tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/changing-families-27681/articlesChanging families – The Conversation2018-09-03T20:06:05Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/937422018-09-03T20:06:05Z2018-09-03T20:06:05Z‘Children belong in the suburbs’: with more families in apartments, such attitudes are changing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234214/original/file-20180830-195325-4ynawm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More families are living in high-rise apartments.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian cities are growing rapidly. Echoing international trends, higher-density housing will accommodate much of this growth in the inner city. Such housing – mostly apartments, townhouses and blocks of flats – is <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/cosy-communities-key-to-livability-author-20100330-rbhn.html">usually associated</a> with young urban professionals and the childless elite. But families with children do live in apartments and even more will do so in the future. </p>
<p>In Brisbane, for instance, the number of high-rise apartments occupied by families with children <a href="https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/changing-face-apartment-living-1">almost doubled between 2011 and 2016</a>. This is a challenge for urban planning in a country often accused of <a href="https://theurbandeveloper.com/articles/work-no-play-child-blind-cities-need-change">“child-blind” higher-density development</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-children-are-living-in-high-rise-apartments-so-designers-should-keep-them-in-mind-100756">More children are living in high-rise apartments, so designers should keep them in mind</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>My <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2018.1424807?journalCode=chos20">research investigated</a> how children in higher density-housing are represented in the community. I did this by analysing newspaper media published between 2007 and 2014 and interviewing Brisbane residents and building professionals. </p>
<p>Four dominant narratives emerged. People still think children belong in the suburbs, and that the lack of family-appropriate apartments is the natural outcome of a housing product driven by investors. I found emerging support for wealthy families who wish to live in lifestyle-focused higher-density housing. Similarly, medium-density housing is seen as important for increasing the affordability and diversity of housing options available to young families and downsizing older households. </p>
<h2>Children belong in the suburbs</h2>
<p>The Australian dream of the detached home, with a white picket fence and children playing in the cul-de-sac, appears alive and well in Brisbane.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234219/original/file-20180830-195322-1f3fr0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s a common belief families should have a house in the suburbs with children playing outside.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One townhouse resident told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Everyone’s dream is that once you have a family you move into a proper house. Because house and family – the idea is the same thing, no?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not only are suburbs seen as a more appropriate place to raise children, apartments and higher-density areas are actively opposed as dangerous or deviant. One planner explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think suburbs are a better place to bring kids up just because they can walk around and do what they want and there isn’t that safety issue.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another developer was more explicit:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’d probably prefer not to raise kids in high density. I’d prefer to have less people these days with all the sickos and shit out there.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Wealthy families get support</h2>
<p>Property marketing in Brisbane seems to be embracing wealthy families as appropriate occupants of high-density housing. <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/news/brisbane-residents-apartment-living-boom/">Media articles</a> use buzz words such as “city-centric living options” and celebrate families that place “higher value on proximity to the city and its amenities than a family-style home in the suburbs”.</p>
<p>There is a marked class divide embedded in this discussion, partially driven by the lack of three-bedroom apartments in Brisbane. As a developer explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you are very early having kids you can stay in an apartment, but once they start growing then everyone wants to move out to the suburbs. The older demographic has less opposition to living in apartments because their apartment is big enough because they can afford three bedrooms. Gen Y can’t afford to have a big apartment.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-equity-got-to-do-with-health-in-a-higher-density-city-82071">What's equity got to do with health in a higher-density city?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Investors drive apartment demand</h2>
<p>Apartment development in Brisbane in the five years to 2016 was almost entirely geared to investor appetite rather than demand from owner-occupiers. This resulted in a <a href="http://www.placeprojects.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Inner-Brisbane-Apartment-Market-Report-December-Quarter-2016.pdf">substantial concentration of one- and two-bedroom units</a>. </p>
<p>One developer explained this trend as due to one- and two-bedroom apartments being more appealing to investors. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>As a developer, the easiest way to sell these things is to do one or two bedrooms and sell them to investor groups in China, Sydney, Perth, because people are looking to spend the money and get the depreciation and tax benefits. That’s why the majority of the apartments in the city are one-bedrooms. Even though the need for owner-occupiers might be quite the opposite, the investor market is much bigger.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is indicative of the ongoing shift from housing as a home to housing as an investment product in Australian housing markets and the Australian psyche. And it has huge implications for the way our cities are shaped. </p>
<h2>Attitudes are changing</h2>
<p>There are, however, signs that attitudes towards higher-density housing are changing. This is particularly linked to arguments about housing affordability. </p>
<p>People discussed higher-density housing as a “stepping stone” on the way to home ownership. Often the debate is framed in terms of a generational divide between wealthy baby boomers and millennials struggling to buy their first home.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234221/original/file-20180830-195310-hs6iin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attitudes are changing alongside our cities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interviews and media revealed that medium-density housing was often seen as appropriate for a diverse range of households. While many people I interviewed noted the prevalence of not-in-my-backyard opposition to higher-density housing, planners pointed to an increasing acceptance of diversity in housing choices. </p>
<p>One planner told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the good things that we have done is have a discussion about housing diversity and housing choices and what gets to people is saying, “OK, you don’t want smaller housing in your area. Do you want your children to be able to move out of home?” “Yea” … “Do you want them to be able to live close to you?” “Yes, not too close but, yes, close.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Shared narratives about where children and families belong matter because assumptions about the “normal household” and the “appropriate” housing for that household underpin urban policies. </p>
<p>The representation of inner-city and higher-density housing as dangerous is particularly damaging. Parents’ fears for their children’s safety can result in children being less likely to independently <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282854249_Parental_fear_as_a_barrier_to_children's_independent_mobility_-_Final_report">explore and play</a>. This could have unintended negative consequences for children’s physical and psychological health. </p>
<p>The lack of affordable, larger apartments is likely to force lower-income households to the city periphery or necessitate overcrowding.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/overcrowded-housing-looms-as-a-challenge-for-our-cities-96110">Overcrowded housing looms as a challenge for our cities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The focus on investor appetite rather than the needs of housing occupants has implications for the design of housing and the proportion of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments that are delivered. While density is not detrimental to children in and of itself, specific design elements are needed to make higher-density living more attractive to families.</p>
<p>These elements include direct outdoor access, expanded indoor spaces, consideration of surveillance opportunities, and balcony balustrades designed to prevent falls. If occupants’ needs do not feature in development decisions, housing stock will continue to fail to suit children. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/with-apartment-living-on-the-rise-how-do-families-and-their-noisy-children-fit-in-88244">With apartment living on the rise, how do families and their noisy children fit in?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Vancouver has had a <a href="https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/H004.pdf">guideline for high-density housing for families with children</a> since 1992. The City of Vancouver has required a minimum of <a href="https://council.vancouver.ca/20160713/documents/cfsc2.pdf">35% family-friendly units</a> in new higher-density housing developments since 2016. Australian cities have historically been <a href="https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/Hodyl_L_2014_Social_outcomes_in_hyper-dense_high-rise_residential_environments_1.pdf">reticent to enforce development outcomes</a>, but perhaps this should change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93742/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katrina Raynor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Urban policies are based on assumptions of a “normal household” and what buildings for it should look like. So this research project explored how people feel about children in high-density housing.Katrina Raynor, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Transforming Housing Project, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/600362016-06-02T20:23:31Z2016-06-02T20:23:31ZGood sex ed doesn’t lead to teen pregnancy, it prevents it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124918/original/image-20160602-1943-a4xao3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sex ed should be inclusive, empowering, and facilitate ethical sexual relationships.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/white_ribbons/4915419800/">lauren rushing/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>CHANGING FAMILIES: In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Comprehensive, inclusive sexuality and relationships education (“sex ed”) teaches children and adolescents in age-appropriate ways that sexuality is a normal, healthy part of life. </p>
<p>Good sex ed covers diverse topics such as human development, relationships and interpersonal skills, sexual expression, sexual health, society and culture, as well as how to prevent unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV.</p>
<p>According to the United Nations, all young people have the right to information about sexuality. Without it, they’re <a href="http://www.unfpa.org/comprehensive-sexuality-education">vulnerable to coercion</a>, unintended pregnancy and STI transmission. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/">World Health Organisation</a> agrees, arguing we all have a right to “a positive and respectful approach to sexual relationships [and] the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences”.</p>
<p>Opponents of school-based sex ed argue that educating young people about sex and relationships can lead to promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, increased rates of STIs and can even influence sexual and gender orientation. But this isn’t supported by the research. </p>
<h2>Comparing sex ed programs</h2>
<p>Opposition to sex ed in schools has resulted in an approach in some states in the United States known as “abstinence-only”. Young people aren’t taught about prevention, they’re urged to pledge to delay any sexual contact until they are married.</p>
<p>To understand the effectiveness of different approaches to sex ed, a <a href="http://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=UNSWORKS&docId=unsworks_7480&fromSitemap=1&afterPDS=true">2005 study compared sexual health outcomes</a> for young people in Australia and the Netherlands, where comprehensive sexuality education is taught, and the United States, where abstinence-only education was taught in some states. Researchers tracked rates of HIV and STI transmission, and unintended pregnancies. </p>
<p>The average age of first intercourse was similar in the Netherlands (17.7 years) and Australia (16 years). </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124922/original/image-20160602-14821-k740m3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124922/original/image-20160602-14821-k740m3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124922/original/image-20160602-14821-k740m3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124922/original/image-20160602-14821-k740m3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124922/original/image-20160602-14821-k740m3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124922/original/image-20160602-14821-k740m3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124922/original/image-20160602-14821-k740m3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sexuality is a normal, healthy part of life.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/linahayes/4509274762/">Lina Hayes/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But sexual health outcomes where abstinence-only programs were taught fell well behind. Teens in the US had an earlier age of first sexual intercourse (15.8), higher rates of pregnancy terminations and higher rates of teen births compared with the other countries in the study. Around 30.4 out of every 1,000 women aged 15 to 17 in the US will give birth.</p>
<p>The Netherlands stands out as having one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy in the world (2.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17). </p>
<p>The Netherlands provides high-quality sexuality education for both primary and secondary school students. But rather than imposing a specific curriculum, Dutch schools incorporate sex ed into existing subject areas. Schools are <a href="http://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=UNSWORKS&docId=unsworks_7480&fromSitemap=1&afterPDS=true">expected to include</a> discussions about pregnancy, STIs, sexual orientation and homophobia, values, respect for difference and skills for healthy relationships in their curriculum. </p>
