Family Structure - US Modern Era (WWII to Present)
 
Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 16
 
TOPICS COVERED: Continuing our historical overview of U.S. families' interaction – from the inter-relationships between generations, to gender roles, and other outside forces that shaped families – from the World War II to the present. But really, as you'll see – that's really two periods – the War Marriage, Baby and Divorce booms (yes, there were all three) – and the modern era – dealing with the repercussions of those booms.
 
MEMOS ON RELATED INFORMATION: Family Structure - International, Family Structure - US Colonial to 1899, Family Structure - US 1900 to Pre-WWII, Family Structure - US Modern Era, Family Roles and Responsibilities, How Important is Family?, Family as a Social Institution, Multiple Generation / Extended Family Households
 
Links to Sources for this material are available below. Please also see The Factbook Sources page for further information regarding Factbook sources and their availability.

 
 

FAMILY STRUCTURE - US MODERN ERA

 
 
In 1942, Parents Magazine wrote, “The overconscientious mother with her rigorous scheduling and strict adherence to rules is driven by her love for her child, but such tenseness, such trying-too-hard, takes all the easy feeling of love out of the air. The atmosphere of love is missing. Her children know she loves, yet he is so driven by her perfectionism that he misses most of the benefits of love.” 1.

 
 
In 1942 , Parents Magazine wrote, “Pediatricians are beginning to realize that something of a mother-panic has been created, that many a parent has an exaggerated, overzealous attitude toward bringing up children.” 2.
 
 

In 1943, Parents' Magazine reported, “. . . in every soon-to-be-fatherless family. After all, every family knows whether or not they're going to take in roomers to help out with rent, whether the wife is going to get a war job welding at Lockheed and leave Junior at the day nursery, or whether, after storing the furniture, she will descend on Mother’s front porch subsequently to occupy the spare bedroom for the duration.” 3.
 
 

Magazines and newspapers implore men to get involved in other families' children's lives, such as the 1944 New York Times article, "Absent Fathers," in which an expert is quoted as having said, "In homes where the father is away . . some father substitute must be found if it is at all possible. Men who are relatives or close friends should spend as much time as possible with these temporarily father-less children and make every effort to get close to them." 4.
 
 

"World War II subjected the nation's families to severe strain. During the war, one-sixth of the nation's families suffered prolonged separation from sons or fathers. Five million "war widows" had to cook, clean, launder, and care for children alone. Wartime migration added to familial strain, as more than fifteen million civilians moved in search of new jobs. Wartime families faced a severe shortage of adequate housing and a lack of child-care facilities. These stresses contributed to a dramatic upsurge in the postwar divorce rate and to severe problems of child welfare, including tens of thousands of unsupervised "latchkey" children and high rates of juvenile delinquency, venereal disease, and truancy." 5.
 
 

In 1946, the New York Times reported that there was a study of children attending Sarah Lawrence's nursery school in New York, and "While one-third-to one half of the children in better-off families grow up in stable homes and home towns, Dr. Murphy declares that another half grow up in families constantly on the move, or in homes broken by illness, death, or divorce, or in which parents lack ordinary sense about children's needs. ¶ Wise and skillful handling of children sometimes offsets the effect of broken homes, she believes, but their increasing proportion is noted as part of a family picture she finds 'normal' now. ¶ 'Of approximately 130 children who attended . . . the nursery school between 1937 and 1942, 20 per cent had experienced a broken home before the age of 5,' she writes. 'This includes families broken by divorce, by death of one parent, by prolonged illness such as a nervous break-down or tuberculosis involving long absence of a parent from home. ¶ 'Estimates based on case studies of Sarah Lawrence College students suggest that a minority of children today arrive at the age of 18 without some such major break in the family. ¶ In view of the country's high rate of both divorced and of mental illness, Dr. Murphy comments, 'we can see how unreal our usually concept of normal family experience actual is.'" 6.
 
 

In 1948, a sociologist from the Census reported in 1955 that, about 13 per cent of the married women living with their husbands had remarried after the dissolution of an earlier marriage; in 1910, the corresponding proportion was probably about seven or eight per cent. Among persons who married since the end of World War II, about one fifth were entering a second or subsequent marriage." 7.
 
