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.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)