|
|
|
Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 30+
This information duplicates items from the rest of The Factbook, selecting only those items that relate to North America. However, numbers don't mean much without a comparison to family life in other continents. And that is why we may have included a lot of information on certain issues, but it seems like we have less regional information for others. Actually, that isn't the case – we just chose what were for us notable commonalities or exceptions, cross-culturally. For further information about a particular region, see the regional studies we've referenced in the footnotes: they probably have any additional information you might need on a particular country or region.
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.
HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
76 million
Number of U.S. “Family Households,” in 2003. 1.
68 percent
in 2003 of all U.S. households are “family households” (at least two members related by birth, marriage or adoption). 2.
68 percent
of U.S. blacks live in family households – the same as that of the U.S. population as a whole. 3.
79 percent
of Pacific Islander households in the U.S. are family households – higher than the national average (68 percent). 4.
32
percent of U.S. households have children. 6.
1.3 million
new households in the U.S. have been formed each year since 2000. 8.
COUPLES OR HOUSEHOLD HEADS ON THEIR OWN?
57 million
Number of married-couple households residing in the United States in 2003 – 76 percent of family households. 19.
23 percent
of U.S. households are married couples with children. 20.
53 percent
of U.S. households in 2000 were married-couple households. 21.
32 percent
of U.S. black family households were married-couple households. 22.
56 percent
of Pacific Islanders households are married couple households. 23.
55.1 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. in 2000 married-couple households. 24.
12.9 million
Number of U.S. female-maintained family households with no husband present: that’s 12.2 percent of all households. 25.
There are more than three times as many
married-couple households with children than there are female-headed family households with no husband but with children present. That’s 7.2 percent of all households. That is compared to 6.0 million (6.6 percent) in 1990. There are, nationally, more than three times as many married-couple households with children than there are female family households. 26.
At least twice as many
In every one of states in the U.S., there are at least twice the number of married-couple households with children as there are female-only headed family households. 27.
In Washington, DC
however, there are more female-headed only family households (25,000) than it does married couple couple households with children (21,000). 28.
30 percent
U.S. black family households headed with a woman, and no husband present – triple the national rate of 12 percent. 29.
Less than six percent
of U.S. blacks live in family households headed with by a man, with no wife present. – the same as that of the U.S. population as a whole. 30.
17 percent
of households in Peru, Guatemela, Mexico are headed by women. 31.
SINGLE PEOPLE ON THEIR OWN
One out of every four –
American households with just one person in 2000 – 26 percent of all households. 37.
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Party of Two and a Half?
In 2000, more than half of the people in the U.S. lived in households of one, two, or three people. 41.
2.57
Average number of people in an U.S. household in 2003. 42.
2.72
average household size of U.S. blacks who live in family households. 43.
3.08
Average number of people in an Asian household in the U.S., above the U.S. national average of 2.59. 44.
9.8 percent
of U.S. households in 2003 contained five people or more. 45.
EXTENDED FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
79 million
Number of U.S. “Family Groups,” in 2003, where one (or more subfamilies) live in a household. (e.g. A householder’s daughter has a child. The mother-child is a subfamily.) 1.
MULTIGENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLDS
Hawaii –
The U.S. state with the highest percentage of multigenerational family households: 8.2 percent of all Hawaiian households. 5.6 percent of California's households are multigenerational, while 5.2 percent of Mississippi's are as well. 14.
North Dakota
The U.S. state with the lowest percentage of multigenerational family households: 1.1 percent of all households. 15.
1.3 million
Number of U.S. multigenerational families in 2000 made up of the householder, the householder's parent or in-law, and the householder's children. That's one-third of all multigenerational families. 18.
2.6 million
Number of U.S. multigenerational family households in 2000 with a householder, the householder’s children, and the householder's grandchildren. That's 65 percent of multigenerational family households in the U.S. So it's twice as common for a grandparent to be the householder, who brings younger generations in the home, than for adult children to bring parents into their home. 19.
5.6 million
U.S. children live with a grandparent; these children comprise 8 percent of all children in the United States. Of these children, almost twice as many (3.7 million) live in their grandparent’s home, than live in their parent’s home (1.8 million). 20.
78,000
Number of 2000 U.S. four-generation family households — consisting of the three generations noted above plus the householder’s grandchildren; that’s only 2 percent of the identified multigenerational family households. 21.
