1. According to the research presented by Stephanie Coontz, how does divorce affect children, and what factors account for the variation in these effects?
The worst problems dealing with children are the initial affects. When they are younger, they tend to think that their parents got divorced because of them. As they get older, especially with teenagers, they do not feel like it was their fault, but they develop resentment towards their parents. This usually harms their relationships and lead to fighting. There has been speculation that divorce leads to anger and aggression in children, especially young boys. But there is no proof that those children wouldn’t have had the same issues if their parents had not gotten divorced. The children usually encounter a lot of anxiety because of the state of their custodial parent, usually the mother, and lash out. Usually the side affects of divorce on the children go away after the grieving period which lasts between 2-3 years.
Research has found though that the severity of these affects is varied by how the parent’s relationship was before they got married. It is unhealthier for a child to live in a high conflict household than it is to have divorced parents. Also, the involvement of the non custodial parent after the divorce varies what their relationship will be after. With my own speculations with teenagers, I have found that most of the resentment falls on the parent who left.
2. According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, what factors affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce?
The initial factors that affect short-term adjustment are how the child responds to the break-up, the condition of the marriage before the divorce, and the state of the custodial parent during the “crisis period”. Emotional short-term affects can be shock, anxiety, and anger. Throughout this period the children need additional emotional support. They also need structure in a daily schedule. If the marriage situation is hostile even before the couple breaks up, there will be more harmful affects because they have witnessed a great deal or arguing and hostility. Therefore, aggression develops. Male children are usually more affected than females. Usually, after a divorce, 9 out of 10 times, the woman becomes the custodial parent. When this happens, the woman has to deal with a drastic cut financially, especially if the husband was the breadwinner. A lot of times, the woman has to go back to work in order to support her children. This is just another adjustment that the children have to deal with.
After two or three years, the crisis period ends. Every affect after that point, lasting affects are long-term affects. Families that suffer in the long term sense seek psychiatric help. A lot of times the children have discipline issues, especially at school, and other authoritative figures. 22% of children in broken homes do not graduate from high school. But, children who were from homes in which there was large amounts of hostility, were worse off. In general, most children do not experience long-term affects as much as some think.
3. According to Carr, what three factors are the most important influences on spousal bereavement? How does gender shape the experience of spousal loss?
The three types of influences that affect the spousal bereavement all have to deal with how the person died or the condition of their marriage before they died. The most harmful affects on a person’s mental state is if the person died unexpectedly in an accident or sudden illness. The second form is if a person had a long term illness, such as cancer or a heart condition, and passed away expectedly. This type of bereavement comes along with military deaths as well. Spouses tend to deal with the death of their husband or wife before it even happens. Therefore, when the death occurs they were already prepared for it. Usually the depression state is not as long because the spouse has time to deal with their loss. The living spouse sometimes feels a sense of relief considering how tiring and draining the disease was on the couple. They also no longer have to see their spouse suffer. They too get to live again, in peace. No matter how awful that sounds. Another type of bereavement comes from an already broken home. The trauma can be one of two types- there could be guilt, or just plain depression. Usually, in both situations, the spouse left behind survives through it. They look back on their marriage and appreciate what they were given in their lives and the marriage while they were in it.
Gender plays a major role in how the spouse deals with the loss of their counterparts. Ironically, the men usually have a harder time dealing with the loss than the wife does. This is true because the wife, like gender roles usually state, are the house keepers. They are the social line to their husband. The women regulate the husband’s life- anywhere from his diet, social activities, to daily routines. A woman can usually go on with the support of friends she has built up. Financially though, women take a major cut because the social security for a woman is usually lower because of the lower salary she received compared to her husband. Also, the man has a much higher rate of remarriage- almost 10 to 1. This is because they need that support in their life, whereas the woman already has a stronger social group to rely on making it less necessary.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Childrearing 4/20
1. According to Thorne and Luria, what aspect of childhood experience serves as one of the main sources of gender differences? How does it operate?
The aspect of childhood experience that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences is the interaction between boys and girls. This interaction occurs in school, on the playground, and anywhere where young children meet with each other. Each gender has a specific Sexual Script. According to Thorne and Luria, a sexual script is, “defining who does what, with whom, when, how, and what it means.” Therefore, which every interaction between the children, they develop a specific way to respond to the situation. The general consensus is that boys and girls at younger ages do not try to be around each other. In fact, most boys and girls will hang around in same gender groups- like at the lunch table, assemblies, or other group activities. The two genders seem to only be together when forced by adults or in competitive games at recess. How gender becomes very different is when observing them in groups of their own sex.
With young boys, dirty talk is more common, whereas for young girls this sort of behavior is considered “un-ladylike”. “Sports, dirty words, and testing the limits are part of what boys teach boys how to do.” From an early age, focusing mostly around the fourth grade for boys, masculinity becomes a major goal. High school boys are driven by hormones and are less likely to be affectionate with their friends.
With young girls, there is much more of an intimate bond it seems. On the playground they are more likely to be in small, close knit groups, consisting of their best friends. They do not participate in team sports as much. It is more likely to find them jumping rope or playing on the monkey bars. Girls also spend more time talking to each other and showing affection. To show affection boys rough house, whereas girls comb each others hair and congratulate each other with hugs.
2. According to Goldscheider and Waite, how much housework do children do in contemporary families? How does it vary by child’s gender and type of family?
In contemporary families, the children do not do as much work as they have done in the past. According to data children only do 15% of the household tasks. Therefore, the mother and father are left with the majority of the work, as well as bringing home the salary. They do though take most of the responsibility when it comes to washing the dishes and cleaning the house. In most cases, the children are even paid for the work they do around the house. This makes the work they do seem almost optional. Getting paid does not reinforce the values which helping out the parents should show.
The family itself is a “gender factory”. In the family, the women do most of the domestic work, whereas the men do more manual labor such as yard work. “Previous research and common sense suggest that the age and sex composition of the children in the household will affect whether a woman shares tasks with any of her offspring.” Therefore it has been proven, according to Goldscheider and Waite, that female offspring will do five times more chores than male children of the same age. Females mostly take care of the dishes, laundry and cleaning the house. Older daughters will also help with grocery shopping, child care, and help their brothers with the yard work.
In a family with both a mother and father present, overall the children will do less work- that is where the 15% statistic comes in. In a nuclear family the parents will do the most, daughters are next in line, and sons will do the least. In households run by a single mother, their work load will double. The mother will still do the majority of the work. But in this type of household the work between sons and daughters will somewhat even out. This is due to the fact that the mom will need help with chores that their father is not around to do. “Teenage boys only contribute more than younger children if they live in mother-only families.” (815) In a family’s home where a child lives with their mom and a stepfather, their work load increases. Stepfathers have been known to turn their children into, “Cinderellas”. Usually the stepdaughter takes on more responsibility because of an increased number of dishes and extra child care. Once the children are adults, and remain in this type of household though, their work is almost completely diminished.
3. According to Annette Lareau, how do the models of childrearing differ by race and class?
In a general light, working-class or poor families view childrearing in a natural way. They feel if they provide love, food and safety, their children will grow up to be healthy, happy, and good citizens. These children usually have much more free time. Unfortunately, this type of rearing causes disagreements between the children and other sources of disciplinarians. This causes large issues for the children at school. But, they have stronger ties with their family, especially their extended families. They are usually hanging out with their entire family, no matter their age. Once again, the term “other mothers” comes into play, especially in Black households. Where children are not just raised by their parents, but the child rearing is a community effort almost. For discipline, they use more physical methods as a way to keep their children in line. They are less likely, unlike middle to upper-class children to talk out of line. They will less likely contest to what their elders say.
The type of child rearing used by Middle-class and Upper-class families is termed concerted Cultivation. In these families in general, the parents are around and involved in their children’s lives a little bit more. The parent actively fosters and assesses child’s talents, opinions, and skills. Compared to working class families, they have more planned activities made by the parents. Ironically, the children in this category have weaker ties with their family, especially their extended family. As for discipline, they use alternative methods more, than use of physical abuse. Children are more open to negotiations between them and their parents. The child is more open to arguing with what their parents say. In general the child will stand up for itself outside of the family as well.
Between Black and White children, there are only slight differences if they are in the
same social class. The main differences lie between what the members of the same race are doing, but in separate social classes.
4. What are the signs of commercialization of childhood presented in Juliet Schor’s article? How does this commercialization affect children’s well-being?
Personally, I found this article extremely upsetting. Basically, we are creating a society based around commercialized ideals. Our children are being raised more by corporations than they are by their parents. We can observe this when we look at the statistics. By 18 months, children can recognize logos, such as McDonald’s and other brand names. By 1st grade, a child can identify over 200 logos. Also, these children are already becoming extremely materialistic by knowing these brand names and requesting the items that they see in television commercials. By the age of 8, they are already shopping on their own. By the time they are “tweens” they are spending, on average, around $101 a week. Everything that has to do with how we are raising our children has to do with the material items they possess. Corporations target this age group because they are the most impressionable. Commercials can make even the stupidest of products look cool. As long as it has the right brand name on it, companies can sell pretty much anything. What is even more disturbing is that we are encouraging this behavior. Out of guilt, absent parents will buy numerous countless gifts, out of “guilt money”, in order to make themselves feel better about being away from their children. We also allow our children to watch hours of television a day. Every year, we allow our children to watch almost 40,000 commercials. What are we teaching our children?
According to this article, commercialization is more harmful to children than we might have thought. “Materialistic values undermines well- being, leading people to be more depressed, anxious, less vital, and in worse physical health.” The values that materialism is replacing, causes children to engage in less than healthy lifestyles. They are drinking, smoking, and using illegal substances at early ages. Their ambition to do something meaningful with their lives has also been squashed. 62% of children claim that, “the only job I want when I grow up is one that gets me a lot of money.”
The aspect of childhood experience that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences is the interaction between boys and girls. This interaction occurs in school, on the playground, and anywhere where young children meet with each other. Each gender has a specific Sexual Script. According to Thorne and Luria, a sexual script is, “defining who does what, with whom, when, how, and what it means.” Therefore, which every interaction between the children, they develop a specific way to respond to the situation. The general consensus is that boys and girls at younger ages do not try to be around each other. In fact, most boys and girls will hang around in same gender groups- like at the lunch table, assemblies, or other group activities. The two genders seem to only be together when forced by adults or in competitive games at recess. How gender becomes very different is when observing them in groups of their own sex.
With young boys, dirty talk is more common, whereas for young girls this sort of behavior is considered “un-ladylike”. “Sports, dirty words, and testing the limits are part of what boys teach boys how to do.” From an early age, focusing mostly around the fourth grade for boys, masculinity becomes a major goal. High school boys are driven by hormones and are less likely to be affectionate with their friends.
With young girls, there is much more of an intimate bond it seems. On the playground they are more likely to be in small, close knit groups, consisting of their best friends. They do not participate in team sports as much. It is more likely to find them jumping rope or playing on the monkey bars. Girls also spend more time talking to each other and showing affection. To show affection boys rough house, whereas girls comb each others hair and congratulate each other with hugs.
2. According to Goldscheider and Waite, how much housework do children do in contemporary families? How does it vary by child’s gender and type of family?
In contemporary families, the children do not do as much work as they have done in the past. According to data children only do 15% of the household tasks. Therefore, the mother and father are left with the majority of the work, as well as bringing home the salary. They do though take most of the responsibility when it comes to washing the dishes and cleaning the house. In most cases, the children are even paid for the work they do around the house. This makes the work they do seem almost optional. Getting paid does not reinforce the values which helping out the parents should show.
The family itself is a “gender factory”. In the family, the women do most of the domestic work, whereas the men do more manual labor such as yard work. “Previous research and common sense suggest that the age and sex composition of the children in the household will affect whether a woman shares tasks with any of her offspring.” Therefore it has been proven, according to Goldscheider and Waite, that female offspring will do five times more chores than male children of the same age. Females mostly take care of the dishes, laundry and cleaning the house. Older daughters will also help with grocery shopping, child care, and help their brothers with the yard work.
