Blog Entry 14 - 5/04/07

Networks of Interdependence in an Age of Independence

1. What kind of clash between beliefs and practices does Hansen describe? How is it related to the ideology of SNAF? What role do structures of work and school play in creating this clash?

Karen Hansen highlights a clash between the belief in the independent nuclear family and the reality of complex networks of interdependence that are woven by families in order to allow for children to receive care while parents are at work. The Standard North American Family is assumed to be an immediate family unit headed by a breadwinning dad and a full-time care-giving mom. The actual state of affairs is that more than half of American households with young children have two working parents.

Hansen’s research challenged the assumption that nuclear families raise children independently and set out to reveal the process by which families creatively construct and sustain care networks outside formal institutions such as schools and day-care centers. The rigid structures in the arenas of work and school tend to heighten the problem. It is the built-in inflexibility that creates the clash between a belief in family privacy, individualism and self-sufficiency versus the development of interdependence, a rational solution for childcare when both parents work outside the home.

The American workplace continues to operate in a manner that assumes workers are independent wage earners who are in a position to fully dedicate their time and attention to their jobs. It seems to me ill-advised for businesses to continue to ignore the economic shift in the U.S. In the long run it is inevitable that all will suffer—companies and workers alike.

At present, employed mothers must rely on a “patchwork of care-givers” in which a number of different people are called upon to ensure that children have supervision at all times. According to Hansen, networks for the most part influence people’s lives positively. In contrast to earlier qualitative studies that found networks to be associated predominantly with poor, working-class and immigrant groups, it was discovered through large scale, quantitative studies that the middle class is more likely to have networks than the working class and poor. Apparently their greater economic and educational resources favor their participation.

Hansen studied (mainly) white parents of different social classes in order to study characteristics of networking across class lines. She opted to study four families’ networks, the center of which is the “anchor.” Her approach was to interview connected individuals in a parent’s network in order to fully analyze its structure from different points of view.

Interestingly, the anchors generally solicited help from people who had compatible child-rearing values. The network arrangements consisted of a range of strategies for child-care that are class-linked.

Hansen proved through her case studies that white families in the U.S. (with dually employed parents) are not nuclear in practice and that it is a myth that the SNAF is a self-sufficient, independent unit. With the norm gravitating toward two parents being employed rather than one, the only way for parents to be assured of child-care coverage is to utilize creative networks of interdependence.

As many businesses and government irresponsibly refuse to address the economic shift in our society, parents use their own economic and intellectual resources to invent solutions.

2. According to Sarkisian, Gerena, and Gerstel, what are the ethnic differences in extended family integration? What accounts for these differences?

The Sarkisian, Gerena, and Gerstel study set out to get a more accurate picture of ethnic differences in extended family integration than was achieved by previous studies. To do so, the researchers focused more broadly and included in the study three major components rather than one alone. In addition, within the category of “Latino,” two sub-ethnicities were studied separately (Mexicans and Puerto Ricans), so that they could be compared to each other as well as to the category of “White.”

In a review of the literature, the researchers noted apparent inconsistencies in the conclusions of previous researchers regarding ethnic differences in extended family integration as well as their explanations for such differences. It was their intention to clarify the conflicts of interpretations.

Sarkisian et al. chose to address the debate of superintegration vs. disintegration by examining the differences in extended family integration between Latinos and Whites. They had expectations that both structural and cultural factors determine family integration. To evaluate which factors and to what extent certain factors account for these differences, they looked into SES, nuclear family characteristics, and culture. In order to assess cultural factors, they utilized measures of gender ideology, familism, and religious involvement. For SES, they took into account income, wealth, education, public assistance, and employment.

In addition to the above factors, they explored more subtle factors that could affect one’s understanding of ethnic differences in family integration, such as respondents’ age, health, extended family composition, and degree of assimilation.

It was found that SES variables best explained the ethnic differences in family integration. Higher incomes correlated to less co-residence, and since Latinos generally had lower incomes than Whites, they were more likely to co-reside with kin. Analysis of the age component showed that co-residence decreases with increase in age. Not surprisingly, more education is linked with higher income, and therefore is associated with less incidence of living with or near kin. Structure, or social class position, and need seem to matter more than culture.

The Sarkisian et al. study supported the hypothesis that Latino families are more integrated than White families, but confirmed that Latinos give less financial help and more instrumental and child-care help. Their analysis proved the importance of individualizing Latino groups and comparing them with one another before attempting to compare them as a single category to Whites.

Finally, the researchers discuss the importance of their study in terms of the implications for government policies. They note that “policies that do not take extended kin obligations into account might neglect Latinos even more than Whites.”

The research group chose an area of study that previously presented with many conflicting conclusions. The research showed thoughtful planning, expert organization and careful collection of data. The study not only provides valuable insights into family integration, but suggests areas worthy of further research.

Blog Entry 11 - 4/13/07

According to Joseph Pleck, how did the role of fathers change in the U.S. over time? What are the expectations about fatherhood today, both according to the article and based on your own observations?

Pleck traces the changing role of fathers in the U.S. from colonial times to the present. A call for greater father involvement in recent times has gained support, but the pace of change is decidedly slow.

Colonial fathers were well-respected, authoritative heads of household who clearly held greater responsibility and influence on children than mothers of that era. Fathers were expected to provide moral instruction as well as literacy education if able. They guided sons into suitable occupations and played a dominant role in marrying off their children. Men were expected to rigorously supervise children and were given custody in case of marital separation. Fatherhood was easily integrated into family life because of his 24/7 presence in the home, which was also the location of his work.

In the early 19^th to mid-20^th centuries, a gradual shift in parent-child relationships brought about a greater role for mothers and a diminished role for fathers. The shift reflected a changing ideology about gender, in which a woman’s purity was thought to be more suited to child-rearing and education. The elevation of the maternal role naturally coincided with new paternal work patterns away from the home, a phenomenon which came about with the industrial era. Physical distance between home and workplace was directly proportional to a father’s direct involvement with his children. The new father image was associated with breadwinning and reduced paternal authority. He maintained his status as ultimate disciplinarian and decision-maker, but at a distance.

Post World War II years brought another shift, in which the distant-breadwinner-father became vital as a sex role model. His influence for healthy sex role identification became a new moral imperative for the father figure.

According to Pleck, the father breadwinner model remains culturally dominant to this day. It grew out of the increased importance of the economy (over the centrality of the church and moral leadership responsibilities in colonial times), a focus which prevails in our present day society. The sex role model of fatherhood, which emerged as a challenge to a mother’s influence of being too strong and a father’s influence perceived as being too weak, and remains a secondary counterpoint to this image.

Over the past couple of decades, the call for more fatherly input has been gaining strength. The new image places him at births, changing diapers, bathing children, and being involved with both sons’ and daughters’ activities. With increased outside employment of mothers, increased paternal involvement with children has become part of the reality of social structural change of the family. The paternal breadwinner model is slowly changing and the fathers’ rights movement and broadening of parental leave policies is helping the cause, albeit at a snail’s pace.

I see the fathers of some of my friends more willing to take over home and family responsibilities as the mothers hold more demanding jobs outside the family. I also notice more fathers taking small children shopping with them, to restaurants, and to play. More men seem to be more family-minded and willing to share and even enjoy the responsibility of raising their children. That said, I also notice many fathers who have high pressure jobs who tend only to connect with their family on vacations.

