Purpose

The Purpose of this blog is to critique and analyze two different texts that are related to the topic at hand, The Nuclear Family. The authors will also be able to give the audience an understanding of the common similarities and differences between a family in the 1960's and a family now.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Raising Kids in Non-Nuclear Families- Stasis Theory

The typical family dynamic today is significantly different than that of the 1960's. Since we are becoming more tolerant of different practices such as same sex marriages and divorce, families and family structures have changed and evolved. Emily Kreid and Lizzie Bartlett, the authors of this article focus on the changes seen commonly in households and also critique the impact it has on the children.  

The authors present their argument by first stating the facts which show how there has been a significant increase in single parent, multigenerational, and same sex homes. When compared to the 1960's, modern day households are much different which raises the question of how these changes are impacting the homes themselves. The fact is that it does have an impact and through this article they evaluate how much of an impact. 

The root cause of all these changes lies in our ability to accept changes in the family structure and challenge the social norm of "family." Since same sex marriage is legal in most states and has been accepted widely, we are able question if there is a difference between the homes. Likewise, many couples are challenging the idea of marriage at 26 or 27 and decide to get married earlier. This leads to early pregnancies and divorce, which creates multigenerational households or a split home. With all the changes in society there are many questions as to how it will impact a traditional family setting. 


In terms of evaluation, many people can see that there is a change in how children are being raised and how families interact over time. However, the debate starts when deciding whether the change has impacted positively or negatively. The authors evaluate the change but also give advice on how to live a modern lifestyle but retain the genuine family aspect of house in the 1960’s. The advice leads to action that a family can take to manage their home. Before any rhetorical analysis has begun, the author and audience go through a series of quick checks to determine whether this is worth making an argument on or not. In this case, the authors highlighted the reason for changes in the household by stating facts and ended with advice that promotes action.

-Aparna Jayaram 

4 comments:

  1. I think it is interesting that your blog states that "many couples are challenging the idea of marriage at 26 or 27 and decide to get married earlier." In my encounters with those who are currently getting married and what I have heard from in talks on the subject is that young men and women are waiting longer to get married today than they would have 40 years ago. The following link justifies my opinion: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130884

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like your blog's topic; I definitely agree with you when you talked about how nowadays, you can see many examples of non-nuclear families. As same-sex marriages become more and more common, controversies regarding child-care also become more and more common as factors such as religion begin to play a part. Today, there is a much wider range on types of families in the U.S, as people develop their own unique plans as to when to have a family. In the 1960's, there was typically one main way of family lifestyle: kids at early to mid-20s, a stay-at-home mom and a working dad. Especially with the women's rights movement of the 60's, today many women are both mother's but also part time or full time workers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this blog is interesting because it brings up large transformations. I thought the point about early marriage becoming more popular was fascinating. I have had some friends get married right out of high school and while I think their marriages are a bit premature I found this article that states some benefits of early marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango/10-awesome-perks-of-getti_b_6134400.html

    I also think the idea of non-nuclear families is interesting because I grew up in Lancaster, PA, an area where few non-nuclear families exist. Of course there were a few in the community, but if you heard of them it was mainly through rumor. In Lancaster there is a large Amish community that chooses to live without electricity and embody a nuclear family structure. I think it would be just as interested to look at the isolated communities that still have nuclear families today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rachel, I actually quickly breezed through the article you referenced. It brought up some interesting "perks of getting married really young" that Americans do not really talk about anymore. My favorite was perk number 7 (we've shared every milestone and achievement). It encompasses all the other perks. The idea of actually growing with your future spouse ever since your early days of dating is extremely valid. Just as the article states, it allows couples to grow up together, learn how to be frugal, and experience even more memories together...all in the effort of becoming one union.

      Delete