User talk:Valery Starikov/Functions of the family

'''Causes of the crisis of modern western and Russian family. Government’s attempts to control fertility'''

There are following functions of the family:
• Production of healthy offspring.

• Economic function. For example, family’s members together ploughed the land or worked in handicraft shop.

• Function of transfer for status. For example, the King passed his throne eldest son or eldest brother in frames King’s dynasty. Noble gave own title and richness to his son. • Socialization. For example, the profession of craftsman is passed from father to son. • Social insurance. For example, the son is obliged to feed their old, infirm parents.

The causes of crisis for modern western family and Russian family.
W. F. Ogborn   asserts that family lost its functions during the past two hundred years. Other organizations began to comply with the above functions of family today. For example, the main productive group became Industrial Corporation today rather than the family of craftsman or the farmer in the past. There are projections that children can be grown from test‐tube; already today there are experiments to artificial insemination. Today the educational institution, rather than the family, gives education and the status in the form of diploma about education. Today the Pension Fund, Center for employment, Trade Union, homes of old men and insurance companies, rather than a family fulfill such function as social insurance in case of disability, sickness, unemployment or old age of man. To have many children It is became unprofitable, because children have ceased to be workers in the household. Some sociologists expressed forecast: “Farewell to the family!” that is the family, as a social institution, must disappear in the near future, since it had ceased to perform any function in society. Crisis of the traditional family manifests in reduction fertility, growing share of single‐ parent families and quantity of divorces, growing popularity of non‐traditional family relations. T. Parsons rightly refuted this viewpoint and clarified that family lost their functions only partially, but it may retain such functions as childhood socialization, preparing to fulfillment of the complex roles and emotional satisfaction. Only the mother may bring up children aged under one year, but  there are high level of morbidity and mortality, aggressiveness and cruelty among children   from the House of a child deprived of maternal affection with infant. Only the father can teach own son to manage people and teach to subjugate managers. In my observation in school, if boys   grew up without a father that they are unmanaged often because mother often cannot cope with them during adolescence. You can only be brought up son at example father. Single people cannot withdraw stress in the family and forced to do this using alcohol and drugs. Conclusion: the family is a great social invention, and it will not disappear until such time as humanity exists itself. But Ogborn rights that modern family became less patriarchal over the past 200 years. The wife became to work for public production in modern family, to earn money and received economic independence from the husband. Thus, the husband ceases to be absolute leader in the family. System of moral control was destroyed within the modern family partially. There are insoluble conflicts between husband and wife in any modern family today. Modern family is nuclear often rather than extended. Old relatives of husband had assisted him assistance in the moral pressure on wife and children in the extended family often. Partial destruction of moral control in the family caused to the crisis of modern family, which is manifested, inter alia, in growth of the number of divorces and in decrease of fertility.

State’s demographic policy
At first soviet management had applied for rise of fertility such stimulus as state medals. There was established state medal “Mother‐hero” for mothers that had many children in Russia in 1944. There was introduced vacation to two week  for child‐birth in 1952. In that time, fertility decreased in most degree just in Stalin’s time. Coefficient of sum’s fertility had reduced on 5,59 children in calculation to 1 woman (with 6,80 before 1,21) in Russia in period with 1925 before 2000. From it 3,97 children or 71% of general reduction had to Stalin’s epoch (1925‐1955). There are little state payments when birth of child and the help to existence of children from poor families. In a message to the Federal Assembly in 2006 President Vladimir Putin has formulated a row of measures to stimulate the birth rate, including large payments at the birth of the second child. The corresponding law about “Mother’s capital” operates with 2007; it allows receiving 250 thousand rubles through participation in the hypothecation, payment of education and rising to pension savings. Left political forces are using the demographic problem for accusations of the Government of the anti‐people’s policy and they consider it necessary to increase sharply public assistance at birth of the child. Opponents of this viewpoint, cite data showing that the birth rate in the country does not depend on social payments in that country. For example, social payments in Sweden are more than in USA, with that fertility in Sweden less than in USA (difference is even more noticeable when compared with developing countries, where social payments are little and fertility is enormous). From this it concludes that the increase of payments in Russia doesn’t lead to the increase of fertility. Attempts to stimulate the fertility with help payments cause the response at marginalized groups or at the representatives of ethnic groups, which form the large families without; this stimulus doesn’t act to middle class.