically, black families have experienced higher rates of poverty and single-headed households; thus, domestic work, sibling care, and exposure to mature issues such as poverty, unemployment, divorce, incarceration, and addiction is not simply the byproduct of a recently sped-up society. Relaxed, unencumbered childhoods have been a luxury afforded only the most privileged classes. In addition, while early employment may be viewed as potentially problematic for the white middle

Overscheduled Children | 441

class, it is unemployment and chronic underemployment that plagues much of the urban lower class. BENEFITS OF ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION There is no doubt that extracurricular activities can be beneficial for children. Involvement in sports, for example, has been found to improve academic performance, boost self-confidence, and lower the risk for involvement in high-risk activities, such as drugs, truancy, or sexual behavior. Kids who participate in a moderate amount of scheduled activities often experience higher levels of selfesteem and are more comfortable with competition. However, it is important to remember that activities should be scheduled in moderation. When children are overscheduled, negative consequences, such as fatigue and irritability, may override any potential benefits. In addition, involvement in too many different activities is likely to result in an inability to fully cultivate interests and talents in any one activity. Children may begin to feel overwhelmed and pressured by their parents to excel in multiple activities, which is unrealistic at any age. While parents may believe that kids will grow up and fondly remember all of the activities they were involved in, it is just as likely that such children will grow up and remember feeling hurried and pressured. See also Motherhood, Opportunity Costs; Parenting Styles. Further Reading: Cooke, Barbara, and Carleton Kendrick. Take Out Your Nose Ring, Honey, We’re Going to Grandma’s. Bloomington, IN: Unlimited Publishing, 2003; Elkind, David. The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon—25th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2006; Elkind, David. The Power of Play: How Spontaneous, Imaginative Activities Lead to Happier, Healthier Children. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2006; Galinsky, Ellen, and Judy David. Ask the Children: What America’s Children Really Think About Working Parents. New York: William Morrow, 1999; Kotlowitz, Alex. There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in The Other America. New York: Anchor Books, 1991; Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003; Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995; Postman, Neil. The Disappearance of Childhood. New York: Vintage Books, 1994; Shehan, Constance L. “No Longer a Place for Innocence: The Re-Submergence of Childhood in Post-Industrial Societies.” In Through the Eyes of the Child: Revisioning Children as Active Agents of Family Life, vol. 1, ed. Constance L. Shehan, pp. 1–17. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 1999.

Susan Cody-Rydzewski

This page intentionally left blank

P PARENTING STYLES Ask any parent or parent-to-be about their biggest concerns and you will likely hear some comments about parenting correctly. Often this means parenting in a way that produces a well-adjusted, confident child. Other times it refers to following the advice of a particular expert. It is clear that different parenting personalities produce generally different outcomes for parent-child interaction. The question of whether there really is a correct way to rear a child has a lot to do with one’s social class, race, and gender. Parenting is more than likely the hardest job on the face of the Earth. What else requires more talent and determination than being an effective and efficient parent? With the advent of television, radio, the Internet, iPods, and many more technological devices that can socialize children quickly and erroneously, parenting has become even more difficult. While competing with all of the conflicting messages of the culture, it is true that parents, more than anyone else, interact with their children on a continuing basis. As a consequence, they have a crucial impact on the physical, social, and emotional development of their children. Clinging to a model of parental influence, more parents than not believe that the decisions they make as parents can either adversely or positively affect a child’s life. This suggests that the child could be president or a prostitute depending on parental actions and decisions. Although many experts have tried repeatedly to produce one, there is no manual available that accurately describes how to successfully raise a child; however, over the years teachers, sociologists, pediatricians, and other researchers have deduced that parenting, or child rearing, styles can be grouped into four basic types: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and negligent or uninvolved. Among the

443

444

|

Parenting Styles

persons working in this area, Diana Baumrind was one of the first to examine the patterns of parenting that emerge in families over time. Child rearing styles can be defined as an amalgamation of parenting behaviors and actions that occur over a variety of situations, and which creates a lasting child rearing, or parenting, environment. Several factors such as race, age, income, and educational backgrounds affect what parenting styles one chooses. There are three basic differences between the types of parenting styles: acceptance and involvement, control, and independence granting. Concerns over the types of children that each produces remain central in the work of professionals who study and counsel families, including many child psychologists. Syndicated child rearing columnist and child psychologist John Rosemond, for example, is quite critical of parents who are overly involved in micromanaging their children’s lives, suggesting that such a pattern encourages dependence and sends a message that the parents don’t trust the child’s abilities. AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING Authoritative parenting can succinctly be described as the most successful approach to parenting. In authoritative parenting there is a high level of acceptance and involvement, and parents are able to discern when a child is prepared for some level of independence. Parents who engage in this type of parenting are often described as warm and attentive. They are often close to and have a stable relationship with the child. Discipline, which is an important aspect of parenting, is administered fairly and efficiently. More importantly, children with authoritative parents are well informed of expectations made of them and the reasons for those expectations. Children are often described as well adjusted and mature by teachers and other authority figures. Moreover, authoritative parents progressively engage in allowing children to make decisions, granting autonomy when the parents deem the child is ready. Throughout childhood authoritative parenting is linked to various aspects of competence in children, such as an upbeat and cheerful mood, cooperativeness, and self-control. Furthermore, into adulthood individuals with authoritative parents report higher self-esteem, moral maturity, school performance, and mood. Often described as balanced parenting, not too tough and not too lenient, parents who follow this approach try to provide appropriate environments and stimuli for their children, often exposing them to new and different things. These parents also tend to be very attentive, although sometimes to a fault, as this approach tends to put the needs of the child above those of the parents. Additionally, parents who overly reward every positive thing that their child does may be teaching the child that she is the center of everyone’s world. Several factors can be taken into account when discerning who will more likely be an authoritative parent. For example, individuals who come from middle-class backgrounds are more likely to be authoritative parents. They often have high concern for and resources with which to provide a variety of experiences and opportunities. In addition, those individuals who come from a warm, authoritative parental environment are more likely to parent in the same authoritative way. In-

Parenting Styles |

dividuals with more education are more likely to conduct this form of parenting. The more education a parent has, the more likely he or she is to grant the child autonomy and educate the child about choices. Furthermore, individuals who wait to have children until they have at least completed two years of college are shown to be more effective disciplinarians and parents overall. AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING Another type of parenting is authoritarian. An authoritarian parenting style can be defined as one that is minimal in acceptance and organization, high in coercive control, and low in independence given to the child. This is sometimes referred to as autocratic discipline. Authoritarian parents focus on discipline. Furthermore, authoritarian parents are often known to yell and command, much more than authoritative parents. Moreover, authoritarian parents are more likely to use force or punishment, specifically corporal punishment (spanking). Parents who practice this parenting style do not grant as much authority or control to the child or as much autonomy as do authoritative parents. Children that hail from authoritarian homes demonstrate high levels of anger and defiance within the classroom. However, children from authoritarian parents fare better in school because they are accustomed to a submission to authority. These children are also less likely to engage in socially unacceptable behaviors, such as drinking or smoking. Asian Americans often practice authoritarian parenting. Among Asian American parents, exhibiting control over the child helps to instill the Confucian beliefs in strict discipline, respect for elders, and socially desirable behavior, including not drinking or smoking, and so on. Furthermore, many Asians believe that frequent praise leads children to feel less fulfilled and hinders the incentive to realize one’s full potential, so they are less likely to employ the high praise found in authoritative approaches. In this culture and those of Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders a high level of respect for the parents, particularly the father, is expected. However, the use of authoritarian parenting in these eastern cultures does not seem to have the same negative effects as it does in western homes, were children often rebel against strict limitations. Asian American children are often well-adjusted and do not have high levels of anger and defiance, like those seen in whites parented this way; however, Asian American children do report that they are strongly expected to achieve. Most Caucasians who practice authoritarian parenting hail from lower- or working-class families. Among whites, authoritarian parents tend to be older and come from authoritarian homes themselves. These groups who have less income and less education tend to demand discipline and submission from their children. Children often feel distant from their parents after punishments for small rules violations. However, African American children often respond well to authoritarian parenting. Most African American parents, especially single-parent families and lower- and working-class families are authoritarian parents. Authoritarian parenting is pervasive in the black community. The single-mother phenomenon

445

446

|

Parenting Styles

plays a substantial role in authoritarian parenting. Moreover, African Americans are more likely than their Caucasian counterparts to engage in forms of corporal punishment; furthermore, studies indicate that African Americans value discipline and control in children more than Caucasians. All of these factors play into African Americans’ acceptance of authoritarian parenting. PERMISSIVE PARENTING Another form of parenting is permissive, sometimes known as laissez-faire. The permissive parenting child rearing style is warm and approachable; however, these parents are not involved and seem inattentive. These parents have little control over their children’s behavior, and often allow children to make decisions on their own about goals, rules, and limits. Sometimes this happens when the child is not mentally prepared to do so. Permissive parents are not able to or may choose not to set limits; their children often act out, might not eat properly, or may not have an organized schedule. The children are often impulsive and disobedient. Furthermore, these children often do worse in school than children from authoritative and authoritarian homes, and they are more dependent on adults. Moreover, boys that hail from permissive homes are frequently more rebellious and nonachieving. Some parents who practice permissive parenting often believe that they are doing what is best for their children by letting the children work it out. However, many more are the parents who lack confidence in their capability to influence their child’s behavior. In addition,

PARENT AND CHILD SOCIALIZATION: A TWO-WAY STREET In the past, theories of child rearing generally made one critical assumption: that parents’ act on their children who more or less adapt to the constraints, limits, and expectations that parents and the larger society put upon them. This deterministic model suggests that adults are responsible for shaping children’s behavior by reinforcing what is proper and punishing what is improper. In this scenario, children are the passive recipients of their parents’ life lessons and have little direct input regarding the information that the lessons contain. More recent considerations of parenting experiences, however, suggest that children are not simply passive in the process of socialization to parental and societal expectations and wholly subject to parental influence. Children can and do construct their own perspectives of the world and are active at negotiating their place in the family. Influence moves in both directions, from parents to children and children to parents. The ways in which children behave may elicit particular responses from parents that change the relationship. Children clearly manipulate parents for their own ends, such as playing one parent off the other to gain a desired outcome. Likewise, they can positively influence the parents (to eat healthier, protect the environment, etc.). The power and authority that parents have over their children is not absolute and children are not the blank slate that the child rearing experts of the last century envisioned.

Parenting Styles |

many permissive parents are from upper-class families, where the parent is often gone from the household. To compensate for their lack of attention to the child, the parent often over-indulges or spoils the child. The lack of limits can be quite problematic as the child approaches the temptations of the teen years. UNINVOLVED PARENTING Uninvolved parenting, or negligent parenting as it was once called, can be defined as an amalgamation of low acceptance and involvement with little control and general apathy to autonomy granting. Parents that practice negligent parenting are often depressed and overwhelmed by stress. At its extreme, uninvolved parenting is a form of neglect, and falls under the heading of child abuse. Children that hail from negligent homes often have severe developmental problems, depending on when the parent became negligent. Children from negligent homes often do worse in school than children from authoritative, authoritarian, and even permissive homes; they have poor emotional self-regulation, and engage in antisocial acts at a much higher frequency than children from authoritative and authoritarian homes. Overall, uninvolved or negligent parenting is the worst form of parenting, if one can even consider it parenting, with detrimental effects to the psyche of the child and the parent. It is important to recognize that uninvolved parenting is usually a temporary phenomenon as other family members or even the state, through foster care, may step in to help guide the child’s development. DISCIPLINE An important aspect to all models of parenting is discipline. The discipline instilled in a child is instrumental in determining a child’s values. The amount of discipline given to a child varies culturally. Minorities tend to administer more discipline to their children, whether it is scolding, positive discipline, or corporal punishment. Caucasian Americans, however, use more verbal methods of discipline than do minorities. Caucasians are less likely to use corporal punishment and more likely to opt for a time-out or, in the case of older children, a lecture or privilege restriction approach. Discipline is not just punishment; discipline encompasses setting limits and boundaries so the children learn what is acceptable both in the home and in the larger society. Positive discipline, which is most effective, encourages good behaviors and conduct, and forms a respectful bond between parent and child. Positive discipline encompasses praise for good behavior and setting examples of good behavior up-front to ideally reduce misbehavior later. In a study conducted on preschoolers, those who had more cooperative relationships with their parents demonstrated more pronounced conscience development. This was exhibited by sharing and thinking of others. Children with a specific bedtime, rules and regulations within a household, and other forms of discipline (limits) are more likely to be described as well adjusted by teachers and outside caretakers. Most child psychologists agree that children want boundaries from parents; they need discipline in their routines.

447

448

|

Parenting Styles

CHOOSING A STYLE Choices also play an important role in parenting. When and where people decide to have children affects their parenting styles. People who get married earlier in life are more likely to become authoritarian parents. The stress of marriage and parenting can deeply affect younger adults who are not well established in their careers or lifestyle. Research indicates that people who choose to wait until they are at least 28 years old to have children are more likely to become authoritative parents. They are more established in their careers and life. People over the age of 28 are more likely to have a college education, a career, and a partner with whom they feel comfortable. The birth of the first child places more strain on a marriage than any other event. The decision to have more children also affects the parenting style. Most parents report parenting differences in their interactions toward the first and second child; that difference is more dramatic if the children are different sexes. There is no mold for parenting and some parents go through a variety of parenting styles in a child’s lifetime. There are several life events, however, that can result in an adjustment of parental styles. Among these changes are remarriage, the changing of occupation, the death of a spouse, and the birth of additional children. Although all of these changes often result in a shift in parental style, the biggest factor in changing of parenting style in America is divorce. This lifealtering event often has negative consequences for children and parents. Family conflict often rises as parents try to settle disputes over children and possessions. Once a parent moves out, additional events threaten positive interactions between parents and children, such as remarriage or moving in with grandparents. Furthermore, mothers are often granted custody of children and this creates a drop in income for most families. This drop in income, coupled with new living arrangements, often forces authoritative parents to become more authoritarian because the mother is forced to work more. The transition from marriage to divorce typically leads to high maternal stress and anxiety. Sometimes the anxiety forces a shift to permissive or even negligent parenting. Children often report a difference in the parenting of both their mother and father after a divorce; mothers become stricter, whereas fathers become more permissive and over-indulgent. Some of the indulgent behavior of fathers may be linked to the infrequent contact they may have with children following a divorce. Divorce is a major event in the life of the child and the parent, and it requires many adjustments. It is reasonable to suggest that parents do not choose a parenting style; it chooses them. Through socialization and intergenerational transmission, the passing on of behaviors and beliefs from one generation to the next, most parents will parent the way they were parented. If your parents were rather strict, you will tend to follow their example and be rather strict with your own children. Parents are often reminded that every child is different and they quickly find that what worked with one child might be a horrible failure with the next. Parenting is not just a one-size-fits-all endeavor. Consequently, the choices that most parents make do not fit neatly into one category or another. Often the most

Parenting Styles |

successful parents are the ones who can combine the best elements from the parenting styles highlighted above to meet the needs of their own families at a particular stage of development. Even the experts (such as Brazelton, Spock, Sears, and Mindell) debate the best strategies. This leaves middle- and uppermiddle-class parents, who are more likely to seek the advice of experts for child rearing challenges, confused as to who has the answer that will be most effective. It often causes parents significant stress because competing suggestions are offered by persons in and outside of the family. All of these factors taken together affect the children’s lives. Children either respond well to a particular parenting style or they rebel against it. The statistics show that children from authoritative and authoritarian homes are better adjusted and go on to pursue successful lives and parenting environments. Children from negligent or permissive homes are shown to be more rebellious. They engage in socially unacceptable behaviors, such as drinking and smoking. Parenting is the hardest job on Earth; there are no instructions on how to raise a child. Effective parenting requires the right amount of discipline, independence, and attention, however right is measured. Parenting styles can be grouped into four basic groups: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and negligent. Authoritative parenting is the most effective parenting style longitudinally. Authoritative parents are often described as warm and loving. They grant their children autonomy periodically throughout the child’s life. Children from authoritative homes are well adjusted. Authoritarian parents require more discipline and obedience from children than their authoritative counterparts. This form of parenting is pervasive among minorities. Authoritarian parents are also warm and attentive to their children, but grant less control to their children. Children from authoritarian homes are well adjusted and do well in school. Permissive parents set no limits or boundaries for children and are overindulgent. Children from permissive homes are often rebellious and engage in socially unacceptable behavior. The worst form of parenting is negligent. Negligent parents pay no attention to their children; they are neglectful. Negligent parents are often mentally disturbed due to stress and life events. Several factors such as race, age, occupation, education, and background affect ones parenting style. Parents often go through a cycle of parental styles throughout a child’s lifetime. See also African American Fathers; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); Birth Order; Child Abuse; Corporal Punishment; Cosleeping; Developmental Disability and Marital Stress; Fatherhood; Homeschooling; Juvenile Delinquency; Overscheduled Children; Transition to Parenthood. Further Reading: Baumrind, Diana. “Parental Disciplinary Patterns and Social Competence in Children.” Youth and Society 9 (1978): 239–276; Berk, Laura E. Infants, Children, and Adolescents, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2005; Comer, James P., and Alvin F. Poussant. Raising Black Children. New York: Penguin Group, 1992; Fisher, Seymour, and Rhonda Fisher. What We Really Know About Child Rearing. New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1976; Gosciewski, F. William. Effective Child Rearing: The Behaviorally Aware Parent. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1976; Stewart, K. A., and Christian P. Gruber and Linda M.

449

450

|

Pet Death and the Family Fitzgerald. Children at Home and in Day Care. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1994.

Ruby R. Reed

PET DEATH AND THE FAMILY The social structure of the American family is constantly changing. Recent statistics track the changes in family composition as the definitions and roles of family members have evolved. Anthropomorphic thinking encourages the inclusion of animals into the social structure, including the family. Ultimately two broad questions must be addressed. First, what is the proper place for companion animals in our families? Second, what is the proper response to the death of companion animals as they become integrated into the family structure? Because these issues are debated and companion animals increasingly are viewed as legitimate members their role in the family will become less controversial. INTRODUCTION The structure of the American family has undergone substantial change over the last few decades. In 1970, 45.3 percent of all families were composed of a married couple or a single person with children (Fields 2001). By 2000, the percentage of married- or single-headed households with children dropped to 32.8 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). During this same time single persons living alone greatly increased. Lastly, the graying of America has increased the number of couples with grown children that have left to start their own lives and families. The confluence of these trends has led to situations that have increased the inclusion of pets, also referred to as companion animals, as a major part of the American family structure. Because these families spend less on children they may spend more on their companion-animal “children.” The American Pet Products Manufacturers’ Association (APPMA) tracks the economic impact of our living with companion animals. This manufacturers’ group estimates that people will spend $9.3 billion on goods and medicines alone, and $38.4 billion overall on pet-related expenses. The fact that Americans are buying more dog toys and catnip does not lead to the conclusion that companion animals are becoming a vital part of the family. The willingness to provide extensive medical treatments and day care for our companion animals are stronger indicators. Just as we would not deny our human children quality day care and medical care, a growing number of people are providing these services to companion animals. In an American Animal Hospital Association (2004) survey 53 percent of the respondents said that they are spending more on their pets today than just three years ago. The proliferation of online pharmaceutical companies and sophisticated medical treatments (for example, MRIs and chemotherapy) for animals is also a strong indicator that we are seeing companion animals as more than just pets. The willingness

Pet Death and the Family

to spend money on pet death care may be the strongest evidence of the changing, and somewhat controversial, attitude concerning the place for companion animals in the American family. ANTHROPOMORPHISM Anthropomorphism is the interpretation of what is not human in terms of human characteristics. The belief that our companion animals share characteristics similar to humans is what some refer to as the irresistible taboo. As such, these pet owners run the risk of being categorized as irrational and possibly mentally unstable. From 50 to 75 percent of people define their companion animals as people (Hoyt 2002). Many more refer to pets as human members of their family. Sociologists have understood the importance of language and definitions for some time. The Thomas Theorem states, “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas 1928). This theory helps us to understand the way that personhood is placed onto companion animals. As people define their companion animals as children or babies through language and interaction, they actually become children and babies. Anthropomorphic thinking is generally divided into two broad types. The first is what can be classified as explicit anthropomorphism. This line of reasoning argues that animals do have cognition and behavior just as humans do. The second type is what can be referred to as mock anthropomorphism. This type of anthropomorphism views human cognition as analogous to animal behavior. Mock anthropomorphism is a short-hand way of understanding animal behavior in a way that makes it understandable in human terms. Mock anthropomorphism is not to be taken seriously. This position views animal behavior as human, not that it is human. René Descartes’ declaration that animals did not have a soul and therefore were dumb machines is often cited as the start of the debate. The orthodox Christian position is one that views animals as soulless because humans were given domain over the animal kingdom. Other religious doctrine (such as Jainism) believed animals were to be respected. It is not the place of this work to make a definitive conclusion on this issue. For background it is only important to understand that many people do view their companion animals at some level as equals. This position will ultimately lead to the inclusion of their companion animals as vital members of their family. The intimacy that people share is the foundation of a family. A deep level of intimacy is the key characteristic of a primary group. As such, family members enjoy a type of love reserved only for those that would be included in their definition of family. To be sure, the term love is used so broadly in vernacular English that it is very difficult to define. Attunement is that level of intimacy in which the participants share a common viewpoint. This shared perspective is an important ingredient for any meaningful interaction to be maintained. Genuine love is when attunement is combined with attachment. This level of intimacy is characterized by the sense that one misses the other when he or she

|

451

452

|

Pet Death and the Family

is not present and experiences a sense of comfort when they return. Twenty-one percent of the respondents in one survey said that they thought of their pet all the time that they were away, while 54 percent thought of them at least a few times a day (AAHA 2004). It is this point in the human and animal relationship that we can equate to that found in human and human relationships. Anyone, or anything, that is loved will enjoy similar treatment in the event of the death that a human would receive. When linked to anthropomorphism, this mix of intimacy is what will motivate the behavior that can be witnessed in the event of a death. Said another way, love is the reason we act as we do when a loved one dies. EUPHEMISMS Attitudes are expressed through language. Some linguistic determinists have argued that there is a systematic relationship between how people speak (language) and what they do (behavior). All meaningful expressions flow through language directly into our interactions with others, both human and nonhuman. Euphemisms are the use of indirect or vague words or phrases to soften the impact of an event. Death educators debate the usefulness of euphemisms. As a linguistic aid to the grieving process euphemisms may be of value. Euphemisms allow us to avoid the use of words such as death or dead. In the absence of more direct and accurate language, euphemisms become a short hand for discussing uncomfortable events and experiences. For example, when we use euphemisms to understand death, they may not be as useful as a direct, frank discussion. Euphemisms can be especially confusing for children. In one case, a family told their young son that they had lost grandpa last night. A few days after the funeral they noticed that their son was wandering around the house, looking behind doors and under beds. When the son was asked what he was doing, he replied, “You said we lost grandpa, I’m just looking for him.” Many people also utilize euphemisms to talk about the death of companion animals. TEACHABLE MOMENTS One of the earliest experiences with death for children is the death of a family companion animal. These early memories may impact the way that people respond to death throughout their lives. It is for this reason that these teachable moments must be constructive. Teachable moments open the door to conversations about uncomfortable topics. Everyday life brings many opportunities to learn; the death of a companion animal can be one of the strongest and longest lasting impacts on a child’s concept of death. The same family rituals used in the death of a human family member are often utilized in the death of a family pet. The fish gets a burial at sea and the hamster is provided a traditional funeral complete with a shoe-box casket. Emotions displayed at these animal funerals often are as intense as for human family members.

Pet Death and the Family

There is a great deal of inconsistency with how this issue is interpreted. Social attitudes concerning the death of a companion animal are changing, yet many still view these deaths as unimportant. Statements such as, “it’s only a dog” or “you can always get another kitten” are often freely expressed. You would never hear expressions such as, “it’s only a sister,” or “you can always get a new son” in regards to the death of a human family member. For someone who feels that their companion animal is a part of their family, both sets of remarks are equally hurtful. It is at these times that we can clearly see that this issue is still very controversial. Ultimately, how a child sees adults treat the death of the family animals will form the foundation for their future death attitudes. Adults need to be aware of what messages are sent to younger members of the family. PET HEALTH CARE Spending large sums of money on companion animals may be viewed as an unwise choice to many, yet this number is shrinking. Just as Americans spend more on pet products, the amount spent yearly on animal health care is also on the rise. One strong indicator of this trend is the growth of pet medical health insurance to help cover medical expenses. One of the largest pet health insurers, Veterinary Pet Insurance (VPI), has paid out more than $300,000 in claims. Americans spent a total of $24.5 billion on animal health care in 2006 (American Veterinary Medical Association 2007). When asked which they visit more often, their own physician or their pet’s veterinarian, 58 percent answered their pet’s veterinarian (American Animal Hospital Association 2004). This increased attention to the health of companion animals creates a situation in which animals are living longer. Just as we see a strong causation with living longer and the increase in age-related illnesses in humans, we are starting to see a similar trend with companion animals. The number of dementia and cancer cases in animals is on the increase. PET CEMETERIES AND CREMATION Early in the history of sociology Emile Durkheim argued that cemeteries are collective representations that demonstrate a collective attitude concerning the death of its members. To be sure, Durkheim was referring to human community members. It is anthropomorphic thinking that extends Durkheim’s line of thought to the nonhuman world. Social conventions govern how people handle the deaths of other humans. Funerals and other rituals are completed almost without thought. As the ideas concerning who deserves the attention of our time and ritual are altered we can see the resulting behavioral change. Sociologists have long studied these rituals with the funeral being the clearest example. We refer to this aspect of our economy as the death care industry because we care. Ultimately, funerals are for the survivors. They demonstrate the concern we have for the loss and serve to relocate the deceased into a new social position. None of this argument is controversial, until it is applied to animals. The

|

453

454

|

Pet Death and the Family

strongest indicator that companion animals are increasingly being included into our families at a very deep level is demonstrated by our reactions when they die. It is only as animals gain legitimate social position other than as mere pets that society will see a need to provide companion animals with funeral rituals. We should be reminded that, as with all losses, the bond between persons and pets should be acknowledged and respected. Emotional reactions to socially unrecognized deaths are called disenfranchised grief. This type of grief is experienced at the loss of any person to which one is not supposed to have such reactions. Examples of disenfranchised grief include: death of a coworker, a secret lover, and, very often, companion animals. Individuals must be encouraged to mourn in ways that are meaningful. The ways in which we react to the death of a companion animal, especially in our interactions with our children, speak loudly about how we think of these deaths. Pet cemeteries are helping us reenfranchise pet grief. The Hartsdale Pet Cemetery and Crematory is the oldest pet cemetery in America. Located in Hartsdale, New York, this pet cemetery is the final resting place for more than 70,000 animals. In 1896, as a favor to a friend, a local owner of an orchard allowed a dog to be buried among the apple trees. As people heard of this compassionate gesture requests for other burials followed. This was the beginning of the Hartsdale Pet Cemetery. As word about the Hartsdale Pet Cemetery grew, other pet cemeteries started to offer burials for companion animals. In 1946, Earl Taylor started the first pet cemetery on the West Coast in response to requests to bury pets in human plots. The San Diego Pet Memorial Park was established on specially zoned land in 1962, stimulating a steady increase in pet cemetery openings throughout the state. The International Association of Pet Cemeteries and Crematories (IAPCC) was organized in 1971 and serves as the professional organization that provides guidance for pet cemeterians. In 1972 there were 96 pet cemeteries in America; today there are about seven hundred. September 9 is National Pet Memorial day. A few pet cemeteries are offering full funeral services for companion animals. Pet Angel Memorial Center in Carmel, Indiana, may be the first full-time pet funeral home in America. Coleen Ellis used to work at a traditional, human funeral home before starting her pet funeral service in 2004. Ellis offers animal funeral services from her 1,200 square foot facility with prices starting at $230. Demand for her services has grown to the point that she soon plans to start franchising her funeral home nationally. CONCLUSION Social institutions are very resistant to change. The taken-for-granted nature of social life directs members to do today what was done yesterday. Many people are very comfortable with the predictability that social structures offer. The members of a social group are always reluctant to modify the status quo in any great measure. Having said this, we also know that social change does occur. Social change does not often come without a struggle. Some of the changes in how we view companion animals have occurred with a marginal level of disrup-

Pet Death and the Family

tion. Other changes are more difficult to accept and therefore are more controversial. These changes when applied to the death of companion animals can be categorized into one of two larger questions. The first asks just what role is proper for companion animals in the family. I have only touched on a few of the shifting positions that all members of families, as well as companion animals, are experiencing in contemporary American families. As just one example, many who have studied how we house our families have clearly found that we are sheltering in larger and larger homes. Spatial realities of larger homes have transformed the relationship dynamics within the American family. The average home now has a bathroom and Internet connection in every room. Family members routinely occupy selected spots in the home that contain all that is needed, rarely having to see another member of the family. Likewise, many new homes have specially designed areas for pets just as they do for other family members. Built-in dog washes and doggie doors to outside runs are just two examples. The question of just where companion animals are in our family structure will continue to be controversial. Yet, as with all social change, the level of controversy will lessen as time passes. Today’s controversies tend to become tomorrow’s status quo. As our anthropomorphic thinking continues, regardless of whether it is explicit or mock, the place for companion animals will continue to evolve in ways that will generate further discussion. There is little doubt that this trend is toward more inclusion of companion animals as legitimate family members. Second, how should we acknowledge the death of a companion animal? Our reactions to a death are a strong indicator of the importance of the death. Deaths can be categorized as high- or low-value deaths. Examples of high-value deaths are children, high-status members of a community, and close family members. Low-value deaths are those that are more distant from us, such as the deaths of nonfamily members. Until recently, the death of a pet would have been more likely considered a low-value death. Early research on the subject showed that those that viewed their companion animals as human substitutes experienced greater signs of grief as compared with those who view pets in a less personal manner. The stronger the attachment to a companion animal the more intense the emotional and physical reaction experienced when the animal died. Social reaction to the disruption of any relationship can be very strong. As with any death, the breaking of the bonds we experience with companion animals can elicit strong rituals to demonstrate the importance of the death. What we view as affective responses to pet death will continue to evolve. Just as there is not one proper way to mourn the death of a human, it is also true that there is no one proper way to mourn for companion animals. As pets become more central to our family structure, the death rituals that demonstrate the importance of human deaths will no doubt be increasingly applied at the time of pets’ deaths. Pets are said to give humans unconditional love. In return they ask very little. It is this bond, as well as the changes in how we see animals, that will continue to motivate their changing status in our families. Anthropomorphism is at the core of this way of seeing companion animals. Some may find the anthropomorphic

|

455

456

|

Pet Death and the Family

question to be a nonissue. This group would say it is just a matter of economics. They may point to our increased disposable income as one reason for the changes in how we treat the death of our pets rather than some anthropomorphic thinking. There is little doubt that companion animals will become more accepted as socially legitimate members as the American family structure continues to evolve. To be sure, continued change in the family will be slow as each generation re-addresses these controversies. The application of human death rituals to companion animals will accelerate the transition of this issue to one that will eventually become a part of the status quo. As time passes the controversies involved in the treatment of a pet death will lessen as we see companion animals as so-called people in disguise. See also Children as Caregivers; Fictive Kin. Further Reading: American Animal Hospital Association. “2004 Pet Owner Survey.” http:// www.aahanet.org (accessed 2004); American Pet Products Manufactures’ Association. “Industry Trends and Statistics.” http://www.appma.org/press_industrytrends.asp (accessed 2007); American Veterinary Medical Association. “U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook.” http://www.avma.org (accessed 2007); Cain, A. O. “Pets as Family Members.” Marriage and Family Review 8 (1985): 5–10; Congalton, David, and C. Alexander. When Your Pet Outlives You: Protecting Animal Companions After You Die. Troutdale, OR: New Sage Press, 2002; Cowles, K. V. “The Death of a Pet: Human Responses to the Breaking of the Bond.” In Pets and Family. ed. M. B. Sussman. New York: Haworth Press, 1985; Daston, Lorraine, and Gregg Mitman. Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005; Descartes, René. “Animals are Machines.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, ed. T. Regan and P. Singer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976; Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. from French by Joseph Ward Swain. New York: Free Press, 1965; Fields, Jason, and Lynne M. Casper. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2000.” Current Population Reports P20–537 (2001): Figure 1. http://www. census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-537.pdf; Fogle, B., and A. Edney. Interrelations between People and Pets. Chicago: Charles C. Thomas, 1981; Gadberry, James H. “Pet Cemeteries Help Recognize Pet Bereavement.” Mortuary Management 86 (September 2000): 18–19; Grier, Katherine. Pets in America: A History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006; Hirschman, E. C. “Consumers and Their Companion Animals.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1994): 616–632; Hoyt, Peggy R. All My Children Wear Fur Coats: How to Leave a Legacy for your Pet. West Conshohoken, PA: Infinity Publishing, 2002; International Association of Pet Cemeteries and Crematories. http://www.iaopc. com; Katcher, A. H., and A. M. Beck. New Perspectives on our Lives with Companion Animals. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983; Kay, W., H. A. Nieburg, A. H. Kutscher, R. M. Grey, and C. E. Fudin. Pet Loss and Human Bereavement. Ames: Iowa State University, 1984; Kennedy, John S. The New Anthropomorphism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Lanci-Altomare, Michele. Good-Bye My Friend: Pet Cemeteries, Memorials, and Other Ways to Remember. Irvine, CA: Bowtie Press, 2000; Ross, Cheri Barton, and J. Baron-Sorenson, J. Pet Loss and human Emotion: a Guide to Recovery, 2nd ed. London: Brunner-Routledge, 2007; Serpell, J. “People in Disguise: Anthropomorphism and the Human-Pet Relationship.” In Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, ed. Daston, L. and G. Mitman. New York: Columbia

Plural Marriage | University Press, 2005; Thomas, W. I., and D. S. Thomas. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Knopf, 1928; U.S. Census Bureau. “Census 2000, Table DP-1,” Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, 2001.

James H. Gadberry PLURAL MARRIAGE Plural marriage is the term applied to the situation of an individual married to more than one spouse at a time. Only the first marriage is recognized by convention and law in the United States. The second and subsequent marriages are not legally recognized, but are generally performed by a religious leader and are frequently referred to as spiritual marriages. Sometimes additional wives are called concubines. In anthropological and sociological research into marital form plural marriage is also known as polygamy, which literally means many marriages. A term that is sometimes included in a discussion of plural marriage is bigamy. Bigamy is a legal term used when someone is married to two or more persons. The latter marriages are contracted under false pretenses of being single at the time of the marriage and therefore constitute fraud. Researchers prefer to use polygamy because it is a more inclusive term. Plural marriage is a concept that is difficult to comprehend for the majority of Americans, who live their lives following the marital pattern of monogamy, one marriage to one person. The issue of plural marriage, or polygamy, is a polarizing topic in today’s society. Most Americans have a strong opinion either in favor of or in opposition to this practice. Most recently, polygamy has been in the news because of the criminal convictions of Warren Jeffs, a fundamentalist Mormon leader, and his cohorts for numerous crimes against women and children. Polygamy is practiced in different parts of the world, in different cultures, and for a variety of reasons. To begin to understand plural marriage, we must first define polygamy and also examine the biblical and historical roots of this practice. Following this brief introduction, we will focus on the nineteenth century Church of Latter-day Saints’ (LDS) practice of plural marriage, discuss polygamy today, and note the social and legal implications for the individuals who practice this lifestyle. TYPES OF POLYGAMY Polygamy is a broad term that refers to multiple simultaneous marriages. Polygamy and monogamy often coexist in societies. Given the sex ratio (the number of males for every 100 females) in most cultures, there would not be enough women for every man to be married to more than one. The two types of polygamy that have received the most attention are polyandry and polygyny. The former pattern is one woman married to several men, while the latter is used when one man has several wives.

457

458

|

Plural Marriage

Polyandry While only a few societies today are know to practice polyandry, historically the pattern was more common. Globally, the most common type of polyandry is fraternal polyandry, the simultaneous marriage of a woman to all of the brothers in a family. Such arrangements can be beneficial in maintaining land holdings or other capital within a family, rather than dividing it among the sons and thereby diluting the wealth. Additionally, the fatherhood of children is less of an issue when biologically related men had the opportunity to be the father. When women are in short supply, the practice of multiple husbands also occurs. If the resources are such that a man would have great difficulty supporting a woman on his own, polyandry may ensue. Patterns of social life might encourage polyandry. If men are gone from the home for extended periods of time (to hunt, fight, etc.) having another man at home helps maintain the safety and stability of the household. Sometimes polyandry is accompanied by polygyny were the husbands may take wives to bring into the household. This forms sort of an extended network of married persons residing together. Some cultures that have practiced polyandry are found in Tibet, the Himalayas, areas of Southwest India, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka. Polygyny Far more common than polyandry, polygyny, the social pattern permitting men to take more than one wife, is estimated to have been the preferred marriage pattern in over three-fourths of the world’s traditional cultures. While most persons in the United States consider this marriage pattern to be untenable, it remains popular today in parts of Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia, Thailand, and India. Historically polygyny was found among ancient Hebrews and in traditional Chinese society. In some polygynous variations the cowives are sisters, while in others they are unrelated. In a few cases men are obliged to marry their brothers’ widows. Many factors relate to the ability of a man to have multiple wives. Certainly the sex ratio plays a role, so that many later wives are significantly younger than their husbands. Also the wealth of the man and his family can limit his ability to pay the bride price (compensation to the wife’s family). The desire or need for additional children might influence the decision, though one must be wealthy enough to support these wives and children. It is important to recognize that even in societies where polygyny is encouraged, monogamy remains the norm due to these social factors. In the United States polygyny has largely entered the public consciousness through the religious denomination of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormons. A fundamentalist sect of the group has retained its polygamist origins despite the objection of the church and the violation of civil law.

Plural Marriage |

459

TIMELINE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES EARLY 1830s: Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon Church, confides to church elders about his thoughts on plural marriage. 1843: Smith notifies the rest of the church population, as well as his wife, on his views of plural marriage 1862: The first U.S. federal law is passed outlawing polygamy. 1885: Polygamists move to Mexico and Alberta, Canada. 1890: Wilford Woodruff, LDS church leader, fears that polygamy casts a negative light on Utah and may affect it gaining statehood. He then issues an “Official Declaration,” also known as “The Manifesto,” to halt polygamy. As a result, a splinter group is formed in Colorado City, Arizona. 1928: The first splinter-group of polygamists moves to Short Creek, Arizona. They choose Short Creek due to its isolation. 1924: The United Effort Plan is formally established to manage properties and affairs for the fundamentalists. 1944: Federal agents raid Short Creek. Similar raids are conducted in Utah, Idaho and other Arizona sites. 1953: On July 26, Arizona police conduct a raid at Short Creek and arrest 31 men and nine women practicing polygamy. Two hundred and sixty-three women and children are taken into state custody. After negative publicity, the governments in Utah and Arizona have misgivings about another raid. LATE 1950s: Polygamists living in British Columbia combine forces with fundamentalists in Short Creek. 1986: Rulon T. Jeffs is named president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS). 1990: A number of women who fled from polygamy demand an investigation into polygamous practices at Bountiful, UT. The Creston RCMP launches an investigation. 2007: Warren Jeffs, leader of the FLDS is convicted of felony child rape. 2008: Texas Child Protective Services seize more than 400 children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch, a polygamist property in western Texas.

BRIEF HISTORY OF U.S. POLYGAMY People first began speaking of polygamy in the United States somewhere between 1830 and the early 1840s. This practice was isolated in people of the Mormon faith in Utah and California. However, the first official declaration came from the faith’s founder Joseph Smith in 1843, only one year before his death, in a very thorough document on marriage, and specifically eternal marriage. In addition to speaking of eternal marriage, it most famously stated that in certain circumstances a man may be allowed to have more than one wife. This brought the concept of plural marriage to the United States. This sacred stance on

460

|

Plural Marriage

polygamy was allegedly revealed to Joseph Smith in connection with his study of the Bible, possibly around 1831, a decade before it was first committed to paper on July 12, 1843. However, Joseph Smith’s teachings were not shared with the public-at-large until five years later. LDS reports that passages from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible indicate that his thorough study of the Bible and of the patriarchs of the Old Testament who had more than one wife prompted Joseph Smith to pray to ask the Lord about plural marriage. Reportedly, Joseph Smith learned that when the Lord commanded plural marriage, it would not be considered a sin if a man chose to marry another woman while his first wife is or was still living. Historians have not come to a consensus on why Joseph Smith decided to practice polygamy. The primary argument used by Mormon spokesmen was the fact that men mentioned in the Old Testament practiced polygamy. This is a true historical fact as numerous men in the Bible, for example, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, were known polygamists. Joseph Smith, personally, did not want to practice plural marriage, but believed that he was being commanded to do so by God. Joseph Smith reportedly agreed to a life of plural marriage so that he was obedient to God. However, according to the LDS, he did so with trepidation but reportedly had more than 30 wives. Interestingly, when he told his revelations to his wife, she reportedly burned the writings in the fireplace. However, Joseph Smith anticipated such an occurrence and had another copy already printed. After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith and commanded him to live it, Smith began teaching some of his close friends and other leaders in the Church about this practice. After a period of time during the beginning years of the Church, he and a limited number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages. Scholars at Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution, report that it was difficult for the members who practiced polygamy to do so, and they suffered through a trial of faith. Increasing numbers of Latter-day Saints entered into plural marriages at the same time that they moved west under the direction of Brigham Young. Beginning in 1862, the United States Congress adopted several laws against polygamy. In 1862 the Republicans had full control of the Congress and the White House. They began their term by issuing the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. This piece of legislation made it clear that polygamy was illegal in all U.S. territories. However, LDS believed that the practice of polygamy was protected by the personal freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In 1879, the Supreme Court declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. This was based on the legal principle that states’ laws are designed to help govern the actions of individuals. Although laws cannot be made that interfere with religious opinions or beliefs, they may limit some religious practices. This move toward antipolygamy legislation was due in part to rumors about polygamy that were beginning to grow. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saints men who practiced polygamy were either living in secrecy or had been imprisoned. In 1889, then-Church president Wilford Woodruff decided to make a statement about polygamy as a result of the threats received by members from those

Plural Marriage |

outside of the church. He penned a document that officially ended the sanctioning of plural marriage by the Church. This document was simply called the “Manifesto.” It was then published in the “Doctrine and Covenants” and was accepted at the general conference in 1890. Although the Manifesto was published and accepted, a small number of plural marriages were still being performed. However, in 1904, then-president Joseph F. Smith called for a vote abolishing all post-Manifesto plural marriages. Many LDS members viewed the turn against polygamy as a form of religious treason. Splinter groups were created in direct response to this document. The Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS) was created as a result. This group is the most well-known polygamous group in the United States today. PLURAL MARRIAGE TODAY LDS church has publicly denounced polygamy and has the policy of excommunicating any member who practices this type of lifestyle. In 1998, Church president Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church’s position on plural marriage: This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. (lds.org) Much still remains unknown about the practice of plural marriage today. The culture remains shrouded in secrecy. However, it is estimated that approximately 40,000 fundamentalist people practice polygamy across the region of the Intermountain West, although the number could be higher. They are concentrated in the western United States and Canada. Many of these individuals live in the polygamous communities of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona. The FLDS is the most widely known polygamous group in the United States and has approximately 10,000 members. These members are located in communities in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and British Columbia. Polygamy is at the very center of life in a FLDS compound. Members of the FLDS sect believe that for a man to reach the highest stage of heaven, he must have at least three wives. They also believe that the only way for a woman to enter heaven is if her husband takes her with him. Although polygamy remains illegal in all 50 states, most polygamists today circumvent the law by only legally marrying their first wife and then spiritually marrying their subsequent wives. However, fundamentalist polygamists have only rarely been prosecuted by the government. Two of the most notorious polygamists who were in fact prosecuted by the U.S. government are Tom Green and Warren Jeffs. Tom Green is husband to five wives and father to 29 children. In May of 2001, Green was charged and convicted of bigamy and failure to pay child support. On June 24, 2002, he was convicted of child rape for sex with a 13-year-old who later became his legal

461

462

|

Plural Marriage

wife. He was sentenced to five years to life in prison. Green was released from prison on parole on August 7, 2007. Warren Jeffs is the leader (prophet) of the FLDS whose personal headquarters was in Colorado City, Arizona. Jeffs’ father, Rulon Jeffs, was the former leader of this sect, but gave full control to his son after suffering a stroke in 2002. Warren Jeffs is said to have arranged unknown numbers of marriages between underage men and women, and it was this practice that led the authorities to arrest him. He was one of the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” and was a fugitive for numerous months. After being arrested by Nevada police, he was tried and convicted in September 2007 of accomplice to rape for arranging a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin. He was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive five-years-to-life terms. He is awaiting trial after being indicted in Texas and Arizona on additional similar charges. As of September 2008, no trial date had been set. NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PLURAL MARRIAGES For most of mainstream America, polygamy is seen as unnatural and for many, immoral. However, there are some who believe that this lifestyle is an essential aspect of living a life obedient to the commandments of God. Those groups, such as the FLDS, receive a great deal of social pressure to give up the practice of plural marriage and conform to the dictates of monogamy. This pressure comes from legal avenues and society in general. Sometimes, even family members will stress that the changes in Mormon doctrine should be upheld. Polygamy was only practiced in the Mormon Church for a relatively brief period of time over a century ago, but it has become a defining characteristic of society’s viewpoint of the Mormon faith and culture. It has also caused individuals who are not Mormons to view all Mormons and their beliefs more negatively. Additionally, it has had a profound impact on LDS members’ self-definition, furthering the belief that Mormons are a people apart from the dominant culture. According to LDS, the family is ordained by God and marriage between a man and a woman is a vital part of God’s plan. Their Church web site (lds.org) indicates that although they abhor the practice of polygamy today, at certain times and through His prophets God has directed the practice of plural marriage. LDS reports that in their obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by president Woodruff. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved of by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member doing so is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church. Polygamy has been viewed in a negative light since its introduction into American society for a variety of reasons. For most Americans, polygamy is foreign to their everyday lives. There have been numerous documentaries and now a popular cable television program (“Big Love”) depicting individuals who practice this type of lifestyle, but much remains unknown by society at large

Plural Marriage |

about this practice. This is due in large part to the fact that in the United States polygamy is illegal. Individuals who practice this way of life must do so in private for fear of criminal prosecution. Additionally, they fear public scorn and possibly losing their livelihood. They are not able to live openly in society and in many instances, live in isolation. Secrecy is necessary to protect these individuals from serving prison time. Much of the negative attention directed at plural marriage comes from the assumption that it is a system that subordinates women. It exploits their domestic and sexual labor, without providing a legal status for any wives beyond the first. Because many of these marriages occur between younger girls and older men, there is the exploitation of her fertility and sexuality. It is this gray area between legal age of consent and rape that has colored the current debate about plural marriage in the United States. Other negative aspects include how the children are reared; they are often homeschooled and cared for communally. Questions have arisen as to how this impacts the children’s bonds with their father as well as their mother, who is the primary caregiver. Jealousy is another issue that enters the debate. The anthropological record suggests that jealousy is not uncommon, but is usually an attempt by cowives to secure maximum resources for their children and themselves, rather than a battle over sexual rights. POSITIVE ASPECTS OF PLURAL MARRIAGES There is a good deal of literature dealing with the negative aspects of polygamous life. However, there are many women living in polygamous households that are not only content, but are happy regarding their life choice. Cowives can experience a fair amount of autonomy in their daily lives, including freedom to pursue activities that are of interest to them. Some benefits that wives accrue include help with daily domestic and economic tasks, absence of constant supervision by the husband, and reduced pressure for sexual activity by the husband. Because of the secretive nature of these arrangements, women may feel comfortable only commenting on their situations in anonymous ways. One outlet is on a pro-polygamy web site—principlevoices.org. On the site women speak of the joys of an intimate bond with their sister-wife and the convenience of having another woman in the house to assist with the daily household chores and child care. For many that comment, jealousy is not as serious an issue as one outside of this lifestyle would think. When jealousy does occur, it is often mediated by the senior wife, who is often responsible for ensuring fairness in the relationship with the husband and subsequent wives. These women do not feel victimized or exploited, but rather revered as important members in their family. FUTURE OF U.S. POLYGAMY As knowledge of polygamous groups in the United States becomes more widespread, additional challenges will likely emerge. Not only is there increased

463

464

|

Poverty and Public Assistance

curiosity from those who practice monogamy, but there is increased contact with government entities. More women, some via the technology of the Internet, have revealed their participation in polygamy. A polygamist group gaining some attention from the media and researchers are Muslim polygamists. Some estimates place the number of Muslim polygamist families in the United States at nearly 50,000. Islam permits husbands to have up to four wives, although a husband cannot favor one over the others with a greater share of his love or money. This practice is most common in conservative, poorly educated Muslim immigrants from African countries. The women in these unions are vulnerable to exploitation. Under civil law the husband can only be married to one woman; the first wife. The other wives, in spiritual marriages, are legally invisible and live in fear of deportation. Because a husband can only sponsor one wife, his green card or citizenship can only protect the one. This is an area to watch as debates over immigration cross paths with religious and personal freedom. Although plural marriage has numerous detractors, there are others who defend this lifestyle and lobby for the de-criminalization of the practice. These individuals seek to live the principle and simply to follow the tenets of their religion. In August of 2006 at a rally at the Salt Lake City Hall, over 250 youth, most living in plural families, came to make a stand against the criminalization of plural marriage, professing that they support this type of lifestyle and their parents. With the introduction of the legalization of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, some polygamists believe that the time will come when they too can live their lives openly. See also Extramarital Sexual Relationships; Fictive Kin; Religion and Families. Further Reading: Bennion, Janet. Women of Principle: Female Networking in Contemporary Mormon Polygyny. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998; Bistine, Benjamin. Colorado City Polygamists: An Inside Look for the Outsider. Scottsdale, AZ: Agreka Books, 2004; Brigham Young University. http://www.ldsfaq.byu.edu; Evans, Richard C. and Elder Joseph P. Smith, Jr. Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2007; Gibbs, Nancy, Hylton, Hilary, and Peta Owens-Liston. “Polygamy Paradox.” Time, October 7, 2007, 48–50; Gordon, Sara Barringer. The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth Century America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002; Hales, Brian C. Mormon Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generation After the Manifesto. Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007; Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. London: Pan Books, 2004; Mormonism Research Ministry. http://www.mrm.org; Solomon, Dorothy Allred. Daughter of Saints: Growing Up in Polygamy. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2004.

Hayley Cofer

POVERTY AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Public assistance programs are meant to relieve the hardships impoverished families experience as well as prevent families from remaining impoverished in

Poverty and Public Assistance |

the future or into the following generation. Over 12 percent of Americans— nearly 37 million people—are currently living below the poverty line. Even more Americans have income above the poverty line, but still experience difficulties making ends meet. The poverty level for a family of four is just over $20,000 per year; this is roughly the equivalent of two parents each working a full-time, minimum-wage job 5 days a week for 52 weeks. Before discussing the policies that seek to help impoverished families, we should understand the characteristics of the Americans most likely to be impoverished today. Families and persons most likely to be impoverished or affected by poverty are the elderly, minorities (especially African American and Latino), children, women, single mothers, young parents, people living in the South, the poorly educated, the unemployed, and those who live in very urban or very rural areas. Particular attention has been paid to the elderly poor in America, and programs such as Social Security and Medicare have alleviated a great deal of elderly poverty since their inception. Minorities face numerous challenges to employment and have less access to high-paying jobs, making them more likely to be impoverished than whites. It is important to note, however, that there is a greater absolute number of poor whites than there are poor minorities in the United States; it is a common misconception that most poor families are African American or Latino. Children make up a large percentage of impoverished Americans because they have no source of personal income, and are largely dependent on their parents for support. Women, similar to racial and ethnic minorities, face employment challenges and still make less money dollar-for-dollar than do men in comparable jobs. As the primary caregivers of their families, single mothers face even more difficulties in the workforce because they have to manage work, child care, and parenting duties without the help of a partner. For these reasons, single mothers are also more likely to be impoverished as compared to twoparent families. Young parents, such as those who begin to have children while in their teens, face a greater likelihood of poverty than parents who postpone childbearing until later ages; this is due to their having little time to establish a career or finish higher education. Families living in the South or in urban or rural areas are at higher risk for poverty as well. Although poverty used to be a solely urban phenomenon, rural residents have become increasingly impoverished through the decline of small, family-owned farms and now face the same limited access to low-paying jobs as urban residents. Additionally, rural residents lack public transportation resources and often cannot retain a job because they have no reliable means of getting there. Urban residents and families living in the South lost good jobs that included benefits and a decent wage as industry moved out of these areas into lower-cost parts of the country (like the suburbs), or to other parts of the world. Individuals with low educational achievement or those who are unemployed are also more likely to be impoverished than individuals who have high levels of education or who hold jobs. Poverty can result in a number of complications for families, including low educational achievement due to living in neighborhoods with poorly funded schools and over-filled classrooms. Two of the most visible effects of poverty

465

466

|

Poverty and Public Assistance

are poor health and sub-par access to preventative health care. Families living in poverty often cannot afford health insurance without public assistance, and therefore forgo preventative care such as yearly checkups, immunizations, prenatal visits, and cancer screenings, which results in allowing serious diseases to proceed or worsen undiagnosed. Families without health insurance often rely on hospital emergency care when necessary, which is a less-efficient and moreexpensive option than visiting a family doctor or other primary care provider. Impoverished families also tend to neglect dental care; untreated dental problems have future implications for general health and access to employment. Fathers of impoverished families are the most likely family members to neglect health care, followed by mothers and then children. Living in poverty can also cause poor nutrition, and several programs have tried to provide the resources for adequate nutrition, appropriate caloric intake, and access to nutritious foods. Homelessness and access to sub-standard housing also occur as a result of poverty because families often cannot afford to pay market-priced rent, let alone purchase a home. Several assistance programs are in place exclusively to prevent families from being without a place to live, as well as to regulate the standards of housing available. Sub-standard housing has been held accountable for compromising children’s health. Old lead paint on cracking banisters can cause lead poisoning, and mice, cockroaches, or other vermin have been cited as causing children’s asthma. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Antipoverty programs remain among the most highly criticized of all government programs in the United States. Much of this can be explained by the misperceptions that average Americans have of persons who are in poverty and who receive public assistance. There is a long-standing stereotype that persons receiving public assistance are attempting to work the system or are cheating to qualify for additional benefits. However, all public assistance and antipoverty programs in the United States are means-tested programs, meaning a family’s income has to fall below a specific guideline in order for that family to qualify for services. Public assistance programs are funded in part by the federal government and in part by state and local governments. The federal government sets guidelines for how families can qualify for programs as well as for how much funding each state must also contribute to the programs. Also referred to as the welfare system, public assistance is comprised of five major programs: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); the food stamp program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Medicaid; and Subsidized Housing Programs. The United States did not have any comprehensive public assistance programs until President Franklin D. Roosevelt mandated that the government provide employment through public spending during the Great Depression. Public assistance continued to provide services to impoverished Americans until President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty attracted attention and, subsequently, scrutiny. Following the War on Poverty, the number of people accessing public

Poverty and Public Assistance |

assistance services grew rapidly. The enrollment for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC, a program that preceded TANF) increased by 270 percent, and enrollment for Medicaid (a program introduced in the 1960s) skyrocketed. The American public continued to scrutinize the welfare system throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and all federally funded public assistance programs were eventually overhauled during the 1996 period of welfare reform under President Bill Clinton. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), commonly known as welfare reform, was hotly contested by advocates for the poor, but did not end the debate over welfare. Although the number of people accessing social services has greatly declined since the 1996 Reform (by as much as two-thirds), public assistance programs continue to undergo constant evaluations of their effectiveness. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), is also referred to as cash assistance namely because it provides qualifying families with a monthly stipend of cash based on the number of persons present in a household and proportionate to the cost of living in their state. In order to qualify for TANF, recipients must generally have an income below the federal poverty level for their household size and must care for one or more dependent infants or children. Because mothers, rather than fathers, are often more likely to have custody of their children, the vast majority of TANF recipients are women and their dependent children. Single persons not taking care of dependent children generally do not qualify for TANF. Prior to the 1996 reform, TANF (then called AFDC) did not impose a time limit on recipient families, meaning that families could receive AFDC cash assistance indefinitely as long as they continued to meet the eligibility criteria. Opponents and critics of AFDC argued that the lack of time limits was not providing impoverished families with any incentive to get off assistance and go to work, and so post-1996 TANF instituted a federal standard of a 60-month lifetime limit per recipient. The second notable change of the reform called for stricter work requirements for its recipients, meaning a mother with children has to spend 10 to 40 hours per week participating in some kind of job training, job search, or educational program in order to remain eligible for TANF benefits. Despite imposing time limits and work requirements, the 1996 reform also offered states some autonomy with respect to TANF. Individual states must follow the federal guidelines of the program, but are allowed to amend the qualifying requirements if they so choose, meaning a family in one state might be permitted to have up to $2000 in savings and still qualify for cash assistance, whereas another state might require families to have almost no assets in order to qualify. The lifetime limit for TANF can also be extended by individual states through the use of additional state funds, although some states have elected to make the 60-month-limit noncontinuous (meaning a person can only be on TANF for 24 continuous months, and then must leave welfare for at least a month before exhausting the rest of the time limit). States were also granted the

467

468

|

Poverty and Public Assistance

ability to waive or change work requirements for recipients as part of various state-sponsored trial projects; this flexibility allowed states to experiment with TANF requirements in order to arrive at the best and most-efficient way to move individuals from welfare receipt to employment. The effectiveness of the change from AFDC to TANF is notable, as the number of individuals seeking cash assistance has declined by two-thirds. TANF is still not without controversy, however, as the program has been criticized for not significantly improving the lives of those who seek its assistance. Families that leave welfare often do not make a clean break from the program and get caught in an on-again, off-again cycle until they’ve exhausted their lifetime limit. Because families sometimes remain impoverished even after their TANF receipt, many argue that the program’s role as a transition from poverty to nonpoverty and employment has not been fulfilled. The emphasis on work requirements for welfare recipients has been very well received, as critics of TANF and AFDC were opposed to the idea that one could qualify for cash assistance without making a concerted effort to find employment. The success of these work requirements is limited, however, because requirements restrict the time a mother has to spend with her children and can put a strain on child care arrangements. Often, work programs offer child care assistance and other benefits, such as help with resume writing or transportation assistance, but these are not universally granted to all of those enrolled. Work programs are also criticized by recipients as being useless or as not teaching them anything, and the employment they find is often that of the minimum-wage, service-sector variety and offers no health insurance. One major challenge TANF faces in the future is to assist families in eventually achieving permanent, gainful employment in order to make a successful permanent transition out of poverty. FOOD STAMPS The food stamp program began in 1961 in response to physicians and army recruiters who noticed the pervasiveness of malnutrition within urban and rural populations. Created in order to provide a better opportunity for families to meet their basic nutritional needs, the food stamp program follows federal guidelines for qualification that are more lenient than those for TANF, meaning families who do not qualify for TANF may at least receive some food stamp assistance. If a family is already receiving TANF, they are automatically eligible for food stamps. If not receiving TANF, a family must have a gross income of less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level and less than $2,000 in assets (excluding the worth of their home and one car worth less than $4,500) to qualify. Food stamps may be used to purchase any type of food item except hot, prepared foods intended for immediate consumption. The amount of food stamps a family receives is based on the family size as well as the state’s cost of living. An average family of three (one adult, two kids) receives $200 per month in food stamps. Families must re-qualify for food stamps every six months to one year, but are not required to report changes in income in between re-qualification periods.

