Childhood

1. Barrie Thorne and Zella Luria. 1997. “Sexuality and Gender in Children’s Daily Worlds.” Pp. 141-152 in Down to Earth Sociology: Introductory Readings. Edited by James M. Henslin. New York: The Free Press.
2. Annette Lareau. 2002. "Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families." American Sociological Review, v. 67 (5): 747-776.
3. Frances K. Goldschneider and Linda J. Waite. 2001. “Children’s Share in Household Tasks.” In Shifting the Center: Understanding Contemporary Families, 2nd ed. Edited by Susan J. Ferguson. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
4. Juliet Schor. 2004. “America’s Most Wanted: Inside the World of Young Consumers.” Boston College Magazine, 54, 4 (Fall), pp.30-37.

1. According to Thorne and Luria, what aspect of childhood experience serves as one of the main sources of gender differences? How does it operate?
According to Thorne and Luria, the aspect of childhood that serves as one of the main sources of gender differences is segregation in terms of gender; it has been found that "Gender segregation in elementary and middle schools...account[s] for more segregation than race" (Thorne and Luria, 138). These gender specific groups help to shape how each of the respective sexes develop, interact, and read each other.
For the most part, during elementary school, boys and girls can be seen in gender specific groups during play, group activities, and lunch, making it almost taboo for each other to cross the line of gender. Boys are more known to play at competitive games and challenge the boundaries for appropriateness in terms of language and "dirty things", while girls will participate in things that require taking turns or role playing. They use this time to in a sense "test the waters" of what is appropriate behavior , and boys begin to act to prove their manhood, and put others down using words like "faggot" or "queer". It has been shown that this experimentation and mocking of others is used to explore one's own sexuality, and exaggerate the norms for their coming adolescence and then adulthood. This name calling and these dirty words help to create a hierarchy among males, that will try and be at the top of for the rest of their lives.
Girls organize themselves in more pairs, calling each other "best friends" with coalitions that shift very often. Interactions among girls are often quieter than the name-calling that occurs with boys; they are more likely to leave someone out, and talk behind their back than mock them to their face.
In terms of sexuality exploration, girls "focus less on dirty words than on themes of romance" (Thorne and Luria, 143). Games here involve chasing, attempting at kissing, and girls generally spreading their "cooties" to boys. This later translates into conflict because males emphasize the sexual aspect of relationships, while women look for the "emotional and romantic" (Thorne and Luria, 144).
All in all, interactions of early childhood begin to form the fundamental differences between men and women in terms of competitiveness, sexuality, and romantic expectations. It could also help to maintain the gender difference in terms of occupational expectation, and roles within the household.

2. According to Goldscheider and Waite, how much housework do children do in contemporary families? How does it vary by child’s gender and type of family?
According to Goldscheider and Waite children in contemporary families do very little housework, compared to what they have typically been held responsible for in the past. They do still participate in some housework activities such as doing the dishes and cleaning the house, but the growing importance of "childhood", schoolwork, and extracurricular activities has made many children able to escape this responsibility.
In terms of gender, "Girls tend to spend about twice as much time in housework as their brothers, mirroring the different levels of contribution by their mothers and fathers" (Goldsheider and Waite, 809). Boys are hardly expected to do anything in terms of housework, leaving them ill prepared to be an involved, work-sharing husband. Girls however learn from a young age how to take on more than their male counterparts, preparing them to do the same in motherhood and wife-dom. This is seen especially in teenage children, with "Families with teenage girls report sharing five times more of these tasks with children than do families with boys of the same age" (Goldsheider and Waite, 812).
The type of family has a significant impact on how much work the children do. It has been found that the larger the family (meaning the more children a couple has) , the more the mother will share her housework with the children as a group. Because there are more children to go around, it is not seen as much of a hindrance on childhood for them to help around the house for a short period of time each day. Those with older children also are more likely to have them do work, because they are then seen as more capable.
In single parent families, as was the case on farms during American history, the help of children with housework is absolutely necessary; because seeing as in dual parent homes the mother often does the majority of the housework, the father usually does at least something, while contributing to the family income. When there is only one provider, usually the mother, it is necessary for the children to almost step in and fill the role that the mother typically would have, while she is out making money to support them. Also, another interesting fact is about families with step-parents; children who live in this situation are likely to do more housework than their peers who are living with their biological parents. In essence, step-families create "Cinderella's" out of both girls and boys.

3. According to Annette Lareau, how do the models of child rearing differ by race and class?
Interestingly enough, race was not much of a factor in terms of child rearing differences. It only seemed to come into play in terms of norms for the different races, for example the African American children had church activities accounting for much of their time. Class, however, produced extreme differences in the lives of children, the relationships between peers, the relationships between parents and their children, and parents views of "authority".
This article examined two main distinctions between middle class people of both African American and Caucasian descent, and those in the working class from both races. The middle class parents raised their children using a logic called "concerted cultivation", which involves them in a wide range of activities to challenge them and develop them to the full extent - while at the same time dominating much of the parents free time. This cultivation of children then produces an emerging sense of entitlement, where the children feel comfortable getting what they need from officials and authority figures, such as doctors and teachers.
The middle class families studied showed a strong emphasis on character development, in the form of language, talents, and personal identity. Alexander is a young, African American only child from a middle class family. He is involved in so many activities such as piano, guitar, church, and sports, that he feels bored and discouraged when he does not have a full schedule for the upcoming day. He also, when having a conversation with his mother, is prodded and encouraged to explain his thoughts, and know his rights in the form of asking questions of his doctor when going on a check-up visit. In this setting, children are taught that they are valuable, and have a voice that adults will listen to.
Also, these children's social networks, as well as their parents, consist of the people that are involved in similar activities. The middle class families lives were based much less around family, as on their own immediate world and daily activities.
The working class families had a different view; in this setting, there was a distinct line between adults and children, one that was not crossed on a daily basis by the families studied. Here the parents provide what is necessary for their children in terms of love, food, and safety. These parents feel as though if they have these basic needs, they will survive. These children are allowed to grow up of their own accord, and are not challenged to back up their statements or argue their opinions as the middle class children are. Most are not involved in extracurricular activities, mostly because of lack of funding, and thus their lives are much more home-based than the middle class children. Instead of spending every second of their time in an adult organized activity, they spend time in the neighborhood with their friends and relatives, and do things such as play basketball when they can find a ball.
Children, no matter what class they are from, grow up viewing their parents' interactions with others and learning from them. By viewing their parents' own hesitancy with institutions, children in the working class grow up feeling an emerging sense of constraint as opposed to that of entitlement from the middle class. Parents' own hesitancy springs from fear that they will be viewed as inadequate parents, because as "lower class" people, those in power are suspicious that children are getting everything they need and will thus pounce on anything that they think is wrong. One parent in frustration explained how she was angry at a school because they sent her child home without a winter coat, something that she would never do because child services would pounce before she could say another word. It is instances such as these that make parents and then their children almost not want to be involved in activities and organizations like the middle class families are.
Race was not as much of a factor in this study, as "the research assistants and I saw no striking differences in the ways in which white parents and black parents in the working-class and poor homes socialized their children" (Lareau, 760).

