Lucrare de atestat engleza - familia americana

LUCRARE DE ATESTAT

FAMILIA AMERICANA

Introduction

An American family composed of the mother, father, children, and extended family. The American family structure is considered a traditional family support system involving two married individuals providing care and stability for their biological offspring. However, this two-parent, nuclear family has become less prevalent, and alternative family forms have become more common. The family is created at birth and establishes ties across generations. Those generations, the extended family of aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins, can hold significant emotional and economic roles for the nuclear family.

Over time, the traditional structure has had to adapt to very influential changes, including divorce and the introduction of single-parent families, teenage pregnancy and unwed mothers, homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and increased interest in adoption. Social movements such as the feminist movement and the stay-at-home dad have contributed to the creation of alternative family forms, generating new controversy and concern for the American family.

CHAPTER I - Family at a glance

1. Nuclear family

The nuclear family is considered the 'traditional' family. The nuclear family consists of a mother, father, and the children. The two-parent, nuclear family has become less prevalent, and alternative family forms have become more common. These include homosexual relationships, single-parent households, and adopting individuals. The nuclear family is also choosing to have less children then in the past. The percentage of married-couple households with children under 18 has declined to 23.5 percent of all households in 2000 from 25.6 percent in 1990, and from 45 percent in 1960.

The popularity of the nuclear family in the West, as opposed to extended family living together, came about in the early 20th century, prompted in part by business practices of Henry Ford, such as the '8 hour day, $5 week', and later the New Deal policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This enabled more and more families to be economically independent, and thus to own their own home.

Family arrangements in the US have become more diverse with no particular households arrangement being prevalent enough to be identified as the average; however, 70% of children in the US live in traditional two-parent families.

Current information from United States Census Bureau shows that 70% of children in the US live in traditional two-parent families, with 60% living with their biological parents, and that 'the figures suggest that the tumultuous shifts in family structure since the late 1960s have leveled off since 1990.'

If considered separate from couples without children, single parent families, or unmarried couples with children, in the United States traditional nuclear families appear to constitute a minority of households with rising prevalence of other family arrangements.

Family arrangements such as blended families, binuclear families (separated spouses marrying new spouses with children), and single-parent families are typically referred to as postmodern families.

Today nuclear families with the original biological parents constitute roughly 24.1% of households, compared to 40.3% in 1970. Roughly 75% (or percent) of all children in the United States will spend at least some time in a single-parent household. According to some sociologists, '[The nuclear family] no longer seems adequate to cover the wide diversity of household arrangements we see today.' (Edwards 1991; Stacey 1996). A new term has been introduced, postmodern family, which is meant to describe the great variability in family forms, including single-parent families and child-free couples.'

2. Single-parent

A single-parent (also termed lone parent or sole parent) is a parent who cares for one or more children without the assistance of the other biological parent. Single-parent homes are increasing more and more as married couples divorce, or as unexpected pre-marital pregnancies occur. The percentage of single-parent households has doubled in the last three decades, but that percentage tripled between 1900 and 1950. The sense of marriage as a 'permanent' institution has been weakened, allowing individuals to consider leaving marriages more readily then they may have in the past.

In 2006, 12.9 million families in the U.S. were headed by a single-parent, 80% of which were headed by a female. Since 1994, the percentage of US households headed by a single parent has remained steady at around nine percent, although it has nearly doubled since 1970.

Single parents have often been the focus of public policy debate. The debate has included both practical considerations around the role of government in their support, and moral ones in response to the decline of the traditional family. The moral debate tends to divide between liberal and conservative positions with liberals welcoming or accepting the changes in family structures, while conservatives decry the declines in marriage and the rises in divorce and cohabitation.

The major issue facing single mothers and their children in the United States today is Poverty. Female-headed single parent families comprise 50% of all families in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1979). Statistics show in the U.S. Census Bureau that children raised by both parents grow up with more financial and educational advantages.

Hence, a policy debate tends to split along similar lines with fiscal conservatives emphasizing a minimal role for government and an employment focus, while liberals tend to support more government involvement in an attempt to minimize poverty through things like social programs such as welfare and insufficient child support.

3. Extended family

The extended family consists of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. In some circumstances, the extended family comes to live either with or in place of a member of the nuclear family. An example includes elderly parents who move in with their children due to old age. This places large demands on the caregivers, particularly the female relatives who choose to perform these duties for their extended family.

CHAPTER II - Roles and relationships

1. Married parteners

A married couple is defined as a 'husband and wife enumerated as members of the same household' by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Since the 1940s, the United States marriage rate has decreased, whereas rates of divorce have increased.

Marriage in the United States

Law

Marriage laws are established by individual states. In the United States, there are two methods of receiving state recognition of a marriage: common law marriage and obtaining a marriage license. Common-law marriage in the United States is no longer permitted in most states.

Though federal law does not regulate state marriage law, it does provide for rights and responsibilities of married couples that differ from those of unmarried couples. Reports published by the General Accounting Office in 1997 and 2004 identified over 1000 such laws.

