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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Readings:1. Arlie Russell Hochschild. 1990. 밓oey뭩 Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt.?Pp. 33-58 (Chapter 4) in The Second Shift. Avon Books.2. Joan Williams. 2000. 밒ntroduction?and 밒s Domesticity Dead? (Chapter 1).? Pp. 1-39 in Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press. 3. Christopher Carrington. 2002. 밆omesticity and the Political Economy of Lesbigay Families.?Pp. 82-107 in Families at Work: Expanding the Boundaries. Edited by Naomi Gerstel, Dan Clawson, and Robert Zussman. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Questions:1. Briefly explain the egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter. What is emotion work and how is it related to this myth? Compare Holts' situation with your observations on the division of labor in your family or those of your friends.
2. Explain the concept of the 밿deology of domesticity?described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.3. Explain Williams뭩 argument about sex discrimination and the 밼ree choice.?Do you agree with her? 4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?
Hochschild contends that the egalitarian myth that housework and childcare is shared equally is untrue. In her article, Nancy wants to share the ‘second shift’ between her husband, but finds that it was not equal and that the ‘upstairs-downstairs divison of housework’ was not fair. Nancy in the article is described as always growing resentful of her husband Evan, tired of having to do most of the domestic work and childcare, and more worried about divorce. Nancy always wanted to feel right about the situation and wanted to keep everything fine. This is described as emotional work and is related to this myth, because decided to accept an arrangement which she knew was unfair and did not relinquish her beliefs about fairness. Further, Nancy seemed to avoid all mental associations that reminded her of the unfair situation she was apart of; she had to keep believing that her situation of working toward equality was better than nothing. Hoschild’s argument that the egalitarian myth was false is in my experience with my family is true. Coming from an Asian background where women are expected to do all the domestic work, my mother even while working would do most of the housework and even though my father helped with chores such as mowing the grass, taking out the trash, washing dishes, my mom was responsible for the bulk of the work.
There is a demise of domesticity, or gender based system comprising of the organization of market and family work, in America; this is based on the ideal of a fulltime worker and marginalization of those unable to be fulltime workers. However, the ideology of domesticity still holds that men naturally belong in the market-based work because of their supposed ‘manly’ characteristics such as aggressiveness while women belong in the home because of their ‘natural’ inclination with the ethic of care. The ideology of domesticity establish therefore both breadwinner/ housewife roles by establishing norms that identified with performance of stereotypical gender characteristics. The three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society is that there is an impoverishment of women upon divorce and leads to the poverty of women and their children, minimization of fathers’ involvement with children which pressures them to perform as ideal workers, and relegation of child rearing to private sphere intimates that republic has no responsibility to play in raising children. I think this ideology of domesticity based on gender performance and characteristics existed in both hunter-gather societies and colonial America, however, it existed in different forms. In hunter-gather societies, women probably had more economic and politic leeway than in colonial America, because women during that time were in charge of the agriculture and provision of food. Further, in colonial America there was much more of traditional patriarchal society under which women had fewer rights and privileges as men and often the sole caregivers of home and family. However, women in both times were both the main domestic house and childcare giver.
William’s argument about sex discrimination and free choice contended that women throughout history had law, religious, and custom disadvantages. William argues that domesticity affected many aspects of work, including men’s ‘market’ status which affected their claims to familial and social dominance, anxiety became a permanent feature of masculinity. Further, William argues that the shift of women in the workforce still hasn’t changed domesticity and there is sex discrimination and a lack of free choice for women; domesticity created an ideal of a private sphere with selfless women and a public sphere for self-interest pursuing men. For example, in modern society at least two-thirds of the wage gap between men and women reflect the women’s load of family work. I agree with William to some extent, because it has been proven that women, even while working, still are responsible for most of the domestic housework and the notion of the double shift for women is still applicable. However, I also think that the situation is not as bad as William describes it; men are much more egalitarian when regarding housework and childcare.
