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?
According to Coontz, divorce affects children because divorce can interfere with effective parenting and deprive children of parental resources. Children from divorced and remarried families are more likely to drop out of school, exhibit emotional distress, get into trouble with the law, an abuse drugs or alcohol than children who grow up with both biological parents. Twice as many children of divorce have problems as children in continuously married families. Such problems in children of divorced parents are not caused by divorce per se but by other factors such as poverty, financial loss, school relocation, or prior history of severe marital conflict. Further single parent families are more likely to have less income, adjustment issues, less individual time with the child, and thus give the child more structural disadvantages, but there is also possible problems when one of the parents is not present in the lives of the children. The article further addresses the issue that faces children within trouble marriages, who have greater such problems.
According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, the factors that affect short-term adjustment problems begins with shock, anxiety, and anger upon learning of the separation, in which they need emotional support and structure through daily routine. However, during divorce, such needs are usually not met in that parents are also depressed, anxious, and overburdened. Children tend to externalize disorders such as aggression, disobedience, and lying and internalize disorders such as depression, anxiety, or withdrawl; this seems to be especially true with boys and behavioral problems. There are also long-term adjustment of children which manifest after the initial trauma of the crisis period. This involves characteristics such as underachievement, self-deprecating, and sometimes angry young men and women.
According to Carr, the three factors that are the most important influences on spousal bereavement are age, cause of death, and release from a marriage that was stifling or unrewarding. Older people have less extreme emotional responses with death than younger people; most older people often die of chronic illnesses, long-term illness, etc which require much care-giving chores; people under troubled marriages have less symptoms of grief than those in loving marriages. Gender shapes the experience of spousal loss, because men and women experience marriage in very different ways, so they also experience the loss of a spouse differently which also includes readjustments to daily life as well as psychological responses. Widows are likely than widowers to experience distress and anxiety about money while men are likely than women to experience sickness, disability, and death after their wives presumably due to the loss of a helpmate, caretaker, and tie with social networks. Also, widows are more receive more practical and emotional support from children than do widowers and widowers are more likely to seek new romantic relationships than widows.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Questions:1. According to Thorne and Luria, what aspect of childhood experience serves as one of the main sources of gender differences? How does it operate?2. According to Goldscheider and Waite, how much housework do children do in contemporary families? How does it vary by child’s gender and type of family? 3. According to Annette Lareau, how do the models of childrearing differ by race and class?4. What are the signs of commercialization of childhood presented in Juliet Schor’s article? How does this commercialization affect children’s well-being?
According to Thorne and Luria, the sexual scripting within childhood serves as one of the main sources of gender differences. Thorne and Luria argue that desire and arousal are shaped by and associated with socially learned activities, which they call as sexual scripts. Such social learning is related to the adult society’s view of gender and affects who does what, with whom, when how, and what it means. Gender segregation is major way in which is operates and begins from an early age in which the social organization and culture of boys and girls differ. Boys tend to engage in more physically aggressive play in more public groups while the girls interact in smaller groups and engage in turn-taking activities. This in turn affects rule-breaking behavior, interaction, and habitual performance. Furthermore, gender-marked rituals of teasing, chasing, and pollution heighten the boundaries between boys and girls, which are conveyed into later sexual scripts.
According to Goldscheider and Waite, the housework done by children in contemporary households are sex typed and create sharp gender differences which are crystalized by adolescence. On an overall basis, children contribute a relatively small proportion of total household labor- 15 percent, but their share is quite substantial for some tasks. Laundry, cooking, and yard work fall in between, with children doing 12 to 15 percent of these tasks. Thus, children’s participation in household tasks depends on which task. The authors have found that girls tend to spend about twice as much time on housework as their brothers. Further, families with teenage girls report that they share five times more tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age. This gender sex typing serves as a focal point where the division of labor between the sexes is most strongly enforced. Moreover, families in urban areas depend on urban areas depend less on their children’s labor than those in rural areas, which correlate that there is somewhat a racial issue in that urban families are more likely to be egalitarian.
According to Annette Lareau, the models of childrearing differ by race and class, because they have found that the childrearing dynamics, compared with social class, race was less important in children’s daily lives. Middle-class parents engage in ‘concerted cultivation’ by focus and attempting to foster children’s talents through organized activities and reasoning while working class and poor parents providing the basic environment in which children can grow, but leaves leisure activities to children themselves. Thus, middle-class children will most likely have important advantages. Further, there may be cultural differences corresponding with the issues of race that inhibit societal advantages for the children. However, in terms of how children spend their time, the way parents use language and discipline in the home, the nature of the families’ social connections, and the strategies used for intervening in institutions, white and black middle-class parents engaged in very similar practices with their children.