3.9 million
Number of U.S. family households in 2000 in the three types of commonly encountered multigenerational households. They made up 3.7 percent of all households. 22.
|
|
|
|
| · 24 percent of Boomers anticipate that their parents or in-laws will move in with them.
· About one-half say they would be happy to have their parents or in-laws move in.
· 51 percent say they would feel obligated to help.
· 17 percent would be “eager” to find their parents or in-laws another living arrangement.
· 8 percent of Boomers would charge their parents rent. According to a 2004 survey. 29.
|
|
|
|
|
THEORIES AND RESPONSES TO WHY WOMEN DELAY
HAVING CHILDREN AND HAVE FEWER OF THEM
In the Depression Era U.S.,
the grim economic situation and non-existent job prospects forced married couples were to postpone having children. By 1933, experts began warning that the U.S. population could see a drastic decrease in the coming decades if the trend continued – and that the U.S. population would only reach 195 million at the most. 12.
FERTILITY RATE
3.5
The U.S. TFR at the peak of the Baby Boom in the late 1950s. By the mid-1970s, the rate had fallen by half to about 1.8 births per woman. 18.
2.0 to 2.1
The U.S. TFR in the 1990s, slightly below the replacement rate. 19.
2.08
The 2005 estimated total fertility rate for the U.S. 20.
6.5 per 1000
The 2005 U.S. infant mortality rate – 6.5 deaths at birth for every 1000 live births. 21.
The U.S. and New Zealand –
two of the few developed countries in the world to be at the fertility rate replacement level. And both of those are largely due to the presence of a particular ethnic group. In the U.S., it's the Hispanic population: Hispanic women had 20 percent of all births in 2002, and were the only segment of the population to exceed the replacement rate: non-Hispanic whites only had 60 percent of births, black women, 15 percent, and Asians and Pacific Islanders, just 5 percent. Similarly, in New Zealand, it's the Maori who are keeping the fertility rate above replacement level. 22.
Almost 15 percent
of the U.S. births in 2004 were to mothers who were not U.S. citizens. 23.
10.9 – children? For every woman?? That's not a family – that's a baseball team. With a bench.
The highest fertility rate ever observed: 10.9 children per woman for the Hutterite community, a religious sect in the U.S., during the period of 1921–1930. Canadians in the 18th century weren't far behind, with a rate of 10.8. 31.
FAMILY SIZE AND CHILDLESSNESS
In 1939, Science News Letter reported studies had concluded that U.S. “Childless marriages have increased to one out of every five marriages.” 50.
In the U.S., it is as common now for a woman to have no child or one child, as it was to have four or five children 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
| 20.1 percent
of U.S. women ages 40 to 44 in 1976 who had five or more children ever born, while another 15.8 percent had four children ever born. 51.
17.9 percent
of U.S. women ages 40 to 44 in 2002 had never had a child. Another 17.4 percent had had one child. 52.
|
|
|
|
|
10 percent – down from 36 percent
10 percent of U.S. families with children have four or more children – down from 36 percent of families with children in 1976. 53.
52 percent
of U.S. families with children have just one or two children in 2002 – an increase from 31 percent in 1976. 54.
44 percent
of all U.S. women of childbearing age –15 to 44 years old – are childless. Of these childless women, 71 percent are in the workforce. 55.
UNMARRIED MOTHERS
In the middle of the eighteenth century, over 40 percent of American women were pregnant at the time of their wedding. 59.
1.3 million
unmarried women in the U.S. gave birth in the 12-month period preceding the 2002 census, representing 33 percent of all births during this period. 62.
63 percent
Of U.S. births to unmarried women in 2002, 63 percent of these births were to women who did not have a high school education, while just six percent were to those with a college or post-graduate degree. 64.
4.1 million
total U.S. births in 2004. 65.
12 percent
of U.S. 2002 births to women 30-to-44 years old were births to unmarried women. 66.
1.5 million
of U.S. births in 2004 were to unmarried women in the U.S., a record high. That is 35.7 percent of all U.S. births that year, compared to 34.6 percent in 2003 and 33 percent in 2002. 67.
50 percent
of the U.S. unmarried women who gave birth in 2004 lived under the poverty level, compared to just 23 percent of all mothers and 12 percent of married mothers. 68.
