An Outline of Insanity:
Why Family Break-up Means Mental Crack-up
By Bryce J. Christensen, Ph.D.
"Those whom the gods would destroy," runs the ancient proverb,
"they first drive insane." Surveying the sorry and deteriorating state
of mental health in this country, we may well suppose that the gods are fully
intent upon destroying us. For although not all Americans suffering from a
mental illness should be considered insane, any degradation of mental health
threatens that balance and rationality which buttress our sanity. And according
to the nation’s mental health authorities, it is imbalance and irrationality
that have grown increasingly prevalent in recent decades.
Analysis of the etiology of the national upsurge in mental illness soon
isolates family disintegration as a prime cause. Under further scrutiny,
however, the relationship between family disintegration and mental illness turns
out to be far from a simple and one-directional cause-and-effect relationship.
For a species of unacknowledged madness–a kind of ideological lunacy–has not
only undermined family life in many ways, but it has also distorted our very
conception of mental well-being. Consequently, some mental states subversive of
the family–previously recognized as psychological disorders–have now been
redefined as normal.
So our national epidemic of mental illness would actually appear worse if the
mental-health professionals had not normalized some antifamily mental disorders.
Therapists may, for instance, declare that a patient’s narcissism actually
reflects a robust self-image. But the trick of redefining sickness as health
goes only so far: no amount of sophisticated word play can hide the suicidal
depression of children hurt by the divorce that the narcissist demands. And so
the hidden, unacknowledged insanity of anti-family ideology fuels an undeniable
rise in mental illness, a rise no amount of sophistry can define out of
In his 1927 book The Outline of Sanity, the British journalist G.K.
Chesterton argued that in a truly sane social order, "the normal man"
would live with his wife and children on a small, largely self-sufficient family
estate. Such a social order spelled sanity for Chesterton because under it,
"ordinary men were clothed with powers and privileges and a kind of
authority.... The ordinary man had a right [in such an order] to judge of his
children’s health, and generally to bring up children to the best of his
ability." Because ordinary men had largely been pushed into cities and
denied this kind of life, Chesterton lamented that "modern civilization has
lost unity"–and has lost sanity in the process. In calling for a social
re-ordering which would again give typical men the privileges and authority of a
small family estate, Chesterton stressed our need for "a social
circle," based first of all on the family, in which men, women, and
children "know the end and the beginning and the rounding of our little
No reform in the foreseeable future will put the average American back on a
small family farm. Yet many Americans still enjoy the sanity-protecting benefits
of living within the social circle of the family, a circle that continues to
foster good mental health by reminding us of the end, the beginning, and the
rounding of our little life. Unfortunately, the number of Americans living
within the family’s protective circle has declined sharply in recent decades
as divorce and illegitimacy rates have soared, while marriage and marital
fertility rates have plummeted. Chesterton would not be surprised by these
trends and would–with considerable justice–attribute them to the economic
pressures which have moved Americans off the family farm (where shared labors
reinforced bonds between husband and wife, parents and children) and have pushed
them into cities where few labors are shared by family members and where
hundreds of economic and cultural forces work to separate parent from child,
husband from wife.2 Still, millions of American city-dwellers have succeeded in
keeping their marriages strong and in instilling strong moral convictions in
their children, thereby providing convincing evidence that the
sanity-reinforcing benefits of the family circle remain available to urban, as
well as rural, Americans.
But sadly, as a growing number of Americans have repudiated the moral demands
of marriage, of child-rearing, and of family life, the social circle most
important to safeguarding our sanity has broken, and the mental health of
millions has leaked away as a consequence.
That the mental health of Americans has suffered a general decline in recent
decades scarcely requires asserting. Mental-health authorities speak frankly of
"an epidemic of mental disorders." This epidemic has hit the young
with particular force: psychiatrists report "an earlier onset of depression
through the 20th century," causing "a sharp rise in rates of
depression among adolescents and young adults."3 Worse, the problem extends
even to pre-adolescents, with pediatricians limning a three-fold increase in
psychosocial problems among patients between the ages of 4 and 15.4 Predictably,
the epidemic of mental illness has caused an unprecedented reliance on
psychotropic drugs (Prozac for the adults, Ritalin for the younger set), raising
fears that America is fast becoming a "culture of pill-poppers."5
Though this upsurge in mental illness has been glossed with a variety of
divergent commentaries, analysts increasingly acknowledge the importance of
recent changes in family life. For again and again–whether their focus is on
the elderly, on adults, on adolescents, or on children–epidemiologists are
finding the same pattern: those outside of the family circle of sanity suffer
from mental illness at much higher rates than those inside.
The Benefits of Wedlock
"Married persons have significantly lower anxiety and depression scores
than unmarried persons," reports health researcher Peggy A. Thoits, who
reports that the mental-health advantage of wedlock persists even when married
people have experienced more traumatic experiences than their unwed peers.
Thoits also disputes the claims of feminists who have asserted that wedlock
confers benefits on men, but not on women. The difference in mental health
favoring the married over the unmarried turns out, according to Thoits, to be
"relatively strong among women, weaker among men."6
And just as an intact marriage safeguards mental health, divorce damages it.
Researchers at the University of Michigan have identified a strong "depressogenic
effect of marital disruption," an effect accounting for "a significant
positive association...between separation/divorce and depression." No
artifact of "increased financial pressures or other secondary changes in
roles," this depressogenic effect "shows clearly… that people grieve
for lost marriages and that this grief can directly cause depression."7 And
the mental-health advantage of wedlock proves particularly vital for women when
there are children in the home. Authors of a 1996 study substantiate this point
when they conclude that the married mothers in their sample were "much less
likely to be depressed than single mothers," whether divorced or
When the focus shifts from mental pathology to mental well-being, wedlock
still comes out way ahead. A seventeen-nation study conducted in 1998 revealed
that, in Peoria as in Paris, "married persons have significantly higher
level of happiness than person who are not married." And once again the
feminist nay-sayers are rebuffed: "Marriage," the authors of the 1998
study remark, "protects women just as much from unhappiness as it protects
males." Proponents of the view that cohabitation serves as the functional
equivalent of marriage likewise receive a comeuppance: compared to single
persons, cohabitors enjoy an increase in happiness that measures "less than
one quarter of [that] of married persons," clearly indicating that
"marriage protects more against unhappiness than does cohabitation."9
No wonder, then, that Robert Coombs of the UCLA Medical School emphasizes the
"therapeutic benefit of marriage." Coombs believes that rates for
alcoholism, suicide, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric problems run lower
among the married than unmarried peers because the married man or woman has a
"continuous companionship with a spouse who provides interpersonal
closeness, emotional gratification, and support in dealing with daily
But an intact marriage confers mental-health advantages not only on the
husband and wife, but also on their children. Consequently, the national retreat
from family life has exposed children, as well as adults, to the threat of
mental illness. In a 2000 study of the national upsurge in psychological
problems among children, researchers at the Pittsburgh School of Medicine
highlighted the correlation between the growing incidence of such problems and
the rising number of single-parent families. "Children from single-parent
households," they pointed out, "were roughly twice as likely to be
identified with psychosocial problems" as peers in intact families.11
Perils of the One-Parent Home
One reason for the upsurge in psychological problems among children in
single-parent homes was isolated in a 1993 study which fixed the blame on the
"harsh, unresponsive parenting" of impoverished unmarried
mothers–parenting which is decidedly lower in "emotional
responsiveness" than that observed among married mothers. Such maternal
harshness naturally fosters "poor mental health" and "high levels
of [mental-illness] symptoms among children."12 And by putting children
into homes without both biological parents, divorce and illegitimacy also
exposes children to a markedly elevated risk of sexual abuse, with all of its
long-lasting psychological trauma.13 Is it any wonder that the authors of a 1993
study characterized children in single-parent homes as "moody, sad, and
But the psychological effects of growing up in a broken home are much more
than a passing mood. The heightened vulnerability to mental illness among
children from broken homes persists well into adolescence and beyond.
