1. 1 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Chapter12 Families by Bonnie Fox

2. 2 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Families are sets of relationships people create to share resources daily, thus ensuring their own and their children’s welfare and socially reproducing their society. Families vary widely in the way they are organized across cultures and through history. FAMILIES

3. 3 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. MYTHS ABOUT FAMILY Although families today seem to be disintegrating when compared to the idealized family of the 1950s, a broader historical view shows that problems in family life are not new. In the 19 th century, for example: working class parents typically worked much longer and harder, and child care was minimal; a fifth of children lived in orphanages; and family disruption rates were higher (due mainly to death, not divorce).

4. 4 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Recent calls for a return to “family values” evoke a problem-free past. Deviations from the traditional breadwinner/homemaker ideal are held to underlie many social problems. Family-values advocates want to outlaw abortion, same-sex marriages and parenthood, and cut funding for public day care. These arguments falsely assume that there is only one type of family that can adequately raise children and that choices can be made completely freely. Actually, choices are structured by gender, class, and race. “FAMILY VALUES”

5. 5 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Sociobiologists argue that the nuclear family is rooted in the biology of reproduction. They say that aggressive males and nurturing females are adaptive to reproductive success, so the nuclear family is the universal product of evolution. However: Only 15% of Canadian households today contain a male breadwinner, female homemaker, and unmarried children. Anthropological and historical evidence shows that the nuclear family is by no means universal. THE MYTH OF THE NATURAL FAMILY

6. 6 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Structural-functionalists say the nuclear family is universal because it supposedly performs certain essential functions: socialization reproduction emotional satisfaction economic efficiency, etc. However, other social forms might be able to perform the same functions in ways that benefit individuals more. Existing institutions are not necessarily universal or ideal. STRUCTURAL- FUNCTIONALISM

7. 7 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. In foraging societies people subsist by gathering edibles and hunting wild game. Marriage establishes the nuclear unit, but the group of co-operating adults that is crucial for survival is the camp or band. Family life is collectivized rather than privatized, with the community, not the family, assuming many key responsibilities, such as child socialization. FORAGING SOCIETIES I

8. 8 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Because resources are scarce, foragers are nomadic; the ratio of dependents to active foragers is kept low; and co-operation, generous sharing, and democratic decision making are necessary. For the most part, women gather and men hunt; women provide as much as 80% of the food necessary for subsistence. FORAGING SOCIETIES II

9. 9 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Responsibility for child care is women’s responsibility but it is widely shared. Relations between men and women are relatively egalitarian – men have no more power or privileges than women. Thus, the nuclear unit is not as important as it is in our society either economically or socially, nor are relations within the nuclear unit similar to those in our society. FORAGING SOCIETIES III

10. 10 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. In agricultural societies the household is the productive unit and producing subsistence is its main objective. Work is organized through household relations. Household composition is determined by economic necessity: Children are kept at home only if their labour is needed. Non-family members are brought into the household when their labour is necessary. Practical, economic considerations dominate marriage decisions. Women are strictly subordinate to men but their economic contribution is crucial. AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES

11. 11 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. In the 19 th century, when household economies eroded and external economies became dominant, notions of family involved: a sexual division of labour in which women assumed mothering and other domestic responsibilities; men assuming responsibilities in the paid labour force; the idea that the family is a private sphere; and high levels of emotional involvement. THE ORIGINS OF CONTEMPORARY FAMILIES

12. 12 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. The contemporary notion of family was established by the emergent 19th century middle class in its attempt to assert its identity and power by establishing its moral superiority. A cult of domesticity developed in reaction to an emerging economy perceived as cruel, immoral, and beyond human control. The family was idealized as a place of peace, virtue, and selfless love of children – a “haven in a heartless world.” MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES I

13. 13 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Men’s work moved out of the household as home and business became separate spheres. Hired labourers replaced family members at work. Women specialized in domestic affairs. Men and women came to be regarded as different by nature. Womanhood was glorified as morally superior. Women became totally economically dependent on their husbands; gender inequality increased. MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES II

14. 14 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Family life was endangered in the 19th century working class: Men’s wages were so low that small children were forced to work for a wage. Women were economically dependent. Relations among family members were strained and violence was widespread. Trade unions responded by demanding a family wage, enough pay for the male breadwinner to support the family. This led to a working-class conception of family similar to that of the middle class. WORKING CLASS FAMILIES

15. 15 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. DISTRIBUTION OF CANADIAN FAMILIES AND NEVER MARRIED CHILDREN

16. 16 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. POVERTY RATES BY FAMILY TYPE

17. 17 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. The need for regular and dependable sexual gratification is one reason people marry. Sexual relations are usually intense because they involve repression of sexuality that is socially disfavoured. Sexual relations have historically been regulated by the state in ways that favour marriage and ensure procreation. The state has opposed homosexuality, contraception, and abortion. SEXUALITY

18. 18 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Adults develop gender strategies that prioritize either career/job or family relationships. Gender strategies result from: the mix of ideas about gender in our culture; emotionally charged reactions to childhood; and job and child-care opportunities and constraints people face as adults. Studies indicate that, for women, lack of opportunity, not socialization, is the dominant factor shaping gender strategies. GENDER I

19. 19 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Due to differences in socialization, marriage takes precedence over other aspirations for women much more often than is the case for men. Economic necessity also pulls many women into marriage because their earnings are usually substantially below those of men. The fact that most jobs require high commitment means that marriage often requires women to make difficult choices in balancing work and family life. GENDER II

20. 20 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE I Until the 1970s, the husband was generally responsible for maintaining the family economically, the wife for domestic and sexual services. Breadwinning translated into privilege as reflected in men doing few domestic chores, sharing few assets on divorce, etc.

21. 21 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Especially after the 1950s, the increased entry of women into the paid labour force gave women more power. Divorce laws were liberalized. Family assets are generally equally divided upon divorce. Divorce rates rose from the late 1960s on. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE II

22. 22 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. Women are now better able to escape unhealthy marriages because of: the entry of many women into the paid labour force; women’s more independent attitudes; and changes in divorce law (1968). About 30% of marriages in Canada end in divorce. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE III

23. 23 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. HOUSEWORK I Men do more housework than in earlier times. Men whose female partners work in the paid labour force do more housework than men whose female partners do not work in the paid labour force. Still, men do much less housework than their female partners because women’s bargaining power is undermined by: disadvantage in the labour market; disadvantage in the remarriage market; a cultural devaluation of caring work; cultural ideals of gender

24. 24 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. HOUSEWORK II Couples who share housework avoid the tension caused by not sharing (and therefore have a lower divorce rate, all else the same). They tend to be dual-career couples who do similar paid work. The isolation and stress that often results from full-time mothering and the emotional distance that may result from men’s absence from the home is unhealthy for child development. Care by several adults and spending part of the day outside the home in good quality day care helps a child’s social and cognitive development.

25. 25 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. PARENTHOOD I Childbirth is often accompanied by postpartum depression due to lack of social support; new mothers often feel overwhelmed by responsibility. The gender division of labour increases substantially when couples become parents. Women typically take time off work for family reasons while men tend to put in more hours of paid work. Ties to the extended family strengthen and ties to friends weaken.

26. 26 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. THE AFTERMATH OF DIVORCE The most important consequence of divorce for women and the children who live with them is a decline in family income, which reduces material welfare and mothers’ ability to provide their children with additional emotional support and a predictable daily schedule. In 2001, one in five Canadian children lived in one- parent families, in which poverty is common. Adults who divorce normally remarry but divorce rates are higher for second marriages because stepparents and stepchildren sometimes have trouble adjusting.

27. 27 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY Government cutbacks in social services have increased the burden on most Canadian families, especially lone-parent families. Some countries, such as Sweden, offer direct family subsidies, generous paid parental leave following birth, and high quality, state- subsidized child care facilities. As a result, fewer than 5% of lone-parent families are poor in Sweden.

