Divorce and families

Due April 27, 2007, 12PM:

Readings:
1. Stephanie Coontz. 1997. “Putting Divorce in Perspective.” Pp. 97-108 in The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms With America's Changing Families. NY: Basic Books.
2. Frank F. Furstenberg and Andrew J. Cherlin. 2001. “Children’s Adjustment to Divorce.” Pp. 491-499 in Family Patterns, Gender Relations. Edited by Bonnie J. Fox. Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
3. Carr, Deborah. 2006. "Good Grief: Bouncing Back from a Spouse’s Death in Later Life." Contexts, 5, 4, 22-
27.


Questions:

1. According to the research presented by Stephanie Coontz, how does divorce affect children, and what factors account for the variation in these effects?

Previous research tells us that there are disastrous consequences for the future of kids. There are too many options today for parents to pursue personal fulfillment at the expense of their children’s needs. Divorce interferes with effective parenting and deprives children of parental resources. Kids from divorced families face insurmountable deficits and stepfamilies turn out even worst. Children in divorced and remarried families are more likely to drop out of school, exhibit emotional distress, get in trouble with the law, and abuse drugs or alcohol than children who grow up with the law, and abuse drugs than those with biological parents. It’s harder for them to avoid these perils.

-I liked that this article points out that a lot of research has focused on kids and family that have affects that are so bad that they have already sought help in therapy. So to say that they are at higher risks gives us disproportionate numbers seeing that this sample creates a bias. In fact, in more representative samples, there are much lower estimates of risks. Most studies out here have not focused on work pressures, general insecurities, or community fragmentation. To assume that these previous samples, which in most cases are small, ignore the possibility of “national” data. [...] we find few statistical significant differences across family types on measures of socioemotionnal adjustment and well-being. Divorce does not account for the majority of social problems that it is usually claimed to do so.
-The author adds that we need to pay attention to comparisons of data like percentages for example. One study found that 20-25% of kids from divorced families have behavior problems and only 10 percent from nondivorced. That means that 75-80% aren’t having problems, the majority are well. These are things that we fail to realize when we look at immediate numbers.
-We have to pay attention to those cases where children are involved in several divorces and remarriages. They usually show the poorest adjustment, but even then there are more factors than just divorce alone. Consider, “antisocial mothers” who themselves may have experiences many marital transition and may engage in unskilled parenting practices that in turn affect their children.
-When research is done in this arena, we have to control for other factors, which in turn may lower disadvantage numbers/ percentages. (Examples: income, low maternal education, poverty, financial loss, school relocation, prior history of severe marital conflict)
-There are no hard and fast links between family structure, parental behaviors, and children’s outcomes.


2. According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, what factors affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce?

Usually the focus of a divorce surrounds the couple and what they may be going through individually. This article tells us that conflict and emotional upset on the part of the parents causes problems for the children just as well. As far as short-term affects are concerned, they actually begin in the years of separation. Shock, anxiety, and anger arise upon learning of the breakup. Harmful affects on the children may begin way before the actual breakup “Children have two special needs during the crisis period. First they need additional emotional support as they struggle to adapt to the breakup. Second, they need the structure provided by a reasonably predictable daily routine.” Single parents usually cannot meet both of these needs and this is where problems arise. If parents are depressed, their kids are affected because they can’t comfort them emotionally especially if their needy. The result is that children lose the sense of support needed. Researchers agree that children are moderately distressed when parent separate and most continue to experience confusion, sadness, anger and so forth. We do have to keep in mind that variations in this arise when we account for age, gender and differences in temperaments.

Long-term: “Even less is known about the long-term consequences of divorces than about the short-term consequences. Most single parents and children recover substantially from the “crisis” period. Parent-child relationships generally improve. And the majority of children it seems return to normal development. Some children of course experience long-term affects but overall this assumption has been greatly exaggerated. Most studies lack comparisons to inact families and usually the families that are studied have already got to the point that they need psychiatric help and counseling. It is not doubted that young adults will always have memories of such experiences, but that doesn’t mean that their functioning as adults will be altered. In all there is no certain path that children should follow after divorce and children’s responses to divorce vary greatly just as everything else in our lives. We all handle things differently.

3. According to Carr, what three factors are the most important influences on spousal bereavement? How does gender shape the experience of spousal loss?

