Sociology of the family

src: i.ytimg.com

Family sociological studies see:

• demographic characteristics of family members: family size, age, ethnicity and gender of members
• family social class, economic level and family mobility, member profession, family education level
• what areas of life are important in and to the family unit
• the effect of social change on the family
• family interaction with other social organizations.
• the diversity of family forms in contemporary society in relation to ideology, gender differences, and state policies such as those relating to marriage
• the interaction between family members in the family. How they depend on each other. How they work together/depends on the work of a person in the family.

Examples of specific problems seen include:

• Change the role of family members. Each member is limited by the sex role of the traditional family. Roles such as father as worker and mother as housewife decline. The mother becomes an additional provider and she maintains the responsibility of raising a child. Therefore, the role of women in the workforce "in accordance with traditional family demands". Sociology studies the adaptation of men's roles to caregivers and providers. Gender roles are increasingly interwoven.
• Increased single occupancy and smaller family size.
• The average age of marriage is older.
• The average number of children declines and first birth in the elderly.
• Historical patterns of fertility, from baby boom to baby bust (instability).
• An aging population, and a trend toward greater life expectancy.
• Divorce rate increases and people who will never get married.
• How the choice of parents affects their children.
• Couples and same-sex marriage.
• Children of same-sex couples.

Video Sociology of the family

Methodology

Research methods in family sociology can be broken down into three main approaches, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

One approach is a contemporary family survey research. It holds the benefits of leaving statistical data and large and easy random samples from which a researcher can insert common traits of society. However, survey respondents tend to answer because it will feel normal or ideal rather than as a matter of fact. It also provides a very one-sided view of explanation from the larger group, which is not enough to allow contention. The information is often outdated, does not represent actual world statistics. The information can also be deceptive and does not represent the real points presented by surveys and graphs.

Another method is family ethnography research. Where surveys allow for broad but shallow analyzes, observation allows sociologists to gain rich information on sources of much more limited size. This allows research to be an "insider" perspective, and through this closer view, a better idea of ​​the real family social framework. However, if the survey is strong, ethnographic research is weak. By reducing the size of the sample size, it may no longer be clear how the family representation being studied is, for large families in the community, and then also not allowing much room in connecting family-specific features observed in society more generally.

Finally, a researcher can use a documented study of the family from the past as a source of information. These sources may include personal items (such as diaries), legal records (census data, wills, court records), and public record issues (such as sermons).

Maps Sociology of the family

Sociology of racial intimacy

The construction of races in Western society and, to some extent, globally, has led to a different view of interfaith intimacy. Although racial and marital relationships have become much more popular and socially acceptable in the United States and Western Europe since the era of Civil Rights, these trade unions continue to be seen with less than a significant amount of revenue from the population. More historically, the American Family by Stephanie Coontz treats the difficulties this couple experienced during the time before Loving v. Virginia , when an interracial marriage ban is declared unconstitutional. This prohibition serves to enforce the one-drop rule and strengthen the identity and privilege. Internationally, the far right continues to promote the ideas of racial purity by working against the normalization of couples and interracial families.

src: brianrobertssociology.files.wordpress.com

Pre-modern family life and religious discourse

Historically, religious discourse has played an important role in shaping family members and building certain forms of behavior in the family, and religion has been crucial in the discourse on female sexuality. An example of the role of religion in this case is 'madness' in medieval Europe. According to Turner, this is a tool for regulating female behavior, and attacks on women as wizards are essentially 'criticisms of their sexuality'. 'Women are strongly associated with witchcraft, because he thinks they are very vulnerable to the devil's sexual advancement.... Women are considered irrational, emotional, and have no self-control; they are very vulnerable to Satan's temptations. '

Turner argues that attempts to regulate female sexuality through religious discourse, in the case of Western Europe, should be understood in the context of concerns about managing private property and ensuring its sustainability. So, for the landowner's aristocracy, the point of marriage is to produce a male heir for household possessions. Because child mortality is commonplace, women should more or less continue to become pregnant during their marriage to ensure the heir of a living male. Furthermore, this heir must be legitimate, if disputes concerning inheritance should be avoided. This legitimacy can only be ensured by the head of the household who marries a virgin and ensures the sanctity of their wife during the marriage. Similarly, girls should be purely sexual if they are eligible to marry other property owners. Such marriages are driven solely by the need to produce children and there are no elements of eroticism and sexual compatibility of contemporary marriages.

