Content uploaded by Kimberly Martinez Phillips
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kimberly Martinez Phillips on Oct 05, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Love Jones Cohort and singlehood are family
law issues
Kimberly Martinez Phillips | Kris Marsh
Correspondence
Email: kmphillips@mun.ca Abstract
This article reviews the changing Black family and house-
holds. The core theme is to understand the uniqueness of
those single and living alone in the Black middle class—the
“Love Jones Cohort”—and how their intersecting identities
of race, class, gender, and singleness inform their lifestyle,
shape how they manage life decisions, and their relationship
to policy as well as family law and family court. This essay
moves beyond the popularized and omnipresent inquiry:
“Why are Black women not getting married?”or “Why are
there so many single professional Black women?”This line
of questioning throws the spotlight squarely on Black
women's individual dating practices, while often ignoring
structural factors that undergird those decision-making pro-
cesses. It implies that because of the individual actions of
the Love Jones Cohort, specifically Black women, they are
somehow at a deficiency if they are not married and child-
free, rendering them invisible as a family. This article dis-
cusses the legal implications of the presence of the Love
Jones Cohort.
KEYWORDS
black families, family of one, singleness, structural racism, women
of color
Key points for the family court community
•The concept of the family needs to be reframed, cultur-
ally and structurally, to include the growing number of
persons who remain single and live alone.
DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12817
© 2024 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.
Family Court Rev. 2024;1–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fcre 1
•Living alone and single comes with personal freedoms
and risks.
•Understand how structural factors constrain personal
choices so that those single and living alone are not dis-
criminated against in, family law, family court, and other
legal matters.
•Adopt an intersectional lens to understand that
singlehood looks differently for some people and is
shaped by intersecting and marginalizing identities.
INTRODUCTION
This article draws from stratification economics and intersectionality. Economist William “Sandy”Darity Jr. notes,
“[t]he core of stratification economics offers a structural rather than a behavioral explanation for economic
inequality between socially identified groups.”
1
Stratification economics argues economic outcomes are situated in
cultural practices, and any perceived dysfunctional behavior by a group is more likely a result of that group's infe-
rior position (Darity et al., 2015). Therefore, economists and other social scientists should examine social struc-
tures and policies when analyzing the differences in economic outcomes. Professor Emerita Patricia Hill Collins
(2015) states intersectionality refers to the idea that social identifiers such as race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnic-
ity, nation, ability, and age are interconnected, and they are not mutually exclusive factors. This article expands
on the notion of stratification economics and draws from the intersecting identities of the Love Jones Cohort
(see next paragraph for a definition of this group). We highlight how structural impediments and social structures
can help to shape group identities, and how policies and practices can inform their existence, emergence, accep-
tance, and inclusion as a lifestyle and family within the larger family law and juridical community. We consider
how structural forces (racism) constrain personal choices (marriage versus singlehood) and explore the legal impli-
cations for Black American singles.
The Love Jones study provides support for the five goals of this article. First, to expose researchers, policy
makers, businesspeople, and the legal profession to the Love Jones Cohort so they can substantively incorporate this
demographic group into their respective narratives and worldview as well as to consider how structural racism plays
a role in individual dating and marriage outcomes by discussing redefining the family and the relationship to structural
and institutional barriers. Second, and closely related to the previous point, to understand how structural forces con-
strain personal choice and how laws and policies discriminate against Black single adults by highlighting a discussion
on the politics of marriage, family, and reproduction. Third, to explore how singlehood is changing the dynamics of the
family relationships and structures on kinship, caregiving, and the economics of living single. Fourth, to explore the fears
and biases of the individuals who decide to remain single in a discussion of the personal predicaments of remaining sin-
gle. Fifth, to explore the compositional shift in the Black middle class away from the heteronormalized idea of fami-
lies to an increase in those who remain single and live alone, especially Black women, and how this relates to the
emergence of singlehood among other women of color.
1
For the complete interview with Dr. William “Sandy”Darity, Jr., please visit the following website: https://equitablegrowth.org/equitable-growth-in-
conversation-an-interview-with-william-a-darity-jr-sandy-of-duke-university/.
2FAMILY COURT REVIEW
The Love Jones Cohort study
This article is based on the larger study and book, The Love Jones Cohort: Single and Living Alone in the Black Middle
Class (Marsh, 2023). The book exclusively looks at the lifestyle of those within the Black middle class who are single
and living alone (“SALA”). The book focuses on what ways their single status shapes various choices and decision-
making processes. While much has been written about the Black middle class as well as the rise in singlehood, The
Love Jones Cohort is the first foray that exclusively bridges these two concepts. In doing so, the book provides a more
nuanced understanding of how intersecting social identities, coupled with social structures, shape various lifestyle
factors of those single and living alone in the Black middle class including: defining family, friends, and decisions for
pursuing romantic relationships (or not); articulating the ebbs and flows of being Black and middle class; navigating
strategies for selecting where to live and why; maneuvering how to accumulate and disseminate wealth; and devel-
oping practices for maintaining overall health and well-being. Over the summer of 2015, 62 Black adults were inter-
viewed for the book. A total of 43 were women and 19 men. Ages ranged from 25 to 60. The average age was 38.
Although women dominated those interviewed, the book includes both women and men.
The Love Jones Cohort term
Over the last quarter century, media portrayals suggest that the Black middle class has a new face. Previously, the
media prototype for the middle class—whether Black or white—had been the married couple with children. For
the Black middle class, this was exemplified by the Huxtable Family from The Cosby Show (1984–1992), a sitcom fol-
lowing the lives of a father (an obstetrician), a mother (a corporate attorney), and five happy, intelligent, and adorable
children. Then, in the 1990s, a surge of television sitcoms and films arrived, depicting Black middle-class characters
of a quite different demographic profile. These characters were twenty-something, educated professionals who had
never been married, were child-free, and lived alone or with an unmarried friend or two. The demographic represen-
ted in these films and sitcoms is known as The Love Jones Cohort (Marsh et al., 2007; Marsh, 2023).
The terms SALA (Single and Living Alone) and the Love Jones Cohort are not interchangeable.
2
SALA refers to
any person or household composition of one individual living alone of any ethnic background, socioeconomic status
or class group. The Love Jones Cohort directly relates specifically to race (Black), household type (SALA) and socio-
economic status (middle class) and is an ode to Black singles, the structural forces they endure, and their intersecting
and marginalizing identities. Furthermore, the Love Jones Cohort are often viewed in datasets as households and not
families. One clear example of this is the U.S. Census Bureau definitions. According to their website updated in
2021, The Census Bureau divides households into two categories: family and non-family. “A nonfamily household
consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclu-
sively with people to whom he/she is not related”whereas “[a] family is a group of two people or more (one of
whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including
related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family.”
3
RELEVANT LITERATURE
In a 2006 The Washington Post article, “Marriage is for white People,”journalist Joy Jones pointed out that the Black
population in general, and Black women in particular, have the lowest marriage rate of any racial or ethnic group in
2
In the book and this article, the term “cohort”is not being used in the typical demographic sense of a birth cohort but simply as a group or band of
individuals that have some characteristics in common.
3
Bureau, U. C. (2021, December 16). Families and households glossary.Census.gov.https://www.census.gov/topics/families/families-and-households/
about/glossary.html.
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 3
the United States (Jones, 2006). This apparent “retreat from marriage,”combined with a related rise in singlehood,
can be seen across all racial and ethnic groups over the past three decades.
4
Black Americans—women in particular—
are at the forefront of these trends, especially for singlehood. Black women are leading the way in carving out alter-
native strategies for establishing emotional, sexual, nurturing, and reproductive needs (Awosan & Hardy, 2017;
Barnes, 2015; Craigie et al., 2018; Jones, 2006). The prevailing explanations offered for these trends range from the
economic and demographic to the social and cultural, and either explicitly or implicitly cast light on structural impedi-
ments to mate availability among The Love Jones Cohort. This raises intriguing questions of Black family given the
rise of the Black singles.
Historically, scholars of Black life and culture have taken an interest in the notion of “family,”starting with W. E.
B. Du Bois's groundbreaking 1899 sociological study. Du Bois devoted a chapter to “the Black [our emphasis added]
Family”(Cox, 1940; Du Bois & Eaton, 1899). E. Franklin Frazier (1939; 1957) wrote the first comprehensive study of
the family life of Black Americans (Frazier, 1957). Both works discussed the impact of slavery, segregation, racial dis-
crimination, and migration on the Black family. Nearly 30 years later, as a member of Lyndon Johnson's administra-
tion, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1965) wrote a report, known colloquially as the Moynihan report, suggesting that
despite the emergence of a Black middle class, the family breakdown of urban Blacks was approaching “crisis level”
and was likely to continue (Moynihan, n.d.). Moynihan argued that some of the problems facing the Black family are
rooted in the legacy of slavery, growing urbanization, and traditional Black family structure.
In 1968, Sociologist Andrew Billingsley took issue with Moynihan's assertions.
