What do you think?
Rate this book
The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap
The definitive edition of the classic, myth-shattering history of the American family
Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary, a man’s home has never been his castle, the “male breadwinner marriage” is the least traditional family in history, and rape and sexual assault were far higher in the 1970s than they are today. In The Way We Never Were, acclaimed historian Stephanie Coontz examines two centuries of the American family, sweeping away misconceptions about the past that cloud current debates about domestic life. The 1950s do not present a workable model of how to conduct our personal lives today, Coontz argues, and neither does any other era from our cultural past. This revised edition includes a new introduction and epilogue, exploring how the clash between growing gender equality and rising economic inequality is reshaping family life, marriage, and male-female relationships in our modern era.
More relevant than ever, The Way We Never Were is a potent corrective to dangerous nostalgia for an American tradition that never really existed.
Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary, a man’s home has never been his castle, the “male breadwinner marriage” is the least traditional family in history, and rape and sexual assault were far higher in the 1970s than they are today. In The Way We Never Were, acclaimed historian Stephanie Coontz examines two centuries of the American family, sweeping away misconceptions about the past that cloud current debates about domestic life. The 1950s do not present a workable model of how to conduct our personal lives today, Coontz argues, and neither does any other era from our cultural past. This revised edition includes a new introduction and epilogue, exploring how the clash between growing gender equality and rising economic inequality is reshaping family life, marriage, and male-female relationships in our modern era.
More relevant than ever, The Way We Never Were is a potent corrective to dangerous nostalgia for an American tradition that never really existed.
576 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1992
576 people are currently reading
12648 people want to read
About the author
Stephanie Coontz
19 books237 followersStephanie Coontz is director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, which she chaired from 2001 to 2004, and emeritus faculty of history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. She has written about gender, family, and history, and her writings have been translated into a dozen languages.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 313 reviews
April 2, 2014
Coontz presents the historical facts of American family life and political and economic movements in hopes of demonstrating that the families of the past were not so idyllic and the families of the present are not so dysfunctional as they are often portrayed. She argues that historical mythologizing about family life distracts us from constructively examining how best to serve families and communities. She points out that drug abuse was more widespread a hundred years ago, alcohol consumption was three times higher, and prostitution and serious sexually transmitted infections were more prevalent. The US has had the highest homicide rates in the industrial world for 150 years, and we had sadistic lynch mobs and teen murderers long before violent video games or gay people could be blamed. The 1950s was an extremely atypical economic period, with higher job security , more affordable housing, and less income inequality...but these were not due to 1950s family practices but rather the time's economic and political support systems for families. Families have rarely been economically or socially self-sufficient; families have relied upon governmental assistance from the frontier times and beyond. By correcting these sorts of historical distortions, Coontz frees us up to learn the actual lessons of the past: that children can thrive in a wide variety of caregiving arrangements, that racist and sexist assumptions harm our families and children, and that poverty and economic insecurity have a huge impact on personal and family dysfunction. Coontz ends her introduction with this:
I thought the book was well argued and drew upon a good variety of sources. She cites well and often. Truthfully, I want to own this book so I can return to it often.
"As long as our view of family change is refracted through the lens of nostalgia for the past, we will not be able to see a way forward. But by learning how complex and multifaceted the experience of family life has been in the past, along with the trade-offs, reversals, and diverse outcomes that have accompanied change, we may be able to develop a greater tolerance for the ambiguities of contemporary family life, rather than longing for a past that was never as idyllic or uncomplicated as we sometimes imagine...Only when we have a realistic idea of how families have and have not worked in the past can we make informed decisions about how to support families in the present and improve our future."
I thought the book was well argued and drew upon a good variety of sources. She cites well and often. Truthfully, I want to own this book so I can return to it often.
June 10, 2016
This is another title which I picked in “honor” of this presidential election year – a time when thoughts turn to the possibility and desirability of social change, and we ponder whether we should or could set things back to The Way They Were, back in some previous era (when, to mangle Garrison Keillor's iconic phrase, all the women were good housekeepers, all the men were good providers, and all the children were clean and respectful.)
Originally published in 1992, the edition I read has a 2016 Introduction and Epilogue, which, after 25 years, are an important addition. In them Coontz extensively addresses the changes which have taken place since the publication of the first edition, and the ways in which her predictions have proved correct or not. With these updates, the book really is a very interesting look at the arrangements of and challenges to the modern American family, and the ways in which nostalgia for a “mythical” family of decades past affects modern political policies and individuals' personal goals.
Coontz points out that the idealized 1950's family which many people look back to so fondly is in part a “created” cultural memory derived from old television shows and books like Laura Ingalls Wilder's “Little House” series. She also reminds readers that the comfortable lives portrayed on “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” were not generally available to families outside of the white middle class. She shows that the 1950's offered unusual opportunities for men to attend college, thanks to government programs, and that even for men who did not go to college a booming economy and strong job market allowed for early marriage and for a husband to securely support a family. She explores various ideas about how families “used to be” self-sufficient, prudent, and virtuous, citing historical data to demonstrate that things were not quite as rosy as we “remember” them, and that, regardless, thanks to changed circumstances and expectations, we really can't turn back the clock.
While I enjoyed most of the book very much, the last few chapters, 9, 10, and 11, contained less historical perspective, being more focused on the political and social causes of current issues and less on how these particular issues have been handled at earlier times in our history. Coontz does a fairly good job, for the most part, in offering a balanced presentation, but of course she does have opinions about which developments are good and which are not, and who is most to blame when things go wrong, and the sections of the book which offer commentary on current situations are the most likely to irritate readers who don't share all of the author's views. Despite agreeing with her much of the time, I still found these chapters a bit sloggish – she does best when she is offering a historical view of the American family. Which, thankfully, is what she does for the greater part of the book.
Three and a half stars, rounded up but I'd rather have had that half-star option!
Originally published in 1992, the edition I read has a 2016 Introduction and Epilogue, which, after 25 years, are an important addition. In them Coontz extensively addresses the changes which have taken place since the publication of the first edition, and the ways in which her predictions have proved correct or not. With these updates, the book really is a very interesting look at the arrangements of and challenges to the modern American family, and the ways in which nostalgia for a “mythical” family of decades past affects modern political policies and individuals' personal goals.
Coontz points out that the idealized 1950's family which many people look back to so fondly is in part a “created” cultural memory derived from old television shows and books like Laura Ingalls Wilder's “Little House” series. She also reminds readers that the comfortable lives portrayed on “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” were not generally available to families outside of the white middle class. She shows that the 1950's offered unusual opportunities for men to attend college, thanks to government programs, and that even for men who did not go to college a booming economy and strong job market allowed for early marriage and for a husband to securely support a family. She explores various ideas about how families “used to be” self-sufficient, prudent, and virtuous, citing historical data to demonstrate that things were not quite as rosy as we “remember” them, and that, regardless, thanks to changed circumstances and expectations, we really can't turn back the clock.
