PowerPoint Presentation prepared by Terri Petkau, Mohawk College

PowerPoint Presentation prepared by Terri Petkau, Mohawk College
Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

CHAPTER TEN Families Bonnie Fox
Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd
INTRODUCTION Will examine: Dilemmas of contemporary family life Social origins of family patterns and related problems Myths and definitions of the family and attendant consequences Historical basis of current family arrangements Main features of social relations in family life today State response in supporting families* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

DILEMMAS OF CONTEMPORARY FAMILY LIFE
In considering future and family, most envision a relationship in which work and responsibility, as well as intimacy and joy, are shared but is often not the case Females especially are concerned about how to one day manage family and career, while males are more concerned with growing elusiveness of occupational success in an uncertain economy…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Men are increasingly pressured by the women they live with to change in ways for which they are unprepared. Manhood was once equated with occupational success, but such success is now both harder to achieve and insufficient for a happy marriage. Today, many women expect men to be emotionally open in ways that women tend to find easy, in addition to aggressively pursuing occupational success and sharing the housework. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

DILEMMAS OF CONTEMPORARY FAMILY LIFE
Lesbians and gays face even greater challenges creating families in a society organized around heterosexuality and gender divisions Parenthood without a partner is also particularly difficult: While two-earner couples find juggling income earning and child care stressful, the task increases exponentially for a lone parent Inequalities based on social class and the disadvantages women and racial minorities face in the labour force provide the inhospitable context in which all Canadians build their families* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

POVERTY RATES BY FAMILY TYPE, 2003
Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Parenthood without a partner is also particularly difficult: while two-earner couples find juggling income earning and child care stressful, the task increases exponentially for a lone parent. Most obviously, the threat of poverty is far greater for a lone mother than for a couple (see Figure 10.1). Indeed, inequalities based on social class and the disadvantages women and racial minorities face in the labour force provide the inhospitable context in which all Canadians build their families. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

CENTRALITY OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY
Society is organized around the nuclear family (where man is main breadwinner and woman has primary responsibility for child-rearing) Organization reflected in: Design of homes (not intended for extended families) Social policies (assumption that earnings shared between husbands and wives; inadequate child-care facilities) Gendered division of labour* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd This organization raises dilemmas: How will we earn enough money to support a family and raise our children? How will we sustain loving relationships with our partners while coping with these problems? Are our ideals about family sustainable? For the majority of whom the conventional nuclear family is an unlikely prospect, how will we live in a society that assumes it is a essential part of life? Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT FAMILY
Women who combine motherhood with labour-force involvement are not mentally and physically healthier than mothers who stay home. Babies and toddlers need full-time mothers at home. The traditional European family consisted of three generations living harmoniously under one roof. The heterosexual breadwinner/homemaker family is “natural.” * 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. * Women home full-time with young children often find the situation stressful and isolating * There is little scientific evidence that babies and toddlers need full-time mothers at home. * Extended family households – consisting of three generations – were rare in preindustrial Europe. Other myths about the European family are that children spent much of childhood in the care of their parents rather than others, and that the elderly could expect to be well cared for by their adult children. In the 19th century, for example, working class parents typically worked much longer and harder than they do now, and child care was minimal; a fifth of children lived in orphanages; and family disruption rates were higher, due mainly to death, not divorce. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

“FAMILY VALUES”: CONSEQUENCES OF MYTHS ABOUT FAMILY
Recent calls for a return to “family values”: Evokes myth of problem-free past Blames social problems on deviations from traditional heterosexual breadwinner/homemaker ideal Reinforces individual rather than social responsibility for welfare of children and other dependents Falsely assumes only one type of family that can adequately raise children, and that choices are made independently of gender, class, and race* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Family values advocates seek to implement policies that outlaw abortion, same-sex marriages and parenthood as well as reduce state day care funding Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

