For this week's blog entry, I would like you to consider how race, gender, social class, and sexuality (1) impacted and shaped your family life so far, (2) affected your ideas about families, and (3) might affect your family life in the future. The purpose of this assignment is to get you thinking about how social positions affect our family experiences as well as to contemplate what your beliefs are and why you have them. Such things often seem “normal” or “natural” so try to think critically when doing this exercise.
Throughout my life I have not been surrounded by much racial or ethnic diversity living in a suburban town and going to private schools. I wish that I was more culturally aware but I have learned that I am completely different from my grandparents and great-grandparents. Being Irish and Italian Catholics they do not believe in mixed marriages or support homosexual relationships. Although I know that they were taught that these instances were wrong, I still have a hard time accepting their beliefs. My parents are more liberal than they are but no where near as accepting as my sisters, brother, and I. These types of situations are common and are not a big deal. Love is the only thing that matters in a relationship, not race, ethnicity, or sexuality. When I have children I hope that they too will share the same beliefs as me.
My family consists of my mom, dad, brother, two sisters, and I and as you can see, being a female in the Barrett clan definitely holds some power based on the numbers. However, my dad is very dominant and protective of his girls and has taught my brother to do the same. It makes my sisters and I feel safe that we have someone who loves us look after and care for us. My father learned this from his father and his father from his and so on and I believe that my brother, Craig will instill the same values and beliefs in his sons. It is strange to say but I believe that I look for values and beliefs that are similar to my dad and brother when dating. Also, it is clear that there is a double standard in our family and that my brother can do some things that my sisters and I will never be able to because he is a boy. Although it is something that frustrates me immensely, it is also something that I have learned to accept with age. However, because I am aware of how unfair it is I will be sure to avoid it when I have children. My mother is a housewife and stays at home while my father works. She takes care of the house and all of us. I can not begin to describe what I have learned from my mother and I can only hope to grow to be half the woman she is. My parents have taught me the importance of intellect, manners, respect, genuinity, self-respect, dignity, hard work, patience, compassion, loyalty, trust, and most importantly, how to love. Another value that my parents have worked hard to instill in all of us is the importance of independence and being able to stand on your own two feet. My father started working at an early age and encouraged my brother to do the same in order to develop a sense of responsibility. On the other hand, he encouraged my sister and I to never rely on a man and it is crucial to develop your own success and to be proud of who you are.
Up until high school I went to public schools in Dartmouth, MA which were all great schools. However, when it came time to choose a high school my parents gave us the 'choice' of going to Dartmouth High or going to Bishop Stang, the smaller Catholic school in our town. Going to a Catholic school from childhood through high school my father encouraged us to go to Stang even though we were told it was our decision. Nevertheless, I loved high school and never regretted going to a Catholic school with kids that I had never met before. I received an invaluable education and then was accepted to Boston College, another private school. In both schools, I was not surrounded by much diversity or drastic differences in social class. However, New Bedford is the town over from Dartmouth and where I learned a great deal about poverty, violence, and ethnicity and being in Boston further expanded my awareness. It made me realize what I want for my life and what I take for granted. I learned the value of hard work and the importance of making enough money to give my future children the life that I had and made me realize that something needs to be done. I want my children to be aware of the hardships in the world and the value of equality.
As a female, I have learned the importance of sexuality, dignity, and having respect for your body. My mother has taught me never to let anyone take advantage of me or sell myself short. She has taught me to value my body, to be conservative and modest. Sex is an unspoken topic in my house because my mother and father believe that is it to be saved for marriage and women should not be promiscous or have premarital sex. In fact, I rarely see them kiss in front of me because they are not big supporters of public displays of affection. For these reasons, I have been taught to conceal my sexuality. I feel as though I have to hide some things from my parents which I don't like to do. For these reasons, I aspire to be more open with my children so that they feel as though they can tell me anything and not be afraid of what I will say. However, I will continue to instill the value of respecting your body in my children.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Motherhood
1. According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?
According to Hays, there were four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America between the 17th and 20th century.
The first stage was the Puritan stage and occurred between the late 17th and early 18th century in which children were brought up with strict religious values and rules. They learned to base every aspect of life on religion and were obedient to their parents. This stage was followed by an era that focused on nuturance as main importance in mothering and childrearing. Children were born pure and were raised by their mothers into model citizens. This, in turn, placed great importance on the mother because they were the only individual who could perform the job with precision. In the 19th century the third stage occurred in which the mother hired help, such as a nurse, to take care of the child. However, not all mothers could afford this and were required to take on this task themselves. The nurse would raise the child under supervision of the mother and receive love and care from a woman who is not their biological mother. In the last stage, childrearing was thought to be the result of science. This stage was called the Progressive stage and many manuals were used to raise children. Additionally, children were given higher values and recognized as independents.
Intensive mothering "tells us that children are innocent and priceless, that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers and that it should be centered on children's needs, with methods that are informed by experts, labor intensive, and costly" (21). My mother somewhat embodies intensive mothering because she values my siblings and I before anything else and would do absolutely anything for us. However, she also values my father and would not feel as though childrearing would be complete without his love and support. I feel as though their combined love and care has developed my sisters, brother, and I into well-rounded and immensely cared for individuals. In addition, my mother realizes the importance of advice from professionals in the healthcare business but highly values the advice from her own mother, father, and siblings in childrearing.
2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?
Main indicators that motherhood is devalued in the United States is seen in the interaction between housewives and society. They believe that a woman who stays at home with her children does nothing and that they are wasting their time. Economists believe that a woman's income and leisure atrophy when they are housewives. Women in the workworld who have children may not be hired because of this fact or may be asked to decrease their hours. Additionally, "mothers in forty- seven of the fifty states,...,do not have unequivocal legal right to half of their family's asset," (6) and these women recieve no ownership to their breadwinner husband's income. Lastly, "government social policies don't even define unpaid care of family dependents at work," (6).
I completely agree with Crittenden's view that stay at home mothers do not receive as much appreciation and grattitude as they should. I agree that there is a gap between the stated appreciation for childrearing, the importance of raising children, and how housewives are treated in society.
