The first article for this week was written by Stephanie Coontz and entitled, "Putting Divorce in Perspective." In this article Coontz looks at how divorce affects children and what factors account for the variation in these affects.
Coontz quotes one family crusader who states, "The interests of adults and children are often different, and there are too many options today for parents to pursue personal fulfillment at the expense of their children's needs," (98). She states, "Fighting the "divorce culture" has to be the top priority because its the one thing we can affect by making parents realize what disastrous consequences divorce has for the future of their kids" (98). "Divorce can interfere with effective parenting and deprive children of parental resources" (98).
"While it is true that children in divorced and remarried families are more likely to drop out of school, exhibit emotional distress, get in trouble with the law, and abuse drugs and alcohol than children who grow up with both biological parents, most kids, from every kind of family, avoid these perils. What really is meant to be said is not that children in divorced families have more problems, but that more children of divorced parents have problems," (99). "It does not mean that all kids from divorced families will have more problems. There will be outstanding kids and kids with severe problems in both groups, but there will be a slightly higher proportion of kids from never-disrupted families in the outstanding group and a slightly lower proportion of them in the group with severe problems" (99).
"Interestingly, the large majority of children of divorce do not experience severe or long-term problems: Most do not drop out of school, get arrested, abuse drugs, or suffer long-term emotional distress" (100). Alan Acock and David Demo state, "There are few statistically significant differences across family types on measures of socioemotional adjustment and well-being," (100).
"Many of the problems seen in children of divorced parents are caused not by divorce alone but by other frequently coexisting yet analytically separate factors such as poverty, financial loss, school relocation, or a prior history of severe marital conflict" (101). "A critical factor in children's adjustment to divorce is how effectively the custodial parent functions. Usually this means the mother. The main problem for children of divorce is when depression, anger, or economic pressures distract the mother's attention," (103). "Children who were exposed to a disengaged or inconsistently harsh parenting style after a divorce, were more likely to be aggressive and insecure. Children with mothers who were warm, but not always available, were caring, competent children who were exceptionally popular, self-confident, well-behaved, and academically adept" (102).
Another factor, and main danger for children is conflict between parents during and after divorce. "Few marriages disintegrate overnight; the last few months or years are often marked by severe strife. More than half of divorced couples in one national survey reported frequent fighting prior to separation. More than a third of those who fought said that the fights sometimes became physical and that children were often present during these incidents," (104). "Post-divorce marital conflict, especially around issues connected with the children, is the largest single factor associated with poor adjustment in youngsters whose parents have divorced" (104). "Children in disrupted custody cases seem the most disturbed. They were much more likely to develop emotional and behavioral problems" (104).
The degree to which divorce affects children depends on multiple factors, and that specific family. It can depend on the economic situation, the situation between the two parents who have divorced, the ability of the custodial parent to "parent" in a sufficient manner, and things such as school relocation because of the divorce. If these factors are not positive, the children are likely to have behavioral and emotional problems. If these factors are dealt with in a positive manner, the children of divorce could end up with no problems. It is incredibly dependent on the family situation.
The second article on this topic was written by Frank F. Furstenberg and Andrew J. Cherlin and was entitled, "Children's Adjustment to Divorce." This article looks at what factors affect the short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce. Studies show a wide range of responses to divorce. Some children do very well. Others fare very poorly.
Furstenberg and Cherlin write, "The first two years following a separation has been labelled as a "crisis period" for adults and children. The crisis begins for children with shock, anxiety, and anger upon learning of the break-up," (493). "Children have two special needs during the crisis period. First, they need additional emotional support as they struggle to adapt to the breakup. Second, they need the structure provided by a reasonably predictable daily routine. Unfortunately, many single parents cannot meet both of these needs all the time" (493). "Depressed, anxious parents often lack the reserve to comfort emotionally needy children. Overburdened parents let daily schedules slip. As a result, their children lose some of the support they need" (493). "Researchers agree that almost all children are moderately or severely distressed when their parents separate and that most continue to experience confusion, sadness or anger for a period of months or even years" (494). Nevertheless, the careful studies show a great deal of variation in the short-term reactions of children. Most of this variation remains unexplained. "Part of the explanation has to do with differences in children's temperaments. Some probably are more robust and better able to withstand deprivation and instability" (494). Others factors will be looked at later in this review (494).
They write, "Even less is known about the long-term consequences of divorces than about the short-term consequences" (494). "The percentage of children from maritally disrupted families who had behaviour or discipline problems at school is more than half-again as large as the percentage from intact families. That's a substantial difference, suggesting that children from disrupted families have a noticeably higher rate of misbehaving seriously in school," (495). However, "the figures also demonstrate that 66 percent of all children from maritally disrupted homes did not misbehave seriously at school" (495). "So one can also conclude that most children of divorce don't have behaviour problems at school" (495). "The fundamental point that all experts agree on is that children's responses to the breakup of their parents' marriages vary greatly" (495). There is no straight path down which children of divorce progress. What becomes important is to identify the circumstances under which children seem to do well.
"A critical factor in both short-term and long-term adjustment is how effectively the custodial parent, who usually is the mother, functions as a parent" (496). It has been noted how difficult it can be for a recently separated mother to function well. "Their own distress may make it more difficult to cope with their children's distress, leading in some cases to a disorganized household, lax supervision, and inconsistent discipline" (496). "Mothers who can cope better with the disruption can be more effective parents" (496). "They can keep their work and home lives going from day to day and can better provide love, nurturing, consistent discipline and a predictable routine. The difference in these two types of mothering after a divorce can be the difference between whether the children are misbehaving or not, and emotionally distressed or not" (496). "A second key factor in children's well-being is a low level of conflict between their mother and father" (496). This was mentioned in the first article I wrote about. "A possible third key factor in children's successful adjustment is the maintenance of a continuing relationship with the non-custodial parent, who is usually the father" (497).
These factors show that there are multiple things that affect children when they experience a divorce in their family. Some children get lucky and get the positive side of these factors, while others are not so lucky and end up with a very disrupted home life.
The third and final article was written by Deborah Carr and is entitled, "Good Grief: Bouncing Back from a Spouse's Death in Later Life." This article looks at what three factors are the most important influences on spousal bereavement and how gender shapes the experience of spousal loss.
"Research reveals that many older men and women survive losses of a spouse with only a brief spell of depressive symptoms, while many report no depressive symptoms at all. Still others, released from stressful caregiving responsibilities, an unhappy marriage, or from watching their loved one suffer an incurable, protracted illness, enjoy improved psychological well-being" (22). "These survivors are neither "pathological" nor "cool." Rather they reveal that there is no single universal way to grieve" (22). "The ways that older widows and widowers grieve reflect how the couples related during marriage, how there spouses died, the strains experienced during the final weeks and months, and their other roles and relationships that might protect against the pain of losing a loved one" (22).
