Arlie Russell Hochschild’s chapter titled ‘Joey’s Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt’,
sheds light on the myth of being an egalitarian. Hochschild elaborates on this myth by explaining that Nancy halt, “wants a similar balance of spheres and equal power (pg.34).” She goes onto state, “Nancy began her marriage hoping that she and Evan would base their identities in both their parenthood and their careers, but clearly tilted toward parenthood and. Evan felt it was fine for Nancy to have a career, if she could handle the family too (pg. 34).” The idea of handling both a career and family is then discussed when Nancy explains that she feels she almost has to beg to have a little help. She uses the example of setting the kitchen table for dinner as an example and talks about the emotions involved. “I hate to ask; why should I ask? It’s begging (pg.34).” The balance between emotion and work is presented through this example and is later expanded when the topic of the love life between Nancy and Evan is brought up as well as putting their son Joey to bed. It is made clear that Joey does not go to bed easily and that Evan has a difficult time and passes on the responsibility to Nancy. After a long day Nancy will at times give in and allow Joey to sleep in their room. “It is part of their current arrangement that putting Joey to bed is ‘Nancy’s Job’ (pg.34).” In terms of love making, Nancy explains, “sex seems like more work….the Holts consider their fatigue and impoverished sex life as a result of Joey’s problem (pg. 34).” These issues are related to the myth because while Nancy wants equal power and similar balance, it is not the case because Evan expects her to take care of the family.
When I think of my own family, there is a similarity to Nancy and Evan. My mother had a career and then would take care of my brother and I when I got home. When it came to doing dishes, setting the table, or giving my brother and I bath, it was always my mother, my father would be there to ‘supervise’ per se. Even today at the age of 21, and my brother at 26, my mom is still doing the second shift that is discussed. My father has never held my mother back in terms of perusing her career as long as our family was taken care of. Luckily for myself and my mother, she was able to have both a career and take care of the family even though I am sure it was extremely difficult.
Joan Williams’ article focused on domesticity. Domesticity is defined as “a gender system comprising most centrally of both the particular organization of market work and family work that arose around 1780 and the gender norms that justify, sustain, and reproduce the organization (pg.1).” She goes onto explain that it has two defining characteristics, one being the ideal worker and its market world and then other a worker who does not take time out to raise a family. Williams explains, “the ideology of domesticity held that men ‘naturally’ belong in the market because they are competitive and aggressive; women being in the home because of their ‘natural’ focus on relationships, children, and an ethic of care (pg.1).” Constraints include minimizing father’s involvement, pressures on men to perform as ideal workers, as well as areas of live unrelated to gender. In hunter and gathers society, I believe everyone played a role and had a job to fulfill so it was unrelated to gender. Example, everyone collected food and contributed to the family. However, I also believe that there is pressure on men to be an ideal worker because it is they that the everyone turns to. Things were slightly different in colonial society. Although each member of the family had a job to do, it was the men who had pressure on them to be an ideal worker because they were the main provider for the family. For example, men were seen as superior and his wife would refer to him as ‘sir’.
Williams makes some fascinating arguments about sex discrimination and ‘free choice’. “if women were to choose the same work patterns as men then they could and would enter more skilled occupations, and the male-female wage gap would be substantially reduced. To the extent that sex differences in labor force participation patterns are not themselves caused by discrimination, sex difference in occupations and wages are thus the result of free choice made by men and women (pg. 14).” Another expert, Vicki Shultz has documented “that courts in sex discrimination cases often accept the argument that women ‘lack interest’ in traditionally male positions. Shultz has argued persuasively that women’s choice are framed by the actions of their employers, since most ordinary women do not spend time trying to get jobs for which women are never hired (pg. 14).” I found the most fascinating part of the article to be about free choice. Williams states, “acknowledging the impact of the second shift makes women vulnerable only if one accepts the claim that women’s ‘choice’ to marginalize precludes discrimination. ‘Choice’ is only a defense against discrimination if women’s marginalization is freely chosen in the same sense that some people choose Mars Bars over Baby Ruths (pg.15).” I agree with her argument because I believe women feel they have to choose between both a career and a family. I like to believe that I will be different and will be able to have both and be very successful at both but I am sure with time things could change. It is a decision every woman with a career and a family makes and it has been brought down to the level of this or that, just like the candy bar metaphor. Williams makes some brilliant points and brings some fascinating ideas to the table.
