Blog #13: Family Transitions

“Good Grief: Bouncing Back from a Spouse’s Death in Later Life”

This article by Deborah Carr discusses older widows and widowers. It is interesting how Carr points out that the images of widows and widowers we see in the media are usually portrayed of young people who had just gotten married not too long ago. Carr writes, “Televised images of distraught widows and widowers often focus on the young—the teenage brides of fall soldiers in the Iraq war or the junior executives who lost their wives on September 11th.” It actually turns out, as Carr states in the article, that of the 900,000 men and women in the U.S. who lose their spouse, almost ¾ of them are at least 65 years old. It is obvious that losing one’s husband or wife is something that generally takes place when we are older in life, even though often times we see the loss of a spouse as something that occurs when we are much younger.

According to Carr, the three factors that are most important influences on spousal bereavement are the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple’s life was like prior to the death. Carr discusses how the loss of a spouse for those who are older tends to be seen as more of a process than just a single event. In most cases it is not as if one day all of a sudden a person’s spouse dies. Instead for those who are older death can often times take a long period of time. Obviously for people who are in an unhappy or unhealthy marriage, they are less likely to experience depression when their spouse dies. Instead it is more common for them to feel a sense of relief because now they have freed themselves from a situation that was likely affecting them negatively.

While many people might expect widows and widowers to go through similar experiences, that is not completely the case. This also happens to be the case for the different things men and women experience while being married. Carr says, “‘His’ marriage brought men good health, power, and satisfaction, while ‘her’ marriage subjected women to stress, self-sacrifice, and depression.” For the women whose spouse’s die, they are more likely to be the ones who will experience financial hardships after their husband’s die. Carr states, “For women, widowhood often means a sharp dip in economic resources. Economists estimate that a widow’s cost of living is about 80% of what the couple’s was, but the monthly Social Security payments decline to just two-thirds of their previous level. Widows are consequently more likely than widowers to experience distress and anxiety about money.” Unlike many women of today who appear to be more independent, for example having careers of their own, many older women did not work and relied solely on their husbands in terms of supporting themselves financially. Obviously, most men who lose their wives to death do not experience such feelings of distress and anxiety about money. Men, on the other hand, tend to undergo physical illness when their wives die. Carr writes, “Men are more likely than women to experience sickness, disability, and death after their wives die. While popular lore and a handful of early studies claim that these men may “die of a broken heart,” the loss of a helpmate and caretaker is the real culprit.”

Children’s Adjustment to Divorce”

This article was rather interesting to me because it is along the same lines as the paper I did with me group which compared children of divorce to those of high-conflict. The findings of the studies done in this article were actually similar to what my group found after we conducted our interviews and researched the topic. Furstenberg and Cherlin found that it wasn’t so much the divorce itself that affected children, but instead it was the high-conflict aspect of the relationship between the parents that had the most negative affect on the children. Divorce is a hard for everyone who is involved in the situation. It is obviously hard for the children because this is period of time where there is a lot of uncertainty. There is also a lot of inconsistency during this time for children. After the divorce the parent who has main custody, which is usually the mother, tends to have to take on a lot more tasks than when the parents were still together. As Furstenberg and Cherlin write about a woman who has to provide for and take care of her two children after she and her husband separate, “Now responsibility fell solely on her. What’s more, she was working full-time in order to compensate for the loss of Herb’s income.” Not only did Helen have to work full-time so that she could provide for herself and her children, but also she was the one responsible for taking care of the work at home. This has a direct affect on the children because it often times causes chaos in the home.

According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, the factors that affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce are financial problems, low level of conflict between parents, and whether or not children are able to maintain a healthy relationship with the non-custodial parent. As previously stated, a lot of the conflict that takes place between the custodial parent, who is usually the mother, and the children, usually the son, is due to a decrease of the finances in the home. Since the father has left the house, his income is no longer helping to support the family the way that it once had. This causes a lot of strain on the mother and children, often resulting in problems between the mother and children. Also, as Furstenberg and Cherlin write, “Loss of the father’s income can cause a disruptive, downward spiral in which children must adjust to a declining standard of living, a mother who is less psychologically available and is home less often, an apartment in an unfamiliar neighborhood, a different school, and new friends.” As far as low level of conflict between parents goes, this applies to families that are still intact and those that are not. Whether or not the parents are still married or not, if they are fighting with each other it will most likely have a negative affect on the children. As has been shown in some studies, that children who have regular contact with the non-custodial parent, usually the father, were “better adjusted.”

