1. Divorce interferes heavily with proper parenting techniques and deprives the children of having two parental figures at the same time. A study conducted over a period of five years showed that a child who is forced to remain in a dysfunctional marriage will have the most severe behavior problems as opposed to any other kind of family. Another long term study showed that divorce can cause two different extremes in behavior. They found that boys who were behaviorally difficult before the divorce got even worse following the divorce. On the other side of the spectrum, they found that girls in a single parent, mother-headed household, were exceptionally popular, self-confident, and well behaved. This account of good behavior can be attributed to the fact that the mother was not always available and the girl was sometimes forced to assume certain responsibilities. This of course is not all cases. It is the whole process preceding the divorce, not the divorce itself, that determines how an individual will cope and adjust. The children caught in disputed custody cases are the most prone to emotional and behavior problems. Another study also showed that girls had lowest self-esteem in families where the father showed a complete lack of interest in his daughter's life. In situations where parents can reduce tension and manage anger, successful co-parenting will ensue and the child has a reduced chance of developing emotional or behavioral problems. Overall, divorce is usually never a positive occurrence and will affect each child in a different way, especially depending upon he situation. Time will certainly facilitate the healing process, but some long-term effects never go away.
2. The two years following a separation/divorce are known as the "crisis period" for both adults and children. This is a period where the child will externalize and internalize the conflict. The child will demonstrate anything from aggression, disobedience, and lying to depression, anxiety, or withdrawal. Most of these children will also suffer from long term effects. In a study from the San Fransisco suburbs, out 60 families, "Almost half of the children, entered adulthood as worried, underachieving, self-deprecating, and sometimes angry young men and women." Not all children suffer terrible long term effects, but it becomes more of a threat when the divorce is messy. One of the most critical factors in determining short term and long term effects is how well the parent having custody of the kids operates as a parent. If that parent is already distressed, he/she will most likely not be able to cope properly with their own child's distress. The loss of income from the father will also add to the mother's distress. Another factor that determines short term and long term effects on children is the level of conflict between the two parents. As the level of conflict decreases between the mother and father, the repercussions that children suffer may be alleviated. A third factor is the type of relationship the child has with each parent. Children who see their father regularly may have a quicker adjustment period to the divorce. Joint legal custody may also play a role in the increased well-being for a child.
3. The three most important influences on spousal bereavement include the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple's life was life prior to the death. When the loss occurs later in life, usually the spouse already had to witness his/her peers go through the same thing. In a way, this prepares the spouse to respond with lower levels of emotional reactivity. The period of grief is usually significantly shorter than those of younger widows and widowers. The cause of death also plays a huge role in the response from the bereaved. When the period before death is long, drawn-out and characterized by a lot of pain and suffering, the period after spousal death for the bereaved usually showed a dramatic decrease in symptoms. When the death is more sudden and tragic, the bereaved is significantly more grief-stricken and usually must struggle with a long period of devastation. Finally, the type of relationship the couple had before the death can also determine how the bereaved spouse will react. Couples that had problematic marriages, will deal with spousal loss much better. Some widows will even experience feelings of relief and a higher self-esteem if their husband had been controlling and/or stifling. On the other hand, couples that had healthy marriages and were emotionally attached, have the most trouble coping with spousal loss.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Childhood
1. Separate gender groups have different patterns of bonding. The sexuality of a child is the domain that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences. Interaction among boys differs greatly from interaction among girls. Boy's play is characterized by intense and heightened moments. They tend to use more foul language that often has "dirty" undertones and intentions. Boys are also more easily stimulated by excitement and will form bonds based on this excitement. They have the tendency to become aggressive and will often act outwardly towards isolated boys. By 5th grade, touch among boys becomes very constrained and words such as "fag" and "queer" are more widely used. Ironically, mock violence is used to signify a bond between two boys.
On the other hand, groups of girls are certainly more emotional and focus on the friendships themselves. They extensively talk about their relationships which further defines the parameters of popularity. Girls have the tendency to express their affection through gestures of intimacy, such as rubbing each others backs and playing with each others hair. Girls do not use nearly as many dirty words as compared to boys and focus primarily on romance instead. These characteristics mark the main sources of gender differences,
2. In contemporary families, children do not do a significant amount of housework. In fact, children only contribute about 15% in the total household labor. More specifically, in regards to laundry, cooking, and yardwork, children do between 12% and 15% of these tasks. More housework is done by children in families where there is more female children. Goldscheider and Waite attest, "Families with teenage girls report sharing fives times more of these other tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age." In addition, more housework is done as the child gets older. A daughter between the age of 12 and 18 can complete a larger percentage of a task as compared to a daughter between the ages of 6 and 11. Overall female children help out around the house a lot moe frequently because of their gender and also because they have their mothers as domestic role models. In single parent homes, the labor of children is of dire need. In mother-only families, children are given twice as much household responsibility as compared to nuclear families. Teenage girls and teenage boys take more responsibility in mom-only families, but it is interesting to note that the difference is even greater between teenage boys in two-parent families versus mother-only families. Children who live in stepparent families also do more housework as compared to children living with both biological parents, but the difference is not as significant as mother-only and nuclear families.
3. There are clear differences in childrearing across social classes. Families that are more well-off involve their children in many activities. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Williams, they fostered their child, Alexander's growth through his involvement in music, church, sports, etc. They also spent the majority of their leisure time with their son. They believed that this was the best way to help their son lead the most productive life as possible. He interacted mostly with children of his own age, which defined the context of his social life. As for working class families, the children are not so much involved in outside activities. Rather, the lives of the family members revolve around home. There is much more leisure where the children can virtually focus on whatever they desire. In the case of Harold McAllister, his pace of life was determined by his own interests in conjunction with family obligations. Working class families draw clear boundaries between adult and child. The child is allowed to play at his/her own leisure, but must cease play when needed for household duties. Family ties are extremely important to working class families. As for racial differences in childrearing, there are also differences. Middle-class families are a bit more cautious and aware when dealing with racial issues. Mrs. Williams felt strongly that race should not be used as an excuse for not striving to succeed and made sure Alexander was well aware of this. But overall, there were no "striking differences in the ways in which white parents and black parents in the working-class and poor homes socialized their children."
4. Signs of commercialization ensue at a tender age. Children want brand names and products that are referred heavily by word of mouth. Industries use viral marketing to suck their vulnerable target market right in. Kids are very impressionable, so simple marketing tactics can be quite effective. Children are becoming shoppers at an earlier age and their purchasing power has risen rapidly. The popularity or "coolness" of a toy/product plays a huge role in the commercialization of childhood. In addition, children play an increasingly larger role in what is purchased for the household. Parenting styles are becoming less and less authoritarian which is giving children more opportunity to have great influence over what their parents buy. As a result, this had led to America's growing obesity problem. Today, more kids than ever before are labeled as overweight. Giving kids this purchasing power has also led to increased mental problems and substance abuse. Children are becoming more and more greedy which is ultimately making their personalities more addictive. Children are becoming more and more materialistic, which has sadly caused parents to give in more.
On the other hand, groups of girls are certainly more emotional and focus on the friendships themselves. They extensively talk about their relationships which further defines the parameters of popularity. Girls have the tendency to express their affection through gestures of intimacy, such as rubbing each others backs and playing with each others hair. Girls do not use nearly as many dirty words as compared to boys and focus primarily on romance instead. These characteristics mark the main sources of gender differences,
2. In contemporary families, children do not do a significant amount of housework. In fact, children only contribute about 15% in the total household labor. More specifically, in regards to laundry, cooking, and yardwork, children do between 12% and 15% of these tasks. More housework is done by children in families where there is more female children. Goldscheider and Waite attest, "Families with teenage girls report sharing fives times more of these other tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age." In addition, more housework is done as the child gets older. A daughter between the age of 12 and 18 can complete a larger percentage of a task as compared to a daughter between the ages of 6 and 11. Overall female children help out around the house a lot moe frequently because of their gender and also because they have their mothers as domestic role models. In single parent homes, the labor of children is of dire need. In mother-only families, children are given twice as much household responsibility as compared to nuclear families. Teenage girls and teenage boys take more responsibility in mom-only families, but it is interesting to note that the difference is even greater between teenage boys in two-parent families versus mother-only families. Children who live in stepparent families also do more housework as compared to children living with both biological parents, but the difference is not as significant as mother-only and nuclear families.