"What must be considered are the three most important influences on spousal bereavement: the age of the husband or wife, how the spouse died, and what the couple's life was like prior to the death" (24).
Carr writes, "Of the 900,000 Americans who lose a mate each year, nearly three-quarters are 65 or older," (24). "Older bereaved spouses have an important coping resource that is seldom available to younger widows and widowers: friends, peers, and siblings who also are adjusting to such a loss. Older adults often "rehearse" for losing a spouse by watching their peers go through the same experience; they can turn to one another for wisdom, practical support, and camaraderie" (24). Young people who lose a spouse do not have this because it is unlikely that there friends there age are going through the same thing. Also, the meaning of life and death is different for older and younger people. "Death may be viewed as the natural conclusion to an elderly spouse's long and meaningful life, rather than the interruption of a life yet to be lived. Most older persons experience such losses after decades of marriage. They have raised their children, celebrated the births of their grandchildren, and enjoyed at least a few years of retirement together" (24). Few feel that "they are being robbed of a long future together" (24), which is how younger widows and widowers feel.
"Age is not the only factor that shapes the experience of losing a spouse; the cause of death is also important" (25). "Most older spouses die of a chronic illness, or a long-term illness that causes physical pain or disability and often requires intensive care" (25). "Older caregivers report high levels of strain and depressive symptoms when their spouses are still alive, yet many bounce back shortly after their spouses die. One study showed that caregivers had high levels of depressive symptoms while caring for their spouses, yet showed a dramatic decrease in symptoms after their spouse had died. More than 90 percent felt that death was a relief to the patient, and 72 percent admitted that the death was also a relief to them" (25). For many bereaved spouses, the "event of the loss is not as painful as the long "death watch" period, which is often filled with drawn-out suffering" (25).
"Another reason that some older people are spared sever distress is that the death of a spouse may be a release from a marriage that was stifling or unrewarding" (25). "People with the most close-knit, loving marriages experience the most severe symptoms of sadness and yearning in the first six months after their loss" (25). The CLOC study shows, "Widows and widowers who had the most problematic marriages show better psychological health following their loss than do their married peers who remain in such troubled relationships," (25). Widows experience a boost to their self-esteem when they are "freed from a marriage that had been stifling" (25).
"Men and women experience marriage in very different ways, so they also experience the loss of a spouse differently" (25). "For women, widowhood often means a sharp dip in economic resources. Because men earn more than women during their working lives, they receive higher Social Security benefits upon retirement or disability. When the husband dies, these monthly checks are reduced. Widows are consequently more likely than widowers to experience distress and anxiety about money" (26).
"Men are more likely than women to experience sickness, disability, and death after their wives die. This is because they have lost their helpmate and caretaker" (26). "Wives typically monitor their husbands' diets, encourage them to exercise, remind them to take their medications and urge them to give up vices like smoking and drinking. When their wives die, these reminders cease as well" (26). "Even worse for men, though, is that their wives are often their primary (if not only) source of social support and integration. Widows report higher levels of both practical and emotional support from their children than do widowers, reflecting long-established patterns of reciprocity" (26). "For these reasons, widowers are much more motivated than widows to seek new romantic partners soon after their loss" (26).
This presents the three factors that are the most important influences on spousal bereavement and how gender shapes the experience of spousal loss.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Childhood
The first article that addresses childhood, written by Barrie Thorne and Zella Luria, is entitled "Sexuality and Gender in Childeren's Daily Worlds." This article takes a look at the aspect of childhood experience that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences and how this aspect operates.
The aspect of childhood experience that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences is gender segregation. "Gender segregation, the separation of girls and boys in friendship and casual encounters, is central to daily life in elementary school" (138). In school settings there is extensive spatial separation between girls and boys. "At lunchtime in elementary and middle schools there is a "boy" table and a "girl" table" (138). "Because girls and boys interact in same-sex groups, each group develops its own identity and way that they act, which is what lead to the gender differences" (138).
"Boys tend to interact in larger and more publicly-visible groups. They more often play outdoors and boys engage in more physically aggressive play and fighting. Their social relations tend to be hierarchical and competitive" (139). "Girls on the other hand interact in smaller groups or friendship pairs. Girls more often engage in turn-taking activities like jump-rope, and they less often play organized sports. Girls engage in conflict, but it takes a more indirect form than boys' aggressive conflict" (139).
In there separate gender groups, girls and boys learn somewhat different patterns of bonding. "Boys share the arousal of group rule-breaking, while girls emphasize the construction of intimacy and themes of romance" (147). "Gender-divided social worlds is the underlying theme that leads to all these differences between boys and girls" (147). Gender segregation is the aspect that is a main source of difference and it operates in school and social settings.
The second article on childhood, written by Frances Goldscheider and Linda Waite, is entitled "Children's Shares in Household Tasks." This article looks at how much housework children do in contemporary families and how it varies by child's gender and type of family.
Goldscheider and Waite open by stating, "The tasks children do are still rigidly divided by gender in most families, with girls doing different and more tasks around the house than boys," (809). "Girls tend to spend about twice as much time on housework as their brothers. It is often the case, however, that neither boys nor girls gain much experience doing household tasks because in many families their mothers do almost all of them" (809). "The old view that children should help there parents has given way to an expectation that parents must exert themselves to ensure that their children grow up to be successes. As a result, the ideal American child has been transformed from a "useful child" to a "useless child," (809). Contemporary children do less housework than previous children because nowadays parents are more concerned with how there children perform in school. Young people can now claim heavy school assignments as an adequate excuse for why they cant do some of there chores and parents accept this.
"Children take relatively little responsibility for most household tasks. Overall children contribute a relatively small proportion of total household labor-15 percent" (811). Other findings were important to go along with this statement. "The more children in the family the more the mother reports sharing housework with children as a group" (811). So a type of family that is more likely to have the children do more housework is a big family. Children's age and gender also influence the amount of task sharing. "As children get older, they clearly become more involved in household chores. Families with teenage children share substantially more housework with their children than families with only preteens. But the biggest difference by age and sex are in female chores" (812).
"Families with teenage girls report sharing five times more of these tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age. Girls ages twelve to eighteen seem to carry the largest share of housework of all children" (812). However, "young adult males contribute no more to housework than do preteen children" (812).
"Children who live in a mother-only family play a key role in the household economy" (814). "Comparing the children's share of household responsibilities in intact families and in mother-only families shows that children in mother-only families take nearly twice as much responsibility for household tasks as those in standard families" (814). Another type of family is that with children who live with their mother and a stepfather. "Those children also take a greater role in household chores than do children who live with both their biological parents. However, the differences between stepparent families and other two-parent families are much less than between mother-only families and never-disrupted families" (816).