Poverty and Public Assistance |

The effectiveness of the food stamp program has been criticized because food stamp participants are still more likely to have poor nutrition than are nonfood stamp participants. The 1996 National Food Stamp Survey found 50 percent of respondents still experience times without adequate food, and many households do not get enough folic acid or iron in their diets. Food stamps are not restricted only for the purchase of healthy foods, which leads some researchers to believe they have not improved impoverished families’ nutrition and overall health. Food stamp participants are more likely to be obese, which could be due to families’ choosing to purchase high-fat foods. However, families that receive food stamps tend to spend more on food than they would otherwise, and food stamp participants showed increased consumption of protein, vitamins A, B6, and C, and other important minerals. Food stamp fraud presents another point of concern for the food stamp program because food stamp recipients sometimes sell food stamps for cash as opposed to using them to buy food. The going rate for food stamp resale is between 50 and 65 percent of face value, meaning $100 of food stamps is worth only about $50 on the street. Studies have suggested, however, that the people selling food stamps also buy stamps. This indicates that families might be so strapped for cash that they prefer to sell stamps when they need cash, but then later buy their stamps back to purchase food. Scholars have proposed that the food stamp program can circumvent this issue by distributing stamps throughout the month rather than in a once-per-month lump sum. WIC Like the food stamp program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) was formed to provide nursing or pregnant mothers and children under 5 years old with better nutritional resources. WIC provides participants with certificates redeemable at participating markets for food items such as milk, cheese, cereal, beans, baby formula, and peanut butter in an amount equivalent to roughly $40 per month. These food items are sources of iron, vitamins A and C, calcium, and protein. WIC also provides participants with a nutritional education session each month when they come to get their WIC coupons, and monitors the development of infants and children under five years old. Children are no longer eligible for WIC benefits after their fifth birthday and mothers must be nursing or pregnant to qualify. Participants must have incomes under 185 percent of the federal poverty level, although mothers or children under five years old automatically qualify if they are also receiving Medicaid. The more generous income guidelines have come under fire because this allows more people to qualify for WIC, and raises the cost of the program, although participation rates for WIC are much lower than they would be if every eligible individual participated. However, this under-enrollment raises questions as to whether or not WIC is truly serving the families who might need it the most. WIC, compared to the Food Stamp Program, loses very little money to fraud, probably due to the food-item-specific nature of the program. The food coupons have very little resale value because

469

470

|

Poverty and Public Assistance

they are restricted to certain food items and, furthermore, specific product sizes and brands. Because WIC is the most-studied federal nutrition program, there is less controversy over whether or not WIC is effective than compared to the Food Stamp Program or the National School Lunch Program. WIC participation has reduced the incidence of low and very low birth-weight babies, meaning public money spent on WIC saves on medical expenditures in the long run. Studies of WIC have also found positive health outcomes for toddlers, although not to the same extent as the outcomes for infants. Some have criticized the WIC program because it offers nursing mothers free formula and subsequently provides a disincentive to breastfeed. The health portion of the WIC program has begun to encourage mothers to breastfeed, but WIC mothers are still less likely to breastfeed when compared to mothers not in the program. This program continues to cause controversy among health professionals and scholars who believe breastfeeding to be an important part of developing infants’ immunity, the mothers’ health, and the mother-child bond. MEDICAID The Medicaid program seeks to provide federally and state-funded health insurance to qualifying low-income women and children. The Medicaid program also offers public health insurance to disabled (Disability Insurance) and elderly persons (Medicare). About half of all Medicaid recipients are low-income children and one-fifth are low-income women. Medicaid is the most expensive public service program, spending about $280 billion annually, with most of the costs going toward the health care and treatment of the elderly. The $47 billion that goes toward impoverished women’s and children’s health care is still very costly, especially when compared to the annual cost of TANF ($16 billion) or the Food Stamp Program ($24 billion). Despite the program’s vast spending, each year over the past decade roughly 12 percent of all children in the United States have gone without health insurance. Access to health insurance and preventative care is important for impoverished families’ well-being, and Medicaid insurance provides very low-cost health care to families who qualify. As of the change implemented by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, any families who qualify for TANF are automatically eligible for Medicaid benefits as well. The Medicaid income cut-offs continued to become more generous, and more federal funding was set aside in order to guarantee more children’s access to health care. Medicaid benefits became available to pregnant women, two-parent families, and to teenage mothers living with their parents, as long as the incomes of these various types of households fell within the qualifying income guidelines. By the 1990s, families with incomes at 130 percent of the federal poverty line or below became eligible for Medicaid, with some states choosing to raise eligibility guidelines further, up to 185 percent of the poverty level. By October of 1997, 41 of 50 states were using their own funds to raise the income guidelines for women and children.

Poverty and Public Assistance |

Having Medicaid does not necessarily translate into having access to health services, as providers often restrict their practice to allowing only a certain percentage of Medicaid patients, or refuse to see these patients at all. Additionally, the length of Medicaid doctor visits is, on average, shorter than the average nonMedicaid visit, which may indicate a lower quality of care for Medicaid patients. Medical institutions often cite Medicaid’s slow reimbursement and excessive paperwork as a reason to prefer privately insured patients. Despite Medicaid’s controversial position with practitioners, public health remains an important service that, at the very least, makes preventative and routine health care available and affordable to low-income women and their children. HOUSING PROGRAMS Although there are multiple kinds of housing programs, only two will be discussed here. Housing programs began in general with the passing of the Housing Act of 1949, which called for an end to unsafe, sub-standard housing. Some housing programs operate by offering incentives to contractors to construct low-income housing. In contrast, the programs discussed here provide low-cost housing to families at lower-than-market rent. Public housing developments are perhaps the most visible of these programs. These developments offer available units to families with income below the poverty level for rent proportionate to one-third of their monthly income. Although public housing must meet a certain standard of cleanliness and construction, some housing developments have not uniformly met these guidelines. Public housing is often referred to as the projects, and generally gets a bad reputation regardless of its quality or location. Families must also often sign up for housing years in advance, due to the long waiting lists that exist for these units. In cities such as New York, over 100,000 families are on a housing waiting list. In contrast, the availability of public housing units in central Pennsylvania has motivated families to move to the area just to have access to housing. The Section 8 program operates along the same income and benefit guidelines as public housing developments, except Section 8 allows families to select the housing of their choice. After a family gets past a waiting list longer than that for most public housing, Section 8 grants the family with a voucher and the family must find private-sector housing that meets the quality standards of public housing. If a family is able to do this, the voucher pays for a portion of the family’s rent. This amount is typically proportionate to two-thirds of the market-rate rental price. As with public housing developments, the family ends up paying for only one-third of the total rental amount. Public housing is exceedingly helpful for the families who are able to get through the waiting lists, although a great deal of controversy remains over whether or not public housing developments are actually good and safe environments for children. The main issue public housing faces is providing all of those families in need with affordable housing options. As waiting lists indicate, this goal has not been met.

471

472

|

Premarital Sexual Relationships

ENDING POINT Poverty is clearly a problematic circumstance for families, and although antipoverty programs have had success in reducing the number of families in poverty, public assistance programs face various controversies of their own. Perhaps one of the most important issues with public assistance programs is their uniform neglect of fathers. Fathers cannot qualify for cash assistance unless they have full custody of their dependents, and fathers do not qualify for food stamps for the same reason. WIC is aimed only toward women and their children under five years old, and public housing does not typically provide housing services to men without families. In cases where the father is not married to the mother of his children, the father’s presence in a public housing unit is actually illegal and may cause a mother and children to lose their housing subsidy. In light of recent programs that promote marriage among low-income, unmarried parents (such as the Healthy Marriage Initiative), public assistance programs should consider expanding the eligibility requirements to men rather than restrict services to women and children only. Marriage programs do not cooperate with public assistance programs in a way that is productive for creating stable families; the fact that a mother can lose access to public housing if her partner lives with her is an indication of this. In order to successfully continue to provide impoverished families with much-needed resources, perhaps even a resident father’s income, and encourage unity among families, public assistance will have to consider changing its policies in the future. See also Child Support and Parental Responsibility; Culture of Poverty; Deadbeat Parents; Foster Care; Marriage Promotion; Teen Pregnancy. Further Reading: Almanac of Policy Issues. http://www.policyalmanac.org; Blank, Rebecca and Ron Hoskins. The New World of Welfare. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2001; Currie, Janet M. The Invisible Safety Net. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006; Dossin, Steven C. “Coming Together: A Proposal for Social Progress in Welfare and Tax Reform.” http://www.comingtogether.info; Grogger, Jeffrey and Lynn A. Karoly. Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005; Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org.

Lane Destro

PREMARITAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS The term premarital sexual relations refers to the sexual activities, particularly vaginal-penile penetration, of adolescents and young adults before committing to marriage. The term often assumes heterosexuality, and it privileges sexuality within a marital context. Certainly sexual expressions exist among same-sex persons, and among persons (heterosexual and others) who will not marry. However, conventional use of this language in academia and the larger culture follows the above definition. Most of the scholarly research on premarital sexual relations focuses on the first sexual intercourse, especially the age at which it first happens.

Premarital Sexual Relationships |

473

IS ORAL SEX REALLY SEX? Some argue any sexual behavior, particularly to the point of orgasm (such as genital touching, oral sex, and anal sex) counts as having sex, while others argue only vaginal-penile penetration counts as having sex. Debates also include the difference between giving and receiving oral sex, and the difference between cunnilingus (oral sex performed on a woman) and fellatio (oral sex performed on a man). Some research suggests that there is no consensus from health educators about whether or not oral sex constitutes abstinent behavior. For heterosexual couples, oral sex is often viewed as part of the sexual script before sexual intercourse. (Sexuality often follows a “script” or pattern, such as hand-holding, then mouth kissing, then touching or caressing of breasts, genitals, etc.). Whether or not oral sex counts as sex is further complicated for gay and lesbian couples, who may have different sexual scripts than heterosexuals. Regardless of how it is defined, research shows that adolescents are engaging in oral sex more now than ever before. It should be noted that this may in part be a factor of adolescents willingly admitting to behaviors that no longer carry a negative connotation compared with the recent past when these behaviors were not discussed. In other research it was found that more than half of 15 to 19 year olds interviewed reported engaging in oral sex and that an equal number of girls and boys reported receiving oral sex. The increased acceptance of oral sex is often attributed to former President Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1998, Clinton remarked, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” He later admitted to an improper physical relationship with her, including receiving oral sex from her and allegedly inserting a cigar in her genitals. These events led to a national debate about the meaning of oral sex, and to the finding that many teenagers were indeed having oral sex and not defining it as sex. Adolescents may be engaging in oral sex and other genital touching, sometimes colloquially referred to as outercourse or sortacourse, because it is more socially acceptable and entering into mainstream media conversation. Teens also have the misperception that it is safer than vaginal-penile intercourse. Adolescents often view oral sex as less significant and less intimate because it reduces the chances of becoming pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted infection. Teens often report that engaging in oral sex compared with intercourse lessened the chances of jeopardizing their reputation, and lessened any feelings of guilt. Oral sex is usually not taught or discussed in sex education classes, and parents are much less likely to cover the topic of oral sex with their teens, leaving them to learn about oral sex through the media and peers. Adolescents are largely uninformed of the risks of unprotected oral sex (without a barrier such as condom or dental dam), such as transmission of herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

FIRST SEXUAL INTERCOURSE Traditionally, premarital sexual relations, especially when a person loses their virginity, have meant engaging in vaginal-penile penetration. However, younger individuals are much more likely to view virginity loss as including a

474

|

Premarital Sexual Relationships

range of sexual activities. Engaging in first intercourse is often not the same as first sexual activity. Many young people who have not engaged in intercourse have engaged in other genital sexual activities with a partner such as genital touching or oral sex. AGE OF FIRST SEXUAL INTERCOURSE The average age of first intercourse is between 15 to 18 years old. It is reported that more than 80 percent of 20-year-olds in the United States have engaged in intercourse, and they argue that teenage sexual experiences tend to be episodic and less frequent compared with adult sexuality. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the average age of first sexual intercourse declined, and although the decline in age is well documented, there is less consensus regarding as to why this is so. Explanations often include historical changes (such as the 1960s sexual revolution), an increase in the age of first marriage, and less parental supervision due to an increase in parental divorce, and both parents working outside of the home, particularly in the after-school hours. Adolescents with divorced parents are likely to engage in sexual relationships at an earlier age compared with those with married parents. This is explained in part because children of single parents may have less available supervision than that in two-parent families, and they may see the role modeling of parents engaging in nonmarital sexual relations. Many divorced parents choose to cohabit rather than remarry, which likely influences adolescents’ attitudes about sexuality and marriage. In addition to examining the role of the family, scholarly research has examined the impact of religiosity in premarital sexual relations. Religious youths are more likely to wait to engage in first intercourse and to be less sexually active compared to youths who are less religious. When they are sexually active, religious youths are less likely to use effective contraception. Certain scholars have found that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, teens are slightly more sexually conservative, and, particularly for boys, may be delaying their first sexual intercourse. The decline in sexual activity may be attributed to successful sex education programs (abstinence-based or comprehensive-based), cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, and greater fear of disease. Unlike older generations, young people today have grown up with cultural messages of safe sex, especially protection from HIV/AIDS. However, being sexually active and unmarried is the norm for young people in our culture. The vast majority of 20-year-olds are sexually active, yet not married. The trend is for teens, both boys and girls, to have sexual relations within relationships as opposed to casual sex. However, relationships may be broadly defined by teenagers as including a couple together for two weeks; adults typically view two weeks as too short a time to constitute a meaningful relationship. Race, ethnicity, social class, and gender are some of the more powerful factors that consistently differentiate early from later debuts of sexual intercourse. Studies consistently find that African Americans, compared with whites or Latinos, and persons from lower social classes, compared with those from higher income brackets, are more likely to engage in sexual intercourse at a younger age.

Premarital Sexual Relationships |

Regarding gender, males tend to report a younger age of first sexual intercourse than females; however, in the last decade, the gender gap is closing with boys’ decreasing sexual activity. CONTEXT OF FIRST SEXUAL INTERCOURSE The context of the first sexual intercourse typically occurs within a dating relationship and is described as a spontaneous event. Sexual debut, for men and especially women, tends not to be a very satisfying emotional or physical experience. Both men and women report experiencing anxiety at the first sexual event. Compared with men, women tend to be much less likely to report having an orgasm, more likely to report feeling guilty (especially if a dating relationship is not established), and more likely to say retrospectively that they wish that they had waited. Females experience less pleasant reactions to first coitus than do males. For example, females are more likely to be nervous, in pain, worried about pregnancy, and worried about possible negative outcomes of having intercourse. Women who were in late adolescence or young adulthood when they lost their virginity reported less negative reactions compared with those who were younger. The age of the first sexual partner also impacts women’s reactions because sex with someone younger or the same age is often reported as more pleasurable than first-ever sex with an older partner. As for why people engage in first intercourse when they do, women are more likely to report that they engaged in first sex to strengthen a relationship, while men are more likely to cite physical pleasure as the reason for engaging in first sex. An increasing number of adolescents use contraception, with the condom reported as the most common method at first intercourse. The Allan Guttmacher Institute reports that contraception use has doubled since the 1970s, with nearly 80 percent of adolescents today using contraception at the first intercourse. A later age of first sexual intercourse is correlated with women indicating that they wanted the sex to occur. About one-quarter of women report that their first intercourse was voluntary, but not wanted. Wanting to engage in first intercourse is significant for quality of life factors; the meaning of sexuality in our society is that it is a pleasurable event, and not a chore, that people choose to engage in. Additionally, women who want the first sexual intercourse to take place are more likely to report using contraception. IMPLICATIONS Adolescent sexual behavior, especially for women, often carries a negative connotation. Researchers and policymakers often make the connection between a younger age of first sexual intercourse and increased risks of social problems such as unwanted teen pregnancy rates (often resulting in abortion or singleteen motherhood), increased risk of STIs, including HIV/AIDS, and juvenile delinquency. Early sexual debut is also associated with ineffective sex education programs, a harsher reputation to especially young women, and poor decision making by ignoring potential risks.

475

476

|

Premarital Sexual Relationships

Research has found that persons who have sex at a younger age tend to have more nonvoluntary sex partners, to have more sex partners, to have more frequent intercourse, to be less likely to use effective contraception, and to be more likely to cite that they were too young to have sex. Many of these consequences are as a result of having more opportunities for risk-producing behaviors (such as more chances of unwanted pregnancy). Several studies note that young teenagers are less likely to use contraception, not out of lack of knowledge, but out of greater perceived costs (economic, social stigma) as opposed to rewards (less likely to get a disease or pregnant). This may be because the costs are immediate, and the rewards may be delayed. Because adolescent sexuality is often viewed as a negative health risk, policymakers have tried to utilize various strategies, often argued to be ineffective, to delay teenagers’ first sexual event. Tactics include relying on abstinence-based sex education programs or encouraging adolescents to sign virginity pledges. Strategies to Delay Sex Are Ideal Despite strong social pressures to be sexual, and a culture that glamorizes adolescent sexuality, many young persons are proudly proclaiming their virginity as a choice, and not a source of embarrassment. This attitude shift of the meaning of virginity may demonstrate the malleability of the term virgin as many debate what counts as having sex. Virginity pledges, or written vows to remain (or become) celibate, often until marriage, offers the hope that young people will delay intercourse. Some scholars point to the effectiveness of virginity pledges to delay the onset of sexual behavior, especially within the right context. For example, too many adolescents pledging within one context tends to decrease the effectiveness. Some parochial schools mandate that students sign virginity pledges, and these forced pledges tend to be ineffective in delaying sexual behaviors. Virginity pledges and campaigns such as True Love Waits create a moral community where young people have support and a social context of sharing the sacred meaning of sexuality. For example, young people who commit to the True Love Waits campaign, sign: “Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to a lifetime of purity including sexual abstinence from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship.” Such pledges emphasize the special and sacred meaning of sexuality within the correct context, often a loving, heterosexual, committed relationship, as opposed to casual sexual relationships or behaviors which satisfy physical urges (such as masturbating to pornography). Many groups, especially conservative Christian groups, celebrate what is known as a purity ball, or more specifically a Father-Daughter Purity Ball. At these events, young women in a wedding-like ceremony pledge their virginities to their fathers, promising to save their sexuality for their future husbands. The emphasis is often on family unity, especially to strengthen father-daughter relationships, with the goal of decreasing social problems such as teen pregnancy,

Premarital Sexual Relationships |

divorce, and domestic violence. Morality and purity are highlighted, not only in sexual relationships, but also in mind, spirit, and behavior. Research has found that religious behavior was a main factor in postponing sexual activity for unmarried adolescents, and others agree that religious reasons for virginity were strongly associated with a positive reaction for young people. Many cite that strategies to delay adolescent sexuality are ideal not only for religious and moral reasons, but other reasons as well. Adolescents may be ill-equipped to deal with adult decisions and consequences that can come from sexual relationships, such as unwanted pregnancy, diseases, and even emotional reactions to having sex. Sexual expressions, especially vaginal-penile penetration, constitute a deeper symbolic meaning in our culture, one that teens may not be prepared to handle. Strategies to Delay Sex Are Ineffective Some scholars take issue with the goal to stop or delay adolescent sexuality because such messages tend to reiterate a sexual double standard. Often it is women’s sexuality that is emphasized, as women bear the consequences of unintended pregnancy. Women are sexually objectified, and serve as the sexual gatekeepers in our society, who often control the pace of sexual expression and are judged much more harshly than men for being sexual. Instead of delaying teen sexuality, some argue that the goal should be responsible and informed sexuality. Many scholars argue that delay strategies like virginity pledges, purity balls, and abstinence-based sex education programs are not only ineffective, but produce sexually risky adolescents who are misinformed or guilt-ridden. Researchers found that virginity pledges do not have much effect in delaying sexual intercourse. Most break their pledge within the year. Critics suggest that as many as 88 percent of girls who take purity pledges break them within four years, often times engaging in unprotected sex with many partners. Girls who come from highly religious families may be shamed by their families if they are caught. It has been estimated that of those who do keep the oath, about half regularly engaged in oral sex thinking that it does not count. When young people do decide to have sex, they are often not prepared to do it safely. In addition to not keeping their virginity pledges, researchers have found that teens often misreport their sexual history, or deny ever pledging their virginity. Misreporting sexual history can have dire consequences if risky behaviors are not reported to medical doctors and future sexual partners. Purity balls have also been critiqued by feminist scholars and in the popular media as being creepy. Donned in formal attire and their ballroom best, fathers put purity rings or chastity bracelets on their daughters, who are usually early grade school through college aged, that the girls are supposed to give to their husbands on their wedding nights. Some in the popular media suggest these ceremonies resemble incestuous weddings. Also troublesome is how the purity balls maintain patriarchy. Young women’s sexuality is controlled first by her father, then by her husband. Young girls may internalize the message that they

477

478

|

Prenuptial Agreements

need to be protected, or controlled, by a man as the mothers are often largely absent from such ceremonies. CONCLUSION Engaging in premarital sexual relations marks important life experiences for most youths. For good or bad, especially the first sexual intercourse is an event that most will remember throughout their lives. Examining the experience of adolescent sexuality provides insights into how it impacts other behaviors and risks, and how it influences future relationships. The debate continues over the role that young people’s sexuality should play in the lives prior to marriage. See also Abortion; Birth Control; Dating; Teen Pregnancy. Further Reading: Bearman, Peter S., and Hannah Bruckner. “After the Promise: The STD Consequence of Adolescent Virginity Pledges.” Journal of Adolescent Health 36 (2005): 271–278; Carpenter, Laura. Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences. New York: New York University Press, 2005; Houts, Leslie A. “But Was It Wanted? Young Women’s First Voluntary Sexual Intercourse.” Journal of Family Issues 26 (2005): 1082–1102; Remez, Lisa. “Oral Sex Among Adolescents: Is It Sex or Is It Abstinence?” Family Planning Perspectives 32 (2000): 298–304; Risman, Barbara, and Pepper Schwartz. “After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating.” Contexts 1 (2002): 16–24; Sprecher, Susan, Anita Barbee, and Pepper Schwartz. “ ‘Was it Good For You, Too?’: Gender Differences in First Sexual Intercourse Experiences.” Journal of Sex Research 32 (1995): 3–15; Sprecher, Susan and Pamela C. Regan. “College Virgins: How Men and Women Perceive Their Sexual Status.” The Journal of Sex Research 33 (1996): 3–15.

Leslie Houts Picca

PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS A prenuptial agreement is an agreement that a couple makes before they marry that defines how their assets will be divided in the event that the marriage is unsuccessful. It specifies who brought what to the marriage and to what each person is entitled in the event of divorce. It might also indicate what the property rights of each person are during the marriage. While many persons suggest that prenuptial agreements are a recent phenomenon developed in response to rising divorce rates and increasing material wealth in the United States, prenuptial agreements have a long history among royalty and landed aristocracy. Anyone who might stand to lose a great deal if a marriage were to be terminated can perceive the benefits of a prenuptial agreement. Often prenuptial agreements make news when a famous person loses a significant amount in a divorce and persons wonder why there was no prenuptial agreement between the couple. Costly celebrity settlements that did not include prenuptial agreements were the divorces of Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold and that of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. Prenuptial agreements have caused many controversies throughout history, and were even the source of jokes in British theater in the late 1600s and early

Prenuptial Agreements |

1700s. Many people view a premarital contract as a precursor for divorce, which leads people to find this matter quite offensive to discuss. In addition, this topic is closely regarded by individuals as a matter that is normally taken on by the wealthy or those who are simply greedy, placing more importance on their assets than their partners. However, there has been an obvious increase in the use of this type of contract over the last few decades. Many lawyers specializing in family law suggest that prenuptial agreements have been given a bad reputation as the tactic of untrustworthy spouses, but there are many instances in which they can be beneficial for both parties. Here we will discuss both the legal and cultural aspects of premarital agreements along with the debates. BACKGROUND Prenuptial agreements, also known as marital contracts or ante-nuptial agreements, have been around since the sixteenth century in Anglo-American tradition. There are some accounts, however, that suggest they were not unknown in ancient Egypt. Marital contracts first took place in Anglo-Saxon society when a groom was purchasing a wife. It seems likely that parents initially negotiated these contracts on behalf of the couple. Upon the formation of the marital bond, a groom and the family of his wife often had a private contract negotiating a bride price, which entailed the exchange of property so that the wife would have some financial stability in the case where her husband was to die before her. Due to constant problems that arose from the difficulty of guaranteeing that the wife received the agreed-upon property upon the death of her husband, efforts were made to more strongly enforce prenuptial contracts over the next couple of centuries. By the middle of the seventeenth century these contracts had become so important that they were required by Parliament to be in writing. Prior to 1970 in the United States, prenuptial agreements were virtually unenforceable if they indicated how the assets were to be divided in the event of divorce because they were seen as encouraging divorce. They were treated with skepticism because they almost always involved the waiver of financial and legal benefits by the less wealthy spouse. The legal principle of fairness was not upheld in most early marital contracts. Today, however, all states permit them and when they have been deemed fair to both parties they are generally upheld if contested. California has been a leader in legislation and precedent related to prenuptial agreements. PURPOSES OF PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS Surprisingly there are many purposes for prenuptial agreements. Consistent with the historic goals of such contracts, one of the main purposes for most individuals having this contract is to specify and maintain money and property assets. One of the important reasons for having this contract is to guarantee that family businesses and other inherited properties will be protected from the claims of the former spouse if the marriage is terminated. In addition, some couples may require the use of prenuptial contracts in order to ensure that their

479

480

|

Prenuptial Agreements

children’s assets will be protected in the case where a parent dies or the partners divorce. This is especially relevant if the child is the offspring of a previous marriage. Also, because these contracts deal with the distribution of assets, they can be used to specify which assets or estates are considered personal or marital property during a divorce. Furthermore, these premarital agreements are also used to specify simple details of a couple’s daily life. For example, a couple may put into their agreement how much money they will spend each week or what they will spend it on. Though the latter use for these contracts has increased, it is far less likely to be enforced by the courts. Specifically, it is seen as improper for the courts to intervene in married couples’ daily affairs. Another area in which prenuptial agreements can be useful is in determining how a couple would like their property dealt with when their wishes differ from the standard distribution under state law. If there is no overriding agreement, state laws can determine who owns the property acquired during the marriage and what happens to that property at a divorce or death. Specifications regarding assets after death are critical when a partner dies intestate (with no valid will) because the state regulation determines how much of the assets are available to the partner and what portion goes to the state. Because the regulations for asset distribution, probate, and survivor benefits vary by state, couples with a prenuptial agreement can ensure that their plans are carried out even if they move from one state to another that has different regulations. A prenuptial agreement can supersede any automatic rights to ownership granted by the marriage license. For example, in those states known as community property states, all property acquired during the marriage is to be divided equally at divorce without regard to who earned the assets. Community property statutes currently apply in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Such written agreements can also get persons out of assumed responsibility for their partner’s debts. For couples entering a second or subsequent marriage, this lack of accountability for the partner’s debts and other obligations may be particularly attractive. For some couples, who may not realize the utility of such arrangements until later, a contract is established after the marriage has begun. These postnuptial or marriage contracts work similarly to prenuptial agreements and specify how the couple wishes their assets be divided. Over the last few decades prenuptial agreements have become increasingly popular. In just a single year approximately 5 percent of marrying couples sign such an agreement in the hopes of salvaging arguments and property during a divorce or death of their partner. Some spectators say that this increase in the utilization of premarital contracts is due to people remarrying, some multiple times. In fact, persons who are divorcing after remarriage account for the highest percentages of divorces in the United States. Prenuptial agreements are particularly recommended for remarrying couples. In addition, people are also getting married at older ages; this means that they perhaps have accomplished a lot on their own prior to the marriage. For instance, these people already have their own finances and may already have property outside of their marriage. As a result, they need to be sure that their

Prenuptial Agreements |

481

particular assets are protected in case of a divorce or the death of a spouse. Another reason for this increasingly popular contract is women’s prominence in the work force. This has allowed for women to have a substantial amount of income going into a marriage, so that the conventional wisdom of husbands supporting their wives does not always apply. Finally, due to constant cases revolving around the distribution of property upon dissolution of a marriage, courts are more willing to abide by and enforce prenuptial agreements. COSTS OF PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS Prenuptial agreements can cost anywhere from $1000 to $40,000. This wideranging estimate is a testament to the variety of issues that couples include in the contracts. The accuracy of this cost estimate depends on how much detail is put into the contract, how difficult it is for the attorney to have the premarital contract written up, and how many billable hours in attorney fees are involved. Because they are not as common as other types of contracts, one may have to find the right attorney to assist with the task. These contracts can be quite difficult to write and subsequently enact because if there is a flaw of any sort found in the contract then the contract itself can be thrown out of court. When there is a very detailed agreement that is properly written, a judge is more likely to enforce the provisions of the agreement.

BIZARRE PRENUPTIAL CLAUSES One of the components of prenuptial agreements that many find distasteful are what are called lifestyle clauses. These are statements about how the partner will behave in certain circumstances. There are many different areas of daily life that couples have sought to control and codify. For example, partners might include provisions about how to divide pets upon divorce. One of the most interesting reports suggested a clause in the prenuptial agreement about who got the domestic staff should the couple divorce. Other unusual stipulations included how many football games a husband could watch on Sundays, fines for a husband if he was excessively rude to his mother-in-law, and stipulations of how long one would visit with relatives. Particularly offensive to some are clauses about a partner’s physical appearance, most notably specifying a partner’s weight was not to exceed a certain amount. Actors Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas are rumored to have an infidelity clause where he pays her a specified amount if he strays. Other areas couples have attempted to control are random drug testing, child rearing plans (particularly plans to remain childfree), and sexual relations frequency. Persons employing these lifestyle clauses would probably be better off with a separate document that focuses on daily coupled life, such as a marriage contract. Judges reserve the right to invalidate the whole premarital agreement if the spousal behavior guidelines are too odd or unenforceable.

482

|

Prenuptial Agreements

DEBATES SURROUNDING PREMARITAL CONTRACTS Despite the increasing discussions about and prevalence of such prenuptial contracts, they remain controversial. There have been several attempts to mandate them as fairer than traditional asset distribution in some states. Because couples establish and agree to the terms themselves, the assumption is they would be more likely to abide by them if a marriage dissolved. While opposition remains, the support for these contracts continues to grow, particularly among those who say they are realistic about relationships today. The Opposition On the personal level, requests for a prenuptial agreement can be viewed as insulting, particularly if it seems like you don’t trust each other or love each other enough. Those who romanticize marriage and relationships tend to assume that they do not need them because they will stay together forever. This false optimism, where people do not believe divorce can happen to them, leads partners to say that it is just not romantic to sign a premarital agreement. A Harris Interactive poll conducted in 2002 for lawyers.com found that 19 percent of respondents agreed that when two people love each other there is never a need for a prenuptial agreement. While the stereotypical portrayal of the prenuptial agreement is something sprung on the partner at the rehearsal dinner with the stipulation of calling off the wedding if the document is not signed, legally such contracts must be signed at least 30 days prior to the wedding. Although prenuptial agreements are becoming very common in society there are still individuals that find this practice, or even the thought of having this contract, offensive. Some spectators believe that some of the objection to having a premarital contract is that it can be considered as a preliminary for a bad marriage or even a premonition that a divorce will occur. It sends out a so-called bad vibe about the marriage if one is thinking about divorce before a marriage has even been contracted. Fifteen percent of respondents in the Harris poll felt a prenuptial agreement doomed a marriage from the start. In addition, this contract may also show that the distribution of money and assets are becoming more important to a couple than the marriage itself. Another attack against prenuptial agreements is that the wealthier party may be in control of the terms of the contract. This alone can cause the other spouse to be hurt during the divorce procedure. Thus some oppose these contracts because it will cause women to be put into poverty and have to depend on the state for stability after a divorce if they are no longer entitled to their former spouse’s assets. Furthermore, some commentators are against this agreement due to the fact that a divorce is a very touchy subject and if the contract is not upheld, then the lawyer who drafted the contract may get sued. Other objections include the thought that it is unethical for an outside person (a lawyer) to have to know so much detail about a couple’s personal life in order to make any kind of contract. However, some lawyers would even suggest that in the majority of cases state laws have been adequate to meet the clients’ needs. This is particularly true if the partners favor

Prenuptial Agreements |

community property outcomes. The time may not be right for some people to need a premarital agreement. A couple with few or no assets would likely opt out of such an agreement because it would not be presently relevant. Finally, one of the main attacks on prenuptial agreements is one of religion. Some religions believe that people should put more emphases on the five Cs of marriage. Jonathan P. Decker suggests a focus on communication, commitment, conflict resolution, children, and church would lead to successful marriages and no need for prenuptial agreements. By not following the above terms of marriage society has forgotten that you have to work in anything that you do in life, including marriage. The Supporters Supporters, many from the field of family law, posit that having a premarital agreement is a very practical thing to do and can be a way to show that you love the partner and are concerned with providing for him or her. In order to construct a binding prenuptial agreement, partners have to put their financial cards on the table and cannot remain secretive about their assets. Having a premarital agreement may show that they do have faith in the relationship because they are showing that they have nothing to hide from their mate. In that same vein, legal experts argue that the work of establishing a prenuptial agreement strengthens the relationship. It supports good communication and discussion of issues, something that might benefit the couple later in their marriage. Premarital contracts can also be used to help couples establish rules for how they will deal with other issues that will arise in the future. Jewish law and leaders support this approach because religious marital contracts have been around for centuries. In them, husbands in particular specify how they will support their wives. Islamic marriage contracts serve a similar function by specifying basic aspects of family and religious life. In the event that a couple does divorce, a sound prenuptial agreement can reduce conflicts leading up to and at the time of the divorce. Additionally, it will likely save couples money in legal fees and court costs. The New Yorkbased, nonprofit supporter of prenuptial agreements, the Equality in Marriage Institute, stresses these aspects of the contracts and provides legal advice for couples considering a premarital contract. The financial benefits of doing so can not be overlooked. Indeed, in the 2002 Harris poll for lawyers.com, 28 percent of Americans agreed that prenuptial agreements made good financial sense for anyone who was getting married. That number increased to 49 percent among persons who had been divorced. However, one-quarter of the respondents thought prenuptials only made sense for the rich and famous, not the average person. Having this contract might actually save a marriage. Many people that have divorced have done so because there were constant disagreements in the marriage. If a couple can negotiate a prenuptial agreement before marriage, then there will be a smaller chance of continuous disagreement during the marriage itself.

483

484

|

Prenuptial Agreements

Prenuptial agreements might actually be more beneficial for persons of more modest means. With few resources, a loss of assets could have very serious consequences for stability. Also, these contracts have been found to be helpful for those that have had children in previous marriages because they do not have to worry about their children’s inheritance or assets being withheld. A final reason that it is good to have these contracts is because it may make a person that has been married before feel more secure and actually consider getting married again. STATES’ INTERESTS IN PREMARITAL AGREEMENTS One of the main interests that the state may have with prenuptial agreements is to avoid putting a spouse on public assistance as result of divorce. As a result of not fully knowing or understanding the terms of the agreement, some people may waive their rights to property and some assets that they may need in order to survive. When this happens the court may intervene in the terms of the contract to ensure that a spouse will not end up on welfare as a result of the contract. Given that society will then have to pay, the contract would be a violation of public policy. A second concern for the state is that a prenuptial contract or divorce can influence child rearing functions and questions. The state has an interest due to the potential that the child’s living standards change after a divorce when the custodial parent’s income decreases. Children may be affected negatively by a divorce and can have psychological problems that will have to be treated. If this occurs and the parent is not financially stable enough to tend to the child’s needs then their child rearing abilities can and will be questioned. Courts, in an attempt to avoid harming children, have consistently ruled that child support awards are not a component of prenuptial agreements. A third state interest in premarital agreements is that the terms of the contract may provide a greater incentive to divorce than to stay married. For example, some people’s contracts will entitle them to receive more money upon a divorce than they are receiving or have access to while they are married. If a judge feels that this is the reason for the divorce, then the court will probably void the entire contract because it undermines one of the main purposes of getting married, and the state has a vested interest in the stability that marriage provides. CULTURAL ASPECTS OF PREMARITAL CONTRACTS In many non-Western cultures marriage is not looked at as a romantic relationship, instead it is viewed in terms of money and power. This can be seen through the common practice of bride wealth or bride price. This involves some kind of transfer of money or goods between the families of the bride and groom. Most commonly, the transfer is from the husband’s family to the wife’s family. Many who marry in these societies often have an arranged marriage and there-

Preparation for Marriage |

fore love is not a big concern. Consequently, a premarital contract is not seen as a personal affront. In contrast, Americans value love and other romantic sentiments when it comes to that special someone. Americans’ emphasis on romance may be the main reason why there are so many divorces in the United States. It also may be the reason that so many individuals in western society have been reluctant to construct prenuptial agreements. See also Arranged Marriage; Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution; Preparation for Marriage; White Wedding Industry. Further Reading: Equality in Marriage Institute. http://www.equalityinmarriage.org; Marston, Allison. “Planning for Love: The Politics of Prenuptial Agreements.” Stanford Law Review 49 (1997): 887–916; McLellan, David. “Contract Marriage: The Way Forward or Dead End?” Journal of Law and Society 23 (1996): 234–246; Prenuptial Agreements.org. http://www.prenuptialagreements.org; Smith, Lona. Help! He Wants Me to Sign a Prenup. Miami Beach, FL: Help Publishing, Inc., 2007; Stark, Barbara. “Marriage Proposals: From One-Size-Fits-All to Post-modern Marriage Law.” California Law Review 89 (2001): 1479–1548; Stoner, Katherine E., and Shae Irving. Prenuptial Agreements: How to Write a Fair and Lasting Contract. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2005.

Shaquona Malone PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE The American familial landscape was radically altered during the twentieth century due to major social, political, and cultural changes that took place in the nation. One correlation of these various transformations was a rise in the divorce rate. As the government, media, and public grew anxious over increasing divorce, clergy, lawmakers, and other social practitioners began to develop methods aimed at its prevention. Of the methods proposed and attempted, many consider formal premarital preparation the most hopeful. The major goal of premarital preparation is to give couples skills, tools, and resources to help them stay married. A secondary goal of preventing unhealthy or incompatible partners from wedding has become more publicized in recent years. These skills, tools, and resources often focus on communicating effectively, managing conflict, managing finances, handling sexual issues, and parenting. Practitioners today hope premarital preparation will help couples learn enough about one another to make informed decisions regarding the commitment of marriage, take marriage seriously, and make every effort to stay together for the rest of their lives if they decide that marriage is right for them. Those who believe in the value of premarital preparation often praise these efforts as effective divorce prevention techniques. But others are skeptical, finding fault with research that has been done, or feeling premarital preparation’s impact on marriage stability is more a result of selection eff ects than any direct benefit of the training. In general, both sides are likely to agree that the area of premarital preparation and its ability to prevent divorce still needs much study.

485

486

|

Preparation for Marriage

BACKGROUND Though Ernest Groves is credited with holding the first recorded premarital intervention in 1924, formal professional relationship counseling did not become popular until the 1970s, at a time when divorce laws were becoming more lenient and an increasing number of couples were choosing to divorce. Prior to mid-century, relationship advice was generally provided by family members and community elders. A number of causes led to the emergence of prescribed marriage preparation, including the increased mobility of American society, which often physically separates people from more traditional counseling and support networks. This generally occurs as people seek the measures of success valued by American culture by moving far from extended family in pursuit of educational or career opportunities. This moving for work or school results in a situation in which young people are often making relationship decisions independently or with only the advice of the peer group. Another factor that influenced the public to turn to formal counseling services was society’s increased faith in educated and particularized experts compared with purveyors of traditional folk wisdom. In the specialized nature of American society, diplomas and certificates are highly valued symbols of knowledge, separating those qualified to lead others in specific areas from those who are not. Thus, the general population began to place more trust in professionals trained to guide them in all realms of life, including marriage. In addition to the nation’s anxiety over the seeming loss of marriage longevity, new research areas of the 1960s and 1970s also encouraged the creation of premarital preparation programs. Researchers empirically determined relationship factors that were especially hazardous to marital stability, including contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling (refusing to engage in communication with or listen to one’s partner). The identification of these factors gave counselors a base around which to structure courses. The discovery of emotional intelligence as a measurable component of the psyche also encouraged premarital program development. Scientific discovery of links between areas of the brain handling emotions and those dealing with rationality gave rise to the notion that emotional skills could be learned. Therefore, practitioners began to argue that, through professional guidance, spouses could be taught how to better relate to one another emotionally. Premarital preparation today generally comes in three varieties: educational programs, enrichment workshops, and counseling. Examples of educational programs and enrichment workshops include Engaged Encounter and the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), the most popular and widely studied premarital programs to date. Such programs are offered in various forms: individual couple sessions with a counselor, group session involving many couples, weekly sessions, monthly sessions, and weekend or week-long intensive retreats. Some workshops may only meet once while other programs spread out over a year. Sometimes partners are asked to engage in skills-based activities, perhaps with other couples, or to complete homework assignments addressing tough issues, such as sexuality.

Preparation for Marriage |

487

All three types of premarital preparation often incorporate inventory instruments into their methods. Common inventories include the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR), Premarital Inventory Profile (PMIP), Facilitating Open Couple Communication, Understanding and Study (FOCCUS), and Premarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation (PREPARE). Of these instruments, PREPARE is the most prevalent and extensively researched. These instruments are generally completed by both partners separately after which their answers are compared and scored by using various methods to determine such things as compatibility or relationship strengths and weaknesses. Three different types of professionals dominate the premarital preparation field: clergy, mental health workers or counselors, and physicians. Of these, clergy by far interact with the majority of couples, due in large part to the requirement by many religious sects of marriage training for couples who wed in their houses of worship. These requirements range from a single informal meeting of the officiant and couple to specific courses sanctioned by an entire faith, such as the Catholic Church’s Pre-Cana Program. However, the number of secular counselors and social workers in the field is growing. In light of this, many colleges and universities today offer graduate programs that specifically train marriage and family therapists. A minority of practitioners in this field are physicians whose premarital preparation generally revolves around a physical examination and blood test. PREMARITAL PREPARATION: A PREREQUISITE FOR MARRIAGE? A number of states have passed bills that, while not outright requiring premarital preparation before receiving a marriage license, provide incentives to couples who voluntarily participate in courses or counseling. For example, Georgia waives a couple’s marriage license fee if they provide proof of completion of counseling or premarital education. Florida takes such incentives a step further: couples who attend a premarital program conducted by a provider registered with the state receive a discount on their marriage license plus a waiver for the three-day waiting period to receive their license.

THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMARITAL PREPARATION Advocates of premarital preparation, such as Scott M. Stanley and Robert F. Stahmann, are optimistic about the value of the guidance that programs and counseling can offer couples, and the positive effects that they can have on marital satisfaction and stability. Supporters claim a benefit of premarital preparation is that it encourages partners to address complex issues that they have either avoided or have yet to consider. The majority of engaged couples spend weeks or months planning their wedding ceremony. They have lengthy discussions about the location, food, and honeymoon. But research has shown that little time is spent talking about crucial topics such as values, finances, parenting, labor division in the home, or conflict management. Many counseling and educational sessions focus on knowledge and skills-based training, emphasizing effective

488

|

Preparation for Marriage

communication, conflict management, compatibility assessments, and addressing possible future problem areas. The goal is to provide engaged pairs with resources and techniques to manage the ups and downs of married life. Scott M. Stanley identified four benefits of premarital education in general. First, it fosters deliberation and gets couples thinking about tough issues. Second, it sends the message that marriage matters. Third, it exposes couples to potential options, such as further counseling, if they need help later. Finally, premarital education has been shown by limited research to decrease the likelihood of marital discord and breakup. Other proponents have noted less-obvious possible benefits of premarital preparation. One is the prevention of unstable relationships from continuing on to marriage. Although the main goal of enrichment and other counseling or programs is to help two people grow stronger together, sometimes it helps them identify irreconcilable incompatibilities prior to taking their vows. This is evidenced by studies showing that a significant percentage of couples using preparation techniques, such as PREPARE, break up before marrying. Another benefit, supporters argue, is that even if they do not last the entire lifespan of the marriage, positive skills learned in premarital preparation help couples make it through the tough early years during which the majority of divorces have been reported to occur. In conjunction is the documented result that couples who attend sessions before their wedding are more likely to seek further professional assistance following it. The experience of helpful premarital intervention has been found to make a number of couples more open to attending counseling or enrichment later when difficulties surface. Therefore premarital preparation directly affects the satisfaction and stability of the early years of marriage, and then, when its direct effects wane, indirectly influences spouses to try more counseling before abandoning the relationship through divorce. Some of the strongest evidence of the value of premarital preparation has come from surveys and evaluations given to participants following these sessions. Many couples who complete workshops, counseling, and other preparation options self-report satisfaction with the experience and a willingness to recommend it to others. National polling has also found that couples who had undergone premarital counseling reported considering divorce less than did those who had not attended counseling. A Closer Look at Two Specific Techniques In addition to the support of premarital preparation in general, there are positive findings on specific programs and instruments. Two popular premarital preparation components which have been widely evaluated with positive results are the PREP program and the PREPARE inventory. PREVENTION AND RELATIONSHIP ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM PREP Markman, Blumberg, and Stanley’s PREP builds on research indicating the characteristics and skills of happy, healthy couples and tries to teach these skills

Preparation for Marriage |

to other couples before their wedding dates. Participants can attend an intensive weekend retreat or six once-weekly sessions. The University of Denver conducted a ten year study of PREP outcomes. The researchers found that eight percent of PREP couples divorced within the first decade versus 16 percent of control couples. A similar study put the figures at 12 percent separation for PREP couples versus 36 percent for control couples after five years. Finally, a study by Markman with three, four, and five-year follow-ups found higher levels of marital satisfaction, positive interaction, and communication, and lower levels of aggression and instability in those who had attended PREP. PREMARITAL PERSONAL AND RELATIONSHIP EVALUATION PREPARE Olson, Fournier, and Druckman’s PREPARE instrument contains 125 items targeting a couple’s areas of strength and weakness. Categories addressed are realistic expectations, personality issues, communication, conflict resolution, financial management, leisure activities, sexual relationships, children and parenting, family and friends, equalitarian roles, and religious orientation. The predictive ability of this instrument has been tested and shown to foretell with 80 to 90 percent accuracy the couples that would separate or divorce and those that would remain married. The validity of the measure has been judged by following couples and recording the outcomes of their marriages after they took the inventory. Couples who were dissatisfied or who later ended their marriages consistently scored lower than those who remained satisfied and together. THE SKEPTICAL ARGUMENT Though premarital preparation has its advocates, many other people are skeptical that it offers any real benefit to couples. One issue they propose is that engaged partners are often too starry-eyed to see the possible troubles that lay ahead. This phenomenon has been called the honeymoon effect. Those couples who reported being dissatisfied with their premarital preparation experiences tended to overlook the program’s intention to help them plan for the future. Most indicated that they assumed it was to address their relationship as it was at the time. This has given evidence to the argument that engaged couples are not ready to properly learn the skills necessary to stabilize their marriage across the lifespan. Therefore, some say, these techniques are better learned in interventions following the wedding ceremony. In addition to the honeymoon effect, skeptics have some other areas of concern regarding premarital preparation and the research that has been conducted on it. These areas involve the selection effects hypothesis and inadequate research. The Selection Effects Hypothesis Those who question the usefulness of premarital preparation point out a problem with the type of clients it most often includes. Researchers, including

489

490

|

Preparation for Marriage

Sullivan and Bradbury, have found that couples at low risk for disharmony and divorce are much more likely to attend premarital education, enrichment, or counseling than are high-risk couples. This factor relates to the selection effects hypothesis which posits that happier, better adjusted, more stable individuals are more likely to get and stay married than are those who are less happy, adjusted, or stable. Applied to premarital preparation, the hypothesis claims that more committed and healthy couples are likely to go to premarital preparation, to try to get the most out of the experience, and to actively attempt to employ things learned therein throughout their marriages than are less-committed persons and those in unhealthy partnerships. Inadequate Research Many premarital preparation critics take issue with the research that has been conducted in the area and the positive results that have been found. One problem, they contend, is the general lack of investigation addressing the verifiable benefits couples receive from premarital preparation. As the trend toward formal premarital counseling and education has taken hold, researchers have not kept pace in their study of its effects. Some extensive exploration has been given to specific techniques, such as PREP and PREPARE, but premarital preparation overall has received limited attention compared with other marriage research areas. Some critics also find fault with the design of the limited studies that have been done. First, they point out that research on this subject has been designed as short-term rather than longitudinal studies. Although premarital preparation has been gaining popularity since the middle of last century, the longest studies of participating partners have only been 10 or 12 years. Despite the positive results these investigations have reported, some people argue that they only prove premarital preparation results in delayed divorce, not a true prevention of it. Another criticism applies to the voluntary basis of most studies. Many critics contend that because premarital preparation is largely a voluntary activity, couples who choose to go are qualitatively different than those who do not attend. Skeptics argue that these couples are concerned with their relationship in general and are willing to put in extra effort to make their union successful. Essentially, they are more committed to the institution of marriage and would work harder on their relationships because they may not perceive divorce as a viable option. By attending premarital preparation, they are taking measures upfront, prior to wedding, that they feel will give them a better chance of staying together and not divorcing. Thus, current research is subject to volunteer bias because it does not include anyone who did not elect to attend sessions. Even partners who participate due to religious requirements have the option of not doing so and choosing to hold their ceremony outside their place of worship. A final disparagement often noted is that the majority of research has only included white, middle-class respondents. Critics claim that the use of such nonrepresentative couples taints findings and precludes their ability to generalize to more diverse populations. This is a valid criticism because certain minority groups have higher divorce rates compared with the white population.

Preparation for Marriage |

491

MARRIAGE SAVERS Mike McManus and his Marriage Savers are on a crusade to stop divorce. His group has spread to hundreds of cities, gaining support from clergy of all denominations and laypeople alike. Marriage Savers puts into effect a Community Marriage Policy® in any community willing to participate. This policy sets uniform minimum premarital preparation requirements for couples before they can wed in any church, synagogue, and occasionally, courthouse. The Marriage Savers program utilizes the Facilitating Open Couple Communication, Understanding and Study (FOCCUS) premarital inventory and a mentoring system in which couples who have completed the program mentor couples currently involved in it.

PREMARITAL PREPARATION: TO GO OR NOT TO GO Some experts say premarital preparation has no direct correlation with a decreased chance of divorce. Others claim that it provides engaged pairs with crucial skills, tools, and techniques for navigating marital waters and staying together. With such divergent information, at this point there is no conclusive evidence either to encourage partners to or to discourage them from investing time, money, and energy into formal premarital preparation. Perhaps that will change in time if premarital preparation is given the research attention both supporters and critics would likely agree it needs and deserves. Regardless of the outcomes, unless participation in premarital preparation becomes a national prerequisite for marriage, the decision to engage in premarital education, enrichment, or counseling is one couples will continue to have to make for themselves. See also Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce; Dating; Family Roles; Prenuptial Agreements; Wedding and Eloping; White Weddings Industry Further Reading: Carroll, Jason S., and William J. Doherty. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Premarital Prevention Programs: A Meta-analytic Review of Outcome Research.” Family Relations 52, no. 2 (2003): 105–118; Coalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education. “Smart Marriages.” http:// www.smartmarriages.com/index.html; Gottman, John. Why Marriages Succeed or Fail and How You Can Make Yours Last. New York: Fireside, 1994; Renick, Mari Jo, Susan L. Blumberg, and Howard J. Markman. “The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP): An Empirically Based Preventive Intervention Program for Couples.” Family Relations 41, no. 2 (1992): 141–147; Simring, Steven S., Sue Klavans Simring, and Gene Busnar. Making Marriage Work for Dummies. New York: Hungry Minds, Inc., 1999; Stahmann, Robert F., and William J. Hiebert. Premarital and Remarital Counseling: The Professional’s Handbook. San Francisco: JosseyBass, Inc., 1997; Stanley, Scott M. “Making a Case for Premarital Education.” Family Relations 50, no. 3 (2001): 272–280; Stanley, Scott M., Paul R. Amato, Christine A. Johnson, and Howard J. Markman. “Premarital Education, Marital Quality, and Marital Stability: Findings from a Large, Random Household Survey.” Journal of Family Psychology 20, no. 1 (2006): 117–126.