28. 28 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. SUPPLEMENTARY SLIDES

29. MARRIED COUPLES WITH CHILDREN REPRESENT FEWER THAN HALF OF ALL CANADIAN FAMILIES 1981 Married couples without children 28.1% Married couples with children 55.0% Couples with children 56.9% Common-law couples with children 1.9% Common-law couples without children 3.7% 1996 Married couples without children 28.6% Married couples with children 45.1% Lone-parent families 14.5% Common-law couples without children 6.2% Common-law couples with children 5.5% Couples with children 50.6% Lone-parent families 11.3% Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

30. 30 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. MARRIED MOTHERS AGED 25-44 EMPLOYED FULL-TIME MOST HIGHLY “TIME CRUNCHED”

31. CHILDRENS ARE LIVING IN INCREASINGLY DIVERSE FAMILY TYPES (CANADA, 1995) 66.0% 4.1% 4.0% 21.6% 4.2% His only children1.0 Hers only 4.1 Blended 3.0 (His, hers & theirs) Step families Lone-parent Common-law Married Intact families Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

32. MOST CANADIANS STILL LIVE IN FAMILIES AS DEFINED BY THE CENSUS BUT FAMILIES ARE GROWING SMALLER Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

33. THERE ARE MORE SEPARATIONS IN CANADA BUT MANY PERSONS ENTER A SECOND UNION Percentage of Women Experiencing at Least One Separation (Marriages or Common-law unions) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1926-351936-451946-551956-65 Birth cohort % experiencing the event Percentage of Women With at Least Two Unions (Marriage or Common-law) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1926-351936-451946-551956-65 Birth cohort % experiencing the event Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

34. MORE YOUNG ADULTS ARE LIVING AT HOME AND THERE IS A DECLINE IN THE PROPORTION OF YOUNG ADULTS WHO ARE MARRIED OR LIVE COMMON-LAW Percentage of Young Adults, Married or in a Common-law Union 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20-24 years25-29 years Age 1981 1986 1991 1996 Percentage of Young Adults Living at Home 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20-24 years25-29 years Age 1981 1986 1991 1996 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

35. COMMON-LAW UNIONS ARE MORE COMMON Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

36. HOUSEHOLD GROWTH HAS BEEN HIGHER THAN POPULATION GROWTH BUT HOUSEHOLDS ARE SMALLER 61-6666-7171-7676-8181-8686-9191-96 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Census families Private households Population % 123456+ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 % 1966 1996 Percentage Growth per 5 year period, Canada Private households by size, Canada Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

37. THERE ARE MANY DUAL EARNER COUPLES BUT ALSO AN INCREASE IN OLDER COUPLES WHERE NEITHER SPOUSE IS EMPLOYED 27.4% 14.5% 49.5% 8.5% Only one spouse employed 39.8% 20.1% 22.0% 18.1% Only one spouse employed Husband full time Wife part time Husband full time Wife part time Neither employed Neither employed Both spouses full time Both spouses full time 1970 1995 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

38. CHILDREN EXPERIENCE PARENTAL SEPARATION AT INCREASINGLY YOUNGER AGES, ESPECIALLY IN COMMON-LAW UNIONS Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

39. MARRIAGE BREAK-UP IS MORE LIKELY AMONG THOSE WHOSE PARENTS SEPARATED OR DIVORCED; MARITAL HISTORY AFFECTS CONTACT WITH PARENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 % Divorced / Separated Father Divorced / Separated Mother Parents together Remarried Not remarried Not remarried Percentage of population having weekly contact with parents by parent’s living arrangements Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

40. LOW INCOME FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN INCREASINGLY DEPEND ON TRANSFERS; INCOME INEQUALITY AFTER TAXES AND TRANSFERS REMAINS CONSTANT Sources of Disposable Family Income: Low Income Families with Children, 1973-1996 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 197319771981198519891993 Earnings Transfers 1996 % Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited.

41. 41 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. CHILDREN BELOW THE POVERTY LINE, 1990–1992 (%) FAMILY TYPE Two-parent Single-mother Sweden2.25.2 Denmark 2.57.3 Finland1.97.5 Belgium 3.210.0 Italy9.513.9 Norway 1.918.4 CANADA 7.4 50.2 Australia 7.7 56.2 USA 11.1 59.5

42. 42 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. SAME-SEX COMMON LAW COUPLES, CANADA, 2001 Number of couples As percent of all couples CANADA34,2000.5 Newfoundland and Labrador1800.1 Prince Edward Island550.2 Nova Scotia8550.4 New Brunswick5050.3 Quebec10,4600.6 Ontario12,5050.5 Manitoba8650.3 Saskatchewan4750.2 Alberta2,5250.4 British Columbia5,7900.6 Yukon350.6 Northwest Territories300.4 Nunavut150.3

43. 43 Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited. MARRIAGE AND COMMON-LAW UNIONS, YOUNG ADULTS, CANADA, 2001 Age 20-24 Age 25-29 Percent of age cohort