Family and Religion PDF

Chapter 14 Family and Religion Learning Objectives 14.1 Understand families and how they differ 14.4 Apply sociology’s major theories to religion. around the world. 14.5 Discuss the links between religion and 14.2 Analyze the diver...

Chapter 14 Family and Religion Learning Objectives 14.1 Understand families and how they differ 14.4 Apply sociology’s major theories to religion. around the world. 14.5 Discuss the links between religion and 14.2 Analyze the diversity of family life over social change. the life course. 14.6 Analyze patterns of religiosity in the United 14.3 Analyze the importance of divorce, States. remarriage, and various family forms. 410  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 411 The Power of Society to shape our values and beliefs Survey Statement: “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.” 100% 90% 90% 79% 80% 72% 70% Percentage Who Agree 60% 48% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% White White White No Evangelical Catholics Mainline Religious Protestants Protestants Affiliation SOURCE: Pew Research Center (2012). Can a person’s religious affiliation (or lack of it) give us any clues about that person’s attitudes on family life? In a recent survey of U.S. adults (a survey that was limited to white people, to control for race), 90 percent of those who described themselves as evangelical Protestants also said they had “old-fashioned” values about family and marriage. The share of self- described Catholics or mainline Protestants who said the same was lower. And less than half of those who claimed to have no religious affiliation shared these traditional values. Clearly, people’s values—whether “old- fashioned” or progressive—are not just a matter of personal choice; they also reflect people’s social background, including their religious affiliation. 412 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion Chapter Overview This chapter explores the meaning and importance of two major social institutions. First, the chapter identifies various forms of family life, explores the operations of families, and tracks changes in families over time. Then the chapter explains how religious belief differs from other types of knowledge, identifies types of religious organizations, and analyzes historical change in the importance of religion. Rosa Yniguez is one of seven children who grew up in Jalisco, Mexico, in a world in which families worked hard, went to church regularly, and were proud of having many children. Rosa remembers friends of her parents who had a clock in their living room with a picture of each of their twelve children where the numbers on the clock face would be. Now thirty-five years old, Rosa is living in San Francisco, attends a local Catholic church, and works as a cashier in a department store. In some respects, she has carried on her parents’ traditions—but not in every way. Recalling her childhood, she says, “In Mexico, many of the families I knew had six, eight, ten children. Sometimes more. But I came to this country to get ahead. That is simply impossible with too many kids.” As a result of her desire to keep her job and make a better life for her family, Rosa has decided to have no more than the three children she has now. A tradition of having large families has helped make Hispanics the largest racial or ethnic minority in the United States. The birth rate for immigrant women remains higher than for native born women. But today, more and more Latinas are making the same decision as Rosa Yniguez and opting to have fewer children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Families have been with us for a very long time. But as this a social bond based on common ancestry, marriage, or adop- story indicates, U.S. families are changing in response to a tion. All societies contain families, but exactly who people number of factors, including the desire of women to have call their kin has varied through history and varies today more career options and to provide better lives for their chil- from one culture to another. Here and in other coun- dren. It is probably true that the family is changing faster tries, families form around marriage, a legal relationship, than any other social institution (Bianchi & Spain, 1996). usually involving economic cooperation, sexual activity, and Religion is changing, too, as membership in long- childbearing. established denominations is declining and new religious Today, some people object to defining only married organizations are flourishing. This chapter examines fam- couples or parents and children as families because it ily and religion, which are closely linked as society’s sym- endorses a narrow standard of how to live. Because some bolic institutions. Both the family and religion guide social business and government programs still use this conven- life by setting standards of morality, maintaining tradi- tional definition, many unmarried but committed part- tions, and joining people together. With a focus on the ners of the same or opposite sex are excluded from family United States, and making comparisons to other countries, health care and other benefits. However, our society is we will examine why many people consider family and re- gradually coming to recognize as families people with or ligion the foundations of society while others predict—and without legal or blood ties who feel they belong together may even encourage—the decline of both institutions. and define themselves as a family. Family: Concepts and Theories family a social institution found in all societies that unites people in cooperative groups to care for one another, including any children 14.1 Understand families and how they differ around the world. extended family a family nuclear family a family com- The family is a social institution found in all societies that composed of parents and chil- posed of one or two parents unites people in cooperative groups to care for one another, dren as well as other kin; also and their children; also known including any children. Family ties also reflect kinship, known as a consanguine family as a conjugal family  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 413 marriage a legal relationship, usually involving economic cooperation, sexual activity, and childbearing endogamy marriage between exogamy marriage between monogamy marriage that polygamy marriage that people of the same social people of different social unites two partners unites a person with two category categories or more spouses Because the U.S. Census Bureau uses the conventional maintaining the traditional social hierarchy. Exogamy, on definition of family,1 sociologists who use Census Bureau the other hand, links distant communities, builds alliances, data describing “families” must accept it. But the national and encourages the spread of culture. trend is toward a broader definition of families to include In higher-income nations, laws permit only monogamy both homosexual and heterosexual partners whether they (from the Greek, meaning “one union”), marriage that unites are married or unmarried. two partners. Monogamy is the rule throughout the Americas How closely do people have to be related to con- and Europe. But many lower-income countries, especially in sider themselves a “family”? In preindustrial societies, Africa and southern Asia, permit polygamy (Greek, “many people commonly recognize the extended family, a fam- unions”), marriage that unites a person with two or more spouses. ily composed of parents and children as well as other kin. This Polygamy has two forms. By far the more common is polyg- group is sometimes called the consanguine family because yny (Greek, “many women”), marriage that unites one man it includes everyone with “shared blood.” With industri- and two or more women. For example, Islamic nations in the alization, however, increasing social mobility and geo- Middle East and Africa permit men up to four wives. Even graphic migration give rise to the nuclear family, a family so, most Islamic families are monogamous because few men composed of one or two parents and their children. The nuclear can afford to support several wives and even more children. family is also called the conjugal family, meaning “based on Polyandry (Greek, “many men”) is marriage that unites one marriage.” Although many people in our society think of woman and two or more men. This extremely rare pattern kinship in terms of extended