While I enjoyed most of the book very much, the last few chapters, 9, 10, and 11, contained less historical perspective, being more focused on the political and social causes of current issues and less on how these particular issues have been handled at earlier times in our history. Coontz does a fairly good job, for the most part, in offering a balanced presentation, but of course she does have opinions about which developments are good and which are not, and who is most to blame when things go wrong, and the sections of the book which offer commentary on current situations are the most likely to irritate readers who don't share all of the author's views. Despite agreeing with her much of the time, I still found these chapters a bit sloggish – she does best when she is offering a historical view of the American family. Which, thankfully, is what she does for the greater part of the book.
Three and a half stars, rounded up but I'd rather have had that half-star option!
March 7, 2014
My mother is a professor of American history, and many of my earliest memories pertaining to her professional life involve her unabashed enthusiasm for this book. Now that I've finally taken the time to read it, I understand why it made such a strong impression. Given that Coontz's book is now more than two decades old, I was expecting that it would perhaps have little to offer someone mired in the concerns of a twenty-first century young adult. And while I found myself glossing over much of the statistical information (most of which I assume is too outdated to be useful outside a purely historical context), I was delighted to find that The Way We Never Were offers a highly intelligent and nuanced look at family life in twentieth century American history. Using the family as a focal lens, the book generates a precise and intriguing image of American communities, economics, and politics in the early 1990s. Best (and worst) of all, it provides frighteningly prescient insights about the risks we face if we sustain certain courses of action inimical to the health of our democracy. And while I'd love to report that we've blazed a new trail in the two decades since this book's original publication, all I can do is marvel at Coontz's remarkable assessment of American problems and lament our continuing inability to address the core issues that are bringing this country to its knees. The most important of these is the hollowing out of the American middle class and the ever-widening gap between normal citizens and the ultra-wealthy, especially when it comes to quality of life and political influence.
As mentioned, my one major critique of this book is that its statistics are only useful for someone seeking to understand where American families were in the early 1990s. This is a problem faced by any aging history book, so I can't fault Coontz for it. Her commendably straightforward writing demonstrates a rare mixture of ambiguity and clarity, making her arguments both accessible and also appropriately difficult to nail down. History, Coontz reminds us, is never as simple as we'd like it to be. She takes careful aim at traditional historical narratives, which typically seek to establish one or two central metaphors and then bend historical events to fit them. Coontz makes it her mission to expose such narratives for what they are: oversimplified myths that obfuscate the truth and prevent communities from meeting problems with the informed, unified action they demand. Coontz is not naive enough to think she can exempt herself entirely from the hordes of historians seeking to condense history for the purposes of analysis and communication to a wide audience, but she maintains a high level of scholarly integrity by carefully circumscribing the follies of both liberal and conservative ideologies. I carefully parsed her assertions for signs of unfair bias, but ultimately had to conclude that her motives stem from a sincere desire to serve up an authentic historical account, rather than from feckless ideology. It's a "truth be told" approach, and an admirable one.
Though Coontz does a great job of demonstrating the problems with dualistic assessments of historical trends (individual/community, wealthy/poor, devious/virtuous), she can't escape wading through the swamp of our national tendency to break down social problems into simple, easily consumed bites that almost always demonize some force or set of forces, either internal or external, for which we are not ultimately responsible. And while she certainly does not shy away from the huge obstacles families face when trying to overcome powers beyond their immediate control, Coontz's larger purpose is to point out that the process of reviving America, insofar as it is possible, must start inside each of us and then slowly expand into our family circles and greater communities. Coontz refuses to let anyone off the hook, although she is appropriately sympathetic with the most vulnerable members of our society, most of whom lack the stability and resources to concern themselves with matters beyond daily survival and the maintenance of highly parochial bonds. Through the painstaking process of setting up accepted myths and then exposing the ways they fail to sow the seeds of pragmatic action, she implores us to get comfortable with ambiguity and run historical events through multiple, self-correcting filters. One key way way to achieve this balance is to consider how various ideological factions (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) tend to support the use of force and/or government regulation to rein in the actions of opposing groups, but then protest vehemently when similar restraints are placed on behaviors deemed permissible by the in-group––an outlook bolstered by contemporary research explicating the profound effect of tribalism on our psychological dispositions. To her credit, Coontz's personal agenda doesn't appear to extend beyond the general goal of improving life for all Americans; she successfully eschews sectarianism, and instead focuses on laying bare our true enemy: human frailty as embodied in our most cherished and often spurious stories.
While this book was fascinating to me for intellectual reasons, it also achieved a deeper level of personal resonance. Coontz was able to penetrate my armor of reasoning and reach my more vulnerable, emotional side. She did this by defrocking some of the mechanisms I use to justify my own lifestyle, most notably my readiness to embrace cynicism about the prospects of success for almost any social or political movement. Like many millennials, I have little faith in collective action. I often scoff at people who want to "make a difference" beyond the world they can see and touch, even as I harbor small illusions of somehow being able to do so. These illusions almost always involve achieving some small, personal goal, or one that I share with a small number of like-minded people. I don't blame myself entirely for embracing this kind of thinking, which is endemic in my generation as well as in our increasingly polarized American communities, but I also can't distance myself entirely from this approach to life. It's always easier to stay on the sidelines and claim status as a non-participant when things don't work out. Beyond my personal aspirations, which seem to grow ever smaller and less ambitious as the years pass, this has been my general approach to life. And I think it's fair to say that won't change very much, certainly not very quickly. But Coontz's book has helped to articulate something in me, the reawakening of a need for community that always lurks under the surface. Time will tell whether this desire will transcend beyond mere velleity, but for now it has gained a greater degree of influence in my committee of self.
As mentioned, my one major critique of this book is that its statistics are only useful for someone seeking to understand where American families were in the early 1990s. This is a problem faced by any aging history book, so I can't fault Coontz for it. Her commendably straightforward writing demonstrates a rare mixture of ambiguity and clarity, making her arguments both accessible and also appropriately difficult to nail down. History, Coontz reminds us, is never as simple as we'd like it to be. She takes careful aim at traditional historical narratives, which typically seek to establish one or two central metaphors and then bend historical events to fit them. Coontz makes it her mission to expose such narratives for what they are: oversimplified myths that obfuscate the truth and prevent communities from meeting problems with the informed, unified action they demand. Coontz is not naive enough to think she can exempt herself entirely from the hordes of historians seeking to condense history for the purposes of analysis and communication to a wide audience, but she maintains a high level of scholarly integrity by carefully circumscribing the follies of both liberal and conservative ideologies. I carefully parsed her assertions for signs of unfair bias, but ultimately had to conclude that her motives stem from a sincere desire to serve up an authentic historical account, rather than from feckless ideology. It's a "truth be told" approach, and an admirable one.