Carrington explores the breaking up of duties in homosexual couples. He created a study and stated, “most participants in this study, when asked to describe in general terms how they divide up household responsibilities in their relationship, relied upon the language of egalitarianism. Typical responses included, ‘Oh, I would say it’s 50-50 around here’, or ‘we pretty much share all of the responsibilities’ or ‘everyone does their fair share’, or ‘its pretty even’. These perceptions persist even in the face of obvious empirical observations to the contrary. Many lesbigay family members fail to make much of a distinction between what they consider equal and what they consider fair. The blurring of these two quite distinct matters is necessary to maintaining the myth of egalitarianism (pg.83).” However, what Carrington found was quite different. He uses the example of a deaf lesbian couple used in the study and “the inequality in the division of work was apparent to the three of us (pg.84).” In his conclusion Carrington states, “True equality, measured with a plumb line, eludes many of these families, but that has little to do with the families per se, and much more to do with the character and quality of employment opportunities that avail themselves to these families. If the reality is that only one member of the family can make money in a fulfilling way, then lesbigay families adjust to that reality (pg.106).” There is not much difference between lesigay families and heterosexual families.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Dating and Mating
The article titled, “After the Sexual Revolution: Gender Politics in Teen Dating” written by Barbara Risman and Pepper Schwartz gave insight to sexual tendencies among teens. The first point the authors make is that intercourse among 15-17 year olds is in decline when compared to 1991. There is a lot of speculation that the media sells sex to teens and that teens are responding but research has shown us that this is not the case. Risman and Schwartz discuss that this decline is the result of the success of abstinence education as well as better and more informative sexual education courses.
Another interesting fact Risman and Schwartz point out is that even among teens that are not sexually active, 1/3 of the group has used the method of masturbation. To reiterate, these trends as explained by Risman and Schwartz are a result of better sexual education. These studies are proof that even though the media is constantly pushing sex and promoting it to a younger generation, it does not have the effect it hopes to.
The second article I read was titled, “The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up,” written by Paula England and Thomas Reuben. The behavior among college students today is very different from last generation. Today, men and women are engaging in sexual acts before considering a relationship. A study was conducted among 615 students and then asked about the term ‘dating’, responses referred to “the activities of couples who have already decided that they are in an exclusive romantic relationship (pg.152).” When thinking about the romantic side of men and women, another interesting fact was stated. “21% of the men and 32% of the women hadn’t been on any dates (pg.152).”
When separating men from women and looking at how each gender behaves and reacts, particularly when making relationships ‘official’, there were some very fascinating statements. “Students told us these talks are often initiated after several hook ups by the woman who wants to know where the stands with the guy. Guys then can agree that they are in a relationship or say that they don’t want to go beyond hooking up – we heard quite a few report of the latter happening (pg.155).” Girls tend to be more romantic and often want a relationship. Something important to point out is cultural changes because it has changes how women’s behavior is seen. The idea of the ‘double standard’ is discussed and explains that women receive a bad reputation when being known as being sexual often while men receive credit and status. “Gender differences in relational orientation may also reflect differences how much women have been socialized to have skills at intimate relationships. Whatever the source, if women want relationship more than men, it puts men in a stronger bargaining position about starting relationships (pg.160).”
When I reflect on my high school and college experience, a lot of what the authors discusses hits close to home. Particularly in college, the way dating is perceived and how men and women ‘hook up’ is what a lot of the college social scene is like. Although this may seem to be a bad thing, because I have not lived in a time where it was any different, I do not see a problem with it. However, with women having a double standard and coming from a traditional family, I do wish more men and women would go on a ‘date’. It is as if we have reversed the process. I was not surprised what the author’s discovered and I feel it is an accurate description of what men and women do today.