In a family with both a mother and father present, overall the children will do less work- that is where the 15% statistic comes in. In a nuclear family the parents will do the most, daughters are next in line, and sons will do the least. In households run by a single mother, their work load will double. The mother will still do the majority of the work. But in this type of household the work between sons and daughters will somewhat even out. This is due to the fact that the mom will need help with chores that their father is not around to do. “Teenage boys only contribute more than younger children if they live in mother-only families.” (815) In a family’s home where a child lives with their mom and a stepfather, their work load increases. Stepfathers have been known to turn their children into, “Cinderellas”. Usually the stepdaughter takes on more responsibility because of an increased number of dishes and extra child care. Once the children are adults, and remain in this type of household though, their work is almost completely diminished.
3. According to Annette Lareau, how do the models of childrearing differ by race and class?
In a general light, working-class or poor families view childrearing in a natural way. They feel if they provide love, food and safety, their children will grow up to be healthy, happy, and good citizens. These children usually have much more free time. Unfortunately, this type of rearing causes disagreements between the children and other sources of disciplinarians. This causes large issues for the children at school. But, they have stronger ties with their family, especially their extended families. They are usually hanging out with their entire family, no matter their age. Once again, the term “other mothers” comes into play, especially in Black households. Where children are not just raised by their parents, but the child rearing is a community effort almost. For discipline, they use more physical methods as a way to keep their children in line. They are less likely, unlike middle to upper-class children to talk out of line. They will less likely contest to what their elders say.
The type of child rearing used by Middle-class and Upper-class families is termed concerted Cultivation. In these families in general, the parents are around and involved in their children’s lives a little bit more. The parent actively fosters and assesses child’s talents, opinions, and skills. Compared to working class families, they have more planned activities made by the parents. Ironically, the children in this category have weaker ties with their family, especially their extended family. As for discipline, they use alternative methods more, than use of physical abuse. Children are more open to negotiations between them and their parents. The child is more open to arguing with what their parents say. In general the child will stand up for itself outside of the family as well.
Between Black and White children, there are only slight differences if they are in the
same social class. The main differences lie between what the members of the same race are doing, but in separate social classes.
4. What are the signs of commercialization of childhood presented in Juliet Schor’s article? How does this commercialization affect children’s well-being?
Personally, I found this article extremely upsetting. Basically, we are creating a society based around commercialized ideals. Our children are being raised more by corporations than they are by their parents. We can observe this when we look at the statistics. By 18 months, children can recognize logos, such as McDonald’s and other brand names. By 1st grade, a child can identify over 200 logos. Also, these children are already becoming extremely materialistic by knowing these brand names and requesting the items that they see in television commercials. By the age of 8, they are already shopping on their own. By the time they are “tweens” they are spending, on average, around $101 a week. Everything that has to do with how we are raising our children has to do with the material items they possess. Corporations target this age group because they are the most impressionable. Commercials can make even the stupidest of products look cool. As long as it has the right brand name on it, companies can sell pretty much anything. What is even more disturbing is that we are encouraging this behavior. Out of guilt, absent parents will buy numerous countless gifts, out of “guilt money”, in order to make themselves feel better about being away from their children. We also allow our children to watch hours of television a day. Every year, we allow our children to watch almost 40,000 commercials. What are we teaching our children?
According to this article, commercialization is more harmful to children than we might have thought. “Materialistic values undermines well- being, leading people to be more depressed, anxious, less vital, and in worse physical health.” The values that materialism is replacing, causes children to engage in less than healthy lifestyles. They are drinking, smoking, and using illegal substances at early ages. Their ambition to do something meaningful with their lives has also been squashed. 62% of children claim that, “the only job I want when I grow up is one that gets me a lot of money.”
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Fathering 4/13
1. According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the United States over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations?
In earlier times, fathers were viewed as the role models, the person who was supposed to lead their children with their moral guidance. Mothers were just there to nurture the children, but were almost like children themselves; therefore the man was the role model. The father was especially close to the son. Mothers had a very distant relationship from their male offspring. The fathers worked very closely with his boys- Often taking him on as an apprentice. As time went on, the father’s role changed. Mothers began taking on more than just a nurturing role. They served as a role model as well. Fathers took on the appearance of the breadwinner. In this time, fathers were needed more as providers then mentors to their children. Gaps between the father and children got larger. Critics started to become concerned with the father as an absent figure in the children’s lives. They felt that leaving so much responsibility to the female gender was a bad idea. Too much nurturing, in their opinion, was detrimental to the children’s sexual development. Too much mothering caused children, especially sons to become homosexuals. Therefore, over time, Fathers stepped in as a sex model. The father was responsible for showing the sons how to be ideal men, and the daughters as ultimate females. Fathers started to become a lot more present in the children’s lives, giving them a healthy balance between mothering and fathering. As time progressed though, industrial America prevailed over the family and capital needs began to take president in the household. Fathers once again took on the role as the breadwinner, even though mothers often to left the home to pursue their own careers. Very rarely do you hear of a stay at home father.
Today, I believe a father’s role is much like stated in an article. They are distant role models that are primarily there to provide financially for their family, while the mother once again is a dominantly nurturing role. To this day, I do not know any stay at home dads that I can think of. In fact, I feel a man would be ridiculed if he stayed home with his children. A man is thought of as the old fashioned breadwinner. In my own family my father is not very present in my social and academic life. His main priorities are with his business. Even though he is not always there, there is no doubt in my mind that he is not a loving parent, providing for me in the way he deems he should be. I always thought that my mom was the present parent- always involved in everything I do. Talking to other people my age I feel like my situation is not any different than my own.
2. According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?
From the articles,it is safe to say that most families choose to work alternating shifts because they do not want to have their children raised by strangers. By raising them themselves, they always know that their children are safe and their morals are instilled in them. Most families, especially Blue Collar households need to have both parents work for financial needs. To them and white collar parents they feel likie it is the best alternative for their children- even if the couple's time together is hurt by the situation. White collar families do not always need the extra salary, but most women agree that they enjoy the extra time out of the house. In both cases the man was the breadwinner. The men wanted to be the main financial provider in the family. They also enjoyed being the father figure as well.
Even with alternating shifts, the wives still contributed more in the housework than the men did. Ironically, the wives though gave the husbands more credit than the husbands felt they deserved. It seemed like in most cases in the articles, where the men actually saw how hard it was to run the household, they appreciated what it meant to be a stay at home parent. Therefore, they were more helpful when participating in the household tasks. Because they alternated shift, one parent would take care of the morning duties and the other would take care of the evening duties when they got home from their shifts. This system seemed to be the best when it came to how the work was divided. If not equally divided, it could get really close. This system is opposite than the normal ideology for the genders. Even though men still continue to be the main breadwinners, they are also playing the role of "Mr. Mom". Women are helping with the financial ssituation, the typical traditional role of the man, while coming home and taking care of her motherly duties.
I would not necessarily chose to have an alternate shift way of living. I would chose a happy medium between my relationship with my husband and my children. I do not care what the article says, you cannot tell me that never seeing your spouse is good for a person's marriage. To me, I feel it would put alot of stress between my husband and I. I was raised by a part time nanny when my mother went back to work and I feel I turned out just fine. For a family to function I feel all family members need to be together a significant amount of time. I think children benefit from being with both parents. Living in a household where they never see their parents together I feel wouldn't be healthy. They need good role models. And what is a better model than two happy loving parents that work hard to provide for their family and still manage to keep the family together.
3. According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?
According to the articles, as a whole, the Black community is mostly a matriarchy. Children are primarily taken care of by the mother or another “other mother”. Society might focus on the lack of a father’s role in children’s lives, but really, they are being more than compensated. As a community, a child is truly raised. Every member of the family- mom, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and siblings all take part in the raising of a child. Fathers are somewhat absent because of the whole welfare system. Because of this sort of financial help, father’s who are unable to provide for their families have that backup plan. Statistically, Black men have a higher rate of unemployment for whatever reason. Therefore, because the father’s role in any family is primarily a financial one, there lacks a need for the father to be present since the family’s primary nurturer is the mother.
The myth of the Absent Black Father came along with the high rates on single motherhood. People assumed that just because a man was not married to their child’s mother, meant that they were not present in their lives. Also, just because a man cannot financially support his family, does not mean he is also completely absent from the child’s life. It is called a myth because Black fathers are actually very present in the child’s life. They are usually present in the kid’s life as more as a mentor or friend rather than the breadwinner of the family. Just because a family does not go according to a society’s norm, does not mean that there is anything wrong with how the family functions. As long as the father, or father figure, is present, the child can have a healthy balance between both parents.
In earlier times, fathers were viewed as the role models, the person who was supposed to lead their children with their moral guidance. Mothers were just there to nurture the children, but were almost like children themselves; therefore the man was the role model. The father was especially close to the son. Mothers had a very distant relationship from their male offspring. The fathers worked very closely with his boys- Often taking him on as an apprentice. As time went on, the father’s role changed. Mothers began taking on more than just a nurturing role. They served as a role model as well. Fathers took on the appearance of the breadwinner. In this time, fathers were needed more as providers then mentors to their children. Gaps between the father and children got larger. Critics started to become concerned with the father as an absent figure in the children’s lives. They felt that leaving so much responsibility to the female gender was a bad idea. Too much nurturing, in their opinion, was detrimental to the children’s sexual development. Too much mothering caused children, especially sons to become homosexuals. Therefore, over time, Fathers stepped in as a sex model. The father was responsible for showing the sons how to be ideal men, and the daughters as ultimate females. Fathers started to become a lot more present in the children’s lives, giving them a healthy balance between mothering and fathering. As time progressed though, industrial America prevailed over the family and capital needs began to take president in the household. Fathers once again took on the role as the breadwinner, even though mothers often to left the home to pursue their own careers. Very rarely do you hear of a stay at home father.
Today, I believe a father’s role is much like stated in an article. They are distant role models that are primarily there to provide financially for their family, while the mother once again is a dominantly nurturing role. To this day, I do not know any stay at home dads that I can think of. In fact, I feel a man would be ridiculed if he stayed home with his children. A man is thought of as the old fashioned breadwinner. In my own family my father is not very present in my social and academic life. His main priorities are with his business. Even though he is not always there, there is no doubt in my mind that he is not a loving parent, providing for me in the way he deems he should be. I always thought that my mom was the present parent- always involved in everything I do. Talking to other people my age I feel like my situation is not any different than my own.
2. According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? How does these families' division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?
From the articles,it is safe to say that most families choose to work alternating shifts because they do not want to have their children raised by strangers. By raising them themselves, they always know that their children are safe and their morals are instilled in them. Most families, especially Blue Collar households need to have both parents work for financial needs. To them and white collar parents they feel likie it is the best alternative for their children- even if the couple's time together is hurt by the situation. White collar families do not always need the extra salary, but most women agree that they enjoy the extra time out of the house. In both cases the man was the breadwinner. The men wanted to be the main financial provider in the family. They also enjoyed being the father figure as well.
Even with alternating shifts, the wives still contributed more in the housework than the men did. Ironically, the wives though gave the husbands more credit than the husbands felt they deserved. It seemed like in most cases in the articles, where the men actually saw how hard it was to run the household, they appreciated what it meant to be a stay at home parent. Therefore, they were more helpful when participating in the household tasks. Because they alternated shift, one parent would take care of the morning duties and the other would take care of the evening duties when they got home from their shifts. This system seemed to be the best when it came to how the work was divided. If not equally divided, it could get really close. This system is opposite than the normal ideology for the genders. Even though men still continue to be the main breadwinners, they are also playing the role of "Mr. Mom". Women are helping with the financial ssituation, the typical traditional role of the man, while coming home and taking care of her motherly duties.
I would not necessarily chose to have an alternate shift way of living. I would chose a happy medium between my relationship with my husband and my children. I do not care what the article says, you cannot tell me that never seeing your spouse is good for a person's marriage. To me, I feel it would put alot of stress between my husband and I. I was raised by a part time nanny when my mother went back to work and I feel I turned out just fine. For a family to function I feel all family members need to be together a significant amount of time. I think children benefit from being with both parents. Living in a household where they never see their parents together I feel wouldn't be healthy. They need good role models. And what is a better model than two happy loving parents that work hard to provide for their family and still manage to keep the family together.