3. There are clear differences in childrearing across social classes. Families that are more well-off involve their children in many activities. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Williams, they fostered their child, Alexander's growth through his involvement in music, church, sports, etc. They also spent the majority of their leisure time with their son. They believed that this was the best way to help their son lead the most productive life as possible. He interacted mostly with children of his own age, which defined the context of his social life. As for working class families, the children are not so much involved in outside activities. Rather, the lives of the family members revolve around home. There is much more leisure where the children can virtually focus on whatever they desire. In the case of Harold McAllister, his pace of life was determined by his own interests in conjunction with family obligations. Working class families draw clear boundaries between adult and child. The child is allowed to play at his/her own leisure, but must cease play when needed for household duties. Family ties are extremely important to working class families. As for racial differences in childrearing, there are also differences. Middle-class families are a bit more cautious and aware when dealing with racial issues. Mrs. Williams felt strongly that race should not be used as an excuse for not striving to succeed and made sure Alexander was well aware of this. But overall, there were no "striking differences in the ways in which white parents and black parents in the working-class and poor homes socialized their children."
4. Signs of commercialization ensue at a tender age. Children want brand names and products that are referred heavily by word of mouth. Industries use viral marketing to suck their vulnerable target market right in. Kids are very impressionable, so simple marketing tactics can be quite effective. Children are becoming shoppers at an earlier age and their purchasing power has risen rapidly. The popularity or "coolness" of a toy/product plays a huge role in the commercialization of childhood. In addition, children play an increasingly larger role in what is purchased for the household. Parenting styles are becoming less and less authoritarian which is giving children more opportunity to have great influence over what their parents buy. As a result, this had led to America's growing obesity problem. Today, more kids than ever before are labeled as overweight. Giving kids this purchasing power has also led to increased mental problems and substance abuse. Children are becoming more and more greedy which is ultimately making their personalities more addictive. Children are becoming more and more materialistic, which has sadly caused parents to give in more.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Fatherhood
1. A lot of couples do not necessarily decide to work alternating shifts, but must work alternating shifts in order to make ends meet. Many blue collar families are forced to adapt to this lifestyle in order to maintain healthly family life. In fact, when asked why couples must alternate shifts, the number one answer is money. It also allows families to avoid the high costs of child care. Childcare averages out to cost around $140 per week, which would be quite a financial strain to most blue collar families. In addition to evading extra financial burden, some couples alternate shifts because they believe that children should only be cared for by family. These particular decisions are also directly related to their social class for a couple different reasons. First of all, since blue collar families have less money, the child care that they can afford might be worse and of lower quality.
In regards to gender ideologies, couples that work alternate shifts have not changed enough to completely change ultimate responsibility. Overall, the mothers are still "in charge" of the household work and the fathers are still the breadwinners of the family. Even though alternating shifts might be a nontraditional arrangement, couples have convinced themselves that they are still maintaining traditional gender identities since emphasis is still placed on fathers as breadwinners and mothers as being in charge of the household.
Personally, I would not actively chose to have an alternating shift arrangement for my family, but if my husband's salary alone could not support me staying at home with the children, then I would definitely try to implement this lifestyle. I would imagine that alternating shifts would be extremely beneficial for the children, because they would be able to interact with both parents on a relatively equal basis. The only concern I would have with this lifestyle is the strains that it would put on my relationship with my husband. I tend to get very emotionally attached to the people I love, so after awhile I would probably get very frustrated with the constant separation from my husband.
2. Over the course of history, fatherhood has transformed dramatically. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the father was seen as the moral overseer and was responsible for having the greatest influence on their children. Since men were believed to have "supreme reason," it was up to them to instruct the children. Women were known to be misled by passions and affections and were clearly not as stable as their male counterparts. However, fathers and sons tended to have rather emotional relationships, which seems to contradict the negative view of women at that time. Moving into the nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, fathers were seen as distant breadwinners. This particular shift is said to have cemented a new ideology about gender. This marks the beginning of maternal roles and paternal roles. The father still continued to set the official standard of morality, but not so much as before. Now, he was only expected to step in when the mother's disciplinary efforts failed. Between 1940 and 1965, the father was seen as a sex role model. Due to WWII many fathers were absent and could certainly offer no paternal support to their families. So upon their return home, they were encouraged to have paternal involvement with their children. This new transformation was reminiscent of the moral involvement model that was seen in the 18th and early 19th centuries. As for present day, the father breadwinner model has certainly prevailed as the dominant model. But today, men are spending more time with the family because more wives are employed outside the household. So, in a sense, it is as if all three models have been combined into one. Expectations for the father's involvement with the family are certainly a lot higher. When the mother is out working, fathers must take charge of some household duties. This was especially seen in the alternating shifts model.
3. Many Black communities are very matriarchal and as a result, fatherlessness has always been a symptom of this structure. Society has not deemed the Black man as a worthy figure and/or mentor. These societal forces has prevented them from having positive effects on their children. Also, stereotypes and certain portrayals of Black men (gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, drug dealers etc.) has kept them farther and farther away from dominating their families (as White men do). In addition, high rates of unemployment and incarceration have contributed to the high rate of Black single motherhood. Families certainly have a hard time functioning with unemployed parents, so it makes sense that there a lot more single mothers who would rather live off welfare. On the same tolken, these single mothers are certainly not looking to marry a man who is incarcerated. These are the main elements that have created the myth of the Absent Black Father. On the contrary, there are contradictions to this myth. In a national study, Stephanie Coontz reported that "poor African-American, officially absent fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more informal support than did White, middle-class absent father." So the absent Black father should not be blamed for his lack of involvement, but rather for his marital and economic status. Welfare policies have kept men out of homes for decades, which certainly makes it that much harder to maintain their presence. In conclusion both Black men and women should work towards the betterment of their childrens' lives because, at the end of the day, that is most important.
In regards to gender ideologies, couples that work alternate shifts have not changed enough to completely change ultimate responsibility. Overall, the mothers are still "in charge" of the household work and the fathers are still the breadwinners of the family. Even though alternating shifts might be a nontraditional arrangement, couples have convinced themselves that they are still maintaining traditional gender identities since emphasis is still placed on fathers as breadwinners and mothers as being in charge of the household.
Personally, I would not actively chose to have an alternating shift arrangement for my family, but if my husband's salary alone could not support me staying at home with the children, then I would definitely try to implement this lifestyle. I would imagine that alternating shifts would be extremely beneficial for the children, because they would be able to interact with both parents on a relatively equal basis. The only concern I would have with this lifestyle is the strains that it would put on my relationship with my husband. I tend to get very emotionally attached to the people I love, so after awhile I would probably get very frustrated with the constant separation from my husband.
2. Over the course of history, fatherhood has transformed dramatically. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the father was seen as the moral overseer and was responsible for having the greatest influence on their children. Since men were believed to have "supreme reason," it was up to them to instruct the children. Women were known to be misled by passions and affections and were clearly not as stable as their male counterparts. However, fathers and sons tended to have rather emotional relationships, which seems to contradict the negative view of women at that time. Moving into the nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, fathers were seen as distant breadwinners. This particular shift is said to have cemented a new ideology about gender. This marks the beginning of maternal roles and paternal roles. The father still continued to set the official standard of morality, but not so much as before. Now, he was only expected to step in when the mother's disciplinary efforts failed. Between 1940 and 1965, the father was seen as a sex role model. Due to WWII many fathers were absent and could certainly offer no paternal support to their families. So upon their return home, they were encouraged to have paternal involvement with their children. This new transformation was reminiscent of the moral involvement model that was seen in the 18th and early 19th centuries. As for present day, the father breadwinner model has certainly prevailed as the dominant model. But today, men are spending more time with the family because more wives are employed outside the household. So, in a sense, it is as if all three models have been combined into one. Expectations for the father's involvement with the family are certainly a lot higher. When the mother is out working, fathers must take charge of some household duties. This was especially seen in the alternating shifts model.