4. What are the signs of commercialization of childhood presented in Juliet Schor’s article? How does this commercialization affect children’s well-being?
The signs of commercialization in childhood are many, as well as startling. According to Schor, children can recognize brands by 18 months, know and can recite brand name products by age two, by three believe that owning certain brands adds to your personal qualities of being cool or smart, and by the start of school 25% have their own TV in their room. Typically, children also receive about 70 new toys each year.
The list goes on, in terms of the food that children want to eat and the clothes that girls "have to have" and the commercials that kids quote during a normal day at school. All these things and more have slowly begun to harm children, in a variety of ways. First of all, children of younger and younger ages are becoming dependent on material things to satisfy their sense of security and well-being, which will most likely transfer into teen years as feelings of inadequacy or depression. Accordingly many have become selfish, and lose their sense of childhood innocence as they crave things that will make them seem older or cooler.
In terms of health, many children are "eating the wrong foods, and are eating too much of them...The number one spending category, at a third of the total, is sweets, snacks, and beverages" (Schor, 9; 4). Children are getting what they want, and because what they want is junk food, their health is suffering; the rate of obesity has skyrocketed in the recent history.
There has also been a marked increase in the use of illegal substance, and children are suffering from emotional and mental health problems. I believe that this is because children have to foundation on which to base their lives anymore, besides spending money. That is what they are now identified by, and as a result are suffering. Many will not be prepared to live in the "real world" because they will not have money like their parents to spend; they will then perhaps lose their way, unable to continue purchasing at their established rate. Perhaps one of the most startling statistics is that "More children go shopping each week (52%) than go to church (26%) or participate in youth groups (25%)" (Schor, 8). Unless these children, and more importantly their parents, change how they live and view spending money, this will only get worse.

Fatherhood

1. Joseph H. Pleck. 1987. “American Fathering in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 83-97 in Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Edited by Michael S. Kimmel. Sage Publications.
2. Francine Deutsch. 2002. “Halving It All: The Mother and Mr. Mom.” In Families at Work: Expanding the Boundaries. Edited by Naomi Gerstel, Dan Clawson, and Robert Zussman. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
3. Dorothy Roberts. 1998. “The Absent Black Father.” Pp. 145-161 in Lost Fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America. Edited by Cynthia R. Daniels. St. Martin's Press.

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

According to Pleck, the role of fatherhood has changed in three distinct ways since the eighteenth century. It began with a firm basis on religion, where the father's main role was to educate his children in terms of religion and morality. He was, "a moral pedagogue who must instruct children of both sexes what God as well as the world required of them" (Pleck, 352). Here the father had the main roles in raising children, as women were seen as indulgent, sinful creatures that would lead the children, as well as men, astray. Much of this role was enabled by the fact that during this time, the father worked within the family context in some sort of trade, as opposed to being in the business world outside of the home.
The next phase in fatherhood was characterized by a distancing of them from the children, and the increasing role of the mother as the primary nurturing figure. The home began to be seen as the women's specialty, while the men's duty was to go out and earn the money so as to support his family. This was brought about by industrialization, and the need to work outside the home to maintain a living. In this scenario, the father was still the primary authority in the house, but he only stepped in when the mothers actions failed. It is in this period that the so called "declination" of fatherhood began, and the distancing of father from child can be seen.
The third and final phase before today's views of fatherhood were the father as the sex role model, both for his sons and daughters. In post-war times when women took on many of the typically masculine roles and positions, it was necessary for the father to instill in his sons what it means to be a man, so as they are not raised to be too feminine or in the light of women; it was feared that without male influence, many sons would turn out to be homosexual. Paternal absence characterized this postwar period, and the result was a fear in the lack of identity building for maturing males. It was also the father who was seen as the one to instill both feminine and masculine qualities in his children, "encouraging instrumental behavior in his son and expressive behavior in his daughter" (Pleck, 357). Besides these roles however, fathers were encouraged to maintain their distance from their children.

Today, fatherhood is seen as almost a Superman-like position, termed a "new father" (Pleck, 358). Here, they remain the primary breadwinners, moral examples, and sex role models, while being involved in their children's lives in ways that were previously discouraged. The father should be present at birth, should be involved in each stage of the children's lives, and should participate in child care with the mother. This modern day expectation of fathers seems like a contradictory expectation, and I agree with this. The men are still expected to be the breadwinners to conquer the outside world, while keeping up their side of the bargain in the house in terms of children-rearing and housework. I know that women are faced with this struggle everyday, but I still feel as though more is expected of men because they are criticized for not fulfilling either role to the full extent; they are either criticized for being too "soft" in wanting to be involved in typically female roles, or for being inadequate fathers that are too consumed with their professional lives to have time for their children. I think a happy medium needs to be achieved, but this will only happen with time and the further expansion of male and female roles both inside and outside of the family.

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

According to Francine Deutsch, couples with children decide to work alternating shifts for a variety of reasons. One, and perhaps the most obvious, is to save money on childcare in having a parent with the children at all times. Childcare has become a major decision in today's society, because those institutions that could provide quality care for children are too expensive for those families that actually need it, and they are thus left with those institutions that are not safe or beneficial for your child.
Another reason that parents choose to work alternate shifts is because it allows them to instill their own values into their children, as opposed to having them "raised" by strangers. When parents are forced to leave their children at daycare/with babysitters, there is a chance that the child could be raised with the values of said caregivers, and not that of the parents. Many feel as though it is their duty as a parents to raise their children, and the best care possible can be received through them.
That being said, the last reason Deutsch gives for parents taking alternate shifts is that they feel as though children should only be cared for by family.

This decision is completely related to their social status; on one hand, because their initial lack of money is what put them into this situation in the first place. To play into the cultural norm of the U.S., it is because the supposed breadwinner is not making enough money that the women then have to work too, regardless of whether or not they want to. And with the aforementioned values about raising children, the women cannot abandon them while the man is at work, and thus she will go to work when he gets home at night.
Another way that this type of living situation is even possible is because typically it is in working class families that there are wage-earners working shift-based jobs, meaning they can choose when they want to work as opposed to being at a company that runs from 9-5.

The families division of labor in terms of gender identity is ironic in that even though both spouses work, and in some cases the women make more money than the men, the men continue to be viewed as the primary breadwinner. The position that these families have been put in makes it necessary for women to take on men's duties in terms of bringing in monetary support, while the men take on domestic chores and stronger roles in childcare. Even so, men continue to hold onto the view that women should stay home with the kids, while they should be able to single handedly support their families. These men, "by clinging to some core aspect of that picture...can convince themselves that they are maintaining traditional gender identities despite their nontraditional arrangements" (Deutsch, 125).
The men and women for the most part experience different emotional responses from their alternate shift schedule; women get to feel a sense of accomplishment by building a career outside of what is "expected" of them, and allows them to experience something that they might not have had their families not needed more money to get by. It seemed, in examining this article, that although many of the women went back to work for the money, in their own minds it was because they wanted to get out of the house, and they wanted to use their talents to make a difference in the world.
Men, on the other hand, have a variety of different reactions to this situation. One group develops an enormous sense of sympathy and understanding for women who stay at home all day, and put in their fair share of work to make things easier at home. Another group does what they have to do just to get by, and then leaves things such as the dishes for their wives when the return from their shift. Most of the men, however, feel as though things should not be how they are, and that the women should be in the home taking care of the kids and doing the housework. Many men, when asked what would happen if they suddenly got a better job, felt that this would happen - regardless of how happy their wives were at work!