According to Francine Deutsch, why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class? How does these families’ division of labor compare to their gender ideologies? Would you select an alternating shift arrangement for your family?

This article explores parental attitudes and the extent to which child care is shared in blue collar families in which mothers and fathers decide to alternate work shifts. These couples arrange their work schedules so that they do not have to pay for child care. Driven by financial need to such an arrangement, both parents discover unexpected perks. Fathers are able to bond with their children and mothers obtain a desirable break from intense mothering and are able to fulfill other goals and attain a sense of worth besides being a successful parent.

Couples with children decide to work alternating shifts for a few reasons. The main reason is economic. Some cannot afford outside childcare, while others decided it would be impractical to spend hard-earned money on childcare when there was an alternative, and still others wanted to use the saved income in order to afford a few luxuries. The second reason has to do with the belief that children should be cared for by the family. Couples expressed fear of putting their children into the hands of strangers who could potentially harm them. Furthermore, parents felt that it was their responsibility to instill their own values. These opinions may be based on the fact that blue collar families have limited funds to spend on high quality childcare, have fears of losing control over their child’s care, and even if they could afford better care, they dislike the idea that such care would reflect middle class values and concerns rather than their own.

In alternating-shift families, the wife’s contribution tends to carry significant weight since her wages per hour are often similar to the husband’s and are economically necessary. Interestingly, even though their economic situation does not allow for it, their belief in traditional gender roles is the norm. The mother cannot be at home full-time, it is not possible for the husband to assume the role of traditional breadwinner, and therefore, he has no other choice but to contribute to household work and childcare. They are forced into flexibility in gender issues. Men are required to perform domestic chores while their wives are at work. The actual division of labor is more equal than their gender ideologies. Even with both parents working and sharing household duties and child care, the mentality is that mothers are in charge at home, and fathers “help” while the mother is not available. The couples try to maintain these features of gender identity: the father is the breadwinner, mothers work only to ensure financial solvency of the family, and the mother is the primary parent because she is more attuned to a child’s emotional needs. Fathers do not admit to nurturing even if that is what they do. The importance of the wife’s income gives the woman permission to work in spite of the husband’s preference for her to be at home.

Although it can and does work for many families, the alternate-shift arrangement can be hectic, and the family rarely enjoys quality time all together. It forces each party to pull his/her own weight in both the work force and household shift, which can be a good thing. Men admitted to slacking off when both husband and wife were present at home, giving the wife an unfair “double shift.” I would elect this arrangement if my wife wanted it for non-economic reasons, but I do not expect that we would need it to make ends meet.

According to Dorothy Roberts, what are the societal forces that discourage family participation of Black fathers? What elements of Black fatherhood led to the myth of the Absent Black Father, and what patterns of Black men’s behavior contradict this myth?

Roberts’ article explains how negative societal forces are to blame for “fatherlessness” in many Black families. Society, in turn, erroneously blames the irresponsibility of African-American fathers for the dire situations in which numerous African-American families find themselves. It encourages the myth that the problems of Blacks are a result of their own immoral lifestyles, rather than an unequal social structure.

According to Roberts, some argue (mistakenly) that the availability of welfare promotes having children out of wedlock. Others reason that it is cultural tradition that embraces unmarried mothers in the black community. Besides these opinions, it is clearly chronic poverty that works against the creation of stable marriages. The predominance of Black female headed households tends to result from Black male unemployment. Improving men’s economic status would likely increase the numbers of fathers who live with their children. Another link to poverty, imprisonment, is another prevalent situation that separates fathers from their families. Then, as ex-convicts, their possibilities for gainful employment are even less than before.

The elements of Black fatherhood which led to the myth of the Absent Black Father are his marital status (unmarried) and economic status (poor), not his lack of connection with his children. Black men seem to have, instead, their own way of fathering. So called “absent” fathers often play a significant role in child rearing. They stay closely tied to offspring even if they are not married to the mother and are unable to help out financially.

According to the article, it was misguided welfare policy that actually drove Black men out of their homes, since many states granted aid only if a parent was consistently absent from the home, refusing to pay if a father lived in the house. Current welfare laws are attempting to encourage Black fathers to remain with their families.

The article reminds us that we live in a country that is able to help its poor, but unwilling because of misconceived notions as to why poverty exists. If lawmakers and more of the general public had a better understanding of social structure, perhaps more helpful programs would exist to offer solutions to eradicate the poverty of Black children. Poor Black families could have the opportunity to become whole again without negative judgment and forced values that typically do not apply to their communities.

Blog Entry 10 - 4/04/07

E-mailed.

Blog Entry 9 - 3/28/07

1. According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in the 17^th-20^th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?

In the American colonies, the first stage of the historical development in parenting reflected the religiously grounded views of the Puritans, in which a young child was deliberately and carefully molded into an adult through religious training, physical punishment and work at an early age. It was important to raise children to be obedient contributors to the family economy. The fathers were the disciplinarians and moral advisors, while mothers took a secondary role, carrying out the fathers’ rules and keeping the children on the prescribed track. Although the Puritan model is considered central in American cultural development, it should be noted that other groups were more affectionate and permissive in child-rearing practices. For example, American Catholics did not agree with the notion of physical punishment because sins were believed to be taken care of through various sacraments; Southern children had servants, and slave women nurtured their children lovingly.

In the second stage, which occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, views of parenting for middle-class urban inhabitants changed significantly. As in Western Europe a century earlier, childhood was considered a valuable period of life and motherhood became increasingly valued. Affection toward children, preserving of childhood innocence, and use of psychology over physical discipline, became the norm. Evangelical preachers supported the idea that women and children within their home stood as a moral counterpart to the corruption of the outside world. Known as the “Domestic Code,” or a new ideology of domesticity, women were given responsibility for creating a more virtuous world. By the second half of the 19^th century, the terms child-rearing and mothering were one in the same. This period in American history corresponds to the expansion in capitalist markets which marked the physical separation of home and workplace. The rural population, as well as the poor and working-class population, was unable to incorporate the current views of mothering because parents needed children to work, and working mothers did not have time or money to devote to their offspring in order to protect their childhood innocence.

By the turn of the century, mothering was considered appropriate if it was guided by scientific experts. This third stage was marked by strict scheduling over motherly indulgence. In addition to scientific child-rearing, this era is characterized by compulsory education, child labor laws, the initiation of the Children’s Bureau, kindergarten and playground movements, and the establishment of juvenile courts and settlements houses. With the new education and labor laws in place, and loss of siblings as care-givers, working-class women also began to stay at home to nurture young children until they reached school age.

The fourth stage of historical development in child-rearing in America began in the 1930s and is known as the permissive era. Although the early 19^th century family was already child-centered, child-rearing was guided by parents in their interests for the good of the family and the nation. Raising children during this time period is geared toward the needs and wishes of the children. Money, time, and attention is given to the children solely for the sake of prolonging a child’s innocence and to facilitate his/her development according to individual needs rather than trying to mold him/her into a miniature adult according to the parent’s wishes.