Nicole D. Garrett

This page intentionally left blank

R RELIGION AND FAMILIES Family and religion are both considered to be critical institutions in American society. They do, however, have a strong history of impinging upon each other. For example, marriage is a social contract that couples form after gaining legal permission from the state. It is overwhelmingly the case, however, that the partners are bound through a ceremony performed by a religious officiate. Thus, family and religion are supportive of one another. In other instances, the relationship between religion and family is a less harmonious one. For example, couples that cohabit may find little encouragement from religious officials for their unconventional lifestyle choice. Religion and family may work toward similar outcomes or may have conflicting purposes. RELIGION Most people, when asked to define religion, refer first to a belief system concerned with matters related to a higher power, deity, or what many call god. There are religions, however, in which adherents are not expected to believe in the supernatural. Buddhism, for example, does not require belief in any supernatural entity or phenomenon. Religion has also been defined as a system of shared symbols, much like specialized language, in which those who are fluent may communicate with one another and with the higher power. Regardless of the specific supernatural-oriented content of any religion, however, all religions are concerned with moral order in society. The terms religion and spirituality are sometimes used interchangeably, but for social scientists spirituality refers to an individual orientation toward transcendent reality, while religion is a

493

494

|

Religion and Families

group orientation toward morality. In addition to being a symbol system and a group orientation to the supernatural, religion is also an organized method by which previous societies tell current societies how to distinguish proper from improper behavior, and that encourages people to make good choices. Religious collectivities of all sorts unite around this shared sense of moral order, and this is the primary function of religion whether the believers worship Vishnu or Allah. THE RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE In the United States most residents believe in God and most of these believers profess Christianity. Of all Christian denominations, Catholicism is the most common, though if the various denominations of Protestantism are considered together, they outnumber Catholics by roughly two to one. In addition to its many Christians, the U.S. population is also composed of the nonreligious, Jews, Muslims, Unitarian Universalists, agnostics, and Buddhists, as well as many others. The U.S. is more religious than other industrialized nations, with a populace more likely than those in any other wealthy nation to report belief that religion is very important. This is likely one source of the popularity of religious spokespeople in the United States. While from various denominations, these leaders are primarily Christian, and among the most well known are the more conservative leaders. They have been particularly vocal in matters concerning the American family. Religious leaders may advise us in the most intimate details of our lives, such as with whom, how, and when we may have sexual intercourse, while in the public sphere it is often religious sentiments that direct political leaders to argue in favor of or against legislation affecting families. RELIGION AND FAMILY MATTERS Social scientists observe that religion is the method by which a society reproduces ideology. Because it is a patterned way of behaving, religion is considered an institution, much as the economy (a patterned way of producing, distributing, and consuming goods and services) is. But institutions overlap in their areas of interest, and in few places is this more apparent than the connection between religion and the family. The family is the institution in which most of us learn the religious values regarding our families. Many children attend religious training classes long before their entry into the public school system. It is the earliest systematic moral and value education many Americans receive. What do religions claim constitutes a so-called good family, and what constitutes a bad one? While the particular religions may vary in some specifics, religions generally promote a particular family structure and give adults direction in how to manage their households, including rules about intercourse, childrearing, and conflict management. Some social science research has found that people tend to choose religious organizations based on how comfortable they

Religion and Families | 495

feel with the other congregants, rather than on the specific doctrinal stance of the religious group Although the diversity of religion in the United States means that almost any family issue imaginable will be subject to attempts at regulation by at least one religious group, some issues stand out more clearly than others. The most wellknown religiously controversial family issues in the United States include reproduction, family structure, childrearing, and marital dissolution. REPRODUCTION Religious debate on the family is perhaps nowhere more intense than that of reproduction. Whether or not couples should attempt to prevent conception during intercourse is a controversy that continues even today. The Catholic Church currently opposes modern birth control methods, arguing that human reproduction is mandated by God, and that unless intercourse is conducted in order to reproduce humans should not engage in it. While the official Catholic Church position is that any form of birth control other than the rhythm method is forbidden, other Christian denominations vary widely in what is and is not permissible, with some evangelical Protestants now beginning to use the current Catholic reasoning in their opposition to modern birth control. In addition to the Catholic opposition to birth control, some religious organizations in the U.S. currently oppose abortion in any instance, and some have actively participated in attempts to make it illegal again. When there are religious motivations for an anti-abortion position, the argument is that abortion amounts to murdering innocent children because there is no question that the fetus is human, alive, and unable, while in its mother’s womb, to do wrong. Religious supporters of the right for women to abort unwanted pregnancies argue that although the fetus is human, and consists of living tissue, no one can decide when human personhood begins. They oppose attempts to restrict abortion rights on the grounds that such restrictions violate norms of social justice and would negate the women’s rights to make their own moral judgments about a very personal issue. Social scientists do not attempt to answer the question of when personhood begins, but are apt to take on matters such as the demographic variables associated with the choice to continue the pregnancy (and either make the baby available for adoption or keep the baby) or to abort the pregnancy. Judging from the opposition to abortion by many religious groups we might expect to find lower rates of abortion among the religious, however at least one study has found that religiosity was positively correlated with the decision to have an abortion among adolescents. It is also interesting what while more than 82 percent of the population professes Christianity, only 17 percent (in 2004) strongly favor making abortion more difficult in the U.S. The religious category that is the most likely to strongly favor imposing more restrictions on abortion is white evangelical Protestant. Judaism and Islam are the two largest organized religions after Christianity. Judaism supports the woman’s right to decide for herself whether to have

496

|

Religion and Families

an abortion and Islam generally supports some restrictions on abortion. Even among Christians there is still debate, with the Catholic Church at one extreme, arguing that abortion is always wrong, and groups such as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which has many Christian members, that promotes both reproductive choice and religious freedom. Some studies by social scientists include examinations of the groups seeking to restrict abortion rights and those seeking to protect those rights. Same-sex marriage is also a reproductive issue because the heart of the religious complaint points to the children of such unions, and what harm they may suffer. While the U.S. populace opposes gay adoption, we are closely divided, with 46 percent favoring and 48 percent opposing. Religious opponents to gay marriage cite research that has found that child abuse is the least likely in homes where both biological parents are present and there is little conflict. For this reason, many who oppose gay adoption also oppose conception by either member of lesbian couples because only one of them can be the biological parent. Unmarried women who bear children have also garnered the attention of some religious leaders. Although the media and popular culture suggest that the U.S. is currently suffering from an epidemic of births to unmarried teens, these numbers actually have been steadily declining since the 1960s. What has increased, however, is the rate of births to the unmarried. This change in family structure concerns many religious and political leaders, but is an additional concern for those interested in social problems and to those who study the resources required to rear children and the additional stresses that single parenting can place on families. Married couples also face stressors and conflicts related to family structure. FAMILY STRUCTURE Families, like other social groups, have rules about decision making. Although many religious groups advocate egalitarian, progressive, or liberal ideology that promotes egalitarian decision making, many others promote the dominance of the husband over the wife. Social science research, however, has found that even among religious people who argue in favor of the subordination of women to men, the couples may have interpreted these arguments to mean something more like cooperation. Current research on women’s place in conservatively religious marriages suggests that women wield more power at home than their ideology would indicate. Yet some believe that the promotion of male dominance in families is at least partially responsible for the high rates of domestic violence in the U.S. Some American feminists, for example, blame religion for the unequal treatment of women in U.S. society, including interpersonal violence against women. Yet there are Christian, Muslim, and Jewish feminists who have in common the complaint that their sacred texts have historically been read and interpreted by men alone. They argue that their religions seem to favor men over women, and the reasons that women have been encouraged to stay in abusive marriages by religious leaders is that self-serving or misdirected interpretations of their scriptures have been made exclusively by men. Some also argue that secular

Religion and Families | 497

feminists have misinterpreted their sacred texts by adopting the same lens that the exclusively male religious leaders have used, and suggest that there may be other paradigms for the understanding and interpretation of these texts. Despite the stereotype that religions mandate the submission of women to their husbands, some studies of conservative religious groups have suggested that even among women who support the idea that men should be in charge of the family, in practice these men and women make joint decisions even on important family questions, such as children’s schools and large purchases. The issue of male dominance only arises around heterosexual unions and most religious organizations, evangelical Christians in particular, believe that marriage should be reserved for the union of one man with one woman. In addition to the concern with the effects of gay or lesbian parenting on the sexuality and well-being of the children, these groups also worry that gay marriage will accelerate the general decline of morality in society today. This is an especially potent political issue, as it has the power to polarize large numbers of the population. Social scientists do not have a consensus on the relative decline of morality in society, but tend to view changes in statistical trends in family matters, such as divorce and single parenting, as indicators of larger societal phenomena such as industrialization, economic change, and the organization of the workplace. Cohabitation among heterosexuals, which is still illegal in some states, is also an issue for many religious people today. Cohabitors are more likely to choose partners of other religious faiths than are married couples, and at least one study found that cohabiting females were almost four times more likely to report atheism or agnosticism than were married females. Some religious groups deny full religious participation to cohabitants, or to the divorced, yet many express tolerance of, or at least the desire to help, people in this situation. As divorce has become more and more common in the U.S., many religious leaders have reacted with alarm. Some research has indicated that the relationship between divorce and religion may depend on the particular religion. Yet while James Dobson, a well-known conservative Christian leader, argues that religiosity can help marriages, one study shows that the divorce rates among conservative Christians is higher than for any other religious group studied, including atheists and agnostics. The research by The Barna Group, which aims “to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States,” also reports that people with college educations and people living in the northeastern U.S. are less likely to divorce than other Americans. This is in spite of the common media stereotype that associates liberals with libertinism. While sociologists generally view agenda-driven research with skepticism, these results are particularly compelling because they were produced by a conservative research organization CHILDREARING A comprehensive review of recent social science research reports that religion is positively correlated with adolescent health, education, community involvement, and family well-being and is negatively correlated with negative

498

|

Religion and Families

behaviors such as the use of alcohol and other drugs. Religious involvement is also associated with lower rates of sexual activity among adolescents. Some of the positive effects of religious involvement, however, may be influenced more by the religious adolescents’ peer group than by his or her religious family. It is also important to note that adolescents who have consistently been the subjects of corporal punishment are more likely to exhibit delinquent behaviors than are those whose parents did not use, or who used less, corporal punishment. Parents with more conservative religious ideology (i.e., those most likely to report a belief that the Bible is literally true and that it has the answer to all problems) are more likely to use corporal punishment with their children, and they are more likely to approve of such use. Conservative religious leaders are also partially responsible for recent headlines in public education because they have attempted to control the content of some science classes for adolescents in public schools. In particular, some have called for the prohibition of instruction in evolution or as an alternative, the requirement that students receive additional instruction in creation science. Indeed, anxiety about the content and the quality of public schools has influenced the increasing frequency by which parents decide to school their children at home. It is not only evolution, but also sex education to which religious conservatives may object and wish to have greater involvement in their children’s education. Because religion is a group behavior, the findings by Wilcox showing that higher paternal religiosity is correlated to higher involvement with children is not surprising. Religion doesn’t just tell us right from wrong—religion binds us. Regardless of the religion being studied or its specific ideological content, social scientists tend to agree that religion is often associated with many positive life phenomena because of the social support that it renders. In other words, when people attend religious services they join others who will help them in times of trouble. Whether it is delivering food at a death or baby-sitting while the parents go for counseling, religious participation offers the adherent a readymade group of people who are more likely to volunteer their aid when requested. This aid can be a powerful resource for stressful situations, and may contribute to the beneficial effects of religion on family life. See also Abortion; Covenant Marriage; Divorce, as Problem, Symptom or Solution; Family Roles; Plural Marriage; Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence; Remarriage. Further Reading: Adherents.com. http://www.adherents.com/; The Barna Group, Ltd. http:// www.barna.org/; Catholic Answers Forums. http://www.catholic.com/; Focus on the Family. http://www.family.org/; Henze, Lura, and John Hudson. “Personal and Family Characteristics of Cohabiting and Non-Cohabiting College Students.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 36, no. 4 (1974): 722–727; Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/; Ortiz, C. G., and Ena Vasquez-Nuttal. “Adolescent Pregnancy: Effects of Family Support, Education, and Religion on the Decision to Carry or Terminate among Puerto Rican Teenagers.” Adolescence 22 (1987): 897–917; Regnerus, Mark. 2003. “Religion and Positive Adolescent Outcomes: A Review of Research and Theory.” Review of Religious Research 44, no. 4 (2003): 394–313; Religion and Ethics Newsweekly. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/index_flash.

Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence | html; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. http://www.rcrc.org/about/index. cfm; Schoen, Robert, and Robin Weinick. “Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitors.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55, no. 2 (1993): 408–414; Thomas, Darwin, and Marie Cornwall. “Religion and Family in the 1980s: Discovery and Development.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52, no. 4 (1990): 983–992; Turner, Bryan S. Islam: Critical Concepts in Sociology. Volume III. Islam, gender, and the family. New York: Routledge, 2003; Wilcox, Bradford. “Good Dads: Religion, Civic Engagement, and Paternal Involvement in Low-Income Communities. CRRUCS Report.” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 2001. http://www.manhattan-institute.org.

Carolyn F. Pevey RELIGION, WOMEN, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Among the misconceptions that Americans hold about domestic violence is the idea that highly religious partners would never participate in abuse. Questions remain as to the relationship between religion and domestic violence. Some experts suggest that conservative religious beliefs support domestic violence and prevent victims from seeking help. Other research suggests that conservative religious wives are no more likely to be abused than women from other religious traditions. One of the lingering concerns is over the view that the victims themselves have of the abuse. INTRODUCTION Although domestic violence has been a social problem for perhaps centuries, many Christian clergy emerged from seminaries ill-trained, unprepared and, in some cases, resistant to respond to domestic violence within their congregation or abused religious women’s needs. Not helping the situation was the belief that such problems happen to those outside their churches or congregations. As Adams and Fortune recall, “Episcopalians could believe that it is a Methodist problem, the Methodists could believe that it is a Baptist problem, and they all could believe that it is a Roman Catholic problem” (Adams and Fortune 1995). Broad-based attention toward abused religious women seems to have occurred during the late 1970s, as clergywomen found themselves in pastoral care and crisis intervention with victims or survivors of incest, rape, and battery. Clergywomen were far more likely to be involved in this sort of pastoral role than were men. As social scientists developed an interest in the links between religion and domestic violence, much of their research focused on denominational worldviews and the incidence of violence among intimate partners. The exact conceptual nature of conservative Protestantism (i.e., evangelical Christians, fundamentalist Christians) is debatable but is often said to favor marital permanence and a male-headed or patriarchal family and social order. As such, some observers of religion and violence among intimates may ask if conservative Protestant males are more likely to commit acts of intimate partner violence as a result of the emphasis on male authority in the family. Indeed, the role of patriarchy in the

499

500

|

Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence

etiology of abuse has been a site of contention among researchers. Feminist sociologists, for instance, perceive violence as part of a broad-based system of male control. Family researchers and sociologists from other substantive areas, however, argue that patriarchy is just one of many variables that promote violence. Empirical research has yet to show clear evidence that conservative Protestants are more inclined to abuse their partners than are the affiliates of other denominations. In fact, findings link religious involvement to reduced levels of domestic violence, suggesting that religious attendance has, in some situations, a protective effect. Weekly religious attendance among men, for example, is inversely associated with intimate partner violence perpetration. Men who often attend religious services have significantly lower rates of victimization due to domestic violence than those who infrequently attend religious services. Moreover, a number of conservative Protestant couples are more equality-minded than often presumed. While they may affirm male headship as a group, many couples are just as receptive to marriages in which decision-making is pragmatic and negotiated between both partners. Succinctly put, not every religious spouse having patriarchal power abuses his role or, for that matter, is abusive to women. But while violence does not appear inherent in hierarchal, Christian family life, it can develop as a by-product in some religious families. Once violated, certain doctrinal teachings and expectations of gender, power, and control in marriage may limit a religious woman’s choices, options, and safety in an abusive relationship. RELIGIOUS WOMEN’S RESPONSES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Religious or not, many women feel obligated to maintain family cohesion and want to succeed in their roles of wives or mothers. However, doctrinal interpretations that rigidly require marital permanence, husband headship, and wifely submission may promote or worsen problems at the onset of abuse. Such beliefs are a core of fundamentalist teachings. Believing that she is not submissive or religious enough, for example, a religious woman may blame herself for her own violation. Despite abuse and fear of injury, she may uncover no clear scriptural basis to leave the relationship, but find biblical support for wifely submission. What is more, abusers may rationalize or tighten control by misusing religious codes aligned with gender and behavior. The abuser is then using religious teaching as a justification for his abusive behavior. Advice from family, friends, and clergy might inadvertently lead to potentially hazardous compromises for the victim of abuse. Those invested in keeping the family together may exert pressure on the wife to forgive her abuser and continue the relationship before true reconciliation and reliable safety conditions are met. She may be encouraged to stay and pray that God miraculously changes the perpetrator or intervenes in the abuse. Invariably, these strategies displace the perpetrator’s role or accountability in abuse. What is more, there is little evidence suggesting that any of these approaches will end the cycle of violence but, in fact, may prolong endangerment for the victim. Still, in her search

Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence |

for meaning and answers, an abused religious woman’s coping may reflect these very influences. In one coping strategy, the glorification of suffering, a victim may believe that, like Christ, her suffering will spiritually benefit herself or her abuser. Perceiving the violation as a test of faith in God is another problematic means of making sense of mistreatment. As one psychologist points out, it is “not at all unusual” for women to align violation with the account in 1 Peter 1:7 of being “tried with fire” (Burnett 1996). Altogether, the result may be that many abused religious women experience a unique sense of despair or entrapment. At times, working against her is a type of dual identity—one as a violated woman and the other as a committed woman of faith. From this perspective, she may delay any actions toward removing the violation (such as divorcing, removing herself or the abuser from the home, confronting the spousal mistreatment, etc.) for fear of dishonoring the religious worldviews and behaviors she has been socialized to accept. As disturbing as they are, passive coping strategies like these may be the best an abused woman can do given her conceptions of abuse and religion, access to support systems, and fear of retaliation, which is a paramount concern. Although receptive to a religious approach, abused religious women also employ practical options toward survival and safety. Research suggests they are as likely, if not more so, than those who are less religious to report the abuse to a friend, lawyer, shelter, crisis line, police officer, or physician. Some have credited empowerment to an evolving, more flexible religious orientation, having uncovered more equality-centered biblical interpretations of spousal conduct in the Christian marriage. In short, abused religious women employ an array of subversive acts that are crucial to their survival. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO RELIGIOUS WOMEN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE The possible tolerance of abuse based on doctrinal interpretation has provoked little outcry or explanation from religious institutional settings or authorities. Among the many media presentations on the traditional family or the fear of its demise, few address the issue of violence against wives. One reason for this omission may be that strong churches are dependent upon on intact, nuclear families and, thus are inclined to avoid those topics that undermine the imagery of a happy, contented Christian life. Additionally, the way faith contexts understand or present wife abuse may explain some institutional inaction. Some churches, for example, perceive congregational family violence as spiritual dysfunction or scriptural misapplication and not a broad-based social problem with secular origins. At the same time, religious clergy offer rich opportunities in the aid and intervention of abused women of faith. Unlike those persons in other helping professions, a pastor or minister may have an ongoing relationship with a victim and the professional privilege to interpret acceptable or nonacceptable family behavior. Even so, tensions between the sanctity of marriage and the possible

501

502

|

Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence

benefit of ending the relationship in cases of domestic violence may hinder effective counsel. Research on the clergy’s response to domestic violence suggests some level of dissatisfaction with ministerial help options. Research has uncovered mainly problematic assistance from clergy with regard to domestic violence. Women were encouraged to forgive their abusers, seek a marriage counselor, return home out of respect for their duties as wives, or only given religious advice. Abused women in one study complained most about clergy who denied the problem existed or were reluctant to listen. Several were told they could not leave the relationship or that leaving was equivalent to sin. In a Canadian study, there was no evidence that clergy members deliberately or directly dismissed battered women’s needs. However, researchers note that clergy were reluctant to support the dissolution of even a violent marriage, preferring a temporary separation followed by counseling and reconciliation. An apparent distrust between the secular and the religious intervention milieus can perhaps deepen a woman’s confusion. Some clergy have misgivings about secular help entities, as if domestic violence shelters might motivate women to leave their abusers and church communities. Conversely, mainstream or secular professionals are concerned that clergy will advise women to return to their abusers. MERGING RESOURCES FOR THE ABUSED CHRISTIAN WOMAN For a successful relationship between the Christian church and domestic violence community, sociologists, such as Nason-Clark, suggest that violence be approached and condemned through language having religious and practical significance in abused religious women’s lives. Perhaps the most established attempts are from feminist theologians and clergywomen. Similar to writings of equality-minded religious conservatives, feminist theology locates and recasts biblical traditions believed to obstruct women’s power in social, religious, and family life. Invariably, its scholarship unites historical, political, or linguistic scrutiny with other interpretive tools to unearth egalitarian threads in patriarchal passages of early church authors. By this, they offer a means with which to biblically substantiate nonviolence in relationships and reassess potentially harmful religious convictions. A growing number of religious writers have confronted interpretations of a unilateral or wifely submission through competing scriptures. By emphasizing a mutual spousal regard—mutual submission—as biblically sound, they recast the practice as a benevolent, safer mandate requiring spiritual and developmental reciprocation between spouses. In so doing, these scholars scripturally challenge the misuse of submission and condemn abuse as separate from religious principles. Not all religious affiliates find that mutual submission in the Christian marriage is an appropriate arrangement. Such a stance should not be interpreted as permitting abuse or the mistreatment of wives. Rather, women and men from

Religion, Women, and Domestic Violence |

certain Protestant Christian denominations find that wifely submission to her husband’s headship is a biblical mandate and, thus, important to the continuance of the traditional, Christian family. CONCLUSION For many embattled by war, poverty, loss, mortality, and other adversities, religious beliefs, rituals, and contexts impose meaning and offer a sense of control over events that threaten assumptions of resilience and justice. As such, when abused or threatened by her spouse or intimate partner, a woman may seek religious guidance for solace, hope, and a sense of protection. However, researchers, help professionals, and some theologians caution against the kinds of messages she may import into that meaning-making and how they might channel her responses. Traditional or hierarchical family life does not unequivocally translate into an abusive home or violence against women. On the other hand, fear of divorce or injury to the family unit along with rigid interpretations of gender and power in marriage may entrap some women once they have been abused. As a result, prioritizing both safety and the sacred can aggravate an already complex and painful experience. An abused religious woman may believe that actions that she takes against the violation will compromise her religious beliefs and identity. Meanwhile, religious authorities may feel more obligated to uphold traditional marital arrangements, despite abuse, that to help individual victims escape the abuse. Feminist theologians and more equality-minded religious conservatives advocate, in essence, a middle ground. They suggest that abuse be repudiated through a language having both sacred and practical utility. Given this option, they argue, abused religious women need not believe that their convictions force them to tolerate mistreatment. See also Battered Woman Syndrome; Domestic Violence Behaviors and Causes; Domestic Violence Interventions; Mandatory Arrest Laws; Religion and Families. Further Reading: Adams, Carol, and Marie Fortune. Violence against Women and Children: A Christian Theological Sourcebook. New York: Continuum, 1995; Alsdurf, James, and Phyllis Alsdurf, P. Battered into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1989; Alwani, Zainab, and Salma Abugideiri. What Islam Says about Domestic Violence: A Guide for Helping Muslim Families. Herndon, VA: Foundation for Appropriate and Immediate Temporary Help, 2003; Bartkowski, John. Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001; Beaman-Hall, Lori, and Nancy Nason-Clark. “Translating Spiritual Commitment into Service: The Responses of Evangelical Women to Wife Abuse.” Canadian Women’s Studies/Les Cahiers De La Femme 17 (1997): 58–61; Brinkerhoff, Merlin, Elaine Grandin, and Eugene Lupri. “Religious Involvement and Spousal Violence: The Canadian Case.” Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 31 (1992): 15–31; Burnett, Myrna. “Suffering and Sanctification: The Religious Context of Battered Woman’s Syndrome.” Pastoral Psychology 44 (1996):

503

504

|

Remarriage 145–149; Cunradi, Carol, Raul Caetano, and John Schafer. “Religious Affiliation, Denominational Hegemony, and Intimate Partner Violence among U.S. Couples.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41 (2002): 139–152; Ellison, Christopher, and Kristin Anderson. “Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence among U.S. Couples.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40 (2001): 260–286; Ellison, Christopher, John Bartkowski, and Kristin Anderson. “Are There Religious Variations in Domestic Violence?” Journal of Family Issues 20 (1999): 87–113; Ellison, Christopher, Jenny Trinitapoli, Kristin L. Anderson, and Byron Johnson. “Race/Ethnicity, Religious Involvement, and Domestic Violence.” Violence against Women 13 (2007): 1094–1112; FaithTrust Institute. “Working Together to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.” http:// www.faithtrustinstitute.org/ (accessed January 2008); Fiorenza, E. Schussler. Bread not Stone: The Challenge of Biblical Feminist Interpretation. New York: Beacon Press, 1995; Horton, Anne, and Judith Williamson. Abuse and Religion: When Praying Isn’t Enough. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1988; Kaufman, Carole. Sins of Omission: The Jewish Community’s Reaction to Domestic Violence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003; Knickmeyer, Nicole, Heidi Levitt, Sharon Horne, and Gary Bayer. “Responding to Mixed Messages and Double Binds: Religious Oriented Coping Strategies of Christian Battered Women.” Journal of Religion and Abuse 5 (2003): 29–54; Kroeger, Catherine, and James Beck. Healing the Hurting: Giving Hope and Help to Abused Women. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998; Kroeger, Catherine, and Nancy Nason-Clark. No Place for Abuse: Biblical and Practical Resources to Counteract Domestic Violence. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2001; Nason-Clark, Nancy. The Battered Wife: How Christians Confront Family Violence. Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press, 1997; Nason-Clark, Nancy. “When Terror Strikes at Home: The Interface between Religion and Domestic Violence.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (2004): 303–310; Pagelow, Mildred. “Secondary Battering and Alternatives of Female Victims of Spouse Abuse.” In Women and crime in America, ed. Lee Bowker. New York: MacMillan, 1981; Pargament, Kenneth. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 1997; Poling, James, and Christie Neuger. Men’s Work in Preventing Violence against Women. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2003; Shannon-Lewy, Colleen, and Valerie Dull. “The Response of Christian Clergy to Domestic Violence: Help or Hindrance?” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005): 647– 659; West, Traci. Wounds of the Spirit: Black Women, Violence, and Resistance Ethics. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

Shondrah Tarrezz Nash

REMARRIAGE Remarriage is a legal marriage in which one or both partners are marrying again, either following widowhood or divorce. In the United States, the majority of those who remarry do so following a divorce. Only 10 percent of remarriages are accounted for by those marrying after widowhood. A divorce is the legal ending of a marriage through the decree of a court. Not everyone views the phenomena of divorce and remarriage in the same ways. Those who believe the value of marriage in the United States is on the decline, such as the Family Research Council, see divorce and subsequent remarriage as further evidence of the casual attitude held toward marriage today. On the other side, for those

Remarriage | 505

who see divorce as proof that Americans view marriage seriously, remarriage is confirmation that Americans believe in the institution of marriage regardless of negative past experiences. Americans do have the highest remarriage rates in the world. There are several areas of particular interest to persons who study remarriage. They include comparisons between first marriages and subsequent marriages, individual consequences of remarriage, the role of religion, and the creation of stepfamilies. Briefly examining some statistics about divorce can help us understand the issue of remarriage more completely. INTRODUCTION Divorce is very common within U.S. society. Based on life experiences and circumstances, divorce can mean different things to different people. Some see divorce as a legality required to end a relationship that didn’t work, while others regard it very seriously and take any measures necessary to save the marriage and avoid divorce. Some estimates suggest that about half of all first marriages begun today in the United States will end in divorce. With such high rates of divorce, critics of divorce charge that Americans are devaluing the institution of marriage. As further evidence of this devaluing of marriage, critics site the pattern of so-called serial marriage. This occurs when a person divorces and remarries several times. One of the largest consequences of such serial marriages is likely the issue of custody and visitation with children that were the product of the consecutive unions. For men, there is often a pattern of serial parenting. That is, parenting the children that are currently residing in the home, particularly their biological children, rather than making consistent efforts to parent children from prior relationships. This results in de facto single-parent families where mothers are the primary custodial parent. Persons who view divorce and remarriage more favorably are likely to say that the unwillingness of partners to remain in a marriage that is no longer satisfactory is evidence of the high value placed on fulfilling marital relationships. We demand a lot of our relationships and want to find the one that will last a lifetime. Persons who enter a remarriage relationship demonstrate the optimism that a so-called Mr. or Ms. Right has been selected. The issue of remarriage can be used to support both of these opposing arguments. While it may seem logical that individuals who have been divorced would be unlikely to marry again as a result of the doctrine of once bitten, twice shy, studies show the opposite to be true; roughly 75 percent of people in the United States who have been divorced will remarry. In the early 2000s, nearly half of the marriages contracted in the United States consisted of at least one spouse who was remarrying. In the past, remarriage most often followed the death of a spouse; however, beginning in the 1970s, divorce became the primary cause for remarriage. Researchers took notice of this change and began to study remarriage and stepfamilies. However, most research on remarriage and stepfamilies was not conducted until the 1990s. There were three times more studies on remarriage and stepfamilies published within the decade of the 1990s than there had been

506

|

Remarriage

in all previous years combined, a good indication of the changing patterns of personal relationships and increasing questions about the consequences of such changes. Since the 1990s, remarriage and stepfamilies have continued to be popular research topics as more and more Americans have experiences with these family relationships. FACTORS AFFECTING RATES OF REMARRIAGE Data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that rates of remarriage vary by age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and the presence and number of children. The age at first marriage, age at first divorce, and age at remarriage are common factors discussed in remarriage research. Age at first marriage can act as a predictor for both divorce and remarriage. The younger a couple is a the time of the first marriage, the more likely they are to divorce, and the younger they are at the time of their first divorce, the more likely they are to remarry. Each of these variables seems to influence women’s likelihood of divorce more than men’s. For women, divorce rates peak among those who marry between the ages of 15 and 19 and decline with increasing age. In regard to remarriage, younger women are significantly more likely to remarry so that the older a woman is the less likely she is to remarry. Thirty-one percent of women who divorce in their 30s remarry; less than 1 percent of women who divorce in their 50s are likely to remarry. Men’s age has little effect on their likelihood to remarry because men are more likely to remarry than women are at any age. Forty-two percent of men who divorce in their 30s remarry, while 41 percent of those who divorce in their 50s do. Divorce and remarriage rates also vary by race. White women are more likely to remarry, and remarry sooner, than are African American or Hispanic women. According to a vital statistics and health report released by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2002, marriage and cohabitation relationships of black women are not as stable as those of white women. These differences are believed to be related to characteristics of the women themselves, as well as the communities in which they live. The fact that the black women’s marriages are not as stable as white women’s gives insight into why they are less likely to remarry. The decreased likelihood of remarriage for black women has also been explained by what is known as the marriage squeeze that is experienced by black women as a result of a limited pool of eligible black men from which to choose. As a result of high mortality and incarceration rates, as well as high levels of unemployment of black males at the likely ages for remarriage, the number of eligible males is smaller than the number of eligible females. This uneven sex ratio significantly impacts black women’s chances of remarrying. Black men who choose to marry non-black women also play a role in the marriage squeeze. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, black men marry non-black women more often than black women marry non-black men. This increases black men’s pool of potential spouses, while it simultaneously limits the pool for black women.

Remarriage | 507

A person’s sex, male or female, is another factor contributing to the likelihood of remarriage. In the United States, approximately two-thirds of women and three-fourths of men who have been divorced will remarry. These gender differences continue to vary across the life cycle. As stated previously, as women age, they are less likely to remarry, especially when compared to their male counterparts. The differences in remarriage rates for men and women can be caused by the greater number of women in the population, which leads to a shortage of potential marriage partners for women. The tendency of women to marry older men further limits eligible partners, especially for older women who often live longer than men. Socioeconomic status has been found to affect remarriage rates as well. Women with higher socioeconomic status and income levels, who can support themselves after a divorce, are less likely to remarry. The opposite is true for men; men with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to remarry, probably because they are more attractive partners on the marriage market. In general, however, due to the greater likelihood of divorce among persons of lower socioeconomic levels, persons who remarry have less positive finances than persons who remain in first marriages. An individual’s geographic location can also play a part in the instance of remarriage. This assertion is based on areas with high divorce rates, such as the West and South. Persons in these areas have a greater likelihood of remarriage because they are more likely to have been married before. Additionally, in areas where marriage at young ages is more common, such as in the South, the higher risk of divorce among this group again contributes of a greater chance for remarriage following divorce because the divorced persons are relatively young. One of the most interesting elements of marriage and divorce in the South is the influence of conservative religious views. Despite religious doctrinal pressures to remain married, some of the highest divorce rates are found among members of conservative southern religious groups. Whether or not a divorced individual has children, and the number of children, can have an impact on the choice and chance to remarry. The issue of children from a previous relationship has the greatest effect on women. Women who have children are less likely to remarry than those who do not. The trends indicate that the more children a woman has, the less likely she is to remarry. Men’s choice to remarry is not affected by whether and how many children they have. However, the woman they choose as their remarriage partner is: men with no children are likely to marry a woman who has never been married, and men who have children are likely to marry a woman who has also been previously married. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRST MARRIAGES AND REMARRIAGES As a result of the differing trends discussed above there are both quantitative and qualitative difference between first marriages and remarriages. One issue

508

|

Remarriage

that has been publicized frequently about remarriage is the greater propensity for partners to divorce. After 10 years, 33 percent of first marriages can be expected to have ended in divorce. For remarriages, the expected percentage ending in divorce is 39. For black couples specifically, the number is even higher at 48 percent. Additionally, when divorce happens in a remarriage it occurs earlier in the relationship. The reasons for these differences are not entirely clear, but there are some reasonable suggestions. The decision to remarry is usually made earlier in a relationship. Partners might more quickly determine that they should marry than do those dating for first marriage. Perhaps this speedy decision results from learning more about what they desire in a partner, having learned from previous mistakes, or simply growing into a better judge of character. Partners in remarriage are older and presumably more mature so the decision to marry quickly may not be questioned by those outside the relationship. It seems clear from studies of remarriage, however, that there are some important personal characteristics that relate to a greater chance of divorce due to decreased marital satisfaction. First, remarriages tend to involve more heterogamous couples. This occurs when the partners are of different ages, races, or religions, which are all characteristics that can lead to increased relationship instability. Remarried partners tend to be less integrated into each other’s extended families. This means that the bonds between parents and in-laws that would normally be supportive of marriage may be weaker. Remarriage partners express a greater acceptance toward divorce and indicate that they are more willing to leave the marriage if necessary. Also these partners are of lower social class, a risk factor for divorce. One critical element that distinguishes remarriages from first marriages is the greater likelihood that a remarriage relationship involves children. This can result in a ready-made family, rather than providing an opportunity for the partners to relate as spouses first and then parents, and has been shown to make the relationship tenser. Not only are children an intrusion on the marriage, but they may be a source of conflict, particularly when a mother and stepfather clash over the role that he should play in the lives of residential children. Childrearing and discipline issues are most often a source of conflict. Not only do children impact the remarriage, but the intrusive presence of the previous partner can have an impact on the current relationship. This is particularly true if there are joint-custody decisions that must be made, or if issues remain from the previous marriage. One fact about remarriage compared to first marriage cannot be overlooked: first marriages have a tremendous amount of social support and there are clear norms that guide how partners are supposed to relate to each other and the tasks that each is supposed to fulfill. For remarriage, however, these norms are much less clear and may even be absent. This has lead many family researchers to describe stepfamilies as a normless norm. This recognizes that remarriages and the resulting stepfamilies are very common, but they are complicated by vague and often confusing roles and expectations that leave the participants unsure of how to relate to each other and their extended kin.

Remarriage | 509 STARTER MARRIAGES In real estate terms, one’s first home is often referred to as a starter home. This implies it is a good house for the present time, but the purchasers will likely trade up to an even better house as their needs change. Based on the idea that one moves up to better circumstances, some researchers have suggested there is a new trend in marriage in the United States today, the so-called starter marriage. Starter marriage refers to marriages that last for less than five years and do not include children. The probability that the marriage of a white couple with no children will end within five years is 30 percent. This supports the belief that there are at least some persons who enter marriages today thinking that they are a temporary situation to enhance personal growth. When and if marriage does not fulfill their expectations, they will end the relationship and look for a new partner that might better meet their needs.

CONSEQUENCES OF REMARRIAGE The differences between first marriages and remarriages lead to differing patterns of interaction and likely consequences, both negative and positive. These consequences are for individuals and their families, but they extend beyond a given couple to society as a whole. Negatives Many couples who are considering remarriage will ask themselves or will be asked whether it is too soon to get back into a relationship. There is a fear of rebound, where partners are simply using each other to get over the breakup. A large rebound phenomenon, while common in postdivorce self-help literature, does not seem to be supported in the academic literature as having an effect on remarriage stability. A fear of another divorce, however, may be a legitimate concern for many contemplating remarriage. This prospect leads some to cohabit instead of remarrying. In fact, among singles over the age of 55 who are dating, remarrying and cohabiting are almost equally preferred. The evidence is clear that persons in remarriages are more likely to divorce. Some of this may be the result of a selection bias. Persons who have divorced may perceive divorce as more of an option if things do not work out with the new partner. There is some evidence to suggest that the differences in divorce rates for first marriages compared with remarriages are converging. This might mean that remarriages are becoming more stable as couples seek resources to help them succeed. On the other hand, it might imply that first marriages are becoming less stable. Remarried couples are more prone to disagreements. Some of these are over finances. For example, a new wife may resent that her husband has child or spousal support obligations that must be paid to the former family every month. This leaves less money to support the current family, particularly distressing if the remarried couple have children together. Given the difficulty of separating financial ties in the event of divorce, remarried couples are less likely to pool

510

|

Remarriage

their incomes and are more likely to maintain separate bank accounts. While this is helpful in the event of a divorce it does not necessarily demonstrate an unbreakable commitment to the relationship and implicit trust of the partner. While couples might disagree over money, the biggest source of conflict is over stepchildren. This issue will be addressed below. Positives The news is not all negative for persons who enter remarriage. In the best of circumstances, the end result is more happily married partners. Because most persons’ mental health improves if they remarry following divorce, the personal benefits are strong. Researchers indicate that there are lower rates of psychological distress in remarried persons compared with divorced persons who are living singly. Remarriage can provide one more chance for a person to get marriage right. Perhaps it was the case that one was just married to the wrong partner the first time around. This optimism helps partners handle challenges that might arise early in their marriage. Ideally, partners who are remarried would have sought counseling for issues that arose in the first marriage and be better prepared to handle those same sorts of things in the remarriage. Marrying to a different, more supportive partner, however, can actually help persons heal from the hurt of their unsuccessful marriages. Despite the potential of having to pay child support or even spousal support following a divorce, the finances of persons who remarry can be better than the first time around. This is because partners are older at the time of remarriage and theoretically have advanced in their careers. It is true that persons who are in a remarriage, particularly women, experience lower rates of economic distress compared with divorced persons who have not remarried. Religious One of the consequences of increasing divorce and remarriage rates is that many religious websites about Christian remarriage are devoted exclusively to this issue. For many Christian denominations the answer is simple; marriage is a sacrament and indissoluble in the eyes of God and the church. In this instance the only acceptable remarriage follows the death of one’s spouse. This stance has served the Roman Catholic Church for many years, but has necessitated a great deal of specificity regarding religious annulment. For some other Christian denominations, the answer is not clearly articulated and has been a source of concern for both religious leaders and the faithful. As more parishioners have asked about the biblical bases for divorce and remarriage, church leaders have developed platforms that represent their interpretations of scripture. There are at least four competing views on the issue. The first says that there should be absolutely no divorce and no remarriage for any reason. This approach argues that marriage is a commitment before God and one who breaks

Remarriage | 511

the commitment will be cast out of the fold. The second approach suggests that once a person has been divorced, there is neither provision nor need for remarriage. The person must atone for the divorce, because in the eyes of God he or she is still married. A third approach specifies that remarriage is permitted only when the divorce has been obtained because of the adultery or desertion of the spouse. In this case the victim in the divorce would not be faulted and would be free to try again to maintain a lifetime marriage commitment. Most conservative churches stress that it is preferable for the offended partner to forgive the other and attempt reconciliation. Some groups even ask the faithful spouse to consider why the indiscretion may have occurred and consider their role in it. The fourth approach, which is a bit more liberal, suggests that there could be various other reasons to permit remarriage after divorce. Often these relate to the psychological state of the partners. A common reason would be if the believer divorced a nonbeliever. Among those religious leaders who take a more liberal approach to divorce and remarriage, one way to view these behaviors is that they can be forgiven because they occurred before the individual had been saved. Another approach suggests that while neither is desirable, they are not the ultimate sin and God will forgive those who divorce and remarry if they seek forgiveness. Nearly all religious leaders stress that the ideal situation is when one chooses a suitable partner initially, thereby decreasing the chances of subsequent divorce. REMARRIAGE AND STEPFAMILIES Research that began in the 1990s focused on the complexities of remarriage and stepfamily relationships that had previously been inadequately researched. The remarriage relationship is fundamental because it is the legal contract that forms a stepfamily. There are certainly additional concerns in a remarriage based on the presence of children, both biological and step. The level of structural complexity within a remarriage and stepfamily relationship varies based on the individuals involved. A remarriage relationship can consist of one partner who was previously married and one who has never been married; both partners could have been previously married; both or one could have been previously married and divorced several times, and so on. The more previous marriages each remarried spouse has been involved in, the more complex the relationship can become. Each subsequent remarriage also contributes to the likelihood that the relationship will end in divorce. Children from previous marriages for one or both of the spouses also add a new dimension to the remarriage, which is then commonly termed a stepfamily. It is also known as a remarried family, reconstituted family, blended family, or binuclear family. Stepfamilies consist of a biological parent, that person’s children, and the biological parent’s spouse. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 there were more than 4.4 million stepchildren in the United States. The issues incumbent with stepfamilies are too numerous to mention here; however, there are several factors that relate directly to the remarried couple’s relationship that will be mentioned.

512

|

Remarriage

One important issue is that the children have a biological parent living elsewhere. Thus there may be different rules with that parent that complicate how the residential parent and stepparent monitor and rear the children. While one common assumption suggests that having an additional parent as a result of remarriage would help alleviate some of the difficulties experienced by children reared in a single-parent home following divorce, it does not seem to be the case. Particularly among adolescents, children in stepfamilies show more adjustment difficulties than children from intact two-parent families and about the same amount as children in single-parent families. One way to decrease negative outcomes is for the couple to cohabit prior to the marriage. In this way, perhaps cohabitation provides a period of transition to incorporate all members of the family into the new routine. Another important consideration is that the parent-child relationship predates the marriage. This sets up a situation in which the child may feel replaced by the emphasis on the new spouse. Because living with only one parent increases the power that children have over that parent, the dynamics must be realigned. It seems that when remarriage occurs sooner after divorce, the transition to a stepparent in the home is less disrupting. With this pattern there is less time for children to get used to living in a single parent household. The question of boundaries can make remarriage and stepparenting difficult tasks. It is sometimes not clear who is a member of the new family, and even less clear what obligations each participant has to the others. What are the expected roles for stepmothers and stepfathers? How do grandparents relate to the stepchildren? Even though there is a legal relationship that binds the remarried partners to one another, the relationship of stepparent to stepchildren is socially and personally defined, but not legally binding, calling into question the appropriate behaviors and interactions. FUTURE DIRECTIONS While remarriage remains popular following divorce, there is a significant contingent of persons favoring cohabitation over remarriage. This is particularly true among black women. As persons delay the age at first marriage, this may have direct consequences for whether they will choose to remarry if the first marriage ends in divorce. Because these couples are more likely to have cohabited prior to wedding for the first time, will they return to cohabitation if marriage is unsuccessful? Whether these behaviors replace remarriage will be an interesting topic for future scholars to monitor. See also Adversarial and No-Fault Divorce; Divorce, as Problem, Symptom, or Solution; Marital Satisfaction; Religion and Families. Further Reading: Blackstone-Ford, Jann, and Sharyl Jupe. Ex-Etiquette for Weddings: The Blended Families’ Guide to Tying the Knot. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, Inc., 2007; Coleman, Marilyn, Mark Fine, and Lawrence Ganong. “Reinvestigating Remarriage: Another Decade of Progress.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62, no. 4 (2000): 1288–1307; Coleman, Marilyn, and Lawrence H. Ganong. Stepfamily Relationships: Development,

Remarriage | 513 Dynamics, and Interventions. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004; Department of Health and Human Services. Vital and Health Statistics 23, no. 22. “Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States.” Hyattsville, MD. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf; Fisher, Bruce, and Robert E. Alberti. Rebuilding: When Your Relationship Ends, 3rd ed. Atascadero, CA: Impact Publishers, Inc., 2006; Hetherington, E. Mavis, and John Kelly. For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2003; Parrott, Les, and Leslie Parrot. Saving Your Second Marriage Before It Starts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001; U.S. Census Bureau. “Adopted Children and Stepchildren: 2000.” http://www.census. gov/population/www/socdemo/ms-la.html; U.S. Census Bureau. “Marital Status: 2000.” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html; Wenham, Gordon, William A. Heth, Craig S. Keener, and Mark L. Strauss. Remarriage After Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

Kimberly P. Brackett

This page intentionally left blank

S SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Same-sex marriage refers to the concept of individuals of the same-sex applying for license to marry in hopes of receiving the same treatment and benefits afforded to married opposite-sex couples. Marriage has been defined as “the union of a man and a woman.” However, due to changes in the social environment, as well as the emergence of nontraditional family models, this definition has been widely questioned by the gay and lesbian populations of the United States and other countries. BACKGROUND Marriage has been previously defined as the union of a male and female in the hopes of creating a family and ultimately propagating the human race. In recent decades that idea has been challenged in a number of ways, ranging from the nontraditional family, in which there may be a couple living in cohabitation, with or without children, to the more controversial idea of same-sex marriage. The goal is to give the same acknowledgment, benefits, and rights to homosexual couples that their heterosexual married counterparts enjoy. Examples of such challenges have arisen across the United States (and the globe) from Hawaii to The Netherlands and practically everywhere in between. With changes in the social environment, as well as in the political arena, changes in the idea of what constitutes a marriage have followed. Same-sex marriage has been debated on every possible level of society, from the personal to the political to the religious and moral levels. What some consider a battle for personal rights the opposition views as a breakdown of the moral fibers of society and the legal system. This

515

516

|

Same-Sex Marriage

polarity between interest groups—personal and emotional versus religious and moral—has been the driving force for the argument regarding this recent change in the family model of American society. With celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell, Melissa Etheridge, Elton John, and Ellen DeGeneres bringing the idea of samesex marriage equality to the forefront of popular culture and the likes of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and numerous legislative officials backing the opposition, this battle will likely rage on, spurring debates about what constitutes a so-called proper marriage in America. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LAW Marriage rights constitute a complicated and incredibly detailed area of the legal system. The general consensus is that there are some 1,400 to 2,000 laws, rights, and benefits interwoven into the idea of marriage. When one considers that idea for a moment, the fight for marriage equality makes sense. Marriage has been considered the very core of society, regardless of the place of religion within that society. However, it is that intersection of church and state that spurs a great many debates regarding the topic of same-sex marriage. The proponents feel that the state has overstepped its boundaries by dictating who can and cannot marry on the basis of sexual orientation, and yet the opposition has a generalized argument that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman and has been so throughout history; altering that now would be disastrous to the present and future of society. HISTORIC FIRSTS AND PROMINENT CASES Over the last decade, there have been numerous instances of subtle uprisings within individual states regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. These instances have ranged from lawsuits filed by various same-sex couples to entire counties standing in defiance of state government by issuing same-sex couples a marriage license after being told to cease doing so. The following is a brief overview of some of these instances. Minnesota In 1971, two African American lesbian residents of Minneapolis sought marital rights at the local city hall. This eventually led them to federal court, in which they were ultimately unsuccessful in their attempts at equality. Also in 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in the case of Jack Baker and Mike McConnell, two men who wanted to marry one another. The couple utilized the argument that because there was no mention of a law banning gay marriage on the Minnesota law books, the legislature must have intended on recognizing same-sex marriages. However, they too were denied, and the court found that the institution of marriage was a heterosexual arrangement. The court noted that marriage as a union of man and woman, particularly given the involvement in the procreation and rearing of children within a family, could be traced to biblical traditions as old as the book of Genesis.

Same-Sex Marriage | 517

Arizona In 1975, a county clerk in Phoenix, Arizona, granted two men a marriage license. However, citing the same biblical instance as the Minnesota court, the Arizona Supreme Court invalidated their marriage and subsequently the state legislature followed this decision with a bill specifically prohibiting gay marriage. Colorado In 1975, Boulder County clerk Clela Rorex allowed six gay couples to marry, after receiving no word that the Colorado state law held any opposition to her doing so. However, this action received little nationwide publicity because there was minor interest in the legality of the issue at the time. District of Columbia In 1987, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement in which it said that their intention was to break down the barriers of legality regarding gay marriage, while 2,000 gay couples held a mass mock wedding in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) building. It is clear that gay marriage was quickly gaining its place among the political agenda of the late twentieth (and eventually the twenty-first) century. However, it wasn’t until 1990 that these early activists saw a success in their fight for equality. Hawaii A Honolulu couple, Genora Dancel and Ninia Baehr were denied a marriage license, just as other couples had been denied across the country. Despite the recent proclamation by the national ACLU, the group’s local sector offered no legal help for the couple. However, Dancel and Baehr, along with fellow gay and lesbian couples, took their fight to a higher power—the Hawaii Supreme Court. In 1993 the court ruled in favor of the couple’s right to marry, based on the state’s equal protection clause. The court, however, did specify that the ruling was not on the basis of gay rights but rather on the basis of gender rights. Regardless of the reasoning, a success is a success, and so began the counterattack on samesex marriage. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT 1996 Passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, specifically when in reference to federal laws, affecting taxes, pensions, Social Security, and other federal benefits. DOMA also gave the states the individual freedom to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. This meant that regardless of where the marriage had been performed, there was a strong likelihood that it would not be recognized at all anywhere in the United States. Because marriages are certified at the state, rather than the federal, level this act gave states permission to ignore the common practice of reciprocity with regard to homosexual

518

|

Same-Sex Marriage

couples. For heterosexual couples, reciprocity (the recognition that a marriage is legal in other states regardless of the state in which it was performed) still applied. However this federal legislation did not dampen the spirits of the samesex marriage proponents. If anything, it likely fueled the fire to a new level of frenzy. The passing of DOMA likely resulted in the drafting and implementation of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) which first saw activation in Colorado in 2002 and again in 2003. The FMA was an attempt to squash objections that DOMA had overstepped its constitutional authority by allowing states to disregard legal agreements (contracts) that other states had considered valid and binding. Supporters of an FMA felt that this constitutional amendment would clarify any gray areas regarding marriage, defining it solely as a male-female union, as well as including a clause that stated that no state constitution or other body of law was to be construed as being forced to allow and recognize samesex marriages. By the early twenty-first century, nearly four-fifths of all states had already passed laws or even amended their own constitutions to ban samesex marriages from within their borders. The action that could be considered the biggest in magnitude regarding opposition of same-sex marriage was taken by George W. Bush in 2004, as he announced his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. As with the creation and enactment of DOMA, Bush’s support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage likely did nothing but temporarily boost his image and fuel the fire for gay-rights equality in the marriage arena. SUPPORTERS OF SAMESEX MARRIAGE Advocacy groups in support of same-sex marriage have utilized the everchanging social environment to their advantage, ultimately giving support to their position that a just society translates as one that accepts the practice of same-sex marriage as one of simple fairness, full and complete citizenship, and equal rights. While many involved in the battle over same-sex marriage approach it from a religious standpoint, those that are religiously-affiliated but do not attack the issue on a negative level, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, have called for fully legalized same-sex marriage. In 2005, the United Church of Christ (with some 1.3 million estimated adult members) became the first Christian denomination endorsing the right of homosexual marriage, concluding that “in the Gospel we find ground for a definition of marriage and family relationships based on affirmation of the full humanity of each partner, lived out in mutual care and respect for one another” (www.ucc.org). Some churches have not come to grips with a full decision regarding the topic. The Episcopal Church (with its three million adult members) has not sanctioned full marriage rights, specifically in terms of actually enacting legal documentation. However, in 2003, the leaders of the Episcopal denomination in the United States approved a resolution at their annual convention that states that under the pretenses of “local faith communities operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience the celebration of and blessing of same-sex

Same-Sex Marriage | 519

unions” (Sheridan and Thrall 2003). In a roundabout way, the Episcopal Church has thrown in a pro-vote without necessarily donning a rainbow banner in the middle of the sanctuary. Stepping back onto the secular side of the pro-argument, the biggest players on this team are advocacy groups. Examples of these groups include the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, as well as numerous others. Their ability to create change through lobbying, campaigning, fundraising, and numerous other tactics depends on a number of factors, specifically environmental conditions, as well as policies favored strongly by the public. However, that last factor, public policy, is not strong enough to stand on its own as a deciding factor. It must be approached from the right angle at the right point in time for the advocacy groups to pull through as effective promoters of change. To obtain substantial legislative change, these groups must start at the ground level and work their way up, persuading everyone in their path to their reasoning of the argument in order to cut a path of agreeable successes from the starting line to the finish. One thing that must be kept in mind when considering the groups advocating same-sex marriage is that they are much smaller in number, poorer in financial resources, and more deeply polarized in political ideology than their opposition counterparts. GROUPS OPPOSING SAMESEX MARRIAGE Like their counterparts who support same-sex marriage, interest groups opposing same-sex marriage have their work cut out for them. With the everchanging social environment and the turbulent political waters surrounding the issue, the battle has certainly been a heated one and will likely continue as such. Examples of interest groups in opposition of same-sex marriage include the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family (brought to the headlines of politics by its founder Dr. James Dobson), the Christian Coalition (with figures such as Pat Robertson at the helm), and many others. These groups have substantial advantages over the proponents of same-sex marriage in a number of areas. The first is that these groups need only keep things in their favor or keep the status quo. This specifically applies to legislation that these groups do not have to advance. Rather, they must simply block the pro-same-sex marriage groups from advancing their own legislative measures. Their second and perhaps largest advantage is that a large majority of these groups are religiously-affiliated, thus they are interconnected with a number of networks of individuals with various resources readily available for opposition mobilization, ready for attack at any sign of progressive successes. While blocking policy change is a deep advantage for the opposition, as a group they have not been pleased with their successes in this area. These same groups are also responsible for enacting laws and legislation at various levels that will ultimately define marriage in all finality as being defined as the union of a man and a woman. An example of one of these groups’ arguments was found posted in an essay on the Family Research Council’s web site that specifically states that they oppose same-sex marriage “not because homosexuality is a greater sin than any

520

|

Same-Sex Marriage

other. It’s not because we want to deprive homosexuals of their fundamental human rights. It’s not because we are afraid to be near homosexuals, and it’s not because we hate homosexuals. On the contrary, I desire the very best for them. And desiring the best for someone, and acting to bring that about, is the essence of love” (Sprigg 2004). One aspect of same-sex marriage that the opposition has recently chosen to utilize is the prominence, presence, and well-being of the children involved in these proceedings. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Same-sex marriage has once again found itself at the fore of issues in American politics. While the issue was formerly a hot topic in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, more recent controversies have arisen in none other than gay-haven extraordinaire, California. Known for its prominent gay population (an estimated 92,000 gay couples reside there), California has held a reputation over recent decades for being in general a rather liberal-minded and forward-thinking state. Family legislation and other social policies that begin in California often make their way to other states; such was the case with no-fault divorce in the 1970s. The state took its liberal reputation leaps forward in 2008 when the California court system announced that until further notice, the State of California would recognize gay marriages within its borders. Within days of this announcement, thousands of gay couples throughout the state flocked to their respective courthouses and city halls, applying for licenses and preparing for their wedding ceremonies. However, like any success in gay marriage history, the opposition was not far behind. There is talk of a stay being issued on this decision that would ultimately halt progress until the official ballot is cast in the state’s upcoming elections. Same-sex marriage has polarized not only religious communities and political communities across the country but also nearly every state individually. Whether in support, opposition, or indecision, there is definitely a growing interest in and importance placed on the issue of same-sex marriage and gay-rights equality regarding the subject of marriage within the United States. New faces, new figures, and new challenges within the gay rights arena are likely to continue. See also Domestic Partnerships; Gay Parent Adoption. Further Reading: American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org; Bull, Chris, and John Gallagher. Perfect Enemies: The Battle between the Religious Right and the Gay Movement, updated ed. Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1996; Christian Coalition. http://www. cc.org; DOMA Watch. http://www.domawatch.org; Focus on the Family. http://www. focusonthefamily.com; Human Rights Campaign. http://www.hrc.org; Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation. http://www.glaad.org; Jost, Kenneth. Gay Marriage. Issues for Debate in American Public Policy, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004; Koppelman, Andrew. The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002; Kranz, Rachel, and Tim Cusick. Gay Rights. Library in a Book, rev ed. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. http://www.thetaskforce.org; Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples. http://www.buddybuddy.com/partners.html; Rimmerman, Craig A., and

Sibling Violence and Abuse | 521 Clyde Wilcox. The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007; Same-Sex Marriage in California. http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID= 138; Sheridan, Sharon, and James Thrall. “Deputies Approve Compromise Resolution on Same-Sex Unions,” Episcopal News Service, August 8, 2003. http://www.episcopal church.org/3577_18576_ENG_HTM.htm; Sprigg, Peter. “Homosexualty: The Threat to the Family and the Attack on Marriage,” March 29, 2004. http://www.frc.org/get. cfm?i=PD04F01; United Church of Christ. http.//www.ucc.org.