Restrictions on marriage

Same-sex marriage in the United States is currently legal in five states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. Laws vary because marriage laws are the purview of individual states. The social movement to obtain the right of same-sex couples to marry began in the early 1970s, and the issue became prominent in U.S. politics in the 1990s. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004.

Nine states and the District of Columbia offer same-sex legal unions that offer some or all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than 'marriage.' A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.

State anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage have a long history in the United States, dating back to the 1660s. These laws were gradually repealed between 1948 and 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court declared all such laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

Wedding ceremonies

The typical wedding involves a couple proclaiming their commitment to one another in front of their close relatives and friends and presided over by a religious figure such as a minister, priest, or rabbi, depending upon the faith of the couple. In traditional Christian ceremonies, the bride's father will 'give away' (hand off) the bride to the groom. Secular weddings are also common, often presided over by a judge, Justice of the Peace, or other municipal official.

In the United States, unlike in some other countries, a wedding may simultaneously be a civil ceremony (in which the participants marry in the 'eyes of the law') and a religious ceremony (in which the participants marry in the 'eyes of God').

"Green card" marriages

Green card marriage is a neologism that refers to the phenomenon of a marriage of convenience between a legal resident of a country and a person who would be ineligible for residency but for being married to a resident.

The term derives from the availability of work permits ('Green cards') for spouses of legal residents in the United States, where marriage is one of the fastest and most sure ways of obtaining legal residence. Marriages, if legitimate, entitle the spouse to live and work in the United States, as in most other countries. In the United States, 2.3 million marriage visas were approved from 1998 through 2007, representing 25% of all green cards in 2007. Even if the non-resident spouse was previously an illegal immigrant, marriage entitles the spouse to residency, generally without the waiting time required for persons caught being in the United States illegally.

The practice is illegal in the United States if the marriage itself is fraudulent. A marriage that is solely for purposes of obtaining legal residence is considered a sham, and is a crime in the United States for both participants. A 2008 study by the Center for Immigration Studies cited consular officials who estimated that between 5% and 30% of all marriages between American residents and foreign nationals were fraudulent, but that very few of these marriages were detected or acted upon.

Many of the arrangements are simple transactions between two individuals, often in exchange for money paid to the legal resident. In other cases the legal resident is an unwitting victim of a fraudulent marriage. In other cases the marriages are arranged by criminal enterprises, sometimes involving the complicity of corrupt immigration officials who accept payment for describing the marriage as legitimate in immigration paperwork.

Divorce

Divorce is the province of state governments, so divorce law varies from state to state. Prior to the 1970s, divorcing spouses had to allege that the other spouse was guilty of a crime or sinlike abandonment or adultery; when spouses simply could not get along, lawyers were forced to manufacture 'uncontested' divorces. The no-fault divorce revolution began in 1969 in California; South Dakota was the last state to allow no-fault divorce, in 1985. No-fault divorce on the grounds of 'irreconcilable differences' is now available in all states. However, many states have recently required separation periods prior to a formal divorce decree. State law provides for child support where children are involved, and sometimes for alimony.

'Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within the first five years is 20%, and the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33% Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a stepparent.' The median length for a marriage in the US today is 11 years with 90% of all divorces being settled out of court.

2. Unwed partners

Living as unwed partners is also known as cohabitation. The number of heterosexual unmarried couples in the United States has increased tenfold, from about 0.4 million in 1960 to more than five million in 2005. This number would increase by at least another 594,000 if same sex partners were included. Of all unmarried couples, about 1 in 9 (11 percent of all unmarried-partner households) are gay men or lesbians. The cohabitation lifestyle is becoming more popular in today's generation. It is more convenient for couples not to get married because it can be cheaper and simpler. As divorce rates rise in society, the desire to get married is less attractive for couples uncertain of their long-term plans.

Cohabitation in the United States

Cohabitation in the United States is illegal in five states but a total of 4.85 million couples live together.

Statistics

In most parts of the United States, there is no legal registration or definition of cohabitation, so demographers have developed various methods of identifying cohabitation and measuring its prevalence. Most important of these is the Census Bureau, which currently describes an 'unmarried partner' as 'A person age 15 years and over, who is not related to the householder, who shares living quarters, and who has a close personal relationship with the householder.' Before 1995, the Bureau euphemistically identified any 'unrelated' opposite-sex couple living with no other adults as POSSLQs, or Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters, and they still report these numbers to show historical trends. However, such measures should be taken loosely, as researchers report that cohabitation often does not have clear start and end dates, as people move in and out of each other's homes and sometimes do not agree on the definition of their living arrangement at a particular moment.

Lucrare: Viziunea moderna asupra calitatii educatiei Lucrare: Eficiența in comunicarea didactica

In 2001, in the United States 8.2% of couples were calculated to be cohabiting, majority of them were in the West Coast and New England/Northeastern United States areas.

In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than ten times from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. The 2002 National Survey of Family Growth found that more than half of all women aged 15 to 44 have lived with an unmarried partner, and that 65% of American couples who did cohabitate got married within 5 years.

