Rating: 
Summary: Invaluable
Review: It's not easy being a historian of the family. The media has an instinctive prejudice against the understanding of any ideas which are complex and subtle. Given the right and center right bias of much American political discourse it is hard for a liberal or socialist to get a word in edgewise. Much of the research occurs in scholarly articles that most people never hear of and which will only be noticed if they can be dramatic or alarming.So hats off to Pr. Coontz's wonderful work, which cuts through the cant of "family values." Coontz starts off by noticing the media's tendency to hype alarming and misleading figures. She defuses the infamous 1986 Newsweek suggestion that women over 40 have more chance of being killed by a terrorist than of marrying for the first time. She points out that one reason why parents may be spending 40% less time with their children since 1965 is that the number of children has dropped 28%. The next two chapters point out some of the mythologies of family life in the fifties, and the complex relationships between liberal ideology and the status of women. Really invaluable is the next chapter, on the conservative cant of "self-reliance." As she points out people have always had to rely on family partnerships, godparents, mutual neighborhood aid, ethnic and labour lodges: the Ayn Rand ideal is an utter fantasy. She points out that the Little House on the Prairie books were written by Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter to remove all the help the family received from the community. More important she points out how the American west and American highways, housing and suburbs have all been generously subsidized. In 1988 federal tax subsidies for homeowners were four times as high as direct spending for low-income housing assistance. Coontz also points out that there is precious little evidence that welfare encourages two parent family break-up: a 1987 General Accounting Office report of more than one hundred studies found little connection. Other studies have pointed out that "high-benefit states tend to have a relatively lower proportion of their children in poverty than low-benefit states" while mothers on AFDC have only one-fourth the number of babies while they are on welfare as those mothers who are not. And though poverty programs in the United States were among the least generous in the OECD, they could work when they were allowed to even when the economy stagnated: infant mortality fell in half between 1965 and 1980, a far greater reduction than in the previous 15 years. Coontz provides an invaluable historical perspective on all sorts of issues, such as how the rise of a privatized family moralism coincided with the corrupt and selfish politics of the Gilded Age. If people are upset at the rise in premarital sex, they should note that it has helped reduce prostitution, where in 19th century Savannah there was one prostitute for every 39 men. Coontz also provides useful chapters on the complex nature of state intervention in the family, the history behind women's work, the rise of consumerism. In comparison to these the works of Christopher Lasch, let alone the contributors to Commentary and the New Republic, appear thin and shallow. Coontz helpfully points out that the teenage childbirth rate has fallen by half since 1957, though a far larger proportion occur to unmarried mothers and the teenage pregnancy rate is at least twice that of other Western countries. She also defuses the panic about the toxic effects of day care and divorce, which are too often recklessly exaggerated. The chapter on the black family is especially useful, although it could be updated more. She reminds us that two parent families existed under slavery and were the norm after emancipation. She points out the intense strains these families were placed under, not only in the post-Reconstruction South, but also under the vicious racism of the North. (The position of blacks in antebellum Philadelphia and Boston actually worsened). She points out how blacks bore the brunt of the deindustrializaiton and economic stagnation of the seventies. The average real income of young black men fell 50% from 1973 to 1986. According to the most rigorous studies if black family structures had stayed the same in 1984 as in 1973, the proportion of black children living in poverty would have fallen from 41% to 38%, instead of rising slightly to 43%. Coontz concludes with thoughtful and useful moderate social democratic reforms which would do so much to ameliorate matters. But of course that would mean challenging the dogmas of the right and the opportunism of the centrists who prefer to view unions, racial minorities and feminists as scapegoats for their failure to attract support. So in the end, nothing happened.
