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? 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?


The four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries are (1) children were seen as demonic, animalistic, ill-formed, and psychically fragile in the Middle Ages, in which childrearing practices included drugged, whipped, tossed, or simply ignored. They were most likely raised by other people and seen as onerous. Further, by the age of six and seven, they were seen as old enough work and apart of adult society. (2) In the 17th and 18th centuries, the views of children and rearing began to change, in which childhood was understood as a special and valuable period of life; there were special clothes, toys, books, schools created for children. They were seen as needing protection from the outside world. (3) In the late 17th and 18th century, there is no notion of childhood innocence and a lack of children’s toys, games. But there was a belief that early childhood was a special and strict stage in which children were not ignored but molded by means of physical punishment. (4) In the 19th century, ideas of appropriate child rearing changed so that the value of childhood was discovered and children were viewed as innocent instead of agent of sin. By the second half, child rearing was synonymous with mothering and was accompanied by a more general movement and acknowledgement attached to children. According to Hays, the model of intensive mothering, which is a historically constructed cultural model for appropriate child care, asserts that children are innocent and that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers, so that the children’s needs are the center with methods that are informed by experts, labor-intensive, and expensive. This concept is said to be the best model, because it provides the best for children and what they deserve. However, in society today, it is rather difficult to offer this form of parenting to children, because parents are working and there is less time to spend with children. This model is definitely not the kind of parenting I, nor the families I know, received.
The main indicators that mothering is devalued according to Crittenden are that there are inflexible workplaces that accommodate taking care of children, which result in a lack of income for women, marriage is still not an equal financial partnership, and government social policies don’t even define unpaid care of family dependents as work. Furthermore, such cases serve as proof that individuals who assume the role of nurturer are punished and discourage from performing the very tasks that everyone agrees are essential. I agree that women’s work is really underappreciated, undervalued, and not fully understood in its complexity and difficulty, but I think there is a growing awareness and an effort to realize the importance of women’s ‘hidden’ work.
Collins addresses the issue of black women and the ways in which they are mothers. The two types of mothering that Black women tend to do according to Collins are the controlling image within society is of the White-male created image of the “matriarch” and the superstrong Black mother that has been Black-male –perpetuated. These two types of mothering hold that motherhood as types of power, because matriarch model views women, not solely bloodmothers, in supporting and helping raise children and the superstrong Black women model, in which women work to instill values and insure survival of their children. Both models of women assume that women are the dominant leaders (as opposed to men) in influencing the outcomes of their children’s lives.
Poor women’s attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing are surprisingly positive and do not express regret for having gotten pregnant over possible opportunities for school and careers. In fact, children may offer poor youth a compelling sense of purpose in their lives that lead to drastic changes. Furthermore, they still want to get married, even if not with the father of their child; however, among poor couples, there is often mistrust increased with infidelity, drug and alcohol abuse, criminal activity, and incarceration, therefore, women have to ‘test’ the relationship to ensure that it will fail as a marriage. Some ways that society can help poor women is more access to jobs that lead to financial independence and access to better childcare services so that women can work. I think other important aspects in helping young poor women is the access to cheaper, more easily accessed education, flexibility within the workplace to accommodate raising children, sick days, health care, etc. Although, there could be governmental aids and occupational support systems for women, I do not think that in general people should make irrational decisions especially when it involves childrearing and marriage. Mothers may feel grateful for the change that their child has brought to their lives, but if they are economically, financially, and mentally instable to build their own families, then, they should really try to rationalize and rethink decisions to have children.

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.

The gender perspective in understanding violence against women theorizes that men will assault women in order to maintain their dominance and power. Further, this theory-which is considered conventional knowledge and is accepted by most within society- argues that societies will tolerate this type of misogynist behavior and blame the women for the consequences of such violence. Thus, the gender perspective relies on a sexist view regarding the violence against women. The violence perspective, on the other hand, maintains that theories of violence and crime, not of sexism, should explain violence against women. It argues that sexism is a trivial factor in violence against women and the men who commit such crimes are naturally violent in their nature. Felson argues that the violence perspective is a more feasible theory, because he presents the evidence that wives are just as likely as men to commit acts of violence against their husbands. Moreover, only 10 percent of homicides committed by wives was in self-defense and that women who do commit violence against their husbands have prior criminal records. Thus, they kill their husbands for the same reasons that violent husbands kill their wives. Felson seems to side more with the violence perspective and reasons that one of the reasons that stops the husbands from hitting their wives is due to the chivalry norm. I also agree that the violence perspective is more explanatory on a broader than the gender perspective is; although I agree that there is misogynist behavior among men which may result in violence against women, I think most of the violence against women from men is because of their personal nature and not because there is a specific necessity to maintain their dominance.
According to Jones’s article, the question of why the battered woman doesn’t leave isn’t the question to be asked; it is a judgment and makes the immense social problem into a personal transaction. It blames the women for not having gotten out of the situation- even after trying- and not getting adequate help when that really isn’t the case. People are blaming the victim, not the situation and instigator. I agree with Jones in that it is relatively easy from a third point perspective to blame the victim especially when not understanding the full predicament of his/her situation. This follows Felson’s gender perspective in that society is justifying the violence against women and blames the victim. They are excusing the men’s misogynist, violent behavior and accuses the women for causing the battering.
According to Ptacek, that men used verbal strategies in an attempt to explain their abusive behavior and tend to excuse themselves of full responsibility by appealing to loss of control and incapability to control actions, especially under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Another, explanation is victim- blaming and stating that the victim provoked the acts of violence. They equate verbal aggressiveness as equivalent to physical aggressiveness. There is a denial of responsibility, but there are denials of injury, in which there is denying or minimizing injuries that women suffered, and themes of self-righteousness about the violence. Further, chivalry and paternalism represented the good perspective of men’s domination and thus, moral and political judgments were self serving to justify their behavior. There is contradiction in that there are patterns of trying to maintain dominance, which is deliberate. Responsibility to acceptance of responsibility to denial again, which represents a method of saving face or accepting full responsibility for their actions. Moreover, the men seem to justify that there was a loss of control but the method in which the violence was done seem to imply a deliberate strategy than lack of control. There is also contradiction in that This article relates to gender perspective in Felson’s article, because Ptacek article portrays that wife beating as a way of contributing to social action against men’s domination of women. There are no relative examples that the violence perspective is correct in this case, which may be in part do the author’s sample size and the manner in which she chose her subjects.