Family Unit

The author of the first article, Hansen, describes to the reader that there is a clash between the idea of independence and interdependence within a family unit. This idea stems from the knowledge and assumptions made by the general public. The assumptions that are made are that families can often be disconnected and self-sufficient on their own. This is primarily directed towards white middle class families in America. Therefore, Hansen took white middle class families who are nuclear to prove the assumptions wrong. The Standard North American Family (SNAF) influences and supports the ideology that these nuclear families are supporting the societal expectations. SNAF assumes that a heterosexual, two parent household will raise and cultivate their children to follow them religiously, culturally, materially, intellectually, and genetically. Hansen also comes to the conclusion that the structure of the work force and school create a challenge for parents trying to send their children to school but maintain their own profession. Finding day care or after school care is a challenge in itself so that the parents can keep a job to support their children financially and then provide care for them as well.

According to Sarkisian, Gerena, and Gerstel there is an ethnic difference in terms of how families as a whole are constructed and operate. Certain groups, like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, stay very involved in each other’s lives even as they get older. Extended family members live close to one another and provide a large network of support. On the contrary, white families usually separate and move away from one another. A support system is still in place amongst relatives but it is not nearly as apparent and crucial. There are three characteristics which lead to this difference in family structure and they are familism, religious involvement, and gender ideology. Latinos value the idea that family networks are one giant network that love and support one another. Also, their sense of religion is much stronger and is seen as a family event and tradition. Lastly, Latinos operate under a predominantly patriarchal system known as machismo. Therefore, the men rule the scene while the women are much more submissive. All of these factors add to the ideas and variety of level of extended families.

Free Play

In the first article, Thorne and Luria analyze the nature and social implications of children’s play. At a very young age, children are already taught what it means to be a ‘boy’ and what it means to be a ‘girl’. These lessons are taught in the classroom, at school, and on the playground. The genders are divided over what is appropriate and expected by them. These social implications are made by what games each gender plays, how they interact amongst friends, play sports versus playing house, how the children dress, and different expectations of each gender by the teacher. These social differences will later yield to sociological differences amongst gender-ized adults.

In the second article written by Goldscheider and Waite, they place more of their research and focus on the gender implications made in the household than school. The article implies that the amount of housework taken on by children varies on the regional location and population of the area, the socioeconomic status, and whether there is one or two parents in the home. When dividing housework, girls often get more tasks than boys. Also, the tasks for the girls more closely reflect the jobs of a homemaker. Their seemed to be some confusion in the article whether children should or should not be given household chores as children which will later prepare them for adulthood.

In the Lareau article, she wanted to see the spread and differences of housework amongst black and white families. She had specific families in different economic brackets with both races involved. The results yield that race did not play a factor in the social outcomes of these children. They both had similar household chores and similar activities outside the school. There were differences in what the families, by racial differences, in terms of what the families emphasized: culture, family, health, safety.

In the last article written by Schor, she discusses how much the advertising business is affecting America’s youth. At the age of 18 months, a child can recognize a brand name ad. Adveristing of brand names, commercials geared towards children, billboards, and so on, have taken on a great affect for children. Children then seem to think that they need these things, they must have these things, because these products are the one way ticket to the in crowd. It is only getting worse and worse. Children’s toys are only getting more and more technologically advanced and more expensive. Junk food geared towards kids is only getting less and less healthy.

Father Figures

In the reading “American Fathering in Historical Perspective”, the role of the father within a family is becoming more and more important. Although mothers are still in charge of the children and the household work, the fathers are slowly becoming more involved in this domain. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the father’s role was more of a figure head who would instill moral values and teachings into his children. He was a man that deserved much respect and reverence from his family. Later in the 20th century, the father became a war hero figure and therefore displayed signs of strength and masculinity. Today, the role of the father has not evolved too much over time. The mother is predominantly in charge of the well being and upbringing of the children while the father is primarily the breadwinner. Fathers have become more involved in the children’s lives and household maintenance. In my opinion, I expect fathers to be highly involved in life at home. I think the upbringing of the children and maintaining the household should be more of a balancing act between both mother and father.

In the second article, Deutsch discusses the reasoning for why families work alternating shifts, trying to make a balance between family and work. For more lower class families, parents work alternating shifts to accommodate maintaining the home because they do not have a housekeeper to do so. Also, one parent needs to be at home to watch the children or able to pick up and drop off the kids at day care. For these families, it is absolutely necessary to have two jobs between the two parents to be able to economically support the family. I do not think this kind of a life is desirable. It seems like the house would always be chaotic and unorganized. For the children, they would only be able to be with one parent at a time and be tossed around from day care and parental view. I would never want to work in alternating shifts for I feel like it would hinder my children and make me extremely frustrated that I would barely see my husband. I think working these alternating shifts would be very frustrating for the family as a whole and require a lot of patience among everyone.

