Marriage is just not the same as it was
just a few decades ago. The meaning and
responsibilities has changed. When we
think of traditional families and the “perfect” couple and family, we tend to
think of an over loving husband and wife with two kids who behave perfectly
well. The father goes to work every
morning and the mother stays and cares for the home and tends to the
children. In this modern era we like to
think that even one hundred years ago the main duty of children was to attend
school or help out around the household.
This is a misconception that people today tend to believe. “In 1900, 120,000
children worked in Pennsylvania mines and factories; most of them had started
Work by age eleven. In Scranton, a third of the girls between the ages of thirteen
and sixteen worked in the silk mills in 1904. In New York, Boston, and Chicago,
teenagers Worked long hours in textile factories and frequently died in fires
or industrial accidents. Children made up 23.7 percent of the 36,415 workers in
southern textile mills around the turn of the century.” The change in marriage and family life can be
attributed to a few factors such as division of labor within sex and age, the
idea of divorce, and cohabitation as written by Cherlin.
We must convince ourselves that the
institution of marriage is changing because it is. However, there is a difference between changing
and diminishing. “Neither the rising age
of those who marry nor the frequency of divorce necessarily means that marriage
is becoming a less prominent institution than it was in earlier days.”
(Coontz). The roles and men and women
have changed drastically in my opinion in just over the last 50 years. As the gender roles between men and women
continue to change, so will the institution of marriage. There are a lot more women in the workforce
than before and they tend to wait to have children. “l out
of 6 births in the United States occurred outside marriage, already a much higher
ratio than at Today', the comparable figure is 1 out of 3. . . . Marriage is no
longer the nearly universal setting for childbearing that it was a half century
ago.” (Cherlin). Marriage has become
less traditional and less institutionalized than ever before and it will
continue to keep changing.
The institution of marriage is
historically contingent. We need to realize
that marriage was different 30 years ago, and different from that 60 years ago,
and even more different than that 100 years ago and so on. Social norms and public opinion shape a lot
of what is accepted in a family. Divorce
rates are at an all time high right now at about 50 percent. In my opinion that is an absurd number. However, in society divorce has become a
normal part of family life. Divorcing
and the idea of step families have redefined the idea of a traditional
family. No longer does a child have just
one or two parents but now can have three or four parental figures. 100 years ago it was almost impossible for a
woman to leave her husband without any backlash at all. Today, it is very common and easy to divorce
a spouse.
Cherlin writes about cohabitation and
how that affects marriage and family life as well. Cohabitation is also a factor that
deinstitutionalizes marriage. Like
Cherlin says, cohabitation was not common just a few decades ago. Today, however, it is common and
accepted. Even having kids while not
being married but living with your significant other has also been increasing. More generally, cohabitation is becoming
accepted as an alternative to marriage. . .” (Cherlin). I think this statement is true. People feel safer without the label as a “married
couple”. I think that cohabitation is a
chance for couple to have a feel for how things will be and sometimes stay
unmarried.
Marriage is something people have different
opinions about. We need to think about
the historical contingences when determining whether or not Marriage and the
idea of the traditional family are truly becoming deinstitutionalized. Do you think that marriage that the idea of
marriage is changing and becoming deinstitutionalized? Or do you think that it is actually declining
and diminishing?
I totally agree that marriage is just not the same as it used to be decades ago. But my questions is can we do anything about the increasing number of divorces? There are so many reasons why people get married and sometimes the wrong reasons lead to faster divorce. Even if a couple wanted to get divorce there are many resources available to them such as marriage counseling for them to rethink their decisions. Also the point of more women being in the work force as to why marriage is not increasing to me shouldn’t be among the determining factor. Lots of couple are married and still in the work force. It might be maybe having children that should be a determine factor because some couples do not go the marriage route because their spouse does not want to have children.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a scared bond to me and I would really love to see more couples get married and then have children but the fact is you cannot force a person to get married. Maybe in a few years the number of marriages may go up and surprise all of us.
It's impossible to deny that the institution of marriage is evolving. As Sam points out, the average age of marriage is rising and so is the frequency of divorce - up to 50 percent. I do feel that that 50 percent statistic is a bit misleading however. While it does mean that fifty percent of all marriages will end in divorce, it does not mean that 50% of people involved in marriage will divorce. A sizable minority of people will marry three, four, or more times in their lives. And thus, in terms of statistics, they end up counting for four multiple data points while the happily married couple for fifty years only counts as one data point. And once again, the frequency of divorce is highly contingent upon the socioeconomic class of the couple.
