Questions:
1. According to the research presented by Stephanie Coontz, how does divorce affect children, and what factors account for the variation in these effects?
2. According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, what factors affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce?
3. According to Carr, what three factors are the most important influences on spousal bereavement? How does gender shape the experience of spousal loss?
1. According to Coontz, the effects of divorce on children tend to be over exaggerated. While it is true that ending a marriage is an agonizing process on all parties involved, it is not right to say that children in divorced families have more problems, but that more children of divorced parents have problems. Studies showed that while there was a connection with lower levels of child well-being and divorce, overall they were not significantly large. The more controlled the studies were, the smaller the reported differences: "The large majority of children of divorce do not experience severe or long-term problems: Most do not drop out of school, get arrested, abuse drugs, or suffer long-term emotional distress" (100). Divorce does not account for the most social problems such as high school dropout rates or teen pregnancy. Coontz cites the research of Mavis Hetherington that revealed that 20 to 25 percent of kids from divorced families have behavior problems. But that means that 75 to 80 percent, the majority, do not have such problems. So many of the problems seen in children of divorce are caused by factors that can potentially result from divorce, like poverty, financial loss, school relocation, or a prior history of marital conflict (101). Therefore, it is fair to say that divorce causes conditions and situations that can cause many childhood problems, but divorce itself does not lead to such problems. Children in intact families that have high levels of conflict tend to do worse that children in divorced families because they are constantly exposed to fighting. Problems resulting from divorce can be avoided by parents. The worst problems result from when a mother's attention is distracted by depression, anger, or economic pressures, but many of these characteristics are often already existing in the mother prior to divorce (104). Another effect is conflict between parents. Children in disputed custody cases experience the most problems, therefore, divorcing parents should not involve their children in the divorce by bad-mouthing the other parent or making them choose sides.
2. According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, there are both short term and long term adjustment periods for children of divorce. They call the first two years following the separation a "crisis period". This period is where the short term problems arise and when they need the most emotional support. Children initially experience shock, anxiety, and anger when they learn of the breakup. Children have two special needs during this time: they need extra emotional support, and they need "structure provided by a reasonably predictable daily routine" (493). There are 2 general types of behavioral problems seen among childrenof divorce. The first is externalizing disorders, which is behavior directed outward resulting in aggression, disobedience, or lying. The second is to internalize disorders, resulting in depression, anxiety or withdrawal (493). Generally, boys experience more aggressive and antisocial behavior than girls, but girls tend to internalize their problems more. Overall, children are moderately or severely distressed when their parents separate and most go through a period of confusion, sadness, or anger for months or years afterward (494). Most children recover from the crisis period within 2 or 3 years. While it is probably true that many young adults always have the memories of their parent's divorce, it doesn't necessarily impair their own functioning as adults. It is possible that if their parents had remained together, they might have had equally or more painful memories of a dysfunctional marriage (495). Studies show that the majority of children from divorced homes do not misbehave in school. Overall, Furstenberg and Cherlin conlcude that while there does exist a minority that are greatly affected for a long period of time, the majority are not.
3. According to Carr, the three factors that are the most important influences on spousal bereavement are the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple's relationship was like prior to the death (24). Of the 900,000 Americans who lose a spouse each year, 75% are 65 or older (24). Older bereaved spouses have a support system that younger widows and widowers do not have in their friends, peers, and siblings, who they may have watched go through the same experience before them. In a way, this allows the to "rehearse" and prepare themselves for the same thing, and they can turn to turn to one another for wisdom and support. Death also changes in meaning when you get older. It is viewed as a natural event that they expected to happen, its not as though their time together was cut short. Older people are also better able to regulate their emotions. (24-25). Secondly, the cause of death is also an important factor. The leading causes of death among those 65 or older are long drawn out diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc (25). These diseases require the other spouse to be a caregiver, which is very physically and emotionally draining. Older caregivers have higher levels of strain and depressive symptoms when their spouses are suffering, but many bounce back not too long after their spouses die. 90% felt that the death was a relief to the patient, and 72% admitted that the death was also a relief to them (25). For older people, the event of eath is less painful than the often long process. Finally, the condition of the couple's marriage is also a factor. "People with the most close-knit, loving marriages experience the most severe symptoms of sadness and yearning in the first 6 months after their loss", but after time, they begin to enjoy the memories without grieving (25). Also, widows and widowers who had problematic marriages are healthier psychologically following their spouses death. Many who were dependent on the other for financial reasons or for homemaking reveal they are stronger and more self-confident following the death of their spouse.
Gender greatly shapes the experience of spousal loss. Since it is generally the case that the male is the primary breadwinner of the family, women often lose financial support. When a husband dies, his Social Security checks are reduced: it is estimated that a widow's cost of living is about 80% of what the couples was (26). Men are more likely to experience sickness, disability, and death after their wives die because often their wife is their caretaker. Wives often monitor their husband's diets, encourage exercise, remind them to take medication, and discourage bad habits like smoking and drinking (26). When they are gone, so are these reminders. The wife tends to maintain connection with family and friends, and men lose this social support because they tend to be stronger and more silent. This social support is vital for physical and emotional health. Women have supportive relationships with friends and relatives and participation in community activities to fill the void left by her husband. Men as a result are more likely to seek new romantic partners soon after the loss of their wife. Remarriage and dating are ways to bounce back from the resulting loneliness and sadness. They also have more opportunities to find new partners due to the gender gap resulting from the difference in mortality (3 women for every man 85 and older), as well as the tendency to marry younger (26).
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Fatherhood
Questions:
1. According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the United States over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations?
2. According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?
3. According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?
According to Pleck, the role of fathers has changed from being a moral overseer, to a distant breadwinner, to a sex role model, and currently, it is a combination of all of these. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, fathers were seen as having much more responsibility and influence over there children than mothers. They were expected to proved a source of moral teaching and worldly judgements, and educate them on what God and the world expect of them. If they were literate themselves, they would teach reading and writing as well, and would guide sons into an occupational calling. Fathers also approved matches for both his sons and daughers, and allotted them family property. Women were seen as weak when it came to reason and tended to indulge their children and show too much affection, so fathers were expected to supervise them, restrain their inherent sinful urges, and encourage development of reason. Fathers replaced love, affection, and anger with approval and disapproval. The early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries saw an increase in the importance of the role of mothers with the new gender ideology. Women's purity elevated them above men, making her better suited for raising children (353). Infancy and early childhood recieved greater emphasis, and others were thought to have special influence during that time, whereas in the past the emphasis was on the fathers role during the school-age years. In addition, with the onset of industrialization, fathers worked away from home for the first time, resulting in less time spent with his children. Fathers were beginning to be seen as breadwinners, providing money for consumption and security. They were seen as a "final authority", only stepping in when the mother's authority failed. From 1940-1965, a new perception of fatherhood appeared. As the idea of an absent father came about with the onset of World War II, the importance of a male figure in a child's life became apparent. While some fathers were actually gone during and after the war, some were physically there but were weak and passive. Studies showed that fathers were important sex role models. Boys struggled to develop a masculine identity without a father figure as a result of their initial identification with their mother. Fathers were also seen as essential for the sex role development of their daughters (357). Paternal involvement drew a glear distinction between maternal and paternal roles. Today, the sex role model of fatherhood is a secondary counterpoint to the dominant father-breadwinner role. Today, fathers are much more involved in their childrens lives however, generally, they are present at childbirth, involved with them when their infants as well as throughout their lives, participates in childcare, and is involved with his daughters as much as his sons. Based on my own observations, the father generally is the primary breadwinner of the family, but is much more involved in children's lives than he was in the past. It is acceptable for fathers to show affection and indulge them as mothers do, and also contribute greatly to character development and education as well. It seems to me that maternal and paternal roles have gradually become very similar over the years.
According to Deutsch, couples who work blue collar jobs who have children choose to work alternating shifts primarily because of money. It is cheaper for both of them to work and work different shifts that it is to pay for child care. Many couldn't afford it at all, others could have but believed it was economically unwise to do so. By avoiding paying for child care they could provide a more comfortable life for their family, take vacations, and possibly send the kids to college in the future. Another reason they alternate shifts is because they don't want other people raising their children. Many believed children should be cared for only by family. They saw it as their duty to instill their morals and values into the children. Others don't want strangers caring for their children, because they never know what is going on when they're gone and have heard horror stories about babysitters. This has to do with their social class becuase it is neccessary for both parents to work in order to support the family. Also, since blue collar families have less money, the child care that they paid for could be worse than that of the middle class. Third, they if the family could afford the "best" day care, they might suffer from a relative lack of control, in that that day care migth reflect middle-class values and be less responsive to their concerns than to the concerns of middle-class couples (119). There would also be a loss of time together. The divisions of labor in couples who alternate don't change these family's gender ideologies, they merely allow both the male and female to expand their roles. The wife may work, but neither she nor her husband ever considers her the primary breadwinner. when she works outside the home, she is helping because her husband cannot provide financially. In the same way, when a father helps out at home, he does it because his wife is not there. They define their role as "mothers-helpers". Mothers don't identify with work and breadwinning as much as fathers do. The father is more emotionally involved with his children, but the mother is still considered the emotional center of the family. If i had to, I would select an alternating shift arrangement for my family. Under the circumstances, it would be better that both me and my husband got to spend time with and take care of the children than having one parent stay home while the other works all day and never sees their family. At the same time though it would be hard sacrificing time spent with my spouse. Its definately the best way to raise children under the financial constraints, as it provides more money for the family as well as more time spent with the children for each parent.
According to Roberts, the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers are the emphasis on the Black "matriarchal" family that suggests that fatherlessness is a symptom of rebellious Black mothering (147). In this effect, there is little faith that Black fathers can have any positive affect on their children, and could never be suitable mentors for them. Black men are depicted today as gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, and crack heads, an dmore generally, hypersexual and violent. He is someone to be disciplined, not someone who should be given power or respect (148). White Americans tend to emphasize the negative aspects of fatherlessness in Black communities rather than the positive potential of fatherhood. The effects of racial repression, especially high rates of unemployment and incaceration, led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father. Chronic poverty is not conducive to forming and maintaining stable marriages, and Black men's unemployment rates are more than double those of White men (149-150). If their economic status was improved, it would increase the number of Black men who lived with their children. In addition, Black fathers are also kept from their families through imprisonment. Over half of the one million inmates in American jails are Black men. This is a result of the disproportionate poverty and desperation in Black communities, and also because some federal and state sentencing policies are tougher on Black drug offenders (150). Unlike white women, black women were always expected to find a job outside of the home, and this devalues Black men as the breadwinner/ideal father. However, it is often overlooked that Black men actually stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or able to provide financial support. One study showed that absent Black fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more support than did White absent fathers. In addition, more male mentoring is provided by grandfathers, uncles, older brothers, church elders, and neighbors within Black communities.
1. According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the United States over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations?
