I have just read an article called "THE WAY WE REALLY ARE: Coming to Terms with America's Changing Families," by author, Stephanie Coontz. Coontz takes the reader from misconceptions of the Golden Age and it's families to the revival of women as the family co provider. I really enjoyed reading the article and agree on many points, like; there really was no Golden Age, and Census Bureau refinements. I disagree on a couple points however, the media being vulnerable and manipulated, and the working mother.
             I agree with Coontz when she says there really wasn't a golden age. I think the way we talk, dress and what we drive now is different, but according to my grandpa, who was born in 1915, said, "There were still murders, rapes, kids taking drugs, smoking, violence in schools etc..." My grandpa went on to say that the media wasn't as prevalent back then. "Violence wasn't seen or heard on the news. You could hardly say darn in public." He told me it wasn't like leave it to beaver at all. I believe that thanks to shows like "Leave it to Beaver" and "Mayberry," what we see in the news, violence, death, and drugs, makes the 1950's look tame. The violence and crime is just served to us in an easy to use box. Crime and violence is more visible to us now.
             I agree with Coontz when she explains Steve Rawlings, of the Census Bureaus survey procedures. Coontz states that unwed motherhood has increased dramatically since 1970. It was hard for the Census Bureau to get an accurate record because a lot of illegitimacy was covered up in the 1070's. Only recently have reporting methods become much more sophisticated. I think it would be interesting if we could take today's Census reporting techniques, back to the 1930's thru the 1950's and see how different the numbers would be. How do the census keepers know if the numbers hav
             ...