ReplyDeleteI really do not see marriage diminishing - at least not to the degree that some appear to worry about. I think the video Kira posted does a good job of making this point. It tells us that while the percent married may be decreasing the status of marriage is being held even higher. I believe that marriage will continue down this current path.
Marriage is absolutely evolving as Paul commented, with that Sam I agree that means also a sense of diminish. The alternative of cohabitation that you bring up is interesting. Freshman year in a public speech class a fellow classmate did a speech on cohabitation and how it is in large part a failure, and a bad alternative to marriage. It is not taken as seriously as marriage, and the boundaries both fiscally and personal are not clear. Either the couple ends up breaking up somewhere between 50 to 60 percent of the time or they just never end up getting married. It was also proved that these couples score lower on surveys of happiness. Obviously there are exceptions to this I just found it interesting that we are discussing the evolution of marriage, however the definition of evolution is the gradual development of something. Developing implies improving, if in fact the future of the institution of marriage is cohabitation which is proven to be less effective then marriage is it evolving?
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that marriage is being discussed in terms of evolution because I was raised believing that when you marry someone, you are with them for life. It didn't cross my mind to break the barrier and file for divorce, because that wasn't something my family believed in. It seems to me that marriage should be something that is stagnant, but it most definitely is not. Everyone has their own beliefs about how a marriage should be run and that is continuing to change as time progresses. I also find this interesting that marriage is discussed as it is changing, but there are so many other variables that play into this situation. Society has a way of making people believe that divorce is okay, when years ago it would have been looked down upon.
ReplyDeleteCherlin argues that “the institution of marriage is becoming deinstitutionalized, which is causing some instability with the family until new social norms becomes established”, but Philip Cohen believes that the declining of marriage is not going to change anytime soon because there is no reason for it to. Individuals on their own, because of the resources they have collectively developed, can meet things that are necessary for life such as “food production, healthcare, education, and elder care”, which were previously met through the development of a family.
ReplyDeleteIn order to understand the decline of marriage, I think we need to understand why marriage and the concept of marriage emerged in the first place. Women used to marry men in order to meet their everyday functions (money, food, care) and gain prestige. But, as women in the modern day are becoming equal to men, there is no longer a need to connect themselves with men in order for them to provide these necessities.
I believe in a combination of Cherlin and Cohen. I think in a historically contingent perspective, marriage and the social norms of marriage have slowly changed and will continue to decline. Cherlin argues about social norms and new social norms institutionalizing marriage and family-- these new social norms will continue to eliminate marriage.
Divorce rate is in fact an issue in our country. But why do we find this as an issue? Most people say during their wedding, for better or for worse, till death do us part. This means until the day that one person of the couple dies, they will be there for each other and be faithful. I think the reason that divorce is a "problem" because it hasn't always been like that, just like Sam mentioned above. As Sam said, marriage has been historically contingent but in addition they are also geographically contingent. In some cultures around the world, many males have more than one wife. Polygamy is a common practice in West Africa and even Kenya. This is almost unheard of in the U.S. but to other cultures around the world, it is normal. Although divorce rate is at an all time high, the actual divorce rate is around 35-40% for first time marriages. This number is still pretty prominent but less than the rumored 50%, but I am sure this different not only from country to country but also from state to state within the USA. My point is that marriage is not only historically contingent but also geographically contingent.
ReplyDeleteI think marriage has undergone a process of deinstitutionalization and have continued to deinstitutionalize, rather than diminishing. The social norms that define how husbands and wives should act are declining since women are gaining more roles in the workforce outside the house. Women are now redefining their identities in marriage. An ideal family, nowadays, is not really portrayed as the “True American Family,” in which women and children are dissociated from the field of work (Coontz 147).
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that our concept of an ideal family is historically contingent. It is interesting to think about how the institution of marriage will change in the future and how social norms come about shaping a family.
I agree that marriage is changing and the divorce rate being to high is an astonishing and disturbing statistic. However, I do not believe that cohabitation brings more security for a couple. Cohabitation exemplifies the “pure relationship”, meaning that each partner only stays as long as they are being satisfied. A marriage is a contract, and oftentimes a commitment before God, family, and friends. This creates a sense of obligation and trust in the promise they make to each other. I acknowledge that infidelity occurs within marriages, but it is less likely to take place in a marriage than in a cohabitation situation. A cohabitation presents a sense of casualty, and each partner may leave at any point in time without the same process and backlash of a divorce and the lawyers that ensue. Maybe people are choosing cohabitation instead of marriage because it is less complicated, but I cannot believe that it increases trust more than a formal commitment does.