families, most people carry exists in Tibet, a mountainous land where agriculture is dif- out their everyday routines within a nuclear family. ficult. There, polyandry discourages the division of land into parcels too small to support a family and divides the Marriage Patterns hard work of farming among many men. Cultural norms—and often laws— identify people as suitable or un- suitable marriage partners. Some marital norms promote endogamy, marriage between people of the same social category. Endogamy limits marriage prospects to others of the same age, village, race, ethnicity, religion, or social class. By contrast, exogamy is marriage between people of different social categories. In rural India, for example, a person is ex- pected to marry someone from the same caste (endogamy) but from a different village (exogamy). The reason for endogamy is that people of similar position pass along their standing to their children, clearly 1 According to the Census Bureau, there were 125.8 million U.S. households in 2016. Of these, 82.2 million (65 percent) What does the modern family look like? If we look to the mass media, this is a difficult question meet the bureau’s definition of “fam- ily.” The remaining living units contained to answer. In the television series Modern Family, Jay Pritchett’s family includes his much younger single people or unrelated people living wife and their infant son, Jay’s stepson Manny, his daughter Claire (who is married with three together. In 1950, 90 percent of all house- children), and his son Mitchell (who, with his gay partner, has an adopted Vietnamese daughter). holds were families. How would you define “the family”? 414 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion Most of the world’s societies at some time have per- more egalitarian families are evolving, especially as the mitted more than one marital pattern. Even so, most mar- share of women in the labor force goes up. riages have been monogamous (Murdock, 1965, orig. 1949). The historical preference for monogamy reflects two facts Theories of the Family of life: Supporting several spouses is very expensive, and the number of men and women in most societies is roughly As in earlier chapters, applying sociology’s three major equal. theoretical approaches offers a range of insights about fam- ilies. The Applying Theory table summarizes what we can learn from each approach. Residential Patterns Just as societies regulate mate selection, they also designate Structural-Functional Theory: where a couple should live. In preindustrial societies, most newlyweds live with one set of parents who offer protec- Functions of the Family tion and assistance. Most common is the norm of patrilocal- According to the structural-functional approach, the fam- ity (Greek, “place of the father”), a residential pattern in ily performs many vital tasks. For this reason, the family is which a married couple lives with or near the husband’s sometimes called the “backbone of society.” family. But some societies, including the North American 1. Socialization. As noted in Chapter 3 (“Socialization: Iroquois, favor matrilocality (“place of the mother”), a resi- From Infancy to Old Age”), the family is the first and dential pattern in which a married couple lives with or most important setting for child rearing. Ideally, par- near the wife’s family. ents help children develop into well-integrated and Industrial societies show yet another pattern. Finances contributing members of society. Of course, family so- permitting, they favor neolocality (Greek, “new place”), a cialization continues throughout the life cycle. Adults residential pattern in which a married couple lives apart change within marriage, and as any parent knows, from both sets of parents. mothers and fathers learn as much from their children as their children learn from them. Patterns of Descent 2. Regulation of sexual activity. Every culture regulates Descent refers to the system by which members of a society sexual activity in the interest of maintaining kinship or- trace kinship over generations. Most preindustrial societ- ganization and property rights. As discussed in Chapter ies trace kinship through either the father’s side or the 7 (“Sexuality and Society”), the incest taboo is a norm mother’s side of the family. Patrilineal descent, the more forbidding sexual relations or marriage between certain rela- common pattern, is a system tracing kinship through tives. Although the incest taboo exists in every society, men. In this pattern, children are related to others only exactly which relatives cannot marry varies from one through their fathers. Tracing kinship through patrilin- culture to another. The matrilineal Navajo, for example, eal descent ensures that fathers pass property on to their forbid marrying any relative of one’s mother. Our bilat- sons. Patrilineal descent characterizes most pastoral and eral society applies the incest taboo to both sides of the agrarian societies, in which men produce the most valued family but limits it to close relatives, including siblings, resources. A less common pattern is matrilineal descent, a parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents. Half the system tracing kinship through women. Matrilineal de- states allow first-cousin marriages (sometimes with age scent, in which mothers pass property to their daughters, restrictions), and half the states forbid such marriages. is found in horticultural societies where women are the Why does some form of incest taboo exist in main food producers. every society? Part of the reason is rooted in biology: Industrial societies with greater gender equality recog- Reproduction between close relatives of any species nize bilateral descent (“two-sided descent”), a system trac- raises the odds of producing offspring with mental or ing kinship through both men and women. In this pattern, physical damage. But why, of all living species, do only children include people on both the father’s side and the humans observe an incest taboo? The answer is that mother’s side among their relatives. controlling reproduction among close relatives is nec- essary for social organization. For one thing, the incest taboo limits sexual competition in families by restrict- Patterns of Authority ing sex to spouses. Second, because family ties define Worldwide, polygyny, patrilocality, and patrilineal descent people’s rights and obligations toward one another, re- are dominant and reflect the common global pattern of pa- production between close relatives would hopelessly triarchy. In industrial societies such as the United States, confuse kinship ties and threaten social order. Third, men are still typically heads of households, and most U.S. by requiring people to marry outside their immedi- parents give children their father’s last name. However, ate families, the incest taboo serves to tie together the  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 415 larger society as people look be- yond close kin when seeking to form new families. 3. Social placement. Families are not needed for people to reproduce, but families do help maintain so- cial organization. Parents pass on their own social identity—in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and so- cial class—to their children at birth. 