Advertisement

Gender, Marriage, and Family in Post-industrial Society: An International Perspective

  • Ryan Sheppard
Chapter

The family retains a central position across societies, despite massive changes wrought largely by globalization and other macrosocial forces. As a basic social unit and institution, the family performs many functions for both its members and the larger society, including reproduction, socialization of children, economic support, and care for the young, the ill, and the aged. The family’s relative ability or inability to perform these functions well can ease or exacerbate a host of social problems.

Keywords

European Union Child Care Total Fertility Rate Parental Leave Divorce Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, B. N. (2004). Families and family study in international perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1076–1088.Google Scholar
  2. Ambert, A. (2005). Divorce: Facts, causes, and consequences. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The Vanier Institute of the Family. http://www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/divorce_05.html
  3. AmeriStat staff. (2003a). More U.S. women outearning their husbands. Washington, D.C.: The Population Reference Bureau.Google Scholar
  4. AmeriStat staff. (2003b). Traditional families account for only 7% of U.S. households. Washington, D.C.: The Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/TraditionalFamiliesAccountforOnly7PercentofUSHouseholds.aspx Google Scholar
  5. Amu, O., & Appiah, K. (2006). Teenage pregnancy in the United Kingdom: Are we doing enough? The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 11(4), 314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, B. J. (2000). Doing the dirty work?: The global politics of domestic labour. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  7. Andersson, G. (2002). Dissolution of unions in Europe: A comparative overview. Paper presented at the conference on Divorce in a Cross-National Perspective: A European Network in Florence, Italy, November 14–15, 2002. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2003-004.pdf
  8. Batalova, J. A., & Cohen, P. N. (2002). Premarital cohabitation and housework: Couples in cross-national perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(3), 743–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleijenbergh, I., & Roggeband, C. (2007). Equality machineries matter: The impact of women's political pressure on European social-care policies. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, doi:10.1093/sp/jxm018.Google Scholar
  10. Bryceson, D. F., & Vuorela, U. (2003). Transnational families in the twenty-first century. In D. F. Bryceson & U. Vuorela (Eds.), The transnational family: New frontiers and global networks (pp. 3–30). Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., Bruchon-Schwreitzer, M., et al. [54 co-authors] (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Doi: 10.1177/0022022190211001.Google Scholar
  12. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(4), 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clawson, D., & Gerstel, N. (2002). Caring for our young: Child care in Europe and the United States. Contexts, 1(4), 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clearinghouse staff. (2005a). Early childhood education and care. Clearinghouse on international developments in child, youth and family policies. New York, NY: Columbia University School of Social Work. http://www.childpolicyintl.org/Google Scholar
  16. Clearinghouse staff. (2005b). Table 2.31b: Mother’s employment rates by age of youngest child, in 2002, percentage. Clearinghouse on international developments in child, youth and family policies. New York, NY: Columbia University School of Social Work. http://www.childpolicyintl.org/Google Scholar
  17. Clearinghouse staff. (2003a). Table 2.12 Mean age of women at first childbirth. Clearinghouse on international developments in child, youth and family policies. New York, NY: Columbia University School of Social Work. http://www.childpolicyintl.org/Google Scholar
  18. Clearinghouse staff. (2003b). Table 2.18 Percentage of different types of lone mother families: most recent data. Clearinghouse on international developments in child, youth and family policies. New York, NY: Columbia University School of Social Work. http://www.childpolicyintl.org/Google Scholar
  19. Cliquet, R. (2003). Major trends affecting families in the new millennium: Western Europe and North America, in Major trends affecting families: A background document. New York, NY: UN Programme on the Family. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf Google Scholar
  20. Cohn, D. (2007). Do parents spend enough time with their children? Population Reference Bureau. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/DoParentsSpendEnoughTimeWithTheirChildren.aspx Google Scholar
  21. Crighton, E., & Ebert, M. (2002). RU 486 and abortion practices in Europe: From legalization to access. Women & Politics, 24(3). http://eucenter.scrippscollege.edu/pdfs/Crighton-Ebert.pdf
