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 female-headed

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

Crude Divorce RateCrude Divorce Rate

19201920 13.413.4

19301930 1717

19401940 16.916.9

19501950 23.123.1

19601960 25.825.8

19701970 32.832.8

19801980 49.749.7

19901990 51.451.4

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

FactorsFactors % Risk % Risk DecreaseDecrease

Ann. Income over $50k (v. Ann. Income over $50k (v. under $25K)under $25K)

-30-30

Baby 7 months or more after Baby 7 months or more after marriage (v. before)marriage (v. before)

-24-24

Marrying over 25 years of age Marrying over 25 years of age (v. under 18)(v. under 18)

-24-24

Intact family of originIntact family of origin -14-14

Some College (v. h.s. dropout)Some College (v. h.s. dropout) -13-13

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 MarriageMedian Age at First Marriage

MaleMale FemaleFemale

18901890 26.126.1 2222

19201920 24.624.6 21.221.2

19501950 22.822.8 20.820.8

19801980 24.724.7 2222

20032003 27.127.1 25.325.3

Children in single-parent households by race/ ethnicity, 2006

(American Community Survey & Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2006)

WhiteWhite 23%23%

BlackBlack 65%65%

AmerIndAmerInd 49%49%

AsianAsian 17%17%

HispanicHispanic 36%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)