Divorce

Inside The Life of a Persevering Adult: A Self Reflection Amber Ward Psy 202 Professor Stephen Law October 25, 2012 I. What was your family like? A. Single parent strict home B. Middle of three children C. Parent’s divorce and father’s absence II. What things do you remember about your childhood? A. Financial Hardships B. Good times along with tough times C. Becoming independent at a young age D. Things chosen to forget about E. Sports III. Greatest achievements A. Career B. Abuse survivor C. Return to school IV. What are your personal, professional, and academic goals? A. Demonstrating the importance of a college education to my peers B.

Owning my own preschool C. Earning my bachelors degree Throughout life, we all have pitfalls that we believe hold us back from dreams, but I believe that we have the opportunity to persevere and move forward in the future. On a daily basis, we make decisions using the conscious mind and try to apply the adult development theories when making those decisions but, we may not always apply them correctly. Although my story may be one of a series of pitfalls and setbacks, I will prove to others that perseverance has pulled me through those pitfalls and setbacks and has gotten me to where I am today.

I do not see my pitfalls as mistakes, but rather as life lessons that have contributed to bettering my life and shaping who I am today. Life does not create a person; a person creates their own life. While we all have different journeys that lead us to where we are today, my life has been one that I look upon as a true persevering story. Throughout my childhood, I learned the importance of hard work and dedication to family. My father was from a military family and was strict the couple years he was around.

While some might consider his discipline style and strictness out of the ordinary, I appreciate what he did and how he taught me the value of respect. At times, growing up as the middle child in a broken family was not an easy life. I believe that I had to do what my sisters were doing. I constantly thought that my mother only took my sisters wants and needs into consideration, and that led me to seclude myself. I allowed my father’s disappearance to take me away from reality and grew up resenting my immediate family. I regularly kept to myself in my room and was the different one in the family.

This self-perception from others led me down a deep path of depression; I chose to hear only what I wanted to hear when my family tried to communicate with me and that created problems for me. Despite my father’s disappearance, my father made several attempts at talking with me and trying to understand why I was in such a dark place. Instead of talking to anyone I chose to ignore what they viewed as kindness and chose to ignore them. The majority of my childhood often seems to be put in the back of my mind. I remember key events but little to nothing else.

I do not remember the name of a single friend from any grade all the way through college as I did not have many; I had select programming in my brain that allowed me to keep only those treasured times in my memory to fight the depression. I do remember growing up with financial hardships. Looking back, I now realize that there were many other children that had it much harder than my family did. I believe that these financial hardships came about during my parents’ divorce, when I was two years old. I am lucky to say, I have never gone without a meal though and could count on having clean lothes for school. My mother always tried to push me to do those activities that my sisters participated in. However, even though I played soccer and softball I still felt let out as these activities were not of my liking. My sisters excelled in both sports causing me to gain a sense of jealousy. I then became even more withdrawn from society and would go to bed crying every night. At the age of eighteen, I decided I did not want to be alone, so I started online dating. I then was constantly staying with others and chose my relationships with these men over my family.

Despite my family’s pleas and wishes to get out of those bad relationships, I had to learn on my own. At the time, I blamed my family for everything I believed to have caused a horrible relationship and broken family. Before long I got taken advantage of and abused in every way possible by the guys I was dating. I worked every day but would spend all my time and money on my relationships and get nothing in return. Within an unusually short time frame, I reminded myself of a lesson my parents attempted to teach me: It is better being alone than in a bad relationship.

At the wise age of twenty two, I got hurt so miserably I thought about giving up on life. Initially, I ignored the situation and did not realize the seriousness of it until I woke up one cold and out of it with bruises and not remembering what had happened the night before. I quickly realized that I needed to seek support and get out of that relationship before I die. After speaking with my father after two years, I decided that I should move out of town with him. My father would provide me with somewhere to live and a fresh start on life.

Within three weeks, I moved to Ventura, California where I now reside and started with a clean slate. The move brought about a new perspective on life and gave me time to evaluate myself. I gained a new respect for myself and appreciation for those that tried to reach out. All of the past relationships were now past experiences. However, not having a relationship and being so torn caused me to need counseling for severe post traumatic stress disorder. I still believe calling my dad saved my life. Upon entering my second month of counseling, I enrolled in classes at American Intercontinental University.

I viewed college as an opportunity to prepare for my future and to prove to myself that I am worthy of finishing something I had always wanted. I found myself surrounded by many supporters that drove me to succeed and encouraged me every step of the way. During the last weeks of my first semester of college, my life changed forever. I spent the night in a psychiatric hospital for wanting to end my life in the past. I had everything taken from me and had to force the nurses to inform my father where I was since I lived with him. I cried that entire night and did not sleep all but maybe ten minutes in the twenty four hour period.

All my classes received failing grades as it was finals week and, policy was a student must attend finals and my world came crashing down. Upon my exit, I became a full time nanny and began my career. However, I still wanted to stay true to myself and wanted to complete my associate’s degree and then obtain a bachelors degree. John Holland’s personality theory states “People feel that their job is fulfilling if there is a match between some features of their work and their personality” (Witt & Mossler, 2010, pg. 30). This statement could not pertain more to me when describing my career in the childcare field.

My time with the children has been one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of my life. I have been fortunate to be blessed with loving families that I work for that have now become my own. By taking advantage of these opportunities presented, I am well on my way to opening my own preschool-based daycare center. Though I have faced many setbacks, I have chosen to use each one as a learning experience in bettering my future. During the abuse, I remembered that there is someone out there that does love me and is worth my time.

