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.