Divorce and Spousal Grieving

Questions:

1. According to the research presented by Stephanie Coontz, how does divorce affect children, and what factors account for the variation in these effects?

Stephanie Coontz’s article discusses the effects of divorce on children but also corrects some commonly misconstrued data about the date of children whose parents have split. Surely divorce can interfere with effective parenting and deprive children of parental resources. It’s true that children whose parents have divorced or have remarried are more likely to drop out of school, exhibit emotional distress, get in trouble with the law, and abuse drugs or alcohol than those kids who grow up in stable two parent households, most kids in every group avoid these problems. Coontz explains, it’s not that “children in divorced families have more problems but that more children of divorced parents have problems” (C 99). Also, a large amount of children in the divorced parents group score higher than the average score of children in the non-divorced group and likewise, a large amount of children in the non divorced group score lower than the average score of children whose parents are divorced. Basically there is a larger degree of ‘variability’ for the children of the divorced. There are many reasons for these effects. Those children who exhibited long term grieving and test samples, did so mainly because they had already sought therapy. Their problems could have also begun long before the divorce –few studies are done to see what children are like years before their parents divorce. Most kids do not suffer long term problems or drop out of school and there are also few differences between socioeconomic backgrounds. Divorce does not account for the majority of these social problems. Many of the problems that might perpetuate divorce, probably also perpetuate these problems. These include preexisting poverty, early marriage, unstable relationships etc. Also, there more divorces a child experiences (or remarriages) the more problems the child is likely to have. They show the poorest adjustment, as well as children of anti social mothers who had trouble transitioning and had poor parenting skills (especially with their sons). Many factors that happen after divorce, like financial lost, school change, home change etc also cause problems –not just the divorce. Many problems and differences in behavior of children are also due to income, lower maternal education and other factors that usually are found with single parents. The amount of aggressive TV that boys watch also often affects their reactions. “The worst problems,” as Coontz states, “for children stem from parental conflict, before, during, and after divorce –or within marriage. In fact, children in “intact” families that are marked by high levels of conflict tend to do worse than children in divorced and never married families” (C 102). Most behavior issues in children were found in them months or years prior to the divorce. Also, differences in custody can affect the way children behave after divorce. This depends on the amount of involvement of the non-custodial parent, usually the father.

There are clearly many differences that affect how children act before during and after divorce, and kids who are in stable families also have many problems. I think this article was very interesting because it gave a new spin on the fact that all kids who’s parents divorce are screwed up. It made the most important point of all, which is that it is most likely worse for kids to remain in households where their parents fight all the time. That itself, I believe, is so much worse than parents splitting up and solving their problems.

2. According to Furstenberg and Cherlin, what factors affect short-term and long-term adjustment of children to divorce?

There are many different factors that Furstenberg and Cherlin present as factors that affect short term and long term adjustment of children to divorce. The authors state, “It is reasonable to expect that this pre disruption conflict, and the corresponding emotional upset on the part of the parents, may cause problems for children” (C+F 1). They state that many children show signs of disturbance months or possibly years before their parents separate. Many more parents also had conflict with their sons prior to divorce, not so much as with girls. Also, people who divorce are more likely to have married as teenagers and to have begun their marriages after the wife was pregnant, less religious, and less stable environments for their children. Also, the way the divorce unfurled and the parents cope depends on the way the children adjust. If the divorce happens when they are older, kids are more likely to be angry. If it happens when they are younger and less able to grasp what it means, they are more likely to blame themselves. During the grieving period, about the first 2 years after the divorce, children need emotional support as they struggle with the breakup and they also need structure. Lack of these two things on the part of the parent or parents is likely to disrupt their lives more and cause more adverse effects. Overburdened and stressed parents are likely to allow this to happen. Distressed mothers respond irritably to their sons’ disrespectful behavior and aggravate this bad behavior. Boys’ behavior is also likely affected by the fact they live with a parent of the opposite sex, where studies show children fare better with a parent of the same sex after a divorce. Cherlin and Furstenberg sum up their argument by explaining that “researchers agree that almost all children are moderately or severely distressed when their parents separate and that most continue to experience confusion, sadness, or anger for a period of months and even years” (C+F 494). There are basically many differences in short term reactions of children, but age and gender definitely play a role in it.