3. Many Black communities are very matriarchal and as a result, fatherlessness has always been a symptom of this structure. Society has not deemed the Black man as a worthy figure and/or mentor. These societal forces has prevented them from having positive effects on their children. Also, stereotypes and certain portrayals of Black men (gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, drug dealers etc.) has kept them farther and farther away from dominating their families (as White men do). In addition, high rates of unemployment and incarceration have contributed to the high rate of Black single motherhood. Families certainly have a hard time functioning with unemployed parents, so it makes sense that there a lot more single mothers who would rather live off welfare. On the same tolken, these single mothers are certainly not looking to marry a man who is incarcerated. These are the main elements that have created the myth of the Absent Black Father. On the contrary, there are contradictions to this myth. In a national study, Stephanie Coontz reported that "poor African-American, officially absent fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more informal support than did White, middle-class absent father." So the absent Black father should not be blamed for his lack of involvement, but rather for his marital and economic status. Welfare policies have kept men out of homes for decades, which certainly makes it that much harder to maintain their presence. In conclusion both Black men and women should work towards the betterment of their childrens' lives because, at the end of the day, that is most important.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
My Family Experiences
I grew up in a very traditional (old-fashioned) family, where my father was the breadwinner and my mother stayed home with us three kids. I don’t think I would have wanted it any other way, but it certainly shaped my current views about family life and will most definitely affect my family life in the future. My dad was the “head disciplinarian” in our household and constantly gave us lectures about life lessons. We would always go straight to my mother if we wanted a new toy since we knew she would give in. Both of my parents drilled good manners into us from the very beginning so they were always very critical of the friends we had over who were ill-mannered.
As a white family living in the “up and coming” town of Hopkinton, MA, we faced little hardship. Living in a predominantly white town made us kids quite sheltered to the world of diversity around us. It was hard for us to fathom how some kids were forced to grow up in neighborhoods teeming with crime. It has definitely caused me to look down upon women who have children out of wedlock (especially those who are not financially stable to bring a child into the world). Because I have been raised in a family with both a mother and a father, I have deemed this model to be the norm (and the most healthy). My experiences in Hopkinton, MA and growing up with a loving family have certainly shaped my beliefs on my personal definition of the family. Because I have witnessed so much success within my own immediate family, I will strive to replicate this model if I start a family in the future. In other words, I want to marry a husband who will be the strict disciplinarian and I would like to stay at home with the kids (and be the nurturing mother). I am aware that it may not be financially possible, but it would be the ideal situation for me.
Even though I consider myself as coming from a good family, I still feel like families like mine are rare these days. There are many more working mothers, which I believe has become the norm. Mothers that stay at home are often looked down upon and are criticized for “sitting around all day and doing nothing,” (which I believe is rarely the case). I feel as if I see so many dysfunctional families, which gives me little faith in my own generation. I’m not saying my family is perfect, but I feel like functional and loving families are becoming few and far between. The way in which I was raised has caused me to become very aware of the type of people that I should be dating. My last two serious relationships have taught me a lot about what I want someday in a husband. Both of these guys were very nice and fun to be with, but they were not "husband material." I was able to realize through helpful input from my parents. They have never told me who I can and cannot date, but have always offered me advice when I felt as if something was not right.
Growing up in a heterosexual family has also caused me to have mixed feelings about gay marriages. I certainly do not think that a homosexual union is natural by any means, but I am not necessarily against gay marriages. I believe that these beliefs are a product of growing up in a rather conservative heterosexual family.
In conclusion, living as a white female in a predominantly white town with a loving heterosexual family has caused me to have certain beliefs that are naturally ingrained in me. You grow accustomed to only what you know, making it difficult sometimes to think "outside the box." I absolutely love my family and I am thankful everyday for who I have become. I know that life doesn't necessarily turn out the way you plan it, but I would someday like to start a family similar to that of the one I grew up in. Times will certainly change, but I would like to hope that my morals and values will not.
As a white family living in the “up and coming” town of Hopkinton, MA, we faced little hardship. Living in a predominantly white town made us kids quite sheltered to the world of diversity around us. It was hard for us to fathom how some kids were forced to grow up in neighborhoods teeming with crime. It has definitely caused me to look down upon women who have children out of wedlock (especially those who are not financially stable to bring a child into the world). Because I have been raised in a family with both a mother and a father, I have deemed this model to be the norm (and the most healthy). My experiences in Hopkinton, MA and growing up with a loving family have certainly shaped my beliefs on my personal definition of the family. Because I have witnessed so much success within my own immediate family, I will strive to replicate this model if I start a family in the future. In other words, I want to marry a husband who will be the strict disciplinarian and I would like to stay at home with the kids (and be the nurturing mother). I am aware that it may not be financially possible, but it would be the ideal situation for me.
Even though I consider myself as coming from a good family, I still feel like families like mine are rare these days. There are many more working mothers, which I believe has become the norm. Mothers that stay at home are often looked down upon and are criticized for “sitting around all day and doing nothing,” (which I believe is rarely the case). I feel as if I see so many dysfunctional families, which gives me little faith in my own generation. I’m not saying my family is perfect, but I feel like functional and loving families are becoming few and far between. The way in which I was raised has caused me to become very aware of the type of people that I should be dating. My last two serious relationships have taught me a lot about what I want someday in a husband. Both of these guys were very nice and fun to be with, but they were not "husband material." I was able to realize through helpful input from my parents. They have never told me who I can and cannot date, but have always offered me advice when I felt as if something was not right.
Growing up in a heterosexual family has also caused me to have mixed feelings about gay marriages. I certainly do not think that a homosexual union is natural by any means, but I am not necessarily against gay marriages. I believe that these beliefs are a product of growing up in a rather conservative heterosexual family.
In conclusion, living as a white female in a predominantly white town with a loving heterosexual family has caused me to have certain beliefs that are naturally ingrained in me. You grow accustomed to only what you know, making it difficult sometimes to think "outside the box." I absolutely love my family and I am thankful everyday for who I have become. I know that life doesn't necessarily turn out the way you plan it, but I would someday like to start a family similar to that of the one I grew up in. Times will certainly change, but I would like to hope that my morals and values will not.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Motherhood and child-rearing
1. Between the 17th and 20th centuries, the concept of motherhood was certainly transformed throughout time. In the 17th and 18th centuries throughout America there was no notion of childhood innocence (that existed in Europe at the time). Children continued to get flogged and were dressed in swaddling clothes. Obedience was instilled in children and was used as a means to overcome the inherent “sin nature” that was believe to be in each child. The Bible was widely used as a child rearing guide. For the American Catholics, they believed that the child’s will did not have to be broken through physical punishment or harm because the sins were believed to be forgiven through baptism. In the 18th and 19th centuries, a more modern concept of motherhood began to emerge. A mother’s role began to take on new importance and movements such as the “cult of domesticity,” the “cult of true womanhood,” and the “Domestic Code” began to give mothers a more valued sense. Mothers were becoming known as the keepers of morality and were beginning to be seen as pure and virtuous, and their children were their “angelic missionaries.” Instead of viewing the child as a demonic creature (as they were in during the Middle Ages), there was focus on bringing out the inner goodness from each child. Toward the end of the 19th century (the Progressive Era), child-rearing took a turn. The child lost the sense of innocence and instead was said to have dangerous impulses that needed to be kept in check through techniques such as precise scheduling, detached handling, and behavior modifications. Mothers were warned not to smother their children with love, but rather act as guides and role models for their children. Following the Progressive Era was the Permissive Era where the ideology of the permissive child dominates our current cultural model used by present day mothers. A new concept of the child-centered family emerged where home life is centered on the child and child rearing is guided by them as well. There has been a shift back to the preservation of a child’s innocence and purity. Today, motherhood heavily focuses on a mother’s love and her nurturing nature.
