Fluent Essays

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0886260516645574?casa_token=qbN_TjbG8DAAAAAA%3AElL93i1gwhFgqK2tUuVUNPKnFx49ViHlTr0asgc2pSb7NmN4agREycT10DtIeqllw41XeAfUYpgGtg Please read the article first. second ,find 10 key point in article, then going to critical analysis. APA style, 5 pages long(excluding the cover and reference pages). the essay should be included functionalism, conflict and symbolic theory. There is one more requirement. Write 10 key point after references, and write some word reflection each point. Can be one sentence   Here is sample, The Meaning of Friendship Brianna D. Aaron ( Friendship ) ( 10 ) Abstract The term “friendship” is a very broad term that contains a variety of other categories that can be used to describe all of the different types of friendships. Society is made up of many different types of bonds in which friendship is either present or not present. If friendship is present, the extent to which it is present depends upon many factors such as trust, emotional connections, and shared morals and values. This essay defines the different types of friendships and applies them to societal interactions. Friendships can occur between people of all ages and vary in significance and meaning. Our society is made up of various friendships between people of different races, social groups, ages, gender, and varies in strength depending on the people involved. By examining the different types of friendships and their contributions to how society functions, we can evaluate our own friendships and how they contribute to not only our personal choices but the choices we make as members of society. Keywords: friendship quality, the nature of friendship, eudemonic friendship, symbolic interaction, functionalism, conflict theory Table of Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 4 Friendship Quality 4 Friendship Quality and Symbolic Interaction… 4 Friendship Quality and Functionalism 5 Friendship Quality and Conflict Theory 5 The Nature of Friendship… 6 The Nature of Friendship and Symbolic Interaction 6 The Nature of Friendship and Functionalism 7 The Nature of Friendship and Conflict Theory 7 Eudaimonic Friendship… 8 Eudaimonic Friendship and Functionalism 8 Eudaimonic Friendship and Symbolic Interaction 9 Eudaimonic Friendship and Conflict Theory 9 Conclusion 10 References 11 The Meaning of Friendship Introduction Friendship is defined by many people in many ways. Whether the friendship is a quality friendship that has meaning and will last depends on many factors that involve the emotional connections and trust between two people. Friendships that are based upon simple ideas such as liking the same color or being in the same class at school are often the types of friendships that children have. As we grow older and begin to develop our own morals and standards, our choice of who we want to associate ourselves with changes. We tend to gravitate towards people with not only similar interests but also similar morals and values to our own. Real friendship has many different parts that when put together, create an entire friendship. Friendship Quality Friendship quality is broken up into two categories: quality of friendship and social competence. Quality is defined as “… typically characterized in non-moral terms, as pertaining to ‘level’ or ‘degree’ of emotional support, absence of conflict, enjoyment of companionship, and the like” (Walker, Curren, & Jones, 2016, pg. 286). Social competence is similarly defined, but also includes “prosocial” orientation or temperament. Without these, friendships would not work. If a friend does not support you emotionally and had a bad temperament, you are likely not going to want to be friends with them anymore. Friendship can only work if the two people who are involved are happy with the relationship that they have. If one friend is not happy, chances are it is not a real friendship (Walker, Curren, & Jones, 2016, p. 286-287). Friendship Quality and Symbolic Interaction The quality and social competence of a friendship can be examined through symbolic interactions. Symbolic interaction theory, “… examines people’s everyday behavior through the communication of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, and attitudes” (Benokraitis, 2015, p. 16). Quality friendship is made up of symbolic interactions. We each have our own picture of what a quality friend is. The qualities that you associate with a good friend are symbolic. If someone were to ask you what you look for in a friend, your answers would be symbolic interactions. You are conveying your ideas and beliefs of what a good friend is. The qualities of what makes a good friend vary from person to person, but overall, quality friendship comes from symbolic interactions. Friendship Quality and Functionalism Functionalism, “… maintains that society is a complex system of interdependent parts that work together to ensure a society’s survival” (Benokraitis, 2015, p. 13). Friendship quality is crucial to the way in which our society works. If friendships were based upon simple ideas such as similar likes and nothing else, people would not be able to create bonds that are held together by mutual trust. The quality of friendship that people have with each other leads to marriages, business partnerships, or basically