The cohabiting population is inclusive of all ages, but the average cohabiting age group is between 25-34.

Stability

A study was made of premarital cohabitation of women who are in a monogamous relationship. The study showed 'women who are committed to one relationship, who have both premarital sex and cohabit only with the man they eventually marry, have no higher incidence of divorce than women who abstain from premarital sex and cohabitation. For women in this category, premarital sex and cohabitation with their eventual husband are just two more steps in developing a committed, long-term relationship.' Teachman's findings report instead that 'It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital co-residential unions.'

Some people have claimed that those who live together before marriage can report having less satisfying marriages and have a higher chance of separating. A possible explanation for this trend could be that people who cohabit prior to marriage did so because of apprehension towards commitment, and when, following marriage, marital problems arose (or, for that matter, before marriage, when relationship problems arose during the cohabitation arrangement), this apprehension was more likely to translate into an eventual separation. It should be noted this model cites antecedent apprehension concerning commitment as the cause of increased break ups and cohabitation only as an indicator of such apprehension. Another explanation is that those who choose not to cohabit prior to marriage are often more conservative in their religious views and may hold more traditional views on gender roles, a mindset that might prevent them from divorcing for religious reasons or confronting crisis in relationships despite experiencing marital problems no less severe than those encountered by former cohabitants. In addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult. The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest 'there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills.' (One important exception: cohabiting couples who are already planning to marry each other in the near future have just as good a chance at staying together as couples who don't live together before marriage).

A 2001 study indicated that people who cohabited experienced a divorce rate 50% higher after marriage than those who did not, though this may be correlation and not cause-and-effect.

Legal status

Some places, including the state of California, have laws that recognize cohabiting couples as 'domestic partners'. In California, such couples are defined as people who 'have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring,' including having a 'common residence, and are the same sex or persons of opposite sex if one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.' This recognition led to the creation of a Domestic Partners Registry, granting them limited legal recognition and some rights similar to those of married couples.

Half a century ago, it was illegal in every state for adult lovers to live together without being married. Today, on the other hand, just five states (Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, and Michigan) still criminalize cohabitation by opposite-sex couples, although anti-cohabitation laws are generally not enforced. Many legal scholars believe that in light of in Lawrence v. Texas, such laws making cohabitation illegal are unconstitutional (North Carolina Superior Court judge Benjamin Alford struck down the North Carolina law on that basis).

The charge of 'unlawful cohabitation' was used in the late nineteenth century to enforce the Edmunds Act, and other federal anti-polygamy laws against the Mormons in the Utah Territory, imprisoning more than 1,300 men. However, incidents of cohabitation by non-polygamists were not charged in that territory at that time. Some modern scholarship suggests the Edmunds Act may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional.

3. Parents

Parents can be either the biological mother or biological father, or the legal guardian for adopted children. Traditionally, mothers were responsible for raising the kids while the father was out providing financially for the family. The age group for parents ranges from teenage parents to grandparents who have decided to raise their grandchildren, with teenage pregnancies fluctuating based on race and culture. Older parents are financially established and generally have less problems raising children compared to their teenage counterparts.

Guardians ad litem are often appointed in divorce cases or in parenting time disputes to represent the interests of the minor children. Guardians ad litem are also used in other family matters involving grandparents obtaining custody or grandparenting time as well as protection orders where one parent is attempting to get an order against another party with a legal connection to the mother of the child. The kinds of people appointed as a guardian ad litem vary by state, ranging from volunteers to social workers to regular attorneys to others with the appropriate qualifications. The two divorcing parents are usually responsible for paying the fees of the guardian ad litem, even though the guardian ad litem is not responsible to them at all. In some states, the county government pays the fee of that attorney. The guardian ad litem's only job is to represent the minor children's best interests.

Guardians ad litem are also appointed in cases where there has been an allegation of child abuse, child neglect, PINS, juvenile delinquency, or dependency. In these situations, the guardian ad litem is charged to represent the best interests of the minor child which can differ from the position of the state or government agency as well as the interest of the parent or guardian. These guardians ad litem vary by jurisdiction and can be volunteer advocates or attorneys.

They are also appointed in guardianship cases for adults (see also conservatorship). For example, parents may start a guardianship action to become the guardians of a developmentally disabled child when the child turns 18. Or, children may need to file a guardianship action for a parent when the parent has failed to prepare a power of attorney and now has dementia.

Guardians ad litem can be appointed by the court to represent the interests of mentally ill or disabled persons. The Code of Virginia requires that the court appoint a 'discreet and competent attorney-at-law' or 'some other discreet and proper person' to serve as Guardian ad litem to protect the interests of a person under a disability.

4. Housewives

A housewife is a married woman who does not work outside of the home for income but stays and takes care of the house and kids. This includes doing the cooking, washing, cleaning, etc. The roles of women working within the house has changed drastically as more women start to pursue careers. The amount of time women spend doing housework declined from 27 hours per week in 1965 to less than 16 hours in 1995, but it is still substantially more housework then their male partners.