THE MYTH OF THE NATURAL FAMILY
Evolutionary psychology or sociobiology (type of biological determinism): Views human behaviour as a product of human evolution, and the nuclear family as rooted in biology of reproduction Argues aggressive males and nurturing females are adaptive to reproductive success  Makes nuclear family a universal product of evolution Yet universality of nuclear family not supported with observable evidence, either today or in the past* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Biological determinism argues that individual behaviour or social organization are directly caused by biology or biological processes. 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 Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
Argues heterosexual nuclear family is universal because of essential functions it performs for larger society, including: Socialization, reproduction, emotional satisfaction, and economic efficiency Criticisms: Other social forms might perform same functions in ways that benefit individuals more Existing institutions are not necessarily universal or ideal Tensions in family life can generate social change, rather than promote social order* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Functionalism constituted the dominant perspective in post-World War II sociology. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

IMPORTANCE OF DEFINITIONS
How family is defined has practical and methodological consequences: Rights and responsibilities follow from definitions Who constitutes a “family member” can dictate: Disclosure of confidential information Ability to make decisions on behalf of “relative” Entitlement to various forms of social support Understanding in research about families* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd When social scientists define family, some of them still assume the nuclear unit This tendency has often resulted in a focus on the frequency with which nuclear-family patterns appear across history and cultures It is preferable to focus on diversity in social patterns in order to acquire a better understanding of the nature of families By studying diversity and noting the social circumstances that vary with family patterns, we can derive some idea of the social forces and factors that influence those patterns Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

DEFINITION OF “FAMILY”
A set of social relationships that work to reproduce life on a daily and generational basis Definition focuses on both individual survival and generational reproduction across many cultures Does not exclude groupings of people who function as a family but may lack formal recognition Focus is not on biological reproduction but rather social reproduction: Wide range of activities that maintain existing life and reproduce next generation* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd These activities in social reproduction include the sets of relationships people create to share resources daily in order to ensure their own and any dependants’ welfare Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

OTHER FAMILY PATTERNS: 1. FORAGING SOCIETIES (THE COMMUNAL HOUSEHOLD)
To subsist, people gather edibles (typically done by women) and hunt live game (typically done by men) Are nomadic and live in fairly small camps or bands Reciprocity and individual cooperation essential for survival of the collective Relatively egalitarian relations between men and women …* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd To gain some perspective on family life, it is useful to examine family patterns that are significantly different from our own Family patterns vary with the way people organize themselves to acquire their subsistence Foraging societies are also referred to as hunting-and-gathering societies Because resources are scarce, foragers are nomadic Women provide as much as 80% of the food necessary for subsistence The ratio of dependents to active foragers is kept low; and co-operation, generous sharing, and democratic decision making are necessary Men have no more power or privileges than women Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

1. FORAGING SOCIETIES Nuclear unit established by marriage, but family life is collectivized rather than privatized Unit of social production is the camp: The community (not the family) assumes many key responsibilities While child care is women’s responsibility, is widely shared Violence between spouses treated as community rather than private problems Nuclear unit not as important economically or socially as in our society* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Because foragers’ survival depends on cooperation and reciprocity, the larger community assumes responsibilities that belong to nuclear families in our society In turn, the communal basis of life and the absence of private households in foraging societies have far-reaching implications, including collective responsibility for people’s welfare, individual autonomy, and gender egalitarianism Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

2. PREINDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES: HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIES
Household was productive unit (producing subsistence was main objective) Social relations of family life were also relations of production Non-family members were brought into household when their labour was necessary Land (key means of production) privately owned Marriage (and adulthood) predicated on acquiring land or some other means of livelihood…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Household economies were typical of agricultural societies in preindustrial Europe Our family patterns developed out of the patterns that were typical of precapitalist agricultural societies Work was organized through household relations Household composition was determined by economic necessity: Children were kept at home only if their labour was needed Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

2. PREINDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES
Practical, economic considerations dominated marriage decisions and family life (vs. sentimental or romantic feelings) Women strictly subordinate to men, but their economic contribution was crucial Few children raised exclusively at home by mothers given women’s critical economic role Since household was place of work, business and family life not distinguished Interests of the collective took precedence over individual autonomy* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd It was constantly necessary to balance the number of productive adults against the number of dependants and the available economic resources Accordingly, household composition changed with changing economic requirements, especially labour requirements Much of the nature of household and family life was governed by economic considerations In contrast with foragers, the interests of individuals was subordinated to those of the larger kin group and of the land from which they derived their existence Raising a child usually involved several households Women’s and children’s needs were generally subordinated to the needs of the household far more than were men’s needs Women had little control over their sexual and reproductive lives It is a myth that preindustrial agricultural households involved extended families with three generations living under the same roof Short life spans tended to preclude the co-residence of three generations of family As well, the establishment of the next generation often was delayed because male property owners avoided turning the land over to their sons - on whom they would then become dependant – for as long as possible Older men typically retired only after carefully specifying in writing how they were to be provided for by their heirs Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