any arrangement in which two or more people create bonds in which they trust each other and work together for a common goal. Quality friendships are the basis for families as well as the partnerships that are required to move forward and be a productive society. Friendship Quality and Conflict Theory Conflict theory, “… examines how and why groups disagree, struggle over power, and compete for scarce resources” (Benokraitis, 2015, p. 13). When quality friendships occur, people and groups get along, but with the absence of quality friendship, people may not get along as well. People can be “friends” and still compete with one another. Friendships that are formed either in spite of someone or for a person’s personal advantage are not quality friendships and if or when these friendships end, it can lead to disagreements and competition between the former friends. With the presence of quality friendships, conflict theory is not present because the people involved work together and support each other rather than argue and fight. Friendship quality is related to conflict theory in that friendship quality cancels out the idea of conflict theory because in quality friendships, there is no competition. The Nature of Friendship Friendship has been defined by philosophers to be, “… a form of relationship that is: based in the mutual positive regard two people have for one another, exhibits mutual concern and willingness to act for the good of other’s sake, and involves time spent together in shared activities” (qtd. in Walker, Curren, & Jones, 2016, p. 288). This, similar to quality of friendship, defines what friendship itself is. Just because you are a part of a friendship does not mean that you have a quality friendship. Your friend could be there to support you sometimes or you could see each other occasionally, but that does not mean that the friendship is quality. The Nature of Friendship and Symbolic Interaction When we think of friendship, many ideas come to mind. We may think of people who are nice to us, places we go or activities that we do with our friends, or anything that we associate with friendship in general. These are all symbolic interactions. Friendship in general is symbolic. There is no set definition for what friendship is. Friendships are formed in random and unexpected ways. Those situations in which friendships are created allow for us to form ideas on what friendship is and where they originate from. To one, a person who sits next to them in class every day and is nice to them is considered a friend while to another, a person who they spend their personal time with a friend. These are both symbolic interactions because they symbolize to that person what a friend is and that idea of what a friend is differs from person to person. The Nature of Friendship and Functionalism The nature of friendship is a part of functionalism because we need friendships in order for our society to function properly. Friendship is crucial to the way in which our world works and how we deal with both personal and public issues. We need friends to help us through hard times, whether by providing emotional or physical help. Friends help each other when one is in a tough situation that they cannot fix on their own. Also, without friendship, we would not be able to learn how to work together and therefore we would have a difficult time surviving. Some of the biggest ideas have been created by friends and had those friendships not occurred, they would have never happened. Without these ideas, our society would not be anywhere near as advanced as we are today. The Nature of Friendship and Conflict Theory Similar to friendship quality, a world that contains no friendships is a world that cannot function. Basic friendships are essential to our survival and progress as human beings. Without friendship, we would not survive because we would not be able to form even basic connections with others which would create ongoing conflict and competition. Friendship in its most basic form is two people who like each other. If no one liked each other, there would be no reason for anyone to care about anyone but themselves and therefore they would put their survival needs above those of anyone else and they would be willing to do anything to defend themselves and their needs. At our most primitive stage, friendship is crucial because it allows for people to work together for the well-being of each person in the relationship rather than just one person alone. Eudaimonic Friendship Eudaimonic friendship is a deeper kind of friendship. It involves respect for each other— such as not cheating, lying, or manipulating each other—being able to see the good in the other person and appreciate them for their true self, and actually being willing to do something for the other person’s sake. Often times, eudaimonic friendships occur later in life when we have developed our own morals and are able to recognize those morals in others and decide if we really want to be friends with that person. In children, this is less common because they have not yet figured out what is really important to them and their friendships are based upon what is good at the moment and not what is good in the long-run (Walker, Curren, & Jones, 2016, p. 290-291). Eudaimonic Friendship and Functionalism This concept