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.

Motherhood

Readings:
1. Sharon Hays. 1996. “From Rods to Reasoning.” Pp. 19-50 in The Cultural Contradictions of Mothering. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2. Ann Crittenden. 2001. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-12 in The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. New York: Metropolitan Books.
3. Patricia Hill Collins. 2000. “Black Women and Motherhood.” Pp. 173-200 in Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.4. Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Unmarried with Children. Contexts, 4, 2, 16-22.

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? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?

The historical stages that Hays speaks of are that from the earliest discovery of childhood innocence in Western Europe, to the religiously grounded model of the American Puritans, the 19th century valorization of mothers, and the turn-of-the century establishment of expert-guided child rearing, to the permissive era (child-centered families).

Intensive mothering is an ideology that holds the individual mother at the forefront in responsibility for child rearing and influences the process to be child-centered, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive, expert-guided, etc. To me, Hays maybe arguing that these very ideas about appropriate mothering may stem from the ambivalence toward a system that is based solely on the competitive pursuit of individual interests.
This belief that a mother should focus all her time and energy on raising children is something that I have definitely witnessed, especially in single parent households. The father whether proven to be the father or not can get away with just paying a monthly check but the female has no way out. If a man doesn’t want to be apart of childrearing the woman is supposed to suck it up and no matter how hard survival maybe, she’s supposed to do anything and everything to ensure the survival of both herself and the child. No matter how any of us put it, we all know that there is an underlying belief in society that in a large majority of situations unless she up and disappears, is killed, or strung out on drugs, the mother is almost always destined to be the primary caregiver even if she can’t handle it.


2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?

Crittenden believes that though people claim that motherhood and childrearing is one of the hardest jobs, most people take motherhood for granted and when women do decide to dedicate all their time towards such a task, the idea of a stay at home mom is looked down upon and devalued. She thinks that even children have absorbed the cultural message that mothers have no stature. A mother’s work is almost invisible and can become a handicap and people don’t consider this. “The idea that time spent with one’s child is time wasted is embedded in traditional economic thinking. The devaluation of mothers’ work permeates virtually every major institution. Not only is care giving not rewarded, it is penalized.” (Crittenden) She mentions that in our society there is a contradiction we speak of the importance of nurturance but at the same time we disregard the work it takes to do so. For example, the inflexibility in the workplace that causes a lot of women on the road to motherhood to cut back on and sometimes quit their employment. Next she goes into the idea that marriage is still not an equal financial partnership. A mother’s unpaid work doesn’t entitle her to the primary income and finally the role of a primary caregiver is not considered a full productive citizen and social policies don’t define this type of unpaid care/ work as work. “The only safety net for a caregiver who loses her source of support is welfare, and even that is no longer assured. (p.4)

In my opinion, this author is right on point and if not right on point, she’s definitely on to the something. I agreed with a large majority of the points that she made. Reading this made me realize that personally share some of these negative views toward motherhood myself and that’s very unfortunate seeing that I will hold that position one day soon. One quote that stood out to me was when she stated that, “American mother’s may have their day, but for the rest of the year their values, their preferences, and their devotion to their children are shortchanged.” It’s funny to think that females in our society are embracing an economy that relies on what Crittenden describes as free and badly paid female labor. Our ideas of what maternal love should entail may very well put our women at a risk of maternal slavery.


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"?

The two types of mothering that Black women tend to do are said to be that of a blood mother and serve the role as “the othermother.” In African-American communities, it has been traditionally essential to have someone else to share mothering responsibilities. Having one person hold all the responsibility may not be wise if at all possible. “The centrality of women in African American extended families reflects both a continuation of African-derived cultural sensibilities and functional adaptations to intersecting oppressions of race, gender, class, and nation. Women’s centrality is characterized less by the absence of husbands and fathers than by the significance of women.” (Collin, p.4) Sisters, grandmothers, cousins, neighbors, aunts, etc may act as “othermothers” by taking on child-care responsibilities for one another’s children. Sometimes this arrangement entailed temporary child-care, discipline of the kids, and sometimes long-term care or informal adoption.
The idea of motherhood, whether taken on by bloodmothers, othermothers, or community othermothers definitely invoke a symbol of power for African-American women. Through participating in such network, these women gain high respect in their communities because of their activist mothering as community othermothers. Community othermothers work on behalf off the children, the women, and the men in their communities these women will never be nationally recognized for what they do, this status helps them gain a lot of respect and recognition within their communities. This is what forms the basis within black civil society. These women are seen as those to bring people along and “uplift the race.”