"Looking at these three types of families suggests very strongly that the composition of the household has a considerable influence on the exposure of children to household tasks" (817). What is clear is that in most contemporary families, children are participating less in household tasks than they used to.
The third article focusing on childhood and childrearing was written by Annette Lareau and is entitled, "Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families." This article takes a look at how models of childrearing differ in regards to class and race.
"Middle class parents, both white and black, engage in concerted cultivation by attempting to foster children's talents through organized leisure activities and extensive reasoning" (747). "They enroll their children in numerous organized activities that dominate family life. The parents view these activities as transmitting important life skills to children. Middle-class parents also stress language use and the development of reasoning and employ talking as there preferred form of discipline. This creates a cult of individualism within the family and an emphasis on children's performance" (748).
"Working-class and poor parents engage in the accomplishment of natural growth, providing the conditions under which children can grow but leaving leaving leisure activities to children themselves" (747). "These parents believe that as long as they provide love, food, and safety, their children will grow and thrive. They do not focus on developing their children's special talents. Working-class and poor children participate in few organized activities and have more free time and deeper ties within their extended families. These parents also use directives instead of reasoning. Some working-class and poor parents place more emphasis on physical discipline than do the middle-class parents" (749).
"Middle-class children, both white and black, gain an emerging sense of entitlement from their family life. Race had much less impact than social class. The pattern of questioning and intervening among the white and black middle-class parents contrasts sharply with the definitions of how to be helpful and effective observed among the white and black working-class and poor adults" (747). "Working-class and poor children did not display the same sense of entitlement. Instead there pattern of the accomplishment of natural growth encourages an emerging sense of constraint" (747).
With both the concerted cultivation and accomplishment of natural growth approaches, three key dimensions can be distinguished (some of which I have already touched on a little): the organization of daily life, the use of language, and social connections. I have already addressed the different organizations of daily life. "With language use, the concerted cultivation approach states that children contest adult statements and have extended negotiations with their parents" (753). With the natural growth approach, "it is rare for children to question or challenge adults and children generally accept directives from there parents with little negotiation" (753). The dimension of social connections can be looked at as well. "In the concerted cultivation approach (middle-class) children have weak extended family ties and children are often in homogeneous age groupings. In the natural growth approach (working-class) children have strong extended family ties and children are often in heterogeneous age groupings" (753).
Lareau expected race to powerfully shape children's daily schedules, but this was not evident. In terms of enrollment in organized activities, language use, and social connections, the largest differences between the families she observed were across the social class, not racial groups.
The final article that focuses on childhood and childrearing was written by Juliet Schor and is entitled, "America's Most Wanted: Inside the World of Young Consumers." This article takes a look at the signs of commercialization of childhood and how this commercialization affects children's well-being.
A person does not have to look far to see how today's children have become immersed in the consumer marketplace. "At age one, she's watching teletubbies and eating the food of its "promo partners" Burger King and McDonalds. Kids can recognize logos by 18 months, and before reaching their second birthday, they are asking for products by brand name. Experts say that by age three or three and a half, children start to believe that brands communicate their personal qualities, such as they are cool, or strong, or smart" (1). "By age six or seven girls are asking for the latest fashions, using nail polish, and singing pop music tunes" (1). "Eight-year-old boys are enjoying Budweiser commercials, World Wrestling Entertainment, and graphically violent video games" (2). These are all signs of commercialization of childhood. One of the main causes of these things is television. "The average eight to thirteen year old watches over three and a half hours of television a day. American children view an estimated 40,000 commercials annually" (2).
Schor states, "The commercialization of childhood is being driven by social trends, but underlying them all is a marketing juggernaut characterized by growing reach, effectiveness, and audacity," (2). "A main part of the marketing mentality is industry language. Those at whom the ads are directed are targets" (2). The ads are created specifically in a way that will pull consumers in. And the thing is, it is working. Kids are buying. "Every half-second, somewhere in the world another Barbie is sold. A fifth of McDonald's business is happy meals" (4). There is now a thriving children's market segment. "Children are becoming shoppers at an earlier age. Six to twelve year olds are estimated to visit stores two to three times per week and to put six items into the shopping cart each time they go" (5). "These days, when kids ask, they ask for particular brands. The increased knowledge of brands is a predictable outcome of kids' greater exposure to ads. Increasingly, the brands kids want aren't just any brands. They crave designer duds and luxury items" (8). "The change in the experience of childhood that has attracted perhaps most attention is kids' heavy involvement with electronic media, prompting some to poist a new postmodern childhood, driven by television, Internet, video games, movies, and videos" (11).
"So in the past 15 to 20 years we have witnessed big changes in what kids have been doing and watching. How has it affected them?" (12). The first thing that Schor looks at is nutrition. "Diets have gotten far out of line with recommended nutritional standards. Most kids are eating the wrong foods and to much of them. Children eat excessive quantities of advertised food products (like McDonalds) and not enough fruits, vegetables, and fiber" (12). On the other side is the excessive concern with thinness and body image and a host of eating disorders. "Record number of girls are on diets, and they are beginning to diet at an increasingly young age" (12). This is a result of the media exploiting incredibly thin models, and young girls then believe that is how they should look as well. Nutrition is not the only problem. "Kids are smoking, drinking alcohol, and taking illegal drugs at alarming rates" (12). "Children and youth are increasingly suffering from emotional and mental health problems" (13). Taken together, these findings are not comforting. "They show that American children are worse off today than they were 10 or 20 years ago" (14).
Schor states, "The deterioration in well-being suggests that some powerful negative factors are at work," (14). "One of them most likely is the upsurge in materialistic values. Children define there self-worth in terms of the things they own and wear. In a study, more than half the children agreed that when you grow up, the more money you have, the happier you are. The children in this study also said that the only kind of job they want when they grow up is one that gets them a lot of money" (14). "Psychologists have found that these kinds of materialistic values undermine well-being, leading people to be more depressed, anxious, less vital, and in worse physical health. In light of all these findings, the changing outlook of childhood is worrisome" (14). Childhood has become much to commercialized.
The aspect of childhood experience that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences is gender segregation. "Gender segregation, the separation of girls and boys in friendship and casual encounters, is central to daily life in elementary school" (138). In school settings there is extensive spatial separation between girls and boys. "At lunchtime in elementary and middle schools there is a "boy" table and a "girl" table" (138). "Because girls and boys interact in same-sex groups, each group develops its own identity and way that they act, which is what lead to the gender differences" (138).
"Boys tend to interact in larger and more publicly-visible groups. They more often play outdoors and boys engage in more physically aggressive play and fighting. Their social relations tend to be hierarchical and competitive" (139). "Girls on the other hand interact in smaller groups or friendship pairs. Girls more often engage in turn-taking activities like jump-rope, and they less often play organized sports. Girls engage in conflict, but it takes a more indirect form than boys' aggressive conflict" (139).