ORIGINS OF CONTEMPORARY FAMILY PATTERNS IN WESTERN SOCIETIES
Industrialization of 19th century eroded household economies and made external economies dominant Effects on family: Separation of private and public spheres (family now belonged to private sphere) Emergence of sexual division of labour: Women assumed responsibilities in private sphere (e.g., childcare), while men assumed responsibilities in public sphere (e.g., paid labour force) High levels of emotional involvement in family relations* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Before the 19th century, “family” generally referred to all those who lived under the same roof (rather than being related by blood or marriage) It is only recently in Western history that the family characteristics we take for granted coalesced – namely, the gendered division of labour in which women are primarily responsible for child-care and housework and men for financial provision, motherhood as women’s primary vocation, and emotional intensity as the foundation of family relations Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Contemporary notion of family established by emergent 19th century middle class Middle class attempted to assert its identity and power by establishing moral superiority “Cult of domesticity” developed in response to emerging economy perceived as cruel, immoral, and beyond human control Family idealized as place of peace, virtue, and selfless love of children  “Haven in a heartless world”* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Modern ideas about family developed largely out of changes brought about by the development of an industrial capitalist economy Children became the sentimental focus of middle-class family life Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Men’s work moved into public sphere, while women specialized in domestic affairs Wives became economically dependent on husbands, giving rise to increased gender inequality Separation of men’s and women’s daily work undermined emotional closeness between them Men and women came to be regarded as different by nature Womanhood glorified as morally superior* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd In the increasingly gender-segregated world, women’s emotional energy seems, in many cases, to have been directed largely towards other women – family and friends – in addition to children, rather than their husbands Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

WORKING CLASS FAMILIES
Family life endangered in the 19th-century working class Men’s wages so low that small children forced to work for wages Women dependency on men gave rise to strained relations between men and women Marital tensions focused on money (violence against women probably frequent)…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Although family life was becoming a sentimental focus for the middle class, it was nearly endangered for the working class Married women did whatever they could, over and above child-care and homemaking, to contribute to household provisions – from doing mending and laundering for neighbours to hawking goods on the street and taking in boarders Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

WORKING CLASS FAMILIES
Families doubled up to save on rent Some families forced to place children in orphanages out of economic necessity Individual needs often sacrificed to imperatives of family survival Trade unions responded by demanding a family wage (i.e., wage paid to a man sufficient to support a wife and children) Led to a working-class conception of family similar to that of middle class* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Teenagers in the labour force gave their parents most of their earnings, and young adults postponed marriage until their parents could withstand the withdrawal of their earnings Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

SOCIAL RELATIONS IN FAMILIES TODAY: MAIN FEATURES
Emotionally intense relationship between a man and woman became key to marriage only in 20th century Family violence typified by women more likely to suffer serious injury from husbands, lovers, and especially ex-partners Characterized by intense mother-child relationship Individuals rather than state or community were deemed responsible for children’s welfare Child abuse sometimes results from heavy responsibilities placed on parents, especially mothers…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd One of the key government responses to growing concerns about child poverty is to strengthen attempts to force fathers who are separated from their wives to meet their child-support obligations This strategy turns attention away from governmental and community responsibility for children’s welfare Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

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 (because of its opposition to pronatalism; i.e., policy aimed at increasing population)* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd The most obvious reason sexuality has been the object of state control is that the family is the unit of social reproduction. Society depends on families to produce and care for the next generation; accordingly, with the aim of tying sexuality to reproduction, most Western governments in the nineteenth century passed laws banning the use of all forms of contraception. In Canada, section 179c of the 1892 Criminal Code made the selling or advertising of any contraceptive or device for performing abortion an indictable offence. This legislation was not only a form of pronatalism (a policy aimed at increasing the population) but also the product of the fear that white, middle-class Canadians of northern European descent were not reproducing in large enough numbers, while other immigrants were doing just that. Not until 1969 was the Criminal Code amended to make contraceptives legal. Abortion remained a criminal offence until 1988, after Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s repeated challenges of the law. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

