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.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Mothering
In her article, Sharon Hays discusses the four stages of the development in the cultural periods throughout the past three centuries that have led up to the American notion of intensive mothering. By looking at the cultural norms of the time, you can better understand the methods of mothering used because ideas about mothering are directly connected to the cultural ideas of the time. Hays argues that the modern American model of intensive mothering consists of the idea that children are helpless and priceless and that they should be reared by their mothers based on their needs. Rearing should be expertly informed, time consuming and expensive. In this model there is a very clear sense that American society believes children are very needy but very deserving.
The first stage in the development of the intensive mothering model is the change from looking down upon children as demonic and burdensome to viewing them as innocent and deserving of good care. In Europe during the Middle Ages, children were viewed very differently than how Americans view them today. They were seen as demonic, often depicting them as "sucking the lifeblood out of the mother." Many believed children would harm themselves and others, and so dressed them in tight clothing to prevent this. Although they believed that the children needed a lot of care in order to remain healthy, it was viewed as very time-consuming and burdensome, and was often passed on to someone else of a lesser social status. Many families sent their children away to be taken care of by wet nurses where the child often died of illness, starvation, or never returned to the family. Children were often seen as worthless until adulthood where they could perform tasks to support the family or marry into a higher social rank. By the way parents treated their children, it seems as though they felt no affection; however, many sociologists argue that there were feelings of affection but it was the cultural norm not to express them.
During the 17th and 18th centuries a change took place first among the bourgeoisie and then the aristocracy. The view of children as "innocent" replaced the belief that children were harmful and demonic. From this new idea of children being innocent came the need to protect them from the outside world. Here began a somewhat dramatic change in the rearing of children. Mothers began breastfeeding their own children, making toys for them, and giving them special clothing instead of swaddling clothes. As the children got older, many were kept at home instead of sending them off to work as an apprentice in order to keep them sheltered from the corrupt ways of the outside world. The philosophers of the time, namely Locke and Rousseau, greatly influenced the change in childrearing. They emphasized the need for parental love, protection and affection, and education and nurturing. Although changes in childrearing could be seen, they only occurred in a small percentage of the upper middle and aristocratic classes.
The next stage in childrearing was seen in New England Puritan practices. This stage consisted of the idea that children needed to be "redeemed" for their sinfull self-will through strict discipline and physical punishment. Children were flogged and physically disciplined, but also instructed religiously and forced to work. All of this discipline was used to make the children devoutly religious according to their Puritan views and equally important, an economic asset for the family and community. Children were punished for being lazy or idle. The guidelines for childrearing mainly came from the Bible. Similar to the previous stage, fathers were targeted more than mothers because females were seen as weak, indulgent, and excessively affectionate. The Puritans believed strongly in strict, firm, patriarchal control over the children and the family as a whole. The central objective of childbearing and rearing was to create more labor to help support the family economy. The job of the parents was not to nurture the children, but rather oversee that they were devoted workers and obedient religious believers.
The most dramatic changes in the four stages occurred in the third stage in the revolutionary period of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. During the war many women adopted the role of "republican mothers" taking responsibility for socializing the new republic's citizens and creating a virtuous population. These women worked hard to prove that they were not irrational, indulgent, and weak. As they began to be entrusted with managing the home while their husbands were working in industry or politics, the "cult of domesticity" arose, where women were the providers of protection, morality, and emotional support for the family. With the rise of these maternal roles, childbearing began to become synonymous with mothering. Mother-child relationships had more value. Children were no longer looked down upon as corrupt, rather they were seen as pure, innocent, and promising to make a more moral and kinder society in the future. In order to protect them from corruption, children were no longer sent out into the workforce at young ages. Instead, they were kept within the protection of the home, educated, and nurtured by their mothers. There they were supposed to develop a sound, moral conscience, which depended heavily on the maternal relationship. Instead of physical punishment, children were disciplined through teaching of morality and building a moral conscience. Much of this was done through modeling the children after their mothers, so mothers had to be aware of their morality and virtue. Affection was no longer seen as overindulgence, rather it was necessary in order to form a moral, well-rounded child.
The final stage of development in the intensive mothering model began in the late 19th century. The fear of children made a return, however, not the view of demonic children. Instead, people believed children were full of dangerous impulses that characterized them as children. Because of this, emphasis was placed on the parents overcoming these impulses by adhering to the scientific research of experts. Some of the techniques that were advised by experts include strict scheduling (eating), regularity, behavior modification, and detached handling. When a child cried, mothers were no longer taught to provide affection, rather they were advised to let the child cry so they learn that they can't always get what they want. Women were no longer seen as naturally adept to childrearing but were expected to be scientifically trained in childrearing. After WWII women increasingly joined the workforce leaving little time for nurturing and childrearing creating a problem for the intensive mothering model. Many attempts were unsuccessfully made, for example the introduction of the "feminine mystique," to make mothers return to the home. Although women still remain in the workforce, many argue that the instensive mothering model still remains intact.
I do believe that my mother and many of my friends' mothers follow the intensive mothering model. Although many moms participate in the workplace, most take leave during the first few years of their child's life so they can nurture and provide affection and guidance for the children. Moms today increasingly rely on expert scientific advice as to how to best develop their children's cognition and foster healthy emotional well-being. My mom personally stayed home the first 6 years of my life raising me and my three older brothers.
