Alicia's Blog for Marriage and Family

Blog #14: Extended Families

2007-05-03T17:25:00.000-07:00

“Networks of Interdependence in an Age of Independence”

This chapter from Not-So-Nuclear Families: Class, Gender, and Networks of Care discusses how families often times use members of their extended family when it comes to things such as raising and providing care to their children. The kind of clash between beliefs and practices that Hansen describes is that we as a society tend to define the family as a small nuclear unit. However this belief goes against this belief because often times we resort to others outside of the family unit, for example when it comes to childcare. So while we believe that the family should be one way, we actually tend to structure our families in the completely opposite way. SNAF, as defined by Dorothy Smith as the Standard North American Family, can also be called the “breadwinner family.” The ideology of SNAF is that families are made-up of two heterosexual individuals which might or might not have children. However, for those who do have children, it is the parents who are expected to be the ones to provide care and “constitute the primary site of child rearing.” Therefore, the clash relates to the ideology of SNAF because as stated before it is not only the parents who are providing care to their children, which is the ideology of SNAF. The role that work plays in creating this clash is that today more mothers have to go out and work instead of staying home to take care of the children like they used to. While some mothers do still have the ability to stay home and take care of their children, the number of mothers who cannot has increased significantly. It is because these mothers are forced to work that they are helping to create this clash. The role that school plays in creating this clash is that children actually spend much of their time at school, meaning that a lot of the care that children are getting when they are younger is provided by the school staff. Hansen writes, “Overall, the structures of work and school combine to make providing care for school-age children an ongoing challenge for employed parents. No matter how well organized, no matter how reliable, no matter how hard-working, these parents have difficulty making sure their children are supervised during the care gap.” This just shows that when two parents are working they have to do whatever it takes to make sure that their children are in are being cared for and that someone is watching them when they are unavailable.

“Extended Family Ties among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Whites: Superintegration of Disintegration?”

The point of this article is to see how different ethnic groups vary and are similar when it comes to extended family integration. It looks at Mexican, Puerto Rican and White families. This study is interesting because not only does it look at three different backgrounds, but it also looks at two backgrounds that are of the same race, Mexican and Puerto Rican, and also compares them. According to Sarkisian, Gerena and Gerstel the ethnic differences in extended family integration are that Latino families are more integrated than White families. Also that Latino families, who on the whole tend to be worse off financially, are less likely to give their families financial support but are more likely to help out their relatives in ways that do not require them to use/spend money. While not directly related to culture or ethnic background, it was found that families of a lower SES were more likely to live closer to their relatives, to be in contact with them more frequently, while those of a higher SES were more likely to live farther and have less contact with their families, but to offer them greater financial support. Sarkisian et al. write, “These findings also suggest that family integration is based primarily on some combination of ability and need and far less on cultural predispositions.” This just proves that it is not so much the fact that there are differences between certain cultures, but that there are other factors, such as economic resources for example, that also play a huge role in whether or not there is high or low extended family integration.

Blog #13: Family Transitions

2007-04-27T00:06:00.000-07:00

“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

2007-04-23T01:02:00.000-07:00

“

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

2007-04-11T08:54:00.000-07:00

“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.

Blog #7: Family Violence

2007-03-14T08:44:00.000-07:00

“Is Violence Against Women About Women or About Violence?”

This article discusses the two perspectives of gender and of violence when talking about violence between men and women. Felson mentions that there is the gender perspective and the violence perspective. The gender perspective is that violence against women is a problem of sexism and deals with men’s feelings toward women. The violence perspective is that the violence against women has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the victim is a woman; instead it is simply violence in general. There are some commonalities between these two perspectives. For example, violence usually occurs between two men, men are more likely to be the victims of crime, when the victim happens to be a woman, she usually knows her attacker intimately, in terms of sexual usually the victim is generally a woman and the attacker is usually a man. However, the two sides disagree on the following: “whether wives are as likely to hit their husbands as husbands are to hit their wives,” what motivates these people to commit such crimes, and “whether men who assault women get off easily because society tolerates violence against women.” Felson talks about the “chivalry norm” and says that “the violence perspective suggests that violent men are less likely to assault their partners because of the chivalry norm.” I do not agree with this whatsoever. All a person has to do is see just see how many men abuse their partners in the U.S. and all over the world and they will see just how many men do abuse their partners. One good point that Felson mentions is that even though men and women are equally likely to hit each other, some not all of the women use physical abuse to defend themselves from the abuse of these men. The gender perspective also says that many men use violence against women as a means of maintaining power and control in relationships. I feel as though it is not one or the other and that each case should be looked at independently. Some cases may have more of a violence perspective while others may have more of a gender perspective. With that said, I think that if I had to pick one over the other I would lean more towards the gender perspective.