3. According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?
According to the articles, as a whole, the Black community is mostly a matriarchy. Children are primarily taken care of by the mother or another “other mother”. Society might focus on the lack of a father’s role in children’s lives, but really, they are being more than compensated. As a community, a child is truly raised. Every member of the family- mom, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and siblings all take part in the raising of a child. Fathers are somewhat absent because of the whole welfare system. Because of this sort of financial help, father’s who are unable to provide for their families have that backup plan. Statistically, Black men have a higher rate of unemployment for whatever reason. Therefore, because the father’s role in any family is primarily a financial one, there lacks a need for the father to be present since the family’s primary nurturer is the mother.
The myth of the Absent Black Father came along with the high rates on single motherhood. People assumed that just because a man was not married to their child’s mother, meant that they were not present in their lives. Also, just because a man cannot financially support his family, does not mean he is also completely absent from the child’s life. It is called a myth because Black fathers are actually very present in the child’s life. They are usually present in the kid’s life as more as a mentor or friend rather than the breadwinner of the family. Just because a family does not go according to a society’s norm, does not mean that there is anything wrong with how the family functions. As long as the father, or father figure, is present, the child can have a healthy balance between both parents.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Mothering
1. According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?
According to Hays, the four historical stages were the Middles Ages in Europe, then the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Puritan America, the Nineteenth century in America, and finishing with the 20th Century, known as the Progressive Era. In the Middle Ages, readings show information that leads historians to feel like they feared their children almost. According to the reading, children were not considered blessings. “Adults found children demonic, animalistic, ill-formed, and physically fragile.” They needed to be disciplined because they would cause harm to themselves and the people around them is they were left on their own accord. They were physically beaten as a form a discipline, known as flogging. Wet nurses were every common. Also, cuddling and other forms of affection were not seen as kosher.
In Puritan America, children were beginning to be seen in a completely different light. Instead of being little devils, they were seen as innocent human beings. Childhood was a value period of life. People began to embrace childhood by creating its own type of clothing and toys. Parents were becoming more like the parents we see today- loving and caring. Cuddling was now not seen as such a taboo. The primary teaching guide for the parents was the bible.
In the nineteenth century, the view of a child transformed again as well as the parenting skills. Parents were children caretakers. Instead of being bad and being transformed into good people, Americans started to believe that they were born with good intentions and it was the mother’s job to make sure they stayed that way. Mothers were beginning to be seen as more important. It was her and her husband’s job to keep the children as innocent as possible. Unlike in the Middle Ages when the child was seen as matured by age six or seven. Mothers were not expected to have as many children as they had been before. Their new jobs were to focus intently on the ones they had and not to focus on her own fertility.
In the twentieth century, due to new scientific and technological advances, children’s mothers were now seen more as protectors against the world outside the home. They kept the children off of the streets and in schools. They were also mostly taken out of the work force, in middle class homes. Discussions surrounding how to raise a child were common as debates on what was proper became a little more mainstream. Women were viewed as the care takers or the nurturers. The family became a unit centered on the children.
Intensive mothering is the concept where the mother is the primary caregiver over the children. They are to love them and nurture them. The mother gives the child everything he or she wants or needs. They take the front seat in making sure that the child grows into a well rounded individual, at pretty much any cost.
My mom is very much like that. She would give up everything for my sister and I. Even when my parents were married, she was the primary caregiver for us. My father would be around on the weekends, but when it came to school and other extracurricular activities, she was the one that was there. At times I felt smothered but I know if she wasn’t there looking over me like she did, I certainly would not be attending Boston College this year. She was a wonderful mother and a wonderful woman. My Nana, her mother, was exactly the same way. They are both mothers that most should strive to be like.
2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?
The main indicators that show that mothers are being devalued are ever so present in everyday life. It is demonstrated when the government do not recognize being a stay at home as an occupation. In fact, they receive absolutely no benefits whatsoever. Studies have shown that every year a woman stays home, she is losing retirement benefits and money. It is the most unappreciated job in society. If there were no stay at home moms, who would raise the children? Or more importantly, how would these parentless children turn out? Women are also encouraged to not put stay at home mom when applying for a job. In the working world, a stay at home mom is seen as a woman who has it easy. Who doesn’t have to go into work everyday and has no stress. It is seen as a weakness, not as strength; when ironically, being a stay at home more is more labor intensive than any other job out there. They never get to call in sick or take a personal day. Overtime is not a punishment, but a way of life. Being a mother is a 24/7 job- the most unappreciative job in the world. When women decide to be the primary parent, the government slowly takes away government pension by hundreds of dollars a month. (5) Court rulings are usually in the favor of the “bread winner”, so in divorce court, the mother usually loses, and finances force her to go back to work, meaning that the children’s primary care giver is barely ever around. Women also face hardship in the work place. And some women are actually even fired because they cannot care for their children, while working over time and weekend shifts. Society also gives women a lot of undue hassle. Career women look down on stay at home moms because they see them as dependents and not as self sufficient women. Children even look down on stay at home moms because society marks them as “wastes”, when really the salary a woman would receive for her daily actions would grant her, according to the text, over $500,000 (plus) annually.
I totally agree with Crittenden’s view. Society puts women as a stereotype as mothers and nurturers, then penalizes them for the roles they were shoved in to. When my mother got married she had a very successful career. As she got older, and wanted a family, she decided to take a break and raise her children without the help of a full time nanny. When talking to her about her experience, she claimed it was the best job she ever had, and no matter how far behind it got her in the working world, she’d do it all over again. She often felt unappreciated by my father, who once asked her, “What do you do all day?” She simply replied, “Raising your children.” Society puts so much pressure on women to do different things. If a woman was at home, they’d want her in the working world. But if she got a nanny because of a full-time job, she’d be looked down upon because she would be deemed a bad mother. Women should make their own decisions when it comes to their careers and their families just like men do. No man is looked down upon because he has a career. Women should be embraced no matter what they decide. And the government, especially in the conservative one we have today, should give benefits to the women who are raising our country’s next generation and our future leaders. By providing a strong base at home, mothers are insuring that our society will be better off in the future. They need to be recognized for their success.
3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"?
The two types of mothering that Black women tend to do are biological mothers or “othermothers”. The biological mother is the blood mother of the child. Whereas the term other mother, is another person, related by blood or not, that steps in when the biological mother is not present. The othermother can be Grandmothers, sisters, aunts, or cousins. They can step in temporarily or long term with informal adoption. Raising a children is almost a community affair, just in specific households.The family itself in a woman-based family tie. The family tends to be more than just a mother and a father. Like we see with othermothers, the entire family steps in to raise the child.
Mothers, whether biological or not, are the head of the family, especially regarding Black women. They are the anchors that ground a family. A mother can be a child’s cousin, aunt, or grandmother. Either way, the mother figure is the matriarch or the family. Their job is to take care of the children and raise them in a society where the children face discrimination against their race, gender, class, sexuality, and nationality. Their job is to help the children keep their values when the ways of the world are against their children. Instead of letting them be oppressed they make it so children feel they can keep their chins up. In this way, they are the overseers of our future society. Mothers are producing and raising the next generation. Therefore, giving them the power to change the world as we know it.
4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?
According to Edin and Kefalas, the attitudes of poor women in America on child rearing and what the consequences of their actions are, are completely different than what is what more middle class citizens would consider the norm. In fact, women like Jen, the young woman interviewed, believes that having a child got her off the streets and made her a better all together. By being forced to take on responsibility, it has made her a better rounded individual. It was also curious to see that she did not include any opinions by her own parents. The only thing we know is that they felt she really turned her life around, after the birth of her son Collin. In a middle class home, a family would go on high alert and panic if their daughter in her sophomore year of high school got pregnant. The family would see it as a determent to her success, not a blessing in disguise, like Jen did. When it comes to marriage, the more poverty stricken Americans, find that having kids is less important, or binding, than a marriage. They have children frequently but don’t marry a man as quickly. Like Jen, children are a way of life, a failed marriage isn’t. Therefore, they are not going to jump into a marriage with someone they have kids with, just because they are the parent of their child. They aren’t going to get married if they know it’s going to fail. These individuals have become tough and independent through all of their hard times. They are not going to give up their independence for someone who is just going to leave them after a couple of years. If you said this to a middle class family, they would strongly disagree, I know my family would. My mother would say that if I made a decision to sleep with someone, she would assume that I was in love with the man, therefore I would want to marry him. I find that middle class homes have a more traditional way of looking at the family, whereas with poorer families, they actions are made to insure their own success.
To help these women out of poverty, we have to help them stand on their own two feet. Since young women value their independence so much, make it so the government is helping them succeed while letting the women feel they are truly doing it on their own. Like we learned last week, most European nations provide free and much better health care than we have here in the States. Therefore, I feel we should adopt this program in impoverished areas so that women like Jen can work sufficient hours to make rent and buy food, while she knows that her child is in good hands. Taking some of the worry and stress out of life would make these people more affective in their jobs. Then, women like Jen, could be promoted and make enough money for her and her son to get out of the bad areas and into a place where her son would have more success.
I can understand both sides of the arguments that the middle class and lower classes represent. I do not believe that just because a young woman gets pregnant she should have to marry her husband, especially if she is as young as 15 years old. But I also disagree with having a child in order to gain a sense of independence and help to get off the street. A child is a life long commitment and it needs to be a serious decision, one that I feel like a 15 year old couldn’t make at such a young and impressionable age. But, to each their own, and I feel like single mothers are never going to be extinct. Meaning that as long as they are around, our government needs to help them raise their children as easily as possible. And also try to give them the same chances to succeed that the next person has.
According to Hays, the four historical stages were the Middles Ages in Europe, then the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Puritan America, the Nineteenth century in America, and finishing with the 20th Century, known as the Progressive Era. In the Middle Ages, readings show information that leads historians to feel like they feared their children almost. According to the reading, children were not considered blessings. “Adults found children demonic, animalistic, ill-formed, and physically fragile.” They needed to be disciplined because they would cause harm to themselves and the people around them is they were left on their own accord. They were physically beaten as a form a discipline, known as flogging. Wet nurses were every common. Also, cuddling and other forms of affection were not seen as kosher.
In Puritan America, children were beginning to be seen in a completely different light. Instead of being little devils, they were seen as innocent human beings. Childhood was a value period of life. People began to embrace childhood by creating its own type of clothing and toys. Parents were becoming more like the parents we see today- loving and caring. Cuddling was now not seen as such a taboo. The primary teaching guide for the parents was the bible.
In the nineteenth century, the view of a child transformed again as well as the parenting skills. Parents were children caretakers. Instead of being bad and being transformed into good people, Americans started to believe that they were born with good intentions and it was the mother’s job to make sure they stayed that way. Mothers were beginning to be seen as more important. It was her and her husband’s job to keep the children as innocent as possible. Unlike in the Middle Ages when the child was seen as matured by age six or seven. Mothers were not expected to have as many children as they had been before. Their new jobs were to focus intently on the ones they had and not to focus on her own fertility.
In the twentieth century, due to new scientific and technological advances, children’s mothers were now seen more as protectors against the world outside the home. They kept the children off of the streets and in schools. They were also mostly taken out of the work force, in middle class homes. Discussions surrounding how to raise a child were common as debates on what was proper became a little more mainstream. Women were viewed as the care takers or the nurturers. The family became a unit centered on the children.
Intensive mothering is the concept where the mother is the primary caregiver over the children. They are to love them and nurture them. The mother gives the child everything he or she wants or needs. They take the front seat in making sure that the child grows into a well rounded individual, at pretty much any cost.
My mom is very much like that. She would give up everything for my sister and I. Even when my parents were married, she was the primary caregiver for us. My father would be around on the weekends, but when it came to school and other extracurricular activities, she was the one that was there. At times I felt smothered but I know if she wasn’t there looking over me like she did, I certainly would not be attending Boston College this year. She was a wonderful mother and a wonderful woman. My Nana, her mother, was exactly the same way. They are both mothers that most should strive to be like.