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 proposed that Black women tend to do two types of mothering; bloodmothers or othermothers. Bloodmothers are also called biological mothers and in this case the woman cares for her own child. On the other hand, othermothers share the responsibility of caring for the child and is usually done by members of the extended family; including grandmother, aunt, sister, etc.
The two types are related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power" because it reflects unity and strength of the female relationship. It proves support and cooperation in childcare which lead to a sense of power and instills morals and values among family members.
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 have given up on their ideas of marriage and believe that it is only for women who have stable incomes or of middle or high class. In their eyes, marriage "ought to be reserved for those who can support a 'white picket fence' lifestyle: a mortage on a modest row home, a car and some furniture, some savings in the bank, and enough money left over to pay for a 'decent' wedding" (18). Additionally, these women believe that it is necessary as a women to be economically stable when beginning a marriage in order to enforce equality between the spouses. They believe that this will also prevent their marriage from going bad.
Despite contrary belief, these poor single mothers describe childbearing as something that saved them from their horrible life and preventing them from reaching the bottom of a downward spiral. However, initially having a child with your partner proved a sense of commitment and was perceived as an honor for young women to bear the child of their older partner. The child itself provided the mother with emotional security, "a compelling sense of purpose" (18), and romantic intimacy.
Edin and Kefalas propose that in order to help these women out of poverty it is necessary to provide them with access to financial stability by obtaining jobs. In turn, these women will achieve a sense of hope and belonging in the world.
I completely agree with Edin and Kefalas and believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to support themselves with a career or job. Women, especially those supporting children on their own, should be given the opportunity to provide a substantial life to their family.
According to Hays, there were four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America between the 17th and 20th century.
The first stage was the Puritan stage and occurred between the late 17th and early 18th century in which children were brought up with strict religious values and rules. They learned to base every aspect of life on religion and were obedient to their parents. This stage was followed by an era that focused on nuturance as main importance in mothering and childrearing. Children were born pure and were raised by their mothers into model citizens. This, in turn, placed great importance on the mother because they were the only individual who could perform the job with precision. In the 19th century the third stage occurred in which the mother hired help, such as a nurse, to take care of the child. However, not all mothers could afford this and were required to take on this task themselves. The nurse would raise the child under supervision of the mother and receive love and care from a woman who is not their biological mother. In the last stage, childrearing was thought to be the result of science. This stage was called the Progressive stage and many manuals were used to raise children. Additionally, children were given higher values and recognized as independents.
Intensive mothering "tells us that children are innocent and priceless, that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers and that it should be centered on children's needs, with methods that are informed by experts, labor intensive, and costly" (21). My mother somewhat embodies intensive mothering because she values my siblings and I before anything else and would do absolutely anything for us. However, she also values my father and would not feel as though childrearing would be complete without his love and support. I feel as though their combined love and care has developed my sisters, brother, and I into well-rounded and immensely cared for individuals. In addition, my mother realizes the importance of advice from professionals in the healthcare business but highly values the advice from her own mother, father, and siblings in childrearing.
2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?
Main indicators that motherhood is devalued in the United States is seen in the interaction between housewives and society. They believe that a woman who stays at home with her children does nothing and that they are wasting their time. Economists believe that a woman's income and leisure atrophy when they are housewives. Women in the workworld who have children may not be hired because of this fact or may be asked to decrease their hours. Additionally, "mothers in forty- seven of the fifty states,...,do not have unequivocal legal right to half of their family's asset," (6) and these women recieve no ownership to their breadwinner husband's income. Lastly, "government social policies don't even define unpaid care of family dependents at work," (6).
I completely agree with Crittenden's view that stay at home mothers do not receive as much appreciation and grattitude as they should. I agree that there is a gap between the stated appreciation for childrearing, the importance of raising children, and how housewives are treated in society.
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 proposed that Black women tend to do two types of mothering; bloodmothers or othermothers. Bloodmothers are also called biological mothers and in this case the woman cares for her own child. On the other hand, othermothers share the responsibility of caring for the child and is usually done by members of the extended family; including grandmother, aunt, sister, etc.
The two types are related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power" because it reflects unity and strength of the female relationship. It proves support and cooperation in childcare which lead to a sense of power and instills morals and values among family members.
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 have given up on their ideas of marriage and believe that it is only for women who have stable incomes or of middle or high class. In their eyes, marriage "ought to be reserved for those who can support a 'white picket fence' lifestyle: a mortage on a modest row home, a car and some furniture, some savings in the bank, and enough money left over to pay for a 'decent' wedding" (18). Additionally, these women believe that it is necessary as a women to be economically stable when beginning a marriage in order to enforce equality between the spouses. They believe that this will also prevent their marriage from going bad.
Despite contrary belief, these poor single mothers describe childbearing as something that saved them from their horrible life and preventing them from reaching the bottom of a downward spiral. However, initially having a child with your partner proved a sense of commitment and was perceived as an honor for young women to bear the child of their older partner. The child itself provided the mother with emotional security, "a compelling sense of purpose" (18), and romantic intimacy.
Edin and Kefalas propose that in order to help these women out of poverty it is necessary to provide them with access to financial stability by obtaining jobs. In turn, these women will achieve a sense of hope and belonging in the world.
I completely agree with Edin and Kefalas and believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to support themselves with a career or job. Women, especially those supporting children on their own, should be given the opportunity to provide a substantial life to their family.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Childbearing and Childrearing
1. According to Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, what are the reasons why some prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife? What is your opinion about the best setting for giving birth?