Ann Crittenden's article discussing the devaluing of mothering. The article makes it clear that American society does value mothering. Many people consider raising children the most important job in the world. The article also shows the economic advantages produced by mothering. Two thirds of all wealth are created by human capital, which results from the effective childrearing in most cases done by mothers. Although America clearly values the role mothers play, business, government, and laws do not support these proclaimed values. Mothers are increasingly punished for staying at home and encouraged to abandon the tasks that everyone seems to deem absolutely essential. Crittendon provides many indicators of this contradiction. First, many workplaces guarantee that women will have to severely cut back on work and often quit once they have children, decreasing their income tremendously. Second, in 47 out of 50 states women's unpaid work does not qualify them for any ownership of the primary paid workers' income. Also, federal social policies don't consider unpaid care of dependent family members as work, so many stay at home mothers are not qualified for social insurance programs such as Social Security. All of these factors work to penalize anyone that forgoes the workplace in order to stay at home and take care of the family. I agree with Crittenden that there is a stark contradiction. I do believe that our society internally values motherhood and childrearing. I also believe that society externally has a problem promoting and supporting this internal valuing. I don't think it is because people have placed less importance on mothering. I think the economic and political conditions of the time have given way to programs and legislation that ends up penalizing mothers.
Collins' article focuses on African-American motherhood. The African-American community heavily values women when it comes to mothering and taking care of the family. It doesn't always have to be the biological mother that provides care. In many cases, mothers turn to their mothers, sisters, cousins, or even neighbors to help care for their children. Women-centered networks account for the care of children in African-American communities. Two types of mothering include care by bloodmothers and care by othermothers. Care by bloodmothers consists of the actual biological mother providing the majority of care for her children. Care by bloodmothers is expected, but African-American communities have begun to recognize that giving full responsibility for childcare to one person may not be smart or possible. As a result, care by othermothers has risen. Here, other females, called "othermothers," aid the bloodmother in caring for her children. Othermothers can take in children born into severe poverty, abusive families, drug-addicted mothers, or just bloodmothers that lack the skills and preparation to properly care for their children. A community-based child care network often arises where the women of the community reciprocally care for one anothers children, helping to foster morality and character among them and the entire community. Collins relates these two types of mothering to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power." Many people, both black and white, view African-American mothers as strong and powerful for overcoming race, class, gender, etc. adversities. Black women's involvement in the community-based child care network often leads to political activism and becomes an important basis for power among the African-American society. They have a sense of power in raising the children of the community to become upstanding citizens that can revitalize struggling neighborhoods.
The final article gives personal accounts the reveal poor women's views on and experiences with marriage and childbearing. The article focuses on one woman, Jen, but says that her experiences were very common among all 161 other women that were interviewed. None of these women had a desire to avoid marriage. Many poor women want to marry, but they view divorce as worse than having a child out of wedlock, so they wait years before they get married, and their relationships often end before they feel they're stable enough to get married. Also, many poor women feel they need to be economically independent before they can enter in a marriage. In poor neighborhoods, drugs, crime, and poverty can often lead to a father getting carted off to prison, killed, or simply leaving his child and its mother. In fear of this, women strive to become financially independent before entering into a marriage in case one of these situations occur. However, the paid labor force does not provide enough income for many of these mothers to reach economic stability. As far as childbearing, many poor mothers see it as a saving grace. They feel that having a child saved them from perpetuating a life of drugs, crime, and other misbehavior. It gives them a sense of responsibility and also provides an emotional relationship-someone to care for. Edin and Kefalas believe that poor women need to have easier access to higher paying jobs that will allow them to achieve economic stability and independence in order for them to escape poverty. If they achieve economic independence, they will be more prone to enter into marriages, which is proven to help ease the effects of poverty. Also, as the poor become more economically mobile, they increase their chances of marrying men of a higher economic class. I definitely agree that higher incomes need to be available so the poor can become financially independent. However, I do believe that schooling is directly linked to this, so we need to do something to keep the poverty-stricken in school. Cutting down on crime and drugs in poor neighborhoods will also have beneficial results to relieving poverty.
The first stage in the development of the intensive mothering model is the change from looking down upon children as demonic and burdensome to viewing them as innocent and deserving of good care. In Europe during the Middle Ages, children were viewed very differently than how Americans view them today. They were seen as demonic, often depicting them as "sucking the lifeblood out of the mother." Many believed children would harm themselves and others, and so dressed them in tight clothing to prevent this. Although they believed that the children needed a lot of care in order to remain healthy, it was viewed as very time-consuming and burdensome, and was often passed on to someone else of a lesser social status. Many families sent their children away to be taken care of by wet nurses where the child often died of illness, starvation, or never returned to the family. Children were often seen as worthless until adulthood where they could perform tasks to support the family or marry into a higher social rank. By the way parents treated their children, it seems as though they felt no affection; however, many sociologists argue that there were feelings of affection but it was the cultural norm not to express them.
During the 17th and 18th centuries a change took place first among the bourgeoisie and then the aristocracy. The view of children as "innocent" replaced the belief that children were harmful and demonic. From this new idea of children being innocent came the need to protect them from the outside world. Here began a somewhat dramatic change in the rearing of children. Mothers began breastfeeding their own children, making toys for them, and giving them special clothing instead of swaddling clothes. As the children got older, many were kept at home instead of sending them off to work as an apprentice in order to keep them sheltered from the corrupt ways of the outside world. The philosophers of the time, namely Locke and Rousseau, greatly influenced the change in childrearing. They emphasized the need for parental love, protection and affection, and education and nurturing. Although changes in childrearing could be seen, they only occurred in a small percentage of the upper middle and aristocratic classes.
The next stage in childrearing was seen in New England Puritan practices. This stage consisted of the idea that children needed to be "redeemed" for their sinfull self-will through strict discipline and physical punishment. Children were flogged and physically disciplined, but also instructed religiously and forced to work. All of this discipline was used to make the children devoutly religious according to their Puritan views and equally important, an economic asset for the family and community. Children were punished for being lazy or idle. The guidelines for childrearing mainly came from the Bible. Similar to the previous stage, fathers were targeted more than mothers because females were seen as weak, indulgent, and excessively affectionate. The Puritans believed strongly in strict, firm, patriarchal control over the children and the family as a whole. The central objective of childbearing and rearing was to create more labor to help support the family economy. The job of the parents was not to nurture the children, but rather oversee that they were devoted workers and obedient religious believers.
