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.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment