The American family: Past and Present
The American family: Past and Present
Introduction
The last decades of the XX century are marked by the unprecedented growth of interest in the study of family and marriage institutions. America's family values are very important to their citizens. For many years the American family and its values have been one of the top priorities of the USA. The family is even an essential part of the «American Dream» that all the world is so fond of. The basic idea of success in America is measured by how well man or woman can provide for their family.what does the government and the society with family values? It determines these values and sets a standard for the whole of America's people. Family values are of the highest importance to the American citizen.values are basically the core of not only American but even Belorussian way of living. They have been important since, and even before, the very beginning of our civilization, and certainly since the founding of the United States of America. Many scientists suggest that even the primitive caveman was very loyal and respectful to his family. People of our time have followed these beginnings of the ideas of family values up until the present day.however people are more separated in their lives but they all share similar values and views on the family. Even America itself with its «melting pot» functions like one family. Civilization, over time, has brought about values which have become essential to all. Family values have brought considerable amounts of happiness to any group of people of any stage of history. Without love and family we would probably be in worldwide chaos. And without family there even wouldnt be world to live. People would only regard each other as just soulless beings, there would be no friends, lovers, or married people anywhere without family values.people desire family values, such as love, care, intimacy, acceptance, commitment, and shared responsibility. This is why people from all religious, political, and social groups are interested in making families.life is very meaningful. For the greater common good a society must have adequate family values to prevent chaos. America seems to be gradually losing these very important values which are of immeasurable cost. This loss is due to a reduction of morals by society and a brainwashed acceptance of what is clearly wrong.to do so may result in an incalculable loss such as the destruction of a society that Americans have strived so long to build. This is one of the primary reasons or the fall of the Roman Empire. The loss of society's values gradually weakened and disassociated them and very soon they were overran by a weaker power.is the institute that holds not only American but even our society together. We have had them since the earliest society on our Earth. They have provided a clear outline for religious, social, and moral values throughout history. They have formed a basis for our governments and cultures. It is of the utmost importance that these values are preserved for the sake of society and the common good of all people.the second half of the 20th century, American families underwent significant changes in composition and lifestyle. These changes correlated with new definitions of the American family. In growing numbers, families moved from rural areas to urban center or suburbs, and more women joined the workforce. Family size became smaller and more children were born to unmarried parents. As a result of these trends, American families of the 21st century are highly diverse, and can be compared by looking at a number of social and economic indicators.our research we will look at the families through examining the trends in marriage. On average, rates of marriage have decreased in the American population, though significant differences exist between groups depending on religious affiliation, ethnic background and income level. We will also compare family size. While population-level trends demonstrate a decrease in family size, the number of children in a household varies by region and cultural background. We will consider which population groups are having fewer children, and also examine trends in delayed childbirth. And of course we will try to look at the life of average American family and see the process of bringing children up, child case system and distribution household duties. After combining and comparing all the information together, we will consider major trends, problems and peculiarities of American families.make clear portrait of an average American family, different sources will be used: the works of sociologists and psychologists, newspaper articles and research from different scientific spheres, family-magazines and books.research will be divided into 3 sections. The first will deal with American marriage pattern, its types, statistics and trends among different social groups and ages. We took into consideration same-sex marriages because nowadays their number constantly grows not only in the USA but all over the world. Second section is devoted to the topic of marriage contract and divorce. We will look at the reasons of marriage and divorce and analyze the statistics of divorce and its impact on American people. Third section investigates the position of children in American family. Here we found information about the main trends among American teenagers, learned about some difficulties in their upbringing and saw how American government protects young citizens.
1. American marriage pattern
The term «marriage» derives from the Latin word «mas» meaning «male» or «masculine.» The earliest known use of the word in English dates from the thirteenth century.the early 1900s, social commentators often expressed concerns that long-term residents of the United States were not marrying, or were doing so at late ages. What many called «Race Suicide» reflected the wide disparity in the disparity regime of recent immigrants to the United States and the native stock, as well as fertility differentials. While concern regarding ethnic differences in age at marriage were strongly articulated at the turn of the century, as of mid-century such expressions were rare. By then, the American disparity regime had clearly changed. Both men and women married earlier, and relatively few remained unmarried. According to Gibson and Lennon the median age at marriage for men declined from 25.9 in 1900 to 22.8 by 1950; for women it decreased less sharply, falling from 21.9 to 20.3. The proportions never marrying also decreased. Whereas less than two-thirds of men and three-quarters of women born in the late 1880s ever married, that share declined to less than ten percent of men and women born after [3, p. 74].in the 1960s a number of interrelated and mutually reinforcing economic, technological and cultural factors combined to accelerate and extend those changes in existing family features. These changes, and their demographic and social consequences, have raised considerable concern, if not panic, among some researchers and policy makers. Doom mongering about the dying Occident and the disintegration or even the end of the family have been advanced or discussed. Since the late 1960s, the rate of first marriages experienced by individuals aged fourteen and over has declined substantially in the United States. This pattern, which has been characteristic of both men and women and has been quite steady over time, has contributed to the increasing proportion of single young adults in the population. According to some researchers, these facts reflect changes in the timing of marriage, and not changes in its ultimate incidence. For example, according to professor Cherlin, «The higher proportion of single young adults in the 1970s and early 1980s suggests only that they are marrying later, not foregoing marriage». It is unlikely that their lifetime proportions marrying fall below the historical minimum. Indeed, the median age at first marriage increased by more than one year for both males and females during the 1970s [1, p. 24].end of the 20th century has witnessed remarkable changes in family structures and dynamics in North America: smaller household sizes, a further shift from extended to nuclear families, a decrease in nuptiality and an increase in separation or divorce, the appearance of new forms of unions such as unmarried cohabitation and living-apart-together, changing gender and intergenerational relations, and, last but not least, a substantial decrease in fertility, often to below-replacement levels.marriage continued to be postponed and so did age at first birth. More young people left the parental home to live some time on their own before cohabiting or marrying. This resulted in an increasing number of single person households of young adults. However, the age of leaving the parental home, after decreasing in the 1970s and 1980s, increased in the 1990s in some countries. The proportion of young adults (age group 25-29) still living in the parental home was particularly high (65 percent among men and 44 percent among women). In Central America