In there separate gender groups, girls and boys learn somewhat different patterns of bonding. "Boys share the arousal of group rule-breaking, while girls emphasize the construction of intimacy and themes of romance" (147). "Gender-divided social worlds is the underlying theme that leads to all these differences between boys and girls" (147). Gender segregation is the aspect that is a main source of difference and it operates in school and social settings.
The second article on childhood, written by Frances Goldscheider and Linda Waite, is entitled "Children's Shares in Household Tasks." This article looks at how much housework children do in contemporary families and how it varies by child's gender and type of family.
Goldscheider and Waite open by stating, "The tasks children do are still rigidly divided by gender in most families, with girls doing different and more tasks around the house than boys," (809). "Girls tend to spend about twice as much time on housework as their brothers. It is often the case, however, that neither boys nor girls gain much experience doing household tasks because in many families their mothers do almost all of them" (809). "The old view that children should help there parents has given way to an expectation that parents must exert themselves to ensure that their children grow up to be successes. As a result, the ideal American child has been transformed from a "useful child" to a "useless child," (809). Contemporary children do less housework than previous children because nowadays parents are more concerned with how there children perform in school. Young people can now claim heavy school assignments as an adequate excuse for why they cant do some of there chores and parents accept this.
"Children take relatively little responsibility for most household tasks. Overall children contribute a relatively small proportion of total household labor-15 percent" (811). Other findings were important to go along with this statement. "The more children in the family the more the mother reports sharing housework with children as a group" (811). So a type of family that is more likely to have the children do more housework is a big family. Children's age and gender also influence the amount of task sharing. "As children get older, they clearly become more involved in household chores. Families with teenage children share substantially more housework with their children than families with only preteens. But the biggest difference by age and sex are in female chores" (812).
"Families with teenage girls report sharing five times more of these tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age. Girls ages twelve to eighteen seem to carry the largest share of housework of all children" (812). However, "young adult males contribute no more to housework than do preteen children" (812).
"Children who live in a mother-only family play a key role in the household economy" (814). "Comparing the children's share of household responsibilities in intact families and in mother-only families shows that children in mother-only families take nearly twice as much responsibility for household tasks as those in standard families" (814). Another type of family is that with children who live with their mother and a stepfather. "Those children also take a greater role in household chores than do children who live with both their biological parents. However, the differences between stepparent families and other two-parent families are much less than between mother-only families and never-disrupted families" (816).
"Looking at these three types of families suggests very strongly that the composition of the household has a considerable influence on the exposure of children to household tasks" (817). What is clear is that in most contemporary families, children are participating less in household tasks than they used to.
The third article focusing on childhood and childrearing was written by Annette Lareau and is entitled, "Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families." This article takes a look at how models of childrearing differ in regards to class and race.
"Middle class parents, both white and black, engage in concerted cultivation by attempting to foster children's talents through organized leisure activities and extensive reasoning" (747). "They enroll their children in numerous organized activities that dominate family life. The parents view these activities as transmitting important life skills to children. Middle-class parents also stress language use and the development of reasoning and employ talking as there preferred form of discipline. This creates a cult of individualism within the family and an emphasis on children's performance" (748).
"Working-class and poor parents engage in the accomplishment of natural growth, providing the conditions under which children can grow but leaving leaving leisure activities to children themselves" (747). "These parents believe that as long as they provide love, food, and safety, their children will grow and thrive. They do not focus on developing their children's special talents. Working-class and poor children participate in few organized activities and have more free time and deeper ties within their extended families. These parents also use directives instead of reasoning. Some working-class and poor parents place more emphasis on physical discipline than do the middle-class parents" (749).
"Middle-class children, both white and black, gain an emerging sense of entitlement from their family life. Race had much less impact than social class. The pattern of questioning and intervening among the white and black middle-class parents contrasts sharply with the definitions of how to be helpful and effective observed among the white and black working-class and poor adults" (747). "Working-class and poor children did not display the same sense of entitlement. Instead there pattern of the accomplishment of natural growth encourages an emerging sense of constraint" (747).
With both the concerted cultivation and accomplishment of natural growth approaches, three key dimensions can be distinguished (some of which I have already touched on a little): the organization of daily life, the use of language, and social connections. I have already addressed the different organizations of daily life. "With language use, the concerted cultivation approach states that children contest adult statements and have extended negotiations with their parents" (753). With the natural growth approach, "it is rare for children to question or challenge adults and children generally accept directives from there parents with little negotiation" (753). The dimension of social connections can be looked at as well. "In the concerted cultivation approach (middle-class) children have weak extended family ties and children are often in homogeneous age groupings. In the natural growth approach (working-class) children have strong extended family ties and children are often in heterogeneous age groupings" (753).
Lareau expected race to powerfully shape children's daily schedules, but this was not evident. In terms of enrollment in organized activities, language use, and social connections, the largest differences between the families she observed were across the social class, not racial groups.
The final article that focuses on childhood and childrearing was written by Juliet Schor and is entitled, "America's Most Wanted: Inside the World of Young Consumers." This article takes a look at the signs of commercialization of childhood and how this commercialization affects children's well-being.
A person does not have to look far to see how today's children have become immersed in the consumer marketplace. "At age one, she's watching teletubbies and eating the food of its "promo partners" Burger King and McDonalds. Kids can recognize logos by 18 months, and before reaching their second birthday, they are asking for products by brand name. Experts say that by age three or three and a half, children start to believe that brands communicate their personal qualities, such as they are cool, or strong, or smart" (1). "By age six or seven girls are asking for the latest fashions, using nail polish, and singing pop music tunes" (1). "Eight-year-old boys are enjoying Budweiser commercials, World Wrestling Entertainment, and graphically violent video games" (2). These are all signs of commercialization of childhood. One of the main causes of these things is television. "The average eight to thirteen year old watches over three and a half hours of television a day. American children view an estimated 40,000 commercials annually" (2).
Schor states, "The commercialization of childhood is being driven by social trends, but underlying them all is a marketing juggernaut characterized by growing reach, effectiveness, and audacity," (2). "A main part of the marketing mentality is industry language. Those at whom the ads are directed are targets" (2). The ads are created specifically in a way that will pull consumers in. And the thing is, it is working. Kids are buying. "Every half-second, somewhere in the world another Barbie is sold. A fifth of McDonald's business is happy meals" (4). There is now a thriving children's market segment. "Children are becoming shoppers at an earlier age. Six to twelve year olds are estimated to visit stores two to three times per week and to put six items into the shopping cart each time they go" (5). "These days, when kids ask, they ask for particular brands. The increased knowledge of brands is a predictable outcome of kids' greater exposure to ads. Increasingly, the brands kids want aren't just any brands. They crave designer duds and luxury items" (8). "The change in the experience of childhood that has attracted perhaps most attention is kids' heavy involvement with electronic media, prompting some to poist a new postmodern childhood, driven by television, Internet, video games, movies, and videos" (11).