I don't think I could ever bring myself to have an alternate shift lifestyle with my family. I do agree that there are challenges that present themselves in terms of taking care of one's children, but I do not want to have to make sacrifices that could in essence destroy my marriage by not seeing my spouse besides in the morning and late at night. Whether through institutions such as church or through family, I hope to be able to find alternatives to daycare - or even be able to stay home myself while my children are young, and then work "mom hours" once they enter school.

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

One societal force that discourage family participation of Black fathers is the chronic poverty; in many cases, Black men and women have children without getting married, and due to the racist structure of this country they cannot find a steady job and would not be able to support them. But without the monetary aspect, many men would continue to be involved in their children's lives and maybe even live with them; but the welfare system makes it impossible for this to happen, because women will be cut off if there is a many living in the house.
Also, the fact that a disproportionate number of Black men are put in jail makes it difficult for them to participate in family life, and, "Locking a man up essentially makes him ineligible for marriage, rips him away from his family, and prevents him from finding a decent job" (Roberts, 150). This incarceration is caused by a multitude of reasons,

The elements of Black fatherhood that led to the creation of the Absent Father myth seem to be simply those things that do not fit into the "norm" of white, middle-upper class society. Typically the father is supposed to provide for his family and be the sole breadwinner of the marriage. In this part of society, however, it has been seen due to poverty and incarceration that it is difficult for many Black men to obtain a job that will enable them to do this.
Also, even though "labelling a child 'fatherless' usually means that the parents are not married"(Roberts, 151), the term fatherless usually is understood that there is no father in the picture at all. And while this is not true most of the time, having something said repeatedly and unfailingly will make people believe it, and only see the situations that make their beliefs come true.
A third element that could have created more absent fathers is the state trying to improve the lives of children through increasing the amount of child support to be paid by fathers. While this may seem like a good idea in theory, it actually takes a lot of men away from their children and forces them into hiding because they cannot afford to pay the money.

In essence, fathers are the same in all races and ethnicities. They want to provide for their children, they want to support their wives, and they want to be involved in their families. However, there are often extemporaneous circumstances that make this impossible, say for example if one does not fit into the norm category of what is expected for looks, talent, and experience. While not a lot of study has been done on the good aspects of Black fatherhood, these aspects do indeed exist in the form of mentoring, and the involvement of men in their children's lives whether it be "normal" or not. In one study, it was found that, "poor, African-American, officially absent fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more informal support than did White, middle-class absent fathers" (Roberts, 153).

Considering Family

consider how race, gender, social class, and sexuality
(1) impacted and shaped your family life so far
(2) affected your ideas about families
(3) might affect your family life in the future

Growing up in an all white, predominantly middle class, heterosexual family has made my life somewhat like book, in that my childhood for the most part represents the typical "American" lifestyle. There was no white picket fence around my house, and we never had a dog, but I had two older sisters, my mother and father are still married, we all went to public school, and on to college.
But perhaps this isn't the typical American lifestyle? Have I just grown up in a bubble where my friends were all like me, so I thought that I was normal? Was my childhood and adolescence a-typical to what most people of my generation experienced?
Maybe I feel as though I am from the norm group because my life is similar to what is portrayed in the media as normal. Families typically looked like mine, so I was never forced to think about what my life would have been like had I had a different family or background.

In terms of race, my family, both immediate and extended, are mostly Caucasian. I have one second cousin by marriage who is Asian, and my brother-in-law's Aunt by marriage is black. Other than that we are all of white-European descent. Due to this fact, and the fact that the town in which I grew up was predominantly white, I came to college with a narrow-minded view of what "race" actually meant, and the struggle that people go through every single day because of the color of their skin. Coming to college has opened my eyes to see the would besides from the lens of white privilege, through taking courses such as the History and Development of Racism, and through observing speeches and debates here on campus. While growing up, I thought that racism was a thing of the past, and even occasionally laughed at a joke poking fun at people of different races. Some people in my own family still make comments that reflect stereotypes of different groups; and I would have never had a different reaction to this had I not come to Boston.

In terms of gender, my family can be examined in two main ways. First, in general, my family is mostly women. Most of my cousins are girls, and within my immediate family I have two older sisters, and my mom, leaving my dad as the only male in the house. For this reason, and because of his temperament in general, I did not grow up in a "male" oriented house; meaning there was not a heavy influence on sports, or other things typically associated with men. My older sisters did participate in sports, but we also were all in dance, music, and I was in drama. I think in some families, fathers almost make their daughters into surrogate sons, using them as substitutes to play catch or do typically manly activities with. As for my father, he would have supported anything we wanted to do, whether it be play catch, or play lacrosse, or take ballet. And in terms of things like picking a movie, he is almost always overruled on his pick of a "guy movie" to watch one that we want to watch!
Looking at gender in a different way, my parents, for the most part, have fulfilled the normative husband and wife roles within their marriage. My dad has always been the major breadwinner in the house, going all over the country to find a job that could support us while we remained in Connecticut, so as not to disrupt our childhoods. My mother, while at times has worked (more so as my sisters and I became older, or if we were in a time where my dad could not find employment), has been the one to stay at home with us, and do the majority of the cooking and cleaning. And this was not because my dad could not cook, it was just simply how it was. I know she wishes it was different sometimes, but I think that is just how it is between them.
It is interesting to look at this situation between my parents but from outside the situation; I can see that they are very old fashioned in terms of gender roles, and because of that, I think my sisters and I have been raised with this notion of the dynamics between husband and wife. Granted my sister is married right now and her husband cooks, but that is because he loves to, and if she cooked, they would be eating macaroni and cheese every night. They both have jobs, but she is pregnant right now and there has been no question to the fact that she will take maternity leave to care for the baby at first. After a certain time she will return to work, and they will have to put the baby in daycare.
For myself, though, when I think of marriage, and my future spouse, whether I want to or not I imagine someone who will be able to "take care of me" in a sense. I still want to have my own career, and have someone that will want to share the household duties with me, but when I think in economic terms, I have not worried about finding a job that will provide "big bucks" because I assume that my husband will have one. And it is making my cringe to write this, because of the feminist ideals that are being preached and that I believe ; but maybe I only believe them on the surface. I think that women are powerful people that can do whatever they please, and I feel that way about myself too. But I also have that age-old desire to be taken care of.

In terms of social class, for the most part my whole family is upper-middle class; everyone has a steady job, typically in a business doing managerial type work; the only exception is my uncle, who is a pilot. My father has been blessed in terms of the jobs he has had, so we have for the most part always been well off. Because of this, and because most of my friends growing up have been in the same position, for social class too I was in sort of a bubble in that I was incredibly spoiled growing up, and still am on some levels. The fact that we are all at Boston College says something about social class; many people take it for granted that we are able to study at this institution, because it really is expensive. Perhaps other ways in which social class has affected my family is the aforementioned fact that my mother at times did not work; and when she did work, we typically did not depend on her salary to get by. My sisters and I were not forced to work while growing up, and I have still been encouraged not to work while in school, so I could fully concentrate on my studies. These are luxuries that many people have not had; if they can even be called luxuries. Having a job enables you to develop a sense of self-sufficiency, and gives confidence that you can support yourself. Perhaps this even explains my desire to be taken care of in the future, because I always have been; perhaps if I had been raised being forced to work and support myself, I would feel different about marriage and my future.