“Putting Divorce in Perspective”

This article by Coontz discusses how children who are from a divorced family are not necessarily worse off than those who are in intact families. This reading also goes along with the theme and results of my group paper. Coontz discusses how it is the children who are in families where there is high-conflict that are the ones who are most negatively affected.

Often times it is not just divorce that can have a negative affect on children. Some of the other reasons are poverty, financial loss, school relocation, a prior history of severe marital conflict, and withdrawal of parental attention. Coontz writes, “Researchers who managed to disentangle the effects of divorce itself from the effects of a change in residence found that relocation and loss of peer support were more likely to interfere with school completion than parental separation.” This means that it is not so much the divorce that causes children to drop out of school but instead it is that many of these children are either moving which means that they are going to different schools.

The factors that account for the variation in these effects are the custodial parent functions, which as we said before is generally the mother of the child. This is a very stressful time on everyone especially the custodial parent. Coontz says, “The main problem for children of divorce is when depression, anger, or economic pressures distract their mothers’ attention.” She goes on to talk about how many mothers were either not paying enough attention to the children at all or were only focusing on the negative behaviors of the children.

Blog #12: Childhood

“America’s Most Wanted: Inside the World of Young Consumers”

This article by Julie Schor discusses how children and adolescents are becoming the ones who are making up much of the consumer market. This is why a large majority of the advertisements that we see on TV are geared towards children. I agree with much that is said in this article. I feel as though when I was younger there were many times when I would see something on TV that I just had to have. I feel as though occurrences like that are even more likely today. However, it is the products being advertised that have changed.

There are numerous signs of commercialization of childhood presented in the article. Schor writes, “Kids can recognize logos by 18 months, and before reaching their second birthday, they’re asking for products by brand name.” Schor goes on to say, “Upon arrival at the schoolhouse steps, the typical first grader can evoke 200 brands. And he or she has already accumulated an unprecedented number of possessions, beginning with an average of 70 new toys a year.” It is obvious that commercialization is definitely prominent in the childhood of children today.

There are many different negative affects that commercialization has on children. Commercialization can affect the physical health of children in a lot of ways. For example, there are many commercials on television that advertise junk food as opposed to fruits and vegetables and because children see these advertisements on television, these are the foods they want to eat. Schor writes, “Since 1980, obesity rates for children have doubled, and those for teens have tripled. Weight-related diseases, such as type II diabetes and hypertension, are rising rapidly. Alongside the rise in obesity is excessive concern with thinness and body image and a host of eating disorders. Record numbers of girls are on diets.” It seems as though many children are finding themselves on either end of the spectrum. Either there are children, mostly girls, who are affected by the images that they see in the media and advertisements of extremely thin women and will go to great measures to look like them or there will be children who will be constantly consuming all of the unhealthy foods that they see in advertisements. Commercialization is also having a negative affect on the behaviors of children. These behaviors include smoking, drinking and doing illegal drugs. Schor says, “As early as eighth grade, more than seven percent of kids are regular smokers, and that number nearly triples by 12^th grade.” Schor continues, “In the eighth grade, 14 percent of kids report that they have taken five alcoholic drinks in a row within the past two weeks. By the 12^th grade, twice as many say so. Half of all high schoolers report that they currently drink alcohol. And 12 percent of eighth graders report that they have used illegal drugs within the past 30 days. Among 12 graders, that percentage rises to 25 percent.” It is astonishing to believe that children are participating in such behaviors at such young ages. In addition to physical appearance and risky behavior, commercialization also can affect the emotional and mental health of children. There are a number of different illnesses that have been affecting children. Some of these health problems include anxiety, depression, ADHD, and even suicide, to name a few.

“Children’s Share in Household Tasks”

In this article Goldschneider and Waite discuss the importance of household tasks done by children in different family settings. The article looks at the different types of tasks done by both male and female children of different ages. The article also compares how much children help out around the house in families that have two parents and those that are headed by females. An interesting point that the article shows is that much of the housework that is done by children is work that they are paid to do, which often times shows the children that this work is more of an option than duties that they are obligated to do. Goldschneider and Waite go on to make yet another interesting statement. They say, “If children, particularly boys, have little experience with the tasks associated with maintaining a home, it is difficult to expect them to feel comfortable taking them on as adults.” This point is important because today the issue of men doing housework, or lack thereof, has become a popular one. However, as Goldschneider and Waite state, how can males as adults be expected to carry out household tasks as adult men if they have a limited amount of experience when they are younger?

