There is no need to reproduce the question at the top of the page or provide a formal introduction or conclusion—this will take up space you could use for your answer

OUTLINE - Family Ideas and Patterns in the Mid-20th Century

1. Question One

1. Dominant ideas and patterns of mid-20^th century around marriage, divorce and child bearing
2. Social factors contributing to the family arrangements
3. Economic factors contributing to the family arrangements
4. Political factors contributing to the family arrangements
5. Social contexts explained in chapter 14 and 15 influencing family patterns
6. How they have resulted to difference in patterns described earlier

2. Question Two

1. How economic shifts starting around 1970 affected family patterns in the U.S
2. How economic impacts explained by Cherlin influenced family patterns and marriage
3. How the changes affected social groups
4. Why we should be concerned about Cherlin’s argument
5. How articles by Cooper & Pugh and Raley & Sweeney support and/or challenge Cherlin’s argument

Family Ideas and Patterns in the Mid-20^th Century

Question One

The twentieth century is known to have contributed to significant changes in American families. During the first half of the century, families comprised of two parents and children units. However, in the mid-twentieth century, the divorce rate was high such that half of the families consisting of step-parents, half-siblings, step-siblings, and single-parents. The changes in the family structures were contributed by laws on gender, race, and sexuality (Mintz,2001).  The discussion of the American family has been pigeon-holed by criticism of degradation since family and marriage settings changed from traditional gender roles and conservative marriage values to the current equal allocation of roles (Coleman, Ganong , & Warzinik, 2007). During the mid-20^th century, America was characterized by an increased macroeconomy, civil rights, and sexual freedoms (Cherlin,2004). These factors have a significant impact on the institution of marriage and family structures. Several factors, including social, economic, and political factors, brought changes in the family setup. During this period, the rate of births to unmarried women significantly increased.

Social factors played a significant role in change marriage values and family structures. Childbearing decreased drastically in the mid-twentieth century with an increase in divorce, co-habitation, and remarriage. The kind of families seen in America during that period was due to the high rates of people exiting their marriages compared to the past centuries. Children were growing in different living arrangements, which also brought about changes in gender roles and relations. The fertility rate in the U.S was further considered low with the high rise of women attaining education and participating in the labor force resulting in smaller families. In the mid-twentieth century, there was an average of two or one child per woman (Cherlin, 2014). Moreover, improvement in contraception and retreating from marriages were as well considered contributing factors.

Economic factors also led to changes in family structures and marriages. Traditionally, men were considered the breadwinners, while women embraced the household roles. Men were supposed to have power over women leading to so many conflicts in a household. During the mid-twentieth century, women took up the roles that were considered men roles, and men embraced some of the roles considered to be women roles (Cherlin,2014). There was more satisfaction in marriage for women whose husbands helped out in household chores, reducing conflict incidence. During this period, childbearing was considered to bring unions to a stressful phase. It was deemed that couples with multiple births divorced more than those who had single births. In other cases, some people considered divorcing their spouses when they were older because their life goals and values did not match their partners.

There were various debates over the increase of non-immediate family setup that rose between the critical and the functionalist sociologists. The functionalist approach emphasized the importance of a nuclear family setup, with a sexually approved relationship of a married woman, a man, and a child. With this, the structure was considered orderly and a functional basic unit of the society. On the other hand, the critical sociologists emphasized that having diverse family forms did not mean declining the family compared to the gender inequality tensions and the historical changes of the society and economy (Georgas,2003). They further argued that nuclear families should stop being considered a normal family set up but as a historical anomaly reflecting specific economic and social conditions as a result of World War 11.

Chapter 14 of “A Different Mirror" describes American's entry into World War 11 and the need for workers to end discrimination in the defense industries. There were efforts to end anti-black racism and sexism, and the black women were invited as the last. The jobs industries were opened to them, which led to a drop in black women working in the domestic services. The defense sector opened jobs for women in areas they had not been before (Takaki, 2008). This was an opportunity for women to demonstrate their individualism and prove that they could do more than performing domestic tasks and childbearing. In addition, it gave them new opportunities and skills for post-war jobs. After the war, women were more convinced that they could engage in other activities that earned their families a living. Another group that took up the industrial workers was the Chinese-American women (Takaki, 2008). The Chinese immigrants were enticed by the high-paying jobs that the world war presented. Before WWII, Chinese-American women faced discrimination. The firing of Chinese -American women held mixed reactions, especially for the housewives. Chinese-American females were expected to maintain their child care and domestic responsibilities above all things. This altered the family structures, where women also took on the duties of breadwinners in the family. War has profound effects on family patterns. The most observable effects included the withdrawal of young men from society and entrance into military life with the consequent upsurge in socially disallowed behaviors. By entering the defense industry, women neglected their child care responsibilities leading to an increase in juvenile felony. Drastic changes are experienced through low birth rates, increased divorce rates, and reduced number of marriages.