Some mothers prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife for a variety of reasons. First, they feel as though giving birth at home is just as safe as laboring in a hospital, and possibly even safer when comparing the infant and mortality rates of other countries who predominantly use midwifes in the home to the United States. Supporters believe that birthing in a hospital provides unnecessary medical attention and intervention, whereas a midwife offers mutual trust, education on birth and care of the newborn, prenatal and maternal screening, and a bond between the mother and midwife that is irreplacable. They offer mother's education and information about controlling their own body during pregnancy and birth. In addition, mothers may feel more comfortable and relaxed in their own familiar environment which would make the natural proceed with ease. Supporters "perceive birth as a normal, rather than abnormal, function of women's bodies, just as walking, aging, or any number of other functions are considered" (819). Complications that arise are a collaboration of the mother's mindset, emotions, body, beliefs, and environment and do not only depend on the phsyical.
As a nursing student, I understand the many complications of pregnancy, labor, birth, and after- birth and strongly agree with delivering in the hospital setting. I understand the evidence that supports higher mortality and morbidity rates among hospital births comparing to other Western countries but do believe that this evidence is scued. Although I do believe in the mind-body connection, which seems to be a major theme among midwifery, I believe that medication and science as just as powerful. Additionally, in a hospital setting there are state of the art and great technological advances that provide mother and child with unbeatable fetal heart monitoring and maternal monitoring. Located in a hospital are numerous staff members that provide each mother, child, and family with support and care that is essential in this state of life. Just because you are giving birth in the hospital does not mean that you have to necessarily use medication, after all, healthcare providers pride themselves with giving the patient the right to choose. Lastly, if you desire to use a midwife it is possible on the labor and delivery floor.
2. How did the legal ties between parents and children change over time? How did the adoption laws changed? Historically, what was the purpose of formal adoptions?
The legal ties between parents and children changed over time because originally parents had indefinite control over their children throughout their lives and now adults are free to make their own decisions and are not obligated by law to obey their parents. The government has replaced many aspects of taking care of elderly parents by instilling nursing homes and supporting the retired. In addition, children are recognized as individuals and can face punishment and consequences for their actions. Foster care homes provide shelter and support for children who have been taken from their homes and placed into better care. The state can also support children's rights against their parents as well.
Over time, adoption laws have changed as well. Originally, adoption laws were not recognized at all and children were relatives of blood and nothing else. However, historically in ancient Roman society formal adoptions were used to carry out the family name and was "recognized as a way to guarantee that a family with no blood children would not die out" (273). Adoption at a time was only granted to people that had no children. Adults could even be adopted to carry on family names. In most cases, the issues of adoption vary from country to country. In present day, there are numerous adoption laws stating that adoption does not have to involve blood relation.
3. 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 the 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?
Hays argues that the conversative views of welfare state that welfare promotes laziness and single parenting and actual encourages bad values. In their view, poverty is a result of their bad behavior and those on welfare take advantage of it, further promoting its' recipients. It "provides them with incentives for family dysfunction and nonwork" (12). On the other hand, liberals take a different approach. Despite the fact that both parties agree that there is a problem in the welfare system, liberlas believe that the root of the problem lies in the lack of support for the poor resulting in economic hardship. Liberals focus more on changing the welfare policy, while conservatives were more concerned with the lack of values and morals among the poor.
Earlier welfare reforms did essentially nothing to help manage employment, subsidize childcare, or to include poor fathers. The majority of welfare recipients were unsatisfied with the old system and promoted change in the new policy. The new system focuses on reforming support for the poor and improving their benefits. Reforms debate over self-sufficiency and family values as the main problem of welfare.
The welfare reform helps us realize that there is an unfair stigma of visions of commitment and values to work ethic. Our values of welfare are closely linked to our family values and place moral distinction on who deserves to be poor and who does not.
4. 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 United States? How does this theory operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy? According to the authors, what can we do to make American Dream more accessible to the poor?
People in other countries understand poverty by providing them with more assistance and provide them with more governmental support. As a result, "the probability of living in poverty is more than twice as high for a child born in the United States that for a child in Belgium, Germany, or the Netherlands" (17). The root of their support is in the belief that poverty is not a result of bad behavior but the result of economic and social structures. On the contrary, the United States encompasses the misconception that poverty is a result of personal misfortunes and failure, a state of living that can be avoided through working. Our country fails to account for the structural problems that cause poverty and focus more on producing acts and policies that criticize and monitor welfare rather than preventing poverty. In addition, this theory opperates as a self-fulling prophecy in the misconception that since the poor got themselves into the mess, they can get themselves out. This fails to account for the decrease hope for the poor to reach the attainable American Dream. In order to revive the American Dream among this population, Block, Korteweg, and Woodward propose that in order to issue a change the United States must be educated on poverty and how it undermines our values and compassion not to help or even worse to deny it. New policies are needed in addition to more universal healthcare, childcare, and a more substantial and higher quality education programs. We need to focus on helping the poverty rather than condemning them to their own unfortunate fate.
5. According to Clawson and Gerstel, how can we improve the child care system in the U.S.?
Clawson and Gerstel argue that the child care system within the United States can be improved drastically. Overall, the child care system is rated as either poor or mediocore and families low in funds desperately try to scrape together what little money they have in order to provide their child with more substantial care. In turn, this impedes their financial growth and often times puts the parents' jobs and well-being at stake. In order to turn the system into a high quality care entity, Clawson and Gerstel suggest that the programs be publicly funded and universal, thus, lowering the cost to minimal or free. Staff would be paid the same as public school teachers to entice workers to the system and care would cover the time of school and after-school programs would also be availabe for children of parents who work longer hours. All of these changes would increase the rate of participation and lower parents' "ambivalence" to the program because quality of care would be high.
Some mothers prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife for a variety of reasons. First, they feel as though giving birth at home is just as safe as laboring in a hospital, and possibly even safer when comparing the infant and mortality rates of other countries who predominantly use midwifes in the home to the United States. Supporters believe that birthing in a hospital provides unnecessary medical attention and intervention, whereas a midwife offers mutual trust, education on birth and care of the newborn, prenatal and maternal screening, and a bond between the mother and midwife that is irreplacable. They offer mother's education and information about controlling their own body during pregnancy and birth. In addition, mothers may feel more comfortable and relaxed in their own familiar environment which would make the natural proceed with ease. Supporters "perceive birth as a normal, rather than abnormal, function of women's bodies, just as walking, aging, or any number of other functions are considered" (819). Complications that arise are a collaboration of the mother's mindset, emotions, body, beliefs, and environment and do not only depend on the phsyical.