5. "Breadwinners"

A breadwinner is the main financial provider in the family. Historically the husband has been the breadwinner; that trend is changing as wives start to take advantage of the women's movement to gain financial independence for themselves. According to the New York Times, 'In 2001, wives earned more than their spouses in almost a third of married households where the wife worked.' Yet, even within nuclear families in which both spouses are employed outside of the home, many men are still responsible for a substantially smaller share of household duties.

6. Stay-at-home dadss

Stay-at-home dads are fathers that are unemployed and raise their children-the male equivalent to housewives. Stay-at-home dads are not as popular in American society. According to US Census Bureau, 'There are estimated 105,000 'stay-at-home' dads. These are married fathers with children under 15 who are not in the labor force primarily so they can care for family members while their wives work outside the home. Stay-at-home dads care for 189,000 children.'

A stay-at-home dad (alternatively, stay at home father, house dad, SAHD, househusband, or house-spouse) is a term used to describe a father who is the main caregiver of the children and is the homemaker of the household. As families have evolved, the practice of being a stay-at-home dad has become more common.

In colonial American families, the family worked together as a unit and was self-sufficient. Due to the Industrial Revolution, large-scale production replaced home manufacturing; thus, the father became the breadwinner and the mother the caregiver. When affection-based marriages emerged in the 1830s, parents began devoting more attention to children and family relationships became more open. World War II found many women entering the workforce out of necessity; women reassumed the caregiver position after the war, but, together with cultural shifts leading to the feminist movement and advances in birth control, their new-found sense of independence changed the traditional family structure. Some women opted to return to the care giver role. Others chose to pursue careers. When women chose to work outside of the home, alternative childcare became a necessity. If childcare options were too costly, unavailable, or undesirable, the stay-at-home dad became a viable option.

The number of stay-at-home dads has been gradually increasing, especially in developed Western nations. Though the role is still subject to many stereotypes it is becoming more socially acceptable. The role offers economic benefits to the family, and enables strong emotional development for the child. Increasingly, the stay-at-home dad is being portrayed in the media, especially in the United States. However, in some regions of the world the stay-at-home dad remains culturally unacceptable.

Increase in popularity

Stay-at-home dads have been seen in increasing numbers in Western culture (especially Canada and the northern U.S.) since the late 20th century. In developed East Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea, this practice is less common.

There are several reasons why some families feel that it would be more beneficial for the father to be the primary caregiver while the mother works outside of the home. The decision to use a stay-at-home dad arrangement is most commonly due to economic reasons. There has been a disappearance of the types of white-collar jobs that men have traditionally filled. Many middle-aged men have become essentially unemployable, thereby causing a role reversal for economic reasons. At the same time, women are progressing into higher-paying jobs. There are now financial ramifications in deciding whether the mother or father should become the stay-at-home parent. In cases where the woman is the higher-paid parent, it makes more economic sense for her to continue to work while the man takes on the caregiver role. At times the mother's job offers health benefits for the family whereas the father's does not.

With the growth of telecommuting, many men are also able to work from home. In this regard, he is contributing financially to the family while also acting as the primary caregiver of the family's children. Differences in parent's schedules can also account for some of the stay-at-home dads. Sometimes the father works odd work shifts while the mother has a typical nine-to-five work schedule.

Fixed gender roles have become less prominent in the Western world in recent years, allowing men to make their own choice of career without regard to traditional gender-based roles. Some men who choose this role may do so because they enjoy being an active part of their children's lives, while in other families, the mother wants to pursue her career. For example, of the 187 participants at Fortune Magazine's Most Powerful Women in the Business Summit, 1/3 of the women's husbands were stay-at-home dads. Families vary widely in terms of how household chores are divided. Some retired males who marry a younger woman decide to become stay-at-home dads while their wives works because they want a 'second chance' to watch a child grow up in a second or third marriage. Additionally, more career and lifestyle options are accepted and prevalent in Western society. There are also fewer restrictions on what constitutes a family. The rising number of single fathers and gay couples raising children means that there may not be a potential stay-at-home mother.

In 2008, an estimated 140,000 married fathers worked in the home as their children's primary caregivers while their wives worked outside of the home to provide for the family. This number is less than the previous two years. In 2007, stay-at-home dads made up approximately 2.7 % of the nation's stay-at-home parents. This is triple the percentage from 1997, and has been consistently higher each year since 2005. In 2006, stay-at-home dads were caring for approximately 245,000 children; 63% of stay-at-home dads had two or more children. These statistics only account for married stay-at-home dads; there are other children being cared for by single fathers or gay couples.

Advantages

The bond between father and child is just as important as the mother's in the overall social and emotional development of a child. There have been many studies done which suggest the importance of the paternal role in a child's life and benefits of the stay-at-home dad.

A study conducted by Dr. Kyle D. Pruett found that infants between 7 and 30 months respond more favorably to being picked up by their fathers. Pruett also found that a father's parenting style is beneficial for a child's physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioral development. Mothers reassure toddlers when they become frustrated while fathers encourage them to manage their frustration. This helps the children learn to deal with stress and frustration. A long-term study Pruett conducted proved that a father's active involvement with his children, from birth to adolescence, promotes greater emotional balance, stronger curiosity and a stronger sense of self-assurance in the child.

