Stephanie Coontz's article discusses the effects divorce has on children. She notes that children in divorced and remarried families are "more likely to drop out of school, exhibit emotional distress, get in trouble with the law, and abuse drugs or alcohol" than children growing up in a family that consists of two biological parents. She makes a clear distinction, however, saying that not all children from divorced families have these behavioral and academic problems, but that there are more children of divorced parents that exhibit these problems than children from two-parent families. Coontz takes into account other coexisting factors that can affect the child along with divorce. She argues that poverty, financial loss, low maternal education, school relocation, or a prior history of marital conflict can have negative affects on the child that are not caused solely by divorce. Family income has a great effect on children. Also, as far as academic effects, the child is more affected by his/her mother's education than by the mother's marital status. Researchers have also found that problems among children of divorced or remarried families actually exhibit the less problems than children that remain living in a conflict-ridden married family. The problems associated with divorced children in fact exist prior to divorce and are caused by other factors than marital status. This is how Coontz accounts for the variability in the effects of divorce on children.
According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, the short-term and long-term effects of divorce on children vary according to different factors. They cite age as having an effect on how the child immediately responds to the divorce. Pre-schoolers are often bewildered and frightened because they have a limited understanding of why they no longer live with both parents. They tend to view things in a self-centered way causing them to blame some action they did as the reason for the parent leaving. Older children, who have a better comprehension of the situation, tend to get angry at one of the parents and blame them for the dissolving of the family. Researchers describe the first two years after the divorce as the "crisis time" where many negative short-term effects occur including anxiety, anger and shock. Furstenberg and Cherlin discuss the differences in short-term effects between girls and boys. The short-term effects discussed are often caused by the depression and frustration of the mother from having ended a marriage and stress from taking on the role that the father left behind. As a result, different behavioral problems occur. There are two types described, externalizing disorders, which result in outward behavior problems directed towards others such as aggression and disobedience, and internalizing disorders that are directed inwards in the forms of depression and anxiety. Studies show that boys, whether in disrupted or intact families, tend to exhibit external behavioral problems, especially aggression and disobedience. Girls, on the other hand, have seemed to exhibit less bad behavior after a familial disruption, although the results have been fairly inconsistent. Researchers are careful when saying that girls are less affected by divorce because they could just internalize their problems more than boys in the form of depression or low self-esteem. They also sometimes attribute the difference to the fact that in most cases boys reside with their mothers and are more likely to encounter conflict with them.
Even less is known about the variations in long-term effects of divorce on children. On the whole, most children and parents recover from the immediate crisis time within a few years, with the children returning to normal development. There is, however, some variation in the long-term effects that appear in certain children. Furstenberg and Cherlin seem to think some researchers overexaggerate these long-term effects, though. They also consider the fact that the children would most likely exhibit the same problems even if the conflict-ridden marriage had remained intact. Studies have shown both that children of divorced families tend to misbehave in school and that also a majority of them do not misbehave, so it depends on your persective. Despite the inconsistent results, researchers have cited certain factors that affect long-term and short-term effects. The way in which the custodial parent functions as a parent after the divorce is very influential on the structure, discipline, coping, and caring within the family. The extent to which the mother and father continue to conflict with one another also influences the effects. If conflict continues it can cause more distress and anger among the children. Despite inconsistent findings, some researchers also believe the relationship that the child maintains with the non-custodial parent is another factor.