4. Material and emotional security. Many people view the family as a “haven in a heartless world,” offer- ing physical protection, emotional support, and financial assistance. Perhaps this is why people liv- ing in families tend to be hap- pier, healthier, and wealthier than people living alone (Goldstein & Often, we experience modern society as cold and impersonal. In this context, the family can be a haven in a heartless world. Not every family lives up to this promise, of course, but people in Kenney, 2001; Fustos, 2010; U.S. families do live happier and longer than those who live alone. Census Bureau, 2014). bear most of the responsibility for child rearing and EVALUATE housework (England, 2001; U.S. Department of Labor, Structural-functional theory explains why society, at least as we know Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). it, is built on families. But this approach glosses over the diversity 3. Race and ethnicity. Racial and ethnic categories per- of U.S. family life and ignores how other social institutions (such as sist over generations only to the degree that people government) could meet at least some of the same human needs. marry others like themselves. Endogamous marriage Finally, structural-functionalism overlooks the negative aspects of supports racial and ethnic inequality. family life, including patriarchy and family violence. CHECK YOUR LEARNING What four important functions does EVALUATE the family provide for the operation of society? Social-conflict and feminist theories show another side of family life: its role in social stratification. Friedrich Engels criticized the family as Social-Conflict and Feminist part and parcel of capitalism. But noncapitalist societies also have families (and family problems). The family may be linked to class Theories: Inequality and the inequality, as Engels argued, and to gender inequality, as feminist Family theory claims. But it carries out societal functions not easily accom- plished by other means. Like the structural-functional approach, the social-conflict approach, including feminist theory, considers the family CHECK YOUR LEARNING Point to three ways in which the central to our way of life. But instead of focusing on ways family supports social inequality. that kinship benefits society, this approach points out how the family perpetuates social inequality. 1. Property and inheritance. Friedrich Engels (1902, orig. Micro-Level Theories: Constructing 1884) traced the origin of the family to men’s need (es- Family Life pecially in the higher classes) to identify heirs so that Both the structural-functional and social-conflict approaches they could hand down property to their sons. Families view the family as a structural system. By contrast, micro- thus concentrate wealth and reproduce the class level analysis explores how individuals shape and experi- structure in each new generation. ence family life. 2. Patriarchy. Feminists link the family to patriarchy. To know who their heirs are, men must control the sexu- SYMBOLIC-INTERACTION THEORY Ideally, family liv- ality of women. Families therefore transform women ing offers an opportunity for intimacy, a word with Latin roots into the sexual and economic property of men. A that mean “sharing fear.” As family members share many century ago in the United States, most wives’ earn- activities and establish trust, they build emotional bonds. Of ings belonged to their husbands. Today, women still course, the fact that parents act as authority figures often limits 416 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion APPLYING THEORY Family Social-Conflict and Feminist Symbolic-Interaction and Structural-Functional Theory Theories Social-Exchange Theories What is the level of analysis? Macro-level Macro-level Micro-level What is the importance of the The family performs vital tasks, The family perpetuates social in- Symbolic-interaction theory ex- family for society? including socializing the young and equality by handing down wealth plains that the reality of family life providing emotional and financial from one generation to the next. is constructed by members in their support for members. interaction. The family helps regulate sexual The family supports patriarchy as Social-exchange theory shows that activity. well as racial and ethnic inequality. courtship typically brings together people who offer the same level of advantages. their closeness with younger children. Only as young people the life course. A new family begins with the couple en- approach adulthood do kinship ties open up to include shar- gaged in courtship and evolves as the new partners settle ing confidences with greater intimacy (Macionis, 1978). into the realities of married life. Next, for most couples at least, come the years spent developing careers and raising SOCIAL-EXCHANGE THEORY Social-exchange theory, children, leading to the later years of marriage, after the another micro-level approach, describes courtship and mar- children have left home to form families of their own. We riage as forms of negotiation (Blau, 1964). Dating allows will look briefly at each of these four stages. each person to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a potential spouse. In essence, exchange theory suggests, people “shop around” to make the best “deal” they can. Courtship and Romantic Love In patriarchal societies, gender roles dictate the ele- November 2, Kandy, Sri Lanka. Winding through the rain ments of exchange: Men bring wealth and power to the forest of this beautiful island, our van driver, Harry, recounts marriage marketplace, and women bring beauty. The how he met his wife. Actually, it was more of an arrangement importance of beauty in this traditional system explains agreed to by their parents: The two families were Buddhist and women’s longstanding concern with their appearance and of the same caste. “We got along well, right from the start,” sensitivity about revealing their age. But as women have recalls Harry. “We had the same background. I suppose either joined the labor force, they have become less dependent she or I could have said no. But ‘love marriages’ happen in the on men to support them, and so the terms of exchange for city, not in the village where I grew up.” women and men are becoming more similar. In rural Sri Lanka, as in rural areas of low- and middle- EVALUATE income countries throughout the world, most people Micro-level theory balances structural-functional and social-conflict consider courtship too important to be left to the young. visions of the family as an institutional system. Both the symbolic- Arranged marriages are alliances between two extended interaction and social-exchange approaches focus on the individual families of similar social standing and usually involve an experience of family life. However, micro-level theories miss the big- exchange not just of children but also of wealth and fa- ger picture: The experience of family life is similar for people in the vors. Romantic love has little to do with marriage, and same social and economic categories. parents may make such arrangements when their children CHECK YOUR LEARNING How does a micro-level approach are very young. A century ago in Sri Lanka and India, half to understanding the family differ from a macro-level approach? of all girls married before age fifteen. Today, perhaps one State the main ideas of symbolic-interaction theory and social- in eight young women in low-income nations is married exchange theory. before the age of fifteen; about four in ten is married be- fore the age of eighteen (Mayo, 1927; Mace & Mace, 1960; UNICEF, 2016). The Experience Because traditional societies are more culturally homo- geneous, almost all young men and women have been of Family Life well socialized to be good spouses. Therefore, parents can arrange marriages with little thought about whether or 14.2 Analyze the diversity of family life over the life not the two individuals involved are personally compatible course. because they know that the partners are being raised to be The family is a dynamic institution. Not only does the culturally compatible. family itself change over time, but the way any of us ex- Industrialization both erodes the importance of periences family also changes as well as we move through extended families and weakens traditions. As young people  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 417 begin the process of choosing their own mate, dating sharp- ens courtship skills and allows sexual experimentation. Marriage is delayed until young people complete their edu- cation, build financial security that will allow them to live apart from their parents, and gain the life experience needed to select a suitable partner. Our culture celebrates romantic love—affection and sexual passion for another person—as the basis for mar- riage. We find it hard to imagine marriage without love, and popular culture, from fairy tales such as “Cinderella” to today’s television sitcoms and dramas, portrays love as the key to a successful marriage. Our society’s emphasis on romance motivates young people to “leave the nest” to form families of their own; physical passion may also help a new couple through dif- ficult adjustments in learning to live together (Goode, 1959). On the other hand, because feelings change over time, romantic love is a less stable foundation for marriage than social and economic considerations, one reason that the divorce rate is much higher in the United States than in nations where cultural traditions are a stronger guide in the choice of a partner. But even in our country, sociologists point