46 percent
of births to U.S. Hispanic women in 2004 were out of wedlock, up from 36 percent in 2002, while 24.5 percent of births to non-Hispanic White women were out of wedlock. 68.
69.2 percent
of births to Black women in the U.S. 2004 were out of wedlock, up from 65 percent in 2002. 69.
DELAYING HAVING CHILDREN
22 years old
the average age at first birth for U.S. blacks and Hispanics. 77.
26 years old
the average age at first birth for U.S. non-Hispanic white women. 78.
23 years old
the average age at first birth for women living in Mississippi. 79.
Almost 28 years old
the average age at first birth for women living in Massachusetts. 80.
TEEN PREGNANCY
1957
The year the teenage birth rate peaked in the U.S. – 96.3 out of every 1000 births were by teen mothers. And that has not been equaled since. 86.
|
|
|
|
|
1986
The year the teenage birth rate was the lowest ever in the U.S. – 50.2 out of every 1000 births were by teen mothers.
From 1986 to 1992, teenage birth rates rose substantially (although still never approaching the record rate of the 1950s).
After 1992, the teen birth rates began to fall once more. 87.
|
|
|
|
|
From 1990 to 2000,
the U.S. pregnancy rate for 15 to 17 year old females decreased 33 percent, from 80.3 per 1,000 females to 53.5, a record low. During that time, their birth rate declined 42 percent, from its peak at 38.6 in 1991 to 22.4 in 2003. The induced abortion rate peaked in 1983 at 30.7 and decreased by more than half to 14.5 by 2000. 88.
41.2 births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
the teen birth rate for the U.S. in 2004, a record low for the nation. 89.
The U.S. induced-abortion rate peaked in 1983 at 30.7, but then decreased by more than half to 14.5 by 2000. 90.
89 percent
of U.S. births to teenagers in 2002 were out of wedlock. 91.
Two-thirds
According to a 1996 California Department of Health and Human Services study, "two-thirds of the state's teenage mothers were victims of child abuse. What's more, nearly a quarter said they had been raped. Among those victims, the average age of the first attack was 12, and it was committed by an assailant – sometimes a friend or family member – who was 22." 93.
POPULATION, RACE, AND ETHNICITY
Population Growth in the U.S.
296,976,031
U.S. population, August 24, 2005. 1
76 million
The U.S. population, in 1900. 2.
281 million
The U.S. population, in 2000. 3.
32.7 million
|
|
|
|
| The growth of the U.S. population in the 1990s – the largest numerical increase of any decade in U.S. history. 4.
|
|
|
|
|
1900-1910
Despite the fact that the 1990s was the decade of the greatest numerical growth, it wasn't the greatest percentage growth for the U.S. population. In fact, it was the third lowest percent increase in the century at only a 13.2 percent increase. In 1900-1910, the population added 16 million – half the 1990s increase – but that meant the total population jumped up 21 percent in just ten years. 5.
23 Percent Larger
The estimated growth of the U.S. population in 2025, compared to 2000. 6.
6.0 percent
of the world’s population in lived in the U.S. in 1950. 7.
4.5 percent
of the world’s population in lived in the U.S. in 2000. The percentage of total global population living in the United States has actually declined each decade. So as much as the growth of the U.S. population has been exponential, it's comparatively dwarfed by what is going on in the rest of the world. 8.
96 males to 100 females
the ratio of males to females in the U.S. in 2000. 9.
More men than women -
In 2000, the U.S. male population was larger than its female population up for every age group until those aged 30 to 34. 10.
More women than men -
In 2000, starting with those aged 35 to 39, American women outnumbered men– a fact which gets progressively more significant as the men's and women's ages increased. At age 65 and above, there were approximately six million more older women than older men (20.6 million to 14.4 million). 11.
Change in the U.S. Population
The Typical Person in the United States at the Turn of the 20th Century
was male, under 23 years old, and White. He usually lived in a Northeastern or a Midwestern state, in a nonmetropolitan area. He rented a home. He probably lived in a household with five or more other people – since almost half of the population did so. 12.
The Typical Person in the United States at the Turn of the 21st Century
is female, at least 35 years old, and probably White (but much less likely to be so). She lives in a Southern or a Western states, in metropolitan area. She probably owns a home, and she either lives alone or in a household with just one or two other people. 13.
One out of every eight Americans
was of a race other than White at the start of the 20th century. 14.
One out of every four Americans
was of a race other than White by the 20th century's end. 15.