As a nursing student, I understand the many complications of pregnancy, labor, birth, and after- birth and strongly agree with delivering in the hospital setting. I understand the evidence that supports higher mortality and morbidity rates among hospital births comparing to other Western countries but do believe that this evidence is scued. Although I do believe in the mind-body connection, which seems to be a major theme among midwifery, I believe that medication and science as just as powerful. Additionally, in a hospital setting there are state of the art and great technological advances that provide mother and child with unbeatable fetal heart monitoring and maternal monitoring. Located in a hospital are numerous staff members that provide each mother, child, and family with support and care that is essential in this state of life. Just because you are giving birth in the hospital does not mean that you have to necessarily use medication, after all, healthcare providers pride themselves with giving the patient the right to choose. Lastly, if you desire to use a midwife it is possible on the labor and delivery floor.
2. How did the legal ties between parents and children change over time? How did the adoption laws changed? Historically, what was the purpose of formal adoptions?
The legal ties between parents and children changed over time because originally parents had indefinite control over their children throughout their lives and now adults are free to make their own decisions and are not obligated by law to obey their parents. The government has replaced many aspects of taking care of elderly parents by instilling nursing homes and supporting the retired. In addition, children are recognized as individuals and can face punishment and consequences for their actions. Foster care homes provide shelter and support for children who have been taken from their homes and placed into better care. The state can also support children's rights against their parents as well.
Over time, adoption laws have changed as well. Originally, adoption laws were not recognized at all and children were relatives of blood and nothing else. However, historically in ancient Roman society formal adoptions were used to carry out the family name and was "recognized as a way to guarantee that a family with no blood children would not die out" (273). Adoption at a time was only granted to people that had no children. Adults could even be adopted to carry on family names. In most cases, the issues of adoption vary from country to country. In present day, there are numerous adoption laws stating that adoption does not have to involve blood relation.
3. 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 the 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?
Hays argues that the conversative views of welfare state that welfare promotes laziness and single parenting and actual encourages bad values. In their view, poverty is a result of their bad behavior and those on welfare take advantage of it, further promoting its' recipients. It "provides them with incentives for family dysfunction and nonwork" (12). On the other hand, liberals take a different approach. Despite the fact that both parties agree that there is a problem in the welfare system, liberlas believe that the root of the problem lies in the lack of support for the poor resulting in economic hardship. Liberals focus more on changing the welfare policy, while conservatives were more concerned with the lack of values and morals among the poor.
Earlier welfare reforms did essentially nothing to help manage employment, subsidize childcare, or to include poor fathers. The majority of welfare recipients were unsatisfied with the old system and promoted change in the new policy. The new system focuses on reforming support for the poor and improving their benefits. Reforms debate over self-sufficiency and family values as the main problem of welfare.
The welfare reform helps us realize that there is an unfair stigma of visions of commitment and values to work ethic. Our values of welfare are closely linked to our family values and place moral distinction on who deserves to be poor and who does not.
4. 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 United States? How does this theory operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy? According to the authors, what can we do to make American Dream more accessible to the poor?
People in other countries understand poverty by providing them with more assistance and provide them with more governmental support. As a result, "the probability of living in poverty is more than twice as high for a child born in the United States that for a child in Belgium, Germany, or the Netherlands" (17). The root of their support is in the belief that poverty is not a result of bad behavior but the result of economic and social structures. On the contrary, the United States encompasses the misconception that poverty is a result of personal misfortunes and failure, a state of living that can be avoided through working. Our country fails to account for the structural problems that cause poverty and focus more on producing acts and policies that criticize and monitor welfare rather than preventing poverty. In addition, this theory opperates as a self-fulling prophecy in the misconception that since the poor got themselves into the mess, they can get themselves out. This fails to account for the decrease hope for the poor to reach the attainable American Dream. In order to revive the American Dream among this population, Block, Korteweg, and Woodward propose that in order to issue a change the United States must be educated on poverty and how it undermines our values and compassion not to help or even worse to deny it. New policies are needed in addition to more universal healthcare, childcare, and a more substantial and higher quality education programs. We need to focus on helping the poverty rather than condemning them to their own unfortunate fate.
5. According to Clawson and Gerstel, how can we improve the child care system in the U.S.?
Clawson and Gerstel argue that the child care system within the United States can be improved drastically. Overall, the child care system is rated as either poor or mediocore and families low in funds desperately try to scrape together what little money they have in order to provide their child with more substantial care. In turn, this impedes their financial growth and often times puts the parents' jobs and well-being at stake. In order to turn the system into a high quality care entity, Clawson and Gerstel suggest that the programs be publicly funded and universal, thus, lowering the cost to minimal or free. Staff would be paid the same as public school teachers to entice workers to the system and care would cover the time of school and after-school programs would also be availabe for children of parents who work longer hours. All of these changes would increase the rate of participation and lower parents' "ambivalence" to the program because quality of care would be high.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Family Violence
1. 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?
In Felson's article, "Is violence against women about women or about violence," he explains both the gender perspective and the violence perspective to determine the causation of violence. The gender perspective, or sexist approach, states that misogynist men impose violence on women to maintain dominance and control. In response, the woman will either report the violence and be blamed for the action, or will choose not to report the violence because they fear that they will not be believed in a society that tolerates violence against females. In both cases, the male offender gets off and suffers no consequences resulting in a viscious cycle of violence against women. This perspective supports the fact that even though men and women may hit each other at equal frequencies, women are more likely to commit violence out of self- defense. Killing and rape are rooted out of desire for domination and control
On the other hand, Felson argues that violence on women can be explained via the violence perspective which disregards sexism. This perspective argues that men who instill violence on women have a history of violence and are in fact, criminals, or "bad guys," as he calls them. They commit violence in private to avoid stigmas connected to traditional values of treating women with dignity and respect. Evidence supports that men are less likely to assault their wives based on these traditions and the "chivalry norm." Additionally, both violent men and women who kill their spouses have a violent background and are most likely criminals. Evidence supports that the motivation for rape and killing is usually sexual.