Another interesting fact Risman and Schwartz point out is that even among teens that are not sexually active, 1/3 of the group has used the method of masturbation. To reiterate, these trends as explained by Risman and Schwartz are a result of better sexual education. These studies are proof that even though the media is constantly pushing sex and promoting it to a younger generation, it does not have the effect it hopes to.
The second article I read was titled, “The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up,” written by Paula England and Thomas Reuben. The behavior among college students today is very different from last generation. Today, men and women are engaging in sexual acts before considering a relationship. A study was conducted among 615 students and then asked about the term ‘dating’, responses referred to “the activities of couples who have already decided that they are in an exclusive romantic relationship (pg.152).” When thinking about the romantic side of men and women, another interesting fact was stated. “21% of the men and 32% of the women hadn’t been on any dates (pg.152).”
When separating men from women and looking at how each gender behaves and reacts, particularly when making relationships ‘official’, there were some very fascinating statements. “Students told us these talks are often initiated after several hook ups by the woman who wants to know where the stands with the guy. Guys then can agree that they are in a relationship or say that they don’t want to go beyond hooking up – we heard quite a few report of the latter happening (pg.155).” Girls tend to be more romantic and often want a relationship. Something important to point out is cultural changes because it has changes how women’s behavior is seen. The idea of the ‘double standard’ is discussed and explains that women receive a bad reputation when being known as being sexual often while men receive credit and status. “Gender differences in relational orientation may also reflect differences how much women have been socialized to have skills at intimate relationships. Whatever the source, if women want relationship more than men, it puts men in a stronger bargaining position about starting relationships (pg.160).”
When I reflect on my high school and college experience, a lot of what the authors discusses hits close to home. Particularly in college, the way dating is perceived and how men and women ‘hook up’ is what a lot of the college social scene is like. Although this may seem to be a bad thing, because I have not lived in a time where it was any different, I do not see a problem with it. However, with women having a double standard and coming from a traditional family, I do wish more men and women would go on a ‘date’. It is as if we have reversed the process. I was not surprised what the author’s discovered and I feel it is an accurate description of what men and women do today.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Are Kid's in Harm's Way?
The following articles discuss same-sex marriages as well as their ability to raise a family. I chose a range of articles and ideas and expanded the subject. I am pleased with what I found and this is a subject that I would normally argue against. I provided a summary of each article and then responded with my personal thoughts. It is a topic that intrigues me and is something I think is important to society today.
Title: “Panel supports gay parents: Experts speak out ahead of same-sex marriage trial.”
Author: Kelly Brewington
December 1, 2006
The Baltimore Sun
This article is in support of gay couples having and raising children. The setting of this argument is in Maryland and “a group of sociologists, psychologists and child-welfare advocates spoke out in support of same sex marriage (pg.1).” It was stated that they based their “support on years of scientific research concluding that gays and lesbians can be as effective parents as heterosexuals and that the children of gay parents develop just as well as children of opposite-sex couples (pg.1).”
When I read this article I felt somewhat disturb because of my religious beliefs. I am an Irish Catholic and I have been raised with the idea that it is wrong for gay couples to marry, nerveless be parents. However, as time are constantly changing, I do not have or see a problem with gay couples getting married but I still believe they should not be parents because I feel it is unnatural and unhealthy. I find the author to be very trust worthy and cited credible sources.
Title: “Pediatricians’ Study Shows Kids Not Harmed by Gay Parent.”
Author: Beth Ross River Falls
September 2, 2006
The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
A study was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and was referred to in this article. The study published showed kids were indeed not harmed by gay parents. “There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parent’s sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents (pg.1).”
This study is very credible in my opinion because it states in the article that the American Academy of Pediatrics has a membership of 60,000 physicians and “it is the largest and most influential professional organization for pediatricians in the United States (pg.1).” The author was thorough and referred to the article, concluding that kids are not affected by having same sex parents. Similar to the previous article I read, I disagree that same sex couples should raise children. I have personally seen the affects so that along with my religious beliefs, I still disagree with the study. It is eye opening and something I am willing to learn about but do not see my opinion changing quickly.