In terms of factors that affect long term adjustment to divorce. Most kids, after about two years return to normal, but some of course suffer long term consequences. These were mainly those with extensive psychiatric histories or those who previously had behavior problems. The fighting and conflict of the parents during the duration of the divorce and after also play a huge role in behavioral problems. The authors state, “in 1981, children whose parents had divorced or separated were doing no worse than children whose parents were intact, high-conflict homes. And children whose parents’ marriages were intact but highly conflicted in both 1976 and 1981 were doing the worst of all. Thus divorce might be a better option in certain situations. The authors cite that the way the custodial parent acts as a parents has a large effect on the children because their stress or happiness is palpable. Loss of income can affect the children as well has the maintenance of relationship with the non-custodial parent –usually the father. All of these things play a large role in the way children fare after divorce.

3. According to Carr, what three factors are the most important influences on spousal bereavement? How does gender shape the experience of spousal loss?

According to Carr’s article, the most important influences on spousal bereavement are the age of the husband and wife, how the spouse died, and what the couples life was like prior to death. Older spouses having different coping mechanisms than younger couples because most of their peers are dealing with similar losses and thus they can commiserate. Also, when an older spouse dies, usually they have lived a long and successful life, and death is inevitable eventually. Younger spouses who die are most likely to have had their lives cut short, without ever getting to accomplish goals and grow old together. Also, older people have lower levels have emotional reactivity, helping them deal with the death of spouse better than their younger counterparts. Also for older people, deaths of their spouses were usually stressful ordeals as a result of old age and disease/illness. The time shortly or even a few years before the death can be emotionally and physically trying for the other spouse who care for them. Those who had closer knit relationships showed more signs of depression in comparison to those with less close relationships. They were more likely to feel released from a bad situation.

Gender also affects the way people grieve, especially right now, because roles were so divided in the baby boomer era. For example, men were usually bread winners, so women spouses are mostly like to suffer financially because they probably never held a paying job. Men are more likely to get sick because their wives are no longer present to remind them to eat healthy, take medicines, and give up vices. Also, men become less social because once their wife dies, their social network usually goes with it. They no longer keep in touch with relatives, or friends, as usually their wives were friends. But, men are more likely to remarry because men usually marry younger women, and more women are alive for them to date. Clearly, different genders have different things that they lose when their spouse dies that they have to learn to cope with.

Fathering and Fatherhood

Questions:
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?

Pleck states that the roles of fathers have changed over time greatly. Beginning in the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the father was considered the moral overseer. The mother had much less of a role (at least socially and politically) than would be otherwise expected. Fathers were though to have an immense amount of influence on their children and all advice about child rearing was directed towards the father. They were the family’s center of moral teaching, with the role of instructing the children about God and the world, girls and boys alike. He was expected to teach his children to read if he himself was literate, to guide his son into a profession and to deal with marriage negations of both sexes. Children had duty to their fathers as they had duty to their children. They had to teach their children to stray from sinful urges and teach them reason and logic, unlike a mother who was considered overtly emotional and affectionate. Also, if parents were for some reason to be granted a divorce, custody was almost solely given to the father. Instead of expressing affection and anger, fathers were to express their approval or disapproval. Often, children who left the family for work or marriage, kept in touch with the family through letters with the father. In the 19^th to mid 20^th century there was a shift to the role of father as distant bread winner. Because fathers work was taken outside of the home, naturally they played a lesser role in rearing their children. There was a greater role for the mother for sure. Usually mothers were blamed or praised for how their children grew up in this time and they were often emotionally attached to their children well into adult hood. They gained custody for divorce and their affections were now scene as a positive role for children. Fathers were not apart from their children for the majority of the day, the only time spent with children being Sundays. The fathers made the money that kept the family secure, though he still had a small role as moral teacher and discipliner –though usually only when the efforts of the mother failed. Fathers were easily manipulated by their wives and children because of their absence, and often children longed to have their fathers back home. Mothers were now seen is overly mothers their children, so for awhile after the war the father had an important role as rearing their children as a sex role model –that is teaching them what is right and wrong for their sex. Because the father was often absent, mine childhood psychological disorders were linked to this absence, as it was believed children needed a positive male role model. At present, the dominant theory is still the distant father breadwinner idea but of course more and more fathers are being pushed to take a greater role in their children’s, wives and houses. They are now more than ever expected to play, teach, change, talk to and clean their children. This has a lot to do with the women going back to work and feminist movements. This new image of father involves being ever present in the kids lives, daughters and sons. In fact, many work places now grant paternity leave to expectant fathers. This is of course met with much taboo.