<p>In Australia, age-appropriate, comprehensive sexuality education is included in the National <a href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/">Health and Physical Education Curriculum</a> for children and young people from the first year of school to year 10. </p>
<p>But despite the national curriculum, there is a lack of consistency in the delivery of programs across Australia. The decision about how to approach sex ed and how to engage parents is generally left to individual school principals.</p>
<p>The Dutch approach to sex ed – which embeds the content across curriculum areas – is considered best practice internationally and should be adopted in Australia. Rather than relegating sex ed to health and physical education, content should also be incorporated into topics such as English, science and pastoral care. </p>
<p>Adopting a “whole school” approach to sex ed is not easy, and would require additional training and support to transition to this model, but schools that have done it have achieved great results. </p>
<h2>Parents or teachers?</h2>
<p>Some of those who oppose school-based sex ed argue it is the responsibility of parents to educate their children about sex. They’re right. </p>
<p>A child’s first exposure to knowledge about sex, sexuality and relationships comes from their own family, whether it is approached openly or not. Children quickly learn that some subjects are acceptable to talk about and others are not. Silence about sex within families, however, does not mean children are unaware of the issue. </p>
<p>In the absence of age-appropriate, accurate information, even very young children <a href="http://www.academia.edu/352680/Hatching_babies_and_stork_deliveries_Risk_and_regulation_in_the_construction_of_children_s_sexual_knowledge">make up stories to fill the void</a>. For some, sex becomes associated with fear and embarrassment. In adolescence, these children may be exposed to the very risks that opponents of sex ed believe it causes.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681811.2011.609053#.V0-gH5N95Bw">my research</a>, many parents report that their own first learning about sex was surrounded by shame and embarrassment. As a result, many feel ill prepared to talk about sex with their own children. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124923/original/image-20160602-1925-1l97qh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124923/original/image-20160602-1925-1l97qh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124923/original/image-20160602-1925-1l97qh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124923/original/image-20160602-1925-1l97qh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124923/original/image-20160602-1925-1l97qh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124923/original/image-20160602-1925-1l97qh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124923/original/image-20160602-1925-1l97qh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sex ed should be the shared responsibility of parents and carers as well as the education system.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ktpupp/679287719/">Kate Sumbler/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681811.2011.609053#.V0-gH5N95Bw">Most parents want</a> their children to grow up to be sexually healthy adults and do not want their children to share their own feelings of discomfort when it comes to sex. They also want schools to provide comprehensive sex ed, with the proviso that they want know what will be taught, when and by whom so they can complement the factual information their children learn with their own family values. </p>
<p>This has implications for how schools communicate with parents about sex ed. <a href="http://www.youthsexuality.com.au/files/9814/5801/5069/It_is_not_all_about_sex_Research_Report_16.3.16.pdf">Keeping parents informed</a> about the curriculum can support high quality parent-child communication about sexuality that, according to many young people, has been missing.</p>
<p>Central to much of the debate about young people, sexuality and sex ed is that the focus is on sex as a problem rather than as a strength to be celebrated and approached ethically and responsibly. High-quality sex ed should support young people to learn to express their ideas, emotions, questions, values and concerns and with potential partners. </p>
<p>Sex ed should be the shared responsibility of parents and carers as well as the education system. It should be inclusive, empowering, and should facilitate ethical sexual relationships. This requires not only knowledge but also <a href="http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9781137405975.0001">skills such as self-reflection</a>, negotiating relationships with others and critical thinking.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>This is the final article in The Conversation’s Changing Families series. Read the other instalments <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">here</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60036/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Dyson has received funding in the past from the Victorian Government, the Australian Research Council and the Western Australian Department of Health. </span></em></p>Good sex ed doesn’t lead to early sex, teenage pregnancy and STIs. It protects against them.Suzanne Dyson, Associate professor, principal research fellow, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/592352016-06-01T20:15:00Z2016-06-01T20:15:00ZEmotional abuse of children is a growing problem in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124456/original/image-20160530-7692-1g19dnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Emotional abuse is most likely to coincide with other forms for abuse, including neglect and physical abuse. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Our politicians talk a lot about “families”, but what do they really mean when they use this term? What does a modern Australian family look like and how does it compare with ten, 20 or even 30 years ago?</em></p>
<p><em>In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>We often hear stories about children being removed from the care of their parents. But how common is this in Australia? What are the main reasons for why this happens? And how does it get to this stage?</p>
<p>To understand this we need to take a closer look at the families that are coming into contact with the child protection system. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124232/original/image-20160527-22043-16ij2z6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124232/original/image-20160527-22043-16ij2z6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124232/original/image-20160527-22043-16ij2z6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124232/original/image-20160527-22043-16ij2z6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124232/original/image-20160527-22043-16ij2z6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124232/original/image-20160527-22043-16ij2z6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124232/original/image-20160527-22043-16ij2z6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554728">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Data shows that over the last three years, the number of child protection notifications, investigations, and substantiations for child maltreatment have increased by 11% for non-Indigenous children and 15% for Indigenous children.</p>
<p>And while the rate of admissions to foster care for all children (2.2 per 1000) is comparatively low to the number of children currently residing in alternative care arrangements (8.1 per 1000), this is due to the fact that many of these children will never go home. </p>
<p>And the picture is worse for Indigenous children. </p>
<p>The number of Indigenous children living in alternative care arrangements has increased by nearly 22% over the last five years while the rate for non-Indigenous children has increased by about 7%. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124247/original/image-20160527-22073-1vlph45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124247/original/image-20160527-22073-1vlph45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124247/original/image-20160527-22073-1vlph45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124247/original/image-20160527-22073-1vlph45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124247/original/image-20160527-22073-1vlph45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124247/original/image-20160527-22073-1vlph45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124247/original/image-20160527-22073-1vlph45.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554728">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>It follows a history of systematic and forced removal of children from Indigenous families and communities. Between 1910 and 1970, it is estimated that <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/stolen/stolen08.html">between 10% to 30% of Indigenous</a> children were forcibly removed from their families, resulting in <a href="http://healingfoundation.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/files_mf/1369185755GrowingourChildrenupsinglesfeb2013.pdf">intergenerational personal and community impacts</a> that are severe and far-reaching.</p>
<p>There are many possible reasons for the increasing numbers of children, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who receive some form of child protection. For example, there may be more child maltreatment; we may simply be better at discovering it; we have lowered our threshold for responding; or we do not know what else to do for families experiencing certain types of difficulties; or we are becoming increasingly risk averse. </p>
<p>Unfortunately we have very little information about any of these children and families, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, making explanations difficult.</p>
<h2>Majority of children removed from parents due to emotional abuse</h2>
<p>Emotional abuse – which includes exposure to domestic violence – and neglect – a failure to provide for a child’s essential needs – are by far the main forms of substantiated child maltreatment, rather than physical or sexual abuse. </p>
<p>Taken together, emotional abuse and neglect are estimated to be the primary form of maltreatment for about seven in ten investigated children in 2014-15.</p>
<p>Even when physical abuse is primary, emotional abuse and/or neglect often co-occur. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124248/original/image-20160527-22073-1jntzvu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124248/original/image-20160527-22073-1jntzvu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124248/original/image-20160527-22073-1jntzvu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124248/original/image-20160527-22073-1jntzvu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124248/original/image-20160527-22073-1jntzvu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124248/original/image-20160527-22073-1jntzvu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124248/original/image-20160527-22073-1jntzvu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=509&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554728">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>These forms of maltreatment are often proxies for concerns stemming from domestic violence, substance misuse, and mental health issues. </p>
<p>At a broader level, maltreatment (especially child neglect) is <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/statistical-overview-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-australia#toc5">highly related to poverty</a>, especially long-term poverty, and Indigenous households tend to be considerably worse off than non-Indigenous households in terms of income.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124249/original/image-20160527-22063-e31cw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124249/original/image-20160527-22063-e31cw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124249/original/image-20160527-22063-e31cw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124249/original/image-20160527-22063-e31cw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124249/original/image-20160527-22063-e31cw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124249/original/image-20160527-22063-e31cw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124249/original/image-20160527-22063-e31cw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554728">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>How does this affect children?</h2>
<p>We actually don’t know as the data collected does not look at how children are doing in any stage of child protection system involvement.</p>
<p>More and more, we are able to use linked data to get educational test scores or ascertain whether they have experienced a health issue. But systematic, real-time assessments of how children or parents/caregivers are actually doing are rare. </p>
<p>At best, we know from <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00430.x">studies</a> that children transitioning to adulthood from care tend to fare less well than their peers.</p>
<p>So we have an increasing number of children and families facing complex challenges and we know next to nothing about who they are and how they are doing. We are also not providing the types of services needed to deal the issues that drive maltreatment. </p>
<p>How do we change this dismal picture?</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124430/original/image-20160530-903-1vg1vgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124430/original/image-20160530-903-1vg1vgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1162&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124430/original/image-20160530-903-1vg1vgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1162&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124430/original/image-20160530-903-1vg1vgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1162&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124430/original/image-20160530-903-1vg1vgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1461&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124430/original/image-20160530-903-1vg1vgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124430/original/image-20160530-903-1vg1vgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1461&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554973">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Better support for parents</h2>
<p>We have to understand that parents are usually best placed to raise their own children, even if they have problems. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24342860">Research shows</a> that better outcomes for vulnerable young children are better achieved by strengthening the resources and capabilities of parents, rather than focusing on more traditional services aimed primarily at children. </p>
<h2>Focus on family wellbeing</h2>
<p>We need to expand our focus to include child and family wellbeing rather than the more limited safety and risk paradigm we are currently stuck in. </p>
<p>Other child protection systems, such as those in the US, are rapidly <a href="http://cascw.umn.edu/portfolio-items/spring-2014-cw360/">shifting to a wellbeing approach</a>, which incorporates the basics of safety (that is, maltreatment impacts wellbeing) and permanence (having a long-term, stable caregiver) but has a broader focus on achieving optimal child development. </p>
<p>For instance, the new Quality Assurance Framework for OOHC in New South Wales builds on US federal policy, which essentially defines wellbeing as consisting of the things children need to develop into healthy, well-functioning adults. </p>