Rating:
Summary: Invaluable
Review: It's not easy being a historian of the family. The media has an instinctive prejudice against the understanding of any ideas which are complex and subtle. Given the right and center right bias of much American political discourse it is hard for a liberal or socialist to get a word in edgewise. Much of the research occurs in scholarly articles that most people never hear of and which will only be noticed if they can be dramatic or alarming. So hats off to Pr. Coontz's wonderful work, which cuts through the cant of "family values." Coontz starts off by noticing the media's tendency to hype alarming and misleading figures. She defuses the infamous 1986 Newsweek suggestion that women over 40 have more chance of being killed by a terrorist than of marrying for the first time. She points out that one reason why parents may be spending 40% less time with their children since 1965 is that the number of children has dropped 28%. The next two chapters point out some of the mythologies of family life in the fifties, and the complex relationships between liberal ideology and the status of women. Really invaluable is the next chapter, on the conservative cant of "self-reliance." As she points out people have always had to rely on family partnerships, godparents, mutual neighborhood aid, ethnic and labour lodges: the Ayn Rand ideal is an utter fantasy. She points out that the Little House on the Prairie books were written by Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter to remove all the help the family received from the community. More important she points out how the American west and American highways, housing and suburbs have all been generously subsidized. In 1988 federal tax subsidies for homeowners were four times as high as direct spending for low-income housing assistance. Coontz also points out that there is precious little evidence that welfare encourages two parent family break-up: a 1987 General Accounting Office report of more than one hundred studies found little connection. Other studies have pointed out that "high-benefit states tend to have a relatively lower proportion of their children in poverty than low-benefit states" while mothers on AFDC have only one-fourth the number of babies while they are on welfare as those mothers who are not. And though poverty programs in the United States were among the least generous in the OECD, they could work when they were allowed to even when the economy stagnated: infant mortality fell in half between 1965 and 1980, a far greater reduction than in the previous 15 years. Coontz provides an invaluable historical perspective on all sorts of issues, such as how the rise of a privatized family moralism coincided with the corrupt and selfish politics of the Gilded Age. If people are upset at the rise in premarital sex, they should note that it has helped reduce prostitution, where in 19th century Savannah there was one prostitute for every 39 men. Coontz also provides useful chapters on the complex nature of state intervention in the family, the history behind women's work, the rise of consumerism. In comparison to these the works of Christopher Lasch, let alone the contributors to Commentary and the New Republic, appear thin and shallow. Coontz helpfully points out that the teenage childbirth rate has fallen by half since 1957, though a far larger proportion occur to unmarried mothers and the teenage pregnancy rate is at least twice that of other Western countries. She also defuses the panic about the toxic effects of day care and divorce, which are too often recklessly exaggerated. The chapter on the black family is especially useful, although it could be updated more. She reminds us that two parent families existed under slavery and were the norm after emancipation. She points out the intense strains these families were placed under, not only in the post-Reconstruction South, but also under the vicious racism of the North. (The position of blacks in antebellum Philadelphia and Boston actually worsened). She points out how blacks bore the brunt of the deindustrializaiton and economic stagnation of the seventies. The average real income of young black men fell 50% from 1973 to 1986. According to the most rigorous studies if black family structures had stayed the same in 1984 as in 1973, the proportion of black children living in poverty would have fallen from 41% to 38%, instead of rising slightly to 43%. Coontz concludes with thoughtful and useful moderate social democratic reforms which would do so much to ameliorate matters. But of course that would mean challenging the dogmas of the right and the opportunism of the centrists who prefer to view unions, racial minorities and feminists as scapegoats for their failure to attract support. So in the end, nothing happened.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: Setting out to shatter the idea that the 1950s was the perfect era, and that America's problems could be fixed if only we could somehow reclaim the values of that era, she gives a history of marriage and family culture in general, and an examination of the 1950s in particular. Her portrayal of the American family as being in perpetual flux and periodic crisis is quite fascinating, as is her review of many cultural trends occurring before, during, and after the 1950s. First off, let me say that this book is highly polemical in nature. Sadly, Professor Coontz apparently did not have confidence that the data she presents would prove sufficiently strong to support her case, so she practiced a certain amount of hyperbole. Any anti-1950s spin that could be grasped was shoved into the book, some of it of a highly speculative nature. (For example: "Surely some of the bizarre behaviors that Joan Crawford exhibited toward her children, according to her daughter's bitter remembrance, Mommie Dearest, flowed from the frustration of being forced into a domestic role about which she was intensely ambivalent." - P36) That said, I did find Professor Coontz's history of the American family quite interesting and informative. As a fan of the generational studies of Messrs. Howe and Strauss, I was fascinated by the way that this author's study ties in with theirs. So, let me say that this book is quite interesting, and is valuable reading material for anyone interested in a historical look at the American Family. I would suggest that you skim certain oppressively political sections of this book, but that you do read it.