"So in the past 15 to 20 years we have witnessed big changes in what kids have been doing and watching. How has it affected them?" (12). The first thing that Schor looks at is nutrition. "Diets have gotten far out of line with recommended nutritional standards. Most kids are eating the wrong foods and to much of them. Children eat excessive quantities of advertised food products (like McDonalds) and not enough fruits, vegetables, and fiber" (12). On the other side is the excessive concern with thinness and body image and a host of eating disorders. "Record number of girls are on diets, and they are beginning to diet at an increasingly young age" (12). This is a result of the media exploiting incredibly thin models, and young girls then believe that is how they should look as well. Nutrition is not the only problem. "Kids are smoking, drinking alcohol, and taking illegal drugs at alarming rates" (12). "Children and youth are increasingly suffering from emotional and mental health problems" (13). Taken together, these findings are not comforting. "They show that American children are worse off today than they were 10 or 20 years ago" (14).
Schor states, "The deterioration in well-being suggests that some powerful negative factors are at work," (14). "One of them most likely is the upsurge in materialistic values. Children define there self-worth in terms of the things they own and wear. In a study, more than half the children agreed that when you grow up, the more money you have, the happier you are. The children in this study also said that the only kind of job they want when they grow up is one that gets them a lot of money" (14). "Psychologists have found that these kinds of materialistic values undermine well-being, leading people to be more depressed, anxious, less vital, and in worse physical health. In light of all these findings, the changing outlook of childhood is worrisome" (14). Childhood has become much to commercialized.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Fathering
The first article that addresses fatherhood is written by Richard Pleck and entitled, "American Fathering in Historical Perspective." This article analyzes the dominant images of fatherhood in earlier periods of United States history and considers there impact today.
The first time period that is considered is the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In this period of history, the father was seen as the moral overseer. "Fathers were thought to have far greater responsibility for, and influence on, their children. Prescriptions for parents were addressed almost entirely to fathers; the responsibilities of mothers were rarely mentioned" (351). "Fathers were viewed as the family's ultimate source of moral teaching and worldly judgments" (352). Fatherhood in this time included a variety of responsibilities. "Fathers were supposed to concern themselves with the moral and religious education of the young. If the father was literate, he should teach his children reading and writing. The father was also responsible for guiding his sons into a occupational calling. He also played a key role in the courtship and marriage making of both his sons and daughters" (352). "In this time relationships between fathers and children, especially sons, often had strong emotional components" (352). The father was very involved in all aspects of his children's lives during this time period.
However, from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, the role of the father changed. This father was known as the distant breadwinner. In this period "a gradual and steady shift toward a greater role for the mother, and a decreased and more indirect role for the father is clear and unmistakable" (353). "To the extent that either parent was involved in the marital choices of their children, it was now usually the mother. As opposed to the early time period, letters and diaries now indicated that mothers were more emotionally entangled with sons well into adulthood" (353). "This period also saw the development of the contemporary presumption of maternal custody following divorce. By the beginning of the twentieth century, psychiatrists gave almost exclusive attention to the mother" (353). There is one major reason for the decline in the father's role. "A major structural source for the decline in the father's role and increased maternal influence was the emergence of new paternal work patterns away from the family, brought about by industrialization" (354). "As geographical distance between the workplace and the home increased, so too did the father's direct involvement with his children" (354). This new kind of father "focused entirely on breadwinning was depicted in early-twentieth century advertisements" (354). "Nevertheless, the father continued to set the official standard of morality and to be the final arbiter of family discipline, but he did so at more of a remove than before" (355).
The next period that introduced a change in the role of the father was from 1940 to 1965. In this period the father was known as the sex role model. "During the postwar years the heightened critique of mothering ushered in a new perception of the father's direct importance in child rearing as a sex role model. This new conception did not become dominant: the distant father-breadwinner still prevailed. Nonetheless the sex role model interpretation of fathering is historically important as the first positive image of involved fatherhood since the moral overseer model" (356). This sex role model figure emerged from the theory that too much mothering and inadequate fathering lead to insecurity in male identity. "Fathers came to be seen as essential for the sex role development of their daughters as well" (357). "This new father was supposed to be the principal transmitter of culturally based conceptions of masculinity and femininity" (357).
Pleck states,"There is no question that the father-breadwinner model established in the nineteenth and early-twentieth century remains culturally dominant today, both in fathers' actual behavior and its media representation," (358). However, a new image summed up in the term "the new father" is clearly on the rise in print and broadcast media. "This new father differs from older images of involved fatherhood in several ways: he is present at the birth; he is involved with his children as infants, not just when they are older; he participates in the actual day-to-day work of child care, and not just play; he is involved with his daughters as much as his sons" (358). "This is due in part to the fact that wives are more often employed and do less in the family when they are and men are spending more time in the family, both absolutely and relative to women" (359). This "new father" exists but the models from the past are still present and continue to have influence on fathers. I believe that the expectations for fathers today are that they get more involved in the family and home life. However, I do believe that the traditional image of the father as the breadwinner is still very prevalent. Mr. mom is not that common, even now as women have made advancements in the workplace. Father's for the most part are still expected by society to be the one that works and provides financial security for the family.
The second article that I am going to address in regards to fathering is written by Dorothy Roberts and entitled, "The Absent Black Father." This article looks at the myth of the "absent black father" and the societal forces that have discouraged family participation of Black fathers.
"While Black fathers are disparaged for their absence, a number of societal forces work to discourage their family participation" (149). "Some argue that the promise of welfare benefits induces childbearing out of wedlock and some Black feminists point to a positive cultural tradition that is more accepting of unmarried mothers. Some suggest that we can view Black single mothers as resistors against patriarchy" (149). "One major societal force is the effects of racial repression, most notably high rates of unemployment and incarceration that continue to contribute to Black fathers' absence from the home" (149). "Black men's unemployment rates are more than double those of white men. Black men's declining ability to contribute financially to their households is a major cause of fatherlessness in Black homes. Black fathers are also separated from their families by imprisonment. Blacks, mostly men, make up over half of the one million inmates in American jails" (150). These forces show that Black men do not value family relationships any less than other men do. But many "have been restrained by unemployment, imprisonment, and other deprivations from developing the family ties they desire" (150).