I believe that violence is a combination of both and that analyzing the violence is situational. I do believe that men commit violent actions on either their wives or other females out of a desire for dominance and control over the female and that women may commit acts out of self-defense. However, I do feel as though men and women with a history of violence are more prone to commit violent actions. Lastly, I believe that the overlying cause of violence is caused by mental disturbances or mental illness and may be rooted back to biological and environmental factors.
2. 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's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
Jones' argued that the solution to violence on women does not rely on the reason why she didn't leave, but rather what can be done to prevent it from happening in the first place and from recurring again. The question, "Why doesn't she leave?" passes judgment instead of a solution and leaves room for criticism of the victim which does nothing to support the cause. It discounts the need for a social change and support for battered women and makes the situation personal.
I agree with Jones' argument completely and never really thought about her solution until reading her article. It is true that the first thing people wonder is why she didn't leave instead of what could have been done to support her and her family to help. Judgment and consequences should be placed on the offender not on the victim.
Jones' focuses more on the gender perspective rather than the theory of violence. She speaks of the lack of aid for battered women and talks of the male motivation of dominance and control for violent acts. In addition, she only talks of female victims taking a sexist approach and fails to account for offenders, either male or female, histories of violence.
3. 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.
Ptacek interviews 18 male batterers in his article, "Why do men batter their wives?" and uses their interviews to identify the denials and justifications that men use to explain abusive behavior. Men denied that their violence was wrong and simply argued that they were saving their relationship. They denied responsibility for their behavior or justified their behavior by accepting "some responsibility but denies or trivializes the wrongness of his action," (Ptacek, 141). Batterers deny responsibility by saying that they lost control and being under the influence of drugs and alcohol further disabled them. In additon, some batterers displaced the violence onto the woman and said it was their fault. Men also justify the extent of the injury and minimize it or justified by arguing that their spouse was not being a good wife.
Contradictions were seen in the men's responses especially when talking first of denying responsibility to accepting responsibility of their actions. In addition, contraindications were seen in excuses of losing control and provaction based on the female's injuries and their stated goals of the action. Lastly, the men's behavior contraindicated their denial of responsibility.
Ptacek offers both a violent and gender perspective illuminated both aspects of control, dominance, and violence on women.
In Felson's article, "Is violence against women about women or about violence," he explains both the gender perspective and the violence perspective to determine the causation of violence. The gender perspective, or sexist approach, states that misogynist men impose violence on women to maintain dominance and control. In response, the woman will either report the violence and be blamed for the action, or will choose not to report the violence because they fear that they will not be believed in a society that tolerates violence against females. In both cases, the male offender gets off and suffers no consequences resulting in a viscious cycle of violence against women. This perspective supports the fact that even though men and women may hit each other at equal frequencies, women are more likely to commit violence out of self- defense. Killing and rape are rooted out of desire for domination and control
On the other hand, Felson argues that violence on women can be explained via the violence perspective which disregards sexism. This perspective argues that men who instill violence on women have a history of violence and are in fact, criminals, or "bad guys," as he calls them. They commit violence in private to avoid stigmas connected to traditional values of treating women with dignity and respect. Evidence supports that men are less likely to assault their wives based on these traditions and the "chivalry norm." Additionally, both violent men and women who kill their spouses have a violent background and are most likely criminals. Evidence supports that the motivation for rape and killing is usually sexual.
I believe that violence is a combination of both and that analyzing the violence is situational. I do believe that men commit violent actions on either their wives or other females out of a desire for dominance and control over the female and that women may commit acts out of self-defense. However, I do feel as though men and women with a history of violence are more prone to commit violent actions. Lastly, I believe that the overlying cause of violence is caused by mental disturbances or mental illness and may be rooted back to biological and environmental factors.
2. 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's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
Jones' argued that the solution to violence on women does not rely on the reason why she didn't leave, but rather what can be done to prevent it from happening in the first place and from recurring again. The question, "Why doesn't she leave?" passes judgment instead of a solution and leaves room for criticism of the victim which does nothing to support the cause. It discounts the need for a social change and support for battered women and makes the situation personal.
I agree with Jones' argument completely and never really thought about her solution until reading her article. It is true that the first thing people wonder is why she didn't leave instead of what could have been done to support her and her family to help. Judgment and consequences should be placed on the offender not on the victim.
Jones' focuses more on the gender perspective rather than the theory of violence. She speaks of the lack of aid for battered women and talks of the male motivation of dominance and control for violent acts. In addition, she only talks of female victims taking a sexist approach and fails to account for offenders, either male or female, histories of violence.
3. 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.
Ptacek interviews 18 male batterers in his article, "Why do men batter their wives?" and uses their interviews to identify the denials and justifications that men use to explain abusive behavior. Men denied that their violence was wrong and simply argued that they were saving their relationship. They denied responsibility for their behavior or justified their behavior by accepting "some responsibility but denies or trivializes the wrongness of his action," (Ptacek, 141). Batterers deny responsibility by saying that they lost control and being under the influence of drugs and alcohol further disabled them. In additon, some batterers displaced the violence onto the woman and said it was their fault. Men also justify the extent of the injury and minimize it or justified by arguing that their spouse was not being a good wife.
Contradictions were seen in the men's responses especially when talking first of denying responsibility to accepting responsibility of their actions. In addition, contraindications were seen in excuses of losing control and provaction based on the female's injuries and their stated goals of the action. Lastly, the men's behavior contraindicated their denial of responsibility.
Ptacek offers both a violent and gender perspective illuminated both aspects of control, dominance, and violence on women.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Family and Work
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.
