|
|
Research Papers |
Two student research papers are included on this page:
1. Women in Prison
by Bonnie
2. Report on Divorce: Cause and Effect
by Jeff
1 Bonnie
Professor Walkup
English 111
7 November 1999
Women Behind Bars
The first women's prison in the United States was ready to receive prisoners in 1839. Up until that time women were incarcerated with male prisoners. Women's institutions have come a long way since then. The problems women face during incarceration have improved greatly from some of the horrors that existed for them in the prisons of 1800's. There are, however, many situations that need to be addressed in today's prison system. There are issues like HIV, pregnancy, sexual abuse and one of the most heart-breaking, the inmate's children. Maeve writes, "Incarcerated women have numerous physical, social, and emotional health care needs that have gone largely uninvestigated and unaddressed in this unique population" (1).
Housing
Women who were incarcerated in the late 1700's and early 1800's were held alongside of the male prisoners in most states. Women convicted of a crime that had a jail sentence received a fate worse than death. Women made up a small percentage of the prison population. This made them more of a nuisance than it was worth and made for substandard accommodations, to say the least. Some prisons had a separate cellblock in the main building. They could not let the women interact with the men, however, so they were confined to their cells the majority of the time. There were no hired matrons and sanitary conditions were deplorable.
In Western New York prison authorities started committing women to Auburn. Instead of being housed in cellblocks, they were housed in an attic above the penitentiary's kitchen. They were neglected and had no supervision. They were delivered food once a day and otherwise were left to their own devices. Visiting the penitentiary in the 1830's, Harriet Martineau reported a scene of almost complete chaos. She reported the scene as, "one any Lunatic asylum ought to be ashamed of " (Partial Justice 6). One Auburn inmate became pregnant. She was flogged while five months pregnant, and later died. Martineau's report and that scandal forced New York to construct regular quarters for its female felons. There were three
2
stages in the history of the separation process of female from male prisoners. At first, women were confined in large rooms or individual cells but not further isolated. Secondarily, they were removed to
separate quarters within or attached to the men's section. In the third, women were relocated to an isolated
building on or near the main prison.
Looking at the way women were housed in the past makes it difficult to argue there may be any problems in our prison system today. The way women live in prison today is quite different from the barbaric conditions they were housed in the 1700's and the 1800's. Although no longer incarcerated with men, there are nevertheless, many problems. While women do not suffer the horrifying abuse and neglect that women suffered in the early stages of prisons, the growth of the women population in our prison systems has made incarceration an experience I, for one, am thankful I do not have to participate in.
HIV Positive
Infectious disease is another problem in our prison system. The number of HIV and AIDS cases are spiraling out of control. Approximately 80 percent of women prisoners have substance abuse problems, which increases the number of HIV positive prisoners. According to Engle, "More than 18 percent of women incarcerated in New York State and over 25 percent of women inmates entering Rikers Island, are HIV-positive"(1). Women need to be educated about HIV. Some women test positive in prison, yet many times they do not receive adequate counseling and education about the disease that some would prefer to be in denial about. The idea of incarceration, in most cases, is to rehabilitate the inmate. We should then be educating these women so that they will be able to go out of prison into society with a good understanding about what is happening to them and how it will affect others around them in the outside world.
In upstate New York they have an interesting program at Bedford Hills and Taconic. The program is called ACE and it stands for AIDS Counseling and Education. "Body Positive" reports, "This is a peer-run program where inmates, assisted by one full-time Women's Prison Association staff member, provide the service"(4). There is a lot to be said for peer-support groups because the inmates are helping one another. This enables the inmate to feel good about themselves because they are able to help others in the same situation that they have knowledge of. This also keeps the resentment level low since they do not
3
have to listen to and take advice from someone who really does not have personal experience of incarceration or being HIV positive.