Sexuality is almost a taboo in my household; there is a strong influence of religion in my background, making it less of an importance if anything at all. To my knowledge there is no one in my family that is homosexual. And thinking about it now, I don't know if this is because of the religion, if they would feel like they would be accepted or not. I know my grandparents in particular were not opposed to homosexuality per se, but it did make them uncomfortable at some level, because it was not as mainstream and accepted during their time. Now it is becoming more open, and people feel like it is more a "normal" thing, so maybe later generations and their opinions will change that.

I imagine I often look at families in light of how they compare to mine; the role of the father and mother, the gender influences, the social class, the sexuality; I think I used to be more surprised when I saw something that was different than what I experienced. As I have grown though, and taken classes focusing on the family and interpersonal relations, I have been forced to examine what it means, in actuality, to be a family. And now, though my image of family for myself will for the most part remain constant, for others, family is whatever you need it to be. It can be mother and child, it can be friends whom you have come to depend on for survival, it can be lovers; the list is endless. My experiences with family have shaped what I imagine my life will be like in the future, and but my ideas about family have been shaped also by my experiences in school, and through discussion and reading about what family means to other people. I think it is too limiting to say that a family has to consist of a mother, a father, and children, because this might be impossible for some people, and might not be wanted by others. But because families might not fit into the typical image of what is expected, that is not a cause for alarm, or devaluation. Thus, I think family is a combination of factors, that can only work once a level of comfort and satisfaction is reached.

Child-Centeredness

1. Sharon Hays. 1996. “From Rods to Reasoning.” Pp. 19-50 in The Cultural Contradictions of Mothering. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2. Ann Crittenden. 2001. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-12 in The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. New York: Metropolitan Books.
3. Patricia Hill Collins. 2000. “Black Women and Motherhood.” Pp. 173-200 in Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
4. Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Unmarried with Children. Contexts, 4, 2, 16-22.


According to Hays, the first historical stage of development of appropriate mothering in America occurred in the late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century, and can be described through the Puritan community. Here, the term that can be used to describe childcare is "Spare the rod, spoil the child" (Hayes, 27) meaning that discipline, physical punishment, and religious instruction were what could mold the child into a religious, obedient person. They believed that children were born sinful, and that it had to be literally beaten out of them. During this time, children were also seen as economic assets, in that as soon as they could handle it they would participate in family chores and duties. The Bible was the main tool in raising the children, and would be used as a form of early child-rearing manual.
And while this was not the only view present at the end of the 18th century, the Puritans view is the one most widely accepted with the child acting as an object with no special value; they were just another member of the family to make an active contribution.
The second stage happened during the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-centuries, and was characterized by the growing value of childhood, as well as the new mothering where nurturewas a key element in raising a child. Here children were seen as being born innocent and pure, and the mother's main role was to raise future model citizens. Taking this into consideration, the mother's role took on a whole new level of importance; and only she could fulfill her duty. There began to be a line of things especially directed towards children, such as books, toys, and games in order to help preserve their innocence.
In this phase, children were kept in the house, as opposed to going out to work in order to help support the family. Another big change was the use of discipline; it moves away from physical violence to "forms that relied on the withdrawal of love to instill self-control" (Hays, 31). The mother is a constant example for how the child should act, and should thus conduct herself in a virtuous manner. Here, being a successful mother and wife was the highest form of accomplishment, where women really had a chance to prove themselves to society.
The third stage occurred in the nineteenth-century, and yet was almost fake. Here, childcare was still highly valued, and expected of mothers; but if families had money, child-rearing would be an undertaking of a nurse, or a maid, or a housekeeper. Women of wealth often hired other lower class women and children to do their "dirty work" for them, while still maintaining control by constantly monitoring the care provided by these other women. This created a paradox in that it gave middle-class children the love and care that they needed but from the wrong person; and then left another whole group of children motherless, to fend for themselves without a warm and nurturing home to come to at the end of the day. And yet all the while as, "Middle-class women had managed to portray themselves as reasonable, pure, and virtuous, working-class women continued to be publicly understood as foolish, immodest, and devious" (Hays, 37).
The last stage is embodied by science, and was called the progressive era; child-rearing became viewed as something that you could learn how to do from a manual, and you were only equipped to do it if you were educated by the experts. In this phase, days were regulated with strict schedules, letting the child fend for himself (meaning cry it out without receiving any comfort from the mother, or anyone else). In essence, children were reared with behavioral techniques that would mold them into proper human beings.
With this stage came the development of many child rearing manuals, governmental acts, child labor laws, and the creation of kindergarten among other things. Thus, the rights of a child were recognized, and they were valued as beings with worth and value. Additionally, their deaths became sentimentalized, when in the past it had been seen as just a part of life.
We are now in the Permissive Era, where the child shapes the parent and governs how he or she will be treated. All of family time and resources are put back into the child, changing life drastically from what it was in the past.
Intensive mothering is a, "historically constructed cultural model for appropriate child care" (Hays, 21), and is a construct that changes with time. Taken in terms of today, I honestly don't know if this concept applies to my mother and her friends. If I look at things through the lens of the Permissive Era, my mom is an intensive mother in that she always put me and my sisters at the center of her world, by doing things such as waiting to start attending college until I(the youngest child) was old enough to go to school, and she could attend at night while our dad was home. She did not, however, let us rule over her as the article presents children during this time. There was regulation of time and energy, and there was discipline enacted when needed. In that way, I feel as though she used techniques from across history, using what she thought was appropriate at different times.

According to Crittenden, there are three main indicators that mothering is devalued in the U.S. The first is referred to as professional marginalization; meaning that while child-rearing is like having several jobs at once, including housekeeper, bill payer, driver, cook, and mother, it is treated as if stay at home mom's do nothing all day except watch soap operas. Choosing to be a stay at home mother is often looked at as the easy way out, because the mother could not make it in the man's world, the business world. Stay at home mothers are also offered no type of compensation for all the work they do, and are looked at as dependent upon their husband for income. It has been decided in studies that if the work a stay at home mother does was examined in terms of wages, she would be earning at least 100,000 a year.
A second indicator is a loss of status, connecting to the view that people dismiss mothering, as, "The job of making a home for a child and developing his or her capabilities is often equated with 'doing nothing'" (Crittenden, 2). Deciding to not participate in the workplace after so much has been accomplished in the woman's movement is like denying your right as a women, according to many. It is a acceptance of a lower position in the totem pole of the economy, because being a journalist or a business woman is so much more esteemed than being "just a housewife" (Crittenden, 3).
The last indicator is that among women and children, there is an increased risk of poverty. This is because women are stuck in a catch 22; they are ingrained with the idea that they are the ones that should stay at home and raise their children, and yet if they are put into a situation where there is no male to be the primary breadwinner, they are then forced to. Because the woman is a dependent in the relationship, she cannot earn social security, earn unemployment insurance, or workman's compensation (Crittenden, 6). Welfare is often the only solution, which has been proven to be ineffective at best.
Women are also often penalized for deciding to take time off from work for being a mother, because it took away precious time to hone skills necessary to "get ahead".
I do agree with Crittenden that motherhood is devalued, by everyone that is not a mother. Those in the workplace think she is taking the easy way out; those growing into adulthood, like myself, often think that she is not living to her full potential by not taking advantage of being able to do whatever she wants. I struggle with this often, and am not looking forward to having to decide what to do once I have a baby; because I want to be able to stay home with my children while they are young, but I also know that this might not be possible whether it be because of the career I choose, or the economic position of me and my husband.

