| Marriage makes a comeback
by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe
Boston Globe May 12, 2026
WHILE politicians squabble over whether welfare recipients should be encouraged to marry, marriage itself is enjoying something of a cultural comeback. No one is calling for the return to 1950s style marriage, but there is a growing sense that marriage might be worth saving after all. From the mid-1960s through the 1980s, many academics and intellectuals branded marriage as a bankrupt institution of patriarchy. Memoirists and novelists told stories of abusive, incestuous, cruel, and loveless marriages. Movies like ''Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?'' turned a merciless eye on the marital relationship. A bestselling book entitled ''Open Marriage'' argued for infidelity. Not surprisingly, it was in this same period that divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates skyrocketed and the marriage rate plummeted.
Today there is a reconsideration of the institution as well as the marital partnership. Academics are now writing books that extol marriage. Relationship gurus urge couples to bust divorce and to take back their marriage. Marriage has resurfaced on television as well. From cheesy reality programs like ABC's ''The Bachelor'' to classier offerings like Michael Apted's forthcoming documentary ''Married in America,'' marriage has become a popular theme once again. Even MTV's hit reality show, ''The Osbournes,'' wins praise for having a punk marriage that works.
Marriage promotion movements have been launched in at least four states, and hundreds of American communities have established ''community marriage policies,'' whereby the clergy in these communities agree to better prepare young people before they marry. The state of Florida has mandated the teaching of marriage and relationship skills for all its high schools.
Why this cultural change of heart about marriage? A large part of the answer lies in the generational shift. As the baby boom generation edges into its Dr. Scholl years, Gen Xers, the men and women born roughly in the late '60s and '70s, have entered their marrying years. They've waited longer than their parents to wed. The median age of first marriage for women today is 25, and for men, 27, compared to 20 and 23, respectively, in 1960. But as these young adults approach the prime marrying years, their generational views are contributing to the cultural reappraisal of marriage itself. Unlike baby boomers, who saw marriage as part of the standard life script for adults, this generation does not take marriage for granted. They've grown up in the midst of the divorce revolution, and the experience, like the Viet Nam war for boomers, has indelibly shaped their outlook. A Gallup survey of twentysomething men and women conducted last year for Rutgers National Marriage Project reveals this generation's reaction against divorce. Close to nine out of 10 (88 percent) agree that the divorce rate is too high. Slightly more than half (52 percent) and an even higher percentage of those in their late 20s (60 percent) agree that one of their biggest concerns about getting married is the possibility it will end in divorce.
Their fear of divorce shapes the GenXer's attitudes toward future marriage. If baby boom parents went into their first marriages blithely, these young adults are going into marriage with far more trepidation and determination to make it work. Eighty-six percent of young adults in the same Gallup survey indicate that marriage is hard work and a full-time job.
At the same time, aging baby boomers have changed their views. Reaching the stage of life when rueful second thoughts about past behavior are common, they have become much more concerned about the personal and social costs of divorce, youthful pregnancies, and out-of-wedlock births. They are saying to their children, ''Don't do what we did.''
This cultural shift seems to parallel actual behavior. The drop in marriage rates has greatly diminished, the divorce rate has leveled off, and the rate of out-of wedlock births has stabilized. In the last few years, for the first time in decades, the percentage of children living in two parent families actually increased.
Expectations for a marriage relationship have also changed. Far from objecting to their wives' working outside the home, most young men now count on it. For their part, young women expect their husbands to be emotionally articulate ''best friends'' who are able to ''communicate their deepest feelings.'' For most young people today, the male-dominated, power-imbalanced marriage is a thing of the past.
The greatest beneficiaries of the return to marriage, of course, would be tomorrow's children. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that children with the highest chance of achieving satisfying and successful lives grow up in families with two biological parents who have a healthy marriage. Far from being ''just a piece of paper,'' a renewal of the institution of marriage can make a crucial contribution to the success and well-being of our society.
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe are co-directors of the National
Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
This story ran on page E8 of the Boston Globe on 5/12/2002. http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/132/oped/Marriage_makes_a_comeback+.shtml
No point in promoting bad marriages
By Philip a Cowan and Carolyn Pape Cowan
Boston Globe May 12, 2026
ONE OF THE objectives of federal welfare legislation passed in 1996 was ''to end dependence by promoting marriage.'' Now, with this legislation coming up for reauthorization, President Bush has called for spending up to $300 million a year to promote marriage among poor people. Should the government promote marriage? And, if so, how can our tax dollars be spent effectively?
One proposal on the table suggests that welfare recipients who marry should be rewarded with lump sum payments. Such a policy is doomed to fail. Nobody benefits when troubled relationships are pushed toward marriage, least of all the children.
More enticing are administration proposals to ''promote healthy marriages'' in order to foster child development. The problem here is that the focus is on marriage as a goal, which obscures what could be a more widely accepted approach. Why not help partners - regardless of their marital or economic status - create more effective and satisfying relationships?
Obviously, a child with two cooperating, committed parents has many advantages. But marriage does not guarantee such cooperation, especially if the union is burdened by economic stress and instability. Numerous studies show that when unresolved conflict and unhappiness characterize a couple's relationship, their children tend to acquire fewer academic and social skills and have more withdrawn or aggressive behavior problems.
To make matters worse, when parents are not getting along, their distress often spills over into their relationships with their children. Some children get a double whammy from the heated or frosty emotional tone of their parents' relationship and from harsh or ineffective patterns of caring and discipline. Children who grow up in such marriages often fare worse than children whose parents divorce or those who live in stable single-parent families.
According to a recent analysis by researchers affiliated with the Council on Contemporary Families, encouraging couples at war to get married or stay married could compromise the well-being of a significant number of children.
We believe that the best approach is to offer help to couples early, before their relationships deteriorate and children begin to suffer. One optimal time for intervention is during the transition to parenthood. The Fragile Families and Child Well-Being study, led by Sara McLanahan and Irwin Garfinkle in 20 US cities, reveals that the majority of unmarried mothers of newborns are in active relationships with the fathers of their babies.
Many of these couples want to get married and intend to do so when their situations become more financially and emotionally stable. The key is to help couples achieve this stability.
Our ongoing studies of new parents reveal that the birth of a child triggers a vulnerable time in the parents' relationship as a couple, even between partners in apparently favorable life situations. Women becoming parents are at increased risk for developing symptoms of depression, and both men and women tend to experience relationship disenchantment that grows over time.
Babies do not cause these problems. However, their arrival can bring new, unexpected challenges for partners, exposing weaknesses that might have gone unrecognized before a baby entered their lives. Few couples receive help at this stressful time. Without it, a majority will find greater conflict within their relationships, with the risk of negative consequences for the child.
Professional assistance can interrupt this negative cycle. Our own couples group intervention studies show that when parents shift in more positive directions, their children reap benefits in greater academic success, better cooperation with peers, and fewer behavior problems at school. In
fact, couples all along the economic spectrum can benefit from timely counseling when stresses threaten their partnership.
Moving from marriage promotion in poor families to relationship support for all couples with children would provide more families with win-win alternatives. Rather than targeting welfare recipients alone, the Bush administration might better spend its money and influence by integrating assistance for couples into public health services or existing health insurance programs. This assistance should take many forms depending on couples' needs. A ''one size fits all'' approach isn't the answer.
More satisfying relationships in already married couples would enhance their children's academic, social, and emotional development. If the relationships of couples who are not married become stronger and more effective, more of them may eventually marry and stay married. Those children will benefit from their parents' increased effectiveness and satisfaction.
Children of couples who choose not to marry may also gain from less conflicted, more satisfying relationships at home. We are convinced that the benefits to families and the communities in which they live would outweigh the costs, making programs to support the relationships between parents a sound investment in family health and children's well-being.
Philip A. Cowan and Carolyn Pape Cowan are professors of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley and senior scholars at the Council on Contemporary Families.
Back to Top | Home
| |