Unfortunately, with HIV numbers being so high, there are a number of women with full-blown AIDS. This is, in my opinion, a sad way for a person to live out her last days. It is bad enough being institutionalized but to be dying there with no chance of ever having freedom again is very depressing. When I did some volunteer work in the prison, I remember an inmate who shared with me that her friend and fellow inmate died of AIDS the previous day. This was an especially hard situation for both the inmate that died and her friend. This woman died without anyone to care or help her die in a loving way. It seems to me that counseling could have been provided for this dying woman. In the outside world we have Hospice and other organizations to help counsel a dying person. The inmate shared with me that she was really hurting and grieving but was afraid and unable to show it for fear of making herself vulnerable to other inmates who would surely take advantage of her in that situation. This is another example of prison life making the so-called "hardened criminal" even tougher.
Abuse
Women learn how to survive in prison but they must also learn how to live in the world outside the prison walls. If we are to help them to do this we might try to understand them better. It is helpful to recognize, as Payne states, "Eighty-five to ninety percent of women were abused neglected, or abandoned as children." (1) This is not to suggest that a woman should not be punished for her crime but these women do need help to learn a new way to live. Many of these women need to be cared about and believed in. They need to learn that they no longer need to be victims. Prison counseling programs might be one way to help some of these women.
It is interesting how women who have lived abusive lives are easy prey to abuse once they are in the system. Prison guards and tough inmates are likely to abuse someone with whom they think they can get away with it. According to a Web article, "Seventy percent of the guards in U.S. prisons for women are male. Twelve States have no laws prohibiting sexual conduct between guards and inmates" ("The other side" 1). Female inmates repeatedly complain about male guards that grope them during body searches and
4
watch them as they shower and dress. There are many reports of rape and many more that are kept quiet for fear of retaliation by prison officials or fear of being labeled a snitch by fellow inmates.
There are now cases appearing on court calendars regarding the abuse and or neglect of the inmate. Many of these cases are sexual abuse cases against prison officials. The inmates are getting fed up with the abuse and are coming forward to tell their story. The problem is people have a much easier time believing the authoritative figure and have a tough time believing the inmate that is incarcerated for a crime.
Relationships
A related problem is that women who are incarcerated for a period of time see that the realities of prison life means that women's need for touch and caring are seriously unfulfilled. Maeve writes, " In prison, touching is explicitly understood, by staff and inmates alike, to be sexual and thereby forbidden" (14). In the "outside" world if someone were having a conversation and laughing with a friend, it would be a normal thing to touch the arm or shoulder of another. In prison, if this behavior was observed by an officer, these women would receive a verbal reprimand or worse. Women quickly learn that touch equals sex.
Relationships in prison, however, do exist. Many times even the inmate who would have no part in any kind of lesbian relationship will, over time, find herself attracted to another inmate. Her need for love and caring carries over to a sexual relationship. Roles are played in prison as male-female roles. Women refer to their partners as "him" or "her". Many may have haircuts to look like a man. They walk like a man, and sit like a man. They flatter their female counterparts and this would, for the inmate, feel like a natural attraction.
Other relationships are formed from friendships. Maeve states, "Over time, and through a gradual process of learning to develop trust and affection, women come to view the inmate friendships sexually, It seemed logical to them that friendships meant intimacy; and intimacy meant love; and love meant sex" (15). Many of these women were less likely to alter their appearance. Instead they tend to reflect their feminine side. They, for the most part, do not think of themselves as true "lesbians."
5
Regardless of how these relationships come about, women enjoy the feeling of being sexually attractive, much the same as women in the outside world feel. Their needs to feel special, wanted, and touched overcome any feelings of wrongdoing. This appears to be true even with the woman that swears will not partake in any kind of lesbian behavior. In the end her needs usually win and she will act upon this regardless of the possible consequences.
Children
A heart-wrenching problem facing women in prison is the separation of a child and their inmate mother is inevitable. Many times children are denied visitation with their mom. Other times their caregivers does not have the capability to transport the children to see their mother. Either way it is agonizing for both the child and the mother. According to Hugerford, " No national figure exists that would indicate the number of children whose mothers are incarcerated, it can be conservatively projected from past prevalence studies that on any given day 167,000 to 222,000 dependant children are in this situation across the US" (1). This study also indicates that 87 percent of state female inmates were single heads-of-households at the time of their arrests. This leaves the children in the hands of the system and Human Service Agency Programs.