 

In 1948, Newsweek reported that the average American parents are under 30 and make less than $2,000 a year. Two-thirds of them have never gone beyond grade school: mothers average a slightly higher educational level than the fathers – men finished 8.3 years completed by men, while women had 8.5. "Households of college graduates have only 1.8 children." "Families of two or more with in-comes under $2,000 spend less than $7 a year for education; those in the $3,000-$5,000 group spend about $34; farm families, about $9; rural-town families, $11; urban families, $18; urban families with incomes of $10,000 and over, $164.06." Family and the Schools," Those with the least education have the biggest families (2.5 children for parents with five years of schooling). 8.

 
 
In 1948, Newsweek reported, "Most of the 27,000,000 school children in the United States are badly in need of dental or medical care. More than 900,000 suffer from faulty nutrition; approximately 2,000,000 need eye correction. Some 300,000 have possible heart defects; 90,000 have hernia. About 200,000 have orthopedic defects, and more than 400,000 serious speech defects." 9.

 
 
In 1948, Newsweek quoted Dr. Daniel Blain, medical director for the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc., at a 1948 National Conference on Family Life, as saying: "The wonder is not how badly off the family is, but how marvelously most of them get along, despite us all." 10.
 
 

In 1948, Newsweek reported, "One family in 100 keeps servants in the home; one in twenty has roomers." 11.
 
 

“. . . a greater proportion of the children living at home in 1940 were older than those at home in 1950 and 1960. In fact, children over the age of 15 made up almost 17 percent of the household population in 1940, compared with only about 10 percent in 1960. Two developments . . . account for this pattern. The first was simply that it left home at an earlier age. The second was its increased fertility. . . .” 12.
 
 

“. . . those born before 1920 maintained closer ties with their parents’ households. Even young marrieds lived at home with parents, in-dicating the relatively greater role that parents in the past played in the lives of their adult children. Parental influence undoubtedly extended into the spheres of work (arranging the first job), marriage (greater control over selection of spouse), childrearing and leisure (extended family vacations and outings). The middle generation cut down certain lines of parental influence by moving away, quickly marrying and having children. The younger generation, born since 1940, has continued to move away from home, but has done so increasingly as individuals. Its independence is premised less on establishing the separate responsibilities of marriage, parenthood, and a suburban home than on new life-style ideas about marriage, chil-dren, living arrangements, and work.” 13.
 
 

Older generation of widows due to a “relatively high male mortality rates in the years from World War I through the Great Depression and World War II. In 1940 many of these middle-aged and elderly widow headed families made up of siblings of one or more adult children who helped to maintain the household. Second, many widows of the older generation who were over the age of 55 in 1950, 1960, and 1970 were forced to head their own households becaue they had fewer surviving children who could take them in. They were part of the low-fertility generation, and the number of their offspring was reduced further by the high mortality rates during the years of the Depression and the two world wars. A third reason why more elderly women head their own households today is their ability to support themselves through survivors’ benefits from pensions, social security and their own employment.” 14.
 
 

“In 1940 a higher percentage of all families were headed by women (15.1 percent) than has been true at least through 1978 . . . . The female-headed family of 1940 was very different from today’s stereotype of the separated, divorced, or un-married mother . . . . In 1940 and earlier, the female head of a family was much more likely to be a middle-aged widow who had one or more children living with her, or an older widow living with adult children or a sibling.” 15.
 
 

“In the 1950s and 1960s, even those divorced and separated without children were less prone to head their own households and instead lived with relatives. Quick remarriage in this group, especially for men, narrowed the opportunity to live alone, and the women who lived with relatives expected the arrangement to be temporary until they remarried.” 16.
 
 

“Our three generations grew up in very different households. When the older generation was young, a variety of people were entering and leaving, including boarders, lodgers, other families, servants, friends, grandparents, and other relatives. . . . The comings and goings of relatives and strangers, as well as siblings who were much older and younger (because of larger family sizes and wider birth spacing) . . . .” 17.
 
 

In 1948, Parents' Magazine reported, “One of the consequences of our early mar-riages is the early start we get in bringing children into the world. Currently, about half of our women bear their first child before they are 23, and half of all our children are born to mothers under 28 years of age.” 18.

 
 
In 1948, Parents' Magazine reported, “. . . the average couple starting out today may expect to spend close to 40 years together.” 19.