“Why Doesn’t She Leave?"

In this article we read about a couple cases of women who were physically abused by their husbands and tried to do everything they could to get their husbands to stop but nothing seemed to work for them. It finally got to the point where these women had no other option but to kill the men who were continually beating them. In this article Jones looks at how often times people will blame the women in situations like these and ask why didn’t she just leave the men? Even in the stories of the women mentioned in the article, who not only left the men but also went to other measures to try and get them to stop, and still people would ask why these women didn’t just leave the men. By doing this, people are putting the blame on the women for what happened between themselves and their abusers instead of blaming the men who are battering them. Jones’ answer to the question posed in the title of her article, “Why Doesn’t She Leave?” is that this question shouldn’t even be asked to begin with. Jones says that this question isn’t even a question. She writes, “This question, which we can’t seem to stop asking, is not a real question. It doesn’t call for an answer; it makes a judgment.” However, what Jones does say in regard to this question is that in many cases the women do leave, but rarely does her leaving ever solve the problem. Jones goes on to say, “So powerful and dazzling is this question that someone always tries to answer it. And the answer given rarely is the simple truth you find in the stories of formerly battered women: She does leave. She is leaving. She left. No, so mystifying is the question that someone always tries to explain why she doesn’t leave even after she has left.” This just shows how people tend to clump together every different case of a women being abused and see them all as the same. I agree with what Jones says about the women who leave but still are often times blamed by society for not leaving. Even in examples where the women have tried leaving the men and were successful in doing so, the men still were able to find them and continue abusing them, society will still blame the women for being abused and not leaving. It is as if we don’t look at each case individually but instead we just assume that in all cases of domestic abuse the women do not leave the men. This article relates to that of the Felson article on the different perspectives of violence because in the Felson article we see that those who are on the side of the violence perspective seemed to, in a way, to blame the victim for the abuse that took place. We also saw that in the Jones reading when society would blame the victim for not leaving even in the cases where the woman did leave.

“Why Do Men Batter Their Wives?"

This article looks at a study of eighteen men who in the past have battered their wives, girlfriends, or a female that is of some relation to them. All of the men have received counseling for the abuse over different periods of time. This article is interesting because it looks at the many different excuses and reasons the men gave as to why they physically abused the women. Also, the article discusses how many figures in society accept and legitimate these reasons for domestic violence. It is important to note that much of this takes place because the majority of the people who accept these reasons are men just like the batterers studied in the article. It is interesting to see how some of these people have jobs that are supposed to protect members of the society when many of them are minimizing the seriousness of domestic violence. According to Ptacek, the denials that men use to explain their abusive behavior is a loss of control, which many of the men in this study attributed to either drug or alcohol use or from a “buildup of frustration.” Another common excuse was that of victim-blaming in which the men believed that the only reason that they abused the women was because the women had provoked them in some way. Many of the men stated that prior to battering the women, the women had verbally attacked them and that physical abuse was the only way they could respond to the women. In terms of justifications for their actions, there were two types. The first is called the denial of injury. Ptacek writes, “According to some clinicians who have worked with men who batter, many batterers neutralize the unacceptability of their behavior by denying or minimizing the injuries battered women suffer.” By doing this, the men validate their behavior in their minds and don’t see what they’re doing as wrong. Another justification men used was the claim that women just bruise easily and that is why she ended up with marks on her body, as opposed to the amount of physical force he used on her. Lastly, there is the justification that is titled “failure to fulfill obligations of a good wife.” The men who fell in this category attributed their behavior for reasons such as “for not being good at cooking, for not being sexually responsive, for not being deferential enough to her husband, for not knowing when she is ‘supposed’ to be silent, and for not being faithful. Some of the contradictions we see in the explanations offered by men are that some of the men would deny any responsibility for what took place and then in the next sentence might blame the victim for what happened. Ptacek states, “The batterers’ excuses of ‘loss of control’ and ‘provocation’ are undercut by the callousness they displayed about their partners’ injuries, and by the goal orientation that appeared in their own words.” By this Ptacek means that no matter what excuses the men used, these excuses were significantly weakened by the insensitivity they used when discussing the injuries their victims sustained and how there was some goal they were trying to achieve when they decided to physically abuse these women. Many of these contradictions occur because the men are willing to say anything that will make the situation sound better. Ptacek writes, “[…] the conflicting statements result from the batterers’ willingness to apply any number of verbal strategies to the task of making the violence appear normal, regardless of whether the accounts have any internal consistency.” This article relates to the gender vs. violence debate because in the Felson article he mentions that sometimes men use violence against women because they can. In some of the cases of the eighteen men who had previously battered women, we learn of all different reasons for why they did what they did. Many of these reasons can be found in the Felson article on either the gender or the violence side.

