“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.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Blog #6: Family and Work
“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.
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.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Blog #4: Dating and Mating
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Blog #2: The Effects of Divorce on Families with Children
Article 1:
Fields, Suzanne. “Lifestyles of the poor and anonymous”, The
This article discusses single parents and how single parenting plays a big role in understanding the caste system in
“Marriage is tougher when it’s ‘for poorer’”,
According to the article, more than half of the women in the
Article 3:
Su-Yin,
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
Article 4:
Arndt, Bettina. “Educated guess at folly in sole parenting”, The Courier Mail (
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.
Lundberg, Pam. “Keeping couples together the goal”, The Post-Standard, 12/25/06.
This article discusses a federally-funded program in
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.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Blog #1: Decline of the American Family
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.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)