In pre-modern Europe, this interest is reflected in the character of marriage. They are regulated private contracts that can be easily dissolved if the child's production is compromised by infertility or female disloyalty. With the entry of the Church into marriage settings, different definitions of marriage arose. A lifelong marriage is demanded, but with attention to regulate sexuality, especially female sexuality.

src: alevelsociology.files.wordpress.com

Sociology of marriage

By 2015, the marriage of the Judeo-Christian belief system is modeled after Adam's and Eve's lifelong commitment between men and women. Couples produce children, is the nuclear family. Some sociologists are now debating the extent to which this idealized arrangement has and does reflect the true family structure in American society. In an article in 1995 The American Family and the Nostalgic Trap, sociologist Stephanie Coontz first argued that American families are always defined first and foremost by their economic needs. For example, in colonial times families often rely on slaves or contract laborers to support themselves economically. The model of "breadwinner-modern housewife," Coontz said, then has a little historical basis. Only in the 1950s came a happy myth, the nuclear family as a true family structure.

"The modern family is increasingly complex and has changed deeply, with greater acceptance for unmarried cohabitation, divorce, single-parent families, same-sex partnerships and complicated family relationships." Grandparents also do little.

Quoting quotations, the family structure changes drastically and there are different kinds of family structures.

But Coontz argues in Marriage that the twentieth century marriage has become increasingly unstable in the United States as individuals have begun to look for unions for the ideals of love and affection rather than social or economic will. This transition has obscured the division of labor in the model of a household finder, in such a way that housekeeping and childcare, called the "second shift", is now a topic of contention between married couples. Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild argues in the Second Shift that despite changes in perceptions about the purpose of marriage and the economic foundations for marriage, women continue to do a lot of maintenance work to the detriment of American families. Hochschild illustrates the ways in which the unequal distribution of the second transition undermines the well-being of families by reducing marital equality and the satisfaction of spouses.

Family and marriage are increasingly becoming areas where gender issues. However, it is important to note that gender differences in marriage have been too often considered merely as "individual struggle and depoliticization by reducing social inequality to differences".

Wedding market: determining who is married to whom

There are many theoretical models to illustrate how people determine who to marry. An important approach that focuses on gender is an intersexional approach that combines education and gender. Men and women operate in a "marriage market" influenced by many competing factors. One of the most decisive factors is the level of education. Studies have shown that men and women tend to marry couples who have reached a level of education similar to their own. In studies by Bruze, Svarer, and Weiss, low education is defined as secondary or lower education, secondary education is defined as vocational education, and higher education is defined as college education (2015). Marriage depends on the expectations of two people and is "shaped and stopped" based on those expectations. As a result, individuals "are elected in and out of the marriage market on the basis of their education". The most distinct marriage trend is that men with low education are slowly chosen out of the wedding market, rather than single. The driving force behind this process is that marriages where both spouses or only husbands have low education end up with divorce at a much higher rate than marriages where both spouses or husbands do not have a low education. Young women with secondary education tend to have the highest level of marriage. Highly educated men tend to marry highly educated women. In addition, men and women who have attained a high level of education postpone marriage beyond the age when others are usually married. This trend is becoming stronger with age: the proportion of married to higher education married to women with the same higher education reaches 64% when men are 46 years old.

Another important intersect factor to consider in terms of gender and marriage is the marriage market. The marriage market means how the economy affects who gets married, whose bonds persist and what this means for future generations of workers and parents. Analyzing the wedding market because they are related to marriage has several benefits. First, marital market conditions are the forces that influence the external marriage whose subject affects, which means they influence the general trend of marriage decisions. In other words, individual circumstances cause people to make decisions about their marriage that may be specific to their personal situation; the marriage market affects everyone's decision about marriage from the macro level, which means providing income and employment for a healthy marriage. In addition, job stability benefits both entrepreneurs through greater productivity and families despite more cohesion. Second, marital market conditions can capture a lot of economic influence. The empirical findings show that financial stability is an important prerequisite for marriage. In a weak marriage market (when there is high unemployment) couples who want to get married may delay doing so because of unemployment or financial problems. Furthermore, even married couples may face doubts about the future economic status of themselves or their spouses, which can create marital instability. In contrast, a strong labor market (when unemployment is low) can improve the work situation and financial situation of one partner, which can facilitate marriage and improve economic stability. Thus, when the marriage market is strong and unemployment is low, marriage can be considered more attractive to the individual than when the marriage market is weak and unemployment is high.