Hothschild embarks on the egalitarian myth that both the husband and wife in a marriage can work and take care of the household equally. Although this may be true in some cases, often times the woman is found to take on a 'second shift' at home, where she cooks, cleans, does the laundry, and takes care of the children. As a result, egalitarianism disappears and the husband only helps when asked. Housework is seen as a task that should be performed by the woman due to roots in history. In today's society, the 'upstairs-downstairs' myth has been seen a solution where the husband or wife take care of either the upstairs or downstairs, or inside or outside to split up tasks and workload. The couple saw it as a fair division of labor, not because it actually was, but because they needed to believe that it was in order to survive their marriage and avoid conflict.
Emotion work is balancing acceptable emotions between "child, spouse, home, and outside job (Hothschild, 37). It is seen as work and related to the egalitarian myth because it is stressful enough to manage a career, family, and housework and often impossible to provide each with equal positive emotions. In fact, the belief that each should be equal causes more stress making it more difficult to achieve.
The Holts' situation is different than mine at home, however, I have witnessed similiar situations in friends' homes and have learned that it is very stressful. In my family, my father runs a business and my mother would stay home and take care of me, my three siblings(until we moved to Boston), and my grandmother. She does all of the housework, bills, and would have dinner ready for my father. In her mind, and also mine, being a housewife is a job in itself. She is extremely happy with her life, as if my father, and all of my sisters and brother. When I am older and I marry I hope to do the same.
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.
Williams describes the ideology of domesticity as a belief that "men 'naturally' belong in the market because they are competetive and aggressive; women belong in the home because of their 'natural' focus on relationships, children, and an ethic of care" (Williams, 1). It focuses on the male breadwinner and housewife roles and claims that for the most part, this system still exists despite the fact that women are unhappy sacrificing their careers and staying at home. Unfortunately, those mothers that do work outside the home, whether single or married, face marginalization in the workface refuting the myth of equality.
Domesticity places constraints on the organization of work in our society by affecting women, men, children, emotional life, and employers. The first constraint is that "employers are entitled to ideal workers with immunity from family work," (20). Secondly, domesticity "minimizes family involvement" (Williams, 3) because the mother spends the most time with the child while the father is at work. This is dangerous because it equally important for both the mother and father to raise the child. Domesticity also places extreme stress on the father to be a breadwinner and raise enough money to support the family. Often times the father is working long hours or working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Domesticity aslo affects politics in a negative way because it makes childrearing a private act instead of a public act causing children to develop private virtues instead of public virtues. Lastly, domesticity proposes that women have an emotional obligation to provide enough love and time as possible. This places immense strain on the mother and develops "a symbolic separation of home and work, the material conditions of motherhood, and the linkage of class formation and gender roles," (31).
The ideology of domesticity was present in the hunter and gatherer society and also in Colonial America. In both societies, the male would go out and hunt for food to feed the family and the female would stay around the house and garden, cook, clean, and take care of the children. However, in the movie we watched in class the woman was a midwife, nurse, and mother taking care of a large portion of society. She was highly valued in her career and also in her society. She taught her children at an early age how to take care of the household so that she would be able to continue with her career.
3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
In her article, "Is Domesticity Dead?" Williams argues that "sex differences in labor force participation patterns are not themselves caused by discrimination, sex differences in occupations and wages are thus the result of free choices made by men and women," (14). Employers report that women's work may be affected by their family life, which would in turn, affect their performance at work causing them to be less desirable to hire. On the other hand, women report taking jobs that they do not have to perform ideally but do not necessarily perform worse than men. Williams argues that "free choice" is defined as making choices within certain constraints and that women are discriminated against by making the choice to work and be marginalized.
I am undecided whether or not I agree with Williams in her argument about sex discrimination and "free choice." I do not believe that women should be discriminated against because they choose to work instead of staying home and taking care of the house and the children and in turn, should not be paid less money than a man working the same job.
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?
The household division of labor in lesbigay families are similar to that in heterosexual families because the same egalitarian myth still exists. However, instead of defining actual tasks that a husband and wife would take in a heterosexual family those of a lesbigay family would instead describes the workload as '50-50.' They would argue that the workload was equal and in the same breath call it fair. In fact, the two words are used interchangably when describing the househould division of labor.
Carrington explains this difference based on the fact that lesbigay families try "to avoid the stigma associated with violating gender expecations" and to avoid conflict.
Hothschild embarks on the egalitarian myth that both the husband and wife in a marriage can work and take care of the household equally. Although this may be true in some cases, often times the woman is found to take on a 'second shift' at home, where she cooks, cleans, does the laundry, and takes care of the children. As a result, egalitarianism disappears and the husband only helps when asked. Housework is seen as a task that should be performed by the woman due to roots in history. In today's society, the 'upstairs-downstairs' myth has been seen a solution where the husband or wife take care of either the upstairs or downstairs, or inside or outside to split up tasks and workload. The couple saw it as a fair division of labor, not because it actually was, but because they needed to believe that it was in order to survive their marriage and avoid conflict.
Emotion work is balancing acceptable emotions between "child, spouse, home, and outside job (Hothschild, 37). It is seen as work and related to the egalitarian myth because it is stressful enough to manage a career, family, and housework and often impossible to provide each with equal positive emotions. In fact, the belief that each should be equal causes more stress making it more difficult to achieve.
The Holts' situation is different than mine at home, however, I have witnessed similiar situations in friends' homes and have learned that it is very stressful. In my family, my father runs a business and my mother would stay home and take care of me, my three siblings(until we moved to Boston), and my grandmother. She does all of the housework, bills, and would have dinner ready for my father. In her mind, and also mine, being a housewife is a job in itself. She is extremely happy with her life, as if my father, and all of my sisters and brother. When I am older and I marry I hope to do the same.
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.
Williams describes the ideology of domesticity as a belief that "men 'naturally' belong in the market because they are competetive and aggressive; women belong in the home because of their 'natural' focus on relationships, children, and an ethic of care" (Williams, 1). It focuses on the male breadwinner and housewife roles and claims that for the most part, this system still exists despite the fact that women are unhappy sacrificing their careers and staying at home. Unfortunately, those mothers that do work outside the home, whether single or married, face marginalization in the workface refuting the myth of equality.