Three main factors highlighted were: cause of death, age, and life together before death. Other influences are that of the experience of loss and how it reflects the marriage, being older and gender. Studies show that sudden deaths are not necessarily more distressing than expected ones, and bereaved people who had strained marriages actually feel less grief than those who had close and loving ones. Widows sometimes experience profound depression in months/years to follow after a loss and the way they handle it all depends on the factors mentioned above. A loss for couples, especially when they get older is inevitable. To avoid a loss with someone you’ve been with for such a long period of time is inescapable unless you avoid marriage altogether. “These individuals have raised their children, celebrated the births of their grandchildren, and enjoyed at least a few years of relaxation together after retiring.” (p.3) They also differ from younger counterparts in how they respond emotionally to stress. Due to lower levels of emotional reactivity, grief reactions tend to be shorter lived and less intense than younger widows.
As far as cause of death is concerned, in older couples there is usually an issue with chronic illness and long term diseases. Couples become bombarded with new technologies, taking care of the spouse in the home, distributing insulin, etc, all the way and are burdened with things around this that are very time consuming. “Older caregivers report high levels of strain and depressive symptoms when their spouses are still alive, yet bounce back shortly after their spouses die. The article says this questions the assumption that expected deaths are necessarily “better” for the survivor. Watching someone die seems to be more painful than the actual death.

Death and the reflection of Marriage: Older people are spared severe distress compared to younger people in this situation. Death can be viewed as a release or freedom from an unrewarding marriage. Despite previous studies, it’s been proven that symptoms fade as time goes on. Survivors of lost ones come to realizations and start to enjoy memories of their beloved ones without the presence of grief. Widows from problematic marriages show better psychological health following a loss than those who remain in troubled marriages. People can achieve psychological rewards.

Men and women experience things differently both in general/ life and in this context. Due to our “traditional” division of labor, widows and widowers face different challenges. “For women, widowhood often means a sharp dip in economic resources, because men earn more than women during their working lives, they receive higher social security benefits upon retirement or disability.” (p.5) Because of this, widows are more likely than widowers to experience distress and anxiety about money. For males usually after their wives die it is claimed that they died of a broken heart. When in fact it may be due to the fact that women take care of their husbands and remind them of things for health, etc. so they wind up not taking care of themselves well. A wife gives social and emotional support so when they die this is all lost. This may explain why males become “sick” after the death of their wives.

Childhood

Readings:
1. Barrie Thorne and Zella Luria. 1997. “Sexuality and Gender in Children’s Daily Worlds.” Pp. 141-152 in Down to Earth Sociology: Introductory Readings. Edited by James M. Henslin. New York: The Free Press.
2. Annette Lareau. 2002. "Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families." American Sociological Review, v. 67 (5): 747-776.
3. Frances K. Goldschneider and Linda J. Waite. 2001. “Children’s Share in Household Tasks.” In Shifting the Center: Understanding Contemporary Families, 2nd ed. Edited by Susan J. Ferguson. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
4. Juliet Schor. 2004. “America’s Most Wanted: Inside the World of Young Consumers.” Boston College Magazine, 54, 4 (Fall), pp.30-37.



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?

In this article the authors analyze Childs play and in turn highlight how this play has serious sociological meaning and shadows the maintenance of social boundaries between genders. They want to look into why it is exactly that children are so focused and consumed with separating things such as activities, toys and friendships on the basis of sex. From the start boys are focused on sports, competition, games, and testing limits of rules and girls in their own way are focused on dolls and being nice, etc. These very things are what socialize us into adult gender roles. When we are older things are basically the same, just in different aspects. “Females are more concerned with intimacy, emotionality, and romance, and boys with sexuality.” This article tells us that it is in our childhood that we write scripts for our attitudes and so forth in adulthood.
In the daily separation of boys and girls and gender segregation is central in the daily life of kids in elementary school. Within this setting boys and girls are constantly trying to arrange themselves in same-sex groups. Whether they’re just standing in line, choosing seats, finding companions to work with, or at recess, same sexes are clustering together. “Gender segregation in elementary and middle school has been found to account for more segregation than race.” (p138) Even playgrounds have gendered spaces. This proves that gender segregation is more prevalent when children are allowed to construct their own activities, which takes place in school settings.