While many inmate mothers expressed satisfaction with the placement of their children at the time of their incarceration, most of these women's children were living with a relative. However, a small percentage of these children are pushed into the welfare system. Foster care is usually where they end up. Whatever the case may be, "caregivers often are resentful of having to alter their lifestyles care for the inmates children" (Hugerford, 4).
Many inmates rarely, if ever, see their children while incarcerated. Hugerford notes, "A parallel study has found that the long-term effects of maternal incarceration and separation on children should be of major concern to child welfare policy makers. Among these effects are out -of-wedlock teenage births, male delinquency, school dropouts, associated property rates and counseling needs" (7). Unfortunately our children are falling victims to the system. Children of inmates are more likely to become inmates themselves.
6
In most cases women that have been incarcerated have lived lives of drug abuse and suffered abuse as children. These patterns have a way of repeating themselves. There is a revolving door in the prison for many women but this life is really all they know. They have never been shown there might be a better way. Programs for addiction, repeat offenders, and abuse may help to teach these women they have
a problem. Through this they can learn how to be nurtured and in turn how to nurture. They may not return to prison as often and will be able to stay home and rear their own children.
The children of the incarcerated mother should be getting help from our Social Service Departments. They really need special attention to help them cope with the fact that their mom is in prison and to reassure them that they have not done anything wrong. Many children feel shame over the fact that their mom is in jail. These children carry that shame and it is so unfair. They really need to have someone to talk to and care about the way they are feeling. It would be nice to see our Social Service Departments work on getting some of these children into a Big Brother/Sister Program or something similar that would give the child a positive figure to look up to.
The unborn child presents a huge problem in our prison systems. Six percent of all female inmates are pregnant when they are incarcerated. Many more are impregnated by prison officials. This means that approximately 4,000 women will give birth to a child while in prison. "No current prison standards deal directly with the treatment of pregnant inmates", states Besna Markovic, in a Web site article (3). I have read horrifying reports of women given inadequate attention for diet nutrition and exercise and stories of women being shackled during and after delivery.
What then should become of the newborn? Should the mother be allowed to keep her newborn and nurse him or her? Many argue the infant needs to have time to bond with its mother even if the mother is in jail. Others argue that prison conditions are too harsh for infants. Prisons are overcrowded and lack decent lighting and fresh air. The sensible solution seems to be to separate the mother and the child but the innocent baby is the one who suffers. When taken away, the children are often shipped from one foster home to another making it impossible for the baby to develop any meaningful relationships. Ironically, the child again is the one who loses and stands to end up another statistic in the cycle of history repeating itself.
7
In conclusion, there unfortunately will always be a need for women's prisons and, with that, there will always be personal needs that have to be fulfilled. In no way do I believe that women who break the law and are sent to prison should be treated as if they are on vacation. However, as long as we have a prison system that is supposed to be geared to rehabilitation, we should ensure this process happens. Women should be responsible for their crime and serve their time. If given adequate counseling while in prison maybe, just maybe, an inmate will be helped and be better equipped to go into the outside world.
When dealing with circumstances of childhood trauma in counseling, the inmate stands a chance of working through her problems to a solution. If she feels hopeless, all will be lost and she will be using that revolving door. The inmate with HIV needs to know what resources are available to her once she is released. She needs to be educated so that she has hope. If she feels she has a death sentence then what is the use of going on? Why not just go back to crime? By educating and teaching these women that they can still live a good life with the care available, she may make a choice to live life instead of running from it.
The abuse issue needs to be addressed. Women who are sent to prison are not sent there with the intention of being some prison guard's play toy. They should not be afraid to report cases of sexual abuse. The reality is that this will probably always continue to happen but the inmate needs protection from the very person that is hired to guard them. Stiffer penalties for guards who partake in this behavior would surely be a deterrent.
The children of the incarcerated mother need help. We have to start looking at the root of the problem. If we start with our children, maybe the cycle can be broken. All children have very special needs, but these children have a greater possibility of being sucked into the same kind of lifestyle that their mother's have. By working with these children, we can try and help them find a healthy direction in life to keep them out of prison.