Blog #6: Family and Work

2007-02-26T08:49:00.000-08:00

“Joey’s Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt”
In this reading we learn of a couple, Nancy and Evan Holt, who are struggling to come to an agreement where they are both happy. Unfortunately for Nancy, her husband always seemed to be the one who came out on top, and had very little responsibility in the home. We learn in the reading that Nancy feels as though her time and work is nowhere near as important as that of her husband, or at least that is how he makes her feel. We learn this when he suggests that she go from working full-time as social worker to part-time so that she feels less overwhelmed when she comes home and has to take care of her household chores. The egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter is that women, like that of Nancy Holt, have this belief that they have created a type of equality in the household between themselves and their husbands. This agreement between husband and wife is the result of the wife realizing that if she decides that she wants to have a career of her own that that does not lessen her responsibilities in the home. However, even though there is an unequal division of labor between the husband and wife, when asked about this division both are quick to say that the division is far more equal than it truly is, and in most instances, the two of them actually believe what they are saying. Emotion work is work that is done that may not only be expected of us, but it also work that we in some way enjoy doing. A good example of how emotion work and the egalitarian myth is that of the struggles of the division of labor between Nancy and Evan in the reading. In this reading we see how Nancy is split between her husband’s lack of wanting to contribute to doing his share of the household duties and her wanting to do such things as take care of the house and her son. Personally, I have never witnessed this type of division of labor between husband and wife in my household because I was adopted and raised by a single mother and it has always been just her and I. However, the division of labor has been divided between my mother and I. While the division of labor hasn’t been equally split 50-50, I definitely feel as though I have done a fair share of the housework. As far as my friends go, I would say that the majority of their mothers are the ones who primarily take care of the work in the home.

“Introduction”
This reading talks about domesticity and how it affects certain aspects of society. It discusses how domesticity influences both males and females. One point that the reading makes is about what it takes for a person to be “successful.” The reading says, “‘Success’ requires ideal-worker status. Few women have it.” I feel as though this quote and the paragraph that proceeds it show just how hard it is for a woman, specifically a mother, to have one of those “elite” jobs. It is nearly impossible when many of these professions require so much time, effort and energy and for a woman to take care of the children and the household on top of that it seems almost impossible. It is unfortunate for the women who are able to work out having both a family and these types of jobs that they often times do not receive the credit that they deserve for their hard work. In regards to the “ideology of domesticity” Williams writes, “the ideology of domesticity held that men ‘naturally’ belong in the market because they are competitive and aggressive; women belong in the home because of their ‘natural’ focus on relationships, children, and an ethic of care.” The ideology of domesticity lives up to the gender stereotypes that have already been placed on our society. The three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society are the “marginalizing children’s caregivers,” “minimizing of fathers’ involvement,” and even affects politics. By saying that domesticity constraints the marginalizing of the caregivers, this means that often times the mother is the primary caregiver of the children, and when a divorce takes place, it is the mothers and children who lose out in the end “while men’s entitlements reflect the assumption (derived from domesticity) that they ‘own’ their ideal-worker wage.” In the first video we watched of the hunter and gatherer society, there did seem to be a sort of ideology of domesticity though it did not seem to be as well defined as it is in our society. By this I mean that men were the ones who were out hunting and doing other such things while the women were generally the ones who stayed and took care of matters around where the band was staying. However, women also had certain tasks that many would not qualify as typically domestic. Also, it seemed by watching the video that there was a lot more understanding and cooperation between the men and the women in this society. Unlike in our society where they seems to be so much disagreement between who does what, there did not seem to be much disagreement between those in the film as far as “housework” goes. In the video on colonial America I don’t remember much about the husband of the midwife. However, I do know that the midwife had a full-time job and also had to take care of the household tasks when she was not busy with her work as a midwife.