Intersection of class and gender

Social class interacts with gender to influence male-female dynamics in marriage, particularly with regard to "temporal flexibility at work and at home". Research shows that classes that benefit men and women use their class privileges and the flexibility it provides in ways that support conventional gender roles. Conversely, men and women who do not have access to flexibility and control over their time are pressured to weaken conventional gender expectations about marriage, family, and work. Gertsel and Clawson conducted a study in which they collected data from four groups of paid care workers, divided by class and gender (2014). The two groups that benefit the classes are nurses and doctors. The nurses are almost exclusively women and doctors almost exclusively men. The group has a number of choices about working hours and their ability to take advantage of family-friendly workplace policies. Two disadvantaged groups are female nurse assistants (CNAs) and emergency medical technicians (EMT). Disadvantaged groups have fewer choices about their working hours and face greater obstacles in their flexibility and control over their time. Women in particular need flexible working hours to meet the inflexible demands that marriage and family place on it, as traditional gender expectations set forth that women become primary caregivers. The results of this study indicate that classes, intersecting with gender, influence the ability of men and women to acquire and utilize flexibility with their time.

Furthermore, gender forms certain variations of flexibility demanded. In a job that benefits, both men and women are able to gain the flexibility they desire. However, they choose to use the controls that this gives them in different ways. Women reduce paid working hours and take leaves to handle domestic work and childcare. In other words, they make sacrifices of work. On the other hand, men tend to use family friendly policies to make work sacrifices; they spend less at home and more time working. In essence, men and women of the class-beneficied work use the flexibility given their status to "enforce neotraditional gender expectations".

Unfortunate men and women do not have the same temporal flexibility that allows them to make decisions about how to allocate their time. They face severe constraints on working hours and their policies, making it impossible to choose whether to spend more time at work or more time at home. For example, even if an unlucky woman of class wants to spend less time at work and more time with her children or at home, she may not be able to because of her inability to get a leave of absence from work or take a leave.

Thus, class losses make it more difficult for men and women to comply with traditional gender expectations. Researchers point out that classroom benefits are used to "engage in gender" in traditional ways, while class losses can lead to the breaking of traditional gender expectations in a "gender-canceling" way.

Gender and work-family balance in marriage

Research shows that three main factors predict how well men and women feel the balance of their working life in marriage: job characteristics, family characteristics, and spillover between work and family. Job characteristics determine the freedom of the workers to balance the various demands and obligations in their marriage. As pointed out by Gertsel and Clawson, higher-level jobs are generally more accommodating to family life than lower-level jobs (2014). Furthermore, the number of hours worked and excessive work in family life is the most obvious predictor of the perception of imbalance in marriage. Keene and Quadagno found a greater likelihood of the imbalance felt when work tasks caused a man or woman to miss a family event or make it difficult to defend their home (2004).

Additional research by Keene and Quadagno shows that gender expectations that men should prioritize their working lives and women should prioritize marriage and their home life no longer exists. However, there remains an uneven division of labor at home between men and women. One theoretical approach to explaining this concept is the "gender equality" approach, which "predicts that convergence in the work of men and women and the demands of families should lead to convergence in attitudes toward work and family responsibilities and a sense of work-family balance." In contrast, the "gender difference" approach stipulates that "normative differences between men and women persist, with families still defined as women's territory and paid work as male areas". There is empirical evidence to support both theories. Some studies support the convergence between men's and women's work experience: men and women make adjustments in their marriage and personal life to meet their employer's expectations, while also making adjustments in the workplace to defend their marital and family duties. However, the analysis of the studies mentioned above supports the gender difference model. Gender differences are in the division of domestic work and domestic work, with men working more hours and women spending more time on domestic responsibility and childcare.

src: i.ytimg.com

Divorce

Trends

Divorce rates in western countries generally increase over time. Divorce rates have begun to decline over the last twenty years. In the United States, the rate of divorce changed from 1.2 per 1000 marriages in 1860 to 3.0, 4.0 and 7.7 in 1890, 1900, 1920 then to 5.3, 4.7, 4.1 and 3 , 7 per 1000 weddings in 1979, 1990, 2000 and 2004 respectively.. People are less likely to remain in an unhappy relationship to keep the family unit intact and maintain consistency in the lives of their children, as did previous generations.

