Feb. 26 Family Issues

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.

The egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter talks about the idea of equal opportunity in a marriage. A husband and a wife in such a household are "supposed" to share household chores and give "equal opportunity" for both individuals to focus on their career goals. This idea of the Egalitarian household has been on the rise for years.Sources suggest that it may be due to rises in female employment and the economic need for families to have more than one caregiver at work. This type of household is supposed to lessen tensions of the second shift. It should reduce the commonly known strain of the mother handling all household chores and attempting to manage the work life at the same time. Stepping aside from traditional views, this way children would benefit by having both a mother and father figure in the household and the mother's role as a working woman could me more important. When a child is unable to identify with both parents having equal parenting roles there is less stability.

Women in non-egalitarian households do alot of emotional work. For instance, they have to deal with imbalances in childrearing/ caretaking and she is always viewed as the provider. A woman outside of the egalitarian household has to deal with all of this, on top of trying to be a "good" wife, a good employee, etc. Women in such situations have alot of emotions to manage and they have to do it constantly in a conscious effort to maintain the well being of her relationship. (both men and women are subject to this) Women experience dual labor in our economy and in their households.
-Many women in egalitarian households create family myths. In the Holt's case they created the upstairs downstairs myth as a solution. These family myths, serve as versions of reality. Such a myth was created to to sustain the idea of an egalitarian household despite the husband stubbornly holding back on housework. These myths help ease the minds of progressive women but in reality their work loads do not change. In this read they split the house in two to make housework appear equal but the woman was stil doing most of the work. This creates tension because even though it's not said out front women know inside that they are still doing the majority of work. They are almost forced to carry out a lie in the relationship. These couples try to live under a "perfect" umbrella as if everything is okay, when it really isn't.

-In this read the wife wanted to be appreciated for what she does in the home and at work. This sounds all to familiar in my family. My mom is automatically expected to cook... just because and if she doesn't my father has a fit. She's never really thanked for all the chores that she does while working at the same time but I know she wants it. My dad is a little different from the man in this read because he grew up in a single parent family with a mom and he knows all about working hard and doing chores. He does alot of cleaning up but my mom for some reason belongs in the kitchen. Oh yea he refuses to grocery shop too for reasons unknown to us all. That's how he wants it period. (a cautionary tale?) My mom tries hard to establish herself as a career woman but there are still certain expectancies she has even though she works crazy long hours.
-Just like in the story I feel that alot of men/husbands are concerned about a certain balance of power that they feel is culturally "right." Some of there men feel that they are offering there wives a chance to stay home, or cut back their hours, and they feel that their wife is refusing thier "gift". Given most women's feelings about work and careers today, this offer is hardly seen as a gift.
- Issues of "equal sharing" is another factor that resignates in my household and households across the world.


2. Explain the concept of the “ideology 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.

The idea of domesticity roots back to the 1700's when family and work were a top priority. The system of domesticity that Williams defines is a very traditional one, one that sustains the idea of the bread winner husband and the wife stuck at home caring for every duty there. Domesticity is a linkage of gender, class, and children's needs. And it makes mothers the primary delivery system for services to children. Religion, law, and custom all enforced the father's position and is authorative figure. The 3 constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in society are 3 sets of enititlements; the entitle ment of employers to hire ideal workers, for men to be ideal workers, and for children to have nothers whose lives are formed around caregiving. Togther these put the father the ideal-worker role and mothers fit into loves carved around caregiving. There is a clear gender hierarchy here.

I believe that both the hunter-gatherer socities and colonial america showed signs of domesticity. In the movie we watched with the girl that got married off at the age of eight, we learned that the males were always expected to go out and kill for food. They did the more "violent" things while kids and females stayed at home. If they were picking fruit or going to look for water they would help. I also remember that when a female was married off it was now the new husbands role to play a breadwinner figure and supply them with foods, etc. The woman were always shown with kids especially at infancy (they would put them in a knap sack on their backs.) One woman from another tribe travel all the way to this specific one to gather meats... with a baby! And she was the only one traveling far and wide with a baby with fresh meat on her back, why someone else wasn't taking care of the baby whow knows. Sounds like a perfect target for the neighboring lion anyone?
-Also in the video about the midwifes diary in colonial america, we saw a distinct difference between the work that males did and that of females. It seemed as if the birthing process was completely a woman's thing. Not once I don't think did a see a man hand in hand helping his wife through the process. Seemed as if a neighbor from down the way (female of course) would be of help before males did. Men were always in the field at work and women were left at home to take care of all the kids, all by themselves. Even considering when marriage arrangments came up, it was definitely the mothers job to take care of everything.
-Women in both settings seem to be some sort of financial burden.