<p>This includes maximising children’s intellectual and cognitive functioning, making sure that their physical and mental health needs are met, and supporting their development of a positive self-identity. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124250/original/image-20160527-22083-1t5nfop.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124250/original/image-20160527-22083-1t5nfop.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124250/original/image-20160527-22083-1t5nfop.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124250/original/image-20160527-22083-1t5nfop.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=571&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124250/original/image-20160527-22083-1t5nfop.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=718&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124250/original/image-20160527-22083-1t5nfop.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=718&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124250/original/image-20160527-22083-1t5nfop.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=718&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129554728">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Need more data</h2>
<p>We cannot really understand what to do, either at an individual or population level, unless we better understand the children and families who need our assistance. </p>
<p>We are making do with poor information because it is all we have. We need to measure child wellbeing using properly validated instruments that are easy to use and provide key information to frontline practitioners.</p>
<p>We would not go to the doctor for a health emergency and expect them to simply guess at what the problem might be and how well it is being resolved. We would all opt for valid tests of problem and progress. These exist for parent and child wellbeing, and we should use them. If we successfully define and measure child and family wellbeing, we will work to achieve it and transform the system in the process.</p>
<h2>Improve child protection services</h2>
<p>We have to provide families with services that are effective for dealing with the problems identified. </p>
<p>Too often, our main child protection system intervention appears to be to engage with parents by pointing out the effects their behaviours are likely to have on their children (which can be good to point out) and threatening them with the loss of their children if their behaviours do not change. </p>
<p>Parents and caregivers in the child protection system are too <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Nudge-Unit-Changes-Difference/dp/0753556537">often overwhelmed</a> by their circumstances to adopt and maintain new behaviours or they just need to gain new skills. </p>
<p>Simply asking people to change without adequate support and corresponding systems change is insufficient. Other systems are making the switch from protection and welfare to child wellbeing. It is time Australia did as well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kerry Arabena is Chair for Indigenous Health at The University of Melbourne, and on the Board of Indigenous Community Volunteers, Kinnaway Victorian Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce and Indigenous Women in Business.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aron Shlonsky and Robyn Mildon do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We have an ever-increasing number of children and families facing complex challenges and we know next to nothing about who they are and how they are doing.Aron Shlonsky, Professor of Evidence-Informed Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of MelbourneKerry Arabena, Chair of Indigenous Health, The University of MelbourneRobyn Mildon, Associate Professor and Head of Centre for Evidence and ImplementationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/586412016-06-01T04:10:50Z2016-06-01T04:10:50ZNo simple solution when families meet the law<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124279/original/image-20160527-888-1u40ec1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Families going through breakdown need understanding, but so do lawmakers trying to find fair outcomes from complex laws.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>CHANGING FAMILIES: In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>It has often been said that when Australia’s white Anglo-Saxon founding fathers drafted the Constitution in 1901, they could not have foreseen how family constellations would change over the next century and how family law would (or would not) keep abreast of those changes.</p>
<p>We now have many different types of families. We have families with and without children, single parents and blended or step families. We have heterosexual and same-sex de facto couples; separated, divorced and widowed couples. We also have families with children born through assisted reproductive technology or altruistically “acquired” through surrogacy, adoption or foster care.</p>
<p>All these are well depicted in popular culture including a plethora of television shows dating back to [Batman and his ward Robin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(TV_series), and the ever-happy blended <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brady_Bunch">Brady Bunch</a> through to the contemporary <a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/how-i-met-your-mother/">How I Met Your Mother</a> and comic <a href="http://abc.go.com/shows/modern-family">Modern Family</a>.</p>
<p>The truth is, however, that the Old and New Testaments hold numerous examples of precursors to the traditional nuclear family of a father, mother and two children. </p>
<p>Adam and Eve had two sons and then one son killed his brother, transforming their dynamic to a one-child family. Moses was abandoned and raised by strangers. Rachel could not conceive and added a child to her family through a surrogate. Ruth and Naomi were both widowed and childless but made a life together. Jesus Christ was a product of an immaculate conception and brought up by foster parents.</p>
<p>Given these examples, it has taken millennia for the law to catch up.</p>
<h2>The complex web of family law</h2>
<p>In Australia’s family law system, each of these configurations is regulated by co-existing and sometimes conflicting legislation. The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/">Family Law Act</a> was only the second significant piece of family law legislation enacted since the Constitution that endowed the federal parliament with powers to legislate about divorce and matrimonial matters.</p>
<p>However, many family law areas come under both federal and state laws, or state laws alone.</p>
<p>A good example of the overlap is the area of child welfare and child protection. Australia’s family law courts (namely the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court) are specialist federal courts. Their job is to determine with whom a child should live, how much time a child spends with the other parent, and other issues about the child’s long-term welfare.</p>
<p>But child protection and welfare cases are also heard in state courts under state laws involving state-mandated child protection agencies. So, one family can find itself embroiled at once in lengthy, expensive and emotionally taxing proceedings in different courts with different jurisdictions.</p>
<p>Each of these state and federal courts houses discrete hierarchies exercising different powers and applying different tests to determine the “best interests of the child”.</p>
<p>Judicial discretion is not unfettered and each piece of relevant legislation provides some guidance and predictability. But as former High Court justice Michael Kirby <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_charles.htm">once opined</a>, decision-making is: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a complex function combining logic and emotion, rational application of intelligence and reason, intuitive responses to experience.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not only are decision-makers influenced by their own views and experiences, they are informed and influenced by a burgeoning body of research in many fields of social and medical sciences. It is increasingly difficult to navigate through the vast oceans of research material available and to differentiate between “good” and “bad” research.</p>
<p>For example, in the early history of the Family Law Act in the 1970s, the Family Court often applied the “tender years” and “maternal preference” presumptions. </p>
<p>These deemed it preferable for young children up to the age of seven years to live with their mothers upon the break-up of the traditional heterosexual nuclear family. They were not prescribed by the statute itself, but rather a vestige of judicial attitudes that decided custody cases before the Family Law Act was introduced with its specialist Family Court.</p>
<h2>Changing attitudes to family violence</h2>
<p>Another example of the shift in judicial and community attitudes relates to the relevance of family violence in parenting cases. Historically, family law courts quarantined family violence as unrelated to parenting capacity and child welfare. A man could be “<a href="http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/08/lawfam.ebv012.abstract">a violent husband but a good father</a>”. </p>
<p>This attitude did not shift substantially until the 1990s, when both society and the courts started to recognise that witnessing family violence could cause long-term damage to children. </p>
<p>Another issue is whether our adversarial system of intra-family dispute resolution (another legacy of the Commonwealth) is suitable to multicultural Australia. Certainly alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as counselling and mediation, may assist. But, often, decisions supposedly reached by the disputing parties themselves are made after “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/795824?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">bargaining in the shadow of the law</a>” or in the shadow of gendered or culturally specific beliefs and practices. </p>
<p>Also, if a resolution is not reached or is not honoured and complied with, a decision needs to be made and imposed by a third party. Under our system, that third party is a judge, but the question again arises as to how judicial discretion is exercised.</p>
<p>Family law is a complex area without simple solutions. There are many participants and stakeholders, not least of whom are the adults and children involved. </p>
<p>We need to be sensitive to their needs and best interests. We also need to be respectful of those who are the decision-makers, while at the same time continuing to scrutinise and review the decision-making processes to ensure a just system.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">here</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58641/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Renata Alexander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Adding to the trauma of a relationship breaking down, families can find themselves caught in a tangle of state and commonwealth laws.Renata Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/590052016-05-31T04:17:10Z2016-05-31T04:17:10ZIt’s not just the toy aisles that teach children about gender stereotypes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124256/original/image-20160527-22050-sugfeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are gender differences innate or learned? Or both? </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>CHANGING FAMILIES: In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Children are born into a world of pink or blue. A walk down a department store toy aisle demonstrates a clear gender divide: princesses and dolls for the girls, superheroes and vehicles for the boys.</p>
<p>Does this simply reflect the different interests that boys and girls have? Or are toy manufacturers imposing gender stereotypes on children?</p>
<p>Marketing toys as being either “for girls” or “for boys” has attracted criticism from initiatives such as <a href="http://www.nogenderdecember.com">No Gender December</a> advocating for more gender-neutral toy choices. Objectors to this campaign include the then-prime minister, Tony Abbott, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/katter-hits-back-at-campaign-to-boycott-gender-based-toys/5933308">who responded by saying</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let boys be boys, let girls be girls.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And there is indeed some evidence that boys and girls come into the world with different preferences and interests. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638300000321">For example</a>, newborn girls have been found to have a greater interest in looking at faces, and newborn boys a greater interest in looking at mobiles. As early as infancy, <a href="http://130.179.16.37/%7Edcampb/Campbell.InfantMetaALSexDiffInfantChildDev1999.pdf">boys show greater physical activity</a> than girls.</p>
<p>Gender differences relating to play are not limited to humans. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001071">A study</a> of vervet monkeys found that, compared to females, males spent more time playing with a toy police car and a ball. On the other hand, female vervet monkeys spent more time playing with a doll and a cooking pot. There were no gender differences in the amount of time spent playing with a picture book and a stuffed dog, similar to what we find in humans.</p>
<p>Such research seems to indicate innate differences between girls and boys that influence their preferences for particular types of toys. Toy manufacturers marketing toys towards either girls or boys might simply be responding to these preferences.</p>
<h2>The ethics of gendered toy marketing</h2>
<p>In a newly published article, <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-016-3080-3">Cordelia Fine and Emma Rush argue</a> that gender differences in toy preferences are misrepresented in gendered toy marketing. The authors argue that these gender preferences in toys are presented as being categorically different, while in fact they are more a matter of degree. </p>
<p>Their review of the evidence suggests that preferences for toys among children under three years of age show a large degree of overlap. For instance, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638300000321">the study finding that</a> newborn girls preferred to look at a face and newborn boys preferred to look at a mobile only shows average differences in looking time that are less than 10%.</p>
<p>Furthermore, they argue that the gender labelling of toys influences how much interest girls or boys will show in gender-neutral toys. Thus, gendered toy marketing may actually exaggerate the gap in preferences between girls and boys.</p>
<p>Fine and Rush argue that gendered toy marketing perpetuates beliefs about which interests or activities are appropriate for girls or boys. Toys marketed to girls may reinforce them to focus on their physical appearance, and toys marketed to boys may reinforce an interest in violence. Gender-typing of toys can also have a negative impact if there are lesser educational benefits of toys marketed to one or the other gender. </p>
<p>Whether or not gender differences in toy preferences have any innate basis, reinforcing and magnifying those differences and imposing gender stereotypes on children is problematic. Parents who hold such concerns for their children should not overlook other ways in which gender stereotypes affect their children.</p>
<h2>Not just child’s play</h2>
<p>Children are quick to absorb norms and expectations. They pick up information about gender roles from sources other than the toys they are encouraged, or discouraged, to play with. </p>
