The Evolution and Challenges of American Family Structures

Representations of the "perfect" American household have been portrayed in media and literature with limited differentiation for years. In the 20th century, the "perfect family" consists of a hard-working father, radiating masculinity and bravery, ready to protect and support his family. Alongside the man is his wife, who spends her time maintaining the household, tending to her children, and putting her nurturing qualities to good use. This couple lives in perfect harmony within their white picket fence, living the "American Dream." The ideal familial structure consists of specific characteristics that, if not followed, result in a sense of abnormality and peculiarity. These characteristics include heterosexuality, whiteness, a high socioeconomic class standing, and children. 

However slow, there is change afoot. In modern society, unique familial structures are accepted with less judgment. Same-sex marriages have continued to become normalized, many women act as the breadwinners within their household, abstaining from having children is not outlandish, and divorce is extremely common. While great strides have been made in accepting these new family configurations, many gender roles and power dynamics remain unchanged. 

When considering readings such as "The Happy Housewife" by Betty Friedan, it is evident that schematized gender roles within the family were so widely accepted because of their normalization and integration into society. Throughout the last century and into the current one, women were pushed towards certain dreams, desires, and interests, all of which were communicated through the most influential media of the time: magazines. This image of femininity encapsulated in magazines shaped reality, influencing society to view women as individuals whose world does not extend beyond their kitchen walls. These magazines, which Friedan notes were primarily crafted by men, created ideals as to how women should think, live, and act. The authors of such content, all men, took it upon themselves to predetermine the interests and goals that women of this women should have. In turn, this "traditional" family dynamic was reconfirmed, and the family unit was preserved.

"The image of woman that emerges from this big, pretty magazine is young and frivolous, almost childlike; fluffy and feminine; passive; gaily content in a world of bedroom and kitchen, sex, babies, and home. The magazine surely does not leave out sex; the only passion, the only pursuit, the only goal a woman is permitted is the pursuit of a man. It is crammed full of food, clothing, cosmetics, furniture, and the physical bodies of young women, but where is the world of thought and ideas, the life of the mind and spirit? In the magazine image, women do no work except 'housework and work to keep their bodies beautiful and to get and keep a man" (Friedan 36).

These images belittled and infantilized women, depicting an idealized foundation for how a family is supposed to be constructed. It is no surprise that women were pushed to claim the role of the seemingly incompetent housewife, one whose values are shallowly limited to food, fashion, makeup, and housework. The media provided women with a strict set of parameters for who they must be and what they must find interest in, which influenced what society expected from women at the time. The main goals that women were expected and told to have involved maintaining the household, looking beautiful, and finding a man to satisfy and cherish. The only aspects of female sexuality included in the media revolved around heterosexuality. It is described as a priority as if bringing sexual pleasure to a man validates a woman's existence. There is no talk of discovering different aspects of one's sexuality, as the traditional family structure revolves around the power dynamic between a man and a woman. There was limited room to rebel against such social and sexual norms, as doing so came with immense judgment- especially for women who wanted careers. Friedan said, "It is like remembering a long-forgotten dream, to recapture the memory of what a career meant to women before 'career woman' became a dirty word in America" (40). To be a career woman meant not being a housewife. It means prioritizing one's own passions and goals rather than living vicariously through a man. Career Women had intelligence, grit, passion, and ambition: qualities that contradict normative (and sexist) expectations of women. Without a source of submission (his wife), men cannot validate their masculinity. Since this threatens gender hierarchies and norms, career women were often harshly judged, representing the sexist nature of traditional marital relationships.

Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were, reflects on the traditional aspects of marriage and family as they originated, flourished, and rearranged. She explores how women began to feel trapped within the traditional structure of the nuclear family, especially after being introduced into the workforce.

"Women's retreat to housewifery, for example, was in many cases not freely chosen. During the war, thousands of women had entered new jobs, gained new skills, joined unions, and fought against job discrimination. Although 95 percent of the new women employees had expected when they were first hired to quit work at the end of the war, by 1945 almost an equally overwhelming majority did not want to give up their independence, responsibility, and income, and expressed the desire to continue working" (Coontz 31). 

World War II prompted women to enter the workforce, where they could find liberation in performing tasks that men typically did. Once it came time for men to return home, women were not fulfilled by the lives they used to live before this paradigm shift. The war served as a catalyst that allowed women to unveil their true potential beyond the duties of a housewife, allowing them to discover their passions and goals in a way society never allowed them to. Entering the workforce caused women to examine the cracks in the façade of what they believed to be the "ideal" wife and household. 

Coontz further elaborates that gender roles within the "ideal" American family were actually the cause of more oppression. This structure, and the lack of female power in this configuration, furthers the fight for gender equality that's still occurring today. Coontz added that "by 1960, almost every major news journal was using the word trapped to describe the feelings of the American housewife" (37). Coontz expresses how, after the war, retreating to the old habits and rituals as a housewife became painful. It became clear how truly oppressed women were. This demonstrates that the traditional family structure of the time was not genuinely ideal; instead, its existence served to safeguard sexist gender roles under the guise of a "perfect family." This might have been ideal for preserving power dynamics, but it was not ideal for a family.

In his work, American Manhood, E Anthony Rotundo explores traditional aspects of marriage and how it has changed. While progress has been made regarding how women are treated, there has been less change to the root of the problem: gender roles.

"In 1846, Massachusetts shoe manufacturer Arial Bragg described a couple in which the man took orders from his wife. Bragg wrote that "she wore the breeches, as the vulgar saying is." That phrase is revealing in many ways. Most obviously, it points out the fact of a gender role reversal with the most dramatic symbolism possible…. also degraded the husband. The word the in "the breeches" stresses the notion that there was one pair of pants to be worn in a marriage. If the husband was not wearing the pants, then he must have been wearing the dress. The clear meaning is that the man was a woman, which implied that he was foolish, confused, and (like a woman) not worthy of respect. He was, in short, a contemptible figure" (Rotundo 138). 

Women might face the brunt of gender roles, but they are not the only victims of gender inequality. Men are, too. A common misconception exists that men always benefit from traditional (and sexist) family configurations. I totally understand why this misconception exists, but it's essential to realize that men are significantly confined by gender inequality in the home, too. While women have developed a voice against oppression, male stereotypes and expectations have been relatively overlooked. For example, there remains this notion that men must claim their masculinity or risk being emasculated. There is a common theme of men who feel obligated to live up to societal expectations to protect and provide for their families. As a result of the mistreatment of women for centuries, we overlook the fact that normative family structures and gendered power dynamics massively limit the scope of how men can have an evolving and important role in the modern family. 

Traditional family structures and gender roles have historically been a repressive force in women's lives. However, with the evolution of the modern family and the continuing developments in female empowerment, there is reason to believe that the structure can be reformed and, possibly, work as a dynamic that provides equal status and opportunity for all genders.