According to Collins, one type of mothering is to treat it as a burden that "stifles their creativity, exploits their labor, and makes them partners in their own oppression" (Collins, 176). This connects to the fact that being a Black mother has all the implications of motherhood, which are heavy in and of themselves; and the fact that they have to deal with issues of race, poverty, discrimination, and struggle while raising these small innocent children to handle the same things. Here, the symbol of motherhood as power is too much for women to handle, because they often feel like they cannot take it all.
The second type of mothering, can be described as "a base for self-actualization, status in the Black community, and a catalyst for social activism" (Collins, 176). Here, they use their power to show all they can do to lift up their children, friends, and kin, to improve life for those around them. Women use their power in multiple ways; they teach their daughters how to protect themselves using the authority and experience they have to show them; they take in disadvantaged children to provide a roof over their head that they might not otherwise get; and they are active in the community. Here, Black women are forced to take a stand against the stereotype dragged against them that they are bad mothers, and help those in need to raise a new generation of strong fighters. It can also give the mother's themselves a sense of purpose, as Collins points out that "Motherhood can serve as a site where Black women express and learn the power of self-definition, the importance of valuing and respecting ourselves, the necessity of self-reliance and independence, and a belief in Black women's empowerment" (Collins, 176).

According to Edin and Kefelas, poor women's attitudes on having a child are often that it is a saving grace, because it gives them purpose to their chaos driven lives. The children provide intimacy and companionship that many of these women have never experienced, perhaps because their families were not emotionally available, or their partners were away due to jail time. Marriage, contrary to the norm in today's society, usually comes after the birth of women's children in poor situations. This is because having a baby is often the first step, something that cannot be prevented when on the fast track relationships that are so common among poor youth. Marriage, however, is an incredibly important decision that determines the course of one's life, so it cannot be entered into quickly. Divorce continues to hold a heavy stigma among this group, so many women are looking for men that can be mature, supportive spouses to participate both in a relationship with his wife, and with his children, owing to the fact that, "Poor women do not reject marriage; they revere it" (Edin and Kefelas, 21).
To help these women get out of poverty, our society can do a number of things. It could create positions in the workplace that could allow these women to earn money to become self-sufficient, and improve the quality of childcare to make life easier. It also might be wise for us today to rethink what it means to be successful, and the "right way" to go about things; maybe then these women might have a little more hope in that what they are doing is not wrong.
I have a really hard time thinking about situations such as these, with girls of only 15 going out with men so much older than they are, and falling into the trap of getting pregnant. I feel as though there is so much behind this trend of problems caused by today's society that needs to be reexamined from the very framework of our laws and ideals. If these people were not living in such extreme poverty while a minuscule percentage of the population control a majority of the wealth, then they would not be so frustrated and hopeless about the course of their lives. Then parents would be more responsive and watchful of their children, making sure they do not get into things such as drugs, alcohol, and sexual relations at ages entirely too young. Then these women, who are smart and determined enough to build a life for themselves (even if it is somewhat backward) would not have to start from scratch as they do now, and do things such as, "find a diamond in the rough" (Edin and Kefelas, 20).

Childcare/Adoption In History

1. Chris Hafner-Eaton and Laurie K. Pearce. 1994. “Balancing Individual Freedoms and Protection of the Public Health.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 19, 813-820.
2. Friedman, Lawrence. 2007. Who Are Our Children? Adoption, Past and Present. Pp. 272-281 in Arlene S. Skolnick & Jerome H. Skolnick (Eds.), Family in Transition (14th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
3. Sharon Hays. 2003. “Money and Morality." Pp. 9-24 in Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Block, Fred, Anna C. Korteweg, and Kerry Woodward, with Zach Schiller and Imrul Mazid. 2006. The Compassion Gap in American Poverty Policy. Contexts, 5, 2, 14-20.
5. Dan Clawson and Naomi Gerstel. 2002. “Caring For Young Children: What the U.S. Can Learn from Some European Examples.” Contexts, 1, 4, 28-35.


According to Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, there are many reasons why some prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife. Perhaps one of the most important reasons is that it has been proven through research that, "today 75 percent of births in European countries are attended principally by midwives...all of these nations have lower infant mortality rates than does the United States" (Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, 815). The fact that most of births in the United States are done in a hospital with the assistance of doctors would cause one to believe that here we would have the lower mortality rate; the fact that we don't should raise questions about today's medical care.
Another reason why many women choose to have a midwife present at their childbirths is because from the midwife's point of view, childbirth is a natural, life-cycle process, that needs support and coaching as opposed to domination and control, like the role of a doctor in a hospital. Midwives seem to disagree with the medical point of view that birth is dangerous, and thus prevent many of procedures from occurring that aren't necessarily needed by the mother; for example, the epidural. While having a baby in the hospital almost always warrants and Epidural anesthesia for the maintenance of pain, it "often slows labor, causes 'failure-to-progress,' and ultimately may necessitate cesarean section delivery" (Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, 817).
To go along with this, midwives provide the mothers with a sense of control over their own births. Midwives have knowledge about childbirth that many doctors would not have, seeing as men hold the majority of doctoral positions in this country. Women are able to learn about their own bodies, and the bodies of women they have helped, to teach to the almost-mother to know how to handle their own body during the birth (Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, 819).

Personally, I always thought that women who chose to birth their children at home were foolish, because they would not have the resources and expertise offered by a hospital and doctors. But after reading this article, I am questioning my position; I wonder now if childbirth is seen as dangerous and something to be cautious about because that is what society has turned it into, instead of natural, beautiful process. I am also reminded of one of my professors at BC, who recently had a baby; the hospital she gave birth in allowed both her husband and mother to be present, neither of whom were required to wear a mask/scrubs. Coincidentally, my professor and the baby developed a fever during pregnancy. Is this really a mere coincidence, or should there be cause for alarm at the present precautions for health safety in hospitals?

According to Friedman, legal ties between parents and children have drastically decreased over time. Parents used to have much more control over their children's lives; for example, in many cultures parents used to choose the people that their children would marry. Also, many would live with their parents until they got married, whereas now it is seen as unusual or unacceptable to live with parents after graduation from college.
In addition, the law has final say over the life of a child as opposed to the parents, to protect the child's well being. This could be in the form of taking the child away from the parents, mandating education, as well as regulating the homeschooling curriculum provided for the child. But, even with all of these changes and the emancipation of children from their parents, the law still resists taking the child away from the parents if it can.

The adoption laws have also undergone some changes over the years. First of all, there did not used to be any laws concerning adoption at all. Historically, the process used to be very basic, with a statement of intent that an adult would take charge of a child for economic purposed, or often to continue a family name. Today, the process is much more involved, as child-safety has become more of an issue. Another large change is that old adoption laws allowed adoptive parents to back out in five years if "the child developed 'feeble mindedness or epilepsy or venereal infection as the result of conditions existing prior to the time such child was adopted' " (Friedman, 275). The purpose of formal adoption today is not usually to carry on the family name, or for inheritance, but to grant parenthood to those unable to have biological children of their own, and to allow people with the resources and the desire to help children in need.

