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.