The most dramatic changes in the four stages occurred in the third stage in the revolutionary period of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. During the war many women adopted the role of "republican mothers" taking responsibility for socializing the new republic's citizens and creating a virtuous population. These women worked hard to prove that they were not irrational, indulgent, and weak. As they began to be entrusted with managing the home while their husbands were working in industry or politics, the "cult of domesticity" arose, where women were the providers of protection, morality, and emotional support for the family. With the rise of these maternal roles, childbearing began to become synonymous with mothering. Mother-child relationships had more value. Children were no longer looked down upon as corrupt, rather they were seen as pure, innocent, and promising to make a more moral and kinder society in the future. In order to protect them from corruption, children were no longer sent out into the workforce at young ages. Instead, they were kept within the protection of the home, educated, and nurtured by their mothers. There they were supposed to develop a sound, moral conscience, which depended heavily on the maternal relationship. Instead of physical punishment, children were disciplined through teaching of morality and building a moral conscience. Much of this was done through modeling the children after their mothers, so mothers had to be aware of their morality and virtue. Affection was no longer seen as overindulgence, rather it was necessary in order to form a moral, well-rounded child.
The final stage of development in the intensive mothering model began in the late 19th century. The fear of children made a return, however, not the view of demonic children. Instead, people believed children were full of dangerous impulses that characterized them as children. Because of this, emphasis was placed on the parents overcoming these impulses by adhering to the scientific research of experts. Some of the techniques that were advised by experts include strict scheduling (eating), regularity, behavior modification, and detached handling. When a child cried, mothers were no longer taught to provide affection, rather they were advised to let the child cry so they learn that they can't always get what they want. Women were no longer seen as naturally adept to childrearing but were expected to be scientifically trained in childrearing. After WWII women increasingly joined the workforce leaving little time for nurturing and childrearing creating a problem for the intensive mothering model. Many attempts were unsuccessfully made, for example the introduction of the "feminine mystique," to make mothers return to the home. Although women still remain in the workforce, many argue that the instensive mothering model still remains intact.
I do believe that my mother and many of my friends' mothers follow the intensive mothering model. Although many moms participate in the workplace, most take leave during the first few years of their child's life so they can nurture and provide affection and guidance for the children. Moms today increasingly rely on expert scientific advice as to how to best develop their children's cognition and foster healthy emotional well-being. My mom personally stayed home the first 6 years of my life raising me and my three older brothers.
Ann Crittenden's article discussing the devaluing of mothering. The article makes it clear that American society does value mothering. Many people consider raising children the most important job in the world. The article also shows the economic advantages produced by mothering. Two thirds of all wealth are created by human capital, which results from the effective childrearing in most cases done by mothers. Although America clearly values the role mothers play, business, government, and laws do not support these proclaimed values. Mothers are increasingly punished for staying at home and encouraged to abandon the tasks that everyone seems to deem absolutely essential. Crittendon provides many indicators of this contradiction. First, many workplaces guarantee that women will have to severely cut back on work and often quit once they have children, decreasing their income tremendously. Second, in 47 out of 50 states women's unpaid work does not qualify them for any ownership of the primary paid workers' income. Also, federal social policies don't consider unpaid care of dependent family members as work, so many stay at home mothers are not qualified for social insurance programs such as Social Security. All of these factors work to penalize anyone that forgoes the workplace in order to stay at home and take care of the family. I agree with Crittenden that there is a stark contradiction. I do believe that our society internally values motherhood and childrearing. I also believe that society externally has a problem promoting and supporting this internal valuing. I don't think it is because people have placed less importance on mothering. I think the economic and political conditions of the time have given way to programs and legislation that ends up penalizing mothers.
Collins' article focuses on African-American motherhood. The African-American community heavily values women when it comes to mothering and taking care of the family. It doesn't always have to be the biological mother that provides care. In many cases, mothers turn to their mothers, sisters, cousins, or even neighbors to help care for their children. Women-centered networks account for the care of children in African-American communities. Two types of mothering include care by bloodmothers and care by othermothers. Care by bloodmothers consists of the actual biological mother providing the majority of care for her children. Care by bloodmothers is expected, but African-American communities have begun to recognize that giving full responsibility for childcare to one person may not be smart or possible. As a result, care by othermothers has risen. Here, other females, called "othermothers," aid the bloodmother in caring for her children. Othermothers can take in children born into severe poverty, abusive families, drug-addicted mothers, or just bloodmothers that lack the skills and preparation to properly care for their children. A community-based child care network often arises where the women of the community reciprocally care for one anothers children, helping to foster morality and character among them and the entire community. Collins relates these two types of mothering to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power." Many people, both black and white, view African-American mothers as strong and powerful for overcoming race, class, gender, etc. adversities. Black women's involvement in the community-based child care network often leads to political activism and becomes an important basis for power among the African-American society. They have a sense of power in raising the children of the community to become upstanding citizens that can revitalize struggling neighborhoods.
