The American family is encountering many hardships and if these problems are not addressed, future generations will suffer. In 1946 for every 1,000 adults 16 of them were married, while in 2013 that number of marriages decreased to 6.8 per 1,000 people (Zagorsky). This reduction in the number of marriages has come with consequences that affect families raising children and partners in romantic relationships. The decline in the U.S marriage rate has been affected by the reorganization of family life and intimate relationships, such as the decrease in institutional marriages and a focus on individual growth before marriage, unrealistic relationship expectations, and an increase in cohabitation for the possibility of benefits, all of which have had an adverse impact on the number of successful marriages and properly raised children. 

The idea of a marriage based on the partner’s individual needs came from a change over the years due to the shift of the preconceived roles each gender has had in the past. During the 1950’s the average American household was structured with certain ideals. The population is parting from past values such as a firm religious backbone and the breadwinner-homemaker marriage that blossomed in the 1950’s. People then evaluated how content they were with their marriage based on the amount of satisfaction they received from raising a family and following the roles of a spouse and a parent. The public is now prioritizing their sense of self and emotions ahead of other elements of marriage such as child rearing (Cherlin). This movement to emphasize individuality created a change in the dynamic of a romantic relationship. For some it even made the idea of finding a perfect balance in a marriage seem like a fairy tale. 

The individualization of young adults is comparable to the hippie culture in the 1960s and 70’s. So much so, that the trend of cohabitation or putting marriage off for later years began in the 60s (Cherlin). During the 1960s and part of the 70s, people began to look inside themselves to further develop individually. This way of thinking initiated a trend, where people began to find their inner peace.

The individualization of America was quickly endorsed by the media. In the 1960s and 70s, the transition into the individualistic marriage was accelerated due to the medias involvement. At that time, the media reached the public through newspapers and magazines. In many articles, authors focused on three beliefs to an individualized marriage. In a print by Francesca Cancian, she elaborates on the meaning of three motifs consistent with the attributes of a typical post-1960 marriage. The first was self-development, meaning that each partner should establish a content, independent self; rather than constantly forfeiting one’s own beliefs for their partner. The next characteristic of an individualized marriage is having flexible and debatable roles. This change was important to women because of the strict confines of their role as the homemaker in the 1950s. The final belief is that a marriage should be open-ended and that it is necessary to confront problems in the marriage. These ideals became the backbone of marriage during the last decades of the century. She summarizes this transition simply, “a shift in emphasis from role to self.” (Cancian) This exemplifies how marriage was a position people filled because it was the only acceptable way to have children and be sexually active. Today and after the sixties, marriage has transferred into people predetermining characteristics they want from their marriage. 

Furthermore, these expectations that an individualistic marriage is derived from create complications with the lasting success of the marriage. The popular style of marriage has a foundation of characteristics previously mentioned. These ideals are intended as advice to improve the individuals marital experience; however, if the expectations of one spouse do not compliment the other’s expectations they will have difficulty maintaining a lasting marriage. Because many people want a relationship that takes prescience to their individual needs, has flexible roles, and is translucent to its complications this is what they come to expect (Cancian). A survey, done by Clark University Poll of Emerging Adults, found that 86 percent of 18-29 year olds expect their marriage to last a life time. This is already unrealistic because the current divorce rate is at 50 percent (Lotze). This is evidence that a romantic relationship will not always be what was intended. The expectations recently discussed are some of the leading causes of divorce among American couples. From a study from the Journal of Family Issues about the reasons for divorce 7.8 percent of people said their own personality problems attributed to the divorce. This reflects on the individual not being content with one’s self, an expectation of an individualistic marriage. Also, 8.8 percent of the surveyed population said that growing apart from one another was their reason for divorce. These married couples should have been openly communicating and problem solving, but because the couple did not realistically evaluate the proper level of communication the relationship dissolved (Amato and Previti).

All in all, because of the emergence of the individualistic marriage during the 1960’s, many people desired the qualities of a relationship similar to Cancian’s. In the cases of failed marriages 39.8 percent of them were connected to the beliefs of an individualized romantic relationship (Amato and Previti). A couple must spend time with one another before they fully commit to marriage. This period before commitment will allow each partner to evaluate if their ideal expectations will complement their lovers.

For some people, finding this balance between their own relationship and starting a new family may seem like a pipe dream. Recently in America, the marriage rate has reached an all-time low. Roughly thirty years ago, forty eight percent of the baby boomer generation was getting married compared to recent statistics showing only twenty-six percent of millennials doing the same (Collins). This data illustrates the evident decline in marriage. It is said that this change has come from millennials having a cynical and individualistic approach to life and their relationships (Fox News). Barbara Whitehead, an intellectual with a Ph.D. in American Social History said, “Westerners are shifting from a concern for their children’s future to a self-orientation that gives priority to individuals’ desires rather than to the needs of spouses and children” (Whitehead 4). This quote from the essay, The Decline of Marriage as the Social Basis of Childrearing, explicitly addresses the new mindset of the American people and the problems that this shift is causing. 

The new mindset of many Americans is based on the individual emotional and physical contentment of each partner; where does the emotional and physical well-being of a child take priority? Couples that base their success on the quality of their individual feelings, not the success of their parenthood, are causing problems for their child’s development. In a survey with a population of mixed relationship status, of the divorced population only 50 percent of people said they were satisfied with family life. Compared to the 84 percent of the married population that find satisfaction from their family life (PewResearchCenter). This proves that divorce causes more unsatisfactory family relations. The loss of happiness towards family life comes from the complications that a divorce creates, for example financial expenses and raising a child alone.  

Money may not be able to buy happiness, but having adequate money to properly take care of and raise a child will get rid of worries that most parents have when their budget is small. The average expenditures a couple would spend on a three to five-year-old is about $9,100 per year. It is evident that a single mother with an average income of roughly $25,000 would struggle to afford this expense (Whitehead). Given this amount of income, a parent would struggle to improve their child’s well-being. One way a parent can improve their child’s future is by providing them the proper education. A single parent with this level of income may be receiving funding from a child support program. However, when the adolescent turns eighteen many states no longer legally require child support. This creates a problem because a parent’s investment in his or her child’s education should increase, but the support stops coming.  In today’s age where it is crucial to have a college education. These parents are given no other option but to disinvest in their child’s academic goals, leaving them at a disadvantage. Divorced parents are at an even greater disadvantage, in 2008, 36.5 percent of children living in a split house, live in a household with an income below the poverty line. While only 6.4 percent of married couples with children were under the poverty threshold (U.S.D.H.H). This means these families do not have enough money to adequately meet their family’s necessities. This statistic is proof that families that stay together are financially better off.  

 Along with the importance of being financially sound, the strength of the parent’s relationship is as important to the children as being raised. The family dynamic has changed over the past 200 years. Originally a child was supported by its extended family, where the loss of a parent has a small effect on the child’s development. Compared to today, a child depends on marital stability for successful future development (Whitehead 7). This stable environment is dependent on parental investment and affection for the child. Thus, the weakening and/or decrease of marriages has had adverse consequences for children. Some of the negative results of this trend include behavior issues, the lack of a proper education, and future relationship problems (Cherlin).

Due to the cause-and-effect relationship caused by the marriage crisis, young adolescent Americans (5-14 years old) are suffering. According to the book The Marriage Go Round by Andrew Cherlin, a group of researchers followed over 1,000 families and their newborns till the first grade. This study analyzed the behavior of the children. When looking at children that experienced multiple family transitions (mother or father finding a new partner), the study showed that they are more likely to be disruptive and not follow their teacher’s instructions (Cherlin). In families where a mother or father goes through relationship issues, their child is prone to have poor grades, skip school, and not complete their school work. This is caused by less attention on the success of a child and more focus on fixing the problems each parent has with one another. These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of a child’s behavioral development. Raising a child properly takes time, effort, and, especially, a stable and adequate source of income. 

The essential elements needed to raise a child are based off of a stable familial foundation and a consistent source of income. A successful child rearing marriage consists of both qualities. Because the decline of marriage success and an increase in divorce rate, children are negatively affected by low income and split households. Young adolescents will not only suffer the consequences from a young age, like behavior issues, but also will be effected later in their life (Cherlin). Many of these children effected will have a greater chance of divorce because of they came from a broken marriage. In a General Social Survey comparing the percent of people ever divorced, 18 percent of the intact family category said they have divorced. When 28 percent of people that lived in a separated household said they have divorced (Fagan). This gap is not beneficial to future generations because if the child does not break out of these norms they will continue to happen. It is evident that these problems would cease to exist if the marriage was financially sound and the married couple was dedicated to raising a child together. 

A part of the population may disagree that marriage is the best way to dignify a romantic relationship. An alternative that people consider is cohabitation, defined as the state of living together and having a sexual relationship without being married (Wilcox). While many people believe that this would be beneficial to their future relationship, demographic studies have shown:

The belief that living together before marriage is a useful way “to find out whether you really get along,” … and avoid a bad marriage…, is now widespread among young people. But the available data on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm this belief… those who live together before marriage are likely to break up after marriage (Wilcox).

During this period, many people believe that they would be able to work out their problems they might have with their partner. While most of the time this will lead to the demise of the relationship. For example, as people put off marriage for their own individual reasons, they will continue to participate in a sexually active relationship. 60 percent of Americans believed that premarital sex was not wrong and eight percent had no stance on the issue (PewResearchCenter). It is a well-known fact that sex leads to pregnancy, whether it be planned or not. Of unmarried women 4.34 percent had a child in 2014 (U.S.D.H.H), not including terminated pregnancies. Ironically, at the same time most people are fine with premarital sex, even more believe it is a bad thing for a single mother to raise a child at a striking 69 percent (PewResearchCenter). Unmarried couples raising a child are on the wrong side of the data. A study shows that even before a newborn’s first birthday, 17 percent of unmarried couples raising a child have split (Steele) and this percentage continues to rise after each year. Interpreting these statistics, one can see how high rates of sex outside of marriage, which is a practice of cohabitation, will lead to pregnancies. This will eventually lead to harmful effects on the relationship and the children that may be involved. Results such as financial instability and separation. These consequences create a cycle of bad habits and decisions that continue into the next generation. These decisions can be attributed to lower levels of education causing this misconception that cohabitation would benefit a marriage in the future. A disappointing statistic among those aged 25 to 44 years old, 75 percent of those who never completed high school have cohabited, compared to 50 percent of college graduates (Unmarried Cohabitation).

Recently in the media, people are calming that today’s youth will not be prepared for the real world, they are hoodlums, or are pampered. The reason for the problems children are having today are derived from the unsuccessful marriages and worthless childrearing. Which are all increasing due to the reorganization of family life and intimate relationships caused by the individualization of marriages, the increase in cohabitation, and impractical relationship expectations.  Nonetheless, these conceptions of the American youth can be controlled and altered. The adult population desperately needs to take action and evaluate their decision of having a child. It is up to them to realize if their relationship can handle the responsibility of a newborn. It is also their duty to raise their child in the proper environment as a method to best prepare them for the future. 