2. According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?
3. According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?
According to Pleck, the role of fathers has changed from being a moral overseer, to a distant breadwinner, to a sex role model, and currently, it is a combination of all of these. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, fathers were seen as having much more responsibility and influence over there children than mothers. They were expected to proved a source of moral teaching and worldly judgements, and educate them on what God and the world expect of them. If they were literate themselves, they would teach reading and writing as well, and would guide sons into an occupational calling. Fathers also approved matches for both his sons and daughers, and allotted them family property. Women were seen as weak when it came to reason and tended to indulge their children and show too much affection, so fathers were expected to supervise them, restrain their inherent sinful urges, and encourage development of reason. Fathers replaced love, affection, and anger with approval and disapproval. The early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries saw an increase in the importance of the role of mothers with the new gender ideology. Women's purity elevated them above men, making her better suited for raising children (353). Infancy and early childhood recieved greater emphasis, and others were thought to have special influence during that time, whereas in the past the emphasis was on the fathers role during the school-age years. In addition, with the onset of industrialization, fathers worked away from home for the first time, resulting in less time spent with his children. Fathers were beginning to be seen as breadwinners, providing money for consumption and security. They were seen as a "final authority", only stepping in when the mother's authority failed. From 1940-1965, a new perception of fatherhood appeared. As the idea of an absent father came about with the onset of World War II, the importance of a male figure in a child's life became apparent. While some fathers were actually gone during and after the war, some were physically there but were weak and passive. Studies showed that fathers were important sex role models. Boys struggled to develop a masculine identity without a father figure as a result of their initial identification with their mother. Fathers were also seen as essential for the sex role development of their daughters (357). Paternal involvement drew a glear distinction between maternal and paternal roles. Today, the sex role model of fatherhood is a secondary counterpoint to the dominant father-breadwinner role. Today, fathers are much more involved in their childrens lives however, generally, they are present at childbirth, involved with them when their infants as well as throughout their lives, participates in childcare, and is involved with his daughters as much as his sons. Based on my own observations, the father generally is the primary breadwinner of the family, but is much more involved in children's lives than he was in the past. It is acceptable for fathers to show affection and indulge them as mothers do, and also contribute greatly to character development and education as well. It seems to me that maternal and paternal roles have gradually become very similar over the years.
According to Deutsch, couples who work blue collar jobs who have children choose to work alternating shifts primarily because of money. It is cheaper for both of them to work and work different shifts that it is to pay for child care. Many couldn't afford it at all, others could have but believed it was economically unwise to do so. By avoiding paying for child care they could provide a more comfortable life for their family, take vacations, and possibly send the kids to college in the future. Another reason they alternate shifts is because they don't want other people raising their children. Many believed children should be cared for only by family. They saw it as their duty to instill their morals and values into the children. Others don't want strangers caring for their children, because they never know what is going on when they're gone and have heard horror stories about babysitters. This has to do with their social class becuase it is neccessary for both parents to work in order to support the family. Also, since blue collar families have less money, the child care that they paid for could be worse than that of the middle class. Third, they if the family could afford the "best" day care, they might suffer from a relative lack of control, in that that day care migth reflect middle-class values and be less responsive to their concerns than to the concerns of middle-class couples (119). There would also be a loss of time together. The divisions of labor in couples who alternate don't change these family's gender ideologies, they merely allow both the male and female to expand their roles. The wife may work, but neither she nor her husband ever considers her the primary breadwinner. when she works outside the home, she is helping because her husband cannot provide financially. In the same way, when a father helps out at home, he does it because his wife is not there. They define their role as "mothers-helpers". Mothers don't identify with work and breadwinning as much as fathers do. The father is more emotionally involved with his children, but the mother is still considered the emotional center of the family. If i had to, I would select an alternating shift arrangement for my family. Under the circumstances, it would be better that both me and my husband got to spend time with and take care of the children than having one parent stay home while the other works all day and never sees their family. At the same time though it would be hard sacrificing time spent with my spouse. Its definately the best way to raise children under the financial constraints, as it provides more money for the family as well as more time spent with the children for each parent.
According to Roberts, the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers are the emphasis on the Black "matriarchal" family that suggests that fatherlessness is a symptom of rebellious Black mothering (147). In this effect, there is little faith that Black fathers can have any positive affect on their children, and could never be suitable mentors for them. Black men are depicted today as gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, and crack heads, an dmore generally, hypersexual and violent. He is someone to be disciplined, not someone who should be given power or respect (148). White Americans tend to emphasize the negative aspects of fatherlessness in Black communities rather than the positive potential of fatherhood. The effects of racial repression, especially high rates of unemployment and incaceration, led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father. Chronic poverty is not conducive to forming and maintaining stable marriages, and Black men's unemployment rates are more than double those of White men (149-150). If their economic status was improved, it would increase the number of Black men who lived with their children. In addition, Black fathers are also kept from their families through imprisonment. Over half of the one million inmates in American jails are Black men. This is a result of the disproportionate poverty and desperation in Black communities, and also because some federal and state sentencing policies are tougher on Black drug offenders (150). Unlike white women, black women were always expected to find a job outside of the home, and this devalues Black men as the breadwinner/ideal father. However, it is often overlooked that Black men actually stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or able to provide financial support. One study showed that absent Black fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more support than did White absent fathers. In addition, more male mentoring is provided by grandfathers, uncles, older brothers, church elders, and neighbors within Black communities.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Critical Analysis of Family Life
Critical Analysis of Family Life:
For this week's blog entry, I would like you to consider how race, gender, social class, and sexuality (1) impacted and shaped your family life so far, (2) affected your ideas about families, and (3) might affect your family life in the future. The purpose of this assignment is to get you thinking about how social positions affect our family experiences as well as to contemplate what your beliefs are and why you have them. Such things often seem “normal” or “natural” so try to think critically when doing this exercise. This blog entry will be graded based on your critical thinking about these issues.
I grew up in Andover MA, a wealthy suburb of Boston as part of what would considered an upper-middle class, Irish-Catholic family with an older brother and an older sister. I find my family to be very open minded when it comes to race, gender, and class, but not as open minded when it comes to sexuality. In regards to social class, I come from a town that is generally fairly wealthy. I also grew up next to one of the poorest cities in the United States: Lawrence, MA. The transition from my town to Lawrence was always fairly drastic. Any community service or donations that I participated in usually took place in Lawrence or for the people that lived there. My parents have always stressed helping others who need it. I never considered myself as wealthy as a lot of my classmates in high school. I know we have had many financial constraints, but they have not really affected me directly yet, in that they prevented me from doing or having something that I really wanted. All 3 of us went to public schools, though I was given the option of a private high school if I had wanted it. My parents have sacrificed a lot to send all 3 of us to Boston College, and we have received a great deal of financial aid in order to do so. I made my decision of what college to attend when my brother was a senior here and my sister was a sophomore. I was given the opportunity to attend a less prestigious university in the honors program with a scholarship for $15,000 a year. This decision was very tough for me, because my father is very strict about our financial needs. I knew he really wanted me to accept the scholarship, but after much deliberation I decided that if I did not attend BC I would always regret it. My father definitely sacrificed a lot to let me go where he knew I really wanted to go. I've always been taught the value of hard work, having to do chores to earn allowance when I was younger, and contributing money I make at my job towards my college education. As for race, I come from a white, Irish-Catholic family and have not really been faced with the hardships that other races tend to experience. We all have friends from many different backgrounds, and I don't see anyone in my family having a problem with anyone dating outside our race or culture. I don't see much difference when it comes to gender in my family. When me and my siblings were little my mother would only work one day a week and stay home with us the rest of the time. She usually does the cooking and cleaning as well. However, both of my parents have worked full time jobs since I was in middle school and allowed to stay home by myself. As for us, my parents expect all 3 of us to be successful regardless of our gender. When it comes to sexuality however, my family is incredibly conservative. We hardly ever talk about it, except for the obligatory awkward conversation that occurred in 5th grade when we first started having sex education classes. At this point, my mother expressed her wish that we would all wait until marriage before having sex. In regards to homosexuality, I feel like I come from a completely different world as my parents sometimes. I have 2 male cousins that are gay, one of whom is my age and I grew up being very good friends with. One is much older than me and I don't remember anything about my family's reaction to his coming out. But when my other cousin came out, my family, in particular my Grandma and father, were pretty upset. They still love him of course, but they definitely don't approve, and I think this can be attributed to how things were when they were growing up. My sister, brother and I share similar opinions and are much more accepting of it because we've grown up learning to accept all types of people regardless of race, gender, social class, or sexuality. I've grown up observing a variety of types of families, many much different than my own, and I think this has led me to realize that there is no strict definition of "family". I've also realized just how much of an affect your family and your background have on the way you treat other people. In the future, I plan to raise my family to be openminded and respectful of all kinds of people and all kinds of families, no matter what my own views are.
For this week's blog entry, I would like you to consider how race, gender, social class, and sexuality (1) impacted and shaped your family life so far, (2) affected your ideas about families, and (3) might affect your family life in the future. The purpose of this assignment is to get you thinking about how social positions affect our family experiences as well as to contemplate what your beliefs are and why you have them. Such things often seem “normal” or “natural” so try to think critically when doing this exercise. This blog entry will be graded based on your critical thinking about these issues.
I grew up in Andover MA, a wealthy suburb of Boston as part of what would considered an upper-middle class, Irish-Catholic family with an older brother and an older sister. I find my family to be very open minded when it comes to race, gender, and class, but not as open minded when it comes to sexuality. In regards to social class, I come from a town that is generally fairly wealthy. I also grew up next to one of the poorest cities in the United States: Lawrence, MA. The transition from my town to Lawrence was always fairly drastic. Any community service or donations that I participated in usually took place in Lawrence or for the people that lived there. My parents have always stressed helping others who need it. I never considered myself as wealthy as a lot of my classmates in high school. I know we have had many financial constraints, but they have not really affected me directly yet, in that they prevented me from doing or having something that I really wanted. All 3 of us went to public schools, though I was given the option of a private high school if I had wanted it. My parents have sacrificed a lot to send all 3 of us to Boston College, and we have received a great deal of financial aid in order to do so. I made my decision of what college to attend when my brother was a senior here and my sister was a sophomore. I was given the opportunity to attend a less prestigious university in the honors program with a scholarship for $15,000 a year. This decision was very tough for me, because my father is very strict about our financial needs. I knew he really wanted me to accept the scholarship, but after much deliberation I decided that if I did not attend BC I would always regret it. My father definitely sacrificed a lot to let me go where he knew I really wanted to go. I've always been taught the value of hard work, having to do chores to earn allowance when I was younger, and contributing money I make at my job towards my college education. As for race, I come from a white, Irish-Catholic family and have not really been faced with the hardships that other races tend to experience. We all have friends from many different backgrounds, and I don't see anyone in my family having a problem with anyone dating outside our race or culture. I don't see much difference when it comes to gender in my family. When me and my siblings were little my mother would only work one day a week and stay home with us the rest of the time. She usually does the cooking and cleaning as well. However, both of my parents have worked full time jobs since I was in middle school and allowed to stay home by myself. As for us, my parents expect all 3 of us to be successful regardless of our gender. When it comes to sexuality however, my family is incredibly conservative. We hardly ever talk about it, except for the obligatory awkward conversation that occurred in 5th grade when we first started having sex education classes. At this point, my mother expressed her wish that we would all wait until marriage before having sex. In regards to homosexuality, I feel like I come from a completely different world as my parents sometimes. I have 2 male cousins that are gay, one of whom is my age and I grew up being very good friends with. One is much older than me and I don't remember anything about my family's reaction to his coming out. But when my other cousin came out, my family, in particular my Grandma and father, were pretty upset. They still love him of course, but they definitely don't approve, and I think this can be attributed to how things were when they were growing up. My sister, brother and I share similar opinions and are much more accepting of it because we've grown up learning to accept all types of people regardless of race, gender, social class, or sexuality. I've grown up observing a variety of types of families, many much different than my own, and I think this has led me to realize that there is no strict definition of "family". I've also realized just how much of an affect your family and your background have on the way you treat other people. In the future, I plan to raise my family to be openminded and respectful of all kinds of people and all kinds of families, no matter what my own views are.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Motherhood
Questions:
1. According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?
2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?