I am truly fortunate to have lived through an instance that was so tragic and could have taken my life. While my career in childcare has been one of my most valued experiences, one of my most rewarding experiences would be getting the opportunity to live. My family always told me there is a reason why I am on this earth; they could not have been more correct. Being able to survive a tragic attack made me value what I have; With a now loving boyfriend of one and half years and a supportive family at my side cheering me on I now know why I must continue to persevere and not let anything stand in the way of my hopes and dreams.

My drive in life is now not one of satisfying only others that did not care about me, but now one of self respect and dignity. I want to do everything to prove that I can use perseverance to get through anything or anyone that tries to knock me down. As I continue to move through life I accept every day as a new beginning; I believe that too many people settle for less than what they deserve because they think their goals are out of reach once someone or something tries to block their path.

Very few people achieve anything significant without first overcoming obstacles as seen in Zeleznocks article saying “If at first one does not succeed, try again” (Zeleznock, 2008, pg. 1). What life has taught me is that if one lets setbacks control their life they will never move forward. In order to have a positive self image one must push to succeed and maintain self worth. Using setbacks and allowing others to make your decisions will only result in regret and lead one down a life of self doubt. Each day I view as a new beginning and an opportunity to learn and grow with others.

As I accept new challenges, I look upon my past as a foundation for building knowledge and wisdom. If I am able to use perseverance to maintain my focus and achieve my goals, I will live a life of happiness. Despite my own inability to recognize it at the time, I have an incredible family that supported me throughout my childhood. I have learned many positive lessons about responsibility and becoming a role model in today’s society. I have a career that I enjoy and excel in. Most importantly, I have a family that supports me and loves me for the individual I have become.

While some would look at my life and see only the setbacks, I look into the mirror and see a persevering woman with some hurt that lead me to persevere. While there are these setbacks, I now realize my place in society. I have self respect and love life and look forward to what each day may bring.

References Witt, G. A. , & Mossler, R. A. (2010). Adult Development and Life Assessment. Retrieved from http://content. ashford. edu/books/30 Zeleznock, T. (2008), & Entrepreneurs Whose Perseverance Will Inspire You. Retrieved from http://www. growthink. com/content/7-entrepreneurs-whose-perseverance-will-inspire-you

Cohabitation Research Paper Cohabitation and marriage both share effective similarities and differences. Within the last 40 years both have grown closely to represent two individuals that have a motive in life which involves commitment, financial responsibility, and the disposition to spend a majority of your life with one person. The subject of cohabitation is a popular one among many college students, upperclassmen, and middle aged divorced individuals in this day and age.

In this essay we will be looking at the detailed facts in why people cohabit before they are married, why they do it and most importantly why cohabitation is not considered immoral behavior in the twenty first century as it was 40 years ago. This research will also contain real individual perspectives which will widen our thoughts and assumptions behind the theory of cohabitation. In today’s society there are many couples that are living together before getting married. The US Census Bureau calls cohabitation POSSLQ (pronounced possel-kews), which is understood as “shaking up”.

The number of unmarried couples in the U. S. has increased from 0. 4 million in 1960 to almost 7 million in 2008. In the mid 1990’s more than 60 percent of American’s cohabited. (Benokraitis, pg. 246) There are advantages and disadvantages when considering cohabitation. Some of the rewards of living together before marriage are some such as getting to know your partner better, learning about one’s ability/habits, if they are able to satisfy your expectations, finding common grounds, and most of all to gain that special commitment with one another.

On the other end there are disadvantages in living together before marriage, some being, not having much of personal space, religious outlooks, not being able to handle fights in a proper manner, going against family values, and most of all doing it for the wrong reasons. Almost half of young Americans say they will not marry someone unless they live with them first but on the other hand most Americans reject cohabitation on moral and religious grounds. Cohabitation has increased dramatically from 40 years ago, “In 1970, about 530,000 couples reportedly lived together outside of marriage.

This number increased to 1. 6 million in 1980, 2. 9 million in 1990, 4. 2 million in 1998, and 5. 5 million in the year 2000. ” (Diduck, Alison. Marriage and Cohabitation. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2008. Print. ) As statistics show, there has been a huge change in our life styles over the years. Unmarried couples over sees 17 percent of all relationships today. This trend is mostly happening in the younger age groups, ages 18 until 30 and for the older age groups the percentage is considerably lower.

This is because many cohabiters, if they are still together by then after many years, they tend to eventually get married. There are many different types of cohabitation, the most common ones are, dating cohabitation, premarital cohabitation, trial marriage and substitute marriage. Dating cohabitation usually occurs with young adults sometime during or after college. These young adults take place in cohabiting for a combination of reasons, some being for convenience, sexual needs, companionship, and financial benefits.

This kind of relationship is somewhat like being single and for that reason is tends to terminate faster than any other. Premarital cohabitation is a basic “test” for the couple to see if they are committed enough to move to the next step, which is marriage. Trial marriage is a type of cohabitation for partners that doubt they can succeed in a marriage and everything that it holds. Finally, substitute marriage is a long term relationship between two people living together that don’t plan on getting married. Cohabitation is followed with more detailed than what is classified, but is outlined with these characteristics.