“Is Domesticity Dead?”
This reading is about how overtime there has been a division between men and women in regard to the certain duties that each of them have to do in the home. Women have always been the ones expected to take care of the housework and that idea has hardly changed overtime. The article also discusses how it is nearly impossible for women to have the jobs that many of us dream of having when we are children because it is nearly impracticable for women to be able to work outside of the home for all or part of the day and then come home and have to worry about what needs to be done there.
Williams’ argument about sex discrimination is that women have always had a disadvantaged compared to men, especially in terms of the duties that need to be done in the home. Before women were more active in the workforce, they were always at home taking care of the children and the duties that needed to be taken care of in the home. There is still discrimination for women even now that they are more of a presence in the workforce. Nowadays women who have full-time and part-time jobs are expected not only to work but also to come home and have to take care of what needs to be done there. It is because of this sex discrimination for women that they lack the option of “free choice.” As the reading says, “Many women find that ceding to the demands of domesticity is the only way to have their lives make sense. This explains their sense of ‘choice.’”

“Domesticity and the Political Economy of Lesbigay Families”
In this reading we learn about how housework division between lesbian and gay couples and how they are similar and different to that of heterosexual couples. In the reading we learn of several different stories of lesbian and gay families and each of their individual stories. In this reading it is interesting to see how each individual couple divides the household labor. The reading by Carrington shows us how lesbian and gay couples fair as far as the issue of domesticity goes. Prior to reading this article I was curious to see how homosexual couples would handle this issue of domesticity compared to what I have frequently witnessed of heterosexual couples. I was surprised to see that much of the disagreements and the arguments that take place over the housework between heterosexual couples is similar to what happens between gay and lesbian couples. In our society, there are certain gender roles that men and women take on, as were discussed in many of this week’s readings, that the men are responsible for the work outside of the home and the women are in charge of the work that is necessary inside of the home. Given that, it was interesting to see how two people of the same sex would divide the household duties. I was surprised in the example of Arleen and Dolores that being a woman that Arleen was not more sympathetic to Dolores seeing as Dolores was the one who did the majority of the chores at home. Compared to what we have read in the reading by Hochschild, the reading by Carrington shows us how many lesbigay families are similar to heterosexual couples. In the example we saw in the Hochschild reading, many lesbigay couples also find it hard when trying to divide the labor evenly between both people. Similar to Nancy and Evan, several lesbigay couples find that one individual does the majority of the household chores than the other one does. Also, of the individuals who were actually doing more of the work at home, many said that they wished that their partner would appreciate their work more and would also help them more. This can be seen in both the story of Nancy and Evan, and in the story of Richard and Joe. Another likeness between Nancy and Evan, and Richard and Joe is that both Evan and Joe like to have time to themselves even during the time while their partners are maintaining the home; and that they feel that their jobs and their leisure time is far more important than that of Nancy and Richard. A difference between the stories of Nancy and Evan, and Richard and Joe is that Richard was able to realize just how much he was doing for Joe and himself, and not only how Joe rarely helped him but also Joe’s lack of appreciation for all that Richard did for him. In the case of Arleen and Dolores, while Dolores does do more work in the home than Arleen, they also have some help with maintaining their home, which in the story of Nancy and Evan, there was no outside help with taking care of the house. As Carrington writes, “Some lesbigay families achieve partial equity in their relationships through reliance on the labors of mostly working-poor people.” In the different cases we learned in the reading by Hochschild of heterosexual couples there was never any mention of any outside help, and while it may be common in other cases of heterosexual couples not mentioned in that reading, we do learn in the Carrington reading that many lesbigay families do have outside help in caring for their homes.