connects to functionalism because as we age, we come to a better understanding of what our morals and beliefs are and what we look for in other people. This dictates how society works, similar to friendship quality. If we all disliked each other, we would not make any advancements. On the contrary, if we all liked each other and had very personal connections with everyone we know, we could have trouble making advancements because we would fear hurting others. The different qualities that we look for or do not look for help us to establish relationships and find our place in society that keeps society going. It is beneficial for us to form eudaimonic friendships with only a select amount of people because that way we are able to determine who we will prioritize over others as well as who we will trust the most when we need help. Without a few eudaimonic friendships, we would not have anyone who we know certainly that we can truly depend when we are in need of help and who we know can truly depend on us. Eudaimonic Friendship and Symbolic Interaction When we picture a eudaimonic friendship, we picture something other than a simple friendship or even a quality friendship. We may picture a person who we call “uncle” or “aunt” even though they are not a part of our family. We also may picture an elderly married couple who has been married for as long as anyone can remember. These are all symbolic interactions because they are what we think of when we think of eudaimonic friendship. If someone were to ask you what would represent a eudaimonic friendship, any answer that you give them would be a symbolic interaction because you are telling that person what that means to you. Eudaimonic friendship itself is a symbolic interaction because it describes the perception that someone has on a bond between two people. Eudaimonic Friendship and Conflict Theory Eudaimonic friendship contributes to conflict theory in many ways because it answers the question as to why people may compete against each other and disagree. If someone has an eudaimonic friendship with someone and another person dislikes that person or puts them in harm’s way, the friend will stick up for their friend against the other person. Now, not only does the one friend have a conflict or disagreement with the person, but now their friend is also involved which creates greater conflict. For example, if you have a eudaimonic friendship and your friend runs for office, you are going to do anything you can to support that friend as well as anything you can to compete with anyone else who may be running. Eudaimonic friendships have such strong bonds that conflict can easily be created if one person in the friendship is treated unfairly or poorly by someone outside of the friendship. Eudaimonic friendships can even ruin other friendships because the if the person has to make the choice between their friend with which they have a eudaimonic friendship with or their friend that they do not, they will most likely choose the friend with whom they share a eudaimonic friendship. Conclusion Overall, there are many factors that go into friendship and what kind of friendship people have as well as how those different types of friendships affect society and how it functions. Friendships can vary greatly from person to person due to factors such as age, location, family, and their overall upbringing. Regardless of what kind, friendship is crucial to our society and how the world works. We survive and make advancements all because of friendships. Friendships are the reason that we are here and the reason why we are able to live our lives each and every day. References Enormities, N.V. (2015). SOC5: Introduction to Sociology. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning Walker, D.I, Curren, R., & Jones, C. (2016). Good Friendships among Children: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation, Journal For The Theory Of Social Behaviour, 46(3), 286- 309. doi:10.1111/jtsb.12100 © P ho to C re di t H er e Families and Aging LE ARNING OBJEC TIVE S After studying this chapter, you will be able to… 12-1 Describe how families are similar and different in the United States and worldwide. 12-2 Describe how and explain why U.S. families are changing. 12-3 Describe, illustrate, and explain why intimate partner violence, child maltreatment, and elder abuse occur. 12-4 Describe, illustrate, and explain how the U.S. older population is changing, and its impact on our society. 12-5 Compare and evaluate the theoretical explanations of families and aging. After finishing this chapter go to PAGE 252 for STUDY TOOLS 12 M as te rf ile SOC230 05164_ch12_ptg01.indd 230 15/12/17 7:32 pm Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 W H A T D O YOU T H I N K ? I would undergo medical treatments to live to age 120 or longer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree strongly disagree 12-1 WHAT IS A FAMILY? Ask five of your friends to define family. Their defini- tions will probably differ not only from each other’s but also from yours. For our purposes, a family is an intimate group consisting of two or more people who (1) have a committed relationship, (2) care for one an- other and any children, and (3) share activities and close emotional ties. This definition includes households (e.g., foster families, same-sex couples) whose members aren’t related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Contemporary households are complex; family structures vary across cultures and have changed over time. In some societies, a family includes uncles, aunts, and other relatives. In others, only parents and their chil- dren are viewed as a family. 