Similar to how it is between husbands and wives, where wives typically do the majority of the duties around the house, it is also more common for daughters to do more housework than it is for sons. Goldschneider and Waite, write, “Girls tend to spend about twice as much time on housework as their brothers, mirroring the different levels of contribution by their mothers and fathers.” However, as Goldschneider and Waite mention, sometimes it seems as though neither sons nor daughters do much of the housework because it is the mother who does the majority, if not all, of it. The amount of housework done by children can vary depending on where the family lives. For example, families that live on farms tend to have children that do more work in and around the house, whereas families that live in more urban settings tend to have children that do less work around the house. Some of the work that the majority of children, including both males and females, tend to do is washing dishes, cleaning the house, laundry, cooking and yard work. There are many different factors that go into determining how much housework is done by male and female children. For example, Goldschneider and Waite state, “Families with teenage girls report sharing five times more of these other tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age. In fact, girls ages twelve to eighteen seem to carry the largest share of housework of all children.”

As I said before, depending on the makeup of a family, whether there are two parents or it is a female headed household, is a significant factor in determining whether children are more likely or not to do housework. Obviously if a woman is the sole provider of a family, that leaves her a lot less time to do housework because she is busy working outside of the home. This is why children, both males and females, seem to be more likely to help their mothers around the house. One can only imagine what it is like to have to work forty hours a week and then have to take care of the responsibilities at home on top of it. As Goldschneider and Waite say, “Families headed by unmarried women, then, have both less money and less of the mother’s time at home than do families headed by couples.” The fact that these families are already at a disadvantage for being the ones who support their families and also for being the ones expected to take care of the home.

“Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families”

In this article Lareau uses the concepts of organization of daily life, language use, and social connections to show how childbearing mostly varies because of the social class of a family as opposed to racial differences. Lareau among other fieldworkers conduct a study where they observe a variety of different family types in terms of racial background and social class. The purpose of this study is to see whether race or social status is more of a determinant of how a family raises its children.

As Lareau states, there seems to be more of a correlation between social class more so than racial background when it comes to the ways in which parents raise their children. For example, both Black and White middle-class parents have quite a few similarities as far as childbearing goes. Lareau writes, “The middle-class parents, both white and black, tend to conform to a cultural logic of childbearing I call ‘concerted cultivation.’ They enroll their children in numerous age-specific organized activities that dominate family life and create enormous labor, particularly for mothers. The parents view these activities as transmitting important life skills to children. Middle-class parents also stress language use and the development of reasoning and employ talking as their preferred form of discipline.” While there were a few minor differences among the middle-class families, overall they had a lot in common even with the different racial backgrounds. This was also the case for the working and lower-class families in the study. Even with different racial background, there were far more similarities between families of these social statuses than there were between families of similar races. This isn’t to say that in the survey there weren’t families that had similarities in terms of race, but it seemed to be more common for families who had the same social status to have more likenesses when it comes to organization of daily life, language use, and social connections when raising children. Lareau sums up the findings by saying, “The evidence shows that class position influences critical aspects of family life: time use, language use, and kin ties. Not all aspects of family life are affected by social class, and there is variability within class.” By this Lareau means that while social class is not the only aspect that affects family life and child rearing, but from the study that was conducted it seems as though social class does in fact have more of an influence when it comes to how children are raised.

“Sexuality and Gender in Children’s Daily Worlds”

According to Thorne and Luria the aspect of childhood that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences is the way in which children play with one another, both in the context of in groups of the same gender and cross-gender groups. In the study conducted in the article, Thorne and Luria observed fourth- and fifth-graders in four different schools. They wanted to see the type of interaction that took place in groups where there were just boys, groups where there were just girls and groups where there was a mixture of both boys and girls.

Thorne and Luria first discuss how it is common for children to be segregated from one another in terms of gender. Thorne and Luria write, “In general, there is more gender segregation when children are freer to construct their own activities.” So while there is interaction between girls and boys in a play type of setting, it appears as though both boys and girls prefer to play in groups that are made up of their gender only.