Question Two

The economic shifts of the 1970s also had some significant effects on family structures. The 1970s experienced the highest rates of inflations.  The Great Inflation of the 1970s affected the United States families in regards to divorce and birth rates. Co-habitation increased while marriage rates reduced significantly. Particularly, there was a challenge of supporting a nuclear family from one source of wage. Men and women started delaying the age of marriage to help them earn more before getting marriage by spending more time in school. Additionally, the increased levels of education for women positioned women in a better position to survive economically, without a need to get married. The rate of childbearing also decreased since more women were participating in the labor market to improve the living conditions of their families.

            The book “Labor’s Love Lost” by Cherlin (2014), provides a balanced debate on why the gap between the “haves” and “have-not” has been demonstrated in the family life and their economic life. As explained by Cherlin (2014) culture is reflected in the outcomes of a family, by its influences is filtered via income inequality. Two generations ago, the young women and women who had attained high-school degrees only entered most industrial occupations. This sustained the superior attainment of a male breadwinner in an ideal middle-class family. These jobs have vanished over the past forty years, causing the less-educated young people to face very insecure economic prospects with low-paying jobs. These increased economic challenges caused the young adults who were less educated to forego marriage and have children in unstable cohabiting families (Cherlin, 2014). This has created a marriage gap between educated young adults and less-educated peers. These changes have affected social groups differently. In recent decades, there has been a widening gap in socioeconomic status, causing inequality among families. According to Cherlin (2004), marriage is a symbol of social class and achievement. Individuals with low socioeconomic status are unlikely to achieve the economic standards in a marital union for raising children and marriage. These changes have been hypothesized to be caused by the rise in economic inequality. As seen earlier, the less educated group of individuals have faced more insecure economic prospects than their peers who have are college-educated. These changes have caused a collapse of the social class that was once stable.

Cherlin further suggests that the family pattern has disappeared in recent decades with changes in family patterns, culture, and economy. According to Cherlin (2014), there has been a fall in the working-class families in the mid-twentieth century. This has not necessarily been caused by a decline of the family's male breadwinner but by the unavailability of something stable to replace it. For low-income families, a stable family breakdown can bring serious consequences, especially to the children. They end up underperforming in school, risking their chances of employment in the future. This generates a disadvantaged intergenerational economic cycle. Cherlin addresses the issue by recommending policies that can offer educational opportunities for those in underprivileged families. He further suggests that labor market interventions should involve low wages subsidization by raising minimum wages and tax credentials. Overall, we should be worried about the economic changes because, without a decent-paying job, working-class men are not considered attractive candidates for marriage. For the working-class women in America, the responsibilities and routines of marriage and work, as well as the status of being breadwinners, have given them a sense of identity as men. Being denied access to well-paying jobs that allow them to be good providers have led them to adopt toxic masculinity marked by behaviors such as violence, infidelity ad substance abuse.

The articles by Cooper & Pugh and Raley &Sweeny have made great contributions in discussing the American family patterns. According to Cooper & Pugh (2020), families with children have had the biggest economic division. Further, families with low incomes faced concentrated disadvantages, marked by precarity and insecurity. This includes how the families respond emotionally and culturally to the economic changes and how they unfold over time. The argument supports Cherlin's view that the family structures are based on the adult’s education levels. Further, Cherlin argues that workers who acquired middle-skilled jobs were those with secondary school education, while those with university education got highly skilled positions. This is supported by the findings achieved by Cooper & Pugh that the low-income families faced insecurities. Cherlin (2014) argued that those with a deteriorating job market had unstable marriages, while those with an improved job market ended up in stable marriages and better family environments.

Cooper & Pugh and Raley & Sweeney (2020) also challenge Cherlin's argument by indicating that insecurity and inequality shape family life. This is in support of how families respond culturally and emotionally to economic changes. The authors agree that it is important to be careful when embracing social changes concerning economic inequality. However, Cherlin argues that culture alone cannot be considered in the diversion of family formation or maintenance between the university-educated and the non-university educated. He additionally adds that no social phenomena can be used to explain everything.