2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?
The main indicators that show that mothers are being devalued are ever so present in everyday life. It is demonstrated when the government do not recognize being a stay at home as an occupation. In fact, they receive absolutely no benefits whatsoever. Studies have shown that every year a woman stays home, she is losing retirement benefits and money. It is the most unappreciated job in society. If there were no stay at home moms, who would raise the children? Or more importantly, how would these parentless children turn out? Women are also encouraged to not put stay at home mom when applying for a job. In the working world, a stay at home mom is seen as a woman who has it easy. Who doesn’t have to go into work everyday and has no stress. It is seen as a weakness, not as strength; when ironically, being a stay at home more is more labor intensive than any other job out there. They never get to call in sick or take a personal day. Overtime is not a punishment, but a way of life. Being a mother is a 24/7 job- the most unappreciative job in the world. When women decide to be the primary parent, the government slowly takes away government pension by hundreds of dollars a month. (5) Court rulings are usually in the favor of the “bread winner”, so in divorce court, the mother usually loses, and finances force her to go back to work, meaning that the children’s primary care giver is barely ever around. Women also face hardship in the work place. And some women are actually even fired because they cannot care for their children, while working over time and weekend shifts. Society also gives women a lot of undue hassle. Career women look down on stay at home moms because they see them as dependents and not as self sufficient women. Children even look down on stay at home moms because society marks them as “wastes”, when really the salary a woman would receive for her daily actions would grant her, according to the text, over $500,000 (plus) annually.
I totally agree with Crittenden’s view. Society puts women as a stereotype as mothers and nurturers, then penalizes them for the roles they were shoved in to. When my mother got married she had a very successful career. As she got older, and wanted a family, she decided to take a break and raise her children without the help of a full time nanny. When talking to her about her experience, she claimed it was the best job she ever had, and no matter how far behind it got her in the working world, she’d do it all over again. She often felt unappreciated by my father, who once asked her, “What do you do all day?” She simply replied, “Raising your children.” Society puts so much pressure on women to do different things. If a woman was at home, they’d want her in the working world. But if she got a nanny because of a full-time job, she’d be looked down upon because she would be deemed a bad mother. Women should make their own decisions when it comes to their careers and their families just like men do. No man is looked down upon because he has a career. Women should be embraced no matter what they decide. And the government, especially in the conservative one we have today, should give benefits to the women who are raising our country’s next generation and our future leaders. By providing a strong base at home, mothers are insuring that our society will be better off in the future. They need to be recognized for their success.
3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"?
The two types of mothering that Black women tend to do are biological mothers or “othermothers”. The biological mother is the blood mother of the child. Whereas the term other mother, is another person, related by blood or not, that steps in when the biological mother is not present. The othermother can be Grandmothers, sisters, aunts, or cousins. They can step in temporarily or long term with informal adoption. Raising a children is almost a community affair, just in specific households.The family itself in a woman-based family tie. The family tends to be more than just a mother and a father. Like we see with othermothers, the entire family steps in to raise the child.
Mothers, whether biological or not, are the head of the family, especially regarding Black women. They are the anchors that ground a family. A mother can be a child’s cousin, aunt, or grandmother. Either way, the mother figure is the matriarch or the family. Their job is to take care of the children and raise them in a society where the children face discrimination against their race, gender, class, sexuality, and nationality. Their job is to help the children keep their values when the ways of the world are against their children. Instead of letting them be oppressed they make it so children feel they can keep their chins up. In this way, they are the overseers of our future society. Mothers are producing and raising the next generation. Therefore, giving them the power to change the world as we know it.
4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?
According to Edin and Kefalas, the attitudes of poor women in America on child rearing and what the consequences of their actions are, are completely different than what is what more middle class citizens would consider the norm. In fact, women like Jen, the young woman interviewed, believes that having a child got her off the streets and made her a better all together. By being forced to take on responsibility, it has made her a better rounded individual. It was also curious to see that she did not include any opinions by her own parents. The only thing we know is that they felt she really turned her life around, after the birth of her son Collin. In a middle class home, a family would go on high alert and panic if their daughter in her sophomore year of high school got pregnant. The family would see it as a determent to her success, not a blessing in disguise, like Jen did. When it comes to marriage, the more poverty stricken Americans, find that having kids is less important, or binding, than a marriage. They have children frequently but don’t marry a man as quickly. Like Jen, children are a way of life, a failed marriage isn’t. Therefore, they are not going to jump into a marriage with someone they have kids with, just because they are the parent of their child. They aren’t going to get married if they know it’s going to fail. These individuals have become tough and independent through all of their hard times. They are not going to give up their independence for someone who is just going to leave them after a couple of years. If you said this to a middle class family, they would strongly disagree, I know my family would. My mother would say that if I made a decision to sleep with someone, she would assume that I was in love with the man, therefore I would want to marry him. I find that middle class homes have a more traditional way of looking at the family, whereas with poorer families, they actions are made to insure their own success.
To help these women out of poverty, we have to help them stand on their own two feet. Since young women value their independence so much, make it so the government is helping them succeed while letting the women feel they are truly doing it on their own. Like we learned last week, most European nations provide free and much better health care than we have here in the States. Therefore, I feel we should adopt this program in impoverished areas so that women like Jen can work sufficient hours to make rent and buy food, while she knows that her child is in good hands. Taking some of the worry and stress out of life would make these people more affective in their jobs. Then, women like Jen, could be promoted and make enough money for her and her son to get out of the bad areas and into a place where her son would have more success.
I can understand both sides of the arguments that the middle class and lower classes represent. I do not believe that just because a young woman gets pregnant she should have to marry her husband, especially if she is as young as 15 years old. But I also disagree with having a child in order to gain a sense of independence and help to get off the street. A child is a life long commitment and it needs to be a serious decision, one that I feel like a 15 year old couldn’t make at such a young and impressionable age. But, to each their own, and I feel like single mothers are never going to be extinct. Meaning that as long as they are around, our government needs to help them raise their children as easily as possible. And also try to give them the same chances to succeed that the next person has.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Violence against Women
1. Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
Felson believes, unlike popular belief that violence against women does not necessarily happen because of their gender. He believes that violence is just plain violence and in most cases not one of sexism. To back his statement up, he fond research that indicates where there are high levels of violence against women, there are high levels of violence against men as well. In his arguments he finds that the most violent of men have been studied to find that they are not physically abusive towards their wives, along with more traditional men. More shockingly, women are just as likely to beat their husbands, as the husband is likely to beat their wives. The difference between the two is that the men cause more damage to the women than the women do to the men. Some argue that women hit back in self-defense, but studies show that it is often women who begin with the physical violence. Violence against husbands could be even higher because when a woman beats her husband, he is less likely to call the police and have the incident reported. When it comes to rape though, he feels that it does involve gender and age. A young woman is more likely to get raped than an older man. Researchers say it is because of the dominance they feel over their gender.
As a feminist who has researched this topic before, I strongly disagree with Felson’s argument. I believe that women are abused because of the role of genders in traditional society and how the roles are changing over time. Men are supposed to be dominant and overly masculine, the breadwinner if you will where women are supposed to be the nurturers, mothers, and housekeeper. As a result, the women are naturally seen as the second gender. Because of traditional roles, women are seen as possessions of men. As a man’s possession, he can treat them however he wanted. This was accepted in the olden days, but now as women are fighting for equal rights in all aspects of life, men are loosing the stronghold of their long-standing dominance. As a result, misogyny is appearing and violence of women is prevalent as ever.
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
Her answer to her question, “Why doesn’t she leave?” is, “Why should she have to?” Which after reading this article seems like the completely logical answer and follow up question. Instead of questioning why the woman isn’t leaving, start questioning the situation that got her into the place she is now, and what they can do to get her out of it. It is not the woman’s fault. Start putting blame on the police department and government system that let him out, like Tracy Thurman’s husband, only serving less than half of his jail time. Blame the police department who didn’t get there in time to help her. Blame the man. Blame society for making that man into the angry, hateful, violent man he became. And then most importantly, after placing blame off the women, do something about it. Make a change. Speak on behalf of women. Try to get laws passed about how to deal with wife beaters. Because after all, it shouldn’t have to be the women’s job to leave, it should be the government’s job to take the man away.
Her argument is completely in tune with what I believe. Instead of finding out why it’s happening, make a change. Too many people talk without making any headway towards change. It is our society that has shaped the individuals that we have become. It was the changes in our gender roles that have created an immense amount of hatred towards women. We are constantly changing, but we are not constantly changing the laws to protect us. We are not updating our laws as our society is constantly updating ourselves.
Jones’s views are very different than Felson’s views. Felson takes gender completely out of spousal abuse, where as Jones has taken the more common view of gender and abuse that most other researchers and sociologists have agreed. To Jones sexism is the main issue surrounding the abuse of women. She would disagree that violence is just violence. For another person to hit another person there has to be a root of anger. When men hit women, they are showing hatred towards women. Researchers on her side of the argument have said that women would not be hit as often if we conformed back into our positions as secondary to men. Violence is a way for men to show their dominance that society is slowly taking away from them. Felson would disagree with everything that Jones would defend. He would say again, that violence is just violence. He would probably put blame on the victim, saying that if a woman was getting hit, she should leave. But then would offer no other help as to what to do when the wife would lose everything- her house, her location, her job, her children’s schools. Do you think a man would move out of his house if his wife was hitting him? No. He would not give up everything in his life. He also would not be encountering the same kind of abuse.
3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.
According the Ptacek, throughout all of his 18 interviews, they all used the same sorts of techniques to explain their abusive behavior. For one, they have all claimed to have changed their ways. Already making the interviewer feel like they have reversed the problem. They are already making themselves look like reformed men. If one of the men claimed that they were proud they did it and they would do it again, he would be looked at differently and the interview would take a whole different meaning. But, in Ptacek’s case all men said they fixed the “problem”. Through out the interview it was their language that justified and served as the men’s excuse. By using language they could neutralize their behavior, or talk it down. Making it seem less severe. They tried to rationalize their behavior. They tried to make it sound normal and expected. They often blamed drugs or alcohol or a build up of frustration that caused a temporary state of insanity. Some men claimed it was a problem solving method. Some sort of dependency, achievement, withdrawal and resignation caused them to lash out beyond their control affected the men. (p. 143)
At the same time they were being interviewed and trying to down play their past abusive relationship, often blaming it on substance abuse, they usually claimed full responsibility for their actions and completely contradicted everything they said. It was an internal conflict.
The gender vs violence debate once again falls into the same court with Jones’s argument. It Ptacek’s argument, he does not even interview women as a part of spousal abuse. He only interviews 18 men and asks their opinion on the abuse the caused. Ptacek puts women in the victim seat and men as the driving force behind the abuse. He plays in the need for men to feel superior and more dominant as a reason. Therefore, putting sexism on center stage. Unlike what Felson might claim again. In fact, Felson would probably not even see this as a fair sampling of abusers because women weren’t even involved in the study.
Felson believes, unlike popular belief that violence against women does not necessarily happen because of their gender. He believes that violence is just plain violence and in most cases not one of sexism. To back his statement up, he fond research that indicates where there are high levels of violence against women, there are high levels of violence against men as well. In his arguments he finds that the most violent of men have been studied to find that they are not physically abusive towards their wives, along with more traditional men. More shockingly, women are just as likely to beat their husbands, as the husband is likely to beat their wives. The difference between the two is that the men cause more damage to the women than the women do to the men. Some argue that women hit back in self-defense, but studies show that it is often women who begin with the physical violence. Violence against husbands could be even higher because when a woman beats her husband, he is less likely to call the police and have the incident reported. When it comes to rape though, he feels that it does involve gender and age. A young woman is more likely to get raped than an older man. Researchers say it is because of the dominance they feel over their gender.
