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.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
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)