Children's play and and association is the main tool for gender distinction in middle childhood. Boys and girls play in separate same sex groups, and within those groups they cultivate certain gender characteristics. Within the boy groups it is common to engage in "exciting" rule breaking. They play usually revolves around sports, teams, rules and the excitement of "bad" behavior. Boys also congregate in large groups and are less touchy-feely. They use bad language more often than girls and risk getting punished more often than girls. Girls usually group themselves in pairs and define themselves by "friend", "nice", "not nice" and other such language. They play games that involve taking turns, take up less space and aren't as physical. their interactions are more personal (touching, cuddling, stroking hair) and their conversations are more personal and they express their feelings more. According to Thorne and LUria, it is also interesting to note that this segreagation along gender lines occurs more often when adults are not involved in the organization of the play. that is to say that the segregation happens voluntarily and naturally among the children.
The amount of housework done by shildren these days differs according to age and gender, and it is also influenced by the type of family they live in. For the most part the children do not have alot of responsibility around the house. It is said that they do about 15% of the housework. The most common jobs are washing dishes and cleaning the house. "Families with children ages four to six share tasks least of all," while, "families with teenage children share substantially more housework with their children than families with only preteens." It was also noted that once the "children" become adults s but still live in their paretn's home, they do less work than before. Boys mostly help with yard work and doing repairs while girls cook and clean. They are also disproportionately responsible for caring for smaller siblings when they are involved. In mother only failies kids share more overall and they shar e more in every single task. "They take nearly tiwce as much responsibility for household tasks." In stepparent families children seem to take a greater part in household chores than in nuvclear families. The contributions of sons seems to increase more. The daughters are more likely to help out with childcare than if they lived with both biological parents.
Chilrearing differs by race because black parents seem to have to worry about their children's public lives more for signs of racial problems. other than that the study showed that both parents in the middle class structured their child's lives in the same manner by concentrating on adult-organized activities, they both stressed reasoning in child-parent discussions. The situation between black and white working class and poor families was also similar. There were no real apparent differences between the way they raised their children. there were however differences between classes. Working class and poor children spent most of their time in informal play while the middle class children were involved in the adult-organized activities. slight differences between races were that black children in the middle class had slightly more activities. There was also a difference in the way that middle class parents interacted with their children. The middle class group involved their children's opiions in more of their conversations as a way to cultivate their reasoning skills. The working class and poor families were less likely to continue a conversation to find oaut their child's opinions, they would listen but would not elongate the situation. they are also less likely to actually start a conversation of this nature.
Signs that children are commercialized are everywhere. First graders are aware of about 200 brand names, "every half-second, somewhere in the world a Barbie is sold," McDonald's is a consumed at a huge percent with alot of it being the sale of happy meals, children ages four to 12 made $30 billion in sales in 2002, and ages 12 to 19 made $170 billion. The article also states that children are more attuned to actual brands. They ask for specific brands when they want something. The effects of commercialization are bad. The lives of children today are said to be more sped up, packed with tons of activities that they have to do, and they are less likely to be allowed to just be kids. There is more pressure, overload and less relax time. there are also huge problems with health. Children eat horrible junk foods that are advertised and the rate of youth obesity are rising. This also leads to weigt related problems like more diabetes and hypertension. There is also the adverse affect of eating disorders among children. Kids are said to be smoking, drinking and using drugs at an earlier age. There is also an increase in emotional and mental health problems. The "upsurge in materialistic values" is said to "undermine the well being" of kids and leads them to more depression, anxiety and worse overall health.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Fathering
Pleck begins by describing that the focus on the role of fathers has increased in the past decade and a half, and though on average fathers are performing more (helping with housework and caring for children), but the progress has been slow. In the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth centuries, Pleck describes the relationship between father and child as the most prominent. Though mothers did the care work, men were responsible for the moral quality of the children and they taught them everything. They counseled on all accounts, and the mother was often regarded to in very formal ways. The father was the principal overseer of the children, though he did not contribute to the housework or the actual child work, nonetheless after marital separation custody would go to the father. In the Nineteenth and Mid-Twentieth centuries, the focues shifted from the relationship between father and child to mother and child.Now the mothers were seen to be cultivating an emotional relationship with their chldren and they were responsible for the outcome of their children. They were more inclined to participate in the events of the children's adult lives as well. As a result, the role of the father declined. In this era, custody of the children after divorce would go to the mother. The father's direct involvement with the children declined because he actually had to leave the home to go to work. He was still the authority and the final moral teacher, but his relationship was more removed. Then Pleck describes the 1940-1965. During this time the focus of society was on the absence of the father, or their passivity while present. In this way people were interested in the effects of the absence of the father on the children. It was often considered to be linked with delinquency, which can refer back to the absence of the moral figure, as well as a loss of masculinity. They said it was difficult for the boys to develop a personal male identity without a present father. The father's role was supposed to be to indicate male and female roles. For this reason there was a greater call for father involvement. Presently the view of the father is that he is to be present at birth, involved in the entire life of the child, not just adulthood, he's involved in child work as well as play and equally involved with females as with males. This is Pleck's view of the father in the present time, but realistically the involvement of both parents, mother and father has declined. There is more focus on work and economic gain that has taken away a focus on the family and children. Men are working longer hours, and now even women are working very long hours. Though there might be more of an attempt to actually spend quality time with children, this time is so limited that how involved can each parent actually be?
Alternate-shift families are usually working class families, because working class jobs are usually shift based. Both parents work jobs (or shifts) and they usually can't afford an employed caretaker, so they alternate shifts. Another reason, other than the economical concern of child care, is that many families believe family is best suited to care for their children, and thus they opt out of hiring help, whether they can afford it or not. They fear any harm that can come to their children from child care, they want them to have their own values, not those of outsiders. The men of alternating shift families are resistent to change, but change nonetheless. They confess that their view of the male role (the father's limited involvement and less emotional relationship) is what they once harbored, but they learned to take on more of a "motherly" role. They not only do more housework and child care, but they also cultivate a closer relationship with their children. Also these men have agreed that they now respect the work that traditional mothers do much more than they used to. Within these families it is also common for the men to completely believe in the traditional breadwinner role of the man, but because they are physically incapapble of provided the traditional mother/housewife role for their wives, they have to contribute more in the housework. THus there is more division of labor.Personally I would not like to choose an alternating shift set up for my family because I do believe that it is very important to spend time with your spouse. It means nothing if you can actually raise your children without outside help if your marriage is falling apart. If I absolutely had to, which would only be if my parents were dead, I still wouldn't choose it because I am more inclined to have the middle class mentality that you can harvest your family morals on your children in the time they are not with the hired child care.
According to Roberts, there are several societal forces that contribute to the absent Black father. First off, some argue that the promise of welfare checks makes it more prominent for Black women to have children out of wedlock, and also the Black women's resistence to patriarchy. Also poverty does not make a favorable situation for a stable marriage, and women are less likely to marry a man if they are not in a good economic condition to do so. Another huge contributor is the joblessness that is rampant among Black males. There is also an increased incident of incarceration of Black males that inhibits a stable family setting and contributes to fatherlessness. Roberts says how many Black men stay very closely tied to their children even though they are not married to the mothers or unable to provide financial support. This goes in direct contradiction against the myth of the absent Black father which means that the father can not provide economic stability for their children or the mother of their children, and the term fatherlessness refers to fathers who are not married to the mother of their children, but that does not necessarily mean that they are not present in the lives of their children. Roberts sites Stephanie Coontz saying that "poor African-American, officially absent fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more informal support than did White, middle class absent fathers." The argument Roberts is making is that Black absent fathers are reportedly actually very good fathers, and can be used as an example of how to care for children, if you take away the common notion that the father is supposed to provide economically for his family.
