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.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
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).
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).
Monday, April 2, 2007
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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)