Varieties of Families in the United States

In the United States, there are now families that would not have been called “families” fifty or one hundred years ago. The largest percentage is still the traditional family with two parents and children, but this type is not even the majority of families in certain areas. Children can belong to two families, for example, if their parents are divorced. They may live with one parent for half the week and the other parent during the second half of the week. A family may be a “blended” one in which both parents have been divorced, each with their own children. They remarry and bring both sets of children into the marriage. Two women or two men with or without children can also constitute a family. Couples who have decided not to have children or unmarried couples who have chosen to live together may likewise see themselves as a “family”. A single parent (e.g., divorced or widowed) having complete responsibility for the care of the children would not want to be considered to have “less” of a family than someone in a family with two parents.

The regional, ethnic, and religious heterogeneity in the United States means that people will react differently to families that are nontraditional. Individuals also vary in their reactions to diversity in family type. (In other words, people within a region or an ethnic group will disagree on what constitutes a family.) In general, on the West and East coasts, there is more tolerance for diversity in family structures than there is in the South or the Midwest. Also, in areas where people tend to be more religious, there seems to be less acceptance of the nontraditional family.

The various family types found in the United States may not have much in common, but they do demonstrate that the family as an institution is not dying. It is instead one that is changing and is being accommodated by a society that does not enforce “sameness” in family life style. The changes in the traditional family structure are seen by some as a breakdown or disintegration of values and a decline in morality. Others, however, believe that these shifts in family shape are inevitable in a rapidly changing society.

Text 1.4.

Single-Parent Families

Changes in the American family structure are evidenced by high rates of separation and divorce. It is estimated that almost 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. These trends have resulted in a high number of single-parent families headed mostly by women many of these women do not receive alimony or child support payments, and are more likely to be poor than married women. Single mothers (and fathers) often feel “stretched to their limits” with the unending responsibilities that face them. They carry the burden of supporting a family and being totally responsible for their children. They have very few opportunities for rest and relaxation, unless they have supportive extended family members who will help them.

Despite the high numbers of single parents in the United States, there is no indication that marriage is becoming less popular. The remarriage rate remains high, with approximately four out of five divorced couples eventually remarrying other people. When single parents marry each other, they create “stepfamilies” or “blended families.”

Text 1.5.

Alternative Families

There’s really no such thing as a “typical” family these days. Sure, a “traditional” family is defined by Mom, Dad, siblings and pets all living and coping together under one roof. But there’s room for all sorts of families on this planet, and just because they may not be conventional doesn’t mean they’re not cool.

Families today are of all shapes and sizes. Besides the traditional tribe, there are real-life Brady Bunches (divorced or widowed moms and dads who remarry others and start stepfamilies), joint-custody arrangements and single-parent homes. There are gay unions with children from previous (straight) relationships, parents who adopt children, kids being raised by grandparents or older siblings and all sorts of combinations of the above.

“Over the last 15 years, the kinds of families we have in this country have changed dramatically,” says David S. Liederman, executive director of the Child Welfare League of America. “What has evolved is a wonderful concept of the blended family. What matters is whether the adults and the children feel supported and loved, and that the kids get good values and role models.”

The average American teen today lives in one of three types of households: with the biological father and mother; with mom, a stepdad and his kids; or just with the biological mother. According to the Children’s Defense Fund’s 1996 data, of children under age18: - 71.6 percent live with two parents

- 24.2 percent live only with a mother

- 3.4 percent live only with a father

- 0.6 percent are foster children

While these statistics show that the two-parent home is still in the majority, data from the Stepfamily Association of America indicate that 35 percent of all children born in the 1980s will experience life in a single-parent family for a total of about five years before their eighteenth birthday.

Growing up – whether your family is traditional or alternative – is rarely easy. If you’re having problems coping within your family structure, remember to take stock in yourself. “Do well in school, have something spiritual in your life, participate in activities you enjoy and have a support group of friends you can really talk to,” says Child Welfare’s Liederman.

Also, don’t be afraid to reach out to others. Discussing family problems with a caring yet objective adult you trust (school counselors are pretty hip, and a good place to start) can really help. If your family is currently in a state of flux, bear in mind that change is often good – even if you don’t understand why it’s happening or you wish things would just “be normal.” And it’s important to remember that love and happiness can grow in any home.

Text 1.6.

Parents and Children

“When children find true love, parents find true joy.”

Parenting is the process of caring for one’s child or children. This process, however, is very complex and difficult. Some people even call it “the most intense training programme ever”. Since many parents have to raise their children without much guidance, knowledge or experience, they are likely to make mistakes. When bringing up a child, they adopt a certain “parenting style” and tend to act as martyrs, friends, autocrats, coaches or teachers. All these parenting styles, however, have some disadvantages.

Martyr parents believe that they should do everything they can for the sake of their children. They always do what their children want, buy them almost anything they like or ask for, and do not impose any duties on them. At the same time, martyr parents refuse to satisfy their own needs or pleasures, and always put their children first. However, when something goes wrong or when they find it impossible to carry out certain goals they set, they feel guilty and frustrated. They do not particularly enjoy the role of parenting and treat it as their obligation the children brought up by martyr parents have the impression that they are the hub of the universe and are usually spoiled brats, egoists or show-offs.

There are some parents who feel that they should be their children’s friends or pals to build a close relationship with them. They tend to treat their children as their equals, give them a lot of freedom, let them do anything they want and do not control them. They do not impose any rules, limits, orders or bans either. Unfortunately, it often happens that children abuse their “pal” parents trust and become juvenile delinquents or drug addicts.