Alternate-shift families are usually working class families, because working class jobs are usually shift based. Both parents work jobs (or shifts) and they usually can't afford an employed caretaker, so they alternate shifts. Another reason, other than the economical concern of child care, is that many families believe family is best suited to care for their children, and thus they opt out of hiring help, whether they can afford it or not. They fear any harm that can come to their children from child care, they want them to have their own values, not those of outsiders. The men of alternating shift families are resistent to change, but change nonetheless. They confess that their view of the male role (the father's limited involvement and less emotional relationship) is what they once harbored, but they learned to take on more of a "motherly" role. They not only do more housework and child care, but they also cultivate a closer relationship with their children. Also these men have agreed that they now respect the work that traditional mothers do much more than they used to. Within these families it is also common for the men to completely believe in the traditional breadwinner role of the man, but because they are physically incapapble of provided the traditional mother/housewife role for their wives, they have to contribute more in the housework. THus there is more division of labor.Personally I would not like to choose an alternating shift set up for my family because I do believe that it is very important to spend time with your spouse. It means nothing if you can actually raise your children without outside help if your marriage is falling apart. If I absolutely had to, which would only be if my parents were dead, I still wouldn't choose it because I am more inclined to have the middle class mentality that you can harvest your family morals on your children in the time they are not with the hired child care.
According to Roberts, there are several societal forces that contribute to the absent Black father. First off, some argue that the promise of welfare checks makes it more prominent for Black women to have children out of wedlock, and also the Black women's resistence to patriarchy. Also poverty does not make a favorable situation for a stable marriage, and women are less likely to marry a man if they are not in a good economic condition to do so. Another huge contributor is the joblessness that is rampant among Black males. There is also an increased incident of incarceration of Black males that inhibits a stable family setting and contributes to fatherlessness. Roberts says how many Black men stay very closely tied to their children even though they are not married to the mothers or unable to provide financial support. This goes in direct contradiction against the myth of the absent Black father which means that the father can not provide economic stability for their children or the mother of their children, and the term fatherlessness refers to fathers who are not married to the mother of their children, but that does not necessarily mean that they are not present in the lives of their children. Roberts sites Stephanie Coontz saying that "poor African-American, officially absent fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more informal support than did White, middle class absent fathers." The argument Roberts is making is that Black absent fathers are reportedly actually very good fathers, and can be used as an example of how to care for children, if you take away the common notion that the father is supposed to provide economically for his family.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
MOTHERING
Accroding to Hays the idea we hold today of mothering is not the same idea that has always been held. She begins by explaininng how the Europeans in the Middle Ages viewed their children as demonic and animals. This led to the ignoring and maltreatment towards the children of the Middle Ages. The children were not given nany special attention, they were not given special toys, they were not buried in small caskets, and they did not spend much time with their mothers or even families. There were often sent away to be cared for by others, and these others still did not treat them well. There were high rates of infant mortality. Finally at the age of about 6 they were considered to be fit to go out in the work field. They were sent to take apprenticeships so they could learn a skill and thus make money. These children were considered to deserve only as much attention as they would return wealth to the family in their later years. If the chld was a good prospect in society then the mother would apply more effort and attention in child rearing. THe second stage Hays mentions is in the sventeenth and eighteenth centuries among the upper and middle class. They began to adopt a view of children that was more endearing than the previously held view. The children were no longer animals that were lowly, but now there was a sense of value to childhood. Childhood had a sense of innocence that was to be respected and reared. The innocence was to be protected and thus the children were more sheltered from the outside world until a later age. There were physical punishments, but then at a certain age you would shift to a loving, friendship that taught them conscience. Children seemed to be taking a more important position in society. Locke and Rousseau were very important in this new image of childhood. But this was only among the upper classes, the lower classes still treated their children as animals. Next Hays mentions the Puritans of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. They had a very strong patriarch where the father was the shepherd and the mother was merely the sheep dog, the children were the sheep. This meant that children again were at the bottom of the pole. These children underwent physical abuse in order to purge the child of its "inherent evil" and then they were taught be good tools in the society. Children were not allowed to play or be idle. As soon as they were able to work they began to help in the family farm or family business. THis showed their function and self control. The Puritan belief was based on the Bible, and mothers were not to show affection or play witht their children because the father is the one who said the direction in which the flock went. The child was to be obedient and useful. Finally in the eighteenth and nineteenth century American families the ideology behind childrearing and mothers shifted. During the revolutionary years women were struggling to show that they had a place in society to raise good citizens, and so the women were the predominant caretakers of the children and they were also the beacon of morality. There were less children since the mother had to care for them and be a personal example. They were given much affection and instead of physical punishment, there was more psychological punishment as the loss of affection if the child got out of line. There were also less children because childrearing was more expensive because they had their own toys, books, and play areas. Children were cared for and considered innocent. They were sheltered from the real world for as long as possible. They were no longer a means of economic growth and the mother had to care for them all through school. There was a clear distinction between the realm of the family and that of the real world, and the children were to be kept safe from the real world. These ideals were also the most popular within the middle class american women. This idea of the mother caring for her children so intensively is what brought up the idea of intensive mothering. The mother was the sole person responsible for caring for the children and her realm was completely separate from the real world, or economic realm, and she was to give her affection and be a moral role model for her child. The idea of intensive mothering does apply to my mother and many of the mothers of my friends because they did not have jobs while we were young, and alltheir efforts went in to playing with us, teaching us and disciplining us. Our mothers are our moral role models, and most of our mothers never physically punished us. The only idea that might differ is that my father was also very active in my upbrining. It was a joint effort, though my mother was not a member of the economic world and my father was.
Crittendon discusses how mothering is devalued in our society. She calls on the fact that our society is an economic one and in an economic society mothering is considered detrimental to one's human capital, and mothers are considered to be in atrophy while child rearing. They are not working in the market place and so they are being lethargic. The society does not take into account the great amount of work and stress that goes into chldrearing, and moreover it is not even a paying job. MOthers care for their children for free. Also a married woman who does not work is not entitled to any of the income of her partner. A married mother is considered a dependent, and once divorced she is only given what the judge thinks she should get. The government does not even define unpaid care of the family dependents as work, thus not being considered as actual contributors to society. It is totally disregarded. She also mentions how any paid work that resembles caring for the family, such as teaching, is looked down upon by greater society. They don't think people should be paid to do this work, that shows how lowly they view it. I completely agree with Crittendon's argument. Mothers in this society are not given credit for the difficulty of their actual tasks. It is a full blown job, and includes extreme over-time hours, and yet this country totally dismisses it.
Patrici Hill Collins talks about the African American mother and their different ways of mothering. She discusses two types of mothering: blood mothers and other-mothers. Blood mothering refers to caring for your own children, but other-mothering comes from the idea that full responsibility of caring for a child on one person is too much, and so women of the community help care for other women's chldren. These other women can have children of their own, or they can be extended family members (both younger and older, like sisters or grandmothers) who do not have children of their own that they still need to care for. This is connected to "motherhood as a symbol of power" because In society Black society, women of power are those who have practiced community politics and community care, mostly involving othermothering. The more activist mothering or community othermothering, and bloodmothering, these women are involved in the more power they have within the eyes of their community and Black society. The role and practice of mothering is highly esteemed because the view of the strong Black woman comes in where she is molding the Blacks of the future. They serve to "uplift the race."
Edin's article shows the thoughts of unwed mothers on marriage and childrearing. Erin shows that these unwed women have not given up on the idea of marriage, it is just much more difficult for their "husbands" to afford marriage. They do not want to marry unless they are ready for the "white picket fence life". More often these women also want to be stable themselves before they marry someone else, mostly because they want to be economic equals in a relationship to guard themselves if anything goes wrong. Having a child for these women serves as a source of strength and good change, what Edin calls "a strong sense of sense of purpose and a profound sense of intimacy". As a society we can help stop such young pregnancies and poor unwed mothers by provided more resources for these women to have the opportunity to access jobs that lead to financial stability and independence. They would rather have a child out of wedlock than get divorced, and they will not marry because they do not think they are economically read to marry.
