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).
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
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).
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).
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
"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,.
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,.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)