those figures were much lower (25 percent for men and 11 percent for women). The same was true for the northern part of the United States (20 percent for men and 12 percent for women). This trend is explained by a number of factors, such as increased unemployment, longer studies, higher affluence and moral tolerance in the parental home and consequently less pressure to leave [6, p. 202].in North America and in Western Europe postponed marriage is increasingly replaced or preceded by cohabitation or Living-Apart-Together (LAT) relations. Unmarried cohabitation is increasing, premarital as well as after separation, divorce or widowhood.in some American states such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, men and women marry young - half of first-time brides in these states were age 24 or younger on their wedding day. These states also have above-average shares of women who divorced in 2007-2008.'s the opposite state of affairs in Massachusetts and New York. Their residents marry late - half of ever-married New York men were older than age 30 when they first wed. These states also have below-average shares of men and women who divorced in 2007-2008.at numbers, Texas is the home to more thrice-married adults than any other state, about 428,000 women and 373,000 men. But that's partly because it's home to so many people. Looking at rates, about 6% of Texans who ever have been married have wed three times or more. That is similar to the national average (5%), but well below the leaders in this category - the neighboring states of Arkansas and Oklahoma - where about 10% of all ever-married adults have had at least three spouses [15, p. 74]., back in New York and Massachusetts, just 2% of ever-married adults have been married at least three times, placing them at the bottom on this measure among the 50 states.the national level, the Census Bureau survey showed that a shrinking share of Americans are married 52% of males ages 15 and older and 48% of females ages 15 and older. The proportion of Americans who are currently married has been diminishing for decades and is lower than it has been in at least half a century. The age range used in research tabulations dates back to the days when more people married as young teenagers. Among Americans 18 and older, the proportion currently married, but not separated, is 55% for men and 50% for women [6, p. 94]., the median age at first marriage has been climbing for decades: It now stands at 28 for men and 26 for women, meaning that half are younger and half are older when they wed. Among married Americans, the median duration of their married life in 2008 was 18 years. Among men, 9% are divorced; among women - 12%.2.3 million men reported that they wed within the previous year, and 1.2 million said they divorced. About 2.2 million women said they wed and 1.3 million said they divorced. About one-in-twenty Americans who ever have been married said they had been married three or more times. That comes to 4 million men and 4.5 million women.we look deep into state marriage-pattern, we will see that when states are ranked on a variety of estimates, most are clustered closely near the median or average. But the range of values can vary widely, and some of the same states stand out as high or low in more than one category.states in the Midwest and Mountain regions have among the highest shares of men and women who are currently married. In Idaho, 58% of men and 56% of women live with a spouse. In Iowa, 56% of men and 53% of women do. In Utah, 56% of both men and women are currently married. At the opposite end, only 47% of men in Alaska are currently married, as are 48% of women in that state. Among men in Rhode Island and New Mexico, 48% are married. Among women in Rhode Island and New York, 43% are [3, p. 74].District of Columbia ranks well below all states in its share of men and women currently married - 28% and 23%. Washington, D.C., is more like a city than a state in its characteristics, so it may not be appropriate to compare it with the 50 states [12, p. 91].at divorced adults, 13% of Nevada's men and 16% of its women fit in that category, as do 12% of Maine's men and 15% of its women. They are among the states with the largest shares of currently divorced residents, a distinction they share with Oklahoma [10, p. 137].with larger shares of the thrice-married tend to be states where people marry young, such as Arkansas and Oklahoma. However, one exception is Utah, which does not rank high for three-plus marriages, but whose residents have among the youngest median ages at first marriage: 24 for women and 26 for men.the men in the District of Columbia, New York and Rhode Island are 30 years of age or older when they first marry. Half the women in Connecticut, Massachusetts and the District are 28 or older. These states rank low in the proportion of people who are married and also in the proportion of married adults who are on at least their third marriage.where people marry young also often have high rates of recent marriage, which is expressed as the number of marriages per 1,000 men or women within the previous 12 months. States with high rates of recent marriage include Utah (28 marriages per 1,000 women and nearly the same for men), Idaho and Arkansas. Alaska also ranks high on this measure [10, p. 584].similar measure - number of divorces within the previous 12 months per 1,000 women - tends to be high in states where women marry young, such as Oklahoma and Idaho. But the same link is not as strong for men: Alaska and Wyoming, for example, are among the top states for recently divorced men, but they are not states where men marry especially young [6, p. 107].state-level patterns of marriage and divorce correlate with the overall socioeconomic characteristics and political behaviour in those states. This does not mean that one pattern causes the other to happen, only that both tend to be true in the same place.
A state's education levels, for example, tend to be associated with the median age at marriage and the multiple-marriage patterns of its residents. In states with high shares of college-educated adults, men and women marry at older ages, a finding supported by other research indicating that highly educated individuals marry later in life. In states with low shares of college-educated adults, adults are more likely than average to marry three or more times. In states with low income levels, men are more likely than average to have been married three or more times.
1.1 Interracial marriages in the USA
The differing ages of individuals, culminating in the generation divides, have traditionally played a large role in how mixed ethnic couples are perceived in American society.most of U.S. history, in most communities, such unions were taboo. Forty-five years after taking down a ban on interracial marriage, the rate of marriage across racial and ethnic lines in the United States is on the rise. Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates. Multiracial Americans numbered 9.0 million in 2010, or 2.9% of the total population, but 5.6% of the population under age 18 [15, p. 108].number of interracial marriages has steadily continued to increase since the 1967, but also continues to represent an absolute minority among the total number of wed couples. According to the United States Census Bureau, the number of interrracially married couples has increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 651,000 in 1980, to 964,000 in 1990, to 1,464,000 in 2000 and to 2,340,000 in 2008; accounting for 0.7%, 1.3%, 1.8%, 2.6% and 3.9% of the total number of married couples in those years, respectively. [22, p. 64] These statistics do not take into account the mixing of ancestries within the same «race»; e.g. a marriage involving Indian and Japanese ancestries would not be classified as interracial due to the Census regarding both as the same category. Likewise, since Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity, Hispanic marriages with non-Hispanics are not registered as interracial if both partners are of the same race (i.e. a Black Hispanic marrying a non-Hispanic Black partner) [10, p. 287].record 14.6% of all new marriages in the United States in 2008 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another. This compares to 8.0% of all current marriages regardless of when they occurred. This includes marriages between a Hispanic and non-Hispanic (Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a race) as well as marriages between spouses of different races - be they white, black, Asian, American Indian or those who identify as being of multiple races or some other race [11, p. 94].Americans were statistically the least likely to wed interracially, though in absolute terms they were involved in interracial marriages more than any other racial group due to their demographic majority. 2.1% of married White women and 2.3% of married White men had a non-White spouse. 1.0% of all married White men were married to an Asian American woman, and 1.0% of married White women were married to a man classified as «other» [3, p. 6].