Crittendon discusses how mothering is devalued in our society. She calls on the fact that our society is an economic one and in an economic society mothering is considered detrimental to one's human capital, and mothers are considered to be in atrophy while child rearing. They are not working in the market place and so they are being lethargic. The society does not take into account the great amount of work and stress that goes into chldrearing, and moreover it is not even a paying job. MOthers care for their children for free. Also a married woman who does not work is not entitled to any of the income of her partner. A married mother is considered a dependent, and once divorced she is only given what the judge thinks she should get. The government does not even define unpaid care of the family dependents as work, thus not being considered as actual contributors to society. It is totally disregarded. She also mentions how any paid work that resembles caring for the family, such as teaching, is looked down upon by greater society. They don't think people should be paid to do this work, that shows how lowly they view it. I completely agree with Crittendon's argument. Mothers in this society are not given credit for the difficulty of their actual tasks. It is a full blown job, and includes extreme over-time hours, and yet this country totally dismisses it.
Patrici Hill Collins talks about the African American mother and their different ways of mothering. She discusses two types of mothering: blood mothers and other-mothers. Blood mothering refers to caring for your own children, but other-mothering comes from the idea that full responsibility of caring for a child on one person is too much, and so women of the community help care for other women's chldren. These other women can have children of their own, or they can be extended family members (both younger and older, like sisters or grandmothers) who do not have children of their own that they still need to care for. This is connected to "motherhood as a symbol of power" because In society Black society, women of power are those who have practiced community politics and community care, mostly involving othermothering. The more activist mothering or community othermothering, and bloodmothering, these women are involved in the more power they have within the eyes of their community and Black society. The role and practice of mothering is highly esteemed because the view of the strong Black woman comes in where she is molding the Blacks of the future. They serve to "uplift the race."
Edin's article shows the thoughts of unwed mothers on marriage and childrearing. Erin shows that these unwed women have not given up on the idea of marriage, it is just much more difficult for their "husbands" to afford marriage. They do not want to marry unless they are ready for the "white picket fence life". More often these women also want to be stable themselves before they marry someone else, mostly because they want to be economic equals in a relationship to guard themselves if anything goes wrong. Having a child for these women serves as a source of strength and good change, what Edin calls "a strong sense of sense of purpose and a profound sense of intimacy". As a society we can help stop such young pregnancies and poor unwed mothers by provided more resources for these women to have the opportunity to access jobs that lead to financial stability and independence. They would rather have a child out of wedlock than get divorced, and they will not marry because they do not think they are economically read to marry.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Childbirth and Children
In Hafner-Eaton and Pearce, the argument is made for women who choose to have what is now considered non-conventional child birth. This method, using midwives and having their children at home, have been the main form of child birth for thousands of years before obstetrician regulated births. More women are choosing to have these in home births with mid wives because the statistics show that there is a lower infant mortality and mother rate than with main stream births. Also there is less intervention with midwives than with obstetricians which can lead to complications. Even the beliefs that hospital births are the way it should be to prevent complications, studies show that they actually cause more complications and more pain. These are some of the reasons women choose mid wife births at home. I also believe that birth through mid wife is the way to go because they practice more of a natural birth process. God made the birth process a certain way, and allopathic physicians think that their way is a way to fix the natural way of birth, but in reality it is not fixing anything, it only complicates the situation.
Friedman's article shows how over time there has been a move to loosen legal ties between parents and children. In years past there was a long lasting control of parents over their children, even into adulthood, but now this tie is decreasing more and more. For instance, the idea of the father arranging marriages shows control over his child into adulthood, but this is not usually used in Western societies. Also the idea that the child then becomes caregiver to the elder parents is slowly declining. Friedman says that the state has begun to take the responsibility that were once considered to be the children's responsibilities. In effect parents and children (after a certain age) are having less ties. THere are also cases when children are still very young. In these the government steps in and takes the role of the parent in cases where they say that the parent is not capable of caring for their young children. In colonial times in the US there was little adoption taking place, though the term was known. It was not a legal situation, but then around the 1780s there were laws made about adoption, but these laws were usually to make illegitimate children legitimate and heirs or part heirs of family estates. But these laws were not specific only to illegitimate children, but also to any one they chose. THe process of adoption was also as easy as signing a paper. This process slowly became more intricate and detailed, involving court proceedings. Before the well being of the child was practically ignored and adoption was for heir purposes, but they shifted focus to child well being and thus made the process more difficult and intricate. This then evolved to the adoption process of today. But overall the purpose of adoption was for a family to have a bloodline to inherit their estate.
According to Hays, conservatives have a negative view on welfare because they view the recipients as "lazy, promiscuous, and pathologically dependent," and that the system only perpetuates this behavior because it condones it by provide aid to them instead of forcing them to change. They in turn also believe that the welfare system promotes poverty and also increases it. The Liberals argued that the poor had negative quatlities because of their condition of being poor, and so if they are given aid through welfare they can help themselves. Hays is sure to state taht the liberals did agree that there were problems with the old welfare system. The original welfare system was based on the idea of an ideal American Family with a husband that provided financial stabiilty and a wife who stayed home to care for the kids, and those women whom their husbands were not present were provided with aid from the government in order to be able to stay home with their children. It was also common that women who were not considered "virtuous" were denied aid, so only those women whom the government deemed "good" were eligible for aid. There were some reforms prior to 1996, that made welfare more attainable for all women, and less discrimination. it also implemented many reform programs to help families and single parents, but there were alot of "loopholes". Hays says that with the reform of 1996, the state changed its mind on the idea that mothers and children deserve any special privileges. WIth the reform there was less differentiation among different types of women, because all women were forced to be active participants in the work force. Hays describes the contradiction within the welfare system as the dual emphasis on individualism and family values. One focus of the reform of 1996 was to have all women be actively participating in the working world, which in turn takes time away from raising their children, thus placing family life on the back burner, but at the same time heralding the woman as an equal participant in supporting her family as the traditional male role. The Personal Responsibility Act also makes it clear that the purpose of the welfare system was to uphold the idea of family, but how can this be done when the women are being forced to spend less time with their children and more time in the working sphere. This is essentially the embodiment of both the liberal view and the conservative view within the same legislature, because the liberal believes that the individual should be able to provide for themself and their family and better their situation, but the conservate focuses on the importance of the family and the mother staying home. These contradictory principles held in the welfare laws shows the public's own indecision and controversy over the same issues the issues of family and individualism, of "paid work and caregiving, competetive self-interest and obligation to others, the value of work ethic and financial success versus the value of personal connection, familial bonding and community ties."
According to Block et al. Norway sees poverty as caused by economic and structural factors rather than moral defficiency on the part of the poor. In the United States there is that very strongly held idea that if you work hard enough you can achieve the American Dream. This leads to the dominating idea that people are poor because they are lazy and do not work hard enough to help themselves out of poverty. Because of this idea that the poor have low morals, the rules and regulations on welfare have become more strict to prevent fraud, but because all these assistance programs are so difficult to receive and the processes are so complicated, and then when you do receive them even in combination they do not supply sufficient help to live well. THis in turn causes people to actual become liars and commit fraud in order to save extra money, like not reporting all their income tax. According to Block et al. the reason the American Dream is so out of reach for the poor is because incresasingly their access to higher education, health care, childcare and housing has diminished becasue these services have become more and more expensive. In order to close the gap to the American Dream we need reforms that make these services more accessible to the poor.