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?

The tasks children do are inflexibly divided by gender and for the most part families, with girls doing a variety of different tasks and taking on more around the house compared to boys. Goldscheider and Waite tell us in the article that “sex typing” of children’s household tasks begin very early, and sharp differences become engrained or like they call it “crystallized” by adolescence. In some situations, girls are spending up to twice as much time doing household chores as their brothers. This apparently mirrors different levels of contribution that’s done by their fathers and mothers. This is not to undermine the fact that in a lot of households, parents and mostly mothers are doing all the work.
Views in America are shifting from these beliefs though in some ways. Preparation in the workplace is becoming a new focus for us, not preparation for adult roles in the home. Homework for example has now become a valid excuse for children to get out of housework. “The old view that children should help their parents (and eventually support them in their old age) has given way to an expectation that parents must exert themselves to the utmost to ensure that their children grow up to be successes.” (p.1) American children in view are now becoming useless children instead of useful like that did at one time.
Children now take relatively little responsibility for most household tasks- children contribute in small proportions in total household labor (about 15%). Their participation depends really on what task exactly is at hand. Age and sex composition of children affect whether women of households share tasks with offspring. Grown children for example are spending more time at work than at school which once again makes them less available for household chores just like they were excused of chores early in life for homework. The authors tell us that people reason this by telling/ reminding themselves how stressful this time period is for people, which in turn makes the possibility to demand help from “older” children dwindle.
“Children’s age and gender also influence the amount of task sharing [...]” (p.4) It is expected that with the presence of very young children, there will be an increase with the sharing of older children. When there are more children to go around, it is more likely that they will assist in helping. Families with older children usually do more work because they seem more capable. Teenage girls for example are sharing 5 times more tasks than do families with boys of the same age. And we wonder why when we grow up and we try to make things equal in a marriage why they don’t work out or why the man doesn’t understand that a women doesn’t want to do certain things...
In households where the presence of two adult roles/ parents lack sometimes make the child-help and work necessary in most cases. Sometimes children have to step in and take up the role as the missing adult/caregiver/parent, etc. especially if they are not available because there is a necessity to go out and work. Single parent families and mother-only families see childhood help as an absolute necessity. In both two parent families and mother-only families, boys do the most minimal work. Within this though in mother-only families boys are still doing more when compare to the other family but it’s still less than what everyone else is doing.
Finally in stepparent families, boys in early to late teens share more in household work than younger children in stepfamilies. Household today like to generate ideas of completing things as a team but the first option looked at is a sort of teaming up between spouses and where that may lack there is then a branching out to the children of the household.

3. According to Annette Lareau, how do the models of childrearing differ by race and class?

Lareau explores how parenting and childhood vary by social class. There are demonstrated class-based differences within the organization of children’s daily lives, their interaction with social institutions, and their language development. This study does a good job of allowing us to look deeper into children’s lives and give us a rich understanding of how culture conveyed to children vary by class in way that entrench class inequality at early ages.
In this study she observed two elementary schools did interviews with parents and observed homes of children. In middle class households when it comes to childrearing, parents foster and assess their child’s talents by molding their reasoning skills, involving them in organized activities, and communicate directly with teachers and coaches. Middle class parents challenge their children, broaden their vocabularies, and model how to demand action from social institutions. In working-class and poor families, they tend to base their childrearing on natural accomplishment of growth. This seems to be more spontaneous than the previous one. It focuses on providing children’s basic needs and allows talents to develop “naturally.” These kids have fewer structured activities and clear boundaries between adults and children. Working class kids usually get along with their siblings more than middle-class kids because the value of family is very important for survival. When comparing both childrearing techniques we see how working class and poor children learn to accept their environments and middle-class children learn to demand what they want because they are usually socialized better and enlightened in a variety of different ways. One group is clearly going to be prepared to achieve in certain social institutions like school and work and the others won’t.
All parents and communities within our society need to expose ALL children to the beneficial features of both approaches mentioned in this article. There is a very limited amount of discussion that takes place in this article surrounding race’s role in shaping childhood and framing futures. Lareau tells us that social class is more of a determining factor when it comes to the organization and experience of childhood rather that race.



4. What are the signs of commercialization of childhood presented in Juliet Schor’s article? How does this commercialization affect children’s well-being?