Prison should not be a good experience. If it were, everyone would want to go there for a little rest and relaxation. Hopefully women can be punished, be rehabilitated and be able to come out and function in society. After care programs or half way houses are a good way to help them along after their release. But by putting an end to their physical, mental and sexual abuse during their incarceration, we may provide women and their children a chance to live a normal life and an opportunity to contribute to society.
Works Cited
Engle, Laura. "The Rocky Road Home." Body Positive Vol. XII Mar. 1999. 15 Nov. 1999
<http://www.thebody.com/bp/mar99/rocky.html>.
Hungerford, Gregory P. "Caregivers of children whose mothers are incarcerated: a study of the kinship placement system." Children Today Summer-Fall 1996. 22 Nov. 1999<http:// web7.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/in…=38!xrn-1-0A18405717?>.
Maeve, Kathrine M. "The Social Construction of Love and Sexuality in a Women's Prison." Advances in Nursing Science Mar. 1999. 22 Nov. 1999 <http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/ in…_0_A54776393&bkm>.
Markovic, Vesna. "Pregnant Women in Prison: A correctional Dilemma?" Office of International Criminal Justice. Summer 1995. 19 Nov. 1999 <http://oicj.acsp.uic.edu/spearmint/public/ pubs.kv.kv160333.cfm>.
Payne, Colleen. "Prison Life: Segregation." Women Speak Out 19 Nov. 1999 <http:..www.whateverdesign.com/speakout/html/stories.htm>.
Rafter, Nicole. Partial Justice. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1985
"The Other Side." Article 1. Behind Prison Walls. Sept. 1999. 22 Nov. 1999 <http:// web7.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/in…=43!xm-1.0A55670350?>.
*****************************************************************
The following is a research paper on the causes and effects of divorce that was written by Jeff.
Jeffrey
Professor Walkup
English 111
May 11, 1999
Report on Divorce: Cause and Effect
Divorce has been part of many cultures for as long as records have been kept, and it will certainly always be a part of life to some degree. Recently, there has been a steep increase in the rate of family separations across the United States and there seems to be many misconceptions among the general population surrounding the causes and effects of these family breakups. Several recent studies have attempted to identify the causes of this trend and assess the results. While the findings have not been entirely conclusive, they have corrected much of the faulty information from past research that has been generally accepted as true.
Although divorce is nothing new, in recent decades there has been a sharp increase in the numbers of men and women ending their marriages, but it is often difficult to determine what the reasons are while attempting to include all possible factors. In fact, it may be impossible to calculate the exact breakdown of figures regarding divorce trends because of the complex data associated with marriage and family. The only unarguable facts that all demographers have concluded is the steady rise in divorce rates since records first began being kept by the United States Census Bureau in 1860, and, women initiate divorce two to three times more often than men. According to the statistician Clark, the sharpest rise occurred from the mid-1960’s through the present, when the rate of incidence per one thousand married women more than doubled. He reported, "the rate of incidence increased from approximately 9.2 per thousand to almost 21.0 per thousand" (8). After rate of incidence and initiative, the exact statistical data becomes difficult to pinpoint, due to the multitude of factors attributed to marital separation. Many factors come into play, such as age, prior marital history, demographics, and a host of other ingredients. Several experts have suggested different methods of categorizing divorce statistics in order to attain a truer picture of how often marriages break down, for what reasons, and what the effects are for both the short and long term. While statistical percentages vary from study to study, they usually only vary by degree, not by conclusion. Most of the studies conducted recently using broad ranges of data tracked over a long period time have a similar resonance, and again, only vary by degree, thereby leading to fairly conclusive assumptions. The statistics in this report are mostly concerned with trends that have occurred in the last half of this century and will be explained in conjunction with each relative topic.
Of all the aspects of divorce statistics covered in this report, the order of causal frequency is the sketchiest. Although several separate studies were used, none concluded with any degree of certainty what problems most often ruined marriages, because leading causes changed with age, demographics, prior marital status, economics, personal attitudes, cohabitation, and children. The following is a definitive list of the twelve most cited marital issues:
problems did exist in conjunction with their monetary woes (Dafoe 4).
data is inclusive because many spouses were unsure if other problems would
or would not correct themselves if the abuse did not exist (Dafoe 6).