The final article gives personal accounts the reveal poor women's views on and experiences with marriage and childbearing. The article focuses on one woman, Jen, but says that her experiences were very common among all 161 other women that were interviewed. None of these women had a desire to avoid marriage. Many poor women want to marry, but they view divorce as worse than having a child out of wedlock, so they wait years before they get married, and their relationships often end before they feel they're stable enough to get married. Also, many poor women feel they need to be economically independent before they can enter in a marriage. In poor neighborhoods, drugs, crime, and poverty can often lead to a father getting carted off to prison, killed, or simply leaving his child and its mother. In fear of this, women strive to become financially independent before entering into a marriage in case one of these situations occur. However, the paid labor force does not provide enough income for many of these mothers to reach economic stability. As far as childbearing, many poor mothers see it as a saving grace. They feel that having a child saved them from perpetuating a life of drugs, crime, and other misbehavior. It gives them a sense of responsibility and also provides an emotional relationship-someone to care for. Edin and Kefalas believe that poor women need to have easier access to higher paying jobs that will allow them to achieve economic stability and independence in order for them to escape poverty. If they achieve economic independence, they will be more prone to enter into marriages, which is proven to help ease the effects of poverty. Also, as the poor become more economically mobile, they increase their chances of marrying men of a higher economic class. I definitely agree that higher incomes need to be available so the poor can become financially independent. However, I do believe that schooling is directly linked to this, so we need to do something to keep the poverty-stricken in school. Cutting down on crime and drugs in poor neighborhoods will also have beneficial results to relieving poverty.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Child birth and rearing
In Hafner-Eaton and Pearce's article they discuss different types of infant delivery, mainly by midwife or physician. They offer a few reasons for why many people prefer delivering their baby at home with the assistance of a midwife rather than in a hospital with a physician's assistance. In general, studies show that planned home deliveries have lower intervention rates, lower complication rates, and lower morbidity and mortality rates than hospital births. Some people argue that midwives do more than simply deliver babies, that they "teach women how to give birth" and care for the mental, emotional and physical well-being of the mother and child. Also, since midwives consider giving birth a normal occurence, they avoid medical interventions like cesarean sections and lithotomy position, which they see as abnormal and that often lead to the necessity of other interventions. Midwives embody a wealth of knowledge about delivery and the female body through experience. They reduce anxiety and build trust between themselves and the client. Many women find midwifery appealing due to their increased control over their bodies during delivery and the low-anxiety and low-intervention environment. Seeing as though I have not yet experienced childbirth, I remain slightly uninformed and indifferent as to which setting is best for childbirth. The more personal and comfortable environment and lower rates of mortality and intervention are appealing in midwifery. I could see how being in your own home with your family and a very experienced midwife would make for an easier, more relaxed delivery. On the other hand, should the need arise for medical intervention, a hospital accompanied by many physicians and sophisticated technology seems appealing.
Lawrence Friedman's article discusses the change in legal ties between parents and their children over time. Overall, Friedman claims that the legal ties parents have over their children have become less over the years and that parental authority has decreased. Society has begun to grant children more and more rights. The state has garnered more power in being able to take a child away from an abusive or bad family and place it with a good family and by dictating what the child learns in school. Friedman, however, maintains that parents still have a very strong influence on their kids, however.
Historically, adoption took place in order to keep the family name going or to provide an heir to a family's property and wealth. In the colonial period the United States didn't acknowledge adoption formally, however, many states passed legislature that allowed the practice of adoption without actually using the term "adoption." Many countries, however, accepted no form of adoption holding that the bloodline was crucial. In many of the states, adoption laws made adoption similar to writing a deed for selling real estate. As time went on a more modern adoption law required court hearings where a judge would decide whether or not the parents were suitable and if the child would benefit from the family. As a result of the initial purpose of adoption having to do with inheritance and continuing the family name, many states provided laws that allowed the adopted child to inherit from the adoptive parents. Some states also allowed the child to inherit from his/her natural relatives. Another common purpose for adoption historically was to assimilate other "primitive" cultures into the white culture. Many Native Americans, African Americans and other ethnic children were kidnapped and placed in white families. As society began to realize the effect this had on diversity and how unfair it was to put an end to certain cultures, some laws were established to prevent transracial adoptions.
In her article, Sharon Hays discusses welfare reform, from both a liberal and conservative perspective. Conservative critics of welfare believe that the old system of welfare perpetuated poverty and even caused it to increase due to it promoting laziness, dependency, and allowing for dysfunctional families. The conservatives focus more on the moral implications that the old welfare system had on the poor and the entire society. On the other hand, liberal critics of the old welfare system focus more on economics. Rather than believing that the poor values of the welfare recipients perpetuated and increased poverty, liberals believe that the recipients weren't receiving enough financial support to allow them to escape economic hardship. In 1996 legislation was passed that renamed welfare as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Unlike the old welfare system that was heavily criticized, TANF does not offer welfare to mothers that are not in the paid labor force. Once the woman enters the welfare office, she must be finding a job, training for a job, or working a job. Also, after five years welfare recipients are expected to be self-sufficient enough to not need welfare anymore. Regardless of their economic status after five years, even if they are still desperately poor, they are no longer eligible for welfare for the rest of their lives.
The changes enacted by welfare reform reveal dramatic changes in our society's values. The work requirements clearly show how important work is to our society, after all we do strive to obtain the "American Dream." More importantly, by forcing mothers into the workplace, it is clear that our society no longer values the traditional familial roles of a male breadwinner and a female domestic caretaker of the family and its emotional well-being. Classical liberal individualistic values seem to have taken over after the welfare reform of 1996. Women are now expected to abandon her domestic duties within the family to enter the workplace as equals to men. They are no longer expected to rely solely on their husbands incomes, rather they are expected to support themselves and their children on their own incomes. While this new role of individualistic women in the workforce is promoted by many, those same people lament the decline of the family presenting a clear contradiction that reveals the pros and cons of the welfare reform. There are two distinct and contradictory visions that Hays calls the Work Plan and the Family Plan. The Work Plan uses work requirements to rehabilitate mothers and turn them into individualistic, self-reliant workers. The Family plan, however, punishes women for not getting and remaining married, implying that women should rely on their husbands for financial stability while they tend to the children and the home. While many critics of the old welfare system emphasize the necessity of women entering the workforce and becoming self-reliant and individualistic, at the same time those people lament the toll this growing individualism and de-domestication of woman takes on the family. The two contradictory visions reveal the stuggle of our society in deciding between many dichotomous sets of values-whether women should be self-reliant workers or reliant caregivers, of independence and of community, etc. The different arguments in welfare reform shows that our society hasn't decisively chosen which values lead to the best path.