Mental-health authorities, in fact, report that adolescents from broken homes
are "overrepresented among patients at mental-health centers,"
accounting for between 50 and 80 percent of the patients in some institutions.15
And in a 2000 study, scholars from the University of Southern California
established that, even after adolescence, adults reared in broken homes suffer
from a "significantly lower level of general psychological well-being"
than peers reared in intact families.16 In another study done just five years
earlier, British and American child psychologists documented a highly
significant link (p < .0001) between having experienced parental divorce
between the ages of 7 and 16 and having an elevated score at age 23 on the
Malaise Inventory used to assess overall mental health. The British and American
researchers interpret these findings as evidence that parental divorce often
puts children into "negative life trajectories through adolescence into
adulthood."17 It is with such grim findings in view that sociologist John
Mirowsky of Ohio State University expresses fears that "the children [of
divorced parents] may never recover."18
All hopes for recovery disappear for the now-too-numerous adolescents whose
lives are so darkened by parental divorce that they commit suicide. Social
workers John Woderski and Pamela Harris identify "turmoil in American
families" as a prime reason that the suicide rate skyrocketed among teens
and young adults during the latter decades of the 20th century.19 Their view has
been corroborated by officials from the California Department of Mental Health,
who discovered that over half (52%) of adolescent suicides investigated for 1986
involved children from homes in which the decedent’s parents were divorced or
separated.20 Lamentably, the suicide risk among the children of divorced parents
actually grows when those parents remarry. A 1998 study found adolescents
in stepfamilies "particularly vulnerable" to suicidal behavior, with
an alarming 38 percent exhibiting suicidal characteristics, compared to 20
percent in single-parent homes and just 9 percent in intact families.21
But then the teenage children of divorced parents are not the only ones
pushed over the brink by divorce. In his studies of suicide in America,
statistician Bijou Yang has isolated the divorce rate as "the only
variable that had a consistent impact on the suicide rates of all social
groups," male and female, old and young, wealthy and poor.22
And unfortunately, divorce counts as only one of many manifestations of a
national retreat from family life, and all of them carry harmful consequences
for mental health. For instance, in the movement of mothers into paid employment
in recent decades, we see a development which has impaired the mental health of
husbands, children, and the mothers themselves. "Women’s
employment," according to Rutgers sociologist Sarah Rosenfield, "is
negative for husbands’ mental health," with relatively high income for
wives predicting symptoms of "demoralization, sadness, anxiety, and
hopelessness-helplessness" for their husbands.23 Maternal employment also
harms the mental health of young children, in large part because it typically
translates into non-parental child care. Psychiatrist Jack C. Westman warns of
the "adverse consequences" resulting from turning parenting over to
"impersonal institutions" such as day-care centers.24 Even some
day-care center operators have acknowledged seeing "how children in
day-care suffer from separation, anxiety, and depression despite competent
staff."25 These disturbing day-care patterns have been documented at the
University of Minnesota by psychologists who report "anxious and withdrawn
behavior" and elevated blood cortisol levels among day-care children.26
Child-development experts at Penn State and the University of Michigan warn that
day-care threatens healthy psychological development in another way, too: by
incubating chronic otitis media, a type of ear infection which often causes
"mild hearing loss," day care produces "hard of hearing children
[who] exhibit social problems characterized by less acceptance by their peers, a
tendency to be more aggressive in their behavior, and serious difficulty in
making friends. The result is a high degree of social isolation."27
Maternal employment can even hurt the mental health and emotional well-being
of children because of behavior patterns which develop when an overworked mother
is home with her children. UCLA psychologists have found that "job
stressors" for employed mothers often translate into "parental
withdrawal" and "negative emotion spillover effects" for their
children. The UCLA scholars fear that when employment stress degrades the
quality of mother-child relationships day after day, "the cumulative
effects of repeated failure to contain negative affect may be quite
detrimental" for children’s psychological development.28
From Marriage to Depression
But concerns about what maternal employment does to children should not
obscure the risk that such employment poses for the employed women themselves.