Billingsley pioneered a new approach to studying Black families, one that affirms cultural “difference”and
praises the strengths of Black families, rather than focusing on “problem”(i.e., female-headed) families
(Billingsley, 1968). Billingsley and other researchers (Hatchett & Jackson, 1993; Taylor et al., 2022) have argued that
a dichotomous approach to characterizing families—middle-class married couples and poor single-headed
households—underestimates variations among Black families. Billingsley (1968) identified three categories of Black
families: primary families (two-parent), extended families (other relatives, in-laws), and augmented families (non-
related individuals). However, the current Census Bureau definition of family continues to recognize single adults as
a household, and not a family. Therefore, single adults are rendered invisible in the discussion, policies, laws, and
practices that consider families. Consideration must be given to the idea of a family of one, and to augmented fami-
lies as well as those singles that pool resources and are in non-romantic nurturing relationships (friendships). These
family formations should be viewed, seen, visible, and viable as an official family in a legal sense.
To understand the emergence of the Love Jones Cohort, consider social exchange and rational choice theories.
The general tenet of social exchange theory asserts that there are a series of social interactions between individuals
based on their estimates of the rewards (gains) and punishments (losses) for an exchange of valued resources. This
theory is based on interpersonal transactions. People behave in rational, self-motivated transactions for maximization
of gains and losses to promote their own personal goals (Grossbard-Schectman, 2019). In basic terms, rational choice
theory focuses on individual behaviors and actions. Actors take certain means to achieve a desired end and are
afforded the same opportunity structure to achieve the desired ends (Grossbard-Schectman, 2019). Social exchange
theory can be seen as the practical application of an individual making rational choices within social interactions.
While rational choice theory has been criticized on several accounts (Hechter & Kanazawa, 1997), it has been
increasingly applied to individual decisions around mate selection, fertility, divorce, and other family formations
(Friedman et al., 1994; Hechter & Kanazawa, 1997; Smith, 1989). Due in large part to structural impediments and
anti-Black sentiments in various social institutions, Black adults do not have the opportunity, and may not want to
exchange their resources for marriages or partnerships, especially Black women (Blackman et al., 2005;
4
Social scientist debated the “retreat from marriage”for decades. Please see Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., Kephart, G., & Landry, D. J. (1992). Race and
the retreat from marriage: A shortage of marriageable men? American Sociological Review, 781–799 and Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The
inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press to contextualize the conversation. The idea is there is a decline in marriage rates, an
increase in cohabitation, a delaying or forging of marriage, and an increase in divorce.
4FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Clarke, 2011). Therefore, it is important to understand how structural factors constrain personal choices so that
those single and living alone are not discriminated against in what can be described as “singlism.”
According to social psychologist Bella DePaulo (2006), people engage in singlism when they “stereotype, stigma-
tize, marginalize, or discriminate against people who are single”(DePaulo, 2006). The discriminatory attitudes toward
singles can lead to practices and laws that discriminate against singles and further disadvantage the Love Jones
Cohort. For example, singles are disadvantaged by inequitable tax structures and health care policies, such as the
inability of single workers to add any other adult to their plan. Singles also receive unequal compensation for
the same work, and married people have material advantages in purchasing auto insurance, club memberships, and
travel packages (DePaulo, 2023). Other laws, policies, and practices that favor couples include: gyms that offer free
memberships to partners but not friends; meal delivery services that only offer plans for two or four people; and cell
phone companies that sell family plans at a far lower per person rate than their single plans.
5
Coupling these discrimi-
natory policies and practices with the Love Jones Cohort, it should be evident how there are interlocking challenges
they have to contend with daily relative to their race, class, gender and now single status.
The category of “single”itself is not homogenous, as people are single for different reasons such as by circum-
stance (Marsh, 2023), choice, divorce, or being widowed (A. Taylor, 2012). Compounding the issues of feeling invisi-
ble, these categories of singles are often intertwined in social research. Within heteronormative society, singleness
has largely been seen as a transitory state that is not meant to be a permanent status. Social scientist Chrys Ingraham
(2009) further argued that heterogender demarcation will not change unless there is an institutional transformation
in the beliefs surrounding heterosexuality (Ingraham, 2009).
For heterosexual women, being single can be seen as a failure because they have not adequately performed het-
erosexuality (Taylor, 2012). Because femininity has been entwined with compulsory heterosexuality, women are
expected to marry and become parents. Sociologist Yaarit Bokek-Cohen (2019) states that the social position of spin-
sterhood is a social phenomenon that threatens the well-being of men and masculine domination, making never- mar-
ried women feel responsible for the emotional stability of men (Bokek-Cohen, 2019).
Spinsters are made to feel guilty for not fulfilling their social assignment as wives and caretakers. Sociologist
Roona Simpson (2016) argues women who remain single are met with resistance and negative narratives due to their
singleness being perceived as an act of defiance. Women and gender studies scholar Kinneret Lahad (2013) also
states that single women can experience stigma and discrimination similar to racism, sexism or ageism (Lahad, 2013).
American society has valued marriage and couples so that being a single person can be stigmatizing (Morris
et al., 2007). Comparable to sexism and racism, singlism can have an impact on a person's social and personal well-
being. Social Scientists Williams and Nida (2005) theorize that ostracism does not have to be punitive in nature, but
can be oblivious ostracism meaning that a culture becomes entrenched in the idea that people should live their lives
as couples and coupling becomes the ideal. The ideology of singlism reflects that the social institutions favor couples
more than singles (Sharp & Ganong, 2011). When singlism is viewed as an interlocking challenge alongside such
aspects as race, class, and/or gender, in the tax structure as well as other policies, the discussion becomes even more
nuanced.
Legal scholar Dorothy Brown suggests there is racism in America's tax laws that favors certain married couples
or partners (Brown, 2021), and such a favoring can have a significant financial impact on those in the Love Jones
Cohort as well as other Black family formations.
Brown points to Black families feeling an obligation to provide support to other family members and close fri-
ends. For these and other reasons, Brown recommends that marital status should have no influence on taxes
(Brown, 2021).
6
Communication Scholar Jessica Moorman (2020), meanwhile, finds that “single status inequities in
work …and the tax code …are attached to real social harms for Black women.”To address these inequities and
inequalities, Moorman suggests, “Laws overhauling the tax code so that single and married adults are taxed in
5
Wealth Enhancement Group. (n.d.). wealthenhancement.com/blog/cost-of-being-single.
6
Steverman, B. (2021, March 10). America's tax code leaves Black people behind: Dorothy Brown.Bloomberg.com.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
features/2021-03-10/america-s-tax-code-leaves-black-people-behind-dorothy-brown.
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 5
comparable ways and policies banning single status discrimination in the private sector are needed. Perhaps it is time
for single Black women and other single adults to organize and caucus for their own political interests”
(Moorman, 2020, p. 445). This all prompts a broader conversation about the understanding of how families are
viewed in relation to the emergence of single adults.
Redefining the family and relationships to structural and institutional barriers
Families (and marriages) can protect individuals but also perpetuate social inequalities. Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins
et al. (2021) asserts, “[f]amilies may be organized differently from one society to the next, yet families underpin
important social functions of gaining citizenship rights, regulating sexualities, and intergenerationally transferring
wealth and debt. Family rhetoric and practices organized social inequalities of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, reli-
gion, class, and citizenship, yet they normalize social inequalities by naturalizing social processes (Collins, 1998; Hill
Collins, 2001)”(Collins et al., 2021, p. 236). As a continuation of this line of thinking, scholars Antoinette Landor and
Ashley Barr (2018) argue “Any critical approach to family research—whether it be a gender perspective …a critical
race perspective …or a more explicitly intersectional perspective …demands attention to symbolic structure”
(p. 333). This symbolic structure (Bourdieu, 1989,2002) is permeated by symbolic violence—the exercise of control
and domination, not by force, but by the cultivation and widespread dissemination of cultural rules that maintain
social hierarchies (Landor & Barr, 2018).
Durkheim (1953) believed that the division of labor between the sexes was necessary to maintain marital life
and if that division did not exist, then the relationships within marriage would not be as viable. Consequently, the
economic necessity of the division of labor was what created the circumstances that led to heterosexual marriage.
Not only was there a division of labor in marriage, but there was also a division between the emotional and the cere-
bral spheres of society. Men were associated with the intellectual world, while women were thought to be more
aligned with the emotional one (Durkheim, 1953). Due to these convergences, a woman's lot in life was limited to
the roles of wife and mother. Although some took to this role of wife and mother with passion, others were not so
keen on being reduced to the private domain, and found their lives narrowed in consequence and limited in scope.
Later, the neoclassical economic explanations of labor and sex segregation added to the discourse that women's obli-
gations to their family would limit their work production (Reskin, 1993, p. 257).