3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"?
4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?
1. According to Hays, the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in Amerca were:
1) the religiously grounded model of the Puritans- In Europe in the Middle Ages, children were considered demonic, anlimalistic, ill-formed, and fragile. It was right to fear them, for it was considered their natural instinct to harm both themselves and adults. Adults usually ignored them and left them under the care of someone else, often wet nurses, until they were 6 or 7 years old and could become apprentices and achieve social value. If adults did have any affection for their children, it was considered socially innapropriate to show it, as well as impractical, because so many children died before adulthood and it was a waste of investment. This began to change around the 17th and 18th centuries when the idea of childhood as a time of innocence came about, though not very extensively. In Puritan New England, there was no notion of childhood innocence, but they did see it as a special and distinct stage of life in which the child needed to be "redeemed" through discipline, physical punishment, religious instruction, and work. Young children were thought to have inherent sinfulness in the form of "self-will" and needed to be trained to obey God, parents, and work. They were also an economic asset and contributed to the "family economy" startin at a very young age. The father was the ruler of the home and both his wife and children had to obey him. Women were believed to be susceptible to indulgence and passions and were valued for child rearing and not child raising. That was in the hands of the church, community, and the male head of the household.
2) the nineteenth-century valorization of mothers- Children began to be seen not as inherent sinners in need of redemption, but as innocent "reedemers", and parents began to feel the need to prolong childhood as long as they could, and mother-child affection began to come into play. In the fervor of the revolutionary period, women were determined to shed their label of dependence, irrationality, and desire for luxury, and establish themselves as capable of raising virtuous citizens for a new nation, and believed they should be educated for the role. Women and children in the home were seen as the moral counterpart to the corruption of the outside world, and the "cult of domesticity" emerged: women were expected to provide moral and emotional sustenance for their husbands and children, and represented a more virtuous world. Child rearing guidebooks began to appear. To mold a child meant develop their conscience, morals, manners, religious faith, and cirtuous citzenship, and all were dependent on affection. A mother must instill virtue in her children by maintaining her own. Child rearing became to be seen as a task that was best done by the mother alone, without servants, older siblings, or other women- these were the building blocks of the ideology of intensive mothering. A middle-class child's future was no longer decided by their father's status, but by their own performance when they become adults. However, it is difficult to see how extensive the commitment to these new ideals were, since many middle-class homes had nurses maids, and governesses. In addition, working class children had a completely different experience, having to help earn wages for their families they didn't have the prolonged, innocent childhood of the middle class.
3) the early 20th century establishment of expert-guided child rearing- At the turn of the century, child rearing increasingly became thought of as a science. To overcome the social ills of the Progressive Era, such as immigration, increasing poverty, and labor unrest, it was believed that many "experts" could provide technical and scientific solutions to these problems. These experts advised in favor of strict scheduling of feeding, changing, sleeping, and playing, and against affectionate nurture and should "cry it out" rather than be comforted. The child had lost its status as innocent and was considered full of dangerous impulses that the parents must help it overcome. Child labor laws and compulsory education disrupted the family economy, more women had to work to offset the lack of wages provided by children. More and more women were initiated into the culture of intense mothering when they stayed at home to raise their children until they were old to enough to go to school. The focus of child raising shifted focus from moral character to scientific categories of emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development. As a result, mother's had to keep up with all the latest information on these scientific categories, keep a tight rein on their displays of affection, and pay close attention to the child's stage of development.
4) the permissive era- In the 1930's, strict scheduling, detached handling, and behavior modification lost favor, and love and affection were once again emphasized. However, the goals of affection were changed. Before the goal was to raise a child to be a good adult for the good of the family and the good of society. Now the idea is that the natural development of the child and the fulfullment of the child's desires are ends in themselves, and should be the basis of child raising. It became the mother's job to understand each of her individual children and allow their needs to determine her own behavior. She is expected to recognize each cognitive stage that the child goes through in order to meet their needs during each one. Women were expected to fina a middle road between neglect/rejection and overprotection/overindulgence, and increasingly used manuals and doctors to help them.
Intensive mothering is the model in which childhood is seen as a time of innocence, and their rearing should be centered on their needs and carried out primarily by mothers, with the guidance of experts, and is labor-intensive and costly. I feel that this concept does generally apply to my mother, and many of my friends. My mother did center her life on me and my brother and my sisters needs. I know that she had a lot of child rearing manuals, but I don't know how often she consulted it or how big of a role it played in raising us. While I feel that this model is very accurate, I also feel that this article doesn't give father's enough credit, and doesn't really attempt to explain how their roles changed over time. Growing up, my father worked a steady job, but spent a lot of time with us regardless and played a huge role in the raising of me and my siblings.
2. In her article, Crittendon argues that mothering is devalued in the United States because no one considers being a houswife to be a job worth compensation, despite actually being the hardest occupation. The main indicators of this are, first, that workplaces are very inflexible and force women to cut back on or even quit their jobs when they have children. This produces a huge loss of income, estimated to be more than a million dollars for a college-educated woman. Second, marriage is not an equal financial partnership. Mothers in 47 out of the 50 states don't have indisputable legal right to half of their assests. Furthermore, a mother's unpaid work doesn't entitle her to any ownership of her husbands income during marriage or after divorce. Third, government social policies don't define unpaid care of family as work, and one who does this isn't even considered a "full productive citizen", and is not eligible for social insurance programs, unemployment insurance, or workman's compensation (6). Those who do similar work for pay, like teachers, day care, and nannies, are also devalued. A mother's worth was estimated at $508,700 per year in wages alone, and yet she makes nothing. I definately agree with Crittendon that mothering is extremely devalued. Our society often looks down on women who choose to stay at home and raise their children rather than pursue a "life" of their own, and say that they "do nothing all day", when in reality raising children and taking care of a home is not only more work than any other paid job, but more important. I don't know that a society in which mother's are paid to be mother's would ever work, but I definately think they can be respected in other ways, including in government programs and courts.
3. According to Collins, it is common for Black women in the United States to partake in two types of mothering. The first is the natural care and raising of their own biological children. African American communities tend to believe that giving one person complete responsibility for mothering another human being is unwise and even impossible. As a result, it has become traditional that in addition to being bloodmothers, many women in African American communities are also "othermothers", meaning they assist other bloodmothers with the raising of their respective children. While men may be physically present and extremely important in the extended family, women tend to be the center. Grandmothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins may all act as othermothers to each other's children. Grandmothers in particular offer a lot of support when their children are raising their own kids. This was especially evident in the 1980s and 1990s when they saw their children get involved in drugs and crime, and often left behind their own children. Many such children were saved from foster care by their grandmother. In addition to raising children in their extended families, many black women also have "fictive kin"-- children in the community who they are not biologically related to but helped raise anyway. Neighbors often help one another out as well. In the African American communities, motherhood is seen as a symbol of power. When African Americans describe a "strong Black woman", they are describing the power that that black woman has to revitalize and uplift the community. Such women work on behalf of all the children, women and men of their communitues and attempt to "uplift the race". Raising more than just your own children gives you the ability to have influence over and change the lives of a great number of people. Seeing motherhood as a symbol of power causes Black women to take actions they might not have taken otherwise. Collin's cites an example of this by telling the story of a black woman who's 14 year old son was brutally murdered in Mississippi in 1955. She said she "Wanted the world to see" what had happened to her son and insisted on having an open casket funeral to display his battered body. Another woman said that "To me, having a baby inside me is the only time I'm really alive, I know I can make something, do something, no matter what color my skin is, and what names people call me". Having a child gives one the opportunity to make a difference, and in for Black women, having a community of children magnifies that opportunity.
4. According to Eden and Kefalas, poor women are more likely to have children earlier in life. The poor revere marriage, and see failed marriages and divorce as worse than having children out of wedlock. They see marriage as a commitment that is forever, and want to wait until they can marry well. Among poor couples there is often mistrust created by violence, infidelity, drugs and alcohol, criminal activity, and imprisonment. They often remain with with a partner for several years before turning to marriage so that they can test and be sure it will work. Many poor women are not content to rely on a man's earnings and want to become economically dependent on their own before getting married. The reasons for this are because they want an equal partnership or more say in a relationship, or insurance in a failed marriage. For many, children offer many and strong sense of purpose and source of intimacy and a "self-made community" (18). Many claim that having children helped to stabilize their lives and keep them away from drugs, alcohol, and other dangerous activities. Most recognize that having a child while poor and unmarried is not an ideal thing to do, but since their economic prospects are already limited, they have little motivation to schedule and plan their children as those of the middle class do. They often center on children at a time in their lives when the more wealthy would be planning for college and careers. They highly desire kids and believe that they are capable of mothering them even in the difficult circumstances. As the gap between the rich and poor grows, many see having very little to lose and a lot to gain by having a child. Society can help women get out of poverty by allowing them more access to jobs that can lead to their financial indepence, eventually allowing them to feel secure in their marriages. I think that the attitudes of poor women make complete sense. As middle to upper class college students, people in our community have a lot to lose by getting pregnant and having a child, and we tend to think that everyone has that mindset as well. But those who are poor have had difficult lives and often a child of their own can give them stability, purpose, and companionship. Most wish to get married but have high standards for marriage, and won't go through with it unless they know it will work. A lot of poor women refuse to rely on a man's money, which is respectable. Also, they don't neccesarily have opportunities to meet men that are well-off, because, as the article says, in their partner market, better-off men go to the better-off women. By getting jobs that lead to financial indepence, more women will be able to compete for partners and eventually feel comfortable getting married.