Though Coontz does a great job of demonstrating the problems with dualistic assessments of historical trends (individual/community, wealthy/poor, devious/virtuous), she can't escape wading through the swamp of our national tendency to break down social problems into simple, easily consumed bites that almost always demonize some force or set of forces, either internal or external, for which we are not ultimately responsible. And while she certainly does not shy away from the huge obstacles families face when trying to overcome powers beyond their immediate control, Coontz's larger purpose is to point out that the process of reviving America, insofar as it is possible, must start inside each of us and then slowly expand into our family circles and greater communities. Coontz refuses to let anyone off the hook, although she is appropriately sympathetic with the most vulnerable members of our society, most of whom lack the stability and resources to concern themselves with matters beyond daily survival and the maintenance of highly parochial bonds. Through the painstaking process of setting up accepted myths and then exposing the ways they fail to sow the seeds of pragmatic action, she implores us to get comfortable with ambiguity and run historical events through multiple, self-correcting filters. One key way way to achieve this balance is to consider how various ideological factions (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) tend to support the use of force and/or government regulation to rein in the actions of opposing groups, but then protest vehemently when similar restraints are placed on behaviors deemed permissible by the in-group––an outlook bolstered by contemporary research explicating the profound effect of tribalism on our psychological dispositions. To her credit, Coontz's personal agenda doesn't appear to extend beyond the general goal of improving life for all Americans; she successfully eschews sectarianism, and instead focuses on laying bare our true enemy: human frailty as embodied in our most cherished and often spurious stories.
While this book was fascinating to me for intellectual reasons, it also achieved a deeper level of personal resonance. Coontz was able to penetrate my armor of reasoning and reach my more vulnerable, emotional side. She did this by defrocking some of the mechanisms I use to justify my own lifestyle, most notably my readiness to embrace cynicism about the prospects of success for almost any social or political movement. Like many millennials, I have little faith in collective action. I often scoff at people who want to "make a difference" beyond the world they can see and touch, even as I harbor small illusions of somehow being able to do so. These illusions almost always involve achieving some small, personal goal, or one that I share with a small number of like-minded people. I don't blame myself entirely for embracing this kind of thinking, which is endemic in my generation as well as in our increasingly polarized American communities, but I also can't distance myself entirely from this approach to life. It's always easier to stay on the sidelines and claim status as a non-participant when things don't work out. Beyond my personal aspirations, which seem to grow ever smaller and less ambitious as the years pass, this has been my general approach to life. And I think it's fair to say that won't change very much, certainly not very quickly. But Coontz's book has helped to articulate something in me, the reawakening of a need for community that always lurks under the surface. Time will tell whether this desire will transcend beyond mere velleity, but for now it has gained a greater degree of influence in my committee of self.
June 25, 2023
Coontz is required reading in all American history courses, and rightly so. She blows up LEAVE IT TO BEAVER! American women were never stay-at-home-moms, most Black children are not abandoned by one or more parent, the American White middle class family was built by the New Deal and the G.I. Bill of Rights following World War II, not by pulling itself up by the bootstraps, The Sixties did not raise the occurrence of juvenile delinquency, etc. You get the idea. Everything about the American family ultimately comes down to political, not private decisions.
November 16, 2019
This book is fantastic—even though it was written a while back. I think the modern stats and commentary are fine, but what’s really great about this book is the focus on how the history of capitalism changed family life and how women’s roles were shaped vis a vis the new role made up for men as “self-interested” market players. I hadn’t really heard it described that way before and now I’m going to go mine her sources for more thinking on that.
Want to read
March 29, 2011Looks unsurprising but perhaps useful for arguments with the next pushy social conservative I meet.
October 30, 2009
Coontz presents a much-needed argument on the futility of conservative nostalgia for "the good old days," chock-full of statistics. Anyone advocating a patriarchal family model taken from back in time when men, women, and children knew their place needs to study the history of the American family first, and Coontz adeptly proves that few have. Gender roles have almost always been determined by economic systems, and throughout history couples have engaged in premarital sex, domestic violence has been more common than anyone wants to admit, and (poor & working class) women have worked to support their children. Domestic violence and incest, she points out, have in fact always occurred more commonly in families with rigid, patriarchal gender roles like those emblazoned on TV in the 1950's.
Unfortunately, Coontz spends little time addressing those who advocate the 1950's ideal that never existed and why they do, perhaps because she hopes to give her arguments bipartisan appeal. She mentions the fact that the greatest change since the 1950's has been the empowerment of women to take charge of birth control when engaging in pre-marital sex and the opening of the workforce to middle class as well as working class women. All her evidence contradicts the cries of the angry backlash against women's rights, gay rights, single mothers, and "immorality," and proves that in the end it all comes down to the threat these movements pose to patriarchy. Hesistant to identify her opponents, she doesn't emphasize it.
She also fails to address the central role television has had in this national debate, albeit at the crux of her argument is the fictional American family conservatives love to cite as their model. While pornography, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and swearing have always existed, the invention of the television and sitcoms posed the question of how much of it should be nationally on display in our homes every evening. Social critics can pretend all they want that families like the Cleavers dominated the suburbs as well as the airwaves back in the day, but in truth the Simpsons and their ilk were everywhere. My relatives at the time reflected back the Cleavers' nuclear family image while in fact there was alcoholism, previous marriages, abortion, and teen pregnancy. The difference between that generation and mine is that their non-idealistic family moments remain family secrets.
With ninety pages of end notes and almost ten statistics per paragraph, the book is much more of an academic thesis than a social or political commentary. This is excellent in terms of giving her argument more substance than all her opponents' books combined, but it makes for a dry read. I had bought it under the impression that her writing style would be as fluid and wry as it was in the introduction, but she scrapped it to make room for statistics.
Unfortunately, Coontz spends little time addressing those who advocate the 1950's ideal that never existed and why they do, perhaps because she hopes to give her arguments bipartisan appeal. She mentions the fact that the greatest change since the 1950's has been the empowerment of women to take charge of birth control when engaging in pre-marital sex and the opening of the workforce to middle class as well as working class women. All her evidence contradicts the cries of the angry backlash against women's rights, gay rights, single mothers, and "immorality," and proves that in the end it all comes down to the threat these movements pose to patriarchy. Hesistant to identify her opponents, she doesn't emphasize it.
She also fails to address the central role television has had in this national debate, albeit at the crux of her argument is the fictional American family conservatives love to cite as their model. While pornography, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and swearing have always existed, the invention of the television and sitcoms posed the question of how much of it should be nationally on display in our homes every evening. Social critics can pretend all they want that families like the Cleavers dominated the suburbs as well as the airwaves back in the day, but in truth the Simpsons and their ilk were everywhere. My relatives at the time reflected back the Cleavers' nuclear family image while in fact there was alcoholism, previous marriages, abortion, and teen pregnancy. The difference between that generation and mine is that their non-idealistic family moments remain family secrets.
With ninety pages of end notes and almost ten statistics per paragraph, the book is much more of an academic thesis than a social or political commentary. This is excellent in terms of giving her argument more substance than all her opponents' books combined, but it makes for a dry read. I had bought it under the impression that her writing style would be as fluid and wry as it was in the introduction, but she scrapped it to make room for statistics.
January 15, 2023
В един неотдавнашен епизод на История.BG събеседниците говореха за носталгията по соца и как нашите родители, баби и дядовци* влизат в капана на "доброто старо време", мечтаейки за времето, когато са били млади, силни и изпълнени с очакване по идващото, отъждествяват политическата епоха и собствените си хубави дни. Пропускайки лошите неща - всъщност реалните факти.
"Онова, което никога не сме били" разказва именно за капана на носталгията. Или по-точно носталгиите в американската история**. За това как си представяме миналото, пречупено през художествения свят на киното, телевизията, рекламата, мофата и клишетата, без да се опираме на реалните факти. Защото, когато се намесят фактите картината не изглежда толкова розова. В златните 50, когато за всички имало работа, нивата на бедност били по-високи, отколкото 40 години по-късно; домакините се тъпчели с транквиланти, за да понасят прекомерните обществени изисквания; а политическият лов на вещици набирал сила. Но тъй като процесите са универсални, смятам, че има какво да научим и за нас самите.
* Не изключвам и по-младите, но лично аз го наблюдавам у по-възрастните.
** Особено онази по 50-те години.
"Онова, което никога не сме били" разказва именно за капана на носталгията. Или по-точно носталгиите в американската история**. За това как си представяме миналото, пречупено през художествения свят на киното, телевизията, рекламата, мофата и клишетата, без да се опираме на реалните факти. Защото, когато се намесят фактите картината не изглежда толкова розова. В златните 50, когато за всички имало работа, нивата на бедност били по-високи, отколкото 40 години по-късно; домакините се тъпчели с транквиланти, за да понасят прекомерните обществени изисквания; а политическият лов на вещици набирал сила. Но тъй като процесите са универсални, смятам, че има какво да научим и за нас самите.
* Не изключвам и по-младите, но лично аз го наблюдавам у по-възрастните.
** Особено онази по 50-те години.
May 10, 2015
Well, if you thought Donna Reed represented a long line of traditional family values, or even the typical 1950s family, it seems you were mistaken. Stephanie Coontz is here to disabuse you of that notion. She unpacks several myths, one at a time, including the idea that American families were always self-reliant, the idea that women were always stay-at-home, hands-on mothers, the idea that alcoholism, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy are modern-day problems, etc.
This book was informative, and the subject matter highly provocative. That being said, it was a dense read. Additionally, there were times when I felt Coontz had a bit of an agenda; she appears to be on a bit of a soapbox against blame-the-victim thinking with regard to poverty. While I'm never a fan of blame-the-victim thinking, I wasn't always sure where Coontz's factual information ended and her agenda began.
Worth a read if the subject matter interests you but be advised that it's a commitment, and should be read critically.
This book was informative, and the subject matter highly provocative. That being said, it was a dense read. Additionally, there were times when I felt Coontz had a bit of an agenda; she appears to be on a bit of a soapbox against blame-the-victim thinking with regard to poverty. While I'm never a fan of blame-the-victim thinking, I wasn't always sure where Coontz's factual information ended and her agenda began.
Worth a read if the subject matter interests you but be advised that it's a commitment, and should be read critically.
December 25, 2024
What we think is our history is usually not. Apparently Americans wish to have been self reliant. Untrue.
Among the many realities shared in this book, I liked when she says maybe the best time for poor people was feudal Europe. Because no one made you feel guilty about your poverty. But you also could never hope to climb out of it.
Among the many realities shared in this book, I liked when she says maybe the best time for poor people was feudal Europe. Because no one made you feel guilty about your poverty. But you also could never hope to climb out of it.
January 17, 2009
This book is BLOWING my tiny mind.
Assumptions so deep and unexamined that they seem like Truth are carefully teased out into the open, and examined in the light of history. You think that we've got new and original family problems these days? Unprecedented government meddling into family affairs? Rigid definitions or overly lax ones? Hah-- nothing is new under the sun. Coontz takes us through American history and explores chapter-by-chapter such Truthy ideas as Families stand on their own two feet, A Man's home is his castle, The Feminist movement is responsible for domestic failure, First comes love then marriage then baby, as well as mind-blowing historical discussions of the ideas of women and men's separate spheres, and love, and consumerism...
This book is a wonderful education. It reminds me of the meaning of education, the real reason to go to college and read books-- there are things you can't intuit by yourself-- you have to be shown. Your assumptions have to be brought forward in your mind and compared with facts. With that said, there's nothing confrontational about this book. A marvelously relevant history book.
Any discussion of "the family" broils with political heat, but not this one. She stands so solidly on a foundation of historical facts that all sides of a discussion will be stumped and enlightened.
Absolutely everybody who is a member of a family, or thinks families are important should read this book.
My one criticism of the book is that it is 15 years old. I am anxious to know what she would report on the American Family in the last couple of decades.
Assumptions so deep and unexamined that they seem like Truth are carefully teased out into the open, and examined in the light of history. You think that we've got new and original family problems these days? Unprecedented government meddling into family affairs? Rigid definitions or overly lax ones? Hah-- nothing is new under the sun. Coontz takes us through American history and explores chapter-by-chapter such Truthy ideas as Families stand on their own two feet, A Man's home is his castle, The Feminist movement is responsible for domestic failure, First comes love then marriage then baby, as well as mind-blowing historical discussions of the ideas of women and men's separate spheres, and love, and consumerism...
This book is a wonderful education. It reminds me of the meaning of education, the real reason to go to college and read books-- there are things you can't intuit by yourself-- you have to be shown. Your assumptions have to be brought forward in your mind and compared with facts. With that said, there's nothing confrontational about this book. A marvelously relevant history book.
Any discussion of "the family" broils with political heat, but not this one. She stands so solidly on a foundation of historical facts that all sides of a discussion will be stumped and enlightened.
Absolutely everybody who is a member of a family, or thinks families are important should read this book.
My one criticism of the book is that it is 15 years old. I am anxious to know what she would report on the American Family in the last couple of decades.
January 3, 2008
This is another of the sociology books that has caused me to be pretty skeptical of most blanket statements we hear about how things are. This, in particular, is about our collective past. Coontz uncovers facts and figures that contradict the popular myth of the family of the 50s, 60s and earlier, as well as shining a light on both conservatives' and liberals' tendencies to blame the other for society's ills. Though it contributed to making me a skeptic, it is also encouraging. If you like your life, but are afraid you aren't doing it right, relax. You are.