Domesticity places constraints on the organization of work in our society by affecting women, men, children, emotional life, and employers. The first constraint is that "employers are entitled to ideal workers with immunity from family work," (20). Secondly, domesticity "minimizes family involvement" (Williams, 3) because the mother spends the most time with the child while the father is at work. This is dangerous because it equally important for both the mother and father to raise the child. Domesticity also places extreme stress on the father to be a breadwinner and raise enough money to support the family. Often times the father is working long hours or working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Domesticity aslo affects politics in a negative way because it makes childrearing a private act instead of a public act causing children to develop private virtues instead of public virtues. Lastly, domesticity proposes that women have an emotional obligation to provide enough love and time as possible. This places immense strain on the mother and develops "a symbolic separation of home and work, the material conditions of motherhood, and the linkage of class formation and gender roles," (31).
The ideology of domesticity was present in the hunter and gatherer society and also in Colonial America. In both societies, the male would go out and hunt for food to feed the family and the female would stay around the house and garden, cook, clean, and take care of the children. However, in the movie we watched in class the woman was a midwife, nurse, and mother taking care of a large portion of society. She was highly valued in her career and also in her society. She taught her children at an early age how to take care of the household so that she would be able to continue with her career.
3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
In her article, "Is Domesticity Dead?" Williams argues that "sex differences in labor force participation patterns are not themselves caused by discrimination, sex differences in occupations and wages are thus the result of free choices made by men and women," (14). Employers report that women's work may be affected by their family life, which would in turn, affect their performance at work causing them to be less desirable to hire. On the other hand, women report taking jobs that they do not have to perform ideally but do not necessarily perform worse than men. Williams argues that "free choice" is defined as making choices within certain constraints and that women are discriminated against by making the choice to work and be marginalized.
I am undecided whether or not I agree with Williams in her argument about sex discrimination and "free choice." I do not believe that women should be discriminated against because they choose to work instead of staying home and taking care of the house and the children and in turn, should not be paid less money than a man working the same job.
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?
The household division of labor in lesbigay families are similar to that in heterosexual families because the same egalitarian myth still exists. However, instead of defining actual tasks that a husband and wife would take in a heterosexual family those of a lesbigay family would instead describes the workload as '50-50.' They would argue that the workload was equal and in the same breath call it fair. In fact, the two words are used interchangably when describing the househould division of labor.
Carrington explains this difference based on the fact that lesbigay families try "to avoid the stigma associated with violating gender expecations" and to avoid conflict.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Marriage, Cohabitation, & Partnership
1. What does it mean when sociologists say, "marriage is an institution?" According to Coontz, what are the main indicators of the "deinsitutionalization" of marriage? Explain what problem Coontz finds in the proposals to "reinstitutionalize" marriage?
Marriage as an institution implies that it is a legal organization controlled and modified by set rules, law, customs, rituals, and social expectations. In the past, marriage was the primary means of organization. It helped to determine gender roles both in the home and in public and served to regulate work based upon age and sex.
However, according to Coontz marriage has become deinstitutionalized gradually over time. Divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and single motherhood have worked to make marriage more of an option rather than a necessity. In additon, longer life spans and the increase of young adults living on their own before marriage have also been factors.
Coontz finds many problems in the proposals to "reinstitutionalize" marriage, including lowering the age of marriage, forcing people to live at home before marriage, and enforcing the reproductive revolution only in marriage.
2. According to the articles by Harris & by Gerstel & Sarkisian, what are the benefits & disadvantages of marriage for men & women?
Married men and women are found to have better health, happiness, sex life, more property, and higher incomes and wealth. Married couples have sex more often than unmarried couples. It has been found that marriage keeps men out of crime and violence and has profound physical and mental health benefits for men.
For women, housework increases as career work and income decreases. This comes with childbearing and childrearing. Women also face domestic violence and it been reported that poor women seek fewer benefits to marriage.
While both men and women have decreased involvement with friends, neighbors, and family members, women have been found to keep better contact via telephone calls and visitations. On the other hand, men are more likely to rely on their wives to contact relatives and friends.
3. According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit & what are the effects of cohabitation on well- being?
People cohabit for various reasons including, "a stepping stone to marriage, a substitute for marriage, or an alternative to singlehood." Young adults who have never married and who are childless cohabit as an alternative to living alone. Some of these couples have the mindset that they will marry, while others are less committed. In fact, half of all people who live together will marry. Often, when these couples break up they will move in with their next boyfriend or girlfriend. This is called "serial cohabitation." Those who have been married and do have children cohabit instead of getting remarried. They are more likely to live together long- term. In addition, "there is also mounting evidence that the purpose of cohabitation may vary by racial- ethnic group." Whites are more likely to cohabit as a stepping stone to marriage while Hispanics and blacks cohabit as an alternative to marriage.
The well- being of cohabitors has been found to be lower than that of married couples. Married couples report more happiness with their sex lives even though cohabitors report engaging in more sex. Cohabitors are less economically stable than married couples and also are not as psychologically well- adjusted. They are less happy and have reported more fighting.
4. The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage & cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what this means.
The selection effect refers to the sampling proccess and the gap in data between the wealthy, poor, sick, and healthy.
Marriage as an institution implies that it is a legal organization controlled and modified by set rules, law, customs, rituals, and social expectations. In the past, marriage was the primary means of organization. It helped to determine gender roles both in the home and in public and served to regulate work based upon age and sex.
However, according to Coontz marriage has become deinstitutionalized gradually over time. Divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and single motherhood have worked to make marriage more of an option rather than a necessity. In additon, longer life spans and the increase of young adults living on their own before marriage have also been factors.
Coontz finds many problems in the proposals to "reinstitutionalize" marriage, including lowering the age of marriage, forcing people to live at home before marriage, and enforcing the reproductive revolution only in marriage.
2. According to the articles by Harris & by Gerstel & Sarkisian, what are the benefits & disadvantages of marriage for men & women?
