Childhood

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

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

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

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

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