Social Scientist Engels (1884/1972) explained the monogamous marriage between man and woman was the first
form of the family to be based solely on economic conditions. The purpose of this system was to make the man the
dominant figure in the family which would allow him to pass on his wealth to his children. Engels (1884/1972) saw
monogamous marriage of man and woman as the first time in history two groups of people were in opposition to
each other and the first time one sex was subjugated by the other. This patriarchal system of marriage naturalizes
the regulation of sexuality through the institution of marriage and uses state domestic law to enforce those restric-
tions (Ingraham, 1994). We do not theorize which came first, the invention of monogamous marriage or the oppres-
sion of women, only that there is a correlation between these historical events that still impacts the relationships of
men and women today. It is typically agreed upon that patriarchy and capitalism are linked in history, though to what
extent and for what purpose may still be debated.
A property system either proceeded or coincided with patriarchal institutions, such as monogamous marriage
(Lerner, 1987). Hence, Historian Gerda Lerner (1987) details that a discussion of patriarchy is more relevant from a
historical perspective. Lerner sees women as the first slaves and their enslavement being the first hierarchical domi-
nance in human history which led to the establishment of a market economy. There is also a discussion to be had
about the connection between patriarchy and gender inequality. Women have long been defined by the success of
their family. Traditional marital unions have often been compared to a form of servitude or drudgery for women, and
historically have been the home of labor for most women. However, whether marriage is selling oneself once and for
all, or a union of true affection, there is an undeniable correlation to a property system that was established and
6FAMILY COURT REVIEW
reinforced under capitalism (Marx, 1990; Engels, 1884/1972; Davis, 1983). Under this system, a woman's sexuality
and fertility became her most valuable asset and her only bargaining power (Engels, 1884/1972). When women did
not conform to these roles there were often negative repercussions, for example women could be killed for having
sex outside of marriage or disrespecting their fathers. A woman's reputation and morality are also connected to her
sexuality as she can be labeled a slut or whore by men which can impact her personal and work life.
Sociologist Bokek-Cohen (2019) maintains that symbolic violence is exerted against unmarried women, as they
challenge the idea that marriage is the natural state of womanhood. Thus, they threaten the heteronormative and
patriarchal order of society.
When turning specifically to Black women, scholar Patricia Hill Collins (2004) points out that in the spirit of
respectability politics—in its most basic form and definition the mis-guided idea that Black people should change to
fit in or conform to mainstream (in this case white) ways, manners, behaviors, and appearances to assimilate better
with whites; and also touted as a purported protective measure from prejudice, discrimination, and racism—Black
women often forsake themselves and submit to Black male dominance that can result in unfulfilling and even toxic
relationships in the name of maintaining a respectable image of a good wife and mother (Collins, 2004; Landor &
Barr, 2018). Some Black women are constantly admonished to be respectable women (Collins, 2004; B. Cooper, 2018;
B. C. Cooper, 2017; Cottom, 2018). Given such conundrums, it is likely that some Black women will remain single, a
decision that can render them invisible as a family in certain institutions, policies, and practices.
According to the U.S. Census definition, the Love Jones Cohort are not considered families but a household. A
household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit.
7
A house, an apartment or other groups of rooms,
or a single room is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quar-
ters; that is, when the occupants do not live with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from
the outside or through a common hall. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people,
if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a
housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as
a household. According to a 2021 updated subject definitions by the U.S. Census Bureau on family and household,
SALA are still considered households not families. There should be consideration taken on expanding the family defi-
nition so that SALA are included as a family. Following the logic employed by Census definitions, SALA are a family
of one. They are related to themselves. SALA can also be in familial relationships with friends that are not related by
blood, marriage, or adoption.
We must question the term family. It can be viewed as exclusionary. Take for example, the term brothers and
sisters in a family. Such concepts can exclude the non-binary and transgender populations.
8
The LGBTQIA+commu-
nity have both embraced and contested the term family (Moore, 2011). Scholars have asserted that the term family
has racial and cultural variance and should praise the strengths of various Black families, including augmented
families—non-related individuals (Billingsley, 1968). Black-serving institutions need to have a reckoning with the term
family, and even the Black church is not exempt (Moultrie, 2021).
Furthermore, additional institutions such as family law and family court also must reckon with their definition
and use of concepts such as the family (someone you are related to by blood, marriage, or adoption), marriage, par-
ent, and partner as the foundations for their policies. The Love Jones Cohort are related to themselves and need to
be considered a family (of one nonetheless). In addition, members of The Love Jones Cohort tell us that their friends
are central to their lifestyle (Marsh, 2023). Therefore, the concept of family needs to be reexamined culturally,
socially and legally for it has ramifications for determining who is next of kin or has inheritance rights. Institutions
need to ask two interrelated questions on their usage of the term family: (1) Are SALA recognized as a family?
(2) Are augmented families (those not related to someone by blood, marriage, or adoption) considered a family?
7
Bureau, U. C. (2021a, December 16). Families and households glossary.Census.gov.https://www.census.gov/topics/families/families-and-households/
about/glossary.html.
8
Jenkins, C. M., & Jenkins, C. M. (2018, October 29). Family. Keywords. https://keywords.nyupress.org/african-american-studies/essay/family/.
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 7
Relevant to this discussion, are the findings of an empirical study using the National Survey of Families and
Households and the General Social Survey to test competing arguments about the merits of singlehood and marriage
(Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016, p. 377). The study found that singlehood “is associated with greater social involvement.
Compared to those married, those single are more likely to contact and receive help from their parents or siblings.
Single people are more likely than those married to give help to, get help from, or socialize with neighbors or friends”
(Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016, p. 377).
We must embrace and institutionalize augmented families, where the Love Jones Cohort can establish families
with friends, in a legal manner. This allows the Love Jones Cohort family to access benefits from benign cell phone
plans, to more substantive benefits in the realm of asset management and wealth planning in these augmented fami-
lies. This broader view of families in many ways supports and promotes a version of the Black family and the beauty
and heterogeneity that exist and needs to be centralized in our discussion of Black and all other families, not patholo-
gized. Black loving relationships that are non-romantic and non-sexual can be stronger than some ties that bind a
heteronormative marriage. This article calls us to broaden, reconsider, and rethink our definition of the family and
the exclusive nature with the term.
Thinking about intersectionality as critical praxis, and attempting to change the status quo, requires pushing for
the term family to include those that are SALA, as well as those in augmented families that consist of non-romantic
nurturing relationships (friendships). Put differently, the term family does not have to change but the benefits of a
family should be open and available to everyone regardless of their marital status. All of this leads to a discussion of
invisibility and draws from the Cite Black Women: A Critical Praxis (a statement) that pushes to not render women
scholars invisible (Smith et al., 2021). Likewise, legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw asserts that categories of “racism”
and “sexism”render Black women invisible. Similarly, terms like the family leave the Love Jones Cohort fighting for
more visibility.
Professor of Law Robin Lenhardt concluded, “Demographic realities and the increasingly socioeconomic fragility
of Black loving relationships necessitate a greater focus on nonmarital families—their status, specific needs, and
capacities”(Lenhardt, 2015, p. 1356).
When we think about intimate relationships, it is prudent to include historical, institutional, and structural factors
into the conversation. It is also necessary to have some knowledge of the racism, gendered racism, and respectability
politics undergirding the notion of marriage. For these and other reasons, many scholars continue to question the
utility of marriage, especially for Black women (Clarke, 2011; Collins, 2004; Henderson, 2020; Hunter, 2017;
Lenhardt, 2015; Romano, 2018). For example, American Studies and Black Studies scholar Aneeka Henderson “pro-
poses theories that reorient our conception of racial justice”as it relates to marriage. Henderson developed the term
“marriageocracy”(a merging of marriage and meritocracy). Henderson argues that marriageocracy suggests that “a
free unregulated an equitable romance market animates marriage and the idea that it can be attained with the cogent
but misleading trilogy of individual work, resilience, and moxie [grit]. It unmasks the liberal fantasy that marriage,
much like the American dream, is a fair and equitable accessible competition and exposes it as a cultural logical per-
vading self-help relationship books, political policy, and broader cultural discourse about marriage, while upholding
bootstrap courtship policies and rendering institutional structures such—as unemployment, health care, and
education—entirely inconsequential”(Henderson, 2020, p. 8).
Single studies have remained largely homogenous and centered around the experiences of persons from white
British, European and North American upbringings (Freeman, 2023). Social worker Kendra DeLoach McCutcheon
and colleagues (2022) also find that the examination of the experiences of never-married Black women lag behind
the studies of their white counterparts.
They did find that even though Black women value marriage and place a great significance on getting married,
they are less likely to marry, and when they do marry, they marry at an older age (DeLoach McCutcheon
et al., 2022). Therefore, more research is needed on the social relations of families (including those related to them-
selves) and all single women of color.
8FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Politics of marriage, family, and reproduction
Class politics and the family structure can be discussed in terms of women being removed from the public sphere
and delineated to be caretakers in and of the private sphere, but being subordinate in both (Crompton, 2008). Femi-
nist philosopher Angela Davis (1983) added that one of the economic transformations of capitalism was the birth of
the housewife. This partnership of patriarchy and capitalism within marriage came at women's expense, which would
continue as these women were not valued for the work they were doing within the confines of the domestic sphere,
and continued to lose economic and cultural capital (Bettie, 2014). The sexual division of labor maintains male domi-
nance over women, and sociologist Heidi Hartmann (1976) argues that the sexual division of labor must be elimi-
nated in order for women to obtain parity with men (Hartmann, 1976). Hartmann goes on to contend that capitalism
was a threat to marriage and patriarchy because it had the ability to bring women into the labor market and it would
force men to compete with women for jobs.