12-1a How Families Are Similar Worldwide The family, a social institution, exists in some form in all societies. Worldwide, families are similar in fulfilling some functions that have persisted over time. FAMILY FUNCTIONS Families vary considerably in the United States and globally but fulfill five important functions that ensure a society’s survival (Parsons and Bales, 1955): ▸▸ Sexual activity. Every society has norms regarding who may engage in sexual relations, with whom, and under what circumstances. U.S. laws ban sexual American families vary greatly in structure, dynamics, and racial-ethnic diversity. This chapter examines the ways that families and aging are changing, both in the United States and globally. Before reading further, take the True or False quiz to see how much you already know about these topics. intercourse with someone younger than 18 (or 16 in some states), but several states allow 12- and 13-year- old girls and 14-year-old boys to marry with parental permission, and some countries permit marriage with girls as young as 8 (McClendon and Sandstrom, 2016; Sandstrom and Theodorou, 2016; see also Chapter 9). One of the oldest rules that regulate sexual behavior is the incest taboo, cultural norms and laws that forbid sexual intercourse between close blood relatives (e.g., brother and sister, father and daughter, uncle and niece). family an intimate group consisting of two or more people who (1) have a committed relationship, (2) care for one another and any children, and (3) share activities and close emotional ties. incest taboo cultural norms and laws that forbid sexual intercourse between close blood relatives. HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CONTEMPORARY U.S. FAMILIES AND AGING? 1. Nonmarital teenage births have increased over the past 20 years. 2. College-educated women are less likely than those with a high school diploma to live with a man outside of marriage. 3. Divorce rates have increased since the 1990s. 4. The most common type of family is married couples with children. 5. Baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) are the fastest growing segment of the population. 6. Asian Americans are more likely than Latinos to live in a home with three or more generations. True or False? The answers to #2 and #6 are true; the others are false. You’ll see why as you read this chapter. 231CHAPTER 12: Families and Aging 05164_ch12_ptg01.indd 231 15/12/17 7:32 pm Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 ▸▸ Procreation and socialization. Procreation is an essential family function because it replenishes a country’s population. Through socialization, children acquire language; absorb the accumulated knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and values of their culture; and learn the social and interpersonal skills they need to function effectively in society (see Chapters 3 and 4). ▸▸ Economic security. Families provide food, shelter, clothing, and other material resources for their members. ▸▸ Emotional support. Families supply the nurturance, love, and emotional sustenance that people need to be happy, healthy, and secure. Our friends may come and go, but our family is usually our emotional anchor. ▸▸ Social class placement. Social class affects all aspects of family life. Initially, our social position is based on our parents’ social class, but we can move up or down the social hierarchy in adulthood (see Chapter 8). Some sociologists include recreation as a basic U.S. family function. This function isn’t critical for survival, but since the 1950s many parents have spent much more time with their children on leisure activities (e.g., visiting amusements parks, playing video games together) that strengthen interpersonal bonds. MARRIAGE Marriage, a socially approved mating relationship that people expect to be stable and enduring, is also universal. Countries vary in their specific norms and laws dictat- ing who can marry whom and at what age, but marriage everywhere is an important rite of passage that marks adulthood and its related responsibilities, especially pro- viding for a family. ENDOGAMY AND EXOGAMY All societies have formal or informal rules about the “right” marriage partner. Endogamy (often used inter- changeably with homog- amy) is a cultural practice of marrying within one’s group. The partners are similar in religion (e.g., Catholics marrying Catho- lics), race or ethnicity (e.g., blacks marrying blacks), social class (e.g., college- educated marrying col- lege-educated), and/or age (e.g., young people marry- ing young people). Across the Middle East and Africa, marrying a first or second cousin is not only common but desirable. In Egypt, for example, 40 percent of the population marry a family member. The benefits include knowing a lot about one’s relatives and ensuring that property stays in the family, but the practice increases the chance of genetic diseases (such as cystic fibrosis and thalassemia, a blood disorder) in their children (“Consanguineous Marriage,” 2016). Exogamy (often used interchangeably with het- erogamy) is a cultural practice of marrying outside one’s group, such as not marrying one’s relatives. In the United States, 25 states prohibit marriage between first cousins, but violations are rarely prosecuted (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). Even when there are no formal laws, cultural norms and values (as well as social pressure) usually limit our marital partner choices. 