out, society aims Cupid’s arrow more than we like to think. Most people fall in love with others of the same race who are close in age and of similar social class (see the According to social exchange theory, people form relationships based Power of Society figure at the beginning of Chapter on what each offers to the other. Generally partners see the exchange 1). Our society “arranges” marriages by encouraging as fair or “about even.” What do you think is the exchange involved homogamy (literally, “like marrying like”), marriage in this marriage between actor Doug Hutchinson (who was fifty-one at the time of their marriage) and aspiring actress Courtney Stodden between people with the same social characteristics. The (who was sixteen)? extent of homogamy is greater for some categories of our population (such as older people and immigrants from traditional societies) than for others (younger peo- ple and those who live with less concern for cultural satisfaction in their marriages. Sex may not be the one key traditions). to marital happiness, but more often than not, good sex and good relationships go together (Laumann et al., 1994; T. W. Smith, 2006). Settling In: Ideal and Real Marriage Infidelity—sexual activity outside one’s marriage—is Our culture gives young people an idealized, “happily another area where the reality of marriage does not match ever after” picture of marriage. Such optimism can lead our cultural ideal. In a recent survey, 91 percent of U.S. to disappointment, especially for women, who have long adults said a married person having sex outside of mar- been taught to view marriage as the key to personal happi- riage is “always wrong” or “almost always wrong.” Even ness. Also, romantic love involves a lot of fantasy: We fall so, 21 percent of married men and 12 percent of married in love with others not always as they are but as we want women indicated (in a private, written questionnaire) that them to be. they had been sexually unfaithful to their partners at least Sexuality, too, can be a source of disappointment. In once (Smith et al., 2017). the romantic haze of falling in love, people may see mar- riage as an endless sexual honeymoon, only to face the sobering realization that sex eventually becomes a less- Child Rearing than-all-consuming passion. Although the frequency of Despite the demands children make on us, U.S. adults marital sex does decline over time, about two in three overwhelmingly identify raising children as one of life’s married people report that they are satisfied with the great joys (Wang & Taylor, 2011; Smith et al., 2017). Today, sexual dimension of their relationship. In general, couples about half of U.S. adults say that two children is the ideal with the best sexual relationships experience the most number, and few people want more than three (Smith et al., 418 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion where many women have few alternatives to bearing chil- dren. In many African nations, as a glance back at Global Map 1–1 shows, four or five children is still the norm. Parenting is a very expensive, lifelong commitment. As our society has given people greater choices about family life, more U.S. adults have decided to delay childbirth or to remain childless. In 1960, 90 percent of women between the ages of twenty-five and twenty-nine who had ever married had at least one child; today, this proportion has declined to 69 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). About half of parents in the United States claim they would like to devote more of their time to child rearing (Cohn, 2007). But unless we accept a lower standard of liv- ing, the need for income demands that most parents pur- sue careers outside the home, even if that means giving less time to their families. For many families, including Rosa Yniguez’s family described in the opening to this chapter, having fewer children is an important step toward resolv- ing the tension between work and parenting (Gilbert, 2005). Children of working parents spend most of the day at school. But after school, about 4.5 million youngsters (11 percent of five- to fourteen-year-olds) are latchkey kids who must fend for themselves (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Traditionalists in the “family values” debate charge that many mothers work at the expense of their children, who © The New Yorker Collection, 1983, Robert Weber, from cartoonbank.com. All receive less parenting. Progressives reply that such criti- rights reserved. cism unfairly blames women for wanting the same oppor- 2017). This is a change from two centuries ago, when eight tunities men have long enjoyed. children was the U.S. average. Congress took a small step toward easing the conflict Big families pay off in preindustrial societies because between family and job responsibilities by passing the children supply needed labor. People therefore regard Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. This law allows having children as a wife’s duty, and in the absence of up to ninety days’ unpaid leave from work for either par- effective birth control, childbearing is a regular event. Of ent to care for a new child or deal with a serious family course, a high death rate in preindustrial societies pre- emergency. Still, most adults in this country have to juggle vents many children from reaching adulthood; as late as parental and job responsibilities. 1900, one-third of children born in the United States died by age ten. The Family in Later Life Economically speaking, industrialization transforms children from an asset to a liability. It now costs low- Increasing life expectancy in the United States means that income parents about $212,000 to raise one child, includ- couples who stay married do so for a longer time. By age ing college tuition; middle-class parents commonly spend sixty, most have completed the task of raising children. At about $285,000, and high-income families spend almost this point, marriage brings a return to living with only a $500,000 (Lino et al., 2017). No wonder the U.S. average spouse. steadily dropped during the twentieth century to one child Like the birth of children, their departure—creating an per family!2 “empty nest”—requires adjustments, although a marriage The trend toward smaller families is most pronounced often becomes closer and more satisfying. Years of living in high-income nations. The picture differs in low-income together may lessen a couple’s sexual passion, but under- regions in Latin America, Asia, and especially Africa, standing and commitment often increase. Personal contact with children usually continues because most older adults live near at least one of their grown children. More than one-third of all U.S. adults 2 According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2016), the mean number of re- older than thirty (about 70 million men and women) are lated children per family was 0.88 in 2015. Among all families, the me- dians were 0.75 for non-Hispanic whites, 1.10 for African Americans, grandparents, many of whom help with child care and and 1.28 for Hispanics. other responsibilities. Among African Americans (who  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 419 have a high rate of single parent- ing), grandmothers have an espe- cially important position in family life. Among all older people, help- ing out grandchildren and adult children—as well as doing favors for friends and neighbors—is a significant part of daily life (Luo et al., 2012; Meyer, 2014; Pew Research Center, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016, 2017). The other side of the coin is that adults in midlife now provide more care for aging parents. The The experience of family life changes as we move through the life course. One important responsi- “empty nest” may not be filled bility for many people as they move through middle age is caring for aging parents. In what ways by a parent coming to live in the does the process of aging change the relationship between parents and their sons and daughters? home, but many adults find that caring for parents living to eighty, ninety, and beyond can these women simply assumed that a husband would provide be as taxing as raising young children. The oldest of the a safe and secure home. Their ideal husband was someone baby boomers—now reaching sixty-five—are called the they could talk to easily, sharing feelings and experiences. “sandwich generation” because many of them, especially