November 19, 2020
This is an accessible, highly entertaining and salutary demythologization of prevalent beliefs about the decline of the American society and its traditional "family values" by an Evergreen State University professor with a gift for teaching. All Fox television commentators and Tea Party leaders should be forced to read and review the thing.
December 23, 2011
Traditional family values are a concept tossed around by right wing conservatives, usually as they attempt to restrict rights of anyone who doesn’t agree with them. We hear about families in crisis and the breakdown of society and how if we could only return to traditional values, life would be just peachy again. In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz illustrates how those traditional family values never actually existed. The idea of 1950s families being more self-reliant than modern families, buying a home on one income? No problem if the families included a returned soldier. With a government program designed to assist former GIs, WWII veterans could purchase a home for a dollar down. Teenage pregnancy a modern problem, driven by easy access to birth control and the liberal media? Coontz points out that there was actually more teen pregnancy in the 1950s. “In 1957, 97 out of every 1,000 girls aged fifteen to nineteen gave birth, compared to only 52 out of every 1,000 in 1983.” And if you want to go way back into the annals of American tradition, she says, “In Concord, Massachusetts, a bastion of Puritan tradition, one-third of all children born during the twenty years prior to the American Revolution were conceived out of wedlock.” June Cleaver would be scandalized! The archetypal idea of a happy family defined by that ‘50s idea of a father who works and a mother who takes care of the home and the children is addressed early on: “The...idea that a woman can be fully absorbed with her youngsters while simultaneously maintaining passionate sexual excitement with her husband was a 1950s invention that drove thousands of women to therapists, tranquilizers, or alcohol when they actually tried to live up to it.” Oh, hey. The prescription drug problem is not exactly a new issue either.
The Way We Never Were is something of a dry read. For the most part, it’s like reading a textbook. But it’s a textbook full of interesting facts. They pop up every now and then in between long passages of statistics. Television families in the 1950s were, “so completely white...that even the Hispanic gardener in ‘Father Knows Best’ went by the name of Frank Smith.” The contrast with modern portrayals of brown people in the media is compelling. I loved the story about Mary Angel and Abigail Galloway testifying in court in 1773 that, “they had caught sight through an open window of a man they knew ‘in the Act of Copulation’ with a woman not his wife.” The book describes how these two women strolled into a man’s home, caught him in the act, watched for a while, then confronted him about his adultery. But it’s also full of excruciatingly dull and dry lines of text containing little more than numbers, percentages, and dates. Those pages are difficult to read even if the subject matter is not tough to process.
Much of the book is written in a manner akin to that of a textbook but there are somewhat random passages in which Coontz begins speaking in the first person. You might think these little casual chats would be easier to read and engage the reader but stuck in the middle of facts and figures, they’re incongruous and disconcerting. Chapter 4 begins as Coontz quotes her grandfather on, “pioneer life in Puget Sound.” I had to read the passage more than once before I could digest what had just happened and continue with the rest of the book. The previous chapter had just ended Chapter 3 by saying that the self-reliant family will be proven to be a historical myth in the next chapter. Did she seriously just use a personal anecdote to prove her point? Yes. Yes, she did.
The Way We Never were was originally published in 1992 but still sounds current almost twenty years later. With the current controversy about social networking websites sharing personal information, how much information the government should be collecting on private citizens (i.e. The Patriot Act) and so forth, it was interesting to read that, “Since the 1870s and 1880s, privacy has become such a cherished value that it now has attained the status of a basic right.” Americans in 2011 do expect a certain amount of privacy. But Coontz says, “In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, city officials, social superiors, and prying neighbors regularly entered homes and told people whom to associate with, what to wear, and what to teach their children.” By the year 2011, most of us would call the police if a neighbor invaded our homes and dictated child-rearing practices but traditionally, Americans have been a bunch of busybodies. Americans today are fully engrossed in consumer culture. We watch television shows as filler between advertisements intended to sell us things we didn’t realize we needed. Life in the 1950s was no different. “Ozzie and Harriet, for example, had some of their most heartwarming talks in front of the Hotpoint kitchen appliances that the show was supposed to help sell.”
Is it the lack of traditional family values that is responsible for a perceived decline in American society? “In nineteenth-century America, the ‘age of consent’ for girls in many states was as low as nine or ten.” In nineteenth century America, “New York City contained one prostitute for every sixty-four men and the mayor of Savannah estimated his city to have one for every thirty-nine men.” In the 1950s, “college boys...sometimes roamed through a campus chanting ‘We want girls! We want sex!’” Mothers throughout history didn’t stay home raising children and keeping house. That’s a modern idea that was pushed on those pill-popping, alcoholic, depressed and unhappy 1950s mothers. In the past, women found fulfillment outside the home. Household staff helped raise the children and keep house and mothers involved themselves in various forms of social work. Mother’s Day, Coontz says, was not originally intended as a day to praise one’s individual mother. “The people who inspired Mother’s Day,” Coontz says, “had quite a different idea about what made mothers special. They believed that motherhood was a political force. They wished to celebrate mothers’ social roles as community organizers, honoring women who acted on behalf of the entire future generation rather than simply putting their own children first.” It was only in those so-idealized 1950s that mothers were expected to truly be housewives, staying at home, raising their own children, finding fulfillment through baking pies and dusting. Traditionally, mothers took care of children, not just their own children.
I really wanted to love this book. I’m the kind of nerd who watches documentaries about social issues and reads Michael Pollan for entertainment. And I was raised in what most people would find a freakishly conservative family. I love debunking the myths I was raised to mindlessly accept as fact so a book dispelling myths about the traditional family seemed like exactly my cup of tea. But I cracked the book open and was almost immediately bored to death. Chapter 1 defines the traditional family. I suppose if you’re going to write a book debunking myths about the so-called traditional family, you need to define your terms. But who really has a traditional family? We all know that idealized 1950s Cleaver family was a complete work of fiction and for most people, it doesn’t take much looking around their own family trees to find examples that deviate from the so-called norm. I don’t think fifteen pages of textbook speak were needed to describe the mythical family. On second thought, perhaps a person with such limited exposure to life in general as to buy into the idealized white ‘50s family as real, historical reality needs it driven home repeatedly over the course of fifteen pages.
Does anyone in the year 2011 really still believe the 1950s family is any kind of model for life? Aside from the very conservative, I don’t think too many people do. But if you found yourself viewing the past with a pair of rosy-colored nostalgia glasses and pining for a traditional lifestyle, The Way We Never Were is happy to hand you a lens cleaner.