Less Than One Percent
of the U.S. population, from 1900 to 1960, who were people of races other than White or Black. 16.
1.4 Percent
of the U.S. population, in 1970, who were people of races other than White or Black. 17.
12.5 Percent
of the U.S. population who were people of races other than White or Black by the year 2000. 18.
7.9 percent
was the rate of growth for the U.S.'s White non-Hispanic population between 1980 and 2000. 19.
88 percent
was the combined rate of growth for the people of races other than White and people of every race who were of Hispanic origin. That is eleven times the growth of the White population. 20.
36.2 million
people in the U.S. – 12.9 percent of the total population – who identified themselves as Black in the 2000 Census. Of those, the vast majority – 34.4 million reported Black as their only race; the remainder said they were two or more races. 21.
11.9 million
Number of people – 4.2 percent of the total population – who reported that they were Asian in the U.S. 2002 Census. This includes 10.2 million (3.6 percent) who described themselves as Asian alone, and another 0.6 percent who described themselves as Asian and at least one other race. 22.
Nationalities / ethnicities with at least one percent of the Asian population in the U.S. –
Asian Indian, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Hmong, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Pakistani, Thai and Vietnamese. 23.
13.5 million
Number of people reported themselves to be Asian in the U.S. in 2003 – a 12.5 percent growth in three years. 24.
80 percent
of Asians in the U.S. are members of one of five groups: Asian Indian (16.2 percent of the Asian population), Chinese (23.8 percent of the Asian population), Filipino (18.3 percent of the Asian population), Korean (10.5 percent of the Asian population), and Vietnamese (10.9 percent of the Asian population). Each of these has a U.S. population of at least one million people. 25.
Almost four-fifths
of Asians in the U.S. speak a language other than English at home, but about three-fifths of them speak English “very well.” 26.
861,000
Number of those in the U.S. who identified themselves as Pacific Islander – such as Native Hawaiian or Guamanian – in the 2000 Census. 27.
Pacific Islander Men Under 35
outnumber Pacific Islander women in the U.S. 28.
But Pacific Islander Women Over 64
outnumber Pacific Islander men in the U.S. 29.
According to the U.S. federal government, "Hispanic" or "Latino" identifies someone as a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin. Therefore, it's an ethnic identification – not a racial one – so Hispanics can be of any race. 30.
35.2 million
Number of Hispanics in the U.S. as of 2000. That’s 12.5 percent of the total population – a "61 percent increase since 1990. Among the Hispanic or Latino groups, Mexicans were the largest with 20.9 million [59.3 percent]." 31.
39.9 million
Number of Hispanics in the U.S. as of July 1, 2003 – about one-half of the population's growth since 2000. 32.
13 percent
The growth in the Hispanic population since 2000 – while the total U.S. population only increased 3.3. percent. 33.
Less than 22.9 years old
Half of the U.S. population, in 1900. 34.
More than 35.3 years old
Half of the U.S. population, at 2000 – the highest median age in the nation's history. 35.
Children under the age of five
were the largest 5-year age group in the U.S. in 1900 and 1950. 36.
Adults aged 35 to 39 and 40 to 44
were the largest 5-year age groups in the U.S. in 2000 – those being the aging Baby Boomers. 37.
3.1 million
– or 4.1% of the total U.S. population – were age 65 or older in 1900. 38.
35.0 million
– or 12.4% of the total U.S. population – were age 65 or older in 2000. That is a ten-fold increase in the century, which far exceeds the rate of growth of the entire population – which had just tripled in size. 39.
About 47.0
The U.S. average life expectancy at birth in 1900. 40.
About 77.0
The U.S. average life expectancy at birth in 2000. 41.
Over 100
infants would die before their first birthday in the U.S. in 1900. 42.
Less than 10
infants would die before their first birthday in the U.S. in 2000. 43.
|
|
|
|
|
Having Under Five Percent of the world's population, United States ranked third in terms of total population size in 2000.
Here's a U.S. Census chart illustrating the changing distribution of the world's population over the last half of the Twentieth Century. 54.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost half of the global population increase from 1950 to 2000
came from just five countries: the United States, India, China, Nigeria, and Indonesia. 55.
Half the population, but more young children
Nigeria has a total population that is less than half of the United States. But it has a larger population of children under than age of five. 58.