Clearly, what women (and men) hope for in marriage— women, will spend as many years caring for their aging and what they end up with—is linked to their social class. parents as they did caring for their children (Lund, 1993; Much the same holds for children: Boys and girls lucky Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). enough to be born into more affluent families enjoy better The final and surely the most difficult transition in mar- mental and physical health, develop more self-confidence, ried life comes with the death of a spouse. Wives typically and go on to greater achievement than children born to poor outlive husbands because of their greater life expectancy and parents (McLeod & Shanahan, 1993;Duncan et al., 1998). the fact that women usually marry men several years older When economic bad times bring economic challenges than themselves. Wives can thus expect to spend some years to the United States, we can expect to see changes in fam- as widows. The challenge of living alone after the death of a ily patterns. In the wake of the Great Recession that began spouse is especially great for men, who usually have fewer in 2007, one notable trend was a rise in the number of friends than widows and may lack housekeeping skills. people moving in with relatives. Just before the recession Keep in mind that loneliness is not the same as being began in 2007, 46 million adults were living in households alone. One recent study of loneliness among older people with a parent, adult child, or adult sibling. By 2009, this found that more than half of those who said they felt lonely number was almost 52 million and the increase continued were married. Loneliness can result from being alone, but through 2014. By sharing household expenses, relatives it also results from physical or emotional issues that isolate who live together boost their standard of living and cut people from those around them (Cornwell & Waite, 2009; their risk of poverty. The poverty rate among unemployed Holwerda et al., 2012). adults who live with relatives is about 18 percent—well below the level of 30 percent for those who live on their own (Pew Research Center, 2011; Cohn & Passel, 2016). U.S. Families: Class, Race, Finally, there is growing evidence that, while marriage and Gender remains popular among people who are well-educated and relatively affluent, people who have less schooling and Dimensions of inequality—social class, ethnicity, race, and income are considerably less likely to marry. One recent gender—are powerful forces that shape marriage and fam- study found that 64 percent of college-educated adults in ily life. This discussion addresses each of these factors in the United States were married compared to only 48 per- turn, but bear in mind that they overlap in our lives. cent of people who were not college graduates (Cohn et al., SOCIAL CLASS Social class determines both a family’s fi- 2011; Yarrow, 2015). nancial security and its range of opportunities. Interviewing working-class women, Lillian Rubin (1976) found that wives ETHNICITY AND RACE As Chapter 12 (“Race and thought a good husband was a man who held a steady job, Ethnicity”) discusses, ethnicity and race are powerful did not drink too much, and was not violent. Rubin’s middle- forces that shape family life. Keep in mind, however, that class respondents, by contrast, never mentioned such things; American Indian, Latino, and African American families 420 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion (like all families) are diverse and do not fit any single gen- families also follow conventional gender roles, priz- eralization or stereotype (Allen, 1995). ing machismo—strength, daring, and sexual conquest— among men and treating women with respect but also American Indian Families American Indians display a wide close supervision. variety of family types. Some patterns emerge, however, However, assimilation into the larger society is chang- among people who migrate from tribal reservations to cit- ing these traditional patterns. As the story opening this ies. Women and men who arrive in cities often seek out chapter explained, many women who come to California others—especially kin and members of the same tribe— from Mexico favor smaller families. Similarly, many for help in getting settled. One study tells the story of two Puerto Ricans who migrate to New York do not maintain women migrants to the San Francisco area who met at a the strong extended families they knew in Puerto Rico. meeting of an Indian organization and realized they were In recent decades, the traditional authority of men over of the same tribe. The women and their children decided women has also lessened, especially among wealthy Latino to share an apartment, and soon after, the children began families, whose number has more than quadrupled in the to refer to one another as brothers, sisters, and cousins. As past twenty-five years (Raley, Durden, & Wildsmith, 2004; the months passed, the two mothers came to think of them- U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). selves as sisters (Lobo, 2002). Overall, however, the typical Hispanic family had an Migration also creates “fluid households” with changing income of just $47,328 in 2015, or 67 percent of the national membership. In another case from this same study, a woman, average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Many Hispanic fami- her aunt, and their children rented a large apartment in San lies suffer the stress of unemployment and other poverty- Francisco. Over the course of several months, they welcomed related problems. into their home more than thirty other urban migrants, each of whom stayed for a short time while looking for housing of African American Families The U.S. Census Bureau re- their own. Such patterns of mutual assistance, involving real ports that the typical African American family earned or fictional kinship, are common among low-income people. $45,781 in 2015, which was 65 percent of the national aver- American Indians who leave tribal reservations for the age. People of African ancestry are three times as likely as cities are typically better off than those who stay behind. non-Hispanic whites to be poor, and poverty means that Because people in reservations have a hard time finding parents and children are likely to experience unemploy- work, they cannot easily form stable marriages, and prob- ment, substandard housing, and poor health. lems such as alcoholism and drug abuse shatter the ties Under these circumstances, maintaining stable fam- between parent and child. ily ties is difficult. Consider that about half of all African Latino Families Many Latinos enjoy the loyalty and American women older than age fifteen have never mar- support of extended families. Traditionally, Hispanic ried, compared with one-fourth of comparable white parents exercise greater control over children’s court- women. This means that African American women—often ship, considering marriage an alliance of families and with children—are more likely to be single heads of house- not just a union based on romantic love. Some Hispanic holds. Figure 14–1 shows that women headed 55 percent of Diversity Snapshot African Americans Hispanic Americans Whites 5% 5% 7% 21% 34% 28% 55% 60% 5% 69% 6% 5% Married couple Female head of household, no husband present Male head of household, no wife present Two Parents, Not Married Figure 14–1 Family Form in the United States, 2016 All racial and ethnic categories show variations in family form. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (2016).  