Rating:
Summary: A must get for your local conservative politician
Review: Since its inception, the religious right has attempted to convince America that the world would be better and all of our social problems would be resolved if we could magically transport back to the 1950's as represented in Leave it to Beaver and countless other comedies designed to "imitate" the emerging WASP middle-class suburban lifestyle. Yet as Stephanie Coontz points out, this was a Hollywood myth that never existed in real life. Instead, women were maimed from illegal abortions, gays were bashed at an alarming rate, schools were segregated, the disabled were hidden and sexual and domestic violence supposedly did not happen to "good" people. Telling it like it really was is not a PC fairy tale, but a practical reality if we are to finally confront and undo some of America's social problems. Politicians, particularly on the right, have been successful in exploiting and appropriating this myth for their own personal means precisely because there have been few watchdogs to challenge them. Were this possible, we would discover the new left had its roots in the backlash against Senator Joe McCarthy and his communist witch hunts. The cover picture with a young Robin Morgan is particularly ironic in light of the fact that the former "Mama" child star reincarnated herself as one of the most prolific and articulate leaders of the new left and women's liberation in the 1960's. Family Values have become such an emotional election issue because we are not really sure what they mean. Sure, any politician (indeed most do out of a fear of being perceived as anti-family) can embrace the concept and even make a career out of such proclamations, but our realities have been less than stellar pictures. The section on teenage pregnancy and unwed mothers confirms that the higher rates occurred before the legalization of birth control and the relegalization of abortion and the only difference is that girls who chose to keep their babies are not shipped off to maternity homes or forced to leave school. Additionally, she points out the young girls who engage in sexual activity are not feminists because they are more likely than non-sexually active peers to have very strong dependence needs and desires as well as traditional gender roles. I also believe Coontz should have done more investigating on the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and the legal system that essentially encouraged it by allowing it to go unchecked. In the greatest of ironies, the decade where GLBT Americans enjoyed the least amount of rights was also the times when child hood sexual abuse was the highest. However, I realize Coontz was trying to provide a general overview with this book and believe that the subsection could provide enough material for a separate book of its own. While I realize it may be difficult for some readers to reconcile starry-eyed visions with this more pragmatic account, the resulting intellectual growth is a concise picture of what America was really like. Perhaps now, the religious right will quit screaming and join the proactive discussion on family life.
Rating:
Summary: Reality bites
Review: Television and our collective, if faulty, memory, leaves us with the impression that if our families could just get back to "the good old days" then everything would be great. Unfortunately, we are remembering a day that never existed, except on television. Coontz write not to attack families, but to encourage us to seek after a realistic model of family life, rather than an unworkable fantasy. This book provides detailed history on the changing family in America. Particularly interesting is the many parallels between the family of the late 19th century, and that of the late 20th. Interesting statistics combined with amusing anecdotes make this book an excellent read. Nick Kasoff - WGNU Radio, St. Louis
Rating:
Summary: Reality bites
Review: Television and our collective, if faulty, memory, leaves us with the impression that if our families could just get back to "the good old days" then everything would be great. Unfortunately, we are remembering a day that never existed, except on television. Coontz write not to attack families, but to encourage us to seek after a realistic model of family life, rather than an unworkable fantasy. This book provides detailed history on the changing family in America. Particularly interesting is the many parallels between the family of the late 19th century, and that of the late 20th. Interesting statistics combined with amusing anecdotes make this book an excellent read. Nick Kasoff - WGNU Radio, St. Louis
Rating:
Summary: Busting Propaganda