Jeffery Jones SIBLING VIOLENCE AND ABUSE Sibling violence and abuse is a significant social problem, impacting a large number of families each year. This form of family violence is considered to be the most common of all violent family interactions and children are thought to be the most violent members of our society. Researchers have identified that the largest predictor of childhood aggression is the presence of a sibling. According to a recent national survey, as much as 75.5 percent of children between the ages of 3 and 17 reported having been victimized by a sibling at some point during the previous year. Furthermore, as much as 78 percent of siblings experience psychological abuse at some point in their lives (Keslica and Morril-Richards 2007). Sibling abuse is clearly concerning, but historically has been often viewed and excused as a normal part of childhood relationships. Outcomes associated with being victimized by a sibling include: difficulty with interpersonal relationships, repeating the victim role in other relationships, over-sensitivity, self-blame, feelings of anger toward the sibling perpetrator, development of eating disorders, substance abuse problems, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. In addition to the negative outcomes of being the victim, there are also negative ramifications associated with perpetration. Such outcomes include habit or conduct disorders, the presence of neurotic traits, developmental lags, and suicidal behaviors. In relation to sibling abuse, Tremblay and colleagues stated: “Not only is childhood physical aggression a precursor to the physical and mental health problems that will be visited upon victims, but also aggressive children themselves are at higher risk of alcohol use, drug use, accidents, violent crimes, depression, suicide attempts, spousal abuse, and neglectful or abusive parenting habits” (Tremblay et al. 2004). The limited amount of research concerning violence and abuse between siblings has classified the behaviors into three forms, much the same way that other forms of family violence have been categorized: physical, emotional and sexual abuse. PHYSICAL ABUSE Physical abuse among siblings includes behaviors such as: punching, kicking, choking, striking with an object or weapon, or can involve any additional behavior acted out with the intent of causing physical harm. Physical violence is typically the most visible form of sibling abuse, and is more likely to receive

522

|

Sibling Violence and Abuse

public attention than other forms. Between 63 and 68 percent of all siblings engage in violent behaviors against each other (Gelles 1990). Additionally, 85 percent of males and 95 percent of females have been physically victimized by a sibling (Barnett, Miller-Perrin, and Perrin 2005). Not only does sibling violence often result in physical harm, but the lack of recognition of this abuse often can result in the victim not receiving needed help. EMOTIONAL ABUSE Emotional, or psychological, abuse includes behaviors such as: excessive teasing, degrading, threatening, exacerbating a fear, or destroying personal property. It is the most-pervasive, and the least-recognized, form of abuse among siblings. However, as is the case with many other forms of abuse, little attention is paid to emotional abuse in sibling relationships. This is due to the difficulty of detecting psychological abuse; perhaps as a result of the normalization of this form of abuse, inappropriate parental response, or its co-occurrence with other, more visible forms of abuse. Scholars report that the outcomes associated with psychological abuse victimization among siblings has had impacts similar to psychological abuse in other types of relationships (such as in domestic violence or parent-child abuse). However, due to its lack of recognition, it is highly unlikely that intervention will take place. Therefore, there is a substantial risk that children who are victimized by a sibling will internalize the destructive messages they receive in the home, and will carry this trauma into adult relationships. SEXUAL ABUSE Behaviors associated with sexual abuse include: fondling, touching, intercourse (rape or sodomy), exploitation, exposing to materials of a pornographic or sexual nature, or sexual activities that exceed the child’s developmental level. Behaviors that are characterized as nontransitory or not motivated by curiosity can also be considered as problematic. Finally, if the child is too young or developmentally unable to provide informed consent, the behavior is typically considered abusive. Outcomes associated with sibling sexual abuse victimization can include feelings of fear, shame, anxiety, trouble establishing interpersonal boundaries, as well as sexual behavior problems (e.g., avoidance of sexual contact, sexual compulsiveness, promiscuity, or sexual response difficulties). In relation to sexual behaviors, scholars also report that children who have been sexually abused by a sibling often have trouble separating feelings of pleasure from feelings of pain, and separating fear from desire in later adult sexual relationships. PROBLEMS IN RECOGNIZING AND RESPONDING TO SIBLING MALTREATMENT Despite the potentially devastating outcomes associated with sibling violence and abuse, this form of maltreatment receives little research attention, and is

Sibling Violence and Abuse | 523

highly unlikely to be detected and reported within the family unit. This is in part due to the pervasive failure to recognize maltreatment in the context of sibling relationships as problematic behavior. This can further traumatize a victim because it becomes nearly impossible to receive the validation that is essential for survivors of family-related trauma. To begin with, many scholars and practitioners have reported that having poor parental supervision is among the most pervasive characteristics observed where sibling violence and abuse is present. A case study that interviewed adults who had been victimized by a sibling during childhood found that participants commonly reported that the abuse occurred while the parents were not at home. In association with a lack of parental supervision comes the common practice of leaving older siblings in the care of younger siblings. This increases the risk of abuse, especially in situations where a child is placed with responsibilities over their younger siblings that may exceed their own developmental capabilities. Even in situations where parents are able to identify abuse between their children, inappropriate responses to such behaviors can often exacerbate the problematic behaviors. Common dysfunctional parental strategies include: minimizing abuse, ignoring abuse altogether, not believing the victim, blaming the victim, striking out at the perpetrating sibling, and in some situations engaging in the abuse themselves. Often, parents will assume that abusive conflict is a normative part of child development. Common words and phrases used in our culture also lend to the normalization of abusive behaviors. Phrases such as rough-and-tumble play, boys will be boys, and sibling rivalry identify behaviors that may be abusive and conceptualize them as normal, healthy aspects of childhood. In fact, studies have shown that some parents actually encourage their children to engage in conflict situations because they believe it will teach them to stand up for themselves or to successfully handle conflict situations. Expressions of aggressive behavior between siblings may even be encouraged by social norms. In general, aggressive behavior among siblings is attributed to normal sibling rivalry. Thus it is treated as something that children will presumably outgrow and adults will inevitably forget. This reflects a perception that many have that sibling abuse is a normative aspect of child development, and that it is to be expected. However, distinctions have been made between behaviors that comprise rivalry and those that constitute assault. Rivalry between siblings is characterized by conflict that involves possession of something the other also wants. It can lead to a strengthening of the relationship as well as balanced comparisons between siblings. Assault, in contrast, involves patterns of repeated physical aggression with the goal of harming, humiliating, or defeating the sibling. It is also part of an escalating pattern of sibling aggression and retaliation. The behaviors continue even after parental intervention and serve to solidify the roles of victim and offender between siblings. Such norms and values regarding sibling abuse are further perpetuated by the belief of many professionals and parents that sibling conflict is healthy and necessary for the development of conflict resolution skills, decreasing the likelihood of recognition and appropriate response when sibling violence does

524

|

Sibling Violence and Abuse

occur. Parents might actually encourage this behavior for siblings to release their anger at each other and work out their disagreement. Unfortunately, this usually has the effect of promoting aggression in the child rather than easing hostility. This is not to say that all conflict that occurs between siblings is abusive because much of the time this behavior is harmless. However, assuming that all violent interaction is normative can be problematic because it can cause parents and practitioners to overlook this form of child victimization. In relation to the concept of minimizing sibling abuse, some parents may be aware of the behavior and ignore it altogether. Because it is common for abuse to occur when parents and caregivers are not around, sibling violence and abuse can be easily overlooked. Even in situations where the abuse occurs in the presence of a parent, they may divert their attention elsewhere. For example, parents often report that they become sick and tired of their children’s rivalry, and learn to simply tune it out. Others believe that interfering in sibling disputes will prevent them from working out the conflict, and that it is best to leave them to their own devices. Another maladaptive reaction that parents may have in relation to sibling violence and abuse is to not believe the victim. This may occur especially in situations where sexual abuse is present because even if the victim is able to disclose the abuse, the parent may have trouble accepting it. This not only ties into the common perception in our society that children are asexual, but many parents believe that their children are not capable of the accused behaviors. For example, parents are more likely to be unaware of sexual abuse than they are of other forms of maltreatment within the sibling dyad. This is understandable because it can be very difficult for a parent to consider one of their children as a perpetrator. Also, because of the taboo nature of incest, parents may be very uncomfortable accepting that such activities could occur in their families at all. Such a reaction can be very difficult for victims because they are not only invalidated, but it is rare for this type of behavior to stop without professional counseling. Blaming the victim for abuse is a common theme across all types of family violence, and is no exception in sibling abuse. In some circumstances, parents may be aware that abuse is occurring, but will blame the victim for such activities. It is common that parents respond to sibling abuse by claiming that the victim must have done something to anger the abuser, and therefore deserved it. This is extremely hazardous to the physical and mental health outcomes of a victim, who is more likely to internalize the message that they deserve the abuse. They may also be more likely to transfer their role of victim into other domains, such as into dating relationships. In some cases, parents may respond to violence and abuse in such a way that traumatizes the perpetrator. That is, one child may be abused by the parents because of abusive behavior with a sibling. This is not only harmful to the child, but also sends a message that violence is a legitimate method of conflict resolution. In addition, parents who react to their children’s behavior in violent and maladaptive ways increase the likelihood that similar behaviors will be expressed in sibling relationships, both in the presence and absence of parental supervision. Practitioners recommend that parents model healthy, nonviolent conflict

Sibling Violence and Abuse | 525

resolution strategies to their children because many abusive behaviors may be attributed to family dynamics. A final strategy, and perhaps the most devastating, occurs when parents choose to engage in abuse themselves. One type of family dynamic that is especially vulnerable to this form of abuse applies to situations where violence and abuse cascades throughout the family unit. The cascade effect is used to describe family relations that are characterized by coercion, power, and control, and in which older, more powerful members often exhibit their dominance over younger or weaker members. Often, when domestic abuse and parent-child abuse are present, abused children will attempt to gain feelings of control by exhibiting their dominance on those in positions of lower power, such as a younger sibling or an animal. Another family dynamic that may be conducive to parental engagement in sibling abuse pertains to family situations where a target child is present. A target child is often a specific member of the family that, for a variety of reasons, has been singled out as the target for ridicule and abuse. Reasons for the targeting of a specific child can range from parental factors such as mental illness or negative associations with the child to child factors such as having a physical, behavioral, emotional, or cognitive disability. SUGGESTED INTERVENTION STRATEGIES Several intervention strategies have been suggested for families where sibling abuse is present. Vernon Wiehe, a sibling abuse scholar, has developed the SAFE model. In this approach parents can take the following steps to address violence between siblings: (S) stop the behavior immediately, (A) access the situation and identify what is actually going on, (F) find out how to avoid the dysfunction, and (E) evaluate the situation again in a couple of days to be sure the behavior has subsided. Wiehe goes on to list some common indicators of sibling violence and abuse for parents to recognize, such as conflict high in frequency and intensity, conflict where there one sibling is clearly being victimized, behaviors that are not appropriate for a child’s age, and behaviors that intend to control, dominate or belittle. In relation to other forms of suggested intervention or parenting education programs that focus on sibling violence and abuse, sources are limited, and little information is available for parents who may face this problem with their own children. CONCLUSION Sibling violence and abuse is considered the most pervasive form of family violence in our society. However, empirical attention has been lacking in this area. The research that does exist indicates that although this has been among the least-recognized forms of family violence, the outcomes can be devastating and long lasting. Few intervention programs exist to address the problem of sibling violence and abuse. This may be due, in part, to a failure on behalf of researchers and practitioners to recognize maladaptive sibling conflict as problematic. There are great strides to be made in the research field relating to sibling

526

|

Stay at Home Dads

violence and abuse. Increasing research, refining methodological techniques, increasing public and professional awareness, and designing intervention strategies are all needed to address the problem of abuse in sibling relationships. With such increases in attention, we can make strides to prevent this form of abuse, as well as the negative outcomes associated with both perpetration and victimization for children and families. See also Child Abuse; Domestic Violence Interventions; Juvenile Delinquency. Further Reading: Ammerman, R., and M. Hersen. Case Studies in Family Violence. New York: Plenum Press, 1991; Barnett, O., Miller-Perrin, C. L., and R. D. Perrin. Family Violence Across the Lifespan: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005; Caffaro, J., and A. Conn-Caffaro. Sibling Abuse Trauma. New York: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press, 1998; Cooke, P., and P. J. Standen. “Abuse and Disabled Children: Hidden Needs?” Child Abuse Review 11 (2002): 1–18; Eriksen, S., and V. Jensen. “All in the Family? Family Environment Factors in Sibling Violence.” Journal of Family Violence 21 (2006): 497–507; Feshbach, S. “The Function of Aggression and the Regulation of Aggressive Drive.” Psychological Review 71 (1964): 257–272; Gelles, R. J., and C. P. Cornell. Intimate Violence in Families, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1990; Gelles, R. J. “Violence in the Family: A Review of Research in the Seventies.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 42, no. 4 (1980): 873–885; Haskins, C. “Treating Sibling Incest Using a Family Systems Approach.” Journal of Mental Health Counseling 25, no. 4 (2003): 337–351; Hoffman, K. L., and J. N. Edwards. “An Integrated Theoretical Model of Sibling Violence and Abuse.” Journal of Family Violence 19, no. 3 (2004):185–200; Kettrey, H., and B. Emery. “The Discourse of Sibling Violence.” Journal of Family Violence 22 (2007): 769; Kiselica, A., and M. Morril-Richards. “Sibling Maltreatment: The Forgotten Abuse.” Journal of Counseling and Development 85 (2007): 146–160; Linares, L. O. “An Understudied form of Intra-family Violence: Sibling-to-sibling Aggression among Foster Children.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 11 (2006): 95–109; Straus, M. A. “Forward.” In The Violent Home: A Study of Physical Aggression Between Husbands and Wives, ed. R. J. Gelles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1974; Tremblay, R. E., D. S. Nagin, J. R. Séguin, M. Zoccolillo, P. D. Zelazo, M. Boivin, D. Pérusse, and C. Japel. “Physical Aggression During Early Childhood: Trajectories and Predictors.” Pediatrics 114, no. 1 (2004): 43–50; Wiehe, V. R. Sibling Abuse: Hidden Physical, Emotional, and Sexual Trauma. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997; Wiehe, V. R. What Parents Need to Know About Sibling Abuse. Springville, UT: Bonneville Books, 2002.

Rachel Birmingham STAY AT HOME DADS The numbers of families choosing alternative parenting strategies have increased over time. A style of childrearing that has been subject to both celebration and denigration is the stay at home dad (SAHD). A stay at home father is a man who assumes full-time childrearing duties such as those traditionally assigned to a housewife. While men who elect to stay home while their wives work may find tremendous satisfaction in the arrangement, they often face questions from those who assume that the rightful place for men is in the world of paid employment rather than in the home.

Stay at Home Dads

INTRODUCTION In previous generations it was seen as the mother’s duty to stay home to rear the children. The father, on the other hand, was expected to work and to provide financially for his family. Today, this is no longer the case. Because many mothers work outside of the home (some earning high incomes) fathers have had to take a more active role in parenting. As parenting has evolved into a more equally shared job among couples, mom is no longer expected to sacrifice her personal goals to raise the children. Because times have changed, fathers are now willing to postpone their careers to stay home and raise the children while mothers continue to work and provide for the family. This change in the family has led to a relatively new group of men known as stay at home dads. Because SAHDs do go against the cultural norm, they experience challenges and obstacles as they redefine fatherhood. At times, SAHDs are revered by society for their active participation in their children’s live. Other times, they are looked down upon for their deviant behavior. Overall, SAHDs are rejected and misunderstood by the culture because of their decision to opt out of a more powerful role in society and take on a task traditionally associated with women. BACKGROUND As SAHDs increase in number, researchers have begun to take a closer look at this growing phenomenon. The U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the count of SAHDs has tripled in the past 10 years. They estimate that for the year 2006 there were between 150,000 to 200,000 full-time fathers in the United States caring for children under the age of 15. However, researchers studying the phenomenon estimate that the actual participation may be 10 times that number because the census eliminates a great deal of SAHDs on technicalities (Hartlaub 2006), such as the men working from home part-time while caring for children. These SAHDs were caring for approximately 283,000 children. Research also indicates that the majority of SAHDs are white males with an average age of 37. A large majority of these men also have a bachelor’s degree or higher and are employed prior to becoming full-time fathers. Forty percent of this group was estimated to have annual family incomes of at least $50,000. There are many reasons behind the increasing number of SAHDs. Not surprisingly, many men decide to stay home with their children because it is the most economically beneficial decision for the family. Unlike the common stereotypical ideas, men do not stay home because they are unemployed or feminine. With 25 percent of all women earning more than their husbands, it seems logical that dad would opt to stay home over mom. Among the changes in the labor market over the past 30 years has been the tendency for employed women with children to be increasing as a percentage of all workers. Men’s employment data suggest that male employment rates fluctuate as a result of changes in the economy and calls to military service; however, men have decreased as a percentage of all workers. While some of this is accounted for by the younger

| 527

528

|

Stay at Home Dads

ages at which men enter retirement today and the evolving service economy, men who voluntarily leave the labor force to rear children are also a part of the changing trends. An additional explanation as to why more fathers are staying home is that many mothers and fathers do not want to put their children in day care. These parents value the idea of a parent being the primary caregiver for their child. Also, some fathers’ personalities are better suited for raising children than are the mothers’ personalities. Probably the single most important factor for a dad deciding to stay home is that many mothers now work outside of the home, contributing significantly to the overall economic status of the family; therefore, parenting has moved from the mother’s role to the parent’s role. In sum, the research indicates that fathers usually decide to stay home because it is what is most practical for the family at the time. CHALLENGES FOR STAY AT HOME DADS Once these fathers have made their decision to stay home, they certainly do not experience ready acceptance or support from the culture. Many SAHDs report feeling lonely and isolated from society. In fact, 63 percent of them experience isolation or some form of depression (Nordstrom 1998). As many fathers exit the corporate world, they give up friends and acquaintances to establish their new identities. Because there are such low numbers of SAHDs and father groups, isolation and loneliness are sad realities for these men. Dads who do not allow loneliness or isolation to become a dominating factor can take the initiative to get out and find play groups, which can allow them the opportunity to socialize and meet other parents. There are also many people who feel that SAHDs are not beneficial to society, furthering the isolation that these fathers experience. Stay at home mother groups have been unwelcoming to full-time fathers and often mistake these men for perverts at the park rather than involved parents. Some SAHDs have found close friends among stay-at-home mothers that welcome them; however, this arrangement is not comfortable for all. This arrangement is very difficult for African Americans, who may go years without ever meeting another African American male in their same occupation. Most shocking is that some religious groups oppose full-time fathers and its break-down of the traditional family. Organizations such as Promise Keepers argue that men should be the head of the household and being a SAHD does not fulfill this role. Particularly there is concern that boys would suffer when fathers stay home because a SAHD is not a powerful role model for them. Family and friends make it difficult for fathers as well. Many fathers feel that their roles are stigmatized and their performances as fathers are put under the microscope. Because full-time fathers are taking on work commonly assumed by women, the culture too often questions their masculinity. Research indicates that society is not ready to let go of traditional gender roles and accept men in atypical positions. Those who research full-time fathering report that many fathers in this role experience odd looks and rude comments in public. This

Stay at Home Dads

problematic situation continues to occur as the culture’s definition of fatherhood is being challenged by more involved dads. Even wives of SAHDs are sanctioned for their family’s deviant behavior. Although the rejection is disheartening, research indicates that SAHDs can overcome this and prevail nonetheless. Unfortunately, the media has not helped create a more positive image of SAHDs. From Michael Keaton in the 1983 movie Mr. Mom to Adam Sandler in Big Daddy (1999) and Eddie Murphy in Daddy Day Care (2003), Hollywood has taken every opportunity possible to make full-time fathers appear comical. Movies and many television shows portray fathers as haphazard, domesticated idiots. Even commercials exhibit a harsh portrayal of fathers and their abilities to effectively parent. These stereotypes definitely make it harder for full-time fathers to be accepted and taken seriously by society. These negative depictions are always a good indicator of what the culture is not fully ready to accept. Another challenge full-time fathers endure is being mistaken as feminine. As fathers deal with their masculinity being challenged, research shows that fathers who can disassociate themselves from such negativity are much happier fathers. Dr. Aaron Rochlen believes that this whole idea of masculinity can be bad for full-time fathers and their children. This is because masculinity is associated with work-related success, competition, power, prestige, superiority, and restricting emotions and parents are those that can be expressive, patient, emotional, and not money oriented. It is evident how negative masculinity can be for fathers and how important it is for the culture to let this notion of masculinity subside. Although many of the challenges full-time fathers face are similar to those of full-time mothers, they differ in many ways. Whereas both mothers and fathers experience isolation as stay at home parents, mothers experience much more acceptance than fathers as primary caregivers. Also, mothers and fathers parent differently. Full-time fathers generally describe their method of parenting by saying that a full-time father is fathering and not mothering. Full-time fathers also have to deal with changes in their marriages. Marriage contentment has much to do with why the couple chooses this arrangement and how they delegate power and responsibility when one spouse decides to remain home. Most married couples experience difficulties initially as they adjust to changes and establish their new identities apart from cultural expectations. When parents are comfortable in this arrangement, it can be much less stressful and even beneficial for the relationship. It allows parents to focus on their children and not worry about childcare. It also frees couples from the challenge of deciding who will miss work when the children are sick. Unfortunately, if this arrangement is not a joint decision or is fallen into by default, marriages can experience many problems. Overall, couples can benefit their marriages and their children from this arrangement. BENEFITS TO STAY AT HOME DADS Although research may lead one to think that SAHDs are constantly fighting their critics to remain in the role, there are actually many benefits that full-time

| 529

530

|

Stay at Home Dads

fathers and their families receive from such an arrangement. Today, as these full-time fathers challenge old definitions of masculinity and redefine themselves and their role as a parent, they have found a tool that helps them deal with uncomfortable situations and a lack of social acceptance. Many SAHDs have turned to the Internet for help. The Internet provides fathers with an opportunity to connect with other SAHDs, affirm their new identity, and deal with loneliness. This support is particularly useful when fathers are first transitioning into the role of primary caregiver. This is the perfect tool for communication for men who do not naturally reach out for support. Through the use of websites such as athomedad.org or rebeldad. com, many SAHDs have found help and support from other fathers like themselves. Most of these sites offer advice for full-time fathers and encouragement through the struggles that they face. Some websites have local meetings for fathers and their children. SAHD groups have been most successful in the Pacific Northwest and Mountain states where the numbers of SAHDs are higher. Research has shown that today’s fathers, whether they stay at home to rear their children or not, put much more focus on nurturing and caring for their children than did fathers of the past. Children of at-home-father families tend to have a strong father and mother influence and both parents are important in the child’s life. This is somewhat different from the at-home-mother family, in which a child experiences high contact with the mother and a more detached relationship with the father. When children spend more alone time with fathers early in life, it forges bonds that result in fathers remaining active parents throughout the ensuing years. Research also indicates that full-time fathers tend to have more independent children. These children who experience increased time with their fathers usually earn higher grades in school, have greater ambition, have fewer anxiety disorders, and have a reduced risk of delinquency or teen pregnancy. It gives daughters an opportunity to see their mothers be successful and experience a nurturing father figure. Boys benefit from this arrangement by observing an involved male figure. Although there is anecdotal concern that boys will grow up to be feminine, research has yet to find this to be true and it represents one of the unfounded assumptions about SAHDs. Most stay at home fathers report that they are happy with their new identities, however, it was difficult to adjust to because they had to view their accomplishments differently and measure them with a different yard stick. Support is crucial for their contentment as full-time fathers. Aaron Rochlen found in a survey of SAHDs that support was a critical element in the psychological well-being of stay at home fathers. Additionally, the increased emphasis on what fathers can contribute, outside of finances, leads many of them to gain greater confidence in their parenting abilities. There is no need to defer to mothers on childrearing issues (a traditional pattern) because they can trust their own instincts. They have additional opportunities to develop their fathering skills and do so in a way that differs from the skills that mothers bring to parenting. Men tend to be more relaxed and flexible parents, encouraging their children to be more independent and trust their own judgments.

Stay at Home Dads

FUTURE OF STAY AT HOME DADS Increasingly, full-time fathers create new identities and accept role reversals because it is what is practical for them and their families and not because they are feminine. Support is particularly important for SAHDs because they are moving from a world in which identities are based on achievements and paychecks to one in which accomplishments are measured by children’s success and growth. The Internet plays a large role in offering support to these fathers by helping them to forge a like community when one may be physically absent. A critical point that has emerged in early research on men’s choice to be SAHDs is that these fathers are not fully accepted nor understood by society and they experience a great deal of rejection. As more men enter this role, the stereotypes will likely become clearer and the strengths of fathers more apparent. Stereotypes that fathers are lazy and just do not want to work can make them question their decision. Mixed reactions from others about their decision to stay home can become tiresome. Full-time fathers say that the culture just does not understand why they choose to remain home with their children, but as the practice becomes more accepted these concerns should decrease. A likely outcome of the increasing questions about SAHDs is an intellectual interest in fathering. While fathers and their roles in children’s lives have been more extensively researched since 1990 the explorations are in their infancy. The phenomenon of SAHDs should encourage greater interests in the qualitatively different styles that mothers and fathers bring to their interactions with children. Ideally we will learn precisely what constitutes fathering. Given that some fathers are particularly uncomfortable that their parenting be compared to mothering, special skills of both parents will likely be made clearer. While these fathers assume predominately female work, they parent much differently than their female counterparts. They do not completely end all masculine chores, but they add feminine work to their traditional responsibilities. There are practical outcomes to the increases in SAHDs. As society grows and changes, there will eventually be greater acceptance of these men and their families. However, advancements need to be made in the work arena to allow more fathers paternity leave. While leave may be guaranteed for some fathers under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) most have been reluctant to take it because of how they might be viewed by employers and colleagues. One way to help integrate fathers into the lives of their children is to have more opportunities for them to volunteer at schools and child care facilities. Lastly, more local support for fathers, whether through religious groups or through local fulltime fathers’ groups, can affirm the positive influence that fathers can have in the lives of their children. These changes will definitely impact the future of fulltime fatherhood and would benefit these men greatly. See also Employed Mothers; Family Roles; Fatherhood; Housework Allocation. Further Reading: AtHomeDad.org: The Stay at Home Dad Oasis. http://www.athomedad. org; Cullen, L. T., and L Grossman. “Fatherhood 2.0.” Time, October 4, 2007. http:// www.time.com; Fisher, S. W. “The Stay At Home Dad: Why Some Christian Couples Are Choosing to Reverse Roles and How it Affects Their Marriage.” Marriage Partnership

| 531

532

|

Surrogacy 17 (2000): 24; Hartlaub, P. (July 23, 2006). Full-time Dad and Fine With It. http://www. sfgate.com; Nordstrom, N. “When Dad Stays Home.” Jugglezine June 12, 1998. Herman Miller, Inc. http://www.hermanmiller.com; Owen, S. “Numbers of Stay-at-Home-Fathers Are Rising.” http://www.thenothwestern.com (accessed March 5, 2008); Randall, K. “University of Texas Stay-at-Home Father Survey Results.” Austin, TX: University of Texas Department of Educational Psychology. http://www.utexas.edu; Rebeldad, “A Father Puts the Stay-at-Home Dad Trend Under the Microscope.” http://www. rebeldad.com; Stritof, S., and B. Stritof. “Full Time Dads and Marriage.” http://marriage. about.com; Shaver, K. “Stay at Home Dads Forge New Identities, Roles.” Washington Post, June 17, 2007; Tucker, P. “Stay at Home Dads: At-Home Dads Can Benefit Children and Mothers.” Futurist. http://www.allbusiness.com (accessed June 15, 2008); U.S. Census Bureau. March 2006. America’s Families and Living Arrangements, 2006. Current Population Survey and Report.

Victoria Adams SURROGACY Surrogacy is a form of reproductive assistance in which one woman bears a child for another woman to rear. While it sounds like a simple proposition, something a woman might do for another out of the goodness of her heart, it is far more complex than it initially sounds. Likewise the ethical, moral, and legal controversies surrounding surrogacy continue to be revealed. SURROGACY: A BRIEF U.S. HISTORY Surrogacy, as scientific assistance for pregnancy and birth, became a part of public discourse around the mid-1970s, despite its having been mentioned in the Bible in Genesis. The first documented instance in the United States comes from an anonymous advertisement in the mid-1970s requesting the help of a surrogate mother. According to the advertisement, the surrogate would receive a total of from $7,000 to $10,000 for her services and $3,000 for medical expenses. The amount established in the 1970s has been the accepted minimum form of assistance for all commercial surrogacy cases. It is important to note that the fees given to surrogate mothers today are not necessarily payments for a child. Most states have made it illegal to pay a woman for a child, so the payments given to a surrogate are couched in phrases like medical assistance, food, and shelter. This is done to eliminate the stigma of baby selling. The first time a surrogacy case went to court was in 1981. Unlike the more widely known cases like Baby M and Johnson v. Calvert, this particular case was about payment. The case was a challenge to Michigan laws that would not allow a payment in exchange for relinquishing parental rights. Leading this case was the so-called Father of Surrogate Motherhood, Noel Keane. He challenged Michigan laws regarding payment to surrogate mothers, but the trial did not go in his favor and the state upheld their law against fees being paid for a child. In fact, Michigan was so staunchly opposed to surrogacy that they tried to ban surrogacy contracts outright in 1988 and was the first state in the nation to take a stand on surrogacy.

Surrogacy |

As the 1980s progressed, surrogacy became a more prevalent form of assisted reproductive technology, but it also became more entrenched in legal battles. The law was unable to keep up with the emerging technologies, and before anyone could reconfigure concepts of parenthood, cases like Baby M and Johnson v. Calvert took the national stage. When the Baby M case hit the New Jersey courts in 1986, both the United Kingdom and the United States had had their first successful in vitro fertilizations, and surrogacy had taken on new dimensions. The jargon surrounding surrogacy shifted, creating four different categories of cases: 1. Traditional Surrogacy: a case in which a couple decides to have a child through a surrogate mother, and the husband provides the sperm and the surrogate provides the ovum. In this case, the surrogate mother is the genetic and gestational mother. 2. Gestational Surrogacy: a case in which a couple decides to have a child through a surrogate, and the husband and wife provide the necessary gametes. In this case, the surrogate is not genetically linked to the child. Also, gestational surrogacy can occur with the use of anonymously donated sperm and ova, thus creating some potentially difficult legal issues (see Jaycee B. v. the Superior Court of Orange County 1996 and In re Marriage of John A.B. and Luanne H.B. 1998). 3. Commercial Surrogacy: a case in which a couple pursues surrogacy usually through an agency, paying for the agency services as well as providing financial assistance to the surrogate mother. 4. Noncommercial Surrogacy: a case in which a couple pursues surrogacy, usually through a private agreement, in which no fees are exchanged between the couple and the surrogate mother. Although there are four types of surrogacy, they are not mutually exclusive. A surrogacy cannot be traditional and gestational at the same time nor commercial and noncommercial concurrently. However, it can be a traditional, commercial surrogacy or even a traditional, noncommercial surrogacy. Depending on the combination of labels, the moral, ethical, and legal ramifications of each surrogacy case increases. While there have been several legal cases involving surrogacy, three have received the most media attention: In re the Matter of Baby M, Johnson v. Calvert, and In re Marriage of John H.B. and Luanne A.B. The three cases have set the precedents for all surrogacy cases and have brought various issues into the national discourse. The Case of Baby M When the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on In re the Matter of Baby M in 1988, the case had received an enormous amount of national attention. The case was the first of its kind, with the surrogate mother demanding that the court acknowledge her parental rights. The case of Baby M was a traditional, commercial surrogacy. William and Elizabeth Stern, the intended parents, had contracted an agreement with Mary Beth Whitehead as the surrogate mother. According to the

533

534

|

Surrogacy

contract, Ms. Whitehead would undergo artificial insemination with Mr. Stern’s sperm, carry the child to term, and upon the child’s birth would relinquish her parental rights to the Sterns. In exchange for fulfilling the contract, Ms. Whitehead would receive $10,000. As the pregnancy advanced, Ms. Whitehead had reservations about giving up the child and decided that she wanted to keep it. Upon the birth of Baby M, Ms. Whitehead fled to Florida against court orders. When the case went before the Superior Court, the judge upheld the legality of the surrogacy contract and demanded that Ms. Whitehead return the child to the Sterns. Upon appeal, the case went before the New Jersey Supreme Court where it garnered national media attention. The court, without precedents for surrogacy cases, treated the arrangement between the Sterns’ and Ms. Whitehead as they would a custody battle between divorced parents. Because Elizabeth Stern had no apparent claim to the child, the court did not consider her intent in having a child. The court reversed the Superior Court’s decision on the basis that the contract between the Sterns and Ms. Whitehead was illegal. Because the contract outlined payment for a child and the relinquishment of parental rights rather than payment for medical expenses, the contract violated New Jersey public policy and was null and void. The court, having dismissed the surrogacy contract, then dealt with the issue of custody and the child’s best interests. In the hearing, it was decided that the Sterns could provide the best possible environment for Baby M, so they were awarded custody. Unlike the Sterns, Ms. Whitehead had recently divorced and was struggling financially—two things the court considered while deciding the best interests of Baby M. However, because she was deemed the biological mother, the court granted her visitation rights. Baby M was the first case that addressed the lack of a legal framework for dealing with surrogacy issues. Without laws specifically governing surrogacy, the court had to treat traditional surrogacy as they would a custody battle between separated parties. As a result of the media attention, however, nearly every state considered laws to allow, ban, or regulate surrogacy. The Baby M case marks the beginning of public legal and ethical discussions of surrogacy issues. In the middle of the trial, a 1987 poll from the New York Times found that a majority of people believed that surrogacy contracts should be upheld—even if the courts seemed to rule otherwise. The Case of Johnson v. Calvert Six years after the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its decision regarding traditional surrogacy in the Baby M case, the California Supreme Court handed down a decision that would inform the general consensus toward gestational surrogacy: Johnson v. Calvert. In this case, Mark and Crispina Calvert sought to have a child through a surrogate mother, Anna Johnson. Anna Johnson offered to be the surrogate mother for the Calverts. Unlike the case of Baby M, where the surrogate also supplied the ovum, Ms. Johnson provided the necessary gestation for the child and Mrs. Calvert provided the

Surrogacy |

ovum. By using in vitro fertilization, Ms. Johnson carried the Calvert’s genetic child. Under the contractual agreement between the two parties, Ms. Johnson would receive $10,000 in installments to help finance medical expenses and basic needs. The Calverts would also insure her life with a $200,000 life insurance policy. In return, Ms. Johnson would carry the child to term and recognize the sole parental rights of the Calverts. However, the Calverts and Ms. Johnson had a falling out, and both parties filed custody suits. According to California law (under the Uniform Parentage Act), both Crispina Calvert and Anna Johnson had equal claims to the child because the law acknowledged the role of genetic and gestational mothers as legal mothers. However, the court decided in favor of Mrs. Calvert based on a consent-intent definition, a definition that has subsequently affected all gestational surrogacy cases. By a consent-intent argument, the legal parents are the people who consented to the procedure with the intention of taking on parental responsibility. The court argued that any woman could have gestated the resulting child, but only Mrs. Calvert could have provided the ovum. As a result, Mrs. Calvert was the legal mother. The Case of Jaycee B. Like the two previous cases, the trials involving Jaycee B. took the national stage, as once again the law struggled to deal with issues that arise from surrogacy. However, unlike Baby M and Johnson v. Calvert, Jaycee B. was not a surrogacy case; in fact, the trials surrounding this child were more about child support and deciding the legal parents. The trials were labeled as a surrogacy case gone awry because Jaycee B. was the result of a rather unusual surrogacy. This case involved a gestational surrogacy in which the genetic material (the sperm and ovum) used to create the child belonged to neither of the intended parents. The intended parents had used anonymous donor sperm and ova, and under California law, donors are not acknowledged as legal parents. When the intended parents of Jaycee B., John and Luanne, divorced one month prior to the birth of the child, questions of parentage arose. When John filed for divorce, he listed no children from the marriage and refused to pay child support for Jaycee B. In the media, reports labeled the child as legally parentless because the genetic parents were anonymous donors and the surrogate mother had filed for custody, only to take her petition back when Luanne assured her that Jaycee would be fine. As the divorce trial continued, John refused to acknowledge the child as his own because he was not the biological father. He argued that because he was not genetically linked to the child, he should not have to pay child support. The first trial in the matter of Jaycee B. concluded in 1996, Jaycee B. v. Superior Court of Orange County. The first trial was meant to decide whether John should pay child support. The Appellate Court declared that because he had signed the surrogacy contract as an intended parent, he owed child support until such time as a court officially labeled him as other than the father of the child. In 1997 the case became more complicated when a higher court decided that John had

535

536

|

Surrogacy

no support obligations, that the surrogacy contract was unenforceable, and that Luanne would have to officially adopt the child. The second trial in the matter of Jaycee B. concluded in 1998, In re Marriage of John A.B. and Luanne H.B. This specific trial dealt with the issue of parentage. The court decided that the intended parents of a child of donor gestation are the legal parents. John had argued that because he had only signed the surrogacy contract and no other legal paperwork, he could not be considered the legal father, and thus was not responsible for child support. The 1998 court decision upheld the consent-intent definition of parenthood established by Johnson v. Calvert, even in the absence of complete legal written documentation, but with John’s full awareness of the situation. Regardless of the lack of a genetic link between John and Jaycee, he was, by intent, her father. The trials involving Jaycee B. were not necessarily surrogacy cases; no surrogate mother was protesting her parental rights, but the trials illustrate what can happen when American laws do not account for the special needs of surrogacy cases. DOES SURROGACY AID INFERTILE COUPLES OR EXPLOIT WOMEN? The biggest praise that surrogacy receives is that it enables infertile couples to have children that are genetically linked to at least one parent, if not both. In 1999, a study found that 2 to 3 million couples were infertile. Infertility data, combined with the fewer numbers of children readily available for adoptions, suggest that fewer couples would ever experience their desired parenthood. Surrogacy, when compared with the costs of legal adoption, may be an economically competitive form of having children. The process can be expensive, with a surrogacy costing a couple anywhere from $10,000 to $60,000 depending on whether the surrogacy is commercial or noncommercial, traditional or gestational. Average domestic adoption costs are $9,000, and the expense increases with a foreign adoption. Both adoption and surrogacy carry a weighty cost for agency and legal fees. In an adoption the birth mother is not paid anything to compensate her for her pregnancy and childbirth. However, because the intended parents may pay money to the surrogate mother, many critics view surrogacy as exploitation. The Case of Baby M caused an explosion of moral and ethical debates regarding surrogacy. Because the contract between the Sterns and Ms. Whitehead outlined that she would be paid upon the birth of the child and her filing to relinquish her parental rights, the courts viewed this as baby selling. Under contract, Ms. Whitehead would receive money for additional medical needs, but the $10,000 from the contract was to be given to her upon the birth of Baby M and not before and not in the case of an abortion. Radical feminist critics lashed out about surrogacy, claiming that the act exploited women and children, and that it undermined the basic mother-child bond. The stigma of baby selling continues in the dialogue about surrogacy. Even today, where it is widely recognized that surrogacy contracts cannot outline payment for children or the relinquishing of parental rights, critics argue that labeling the payments as something for

Surrogacy |

medical expenses, food, or clothing is a façade. Women are being paid to have children and give them to the purchaser. The issue of women being paid for pregnancy and childbirth brings up more controversial topics like exploitation of women and children and the commoditization of human capital. Because surrogacy is such an expensive procedure, the process favors the privileged classes, while harming lower-class women; rich couples can exploit lower-class women with the promise of money that they might not otherwise be able to earn. Because lower-class women may need the money, they would be more willing than other women to act as surrogates, and because the current system under which surrogacy operates has little follow-up for surrogates, critics argue that these women are seen as persons of use rather than persons worthy of respect. Because a monetary figure is attached to a woman’s body and the resulting child, critics contend that we have created a market for human capital; we are buying and selling people. Studies question the possible negative effects on a surrogate mother, such as the labels that society places on her and the consequences of separating a mother and child. Others wonder at the outcome for a child who learns that she or he is the result of a surrogacy arrangement. Very few studies follow up on these questions. However, when we discuss surrogacy and exploitation, we must consider the varying definitions of exploitation. Because harm is a subjective feeling, different surrogate mothers may relate different experiences. A first possible definition of exploitive surrogacy is that the intended parents gain while the surrogate mother is harmed. In this case, the intended parents gain from hurting someone else. Because the intended parents have the economic power, they can demand whatever they wish from the surrogate, and in return, she is left to acquiesce. A second possible definition of exploitative surrogacy is that both the intended parents and the surrogate gain from the experience, but the intended parents gain more. In this case, the intended parents gain a child and the surrogate gains some kind of monetary compensation. However, because society places a high value on a child’s life, but not one that is necessarily monetary, the exchange for a child and $10,000 for expenses is not a fair arrangement. A third possible definition of exploitive surrogacy is that the intended parents gain from an immoral practice. Because surrogacy violates an inherent social norm or religious viewpoint, it has to be exploitive. The difficulty in assessing accurate data on the exploitative nature of surrogacy is the fact that harm is subjective. Undoubtedly, Ms. Whitehead and Ms. Johnson might recount similar feelings from their surrogacy experiences, but the unnamed surrogate from the Jaycee B. case might relate a different experience. While they might make the news headlines, in fact less than 1 percent of surrogate mothers change their minds and want to keep the children. Most espouse a more altruistic motive to becoming surrogate mothers. Able to have children, they decided to give a gift to another couple. The Johnson v. Calvert case judges cited that a majority of surrogate mothers made between $15,000 and $30,000 per year in income separate from any possible assistance from the surrogacy. Less than 13 percent made below $15,000 per year.

537

538

|

Surrogacy

It has been suggested that the primary motive for women to serve as surrogates is the money that they can earn doing so. Money may not be the driving factor for surrogate mothers that some critics of the practice may like to suggest. Early studies of the practice also found women’s enjoyment of pregnancy, guilt over a past abortion, or giving a child up for adoption as potential motives in addition to financial compensation. Defenders of surrogacy argue that a woman who chooses to be a surrogate mother solely for some kind of payment would actually make less for the time she invested than if she worked at a low-paying job. Because these women choose to be surrogates, a 24-hour, nine month job for a minimum of $10,000 of assistance, there has to be some other motivation. If these women choose to be surrogates, the issue of exploitation seems irrelevant. It does not make sense that a woman would commoditize her body, as critics claim, for $1.54 per hour. This figure is derived from the following information: an average pregnancy lasts 270 days for 24 hours each day, totaling 6480 hours. If a surrogate mother receives the minimum $10,000 of assistance, she makes $1.54 per hour. If she receives $20,000 in assistance, it comes out to $3.09 per hour. Of course, to consider raising the minimum accepted assistance given for medical and basic needs might also lead to more women choosing to be surrogate mothers because of the money, rather than for more charitable motives. Ultimately, surrogacy cannot exist without surrogate mothers. We have yet to find a means of fertilizing an ovum and sperm and gestating the embryo without a gestational mother. The question is: does surrogacy help more than it hurts? GIVING BIRTH TO ONES GRANDCHILDREN In 1991, in one of the most pleasant and well-publicized surrogacy arrangements, a South Dakota woman gave birth to her granddaughter and grandson. Arlette Schweitzer, 43 at the time of the birth, underwent in vitro fertilization by using the eggs from her daughter, Christa, and sperm from her son-in-law, Kevin, the first documented arrangement of this type in the United States. Christa (22 at the time of the birth) had been born with functioning ovaries, but without a uterus. Upon learning of this Mrs. Schweitzer volunteered to gestate her own grandchildren. This gestational surrogacy gained publicity through a TV movie in 1993, “Labor of Love: The Arlette Schweitzer Story.” In 2004 Arlette Schweitzer recounted her surrogacy experience in the book Whatever It Takes.

GENETICS OR GESTATION: WHO BECOMES THE LEGAL MOTHER? In spite of the scientific developments with artificial reproductive technologies, the law has not moved fast enough to consider surrogacy cases. The federal government has been unable to provide a general law for surrogacy like the equivalent in the United Kingdom, the Surrogacy Act of 1985. The only time federal legislation for surrogacy was introduced was in 1989 when Representative

Surrogacy |

Thomas A. Luken (D-Ohio) and Representative Robert K. Dornan (R-California) introduced two different bills. Representative Luken presented the Surrogacy Arrangement Bill that criminalized commercial surrogacy. Anyone who willingly made commercial arrangements—intended parents, surrogate mothers, and agencies—would be subject to legal action. Representative Dornan introduced the Anti-Surrogate Mother bill that criminalized all activities relating to surrogacy. The bill would have also made all current surrogacy contracts, commercial and noncommercial, null and void. No one has been able to create a federal surrogacy law, and as a result the laws vary from state to state. The Baby M case began the legal discussions of surrogacy, and prompted debate in law reviews regarding the legal definitions of surrogacy between 1988 and 1990. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to treat Ms. Whitehead as the legal mother of Baby M was the first case of its kind to decide that legal motherhood is defined by genetics. Because Mrs. Stern had no role in the creation of Baby M, apart from her intent to be a mother, the court did not consider her in the case until they tried to decide the best interests of the child. With a legal vacuum for dealing with surrogacy, the court had to treat the case as a custody battle and treated the surrogacy contract as an adoption contract. However, within a few years, most states had considered some laws dealing with the issues that originated with Baby M. By the time Johnson v. Calvert received national attention, California had already begun a legal dialogue for deciding parentage, The Uniform Parentage Act. According to this act, legal mothers could be determined by either genetics or gestation. This posed a problem with Johnson V. Calvert because according to this definition, both Ms. Johnson and Mrs. Calvert had legal claims to the resulting child. The court decided the case based on a consent-intent definition, which claimed that without the intentions of the Calverts there would have been no child. The case also solidified the role of genetics in determining legal motherhood. In fact, many people at the time argued that a genetic definition of motherhood would be the best for surrogacy cases. The genetic argument eliminates any potential inconsistencies in surrogacy law, and it is the one contribution to a child that no one else could supply. In the instance that genetics and gestation were bound in the same woman, legal motherhood would be indisputable. But, again, because surrogacy laws change from state to state, there are no consistent laws for the process. California is the one state that has stayed the most up-to-date by considering various laws and standards for determining legal motherhood. Currently, there are three different tests for legal motherhood that courts use when deciding cases: intent-based, genetic contribution, and gestation. As previously mentioned, the intent-based definition of legal motherhood originated with Johnson v. Calvert. Because there would be no child without the intent of the intended parents, the intended mother is the legal mother. The genetic contribution test is the most foolproof method for determining legal motherhood because it is the contribution that only the biological donor parent provides. The gestation test is a common law assumption that the birth mother is the legal mother because she devoted time to gestating the child.

539

540

|

Surrogacy

The fact that there are three tests for determining legal motherhood, and that each of these tests contradicts the other in some places, suggests a need for more uniform law regarding surrogacy. However, in considering federal laws that would regulate surrogacy at the state level, legislators would have to decide exactly what defines a parent. With only one law to govern surrogacy, there may not be room to consider the special circumstances that can arise from surrogacy cases that do not begin as surrogacy cases, like the trials involving Jaycee B. SURROGACY AS DEVIANT TO NOTIONS OF MOTHERHOOD Today, it is impossible to discuss surrogacy apart from issues that range from artificial insemination and donor egg transplantation, the controversy over same-sex couples, and American concepts of motherhood. When discussing the moral, ethical, and legal questions surrounding surrogacy, most people get more than agitated. For some, surrogacy is immoral based on religious convictions. For others, surrogacy exploits women and children, making people commodities much in the way that the eighteenth and nineteenth century slave trade made people commodities. And yet for others, surrogacy is one of the only chances that they will ever have to have a child. Surrogacy has enabled couples who may not have been able to have biological children to finally have children. This includes infertile couples as well as samesex couples. With the rise of same-sex marriage controversies in the early part of the twenty-first century, surrogacy can become enmeshed as well. Religious zealots against homosexuality may lump surrogacy, despite its ability to give children to heterosexual couples, into a category of immoral behavior. Because surrogacy can provide children for same-sex partners, and because same-sex relationships are labeled morally wrong by these groups, surrogacy must also be morally wrong. But if we strip down surrogacy to its basic components—that a woman might decide prior to conception to choose to gestate a child for someone else to raise—then we may find that the notions of American motherhood are compromised. If American culture heralds a natural mother-child bond and maternal instinct, then what does surrogacy challenge about our notions of motherhood? If a woman willingly decides to gestate a baby for another couple, what does that say about the notions that mother knows best? On the one hand, surrogacy does perpetuate the idea that women should become mothers. By allowing infertile couples to have children in ways other than adoption or fostering, more women can become the mothers that society expects them to become. For most people, the act of gestation alone might make a woman a mother. But what kind of mother is she if she does not keep the child? Is a surrogate mother worse than a woman who gives up a child for adoption if the surrogate mother decides before she is pregnant that she will not keep the child? Some of the same stigmas and stereotypes of adoption are repeated in surrogacy. Over the last 30 years, there has been considerable research into both

Surrogacy |

adoption and surrogacy, but very little into the women who give up the children. Arguably, it is because surrogate mothers are deviant mothers. They do not conform to American concepts of motherhood, and so have been left out of mainstream research. Surrogate mothers do not reinforce ideas like the naturalness of mothering and the maternal instinct. Despite the fact that the surrogacy cases that have received the most media attention—Baby M and Johnson v. Calvert— were those cases that seemed to argue that women do have an instinctual desire to be mothers, fewer than one percent of surrogate mothers have ever contested for any parental rights. Surrogacy, despite increased popularity as a form of assisted reproductive technology, is still on the outskirts of the American legal framework. Apart from California, most state governments do not have laws guaranteeing the security of either the intended parents or the surrogate mother. Our legal system does not make it possible for a child to have two moms and one dad, or even just two dads (excepting California in a decision from 2005 that changed the Uniform Parentage Act). Because of these limitations, the jargon associated with surrogacy cases is divided, allowing for separations between normal motherhood and deviant motherhood. Surrogacy is either traditional or gestational. It can either be commercial or noncommercial. The language of surrogacy reinforces inherent American notions of good mothers, and a surrogate mother does not fit that role. See also Biological Privilege; Infertility. Further Reading: American Surrogacy Center, Inc. http://www.surrogacy.com; Anderson, Elizabeth. “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 19, no. 1 (1990): 71–92; Andrews, Lori. “Beyond Doctrinal Boundaries: A Legal Framework for Surrogate Motherhood.” Virginia Law Review 81, no. 8 (1995): 2343–2375; Behm, Lisa. “Legal, Moral, and International Perspectives on Surrogate Motherhood: The Call for a Uniform Regulatory Scheme in the United States.” DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 2, no. 2 (1999): 557–603; Blankenship, Kim, Suzanne Onorato, Beth Rushing, and Kelly White. “Reproductive Technologies and the U.S. Courts.” Gender and Society 7, no. 1 (1993): 8–31; Coleman, Malna. “Gestation, Intent, and the Seed: Defining Motherhood in the Era of Assisted Human Reproduction.” Cardoza Law Review 17, no. 1 (1996): 497–530; Houston Women’s Center. http://www.intendedparents.com; Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela. “Gestation: Work for Hire or the Essence of Motherhood? A Comparative Legal Analysis.” Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 9, no. 3 (2002), 91–134; Place, Jeffery. “Gestational Surrogacy and the Meaning of ‘Mother’: Johnson v. Calvert.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 9, no. 3 (1994): 907–918; Schuck, Peter. “COLLOQUY: Some Reflections on the Baby M Case.” Georgetown Law Review 76 (1998): 1793–1810; Schweitzer, Arlette. Whatever It Takes. Mandan, ND: Crain Grosinger Publishing, 2004; Shalev, Carmel. Birth Power: The Case for Surrogacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989; Surrogate Mothers Online. http://www.surromomsonline.com; Surrogacy UK. http://www.surrogacyuk.org; Wertheimer, Alan. “Two Questions about Surrogacy and Exploitation.” Philosophy and Public Policy 21, no. 3 (1992): 211–239.

Sarah Fish

541

This page intentionally left blank

T TEEN PREGNANCY The United States has the highest rates of pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth among teenagers in industrialized nations, a fact that results in considerable social anxiety and controversy. Teen pregnancy is defined as pregnancy among girls age 19 years and younger. A term that is used to draw attention to the problems of this behavior is “children having children.” Teen pregnancy leads to adolescents raising children before they are emotionally or financially ready to do so. The rate of teen pregnancy has steadily decreased since reaching an all-time high in the 1990s. The rates have fallen because teenagers today have shown an increased use of long-acting birth control and slight decreases in sexual activity. Today fewer American young people get married as teens, compared with young people 50 years ago. They don’t, however, avoid sexual relationships until marriage. Because they are involved in premarital sexual relations, often with little planning for pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention, teens become parents early. This has been a factor in the increase in singlemother families. There are different reasons why teenage girls become pregnant. Teenage girls are likely to become pregnant if they were sexually abused at a young age, in need of someone to love them, or planned for motherhood. Other pregnancies were unintended, because most teens tend to be poorly prepared with contraception and tend to underestimate their chances of conceiving. BACKGROUND Twenty-nine million adolescents are sexually active in the nation and the number is increasing each year. More than 850,000 teenage girls will become

543

544

|

Teen Pregnancy

pregnant each year and 500,000 of them will give birth. Estimates are that threefourths of these pregnancies are unintended. About 90 to 95 percent of teens who carry the pregnancy to term will keep their babies. Surprisingly, the nation’s highest teen birth rate occurred in 1957, with 96.3 births per 1000 teenage girls, compared to 41.2 births per 1000 teenage girls in 2004. These numbers seem to suggest that teen parenting was more of a problem in the past. That is misleading, however. Most of the births from the 1950s and 1960s were to older teens who were married to their partners. These teens, who married young and had high fertility rates, were the parents of the baby boom generation. Economic instability, a hallmark of teen parenting today, was ameliorated in the 1950s by a strong economy and the likelihood of finding a family-wage job with only a high school education. Because so-called good jobs were available to those with only a high school education, young marriage and childbearing was encouraged by the social circumstances. Also, there was a strong propaganda machine extolling the virtues of stay-at-home mothers. There was a stigma on girls who were out-of-wedlock mothers, so much so that many pregnant teens were sent to live with relatives until the birth when the infant was then placed for adoption. The alternative was a so-called shotgun wedding in which the couple was persuaded to marry before the pregnancy began to show. In the 1950s and 1960s more than half of the women who conceived while single married before the child was born. Today, the story is a very different one. The overwhelming majority of teen pregnancies are among unmarried teens. Eighty percent of teenage births occur outside of a marital relationship, and most of the girls have no intention of marrying the father of the child. As the social stigma of teen pregnancy has decreased dramatically over the last 30 years, so has the pressure to marry in order to legitimize a birth. Pregnant teens attend school alongside nonpregnant teens. This is quite a contrast from the days when they were forced to drop out or were sent to the reform school for students with behavior problems so that they would not corrupt the nonpregnant females. The financial circumstances of today’s teen mothers are often quite desperate and many end up seeking public assistance funds. Education beyond high school has become essential for constructing a middle-class life, but many teen mothers experience a truncated educational history, quite unlike what those teen mothers of 50 to 60 years ago experienced when their husbands had high-paying jobs. A brief discussion of the trends in teen birth in the last 20 years can help us to understand why teen pregnancy has been described as such a problem. In 1986, the birth rate among 15- to 19-year-old women was 50 births per 1000, but by 1991 that rate had climbed 24 percent to 62 per 1000. However, over the next five years the rate fell to 54 births per 1000 women ages 15 to 19 (Darroch and Singh 1999). In 2005, the teen birth rate in the United States was 40 births per 1000 teenage girls. Most data are concerned with the 15- to 19-year-old group because they have higher rates and constitute a much larger proportion of the births to teen mothers. Today research shows that pregnancies among young girls age 10 to 14 years old have fallen to their lowest level in the past decade. Thus, in the late 1980s and early 1990s politicians, families, religious leaders,

Teen Pregnancy |

and educators began to worry about the increases in teenage births and asked what solutions would help turn the trends around. Race and Ethnicity Racial and ethnic groups in the United States do not all have the same teen pregnancy and birth rates. Fertility rates among American women are different because of religion, age, and socioeconomic status. During the 1970s and 1980s, African American women had the highest fertility rate, Hispanics had the second highest, and white women had the lowest. Today, however, it is Hispanic women with the highest rate, followed by African Americans, and whites. The rate of teen births among blacks has dropped more dramatically than the rates of any other ethnic group. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2005 the birth rate for Hispanic teens was 82 births per 1000 girls age 15 to 19. Comparable data for black and non-Hispanic whites were 61 per 1000 and 26 per 1000 respectively. The group with the lowest teen birth rate was Asian and Pacific Islander teens at 17 per 1000. The reasons that birth rates among races differ are because of socioeconomic factors, family structure, and perceived future options. Risk factors for teen pregnancy include living in rural areas and inner cities, where many minority groups are clustered. White adolescent girls are less likely to carry their pregnancies to term than are black or Hispanic girls. Because of their economic status and parental pressure, many will end their pregnancies through abortion. Often minority women, particularly those on public assistance, cannot afford abortion and legislation has changed so that government funds will not cover elective abortion. Likewise, education and religion can play a role in teen births. Girls who perceive few educational or employment opportunities (usually minority girls) may be more interested in becoming mothers. Pregnancy and mothering may be a way to avoid going to work in low-paying, dead-end jobs. At least they can have control in one aspect of their lives. This is more likely to be the case for black girls. One study in Alabama found more than 20 percent of black teens between 14 and 18 wished that they were pregnant. For Hispanics socioeconomic status is also important. However, Roman Catholicism, which disapproves of both birth control and abortion, also plays a role. Hispanic culture places a high value on children, particularly in their ability to contribute to the family group. Intervention With the changing patterns of teen pregnancy described above and concerns over the long-term consequences for society from children being reared by teen parents or single parents, calls for intervention have increased. Specifically, prior to the welfare reform of 1996, there was increasing concern over public funds supporting these families and frequent unsubstantiated charges that teens, and other poor single mothers, were having more babies just to increase their welfare benefits. In 1992, the U.S. government realized the importance of considering

545

546

|

Teen Pregnancy

the experiences of teenage mothers and began pregnancy prevention programs in earnest. These programs, which largely target girls under the age of 16, were designed not only to discourage sexual activity but to educate young people about safer sexual practices. They generally worked off the assumption that all teen pregnancies were unwanted or unintended pregnancies. While that does seem to be the majority experience, it does not fully describe teen childbearing. Optimists predicted that these types of programs would reduce the numbers of teen pregnancies by half and increase the provision of sex education and contraceptive services for young people. It did, however, become an issue with parents as well as religiously conservative groups. While there are no definitive data, there is a concern that sex education will encourage teenagers to have sex by making them think more sexual thoughts or providing the sense that adults condone teenage sexual experimentation. Some school districts were concerned about parental reaction should they institute the federal program. Education proponents argued that if teenagers are not educated about sex they will not know how to protect themselves and the result will be pregnancy or STD. Teenagers are curious and they are going to experiment whether they have had sex education or not. Proponents argued that another reason why teenagers have sex is peer pressure, and comprehensive sexuality education could help counter that. Beginning with the George H. W. Bush administration these education programs focused heavily on teaching young people about abstaining from sexual behavior until marriage. While this drew praise from conservative religious and political groups, it was not well received by those who work directly with teens, suggesting that it was too naïve of an approach given the saturation of American media with sexual images. Critical of the emphasis on abstinence of most government programs, sexuality researcher Ira Reiss has said on many occasions that vows of abstinence break far more easily than do condoms. The government has not been the only organization working on the issue of teen pregnancy. In 1996 The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a nonprofit private nonpartisan organization, was founded with the sole goal of reducing teen pregnancy rates by 30 percent in ten years. Through grassroots work and media influence they have been largely successful. Despite the decreases in teen pregnancy in recent years, the problems that teen mothers and their children face are daunting. PROBLEMS WITH TEEN PREGNANCY Politicians, educators, clergy, and the general public debate whether teen pregnancy is a serious problem in the United States. The negative consequences of teen pregnancy and parenting have been well documented by public and private agencies, including the well-regarded Annie E. Casey Foundation. The areas of concern include the children, the mothers, and society as a whole. Advocates stress that teen pregnancy is a serious problem because teen pregnancy is linked to many negative circumstances for both teen parents and their children. Health. Early childbearing puts teen girls at risk for health problems, both mentally and physically. Teens are at higher risk of death than older women during delivery; two to four times higher by some estimates. Young girls are

Teen Pregnancy |

faced with medical problems such as anemia, hemorrhage, and high blood pressure. These complications are particularly likely in the 10- to 14-year-old age group. Sexually active teens also have high rates of STD transmission, some of which can be passed on to their infants at birth. Infection during pregnancy can cause not only health problems with the fetus, but can cause a miscarriage. Primarily due to inadequate nutrition, adolescents are three times more likely to have a baby with low birth weight or to be delivered prematurely. Infants born to teenage mothers, then, are at greater risk for developmental and physical problems that require special medical care. The younger the teen is the higher the chance that her baby will die in the first year of life. Most teenage girls do not admit to being sexually active. When a young girl becomes pregnant she may not tell anyone because she is in denial or is scared. When a teen does not reveal that she is pregnant she puts herself and the fetus in serious danger. Teens are less likely to receive prenatal care when they hide their pregnancies from their family. Early and adequate prenatal care, preferably through a program that specializes in teenage pregnancies, ensures a healthier baby. The mother’s health and that of the baby can depend on how mature the young woman is about keeping her doctor appointments and eating healthy. Sometimes, due to insurance limits or government policies, unmarried teens can be denied funding from the government or insurers, making safe pregnancies and deliveries difficult. Adolescent mothers are more prone to smoke, use drugs, or consume alcohol during pregnancies than are older mothers. Their children are at increased risk of growth delay and dependence on chemical substances from the drug use. Adolescents’ children are often in need of speech therapy because they are behind in development. Teen mothers are less prepared for the tasks of childrearing, know less about child development, and are more likely to be depressed than other mothers. Adolescent mothers and their children are faced with the same effects as most single-mother families. Single-mother families are one parent raising the children and taking on the role of mother and father. Coupled with teen mothers’ greater chances of living in poverty and having a special-needs child, the tasks of parenting can seem overwhelming. This leads to high levels of stress. Additionally, studies indicate that these women can have difficulty forming stable intimate relationships later. These concerns are compounded when the teen has inadequate social support. Economy. One of the largest concerns regarding teen pregnancy is the poverty status of the teens and babies. Pregnancy reduces the likelihood of completing one’s education, which, because the less educated a person is the harder it is to have a good job with benefits, leads to poverty. Around 40 percent of teen mothers receive their high school diplomas. Low academic achievement is both a cause and consequence of teen pregnancy. Estimates suggest that about one-half of all teen moms will receive welfare payments within five years of the birth of their first child. This percentage increases to three-quarters when only unmarried teen mothers are considered. Teenage childbearing places both the teen mother and her child at risk for low educational attainment. Her children will look at her for a role model and if she got

547

548

|

Teen Pregnancy

pregnant early and dropped out of school they may feel they should too. Women who grow up in poor families are more likely to have been the offspring of a teen pregnancy. The children of teen mothers are more likely to be living in poor neighborhoods where schools may be under-funded, are unsafe, or are of low quality, thus not preparing them for the future. The children of teen mothers, perhaps due to diminished opportunities, can suffer from depression and low self-esteem. Social Support. The support of family and friends is very helpful and much needed in the circumstance of teen pregnancy. Family and friends might make it possible for the teen to stay in school and continue her education. They can encourage adequate nutrition and prenatal healthcare. It is clear that there are substantial societal costs from teen pregnancies in the form of lost human capital and public welfare outlays, but support for the teen can assist her in positive parenting and active economic participation. Teenagers may become sexually active for a number of reasons. Depending on how mature their bodies are, whether they are spending time around sexually active people, or how much television viewing and magazine reading they do, they may develop attitudes consistent with the group. This is why it is not uncommon for friends to both become teen mothers, or for sisters to have similar early pregnancy experiences. The social network is important in the outcomes. Teens are more at risk of becoming pregnant if they grow up in poverty, use alcohol or drugs, have no support from their family, have fewer numbers of friends, and have little interest or involvement in school activities. There are differences in how families respond to the pregnancy of a teen daughter. More white girls live independently with their child after the birth, suggesting that their parents may be less accepting of such an outcome. Unfortunately, the children of teens are disproportionately represented among the ranks of children who are abused and neglected, particularly when compared with the children of single mothers in their 20s. The children of teen mothers have a greater chance of themselves becoming teen parents, participating in delinquent acts, or being incarcerated. CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS OF TEENAGE PREGNANCY Data are consistently clear: teenagers in the United States are significantly more likely than comparable women in other developed countries to become pregnant. The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Canada are among the countries that have significantly lower rates than those of the United States. This leads those who work with teens to hypothesize about what is different for U.S. teens. There are several proposed factors. One is access to contraceptives and other family planning services. Many other nations have national health care systems that significantly reduce the costs of such services, making them easily accessible to all persons. Additional suggestions include American teen’s ambivalence toward sexuality. Even though the media are saturated with sexual themes, they rarely communicate responsible attitudes toward sexuality. High risk-taking and an alienation of some groups from what are considered middle-class values have also been considered.