 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The new upper-class family is char-acterized most decisively by phenomenal economic success during a short-interval of time. It’s meteoric rise in the economic system is normally the personal triumph of the money-maker. While its head is busy making a ‘million bucks,’ the family acquires the purchasable symbols associated with the wealthy American family: a large house, fine furniture, big automobiles, and ex-pensive clothes. The new tycoon knows the power of money in the market place, and he often attempts [unsuccessfully] to buy a high position in the status system." 20.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “Geographic movement is typical of an upward mobile family, even when it lives out the family cycle in its home community. In a large number of cases, wherein a mobile couple is newly married, both partners work. the couple often lives in an apartment or flat in a residential area that is not desirable as a permanent residence. As the husband achieves a higher economic status, the new family generally moves to a small single-family house, or a two-family one, farther from the center of they city. . . Often about this time the wife quits work and the first of two or three children is born. A third of fourth move, some years later, into a six- to eight-room single-family house . . normally completes the family’s odyssey. While it is moving from house to house, many of it social contacts change sas the husband passes through the successive stages of his business or professional career. ¶ Even though there is a high prevalence of social and geographic mobility, and no extended kin group to bring pressure on the family, there is a negli-gible amount of instability. Self-discipline, the demands of the job, and the moral pressures exerted by friends and associates keep the nuclear family to-gether. the principal family goals are success in business or a profession, a good college or university education for the children, and economic security for the parents in their old age. these goals are realized in the vast majority of case, and the family is generally a happy, well-knit group.” 21.
 
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote,“For the middle-class family [of 1950] there are countless ideals largely of a stereotyped nature: It should be religious, keep out of mischief, pay its debts, remain respectable . . . . The ideal family, judging from the advertisements, blurbs, and social pressures of our time, is also one that it is constantly endeavoring to raise its standard of living by security better houses, automobiles, education, radio and television sets, and in a not too aggressive fashion by attempting to climb the social ladder with all of its neat class stratifications. To marry off one’s sons and daughters into ‘nice’ and ‘successful’ families is an achievement highly to be desired.” 22.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist August B. Hollingshead wrote: “The established upper-class family is basically an extended kin group, solidi-fied by lineage and a heritage of com-mon experience in a communal setting. A complicated network of consanguineal and affinial ties unites nuclear families of orientation and procreation into an in-group that rallies when its position is threatened by the behavior of one of its members, particularly where out-marriage is involved . . .. Each nuclear family usually maintains a separate household, but it does not conceive of itself as a unit apart from the larger kin group. The nuclear family is viewed as only a part of a broader kin group that includes the consanguineal descendants of a known ancestral pair, plus kin that have been brought into the group by marriage. ¶ An important factor in the extended established family’s ability to maintain its position through several generations is it economic security. usually a number of different nuclear families within a kin group are supported, in part at least, by income from a family estate held in trust. Also, because of the practice of intramarriage it is not unusual for a family to be the beneficiary of two or more estates held in trust. For example, in an eastern community of some 80,000 population, one of these extended family groups is the beneficiary of a trust established a century ago that yields something over $300,0000 annually, after taxes. This income is divided among 37 different nuclear families descended from the founder, 28 of whom live in the community; 23 of these families are bene-ficiaries of one other trust fund, and 14 receive income from two or more other trust funds. These different nu-clear families regarding themselves as parts of the Scott family; moreover, they are so regarded by other upperclass families, as well as by persons low in the status system who know something of the details of the family history. ¶ The Scott family has maintained its upper-class position locally for more than two centuries by a combination of property ownership, educational, legal and political leadership, and control of marriages generation after generation. It members bar proud that it has never had a non-Protestant marriage in seven generations; only five divorces have been traced, but these are not mentioned; one desertion has been hinted, but not confirmed." 23.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “. . . the established upper-class family . . . is stable, ex-tended, tends to pull together when its position is threatened – in this instance by an out-marriage [that was prevented by the family elders]– exerts powerful controls on its members to ensure that their behavior conforms to family and class codes, and provides for its mem-bers economically by trust funds and appropriate positions.” 24.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The new upper-class family is char-acterized most decisively by phenom-enal economic success during a short-interval of time. It’s meteoric rise in the economic system is normally the per-sonal triumph of the money-maker. While its head is busy making a ‘million bucks,’ the family acquires the purchasable symbols associated with the wealthy American family: a large house, fine furniture, big automobiles, and ex-pensive clothes. The new tycoon knows the power of money in the market place, and he often attempts [unsuccessfully] to buy a high position in the status system." 25.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The new [upper-class] family is very unstable in comparison with the established [upper-class] family. It lacks the security of accepted posi-tion at the top of the local status sys-tem – a position that will come only through time; it cannot be purchase. The stabilizing influence exerted on the deviant individual by an extended family group, as well as friends, is ab-sent.)(Many upwardly mobile families break with their kin group as part of the priced they pay for their mobility) Then, too, the new family is composed of adults who are self-directing, full of initiative, believe in the freedom of the individual, and rely upon themselves rather than upon a kin group.” 26.
 