Blog #4: Dating and Mating

2007-02-12T18:42:00.000-08:00

In the article “The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up,” England and Thomas discuss how dating, which was once very common has been replaced by hooking up, especially among young adults in their college years. It seems as though dating, which was commonly done between two people during the time when they were getting to know one another, is now generally done by people who are already in a committed relationship, or as the article says “an exclusive romantic relationship.” Now it seems as though dating is something that is done once two people have decided that they want to be serious with one another when it previously was done in order for the two to get to know one another. Hooking up, which depending on who you ask can have a different meaning, seems to be what is taking the place of dating. However, unlike dating, hooking up involves some type of sexual activity, though no necessarily sexual intercourse and commonly occurs when those involved have been drinking alcohol. While each case is different, sometimes hook ups are one-time events while in other instances; hook ups can take place between the same two people over a period of time. The article goes on to discuss how the sexual behavior of women has become more accepted however there is still a double standard compared to the acceptance of men and their sexual behavior.

From my experience in college, though not my own but from what I have seen and heard, I agree with much that England and Thomas say in their article. Hooking up is something that has become very common among many college students, though the specific details of each hook vary greatly. It seems as though dating really has been replaced by hooking up; and that dating has become more common among two individuals who are already in a committed relationship. I also agree with the article’s argument about how promiscuity between males and females is not looked at in the same way. While many males are commended by fellow males for how many females they have sex with, how soon they have sex with a female, etc. females who do the same thing are frowned upon.

The second article, titled “After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating,” shows very different results. In this article we learn that the sexual activity among teens has been decreasing, however this does not mean that teens are not sexually active. During the 90s it seems as though there has been a rise in teens being more sexually conservative. The article also points out that not only did sexual activity among teens decrease, but the amount of “serious problems that can result from irresponsible teenage sexuality” decreased as well. The article offers a few reasons as to why there has been a decline in teenage sexual activity. Some of these reasons are: the success of abstinence education, the positive effect of comprehensive sex education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, or the fear of disease. The article also talks about how many teenagers today have a different idea of what it means to be in a relationship. As the article points out, many teens today may consider a relationship that is only two weeks old as a relationship so if sexual activity does take place in such a relationship it is not considered to be casual sex, while older generations may not share the same viewpoint.

It is obvious that as time goes by, the acceptance of sexuality is something that is becoming more and more pronounced, which makes the fact that sexual activity among teens is decreasing, even more interesting. However, one issue that I had with this article and its findings is that the definition of a relationship wasn’t one that was clearly stated and agreed upon by everyone. The article even states that teenagers had a different perception of what a relationship was than did many adults. This discrepancy is crucial because sexual activities that took place between people in what a teenager described as a relationship were what many adults considered to be casual sex because these relationships were relatively new and were not considered to be very serious quite yet. Also, while the article does state statistics and such, it seems somewhat surprising that there has been such a decline in teenage sexual activity.

According to the Risman and Schwartz article, the main trends in sexual activity among teens are that there has been a decline in sexual activity among this population. It seems as though more teens have learned from the mistakes that many of their parents made during the 60s and 70s also known as the time of the sexual revolution. Also, teens have become more aware of the dangers that can result from sexual activity, such as STDs, pregnancy, and so on. It appears as though the rates of these dangers have fallen faster than that of the rates of sexual activity meaning that this population has become more responsible when it comes to sex. Another observation that has been made is that there has especially been a decrease in teenage boys’ sexual activity, which can mainly be attributed to teenage girls and their “increasing control over the conditions of sexual intercourse” meaning that today it is more common for teenage girls to want to be in committed relationships before consenting to have sexual relations with their partner and are more likely to want to engage in safer sex. As I stated before, the author attributes much of these trends to teenagers being more aware of the mistakes made by many of their parents and also to the idea of not having what they consider to be “casual sex.”

