THE AMERICAN FAMILY
Life Magazine, November 1999Essay by Stephanie Coontz
New research about an old instituation challenges the conventional wisdom that the family today is worse off than in the past.
As the century comes to an end, many observers fear for the future of America¹s families. Our divorce rate is the highest in the world, and the percentage of unmarried women is significanly higher than in 1960. Educated women are having fewer babies, while immigrant children flood the schools, demanding to be taught in thier native language. Harvard University reports that only 4 percent of its applicants can write a proper sentence. There¹s an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases amoung men. Many streets in urban neghborhoods are littered with cocaine vials. Youths call heroin ³happy dust². Even in small towns, people have easy access to addictive drugs, and drug abuse by middle clsss wives is skyrocketing. Police see 16-year-old killers, 12-year-old prostitues, and gang members as young as 11. America at the end of the 1990s? No, America at the end of the 1890s.
The litany of complaints may sound familiar, but the truth is that many things were worse at the start
of this century than they are today. Then, thousands of children worked full-time in mines, mills and
sweatshops. Most workers labored 10 hours a day, often six days a week, which left them little time or
energy for family life. Race riots were more frequent and more deadly than those experienced by recent
generations. Women couldn't vote, and their wages were so low that many turned to prostitution.
In 1900 a white child had one chance in three of losing a brother or sister before age 15, and a black
child had a fifty-fifty chance of seeing a sibling die. Children's-aid groups reported widespread abuse and
neglect by parents. Men who deserted or divorced their wives rarely paid child support. And only 6 percent
of the children graduated from high school, compared with 88 percent today.
Why do so many people think American families are facing worse problems now than in the past? Partly
it's because we compare the complex and diverse families of the 1900s with the seemingly more
standard-issue ones of the 1950s, a unique decade when every long-term trend of the 20th century was
temporarily reversed. In the 1950s, for the first time in 100 years, the divorce rate fell while marriage and
fertility rates soared, creating a boom in nuclear-family living. The percentage of foreign-born individuals
in the country decreased. And the debates over social and cultural issues that had divided Americans for
150 years were silenced, suggesting a national consensus on family values and norms.
Some nostalgia for the 1950s is understandable: Life looked pretty good in comparison with the
hardships of the Great Depression and World War II. The GI Bill gave a generation of young fathers a
college education and a subsidized mortgage on a new house. For the first time, a majority of men could
support a family and buy a home without pooling their earnings with those of other family members.
Many Americans built a stable family life on these foundations.
But much nostalgia for the 1950s is a result of selective amnesia-the same process that makes childhood
memories of summer vacations grow sunnier with each passing year. The superficial sameness Of 1950s
family life was achieved through censorship, coercion and discrimination. People with unconventional
beliefs faced governmental investigation and arbitrary firings. African Americans and Mexican Americans
were prevented from voting in some states by literacy tests that were not administered to whites.
Individuals who didn’t follow the rigid gender and sexual rules of the day were ostracized.
Leave It to Beaver did not reflect the real-life experience of most American families. While many moved
into the middle class during the 1950s, poverty remained more widespread than in the worst of our last
three recessions. More children went hungry, and poverty rates for the elderly were more than twice as high
as today's.
Even in the white middle class, not every woman was as serenely happy with her lot as June Cleaver
was on TV. Housewives of the 1950s may have been less rushed than today's working mothers, but they
were more likely to suffer anxiety and depression. In many states. women couldn't serve on juries or get
loans or credit cards in their own names.
And not every kid was as wholesome as Beaver Cleaver, whose mischievous antics could be handled by
Dad at the dinner table. In 1955 alone, Congress discussed 200 bills aimed at curbing juvenile
delinquency. Three years later, LIFE reported that urban teachers were being terrorized by their students.
The drugs that were so freely available in 1900 had been outlawed, but many children grew up in families
ravaged by alcohol and barbiturate abuse.