<p>Adults might reinforce gender stereotypes in children through traditional gender norms that are visible to them. <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-women-take-their-husbands-surname-after-marriage-because-of-biology-56991">Take marriage</a>: typically men make marriage proposals to women through the presentation of an engagement ring. More traditionally, this occurs after he asks permission from the woman’s father. At the wedding ceremony, the father walks the veiled bride down the aisle and hands her over to her husband. </p>
<p>She changes her surname to his, and the children also take his name. The bride, if she chooses, goes from Miss to Mrs. </p>
<p>In fact, the whole wedding is viewed as the woman’s “special day”. It’s her chance to live out her ultimate princess fantasy, for which Disney might have provided some inspiration.</p>
<p>Like toys, these adult customs tell children something about gender. At the very least, they reinforce the existence of distinct gender roles. At worst, they send messages about the unequal status of men and women. They enhance masculine stereotypes of dominance, power and autonomy, and feminine stereotypes of subservience, passivity and dependence. These messages are likely to impact children’s developing notions about gender and status.</p>
<p>The point here is not to place moral condemnation on parents who might inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes through marriage traditions. Toy companies exploiting gender stereotypes for profit is a different ethical problem to any possible harm caused by individuals choosing to follow particular wedding traditions. </p>
<p>But if we are concerned about the reinforcement of gender stereotypes in the toy aisle, we should be concerned about them elsewhere. We need to think more broadly about how we as adults reinforce these stereotypes. Anyone concerned about the impact of gender stereotyping on children should be willing to critically examine their potential impact in any context.</p>
<p>Of course, one could respond to the rejection of marriage traditions by objecting that it’s not a big deal. Wedding traditions are romantic, and who would deny a girl’s dream to be a princess for a day? “Let men be men, let women be women,” as Abbott might say. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">here</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59005/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beatrice Alba does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whether gendered toys are creating stereotypes or just playing to boys’ and girls’ innate differences is a vexed question.Beatrice Alba, Casual Academic, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/586422016-05-30T03:57:46Z2016-05-30T03:57:46ZLove by design: when science meets sex, lust, attraction and attachment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122785/original/image-20160517-15924-1nnbge3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do we accept attraction and attachment the way they are, or find ways to intervene?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>CHANGING FAMILIES: In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>You are on holiday with your partner of several years. Your relationship is going pretty well, but you wonder if it could be better. It’s Valentine’s Day and you find a bottle on the beach. You rub it. A love genie appears. He (or she) will grant you three special Valentine wishes. Here are some of your choices:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>to have more or less sexual desire (lust);</p></li>
<li><p>to remain always as “in love” as you were when you first fell in love (romantic attraction);</p></li>
<li><p>to be more or less bonded to your partner emotionally (attachment);</p></li>
<li><p>to be (happily) monogamous or polygamous.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What would you choose? What should you choose? What would your partner choose? Would you choose together, if you could? What would you choose for your partner?</p>
<h2>A real-life love genie in a bottle</h2>
<p>In August 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first drug to specifically increase sexual desire. While not yet available from doctors in Australia, it is available on the internet. Flibanserin or “<a href="http://www.drugs.com/history/addyi.html">Addyi</a>” is used to “treat” hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), or low libido, in premenopausal women.</p>
<p>Addyi acts on neurotransmitter receptors in the brain (serotonin receptors – the same receptors targeted by some antidepressants like Prozac which themselves lower libido). The beneficial effects are modest. Prior to treatment, these women experienced about two or three satisfying sexual events over a month. After a course, they got around one extra sexually rewarding experience a month, though in some individual cases the effects would have been greater.</p>
<p>Addyi faces considerable opposition. People worry it is treating the symptom, not the disease, which is social or relationship dysfunction. There is concern it could be used coercively in abusive relations, and finally that it reflects an unrealistic standard of hypersexuality promoted by media and pornography.</p>
<p>These are all legitimate concerns. But what motivated the FDA is that some women experience low sex drive, which causes them distress. This can help them. </p>
<p>Addyi is the first of many designer “love drugs” aimed strategically at targeting a specific phase of the human romantic relationships.</p>
<h2>What is love?</h2>
<p>Love and mating are the most basic, biologically programmed behaviours humans engage in. Evolution created life, including human life, as a reproductive machine designed to pass on genes to the next generation.</p>
<p>Human love is a set of basic brain systems for the three stages of love (lust, romantic attraction and attachment) that have evolved among all mammals.</p>
<p>Lust promotes mating with any appropriate partner, attraction makes us choose and prefer a particular partner, and attachment allows pairs to co-operate and stay together until our parental duties have been completed. Each of these different phases occurs in different parts of the brain and is mediated by different hormones and neurotransmitters.</p>
<h2>Do we need love drugs?</h2>
<p>In evolutionary time, 300,000 years is a blink of an eye. That is how long our species has been in existence. Our wiring is essentially the same as our hunter gather ancestors. And when it comes to mating behaviour, we are very similar to other mammals. </p>
<p>Yet in the last 10,000 years our societies have radically changed under the influence of agriculture, urbanisation and property ownership. Institutions have been invented to facilitate living in large groups and ownership of property. Marriage and fidelity to one partner is one such institution. It fulfils emotional needs and provides socioeconomic security. It enables transfer of property, protects against sexually transmitted diseases, and enables rearing of young.</p>
<p>But under the influence of science and technology, particularly the industrial revolution, our lives have changed radically. </p>
<p>Marriage for love is a relatively recent phenomenon. Families and relationships are changing. Around 50% of marriages end in divorce. Divorce has surpassed death as the major cause of relationship break up. Children often grow up in “blended” families. Gay or single people have children. People seek deeply loving, all-consuming or highly sexualised relationships. Diversity is celebrated. We can have partners of the opposite, same or both sexes. And we are richer than ever before, seeking relationships for love, not socioeconomic reasons.</p>
<p>But our biology has lagged behind our social and cultural evolution – we still have the biology and drives of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. We are not made for the world and institutions we have created for ourselves, including lifelong marriage. </p>
<p>Through most of human history, people lived only 20 to 35 years. There were high risks of death from giving birth, violence, accidents and disease. Most marriages ended by one of the partners dying. Given a life expectancy on the order of 30 years and marriage in the teens, at least 50% of marriages would have ended within 15 years, usually due to the death of one of the partners. This is surprisingly close to the current median duration of marriage of about 11 years. </p>
<p>Put simply, relationships have not evolved to last much more than about ten years.</p>
<p>So should we design love? Love and relationships are some of the most potent contributors to our well-being, and our children’s well-being. There are strong prudential and moral reasons to make our relationships better, to escape evolution’s chains.</p>
<p>But won’t this render our relationships inauthentic, the mere product of pharmaceutical design? Won’t we become addicted to love? Couldn’t this be used to imprison people in bad relationships they would be better released from? Isn’t it better to change institutions or people using counselling and therapy?</p>
<p>Evolution has not created us to be happy, but rather happiness to keep us alive and reproducing. But from our human perspective our – and our loved ones’ – happiness and flourishing are the primary goals. There is no human moral imperative to obey evolution. </p>
<p>Yet evolution has constructed our motivational systems and emotions, making any ethics or social system that goes counter to these constraints unstable. Our evolutionary adaptations are based on an ancestral environment utterly unlike our present, and some adaptations promote competitiveness and unhappiness rather than happiness.</p>
<p>Chemical and other biological manipulation of our emotions is a way to circumvent this bind, allowing human desires and value to influence our underlying biology. </p>
<p>This represents an important move towards “biological liberation” or bioliberation. That is, to us being liberated from the biological and genetic constraints evolution placed on us and that now represent impediments to us achieving a good life or other valued goals.</p>
<h2>Making choices</h2>
<p>There is no free lunch in life. In the case of Addyi, the key question the FDA considered was whether the benefits outweighed the side effects of the drug.</p>
<p>Some 21% of women taking it experienced central nervous system “depression” (fatigue, somnolence or sedation) while 11% experienced dizziness, somnolence or nausea. There was also the risk of fainting, accidental injury, and depression, as well as potential adverse interactions with alcohol and common medications, including antidepressants (SSRIs) and hormonal contraceptives.</p>
<p>People need to be informed of these risks, and monitored for them. But, in the end, it is they who should decide if the risks outweigh the benefits when they are paying for the drug.</p>
<h2>An ethical toolkit</h2>
<p>There are several key ethical points.</p>
<p>Everything that matters in our lives is the result of what goes on in our brain. These operations are not entirely mysterious – they are the result of neurotransmitters like serotonin being released, causing electrical messages across neurons that translate into thoughts, desires, feelings and action. </p>
<p>The operations of the brain can be modified by environmental, including social, stimuli and direct stimulation of the brain by drugs, electrical or magnetic current (so called brain stimulation).</p>
<p>More complex higher-order experiences and actions, like playing football or being in love, cannot at present be simulated by direct brain stimulation. They require a combination of engagement, action and sometimes biological assistance. It is a platitude that steroids will do nothing if you sit on the couch – you have to train hard and steroids only work by accelerating healing after training. </p>
<p>Love drugs require the right kind of engagement, so the fear that these undermine something essential to love is misplaced. They help love along – but they don’t at this stage create it or simulate it. They change the probabilities; they don’t determine the outcome.</p>
<p>Free will is to a considerable extent an illusion. Results from psychology and neuroscience show that many of our choices which we experience as free are shaped by unconscious factors, driven by social and environmental cues. For example, the longer you look at someone, the <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/03/10/0956797616630964.abstract">more you will find them attractive</a>.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, love drugs can enable freedom and allow us to make decisions, such as breaking up with a partner. They allow us some cognitive control over our most basic drives, which are so prone to factors outside of our control.</p>
<p>You can’t just will yourself to be attracted, to have sexual desire or to be in love. But love drugs can increase the probably of those events occurring, in the right context.</p>
<p>In this way, love drugs are liberating, or at least can be. Like any powerful technology, they can be used for good or bad. Given against someone’s will, they could undermine that person’s choices and freedom. They could be used for abuse.</p>
<p>It is essential that as freedom increases, we form rules. That is the problem we are facing now with the freedom afforded by the internet – there are no rules, not even social norms. It is the Wild West.</p>
<p>So, here are a few starter rules for dealing with the genie in the bottle:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Actively decide for yourself. Take a stand. There is no recipe or answer which is right for everyone.</p></li>
<li><p>Work out what you and your partner think is a good relationship (and that is up to you) and don’t be pressured by others’ values or norms. Long- or short-term relationship, children or no children, monogamy or polygamy. Use the knowledge of human psychology, sociology and biology to achieve these, including in the future, designer love drugs.</p></li>
<li><p>Know the downsides of what you are doing and minimise these.</p></li>
<li><p>There is danger that we will end up medicated to live; there is also danger we will accept disadvantage of natural inequality and our natural limitations and use drugs to support these rather than seek a better future.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t sacrifice other values unreasonably for love – health, family, job. Monitor the effect of enhanced love on these other values.</p></li>
<li><p>Do it together, according to agreed relationship goals.</p></li>
<li><p>Reassess, talk and revise goals and use.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>It’s time to design your own life.</p>
<p><strong><em>Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">here</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58642/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julian Savulescu receives funding from The Wellcome Trust. This piece is related to a book under contract with co-written with Brian Earp for Stanford University Press.</span></em></p>“Love drugs” have their risks, but are also potentially liberating, so people must be free to make their own choices about what works best for them.Julian Savulescu, Sir Louis Matheson Distinguishing Visiting Professor at Monash University, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/581302016-05-29T06:19:31Z2016-05-29T06:19:31ZWe can we reduce gender inequality in housework – here’s how<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124084/original/image-20160526-16706-rum624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Full-time working Australian women spend, on average, 25 hours doing housework per week.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/financeninja/4755824953/">Paul Meyer/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>CHANGING FAMILIES: In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>We live in the golden age of housework, where robot vacuums can spend hours pirouetting around the living room. The problem is these labour-saving devices often amplify standards of cleanliness. Any time saved is spent on other household chores. And it’s no surprise who bears the brunt of this: women. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/More_Work_for_Mother.html?id=_6iAsTStE9MC">transition from the hearth to the stove</a>. This transformed cooking from one-pot meals to an elaborate endeavour of courses, all made possible by multiple-burner cooking and the stacking of a stove on top of an oven. <em>Voilà</em>, more work for mother. </p>