For women’s employment puts their mental health at risk in at least two ways.
First, as wives’ employment levels rise, marriages grow more fragile and more
women find themselves without the mental-health support of an intact marriage.
For as sociologist Kingsley Davis has argued, a wife’s employment undermines
the gender "complementarity" which has traditionally reinforced
marriage.29 Looking at the same reality, economist Gary Becker has remarked that
"the gain from marriage is reduced by a rise in the earnings and labor
force participation of women and by a fall in fertility, because a sexual
division of labor becomes less advantageous."30 Predictably enough, then,
sociologists regard women’s increased participation in the labor force in
recent years as a prime reason for the decline in the marriage rate and the rise
in the divorce rate. And inevitably, fewer women in intact marriages means more
women in psychologists’ offices. Nor can it be assumed that remarriage will
fix a woman’s mental-health problems if her employment has caused a divorce:
recent research indicates that "the stepparenting role has negative mental
health connotations for women."31
Even when a wife’s employment does not destroy her marriage, it can hurt
her mental health by overwhelming her with stress. Researchers Beth Rushing and
Annette Schwabe report that women in full-time employment frequently suffer from
"role overload" and consequent mental "distress," not found
among women employed part-time or not at all.32
But the third way that a wife’s employment may impair her mental health is
by keeping her from having children, so denying her the psychologically
beneficial "role enhancement" which comes with motherhood, especially
for women with large families.33 No one should be surprised that depression
rates among women have climbed as fertility rates have dropped.
The sharp drop in fertility signals more than a threat to the mental health
of individual women. The "birth dearth" evident in the United States
and other industrialized countries looks increasingly like a collective form of
despair, an insane impulse to commit intergenerational suicide. And just as a
depressed, suicidal individual lacks mental energy and creativity, so too does a
sterile, demographically suicidal nation. As the number of young people drops,
intellectual vitality, imagination, and energy disappear from the country, while
despair and depression spread among the childless geriatrics. "The Birth
Dearth," in the opinion of social commentator Ben Wattenberg, "hurts
us in every conceivable geopolitical way: militarily, economically, politically,
and culturally."34 Even a strong advocate of population control such as
Colin Tudge concedes that a population with fewer children and a rising average
age faces "problems in the short run."35 The mental-health
difficulties caused by depressed fertility may in fact not be so shortrun.
Psychologist Deborah Gold has established that men and women over age 65 rely
heavily on siblings in "reconstructing a chaotic lifetime into a coherent
and meaningful whole in late life."36 Putting together this meaningful
whole may prove impossible for members of the Baby Bust generation, who have few
or no siblings.
Betrayal of the Professionals
And if aging Baby Busters–lacking the psychological support of a brother or
sister–turn to a therapist or psychologist for assistance, they are likely to
find only frustration and disappointment. For a kind of psychological imbalance
now pervades the very community of professionals proffering cures for mental
illness. This illness evinces itself in the way these experts have, as a group,
betrayed marriage and family life, despite their critical importance as props to
mental health. Even worse, mental-health experts have in recent decades
collaborated in the redefining of mental illness in ways that have hidden the
extent and the causes of our national epidemic of mental disorders.