12-1b How Families Differ Worldwide Families also differ around the world. Some variations affect the family’s structure, whereas others regulate where people reside and who has the most household power and authority. NUCLEAR AND EXTENDED FAMILIES In Western societies, the typical family form is the nuclear family composed of married parents and their biologi- cal or adopted children. In much of the world, however, marriage a socially approved mating relationship. endogamy (often used interchangeably with homogamy) cultural practice of marrying within one’s group. exogamy (often used interchangeably with heterogamy) cultural practice of marrying outside one’s group. nuclear family a family form composed of married parents and their biological or adopted children. M ik e B al dw in /C ar to on S to ck .c om 232 SOC 05164_ch12_ptg01.indd 232 15/12/17 7:32 pm Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 the most common family form is the extended family, composed of parents, children, and other kin (e.g., uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, cousins, grandparents). As the number of single-parent families increases in industrialized countries, extended families are more common. By helping out with household tasks and child care, other adult members make it easier for a single par- ent to work outside the home. Many Americans assume that the nuclear family is the most common arrangement, but such families have declined in number. In 2014, just 14 percent of children lived with a stay-at-home mother and a working father— down from 50 percent in 1960 (Livingston, 2015). RESIDENCE PATTERNS In a patrilocal residence pattern, newly married couples live with the husband’s family. In a matrilocal residence pattern, they live with the wife’s family. In a neolocal residence pattern, the couple sets up their own residence. Around the world, the most common residence pattern is patrilocal. In industrialized societies, married couples are typically neolocal. Since the early 1990s, how- ever, the tendency for young married adults to live with the parents of either the wife or the husband—or some- times with the grandparents of one of the partners—has increased. Such “doubled-up” U.S. households have al- ways existed, but escalated during the 2007–2009 reces- sion for economic reasons (Parker, 2012). One result is a boomerang generation, young adults who move back into their parents’ home after liv- ing independently for a while or never leave home in the first place. Seven years after the 2007–2009 recession, for example, 33 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds lived with their parents. Of those, one in four didn’t work or go to school (Vespa, 2017). You saw in Chapter 4 that many young adults don’t feel a need to set up their own homes because, among other reasons, the stigma of living with parents has faded. Some observers predict that boomerangers will become more numerous. Many “helicopter-parented, trophy- saturated, and self-centered” millennials, who were raised by coddling baby boomers, are catering to their own chil- dren even more. They want to be their kids’ friends rather than authority figures. Instead of helicopter parenting, millennials are “drone parenting”—they still hover, but are now “following and responding to their kids rather than directing and scheduling them” (Steinmetz, 2015: 38, 41). Parents try to launch their children into the adult world, but like boomerangs, some keep coming back. AUTHORITY AND POWER Residence patterns often reflect who has authority and power in the family. In a matriarchal family system, the oldest females (usually grandmothers and mothers) control cultural, political, and economic re- sources and, consequently, have power over males. Some American Indian tribes were matriarchal, and in some African coun- tries, the oldest women have considerable author- ity and influence. For the most part, however, matri- archal societies are rare. Worldwide, a more typical pattern is a patri- archal family system, in which the oldest males In China’s Himalayas, the Mosuo are a matriarchal society. A family consists of a woman, her children, and the daughters’ offspring. An adult man will join a lover for the night and then return to his mother’s or grandmother’s house in the morning. Children resulting from these unions belong to the female and take her surname, she and her relatives raise them, and daughters are preferred to sons. The Mosuo population is decreasing, however, as more young people marry outside the group or move to cities for work (Qin, 2015). ag e fo to st oc k/ A la m y S to ck P ho to extended family a family form composed of parents, children, and other kin. patrilocal residence pattern newly married couples live with the husband’s family. matrilocal residence pattern newly married couples live with the wife’s family. neolocal residence pattern a newly married couple sets up its own residence. boomerang generation young adults who move back into their parents’ home or never leave it in the first place. matriarchal family system the oldest females control cultural, political, and economic resources and, consequently, have power over males. patriarchal family system the oldest males control cultural, political, and economic resources and, consequently, have power over females. 233CHAPTER 12: Families and Aging 05164_ch12_ptg01.indd 233 15/12/17 7:32 pm Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 (grandfathers, fathers, and uncles) control cultural, political, and economic resources and, consequently, have power over females. In some patriarchal societies, women have few rights within or outside the family; they may not be permitted to work outside the home or at- tend college. In other patriarchal societies, women may have considerable decision-making power in the home but few legal or political rights, such as getting a divorce or running for political office (see Chapter 9). In an egalitarian family system, both partners share power and authority fairly equally. Many Americans think they have egalitarian families, but our families tend to be patriarchal. For example, employed women shoul- der almost twice as much housework and child care as men, and are more likely than men to provide caregiving to aging family members (see Chapter 9). COURTSHIP AND MATE SELECTION Sociologists often describe U.S. dating as a marriage market, a courtship process in which prospective spouses compare the assets and liabilities of eligible partners, and choose the best available mate. Marriage markets don’t sound very romantic, but open dating fulfills sev- eral important functions: recreation and companionship; a socially acceptable way of pursuing love; opportunities for sexual intimacy and experimentation; and finding a spouse (Benokraitis, 2015). Many societies, in contrast, discourage open dating and have arranged marriages in which parents or rela- tives choose the children’s spouses. An arranged marriage is a family rather than an individual decision that increases solidarity between families and preserves endogamy. Chil- dren may have veto power, but they believe that if partners are compatible, love will result. In some of India’s urban areas, arranged marriages also rely on non- traditional methods (e.g., online dating services) to find prospective spouses (Cullen and Masters, 2008; see also Chapter 9). MONOGAMY AND POLYGAMY In monogamy, one per- son is married exclusively to another person. Where di- vorce and remarriage rates are high, as in the United States, people engage in serial monogamy. That is, they marry several people but one at a time—they marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, and so on. Polygamy, in which a man or woman has two or more spouses, is subdivided into polygyny—one man married to two or more women—and polyandry—one woman is married to two or more men. Nearly 1,000 cul- tures around the world allow some form of polygamy, either officially or unofficially (Epstein, 2008). Although rare, there are pockets of polyandry in some remote and isolated parts of India, and among the Pimbwe in western Tanzania, Africa. Polyandry serves several functions: The family is more likely to survive in harsh environments if there’s more than one husband to provide food, and if one husband dies, the others care for the widow (Borgerhoff Mulder, 2009; Polgreen, 2010). In contrast to polyandry, polygyny is common in many societies, especially in some regions of Africa, South America, and the Middle East. Men benefit from polygyny in several ways: They can have many legal sexual partners, more chances to have male heirs, more income if some of the wives are employed, and high so- cial status because they can support multiple wives and children (Al-Jassem, 2011; Nossiter, 2011). Western and industrialized societies forbid polyg- amy, but there are pockets of isolated polygynous groups in the United States, Europe, and Canada. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) banned polygamy in 1890 and excommunicates members who follow such beliefs. Still, males of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a polygynous sect that broke away off from the main- stream Mormon Church more than a century ago, head India’s Ziona Chana has the world’s largest polygynous family—39 wives, 94 children, and 33 grandchildren (so far). They all live together in a 100-room mansion (Sykes, 2015). A dn an A bi di /R eu te rs egalitarian family both partners share power and authority fairly equally. marriage market prospective spouses compare the assets and liabilities of eligible partners and choose the best available mate. arranged marriage parents or relatives choose the children’s spouses. monogamy one person is married exclusively to another person. serial monogamy individuals marry several people, but one at a time. polygamy a man or woman has two or more spouses. 234 SOC 05164_ch12_ptg01.indd 234 15/12/17 7:32 pm Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 an estimated 300,000 families in Texas, Arizona, Utah, and Canada. Wives who have escaped from these groups have reported forced marriage between men in their 60s and girls as young as 10 years old, sexual abuse, and in- cest (Janofsky, 2003). 