According to Hayes, the conservative views of welfare state that its recipients are lazy, morally deficient people who see welfare as the easy way out, a way to get out of having a job. They claim that the welfare system is too generous with these people who then think it is OK to live in dysfunctional family units, without a job.
The liberal view of welfare come from a different point of view, claiming that the moral problems the conservatives focus on are the result, rather than the cause of economic problems. They view welfare as being necessary, and generally want more economic assistance to the poor to help fix their immorality.

The main differences between the requirements introduced by the welfare reform of 1996 and the earlier welfare policies are that women are required to enter the workforce in order to support their family, and that there is a five year time limit that any family can be eligible to receive welfare throughout their entire lives. This is different from the earlier policies because women used to be given welfare as a substitution for the absence of a husband, so she could remain in the house with the children. This was her expected role, no one wanted to see the women outside of the home in the workplace. Today, she is required to, even if she cannot find adequate childcare or housing.

The two contradictory visions of the welfare system are the Work Plan, and the Family Plan. These two views seem to stem from the the conservative and liberal points of view. The Work Plan claims that the welfare system is meant to transform women from dependent caretakers to self-sufficient providers able to care for herself and her family without the help of a man. The Family Plan, however, sees this work requirement as a negative, punishing the woman for failure to have a husband to support her. Through working she is being deprived of her natural place in the home with the children. What makes these two plans contradictory is the fact that both "purposes" of the welfare system are derived from the same document; making it impossible for women to actually benefit from it.

The fact that this is true shows that there are really strong values in existence in the U.S.; both "sides" of views that were present in the formation of the welfare system had genuine desires for the accomplishments of women in today's society whether they had to do with work, or family. What needs to happen now is a connection of the two sides, to come up with a common goal. Only then will the welfare system be successful.

According to Block, Korteweg and Woodward, countries such as Norway understand poverty as a result of economic and structural factors in society, as opposed to mad behavior and morality as it is seen in the U.S. Here, many believe that people are poor because they would not work hard enough; because the prevailing view is that the American Dream allows those who really want it to pick themselves up by their "bootstraps" and "make it". Those who can't make it can only be labeled as lazy, because there is nothing stopping them from succeeding.
This theory operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy because when some people think that they can aid the poor, they then are overcome with the belief that they should be able to make it on their own, and help is again decreased. This lack of assistance then makes it necessary for poor people to cheat and make bad decisions, simply to survive. The idea that poor people are immoral is then reinforced, and the situation stagnates.
To make the American Dream more accessible to the poor, many adjustments have to be made in the United States. Some suggestions are universal health care, universal availability of childcare and higher education, affordable housing, and an overall readjustment of policies towards the poor. Minimum wage needs to be increased so those earning it will be able to survive in the country without assistance, and reauthorize TANF(Temporary Aid to Needy Families) to provide more money and provisions to those who are in need.

According to Clawson and Gerstel, we can improve the child care system in the U.S. by making is publicly funded and universal, with an appropriately paid staff, the school day lasting for "normal" hours, with cheap care available before and after school. While participation is voluntary, there should be space for all who want to; and additionally, in terms of family-centered child care, parents should be offered paid parental leave (Clawson and Gerstel, 34-35).

"Why Doesn't She Leave"?

Readings:
1. Felson, Richard. 2006. Is Violence Against Women About Women or About Violence? Contexts, 5, 2, 21-25.
2. Ann Jones. 1994. “Why Doesn’t She Leave?” Pp. 129-139, 152-166 in Next Time, She'll Be Dead: Battering and How to Stop It. Boston: Beacon Press.
3. James Ptacek. 1988. “Why Do Men Batter Their Wives?” Pp. 133-157 in Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse. Edited by Kerti Yllo and Michel Bogrod. Sage Publications.

According to Felson, the gender perspective within the domestic violence argument states that violence against women develops out of sexism, because the men who participate in it are proving their manhood. In beating women, they are maintaining their dominant positions encouraged by today's society, proving that they can continually put women "in their place" with violence, and get away with it. In this case, "They get away with it because victims usually do not report the incident to the police; when they do , they get blamed, and the offender gets off" (Felson, 21).
The violence perspective takes a different look at the situation, and claim that violence against women is done by men who are simply violent by nature, and the fact that domestic abuse has become stigmatized it the reason that many are focusing on wife abuse. If one would examine the men who are abusing their partners, he or she would see that these men are also typically criminals in other areas as well.
To make his argument, Felson gathers information from other researchers, and from his own research on violence and gender. Though he is very objective in presenting both cases, he seems to be more on the side of the violence argument. According to research, "rates of violence against women tend to be high when rates of violence against men are high. Violence is violence. But everywhere, men are much more likely to be victims than are women" (Felson, 24). For this reason, I think I agree with the violence perspective. I think that men who hit their wives and partners are typically violent people, who for one reason or another think it is OK to snap when they "can't take it anymore". And the fact that men are more likely to be the victims of violence suggests that because in today's society we have begun to focus more on the problem of domestic violence, we zero in on the women who are the victims, even though it is a smaller statistic overall. In taking this stance I do not mean to say that I disagree with the gender perspective; perhaps I mean to say that I feel domestic violence is a combination of both gender issues and violence issues. Often it is men who are violent who also feel the need to prove and maintain their dominance, and thus focus the brunt of their anger on those closest to them, IE the women in their lives. Either way domestic violence is a major problem that needs to be addressed, from whatever angle one chooses to look at it.
In Jones' article, she succeeds in painting a vivid picture of the never ending cycle of women who are trapped in relationships with abusive partners. The answer to the question posed in the title is that most women do in fact leave, but their actions are ignored by others because despite their "leaving", they usually cannot escape their abuser. This is because many people such a police men, judges, and social workers choose to not take women seriously, whether because of their discomfort, or their belief in "family privacy". So when women leave, they are unable to receive the proper help and guidance, and when they are caught again by their abuser, or even killed, people then displace the blame onto the victim and say it is her fault for not leaving. I feel as though many women are forced to stay in an abusive relationship because of this fact that there is no way out. How can one be expected to run, and then get help, if no one will take you seriously?
This article looks at domestic violence mostly through a gender point of view, attacking people who take the gender stance and blame the woman both for getting herself into that situation, and not being able to get herself out of it. They are victimized as if it is because they are "not good wives" that they are getting beaten, and are then criticized for not shaping up and getting out. The gender perspective in this case is blaming the women, that it is their fault that they are being abused; even if this is not directly stated by those who believe it.
According to Ptacek, denials and justifications are, "Excuses...in which the abuser denies full responsibility for his actions. Justifications are those accounts in which the batterer may accept some responsibility but denies or trivializes the wrongness in his violence...to make sense of or to normalize his behavior" (Ptacek, 141). A major excuse used by abusers is that they could not help the attack at the time, because they momentarily lost control of their senses and went into a fit of uncontrollable rage. Whether because of alcohol, drugs, or anger itself, many men claim that they should not be blamed for hitting their partner, because they did not know what they were doing at the time. This excuse again puts the blame on the woman, because she typically will have done something to "push him over the edge". Accordingly, a second excuse that men make is blaming the victim. They claim they were provoked, usually by verbal abuse from the woman. But in this case, one has to wonder as Ptacek does; what caused the verbal attack in the first place? (Ptacek, 145).
One major justification that men use for abuse is that its OK, because the woman wasn't really hurt. Conveniently, women who are abused also tend to bruise easily, or fall a lot, so it is expected that they will appear injured after barely any touch of violence. This is really a double-edged sword, because as Ptacek states, "By admitting that they have bruised a woman, and yet denying that this is very significant, the more internal nonphysical injuries are also denied; the instilling of fear, the humiliation, the degradation, the assault on her identity as a woman" (Ptacek, 147.)
The second justification that Ptacek states is that the woman was not being a "good wife". Whether because she was not a good cook or she had the wrong attitude or she was not sexually responsive enough, she was in some way not living up to her partner's expectations, and thus had to be punished (Ptacek, 147). There is a multitude of research on this fact, that many men feel entitled to certain things as the head of the household, and see fit to punish if their needs are not met.
The contradictions in all of these denials and justifications arise from the fact that first they blame outside sources for their anger and provocation, then justify why their actions were acceptable, and then again place the focus on something other than themselves. They are all at once, "denying responsibility, to seemingly accepting responsibility while minimizing the wrongness, to denying responsibility again" (Ptacek, 149). They at the same time have a clear goal and reason for their actions, while denying that they meant to.
Clearly, this article focuses on the gender perspective, as it is written from a Feminist perspective about wife battering. It tries to explain why men feel as though they need to abuse their partners, while getting away with it. The mind-boggling part of this is that in explaining their actions with contradictions, men have managed to convince many therapists and researchers that their justifications are in fact true, that men abuse while in a fit of uncontrollable rage in response to something that provoked them. In this case again, as in Why Doesn't She Leave, the women are blamed for being either too vulnerable, or too pushy, or too...much. And in criticizing them for being who they are, they are dehumanized to objects that deserve what they get, whether it be praise or punishment,.