The article about poverty reveals a stark difference between how the U.S. views poverty and how other countries do. According to the article, countries like Norway view poverty as a result of economic and structural factors that can be combatted by government aid, whereas, the United States views poverty as a result of bad, immoral behavior and laziness. The U.S' view of the causes of poverty acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy because by assuming that poverty is caused by bad behavior and laziness influences the enactment of welfare reform that requires work in order to prevent laziness. Often times needy families do not receive enough assistance under this type of welfare system, and out of desperation have to act immorally in order to sustain themselves and their families.
The main reason that the American Dream is no longer as attainable is due to the increasing prices of health care, higher education, higher quality child-care, and housing. While the prices for these indespensable services are increasing, wages and rates of inflation are not increasing in a proportionate rate, preventing the poor from attaining the American Dream. In order to make the American Dream more accessible, the authors argue that compassion needs to replace the war on bad behavior and that government programs and a higher minimum wage needs to be introduced in order to provide the poor with those necessary services that have increasingly become too expensive for them to afford.
The last article cites France and other European countries as examples that could help the U.S. improve its child care system. The system needs to become publicly funded and universally accessible to all, not just to the affluent and the poor. The programs should last a full day allowing parents the time to work. The child-care workers should be trained teachers that receive the same pay as a public school teacher in order to provide better quality child care. Rather than emphasizing maternal care and nurturing, child-care programs, like in France, should be sources of early education. Although systems like these that are in place in France and other European countries are expensive, in the long term they are worth it because they will prevent costly problems along the course of the child's lifetime such as crime, teenage pregnancy and delinquency.
Lawrence Friedman's article discusses the change in legal ties between parents and their children over time. Overall, Friedman claims that the legal ties parents have over their children have become less over the years and that parental authority has decreased. Society has begun to grant children more and more rights. The state has garnered more power in being able to take a child away from an abusive or bad family and place it with a good family and by dictating what the child learns in school. Friedman, however, maintains that parents still have a very strong influence on their kids, however.
Historically, adoption took place in order to keep the family name going or to provide an heir to a family's property and wealth. In the colonial period the United States didn't acknowledge adoption formally, however, many states passed legislature that allowed the practice of adoption without actually using the term "adoption." Many countries, however, accepted no form of adoption holding that the bloodline was crucial. In many of the states, adoption laws made adoption similar to writing a deed for selling real estate. As time went on a more modern adoption law required court hearings where a judge would decide whether or not the parents were suitable and if the child would benefit from the family. As a result of the initial purpose of adoption having to do with inheritance and continuing the family name, many states provided laws that allowed the adopted child to inherit from the adoptive parents. Some states also allowed the child to inherit from his/her natural relatives. Another common purpose for adoption historically was to assimilate other "primitive" cultures into the white culture. Many Native Americans, African Americans and other ethnic children were kidnapped and placed in white families. As society began to realize the effect this had on diversity and how unfair it was to put an end to certain cultures, some laws were established to prevent transracial adoptions.
In her article, Sharon Hays discusses welfare reform, from both a liberal and conservative perspective. Conservative critics of welfare believe that the old system of welfare perpetuated poverty and even caused it to increase due to it promoting laziness, dependency, and allowing for dysfunctional families. The conservatives focus more on the moral implications that the old welfare system had on the poor and the entire society. On the other hand, liberal critics of the old welfare system focus more on economics. Rather than believing that the poor values of the welfare recipients perpetuated and increased poverty, liberals believe that the recipients weren't receiving enough financial support to allow them to escape economic hardship. In 1996 legislation was passed that renamed welfare as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Unlike the old welfare system that was heavily criticized, TANF does not offer welfare to mothers that are not in the paid labor force. Once the woman enters the welfare office, she must be finding a job, training for a job, or working a job. Also, after five years welfare recipients are expected to be self-sufficient enough to not need welfare anymore. Regardless of their economic status after five years, even if they are still desperately poor, they are no longer eligible for welfare for the rest of their lives.
The changes enacted by welfare reform reveal dramatic changes in our society's values. The work requirements clearly show how important work is to our society, after all we do strive to obtain the "American Dream." More importantly, by forcing mothers into the workplace, it is clear that our society no longer values the traditional familial roles of a male breadwinner and a female domestic caretaker of the family and its emotional well-being. Classical liberal individualistic values seem to have taken over after the welfare reform of 1996. Women are now expected to abandon her domestic duties within the family to enter the workplace as equals to men. They are no longer expected to rely solely on their husbands incomes, rather they are expected to support themselves and their children on their own incomes. While this new role of individualistic women in the workforce is promoted by many, those same people lament the decline of the family presenting a clear contradiction that reveals the pros and cons of the welfare reform. There are two distinct and contradictory visions that Hays calls the Work Plan and the Family Plan. The Work Plan uses work requirements to rehabilitate mothers and turn them into individualistic, self-reliant workers. The Family plan, however, punishes women for not getting and remaining married, implying that women should rely on their husbands for financial stability while they tend to the children and the home. While many critics of the old welfare system emphasize the necessity of women entering the workforce and becoming self-reliant and individualistic, at the same time those people lament the toll this growing individualism and de-domestication of woman takes on the family. The two contradictory visions reveal the stuggle of our society in deciding between many dichotomous sets of values-whether women should be self-reliant workers or reliant caregivers, of independence and of community, etc. The different arguments in welfare reform shows that our society hasn't decisively chosen which values lead to the best path.