The term intensive mothering refers to an historically constructed model of child rearing based on an acknowledgement that children are innocent and precious human beings who deserve to be raised primarily by their own mothers, who are affectionate and attuned to the needs of the child. Care is given according to experts’ recommendations, which is clearly labor-intensive and expensive. This concept applies to how my own mother raised my brother and me. We were welcomed into the world not as economic assets, but as individual human beings who deserved to be nurtured according to our specific needs, talents, and desires. My mother put her professional aspirations on hold in order to devote her full-time attention to us. Some of my friends’ mothers have done the same, while others resumed their work earlier than she did because of either a financial perspective or for self-fulfillment. Having our mother at home has provided stability to our family and has given us a sense of the priority of family over excess consumerism that an extra salary might provide.

2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?

The main indicators that mothering is devalued in the U.S. are the inflexible workplaces, unequal financial partnerships of marriage, and questionable government social policies. When a mother applies for a job after raising a child, maternal care is considered “unskilled labor,” at best. Men and childless women equate staying at home to raise children with “doing nothing.” In addition to a mother’s work going unnoticed, it can hurt her job options in the future. A woman from New York was discouraged from mentioning her thirteen years of care of a disabled child because the potential employer would most likely hold it against her or find it irrelevant. Not only are the talents and arduous work of mothers conspicuously absent from economists’ calculations, they conclude that the mother’s human capital stock suffers from depreciation and results in atrophy when they are out of the workforce. Atrophy is primarily defined as “wasting away,” and I couldn’t imagine a stay-at-home mother losing work experience by raising a child. In Massachusetts, a single working mother working as a store manager was fired from her job because she refused to work overtime so she could be at home with her son. She sued the company but lost the suit because there is no public policy in MA dealing with a parent’s responsibility to care for his/her child. This situation could also apply to a single father, but perhaps he would be viewed by the public as taking over the job of a mother, and placed in an equally difficult position.

Mothers who choose to put their careers aside to provide care to their children suffer later in life. The Social Security estimate of retirement income is significantly lower for women who became homemakers compared to single working women. No compensation is given during the years spent caregiving, which can result in a substantial reduction in retirement income. In addition, a mother in Maryland with a problem-child elected to quit her full-time job to spend more time with her family. Her request for child support from the father to keep her son in private school was denied because the judge determined a mother working only part-time is “a luxury that our world does not permit.” As a result of these policies, mothers’ face a profound financial penalty if they choose to spend a large amount of time with their family. I agree that our economy doesn’t allow mothers the financial freedom they deserve, but I feel that others do not look down upon stay-at-home mothers as much as Crittenden claims. My mother stopped teaching when I was born and is only now starting to work again. I couldn’t imagine growing up any other way and I feel that in many cases working mothers don’t look down upon stay-at-home mothers, but wish they had the ability to take the time off, as well.

3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of “motherhood as a symbol of power”?

Collins explains that the concept of motherhood has had tremendous significance in the mind-sets of African Americans through the ages, that mothers are typically exalted by sons, and that mothers make pronounced efforts to raise daughters who are independent, assertive, and have a sense of self-worth. The two types of mothering discussed in the article are blood-mothering of one’s own biological children, and even more importantly, other-mothering of relatives’ children or other community children in need. The other-mother tradition serves as an invaluable support system in problem communities. These women feel a strong sense of kinship with the entire African-American community and willingly give of themselves in order to provide children with the physical and emotional support necessary for a better chance at a respectable future than perhaps was the case for their parents and grandparents. In addition to the individual aspect, the other-mothering practice provides a bond between African-American women and promotes a feeling of unity that assists in moving communities forward where there is societal oppression and lack of opportunity for its members. Motherhood for many women exemplifies hope and gives a sense of individual empowerment to women. A natural child often gives a young mother purpose to her life, while informally adopting a child is proof that there is bonding and commitment to one’s people in a broader sense that often leads to political activism, a constructive approach toward instituting change for the better.

4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?

Poor women believe a marriage is truly a lifelong bond and consider divorce a greater evil than an out-of-wedlock birth. The new young mothers believe they have to test the relationship over a period of 3-5 years before marrying their boyfriends. Although a sharp decline in marriage is seen in impoverished urban areas, young mothers have not given up on marriage, but are waiting in hope of creating a “white picket fence” lifestyle. These women do not wish to get married until they can afford such things as a modest home, a car, some savings, and a decent wedding. Additionally, young mothers wish to be able to attain these goals for themselves and do not want to rely on their future husband’s finances in case of divorce. These goals have proven to be increasingly elusive and a decline in marriage has followed.

Poor inner city teenage girls value children highly and believe they are ready for the demanding task of raising a child at a young age. These young mothers express gratitude for having a child and most believe their lives would have continued to spiral out of control without one. Jen, a young mother in Philadelphia, was sure she would still be depressed, drinking, and doing drugs if her son hadn’t come along. Many of her friends had either died from drug overdoses or ended up in jail while she has gotten her life on track and intends to go to college. She believes that without her child, her life would have never turned around, and for many other poor mothers, children offer “a strong sense of purpose and a profound source of intimacy.” I had never thought about this side of the argument and I think Jen makes a good point, though not all poor mothers are like Jen. Many lack the ambition to succeed and continue to abuse drugs even after the child is born.

Promoting marriage among the poor is one way to fight the war on poverty, but this will be a difficult task because of the stigma associated with divorce. In order to work with the well developed sub-culture of these poor areas, small changes will have to be made over time. Instead of young women spending their money on drugs and alcohol, a program should be implemented to help invest or protect the money they have, thereby building a foundation on which a family can grow. Poor mothers must have access to jobs which will lead to financial independence, complementing the belief that they should be able to support their children themselves.

Blog Entry 8 - 3/21/07

According to Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, what are the reasons why some women prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife? What is your opinion about the best setting for giving birth?

Giving birth at home, assisted by a midwife, goes along with the view that childbirth is a normal biological event. Women who select this option believe that a midwife is more attuned to their psychological and physical needs and that the home environment is less anxiety-producing than being in a hospital. In other cases, this option is simply less costly than using a physician and being admitted to a hospital.

It seems to me that if a woman chooses to be assisted by a midwife, such a person should have adequate training and a formal connection with a physician in case of an emergency. The best setting would be a compromise between a hospital and one’s home–some sort of birthing center.

The article reveals that in western nations other than the U.S., the midwife option is quite common and has a good track record. Although home births have increased in our country, legal and medical issues arise which need to be addressed. It appears that a framework should be put into place that would make such an option available to those who want it. There would be a need to establish standard training for midwives and an option for health insurance coverage.

How did the legal ties between parents and children change over time? How have adoption laws changed? Historically, what was the purpose of formal adoptions?

Parental control over the child has lessened over time. For example, the government has taken over the responsibility adult children once had for aged parent care. Additionally, the law has come to acknowledge the young child as a distinct individual, giving him/her legal rights to a safe home environment and a mandatory education.

The first “true” American adoption law, passed in 1851 in Massachusetts, was the first statute that required a formal procedure for adoption. Adoption laws from that point on rejected the idea that a blood relationship was necessary to be part of a family. Legal adoption procedures evolved from the drawing up of “deeds”, to court proceedings that judged adoptive parents as to their ability to properly care for the adoptee. Laws then cited the right of the adopted child to inherit from adoptive parents. The law currently tends to treat adopted and biological children equally with regard to property and inheritance.

Historically, formal adoptions could make a child someone’s heir (thus securing inheritance and property rights), acknowledge illegitimate children, and provide security for orphaned relatives.