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 421 African American families in 2016, compared with 28 per- cent of Hispanic families, and 21 percent of white families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Regardless of race, single-mother families are always at high risk of poverty. Thirty-one percent of U.S. fami- lies with young children headed by non-Hispanic white women are poor. The higher poverty rate among families headed by African American women (40 percent) and Hispanic women (42 percent) is strong evidence of how the intersection of class, race, and gender can put women at a disadvantage. African American families with both wife and husband in the home, which represent 45 percent of the total, are much stronger economically, earning 81 per- cent as much as comparable non-Hispanic white families. But 71 percent of African American children are born to single women, and 33 percent of African American boys and girls are growing up poor, meaning that these families carry much of the burden of child poverty in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016; Martin et al., 2017). Ethnically and Racially Mixed Marriages Most spouses have similar social backgrounds with regard to class and race. But over the course of the twentieth century, ethnic- For most of our nation’s history, interracial marriage was illegal. The ity came to matter less and less. A woman of German or last of these laws was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in French ancestry might readily marry a man of Irish or 1956. Although race and ethnicity continue to guide the process of courtship and marriage, interracial relationships are becoming more English background without inviting disapproval from and more common. their families or from society in general. Race has been a more powerful barrier in mate selec- tion. Before a 1967 Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Nevada, California, New Mexico, and Washington, plus Virginia), interracial marriage was actually illegal in sixteen the District of Columbia—more than 10 percent of all mar- states. Today, African, Asian, and Native Americans make ried couples are interracial (Passel, Wang, & Taylor, 2010; up 18.8 percent of the U.S. population; if people ignored U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). The Thinking About Diversity race in choosing spouses, we would expect about the same box demonstrates how acceptance of “mixed” relation- share of marriages to be mixed. The actual proportion of ships vary according to age. racially mixed marriages is 5.0 percent, showing that race still matters in social relations. Even so, most people claim GENDER The sociologist Jessie Bernard (1982) says that that race and ethnicity should not matter in choosing every marriage is actually two different relationships: the a partner. In addition, the age at first marriage has been woman’s marriage and the man’s marriage. The reason rising to an average of 29.5 for men and 27.4 for women. is that few marriages have two equal partners. Although Young people who marry a little later in life are more likely patriarchy has diminished, many people still expect hus- to make choices about partners with less input from par- bands to be older and taller than their wives and to have ents and other family members. more important, better-paid jobs. One consequence of this increasing freedom of choice Why, then, do many people think that marriage ben- is that the share of ethnically and racially mixed marriages efits women more than men? The positive stereotype of is increasing (Rosenfeld & Kim, 2005; Kent, 2010; U.S. the carefree bachelor contrasts sharply with the negative Census Bureau, 2016). The most common type of interra- image of the lonely spinster, suggesting that women are cial married couple is a white husband and an Asian wife, fulfilled only through being wives and mothers. which accounts for about 27 percent of all interracial mar- However, Bernard points out, married women actually ried couples. When ethnicity is considered, the most com- have poorer mental health, less happiness, and more pas- mon type of “mixed” couple includes one partner who is sive attitudes toward life than single women do. Married Hispanic and one who is not. In nearly half of all “mixed” men, on the other hand, generally live longer, are mentally marriages, one partner claims a multiracial or multiethnic better off, and report being happier than single men (Fustos, identity. Interracial married couples are most likely to live 2010). These differences suggest why, after divorce, men are in the West; in seven states—Hawaii, Oklahoma, Alaska, more eager than women to find a new partner. 422 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion Thinking About Diversity: Race, Class, and Gender Dating and Marriage: The Declining In the South, almost three-fourths of adults held the same opinion. And, in fact, until 1967 when the Supreme Importance of Race Court declared such laws to be unconstitutional, sixteen In 1961, a young anthropology student from Kansas named states did outlaw interracial marriage. Ann Dunham married a foreign student from Kenya named In 2008, their son, Barack Obama Jr., was elected presi- Barack Obama. This marriage was quite unusual at that time dent of the United States. More broadly, interracial romantic for the simple reason that Dunham was white and Obama relationships have become commonplace. As the figure was black. shows, almost all young people between the ages of eighteen Fifty years ago, barely two of every one hundred and twenty-nine claim that they accept interracial dating. marriages involved partners of different racial categories. Most young people also accept interracial marriage. Among There were strong cultural forces opposing such unions. people who are older, however, a more traditional norm of Survey data from the 1960s show that 42 percent of adults racial homogamy is still in play and they show somewhat living in the northern United States said they wanted the lower support for interracial dating. But, since 2000, majorities law to ban marriage between people of different racial of people in all age categories support this practice. classifications. Even among people who say they accept interracial marriage, most actual marriages still join people of one racial “I think it’s all right for blacks and whites to date each other.” category. Researchers note that 85 percent of U.S. mar- riages between 2008 and 2010 joined people of the same 100 racial and ethnic categories. Among the people who recently Age 18–29 90 married, Asians were the most likely to “marry out,” and about 28 percent did so. Hispanics were next, with about 80 26 percent marrying non-Hispanics. About 17 percent of Age 50–64 African Americans married non–African Americans. Finally, Percentage Agreeing with Statement Age 30–49 70 about 9 percent of non-Hispanic whites married people of other categories. 60 Change in patterns of marriage is obvious. Yet race Age 65+ and ethnicity continue to guide the selection of a marriage 50 partner. 40 30 What Do You Think? 1. What are your views on interracial dating and marriage? 20 What are your personal experiences? 2. What patterns involving dating and race do you see on 10 your campus? 3. Do you think you will live to see the day when race no 0 longer guides people’s choices of marriage partners? 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 Why or why not? Share of People Who Support Interracial Dating, by Age SOURCES: Based on Kent (2010), Pew Research Center (2012); Wang SOURCE: Pew Research Center (2012). (2012); and U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Bernard concludes that there is no better assurance of long life, health, and happiness for a man than having a Current Issues of woman devote her life to taking care of him and providing the security of a well-ordered home. She is quick to add Family Life that marriage could be healthful for women if husbands did 14.3 Analyze the importance of divorce, remarriage, not dominate wives and expect them to do almost all the and various family forms. housework. Survey responses confirm that couples rank The newspaper columnist Ann Landers once remarked that “sharing household chores” as one of the most impor- one marriage in twenty is wonderful, five in twenty are tant factors that contribute to a successful marriage (Pew good, ten in twenty are tolerable, and the remaining four are Research Center, 2015).  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 423 “pure hell.” Families can be a source of joy, but the reality of A century ago, many The divorce rate rose during family life can also fall short of the ideal. people regarded World War II, when many divorce as a mark of couples were separated for personal failure. long periods of time. Divorce 6 Our society strongly supports marriage, and 83 per- cent of people over the age of forty have at some point Divorces (per 1,000 persons age 15 and older) 5 “tied the knot.” But many of today’s marriages unravel. Figure 14–2 shows that the U.S. divorce rate has tripled over the past century. Today, about 20 percent of marriages 4 end in separation or divorce within five years, and about half eventually do so (for African Americans, more than 60 3 percent do). From another angle, of all people over the age of fifteen, 21 percent of men and 22 percent of women have been divorced at some point. 2 It has long been true that divorce rates go down as people grow older. Over recent decades, however, divorce 1 rates have been declining among young people and ris- ing among older people. Among seniors (including the cohort we call “baby boomers”), the divorce rate is now 0 three times higher than what it was twenty-five years ago 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 (Steverman, 2016; Stepler, 2017). Year For the nation as a whole, the divorce rate is among Figure 14–2 Divorce Rate for the United States, the highest rate in the world—half again higher than in 1890–2015 Canada, almost double the rate in Japan, and five times Over the long term, the U.S. divorce rate has gone up. Since about the rate in Ireland (Cohen, 2016; United Nations, 2016; 1980, however, the trend has been downward. European Union, 2017; OECD, 2017). National Map 14–1 SOURCES: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1973) and shows where in the United States divorce rates are espe- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). cially high and low. The high U.S. divorce rate has many causes (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991; Etzioni, 1993; Popenoe, 1999; than ever. Children do stabilize some marriages, but Greenspan, 2001; Miller, 2015; Slaughter, 2015): divorce is most common during the early years of mar- riage, when many couples have young children. 1. Individualism is part of U.S. culture. In many fami- 6. Divorce has become socially acceptable. Divorce no lies, individuals spend little time together. Our way longer carries the powerful stigma it did just a few of life is individualistic and more concerned with our generations ago. Family and friends are now less likely personal happiness and earning income, sometimes at to discourage couples in conflict from divorcing. the expense of partners and children. 7. Legally, a divorce is easy to get. In the past, courts re- 2. Romantic love fades. Because our culture bases mar- quired divorcing couples to demonstrate that one or riage on romantic love, relationships may fail as sexual both were guilty of behavior such as adultery or physi- passion fades. Many people end a marriage in favor of cal abuse. Today, all states allow divorce if a couple a new relationship that promises renewed excitement simply declares that the marriage has failed. Concern and romance. about easy divorce, shared by more than four in ten 3. Women are less dependent on men. Women’s increas- U.S. adults, has led a few states to consider rewriting ing participation in the labor force has reduced wives’ their marriage laws (Phillips, 2001; Smith et al., 2017). financial dependency on their husbands. Thus, women find it easier to leave unhappy marriages. WHO DIVORCES? At greatest risk of divorce are 4. Many of today’s marriages are stressful. In half of young couples—especially those who marry after a brief two-parent families, both partners work outside the courtship—who tend to lack money and emotional ma- home. Research shows that many women and men turity. The chance of divorce also rises if a couple marries find that the demands of work make it difficult to have after an unexpected pregnancy or if one or both partners time and energy for themselves, not to mention their have substance abuse problems. People who are not re- marital partners. ligious are more likely to divorce than those who have 5. Raising children adds to the stress. Especially for strong religious beliefs. In addition, people whose par- working fathers and mothers, raising children is harder ents divorced also have a higher divorce rate themselves. 424 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion Seeing Ourselves WASHINGTON NORTH VERMONT MAINE MONTANA MINNESOTA* DAKOTA OREGON MICHIGAN NEW HAMPSHIRE SOUTH WISCONSIN NEW MASSACHUSETTS IDAHO DAKOTA YORK WYOMING RHODE ISLAND CONNECTICUT IOWA PENNSYLVANIA NEBRASKA NEW JERSEY NEVADA OHIO INDIANA* D.C. DELAWARE UTAH ILLINOIS WEST COLORADO VIRGINIA MARYLAND CALIFORNIA* KANSAS MISSOURI VIRGINIA KENTUCKY NORTH CAROLINA TENNESSEE ARIZONA OKLAHOMA NEW ARKANSAS SOUTH MEXICO CAROLINA GEORGIA* Divorce Rate, 2015 ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI High: 4.0 and above TEXAS ALASKA Average: 3.0 to 3.9 LOUISIANA FLORIDA Low: below 3.0 HAWAII* U.S. average: 3.1 * From U.S. Census Bureau National Map 14–1 Divorce across the United States The divorce rate (the number of divorces for every 1,000 people regardless of age) is higher in some states than it is in others. In general, divorce rates are higher in the West (and especially in Nevada, a state with very liberal divorce laws), less common in the East, and much less common in the middle of the country. Research points out some patterns: Divorce is more likely among people who are younger, have weaker religious ties, and who move away from their parents’ hometown. Can you apply these facts to make sense of this map? SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau (2016) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). Researchers suggest that a role-modeling effect is at work: 32 percent of first marriages ended in divorce within ten Children who see parents go through divorce are more years; for second marriages, the share rose to 46 percent likely to consider divorce themselves. People who live in (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National rural areas of the country are less likely to divorce than Center for Health Statistics, 2013). Why? For many people people who live in large cities, although this difference is the factors raising the odds of divorce follow them from much less than it used to be (Pew Research Center, 2008; one marriage to the next. Perhaps, too, having decided Tavernise & Gebeloff, 2011; Copen et al., 2012). once to leave a marriage makes people more likely to reach Rates of divorce (and remarriage) have remained the same conclusion again. This fact helps to explain why about the same among people with a college education the divorce rate has been increasing among older people and those with high-paying jobs. At the same time, divorce (Glenn & Shelton, 1985; Moeller, 2012). rates are increasing (and marriage rates have been declin- ing) among those who do not attend college and among DIVORCE AND CHILDREN Because mothers usually those with low-paying work. Some researchers suggest gain custody of children but fathers typically earn more that more disadvantaged members of our society appear to income, the well-being of many children depends on fa- be turning away from marriage, not so much because they thers’ making court-ordered child support payments. do not wish to be married, but because they lack the eco- Courts award child support in 49 percent of all divorces nomic security needed for a stable family life (Kent, 2011; involving children. Yet in any given year, more than half Copen et al., 2013). This trend shows how the recent reces- of children legally entitled to support receive only partial sion and increasing income inequality in the United States payments or no payments at all. Some 2.7 million “dead- are affecting family life. beat dads” (and about 400,000 “deadbeat moms”) fail to Finally, men and women who have already divorced support their youngsters. In response, federal legislation once are more likely to divorce than people who have mar- now requires employers to withhold money from the ried for the first time. Government data show that, among earnings of fathers or mothers who fail to pay up; it is a U.S. women between the ages of fifteen and forty-four, serious crime to refuse to make child support payments  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 425 or to move to another state to avoid making them (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). The effects of divorce on children go beyond financial support. Divorce can tear young people from familiar sur- roundings, entangle them in bitter feuding, and distance them from a parent they love. Most serious of all, many children blame themselves for their parents’ breakup. Divorce changes the course of many children’s lives, caus- ing emotional and behavioral problems and raising the risk of dropping out of school and getting into trouble with the law. Many experts counter that divorce is better for chil- dren than staying in a family torn by tension and violence. In any case, parents should remember that if they con- sider divorce, more than their own well-being is at stake (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989; Amato & Sobolewski, 2001). Remarriage and Blended Families More than half of all people who divorce remarry, and more than half of these new marriages take place within five years. Nationwide, about 32 percent of all marriages are now remarriages for at least one partner. Men, who benefit more from wedlock, are more likely than women to remarry (Livingston, 2014; Lewis & Kreider, 2015). Remarriage often creates blended families, composed Divorce may be a solution for a couple in an unhappy marriage, but of children and some combination of biological parents it can be a problem for children who experience the withdrawal of a and stepparents. With brothers, sisters, half-siblings, a parent from their social world. In what ways can divorce be harmful to children? Is there a positive side to divorce? How might separat- stepparent—not to mention a biological parent who may ing parents better prepare their children for the transition of parental live elsewhere and be married to someone else with other divorce? children—young people in blended families face the chal- lenge of defining many new relationships and deciding by another. With the exception of the police and the military, just who is part of the nuclear family. Parents often have claims sociologist Richard J. Gelles, the family is “the most trouble defining responsibilities for household work violent group in society” (quoted in Roesch, 1984:75). among people unsure of their relationships to each other. When the custody of children is an issue, ex-spouses can VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Family brutality often be an unwelcome presence for people in a new marriage. goes unreported to police. Even so, the U.S. Department Although blended families require a great deal of new of Justice (2016) estimates that in 2015 about 493,000 adults adjustment, they also offer both young and old the chance were victims of domestic violence involving simple assault to relax rigid family roles (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 2001; and another 213,000 were victims of more serious criminal McLanahan, 2002). assault. Family violence harms both sexes, but not equally; Blended families are also formed when parents have women are three times more likely than men to be victims. children with more than one partner. As the rate of chil- In the case of deadly violence, government statistics show dren in the United States born to unmarried parents rises us that 36 percent of female victims of homicide—but just 1 (in 2013, it was 40.6 percent), the share of people who live in percent of male victims—are killed by spouses, partners, or blended families is increasing. One recent research report ex-partners. Nationwide, the most recent annual death toll stated that more than half of all children born to unmarried from family violence was 1,324 women. Overall, women parents are born into a family with at least one half-sibling are more likely to be injured by a family member than to (Scommegna, 2011; Martin et al., 2015). be mugged or raped by a stranger or hurt in an automobile accident (Shupe, Stacey, & Hazlewood, 1987; Blankenhorn, 1995; U.S. Department of Justice, 2016). Family Violence Historically, the law defined wives as the property of The ideal family is a source of pleasure and support. their husbands, so no man could be charged with raping However, the disturbing reality of many homes is family vi- his wife. Today, however, all fifty states have marital rape olence, emotional, physical, or sexual abuse of one family member laws. The law no longer regards domestic violence as a 426 CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion One-Parent Families Most families in the United States are composed of married couples that raise children. But in recent decades, our society has displayed increasing diversity in family life. Thirty-two percent of U.S. families with children younger than eighteen have only one parent in the household, a propor- tion that has nearly doubled since 1972. Put another way, 31 percent of all U.S. children now live with only one parent (typically, the mother) or no natural parent, and about half will do so at some point before reach- ing eighteen. One-parent families, 83 percent of which are headed by a single mother, result from divorce, In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that states must extend legal mar- death of a partner, or an unmarried riage to same-sex couples. Many people across the country reacted with street celebrations. woman’s decision to have a child (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). private family matter; it gives victims more options. Now, Single parenthood increases a woman’s risk of poverty even without separation or divorce, a woman can obtain because it limits her ability to work and to further her educa- court protection from an abusive spouse, and all states tion. The opposite is also true: Poverty raises the odds that have stalking laws that forbid one ex-partner from fol- a young woman will become a single mother. But single lowing or otherwise threatening the other. Communities parenthood goes well beyond the poor: There are about 1.6 across North America have established shelters to provide million births to unmarried women of all social backgrounds counseling and temporary housing for women and chil- each year, which represents 40 percent of all births in this dren driven from their homes by domestic violence. country. In recent decades, the rate of childbirth to younger Finally, the harm caused by domestic violence goes single women in their teens and twenties has declined; at beyond the physical injuries. Victims often lose their ability the same time, the rate of childbirth to single women in their to trust others. One study found that women who had been thirties is on the rise (Martin et al., 2017). physically or sexually abused were much less likely than Looking back at Figure 14–1, note that 61 percent of non-victims to form stable relationships later on (Cherlin African American families are headed by a single parent. et al., 2004). Single parenthood is less common among Hispanics (33 VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN Family violence also percent) and whites (26 percent). In many single-parent victimizes children. In 2015, there were more than 3 million families, mothers turn to their own mothers for support. In reports alleging child abuse or neglect. Of these, 683,000 the United States, then, the rise in single parenting is tied were confirmed to be victims and 1,670 children died from to a declining role for fathers and the growing importance abuse or neglect. Child abuse involves more than physi- of grandparenting (Luo et al., 2012; Cohn & Passel, 2016). cal injury; abusive adults can also misuse their power and Research shows that growing up in a one-parent fam- violate a child’s trust to damage the child’s emotional well- ily usually puts children at a disadvantage. Some studies being. Child abuse and neglect are most common among claim that because a father and a mother each make a dis- the youngest and most vulnerable children (Besharov & tinctive contribution to a child’s social development, one Laumann, 1996; U.S. Department of Health and Human parent has a hard time doing as good a job alone. But the Services, 2017). most serious problem for one-parent families, especially if Although child abusers conform to no simple stereo- that parent is a woman, is poverty. On average, children type, they are more likely to be women (54 percent) than growing up in a single-parent family start out poorer, get men (46 percent). But almost all abusers share one trait: less schooling, and end up with lower incomes as adults. having been abused themselves as children. Researchers Such children are also more likely to become single par- have found that violent behavior in close relationships is ents themselves (Popenoe, 1993a; Blankenhorn, 1995; learned; in families, violence begets violence (Levine, 2001; Kantrowitz & Wingert, 2001; McLanahan, 2002; Pew U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017). Research Center, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).  CHAPTER 14 Family and Religion 427 Cohabitation 100% 90% Cohabitation is the sharing of a household by an unmarried Who Live with Two Biological 80%