1. According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?
2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?
3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"?
4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?
1. According to Hays, the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in Amerca were:
1) the religiously grounded model of the Puritans- In Europe in the Middle Ages, children were considered demonic, anlimalistic, ill-formed, and fragile. It was right to fear them, for it was considered their natural instinct to harm both themselves and adults. Adults usually ignored them and left them under the care of someone else, often wet nurses, until they were 6 or 7 years old and could become apprentices and achieve social value. If adults did have any affection for their children, it was considered socially innapropriate to show it, as well as impractical, because so many children died before adulthood and it was a waste of investment. This began to change around the 17th and 18th centuries when the idea of childhood as a time of innocence came about, though not very extensively. In Puritan New England, there was no notion of childhood innocence, but they did see it as a special and distinct stage of life in which the child needed to be "redeemed" through discipline, physical punishment, religious instruction, and work. Young children were thought to have inherent sinfulness in the form of "self-will" and needed to be trained to obey God, parents, and work. They were also an economic asset and contributed to the "family economy" startin at a very young age. The father was the ruler of the home and both his wife and children had to obey him. Women were believed to be susceptible to indulgence and passions and were valued for child rearing and not child raising. That was in the hands of the church, community, and the male head of the household.
2) the nineteenth-century valorization of mothers- Children began to be seen not as inherent sinners in need of redemption, but as innocent "reedemers", and parents began to feel the need to prolong childhood as long as they could, and mother-child affection began to come into play. In the fervor of the revolutionary period, women were determined to shed their label of dependence, irrationality, and desire for luxury, and establish themselves as capable of raising virtuous citizens for a new nation, and believed they should be educated for the role. Women and children in the home were seen as the moral counterpart to the corruption of the outside world, and the "cult of domesticity" emerged: women were expected to provide moral and emotional sustenance for their husbands and children, and represented a more virtuous world. Child rearing guidebooks began to appear. To mold a child meant develop their conscience, morals, manners, religious faith, and cirtuous citzenship, and all were dependent on affection. A mother must instill virtue in her children by maintaining her own. Child rearing became to be seen as a task that was best done by the mother alone, without servants, older siblings, or other women- these were the building blocks of the ideology of intensive mothering. A middle-class child's future was no longer decided by their father's status, but by their own performance when they become adults. However, it is difficult to see how extensive the commitment to these new ideals were, since many middle-class homes had nurses maids, and governesses. In addition, working class children had a completely different experience, having to help earn wages for their families they didn't have the prolonged, innocent childhood of the middle class.
3) the early 20th century establishment of expert-guided child rearing- At the turn of the century, child rearing increasingly became thought of as a science. To overcome the social ills of the Progressive Era, such as immigration, increasing poverty, and labor unrest, it was believed that many "experts" could provide technical and scientific solutions to these problems. These experts advised in favor of strict scheduling of feeding, changing, sleeping, and playing, and against affectionate nurture and should "cry it out" rather than be comforted. The child had lost its status as innocent and was considered full of dangerous impulses that the parents must help it overcome. Child labor laws and compulsory education disrupted the family economy, more women had to work to offset the lack of wages provided by children. More and more women were initiated into the culture of intense mothering when they stayed at home to raise their children until they were old to enough to go to school. The focus of child raising shifted focus from moral character to scientific categories of emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development. As a result, mother's had to keep up with all the latest information on these scientific categories, keep a tight rein on their displays of affection, and pay close attention to the child's stage of development.
4) the permissive era- In the 1930's, strict scheduling, detached handling, and behavior modification lost favor, and love and affection were once again emphasized. However, the goals of affection were changed. Before the goal was to raise a child to be a good adult for the good of the family and the good of society. Now the idea is that the natural development of the child and the fulfullment of the child's desires are ends in themselves, and should be the basis of child raising. It became the mother's job to understand each of her individual children and allow their needs to determine her own behavior. She is expected to recognize each cognitive stage that the child goes through in order to meet their needs during each one. Women were expected to fina a middle road between neglect/rejection and overprotection/overindulgence, and increasingly used manuals and doctors to help them.
Intensive mothering is the model in which childhood is seen as a time of innocence, and their rearing should be centered on their needs and carried out primarily by mothers, with the guidance of experts, and is labor-intensive and costly. I feel that this concept does generally apply to my mother, and many of my friends. My mother did center her life on me and my brother and my sisters needs. I know that she had a lot of child rearing manuals, but I don't know how often she consulted it or how big of a role it played in raising us. While I feel that this model is very accurate, I also feel that this article doesn't give father's enough credit, and doesn't really attempt to explain how their roles changed over time. Growing up, my father worked a steady job, but spent a lot of time with us regardless and played a huge role in the raising of me and my siblings.
2. In her article, Crittendon argues that mothering is devalued in the United States because no one considers being a houswife to be a job worth compensation, despite actually being the hardest occupation. The main indicators of this are, first, that workplaces are very inflexible and force women to cut back on or even quit their jobs when they have children. This produces a huge loss of income, estimated to be more than a million dollars for a college-educated woman. Second, marriage is not an equal financial partnership. Mothers in 47 out of the 50 states don't have indisputable legal right to half of their assests. Furthermore, a mother's unpaid work doesn't entitle her to any ownership of her husbands income during marriage or after divorce. Third, government social policies don't define unpaid care of family as work, and one who does this isn't even considered a "full productive citizen", and is not eligible for social insurance programs, unemployment insurance, or workman's compensation (6). Those who do similar work for pay, like teachers, day care, and nannies, are also devalued. A mother's worth was estimated at $508,700 per year in wages alone, and yet she makes nothing. I definately agree with Crittendon that mothering is extremely devalued. Our society often looks down on women who choose to stay at home and raise their children rather than pursue a "life" of their own, and say that they "do nothing all day", when in reality raising children and taking care of a home is not only more work than any other paid job, but more important. I don't know that a society in which mother's are paid to be mother's would ever work, but I definately think they can be respected in other ways, including in government programs and courts.
3. According to Collins, it is common for Black women in the United States to partake in two types of mothering. The first is the natural care and raising of their own biological children. African American communities tend to believe that giving one person complete responsibility for mothering another human being is unwise and even impossible. As a result, it has become traditional that in addition to being bloodmothers, many women in African American communities are also "othermothers", meaning they assist other bloodmothers with the raising of their respective children. While men may be physically present and extremely important in the extended family, women tend to be the center. Grandmothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins may all act as othermothers to each other's children. Grandmothers in particular offer a lot of support when their children are raising their own kids. This was especially evident in the 1980s and 1990s when they saw their children get involved in drugs and crime, and often left behind their own children. Many such children were saved from foster care by their grandmother. In addition to raising children in their extended families, many black women also have "fictive kin"-- children in the community who they are not biologically related to but helped raise anyway. Neighbors often help one another out as well. In the African American communities, motherhood is seen as a symbol of power. When African Americans describe a "strong Black woman", they are describing the power that that black woman has to revitalize and uplift the community. Such women work on behalf of all the children, women and men of their communitues and attempt to "uplift the race". Raising more than just your own children gives you the ability to have influence over and change the lives of a great number of people. Seeing motherhood as a symbol of power causes Black women to take actions they might not have taken otherwise. Collin's cites an example of this by telling the story of a black woman who's 14 year old son was brutally murdered in Mississippi in 1955. She said she "Wanted the world to see" what had happened to her son and insisted on having an open casket funeral to display his battered body. Another woman said that "To me, having a baby inside me is the only time I'm really alive, I know I can make something, do something, no matter what color my skin is, and what names people call me". Having a child gives one the opportunity to make a difference, and in for Black women, having a community of children magnifies that opportunity.
4. According to Eden and Kefalas, poor women are more likely to have children earlier in life. The poor revere marriage, and see failed marriages and divorce as worse than having children out of wedlock. They see marriage as a commitment that is forever, and want to wait until they can marry well. Among poor couples there is often mistrust created by violence, infidelity, drugs and alcohol, criminal activity, and imprisonment. They often remain with with a partner for several years before turning to marriage so that they can test and be sure it will work. Many poor women are not content to rely on a man's earnings and want to become economically dependent on their own before getting married. The reasons for this are because they want an equal partnership or more say in a relationship, or insurance in a failed marriage. For many, children offer many and strong sense of purpose and source of intimacy and a "self-made community" (18). Many claim that having children helped to stabilize their lives and keep them away from drugs, alcohol, and other dangerous activities. Most recognize that having a child while poor and unmarried is not an ideal thing to do, but since their economic prospects are already limited, they have little motivation to schedule and plan their children as those of the middle class do. They often center on children at a time in their lives when the more wealthy would be planning for college and careers. They highly desire kids and believe that they are capable of mothering them even in the difficult circumstances. As the gap between the rich and poor grows, many see having very little to lose and a lot to gain by having a child. Society can help women get out of poverty by allowing them more access to jobs that can lead to their financial indepence, eventually allowing them to feel secure in their marriages. I think that the attitudes of poor women make complete sense. As middle to upper class college students, people in our community have a lot to lose by getting pregnant and having a child, and we tend to think that everyone has that mindset as well. But those who are poor have had difficult lives and often a child of their own can give them stability, purpose, and companionship. Most wish to get married but have high standards for marriage, and won't go through with it unless they know it will work. A lot of poor women refuse to rely on a man's money, which is respectable. Also, they don't neccesarily have opportunities to meet men that are well-off, because, as the article says, in their partner market, better-off men go to the better-off women. By getting jobs that lead to financial indepence, more women will be able to compete for partners and eventually feel comfortable getting married.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Violence Against Women
Questions:
1. Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.
In his article regarding women and violence, Felson lies out two arguments. One is referred to as the "gender perspective". This is the argument that men assault women because they are women. They have negative attitudes towards women, and hit them in order to maintain their dominance over them. The opposing argument is the "violence perspective". This perspective suggests that we should focus on violence and crime rather than sexism to explain the violence towards females. Felson cites studies that claim the men and women hit each other with equal frequency, but women often hurt worse because of the size and strength of men. They are also seen as more vulnerable and that is why violence against them is treated more seriously. This argument claims that men who are violent towards their wives also commit a variety of other crimes, and often don't have negative attitudes towards women. Rates of violence against women then to be high when rates against men are also high. Men are more likely to be the victims of crimes commited by other men. The gender perspective claims that men use violence to maintain their dominance over their wives, but a table Felson provides shows that women are just as controlling as theur husbands, if not more so. He claism that husbands are no more controlling, but often use violence to get their way, whereas women tend to use other methods. I think that both arguments could be considered legitimate. I have always thought to agree with the gender perspective because it is my natural reaction to violence against women. I never gave much thought to the possibility that another argument existed, but the violence perspective also makes a lot of sense. I don't think that there is enough evidence/studies available yet to make a decisive decision on either perspective being correct.