The article about poverty reveals a stark difference between how the U.S. views poverty and how other countries do. According to the article, countries like Norway view poverty as a result of economic and structural factors that can be combatted by government aid, whereas, the United States views poverty as a result of bad, immoral behavior and laziness. The U.S' view of the causes of poverty acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy because by assuming that poverty is caused by bad behavior and laziness influences the enactment of welfare reform that requires work in order to prevent laziness. Often times needy families do not receive enough assistance under this type of welfare system, and out of desperation have to act immorally in order to sustain themselves and their families.
The main reason that the American Dream is no longer as attainable is due to the increasing prices of health care, higher education, higher quality child-care, and housing. While the prices for these indespensable services are increasing, wages and rates of inflation are not increasing in a proportionate rate, preventing the poor from attaining the American Dream. In order to make the American Dream more accessible, the authors argue that compassion needs to replace the war on bad behavior and that government programs and a higher minimum wage needs to be introduced in order to provide the poor with those necessary services that have increasingly become too expensive for them to afford.
The last article cites France and other European countries as examples that could help the U.S. improve its child care system. The system needs to become publicly funded and universally accessible to all, not just to the affluent and the poor. The programs should last a full day allowing parents the time to work. The child-care workers should be trained teachers that receive the same pay as a public school teacher in order to provide better quality child care. Rather than emphasizing maternal care and nurturing, child-care programs, like in France, should be sources of early education. Although systems like these that are in place in France and other European countries are expensive, in the long term they are worth it because they will prevent costly problems along the course of the child's lifetime such as crime, teenage pregnancy and delinquency.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Domestic Violence
In his article Richard Felson discusses the issue of violence against women. Most people associate violence against women with sexism, accusing the male aggressor of being a misogynist trying to assert his dominance over a woman, what Felson refers to as the gender perpspective. Although this is the common conception of domestic violence, researchers have begun to challenge it taking a new perspective, the violence perspective. These researchers claim that men guilty of violence against women don't do it out of sexist motives, rather they commit crimes simply because they are violent, bad people. In the article, Felson defends the violence perspective. He argues that females are just as likely to physically abuse their husbands as men are to hitting their wives. People tend to focus on males hitting women because they tend to do more physical damage to a woman because of the size and strength differences. Further, he argues that men don't have motives of dominating their wives. Felson cites a survey taken by 10,000 married persons that discusses the issue of control. The survery shows the men are equally or even less controlling than their wives. In regard to cases of rape, it is hard to determine a clear motivation of most rapes, but many researchers believe sex offenders rape out of a desire for sex, not in order to feel empowered and dominant over their helpless victims. After reading the article, I tend to agree with the violence perspective. Many men that are violent towards women commit other crimes towards other people. I believe that they simply are violent people, and often times their victims happen to be women because of the difference in size and strength.
In her article "Why Doesn't She Leave?" Ann Jones takes a passionate stab at the criminal justice system and many "professionals" that spend tons of money uselessly doing research in the wrong way and on the wrong things. Jones' answer to the question in the title of her article is that often times she does physically leave, but can never really escape her abusive husband because of the flaws in the criminal justice system and the general population's tendency to blame the victim. The story of Jensen's news special summarizes the problem that Jones' seeks to address in her article. Despite reports of how Karen Straw actually did leave her husband but still fell victim to his attack in her new home, the newsanchor and many other viewers still jump straight to the question "why didn't she leave?" Jones attributes this to the American society's tendency for victim blaming. Instead of researching the violence and aggression of males, millions of dollars of research money are uselessly poured into investigating the characteristics of the victims, concluding that it was something they did that caused the abuse. I agree with Jones that our society often tends to blame the victims, and that it doesn't do anything to help solve the problem. I think it's very hard for someone who has not experienced the fear involved in such cases of abuse to grasp what it is like, so they simply revert to the question "why didn't she leave?" as the easy way out. The criminal justice system has clearly failed miserably in working to solve such a problem. In order to divert attention from our society's flaws, I think people are quick to put the blame on the victims of abuse making the argument that there are no policies that can stop the problem if it is caused by something the women are doing.
James Ptacek's article does just what Ann Jones argued should be done: it researches why male aggressors commit acts of domestic violence. The article reveals explanations for violence against women through interviews with offenders that have sought counseling. The batterers use two types of explanations, excuses, which deny responsibility for their actions, and justifications, which claim some responsibility but try to rationalize what they did. In using the two, many of the men appear to contradict themselves. One of the most common excuses used by the men to deny responsibility was that they had lost self-control, usually due to drugs or alcohol and built up frustration. The second most common excuse, mentioned in Jones' article, is victim blaming. Although a few of the men claimed their abuse was provoked by aggressiveness on the woman's part, almost half of the sample of men said that their violence was in response to verbal aggression on behalf of the woman. They seem to believe that a woman's verbal aggression warrants physical aggression on the man's part in order to defend himself. The first category of justification is denial of injury. Some justify their violence saying their actions weren't actually violent. One man replaced the word violent with "physical." Others say that the women exaggerate their fear and injuries saying that they feared for their lives when the man himself claims he had no intentions of killing. Another justification for the seemingly serious bruises is that women bruise so easily even when they aren't hit that hard. The second category of justifications that is discussed is the man's claim that the woman has failed to fulfill the obligations of being a good wife. This could range from her being unfaithful to not cooking enough of the right things. Many of these men feel that did nothing wrong, that their wives deserved to be punished for not being a good wife. An incredible sense of male entitlement, that men deserve their wives to treat them and provide for them in a certain way, is contained in this justification that many researchers believe is accepted in our modern culture.