According to the England and Thomas article, the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students are the decline in dating and the rise in hooking up, however the dating that does occur generally takes place between two people who are already involved in a romantic relationship and not between two people who are just getting to know one another. It is important to note that each individual has his/her own perceptions of what it means to “hook up,” however most do not include actual sexual intercourse as hooking up. Also, while in the past many relationships were the results of two people dating, this does not mean that today there is necessarily a decline in relationships as there is in dating. Surprisingly many students are in romantic, exclusive relationships. Many students surveyed in Thomas and England’s article believed that sexual activity should be something that occurs only in exclusive relationships; however men were more likely to say that casual sex is okay, while women were more likely to say that they wanted hook ups to eventually evolve into exclusive relationships.

The gender differences that are documented in both of these articles are that it is more acceptable for males, whether it’s teen boys or males in college, to be sexually active. A gender difference discussed in the England and Thomas article was how men and women described the occurrence of orgasms between themselves and their partners. It was obvious that it was more common for men to report having orgasm than their partners did. Also, men had reported that their female partners had experienced and orgasm more than the women had reported having an orgasm, which is rather interesting. Another common theme in the same article was that men were more likely to want to engage in hook ups with women while more women were hoping that hook ups would eventually become more serious relationships. One reason for this may be because women were more likely to be judged for their involvement in sexual activity. Some gender differences in the other article were that it was the teen boys who had reported more of a decline in sexual activity than did the teen girls. Also, black teenage girls, who had once had a higher rate of sexual activity than did teenage girls of other races, were also declining in their rates of sexual activity and were becoming comparable to white and Hispanic teenage girls. Another possible explanation for the decrease in sexual activities between teenagers is that more teenage girls were starting to take control over what sexual activity does or doesn’t take place and many limiting these types of activities to only when the two are a part of a serious relationship.

In both my experiences of being in high school and in college, I can say that what I have experienced and witnessed are very similar to what was described in both articles. In high school it was definitely more common for people to be in serious relationships than it was for two people to just hook up. I think that much of this has to do with the fact that I attended a small, private school and there were only sixty-two students in my graduating class. As a result of this, it left very few options for people to hook up with because we were already a very tight group; however that is not to say that hooking up did not occur in my high school because it did, but it was just not as common as exclusive relationships were. In college, however, I have absolutely seen a lot more instances of hooking up than people being in serious relationships within my social circle. I feel that a common reason as to why this occurs is because many people believe that college is the period of time where they are supposed to “live it up” and many people do not want to be in an exclusive relationship during this time. Also, as the article by England and Thomas stated, many hook ups were the result of two people who had drinking, and it is common for alcohol to be more accessible to students in college as compared to those in high school. Also, there seems to be a lot more interaction between people outside of college campuses, which makes the number of people a person can potentially hook up with even greater.

Blog #2: The Effects of Divorce on Families with Children

2007-01-31T07:03:00.000-08:00

Article 1:

Fields, Suzanne. “Lifestyles of the poor and anonymous”, The Washington Times, 12/4/06.

This article discusses single parents and how single parenting plays a big role in understanding the caste system in America. While the welfare reform was created to try and help eliminate “financial incentives” for poor woman to want to continue to have illegitimate children. The main reason why these single mothers are poor is because they do not have the skills necessary to have the better-paying jobs. Kay Hymowitz writes, “The old-fashioned married-couple-with children model is doing quite well among college-educated women. It is primarily among lower-income women with only a high school education that it is in poor health.” Since the children of these women are aware that their mother only has a high school degree, they often do not know any other way and are likely to also not continue their education after high school. However, what needs to be done is a “counter-revolution, a generational backlash against lost opportunities.” There was no evidence of research findings cited in this article. The beliefs that appeared in this article were that the women who found themselves as single parents who were having a difficult time getting by were not necessarily a lost cause and that a “counter-revolution needed to take place in order to prevent these difficult single parent situations.