Ann Jones entitles her article "Why Doesn't She Leave?" not exactly to answer this question, but to criticize much of society for continuously asking this question. She hates that when people hear of a case of a woman being beaten, they immediately wonder what is wrong with that woman, why does she feel helpless/dependent, why does she do that to herself? In reality it is not the woman's fault, it is the man's, and the government, courts, and society for not protecting her. Jones states that people try to make themselves feel more safe by hiding the fact that any woman, regardless of age, religion, race, can be a battered woman and any man can be a batterer. By blaming that particular woman and saying that there is something wrong with her, we feel safe. And by claiming its her fault for not leaving, we remove any responsibility and guilt from ourselves. No one wants to believe that it could be them in this position, that they can't leave without help. I think that Jones has a very strong argument and I agree that many things need to be done to help and protect battered woman. This article is a very loud statement that is sure to have an effect on anyone who reads is, but I also think that the fact that she sounds so bitter and often sarcastic in this article alienates many people who could be quick to write her off as biased or angry. In regards to Felson's gender vs violence debate, Jones thinks that the violence perspective is absolute crap. She thinks it is ridiculous to say that violence between the sexes is equal on statistic terms, because there is no way to compare "hitting your partner with a pillow" to "hitting him or her with a sledgehammer" (155). She claims people presented this theory in order to "mask the real nature and severity of male violence against women" (155).
The excuses presented in Ptacek's study of men who had beat their wives or lovers were: loss of control due to drugs or alcohol (33%) or frustration (67%). They claimed that these had impaired them and therefore they held no responsibility for their actions. A few even claimed to "black out" due to such anger and frustration. Another excuse was blaming the victim for provoking him. In a few cases the woman would use violence first, but most often her verbal aggressiveness provoked him. It seemed as though the men considered her aggressive words as an equivalent to physical violence. One of the justifications for their actions was denial of injury. The men would minimize the injuries, claim the woman had exaggerated them, or claim that "woman bruise easily". Another justification was the particular woman not falling under the category of being a "good wife" when it came to cooking, not being sexually responsive, not respecting him as "the man of the house", not being silent when she was "supposed to", or not being faithful. Contradictions can be seen in the men's testimonies. Some switch between denying repsonisibility, to accepting it but minimize the wrongness, to denying it again. Many claimed to lose control, but their hostile manner and threats of future violence indicate deliberative strategy. In regards to Felson's gender vs violence argument, Ptacek's findings seemingly support both. He pointed out that men seemed to consider their own physical violence as equivalent and as a neccessary punshiment for women's words. This supports the violent perspective, which claims that men are naturally more violent, not neccisarily sexist. However, many of the men's explanations support the gender perspective, they beat their women in order to maintain dominance and respect. This is especially clear in the argument that men had beaten their wives for not being a stereotypical "good wife": good cook/housekeeper, silent, object for sex, and respectful.
1. Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.
In his article regarding women and violence, Felson lies out two arguments. One is referred to as the "gender perspective". This is the argument that men assault women because they are women. They have negative attitudes towards women, and hit them in order to maintain their dominance over them. The opposing argument is the "violence perspective". This perspective suggests that we should focus on violence and crime rather than sexism to explain the violence towards females. Felson cites studies that claim the men and women hit each other with equal frequency, but women often hurt worse because of the size and strength of men. They are also seen as more vulnerable and that is why violence against them is treated more seriously. This argument claims that men who are violent towards their wives also commit a variety of other crimes, and often don't have negative attitudes towards women. Rates of violence against women then to be high when rates against men are also high. Men are more likely to be the victims of crimes commited by other men. The gender perspective claims that men use violence to maintain their dominance over their wives, but a table Felson provides shows that women are just as controlling as theur husbands, if not more so. He claism that husbands are no more controlling, but often use violence to get their way, whereas women tend to use other methods. I think that both arguments could be considered legitimate. I have always thought to agree with the gender perspective because it is my natural reaction to violence against women. I never gave much thought to the possibility that another argument existed, but the violence perspective also makes a lot of sense. I don't think that there is enough evidence/studies available yet to make a decisive decision on either perspective being correct.
Ann Jones entitles her article "Why Doesn't She Leave?" not exactly to answer this question, but to criticize much of society for continuously asking this question. She hates that when people hear of a case of a woman being beaten, they immediately wonder what is wrong with that woman, why does she feel helpless/dependent, why does she do that to herself? In reality it is not the woman's fault, it is the man's, and the government, courts, and society for not protecting her. Jones states that people try to make themselves feel more safe by hiding the fact that any woman, regardless of age, religion, race, can be a battered woman and any man can be a batterer. By blaming that particular woman and saying that there is something wrong with her, we feel safe. And by claiming its her fault for not leaving, we remove any responsibility and guilt from ourselves. No one wants to believe that it could be them in this position, that they can't leave without help. I think that Jones has a very strong argument and I agree that many things need to be done to help and protect battered woman. This article is a very loud statement that is sure to have an effect on anyone who reads is, but I also think that the fact that she sounds so bitter and often sarcastic in this article alienates many people who could be quick to write her off as biased or angry. In regards to Felson's gender vs violence debate, Jones thinks that the violence perspective is absolute crap. She thinks it is ridiculous to say that violence between the sexes is equal on statistic terms, because there is no way to compare "hitting your partner with a pillow" to "hitting him or her with a sledgehammer" (155). She claims people presented this theory in order to "mask the real nature and severity of male violence against women" (155).
The excuses presented in Ptacek's study of men who had beat their wives or lovers were: loss of control due to drugs or alcohol (33%) or frustration (67%). They claimed that these had impaired them and therefore they held no responsibility for their actions. A few even claimed to "black out" due to such anger and frustration. Another excuse was blaming the victim for provoking him. In a few cases the woman would use violence first, but most often her verbal aggressiveness provoked him. It seemed as though the men considered her aggressive words as an equivalent to physical violence. One of the justifications for their actions was denial of injury. The men would minimize the injuries, claim the woman had exaggerated them, or claim that "woman bruise easily". Another justification was the particular woman not falling under the category of being a "good wife" when it came to cooking, not being sexually responsive, not respecting him as "the man of the house", not being silent when she was "supposed to", or not being faithful. Contradictions can be seen in the men's testimonies. Some switch between denying repsonisibility, to accepting it but minimize the wrongness, to denying it again. Many claimed to lose control, but their hostile manner and threats of future violence indicate deliberative strategy. In regards to Felson's gender vs violence argument, Ptacek's findings seemingly support both. He pointed out that men seemed to consider their own physical violence as equivalent and as a neccessary punshiment for women's words. This supports the violent perspective, which claims that men are naturally more violent, not neccisarily sexist. However, many of the men's explanations support the gender perspective, they beat their women in order to maintain dominance and respect. This is especially clear in the argument that men had beaten their wives for not being a stereotypical "good wife": good cook/housekeeper, silent, object for sex, and respectful.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Marriage & Cohabitation
Questions:
1. What does it mean when sociologists say, “marriage is an institution”? According to Stephanie Coontz, what are the indicators of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage? Explain what problems Coontz finds in the proposals to “reinstitutionalize marriage.”
2. According to the articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian, what are the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for women and men?
3. According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit, and what are the effects of cohabitation on well-being?
4. The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what that means.
When sociologists say that marriage is an "institution", they mean it comes "'with a well-understood set of obligations and rights', all of which are backed up by law, customs, rituals, and social expectations" (78). in the past, marriage was the primary way or organizing work along the lines of age and sex and determined the roles of men and women in public. It was also an important sign of adulthood and respectable status. But now there have emerged other way to regulate sexual behavior, channel relations between men and women, and to raise children. Marriage has transformed into an option rather than a necessity. This is indicated by the fact that only half of American children live in families with both biological parents present. The number of single parents has increased from 3.8 million in 1970 to 12.2 in 1996. However, this doesn't take into account the number of children who are born into families where both parents are present, but they are not married. Coontz has problems with the proposals to reinstitutionalize marriage, because she does not think the current social and economic conditions are conducive to forcing people to get married and to stay married. With the emergence of women in the workforce, they no longer have to get married as early in life, and aren't financially tied to their husbands, leaving them free to leave unpleasant marriages. Men are also less dependent on women for domestic work with the rise of washing machines, frozen foods, etc., "neither men nor women need marriage as much as they used to. Asking people to behave as if they do just sets them up for trouble" (82). Coontz beleives that we can as hard as we can to try to bring back 19th Century ideals of family (virginity, the double standard, ban of birth control, no unwed mothers, etc.), but if we did, families would be a lot worse off than they are right now. These ideals are not applicable to current social, economic, and emotional condistions.
Harris claims in her article that married people are weathier, healthier, have better sex, and are better parents. Couples who have children out of wedlock tent to treat their relationships as temporary and avoid specialization. She claims that people who are married live longer, are less prone to depression, suicide, and anxiety. Marriage benefits women by allowing them to have flexible work lives. The draw backs are the growing divorce rates and changing roles of women and men within the family and in the workforce. Gerstel and Sarkisian claim that all those benfists are "selection effects", that marriage itself has no salutary effects. Those who are already healthier, wealthier, sexier, and more law abiding are more like to find and hang on to a spouse. These benefits apply to marriages with little hostility and conflict, but alot of marriages are in fact hostile and violent. They claim that marriage competes with and undermines realtionships in the wider community. The married are less involved with their parents, siblings, neighbors, and friends, less likely to keep in touch with or offer emotional support. Married couples are more likely to hang out with other married couples rather than those who are single. They attribute this diminishing of other relationships to the cultural norms that say that one's spouse is their main confidant and support system. People are less likely to turn to others for adivice/help. It is also due to the idea of self-sufficiency. Couples believe they should be "making it on their own" and don't ask for help.
In Brown's article, she states that purpose for cohabition is not just as a stepping stone to marriage. Purposes include: an alternative to being single or a stage in the courtship porcess to marriage for those who have never previously been married or have no children; a long term substitution for marriage for those who have already been married before, beaucse they are disillusioned by the concept of marriage. The well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than those who are married. Married people are better adjusted psychologically and better adapted to handle stress. Cohabitors tend to have more sex than married couples, but married couples are happier with their sex lives. Married couples are also more financially stable. Cohabitors marry after they become financially stable, meaning that before they are married, they may experience problems. Though many factors can affect a child's well-being, generally, family environment has a significant effect.
The findings of reasearch on benefirts and disadvantages or marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Selection effects are based on the population that is chosen to be surveyed/observed. People who are married are generally already healthy, wealthy, and more law abiding than those that are single. You have to keep in mind the background of people who tend to get married, and the reasons why they did.
1. What does it mean when sociologists say, “marriage is an institution”? According to Stephanie Coontz, what are the indicators of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage? Explain what problems Coontz finds in the proposals to “reinstitutionalize marriage.”