Additional studies show that during the first five years of a child's life, the father's role is more influential than the mother's in how the child learns to manage his or her body, navigate social circumstances, and play. Furthermore, a 1996 study by McGill University found that the 'single most important childhood factor in developing empathy is paternal involvement in childcare'. The study further concluded that fathers who spent time alone bonding with their children more than twice per week brought up the most compassionate adults.

Robert Frank, a professor of child development at Oakton Community College in Illinois, conducted a study comparing households with a stay-at-home dad and households with a stay-at-home mom. His study concluded that women were still able to form a strong bond with their children despite working full-time outside of the home. Also, women working full time were often more engaged with their children on a day-to-day basis than their male counterparts. His study concluded that in a family with a stay-at-home dad arrangement, the maternal and paternal influences are equally strong. This contrasts with the more traditional family structure where the father works outside of the home and the mother stays home with the children. In this type of arrangement, the mother's influence is extremely strong, whereas the father's is relatively insignificant. The study found that both parents play an equal role in a child's development, but the stay-at-home dad arrangement is the most beneficial for the child.

The stay-at-home dad arrangement allows the mother to work without having to use a daycare or a nanny. This arrangement prevents the mother from having to deal with the stress of finding acceptable childcare, checking backgrounds, and paying for care. This arrangement also ensures that the families' values are being upheld and instilled in the children. Free from the stress of childcare, working mothers are able to actively pursue their career. This allows for a more relaxed working environment for the mother and allows her to focus on her career. This extra income will allow for savings to be made for the children, these savings could help the mother later on pay for university for the child and/or children. Thus, she can advance her career and provide more money for the family.

It is becoming more important and more advantageous for men to establish fulfilling relationships with their children. They are beginning to value these relationships over financial gains. A survey conducted by Minnesota's Department for Families and Children's Services shows that men consider child care to be far more important than a paycheck. Of 600 dads surveyed, a majority said their most important role was to 'show love and affection' to kids. 'Safety and protection' came next, 'moral guidance,' 'taking time to play' and 'teaching and encouraging.' 'Financial care' finished last. Many men are now becoming more involved in their children's lives, and because of that many men now have a better understanding of what life is like for their child growing up in the current times. Because fathers are immersed in their children's lives, many of the so-called 'manly' things men do are pushed aside for their children. This allows children, especially male children, to grow up without a misogynistic outlook on life given to them by their fathers. These children are more compassionate because they have learned compassion and caring from their father. These stay at home dads, however, are not embarrassed of themselves or their roles. They know that they are fulfilling their role as primary caregiver. Later in life the father will serve as a close friend of the teenager, and later, as the children become young adults and begin raising families of their own the father will be not only a good grandparent but a good source of advice as to how children should be raised.

Disadvantages

Depending on the country or region, a stay-at-home dad might find more or less social support for his decision. In regions where traditional roles prevail, a stay-at-home dad might be shunned by stay-at-home mom's peer group. In order to find support for their choice, these men have created and joined many support networks.

Still, many men struggle to find acceptance within the role of stay-at-home dad despite the many gains that have been made. Many worry about losing business skills and their 'professional place in line'. There is a common misconception that stay-at-home dads cannot get a job and therefore must rewrite the typical family roles, forcing the wife into the workforce. Carrying the financial burden and dealing with children's attachment to the dad can be difficult on a working mother.

One 2002 study suggested stay-at-home dads may face a higher risk of heart disease. The reasons for the health risk are not specified.

The role of stay-at-home dad is difficult for men who feel as though they had no option. It is hard for these men to adapt from being a financial provider in the family to being a homemaker. The men who willingly choose to become a stay-at-home dad are much more satisfied with their role in the family.

CHAPTER III - Children

1. Only child families

An only child is one without any biological or adopted brothers or sisters. Only children are stereotypically spoiled, self-centered, and selfish. Despite this, only children often excel more in school and in their careers than children with siblings. Famous only children include Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Elvis Presley, and Jean-Paul Sartre.

In recent years, the number of families in the United States choosing to have one child has increased by more than 30%. New York City is famous for residents with increasingly popular single-child families. This can be attributed mainly to socioeconomic, educational, career, and financial factors. A similar trend is also prevalent in Europe, where only children are widespread and common.

G. Stanley Hall was one of the first experts to give only children a bad reputation when he referred to their situation as 'a disease in itself.' Even today, only children are commonly stereotyped as 'spoiled, selfish and bratty.' Susan Newman, a social psychologist at Rutgers University and the author of Parenting an Only Child, says that this is a myth. 'People articulate that only children are spoiled, they're aggressive, they're bossy, they're lonely, they're maladjusted,' she said. The reality, according to Newman, is that 'there have been hundreds and hundreds of research studies that show that only children are no different from their peers.'

The advantage of only children in test scores and achievement motivation may be due to the greater amount of parental attention they receive. According to the Resource Dilution Model, parental resources (e.g. time to read to the child) are important in development. Because these resources are finite, children with many siblings receive fewer resources.