Teen Pregnancy |

POSITIVES OF TEEN PREGNANCY While it seems that all of the news is bad regarding teen parenting and that more problems are created than solved, some positives can be found in the experiences of teens. Some teens might actually benefit from early childbearing. A small amount of teens planned to have their children. These teens are not likely to abuse or neglect their children. They usually finish school and go on to successfully support themselves and their families. These are the teens that are most likely to be married, either before or after the birth, to the father of the child. General stereotypes of teen mothers describe them as single, poor heads of families, but most teen mothers age 15 to 19 are not living independently with their children. The vast majority lives with relatives, including parents and, sometimes, husbands. By ethnicity, it is whites who are most likely to be living independently and with husbands. African American and Mexican American teens are most likely to be living with family members. This co-residence can provide significant support, both emotionally and financially. Through child care and other family-provided services, young mothers may still be able to finish school and gain solid employment. In this way, pregnancy and mothering may only delay, not deny, their pursuit of successful adult lives. Some economists have indicated that black teens gain less of an economic advantage by waiting to have children than do white teens. The common stereotype of irresponsible teens who behave irrationally by becoming pregnant may need to be reconsidered when it is a response to deficient and discriminatory opportunities. In some cases teen pregnancy can be a way out of a troubled home life. Teens suggest that the true benefits of child bearing are having someone to love and someone that loves them. Sometimes the birth of a child can help them to heal scars from their own childhood. Some teens have suggested that they have used pregnancy as a way to leave an abusive home. CONTROVERSIES OF TEEN PREGNANCY Is Teen Pregnancy a Problem? While the rates of teen pregnancies reached a historic low in 2004, it does not take the focus away from the situation because there are still teenage girls getting pregnant. Politicians, columnists, educators, researchers, and communities continue to argue that it is a serious problem. Almost every bad situation in society is blamed on teen pregnancies. Single parenting, poverty, delinquent children, school failure, drug abuse, child abuse, and crime have all pointed to teen pregnancy and birth as contributing factors. It seems that politicians use these data to raise the alarm in society and draw the public to their campaigns, often with the suggestion that ending poverty will be possible if teen pregnancies stop. Teen pregnancy can contribute to a given young person’s chances of being poor, but it does not cause poverty. Many of these girls were living in poverty before getting pregnant. Consequently, teen pregnancy may just be the scapegoat for other social problems. Sociologist Kristin Luker argues that adolescent girls are placed in the middle of a conflict between political factions that debate the issue of abstinence-only

549

550

|

Teen Pregnancy

sex education compared with more comprehensive approaches. She argues that the phenomenon of teen pregnancy has been misidentified. Specifically, she indicates that teen pregnancies do not only occur in the United States. While our rates might be higher, the problem is not uniquely ours. However, the racial and social class distribution of teen births causes many in the United States to see them as a problem. Significantly the rates have been declining and are not out of control largely due to improved contraceptive use, particularly of longacting contraception that does not require daily administration. Given that rates of sexual activity have increased over the same period that teen birth rates have declined, the pregnancy rates could be significantly higher than they are. Young people are physically mature at early ages today, the consequence of better nutrition and overall health, and development of their sexuality accompanies that. Luker also reminds us that the teen birth rate is not new; the mothers of the baby boom often began their childrearing in their late teens. One of the interesting co-issues of teen pregnancy is why teen mothers are treated so much worse than are teen fathers. Females face many more negative attributions than do males. The message to young females seems to be that we are okay with you exploring your sexuality, just don’t get pregnant while doing so. Given that it takes both partners for conception, one wonders when the fathers will receive comparable scrutiny. Should Pregnant Teens Marry the Fathers of their Babies? A popular suggestion for decreasing the negative effects of adolescent childbearing is for teens to marry the fathers of their children. They already receive pressure to declare the father’s identity in order to receive state child support payments through public assistance. In the past, teens were more likely to marry before the birth. Today, however, only about 20 percent of teens marry the child’s father before the birth. When teens are encouraged to and actually get married their children have a better prospect for success later in life simply because they will have a twoparent family. The two-parent family has many documented advantages over single-parent families. Greater financial stability and more complete socialization of children are cited as reasons why teens should marry. Teens might even hear the suggestion that they have already made one mistake by becoming pregnant, they don’t want to make another by failing to provide legitimacy for the child. Teen marriages are actually more stable when children are present, but on the whole teen marriages are particularly prone to end in divorce. Marrying, then, might be the bigger mistake. Most teenage girls do not get pregnant by a teenage boy but by an older male. Data indicate that more than 50 percent of the fathers of teen mothers’ babies are between the ages of 20 and 24, around 30 percent of the fathers are adolescents themselves, and 15 percent are 25 or older. When teen mothers do marry they tend to become pregnant again very quickly. The suggestion that teens should marry the fathers of their babies fails to consider the long-term issues. The higher rates of dissolution were mentioned

Teen Pregnancy |

above. In both the United States and abroad, premarital pregnancy is correlated with a higher rate of divorce. When men are at least five years older or younger than their wives they are more likely to divorce. There are also maturity and readiness factors to consider. Lack of coping skills, inadequate preparation for marriage, and fewer life experiences contribute to marital dissatisfaction. There might also be less support from the couple’s friends and family for the marriage, which decreases the social pressure for the couple to stay together. Is Adoption the Answer? In the current climate of decreased negativity toward nonmarital childbearing, it seems unlikely that large numbers of teens will surrender their babies for adoption. With the stigma of teen parenting significantly decreased, they may face more negativity for giving the child up for someone else to rear. It has always been the case that more white girls than black girls placed their children for adoption, and that pattern holds today. However, the rapid decline in numbers of healthy white infants available via adoption has changed the adoption industry and pushed more families to adopt internationally. Adoption may be the answer in that it permits the teen to get on with her life and allows her child the opportunity to have a two-parent family. Those teens that place their infants for adoption tend to be older, white, have higher educational goals, and are more likely to complete additional job training. They are more likely than teens that rear their children themselves to delay marriage and to live in higher-income households. Certainly there is initial sorrow and regret over the decision to relinquish a child, but these tend to be short-term experiences. CONCLUSION Teenage mothers and their children are at risk of difficulty in the areas of social environment, education, and economics. The major focus on teen parents is on the socioeconomic outcomes of the mother. Literature on teenage mothers continues to show negative long term consequences for early childbearing, including consistently low levels of education and a greater dependency on welfare. In some cases people tend to see teen parents as uneducated, intolerant, impatient, insensitive, irritable, and prone to use both verbal and physical punishment. There is evidence that they are more likely than other parents to abuse their children. Economic success greatly depends on continuing school and not having more children. Older literature describes teen mothers as neglectful and unintelligent, but as research is updated there are more positive effects of teenage parenting for the women and children involved. See also Abortion; Birth Control; Marriage Promotion; Poverty and Public Assistance; Premarital Sexual Relations. Further Reading: Annie E. Casey Foundation. http://www.aecf.org; Darrock, J. E., and S. Singh. “Why is Teenage Pregnancy Declining? The Roles of Abstinence, Sexual Activity, and Contraceptive Use.” In Occasional Report, no. 1. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute,

551

552

|

Transition to Parenthood 1999; Davis, Deborah. You Look Too Young to be a Mom: Teen Mothers on Love, Learning, and Success. New York: Perigee, 2004; Gottfried, Ted. Teen Fathers Today. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001; Luker, Kristin. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996; National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. http://www.thenationalcampaign.org; Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. http://www.plannedparenthood.org; Williams-Wheeler, Dorrie. The Unplanned Pregnancy Book for Teens and College Students. Virginia Beach, VA: Sparkledoll Productions Publishing, 2004.

Santarica Buford TRANSITION TO PARENTHOOD Although there has been an increase in the number of childfree couples, the vast majority of Americans will, eventually, have at least one child. While most people are aware that children are economic liabilities, most still wish to become parents and the desire seems to be quite strong among both women and men. The reasons why individuals choose to become parents are multiple and complex. Many couples feel that they are not really a family without children. Some have a desire to carry on their family name and traditions or to solidify their relationship. Others may wish to see themselves or their partner in a child or may feel that a child gives them a sense of immortality. Still others may feel that becoming a parent is the ultimate expression of selflessness and the best way to give something back to the next generation. Taken together, these issues of timing of children and how parents adjust to the presence of their children are examined as the transition to parenthood. With advances in technology, having a child today is largely a matter of choice. Increasingly, couples decide whether or not, how many, and when to have children, with the current trend being delayed parenthood. However, social and cultural factors exert a great deal of pressure on married couples to make this choice. Most religious traditions emphasize the importance of childbearing; some require it. Government and economic policies also provide incentives to have children. Newly married couples are often encouraged by family members and friends to have children. Popular culture, such as women’s magazines and programming aimed at women, idealizes parenthood, especially mothering. The idea that all women should become mothers is known as compulsory motherhood. Popular images portray babies as cute, fun, and easily managed. Furthermore, many assume that parenting comes naturally and that no formal training is needed. Collectively, religious, socio-cultural, and economic pressures to have children may be thought of as a cultural press for childrearing. RELATIONSHIP ISSUES The birth of a child results in a number of significant and often unanticipated life changes. Unfortunately, as children, most Americans are quite sheltered and shielded from adult-like responsibility, including child- or sibling-care and therefore have very little actual experience in this regard. Studies find that

Transition to Parenthood

having children may impact a relationship positively or negatively. Many firsttime parents experience identity changes upon the birth of a child. More than any other experience, becoming a parent seems to confer adult status. New parents may also feel that their social ties are expanded, particularly those to extended family and to other parents. Having children increases one’s social network in a variety of ways, especially through establishing connections to outside institutions, such as religion and education. Many parents report that having children brings joy and novelty to their lives while others feel that it gives them a sense of immortality. Children may also provide a purpose to one’s life; this is especially true for those whose jobs or careers are not intrinsically meaningful. While children provide some emotional and social rewards to couples, social scientists have paid more attention to the negative effects of having children; some have even described the transition to parenthood as a crisis. The reasons for this description are multiple: parenthood is not a role or life choice that can be reversed; most first-time parents have had very little or no experience in child rearing; becoming a parent necessitates a number of other life changes, such as those in the marital or professional realm; and finally, the transition to parenthood is not gradual, but abrupt. In addition, parenting is probably the best example of a one-sided relationship—parents give and children take. In one study of several expectant first-time mothers and fathers, it was found that almost all of the fathers and a majority of the mothers expressed worry or concern about becoming parents. Furthermore, babies are born with different temperaments— some easy, others difficult. Parents who are fortunate enough to have an easy baby may begin to feel confident and competent in their parenting abilities, while those with more difficult babies may develop feelings of inadequacy and disappointment with the parenting experience. A consistent finding is that parenthood results in a decline in marital satisfaction. While marital satisfaction drops for both men and women, the decline appears to be sharper for women. Adjustment difficulties may occur if and when preparental expectations are incongruent with experiences. Persons who have inaccurate or unrealistic expectations are likely to experience strain and disappointment. In general, individuals whose expectations for parenthood are violated experience parenthood more negatively. Violated expectations for how housework and child care responsibilities will be allocated also have a negative impact on the parenting experience. It is estimated that mothers spend double or even the triple the time fathers do in daily care activities, such as bathing, clothing, feeding, and looking after young children. In addition to the hands-on work associated with parenting, women are more likely to attend to children’s emotional needs. Because of social pressure and cultural expectations, mothers may possess more of a parental consciousness, a constant state of psychological awareness and concern for their children. Collectively, these may be some of the reasons why marital satisfaction following the birth of a child drops more significantly for women than for men. Although less has been written on the subject, attention is now being given to the matter of fathers’ adjustment to parenthood. During pregnancy, men may

| 553

554

|

Transition to Parenthood

feel left out and jealous of their wives. Because men receive very little formal or even informal training for parenthood, they may also feel inadequate holding, bathing, or caring for their new baby. Unfortunately, new mothers (or members of the extended family, such as grandmothers) often reinforce these feelings by discouraging or even denying men the opportunity to participate in infant care. Some men may feel that their partners pay more attention to the baby than to them, which could result in feelings of jealousy or resentment. In addition, because men are taught that successful fathering is demonstrated through successful providing, new fathers may experience a great deal of stress as they try to meet the economic demands of an expanding family, often while their wives or partners are decreasing their contribution to household income. EMPLOYMENT ISSUES Most women who become mothers today work throughout the majority of their pregnancies or take only a short leave of absence when they give birth. In the United States, managing the demands of work and family is considered a private matter. As a result, few employers in the United States offer paid maternity leave. Consequently, women typically work as late into their pregnancies as they can and return to work soon after the birth. The United States is unique in this regard; most northern European countries offer at least some amount of paid leave to mothers, and many offer leave to fathers as well. In Sweden, for example, employees receive 80 to 100 percent of their salary for about a year so that they can be on leave to care for their child. In the late 1990s, over two-thirds of women worked during their pregnancies; in the 1960s, just over 40 percent did. In the 1960s, only about 14 percent of mothers returned to work within six months of the birth of their child, whereas in the 1990s, about 57 percent did so. To complicate matters more, very few employers in the United States offer paid maternity leave, expecting employees to use vacation leave, sick leave, or some sort of disability compensation to pay them while they recover from the birth. Therefore, today, women who choose to become parents and to work outside of the home (which most do) face the possibility of role conflict, overload, and exhaustion. The changes and difficulties associated with the transition to parenthood result in postpartum depression in about 10 percent of mothers. Interestingly, contrary to conventional wisdom, women without children are not more likely to be depressed or anxious. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that childfree women (that is, women who have chosen not to have children) experience higher levels of psychological well-being than women with children. PREGNANCY ISSUES While pregnancy, labor, and delivery are physical experiences, they are also influenced by socio-cultural factors. The popular media tends to highlight the beauty, mystery, and femininity of the pregnancy experience (especially among the Hollywood elite) without giving adequate attention to the physical and

Transition to Parenthood

emotional challenges associated with carrying a child to term. Generally, pregnancy is depicted or described along the lines of one extreme or the other. In some instances, pregnancy is romanticized and exalted as the most fulfilling experience of a woman’s life. Religious groups and traditional women’s literature (e.g., magazines) tend to portray pregnancy as an experience that every woman desires and should have. On the other hand, movies may also depict pregnancy and other functions specific to women’s physiology as painful, dangerous, or dirty. Of course, the reality is that most women’s pregnancy experiences fall somewhere between these two extremes. In one study, about one-third of mothers described the time of their pregnancies as emotionally and physically satisfying. The majority of women, however, described pregnancy in less ideal terms. Many talked about the physical discomfort of pregnancy and the feeling of being out of control. Others talked about the limitations pregnancy posed to their normal, daily routines. COMMUNICATION ISSUES In addition to unrealistic or violated expectations, another factor affecting relationship quality during the transition to parenthood is couples’ communication and other couple dynamics. Often, the birth of a child results in less or different types of communication between partners. Spouses may find that they either have little time to converse with each other or that their conversations rarely involve topics other than children. Couples may also find that the division of household labor, as well as the division of paid labor, becomes more traditional or segregated once children are present. Even couples who maintained a fairly egalitarian division of labor prior to the birth will often find that this balance is difficult to maintain afterwards. Once children arrive, men tend to spend more time and invest more energy in paid work, while women tend to spend more time and invest more energy in unpaid work. This type of role segregation can result in resentments and misunderstandings; partners may find it more difficult to empathize with one another. Women, more so than men, are likely to report feeling distracted or less productive at work once becoming a parent. Of course, prebirth patterns are predictive of postbirth patterns. Couples with effective communication skills before the birth, whose relationships were characterized by warmth and support, and those with effective conflict resolution strategies will tend to fare better after the birth of a child. In fact, their levels of marital satisfaction may not decline and may even improve. One longitudinal study found that couples who wanted and actively planned for the birth of a child did not experience a drop in marital satisfaction. It has been found that delaying the transition to parenthood may offset some of the strains experienced by early first-time mothers and fathers. Couples whose relationships are strained, who engage in negative or critical communication of one another, or who have poor conflict resolution skills, are likely to find that the quality of their relationship declines even further once a child is born. Having a baby does not improve troubled or devitalized marriages; it tends to increase levels of strain and exaggerate preexisting problems.

| 555

556

|

Transition to Parenthood

POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION Perhaps 70 to 80 percent of new mothers experience some degree of the so-called baby blues after giving birth. This typically involves a combination of emotions such as depression, anxiety, loneliness, and guilt. Normally, these feelings subside within a few days or a couple of weeks. However, about 10 percent of women experience postpartum depression, a much more serious condition which requires medical intervention. Postpartum depression is thought to result from a number of factors, some physical and others that are related to lifestyle. It is true that women experience severe hormonal fluctuations after giving birth, and such changes may result in sharp and unpredictable changes in mood. In addition to physiological changes, however, the birth of a child results in significant lifestyle changes, such as loss of sleep, lack of flexibility and spontaneity, increased domestic work and more time spent at home, modifications to one’s career, as well as marital or relationship changes. All of these changes occur very abruptly. Women are almost always the primary caretakers of infants; therefore, the transition to parenthood affects them in more direct, more numerous, and more significant ways than it does men. In addition to these life changes, most women are taught to believe that motherhood will be the most fulfilling experience of their lives. There is very little preparation for parenthood and almost no attention given to the difficult and problematic changes that it often brings—financial, professional, marital, and personal. Thus, many women find that they are not only unprepared for motherhood but also less satisfied and fulfilled by it than they expected. Depression may result as women try to cope with feelings of parental inadequacy. New mothers are especially susceptible to feelings of shame and guilt if they do not bond with or attach to their infants. Because many women and men believe in the existence of a maternal instinct even though there is no empirical evidence to support such an instinct in humans, most mothers expect to bond instantly with their newborns. When this does not occur, women may feel that they are unfit or undeserving of the motherhood role. Furthermore, many women are uncomfortable sharing their feelings with others because they believe they are supposed to be happy during this time. Women who find that they are experiencing feelings associated with postpartum depression should talk with their spouse or partner, friends, or other family members and they will most likely want to consult with their primary care physician, obstetrician, midwife, or counselor. There are several strategies for working through this type of depression, including talk therapy, medicinal therapy, or involvement with support groups, especially those designed for new mothers. Women are urged to take care of themselves, eat properly, get enough rest, and pursue hobbies or activities that are enjoyable and relaxing. In addition, new mothers should be careful not to spend too much time alone or in the home. Contacts with others and outside activities can help to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with postpartum depression.

FINANCIAL ISSUES The transition to parenthood is also experienced financially. Each year, the United States Department of Agriculture estimates the cost of rearing a child

Transition to Parenthood

through the age of 17. A child born in the year 1997 will cost between $220,000 and $440,000. This amount varies by social class with higher-income families spending considerably more on each child. This may be one reason why couples with higher incomes and levels of education are more likely to limit their childbearing. Interestingly, economic considerations do not factor into the decision for most prospective parents, especially for the first two children. Child care is one of the greatest expenses facing most new parents. Child care arrangements are affected by family income, marital status, and women’s work schedules. With a weak economy and more people, both men and women, of all ages having to work outside of the home, fewer members of the family, such as aunts or grandmothers, are available to provide informal child care. Having children is associated with a number of opportunity costs as well. These may not be experienced as direct financial costs, but they often carry longterm or indirect financial implications. Having a child typically results in a lower investment in paid work, especially for mothers. Women who take time off from paid work when they have a child experience lower lifetime earnings and fewer promotional opportunities. Workers who appear to prioritize family obligations over work are often judged as less committed and less reliable employees. Thus, employers are not as likely to invest in them. SHARED PARENTING In order to cope with some of the anticipated changes and threats to relationship quality that parenthood often brings, some couples may opt to engage in what is known as shared parenting. Shared parenting involves not only an overlap of roles but also of identities. Couples who adopt the shared parenting approach assume that both mothers and fathers are primary parents, rather than the more conventional approach that assumes that fathers parent on a supplementary or part-time basis and that mothers are the primary psychological and practical parent. Several factors influence whether or not a couple may opt for shared parenting. Studies indicate that family members or families who embrace shared parenting (1) consider themselves feminists or were influenced positively by the feminist movement; (2) typically involve partners who both have steady, secure employment; or (3) involve fathers who hold nontraditional or child-oriented careers, such as those in child development or child psychology. Interestingly, recent research indicates that fathers, as well as mothers, have had varied experiences historically. Rigid, stereotypical beliefs regarding the roles of men and women as parents may be less accurate than many believe. On a positive note, shared parenting appears to increase partners’ feelings of parental competence as well as relationship quality. It also seems to decrease behavior problems in children. One negative consequence of shared parenting may be a reduction in couples’ time alone. See also Birth Control; Birth Order; Breast Feeding and Formula Feeding; Childbirth Options; Childfree Relationships; Cosleeping; Infertility; Marital Satisfaction; Mommy Track; Motherhood Opportunity Costs; Parenting Styles. Further Reading: Belsky, Jay, and John Kelly. The Transition to Parenthood: How a First Child Changes a Marriage; Why Some Couples Grow Closer and Others Apart. New York: Delacorte

| 557

558

|

Transracial Adoption Press, 1995; Coltrane, Scott, and Michele Adams. Gender and Families. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008; Coltrane, Scott. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2002; Crittenden, Ann. If You’ve Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything: Leadership Begins at Home. New York: Gotham Press, 2005; Ehrensaft, Diane. Parenting Together: Men and Women Sharing the Care of Their Children. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1990; Gottman, John. And Baby Makes Three: The Six-Step Plan for Preserving Marital Intimacy and Rekindling Romance After Baby Arrives. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008; Hass, Aaron. The Gift of Fatherhood: How Men’s Lives are Transformed By Their Children. New York: Fireside Publications, 1994; Marsiglio, William, and Sally Hutchinson. Sex, Men, and Babies: Stories of Awareness and Responsibility. New York: New York University Press, 2004; Taylor, Verta. Rock-a-by Baby: Feminism, Self-Help, and Postpartum Depression. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Susan Cody-Rydzewski TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION Transracial or interracial adoptions have been debated since the 1950s and 1960s when black children started to be included regularly on adoption agency lists. During that time, Asian children were also entering the United States in adoption arrangements. Transracial adoption is when a family of one race legally adopts a child from a different race. The first transracial adoption on record was in 1948 in Minnesota when Caucasian parents adopted an African American child. The most common form of transracial adoption in the United States is the adoption of a black child by white parents. There are several reasons that influence a couple’s choice to adopt transracially, such as limited numbers of white children, some people feeling a connection to a different race, and some people just wanting to adopt a child, regardless of their race. Many advocates of transracial adoption feel that a loving family of any race is essential for a child, yet there are many others that firmly believe that children should be placed within their own race. BACKGROUND In the post–World War II era, adoption was institutionalized to cater to the white middle class. At this time, the societal ideal was to marry and start a family, but some couples were unable to have biological children. These couples turned to adoption as a way to fulfill their family goals. These families were perfect for agencies to adopt white infants into because they were economically stable. In addition to economic stability, adoption agencies required families to provide a suitable home where the child would have his or her own bedroom and a fulltime mother. These rules prevented most black families from being eligible to adopt a child. Through the 1970s adoption agencies were run by white social workers who could place white healthy babies or so-called blue-ribbon babies

Transracial Adoption |

more easily than they could place black babies. The rules were so rigorous that black couples had difficulty complying and therefore withdrew their applications from consideration. Many black pregnant women were denied the option to put their children up for adoption. These women were sent to the welfare agencies instead because black babies as well as children with disabilities were categorized as unadoptable. Transracial adoptions gained popularity in the 1950s and peaked through the 1960s and 1970s. With fewer healthy white infants available for adoption, adoption agencies began to consider placing a child of color into the home of a white family. The main reasons for the increase in transracial adoptions were long adoption waiting periods and a decreased number of white babies available due to advances in birth control, abortion, and societal acceptance of single mothers. The Civil Rights Movement has also been credited as a cause of the increases in transracial adoptions. The National Health Interview Survey found that 8 percent of adoptions were transracial in 1987. In the year 1998, the estimate of transracial or transcultural adoptions was 15 percent of the 36,000 foster children that were adopted. In 2004, 1.6 million children were adopted in the United States. Out of the 1.6 million adopted, 17 percent were interracial adoptions and 13 percent were foreign born, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. THE DEBATE The numbers of transracial adoptions have increased, sparking controversy between those who do not believe that a white family can raise an African American child and those who believe that children are entitled to a loving home, no matter what racial barriers there are. The largest adversary of transracial adoptions historically and currently is the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW). Native Americans also oppose transracial adoptions, claiming that this practice is cultural genocide. ARGUMENTS AGAINST TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION One of the main arguments against transracial adoption is that white parents will not be able to give a black child a cultural identity and survival skills in a racially diverse society. NABSW says that child socialization begins at birth, but the needs of black children differ from those of white children. Black children need to learn coping mechanisms to function in a society where racism is prevalent. Black families are capable of teaching these mechanisms in everyday life without having to seek out special projects or activities. They live their lives in a white-dominated society and their children learn by daily interactions. Even when white adoptive families actively seek out interactions and activities with black families, they put an emphasis on the differences within their family. Cultural support can be especially difficult to give if there is limited understanding of the cultural differences of family members. Caucasians are illequipped in their understanding of African American culture to adequately

559

560

|

Transracial Adoption

prepare a child for life in an ethnic group other than that of the adoptive parents. Despite the best intentions, Caucasians can not fully understand life from a minority perspective because they only experience it vicariously. The unique experiences of African Americans since their arrival on American soil means that parenting strategies and coping mechanisms have been developed to help deflect hostility from the dominant members of society. Additionally, racial barriers exist in many different aspects of social life. Over time, there has been a decline in the availability of white children to adopt. NABSW feels that white families adopt a black child so they do not have to wait for long periods of time to become parents. Adoption agencies cater to white middle class prospective adoptive parents and because white children are not as available the agencies try to persuade these families to adopt black children. NABSW supports adoption agencies finding black families to adopt black children. They suggest that agencies should change adoption requirements so that black families wanting to adopt are not quickly eliminated from the process. They also would like to see adoption agencies work harder to find extended family members who want to adopt and keep the child within the family. Financial help should also be available for these families so adopted children have the opportunity to grow, develop, and socialize within the black community. In fact, NABSW has argued that the so-called genocide that results from the adoption of black children by white families could never promote the interests and wellbeing of black children. In 1971, William T. Merritt, then president of NABSW, stated that black children that are in foster care or are adopted should only be in the home of a black family. His position paper the following year reiterated his perspective and as a consequence of the advocacy of NABSW national adoption guidelines were changed to favor or promote race-matching. In 1973, transracial placements decreased by 39 percent. In 1985, Merritt claimed that black children raised in white homes could not learn skills to function as a black person in society. He adamantly spoke out against transracial adoptions. Morris Jeff Jr., another past president of NABSW, called transracial adoption “the ultimate insult to black heritage.” Children who are adopted can sometimes face certain concerns regardless of the adoptive parents’ ethnicity. These problems, however, can become more intense when also dealing with racial barriers. Children placed for adoption have usually come from homes where abuse was common. They may be of an age to remember their biological parents and have unresolved conflicts because they were, in their minds, unwanted by their biological families. They often have to learn new ways of family life. In addition to adjustment issues, children who are adopted often have mental, physical, or emotional handicaps. Because adoption itself may require the child to make adjustments, the presence of racial identity questions just enhances the difficulty of transitions. Adoption comes with a certain stigma and children who are adopted may face identity issues. Even though they accept their adoptive parents and families and appreciate being a part of the family, adopted children often have an intense desire to know their biological parents. Research shows that both adoptive par-

Transracial Adoption |

ents and adult adoptees experience feelings of being stigmatized by others who question the strength of their ties with their adoptive families. This stigma can be heightened when the adoptee’s ethnicity is different from that of the adoptive family. Along with the cultural barriers and stigma of adoption, many opposed to transracial adoption say that there are enough black families interested in adoption to eliminate the placement of black children with white families. The National Urban League identified at least three million black families in the year 2000 who were interested in adoption. Adoption agencies have been faulted for contributing to the low numbers of available black adoptive families compared with white adoptive families. Critics say that many agencies do not have enough black social workers who are competent to make assessments of black families. Black families seeking to adopt may not receive equal treatment with their white counterparts, a situation that could be improved through the employment of more black social workers in adoption agencies.

ARGUMENTS FOR TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION Legislation has stepped in to terminate discrimination in the adoption process and eliminate race as the sole factor when determining the placement of a child for adoption. The Multi Ethnic Placement Act in 1994 was created to prohibit those agencies or entities that receive money from the federal government from using race, color, or national origin as the critical criteria in the adoptive or foster parent or child decisions. While the Multi Ethnic Placement Act made improvements to the process of transracial adoptions, it still allowed for agencies to take into consideration whether prospective parents could adequately care for a child from a different race. The passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1996) eliminated the use of any form of discriminatory tactics that would not allow prospective parents to transracially adopt. Any states that broke the laws would face reductions in their quarterly federal funds. Those favoring transracial adoptions say that the statistics alone should be reason enough to disregard race as the determining factor in placement. In the year 2000, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there were 118,000 children awaiting adoption in the U.S. and 40 percent of those were black children. In addition to the disproportionate number of black children compared with white children who are waiting to be adopted, the average black child waits more than four years before a permanent placement is obtained. Some of these inequities may be relieved if more transracial placements occurred. The argument that suggests that harm will come to transracial adoptees because of the obviousness of the adoption and the constant reminder of being adopted may be interpreted positively. A child who is of a different race will learn sooner that he or she is adopted and being forced to recognize this will make the adoption easier to talk about, thus making for a more open relationship with the parents. It has been suggested that there are direct benefits to the child in

561

562

|

Transracial Adoption

ADVICE FOR RACIALLY MIXED FAMILIES The National Adoption Clearinghouse provides specific advice for families going through transracial adoptions to help with the adjustment and growth process. The following are among the suggestions offered to parents by the experts. Become an intensely invested parent by being hands-on with parenting. Understanding the difficulties transracially adopted children experience and helping them create cultural identities is part of parenting. Do not tolerate any racially or ethnically biased remarks. If someone makes an unacceptable remark about race, ethnic diversity, gender, or anything else tell them that they should not say things like that in front of children. Allow them to take back their negative remarks without starting an argument. Fighting never solves anything. Standing up for your beliefs shows your child that disagreements can be solved rationally. Take advantage of the support of family and friends. Every family thrives when they give each other support. It is beneficial to also find other transracial families and families of your child’s same race or culture. This allows your family to interact with others who have similar experiences. Celebrate all cultures. This is a key way to experience and accept diversity in our communities. Finding festivals or other events that celebrate your child’s culture helps him or her to develop an identity. Experiencing other cultures also enhances your and your child’s understanding of others. You and your child can discuss similarities and differences between all cultures. Communicate openly about race and culture. Open communication allows adopted children to know they can talk to their parents about both positive and negative issues. Children need to know their parents will support them and stand up for them when they need help. Parents can get advice on how to handle racial issues from friends of the same race or culture as their child. Help your child experience a variety of activities to build self-esteem. Many people have negative feelings toward differences in families, so finding activities that your child thrives in helps to build self-esteem. Encouragement and praise lets children know that you are proud of them. Visit places that have people predominantly from your child’s race or ethnic group. This permits the child to gain exposure to their culture and lets parents experience the feeling of being the minority in the group. Parents will have a better understanding of what their children encounter daily.

learning early about the adoption. They include a greater openness about the adoption, a positive self-identification with the adoptive status as well as racial identity, and recognition that there is no shared biology between the parents and child. Additionally, there is a positive affirmation for the child that he or she was chosen and wanted. Given that adoptive families are often open about the adoption and encourage their other-race children to get involved with the children’s heritage, black children adopted by white parents are more likely to

Transracial Adoption |

refer to themselves as black than are black children adopted within race. As a consequence of having to learn about more than one culture, studies suggest that these children have a greater tolerance for others different from themselves and are more accepting of cultural differences. Because the adopted child knows that he or she was wanted by the family, there is also recognition that race is not a factor in how much the child will be loved. This visible reminder that the child was chosen to be a part of the family can help to increase the child’s self-esteem. The visible differences can also help to remind the child that he or she does not share biology with the parents, but psychologically this can help the child realize that differences with the parents are expected and are not frowned upon. Any genetic expectations would be decreased as well so the child might feel less pressure to develop the same interests or talents as the parent. Other concerns regarding the psychological health of transracially adopted persons have also been disputed. Many studies have refuted the claim that white parents are ill equipped to raise socially adapted African American children with high levels of self-esteem. While this is a classic debate used by those opposed to transracial adoption, research data suggest that there are no significant differences in adjustment between transracially adopted children and those adopted within race. The most important factor influencing how the child adjusted to society is the age of the child at the time of adoption. Likewise, studies have not found a correlation between a child’s adjustment and racial identity. It seems that the older a child is when adopted the more problems there are with adjustment issues. However, this seemed to be the outcome whether the child was adopted by same-race or other-race parents. The Simon-Altstein Longitudinal Study of adoption was a classic study that examined several aspects of transracial adoption. The study began in 1972, had three phases, and involved 204 families with non-white adopted children. The first phase of interviews asked the children about their racial identity by using the Kenneth Clark doll test. This phase concluded that the study children, nonwhite and white, had no racial biases to either a black or white color doll. All knew their racial identities. Parents indicated that they used several means to introduce the racial culture of the adopted non-white children in the family. The second phase of the study, conducted in 1983, measured self-esteem. The results of black, non-white, white adopted children, and white biological children were separated and compared. All groups had statistically equal levels of self-esteem. The transracially adopted children were asked about their relationships with their parents and white siblings. Most said that their relationship with their parents was better now in young adulthood than it had been when they were adolescents. Interestingly, this relationship finding was the same between biological children and parents. Racial differences had no impact in most of the relationships between the transracially adopted children and their siblings that were the biological children of their shared parents. Transracially adopted children and biological children were almost equal in choosing a parent or sibling as the ones to whom they would go if they needed help, at 46.8 percent and 45 percent, respectively.

563

564

|

Transracial Adoption

The third phase of this study, conducted in 1991, asked again to whom they would go if they needed help. The results showed that the adopted children would still turn to their parents or siblings for help. The study’s overall findings provided strong evidence that white parents are capable of raising children of another race to have high self-esteem, positive identities, and close family ties. LOOKING AHEAD There are several issues that families must consider before committing to transracial adoption. The most important thing to consider is the potential parents’ own racial views. Another thing to consider is that the family will be in the minority after transracially adopting. Of concern may be how the parent and other members of the family will deal with opinions expressed by those outside of the family. Prospective parents could think about adopting siblings so that each child will have a familiar face to help with the transition. Colorblind is a term frequently used by those who promote transracial adoptions. This refers to the ideal that everyone is seen equally and is not discriminated against due to race. Colorblind is used in adoption discussions because it is illegal for adoption agencies to discriminate because of someone’s skin color. In matching parents and children for adoption, the United States will probably never be a society that is totally colorblind. Colorblindness helps to promote fairness with regard to race, a difficult but necessary task. On the other hand, critics of the concept of colorblind contend that it erases a person’s heritage and culture. Being colorblind does not erase the questions that arise about visual differences within families and communities. Ignoring differences can cause hurt and resentment. Because race and culture are so heavily linked, to be colorblind to someone’s race is to ignore his or her culture. Experts contend that children have a right to learn about their culture so that they can pass it down to the next generation. Transracial adoption is not only a black and white issue; children are also adopted from foreign countries, although there is very little research to date on the adjustment experiences of these parents and children. Places like China and Russia are popular when families decide to adopt because the high birth rates and poor economic conditions in these locales mean that there are often children readily available. There is not as much debate about the adoption of these children as there is over black children being adopted by white families because adoption is seen as helping these children. The idea of saving a child is an idea that supporters of transracial adoption believe can happen right here in the United States by decreasing the numbers of children of all races awaiting placement with a permanent family. See also Biological Privilege; Fictive Kin; Gay Parent Adoption; Infertility; International Adoption. Further Reading: Adoption History: National Association of Black Social Workers. “Position Statement on Trans-Racial Adoption.” September 1972. http://darkwing.uroegon. edu/~adoption/archive/NabswTRA.htm; Adoption Media. http://www.adoption.com;

Transracial Adoption | Campbell, Suzanne B. “Taking Race out of the Equation: Transracial Adoption in 2000.” Southern Methodist University Law Review 53 (2000): 1599; Children’s Home Society of Washington. http://www.chswpirc.org; Child Welfare Information Gateway. http:// www.childwelfare.gov; Fogg-Davis, Hawley. The Ethics of Transracial Adoption. New York: Cornell University Press, 2002; John, Jaiya. Black Baby, White Hands: A View from the Crib. Silver Spring, MD: Soul Water Rising, 2005; Patton, Sandra. BirthMarks: Transracial Adoption in Contemporary America. New York: New York University Press, 2000; Quiroz, Pamela Ann. Adoption in a Color-Blind Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007; Simon, Rita J., and Rhonda M. Roorda. In Their Own Voices Transracial Adoptees Tell Their Stories. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000; Simon, Rita J., and Rhonda M. Roorda. In Their Parents’ Voices: Reflections on Raising Transracial Adoptees. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007; Swize, Jennifer. “Transracial Adoption and the Unblinkable Difference: Racial Dissimilarity Serving the Interests of Adopted Children.” Virginia Law Review 88, no. 5 (2002): 1079–1118; Transracial Adoption Research and Consultation. http://www.transracialadoption.net; United States Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.hhs.gov.

Taralyn Watson

565

This page intentionally left blank

W WEDDING AND ELOPING From a very early age, girls dream of getting married to that special guy. Getting the guy seems to be the challenge, but they soon find out that the planning of the wedding surpasses that hurdle. Weddings require lots of time and attention to detail. With the elaborate nature that ceremonial weddings have taken on in this day and age, more and more people are considering eloping instead. Weddings are public ceremonies that involve huge amounts of planning by all who are involved. The average American engagement is 16 months long with the average age of the bride being 25.3 years old. The groom averages 26.9 years of age. On the other hand, elopements are very private affairs with few people in attendance and require less planning than the average wedding. There are substantive differences between the two choices, but each has in common a legally binding contract and both mark the beginning of a couple’s life together. POSITIVES OF A WEDDING Weddings are a tradition that are as old as time. They have changed with the times and have evolved into events for the ages. But when it is your wedding, it can be done your way. The choices are endless. A wedding is a ceremony that signifies the beginning of a marriage or a union between two people. They also often signify a rite of passage for the couple, a movement from the status of single to the status of married. Accompanying the shift in classification is a shift in responsibilities and loyalties. This rite of passage is one that not only unites the couple but also unites the two families. Weddings allow the community to 567

568

| Wedding and Eloping

know that two have now become one and allow for the community to come and show their support for the newly united couple. Most women dream of the big wedding, with the big cake and a specially designed dress. With 2.4 million weddings being performed every year, it is not surprising that the wedding industry is a $50 billion-a-year industry. However, at their heart weddings are essentially the celebration by family and friends of the union of two people. A wedding allows a bride to be in the spotlight while also showcasing the couple’s love for one another. It is a time for the families to meet and greet one another for they are merging together just as the bride and the groom have united on this day. This is seen in the notion of in-laws who now have at least cursory obligations to each other. All of the couples’ friends and families can share in their happiness and in the love that they have found in one another. Weddings also allow for a social transition for the couple. They are no longer each their own but rather one, which gives them a position to be looked upon for advice and even mimicked by others. It marks a rite of passage for the newlyweds, for they are journeying down the path that their friends and other family members have walked previously. They are entering the adult world. Weddings can also symbolize the leaving of the nest in some cases and making one’s own household. It becomes no longer the responsibility of a parent or parents to take care of the individuals, but the responsibility of the individuals to take care of one another. A wedding officially changes a person’s status from individual to that of legal husband or wife and showcases that change to the community. In recognition of their new status in the community, couples can look forward to the gifts to assist them in setting up housekeeping and planning a future together. Estimates are that an average of $19 billion a year is spent on wedding gifts in the United States. NEGATIVES OF A WEDDING The change in a person’s status can be positive, but making that change through a wedding can come at a price, like the cost of weddings in today’s society. Weddings on average today cost $20,000 to $25,000. Traditionally, the father of the bride would pay for the wedding costs. Today, 30 percent of couples end up paying for their own weddings, which sufficiently depletes the couple’s money to start their lives together. Some people spend so much on their weddings that they end up in debt and are near financial ruin by the end of the event. This does not make the couple happy, and leads to additional stress that they will experience as they create their married life together. Given that money (how much there is and how it should be spent) is a significant factor in why some couples eventually divorce, beginning with a heavy debt load does couples no favors. Planning a wedding takes months and sometimes even years. On average, brides take from 7 to 12 months to plan a wedding for an average number of guests, 175, and a wedding party of 12. This planning can also be hindered by the soaring costs of the event, something of which young persons may be initially unaware. Brides can find it very stressful and time-consuming to pick out and

Wedding and Eloping | 569

plan every little detail of the wedding. The bride generally picks the color scheme, the bridesmaid dresses, the flowers, their arrangement, the church or place for the ceremony and reception, all of the decorations for the marriage location, the reception food and décor, the music, the tuxedos (although the groom may help here), and her dress. An average of $800 is spent for a standard wedding gown, and $2000 has likely already been spent on the average engagement ring. All those decisions would drive anyone insane. The stress of planning and the social pressure to have the right kind of wedding leave many engaged couples wondering if it is worth the work to marry in a formal ceremony. Stereotypes over wedding stressors are routinely the story line in cable shows such as Bridezilla and A Wedding Story. Stress can also come from family members. While they might mean well and would like to help, they can end up adding to the stress with suggestions about the wedding, questions about future plans, and lack of support for plans that have already been made. There is also less time, when planning a wedding, for the development of the coupled relationship from dating to marriage. Traditionally, engagement was the time in which couples were to make sure that the partner they had selected was the most appropriate person. Parents tended to give engaged couples, because of their specific commitment to marry, more latitude in their behavior with each other including more private time. Historically, engagements lasted longer than they do today because couples committed quickly so that they would then be permitted the freedom to get to know each other more completely. Today engagement is for a shorter period of time because couples have considerable freedoms while dating. Most persons try to know the partner very well before making the marital promise, but engagement still serves an important function of moving the couple from two persons to one partnership. Social networking and obligations can contribute to the challenges of moving to a married state. This may be the reason why couples generally are postponing marriage these days. Couples have to “marry” their property, families, children, and sometimes social statuses. These decisions can be very taxing; for instance families may not like one another. If one’s family does not approve of the partner, or even approve of marriage, it can make this decision process that much harder to complete. Another source of contention is the choosing of the bridesmaids and groomsmen, and coordinating their schedules for the fittings, social engagements, and activities that are expected in conjunction with a formal ceremony. Coupled with this is the social pressure to conform your wedding to the model of a perfect wedding. Family members and friends may have strong opinions about what should and shouldn’t take place, who should and shouldn’t be chosen for the wedding party, and even who should be invited to sit at their table in a formal wedding. It is possible that bad feelings could result if certain people are not chosen to take part or if certain items or traditions are not observed. These issues must be dealt with. This is especially true about the positions of the honor attendants for both the bride and groom (maid or matron of honor and best man). The couple begins to feel the social pressure to have their perfect wedding in the standard that socially is acceptable.

570

| Wedding and Eloping

POSITIVES OF ELOPING Elopement is the act of running away to get married. Unlike weddings, eloping is a much more private affair. When they elope, most people cannot, or choose not to, invite anyone other than the required witnesses to the nuptials. Eloping is much more common today than in years past, when it was more common among the lower class because of the high costs associated with weddings. It offers people an alternative to having a traditional wedding and allows for unconventional methods to legalize their bond. Included in this is simplicity and convenience. Some couples may find that there is little support for them to marry among their family and friends. Perhaps they are of different social classes, different ages, dissimilar races or ethnicities. Because most marriages are endogamous (couples are from the same social class, racial or ethnic category, and of similar age), couples who differ on these social traits may find that there is little support for their union. In order to avoid some of the direct criticism of their relationship, they may elope. It is even reasonable in today’s society that partners are not of the same religious background. This can create challenges for couples as families may wish for one to convert to the other’s religion. It may even be a requirement of some clergy prior to performing the ceremony. Eloping makes this a nonissue because the person performing the ceremony is doing so in a legal, rather than religious, capacity and being of the same religion is not a prerequisite for marriage. Sometimes, very young couples choose to elope. Despite being of legal age to marry, their parents may attempt to prohibit them from doing so by withholding financial assistance for a wedding. Eloping offers a significant reduction in the price of the nuptials. In Las Vegas, one can have a wedding for about $200, far lower than the average price of a traditional wedding. Every year on average 120,000 weddings are performed in Las Vegas and in many other destinations like Jamaica and The Bahamas. A couple saves substantial money on the ceremonial expenses like the guest attendance and the cost of a venue for the event and the reception. Lifestyle advisor Martha Stewart, who has noticed the trend, says that instead of paying runaway prices, people are running away. People like Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Bruce Willis (with Demi Moore), Kelly Ripa (with Mark Consuelos), Michael Jordan, Wayne Newton, Eddie Murphy and, Britney Spears have all eloped. Elopement may be less stressful than planning for and putting on a wedding. Some popular places to which people elope have inclusive packages that offer certain services such as hotel accommodations, the cake, pictures, and so on for a set fee. For couples who feel that the wedding is just for them and maybe a few select guests this may be the perfect solution. Some couples are very private and wish to keep their relationship that way. They would suggest that the marriage is about them, so the legal ceremony should be as well. The joining of the partners need not be a huge, dramatic affair to lead to long-term happiness and stability. Couples who elope may want privacy, intimacy, fun, excitement, and romance that could be lost in all the little details of planning and executing a wedding. Elopements also save time. Eloping allows for a shorter time period to put together a ceremony as well as no specific date to have it. Eloping is quick and easy

Wedding and Eloping | 571

with all the proper documents and witnesses in place. There has been some negative stigma attached to couples who elope. Historically this was because of the presumption that the only reason one would elope was to legitimize a premarital pregnancy as early as possible in gestation. Some couples, however, just know they should be together and see no point in waiting to start their lives together. Finally, eloping may be a popular choice for second or subsequent marriages. Not only have many of these partners experienced a public wedding in the past, but they may come from religious traditions that frown on divorce or remarriage, making elopement more attractive. Persons who are remarrying are far more likely than persons who are marrying for the first time to have parenting and financial obligations that make a large wedding untenable. While the stigma on remarriage has lessened over time, most persons do not plan a second wedding with as much fanfare as the first. NEGATIVES OF ELOPING The stress that seems endemic with planning a wedding can also come with elopements. The stress when a couple decides to elope can take many shapes and forms. It can take the form of a family’s disappointment with the couple’s decision to elope. Families generally want to share in the big events of other family members’ lives and an elopement takes that privilege away. Not only is it an opportunity to wish the couple well, but it may help to cement ties in the community or one’s employment through a successful social event. The couple that elopes will not have the opportunity to be the center of attention and will likely miss out, at least to some extent, on one of the perks of the wedding: presents. Friends of the couple may not know whether it is appropriate to bestow a gift when one elopes. It is possible that the couple will be disappointed in having eloped, especially when it means that they were not able to share this special day with those closest to them. Because people elope for various reasons, it is not always an easy decision to leave family and friends out of the special day. Given that marriage is supposed to last a lifetime, the couple will in theory never have another opportunity for their wedding. The couple also has to continuously answer the question, “Why did you elope?” Given that a wedding with guests in attendance is still the norm, couples who do something different are called to account for their decisions. In many cases observers will assume that there was a negative motive for the elopement. Commonly assumed negative motives include premarital pregnancy, parental disapproval, and financial difficulties. These factors could make a person regret eloping. Another issue that these couples must answer is how to tell others that they have eloped and gotten married. To go along with that concern is the question of whether an apology should be included in whatever way you choose to tell others about eloping. Some people may be hurt to know they were not included in your special day, so these issues are pertinent in making some kind of amends. Because the wedding marks the time when people start to see the couple as married, not witnessing the ceremony may make it harder for some to accept that the couple is married.

572

| White Wedding Industry

CONCLUSION Elopements and weddings accomplish the same objective; uniting a couple in marital bonds. But they do so through radically different means. Whereas weddings are public affairs that require advanced planning, multiple guests, and often great expenditures, marriage through eloping is fairly easy and economical to attain and occurs in only the presence of a select few witnesses. Therefore, it can be said to be private. This rite of passage still legally binds the couple together and the day still marks the beginning of their lives together. There are many choices in weddings, with as many options for protocol as couples care to attempt. Options for eloping are fewer, but they are increasing as more couples seek what are called destination weddings, which combine elements of a traditional wedding ceremony and eloping to an exotic location. Weddings are so ritualized and prescribed that people who will not be held to the tradition standard are pushed into eloping. This opens them up to the ridicule of choosing a way to get married that is perceived by others as less desirable. See also Preparation for Marriage; White Wedding Industry Further Reading: Baker, Amanda. “Eloping: An Overview Taking a Look at the Basics of Eloping.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/48647/eloping_an_overview.html (accessed 2006); Bialik, Carl. “Calculating the Cost of Weddings.” Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/calculating-the-cost-of-weddings-175/ (accessed 2007); Dahlstrom, Kendra. “The Pros and Cons of Eloping in Las Vegas.” http://www.associ atedcontent.com/article/175922/the_pros_and_cons_of_elopingg_in_las.html (accessed 2007); Drake, Jennifer. “Pro’s and Con’s of Eloping versus Planning a Wedding Ceremony.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/185413/the_pros_and_cons_of_ eloping g_versus.html (accessed 2007); Faria, Alison. “When to Consider Eloping.” http:// www.happynews.com/living/eventtips/consider-eloping.htm (accessed 2005); Fisher, Laurel. “Eloping vs. a Family Wedding.” http://www.happynews.com/living/eventtips/ eloping-vs-family.htm (accessed 2005); Higuera, V. C. “Modern Weddings: Planning a Marriage Elopement.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/36493/modern_wed dings_planning_a_marriage.html (accessed 2006); Isabella, Kalee. “Elope.” http://wed dings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Elope (accessed 2006); Mayntz, Melissa. “Places to Elope.” http://weddings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Places_to_Elope (accessed 2007); Tabb, Lisa and Sam Silverstein. Beyond Vegas: 25 Exotic Wedding and Elopement Destinations Around the World. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 2000; Tabb, Lisa and Susan Breslow Sardone. “Top Five Reasons to Elope” http://honeymoons.about.com/cs/toppicks/a/letselope_ 2.htm (accessed 2008).

Maria J. Patterson WHITE WEDDING INDUSTRY What could be controversial about white weddings, those wonderfully romantic events featuring beautiful brides in long, white dresses, exotic flowers, abundant candles, and elaborate parties for friends and families? Most Americans have attended—or will attend—many such weddings throughout their lifetimes. Weddings fulfill important personal, couple, family, and societal functions and are among the most widely anticipated events in families and communities.

White Wedding Industry

They provide opportunities for bringing families together and getting outsiders invested in the success of the newly wed couple. They also serve as important rites of passage (i.e., events that signify that individuals are moving from one important life state to another). They include numerous rituals that demonstrate to the couple themselves and to all bystanders that the relationship is important and meant to last a lifetime. In this essay, we will examine the increasing financial costs associated with white weddings in an attempt to understand the relationship between private commitment and societal and global forces and influences. Do the rites and rituals associated with weddings require such elaborate productions, with their associated emotional and financial costs, and the wide-reaching harmful effects on workers around the globe? Do they truly reflect tradition and have a personal meaning to the newlyweds or ensure that their marriages will be unique? Or, are they, as some scholars and observers suggest, the result of a very effective and extensive marketing campaign? THE WHITE WEDDING INDUSTRY In recent years, the number of weddings has decreased in the United States, yet the gross revenue of the U.S. wedding industry has increased dramatically as the financial costs associated with individual white weddings have increased substantially. The wedding industry (i.e., the production of all the goods and services associated with the planning of weddings and all of the associated social events that occur before, during, and after the ceremonies) is estimated to contribute over $160 billion dollars to the U.S. economy each year. Wedding goods and services. Included in the wedding industry are products such as bridal gowns and accessories, engagement and wedding rings, honeymoon travel and apparel, destination weddings (i.e., guests travel to a vacation locale to celebrate the wedding with the couple), and household equipment (typically in the form of gifts to the couple). Also included are invitations and other paper products, flowers and other decorations, photos and videos, weddings cakes and other food and liquor for receptions, gifts for members of the wedding party, and wedding accessories such as ring pillows and candles. Many of the goods consumed in the course of staging a wedding in this country are actually produced outside the United States, a point to which we will return shortly. Professionals whose services are purchased for weddings and associated social events include wedding planners, photographers, caterers, hair stylists and makeup artists, chauffeurs, bar tenders, musicians, and others. About half of the economic costs associated with weddings fall into this service category. White weddings are clearly big business in the United States today. Financial costs of weddings to families. Over the past 15 years, wedding costs in this country have increased by 40 percent and are expected to continue to increase into the near future. Representatives of the wedding industry estimate that at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the average white wedding in the United States will cost approximately $28,000. There are regional variations in this figure, ranging from a low of just under $19,000 in the South, to $25,000 on the West Coast, and to nearly $39,000 in the New York metropolitan

| 573

574

| White Wedding Industry

Table W.1

Common Wedding Rituals, their Symbolic Meanings, and Likely Origins

Ritual Element

Meaning

Likely Origins

Children in wedding party

Fertility

Ancient Rome: altar boy presenting wheat cakes to god Jupiter

Candles

Presence of God; enduring flame of marriage

Torches used to light pathway as wedding procession made its way through dark streets

Flowers

Bride’s virtue; abundance

Began as garlands of olive and myrtle worn by bride as headpiece; also guests scattered flowers along the road from the bride’s home to the church

Bridal veil

Protects bride against malicious spirits (i.e., “the evil eye”); shows the bride’s purity/virture has been protected; when veil is pulled back at end of ceremony, indicates that she has assumed a new role/status

Ancient cultures, veils (not always white) used to ward off evil spirits; Ancient Romans used red veils

Cutting the wedding cake; throwing rice

Fertility; abundance

Brides in some ancient cultures wore ears of corn around their necks to entice god of fertility; breaking or cutting cake facilitated breaking the bride’s hymen (i.e., “maidenhead”) and aided in the birth of first child; cake broken over bride’s head, later cake crumbs sprinkled on bride’s head

Giving the bride away; carrying bride over the threshold of the new marital home

Father owned daughter until her marriage; at the wedding, father publicly transferred ownership of bride to her new husband

region. Variation by region can be linked to cost of living in these areas, as well as median family income in those locations. Of course, we are all quite familiar with the over-the-top wedding extravaganzas thrown by celebrities that can exceed two million dollars. Wedding debt. When average wedding expenses are compared with the average annual income of American families, it is clear that many couples and often their parents are spending beyond their means and going into significant debt

White Wedding Industry

to host weddings. To illustrate, the cost of the average white wedding represents over 60 percent of the average annual earnings of white families in the United States and over 90 percent of the average earnings of black and Latino families. For the 40 percent of Americans who earn less than $25,000 per year, the average cost of a white wedding approximates or even exceeds their annual income. The emotional costs associated with wedding debt frequently become the source of ongoing conflict between the newly married or soon to be married couples and may push them to see a marital or financial counselor to find a way out of the stresses their wedding debts have produced. The increasing likelihood of couples going into debt to wed may be behind recent revisions in wedding etiquette that suggest the responsibility for the largest wedding expenses are no longer to be shouldered by the bride’s family, but the entire expenses could be shared equally by the bride’s and groom’s families. Another way to put the average cost of white weddings into perspective is to consider other important things that $28,000 could buy. In terms of education, this amount of money could pay for one year at a private college or university or, on the other hand, cover the entire four year cost of attending a public university. Alternatively, $28,000 could buy a new mid-priced car or constitute a down payment on an average priced home. Global exploitation of workers in the wedding industry. In many parts of the world where products for American weddings are produced, $28,000 would buy basic necessities of life; for example, food for 3,000 people in South Africa; medicine for 10,000 children in Africa for one year; or 12 wells to provide clean water for people in southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Another way to look at the global impact of the large and growing white wedding industry in the United States is to consider that seamstresses in China who make wedding gowns for American brides earn about 12 cents per hour under deplorable working conditions. The $28,000 spent for the average white wedding could pay 111 workers for one year. As in many other U.S. owned companies, production is being sent out of the country in order to find cheaper labor and to reduce the overall costs of production. WHITE WEDDINGS AS RITUALS Weddings may actually be one of the most ritualized events of the family life cycle. Wedding ceremonies are highly structured affairs that have a number of symbolic gestures such as giving the bride away, asking those in attendance if there are any objections to the marriage, various actions that involve fertility— throwing rice, or more recently, bird seed, serving wedding cake, and including children in the ceremony. The specific symbols that are involved vary from one culture to another and evolve over time. The purposes of rituals may include complying with religious obligations or ideals, satisfying spiritual or emotional needs of the participants, strengthening social bonds between families, demonstrating respect or submission, or, sometimes, just for the pleasure of the ritual itself. As we will see below, however, some critical observers of the contemporary wedding industry argue that manufacturers and distributors or sellers of

| 575

576

| White Wedding Industry

wedding services and products are changing wedding rituals and even inventing new ones simply to increase their profits. The origin of many common wedding rituals is known. Others, however, are less well understood by scholars as well as brides- and grooms-to-be. The oldest and perhaps most universal wedding symbol is the ring. A number of the aspects of engagement and wedding rings we take for granted today actually have evolved over long periods of time. For instance, why are wedding rings typically worn on the left hand? Some historians believe that this is because the left hand has been considered inferior and that is symbolizes submission and obedience. Thus, wearing a ring on the left hand to signify marriage is appropriate in that it reflects the roles and responsibilities of spouses. Why, then, is the ring worn on the fourth finger? This custom has actually evolved over time. In many earlier cultures, wedding rings were worn on the first finger. The move to the fourth and so-called ring finger may rest on the belief that there is a small artery leading from that finger directly to the heart. Today precious metals are used in wedding rings. However, in the past, these metals were not widely available so common folks used reeds or other plant materials to craft rings. Later, iron was used. Engagement rings, which have assumed a major role in the wedding economy today, were once worn by men because they symbolized power and authority. When they came to symbolize bondage and obedience, men stopped wearing them and provided them to their intended brides instead. Today, American grooms-to-be purchase diamond rings to symbolize engagement. Manufacturers of diamond engagement rings encourage grooms to spend at least two-months salary on them as a token of how special the intended partner is to them. However, in Puritan America, diamonds—which many believed were useful in protecting against Satan—were shunned precisely because of their association with evil forces. WHITE WEDDINGS AS IDEOLOGY Some scholars who study weddings argue that they are more than rituals. They are part of an ideological complex (i.e., a set of beliefs that cross-cut many social institutions) that is created and perpetuated by the mass media and other powerful segments of a society to justify existing sexist, heterosexist, and classist arrangements and to sell numerous wedding products and services. The depiction of the romantic, extravagant white weddings in films, television shows, and print media encourages couples to spend far more money than they can afford on weddings. The media also reproduce the idea that women are more interested in romance and relationships than are men; that weddings—and perhaps relationships themselves—are women’s work and that it is unimaginable to have feelings of love and desire for commitment without investing in marriage and the expensive white wedding. Images of middle-class, middle American traditional family values are at the center of films that feature weddings and are presented as the normal standards for all to follow. Some scholars believe that the current cultural emphasis on weddings has the effect of centering women’s life

White Wedding Industry

expectations on success on just one day—their wedding day. The emphasis on this one event in women’s lives makes all other events pale in comparison and transfers energy and effort away from preparing for marriage itself. SUMMARY In considering this important issue in contemporary American families, the important question to ask pertains to the purpose, or meaning, of weddings. Is the wedding ceremony, and its associated social events, meant to signify the love and commitment felt by the couple and to involve extended families and community members in the future marital success of the couple? If so, are the large and growing expenses involved in carrying out the lavish white wedding ceremony really necessary for this success? Or, as many scholars suggest, are they embraced by wedding consumers because of the extensive and effective market campaigns of the producers and providers of wedding products and services? See also Prenuptial Agreements; Preparation for Marriage; Wedding and Eloping. Further Reading: Chessler, Barbara Jo. “Analysis of wedding rituals: An attempt to make weddings more meaningful.” Family Relations 29, no. 2 (1980): 204–209; Ingraham, Chrys. White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008; Jellison, Katherine. It’s Our Day: America’s Love Affair with the White Wedding 1945–2005. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2008; Mead, Rebecca. One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding. New York; Penguin Books, 2007; Otnes, Cele C., and Elizabeth J. Pleck. Cinderella Dreams: The Allure of the Lavish Wedding. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003; Wallace, Carolyn McD. All Dressed in White: The Irresistible Rise of the American Wedding. New York: Penguin Books, 2004.