As previously stated, the leading causes of divorce may be impossible to determine because of the complexity of family and marital situations. Also shedding doubt on the general accuracy of the tabulations, is the overlapping, or compounding of issues, some of which the participants may not have even been aware of. We may never know for certain why our country is experiencing the fastest breakdown of family units in the world today.
Although it is difficult to ascertain why we divorce, it is somewhat easier to conclude what it is doing to us as individuals and as a society. This is because the effects family breakup has on men, women, and children is far easier to track than are the causes, mostly because researchers can observe the immediate results of a situation, thereby reducing the chances of erroneous data collection. This more precise approach revealed some starling facts about what broken families encounter once they separate. During a study of 400 divorcing couples by Dr. Sanford Braver Ph.D., a psychology professor at Arizona State University, a host of general misconceptions about post-divorce lifestyles were uncovered. After realizing his early findings were departing from the general notions portrayed by studies from past decades, he decided to look closer at the older studies themselves. Braver looked into one very well known study that was conducted by Lenore Wietzman in 1970, which had become accepted as textbook and subsequently used to set public policy and agenda. In her report, Weitzman concluded that men fared far better economically than women after a divorce and stated specifically, that women suffered a 73 percent drop in income while the man’s rose significantly. As Braver attempted to recreate the calculated data supposed in Weitzman’s report he found it impossible to duplicate. Only when Braver reversed the conclusive data did the numbers begin to jibe, which led him to the conclusion that serious errors had been made by Weitzman during her final tabulations. When Braver confronted Weitzman with his findings she conceded that an error could have been made and eventually admitted her mistake publicly. Braver went on to conclude through the use of his own data, which included factors for taxes and visitation expenses, that there is little difference in how mothers and fathers fare economically after divorce, contradicting beliefs from the past (Hughes 14). Another myth shattered by Braver’s study is the notion that fathers quickly become disinvested in their children shortly after separation, although some fathers fit this stereotype, he found this to be mostly false. Other researchers, as well as Braver, have found that most men wish to continue to be loving, devoted parents regardless of their relationship with their former spouse. One such researcher, D. Juan Hernandez rebuked the most highly publicized misconglomeration of divorce data that exists, the "deadbeat dad" child support statistics. After hearing a what seemed to be a misrepresentation of available figures quoted by President Clinton during a speech in 1994, that thirty four billion dollars of unpaid child support was owed to custodial parents, Hernandez began gathering reports and figures in order to validate the claim. Not surprisingly, he could not, instead he uncovered a gross overstatement of the amount quoted by Clinton, which was discounted by everyone including government agencies in charge of compiling such data. The U.S. Census Bureau corrected Mr. Clinton, informing him that the correct figure was three point seven billion, and also advised him that sixty-six percent of the non-payers did not have the ability to pay, leaving one point two billion, a thirty-three billion dollar error that helped perpetuate a national misconception. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report a very different image of the estranged father in the following data. First, the U.S. Census Bureau reports:
• 90.2 percent of fathers with joint custody pay all child support ordered
• 79.1 percent of fathers with visitation rights pay all child support ordered
• Even 44.5% of those without any visitation rights financially support their
children.(4)
Next the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states:
• 79.6 percent of custodial mothers receive court-ordered child support.
• 29.9 percent of custodial fathers receive court-ordered child support.
• 46.9 percent of non-custodial mothers totally default on child support.
• 26.9 percent of non-custodial fathers totally default on child support (31).
(Data obtained by asking custodial parents)
The following figures are for custodial parents:
• 66.2 percent of single mothers work less than full time.
• 10.2 percent of single fathers work less than full time.
• 7.0 percent of single mothers work more than 44 hours per week.
• 24.5 percent of single fathers work more than 44 hours per week.
• 46.2 percent of single mothers receive public assistance.
• 20.8 percent of single fathers receive public assistance (38).