 

In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The nuclear upper-middle-class family, composed of husband, wife and two or three dependent children during the ma-jor years of the family cycle, is a very stable unit in comparison with the new upper-class family and the working-class family. Divorce is rare, desertion by the husband or wife is most infrequent, and premature death rates are low.” 27.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “Geographic movement is typical of an upward mobile family, even when it lives out the family cycle in its home community. In a large number of cases, wherein a mobile couple is newly married, both partners work. the couple often lives in an apartment or flat in a resi-dential area that is not desirable as a permanent residence. As the husband achieves a higher economic status, the new family generally moves to a small single-family house, or a two-family one, farther from the center of they city. . . Often about this time the wife quits work and the first of two or three children is born. A third of fourth move, some years later, into a six- to eight-room single-family house . . normally completes the family’s odyssey. While it is mov-ing from house to house, many of it social contacts change sas the husband passes through the successive stages of his business or professional career. ¶ Even though there is a high preva-lence of social and geographic mobility, and no extended kin group to bring pressure on the family, there is a negli-gible amount of instability. Self-discipline, the demands of the job, and the moral pressures exerted by friends and associates keep the nuclear family to-gether. the principal family goals are success in business or a profession, a good college or university education for the children, and economic security for the parents in their old age. these goals are realized in the vast majority of case, and the family is generally a happy, well-knit group.” 28.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The lower-middle class family, like the upper middle, is a stable unit for the most part. In fact, there is no-essential difference between . . .in so far as family stability is concerned.” 29.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The major problems of the lower-middle-class family are connected with the security of its economic position and the education of its children. Parents generally have high educational aspirations for their children, but income limitations often compel them to compromise with less education than they desire, an possibly different kind from what they would choose. Parents acutely see the need for a good formal education, and they make heavy sacrifices to give their children the educational training that will enable them to take over positions held by persons in the upper-middle class. By stressing education for the child, parents many times unwittingly create conflicts for themselves and their children, because the educational goals they set for the child train him in values that lead him away from this family. This process, while it does not have a direct bearing on the stability of the nuclear family, acts as a divisive factor that splits parents and children apart, as well as broth-ers and sisters who have received different amounts of education and follow different job channels.” 30.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The family cycle is broken prema-turely in the working class about twice as frequently as it is in the middle classes. Community studies indicate that from one-fourth to one-third of working-class families are broken by divorce, desertion, and death of a marital partner, after a family of procreation has been started but before it is reared. This generalization does not include families broken before the birth of children or after they leave the parental home.” 31.
 
 
 
In the 1950s, married African American couples had a poverty rate of almost 50 percent. 32.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The home is the center of family life, and the hope [ironic sic] of most working-class families is a single-family dwelling with a yard; but a fifth to one-half are forced to live in multiple dwelling units with inadequate space for family living. Added to this is the working-class mos that one is obligated to give shelter and care in a crisis to a husband’s or wife’s relatives or to a married child. Thus, in a considerable percentage [sic] of these families the home is shared with some relative. Then, too, resources are strin-gently limited, so when a family is faced with unemployment, illness, and death it must turn to someone for help. In such crises, a relative is called upon in most instances before some public agency. The relative normally has little to offer, but in most cases that little is shared with the family in need, even though grudgingly. ¶ While crises draw family members to-gether, they also act as divisive agents; for when a family has to share its lim-ited living space and meager income with relative, kin ties are soon strained, often to the breaking point. One family is not able to give aid to another on an extensive scale without impairing its won standard of living; possibly its own security may be jeopardized. In view of this risk, some persons do everything short of absolute refusal to aid a relative in distress . . . This ordinarily results in the permanent destruction of kin ties, but it is justified by the belief that ones won family’s needs come first.” 33.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “Lower-class families exhibit the high-est prevalence of instability of any class . . . A companionate family is often a complicated one. It may include the natural chil-dren of the couple, plus the woman’s children from a previous legal or com-panionate relationship ; also there may be dependent children of the man living with the woman. Normally, when the lower-class family is broken, as in the higher classes, the mother keeps the children. However, the mother may de-sert her’man’ for another man, and leave her children with him, her mother or sister, or social agency. In the Deep South and Elmtown, from 50 to 60 percent of lower-class family groups are broken once, and often more, by de-sertion, divorce, death, or separation, often due to imprisonment of the man, between marriage, legal or companion-ate, and its normal dissolution through the marriage of adult children and the death of aged parents. ¶ Economic insecurity is but one of a number of factors that give rise to this amount of instability. lower-class peo-ple are employed in the most menial, the poorest paid, . . . seasonal and cyclical, and of short duration. More-over, from one-half to two-third of the wives are gainfully employed outside the family; in may cases they are the sole support of the family. However, the problem of economic insecurity does not account for amoral behavior that ranges from the flagrant violation of conventional sex mores to open rebellion against formal agencies of social control.” 34.
 