Erosion of wages has led to most women now working outside of home: Issue of who cares for children now a social problem Women faced daily with need to juggle incompatible demands of employment and family Stress of women’s “double day” generates tension between women and their male partners Men now doing more housework and child-care than decades ago, but responsibilities still not equally shared with women…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd The assumption that child-care is a private responsibility is increasingly problematic Compounding this problem are government cuts to education, healthcare, and other social services, which increase the work that must be done in the home Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

EMPLOYMENT RATES OF MOTHERS AGED 15 TO 54, BY AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD AT HOME, 1976 TO 2007 Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when many men earned a “family wage,” a majority of married women stayed home and assumed full-time domestic responsibilities. A gendered division of responsibility and labour was the way most families met the daily needs of adults and children. Because wages and salaries have eroded since the 1970s and most women (even those with preschool children) must work outside the home, the issue of who cares for the children is now a social problem (see Figure 10.2). Compounding it are government cuts to education, health care, and other social services, which increase the work that must be done in the home; the assumption that child care is a private responsibility is increasingly problematic. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

Increased diversity in household patterns: More people living alone People marrying at later age More people never marrying More people cohabiting (cohabiting men and women are fastest growing family-type in Canada)…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd

(Increased diversity in household patterns…) Growing number of gay and lesbian families Compared to heterosexual couples, gay couples: Face uphill battle for acceptance as families Have relationships as stable as heterosexual cohabiting couples Are more likely to have egalitarian housework and child-care arrangements Have families more out of choice Have children with similar levels of wellbeing…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Same-sex relationships display characteristics that approximate family ideals The stability in these relationships is impressive given the higher standards of emotional intimacy they typically have relative to heterosexual couples, the weaker institutional pressures to stay together, and the fewer social supports Lesbians must choose to get pregnant Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

(Increased diversity in household patterns…) Growing incidence of lone parent families Large numbers of “reconstituted families” (result of decades of fairly high divorce rates) Often gives rise to complicated network of family relations Increased incidence of “boomerang” children and young adults continuing to live with parents Are racial, ethnic, and class differences as well* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd In 2001, 15.7% of families consisted of one parent – usually a mother – and her dependent children The changes many governments are making to social assistance programs, which tie assistance to employment and thus require that one adult both support the household financially and take care of children, increases the problems faced by lone parent families It is estimated that in 2001 almost 12% of couples with children involved a stepparent, compared to 10% in 1995 Boomerang children are those who return to their parents’ home after leaving it In 2001, 41% of adults aged 20 to 29 years lived with their parents, compared to 27.5% in 1981 approximately, 18% of black women and 15% of Aboriginal women in Canada were lone parents in 1991, compared with 7% of non-Aboriginal women The fact that black families in Canada are less likely to contain a married or common-law couple is related to the lower likelihood that black men can earn a stable, sizable income A pattern of cooperation among kin, across nuclear families – including living together in extended family households – has been typical of many working class and immigrant Canadians and Americans Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

FAMILY STRUCTURE, CANADA, 2006
Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd In terms of family diversity, cohabiting men and women constitute the fastest growing type of family in Canada. They more than doubled in number between 1981 and 1991; and by 2006 over 14 percent of families involved a common-law couple (see Table 10.1). The popularity of this kind of relationship probably reflects peoples’ assessment of the personal costs involved in marriage. The sacrifices that women make after they marry, and especially when they become mothers, are emotionally and financially risky, given current rates of divorce. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

SEXUALITY AND FAMILIES
Love and promise of ongoing intimacy and caring propel people into long-term commitment Today, men and women typically are sexually active prior to entering committed relationship Sexual activity decreases considerably over course of relationship (for all types of relationships) Intimacy negotiated amidst gender differences (men typically experience sex as route to intimacy vs. women who seek intimacy prior to sex)* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd This expectation of lasting sexual, emotional, and social happiness occurs in the midst of being surrounded by images of sexuality Historically, there has been state control over sexuality given the family is the unit of social production (e.g., pronatalist policies that criminalized contraceptives and abortion); not until 1969 was the Criminal Code amended to make contraceptives legal Abortion remained a criminal offence until 1988, after Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s repeated challenges to the law The decline over time in sexual activity within committed relationships is due not only to the reduced excitement attached to familiarity, but also to the effects of having children and growing responsibilities Sexual behaviour in same-sex couples also reflects gender differences Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