Therefore, job segregation by sex was purposeful in maintaining the superiority of men and in keeping women's
wages low. In addition, it forced women to remain in unhappy marriages. Housework and the wage labor that
women perform are often disregarded and disrespected. Women are disadvantaged in their social position which
makes them more vulnerable in marriage, and being mothers disadvantages them in paid work (Walby, 1989, p. 215).
The family then becomes a realm of production in which women's work is appropriated by men (Fox, 1988). Marx
wrote of the discovery of natural resources in the Americas, East Indies, and Africa, but he was not only discussing
material capital. He was also referring to human beings and the enslavement of peoples in the Americas and Africa.
This time in history was called the “rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production”(Marx, 1990, p. 533). This is a dis-
turbing description of the lives of human beings, but unfortunately an apt one in regard to capitalism. Historian
Gerda Lerner (1987) sees women as the first slaves and their enslavement being the first hierarchical dominance in
human history which led to the establishment of a market economy.
When expanding the conversation on family structure to include class, race and gender, there is a growing body
of research on college-educated Black women and the social implications behind their barriers to romance, reproduc-
tive decisions, and how they form families. Sociologist Averil Clarke (2011) provides a comprehensive study on the
dating practices, challenges, and outcomes for these women.
9
Scholars that draw from an intersectional lens might theorize that for Black women there are two competing
rational choices when considering family formation (Clarke, 2011; Collins, 2005; Collins, 2009; Landor & Barr, 2018).
On the one hand, the tension is to embrace the oppressive nature of respectability politics by potentially engaging in
unfulfilling relationships and marriages. This means being fully aware that these relationships might be shaped by
gender inequality, inequity, patriarchy, and gendered racism. Critical race, gender and leadership scholar Philomena
Essed (1991) conducted intensive interviews with 55 middle-class (classified by higher education) Black women in
the US and Netherlands. Essed coined the term gendered racism—the notion that racism is gendered in ways that
impact Black women and men differently in their everyday life and experiences of racism (Essed, 1991, p. 31) includ-
ing among Black professionals (Wingfield, 2012), during times of pandemics (Laster Pirtle & Wright, 2021), and in
their intimate lives (Clarke, 2011).
On the other hand, some Black women in our studies can challenge respectability politics by forgoing unfulfilling
romantic relationships. This path involves making the rational and agentic decision to establish and carve out non-
romantic relationships, as well as a SALA lifestyle that includes fulfilling and gratifying relationships with friends and
family members. To further enhance the conversation on family structure to include race, gender, and ethnicity, Soci-
ologists Candice Vinson, Debra Mollen and Nathan Grant Smith (2010) studied an overlooked variable: the effect of
a women's ethnicity on their perceptions of women who choose motherhood and those who choose childfreedom.
They looked specifically at African American women and Caucasian women. Acknowledging that women who remain
childfree are often branded as deviant, the authors felt the variable of ethnicity was important to study due to
9
See the book Inequalities of Love by Clarke for additional information.
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 9
differing attitudes about gender and gender roles among ethnic groups (Vinson et al., 2010). Lisle (1996) theorized
that Black women and women of color suffer more scorn due to cultural and historical factors such as forced sterili-
zations and separated families (Lisle, 1999; Vinson et al., 2010), and there may be more cultural and religious pres-
sures placed on them to have children. All this opens the discussion to consider how family formation might vary by
race, gender, and ethnicity and makes way for institutions to consider a broadening of the term family to include
those that are single, as well as those that decide to establish augmented families.
Kinship, caregiving, and the economies of living alone
Historically, Black women have been tasked with the mothering and caregiving for the larger Black community
(Barnes, 2015; Collins, 2005; Ellick, 2021). For those Black women that are not biological mothers, like those in the
Love Jones Cohort, there is still the assumption of mothering (whether directly or indirectly) and caregiving for
the larger Black family and community. Research suggests that aging Black Americans heavily rely on informal sys-
tems of caregiving and Black caregivers are more often a child (presumably a daughter) or other family member and
less often a spouse (Chadiha et al., 2004; Fabius et al., 2020). Such nuances in caregiving within Black families, espe-
cially Black women and potentially other women of color providing the lion's share of the support can provide addi-
tional context for the notions around the legal recognition of augmented families.
In other scholarship, Black women expressed a need to help others, including their extended family and fictive
kin, even when it could have detrimental effects on their financial, physiological, and psychological well-being
(Chiteji & Hamilton, 2002; Higginbotham, 2001; Woods-Giscombé, 2010). Scholar Cheryl Woods-Giscombé (2010)
sought out to develop a Superwoman Schema (SWA) by conducting focus groups with Black women ages 25 to 45.
Woods-Giscombé found that among these women, in their familial and extended network, there was an expec-
tation for them to have more time to take on certain roles and responsibilities. They often found it uncomfortable to
say no. A similar trend was found among some members of the Love Jones Cohort. For the cohort, these roles and
responsibilities often took on the form of financial and social support to the detriment of their social, physical,
and financial health (Marsh, 2023).
As for the Love Jones Cohort, friends are perceived as an extension of their families, and in many ways are their
family, and become an important aspect in their lives. The Love Jones Cohort explained that friends meet various
aspects of their social needs, such as workout friends, golf buddies, and foodie fellows. As sociologist Tetyana
Pudrovsk and colleagues (2006) explore the strains on singlehood in later life, they argue “Black persons are less
likely than white adults to depend upon and interact with members of the nuclear family only and instead maintain
more diffuse social networks that may provide an important source of instrumental and expressive support as older
Black individuals adjust to the strains of singlehood (Chatters et al., 1989; Taylor et al., 1997)”(Pudrovska
et al., 2006, p. 320). Scholars show that individuals in the Black middle class face the additional burden of providing
social and financial responsibility for less advantaged family members and the larger Black community. These obliga-
tions have both short- and long-term implications for wealth accumulation (Pattillo-McCoy, 2000). From a bird's eye
view of the theoretical, empirical, and structural understandings of racial wealth disparities, age, debt, household,
and gender are a few of the salient factors included in the discussion of wealth accumulation (Addo, 2014; Addo
et al., 2016; Darity Jr. et al., 2018; Oliver & Shapiro, 2013; Pattillo, 2013; Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2005).
The majority of the Love Jones Cohort are second-generation Black middle class. The data from the 2016 Sur-
vey of Consumer Finance illustrates economic disparity, “Median Black household net worth ($17,600) is only one-
tenth of white net worth ($171,000)”. The absence of inherited wealth, (homeownership as a key factor in wealth
accumulation) prevents accumulation of assets by Black Americans—assets are considered the pillars that provide
stability and security to the middle class (Oliver & Shapiro, 2013).
10 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
There is a complicated, and in many ways depressing, dialog around race, class, social mobility, and wealth.
Scholars have well documented an association between race, wealth, and mobility. Sociologists Colleen Heflin and
Mary Pattillo (2002) found that middle-class Black Americans are highly likely to have low-income siblings and incor-
porate the socioeconomic status of their extended families into their own conceptions of class standing (Heflin &
Pattillo, 2006). Sociologists Fabian Pfeffer and Alexandra Killewald (2019) found that on average Black children are
both less likely to have wealthy parents and much more likely to have downward mobility in household wealth rela-
tive to their white counterparts (Pfeffer & Killewald, 2019).
Economist Raj Chetty et al. (2020) report similar findings. They found that intergenerational mobility widely dif-
fers by race, even when Black and white boys come from the same socioeconomic status and neighborhood (Chetty
et al., 2020).
Some scholars are championing causes to combat the racial wealth gap and related issues. In his 2017 presiden-
tial address to the National Economic Association (NEA), Professor Darrick Hamilton laid out why wealth disparities
are a structural issue. Hamilton started by describing stratification economics as a burgeoning subfield within the
broader discipline of economics. In part, Hamilton argued, “[s]tratification economists look beyond individual factors
and investigate structural and contextual factors that preserve the relative status of dominant groups through inter-
generational resource transfers and exclusionary practices to explain intergroup disparity”(Hamilton, 2020, p. 340).
10
Hamilton closed his lecture by offering 10 policies that could go some way to addressing such structural inequal-
ities.
11
Of particular relevance regarding intergenerational wealth for first-generation members of the Black middle
class who may lack any inherited wealth from their parents (an issue highlighted by several Cohort members) is the
idea of baby bonds, which is essentially analogous to a social security program for young adults, providing them with
the financial capital to build assets and cultivate economic security independent of the financial position and
decision-making of the families into which they were born.
12
Until such policies are given serious consideration, it is
inevitable that structural racism and discrimination will continue to impede intergenerational wealth for Black Ameri-
cans (Kochhar & Fry, 2014; Pattillo, 2005; Thomas et al., 2018). All of the above provides context for the situation in
which those in the Love Jones Cohort, that are single and living alone, and as a subset of the Black middle class, find
themselves.
