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.

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.

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.