According to Juliet Schor, some signs of commercialization of childhood is that the advertisement and the effort to market to children is increasing. Children, according to Juliet Schor, are become shoppers at an earlier age; this influence is being driven by change in parenting style and the opinions of kids are being solicited from earlier ages to choose and buy. Parental tie pressure and longer working hours have driven this trend (aka guilt money and having less time to cajole kids out of not wanting something) in the commercialization of children. This commercialization can affect children’s well-being in a negative way, because food is one of the areas in which influence marketing and the decline of parental control has been most pronounced. Children’s purchasing power has risen an increase of 400 percent, in which the number one spending category is sweets, snacks, and beverages.
According to Thorne and Luria, the sexual scripting within childhood serves as one of the main sources of gender differences. Thorne and Luria argue that desire and arousal are shaped by and associated with socially learned activities, which they call as sexual scripts. Such social learning is related to the adult society’s view of gender and affects who does what, with whom, when how, and what it means. Gender segregation is major way in which is operates and begins from an early age in which the social organization and culture of boys and girls differ. Boys tend to engage in more physically aggressive play in more public groups while the girls interact in smaller groups and engage in turn-taking activities. This in turn affects rule-breaking behavior, interaction, and habitual performance. Furthermore, gender-marked rituals of teasing, chasing, and pollution heighten the boundaries between boys and girls, which are conveyed into later sexual scripts.
According to Goldscheider and Waite, the housework done by children in contemporary households are sex typed and create sharp gender differences which are crystalized by adolescence. On an overall basis, children contribute a relatively small proportion of total household labor- 15 percent, but their share is quite substantial for some tasks. Laundry, cooking, and yard work fall in between, with children doing 12 to 15 percent of these tasks. Thus, children’s participation in household tasks depends on which task. The authors have found that girls tend to spend about twice as much time on housework as their brothers. Further, families with teenage girls report that they share five times more tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age. This gender sex typing serves as a focal point where the division of labor between the sexes is most strongly enforced. Moreover, families in urban areas depend on urban areas depend less on their children’s labor than those in rural areas, which correlate that there is somewhat a racial issue in that urban families are more likely to be egalitarian.
According to Annette Lareau, the models of childrearing differ by race and class, because they have found that the childrearing dynamics, compared with social class, race was less important in children’s daily lives. Middle-class parents engage in ‘concerted cultivation’ by focus and attempting to foster children’s talents through organized activities and reasoning while working class and poor parents providing the basic environment in which children can grow, but leaves leisure activities to children themselves. Thus, middle-class children will most likely have important advantages. Further, there may be cultural differences corresponding with the issues of race that inhibit societal advantages for the children. However, in terms of how children spend their time, the way parents use language and discipline in the home, the nature of the families’ social connections, and the strategies used for intervening in institutions, white and black middle-class parents engaged in very similar practices with their children.
According to Juliet Schor, some signs of commercialization of childhood is that the advertisement and the effort to market to children is increasing. Children, according to Juliet Schor, are become shoppers at an earlier age; this influence is being driven by change in parenting style and the opinions of kids are being solicited from earlier ages to choose and buy. Parental tie pressure and longer working hours have driven this trend (aka guilt money and having less time to cajole kids out of not wanting something) in the commercialization of children. This commercialization can affect children’s well-being in a negative way, because food is one of the areas in which influence marketing and the decline of parental control has been most pronounced. Children’s purchasing power has risen an increase of 400 percent, in which the number one spending category is sweets, snacks, and beverages.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
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?
In the chapter “American Fathering in Historical Perspective”, Joseph H. Pleck stated that there has been greater insistence of greater father involvement and support for fatherly roles in society, but the actual changes in the roles of fathers has been slow. Mothers are still the one doing more child care and housework. The role of fathers has changed over time as in the 18th and early 19th century, the father was seen as the source of moral teachings, instructed children of worldly prospects, and had close connections to their children especially with sons. In the early 19th to mid-20th century, there was a change in parent-child relationships as the mother assumed a stronger role while there was a decrease in paternal roles; the mother was seen as the natural caretaker of children and the father was seen as solely the breadwinner. In the mid-20th century during the World War II years, there was also a shift to the father as sex role model and a good influence in defining masculinity; thus, there was a difference in the way fathers treated sons and daughters differently. The present encompasses both the 19th and early 20th century father role in which fathers have a more often passive role in the rearing of their children. However, this present father model is more involved and egalitarian than those previous dichotomous roles; there are expectations of fathers to heavily impact and aid in the development of the child both economically, socially, and psychologically. The other previous father models also influence our present father model today in that they are still the sex models and the moral overseer, however, the expectations are that there is a much broader, complex role than just those models in the new father roles. I agree with such expectations about fatherhood. I think fathers today are much more involved with their childrens’ lives and encompass a broad set of rules in their relationships.