The Way We Never Were is something of a dry read. For the most part, it’s like reading a textbook. But it’s a textbook full of interesting facts. They pop up every now and then in between long passages of statistics. Television families in the 1950s were, “so completely white...that even the Hispanic gardener in ‘Father Knows Best’ went by the name of Frank Smith.” The contrast with modern portrayals of brown people in the media is compelling. I loved the story about Mary Angel and Abigail Galloway testifying in court in 1773 that, “they had caught sight through an open window of a man they knew ‘in the Act of Copulation’ with a woman not his wife.” The book describes how these two women strolled into a man’s home, caught him in the act, watched for a while, then confronted him about his adultery. But it’s also full of excruciatingly dull and dry lines of text containing little more than numbers, percentages, and dates. Those pages are difficult to read even if the subject matter is not tough to process.
Much of the book is written in a manner akin to that of a textbook but there are somewhat random passages in which Coontz begins speaking in the first person. You might think these little casual chats would be easier to read and engage the reader but stuck in the middle of facts and figures, they’re incongruous and disconcerting. Chapter 4 begins as Coontz quotes her grandfather on, “pioneer life in Puget Sound.” I had to read the passage more than once before I could digest what had just happened and continue with the rest of the book. The previous chapter had just ended Chapter 3 by saying that the self-reliant family will be proven to be a historical myth in the next chapter. Did she seriously just use a personal anecdote to prove her point? Yes. Yes, she did.
The Way We Never were was originally published in 1992 but still sounds current almost twenty years later. With the current controversy about social networking websites sharing personal information, how much information the government should be collecting on private citizens (i.e. The Patriot Act) and so forth, it was interesting to read that, “Since the 1870s and 1880s, privacy has become such a cherished value that it now has attained the status of a basic right.” Americans in 2011 do expect a certain amount of privacy. But Coontz says, “In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, city officials, social superiors, and prying neighbors regularly entered homes and told people whom to associate with, what to wear, and what to teach their children.” By the year 2011, most of us would call the police if a neighbor invaded our homes and dictated child-rearing practices but traditionally, Americans have been a bunch of busybodies. Americans today are fully engrossed in consumer culture. We watch television shows as filler between advertisements intended to sell us things we didn’t realize we needed. Life in the 1950s was no different. “Ozzie and Harriet, for example, had some of their most heartwarming talks in front of the Hotpoint kitchen appliances that the show was supposed to help sell.”
Is it the lack of traditional family values that is responsible for a perceived decline in American society? “In nineteenth-century America, the ‘age of consent’ for girls in many states was as low as nine or ten.” In nineteenth century America, “New York City contained one prostitute for every sixty-four men and the mayor of Savannah estimated his city to have one for every thirty-nine men.” In the 1950s, “college boys...sometimes roamed through a campus chanting ‘We want girls! We want sex!’” Mothers throughout history didn’t stay home raising children and keeping house. That’s a modern idea that was pushed on those pill-popping, alcoholic, depressed and unhappy 1950s mothers. In the past, women found fulfillment outside the home. Household staff helped raise the children and keep house and mothers involved themselves in various forms of social work. Mother’s Day, Coontz says, was not originally intended as a day to praise one’s individual mother. “The people who inspired Mother’s Day,” Coontz says, “had quite a different idea about what made mothers special. They believed that motherhood was a political force. They wished to celebrate mothers’ social roles as community organizers, honoring women who acted on behalf of the entire future generation rather than simply putting their own children first.” It was only in those so-idealized 1950s that mothers were expected to truly be housewives, staying at home, raising their own children, finding fulfillment through baking pies and dusting. Traditionally, mothers took care of children, not just their own children.
I really wanted to love this book. I’m the kind of nerd who watches documentaries about social issues and reads Michael Pollan for entertainment. And I was raised in what most people would find a freakishly conservative family. I love debunking the myths I was raised to mindlessly accept as fact so a book dispelling myths about the traditional family seemed like exactly my cup of tea. But I cracked the book open and was almost immediately bored to death. Chapter 1 defines the traditional family. I suppose if you’re going to write a book debunking myths about the so-called traditional family, you need to define your terms. But who really has a traditional family? We all know that idealized 1950s Cleaver family was a complete work of fiction and for most people, it doesn’t take much looking around their own family trees to find examples that deviate from the so-called norm. I don’t think fifteen pages of textbook speak were needed to describe the mythical family. On second thought, perhaps a person with such limited exposure to life in general as to buy into the idealized white ‘50s family as real, historical reality needs it driven home repeatedly over the course of fifteen pages.
Does anyone in the year 2011 really still believe the 1950s family is any kind of model for life? Aside from the very conservative, I don’t think too many people do. But if you found yourself viewing the past with a pair of rosy-colored nostalgia glasses and pining for a traditional lifestyle, The Way We Never Were is happy to hand you a lens cleaner.
July 7, 2012
This is an interesting book even though it's quite old now, 1992...hard to believe it's 20 years old. I'll just quote a couple of paragraphs. "The 1950's family was a new invention and a historical fluke based on a unique and temporary conjuncture of economical, social and political factors. During WWII, Americans had saved at a rate more than three times higher than in the decades before or since. Their buying power was further enhanced by our extrodinary competitive advantage at the end of the war, when every other industrial power was devastated by the war. During the 1950's real wages increased by more than they had in the entire previous half-century.
After the war women were expelled from thier jobs or forced to do the same job at a lower pay and they were encouraged to stay home and raise families. A study of hospitalized "schizophrenic" women in the San Francisco area were sometimes given electris shock treatments to force women to accept their domestic roles and their husbands dictates; and failure to want a baby signified dangerous emotional disturbances.
Women could not have credit cards in their own name, (nor could I in the 60's, and that irritated me then!)Men were also pressured, for the lack of a suitable wife could mean loss of a job or a promotion. Battered women were regarded as masochist's who provoked their hubands into beating them. Tranquilizers were developed in the 50's in response to a need that physicaians explicitly saw in females that was non-existant in 1955, and reached 462,000 pounds in 1958 and 1.15 billion pounds in 1959!
There's far more data in the book, hopefully this will wet your appitite to investigate further.
After the war women were expelled from thier jobs or forced to do the same job at a lower pay and they were encouraged to stay home and raise families. A study of hospitalized "schizophrenic" women in the San Francisco area were sometimes given electris shock treatments to force women to accept their domestic roles and their husbands dictates; and failure to want a baby signified dangerous emotional disturbances.
Women could not have credit cards in their own name, (nor could I in the 60's, and that irritated me then!)Men were also pressured, for the lack of a suitable wife could mean loss of a job or a promotion. Battered women were regarded as masochist's who provoked their hubands into beating them. Tranquilizers were developed in the 50's in response to a need that physicaians explicitly saw in females that was non-existant in 1955, and reached 462,000 pounds in 1958 and 1.15 billion pounds in 1959!
There's far more data in the book, hopefully this will wet your appitite to investigate further.