12-2 HOW U.S. FAMILIES ARE CHANGING American families have changed considerably since the 1950s. Some of the most important changes are related to marriage, divorce, cohabitation, nonmarital childbear- ing, and single-parent families. 12-2a Marriage and Divorce The United States has one of the highest marriage and di- vorce rates in the world. By age 65, 95 percent of Americans have been married at least once; over a lifetime, about half of first marriages end in divorce (Vespa et al., 2013). Despite the high divorce rate, most people aren’t disil- lusioned about marriage. Indeed, nearly 85 percent who divorce remarry, half of them within 4 years, and 8 percent have been married three times or more (Kreider and Ellis, 2011; Livingston, 2014). TRENDS U.S. marriage and divorce rates rose steadily during the twentieth century, but have declined since 1990 (Figure 12.1). In 1960, only 9 percent of U.S. adults age 25 and older had never been married. By 2016, 52 percent had never been married—an historic high. Marriage rates are expected to decrease further because the number of newlyweds has been falling since 2012 (Wang and Parker, 2014). In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to le- galize same-sex marriage. In 2017, 10 percent of LGBT adults were married to a same-sex spouse, and 13 per- cent were married to an opposite-sex partner. About half of people who self-identify as LGBT are bisexual, helping to explain the high proportion who are married to opposite-sex partners. Men (11 percent) are more likely than women (9 percent) to be married to a same- sex partner. The marriage rates are highest among males age 50 and older, but 32 percent of this age group have never married, compared with 11 percent of their non- LGBT counterparts (Jones, 2017; see also Chapter 9). Thus, despite the Supreme Court’s legalization of same- sex marriage in 2015, LGBT marriages haven’t surged. Like heterosexuals, LGBTs may be postponing marriage or decide to not marry. In 1970, California was the first state to pass a no- fault divorce law; neither partner needs to prove guilt or wrongdoing (e.g., adultery, desertion). Today, in all states, couples can simply give “irreconcilable differ- ences” or “incompatibility” as a valid reason for divorce. As these laws changed, marital dissolutions became quick and cheap, and divorce rates rose to historically high lev- els, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Divorce rates are high, but lower today than they were between 1980 and 2009 (Figure 12.1). In 2017, 73 percent of Ameri- cans said that divorce was morally acceptable, compared with only 53 percent in 1954 (Dugan, 2017). Thus, and despite greater public acceptance, the divorce rate has fallen to its lowest point in decades. WHY ARE MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE RATES FALLING? There are several macro-level reasons for declining marriage and divorce rates. First, U.S. values have been changing. In 2010, 39 percent of Americans said that marriage is becoming obsolete, up from 28 percent in 1978 (Cohn et al., 2011; Fry, 2012). Just 45 percent of millennials say that marriage is an important step in becoming an adult, and only 44 percent of Americans believe that having chil- dren is a “very important” reason to marry. Only 31  percent think that premarital sex is immoral, open marriage markets provide many opportuni- ties for nonmarital sex, and nonmarital births are now socially acceptable (Cohn, 2013; Jones, 2017; Vespa, 2017). Thus, the traditional reasons for marriage have waned. Figure 12.1 U.S. Marriage and Divorce Rates, 1870–2014 Pe r 1, 00 0 Po p u la ti o n 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2014 Year Marriage Divorce 6.9 3.2 Sources: Based on Plateris 1973, Table 1; and CDC/NCHS National Vital Statistics System, 2017. 235CHAPTER 12: Families and Aging 05164_ch12_ptg01.indd 235 15/12/17 7:32 pm Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Second, the economy affects marriage and divorce rates. Economic depressions, recessions, and unem- ployment tend to delay marriage, especially for men. Because of the recent recession, 20 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds have postponed marriage. Moreover, when incomes plummet and people are insecure about their jobs, unhappy married couples tend to stay together: They can’t afford to divorce and risk the possibility of not being able to maintain separate households (Cohn, 2012; Martin et al., 2014). Demographic variables also affect marriage and di- vorce rates. The median age at first marriage is 30 for men and almost 28 for women, compared with 23 for men and 21 for women in 1970 (“Marital Status,” 2017). There are now almost as many single as married Americans (128 million and 129 million, respectively) and, for the first time, single women outnumber married women. Marriage has become an option, rather than a goal, primarily because women are free to pursue a higher education, to have a career, and to cohabit. Thus, many women have become choosier about whether and when to marry (Traister, 2016; “Unmarried and Single . . .,” 2017). About 64 percent of Americans with college degrees are married, compared with 47 percent of those with a high school