The Permissive Era also fully established the concept of intensive mothering. This model says that children are innocent and priceless, and that rearing should be carried out primarily by the mother and it should be centered on the child’s needs. The methods that are used should be derived by experts and will most likely be costly. Even though my mother stayed home with my siblings and I, I do not believed she used “intensive mothering” to guide us. I was definitely raised by both my mother and father. My mother was always there for us, but I do not believe she used costly techniques that were derived from experts in order to raise us.
2. I really enjoyed this article because it really gave a voice to all the mothers out there who truly care about raising their children. There are so many money-hungry Americans out there who care more about their careers than their own children. Our country has become centered on the notion that we all need to climb up the “corporate ladder” in order to achieve much success. But in what point in your life do you stop “climbing”? So many Americans are too focused on making more and more money (that a lot of parents claim is for their children), but what about spending priceless time with the child? It does not cost a penny to nurture and play with your child. Crittenden made so many good points in her article. She said that mothering today has become more of a handicap, even though it is the most important job in the world. It is clearly a job that you cannot add to your resume, so therefore, it can’t even be rewarded and is instead penalized. There are too many people out there that believe that the time spent with one’s child is time wasted and they should be out making money. Another important point is that mothers have smaller pensions than either men or childless women. In fact, women over the age of 65 are twice as likely to be poor as compared to men of the same age. This goes to show that the job of motherhood is barely recognized. Crittenden provided many anecdotes that illustrated her important points. One woman was fired for not working overtime because she wanted to spend time with her son. She had been hired to work between the hours of 8:15am and 5:30pm and did not believe it was necessary to work any longer than that. There needs to be much more credit given to the mothers who choose to stay at home and take care of their children. They are the future of our world, so it only makes sense to guide them and sculpt them into amazing human beings.
3. According to Collins, there are two types of mothering roles that Black women will demonstrate: bloodmothers and othermothers. A bloodmother, or biological mother, is expected to care for her own children. Othermothers take on a bit of a different role. They assist bloodmothers by sharing mothering responsibilities and sometimes provide care to the entire community. Some girls are groomed as early as ten years old to become othermothers. Many African-American communities have women-centered networks of community-based child care, which are heavily comprised of othermothers. This cooperation among Black mothers has given them much empowerment in which to serve a critical function in African-American communities. A large majority of Black women are the breadwinners in their families. Many women in Black communities take on very centralized roles where mostly everyone in the community knows their name. These role models are described as “strong Black women” and have demonstrated that motherhood can be viewed as a symbol of power. They have created maternal politics which refers to “political movements which are rooted in women’s defense of their roles as mothers and protectors of their children.” Black women use maternal politics as a way of being symbols of power.
4. In the article, “Unmarried with Children,” the life of Jen Burke, a 15 year old mother, was documented. She provided a very interesting perspective that having a child saved her (from her own life). Before she became pregnant, she was depressed and doing drugs and drinking. Her son, Colin, gave her a reason to straighten up and she started to take life more seriously. A lot of young mothers believe that having children at a young age keeps them off the streets and out of harm. The only problem is that they are usually poor to begin with and are not financially able to support a young child. Unfortunately delve deeper into a life of poverty and many are forced to be on welfare. I feel as if there is very little society can do to stop this cycle. As long as poor young girls keep having children, the need for welfare will not subside. Then again, if these girls stop having children, would they just end up on the streets? My only suggestion is to create more centers for poor girls who have children and do not have children and try to educate them more about marriage and family. Perhaps if we instill moral-based instruction into these young girls, they will become more cognizant of the consequences of being unmarried and becoming pregnant.
The Permissive Era also fully established the concept of intensive mothering. This model says that children are innocent and priceless, and that rearing should be carried out primarily by the mother and it should be centered on the child’s needs. The methods that are used should be derived by experts and will most likely be costly. Even though my mother stayed home with my siblings and I, I do not believed she used “intensive mothering” to guide us. I was definitely raised by both my mother and father. My mother was always there for us, but I do not believe she used costly techniques that were derived from experts in order to raise us.
2. I really enjoyed this article because it really gave a voice to all the mothers out there who truly care about raising their children. There are so many money-hungry Americans out there who care more about their careers than their own children. Our country has become centered on the notion that we all need to climb up the “corporate ladder” in order to achieve much success. But in what point in your life do you stop “climbing”? So many Americans are too focused on making more and more money (that a lot of parents claim is for their children), but what about spending priceless time with the child? It does not cost a penny to nurture and play with your child. Crittenden made so many good points in her article. She said that mothering today has become more of a handicap, even though it is the most important job in the world. It is clearly a job that you cannot add to your resume, so therefore, it can’t even be rewarded and is instead penalized. There are too many people out there that believe that the time spent with one’s child is time wasted and they should be out making money. Another important point is that mothers have smaller pensions than either men or childless women. In fact, women over the age of 65 are twice as likely to be poor as compared to men of the same age. This goes to show that the job of motherhood is barely recognized. Crittenden provided many anecdotes that illustrated her important points. One woman was fired for not working overtime because she wanted to spend time with her son. She had been hired to work between the hours of 8:15am and 5:30pm and did not believe it was necessary to work any longer than that. There needs to be much more credit given to the mothers who choose to stay at home and take care of their children. They are the future of our world, so it only makes sense to guide them and sculpt them into amazing human beings.
3. According to Collins, there are two types of mothering roles that Black women will demonstrate: bloodmothers and othermothers. A bloodmother, or biological mother, is expected to care for her own children. Othermothers take on a bit of a different role. They assist bloodmothers by sharing mothering responsibilities and sometimes provide care to the entire community. Some girls are groomed as early as ten years old to become othermothers. Many African-American communities have women-centered networks of community-based child care, which are heavily comprised of othermothers. This cooperation among Black mothers has given them much empowerment in which to serve a critical function in African-American communities. A large majority of Black women are the breadwinners in their families. Many women in Black communities take on very centralized roles where mostly everyone in the community knows their name. These role models are described as “strong Black women” and have demonstrated that motherhood can be viewed as a symbol of power. They have created maternal politics which refers to “political movements which are rooted in women’s defense of their roles as mothers and protectors of their children.” Black women use maternal politics as a way of being symbols of power.
4. In the article, “Unmarried with Children,” the life of Jen Burke, a 15 year old mother, was documented. She provided a very interesting perspective that having a child saved her (from her own life). Before she became pregnant, she was depressed and doing drugs and drinking. Her son, Colin, gave her a reason to straighten up and she started to take life more seriously. A lot of young mothers believe that having children at a young age keeps them off the streets and out of harm. The only problem is that they are usually poor to begin with and are not financially able to support a young child. Unfortunately delve deeper into a life of poverty and many are forced to be on welfare. I feel as if there is very little society can do to stop this cycle. As long as poor young girls keep having children, the need for welfare will not subside. Then again, if these girls stop having children, would they just end up on the streets? My only suggestion is to create more centers for poor girls who have children and do not have children and try to educate them more about marriage and family. Perhaps if we instill moral-based instruction into these young girls, they will become more cognizant of the consequences of being unmarried and becoming pregnant.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Violence Against Women
1. The gender perspective is the notion that men victimize women in order to maintain their dominance over the "inferior gender." It usually involves the woman keeping quiet about the incident(s) so that these acts of violence never get reported to the police. This helps it become that much easier for men to abuse women, so the cycle continues and progressively gets worse. The other perspective, the violence perspective, states that men who commit crimes against women are not necessarily sexist, but are rather overall violent in general. Men who are committing crimes against women are committing other crimes as well and can be characterized as violent in nature. Felson tends to lean more toward this perspective and backs up his argument with evidence that I am a bit skeptical of. He says that recent surveys have shown that both men and women use physical force at the same rates. Also, John Archer found that wives are more likely to initiate violence. Felson also claims that husbands are no more controlling than their wives. As for rape motives, Felson claims that young men have sex on their minds, not the domination of women. He also says that men who rape and/or inflict violence upon their wives also commit other crimes and do not merely specialize in violence against women.
