Is a Two-income Family the Reason for a High Divorce Rate - Essay Example

You’re Name Professor Course 3 May 2006 Is a Two-Income Family the Reason for the High Divorce Rate in America? If a historical perspective is taken on the question of whether or not a two-income family has an influence on the divorce rate, it is logical to assume that before women joined the workforce full-time, the occurrence of divorce in America was minimal. That is not to say for a certainty that because women now work outside the home, it is the causation of divorce. There are other factors that have an impact on marriages as well. Hayghe (1989) emphasizes the fact that there are numerable adversities impacting marriages today. For starters, many families have a spouse with military obligations; this can create stress and problems within a marriage due to all the time that they must spend apart. Another reason that can possibly lead to divorce, which must be considered, is the fact that the availability of employment can promote many concerns as well, especially where children are concerned. Often many parents have no choice but to both work outside of the home, just to make ends meet (Hayghe 1989). So to assume that a two-income family is the sole cause of the rising statistics of divorce in America is a little bit presumptuous when the whole of the equation has not been factored to include all the causative points of divorce. Quite often it is found that children who are in a stable home, with satisfactory sustenance in their lives, and the love of both parents are far better off than children who come from disadvantaged homes due to a single source of income. This can be proven to be true because the article by Hayghes (1989) details those children who live in a home where only the father works and the mother remains at home live in an environment where the sustenance for survival is greatly reduced. Hayghe’s (1989) defines the fact that children who are living in a dual-worker home appear more relaxed and happy, more so than a portion of those children who live in the traditional style home where the mother does not commute to a job. There is more stability in a two-income family, much more so than a single-income family. Even though many mothers would like to remain home with their children, and be there for them when they return from school, etc; sometimes this is just not the most ideal situation. Many families come to the realization that a good number of worries would be reduced or diminish all together if both partners work outside of the home. Often it is this philosophy that can prevent divorce rates from claiming, not contribute to an increase. What Hayghes (1989) states is obvious is the fact that times in this decade almost force both parents to have to work outside of the home to ensure that children have the sustenance they need to grow and develop appropriately, in a confident and content manner. So, as is easily perceived, sometimes it is best that both partners work, and possibly at other times it is best for the mother to stay at home. It all depends on the circumstances surrounding the families. Divorce rates, in correlation with this theorization can be applied in much the same way as to what is in the best interest for the family. Divorce rates can rise due to the stress of finances and other worries or it can be due to the fact that a couple both work and there is never enough time to really promote the ideals of the family. The point is both have a part to play in the statistics of the divorce rate in America, along with many other issues as well. As Gilbert (1988) points out, “husband and wife both bring a unique perspective to the two- career marriage. The rewards and struggles that ensure must be considered from both standpoints.” When a couple marries they understand that during their marriage there might be many obstacles that they are confronted with. This is where the idea of working together comes in to play. Again, sometimes there might be instances where both couples are required to work to ensure stability in the home, there is nothing wrong with this philosophy at all. In fact it has become a dominant idea in American families today (Gilbert 1988). Although it can be proven that two-income families do have a high load of stress to deal with, single-income families’ do as well, only in a different way. Therefore, again, it can not be totally perceived that simply because both partners work outside the home, and have a hefty weight of stress endowed within the relationship, that it can be one of the primary reasons for the divorce rate. Stress like this has a part in both of these family categories. What is more logical is coming to a realization that the incidence of divorce can occur due to a lack of income and the stress it creates, and then it can take place due to the couple over-working and not having the time for the family that is required. In this regard, both the traditional family, and the dual working family have a role in the relevance of divorce in America. Gilbert’s article gives credence to this thought concept in the following quoted point. We are both determined to take the time to make our marriage work. We love each other very much and we are a good fit. Our roles are not really strongly defined. Among some of our friends, the husband expected the wife to work all day, and come home and serve him coffee. These couples are now divorced (Gilbert 1988). This goes to prove that if both couples are not willing to work together to reach an understanding of each others roles within the family, then of course they can end up in divorce. On the flip side of the coin, if they communicate with one another and search for resolutions to make the situation easier, then they are more likely to have a more open, loving, and devoted marriage. Basically divorce occurs to a myriad of people, not just those both working, or those who vouch to stay at home. As was stated earlier in this research, there are more pronounced reasons for this type of outcome in marriages than simply income and employment. Research compiled by Hetherington (1999) confirms what this research has been attempting to theorize. The reasons for divorce are many and it is not easy to say one or the other causes the dissolution of a marriage. There are so many socioeconomic factors that come into play in this type of problem. All of this of course must be considered and included where applicable. What has been found to be the most prominent differences between marriages that have dual incomes and those with single incomes is in how the couples communicate with one another. A good developmental process of communication can be a key factor in preventing a marriage from disintegrating due to both couples working outside of the home. This defines the fact that not all