This has created a percentage that nine out of ten women will spend one point in their lives in an unmarried cohabiting relationship, an extensively higher percentage than woman who will get married at some point in their life. (Glenn T. Stanton. The Ring Makes All the Difference) This seems to be slowly devaluating the importance of marriage and the secrets involved in it. Also, studies have shown that when individuals are cohabiting they don’t fully understand the adaptation that is needed; this comes from the lack of commitment and stableness for that next step.

The cohabitation effect naturally takes place in most situations, people tend to accept their living status with their partner and treat it as a marriage. Cohabiting gives the individual something to hold on to it a relationship which shows they aren’t in a stable environment to begin with. Studies show that woman try holding on to every relationship they are involved in by cohabiting. When this is done woman are usually left pregnant or with children, without a partner and in poverty. Statistics show that woman who cohabit two or more times end up in divorce 141 percent igher than the average woman who only cohabits with the person they marry. Many authors, such as Linda J Waite have made comments stating, “These tentative and uncommitted relationships are bound together by the ‘cohabitation deal’ rather than the ‘marriage bargain,’ but that deal has costs. ” The “cohabitation deal,” will have especially disappointing outcomes for people who expect it to deliver the same benefits the “marriage bargain” delivers. People who cohabit often say that marriage is just about a piece of paper. However, that there is quite a bit of difference between being married and living together. ” (Waite, Linda J. and Christine Bachrach. The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation. ) Results have shown that when couples cohabit together, they’re usually shortly lived, and typically don’t last longer than two years, after that it either goes into the next level which is marriage or dissolves into a break up. There are no signs that cohabitation is forming in a long term alternative to marriage in the United States. Cohabitation still remains in the status of temporary convenience for growing relationships but just because an individual lives with their partner doesn’t mean it’s considered a stable social arrangement between the two.

Researchers says that the convenience of moving in together does not compare on the same level to making a thought through decision on committing to one person for the rest of your life. This has nothing to do with just having it on paper or not, people tend to get the statement mixed into the actual concept. The process of getting married includes the commitment, responsibility, maturity, devotion, respect, genuine love and experience that shows this is what you are asking for in a life partner, but not because we can or want to just live together.

Marriage basically finalizes that this is the path you picked for yourself and not because it was wanted at the time or an easy change but because it was truly wanted. When two people agree on marriage this shows they are developed enough where they want to share what they have built of themselves with their partner and share that success as they grow together rather than trying to complete one another without much thought. This is what separates cohabitation and marriage, in marriage one has seen things at its worst and knows the effort it will need to keep the relationship strong and healthy.

This is done because both parties have the determined thought through agreement established and because of that, cohabitation will never replace marriage. One opinionated advantage of living with your partner before marriage is getting to know a person that you might marry with. It is important for a person to know almost everything about the other person that he/she is going to get marry to. People need to know how a person is handling his/her life from all aspects such as behavior, emotional, mental, financial and other things before a person decides to get married to them.

This can’t be analyzed just by seeing them when out on dates, it is said that it’s important to live together for a while before deciding whether it is the right choice for marriage or not. On another note, unmarried couples do not have the same rights as married individuals. Through my face to face 6 interviews, it was noticed that a cohabiting relationship depends on each individual, their style, family background, emotional status, age, and the morals and values they established for their lives.

I interviewed five women from the ages of 23 to 26 and one 30 year old male. When asking interviewee A what her views were towards marriage, she responded saying, “marriage is similar to a business partner, and both individuals need to be devolved on their own so that both can bring something into the relationship. ” This was followed by asking what her views were about couples who live together who are not married, “I think if you are ready for marriage and starting a family with the person you love then settling to move in with them will not fulfill your goals. Her statement gave me a reminder to the saying “why buy the cow when the milk is free” this is true, because cohabiting can just be a way of delaying a marriage from happening. Interviewee A- “cohabitation cannot default into marriage, reason being, marriage is completely different then just living together, this is when your lives become one and so many responsibilities fall into line that wouldn’t be talked about if only living together. Does a premarital living arrangement make for a stronger marriage down the line? One should not need to live with their partner first in order to make a stronger marriage. If the couples are in the correct mind set then it should only bring in positives such as love and support. When you come from a certain culture, cohabitation is not accepted, that’s why this also depends on ones background. Marriage is classic, traditional, cultural, and most of all marriage is something sacred between two people, and the idea of cohabitation growing takes away the value of marriage until it vanishes. (Interviewee A, age 25, in a three year relationship, denied her boyfriend from moving in with her, interview took place for 30 minutes face to face on Oct. 30th 2011) Second interview took place with Interviewee B, which responses took a different tour. When asking interviewee B what her views of marriage were, she said “marriage is a beautiful thing that joins two people together in order to fulfill a happy life, experiencing things emotionally, physically, mentally, and socially together. Interviewee B is “pro-cohabitation” because she feels that it is very important to experience life with someone first by living with them to see if it’s a right “fit” for your life style. She feels this also helps marriages from later on ending up in divorce. When getting in to depth, interviewee B said, “It is important to first make sure this is a person you love and want to make a future with before moving in, at least know them for a year. Marriage is not defaulted in, living together is the test and if you pass the test then marriage is the next step up!