I am very skeptical of Felson and his claims. He mostly uses phrases such as "evidence shows" and "research suggests," but where is this evidence/research coming from? He does not make any specific references to any creditable sources. Also, because I am a woman, I am naturally biased towards this article. I feel as though Felson is trying to prove that women are not as innocent as they seem and men who commit violence against women are not just specifically targeting women, but also commit various other crimes. I just find all his evidence hard to believe because how often do you really hear about women killing their husbands on the news or in the newspaper ?! I know I hardly do! I believe that violence against women is very psychological and that there is a clear motive. For the most part, men are physically stronger than women. So it is much easier for a man to abuse a woman (rather than vice versa), which gives men a sense of power. Despite what Felson's evidence shows, I believe a man's "power trip" directly relates to sexism. Therefore, I would have to side with the gender perspective.
2. Jones provides the accounts of a couple different women to explain why women do not neccessarily just get up and leave if they have been battered and abused by their husbands. A lot of women are only familiar with abusive husbands and have inevitably became dependent on them. It is easier for the outsider to just say "just leave him and escape!" but it does not prove to be that easy in the mind of a battered woman. Their confusion is deeply rooted and many of them do not know whether to blame their abusive husband or themselves. In the story of Tracy Thurman, she was badly beaten to the point of disfigurement, and still did not want to move out of the town that she was from. When asked, "why don't you just leave?" she answered, "Why should I? I grew up here. My family is here, my support is here. I can go to another state, but even if I was in Hawaii...he's going to find me no matter where I go." Tracy is clearly demonstrating a sense of helplessness, which a majority of women suffer from after being battered and abused.
This article is using the gender perspective to highlight the reasons for violence agaist women. A lot of the abuse and violence stems from a man's urge to feel dominant over women. A lot of women become helpless because they are naturally physically weaker than a man, which inevitably fuels a man's sense of superiority.
3. Ptacek observed right away that batterers were more inclined to make up excuses rather than justify their actions. Their most common excuse for their actions was that they "lost control" and in some cases, they were affected by drugs and/or alcohol. Other excuses that they used involved blaming the victim. More disturbingly, they regarded verbal aggressiveness as the equivalent to physical aggressiveness. In others words, if the wife instigated verbal abuse on her husband, it gave the husband an excuse to retaliate with physical violence. As for actual justifications, many men utilize the denial of injury claim. They minimize their injuries and say that "women bruise easily." Also , a lot of men have a sense of male entitlement in which they use to further justify their actions. The problem with these justifications is that there are a lot of inconsistencies. For example, men are likely to deny their actions, but then eventually accept responsibility of their actions and downplay the wrongness. Some men then proceed to deny their actions once again, as if they are caught in a vicious circle. Loss of control and provocation cannot explain the violence. They are merely contradictions that attempt to excuse men from their actions.
This article most definitely supports the gender perspective (as opposed to the violence perspective). The main focus in this article is clearly violence against women and maintaining dominance over them. As I had stated above, a lot of men have a sense of male entitlement, which directly supports the gender perspective. They undermine their physical force and in a lot of cases, don't even accept responsibility for their actions. Most of these men featured in the article were not really committing any other crimes (which would support the violence perspective). These were men that mostly just battered their wives.
I am very skeptical of Felson and his claims. He mostly uses phrases such as "evidence shows" and "research suggests," but where is this evidence/research coming from? He does not make any specific references to any creditable sources. Also, because I am a woman, I am naturally biased towards this article. I feel as though Felson is trying to prove that women are not as innocent as they seem and men who commit violence against women are not just specifically targeting women, but also commit various other crimes. I just find all his evidence hard to believe because how often do you really hear about women killing their husbands on the news or in the newspaper ?! I know I hardly do! I believe that violence against women is very psychological and that there is a clear motive. For the most part, men are physically stronger than women. So it is much easier for a man to abuse a woman (rather than vice versa), which gives men a sense of power. Despite what Felson's evidence shows, I believe a man's "power trip" directly relates to sexism. Therefore, I would have to side with the gender perspective.
2. Jones provides the accounts of a couple different women to explain why women do not neccessarily just get up and leave if they have been battered and abused by their husbands. A lot of women are only familiar with abusive husbands and have inevitably became dependent on them. It is easier for the outsider to just say "just leave him and escape!" but it does not prove to be that easy in the mind of a battered woman. Their confusion is deeply rooted and many of them do not know whether to blame their abusive husband or themselves. In the story of Tracy Thurman, she was badly beaten to the point of disfigurement, and still did not want to move out of the town that she was from. When asked, "why don't you just leave?" she answered, "Why should I? I grew up here. My family is here, my support is here. I can go to another state, but even if I was in Hawaii...he's going to find me no matter where I go." Tracy is clearly demonstrating a sense of helplessness, which a majority of women suffer from after being battered and abused.
This article is using the gender perspective to highlight the reasons for violence agaist women. A lot of the abuse and violence stems from a man's urge to feel dominant over women. A lot of women become helpless because they are naturally physically weaker than a man, which inevitably fuels a man's sense of superiority.
3. Ptacek observed right away that batterers were more inclined to make up excuses rather than justify their actions. Their most common excuse for their actions was that they "lost control" and in some cases, they were affected by drugs and/or alcohol. Other excuses that they used involved blaming the victim. More disturbingly, they regarded verbal aggressiveness as the equivalent to physical aggressiveness. In others words, if the wife instigated verbal abuse on her husband, it gave the husband an excuse to retaliate with physical violence. As for actual justifications, many men utilize the denial of injury claim. They minimize their injuries and say that "women bruise easily." Also , a lot of men have a sense of male entitlement in which they use to further justify their actions. The problem with these justifications is that there are a lot of inconsistencies. For example, men are likely to deny their actions, but then eventually accept responsibility of their actions and downplay the wrongness. Some men then proceed to deny their actions once again, as if they are caught in a vicious circle. Loss of control and provocation cannot explain the violence. They are merely contradictions that attempt to excuse men from their actions.
This article most definitely supports the gender perspective (as opposed to the violence perspective). The main focus in this article is clearly violence against women and maintaining dominance over them. As I had stated above, a lot of men have a sense of male entitlement, which directly supports the gender perspective. They undermine their physical force and in a lot of cases, don't even accept responsibility for their actions. Most of these men featured in the article were not really committing any other crimes (which would support the violence perspective). These were men that mostly just battered their wives.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Domesticity
1) As illustrated in Nancy and Evan's story, the egalitarian myth involves feminist undertones and calls for "a balance of spheres and equal power." Nancy was an egalitarian in that she wanted her and Evan to share the same amount of responsibilities during the "second shift," which really translated into raising their child and performing housework. Nancy's feminist side caused her to put her motherly/housewife role on overdrive and take charge of the family, which made her appear as a single mother. This of course caused much tension between her and Evan as she was the dominating force in the household. She used emotion work to keep her emotions in check and keep her from exploding in frustration with Evan. She used the upstairs-downstairs myth to try to justify that Evan was doing equal amounts of work in the house. She believed that she had control of the "upstairs" which consisted of the living room, dining room, kitchen, etc. and Evan had control on the "downstairs" which included the garage and taking care of the dog. She tried convincing herself that they both shared equal roles, when in reality that was hardly the case. In the end ideologies of both Nancy and Evan clashed significantly which certainly led to a turbulent marriage, but luckily Nancy was able to pull through mostly due to her self control of her emotions and maintaining her energetic side.
This chapter was very interesting because I was able to compare Nancy and Evan to that of my mom and dad except my mother has a completely different attitude. Growing up in my household, my dad was the breadwinner of the family, while my mom stayed home and cared for us three children and did 95% of the housework. My dad also shared equal responsibility in disciplining us as well. This situation happened to work out quite well in my family. I have always seen my mom and dad as having equal roles and they have always operated in that manner. This is not to say that this situation works in every family, but it certainly happens to flourish in mine. The difference with Nancy and Evan was that Nancy was doing all the housework, raising the children, AND sustaining a career. She also held much stronger feminist views as opposed to my mother. These factors certainly contribute to Nancy's frustrations with her marriage. An equal division of labor is crucial in a healthy marriage. To this day, my mom and dad are still madly in love with each other!