As a feminist who has researched this topic before, I strongly disagree with Felson’s argument. I believe that women are abused because of the role of genders in traditional society and how the roles are changing over time. Men are supposed to be dominant and overly masculine, the breadwinner if you will where women are supposed to be the nurturers, mothers, and housekeeper. As a result, the women are naturally seen as the second gender. Because of traditional roles, women are seen as possessions of men. As a man’s possession, he can treat them however he wanted. This was accepted in the olden days, but now as women are fighting for equal rights in all aspects of life, men are loosing the stronghold of their long-standing dominance. As a result, misogyny is appearing and violence of women is prevalent as ever.
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
Her answer to her question, “Why doesn’t she leave?” is, “Why should she have to?” Which after reading this article seems like the completely logical answer and follow up question. Instead of questioning why the woman isn’t leaving, start questioning the situation that got her into the place she is now, and what they can do to get her out of it. It is not the woman’s fault. Start putting blame on the police department and government system that let him out, like Tracy Thurman’s husband, only serving less than half of his jail time. Blame the police department who didn’t get there in time to help her. Blame the man. Blame society for making that man into the angry, hateful, violent man he became. And then most importantly, after placing blame off the women, do something about it. Make a change. Speak on behalf of women. Try to get laws passed about how to deal with wife beaters. Because after all, it shouldn’t have to be the women’s job to leave, it should be the government’s job to take the man away.
Her argument is completely in tune with what I believe. Instead of finding out why it’s happening, make a change. Too many people talk without making any headway towards change. It is our society that has shaped the individuals that we have become. It was the changes in our gender roles that have created an immense amount of hatred towards women. We are constantly changing, but we are not constantly changing the laws to protect us. We are not updating our laws as our society is constantly updating ourselves.
Jones’s views are very different than Felson’s views. Felson takes gender completely out of spousal abuse, where as Jones has taken the more common view of gender and abuse that most other researchers and sociologists have agreed. To Jones sexism is the main issue surrounding the abuse of women. She would disagree that violence is just violence. For another person to hit another person there has to be a root of anger. When men hit women, they are showing hatred towards women. Researchers on her side of the argument have said that women would not be hit as often if we conformed back into our positions as secondary to men. Violence is a way for men to show their dominance that society is slowly taking away from them. Felson would disagree with everything that Jones would defend. He would say again, that violence is just violence. He would probably put blame on the victim, saying that if a woman was getting hit, she should leave. But then would offer no other help as to what to do when the wife would lose everything- her house, her location, her job, her children’s schools. Do you think a man would move out of his house if his wife was hitting him? No. He would not give up everything in his life. He also would not be encountering the same kind of abuse.
3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.
According the Ptacek, throughout all of his 18 interviews, they all used the same sorts of techniques to explain their abusive behavior. For one, they have all claimed to have changed their ways. Already making the interviewer feel like they have reversed the problem. They are already making themselves look like reformed men. If one of the men claimed that they were proud they did it and they would do it again, he would be looked at differently and the interview would take a whole different meaning. But, in Ptacek’s case all men said they fixed the “problem”. Through out the interview it was their language that justified and served as the men’s excuse. By using language they could neutralize their behavior, or talk it down. Making it seem less severe. They tried to rationalize their behavior. They tried to make it sound normal and expected. They often blamed drugs or alcohol or a build up of frustration that caused a temporary state of insanity. Some men claimed it was a problem solving method. Some sort of dependency, achievement, withdrawal and resignation caused them to lash out beyond their control affected the men. (p. 143)
At the same time they were being interviewed and trying to down play their past abusive relationship, often blaming it on substance abuse, they usually claimed full responsibility for their actions and completely contradicted everything they said. It was an internal conflict.
The gender vs violence debate once again falls into the same court with Jones’s argument. It Ptacek’s argument, he does not even interview women as a part of spousal abuse. He only interviews 18 men and asks their opinion on the abuse the caused. Ptacek puts women in the victim seat and men as the driving force behind the abuse. He plays in the need for men to feel superior and more dominant as a reason. Therefore, putting sexism on center stage. Unlike what Felson might claim again. In fact, Felson would probably not even see this as a fair sampling of abusers because women weren’t even involved in the study.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Feb. 26, 2007
1. Briefly explain the egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter. What is emotion work and how is it related to this myth? Compare Holts' situation with your observations on the division of labor in your family or those of your friends.
The egalitarian myth the Hochschild documents is the idea that the work in a household will be divided 50-50. That that man and woman will share both a career working life, a house life, and parenthood equally. The myth is that this can happen. Unfortunately, it can't. There is always going to be one half of the couple who feels like they are taking the blunt of the work. For instance Nancy, she feels like her husband, Evan, is not helping out as much as he should. She feels like she shouldn't even have to tell him, she expects that he would want to help out and be the couple that equally shares the work in their family. Evan feels like he is doing a great job. He feels like the woman should though be the main domestic worker. He thinks that the woman should have a career, if she can handle the work at home as well. This is a prime example of an idea the sounds perfect on paper, but in the real world just doesn't work.
There is always one side of the relationship that is going to feel taken advantage of. They are going to be emotionally drained from trying to get the other one to feel their pain. Both sides of the couple will feel like they are doing the best job they can. Unfortunately, when both feel like they are doing the best they can, nothing will change because stubbornness will get in the way like human nature does. Emotions will just increase and nothing will change. This is one reason that equality in the home will never happen. (I am not too clear on this idea of emotional work. If you could go over it in class, that would be great. I'm getting my concepts confused.)
My family's situation was a lot like the Holt's. When my parents were married, there was always tension between my mother and father surrounding the work around the house. In fact, it was one issue that eventually led to their divorce in 1996. My mother was a stay at home mom and took care of the house and the chores that surrounded everyday life. My dad was a business man trying to build a sound career in the working world. He traveled a lot and was never around during the week. On the weekends, my mother expected my father to be home and spend time with his family. She would usually have small tasks around the house for him to do, that my mother was not able to. This usually led to arguments about how my dad had been working all week and wanted to relax. He refused to acknowledge my mom as a working woman, even though being a mother and a housekeeper was a full time job in itself. Before they started having marriage problems, when they were younger I guarantee you that my mom would have claimed that the marriage was 50-50 when it came to the house work. To this day, my father would still claim it was 50-50 because of the idea that 'bringing home the bacon' was a type of domestic work. Without him working and traveling all the time, we would not have the nice house and the lifestyle my mother and her children lived. It is my opinion that an equal share of domesticity is a myth. In a household there is no way to balance it out. There are always going to be feelings of not being appreciated because as humans, we always feel the need to be better and we are competitors. Therefore, we always strive to do more than others to make up for something we are lacking in another part of the relationship.
2. Explain the concept of the “ideology of domesticity” described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.
The "ideology of domesticity" described by Williams is the idea that men belong in the market place, while women stay home and take care of the kids and their household. Making it an equal blend between the working world and domestic world. The gender system is very defined, and no one tries to bend or step over the line and change their role. This ideology is an out dated ideal in our modern society. It is more a part of the nuclear family that is dissolving because of great numbers of women working outside of the home.
The first constraint that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society is that when women are only working in the household, they are not out in the market work getting paid for the on average, 31 hours, a week they are working. Therefore, with divorce becoming more popular, women are left with no other job besides housework to support them and their children. Therefore, 40% of divorced mothers are living in poverty after divorce.
The second is that domesticity makes it so that the fathers have less of a role in the children's life than the mom does. With the mom always home and the fathers always at work, the children are not having relationships with their fathers. Children need both parents in their lives to help their development as they get older.
The third is the pressure that society then puts on fathers to support their family. Being the breadwinner there is a need for the father to perform at his best. There is constant competition to do better and make more money. There solitary role is to bring home the money. If he can't bring home the money, he fails as a father and as a man.
In a hunter-gatherer society, the 'ideology of domesticity' was very prevalent in everyday life. Today, it has just taken on a more modern edge. Women's main job was to raise children, cook, and take care of their settlement. Men would hunt and gather the food and necessary supplies. Very rarely, would the women help with the men's task. The men were seen as the overseers. Divorce was common, unlike what many would think. But in their society, men were not bringing home money, they were bringing home food and supplies for the family. In the hunter-gatherer society, no one was left behind. In today's world families must fend for themselves. Within the society families all watched out for each other, no one would feel alone.
In colonial society the ideology was also present. Women had no rights outside of their home. They could not vote or even divorce their husbands. This made the ideology a reality because men could do whatever they wanted. Women were men's property. A woman's role was as a mother, nothing else. Jobs outside of the home were not accepted. Making the division among the genders even more severe.
3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
Williams's argument about sex discrimination, highly surrounds the idea of 'ideology of domesticity'. People hiring will more often pick a man because the boss feels that he will have more time to be the "ideal worker", which is someone who puts in 40 hours a week all year round. They feel that women have too much going on at home that they will not put as much effort into their job in the market world. Also, women have the "free choice" to work where they would like. This is incorrect. Williams's argues that women take lesser skilled jobs and ones that take less education because that is where the women are thrown into. There is more of a chance a women will work in a store than a women working in a law firm. Is that a woman's fault? No. In a male dominant society, women do what it is possible for them to do. They are constantly told that their place is inside the home, while the male is supposed to support them. Old fashioned ideals are seen everywhere. I agree with Williams's ideas. I think that women do not have a free choice. I think society dictates where they can go. In a male dominated society, we do not have the same chances handed to us that men do. If women want to achieve their goals I believe we have to work harder because it is more difficult for us to achieve them. There is more of a chance that we will have to interact with men at higher skilled occupations and they will give us a harder time moving up in our positions.
4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?
With homosexual couples, a couple would claim that the domestic work is equally divided between the two people in the relationship. This is almost the same with both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Carrington claims that this is a myth, that it is impossible for the work to be exactly split into two. He claims that there is always one partner that takes on the bulk of the work- usually for the reason that one has longer working hours and does not have the time, like their partners do. But ironically, even if deep down they know the work is not equally shared, the couple will claim that both the partners work loads in the household is fair. She tells a story about Richard and Joe, partners that live in San Fransisco. Richard feels that because he purchased the house he lives in, his work stops there. He feels like he doesn't need a perfect house, and if Joe wants a clean, well put together house, that's Joe's deal, not Richards. Joe feels that Richard is selfish. He claims to understand that Richard has long hours, but thinks that Richard takes him for granted all to often. He would like help around the house. In the beginning though, he claimed that the work load was fair. Whether he claimed this because Richard is the financial provider or not, is not the issue, the fact that he claimed the workload was fair and he didn't truly believe that, eventually led to their breakup.
With homosexual couples, there is a larger rift between partners than in heterosexual relationships. Society sets roles for each gender. The woman usually takes care of the house while the husband brings home the salary. With heterosexual couples, the roles are clearly drawn leaving no one in the relationship feeling that they are not going with the grain of things. With two lesbians, someone has to take the role of the housekeeper, traditionally the woman's role, and the other the role of the breadwinner. With Arlene and Dolores, there is an issue with this. Even though Arlene works longer hours and isn't around the house as much, she feels like she is failing at her role at being a woman. You can tell her insecurities by her need to dress ultra-feminine. Dolores is more laid back and secure with her role inside the relationship and doesn't feel the need to express her feminine side with makeup and high heels.
The egalitarian myth the Hochschild documents is the idea that the work in a household will be divided 50-50. That that man and woman will share both a career working life, a house life, and parenthood equally. The myth is that this can happen. Unfortunately, it can't. There is always going to be one half of the couple who feels like they are taking the blunt of the work. For instance Nancy, she feels like her husband, Evan, is not helping out as much as he should. She feels like she shouldn't even have to tell him, she expects that he would want to help out and be the couple that equally shares the work in their family. Evan feels like he is doing a great job. He feels like the woman should though be the main domestic worker. He thinks that the woman should have a career, if she can handle the work at home as well. This is a prime example of an idea the sounds perfect on paper, but in the real world just doesn't work.
There is always one side of the relationship that is going to feel taken advantage of. They are going to be emotionally drained from trying to get the other one to feel their pain. Both sides of the couple will feel like they are doing the best job they can. Unfortunately, when both feel like they are doing the best they can, nothing will change because stubbornness will get in the way like human nature does. Emotions will just increase and nothing will change. This is one reason that equality in the home will never happen. (I am not too clear on this idea of emotional work. If you could go over it in class, that would be great. I'm getting my concepts confused.)