There are elements of Black fatherhood that led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father. "The elements of what society considers a "good father" have often been elements that the Black father cannot fulfill. What condemns the absent Black father is not his lack of involvement with his children, but his marital and economic status. A good father is a married breadwinner. And Black men typically have not fit that role" (154). "The economic definition of the father has excluded the Black family from society's respect and support. It has branded Black men as irresponsible fathers" (154). "The absent Black father refers mainly to those children whose parents are not married. However, if further attention was paid to Black fathering it would reveal that many presumably "absent" Black fathers actually play an important role in child rearing. Many Black men stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or unable to provide financial support" (153). In this case, Black men have their own style of parenting, just as Black women have a distinct notion of motherhood. This pattern of behavior contradicts the myth that they are completely absent with no contact with their children.
In conclusion, the myth was created from our history. "Black men were depicted as menacing brutes or ridiculous buffoons, disparaging images that justified their exclusion from citizenship early in this nation's history" (148). "Society made Black men out so that they were not supposed to be role models for their children. Black men should be entitled to dominate their families as White men have but they have never been entitled to do so" (148). Because of this, they were seen as "absent". But even with the social forces against them, they still have proven that they can stay involved in their own style.
The third and final article in regards to fathering was written by Francine Deutsch and is entitled, "Halving it all: The Mother and Mr. Mom." This article addresses the revolution that is occurring in the homes of blue-collar families. This revolution is alternating work shifts, in which the mother's and father's are taking turns taking care of their children while their spouses work at paid jobs.
One of the main questions is why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? "One of the main reasons couples alternate shifts is money. It is cheaper to avoid using paid child care. In over 80% of the alternating-shift couples, at least one spouse mentioned money when asked why they share the care of their children they way they do" (117). Alternating shifters have the lowest incomes. "Some thought they simply couldn't afford day care; others maintained that they could have afforded it, but believed alternating work shifts was economically wise" (117). "Some reasoned it was impractical to spend so much of their income on day care. Money maters, but money is not the only reason that parents invoke for alternating shifts. Many of the couples believed that children should only be cared for by family" (118). Alternating shift parents give a few reasons for avoiding day care. "First, they fear that terrible dangers await children who are cared for by strangers. The second reason is the parents "resolve to inculcate their children with their own values" (119). Now one might wonder why middle class families do not have these same concerns when it comes to sending their children to day care. "One reason could be that because blue-collar families have less money, the child care that they can pay for might be worse. Secondly, even if the blue-collar families could get the "best" institutional day care, that institution might reflect middle-class values and be less responsive to their concerns than to the concerns of middle-class couples" (119). It is incredibly clear how all of this is related to social class status. If you have less money, you will be less willing or unable to pay for day care, so the only other option is to chose the alternating shifts method. Also related to social class status is the fears with day care. Lower income families will be nervous that the specific day cares they can afford will not be as good, and therefore choose instead to do the alternating shifts.
Another issue to address in regards to alternating shifts is how these families' division of labor compare to there gender ideologies. Ironically "there is more support for traditional gender ideology within the working class than among the highly educated groups in the United States" (125). "By clinging to the core aspects of the men going to work while the wives stay at home to tend to the children, they can convince themselves that they are maintaining traditional gender identities despite their nontraditional arrangements" (125). These couples try to keep intact three aspects of gender identity: "the father is the breadwinner; the mother does not derive a primary sense of identity from work; and the mother is the primary parent" (125). "In almost all alternating-shift families, the parent's stressed the men's breadwinning roles by treating the father's job as the more important job in the family. These families structured their work lives to enable the father to retain the role of principal breadwinner. If the mother had a higher rate of pay, then the father would work more hours so that he still earned the most money" (126). These families wanted the father to fit into their gender ideology of him as the breadwinner. "Similarly, mother's in the alternating-shift families are still regarded as the number-one parent, regardless of how much time fathers spend with their children. Dads may take over many of the functions that mothers have traditionally performed, but the mother is still "the mother" (129). Women retain this special role in two ways. "First the mother try to tailor there work lives so they can be with the children at times they define as key times. Secondly, mothers retain their primary position through the claim that they are still the center of emotional life in the family and that they should be" (130). "Alternating shift couples believe in an ideal family life that features breadwinning fathers and stay-at-home moms. They are far from living that ideal. However, they manage the marked difference between there behavior and their ideology by maintaining core aspects of parental gender identity" (132).
To be completely frank, I hope that I do not have to even consider choosing an alternating-shift arrangement for my family. I hope that my family is financially secure enough so that both parents do not have to work when the children are young. But if I was put in a situation where both my husband and I needed to work for financial reasons when the kids were young, I think I would choose an alternating-shift arrangement because that way both parents can spend ideal time with the kids. However, on the other hand I would worry about how little my husband and I would see each other. It is a tough decision and honestly I don't know for sure what I would choose if faced with that choice.
The first time period that is considered is the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In this period of history, the father was seen as the moral overseer. "Fathers were thought to have far greater responsibility for, and influence on, their children. Prescriptions for parents were addressed almost entirely to fathers; the responsibilities of mothers were rarely mentioned" (351). "Fathers were viewed as the family's ultimate source of moral teaching and worldly judgments" (352). Fatherhood in this time included a variety of responsibilities. "Fathers were supposed to concern themselves with the moral and religious education of the young. If the father was literate, he should teach his children reading and writing. The father was also responsible for guiding his sons into a occupational calling. He also played a key role in the courtship and marriage making of both his sons and daughters" (352). "In this time relationships between fathers and children, especially sons, often had strong emotional components" (352). The father was very involved in all aspects of his children's lives during this time period.
However, from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, the role of the father changed. This father was known as the distant breadwinner. In this period "a gradual and steady shift toward a greater role for the mother, and a decreased and more indirect role for the father is clear and unmistakable" (353). "To the extent that either parent was involved in the marital choices of their children, it was now usually the mother. As opposed to the early time period, letters and diaries now indicated that mothers were more emotionally entangled with sons well into adulthood" (353). "This period also saw the development of the contemporary presumption of maternal custody following divorce. By the beginning of the twentieth century, psychiatrists gave almost exclusive attention to the mother" (353). There is one major reason for the decline in the father's role. "A major structural source for the decline in the father's role and increased maternal influence was the emergence of new paternal work patterns away from the family, brought about by industrialization" (354). "As geographical distance between the workplace and the home increased, so too did the father's direct involvement with his children" (354). This new kind of father "focused entirely on breadwinning was depicted in early-twentieth century advertisements" (354). "Nevertheless, the father continued to set the official standard of morality and to be the final arbiter of family discipline, but he did so at more of a remove than before" (355).
