The Way We Really Are: Coming To Terms With America's Changing Families

A meticulously researched, balanced account, The Way We Really Are shows why a historically-informed perspective on family life can be as much help to people in sorting through family issues as going into therapy--and much more help than listening to today's political debates.

The title of the book misled me a little. With a title like "The Way We Really Are", I expected the book to detail the kinds of families that exist in the US today. I was interested in learning how many families consist of adults with their own children, or with step children, or with no children, and how these numbers are changing. And how many families consist of homosexual couples with children, and is this number growing? How many families are nuclear families, and how many extended families do we find in the US today? Are there differences in these statistics according to race or ethnic background? What about family units that consist of divorced or widowed adults and in-laws, step-parents, or aunts or uncles? But that's not what this book is about. Most of the book deals exclusively with the economic well-being of single and two parent heterosexual nuclear families. Homosexual families are mentioned briefly in a few paragraphs towards the end of the book, and extended families receive no mention at all. Even when Coontz discusses two-parent families with a breadwinner and a homemaker, she always assumes that the breadwinner is a male, and doesn't consider or describe when it's the other way around, or provide statistics about female breadwinner families.

The main thesis of the book seems to be that many American families are in crisis today. The reasons for this are varied, from unrealistic idealization of the 1950s, to government policies that run counter to the needs of families. Coontz argues that right-wing groups that claim to be pro-family by stressing the need for children to be raised in families with 2 married parents may be unrealistic and actually work against the children's welfare.

While I found many of Coontz's arguments convincing, I think she could have gone further by giving a lot more thought to families and economic conditions in other parts of the world rather than confining her research and hypotheses strictly to the US. For instance, she suggests that during the industrial revolution in the US, there was a debate over "whether to protect women's interests by secluding them in the family, away from the rough-and-tumble competition of the capitalist market and political party system, or to grant women the same independent legal and political existence that white men had acquired, so they could claim their interests as a right." Coontz seems to be suggesting here that after the Civil War, women were being kept at home to protect them from market forces, and that that's why they weren't given property rights or allowed to open bank accounts on their own, etc. But given what we find in the rest of the world, I think it may have been the case that women were kept on the farm because of the common trend worldwide to try to keep women in seclusion, as can still be found today throughout the Muslim world, or parts of Asia. And property rights weren't restricted from women just because of industrialization- -I'm not sure, but I think there is a long history of such restrictions throughout European law, as well as in the rest of the world. On the other hand, she may have found support for her thesis that two parent families aren't a panacea in themselves if she had considered modern Japanese families, which very often consist of the two-parent, two child, male breadwinner ideal, and which are quite often completely dysfunctional when judged by American standards, in which we expect the parents to have healthy emotional ties to each other and the children. All in all, while Coontz has some interesting points, I would be more interested in seeing a book with a little less advice and a little more thought about all the various types of American families considered in a world-wide context.

Who knows? There may just be enough lost souls seeking to avoid blame and responsibility to make this a best seller. I, for one, hope not.

Climbing back up a slippery slope is always a struggle, but that doesn't mean it can't be done or that we shouldn't try. Didn't your Mom & Dad always say, "If your friends jump off a cliff, does that mean you should?" Mom & Dad were right, you know. Ms. Coontz, on the other hand, would cheer you on as you to step into the abyss.

If Ms. Coontz had confined herself to these I think she would found her answer to why many people think children today are being shortchanged. Forget the question of whether such families are led by gays, lesbians, single parents, people who have remarried, etc. The fact is parents spend much less time today with their children, by all measures, and there's much less continuity whatever the situation.

"This is how things are today, deal with it", is not a solution or even a very sophisticated description of the problem. If one can imagine a world of diverse families it still stands to reason that the basic needs of children are probably similar and the author might spend some time spelling out what they are. That book has yet to be written. There's no reason a progressive couldn't write such a book but he or she would need a lot of courage.