Rates of unwed childbearing tripled between 1940 and 1958, but most Americans didn't notice because
unwed mothers generally left town, gave their babies up for adoption and returned home as if nothing had
happened. Troubled youths were encouraged to drop out of high school. Mentally handicapped children
were warehoused in institutions like the Home for idiotic and Imbecilic Children in Kansas, where a
woman whose sister had lived there for most of the 1950s once took me. Wives routinely told pollsters
that being disparaged or ignored by their husbands was a normal part of a happier-than-average marriage.
Denial extended to other areas of life as well. In the early 1900s doctors refused to believe that the cases
of gonorrhea and syphilis they saw in young girls could have been caused by sexual abuse. Instead, they
reasoned, girls could get these diseases from toilet seats, a myth that terrified generations of mothers and
daughters. In the 1950s, psychiatrists dismissed incest reports as Oedipal fantasies on the part of children.
Spousal rape was legal throughout the period, and wife beating was not taken seriously by authorities.
Much of what we now label child abuse was accepted as a normal part of parental discipline. Physicians
saw no reason to question parents who claimed that their child's broken bones had been caused by a fall
from a tree.Things mom worse at the turn at the Last century than they are today. Most workers labored
10 hours a day, six days a week, leaving little time for family life.
There are plenty of stresses in modem family life, but one reason they seem worse is that we no longer
sweep them under the rug. Another is that we have higher expectations of parenting and marriage. That's a
good thing. We're right to be concerned about inattentive parents, conflicted marriages, antisocial values,
teen violence and child abuse. But we need to realize that many of our worries reflect how much better we
want to be, not how much better we used to be.
Fathers in intact families are spending more time with their children than at any other point in the past
100 years. Although the number of hours the average woman spends at home with her children has
declined since the early 1900s, there has been a decrease in the number of children per family and an
increase in individual attention to each child. As a result, mothers today, including working moms, spend
almost twice as much time with each child as mothers did in the 1920s. People who raised children in the
1940s and 1950s typically report that their own adult children and grandchildren communicate far better
with their kids and spend more time helping with homework than they did-even as they complain that
other parents today are doing a worse job than in the past.
Despite the rise in youth violence from the 1960s to the early 1900s, America's children are also safer
now than they've ever been. An infant was four times more likely to die in the 1950s than today. A parent
then was three times more likely than a modern one to preside at the funeral of a child under the age Of 15,
and 27 percent more likely to lose an older teen to death.
If we look back over the last millennium, we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux.
In each Period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges. 'What
works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn't work for a family in another. What's
helpful at one stage of a family's life may be destructive at the next stage. if there is one lesson to be
drawn from the last millennium of family history, it's that families are always having to play catch-up
with a changing world.
Many of our worries today reflect how much better we want to be, not how much better we used to be.
Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as
they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia.
in the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for
most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor
was abolished, married women began reentering the workforce in ever larger numbers.
For a few decades, the decline in child Labor was greater than the growth of women's employment. The
result was an aberration: the malebreadwinner family. In the 1920s, for the first time a bare majority of
American children grew up in families where the husband provided all the income, the wife stayed home
full-time, and they and their siblings went to school instead of work. During the 1950s, almost two thirds
of children grew up in such families, an all-time high. Yet that same decade saw an acceleration of
workforce participation by wives and mothers that soon made the dual-earner family the norm, a trend not
likely to be reversed in the next century.
What's new is not that women make half their families' living, but that for the first time they have
substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to remain single or to leave an
unsatisfactory marriage. Also new is the declining proportion of their lives that people devote to rearing
children, both because they have fewer kids and because they are living longer. Until about 1940, the
typical marriage was broken by the death of one partner within a few years after the last child left home.
Today, couples can look forward to spending more than two decades together after the children leave.
The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company has made many
individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence
makes it less essential for them to do so. It is no wonder that divorce has risen steadily since 1900.