According to Francine Deutsch, the decisions of couples with children to work alternating shifts is closely related to their social class status, because this phenomenon occurred among blue-collar couples in which husbands shared he care of their children by working different shifts than their wives, so that the couple would not have to pay for childcare and allow both parents to contribute their income. Furthermore, occupations that rely on shift work are predominantly working-class occupations. These arranged work shifts become a solution for a growing number of dual-earner couples, in which the fathers are taking on responsibilities that were unthinkable before their generation. These families’ division of labor compare to their gender, because even though there were households with equal division of parenting, more families had unequal division in which the mother hand the vast majority of child care. Other reasons for alternating- shift parents is to inculcate their children with their own values instead of leaving it to paid childcare, which may not be the best available on a middle class status. I think an alternating shift arrangement for my family for the same reasons mentioned, but especially for monetary reasons, if it is feasible for the parents to accommodate this type of work schedule then I think it would have to be done. However, if I had to incorporate this type of lifestyle into my family, then I would try and set aside time in which the whole family could be home and could be spent in each others’ company.
The societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers according to Dorothy Roberts is chronic poverty- due to the stresses and dislocations caused by unemployment and little financial advantage- and imprisonment- which separates the Black fathers from their families. Furthermore, the racial association of Black men to fatherlessness automatically brands fatherlessness as a depraved condition and offers a convenient explanation for Black people’s problems. Dorothy argues that the absent Black father stands in contradistinction to the ideal of father as breadwinning husband and that it is a man’s failure to marry or remain married that creates problems linked with fatherlessness. However, there is also involvement of Black men in the lives of their children and stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother and are unable to provide financial support. The absent Black father is condemned by this marital and economic status.
In the chapter “American Fathering in Historical Perspective”, Joseph H. Pleck stated that there has been greater insistence of greater father involvement and support for fatherly roles in society, but the actual changes in the roles of fathers has been slow. Mothers are still the one doing more child care and housework. The role of fathers has changed over time as in the 18th and early 19th century, the father was seen as the source of moral teachings, instructed children of worldly prospects, and had close connections to their children especially with sons. In the early 19th to mid-20th century, there was a change in parent-child relationships as the mother assumed a stronger role while there was a decrease in paternal roles; the mother was seen as the natural caretaker of children and the father was seen as solely the breadwinner. In the mid-20th century during the World War II years, there was also a shift to the father as sex role model and a good influence in defining masculinity; thus, there was a difference in the way fathers treated sons and daughters differently. The present encompasses both the 19th and early 20th century father role in which fathers have a more often passive role in the rearing of their children. However, this present father model is more involved and egalitarian than those previous dichotomous roles; there are expectations of fathers to heavily impact and aid in the development of the child both economically, socially, and psychologically. The other previous father models also influence our present father model today in that they are still the sex models and the moral overseer, however, the expectations are that there is a much broader, complex role than just those models in the new father roles. I agree with such expectations about fatherhood. I think fathers today are much more involved with their childrens’ lives and encompass a broad set of rules in their relationships.
According to Francine Deutsch, the decisions of couples with children to work alternating shifts is closely related to their social class status, because this phenomenon occurred among blue-collar couples in which husbands shared he care of their children by working different shifts than their wives, so that the couple would not have to pay for childcare and allow both parents to contribute their income. Furthermore, occupations that rely on shift work are predominantly working-class occupations. These arranged work shifts become a solution for a growing number of dual-earner couples, in which the fathers are taking on responsibilities that were unthinkable before their generation. These families’ division of labor compare to their gender, because even though there were households with equal division of parenting, more families had unequal division in which the mother hand the vast majority of child care. Other reasons for alternating- shift parents is to inculcate their children with their own values instead of leaving it to paid childcare, which may not be the best available on a middle class status. I think an alternating shift arrangement for my family for the same reasons mentioned, but especially for monetary reasons, if it is feasible for the parents to accommodate this type of work schedule then I think it would have to be done. However, if I had to incorporate this type of lifestyle into my family, then I would try and set aside time in which the whole family could be home and could be spent in each others’ company.
The societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers according to Dorothy Roberts is chronic poverty- due to the stresses and dislocations caused by unemployment and little financial advantage- and imprisonment- which separates the Black fathers from their families. Furthermore, the racial association of Black men to fatherlessness automatically brands fatherlessness as a depraved condition and offers a convenient explanation for Black people’s problems. Dorothy argues that the absent Black father stands in contradistinction to the ideal of father as breadwinning husband and that it is a man’s failure to marry or remain married that creates problems linked with fatherlessness. However, there is also involvement of Black men in the lives of their children and stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother and are unable to provide financial support. The absent Black father is condemned by this marital and economic status.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
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.
Social positionality such as race, gender, social class, as well as sexuality are extremely important in determining an individual's perspective and experiences in life. I believe an important function and role of a family in society is to accept each member's social positions and act as a source of communal base/ buffer in which certain experiences and beliefs are shared. An especially crucial factor that has impacted my family is the issue of race; with a Korean background, my family has always grounded itself in the Korean tradition, language, culture including close family friends and social networks. Typically, Asian communities are known for their exclusivity and my family, whether for the good or bad, has delved into that sort of environment. However, being Korea has provided unique experiences and a different environment than those who have not experienced that culture; thus, I believe that it is important for a family to be involved in cultural experiences, whether traditional or adapted modern versions. Further, I believe that most families have their own distinctive shared culture. Being Korea, I think will always affect my family in forming new experiences, doing activities, sharing culture, and the fact that we are a minority will not change.
The fact that I am a female has impacted my life, but in many ways, not very much affected my family. Being that sons were (are?) more valued within Asian societies, it probably would have more a relief to my parents if i had been a boy, but as my sister and I got older, I think we both proved that being female was not inferior. Further, Asian societies are generallly not as patriachal anymore. However, i believe that more Americanized families would have not considered that this factor was even important, because many parents would not care if it was either gender whereas in most Asian societies, most families are openly or secretly hoping for males. This view on gender has been changing and will further continue to change as Asian societies continue to modernize, my family including.
\n\u003cdiv\>Social class has had somewhat of an impact on our family concerning the level of social networks, wealth and income, and the type of educational choices. If we were in a lower social class, higher educational possibilites would have been rather slim and much harder; further, our lifestyle would have been impacted, yet, I do not think overall cultural aspects and mindsets would have not changed. This issue has impacted my view on other families of different social networks, because i feel like lower social class families would have more problems and therefore be less happier but have closer solidarity whereas higher social class families, in my point of view, would be more stability but less personal connection because in order to get to that upward scale people need to work harder. It is hard to determine how this issue would affect my family life in the future, because it depends on how it would be affected but i do not believe my family support system would be highly affected either way, especially since my sister and I are older and are not children anymore. \n\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Sexuality has not been a big issue in our family, because everyone is heterosexual and is quite expected, especially within Asian communities. There is a conservative, traditional mindset about sexuality and is most of the time not even a questionable/debatable factor. Thus, it sometimes surprises me how many families within the United States are so liberal and open about accepting differences whether it is concerning sexuality or other matters. I do not think that my immediate family would not be accepting of sexuality differences, mostly because Asian society in general is not accepting of it; however, there may be more acceptance of modern practices in sexuality as well as other factors well into the future as society is more exposed and more movements are developed. Further, my family as time progresses will change as the younger, more open-minded generations get older and decide where their moral beliefs lie.
Social class has had somewhat of an impact on our family concerning the level of social networks, wealth and income, and the type of educational choices. If we were in a lower social class, higher educational possibilites would have been rather slim and much harder; further, our lifestyle would have been impacted, yet, I do not think overall cultural aspects and mindsets would have not changed. This issue has impacted my view on other families of different social networks, because i feel like lower social class families would have more problems and therefore be less happier but have closer solidarity whereas higher social class families, in my point of view, would be more stability but less personal connection because in order to get to that upward scale people need to work harder. It is hard to determine how this issue would affect my family life in the future, because it depends on how it would be affected but i do not believe my family support system would be highly affected either way, especially since my sister and I are older and are not children anymore.