Divorce rates in Canada and the United States fluctuate in a similar pattern, although the United States still has the highest divorce rate in the world (50% higher than Canada). Here are some possible reasons for the increased divorce rate:

1. Individualism: In today's society, families spend more time apart than they do together. Some individuals in the family focus more on personal happiness and earn income to support their families so spend the actual time spent with their families.
2. Feelings are no longer shared: Many people end marriage because they are no longer satisfied with sexual needs or simply because they lose their feelings for each other. This often happens when one partner finds a more interesting relationship and chooses to move forward with the new relationship. In some cases, couples may even commit adultery which can also lead to divorce because the couple finds their partner unfaithful to them.
3. Women become more independent: Now women have the same rights and have proven over time that they have the potential and ability to support themselves, women find it much easier to leave unhappy marriages. They are also more focused on the job, thus giving them less time to cope with their relationship.
Stress: Stress is a big factor in marriage. Working to support families, while trying to stabilize finances is a big factor of stress. Also, with both partners working (in many cases), leaving little "family time" that makes children bring up difficult. This often happens in the stage where couples raise children.
4. Be socially acceptable: In the present generation, divorce is now more socially acceptable. Now, instead of discouraging divorce in an unsatisfactory relationship, it is more widely accepted and sometimes even encouraged. Not only is now more acceptable, it is also easier to divorce legally than in previous years under the Divorce Act of 1968.

Parents: Falling in love

Many scholars have tried to explain why humans enter relationships, stay in relationships and end relationships. Levinger's (1965, 1976) theory of divorce is based on a theoretical tradition consisting of three basic components: attraction, obstacles and alternatives. The attractiveness in this theory is proportional to the rewards a person derives from the relationship minus the cost of the relationship. All the things that can be seen as advantages of relationships such as love, sex, friendship, emotional support and daily help are the rewards of the relationship. Costs will be a negative aspect of relationships such as domestic violence, infidelity, fights and restrictions on personal freedom. Generally people tend to keep getting high rewards and low cost relationships. However, the opposite situation, ie an expensive marriage with some benefits does not automatically lead to divorce. Couples must overcome obstacles such as religious beliefs, social stigma, and financial dependence or legal restrictions before they succeed in dissolving their marriage.

Another theory to explain why the relationship ends is "Mate's ejection theory", by Brian Boutwell, J.C. Barnes and K. Beaver. Mate's ejection theory looks at the dissolution of marriage from an evolutionary standpoint, in which all species strive to successfully reproduce. According to this theory there are gender differences in the process of expulsion. For example, a woman gets angrier when her husband is emotionally cheating and a man gets angrier when his wife is physically having an affair. The reason for this comes from the roots of evolution, a man who is emotionally cheating on his wife equals loss or lack of resources for his wife to raise children whereas the act of wife's infidelity threatens a husband's chance to pass his genes on to the next generation through reproduction. Both of these circumstances require pair ejection. "The condition of the ancestors who support the dissolution of a matehip is a matter of repeated adaptation to the history of human evolution and thus impose selection pressure for the evolution of strategic solutions." In other words, the ability of self-emancipation from certain relationships can provide fitness benefits for human ancestors.

Divorce Effects on Children

Three longitudinal studies on divorce: The Marin County Project (a clinical study of 60 families beginning in 1971), The Virginia County Study (a series of longitudinal studies on marriage, divorce, and remarriage) and the Family Binuclear Study of 98 families have helped expand the literature about divorce. The Binuclear Study is based on findings from the Marin County Project and Virginia Area Research. This study has been used to understand the implications of divorce in later children.

Judith Wallerstein, an influential psychologist on the effects of divorce (based on the Marin County Project), in children shows that, "children with divorced parents often reach adulthood as psychologically troubled individuals who find it difficult to maintain a relationship satisfy with others ". Many quantitative studies conducted by other experts agree with Wallerstein's conclusions. It has been shown that children with divorced parents have an increased risk: psychological problems, having problem marriages, divorcing and having a bad relationship with parents, especially fathers. Wallerstein, however, has a 'extreme version' disputed from his theory in which he claims that the difference between children with divorced and married parents is dramatic and pervasive.

One of the opponents of Wallerstein's extreme theory is Mavis Hetherington who argues that the negative effects of divorce on children have been exaggerated and that most children grow without long-term harm. Hetherington data show that 25% of children with divorced parents attain maturity with serious social, emotional or psychological problems, compared with 10% of children with married parents. 75% of children grow into well-functioning adults.

Twenty years after 98 families of the binuclear study were interviewed; the offspring of these families were interviewed. Eighty-five percent of children interviewed and out of them, 23% have completed postgraduate training, 33% have completed college, 31% have completed post-secondary training, 10% have received high school diploma and majority (85%) Child children interviewed were employed.

src: images.flatworldknowledge.com

Sociology of motherhood

Contemporary theories around motherhood

Being a mother is a social practice of caring for and caring for dependent children. It is a dynamic process of interaction and social relationships. Mothering is usually associated with women because it is usually women who become mothers of their children. However, "not all female mothers, and nurturing as caring and caring work are inevitable as the exclusive domain of women". Some argue that Mothering as a woman's role is a social construction that is strongly influenced by the gender belief system. The role associated with the mother is variable across time and culture.

