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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)