Marriage

1. Stephanie Coontz. 1997. “The Future of Marriage.” Pp. 77-95 (Chapter 4) in The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms With America's Changing Families. New York: Basic Books.
2. Elise Harris. 2000. “Can Marriage Be Saved? An Unsentimental Case for Matrimony.” Lingua Franca, November.
3. Gerstel, Naomi, and Natalia Sarkisian. 2006. “Marriage: The Good, the Bad, and the Greedy.” Contexts, 5, 4, 16-21.
4. Brown, Susan I. 2005. “How Cohabitation Is Reshaping American Families.” Contexts, 4, 3, 33-27.

When sociologists say that marriage is an institution, they are stating that it is a construct used for the purpose of "regulating male-female relations, economic redistribution, and child rearing" (Coontz, 78). An institution, according to dictionary.reference.com, is "a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture", meaning marriage is the norm for relational outcomes in our society today. It has been expected that people get married to solidify their relationship, and often decisions made by men and women are made to ultimately lead to marriage.
According to Coontz, the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage is evident by the fact that marriage is becoming less and less necessary to define relationships, to develop economic stability, or to have children. There is a longer life span among men and women today, so marriage, if entered into at all, is often delayed; and women are putting more emphasis on their careers and independence than their relationships. Because of the advancement of women in the workplace, they have more of an choice in divorce; thus it is not necessary for them to stay in a marriage if it is not the epitome of happiness.
There has also been an increase in child-rearing out of wedlock, whether by choice or by accident. Whereas marriage used to be necessary to have children, many people are now having children and remaining single, because the option is more viable than in the past. Also, the option of having children within an unmarried relationship is more readily available, for example in same-sex relationships, and in vitro fertilization.
Though many critics today are vying for the reinstitutionalization of marriage, Coontz states that this might be difficult; today's culture has progressed so from the typical 1950's idea of marriage and the breadwinner/homemaker image, it would be impossible to reinstate those roles of men and women in marriage. Alternative forms of relationship have become more commonplace, making marriage less of a necessity, and the fact that people will have children whether or not they are married makes that argument difficult as well. Overall, Coontz is saying that relationships and norms have evolved beyond the institution of marriage, and perhaps a new definition of what a healthy, happy family should be is necessary, rather than backtracking to how it used to be.
According to Harris, Gerstal, and Sarkisian, there are a variety of benefits and disadvantages of marriage for both men and women. In terms of mental health and happiness, marriage provides more security and a higher level of satisfaction for men and women than simply living with your partner, or living alone. Harris quotes Waite in claiming that married men are likely to live longer, and both men and women are less prone to suicide, anxiety, depression, and binge drinking. Married couples have also been shown to be more economically stable than single people, and thus women have more flexibility in their choice of work. According to Gerstel and Sarkisian, marriage also helps to increase men's participation in church, and sometimes politics.
In terms of disadvantages, Gerstel and Sarkisian point out several ways in which marriage is inhibiting. It has been stated by feminist thinkers that marriage is oppressive to women, it increases the amount of housework for them, and increases the amount of domestic violence between spouses. On a different note, marriage tends to draw the couple away from other relationships that could potentially be beneficial to their well-being; married couples are less involved with their relatives, friends, and neighbors because they are more focused on their own relationship.
According to Brown, people often cohabit because they feel as though it will give them a good "feel" for how married life will be, and if they will be able to build a life with their partner. While in theory this may seem like a good idea, it has been shown that those in cohabiting relationships are more likely to break up, because there is less of a responsibility to make it work. There is no binding agreement such as marriage vows, thus they are more able to leave anytime there is a rocky patch in the relationship.
When the couple moves in together with the intention of getting married, cohabitation is a beneficial process in building the relationship.
Selection effects, according to Gerstel and Sarkisian, contrast the research that marriage proves to make men and women healthier, happier, and more successful. Instead, it is those that already have these good qualities that decide to enter into marriage, because they are satisfied with how their lives currently are, and want to move to the next level. Those that are not healthy, or are depressed, or economically unstable are less likely "settle down", because it may be disadvantageous to their development.
Overall, these four articles discuss an array of topics concerning marriage, proving that although marriage as an institution may be moving out of the spotlight as the norm in our society, it continues to be a construct that makes waves in all social circles.