That many modern psychologists have lost the ability to draw the line between
mental health and mental illness, between sanity and insanity, would not have
surprised Chesterton. For he would have anticipated the natural consequence of
their collective decision to break the only social circle which might have given
them an understanding of "the end and the beginning and the rounding of our
little life." They have turned against the family. Psychiatrist Paul
Pearsall of Sinai Hospital in Detroit thus complains:
Many of our current psychotherapists were trained in the times of the
‘me’ generation. Their teachers, the theorists they read about, themselves
did not maintain strong family ties. A check of the heroes of psychiatry and
psychology reveals that almost every one of them failed in their
relationships. Many therapists themselves are divorced or have abdicated
family responsibility....Psychology thinks that health is individualistic,
perhaps because so many psychotherapists themselves have been so
individualistic in their approach to life. The philosophy seems to be ‘if
your marriage is broken, get a new part’ rather than ‘if your marriage is
broken, fix it.’37
Clinical psychologist Diane Medved goes so far as to indict "a
troublesome number of [her] colleagues," who have lent their services to
"the divorce industry," their labors actually "keeping the wheels
of divorce spinning."38
As a result of their treason against the family, many mental-health
professionals now know less about mental health than their patients. The
dubiousness of the care offered by such professionals came to light in a 1989
presentation before the American Orthopsychiatric Association in which
researchers reported survey data showing that many therapists now regard the
strong emotional ties of mentally healthy families with suspicion, while viewing
families with relatively low "cohesion" as normal. Such findings, the
researchers reasoned, raise "concerns about inherent tension between the
values and expectations that therapists may have and those of families."39
The therapist’s role in undermining marriage and family life also attracted
the attention of the prominent sociologist Robert Bellah and his colleagues in
their 1985 study Habits of the Heart. "In its pure form," the
Bellah team observes, "the therapeutic attitude denies all forms of
obligation and commitment in relationships, replacing them only with the ideal
of full, open, honest communication among self-actualized individuals." The
"therapeutic view" thus "not only refuses to take a moral stand,
it actively distrusts ‘morality’" and so fosters "a purely
contractual ethic [which] leaves every commitment unstable." "The
egalitarian love between therapeutically self-actualized persons," in the
view of the Bellah researchers, "is...incompatible with
self-sacrifice."40 The effects of this therapeutic war against commitment,
moral integrity, and self-sacrifice may be seen in any divorce court or welfare
Radical individualism and its concomitant rejection of family constraints
show through again and again in the practice of modern psychology. We may
glimpse them, for instance, in many psychologists’ heavy dependence upon a
diagnosis of "co-dependency," defined as "the psychological
disease of loving too much," a suspicious excess of love found among people
"in tune with the C[o]D[ependent] person instead of themselves."41
People divorcing their spouses in order to protect their personal space never
need to worry about suffering from an "excess of love," nor about
being in tune with someone other than themselves.
But the modern psychologists’ inability to distinguish between mental
health and mental sickness evinces itself perhaps even more clearly in the way
that their profession has in recent decades reversed its attitude toward two
open assaults on the family: feminism and homosexuality.
Just a half-century ago, psychiatrists generally viewed feminism as a symptom
of mental unbalance. Though psychology has no doubt harbored a few closet
feminists since its beginnings as a science, Marynia Farnham, M.D. and her
co-writer Ferdinand Lundberg had no reason to fear serious professional
opposition when they wrote in 1947 that "a female who attempts to achieve
masculinity is psychically ill in the same way as a male who attempts to achieve
femininity." They knew that their colleagues generally shared their fear of
the "vast individual suffering for men, as well as women, and much public
disorder," sure to follow from feminism’s "negation of
femaleness."42 Similarly, any psychiatrist who spoke out against
homosexuality could count on the support of his colleagues; until 1973, when the
American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its list
of recognized "psychiatric disorders."43
Now, mental-health professionals not only regard feminism and homosexuality
as normal they aggressively call into question the mental balance of anyone who
disapproves of either. Psychologist Annette Baisden of the U.S. Naval
Operational Medicine Institute, for instance, decries the "sexism"
inherent in the "social traditions that limited [women’s] potential"
in the past, even as she denounces the continuing sexism which prevents the
realization of "a truly pluralistic society."44
In the same spirit, psychiatrist Katherine A. O’Hanlan calls for the
extirpation of all "homophobia," defined as "a health
hazard" born of "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals
and homosexuality." O’Hanlan claims the warrant of psychological science
in waging her campaign against all negative responses to homosexuality,
"from social avoidance to legal and religious proscription to
And she dismisses her own profession’s previous analysis of homosexuality
as a mental disorder (an analysis which held sway for more than a century) as
mere prejudice, "reflective only of the social mores at the time."45
Yet we may rightly wonder what principle of psychological science legitimates a
war against homophobia at a time when the more candid homosexual activists
frankly acknowledge that in their effort to win acceptance for homosexuality,
they are trying to effect "a transformation in sexuality" in which sex
is torn away form "family reproduction" and "increasingly serves
to pleasure individualized men and women."46
True Mental Imbalance
No doubt, earlier psychological strictures against feminism and homosexuality
did reflect prevailing social mores. But that hardly invalidates their
psychological validity. For those mores reinforced marital and family ties which
epidemiologists are increasingly forced to recognize as vital to shielding men,
women, and children from psychological illnesses, including suicidal depression,
illnesses which no amount of psychological ingenuity or redefinition can turn
into normality or mental health. Indeed, the epidemic in indisputable mental
illness may be traced in part to the relatively recent decision by mental-health
professionals to promulgate radically individualistic theories and practices
which betray rather than support the family. By weakening families, these
theories and practices actually conduce to mental illnesses that might be
prevented by reinforcing wedlock and family life.