.6% of married Black American women and 10.8% of married Black American men had a non-Black spouse. 8.5% of married Black men and 3.9% of married Black women had a White spouse. 0.2% of married Black women were married to Asian American men, representing the least prevalent marital combination [10, p. 448].is a notable disparity in the rates of exogamy by Asian American males and females. Of all Asian American/White marriages, only 29% involved an Asian American male and a White female. However Indian American males had higher outmarriage for males than females, although Indian Americans displayed the highest rates of endogamy, with very low levels of outmarriage overall. Of all Asian American/Black marriages only 19% involved an Asian American male and a Black female. 17.5% of married Asian American women and 8.2% of married Asian American men had a non-Asian American spouse.
1.2 Same-sex marriages in the USA
Same-sex marriage, a legally or socially recognizable union between two consenting adults of the same biological sex or social gender, has been under fire for many years. Since 2001, ten countries and other nation-states have begun to legally formalize same-sex marriages, including Argentina, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Mexico City, Spain, South Africa, and some regions within the United States. Same-sex marriages have varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, which has resulted in legislative changes of marriage laws in order to meet the constitutional demands of equality established by the Founding Fathers. Other opposing nations recognize same-sex marriages as a civil rights, political, social, moral, or religious taboo.the early 90s gay people started becoming vocal about the possibility of legalizing gay marriages. A lawsuit in Hawaii turned the countrys attention to the possibility of introducing same-sex marriages in the legislature. Despite this development, many states passed laws anyway against same-sex marriages, but when they did, Americans continued to keep an open mind about the issue. The younger groups were more receptive than their older counterparts. A handful of churches began to conduct same sex ceremonies and then by a stroke of luck, the legal system started to exhibit more tolerance [4, p. 113].state of Vermont, for example, ordered legal parity for gay and straight unions; the response was the growth of «civil unions» for gay people. Some countries in Europe have done the same, and in 2001 the Netherlands adopted a gay marriage law.sex marriage in the United States is still not recognized by the federal government, but such marriages are recognized by several individual states. The lack of federal recognition was codified in 1996 by the Defense of Marriage Act, before Massachusetts became the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. Such licenses are granted by six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and Oregon's Coquille and Washington state's Suquamish Indian tribes. The states of Washington and Maryland have passed laws in 2012 to begin granting same-sex marriage licenses, but each may be delayed or derailed by November 2012 voter referenda [11, p. 212].sex marriages could be legally performed in California between June 16, 2008, and November 4, 2008, after which voters passed Proposition 8 prohibiting same-sex marriages. California also recognizes any same-sex marriage from around the world that took place before that end date, while Maryland and Rhode Island recognize all same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. The legalization of same-sex marriage has been achieved by court rulings and legislative action, but not through voter referendums. As of May 2012, with the passing of North Carolina's gay marriage ban, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 30 via the state's constitution [3, p. 48].sex marriage hasn't been legal long enough to establish reliable statistics, and many statistics don't separate gay or lesbian marriage from general marriage rates. Marriage rates have been dropping world wide since 1990. In America, the marriage rate dropped from 232,900 in 2000 to 217,800 in 2004.sex marriage, having been illegal for so long, takes a sharp rise wherever it is introduced. When San Francisco legalized same-sex marriage, 4,037 marriage licenses were issued and 3,995 gay couples were married in the several months before the state intervened and voided the marriages. In a review of the names of couples it was found 57% of the couples were lesbian. Demographic information also showed most of the couples were older and better educated than average newlywed couples, with more than 74% over 35 years old and 69% holding a college degree.the first six months after gay marriage was legalized in the Netherlands, same-sex marriages made up 3.6% of the total number of marriages. The numbers have steadily dropped since then to around 3%, with 2,500 couples marrying in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.the 2010 census it was found that there were 835,146 committed same-sex couples in America.2011 President Barack Obama defended his view that gay couples should have the right to marry, saying that the country has never gone wrong when it «expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody.» «That doesn't weaken families. That strengthens families,» he told gay and lesbian supporters and others at a fundraiser hosted by singer Ricky Martin and the LGBT Leadership Council.
1.3 Cohabitation as alternative to marriage
Cohabitation, once rare, is now the norm: The researchers found that more than half (54 percent) of all first marriages between 1990 and 1994 began with unmarried cohabitation. They estimate that a majority of young men and women of marriageable age today will spend some time in a cohabiting relationship. Cohabiting relationships are less stable than marriages and that instabililty is increasing, the study found.study was made of premarital cohabitation of women who are in a monogamous relationship. The study showed women who are committed to one relationship, who have both premarital sex and cohabit only with the man they eventually marry, have no higher incidence of divorce than women who abstain from premarital sex and cohabitation. For women in this category cohabitation with their eventual husband are just two more steps in developing a committed, long-term relationship. Teachman's findings report instead that «It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.»scientific survey of over 1,000 married men and women in the United States of America found those who moved in with a lover before engagement or marriage reported significantly lower quality marriages and a greater possibility for splitting up than other couples. About 20 percent of those who cohabited before getting engaged had since suggested divorce - compared with only 12 percent of those who only moved in together after getting engaged and 10 percent who did not cohabit prior to the wedding bells [16, p. 216].Dr Galena Rhoades said: «There might be a subset of people who live together before they got engaged who might have decided to get married really based on other things in their relationship - because they were already living together and less because they really wanted and had decided they wanted a future together. Some couples who move in together without a clear commitment to marriage may wind up sliding into marriage partly because they are already cohabiting» [20, p. 109].people have claimed that those who live together before marriage can report having less satisfying marriages and have a higher chance of separating. A possible explanation for this trend could be that people who cohabit prior to marriage did so because of apprehension towards commitment, and when, following marriage, marital problems arose (or, for that matter, before marriage, when relationship problems arose during the cohabitation arrangement), this apprehension was more likely to translate into an eventual separation. It should be noted this model cites antecedent apprehension concerning commitment as the cause of increased break-ups and cohabitation only as an indicator of such apprehension. Another explanation is that those who choose not to cohabit prior to marriage are often more conservative in their religious views and may hold more traditional views on gender roles, a mindset that might prevent them from divorcing for religious reasons or confronting crisis in relationships despite experiencing marital problems no less severe than those encountered by former cohabitants [1, p. 104].addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult. The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest «there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills.» (One important exception: cohabiting couples who are already planning to marry each other in the near future have just as good a chance at staying together as couples who dont live together before marriage).2001 study of 1,000 US adults indicated that people who cohabited experienced a divorce rate 50% higher after marriage than those who did not, though this may be correlation and not cause-and-effect. A subsequent study performed by the National Center for Health Statistics with a sample size of over 12,000 individuals found that there was no significant difference in divorce rate between cohabitating and non-cohabitating individuals [16, p. 24].most parts of the United States, there is no legal registration or definition of cohabitation, so demographers have developed various methods of identifying cohabitation and measuring its prevalence. The most important of these is the Census Bureau, which currently describes an «unmarried partner» as a «person age 15 years and over, who is not related to the householder, who shares living quarters, and who has a close personal relationship with the householder.2001, in the United States 8.2% of couples were calculated to be cohabiting, the majority of them in the West Coast and New England/Northeastern United States areas [18, p. 143].2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than ten times from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. The 2002 National Survey of Family Growth found that more than half of all women aged 15 to 44 have lived with an unmarried partner, and that 65% of American couples who did cohabitate got married within 5 years [4, pp. 99-100].
