Article 1: New Zealand Press Association. August 28, 2006, Monday.
Headline: Stay-At-Homes Mums Have Right Idea
The facts that are presented in the article were collected through a survey conducted by a lead researched, Professor Phil Gendall of Massey Univeristy in New Zealand. A survey was conducted to gather information regarding the opinion of working mothers. I do not believe there is enough sufficient information to base the concluding arguments in the article. 1300 people were surveyed but the article never states who or where theses 1300 people were gathered from. It is unclear whether this polling group is diverse enough to draw conclusions from. The author is arguing that both the mother and the father need to share the responsibility of the housework so that they can both maintain careers.
Article 2: National Review. December, 4, 2006, Monday.
Headline: Women Know Best Why They’re Not CEOs
Byline: Carrie Lukas
The facts that are presented in this article are based off of other reporting news stories and current events that are occurring in our nation. Information was collected from other stories in sources like Newsweek and Harvard Business Journal. The author also reports on events occurring like Nancy Pelosi being sworn in, and Senator Hilary Clinton being the probable democratic candidate to draw her conclusions from. The ideology that corporate America does not allow women to follow through with their careers helps guide the article along.
Article 3: Essence. August 2006.
Headline: Making Time For Your Child
Byline: Lashieka Purvis Hunter
The article is written as an advice style piece that presents women of color solutions to be a mom and balance a career. There are numerous facts presented in the article but the only sources listed are two other authors that seem to be experts on this topic. The article is presented under the idea that a woman can easily balance motherhood and a career if she follows the advice of the author in the article. The article solely focuses on the role of the mother in the child’s life, instead of both parents.
Article 4: The Daily News of Los Angeles. September 24, 2006, Sunday.
Headline: Working Moms Become the Boss; Mompreneurs Start Businesses to Juggle Work and Kids
Bylone: Barbara Correa
The article discusses working women and their ability to balance a business and motherhood. The author conducted several interviews of a variety of women who have started their own businesses to better balance work and family. Several surveys were also conducted nationwide regarding mothers and their desire to maintain a career.
Article 5: Scripps Howard News Service. September 28, 2006, Thursday 1:52 PM EST.
Headline: Note to Feminists: Women Have Never Had It So Good
Byline: Betsy Hart
The facts in this article have been collected from the Wall Street Journal and reports from the National Organization for Women. The information seems to be pretty trustworthy. It’s not fair for women, unfairness and gaps still exist.
Conclusion:
The main debates and issues tackled in all five articles center around the idea that women are trying to maintain a career and still be a mom. Today, more than ever, women are trying to do it all: maintain a healthy balance between work and family, public and private sector. If today’s modern woman can do it all, fulfill both jobs, than she is deemed successful. However, so many road blocks still persist today against women trying to do the impossible. Women are still not taken as seriously as men in corporate America. They are placed on “The Mommy Track” and the gender wage gap still persists. Women find the choice between a career and motherhood to be a tough one, and more often than not, they revert back to their role in the household.
It seems like the authors throw in a few facts to support their arguments. All of the articles were either editorials or very subjective towards the point they were driving home. None of the articles presented massive surveys, data, charts, to support their arguments. Most relied on a few hand-selected interviews and personal experience and opinion. I found it interesting that four out of the five articles were written by women, the first article from New Zealand has an unknown author. Perhaps this means that solely women are interested in this topic because it is a crossroads that almost every woman faces. In most of the articles, the authors generalize the female gender into one category. However, there are always exceptions to every stereotype, to every conclusion drawn. Women of different ethnicities, ages, social class, economic status will vary greatly in their decision to work or not to work as a mother.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
AMERICAN FAMILY DECLINE:
David Popenoe’s article discusses the idea that the American family is losing meaning because its structure is being lost. He believes the best family, and the only family that should exist, is made up by an independent (male) and a dependant (female) in a two parent patriarchal society. He believes that any other model is detrimental to the children and to our society as a whole. The fact that divorce rates have increased, less children are being conceived, putting of marriage until later, more working women, are all facts that prove that the American family is in a decline.
