If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our intuitions, great is our sin
Charles Darwin
The timely segregation of inequality in America needs to be eradicated. A person is not born inadequate or penniless. Each should have the ability to become wealthy. Unfortunately, the burden of poverty for most families remains prevalent. Our families have grown and improved, the institutions remain uniform. Stephanie Coontz is a historian that had an essay “The American Family” published in Life magazine. In Coontz’ essay she claims that our contemporary family is decent, but could be better if certain aspects were to change. In slight comparison, Patricia Hyjer Dyk is a professor that wrote an introductory essay that published …show more content…
Also, consider the lower class social and economic influences and create policies to decrease the gap in inequality. Though Dyk’s audience is relatively similar to Coontz’ audience; Dyk’s summarized research review solutions can be compatible to Coontz’ argument. Dyk’s scholarly review could satisfy Coontz argument about openness in families, which function is important in a family, the need of change in institutions and diversity in families. Both authors acknowledge the openness society has on modern family. Coontz explains the reason of the mid-1900s. Coontz explains the reason modern families have more stress than traditional families of the mid-1900s. Coontz claims, “There are plenty of stresses in the modern family life, but one reason they seem worse is that we no longer sweep them under the rug”(96). Families in the 1900s had traditional values; they refrained from talking about their problems and were hesitant to modernity. Contemporary families have stress because they are more open. Families talk about their problems or attend groups for solutions. For instance, an alcoholic might attend Alcoholic Anonymous meetings to get guideless on different …show more content…
In the mid-1900s problems such as gay families and poverty was disregarded and concealed. Now modernity is encouraged. In relations to Dyk, study groups is formed to develop policies for an issue that would never been discussed in the 1900s. Families transitioned from restrictions to openness and tolerance. Both authors declare each family has its own differences that distinguish families from one another. Coontz reveals the importance of diversity in families. “If we look back over the last millennium,” Coontz points out” we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges, what works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn’t work for a family in another”(97). Coontz acknowledges the difference in families is essential. One family does not necessarily have to be similar to the next to achieve stability. There is no uniform template for a family; each has diversified. Dyk explains her audience daily routine, which consists of safe shelter, utilities paid, appropriates clothing, reliable transportation, and others, but she then describes the working poor inability to achieve the same tranquility as her audience. “This will
Charles Darwin
The timely segregation of inequality in America needs to be eradicated. A person is not born inadequate or penniless. Each should have the ability to become wealthy. Unfortunately, the burden of poverty for most families remains prevalent. Our families have grown and improved, the institutions remain uniform. Stephanie Coontz is a historian that had an essay “The American Family” published in Life magazine. In Coontz’ essay she claims that our contemporary family is decent, but could be better if certain aspects were to change. In slight comparison, Patricia Hyjer Dyk is a professor that wrote an introductory essay that published …show more content…
Also, consider the lower class social and economic influences and create policies to decrease the gap in inequality. Though Dyk’s audience is relatively similar to Coontz’ audience; Dyk’s summarized research review solutions can be compatible to Coontz’ argument. Dyk’s scholarly review could satisfy Coontz argument about openness in families, which function is important in a family, the need of change in institutions and diversity in families. Both authors acknowledge the openness society has on modern family. Coontz explains the reason of the mid-1900s. Coontz explains the reason modern families have more stress than traditional families of the mid-1900s. Coontz claims, “There are plenty of stresses in the modern family life, but one reason they seem worse is that we no longer sweep them under the rug”(96). Families in the 1900s had traditional values; they refrained from talking about their problems and were hesitant to modernity. Contemporary families have stress because they are more open. Families talk about their problems or attend groups for solutions. For instance, an alcoholic might attend Alcoholic Anonymous meetings to get guideless on different …show more content…
In the mid-1900s problems such as gay families and poverty was disregarded and concealed. Now modernity is encouraged. In relations to Dyk, study groups is formed to develop policies for an issue that would never been discussed in the 1900s. Families transitioned from restrictions to openness and tolerance. Both authors declare each family has its own differences that distinguish families from one another. Coontz reveals the importance of diversity in families. “If we look back over the last millennium,” Coontz points out” we can see that families have always been diverse and in flux. In each period, families have solved one set of problems only to face a new array of challenges, what works for a family in one economic and cultural setting doesn’t work for a family in another”(97). Coontz acknowledges the difference in families is essential. One family does not necessarily have to be similar to the next to achieve stability. There is no uniform template for a family; each has diversified. Dyk explains her audience daily routine, which consists of safe shelter, utilities paid, appropriates clothing, reliable transportation, and others, but she then describes the working poor inability to achieve the same tranquility as her audience. “This will