October 1, 2009
I wish I wrote this book! Coontz makes the overarching argument that those who hearken back to the “good old days” when families were intact and morally superior—leading to a better overall society—are, at best, misinformed. When I picked up the book, I was nervous that Coontz’s myth-busting was going to be a superficial list of statistics on how much better we are now, based on progress in areas such as interpersonal violence and gender equality. I was pleasantly surprised that Coontz does much more. Her analysis is both comprehensive and balanced. First, she traces how family formation, work and family roles, and nostalgia for “better families” have been cyclical—making their way into politics since colonial America. Most interestingly, she uses data to demonstrate how changes in family structure often have more to do with overall social trends than gains by those pesky feminists and morally loose populations per se. I enjoyed the ways in which she traces the path from public- and civic-minded families-within-communities to the individualistic model of parenting and family life. Two of my biggest political pet peeves are “family values” hypocrisy and the myth of “personal responsibility”, so I thank Coontz for providing me with plenty of myth-busting facts, wrapped up in interesting historical context.
May 5, 2019
Much of it was a slow, dense read, but well worth it. A real eye opener. I had a feeling it was mostly myth. I grew up in the 50's and my mother was just as miserable as most other 1950's housewives. Recommended book, if you can wade through it.
March 17, 2010
This totally changed the way I think about the history of the past century. There are so many assumptions we make about how life was "back then" that are slightly skewed and even completely incorrect. This book is chock full of well-referenced information on many aspects of American living since the early 1900s. Touching on economics, ideals, gender roles, child rearing philosophy, marriage, religion, families, this book has taught me so much about our history that I never learned in school. I'd recommend it to anyone who's looking to delve a little deeper into all those claims that things were so much better back then.
It didn't end my love of retro clothes, but it did open my eyes to the reality of "the good old days".
It didn't end my love of retro clothes, but it did open my eyes to the reality of "the good old days".
September 21, 2025
I’m so conflicted about this book. I really wanted to like it, I was hooked by the topic! Tons of data and research. Much more than I care for. Very academic book which just made it dry and hard to stick with (it is also VERY long).
May 19, 2008
For anyone who still thinks the Nelsons or the Huxtables were normal.
May 28, 2021
Thought-provoking from start to finish. Also frustrating.
Can you imagine how many problems we can solve if we just ditched the myths, dealt with the full reality and asked the right questions?
Can you imagine how many problems we can solve if we just ditched the myths, dealt with the full reality and asked the right questions?
June 26, 2024
This was a bit of an odd read, and i'm rounding up from 3.5 just because the last 3.5 I recall giving, I rounded down. A lot of interesting information here, especially the historical aspects of dating culture, the flow-through effects of birth control, and the sheer number of factors that influence lifestyle dynamics across the decades.
That said, in reference to the more contemporary time periods with relatively robust literature and studies conducted on the psychology and lifestyles of various families, it seemed that the author would often 'pick and choose' when she would add caveats depending on the overall narrative of the section/chapter. She would quote the correlation between various variables as evidence for a given claim, but other times quote correlations and immediately list heavy caveats e.g. "there's likely many confounding variables that make such correlation misleading." Such caveats were not always accompanied with the actual confounding variables, why the studies did/did not control for them, etc. And when such caveats were not included, it was difficult to understand why not.
Overall a worthwhile read, though I wish there was discussion of the human psychology regarding the romanticization of the past, regardless of the quality of experiences (both past times before one's existence or during the shorter time period of one's own personal history), which I thought would be covered by the book.
That said, in reference to the more contemporary time periods with relatively robust literature and studies conducted on the psychology and lifestyles of various families, it seemed that the author would often 'pick and choose' when she would add caveats depending on the overall narrative of the section/chapter. She would quote the correlation between various variables as evidence for a given claim, but other times quote correlations and immediately list heavy caveats e.g. "there's likely many confounding variables that make such correlation misleading." Such caveats were not always accompanied with the actual confounding variables, why the studies did/did not control for them, etc. And when such caveats were not included, it was difficult to understand why not.
Overall a worthwhile read, though I wish there was discussion of the human psychology regarding the romanticization of the past, regardless of the quality of experiences (both past times before one's existence or during the shorter time period of one's own personal history), which I thought would be covered by the book.
September 26, 2025
I thought this was a really interesting look at the values and views towards the nuclear family historically, particularly in America, and how our nostalgic view of families in the past isn't necessary an accurate reflection of reality. Written in 1992, with an updated edition in 2016, the arguments and fact hold up, though I, of course, found myself wishing for slightly more updated facts and data given we're 3 decades out from when this was written, and certainly there have been further changes in trends etc. The focus here is really on debunking various myths of the historical American family, and not so much focusing on the groups trying to weaponize that nostalgia, which I think makes sense as it does help the book to continue to feel more relevant. A solid and fascinating read.
November 27, 2023
Rather than a pop culture look at an America that never was, this is a well-resourced and well-researched text book. It’s rather interesting but not to listen to. This would be better read with a highlighter in hand.
My only complaint is that sometimes Coontz strays a bit from her chapter headers and loses the thread she was originally talking about.
Also, this is the third edition, with a lengthy introduction describing some of the changes made since the first edition some 30 years ago. And while a lot of the information is historical and, while not changing, is certainly open to reinterpretation. What I’d love to get is a look at how modern social media is changing our cultural perceptions of the past.
My only complaint is that sometimes Coontz strays a bit from her chapter headers and loses the thread she was originally talking about.
Also, this is the third edition, with a lengthy introduction describing some of the changes made since the first edition some 30 years ago. And while a lot of the information is historical and, while not changing, is certainly open to reinterpretation. What I’d love to get is a look at how modern social media is changing our cultural perceptions of the past.
October 2, 2021
Nostalgia is a specific type of suffering caused by an unappeased yearning to return, wrote Milan Kundera. But on closer examination the exact point where one wishes to return might not actually be there, because, as Julian Barnes reminds us, what we end up remembering isn’t the same as what actually happened.
In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz examines the nostalgia many Americans apparently have to return to family values that never existed. Ok, they may have existed a little bit, but not in a way that anyone today would be nostalgic about. Coontz has looked at pretty much all available historical data about families and family values and based on mounting evidence she concluded that (spoiler alert): families of the past were not at all idyllic and families of the present are not, by comparison, more dysfunctional. In other words, the past wasn’t that good and the present isn’t that bad. When I say it, it does not sound terribly optimistic, but Coontz manages to keep things hopeful. She actually strikes me as a bit of an idealist. By the time I was half way through the book, I was thinking that any argument that uses the expression “family values” is moralizing rather than mobilizing, not to mention that it’s based on myths about what families were like throughout history. Coontz, however, adopts an optimistic middle ground, where she doesn’t completely abandon the value of family values but broadens it to include community values and meaningful social network values that go beyond the ideas many of us have about traditional family borders.