 
 
"These three trends [In the U.S.,] represent what might be thought of as a collective deconstruction of marriage by the generations that came of age in the last quarter of the 20th century. Historically, cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing were all part of one inseparable package. Marriage and cohabitation were usually co-occurring, and both were typically followed by the birth of children. These three trends reflect an unprecedented separation of cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing." 35.

 
 
In 1950, sociologist Ray H. Abrams wrote, “ . . . part of the confusion in our thinking concerning what constitutes a ‘stable’ or ‘ideal’ family type. What is the truly ‘ideal’ family? Are the popularly conceived ‘ideal’ or ‘model’ families always stable units, do they actually function on all levels of human experience, or do they frequently simply go through the motions . . . ?” 36.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “The concepts of family solidarity, of unity, and of stability are certainly confused.” 37.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “. . . the index most frequently used to measure the relative amount of family stability is actually a criterion of instability. . . . That index is the divorce rate. the presumption is that relatively high divorce rate is evidence of a great amount of family instability.” However, divorce is just a legal recognition of family instability. 38.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “Another popular assumption is that in the United States family stability has been steadily going down hill since shortly after the Civil War inasmuch as the general trend of the divorce rate has been going up rather consistently since that time. However, the belief that there was a Golden Age of family life in America does not appeal to the historians . . . . Any careful survey reveals that since the settlement of this country there have been periods of stresses and strains. . . .” 39.
 
 
 
In 1958, U.S. News & World Report reported, "For American Families: A Pattern that Is Changing," article with "What's Happening To Home Life" in U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 24, 1958 (p. 88) The chief causes: people are getting married younger, mothers are working, life expectancy is growing, older couples are keeping their own houses after kids grow up and move out. 40.
 
 
 
“Most of the postwar trends examined . . . appear to have moved in the same direction for both blacks and whites. Black fertility . . . peaked in the late 1950s just as white fertility did, and both black and white fertility subsequently declined. There was a short surge in divorce among blacks immediately after World War II, just as for whites. And rates of separation and divorce increased at about the same speed for both groups between 1960 and 1980. But in other important ways – such as the proportion of men and women ever marrying and the ages at which women bear children – the family lives of blacks and whites have diverged since World War II.” 41.
 
 

“. . . black marriages break up more often than white mar-riages; blacks who are separated are less likely to obtain a legal divorce than are whites; and blacks who are divorced are increasingly less likely to remarry than are whites.” 42.

 
 
“Black women, in sum, are less likely to marry, stay married, and remarry. Those who marry do so at an older age than do whites. The differences between blacks and whites . . . are greater than they were a generation ago. As a result, black women spend far less of their life in a marriage than do white women. . . . white women now can expect to spend less than half of their lives married. But among black women, the corresponding figure has plunged from 40 percent to 22 percent – about the same proportion of life that the average college-educated person spends attending school. Marriage has become just a temporary stage of life for blacks, preceded by a lengthening period of singlehood and followed by a long period of living without a spouse. . . . For blacks, even more so than for whites, a long, stable marriage is the exception rather than the rule.” 43.