Friedman’s article brings up the issue of race with regard to adoption. The tide has changed from trying to “match” children with prospective parents, to race-blind matches, and back again to matching races so that children would not lose their original cultural identities. Meanwhile, no matter what their ancestry, the author notes that they are part of the American culture, inferring that eventually being American will be all that matters. Angelina Jolie is setting the example that a family is what you make it and she is purposely making hers as diverse as possible, by adopting children from Africa and Asia.

According to Sharon Hays, what are the conservative and liberal views of welfare? What are the main differences between the requirements introduced by the welfare reform of 1996 and earlier welfare policies? What are the two contradictory visions represented in the welfare reform? What does the welfare reform tell us about the values of our society?

Conservative and liberal views of welfare reflect the debate of morality versus money as the source of welfare problems. The conservative view of welfare is that it perpetuates and increases poverty by promoting laziness and single parenting. It blames poverty on people’s indolent, promiscuous and dependent behavior. The conservative view considers problems of morality to be the cause of economic hardship as contrasting with the liberal view that moral problems are the result of poverty. Liberals emphasize that welfare policy must focus on providing better economic supports so that the poor can break the cycle of poverty.

The beginnings of welfare can be traced back to laws of the early 1900s which provided financial support to widows so that they could care for children at home. Aid to Dependent Children in 1935 was an even more expansive program, based on the family ideal of an employed husband and a care-giving wife. Government would support mother and children in the absence of a husband. The rise in welfare demands in the 1960s through the 1990s eventually gave rise to the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. Before it was passed, welfare mothers were encouraged to get training for work, and stringent criteria were drawn up for two-parent families allowed to receive aid. When it was instituted, the welfare reform of 1996 drastically changed the welfare system by demanding welfare mothers to join the labor force. It ended welfare as an entitlement program and placed a total time limit of 5 years of federal benefits to those meeting the criteria for support. (There is also a component that aims to promote two-parent families and discourage out-of-wedlock births.)

The contradictory visions represented in the welfare reform are the “work plan” and the “family plan.” In the so-called work plan, job requirements force women to become independent, self-sufficient, and economically productive members of society. The family plan utilizes the job requirement as a penalty for being a single mother as a result of divorce or having children out of wedlock. On one hand, welfare reform promotes the work ethic and promotes gender equality to some degree. On the other, it reprimands the state of single-parenting in that mothers do not have adequate support for childcare.

The welfare reform as it stands reflects the conflicting values of our society. Children need their mothers for nurturing, or a quality substitute in their absence, but if they are forced by the state to work without state support for childcare, what is to become of the children? They are destined to repeat the cycle of poverty.

According to Block, Korteweg, and Woodward, how do countries such as Norway understand poverty? And what is the prevailing theory of why poor people are poor in the U.S.? How does this theory operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy? According to the authors, what can we do to make the American Dream more accessible to the poor?

Countries such as Norway, Belgium, Germany or the Netherlands assume that poverty is caused by economic and structural problems as opposed to self-destructive or anti-moral behavior. Substantial government intervention is utilized in combating poverty. Conversely, U.S. views are preoccupied with the moral breakdown of the poor and assume that they can avert or escape poverty solely through hard work. Policies with complex rules that focus on preventing welfare fraud create obstacles to getting help for those who are needy. Since programs provide less assistance than required, welfare recipients break rules by not reporting all their income. The resulting dishonesty proves the original assumption that the poor lack moral character, and so the view of immorality as the root cause of poverty becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The authors contend that The American Dream is out of reach for many because the price of required elements of the dream—housing, health care, high-quality child care and higher education—has risen quite a bit more sharply than wages and the rate of inflation. Therefore, we need to increase the supply of these goods and services for poor and working class families; assure that the minimum wage rises with inflation; and provide poor families with sufficient income to cover food and shelter even if they have no earnings. Assistance should be coordinated through the tax system so that a household’s income would improve as work earnings rise. Finally, we need concentrated efforts through community groups and government programs to address the structural issues of poverty in order to restore the possibility of the American Dream to those it now eludes.

According to Clawson and Gerstel, how can we improve the child care system in the U.S.?

Based on successful European models, a new U.S. child care system should be publicly funded and available to all, rich and poor, at no cost or moderate cost with subsidies for those who are needy. Trained staff would receive wages commensurate to public school teachers to ensure topnotch caliber. Participation would be voluntary but attractive in terms of quality so that a majority of children would enroll, and the programs would enjoy strong public support. Additionally, parents would be offered a period of paid parental leave in order to enjoy quality time with their children. An expensive system such as this would pay off in the long run, nurturing well-adjusted children and providing parents with peace of mind, so they could then be more productive members of the labor force.

Blog Entry 7 - 3/14/07

Based on Felson’s article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?

Felson challenges the notion that violence against women is merely a form of sexism, that is, a form of behavior used to maintain male dominance. From a violence perspective, rather than a gender perspective, he examines the fact that men who commit crimes against women commit other crimes as well. Assaults against women, then, can be considered a tendency toward violence in general.

To refute the validity of the gender perspective, Felson provides statistics showing that husbands are generally less controlling than their wives, but concedes that those men who are more domineering may tend to use violence to get their way. Viewed from a violence perspective, physical size and strength rather than sexism would explain violent behavior.

While gender scholars suggest that rape is used as a form of male domination and control over the victim, Felson maintains that rape is typically sexually motivated. Part of the proof, he indicates, is that victims tend to be young attractive women.

Clearly, in my opinion, both perspectives need to be considered. Violent men may see women as an easy target to release their violent tendencies, but at the same time, in the news men without other criminal records have allegedly assaulted their wives or girlfriends. They may do so because society has permitted it. Such violence is less reported than other crimes, either because it involves a privacy issue or because victims themselves tend to be blamed. In my view, therefore, the gender perspective plays an important role in violence against women.

What is Jones’s answer to the question posed in the title of her article, “Why Doesn’t She Leave?” What is your opinion? Relate Jones’ views to the gender vs. violence debate described by Felson.

She does leave, but she has no support to make it work. When the abuser is determined to abuse or kill his victim and he has no obstacles other than a piece of paper, she is unprotected even if she goes half way around the world. She didn’t do anything wrong so why should she be punished by having to give up her home and her family/ friends’ support? As the victim she is blamed for “not leaving” when it is the abuser who needs to be stopped. I agree with Jones that the blame is wrongfully placed on the victim by people who do not understand the dynamics in abusive situations.

Jones’s explains how violence against women is trivialized because of a pervasive societal view that the victim is to blame. The justice system and the social services system have repeatedly failed female victims of violence even when victims follow through with available avenues of support. Jones shows how violence against women can be understood from a gender perspective. The violence is self-perpetuating because measures are not taken to stop the offenders or to help the victims. Police, prosecutors and judges allow violence against women to persist. Their sexist attitudes bolster the attackers’ sense of entitlement. It is the response to the crime that shapes the future of the problem and in these cases Jones documents either the lack of response or inappropriate response. Victims rather than perpetrators are analyzed. In Jones’s examples, men are out to get women. Her cases support the gender perspective as opposed to the violence perspective.

According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek’s findings to the gender vs. violence debate.