Constance L. Shehan

| 577

This page intentionally left blank

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Carol, and Marie Fortune, eds. Violence against Women and Children: A Christian Theological Sourcebook. New York: Continuum, 1995. Adams, Leslie. “The Effects of Birth Order on Procrastination.” Missouri Western State University, 2008. Available at: http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manu scripts/14.asp. Adler, A. What Life Should Mean to You. New York: Perigree Books, 1931. Administration for Children and Families. Trends in Foster Care and Adoption. Washington D.C., 2007. Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/ afcars/trends.htm. Adoption History: National Association of Black Social Workers. “Position Statement on Trans-Racial Adoption.” September 1972. Available at: http://darkwing.uoregon. edu/~adoption/archive/NabswTRA.htm. Adoption History Project. Timeline of Adoption History. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, 2007. Available at: http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/timeline.html. Ahluwalia, I., Morrow, B., & Hsia, J. “Why Do Women Stop Breastfeeding? Findings from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System.” Pediatrics 116 (2005): 1408–1412. Ahrons, Constance. The Good Divorce: Keeping Your Family Together When Your Marriage Comes Apart. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. Ahrons, Constance. We’re Still Family: What Grown Children Have to Say about Their Parents’ Divorce. New York: Harper Collins, 2004. Aitken, Lynda, and Gabriele Griffin. Gender Issues in Elder Abuse. London: Sage, 1996. Akerman, Sherri. “Young Caregivers Face Many Challenges.” Tampa Tribune, January 29, 2007. Albanese, Jay S. Criminal Justice. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2005.

579

580

|

Bibliography Aldridge, Jo. “The Experiences of Children Living with and Caring for Parents with Mental Illness.” Child Abuse Review 15, no. 2 (2006): 79–88. Aldridge, Jo, and Saul Becker. “Befriending Young Carers: A Pilot Study.” Loughboro University, 1996. Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/ young CarersDownload/pilot%20study.pdf. Aldridge, Jo, and Saul Becker. “Inside the World of Young Carers.” Loughboro University, 1993. Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/young CarersDownload/ Children%20who%20care.pdf. Alsdurf, James, and Phyllis Alsdurf. Battered into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1989. Alwani, Zainab, and Salma Abugideiri. What Islam Says about Domestic Violence: A Guide for Helping Muslim Families. Herndon, VA: Foundation for Appropriate and Immediate Temporary Help, 2003. Amato, Paul R., and Alan Booth. A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Amato, Paul R., Alan Booth, David R. Johnson, and Stacy J. Rogers. Alone Together: How Marriage in America is Changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007. Ambert, Anne-Marie. Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related? Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The Vanier Institute of the Family, 2005. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Facts for Families: Foster Care. Washington, D.C., 2005. Available at: http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_fami lies/foster_care. American Bar Association. The American Bar Association Legal Guide for Women: What every Woman Needs to Know about the Law and Marriage, Health Care, Divorce, Discrimination, Retirement, and More. New York: Random House, 2004. Ammerman, R., and M. Hersen. Case Studies in Family Violence. New York: Plenum Press, 1991. Anderson, Elizabeth. Is Women’s Labor a Commodity? Philosophy and Public Affairs 19 (1990): 71–92. Andrews, Lori. Beyond Doctrinal Boundaries: A Legal Framework for Surrogate Motherhood. Virginia Law Review 81(1995): 2343–2375. Anetzberger, Georgia J. The Clinical Management of Elder Abuse. New York: The Haworth Press, 2003. Armstrong, Thomas. “ADD: Does It Really Exist?” In Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issue in Abnormal Psychology, ed. Richard P. Halgin, 3rd ed., 63–72. Dubuque, IO: McGraw-Hill/Duskin, 2005. Austin, LeAne. “Children as Caregivers.” Caregiver.com. Available at: http://www.care giver.com/ articles/children/children_as_caregivers.htm. Bailey, Beth. From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth Century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Baker, Amanda. Eloping: An Overview Taking a Look at the Basics of Eloping. Associated Content Web site, 2006. Available at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/ article/48647/eloping_an_overview.html. Barkley, Russell A. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment. 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2006.

Bibliography Barlow, Anne, Simon Duncan, Grace James, and Alison Parks. Cohabitation, Marriage and the Law: Social Change and Legal Reform in the 21st Century. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2005. Barnett, O., C. L. Miller-Perrin, and R. D. Perrin. Family Violence Across the Lifespan: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005. Bartholet, Elizabeth. Nobody’s Children: Abuse, Neglect, Foster Drift, and the Adoption Alternative. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2000. Bartkowski, John. Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001. Bartkowski, John. Promise Keepers: Servants, Soldiers, and Godly Men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004. Bartlett, Jane. Will You Be Mother? Women Who Choose to Say No. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Bauman, Laurie J., Ellen J. Silver, Barbara H. Draimin, and Jan Hudis. “Children of Mothers With HIV/AIDS: Unmet Needs for Mental Health Services.” Pediatrics 120, no. 5 (November 2007). Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/ reprint/peds.2005–2680v1. Baumeister, Alfred A. Mental Retardation: Appraisal, Education, and Rehabilitation. Chicago: Aldine, 1968. Baumhover, Lorin A., and S. Colleen Beall. Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of Older Persons. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press, 1996. Baumrind, Diana. “Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children.” Youth and Society 9 (1978): 239–276. Baumslag, N., and D. Michels. Milk, Money, and Madness: The Culture and Politics of Breastfeeding. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 1995. Baxter, Janeen, and Edith Gray. For Richer or Poorer: Women, Men and Marriage. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://lifecourse.anu.edu.au/publications/Discus sion_papers/NLCDP012.pdf. Beaman-Hall, Lori, and Nancy Nason-Clark. “Translating Spiritual Commitment into Service: The Responses of Evangelical Women to Wife Abuse.” Canadian Women’s Studies/Les Cahiers De La Femme 17 (1997): 58–61. Bearman, Peter S., and Hannah Bruckner. “After the Promise: The STD Consequence of Adolescent Virginity Pledges.” Journal of Adolescent Health 36 (2005): 271–278. Becker, Saul. “Young Carers in Europe: An Exploratory Cross-National Study. Young Carers Research Group.” Loughboro University, 1995. Available at: http://www. lboro.ac.uk/ departments/ss/centres/YCRG/youngCarersDownload/Young%20Car ers%20in%20Europe1.pdf. Beer, Alan E., Julia Kantecki, and Jane Reed. Is Your Body Baby-Friendly: Unexplained Infertility, Miscarriage, and IVF Failure. LaSalle, Ontario, Canada: AJR Publishing, 2006. Behm, Lisa. “Legal, Moral, and International Perspectives on Surrogate Motherhood: The Call for a Uniform Regulatory Scheme in the United States.” DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 2(1999): 557–603. Bellafante, Gina. “In the U.S., Assisted Marriages for South Asians.” The International Herald Tribune, August 24, 2005, news section p. 2.

|

581

582

|

Bibliography Belsky, Jay, and John Kelly. The Transition to Parenthood: How a First Child Changes a Marriage; Why Some Couples Grow Closer and Others Apart. New York: Delacorte Press, 1995. Bennion, Janet. Women of Principle: Female Networking in Contemporary Mormon Polygyny. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Benson, Dale. “Providing Health Care to Human Beings Trapped in the Poverty Culture.” The Physician Executive 26 (2000): 28–32. Berg-Weger, Marla. Caring for Elderly Parents. New York: Garland Publishing, 1996. Berk, Laura E. Infants, Children, and Adolescents. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2005. Berman, Eleanor. Grandparenting ABC’s: A Beginners Handbook. New York: A Perigee Book, 1998. Bernard, Jessie. The Future of Marriage. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Bernstein, Nina. The Lost Children of Wilder: The Epic Struggle to Change Foster Care. New York; Vintage Books, 2001. Berquist, Kathleen Ja Sook. International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-year History of Policy and Practice. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2007. Berry, Judy O., and Michael L. Hardman. Lifespan Perspectives on the Family and Disability. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. Bertrand, Marianne, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Eldar Shafir. “Behavioral Economics and Marketing in Aid of Decision Making Among the Poor.” American Marketing Association 25 (2006): 8–23. Bialik, Carl. “Calculating the Cost of Weddings.” Wall Street Journal Web site. Available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/calculating-the-cost-of-weddings-175/. Bidwell, Lee D. Millar, and Brenda J. Vander Mey. Sociology of the Family: Investigating Family Issues. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. Biggs, Simon, Chris Phillipson, and Paul Kingston. Elder Abuse in Perspective. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1995. Bistine, Benjamin. Colorado City Polygamists: An Inside Look for the Outsider. Scottsdale, AZ: Agreka Books, 2004. Bitensky, Susan H. Corporal Punishment of Children: A Human Rights Violation. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2006. Blacher, Jan, and Bruce L. Baker. “Positive impact of intellectual disability on families.” American Journal on Mental Retardation 112 (2007): 330–348. Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary. Abridged 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1991. Blackstone-Ford, Jann, and Sharyl Jupe. Ex-Etiquette for Weddings: The Blended Families’ Guide to Tying the Knot. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, Inc., 2007. Blades, Joan, and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner. The Motherhood Manifesto: What America’s Moms Want: and What To Do About It. New York: Nation Books, 2006. Blair-Loy, Mary. Competing Devotions: Career and Family among Women Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Blake, J. Family Size and Achievement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Blank, Rebecca, and Ron Hoskins, eds. The New World of Welfare. The Brookings Institution, 2001. Blankenship, Kim, Suzanne Onorato, Beth Rushing, and Kelly White. Reproductive Technologies and the U.S. Courts. Gender and Society 7(1993): 8–31.

Bibliography Blau, David M. The Child Care Problem: An Economic Analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001. Blum, Jonathan. “Caring for Dad.” Scholastic Action 30, no. 1 (2006): 14–16. Blum, L. At the Breast: Ideologies of Breastfeeding and Motherhood in the Contemporary United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. Blumstein, Philip, and Pepper Schwartz. American Couple: Money, Work, Sex. New York: Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 1985. Bonnie, Richard J., and Robert B. Wallace, eds. Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America. Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press, 2003. Bosch, Kathy, and Walter R. Schumm. “Accessibility to Resources: Helping Rural Women in Abusive Partner Relationships Become Free from Abuse.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 30 (2004): 357–370. Boyce, Glenna C., Brent C. Miller, Karl R. White, and Michael K. Godfrey. “Single Parenting in Families of Children with Disabilities.” Marriage and Family Review 20 (1995): 389–409. Brabant, Christine, Sylvain Bourdon, and France Jutras. “Home Education in Quebec: Family First.” Evaluation and Research in Education 17 (2003): 112–131. Braver, Sanford L. Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth. New York: Putnam Special Markets, 1998. Brewster, Karin, and Irene Padavic. “Change in Gender-Ideology, 1977–1996: The Contributions of Intracohort Change and Population Turnover.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (2000): 477–487. Brinkerhoff, Merlin, Elaine Grandin, and Lupri, Eugene. “Religious Involvement and Spousal Violence: The Canadian Case.” Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 31 (1992): 15–31. Brown A. W., and B. Bailey-Etta. “An Out of Home Care System in Crisis: Implications for African-American Children in the Foster Care System.” Child Welfare 76 (1997): 65–83. Brown, Kevin D., and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis. “The Influences of Violent Media on Children and Adolescents: A Public Health Approach.” Lancet 365 (2005): 702– 710. Browne, Joy. Dating for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, 2006. Brownell, Patricia J., and Stuart Bruchey, eds. Family Crimes Against The Elderly: Elder Abuse and the Criminal Justice System. New York: Garland Publishing, 1998. Bryson, Ken, and Lynne M. Casper. “Coresident Grandparents and Grandchildren.” US Census Bureau: US Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics Administration (1999): 1–10. Bull, Chris, and John Gallagher. Perfect Enemies: The Battle Between the Religious Right and the Gay Movement. Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1996. Buri, John R. How to Love Your Wife. Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing and Enterprises, 2006. Burkett, Elinor. The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless. New York: The Free Press, 2000. Burnett, Myrna. “Suffering and Sanctification: The Religious Context of Battered Woman’s Syndrome.” Pastoral Psychology 44 (1996): 145–149.

|

583

584

|

Bibliography Buzawa, Eve S., and Carl G. Buzawa. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003. Cabaniss, Emily, and Jill Fuller. “Ethnicity, Race, and Poverty.” Race, Gender, and Class 12 (2005): 142–162. Caffaro, J., and A. Conn-Caffaro. Sibling Abuse Trauma. New York: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press, 1998. Cain, A. O. “Pets as Family Members.” Marriage and Family Review 8 (1985): 5–10. Cain, Madelyn. The Childless Revolution. Boston: Perseus Publishing, 2001. Caldwell, Roslyn M., Susan M. Sturges, and N. Clayton Silver. “Home Versus School Environments and their Influences on the Affective and Behavioral States of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 16 (2007): 119–132. Calvo, Emily T., and Laurence Minsky. 25 Words or Less: How to Write Like a Pro to Find That Special Someone Through Personal Ads. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Campbell, Suzanne B. “Taking Race out of the Equation: Transracial Adoption in 2000.” Southern Methodist University Law Review 53 (2000): 1599. Caplan, Arthur L., and Rosalie A. Kane. Everyday Ethics: Resolving Dilemmas in Nursing Home Life. New York: Springer Publishing, 1990. Caporaso, James A., and David P. Levine. Theories of Political Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Carlson, Allan C. Love is not Enough: Toward the Recovery of a Family Economics. The Family Research Council Web Site, September 2007. Available at: www.frc.org. Carpenter, Laura. Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences. New York: New York University Press, 2005. Carroll, Jason S., and William J. Doherty. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Premarital Prevention Programs: A Meta-analytic Review of Outcome Research.” Family Relations 52 (2003): 105–118. Cartwright, Lisa, Kay Johnson, Laurel Kendall, and Barbara Yngvesson. Culture of Transnational Adoption. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. Casper, Lynne M., and Suzanne M. Bianchi. Continuity and Change in the American Family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Breastfeeding Practices: Results from the National Immunization Survey, November 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ breastfeeding/data/NIS_data/data_2004.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mental Health in the United States: Prevalence of Diagnosis and Medication Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: United States, 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web Site. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5434a2.htm. Chapman, Gary. The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate. Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2004. Chessler, Barbara Jo. “Analysis of Wedding Rituals: An Attempt to Make Weddings More Meaningful.” Family Relations 29 (1980): 204–209. Chichetti, Dante, and Vicki Carlson. Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Bibliography Chideya, Farai. “When Children Must Care for Others.” NPR News and Notes, October 12, 2006. Available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6253049. Child Welfare League of America. CWLA Standards of Excellence for Family Foster Care. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America, 2005. Child Welfare League of America. CWLA Standards of Excellence for Services for Abused or Neglected Children and Their Families. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1999. Child Welfare League of America. Special tabulation of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 2006. Available at: http://ndas.cwla.org/data_stats/access/predefined/Report.asp? PageMode=1&%20ReportID=379&%20GUID={4859F5C2-DD74-4AF0-AD558360140347E3}#Table. Child Welfare League of America. Quick Facts about Foster Care. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America, 2007. Available at: http://www.cwla.org/programs/fos tercare/factsheet.htm. Clarke-Stewart, A., and V. Allhusen. What We Know About Childcare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Claxton, Reid P. “Empirical Relationships Between Birth Order and Two Types of Parental Feedback.” The Psychological Record 44 (2002): 475–500. Cohen, Abby. “A Brief History of Federal Financing for Child Care in the United States.” Financing Child Care 6. Available at: http://www.futureofchildren.org. Coleman, J. W., and H. R. Kerbo. Social Problems. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. Coleman, Malna. “Gestation, Intent, and the Seed: Defining Motherhood in the Era of Assisted Human Reproduction.” Cardoza Law Review 17 (1996): 497–530. Coleman, Marilyn, Mark Fine, and Lawrence Ganong. “Reinvestigating Remarriage: Another Decade of Progress.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2000): 1288–1307. Coleman, Marilyn, and Lawrence H. Ganong. Stepfamily Relationships: Development, Dynamics, and Interventions. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990. Collins, Particia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2000. Collom, Ed. “The Ins and Outs of Homeschooling.” Education and Urban Society 37 (2005): 307–335. Coltrane, Scott. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Coltrane, Scott. Gender and Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1998. Coltrane, Scott, and Michele Adams. Gender and Families. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008. Comer, James P., and Alvin F. Poussant. Raising Black Children. New York: Penguin Group, 1992. Commission on Leave. A Workable Balance: Report to Congress on Family and Medical Leave Policies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1996. Congalton, David, and C. Alexander. When Your Pet Outlives You: Protecting Animal Companions After You Die. Troutdale, OR: New Sage Press, 2002.

|

585

586

|

Bibliography Connell, Elizabeth B. The Contraception Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. Conrad, Peter, and Joseph W. Schneider. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992. Constable, Nicole. Romance on a Global Stage: Pen Pals, Virtual Ethnography, and “MailOrder” Marriages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. Cooke, Barbara, and Carleton Kendrick. Take Out Your Nose Ring, Honey, We’re Going to Grandma’s. Bloomington, IN: Unlimited Publishing, 2003. Cooke, P., and P. J. Standen. “Abuse and Disabled Children: Hidden Needs?” Child Abuse Review, 11(2002): 1–18. Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Harper Collins, 1992. Coontz, Stephanie. The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America’s Changing Families. New York: Basic Books, 1997. Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Penguin Group, 2005. Coontz, Stephanie, and Nancy Folbre. 2002. “Marriage, Poverty, and Public Policy.” Available at: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=marriage_poverty_and_ public_policy. Cooper, Bruce S., and John Sureau.” The Politics of Homeschooling-New Developments, New Challenges.” Educational Policy 21 (2007): 110–131. Cooper, Paul, and Katherine Bilton. ADHD: Research, Practice and Opinion. London: Whurr Publishers, 1999. Corkum, Penny V., M. Margaret McKinnon, and Jennifer C. Mullane. “The Effect of Involving Classroom Teachers in a Parent Training Program for Families of Children with ADHD.” Child and Family Behavior Therapy 27 (2005): 29–49. Courtney, M. E., R. P. Barth, J. D. Berrick, D. Brooks, B. Needell, and L. Park. “Race and Child Welfare Services: Past research and Future Directions.” Child Welfare 76 (1996): 99–137. Cowles, K. V. “The Death of a Pet: Human Responses to the Breaking of the Bond.” In Pets and Family, ed. M. B. Sussman. New York: Haworth Press, 1985. Crary, Elizabeth. Without Spanking or Spoiling: A Practical Approach to Toddler and Preschool Guidance. Seattle, WA: Parenting Press, 1993. Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001. Crittenden, Ann. If You’ve Raised Kids, You Can Manage Anything: Leadership Begins at Home. New York: Gotham Press, 2005. Crosson-Tower, Cynthia. Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2007. Crowley, Jocelyn. The Politics of Child Support in America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Cullen, L. T., and L. Grossman. Fatherhood 2.0. Time (October 4, 2007). Available at: http://www.time.com. Cunradi, Carol, Raul Caetano, and John Schafer. “Religious Affiliation, Denominational Hegemony, and Intimate Partner Violence Among U.S. Couples.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41 (2002): 139–152.

Bibliography Currie, Janet M. The Invisible Safety Net. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006. Curtis, Patrick A., G. Dale, and J. Kendall. The Foster Care Crisis Translating Research into Policy Practice. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Darrock, J. E., and S. Singh. “Why is Teenage Pregnancy Declining? The Roles of Abstinence, Sexual Activity, and Contraceptive Use.” Occasional Report 1 (1999). New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Daston, Lorraine, and Gregg Mitman. Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Davenport, Dawn. The Complete Book of International Adoption: A Step by Step Guide to Finding Your Child. New York: Broadway Press, 2006. Davis, Deborah. You Look Too Young to be a Mom: Teen Mothers on Love, Learning, and Success. New York: Perigree, 2004. Davis, Lennard J. The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 2006. Davis-Floyd, Robbie E. Birth as an American Rite of Passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004. DeAngelis, Barbara. The Real Rules: How to Find the Right Man for the Real You. New York: Dell Books, 1997. Dearden, Chris, and Saul Becker. “Young Carers and Education.” Carers UK, 2002. Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/youngCarers Download/yceduc[1].pdf. Defago, Nicki. Childfree and Loving It! London: Vision, 2005. Demos, John. 1970. A Little Commonwealth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. Demos, John. Past, Present, and Personal: The Family and the Life Course of American History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Department of Health and Human Services. “Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States.” Vital and Health Statistics 23, no. 22. Hyattsville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf. Descartes, Rene. “Animals are Machines.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, ed. Regan T. and P. Singer. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976. Deyo, Yaacov, and Sue Deya. Speed Dating: A Timesaving Guide to Finding Your Lifelong Love. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,2003. Dickson, Lynda. “The Marriage and Family in Black America.” Journal of Black Studies 23 (1993): 472–491. Digregorio, Charlotte. Everything You Need to Know about Nursing Homes. Portland, OR: Civetta Press, 2005. Divakaruni, Chitra. “Arranged Marriages Can Provide Couples Stronger Relationships: South Asian Families Are Adopting an Updated Version of the Old Custom.” The Standard, June 23, 2001, Viewpoint section, St. Catherines, Ontario, edition: A13. Dobson, James C. Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle. Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group, 2007. Doherty, William J. Take Back Your Marriage: Sticking Together in a World that Pulls Us Apart. New York: Guilford Publications, 2001. Domar, Alice. Conquering Infertility. New York: Penguin Books, 2002.

|

587

588

|

Bibliography Dowling, Scott. The Psychology and Treatment of Addictive Behavior. Madison, CT: International Universities Press, 1995. Downs, Donald Alexander. More Than Victims: Battered Women, the Syndrome Society, and the Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Downs, Susan Whitelaw, Ernestine Moore, Emily Jean McFadden, and Susan Michaud. Child Welfare and Family Services: Policies and Practices, 7th ed. New York: AllynBacon, 2003. Doyle, Laura. The Surrendered Wife: A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace. New York: Fireside, 2001. Drake, Jennifer. “Pro’s and Con’s of Eloping versus Planning a Wedding Ceremony,” 2007. Associated Content Web site. Available at: http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/185413/the_pros_and_cons_of_eloping_versus.html. Drescher, Jack, and Deborah Glazer. Gay and Lesbian Parenting. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Medical Press, 2001. Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated from French by Joseph Ward Swain. New York: Free Press, 1965. Dutton, Donald G. Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2006. Duvall, Steven F., Joseph C. Delquadri, and D. Lawrence Ward. “A Preliminary Investigation of the Effectiveness of Homeschool Instructional Environments for Students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.” School Psychology Review 33 (2004): 140–158. Ebaugh, Helen Rose, and Mary Curry. “Fictive Kin as Social Capital in New Immigrant Communities.” Sociological Perspectives 43 (2000):189–209. Edgarton, Robert B. The Cloak of Competence: Stigma in the Lives of the Mentally Retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Edwards, O. “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Emotional and Behavioral Functioning of Children Raised by Grandparents.” Psychology in the Schools 43 (2006): 565–572. Ehrensaft, Diane. Parenting Together: Men and Women Sharing the Care of Their Children. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1990. Eitzen, Stanley, and Maxine Baca Zinn. “Contemporary Family Policy: An Alternative Vision.” Michigan Family Review 2 (1997): 7–24. Eitzen, Stanley, and Maxine Baca Zinn. “The Missing Safety Net and Families: A Progressive Critique of the New Welfare Legislation.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 27 (2000): 53–73. Elkind, David. The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon: 25th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2006. Elkind, David. The Power of Play: How Spontaneous, Imaginative Activities Lead to Happier, Healthier Children. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2006. Ellison, Christopher, and Kristin Anderson. “Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence among U.S. Couples.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40 (2001): 260–286. Ellison, Christopher, John Bartkowski, and Kristin Anderson. “Are There Religious Variations in Domestic Violence?” Journal of Family Issues 20 (1999): 87–113. Ellison, Christopher, Jenny Trinitapoli, Kristin L. Anderson, and Byron Johnson. “Race/ ethnicity, Religious Involvement, and Domestic Violence.” Violence against Women 13 (2007): 1094–1112.

Bibliography Emery, Robert E. Marriage, Divorce and Children’s Adjustment, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999. England, Paula, and Nancy Folbre. “The Cost of Caring.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 561(1999): 39–51. Enss, Chris. Hearts West: True Stories of Mail-Order Brides on the Frontier. Guilford, CT: TwoDot Press, 2005. Epstein, Fuchs Cynthia. “Great Divides: The Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women.” American Sociological Review 72 (2007):1–22. Eriksen, S., and V. Jensen. “All in the Family? Family Environment Factors in Sibling Violence.” Journal of Family Violence 21 (2006): 497–507. Ernst, C. Birth Order: It’s Influence on Personality. New York: Springer Publishing, 1983. Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. “Adoption by Lesbians and Gays: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies, Practices, and Attitudes.” Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2002. Available at: www.adoptioninstitute.org. Evans, Richard C., and Elder Joseph P. Smith Jr. Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2007. Fagan, P., and R. Rector. “The Effects of Divorce on America.” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 1373 (June 2000). Available at: www.heritage.org/research/family/ BG1373.cfm. FaithTrust Institute. Working Together to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, 2008. FaithTrust Institute Web site. Available at: http://www.faithtrustinstitute.org/. Falbo, Toni. The Single-Child Family. New York: Guilford, 1984. Falk, Ursula A., and Gerhard Falk. Grandparents: A New Look at the Supporting Generation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2002. Falkner, Elizabeth Swire. The Ultimate Insider’s Guide to Adoption: Everything You Need to Know About Domestic and International Adoption. New York: Wellness Central Publishing, 2006. Faria, Alison. When to Consider Eloping, 2005. Happy Living Web site. Available at: http://www.happynews.com/living/eventtips/consider-eloping.htm. Farmer, Steven. Adult Children of Abusive Parents: A Healing Program for Those Who Have Been Physically, Sexually, or Emotionally Abused. New York: Ballantine Books, 1989. Fay, Jim. Grandparenting with Love and Logic: Practical Solutions to Today’s Grandparenting Challenges. Golden, CO: Love and Logic Press, 1998. Fein, E., and S. Schneider. The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right. New York: Warner Books, 1996. Feldman, Maurice A., and Shannon E. Werner. “Collateral Effects of Behavioral Parent Training on Families of Children with Developmental Disabilities and Severe Behavior Disorders.”Behavioral Interventions 17 (2002): 75–83. Feldman, Maurice A., L. McDonald, L. Serbin, D. Stack, M. L. Secco, and C. T. Yu. “Predictors of Depressive Symptoms in Primary Caregivers of Young Children with or at Risk for Developmental Delay.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 51 (2007): 606–619. Ferber, Richard, M. D. Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems: New, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Fireside, 2006.

|

589

590

|

Bibliography Feshbach, S. “The Function of Aggression and the Regulation of Aggressive Drive.” Psychological Review 71 (1964): 257–272. Fidelman, Charlie. “Arranged Marriages Still Very Popular: New Generation Years for Their Roots.” The Gazette, April 27, 2003, News section, Montreal, Quebec, edition: A10. Fields, Jason, and Lynne M. Casper. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2000.” Current Population Reports 20–537 (2001): Figure 1. Fineman, Martha Albertson. Marriage Proposals; Questioning a Legal Status. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Fiorenza, E. Schussler. Bread not Stone: The Challenge of Biblical Feminist Interpretation. New York: Beacon Press, 1995. Fisher, Bruce, and Robert E. Alberti. Rebuilding: When Your Relationship Ends, 3rd ed. Atascadero, CA: Impact Publishers, 2006. Fisher, Laurel. Eloping vs. a Family Wedding, 2005. Happy Living Web site. Available at: http://www.happynews.com/living/eventtips/eloping-vs-family.htm. Fisher, Seymour, and Rhonda Fisher. What We Really Know About Child Rearing. New York: Basic Books, 1976. Fisher, S. W. The Stay at Home Dad: Why Some Christian Couples are Choosing to Reverse Roles and How it Affects Their Marriage. Marriage Partnership 17 (2000): 24. Flowers, R. Barri. Domestic Crimes, Family Violence and Child Abuse: A Study of Contemporary American Society. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2000. Fowers, Blaine J. Beyond the Myth of Marital Happiness: How Embracing the Virtues of Loyalty, Generosity, Justice, and Courage Can Strengthen Your Relationship. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2000. Fogle, B., and A. Edney. Interrelations between People and Pets. Chicago: Charles C. Thomas, 1981. Fogel, Robert W., and Stanley Engerman. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston: Little Brown, 1974. Fogg-Davis, Hawley. The Ethics of Transracial Adoption. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002. Folbre, Nancy. “Rethinking the Child Care Sector.” Community Development 37 (2006): 38–53. Folks, Homer. The Care of Destitute, Neglected, and Delinquent Children. London: The Macmillan Company, 1978. Ford, D. A., and S. Breall. Violence against Women: Synthesis of Research for Prosecutors. National Institute of Justice, 2003. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf files1/nij/grants/199660.pdf. Francis, Leslie Pickering, and Anita Silvers. Americans with Disabilities: Exploring Implications of the Law for Individuals and Institutions. New York: Routledge, 2000. Frazier, Franklin. The Negro Family in the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966. Frinz, Iris, and Steven Frinz. Secret Sex: Real People Talk About Outside Relationships They Hide from Their Partners. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003. Fry Konty, Melissa, and Jonathan Harrison. Child Care in Appalachian Kentucky: Financial Sustainability in a Low-income Market. Berea, KY: Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, 2007.

Bibliography Furstenberg, Frank. “Good Dads: Bad Dads: Two Faces of Fatherhood.” In The Changing American Family and Public Policy, ed. Andrew J. Cherlin. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1988. Furstenberg, Frank F., and Andrew Cherlin. Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Furstenberg, Frank E., and Christopher C. Weiss. “Intergenerational Transmission of Fathering Roles in At Risk Families.” Marriage and Family Review 29 (2000): 181–202. Gadberry, James H. “Pet Cemeteries Help Recognize Pet Bereavement.” Mortuary Management 86 (2000): 18–19. Galinsky, Ellen. Ask the Children: The Breakthrough Study that Reveals How to Succeed at Work and Parenting. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Galinsky, Ellen, and Judy David. Ask the Children: What America’s Children Really Think About Working Parents. New York: William Morrow, 1999. Garcia, Juanita L., and Jordan I. Kosberg, eds. Elder Abuse: International and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New York. The Haworth Press, 1995. Geffner, Robert A., and Alan Rosenbaum, eds. Domestic Violence Offenders: Current Interventions, Research, and Implications for Policies and Standards. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2002. Gelles, Richard J. Intimate Violence in Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997. Gelles, R. J., and C. P. Cornell. Intimate Violence in Families, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1990. Gelles, Richard J., and Donileen Loseke. Current Controversies in Family Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1993. Gelles, R. J. “Violence in the Family: A Review of Research in the Seventies.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 42 (1980): 873–885. George, R. M., F. H. Wulczyn, and A. W. Harden. Foster Care Dynamics 1983–1993: California, Illinois, Michigan. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1995. Gest, Ted. “Divorce: How the Game is Played Now.” U.S. News and World Report, November 21, 1983, 39–42. Gibbs, Nancy, Hilary Hylton, and Peta Owens-Liston. “Polygamy Paradox.” Time, October 7, 2007, 48–50. Gillespie, Cynthia K. Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense and the Law. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989. Ginsberg, Faye, D. Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Glenn, Norval D. With This Ring: A National Survey on Marriage in America. National Fatherhood Initiative Web Site, January 2008. Available at: www.smartmarriages. com/nms.pdf. Godsall, Robert E., Gregory J. Jurkovic, James Emshoff, Louis Anderson, and Douglas Stanwyck. “Why Some Kids Do Well in Bad Situations: Relation of Parental Alcohol Misuse and Parentification to Children’s Self-Concept.” Substance Use and Misuse 39, no. 5 (2004): 789–809. Goer, Henci. The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth. New York: A Perigee Book, 1999.

|

591

592

|

Bibliography Goer, Henci. Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities: A Guide to the Medical Literature. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 1995. Goffman, Erving. Stigma: Notes on Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963. Goldstein, Avram. Addiction: From Biology to Drug Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Gordon, Jay, M. D., and Maria Goodavage. Good Nights (The Happy Parents’ Guide to the Family Bed). New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002. Gordon, Sara Barringer. The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth Century America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers. Families that Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2003. Gosciewski, F. William. Effective Child Rearing: The Behaviorally Aware Parent. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1976. Gottfried, Ted. Teen Fathers Today. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001. Gottman, John M. What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994. Gottman, John M. Why Marriages Succeed or Fail and How You Can Make Yours Last. New York: Fireside, 1994. Gottman, John M., and Nan Silver. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999. Gottman, John. And Baby Makes Three: The Six-Step Plan for Preserving Marital Intimacy and Rekindling Romance After Baby Arrives. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008. Gowan, Mary A., and Raymond A. Zimmerman. “The Family and Medical Leave of 1993: Employee Rights and Responsibilities, Employer Rights and Responsibilities.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 9 (1996): 57–71. Grant, Gilbert J. Enjoy Your Labor: A New Approach to Pain Relief for Childbirth. White Plains, NY: Russell Hastings Press, 2005. Gray, Deborah. Attaching in Adoption: Practical Tools for Today’s Parents. Indianapolis: Perspective Press, 2002. Green, Christa L., and Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey. “Why Do Parents Homeschool?” Education and Urban Society 39 (2007): 264–285. Greenstein, T. N. “Gender Ideology, Marital Disruption, and the Employment of Married Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 (1995): 31–42. Grier, Katherine. Pets in America: A History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006. Grogger, Jeffrey, and Lynn A. Karoly. Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Gross, James J. Fathers’ Rights: A Legal Guide to Protecting the Best Interests of Your Children. Naperville, IL: Sphinx Legal Publishing, 2004. Gross, Michael. The More Things Change: Why the Baby Boom Won’t Fade Away. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000. Guastello, Denise D., and Stephen J. Guastello. “Birth Category Effects on the Gordon Personal Profile Variables.” Reyson Group Web Site. 2002. Available at: http://www. jasnh.com/a1.htm.

Bibliography Gubrium, Jaber F., and James A. Holstein. What is Family? Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1990. Hajnal, John. “Two Kinds of Preindustrial Household Formation System.” Population and Development Review 8 (1982):449–494. Halbig, Marlene C. Personal Ads: Never Be Lonely Again. LaPuente, CA: Baron Publications, 1992. Hales, Brian C. Mormon Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generation After the Manifesto. Draper, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007. Hall, Beth, and Gail Steinberg. Adoptism: A Definition. Pact, an Adoption Alliance Web site, 1998. Available at: www.pactadopt.org. Hallowell, Edward M. “What I’ve Learned from ADD.” In Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issue in Abnormal Psychology, ed. Richard P. Halgin, 3rd ed. Duque, IO: McGraw-Hill/Duskin, 2005. Han, E. L. Mandatory Arrest and no Drop Policies: Victim Empowerment in Domestic Violence Cases, 2002. Available at: http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/ meta-elements/journals/bctwj/23_1/04_TXT.htm (accessed May 19, 2007). Han, WenJui, and Jane Waldfogel. “Parental Leave: The Impact of Recent Legislation on Parents’ Leave Taking.” Demography 40 (2003): 191–200. Harris, Fred R. The Baby Bust: Who will do the Work? Who will Pay the Taxes? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Harris, Leslie M. After Fifty: How the Baby Boom will Redefine the Mature Market. Ithaca, NY: Paramount Market Publishing, 2003. Hartlaub, P. Full-time Dad and Fine with It. July 23, 2006. Available at: http://www.sf gate.com. Hartmann, Heidi. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union.” In Social Stratification: The Sociological Perspective, ed. D. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001. Haskins, C. “Treating Sibling Incest Using a Family Systems Approach.” Journal of Mental Health Counseling 25(2003): 337–351. Hass, Aaron. The Gift of Fatherhood: How Men’s Lives are Transformed By Their Children. New York: Fireside Publications, 1994. Hastings, Richard P., and Helen M. Taunt. “Positive Perceptions in Families of Children with Developmental Disabilities.” American Journal on Mental Retardation 107 (2002): 116–127. Hausman, Bernice. Mother’s Milk: Breastfeeding Controversies in American Culture. New York: Routledge, 2003. Hawkins, Alan J., Steven L. Nock, Julia C. Wilson, Laura Sanchez, and James D. Wright. “Attitudes about Covenant Marriage and Divorce: Policy Implications from a 3stage Comparison.” Family Relations 51 (2002): 166–175. Hawkins, Alan J., Lynn D. Wardle, and David O. Coolidge, eds. Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the 21st Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage. New York: Praeger, 2002. Hayden, Mary F., and Brian H. Abery. Challenges for a Service System in Transition: Ensuring Quality Community Experiences for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 1994.

|

593

594

|

Bibliography Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996. Hayslip Jr., Bert, and Robin Goldberg-Glen, eds. Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: Theoretical, Empirical, and Clinical Perspectives. New York: Springer Publishing, 2000. Hegeman, Mary Theodore. Developmental Disability: A Family Challenge. New York: Paulist Press, 1984. Helburn, Suzanne Wiggons, and Barbara Bergmann. America’s Child Care Problem: The Way Out. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Herrera, N. “Beliefs about Birth Rank and Their Reflection in Reality.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (2003): 142–150. Hertel, Bradley, and Michael Hughes. “Religious Affiliation, Attendance, and Support for ‘Pro-Family’ Issues in the United States.” Social Forces 65 (1987):858–883. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene, and Gregg Lee Carter. Working Women in America: Split Dreams. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hetherington, E. Mavis, and John Kelly. For Better or Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2003. Hewitt, Sylvia Ann. Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children. New York: Miramax Books, 2002. Higuera, V. C. Modern Weddings: Planning a Marriage Elopement. Associated Content Web site, 2006. Available at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/36493/ modern_weddings_planning_a_marriage.html. Hindin, Michelle, and Arland Thornton. The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation (Social Institutions and Social Change). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction, 2000. Hirschman, E. C. “Consumers and Their Companion Animals.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1994): 616–632. History of Domestic Violence: A Timeline of the Battered Women’s Movement. Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, 1999. Available at: http://www.mincava. umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html (accessed May 26, 2007). Hochschild, Arlie Russell, and Anne Machung. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking, 1989. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997. Hoffman, Allan M., and Summers, Randal W., eds. Elder Abuse: A Public Health Perspective. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association, 2006. Hoffman, K. L., and J. N. Edwards. “An Integrated Theoretical Model of Sibling Violence and Abuse.” Journal of Family Violence 19 (2004): 185–200. Hooper, Lisa. M. “Expanding the Discussion Regarding Parentification and Its Varied Outcomes: Implications for Mental Health Research and Practice.” Journal of Mental Health Counseling 29, no. 4 (2007): 322–37. Horton, Anne, and Judith Williamson. Abuse and Religion: When Praying Isn’t Enough. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1988. Houts, Leslie A. “But Was It Wanted? Young Women’s First Voluntary Sexual Intercourse.” Journal of Family Issues 26 (2005): 1082–1102.

Bibliography Hoyt, Peggy R. All My Children Wear Fur Coats: How to Leave a Legacy for your Pet. West Conshohoken, PA: Infinity Publishing, 2002. Human Rights Campaign. HRC: Domestic Partners. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Campaign, 2008. Available at: http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/domestic_partners.asp.Human Rights Campaign. HRC: Civil Unions. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Campaign, 2008 Available at: http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/civil_ unions.asp.Human Rights Campaign. Massachusetts Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Campaign, 2008. Available at: http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/926.htm.Hyman, Irwin A. Reading, Writing, and the Hickory Stick. The Appalling Story of Physical and Psychological Abuse in American Schools. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990. Ibsen, Charles, and Patricia Klobus. “Fictive Kin Term Use and Social Relationships: Alternative Interpretations.” Journal of Marriage and Family 34(1972):615–620. In The Name of Love: Modern Day Mail Order Brides, dir. Shannon O’Rourke, 2005. Harriman, NY: New Day Films. (Film) Ingraham, Chrys. White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008. Intimate Partner Violence: Overview. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 26, 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvoverview.htm. Isabella, Kalee. Elope. Love to Know Weddings, 2006. Available at: http://weddings. lovetoknow.com/wiki/Elope. Jagannathan R., M. Camasso, and S. McLanahan. “Welfare Reform and Child Fostering: Pinpointing Affected Child Populations.” Social Science Quarterly 86 (2005): 1081–1103. Jellison, Katherine. It’s Our Day: America’s Love Affair with the White Wedding 1945– 2005. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2008. Jendrek, Margaret P. “Grandparents Who Parent Their Grandchildren: Effects on Lifestyle.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (1993):609–621. Jenks, Richard J. “Swinging: A Review of the Literature.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 27 (1998): 507–520 John, Jaiya. Black Baby, White Hands: A View from the Crib. Silver Spring, MD: Soul Water Rising, 2005. Johnson, Colleen. “Perspectives on American Kinship in the Later 1990s.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2000):623–639. Johnson, Leanor Boulin, and Robert Staples. Black Families at the Crossroads: Challenges and Prospects. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2005. Johnson, M. P. “Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence Against Women.” Journal of Marriage and Family 57 (1995): 283–294. Johnson, M. P., and K. J. Ferraro. “Research on Domestic Violence in the 1990s: Making Distinctions.” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2000): 948–963. Jones, Ann. Next Time She’ll Be Dead: Battering and How to Stop It. New York: Beacon Press, 2000. Jost, Kenneth. “Gay Marriage.” Issues for Debate in American Public Policy, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. Kakar, Suman. Domestic Abuse: Public Policy/Criminal Justice Approaches Towards Child, Spousal and Elderly Abuse. San Francisco: Austin and Winfield, 1998.

|

595

596

|

Bibliography Kamp Dush, Claire M., Catherine L. Cohan, and Paul Amato. “The Relationship between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change Across Cohorts.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2003): 539–549. Karp, Harvey. The Happiest Baby on the Block. New York: Bantam Dell, 2002. Katcher, A. H., and A. M. Beck. New Perspectives on our Lives with Companion Animals. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983. Kaufman, Carole. Sins of Omission: The Jewish Community’s Reaction to Domestic Violence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003. Kay, W., Nieburg H. A., Kutscher, A. H., Grey, R. M., and C. E. Fudin. Pet Loss and Human Bereavement. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1984. Kelly, Erin. “The Strange History of Employer-Sponsored Child Care: Interested Actors, Uncertainty, and the Transformation of Law in Organizational Fields.” American Journal of Sociology 109(2003): 606–649. Kelly, Kristin A. Domestic Violence and the Politics of Privacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. Kennedy, Allison M., and Deborah A. Gust. “Parental Vaccine Beliefs and Child’s School Type.” Journal of School Health 75 (2005): 276–280. Kennedy, John S. The New Anthropomorphism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Kettrey, H., and B. Emery. “The Discourse of Sibling Violence.” Journal of Family Violence 22 (2007): 769. Khandelwal, Madhulika S. Becoming American, Being Indian: An Immigrant Community in New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002. Kirsh, Steven J. Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence: A Critical Look at the Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006. Kiselica, A., and M. Morril-Richards. “Sibling Maltreatment: The Forgotten Abuse.” Journal of Counseling and Development 85 (2007): 146–160. Kitzinger, Sheila. The Complete Book of Pregnancy and Childbirth, 4th ed. New York: Knopf, 2003. Knickmeyer, Nicole, Heidi Levitt, Sharon Horne, and Gary Bayer. “Responding to Mixed Messages and Double Binds: Religious Oriented Coping Strategies of Christian Battered Women.” Journal of Religion and Abuse 5 (2003): 29–54. Knoll, Jean, and Mary-Kate Murphy. International Adoption: Sensitive Advice for Prospective Parents. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1994. Koppelman, Andrew. The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002. Kornblum, Janet. “When Child Cares for Parent.” USA Today, September 14, 2005. Student Research Center Database. Kornhaber, Arthur. The Grandparent Guide: The Definitive Guide to Coping with the Challenges of Modern Grandparenting. New York: Contemporary Books, 2002. Kotlowitz, Alex. There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in The Other America. New York: Anchor Books, 1991. Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. London: Pan Books, 2004. Kranz, Rachel, and Tim Cusick. Gay Rights. Library in a Book, rev ed. New York: Facts on File, 2005. Krause, Harry D., and David D. Meyer. Family Law in a Nutshell, 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2007.

Bibliography Kreisher, Kristen. “Gay Adoption.” Children’s Voice Magazine 17. Child Welfare League of America, January/February 2002. Available at: http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv 0201gayadopt.htm. Kroeger, Catherine, and James Beck. Healing the Hurting: Giving Hope and Help to Abused Women. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998. Kroeger, Catherine, and Nancy Nason-Clark. No Place for Abuse: Biblical and Practical Resources to Counteract Domestic Violence. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2001. Kuriansky, Judith. Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dating. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books, 2004. Kurst-Swanger, Karel, and Jacqueline L. Petcosky. Violence in the Home: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Lackey, Nancy R., and Marie F. Gates. “Adults’ Recollections of their Experiences as Young Caregivers of Family Members with Chronic Physical Illnesses.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 34, no. 3 (2001): 320–328. La Leche League International, Inc. The Womanly Art of Breast Feeding, 6th ed. Schaumberg, IL: LaLeche League International, 1997. Lamb, Kathleen A., Gary R. Lee, and Alfred DeMaris. “Union Formation and Depression: Selection and Relationship Effects.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 953–962. Lanci-Altomare, Michele. Good-Bye My Friend: Pet Cemeteries, Memorials, and Other Ways to Remember. Irvine, CA: Bowtie Press, 2000. Landry, Bart. Black Working Wives: Pioneers of the American Family Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Landry-Meyer, Laura, Jean M. Gerard, and Jacqueline R. Guzell. “Caregiver Stress Among Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: The Functional Role of Social Support.” Marriage and Family Review 37 (2005): 171–190. Laner, Mary Reige. Dating: Delights, Discontents and Dilemmas. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co., 1992. Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Larsen,Wanwadee. Confessions of a Mail-Order Bride: American Life through Thai Eyes. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1989. Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela. Gestation: Work for Hire or the Essence of Motherhood? A Comparative Legal Analysis. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 9 (2002): 91–134. LaViolette, Alyce D., and Ola W. Barnett. It Could Happen to Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000. Leavitt, Jacqueline. “Where’s the Gender in Community Development?” Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29(2003): 207–231. Leman, Kevin. The New Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell Books, 1998. Leo, Jonathan. “American Preschoolers on Ritalin.” Society 39 (2002): 52–60. Leonard, Karen I. The South Asian Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Lessinger, Johanna. From the Ganges to the Hudson: Indian Immigrants in New York City. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. Levin, Irene, and Jan Trost. “Understanding the Concept of Family.” Family Relations 41 (1992): 348–351.

|

597

598

|

Bibliography Lewis, Oscar. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty: San Juan and New York. New York: Vintage Books, 1966. Lewis, Oscar. A Study of Slum Culture: Backgrounds for La Vida. New York: Random House, 1968. Li, R., F. Fridinger, and L. Grummer-Strawn. “Public Perceptions on Breastfeeding Constraints.” Journal of Human Lactation 18 (2002): 227–235. Liebow, Elliot. Tally’s Corner. Boston: Brown and Company, 1967. Linares, L. O. “An Understudied form of Intra-family Violence: Sibling-to-Sibling Aggression among Foster Children.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 11 (2006): 95–109. Lindsey, D. The Welfare of Children. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Lindsey, Linda L. Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997. Lisle, Laurie. Without Child: Challenging the Stigma of Childlessness. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996. Lowe, Heather. What You Should Know If You’re Considering Adoption for Your Baby. Concerned United Birthparents Web site, 2006. Available at: www.cubirthparents. org. Lowery, Fred. Covenant Marriage: Staying Together For Life. West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing Co., 2002. Luker, Kristen. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Luker, Kristin. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. MacGregor, Cynthia. Mommy Rescue Guide: Getting Your Baby to Sleep. Avon, MA: Adams Media, 2007. Magnusson, Tony. “What’s Love Got to Do With It?” Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne Australia), February 12, 2006, Magazine section: 20. Malacrida, Claudia. “Alternative Therapies and Attention Deficit Disorder: Discourses of Maternal Responsibility and Risk.” Gender and Society 16 (2002): 366–383. Mallon, Gerald P. Lesbian and Gay Foster and Adoptive Parents: Recruiting, Assessing, and Supporting an Untapped Resource for Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Inc., 2006. Mancillas, A. “Challenging the Stereotypes about Only Children: A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice.” Journal of Counseling and Development 84 (2006): 268–275. March, Karen, and Charlene E. Miall. “Reinforcing the Motherhood Ideal: Public Perceptions of Biological Mothers Who Make an Adoption Plan.” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 43 (2006): 367–386. Markman, Howard J., Scott M. Stanley, and Susan L. Blumberg. Fighting for Your Marriage: Positive Steps for Preventing Divorce and Preserving a Lasting Love. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2001. Marks, Michelle Rose. “Party Politics and Family Policy.” Journal of Family Issues 18 (1997): 55–70. Marks, Michelle Rose. Business, Labor, Gender, and the State: The Shaping of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 1995.

Bibliography Marshner, Connie. Reform the Nation’s Foster Care System Now. Family Research Council Web site, 2005. Available at: www.frc.org. Marsiglio, William, Paul Amato, Randal D. Day, and Michael E. Lamb. “Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s and Beyond.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62(2000): 1173–1191. Marsiglio, William, and Sally Hutchinson. Sex, Men, and Babies: Stories of Awareness and Responsibility. New York: New York University Press, 2004. Marston, Allison. “Planning for Love: The Politics of Prenuptial Agreements.” Stanford Law Review 49 (1997): 887–916. Maschke, Karen J. The Legal Response to Violence Against Women. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997. Mason, Mary Ann, Arlene Skolnick, and Stephen D. Sugarman, eds. All Our Families: New Policies for a New Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Mattox, Renee, and Jeanette Harder. “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Diverse Populations.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 24 (2007): 195–207. Maushart, Susan. The Mask of Motherhood: How Becoming a Mother Changes Everything and Why We Pretend It Doesn’t. New York: New Press, 1999. Maushart, Susan. Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for Women. New York: Bloomsbury, 2001. Maxwell, Carol J. C. Pro-Life Activists in America: Meaning, Motivation, and Direct Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Mayntz, Melissa. Places to Elope. Love to Know Weddings, 2007. Available at: http:// weddings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Places_to_Elope. McCarthy, Barry, and Emily J. McCarthy. Getting It Right the First Time: Creating a Healthy Marriage. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2004. McCullough, Derek, and Hall, David S. Polyamory-What it Is and What it Isn’t. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, February 27, 2003. Available at: http://www. ejhs.org/volume6/polamory.htm. McGrath, E. My One and Only: The Special Experience of the Only Child. New York: Morrow, 1989. McKenna, James J. Sleeping with Your Baby: A Parent’s Guide to Cosleeping. Washington, DC: Platypus Press, 2007. McLellan, David. “Contract Marriage: The Way Forward or Dead End?” Journal of Law and Society 23 (1996): 234–246. McRae, William J. Preparing for Your Marriage. Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 1980. Mead, Rebecca. One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding. New York: The Penguin Press, 2007. Meisels, Joseph, and Martin Loeb, “Foster Care and Adoption: Unanswered Questions About Foster Care” The Social Service Review 30, no. 3 (1956): 239–246. Meyers, Marcia K., and Janet C. Gornick. “Public or Private Responsibility? Early Childhood Education and Care, Inequality, and the Welfare State.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 34 (2003): 379–406. Miller, Laurie C. The Handbook of International Adoption Medicine: A Guide for Physicians, Parents, and Providers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

|

599

600

|

Bibliography Mills, Linda G. Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. Mills, L. G. “Mandatory Arrest and Prosecution Policies for Domestic Violence: A Critical Literature Review and the Case for More Research to Test Victim Empowerment Approaches.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 25 (1998): 306–319. Mincy, Ronald B. “Marriage, Child Poverty, and Public Policy.” 2001. Available at: http:// www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv4n2mincy.pdf. Minervini, Bibiana Paez, and Francis T. McAndrew. “The Mating Strategies and Mate Preferences of Mail Order Brides.” Cross Cultural Research 40 (2006): 111–129. Minkler, Meredith, and Kathleen M. Roe. “Grandparents as Surrogate Parents.” Generations 20 (1996): 34–39. Mitford, Jessica. The American Way of Birth. New York: Penguin, 1992. Mobilia, Marcia, and Joel Bulmil. Deadbeat Dads: A National Child Support Scandal. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1996. Monteleone, James A. A Parent’s and Teacher’s Handbook on Identifying and Preventing Child Abuse. St. Louis, MO: G.W. Medical Publishing, 1998. Morgan, Marabel. The Total Woman. New York: Pocket Books, 1990. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy, ed. Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1967. Nason-Clark, Nancy. The Battered Wife: How Christians Confront Family Violence. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Nason-Clark, Nancy. “When Terror Strikes at Home: The Interface Between Religion and Domestic Violence.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (2004): 303– 310. National Alliance on Caregiving and the United Hospital Fund. “Young Caregivers in the U.S.,” 2005. Available at: http://www.caregiving.org/data/youngcaregivers.pdf. National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. Foster Care vs. Keeping Families Together: The Definitive Study. National Coalition for Child Protection Reform Web site, 2006. Available at: www.nccpr.org. National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. What is “Family Preservation”? National Coalition for Child Protection Reform Web site, 2005. Available at: www. nccpr.org. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD): Findings for Children up to Age 4 1/2 Years (05–4318). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006. Nelson, T. J., S. Clampet-Lundquist, and K. Edin. “Sustaining Fragile Fatherhood”: Father Involvement among Low-income, Noncustodial African American Fathers in Philadelphia. In A Handbook of Father Involvement, ed. Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, and Natasha Cabrera. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. Netting, Nancy S. “Two-Lives, One Partner: Indo-Candian Youth Between Love and Arranged Marriages.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 37, no. 1 (2006): 129– 146. Neufeld, B. “SAFE Questions: Overcoming the Barriers to Detecting Domestic Violence.” American Family Physician 53 (1996): 2575–2581.