The cohabiting population is inclusive of all ages, but the average cohabiting age group is between 25-34.we can see from the given information, the marriage pattern in the USA is rather diverse: some social groups prefer to stay single or cohabitate, others make families later or earlier. The topic of investigating American marriage pattern remains open and more detailed analysis can give a definite picture of marriages in the USA.
2. Marriage contract and divorce
The family is not a static institution. In recent years, marriage rates have fallen, divorce rates have risen, and the defining characteristics of marriage have changed. The economic approach to the family seeks to explain these trends by reference to models that can also explain how and why families form. Gary Beckers 1981 Treatise on the Family proposed a theory based on «production complementarities», in which husband and wife specialize in the market and domestic spheres, respectively, and hence are more productive together than apart. Production complementarities also arise in the production and rearing of ones own children. However, production complementarities at least as initially described are decreasingly central to modern family life. Increased longevity and declining fertility mean that most of ones adult life is spent without ones own children in the household, and the rise in marital formation at older ages, including re-marriage, means that many families form with no intention of producing children. Moreover, increases in female labor force participation suggest that household specialization has either declined or taken on a different meaning.changes have come about as what is produced in the home has been dramatically altered both by the emergence of labor-saving technology in the home and by the development of service industries that allow much of what was once provided by specialized homemakers to be purchased in the market. The availability of birth control and abortion has affected the potential consequences of sex both in and out of marriage, while changes in divorce laws have altered the terms of the marital bargain. These forces also have important feedback effects, changing the pool of marriageable singles across the age distribution, thereby affecting search, marriage, remarriage, and the extent of «churning» in the marriage market [10, p. 347].and economic factors strongly influence the marriage market. Marriage rates rose during, and in the wake of, the two World Wars and fell during the Great Depression. The divorce rate fell during the Depression and spiked following World War II.since the 1960s appear to reflect more subtle influences, and have been the focus of heated political debate as the heyday of marriage gave way to rapid social change. Divorce rates rose sharply, doubling between the mid-1960s and the mid-1970s. During this period, family life was potentially altered by many factors: the rise of the womens liberation movement, the sexual revolution, the Supreme Courts granting of marriage as a «fundamental» right under the U.S [18, p. 215].
Constitution and thus the abolition of laws restricting marriage between races, the elimination in many states of fault-based divorce, and a sharp rise in womens labor force participation. Yet when viewed over the longer time period, we see that while the 1970s had exceptionally high divorce rates, the low divorce rates in previous decades were also somewhat exceptional. Fitting a simple line to the divorce rate between 1860 and 1945 (excluding the post-World War II surge in divorce), suggests that some of the run-up in divorce in the latter third of the 20th century reflects the divorce rate reverting to levels consistent with earlier trends, following unusually low divorce in the 1950s and early 1960s. Indeed, based on extrapolation, family scholars as early as the turn of the last century had predicted future divorce rates like those actually witnessed in the 1980s. While the 1970s overshot the trend, the subsequent fall in divorce has put the divorce rate back on the trend-line and by 2005 the annual divorce rate projected by the pre-1946 trend is quite close to actual divorce rates.divorce rate per thousand people actually peaked in 1981, and has been declining over the ensuing quarter century. The divorce rate in 2005 - 3.6 divorces per thousand people - is at its lowest level since 1970. The number of people entering marriage, as a proportion of the population, in the U.S. has also been falling for the past 25 years, and the marriage rate is currently at its lowest point in recorded history [10, p. 572].rates rose as the divorce rate rose, but reached an earlier peak in 1972. Yet even when measuring the number of divorces relative to the «at-risk population» (that is, those who are currently married), it can be noticed a similar decline in the divorce rate over the last 25 years falling from a peak of 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 to 16.7 divorces in 2005. The sustained decline in divorce over the past quarter century provides an ideal testing ground for assessing the validity of alternative theories of why the divorce rate rose in the late 1960s and into the 1970s; unfortunately, such tests are mostly absent from the existing literature [4, p. 39].asses the reasons of marriage and divorce, it necessary to look at material conditions of different generations and decades when marriage occurred. For those marriages that occurred in the 1950s through the 1970s, it is known a lot about their eventual outcomes, and the figure clearly shows that the probability of divorce before each anniversary rose for each successive marriage cohort until the 1970s. For marriages that occurred in the 1970s, 48 percent had dissolved within 25 years [5, p. 34].for this specific cohort the popular claim that «half of all marriages end in divorce.» Yet for first marriages that occurred in the 1980s, the proportion that had dissolved by each anniversary was consistently lower, and it is lower again for marriages that occurred in the 1990s. While it will take several more decades for the long-term fate of recent marriages to be realized, it appears likely that fewer than half of these recent marriages will dissolve.of the concern over the high divorce rates in the 1970s stemmed from the impact of divorce on children. Indeed, as divorce rose in the 1960s and 1970s so too did the number of children involved in each divorce. In the 1950s, the average divorce involved 0.78 children; by 1968 that number had risen to 1.34. However, since 1968, the average number of children involved in each divorce has fallen dramatically, and in 1995 the average was 0.91, only slightly above the 1950 average. Similar patterns are evidence in data on the proportion of divorces that involve any children. While the collection of detailed national divorce statistics ceased in 1995, recent data from individual states suggest that the number of children involved in divorce has continued to decline over the subsequent decade [20, p. 194].statistics of the 21st century shows increasing number of divorces among all social and age groups. All the reasons mentioned above continue to play huge negative impact on marriage institution in America.2008 35% of first marriages among women aged 15-44 were disrupted (ended in separation, divorce or annulment) within 10 years. Beyond the 10-year window, population survey data is lacking, but forecasts and estimates provide some understanding. It is commonly claimed that half of all marriages in the United States eventually end in divorce, an estimate possibly based on the fact that in any given year, the number of marriages is about twice the number of divorces. Using 1995 data, National Survey of Family Growth forecast in 2002 a 43% chance that first marriages among women aged 15-44 would be disrupted within 15 years. More recently, having spoken with academics and National Survey of Family Growth representatives, sociologists estimated in 2012 that the lifelong probability of a marriage ending in divorce is 40%-50% [9, p. 45].rates have been dropping during the last few decades. Data indicates that marriages have lasted longer in the 21st century than they did in the 1990s.2011 study at the University of Iowa found that having intimate relations before age 18 was correlated with a greater number of occurrences of divorce within the first 10 years of marriage.2008 study by Jenifer L. Bratter and Rosalind B. King conducted on behalf of the Education Resources Information Center examined whether crossing racial boundaries increased the risk of divorce. Using the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, the likelihood of divorce for interracial couples to that of same-race couples was compared. Comparisons across marriage cohorts revealed that, overall, interracial couples have higher rates of divorce, particularly for those that married during the late 2000s. The authors found that gender plays a significant role in interracial divorce dynamics: According to the adjusted models predicting divorce as of the 10th year of marriage, interracial marriages that are the most vulnerable involve White females and non-White males (with the exception of White females/Hispanic White males) relative to White/White couples. White wife/Black husband marriages are twice as likely to divorce by the 10th year of marriage compared to White/White couples, while White wife/Asian husband marriages are 59% more likely to end in divorce compared to White/White unions. Conversely, White men/non-White women couples show either very little or no differences in divorce rates. Asian wife/White husband marriages show only 4% greater likelihood of divorce by the 10th year of marriage than White/White couples. In the case of Black wife/White husband marriages, divorce by the 10th year of marriage is 44% less likely than among White/White unions. Intermarriages that did not cross a racial barrier, which was the case for White/Hispanic White couples, showed statistically similar likelihoods of divorcing as White/White marriages [1, p. 84].