Clawson's article criticizes the United States child care for being to accessible, and thus not attainable by all who want or need it, not quality care for the children, and the children do not receive that family care that is essential to raising a child. They propose to look to countries in Europe and make reforms basedo n their systems. They believe the new child care system should be publicly funded and universal, so that it is either free or very cheap so people can afford it. They also believe the actual program would be as long as an actual school day, and contain "wrap around" care before and after. The quality of the program would be great and so parents would not be scared to leave their children at child care, and those who perhaps had not initially wanted child care might even be tempted to use it becasue they know the quality is so good.
Friedman's article shows how over time there has been a move to loosen legal ties between parents and children. In years past there was a long lasting control of parents over their children, even into adulthood, but now this tie is decreasing more and more. For instance, the idea of the father arranging marriages shows control over his child into adulthood, but this is not usually used in Western societies. Also the idea that the child then becomes caregiver to the elder parents is slowly declining. Friedman says that the state has begun to take the responsibility that were once considered to be the children's responsibilities. In effect parents and children (after a certain age) are having less ties. THere are also cases when children are still very young. In these the government steps in and takes the role of the parent in cases where they say that the parent is not capable of caring for their young children. In colonial times in the US there was little adoption taking place, though the term was known. It was not a legal situation, but then around the 1780s there were laws made about adoption, but these laws were usually to make illegitimate children legitimate and heirs or part heirs of family estates. But these laws were not specific only to illegitimate children, but also to any one they chose. THe process of adoption was also as easy as signing a paper. This process slowly became more intricate and detailed, involving court proceedings. Before the well being of the child was practically ignored and adoption was for heir purposes, but they shifted focus to child well being and thus made the process more difficult and intricate. This then evolved to the adoption process of today. But overall the purpose of adoption was for a family to have a bloodline to inherit their estate.
According to Hays, conservatives have a negative view on welfare because they view the recipients as "lazy, promiscuous, and pathologically dependent," and that the system only perpetuates this behavior because it condones it by provide aid to them instead of forcing them to change. They in turn also believe that the welfare system promotes poverty and also increases it. The Liberals argued that the poor had negative quatlities because of their condition of being poor, and so if they are given aid through welfare they can help themselves. Hays is sure to state taht the liberals did agree that there were problems with the old welfare system. The original welfare system was based on the idea of an ideal American Family with a husband that provided financial stabiilty and a wife who stayed home to care for the kids, and those women whom their husbands were not present were provided with aid from the government in order to be able to stay home with their children. It was also common that women who were not considered "virtuous" were denied aid, so only those women whom the government deemed "good" were eligible for aid. There were some reforms prior to 1996, that made welfare more attainable for all women, and less discrimination. it also implemented many reform programs to help families and single parents, but there were alot of "loopholes". Hays says that with the reform of 1996, the state changed its mind on the idea that mothers and children deserve any special privileges. WIth the reform there was less differentiation among different types of women, because all women were forced to be active participants in the work force. Hays describes the contradiction within the welfare system as the dual emphasis on individualism and family values. One focus of the reform of 1996 was to have all women be actively participating in the working world, which in turn takes time away from raising their children, thus placing family life on the back burner, but at the same time heralding the woman as an equal participant in supporting her family as the traditional male role. The Personal Responsibility Act also makes it clear that the purpose of the welfare system was to uphold the idea of family, but how can this be done when the women are being forced to spend less time with their children and more time in the working sphere. This is essentially the embodiment of both the liberal view and the conservative view within the same legislature, because the liberal believes that the individual should be able to provide for themself and their family and better their situation, but the conservate focuses on the importance of the family and the mother staying home. These contradictory principles held in the welfare laws shows the public's own indecision and controversy over the same issues the issues of family and individualism, of "paid work and caregiving, competetive self-interest and obligation to others, the value of work ethic and financial success versus the value of personal connection, familial bonding and community ties."
According to Block et al. Norway sees poverty as caused by economic and structural factors rather than moral defficiency on the part of the poor. In the United States there is that very strongly held idea that if you work hard enough you can achieve the American Dream. This leads to the dominating idea that people are poor because they are lazy and do not work hard enough to help themselves out of poverty. Because of this idea that the poor have low morals, the rules and regulations on welfare have become more strict to prevent fraud, but because all these assistance programs are so difficult to receive and the processes are so complicated, and then when you do receive them even in combination they do not supply sufficient help to live well. THis in turn causes people to actual become liars and commit fraud in order to save extra money, like not reporting all their income tax. According to Block et al. the reason the American Dream is so out of reach for the poor is because incresasingly their access to higher education, health care, childcare and housing has diminished becasue these services have become more and more expensive. In order to close the gap to the American Dream we need reforms that make these services more accessible to the poor.
Clawson's article criticizes the United States child care for being to accessible, and thus not attainable by all who want or need it, not quality care for the children, and the children do not receive that family care that is essential to raising a child. They propose to look to countries in Europe and make reforms basedo n their systems. They believe the new child care system should be publicly funded and universal, so that it is either free or very cheap so people can afford it. They also believe the actual program would be as long as an actual school day, and contain "wrap around" care before and after. The quality of the program would be great and so parents would not be scared to leave their children at child care, and those who perhaps had not initially wanted child care might even be tempted to use it becasue they know the quality is so good.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
In Felson's article the gender pespective is the idea that violence against women occurs because of the male's feeling of dominance when abusing the female. He also mentions how within this gender perspective, or within our society in general, it is common for this female abuse to continue because the women are too scared to report the abuse, or they are blamed for the abuse. Basically the gender perspective is based on sexism. In the violent pespective, 7men do not specifically target women, they are violent men with criminal tendencies to begin with. Women are only another of their victims, and even further they only assault women behind closed doors because to hit a women is not acceptable in society. In support of the gender perspetive, Felson statest that though instances of wo7men and 7male patners hitting each other see7ms to 5be equal8, the ti7mes that wo7men hit their hus5bands is ussually in self defense. %But in the sa7me respect8, he also states that this statistic of wo7men using violence in self defense only shows that 7men are 7more violent than wo7men8, supporting the violence perspective. Again to support the gender perspective8, Felson statest that rape and the use of force is recorded to occur 7mostly 5because the 7male is looking for so7me type of do7minance over the victim. More evidence for the violence perspective is that 7men who co7m7mit violence against women do not do it because they have ill feelings towards women, but instead they have the same feelings towards the men that they would also commit crimes against. I pesonally am more inclined to believe in the gender pespective because I do believe that many cases of violence against women are not reported, either out of fear of a subsequent attack or even because the woman herself believes she deserves it. In our society it is still largely believed, both by male and females that women are to serve the man in some way, whether it be sexually or simply being a good wife, whatever that may entail.
Jone's article basically states that the poblem is not why she doesn't leave, but the fact that people ask this question. Even in cases that the victim has left, people continue to ask the same question, as if they didn't even realize that she had left. The problem is that in dealing with domestic violence, the victim is the one who is scrutinized, the female, not the male who has committed the crime. This is the problem. Towards the end of the article Jones states that the victim is seen as the one who has caused the problem8, she is not doing anything to solve the pro5ble7m 5because she is not si7mply leave8, and therefore she is responsi5ble for the pro5ble7m. This is in direct correlation to Felson's gender perspective 5becasue the perspective states that the society is sexist and violence against wo7men is overlooked or tolerated. The 5bla7me always falls on the wo7men. She 7must have done so7mething to provoke the 7male8, and she is not resolving th pro5ble7m on her own so it is all her fault. And nothing is done to analy`ze why the 7men 7might 5be actiing in this way. They are not analy`zing or looking for a way to change the actions of 7men8, instead they 5blindly 5bla7me the wo7man.