The opposite of the laissez-fair policy is the autocratic model. The parents are despotic rulers who have complete power in the family. They expect to be obeyed by their children and do not care about their opinions or feelings. They bring them up in strict discipline and make sure that the children act according to the rules and limits they set. If the children are not obedient and do not carry out their parents’ orders, they are punished, even for minor offences. However, the autocratic parenting does not produce any positive results. Instead, it causes conflicts, widens the generation gap, weakens the emotional bonds between parents and children, and makes it impossible to develop a relationship of trust and affection. Children usually resist their parents’ tyranny, rebel against them and eventually confront them. They also run away from home, use drugs or show a tendency to commit crimes.

The coach style of parenting is slightly similar to the dictatorial one. The coach parents treat their children as players who should do their best to succeed. They establish certain rules for the household and enforce appropriate penalties when these rules are broken. Children must be disciplined and pull their weight to improve their skills and develop their talents. Moreover, coach parents aim at making their children physically strong and able to deal successfully with difficult conditions or situations. The problem is, however, that at the same time they teach their children not to show feelings. Hence, very often “tough kids” have emotional problems or even use violence against other people.

It seems that the most effective is the teacher-guide style of parenting. The best parents are the ones who encourage their children to develop both physically and intellectually, offer them advice and help, motivate them to work, teach them respect for others, praise them for doing the right things but also rebuke them for doing the wrong ones, and try to be experts in everything. Still, they are often disappointed if the children do not come up to their expectations and fail to become improved versions of their parents. The children, on the other hand, are often unwilling to consider their parents as the oracle and reject their authority.

After having looked at some parenting styles, it seems that there are no ideal parents. Nevertheless, parents should do the best they can because the fewer mistakes they make, the more chances their children have to be successful, wise and happy.

Text 1.7.

The Qualities We Prize in Our Children

A recent international study has shown some surprising and apparently contradictory results on the question of the priorities parents around the world have when raising their children. While the survey showed that some virtues are universally prized, interesting regional and national trends emerge when parents are asked to rate the importance of various qualities they wish to instill in their children.

Parents around the world seem to agree that good manners, a sense of responsibility and respect for others are important qualities to teach their children. But while West Europeans give all three qualities more or less equal importance, East Europeans and North Americans rate a sense of responsibility as by far the most important, and relegate respect for others to fourth place.

Interestingly, a sense of imagination ranked the lowest priority worldwide, although West Europeans gave the quality of flexible thinking twice the importance any other group did. The Italians stress the virtue of cultivating their youngsters’ imagination more than most others surveyed, with the exception of Switzerland. The supposedly staid Swiss prize imaginative youth.

Etiquette-minded Belgians, Spaniards and Greeks placed the highest premium on politeness, while the Danes and Swedes put good manners lowest on the list. The newly-capitalist Eastern bloc countries also rated good manners as relatively unimportant, perhaps they are being confronted with commercial competition for the first time. Together with the Swiss and the Turks, on the other hand, they prized the ability to communicate with others.

The virtues of tolerance and respect for others were most highly regarded in Scandinavia, France, Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Spain. This was not the case in Greece and the former Eastern bloc nations, which rated these of being of lesser importance.

Germans, Austrians and Swedes esteem personal independence, but the industrious French hold the quality of conscientiousness at work more dear than any other European nationals. The responses in the industrialized nations of Sweden and Britain showed, perhaps bewilderingly, that nations of those countries gave little importance to conscientiousness at work.

Polite Belgians answered that for them, obedience is among their paramount values; this sentiment is shared to a lesser degree by the British, Greeks and Irish. The Italians, according to their questionnaires, ranked this very low.

When rearing their children, the Greeks, Turks and Irish are alone in their emphasis on instilling strong religious beliefs.

One of the primary difficulties the researches faced was translating the questions as perfectly as possible in order not to distort the result. “Imagination”, for example, can be translated into Dutch as “conceitedness”; perhaps this explains why the Dutch appeared to give imagination a low priority.

Also, some qualities are so ingrained in certain cultures that they are taken for granted, while others are given great emphasis because they are felt to be lacking in a particular society.

Text 1.8.

Adoption

The term “adoption” means taking somebody else’s child and becoming its legal parents. The adopted child is raised in a family which is not the one he or she was born. For many childless couples adoption is the only way to become a mother or a father, and for abandoned or orphaned child it is a great chance to have a normal life.

However, obtaining adoption rights is not always easy. Prospective foster parents must meet certain requirements, which is often a lengthy procedure. Firstly, they have to prove that they are able to provide a child with a high standard of living and security. Secondly, they have to be in good health and cannot have a criminal record. Thirdly, they must not be too young or too old because age is a very important factor. Still, the decision whether the child can be adopted by a particular couple or not lies with the court.

Although many people are interested in becoming foster parents, “the waiting list” of children is very long. The most sought-after ones are those under three and without any congenital defects or health problems. Others, especially the handicapped or retarded children, have poorer chances of finding a loving family.

In the West and in the United States a popular form of adopting a child is over the Internet. With a click of a mouse people can choose from white, black or yellow children. Adoption on-line has both its proponents and opponents. When the first list including the pictures of the children awaiting their new parents was placed on the Net in 1994, most people were delighted with the new possibilities. Newspapers were full of stories with happy endings, for example about a woman from Sweden who became the loving mother of a Korean boy or the American family which took care of a little girl from China. In two years more than twenty children from all over the world were adopted.

However, today virtual adoption is perceived in a negative way. Many critics say that potential parents are choosy and treat the children as a commodity which can be bought or sold. The price of a child is higher if it is white and healthy but it goes down if it is black and ailing. Moreover, many adoption agencies are only interested in making money and do not even carry out any thorough tests for the suitability of the potential parents, which may pose a threat to the child’s health or life. Meanwhile, the business is flourishing although everyone claims that children are not for sale.

Text 1.9.