 
“It is commonly thought that this dramatic rise in the proportion of black children born out of wedlock is the result of a sharp increase in childbearing among unmarried black women . . . . Unmarried black teenagers and unmarried black women age 20 to 24 were no more likely to give birth in the late 1980s than they were in the late 1960s. . . . what caused the increased proportion of out-of-wedlock births? . . . births among black married women fell sharply during the 1960s and early 1970s and then leveled off. Second, during the entire period, fewer and fewer young black women married.” 44.

 
 
“. . . black children are about half as likely as white children to be living with both parents or with one parent show the following: black children are about half as likely as white children to be living with both parents or with one parent and a stepparent (41 percent versus 81 percent) they are about eight times more likely to be living with a never-married parent (31 percent versus 4 percent); and they are more than half again as likely to be living with a separated or divorced parent (25 percent versus 14 percent).” 45.


 
“There are longstanding cultural differences in the ways blacks and whites conceive of and carry out their family lives. In particular, African American culture places greater emphasis on ties to a network of kin that can extend over more than one household. Extended kin such as the grandparents, parents, and children Furstenberg and I studied expect to provide and to receive more help from each other than do extended kin in white families. They also live together more often – about half of all middle-aged black women, according to another na-tional study, live in a three-generation household at some point, compared to about one-fifth of white women. But the flip side of this greater emphasis on extended kin is less emphasis on the husband-wife bond.” 46.
 
 
 
In 1950, The Survey reported: "'We couldn't act natural,' complained a young woman in Harrisburg, who had lived with her parents for three years after marriage. Her husband was more aggressively resentful about the 'constant interference' when he tried to discipline the baby. 'It does something to your relationship to your in-laws that shouldn't happen,' he said. 'I hope my daughter will never have to live with us when she gets married." ¶ The freedom they demanded from parents and in-laws was more than jut physical separation. Gone is the day when Grandma's advice was welcome because she had raised six children of her own. The young parents I interviewed defer to Gessell or Spock when baby acts queer and lean on Grandma only for an occasional holiday dinner or a spell of baby sitting. One educated young man who came from a closely knit family with 'gobs of traditions' said his liberation from rela-tives had been 'eased' by an enforced wartime separation. But another couple, settled 1,000 miles away from their old home town, thought perhaps their children missed out in not having aunts, uncles, or grandparents around 'to make a fuss over them.'" 47.

 
 
In 1950, The Survey reported in an article about young families, that every one had at least one child development book on its shelves; they took classes, read magazines, discussed theories of development, some (literally) feared messing up their kids, and didn't want to make the same mistakes their parents had. 48.

 
 
In 1950, The Survey reported that the coming family was an extended one that would care for the aged, but that that would dramatically effect every generation. 49.

 
 
In 1950, 48.3% of U.S. families had no children under 18 in their household. 50.
 
 

In 1952, the New York Times reported: "In 1949, for instance, only 15 per cent of the nation's 39,000,000 families had three or more youngsters. However, in considering this point one impor-tant fact is often overlooked: These 15 percent of families had 50 per cent of all the country's youngsters. Similarly, analysis of the 1940 census figures . . . shows that of all households only 4.2 per cent had five or more children but these youngsters comprised 22.1 per cent of the nation's total." 51.
 
 

In 1957, the New York Times reported: "In almost every child study group today – and for that matter in many a purely social gathering where parents are represented – there is likely to be at least one parent all but obsessed by his 'responsibility to the children.' Because parents and the general climate of a family's life are considered by most specialists the most important influences on children, some parents have concluded – indeed have been encouraged to conclude – that their influence is absolute. Everything good or bad that happens is directly traceable to them!" While this movement is reportedly on the wane, it has left some parents in a panic and in a desperate search for professional advice. 52.
 
 

In 1958, the New York Times reported that accurate statistics are almost impossible, but "several years ago it was esti-mated that in this country some seven million youngsters under the age of 18 lived with only one parent– or neither. About 4.1 million, it was esti-mated, lived with their mother; 600,000 with their father and the remaining 2.4 million under a variety of other ar-rangements – with relatives, in institutions." 53.
 
 

In 1958, U.S. News & World Report stated: ". . . there has been a sharp drop in the percentage of older couples who live with married children. Their rate of doubling up with children has been cut by half in recent years." 54.
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: “Nearly all children in the United States live with one or both parents or other relatives. Of over 60 million children in 1958 about 97 percent were living with one or both parents or other relatives, and about a quarter of a million were living away from relatives, as residents of institutions, as foster children, or as wards.” 55.
 