Title: Protect Our Children by Voting ‘No’
Author: Lana A. Whited
November 4, 2006
The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
This article was published during a campaign in the state of Virginia. It addresses the proposal of same sex marriages and argues how it will hurt the children of Virginia. The amendment is made up of three parts. It says “the commonwealth shouldn’t recognize a marriage unless the participants are a man and a woman (pg.1).” It goes onto say “its agencies can’t treat anyone who isn’t legally married as though he or she has the same rights as married people (pg.1).” Another key element to this article states, “ many Virginians are kind, fair-minded people who don’t discriminate where these rights are concerned, even though they would be legally justified in doing so (pg.1).”
This campaign was an interesting read to me because it addressed the other side on the issue of same sex marriages and having children. I agree with the issue that is being presented and felt that the point was made without coming off too strong. In terms of credibility it is important to keep in mind that it is a campaign ad and that it is known that campaigns can often spin a topic in order to gain votes. However, this article is different because it states what Virginia law is as well as what the changes would be.
Title: Lesbians of Mass Destruction
Author: William Saletan
December 23, 2006
Washington Post
This article was written in response to Dick Cheney and his daughter announcing that she is going to have a baby with her partner. At times it takes stabs at Dick Cheney as well as the Republican party but it does contain some interesting facts and statistics. It states, “The American Psychological Association has complied abstracts of 67 strides. Yet study after study, on measure after measure, kids turn out the same (pg.1).” The article also looks into the evidence “against gay parenthood (pg.1).” The conservative argument reads, “on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents (pg.1).”
I believe this article was well written and address both sides of the argument. It contained facts and provided the reader both sides of the argument. Yes, it did take jabs but most articles do. As I have stated about the other articles I have read, I am still in agreement with the conservative Republican party. Reading about the study was interesting but I do not feel it is in-depth enough to have a sustainable argument.
Title: What Makes a Private School ‘Gay’ Friendly’
Author: Gabrielle Brinker
November 15, 2006
The New York Sun
I selected this article because I myself attended a private school that tried to promote an atmosphere that welcomed all diversities and religious beliefs as well as sexual orientation. The article focuses on The Greenwich Village academy, a rival school of mine, and interviews a teacher by the name of Philip Kassen. “The most important thing is that the faculty is trained to be sensitive to the needs and the lives of all students and the curriculum materials should reflect that (pg.1).” It is also stated that, “Parent-faculty organizations open to gay and lesbian participation, and a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and bullying, are also essential (pg.1).”
This article provides the insight of private schools, like mine, and are eye opening to those to choose to read it. Even though I am a person who is against this lifestyle, I was in an environment that promoted everyone being equal and that we could learn from one another. My beliefs have no changed but I do not hold any hatred or anger. I choose this article because it took a different perspective on the issue and I hope if people choose to read it, they will have similar feelings.
Title: “Panel supports gay parents: Experts speak out ahead of same-sex marriage trial.”
Author: Kelly Brewington
December 1, 2006
The Baltimore Sun
This article is in support of gay couples having and raising children. The setting of this argument is in Maryland and “a group of sociologists, psychologists and child-welfare advocates spoke out in support of same sex marriage (pg.1).” It was stated that they based their “support on years of scientific research concluding that gays and lesbians can be as effective parents as heterosexuals and that the children of gay parents develop just as well as children of opposite-sex couples (pg.1).”
When I read this article I felt somewhat disturb because of my religious beliefs. I am an Irish Catholic and I have been raised with the idea that it is wrong for gay couples to marry, nerveless be parents. However, as time are constantly changing, I do not have or see a problem with gay couples getting married but I still believe they should not be parents because I feel it is unnatural and unhealthy. I find the author to be very trust worthy and cited credible sources.
Title: “Pediatricians’ Study Shows Kids Not Harmed by Gay Parent.”
Author: Beth Ross River Falls
September 2, 2006
The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
A study was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and was referred to in this article. The study published showed kids were indeed not harmed by gay parents. “There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parent’s sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents (pg.1).”