GENDER AND FAMILIES Most nuclear families built around heterosexual couple reflect gendered division of labour Adults develop gender strategies that prioritize either career/job or family relationships Gender strategies result from: Mix of ideas about gender in our culture Emotionally charged reactions to childhood Job and child-care opportunities Constraints people face as adults* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Research indicates that lack of opportunity rather than socialization dictates women’s gender strategies Economic necessity also pulls many women into marriage because their earnings are usually substantially below those of men Labour-market inequality forces women to make difficult choices: Employers still define jobs, especially professional jobs, in terms of employees who are unencumbered by family responsibilities and are able to work evenings, weekends, etc. Careers and family responsibilities are still incompatible for women; thus, many successful career women are single In the face of little change in the workplace, dual-earner couples with children are left to design their own ways to balance conflicting responsibilities One person – usually the woman – cuts back on paid work, works nonstandard hours, etc. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

HOUSEWORK AND FAMILIES
While men do more housework than in earlier times, they do much less housework than their female partners Women’s bargaining power in negotiating household responsibilities is undermined by their: Disadvantage in the labour market Perceived disadvantage in remarriage market Cultural devaluation of caring work Cultural definitions of gender (especially masculinity)* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Although new family laws stipulate equality, a gendered division of labour still predominates in households Women may have assumed part of the responsibility of breadwinning, but they remain largely responsible for the housework Some men translate higher earnings into privilege at home Surveys show that couples who share housework are significantly happier than others Men whose female partners work in paid labour force do more housework than men whose female partners do not work in paid labour force Couples who share housework avoid the tension caused by not sharing (and therefore have a lower divorce rate); they also tend to be dual-career couples who do similar paid work Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

DAILY PARTICIPATION IN AND TIME SPENT ON PAID WORK AND HOUSEWORK, BY LIVING ARRANGEMENT Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd A comparison of the work done by men and women who are (1) living alone, (2) married and childless, and (3) married with children indicates differences in men and women’s family responsibilities (see Figure 10.3). Men’s hours of paid work increase with marriage and especially with children while women’s decrease with these changes in status. In contrast, the time men spend on housework increases a bit with marriage and children but women’s increases substantially. As this chapter argues, this gender difference is both a manifestation and a cause of the inequality between women and men in Canada today. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

PARENTHOOD AND FAMILIES
Medicalization of childbirth has resulted in less social support for women Lack of social support implicated in postpartum depression commonly experienced by new mothers Ties to extended family strengthen, while ties to friends tend to weaken Gendered division of labour increases substantially when couples become parents* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd In the past, women giving birth were assisted by other women, who continued to care for them and instruct them about mothering in the weeks following the birth Because women giving birth in hospitals today are usually without this kind of support, most experience at least one bout of postpartum depression, and many begin motherhood upset or angry because of their experience of childbirth It is hoped that the licensing and public funding of midwives in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Manitoba will provide women with positive alternatives to a medically-managed birth After having children, women typically take time off work for family reasons, while men tend to put in more hours of paid work Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

HOUSEWORK AND MOTHERWORK
Women tend to assume bulk of caring for babies and greater proportion of housework after childbirth Men tend to become babies’ playmates and wives’ “helpers” Growing conviction today that children’s development is adversely affected by isolation and stress experienced by full-time mothers, and emotional distance often result of fathers’ absence from home Care by several adults and spending part of day outside home aids child’s social and cognitive development* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd When heterosexual couples become parents, they typically adopt gender expectations for parenting: Same-sex parents do not feel driven to adopt specialized roles Research suggests that children in good-quality daycare from an early age are significantly advantaged in terms of cognitive and social development over those children who stay at home Mothers are faced with having to juggle responsibilities of the home and workplace The Canadian government’s main response to the problem has been to recruit foreign domestic workers This response reinforces privatization of domestic labour and hinders the development of community-based solutions This response also puts women from less developed countries in the position of subsidizing the dual careers and comfortable lifestyles of middle-class Canadians Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE Persistence of conventional gendered division of work despite increasing numbers of women working outside of home has resulted in: Increase in divorce (estimated that 30% of marriages in Canada will end in divorce) Pressure on men to assume new family roles Need for new social policies Changes in family law reflect new circumstances (e.g., more liberalized divorce law and more equal division of “family assets” upon divorce)* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Until the 1970s, the husband was generally responsible for maintaining the family economically, the wife for domestic and sexual services “Breadwinning” translated into privilege insofar as it was reflected in men doing fewer domestic chores, and sharing fewer assets in a divorce Women’s increased financial independence as well as climate of change brought about by rise of feminism also have influenced rise in divorce rates Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