2. Adopted children

Adopted children are kids that were given up at birth, abandoned or were unable to be cared for by their biological parents. They may have been put into foster care before finding their permanent residence. It is particularly hard for adopted children to get adopted from foster care: only 50,000 children were adopted from in 2001. The average age of these children was 7 years old, which shows that fewer older kids were adopted.

3. Adoption in the United States

Adoption in the United States is the legal act of adoption, of permanently placing a person under the age of 18 with a parent or parents other than the birth parents in the United States.

The 2000 census was the first census in which adoption statistics were collected. The number of children awaiting adoption dropped from 132,000 to 118,000 during the period 2000 to 2004.

The United States has a system of Foster care by which adults care for minor children who are not able to live with their biological parents. Most adoptions in the U.S. are placed through the foster care system. In fiscal year 2000, 150,703 Foster children were adopted in the United States, many by their foster parents or relatives of their biological parents. The enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997 has approximately doubled the number of children adopted from foster care in the United States. If a child in the U.S. governmental foster care system is not adopted by the age of 18 years old, they are 'aged out' of the system on their 18th birthday.

Adoption is changing the way people form families, as well as affecting the way society perceives the fundamental concepts of life such as nature vs. nurture and the role of biological relations with an adoptive family member. Because of changes in adoption over the last few decades - changes that include open adoption, gay adoption, international adoptions and trans-racial adoptions, and a focus on moving children out of the foster care system into adoptive families - the impact of adoption on the basic unit of society, the family, has been enormous. As adoption expert Adam Pertman has said, "Suddenly there are Jews holding Chinese cultural festivals at synagogues, there are Irish people with their African American kids at St Patty's Day. This affects whole communities, and as a consequence our sense of who we are, what we look like, as a people, as individual peoples. These are profound lessons that adoption is teaching us."

Adoption agencies can range from government-funded agencies that place children at little cost, to lawyers who arrange private adoptions, to international commercial and non-profit agencies. Adoptive parents can pay from nothing to US$40,000+ for an adoption.

The adoption of children of one race by parents of another race, which began officially in the United States in 1948, has always generated controversy. The argument often comes down to opposing views as to who gets to decide what is the 'best interest' of children. Critics of transracial adoption question whether White European American parents can effectively prepare children of color to deal with racism. Others wonder where the children raised by White parents will find social acceptance as adults. Testimony from many transracially adopted adults who grew up in White families illustrates the 'in-between' status many adoptees feel, not belonging to or feeling comfortable in communities of color or among White society. Another source of controversy is the history of the widespread removal of children from families and communities of color, which has been shown by historians to have been a tool to regulate families and oppress communities, dating back to slavery times and during the now-discredited Indian Boarding School movement of the early twentieth century. Given this history of child removal, the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) condemned transracial adoptions in 1972 in their historic Position Statement. In that paper, the NABSW equated the removal of African American children from their families of origin--and their placement in White homes-- with 'cultural genocide.'

Some pro-transracial adoption advocates argue that there are more European American families seeking to adopt than there are minority families; conversely, there are more minority children available for adoption. This disparity often results in a lower cost to adopt children from ethnic minorities - usually through special adoption grants rather than fee discrimination. Critics claim this cost disparity implies that minority babies are of less value than white ones. Other critics decry the exchange of money for children, under the guise of 'fees for service,' arguing that no children of any race should ever be for sale. This situation is morally difficult because the adoptive families see adoption as a great benefit to trans-racially adopted children, while some minorities see it as an assault on their culture. In 2004, 26 percent of African-American children adopted from foster care were adopted trans-racially. Government agencies have varied over time in their willingness to facilitate trans-racial adoptions. 'Since 1994, white prospective parents have filed, and largely won, more than two dozen discrimination lawsuits, according to state and federal court records.' There is also a great need to place these children; in 2004 more than 45,000 African-American children were waiting to be adopted from foster care.

Americans have adopted more than 200,000 children from overseas in the past 15 years, half of which come from Asia. This trend has helped lower the resistance to trans-racial adoptions in the United States, at least for Asian and Hispanic children, although there is still high demand for Caucasian children, who usually come from Eastern Europe.

As the children adopted in the early days of the transracial adoption experiment have reached middle age, a growing chorus of voices from adult transracial adoptees has emerged. Their collective experience can be found in films, scholarly articles, memoirs, blogs, and numerous books on the subject.

No sooner were US adoptions made secretive with original birth records sealed, than those adopted began to seek reforms. Jean Paton, founder of Orphan Voyage, is regarded as the founder of adoption reform and reunification efforts. On the east coast, Florence Fisher founded The ALMA Society (Adoptees Liberation Movement Association) and then birthmothers joined the fight for Open Records forming Concerned United Birthparents (CUB) in 1980.

As of October, 2006, 22 U.S. states have legal provisions for enforceable open adoption contact agreements.