marriages with both couples working end in divorce or have that much of an impact on the divorce rate itself (Hetherington 1999). The same holds bearing in marriages where there is only a single-income present. If the couple is willing to reach an understanding and make sacrifices in the marriage then they don’t all end in divorce either. So, this research is showing that a clear and concise idea of communication is of utmost importance in keeping marriages intact, and to prevent them from coming to an outcome of divorce. However, the main point that is trying to be determined is whether or not dual-income families raise the divorce rate and thus far the research has proven that they do not do so any more than any other adverse socioeconomic problem does. Hetherington’s book (1999) details that on average half of the couples that are dual-income providers are happy in the marriage and the other half are unhappy. This holds true for single-income families as well. So in this regard we see that this theory is split down the middle. There is neither proof that either one of these family structures contributes solely to the divorce rate, or that they withstand the stresses society places on them 100% either. In other words, instances of divorce are multi-faceted, which has been proven throughout the body of this researched literature. Despite all the evidence that this research has given to try and refute the idea that dual-income families increase the divorce rate, there are still those who point to the fact that in times past the divorce rate was a lot lower than it is today. They try to justify the rise in the divorce rate by laying the blame on dual-income families (Hertz & Marshall 2001). For example in the 50’s and 60’s history shows that although women did work outside of the home, once they were married and their first child was born they left the labor force altogether to stay at home and care for the family. The idea being given is that women in this time realized the importance that they had within the family to care for the child or children and maintain the smooth running of the family (Hertz & Marshall 2001). It is also emphasized that the divorce rate during this time was very low compared to in the 21st century. It seems that women felt because they did not have the same education and backing as men did, they would better serve the family by staying at home once children starting entering into the picture. This was the view which was widely accepted and many people presume it is the reason the divorce rate was so low. However, times have definitely changed and women can further their education to a point now where they can contribute to the same type of income for the family that the male can. In this regard they often return back to work following the birth of their first child. Now the issue lies in the fact that some researchers claim because of this some males are becoming dissatisfied with this type of lifestyle and are unwilling to work with it, therefore many marriages crumble due to this attitude. However, as has been said, not all of the marriages end. There are some men who value their wives and work along with them and their ideas. They welcome them wanting to continue to work outside of the home and they work through their various concerns and problems with communication by counseling (Hertz & Marshall 2001). So although dual-income families might have a small affect on the divorce rate, as has been said other facets of life do as well. Some of the more profound reasons that Hertz & Marshall (2001) give for the rising divorce rate, are in how people sexually interact with one another in this time period, and don’t value the relationship. They get married with split second decisions and then presume that divorce is the easy way out. The ideals that use to exist are becoming few and far between any more. Also, sex outside of marriage, cheating, and simply boredom of the marriage entirely are some of the other very real reasons the divorce rate is so high in the 21st century. So this yet again refutes the idea that dual-income families are the cause for a rising divorce rate. In fact, it can’t be found that they have much of an impact on this theorization at all. The other ideas that have been mentioned play a more dominant role in the statistics of divorce more so than single-income families or dual-income families do. However, there can be a point made that because women have a higher education, and higher chances of succeeding in the work force, they don’t have to rely on men as much to provide financial stability for the family. In this regard, it can be seen where the idea that women working outside of the home can have an affect on the family and can at times lead to divorce as well. Still, the rate that this takes place is no higher than many other causes, as has been stated time and time again. In fact, some view the idea that women who have the power to economically and financially provide for themselves is a good thing. This in some ways helps marriages as it takes a burden off of the male figure so he does not have to work so much. He can actually spend more time with the family, in fact both partners can. If couples can work through the various issues both of them working creates then their marriage will survive and become stronger. And if they can’t then of course it will more than likely lead to divorce, but the percentage of this is not as influential to the rise as many would like to have society believe. Being unfaithful has more of a tendency to disintegrating a marriage than both couples working does (Hertz & Marshall 2001). In conclusion, this research has ultimately and effectively refuted the fact that dual-income families give pause to the rising divorce rate. The evidence has denied this efficiently and in a factually based manner. It has proven that if couples communicate effectively with one another then employment does not play the role in affecting the marriage in an adverse way as some researchers lead people to believe it does. It must always be remembered that marriage is a partnership and regardless of whether or not both partners work or not, as long as they have that open communication their marriage will preserver and become stronger and more pronounced. Works Cited Gilbert, Lucia. “Sharing it all: The Rewards and Struggles of Two-Career Families.” Plenum Press, (1988). Hayghe, Howard. “Children in Two-Worker Families and Real Family Income.” Monthly Labor Review 112 (1989): 1. Hertz, Rosanna & Marshall, Nancy. “Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home.” The University of California Press, (2001). Hetherington, Mavis. “Coping with Divorce, Single Parenting, and Remarriage: A Risk and Resiliency Perspective.” Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates (1999). Read More