2. According to the articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian, what are the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for women and men?
3. According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit, and what are the effects of cohabitation on well-being?
4. The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what that means.
When sociologists say that marriage is an "institution", they mean it comes "'with a well-understood set of obligations and rights', all of which are backed up by law, customs, rituals, and social expectations" (78). in the past, marriage was the primary way or organizing work along the lines of age and sex and determined the roles of men and women in public. It was also an important sign of adulthood and respectable status. But now there have emerged other way to regulate sexual behavior, channel relations between men and women, and to raise children. Marriage has transformed into an option rather than a necessity. This is indicated by the fact that only half of American children live in families with both biological parents present. The number of single parents has increased from 3.8 million in 1970 to 12.2 in 1996. However, this doesn't take into account the number of children who are born into families where both parents are present, but they are not married. Coontz has problems with the proposals to reinstitutionalize marriage, because she does not think the current social and economic conditions are conducive to forcing people to get married and to stay married. With the emergence of women in the workforce, they no longer have to get married as early in life, and aren't financially tied to their husbands, leaving them free to leave unpleasant marriages. Men are also less dependent on women for domestic work with the rise of washing machines, frozen foods, etc., "neither men nor women need marriage as much as they used to. Asking people to behave as if they do just sets them up for trouble" (82). Coontz beleives that we can as hard as we can to try to bring back 19th Century ideals of family (virginity, the double standard, ban of birth control, no unwed mothers, etc.), but if we did, families would be a lot worse off than they are right now. These ideals are not applicable to current social, economic, and emotional condistions.
Harris claims in her article that married people are weathier, healthier, have better sex, and are better parents. Couples who have children out of wedlock tent to treat their relationships as temporary and avoid specialization. She claims that people who are married live longer, are less prone to depression, suicide, and anxiety. Marriage benefits women by allowing them to have flexible work lives. The draw backs are the growing divorce rates and changing roles of women and men within the family and in the workforce. Gerstel and Sarkisian claim that all those benfists are "selection effects", that marriage itself has no salutary effects. Those who are already healthier, wealthier, sexier, and more law abiding are more like to find and hang on to a spouse. These benefits apply to marriages with little hostility and conflict, but alot of marriages are in fact hostile and violent. They claim that marriage competes with and undermines realtionships in the wider community. The married are less involved with their parents, siblings, neighbors, and friends, less likely to keep in touch with or offer emotional support. Married couples are more likely to hang out with other married couples rather than those who are single. They attribute this diminishing of other relationships to the cultural norms that say that one's spouse is their main confidant and support system. People are less likely to turn to others for adivice/help. It is also due to the idea of self-sufficiency. Couples believe they should be "making it on their own" and don't ask for help.
In Brown's article, she states that purpose for cohabition is not just as a stepping stone to marriage. Purposes include: an alternative to being single or a stage in the courtship porcess to marriage for those who have never previously been married or have no children; a long term substitution for marriage for those who have already been married before, beaucse they are disillusioned by the concept of marriage. The well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than those who are married. Married people are better adjusted psychologically and better adapted to handle stress. Cohabitors tend to have more sex than married couples, but married couples are happier with their sex lives. Married couples are also more financially stable. Cohabitors marry after they become financially stable, meaning that before they are married, they may experience problems. Though many factors can affect a child's well-being, generally, family environment has a significant effect.
The findings of reasearch on benefirts and disadvantages or marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Selection effects are based on the population that is chosen to be surveyed/observed. People who are married are generally already healthy, wealthy, and more law abiding than those that are single. You have to keep in mind the background of people who tend to get married, and the reasons why they did.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
College Dating vs. the Hook Up
Questions:
According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.
Risman and Schwartz discuss whether or not there has been a sexual counterrevolution in which teenagers have become more sexually conservative. Overall, teenagers seem to becoming gradually less sexually active. The percentage of students ages 15-17 that had had sex decreased from 54.1% in 1991 to 48.4% in 1997. They offer several reasons behind why this decrease occured, including the effect of sex education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, and the fear of disease. The article states that this generation of girls is in some way trying to salvage their image following the sexual revolution "Youths looked at the carnage of their parents' generation-- divorce, disease, and a loss of status for women's choice to say no-- and decided to reestablish their power through less, not more, sexuality"(17). Teenage pregnancy decreased by 14%, andthe rate of sexually transmitted diseases declined throughout the 1990s as well. While this is the case, most people are sexually active by the time they are 20, those who aren't are considered "atypical", one out of four women and one out of five men. But casual sex has become less prevalent, usually sex takes place within some kind of relationship, no matter how you define relationship.
England and Thomas's article focuses on the death of "dating" and the evolution of the hook up. The road to relationships in college no longer begin by going on a date, but by hooking up. Most hook ups begin at parties, and are often fueled by alcohol consumption. One hook up can lead to a consistent "hooking up", which may then eventually lead to an exclusive relationship. A hook up usually begins with pure physical attraction, and after several hook ups, the couple may begin to have feelings for one another that aren't purely sexual. This is defined as "dating". Going on dates used to mark the beginning of a potential relationship, now they usually occur once a relationship is already formed.
Risner and Schwartz cite studies that say that the number of high school boys under the age of 18 have remained virgins have dramatically increased, while girls' behavior has not changed significantly. They claim that this has to do with the changing cultural norms for girls. Girls are most likely to have sex while in a relationship, causing boys to begin their "sexual lives" with a girlfriend. Girls have the ability to define sex as part of a relationship and have more control over the conditions in which it happens. Enlgand and Thomas's article talks about female liberation. It is more socially acceptable for women to do more sexually, but they have the right to say no. But at the same time, if she took it too far, she'll get stuck with a bad reputation. Woman are typically more inclined to turn a hook up into a relationship than men. Both articles state the existence of the double standard. Girls have to worry about being labeled promiscuous or a slut, while boys rarely have that problem.
I can relate my own college experiences, as well as my friends', to both of these articles. Hooking up is usually every single persons goal every weekend night, whether they voice that or not. Part of the appeal of alcohol is that it makes you a lot more easygoing and able to talk to the opposite sex, and potentially hook up with them. I actually have been on a couple dates since coming to college, but it is considered kind of weird to do that. Even in high school, going on dates was often really awkward and I don't really like them that much. Its much better to start a relationship with someone you're already comfortable with, which is often why friends end up hooking up with each other. It is definately true that girls are more relationship prone than boys. While a girl claims that a hook up could have been completely random, theres a good chance at one point or another she thought of it as a potentional relationship-type-thing. It seems that guys will try and consistently hook up with a girl for as long as they can before the girl brings up their relationship, and in most cases when that finally happens, they will end it. While on a lesser scale than in high school, and despite the size of the student body, there are girls and guys at BC that almost everyone knows/has labled as being sexually promiscuous.
According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.
Risman and Schwartz discuss whether or not there has been a sexual counterrevolution in which teenagers have become more sexually conservative. Overall, teenagers seem to becoming gradually less sexually active. The percentage of students ages 15-17 that had had sex decreased from 54.1% in 1991 to 48.4% in 1997. They offer several reasons behind why this decrease occured, including the effect of sex education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, and the fear of disease. The article states that this generation of girls is in some way trying to salvage their image following the sexual revolution "Youths looked at the carnage of their parents' generation-- divorce, disease, and a loss of status for women's choice to say no-- and decided to reestablish their power through less, not more, sexuality"(17). Teenage pregnancy decreased by 14%, andthe rate of sexually transmitted diseases declined throughout the 1990s as well. While this is the case, most people are sexually active by the time they are 20, those who aren't are considered "atypical", one out of four women and one out of five men. But casual sex has become less prevalent, usually sex takes place within some kind of relationship, no matter how you define relationship.
England and Thomas's article focuses on the death of "dating" and the evolution of the hook up. The road to relationships in college no longer begin by going on a date, but by hooking up. Most hook ups begin at parties, and are often fueled by alcohol consumption. One hook up can lead to a consistent "hooking up", which may then eventually lead to an exclusive relationship. A hook up usually begins with pure physical attraction, and after several hook ups, the couple may begin to have feelings for one another that aren't purely sexual. This is defined as "dating". Going on dates used to mark the beginning of a potential relationship, now they usually occur once a relationship is already formed.
Risner and Schwartz cite studies that say that the number of high school boys under the age of 18 have remained virgins have dramatically increased, while girls' behavior has not changed significantly. They claim that this has to do with the changing cultural norms for girls. Girls are most likely to have sex while in a relationship, causing boys to begin their "sexual lives" with a girlfriend. Girls have the ability to define sex as part of a relationship and have more control over the conditions in which it happens. Enlgand and Thomas's article talks about female liberation. It is more socially acceptable for women to do more sexually, but they have the right to say no. But at the same time, if she took it too far, she'll get stuck with a bad reputation. Woman are typically more inclined to turn a hook up into a relationship than men. Both articles state the existence of the double standard. Girls have to worry about being labeled promiscuous or a slut, while boys rarely have that problem.
I can relate my own college experiences, as well as my friends', to both of these articles. Hooking up is usually every single persons goal every weekend night, whether they voice that or not. Part of the appeal of alcohol is that it makes you a lot more easygoing and able to talk to the opposite sex, and potentially hook up with them. I actually have been on a couple dates since coming to college, but it is considered kind of weird to do that. Even in high school, going on dates was often really awkward and I don't really like them that much. Its much better to start a relationship with someone you're already comfortable with, which is often why friends end up hooking up with each other. It is definately true that girls are more relationship prone than boys. While a girl claims that a hook up could have been completely random, theres a good chance at one point or another she thought of it as a potentional relationship-type-thing. It seems that guys will try and consistently hook up with a girl for as long as they can before the girl brings up their relationship, and in most cases when that finally happens, they will end it. While on a lesser scale than in high school, and despite the size of the student body, there are girls and guys at BC that almost everyone knows/has labled as being sexually promiscuous.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Questions:
1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?
2. D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?
In Colonial America, the purpose of sexual relations was reproduction. Any sexual acts committed for a purpose other than reproduction was punishable. This article aims to rid people of the misconception that Puritans were prude and wished to suppress sexual desires, but that they "channel it into what they considered to be the proper setting: as a duty and joy within marriage, and for the purposes of procreation" (16). Adultery, fornication, premarital sex, bestiality, and masturbation were considered illegal and immoral, but in many cases when such acts were committed, the perpetrators were eventually forgiven and allowed back into the church. People learned about sexuality through observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and the church.The general lesson was that sexuality within marriage was a part of adult life, and was expected of everyone. The generally small houses of agricultural society often caused children to observe sexual acts between their parents. Children witness the punishment and public scorn of people who have pre- or extra-marital relations, and therefore learn from an early age that sex should be restricted to marriage. People who deviated from the sexual norm were publicly humiliated, and sometimes even executed. There seemed to be an inconsitency with punishments, in that some people were executed for crimes others were eventually forgiven and welcomed back into the church for. The main goals of regulating sexual deviance was to enforce the system of marital, reproductive sexuality and also to maintain the dominance of whites over blacks (37). Interracial marriages/relations were unacceptable and people were severly punished for them. The idea of a white person and a black person joining an an union of equality was unheard of and absolutely unacceptable. I always considered the Puritans and other early colonists to be very conservative when it came to sex because my history teachers never really mentioned sex until the 1970s or so. This article definately shed new light on Colonial society.