Through interviews with 18 men who attended a counseling program for batterers, two types of accounts emerged. Abusers provided both excuses and justifications by which they explained their unacceptable behavior. The accounts consist primarily of excuses, in which the offender denies responsibility for his actions. The most frequent excuse is the loss of control that results from alcohol, drug use, or intense frustration. The second most common excuse is victim-blaming. In this scenario, the abusers deny responsibility by claiming that they were provoked and responded physically to the woman’s verbal aggressiveness. It was a matter of defending their position.

In their justifications, they accept some responsibility but deny or minimize wrongdoing on their part. Of these types of accounts, the most common is the denial of the extent of physical injury caused. They also deny emotional injury such as fear, humiliation, and degradation. Another category of justifications comes under the umbrella of the failure to fulfill the obligations of a good wife. This includes a perception of male entitlement to good cooking, availability of sex, the partner being deferential, and the partner being faithful.

Since the statements made by offenders fell into both categories, contradictions could be detected. They tried to make their assaults seem normal. They revealed that the motivation for their violence was to keep the victims quiet, punish them for not living up to the husband’s expectations, and to maintain dominance over the women. They admitted intent to hurt the women as well as intent to instill fear. Although the men often claimed loss of control (excuse), the tactics used to frighten the women and threats of future violence appear to be more of a conscious strategy. Their accounts also demonstrated a desire to maintain dominance by using overt controlling behaviors. Testimonies established patterns of deliberate acts of violence even though they denied responsibility with claims of loss of control and provocation.

Ptacek’s findings point to violence occurring against women within the gender-based perspective. The offenders’ excuses and justifications fit into a context of societal acceptance of the behavior. Sense of entitlement and need to dominate in abusers’ testimonies provide evidence that the men are specifically targeting women because they are women. Violence against women has to do with power over females, behavior that is allowed by society by trivializing the problem and not properly protecting women through the justice system. Violence against women is embedded within social and cultural norms that perpetuate gender inequality and condone discrimination against women. In a vicious cycle, women continue to be victims of violence as long as there is inequality, and equality cannot occur until violence is extinguished from women’s lives.

Blog Entry 6 - 2/26/07

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.
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.
3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
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?

Hochschild’s article describes the problem of a married couple in which the husband does not share his wife’s egalitarian views. An egalitarian’s ideal in a marriage is an equal balance of career and household duties for both partners. In this way, they each acknowledge the importance of each other’s outside work and the need to tackle housework and attention to children as a team, not burdening one partner with a “second shift” of work. Hochschild reveals that such an arrangement in today’s world is simply an egalitarian myth, in which women compare their situations with other women, and men with other men, rather than arriving at a truly equal state in which women compare their market and family work status with men. Career women of the 1970s and 1980s, in order to save their marriages, typically took on more household and childcare responsibilities, while rationalizing that they had equality in their marriages. They became “supermoms,” juggling careers and family, accepting whatever help they would get from their husbands.

In order to sustain the myth, the wife in Hochschild’s article needed to deal with the emotions that arise from the conflict between a cherished ideal and a contrary reality. Nancy’s compromise needed “emotion work” in order to prevent her from growing resentful of her arrangement. “Emotion work” means that the woman needs to work at feeling what she wants to feel—equal and happy—in order to keep everything running smoothly. In the spirit of peace-keeping, a woman may have to do spectacular emotion work to prevent her ideals from clashing with her marriage.

In my own family, my mom completed her master’s degree and worked as an educator for ten years. She worked while my dad was in professional school, saved enough money for the down payment of a house and to start his business, then quit her job to raise me and my brother. When we were growing up, she cooked, shopped and took care of the inside of the house as she continues to do. My dad currently does most of the yard work and washes the cars. He will vacuum once in a while. In light of Hochschild’s article, my mom instead of taking on a “second shift” decided to put her professional career on hold while my dad developed his own career which supported us financially.

As described by Williams, the ideology of domesticity is a gender system characterized by a division of market work and family work. In a partnership, the male takes on a demanding job in terms of time and labor, which leaves little or no time for housework and raising children. The female assumes role of caregiver and in doing so sacrifices opportunities to perform as an ideal worker.

Domesticity places three constraints on the organization of work in our society. The first is that employers are entitled to ideal workers without household responsibilities. The second is the husband’s right and obligation to conform to such a work ideal. The third is the expectation that the mother’s life should be structured around caregiving.

I believe that the ideology of domesticity, which refers to the division of labor between men and women and is based on the separation of home and work, did exist to a large degree in hunter and gatherer societies. The women gathered food close to their shelter and provided childcare, while the men traveled away from the home to hunt. The men, however, also contributed to household duties by building huts, making fires, and obtaining water. In addition, the men took charge of teaching their adolescent boys the skills of men. Roles were gender-related but absent of class distinction.

In contrast, the ideology of domesticity was not a part of life in Colonial America. Work was home-based and chores were shared. Women’s chores of spinning, weaving, gardening, canning, laundering, livestock-tending and soap and candle-making was recognized as significant work. They cared for babies, but men were responsible for children’s education and upbringing. When men were away, women took over as ‘deputy husbands.’ Women also held the same jobs as men—blacksmithing, tavern-keeping, and grocers—to name a few. They were not relegated to different spheres as described by the ideology of domesticity; they were simply regarded as inferior to men. Division of labor was not so clearly cut and work for both genders was inherently tied to the home.

Williams refutes the reality that it is women’s “free choice” to drop out of their ideal work positions and take on more household and childrearing responsibilities. She argues that they do so because the ideology of domesticity has organized market work in our society in such a way that women encounter powerful obstacles that are often not worth their emotional and physical well-being to fight.

The present system does not allow for women to perform as ideal workers in a man’s world. With men largely excused from the additional pressures of family work, the woman must choose to work two shifts if she chooses ideal work, or follow traditional women’s professions which have lower pay and are more friendly to finding time for household responsibilities.

I agree with Williams that the “free choice” may women claim to make is actually resignation to the current system of market work based on domesticity. Until the tide changes where both fathers and mothers are expected to share family work while employed in market work, one gender is unfairly forced into making concessions.

According to Carrington, the household division of labor in lesbigay families encounters similar difficulties to that of heterosexual families. It comes down to the fact that in some cases only one partner can follow the role of the ideal worker in male-dominated occupations. The partner who takes a job with fewer hours per week assumes household responsibilities. There is usually a concession or sacrifice made to support the partner who has greater opportunity to get ahead or perhaps has more drive to get ahead in his or her job. As in the case of heterosexual partnerships, one or both partners may choose to take a job more friendly to taking on household responsibilities: the so called female-identified professional occupations. As in some heterosexual arrangements, a small number of lesbigay families achieve equality on the division of family work by hiring domestic help. The similarities for both types of families are based on the reality of the work market. In both situations, one partner finds it necessary to adjust to that reality in order to preserve relationships.

Blog Entry 5 - 2/19/07

1. What does it mean when sociologists say, “marriage is an institution”? According to Stephanie Coontz, what are the indicators of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage? Explain what problems Coontz finds in the proposals to “reinstitutionalize marriage.”
2. According to the articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian, what are the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for women and men?
3. According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit, and what are the effects of cohabitation on well-being?
4. The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what that means.

Is Marriage a Dying Institution?

The articles explore the future of marriage as an “institution,” defined as a custom characterized by specific obligations and rights which are backed up legally and socially by a society. All four writings examine the complexity of society’s gradual letting go of a previously highly valued and once necessary institution.