It`s possible to make some conclusions on the basis of given information. First, the proportion married at each age has been surprisingly stable over more than a century; the pattern in 1980, for instance, is remarkably similar to that in 1880., divorces in the 1960s were unusual, reflecting not only more marriage, but earlier marriage., the data for 2000 suggest a very different pattern, with marriage less prevalent among young adults, but more prevalent among those at older ages. This trend toward rising age at first marriage represents both a return to, and a departure from, earlier patterns. The return to earlier patterns is the later age at which men first marry; in 1890, the median age at which men first married was 26, declining to 23 by the mid-1950s, and then returning to 27 in 2004. The departure is that the age gap between men and women has declined through the past century, with the median age at which women first marry rising from 22 in 1890 to 26 in 2004.fact is that in American divorce statistics exists shrinking gap between the ages of husbands and wives: those over 65 are now much more likely to be married than at any other time in the past. In fact, those over 65 are now as likely to be married as are those aged 16 to 65. The larger proportion of people married at older ages reflects greater life expectancy for both men and women and a decreasing gap in the difference between mens and womens life expectancy. Additionally, some of this increase in the proportion of those over 65 who are married stems from an increase in the proportion marrying at older ages, with these later-age marriages potentially being facilitated by a thicker remarriage market in recent decades that allowed greater remarriage following either divorce or the death of a spouse.
This changing age profile of marriage also points to the declining role of fertility and child-rearing in married life. In 1880, 75% of married people lived in a household in which their own children were present. That proportion has fallen steadily over the past 125 years, and by 2005 only 41% of married people had their own children present in their household. This dramatic shift reflects the confluence of many factors, including declining fertility, increased longevity, increasing rates of marriage at later, post-childbearing ages, rising non-marital births, and rising divorce.
2.3 Aftereffects of divorce for American families
3. Children and bringing up
America is a country of immigrants. And the views of the citizens of the United States (including the views on the family and children) were formed on the basis of the colorful and diverse culture of different nationalities and under the influence of the environment and history of the USA.territory of the United States, was originally a British colony. For a long time the basic mass of the white pioneer were puritans, representatives of religious communities, which were persecuted by the state and the Church of the UK [11, p. 54].people moved from England to America with purpose of realizing their views of social, religious and political institutes. Puritans were characterized by individualism, relying on their own strength, faith in their special mission, as well as high moral standards in everyday life, diligence, honesty, self-restraint. These qualities helped the pioneers in the development of America. They also influenced on the formation of the American nation and American character. Children of migrants received an upbringing that was built mainly on the fundamental biblical and family values. Most of the schools were faith-based and belonged to one or another religious community. In addition, there was a network of Sunday schools. In remote areas, where representatives of confessions could not get due to the great distances, people were reading and discussing the Bible and other spiritual literature.considerable part of the American population lived in rural areas, on the farms, which were at a great distance from the cities and from each other. And in difficult situations families couldnt wait for help from anyone. So American children were raised so that they could face any difficulty, protect themselves and help their parents. Parents cultivated courage, strength, the ability to make rational decisions, ability to stand up for their families, love, freedom and self-confidence. Almost the same characteristics were important for girls because while woman was without a husband, she had to perform all of its obligations. So, the ability to handle weapons, ride and other typical male skills were in favor among young ladies.course, ethnic and racial portrait of the U.S. since the time has significantly changed. However, the Puritan morality and values of the first settlers continue to influence on the American models of family and education [12, p. 45]., raising a child is the hardest, most responsible and satisfying task any American citizen can face. It's also the job for which people receive the least formal training.person's knowledge of how to bring up a child usually comes from their surroundings and their own upbringing. This may result in patterns from the parent's own social experiences being repeated and passed on to their children.American in the upbringing of a child, parents play a very vital role. But anomalies arise, when the role of the parents are not set out right. It has been the long held view that in the bringing up of a child, the mother reserves the prime responsibility and the father has to take care of the family as a whole, with respect to other aspects, which do not directly pertain to the upbringing of the child.influence the lives of their children in every aspect and leave an impression which remains throughout their lives. For one very common instance, it is but natural that a boy aspires to imitate his father in driving or a daughter desires to acquire the culinary expertise from her mother. The seeds of thought which parents sow in the minds of their wards will go a long way in defining their courses of lives.is not to be overlooked that when a child enters this world as a new tenant, its mind remains a tabula rasa. It is the parents who imbue the morals (or otherwise) into their minds. As such, the attitudes of the parents will certainly be reflected in the activities of their children. Therefore, when a child sees the world around it through the eyes of its parents, it is but natural that its world takes up the shape of the perspectives of its parents [14, p. 45].could be the sole reason, why parents are required to be role models for their wards and it is indeed their responsibility to see that they set fine standards for their children to grow up, emulate and groom into dignified individuals.to the popular stereotype, the number of working mothers in the United States isn't great and has a tendency to decrease. More and more women prefer family work instead of career. However its difficult to say who stays with children before school-age, because the statistics varies greatly depending on the social, welfare and racial groups. But its obvious that high number of children is under the care of mothers, Housewives, nurses (babysitters). Otherwise children can visit various kindergartens.noted American sociologist, Dr. David Popenoe, is one of the pioneers of the relatively young field of research into fathers and fatherhood investigated the role of mother and father in childs upbringing. «Fathers are far more than just 'second adults' in the home,» he says. «Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.» Fathers have a direct impact on the well-being of their children. It is important for professionals working with fathers especially in the difficult, emotionally charged arena in which child protective services (CPS) caseworkers operate to have a working understanding of the literature that addresses this impact. Such knowledge will help make the case for why the most effective CPS case plans will involve fathers [14, p. 46].of the most important influences a father can have on his child in a pre-school period is indirect - fathers influence their children in large part through the quality of their relationship with the mother of their children. A father who has a good relationship with the mother of their children is more