Carr's article on spousal bereavement discusses major factors that influence how a spouse grieves their partner's death. The three most important factors are the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple's life was like before the death occurred. The age of the couple at the time of death has pretty obvious implications. Understandably, older people view death as a natural culmination of life, whereas the death of a younger person may be viewed as a premature end to a life not yet fulfilled. Also, older people tend to have siblings and peers that are experiencing death as well, and can relate and be comforted by them in both their times of need. On the whole, older people experience lower levels of emotional reactions to the death of their spouses. The cause of death often correlates with the age of the deceased spouse. Often times older people die of long-term illnesses. The care of the illness is very draining on the other spouse, physically, mentally, and emotionally. As a result, many spouses feel the death of their extremely ill partners as a relief of a burdensome task of taking care of them. In contrast, a sudden death does not have this same effect. Lastly, the couple's life previous to the death of the spouse affects the extent of bereavement. Unhappy, stifling marriages tend to lead to less bereavement. Spouses that were less dependent of their partners show less signs of distress and grief. In contrast, widows and widowers whose happy, healthy, marriages were ended by the death of their spouse show greater difficulty in coming to terms with their losses. Because men and women react to marriage in different ways, they subsequently respond to bereavement in different ways. Men and women are also rewarded by marriage in different ways, effecting their response to the loss of their partners. The division of labor between men and women also affect their responses to the death of their spouses. Widows often take on a heavier economic burden after the death of their husbands. Men often take on a heavier domestic burden seeing as women tend to do most housekeeping, cooking, etc. Clearly, many different factors affect the way and extent to which a spouse grieves the loss of his/her partner.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Fathering
Joseph Pleck's article gives a historical perspective on how the role of fathers has changed over time in the United States. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, mothers did most of the domestic work while the fathers were off at work in the mill, on the farm, in the shop, etc. However, the father still had a very important role. Because women were viewed as weak and indulgent and children as naturally sinful, fathers, men of reason and discipline, played the role of the moral and religious overseer and teacher of the family. It was the father's job to teach, educate, and guide his sinful child to developing sound reason and religious beliefs. The father was always seen as commanding and the children and mother as obedient.
As the 19th century rolled on, a change took place in the role of the father. Mothers' role increased and the father began to develop more distant, indirect relationships with his children. This change is due in part to a new social ideology of the time. Whereas before women were seen as misled by passions and indulgent, a new view of women as pure, unselfish and nurturing prevailed. More emphasis was also placed on infancy and early childhood rather than on adolescence, so the mother took on an important nurturing and rearing role. It is here when people started to believe that women had a natural inclination toward rearing children. Female teachers began teaching in schools and mothers began to play a large role in shaping the personality and behavior of their children. The distancing of the father during this time was due to industrialization. For the first time, fathers spent their days working outside of the house. The father became portrayed primarily as a breadwinner who supported the family with his wages. Because of this, fathers spent less time with their children and developed a more distant, indirect relationship with their children. Men still remained the primary moral overseer and disciplinarian having the ultimate say, however, they were only really called in when the mother couldn't successfully assert her authority. As a result, many people believe fathers began to lose touch with what was going on in the family.
Increased paternal absence began to present a problem. People thought fathers were beginning to lose authority and most importantly, influence over their sons. Many psychologists began to argue that the father's absence thwarted the son's development of male identity and masculinity. Their initial identification with their mothers affected their masculinity. As a result, many parodies illustrated the growing problem portraying men as feminine and domestic. In the 1940s and 50s criticism of maternal dominance grew stronger and stronger. A new image of fathers arose called the sex role model. Although this new image was prevalent, fathers still maintained their position as distant breadwinners. This new role of the father was meant to erradicate the distortion of masculinity and femininity. As opposed to the 18th century when he taught morality, the late 19th century father was supposed to teach masculinity to his sons and femininity to his daughters. This remained a somewhat limited role, however. The father still was off at work and the mother did most of the childcare but the father was responsible for balancing out the effects of his absence and of the mother's excessive influence.
Expectations of fathers today include a mixture of the various historical roles. Fathers are still expected to be the dominant breadwinners, however, women are increasingly entering the workforce and contributing a good deal to the income of the family. Fathers also are still expected to be the sex role model. The media and actual life experiences show sons looking up to their fathers and daughters constantly trying to impress them. With the rise of feminism and the changing role of women in the workforce, fathers are increasingly expected to do more domestic work as the mother's absence from the children increases.