Overall, this is a rich scholarly text that unravels mythical conceits about love, parenting, the gendered division of labour, attitudes about family privacy, family rights, sexual practices and relationship types. A side benefit is that it could help some people give up on nostalgia for a type of family that most likely never was, while making us (and by “us” I mean “me”) feel better about our own imperfect families or intimate network of meaningful relationships.
Rating: 4/5
In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz examines the nostalgia many Americans apparently have to return to family values that never existed. Ok, they may have existed a little bit, but not in a way that anyone today would be nostalgic about. Coontz has looked at pretty much all available historical data about families and family values and based on mounting evidence she concluded that (spoiler alert): families of the past were not at all idyllic and families of the present are not, by comparison, more dysfunctional. In other words, the past wasn’t that good and the present isn’t that bad. When I say it, it does not sound terribly optimistic, but Coontz manages to keep things hopeful. She actually strikes me as a bit of an idealist. By the time I was half way through the book, I was thinking that any argument that uses the expression “family values” is moralizing rather than mobilizing, not to mention that it’s based on myths about what families were like throughout history. Coontz, however, adopts an optimistic middle ground, where she doesn’t completely abandon the value of family values but broadens it to include community values and meaningful social network values that go beyond the ideas many of us have about traditional family borders.
Overall, this is a rich scholarly text that unravels mythical conceits about love, parenting, the gendered division of labour, attitudes about family privacy, family rights, sexual practices and relationship types. A side benefit is that it could help some people give up on nostalgia for a type of family that most likely never was, while making us (and by “us” I mean “me”) feel better about our own imperfect families or intimate network of meaningful relationships.
Rating: 4/5
September 11, 2012
Every political cycle we see an increase of claims that the American family is in decline and many of our woes are due to this decline. Stephanie Coontz examines the data over the history of American families from colonial days to the early 90's raising serious questions about this view of traditional American families as seen “through the distorted lens of historical mythologizing”. Coontz believes that many of the social issues today are blamed on the dissolution of the traditional family when in fact families are the ones impacted and affected by these issues, not the cause. Many reports of the decline of the American family are based on singular studies taken without historical, economic, and social context. Coontz looks at these in context with other current societal issues and shows there are much more reasonable explanations. This is important in determining how we can develop policies that address the real issues impacting families and affect real solutions to the problems. What I got from this is the greatest single factor impacting families is economic; poverty, especially childhood poverty, is the greatest predictor of family dysfunction.
Before wading into the family value cultural wars or blindly parroting the refrain that all would be better if we return to traditional family values let Coontz guide you through the process of questioning these myths, placing them in the proper historical context, and putting a truer face on what “traditional” family values are being discussed and is this what we really want. Without understanding the true issues, solutions that actually address them are very difficult to come by.
One caveat, this book was published in 1992 but holds up well.
Before wading into the family value cultural wars or blindly parroting the refrain that all would be better if we return to traditional family values let Coontz guide you through the process of questioning these myths, placing them in the proper historical context, and putting a truer face on what “traditional” family values are being discussed and is this what we really want. Without understanding the true issues, solutions that actually address them are very difficult to come by.
One caveat, this book was published in 1992 but holds up well.
April 17, 2008
We Americans have long cherished certain images of ourselves, many of which fall under the heading, "This is How Life Should Be Lived." The problem is not that these images don't exist outside the US--many have never really existed for us!
Here's just one example. "Always stand on your own two feet" (ie., the Horatio Alger-like reliance on self alone). The book cites Senator Phil Gramm, co-author of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment and famous for his opposition to "government handouts": Born to a father living on veterans disability pension, Gramm attended a publicly-funded university on a grant from the War Orphans Act. His graduate work was financed by the National Defense Education Act, and his first job was at a federal land-grant institution (Texas A&M University). His later work in slashing federal assistance programs for low-income Americans seems illogical to say the least--and, the book suggests, could only have met with success because of this national reverence for "standing on your own two feet."
Many aspects of our self-image as Americans are wonderful and true: Ours is a unique nation, borne of remarkable minds at a remarkable time in history, bringing admirable ideals into reality. This book suggests that we should keep our eyes open to creeping incursions into our self-image. Patriotic pride, justifiable though it may be, is a double-edged sword. "Know thyself," the Delphic Oracle said. This is as true today as it ever was.
Here's just one example. "Always stand on your own two feet" (ie., the Horatio Alger-like reliance on self alone). The book cites Senator Phil Gramm, co-author of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment and famous for his opposition to "government handouts": Born to a father living on veterans disability pension, Gramm attended a publicly-funded university on a grant from the War Orphans Act. His graduate work was financed by the National Defense Education Act, and his first job was at a federal land-grant institution (Texas A&M University). His later work in slashing federal assistance programs for low-income Americans seems illogical to say the least--and, the book suggests, could only have met with success because of this national reverence for "standing on your own two feet."
Many aspects of our self-image as Americans are wonderful and true: Ours is a unique nation, borne of remarkable minds at a remarkable time in history, bringing admirable ideals into reality. This book suggests that we should keep our eyes open to creeping incursions into our self-image. Patriotic pride, justifiable though it may be, is a double-edged sword. "Know thyself," the Delphic Oracle said. This is as true today as it ever was.
January 7, 2012
this is a very, very interesting book. it's also a terribly slow read. i found myself re-reading paragraphs and pages, just to be sure that i really understood what the author was getting at. that said, it was sufficiently fascinating that i did finally finish it!
the author's position on marriage, family, race, sex, and other topics makes a lot of sense and seems to be pretty well substantiated. basically, she's saying that all eras idolize another, earlier era, and the way things were done "in the good old days", but that most of what we think we're idolizing isn't anywhere near what things were really like. the 50's weren't all "Leave It To Beaver" and "Father Knows Best", for instance.
the author's position on marriage, family, race, sex, and other topics makes a lot of sense and seems to be pretty well substantiated. basically, she's saying that all eras idolize another, earlier era, and the way things were done "in the good old days", but that most of what we think we're idolizing isn't anywhere near what things were really like. the 50's weren't all "Leave It To Beaver" and "Father Knows Best", for instance.
June 26, 2021
Half the women in my first-year dorm suite read (and raved about) this book for a popular sociology class at UVA. A huge part of me wishes I also read this book 20 years ago, but another part of me is glad I read it now, having lived as a working mother in a society (education system, the workplace, the &$@ing patriarchy) still set up on the misguided notion that a lady in an apron is baking cookies at home in suburbia. This is an awesome historical deep dive into the family but also into social policy, structural racism, reproductive rights, and even tax policy. It’s 20+ years old and it holds up. Strong recommend.
May 21, 2020
This book explodes the myth of the perfect 1950s nuclear family, which as you can read from Stephanie Coontz's extensive research and footnotes, wasn't so perfect. The erosion of social programs during the 1960s and 70s plus racist practices like redlining kept many black citizens and other minorities from attaining the same American dream that so many white families did. Absolutely essential american history reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 313 reviews