Because they foster mental imbalance, anyone applying the scriptural test
"By their fruits, ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20) can only conclude
that these psychological theories and practices have themselves sprung from a
kind of mental imbalance, a kind of ideological insanity. Far from having a cure
for the epidemic of mental illness spreading across the nation, the proponents
of such theories and practices are carriers of disease.
The nation will have begun the recovery of its mental health only when we as
Americans turn away from the spreaders of contagion and again entrust the care
of our mental well-being to professionals who (with Chesterton) understand that
it is the family which teaches us our ends and our beginnings; the family which,
first and last, puts us in our right mind.
1 G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company,
1927), 155, 256-257.
2 See Allan C. Carlson, From Cottage to Work Station: The Family’s Search
for Social Harmony in the Industrial Age (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993).
3 Gerald L. Klerman, "The Age of Youthful Melancholia: Depression and
the Baby Boomers," USA Today (Magazine), July 1988, pp. 69-71.
4 See Kelly J. Kelleher et al., "Increasing Identification of
Psychosocial Problems: 1979-1996," Pediatrics 105:1313-1321.
5 See Sharon Begley, "One Pill Makes You Larger, and One Pill Makes You
Small..." Newsweek, 7 Feb. 1994, pp. 36-42.
6 Peggy A. Thoits, "Gender and Marital Status Differences in Control and
Distress: Common Stress versus Unique Stress Explanations," Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 28: 7-22.
7 Robert H. Aseltine , Jr. and Ronald Kessler, "Mental Disruption and
Depression in a Community Sample," Journal of Health and Social Behavior
8 David H. Demo and Alan C. Acock, "Family Structure, Family Process,
and Adolescent Well-Being," Journal of Research on Adolescence 6:
9 Steven Stack and Ross Eshleman, "Marital Status and Happiness: A
17-Nation Study," Journal of Marriage and the Family 60: 527-536.
10 Robert H. Coombs, "Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A
Literature Review," Family Relations 40: 97-102.
11 Kelleher et al., "Increasing Identification of Psychosocial
12 Jane D. McLeod and Michael J. Shanahan, "Poverty, Parenting, and
Children’s Mental Health," American Sociological Review 58:
13 David Finkelhor et al., "Sexually Abused Children in a National
Survey of Parents: Methodological Issues," Child Abuse and Neglect
14 Gong-Soong Hong and Shelley I. White-Means, "Do Working Mothers Have
Healthy Children?" Journal of Family and Economic Issues 14: 163-181.
15 Helen S. Merskey and G.T. Swart, "Family Background and Physical
Health of Adolescents Admitted to an Inpatient Psychiatric Unit: I, Principal
Caregivers," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 34: 79-83.
16 Timothy J. Biblarz and Greg Gottainer, "Family Structure and
Children’s Success: A Comparison of Widowed and Divorced Single-Mother
Families," Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 533-548.