My family's situation was a lot like the Holt's. When my parents were married, there was always tension between my mother and father surrounding the work around the house. In fact, it was one issue that eventually led to their divorce in 1996. My mother was a stay at home mom and took care of the house and the chores that surrounded everyday life. My dad was a business man trying to build a sound career in the working world. He traveled a lot and was never around during the week. On the weekends, my mother expected my father to be home and spend time with his family. She would usually have small tasks around the house for him to do, that my mother was not able to. This usually led to arguments about how my dad had been working all week and wanted to relax. He refused to acknowledge my mom as a working woman, even though being a mother and a housekeeper was a full time job in itself. Before they started having marriage problems, when they were younger I guarantee you that my mom would have claimed that the marriage was 50-50 when it came to the house work. To this day, my father would still claim it was 50-50 because of the idea that 'bringing home the bacon' was a type of domestic work. Without him working and traveling all the time, we would not have the nice house and the lifestyle my mother and her children lived. It is my opinion that an equal share of domesticity is a myth. In a household there is no way to balance it out. There are always going to be feelings of not being appreciated because as humans, we always feel the need to be better and we are competitors. Therefore, we always strive to do more than others to make up for something we are lacking in another part of the relationship.
2. Explain the concept of the “ideology of domesticity” described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.
The "ideology of domesticity" described by Williams is the idea that men belong in the market place, while women stay home and take care of the kids and their household. Making it an equal blend between the working world and domestic world. The gender system is very defined, and no one tries to bend or step over the line and change their role. This ideology is an out dated ideal in our modern society. It is more a part of the nuclear family that is dissolving because of great numbers of women working outside of the home.
The first constraint that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society is that when women are only working in the household, they are not out in the market work getting paid for the on average, 31 hours, a week they are working. Therefore, with divorce becoming more popular, women are left with no other job besides housework to support them and their children. Therefore, 40% of divorced mothers are living in poverty after divorce.
The second is that domesticity makes it so that the fathers have less of a role in the children's life than the mom does. With the mom always home and the fathers always at work, the children are not having relationships with their fathers. Children need both parents in their lives to help their development as they get older.
The third is the pressure that society then puts on fathers to support their family. Being the breadwinner there is a need for the father to perform at his best. There is constant competition to do better and make more money. There solitary role is to bring home the money. If he can't bring home the money, he fails as a father and as a man.
In a hunter-gatherer society, the 'ideology of domesticity' was very prevalent in everyday life. Today, it has just taken on a more modern edge. Women's main job was to raise children, cook, and take care of their settlement. Men would hunt and gather the food and necessary supplies. Very rarely, would the women help with the men's task. The men were seen as the overseers. Divorce was common, unlike what many would think. But in their society, men were not bringing home money, they were bringing home food and supplies for the family. In the hunter-gatherer society, no one was left behind. In today's world families must fend for themselves. Within the society families all watched out for each other, no one would feel alone.
In colonial society the ideology was also present. Women had no rights outside of their home. They could not vote or even divorce their husbands. This made the ideology a reality because men could do whatever they wanted. Women were men's property. A woman's role was as a mother, nothing else. Jobs outside of the home were not accepted. Making the division among the genders even more severe.
3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
Williams's argument about sex discrimination, highly surrounds the idea of 'ideology of domesticity'. People hiring will more often pick a man because the boss feels that he will have more time to be the "ideal worker", which is someone who puts in 40 hours a week all year round. They feel that women have too much going on at home that they will not put as much effort into their job in the market world. Also, women have the "free choice" to work where they would like. This is incorrect. Williams's argues that women take lesser skilled jobs and ones that take less education because that is where the women are thrown into. There is more of a chance a women will work in a store than a women working in a law firm. Is that a woman's fault? No. In a male dominant society, women do what it is possible for them to do. They are constantly told that their place is inside the home, while the male is supposed to support them. Old fashioned ideals are seen everywhere. I agree with Williams's ideas. I think that women do not have a free choice. I think society dictates where they can go. In a male dominated society, we do not have the same chances handed to us that men do. If women want to achieve their goals I believe we have to work harder because it is more difficult for us to achieve them. There is more of a chance that we will have to interact with men at higher skilled occupations and they will give us a harder time moving up in our positions.
4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?
With homosexual couples, a couple would claim that the domestic work is equally divided between the two people in the relationship. This is almost the same with both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Carrington claims that this is a myth, that it is impossible for the work to be exactly split into two. He claims that there is always one partner that takes on the bulk of the work- usually for the reason that one has longer working hours and does not have the time, like their partners do. But ironically, even if deep down they know the work is not equally shared, the couple will claim that both the partners work loads in the household is fair. She tells a story about Richard and Joe, partners that live in San Fransisco. Richard feels that because he purchased the house he lives in, his work stops there. He feels like he doesn't need a perfect house, and if Joe wants a clean, well put together house, that's Joe's deal, not Richards. Joe feels that Richard is selfish. He claims to understand that Richard has long hours, but thinks that Richard takes him for granted all to often. He would like help around the house. In the beginning though, he claimed that the work load was fair. Whether he claimed this because Richard is the financial provider or not, is not the issue, the fact that he claimed the workload was fair and he didn't truly believe that, eventually led to their breakup.
With homosexual couples, there is a larger rift between partners than in heterosexual relationships. Society sets roles for each gender. The woman usually takes care of the house while the husband brings home the salary. With heterosexual couples, the roles are clearly drawn leaving no one in the relationship feeling that they are not going with the grain of things. With two lesbians, someone has to take the role of the housekeeper, traditionally the woman's role, and the other the role of the breadwinner. With Arlene and Dolores, there is an issue with this. Even though Arlene works longer hours and isn't around the house as much, she feels like she is failing at her role at being a woman. You can tell her insecurities by her need to dress ultra-feminine. Dolores is more laid back and secure with her role inside the relationship and doesn't feel the need to express her feminine side with makeup and high heels.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Dating and Mating 2/10
The article, “After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating”, Risman and Scwartz, analyze the sexual revolutions dealing with teens, gender, and race in America. Shockingly, they argue that through their polls, sexual activity has gone down from past generations. They hold sexual education in abstinence and teenage responsibility responsible for these results. The only error I can see in their research would be that they do not include all sexual acts in their data- they focus mostly on intercourse, not oral sex. What hasn’t changed is the double standard that plagues American young women. Men can be sexually active without dealing with the slander that teenage girls have to deal with. But, they claim that women are climbing that ladder and are starting to have an upper hand and almost sexual equality with men. Sex has become a choice for all people whether they are married, single or divorced. The issue of sexual activity has just become more broadcasted than it has in the past. You cannot turn on the television without being bombarded with sexual innuendo and promiscuity.
According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends?
The main trends surround how teenagers view sex. All teens regardless of gender, race, or age are all concerned with the negative consequences of being sexually active. Also, sex may be seen more casually but as a general trend, sex is seen more in relationships, more than in casual hookups. Again, this does not include oral sex, only coitus.
According to the authors, this is because of our sexual education we see in our early years. Abstinence educations, as well as simple abstinent pledges, have kept down statistics. Teenagers have become concerned with consequences of their actions. Sex is thrown into teens face. Sex as a whole has become more broadcasted. Teens, especially girls, concerned with double standards, have become more conservative with their actions. Sex has become an act for relationships, no matter how casual those relationships are.
The Second article, “The Decline of he Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up”, by England and Thomas, it analyzes the switch from the traditional date to the now traditional college hook-up. Since the 1950s, the dating world is declining. Through their polls, researchers have found that very few men and women actually go on dates before having sexual interaction with the person. Relationships come about through hook ups, rather than through dating or courting. These sorts of relationships cause a lot of emotional issues for both men and women. They create insecurities within the ‘relationship’ or friendship. Sex and hook ups have become ultra casual in the college atmosphere. It has become a desire for quality, not quantity. These sorts of relationships have also increased the idea of double standards for women. Men have higher rates of random hook ups, but they are seen as the cool guys. When women partake in the same activities, they are seen as sluts and loose the respect of men. Women also have to deal with unpleasurable hookups. Without feelings between people, you cannot expect any respect and mutual respect for each other.
According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students?
The main trend between the two is indirect. As the sexual behavior outside of relationships increase, the romantic aspect of relationships between men and women decline. Romance has seemed to go out of style. Dates are almost non existent on college campuses. It is almost unheard of to go on a date with someone who you hadn’t hooked up beforehand. College students seem to have the idea of courting in reverse.
What gender differences are documented in both of these articles?
Both articles display the idea of the double standard for men and women. Women who go out and have random hook ups with boys are seen as ‘sluts’ or promiscuous, whereas men can do the same thing, or even more so, and they are seen as ‘pimps’ or the cool guys. Hook ups allow women to take the backseat to men. Hook ups allow for disrespect for both genders. It is also polled that most women are not even sexually satisfied in their random experiences. There is tons of gender discrimination. Hook ups are gender bias.
Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.
Reading these articles, I think the authors hit the nail on the head. Walk through any dorm hall way or step into any room, and you can see how important sex is to a college campus. The gossip every week is who hooked up with who; It’s never who went on a date this weekend. Girls are often looked down on for hooking up with guys, where as my guy friends are slapped on the back and congratulated. I find it depressing and degrading to women, personally. I think random hook ups lead to people getting hurt and used just for another’s pleasure. Very few of my friends in high school and/or in college have been on very many dates, but have hooked up with members of the opposite sex. The number of dates dramatically declined though, when I came to college. I don’t know if it’s because we are still freshmen in college or what, but I personally thought you matured into adults in college. I think men and women should both have respect for themselves and take responsibility for their actions.
According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends?
The main trends surround how teenagers view sex. All teens regardless of gender, race, or age are all concerned with the negative consequences of being sexually active. Also, sex may be seen more casually but as a general trend, sex is seen more in relationships, more than in casual hookups. Again, this does not include oral sex, only coitus.
According to the authors, this is because of our sexual education we see in our early years. Abstinence educations, as well as simple abstinent pledges, have kept down statistics. Teenagers have become concerned with consequences of their actions. Sex is thrown into teens face. Sex as a whole has become more broadcasted. Teens, especially girls, concerned with double standards, have become more conservative with their actions. Sex has become an act for relationships, no matter how casual those relationships are.
The Second article, “The Decline of he Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up”, by England and Thomas, it analyzes the switch from the traditional date to the now traditional college hook-up. Since the 1950s, the dating world is declining. Through their polls, researchers have found that very few men and women actually go on dates before having sexual interaction with the person. Relationships come about through hook ups, rather than through dating or courting. These sorts of relationships cause a lot of emotional issues for both men and women. They create insecurities within the ‘relationship’ or friendship. Sex and hook ups have become ultra casual in the college atmosphere. It has become a desire for quality, not quantity. These sorts of relationships have also increased the idea of double standards for women. Men have higher rates of random hook ups, but they are seen as the cool guys. When women partake in the same activities, they are seen as sluts and loose the respect of men. Women also have to deal with unpleasurable hookups. Without feelings between people, you cannot expect any respect and mutual respect for each other.
According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students?
The main trend between the two is indirect. As the sexual behavior outside of relationships increase, the romantic aspect of relationships between men and women decline. Romance has seemed to go out of style. Dates are almost non existent on college campuses. It is almost unheard of to go on a date with someone who you hadn’t hooked up beforehand. College students seem to have the idea of courting in reverse.
What gender differences are documented in both of these articles?
Both articles display the idea of the double standard for men and women. Women who go out and have random hook ups with boys are seen as ‘sluts’ or promiscuous, whereas men can do the same thing, or even more so, and they are seen as ‘pimps’ or the cool guys. Hook ups allow women to take the backseat to men. Hook ups allow for disrespect for both genders. It is also polled that most women are not even sexually satisfied in their random experiences. There is tons of gender discrimination. Hook ups are gender bias.
Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.