  22. De Silva, I. (2003). Demographic and social trends affecting families in the south and central Asian region. Major trends affecting families: A background document. 2003. New York, NY: United Nations Programme on the Family. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtdesilva.pdf Google Scholar
  23. Dreby, J. (2006). Honor and virtue: Mexican parenting in the transnational context. Gender & Society, 20(1), 32–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Commission’s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities. (n.d.). Gender equality. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?atId=418&langId=en
  25. European Commission. (2006). A Roadmap for equality between women and men: 2006–2010. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/emplweb/gender_equality/publications_en.cfm
  26. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Rumbaut, R. G., & Settersten, R. A., Jr., (2005). On the frontier of adulthood: Emerging themes and new directions. In R. A. Setterten Jr., Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., & Ruben G. Rumbaut (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gautier, A. (2005). Legal regulation of martial relations: An historical and comparative approach. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family, 19(1), 47–72.Google Scholar
  28. Harding, R., & Peel, E. (2006). ‘We do’? International perspectives on equality, legality, and same-sex relationships. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 7(2), 123–140.Google Scholar
  29. Heymann, J., Earle, A., Simmons, S., Breslow, S., & Kuehnoff, A. (2004). The work, family, and equity index: Where does the United States stand globally? Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health, The Project for Working Families. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/globalworkingfamilies/images/report.pdf
  30. Heymann, S. J., Penrose, K., & Earle, A. (2006). Meeting children's needs: How does the United States measure up? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(2),189–215. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/merrill-palmer_quarterly/v052/52.2heymann.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hochschild, A. R. (2000). Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In W. Hutton, & A. Giddens, (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  32. Hongdaneu-Sotelo, P., & Avila, E. (1997). “I'm here, but I’m there”: The meanings of Latina transnational motherhood. Gender & Society, 11(5), 548–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jelin, E., & Diaz-Munoz, A. R. (2003). Major trends affecting families: South America in perspective. Major trends affecting families: A background document. New York, NY: UN Programme on the Family. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf Google Scholar
  34. Jensen, R., & Thornton, R. (2003). Early marriage in the developing world. Gender and Development, 11(2), 9–19.Google Scholar
  35. Kamerman, S. (2004). Maternity and parental leaves, 1999–2002 (Table 1.11). Comparative child, youth and family policies and programs: Benefits and services. New York, NY: Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies, Columbia University School of Social Work http://www.childpolicyintl.org/Google Scholar
  36. Kamerman, S., & Gatenio, S. (2002a). Mother's day: More than candy and flowers, working parents need paid time-off. Issue brief, Spring 2002, Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies, Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, NY: Clearinghouse http://www.childpolicyintl.org/Google Scholar
  37. Kamerman, S., & Gatenio, S. (2002b). Tax day: How do America’s child benefits compare? Issue brief, Spring 2002, Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies, Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, NY: Clearinghouse http://www.childpolicyintl.org/Google Scholar
  38. Karraker, M. W. (2008). Global families. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  39. Kashiwase, H. (2002). Shotgun weddings a sign of the times in Japan. Population Today. (July 2002) http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/ShotgunWeddingsaSignoftheTimesinJapan.aspx
  40. Lalasz, R. (2004). Domestic violence in developing countries: An intergenerational crisis. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2004/DomesticViolenceinDevelopingCountriesAnIntergenerationalCrisis.aspx Google Scholar
  41. Lambert, P. A. (2008). The comparative political economy of parental leave and child care: Evidence from twenty OECD countries. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 15(3), 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mandel, H., & Seymonov, M. (2005). Family policies, wage structure, and fender gaps: Sources of earnings inequality in 20 countries. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 949–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin, G., & Kats, V. (2003). Families and work in transition in 12 countries, 1980–2001. Monthly Labor Review, 126(9), 3–31. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2003/09/art1full.pdf Google Scholar