likely to be involved and to spend time with their children and to have children who are psychologically and emotionally healthier. Similarly, a mother who feels affirmed by her children's father and who enjoys the benefits of a happy relationship is more likely to be a better mother. Indeed, the quality of the relationship affects the parenting behavior of both parents. They are more responsive, affectionate, and confident with their infants; more self-controlled in dealing with defiant toddlers; and better confidants for teenagers seeking advice and emotional support.is important for Americans when bringing up a child. Through discipline a child learns that some kinds of behaviour are acceptable and others are not.parents in the USA think it is good for children to be allowed to run wild without control or supervision. They say that this enables children's personalities to develop naturally and that they will learn to be responsible by the mistakes they make. However, this might lead to juvenile delinquency, with the children ending up in the courts, or it might simply make children self-centered, without any consideration for others.parents believe in being strict, but taken to extremes this can produce a too authoritarian atmosphere in the home, with the children being dominated and ruled by their parents. Parents can also be very possessive and try to keep their children dependent on them. These last two attitudes can encourage rebelliousness against parents, school, or, conversely, suppress a child's natural sense of adventure and curiosity. But no matter how American parents treat their children, they always love them and wish only good. For example the average family spends about 8 thousand dollars a year for their teenage child. Children are free to visit different places and organizations, they enjoy traveling and doing sports with their parents. And of course they receive moral and financial aid even if they leave their homes [24, p. 149].most painful part of childhood is adolescence. There is a complete lack of self-confidence during this time. Adolescents are over conscious of their appearance and the impression they make on others. They feel shy and awkward. Feelings are intense, easily from tremendous rapture to black despair. And besides friends are becoming more and more important these yeas. At American schools there are cliques who decide what is «cool».say that the rush to grow up is due to the mass media. Children desire to be independent and it creates behavior problems. Adolescents may rebel violently against parental authority. But even teenagers with supportive parents can fall in with bad company. Among American adolescents various subcultures such as punks, goths or emo are widespread. Many American children become addicted to drugs and alcohol because their life is hollow and they don't think of life-long goals. More than one-quarter (27.6 percent) of American youth aged 12 to 20 said that they drank alcohol in the past month, according to a study released in 2008 by the federal government [12, pp. 51-52].spend with the children all their childhood and adolescence. Then children begin to build their careers and family, become a parent. This time is quite hard for parents who feel very lonely without their children. The average age of children leaving their family is 19 years. This is the time when they have to shift from using parental authority with their kids to being friends of these new adults. Even adult children need love and guidance from their parents from time to time. As children pass into adulthood, the time for independence for both parents and children is very important for a healthy parent-child relationship. The majority of parents and adult children experience some tension and aggravation with one another. But parents generally are more bothered by the tensions - and the older the child, the greater the bother.
.1 Relations between American parents and their children
The great majority of parents have positive and nurturing relationships with their children. In fact, findings from research show that parents and their adolescent children generally have close emotional ties. These findings run counter to anecdotal portrayals of parents as clueless and unconnected, especially when it comes to relating to their adolescent children.this point we will look at trends among child-parent relations through through three markers of these relationships for parents living with children between the ages of 6 and 17: parent-child closeness, the degree to which parents share ideas and talk about things that really matter with their children, and parents acquaintance with their childrens friends.
The great majority of parents (87 percent) reported being very close to their children. Not surprisingly, a greater percentage of parents of 6-year-olds (96 percent) reported being very close to their children than parents of 17-year-olds (76 percent). However, for the most part, parents and children maintained close bonds, with three-quarters of these relationships described as very close, even when the child was 17. Among parents who lived with their children (ages 6-17), most reported feeling very close to their children, even as they grew into adolescence (87 percent). Only about 13 percent of parents reported that they were just somewhat close to their children. Less than 1 percent of parents reported that their relationship was not very close.communication is an important parenting skill. Parents who discuss important matters such as academic performance, puberty, and drug use provide their children with knowledge that can help them lead more productive and safer lives. In addition, conversations about serious topics convey to children that parents are concerned with and interested in their lives [2, p. 38].National Survey of Childrens Health asked parents to what degree they can share ideas and talk about things that really matter with their children. About 75 percent of parents reported that they were able to share and talk about things that really mattered with their children very well. The percentage declined with the age of the child, with 82 percent of parents of 6 - to 11-year-olds and 70 percent of parents of 12 - to 17-year-olds reporting that they could share ideas and talk with their children very well about things that really mattered. These findings indicate that communication between parents and children is relatively high, even for parents of children at the adolescent stage, when communication can be a greater challenge [8, p. 21].find that parental awareness of American childrens friends is an important part of parenting. For parents, knowing their childrens friends can have a two-fold effect: it can help preempt their childrens involvement in negative social activities, and it can keep parents aware of their childrens social behaviors. In addition, research finds that parents who monitor their childrens friendships tend to raise more socially adept children. Indeed, of the 10 rules that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children provides parents, part of rule number one - making sure to know where children are located at all times - is parental awareness of childrens friends. Overall, about 43 percent of parents of children ages 6-11 reported meeting all their childrens friends, compared with 30 percent of parents of adolescents ages 12-17. Another 42 percent of parents of 6 - to 11-year-olds reported meeting most of their childrens friends, whereas 54 percent of parents of 12 - to 17-year-olds reported meeting most of their childrens friends. The data suggest that parents of adolescents are more likely to know most rather than all of their childrens friends [2, pp. 77-78]., we find that most parents reported close bonds with their children, communicated with their children about important topics, and were acquainted with most of their childrens friends. These findings were apparent even among parents of adolescent children (ages 12-17), who are often presumed to feel distant from their children. Our analyses show that although some declines are seen in these areas as children get older, high parental involvement and positive parent-child interactions endure throughout childhood into the teenage years for most adolescents.