The US Population is "Older"
When the U.S. population is described as "older" than other nations around the world, that means that it has larger percentages of people in two older age groups– those 65 or older and those 80 or older (known as the "oldest old"). 61.
The US Population is "Younger"
However, unlike most other developed countries, the United States also has a slightly younger population – has a greater percentage of the population of the world's youth. There are primarily two reasons for this. First, U.S. birth rates – primarily driven by the higher rates of recent Hispanic immigrants and their children – are slightly higher than those of other more developed counties . At the same time, about 10 million more people entered the United States than left the country during the 1990-2000 period, which added to the young adult age groups of our population. So, the both reasons for our nation is slightly younger are actually largely the same: immigration. 62.
Eight percent
of the world's elderly live in the U.S. – ranking the nation as having the third largest population of elderly in the world. 63.
Though the U.S. population is only one-fourth of the size of India's, the United States has more people ages 80 and over than India does. 64.
|
|
|
|
|
AGING - DEMOGRAPHICS
Elderly in the U.S. Aging – Internationally
Elderly in the U.S.
35.0 million
Number of U.S. population age 65 and over in 2000, a ten-fold increase from 3.1 million in 1900. 1.
12.4 percent
of the U.S. total population were aged 65 or over in 2000. 2.
5.9 percent
of the U.S. total population were over 75 years old in 2000. 3.
1.5 percent
of the U.S. total population were over 85 years old in 2000. 4.
4.1 percent
of the U.S. total population aged 65 or over in 1900 – just a third of what it is today, and 1.9 percent less than the current population of those over 75. 5.
56 percent
of those in the U.S. 65 and over are married. 6.
Aging – Internationally
Over 40 percent
of the world's elderly live in the United States and other More Developed Countries. But those same nations only make up about 20 percent of world population. 9.
More people over 80 years old
There are more people ages 80 and over in the U.S. than there are in India, despite the fact the American population is just a quarter of India's. 10.
Eight percent
of the world’s elderly live in the United States. That is the third largest population of elderly in the world. 11.
13 percent
of the world's "oldest old" – those age 80 and older – live in the United States. 12.
China, India, Japan, Indonesia, and the United States
were the nations that contributed the most to the past decade's growth of the world's elderly population. This was due primarily to the countries' comparatively low mortality rates and their large overall populations. 15.
THE ECONOMICS OF AGING
|
|
|
|
| From a government pamphlet written in 1937 to support passage of the U.S. Social Security Act:
|
|
|
|
|
"Old people, like children, have lost much of their economic value to a household. Most American families no longer live in houses where one can build on a room or a wing to shelter aging parents and aunts and uncles and cousins. They no longer have gardens, sewing rooms, and big kitchens where old people can help make the family's living.
Old people were not "dependent" upon their relatives when there was need in a household for work they could do. They have become dependent since their room and their board cost money, while they have little to give in return. Now they need money of their own to keep the dignity and independence they had when their share in work was the equivalent in money." 37.
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 50 percent
of households with a householder 65 and over received any retirement income other than Social Security. 39.
90 percent
of U.S. householders 65 and over receive Social Security income. 92 percent of 75 to 84 year old householders and 91 percent of those 85 and over receive Social Security. 40.
One out of three
households with a householder over 65 and older had earnings as a source of income. 41.
9.8 percent
of those 65 years old and over in the U.S. live below the poverty level – lower than the national average of 12.7 percent. 42.
3.5 million
of those over 65 years of age in the U.S. live below the poverty level. 43.
Lower
the median income for those over 65 was $31,556 for men, and $22,511 for women, compared to the median incomes of all men and women over 16 (men at $37,057 and women, $27,194). 44.
CAREGIVING FOR THE AGING
Who Should Be Responsible for the Elderly? Living With The Kids?
Who Should Be Responsible for the Elderly?
Four to seven percent
of the elderly of More Developed Countries live in nursing homes. In the U.S., four percent are in nursing homes. In Canada, 6.8 percent are in a nursing home; in Israel, 4.4 percent, and South Africa, 4.5 percent. 56.
Living With The Kids?
In the U.S., as a rule, elderly don't plan on living with their children; nor do children automatically expect it. To the point that those who do usually come from strong-family ethnic backgrounds where parents' living with children is more common. 57.
550,146
U.S. householders have a parent living with them. That's a 33.2 percent increase from 1990's 412,880. 61.
28 percent
of U.S. elders over 65 live alone. 62.
ELDERS AT RISK
32 percent
of the U.S. population aged 65 to 74 in 2000 had a long-lasting condition or a disability. 72.
72 percent
of the U.S. population aged 85 and over in 2000 had a long-lasting condition or a disability. 73.
36 percent
of U.S. nursing-home nursing and general staff in a survey reported having witnessed at least one incident of physical abuse by other staff members in the preceding year. Ten percent of those surveyed admitted to having committed at least one act of physical abuse themselves. 75.
82 percent
of U.S. nursing-home nursing and general staff in a survey reported having witnessed at least one incident of psychological abuse by other staff members in the preceding year. 40 percent of those surveyed admitted to having committed at least one act of psychological abuse themselves. 76.
At the hands of their children, caregivers or partners during the previous 5 years –
seven percent of Canadian elderly have suffered some form of emotional abuse; one percent have endured financial abuse, and one percent were the victims of physical abuse or sexual assault. 77.
A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WOMEN'S LEGAL STATUS IN THE U.S.
During Colonial times, and up until the 1800s, the legal concept was that status-wise, yes, women were property. And in some ways, they were property in the same sense as those who were slaves, but in others, it was a more complicated status. The principle, called coverture, was that, since a marriage makes a husband and wife into one person, the wife – considered an inferior being – basically ceased to exist as a separate individual, even in a legal context. Therefore, the wife had no legal rights – because how can a person that doesn't exist have rights or do anything? Of course, they don't have rights at all. They can't do anything. Trust us: it made sense at time.
Anyway, so coverture meant that women had no rights. And by that, we mean that it went far beyond women not having the vote. A husband would get to make all the decisions for her. She could not own land. She could not keep salary she earned. If her husband died, she did not get to decide who got custody of her children. Anything that she owned prior to marriage – from property ownership to inheritance – instantly become her husband's once the vows were said. All of that was under the control of her husband. In exchange for all of these rights, and with the understanding that she could no longer do anything for herself, the husband would be responsible for provide his wife and their children with “necessities” (or he could pay someone else to provide them, if doing it himself proved too inconvenient). He would provide for them in the same way he did any of his other possessions. If he was a particularly good guy, the husband would include her in his will, leaving her what was known as "a dower," – approximately 1/3 of his land to live on if she outlived him. He had to do that, because she wouldn't automatically inherit any of it – so she and the children could have been kicked out of her own home at his death. 1.
In the mid-1800s, within the larger women’s rights/suffragette movement, women began to demand rights until, on a state by state basis, laws known as the Married Women’s Property Acts began to be passed. (Similar movements were also going on in the U.K. at this time as well.) Gradually, women were being given rights to hold property, make contracts, keep the salary she earned, etc. 2.
The MWPA’s and achievement of women's suffrage did not resolve, however, other social/legal manifestations of women’s status. You could still legally discriminate for jobs, salary, etc. It wasn’t until Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that job discrimination and other related forms of gender-based discrimination were outlawed. Defining what that law meant took years. 3.
Many other societal/legal barriers existed. It wasn’t until the 1970s and 1980s that these other manifestations began to be challenged (e.g. different rates for government benefits, state child support statutes had different cut-offs for boys (21 years) than girls (18), to different gender/age drinking laws, to of course, job discrimination in hiring, hours, and wages).
Traditionally, the law considered that marriage meant a woman had given husband her irrevocable consent to sex. Men could have sex with their wives any time they wished – since she was "his" (they wisely used Biblical quotes, instead of saying property), she couldn't object. There was no such thing as rape within a marriage. (Or spousal abuse, for that matter) Under the coverture logic, you and your wife are a single individual, and you can't rape yourself. If women were seen as property, men had the right to do what they wanted with their property – including beat and rape it. (And in fact, back in the day, it used to be that rape by someone other than a spouse was not a crime against the wife, herself, but was actually a crime against the husband – i.e. the property owner.). Any way you looked at it, women had no recourse. There was little if any discussion considering otherwise. It wasn't until the 1970s that people even considered that there was such a crime as marital rape. 4.
And lest you think that is just as far in our past as coverture, think again. The first U.S. marital rape laws weren't passed until the 1970s. It wasn't until July 1993 that marital rape became a crime in all 50 states – and over 30 of them have exceptions that allow for nonconsensual sex in particular circumstances (e.g. if she's incapable of consent because she's unconscious). 5.