Bill Clinton continually used the "deadbeat dad" plank to rouse public sentiment for his election campaigns, in order to portray a concerned parental image. Unfortunately media coverage of statements like these and prevailing attitudes have created a poor image for the divorced dad, when in reality, most are doing their best to do the right things for their children.
Another myth is the belief that husbands fare better emotionally than their wives after separation occurs. According to Emery, "Most adults go through an intense adjustment period when faced with divorce, because there are many issues to resolve, such as emotional strife, legal issues, financial woes, and social and community adjustments"(14). Emery explains the grieving process is complicated, long, and can be furthered by the inclusion of children into the situation. "There are three dominant emotions involved in the process," says Emery, " love, anger, and sadness, played out in a continually repeating cycle. There are differences in the process from leaver to the one who has been left. The one left usually has stronger feelings, in addition to feelings of rejection and hope. The leaver usually carries guilt and a sense of responsibility along with cycle of love, anger, and sadness" (94). Emery did not state any real differences in reactions based on gender.
While social scientists are beginning to understand the effects marital failure can have on couples and their children, the Family Court system has not begun to apply recent revelations concerning family dynamics to court decisions in any substantial manner. Unfortunately, the gains made by the women’s rights movements of the 1960’s has created a definite, proven, gender bias in our court systems, and generally, the court system rules in favor of women in divorce cases, especially if children are involved. In recent decades, countless men have felt the sting of one-sided divorce settlements as a result of legal policy that routinely leaves them with next to nothing financially, and what seems like next to no visitation. The only relief men have enjoyed in this arena have been in cases of relatively short marriages, when no children are involved, and the wife can support herself. Only in other extreme cases, with circumstances such as maternal desertion, do men receive fair and equal treatment; therefore, many feel the attitudes of the courts have moved too far to the left and are lobbying for divorce reform. Pearle Harbour, a paralegal who has worked in the Family Court system for fifteen years charges, "Shame on all those women of the 1990’s who now use these laws to their advantage in the family courts to bring men to their knees; and to erase fathers from the lives of their children!"(159). Even though Harbour’s words seem harsh, the scenario she describes is far too often the reality that families experience when traveling through our judicial system, and goes on to say, "Children are forgotten and have become our newest victims with the full cooperation of our Family Court system"(277).
Although not quite to the degree of men, women have also fallen prey to incorrect assumptions about their overall condition following marital dissolution. The California Children of Divorce Study, directed by Judith Wallerstein, a clinical psychologist, lasted for a decade and did much to refute many inaccuracies concerning the fate of single mothers. One of the leading assumptions of the past was that single motherhood was economically viable and if they experienced setbacks, they would be able to recover quickly. Conversely, the results of her investigation found little evidence to support this optimistic view of single motherhood. For the vast majority of single mothers, the economic spectrum turns out to be narrow, running between precarious and desperate. Even single mothers who are far from poor are likely to experience persistent economic insecurity. Another argument raised during the same period of time claimed that even if single mothers did face economic trials, they wouldn't face them for long, because they wouldn't remain single for long. The same proponents argued further that single motherhood would be a brief phase of three to five years, followed by marriage. History has proven that argument to be mistaken, because a significant number of all single mothers never remarry and those who do, do so only after spending an average of six years as single parents. It was also suggested that informal networks of family, friends, neighbors, and other single mothers would support single mothers. As Wallerstein shows in her study, the evidence demolishes all these claims because the notion that single mothers are knit together in economically supportive networks is not borne out by the evidence (44). On the contrary, single parenthood forces many women to be on the move, in search of cheaper housing and better jobs. This need-driven restless mobility makes it more difficult for them to sustain supportive ties to family and friends, let alone other single mothers. Conclusive evidence shows that divorce almost always brings a decline in the standard of living for the mother and children, and consequently, single motherhood is hardly a passing phase (Wallerstein 21).
While the misplaced assumptions about women’s circumstances are not as broad as men’s, they are by no means less severe when considering the daily responsibility to the needs of one or more children. These same children coincidentally have their own single-parent family issues to contend with while working through the rigors of growing up.