While I do think that the roles of fathers have changed more recently, I still think it is a lot of media hype. I think fathers are still over workers, detached and clueless when it comes to their children. But I’m only speaking from a white suburban upper middle class perspective. I know most fathers in my town are always working, mothers stay home because they live comfortably enough to do so and fathers are often clueless and absent about anything to do with the children’s lives. Many do attend sports games on the weekend and attempt to play with the children, but I feel when it comes to important things like just talking and spending time together, fathers are all together absent. I think it’s going to take a lot more then a call for more paternal involvement to change the way children are reared in this country. It’s going to require a complete overthrow of the way we think and operate for that to happen, but in the mean time its good that father’s at least trying to play a bigger role in their kid’s lives.

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?

There are many reasons why couples with children decide to work alternating shifts, and some of the reasons are surprising. One of the most prominent is monetary. Frankly, these families need two incomes to get by. By alternating shifts, they ensure that one parent is always home to take care of the kids why the other parent is earning money. They simply do not have enough money to afford child care, whether that is a babysitter or regular child care, and thus they have dual earners while an actual parent watches the kid. Many others choose alternate shifts in order to have a more comfortable life for their family. By saving money on child care and having two parents earn, they can save up for things like college and maybe even a vacation –things that really matter. They can use the extra money to help make their family better. Another reason for choosing this lifestyle is that many parents believe that no one but themselves or family should take care of their kids. They seem to not trust strangers to take care of their children, very possibly because their finances wouldn’t allow for top quality child care. Also, many parents believe its important to be the sole raiser of their kids for bonding and value reasons. They think its important to foster this relationship with their kids, especially when they’re young. They then hope their kids will learn right from wrong and the values their parents hold strong. They wish to have control of their offspring in every aspect of their lives. Because these parents are clearly working shift labor, they are working class families. Their decision to live this way generally stems from an economic necessity –moms need to work to get by.

These families show very interesting gender ideologies. It seems as if these working class families hold more strongly to traditional gender roles than do middle class families –at least in practice. The men all seem to state that if financially it were possible, their wives would stay home and take care of the kids. Most of the men still seem to identify themselves as head of the household and primary bread winner. Some families even rearranged their schedules as such so the man as earning more and working more, even if the wife had greater earning capacity. The wives seemed to say they wanted to be the main parent, the one their kids turn to for emotional support and what not. Interestingly enough though, when asked about why they work, most women stated apart from obvious economic need, that they wished to get out of the house. Working was the only time they had to talk to adults apart from their husband (and children). They stated needed a sense of purpose, whether in having a skill, completing a task other then parenting, or contributing to the family income. In fact, as much as the working class families held strong to the traditional family rolls, they seemed to be much more egalitarian that middle class families claimed to be. They were equally dividing working and family obligations. They wished to have traditional family roles, but in many ways this is not how it happened.

I don’t think I would choose an alternate shift arrangement for my family because I am thus far college educated and I’m sure my husband will be as well. Most likely we’ll never have to choose this arrangement. One income will probably suffice in holding the family, and if I choose to work, I will probably have enough to afford child care. If though, I were to take a blue collar job along with my husband, because financially it were required, I suppose this would be a good system. I think though the alternate shifts would be unnecessary strain on the family. I feel like both parents would always be exhausted and that it would be more practical to work at the same time while the kids are in school and perhaps have one parents come home by the time the kids are out or arrange for child care or another family member to watch them. I can’t see giving up all my time with my husband and kids together along with working odd hours just to make sure that only a parent raises the kids. I can see this working well for some families, but I don’t suppose I would choose this option myself.

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?

Roberts makes several very interesting claims about the relation of father absenteeism and race. We always tend to associate such issues with of faithlessness with African American males for whatever reason. Roberts gives several reasons for why this is the case. There are a plethora of societal forces that discourage family participation of black fathers –father absenteeism being only associated with African Americans. They seem to represent as Roberts puts it “the dangers of fathering uncivilized by marriage”. Conveniently, by saying that Black fathers are always not around, we make a racial problem out of something that is more so economic. It makes fatherlessness immoral in nature and it also gives a supposed explanation for black peoples problems. But in fact, what people don’t realize is that the female headed household is the dominant family structure for African Americans, not the nuclear family as we see it portrayed in the media. But there are reasons for this other then the fact that black fathers are lazy, degenerate, or don’t care about their children. When the instance of white single mothers rose, society explained it has an individual problem suffered by that family. We blame single mothers instead of trying to help them and when white mothers become single mothers it becomes it is looked down upon because it’s like becoming African American. It makes single motherhood an abnormal condition and male-centered families normal. This makes it easy to say that family disintegration is the reason for African American failure of success. The ruin of the black family is the heart of the ruin of black society. And thus, the absent black father is a symptom of “rebellious Black mothering.” Black fathers are only seen as playing a negative role –because they aren’t there. They aren’t around to supposedly teach morals and educate. For these reasons, they’re simply unable to be suitable role models for their children.