2) Williams introduced domesticity as a natural occurrence in which men belong to the market due to their aggressiveness and natural competitiveness and women belong in the home because of their natural abilities to maintain nurturing relationships with the children. There are many constraints that domesticity places on both men and women. One constraint is that it marginalizes a woman's position in the marketplace and usually limits her amount of income. A lot of women are economically vulnerable and cannot work full-time as a result of the needs of the children. Domesticity also takes a toll on men. It minimizes their involvement with the children and limits face to face interaction. As a result, the relationship between father and the children may suffer. Lastly, domesticity also causes men to feel pressured into performing as ideal workers which keeps them working long hours. This may very well take its toll on some marriages. The pressure of being the breadwinner of the family may become all too overwhelming, which would eventually increase the tension between the married couple.
Domesticity is an ideology that has existed for hundreds of years. As seen in videos during class, it exists in mostly all cultures, societies, and time periods. In colonial America, domesticity was certainly alive. Childbearing was much more difficult in those days, so many women were midwives (as we saw in the diary of a midwife video in class). These women played a huge motherly role in the colonies in which they lived as even assisted other women in childrearing. Women were seen as being nurturing and loving, thus keeping the ideals of domesticity alive. On the other hand, women did participate in a lot of the same activities and jobs as did the men. And men were still expected to play a prominent role in the household. Division of labor seemed to be equal keeping the colonies well functioning. In the other movie involving the young African girl (the hunters and gatherers), domesticity was still present. Girls married very young (around the age of 10) and were expected to live with their husbands and bear children. While the men went out hunting, women would stay behind and look after the children. This is not to say that fathers played no role in childrearing. In fact, everyone was very involved in the tribe-life as a whole. Men performed trances during childbirth to aid the process and make it easier for the woman giving birth. Although both men and women both had separate roles, there was still a sense of equality among everyone and division of labor seemed to be quite fair.
3) Williams explains that women have free choice in deciding whether or not just focus on their career, just focus on the children, or focus on both. A mother's free choice can be used as a defense against discrimination, even though gender discrimination still persists. Williams argues that men and women are pigeon-holed into roles in society making it that much harder for example, a "working mother and stay-home dad" to be accepted. Society views women as the ones carrying the extra burdens of life (the children) which ultimately prevents them from performing as an ideal worker. This is not to say that they do not have the ability to perform on the same level as men, but they are viewed as having other responsibilities that divert their full attention away from the workplace. Although women say that they have this "free choice," it does not stop employers from discriminating. In my own personal experience, I work for a man who has made comments about how he will not employ women who have children. He believes that it takes away from their focus on their job and limits their actual job performance. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not. But unfortunately a lot of male employers hold these views, even if it is not directly verbalized. Therefore, I agree with Williams in that women are treated unfairly in the workplace. Although women can claim they have free choice, they are still wrongly discriminated against and should be able to have a career and care for their children at the same time.
4) The division of labor in both heterosexual and homosexual households is very similar. Lesbigay couples assume similar roles to that of a husband and wife. One must play the role as the breadwinner while the other must work more domestically in the household and with the children. According to Carrington , it is usually the partner with the most demanding and/or lucrative work schedule that works out of the house and assumes less domestic responsibility. This is very similar to that of a heterosexual couple in that there must be pre-determined roles of both partners in order to maintain a high-functioning family. Although it may be a bit harder to determine which partner will assume which role in lesbigay situations, they can still create successful relationships by compromising and maintaining equality in the division of labor. The reasons for these similarities lie within the views of society. No matter what the sexual preferences of the couple, there must be at least one partner bringing in income, and at least one partner caring for the household/children. It is certainly the most successful way to thrive in our current society. Therefore, both homosexual and heterosexual couples operate strikingly similar.
This chapter was very interesting because I was able to compare Nancy and Evan to that of my mom and dad except my mother has a completely different attitude. Growing up in my household, my dad was the breadwinner of the family, while my mom stayed home and cared for us three children and did 95% of the housework. My dad also shared equal responsibility in disciplining us as well. This situation happened to work out quite well in my family. I have always seen my mom and dad as having equal roles and they have always operated in that manner. This is not to say that this situation works in every family, but it certainly happens to flourish in mine. The difference with Nancy and Evan was that Nancy was doing all the housework, raising the children, AND sustaining a career. She also held much stronger feminist views as opposed to my mother. These factors certainly contribute to Nancy's frustrations with her marriage. An equal division of labor is crucial in a healthy marriage. To this day, my mom and dad are still madly in love with each other!
2) Williams introduced domesticity as a natural occurrence in which men belong to the market due to their aggressiveness and natural competitiveness and women belong in the home because of their natural abilities to maintain nurturing relationships with the children. There are many constraints that domesticity places on both men and women. One constraint is that it marginalizes a woman's position in the marketplace and usually limits her amount of income. A lot of women are economically vulnerable and cannot work full-time as a result of the needs of the children. Domesticity also takes a toll on men. It minimizes their involvement with the children and limits face to face interaction. As a result, the relationship between father and the children may suffer. Lastly, domesticity also causes men to feel pressured into performing as ideal workers which keeps them working long hours. This may very well take its toll on some marriages. The pressure of being the breadwinner of the family may become all too overwhelming, which would eventually increase the tension between the married couple.
Domesticity is an ideology that has existed for hundreds of years. As seen in videos during class, it exists in mostly all cultures, societies, and time periods. In colonial America, domesticity was certainly alive. Childbearing was much more difficult in those days, so many women were midwives (as we saw in the diary of a midwife video in class). These women played a huge motherly role in the colonies in which they lived as even assisted other women in childrearing. Women were seen as being nurturing and loving, thus keeping the ideals of domesticity alive. On the other hand, women did participate in a lot of the same activities and jobs as did the men. And men were still expected to play a prominent role in the household. Division of labor seemed to be equal keeping the colonies well functioning. In the other movie involving the young African girl (the hunters and gatherers), domesticity was still present. Girls married very young (around the age of 10) and were expected to live with their husbands and bear children. While the men went out hunting, women would stay behind and look after the children. This is not to say that fathers played no role in childrearing. In fact, everyone was very involved in the tribe-life as a whole. Men performed trances during childbirth to aid the process and make it easier for the woman giving birth. Although both men and women both had separate roles, there was still a sense of equality among everyone and division of labor seemed to be quite fair.
3) Williams explains that women have free choice in deciding whether or not just focus on their career, just focus on the children, or focus on both. A mother's free choice can be used as a defense against discrimination, even though gender discrimination still persists. Williams argues that men and women are pigeon-holed into roles in society making it that much harder for example, a "working mother and stay-home dad" to be accepted. Society views women as the ones carrying the extra burdens of life (the children) which ultimately prevents them from performing as an ideal worker. This is not to say that they do not have the ability to perform on the same level as men, but they are viewed as having other responsibilities that divert their full attention away from the workplace. Although women say that they have this "free choice," it does not stop employers from discriminating. In my own personal experience, I work for a man who has made comments about how he will not employ women who have children. He believes that it takes away from their focus on their job and limits their actual job performance. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not. But unfortunately a lot of male employers hold these views, even if it is not directly verbalized. Therefore, I agree with Williams in that women are treated unfairly in the workplace. Although women can claim they have free choice, they are still wrongly discriminated against and should be able to have a career and care for their children at the same time.
4) The division of labor in both heterosexual and homosexual households is very similar. Lesbigay couples assume similar roles to that of a husband and wife. One must play the role as the breadwinner while the other must work more domestically in the household and with the children. According to Carrington , it is usually the partner with the most demanding and/or lucrative work schedule that works out of the house and assumes less domestic responsibility. This is very similar to that of a heterosexual couple in that there must be pre-determined roles of both partners in order to maintain a high-functioning family. Although it may be a bit harder to determine which partner will assume which role in lesbigay situations, they can still create successful relationships by compromising and maintaining equality in the division of labor. The reasons for these similarities lie within the views of society. No matter what the sexual preferences of the couple, there must be at least one partner bringing in income, and at least one partner caring for the household/children. It is certainly the most successful way to thrive in our current society. Therefore, both homosexual and heterosexual couples operate strikingly similar.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Dating/Hooking up
In the first article by Risman and Schwartz, they stress that sexual coitus between teenagers and between college students is not as big as a problem as the media makes it out to be. They say that teenagers in specific have adopted a new sort of sexual conservatism. In fact, they state that teen pregnancy rates , the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion rates have all declined throughout the 1990s. They explained these trends through the Youth Risk Behavior Survey that was designed by the Center for Disease Control. A major trend that was stressed throughout the article was the fact that boys' sexual behavior is becoming more like girls' behavior. Therefore, there has been a decrease in boy's sexual activity at younger ages. They attempt to explain this as a result of girls increasing their negotiation power to only have sexual relations in intimate/exclusive relationships. Although this is really only a suggestion, and has not been proven statistically, they were able to deduce more conclusions from this relationship. Risman and Schwartz also claim that teenagers are becoming a lot more responsible during sexual activity. They also said that the percentage of teenagers having sex are equalizing among all races. The high percentages of black teenagers having sex is starting to match the percentages of whites and Hispanics. Clearly, a lot of interesting trends are addressed in this article, but sources for all the data are a bit vague. Instead of naming the specific study, they were a bit more general and usually just noted that "studies have shown..."
In the article by England and Thomas, the means of acquiring their data was explained much more specifically. They sampled a group of 615 college students with an online survey and they also conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with another 270 students. They were clearly able to prove that "hooking up" on college campuses is currently much more prevalent than going on dates. In fact they found that 21% of guys and 32% of women had not been on a date since being in college. Interviews revealed that most hookups were purely sexual and most happened while under the influence. Students also said that having multiple hookups with the same person had the chance of leading into a romantic relationship. But before entering this relationship, most couples had to have "the talk," which established the relationship as boyfriend/girlfriend. Another important finding was that girls seemed to be much less satisfied with the hookup than the the guy. In hookups involving oral sex, the survey showed that 80% of men were receiving orgasms while only 30% of women were receiving orgasms, which contrasts greatly with the 70% of guys reporting that the girl orgasmed. Overall, this article clearly proved that hooking up is much more of a trend on college campuses as opposed to the traditional date.
As for gender differences, both articles said similar things regarding the stigma that is associated with girls who hook up "too much" or openly talk about their hook ups. They both claimed that there is quite the double standard. Although girls are sexual beings, just like men, they are still looked down upon if they hook up with guys on a regular basis. On the other hand, guys who "raise their numbers" is seen as an ego-booster and is applauded by most other guys. The article by Risman and Schwartz stressed that the discrepancy of sexual activity between boys and girls is actually lessening. On the other hand, the article by England and Thomas addressed the issue that girls are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to be satisfied from hooking up. They referred to this as the "orgasm gap." As I had stated above, they found that a much higher percentage of guys were achieving orgasm than girls during a hook up.
Through my own experiences in high school and college, I can definitely relate more to the article written by England and Thomas. Throughout my college career, I have actually attended two schools: Umass Amherst and BC. At both colleges, the hook up culture was virtually identical. Just as the article had stated, most guys are not looking to be in serious relationships. And it is even more surprising that more girls aren't either. Personally, I have been in relationships longer than I have been single, but when I was single, hooking up didn't keep me satisfied very long because after awhile I started to just feel used. But a lot of my friends who have been single for awhile are used to this culture and have no problem with it. I feel that a person's attitude towards hooking up is a result of how long they have been exposed to it.
In the article by England and Thomas, the means of acquiring their data was explained much more specifically. They sampled a group of 615 college students with an online survey and they also conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with another 270 students. They were clearly able to prove that "hooking up" on college campuses is currently much more prevalent than going on dates. In fact they found that 21% of guys and 32% of women had not been on a date since being in college. Interviews revealed that most hookups were purely sexual and most happened while under the influence. Students also said that having multiple hookups with the same person had the chance of leading into a romantic relationship. But before entering this relationship, most couples had to have "the talk," which established the relationship as boyfriend/girlfriend. Another important finding was that girls seemed to be much less satisfied with the hookup than the the guy. In hookups involving oral sex, the survey showed that 80% of men were receiving orgasms while only 30% of women were receiving orgasms, which contrasts greatly with the 70% of guys reporting that the girl orgasmed. Overall, this article clearly proved that hooking up is much more of a trend on college campuses as opposed to the traditional date.
As for gender differences, both articles said similar things regarding the stigma that is associated with girls who hook up "too much" or openly talk about their hook ups. They both claimed that there is quite the double standard. Although girls are sexual beings, just like men, they are still looked down upon if they hook up with guys on a regular basis. On the other hand, guys who "raise their numbers" is seen as an ego-booster and is applauded by most other guys. The article by Risman and Schwartz stressed that the discrepancy of sexual activity between boys and girls is actually lessening. On the other hand, the article by England and Thomas addressed the issue that girls are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to be satisfied from hooking up. They referred to this as the "orgasm gap." As I had stated above, they found that a much higher percentage of guys were achieving orgasm than girls during a hook up.
Through my own experiences in high school and college, I can definitely relate more to the article written by England and Thomas. Throughout my college career, I have actually attended two schools: Umass Amherst and BC. At both colleges, the hook up culture was virtually identical. Just as the article had stated, most guys are not looking to be in serious relationships. And it is even more surprising that more girls aren't either. Personally, I have been in relationships longer than I have been single, but when I was single, hooking up didn't keep me satisfied very long because after awhile I started to just feel used. But a lot of my friends who have been single for awhile are used to this culture and have no problem with it. I feel that a person's attitude towards hooking up is a result of how long they have been exposed to it.
Monday, January 29, 2007
News Article blog: Divorce
Article 1
"Getting Hitched"
National Review Online
By Kathryn Lopez and Kay Hymowitz
January 24, 2007
This particular article assessed the state of marriage in our current society. Lopez is interviewing Hymowitz and first asks her to explain the state of marriage in America. Hymowitz says that the 40% divorce rate and the 37% out-of-wedlock birthrate contribute to a dismal state, but there is more to it than just numbers. She states that Americans no longer understand the meaning of marriage where more and more people are marrying just because they got pregnant. She also points out that 51% of American women are single, which allows for her to interject with the concept of feminism. This rather high number of single women indicates that more women are happier with being alone and are creating an independent life for themselves with a healthy career. She also states her political stance. She believes that a president with a strong platform for marriage is what our society needs. She notes that Barack Obama would be an excellent candidate. She believes a president needs to have a summit on black marriage, transform the celebrity image of marriage, and save marriages in poverty-stricken areas. In the end, it's really all about smart politics.
Article 2
"Keeping the Covenant"
Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News - The Tribune
December 23, 2006
By Jeff Ackenback
This article is about the Fellowship of Jackson County Clergy and how they decided to become proactive and sign a marriage covenant which would be maintaining the biblical standard of marriage. They believe that there needs to be a lot of pre-marital effort, which would only make marriage benefit in the long run. Rev. Steve Greene made a great point: "I feel like more effort is put into that 3o minute wedding ceremony than preparation for marriage." One of the key statistics that he stated that those who cohabit before marriage and/or engage in pre-marital sex suffer a greater change of getting divorced or being in an unfaithful marriage. This article really took a stance on being more conservative in the way we must deal with marriage. The covenant included:
"Getting Hitched"
National Review Online
By Kathryn Lopez and Kay Hymowitz
January 24, 2007
This particular article assessed the state of marriage in our current society. Lopez is interviewing Hymowitz and first asks her to explain the state of marriage in America. Hymowitz says that the 40% divorce rate and the 37% out-of-wedlock birthrate contribute to a dismal state, but there is more to it than just numbers. She states that Americans no longer understand the meaning of marriage where more and more people are marrying just because they got pregnant. She also points out that 51% of American women are single, which allows for her to interject with the concept of feminism. This rather high number of single women indicates that more women are happier with being alone and are creating an independent life for themselves with a healthy career. She also states her political stance. She believes that a president with a strong platform for marriage is what our society needs. She notes that Barack Obama would be an excellent candidate. She believes a president needs to have a summit on black marriage, transform the celebrity image of marriage, and save marriages in poverty-stricken areas. In the end, it's really all about smart politics.
