My teacher said it was NOT a summary of the whole paper.
So what exactly is it?

This is my research paper right now:
Everyone around the world has a different definition of happiness, but the media seems to be pushing happiness to be what is known as the “Nuclear Family” or “The American Dream”. The media is pushing us to think that happiness is a family that has at least two kids, in a middle-class suburban home, with a mother and a father, and a large car to drive in. This, is a false pretense. To be happy is not to fuel yourself with the thought of “The Nuclear Family” or “The American Dream”, it is to strive for your own dream. With that said, it is not necessary to have a happy marriage, to be happy. You can be happy being divorced, as long as you’re still reaching for your dreams.
If you live in in an urban setting, you must be a ghetto dweller. If you live in a manufactured home, you must be trailer trash. No, only the middle-class count, everyone else, just seems to be invisible. Single parents, are invisible. People who don’t have, or want kids, are invisible. Single people in general, are invisible, even elders are invisible. Is “The American Dream” really something that is realistic? The “Middle-Class” has completely disappeared, leaving home ownership today, to only the richest of people. The fifties-era is over, the family with the wage earner dad, the stay at home mom , and Dick and Jane, is completely rare. It is quite obvious that people today still strive to have “The Nuclear Family” just to reach what is known
Moran 2
today as happiness, but in reality, “The Nuclear Family” is not happiness, but reaching for your own definition of happiness, not this media invoked nonsense, is (Johnson).
The American Dream, of owning a car, a house, being able to maintain a family of at least two kids, and having a stay at home mom, is almost impossible in today’s economy. There are a growing number of high-wage knowledge jobs and low-wage service jobs, but fewer middle-class manufacturing and office jobs. The American Dream, is indeed continuing to wither away, but we continue to believe it is how we should define happiness (Atkinson). The United States is becoming less of a meritocracy, and becoming more of a class-bound society where economic background matters more than anything else, giving a declining number of people the chance to actually maintain a “Nuclear Family” (Francis).
In the case of divorce, there are some marriages that are completely unhappy, boring, and in some cases, abusive (Rosenblum). To stand the abuse, and the unhappiness, just to try to be happy reaching for the “Nuclear Family” title, is not worth it, people get more hurt then anything in cases like this. Children have to watch parents fight, and in turn, they are stressed out because of the fear of losing their mom or dad. The fear, is sometimes worse then dealing with the parents actually splitting, even though both cases are extremely stressful, one keeps the child or children in a hostile environment, while the other doesn’t. Even though children may feel “torn” from their parents, they are not forced, to live in a belligerent environment, which in the long run could actually help the child (Zinsmeister). Parents who choose the path of the “Good” Divorce manage their own
divorce, and make their own decisions after appropriate advice and counsel. They realize that they are the only true experts on what is best for their family. They seek guidance and direction in order to make informed decisions without relinquishing their control over the process or their responsibility for the actions of their legal representatives and family agents. In this slow process, children learn to cope by getting used to things. The Nuclear Family, would have to deal with the abusive and belligerent environment of a couple who was leaning towards divorce, but chose not to, because of what the media provokes to be “The American Dream” (Wilson).
In what is known to be the “Nuclear Family” a woman who has a desire to have children is compelled to marry and almost certainly lose her job. She sinks to a much lower level of comfort than to which she has been accustomed, since her husband’s income is very likely no larger than that which she was previously earning and has to provide for a family, instead of only a single woman. In this case, many of the luxuries are taken away from the woman, who has to wait on her husband hand and foot (Russel 147).

By the way, I am a 10th grade Pre-AP student. (:

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website