The majority of alternating-shifters are blue collar workers of the working and sometimes middle classes. Many couples decide to alternate shifts because the man alone cannot earn enough in his blue collar job to support the family. By alternating shifts both the man and woman are able to bring in money without spending money on someone to look after the children and to keep up with housework. Although money is almost always a factor in becoming alternating shifters, many couples also believe that their children should only be cared for by their family. Some people, especially couples of the middle-class, believe that the bond between themselves and their children will be broken if the children are sent to daycare and many people worry about the care provided in child care programs. Similarly, couples often want to instill their own values in their children, not the values of the workers at the child care center. It's hard to say how I personally stand on the issue since I have not experienced being a mother. I think it's hard to say what you would do with your kid without actually having a kid. However, I would think that alternating shifts would be a good possibility for my family. I think it is good to allow both the man and the woman the chance to contribute to the economic well being of the family. Also, I think balancing out the influence of the mother and father on the children is beneficial, relating to the arguments made in the previous article about excessive maternal influence and deficient paternal direct interaction. Obviously, having another person to help out with housework is a plus too!
In the Black culture, the dominant matriarch in a single parent family is the norm. Statistics show that more black unwed women give birth than white women, creating many single parent, fatherless families. Society uses this occurence to create a stigma of the absent black father. Much of society grows to view black males as "gangster," violent, drug addicts, etc. This image of black males is then used to make black families the scapegoats for their own plight. Instead of considering societal problems, many people simply jump to blame the nature of the black culture for the crime, drugs, poverty, etc. found in many black communities. Societal forces that discourage black males participation in the family include the promises of welfare helping to increase unwed births, racial repression, unemployment and incarceration of black males, and poverty. In some respect, the creation of the myth of the absent Black father serves to deflect attention to America's institutionalized racism and its deficient systems of welfare, etc. Absent black fathers are often blamed for the poverty of their family when in reality, even if the father was present, the family would still be impoverished. Black fathers often have a close relationship with their children, but because they are not married to the mother and providing economic stability as the patriarch, they are blamed for the plight of the family.
As the 19th century rolled on, a change took place in the role of the father. Mothers' role increased and the father began to develop more distant, indirect relationships with his children. This change is due in part to a new social ideology of the time. Whereas before women were seen as misled by passions and indulgent, a new view of women as pure, unselfish and nurturing prevailed. More emphasis was also placed on infancy and early childhood rather than on adolescence, so the mother took on an important nurturing and rearing role. It is here when people started to believe that women had a natural inclination toward rearing children. Female teachers began teaching in schools and mothers began to play a large role in shaping the personality and behavior of their children. The distancing of the father during this time was due to industrialization. For the first time, fathers spent their days working outside of the house. The father became portrayed primarily as a breadwinner who supported the family with his wages. Because of this, fathers spent less time with their children and developed a more distant, indirect relationship with their children. Men still remained the primary moral overseer and disciplinarian having the ultimate say, however, they were only really called in when the mother couldn't successfully assert her authority. As a result, many people believe fathers began to lose touch with what was going on in the family.
Increased paternal absence began to present a problem. People thought fathers were beginning to lose authority and most importantly, influence over their sons. Many psychologists began to argue that the father's absence thwarted the son's development of male identity and masculinity. Their initial identification with their mothers affected their masculinity. As a result, many parodies illustrated the growing problem portraying men as feminine and domestic. In the 1940s and 50s criticism of maternal dominance grew stronger and stronger. A new image of fathers arose called the sex role model. Although this new image was prevalent, fathers still maintained their position as distant breadwinners. This new role of the father was meant to erradicate the distortion of masculinity and femininity. As opposed to the 18th century when he taught morality, the late 19th century father was supposed to teach masculinity to his sons and femininity to his daughters. This remained a somewhat limited role, however. The father still was off at work and the mother did most of the childcare but the father was responsible for balancing out the effects of his absence and of the mother's excessive influence.
Expectations of fathers today include a mixture of the various historical roles. Fathers are still expected to be the dominant breadwinners, however, women are increasingly entering the workforce and contributing a good deal to the income of the family. Fathers also are still expected to be the sex role model. The media and actual life experiences show sons looking up to their fathers and daughters constantly trying to impress them. With the rise of feminism and the changing role of women in the workforce, fathers are increasingly expected to do more domestic work as the mother's absence from the children increases.