Bibliography Neugarten, B., and Weinstein, K. “The Changing American Grandparent.” Journal of Marriage and Family 26, no. 2 (1964): 199–204. Newton, Betty, and Saul Becker. “The Capital Carers: An Evaluation of the Capital Carers Young Carers Project.” Loughboro University, 1999. Available at: http://www.lboro. ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/YCRG/youngCarersDownload/capital%20carers.pdf. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. “The Effects of Infant Child Care on Infant-Mother Attachment Security: Results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.” Child Development 68 (October 1997): 860–879. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. “The Relation of Child Care to Cognitive and Language Development.” Child Development 71 (July-August 2000): 960–980. Nichols, Joel A. “Louisiana’s Covenant Marriage Law: A First Step Toward a More Robust Pluralism in Marriage and Divorce Law?” Emory Law Journal 47 (1998): 929–930. NIJ’s Violence Against Women Research and Evaluation Program: Selected Results. VAWFV: Violence Against Women and Family Violence. Available at:http://www. ojp.gov/nij/vawprog/selected_results.html (accessed May 16, 2007). Nock, Steven L., James D. Wright, and Laura Sanchez. “America’s Divorce Problem.” Society 36 (1999): 43–52. Nordstrom, Byron. The History of Sweden. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Nordstrom, N. “When Dad Stays Home.” Jugglezine, June 12, 1998. Available at: http:// www.hermanmiller.com. Olfson, Mark, Marc J. Gameroff, Steven C. Marcus, and Peter S. Jensen. “National Trends in the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” The American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 1071–1076. Oliver, Mary Beth, and Janet Shibley Hyde. “Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Metaanalysis.” Psychological Bulletin 114 (1993): 29–52. Olsson, Malin B., and C. P. Hwang. “Depression in Mothers and Fathers Rearing Children with Intellectual Disabilities.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 45 (2001): 535–545. Orel, Nancy A., and Paula Dupuy. “Grandchildren as Auxiliary Caregivers for Grandparents with Cognitive and/or Physical Limitations: Coping Strategies and Ramifications.” Child Study Journal 32, no. 4 (2002): 193–213. Ortiz, C. G., and Ena Vasquez-Nuttal. “Adolescent Pregnancy: Effects of Family Support, Education, and Religion on the Decision to Carry or Terminate Among Puerto Rican Teenagers.” Adolescence 22 (1987): 897–917. Otnes, Cele C., and Elizabeth J. Pleck. Cinderella Dreams: The Allure of the Lavish Wedding. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Owen, S. Numbers of Stay-at-Home-Fathers Are Rising. Available at: http://www.thenothwestern.com (accessed March 5, 2008). Padavic, Irene, and Barbara Reskin. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2002. Pagelow, Mildred. “Secondary Battering and Alternatives of Female Victims of Spouse Abuse.” In Women and Crime in America, ed. Lee Bowker. New York: MacMillan, 1981. Pagnini, Deanna, and Philip Morgan. “Racial Differences in Marriage and Childbearing: Oral History Evidence from the South in the Early Twentieth Century.” The American Journal of Sociology 101 (1996): 1694–1718.

|

601

602

|

Bibliography Panksepp, Jaak. “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders, Psychostimulants, and Intolerance of Childhood Playfulness: A Tragedy in the Making?” Current Directions in Psychological Science 7 (1998): 91–98. Pargament, Kenneth. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Guilford Press, 1997. Parrott, Les, and Leslie Parrot. Saving Your Second Marriage Before It Starts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. Patton, Sandra. BirthMarks: Transracial Adoption in Contemporary America. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Paul, Pamela. The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony. New York: Villard, 2002. Payne, Brian K. Crime and Elder Abus: An Integrated Perspective. Chicago: Charles C. Thomas, 2005. Peele, Stanton. Seven Tools to Beat Addiction. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., M. R. Burchinal, R. M. Clifford, M. L. Culkin, C. Howes, S. L. Kagan, N. Yazehian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, and J. Zelazo. The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study go to School: Executive Summary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, 1999. Perry, Brea. “Understanding Social Network Disruption: The Case for Youth in Foster Care.” Social Problems 53 (2006): 371–391. Peskowitz, Miriam. The Truth Behind the “Mommy Wars”: Who Decides What Makes a Good Mother? Berkeley, CA: Seal Press, 2005. Phillips, R. Untying the Knot: A Short History of Divorce. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Pillemer Karl A., and Rosalie S. Wolf. Helping Elderly Victims: The Reality of Elder Abuse. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989. Pinello, D. R. America’s Struggle for Same-sex Marriage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Place, Jeffery. “Gestational Surrogacy and the Meaning of ‘Mother’: Johnson v. Calvert.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 9 (1994): 907–918. Polakow, Valerie. Who Cares for Our Children? New York: Teachers College Press, 2007. Poling, James, and Christie Neuger. Men’s Work in Preventing Violence against Women. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2003. Pollack, Eunice G. “The Children We Have Lost: When Siblings were Caregivers, 1900– 1970.” Journal of Social History 36, no. 1 (2002): 31. Popenoe, David. Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1988. Popenoe, D. State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, 1999. New Brunswick, NJ: The National Marriage Project, 1999. Popenoe, David, and Barbara Defoe Whitehead. Should We Live Together? What Young Adults Need to Know About Cohabitation Before Marriage: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research, 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: The National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, 2002. Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995. Postman, Neil. The Disappearance of Childhood. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.

Bibliography Prohaska, Ariane. The Gendered Division of Leave Taking. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 2006. Ptacek, James. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999. Purdie, Nola, John Hattie, and Annemaree Carroll. “A Review of the Research on Interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: What Works Best?” Review of Education Research 72 (2002): 61–99. Quinn, William H. Family Solutions for Youth at Risk: Applications to Juvenile Delinquency, Truancy, and Behavior Problems. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2004. Quinn, William H., and Richard Sutphen. “Juvenile Offenders: Characteristics of at-risk Families and Strategies for Intervention.” Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling 15 (1994): 2–23. Quiroz, Pamela Ann. Adoption in a Color-Blind Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 2007. Rainwater, Lee, and William L. Yancey. “The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy.” In The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy, ed. Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1967. Randall, K. University of Texas Stay-at-Home Father Survey Results. Austin, TX: University of Texas Department of Educational Psychology, 2008. Available at: http:// www.utexas.edu. Rangaswamy, Padma. Namasté America: Indian Immigrants in an American Metropolis. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. Regnerus, Mark. “Religion and Positive Adolescent Outcomes: A Review of Research and Theory.” Review of Religious Research 44 (2003): 394–313. Reichman, Nancy E., Hope Corman, and Kelly Noonan. “Effects of Child Health on Parents’ Relationship Status.” Demography 41 (2004): 569–584. Remez, Lisa. “Oral Sex Among Adolescents: Is It Sex or Is It Abstinence?” Family Planning Perspectives 32 (2000): 298–304. Renick, Mari Jo, Susan L. Blumberg, and Howard J. Markman. “The Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP): An Empirically Based Preventive Intervention Program for Couples.” Family Relations 41 (1992): 141–147. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1986. Riddle, John M. Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Rimmerman, Craig A., and Clyde Wilcox. The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007. Risdal, Don, and George H. S. Singer. “Marital Adjustment in Parents of Children with Disabilities: A Historical Review and Meta-analysis.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 29 (2004): 95–103. Risman, Barbara, and Pepper Schwartz. “After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating.” Contexts 1 (2002): 16–24. Roberts, Albert R., ed. Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Robinson, Evelyn Burns. Adoption and Loss: the Hidden Grief. Christies Beach, Australia: Clova Publications, 2000.

|

603

604

|

Bibliography Rooks, Judith Pence. Midwifery and Childbirth in America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1997. Ross, Cheri Barton, and J. Baron-Sorenson. Pet Loss and human Emotion: a Guide to Recovery, 2nd ed. London: Brunner-Routledge, 2007. Rothman, Barbara Katz, Wendy Simonds, and Beri Meltzer Norman. Laboring On: Birth in Transition in the United States.New York: Routledge, 2006. Rothman, E. A. Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in America. New York: Basic Books, 1984. Rubin, Roger H. “Alternative Lifestyles Revisited, or Whatever Happened to Swingers, Group Marriages, and Communes?” Journal of Family Issues 22 (2001): 711–726. Saake, Jennifer. Hannah’s Heart: Seeking God’s Hope in the Midst of Infertility. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005. Safer, Jennifer. Beyond Motherhood: Choosing Life without Children. New York: Pocket Books, 1996. Schilling, Renee M. “The Effects of Birth Order on Interpersonal Relationships.” 2001. McKendree University Web site. Available at: http://faculty.mckendree.edu/schol ars/2001/Schilling.htm. Schoen, Robert, and Robin Weinick. “Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitors.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (1993): 408–414. Schuck, Peter. COLLOQUY: Some Reflections on the Baby M Case. Georgetown Law Review 76 (1988): 1793–1810. Schwartz, Felice N. “Management Women and the New Facts of Life.” Harvard Business Review 67 (1989): 65–76. Schwartz, Margaret L. The Pumpkin Patch: A Single Woman’s Adoption Journey. Chicago: Chicago Spectrum Press, 2005. Schwarz, Pepper. Peer Marriage. New York: The Free Press, 1994. Schwartz, Pepper. Love Between Equals: How Peer Marriage Really Works. New York: Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group,1995. Schweitzer, Arlette. Whatever It Takes. Mandan, ND: Crain Grosinger Publishing, 2004. Sears, William, and Martha Sears. The Birth Book: Everything You Need to Know to Have a Safe and Satisfying Birth. New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994. Sears, William, and Martha Sears. The Pregnancy Book: A Month-by-Month Guide. New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 1997. Sears, W., and Sears, M. The Breastfeeding Book. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000. Sears, William, and Martha Sears. The Attachment Parenting Book. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2001. Sember, Brette McWhorter. Gay and Lesbian Parenting Choices: From Adopting or Using a Surrogate to Choosing the Perfect Father. Franklin Lakes, NJ: The Career Press Inc., 2006. Serpell, J. “People in Disguise: Anthropomorphism and the Human-Pet Relationship.” In Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, ed. Daston, L. and G. Mitman. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Shalev, Carmel. Birth Power: The Case for Surrogacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.

Bibliography Shannon-Lewy, Collen, and Valerie Dull. “The Response of Christian Clergy to Domestic Violence: Help or Hindrance?” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005): 647–659. Shaver, K. “Stay at Home Dads Forge New Identities, Roles.” Washington Post, June 17, 2007. Shawne, Jennifer L. Baby Not on Board: A Celebration of Life without Kids. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 2005. Sheehan, Michele. “Dancing With Monica: Personal Perceptions of a Home-School Mom.” Roeper Review 24 (2002): 191. Shehan, Constance L. “No Longer a Place for Innocence: The Re-Submergence of Childhood in Post-Industrial Societies.” In Through the Eyes of the Child: Revisioning Children as Active Agents of Family Life, ed. Constance L. Shehan, vol. 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1999. Sherman, L. W., and R. A. Berk. “The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment.” Police Foundation Reports, April, 1984, Washington, DC. Sheth, P. Indians in America: One Stream, Two Waves, Three Generations. Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications, 2001. Shifren, Kim, and Lauren V. Kachorek. “Does Early Caregiving Matter? The Effects on Young Caregivers’ Adult Mental Health.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 27, no. 4 (2003): 338–346. Shoop, J. G. “Children in Violent Homes Need Better Protection, Report Says.” Trial 30 (1994): 114–116. Siegal, Larry J., and Joseph J. Senna. Essentials of Criminal Justice, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004. Simkin, Penny. Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Newborn, Revised and Updated: The Complete Guide. Minnetonka, MN: Meadowbrook Press, 2001. Simon, Rita J., and Rhonda M. Roorda. In Their Own Voices Transracial Adoptees Tell Their Stories. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Simon, Rita J., and Rhonda M. Roorda. In Their Parents’ Voices: Reflections on Raising Transracial Adoptees. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Simpson, Kathleen. Formula Companies and their “Free” Gifts. 1999. Available at: http:// www.breastfeedingonline.com/free.shtml (accessed November 2007). Simring, Steven S., Sue Klavans Simring, and Gene Busnar. Making Marriage Work for Dummies. New York: Hungry Minds, 1999. Singh, Ilina. “Boys Will Be Boys: Fathers’ Perspectives on ADHD Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Drug Treatment.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 11 (2003): 308–316. Smith, Dorothy E. “The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an Ideological Code.” Journal of Family Issues 14 (1993): 50–65. Smith, J. David. In Search of Better Angels. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2003. Smith, J. Walker, and Ann Clurman. Generation Ageless: How Baby Boomers are Changing the Way We Live Today . . . And They’re Just Getting Started. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. Smith, Lona. Help! He Wants Me to Sign a Prenup. Miami Beach, FL: Help Publishing, 2007. Smith Ruiz, Dorothy. Amazing Grace: African American Grandmothers as Caregivers and Conveyors of Traditional Values. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004.

|

605

606

|

Bibliography Smith, Susan. Safeguarding the Rights and Well-being of Birthparents in the Adoption Process. Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute Web site, 2006. Available at: www. adoptioninstitute.org. Smock, Pamela. “Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000): 1–20. Social Care Institute for Excellence. “The Health and Well-Being of Young Carers.” Research Briefing Number 11, 2005. Available at: http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/ briefings/briefing11/ index.asp. Solomon, Dorothy Allred. Daughter of Saints: Growing Up in Polygamy. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2004. Solot, Dorian, and Marshall Miller. Unmarried to Each Other: The Essential Guide to Living Together as an Unmarried Couple. New York: Marlowe and Company, 2002. Spinelli, Margaret G. Infanticide: Psychosocial and Legal Perspectives on Mothers Who Kill. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2002. Sprecher, Susan, Anita Barbee, and Pepper Schwartz. “ ‘Was it Good For You, Too?’: Gender Differences in First Sexual Intercourse Experiences.” Journal of Sex Research 32 (1995): 3–15. Sprecher, Susan, and Pamela C. Regan. “College Virgins: How Men and Women Perceive Their Sexual Status.” The Journal of Sex Research 33 (1996): 3–15. Sprechcer, Susan, Pamela C. Regan,and Kathleen McKinney. “Beliefs About the Outcomes of Extramarital Relationships as a Function of the Gender of the ‘Cheating Spouse.’ ” Sex Roles 38 (1998): 301–311. Sprecher, Susan, and Rachita Chandak. “Attitudes about Arranged Marriages and Dating among Men and Women From India.” Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 20, no. 1 (1992): 59–69. Stack, Carol B. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Stahmann, Robert F., and William J. Hiebert. Premarital and Remarital Counseling: The Professional’s Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. Stainton, Tim, and Hilde Besser. “The Positive Impact of Children with an Intellectual Disability on the Family.” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 23 (1998): 57–70. Stanley, Scott M. “Making a Case for Premarital Education.” Family Relations 50 (2001): 272–280. Stanley, Scott M. The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Stanley, Scott M., Paul R. Amato, Christine A Johnson, and Howard J. Markman. “Premarital Education, Marital Quality, and Marital Stability: Findings from a Large, Random Household Survey.” Journal of Family Psychology 20 (2006): 117–126. Stark, Barbara. “Marriage Proposals: From One-Size-Fits-All to Post-modern Marriage Law.” California Law Review 89 (2001): 1479–1548. Stearns, Cindy A. “Breastfeeding and the Good Maternal Body.” Gender and Society 13 (1999): 308–325. Steil, Janice M. Marital Equality: Its Relationship to the Well-Being of Husbands and Wives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1997.

Bibliography Stark, Marg. What No One Tells the Mom: Surviving the Early Years of Parenthood With Your Sanity, Your Sex Life and Your Sense of Humor Intact. New York: Penguin, 2005. Steiner, Leslie Morgan. Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families. New York: Random House, 2007. Stewart, K. A., Christian P. Gruber, and Linda M. Fitzgerald. Children at Home and in Day Care. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1994. Stone, Helen D. Foster Care in Question: A National Reassessment by Twenty-One Experts. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1970. Stone, Pamela. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Stoner, Katherine E., and Shae Irving. Prenuptial Agreements: How to Write a Fair and Lasting Contract. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2005. Straus, M. A. “Forward.” In The Violent Home: A Study of Physical Aggression between Husbands and Wives, ed. R. J. Gelles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1974. Straus, Murray A. Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and its Effects on Children. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Straus, Murray A., Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New York: Doubleday/Anchor, 1980. Straus, Murray A., and Richard J. Gelles. Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989. Stritof, S., and B. Stritof. Full Time Dads and Marriage. 2007. Available at: http://mar riage.about.com. Strong, B., C. DeVault, B. W. Sayad, and T. F. Cohen. The Marriage and Family Experience, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, 2001. Sulloway, Frank J. Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. Swallow, Wendy. Breaking Apart: A Memoir of Divorce. New York: Hyperion, 2001. Swize, Jennifer. “Transracial Adoption and the Unblinkable Difference: Racial Dissimilarity Serving the Interests of Adopted Children.” Virginia Law Review 88 (2002): 1079–1118. Szinovacz, Maximiliane E., ed. Handbook on Grandparenthood. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. Tabb, Lisa, and Susan Breslow Sardone. Top Five Reasons to Elope. About.com, 2008. Available at: http://honeymoons.about.com/cs/toppicks/a/letselope_2.htm. Tabb, Lisa, and Sam Silverstein. Beyond Vegas. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 2000. Taylor, Verta. Rock-a-bye Baby: Feminism, Self-Help, and Postpartum Depression. New York: Routledge, 1996. Territo, Leonard, James B. Halsted, and Max L. Bromley. Crime and Justice in America: A Human Perspective, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2004. Tesler, Pauline, and Peggy Thompson. Collaborative Divorce: The Revolutionary New Way to Restructure Your Family, Resolve Legal Issues, and Move on With Your Life. Los Angeles: Regan Books, 2006. Thevenin, T. The Family Bed: An Age Old Concept in Childrearing. Wayne, NJ: Avery Publishing Group, 1987.

|

607

608

|

Bibliography Thomas, Darwin, and Marie Cornwall. “Religion and Family in the 1980s: Discovery and Development.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52 (1990): 983–992. Thomas, J., L. Sperry, and M. Yarborough. “Grandparents as Parents: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations.” Child Psychiatry and Human Development 31 (2000): 3–22. Thomas, William I., and Dorothy S. Thomas. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928. Thornton, Arland. “Changing Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51 (1989): 873–893. Thurer, Shari L. The Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents the Good Mother. New York: Penguin Books, 1994. Timimi, Sami. Naughty Boys: Anti-Social Behavior, ADHD and the Role of Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Toman, Walter. Family Constellation: It’s Effects on Personality and Social Behavior. New York: Springer Publishing Group, 1992. Toth, Attila. Fertile vs. Infertile: How Infections Affect Your Fertility and Your Baby’s Health. Tucson, AZ: Fenestra Books, 2004. Treas, J., and D. Giesen. “Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (2000): 48–60. Tremblay, R. E., D. S. Nagin, J. R. Séguin, M. Zoccolillo, P. D. Zelazo, M. Boivin, D. Pérusse, and C. Japel. “Physical Aggression During Early Childhood: Trajectories and Predictors.” Pediatrics 114 (2004): 43–50. Trenka, Jane Jeong. Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2006. Tucker, P. Stay at Home Dads: At-home Dads Can Benefit Children and Mothers. Futurist, 2005. Available at: http://www.allbusiness.com (accessed June 15, 2008). Turner, Bryan S., ed. Islam: Critical Concepts in Sociology Volume III Islam, Gender, and the Family. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2003. Uddin, Mohammad S. “Arranged Marriage: A Dilemma for Young British Asians.” Diversity in Health and Social Care 3 (2006): 211–219. Uekert, Barbara. 10 Steps to Successful International Adoption: A Guided Workbook for Prospective Parents. New York: Third Avenue PR, 2007. Urban, Wayne, and Jennings Wagoner Jr. American Education: A History. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, and U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2008. Available at: http://www.census.gov/ compendia/statab/. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000, Table DP-1, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, 2001. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/ProfilesTD. pdf. U.S. Census Bureau. March 2006. America’s Families and Living Arrangements, 2006. Current Population Survey and Report. Available at: http://www.census.gov/popu lation/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2006.html. U.S. Census Bureau. “QT-P18. Marital Status by Sex, Unmarried-Partner Households, and Grandparents as Caregivers: 2000.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html.

Bibliography U.S. Census Bureau. “Adopted Children and Stepchildren: 2000.” U.S. Department of Commerce: Economic and Statistics Administration, 2003. Available at: www.cen sus.gov/population/www/socdemo/ms-la.html. U.S. Census Bureau. “Marital Status: 2000.” U.S. Department of Commerce: Economic and Statistics Administration, 2003. Available at: www.census.gov/population/www/ socdemo/marr-div.html. U.S. Congress. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1987. House Committee on Education and Labor. Congressional Information Service (CIS). Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 1987. U.S. Congress. Parental and Disability Leave Act of 1985. House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. 99th Congress. Congressional Information Service (CIS). Washington, DC: GPO, 1985. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Violence against Women, 2001. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/01fsdomviolence.html. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health. Violence against Women: Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Prevention, 2005. Available at: http://www.womenshealth.gov/violence/index.cfm. Vaidyanathan, Prabha, and Jospehine Naidoo. “Asian Indians in Western Countries: Cultural Identity and the Arranged Marriage.” In Contemporary Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology, ed. N. Bleichrodt and P. J. Drenth. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1990. VanGoethem, Jeff. Living Together: A Guide to Counseling Unmarried Couples. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2005. Vega, William. “Hispanic Families in the 1980s: A Decade of Research.” Journal of Marriage and Family 52 (1990): 1015–1024. Viesson, Marika. “Depression Symptoms and Emotional States in Parents of Disabled and Non-disabled Children.” Social Behavior and Personality 27 (1999): 87–97. Waldfogel, Jane. “Family and Medical Leave: Evidence from the 2000 Surveys.” Monthly Labor Review (September 2001): 17–23. Waite, Linda, and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-off Financially. New York: Broadway Books, 2001. Walker, Lenore E. A. The Battered Woman Syndrome, 2nd ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2000. Walker, Lenore E. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: Harper and Row, 1989. Wallace, Carolyn McD. All Dressed in White: The Irresistible Rise of the American Wedding. New York: Penguin Books, 2004. Wallerstein, J., and J. B. Kelly. Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce. New York: Basic Books, 1980. Wallerstein, Judith S., Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25 Year Landmark Study. New York: Hyperion, 2000. Warner, Mildred. “Overview: Articulating the Economic Importance of Child Care for Community Development.” Community Development 37 (2006): 1–6. Warner, Mildred, Shira Adriance, Nikita Barai, Jenna Hallas, Bjorn Markeson, Taryn Morrissey, and Wendy Soref. Economic Development Strategies to Promote Quality Child Care. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension, 2004.

|

609

610

|

Bibliography Warren, Elizabeth. The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Wattenberg, Ben J. The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People in Free Countries Don’t Have Enough Babies. New York: Ballantine Books, 1987. Wedam, Elfriede. “Splitting Interests or Common Causes: Style of Moral Reasoning in Opposing Abortion.” In Contemporary American Religion: An Ethnographic Reader, ed. Penny Edgell Becker and Nancy Eisland. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 1997. Wegandt, Lisa L. An ADHD Primer, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. Weiner-Davis, Michele. The Sex-Starved Marriage: Boosting Your Libido: A Couple’s Guide. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. Weiss, Jessica. To Have and To Hold: Marriage, the Baby Boom and Social Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Weiztman, Lenore J. The Divorce Revolution. New York: Free Press, 1985. Wells, L. Edward, and Joseph H. Rankin. “Families and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Broken Homes”. Social Problems 38 (1991): 71–93. Wenham, Gordon, William A. Heth, Craig S. Keener, and Mark L. Strauss. Remarriage After Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006. Wertheimer, Alan. “Two Questions About Surrogacy and Exploitation.” Philosophy and Public Policy 21 (1992): 211–239. Weschler, Toni. Taking Charge of Your Fertility. New York: Harper Collins, 2006. West, Traci. Wounds of the Spirit: Black Women, Violence, and Resistance Ethics. New York: New York University Press, 1999. Westman, Jack C. “Grandparenthood.” In Parenthood in America: Undervalued, Underpaid, Under Siege, ed. Jack C. Westman. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001. Whisman, Mark A., and Tina Pittman Wagers. “Assessing Relationship Betrayals.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 61 (2005): 1383–1391. Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. The Divorce Culture: Rethinking Our Commitments to Marriage and Family. New York: Vintage Books, 1998. Whitman, Stacy, and Wynne Whitman. Shacking Up: The Smart Girl’s Guide to Living in Sin without Getting Burned. New York: Broadway Books, 2003. Wiehe, V. R. SiblingAbuse: Hidden Physical, Emotional, and Sexual Trauma. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997. Wiehe, V. R. What Parents Need to Know About Sibling Abuse. Springville, UT: Bonneville Books, 2002. Wilcox, Bradford. “Good Dads: Religion, Civic Engagement, and Paternal Involvement in Low-Income Communities. CRRUCS Report.” New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 2001. Willetts, M. C. “An Exploratory Investigation of Heterosexual Licensed Domestic Partners.” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 939–952. Willliams, H. K., and R. E. Bowen. “Marriage, Same-Sex Unions, and Domestic Partnerships.” The Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law 1 (2000): 337–359. Williams, Joan. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Williams-Wheeler, Dorrie. The Unplanned Pregnancy Book for Teens and College Students. Virginia Beach, VA: Sparkledoll Productions Publishing, 2004.

Bibliography Wilson, Chris M., and Andrew J. Oswald. How Does Marriage Affect Physical and Psychological Health? A Survey of the Longitudinal Evidence. May 2005. Available at: http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=735205 (accessed September 19, 2006). Wilson, James Q. The Marriage Problem. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. Wilson, William Julius. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Wilson, William Julius. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Wilson, William Julius. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. Winking, Jeffery, Hillard Kaplan, Michael Gurven, and Stacey Rucas. “Why Do Men Marry and Why Do They Stray?” Proceeding: Biological Sciences 274 (2007): 1643–1649. Wolf, Naomi. Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected Journey to Motherhood. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Wright, David W., and Earl Wysong. “Family Friendly Workplace Benefits: Policy Mirage, Organizational Contexts, and Worker Power.” Critical Sociology 24 (1998): 244–276. Wright, Erik Olin, Karen Shire, Shu-Ling Hwang, Maureen Dolan, and Janeen Baxter. “The Non-Effects of Class on the Gender Division of Labour in the Home: A Comparative Study of Sweden and the United States.” Gender and Society 6 (1992):252–282. Wright, Kevin N., and Karen E. Wright. Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymaker’s Guide. Research Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994. Wu, Zheng. Cohabitation: An Alternative Form of Family Living (Studies in Canadian Population). New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Wyckoff, Jerry L., and Barbara C. Unell. Discipline Without Shouting or Spanking: Practical Solutions to the Most Common Preschool Behavior Problems. Minnetonka, MN: Meadowbrook Press, 2002. Young, J. “Babies and Bedsharing . . . Cosleeping.” Midwifery Digest 8 (1998): 364–369. Zaidi, Arsha U., and Muhammad Shuraydi. “Perceptions of Arranged Marriage by Young Pakistani Muslim Women Living in a Western Society.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 33, 4 (2002): 495–514. Zimmerman, Marc A., Deborah A. Salem, and Paul C. Notaro. “Make Room for Daddy II: The Positive Effects of Fathers’ Role in Adolescent Development.” In Resilience Across Contexts: Family, Work, Culture, and Community, ed. R. Taylor and L. Wang. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

Web Site Resources 8minute Dating. The Leader in Speed Dating: 8minutedating.com AARP (American Association for Retired Persons): aarp.org Administration for Children and Families: Healthy Marriage Initiative: www.acf.hhs. gov/healthymarriage/about/factsheets_hm_matters.html Adoption.com: Background on China Adoption and One Child Policy: china.adoption.com. Statistics. Cost of Adopting: statistics.adoption.com Adoptive Families Magazine online: adoptivefamilies.com Alaska Men Magazine: alaskamen-online.com

|

611

612

|

Bibliography Alcohol and Drug Treatment Referrals: alcohol-drug-treatment.net/causes_of_addic tion.html All Family Resources: familymanagement.com Alliance for Non-custodial Parent s Rights: ancpr.org Almanac of Policy Issues: policyalmanac.org Alternatives to Marriage Project: unmarried.org American Academy of Pediatrics. Cosleeping Policy: aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/ content/full/pediatrics%3B105/3/650 American Animal Hospital Association. 2004 Pet Owner Survey: aahanet.org American Civil Liberties Union: aclu.org American College of Nurse-Midwives: acnm.org American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology: acog.org American Homeschool Association: americanhomeschoolassociation.org American Pet Products Manufactures’ Association. Industry Trends and Statistics: appma.org/press_industrytrends.asp American Pregnancy Association: americanpregnancy.org American Pregnancy Association. Infertility: americanpregnancy.org/infertility/whatis infertility.html American Psychological Association. Marriage Promotion: apa.org/monitor/sep04/ marriage.html American Surrogacy Center, Inc.: surrogacy.com American Veterinary Medical Association. U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook: avma.org Americans for Divorce Reform: divorcereform.org The Annie E. Casey Foundation: aecf.org Answers.com. Infertility: answers.com/topic/infertility At home dad.com. The Stay at Home Dad Oasis: athomedad.org Attachment Parenting International: attachmentparenting.org Aware Parenting Institute: awareparenting.com Baby Center: babycenter.com The Barna Group: barna.org Break the Cycle, Empowering Youth to end Domestic Violence: breakthecycle.org Breastfeeding. American Academy of Pediatrics: aap.org/healthtopics/breastfeeding.cfm Breastfeeding. World Health Organization: who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/ Breastfeeding vs. Formula Feeding. KidsHealth: kidshealth.org/parent/food/infants/ breast_bottle_feeding.html Brigham Young University. Latter Day Saints Questions: ldsfaq.byu.edu California Cryobank, Inc.: cryobank.com Catholic Answers: catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp The Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank explanation of two basic motivations for home schooling: cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-294.html Center for Adoption Support and Education: adoptionsupport.org Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Understanding Child Maltreatment, 2006: www.cdc.gov/injury. Childhelp USA Foundation: childhelpusa.org Children’s Defense Fund: childrensdefense.org

Bibliography Children’s Home Society of Washington: chswpirc.org Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA: childrenshospital.org Child Welfare Information Gateway: childwelfare.gov Child Welfare League of America: cwla.org Christian Coalition: cc.org Citizens for Midwifery: cfmidwifery.org Coming Together: A Proposal for Social Progress. Public Assistance: comingtogether.info Defense of Marriage Act: Legal Resources and Information: domawatch.org Department of Health & Human Services. Fatherhood Reports: http://aspe.os.dhhs. gov/_/topic/subtopic.cfm?subtopic=376 Divorce Net: Family Law Information, Solutions, News and Community: divorcenet.com Doulas of North America: dona.org Dr. Philip McGraw, Psychologist and talk show host: drphil.com Dr. James McKenna, Medical Anthropologist and CoSleeping researcher: nd.edu/~jm ckenn1/lab Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Marriage and Family Counselor and radio talk show host: drlaura.com Dr. William Sears: askdrsears.com The Doctor Will See You Now: thedoctorwillseeyounow.com eHarmony.com. America’s number one relationship site: eharmony.com Endo-Online. The Voice of the Endometriosis Association: endometriosisassn.org/ Equality in Marriage Institute: equalityinmarriage.org Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute: adoptioninstitute.org Families and Work Institute: familiesandwork.org Family Research Council: frc.org Family Violence Prevention Fund: endabuse.org Fatherhood Foundation: fathersonline.org Father’s Rights: fathersrightsinc.com Feminist Majority Foundation: Working for Women’s Equality: feminist.org Feminist Women’s Health Center: Fwhc.org Fertile Thoughts.com- Supporting Your Family Building Challenges: fertilethoughts.com Focus on the Family, a Christian organization dedicated to promoting a traditional perspective on the family: family.org and focusonthefamily.org Foster Care Month: fostercaremonth.org The Foundation for Grandparenting: grandparenting.org Gay and Lesbian Association Against Defamation: glaad.org Georgia Reproductive Specialists: ivf.com Grandparents Raising Grandchildren: raisingyourgrandchildren.com The Heritage Foundation: heritage.org Home School Legal Defense Association: hslda.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1 Houston Women’s Center: intendedparents.com Human Rights Campaign: hrc.org I Do Take Two. Guide to Second Weddings, Second Marriages, and Vow Renewals: idot aketwo.com Institute for Women’s Policy Research: iwpr.org International Adoption Center: adoptionclinic.org

|

613

614

|

Bibliography International Association of Pet Cemeteries and Crematories: iaopc.com Interpreting Social Science Research: camden.rutgers.edu:8080/ramgen/wood/caus ation.rm iParenting Media. Internet Communities for Parents: iparenting.com An Introduction to Men’s Liberation: http://www.gelworks.com.au/MENDOCUM. NSF/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/befd776247d76f99ca2566430043201b! OpenDocument IVF-Infertility.com: ivf-infertility.com Jeevansathi Indian Matrimonials: jeevansathi.com Joint Council on International Children’s Services. Guatemala 5000: jcics.org Kids’ Health. Nemours Foundation: kidshealth.org La Lache League International: llli.org Labour of Love. The Web Magazine for Conscious Parenting.: labouroflove.org Learned Helplessness information: familyshelterservice.org/pdf/survivor.pdf Legal Momentum, Advancing women’s rights: legalmomentum.org Maryland Black Family Alliance: www.marylandbfa.org Match.com: match.com Matrimonials India. Com. Indian Matrimonials: matrimonialsindia.com Media Awareness Network: media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/index.cfm Midwives Alliance of North America: mana.org Mormonism Research Ministry: mrm.org National Adoption Information Clearinghouse: naic.acf.hhs.gov National Aging In Place Council: naipc.org National and World Religion Statistics: adherents.com National Association for Social Workers: socialworkers.org National Association of Former foster care children of America: naffcca.org National Association to Protect Children: protect.org The Nation Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy: thenationalcam paign.org The National Center for Victims of Crime. Stalking Fact Sheet 2004,: ncvc.org/Src The National Children’s Advocacy Center: nationalcac.org National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: ncadv.org National Conference of State Legislatures: ncsl.org National Council for Adoption: adoptioncouncil.org The National Domestic Violence Hotline: www.ndvh.org National Foster Parents Association: nfpainc.org National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: thetaskforce.org National Home Education Network: nhen.org National Home Education Research Institute: nheri.org National Institute on Media and the Family: mediafamily.org National Marriage Project: marriage.rutgers.edu National Network to end Domestic Violence: nnedv.org National Organization for Women: now.org National Sexual Violence Resource Center: nsvrc.org North American Mission Board. “Extramarital Sex: A Christian Perspective”: namb.net

Bibliography Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: ojjdp.ncjrs.org Only Child. Advocates for Only Children: onlychild.com Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: religioustolerance.org Parental Alienation Syndrome information: leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/faq.htm Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couple: buddybuddy.com/partners.html Perfect Match. Online Dating and Relationship Service.: perfectmatch.com Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care: pewfostercare.org Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Same-Sex Marriage in California: pewforum. org/events/?EventID = 138 The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: people-press.org Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.: plannedparenthood.org The Polyamory Society: polyamorysociety.org Prenuptial Agreements: prenuptialagreements.org Prevent Child Abuse America: preventchildabuse.org The Princess Royal Trust for Carers. “Who Does What?: Young Carers Projects”: http:// www.youngcarers.net/who_can_help_me/86/92. Pumping and Bottle Feeding. Kellymom: kellymom.com/bf/pumping/index.html Rebeldad.com. A father puts the stay-at-home dad trend under the microscope: rebel dad.com Religion and Ethics News Weekly: pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/index_flash.html Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice: rcrc.org/about/index.cfm. Resolve: The National Infertility Association: resolve.org/ Smart Marriages: The Coalition for Marriage, Family, and Couples Education: smart marriages.com Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology: sart.org State of Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment # 744: alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/ acas/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm Stop Family Violence: stopfamilyviolence.org Strength for Caring. Caregiving help, resources, and community: strengthforcaring. com Suitablematch.com. Matrimonials for Indians and South Asians.: suitablematch.com Support Network for Battered Women: snbw.org Surrogate Mothers Online, LLC: surromomsonline.com Surrogacy UK: surrogacyuk.org Take Back the Night: takebackthenight.org. Transracial Adoption Research and Consultation: transracialadoption.net Uniform Crime Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigation.: fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/ table_38.html United States Department of Health and Human Services: hhs.gov United States Department of Labor, Office of Policy Planning and Research, Moynihan Report March 1965: dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm University of Pennsylvania Health System. Stairway to Recovery: uphs.upenn.edu/ad diction/berman/treatment/ The Urban Institute: urban.org

|

615

616

|

Bibliography U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: uscis.gov U.S. Department of Labor. The Family and Medical Leave Act.: dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs: travel.state.gov U.S. Supreme Court Cases and Opinions, See United States Supreme Court Meister v. Moore 1877: supreme.justia.com/us/96/76/index.html The White House: Marriage Protection Week: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/re leases/2003/10/20031003-12.htm The Young Carers Initiative. “Projects A-Z Index”: http://www.youngcarer.com/show Page. php?file=projects.htm

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS Kimberly P. Brackett is Distinguished Teaching Associate Professor of Sociology and Head of the Sociology Department at Auburn University at Montgomery. She received her undergraduate degrees in Sociology and Psychology from Jacksonville University in Jacksonville, FL and MA and Ph.D. degrees from University of Florida. Her specialties include Family, Gender, and Social Psychology, and it is in these areas that she teaches. Her most recent work has focused on the link between religious homogeneity and the divorce rate. Victoria Adams is a junior at Auburn University at Montgomery majoring in secondary education with a social sciences emphasis. She and her husband of three years, Kyle Adams, are parenting a two-year-old son, Parker. An honor student who is perennially on the Dean’s list, Victoria is very interested in families and parenting styles. In her leisure time, she enjoys photography and reading. Rachel Birmingham is currently a doctoral student in Human Development and Family Studies at Auburn University. She completed her Master’s Degree in Family Youth and Community Sciences at the University of Florida, with a specialization in family violence studies. She has been certified by the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence as a Victim’s Advocate. Britten Allison Brooks hails from Greenville, Alabama. She is a senior undergraduate at Auburn University at Montgomery, finishing her degree in Sociology with a marriage and family concentration. Britten plans to further her education at Auburn University at Auburn by earning a Master’s Degree in therapy. Santarica Buford received an Associates degree from Alabama Southern Community College before attending Auburn University at Montgomery where she is majoring in Sociology with dual concentrations in Marriage and Family and 617

618

| About the Editor and Contributors

Pre-Social Work. Upon completion of degree requirements at AUM, she will transfer to Auburn University to complete the Social Work degree. Her future goals involve counseling and work with pregnant teens and domestic violence victims. Susan Cody-Rydzewski has a Ph.D. from the University of Florida and is an Associate Professor of Sociology at LaGrange College, a small, private liberal arts college in Georgia. She teaches courses in Marriage and Family, Gender and Society, Social Problems, and Sociology of Religion. She has published articles on work and family conflict and women’s experiences working within maledominated occupations, such as ministry. Her current research involves a consideration of the experiences and attitudes of women rabbis as well as a content analysis comparison of Christian and Jewish family and women’s magazines. Hayley Cofer is from Dothan, Alabama. She is currently pursuing an undergraduate degree in Sociology with a concentration in marriage and family at Auburn University at Montgomery. Margeaux Corby is currently attending Elon University and majoring in Biology and Journalism. She hopes to become a pediatric surgeon and join Doctors Without Borders. She plans to chronicle her experiences treating impoverished people for medical journals to raise awareness of health issues in developing countries. Margeaux believes in the importance of family, as hers has provided constant guidance and strength. Lane Destro. A Penn State alumni, Lane Destro received her Bachelor’s Degrees in Anthropology and English in 2003. She is currently a graduate student in the sociology program at Duke University. Lane’s research interests include demography, mixed-methodologies, and the racial disparities in wealth acquisition. Sarah Fish was born in Newark, California and moved to Wetumpka, Alabama in 1998. Since then, she has become fascinated with southern culture and motherhood and plans to combine those studies into her Ph.D. She holds her Bachelor’s in English (2004) and her Master’s of Liberal Arts (2007) from Auburn University at Montgomery. She currently teaches English to some of the most amazing high school students she has ever met. Christy Haines Flatt received a B.A. degree from Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas, and a M.A. degree from Texas Technological University in Lubbock, Texas both in the field of Sociology. Following the completion of these degrees, she taught Sociology classes at Hinds Community College. Today she is a Doctoral Candidate in Sociology at Mississippi State University specializing in Comparative Family and Gender. She is currently working on a dissertation exploring how women’s employment influences attitudes toward gender roles or gender ideologies across countries. Upon completion of her degree she plans to pursue a faculty position at a university. Aaron D. Franks was born to Anthony D. Franks and Annie Glenn in Mobile, Alabama in 1982. From a humble and religious upbringing he attended and graduated from Murphy High school and attended Bishop State Community

About the Editor and Contributors |

College in Mobile, Ala. He then pursued a Bachelor of Liberal Arts from Auburn University at Montgomery. Aaron is currently sole proprietor and CEO of A1 Health and Fitness. His interests include furthering his academic pursuits as well as improving the lives of others in any way possible. James H. Gadberry is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Athens State University in Athens, Alabama. He has written several articles in the areas of family and death and dying. His work has been published in both peer-reviewed and professional journals. Dr. Gadberry’s recent research focuses on the changing structure of funeral practices to include the growth in pet death care. Selina Gallo-Cruz is a graduate student in sociology at Emory University. Her research interests lie in culture, social movements, and global change. Broadly, she asks how collectively shared belief systems emerge and effect social transformations. In addition to studying the effects of the natural birth movement upon the commoditization of maternity care, she is also currently conducting a study of strategy and meaning in the debate over the School of the Americas. Nicole D. Garrett is a graduate of Auburn University at Montgomery. She is a student in the Marriage and Family Therapy Master’s Degree program at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests include couple dynamics, methods of improving relationship quality, and adolescent behavior and emotional health. In 2007, she was named an AUM Chancellor’s Scholar for outstanding academic achievement. Jeanne Holcomb is completing her Ph.D. in sociology at the University of Florida. Her project is focused on women’s experiences with breastfeeding and, more specifically, challenges women might face as they breastfeed over time. Her interests include work and family issues, sociology of childhood, and social change. She lives with her husband, Greg, and their daughter and son. Jonelle Husain is a doctoral student in Sociology at Mississippi State University. Her research interests focus on the diversity and negotiation that characterizes pro-life activism, the turning points that propel activists into public activism, the multivalent ways pro-life activists construct abortion as a moral problem, and the ways activists create and use action strategies to disseminate their worldviews and to stop abortion. Her dissertation will explore the intersection of race, gender, and religious diversity among pro-life activists engaged in public activism. Jeffrey Jones is a senior Liberal Arts student at Auburn University at Montgomery. Jeffrey’s research interests include representations of homosexuality in contemporary art, pagan symbolism in Renaissance art, queer theory, and gay rights advocacy. His plans after graduation include graduate school, where he will continue working on research regarding queer studies in various areas of curriculum. In his spare time, Jeffrey likes to read biographical texts and reference materials on various artists, as well as conduct his own research based on various facts learned through his art historical studies at AUM. Jeffrey currently resides in Prattville, Alabama but hopes his educational goals will take him around the country and eventually around the world.

619

620

| About the Editor and Contributors

Linda Pope Jones is a Drama and Speech graduate from Judson College (1981) in Marion, AL. After retirement from the Alabama Governor’s staff, she received a Liberal Arts degree from Auburn University at Montgomery (2008). As a wife and mother of six children she is continuing her education in Criminal Justice and Legal Studies. Tonya Lowery Jones holds a Master of Arts in Sociology (2001) and a Bachelor of Arts in Criminology (1997), both from Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama. She is currently an Adjunct Sociology Instructor at Auburn University, Auburn University at Montgomery, Southern Union State Community College, and Chattahoochee Valley Community College. Her publications include Serial Homicide: Examining Differences in Sexual and Non-Sexual Offenders (Thesis 2001). In addition, she is a lifetime member of The National Scholars Honor Society, Alpha Kappa Delta (Honor Society for Sociology), and Alpha Phi Sigma (National Honor Society for Criminal Justice). Njeri Kershaw completed her undergraduate degree in Sociology and Legal Studies from the University of Massachusetts—Amherst. She is now at Virginia Tech pursuing a Ph.D. in Sociology with concentrations in Crime and Deviance and Gender. She lives in Blacksburg, VA all year long. Katie Kerstetter is a Research Associate at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Her work focuses on improving tax and budget policy to benefit low-income residents in Washington DC. Previously, she worked as a third grade teacher in Greenville, Mississippi, where several of her students were caregivers for siblings or other relatives. She would like to dedicate this entry to those very smart and caring students. Nataylia Ketchum is a Graduate student at Auburn University at Montgomery in the Public Administration Division and mother of twin girls aged three. She is a native Chicagoan and a graduate of Roosevelt University with a Master’s of Science in Journalism. Her undergraduate degree is in Communication, Journalism and Education. She is currently residing in Montgomery Alabama and in her spare time she enjoys playing sports, cooking, and baking. In the future she hopes to receive a Ph.D. in Communication and teach Journalism and Communications Studies. Melissa Fry Konty is a Research and Policy Associate at the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED) in Berea, Kentucky. Her work involves research, program evaluation, policy analysis and advocacy. Melissa has a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Arizona with teaching and research interests in social inequality, public policy and organizations. She is co-author of the 2008 report Child Care in Appalachian Kentucky: Financial sustainability in a low-income market. David G. LoConto is an associate professor of Sociology, and Program Coordinator of the Sociology Program at Jacksonville State University in Alabama. His current research interests include pragmatism, particularly as it relates to people with developmental disabilities. He also is conducting research on the origins

About the Editor and Contributors |

of American Sociology. He has published on a wide variety of topics such as developmental disabilities, grieving, dreams, college athletics, Italian Americans, multiculturalism, and pragmatism. Shaquona Malone is a 2008 graduate of Auburn University at Montgomery with a Bachelor of Liberal Arts Degree. She is currently working as a certified phlebotomist. Future plans include a Master’s Degree and a career in forensics. Namita N. Manohar is a doctoral candidate in the sociology department at the University of Florida. Her research interests include race and ethnicity, gender, migration, and family sociology with a particular focus on Indians in the United States. She currently has two papers exploring dating and marriage among PatelAmericans under review at the Journal of Comparative Family Studies and the International Journal of Sociology of the Family. Stephanie “Christy” McCalman is an only child who was born and raised in Montgomery, AL. She is a single mother of one daughter. She has an Associates Degree from Troy State University in Psychology and graduated from Auburn University at Montgomery with a Liberal Arts degree. Shondrah Tarrezz Nash received her doctorate in Sociology from the University of Kentucky and conducted postdoctoral work at the University of Illinois at Chicago in the Department of African American Studies. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminology at Morehead State University. Dr. Nash’s research examines the intersection of religion, gender, and intimate partner violence, particularly abused women’s strategies of religious coping. Maria J. Patterson was born and raised in Montgomery, Alabama. Maria graduated from Brewbaker Technology Magnet High School in 2004. She received the Bachelor of Science degree in Justice and Public Safety coupled with a Paralegal Certificate from Auburn University at Montgomery in spring 2008. Maria would like to thank her family, especially her parents for their continued support throughout this arduous process. It has been a pleasure to be a part of this endeavor. Carolyn F. Pevey. After eighteen years as a nurse, Dr. Pevey became a sociologist, completing her doctoral dissertation at the University of Texas at Austin. Her primary research areas are religion, death, and gender. She teaches courses on death, theory, religion and social problems. Currently, Dr. Pevey is using indepth interviews with Muslim women to explore their understandings of gender and religion. Leslie Houts Picca is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Dayton. She has publications in the areas of racial relations and adolescent sexuality. She is co-author of the book Two Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage (2007 with Joe Feagin). Her research on racial relations has been nationally recognized, and she has been interviewed by CNN, the Associated Press, Congressional Quarterly, National Public Radio, Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, the Dayton Daily News, among others.

621

622

| About the Editor and Contributors

Ariane Prohaska is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama. Her dissertation looked at women’s leave taking from work after the birth or adoption of a child. Her research interests include work and family and the sociology of gender. Ruby R. Reed is from Montgomery, AL where she graduated from Robert E. Lee High School in 2005. She currently attends Auburn University at Montgomery majoring in secondary education/social science. Ruby has tentative plans to graduate in the fall of 2009. After receiving her bachelor’s degree, Ruby plans to continue her education by pursuing her masters and specialist degrees in education. She plans to be a high school teacher and eventually have an administrative position within a school system. Lasita Rudolph is currently a senior at Auburn University at Montgomery majoring in Psychology with a minor in Sociology (Marriage & Family Concentration). She plans to graduate in May 2009 and then to further her education by receiving a Master’s in Marriage and Family Counseling and Therapy. Her career goal is to become a Marriage and Family Therapist and open her own private practice. Linda J. Rudolph is a married mother of three daughters and grandmother of two grandchildren. She is currently a junior Sociology major at Auburn University at Montgomery. Her area of concentration is Marriage and Family. Virginia Rutland is an undergraduate student at Auburn Montgomery. She is planning to pursue a Master’s Degree in Education following graduation. Virginia enjoys researching topics in the fields of Sociology, Psychology, and Human Development. Tera Rebekah Scott graduated in May 2008 from Auburn University at Montgomery with a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology. Her future educational goals include a Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology and a career in therapy or teaching. Ms. Scott’s current job is with PreHab Diabetes of Montgomery, Alabama. Her personal interests revolve around pottery, soccer, movies, and music. Jessica Sexton received a Bachelor of Science Degree in the field of Psychology in May 2008 at Auburn University at Montgomery. She will attend graduate school to obtain a Master’s Degree in the same field. Jessica hopes to use her Psychology training with families and children. Derrick Shapley is currently working toward his Ph.D. in Sociology at Mississippi State University. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and History from Auburn University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology from Athens State University. His research interests include rural sociology, poverty, political sociology, sociology of religion, and social theories. He is currently researching political ideology from 1972 to 2006. Constance L. Shehan is Professor of Sociology at the University of Florida. Her research and teaching focus on families and gender. She is the editor of the Jour-

About the Editor and Contributors |

nal of Family Issues, author of several books and numerous articles and chapters pertaining to women’s roles in work and families. Amanda Singletary graduated from Auburn University at Montgomery in December 2006 with an undergraduate degree in Sociology and minor in Psychology. Amanda currently works with the Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) as a foster care social worker. She is pursuing a Master’s in Community Counseling at Troy State University Montgomery. Angela Sparrow is a Human Services major, Exercise/Sports Science minor student at Elon University. Originally from Ithaca, New York, Angela has plans to be a nurse in the future, and is also interested in doing work with Teach for America. She has a passion for sociology and helping others. Angela is very excited about her first publication, and what the post-graduation future holds. Patricia A. Thomas is a graduate student at Duke University. Her research interests include sociology of the family, aging, and the impact of social factors on health outcomes. After she receives her Ph.D. in Sociology, she hopes to teach sociology and do research at a university as a professor. Courtney Blair Thornton is currently employed with East Alabama Mental Health, Family and Children’s Services and plans to continue working with children and adolescents in community mental health before eventually going into private practice. Courtney is a 2005 B. A. graduate of Auburn University at Montgomery where she majored in Sociology and minored in Justice and Public Safety. Areas of interest in research and practice include human sexuality, trauma, and addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, drug addiction, eating disorders and self-injury. She is also interested in the development and implementation of programs to divert involvement in at-risk behaviors or in juvenile court. Taralyn Watson and her husband lived in several different states before settling in the South to be near family. She then decided to finish her college degree and received a Bachelor of Liberal Arts from Auburn University at Montgomery in the spring of 2007. She enjoys reading all types of books whether it is to learn something new or just a fun story. Marion C. Willetts is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University. Her areas of specialization include families, particularly cohabitation and coupling policies, and stratification, most notably poverty. She has published numerous articles in journals such as Journal of Marriage and Family, Journal of Family Issues, and Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. Her most recent research is a policy analysis of licensed domestic partnership ordinances. Donald Woolley completed his doctoral work in Sociology at North Carolina State University. He has since worked at Duke University as a researcher in the Fast Track study within the Center for Child and Family Policy and in the Healthy Childhood Brain Development and Developmental Traumatology Research Program within the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Dr. Woolley also teaches as an

623

624

| About the Editor and Contributors

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Elon University. Annice Yarber, Assistant Professor at Auburn University at Montgomery, teaches Sociology of Health and Illness, Human Sexuality, Divorce and Remarriage, and Human Behavior and the Social Environment. Current research interests include adolescent sexual health, African American male sexual behavior, as well as the influence of neighborhood context on the health of various groups. Orli Zaprir is a graduate student in the Sociology Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Her research interests include intergenerational relations, caregiving, and grandparenthood.