Ptacek begins by saying that the main excuse men igve is that they lost control, from alcohol, drugs or frustration. This is incongruent with findings because Ptacek says that alcohol does not lead to a loss of control, rather people act on learned behavior when intoxicated. This means that they think they are losing control because that is what most peole think, but in fact they are just using it as an excuse to do things that you shouldn't do. Inregards to frustration, Ptacek says there are many of other ways to relieve frustration, many even positive. Also the men who said that they chose violence to deal with frustration must have had other ways of dealing with it because their violence was "selective". The men also blamed the women for initiating the confrontation. As justification, these men deny their actions simply by stating that they did not "hurt" their wives, or saying that her injuries were not as bad as they had said they were. This according to Ptacek is a complete denial of their actions. This is obviously all contradicted by the real situation of the woman. Then men also have a mixture of excuses and justifications. Where some men said that they had completely lost control, they also said that they had to do something because their wife was doing something wrong. This is a blatant contradiction. He first says he doesn't know what he's doing and then he says he made a decision to do somehting. It is contradictory then and it is contradictory when men have a clear objective and goal in sight, what Ptacek says is to silence their partners, and yet they still claimed in interviews that they didn'tknow what they were doing. This article and accounts seems to point more towards the gender perspective. Though there were some ccaases where Ptacek mentions that the men were also violent with other men, which parallels the violent perspective, we are talking about women batterers. Also the main justification for these men is that their women were out of line, and thus it is their job to put them back in their place. Also there is this notion that the wife has to be a certain way and fulfill the needs of the husband, and if she does not, whether it be not cooking well or in sexual satisfaction, the husband feels he needs to punish her to correct it. THis is clearly in line with Felson's gender perspective.
Jone's article basically states that the poblem is not why she doesn't leave, but the fact that people ask this question. Even in cases that the victim has left, people continue to ask the same question, as if they didn't even realize that she had left. The problem is that in dealing with domestic violence, the victim is the one who is scrutinized, the female, not the male who has committed the crime. This is the problem. Towards the end of the article Jones states that the victim is seen as the one who has caused the problem8, she is not doing anything to solve the pro5ble7m 5because she is not si7mply leave8, and therefore she is responsi5ble for the pro5ble7m. This is in direct correlation to Felson's gender perspective 5becasue the perspective states that the society is sexist and violence against wo7men is overlooked or tolerated. The 5bla7me always falls on the wo7men. She 7must have done so7mething to provoke the 7male8, and she is not resolving th pro5ble7m on her own so it is all her fault. And nothing is done to analy`ze why the 7men 7might 5be actiing in this way. They are not analy`zing or looking for a way to change the actions of 7men8, instead they 5blindly 5bla7me the wo7man.
Ptacek begins by saying that the main excuse men igve is that they lost control, from alcohol, drugs or frustration. This is incongruent with findings because Ptacek says that alcohol does not lead to a loss of control, rather people act on learned behavior when intoxicated. This means that they think they are losing control because that is what most peole think, but in fact they are just using it as an excuse to do things that you shouldn't do. Inregards to frustration, Ptacek says there are many of other ways to relieve frustration, many even positive. Also the men who said that they chose violence to deal with frustration must have had other ways of dealing with it because their violence was "selective". The men also blamed the women for initiating the confrontation. As justification, these men deny their actions simply by stating that they did not "hurt" their wives, or saying that her injuries were not as bad as they had said they were. This according to Ptacek is a complete denial of their actions. This is obviously all contradicted by the real situation of the woman. Then men also have a mixture of excuses and justifications. Where some men said that they had completely lost control, they also said that they had to do something because their wife was doing something wrong. This is a blatant contradiction. He first says he doesn't know what he's doing and then he says he made a decision to do somehting. It is contradictory then and it is contradictory when men have a clear objective and goal in sight, what Ptacek says is to silence their partners, and yet they still claimed in interviews that they didn'tknow what they were doing. This article and accounts seems to point more towards the gender perspective. Though there were some ccaases where Ptacek mentions that the men were also violent with other men, which parallels the violent perspective, we are talking about women batterers. Also the main justification for these men is that their women were out of line, and thus it is their job to put them back in their place. Also there is this notion that the wife has to be a certain way and fulfill the needs of the husband, and if she does not, whether it be not cooking well or in sexual satisfaction, the husband feels he needs to punish her to correct it. THis is clearly in line with Felson's gender perspective.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Family Roles
Hochschild describes the "family myth" as a cover that everything is alright in the family. It refers to the struggle between the duties of husband and wife, and the assimilation into our culture's idea of gender roles. In the myth the family makes it seem as if everything is okay between husband and wife because they both have a full-time job, but when they get home they also each have their own duties and contributions to the family and house. In the myth the woman actually has much more to worry about and to actually do, when the man only seems as if he is really splitting the work. In fact women have two full-time jobs. In this myth one party suffers more than the other, and in most cases it is the woman. She is trying to make herself believe that everything is the way she wanted it and her marriage and family are working wonderfully. This is an "attempt," to believe and involved in this attempt is the emotional struggle to actually make yourself believe and continue to remind yourself to believe. This is hard work and what Hochschild calls "emotional" work. In the end this only adds extra stress on the family. Also the myth itself does not work without the emotional work on the part of one member of the family. I am lucky enough to be part of a family that does not ascribe the this "family myth." Both my parents work, though this was not always the case, but once home my father is very good at helping with all aspects of house work. My mother usually does most of the cooking, but my father cleans dishes, does laundry, sets the table, cleans the house, does the financials, and on occassion he also cooks (breakfast and barbeque are his specialties). My mother also helps with what are usually considered the "man's job". She does alot of the work outdoors, she cleans the cars, does the gardening both in the front yard and the back, and she fixes things around the house. All in all, I can honestly say that my nuclear family is egalitarian and does not have to cultivate the "family myth," thus there is no emotion work as Hochschild describes it.
Williams defines domesticity as the system that organizes the market world and family world into gender roles that sustain and replicates this organization. It is firmly built around the "ideal" worker, who is obviously a man, going out into the market world, and the women who is intrinsically caring and nurturing to stay home with the children and take care of the house. This entire idea of domesticity and its organization is rooted in the 1780 ideas of family and work. Williams argues that this idea of domesticity places three constraints on the organization of work in our societyj. The first is the employer's right to demand an ideal worker which can devote all attention to work without distractions of family responsibilities. The second is men's, and husbands', right and duty to fulfill this ideal worker, and lastly the designation of the woman's role in society defined around her duties as a mother and caregiver.
I was not present in class when we viewed the movie, but in the following class we were discussing the different courting rituals in colonial America, and I do believe there was an idea of domesticity. In the lecture we mentioned how many times when a family was looking to marry off their daughter, the mother would arrange for a suitor to come to the house and spend time with her daughter so as to get to know her. This idea in and of itself of having it be the mother's responsibility to arrange this more "domestic" meeting, and the fact that a daughter is viewed as something that must be married off, because she is a financial burden, displays some aspects of domesticity. This means that the daughter would not work, but would stay at home and help with house work, and thus be a financial burden. The mothers and daughters do not participate in the market world, rather they are left home to care for the children and the house.
Williams struggles with the difference between women making a choice and women being coerceed, or unconsciously brainwashed, into making a specific choice when it comes to domesticity and the market world. She believes that domesticity and its constraints are discrimination against women and because it has become part of our history and culture, it is embedded in the way people think about gender and the working world. This inhibits women from having true "free choice" on issues concerning working, not working or partially working. In my opinion I do not agree with her completely. I believe that some women might unconsciously be molded by this domesticity and make decisions based on it, but I also believe it is possible for a woman to decide to stay home and raise a family and take care of a home because it is what she truly wants to do, instead of conceding to the fact that she has made this decision under the auspices of some unconscious influence of the ideal of domesticity.
According to Carrington, the same issues that Hocshild metions as "family myths," here referred to as "egalitarian myth," is as prevalent in gay and lesbian families as it is in heterosexual families. It is present for the same reasons that account for the myth in heterosexual families and it is present for different reasons. The difference is that the homosexual community, as socially stigmatized as deviant, feels an extra pressure of trying to portray itself in the best way possible, and so when speaking about family roles and contributions, it is a nicer picture if all was equal than if the family dynamic was off and thus could be perceived as less familial or "working". It is present also for the same reasons as in heterosexual families in that the myths are upheld in an attempt to make the relationship work. They are trying to create an ideal situation within social and economic atmospheres that pratically make it impossible to actually attain the ideal. In the cases where there is more egalitarianism within homosexual couples and families, Carrington points to several recurring themes to explain. He says that many of the couples are upper-middle class and outsource their house work, or they hire working-class minorities to perform the house work. This leaves less duties to share and thus less conflict to argue. There is also a disproportionate amount of individuals who hold traditionally "female" working positions, such as school teachers. This type of job allows for a true 40 hour week, more vacation and many benefits that help relieve the stresses at home and arguements over . This allows the partners to actually have energy and time to contribute to the house and family. Another explanation is the increasing phenomena of the "downsizing family" which Carrington describes as usually households of young men who are basically low maintenance and actually hire services as do the upper-middle class. In the end there is very little work to actually do around the house and much of it is outsourced. Of course Carrington does leave out the families that actually do juggle two incomes and house work. He presents it as a situation where the families he studied see the importance of family and house work and therefore allow for an unequal distribution of chores. The financial role is placed more heavily on the one with the more promising job, and the other partner provides their own financial help but more domestic duties.
Williams defines domesticity as the system that organizes the market world and family world into gender roles that sustain and replicates this organization. It is firmly built around the "ideal" worker, who is obviously a man, going out into the market world, and the women who is intrinsically caring and nurturing to stay home with the children and take care of the house. This entire idea of domesticity and its organization is rooted in the 1780 ideas of family and work. Williams argues that this idea of domesticity places three constraints on the organization of work in our societyj. The first is the employer's right to demand an ideal worker which can devote all attention to work without distractions of family responsibilities. The second is men's, and husbands', right and duty to fulfill this ideal worker, and lastly the designation of the woman's role in society defined around her duties as a mother and caregiver.
I was not present in class when we viewed the movie, but in the following class we were discussing the different courting rituals in colonial America, and I do believe there was an idea of domesticity. In the lecture we mentioned how many times when a family was looking to marry off their daughter, the mother would arrange for a suitor to come to the house and spend time with her daughter so as to get to know her. This idea in and of itself of having it be the mother's responsibility to arrange this more "domestic" meeting, and the fact that a daughter is viewed as something that must be married off, because she is a financial burden, displays some aspects of domesticity. This means that the daughter would not work, but would stay at home and help with house work, and thus be a financial burden. The mothers and daughters do not participate in the market world, rather they are left home to care for the children and the house.
Williams struggles with the difference between women making a choice and women being coerceed, or unconsciously brainwashed, into making a specific choice when it comes to domesticity and the market world. She believes that domesticity and its constraints are discrimination against women and because it has become part of our history and culture, it is embedded in the way people think about gender and the working world. This inhibits women from having true "free choice" on issues concerning working, not working or partially working. In my opinion I do not agree with her completely. I believe that some women might unconsciously be molded by this domesticity and make decisions based on it, but I also believe it is possible for a woman to decide to stay home and raise a family and take care of a home because it is what she truly wants to do, instead of conceding to the fact that she has made this decision under the auspices of some unconscious influence of the ideal of domesticity.
According to Carrington, the same issues that Hocshild metions as "family myths," here referred to as "egalitarian myth," is as prevalent in gay and lesbian families as it is in heterosexual families. It is present for the same reasons that account for the myth in heterosexual families and it is present for different reasons. The difference is that the homosexual community, as socially stigmatized as deviant, feels an extra pressure of trying to portray itself in the best way possible, and so when speaking about family roles and contributions, it is a nicer picture if all was equal than if the family dynamic was off and thus could be perceived as less familial or "working". It is present also for the same reasons as in heterosexual families in that the myths are upheld in an attempt to make the relationship work. They are trying to create an ideal situation within social and economic atmospheres that pratically make it impossible to actually attain the ideal. In the cases where there is more egalitarianism within homosexual couples and families, Carrington points to several recurring themes to explain. He says that many of the couples are upper-middle class and outsource their house work, or they hire working-class minorities to perform the house work. This leaves less duties to share and thus less conflict to argue. There is also a disproportionate amount of individuals who hold traditionally "female" working positions, such as school teachers. This type of job allows for a true 40 hour week, more vacation and many benefits that help relieve the stresses at home and arguements over . This allows the partners to actually have energy and time to contribute to the house and family. Another explanation is the increasing phenomena of the "downsizing family" which Carrington describes as usually households of young men who are basically low maintenance and actually hire services as do the upper-middle class. In the end there is very little work to actually do around the house and much of it is outsourced. Of course Carrington does leave out the families that actually do juggle two incomes and house work. He presents it as a situation where the families he studied see the importance of family and house work and therefore allow for an unequal distribution of chores. The financial role is placed more heavily on the one with the more promising job, and the other partner provides their own financial help but more domestic duties.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Blog 3
Sociologists refer to an institution as an organization built on rules, customs, laws. Coontz points out that marriage used to be the only institution that organized roles and purposes along sex lines. Now he says that there are other options, and these other options have made marriage more of a choice than a necessity, and less people feel the necessity to choose to marry. Coontz says that divorce is a big factor for the deinstitutionalization of marriage, but to try to convince people that they should stay in marriages as a means to reinstitutionalize it, he disagrees. He also disagrees with the reproductive evolution. The technology available now takes away the human aspect to child conception and bearing. He also disagrees with the weak sense of comitment engendered in today's view on marriage. He discusses how it is much more binding agreement to buy a car than it is to marry someone.
According to Harris and Waite, it is beneficial for men and women to get married because they have more meaningful sex. Financially married men seem to make more than single men, but married women seem to make less than single women because they have to cut back on work time to care for children. Women are less likely to succeed in the working world when married, but they are also better off married in a sexist society. The authors are saying that marriages with two workers seem to be more equal, but it also affects the fertility.
According to Brown, for young adults who have never married and have no children, cohabitation is an alternative to being single or a stage in the courtship process that leads
to marriage. There is also mounting evidence that the purpose of cohabitation may vary
by racial-ethnic group. Whites are most likely to marry, suggesting that cohabitation serves as a prelude to marriage for them. Blacks and Hispanics, cohabitation appears to be a substitute for marriage.
Marriage has become a choice, what sociologists call a selection choice. This has a huge affect on the outcome of marriage and the arrangements within a marriage. This means that people usually choose to marry people who are compatible with their own wants and needs (i would also like to make clear that this is not always the case). A positive selection can lead to a very fulfilling, equitable, fruitful marriage.
According to Harris and Waite, it is beneficial for men and women to get married because they have more meaningful sex. Financially married men seem to make more than single men, but married women seem to make less than single women because they have to cut back on work time to care for children. Women are less likely to succeed in the working world when married, but they are also better off married in a sexist society. The authors are saying that marriages with two workers seem to be more equal, but it also affects the fertility.
According to Brown, for young adults who have never married and have no children, cohabitation is an alternative to being single or a stage in the courtship process that leads
to marriage. There is also mounting evidence that the purpose of cohabitation may vary
by racial-ethnic group. Whites are most likely to marry, suggesting that cohabitation serves as a prelude to marriage for them. Blacks and Hispanics, cohabitation appears to be a substitute for marriage.
Marriage has become a choice, what sociologists call a selection choice. This has a huge affect on the outcome of marriage and the arrangements within a marriage. This means that people usually choose to marry people who are compatible with their own wants and needs (i would also like to make clear that this is not always the case). A positive selection can lead to a very fulfilling, equitable, fruitful marriage.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Sexual Revolution
Risman and Schwartz focus on the apparent decline in sexual activity among teenage boys, whereas that of the females has stayed stagnant. They explain that this can be attributed to the girls' increasing power over the relationship situation. That is to say that girls are more likely to have sexual relations with a boy if they are in a "relationship" with that boy. So now, the boys who used to have sex with girls looking to satisfy their sexual appetites without any restrictions now have to wait until they are in a relationship with a girl. THe article claims that the number of girls who are looking to satisfy their sexual desires outside of a relationship is declining. This issue of relationship is defined differently than normal. This "relationship" in the language of teenagers can be as short as two weeks. The article attributes the decrease in sexual promiscuity to better sex education and the increasing fear of sexually transmitted diseases. They also point out that abstinence education seems to have more negative effects than positive.
In the second article the sexual and relationship scene in the college setting is described as very different from the old fashioned ways. College students are no longer dating as means of courting each other; instead they are "hooking-up", which is to have some type of sexual interaction. It is almost as if seeing how a person is sexually is more important than getting to know who that person is. The steps have changed: before it was dating to find out who each other was and how you got along, and then if that had a positive outcome then you might move on to sexual interaction, which might lead to a long term relationship. Now it goes: try out the sexual interactions to see if you like it, then see if you want to get to know each other, then get to know each other and lastly maybe a long term relationship. This hooking-up phenomena is not particular to either sex, but the repercussions of a more loose sexuality are different for males and females. We have not moved so far as to completely be rid of the stigma that comes along with a highly sexual female. THe college students told personal accounts of how a girl who is involved with many hook-ups is considered "slutty" whereas the man might be considered easy but only for a short period of time and only by certain people. Of course the situation is always worse for the females. Nonetheless, dating is out and hooking-up is in.
In my own experiences I feel that both articles have accurately portrayed the high-school and college atmospheres. I went to an all girls high school, and many of the girls were sexually active, but mostly with their boyfriends. The girls who were sexually active outside of a relationship were dubbed "sluts". Even at BC the hooking-up culture is alive and well. There are very few instances of actual dating outside of the college campus setting. Most people are just out to have a good time, which they define as "hooking-up" and then if something more comes out of their hook-ups, then great they might dive into a relationship, otherwise it was still great because they satisfied their sexual cravings for the time being. I also believe this is a national phenomena.
In the second article the sexual and relationship scene in the college setting is described as very different from the old fashioned ways. College students are no longer dating as means of courting each other; instead they are "hooking-up", which is to have some type of sexual interaction. It is almost as if seeing how a person is sexually is more important than getting to know who that person is. The steps have changed: before it was dating to find out who each other was and how you got along, and then if that had a positive outcome then you might move on to sexual interaction, which might lead to a long term relationship. Now it goes: try out the sexual interactions to see if you like it, then see if you want to get to know each other, then get to know each other and lastly maybe a long term relationship. This hooking-up phenomena is not particular to either sex, but the repercussions of a more loose sexuality are different for males and females. We have not moved so far as to completely be rid of the stigma that comes along with a highly sexual female. THe college students told personal accounts of how a girl who is involved with many hook-ups is considered "slutty" whereas the man might be considered easy but only for a short period of time and only by certain people. Of course the situation is always worse for the females. Nonetheless, dating is out and hooking-up is in.
In my own experiences I feel that both articles have accurately portrayed the high-school and college atmospheres. I went to an all girls high school, and many of the girls were sexually active, but mostly with their boyfriends. The girls who were sexually active outside of a relationship were dubbed "sluts". Even at BC the hooking-up culture is alive and well. There are very few instances of actual dating outside of the college campus setting. Most people are just out to have a good time, which they define as "hooking-up" and then if something more comes out of their hook-ups, then great they might dive into a relationship, otherwise it was still great because they satisfied their sexual cravings for the time being. I also believe this is a national phenomena.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Adoption in the Family
From: Yearning for family transcends borders, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek,
California), August 6, 2006 Sunday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, 20060806-CC-0806-
Yearning-for-family-transcends-borders, 4059 words, Jackie Burrell, Contra Costa Times,
Walnut Creek, Calif.
This article focuses on the shift to overseas adoption in American families. It cites certain statistics but does not show how they were actually collected.There were no indications as to the quality or methods of these statistics. The article does not seem to have any specific theory, but it does have the overall feeling that international adoption is a positive thing, both for the American families and the orphans that are being adopted.
From: A Taste of Family Life in U.S., but Adoption Is in Limbo , The New York Times, January
13, 2007 Saturday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 1, 2107
words, By JANE GROSS, TERRYVILLE, Conn.
This article focuses on the increasing difficulty in international adoption because of technicalities, fraud and beauracracy. There are again some statistics cited but no method as to how they were collected, though it seems to have been from an employee from an American adoption agency knowledgeable in the system. The article does not focus on facts as much as it does on the feelings and dealings of international adoption. There are many personal accounts. It is more qualitative than quantitative.
From: The other mother: Birth mothers don't get respect, support for selfless act, Tulsa World
(Oklahoma), December 3, 2006 Sunday, LIFESTYLE, 20061203-TU-1203-The-other-
mother, 1405 words, Jennifer Chancellor, Tulsa World, Okla.
In this article there are no statistics, it focuses on the emotional challenges of the birth mother while going through the process. It also defends these mothers and calls for some change and proliferation in the available counseling for these women. There is no underlying theory or practice in this article, but it focuses on the well being of the birth mothers. It a way of bringing attention to emotional health of these birth mothers.
From: Growing family, Tulsa World (Oklahoma), November 5, 2006 Sunday, Final Home
Edition, Family; Pg. D1, 1639 words, JENNIFER CHANCELLOR World Scene Writer
This artcle, like the one above, is not statistcally based, it is more of a personal account of the growing families in America. It shows one account of a family that had its own biological children and then decided that adoption was a good continuation. There are no statistics and no underlying theory, only personal accounts.
From: Madonna Overseas Adoption Follows Trend, Associated Press Online, October 19, 2006
Thursday 9:57 PM GMT, , ENTERTAINMENT NEWS, 1216 words, By JOCELYN NOVECK,
AP National Writer, NEW YORK
This article can be seen in conjunction with the article titled Yearning for family transcends borders. It focuses on the increasing trend of overseas adoptions and how this affects the family dynamics in the US. It turns families multicultural and multiracial. This specific article does have some statistics but does not reveal the source or method of acquisition. It shows this overseas adoption as a popular trend and publicized through celebrities. There does not seem to be any underlying theory or practice.
In all of these articles cited there is a deficit in statistical information or sources of statistics. It seems one must take the facts in these articles at face values, but regardless it the focus of the articles is not the statistical information within them. They all focus on more personal accounts. It is evident that in some of the articles the author seems to have some bias, as in the article pertaining to birth mothers. The author is clearly an advocate for more counseling and some type of transition from open adoptions. In general, all the articles focused on the adoption of children, and more specifically on overseas adoptions and how that changes the family dynamic. Again they are not particularly quantitative reports but more qualitative personal accounts. It is not correct to say that these few personal accounts can represent all experience in adoption, nor should one think of these articles in that light. Rather, I feel these articles can be taken for what they are: accounts of positive and negative experiences with adoption, both domestic and international. But the overall attitude towards adoption in these five articles seem to be a positive one.
California), August 6, 2006 Sunday, STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS, 20060806-CC-0806-
Yearning-for-family-transcends-borders, 4059 words, Jackie Burrell, Contra Costa Times,
Walnut Creek, Calif.