Article 2:

“Marriage is tougher when it’s ‘for poorer’”, St. Petersburg Times, 1/28/07.

According to the article, more than half of the women in the U.S. are without a spouse and that the number of marriages since the 1970s has gone way down. The main causes for this are that people are waiting longer to get married, are living together but are not married, and are having divorces. It seems as those families who are better-off financially are the ones who tend to stay together. The article states, “Families with annual incomes over $50,000 have a 31 percent chance of divorce after 15 years, whereas families with incomes below $25,000 have a 65 percent chance of divorce.” This is because families are more likely to live in a stressful environment when money and being able to get by is a problem. The information about divorce in this article comes from the National Marriage Project, and thought the information is useful it does not tell us how recent these findings are. This article discusses the reasons why many families face divorce today, and mainly talks about the issue of money and its role in whether or not families stay together or split up. We learn that those who are financially stable are more likely to have less problems and less divorce, while those who are not as well-off find it harder to get by, which results in more conflict in the home and often leads to divorce.

Article 3:

Su-Yin, Yap. “More saying ‘I do’ and ‘I do…away with you’”, The Straits Times (Singapore), 9/26/06.

While the divorce rate is rising, so is the rate of marriage and remarriage. According to the experts, the rate of divorce is increasing because people are less prepared for marriage and the idea of what a family is is changing. In 2005, there were 6,909 divorces, which was 521 more divorces than in 2004, while in 2003, there were 6,561 divorces. It is also important to know that the number of marriages increased 3.6 percent from 2004 to 2005, which went from 22,189 (in 2004) to 22,992 (in 2005). A sociologist from Singapore, Paulin Straughan, seemed rather optimistic that those who had once had a divorce had decided to try marriage again. Some of the research findings in the article have been credited to the Department of Statistics, while others do not say as to where the information came from. The article realizes that both marriage and divorce are increasing, but also that among those who are divorced, many are not giving up on marriage and are remarrying.

Article 4:

Arndt, Bettina. “Educated guess at folly in sole parenting”, The Courier Mail (Australia), 12/8/06.

The article begins by stating directly: “marriage remains the best cushion against poverty.” In the article the reader reads facts such as that in the 1990s, the ex-nuptial birth rate rose 70 percent, and that by the end of the 90s, “more than one in four children were born out of wedlock.” This caused the number of children who grew up in welfare to rise significantly. In 2001, 3 percent of women aged 25-29 with degrees were single mothers while those who didn’t have degrees, 30 percent were single mothers. Arndt states, “More money means more stability, less stress…” which usually causes more families to stay together and have healthy relationships. While this article does state some research findings, it does not say where the most of this information comes from, which in turn does not allow the reader to follow-up with the information presented or allow the reader to evaluate the quality of the research. The main theme in this article is that better-educated women are more likely to wait to have children until they are married and are able to provide as much stability to their children as possible, while those women who are not as much educated are more inclined to have children before they are married or not as stable.

Article 5:

Lundberg, Pam. “Keeping couples together the goal”, The Post-Standard, 12/25/06.

This article discusses a federally-funded program in Onondaga County that was created to help poor people find healthy relationships that will hopefully better their lives. The article talks about how there are similar programs out there, however very few if any that cater specifically to lower-class people. It is especially important for this group of people to have such a program because they are more likely to face certain kinds of burdens that those who are better-off financially typically do not. In addition, this population of people is also less likely to have the resources to see a professional if certain problems arise and need counseling to help them get through these issues. It seems as though it is the lower-income families that are the ones more susceptible to having a divorce, which generally has a negative impact on those involved. While there are no formal research findings in this article, there were some members of the P.E.A.C.E. Inc. organization interviewed who have a good idea of the current situation regarding low-income families and divorce. It is clear that the purpose of this article and of this program is to promote healthy relationships and marriages so that all who are involved in these relationships can live better, healthier lives.

