Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of divorce on children's development
Effects of divorce on children's development
Factors lead to poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of divorce on children's development
Family Breakdown Fuels Poverty The family structure refers to the combination of individuals that encompass a family. This combination of individuals most commonly comprises a mother, a father and child. The cause of the breakdown of the family structure ranges from divorce, widowhood, to children born to unwed mothers. The breakdown of the family structure is an ethical dilemma which has perpetuated poverty in America. By rebuilding the family structure, we can turn the tide on poverty in America. To understand the effects of the breakdown of the family structure, we must first observe the consequences in economic terms. In an article titled “Family Breakdown and Poverty”, the authors highlighted the consequences of family breakdown by …show more content…
“It is hard to imagine how any of the social problems that take up the time and efforts of policymakers—problems of economic mobility, educational attainment, employment, inequality, and on and on—could be seriously mitigated without some significant reversal of the trends in family breakdown” (George & Levin, 2015). The continued breakdown of the family structure could spell disaster for America. In an article entitled, “The Breakdown of the Family in Secular Society”, the writer, Alex Colvin, explains how research has now established a link between the breakdown of the family and the major problems troubling our society. To show the impact this is having on America, Colvin asks us to consider the following facts. “Divorce is the leading cause of childhood depression; 75% of adolescent patients at chemical abuse centers are from single-parent families; 63% of youth suicides are single-parent children; 70% of teen-age pregnancies are single-parent children; 75% of juveniles in youth correction facilities are from single-parent families” (Colvin, 1997). The only way to stop these negative trends in our society is to bring back the
The concerned camp believes that families are in decline due to the rapid changes that have happened in the past 25 years. Unprecedented levels of divorce, people having babies while not married, and also teenagers having babies have hurt families and quite possibly led into hunger. The concerned camp also believes that families have the most influence on the character and competence of children and adults (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). The concerned camp values parental commitment, marital fidelity, individual responsibility, and civic participation. They also believe that individualism overshadows or threatens these values. The concerned camp believes happiness is due to relatedness to others, investments in family, and commitments to the community. Evidence that supports the concerned camp is that many Americans are very concerned about the state of families and the well-being of children. They also believe that it is very important to be concerned about how the next generation is raised because they will be the future parents, workers, and citizens. They believe that our prosperity depends on investing in childrearing. In addition, the concerned camp...
For a positive future, it is only common sense that a generation of healthy children must be raised. A stable family unit and personal attention seem logical ways to rear successful young people. Yet statistics show that in 2003, approximately 37,000 marriages and 21,000 divorces occurred in Kentucky; other states showed very similar ratios, such as Ohio, with about 73,000 marriages and 40,000 divorces (NVSR, Pg. 6). Clearly, many students already have “broken homes” as obstacles, but the homogenous
Family used to be a single unit, consisting of a husband, wife and children. This unit was widely thought as a group based on marriage and biological parenthood as sharing a common residence and united by ties of affection, obligations, care, support, and a sense of common identity. However, due to the change in values, laws, family structure and social trends, the definition of family has been defined as a married or cohabiting couple with or without children living under one roof, children may be dependent or independent. (Office for national statistics) (2006)
Patricia Hyjer Dyk talks about poverty and how it complicates the family life. On the other hand, Stephanie Coontz focuses on how families have changed from the 20th century to the 21st century; focusing on the negative and positive aspects of both. Dyke doesn’t talk much about how the family system and the earning system has changed, while Coontz focuses on that; however, in both the authors’ articles, women and their role in the society are significantly covered. According to Dyk, the family life has become complicated because of a number of stressors. These stressors include the difficulties that people face on a daily basis, in the shape of physical, emotional and psychological needs.
In conclusion this paper has shown my perceptions on the described topics. I have identified why the family is considered the most important agent in socialization. I explained the dramatic changes to the American family and what caused them. I explained the differences in marriage and family. I expressed my feelings on the trend of diverse families, and how a change in trends to traditional views would change women’s rights.
In 1990, seventy-one percent of sixty-four million American children lived in a two parent household. Fifty-eight percent lived with their biological parents. Since the 1970s, there has been a huge increase in the amount of children living with single or divorced mothers. This only is right considering the increase in single women having children, although not all of those women don’t have a significant other. Currently 7.3 percent of children live with an unmarried parent, 9.1 percent live with a divorced parent and 7.4 percent live with a separated or widowed parent. Every year since the 1970s, over one million children have been affected by divorce (Shino and Quinn). Nowadays every where you look, someone has divorced parents. It could be your own parents, your best friend’s parents, your classmate’s parents or even your teacher. In 1988, fifteen percent of children lived with a separated or divorced parent, while 7.3 million more children lived with a stepparent. It is estimated that almost half of the babies born today will spend a portion of their life living in a one-parent family (Shino and
Furthermore, the structural family therapy are theories and techniques method for individuals to help them in their social and relational relationships (Vetere, 2001). Additionally, the definition of structure is organizational characteristics of families at any given time, the family subsystems, and open and concealed rules that effect interpersonal decisions and behaviors in the family (Vetere, 2001).