17 P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Andrew J. Cherlin, and Kathleen E. Kiernan,
"The Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on the Mental Health of Young
Adults: A Developmental Perspective," Child Development 66:
18 John Mirowsky, "An Informative Sociology of Health and
Well-Being," Journal of Health and Social Behavior 39: 1-3.
19 John S. Wodarski and Pamela Harris, "Adolescent Suicide: A Review of
Influences and the Means for Prevention," Social Work 32: 477-484.
20 Franklyn L. Nelson, "Youth Suicide in California: A Study of
Perceived Causes and Interventions," Community Mental Health 24:
21 Judith L. Rubenstein et al., "Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents:
Stress and Protection in Different Family Contexts," American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 68: 274-284.
22 Bijou Yang, "The Economy and Suicide: A Time-Series Study of the
U.S.A.," American Journal of Economics and Society 51: 87-99,
23 Sarah Rosenfield, "The Costs of Sharing: Wives’ Employment and
Husbands’ Mental Health," Journal of Health and Social Behavior 33:
24 Jack C. Westman, "Juvenile Ageism: Unrecognized Prejudice and
Discrimination Against the Young," Child Psychiatry and Human Development
25 See Edward M. Levine, "Day Care: Cons, Costs, Kids," Chicago
Tribune, 18 September 1984, Sec. 1, p. 15.
26 Kathryn Tout et al., "Social Behavior Correlates of Cortisol Activity
in Child Care: Gender Differences and Time-of-Day Effects," Child
Development 69: 1247-1262.
27 Lynne Vernon-Feagans, Elizabeth E. Manlove, and Brenda L. Volling, "Otitis
Media and the Social Behavior of Day-Care Attending Children," Child
Development 67: 1528-1539.
28 Rena L Repetti and Jennifer Wood, "Effects of Daily Stress at Work on
Mothers’ Interactions With Preschoolers," Journal of Family Psychology
29 Kingsley Davis, "Contemporary Marriage," in Contemporary
Marriage: Comparative Perspectives on a Changing Institution, ed. Kingsley Davis
(New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1985), 47.
30 Gary Becker, A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1981), 248.
31 Beth Rushing and Annette Schwabe, "The Health Effects of Work and
Family Characteristics: Gender and Race Comparisons," Sex Roles 33:
34 Ben J. Wattenberg, The Birth Dearth (New York: Pharos Books, 1987), 99.
35 Colin Tudge, The Variety of Life (New York: Oxford University Press,
36 Deborah T. Gold, "Generational Solidarity: Conceptual Antecedents and
Consequences," American Behavioral Scientist 33: 19-32.
37 Paul Pearsall, The Power of Family: Strength, Comfort, and Healing (New
York: Doubleday, 1990), 18, 117-120.
38 Diane Medved, The Case Against Divorce (New York: Donald I. Fine, 1989),
39 Anne E. Kazak et al., "Perception of Normality in Families: Four
Samples," Journal of Family Psychology 2(1989): 277-291.
40 Robert N. Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment
in American Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 100-101, 129.
41 See Mickie C. Walker, "Co-Dependency and Probation," Federal
Probation, June 1992, pp. 16-18.
42 Ferdinand Lundberg and Marynia F. Farnham, Modern Woman: The Lost Sex;
quoted in Allan C. Carlson, Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social
Crisis (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1988), 31.
43 See Richard L. Worsnop, "Gay Rights," C.Q. Researcher, 5 March
1993, pp. 195+.
44 Annette Baisden, "Women’s History Month 1999–Women: Putting Our
Stamp on America," Defense Department, Air Force Department (USAF), 1999.
45 Katherine A. O’Hanlan, "Homophobia is a Health Hazard," USA
Today (magazine), November 1996, pp. 26-29.
46 David John Frank and Elizabeth H. McEneaney, "The Individualization
of Society and the Liberalization of State Policies on Same-Sex Relations,
1984-1995," Social Forces 77: 911-944.