Disregarding a spurt in 1946, a dip in the 1950s and another peak around 1980, the divorce rate is just
where you'd expect to find it, based on the rate of increase from 1900 to 1950. Today, 40 percent of all
marriages will end in divorce before a couple's 40th anniversary. Yet despite this high divorce rate,
expanded life expectancies mean that more couples are reaching that anniversary than ever before.
Families and individuals in contemporary America have more life choices than in the past That makes it
easier for some to consider dangerous or unpopular options. But it also makes success easier for many
families that never would have had a chance before-interracial, gay or lesbian, and single-mother families,
for example. And it expands horizons for most families.
Women's new options are good not just for themselves but for their children. While some people say
that women who choose to work are selfish, it turns out that maternal self-sacrifice is not good for
children. Kids do better when their mothers are happy with their lives, whether their satisfaction comes
from being a full-time homemaker or from having a job.
Largely because of women's new roles at work, men are doing more at home. Although most men still
do less housework than their wives, the gap has been halved since the 1960s. Today, 49 percent of couples
say they share childcare equally, compared with 25 percent in 1985.The biggest problem is not that our
families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little.
Men's greater involvement at home is good for their relationships with their partners, and also good for
their children. Hands-on fathers make better parents than men who let their wives do all the nurturing and
childcare: They raise sons who are more expressive and daughters who are more likely to do well in
school, especially in math and science.
In 1900, fife expectancy was 47 years, and only 4 percent of the population was 65 or older. Today, life
expectancy is 76 years, and by 2025, about 20 percent of Americans will be 65 or older. For the first time,
a generation of adults must plan for the needs of both their parents and their children. Most Americans are
responding with remarkable grace. One in four households gives the equivalent of a full day a week or
more in unpaid care to an aging relative, and more than half say they expect to do so in the next 10 years.
Older people are less likely to be impoverished or incapacitated by illness than in the past, and they have
more opportunity to develop a relationship with their grandchildren.
Even some of the choices that worry us the most are turning out to be manageable. Divorce rates are likely
to remain high, but more noncustodial parents are staying in touch with their children. Child-support
receipts are up. And a lower proportion of kids from divorced families are exhibiting problems than in
earlier decades Stepfamilies are learning to maximize children's access to supportive adults rather than
cutting them off from one side of the family.1955 A family poses in Seattle. Husbands today are doing
more housework.Out-of-wedlock births are also high, however and this will probably continue because the
age of first marriage for women has risen to an all-time high Of 25, almost five years above what it was in the
1900s. Women who marry at an older age are less likely to divorce, but they have more years when they are at
risk-or at choice for a nonmarital birth.
Nevertheless, births to teenagers have fallen from 50 percent of all nonmarital births in the to just 30
percent today. A growing late 1970s proportion of women who have a nonmarital birth are in their
twenties and thirties and usually have more economic and educational resources than unwed mothers of the
past. While two involved parents are generally better than one, a mother's personal maturity, along with
her educational and economic status, is a better predictor of how well her child will turn out than her
marital status. We should no longer assume that children raised by single parents face debilitating
disadvantages.
As we begin to understand the range of sizes, shapes and colors that today's families come in, we find
that the differences within family types are more important than the differences between them. No
particular family form guarantees success, and no particular form is doomed to fail. How a family
functions on the inside is more important than how it looks from the outside.
The biggest problem facing most families as this century draws to a close is not that our families have
changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. America's work policies are 50 years
out of date, designed for a time when most moms weren't in the workforce and most dads didn't
understand the joys of being involved in childcare. Our school schedules are 150 years out of date,
designed for a time when kids needed to be home to help with the milking and haying. And many
political leaders feel they have to decide whether to help parents stay home longer with their kids or invest
in better childcare, preschool and afterschool programs, when most industrialized nations have long since
learned it's possible to do both.
So America's social institutions have some Y2K bugs to iron out. But for the most part, our families
are ready for the next millennium.