Since the 20th century, researchers have sought out solutions to help assist families and the individual components that make up family systems overcome the challenges and schisms that can inhibit individuation and stability. Two theoretical perspectives, the family-systems theory and the family-development theory, were conceived to gain as Balswick & Balswick (2014) noted, gain “a wide-angle view of family life” (p. 22). Though these two theories have merit, one I found to be more advantageous in gaining a better understanding of the family as an actively metastasizing organism, which needs to be approached more adaptively.
The changing of American families has left many families broken and struggling. Pauline Irit Erera, an associate professor at the University of Washington School of Social Work, wrote the article “What is a Family?”. Erera has written extensively about family diversity, focusing on step-families, foster families, lesbian families, and noncustodial fathers. Rebecca M. Blank, a professor of economics at Northwestern University, where she has directed the Joint Center for Poverty Research, wrote the article “Absent Fathers: Why Don't We Ever Talk About the Unmarried Men?”. She served on the Council of Economic Advisors during the Clinton administration. Andrew J. Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University wrote the article “The Origins of the Ambivalent Acceptance of Divorce”. She is also the author of several other books on the changing profiles of American family life. These three texts each talk about the relationship between the parent and the child of a single-parent household. They each discuss divorce, money/income they receive, and the worries that come with raising a child in a single-parent household.
This paper will review two articles pertaining to “fragile families” and assess how they help contribute to family policy. “Fragile families” are very pertinent to the core of family policy. In the 1990’s the term “fragile families” originated out of a need to describe families not fitting into the traditional married – unmarried couples with children (McLanahan, Garfinkel, Mincy, & Donahue, 2010). Over a 60 year period non-marital births of children increased significantly. In 1940, 4% of children born were to non-married parents. However, by 2007 this number reached a high of 40%. These families can be compromised of cohabitating couples, non-cohabitating couples, or single mothers (Kalil & Ryan, 2010). They are deemed “fragile” because they are more likely to experience difficulties economically and relationship wise. They tend to be more impoverished, experience material hardship, and have absent fathers. More importantly fragile families are of great concern because they often lack stability as a family unit. Yet, fragile families have become one of the new family types and seem to be a permanent structure steadily on the rise. Bogenschneider (2006) stated that one of the main underlying issues of the family policy debate is the conflicting ideas of families (types). These conflicts are evident when you look at the 3 perspectives with regard to family policy: Concerned, Sanguine, and Impatient. This is why there has been increased focus on this new type of family. One of the issues that need be assessed with regard to fragile families is mothers’ economic conditions and their support systems. (McLanahan et al., 2010).
My motivation to research, discover, and stimulate social change is rooted in my childhood experiences. As a young child I grew up in a household filled with domestic violence, which ultimately ended with the suicide of my father. I subsequently came to know a variation of the typical American nuclear family: a single parent household. As I began to study family dynamics further, I was able to see my life experiences in a broader context. In hindsight, I now realize the impact and weight my own mother had on my personal development. It was through her strength, determination, and optimism that I was able to find the spark within myself to set goals and dreams for my future. She encouraged me never to accept anything at face value, including the way our society attempts to define my womanhood. As a result of this, I now question American culture’s classification of a ‘successful’ family and the factors that determine a ‘stable’ family.
For many people throughout the United States, it is a melancholy but common sight to see broken families, separated children, and squabbling spouses. In a society in which over 20% of marriages end in divorce, it is not surprising that the majority of today’s children grow up in a one parent marriage. The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that in 1993, about 1,187,000 divorces were granted in the U.S., affecting 1,075,000 children. Sadly, some children are even deprived of seeing their mother or father throughout their entire childhood. Many others are allowed to visit one of their parents only once or twice a month. This lack of family unity results in emotional and psychological problems for both the parents and the children.
Each family unit exhibits concepts and themes found within Bowen’s Family System Theory. In my family unit, I see the following concepts and themes from a family system theory perspective exhibited through my genogram; boundaries, levels of differentiation, family projection process, and emotional cutoff. Each of these will be expanded on further below:
"A family is a small social group of people related by ancestry or affection, who share common values and goals, who may live together in the same dwelling, and who may participate in the bearing and raising of children. They have a physical or emotional connection with each other that is ongoing" (Vissing, 2011) and is the foundation of all societies. They can be formed by a grouping of father-mother-children or even more complicated combination of relatives. In the primary stage of family life in the United States, everyone from every generation lived together in one house. Subsequently, the idea of traditional family evolved and a married couple with children is at present, often called the traditional family. There are many types of families; however, this paper will focus on the traditional family. It will describe how the functionalist perspective, conflict perspective, and the interactionism theory apply to the sociological institution known as a family. It will explain some of the similarities and differences between the sociological theories in regards to families and how they affect the family members.
To thoroughly elaborate on the institution of family we most look at the family as it was before and how much it has changed over time. Throughout the years we are recognizing that the family is slowly being replaced by other agents of socialization. Families in the past consisted of a mother and a father and most times children. We are, as many societies a patriarchal society; men are usually the head of the households. This has always been considered the norm.