This study is very credible in my opinion because it states in the article that the American Academy of Pediatrics has a membership of 60,000 physicians and “it is the largest and most influential professional organization for pediatricians in the United States (pg.1).” The author was thorough and referred to the article, concluding that kids are not affected by having same sex parents. Similar to the previous article I read, I disagree that same sex couples should raise children. I have personally seen the affects so that along with my religious beliefs, I still disagree with the study. It is eye opening and something I am willing to learn about but do not see my opinion changing quickly.
Title: Protect Our Children by Voting ‘No’
Author: Lana A. Whited
November 4, 2006
The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
This article was published during a campaign in the state of Virginia. It addresses the proposal of same sex marriages and argues how it will hurt the children of Virginia. The amendment is made up of three parts. It says “the commonwealth shouldn’t recognize a marriage unless the participants are a man and a woman (pg.1).” It goes onto say “its agencies can’t treat anyone who isn’t legally married as though he or she has the same rights as married people (pg.1).” Another key element to this article states, “ many Virginians are kind, fair-minded people who don’t discriminate where these rights are concerned, even though they would be legally justified in doing so (pg.1).”
This campaign was an interesting read to me because it addressed the other side on the issue of same sex marriages and having children. I agree with the issue that is being presented and felt that the point was made without coming off too strong. In terms of credibility it is important to keep in mind that it is a campaign ad and that it is known that campaigns can often spin a topic in order to gain votes. However, this article is different because it states what Virginia law is as well as what the changes would be.
Title: Lesbians of Mass Destruction
Author: William Saletan
December 23, 2006
Washington Post
This article was written in response to Dick Cheney and his daughter announcing that she is going to have a baby with her partner. At times it takes stabs at Dick Cheney as well as the Republican party but it does contain some interesting facts and statistics. It states, “The American Psychological Association has complied abstracts of 67 strides. Yet study after study, on measure after measure, kids turn out the same (pg.1).” The article also looks into the evidence “against gay parenthood (pg.1).” The conservative argument reads, “on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents (pg.1).”
I believe this article was well written and address both sides of the argument. It contained facts and provided the reader both sides of the argument. Yes, it did take jabs but most articles do. As I have stated about the other articles I have read, I am still in agreement with the conservative Republican party. Reading about the study was interesting but I do not feel it is in-depth enough to have a sustainable argument.
Title: What Makes a Private School ‘Gay’ Friendly’
Author: Gabrielle Brinker
November 15, 2006
The New York Sun
I selected this article because I myself attended a private school that tried to promote an atmosphere that welcomed all diversities and religious beliefs as well as sexual orientation. The article focuses on The Greenwich Village academy, a rival school of mine, and interviews a teacher by the name of Philip Kassen. “The most important thing is that the faculty is trained to be sensitive to the needs and the lives of all students and the curriculum materials should reflect that (pg.1).” It is also stated that, “Parent-faculty organizations open to gay and lesbian participation, and a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and bullying, are also essential (pg.1).”
This article provides the insight of private schools, like mine, and are eye opening to those to choose to read it. Even though I am a person who is against this lifestyle, I was in an environment that promoted everyone being equal and that we could learn from one another. My beliefs have no changed but I do not hold any hatred or anger. I choose this article because it took a different perspective on the issue and I hope if people choose to read it, they will have similar feelings.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Changes in American families
The debate surrounding the contemporary changes in American families was discussed in three articles that I read. The first article by David Popenoe introduces the idea of change in American families and states, “it is argued that families have lost functions, power, and authority, that familism as a cultural value has diminished, and that people have become less willing to invest time, money, and energy in family life, turning instead to investments in themselves (pg.527).” Popenoe see the family as an “institution in decline and believe that this should be a cause for alarm – especially as regards the consequences for children (pg.527).” Popenoe indicates that trends such as rising divorce and families having less children are key elements that are causing change. The fact that families are now having less children have been a cause for study for many people. Also, the idea that marriage is being put off and that men and women are getting married later and with divorce rates on the high, Popenoe sees this are a point of concern.