I feel the longer one cohabits, the stronger the relationship is because you know what you’re getting into and continue together on the say level. Depending on the individual, this can create dependence, but shouldn’t if you’re not trying to fill an empty spot in yourself. A lot of people move in together because of family issues, and moving in makes life easier. If men can have it their way, marriage would disappear but it won’t as long as it’s still every little girls dream to have her special wedding. (Interviewee B, age 23, recently came out of a two-year cohabiting experience, boyfriend changed after moving in together; interview took place for 30 minutes face to face on Nov. 1st 2011) Interviewee’s C and D both had the same thoughts towards cohabitation which might be because they both come from the same cultural background. When asking interviewees their views towards marriage they responded, “A marriage is something sacred between two people in love. God gave us the gift to have feelings for someone else and because of that we should cherish and respect it. Interviewee C, moving in together before marriage defeats the purpose of a marriage and the outcome wouldn’t be the right one. ” Interviewee D “Woman give in too easily and will fall for anything if it has to do with some kind of commitment. Everything comes at the right time, cohabiting is not one of them” Both interviewees, “It depends on the situation, but a lot of times they default into marriage only because they became so used to the person they live with and other times they don’t get marriage because they moved too fast. Interviewees both agreed that cohabiting builds rapport, love and support but only because one is living with someone they invested in and these characteristics come naturally by default. ” Interviewee C, “I think that one day people will one longer get married because America accepts and influences the cohabitation behavior, if its accepted in society, it will take over” Interviewee D, “I don’t think it will happen unless the law changes, but as of now you don’t get the same benefits when you cohabit which makes them different” Both interviewees said, “The U.

S. is liberal to many different things, which are followed with different cultures and religions. The way one is raised dictates whether or not people are influenced by cohabitation. Everything makes a difference, race, culture, religion, morals, values, and each lifestyle. We value ourselves too much to just live with someone without any ties attached. If you are a strong individual, you wouldn’t find a need to live with someone before marriage. (Interviewees C and D, twin sisters, 24, both still live with their parents at home and will never cohabit under any condition; interview took place for 40 minutes face to face on December 1st 2011) Interviewee E was the final interview which completed the variety of opinions. Interviewee E, “marriage is something held with a person you trust, value and are able to spend the rest of your life with. Couples who move in together are inexperienced in life and think that moving in with someone will bring them into adulthood, which it doesn’t.

It depends on how old and how ready they are to know if they will marry by default. I think cohabiting will only fail the relationship because should only move in together if they are planning on starting a life and family together not because it’s easy or saves one money. Cohabiting is a train wrack waiting to happen, one will get sick of the other faster than falling in love with them. Nothing can replace the value of marriage except the ones who disrespect the meaning of it.

This would be a bad thing if it did happen because we are breaking traditions that have been around for decades. I feel the people who cohabit were not raised well enough to understand what they are actually doing. ” (Interviewee E, 30, cohabited with the person he ended up divorcing, interview took place for 45 minutes on December 3rd 2011) Interviewee F, “marriage is over rated and misleading to someone who’s jumping into a serious relationship. Living with someone before marriage is great because you get the advantage of understanding someone better when living with them.

I think by default cohabiters need to make the next step, either get married, or divorce. This will make a strong marriage because it’s basically a marriage just without the legal mess. Anyone who lives with another for a while ends up sharing something naturally because you’re in their presents every moment. Our social structure allows us to do whatever we want, I feel the cohabitation percent will raise which will give people the choice if they want a legal marriage or not. I think the only bad outcome is not getting legal benefits when cohabiting. (Interviewee F, 29, single but has been in 4 different cohabiting relationships, interview took place for 30 minutes on December 3rd 2011) As you can see, all had different perspectives. I believe that comments from interviewee A fell into the same category as researchers and facts based statistics and interviewee B’s outlook was more based on emotions and lack of personally experience. Both interviewees C and D had strong outlooks to their opinion and how cohabitation is looked upon.

A greater impact fell with interviewee E because I was able to interview someone who personally experienced the down falls of cohabitation. The after effects from cohabitation seem to lead to a corruption of thoughts on marriage. Studies have also shown that most couples living together before marriage either split up before they are married or wind up in divorce. Interviewee E found out that his partner was cheating during their cohabiting era and in their marriage which caused him to believe cohabiting is built for a failing marriage.

Cohabiting has serious consequences for the well-being of an individual and their relationship. In particular, cohabiting is bad for the women because it could mean there are committed to something untrue which will emotionally drain them and keep them from developing into strong independent individuals. Evidence shows that marriage is healthier and better than any other marriage “form” which should never be out sourced. In conclusions, after the collective research and data gathered, a better overview can be developed in greater detail. What advantages does cohabitation have over marriage?

The idea that a cohabiting relationship is equivalent to marriage is undoubtedly unfounded. Research has showed a large difference in the commitment within the two types of relationship. I can see why cohabitation has become more accepted considering society does it for the wrong reasons such as, family and employment issues and trying to find an easy way out, but when doing so this only jeopardizes a future marriage. This is when a new marriage leads to divorce, without self development one is not able to contribute the proper needs and wants in a marriage.

Couples want stability and security, this doesn’t happen overnight just because you move in together. A healthy marriage happens when you discover your partner inside and out to the point that you realize you were made to establish a life together, as one. Work Cited 1) Benokraitis, Nijole V. Marriages ; Families: Changes, Choices, and Constraints. 7th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2011. Print. 2) Ihara, Toni Lynne. Living Together a Legal Guide for Unmarried Couples. Berkeley: Nolo, 2006. Print. 3) Diduck, Alison. Marriage and Cohabitation.

Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2008. Print. 4) Waite, Linda J. , and Christine Bachrach. The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation. Vol. 10. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 2000. Print. 5) Interviewee A, age 25, in a 3 year relationship, denied her boyfriend from moving in with her, interview took place for 30 minutes face to face on Oct. 30th 2011 6) Interviewee B, age 23, just got out of a 2 year cohabitation, boyfriend changed after them moved in together, interview took place for 30 minutes face to face on Nov. st 2011 7) Interviewee C, 24, still lives with parents at home and will never cohabit under any condition; interview took place for 40 minutes face to face on December 1st 2011 8) Interviewee D, 24, still lives with parents at home and will never cohabit under any condition; interview took place for 40 minutes face to face on December 1st 2011 9) Interviewee E, 30, cohabited with the person he ended up divorcing, interview took place for 45 minutes on December 3rd 2011 10) Interviewee F, 29, single but has been in 4 different cohabiting relationships, interview took place for 30 minutes on December 3rd 2011 11) Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. Hyattsville, MD: Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2002. Print. 12) Landale, Nancy S. Statistics on Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. S. l. : S. n. , 2002. Print. Ser. 23. 13) “Statistics on Living Together Before Marriage. ” Ray Fowler . org. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. ;http://www. rayfowler. org/2008/04/18/statistics-on-living-together-before-marriage/;.

The research must be qualified as representing average differences and do not necessarily indicate that all children in divorced families are worse off than all children in intact families. Since there is so much discussion of the effects of divorce on school performance, I want to begin by addressing whether there are really any differences between children who live in divorced families and children who live in married two-parent families (intact). The preponderance of the evidence appears to indicate that divorce does have negative effects on children”s adaptation and academic development. Furthermore, the specific effects differ from family to family.

The argument that divorce has effects on the ability of a child”s academic performance finds support in the case-control study of Children of Divorce: Academic Outcome (Roizblatt et al, 1997). This study focuses on identifying the specific responses that are susceptible for the low academic outcomes, associated with different levels of hostility, aggression, anxiety, and depression that can last until adulthood. To build upon the hypotheses, the authors then examined whether subsequent disadvantages are measured in all aspects of education, from grade points averages to standardized tests to exams/diplomas and years of completed education.

The study was conducted at eight public schools in Santiago, Chile. A total of 446 children were examined where almost half the pupils were found to be of divorced families. The students” results were based on the variables of age, sex, and average marks. In order to provide a means of comparison for the experimental group, the authors had the control group (parents living together) choose names that are on the class list that fulfilled the requirement. The data was analyzed in averages, percentages, estimated odds ratio, and confidence levels.

The results indicate that children of divorced parents were on average 20% more likely to fail a course than a child of a controlled group. The average marks were also 20% lower for the non-intact children. However, the attendance was almost identical with both being 95 %. In this study, it is obvious that divorce has an impact on a child”s academic performance.

The relationship between intact and divorced children is further investigated in a study (Forehand et al, 1997) of the Cumulative Risks Across Family Stressors: Short and Long Term Effects for Adolescents. Furthermore, it discusses claims made that children from divorced families had their grade point averages, academic achievements, and standardized intelligence test scores decreased during and after the psychosocial adjustment.

The study took place in two assessments, early adolescence and early adulthood. The study recruited for participation through local newspaper advertisements and fliers distributed to schools and posted throughout the local community. Additionally, some divorced families were identified through examination of courthouse records and subsequently contacted by mail or telephone. The families were paid $50 for their participation. Approximately six years after the first assessment, follow up research was conducted in which adults filled out questionnaires.

In order to avoid common-method variance, individuals were assessed by independent sources: adolescent self-report, teacher report, and school records. Letter grades were obtained from math, English, science, and social studies and were assigned numeric values. In the young adult phase, level of education was also taken into consideration. Several risk factors were included to make the results more valid and consistent.

The results of the analysis was shown and expressed through a Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). It showed a significant decrease in level of education completed, grade point averages, and achievement tests for both the adolescents and young adults. The researchers feel that parents” being less available to assist and monitor the children and the conflicts between the parents heavily affects the child and his future. Whereas the article exhibited some weaknesses, it also contained strengths. For example, although only Caucasian people were used, the results did include data from more than one period (adolescence and young adulthood.) The evidence was correct with the authors” prediction, indicating almost exactly what Forehand, Biggar, and Kotchick previously hypothesized.

Further evidence that children of divorce do worse academically can be seen in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1997). This survey proved that a divorce during a child”s life affects his or her academic abilities during early schools years and throughout college.

The previous studies provided answers in the controversy over academic standards of children of divorce. However, there is more to the relationship between a child and the academic abilities possessed. Another method of investigating the relationship focuses on the effects of remarriage following divorce on the academic achievement of children. Although there exists considerable consensus among family theorists regarding the negative effects of divorce upon children both psychologically and in terms of academic achievement, the same consensus does not exist regarding the effects of remarriage. However, social scientists have recently accumulated a sizable amount of evidence indicating that remarriage has ill effects on many children.

The journal (Jeyenes et al, 1999), The Effects of Remarriage Following Divorce on the Academic Achievements of Children examines the assumption by educators that parental remarriage benefits children academically. Most educational researchers and theorists have given almost no exhortations to the needs of children of divorce from reconstituted families. The primary reason has been that researchers and Americans, as a whole, believe that parental remarriage generally benefited children. The study included students from the 1988, 1990 and 1992 National Longitudinal Survey data sets that matched students by family structure, race, and socioeconomic status. The project was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education”s National Center for Statistics and designed by the National Opinion Research Center.