Universalist Approach

The universalist approach to motherhood is aimed at making the concept of work that mothers do. This approach identifies mothers through what they do, not how they feel. Mothers share a set of activities known as "motherhood practices", which are universal, although they vary as individuals and across cultures. These activities include nurturing, protecting, and training their children. Individual parenting actions are shaped by their beliefs about family, individuality, childhood traits, and the nature of their child. It is also often shaped by their own childhood and past experiences with children. The dynamic interaction between mother and child creates a deep and meaningful connection.

Particular approach

Particular approaches to mothers indicate that the role of a mother, their activities, and their understanding can not be separated from the context in which they live. According to this theory, motherhood occurs in a certain historical context framed by interrelated structures of race, class, and gender. Furthermore, the strategies and meanings of a mother developed are influenced by different social locations, such as the intersection of regional and local political economy with class, ethnicity, culture, and sexual preferences.

Conventional thinking about motherhood

Mother's ideology is influenced by the idealization of family structure and perpetuates the image of heterosexual couples with children. Some sociologists call this the "bourgeois family", which emerged from European households in the 16th and 17th centuries and is often regarded as a "traditional Western" structure. In this family model the father acts as an economic support and sometimes disciplines the family, while the mother or other sister oversees most of the parenting.

In the traditional family of East and West Asia, the father is the head of the family, which means that his duties include providing financial support and making important decisions, some of which must be obeyed without question by other family members. "Some Asian American men are raised under the expectations of a strict gender role such as focusing on group harmony and filial piety, carrying their surnames and matching the expectations of parents."

The mother's role in the family is celebrated on Mother's Day. Anna Reeves Jarvis is a woman who initially organized a Mother's Day Working Day protesting the lack of cleanliness and sanitation in the workplace. Jarvis died in 1905 and his daughter created the National Mother's Day in honor of her mother. Mothers often have a very important role in raising children and titles can be given to non-biological mothers who fill this role. This is common in the stepmother.

Devians Sermon

There are many cultural contradictions and settings and diverse practices that challenge the intensive mother's ideology. However, they are perceived as aberrant discourse because it is inconsistent with a full-time working mother's script in the context of marriage. These include single mothers, welfare mothers, minority mothers, immigrant mothers, and lesbian mothers. These types of maternity categories are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, women who can not or choose not to be mothers face many internal and external pressures.

Motherhood Statistics

In the United States, 82.5 million women are mothers of all ages, while the national average age of firstborns is 25.1 years. In 2008, 10% of births were for girls, and 14% for women ages 35 and older. In the United States, a study found that the average woman spent 5 years working and building careers before having children, and mothers working in non-salary jobs started having children at the age of 27, compared to mothers with salary positions, who became pregnant at age 31. This study shows that the difference in childbirth age is related to education, because the longer a woman goes to school, the older she becomes when she enters the workforce.

src: i.ytimg.com

Sociology father

According to anthropologist Maurice Godelier, an important new thing in human society, compared to the closest human biological relatives (chimps and bonobos), is the role of parents assumed by men, who are unaware of their "father" relationship.

In many cultures, especially traditional westerners, a father is usually a husband in a married couple. Many times fathers have a very important role in raising children and titles can be given to non-biological fathers who fill this role. This is common with stepfathers (men who marry biological mothers). In the traditional family of East and West Asia, the father is the head of the family, which means that their duties include providing financial support and making important decisions, some of which must be obeyed without question by other family members.

Like the concepts of family culture, the specification of a father's role varies according to traditional culture. In what some sociologists call the "bourgeois family", which emerged from European households in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and is considered by some "traditional Western" structures, the role of the father is somewhat limited. In this family model the father acts as an economic support and sometimes disciplines the family, while the mother or other sister oversees most of the parenting. This structure is enforced, for example, in societies that regulate "maternity leave" but lacks appropriate "paternity leave".

However, this limited role is increasingly being questioned. Since the 1950s, social and feminist scientists have increasingly criticized gendered work arrangements and care, and the role of male breadwinners, and policies increasingly turn men into fathers as a tool for changing gender relations.

Child rearing

Described as 'parenting science', the study of 'father's craft' emerged mainly in England and the United States (but also throughout Europe) in the 1920s. "An additional man to the Center for Maternal and Child Welfare - reacts to the mother's dominance in infant welfare and parenting in inter-war England by stating that fathers must play an important role in the upbringing of children." Whether such research will be done into women's upbringing, it will be called mother's craft.