Stacy takes a different approach than Popenoe. Stacy states that Popenoe and herself agree that ‘the family’ is in decline but hold different ideas as to why. Stacy believes that Popenoe “struggles, with little consistency or success, to expand the conventional structural-functional definition of the nuclear family to accommodate critiques made by feminists and gay liberationists of the gender and sexual oppression in that family form (pg.545).” Stacy in contrast believes that there is no positivist definition of the family. She goes onto say that Popenoe has three systematic errors. The first being his “latter-day coda of tired ‘loss of family functions’ lament rests upon a flawed history and anthropology of kinship (pg.546).” Stacy feels it is anthropologically incorrect. Second, Stacy states Popenoe’s more proximate historical framework is equally flawed. Third, Stacy believes Popenoe offers an incomplete assessment of different views. However, Stacy does agree with Popenoe that women’s ability to ‘survive’ outside marriage have been a key factor.
Philip Cowan agrees with Popenoe that there should be concern. Cowan states, “I believe that he could make an even stronger case for concern if he ventured beyond his focus on the family as in institution and examined in more detail the widespread incidence of violence, drug abuse, mental illness, general emotional dysregulation and loneliness that constitute the daily lives of too many adults and children in contemporary American families (pg.548).” Cowan agrees with other critics by saying Popenoe’s arguments were awry but overall believes in his point.
I disagree with Popenoe’s argument that the family is in decline. I believe today families have more pride and unity and although they are structurally different and the term family now is broader and accepted, society uses families as its core. Yes, divorce may be on the incline and men and women are waiting to get married but I believe this does not necessary mean family is on the decline. If anything, I argue that it is expanding families because more and more divorces men and women are getting re-married and starting ‘new’ families, hence, expanding what they have already started. The family has changed with the times. Society is now a lot more fast paced and more complicated than in the 1940’s and 1950’s and it is important to realize and understand all of the changes that have occurred between then and now. The family is not on the decline, it just needs to be reaccepted because times have and still are changing.
Stacy takes a different approach than Popenoe. Stacy states that Popenoe and herself agree that ‘the family’ is in decline but hold different ideas as to why. Stacy believes that Popenoe “struggles, with little consistency or success, to expand the conventional structural-functional definition of the nuclear family to accommodate critiques made by feminists and gay liberationists of the gender and sexual oppression in that family form (pg.545).” Stacy in contrast believes that there is no positivist definition of the family. She goes onto say that Popenoe has three systematic errors. The first being his “latter-day coda of tired ‘loss of family functions’ lament rests upon a flawed history and anthropology of kinship (pg.546).” Stacy feels it is anthropologically incorrect. Second, Stacy states Popenoe’s more proximate historical framework is equally flawed. Third, Stacy believes Popenoe offers an incomplete assessment of different views. However, Stacy does agree with Popenoe that women’s ability to ‘survive’ outside marriage have been a key factor.
Philip Cowan agrees with Popenoe that there should be concern. Cowan states, “I believe that he could make an even stronger case for concern if he ventured beyond his focus on the family as in institution and examined in more detail the widespread incidence of violence, drug abuse, mental illness, general emotional dysregulation and loneliness that constitute the daily lives of too many adults and children in contemporary American families (pg.548).” Cowan agrees with other critics by saying Popenoe’s arguments were awry but overall believes in his point.
I disagree with Popenoe’s argument that the family is in decline. I believe today families have more pride and unity and although they are structurally different and the term family now is broader and accepted, society uses families as its core. Yes, divorce may be on the incline and men and women are waiting to get married but I believe this does not necessary mean family is on the decline. If anything, I argue that it is expanding families because more and more divorces men and women are getting re-married and starting ‘new’ families, hence, expanding what they have already started. The family has changed with the times. Society is now a lot more fast paced and more complicated than in the 1940’s and 1950’s and it is important to realize and understand all of the changes that have occurred between then and now. The family is not on the decline, it just needs to be reaccepted because times have and still are changing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)