<p>The same goes for the washing machine, dishwasher, and the expansion of home sizes – more work for mother. </p>
<p>As a result, women are <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/publications/snapshot-how-australian-families-spend-their-time">increasingly time pressed, stressed and depressed</a>. </p>
<h2>How much do men and women do?</h2>
<p>Women today <a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publication25.03.095/$File/41020_Householdwork.pdf">spend as much time doing housework</a> as in the 1990s. Men have increased their housework contributions – a nod towards greater gender equality. Yet women still spend twice as much time on housework as men. </p>
<p>Full-time working Australian women <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40March%202009">spend, on average, 25 hours</a> doing housework per week, including shopping for groceries and cooking. This is in addition to the average <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4125.0main+features1120Jan%202013">36.4 hours</a> full-time working women spend in employment.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124094/original/image-20160526-16700-nrhhyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124094/original/image-20160526-16700-nrhhyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124094/original/image-20160526-16700-nrhhyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124094/original/image-20160526-16700-nrhhyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124094/original/image-20160526-16700-nrhhyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124094/original/image-20160526-16700-nrhhyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124094/original/image-20160526-16700-nrhhyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women are more likely to do less enjoyable tasks like scrubbing the toilet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Full-time working men spend an average of 15 hours doing housework per week, in addition to their 40 hours in paid labour. </p>
<p>When weighed together, full-time working women spend 6.4 hours more per week working inside and outside the home than full-time working men. Averaged across the year, this means a 332 additional hours (or two weeks of 24-hour days) of work. </p>
<p>Women shoulder the time-intensive and routine tasks such as cooking, laundry and dishes. They’re also more likely to do the least enjoyable tasks like scrubbing the toilets versus washing the car. By contrast, men are more likely to do the episodic chores such as mowing the lawn or changing the light bulbs. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124132/original/image-20160526-22060-1mwehe2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124132/original/image-20160526-22060-1mwehe2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=309&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124132/original/image-20160526-22060-1mwehe2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=309&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124132/original/image-20160526-22060-1mwehe2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=309&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124132/original/image-20160526-22060-1mwehe2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124132/original/image-20160526-22060-1mwehe2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124132/original/image-20160526-22060-1mwehe2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Source: ABS Time Use Survey 2006. Note: the latest available trend data is from 2006.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Data from <a href="http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/191.abstract">the United States</a> show a large and lasting gender gap. Women do more housework than men even when they are more educated, work full-time and are more egalitarian. In fact, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00074.x/abstract;jsessionid=D12FF2732EB996949895B5F58E0283C3.f03t01?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=">some studies show</a> women spend more time in housework even when their husbands earn less money or stay at home. </p>
<p>One argument for this counter-intuitive finding is that high-earning women do more housework as a way to neutralise the threat of their success on their husbands’ masculinity. </p>
<p>The jury is out on whether this claim is reliable but housework studies consistently confirm the symbolic gendered value of housework as a way to demonstrate femininity and masculinity in domestic partnerships. In fact, people’s sex lives are even tied to who does the dishes, with <a href="http://asr.sagepub.com/content/78/1/26.abstract">equal sharing couples having less sex</a>. </p>
<p>Even <a href="http://asr.sagepub.com/content/69/6/751.short">Swedish women spend more time in housework</a> than Swedish men, indicating that our Nordic sisters, supported by a system of equality, cannot get a fair shake on housework. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124095/original/image-20160526-16688-13pax2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124095/original/image-20160526-16688-13pax2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124095/original/image-20160526-16688-13pax2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124095/original/image-20160526-16688-13pax2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124095/original/image-20160526-16688-13pax2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124095/original/image-20160526-16688-13pax2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124095/original/image-20160526-16688-13pax2i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women consistently spend more time in housework and, as a result, less time in employment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wefi_official/9272438746/in/photolist-f8nEZy-aihxu-7iVvVh-rd2FTN-2yMS5z-a1uQaR-veYpQ-7LzYys-boyhhr-4bN79f-3G8uri-28rtGN-y9WuP-fLYq2b-nGzSVF-cXsx7G-a7Vbsy-3gzXmG-pDahhV-9x4XPh-bKwuMk-9uZ6fH-7h6N3F-ouQrQ-ouQpH-qfXQVi-dQcsnq-Cbxi-b9zzBt-7RybXL-6emvX6-a4Tf5W-51wmPd-8nDF1K-9SAmJs-CeiSj-4VrKz-CiDEn3-8HFr3R-E9UUgk-egf3VC-a4Qohr-7T4UP5-DRiR-9Q9HgB-Cv7eq-dNQ67r-bf7TRr-8p9csx-7RybTb">Anne Worner/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Emerging research is investigating <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10July+2013#housework">housework allocations among same-sex partners</a> for whom gender could be reduced or amplified. The results show same-sex partners are more likely to share housework than opposite-sex partners. </p>
<p>This suggests the cultural scripts associated with heterosexuality, marriage and family severely disadvantage women by holding them accountable for a larger share of the domestic labour. </p>
<h2>It’s about more than just a clean home</h2>
<p>Although performed in the domestic sphere, housework has important public consequences. </p>
<p>Women consistently spend more time in housework and, as a result, less time in employment. <a href="http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publication25.03.095/$File/41020_Householdwork.pdf">Recent estimates show</a> Australian women account for two-thirds of the domestic load, while Australian men account for two-thirds of the paid work. </p>
<p>Women’s reduced attachment to the labour market means Australian families have less pooled family income, and women are more vulnerable to poverty if partnerships dissolve. </p>
<p>Income is consistently tied to power within relationships. So lower-earning women are less able to get their husbands to equally share in the domestic work. When women do earn more, their greater income is <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00522.x/abstract;jsessionid=04623D209D59C6E271459A90C60301ED.f03t04?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=">more likely to be directed</a> to outsourcing housework than is men’s. </p>
<h2>Moving towards domestic equality</h2>
<p>One response to housework inequality could be to monetise domestic work and pay someone to complete it. This approach is currently being applied in Sweden where the government subsidises families for their outsourced domestic work. Through tax breaks, Swedish families are <a href="http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/emcc/case-studies/tackling-undeclared-work-in-europe/tax-deductions-for-domestic-service-work-sweden">encouraged to hire maid services</a> to help with the domestic load. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124096/original/image-20160526-16703-18yx56z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124096/original/image-20160526-16703-18yx56z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124096/original/image-20160526-16703-18yx56z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124096/original/image-20160526-16703-18yx56z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124096/original/image-20160526-16703-18yx56z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124096/original/image-20160526-16703-18yx56z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124096/original/image-20160526-16703-18yx56z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Men have increased their housework contributions since the 1990s but are likely to do the episodic chores such as mowing the lawn.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34101337/stock-photo-a-man-mowing-the-front-lawn-with-focus-on-the-front-wheel.html?src=c-RlbWXpZfSWr1n4LkVsEQ-1-108">Stephen Mcsweeny/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Swedish government is betting the policy benefits will be two-fold. First, by encouraging women to more actively engage in the labour market. Second, to reduce the hiring of domestic labour off the black market, raising the wages, status and protection for women working in these domestic jobs. </p>
<p>With <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/australians-willing-to-trade-pay-for-flexibility/news-story/3caf4e72989766de4a475bd48e8b271d">38% of Australians intending to outsource</a> some domestic labour in 2016, the demand for these types of services is large and growing, indicating a need to help families subsidise these demands and support the workers providing services. </p>
<p>State governments could play a role in implementing these services through tax incentives or direct services. This, in turn, could help protect the workers in these positions who are often disproportionately poor and of immigrant status.</p>
<p>A second response could be to stop penalising women for dirty homes. This requires a cultural shift in expectations of “good” womanhood to reduce the cultural pressure of domestic perfection. </p>
<p>Finally, bringing men into the cleaning process is essential. This means expecting men to be equal housework sharers and not helpers. It also means not penalising men for “not doing it right” when cleaning. Cleaning the house is a skill men can learn one toilet bowl at a time. And this is the key to reducing gender inequality in housework.</p>
<p><strong><em>Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">here</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58130/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leah Ruppanner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Men have increased their housework contributions – a nod towards greater gender equality. Yet women still spend twice as much time on housework as men.Leah Ruppanner, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/582172016-05-26T20:08:53Z2016-05-26T20:08:53ZHow do we choose a partner?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122937/original/image-20160518-9487-1rgka5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There’s nothing that everyone wants in a partner. But there are characteristics most men or women find attractive.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ileohidalgo/13945303272/">Leo Hidalgo/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>CHANGING FAMILIES: In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>We know a lot about why people choose different brands of dishwashing detergent, because companies spend billions of dollars investigating who buys what. But when it comes to the processes behind perhaps our most significant life choice – choosing a romantic partner – science knows surprisingly little. </p>
<p>One reason partner choice is hard to understand is because it’s a two-way street. A person can choose any dishwashing detergent they like, because the detergent has no choice in the matter, but choosing a partner doesn’t work that way. We need to understand not only what kind of people person A prefers, but also what kind of people prefer person A, how those two groups overlap, the influence of other competitors trying to elbow in on person A’s turf, and so on. It’s all very complex. </p>
<p>So let’s start simple(ish). Accordingly, I’ll focus on Western heterosexuals, on whom most of the research has been done.</p>
<h2>What everyone wants</h2>
<p>There’s nothing that everyone wants in a partner – everyone has their own idiosyncratic preferences – but there are characteristics most men or women find attractive. </p>
<p>As depressing as it is, a big part of romance and attraction is physical. It’s not just that everyone’s a unique snowflake destined to find their special complementary snowflake. Different people tend to agree a fair bit about who is more and less physically attractive, which sadly means there are haves and have-nots in the looks lottery. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122940/original/image-20160518-9501-4kkogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122940/original/image-20160518-9501-4kkogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122940/original/image-20160518-9501-4kkogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122940/original/image-20160518-9501-4kkogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122940/original/image-20160518-9501-4kkogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122940/original/image-20160518-9501-4kkogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122940/original/image-20160518-9501-4kkogc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Men generally prefer slim women, while women generally prefer men with a V-shape.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathaninsandiego/2751765930/">Nathan Rupert/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Body-wise, <a href="http://dfred.bol.ucla.edu/FrederickHaselton-2007-PSPB-MuscularityFitnessIndicator.pdf">women tend to prefer taller men</a> with a high shoulder-to-hip ratio (V-shape), and who are muscular (but not too muscular). </p>