By trying to save-face at all costs, many of the men employed both excuses and justifications, which actually led to inconsistency and contradiction among their explanations. Many of the men that used the excuse of the loss of self-control later talked about in their accounts how they wanted to scare their wives and punish them and teach them a lesson for doing certain things wrong. They claim the violence resulted from a lack of self control yet their testimonies show deliberate acts of violence in order to achieve a goal. Not only do many of the testimonies show inconsistencies and contradictions, but some are also false or irrational. Many men blamed alcohol or drug use for losing self-control, however, tests and studies show that drunken behavior is more learned than chemically induced.
People who adopt the gender perspective would have a field day with the two categories of justifications. Both of them involve large amounts of male arrogance and entitlement. Many of the men that employed the tactics of the first category felt that they were justified in responding violently to their wives' provocations, which implies that there is a certain "correct" way that a woman is allowed to address her husband. The second category implies a sense that men should be treated in a certain way by their wives, and if they fail to do so appropriately and to the man's liking, the woman deserves to be punished. The gender perspective proponents would use this to justify their belief that acts of domestic violence are fueled by misogynistic intents.
In her article "Why Doesn't She Leave?" Ann Jones takes a passionate stab at the criminal justice system and many "professionals" that spend tons of money uselessly doing research in the wrong way and on the wrong things. Jones' answer to the question in the title of her article is that often times she does physically leave, but can never really escape her abusive husband because of the flaws in the criminal justice system and the general population's tendency to blame the victim. The story of Jensen's news special summarizes the problem that Jones' seeks to address in her article. Despite reports of how Karen Straw actually did leave her husband but still fell victim to his attack in her new home, the newsanchor and many other viewers still jump straight to the question "why didn't she leave?" Jones attributes this to the American society's tendency for victim blaming. Instead of researching the violence and aggression of males, millions of dollars of research money are uselessly poured into investigating the characteristics of the victims, concluding that it was something they did that caused the abuse. I agree with Jones that our society often tends to blame the victims, and that it doesn't do anything to help solve the problem. I think it's very hard for someone who has not experienced the fear involved in such cases of abuse to grasp what it is like, so they simply revert to the question "why didn't she leave?" as the easy way out. The criminal justice system has clearly failed miserably in working to solve such a problem. In order to divert attention from our society's flaws, I think people are quick to put the blame on the victims of abuse making the argument that there are no policies that can stop the problem if it is caused by something the women are doing.
James Ptacek's article does just what Ann Jones argued should be done: it researches why male aggressors commit acts of domestic violence. The article reveals explanations for violence against women through interviews with offenders that have sought counseling. The batterers use two types of explanations, excuses, which deny responsibility for their actions, and justifications, which claim some responsibility but try to rationalize what they did. In using the two, many of the men appear to contradict themselves. One of the most common excuses used by the men to deny responsibility was that they had lost self-control, usually due to drugs or alcohol and built up frustration. The second most common excuse, mentioned in Jones' article, is victim blaming. Although a few of the men claimed their abuse was provoked by aggressiveness on the woman's part, almost half of the sample of men said that their violence was in response to verbal aggression on behalf of the woman. They seem to believe that a woman's verbal aggression warrants physical aggression on the man's part in order to defend himself. The first category of justification is denial of injury. Some justify their violence saying their actions weren't actually violent. One man replaced the word violent with "physical." Others say that the women exaggerate their fear and injuries saying that they feared for their lives when the man himself claims he had no intentions of killing. Another justification for the seemingly serious bruises is that women bruise so easily even when they aren't hit that hard. The second category of justifications that is discussed is the man's claim that the woman has failed to fulfill the obligations of being a good wife. This could range from her being unfaithful to not cooking enough of the right things. Many of these men feel that did nothing wrong, that their wives deserved to be punished for not being a good wife. An incredible sense of male entitlement, that men deserve their wives to treat them and provide for them in a certain way, is contained in this justification that many researchers believe is accepted in our modern culture.
By trying to save-face at all costs, many of the men employed both excuses and justifications, which actually led to inconsistency and contradiction among their explanations. Many of the men that used the excuse of the loss of self-control later talked about in their accounts how they wanted to scare their wives and punish them and teach them a lesson for doing certain things wrong. They claim the violence resulted from a lack of self control yet their testimonies show deliberate acts of violence in order to achieve a goal. Not only do many of the testimonies show inconsistencies and contradictions, but some are also false or irrational. Many men blamed alcohol or drug use for losing self-control, however, tests and studies show that drunken behavior is more learned than chemically induced.
People who adopt the gender perspective would have a field day with the two categories of justifications. Both of them involve large amounts of male arrogance and entitlement. Many of the men that employed the tactics of the first category felt that they were justified in responding violently to their wives' provocations, which implies that there is a certain "correct" way that a woman is allowed to address her husband. The second category implies a sense that men should be treated in a certain way by their wives, and if they fail to do so appropriately and to the man's liking, the woman deserves to be punished. The gender perspective proponents would use this to justify their belief that acts of domestic violence are fueled by misogynistic intents.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Marriage and Cohabitation
Many sociologists refer to marriage as an institution. By this they mean that marriage is a well-established pattern of behavior that forms a fundamental part of our culture and is backed up by laws, customs, and social expectations. Sociologists have recently been discussing the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage in America. Stephanie Coontz points to the increase in divorce, single-parent families, and unwed motherhood as indicators of this deinstitutionalization of the family. Coontz also places emphasis in women's rise in the workforce. She supports the idea that the availability of economic self-sufficiency for women through the workforce makes marriage less imperative and appealing. She also believes that marriage has become less indispensable for males as well, with the rise of products and services that can take the place of a wife in fulfilling household tasks. These changes in our culture make the reinstitutionalization of marriage difficult unless the government institutes laws to make divorce harder and allow job-discrimination in the workforce, which Coontz does not support in the least bit. She writes, "Divorce rates are the products of long-term social and economic changes, not of a breakdown in values," making it very difficult to reverse historical changes and reinstitutionalize marriage.