The words 'ma ma' and 'mom', usually regarded as a term addressed to a mother, are usually one of the first words spoken by a child. While 'da da' or 'father' often precedes it, it does not reflect the strong bond between father and son rather than mother and child, it is just simpler to pronounce than 'mummy' or 'mother' requiring greater control over the muscles mouth. Children tend to remember more 'dads' because, according to research, they are more attractive to children.

Contemporary Theory

A number of studies have been given to the American public to determine how men perceive and define the role of father. Specifically, research focuses on why men choose to be fathers and the relationship between dads and contemporary masculinity. Not surprisingly, recent research on the role of fathers is framed by identity theory and focuses on the importance, centrality, and importance of fatherhood in men's lives, especially since it may be related to male involvement with their children. According to identity theory, the more prominent and central the identity, the more likely the individual is involved in the behavior associated with it. Salience refers to the readiness to act as an identity in certain situations. Centrality refers to the importance of identity in relation to other identities. The centrality of father's identity is usually held at a higher level (compared to siblings, husbands, etc.). Because of gender expectations that men should be "good" fathers. Men who see their role as a central father and important to whom they are more likely to engage with their children and seek to participate in responsible fathers. Men who fail to be fathers or can not have children view the lack of fatherhood as a threat to their masculinity. As a result, the threat to masculinity serves as a driving force for men to be fathers because they do not want to be seen as infertile or effeminate.

Men who do not vote for parent

Studies on men who choose not to be fathers often focus on how the role of father becomes very important for male masculinity and central identity. Many men blame economic difficulties, cultural differences, and life situations as potential factors that prevent them from becoming fathers.

Economic difficulties, looking at economic problems, serve as the main explanation for men to avoid the role of father. For men, it is difficult to separate the success of the job from the role of the father because financially providing for one's family has become the center of identity as a father in the United States. Consequently, a complicated relationship exists between the economic struggle and the importance of fatherhood. Unemployed or low-income men often feel as though they have failed both as a father and a man. On the other hand, men who have low socioeconomic status consider fathers very attractive because it gives them a measure of achievement that is rejected by the world of work.

In terms of father's cultural interests, white men and colored men have different views on fathers that can influence how many of these people participate in the role of fathers.

Finally, some men blame life situations as a major factor for their decision not to pursue fathers. The life situation is defined as the status of individual relationships (single or married) and their age. Studies have shown that older and married men tend to be more likely to be fathers. It has been suggested that men continue to view marriage, occupation, and fatherhood as a "package agreement" which means that the lack of any of these components, such as employment or marriage, may result in the decision not to have children.

It has also been suggested that married men feel as though they are expected to be fathers as part of their marriage even though they may not personally want to have children. On the other hand, men who are single and younger do not feel the same desire because they are not "ready" to emotionally and financially support a child.

src: cdn.essay.ws

Alternative family form

The number of married couples rearing children has declined over the years. In Canada, married couples and common law partners with children under the age of 25 represented 44% of all households in 2001. These statistics have declined since 1991, when married couples and common law raise children under the age of 25 represent 49 percent of all Canadian families. There are various forms of family that are becoming increasingly popular in the community.

Family one parent

In Canada, a family of parents has become popular since 1961 when only 8.4 percent of children were raised by single parents. In 2001, 15.6 percent of children were raised by single parents. The number of single parent families continues to increase, while four times more likely that the mother is the parent who raises the child. A high percentage of mothers to single parents is sometimes caused by divorce, unplanned pregnancy or the inability to find a suitable partner. Children raised by single parents are usually harmed because of parenting characteristics. A mother and father both contribute significantly to a child's development, so the ability of a parent to raise a child to himself may be hindered.

Cohabitation

A residence containing unmarried couples is called cohabitation. This type of family style became increasingly accepted in Canada and has increased from 8% in 1981 to 16.4% in 2001. In Sweden and the Nordic community, this family form is quite common, with or without children being included. However, in various Catholic regions such as Italy, this is rare because of the religious aspect (See Catholic marriage).

Gay and lesbian couples

Gay and Lesbian couples are categorized as having the same sex. In 1989, Denmark was the first country to allow same-sex couples to marry and give equal rights to all citizens. After this many countries began to allow same-sex marriages to occur such as Canada and Spain (2005). The decision of the United States Supreme Court mandates that same-sex marriage is constitutional and therefore permissible in all 50 states in the United States (2015).