Schor tells us that in our society, our children are immersed in marketplace of consumerism by very early ages. “Kids can recognize logos by 18 months, and before reaching their second birthday, they’re asking for products by brand name. By three or three and half, experts say, children start to believe that brands communicate their personal qualities—that they’re cool, for example, or strong, or smart.” Toy fads for example our banned from school grounds in most cases because of the likelihood of fights and disruption. Broad social trends are captivating not only our worlds but our children’s worlds in every aspect. Billions of dollars in marketing expenditures are directed at children and not only are parents buying but children themselves are becoming shoppers at an earlier age. These very children

The idea of brand names is a big part in this article. The embracement of labels and logos is the very thing that drives the marketplace. Product labeling and identity have become an obsession for both the companies and the children. “They turn brands into “signs,” symbolic entities detached from specific products and functional characteristics.” The increase and compulsion amongst youth to have brands have sort of perpetuated this new crave for designer labels and luxury. The kids are what drive these trends.
The article tells us that the things kids ask for now become more and more adult-like. Kids are now focusing in and requesting certain brand names from their parent, they are technologically savvy, designer labels now make kid sizes, and so forth. “Today’s children are more harries, sped up, likely to be herded into productive activities and less able to be kids.” What if they were this obsessed about schools and education in this way? Where would our society be then?

As anyone can see, commercialization is taking a toll on our youth and making them almost obsessed with material things/ goods. Commercialization in itself have in many ways become apart of a social problem for our society. This article shows us that we have to be more concerned with what this is doing to our kids nutritionally, psychologically, mentally, physically, emotionally and in every other area. On the nutritional level there is growing concern around childhood obesity for example, because children are eating large/ excessive quantities of advertised food products which are usually those items that have no nutritional value and are high in calories, sugars and fats. Of all children nationally only 12% have healthy diets! Overall there are signs of deterioration in well being in almost every area of their lives!

“Psychologists have found that espousing these kinds of materialist values undermines well-being, leading people to be more depressed, anxious, less vital, and in worse physical health. Among youth, those who are more materialistic are more likely to engage in risky behaviors. In the light of these findings, the changing outlook of childhood is worrisome.”

Fatherhood

Due April 13, 2007, 12PM: Readings:
1. Joseph H. Pleck. 1987. “American Fathering in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 83-97 in Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Edited by Michael S. Kimmel. Sage Publications.
2. Francine Deutsch. 2002. “Halving It All: The Mother and Mr. Mom.” In Families at Work: Expanding the Boundaries. Edited by Naomi Gerstel, Dan Clawson, and Robert Zussman. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
3. Dorothy Roberts. 1998. “The Absent Black Father.” Pp. 145-161 in Lost Fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America. Edited by Cynthia R. Daniels. St. Martin's Press.

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?

According to Pleck fathers in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century had greater responsibility and influence on their children. They were the source for children to receive moral teachings and gain perspectives on worldly judgments. Father-child relations were at the forefront of familial ties and hierarchy. Beliefs about man’s superiority in reasoning stood as the backbone for these beliefs. Women were weak in this arena. Shockingly, relationships between children had strong emotional components.

In the early nineteenth and early twentieth century, Pleck tells us that new concepts of parent-child relationships began to emerge. Here there was a shift to a greater role for mothers and a decreased and sort of indirect role of the father (distant breadwinner idea). The role of correspondent between man and wife evened out a little more her and mothers had just as much say in marital choices as did the father. A child’s outcome and this point of time was now credited to the mother just as it was to the father previously. The experienced the same judgment. “This gender ideology emphasized the purity of the female “sphere” (the home) and feminine character as unselfish and nurturant. Women’s “purity” elevates her above men, making her particularly suited for “rearing” the young.” (p.5) In realms of divorce, maternal custody now had favor. The maternal role was the dominant theme in this era.
In the 1940’s to 1960’s, the father became a role model as far as sex is concerned. Maternal influence at this time was still strongly on the rise. With this came criticism of the maternal role and along with it a perception of the father’s direct importance in child rearing came about as a sex role model. This is known as one of the first positive images of involved fatherhood that had a significant impact on culture. Because of a woman’s strong emotions and attachment to children, it was believed that this lead many children and young boys to homosexuality. In turn fathers were seen as essential for the sex role development of all children. The father was seen as the moral pedagogue.
Today, the role of the father follows an egalitarian view while at the same time encompassing the passive role that we saw in the 19th and early 20th century. Today father are to aid families and children in all aspects. Whether that be socially, economically, psychologically and so forth. Father input is seen a lot more today. A father’s presence is now wanted in births and all activities of both son’s and daughters. The father as the breadwinner role I believe is slowly dissipating. Egalitarian beliefs in my own experience are emerging more and more, even though I have run across a few households that feel it is a woman’s job to know how to cook for example and to have meals prepared.