The research included 24,599 students from 1052 schools. Questionnaires were given out to the parents, teachers, and students. Furthermore, achievement tests in math, reading, science, and social studies were administered to students. These tests were curriculum based cognitive tests used in overlapping methods to measure academic achievements.

For all the standardized tests, the mean scores for children from divorced, reconstituted families were less than for both children of divorce from single-parent families and children from intact families. When matched for race and socioeconomic status, the differences were not statistically significant. Children living in a divorced, reconstituted family had negative results compared with an intact family. This fact was shown in all four-test measures: lower in math, science, and social studies, but the smallest effect was in the reading test. Contrary to popular misconception, the children of reconstituted families scored lower in all aspects of the tests than children of divorce from single-parent families.

These findings do not support the assumption held by many educators that children of divorce from reconstituted homes are better off than divorced and intact children. Actually, the results support the idea that children of divorce from reconstituted families are at an academic disadvantage versus their counterparts in intact families, and are no better off academically than children of divorce from single-parent families.

To solidify the results of this research another journal similarly argues that the reconstitution of a family shows lower educational attainments. This is the (Jonsson et al, 1997) Journal of Family Dissolution, Family Reconstitution, and Children”s Education. The study is done both longitudinally and cross-sectionally on large and recent Swedish data. It demonstrates that compared to children in intact families, children who have experienced family reconstitution show lower academic and educational attainment.

The journal examines the association between family structure and children”s educational attainment, measured as early school leaving and transition to upper secondary school. The research is done in Sweden, which is a society characterized by a generous and predominantly universal social policy. The respondents started school at age seven and passed through the comprehensive Swedish school system consisting of nine compulsory grades. The data consists of 120,000 cases that were studied for every aspect of a person”s education. The Swedish Commission collected the information on Educational Inequality.

First, the researchers found that children of remarried parents continued at school after the compulsory years less often than did those from other family types. For example, they had an 8% more chance of leaving school and 20% less change of going on to college. These problems are due to both poorer performances in school as measured by lower grade point averages, as well as educational decisions on study programs. Both analyses demonstrated that Swedish children who have experienced family reconstitution show decreased academic proficiencies. The cross-sectional analysis shows that children”s attainment is markedly lower in reconstituted families consisting of two non-married parents than in single parent families. The study consistently reveals educational disadvantages for children from separated and remarried families, as measured by standardized tests, exams/diplomas, grade point average, and years of completed education.

The analysis of the four aforementioned studies reveals much about the effects of divorce and remarriage on a child”s education. It is obvious that children react to a major change in their lives with a plethora of powerful emotions. In both the Roizblatt and Forehand articles, divorce was shown to have a negative impact on grades and test scores throughout a child”s career. However, there are numerous reasons explaining these effects including conflicts, stress, economic losses, and adjustments. In both the Jonsson and Jeynes articles, conclusions stated that remarriage adversely affects a child”s education. However, reconstitution of a family may also have its advantages. Again, the child is faced with problems like not trying or not getting along with the new member of the family. Results show that the majority

Family dynamics have rapidly been changing and evolving over the last two hundred years, with far-reaching consequences on individuals and societies as a whole. Whereas before the industrial revolution, children used to live and work with their parents within the home to learn the family trade that would support them and future offspring, now parents spend a good majority of their days at work and children at school. Additionally, there is no longer a “normal” family model of two heterosexual spouses and their children to comprise the average home. As noted by economist Nancy Barret in Decline of the Family: Conservative, Liberal and Feminist Views, there is no longer one family model that is more dominant than another. The opinions regarding the reasons for such familial shifts are as diverse as the many family models now present. While the opinions of the reasons for such changes in the family may differ, there is a consensus that such changes correlate with the general upward trend of violence, anti-social behavior, divorce rates, teen pregnancies and addiction habits among parents and especially children.

Conservatives argue that such negative behavior epresents a moral decline perpetuated by broken homes and poverty caused by young, unwed parents. They offer a return to traditional family standards and values as a solution to such problems. to such problems, a reversion to a traditional family model is not a viable solution for every family and, therefore, the solution lies in building up communal support for all family types by stressing the importance of families and deemphasizing the individual.

Using these two perspectives put forth in Giezle’s Decline of the Family, this paper will analyze a true narrative of my younger sister who, after failed marriage, attempted to raise a son, attend university and procure a Job after graduation. I have four siblings, and my sister, Beth, is the youngest. Our mother was a single mother who supported her five children by, first, relying on government support through welfare and charities, until she was able to gain a Job working night shift for the post office. The Job offered long, exhausting hours but Just enough money that we no longer required government assistance.

Though my mother was able to support us materially, she was still often stressed over money matters, running a household nd trying to meet the needs of her children. Our home environment was very stressful. Our mother needed to sleep during the day, so household responsibilities were left to us children. Though we were children, it was expected of us to grow up rather quickly, as we had to rely on and look after each other. Emotions were put aside in favor of getting by, paycheck to paycheck. By the time each of us became a teenager, it was expected that we would find a part-time Job to help cover some of our own expenses. lerical position, my brothers and I into the military, and Beth, surprisingly, decided to elope with her oyfriend, who had also Joined the military. It was, as she has reflected on it, an act of desperation to escape a stressful home and the fear of no Job prospects and absolutely no way to fund a college education. Her husband was trained by the military in basic mechanical duties on military planes and they lived in Texas for a year before they expected their child. With his military contract up, they returned to the Pacific Northwest with the idea of him finding steady work to support their family.