The next period that introduced a change in the role of the father was from 1940 to 1965. In this period the father was known as the sex role model. "During the postwar years the heightened critique of mothering ushered in a new perception of the father's direct importance in child rearing as a sex role model. This new conception did not become dominant: the distant father-breadwinner still prevailed. Nonetheless the sex role model interpretation of fathering is historically important as the first positive image of involved fatherhood since the moral overseer model" (356). This sex role model figure emerged from the theory that too much mothering and inadequate fathering lead to insecurity in male identity. "Fathers came to be seen as essential for the sex role development of their daughters as well" (357). "This new father was supposed to be the principal transmitter of culturally based conceptions of masculinity and femininity" (357).
Pleck states,"There is no question that the father-breadwinner model established in the nineteenth and early-twentieth century remains culturally dominant today, both in fathers' actual behavior and its media representation," (358). However, a new image summed up in the term "the new father" is clearly on the rise in print and broadcast media. "This new father differs from older images of involved fatherhood in several ways: he is present at the birth; he is involved with his children as infants, not just when they are older; he participates in the actual day-to-day work of child care, and not just play; he is involved with his daughters as much as his sons" (358). "This is due in part to the fact that wives are more often employed and do less in the family when they are and men are spending more time in the family, both absolutely and relative to women" (359). This "new father" exists but the models from the past are still present and continue to have influence on fathers. I believe that the expectations for fathers today are that they get more involved in the family and home life. However, I do believe that the traditional image of the father as the breadwinner is still very prevalent. Mr. mom is not that common, even now as women have made advancements in the workplace. Father's for the most part are still expected by society to be the one that works and provides financial security for the family.
The second article that I am going to address in regards to fathering is written by Dorothy Roberts and entitled, "The Absent Black Father." This article looks at the myth of the "absent black father" and the societal forces that have discouraged family participation of Black fathers.
"While Black fathers are disparaged for their absence, a number of societal forces work to discourage their family participation" (149). "Some argue that the promise of welfare benefits induces childbearing out of wedlock and some Black feminists point to a positive cultural tradition that is more accepting of unmarried mothers. Some suggest that we can view Black single mothers as resistors against patriarchy" (149). "One major societal force is the effects of racial repression, most notably high rates of unemployment and incarceration that continue to contribute to Black fathers' absence from the home" (149). "Black men's unemployment rates are more than double those of white men. Black men's declining ability to contribute financially to their households is a major cause of fatherlessness in Black homes. Black fathers are also separated from their families by imprisonment. Blacks, mostly men, make up over half of the one million inmates in American jails" (150). These forces show that Black men do not value family relationships any less than other men do. But many "have been restrained by unemployment, imprisonment, and other deprivations from developing the family ties they desire" (150).
There are elements of Black fatherhood that led to the creation of the myth of the Absent Black Father. "The elements of what society considers a "good father" have often been elements that the Black father cannot fulfill. What condemns the absent Black father is not his lack of involvement with his children, but his marital and economic status. A good father is a married breadwinner. And Black men typically have not fit that role" (154). "The economic definition of the father has excluded the Black family from society's respect and support. It has branded Black men as irresponsible fathers" (154). "The absent Black father refers mainly to those children whose parents are not married. However, if further attention was paid to Black fathering it would reveal that many presumably "absent" Black fathers actually play an important role in child rearing. Many Black men stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or unable to provide financial support" (153). In this case, Black men have their own style of parenting, just as Black women have a distinct notion of motherhood. This pattern of behavior contradicts the myth that they are completely absent with no contact with their children.
In conclusion, the myth was created from our history. "Black men were depicted as menacing brutes or ridiculous buffoons, disparaging images that justified their exclusion from citizenship early in this nation's history" (148). "Society made Black men out so that they were not supposed to be role models for their children. Black men should be entitled to dominate their families as White men have but they have never been entitled to do so" (148). Because of this, they were seen as "absent". But even with the social forces against them, they still have proven that they can stay involved in their own style.
The third and final article in regards to fathering was written by Francine Deutsch and is entitled, "Halving it all: The Mother and Mr. Mom." This article addresses the revolution that is occurring in the homes of blue-collar families. This revolution is alternating work shifts, in which the mother's and father's are taking turns taking care of their children while their spouses work at paid jobs.
One of the main questions is why do couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and how is that decision related to their social class status? "One of the main reasons couples alternate shifts is money. It is cheaper to avoid using paid child care. In over 80% of the alternating-shift couples, at least one spouse mentioned money when asked why they share the care of their children they way they do" (117). Alternating shifters have the lowest incomes. "Some thought they simply couldn't afford day care; others maintained that they could have afforded it, but believed alternating work shifts was economically wise" (117). "Some reasoned it was impractical to spend so much of their income on day care. Money maters, but money is not the only reason that parents invoke for alternating shifts. Many of the couples believed that children should only be cared for by family" (118). Alternating shift parents give a few reasons for avoiding day care. "First, they fear that terrible dangers await children who are cared for by strangers. The second reason is the parents "resolve to inculcate their children with their own values" (119). Now one might wonder why middle class families do not have these same concerns when it comes to sending their children to day care. "One reason could be that because blue-collar families have less money, the child care that they can pay for might be worse. Secondly, even if the blue-collar families could get the "best" institutional day care, that institution might reflect middle-class values and be less responsive to their concerns than to the concerns of middle-class couples" (119). It is incredibly clear how all of this is related to social class status. If you have less money, you will be less willing or unable to pay for day care, so the only other option is to chose the alternating shifts method. Also related to social class status is the fears with day care. Lower income families will be nervous that the specific day cares they can afford will not be as good, and therefore choose instead to do the alternating shifts.
Another issue to address in regards to alternating shifts is how these families' division of labor compare to there gender ideologies. Ironically "there is more support for traditional gender ideology within the working class than among the highly educated groups in the United States" (125). "By clinging to the core aspects of the men going to work while the wives stay at home to tend to the children, they can convince themselves that they are maintaining traditional gender identities despite their nontraditional arrangements" (125). These couples try to keep intact three aspects of gender identity: "the father is the breadwinner; the mother does not derive a primary sense of identity from work; and the mother is the primary parent" (125). "In almost all alternating-shift families, the parent's stressed the men's breadwinning roles by treating the father's job as the more important job in the family. These families structured their work lives to enable the father to retain the role of principal breadwinner. If the mother had a higher rate of pay, then the father would work more hours so that he still earned the most money" (126). These families wanted the father to fit into their gender ideology of him as the breadwinner. "Similarly, mother's in the alternating-shift families are still regarded as the number-one parent, regardless of how much time fathers spend with their children. Dads may take over many of the functions that mothers have traditionally performed, but the mother is still "the mother" (129). Women retain this special role in two ways. "First the mother try to tailor there work lives so they can be with the children at times they define as key times. Secondly, mothers retain their primary position through the claim that they are still the center of emotional life in the family and that they should be" (130). "Alternating shift couples believe in an ideal family life that features breadwinning fathers and stay-at-home moms. They are far from living that ideal. However, they manage the marked difference between there behavior and their ideology by maintaining core aspects of parental gender identity" (132).