<p>Men’s preferences, on the other hand, are dominated by a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740144507000769">strong predilection for slimness</a> (though not ultra-thinness). Much has been made of men’s apparent attraction to low waist-to-hip ratios (hourglass figures), but <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19013182">more recent research</a> suggests it is just a byproduct of slim women tending to have low waist-to-hip ratios. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122945/original/image-20160518-9491-5q0w38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122945/original/image-20160518-9491-5q0w38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122945/original/image-20160518-9491-5q0w38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122945/original/image-20160518-9491-5q0w38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122945/original/image-20160518-9491-5q0w38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122945/original/image-20160518-9491-5q0w38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122945/original/image-20160518-9491-5q0w38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Miranda Kerr: ultra-feminine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/evarinaldiphotography/6873397097/">Eva Rinaldi/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Public dismay about society’s heavy emphasis on beauty tends to focus on body image issues, but <a href="http://www.alittlelab.stir.ac.uk/pubs/Currie&Little_09_facevsbody_EHB.pdf">research suggests</a> a person’s face is even more important to overall attractiveness. This might sound nice, but isn’t really when you consider it’s harder to change a face than a body.</p>
<p>Both men and women tend to prefer geometrically average faces (that is, faces close to the shape of the average face for their gender, as opposed to distinctive faces). </p>
<p>People also tend to prefer left-right symmetrical faces, but this aspect of beauty is often oversold. Symmetry has only a tiny impact on facial attractiveness, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691809000407">accounting for only around 1%</a> of the total variation. So don’t worry too much about your wonky nostril or huge left eye or whatever. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122949/original/image-20160518-9501-bmhchl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122949/original/image-20160518-9501-bmhchl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=737&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122949/original/image-20160518-9501-bmhchl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=737&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122949/original/image-20160518-9501-bmhchl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=737&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122949/original/image-20160518-9501-bmhchl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=926&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122949/original/image-20160518-9501-bmhchl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=926&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122949/original/image-20160518-9501-bmhchl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=926&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Justin Bieber also has a feminine face.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-348418241/stock-photo-los-angeles-nov-justin-bieber-arrives-to-the-american-music-awards-on-november.html?src=44BzFHILh-u_m-LttR9-sA-1-0">DFree/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Men also prefer feminine female faces. This typically means, for example, big eyes and a small chin – think Miranda Kerr.</p>
<p>Strangely, women don’t tend to prefer masculine male faces: on average they show no strong preference either way. If anything, they prefer more feminine male faces, thus your Biebers and your Depps being international sex symbols. </p>
<p>It’s not all about looks, of course. Both men and women say they’d prefer a kind and intelligent partner. And <a href="http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(05)00076-0/abstract">both sexes like a good sense of humour</a>. But there’s a catch: women want a man who is funny, while men prefer a woman who finds <em>them</em> funny. </p>
<h2>Individual preferences</h2>
<p>There is plenty of individuality in preferences as well, some of which is based on the extent to which we <em>value</em> different traits in a partner. Few women prefer narrow shoulders on a man, but plenty don’t place much importance on shoulder width. Instead they see nice eyes, brains or jokes as more important.</p>
<p>So what causes individuals to differ in the traits they value more and less? </p>
<p>My colleagues and I studied thousands of genetically identical and nonidentical twins who ranked 13 traits (such as physical attractiveness, kindness, intelligence) in terms of their importance in a partner. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122941/original/image-20160518-9491-5e5n5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122941/original/image-20160518-9491-5e5n5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122941/original/image-20160518-9491-5e5n5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122941/original/image-20160518-9491-5e5n5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122941/original/image-20160518-9491-5e5n5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122941/original/image-20160518-9491-5e5n5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122941/original/image-20160518-9491-5e5n5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What’s inside also counts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kiracronin/4477789530/">kira cronin/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that the genetically identical twin pairs had more similar rankings than genetically nonidentical twins. This implies that genes influence people’s preference rankings.</p>
<p>We’ve shown a similar thing with specific physical preferences, too, such as whether you prefer beard or clean-shaven, tall or short, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049294">long hair or short hair</a>, or whether you tend to prefer <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/06/0956797615591770.abstract">digitally masculinised or feminised facial photos</a>. All these preferences are more similar in genetically identical twin pairs than in nonidentical twin pairs, again implying genetic influence on our individual preferences. </p>
<h2>Actual partner choices</h2>
<p>So how do these genetically influenced preferences translate into who actually partners with whom? </p>
<p>Since identical twins have similar partner preferences, we’d expect them to have similar partners as well, right? Well, they don’t – at least not in any meaningful way <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508607">that my colleagues and I could detect</a> among thousands of twins and their partners.</p>
<p>This means there’s a lot of mismatched partners.</p>
<p>If this mismatch between genetically influenced preferences and actual partners emerged only in humans, we might wonder if modern society has somehow divorced our partner choices from our inherited preferences. However, the same pattern of results <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7089/abs/nature04564.html">has been observed in species of birds</a> that, like humans, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013855">form pair bonds</a>. </p>
<p>So what’s the deal with the mismatch? Well, this is an open scientific question, but it probably boils down to the fact we can’t all get what we want. For one thing, most of us don’t meet enough people to find someone who fulfils all of our preferences. So right away we’re dealing with the best of the available, rather than a perfect match. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122951/original/image-20160518-9484-ped7c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122951/original/image-20160518-9484-ped7c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122951/original/image-20160518-9484-ped7c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122951/original/image-20160518-9484-ped7c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122951/original/image-20160518-9484-ped7c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122951/original/image-20160518-9484-ped7c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122951/original/image-20160518-9484-ped7c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We usually have to settle on someone who meets some but not all of our criteria.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hmoong/8590592453/">Khánh Hmoong/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what are the chances that the best of the available will be interested in us anyway, with our wonky nostril and obvious character flaws? </p>
<p>And then there are those other guys or gals with preferences similar to ours, trying to get in on this action as well, telling better jokes at Friday drinks and generally leaving us for dead. </p>
<p>So we settle for someone who doesn’t really match our preferences too well, but is basically alright, we suppose. Hopefully. </p>
<p>This must be part of the reason relationships are hard and often stressful. The consequences of mismatch between preferences and actual partners aren’t well studied in humans, but in finches females paired with a non-preferred partner <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/01/25/rspb.2010.2672">were found to have stress hormone levels</a> three times higher than those paired with a preferred partner. </p>
<p>Judging by the amount of relationship dysfunction and breakdown in our society (<a href="http://www.formerministers.dss.gov.au/15362/economic-value-of-marriage-family-and-relationship-breakdown/">estimated to cost A$14 billion per year</a> in Australia), this phenomenon probably isn’t limited to birds.</p>
<p>So it would be great to see more studies about the process of partner selection, what causes partners to match or not, and the consequences of mismatch. There’s so much we don’t understand, and the immense complexity of the process makes the search for answers both intimidating and exciting. Much like the search for a partner, I guess. </p>
<p><strong><em>Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">here</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58217/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Zietsch has received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>We know a lot about why people choose different brands of dishwashing detergent. But when it comes to the processes behind choosing a romantic partner, science knows surprisingly little.Brendan Zietsch, ARC Future Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/579862016-05-25T20:11:01Z2016-05-25T20:11:01ZFrom tiger to free-range parents – what research says about pros and cons of popular parenting styles<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123878/original/image-20160525-25209-bfjk6g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What type of parent are you?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Designed by Wes Mountain</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Our politicians talk a lot about “families”, but what do they really mean when they use this term? What does a modern Australian family look like and how does it compare with ten, 20 or even 30 years ago?</em></p>
<p><em>In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>What’s the best way to raise your child? It’s a question that has provoked the publication of numerous books, and seen authors race to coin the next quirky name for a new style of parenting. </p>
<p>And it turns out there are many styles. To date, some of the best known include: </p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Tiger parents</strong>, who are seen as pushing their children to succeed according to their parents’ terms.</li>
<li><strong>Helicopter parents</strong>, who take over every aspect of the child’s life.</li>
<li><strong>Snowplough parents</strong>, who remove obstacles to make life easier for their child.</li>
<li><strong>Free-range parents</strong>, who allow children a great deal of freedom.</li>
<li><strong>Attachment or gentle parents</strong>, who are relaxed but set limits in line with the child’s needs and character.</li>
</ul>
<p>Psychologists generally talk about <a href="http://search.proquest.com/openview/1ab065f19552b3ec2e969b6f7044ce32/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819054">parenting as fitting into typologies</a>, based on the work of <a href="http://jea.sagepub.com/content/11/1/56.short">Diana Baumrind</a>, a clinical and developmental psychologist known for her research on parenting styles. </p>
<p>There are generally understood to be four typologies:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Authoritarian parents</strong> are the authority in their child’s life. They set the rules and say “jump” and their child responds “how high?”. (Most similar to tiger parents.)</li>
<li><strong>Permissive parents</strong> are lax about their expectations, don’t set standards and don’t ask much of their children.</li>
<li><strong>Neglectful parents</strong> are uninterested in their children and unwilling to be an active part of their child’s life. </li>
<li><strong>Authoritative parents</strong> are <a href="http://search.proquest.com/openview/1ab065f19552b3ec2e969b6f7044ce32/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819054">highly demanding</a> while being highly responsive.</li>
</ul>
<p>One of the major criticisms of these typologies is how <a href="https://www.psy.cuhk.edu.hk/psy_media/Bond_files/a%20critical%20look%20at%20parenting%20research%20from%20the%20mainstream%202002.pdf">culturally determined</a> they are.</p>
<p>So what does research say about the pros and cons of each of these parenting styles?</p>
<h2>Tiger parents</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123738/original/image-20160524-11025-gx3lpf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123738/original/image-20160524-11025-gx3lpf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123738/original/image-20160524-11025-gx3lpf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123738/original/image-20160524-11025-gx3lpf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123738/original/image-20160524-11025-gx3lpf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123738/original/image-20160524-11025-gx3lpf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123738/original/image-20160524-11025-gx3lpf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Type of parent:</strong> You expect first-time obedience, excellence in every endeavour and a child who never talks back.</p>
<p><strong>Who coined it?</strong> Amy Chua popularised this name in her 2011 book <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9160695-battle-hymn-of-the-tiger-mother">Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother</a>. Chua describes tiger parents, often seen in Chinese families, as <a href="http://amychua.com">superior</a> to Western parents. Chinese parents assume strength and don’t shy away from calling their children <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754">names</a>. They assume their children owe them and expect their children to repay them by being obedient and making them proud.</p>
<p><strong>Why parents choose this style:</strong> Tiger mothers are, as Chua attests, socialised to be this way by their cultural background. Thus, when they successfully demand an hour of piano practice it’s <a href="http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?sid=5da7c37f-5e78-4a08-893b-a30b883e9a77%40sessionmgr4002&vid=0&hid=4109&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=2012-31072-001&db=pdh">part of their cultural background</a> that the child complies. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00381/abstract">Western parents</a> will have a hard time emulating the years of acculturation that leads to that moment. </p>