Review: The mindset of so many regarding the "good old days" is the very reason why so many people NEED to read this book! The only difference between now, the 1950's, the Victorian era, and any other time in history is that now we are exposed to reality (and propaganda) at a higher and faster rate than ever before (via mass media and other technology). Yes, I'd like to go back to the 50's - when fathers and grandfathers could abuse their children and wives and neighbors would turn the other way, when "perfect" mothers lived on dexedrine and valium and martinis made everyone's lives a little more bearable. When "unwed" mothers (forget the unwed fathers who happened to be part of the picture) were shunned, hidden, and sent away and the subject was so taboo that even reality couldn't shed light on it. Besides - teen sex? Who needed it when you got married at the ripe old ages of 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18?! And prostitution? Come on, prostitution has been around since biblical times, and pornography for almost as long. Of course, in the minds of those who "revere" the good old days (whose attitude is REALLY one of "I'm better than you are"), prostitution was and is a stigma on WOMEN, and neglects to mention that each act of heterosexual prostitution also involves a MAN. And hey, who wouldn't want a little opium in their pain reliever or a little "coke" in their soda. Wake up! Human nature and behavior have NOT changed significantly in the past few centuries. Any reasonable, open-minded look into the REAL history (not the idealized or romanticized version) of families, relationships, marriage, and sex (as well as drugs and "rock & roll") will quickly prove to any intelligent person that it isn't human nature that has changed, it is technology (well, that and ECONOMIC INEQUITY). If anything is "tearing families apart", it isn't the degradation of human nature, but the rapid increase of severe social, economic, and political disparity that does not allow families a stay at home parent (man or woman), time together, or any sense of economic security - and that, my friends, has NOTHING to do with sex or drugs. Bravo to Ms. Coontz for facing up to our ridiculous notions of the "good old days". I for one would rather know the truth any day than be trapped in some modern day version of Dante's cave, in which the only reality I would ever know or believe was the one that some other person chose to display to me. Come on, people, think for yourselves! And PLEASE, pass this book onto anyone and everyone you know (and there's a reward out for anyone who can get my grandfather to read it)!
Rating:
Summary: Points well-taken
Review: The way certain religiopolitically conservative zealots see it, the 1950's-model Levittown-type family--essentially white, middle-class, male dominant, women and children expected to be subservient--is perhaps the ideal and perfection for where America ought to be, especially once they finally achieve the ascendency politically and ideologically. In effect, the perfection of Traditional Moral and Familial Values as are the bedrock of America's Soverignty Antient and Pecuilar--especially so in the (presumed) face of the "New World Order" and all that such stands for. But as Ms. Coontz clearly and skillfully points out, such an ideal was (and is) a sham, designed in service to the defence of capitalism as the defence of Americanism in the Cold War. Not to mention being subtly racist and way removed from Reality, among other startling revelations that space prevents detailing here. Hence, anyone as loves to "talk the talk" about Traditional Values being the presumed hope for America and Americanism may want to read this and get a dose of Reality for once. And maybe change their take on the world for once.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read!
Review: This book is a gem! Here is a thoroughly researched explanation of many of the attitudes toward family that pervade the American psyche today and keep us from moving forward. Growing up in a "broken" home, under non-traditional circumstances, I always felt like a freak -- like my family and I were substandard. I looked upon my parents as failures. As I read this book, I came to understand what they were up against as a young couple coming of age in the '50's -- trying to live up to an unrealistic and, ultimately, detrimental image of what a family was supposed to be. Thank you, Ms. Coontz, for allowing me to see my parents as people, and to find a new love and respect for them. And, for helping me to reconsider my own value system.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read!
Review: This book is a gem! Here is a thoroughly researched explanation of many of the attitudes toward family that pervade the American psyche today and keep us from moving forward. Growing up in a "broken" home, under non-traditional circumstances, I always felt like a freak -- like my family and I were substandard. I looked upon my parents as failures. As I read this book, I came to understand what they were up against as a young couple coming of age in the '50's -- trying to live up to an unrealistic and, ultimately, detrimental image of what a family was supposed to be. Thank you, Ms. Coontz, for allowing me to see my parents as people, and to find a new love and respect for them. And, for helping me to reconsider my own value system.
|