In his second article, D'Emilio claims that people are wrong when they say that homosexuals "are everywhere" and always have been. He also doesn't agree that people are "born gay" and realize it as they grow older. He claims that it was impossible for homosexuals to exist before capitalism evolved, because it was impossible for anyone to survive while living outside of a nuclear family. Women especially were dependent on a male-dominated household, and children were necessary economically, as almost everything was produced from within the household. While homosexual behavior did occur in colonial New England (according to records), it was impossible for one to have a homosexual identity, he claims there was no "social space" for this to occur. As capitalism evolved, people, women in particular, became independent and participation in a nuclear family was no longer a requirement for survival. D'Emilio cites the 1940s and World War II as the start of the "revolution". Women and men found themselves "plucked out" of heterosexual society just as their sexual identities were forming and into "sex-segregated" communities, where they were able to experiment and meet other people in similar situations. He claims that this group of people were the "example set" that caused homosexuality to become more prevalent in the following decades. In this way, D'Emilio claims there are "more of us than there were one hundred years ago", that they havn't been a fixed minority throughout history that merely hid their identities. He claims that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory because capitalism has weakened the bonds of family economically, but has also labeled the family as a source of personal satisfaction, in that it is a source of love and affection. I have some trouble agreeing with D'Emilio's argument. While his analysis of capitalism makes sense, I find myself unable to dispell my previous opinion that homosexual identities have always existed. The fact that homosexual behavior was somewhat prevalent in colonial society contributes to this. D'Emilio claims that homosexual behavior and homosexual identity are different, but I feel that this is not true. Acts of homosexuality are evidence that people would indentify themselves as gay if it was socially acceptable to do so, which it was not until recently, which is why we have seen an increase in homosexualty since the 1950s. Also, D'Emilio is very inconsistent throughout this article, half the time he uses "we", and the other half he tries to be objective by using "gays and lesbians/homosexuals". It is hard to buy into his argument when he is so clearly biased.
1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?
2. D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?
In Colonial America, the purpose of sexual relations was reproduction. Any sexual acts committed for a purpose other than reproduction was punishable. This article aims to rid people of the misconception that Puritans were prude and wished to suppress sexual desires, but that they "channel it into what they considered to be the proper setting: as a duty and joy within marriage, and for the purposes of procreation" (16). Adultery, fornication, premarital sex, bestiality, and masturbation were considered illegal and immoral, but in many cases when such acts were committed, the perpetrators were eventually forgiven and allowed back into the church. People learned about sexuality through observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and the church.The general lesson was that sexuality within marriage was a part of adult life, and was expected of everyone. The generally small houses of agricultural society often caused children to observe sexual acts between their parents. Children witness the punishment and public scorn of people who have pre- or extra-marital relations, and therefore learn from an early age that sex should be restricted to marriage. People who deviated from the sexual norm were publicly humiliated, and sometimes even executed. There seemed to be an inconsitency with punishments, in that some people were executed for crimes others were eventually forgiven and welcomed back into the church for. The main goals of regulating sexual deviance was to enforce the system of marital, reproductive sexuality and also to maintain the dominance of whites over blacks (37). Interracial marriages/relations were unacceptable and people were severly punished for them. The idea of a white person and a black person joining an an union of equality was unheard of and absolutely unacceptable. I always considered the Puritans and other early colonists to be very conservative when it came to sex because my history teachers never really mentioned sex until the 1970s or so. This article definately shed new light on Colonial society.
In his second article, D'Emilio claims that people are wrong when they say that homosexuals "are everywhere" and always have been. He also doesn't agree that people are "born gay" and realize it as they grow older. He claims that it was impossible for homosexuals to exist before capitalism evolved, because it was impossible for anyone to survive while living outside of a nuclear family. Women especially were dependent on a male-dominated household, and children were necessary economically, as almost everything was produced from within the household. While homosexual behavior did occur in colonial New England (according to records), it was impossible for one to have a homosexual identity, he claims there was no "social space" for this to occur. As capitalism evolved, people, women in particular, became independent and participation in a nuclear family was no longer a requirement for survival. D'Emilio cites the 1940s and World War II as the start of the "revolution". Women and men found themselves "plucked out" of heterosexual society just as their sexual identities were forming and into "sex-segregated" communities, where they were able to experiment and meet other people in similar situations. He claims that this group of people were the "example set" that caused homosexuality to become more prevalent in the following decades. In this way, D'Emilio claims there are "more of us than there were one hundred years ago", that they havn't been a fixed minority throughout history that merely hid their identities. He claims that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory because capitalism has weakened the bonds of family economically, but has also labeled the family as a source of personal satisfaction, in that it is a source of love and affection. I have some trouble agreeing with D'Emilio's argument. While his analysis of capitalism makes sense, I find myself unable to dispell my previous opinion that homosexual identities have always existed. The fact that homosexual behavior was somewhat prevalent in colonial society contributes to this. D'Emilio claims that homosexual behavior and homosexual identity are different, but I feel that this is not true. Acts of homosexuality are evidence that people would indentify themselves as gay if it was socially acceptable to do so, which it was not until recently, which is why we have seen an increase in homosexualty since the 1950s. Also, D'Emilio is very inconsistent throughout this article, half the time he uses "we", and the other half he tries to be objective by using "gays and lesbians/homosexuals". It is hard to buy into his argument when he is so clearly biased.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Families in the News- The effect of divorce on children
Divorce rates down, but many families still struggle
The Associated Press State & Local Wire, Connecticut
September 14, 2006
This article provides us with statistical information that divorce rates have declined since their peak in the 1980s: "Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention list the divorce rate at 5.3 per 1,000 people in 1981, and at 4.0 per 1,000 in 2001". While this is true, the author documents a few specific examples of families that underwent a divorce and how they dealt with it. The author couples the advice of psychiatrists with the opinions of divorced parents to share advice on how to deal with children. Both claim that it is important to share what is going on with the children and explain how the divorce will affect them, and to realize that the way that each parent personally copes with the divorce will reflect on the children. This article uses Census statistics to show how divorce has declined, as well as informal interviews with divorcees and psychiatrists. The author seems to have throuroughly researched the topic for this article and has included the sources that she used, which seems to be sufficient enough to evaluate the quality of the research. The article seems to be relatively unbiased and is structured to say that while divorce has declined, each individual family that goes through a divorce has to learn how to cope personally and with it's affects on their children.
When dad's presence is equally vital
New Straits Times (Malaysia)
September 24, 2006
This article deals with the importance of having both a mother and a father figure in their life, even if the two are no longer together. Custody battles can have a harmful affect on children, especially when one parent is barred from seeing them for a long period of time. Young children especially need to have a relationship with both parents. Everytime a parent is removed or added, the environment will be changed, which can in turn affect the trust level and social skills of the child. The author cites certain laws to back up her point concerning gender biased custody laws. She uses the opinions of psychologists combined with the experiences of a few male divorcees to back up her points about divorce's affects on children, but doesn't provide any information on how her subjects were recruited or the credibility of her interviewees. This article is guided by the author's belief that a child needs to have the presence of both a mother and a father in their life, but doesn't take into account factors unique to certain families, such as abuse and arguing, that contribute to divorce.
Government should stay out of divorce
The Collegiate Times (Virginia Tech)
January 18, 2007
This article discusses the movement of the state of Virginia to make getting a divorce more difficult, which would hopefully make people try harder to preserve a marriage or think twice before they actually get married. The main motivation behind this is consideration for the well-being of the children of the divorced couple. The author has clearly researched the motives behind the proposed law, and cites the sources that they used to compile the information they found. Being an editorial, this article is guided by the author's opinion that the solution to lowering the divorce rate is not in making it harder to divorce, but in making it harder to get married. People need to be sure that they are getting married for the right reasons before they actually make it official. The author states that with no scientific proof of a direct correlation between divorce and children's emotional problems, restricting divorce ultimately denies people's "right to happiness".
A family affair? Yes, but not quite as we once knew it
Yorkshire Post
December 4, 2006
This article concentrates on the effects of step families and relations between their now-extended families. It claims that parents using their kids to get information about their ex-spouse and his/her family or having them keep secrets can have negative effects of those kids, and it is necessary to create a positive image of the other parent in the child's mind. The author uses the opinions of psychologists to back up her claims and breifly mentions the research studies they took part in, but offers few statistics and concrete evidence. While the opinions of the psycologists are credible, they are fairly general and difficult to apply to universal divorce. Since the methods of research were interviews it is tough to evaluate the credibility of the research. This article is guided by the author's interest in the changing shape of the family, her own included, that are growing to include step parents and step siblings.
Violent divorces scar children
The Telegraph (Alton, Illinios)
July 30, 2006
This article was written to provide speculation that divorce has harmful effects on children. The "facts" that the author provides are not facts at all, but the opinions of a few select "experts" on the matter. Many of the psycological effects that the author mentions, such as underachievement in school, bullying, and depression, are presented in a hypothetical and general way with no specific mentioning about how this information was gathered or researched. No research methods were cited in the article, nor are we provided with any "scientific proof" or statistics. We are left to rely only on the opinions of the experts the author chose to quote, which are not sufficient enough to back up the claims that the author makes. This article seems to be guided by the biased opinion that violent divorces have strong negative psycological consequences on the children involved, and that they result aggressive behavior and/or depression. No opposing views are presented or argued against.
Conclusion
The main debate for my topic is whether or not divorce can have a direct negative affect on children emotionally and psychology. I definately think that the authors' opinions have an affect on the arguments they present. In an article it is very easy to play up facts that support your particular argument while ignoring the other side, because it is unlikely that the reader will take the time to look up facts for themselves, and will simply believe the facts they are given. I feel that the press can be a trustworthy source in many cases, but as a reader, you need to take it upon yourself to realize that it is basically impossible for any author to write an article without their own bias showing through. It is very hard to remain objective, and therefore you should always recognize that there are two sides to every argument, and consider how facts can be construed to favor a particular side. I think the media has a great affect on our knowledge of families. Many movies, TV shows, and books use divorce and "dysfunctional" families to complicate or make a story more interesting. Take Disney movies for example, how many characters have a complete set of parents still living in a happy, stable family? Also, newspapers and magazine articles play up stories that involve family issues. Generally you tend to hear more sad divorce stories than success stories.