3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?

William's argues that though in today's society the numbers of women in workforce and the women attempting to manage career lives, women are still subject to caregiver roles. There is sex discrimination and lack of free choice for women. Women in today's world and the past fall to disadvantages in all kinds of institutions around them. Whether it be by religion, by law, etc. The idea of women and the "double shift" is still very much alive and women are still held mostly responsible for domestic works even when working outside of the home. I agree with William's in that our society resignates in the domesticity ideology and the "free choice" of women is no choice at all. Our society and it's underlying beliefs and institutions makes it almost impossible for woman to be fully dedicated to a career and be released from the responsibilities of a "mother." Women that do have a bad stigma attach to them.


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?

Christopher Carrington attempts to bring elements of gay/ lesbian work life and household arrangements to light. These types of households depending on how the individuals were brought up tend to have a more egalitarian approach to household responsibilities and expectancies. He also states that just like a heterosexual couple, if a homesexual couple has one that can fulfill or take place as the "breadwinner" in the household they accept this as a reality just like any other couple would do in order to perserve or shall i say save a relationship. Gay and lesbian americans he states, strive to maintain or create egalitarian households, so btoh partners can contribute evenly to domestic work. But in reality this is not the ideal picture. The same dynamics that produce inequalities in America's heterosexual homes are the same dynamics that create inequality in lesbigay couple homes.

Sexual Revolution and College Hook Up's

Questions:According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.


One of the main trends in sexual activity among teens is that research suggests that teens have become more sexually "conservative" during the last decade of the 20th Century. There are lower percentages of teens that are sexually active under age 18. Students between the ages of 15 and 17 who reported engagement in sexual intercourse dropped from 54.1% in 1991 to about 48% in 1997. Blacks continue to be at the top pof the list for sexual activities compared to whites and hispanics. Teenage pregnacy has shown a decline, abortion rates, and the rate of sexually transmitted disease is in decline. This could be due to the fact that teens are waiting to somewhat older ages, cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, fear of disease, sex education (or maybe a combination of sorts) so the rates of coitus has fell. The authors tell us that weighing these various explanations is comlicated. Reports that the rates of birth, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases fell much faster than rates of coitus convince them that young people are acting more responsibly when they are sexaully active. This may explain the "improvements." Responsible sex rather than post-poned sex seems to be the explanation.

When the authors took a closer look at the data, they found dramatic story changes when the data was seperated by gender. Several studies have indicated that boys under age 18 are remaining virgins more and more. The rate of sexual activity among whites and hispanics has remained stable, while black girls rates are moving towards comparisons of whites and hispanics. In conclusion these authors feel that today's teenager are more sophisticated sexual actors than in the past.

In the next article, the authors covered a number of different aspects regarding sexual and romantic behavior amongst college students. The first that stood out to me was the "orgasm gap". It's proven that women have fewer orgasims and men's belief percentages of women having orgasims is substantially lower than those given by women. Hook up sex does not seem to be "equal opportunity" when it comes to orgasm. "Equal opportunity for women has gone further in the educational and career world than in the college sexual scene." They talked about women faking orgasims to boost guys' egos and men being confused because of the amount of noises women make. Reason why guys are overestimating the frequency of their partners's orgasm. From talking with friends, to reading books, etc Ican definitely attest to girls doing this and guys asking a girl if they "came" or not and the girl saying yes just because they wanted to make their guy feel good about them selves. It sounds harsh on the girls part but it's completely understanding at the same time. If a woman can not meet orgamsm though I feel that it should be something that should be openly/comfortably talked about because every seems to think that when a guy meets his peak that's the end of the road. What about the females? Anyone?

Next, the authors talked about the stigmas attached to a woman that hooks up alot. Some seem to understand that women are sexaul beings just like their make counterparts but there is still a stigma attached to a girl who "hooks up" with more than one guy in the same group or who openly talks about it. This is where the idea of double standards come in. Take for example, the walk of shame aspect. I feel like there is more embarrasment attached to this for the girls because their "walk back" is so obvious because there is no reason in the world that if it's 10 a.m. when everyone is walking to class, your coming up in the cute clubbing outfit from the night before. It's just more obvious for Ithink because of the accessories we use to (heels, smeared makeup, messy hair, and so on). Guys on the other hand are usually the one's who let the hook up take place in their room. On BC's campus for some reason male roommates seem to be more understanding if a guys brings a girl back. Some people come up with codes or write a certain word on the writing board outside to make their roomie BEWARE ENTRY. From what I have experienced on the girl side, unless your other female roommate is out of town, alot of girls will not respect the fact that she has to be excluded from the room just because you want to hook up with some guy. Females that are open about who they are bringing over and when are looked down upon more I feel on my campus. And other girls that see that going on (especially if it involves more than one guy) would find it easy to call the girl or slut or just look at her like she's a dirty person. Guys from what I know get a high five for getting a certain girl. Thjis is where the authors brought up the idea that women may have internalized different values than men or that women are more subject to judgment the cause. Is this because women are socialized to have skills at intimate relationships? I'm not sure but I think the author makes a good point here. A few other factors and aspects of these relationships that the authors put forth were:

