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.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)