Even in 2000s, some states are still trying to sort out things like a husband’s liability to his wife for a tortious injury (like a car accident) or joint liability for contracts (e.g. where he is liable for both of their contracts automatically but she may not be). 6.
MOTHERS' ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
82.5 million
Estimated number of mothers in the United States. 7.
About 5.4 million
In 2003, out of the 7 million married women in couples-households who were not in the labor force for the entire preceding year, 6 million of them (88%) said that the primary reason that they weren't working was to take care of their home and family. 5.4 million of them had husbands who were in the workforce that entire year, and are thus the classic "stay at home mom." These stay-at-home moms took care of almost 11 million children – almost 25 percent of all children living with in a married couple household. 8.
These stay-at-home moms took care of almost 11 million children – almost 25 percent of all children under 15 years old and living in a married couple household. 9.
Five percent
of American mothers of children under the age of 12 in 1950 had a college degree. 10.
Over 18 percent
of American mothers of children under the age of 12 in 1990 had a college degree. 11.
Well, there's theory, and then there's reality –
While research in Western nations supports the idea that mothers are the primary socializing agents for their daughters, in rapidly developing Islamic populations, mothers may be acting less so – even though that's their traditional role there, as well. The problem is that some of Islamic world has utterly transformed into a modern society within a decade or two. The ideas the mothers were raised with may be not just irrelevant, but even damaging to young women who are growing up in a modernized world. 13.
In cross-cultural comparisons of Japanese and American mothers, researchers found marked differences in their perceptions in their roles as mothers. American mothers saw their responsibilities as primarily raising the child through adolescence. They saw that they need to provide physical care for the child, but that the father should aid them in this. And they felt no particular duty to raise the child in relationship to its lineage. Japanese mothers saw themselves as having a life-long responsibility for their children. They believed that they were a part of their husband's lineage, and that their role in that was to raise their children to be respectful, cooperative, and highly achievement-oriented. 14.
DAUGHTERS' ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
85 percent
of American mothers in 1962 believed married couples should have children. 22.
40 percent
of American mothers in 1982 believed that married couples should have children. 23.
One in five
of American daughters in 1993 believed that married couples should have children. 24.
FACTS ABOUT FATHERS AND SONS
66.3 million
Estimated number of fathers in the United States. 1.
26.5 million
Number of fathers in the United States, raising children in married-couple families. 2.
393,000
Number of single fathers in the United States in 1970. 3.
2.3 million
Number of single fathers in the United States in 2005. While that's almost 5.6 times the number there were 35 years ago – it's still just 18 percent of all single-parent families. 4.
And 84 percent –
of those – 4.6 million – who are paying child support are – you guessed it – men. It isn't that much they're paying either: the annual median child support payment is $3,600. 5.
He's the breadwinner –
Of the 6 million households with married mothers who stayed home in 2003 specifically to take care of the home and kids, 5 million of them have a husband who was in the workforce for the entire preceding year. 6.
STAY AT HOME DADS IN THE U.S.
There are many news reports and books floating out there that census has 2 to 2.5 million men are stay-at-home dads – the primary caregivers when mom was at work -- but do not be fooled. Yes, they're responsible for the kids, but that isn't the only thing they're doing – 1.4 million of those men had jobs of their own. The argument some advocates are making is that these men should be included; however, if that were the case, then similarly employed mothers should also be included – and then the numbers of stay-at-home mothers would really seem small by comparison. 23.
And 84 percent –
of those who are paying child support are – you guessed it – men. It isn't that much they're paying either: the annual median child support payment is $3,600. 24.
It might be the economy, not the cherubic smiles of their kids, that really sends fathers home . . . .
|
|
|
|
| 105,000
Estimated number of stay at home dads in the U.S. in 2002. They took care of 189,000 children – just 0.5 percent of the children under 15 living with two married parents. 25.
98,000
Estimated number of stay at home dads in the U.S. in 2003. 26.
56 times more likely
For a child in the U.S. in 2002 with a stay at home parent, it was 56 times more likely that the parent staying at home was his mother, than it was his father. 27.
160,000
In 2003, out of the 1 million married men in couples-households who were not in the labor force for the entire preceding year, just 160,000 said that the primary reason that they weren't working was to take care of their home and family. 28.
& | | |