Teen/College Dating

Risman, Barbara, and Pepper Schwartz. 2002. "After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating." Contexts, 1, Spring, pp. 16-24.
England, Paula, and Rubin Thomas. 2007. "The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hookup." Pp. 151-162 in Arlene S. Skolnick& Jerome H. Skolnick (Eds.), Family in Transition (14th Ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Although many researchers today are claiming that sexual activity among teens is decreasing, Risman and Schwartz claim that sexual activity itself is not decreasing among this age group, it is simply changing. Teens are still having sex at relatively the same age as in past decades, but it is occurring more within relationships as opposed to one-night stands with people they don't really know. In the past the age of first sexual relations was significantly higher for boys than for girls, suggesting that there was a groups of "loner" fast girls who would be with multiple partners in a short time. Over time the ages of the two groups has leveled, suggesting that boys are now waiting also for a relationship to have sex.
Another reason for suggested decreased sexual activity is the fact that the number of recorded abortions, STD's, and other sexually related diseases has gone down in the past few decades. But since we have seen that sexual activity has indeed stayed the same, it seems as if teens are just acting smarter about their decisions, and practicing safe sex. This could be a result of increased knowledge about the consequences of unprotected sex, or the fact that girls now have more of a say in the matter of sexual relations.
Among college students however, something completely different was discussed by England and Thomas. As opposed to first being in a relationship and then participating in sexual relations, due to a phenomenon called the "hook up", there has been almost a complete disappearance in the "date" and an increase in pre-relational sexual activity that may lead to a relationship over time. The typical path to a relationship as discussed by a student in the article is first there is a crush involved, then some shared activity such as a party or event, usually some alcohol, and then leaving together to "hook up". This does not necessarily mean sex, but typically more than kissing is involved. This can occur for an unspecified amount of time, and through hooking up two people may develop romantic feelings towards one another and begin to date.
In terms of gender, the stigma of sex has somewhat disappeared, as long as there is commitment and love involved. However, there is still somewhat of a double standard concerning how one conducts themselves in between sexual relations. Although girls and women are seen as legitimate taking part in sexual relations with a boyfriend/mate, they still receive the label of "slut" easier than men do when switching between partners too fast. Even if she is in a relationship, and moves to another one, if the move is too fast she could be labeled as easy. This stigma is just not there for men, they are often congratulated for an increased number of sexual relations.
My own experiences in high school experiences do not correspond to Risman and Schwartz's observations/findings, because I was in a circle of friends where if sexual activity occurred, it was not talked about. I do feel as though since graduating, and seeing my friends younger siblings go through my old high school, things have changed; because of the increased amount of sex in the media, it has become more of a part of life than something not to be talked about. My friend's little sister knew more when she was in 8th grade than I did when I was graduating High School. And that could say something about my religious upbringing, but I think it also attests to the increase of sexual discussion/participation in every day life.
Since having come to college I have noticed the almost disappearance of the date; I have been on several during my time here, but most of them were with guys that I already knew. Only a few were with people whom I met on a whim or had seen around that asked me to go out. I feel this is a shame, because the fun part of starting a new relationship is the getting ready, and going out and having to get to know someone through talking and spending time together. I feel that with the increase of hookup, and the scapegoat of alcohol, people are just maneuvering around the awkward jitters of getting to know someone, and moving straight to the physical part. Then if the physical aspect continues to work for a while, the dates will ensue.
I also think a reason for the increase in hooking up is because college has become such a state of limbo - there are really no rules, and so people feel they can get away with getting drunk and hooking up with someone, with no consequences. I hope that once we get out of college this will cease.

Family - Related Issue

Considering the discussions we have had over the past few classes about what consitutes a family, I chose to focus on one of the most controversial topics in that field, in gay marriage. I found many many articles dealing with this issue, both advocating for and against it. What I found was that in general, newspaper/new magazine articles do not seem to present information as scholarly articles do, posting results obtained from completing different research strategies. For the most part, they simply take the research that was done, and report the overall findings within the confines of the publisher's own political stance. With that in mind, here are some of the articles I have found.

"For Movement, a Key Setback." The New York Times, Patrick Healy. July 7, 2006.
This articles takes several informal interviews and uses quotes to discuss the court ruling of New York against gay marriage. This decision was a shock to many, coming from a state that has typically been very accepting of its people; and many see this move as the beginning of the end in the fight for the acceptance of gay marriage in the U.S. David S. Buckel who is senior counsel and director of the Marriage Project at teh Lambola Legal Defense and Education Fund was quoted in saying, "Its a mess of a decision that in the end makes a very weak arguement: That you can justify barring same-sex couples from marrying because of the unstable relationships of heterosexual couples." (Hartocollis, 2006).
Buckel and the others quoted in this section are all those who have established, able-bodied knowledge on their particular side, and are well known in their fields; thus it would have been easy to obtain these quotes. In this article, it is clear that the reporter agrees that the court's decision was a setback, but she presents it in an objective and resourceful way.

"'Beyond Gay Marriage'; The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer mere the freedom to live as they want." The Daily Standard, Ryan T. Anderson. August 15, 2006.
This article is by far the most opinionated in the bunch, and likewise, it cites the most facts in its presentation. One finds it hard to take it all in, however, because of the blatant criticism and disdain for those in favor of gay marriage. Anderson also cites Hadley Arkes and Robert P. George, two defenders of marriage who claim that in going against the preferred definition and foundation of marriage that is in this country, and by saying that marriage does not have to occur between one man and one woman, the state then also loses the priviledge to deny polygamous and polyamorous marriages.
Some facts presented were those defending that family structure matters for children's wellbeing, and that they will fare best in households with both a mother and a father, in a low-conflict relationship. The reporter then goes on to use other research, taken from the recently published account by many credible professors entitled, "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles", and argues that the only acceptable form of marriage is that between a man and a woman, whose purpose in love is to unite and bear fruit.

"For Some Gays, a Right they can Forsake." The New York Times, Anemona Hartocollis. July 30, 2006.
This article takes a different stance than the rest, and brings out the opinion of some gay men and lesbians that it is going against what they have been fighting for to advocate for gay marriage. Through interviews of men such as Bill Dobbs and Rob Kleigler, a businessman from WA, a different side of the fight is produced; that the gay and lesbian community has been fighting against conventionality for so long, and now they want to fight their way into the culture that so badly wants to keep them out? They see fighting for gay marriage as comparable to right-wing conservatives fighting for their black and white views of what an acceptable marriage and family should consist of.
Here, one can see a different set of values coming through, to shape how the reader will again view this situation in a different light.

"President RIPS SJC on Gay Marriage." The Boston Globe, Rick Klein. June 6, 2006.
This article, while discussing President Bush's plea to ban gay marriage in early June 2006, uses it to criticize him and the rest of his administration for using something so large, yet to inconsequential at the same time to "distract" the American people away from issues such as rising oil prices, and the war in Iraq. There is a mention of a survey done by the Pew Research Center in which 51% of adults nationwide oppose gay marriage, but it does not say how these people were selected, how many did not respond, or how they were questioned (whether through the telephone, internet, mail, etc.) In this article, it is clear that the reporter is simply using the issue of gay marriage to further expose the inadequacy of the President.

"NJ Court Grants Rights to Gays, Stops Short of Gay Marriage OK." Associated Press, Geoff Mulvihill. October 25, 2006.
This article discusses the NJ decision to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, but it is still up to the lawmakers to legalize homosexual unions. This article too uses some quotes from accredited sources, those like Justice Barry T. Allen and Lara Schwartz, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, and some from people simply interested in the subject.

Overall, topics as controversial and present as gay marriage make it close to impossible for any source to present an article without putting some political bias or value into it. There are those that believe in the equality of both heterosexual and homosexual marriages; they believe that a family consists of what you make it. Then there are those who believe that the one and only acceptable form of marriage has helped to form the foundations of this country, and that is the union between a man and a woman. And then there are still others who are gay activists, who are against the establishment of gay marriage because it goes against what they have for so long been fighting against. Taking into consideration the variety of views, and the vehement opinions behind them, one must read each article with the eye of a careful observer; taking each statement in stride, and looking at all the arguements before choosing what to believe. I have seen, from viewing multiple articles from a variety of sources, it does not matter where you read your information. You cannot fully trust any media to give you information, because each different source will be bias towards his or her own views and beliefs.
I think the coverage of this issue in the media, as well as many other issues dealing with families, severly inhibits our knowledge of families. Take for example the fact that the presidency is a republican group; and only recently has the democratic party taken charge within the house. When any party has control, it is expected that the information given out to the media will present issues from the majority's point of view; and how can we be expected to make informed decisions if we are only being told one side of the story? Given information that gay marriage is bad for children simply because heterosexual marriage is better for them is hardly scholarly evidence that one can take seriously. One must read a variety of sources on all views to see what the objective information is that is out there.