The Associated Press State & Local Wire, Connecticut
September 14, 2006
This article provides us with statistical information that divorce rates have declined since their peak in the 1980s: "Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention list the divorce rate at 5.3 per 1,000 people in 1981, and at 4.0 per 1,000 in 2001". While this is true, the author documents a few specific examples of families that underwent a divorce and how they dealt with it. The author couples the advice of psychiatrists with the opinions of divorced parents to share advice on how to deal with children. Both claim that it is important to share what is going on with the children and explain how the divorce will affect them, and to realize that the way that each parent personally copes with the divorce will reflect on the children. This article uses Census statistics to show how divorce has declined, as well as informal interviews with divorcees and psychiatrists. The author seems to have throuroughly researched the topic for this article and has included the sources that she used, which seems to be sufficient enough to evaluate the quality of the research. The article seems to be relatively unbiased and is structured to say that while divorce has declined, each individual family that goes through a divorce has to learn how to cope personally and with it's affects on their children.
When dad's presence is equally vital
New Straits Times (Malaysia)
September 24, 2006
This article deals with the importance of having both a mother and a father figure in their life, even if the two are no longer together. Custody battles can have a harmful affect on children, especially when one parent is barred from seeing them for a long period of time. Young children especially need to have a relationship with both parents. Everytime a parent is removed or added, the environment will be changed, which can in turn affect the trust level and social skills of the child. The author cites certain laws to back up her point concerning gender biased custody laws. She uses the opinions of psychologists combined with the experiences of a few male divorcees to back up her points about divorce's affects on children, but doesn't provide any information on how her subjects were recruited or the credibility of her interviewees. This article is guided by the author's belief that a child needs to have the presence of both a mother and a father in their life, but doesn't take into account factors unique to certain families, such as abuse and arguing, that contribute to divorce.
Government should stay out of divorce
The Collegiate Times (Virginia Tech)
January 18, 2007
This article discusses the movement of the state of Virginia to make getting a divorce more difficult, which would hopefully make people try harder to preserve a marriage or think twice before they actually get married. The main motivation behind this is consideration for the well-being of the children of the divorced couple. The author has clearly researched the motives behind the proposed law, and cites the sources that they used to compile the information they found. Being an editorial, this article is guided by the author's opinion that the solution to lowering the divorce rate is not in making it harder to divorce, but in making it harder to get married. People need to be sure that they are getting married for the right reasons before they actually make it official. The author states that with no scientific proof of a direct correlation between divorce and children's emotional problems, restricting divorce ultimately denies people's "right to happiness".
A family affair? Yes, but not quite as we once knew it
Yorkshire Post
December 4, 2006
This article concentrates on the effects of step families and relations between their now-extended families. It claims that parents using their kids to get information about their ex-spouse and his/her family or having them keep secrets can have negative effects of those kids, and it is necessary to create a positive image of the other parent in the child's mind. The author uses the opinions of psychologists to back up her claims and breifly mentions the research studies they took part in, but offers few statistics and concrete evidence. While the opinions of the psycologists are credible, they are fairly general and difficult to apply to universal divorce. Since the methods of research were interviews it is tough to evaluate the credibility of the research. This article is guided by the author's interest in the changing shape of the family, her own included, that are growing to include step parents and step siblings.
Violent divorces scar children
The Telegraph (Alton, Illinios)
July 30, 2006
This article was written to provide speculation that divorce has harmful effects on children. The "facts" that the author provides are not facts at all, but the opinions of a few select "experts" on the matter. Many of the psycological effects that the author mentions, such as underachievement in school, bullying, and depression, are presented in a hypothetical and general way with no specific mentioning about how this information was gathered or researched. No research methods were cited in the article, nor are we provided with any "scientific proof" or statistics. We are left to rely only on the opinions of the experts the author chose to quote, which are not sufficient enough to back up the claims that the author makes. This article seems to be guided by the biased opinion that violent divorces have strong negative psycological consequences on the children involved, and that they result aggressive behavior and/or depression. No opposing views are presented or argued against.
Conclusion
The main debate for my topic is whether or not divorce can have a direct negative affect on children emotionally and psychology. I definately think that the authors' opinions have an affect on the arguments they present. In an article it is very easy to play up facts that support your particular argument while ignoring the other side, because it is unlikely that the reader will take the time to look up facts for themselves, and will simply believe the facts they are given. I feel that the press can be a trustworthy source in many cases, but as a reader, you need to take it upon yourself to realize that it is basically impossible for any author to write an article without their own bias showing through. It is very hard to remain objective, and therefore you should always recognize that there are two sides to every argument, and consider how facts can be construed to favor a particular side. I think the media has a great affect on our knowledge of families. Many movies, TV shows, and books use divorce and "dysfunctional" families to complicate or make a story more interesting. Take Disney movies for example, how many characters have a complete set of parents still living in a happy, stable family? Also, newspapers and magazine articles play up stories that involve family issues. Generally you tend to hear more sad divorce stories than success stories.
Monday, January 22, 2007
American Family Decline
Questions:
Explain the debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families (“American Family Decline” debate). According to Popenoe, what indicates that American family is in decline? What are the Stacey’s and Cowan’s critiques of his argument? What position would you take in this debate and why?
In Popenoe's article "American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal", he argues that the American family is in decline as a result of demographic, institutional, and cultural reasons. Popenoe defines family as a "relatively small domestic group of kin with at least one adult and one dependent person". He states that the changes that have taken place can be considered decline because it has weakened family as an institution. Demographically, families are having significantly less children today than in the past. The movement away from agricultural families have lessened the need for a large quantity of children. The common attitude could be considered "quality not quantity"; people would rather have fewer children and raise them well and be able to give them a lot of attention. Men and women are getting married later in life, and therefore having children later in life as well. The average proportion of time spent married in one's life has dramatically decreased. He claims that these smaller numbers "don't help to bolster the beleif that the family is strengthening". Institutionally, Popenoe claims that family is also on the decline. In the past, parents typically educated their children their own way at home. Today government and public/private schools play a huge part in raising and shaping children. He says that parents have less of a role in shaping children's values than they used to. Popenoe also claims that the change in the role of women is a huge factor. With women in the work force, they become less dependent on males. It is easier for husbands to abandon families if their wives are economically stable on their own. Culturally, Women now have the option of choosing to not get married for a long time, or even not at all. If a marriage is troubled, it is likely that either the male or female will chose divorce rather than work through the problems. Marriage used to be a social and economic necessity that helped shape communties. With today's "me-generation", emphasis on individual happiness, people get married and have children for personal companionship. In other words, people marry for love nowadays rather than necessity.
Stacey agrees with Popenoe that the American family is in fact declining, but disagrees with him about the definition of family. She beleives that the family is not an institution, but an "ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and a politics". She doesn't agree that family has always been the only institution in existence. She says that the integration of women in the workforce is progress, not decline. To be nostalgic on the way families once were is not helpful in anyway, and she beleives we need to focus on more pressing matters, such as health care, education, abuse, and employment.
Cowan is less concerned with the actual decline of the family and more concerned with the causes and consequences of it. He dismisses many of Popenoe's arguments as opinions that can't be backed up with sufficient proof. He critizices Popenoe for not considering factors like birth control, the economic pressure placed on families in which both parents are working, or the concern that men and women have about not being able to acheive the perfect family or raise their children well. He also doesn't agree with Popenoe that divorce will have a strong negative impact on children, for there is no concrete statistical evidence to support that and it needs to be studied more before any conclusions are drawn. He says that you can't say that family is declining when the vast majority of people are still getting married, staying married for a significant part of their life and have children, all in spite of the antifamily values and negative attitudes towards children.
After reading these articles, I think that Popenoe brought up many valid points. While it seems the family has weakened as an institution, I don't think I would consider it "decline". I think that the decreasing dependence on the family is progress, and that as long as stability and love in any form are present then the family is still just as important. I agree with Stacey that it is necessary to focus on adjusting to the consquences and issues that arise from the changes in family rather than try to go back to the way things once were.
Explain the debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families (“American Family Decline” debate). According to Popenoe, what indicates that American family is in decline? What are the Stacey’s and Cowan’s critiques of his argument? What position would you take in this debate and why?
In Popenoe's article "American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal", he argues that the American family is in decline as a result of demographic, institutional, and cultural reasons. Popenoe defines family as a "relatively small domestic group of kin with at least one adult and one dependent person". He states that the changes that have taken place can be considered decline because it has weakened family as an institution. Demographically, families are having significantly less children today than in the past. The movement away from agricultural families have lessened the need for a large quantity of children. The common attitude could be considered "quality not quantity"; people would rather have fewer children and raise them well and be able to give them a lot of attention. Men and women are getting married later in life, and therefore having children later in life as well. The average proportion of time spent married in one's life has dramatically decreased. He claims that these smaller numbers "don't help to bolster the beleif that the family is strengthening". Institutionally, Popenoe claims that family is also on the decline. In the past, parents typically educated their children their own way at home. Today government and public/private schools play a huge part in raising and shaping children. He says that parents have less of a role in shaping children's values than they used to. Popenoe also claims that the change in the role of women is a huge factor. With women in the work force, they become less dependent on males. It is easier for husbands to abandon families if their wives are economically stable on their own. Culturally, Women now have the option of choosing to not get married for a long time, or even not at all. If a marriage is troubled, it is likely that either the male or female will chose divorce rather than work through the problems. Marriage used to be a social and economic necessity that helped shape communties. With today's "me-generation", emphasis on individual happiness, people get married and have children for personal companionship. In other words, people marry for love nowadays rather than necessity.
Stacey agrees with Popenoe that the American family is in fact declining, but disagrees with him about the definition of family. She beleives that the family is not an institution, but an "ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and a politics". She doesn't agree that family has always been the only institution in existence. She says that the integration of women in the workforce is progress, not decline. To be nostalgic on the way families once were is not helpful in anyway, and she beleives we need to focus on more pressing matters, such as health care, education, abuse, and employment.
Cowan is less concerned with the actual decline of the family and more concerned with the causes and consequences of it. He dismisses many of Popenoe's arguments as opinions that can't be backed up with sufficient proof. He critizices Popenoe for not considering factors like birth control, the economic pressure placed on families in which both parents are working, or the concern that men and women have about not being able to acheive the perfect family or raise their children well. He also doesn't agree with Popenoe that divorce will have a strong negative impact on children, for there is no concrete statistical evidence to support that and it needs to be studied more before any conclusions are drawn. He says that you can't say that family is declining when the vast majority of people are still getting married, staying married for a significant part of their life and have children, all in spite of the antifamily values and negative attitudes towards children.
After reading these articles, I think that Popenoe brought up many valid points. While it seems the family has weakened as an institution, I don't think I would consider it "decline". I think that the decreasing dependence on the family is progress, and that as long as stability and love in any form are present then the family is still just as important. I agree with Stacey that it is necessary to focus on adjusting to the consquences and issues that arise from the changes in family rather than try to go back to the way things once were.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)