INDEX AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), 311, 314 Abortion, 1–9; birth dearth and, 94; firsttrimester, 1, 2; laws, early, 3–5; laws, restrictive, 8–9; medical, 1, 2–3; partial birth, 7–8; personhood of fetus and, 8; procedures, 1–3; religion and, 495–96; second-trimester, 1, 2–3; as social issue, 3; surgical, 1, 2, 3. See also Birth control Absent fathers, 24, 26, 27–30, 283 Abstinence, 70, 546 Achievement motivation theory, 435 Addiction, 9–15; causes, 12–13; described, 10–11; domestic violence and, 14; effects within family, 13–14; family and recovery, 14–15; incarceration and, 9–10, 14; medical debates, 12; physical, 11; psychological, 11–12; Social Learning model of, 13. See also Domestic violence behaviors and causes ADHD. See Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Adler, Alfred, 76, 79, 432, 434 Adolescent pregnancy. See Teen pregnancy Adoption: biological privilege and, 66; of child abuse victims, 104; secondparent, 298; surrogacy and, 540–41; teen pregnancy and, 551. See also Gay parent adoption; International adoption; Transracial adoption Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), 297–98, 346

Adoption and Safe Families Act (1996), 561 Ads, personal, 404–5 Adult day care, 248 Adultery. See Extramarital sexual relationships Adversarial divorce. See Divorce, adversarial and no-fault AFCARS (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System), 297–98, 346 AFDC. See Aid to Families with Dependent Children Affairs. See Extramarital sexual relationships African American fathers, 24–33; absenteeism, 24, 26, 27–30; black family awareness, 26–27; causes of paternal delinquency, 26; historical influence, 24–25; involvement of, 31–32; present concerns, 26–27; statistics, formal, 27–29; statistics, informal, 29–30; stay at home dads, 528; in television programs, 25. See also African Americans; Fathers African Americans: child care policy and, 106; cohabitation, 427; corporal punishment, 156; culture of poverty, 167–68, 169–70, 171, 172–73; divorce, 209; extended families, 172; fictive kin, 287, 288; foster care, 290; grandparenthood, 307, 315, 316; housework allocation, 329; marriage and childbearing, 143; matriarchy and, 168, 172–73; overscheduled children, 439, 440; parenting styles, 445–46; premarital sexual

625

626

|

Index relationships, 474; remarriage, 506, 508; teen pregnancy, 545, 549; white wedding industry, 575. See also African American fathers; Transracial adoption Agency argument, and marital power, 381 Aging in place, 251–52 Aging out, of foster care, 294 Ahrons, Constance, 207, 213 Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC): culture of poverty, 169, 174; day care, 188; foster care, 291; poverty and public assistance, 467. See also Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Ain’t I a Woman (hooks), 25 Alabama: cohabitation, 424; common law marriage, 147, 150; divorce, 18 Alcohol abuse, 12–13, 99. See also Addiction Alimony, 20, 22 Alternatives to Marriage Project, 141, 425 Alzheimer’s Disease, 137 AMA (American Medical Association), 409 American Academy of Family Physicians, 410 American Academy of Pediatrics, 81–82, 161–62, 300 American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), 311, 314 American College of Nurse Midwives, 411, 412 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 410, 411, 412 American Medical Association (AMA), 409 Ante-nuptial agreements. See Prenuptial agreements Anthropomorphism, 451–52 Apprentices, 186, 286 Arizona: covenant marriage, 164; divorce, 18; prenuptial agreements, 480; same-sex marriage, 517 Arkansas: covenant marriage, 164; divorce, 18 Arranged marriage, 33–40; current controversies, 37–39; described, 33–35; love marriages, 36–37; mate selection alternatives, 402–3; semi-arranged marriages, 35–36. See also Mail order brides; Mate selection alternatives Arrest laws, mandatory. See Mandatory arrest laws Asian Americans: divorce, 209; parenting styles, 445; teen pregnancy, 545. See also Arranged marriage Assisted living facilities, 248, 249–50 Assisted marriages, 35–36 Attachment parenting, 159–60 Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 40–48; as disease, 41–42; future issues, 47–48; genetic factor, 42; homeschooling and, 325; medicalization of, 42–44; medication for, 43–44; neurological markers, 41–42; parents and ADHD children, 45–47; as social

construction, 44–45; statistics, 40. See also Developmental disability and marital stress Attractiveness, and marital power, 379 Authoritarian parenting, 445–46 Authoritative parenting, 444–45 Baby abandonment, 114, 116–17 Baby and Child Care (Spock), 152–53 Baby boomers, 89–93; adolescence, 91–93; adulthood, 93; baby boom family, 90–91; childhood, 91; effects of, 95–96 Baby boomlet, 97 Baby bust, 93–95, 96 Baby echo, 97 Baby Jessica case, 66 Baby M case, 533–34, 536, 539 Baby-sitting, as term applied to fathers, 419 Baehr, Ninia, 517 Baker, Jack, 516 Balanced parenting, 444–45 Baltimore Parenthood Study, 29 Bangladesh, fictive kin in, 287 Baptists: corporal punishment, 154–55; divorce, 211; marital power, 378 Barrier methods of birth control, 71–72 Bartkowski, John, 381 Battered woman syndrome (BWS), 49–56; battering cycle, 50–51; history, 49–50; as legal defense, 53–55; legal system and, 52–53; opposition to battered-woman defense, 53–54; patterns, 51–52; shelterseeking, 51; stereotypes about abused women, 55–56; support for batteredwoman defense, 54–55. See also Domestic violence; Domestic violence behaviors and causes; Domestic violence interventions; Mandatory arrest laws; Religion, women, and domestic violence Bed sharing. See Cosleeping Beneficiaries, reciprocal, 216 Benefits of marriage. See Marriage, benefits of Benson, Dale S., 170 Berger, Oscar, 349 Berman, Howard, 265 Bernard, Jessie, 57, 277 Best interest argument: biological privilege and, 64, 66; foster care and, 292; gay parent adoption and, 299, 300 Beyond Existing (organization), 246 Biblarz, Timothy, 299 Bible: family roles and, 275; on monogamy, 262; polygamy in, 460 Bigamy. See Plural marriage Binuclear families, 307, 511–12 Biological privilege, 63–67; child custody, 65; foster care and adoption, 65–66, 291–92; future, 66–67; social policy, 64; views of motherhood, 64–65. See also Foster care; Surrogacy

Index | 627 Birth control, 67–76; birth dearth and, 94; emergency, 9, 75; history, 69–70; new technologies, 72–74; permanent, 74–75; premarital sexual relationships and, 475; religion and, 495; traditional methods, 70–72. See also Abortion Birth control pill, 70, 72 Birth dearth, 93–95, 96 Birth order, 76–81; debate over, 79–80; firstborn children, 76, 77, 79–80; middle-born children, 76, 77–78, 80; youngest children, 76, 78–79, 80. See also Only children Birth parents, and gay parent adoption, 302 Birth plans, 123–24 Black fathers. See African American fathers Blacks. See African Americans Blended families, 307, 511–12 Boarders, as fictive kin, 286 Boarding out. See Foster care Bottle feeding. See Breastfeeding or formula feeding Brace, Charles Loring, 291 Bradley Method, 122 Brazelton, T. Berry, 161 Breastfeeding or formula feeding, 81–87; breastfeeding benefits, 81–82; breastfeeding challenges, 82–84; cosleeping and, 159, 162; formula feeding advantages, 84–85; formula feeding disadvantages, 85; issues, 85–87 Bride price, 403, 479, 484–85 Bush, George W.: marriage promotion, 396; same-sex marriage, 518 BWS. See Battered woman syndrome California: divorce, 18, 208, 385; domestic partnerships, 216, 217; foster care, 290; gay parent adoption, 298; prenuptial agreements, 479, 480; same-sex marriage, 520; surrogacy, 534–36, 539, 541 Calvert, Crispina, 534–35, 539 Calvert, Mark, 534–35 Caregivers. See Children as caregivers; Elder care; Grandparents as caregivers Cartoon violence, 359 Cascade effect, of domestic violence, 525 Cash assistance. See Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Catholics: abortion, 496; battered woman syndrome, 52; birth control, 495; cohabitation, 424; corporal punishment, 155; covenant marriage, 165; divorce, 16, 207, 211; fictive kin, 286–87; gay parent adoption, 301, 302; homeschooling, 321; international adoption, 347; preparation for marriage, 487; remarriage, 510; teen pregnancy, 545; United States, 494. See also Christianity Caucasians. See Whites

Cell phone program, for domestic violence victims, 227 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: breastfeeding recommendations, 81–82; domestic violence statistics, 371; infertility, 334; spouse abuse categories, 230–31 Certified professional midwives, 118, 124–25, 406, 407, 410, 412 Cervical caps, 72 Cesarean section, 120, 409 Chapin, Henry, 291 Cheating. See Extramarital sexual relationships Child abuse, 98–105; causes, 98–100; consequences, 100–101; controversies, 101–4; corporal punishment and, 102, 154; defining abuse, 102; defining abusers and settings, 102–3; homeschooling and, 325; interventions, 103–4. See also Corporal punishment; Domestic violence Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974), 103 Child advocates, 115–17, 194–95 Childbirth options, 117–25; birth plans, 123–24; future, 124–25; healthcare providers, 118–19; midwifery and medicalization, 119–21; pain control, 119–20, 121–22; prepared childbirth, 121–22; safety and risk, 411–12; witnesses to birth, 122–23. See also Midwifery and medicalization Child care policy, 105–12; benefits of child care, 107–8; current policy, debates, and future prospects, 109–10; dysfunctional child care market, 108; race, class, and gender, 105–7; state support, 108–10. See also Day care; Employed mothers Child custody, 65, 226 Childfree, as term, 126–27 Childfree relationships, 125–34; acceptability of, 343–44; movement, 130–31; organizations, 130; reasons for, 127–30; reproductive issues, 132; social issues, 133; terms, 126–27, 130–31; workplace issues, 132–33. See also Infertility; Transition to parenthood Childless, as term, 126, 127 Child neglect, 98, 114–15, 116, 325. See also Child abuse Childrearing: juvenile delinquency and, 357–58; marriage and, 143; prenuptial agreements and, 484; religion and, 497–98 Children: benefits of marriage for, 59; as domestic violence witnesses, 233–34; employed mothers and, 255; first-born, 76, 77, 79–80; housework allocation and, 328–29; marital satisfaction and, 421; middle-born, 76, 77–78, 80; remarriage and, 507, 508, 511–12; youngest, 76, 78–79,

628

|

Index 80. See also Only children; Overscheduled children Children and divorce. See Divorce and children Children as caregivers, 134–39; care receiver characteristics, 136; child caregiver characteristics, 135; defined, 134; effects on children, 136–38; negative effects on children, 137–38; parentification and, 134–35; positive effects on children, 137; prevalence, 135. See also Elder care; Grandparents as caregivers Children having children. See Teen pregnancy Child rights advocates, 115–17, 194–95 Child support, 112–17; African American fathers and, 29, 30; baby abandonment, 114, 116–17; child neglect, 114–15, 116; child rights advocates and, 115–17; deadbeat parents and, 191–94; encouraging parental responsibility, 112–13; father absence and, 283; fathers’ rights advocates and, 113–15; infanticide and, 115, 117; prenuptial agreements and, 484; private, 191–92; public, 192, 195; shared parenting and, 116; transformation of, 192–94. See also Deadbeat parents Child Welfare League of America, 290 China: day care, 186; transracial adoption, 564; wedding industry workers, 575 Christianity: abortion, 496; childfree relationships, 133; cohabitation, 140; common law marriage, 150; corporal punishment, 154–55; covenant marriage, 164–65; divorce, 16, 207, 211, 497; domestic violence, 499–503; family roles, 275; gay parent adoption, 297; infertility, 343; monogamy, 261–62; premarital sexual relationships, 475–76; remarriage, 510–11; United States, 494. See also Catholics; Protestants; specific denominations Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 458–61, 462 Citizens for Midwifery, 412 Civil marriage, 145, 146, 148 Civil Rights struggle, 92 Civil unions, 215 Class. See Social class Clergy, 487, 501–2. See also Religion Clinton, Bill, 467 Cognitive development, 189–90 Cohabitation, effects on marriage, 139–45; comparisons of married and nonmarried cohabitants, 140–41; future marriage, 144; selection versus experience effect, 143–44; strengthening effects, 141–42; weakening effects, 142–44. See also Cohabitation, nonmarital Cohabitation, nonmarital, 423–29; as alternative to marriage, 427–29; before remarriage, 512; birth dearth and, 94;

common law marriage versus, 146, 149; divorce and, 213; evolution of, 424–25; motives for, 428–29; religion and, 497; as stage in courtship, 425–28; statistics, 423–24. See also Cohabitation, effects on marriage; Common law marriage Coitus interruptus, 70–71 Colonial era: child support, 192–93; divorce, 207; fatherhood, 280; fictive kin, 286; homeschooling, 319; housework allocation, 327; maternity care, 408; mate selection, 178 Colorado: abortion, 5; same-sex marriage, 517, 518 Colorblindness, and transracial adoption, 564 Come On, People (Cosby and Poussaint), 27 Commercial surrogacy, 533 Common couple violence, 223 Common law marriage, 145–52; common law states, 147; debate over, 148–51; history, 146–47; law, 147–48. See also Cohabitation, nonmarital; Domestic partnerships Communication: in foster care, 293; marital satisfaction and, 390–91; transition to parenthood and, 555 Community property states, 480 Compadrazgo, 286–87 Companion animal death and family. See Pet death and the family Comstock Laws, 4 Conciliation period, 51 Condoms, 71 Conflict management, and marital satisfaction, 391 Conflict perspective, on domestic violence, 231 Confluence model of only children, 434–35 Conley, Dalton, 80 Connecticut, domestic partnerships in, 215 Consent-intent argument, 535, 539 Consumer Product Safety Commission, 161 Contested divorce. See Divorce, adversarial and no-fault Continuous care communities, 248 Contraception. See Birth control Contraceptive patches, 73 Coontz, Stephanie, 213, 276–77, 425 Copernicus, 78 Corporal punishment, 152–57; attitudes toward, 153–54; child abuse and, 102, 154; effects, 156–57; parenting styles and, 153–54, 445, 446, 447; regional differences, 155–56; religion and, 154–55, 498. See also Child abuse; Parenting styles Cosby, Bill, 27, 174 The Cosby Show, 25 Cosleeping, 157–63; advantages, 159–61; background, 158–59; disadvantages, 161; future, 161–62. See also Parenting styles

Index | 629 Council on Contemporary Families, 57, 425 Counseling, as preparation for marriage, 486–87 Courtship, 35–36, 178–79, 401, 425–28 Covenant marriage, 163–67; characteristics of participants, 164–65; concerns with, 165–66; definitions and provisions, 164; future trends, 166–67; history, 163–64; proponents, 165. See also Divorce, adversarial and no-fault; Divorce, as problem, symptom, or solution Creation science, teaching of, 498 Crèches, 186 Crude divorce rate, 208 Cult of true womanhood, 272–73, 328 Cultural spillover theory, 157 Culture: homeschooling and, 324; marital power and, 379; transracial adoption and, 559–60 Culture of poverty, 167–75; applying in American society, 169–70; behavioral traits, 168, 173–74; origins, 167–68; pathology, 172–73; structural approach versus, 170–74; way of life, 171–72. See also Poverty and public assistance Culture wars, abortion in, 3 Current Population Study, 29 Custody, 65, 226 Daddy track, 417. See also Mommy track Dancel, Genora, 517 Dating, 177–84; baby boomers and, 92; courtship, 178–79; current trends, 180–81; as game, 183–84; group, 181, 182; history, 178–81; mate selection alternatives, 400–402; as preparation for marriage, 181–83; speed, 405; traditional, 179–80. See also Mate selection alternatives; Premarital sexual relationships; Preparation for marriage Dating services, 404 Dating tours, 365, 368 Day care, 185–91; effects, 189–90; history (Europe), 186; history (United States), 186–88; institutionalized care of children, 185–86. See also Child care policy Ddharmaatmyor, 287 Deadbeat parents, 191–96; African American fathers, 26, 29, 30; child advocates and, 194–95; child support and, 191–94; defined, 112, 191; fathers’ rights activists and, 195–96. See also Child support Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (1998), 112, 113, 191, 194 Decker, Jonathan P., 483 Defense of Marriage Act (1996), 215–16, 517–18 Dementia, 244 Democracy, 323–24, 386

Dependence. See Addiction Depression: developmental disability of children and, 198, 199; family roles and, 275, 278; in grandparents as caregivers, 315; in wives, 61; in working women, 275, 278 Desensitization, and mass media, 358–59 Destructive parentification, 135 Developmental disability and marital stress, 196–201; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 47; background, 197; future prospects, 200; negative effects on married life, 197–99; positive effects on married life, 199–200. See also Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); Marital satisfaction Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 41, 54 Diaphragms (birth control method), 71–72 Dick-Read, Grantly, 121 Direct-entry midwives, 118, 124–25, 406, 407, 410, 412 Disability, developmental. See Developmental disability and marital stress Discipline: authoritarian parenting and, 445, 446; birth order and, 79; parenting styles and, 445, 446, 447. See also Corporal punishment Disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as, 41–42 Disenfranchised grief, 454 Displaced homemakers, 20 Distant figure (grandparenting style), 306 District of Columbia: domestic partnerships, 216, 217; same-sex marriage, 517 Divorce: African American fathers and, 26; after remarriage, 507–8, 509; birth dearth and, 94; cohabitation after, 428; cohabitation and, 143–44; common law marriage and, 148; developmental disability of child and, 199; domestic violence interventions and, 235; family roles and, 274, 277; fathers’ rights activists and, 195; fictive kin and, 288; financial issues, 20, 22, 203–4, 205–6, 210, 211; grandparenting style and, 307; history, 16–17, 207–8; parenting styles and, 448; premarital sexual relationships and, 474; religion and, 497; statistics, 208–9. See also Divorce, adversarial and no-fault; Divorce, as problem, symptom, or solution; Divorce and children; Prenuptial agreements; Remarriage Divorce, adversarial and no-fault, 15–24; adversarial approaches, 16, 21–23; divorce as problem, symptom, or solution, 208, 212; extramarital sexual relationships and, 262; history of divorce, 16–17; nofault approaches, 16, 18–21, 23. See also

630

|

Index Covenant marriage; Divorce; Divorce, as problem, symptom, or solution; Divorce and children Divorce, as problem, symptom, or solution, 206–14; divorce as problem, 209–11; divorce as solution, 213–14; divorce as symptom, 211–13; divorce statistics, 208–9; history of divorce, 207–8. See also Covenant marriage; Divorce; Divorce, adversarial and no-fault; Divorce and children Divorce and children, 201–6; divorce, as problem, symptom, or solution, 210–11, 213; economic factors, 204, 205–6; longterm effects, 202; minimizing effects of divorce, 204–6; overview, 20–21; processes of divorce effects, 203–4. See also Divorce; Divorce, adversarial and no-fault; Divorce, as problem, symptom, or solution Dobson, James: benefits of marriage, 56; corporal punishment, 155; divorce, 206, 497; same-sex marriage, 519 Doe v. Bolton (1973), 5 DOMA. See Defense of Marriage Act (1996) Domestic partnerships, 215–20; civil unions, 215; common law marriage versus, 145–46; controversies, 218–20; legal options, 215–18; licensed, 216–18; reciprocal beneficiaries, 216; same-sex marriage as type of, 215–16. See also Common law marriage; Same-sex marriage Domestic violence: basic facts, 370–71; causes, 232–33; as disadvantage to marriage, 61; divorce and, 213; history of attitudes toward, 369–70; mail order brides and, 365, 368–69; sibling violence/ abuse and, 525; statistics, 231–32. See also Battered woman syndrome; Child abuse; Domestic violence behaviors and causes; Domestic violence interventions; Religion, women, and domestic violence; Sibling violence and abuse Domestic violence behaviors and causes, 221–28; abuse behaviors, 221–23, 230–31; addiction and, 14; barriers to seeking help, 224–26; common couple violence versus intimate terrorism, 223–24; learned helplessness, 226–27; resources for victims, 227. See also Battered woman syndrome; Domestic violence; Domestic violence interventions; Religion, women, and domestic violence Domestic violence interventions, 229–38; arrest of offender, 235–36; battered woman syndrome and, 50; categories of spouse abuse, 230–31; causal influences, 232–33; child abuse and, 103; compound effects, 233–34; divorce, 235; domestic violence statistics, 231–32; future directions,

238; government policies and programs, 236; interventions, 235–38; mandatory arrest, 236–37; shelter movement, 230, 237; sibling violence/abuse, 525. See also Battered woman syndrome; Domestic violence; Domestic violence behaviors and causes; Mandatory arrest laws; Religion, women, and domestic violence Donaldson Institute, 301–3 Dornan, Robert K., 539 Doulas, 122–23 Dowries, 403 Drug abuse, 99. See also Addiction Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, 373 Durkheim, Emile, 453 Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), 106 Economic issues. See Financial issues Economic power, 377–78 Educational attainment, 170, 202, 322, 547–48 Educational marriage preparation programs, 486–87 Education laws, 320 Elder abuse, 239–46; contributing factors, 243–44; defined, 239–40; elder care and, 250; gender issues, 244; history, 242; interventions, 244–46; types, 240–42. See also Domestic violence; Elder care Elder care, 247–52; caregiver stress, 248–49; future directions, 251–52; history, 247–48; home care issues, 250–51; nursing home issues, 249–50. See also Children as caregivers; Elder abuse Elizabethan Poor Laws (1601), 112–13, 192 Ellis, Coleen, 454 Eloping. See Wedding and eloping Emergency contraception, 9, 75 Emotional abuse, 222, 241, 522 Emotional parentification, 135 Emotional problems: children and divorce, 202, 205; grandparents as caregivers, 309, 315–16; infertility, 344 Employed mothers, 252–57; balancing work and family, 254–55; economic issues, 253; history and trends, 252–53; housework allocation and, 255–56; impact on children, 255; minimizing effects of motherhood on employment, 417–18; overscheduled children and, 439–40; stay at home dads and, 527; in World War II and after, 282. See also Child care policy; Housework allocation; Mommy track; Stay at home dads; Working women Endometriosis, 337 Engagement, 567, 569 Engagement rings, 576

Index | 631 Engels, Friedrich, 377 England. See United Kingdom English Common Law, 3–4, 146, 370 English Poor Laws (1601), 112–13, 192 Enrichment workshops, 486–87 Environmental contaminants, and infertility, 343 Environmental reasons, for childfree relationships, 129 Epidural anesthesia, 120, 121 Episcopalians: marital power, 378; same-sex marriage, 518–19 Episiotomy, 120 Eron, Leonard, 359 Ethnicity. See Race and ethnicity; specific racial and ethnic groups Euphemisms, for death, 452 Europe: cohabitation, 423; common law marriage, 146; day care, 186; fictive kin, 286 European Americans. See Whites Evaluation and diagnosis stage, of infertility, 340–41 Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 301–3 Evangelicals: abortion, 495; birth control, 495; homeschooling, 320; marital power, 381. See also Christianity Evolution, teaching of, 498 Experience effects, of cohabitation, 144 Explicit anthropomorphism, 451 Expressive view of marriage, 386 Extended families, 172 Extramarital sexual relationships, 257–64; dealing with, 262–63; legal aspects, 262; monogamy versus, 261–62; open marriages, 259–61; reasons for involvement, 258–59 Falbo, Toni, 432–33 Familism, in Latino families, 172 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 255–69; development of, 255–67; employee attitudes toward, 267–68; future directions, 268; gender issues, 265–66, 267, 531. See also Employed mothers Family bed. See Cosleeping Family Constellation (Toman), 79 Family Law Act (California, 1969), 18 Family life cycle model, 391–92 Family Research Council: benefits of marriage, 56, 59; divorce, 212; family roles, 275; gay parent adoption, 303; remarriage, 504; same-sex marriage, 519–20 Family roles, 269–79; debate over, 274–78; egalitarian model, 270–71, 276–78; future, 278–79; history, 271–73; models, 270–71; religion and, 496–97; traditional model, 270, 274–76; transition to parenthood and, 555. See also Employed

mothers; Housework allocation; Stay at home dads Family size, 389 Family structure, 309, 496–97 Family Support Act (1988), 188 Family values, 356–57 Family wage economy, 275 Father-Daughter Purity Balls, 476–77 Fathers, 279–85; absent, 24, 26, 27–30, 283; ADHD children and, 46–47; as childbirth witnesses, 122; in colonial period, 280; corporal punishment by, 154; divorced, 205; in modern era, 281–83; poverty and public assistance and, 472; present, 284– 85; as providers, 281; religion and, 498; resident, 284–85; social history of roles, 280–83; traditional expectations of, 415; in Victorian era, 280–81. See also African American fathers; Stay at home dads Fathers’ rights advocates, 113–15, 195–96 Fault divorce. See Divorce, adversarial and no-fault Federal Marriage Amendment, 518 Female reproduction, 334–35 Females. See Women Fence sitters, as term, 127 Ferber, Richard, 161 Fertility assistance, 344–45 Fertility patterns, 89–98; baby boom, 89–93, 95–96; birth dearth, 93–95, 96; effects of fluctuations in fertility, 95–97 Fetal monitors, 119 Fetus, personhood of, 8 Fictive kin, 285–89; cross-culturally, 286–87; future, 287–89; history, 286; terms for, 287. See also Biological privilege; Domestic partnerships; Pet death and the family Financial abuse, 222–23, 241 Financial issues: birth dearth, 94–95, 96; child abuse and, 99–100; childfree relationships, 129–30; cohabitation and, 429; divorce, 20, 22, 203–4, 205–6, 210, 211; domestic violence victims, 225; employed mothers, 253; grandparents as caregivers, 309, 314–15; marriage, benefits of, 58–59, 61; prenuptial agreements, 479–81; remarriage, 509–10; surrogacy, 536–38; teen pregnancy, 547–48; transition to parenthood, 556–57; white wedding industry, 573–74 Fineman, Martha Albertson, 150 First-born children, 76, 77, 79–80 First-trimester abortions, 1, 2 Five Families (Lewis), 168 FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints), 461–62 Florida: covenant marriage, 163–64; divorce, 18; gay parent adoption, 298, 303 FMLA. See Family and Medical Leave Act

632

|

Index Focus on the Family: benefits of marriage, 59; cohabitation, 142, 425; divorce, 206, 211; gay parent adoption, 299; same-sex marriage, 519 Follicle stimulating hormone, 335, 336, 338 Food stamps, 468–69 Forbidden sexual relationships. See Extramarital sexual relationships Forceps, during childbirth, 120 Formal grandparenting style, 306 Formula feeding. See Breastfeeding or formula feeding Foster care, 289–96; aging out, 294; biological privilege and, 65–66; child abuse victims in, 103–4; future prospects, 294–95; history, 290–91; tips for foster families, 292–94; values underlying, 291–92. See also Biological privilege; Poverty and public assistance Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse model, 389, 390 “A Framework for Understanding Poverty,” 170 France: day care, 186; mail order brides, 364 Frazier, E. Franklin, 167–68, 170, 172 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance Act, 6 Fuchs, Cynthia, 376–77 Full-time fathers. See Stay at home dads Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS), 461–62 Fun seeker (grandparenting style), 306 Furstenberg, Frank, 285 Gallagher, Maggie, 22, 56, 62, 206 Gay parent adoption, 297–304; agencies, 300–303; background, 297–98; effects of, 299–300; future directions, 303–4; religion and, 496; state laws, 298, 303. See also International adoption; Same-sex marriage; Transracial adoption Gender: child care policy and, 106–7; cohabitation motives and, 428; divorce and children and, 202; elder abuse and, 244; extramarital sexual relationships and, 257–58; Family and Medical Leave Act and, 265–66, 267, 531; grandparenting style and, 307; premarital sexual relationships and, 475; remarriage and, 507; transition to parenthood and, 553–54. See also Men; Women Gender equality, 93, 265–66, 376–77, 382–83 Gender ideology, 269, 378, 381–82. See also Family roles Gender roles, 231, 269–70. See also Family roles Generation gap, 316–17 Genetic contribution test for legal motherhood, 539 Gestational surrogacy, 533

Gestation test for legal motherhood, 539 Goodtimes, 25 Gottman, John, 389–90 Grandparenthood, 304–11; background, 304– 5; child custody and, 65; grandparenting styles, 306–7; grandparents as caregivers, 308–9; grandparent visitation rights, 309–11; stereotypes, 305–6. See also Grandparents as caregivers Grandparents as caregivers, 311–17; background, 312; emotional concerns, 309, 315–16; financial concerns, 309, 314–15; future prospects, 317; health concerns, 309, 313–14, 316; legal concerns, 316; negative aspects, 312–16; overview, 308–9; positive aspects, 316–17. See also Children as caregivers; Grandparenthood Great Depression: day care, 188; divorce, 209; poverty and public assistance, 466; working women, 281 Green, Tom, 461–62 Grief, disenfranchised, 454 Group dating, 181, 182 Hague Treaty on International Adoptions, 353 Hartsdale Pet Cemetery and Crematory, 454 Hawaii: domestic partnerships, 216; grandparent visitation rights, 310; same-sex marriage, 517 Head Start, 109 Healthcare providers, 118–19, 246 Health issues: childfree relationships, 127–28; culture of poverty, 170; grandparents as caregivers, 309, 313–14, 316; homeschooling, 325; marriage, benefits of, 57–58, 61; open marriages, 261; poverty, 465–66; teen pregnancy, 546–47 Healthy Marriage Initiative, 396, 398–99, 472 Hinckley, Gordon B., 461 Hispanics. See Latinos Hochschild, Arlie, 269, 275 Holt, Bertha, 348 Holt, Harry, 348 Holt International Children’s Services, 348 Home care issues, in elder care, 250–51 Home charter school students, 321 Homemakers, displaced, 20 Homeschooling, 319–26; arguments concerning, 321–22; culture and, 324; democracy and, 323–24; fairness and, 324; health concerns, 325; history, 319–20; parental motives for, 320–21; religion and, 498; research studies, 322–23; student performance and, 322; welfare of children and, 325 Homicide, 225, 232 Honeymoon effect, in engaged couples, 489

Index | 633 “Honeymoon” phase, of battered woman syndrome, 51 hooks, bell, 25 Hormonal implants, 73 Horoscope matching, 34 Housework allocation, 326–32; children and household labor, 328–29; consequences, 330–31; employed mothers and, 255–56; marital power and, 378; marital satisfaction and, 331; options and strategies, 331; overview of women and work, 327–28; race, ethnicity, and social class, 329–30; transition to parenthood and, 555. See also Employed mothers; Family roles Housing programs, 471 Huesmann, Rowell, 359 Human Rights Campaign, 297, 298, 519 Hurried child syndrome. See Overscheduled children Hyde Amendment (1977), 5 Hyper-parenting. See Overscheduled children Hysterectomy, 75 Hystreosalpingogram, 337 Immigrants, 295. See also Mail order brides Immunization, 325 Incarceration, 9–10, 14, 113–14 Independent living (elder care), 248 Indians and Indian Americans, 33–40; arranged marriages, 33–35; current controversies about arranged marriages, 37–39; love marriages, 36–37; semiarranged marriages, 35–36 Industrialization: child support and, 193; dating and, 180; day care and, 186; family roles and, 272–73; motherhood tasks and, 419–20; parenthood and, 280–81 Infanticide, 115, 117 Infant schools, 186 Infertility, 333–46; childfree relationships, acceptability of, 343–44; controversies, 341–45; couple, effects on, 340; defined, 334; emotions, stages of, 340–41; fault, assigning, 342–43; female factors in, 335–37; female reproduction, 334–35; international adoption and, 347; male factors in, 338–39; male reproduction, 338; prevalence, 334; reproductive technology and, 344–45. See also Childfree relationships; Surrogacy Infidelity. See Extramarital sexual relationships Informal marriage. See Common law marriage Institute for American Values, 56, 142, 206, 212 Instrumental parentification, 135 Instrumental view of marriage, 385–86

Intent-based test for legal motherhood, 535, 539 Intercountry adoption. See International adoption Intercountry Adoption Act (2000), 353 International adoption, 346–54; benefits of, 351; Chinese adoptions, 346–47, 348, 350; concerns about, 347, 351–52; former Soviet States, 346–47, 348, 350–51; Guatemalan adoptions, 346–47, 348, 349; history, 347–48; reasons for, 346–47; South Korean adoptions, 346–47, 348–49; transracial adoption and, 564; trends, 252– 353; Vietnamese adoptions, 349. See also Gay parent adoption; Transracial adoption International marriage brokering. See Mail order brides International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (2005), 365, 368 Internet: dating and, 404; extramarital sexual relationships and, 263; mail order brides and, 365, 369; matrimonial Web sites, 36; stay at home dads and, 530, 531 Interpersonal violence. See Domestic violence Interracial adoption. See Transracial adoption Intersexuality Theory, 174 Intimate partner violence. See Domestic violence Intimate terrorism, 223–24 Intravenous infusion, during childbirth, 119 Introduced marriages, 35–36 Islam: abortion, 495–96; plural marriage, 464; prenuptial agreements, 483 Isolation: domestic violence victims and, 224–25; grandparents as caregivers and, 309, 316; stay at home dads and, 528 IUDs, 72 Jails, 9–10, 14, 113–14 Jane Project, 4–5 Jaycee B. case, 535–36 Jealousy: in open marriages, 260, 261; in plural marriage, 463 Jeff, Morris, Jr., 560 The Jeffersons, 25 Jeffs, Warren, 457, 462 Jews: abortion, 495–96; gay parent adoption, 301, 302; marital power, 378; prenuptial agreements, 483; speed dating, 405 Johnson, Anna, 534–35, 539 Johnson, Lyndon B., 466 Johnson, Michael, 223–24 Johnson v. Calvert, 534–35, 537, 539 Judaism. See Jews Juvenile delinquency, 355–61; arenas for debate, 356–60; child-rearing and, 357–58; defined, 356; family values and, 356–57; mass media influence on, 358–59; parental responsibility and, 360; statistics, 355–56

634

|

Index Keane, Noel, 532 Kennedy, John F., 92 Kinderdult phenomenon, 437–38 Kruger morphology test, 339 Labor coaches, 122–23 Lafayette, Leslie, 126 Laissez-faire parenting, 446–47 La Leche League International, 160 Lamaze, Ferdinand, 121–22 Language development, 189–90 Laparoscopy, 337 Las Vegas weddings, 570 Latin America, fictive kin in, 286–87 Latinos: culture of poverty, 168, 172, 173; divorce, 209; familism, 172; fictive kin, 287; housework allocation, 329; patriarchy, 173; teen pregnancy, 545, 549; white wedding industry, 575 Learned helplessness, 52, 226–27 Legal concerns: extramarital sexual relationships, 262; grandparents as caregivers, 316 Levonorgestrel intrauterine systems, 73 Lewis, Oscar, 167, 168 Licensed domestic partnerships, 216–18 Licensed midwives, 118, 124–25, 406, 407, 410, 412 Linguistic development, 189–90 Living together. See Cohabitation, nonmarital Lodgers, as fictive kin, 286 Louisiana: covenant marriage, 164; divorce, 18; mail order brides, 364; prenuptial agreements, 480 Love marriages, 36–37 Lowery, Fred, 165 Luken, Thomas A., 538–39 Luker, Kristin, 549–50 Lutenizing hormone, 335, 338 Lutherans: gay parent adoption, 302; international adoption, 347 Mail order brides, 363–69; agencies, 364–65; arguments against, 367–68; arguments for, 367; parties involved in, 365–67. See also Mate selection alternatives Maine, domestic partnerships in, 216, 217 Male reproduction, 338 Males. See Men Mandatory arrest laws, 369–75; battered woman syndrome and, 50; domestic violence interventions, 236–37; domestic violence overview, 370–71; paradigm shifts in attitudes, 372–73; victim empowerment models, 373–74. See also Battered woman syndrome; Domestic violence interventions Mandatory prosecution policies, 50, 372–73 “Manifesto” (Woodruff ), 461, 462

Marital contracts. See Prenuptial agreements Marital power, 375–83; battered woman syndrome and, 54–55; cultural norms and, 379; economic power and, 377–78; gender ideology and, 378, 381–82; gender inequality and, 376–77; negotiating, 380–81; physical attributes and, 379; relationship dynamics and, 379–80; religion and, 496–97; sources of, 377–80. See also Family roles; Housework allocation Marital quality, 384–85 Marital satisfaction, 383–94; children and, 421; correlates, 389–91; debate over, 387– 89; evolution of marriage, 385–86; family roles and, 277; future directions, 392–93; housework allocation and, 331; life course considerations, 391–92; marital success measures, 384–85; remarriage and, 508; stay at home dads and, 529; then versus now, 386–89; transition to parenthood and, 553, 555. See also Developmental disability and marital stress; Marriage, benefits of Marital stability, 384 Marital stress and developmental disability. See Developmental disability and marital stress Marital success measures, 384–85 Marriage: childrearing and, 143; civil, 145, 146, 148; cohabitation as alternative to, 427–29; dating as preparation for, 181–83; democracy and, 386; developmental disability of child and, 198–99; evolution of, 385–86; expressive view of, 386; instrumental view of, 385–86; patriarchy and, 386; peer, 382; protection effects, 59–60; rights as discriminatory, 62; selection effects, 62; statutory, 145, 146, 148; teen pregnancy and, 550–51. See also Marriage, benefits of; Marriage promotion; specific types of marriage Marriage, benefits of, 56–63; benefits for children, 59; financial aspects, 58–59, 61; future debate, 62–63; health aspects, 57–58, 61; marriage protection effects, 59–60; marriage rights as discriminatory, 62; marriage selection effects, 62; pro-alternative relationships argument, 60–62; pro-marriage argument, 57–60; psychological aspects, 58, 61; as unequal between men and women, 60–61. See also Marital satisfaction; Marriage; Marriage promotion; specific types of marriage Marriage, common law. See Common law marriage Marriage, covenant. See Covenant marriage Marriage, effects of cohabitation on. See Cohabitation, effects on marriage

Index | 635 Marriage, open. See Open marriages Marriage, preparation for. See Preparation for marriage Marriage, same-sex. See Same-sex marriage Marriage brokering, international. See Mail order brides Marriage by habit and repute. See Common law marriage Marriage promotion, 394–400; arguments against, 398–99; arguments for, 397–98; poverty, public assistance and, 398–99, 472; single-parent families, 394–95; welfare reform and, 395–96. See also Marriage; Marriage, benefits of; Poverty and public assistance; specific types of marriage Marriage Proposals (Fineman), 150 Marriage squeeze, 506 Marx, Karl, 376, 377, 378 Masculinity, and stay at home dads, 529 Massachusetts: domestic partnerships, 215–16, 219; foster care, 291 Matchmakers, 404 Maternal age, and infertility, 343 Maternity care, history of, 407–11 Maternity leave, 554 Mate selection alternatives, 400–405; arranged marriage, 402–3; dating, 400–402; matchmaker and dating services, 404; personal ads, 404–5; speed dating, 405. See also Arranged marriage; Dating; Mail order brides Matriarchy, 168, 172–73 McConnell, Mike, 516 McKenna, James, 158, 160 McRae, William J., 150 Media: juvenile delinquency and, 358–59; marital satisfaction and, 393; pregnancy in, 554–55; weddings in, 576 Mediation, 23, 311 Medicaid, 470–71 Medical abortions, 1, 2–3 Medicalization. See Midwifery and medicalization Medical pain control, during childbirth, 121 Medicare, 95–96 Medication, for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 43–44 Meister v. Moore (1877), 148, 149 Men: cohabitation motives, 428; dating, role in, 181–82, 183–84; Family and Medical Leave Act and, 267, 531; financial benefits of marriage, 58–59; grandparenting style of, 307; health benefits of marriage, 57; infertility, effects on, 340; premarital sexual relationships and, 475; remarriage and, 507; transition to parenthood, 553–54. See also Fathers; Gender; Women

Mental health: child abusers, 98; child caregivers, 137, 138; family roles and, 275–76; grandparents as caregivers, 315; marriage, benefits of, 58, 61. See also Depression Mental health workers, and preparation for marriage, 487 Merritt, William T., 560 Methotrexate, 2 Mexico, fictive kin in, 288 Michigan, surrogacy in, 532 Middle-born children, 76, 77–78, 80 Middle-class families. See Social class Midwifery and medicalization, 405–14; childbirth options, 119–21; history of maternity care, 407–11; midwifery described, 406–7; midwifery model of care, 119–21, 412–13; midwives as childbirth healthcare providers, 118–19, 124–25; safety and risk in childbirth, 411–12; training of midwives, 410. See also Childbirth options Midwives Alliance of North America, 412–13 Mifepristone, 2, 9 Miller-Muro, Layli, 368 Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, 50, 236–37, 372 Minnesota: same-sex marriage, 516; transracial adoption, 558 Minorities: discipline, 447; in foster care, 295; poverty and, 465. See also Race and ethnicity; Transracial adoption; specific minorities Misoprostol, 2, 9 Mississippi: divorce, 19; gay parent adoption, 298, 303 Mock anthropomorphism, 451 Mommy track, 414–18. See also Employed mothers; Motherhood, opportunity costs Monogamy, 261–62 Mormons, 458–61, 462 Morning after pill, 9, 75 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, 460 Motherhood, opportunity costs, 418–22; mothering tasks, 418–20; relationship opportunity costs, 421–22; structural opportunity costs, 420–21; transition to parenthood and, 557. See also Employed mothers; Mommy track; Mothers Mothers: ADHD children and, 45; biological privilege and, 64–65; breastfeeding benefits to, 82; child abuse by, 100; in colonial era, 280; corporal punishment by, 154; cosleeping and, 159, 160; day care and, 189; single, 465, 496; surrogacy and, 540–41; views of, 64–65, 540–41. See also Employed mothers; Motherhood, opportunity costs Movies, stay at home dads in, 529

636

|

Index Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 169–70 Moynihan Report, 169–70 Multi Ethnic Placement Act (1994), 561 Murder, 225, 232 Music, 92 Muslims. See Islam National Association of Black Social Workers, 559, 560 The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 546 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 221–23 National Center on Elder Abuse, 245 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 227 National Directory of New Hires, 193–94 National Domestic Violence Hotline, 227 National Education Association, 170 National Institute of Human Health and Development Early Child Research Network, 189 National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Market Experience of Youth, 28–29 National Marriage Project, 212, 425 Native Americans, opposition to transracial adoption, 559 Natural childbirth, 121–22 Neglect: child, 98, 114–15, 116, 325; elder, 242 Negligent parenting, 447 The Negro Family in the United States (Frazier), 167–68 “The Negro Family” (Moynihan), 169–70 New Jersey: domestic partnerships, 215, 216; gay parent adoption, 298; surrogacy, 533–34, 539 New York: divorce, 18, 19; midwife licensing, 408 No-drop policies, 50, 372–73 No-fault divorce. See Divorce, adversarial and no-fault Noncommercial surrogacy, 533 Nonmarital cohabitation. See Cohabitation, nonmarital Nurse midwives, 118–19, 124 Nurses, 246, 247 Nursing homes, 247, 248, 249–50 Obstetricians, 118, 406–7, 409. See also Childbirth options; Midwifery and medicalization Oettinger, Katherine, 348 Oklahoma, divorce in, 23 Old Deluder Satan Act (1647), 319 Oneida Community, 187–88 Only children, 431–36; achievement motivation theory, 435; Adler’s theory, 434; confluence model, 434–35; factors promoting, 431–32; famous, 436; future

directions, 436; stereotypes, 432–33. See also Birth order; Fertility patterns Open marriages, 259–61; health related dangers, 261; polyamory, 260; styles, 259; swinging, 260–61 Operation Baby Lift, 349 Opportunity costs of motherhood. See Motherhood, opportunity costs Oral contraceptive pills, 70, 72 Ordinal position. See Birth order Orphanages, 188 Ovarian function tests, 336–37 Overscheduled children, 436–41; benefits of activity participation, 441; debate over, 439– 41; history, 437–39. See also Parenting styles Ovulation, 335 Pain control, during childbirth, 119–20, 121–22 Parental Alienation Syndrome, 226 Parental and Disability Leave Act, 265. See also Family and Medical Leave Act Parental and Medical Leave Act, 265. See also Family and Medical Leave Act Parental responsibility, 112–13, 360. See also Child support; Deadbeat parents Parenthood, transition to. See Transition to parenthood Parentification, 134–35 Parenting styles, 443–50; authoritarian, 445–46; authoritative, 444–45; birth order and, 79–80; corporal punishment and, 153–54, 445, 446, 447; cosleeping and, 158–59; discipline and, 445, 446, 447; factors affecting, 448–49; permissive, 446–47; sibling violence/abuse and, 523–25; uninvolved, 447. See also Corporal punishment; Cosleeping Partial birth abortions, 7–8 Part-time employment for parents, 415 Patriarchal terrorism, 223–24 Patriarchy, 173, 379, 386 Paul, Pamela, 212 Peabody, Shelley, 261 Peer marriage, 382 Peer Marriage (Schwartz), 382 Pelvic adhesions, 337 Pennsylvania: abortion, 7; foster care, 291; housing programs, 471 Peritoneal factors, in infertility, 337 Permanent contraception, 74–75 Permissive parenting, 446–47 Personal ads, 404–5 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996): child support, 112, 113, 193–94; foster care, 295; marriage promotion, 394, 395–96; poverty and public assistance, 467 Pet Angel Memorial Center, 454

Index | 637 Pet cemeteries and cremation, 453–54 Pet death and the family, 450–57; anthropomorphism, 451–52; debate over, 454–56; euphemisms, 452; pet cemeteries and cremation, 453–54; pet health care, 453; teachable moments, 452–53. See also Fictive kin Pet health care, 453 Philippines, mail order brides from, 363–64 Physical abuse: domestic violence, 221–22, 231–32; elder abuse, 240; sibling violence and abuse, 521–22, 523–24 Physical addiction, 11 Physical attributes, and marital power, 379 Physicians, 246, 487. See also Obstetricians Picture brides. See Mail order brides Pincus, Charles, 70 Plan B (emergency contraception), 9, 75 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 7 Plural marriage, 457–64; current status, 461–62; future, 463–64; history, 459–61; negative aspects, 462–63; polyandry, 458; polygyny, 458; positive aspects, 463; types, 457–58. See also Religion Polyamory, 260 Polyamory Society, 260 Polyandry, 458 Polygamy. See Plural marriage Polygyny, 458 Poor Laws (England, 1601), 112–13, 192 Popenoe, David, 425 Post-coital contraception, 9, 75 Postindustrial era, family roles in, 273 Poussaint, Alvin, 27 Poverty and public assistance, 464–72; characteristics of impoverished, 465; child abuse and, 99–100; culture of poverty and, 169–70, 174; fathers and, 472; food stamps, 468–69; history, 466–67; housing programs, 471; marriage promotion and, 398–99, 472; Medicaid, 470–71; public child support, 192, 195; statistics, 465; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 467–68; WIC program, 469–70. See also Culture of poverty; Marriage promotion; Social class Power in marriage. See Marital power Pregnancy: prevention programs, 545–46; transition to parenthood and, 554–55; unplanned, 68. See also Teen pregnancy Preindustrial era, family roles in, 271–72 Pre-kindergarten movement, 110 Premarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation (PREPARE), 212, 487, 488, 489, 490 Premarital preparation. See Preparation for marriage Premarital sexual relationships, 472–78; age of first sexual intercourse, 474–75; context

of first sexual intercourse, 475; dating and, 179, 183, 184, 401, 402; first sexual intercourse, 473–74; strategies to delay sex, 475–78; teen pregnancy and, 543. See also Dating; Teen pregnancy Prenuptial agreements, 478–85; arguments against, 482–83; arguments for, 483–84; costs, 481; cultural aspects, 484–85; history, 479; purposes, 479–81; states’ interests, 484. See also Divorce Preparation for marriage, 485–91; argument for, 487–89; deciding about, 491; goals, 485; history, 486; inadequate research on, 490; Premarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation, 212, 487, 488, 489, 490; Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program, 486, 488–89, 490; selection effect hypothesis, 489–90; skeptical argument, 489–90; types, 486–87; wedding and eloping, 568, 569. See also Dating Prepared childbirth, 121–22 PREPARE (Premarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation), 212, 487, 488, 489, 490 Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), 486, 488–89, 490 Professional midwives, 118, 124–25, 406, 407, 410, 412 Promise Keepers, 378, 528 Proposals, in arranged marriage, 34, 35, 36 Prosecution policies, mandatory, 50, 372–73 Protestants: abortion, 495; corporal punishment, 154–55; domestic violence, 499–500, 502–3; United States, 494. See also Christianity; specific denominations Pseudo-kin. See Fictive kin Psychological addiction, 11–12 Psychological health. See Mental health Psychostimulants, 43–44 Public assistance. See Poverty and public assistance; specific programs Public housing, 471 Purity balls, 476–77 Quality, marital, 384–85 Quasi-kin. See Fictive kin Race and ethnicity: child care policy and, 106; divorce and, 209; homeschooling and, 321; housework allocation and, 329; power and, 376; premarital sexual relationships and, 474; remarriage and, 506; teen pregnancy and, 545; white wedding industry and, 575. See also Minorities; Transracial adoption; specific racial and ethnic groups Racial identity, and transracial adoption, 563 Realization stage, of infertility, 340 Reciprocal beneficiaries, 216 Reconstituted families, 307, 511–12

638

|

Index Refined divorce rate, 208 Relationship issues: childfree relationships, 133; children and divorce, 202; marital power, 379–80; motherhood, opportunity costs, 421–22; transition to parenthood, 552–54 Religion, 493–99; abortion and, 495–96; birth control and, 495; childfree relationships and, 130, 133; childrearing and, 497–98; cohabitation and, 140, 143, 424, 425, 497; corporal punishment and, 154–55, 498; covenant marriage and, 164–65; defined, 493–94; divorce and, 235, 497; domestic partnerships and, 218; domestic violence and, 235; eloping and, 570; family matters and, 494–95; family roles and, 275, 496–97; family structure and, 496–97; fathers and, 498; gay parent adoption and, 297, 301, 302, 496; gender ideology and, 378; homeschooling and, 320, 498; housework allocation and, 326; infertility and, 343, 345; international adoption and, 347; marital power and, 381, 496–97; pet death and, 451; premarital sexual relationships and, 474, 475–76; prenuptial agreements and, 483; preparation for marriage and, 487; remarriage and, 510–11; reproduction and, 495–96; same-sex marriage and, 496, 518–19; social support and, 498; stay at home dads and, 528; United States, 494; unmarried mothers and, 496. See also Religion, women, and domestic violence Religion, women, and domestic violence, 499–504; battered woman syndrome, 50; institutional responses, 501–2; resources, 502–3; women’s responses, 500–501. See also Battered woman syndrome; Domestic violence; Domestic violence behaviors and causes; Domestic violence interventions; Religion Remaking the Godly Marriage (Bartkowski), 381 Remarriage, 504–13; consequences, 509–11; eloping, 571; factors affecting rates of, 506–7; fictive kin and, 288; first marriages compared to, 507–8; future directions, 512; prenuptial agreements and, 480; religion and, 510–11; stepfamilies and, 511–12. See also Divorce Remarried families, 307, 511–12 Repercussion fears, of domestic violence victims, 225, 235 Replacement level, of population, 97 Reproduction: childfree relationships and, 132; female, 334–35; male, 338; religion and, 495–96 Reproductive technology, 344–45 Reservoir of family wisdom (grandparenting style), 306

Resolution stage, of infertility, 341 Resource distribution, and economic power, 377–78 Restraining orders, 52 Reverse mortgages, 314 Rhythm method of birth control, 71 Rings, wedding and engagement, 576 Rituals, wedding, 574, 575–76 Rochlen, Aaron, 529, 530 Roe v. Wade (1973), 5, 6, 7, 94 Rogov, Marc, 367 Roman Catholics. See Catholics Roman Empire, divorce in, 16, 207 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 169, 466 Rorex, Clela, 517 RU-486, 2, 9 Rule of thumb law, 370 Russia: adoptions from, 346–47, 348, 350–51; mail order brides, 363–64; transracial adoption, 564 Safe haven laws, 114, 116–17 SAFE model, 525 Safety fears, of domestic violence victims, 225, 235 SAHDs. See Stay at home dads Same-sex adoption. See Gay parent adoption Same-sex marriage, 515–21; background, 515–16; Defense of Marriage Act and, 215–16, 517–18; as domestic partnership type, 215–16; groups opposing, 519–20; historic firsts and prominent cases, 516–17; marriage and family law, 516; recent accomplishments and future directions, 520; religion and, 496, 518–19; supporters of, 518–19. See also Domestic partnerships; Gay parent adoption San Diego Pet Memorial Park, 454 Sanger, Margaret, 4, 67 Satisfaction in marriage. See Marital satisfaction Schroeder, Pat, 266 Schwartz, Felice, 416–17 Schwartz, Pepper, 382, 404 Scotland: common law marriage, 146; day care, 186 Sears, William, 159, 160 Second-parent adoption, 298. See also Gay parent adoption Second-shift phenomenon: employed mothers and, 256; family roles and, 275; housework allocation and, 326, 330–31; motherhood, opportunity costs, 421. See also Working women Second-trimester abortions, 1, 2–3 Section 8 program, 471 Selection effects: cohabitation, 143–44; marriage, 62; preparation for marriage, 489–90

Index | 639 Self-esteem: child abuse and, 99; domestic abuse and, 233; family roles and, 277–78; transracial adoption and, 563 Self-neglect, elder, 242 Semen analysis, 338–39 Semi-arranged marriages, 35–36 Serial marriage, 505 Servant/leadership model of marital power, 381 Servants, as fictive kin, 286 Settlement houses, 188 Sex education, 498, 546 Sexual abstinence, 70, 546 Sexual abuse: domestic violence, 222, 232; elder abuse, 240–41; sibling violence and abuse, 522, 524 Sexual intercourse, first, 473–74; age at, 474–75; context of, 475 Sexually transmitted diseases, 68, 70, 71–72, 73–74, 261 Sexual relationship: cosleeping and, 161, 162; marital satisfaction and, 390 Sexual relationships, premarital. See Premarital sexual relationships Shared parenting, 116, 557 Shelter movement, 51, 230, 237 Sibling violence and abuse, 521–26; emotional abuse, 522; intervention strategies, 525; physical abuse, 521–22, 523–24; problems in recognizing and responding to, 522–25; sexual abuse, 522, 524. See also Domestic violence SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), 158, 160, 161, 162 Simon-Altstein Longitudinal Study of adoption, 563–64 Simpson, O. J., 370 Single-parent families: income, 204; juvenile delinquency and, 357–58; poverty and, 465; religion and, 496. See also Marriage promotion Skipped generation families. See Grandparents as caregivers Skolnick, Arlene, 62, 66 Slavery, impact on consciousness of black males, 25 Sleep sharing. See Cosleeping Smith, Joseph, 459–60 Social class: child abuse and, 99–100; child care policy and, 105–7; developmental disability and marital stress and, 199; housework allocation and, 329–30; overscheduled children and, 438–39, 440–41; power and, 376; premarital sexual relationships and, 474; remarriage and, 507 Social construction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as, 44–45 Social families. See Fictive kin Social isolation. See Isolation

Social Learning model of addiction, 13 Social Security, 95 Social Security Act (1935), 196, 217 Social Security Administration, 195 Social stratification, 376–77 Social support: developmental disability, 198; first marriage versus remarriage, 508; grandparents as caregivers, 309; religion, 498; stay at home dads, 530, 531; teen pregnancy, 548; wedding and eloping, 570 Social workers, 290, 559, 560 Socioeconomic status. See Social class South Dakota, divorce in, 18, 208 Spanking. See Corporal punishment Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), 469–70 Speed dating, 405 Sperm testing, 338–39 Spirituality, 493–94. See also Religion Spiritual marriages. See Plural marriage Spock, Benjamin, 152–53, 161 Spousal support, 20, 22 Spouse abuse. See Domestic violence Spouse swapping, 260–61 Stability, marital, 384 Stacey, Judith, 299 Stack, Carol, 288 Stalking, 225, 232, 235 Stanley, Scott M., 487, 488 Statutory marriage, 145, 146, 148 Stay at home dads (SAHDs), 526–32; benefits, 529–30; challenges, 528–29; future, 530; history, 527; motivations of, 527–28; statistics, 527. See also Employed mothers; Family roles; Fathers Stenberg v. Carhart, 7–8 Stepfamilies, 307, 511–12 Stereotypes: abused women, 55–56; grandparenthood, 305–6; only children, 432–33 Sterilization, 132 Stern, Elizabeth, 533–34, 536, 539 Stern, William, 533–34, 536 Stigma: adoption and, 560–61; developmental disability and, 198; eloping and, 571; teen pregnancy and, 544 Stress: child abuse and, 99; child caregivers and, 137; elder caregivers and, 248–49; family roles and, 275, 278; grandparents as caregivers and, 309, 313, 315; infertility and, 344; wedding and eloping and, 568–69, 570, 571; working women and, 275, 278. See also Developmental disability and marital stress Structural functionalism, 231, 274 Structuralism, 170–74, 380–81, 382 Structural opportunity costs, of motherhood, 420–21

640

|

Index Substance abuse. See Addiction Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), 158, 160, 161, 162 Support. See Social support Surgeon General, 51 Surgical abortions, 1, 2, 3 Surrogacy, 532–41; Baby M case, 533–34, 536, 539; debate over, 536–38; history, 532–36; Jaycee B. case, 535–36; Johnson v. Calvert, 534–35, 537, 539; legal motherhood and, 538–40; motherhood notions and, 540–41. See also Biological privilege; Infertility Surrogate parent (grandparenting style), 306. See also Grandparents as caregivers Sweden: cohabitation, 423; marital power, 382–83 Swinging, 260–61 Tahirih Justice Center, 368 Taiwan, mail order brides from, 367 Take Back the Night movement, 227 TANF. See Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Target children, 525 Tax benefits: of marriage, 58; of parenthood, 132 Teen pregnancy, 543–52; adoption and, 551; controversies, 549–51; intervention, 545–46; marriage and, 550–51; positives of, 549; problems with, 546–48; race and ethnicity and, 545; statistics, 543–44. See also Premarital sexual relationships Television programs: African American fathers in, 25; baby boomers and, 91, 92; juvenile delinquency and, 359 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): child support, 195; culture of poverty, 169; grandparents as caregivers, 314; marriage promotion, 395–96; poverty and public assistance, 467–68 Tender years doctrine, 65 Tennessee, divorce in, 18, 19 Testing, cohabitation as, 428–29 Texas: abortion, 5; prenuptial agreements, 480 Thomas Theorem, 451 Toman, Walter, 79 Traditional surrogacy, 533 Trained childbirth assistants. See Midwives Transition to parenthood, 552–58; communication issues, 555; cosleeping and, 157, 159; employment issues, 554; financial issues, 556–57; pregnancy issues, 554–55; relationship issues, 552–54; shared parenting, 557. See also Childfree relationships Transnational adoption. See International adoption Transracial adoption, 558–65; arguments against, 559–61; arguments for, 561–64;

debate over, 559; future, 564; history, 558–59; statistics, 559. See also International adoption Treatment stage, of infertility, 341 Trewhella, Matt, 150 Trial marriage, 428–29 True Love Waits campaign, 476 True womanhood, cult of, 272–73, 328 The Truly Disadvantaged (Wilson), 171 Trust, and extramarital sexual relationships, 262–63 Tubal ligation, 74, 132 Tubman, Harriet, 78 Ukraine: adoptions from, 348, 350; mail order brides, 363–64 Ultrasound examinations, 337 Uncontested divorce. See Divorce, adversarial and no-fault Uniform Parentage Act (California), 539, 541 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, 113, 193 Uninvolved parenting, 447 United Church of Christ, 518 United Kingdom: cohabitation, 423; day care, 186; fictive kin, 286; surrogacy, 538 Urbanization: child support and, 193; dating and, 179–80; fictive kin and, 286 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, 352 Utah: common law marriage, 147; gay parent adoption, 298, 303 Uterine factors, in infertility, 337–38 Vaccination, 325 Vacuum aspiration, 2 Vacuum extraction, 120 Vaginal contraceptive rings, 73 Vaginal sponges, 72 Vasectomy, 75, 132 Vermont, domestic partnerships in, 215 Victim empowerment models, 373–74 Victorian era: courtship, 178–79; fatherhood, 280–81 Vietnam, mail order brides from, 367 Violence Against Women Act (1994), 51, 221 Virginity pledges, 476, 477 Volunteer work, 128 Waite, Linda J., 56, 62 Walker, Lenore, 50, 53, 55, 226 Wallerstein, Judith, 206, 211 Washington, D.C.: domestic partnerships, 216, 217; same-sex marriage, 517 Washington State: grandparent visitation rights, 310; prenuptial agreements, 480 Water births, 120 Weber, Max, 376, 378 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), 6–7

Index | 641 Wedding and eloping, 567–72; eloping negatives, 571; eloping positives, 570–71; wedding negatives, 568–69; wedding positives, 567–68. See also White wedding industry Wedding rings, 576 Welfare Extension and Marriage Promotion Act, 394 Welfare reform. See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe, 19, 206 Whitehead, Mary Beth, 533–34, 536, 539 Whites: corporal punishment, 156; discipline, 447; divorce, 209; fictive kin, 287; parenting styles, 445; poverty, 465; remarriage, 506; teen pregnancy, 545; white wedding industry, 575. See also Transracial adoption White wedding industry, 572–77; financial costs of weddings, 573–74; global exploitation of wedding industry workers, 575; ideology, 576–77; rituals, 574, 575–76; wedding and eloping, 568, 569; wedding debt, 574–75; wedding goods and services, 573. See also Wedding and eloping WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children), 469–70 Wiehe, Vernon, 525 Wife swapping, 260–61 Wilson, William J., 26, 171, 376 Witnesses to birth, 122–23 The Woes of the Inner-City African-American Father (Wilson), 26

Women: cohabitation motives, 428; dating, role in, 181–82, 183, 184; divorce and, 213; elder abuse and, 244; Family and Medical Leave Act and, 267; grandparenting style of, 307; infertility, effects on, 340; marriage, benefits of, 57–58, 59; marriage, disadvantages of, 60–61; premarital sexual relationships and, 475; remarriage and, 507; Sweden, 382–83; transition to parenthood, 553. See also Gender; Men; Mothers; Working women Woodruff, Wilford, 460–61, 462 Working-class families. See Social class Working women: baby boomers, 93; birth dearth and, 94; breastfeeding or formula feeding, 86; in Great Depression, 281; infertility and, 342–43; marital satisfaction and, 387, 388; in World War II, 281–82. See also Employed mothers; Housework allocation; Second-shift phenomenon Work issues: childfree relationships, 128, 132–33; grandparents as caregivers, 309, 314–15; traditional assumptions in workplace, 414–15, 417; transition to parenthood, 554. See also Family and Medical Leave Act World War II: baby boom, 89–90; child care policy, 108; day care, 188; divorce, 209; family roles, 273; housework allocation, 328; working women, 281–82 Youngest children, 76, 78–79, 80 Zero population growth, 96–97