According to Stephanie Coontz’ article, in which she evaluates the status of marriage in our society, she finds that Americans support a variety of options in arranging parenthood and marriage. Opting for a two-parent family in today’s world is not necessarily confined to a traditional union as it was in the past. A rise in cohabitation often replaces formal marriages.

Conservative “family values” advocates offer a variety of solutions to save the institution of marriage, but Coontz finds major flaws in each. To begin, marriage is no longer viewed by men and women as an economic necessity. Women not only have an easier time of entering the workforce, but also have the option of leaving an unsatisfactory marriage because they are financially independent. Marriage, which traditionally came along with a built-in housekeeper and cook, is likewise no longer as indispensable for men as it once was because domestic chores have become less arduous and fast food is readily available.

Coontz points out that women who quit their jobs or compromise on career aspirations to raise children take a risk if the marriage doesn’t work out. When divorce does occur, a woman who has sacrificed a career opportunity to raise children should be guaranteed compensation if the marriage falls through, no matter whose fault it is primarily. In answer to conservatives’ suggestions to make divorce less acquirable, the article notes that it is an important option for women in abusive situations and should remain easily accessible.

Like divorce, unwed motherhood is on the rise, which can be explained in part by women’s economic independence and in part by society’s greater acceptance of it. In answer to conservatives’ take on an existing correlation between welfare and unwed motherhood, Coontz points out that illegitimacy rates in America have been lower in states with the highest welfare benefits and that those mothers return to work more quickly on the whole. The idea that new welfare rules will restore a “culture of lasting marriage” is ludicrous to Coontz. She maintains that the rise in divorce and children born out of wedlock has come about independently from the welfare program and that the trend is here to stay no matter how punitive the “family values” proponents wish to get with the poor.

In addition to new trends in women’s career goals, rising divorce and unwed motherhood, a final roadblock to regaining the institution of marriage is the “reproductive revolution.” Technology has allowed for a separation of reproduction from marriage by IVF, which Coontz points out can mean a minimum of five “parents” for a child thus conceived. Marriage re-institutionalization advocates have suggested forbidding unmarried women access to sperm banks and artificial insemination. The author indicates that it would be difficult to set the clocks back once the methods already exist.

“American Values” advocates may mean well, even with their antiquated idea of bringing back “stigmatization” for divorce and unwed motherhood, but Coontz counters that life and societal change is more complicated than what they propose. I agree that it is necessary to look ahead, not back.

The articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian present benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. Referring to Waite and Gallagher’s book, Harris says that they find that a main benefit of marriage comes from economics in that a couple can live together for the cost of 1.6 persons. In addition, if the marriage lasts, a woman will be more affluent on average than a single woman. In fact, Waite and Gallagher believe that one of the greatest benefits for women is economic because of the offered flexibility in their work lives. Also economically related is the specialized division of labor in the household offered by marriage. Waite and her co-author contend that couples who cohabit out of wedlock avoid specialization and lose out on the interdependence that gives rise to many of marriage’s biggest benefits.

A second benefit of marriage according to Waite and Gallagher is better physical and mental health. Marriage provides a woman with better financial resources and therefore improved access to health care. Married men drink less than single men, and both sexes are less prone to clinical depression, anxiety disorders, and suicide than single or divorced counterparts.

Gerstel and Sarkisian reiterate the benefits of marriage for both men and women–higher incomes, more wealth, better health and more property than non-married counterparts. They also bring up the fact that it tends to keep men away from crime and increases their involvement in religious and political life.

Gerstel and Sarkisian review the negatives of marriage, including increased housework for women and domestic violence targeted toward the woman, and that marriage brings fewer benefits to the poor than to the affluent. Bad marriages can be detrimental to physical and mental health by bringing stress and depression. Additionally, a main focus of their article explores how a marriage is “greedy,” in that it usurps time and energy, ultimately isolating the couple from community and family. The addition of children, however, often reinvolves the married couple into networks of friends and community.

Harris brings up the fact that married women tend to become mothers, so they voluntarily cut back on paid work and make career sacrifices in order to handle the job of child-rearing as well as outside work. If the marriage fails, she assumes more financial risk than her husband. On the positive side, she and the children will be better off economically than if she had children out of wedlock.

Brown’s article addresses the phenomenon of cohabitation as it replaces traditional marriage and how it affects today’s American families. Statistics reveal that forty percent of cohabiting unions involve children, compared to 45 percent of married couples with children.

It is not as common for cohabitation today to be a step toward marriage as it was formerly. Divorced people are more likely to cohabit than remarry. Cohabitation, like marriage, provides companionship, sexual intimacy, and a place to raise children. Often cohabitors claim that financial instability prevents them from marrying. While a primary reason people cohabit is to test compatibility, it is found that people who cohabit and then marry are more willing to divorce.

Reasons for cohabitation in current society include a prelude to marriage; a long-term alternative to marriage by committed partners; an alternative to dating in which the individuals are not sure about marriage and their relationship; and trial cohabitation in which the persons are not committed to their relationship but hope to marry someone someday. Cohabitors planning to marry report positive quality relationships similar to those of married couples, while other cohabitors reportedly experience more conflict than married counterparts. Sexual activity is more frequent in cohabitation but married couples are happier with their sex lives. Cohabitors’ economic situations are not as stable as those of married couples. Finally, as compared to married families, children do not fare as well in cohabitation unions.

Interpretation of the research findings on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation is complex because they may be affected by selection effects. In other words, people who choose to marry possess certain characteristics that people who choose to cohabit may not. The apparent marriage benefit may be a result of a sample of people who are already happy, healthy, career motivated, and well-adjusted, because such people are more likely to get married and stay married than those who do not fall into these categories.

Americans have choices- material, ideological, and now more than ever, marital. It is up to the individual couples to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of marriage versus cohabitation. Marriage is a commitment between two people who care for one another that provides companionship, intimacy, emotional support, sharing of financial responsibilities, and an environment in which to welcome offspring. It is formalized by law and often by religion. The recourse to a bad marriage is divorce. Cohabitation is a similar but impermanent situation in which two individuals may or may not be committed to each other but are not bound legally. Claims have been made that children are happier where the parents are in traditional marriages. Only time will tell if children raised in cohabitative environments will perpetuate the alternative family life in which they were raised or hate it so much that they resolve to bring children into a traditional marriage family. In any case, we need to accept that the changes in society that have brought about cohabitation are here to stay, and whether couples choose marriage or cohabitation, it is just that–a choice.

Blog Entry 4 - 2/12/07

According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.

The Effects of the Sexual Revolution

England and Thomas set out to document what appeared to be a national trend at colleges since the 1980s–the decline of dating and the rise of the “hook up.” According to the students surveyed, the traditional date on campuses is currently almost non-existent and “dating” now refers to activities of couples who are in a romantic relationship. Students get to know each other by “hanging out” instead of by dating. Subsequently, hook ups occur when a twosome goes somewhere private, usually following a lot of drinking, and implies that something sexual took place. The research revealed that a series of hook-ups may lead to an exclusive relationship or simply “friends with benefits” in which sex is the main object of being together. The surveys indicated that it was a popular choice to establish exclusive relationships, a status that was officially determined by the “define the relationship” talk.