According to Dorothy Roberts, there are many social forces that prevent family participation of Black fathers. For one, many black father wind up in jail or jobless. It seems like from the article, black fathers are more flakey and fall out of their roles as a father. They seem to be financially unstable, unwilling to keep a job or stay out of tribal. Their wives will not stand for this, for this bad influence on their children, so often these absent fathers are kicked out of their home completely. I thought Roberts groups together black fathers and stereotypes them in an unfair light.

What's a Mother to do?

In the article “From Rods to Reasoning: The Historical Construction of Intensive Mothering”, the author discusses the different transitions that the family has gone under over the years. More specifically, the author discusses the role of the mother that has undergone a variety of changes throughout the years. Sharon Hayes breaks down the transition of roles into four different categories. In the first stage, children were seen as innocent and pure. They needed protection from trifles from the outside world. Especially for upper class children, they needed to be protected and shielded from the dangers and temptations of the outside world. They were highly cherished and pampered. In the second stage, children were treated and viewed more like adults for they were given more responsibility and expected to be more mature. Instead of being pampered and cared for so delicately, they were expected to work and take on household responsibilities. Through negative reinforcement, like physical punishment, they were taught how to behave. Also, the use of religion to teach morals and proper behavior was used much more frequently and was an integral part of their upbringing. In the third stage, the role of the mother became much more glorified. The child was once again seen as sweet, angelic, and innocent and needed to be protected by the mother. She became a more integral and important role in the upbringing of the child. She not only became the primary caretaker of the child but had to punish and reinforce morals/rules to the child. In the final stage, parents have turned to outside resources to educate themselves to raise their own children. A lot more literature has been produced in the psychology and scientific worlds to what are the best methods to raising a child. These new theories support the roles of the father being the being the breadwinner and the mother being the domestic stay at home mother. I believe my mother has made the perfect balance between disciplining me, expressing affection, and giving me enough freedom. I think its important to make a balance between all three of these areas. A mother’s role in their child’s life never ends, but awareness to letting go must be made well aware of and executed.

In the second article the author discusses how the role of the mother has been devalued over time in the United States. There are a few different contributions that add up to the idea that motherhood is being devalued. Firstly, a mother’s work is unpaid and therefore is technically unseen. Because she is not being paid for her work, her contribution to the family and household is not deemed as important as the Father. He then holds more of the power because he beholds the wealth. A mother’s role is seen as not important in the overall contribution to society which is ludicrous. Because of the nature of a women’s biological clock, and women often being placed on the “mommy track”, a mother hardly has any chance to create a career for herself. She is expected to be the one to stay home and manage the household. In America, wealth equals power and the mother is not producing any money. She does not receive any reward or benefit for her 24/7 job that she beholds. I agree with the author that being a mother in the United States has been devalued over time. It seems that when children answer about what their mother does for a living, they simply say she’s “just” a mom. Or so many times, the child or the mother themselves have to justify that they are “just” a stay at home mom. I think a homemaker or being a 24/7 mother is the most important job out there. A mother is nurturing, caring for, and preparing the next generation of workers. Mothers should be more rewarded and seen as valuable towards society.

In the next article, Patricia Hill Collins, writes about the dynamics of motherhood in black communities. There are two types of mothers: bloodmother and other mothers. Bloodmothers are the actual biological mothers of their kin. Bloodmothers are expected to be the primary mother involved with the upbringing of their child. However, other women that are related to the child can become a maternal figure in the life of the child known as an othermother. These women form a centralized community that revolves around their own power and control of the community. This idea, that the women as mothers have an important role, greatly contrasts with the previous article about mothers being devalued in the United States. In these communities, it provides a positive and powerful image for children to grow up with when viewing their mothers.

In the last article, the authors discuss the notion that women wish to remain unmarried so they can reach economic stability and independence before marrying. For many middle and lower class women, they wish to remain financially independent because they fear their male counterpart becoming dependant on them. This can be attributed to drugs, alcohol, crime, not taking responsibility for the child, and more. Society could better assist these women who are battling against poverty and irresponsible male counterparts by providing easier access to jobs that are flexible with their schedules of taking care of their children. Business would be flexible with the mother needing to leave to pick up or be by their child. The place of employment should also provide day care to assist these women.