 

In 1960, the New York Times reported: "Every fourteenth child in the United States to-day lives in a fatherless home. This statistic, based on the latest census figures available, includes homes of women who are separated, divorced, widowed or who have borne children out of wedlock. More than 40 per cent of the women have more than one child." 56.
 
 

In 1960, the New York Times reported: "While each situation is unique, the most common characteristic of the single-parent home is that the moth-er tends to live alone with the children. In the past, parents, and children, grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins fre-quently lived under the same roof, or at least within shout-ing distance of one another. This kind of family life, al-though still prevalent in some cultures, is rapidly disappear-ing in our country. Neverthe-less, the single parent should make every effort to involve herself with family and friends, rather than always with her children. One of the most serious consequences the only mother risks is that she begins rap-idly to convince herself of the impossibility of remarriage. She will use the children to justify her loneliness, her iso-lation, her inability to get an-other man. Yet, at the same time, she may inwardly resent the fact that the children limit her freedom or capacity to establish a new life." 57.
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: “Most children were living with one or both parents in their own households, though about 2.5 million were with one or both parents who were sharing the living quarters of someone else. Over 90 percent of these children whose parents were sharing living quarters were living in the home of grandparents or some other relative.” 58.
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: “Although the average size of families has not changed significantly since 1950 (3.5 in 1950 and 3.6 in 1958), in the past several years the number of families with two or more children living at home increased more than the number of families with no children or with just one child. In 1958 there were 16.4 million families with two or more of their own children at home–an increase of 5.2 million families or 46 percent over a ten-year period. During this same period the number of families with no children or with only one child showed much less change, 27.3 million in 1958, as compared with 26.1.million in 1948.” 59.
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: "In 1950 there were 4.1 million and in 1958 about 5. 6 million children under eighteen years of age, who were not living with both their mother and father; most of these children were living with one parent. These one-parent families, numbering about 3 million in 1958, represent ‘broken’ families and are the result of marital discord and widowhood, as well as service in the armed forces, civilian employment elsewhere, and extended hospitalization. The largest number of children not living with both parents, about 4.7 million, were in families headed by a woman, generally the mother.” 60.
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: In 1953 and 1955, there were 5.8 million children living with one parent. 61.
 
 

In 1961, Science News Letter reported, “Of 2,359,000 persons now receiving OAA (old age assistance) payments, 74% have living children, but only one in every five is receiving support from the children.” 62.
 
 

“The middle generation had fewer siblings on the average, but aunt, uncles, and cousins– particularly those who were unmarried or childless – joined their households from time to time. . . by that time the majority of the ‘extended’ house-hold members were relatives.” 63.
 
 
 
 
". . . A [US] 1962 study found that 85 percent of mothers believed that married couples should have children. Nearly 20 years later, just 40 percent of those women still agreed, and in 1993 only 1 in 5 of their daughters agreed." 64.
 

 
"In 1969, 23.8 percent of brides and 23.0 percent of grooms whose previous marital status was known had been married." (thus meaning it was a remarriage for at least one of them). 65.
 
 

“By 1970 very few people who did not live alone lived with someone other than their spouse or their chldren. The households in which the younger generation grew up had become standardized to include one to three siblings (two to four years different in age), two parents (approximately 25 years older), and no one else.” 66.
 
 

“. . .there are simultaneously counterbalancing trends. People of the younger generation who may live alone at one time live at other times with a greater variety of temporary roommates and live-in boyfriends and girlfriends. They also have more diverse tem-porary living arrangements because of moving, changing jobs, or attending school. Single parents, too, are more inclined than in the past to share their households, at least temporarily, with friends and partners.” 67.
 
 

“The net effect of these countervailing changes – the paring down of basic household size and structure while increasing the opportunities for more interactions with others outside the household– places the generation in stark contrast to their parents’ generation.” 68.
 
 
 
In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court Court upheld a “one family” zoning law that stopped a group of college students from living in a house. According to the local zoning rules, a "family" was "[o]ne or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. A number of persons but not exceeding two (2) living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family." Justice Marshall objected that this was discriminating against unmarried couples, but the majority found it to be a valid exercise of the locality’s police power. 69.
 
 
 
But the Supreme Court then in 1977 overturned a similar zoning law. In that case, a grandmother was raising two grandkids, but they were cousins, not brothers. Under the zoning ordinance, that was two families. The Court said that was improperly intruding on the right to have a family:

Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.
 
Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. Over the years millions of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning child rearing . . . have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household - indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children. Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what happened here. 70.
 

 
57 percent
of those surveyed in U.S. in 1977 thought "a wife should help her husband's career rather than have one of her own (43% disagreed)." 71.
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________________

 
1. Carolyn Holmes Moses, “What Children Need Most: Emotional Security,” Parents’ Magazine, p. 17 (October 1942).
2. Carolyn Holmes Moses, “What Children Need Most: Emotional Security,” Parents’ Magazine, p. 17 (October 1942).
3. D.D. Nibbelink, “Father Puts Things In Order,” Parents’ Magazine, p. 27 (September 1943).
4. Catherine Mackenzie, "Absent Fathers," New York Times, New York, NY p. SM29 (April 9, 1944). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=96577291&Fmt=1&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
5. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
6. Catherine Mackenzie, "Unstable Homes Found 'Normal' For Fully Half of Today's children," New York Times. New York, NY, p. 24 (October 18, 1946). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=94066275&sid=10&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
7. Paul C. Glick, "The Life Cycle of the Family," Marriage and Family Living, National Council on Family Relations, Vol. 17., No. 1, pp. 3-9 (February 1955), p. 5 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-7059%28195502%2917%3A1%3c3%3atlcotp%3e2.0.co%3b2-q
8. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
9. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
10. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
11. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
12. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), pp. 12-13. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
13. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 16. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
14. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 16. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
15. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 17 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
16. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 20. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
17. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 24. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
18. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948), p. 68.
19. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948), p. 68.
20. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 42.
21. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 43.
22. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 4.
23. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 41.
24. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 42.
25. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 42.
26. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 42.
27. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 42.
28. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 43.
29. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). pp. 43-44.
30. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 44.
31. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 44.
32. Stephanie Coontz, "The American Family and The Nostalgia Trap," Phi Delta Kappan (March 1, 1995). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:16765761
33. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). p. 45.
34. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950). pp. 45-46.
35. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
36. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 1.
37. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 1.
38. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 2 (quotation omitted).
39. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 2.
40. "For American Families: A Pattern that Is Changing," and "What's Happening To Home Life," U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 24, 1958 (p. 88)
41.  Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
42.  Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
43.  Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
44. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 98 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
45. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 99 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
46. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 109 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
47. Kathryn Close, "Young Families in 1950," The Survey p. 17, et seq. (January 1950), p. 20.
48. Kathryn Close, "Young Families in 1950," The Survey p. 17, et seq. (January 1950), p. 20.
49. Ollie Annette Randall, "The Family in an Aging Population," The Survey, Vol. 86, pp. 67-72 (February 1950).
50. See (Census) Tables.
51. Dorothy Barclay, "Good Life In a Large Family," New York Times, New York, NY, p. SM32, (April 13, 1952). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=93365383&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
52. Dorothy Barclay, "The Case of the Overanxious Parent," New York Times . New York, NY, p. 257 (May 5, 1957). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=90801768&sid=9&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
53. Dorothy Barclay, "One-Parent Family: Further Notes," New York Times. New York, NY, p. SM46 (January 26, 1958). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=83392413&sid=8&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
54. ________, "What's Happening To Home Life," U.S. News & World Report, pp. 88-89 (January 24, 1958), p. 89.
55. Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 35. (1960)
56. Emanuel K. Schwartz, "Life Without Father," New York Times, New York, NY, p. 164 (September 4, 1960). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=99793220&sid=7&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
57. Emanuel K. Schwartz, "Life Without Father," New York Times, New York, NY, p. 164 (September 4, 1960). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=99793220&sid=7&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
58. Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 36 (1960)
59. Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 36 (1960)
60. Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 37 (1960)
61. Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 38 note 8 (citation omitted). (1960)
62. ________, "Kin of Aged Should Help,” Science News Letter, p. 35 (January 21, 1961).
63. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
64. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.
65. "Incidence of U.S. Divorce Since the Civil War," Demography, p. 5 (citation omitted) (Feb. 1979)
66. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
67. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
68. George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
69. ________, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/416/1.html
70. ________, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/431/494.html
71. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.