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?

Poor women’s attitudes toward this topic are a surprising reality. Poor women consistently have a positive attitude toward the institution of marriage but yet repeatedly choose to bear kids without a marital partner. Most of the decisions made toward this are contrary to those made by nonpoor counterparts who can better afford childbearing without marriage but do so otherwise. Women of lower socioeconomic statuses are continuing to bear children at young ages and do so typically outside of marriage. Marriage for a majority of these individuals rarely follows child birth.
I know that policy makers and our “legislation” is trying to break this “trend” by trying to produce programs that show these individuals how to strengthen relationship skills and encourage marriage but I don’t think that this is going to the best solution. Teaching the poor how to have “healthy relationships” and encouraging them to move into an institution that is in decline is wrong. I don’t think that most of us realize how unfair it is to say to these people that because of our economy and because of your financial status you have no choice, you can’t have kids.
If these people had more money though this wouldn’t be an issue. In our society money is literally everything and it’s because of this that we have inequalities (gender, educational, race, etc), oppressions, marginalizations, and so forth. Just because these people have accepted the fact that society doesn’t give a damn about them besides how what their doing in their lives may affect the nonpoor we can’t be mad or try to control their fertility rates and so forth. Everyone can’t benefit from networking, winning the lottery, or get a golden ticket to leave poverty behind. Just because these individuals are poor, they aren’t supposed to want a family? If this cycle of poverty that surrounds them shows no way out how can we deny these individuals the love and unity that a child might bring to their lives? In all, marriage is not the solution.

Family Violence 3-14

Violence Against Women

Readings:
1. Felson, Richard. 2006. Is Violence Against Women About Women or About Violence? Contexts, 5, 2, 21-25.
2. Ann Jones. 1994. “Why Doesn’t She Leave?” Pp. 129-139, 152-166 in Next Time, She’ll Be Dead: Battering and How to Stop It. Boston: Beacon Press.
3. James Ptacek. 1988. “Why Do Men Batter Their Wives?” Pp. 133-157 in Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse. Edited by Kerti Yllo and Michele Bogrod. Sage Publications.


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?

The gender perspective in this article concerns dominance and misogynist men. It theorizes that these men assault women to maintain a wanted status and to maintain their dominance. Our society is believed to be very misogynistic when it comes to this and it’s also believed that this type of violence against women is tolerated which in turn helps offenders get away with it. This way victims fear reporting things to authorities, they are personally blamed for being in the situation, and the guilty party is continuously allowed to be set free of their deviance. This view is commonly believed by people in our society.

In the violence perspective, the basis and strong belief in sexism are not relied upon. The focus here simply seems to be the issues of violence, crime, and the criminals themselves. Important aspects between this are the backgrounds and attitudes that these abusive men have towards women in comparison to criminals. Under this perspective, there is a belief that men in these situations usually have a history of different violent acts (Felson calls these guys “bad guys”). Violence with this men are usually done in private due to their connection with traditional values while also avoiding stigmas associated with such behavior toward women. Felson tells us that traditional values may possibly restrain violence against women rather than encourage it

-When we look at sexism and violence against women, Felson tells us that we need to determine if the men that assault women also have negative attitudes, hatred, or traditional attitudes about gender roles toward women. Evidence suggest that males that assault women are not sexist, but criminals. This can be proven in the fact that men who assault or bring violence upon their wives almost always have similar attitudes towards women like those of other male offenders. Also it is said that violence against women in societies where women have a low status are frequent. But at the same time in when violence is high against one race it is the same against the other, Felson says here that “violence is violence” and surprisingly, men are a lot more likely than women to be victims of violence. This is very shocking.

-The gender approach tells us that men simply assault women because they can and because they believe that they should be dominant. Unfortunately this is only a hypothesis, seeing that the numbers of reports being filed by men who are abused are not filed/ reported as much as those of women even when the offenses may be equally harmful. This view also tells us that even though men and women both participate in some sort of attacking (hitting, slapping, punching, etc.), women above men seem to commit crime against their spouses in defense.
-Sexism may very well be at the top of the list for reasons why violence against women exists but this has yet to be proven. We have to question whether our society unconsciously believes that men rape women because of “sexual motivations,” because women have become completely overly sexualized, etc.