Nancy Verrier, author of the Primal Wound, describes the 'primal wound' as the 'devastation which the infant feels because of separation from its natural mother. It is the deep and consequential feeling of abandonment which the baby adoptee feels after the adoption and which continues for the rest of his life.'

Some adopted people who were separated from their biological parents by adoption have a desire to reunite; most would like family medical history. Some biological parents who placed their infants do not want to reunite, most welcome contact. In states which practice or have practiced confidential adoption, this has led to the creation of adoption reunion registries, and efforts to establish the right of adoptees to access their sealed records (for example, see Bastard Nation). Others hire adoption search companies (see Adoption Search and Reunion) to locate birth families and adopted children.

International adoption refers to adopting a child from a foreign country. American citizens represent the majority of international adoptive parents, followed by Europeans and those from other more developed nations. The laws of different countries vary in their willingness to allow international adoptions. Some countries, such as China, Korea and Vietnam, have very well established rules and procedures for foreign adopters to follow, while others, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for example, expressly forbid it. International adoptions by Americans became much more common after the Korean War when American servicemen fathered interracial children with Korean women. China is the leading country for international adoptions by Americans.

There are also individuals who act on their own and attempt to match waiting children, both domestically and abroad, with prospective parents, and in foreign countries provide additional services such as translation and local transport. They are commonly referred to as facilitators. Since in many jurisdictions their legal status is uncertain (and in some U.S. states they are banned outright), they operate in a legal gray area.

A home study or homestudy is a screening of the home and life of prospective adoptive parents prior to allowing an adoption to take place. In some places, and in all international adoptions, a home study is required by law. Even where it is not legally mandated, it may be required by an adoption agency. Depending on the location and agency, different information may be sought during a home study.

A home study can be used both to aid the prospective parents in preparing to raise an adoptive child, and to rule out those who are not fit to be parents.

The ultimate purpose of a home study is for the benefit of the child, not the parents. Therefore, screeners are instructed to be thorough in their examinations.

There is a typically a cost to a home study, which is usually several hundred to several thousand US dollars. In most cases, the prospective adoptive parents are responsible to cover the cost.

CHAPTER IV - African-American family structure

The family structure of African Americans has been a matter of national public policy interest. The 1965 report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, known as the The Moynihan Report, examined the link between black poverty and family structure. It hypothesized that the destruction of the Black nuclear family structure would hinder further progress toward economic and political equality.

1. Research on the African-American family

Research on the African-American Family, by Robert Hill, published in 1968, is the counter-point to The Moynihan Report, or The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. In this report, Hill talks about both the strengths and the difficulties in the African American home.

In his report Hill speaks of the five major strengths of Black Families:

1. Strong Religious Orientation

2. High Aspiration Rate: aspirations to achieve more than they 'ought' to aspire considering situation

3. Role Exchange: women are not afraid to support the family if men are not able.

4. Kinship Circle: extended family in the black community

5. Willingness to Work

While the report never received a great amount of notice it was know and played an influential role in changing welfare in order to allow the opportunity for black families to become more cohesive. Before this report a family could not receive welfare if there was an able bodied man in the household, so some men would live out of the house so that their families could receive the welfare.

2. Black matriarchy

Black matriarchy was a popular stereotype in the 1950s and 1960s that exemplified black American family structure. This ideology depicted traditional black American households as being dominated and controlled by outspoken and emasculating women.

The role of motherhood that black women of this time period were expected to fulfill created a paradox known as the "superwoman." This image of the superwoman depicted the black mother as someone who had to be a traditional good mother: nurturing and caring towards her children, but at the same time she was considered unfeminine, strong willed and too domineering.

The economic inequality that many black families faced during the time of the Civil Rights Movement created a situation of devastating poverty. Many black men could not support their families due to the economic injustices that they faced.

Their inability to provide forced many black women to join the labor force in order to prevent their families from starving and many women become the head family provider. Many scholars argue that the myth of black matriarchy worked to generate a false sense of authority that was attributed to black women due to their participation in the labor force and their contributions in the household.

Some argue that the "authority" of the matriarchal figure as a family provider was an application of personal power instead of a means for survival.

The power of black mothers at the time of the Civil Rights movement has become a widely debated topic, while some authors believe that black women could effectively harness their matriarchal power and thus enable them to make Civil Rights claims, others believed that matriarchy only further contained black American women which lead to even worse economic conditions. The myth of black matriarchy worked to contain and oppress women in several ways. It proved to be a damaging ideology for both black mothers and the black community as a whole.

Contrary to the image that this stereotype portrayed many women did not choose the role as sole family provider and matriarchal figure; rather they were forced into such positions because of economic injustices that their families continually faced. This image also proved to be an effective tool for white supremacists to segregate the black community by gender, by enabling black men to blame the loss of their patriarchal power and disadvantages within the labor system on black women instead of white society.