Married men and women are found to have better health, happiness, sex life, more property, and higher incomes and wealth. Married couples have sex more often than unmarried couples. It has been found that marriage keeps men out of crime and violence and has profound physical and mental health benefits for men.
For women, housework increases as career work and income decreases. This comes with childbearing and childrearing. Women also face domestic violence and it been reported that poor women seek fewer benefits to marriage.
While both men and women have decreased involvement with friends, neighbors, and family members, women have been found to keep better contact via telephone calls and visitations. On the other hand, men are more likely to rely on their wives to contact relatives and friends.
3. According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit & what are the effects of cohabitation on well- being?
People cohabit for various reasons including, "a stepping stone to marriage, a substitute for marriage, or an alternative to singlehood." Young adults who have never married and who are childless cohabit as an alternative to living alone. Some of these couples have the mindset that they will marry, while others are less committed. In fact, half of all people who live together will marry. Often, when these couples break up they will move in with their next boyfriend or girlfriend. This is called "serial cohabitation." Those who have been married and do have children cohabit instead of getting remarried. They are more likely to live together long- term. In addition, "there is also mounting evidence that the purpose of cohabitation may vary by racial- ethnic group." Whites are more likely to cohabit as a stepping stone to marriage while Hispanics and blacks cohabit as an alternative to marriage.
The well- being of cohabitors has been found to be lower than that of married couples. Married couples report more happiness with their sex lives even though cohabitors report engaging in more sex. Cohabitors are less economically stable than married couples and also are not as psychologically well- adjusted. They are less happy and have reported more fighting.
4. The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage & cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what this means.
The selection effect refers to the sampling proccess and the gap in data between the wealthy, poor, sick, and healthy.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Sexual Trends Among Teens
According to Risman and Schwartz' article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens?
The authors work to describe the fact that teenagers are continuing to be sexually active. However, it is more conservative and the accusation that teenage sexually activity is a social problem is refuted. Statistics prove that a lower percentage of teenagers between the ages of 15 and 17 are engaging in sexual activity and in correlation there has been a decrease in the recorded number of teen pregnancies, teenage mothers, and abortions.
How do the authors explain these trends?
In an effort to explain the decline in sexual activity and the correlating problems associated with teenage sex, the authors speculated that "the success of abstinence education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, or the fear of disease (or some combination of these factors)" can be accounted for. Teenagers are engaging in more responsible sex rather than postponing sex until marriage. They are more aware of the negative outcomes of irresponsible sex and have learned this through the "carnage of their parents' generation- divorce, disease, and a loss of status for the women's choice to say no- and decided to reestablish their power through less, not more, sexuality.
According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behaviors among college students?
England and Thomas argue that "dating" is declining and the college "hook up" is increasing. Hooking up is defined as any sexual behavior- whether it be kissing, nongenital touching, genital touching, oral sex, and intercourse and is very often linked with drinking. College students are more likely to hook up rather than go on a date and often do not go out on dates until after they have been hooking up for a while. Therefore, hooking up can lead to a relationship or just for instant gratification. Often, a girl and boy will hook up continuously and only consider themselves "friends with benefits." In addition, a girl and boy will consider themselves to be "dating" when they are in fact in an exclusive relationship.
More students are engaging in sexual activity but are being more responsible about their actions. For example, the majority of women use birth control and men are using condoms.
What gender differences are documented in both of these articles?
Both articles embark on the fact that both men and women are waiting longer to have sex and are being more responsible to do so. In addition, women are more likely to not have sex until they are in an exclusive relationship. This can be attributed to the double- standard and negative stigma of being labeled a slut. Men are not as emotionally attached and are more likely to have sex outside of a relationship.
Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences?
The authors observations are exactly true. I have noticed that the dating scene has dramatically decreased and is basically non- existant. Women are more likely to have sex only in a relationship and are being more responsible with their sexual activity. I feel as though this study could have been conducted at Boston College because it describes the sexual trends on campus to a tee.
The authors work to describe the fact that teenagers are continuing to be sexually active. However, it is more conservative and the accusation that teenage sexually activity is a social problem is refuted. Statistics prove that a lower percentage of teenagers between the ages of 15 and 17 are engaging in sexual activity and in correlation there has been a decrease in the recorded number of teen pregnancies, teenage mothers, and abortions.
How do the authors explain these trends?
In an effort to explain the decline in sexual activity and the correlating problems associated with teenage sex, the authors speculated that "the success of abstinence education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, or the fear of disease (or some combination of these factors)" can be accounted for. Teenagers are engaging in more responsible sex rather than postponing sex until marriage. They are more aware of the negative outcomes of irresponsible sex and have learned this through the "carnage of their parents' generation- divorce, disease, and a loss of status for the women's choice to say no- and decided to reestablish their power through less, not more, sexuality.
According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behaviors among college students?
England and Thomas argue that "dating" is declining and the college "hook up" is increasing. Hooking up is defined as any sexual behavior- whether it be kissing, nongenital touching, genital touching, oral sex, and intercourse and is very often linked with drinking. College students are more likely to hook up rather than go on a date and often do not go out on dates until after they have been hooking up for a while. Therefore, hooking up can lead to a relationship or just for instant gratification. Often, a girl and boy will hook up continuously and only consider themselves "friends with benefits." In addition, a girl and boy will consider themselves to be "dating" when they are in fact in an exclusive relationship.
More students are engaging in sexual activity but are being more responsible about their actions. For example, the majority of women use birth control and men are using condoms.
What gender differences are documented in both of these articles?
Both articles embark on the fact that both men and women are waiting longer to have sex and are being more responsible to do so. In addition, women are more likely to not have sex until they are in an exclusive relationship. This can be attributed to the double- standard and negative stigma of being labeled a slut. Men are not as emotionally attached and are more likely to have sex outside of a relationship.
Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences?
The authors observations are exactly true. I have noticed that the dating scene has dramatically decreased and is basically non- existant. Women are more likely to have sex only in a relationship and are being more responsible with their sexual activity. I feel as though this study could have been conducted at Boston College because it describes the sexual trends on campus to a tee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)