SKY IS FALLING:
The article critiques David Popenoe’s analysis of the family today. Popenoe argues that the family today is in a decline. The family is losing it’s structure, the marital bonds that hold it together, the traditional roles each person plays are changing, and therefore today’s American family is changing for the worse. Popenoe believes in a patriarchal society, that the man should dominate the household, while the women and children follow. However, Cowan argues that Popenoe’s statements are ludicrous and not up to date. He acknowledges that the family is changing, because our society as a whole is changing. Nowadays, both men and women are working, putting off marriage, putting off having kids, and focusing on their careers. Women’s role in society is changing and therefore their role within the family is changing. Cowan argues that we need to reexamine the family through a more realistic and modern view point.
GOOD RIDDANCE:
This article, like the one before, critiques the ideas and writings of David Popenoe from Judith Stacey’s standpoint. She emphasizes the idea that America is changing. It is a country made of a diverse population of people ranging in different ethnicities, religions, job employments, and more. Therefore, there cannot be one egalitarian formula for the model family. She also argues that Popenoe’s model family can actually have negative effects on the children and the society as a whole. Different family models can produce children without having a detrimental psychological effect. She argues that we need to take in and recognize all family models, expand our horizon of what family in America means today.
I found this article to be the most interesting and relative. She presents an optimistic outlook towards today’s American families. A patriarchal household is nearly impossible to cultivate today. With more women working, a two parent family is not always possible or even desired by some. Like Judith, I agree that a two parent, male dominated household does not promote equality and equal opportunity. It reverts us back to the 1950s ‘Leave it to Beaver’ model family.
In my opinion, I can only rely on what I have experienced myself, I believe that a two parent household is ideal and has the best benefits for children. However, it does not necessarily mean that the man is working and the woman is at home to be the homemaker. I think there should be a balance between household income between the parents, as well as responsibilities in the home and child care should be shared. It should be a team between the two parents.
David Popenoe’s article discusses the idea that the American family is losing meaning because its structure is being lost. He believes the best family, and the only family that should exist, is made up by an independent (male) and a dependant (female) in a two parent patriarchal society. He believes that any other model is detrimental to the children and to our society as a whole. The fact that divorce rates have increased, less children are being conceived, putting of marriage until later, more working women, are all facts that prove that the American family is in a decline.
SKY IS FALLING:
The article critiques David Popenoe’s analysis of the family today. Popenoe argues that the family today is in a decline. The family is losing it’s structure, the marital bonds that hold it together, the traditional roles each person plays are changing, and therefore today’s American family is changing for the worse. Popenoe believes in a patriarchal society, that the man should dominate the household, while the women and children follow. However, Cowan argues that Popenoe’s statements are ludicrous and not up to date. He acknowledges that the family is changing, because our society as a whole is changing. Nowadays, both men and women are working, putting off marriage, putting off having kids, and focusing on their careers. Women’s role in society is changing and therefore their role within the family is changing. Cowan argues that we need to reexamine the family through a more realistic and modern view point.
GOOD RIDDANCE:
This article, like the one before, critiques the ideas and writings of David Popenoe from Judith Stacey’s standpoint. She emphasizes the idea that America is changing. It is a country made of a diverse population of people ranging in different ethnicities, religions, job employments, and more. Therefore, there cannot be one egalitarian formula for the model family. She also argues that Popenoe’s model family can actually have negative effects on the children and the society as a whole. Different family models can produce children without having a detrimental psychological effect. She argues that we need to take in and recognize all family models, expand our horizon of what family in America means today.
I found this article to be the most interesting and relative. She presents an optimistic outlook towards today’s American families. A patriarchal household is nearly impossible to cultivate today. With more women working, a two parent family is not always possible or even desired by some. Like Judith, I agree that a two parent, male dominated household does not promote equality and equal opportunity. It reverts us back to the 1950s ‘Leave it to Beaver’ model family.
In my opinion, I can only rely on what I have experienced myself, I believe that a two parent household is ideal and has the best benefits for children. However, it does not necessarily mean that the man is working and the woman is at home to be the homemaker. I think there should be a balance between household income between the parents, as well as responsibilities in the home and child care should be shared. It should be a team between the two parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)