According to Carrington, the household division of labor in lesbian-gay families compares to that in hetereosexual families, because it lacks in gender assigned responsibilities since the couples are of the same gender; thus, there are downsized families, paid work (instead of gender) has the greatest influence upon the division of domesticity in most lesbigay families, and there is more a prevalent and persistent commitment in portraying their relationship as egalitarian. The reasons for these differences according to Carrington are because gender is an important factor in domesticity. Carrington contends that practical economic concerns and occupational characteristics play the largest role in determining domesticity; thus, people in lesbigay relationships can make conscious choices domesticity albeit with economic and occupational realities.
2. Explain the concept of the 밿deology of domesticity?described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.3. Explain Williams뭩 argument about sex discrimination and the 밼ree choice.?Do you agree with her? 4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?
Hochschild contends that the egalitarian myth that housework and childcare is shared equally is untrue. In her article, Nancy wants to share the ‘second shift’ between her husband, but finds that it was not equal and that the ‘upstairs-downstairs divison of housework’ was not fair. Nancy in the article is described as always growing resentful of her husband Evan, tired of having to do most of the domestic work and childcare, and more worried about divorce. Nancy always wanted to feel right about the situation and wanted to keep everything fine. This is described as emotional work and is related to this myth, because decided to accept an arrangement which she knew was unfair and did not relinquish her beliefs about fairness. Further, Nancy seemed to avoid all mental associations that reminded her of the unfair situation she was apart of; she had to keep believing that her situation of working toward equality was better than nothing. Hoschild’s argument that the egalitarian myth was false is in my experience with my family is true. Coming from an Asian background where women are expected to do all the domestic work, my mother even while working would do most of the housework and even though my father helped with chores such as mowing the grass, taking out the trash, washing dishes, my mom was responsible for the bulk of the work.
There is a demise of domesticity, or gender based system comprising of the organization of market and family work, in America; this is based on the ideal of a fulltime worker and marginalization of those unable to be fulltime workers. However, the ideology of domesticity still holds that men naturally belong in the market-based work because of their supposed ‘manly’ characteristics such as aggressiveness while women belong in the home because of their ‘natural’ inclination with the ethic of care. The ideology of domesticity establish therefore both breadwinner/ housewife roles by establishing norms that identified with performance of stereotypical gender characteristics. The three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society is that there is an impoverishment of women upon divorce and leads to the poverty of women and their children, minimization of fathers’ involvement with children which pressures them to perform as ideal workers, and relegation of child rearing to private sphere intimates that republic has no responsibility to play in raising children. I think this ideology of domesticity based on gender performance and characteristics existed in both hunter-gather societies and colonial America, however, it existed in different forms. In hunter-gather societies, women probably had more economic and politic leeway than in colonial America, because women during that time were in charge of the agriculture and provision of food. Further, in colonial America there was much more of traditional patriarchal society under which women had fewer rights and privileges as men and often the sole caregivers of home and family. However, women in both times were both the main domestic house and childcare giver.
William’s argument about sex discrimination and free choice contended that women throughout history had law, religious, and custom disadvantages. William argues that domesticity affected many aspects of work, including men’s ‘market’ status which affected their claims to familial and social dominance, anxiety became a permanent feature of masculinity. Further, William argues that the shift of women in the workforce still hasn’t changed domesticity and there is sex discrimination and a lack of free choice for women; domesticity created an ideal of a private sphere with selfless women and a public sphere for self-interest pursuing men. For example, in modern society at least two-thirds of the wage gap between men and women reflect the women’s load of family work. I agree with William to some extent, because it has been proven that women, even while working, still are responsible for most of the domestic housework and the notion of the double shift for women is still applicable. However, I also think that the situation is not as bad as William describes it; men are much more egalitarian when regarding housework and childcare.
According to Carrington, the household division of labor in lesbian-gay families compares to that in hetereosexual families, because it lacks in gender assigned responsibilities since the couples are of the same gender; thus, there are downsized families, paid work (instead of gender) has the greatest influence upon the division of domesticity in most lesbigay families, and there is more a prevalent and persistent commitment in portraying their relationship as egalitarian. The reasons for these differences according to Carrington are because gender is an important factor in domesticity. Carrington contends that practical economic concerns and occupational characteristics play the largest role in determining domesticity; thus, people in lesbigay relationships can make conscious choices domesticity albeit with economic and occupational realities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)