The majority of alternating-shifters are blue collar workers of the working and sometimes middle classes. Many couples decide to alternate shifts because the man alone cannot earn enough in his blue collar job to support the family. By alternating shifts both the man and woman are able to bring in money without spending money on someone to look after the children and to keep up with housework. Although money is almost always a factor in becoming alternating shifters, many couples also believe that their children should only be cared for by their family. Some people, especially couples of the middle-class, believe that the bond between themselves and their children will be broken if the children are sent to daycare and many people worry about the care provided in child care programs. Similarly, couples often want to instill their own values in their children, not the values of the workers at the child care center. It's hard to say how I personally stand on the issue since I have not experienced being a mother. I think it's hard to say what you would do with your kid without actually having a kid. However, I would think that alternating shifts would be a good possibility for my family. I think it is good to allow both the man and the woman the chance to contribute to the economic well being of the family. Also, I think balancing out the influence of the mother and father on the children is beneficial, relating to the arguments made in the previous article about excessive maternal influence and deficient paternal direct interaction. Obviously, having another person to help out with housework is a plus too!
In the Black culture, the dominant matriarch in a single parent family is the norm. Statistics show that more black unwed women give birth than white women, creating many single parent, fatherless families. Society uses this occurence to create a stigma of the absent black father. Much of society grows to view black males as "gangster," violent, drug addicts, etc. This image of black males is then used to make black families the scapegoats for their own plight. Instead of considering societal problems, many people simply jump to blame the nature of the black culture for the crime, drugs, poverty, etc. found in many black communities. Societal forces that discourage black males participation in the family include the promises of welfare helping to increase unwed births, racial repression, unemployment and incarceration of black males, and poverty. In some respect, the creation of the myth of the absent Black father serves to deflect attention to America's institutionalized racism and its deficient systems of welfare, etc. Absent black fathers are often blamed for the poverty of their family when in reality, even if the father was present, the family would still be impoverished. Black fathers often have a close relationship with their children, but because they are not married to the mother and providing economic stability as the patriarch, they are blamed for the plight of the family.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
family evaluation
Of all four things we are supposed to consider this week, I think social class has had the greatest impact on my family life so far. I grew up, with my three older brothers, in the lower middle class. My parents got divorced when I was five years old. After the divorce my mom was forced to work more to support my brothers and I. She often worked more than one job. As a result of my mother working to support us and my father no longer in the house, my three older brothers kind of assumed more fatherly roles. To this day, even though I'm grown and at college on my own, I still think of my brothers as three extra fathers. Two of them are close by and insist on taking me grocery shopping and taking me out to dinner.
Being of the lower middle class has also affected all of my family's motivation. I do believe that even if you cannot afford something or don't have some means to obtain it, if you have the motivation you can achieve it. Private schools these days are becoming incredibly expensive. I know the tuition for my high school is now $21,000 dollars a year, more expensive than many state and public colleges. Many people of my social class cannot afford to send only one kid, let alone 4, to private school. After experiencing our public school, my brothers and I knew we wanted more. We all have been involved in sports since a young age. We knew we had to excell in our sports and get scholarships if we wanted to go to private school. This fact motivated all of us to push harder in practices and games and make ourselves be noticed. Unfortunately, even with a scholarship and financial aid, some money had to be paid. This is where our family, especially my mom, had to make sacrifices in order to rise above the restrictions of social class to achieve our goals and fulfill our desires. My two older brothers ended up getting scholarships to play hockey at a well-respected prep school where they boarded. I and the youngest of my brothers were able to attend another reputable private school nearby on athletic and academic scholarships.
College presented the same problem as private high school, if not a bigger problem. All through high school we had to work hard academically and athletically in hopes of receiving scholarships that would help pay for the expenses of a college education. Unfortunately, it's much harder to get a scholarship in college. I think paying for college has caused a lot of stress in my family. Unfortunately, if you have high hopes of attending an institution such as BC as a member of the lower middle class, you are going to have to work very hard to pay off the expensive education. I know for me personally the financial aid and student loan process have been having a negative effect on my relationship with my mom. We often argue and get in fights over it. Paying off a large amount of student loans is something that looms over me constantly. Obstacles created by social class have stood in my family's path many times, however, I think it has made us a stronger, more motivated family.