diploma or less, who are more likely to co- habit than marry. The education-marriage relationship holds even at higher levels. Among women in their early 40s, for example, 80 percent with a Ph.D. or professional degree are married, compared to 63 percent with a bach- elor’s degree. The highly educated tend to marry other highly educated people, and are almost twice as likely as people with less education to have marriages that last at least 20 years. In effect, then, there’s a growing “marriage gap” between the most and least educated (Wang, 2015; Reeves et al., 2016). Such data also challenge stereotypes of highly educated women as sad and lonely “old maids” who lavish attention on a brood of cats. Americans with a bachelor’s or graduate degree also have lower divorce rates than those without col- lege degrees. By age 46, 30 percent of people with a college degree or higher are divorced compared with 59 percent with less than a high school diploma (Augh- inbaugh et al., 2013). College graduates have lower divorce rates not because they’re smarter but because going to college postpones marriage. As a result, better- educated couples are often more mature and capable of dealing with personal crises. They also have higher incomes and health care benefits, both of which lessen marital stress over financial problems. There are also micro-level (individual) reasons for falling marriage and divorce rates. About 84 percent of unmarried Americans say that love is a “very impor- tant” reason to marry. As a result, a third are still wait- ing for their “ideal mate” or “one true love” (Wang and Parker, 2014). The most common micro-level reasons for divorce include infidelity, communication and financial prob- lems, substance and spousal abuse, premarital doubts, continuous disagreements about how to raise and dis- cipline children, and expecting to change a partner af- ter marriage (see Benokraitis, 2015, for a discussion of these studies). Because many people are delaying mar- riage, they’re usually more mature in handling the chal- lenges of married life, which decreases the likelihood of divorce. 12-2b Cohabitation Cohabitation is an arrangement in which two unrelated and unmarried people live together and are in a sexual relationship (shacking up, in plain English). Because it’s based on emotional rather than legal ties, “cohabitation is a distinct family form, neither singlehood nor marriage” (Brown, 2005: 33). TRENDS Married couples comprise 49 percent of all households, a sharp decline from 78 percent in 1950. The decline is due to falling marriage rates and rising cohabitation. The number of adults in heterosexual cohabiting relationships surged from 430,000 in 1960 to almost 18 million in 2016. This number climbs by another 860,000 if we include same-sex cohabiters. Despite the high numbers, only 7 to 9 percent of the population is cohabiting in any given year (“Characteristics of Same-Sex Households,” 2017; Stepler, 2017). cohabitation two unrelated and unmarried people live together and are in a sexual relationship. V ic to ri a Ro be rt s/ Th e N ew Y or ke r C ol le ct io n/ Th e C ar to on B an k 236 SOC 05164_ch12_ptg01.indd 236 15/12/17 7:32 pm Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 About half of cohabiters are younger than 35. Since 2007, however, the number of cohabiters aged 50 and older has increased faster than other groups (Figure 12.2). Because of high divorce rates and a grow- ing share of people who have never been married in this age group, more people are available for cohabitation (Stepler, 2017). By age 44, 65 percent of women—compared with 33 percent in 1987—have cohabited. Cohabitation is a common experience at all education levels, but the like- lihood of cohabiting decreases as women’s educational levels increase (e.g., 76 percent of women with less than high school vs. 58 percent of women with a bachelor’s or advanced degree). On average, college-educated women cohabit for the shortest period (17 months) and are more likely than those without college degrees to transition to marriage (Copen, 2013; Vanorman and Scommegna, 2016). Black women are less likely to have ever cohabited (59 percent) than white women (67 percent) or Latinas (64 percent). Among all cohabiting adults, significantly more Asians (46 percent) live with a partner of a differ- ent race or ethnicity than Latinos (24 percent), blacks (20 percent), or whites (12 percent) (Vanorman and Scommegna, 2016; Livingston, 2017). The high rate of Asian interracial cohabitation, like intermarriage, may be due to this group’s small population size and short- age of available partners within their own group (see Chapter 10). WHY HAS COHABITATION INCREASED? On a micro level, some people drift gradually into dating cohabitation, when a couple that spends a great deal of time together decides to move in together. Dating cohab- itation is essentially an alternative to singlehood because the decision may be based on a combination of reasons (e.g., convenience, finances, companionship, and sexual accessibility), but there’s no long-term commitment. In this type of cohabitation, and especially among young adults, there’s considerable serial cohabitation, living with different sexual partners over time. Even if there’s an unplanned pregnancy, the man, especially, may decide …