How the Stereotype of Black Matriarchy affected the Role of Mamie Till Bradley in Society during the 1950's in reference to 'I Wanted the Whole World to See' By Ruth Feldstein

Feldstein manifests her argument in the domestic containment of black women that defines their traditional role in society though Mamie Till Bradley, an African American woman, worker, mother, and resident of Chicago, who publicizes the murder of her son, Emmett Till. Mamie Till Bradley is credited to have sparked the "birth" of the Civil Rights movement yet only by depending on the "meanings of motherhood to formulate [society's] views both on race relations and on American citizenship" which were defined by the expectations and "traditions" of white society. (Feldstein, 267.)

Feldstein argues how Bradley embraces her motherhood in order to attain authority in society, yet the public sphere limits her actions when people begin demonizing her. She defined her own subjectivity as a woman by putting herself in the public eye as a black, grieving mother and in doing so she "reformulated conceptions of both white and African American motherhood" (Feldstein, 266).

Yet, when Mamie Till Bradley "existed and acted as she did-as a mother, woman, and African American, in the public and private spheres- she became an object to be positioned, defined and contained." (Feldstein, 267.) She is defined by the public eye because "motherhood [is] considered the ultimate form of womanhood" and this power is valorized in society. (Feldstein, 267.)

Mamie Till Bradley epitomized the domestic, contained and objectified woman of the 1950's by relying on idealized images of white woman and to represent herself as a respectable, grieving mother. She used her constant dependability on men, her emotionalism, and physical image of femininity to assuage any doubts regarding her respectability as a mother and her maternal role.

The challenge she poses to American power as a symbol and person in a racially biased society that valorizes Carolyn Bryant, the woman Emmett Till allegedly "advanced" on, causes Mamie Till Bradley to ultimately be rejected as a motherly figure by the efforts of containment from white southerners and the NAACP.

She claims citizenship for herself by creating a position through her image as a "respectable" and "traditional" woman, which fails for Mamie Till Bradley who is ultimately constrained by the ambivalent nature of the stereotype of black matriarchy.

How the Studies of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan Utilized the Myth of Black Matriarchy to Create Tension within the Black Community

Daniel Patrick Moynihan utilized statistics from the U.S department of labor to provide support to the notion that, "the black woman had substantial advantages over the black man educationally, financially and in employment".

He therefore generated a reaction that facilitated black men to blame matriarchy for the loss of male power within the family setting. Moynihan also theorized a relationship between "the professional and educational advancement of black women to the high juvenile delinquency levels, high crime levels, poor educational levels for black males". These illusionary advantages worked to contain this oppressed social class.

In actuality black women had the lowest earning power, held the lowliest positions within organizations and corporations, and often required more education to obtain these positions then men.

3. Mammy archetype

The Mammy archetype is the portrayal within a narrative framework or other imagery of a domestic servant of African descent, generally good-natured, often overweight, and loud.

The word 'mammy' is a variant of 'mother,' formerly common in North America but now rarely used and typically considered an ethnic slur. In Ireland, Wales and parts of England however, 'Mammy' is widely used as a synonym for 'mother' by young people, without any racial connotation.

A 'wet-mammy' or 'wet-nurse' was a term used for a female domestic servant that acted as a nanny and was also assigned the duty to breast feed the child in lieu of the child's mother, perhaps due to the death of the mother in childbirth, social or cultural pressures, or the mother's concern of disfigurement of the breasts due to nursing.

A number of variations and usage of the mammy character became prominent in pop culture during the pre-civil rights period. One of the most notable examples is Aunt Jemima, a mascot for Quaker Oats's Aunt Jemima brand pancakes, pancake flour and mixes, and syrup. In recent years, the packaging has been redesigned to replace the mammy image with a more contemporary homemaker image.

Mammy characters were a staple of minstrel show, giving rise to many sentimental show tunes dedicated to or mentioning mammies, including Al Jolson's 'My Mammy' from The Jazz Singer and Judy Garland's performance of 'Swanee' from A Star is Born (a song originally made popular by Jolson). Various 'Mammy' characters would appear in radio and TV shows. One prominent example was the radio and later short-lived TV show Beulah, which featured a black maid named Beulah who helped solve a white family's problems. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Mammy Two Shoes, the housekeeper in the Tom and Jerry shorts presented an animated example of the mammy, complete with dark skin and a Black accent. Nell Carter's role as the housekeeper Nellie Ruth 'Nell' Harper in the 1980s sitcom Gimme a Break! is typical of the mold. As a parody of this stereotype, 1984 Frank Zappa album Thing-Fish featured characters called 'mammy nuns.'

CONCLUSION

In this paper I have tried to highlight the importance of family in the American society. The Americans are known for establishing a secure living through various types of family relations (nuclear and extended families, stay-at-home dads, adopted children). The family concept I developed around some advantages and disadvantages. What is more, the inter-racial marriage (Black-White, Black-Hispanic, White-Hispanic) also has strong roots in the society.

All in all, the American family is still considered a pattern which is highly appreciated in other cultures and I can say that the American family is always associated with the American way of life.

REFERENCES

BOOK REFERENCE:

Families in the United States: Their Current Status and Future Prospects (Mark A. Fine)

Marriages and families

(Nijole V. Benokraitis)

WEB SITE REFERENCE:

http://en.wikipedia.org