Reading these articles, I think the authors hit the nail on the head. Walk through any dorm hall way or step into any room, and you can see how important sex is to a college campus. The gossip every week is who hooked up with who; It’s never who went on a date this weekend. Girls are often looked down on for hooking up with guys, where as my guy friends are slapped on the back and congratulated. I find it depressing and degrading to women, personally. I think random hook ups lead to people getting hurt and used just for another’s pleasure. Very few of my friends in high school and/or in college have been on very many dates, but have hooked up with members of the opposite sex. The number of dates dramatically declined though, when I came to college. I don’t know if it’s because we are still freshmen in college or what, but I personally thought you matured into adults in college. I think men and women should both have respect for themselves and take responsibility for their actions.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
The reading, "Family Life and the Regulation of Deviance," was based on the history on how sexual deviance played a role in society. In the article it talked about what traditional views deemed sexually correct and what wasn't. To sum it up, sex was only an act that was to be done when married. Outside of marriage it was a sin. The government and the church instilled these values in the people through public humiliation or criminal punishment. Homosexual relationships were not publicized, they were seen just as "lewd" acts. People were even executed for adultery and also for having sexual relations with farm animals. Birth rates were high, around 7 children for an average. This was also because high numbers of children died shortly after birth. Illegitimacy levels were not as high as expected. But women were seen as deviants if the father was not known.
In "Capitalism and Gay Identity," the writer D'Emilio argues that homosexuality came to be with the rise of capitalism. Before capitalism became the main economic system of the world, families were the main production and consumption unit. There was no need for massive corporations or businesses because the family was like a company. They were the employees, the produces, and the consumers. Families produced what they needed to survive and nothing more. When capitalism was on the rise, the nuclear family failed because jobs were being found outside the home. Our nation was in a consumerism state. Because there was no economic need for families, they began to decline. When they were no longer needed for financial support, it changed for emotional support. This made it possible for new types of relationships to arise. Before capitalism, they were no homosexual relationships, there were only homosexual acts. With no economic dependence they were able to branch out and find different types of relationships. This is when homosexuality became broad casted, especially in the 1970's. Today there is a homosexual lifestyle accepted in our society. There are different clubs, bars, and other clubs for homosexuals. It is becoming an accepted way of life.
The Puritan approach to sexuality was that sex was a holy sanction for marriage. In marriage, sex was for pleasure but much more for procreation. One was allowed to have a very passionate marriage but the passion in your marriage was not supposed to surpass your passion for Christ. In Colonial America, it followed the puritan idea when dealing with sexuality. Any sex or sexual acts outside the marriage were seen as laws being broken. It was punishable by fines and lashings. The ideal was a marriage between a man and a woman, both fertile, who would produce a large brood of children. They dealt with sexual deviance by making suspected individuals feel like outsiders. Neighbors would turn each other in, there was no privacy. The society supported it as well. By regulating the sexual acts of its people, the government had another way of controlling them, creating a more perfect society. They wanted all their people to live by the word of the Lord. They wanted "healthier" relationships between couples and their society. They really just wanted a pure society.
His idea of homosexual relationships developed as capitalism developed. Capitalism took the emphasis away from the family as a productive unit and the new idea of the family was to support the others emotionally. Therefore, there was no need for a specific type of family, like the nuclear family. Then people could branch out and go through with their desires outside of a family setting. That is how homosexual relationships came to be, instead of just homosexual acts. I'm not really sure if I agree with D'Emilio's argument. Even though he makes some very good points, I don't think he really thought about the whole scenario. Yes, as societies became more modern and ideas were more commonly shared through capitalism, I don't think homosexual love just started because of the rise of capitalism. I think that homosexual relationships have been around since the beginning of time. My opinion is that societies have just modernized and new traditions have started. How do we know if relationships of the same sex just weren't written about? The only information we have is written information by white upper class males. Would they release information on other high-to-do men, or on themselves? I think this is another issue that could never be proven. Once again this is a debatable issue that is solely based on opinions and unreliable sources. I am just happy I live in a society today that is open enough for men and women to come out of the closet and love who they truly want to be with, instead of being forced into heterosexual relations by the church and government.
In "Capitalism and Gay Identity," the writer D'Emilio argues that homosexuality came to be with the rise of capitalism. Before capitalism became the main economic system of the world, families were the main production and consumption unit. There was no need for massive corporations or businesses because the family was like a company. They were the employees, the produces, and the consumers. Families produced what they needed to survive and nothing more. When capitalism was on the rise, the nuclear family failed because jobs were being found outside the home. Our nation was in a consumerism state. Because there was no economic need for families, they began to decline. When they were no longer needed for financial support, it changed for emotional support. This made it possible for new types of relationships to arise. Before capitalism, they were no homosexual relationships, there were only homosexual acts. With no economic dependence they were able to branch out and find different types of relationships. This is when homosexuality became broad casted, especially in the 1970's. Today there is a homosexual lifestyle accepted in our society. There are different clubs, bars, and other clubs for homosexuals. It is becoming an accepted way of life.
The Puritan approach to sexuality was that sex was a holy sanction for marriage. In marriage, sex was for pleasure but much more for procreation. One was allowed to have a very passionate marriage but the passion in your marriage was not supposed to surpass your passion for Christ. In Colonial America, it followed the puritan idea when dealing with sexuality. Any sex or sexual acts outside the marriage were seen as laws being broken. It was punishable by fines and lashings. The ideal was a marriage between a man and a woman, both fertile, who would produce a large brood of children. They dealt with sexual deviance by making suspected individuals feel like outsiders. Neighbors would turn each other in, there was no privacy. The society supported it as well. By regulating the sexual acts of its people, the government had another way of controlling them, creating a more perfect society. They wanted all their people to live by the word of the Lord. They wanted "healthier" relationships between couples and their society. They really just wanted a pure society.
His idea of homosexual relationships developed as capitalism developed. Capitalism took the emphasis away from the family as a productive unit and the new idea of the family was to support the others emotionally. Therefore, there was no need for a specific type of family, like the nuclear family. Then people could branch out and go through with their desires outside of a family setting. That is how homosexual relationships came to be, instead of just homosexual acts. I'm not really sure if I agree with D'Emilio's argument. Even though he makes some very good points, I don't think he really thought about the whole scenario. Yes, as societies became more modern and ideas were more commonly shared through capitalism, I don't think homosexual love just started because of the rise of capitalism. I think that homosexual relationships have been around since the beginning of time. My opinion is that societies have just modernized and new traditions have started. How do we know if relationships of the same sex just weren't written about? The only information we have is written information by white upper class males. Would they release information on other high-to-do men, or on themselves? I think this is another issue that could never be proven. Once again this is a debatable issue that is solely based on opinions and unreliable sources. I am just happy I live in a society today that is open enough for men and women to come out of the closet and love who they truly want to be with, instead of being forced into heterosexual relations by the church and government.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
"Reading Research" Abortion as a Private Family Issue
Legislators: S.D. Abortion Ban to be Introduced Again
My first article is from the Christian Post out of South Dakota on January,28, 2007. Even as a conservative newspaper, it seemed to give equal criticism to both stances. The article was a summary of the proposed bill that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, with the exceptions for rape, incest, and in life or death situations. The opinions in conflict were those of whether the bill should be put on the ballot yet again. Last November, it was shot down by the voters, pro-life believers say they are not ready to give up the fight. The new bill would not try to get abortion completely outlawed, just legalized under certain circumstances. Because it was a governmental issue, the facts presented in the arguments were voters percentages (56 percent were against banning abortion). The author did a very good job of trying to remain unbias in this situation. With the facts at hand, he couldn't really fudge the results. Abortion in this article was presented as more of an opinion manner, not one that would necessarily be proven with facts.
Young Pro-Lifers Emerge as New Anti-Abortion Force
This article published on January 23, 2007 in the Christian Post located in South Dakota, is what a subscriber would be expecting out of a religious newspaper. There is only one argument presented by Michelle Vu, Abortion is never okay. In this article, Senators and Pastors who use patriotic and bible views to present their arguments. They uphold the belief that anything, including adoption, is better than abortion. Pastor Luke J. Robinson, rests heavy on population numbers quoting, "Over 500,000 babies were aborted last year in the African community- a number of unborn lives that could have populated the whole city of Fredrick." He leaves out the numbers of how many lives were saved by abortion because of the health risks brought upon by high risk births. The data the interviewees present aren't very reliable, anyone can spit out numbers, but there is no information on where he is getting these digits from. I wouldn't say that he was very reliable. Also, I'm curious on what that has to do with younger supporters of the pro-life stance. Curious, they didn't interview one young person. Only men, old enough to have children.
Abortion Foes Should Rethink Target of Pickets (January 22,2007)
This editorial, published in the Palladium-Item newsgroup, out of Richmond, Indiana, was a letter I choose to include on sole basis as a reply to the previous article. Instead of spitting out numbers, the writer, Frances Peacock, chooses to use political ideology to prove the legitimacy of pro-choice. He brings up the idea, that instead of protesting against abortion, especially at places like Planned Parenthood, we should take a look at the people who are using these types of facilities. Those who protest are usually from a totally different background, probably middle aged and middle class citizens. What happens if one can't afford health care? Is it their fault, or is it the government's? So instead of challenging the government, challenge their policy making- which make it more difficult for those who need birth control and contraceptives to get them. This article uses views of policy making to legitimize his stance on abortion. Even though he does not address the problem directly, he just uses his information from the government to make an argument about why we are even arguing. He makes those who protest seem silly.
Alleged Bid to Abort Leads to Baby's Death (January 25,2007)
This article published in the Boston Globe was extremely disturbing. The article surrounded the act of a young Dominican woman taking a prescription drug, Cytotec, which prevent ulcers, to abort her baby. The debate is whether it was a illegal abortion or homicide. The baby was between 23 and 25 weeks along in her pregnancy. In Massachusetts, abortion is legal until 24 weeks. In Latin American cultures abortion is almost always illegal. Therefore, practices like this one are very popular. Abreu, the mother, is now facing homicide charges for the premature death of her daughter Ashely. The facts from this case are presented in scientific data of blood and other test results. The real facts behind this article is again based on opinion. This becomes a debate looking at the governments policies on health care and the availability of contraceptives. The writer does a very good job on presenting very fair arguments on both sides of the debate.
Participants In the March for Life Outside the Supreme Court on Monday.
This article published on January 22, 2007 in the New York Times, is a recap of the march on 7th street in the mall and outside the Supreme Court. The article tells about the thousands who showed up to support the rally for Pro-Life. The article also includes that the president was telecasted from Camp David in support of the rioters. There are no facts in the articles. All the participants arguments are those of opinion, and mostly with religious bias. The question that this article brought up, was how can the government enter on a side of religious supporters? Where is the separation of church and state? Does the government have the right to make this sort of decision when the main facts are opinions? Wouldn't our rights as American citizens be the right to have our own opinions and make our decisions based on those ideas? No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. As a woman, it is our right to control our bodies and anything we harbor in it.
The main debate/controversies over my topic is extremely obvious- Is abortion a right or a right to kill? Then in there lies the debate whether the government should have any interference in the debate because of the fact that religion is a key player on the side of Pro-lifers. For the most part, the writers did a very good job staying unbias in a very controversial subject. The only exceptions were the article in the Christian Post and in the New York times on the marching and protesting. But at a Pro-life march, you aren't going to be able to find interviewees that are in favor of what they are taking a stand against. I feel like you cannot trust anything on such controversial debates because the abortion issue is one based mostly on opinions. No matter what newspaper or magazines publish these types of articles, biases will be somewhat present, even with what the subject of the article is. If you look in a very liberal newspaper, you will probably find views that will favor pro-choice, in a Christian conservative newspaper you will find pro-life articles. The key is reading both and not fully believing everything you read all the time. I think we are very influenced but what we read and what positions are being written about. As readers we will tend to agree with the articles that target us as a reader, concerning our race,religion,age and sex.