Raising children by same-sex couples

Children of same-sex couples come from past relationships or through other opportunities such as adoption or artificial insemination. From data collected in the 2000 US Census, it is recommended that more than 250,000 children in the United States be raised by lesbian and gay couples. In the US Census 2010, it was reported that 20% of lesbian and gay couples or partnership households raise children (115,064 out of 594,000 same-sex households). The trend of child rearing among gay or lesbian couples or partnerships is on the rise. Also, support from the general public for gay or lesbian couples or partnerships to raise children is at its peak all the time since the 1990s. In 1994, the idea of ​​a homosexual partnership raising children equally divided Americans for support. When Americans are asked, "Do you think a homosexual couple should or should not have the legal right to adopt a child", 28% of Americans say they should, and 65% say they should not. In 2003, the idea of ​​a homosexual partnership raising children equally divided Americans for support. When Americans are asked the same question about the right of homosexual partnership to raise children through adoption, 49% of Americans say they should, and 48% say they should not. In 2014, Americans were asked very similar questions. The result is almost more polarizing than the results found in 1994. Twenty years later, 63% of Americans say lesbian and gay couples or partnerships, and 35% say they should not.

There is no federal law that prohibits the adoption of a child by a couple or a homosexual couple. But there are several states, one of which is Florida, which relies on the opinions of district judges handling the case, and local judges base their decisions on the "best interests of the child", in the case of adoption of same-sex children. couple. "The best interests of the child" seem to be the driving force behind encouragement and the reasons for the lack of support for homosexual couples or partnerships that adopt or raise children. The main argument in the debates for legal rights, policies and overall support related to the idea of ​​same-sex couples raising children is the well-being of children raised in such families. There are such concerns about mental, emotional and even social development of children who grew up in same sex couples or household partnerships. There is a large amount of research done that provides insight into various issues, including personal development, gender development, peer relationships, and family relationships with children with same-sex parents.

Research shows that sexual identity (including gender identity, gender role behavior, and sexual orientation) develops in much the same way among lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. The evidence also shows that lesbian children and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults. There is also research on other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and behavior) that similarly reveal some differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. These differences are not significant but real. For example, there are studies that examine and compare certain behaviors and ideas/beliefs that lesbians and daughters' sons and daughters do. The study found that 53% of lesbian female mothers wanted to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, and engineers as compared to only 21% of heterosexual mothers of girls. Lesbian mothers also tend to be less aggressive and more nurturing than heterosexual mothers. General concerns about homosexual couples or childcare partnerships have no excuse for their argument, "children who grow up with one or two gay men and/or lesbian parents also play a role in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functions as well as children whose parents are heterosexual.The optimal development of children appears to be more influenced by the nature of relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the necessary specific structural form. "

Selected or fictitious relatives

Others unrelated to blood or marriage are called fictitious relatives, elected relatives, or volunteer relatives.

src: image.slidesharecdn.com

Sociology of childhood

Values ​​learned during childhood are important in the development and socialization of children. The family is considered the primary socialization agent and the first focus socialization agency.

History

In the last two or three decades, the sociology of childhood has received increasing attention and triggered many empirical studies and intensive theoretical disputes, beginning in Scandinavian countries and English-speaking countries. Until now, sociology has approached children and childhood primarily from the perspective of socialization, and the emergence of a new childhood sociological paradigm goes hand in hand with feminist criticism of sociological traditions. Childhood sociologists attack the "adultocentric" and "separatist" sociological approaches to children. Not surprisingly, then, the key to working in childhood sociology is quite interdisciplinary, linking history, cultural studies, etnometodology, and pedagogy. Key texts include James and Prout's Building and Reconstruction of Childhood (1990/1997), James, Jenks and Proby Theorizing Childhood (1998) and Prout's The Future of Childhood (2005). On methodological issues in research with children see Research with Children , edited by Christensen and James (2008).

Recent trends

Sociology of childhood is currently held around three central discussions:

Children as social actors : This approach comes from the sociology of youth and ethnography. Focusing on everyday life and how children fit into society, he is involved with cultural performances and the social world they build and take part. Research theories and methodologies approach children as active participants and community members early on. So they are not analyzed as outsiders to the community or as members of the "emerging" community. Therefore, the sociology of childhood distinguishes itself from existing concepts of socialization research and developmental psychology in recent decades.

Generation Sequences : The second approach centers on socio-structural and socio-theoretical questions about social equity and social order in society, which categorizes their members by age and separates them in many ways (rights, deeds, economic participation , specified requirements, etc.). These problems can be summarized under the overall concept of generation sequence . Thus the categorization of members of society by age is far from an innocent representation of natural differences, but a social construct like "natural truth". Therefore, the relevant components of the social order are closely related to other dimensions of social inequality. Social and economic change and socio-political intervention are central topics in the sociology of childhood. The analysis of these issues has raised awareness of the inequalities of generations of people.