Single adults must think about their economic prospects, futures, and thereafter. The Love Jones Cohort individ-
uals are making decisions to purchase assets (Marsh, 2023). They are also making decisions on who will inherit their
assets. These inheritance decisions might be in the form of a formal document, such as a living trust or will. The Love
Jones Cohort established innovative ways to transfer their wealth from one generation to the next. It is not a
straight-line intergenerational transference of wealth because of their SALA status. It is rather a segmented inter-
generational transference of wealth (Marsh, 2023).
13
The Love Jones Cohort are transferring their wealth to nieces
and nephews, godchildren (which speaks to the value they place on their friendships), and social organizations they
are affiliated with. These wealth dissemination processes should force us to revisit the term family, so that there is a
clear, easy, seamless, and financially beneficial path to transfer wealth within augmented families. This lays the legal
and policy framework for such families to be legally recognized for estate planning and a litany of additional aspects
of mid-to-late life decisions and choices.
10
For more elaboration, see Darity et al., 2015 and Hamilton, 2020 for a detailed discussion of stratification economics.
11
For the full list see Hamilton, D. (2020). The Moral Burden on Economists: Darrick Hamilton's 2017 NEA Presidential Address. The Review of Black
Political Economy,47(4), 331–342.
12
Darrick Hamilton is keenly targeted at addressing wealth inequality, and as such, the one-time payment when the child reaches adulthood would be
restricted toward some asset-enhancing activity, such as a down-payment on a home, finance to start a business or attend higher education, or a rollover
toward retirement savings. Moreover, the accounts would be progressively endowed based on the child recipient's family financial position. This issue with
such policies is that those that are never-married and without children might be ignored.
13
These terms straight-line and segmented are loosely based on literature on immigrant assimilation. In this body of literature, they are two major forms of
assimilation, straight-line where the immigrant attempts to fully incorporate themselves into the mainstream (Park et al., 1925). Segmented assimilation
suggest that immigrants integrate with certain portions of society (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Portes & Zhou, 1993).
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 11
Personal predicaments of remaining single
Sociologist Eric Klinenberg's (2016) article on loneliness discussed how scholars need to think more critically about
potential risk factors associated with living alone, and once these are identified, consider appropriate interventions
(Klinenberg, 2016). Similar to other scholarship, Sociologist Averil Clarke challenged scholars to examine how family
formations are an artifact of social inequalities and how interlocking social position invades even the most intimate
arenas and lifestyles of Black women. Clarke's scholarship provides a necessary intersectional approach and empha-
sizes structural constraints to understand marriage decline among the Black middle class, especially educated Black
women. (Clarke, 2011; Collins, 2005; Collins, 2009; Landor & Barr, 2018).
Research has continually shown that childfree women face stigma and negative perceptions and can be labeled
as selfish, abnormal, immature, or neurotic (Vinson, et al., 2010). Researcher Kristin Park (2002, p. 5) discusses how
the intentionally childless are stigmatized and that this “may stem from the association of their lifestyle with growing
individualism, family breakdown, and the predominance of impersonal, rationalized roles and relationships in soci-
ety.”Sociologist Bokek-Cohen (2019) determined that never-married women compose a distinct social subgroup
that is stigmatized, and their life choices are often discussed within a negative context. Single women over the age
of 25 can experience a deficit identity defined as the lack of being married and that links the stigma of singleness
with age.
Single and Childfree women are also excluded from the benefits of a family-friendly workplace that are available
to parents, such as flex time and on-site day care (Park, 2002). Singles can be a primary caregiver for a parent, a fam-
ily member or friend, and those relationships should be recognized as worthy of flex time or family leave. Sociologists
Brittany Stahnke, Amy Blackstone, and Heather Howard (2020) find that their participants were stigmatized and iso-
lated from others in society including their workplaces (Stahnke et al., 2020). Their participants indicated that they
felt out of the loop when coworkers were sharing stories about their personal lives; something as simple as sharing
photographs of weddings, anniversaries, or children at work can be isolating for those who are not coupled or with-
out children.
Since the meaning of being single is a socially constructed category, there are multiple variables in studying sin-
gleness. Sociologist Kinneret Lahad (2013) describes the category of singlehood as a dependent identity. This iden-
tity can vary by gender, ethnicity/race, class, age, ableness, and sexual orientation. Consequently, as a woman gets
older, she is more likely to suffer the stigma of singleness. Although the stigma of singleness can affect men as well,
the deficit identity is gendered in that women are identified as not following the normative roles of wife and mother
(Reynolds et al., 2007). In a content analysis of news media stories in China, the responsibility of being single is
attributed to women but not men (Gong et al., 2017). It is still a couple's world, and as we still prioritize coupledom,
singles face discrimination and exclusion from everything from tax penalties to not being allowed to buy a single
ticket for events (Simpson, 2016). As more people are remaining single longer, singleness is frequently being consid-
ered a legitimate alternative path to marriage.
English Professor Mary Helen Washington's 1982 essay, Working at Single Bliss, specifically addresses single
Black women. In this essay, Washington asserts that single Black women should view their singleness as an attitude,
not a status, thereby allowing them to focus on strengthening their non-romantic relationships with other Black
women (Washington, 1982 [2000]; Page, 2020). These types of relationships—often referred to using such terms as
reciprocal nourishment, sister-circle of friends, sorority sisters, sisterhood, sistah-circle and/or sister-friend
(Davis, 2019; hooks, 1990)—challenge the restrictive definition of the family used both in the Census and elsewhere.
Even if these types of close friendships do not technically count as familial relations, they undoubtedly offer family-
type relations and social support, something attested to by the women of the Love Jones Cohort (Marsh, 2023).
Many sociological studies on gender are rooted in longstanding paradigms. Married women are more likely than
never-married single women or divorced women, to embrace traditional gender norms (Swank & Fahs, 2017). Single
women do not seek traditional gender roles if those roles come with restrictions on their freedom. Research also
indicates that women of low socioeconomic status obtain social capital from being married. Historically, marriage has
12 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
been thought of as the pathway for certain women to acquire economic stability and mobility (Bay-Cheng &
Goodkind, 2016). Sociologists Bay-Cheng and Goodkind (2016) termed the phrase commercialized feminism as a
women's independence being construed only in terms of economic and emotional self-reliance and empowerment.
Singleness is often assumed to be an expression of individualization and the expanded freedom of people's
choices (Adamczyk, 2016). Freedom and individualism are concepts that seem particularly linked in the lives of single
women. There is a cultural representation of a fun, flirty, free single girl who is always up for a good time. However,
happy single women can be seen as challenging normative gender identities, which may explain why single women are
more likely to be associated with unhappiness and unfulfillment than happiness (Simpson, 2016, p. 13). For women
to feel required to fulfill their normative gender roles, they cannot see being single as an alternative path to
happiness.
The independent single woman discourse describes a woman who is living a life outside of the typical marital
restrictions, and she is making her own choices (Addie and Brownlow, 2014). She is either happy, liberated and
embracing her own agency, or she is sad, lonely and unattractive. Single women without children have historically
been shamed by society for being selfish or unsympathetic, but there is a new definition of a woman who is
unashamed and privileged. Sociologists Elizabeth Addie and Charlotte Brownlow (2014) refer to an asset identity
which allows single women to construct an identity that is not seen as deviant or dysfunctional. Social scientists Wil-
liams and Nida (2005) are also challenging the way never- married, singles persons are perceived by society
(Williams & Nida, 2005). They describe someone who is committed to a lifestyle of singleness by choice as seriously
single which is not viewed as an undesirable identity. Feminist social movements have created social changes in all
aspects of social life (Swank & Fahs, 2017). These movements challenge social norms and institutions. As singleness
is challenging the heteronormative standards, women who remain single can be described as being part of a feminist
social movement.
Accordingly, the rise in singleness can be attributed to a higher level of individualization and expanded freedoms
that feminism has helped produce. Individualism can be defined in two ways: an increased freedom of choice to
shape one's own life, or by creating more individualistic approaches that lead to fewer connections to others
(Poorman & Liefbroer, 2010). Single women by choice, see freedom as an important aspect of their happiness. In a
qualitative study that interviewed 14 women, 12 stated that being childfree led to a feeling of freedom in their lives
(Stahnke, Blackstone & Howard, 2020).
The decision to never marry has implications for the gender roles, individual agency and the structure of the
family. The role of personal choice and freedom (agency), within the context of social restrictions and gender norms
are paramount to a discussion about what choices women of color actually have. Marsh et al. (2007) maintain that
because professional Black women are now achieving middle-class status without marrying, marriage may no longer
be viewed as providing much financial benefit (Marsh et al., 2007). Black women stated that their family of origin
influenced their feelings about marriage and yet, we know very little about the social processes that determine Black
women's ideas concerning marriage and singleness. There is also modest data on the beliefs held by other single
minority groups, such as women of color and those with disabilities.