Of all the participants in these situations the effects upon children may be the most misunderstood. Contrary to popular belief, many children do not "bounce back" after divorce or remarriage and difficulties that are associated with family breakup often persist into adulthood. Psychologist Nicholas Zill conducted the National Survey on Children from 1976 through 1987 and drew one of many conclusions, stating, "Consequently, as it affects a significant number of children, family disruption is best understood not as a single event but as a string of disruptive events: separation, divorce, life in a single-parent family, life with a parent and live-in lover, the remarriage of one or both parents, life in one stepparent family combined with visits to another stepparent family; the breakup of one or both stepparent families."(47). As a result, divorce is rapidly transforming the lives of American children, because by 1980 only fifty percent could expect to spend their entire childhood in an intact family. If current trends continue, less than half of all children born today will live continuously with their own mother and father throughout childhood and large percentage of American children will spend several years in a single-mother family. According to an increasing amount of evidence, children in families disrupted by divorce do worse than children in intact families in several areas. Children in single-parent families are six times as likely to be poor and are also likely to stay poor longer. Twenty-two percent of children in one-parent families will experience poverty during childhood for seven years or more, while only two percent of children in two parent families will. A 1988 survey by the National Center for Health Statistics found that children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems and are more likely to drop out of high school. Also many more will get pregnant as teenagers, abuse drugs, and get in trouble with the law. Compared with children in intact families, children from disrupted families are at a much higher risk for physical or sexual abuse. Children who grow up in single-parent or stepparent families are usually less successful as adults, in love or at work, and research shows that many children from disrupted families have a harder time achieving intimacy in a relationship. Naturally, a remarkably higher percentage will have marriages that end in divorce. Most definitely, not all children experience such negative effects, but overall child well-being has declined.
Clearly, what we believe about our marriages and family matrix needs to be as accurate as possible, we need this in order to come to grips with the personal and social price we pay each time another divorce occurs. Debunking the misnomers associated with family breakup is the first best step towards halting a destructive trend that threatens our society as a whole. Considering its dramatic impact on the lives children and adults alike, this level of family disruption should be regarded as a national crisis, however this has not been the case. In recent years many people have argued that these trends pose a serious threat to children and to the nation as a whole, but they are dismissed as unwilling to accept the new facts of life. In spite of all the evident pain and destruction, the majority of people believe that the changes in family structure are actually positive when compared to the alternatives. It seems unlikely that our nation’s divorce trends will reverse any time soon due to our national mantra of individualist living, therefore, educating our youth to the realities of marriage and divorce, before they make their commitments, may be the best approach to reviving the American family.
Works Cited
Clark, S.C. "Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990." Monthly Vital
Statistics Report. Vol 43, No8, suppl. Hyattsville, MD:National Center for Health
Statistics. 1995.
Dafoe-Whitehead, Barbara. "Dan Quale was Right." Atlantic Monthly Magazine. June
1998: 20 April, 1999. <http://www.theatlantic.com>
Emery, R. E. Renegotiating Family Relationships: Divorce, Child Custody, and
Mediation. New York: Guilford Press 1994.
Harbour, Pearle. Guerrilla Divorce Warfare. New York: Ballentine Books. 1998.
Hernandez, D. J. America’s Children: Resources for Family, Government and the
Economy. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. 1993.
Hughes, Robert. Jr. "Demographics of Divorce." 1996. Ohio State University. 20 April,
1999 <http://www.hec.ohio/famlif/divorce/index.htm>
United States. Bureau of Census. Report of Final Divorce Statistics. Monthly Vital
Statistics Report. Vol 47, No 71. Hyattsvile, MD. 1994.
United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Single Parents.
Monthly Vital Statistics Report. Vol 51, No 113. Hyattsville, MD. 1997.
United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Monthly Vital Statistics Report.
Vol. 38, No.12(s) 2. Hyattsville, MD. May 21, 1991.
Wallerstein, Judith. "The California Children of Divorce Study." 1993. University Of
Southern California. 20 April 1999. <http://www.usc.edu>
Zill, Nicholas. "The National Survey On Children" 1995. University of Virginia. 20 April
1999. <http://www.uvirginia.edu>