In general, cultural changes have allowed women the option of more sexual behavior than in the past without being negatively labeled “easy” or promiscuous. Despite this change, the “double standard” still exists, where women say that too many hookups give them a bad name, while men seem to gain status for the same number of hook ups. It may very well be related that women showed more interest in having hook ups progress into relationships than men and preferred to limit sexual intercourse to relationships more than men. Hook up culture is problematic for women who want relationships before sexual intimacy. According to this study, it is more common for relationships to start after multiple hook ups, rather than a traditional date. Cohabitation is more readily accepted for both men and women outside of marriage which has led to later marriages.

In the article by Risman and Schwartz surface two of the same themes as England and Thomas’ study. First, both reports agree that the double standard is alive and well–young women worry about being judged negatively about sexual behavior while men do not. Second, young people generally do not believe that marriage is necessary to be sexually active. Girls, however, feel more comfortable today about having sex if they are in a steady relationship, and a decrease in boys’ sexual activity is likely to be related to the young women’s increased control over the conditions for intercourse. Male teens are more likely to have a first intimate relationship with a girlfriend rather than a one night stand. Risman and Schwartz report that the percentage of sexually active teens is slightly down but disagree with the consensus of the mass media that it is indicative of a sexual counterrevolution. Risman and Schwartz found that youth are behaving more responsibly when sexually active, which explains the decline in teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The surveys revealed that Americans accept sex outside of marriage for adults but not as readily for teens. Teen sex is regarded as irresponsible and immoral, while the writers note that ironically, teens are bombarded with a culture that uses sex to sell products targeted toward them.

The fact that hook ups occur primarily after heavy drinking indicates the activity is often part of “party behavior” and perhaps peer pressure, and not for everyone. The article does mention the fact that although such activity characterizes mainstream campus culture, there are individuals who do not buy into the instant gratification factor and for a number of reasons may prefer a more gradual approach to sex. College campuses, and specifically coed dorms, clearly provide a convenient milieu for hook up activity. This raises the question of whether dating is still the norm outside the campus. The Risman/Schwartz article about teen sex seems to answer that question affirmatively. They find that teens support sex within relationships, although a “relationship” could be as short as two weeks. The Risman /Schwartz research finds that college women believe that affectionate sex is acceptable for both sexes but that nearly none support the right to casual sex, which tends to contradict the prevalence of hook ups as reported by England and Thomas. Both articles, however, confirm that the sexual revolution was successful and that the connection between sex and marriage has been irrevocably severed. Young people have become more informed about birth control, sexually transmitted disease, practice safe sex more often, and both articles report that sex is taking place most often within steady relationships.

The statistics presented by Risman and Schwartz seem extreme compared to what I observed in high school, however, I was in a social group which most likely did not represent the norm. Most of my friends were single and non-sexually active. One of my friends who weaseled his way into the “cool” social group would report back stories he heard of various sexual encounters. It was always shocking to me that this was going on in students as young as 14 and 15. As early as 9^th grade, I remember the pregnancy scare of a girl who was often in my classes, and I could hardly comprehend that possibility. I must have been raised with very traditional values because the statistic which claims it is statistically atypical to still be a virgin at the end of the teen years is shocking to me. At college, I have become aware of the increased prevalence of sexual activity, but again seemed to make friends who are not part of it. It is a common occurrence for someone to be kicked out of his dorm room so his room mate can be alone with a “friend” or girlfriend, and I suspect there is a similar situation on the girls’ floors. I think this is unacceptable for the most part. According to England and Thomas, 47% of the college hookups started at a party, and large proportion involved varying degrees of alcohol consumption, two things I have very little to do with. Since I’m not part of the party/hook up culture, my knowledge of sexual activity on campus is limited.

Blog Entry 3 - 2/05/07

1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?
2. D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?

The Puritan approach to sexual expression

In colonial America, expression of sexuality was important within the confines of marriage for the purpose of procreation. A family-centered sexual system was supported by the economic system as well as by religious beliefs. The family was the economic unit of which children were an essential component. It was a self-sufficient entity that produced and consumed its own goods and services and it was, therefore, necessary for economic survival that children were taught the place for sexual desire was within a marriage. Youth learned about sexuality from observation in close sleeping quarters and through moral instruction by both parents and the church. Puritan clergy and lawmakers set standards which influenced people to limit sex to marriage for the purpose of raising children.

Colonists made efforts to outlaw and punish what they defined as deviant sexual practices, including adultery, sodomy, incest, rape and bearing children out of wedlock. Regulation of deviance reminded the community that sex was only acceptable in the context of marriage and for the purpose of producing progeny. Among Puritans, individuals felt responsible for upholding the morality of community members so that God would not punish the whole society.

On the positive side, Puritan standards for sexuality established rules in order to ensure the survival of the colonial people who had to struggle to exist. Rules concerning sexuality maintained order within the society, which helped the communities to survive and grow. Each member of society was required to neatly fit into a family unit which was an economic unit, so there was no tolerance for deviants. It encouraged each member of society to pull his or her own weight, whether child or adult. For those who found it difficult to adhere to the rule of forbidden premarital relations, the society forgave the couple as long as they repented and soon created their own family unit. This flexibility was a positive response which strengthened the society. Unfortunately, the system put a lot of stress on the women, who had to bear many children, which was often risky to their health. Punishment for deviation was often excessively harsh, although apparently it kept illegitimacy rates low. Also on the negative side, sexual rules reinforced a system of racial dominance. A rigid system such as this was stifling to the creative side of human nature and could not last indefinitely without repercussion.

Capitalism, the family and gay identity

D’Emilio first makes a case for relating the emergence of gay communities with the development of capitalism. Capitalism eroded the foundation of family life, which in turn opened opportunities for gays to express their sexuality and connect with one another. The spread of wage labor and production helped to transition the family away from economic independence and led to changing values that eventually separated sexuality and procreation. Since it was no longer necessary to live in a family unit for economic survival, it became possible for members of the same sex to organize a personal life that suited them without calling attention to their “deviance” from tradition. Capitalism was instrumental in weakening the family structure, which consequently allowed gay communities to exist, but according to D’Emilio, then stifled gay identity.

Although it was the structure of capitalism that allowed gay communities to emerge, capitalism appeared unable to accept homosexuals. As family structure weakened, individuals began to feel the resulting instability and insecurity since there were no social structures in place to meet the growing of personal freedom outside of the family unit. According to D’Emilio, capitalism drives people into heterosexual families in order to reproduce the next generation of workers and he believes that capitalist society also encourages heterosexism and homophobia by elevating the family to “ideological preeminence.” Until programs are instituted to support personal autonomy, (such as community-controlled daycare and other structures beyond the family that provide a sense of belonging), D’Emilio argues that gay liberation cannot fully be a reality.

I agree that the decline of the family allowed gays to come out and that capitalism contributed to the rapid decline of the family. It seems, however, that World War II had a major impact on both the upsurge and the later oppression of the expression of homosexuality in our country. It seriously disrupted former patterns of sexuality and created avenues suitable to homosexual relationships. Just as homosexual men and women were beginning to network and establish a sort of subculture, the government of the post-war period aimed to stifle its growth by banning gays from the military and employment. This oppression actually promoted the gay liberation movement because gays were denied their civil rights, and as a group they had a noble cause to fight back.