No Child Left Behind

In the first article, Hafner-Eaton and Pierce discuss the pros and cons to giving birth at home by means of a midwife or in a hospital. They compared and contrasted the different birthing traditions that occur within different cultures and countries. Many women choose to give birth at home because the low mortality rate of the infants. These women view birthing at home as a safe and natural way to give birth. They are also in the comfort of their home which is a naturally safe and familiar environment. There are many more risks and deaths that occur at hospitals. The majority of pregnant women in the United States turn to hospitals to give birth but there are far more infant deaths there than at home. I had always assumed that almost every sane woman gives birth at a hospital. Medicine and a handful of doctors surround you, so what could be so risky about it? I had always viewed birthing at home as such an archaic act that is selfish on behalf of the mother. After viewing this article, I think the decision of where to give birth is something that would take time and communication between parents to decide.

In the second article, Friedman sheds some light on the history and impact of formal adoptions. Adoptions used to occur to benefit the parents. In Europe, especially England and France, the blood line of the family is extremely important. Parents would adopt other family members into theirs to keep the family lineage alive. Adoptions changed overtime to accommodate orphans, children in need of a parental unit. However these children were taken in by farmers or others outside the city as they were seen as unwanted in a metropolitan area. Over the past forty years, adoption has changed even more. Adoption became a means for adults to have children, develop a family, even if it was impossible to produce children of their own. International adoptions have also become steadily more common. This notion was once revered as mixing of races within a family was a taboo.

In the welfare article, Sharon Hays discusses the reasoning behind the system of welfare in our nation. The conservatives and the liberals both felt the same way before our welfare system was revised in 1996. They both felt like it was outdated and did not support the needs of the citizens of the United States. The liberals see the welfare program has an absolutely necessary entity to support those who may not be able to support themselves. It is a way to assist poor families, single parents, and/or their children. The conservatives view the welfare system as a means to support lazy and unmotivated people. They see it as a free handout from the government. In 1996, the welfare system was reevaluated to include women and children. Single women support themselves and/or a family were now being included in the system. They were seen as equal to men. They had to seek paying jobs and received no more protection or support than men. This reform is a positive and negative step for our country. In one way, it shows that women are being treated equally to men and they have just as much of a contribution to our society as men do. At the same time, this puts a lot of pressure on women to find a job, find childcare, and support a household. It doesn’t provide any time off for her to have more children. Hays repeatedly says throughout the article that our welfare system showcases the values of our society.

In the fourth article, Block, Korteweg, and Woodward discuss the reasoning for why poverty develops and sustains itself in some countries over others. In the United States, the government and other economic classes view the poor as a failure to our society. They provide no positive contribution to society as a whole and it is their fault that they are where they are. They become too dependant on free handouts like welfare. Other countries like Germany and Norway view the poor as a group of people who are a direct result of how social and economic structures are set up. The individuals did nothing wrong to be in the poverty stricken place they are in. It is the country and government’s fault in the first place as to why there is even an impoverished class. The article discusses how to make the American Dream more accessible to every citizen of the United States. Ideas included making education programs more accessible, providing child care so that parents can work longer job hours, and lowering the price of health care.

According to Clawson and Gerstel the United States does not provide adequate and affordable child care to all of its citizens. In other countries like France and Denmark, child care is free because it is already paid for and supported by the government and public funding. In the United States, poor families are forced to pay for child care. It is just one more dent in their wallet. Providing national child care would alleviate the burden and stress of parents trying to work longer hours or maintain two jobs to support their family. If funding for child care was included in taxes and other public funding, families could be supported. They also suggested providing more after school programs, an extension of a regular school day, just like the French program. This provides a safe and meaningful environment to children, as well helps parents who then do not have to take time off from work to pick up or transport their children.

Violence Against Women

In the first article, Felson has divided the theories behind violence done to women into two categories: gender and violent perspectives. Felson describes his gender perspective reasoning as the attacker is motivated for gender specific reasons and differences. Violence is done to the victim solely because she is a woman. The motivation comes froma sexual, sexist, or male-superior drive. On the other hand, violence perspective entails the idea that the attacker is motivated solely by violence, the desire to destroy, destruct, and lose control. The attacker yearns to dominate and be in control, and it just so happens that the victim is a woman.

I do not think there is any one answer that can group together all attackers and all abusers into one category. I think there are different combinations of motivations and reasoning behind the madness. I think the age, socio-economic background, race, and socialization of the abuser needs to be taken into account. It is almost impossible to try to pinpoint one clear definition and physiological make-up of an abuser. I would more lean to the idea of gender perspective. I can see how so many men are raised and grow up thinking that they must always be in control, are superior to women, and the woman must answer to them.

