Changing Family Forms
By: M. Therese Seibert and Marion C. Willets
From: Social Education, January-February 2000
Exercises: J. Geffen
5
10
15
20
25
30
1.
Public debate over the condition of family as an American institution continues
as we enter the new millennium. A number of trends underlie this debate. Divorce is
common: more Americans are single or living with a partner outside of marriage, an
increasing percent of children are living with only one parent, and a growing
percentage of married couples are foregoing parenthood altogether. The result of all
these changes is that far fewer families consist of a married couple with children than
was the case fifty years ago.
2.
For many conservatives, these trends seem to portend the ultimate demise of
family. A more progressive view is that this institution is not dying, but rather,
changing in form. Progressives argue that the alarming rhetoric over changes in
families comes from traditionalists who define the institution only in terms of a stable
marriage. Some traditionalists, such as David Popenoe, restrict the definition even
further, contending that children must be present within a marriage for a true family to
exist.1
3.
American sociologist Talcott Parsons, whose theories dominated sociological
thought during the 1940s and 1950s, advocated an even more conservative definition
of family as a heterosexual couple and their children united by lifelong marriage and
prescribed gender roles.2 According to Parsons, the husband’s role should be that of
breadwinner and leader, with his status determining the family’s place in society. The
wife’s role should be that of the primary caregiver who socializes the children and
nurtures and sustains family members. For Parsons, the importance of complementary
roles for husband and wife was based on his view that society operates best when its
vital needs are fulfilled through task specialization. He saw society as interconnected
by a number of major institutions, all fulfilling complementary roles, with families as
the nexus of all others.
4.
There are many definitions of “family” in popular dictionaries, which is not
surprising given the lack of agreement among scholars over what social arrangements
constitute a family. Indeed, some scholars (including the authors of this piece) are
turning away from even conceptualizing “the family” because it suggests that only
one type of family will do. Instead, they are using the term “families” in recognition
of diverse family styles including marital couples (with or without children), single
parents and their children, cohabitating heterosexual couples, and gay and lesbian
couples, among others. Hence, the distinction between “the family” and “families” is
not trivial; it is loaded with moral and political significance.
Changing Family Forms / 2
35
40
45
50
55
60
5.
The U.S. Bureau of the Census defines family as “a group of two people or
more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and
residing together.”3 A “family household,” according to the Census, includes
additionally “any unrelated people…who may be residing there.” Legal definitions of
family vary across state lines, but typically define a family as those related by blood
or law. Some states also consider heterosexual adults living together a family unit, as
in the case of common law marriage.
6.
While official definitions of family are necessary for public policy purposes (for
example, determining inheritance rights or tax codes), they do not reflect the reality of
most Americans’ lives. For example, parents who do not live with their grown
children are not in a family with those children when using the Census definition.
Likewise, married couples who live apart for educational or work reasons but
maintain their relationship are not considered families. Indeed, individuals living
alone have no family at all according to the Census Bureau.
7.
We define a family as consisting of at least two individuals who provide
sustained emotional support by sharing a residence, sharing a legal or biological tie, or
maintaining frequent contact. Of course, one may argue that this is a definition of
friendship as much as it is of family. But many Americans accept this definition;
indeed, one poll that asked people what constitutes a “family” found the majority
agreed with its definition as “a group of people who love and care for each other.”4
Trends in Family Forms
While our cultural definition of family reflects how many Americans define and apply
the concept, we must use official definitions when reporting Census Bureau data.
Three important facets of the contemporary family measured by Census statistics
involve marriage and divorce, declining fertility, and the rise of single-headed
families.
Marriage and Divorce Trends
Table 1: Past, Present and Future Marriage Trends in the U.S.
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1998
2010 (est.)
% Never Married
Female
Male
n.a.
n.a.
19.0
25.3
22.1
28.1
22.5
30.0
22.8
29.9
24.7
31.2
23.6
29.9
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
*Divorce rate per 1,000 population.
Divorce Rate*
n.a.
2.6
2.2
3.5
5.2
4.7.
n.a.
Age – First Marriage
Female
Male
20.3
22.8
20.3
22.8
20.8
23.2
22.0
24.7
23.9
26.1
25.0
26.7
n.a.
n.a.
Changing Family Forms / 3
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
9.
Table 1 uses Census data to describe changing patterns of marriage and divorce
as well as future projections. Between 1960 and 1998, the proportion of Americans
age 15 and over who had never married increased from 19% to almost 25% among
women, and from about 25% to about 31% among men. This change was greatest
during the 1960s and the 1990s.
10. Table 1 also shows that a substantial increase in the divorce rate began in the
1960s and crested in the 1980s, leveling of at a relatively high rate since then.
Approximately 40% of people who have recently married for the first time are
expected to experience divorce (though some estimates are as high as 60%). And,
because many people divorce several times, an even higher percent of all marriages
are considered likely to end in divorce.5
11. Despite the fact that more American adults have never married or have
experienced divorce, marriage as an institution is likely to remain stable well into the
future. Most Americans appear to be delaying marriage rather than foregoing it
altogether, as evidenced by the increase in average age at first marriage since 1960.
Moreover, as Arland Thornton has documented, surveys conducted from 1960 to the
present consistently show that the vast majority of Americans expect to marry at some
point in their lives.6
12. Another sign that Americans support marriage is that most people who divorce
also remarry.7 Approximately 75% of divorced men and women remarry within two
years following the divorce. This, coupled with the fact that 60% of divorces involve
children, has contributed to the rise of blended families consisting of stepparents,
stepchildren, and, possibly, half-siblings.8 Approximately 25 to 30% of American
children will spend some part of their lives in such families.9
13. Some researchers argue that the transition to a new family can be harder on
children than their parents’ divorce, because of the possibilities for more stressful
events. Some children may instantly acquire one or more new siblings, which “can
pose a threat to even the most secure child.”10 When both spouses bring children into
the new marriage, some display favoritism, either by preferring their own children or
by being more lenient with stepchildren in order to gain their approval. Stepchildren
often define stepparents as “taking over” as they assume household responsibilities.
Stepchildren must also interact with a host of new relatives -–in fact, two sets of them,
if both parents remarry.
Fertility Trends
14. The total fertility rate, which indicates on average the number of children a
woman will bear over her lifetime, is considered one of the most reliable measures of
age structure. The total fertility rate in the United States declined steadily from 1800
(.70) to 1940 (2.2). As our nation experienced the Baby Boom following World War
II, this rate increased to 3.0 ion 1950 and to 3.5 in 1960, then resuming its historical
pattern of decline to 1.8 in 1980.11 Since then, the total fertility rate has risen slightly
to 2.0 in 1996, with a projected rate of 2.1 in 2010.12
Changing Family Forms / 4
110
115
15. But while total fertility has declined overall since 1950, non-marital fertility has
increased significantly. The non-marital fertility rate (reported here as live births per
1,000 unmarried women) increased from 14.1 in 1950 to 43.8 in 1990.13 However,
this rate has declined over the past three years, one explanation for this being a 16%
drop in teen births from 1991 to 1997.14 Notwithstanding, the percent of all births
occurring to unmarried mothers increased from 19.2% in 1980 to 32.4% in 1996.15
This trend partly explains the rise in female-headed families.
The Rise in Single-Headed Families
16. Table 2 documents the steep rise in female-headed families since 1950. The
proportion of all families with children under 18 headed by single mothers grew from
6.3% in 1950 to 22.1% in 1998. The Census Bureau projects that this trend will level
off at 22.3% by 2010. In contrast, the much smaller proportion of families headed by
single fathers – 5.2% in 1998 – is expected to continue rising.
Table 2: Families With Children Under 18 by Type: 1950-2010
Mother only with Father only with Married couples with
children under 18
children under 18
children under 18
1950
6.3%
1.1%
92.6%
1960
8.2
.9
90.9
1970
10.2
1.2
88.6
1980
17.6
2.0
80.4
1990
20.4
3.6
76.0
1998
22.1
5.2
72.7
2010 (est.)
22.3
5.9
71.8
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
120
125
130
135
17. Families with children headed by single mothers will obviously be much more
prevalent than those headed by single fathers in coming decades. Relatively high nonmarital fertility is only one reason for this. Also important are the high divorce rate
and the fact that mothers are awarded custody of children in the vast majority of
divorces. Thus, the societal changes that account for both divorce and the rise in nonmarital fertility have indirectly brought about the rise in female-headed families.
18. So many children living with only their mothers will continue to present
challenges to our society come the new millennium. This family form is more prone
to poverty than other types of families.16 While the child poverty rate was lower in
1996 (20.5%) than it was in 1960 926.9%), it has generally followed an upward trend
since it stood at only 15.5% in1970.
19. Current political debate on how to end poverty is likely to continue to
reverberate in the coming years. Conservatives argue that the way to eradicate poverty
lies in keeping families together and ending welfare payments which, they say,
promote out-of-wedlock births. In contrast, liberals maintain that the government has
Changing Family Forms / 5
140
145
150
155
160
a social responsibility to keep children out of poverty, and that providing an economic
safety net is a way to sustain and strengthen families.
Trends in Perspective
20. Table 3 uses Census definitions to provide a distribution of household types
from 1950 to 2010. It indicates that the percent of households consisting of nonfamily members has increased from 10.8% in 1950 to 30.9% in 1998, with the trend
projected to continue upward. Among family households, there has been an increase
in both female-headed and male-headed families, and a corresponding decrease in
households with married couples, from 78.3% in 1950 to 53.0% in 1998. This trend is
expected to continue downward.
Table 3: Household Types: 1950-2010
Types of Family Households
Non-Family
Households
Married
Female-Headed Male-Headed
Couples
Families
Families
1950
78.3%
8.2%
2.7%
10.8%
1960
74.3
8.4
2.3
15.0
1970
70.6
8.7
1.9
18.8
1980
60.8
10.8
2.1
26.3
1990
56.0
11.7
3.1
29.2
1998
53.0
12.3
3.8
30.9
2010 (est.) 51.7
12.1
4.1
32.2
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
21. While these changes in family and household forms alarm family traditionalists,
they do not surprise family historians, who remind us that the 1950s family so often
held up as an ideal was in fact an anomaly.
22. Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were and The Way We Really
Are, demonstrates that the high rates of marriage and childbearing, and the low
divorce rate of the 1950s, in fact contradicted the prevailing trends in our history.17 for
example, while the divorce rate of the 1950s was relatively low (just over 25%), this
marked a sharp drop in a rate that had been rising since 1890. Also, age at first
marriage during the 1950s was at its lowest in 100 years. It was these developments,
coupled with the cult of domesticity, which gave birth to the Baby Boom – a rise in
fertility that deviated drastically from previous fertility trends.18
Societal Changes Drive Family Forms
23. These lessons from the past are not the only clues suggesting that a return to the
traditional family based on the 1950s ideal is unlikely to occur. Although the
American family portrait sketched by Parsons has changed dramatically since the late
1950s, his theory that the institution of families is inextricably linked to other social
institutions is supported by research. And the logical consequence is that families will
Changing Family Forms / 6
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
continue to change in form just because they are intertwined with other changing
social institutions.
Economic Changes Affecting Families
24. Perhaps the most significant force affecting family forms in the past half century
has been economic changes prompting mothers to enter the labor force. The majority
of mothers, even those with small children, now work for pay. The percentage of
married women with children under age six in the labor force soared from 18.6% in
1960 to 63.6% in 1997.19 In fact, “over half of women with a newborn are in the labor
force.”20
25. The primary reason for this increase in women’s employment has been the
decline in real wages for men since 1973. Women are compensating for this loss in
family income by generating their own earnings. Women also work so that their
families can keep up with the rising standard of living that has resulted from
technological advances. In addition, women have entered the labor force because
society needed their skills. As Alice Abel-Kemp explains, work largely performed by
women – such as clerical and service work – has been in great demand as society
moved from a manufacturing to a service economy.21
26. Other reasons for the rise in female employment include higher education levels
for women, the acceptance of more egalitarian gender roles, a search for personal
satisfaction, and a decline in fertility. However, it has been difficult to determine
whether the drop in fertility prompted women to enter the work force or whether
fertility dropped as a consequence of other demands on women’s time. This “chicken
and egg” dilemma also applies to how Americans feel about mothers working outside
the home. Certainly, sex role attitudes have become more liberal since the 1960s, but
research suggests that Americans have become more accepting of working mothers
after the fact.22
27. Regardless of why mothers have joined the labor force, their being there has had
a profound effect on family dynamics – not least the challenge it poses to the father’s
role as family head and sole breadwinner. Family traditionalists criticize these gender
role changes, while feminists and progressives celebrate them as a movement toward
more egalitarian marriages. Earning their own income helps free women from
economic dependency and alleviates the pressure on men to provide all the family
income. However, these positive changes have made it easier for both husbands and
wives to leave unhappy marriages, thereby contributing to the high rates of divorce
and single-headed families. They have also subjected women to a double day of work
both inside and outside of the home.23
28. Another consequence of mothers going to work has been a demand for
affordable quality daycare. Conservatives do not support placing children in daycare,
much less having the federal government subsidize it. They warn of its harmful
effects on a child’s capacity for emotional attachment. However, their fears are not
generally supported by research, which indicates that children in daycare can still
Changing Family Forms / 7
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
form close attachments to their parents. For example, a study by Sandra Scarr and
colleagues found that quality daycare appears “to promote better intellectual and
social development,” whereas “poor quality care and poor family environments can
conspire to produce poor development outcomes…”24
29. Institutional responses to employed mothers have been slow. Work structures
are still organized on the premise that mothers are at home caring for the children,
resulting in conflicts between work and family that usually fall on women. One
governmental response has been The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. While it
permits up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave after the birth of a child or for a family
medical emergency, it offers no relief to parents trying to juggle ongoing demands of
home and work. Moreover, most parents can not afford to forego pay for 90 days.
30. Public day care is quite limited in the United States, as is affordable, quality
private day care. Consequently, only 29% of preschoolers attend either a day care
center or a nursery school, and most families rely on relatives for the care of their
young children.25 After-school care also is lacking, and 10% of our nation’s
youngsters are latchkey kids.26
Cultural Changes Affecting Families
31. In Embattled Paradise, Arlene Skolnick discusses the “cultural earthquake” of
the 1960s and early 1970s that changed the shape of American families.27 An overarching message of social movements during this time was the acceptance of diverse
lifestyles and cultures. This, along with the Sexual Revolution, set the tone for the
popular culture’s acceptance of varying family forms, such as blended families,
single-headed households, heterosexual cohabiting couples, gay marriages or
homosexual unions, and childfree marriages. Television shows of the 1950s like
“Donna Reed”, “Leave It To Beaver”, or “Father Knows Best” have increasingly been
replaced with shows focusing on families of different types.
32. The growing popularity of heterosexual cohabitation is particularly offensive to
family traditionalists. While only 11% of those first married between 1965 and 1974
had cohabited with someone (usually, but not necessarily, their future spouse) prior to
marriage, this rate quadrupled to 44% by 1980-1984. Indeed, between 1960 and the
late 1980s, the total number of unmarried heterosexual couples living together
increased fivefold.28 Researchers assert that “rarely does social change occur with
such rapidity.”29
33. Most cohabitations are short-term arrangements that typically result in legal
marriage. The median length of cohabiting unions is 1.3 years, with 60% being
transformed into legal marriages.30 Furthermore, the most popular reason to cohabit is
to test for subsequent marital compatibility.31 Thus, legal marriage continues to be the
ultimate goal of cohabiting for most couples in the United States, particularly among
those who have never been married before.32
Changing Family Forms / 8
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
Legal Changes Affecting Families
34. Lenore Weitzman argues that legal changes such as no fault divorce laws have
made it easier for married couples to obtain a divorce.33 One positive consequence of
no fault divorce is that couples no longer need to demonstrate desertion, abuse, or
infidelity to end legal unions. This empowers couples to decide their own fate with
less state control.
35. However, Weitzman points out, the increase in divorce resulting from changes
in the law has left many female-headed families at risk for poverty. Relatively few
women have been awarded alimony since the rise in female employment, and only
about 25% of divorced mothers receive full payment of child support.34 These two
facts partly explain why one in five American children continue to live in poverty.35
They may also help explain why almost half of people polled in one 1996 survey
thought divorce should be more difficult to obtain.36
Technological Changes Affecting Families
36. Technological changes, and their economic repercussions, have had a
tremendous influence on the family as an American institution. Before the Industrial
Revolution, most families produced as a single economic unit, with parents and
children working together on farms or in businesses. But as industrialization unfolded,
family production became splintered with the father emerging as the primary wage
earner and the mother as the primary caregiver – at least among middle-class families.
The type of family traditionalists long for was actually a product of the Industrial
Revolution, while the fact that mother and father now work is reminiscent of preindustrial families.
37. We suspect that technological forces will continue to reshape families and
intimate relationships in the future. More couples having difficulty in conceiving
children will likely turn to reproductive technologies that may themselves entail new
configurations in family forms. Advances in communication technologies, coupled
with high female employment, will likely increase the number of long distance
relationships and commuter marriages.
Conclusion
38. Unless the United States experiences a cultural revolution, traditional families
modeled on Parsons’ description are unlikely to regain their position as the dominant
family form in America. Because families are part of a nexus of social institutions,
they will continue to change in response to institutional and cultural changes. On this
point, we agree with Parsons. However, we disagree with his view that social
institutions necessarily complement each other. Rather, we think that institutional
cultural changes often breed conflict – as is clearly evidenced in the debate over
families today.
39. While families have changed in response to other societal forces, institutional
and cultural adjustments to changing family forms have been slow in coming.
Consequently, parents face conflicting demands between family and work; children
Changing Family Forms / 9
290
lack adequate preschool and after-school care; mothers still face a double day of
work; blended families face an array of stressful events; children in female-headed
families are still at risk for poverty; and family judges must rely on obsolete
definitions of families when ruling on family disputes. All of these challenges – and
others, perhaps not yet foreseen – will be with us in the years to come unless more
institutional support for diverse family styles and the children growing up within them
is forthcoming.
Notes
1. David Popenoe, “American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (1993): 542-572.
2. Talcott Parsons, “The Kinship System of Contemporary United States” in Talcott
Parsons, ed., Essays in Sociological Theory (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1949).
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, Fertility and Family Statistics Division,
Current Population Survey Definitions and Explanations (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1999).
4. Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company, The Changing American Family
(Springfield, MA: Author, 1990).
5. L.L. Bumpass, “What’s Happening to the Family? Interactions Between Demographic
and Institutional Change”, Demography 27: 483-498; A.J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce,
Remarriage, revised and enlarged edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1992).
6. Arlan Thornton, “Changing Attitudes Towards Family Issues in the United States”,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51: 873-893; Arland Thornton and D. Freedman,
“Changing Attitudes Toward Marriage and the Single Life”, Family Planning
Perspectives 14 (1982): 297-303.
7. L.L. Bumpass, J.A. Sweet, and T.C. Martin, “Changing Patterns of Remarriage”, Journal
of Marriage and the Family 52 (1990): 747-756.
8. E.M. Hetherington, T.C. Law, and T.G. O’Connor, “Divorce: Challenges, Changes, and
New Chances”, in A.S. Skolnick and J.H. Skolnick, eds., Family in Transition, 10th ed.
(New York: Addison Wesley, Longman, Inc., 1999).
9. C.R. Ahrons and R.H. Rodgers, “The Remarriage Transition”, in Skolnick and Skolnick.
10. Ibid., 178.
11. The 1800 total fertility rate was reported in A. Coale and M. Zelnick, New Estimates of
Fertility and Population in the United States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1963). The rates for 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980 can be found in the National
Center for Health Statistics, Vital and Health Statistics, Series 21, No. 28.
12. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1998 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998).
13. D. Spain and S.M. Bianchi, Balancing Act (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1996),
Table 1.1.
14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Births: Final Data for 1997,” Vol. 47,
No. 18. 96 pp. (PHS) 99-1120 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1997).
15. S. McLanahan and G. Sandefur, Growing up with a Single Parent (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1994).
Changing Family Forms / 10
17. S. Coontz, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (New
York: basic Books, 1992); S. Coontz, The Way We Really Are (New York: Basic books,
1997).
18. F. Bean, “The Baby Boom and its Explanation,” The Sociological Quarterly 24 (1983):
353-365.
19. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998, Table 654.
20. A. Bachu, “Fertility 1997: Population Profile of the United States,” in Current
Population Reports, Special Studies P23, No. 194 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1997).
21. A. Abel-Kemp, Women’s Work (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994); B.
Bergman, Economic Emergence of Women (New York: Basic Books, 1986).
22. For a review of this research, see D. Spain and S.M. Bianchi.
23. A.R. Hochschild with A. Machung, The Second Shift (New York: Viking/Penguin,
1989); S. Scarr, D. Phillips, and K. McCartney, “Working Mothers and Their Families,”
American Psychologist (1989): 1406.
24. Ibid.
25. L.M. Casper, “Who’s Minding Our Preschoolers?”, Current Population Survey Series
P70, No. 62 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Fall, 1994).
26. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “School Enrollment – Social and Economic Characteristics of
Students,” Current Population Survey Report Series P70, No. 479 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, October, 1993).
27. A. Skolnick, Embattled Paradise (New York: Basic Books, 1991).
28. P.C. Glick, “American Families: As They Are and Were,” Sociology and Social
Research 74 (1990): 139-145.
29. P.C. Glick and G.B. Spanier, “Married and Unmarried Cohabitation in the United
States,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 42 (1980): 19-30.
30. L.L. Bumpass and J.A. Sweet, “National Estimates of Cohabitation,” Demography 26
(1989): 615-625; L.L. Bumpass, J.A. Sweet, and A.J. Cherlin, “The Role of Cohabitation
in Declining Rates of Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 913927, Cherlin.
31. Bumpass.
32. “Partnership Ordinances,” Presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association (San Francisco: August 28, 1996).
33. L.J. Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution (New York: Free Press, 1985).
34. L.J. Weitzman, “Child Support: The National Disgrace,” in N.D. Glenn and M.T.
Coleman, eds., Family Relations: A Reader (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1988),
349-374.
35. K. Bryson, “1997 Population Profile of the United States,” Chapter 22, Current
Population Reports: Special Studies Series P23, No. 194 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1997).
36. J.S. Davis and T.W. Smith, “General Social Surveys, 1972-1996,” (machine readable
data file). Principal investigator, T.W. Smith, NORC ed. Chicago: National Opinion
Research Center, producer 1996, Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research, University of Connecticut, distributor. 1 data file (35, 284 logical records and
1 codebook (1295 pp), 214.
Changing Family Forms / 11
Answer in your own words.
1.
2.
Answer the question below in English.
Describe some of the current trends – paragraph 1 – of family formation
prevailing in the U.S.A.
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
Compare the conservative reaction to recent developments – paragraph 2 – in
family formation to that of the more progressive elements.
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
3.
What, according to Talcott Parsons – paragraph 3 – were the distinguishing
characteristics of a normal family?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
4.
What does the fact that popular dictionaries will provide – paragraph 4 – any
number of definitions for the word “family” suggest about prevailing attitudes?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
5.
6.
Answer the question below in English.
In what way is the definition of “family” – paragraph 6 – by the Census Bureau
deficient?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
In what way is the definition of friendship – paragraph 7 – not unlike that of
family?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Changing Family Forms / 12
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
7.
Provide the information – paragraphs 11-12 – that would suggest that the
institution of “marriage” as such will surely survive.
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
8.
Answer the question below in English.
What additional, and potentially more serious, difficulty do the children of
divorced parents – paragraph 13 – usually face?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Complete the sentence below.
9.
While total fertility rates – paragraph 15 – have been declining quite
consistently, non-marital fertility __________________________________________
Study the data provided in Table 2.
10. In what sense are the estimated figures for the year 2010 – as provided in Table
2 – rather surprising?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
11. What makes the developments in the decade 1970-1980 as indicated in Table 2
so striking?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
12.
Answer the question below in English.
How do the authors – paragraphs 16-17 – explain the steep rise in femaleheaded families since 1950?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Changing Family Forms / 13
13.
14.
Answer the question below in English.
To what do the conservatives – paragraph 19 – trace the growing rates in child
poverty?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
In what way were family patterns of the 1950s quite unlike – paragraph 22 – the
preceding ones?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
15. What social and economic changes – paragraphs 24-26 – may have induced or
compelled women to enter the labour force?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
16.
17.
Answer the question below in English.
How and why have divorce rates – paragraph 27 – been affected by the rise in
female employment?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
In which of the decades referred to in Table 3 were a greater number of people
increasingly inclined to forego the traditional pattern of household types?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
18. Trace the changes that have taken place in the sexual norms and conduct of the
young – paragraphs 32-33 – as reflected in the figures pointing to premarital
cohabitation.
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Changing Family Forms / 14
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
19. Explain (do not merely translate) the term no fault divorce laws and describe
both their positive and negative effects (paragraphs 34-35).
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
20.
21.
22.
Answer the question below in English.
Give instances of family patterns that have already been, and are likely to be,
affected by technological changes (paragraphs 36-37).
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
How did average real earnings in the post-industrialization era – paragraph 36 –
compare with those of the pre-industrial era? (inferential)
Answer: _____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
What is meant by institutional support (paragraph 39)?
Answer: _____________________________________________________________