I disagree that the lack of social programs is what is holding gay people back. They need to prove that as a subculture they can be a functioning family since children need a family first before daycare and other social programs can be of use. The type of society D’Emilio envisions is impersonal and appalling. He takes issue with the fact that children are viewed as dependents, belonging to parents rather than as autonomous human beings. Children need nurturing within a family unit, which in today’s society has a rather flexible definition. He claims that capitalism is against gays because it relies on heterosexuals to produce more workers. In order to keep people in a heterosexual orientation he believes capitalists use homosexuals as scapegoats, encouraging homophobia to unify heterosexuals against them. In reality, to avoid being scapegoats, the mainstream needs to be educated in order to understand that the issue is primarily a biological one—that homosexuals comprise a very small part of the population, and that if they are allowed to live an equal life style (marriage and adopting children), they will contribute to capitalist society. D’Emilio’s ideas approach communism and are a bit extreme. For stability and happiness, both heterosexuals and homosexuals will benefit from a capitalist society with a family orientation and a variety of social programs. As a gay rights spokesperson speaking to a gay audience, D'Emilio has neglected to put his ideas in the context of the whole society. I cannot agree that capitalism champions heterosexuality to the exclusion of gay identity.

Blog Entry 2 - 1/29/07

“Families in the News” Exercise
Select one family-related issue that interests you and collect at least five recent articles that deal with this issue, published in 2006-07 in newspapers or news magazines.

Finding affordable, quality childcare: a working woman's dilemma.

Article #1: High costs of child care can lead to lifestyle changes, adjustments; Some financially crunched parents feel push to relocate, change jobs, USA TODAY, April 18, 2006.

Parents are basing decisions about their jobs and families according to how much childcare they can afford. Since childcare costs are taking a large chunk out of incomes, they seek employers who offer subsidized childcare, relocate to more affordable housing, and work longer hours. In today’s economy young parents are having a difficult time raising families and getting ahead in their careers.

Journalist Stephanie Armour quotes specific expenses for childcare and preschool through direct interviews with working mothers who are experiencing the pressures of increasing costs of childcare: Margaret Schwartz, marketing consultant and mother of two four-year old boys in VA; Lisa Rivero, employee in communications and mother of a one-year-old in MA; Remi Adams, employee at a high-tech firm and mother of two in CA.

Armour also quotes figures tabulated by Chicago-based employee assistance provider ComPsych who has surveyed parents with regard to difficulties they have encountered in arranging for childcare. In her article, she quotes average infant child care fees which range from $4,000 to $13,000, according to the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, a network of more than 850 child care resource and referral centers based in Arlington, VA. Armour also quotes costs for preschool and child care programs in California at $4,000 -$5000 per year from a report by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California, a Washington-based organization of law enforcement officers. Finally, she quotes the variable average costs for child care for a 4-year-old in a licensed child care center in each of our states, information provided by the State CCR&R network (2005).

Armour’s statistical reporting appears to be of high quality. Her interviews with real families give specific numbers and a face to the average statistics. The other numbers used are quoted from reliable sources that have access to large numbers of parents who are requesting childcare and have an interest in researching and averaging childcare costs throughout the U.S.

The article focuses on the plight of the working mother (of the middle-income family) even if there are two parents working. Child-care fees are compared to other expenses such as food and college tuition. State to state comparisons are provided as well as reports of states with least affordable childcare: NY, MN, CA, and MA. Armour’s reporting avoids broad generalizations by using a variety of sources across the United States.

Article #2: Mayor Cieslewicz, community leaders announce new initiatives for childcare, fiscal responsibility, US States News, October 11, 2006.

Expenditures specifically targeting childcare funding are quoted from a news release issued by the office of the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin. The increased numbers for 2007 are compared to the 2006 budget. Explanations for the expenditures, including benefits to the taxpayers and childcare recipients are reported along with the figures.

The new investment in childcare will allow for more low-income children to have access to quality childcare. The funding will open up economic opportunities for low-income families, allowing them to participate fully in the workforce, which will also benefit the economy of Madison. The political ideology speaks to equality for all income levels.

Article #3: Gov. Doyle’s cabinet member, Secretary Gassman, presents $10,000 in grants to Wisconsin Rapids childcare agencies, US States News, September 6, 2006.

The facts in this article are quoted from a news release issued by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. It states the total amount of monies to be dispersed as well as the specific 10 recipients and the proposed use for the funds by each childcare center.

The purpose of the grants is to provide educational and professional development opportunities for childcare providers. The government expenditure is based on the belief that giving children the best start early in life will pay ample dividends later.

Article #4: Life’s Work: Putting in the hours and paying the price, The New York Times, December 3, 2006.

The article comments on women who spend too much time at their jobs so that their jobs undermine their health, their relationships with their children and with their spouse. It points out that the “extreme job” situation is detrimental to the employers whose employees lose focus as well as the parents and suggests solutions such as subsidies for after-school care and backup care, and the ability to telecommute. It is supportive of working mothers.

Journalist Lisa Belkin quotes the definition of “extreme job” as working 60 hours or more per week plus 5 additional characteristics out a list of 10, as put forth by the Hidden Brain Drain Task Force of the Center for Work-Life Policy. According to Belkin, the task force arrived at its current statistics of the number of extreme workers from two surveys and dozens of interviews and focus groups. She also interviews task force head Sylvia Hewlett for her interpretation. Belkin also quotes Catalyst, the research and consulting firm that aims to expand opportunities for women at work. The article highlights the price that is paid by some mothers who choose to get ahead in their careers and the need for more flexibility by employers.

Article #5: Nanny Hunt can be a ‘slap in the face’ for blacks, The New York Times, December 26, 2006.

Kantor points out that as more African-Americans move up the economic ladder, access to ‘better’ childcare is often elusive. These parents must often settle for non-credentialed nannies, rely on day care or scale back professional aspirations to spend more time at home.

The facts are derived from personal interviews with four African-American upper middle-class working parents, the owner of Morningside Nannies of Houston/President of the International Nanny Association, owner of Nanny Boutique of Chicago, owner of White House Nannies, a socialworker in Brooklyn who specializes in parent-nanny relationships, and three nannies, Polish, Russian and Jamaican. The sources, although varied, represent subjective views. The article presents an emerging problem of which I imagine few people are aware. As the numbers of these situations increase, more dialog will be necessary.

The main debates/issues illustrated in these articles are how women are pressed to juggle child care and careers and should companies step up to the problem by being more flexible and/or subsidizing childcare; and should various levels of government help out so that parents can work, be productive community members, and fulfill personal goals.

Armour, Belkin, and Kantor are sympathetic to the problems of their interviewees. The purpose of their articles is to make the public aware of childcare concerns that exist and how parents, in particular mothers, struggle with their decisions to hold a job while worrying that their children are being properly cared for. Those mothers who put in extreme hours at their jobs may be financially successful, enough to pay for childcare, but they are depriving the children and spouses of a quality relationship. The articles point out the dilemma of women in the workforce today and how our nation needs to address childcare, parental leave, better afterschool programs and policies to promote flexible work options that don’t force parents to forgo benefits, equitable pay, and career prospects. The local government press releases are more political in nature, touting the ‘good job’ they are doing in the arena of childcare. Political or not, the bottom line is that they are making progress and that is what counts. People should not become complacent about the issue, however, because there is much more to be done. In the instances of these five articles, the media is helpful in portraying a family issue that seriously requires leadership.