The emergences of singlehood among other women of color
Sociologist Kris Marsh et al. (2007) argue that because professional Black women are now achieving middle-class sta-
tus without marrying, marriage may no longer be viewed as providing many financial benefits (Marsh et al., 2007).
Researcher Kimberly Martinez Phillips (2024) conducted a study of childfree and never-married women of color. The
women in the Martinez Phillip research self-identified in the following categories: African American, Black, Black
American 38%; Afro-Caribbean, Haitian American 9%; Latina, Latinx, Mexican American, Ecuadorian, Columbian,
Dominican 28%; Asian, Asian American, Indian, Indian American, South Asian, Chinese American 18%; and Multira-
cial/Biracial 10%. Martinez Phillips (2024) asserts that without a benefit, financial or otherwise, Black women and
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 13
women of color are reevaluating if a traditional marriage serves them, and also if they want to partake in a system
that historically has oppressed them. Their choice of career is often intentional, personal, and meaningful. Because
they are not in a relationship or have children, they are mostly able to prioritize their mental health in making
employment decisions. They do not have to move for a spouse to have better job opportunities, or for their children
to go to a better school. They also know they are their own back-up plan and their own guardians. This has created
an extra layer of purposefulness in their lives.
Similar to the Love Jones Cohort, the Black women and women of color interviewed by Phillips are not depen-
dent on the family unit, but rather financially independent.
Their successes comes from work in the public sphere, where women are now able to carve out individualized
lives free from the demands of the private sphere (Martinez Phillips, 2024). They are now out in the blazing, bright
light of self-sufficiency without any shelter. This has been a dangerous place to be for women, especially for Black
women and women of color (Davis, 1983). The family unit has often been a safe haven for Black women and women
of color against discrimination and racism. However, now they are on their own, without the protection or comfort
of a family unit, or are their own family of one. They are unpartnered and without dependents. Their fate lies in their
hands alone. This can be an exhilarating, but also a terrifying place to be, but even with this knowledge, they have
favored this path. The women in the study by Martinez Phillips (2024) expressed how they love their independence,
but they are also cognizant of the fact that it leaves them with no cover. There is nowhere to hide.
Marriage is usually viewed as a link to a larger social network and therefore singles would be less merged into
the community (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2016). However, Martinez Phillips (2024) finds that women are actually more
isolated when married and have larger social networks when single. Being a never-married and childfree woman does
not mean you have no connections to society or a community. Social scientists Elmien Lesch and Alberta SJ van der
Watt (2018) found that never-married women may actually have larger social networks than their married counter-
parts (Lesch & van der Watt, 2018). Although Martinez Phillips (2024) found that women did not want to have chil-
dren, or necessarily be in committed relationships, they do value a sense of community and doing work that is
meaningful to them. Informed by the Love Jones Cohort study, the women in Phillips's study found meaning in being
useful members of society. It is important for them, as Black women and women of color, to be a positive force
within their respective communities. Black women who remain childfree are not free from caring about people and
their community. In a survey of 700 childfree women and men, one-third of respondents were involved in some form
of civic life such as community organizations, animal rights groups, human rights societies and environmental associa-
tions (Blackstone, 2019). Many of the women fulfill other important roles in society and would be purveyors of social
reproduction, which is different than biological reproduction.
Scholar Lisa Nandy (2017) discusses how Judith Blake's book Pronatalism: The Myth of Mom & Apple Pie outlines
how American policies that support patriarchal motherhood demonstrate a cultural connection between capitalism
and women's fertility. In examining childfree women and motherhood from an intersectional lens, Nandy (2017) fur-
ther states that heterosexuality is united with gender, class, and religion by way of the institution of marriage. In the
Love Jones Cohort study and the research conducted by Martinez Phillips, the women have a variety of family
dynamics and histories, some of which have had a direct impact on their decisions to not have children. This contra-
dicts the motherhood ideal and can even speak back to other structural forces at play (Marsh, 2023; Martinez
Phillips, 2024).
Black women and women of color have often been blamed for the perceived problems in their communities. For
example, the aforementioned Moynihan Report links social and economic problems of the Black community to a
matriarchal family structure (Davis, 1983). Black women were forced to bear the burden of raising their families, and
the brunt of the blame for any social problems within the Black community. Therefore, it is significant that “Black
women are leading the way in carving out alternative strategies for establishing emotional, sexual, nurturing, and
reproductive needs”(Crenshaw, 1990).
Black women's choices can and are constrained by structural forces. Choice is related to agency, and the choice
to be childfree can be a sign of agency, but also the result of socio-economic circumstances. There are women who
14 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
choose not to have children because they are not in a financial situation in which they could raise children in the
environment they would like, for example living in a safer neighborhood with better quality schools. Women may be
concerned about being the only one supporting the family and what that would mean in terms of spending time
away from their child (Nandy, 2017). In moving beyond the conversation of the Love Jones Cohort and their expec-
tations, researchers Braelin Settle and Krista Brumley (2014) contend that mandatory motherhood is not the same
for all women as there are different societal expectations for women of different ethnic backgrounds and socioeco-
nomic statuses (Settle & Brumley, 2014). Sociologist Ranita Ray studied feminist ideologies of empowerment and risk
narratives of young motherhood among marginalized Black and Latina women. Swidler found that feminist responses
to teen sexuality and parenthood are defined in two classifications—feminist empowerment and reproductive justice
(Ray, 2018). The lives of women of color have been understudied in many areas of social life, singleness and being
childfree are just another example. Settle and Brumley (2014) suggest that future research needs to examine how
race, class, and sexuality shape women's choice to be childfree.
Other than seasons, holidays and personal birthdays, the days we choose to commemorate are when we cele-
brate our relationships to others. These are the days we are supposed to be happy; to show others that we are
happy—happy with ourselves, our choices, and the people in our lives. Celebrating singleness in a social world is anti-
thetical to the way we imagine happiness. Happiness is meant to be shared and celebrated with others, so we have
been told; but for some people happiness is an individual sport. For the women in the Martinez Phillips 2024 study,
happiness is about how they live and not who they spend time with. Although there has been a recent push to cele-
brate a childfree day or single person day, they have yet to become a part of the fabric of our social tapestry. With
more people abandoning the heteronormative life plan, in the future, we may create ways of celebrating relation-
ships and individual personhood. However, that day has yet to come. In the meantime, this essay serves as a clarion
call to the family law scholars and lawmakers to include a family of one and augmented families into the current and
narrow definition of a family. Likewise, all social institutions should be more inclusive of family policies that consider
a broadening social and legal definition of family.
CONCLUSION
This article explored Black families and households, including the growing variations of family such as single,
childfree women Black women and women of color. It calls to action the family law and court community to under-
stand, embrace, and incorporate various families—including a family of one and augmented families—into their poli-
cies and practices. This article drew from the broad theoretical frameworks of stratification economics and
intersectionality to explore how intersecting identities of race, class, gender, and singleness inform the lifestyle of
those that are single adults. These theoretical backdrops also served as vehicles to drive the necessary updates to
antiquated definitions of family and policy centered on families. The article explored incorporating single adults into
our everyday language, policy, and practices, while considering and being more critical of how structural impedi-
ments play a role in individual dating and marriage/partner outcomes. With a critical eye, the redefinition of the fam-
ily is inevitable. This can serve as a direct response to structural inequalities and inequities facing Black singles, Black
single women, and other single women of color in the dating market. While changes are needed at the macro level,
there was a necessary discussion of the personal predicaments of remaining single. This contributing dialog further
strengthened the need to draw from the micro discussion of Black single women as well as other single women of
color to connect to and advocate for necessary changes at the broader macro level and in relationship to policy.
ORCID
Kimberly Martinez Phillips https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2205-223X
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 15
REFERENCES
Adamczyk, K. (2016). An Investigation of Loneliness and Perceived Social Support Among Single and Partnered Young
Adults. Current Psychology,35(4), 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7
Addie, E., & Brownlow, C. (2014). Deficit and asset identity constructions of single women without children living in
Australia: An analysis of discourse. Feminism & Psychology,24(4), 423–439.
Addo, F. R. (2014). Debt, Cohabitation, and Marriage in Young Adulthood. Demography,51(5), 1677–1701. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13524-014-0333-6
Addo, F. R., Houle, J. N., & Simon, D. (2016). Young, Black, and (Still) in the Red: Parental Wealth, Race, and Student Loan
Debt. Race and Social Problems,8(1), 64–76.
Awosan, C. I., & Hardy, K. V. (2017). Coupling Processes and Experiences of Never Married Heterosexual Black Men and
Women: A Phenomenological Study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,43(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jmft.12215
Barnes, R. J. D. (2015). Raising the Race: Black Career Women Redefine Marriage, Motherhood, and Community. Rutgers Univer-
sity Press.
Bay-Cheng, L. Y., & Goodkind, S. A. (2016). Sex and the Single (Neoliberal) Girl: Perspectives on Being Single Among Socio-
economically Diverse Young Women. Sex Roles,74(5), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0565-y
Bettie, J. (2014). Women Without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity. University of California Press.
Billingsley, A. (1968). Black Families in White America. Prentice-Hall.
Blackman, L., Clayton, O., Glenn, N., Malone-Colon, L., & Roberts, A. (2005). Consequences of Marriage for African Americans:
A Comprehensive Literature Review. Institute for American Values.
Blackstone, D. A. (2019). Childfree by Choice: The Movement Redefining Family and Creating a New Age of Independence.
Penguin.
Bokek-Cohen, Y. (2019). ‘Marry a Camel, a Mouse or a Parakeet! The First Guy Who Passes You on the Street!’: Gender-
izing Marital Status by Othering Jewish Israeli Never-Married Women. Journal of Family Studies,25(1), 79–100. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2016.1200116
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory,7(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/202060
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Masculine Domination. Stanford University Press.
Brown, D. A. (2021). The Whiteness of Wealth: How the Tax System Impoverishes Black Americans–and How We Can Fix It.
Crown.
Chadiha, L. A., Adams, P., Biegel, D. E., Auslander, W., & Gutierrez, L. (2004). Empowering African American Women Infor-
mal Caregivers: A Literature Synthesis and Practice Strategies. Social Work,49(1), 97–108. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/23720783
Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Neighbors, H. W. (1989). Size of Informal Helper Network Mobilized during a Serious Per-
sonal Problem among Black Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family,51(3), 667–676. https://doi.org/10.2307/
352166
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2020). Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Inter-
generational Perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,135(2), 711–783. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz042
Chiteji, N. S., & Hamilton, D. (2002). Family Connections and the Black-White Wealth Gap among Middle-Class Families.
The Review of Black Political Economy,30(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02808169
Clarke, A. Y. (2011). Inequalities of Love: College-Educated Black Women and the Barriers to Romance and Family. Duke Univer-
sity Press.
Collins, P. H. (1998). It's All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation. Hypatia,13(3), 62–82. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01370.x
Collins, P. H. (2004). Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge https://doi.org/10.
4324/9780203309506
Collins, P. H. (2005). Black Public Intellectuals: From Du Bois to the Present. Contexts (Berkeley, Calif.) 4(4), 22–27. https://
doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2005.4.4.22.
Collins, P. H. (2009). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2009). An Interview with Patricia Hill Collins. International Sociology 24(2), 185–190.
Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality's Definitional Dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology,41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142
Collins, P. H., Elaini, C. G. da Silva, Emek, E., Inger, F., Kanisha, D. B., & Jone, M.-P. (2021). Intersectionality as Critical Social
Theory: Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory, Patricia Hill Collins, Duke University Press, 2019. Contemporary Politi-
cal Theory 20(3), 690–725. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00490-0.
Cooper, B. (2018). Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower. St. Martin's Publishing Group.
Cooper, B. C. (2017). Beyond Respectability: The Intellectual Thought of Race Women. University of Illinois Press.
Cottom, T. M. (2018). Thick: And Other Essays. The New Press.
16 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Cox, O. C. (1940). Sex Ratio and Marital Status Among Negroes. American Sociological Review,5(6), 937–947. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2084528
Craigie, T. A., Myers, S. L., & Darity, W. A. (2018). Racial Differences in the Effect of Marriageable Males on Female Family
Headship. Journal of Demographic Economics,84(3), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/dem.2018.3
Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.
Stanford Law Review,43(6), 1241–1300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Crompton, R. (2008). Class and Stratification. Polity.
Darity Jr., W. A., Hamilton, D., & Stewart, J. B. (2015). A Tour de Force in Understanding Intergroup Inequality: An Introduc-
tion to Stratification Economics. The Review of Black Political Economy,42(1–2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-
014-9201-2
Darity Jr., W. A., Hamilton, D., Paul, M., Aja, A., Price, A., Moore, A., & Chiopris, C. (2018). What We Get Wrong About Clos-
ing the Racial Wealth Gap. Samuel Dubois Cook Center on Social Equity: Insight Center for Economic Development.
Davis, A. Y. (1983). Women, Race, and Class. Vintage Books.
Davis, S. M. (2019). When Sistahs Support Sistahs: A Process of Supportive Communication about Racial Microaggressions
among Black Women. Communication Monographs,86(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1548769
DeLoach McCutcheon, K. P., Watkins, K. Y., Burton, E. V., & Harris, A. C. (2022). African American Women's Marital Atti-
tudes: A Qualitative Study on Never Married Women. Journal of Family Issues,43(11), 2868–2887. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0192513X211035582
DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After. St.
Martin Press.
DePaulo, B. (2023). Single at Heart: The Power, Freedom, and Heart-Filling Joy of Single Life. Apollo Publishers.
Du Bois, W. E. B., & Eaton, I. (1899). The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Durkheim, E. (1953). Sociology and Philosophy (xii, 97). Routledge.
Ellick, K. L. (2021). Started from the Bottom, Now We're…Where? A Qualitative Analysis of Stress and Coping among Highly
Educated Black Women.https://doi.org/10.13016/dnbv-51nl
Engels, F. (1884/1972). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Penguin Classics.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Sage.
Fabius, C. D., Wolff, J. L., & Kasper, J. D. (2020). Race Differences in Characteristics and Experiences of Black and White
Caregivers of Older Americans. The Gerontologist,60(7), 1244–1253. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa042
Fox, B. J. (1988). Conceptualizing ‘Patriarchy’.Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie,25(2), 163–182.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1988.tb00101.x
Frazier, E. F. (1939). The Present Status of the Negro Family in the United States. The Journal of Negro Education, 8(3),
376–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/2292637
Frazier, E. F. (1957). Black Bourgeoisie: The Rise of a New Middle Class in the United States. Free Press http://catalog.
hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/402005.html
Friedman, D., Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1994). A Theory of the Value of Children. Demography,31(3), 375–401. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2061749
Freeman, S. (2023). African-Caribbean Women Ageing without Children: Does African- Caribbean Culture and Religious
Identity Shape Their Experiences? Journal of Women & Aging,35(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2022.
2071104
Gong, W., Tu, C., & Jiang, L. C. (2017). Stigmatized Portrayals of Single Women: A Content Analysis of News Coverage on
Single Women and Single Men in China. Journal of Gender Studies,26(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.
2015.1095082
Grossbard-Schectman, S. (2019). On the Economics of Marriage. Routledge.
Hamilton, D. (2020). The Moral Burden on Economists: Darrick Hamilton's 2017 NEA Presidential Address. The Review of
Black Political Economy,47(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034644620968104
Hartmann, H. (1976). Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,
1(3), 137-169.
Hatchett, S. J., & Jackson, J. S. (1993). African American extended kin systems: An assessment. Family Ethnicity: Strength in
Diversity (pp. 90–108). Sage Publications, Inc.
Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1997). Sociological Rational Choice Theory. Annual Review of Sociology,23, 191–214. https:
//www.jstor.org/stable/2952549
Heflin, C. M., & Pattillo, M. (2006). Poverty in the Family: Race, Siblings, and Socioeconomic Heterogeneity. Social Science
Research,35(4), 804–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.09.002
Heflin, C. M., & Pattillo, M. (2002). Kin Effects on Black-White Account and Home Ownership. Sociological Inquiry 72(2):
220–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-682X.00014.
Henderson, A. A. (2020). Veil and Vow: Marriage Matters in Contemporary African American Culture. UNC Press Books.
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 17
Higginbotham, E. (2001). Too Much to Ask: Black Women in the Era of Integration. UNC Press Books.
Hill Collins, P. (2001). Like One of the Family: Race, Ethnicity, and the Paradox of US National Identity. Ethnic and Racial
Studies,24(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/014198701750052479
Hooks, B. (1990). Postmodern Blackness. Postmodern Culture,1(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/pmc.1990.0004
Hunter, T. W. (2017). Bound in Wedlock: Slave and Free Black Marriage in the Nineteenth Century. Harvard University Press.
Ingraham, C. (1994). The Heterosexual Imaginary: Feminist Sociology and Theories of Gender. Sociological Theory 12(2),
203-219.
Ingraham, C. (2009). White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture. Routledge.
Jones, J. (2006). Marriage Is for White People. Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2006/
03/26/marriage-is-for-white-people/095b1136-1440-4380-ac23-64beeeac3df4/
Klinenberg, E. (2016). Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Living Alone: Identifying the Risks for Public Health. American Journal
of Public Health,106(5), 786–787. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303166
Kochhar, R., & Fry, R. (2014). Wealth Inequality Has Widened Along Racial, Ethnic Lines Since End of Great Recession. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/
Lahad, K. (2013). “Am I Asking for Too Much?”The Selective Single Woman as a New Social Problem. Women's Studies Inter-
national Forum,40,23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.04.009
Landor, A., & Barr, A. (2018). Politics of Respectability, Colorism, and the Terms of Social Exchange in Family Research. Jour-
nal of Family Theory & Review,10(2), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12264
Laster Pirtle, W. N., & Wright, T. (2021). Structural Gendered Racism Revealed in Pandemic Times: Intersectional
Approaches to Understanding Race and Gender Health Inequities in COVID-19. Gender & Society,35(2), 168–179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211001302
Lenhardt, R. A. (2015). Marriage as Black Citizenship? Hastings Law Journal,66(5), 1317–1364. https://heinonline.org/HOL/
P?h=hein.journals/hastlj66&i=1423
Lerner, G. (1987). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press.