This article focuses on the shift to overseas adoption in American families. It cites certain statistics but does not show how they were actually collected.There were no indications as to the quality or methods of these statistics. The article does not seem to have any specific theory, but it does have the overall feeling that international adoption is a positive thing, both for the American families and the orphans that are being adopted.
From: A Taste of Family Life in U.S., but Adoption Is in Limbo , The New York Times, January
13, 2007 Saturday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 1, 2107
words, By JANE GROSS, TERRYVILLE, Conn.
This article focuses on the increasing difficulty in international adoption because of technicalities, fraud and beauracracy. There are again some statistics cited but no method as to how they were collected, though it seems to have been from an employee from an American adoption agency knowledgeable in the system. The article does not focus on facts as much as it does on the feelings and dealings of international adoption. There are many personal accounts. It is more qualitative than quantitative.
From: The other mother: Birth mothers don't get respect, support for selfless act, Tulsa World
(Oklahoma), December 3, 2006 Sunday, LIFESTYLE, 20061203-TU-1203-The-other-
mother, 1405 words, Jennifer Chancellor, Tulsa World, Okla.
In this article there are no statistics, it focuses on the emotional challenges of the birth mother while going through the process. It also defends these mothers and calls for some change and proliferation in the available counseling for these women. There is no underlying theory or practice in this article, but it focuses on the well being of the birth mothers. It a way of bringing attention to emotional health of these birth mothers.
From: Growing family, Tulsa World (Oklahoma), November 5, 2006 Sunday, Final Home
Edition, Family; Pg. D1, 1639 words, JENNIFER CHANCELLOR World Scene Writer
This artcle, like the one above, is not statistcally based, it is more of a personal account of the growing families in America. It shows one account of a family that had its own biological children and then decided that adoption was a good continuation. There are no statistics and no underlying theory, only personal accounts.
From: Madonna Overseas Adoption Follows Trend, Associated Press Online, October 19, 2006
Thursday 9:57 PM GMT, , ENTERTAINMENT NEWS, 1216 words, By JOCELYN NOVECK,
AP National Writer, NEW YORK
This article can be seen in conjunction with the article titled Yearning for family transcends borders. It focuses on the increasing trend of overseas adoptions and how this affects the family dynamics in the US. It turns families multicultural and multiracial. This specific article does have some statistics but does not reveal the source or method of acquisition. It shows this overseas adoption as a popular trend and publicized through celebrities. There does not seem to be any underlying theory or practice.
In all of these articles cited there is a deficit in statistical information or sources of statistics. It seems one must take the facts in these articles at face values, but regardless it the focus of the articles is not the statistical information within them. They all focus on more personal accounts. It is evident that in some of the articles the author seems to have some bias, as in the article pertaining to birth mothers. The author is clearly an advocate for more counseling and some type of transition from open adoptions. In general, all the articles focused on the adoption of children, and more specifically on overseas adoptions and how that changes the family dynamic. Again they are not particularly quantitative reports but more qualitative personal accounts. It is not correct to say that these few personal accounts can represent all experience in adoption, nor should one think of these articles in that light. Rather, I feel these articles can be taken for what they are: accounts of positive and negative experiences with adoption, both domestic and international. But the overall attitude towards adoption in these five articles seem to be a positive one.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Entry #1 Decline in Family
Popenoe cites many different statistics to assert his claim that the family is in decline. He begins by defining the term family as he uses it throughout the article: a group of people tied domestically, economically and support each other. He refers to the size of families, which have been decreasing because of adults’ decisions to have less children, the decrease in the number of people who are actually marrying, and women marrying at a later age as well as having children at a later age. He also mentions that many people, especially women are leaving their family before marriage and establishing a more autonomous state for themselves, and to him this affects their views and attitudes towards marriage. Popenoe also looks towards the increase in the female labor force, and even more towards the dramatic increase in divorce. He focuses on the changes in the mentality of people, in their views towards the institution of marriage which he argues has turned toward a more affectionate union than one of economic convenience. A shift from the traditional cultural view of marriage and family has also affected and spurred this decline in family.
Cowan obviously has some critiques on Popenoe's analysis, mostly concerning his haphazard citing of statistics without explaining or researching their relevance to the issues stated. Cowan seems to think that the main cause of family decline is not on a personal level but instead on a societal and polititcal level. He thinks all sociologists should work to see a bigger picture and try to find the cause of the moral and value changes that have been occurring in the American family. I agree that the political and economic changes in the 20th century can be considered one of the most detrimental affects on the family, and more sociologists should focus on this in order to persuade positive changes.
Stacey follow's Cowan's suite and criticizes Popenoe's methods of analysis. She first disagrees with his definition of family and proceeds to state that he has wrongly categorized the family as an the oldest institution. He has also tried to reconcile many of the arguements surrounding gay and feminist opposition by defining family as a domestic tie between people. She disagrees with this too. She then continues to say that his basis for comparison is fundamentally incorrect. Basically she wants him to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, which she thinks he completely disregarded. Summing it up, Stacey believes that Popenoe constructed his arguement falsely in order to fit his ideas and beliefs. But not to discredit his arguement totally, Stacey also agrees that family is in decline, but she advocates for it.
I would be categorized as one who believes the family in America is in decline, but looking at these three arguements, I believe they all need to be either reevaluated or combined somehow. I agree with Popenoe in that there are changes in the values and beliefs about family life which have negatively affected it. The autonomous ideals prevailing in our society today definitely take away from the cooperative, group ideals of the family life. But I would also have to agree with Cowen that there is a need to look beyond the changes in the beliefs and ideals towards the cause of these changes, which I also agree are caused by changes in larger institutions: economics and politics. Stacey's point that the family must be redefined is also noteworthy. True family has a historic context, but the situations and beliefs of current day call for a reevaluation of this definition. However, I do believe that it is necessary to preserve some of the historical characteristics of a family when forming a new definition, because regardless of whether the heads of the household are heterosexual or homosexual, there are certain beliefs and values that are essential to keeping them together.
Cowan obviously has some critiques on Popenoe's analysis, mostly concerning his haphazard citing of statistics without explaining or researching their relevance to the issues stated. Cowan seems to think that the main cause of family decline is not on a personal level but instead on a societal and polititcal level. He thinks all sociologists should work to see a bigger picture and try to find the cause of the moral and value changes that have been occurring in the American family. I agree that the political and economic changes in the 20th century can be considered one of the most detrimental affects on the family, and more sociologists should focus on this in order to persuade positive changes.
Stacey follow's Cowan's suite and criticizes Popenoe's methods of analysis. She first disagrees with his definition of family and proceeds to state that he has wrongly categorized the family as an the oldest institution. He has also tried to reconcile many of the arguements surrounding gay and feminist opposition by defining family as a domestic tie between people. She disagrees with this too. She then continues to say that his basis for comparison is fundamentally incorrect. Basically she wants him to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, which she thinks he completely disregarded. Summing it up, Stacey believes that Popenoe constructed his arguement falsely in order to fit his ideas and beliefs. But not to discredit his arguement totally, Stacey also agrees that family is in decline, but she advocates for it.
I would be categorized as one who believes the family in America is in decline, but looking at these three arguements, I believe they all need to be either reevaluated or combined somehow. I agree with Popenoe in that there are changes in the values and beliefs about family life which have negatively affected it. The autonomous ideals prevailing in our society today definitely take away from the cooperative, group ideals of the family life. But I would also have to agree with Cowen that there is a need to look beyond the changes in the beliefs and ideals towards the cause of these changes, which I also agree are caused by changes in larger institutions: economics and politics. Stacey's point that the family must be redefined is also noteworthy. True family has a historic context, but the situations and beliefs of current day call for a reevaluation of this definition. However, I do believe that it is necessary to preserve some of the historical characteristics of a family when forming a new definition, because regardless of whether the heads of the household are heterosexual or homosexual, there are certain beliefs and values that are essential to keeping them together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)