In Harris' article, she uses research conducted by two sociologists to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. In general, based on the studies of sociologist Linda Waite, Harris argues that married people are healthier, wealthier, have better sex, and are better parents than unmarried people. The first benefit cited regards the division of labor and specialization allowed by marriage. Harris argues that this allows both members of the marriage to accomplish more. Married men statistically are in better health than unmarried men. Although marriage has less of an effect on women's health, it does provide better financial situations and the availability of better health care. Both married men and women seem to be mentally healthier and happier than single people. When it comes to the financial benefits and disadvantages of marriage, they affect the genders differently. Married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than single men. Childless wives benefit more financially than child-bearing mothers. Mothers tend to stay home for child-rearing and earn less money in the work force, but if they remained married they tend to become more affluent than single women.
In Gerstel and Sarkisian's article, the benefits of marriage are considered, but the focus of the article is a critique of marriage. They argue that marriage takes away from community and social connections. Surveys show that married men and women have less ties to their kin than unmarried people. Married couples also detach themselves from neighbors and the surrounding community, more with childless men and women, though. Gerstel and Sarskisian attribute the isolation of married couples from their relatives and community to the greediness of marriage. Marriage requires a lot of time, emotion, and energy from both the woman and the man. Arguments are also made against the beneficial claims made by Linda Waite. They find that women's finances decrease with marriage and the onset of domestic work. Domestic violence and isolation increase in unhappy marriages. Critics also argue that only marriages with low levels of hostility reap any health benefits.
In Brown's article, she discusses the rise of cohabitation in America. The primary reason for cohabitation is to test out a relationship to see if it can withstand a successful, happy marriage. Many people also cohabit rather than marry due to a lack in income. Studies show that as the man becomes more educated and earns more money, the more likely a marriage will ensue out of cohabitation. Others cohabit due to a disinterest in the institution of marriage. Many that have previously married cohabitate after their marriage ends because they are wary about marriage after a failed attempt. Whatever the reason for cohabitation, the well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than that of married couples. They report more psychological distress, more conflict in their unions, and less economic well-being. Children living with cohabiting parents also exhibit lower levels of well-being. The growing acception of cohabition is one of the factors leading to the decline of marriage.
Many critics of the findings on the benefits and disadvantages of marriage claim the statistics are affected by selection. Namely, they argue that marriage and cohabitation don't actually give way to the benefits, rather people that already have the economic stability, emotional and physical health are more likely to get married. I believe this is a valid argument. Like Brown said in her article, many people cohabit and remain unmarried until they amount enough economic stability to enter into a marriage. I don't disagree, however, that once in a marriage, economic status and health remain stable or even increase. There must be a certain level of economic stability and good health and emotion in order for people to get married, making a valid argument that the research cited in the articles are subject to selection.
In Harris' article, she uses research conducted by two sociologists to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. In general, based on the studies of sociologist Linda Waite, Harris argues that married people are healthier, wealthier, have better sex, and are better parents than unmarried people. The first benefit cited regards the division of labor and specialization allowed by marriage. Harris argues that this allows both members of the marriage to accomplish more. Married men statistically are in better health than unmarried men. Although marriage has less of an effect on women's health, it does provide better financial situations and the availability of better health care. Both married men and women seem to be mentally healthier and happier than single people. When it comes to the financial benefits and disadvantages of marriage, they affect the genders differently. Married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than single men. Childless wives benefit more financially than child-bearing mothers. Mothers tend to stay home for child-rearing and earn less money in the work force, but if they remained married they tend to become more affluent than single women.
In Gerstel and Sarkisian's article, the benefits of marriage are considered, but the focus of the article is a critique of marriage. They argue that marriage takes away from community and social connections. Surveys show that married men and women have less ties to their kin than unmarried people. Married couples also detach themselves from neighbors and the surrounding community, more with childless men and women, though. Gerstel and Sarskisian attribute the isolation of married couples from their relatives and community to the greediness of marriage. Marriage requires a lot of time, emotion, and energy from both the woman and the man. Arguments are also made against the beneficial claims made by Linda Waite. They find that women's finances decrease with marriage and the onset of domestic work. Domestic violence and isolation increase in unhappy marriages. Critics also argue that only marriages with low levels of hostility reap any health benefits.
In Brown's article, she discusses the rise of cohabitation in America. The primary reason for cohabitation is to test out a relationship to see if it can withstand a successful, happy marriage. Many people also cohabit rather than marry due to a lack in income. Studies show that as the man becomes more educated and earns more money, the more likely a marriage will ensue out of cohabitation. Others cohabit due to a disinterest in the institution of marriage. Many that have previously married cohabitate after their marriage ends because they are wary about marriage after a failed attempt. Whatever the reason for cohabitation, the well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than that of married couples. They report more psychological distress, more conflict in their unions, and less economic well-being. Children living with cohabiting parents also exhibit lower levels of well-being. The growing acception of cohabition is one of the factors leading to the decline of marriage.
Many critics of the findings on the benefits and disadvantages of marriage claim the statistics are affected by selection. Namely, they argue that marriage and cohabitation don't actually give way to the benefits, rather people that already have the economic stability, emotional and physical health are more likely to get married. I believe this is a valid argument. Like Brown said in her article, many people cohabit and remain unmarried until they amount enough economic stability to enter into a marriage. I don't disagree, however, that once in a marriage, economic status and health remain stable or even increase. There must be a certain level of economic stability and good health and emotion in order for people to get married, making a valid argument that the research cited in the articles are subject to selection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)