The work was hard to find. The mechanical skills her husband had acquired in the military did ot transfer to the civilian world. Temporary, part-time Jobs were not a reliable source of income to prepare for their child. My sister took up work in a restaurant right up until she gave birth in order to help with the finances. After she gave birth, the question of whether to return to work raised several issues. His income alone was not enough on which to live. Therefore, they needed a second income. However, they could not afford to hire a sitter to cover those work hours.

Further, they were informed by the state that the additional income would raise them above assistance level for food and edical benefits. They were in a catch-22, so to speak. They needed to earn more money, but if they did, they would second income. The strain of money issues, raising a newborn, and the typical relationship problems that accompany young people and rash decisions, brought their marriage to an end when their son was Just one. My sister was in a very difficult position. She had a son to raise, but on no place to live, no college education, and very little work experience. She lived with me while she filed for state benefits.

Over the course of eight months, she secured an apartment, enrolled in chool and began the work-study program there to earn a bit of money. However, the state assistance would only continue if she were in a vocational program at the community college. The incomes of such vocations threatened to put her back in the same predicament she and her husband had been in”not enough to get by, but Just enough that the state could offer no assistance. She gave up the state assistance and her apartment to move back home with our mother, who agreed to baby-sit while my sister attended the University of Portland and worked on campus there.

She still eceived medical insurance for her son, and a small stipend for food. After four years, she graduated and landed a Job that now supports her and her son. It would not have been remotely possible without the support of state programs, generous student grants and constant support from her family members. From a conservative’s perspective, issues such as teen pregnancy, divorce and couples having children while being unable to support them are all marked signs that society has shifted from traditional family values.

A conservative would argue that the moral declination of society is exemplified in the selfishness of individuals ho place little to no value on the family unity. Further, they argue that the cultural attitudes toward unwed parents and those on state assistance have become too tolerant, rewarding them with welfare assistance programs that do nothing but lower community standards and teach dependence instead of self-reliance.

The Status Of Women In Ancient Times Throughout the years, women have had to fight for the right to gain independence and freedom. They have been through good times and bad, but through all of it women have won for themselves. In the times of Ancient Egypt, women had many more rights than other places. Inheritance and property were important to them. The status of women in Mesopotamia was as simple as a contract, and men were their priority. The Napoleonic Code and the Sharia Law were degrading and difficult.

It is important that we reflect on what women have been through to learn for the future. In Ancient Egypt, women were mainly important for reproduction. Children were very important, and infertile women were divorced immediately. Marriage was a very important aspect, as it was almost considered a duty of the Egyptian people. It was also popular to marry cousins, brothers, and sisters considering family and dynasties were very important. If one was to be divorced it was a very private matter, but if they wanted, women could get divorced for any reason.

The men were also free to marry as many women as they liked. Women could inherit their husbands belonging and property. They could give it to anyone or keep it, and many of the husband’s rules were written in his will. Women had a lot of rights in Ancient Egypt and that is very close to what we are today. In Mesopotamia, the rights for women were very different. The status of women in their marriage relied completely on a contract. The women were forced to stay with their husbands until he wanted to leave her, and there was nothing she could do if she was unhappy in the relationship.

Once the husband divorced, they could not re-marry. Men dominated in every aspect, even the children. For women to have any inheritance or property it had to be in a written document. Some of the things women could do in Mesopotamian times were that they were able to buy and sell in the market place, and they could attend all legal matters. They could also conduct business on their property. The only reason why this was important though was because the men were lazy and wanted the women to work for them.

The Napoleonic Code was a code in ancient times which also contained rules for women. The main aspect was that as long as men took care of the wives and protected them, the women had to have full obedience to their husbands. They had to ask to do anything and everything. There was no such thing as more than one marriage, because the only way a woman could divorce her husband was if they had grave or a severe injury. If the women committed adultery they would have three months in jail and a divorce, where as if the men committed adultery there was no punishment.

The men were so powerful that if they were ever unhappy with their sons, they could get them arrested. The men had full use of the wife’s inheritance and property if she gave his approval, and it was very rare that she didn’t. Also, if anyone else wanted their inheritance, they would have to sue the owner of the inheritance. The husband managed the dowry completely, but had to give the wife one thing per year for maintenance or personal need. The only right the wife had was that she could make her will without the consent and authority of her husband.

Lastly, the Sharia Law was unfair to women as well. The major inequality that is noticeable is that the Muslim men could marry non-Muslim women, but Muslim women could not marry non-Muslim men. Also the men could divorce their wives but he had to pay an already agreed sum of money that was established before the marriage. Women could onluy divorce men if they were infertile, insane, had leprosy or some other skin desease. The men had full power over the children, yet the mother could only have power over them if they were too young to part from their mothers.

The worst part of the Sharia Law was that the men were given right under the Quran to hit their wives. The only right the women had were rights to inheritance, and the right to make a will. Researching all about the status of women in ancient times makes me so grateful to live the way we do today. Women should not be treated like objects or property. For a man to be able to hit a woman is so shocking to me. I believe that we should learn from our past world and know that we should not repeat some of the aspects of the law in ancient times again.

As the famous cliché goes, “times are changing”, and in order to keep pace with the quick changes that continuously occur, people also change. Their ways of life, adjust to what seems to be the call of necessity. Accompanying this is a change in the culture and what used to be taboos of old have become normal occurrences in the present. One of the taboos, which practice is found to be increasing is cohabitation (Cheal 24). Like many other uncommon practices, the emergence of cohabitation in the culture of a country has both advantages and disadvantages.