Conclusion:

One of the main debates that can be found in a few of these articles is that many of them state that the poor, single mother has to somehow turn her life around and make it possible to support herself and her family. However, these articles do not state that this chance cannot occur with some type of outside help because most of these women cannot do it on their own because if they could most would probably have done it already. Since this idea was not stated in some of the articles I do not know the authors’ positions on this matter. Another debate is that marriage is in many cases, the most important factor in why single mothers tend to be worse-off financially. While I am no familiar with the values of these authors, it is possible that some of them may believe strongly in the nuclear family and would prefer that more single mothers were not, which might affect their presentation of the facts and their conclusions. In the articles that I read, most of them seemed to contain important knowledge on the debate; however some of this information did not say where it came from, so someone who reads the article does not know how reliable the source is. I think that some press sources are more objective than others. Since it is the news, we usually only tend to see the extremes in terms of families. We usually only read about the families who are either very worse-off or those who are the exact opposite, but rarely do we see or hear about those who are in between. It is because of this that one might see most families as either very negatively-affected or very positively-affected.

Blog #1: Decline of the American Family

2007-01-22T08:08:00.000-08:00

In the reading, American Family Decline, Popenoe argues that between the years of 1960-1990 that the American family as a unit has been declining drastically and continues to do so. Popenoe attributes the decline to several different factors, such as the increasing divorce rate, the decrease in the number of children a family has, the change in marital roles between husband and wife, and so on. Popenoe uses numerous statistics to show how certain aspects of the family have increased and decreased over time, most of which show a negative change from the 1960s until the 1990s.

While Popenoe does raise some interesting arguments about the decline of American families, I do not agree with much that he has to say. It is nearly impossible for people to argue that the American family that we once knew has made a drastic change to what it currently is, which is where I stopped agreeing with Popenoe. I feel as though some of the changes that have been made to today’s families were not only bound to take place but were in fact a good change. For example, in the 1960s there was a higher percentage of women/wives who depended on their husbands for things such as financial support, now with more mothers and wives with full-time jobs, the dependence of women on men has decreased, and being a woman that is something that I am proud of and happy about.

In the article, Good Riddance to “The Family,” Stacey agrees with Popenoe in that there has been a change and decline in American families, but does not agree with the reasons that Popenoe gives as to why there has been a change. Stacey states that she and Popenoe have different definitions of the term family. Stacey states, “It is simply anthropologically incorrect to claim that the family was ‘once the only social institution in existence’ (546). In the latter part of Stacey’s article she writes about how sociologists should do away with the current definition of family, the one Popenoe uses, and create a new one, which would encompass all of the new changes that have been made as of the past decade or so, that includes the most recent “diverse family forms.”

One of the most important points I think Stacey made in her article was what she ascribes as the most harmful to children. Popenoe argued that divorce and the loss of a parent has long-lasting affects on children, and while that may be true, Stacey writes that she feels as though the “hostile emotional environment preceding this loss” that in fact has the most damage on children of divorce. I agree with this argument and also feel as though it is more important to remove oneself and one’s children from such an environment if it would allow for a safer and livable environment for those involved.

Cowan’s article, The Sky Is Falling, But Popenoe’s Analysis Won’t Help Us Do Anything About It, was the article of the three that I agreed most with. In the beginning of the article, Cowan states five other factors which he believes are also strong factors that are related to the decline of the American family. These five issues are violence, drug abuse, mental illness, general emotional dysregulation, and loneliness.

Cowan points out Popenoe’s lack of evidence in his arguments and says that Popenoe assumes that there has been a family decline rather than actually showing proof that a decline has occurred. Cowan goes on to point out that Popenoe used only one actual quote in his article, and even that one quote wasn’t didn’t prove too much. I also agree with Popenoe’s five other factors that also affect American families today. I think by Popenoe not including these issues makes his case even weaker because it is rather hard to argue that these issues are not important and do not have an impact on American family life.

In the end I would have to take the sides of Stacey and Cowan. While I do not disagree with Popenoe in that the American family is changing and by his standards is declining, I do not feel as though it has to be seen so negatively. It is a fact of life that all things evolve and in most cases become better, so why can’t families and how they function change as well? Who is to say that the recent changes in American families are not for the better? I feel as though the arguments made by Stacey and Cowan are stronger and that their reasons as to why a “decline in American families” has taken place are more accurate.