<p>Parents who follow Chua may do so because they want their child to be <a href="http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/11/chinese-vs-western-mothers-q-a-with-amy-chua/">successful</a>. It may be these parents hold deep <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/07/truth-about-tiger-mothers-family-amy-chua">insecurities</a> about the future. These parents are most likely <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/aap/4/1/7/">authoritarian</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> Raising a child in this way can <a href="http://www.radicalparenting.com/2011/06/15/the-benefits-of-being-a-%22tiger-mom%22/">lead to them being</a> more productive, motivated and responsible.</p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> Children can <a href="http://news.berkeley.edu/2013/06/18/chinese-parenting/">struggle to function</a> in daily life or in new settings, which may lead to depression, anxiety and poor social skills. But again <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/40/6/739.short">it’s culturally dependent</a>.</p>
<h2>Helicopter parents</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123747/original/image-20160524-12397-sw5vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123747/original/image-20160524-12397-sw5vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123747/original/image-20160524-12397-sw5vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123747/original/image-20160524-12397-sw5vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123747/original/image-20160524-12397-sw5vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123747/original/image-20160524-12397-sw5vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123747/original/image-20160524-12397-sw5vtp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Type of parent:</strong> You step in to prevent your toddler’s every struggle; you are over-involved in your child’s education and frequently call their teacher; you can’t stop watching over your teenager.</p>
<p><strong>Who coined it?</strong> Psychologist Foster Cline and education consultant Jim Fay coined the phrase in 1990 in their book: <a href="https://www.loveandlogic.com/parenting-with-love-and-logic">Parenting with Love and Logic</a>. They described helicopter parents as being confused about the difference between love and saving children from themselves. Another name for helicopter parenting is <a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/1355699172?pq-origsite=gscholar">“overparenting”</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Why parents choose this style:</strong> These parents are likely to be <a href="http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/October-2014/Why-Are-Helicopter-Parents-So-Intense-Maybe-Theyre-Scared/">scared for their child’s future</a>, perhaps like tiger parents. They may not <a href="http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/194227075?pq-origsite=360link">trust</a> their child’s ability to navigate the world. By hovering around they may think children will be inoculated against failing. </p>
<p>These parents are probably a mix or authoritarian and permissive typologies, but there is <a href="http://search.proquest.com/openview/373bcbf68cbb385e1a6e51388c7b8470/1?pq-origsite=gscholar">scant research</a> on the style.</p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> Parents can be <a href="https://www.ebscohost.com/uploads/imported/thisTopic-dbTopic-1412.pdf">overprotective</a>, which may save their child or adolescent from problems they would not foresee.</p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> Children can <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/overly-controlling-parents-cause-their-children-lifelong-psychological-damage-says-study-10485172.html">lack emotional resilience</a> and <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/nation-wimps/201401/helicopter-parenting-its-worse-you-think">independence</a>, which can affect them into adulthood. Being a child of a helicopter parent may lead to an inability to <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10826-013-9716-3">control behaviour</a>. </p>
<p>There’s even an <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3pkgdh/children_of_helicopter_parents_what_was_the_worst/">AskReddit</a> devoted to the worst aspects of growing up with helicopter parents. Stories include a contributor, 21 at the time, whose father followed them to jury duty, because he didn’t trust they could do it properly. It’s claimed dad had a tantrum when he was kicked out by the security guard.</p>
<h2>Snowplough or bulldozer parents</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123856/original/image-20160524-25236-lhfvx5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123856/original/image-20160524-25236-lhfvx5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123856/original/image-20160524-25236-lhfvx5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123856/original/image-20160524-25236-lhfvx5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123856/original/image-20160524-25236-lhfvx5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123856/original/image-20160524-25236-lhfvx5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123856/original/image-20160524-25236-lhfvx5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Type of parent:</strong> You push all obstacles out of your child’s way. <a href="http://thestir.cafemom.com/being_a_mom/151554/7_signs_you_might_be">Perhaps you’ve</a> nagged the principal for a different teacher or bribed the coach to get your child a place on the team. </p>
<p><strong>Who coined it?</strong> It appears the term was coined by former high school teacher <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/05/advice-to-the-graduates-you-are-not-special/361463/">David McCullough</a>. In 2015, he published a book, <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18144586-you-are-not-special-and-other-encouragements">You Are Not Special</a>, in which he implores parents to back off and let their children fail. It was based on a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lfxYhtf8o4">2012 commencement speech</a> he gave to high school students.</p>
<p><strong>Why parents choose this style:</strong> Maybe you think your child is exceptional, or they’re <a href="http://www.essentialkids.com.au/development-advice/advice/snowplough-parenting-and-other-unhelpful-parenting-labels-20140828-3ehms">too great to fail</a>, and that’s why you’ve identified with this parenting style. In terms of typology, there are aspects of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00689.x/full">authoritarianism</a> in the mix as they demand success (after all, they’ve bulldozed all obstacles from their children’s path). However, they also score highly for permissiveness.</p>
<p><strong>What the research says:</strong> There’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/helicopter-snowplow-or-free-range-whats-your-parenting-style-15123">no empirical evidence</a> either way for the snowplough approach. However, there’s a <a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&q=example+of+snowplow+parent&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=who+defined+snowplough+parent">lot of blog posts and media articles</a> devoted to the topic. </p>
<p>That being said, the pros and cons are probably similar to helicopter parents. These parents can help children feel safe and secure. But it may also foster a sense of <a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/1355699172?pq-origsite=gscholar">entitlement or narcissism in your child</a>. </p>
<h2>Free-range parents</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123864/original/image-20160525-25239-zcummd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123864/original/image-20160525-25239-zcummd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123864/original/image-20160525-25239-zcummd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123864/original/image-20160525-25239-zcummd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123864/original/image-20160525-25239-zcummd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123864/original/image-20160525-25239-zcummd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123864/original/image-20160525-25239-zcummd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=622&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Type of parent:</strong> You believe your <a href="http://www.freerangekids.com">role</a> is to trust your child. You equip them with the skills to stay safe, and then back off. </p>
<p><strong>Who coined it?</strong> The term was made famous by a case of “neglect” against <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/mother-may">Lenore Skenazy</a>, a former columnist who wrote about letting her nine-year-old son ride the New York subway alone. The experience led to her being labelled <a href="http://www.nysun.com/opinion/why-i-let-my-9-year-old-ride-subway-alone/73976/">“America’s worst mother”</a> and prompted her to write a book. The book was about fighting the perception the world was getting more dangerous. </p>
<p>Skemazy’s blog attempts to connect parents with like-minded others who agree that children need safety jackets and helmets in order to safely experience their independence. The approach is about giving children the childhoods their parents experienced in the 1970s/1980s.</p>
<p><strong>Why parents choose this style:</strong> Psychologists and experts suggest this style is a backlash against <a href="http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/816/621">anxiety-driven</a>, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698571003789732">risk-averse</a> child rearing. It may be that Skenazy is right, we are worrying too much about everything from <a href="http://www.freerangekids.com/category/germs-2/">germs</a> to <a href="http://www.freerangekids.com/category/worst-first-thinking-2/">other people</a>. While Skenazy cites responses from parents (and lawmakers) who think the <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/advice-from-americas-worst-mom/?_r=0">approach is neglectful</a>, it is probably more <a href="http://www.expoo.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/iffdpapers41en_pdf0.pdf">aligned with the authoritative typology</a>, where parents believe in teaching children to look after themselves. </p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> Children learn to use their freedom, be autonomous and manage themselves.
They may also be better able to handle mistakes, be more <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698571003789716">resilient</a> and take responsibility for their actions. It’s also said to lead to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/sharman-free-range-kids-could-become-healthier,-happier-adults/7306740">happier adults</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> Problems with this style centre on the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2257332">legal aspects</a> of the approach. In Queensland, it is <a href="https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/c/crimincode.pdf">illegal to leave your child alone for an “unreasonable” time</a> while, in other states, parents must reasonably ensure their child is properly looked after. Queensland’s law does not define “unreasonable” time, but the parent will receive a misdemeanour (up to three years in jail) if they breach the code.</p>
<h2>Attachment or gentle parents</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123872/original/image-20160525-25245-1mjx537.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123872/original/image-20160525-25245-1mjx537.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123872/original/image-20160525-25245-1mjx537.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123872/original/image-20160525-25245-1mjx537.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123872/original/image-20160525-25245-1mjx537.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123872/original/image-20160525-25245-1mjx537.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123872/original/image-20160525-25245-1mjx537.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=632&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Type of parent:</strong> You believe that a child’s earliest attachment to caregivers <a href="https://theconversation.com/gentle-parenting-explainer-no-rewards-no-punishments-no-misbehaving-kids-31678">informs</a> all subsequent attachments a person experiences. The argument suggests strong emotional and safe physical attachments to at least one primary caregiver are essential to the child’s personal development.</p>
<p><strong>Who coined it?</strong> The philosophy is based on the work of psychologists <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/46/4/333/">John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth</a> on <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yA9nX8W2ddIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=bowlby+and+ainsworth+attachment+theory&ots=1irApYcB4q&sig=z51C0qHbXu18nxt2C4i3cdB60gU#v=onepage&q=bowlby%20and%20ainsworth%20attachment%20theory&f=false">attachment theory</a>. The work began with <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/28/5/759/">Bowlby in the 1950s</a>. Bowlby also worked with Ainsworth and Ainsworth did some <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127388?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">famous experiments</a> with young children. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html">Attachment theory</a> suggests that children who develop strong bonds with parents/caregivers in the early years will have happier, healthier relationships as they age. The term was then popularised by a book dubbed the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/204286.The_Baby_Book">“baby bible”</a> written by the Sears family in 1993. </p>
