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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)