Article 2
"Keeping the Covenant"
Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News - The Tribune
December 23, 2006
By Jeff Ackenback
This article is about the Fellowship of Jackson County Clergy and how they decided to become proactive and sign a marriage covenant which would be maintaining the biblical standard of marriage. They believe that there needs to be a lot of pre-marital effort, which would only make marriage benefit in the long run. Rev. Steve Greene made a great point: "I feel like more effort is put into that 3o minute wedding ceremony than preparation for marriage." One of the key statistics that he stated that those who cohabit before marriage and/or engage in pre-marital sex suffer a greater change of getting divorced or being in an unfaithful marriage. This article really took a stance on being more conservative in the way we must deal with marriage. The covenant included:
- That God has established in Scripture the sanctity and companionship in marriage
- That God intends that the marriage bond between one man and one woman for a lifetime
- That it is our role to teach our children and youth the sanctity of marriage
The FJCC surprisingly has not received any negativity regarding the covenant and those who have signed it have really stood by its teachings.
Article 3
"Divorce rates down, but many families still struggle"
The Associated Press State and Local Wire
By Amy Lawson
September 14, 2006
This particular article, unlike the other two, actually claimed that the divorce rate was declining. The centers for Disease and Control Prevention listed the divorce rate as 5.3 per 1000 people in 1981 and 4.0 per 1000 people in 2001. The crux of the article pertained to the stories of divorcees including Monique Irvin who had been married to her husband for 18 years, which sadly ended in divorce. They all seem to agree that divorce is no fair to the children and they should have a right to know what is going on. Tyrence Burse said that he tells his kids everything in order to know what was going on without being involved. In fact Dr. Alnoor Ramji of Select Behavioral Health in Norwich said that the way a child deals with divorce is a reflection of a parent's coping ability.
Article 4
"Divorce rates, marriage rules"
Canadian Business and Current Affairs
By John Syrtash
September 21, 2006
This article gives a bit of a different perspective for divorce rates and marriage is assessed by a Canadian, John Syrtash. He says that the divorce rate is lower in Canada vs. America due to the fact that many married couples are not forced to relocate for their jobs as much in Canada as in America. This is due to the fact that the population in Canada is concentrated in a few major metropolitan areas, which greatly reduces the need to move elsewhere for a job. He also states that the Canadian culture is based more on compromise, which significantly reduces the stresses of marriage. He also puts an interesting spin on the rules of marriage and claims that ladies should always come first and that the role of husbands is to make their wives happy. In addition, he most importantly states that you should never take your wife for granted.
Article 5
"Divorce vs. Marriage"
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire
By D. Deviga
November 10, 2006
Although this article is quite succinct, Deviga offers many statistics about marriage and divorce in a global sense. She states that in Singapore, divorce is up a third since 1990 and it has nearly doubled in Thailand. She says that couples get married every 42 seconds in Japan but a couple will get divorced before 2 minutes are up. She then begs the question, "Is divorce the new 'cool'?" She believes that divorce seems to be the new method of expressing one's individuality. Her article certainly sheds light on divorce outside of the US and gives us reason to believe that divorce is certainly a global problem.
Summary
Although most of the statistics in these articles were objective in their purposes, the nature of most of the articles were clearly subjective. After stating the facts, the authors naturally included their own biases in response to the facts. Controversies could certainly arise from all five of the articles that I have summarized above. In the "Getting Hitched" and "Keeping the Covenant" articles, there was a noticeable anti-gay marriage tone from the authors. This certainly would generate backlash especially from democrats/liberals who support gay marriage. More specifically the "Keeping the Covenant" article was very religion-based. Although I am in strong support of the covenant and its teachings, there are many other people out there who would not necessarily agree with those ideals. Also, I think men should read the article by John Syrtash! As a women, I agreed with every word. His views may seem old-fashioned to some, but I think if more men followed the chivalrous role, marriages would be a lot happier. I have to say that I really enjoyed reading all five articles that I chose. They all indicated the problems we ALL need to be aware of due to the divorce rate and increasing lack of healthy marriages in our world. I think it is important that more articles similar to these are published because it will only increase the awareness of the number of marriages that are suffering. This awareness is needed to help alleviate these problems and help our society move forward in producing healthy marriages and families.
Monday, January 22, 2007
American Family Decline Analysis
After reading Popenoe's account of his views regarding the decline of American families, I could not help but agree with him more. He supports his viewpoints which much evidence. He states that the American family has been in decline since 1960 due to many reasons including a decline in fertility, a decline in the number of children in a family, and increased divorce rates. In fact, he notes that the divorce rate in 1960 had been 9 and more than doubled in 1987 to 21. Currently, the divorce rate has exceeded 50% !! He states that divorce has clearly replaced death as the dissolver of marriage, which is quite evident since divorce is so widespread. Popenoe also points out that the relationship between being married and relative happiness has also declined. As a result, people are less likely to devote time, energy, and money to family life. Family members investing more time in themselves has become a current trend, which certainly threatens the traditional nuclear family mentality. He believes that the values constituting a healthy family have also been in decline. Also, he states that cohabitation has been a reason as to why families are in decline. Living together before marriage postphones marriage and very well might delay the beginnings of a family. All these factors combined has certainly led to the decline of the American family.
The articles written by Judith Stacey and Philip Cowan challenge the ideas of Popenoe. Stacey believes that family is not an insitution, but rather an "ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and politics." She disagrees with Popenoe's claim that family was "the only social institution in existence." In fact, she does not accept the instituional definition of family. She states that Popenoe did not take into consideration the post industrial economic transformations that had a profound effect on the dynamics of family. Philip Cowan feels quite similarly. He criticizes Popenoe for failing to take demographic and psychological changes into account. He also contests that smaller families certainly do not mean that family life is in decline, but rather smaller families promote quality of life for the children. He also believes that the effect of divorce on children is more short-lived than Popenoe suggests.
I would most definitely take Popenoe's side of the argument. First of all, I feel that the divorce rate in our world today is terrible. I feel that people are too hasty in their decisions regarding their future spouse. True love is also being disregarded. I feel there would be much less divorce if everyone could wait to find the love of their life. Instead, a lot of people make concessions and end of marrying someone who is not a perfect fit. I feel as though this marks the fundamental reason as to why there is so much divorce, which ultimately leads to the decline of the American family. As my dad always told me, "You can't build a house on a bad foundation." Popenoe has clearly stated that the traditional nuclear family mentality is hardly common anymore. This has certainly triggered a decrease in the amount of happiness in a lot of families, which has led to an increased number of dysfunctional families. It is so hard not to agree with Popenoe because I am able to see his arguments firsthand in the very world in which I live!
The articles written by Judith Stacey and Philip Cowan challenge the ideas of Popenoe. Stacey believes that family is not an insitution, but rather an "ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and politics." She disagrees with Popenoe's claim that family was "the only social institution in existence." In fact, she does not accept the instituional definition of family. She states that Popenoe did not take into consideration the post industrial economic transformations that had a profound effect on the dynamics of family. Philip Cowan feels quite similarly. He criticizes Popenoe for failing to take demographic and psychological changes into account. He also contests that smaller families certainly do not mean that family life is in decline, but rather smaller families promote quality of life for the children. He also believes that the effect of divorce on children is more short-lived than Popenoe suggests.
I would most definitely take Popenoe's side of the argument. First of all, I feel that the divorce rate in our world today is terrible. I feel that people are too hasty in their decisions regarding their future spouse. True love is also being disregarded. I feel there would be much less divorce if everyone could wait to find the love of their life. Instead, a lot of people make concessions and end of marrying someone who is not a perfect fit. I feel as though this marks the fundamental reason as to why there is so much divorce, which ultimately leads to the decline of the American family. As my dad always told me, "You can't build a house on a bad foundation." Popenoe has clearly stated that the traditional nuclear family mentality is hardly common anymore. This has certainly triggered a decrease in the amount of happiness in a lot of families, which has led to an increased number of dysfunctional families. It is so hard not to agree with Popenoe because I am able to see his arguments firsthand in the very world in which I live!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)