<p><strong>Why parents choose this style:</strong> Parents may choose this style because they want their children to be <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886907004254">positive</a> about themselves and their relationships with others as they mature. Attachment parenting is associated with <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126611?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">the authoritative typology</a>. These parents try to balance high expectations with <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327922PAR0201_1">empathy</a> and this is associated with the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/353561?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">best outcomes</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> It provides a <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201307/the-4-principles-attachment-parenting-and-why-they-work">safe haven of love</a> and respect in which to build the <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PqsJZpPb1fMC&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq=attachment+parenting+bad&ots=pEzC3z5KBz&sig=hSZIdNZAi_vjn1EfGJBS3xMOjuE#v=onepage&q&f=false">child’s relationships</a> and from which the child can <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bdb/16/1/1/">safely experience the world</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> It can be conflated with <a href="http://search.proquest.com/openview/68260a38af24aa00b1449eba446bf570/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2029838">permisive parenting</a>. It is also associated, somewhat contrarily, with over-parenting, as some suggest it is a name for mothers who can’t let their child go. Some have accused this style of being <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cVRFAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP5&dq=attachment+parenting+bad&ots=tK1Q1dxVlo&sig=Kronrg4LchagzUSDYn11sXFJdhg#v=onepage&q=attachment%20parenting%20bad&f=false">anti-women</a> or <a href="http://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/download/22506/20986">anti-feminist</a>. These authors say the style <a href="http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137454928_10">conflates women’s role with motherhood</a>, undoing the work of feminism. However, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2015.1076026#.VzumspOKTdQ">others disagree</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57986/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca English does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Is being a pushy parent good? It is helpful to protect your child in ways that mean they don’t fail? Here’s what the research says.Rebecca English, Lecturer in Education, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580682016-05-24T20:09:33Z2016-05-24T20:09:33ZChild-free: why women who choose not to have kids are given such a hard time<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123335/original/image-20160520-16754-j4qd5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More than 7% of Western women choose not to have children.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/futureshape/6823153479/">Alexander Baxevanis/FLickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Our politicians talk a lot about “families”, but what do they really mean when they use this term? What does a modern Australian family look like and how does it compare with ten, 20 or even 30 years ago?</em></p>
<p><em>In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Selfish, damaged, cold-hearted, shallow, overeducated and greedy. Women who choose not to have children are often labelled in these ways by everyone from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/pope-francis-the-choice-to-not-have-children-is-selfish">the Pope</a> to <a href="http://www.marieclaire.com/career-advice/tips/a7755/single-girls-second-shift/">their co-workers</a>.</p>
<p>Australian women <a href="http://www.cogitatiopress.com/ojs/index.php/socialinclusion/article/view/489">experience marked social exclusion</a> if they choose to remain childless – and it’s the choice part of the equation that leads to their deviant status. While all childless women experience some exclusion, women who have rejected the traditional ideal of motherhood are at the greatest risk of social disconnection. It is the very act of making a conscious and public choice to reject the role of mother that is overtly or tacitly criticised.</p>
<p>The so-called lifestyle pages are full of articles by women <a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/being-single-in-your-30s/">trying to redress and reclaim the dialogue</a> around the choice not to have children. These narratives and other <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/books/review/selfish-shallow-and-self-absorbed-sixteen-writers-on-the-decision-not-to-have-kids.html?_r=0">contemporary writings on the choice to remain child-free</a> parallel the research and challenge the dominant story that women who choose not to have children hate little people, want to save money and can’t give up their holidays. </p>
<p>The research evidence tells a different tale. It’s not children childless women hate, or even <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/publications/guide-calculating-costs-children/costs-children-australian-households">the terrible cost of having children</a>, the lack of available childcare, parental leave or the loss of <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2015/10/30/flexibility-wont-stop-women-retiring-in-poverty/">superannuation</a> that’s taking up the lion’s share of their decision. Instead, it’s the <a href="http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30057292/graham-whyarechildless-2013.pdf">degraded state and overinflated expectations</a> of motherhood most are not keen on. And, of course, some women simply want a different kind of life.</p>
<p>Several recent studies point to an <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kyung_Hee_Lee4/publication/282571676_Journeys_to_remain_childless_A_grounded_theory_examination_of_decision-making_processes_among_voluntarily_childless_couples/links/5612561008aec422d1174b7b.pdf">increased social acceptance</a> of women who choose to remain child-free in societies with greater gender parity. In other words, the larger the space women can occupy, the more opportunity there is for a variety of life choices for women. In places where women have greater power, there is less policing of the role of mother and room for a more inclusive view of how to be a woman.</p>
<p>Women who are childless by choice often mother in other ways, ways that can go unrecognised by all but those who benefit from them. They step mother, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347287802348">allomother</a> (where women other than the mother help take care of the child), actively aunt or foster. Anyone who has ever shared the burdensome role of parent or been mothered by such a voluntary mother will understand how desperately necessary this kind of mothering is.</p>
<p>The fascinating story of voluntary childlessness is really no different from the story of all women who have fought to gain a measure of control over their fertility. While the reasons women choose not to have children are in some ways complex, <a href="https://www.spi.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/PDF/Childlessness_-_Number_5.pdf">more than 7% of Western women</a> are making this choice. This proportion has increased significantly over the past 30 years. And more women are making this decision as their ability to do so with less censure increases. </p>
<p>But not all women are able to choose. <a href="http://www.mpts101.org/docs/SinghSFP-UnintendedPregnancy.pdf">Just over 40% of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned</a> and many of those are also unwanted. There are a <a href="http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/info-a-resources/facts-and-figures/unplanned-pregnancy-profiles-of-abortion-adoption-and-parenting">myriad of reasons</a> for this staggering number, including access and adequacy of contraception, domestic violence, social pressure and misinformation. The choice to limit fertility is very much still an ideal rather than a reality for many women. </p>
<p>If you step back from the picture painted by the research and personal dialogue about women’s voluntary childlessness, what stands out is how hard it still is for women to be truly free to make choices about whether or not to have children. The rhetoric around childlessness, like the often degraded conversations about abortion, older mothers, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Morrison4/publication/276369778_You_don't_know_half_the_story_deepening_the_dialogue_with_young_mothers_in_Australia/links/55e3e3aa08aede0b5733d14a.pdf">young mothers</a>, lesbian mothers, single mothers (the list goes on), continues to pit woman against woman in a effort to keep the definition of woman as narrow as possible. </p>
<p>The experiences of women who choose not to have children play a key part in understanding how our choices as women have the power to define who we are. And our degree of freedom to make those choices tells us something about who we are allowed to be. Women who use their freedom of choice to not have children are among those who stretch the idea of womanhood to its furthest edges, challenging the age-old assumption that woman and mother are synonymous and spotlighting the current high cost of mothering.</p>
<p><em>Author Q&A: Zoë Krupka will be answering your questions today (24 May) from 3pm to 4pm AEST.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58068/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zoë Krupka does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Women who publicly state their desire never to be mothers in the traditional sense challenge the idea that woman and mother are synonymous.Zoë Krupka, PhD Student, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/589812016-05-23T19:41:00Z2016-05-23T19:41:00ZHow diversity and change has made the Australian family stronger than ever<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123501/original/image-20160523-9543-d5wi71.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Blended, rainbow, single or two-parents are just some of the ways to make a modern family.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nostalgia is a powerful force in how we think about family. There is a persistent myth that family structures were better in the past; that the “golden age” of marriage is over, and the family is in decline. Historical and sociological research tells a different story. </p>
<p>There were dramatic changes to ideals and practices of family life across the 20th century. The five decades between the end of the first world war and the 1970s saw the triumph of ideals about <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137328625">mutuality in love and romance</a>. Ordinary people could afford to marry for love, rather than on the basis of economic strategy. In the 1950s, more people married than ever before and married young. </p>
<p>As many historians have observed, this all changed in the 1970s. The sexual revolution introduced new ideals about love, sex and relationships. Sex could be separated from love and marriage. No longer bound to life-long monogamy, sex could be viewed as “a rewarding form of play”.</p>
<p>This loosening of the bounds of sex and marriage was enabled by significant social, medical and political changes: the contraceptive pill, safer access to abortion, no-fault divorce. The new attitudes to women, reproduction and marriage that underpinned and emerged the sexual revolution also altered understandings of the family. </p>
<h2>Did the sexual revolution destroy the family?</h2>
<p>The significance of marriage certainly changed. Marriage no longer regulates social life as was once the ideal. It is no longer the reason most people leave home and establish their own household, start a career, and embark on adulthood. Now, it’s something people contemplate after having achieved those goals.</p>
<p>Marriage is no longer the structure in which people expect to make their sexual debut. It is not necessarily the structure in which people have and raise children. Nor is it the structure in which many people expect to live out their final years.</p>
<p>However, marriage is far from being “over”. Demographic research reveals that the profile of family life in Australia has been remarkably stable for the last 20 years.</p>
<p>People are marrying later, but marriages lasting slightly longer. Almost all couples live together before marrying (almost 80%). And marriages are becoming more equal.</p>
<p>US historian Stephanie Coontz recently reissued her study of the American family, <a href="http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/thewayweneverwere/">The Way We Never Were</a>. Coontz suggests the ongoing claims of social conservatives that the family is in crisis are not well-founded.</p>
<p>While divorce rates are high, they are actually falling. And divorce isn’t necessarily bad for families. Coontz found that after the introduction of no-fault divorce, suicide rates of wives plummeted, and so did rates of domestic violence.</p>
<p>Despite more women engaging in paid work, parents have actually increased the amount of time spent on child care. Women’s hours of child care have increased slightly, and men’s have tripled. While women still do more domestic work, the combined hours of paid and domestic work for men and women are similar. Men tend to increase their hours of paid work after having children.</p>
<p>This increase in equality in the home appears to be good for couples. Coontz found:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… heterosexual couples who share housework and childcare equally now report the highest levels of marital and sexual satisfaction – and the most frequent sex.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Anecdotal evidence suggests that marriage is actually increasing in popularity. Rather than life-long heterosexual monogamy being the only family ideal, new family values have emerged. Most Australians now recognise and value rainbow, blended and diverse family structures.</p>
<p>So rather than the sexual revolution having undermined the family, it appears that the family is thriving. Our family values have changed, though. For most Australians, marriage is no longer a ritual that initiates a family, but something contemplated when the family has become established.</p>
<h2>Have our politicians kept up with changes to the family?</h2>
<p>Families are always spoken about in politics as homogeneous, unchanging and timeless. </p>
<p>The last 50 years have seen the development of a range of “ideal” families. The vast majority of Australians now support marriage equality for LGBT people, recognising the dignity of value of existing LGBT families. </p>
<p>It’s time for our political leaders to catch up.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>See our megagraphic on the changing shape of Australian families <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-we-live-now-australian-families-at-a-glance-59680">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58981/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy W. Jones receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Research Theology Foundation Incorporated. He is a committee member of the Australian Lesbian and Gay Archives. </span></em></p>It’s tempting to look back nostagically when thinking about the idea of the “family”, but the evidence shows that it’s strong, functional and flourishing.Timothy W. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/596802016-05-23T19:36:55Z2016-05-23T19:36:55ZHow we live now: Australian families at a glance<p><em>Our politicians talk a lot about “families”, but what do they really mean when they use this term? What does a modern Australian family look like and how does it compare with ten, 20 or even 30 years ago?</em></p>
<p><em>In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123686/original/image-20160523-11017-ujle4i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123686/original/image-20160523-11017-ujle4i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=9697&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123686/original/image-20160523-11017-ujle4i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=9697&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123686/original/image-20160523-11017-ujle4i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=9697&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123686/original/image-20160523-11017-ujle4i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=12186&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123686/original/image-20160523-11017-ujle4i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=12186&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123686/original/image-20160523-11017-ujle4i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=12186&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59680/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
What does a modern Australian family look like and how does it compare with 10, 20 or even 30 years ago?Fron Jackson-Webb, Deputy Editor and Senior Health EditorEmil Jeyaratnam, Data + Interactives Editor, The ConversationAmanda Dunn, Politics + Society EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.