To be completely frank, I hope that I do not have to even consider choosing an alternating-shift arrangement for my family. I hope that my family is financially secure enough so that both parents do not have to work when the children are young. But if I was put in a situation where both my husband and I needed to work for financial reasons when the kids were young, I think I would choose an alternating-shift arrangement because that way both parents can spend ideal time with the kids. However, on the other hand I would worry about how little my husband and I would see each other. It is a tough decision and honestly I don't know for sure what I would choose if faced with that choice.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
My Family
When people look at my family, we probably look like the "perfect" American family. My parents were high school sweethearts. They met when they were 15 years old and have been in love ever since. To this day they are still happily married. After getting married they waited three years before having me. I am an only child which I guess is a little bit against the norm, but nowadays it is becoming much more common. We live in a very nice house, in a great town. We have the token perfect dog, a golden retriever named Derby. I love my family so much and do realize that things have come easy to me. My parents sometimes worry that I have been a little spoiled. They don't treat me like a spoiled only child, it is just in general how our life has been.
Even though I have what is considered to be a perfect family, my parents have made sure that I have been exposed to lots of different things. My parents are the most open people I know. They hold no prejudices toward anyone, and have made sure to pass that on to me. They have raised me in a house where gender is not an issue. My mom and dad are complete equals in my house. If someone asked me whether my mom or dad was in charge, I could not answer that. They are both in charge. They delegate chores of the house. Yes, my mom does cook dinner much more often than my dad. However, this is because my mom is a gourmet cook and loves to make dinner. My dad offers all the time, but my mom always says that she would prefer to do it. My parents have definitely set an example that men and women in the family should be equal. In regards to issues of race, it was never an issue in my house. Black or white meant nothing in my house. Everyone was the same. Honestly, in regards to social class, I did grow up basically among people of the same social class. This may be the one area in which I have been a bit sheltered, but it was not one purpose. My parents were not consciously like, "We want her only surrounded by people like us." It was just the way things turned out. And while this is the case, my parents made sure that I never got the idea that I was above anyone. The last issue is sexuality. My parents are completely open to homosexuality. True, our family doesn't know many homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that we don't completely accept it. My parents are in favor of gay marriage because they do not believe anyone has the right to say who should or should not be able to get married. I have heard there reasoning and have accepted this as my belief as well.
My ideas about family have really been shaped by my parents. We have the typical family, but I am very aware of the diverse nature of families. Everyone tells me that I am incredibly mature, and that is because I grew up always joining in my parents adult conversations. They liked to involve me in there conversations. Because of this I have learned so much from them. I realize the question is how have race, gender, social class, and sexuality affected my ideas about family. Above I shared my parents ideas about gender, social class, race, and sexuality. Honestly, their views have shaped my ideas about family. I am thankful to them for this. I haven't just complacently taken their views, I just truly agree with them.
The last issue is how I will let race, gender, social class, and sexuality affect my family in the future. I know that I will have to marry someone who is as open as I am. I need to be able to raise a family that is accepting of what is different from what we may be. My husband and I need to be equals. We need to treat each other as equals because that is the way I have seen things growing up. I believe the environment one grows up in definitely impacts the way they view issues of class, gender, race, and sexuality. You may agree with the way you were brought up or disagree and adjust how you do things with your family. I am lucky enough to love the way I grew up and want to pass on the same values I was taught to my own children.
I have realized after writing this how much I respect my parents, and how happy I am with the way I view those who have different families. It always seemed so natural to me but now putting it into words and actually thinking about it, makes it even more clear. This may seem incredibly cliche, but my parents have always told me that different is not wrong. Because what we see as different, someone else sees as normal, and what someone else sees as different, we see as normal. If people just understood this, I feel that race, gender, sexuality, and social class would not be an issue. I realize this is wishful thinking, but I can't help but write it.
Even though I have what is considered to be a perfect family, my parents have made sure that I have been exposed to lots of different things. My parents are the most open people I know. They hold no prejudices toward anyone, and have made sure to pass that on to me. They have raised me in a house where gender is not an issue. My mom and dad are complete equals in my house. If someone asked me whether my mom or dad was in charge, I could not answer that. They are both in charge. They delegate chores of the house. Yes, my mom does cook dinner much more often than my dad. However, this is because my mom is a gourmet cook and loves to make dinner. My dad offers all the time, but my mom always says that she would prefer to do it. My parents have definitely set an example that men and women in the family should be equal. In regards to issues of race, it was never an issue in my house. Black or white meant nothing in my house. Everyone was the same. Honestly, in regards to social class, I did grow up basically among people of the same social class. This may be the one area in which I have been a bit sheltered, but it was not one purpose. My parents were not consciously like, "We want her only surrounded by people like us." It was just the way things turned out. And while this is the case, my parents made sure that I never got the idea that I was above anyone. The last issue is sexuality. My parents are completely open to homosexuality. True, our family doesn't know many homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that we don't completely accept it. My parents are in favor of gay marriage because they do not believe anyone has the right to say who should or should not be able to get married. I have heard there reasoning and have accepted this as my belief as well.
My ideas about family have really been shaped by my parents. We have the typical family, but I am very aware of the diverse nature of families. Everyone tells me that I am incredibly mature, and that is because I grew up always joining in my parents adult conversations. They liked to involve me in there conversations. Because of this I have learned so much from them. I realize the question is how have race, gender, social class, and sexuality affected my ideas about family. Above I shared my parents ideas about gender, social class, race, and sexuality. Honestly, their views have shaped my ideas about family. I am thankful to them for this. I haven't just complacently taken their views, I just truly agree with them.
The last issue is how I will let race, gender, social class, and sexuality affect my family in the future. I know that I will have to marry someone who is as open as I am. I need to be able to raise a family that is accepting of what is different from what we may be. My husband and I need to be equals. We need to treat each other as equals because that is the way I have seen things growing up. I believe the environment one grows up in definitely impacts the way they view issues of class, gender, race, and sexuality. You may agree with the way you were brought up or disagree and adjust how you do things with your family. I am lucky enough to love the way I grew up and want to pass on the same values I was taught to my own children.
I have realized after writing this how much I respect my parents, and how happy I am with the way I view those who have different families. It always seemed so natural to me but now putting it into words and actually thinking about it, makes it even more clear. This may seem incredibly cliche, but my parents have always told me that different is not wrong. Because what we see as different, someone else sees as normal, and what someone else sees as different, we see as normal. If people just understood this, I feel that race, gender, sexuality, and social class would not be an issue. I realize this is wishful thinking, but I can't help but write it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)