The Hybridity of Childhood : This discussion is more critical (though not underestimating) the social constructionist approach that has dominated the sociology of childhood since the 1990s. More open to materialist perspectives, it seeks interdisciplinary pathways that recognize biology as well as the social and cultural formation of childhood and open up the possibility of interdisciplinary Future Studies emerging from current multi-disciplinary efforts. This scholarship has two important influences. First, the so-called 'new wave' of childhood, is strongly influenced by Alan Prout's (2005) seminal book The Future of Childhood . In this work, Prout examines how childhood is not only socially constructed - through discourse, law or institutions - but materially, through toys, food, and drugs. Since then, sociologists such as Nick Lee have offered important analyzes of the ways in which children's' attachment 'and materiality and non-human technology become increasingly important for the regulation and regulation of the lives of children, through what he calls' biopoliticisation 'of childhood. Second, non-representative approaches to geography Children have offered a range of broader and broader (practically) approaches that move beyond social constructivism. Scholars such as Peter Kraftl, John Horton and Affrica Taylor have been very influential in examining how childhood is produced and experienced through complex emotional intersections, influences, manifestations and materiality. Somewhat problematic, there is relatively little overlap between these two scholarships, although they share the same conceptual foundation in Post-structuralism, New Materialism and Posthumanism. Nevertheless, during the mid-2010s, so-called 'spatial changes' in childhood and educational studies saw an increase in cross-fertilization between this field and the expropriation of children's geographic work by sociologists and others. Therefore, the prospects for cross-disciplinary scholarship around hybridity, spatiality and 'new wave' remain very promising - perhaps the most obvious in recent volumes by Julie Seymour, Abigail Hackett and Lisa Procter.

Gender and childhood

There has been much research and discussion about the impact of society on the assumption of gender roles in childhood, and how social norms perpetuate gender-differentiated interactions with children. Psychologists and sociologists point out that self-gender identity is the result of social learning from peers, role modeling in family units, and genetic predisposition. The sociological implications are as follows:

Peer interactions :

There are significant gender differences in the style of relationships among children who mainly start emerging after the early childhood and early childhood around the age of 6 and grow more commonly with age. Boys tend to play in groups larger than girls, and male friends are more likely to be friends with each other which, in turn, leads to deeper density of social networks among boys. Boys also have a clearer hierarchy of dominance than girls in their peer group. In terms of dyadic relationships, girls are more likely to have more lasting relationships with this trait, but there is no literature that suggests that girls engage in more dyadic relationships than boys. Girls are also more prosocial in conflict situations and better in collaborative and playful work than boys. They also spend more time in social conversation than boys and are more likely to express themselves among their friends than boys. On the other hand, boys are more likely than girls to engage in organized games such as sports and activities with clear rules. One theory shows that because of this, boys have more opportunities to show their strengths and skills and compare them with their peers during this competitive activity. Girls' peer groups are characterized by strong interpersonal relationships, empathy for others, and work towards connection-oriented goals, while boys focus more on affirming their own dominance in peer groups and goal-oriented goals.

Significant social differences also exist between boys and girls when experiencing and dealing with social stress. Boys experience more social pressure among their friends than girls in the form of verbal and physical abuse, but girls experience more social pressure through tension in their social networking and friendships. To deal with social pressures, girls seek more support, express more emotion to their friends, and ponder more than boys. Boys use humor as a distraction from stress and seek less emotional support in their friendship and social networking.

Family interaction :

Overall, the literature implies that the biological gender of children affects the way parents interact with them. The difference in the range of interactions of the amount of time spent with children to how many parents invest financially in the future of their children. On average, fathers tend to show more different treatment than mothers, and fathers tend to invest more in families with boys than families with girls in terms of time and money. However, gender associations with father investments have weakened over the years, and the difference is not great. Parents tend to enroll their daughters in more cultural activities than their sons (eg art classes, dance classes, and music lessons), and tend to invest more in parents-related parental involvement programs for their sons than their daughters.

Boys and girls are not only treated differently by their parents on the basis of sex, but also receive different benefits from their parents on the basis of sex. Parents, both fathers and mothers, may be less invested in their girls' higher education than their sons and tend to save on average more money in anticipation for enrollment of their children in educational institutions after high school graduation. However, this may not lead to better academic or work achievement for later children. Parents are also more likely to underestimate girls' abilities in math and science while exaggerating boys. Girls also, on average, also do more domestic work than boys, reflecting gender division in workplaces and households in the community.

Your relationships, unlike parent relationships, do not show consensus in the literature on gender differences in interactions and benefits. However, the sex-minority brethren may have more difficulty receiving special care needed from parents.

Current assignment

Source of the article : Wikipedia