.2 Problems of upbringing American children
Parenting is not like any other 9 to 5 job. It is never ending and there is never enough time to do everything. No matter how old the child is, a newborn or a toddler, it is never too late to put child first and enjoy being a mum or dad. Many American parents think that they alone know what is best for the children and therefore expect too much from them. They force their children into tuition classes, punish or deprive of some things. These actions lead to some problems which arose at the beginning of the 20th century in the USA.
It was already mentioned that there is a problem with drugs and alcohol among American youth. There is currently little solid information regarding how many children have experience with alcohol, either from retrospective recall by adolescents or from surveys of children themselves. Retrospective reports of the age at first drink are not very reliable for this life stage. Reported age of onset generally increases the older the adolescents questioned. For example, in the most recent national data from the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage saying they drank alcohol before age 13 decreased from 33.9% for 9th grade students to 19.3% for 12th grade students. That these are not in fact cohort effects, but rather evidence of «forward telescoping,» is shown by the fact that although the percentages decline over time, a similar pattern can be seen in each of the surveys [7, pp. 14-15].than one-third of U.S. adults (35.7%) are obese. Obesity increases the risk of a number of health conditions including hypertension, adverse lipid concentrations, and type 2 diabetes. The prevalence of obesity in the United States increased during the last decades of the 20th century. More recently there appears to have been a slowing of the rate of increase or even a leveling off. Given the health risks of obesity and its high prevalence, it is important to continue to track the prevalence of obesity among U.S. adults and children. By state, obesity prevalence ranged from 21.0% in Colorado to 34.0% in Mississippi in 2010. No state had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Thirty-six states had a prevalence of 25% or more; 12 of these states (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) had a prevalence of 30% or more. The South has the highest prevalence of obesity (29.4%) followed by the Midwest (28.7%), Northeast (24.9%) and the West (24.1%) [6, p. 132]. Obesity among Americans does not just happen overnight, it develops gradually from poor diet and lifestyle choices and, to some extent, from genes. Lifestyle choice is an important factor in influencing on weight on American children. Eating more calories than they need leads to obesity. Lack of physical activity is another important factor that is related to obesity. Many children have activities that involve sitting at a desk for most of the day, and rely heavily on the transport to get around. When it is time to relax, many American children tend to watch TV, or play computer games, and rarely take any regular exercise. Of course some children tend to stay the same weight for years without much effort, whereas others find they put on weight quickly if they are not careful about what they eat. This could be due, in part to their genes.is a harmful tendency among American children - juvenile delinquency. There are teens with rich parents, that give them money and expensive things. Envy and the desire to possess the same things can push teenagers to committing a crime and it leads to juvenile delinquency. Juvenile Delinquency refers to criminal acts committed by children or teenagers, specifically anyone below the age of eighteen. Common sentiment on this issue is that the crimes they commit hurt society and hurt the children themselves. Much research and debate revolves around the problem of juvenile delinquency in the US. There are roughly 75 million juveniles in The United States today. That is, one in four Americans have the potential of being labeled as juvenile delinquents (because they are considered juveniles). More specifically, in 2009 there were 74.5 million juveniles in the US, which was 2 million more than in the year 2000. The population of juveniles in the US is projected to increase until 2015, at least. In fact, the Federal Interagency on Child and Family Statistics reported that the number of juveniles might reach 101.6 million by 2050. If the juveniles delinquency rates were to increase with the population, or even plateau, this would translate into thousands of more juvenile delinquents [8, p. 84].to the latest poll, thirty-two percent of parents fear for their childs physical safety when the child is at school. Thirty-nine percent of parents with a child in grade six or higher are more likely to say they fear for their childs safety. Twenty-two percent of parents whose children are in grade five or lower fear for their childs safety. It seems that American children bully for a variety of reasons and when dealing with child bullying we can see that there's usually one person who's the gang leader and his friends who help him. The reasons for bullying in the USA can include: frustration, lack of behaviour skills, abuse at home (the child is being abused and is expressing their anger through bullying), neglect at home, conduct disorder, undue influence or neglect at home (similar to abuse as the child's emotional and behavioural development is being retarded) [7, p. 239]. Statistics show bullying is becoming a huge problem. It is estimated that 160,000 children miss school every day due to fear of attack or intimidation by other students. American schools harbor approximately 2.1 million bullies and 2.7 million of their victims. 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school. 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school. 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school. 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school. According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying [13, p. 201].