The ways in which boys and girls play and interact with one another tends is usually very different. Thorne and Luria state, “Boys tend to interact in larger and more publicly-visible groups; they more often play outdoors, and their activities take up more space than those of girls. Boys engage in more physically aggressive play and fighting; their social relations tend to be overtly hierarchical and competitive.” However, girls are more likely to engage in games such as “jump-rope” and hopscotch. Boys, unlike girls, are a lot more likely to participate in activities that are more organized and usually require the boys to divide up into teams.

While some may not think that studying the ways in which boys and girls play with each other, it actually appears as though the way boys and girls interact with one another as children often times will have an effect on the way in which they will interact with one another later on in life. Thorne and Luria say, “The gender arrangements and subcultures of middle childhood prepare the way for the sexual scripts of adolescence.” They go on to say, “Girls and boys, who spend considerable time in gender-separate groups, learn different patterns of interaction which, we have argued, lay the groundwork for the sexual scripts of adolescence and adulthood.” It is because of these interactions with each other as children that boys and girls prepare themselves for the interaction that they will have with members of the opposite sex when they get older.

Blog #11: Fatherhood

“American Fathering in Historical Perspective”

This reading discusses how fatherhood in this country has changed over time. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, mothers were seen as they are today as the primary caregivers of children. However, fathers still had “greater responsibility for, and influence on, their children.” It was the fathers who were the ones that instilled in their children the morals and values necessary to learn in life. If the fathers were seen as literate, then it was their responsibility to teach the children how to read and write. It is interesting to see that back then when parents would separate it was the men who were “assigned the right and obligation of child custody.” While fathers had good relationships with their children during this time, it was the father-son relationships that were especially strong. Unfortunately, since the early nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries the role of the father has drastically changed. He has gone from being someone who is directly involved in his children’s lives to someone who is seen merely as the breadwinner of the family and the mother has taken over at the parent who provides the majority of the nurturing to the children. Previously it had been the fathers that were seen as the ones that were responsible for how the children turned out; it is now the mothers who are responsible. Many believe that during the beginning of industrialization that started the change of the roles of mothers and fathers. Pleck writes, “The father … was kicked upstairs, as they say in the industry, and was made chairman of the board. As such, he did not lose all his power—he still had to be consulted on important decisions—but his wife emerged as the executive director or manager of the enterprise which is called the family.”

The expectations about fatherhood today are that it is the father’s primary responsibility to be the breadwinner of the family. However, we are seeing more and more of fathers resuming some of the responsibilities that they had in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. There has been an increase in people wanting men to not only be seen as the breadwinner of the family. If and when I get married and have children I definitely want my husband to play an active role in the raising and taking care of the children. I think it is good for children to see that both parents are capable to work and care for them. Even though there are certain gender roles for men and women as far as taking care and providing for the family go, I feel as though both husbands and wives are considered parents and both of them should be responsible for providing both financial support and care to the family. While it may not be possible for these responsibilities to be split equally 50-50 I feel as though both husbands and wives should do whatever is possible to ensure that their children are getting their needs met from both parents as a cohesive unit.

“Halving It All: The Mother and Mr. Mom”

This reading is about families where both the mothers and the fathers worked. It specifically focuses on those who do the alternating-shift work, where when one parent is working, the other is taking care of the children, and then they switch. Deutsch interviews alternating-shift couples and tries to get a better understanding of why it is that they decided to do this.

As we learn in the reading, couples with children decide to work alternating shifts for a variety of different reasons. It seemed as though the most common reason was because they needed the extra money to get by. Some needed the money that the wives brought because the money the husbands were making just wasn’t enough. Others thought that daycare was just too costly. As Deutsch discovers, it was the couples that did alternating shifts that were the ones who had the lowest incomes. Other reasons why couples did alternating shifts was because they felt as though they should be the ones to raise their children. They didn’t want complete strangers, like babysitters, to be the ones that were raising their children and being the ones to instill the values in their children that they saw fit. By alternating shifts, it ensured that at least one parent would be with the children at all hours of the day.

It is obvious that there is a direct correlation between social class status and whether or not couples decide to do alternating shifts. In almost all of the couples that Deutsch interviewed, with all of the different reasons they gave as to why they did alternating shifts, it seemed as though money was always a factor. Most of these couples did alternating shifts because the income of the husbands just wasn’t enough for the family to get by.