ReplyDeleteA lot of things about the institution of marriage has change with time just like many other social things like race, and gender roles. I think that the meaning of marriage just like Sam mentioned is historical contingent to the time a person is born into. This is because depending on which time in history a person in born, the values, norms and role expectation of a marriage is different. For example not too long ago the ideal marriage was between a man and a woman who were preferably white, but due to the changing society now it is socially acceptable for almost anyone to get married. So the meaning of the ideal family is not the same anymore. Role expectation are changing as well. Women normally got married back in the day for financial security and were homemakers. This is what was expected of them. This is not true today. Women are becoming more independent and pursing higher educations, therefore relaying less on men and marriage for financial need. I think this has been one of the many reasons why marriage has decline throughout the years and the meaning of the ideal American marriage is not what it used to be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you, Adam and Alexis said about marriage is historically and geographically contingent and the society keeps giving it different meanings. Now the divorce rate has been increasing and statistic says 50 percent of the families end up in divorce. I think it has much to do with the change in the law- many states decrease the separation time that couples can get divorced. I agree with Sarah that the equalization of women's status in family can be a reason. And the idea of individualism makes women more independent. I have read many novels from Jane Austen describing the life of women at that time. They were thinking of marrying a rich guy all day long and their life were totally involving with that. It's hard to imagine a girl in modern time thinks that way.
ReplyDeleteAs deinstitutionalization questions the traditional family mode, the nature of families remains unchanged. People get together to share resources( material and emotional) and they have the same goal. Families play the most intimacy role among all the social institutions. As along as love and passion exists as human nature, families will not die.
I agree that marriage is changing and divorce rates are increasing at an alarming rate. The way marriage is changing is definitely historically contingent. There was a point when women were not able to work because the workforce was dominated by men. In addition, it was socially right to be a housekeeper full time. Women were solely focused in their family and depended on their husbands financially. However, women now can attend colleges and have high paying jobs. Women are ambitious and have bigger goals than solely cooking, cleaning, and housekeeping. Women now feel more comfortable to speak up and and stand up to their husband if they see something that they don't like about the marriage. Women are not as dependent on husbands financially. I think the definition of marriage had definitely changed over the years. Marriage was something women needed to survive financially, buy not anymore. I think the number of marriages will eventually die away.
ReplyDeleteYour opening sentence, “Marriage is just not the same as it was a few decades ago”, is spot on. I’m not speaking for every marriage, but marriage used to be such a sacred act. If you were to be married it was meant to be forever. Nowadays, the divorce rates are so high that I wonder how many people around me, that are either already married or will be married soon, are actually going to last. Divorce seems to be the “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Once something goes wrong, it’s “maybe we should take a break” or “I want a divorce”. I read something awhile ago that was talking about this old married couple. The husband has said that if they fought they just got over it. It wasn’t an option or thought to get a divorce because it wasn’t as easily accepted a few decades ago. I, personally, believe that the saying “marriage is hard” is the excuse that is making the divorce rate so high. I wasn’t raised to view marriage as a sacred act. I saw it as just two people choosing to be together forever and having a wedding to celebrate. So, to me, being “husband and wife” is just a new title on the relationship between the boy and girl. Usually, the relationship has been going on for awhile and have most likely been living together for quite some time, as well. The issue is that when you are just together but not married, if you make a mistake it’s easier to walk away because you weren’t as committed. When the idea of getting married comes up, the thought of “now I really can’t make a mistake” crosses the mind and I think it freaks people out. I think the pressure of that gets to people and they want a divorce because they don’t want to be making any major mistakes that make them look bad. Divorce is the way out when things get tough. It is the excuse that some people need.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely say that I do not believe the institution of Marriage to be declining or diminishing. However, of course I would say that it is changing. The debate is just becoming whether it is a good thing or not that change is happening.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I do not know why the concept of Marriage changing is such a HUGE thing to people. Any large institution is constantly going to be changing in one way or another. Change doesn't have to be viewed as something negative. The fact that it was such an issue to have same sex marriage legalized is the biggest problem I had with the institution of marriage, because I look at it as dehumanizing these people and depriving them of their rights. But now that this aspect of marriage is changing, as it is slowly becoming legal in more places, it is just an example that proves change is a great thing for this institution and not hurting it at all.