  44. McDonald, P. (2002). Sustaining fertility through public policy: The range of options. Population 57, 416–446. http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_REVUE=POPE&ID_NUMPUBLIE=POPE_203&ID_ARTICLE=POPE_203_0417 Google Scholar
  45. Morgan, K. J., & Zippel, K. (2003). Paid to care: The origins and effects of care leave policies in Western Europe. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 10:49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parrenas, R. S. (2005). Children of global migration: Transnational families and gendered woes. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Parrenas, R. S. (2002). The care crisis in the Philippines: Children and transnational families in the new global economy. In B. Ehrenreich & A. R. Hochschild (Eds.), Global women: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy (pp. 39–54). New York: Metropolitan.Google Scholar
  48. Philipov, D. (2003). Major trends affecting families in Central and Eastern Europe. Major trends affecting families: A background document. New York, NY: United Nations Programme on the Family. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtphilipov.pdf Google Scholar
  49. Population Reference Bureau staff. (2008). World population data sheet, 2008. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.Google Scholar
  50. Population Reference Bureau staff. (2007). World population highlights. Population Bulletin, 62(3). Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.Google Scholar
  51. Population Reference Bureau staff. (2004). Transitions in World Population. Population Bulletin, 59(1). Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/Source/ACFFF4.pdfs Google Scholar
  52. Quah, S. R. (2003). Major trends affecting families in East and Southeast Asia. Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document. New York, NY: United Nations Programme on the Family. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtrendsbg.htm Google Scholar
  53. Rashad, H., Osman, M., & Roudi-Fahimi, F. (2005). Marriage in the Arab world. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/Publications/PolicyBriefs/MarriageintheArabWorld.aspx Google Scholar
  54. Roopnarine, J. L., & Gielen, U. P. (2005). Families in global perspective: An introduction. In J. L. Roopnarine & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Families in global perspective (pp. 3–13). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  55. Sana, E. A. (2007). Filipino migrant domestic workers: An overview. Presentation to the Asian Domestic Workers Assembly, June 16–17, 2007, Astoria Plaza, Pasig City. http://www.mfasia.org/mfaResources/ACGFMD-Filipino%20Migrant%20Domestic%20Workers.pdf
  56. Shanahan, M. J., Porfeli, E. J., Mortimer, J. T., & Erickson, L. D. (2005). Subjective age identity and the transition to adulthood: When do adolescents become adults? In R. A. Setterten Jr., F. F. Furstenberg Jr., R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sorrentino, C. (1990). The changing family in international perspective. Monthly Labor Review 113(3), 41–58Google Scholar
  58. Speulda, N., & McIntosh, M. (2004). Global gender gaps. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=90 Google Scholar
  59. Ulrich, R. E. (2001). Most European women use contraceptives, yet some still have surprise pregnancies. New York, NY: Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/MostEuropeanWomenUseContraceptives.aspx Google Scholar
  60. UNESCO. (2004). Global monitoring report 2003/4: Lessons from good practice. New York, NY: UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=24165&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  61. United Nations. (2006). In-depth study on all forms of violence aginst women: Report of the Secretary-General, New York, NY: United Nations http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/419/74/PDF/N0641974.pdf?OpenElement
  62. United Nations. (2007). Follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the international year of the family and beyond. New York, NY: United Nations. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/434/53/PDF/N0743453.pdf?OpenElement Google Scholar
  63. United Nations Statistics Division. (1968, 1976, 2000). Demographic Yearbooks. New York, NY: United Nations. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/mar/marDYB.htm Google Scholar
  64. Varia, N. (2007). Globalization Comes Home: Protecting Migrant Domestic Workers’ Rights. Human Rights Watch world report 2007. http://www.hrw.org/wr2k7/essays/globalization/globalizationcomeshome.pdf
  65. Whitehead, B. D., & Popenoe, D. (2005). Marriage and family: What does the Scandinavian experience tell us? The state of our unions: The social health of marriage in America. Piscataway, NJ: The National Marriage Project at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2005.htm

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologySt. Olaf CollegeNorthFieldUSA

Personalised recommendations