In the second article, Jones poses the daunting question to her readers, “Why doesn’t she leave?” This is a question that I have found myself asking so many times when watching a news report or reading a novel about a woman being abused. It seems like such a simple question and what we all assume to be a simple solution. Jones first blames her readers for even pondering a question like it, but she goes on to try her best to answer it for us.

It seems that only answer that she can really provide for us, is that these women simply can’t. They know and believe that if they could leave the man would find them again. They will never be free. Even if distance is separating them, the man will find a way to get her back. Women also cannot leave for financial reasons, tied with their children, the fear of supporting themselves and their kids on their own, no one to turn to for support or financial assistance. More often than not, these women become male-dependant. Maybe these men made them this way or maybe that was the fate of their relationship. It seems that there are just two many road blocks to find their road to freedom.

In the last article, the author, James Ptacket, conducted a small and intimate study to try and get inside the mind of an abuser. Instead of conducting a mass study to have a large survey pool, he interviewed a small number of men in order to spend longer amounts of time with them and gain their trust. At first, most of the men denied responsibility for their actions and did not see any reason to justify their actions. The majority of men blamed their abuse in a loss of control. They lost themselves in a complete tirade and state of anger. Most of these men were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. They were close to blacking out or blacked out when they performed acts of violence. They didn’t know what they were doing. This category of men is similar to Felson’s idea of violence perspective. These men desire to become violent without really knowing why or who they are doing it to. The other category of motivation came from being provoked from their female counterpart. If she acted out, did not follow his command, did not act as his inferior partner, the male became enraged. This is similar to the notion of gender perspective. The male is motivated solely be the biological difference between themselves and what he believes the gender differences that come with it.

Work It

In the first article entitled “Joey’s Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt” the author discusses the egalitarian myth that seems to persist universally in families today. The myth is that from the outside it appears that both the husband and wife share in responsibility when it comes to household and childcare duties. Their responsibility and effort are seen as equal. There is a subconscious understanding between the two that they both contribute equally. In reality, so many of these tasks and responsibilities end up being place on the wife. This is known as the ‘second shift’ as she fulfills her first shift as a breadwinner during her day job to come home and fulfill her second shift in housekeeping and childcare. There are some similarities between my own family and the article, but in reality I believe there are fare more differences. Although my Father is the sole breadwinner of the family, my parents share the responsibility of economic decisions, taking care of the house, and taking care of their children. If my father cooks then my mother will do the dishes and vice versa. However, they do have certain domains in which they care for the house.

In the Williams article, the ideology of domesticity is based on the idea that overtime men have taken on the role as the breadwinner and women have been left with the domestic work at home. Men’s careers have grown in economic and societal value overtime in our society probably due to the fact that they were never place on the ‘mommy track’. The three constraints that domesticity place on organized work include the idea that the ‘ideal worker’ is secluded and independent from family and household obligations, usually more likely to be a male. The second is the male idealism that they should and need to be the breadwinner, to fulfill their responsibility to society to be the ‘ideal worker’. Lastly, it shapes what a woman’s job should be: primarily a caregiver of the children and responsible of the house. She is excluded from using her education and skills to compete as an ‘ideal worker’ because she is tied down by the children. This idea is similar to the film we saw in class regarding life in Colonial America. The man was the traditional breadwinner of the family; he left the house to support his family by farming, hunting, and gathering. He took care of his family unit by providing them with food, shelter, money, status. The wife took primary care of the children, their health, the cooking, educating them, maintaining the household, and so much more. While both jobs were extremely important, the division of labor reflects the ideology of domesticity that Williams describes.

I agree with William’s on certain levels. Not every family can afford the ‘free choice’. Many two-parent households are not even given the liberty to make a choice as to who stays home and who goes to work. Single parents are especially never faced with the privileged ‘first choice’. I think the choice should not be based on gender, but should be based on which parent is making a higher salary and who is going to have the more promising career. These factors are going to directly benefit the well being of the children and their own future. Parents should come to these decisions together as a unit, a team, what will benefit the family as a whole.

According to Carrington, the division of labor in lesbigay families varies from heterosexual family. There seems to be a slightly more egalitarian approach to the division of household and childcare responsibilities. However, it is also a topic that seems to be rarely brought up or discusses amongst homosexual families. Perhaps because the division of labor will reflect the gender types that each spouse falls into. The division of labor is not a clear and simple decision when both partners are full-time workers. Often one partner has not been socialized or raised to be the more ‘domestic’ partner out of the two. Many of the responsibilities end up being divided amongst the two. More often than not, one will take on the more feminized roles and the other the masculine.