Even though many mothers would like to remain home with their children, and be there for them when they return from school, etc; sometimes this is just not the most ideal situation. Many families come to the realization that a good number of worries would be reduced or diminish all together if both partners work outside of the home. Often it is this philosophy that can prevent divorce rates from claiming, not contribute to an increase. What Hayghes (1989) states is obvious is the fact that times in this decade almost force both parents to have to work outside of the home to ensure that children have the sustenance they need to grow and develop appropriately, in a confident and content manner.

So, as is easily perceived, sometimes it is best that both partners work, and possibly at other times it is best for the mother to stay at home. It all depends on the circumstances surrounding the families. Divorce rates, in correlation with this theorization can be applied in much the same way as to what is in the best interest for the family. Divorce rates can rise due to the stress of finances and other worries or it can be due to the fact that a couple both work and there is never enough time to really promote the ideals of the family.

The point is both have a part to play in the statistics of the divorce rate in America, along with many other issues as well. As Gilbert (1988) points out, “husband and wife both bring a unique perspective to the two- career marriage. The rewards and struggles that ensure must be considered from both standpoints.” When a couple marries they understand that during their marriage there might be many obstacles that they are confronted with. This is where the idea of working together comes in to play.

Again, sometimes there might be instances where both couples are required to work to ensure stability in the home, there is nothing wrong with this philosophy at all. In fact it has become a dominant idea in American families today (Gilbert 1988). Although it can be proven that two-income families do have a high load of stress to deal with, single-income families’ do as well, only in a different way. Therefore, again, it can not be totally perceived that simply because both partners work outside the home, and have a hefty weight of stress endowed within the relationship, that it can be one of the primary reasons for the divorce rate.

Stress like this has a part in both of these family categories. What is more logical is coming to a realization that the incidence of divorce can occur due to a lack of income and the stress it creates, and then it can take place due to the couple over-working and not having the time for the family that is required. In this regard, both the traditional family, and the dual working family have a role in the relevance of divorce in America. Gilbert’s article gives credence to this thought concept in the following quoted point.

We are both determined to take the time to make our marriage work. We love each other very much and we are a good fit. Our roles are not really strongly defined. Among some of our friends, the husband expected the wife to work all day, and come home and serve him coffee. These couples are now divorced (Gilbert 1988). This goes to prove that if both couples are not willing to work together to reach an understanding of each others roles within the family, then of course they can end up in divorce.

On the flip side of the coin, if they communicate with one another and search for resolutions to make the situation easier, then they are more likely to have a more open, loving, and devoted marriage. Basically divorce occurs to a myriad of people, not just those both working, or those who vouch to stay at home. As was stated earlier in this research, there are more pronounced reasons for this type of outcome in marriages than simply income and employment. Research compiled by Hetherington (1999) confirms what this research has been attempting to theorize.

Read More