3.3 Child care system
care system in the USA can be investigated from two points. 1st is the criminal responsibility of children for their crimes.are at least 2,225 child offenders serving life without parole sentences in U.S prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18. While many of the child offenders are now adults, 16 percent were between 13 and 15 years old at the time they committed their crimes. An estimated 59 percent were sentenced to life without parole for their first-ever criminal conviction. Forty-two states currently have laws allowing children to receive life without parole sentences [8, p. 131].ages of criminal responsibility and consent, the age at which attendance at school ceases to be obligatory, the age at which legally binding contracts can be entered into, and so on, may all be different.many countries, including Australia, India, Philippines, Brazil, Croatia and Colombia, a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18. In the United States, where the age of majority is set by the individual states, minor usually refers to someone under the age of 18, but can in some states be used in certain areas (such as gambling, gun ownership and the consuming of alcohol) to define someone under the age of 21 [17, p. 111].point of child care system are legal rights of young American citizens. Children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. Every year 3.3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving 6 million children; thats because reports can include multiple children. The United States has the worst record in the industrialized nation - losing five children every day due to abuse-related deaths.order to prevent child abuse the US government developed a list of laws. The primary responsibility for the child care system rests with the States, and each State has its own legal and administrative structures and programs that address the needs of children and families. However, States must comply with specific Federal requirements and guidelines in order to be eligible for Federal funding under certain programs.with the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1974, the U.S. Congress has implemented a number of laws that have had a significant impact on State child protection and child welfare services. Such legislation frequently requires Federal departments and agencies, such as the Children's Bureau within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to issue or amend Federal policy and regulation. New legislation also prompts responses at the State level, including enactment of State legislation, development or revision of State agency policy and regulations, and implementation of new programs [8, p. 51].largest federally funded programs that support State and Tribal efforts for child welfare, foster care, and adoption activities are authorized under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act). These programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and include the title IV-B Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families (formerly known as Family Preservation) programs, the title IV-E Foster Care Program, the title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program, and the title IV-E Chafee Foster Care Independence Program. The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) is authorized under title XX of the Act and funds a wide range of programs that support various social policy goals.provide a framework for understanding the Federal legislation that has shaped the delivery of child welfare services, this point of the coursework presents a summary of Federal legislation since 1974 that has had a significant impact on the field. It provides an overview of each act and its major provisions.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was the first major legislation dealing specifically with child welfare, passed in 1974. The law establishes the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services. This office researches child abuse and neglect, making recommendations about how to best deal with child abuse and neglect. The law enables the Secretary of Health and Human Services to aid state, municipal and nonprofit agencies dealing with child abuse and neglect with planning and developing programs to treat and prevent child abuse and neglect [17, p. 44].Fair Labor Standards Act provides federal legal guidelines for the employment of minors. The law prohibits children under the age of 16 from engaging in hazardous work outside the agricultural industry and children under the age of 18 from engaging in hazardous work in other fields. The law prohibits children from working during school hours. Children 14 or 15 years of age may not work between the hours of 7 p.m. (from June 1 to Labor Day this shifts to 9 p.m.) and 7 a.m., nor more than three hours on a school day or 18 hours during a school week. When school is not in session, children 14 or 15 years of age may not work more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours during a workweek [19, p. 32].Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 offers a number of grants for organizations concerned with preventing child abuse and neglect. To qualify for federal grants under this bill, an organization must provide certain services such as including treatment for fetal alcohol syndrome, child protective services legal training and referrals to community and volunteer organizations for children who are not in immediate danger. Organizations may use grants to improve case tracking technology, recruit and train caseworkers, improve case management and monitoring, train required reporters of abuse in their responsibilities and develop assessment protocols [23, p. 247].Child and Family Services Improvement Act was passed in 2006 to assist existing child protective services agencies. The law sets aside funds for state child protective services agencies to provide monthly visits to children in foster care. The law also assists in locating children of prisoners requiring mentoring, provides vouchers for these children to receive mentoring and monitors the mentoring.
Conclusion
Belonging to a family is one bond almost everyone in the world shares, but family patterns vary from country to country and the USA is not exception. During this work, which topic was the «The American family: Past and Present», we considered the such questions as: American marriage pattern; Marriage contract and divorce; Children and bringing up; Child case system.the basis of the given information we can say that for all the changes in fertility and mortality that Americans have experienced from the colonial period until today, there has been surprisingly little change in the structure of the family until the past quarter century. Until that point, the age of marriage changed from time to time, but only a minority of women never married and births outside marriage were traditionally less than 10 percent of all births.this fundamental social institution has changed profoundly since 1980. In fact, if one were to define the most original demographic feature in the post-1980 period in the United States, it would be the changes that were occurring in both families and households for all sections of the national population. The traditional American family has been undergoing profound transformations for all ages, all races, and all ethnic groups. Every aspect of the American family was experiencing change. These include the number of adults who marry, the number of households that are formed by married people, the number of children that are conceived, the economic role of mothers, the number of non-family households, appearing of same-sex, interracial couples, and even the importance of marriage in accounting for total births.transformations of family continue nowadays in the changing economic role of women even in dual-parent households with children, increasing number of single-parent families and high rates of children delinquency and other crimes.US government tries to solve the problems which American families face by making new laws and acts and improving child case system. In our opinion sometimes these measure cant be very effective and its better to thing about popularization of family-life and having children. There are many ways to do so: mass media, printed media, personal example of famous people etc. This way of popularization of family culture can be more productive than legal acts and family security systems.the American family, like all families in the Western industrial countries, is now profoundly different from what it had been in the recorded past. It typically is a household with few children, with both parents working, and with mothers producing their children at ever older ages. At the same time, more adults than ever before are living alone or with unmarried companions and more women than ever before are giving birth out of wedlock. These trends have profoundly changed the American family and are unlikely to be reversed any time soon.
Bibliography
american family marriage divorce
1Abraham, Frank. Family diversity: pro and cons / Frank Abraham - New-York Press, 2008. - 284 p.
2Arkham, T.S. The baby boom: how family-friendly America cheats traditions / Todd Arkham - Columbia Network, Columbia, 2001. - 128 pp.
Bradfort, P.C. Marriage contract: 100 tips for successful marriage / P.C. Bradfort - Detroit, 2011. - 78 pp.
Bumble, J.O. Becoming American: The History of American population / John Bumble - Oxford Press, Oxford, 2003. - 209 pp.
Campton, L.O. Is It All Right for a Married Couple to Choose to Remain Childless / L.O. Campton // Family and Life. - 1997. - №22. - P. 34
Dorian, J.D. General USA Statistics over the 20th century / J.D. Dorian - Washington D.C. Press, 2001. - 316 pp.
Furman, V.A. Behavior: Down with Kids / V.A. Furman, D.S. Alleq, O.P. Nab. - Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2000. - 174 pp.
Graham, N.C. Family revolution / N.C. Graham - Oklahoma Post, Oklahoma-city, 2010. - 166 pp.
History of America in ten chapters / A. Rod [et al.] - New-York Press, New-York, 1984-1986 - 611 pp.
Irving, D.K. Modernization - Population Change / D.K. Irving - Austra-publishing, Los-Angeles, 2003. - 315 pp.
Jordan S.F. America youve never seen before / S.F. Jordan - Balti-Press, Baltimore, 2008. - 274 pp.
Lambert, P.O. Overpopulation Myths / P.O. Lamber - Daily Policy Digest, Ottawa, 2008. - 291 pp.
Liddell, C.S. Parent Presentation: Long Term Care and After /C.S. Liddell, M.C. Soam, G.H. Nolan, P.G. Lett // Maternity magazine. - 1995. - Vol. 9, №5. - P. 45-46.
Marger, K.A. Accomplished study of ethnic diversity / K.A. Marger - Washington D.C. Press, 2003. - 147 pp.
Monson, Jeff. Stories of Alternative Parenting / Jeff Monson - Ramer media, New-Jersey, 2006. - 243 pp.
Nardinn, G.P. The Tragedy of the Commons / G.P. Nardinn - Caxton press, Philadelphia, 2003. - 183 pp.
Newbie, W.W. American life in tables and schemes / W.W. Newbie - New line media, Louisville, 2007. - 265 pp.
OBrien, W.S. Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility / W.S. OBrien - Washington State University, Washington D.C., 2003. - 97 pp.
Peak, H.W. The portrait of American family / H.W. Peak - Dallas Readers club, Dallas, 1995. - 374 pp.