DIVORCE AND ITS AFTERMATH
Dissolution of marriage or intimate relationship brings turmoil for considerable period of time for all parties (parents and children) Women often initiate divorce because of violence Most important consequence for women - and the children who live with them - is significantly lowered standard of living* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd Women are more likely than men to initiate separation and divorce – and they do so for reasons often related to gender inequities in their marriage 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 Although most adults who divorce later remarry, marriage is now no longer the only basis of family formation Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

LONE PARENTS AND RECONSTITUTED FAMILIES
Increase in proportion of unmarried mothers in last two decades Poverty is chief problem facing lone-parent families Poverty related to women’s disadvantaged position in labour market Reconstituted families: Adults who divorce typically remarry But divorce rates are higher for second marriages (often adjustment problems for stepparents and stepchildren)* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd In 2001, one in five Canadian children lived in one-parent families, in which poverty is common Although reconstituted families find themselves in a better financial situation than lone-parent families, they face their own problems Many reconstituted families do not survive the early years of adjustment: Divorce rates are higher for second marriages, especially if children are present Children in reconstituted families – like those in lone-parent families – face a heightened risk of experiencing developmental and social problems Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

POLICIES TO SUPPORT FAMILIES
Chief problem: Difficulty of caring for children while earning enough money to support a family Policy response in most industrialized countries includes: Direct family subsidies Significant paid parental leave following birth High-quality, subsidized child-care facilities…* Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd This difficulty assumes crisis proportions for many lone-parent families, but also is of major importance in dual-earner families As a result of these state policies adopted by Sweden, fewer than 5% of lone-parent families are poor there Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

POLICIES TO SUPPORT FAMILIES
Two different policy approaches co-exist in Canada: In English Canada, children assumed to be private rather than collective responsibility Government cutbacks in social services and avoidance of commitment to universal daycare have increased burden on most families, especially lone-parent families In Quebec, family policies created that feature universal, affordable childcare and family subsidies to low-income and lone-parent families** Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd About half of Canadian children under the age of 12 and with parents in paid work or fulltime studies are in some form of nonparental care, and most are in unregulated care, provided by unlicensed caregivers outside the home, or nannies (Beach, Bertrand, and Cleveland, 1998). Spaces for babies and toddlers in daycare centres are limited and usually expensive. The legacy of the Liberal government is parents’ right to 52 weeks of parental leave following childbirth (with considerable limits on earnings and eligibility); this policy reinforces parents’ responsibility to care for their children full-time and reduces demand for child-care services. Since the late 1990s, Quebec has moved in the opposite direction—toward creating a broad set of family policies that feature universal, affordable child care (Jenson, 2002). After eliminating a long-standing tax deduction for childcare of all kinds, the Parti Québécois used the savings to support and create child-care facilities featuring programs with an educational emphasis, run by professionals (Jenson, 2002). Parents pay $7 a day for child care, which is expected to be available to every child who needs it in the near future; additionally, the Quebec government pays family allowances that are targeted to low-income parents, with additional money going to lone-parent families. So, at present, two very different policy approaches coexist in Canada. Copyright © 2011 by Nelson Education Ltd.

PowerPoint Presentation prepared by Terri Petkau, Mohawk College

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PowerPoint Presentation prepared by Terri Petkau, Mohawk College"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

PowerPoint Presentation prepared by Terri Petkau, Mohawk College

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PowerPoint Presentation prepared by Terri Petkau, Mohawk College"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback