
Both are “social”
◦ Boys in larger groups

Girls
◦ Greater verbal ability

Boys
◦ Greater visual-spatial ability
◦ More aggressive


Sex = biological fact
Gender = cultural & social-psychological fact
◦ Culture & Society assign gender-specific
psychological & personality traits

We learn to be male & female in distinctive
ways (socialization)

Men: active, intelligent, rational
Women: passive, nurturing, emotional

“Culture Lag”

◦ William Ogburn

Legal Assumptions of Male Support
◦ Feminization of Poverty
 Pct. of Children below poverty line
 14.2% white
 33.3% African-American
 28.6% Hispanic
 53.3% of all households below poverty line are femaleheaded
 3:4 absent fathers pay no child support

Gender and Work (“Pink Collar Ghetto”)
◦
◦
◦
◦
74% of K-12 teachers
96% of clerical workers
84% of personal service providers
77 cents to the dollar, F/M pay ratio

Under-represented in higher paying jobs
◦ 11% of engineers
◦ 31% of physicians
◦ 34% of lawyers/judges




Need for two paychecks
Lower fertility rates
Greater opportunities
Changing Cultural Norms

The “New Woman”
◦ Aspirations
 Career & Motherhood
◦ “Superwomen”
 Role strain

Poor Fit Between Family & Professional Lives
◦ Loss of seniority
◦ No flex time
◦ Maternity and paternity leave
◦ Private, for-profit day care
 Cost
 Quality

Men
◦ Breadwinner “trap”
 Over-identification with economic position
◦ Emotional under-development

Conflict Theory
◦ Division of Sexual Labor
 Sexual exploitation
◦ Family: “superstructure”
 Reproduce
 Legitimate
◦ “Half-selves”
 Men: control emotions (work)
 Women: Career aspirations interfere with “primary”
purpose

Functionalists
◦ Gender roles are efficient
 Make the most of economic opportunities
◦ As the economy has changed, gender roles have
adapted

“That institution in society that arranges for:
◦ Regulation of sexual relations
 Who may have sex with whom?
◦ Child-Rearing
 Who takes care of the children?
◦ Household Composition”
 Who lives with whom?

Regulation of sexual relations
◦ Incest
◦ Unites previously non-united families
 Network of social ties

Child-Rearing
◦ “Legitimacy”
◦ Lineality:
 “the path along which a person’s blood & property
lines are traced”
◦ Establishes & clarifies a person’s social identity
◦ Grounded in and linked to the social world


Household Composition (“Forms” of Family)
Shaped by norms guiding mate selection
◦ Monogamy
 Polygamy (more than one wife)
 Polyandry (more than one husband)
◦ Exogamy
 Rules for marrying outside a certain group
◦ Endogamy
 Rules for marrying inside a certain group
◦ Homogamy
 Tendency for people from similar backgrounds to mate
 Love
 But in cultural, societal, historical context

Changes in household composition
◦ Smaller
 Single parent households
 Declining fertility
◦ Female Labor Force Participation




60-70% of moms with school-aged kids
Necessity
Opportunity (smaller families)
Happier marriages, if wife wants to work

Changes in household composition
◦ Child care
 Cost
 Quality
 Socialization
 60-65% of pre-schoolers in school
 Start earlier, stay longer
 TV: pre-schoolers, 33 hrs. per week

New Status of the Child
◦ Fewer kids
 Expensive
◦ Smaller families, working parents
◦ More attention & resources

Divorce
◦ Rate = No. of divorces/100 married persons
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Crude Divorce Rate
13.4
17
16.9
23.1
25.8
32.8
49.7
51.4


The Good News
How the 50% rate is calculated
◦ Annual marriage rate per 1,000/Annual divorce rate
per 1,000
◦ 2003:
 7.5 marriages per 1,000
 3.8 divorces per 1,000 (NCHS, 2005)

Better method of calculation
◦ How many people who have ever married
subsequently divorced?
 Highest rate = ca. 41%

The even-better news
◦ Divorce rates lowest for college graduates
 1/3 to ¼ the rate of non-graduates

Age
◦ Nearly ½ under age 18
◦ 40% under age 20
◦ 24% over age 25

Religion
◦ Born-again Christians same as general population
(ca. 1/3)
 (90% of those after conversion)
 Catholics: lowest divorce rate
 Baptists: highest divorce rate
 More likely to divorce than atheists or agnostics
 Cited in a posting from Smart Marriages Listserv on Jan.
25, 2002
 Alabama: ¼ of population are Southern Baptists,
majority of pop. are Evangelicals
 4th highest divorce rate in US (NV, TN, AR) (Barna Research
Poll, 2001)
◦ Region
 Highest rates
 South & Midwest
 “Red” states higher than “blue” states
 from Smart Marriages Listserv , Jan. 4, 2005
◦ Cohabitation
 Couples cohabiting before marriage
 40-85% higher risk of divorce than couples not cohabiting
before marriage

Factors decreasing risk of divorce
Factors
% Risk
Decrease
Ann. Income over $50k (v. under
$25K)
Baby 7 months or more after
marriage (v. before)
Marrying over 25 years of age (v.
under 18)
Intact family of origin
-30
Some College (v. h.s. dropout)
-13
-24
-24
-14

Why increase in divorce?
◦ Emotional satisfaction > economic security
◦ Reduction in necessity and benefits of marriage
◦ Increased female opportunities
 women in labor force
 reduction of stigma -- no-fault divorce
◦ Cultural Change
 Baby Boom
 1960s & 1970s

Remarriage rate has kept up with divorce rate
◦ rejection of partners, not institution
◦ married still happier than single

Women still do the bulk of the work around
the home
◦ still face conflicts between individual fulfillment and
family roles

Alternative Family Forms
◦ Living together has increased > six-fold
 Often short term
 Higher divorce rate
◦ Staying single:
 2000: 27.2 million people, 26% of all households (in
1950, 9.3%)
 Vs. 22% married couples & their kids
 21% married couples living alone

Later marriages
Median Age at First Marriage
Male
Female
1890
26.1
22
1920
24.6
21.2
1950
22.8
20.8
1980
24.7
22
2003
27.1
25.3

Children in single-parent households by
race/ ethnicity, 2006
(American Community Survey & Annie E. Casey Foundation,
2006)
White
Black
23%
65%
AmerInd
49%
Asian
Hispanic
17%
36%

Single Parent Households
◦ 2000: ca. 13.5 million single parents had custody of
21.7 million children under 21 years of age
◦ % of population made up by married couples with
children decreased from 40% in 1970 to 24% in
2000


Single parent households increased from 9%
in 1990 to 16% of all households by 2000.
Of all custodial parents, 85% were mothers

Urbanization & Industrialization
 Reduced fertility
 Smaller families

Culture
 Higher Divorce Rates

More household forms
 Single
 Single Parent
 Two parents, etc.

Unusual Society
◦ Patterns of lineality & locality
◦ Patrilineal
 Trace blood & property lines along father’s side
◦ Matrilineal
 Trace blood & property lines along mother’s side
◦ Matrilocal
 Children live with mother
◦ Patrilocal
 Children live with father

Locality & lineality have separated
◦ Divorce
 $ goes with dad
 Kids go with mom

Matrilocal & Patrilineal Society
◦  Bureaucratization of the family
◦ To meet child rearing function of family
 due to household composition changes
◦ State has stepped in
 Welfare
 AFDC (until 1997)
 TANF (since July 1, 1997)