My first article is from the Christian Post out of South Dakota on January,28, 2007. Even as a conservative newspaper, it seemed to give equal criticism to both stances. The article was a summary of the proposed bill that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, with the exceptions for rape, incest, and in life or death situations. The opinions in conflict were those of whether the bill should be put on the ballot yet again. Last November, it was shot down by the voters, pro-life believers say they are not ready to give up the fight. The new bill would not try to get abortion completely outlawed, just legalized under certain circumstances. Because it was a governmental issue, the facts presented in the arguments were voters percentages (56 percent were against banning abortion). The author did a very good job of trying to remain unbias in this situation. With the facts at hand, he couldn't really fudge the results. Abortion in this article was presented as more of an opinion manner, not one that would necessarily be proven with facts.
Young Pro-Lifers Emerge as New Anti-Abortion Force
This article published on January 23, 2007 in the Christian Post located in South Dakota, is what a subscriber would be expecting out of a religious newspaper. There is only one argument presented by Michelle Vu, Abortion is never okay. In this article, Senators and Pastors who use patriotic and bible views to present their arguments. They uphold the belief that anything, including adoption, is better than abortion. Pastor Luke J. Robinson, rests heavy on population numbers quoting, "Over 500,000 babies were aborted last year in the African community- a number of unborn lives that could have populated the whole city of Fredrick." He leaves out the numbers of how many lives were saved by abortion because of the health risks brought upon by high risk births. The data the interviewees present aren't very reliable, anyone can spit out numbers, but there is no information on where he is getting these digits from. I wouldn't say that he was very reliable. Also, I'm curious on what that has to do with younger supporters of the pro-life stance. Curious, they didn't interview one young person. Only men, old enough to have children.
Abortion Foes Should Rethink Target of Pickets (January 22,2007)
This editorial, published in the Palladium-Item newsgroup, out of Richmond, Indiana, was a letter I choose to include on sole basis as a reply to the previous article. Instead of spitting out numbers, the writer, Frances Peacock, chooses to use political ideology to prove the legitimacy of pro-choice. He brings up the idea, that instead of protesting against abortion, especially at places like Planned Parenthood, we should take a look at the people who are using these types of facilities. Those who protest are usually from a totally different background, probably middle aged and middle class citizens. What happens if one can't afford health care? Is it their fault, or is it the government's? So instead of challenging the government, challenge their policy making- which make it more difficult for those who need birth control and contraceptives to get them. This article uses views of policy making to legitimize his stance on abortion. Even though he does not address the problem directly, he just uses his information from the government to make an argument about why we are even arguing. He makes those who protest seem silly.
Alleged Bid to Abort Leads to Baby's Death (January 25,2007)
This article published in the Boston Globe was extremely disturbing. The article surrounded the act of a young Dominican woman taking a prescription drug, Cytotec, which prevent ulcers, to abort her baby. The debate is whether it was a illegal abortion or homicide. The baby was between 23 and 25 weeks along in her pregnancy. In Massachusetts, abortion is legal until 24 weeks. In Latin American cultures abortion is almost always illegal. Therefore, practices like this one are very popular. Abreu, the mother, is now facing homicide charges for the premature death of her daughter Ashely. The facts from this case are presented in scientific data of blood and other test results. The real facts behind this article is again based on opinion. This becomes a debate looking at the governments policies on health care and the availability of contraceptives. The writer does a very good job on presenting very fair arguments on both sides of the debate.
Participants In the March for Life Outside the Supreme Court on Monday.
This article published on January 22, 2007 in the New York Times, is a recap of the march on 7th street in the mall and outside the Supreme Court. The article tells about the thousands who showed up to support the rally for Pro-Life. The article also includes that the president was telecasted from Camp David in support of the rioters. There are no facts in the articles. All the participants arguments are those of opinion, and mostly with religious bias. The question that this article brought up, was how can the government enter on a side of religious supporters? Where is the separation of church and state? Does the government have the right to make this sort of decision when the main facts are opinions? Wouldn't our rights as American citizens be the right to have our own opinions and make our decisions based on those ideas? No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. As a woman, it is our right to control our bodies and anything we harbor in it.
The main debate/controversies over my topic is extremely obvious- Is abortion a right or a right to kill? Then in there lies the debate whether the government should have any interference in the debate because of the fact that religion is a key player on the side of Pro-lifers. For the most part, the writers did a very good job staying unbias in a very controversial subject. The only exceptions were the article in the Christian Post and in the New York times on the marching and protesting. But at a Pro-life march, you aren't going to be able to find interviewees that are in favor of what they are taking a stand against. I feel like you cannot trust anything on such controversial debates because the abortion issue is one based mostly on opinions. No matter what newspaper or magazines publish these types of articles, biases will be somewhat present, even with what the subject of the article is. If you look in a very liberal newspaper, you will probably find views that will favor pro-choice, in a Christian conservative newspaper you will find pro-life articles. The key is reading both and not fully believing everything you read all the time. I think we are very influenced but what we read and what positions are being written about. As readers we will tend to agree with the articles that target us as a reader, concerning our race,religion,age and sex.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
What is Family? Reading 1
The first reading, by David Popenoe, on the decline of the American family, was by far the most controversial reading for this week. Popenoe caused a lot of disturbances in the Anthropolgy world. Other authors like Stacey and Cowan, found his ideas off the wall and without true background data. In his writings he focuses on the change of the makeup of the family as the decline of the great era of the nuclear family. Even though times have changed, like our world and cultures, he focuses on the beauties of the 1950s where the "traditional" roles of the family flourished. The family, in Popenoe's opinion is at his best when there is one dominant figure, the man, and at least one dependent individual, such as the wife and children. The fault of today's world, in his opinion, is the role of the women. Women are supposed to be subordinate. A family cannot function with the woman outside the home. Her duty is to raise the children and be an anchor at home, while the husband brings home the bread.
Cowan's argument is that Popenoe really has no idea what he is talking about. The reading by Cowan uses statistics and known facts to prove his argument. He completely denies all of Popenoe's arguments because he claims they are based on opinion, not facts. Cowan says that the family has been in decline since the beginning of time. Government and society have shaped a world where it is impossible for the traditional role of the family to stay the same. Families have been interfered with, where he argues they should be left alone. Government should play no role in the hands of a family. He feels differently that Popenoe because he feels the equality of women is not a negative thing. He sees gender equality as a positive change in our ever changing society. Independent women are good role models for their daughters in future generations. A group of individuals should not be oppressed to preserve a traditional way of the family.
Stacey argues, 'What is traditional?' Is there a certain way a family should act? Is their a certain, distinct framework of a family? Stacey says no. Traditional changes with the way of the world. We must modernize to keep up with the world. He claims that Popenoe is too focused on what he feels what was, but yet again not based on fact. He cannot base an entire idea on the way he was raised, or how his own family acted. He argues that the family hasn't always been the only strong institution, like Popenoe claims. Individuals have always looked inside their family, as well as outside for support and love. Today, the definition of family is always changing with homosexual relationships and cohabitation. Can friends be considered part of the family? Who is to define what family means to a person?
Both authors feel like Popenoe is dwelling on a past that never existed. He is obsessed with the idea of a nuclear family. A type of family that could never exist in present day society. Divorce has always been present in history. It is present because of tensions in a relationship. Tensions brought upon by society pulls that have never been present in past societies. Divorce happens. Studies have shown, unlike what Popenoe claims, that a marriage continuing on hostile terms is actually harder on children than the divorce itself. To stay together would only cause heartbreak for all involved.
The debate surrounding the American family, is what is actually going on with it. Is it truly declining, or is it just changing with the times? Some would claim the lower birth rates and higher divorce rates are the results of families falling apart. Really though with social pressures and governmental interference, are these statistics just proof that there is something else in the decline? Such as morals. Should we be so concerned with trying to keep families from changing, or should we move with the tides and make it possible for people to survive through divorce, breakup, or other social curses?
Popenoe claims the decline of the family is proven by lower birth rates. But honestly, the cost of children has multiplied. It is not financially sound to have multiple children, if you don't have the money to afford them. Families are trying to give their children decent lives. He also feels since the nuclear system failed, families have failed. Not true. Families have evolved making it possible to function with oppressing a group of people. He also applies this theory to time spent together. We are living in a fast paced world, families cannot always spend time together. Is this the parents fault, or is it the fault of the society we exist in. Women and children need their independence. Without making their own place in this world, they will not be able to survive outside the family.
Personally, I would take the side of Stacey in this debate. We need to focus more on how to make situations better for families, than try to change them. We need to except change as a way of life. I come from a family that has been divided by divorce. I feel it would have been extremely unhealthy for me to have seen my parents fight day after day. Going through what we have been through as a family has only made us stronger. Being raised by a single mother, I have earned an amazing role model. I feel I am ten times more independent because of how I was forced to grow up. If my parents divorce impacted me in any way, it was a positive one. I have learned to make the best out of my situation and how to be a strong person. I hope I can disprove statistics and have a wonderful marriage and family someday. I would hate to think that because my parents could not make things work, I will never be able to have a functional relationship.
Cowan's argument is that Popenoe really has no idea what he is talking about. The reading by Cowan uses statistics and known facts to prove his argument. He completely denies all of Popenoe's arguments because he claims they are based on opinion, not facts. Cowan says that the family has been in decline since the beginning of time. Government and society have shaped a world where it is impossible for the traditional role of the family to stay the same. Families have been interfered with, where he argues they should be left alone. Government should play no role in the hands of a family. He feels differently that Popenoe because he feels the equality of women is not a negative thing. He sees gender equality as a positive change in our ever changing society. Independent women are good role models for their daughters in future generations. A group of individuals should not be oppressed to preserve a traditional way of the family.
Stacey argues, 'What is traditional?' Is there a certain way a family should act? Is their a certain, distinct framework of a family? Stacey says no. Traditional changes with the way of the world. We must modernize to keep up with the world. He claims that Popenoe is too focused on what he feels what was, but yet again not based on fact. He cannot base an entire idea on the way he was raised, or how his own family acted. He argues that the family hasn't always been the only strong institution, like Popenoe claims. Individuals have always looked inside their family, as well as outside for support and love. Today, the definition of family is always changing with homosexual relationships and cohabitation. Can friends be considered part of the family? Who is to define what family means to a person?
Both authors feel like Popenoe is dwelling on a past that never existed. He is obsessed with the idea of a nuclear family. A type of family that could never exist in present day society. Divorce has always been present in history. It is present because of tensions in a relationship. Tensions brought upon by society pulls that have never been present in past societies. Divorce happens. Studies have shown, unlike what Popenoe claims, that a marriage continuing on hostile terms is actually harder on children than the divorce itself. To stay together would only cause heartbreak for all involved.
The debate surrounding the American family, is what is actually going on with it. Is it truly declining, or is it just changing with the times? Some would claim the lower birth rates and higher divorce rates are the results of families falling apart. Really though with social pressures and governmental interference, are these statistics just proof that there is something else in the decline? Such as morals. Should we be so concerned with trying to keep families from changing, or should we move with the tides and make it possible for people to survive through divorce, breakup, or other social curses?
Popenoe claims the decline of the family is proven by lower birth rates. But honestly, the cost of children has multiplied. It is not financially sound to have multiple children, if you don't have the money to afford them. Families are trying to give their children decent lives. He also feels since the nuclear system failed, families have failed. Not true. Families have evolved making it possible to function with oppressing a group of people. He also applies this theory to time spent together. We are living in a fast paced world, families cannot always spend time together. Is this the parents fault, or is it the fault of the society we exist in. Women and children need their independence. Without making their own place in this world, they will not be able to survive outside the family.
Personally, I would take the side of Stacey in this debate. We need to focus more on how to make situations better for families, than try to change them. We need to except change as a way of life. I come from a family that has been divided by divorce. I feel it would have been extremely unhealthy for me to have seen my parents fight day after day. Going through what we have been through as a family has only made us stronger. Being raised by a single mother, I have earned an amazing role model. I feel I am ten times more independent because of how I was forced to grow up. If my parents divorce impacted me in any way, it was a positive one. I have learned to make the best out of my situation and how to be a strong person. I hope I can disprove statistics and have a wonderful marriage and family someday. I would hate to think that because my parents could not make things work, I will never be able to have a functional relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)