Cohabitation or living together may be defined as a non-marital union (Brien et. l. ). It has a number of facets. Some see it as an alternative for marriage while others view it as a way of finding assurance for a lasting marriage (“The Facts behind Cohabitation”). In the 1970’s, studies have found that a number of young adults opted to postpone marriage and decided to cohabit. The increasing number of cohabitation led to a decline in marriages (Cheal 24). The decline in marriage proved to be one of the disadvantages of cohabitation. Since marriage assures the legitimacy of future children, cohabitation may result to more illegitimate children.

This may produce children with unstable emotional and educational development as a result of disruptions on their family life (“The Facts behind Cohabitation”). Another disadvantage is that there is a high probability of incidence of cheating on both parties involved. Because of the non-commitment nature of this kind of union, there is no compelling force that assures fidelity for both partners. There are no rails that may keep both the man and the woman involved faithfully to each other and to the supposed relationship they are into (“The Facts behind Cohabitation”).

A third disadvantage that some couples perceive as an advantage of this kind of set up is that it does not reassure of a lasting marriage at the end of it all. It has been found that couples who live together before actual marriage have unstable unions and commonly end up in divorce. The lack of commitment that the couples have grown into during cohabitation may mean less will to work for the betterment of a relationship, yet more will to end an unsatisfactory relationship (Brien et. al. 2). Despite this, there are still couple who choose cohabitation rather than marriage.

Some couples find the disadvantages that were earlier mentioned overshadowed by the advantages they see in this non-marital set-up. In one case, couples who are less financially stable but desires to be together opt for cohabitation as it is cheaper as compared to an actual marriage. The taxes and benefit system require a large amount of money. As such, people whose incomes are low and whose jobs are irregular find it easier to cohabit rather than officially get married (“The Facts behind Cohabitation”).

Another advantage of cohabitation relative to finances is the non-commitment nature of the set-up. Since there is no contract that was signed and there are no formal and legal terms that were agreed upon, separation is as easy as getting together. There is no need to file and undergo the gruelling process of divorce especially when the relationship is no longer working. This works well with couples whose money has better things to go to than divorce cases (“The Facts behind Cohabitation”). To conclude, people who consider it a taboo have reasons to perceive it as such.

There are many reasons why for some couples, it is a practice that should not be supported and instead contradicted. On the other hand, it should also be noted that there are also reasons that prove for cohabitation as a better option as compared to actual marriage. People who are pro-cohabitation commonly have personal reasons in opting for this kind of set-up. As such, the issue of cohabitation must not be taken lightly since it may affect the unity of a nation, especially that which uphold a person’s own opinion.

Living together, getting married and having children are all the important factors that contribute in creating a family. The Canadian family has, is and will face different types of challenges in the future. Families in Canada have changed as time has progressed. In this time period the Canadian family has faced a number of challenges. I believe this is due to the increase in divorce rates, same sex marriage and living together in common law. Depending on the situation within the family, families in Canada have found to be challenged.

First of all I would like to bring out probably the most common challenge and factor which is making marriages unsuccessful, that being divorce. The divorce rate in Canadian families is increasing day by day from what it used to be. Divorce leads to a disturbance in one’s family when he/she files for one. The children of the divorced couples are not being raised up normally; moreover they are being raised up living with a single parent or living one week with the mother and one week with the father.

The children are not getting the time and love from their parents which they would normally get if their parents lived together. In my opinion a family is a group of people involving a mother, father and their children living together in the same house, so if the parents of the children get divorced it causes that family to break when they no longer live with each other. Back in the day divorce was not that common as it is today, people would get married for life but now a days if couples get into a fight the first option that pops up in their heads is divorce.

People nowadays are taking advantage of the divorce laws and are using them more commonly which is leading Canadian families challenged. Another challenge that Canadian families are facing these days is same sex marriage. When a couple of the same sex gets married together they are left with a challenge of having children together. To overcome this challenge most couples take the option of adopting children or having children through surrogacy, and some decide not to bring children in their lives at all.

The couples that do decide to adopt children, the children are still not gifted with a mother and a father; moreover they could grow up having two mothers or two fathers. In this situation the children are not being raised up as they would be if they had both a father and a mother. On the other hand when same sex married couples decide not to adopt children and not bring them in their lives at all, this leads to their generation from further expanding. With all due espect to same sex marriage, same sex marriage is a challenge that families in our society are facing in the new era. On the other hand one other challenge that Canadian families are facing these days is the challenge of common law. Common law has become more common in the new world. Couples are moving in, living together, and having children without being married. Couples these days are spending more time living together before marriage than they are after marriage or they are breaking up even before getting to the extent of getting married.

Common law mostly involves teen couples living or having children together, this is because teens are less mature and do not know what the responsibility of raising children together is, so often teens tend to break up with each other despite having children. Adults on the other hand tend to live together for years in common law and at some point when they do get married it may not last that long because they know each other’s ups and downs because of all the time they have spent together. In this case common law is another crucial challenge that Canadian families are facing these days.

Finally I would like to say Canadian families are continuing to change and face crucial challenges such as, divorce, same sex marriage and common law day by day. Living together, getting married and having children are all important factors that contribute in creating a family. If any one of these crucial factors gets disturbed then it leaves the families faced with challenges. If we fulfil all the factors that contribute in creating a family in the right way then it will leave our families with less of a challenge.