As a result of the problems associated with being of a lower social class, I think I have a different idea of family than say a girl of my age from the upper echelon of society. Money has always been something that we've had to work hard for. My brothers and I got jobs as soon as we were old enough to. Once we had jobs, it was our responsibility to pay for most of our clothes, social activities, gas, car insurance, and many other things that were not basic necessities. Because of this, I don't view parents as the sole providers who pay for everything. I think children, obviously once they are of age to work, are responsible for providing a lot of things for themselves. In contrast, in many upper class families, the parents give the children anything they want and the children never have to work for a thing. Those children probably think that they have no responsibility in providing for themselves and their family. I view the family as a unit that supports one another economically and emotionally, and that has to make sacrifices in order for everyone to get what they need and want.
Obviously virtually no one would wish to have less money than they could actually have. However, in the future when I start my own family, even if I have the money to support a comfortable or even lavish life for myself and my family, I will make my children work for what they want. I think it makes for a stronger, more motivated and disciplined, and a more grateful and down-to-earth person. This desire has definitely been influenced by my experiences with having to overcome the obstacles of social class.
Being of the lower middle class has also affected all of my family's motivation. I do believe that even if you cannot afford something or don't have some means to obtain it, if you have the motivation you can achieve it. Private schools these days are becoming incredibly expensive. I know the tuition for my high school is now $21,000 dollars a year, more expensive than many state and public colleges. Many people of my social class cannot afford to send only one kid, let alone 4, to private school. After experiencing our public school, my brothers and I knew we wanted more. We all have been involved in sports since a young age. We knew we had to excell in our sports and get scholarships if we wanted to go to private school. This fact motivated all of us to push harder in practices and games and make ourselves be noticed. Unfortunately, even with a scholarship and financial aid, some money had to be paid. This is where our family, especially my mom, had to make sacrifices in order to rise above the restrictions of social class to achieve our goals and fulfill our desires. My two older brothers ended up getting scholarships to play hockey at a well-respected prep school where they boarded. I and the youngest of my brothers were able to attend another reputable private school nearby on athletic and academic scholarships.
College presented the same problem as private high school, if not a bigger problem. All through high school we had to work hard academically and athletically in hopes of receiving scholarships that would help pay for the expenses of a college education. Unfortunately, it's much harder to get a scholarship in college. I think paying for college has caused a lot of stress in my family. Unfortunately, if you have high hopes of attending an institution such as BC as a member of the lower middle class, you are going to have to work very hard to pay off the expensive education. I know for me personally the financial aid and student loan process have been having a negative effect on my relationship with my mom. We often argue and get in fights over it. Paying off a large amount of student loans is something that looms over me constantly. Obstacles created by social class have stood in my family's path many times, however, I think it has made us a stronger, more motivated family.
As a result of the problems associated with being of a lower social class, I think I have a different idea of family than say a girl of my age from the upper echelon of society. Money has always been something that we've had to work hard for. My brothers and I got jobs as soon as we were old enough to. Once we had jobs, it was our responsibility to pay for most of our clothes, social activities, gas, car insurance, and many other things that were not basic necessities. Because of this, I don't view parents as the sole providers who pay for everything. I think children, obviously once they are of age to work, are responsible for providing a lot of things for themselves. In contrast, in many upper class families, the parents give the children anything they want and the children never have to work for a thing. Those children probably think that they have no responsibility in providing for themselves and their family. I view the family as a unit that supports one another economically and emotionally, and that has to make sacrifices in order for everyone to get what they need and want.
Obviously virtually no one would wish to have less money than they could actually have. However, in the future when I start my own family, even if I have the money to support a comfortable or even lavish life for myself and my family, I will make my children work for what they want. I think it makes for a stronger, more motivated and disciplined, and a more grateful and down-to-earth person. This desire has definitely been influenced by my experiences with having to overcome the obstacles of social class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)