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?

Social class status stands out in this article. Primarily it seems to focus on blue collar working families. The idea of alternating work shifts is apart of a new uprising one might say. In alternating work shifts, these parents are taking turns in the care of children while the other is working. It seems that now that our society is turning away from the idea of the breadwinner and the necessity of money continues to rise, this alteration in families is simply a means of survival and it makes things in the family arena easier to handle (in some cases). But this lifestyle is still seen more in families that have low incomes. If these parents can share care and both work, that means more money for the family and no needs to worry about child care providers. This keeps families more involved with their kid’s day to day lives. And considering that most of the families that use this method are lower class, even if they did try to get outside childcare, how good of quality would the childcare be? People don’t just want to put their kids with anyone, so the alternating thing works much better for these individuals. Family values and certain connections can not be made if these people’s children are in other people’s hands.
As far as social class is concerned, we have to consider that this stands out so much because of the types of jobs these individuals have. The existence of a breadwinner in such households is nonexistent. The idea of values was brought up a lot in this article and I think that because of this reason alone, these parents refuse to leave their kids alone while but parents are out at work. So once again the alternating thing, maybe one parent working the night shift and the other parent another works.
Even in these nontraditional arrangements, the idea to maintain traditional arrangements (women being the primary childcare givers and staying home, men being the breadwinners, and women handling things, etc) in the house still exist. This is so funny to me because these families want to have the traditional lifestyle with the father as the breadwinner of the family and the mother as the stay at home parent but it is almost economically impossible for this to happen. And even despite this women are still wanted and still seen as the emotional centers of families and so forth.
I personally would only choose this lifestyle if it was economically and personally needed. I see how this is an alternative lifestyle for people in such situations but at the same time it makes me wonder how the rates of marriage survival can survive. Husbands and wives could easily get caught up in the motions of work, lose aspects of communication that is important in any marriage, cause jealousy seeing that one parent is there when the kids are up and at it and the other isn’t, and so forth. It seems like a hard lifestyle but in life sometimes we have to do what we have to do for survival. I don’t think anyone would willing choose this unless it was necessary or for other personal reasons.

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?

There are a variety of different societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers and no this article does not mention all of them. One fact that the article points out is the idea belief that there is a “cultural” acceptance of single mothers. Black people in general, not just black fathers are at high rates of unemployment and this is due to social forces, stigmatizations, marginalizations, inequalities in the workforce, schools, etc that black people continue to face. Incarceration rates of black men appear to be high but this article fails to acknowledge the many reasons this is so (racial profiling, resorting to deviance for survival, etc) and how the ignorance of our society to recognize these factors has in turn affected the individuals within this race.
Black men (and the “black” population) fall into stigmas constantly. These men face labels that state that they are incapable of providing financial care to their families and women are quick to drop them out of their lives if they see that these men cannot provide financial stability. Beliefs surrounding commitment and the lack thereof, the negativity that surrounds them for having children out of wedlock/ having kids when finances don’t support so can completely overshadow what some black men do in an effort to be in their child’s life.
I think our society and people within this world tend to focus on the negative things that black males do. It is very seldom that we (black people, society, media, etc) highlight the good, positive, influential, motivating, respectful, and natural things that a lot of males under this one race do. As if we can even say the black man does this and the black man does that because in reality what is black. None of us especially here in America are one race. We are all mixed. I think it creates problems when we try to put people in racialized categories. Did anyone forget what happened to all the races during slavery, and the rapes and the new generations that came about? Fathers in general these days are working to provide care even though they may be absent in the home. I think it is unfair to say this is what black me are doing and what they aren’t and not consider the forces that keep them and subject them to these economic situations and views on life in general.