-Sexual revolution and changes in gender inquality affected the path of change in romantic and sexual behavior. (birth control, freedom to choose careers and abortion legalization led to idea of equal right to sexual freedom)
-Oral sex used to be less common but now is seen as less serios or intimate. Intercourse seen as something that people save for relationships. (I'm not sure about this one because in certain environments this seems to not be a big deal anymore. I've heard that oral sex has grown very bid amongst middle school and high school children because they feel this is not actual sex. In college oral sex at least for the guy goes hand in hand with kissing and hooking up)
-People marrying later--- contribute to the rise of the hook up? Increased acceptance of of cohabitation and easier availability of sex outside marriage contributed to putting marriage off longer?
-The term dating comes to refer more to couples already in an exclusive relationship.---Definitions changing?\-Hooking up the pathway into relationships today.
-Expectations to be virgins at marraige deminishing.

“Family Life and the Regulation of Deviance”

Reading:
1. John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman. 1997. “Family Life and the Regulation of Deviance.” Pp. 15-38 in Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Question:
1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?

The Puritan approach to sexual desire was a simple one. Their ideals were based on religous, economic and moral priniciples. The idea of sex was supposed to be reserved for the married and those that were soon to be so. The idea of marriage was to unite to individuals so that they could simply procreate. It was believed to be a woman's sole duty to procreate and bore children. Sexual desire initially was punishable to those that displayed such behaviors in public. Early Americans tried to channel sexual expression into its "proper" setting and purpose: as a duty and a joy within marriage.Religous beliefs and economic interets supported their family-centered sexual system. A young person growing up in colonial America learned about sexuality from two primary sources: observation within the family and moral instruction from parent and church. Thesee sources of information were conflicting but it transmitted expectations that sex must be within marriage, it must be aimed toward reproduction and it would be apart of normal adult life. In the agricultural society because of the way housing and living quarters were set up, childhood observation of sexual activity was very common. Children learned about sex in the home. Issues with buggery (having sex with animals) caused both the animals and the individual some sort of punishment such as whippings and even death. To regulate the boundaries, the church in combination with community members, and courts worked in effort to impose sanctions in response to sexual offenses. They continually worked to reaffirm the boundaries of "acceptable" behavior. Public humiliation, public confession, repentance and whipping post were a big part of this regualtion system. And these were used to restore the individual to the congregation and confirm the propriety of sexual rules.


Reading: 2. John D’Emilio. 1983. “Capitalism and Gay Identity.” Pp. 100-113 in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. Edited by Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Tompson. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Question: 2. D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?

He argues that the relationship between capitalism and the idea of the nuclear family are contradictory, because on one hand capitalism is the reason or at least part of the reason why homosexuality in our nation was able to develop an identity and on the other hand this causes problems because of the decline in our population. Capitalism he says, weakens the material foundation of family life, making it possible for individuals to live outside of family life but lacks the ability to push men and women into families long enough to reproduce the next generation of workers. Capitalism in itself has become a social problem. Capitalism broaden opportunities to live outside the traditional heterosexual family unit. There is a social instability in this system and this has helped propell homosexuality. Homosexual desire he claims coalesced into a personal identity-- an identity based on the ability to remain outside the heterosexual family and to construct a personal life based on attraction to one's own sex.

Even though I have my own personal feelings and views toward homosexuality, I can completely see how D'Emilio came to his conclusions. Our nation has always been foocused and centered around the "nuclear" family for religous, economic, and procreational reasons. I think that capitalism could have definitely served as a pedalstal or a base for the national "identity" and acknowledgements of homosexuality in America. I am not sure if it may be the sole cause. His argument was presented very well and I can see how everything as far the family, economic needs, and different belief systems coincided around capitalism and in turn brought light to something that had been going on for centuries. Capitalism I think made our society simply more aware of what was going on.