Lesch, E., & van der Watt, A. S. (2018). Living Single: A Phenomenological Study of a Group of South African Single Women.
Feminism & Psychology,28(3), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517731435
Lisle, L. (1996). Without Child: Challenging the Stigma of Childlessness. Ballantine Books.
Lisle, L.. (1999). Without Child: Challenging the Stigma of Childlessness. New York: Routledge.
Marsh, K. (2023). The Love Jones Cohort: Single and Living Alone in the Black Middle Class. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316672754.
Marsh, K., Darity, W. A., Jr., Cohen, P. N., Casper, L. M., & Salters, D. (2007). The Emerging Black Middle Class: Single and
Living Alone. Social Forces,86(2), 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/86.2.735.
Martinez Phillips, K. (2024). The feminization of freedom: An analysis of love, happiness and freedom from the perspective
of childfree, never-married single women of color. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.
1177/02654075241269667
Marx, K. (1990). Karl Marx, Capital. 2nd ed. Vol. 50. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
Moore, M. (2011). Invisible Families: Gay Identities, Relationships, and Motherhood Among Black Women. University of Califor-
nia Press.
Moorman, J. D. (2020). Socializing Singlehood: Personal, Interpersonal, and Sociocultural Factors Shaping Black Women's
Single Lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly,44(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320939070
Morris, W. L., Sinclair, S., & DePaulo, B. M. (2007). No Shelter for Singles: The Perceived Legitimacy of Marital Status Dis-
crimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,10(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081535
Moultrie, M. (2021). “Making Myself:”An Exploratory Study of Black Christian Childfree Women's Concepts of Family. Jour-
nal of Religious Ethics,49(2), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jore.12353
Moynihan, D. P. (1965). The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Office of Policy Planning and Research
U.S. Department of Labor.
Nandy, A. (2017). Motherhood and Choice: Uncommon Mothers, Childfree Women. Zubaan Books.
Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (2013). Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. Routledge.
Page, N. (2020). The Singleness Tradition and the Collective: A Literary Analysis of “For Colored Girls…”[Unpublished Under-
graduate Thesis]. University of Maryland.
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., McKenzie, R. D., & Wirth, L. (1925). The City. The University of Chicago Press.
Park, K. (2002). Stigma Management among the Voluntarily Childless. Sociological Perspectives,45(1), 21–45. https://doi.
org/10.1525/sop.2002.45.1.21
Pattillo, M. (2005). Black Middle-Class Neighborhoods. Annual Review of Sociology,31, 305–329. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/29737722
Pattillo, M. (2013). Black Picket Fences, Second Edition: Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle Class. University of Chicago
Press.
18 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Pattillo-McCoy, M. (2000). The Limits of Out-Migration for the Black Middle Class. Journal of Urban Affairs,22(3), 225–241.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2166.00054
Pfeffer, F. T., & Killewald, A. (2019). Intergenerational Wealth Mobility and Racial Inequality. Socius,5.https://doi.org/10.
1177/2378023119831799
Pfeffer, F. T., & Killewald, A. (2019). Intergenerational Wealth Mobility and Racial Inequality. Socius: Sociological Research
for a Dynamic World 5: 237802311983179-. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119831799.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. University of California Press.
Poortman, A.R. & Liefbroer, A. (2010). Singles' Relational Attitudes in a Time of Individualism. Social Science Research 39(6)
938–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.012
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science,530(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716293530001006
Pudrovska, T., Schieman, S., & Carr, D. (2006). Strains of Singlehood in Later Life: Do Race and Gender Matter? The Journals
of Gerontology: Series B,61(6), S315–S322. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.6.S315
Ray, R. (2018). Identity of Distance: How Economically Marginalized Black and Latina Women Navigate Risk Discourse and
Employ Feminist Ideals. Social Problems,65(4), 456–472. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26990962
Reskin, B. (1993). Sex Segregation in the Workplace. Annual Review of Sociology,19, 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.so.19.080193.001325
Reynolds, J., Wetherell, M., & Taylor, S. (2007). Choice and Chance: Negotiating Agency in Narratives of Singleness. The
Sociological Review,55(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00708.x
Romano, R. (2018). Something Old, Something New: Black Women, Interracial Dating, and the Black Marriage Crisis. Differ-
ences,29(2), 126–153. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-6999802
Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2016). Does Singlehood Isolate or Integrate? Examining the Link Between Marital Status and
Ties to Kin, Friends, and Neighbors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,33(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265407515597564
Settle, B, Krista Brumley (2014). “It's the Choices You Make That Get You There”: Decision-Making Pathways of Childfree
Women. Michigan Family Review,18(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3998/mfr.4919087.0018.102
Sharp, E. A., & Ganong, L. (2011). “I'm a Loser, I'm Not Married, Let's Just All Look at Me”: Ever-Single Women's Perceptions
of Their Social Environment. Journal of Family Issues,32(7), 956–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10392537
Simpson, R. (2016). Singleness and Self-Identity: The Significance of Partnership Status in the Narratives of Never-Married
Women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,33(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515611884
Smith, C. A., Williams, E. L., Wadud, I. A., Pirtle, W. N., & The Cite Black Women Collective. (2021). Cite Black Women: A
Critical Praxis (A Statement). Feminist Anthropology,2(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/fea2.12040
Smith, H. L. (1989). Integrating Theory and Research on the Institutional Determinants of Fertility. Demography,26(2), 171–
184. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061518
Stahnke, B., Blackstone, A., & Howard, H. (2020). Lived Experiences and Life Satisfaction of ChildFree Women in Late Life.
The Family Journal,28(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480720911611
Swank, E., & Fahs, B. (2017). Understanding Feminist Activism among Women: Resources, Consciousness, and Social Net-
works. Socius,3.https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117734081
Taylor, A. (2012). Theorizing women's singleness: Post-feminism, neoliberalism, and the politics of popular culture. Single
Women in Popular Culture: The Limits of Postfeminism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor, R. J., Antonius D. S., Christina J. C., Harry O. T., & Linda M. C. (2022). Racial/Ethnic Variation in Family Support: Afri-
can Americans, Black Caribbeans, and non-Latino Whites. Journal of Marriage and Family 84(4), 1002–1023. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jomf.12846.
Taylor, R. J., Jackson, J. S., & Chatters, L. M. (1997). Family Life in Black America (pp. xiv, 377). Sage Publications, Inc.
Thomas, M. E., Moye, R., Henderson, L., & Horton, H. D. (2018). Separate and Unequal: The Impact of Socioeconomic Status,
Segregation, and the Great Recession on Racial Disparities in Housing Values. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity,4(2), 229–
244. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649217711457
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Thomas, M., & Johnson, K. (2005). Race and the Accumulation of Human Capital across the Career:
A Theoretical Model and Fixed-Effects Application. American Journal of Sociology,111(1), 58–89. https://doi.org/10.
1086/431779
Vinson, C., Mollen, D., & Smith, N. G. (2010). Perceptions of Childfree Women: The Role of Perceivers' and Targets' Ethnic-
ity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,20(5), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1049
Vinson, Candice, Debra Mollen, and Nathan Grant Smith. 2010. “Perceptions of Childfree Women: The Role of Perceivers’
and Targets’Ethnicity.”Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 20 (5): 426–32. https://doi.
org/10.1002/casp.1049.
Walby, S. (1989). Theorising Patriarchy. Sociology,23(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038589023002004
MARTINEZ PHILLIPS and MARSH 19
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2005). Obliviously Ostracizing Singles. Psychological Inquiry,16(2/3), 127–131. https://www.
jstor.org/stable/20447274
Wingfield, A. H. (2012). Changing Times for Black Professionals. Routledge.
Woods-Giscombé, C. L. (2010). Superwoman Schema: African American Women's Views on Stress, Strength, and Health.
Qualitative Health Research,20(5), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310361892
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Kimberly Martinez Phillips is a Doctoral Candidate in the Sociology Department at Memo-
rial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. She is also an adjunct Sociology Instructor at
Long Beach City College in California and a per course instructor at Saint Mary's University
in Halifax. Her research interests are in the areas of Single Studies and Decolonial Feminism.
She is currently studying the lives of childfree, never-married single women of color.
Dr. Kris Marsh is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland. Previously,
Professor Marsh was a postdoctoral scholar at the Carolina Population Center at the Univer-
sity of North Carolina, a visiting researcher at the University of Southern California and Ful-
bright Scholar in South Africa at the University of Witwatersrand and the University of
Johannesburg. Professor Marsh's areas of expertise are the Black middle class, demography,
racial residential segregation, and education.
How to cite this article: Martinez Phillips, K., & Marsh, K. (2024). The Love Jones Cohort and singlehood are
family law issues. Family Court Review,1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12817
20 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
