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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)