Sexuality has not been a big issue in our family, because everyone is heterosexual and is quite expected, especially within Asian communities. There is a conservative, traditional mindset about sexuality and is most of the time not even a questionable/debatable factor. Thus, it sometimes surprises me how many families within the United States are so liberal and open about accepting differences whether it is concerning sexuality or other matters. I do not think that my immediate family would not be accepting of sexuality differences, mostly because Asian society in general is not accepting of it; however, there may be more acceptance of modern practices in sexuality as well as other factors well into the future as society is more exposed and more movements are developed. Further, my family as time progresses will change as the younger, more open-minded generations get older and decide where their moral beliefs lie.
Social positionality such as race, gender, social class, as well as sexuality are extremely important in determining an individual's perspective and experiences in life. I believe an important function and role of a family in society is to accept each member's social positions and act as a source of communal base/ buffer in which certain experiences and beliefs are shared. An especially crucial factor that has impacted my family is the issue of race; with a Korean background, my family has always grounded itself in the Korean tradition, language, culture including close family friends and social networks. Typically, Asian communities are known for their exclusivity and my family, whether for the good or bad, has delved into that sort of environment. However, being Korea has provided unique experiences and a different environment than those who have not experienced that culture; thus, I believe that it is important for a family to be involved in cultural experiences, whether traditional or adapted modern versions. Further, I believe that most families have their own distinctive shared culture. Being Korea, I think will always affect my family in forming new experiences, doing activities, sharing culture, and the fact that we are a minority will not change.
The fact that I am a female has impacted my life, but in many ways, not very much affected my family. Being that sons were (are?) more valued within Asian societies, it probably would have more a relief to my parents if i had been a boy, but as my sister and I got older, I think we both proved that being female was not inferior. Further, Asian societies are generallly not as patriachal anymore. However, i believe that more Americanized families would have not considered that this factor was even important, because many parents would not care if it was either gender whereas in most Asian societies, most families are openly or secretly hoping for males. This view on gender has been changing and will further continue to change as Asian societies continue to modernize, my family including.
\n\u003cdiv\>Social class has had somewhat of an impact on our family concerning the level of social networks, wealth and income, and the type of educational choices. If we were in a lower social class, higher educational possibilites would have been rather slim and much harder; further, our lifestyle would have been impacted, yet, I do not think overall cultural aspects and mindsets would have not changed. This issue has impacted my view on other families of different social networks, because i feel like lower social class families would have more problems and therefore be less happier but have closer solidarity whereas higher social class families, in my point of view, would be more stability but less personal connection because in order to get to that upward scale people need to work harder. It is hard to determine how this issue would affect my family life in the future, because it depends on how it would be affected but i do not believe my family support system would be highly affected either way, especially since my sister and I are older and are not children anymore. \n\u003c/div\>\n\u003cdiv\>Sexuality has not been a big issue in our family, because everyone is heterosexual and is quite expected, especially within Asian communities. There is a conservative, traditional mindset about sexuality and is most of the time not even a questionable/debatable factor. Thus, it sometimes surprises me how many families within the United States are so liberal and open about accepting differences whether it is concerning sexuality or other matters. I do not think that my immediate family would not be accepting of sexuality differences, mostly because Asian society in general is not accepting of it; however, there may be more acceptance of modern practices in sexuality as well as other factors well into the future as society is more exposed and more movements are developed. Further, my family as time progresses will change as the younger, more open-minded generations get older and decide where their moral beliefs lie.
Social class has had somewhat of an impact on our family concerning the level of social networks, wealth and income, and the type of educational choices. If we were in a lower social class, higher educational possibilites would have been rather slim and much harder; further, our lifestyle would have been impacted, yet, I do not think overall cultural aspects and mindsets would have not changed. This issue has impacted my view on other families of different social networks, because i feel like lower social class families would have more problems and therefore be less happier but have closer solidarity whereas higher social class families, in my point of view, would be more stability but less personal connection because in order to get to that upward scale people need to work harder. It is hard to determine how this issue would affect my family life in the future, because it depends on how it would be affected but i do not believe my family support system would be highly affected either way, especially since my sister and I are older and are not children anymore.
Sexuality has not been a big issue in our family, because everyone is heterosexual and is quite expected, especially within Asian communities. There is a conservative, traditional mindset about sexuality and is most of the time not even a questionable/debatable factor. Thus, it sometimes surprises me how many families within the United States are so liberal and open about accepting differences whether it is concerning sexuality or other matters. I do not think that my immediate family would not be accepting of sexuality differences, mostly because Asian society in general is not accepting of it; however, there may be more acceptance of modern practices in sexuality as well as other factors well into the future as society is more exposed and more movements are developed. Further, my family as time progresses will change as the younger, more open-minded generations get older and decide where their moral beliefs lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)