These families’ division of labor compares to their gender ideologies because even though both parents are working outside of the house, many of them continue to believe and practice certain gender roles. Deutsch writes, “Mothers are still ‘in charge’ of the work at home; fathers help because their wives are unavailable.” Even though both the mother and the father have jobs and may even share the responsibilities at home 50-50 in most cases the mother will still be seen as the parent who is supposed to nurture and care for the children, but the father only does it when the mother cannot. Also in most cases it was the father who was seen as the main breadwinner. Some families even went so far as to ensure that the father brought in more money than the mother so that he could maintain the role as the breadwinner. Deutsch says, “In eight families the women’s rate of pay was either higher or equal to their husbands’. But in only two of the families did the women earn higher overall salaries. When women earned a higher rate of pay, their husbands worked a substantially greater number of hours.” This just shows how important it is for the men to make sure that they are the ones who are the seen as the breadwinners of the family. As far as the women go, many of them were happy to be out of the house and working. Most of the husbands believed that the women were only working because the family needed the money, but in fact most of the women said that even if money wasn’t an issue, that they would want to continue working. Some of the reasons for this were “a sense of independence in bringing in money, a chance to get out of the house and be with other adults, a feeling of accomplishment and recognition for a job well done, time away from children.” However no matter how much these women work, they are still seen as the “number-one parent” of the family.

I feel as though an alternating shift is an option for me in the future, but there are many factors that would contribute to my decision. If money was an issue and alternating shifts seemed like the most logical option then yes I would do it. Having a career is something that is very important to me, but if there is no one that I trust to take care of my children when my husband and I are working, then there will have to be some changes made. If both my husband and I work in the day and there is a problem taking care of the children then something will have to change because they would be my main priority. However, if I could avoid alternating shifts than I probably would. If my husband and I were doing alternating shifts, then there would be less time for all of us to spend as a family to be together, which is something that I would not want.

“The Absent Black Father”

This reading discusses fatherlessness and how it is perceived in our society. We see the absent Black father as someone who “epitomizes the male component of family breakdown and its deplorable repercussions.” The author wants us to realize that it is not the lack of a father that causes many families with children, especially Black families, to be living in poverty, but instead it is racism that is the true reason. Roberts writes, “A Black child whose father is present still is likely to fare worse than a White child raised by a single mother.” It is this reality that shows us that it is not about whether or not a Black child is raised in a house with or without a father present that will determine if the child lives in poverty, but instead it is racial inequality that will be the determining factor.

The societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers are that often times in the media Black men are viewed as being “gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, and crack heads” and that they should not be role models for their children. Also, the idea of living off of welfare increases the number of families who have children but are not married. For some women it is the idea of patriarchy that causes them to not want to have the father of their baby in the picture. Women in general are less likely to marry or stay with a man who offers little or no financial support. As Roberts writes, “Black sociologist William Julius Wilson, among others makes a convincing case that the rise in Black female-headed households is directly tied to Black male joblessness.” It is this decrease in being able to financially support a family that seems to be the reason that many Black families are fatherless. Another societal force is that the majority of those who make up the population of people who are incarcerated in this country are Black men. It is obvious that if a Black man is in jail he not only cannot financially support his family, but also he cannot physically be there for his children either. Even once he is out of jail, the fact that he is an ex-convict makes it extremely hard to find a relatively good job.

Many people still define the idea of the “perfect father” as someone who is able to financially support their children and families. Other factors are not taken into account when defining the “perfect father.” However, for a variety of reasons it is hard for Black men to find jobs where they are able to provide the financial support that their families need to get by. It is also because in our society it is the generally the mother, and not the father, who is supposed to be the parent that nurtures the children. But if the father cannot provide for his family financially and society doesn’t really accept a man being nurturing to his children, does that mean that a man can’t be nurturing to his children and can’t be there for them in any other way but financially?

Roberts says, “Stephanie Coontz reports that in one study ‘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.’” Roberts goes on to say, “Indeed, if we want to imagine nurturing fatherhood, decoupled from the patriarchal economic model, we might begin by looking to Black fathers.” By Roberts saying that she means that we need to remove ourselves from the idea that just providing financially for ones family does not define him as a father.