-I agree with a lot of the points that Felson brings up in his article. Women in our society, whether built on a gender perspective or a violence one, fear that they will not be believed by people and society and that they will also be placed with blame. The cycle of violence against women continues to exist I believe, because male offenders continuously get off and face no consequences. I think that it’s hard for us to put either perspective in dominance over such deviant behaviors because for every situation will vary along to the next. Some men will be obsessed with dominance due to their own backgrounds and experiences, some will simply be perverts, some will just be those guys that dwell in what we call deviance and so forth.


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.

Jones gives us her views on domestic violence and opens our eyes to how our justice system doesn’t necessarily work hard to protect battered/ abused women or to prosecute their offenders. Jones tells us that police, juries, judges, courts and so forth continuously “blame the victim.” Victims in these situations are suffering/ dying because they have to face denial, ignorance, ridicule, and derision in our world of institutionalized sexism that is destroying women’s lives. “Blaming the victim,” is by far a serious problem and women are definitely losing their lives because of it because this instills fear and leaves women with no where to turn most of the time. When we ask a victim why they didn’t leave, we are still in fact “blaming the victim.”

This read was incredibly eye-opening and disturbing. Jones does a good job of showing us our very own society’s response to abusive men and victimized women. The fact that we ever wonder, why someone didn’t just leave and we in turn feel that they are foolish, weird, that they like it, or that they deserve it, is disturbing, but this is something I believe takes place in our minds even when we don’t notice it. This is where the problem lies. I feel like a lot of us are very quick to pass judgment instead of trying to find solutions and escape havens for these women. We don’t realize sometimes a woman leaving makes matters worst and is sometimes impossible.
The problem is simply why are we asking why someone just won’t leave? Why is it that we don’t ask ourselves first, “what’s wrong with HIM” What is HE doing?” Why do we allow victims (the one’s who are seeking help) to be scrutinized, marginalized, dissected, etc. How can we feel comfortable with ourselves saying that because someone won’t leave, that they are the root of the problem and is therefore responsible for the whole situation. The problem is the man. He’s the one that has created such a situation. It makes me wonder if we need to redefine the meaning of victim in our society.
-In all, I can definitely see that Jones has a lean towards the gender perspective that was mentioned earlier. We can not blame our women form being in such situations as if anyone would simply choose to do so if they knew better. Why is this one of the only situations, that the victims (women) are blamed and questioned so harshly?


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.

In Ptacek’s findings of batterers’ excuses and justifications, he found that his interviewees saw their violence as a method of saving their relationships. The program that these men were in contained men that had a good idea/ sense that their behavior was wrong. In a study by Scott and Lyman (1968) it was found that when an individual is questioned about their behavior and the behavior is regarded as socially unacceptable there are two accounts to neutralize this in society. These two accounts are excuses and justifications. In making excuses and justifications, Ptacek tells us that the individual employs “socially approved vocabularies.” “They appeal to standard rationalizations in an attempt to make sense of or normalize their behavior. They tend to excuse themselves of full responsibility, and at the same tine, they offer justifications for their abusiveness.” (p.141)

Batterers attempted to excuse their behavior in this study by claiming and trying to justify the situation by saying they simply lost control, as if it was completely out of their hands. Loss of control in most cases have direct relationships with psychological and physiological factors. Of the 18 men interviewed, 94% of them fell in these categories: alcohol/ drugs, built up frustration, and total loss of control. “Appeals to loss of control and victim-blaming are common ways by which these men excuse their violence. While excuses represent denial of responsibility, justifications are denial of wrong doing on the part of the offender.

-I found it interesting that a majority of these men justify their situations by denying the level of injury. They claim that the women bruise easily. By the men justifying this within themselves, they avoid denying the significance of the situation they avoid fear, humiliation, degradation, etc on the woman. Some of the main issues in such abusive relations are that of the availability of sec, on the woman not knowing the “role” that she is supposed to lead under the man, those of faithfulness and so forth.

As far as contradiction is concerned, one of the best examples I found was of a man who grabbed his wife around the neck. In this example we see a man that goes from denying responsibility to semi-accepting the responsibility while at the same time minimizing his deviance, then denies responsibility again. Batterers seem to be obsessed with applying verbal strategies in an attempt to make the violence appear as something normal. Ptacek states that it is necessary that we trace the extent to which rationalizations may represent “culturally sanctioned” strategies for minimizing and denying violence against women. It is in this that the gender perspective (covered earlier) is seen. “Appeals to loss of control and victim-blaming are the most common ways that these men sought to escape responsibility for their violence.” (p.151) Is our society accepting these issues?

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.