There are many reasons why the myth of the absent black father has been created. Some believe that the promise of welfare promotes have children outside of marriage and also that black mothers resist patriarchy. But in fact, racial repression resulting in high unemployment and incarceration are reasons for fathers being absent. Incessant poverty leads to unstable marriages and thus many women choose to stay single. If a man can’t contribute to the family, he’s probably not going to stay in the home. Also, if a man is in jail, he can’t be married, provide for his family or have a stable family life. As Roberts explains “Black men to not value family relationships any less than other men do. But many have been restrained by unemployment, imprisonment, and other deprivations from developing the family ties they desire” (150). Clearly, there are reasons outside of being a “bad father” that black men are absent form their families.

In fact, Roberts would argue that the only reason why we say that a father is absent from the home is because of the way we describe a father contributing to his family –generally economically. If racial injustices make it nearly impossible for man to earn enough for himself or his family (or not have a job at all) then in white societies definition, he is absent from the home. Because he is not the breadwinner –he is not around. We say that fatherlessness is interchangeable with single motherhood. Thus, black men have to be married in order to be considered “around”. The most generous type of social security or welfare is given to widows or married women who are poor. This way of giving welfare is “gendered and racialized.” The eligibility of a mother for welfare is determined by her relationship to a man, that is, whether she was married to someone who had a job or not. Also, in black culture, women share child raising responsibilities with other mothers. Black men just father differently then what popular society dictates. Just because they can’t support their children doesn’t mean they’re all around. Most black men actually have more contact with their kids than white fathers. They seem to be more nurturing in fact, just not able to provide for their family financially. As Roberts explains, “What condemns the absent Black father, then, is not his lack of involvement with his children but his marital and economic status. A good father is married breadwinner. And Black men typically have not fit that role. Trying to live up to this mainstream ideal historically has been the source of internal turmoil within Black families” (154). Of course this makes him a bad man. Marrying is not going to solve the problem of poverty though for the black family if the black man can’t get a job or earn wages. And demanding child support from a father who can’t support himself is going to drive the father away from the family, not closer to it.

Roberts makes a lot of good points about the state of black fathers. Their absenteeism is a product of social and economic barriers that have been placed on them from the very roots of racism. We then blame the way their lives turn out on their own shortcomings. It’s easy and convenient to do this because then we come up with supposed solutions that will clearly never change a thing.

Mothering/Motherhood

Questions:
1.) According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?

According to Sharon Hay’s Rods to Reasoning, there are four major periods in American history with very different philosophies on mothering. The first stage of this historical perspective, according to Hay’s, involves ignoring the child to a change on focusing on the innocent child. This was a common practice in Europe in the middle ages, where adults and educators believed children were demonic and had a propensity towards evil. There was something of a fear in children at the time. Parents used tight swaddling clothes to wrap the baby so that it didn’t eat its own limbs. Children were usually abandoned or left to someone else’s care if possible. Even the smallest tasks necessary for keeping the child alive were considered “an onerous task” (23). In this time period, children obeyed their father, who obeyed their king. The mother was just there to follow the father’s directions in rearing the child. Different children were treated differently as well, based on their potential for future earnings and success. By the ages of 6 or 7, children were fully expected to work or apprentice. And by even younger ages they were expected to help around the house, watch siblings etc. Though there was probably child affection, most didn’t seem to think it was worth sharing, especially because so many children didn’t make it to their teens. As children grew up, they were fully expected to support their parents in the same way they were supported. In the 17^thth centuries in Western Europe, this view changed a bit, generally among the bourgeoisie. Children were now seen as innocent and childhood was considered valuable and special. Harsh punishment like beating and flogging was decreased and parents started to protect their children from the outside dangers of the world. Children were to be taught reason, through strict discipline as children and through friendship as adults. They were to be shown affection and to be reared according to their inner nature. and 18

The next stage took place in the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries, but in New England. The style of mothering here was very much similar to the early middle ages of fear of children. They were swaddled and harshly disciplined, in order to loose their original sin and be redeemed. Child rearing was done through the father and through God. According to Hays: “It was only after the sinful child’s will had been quashed through the use of the rod that the child could be trained in appropriate obedience to God, parents, and work” (27). The children were subjected to hard work, and their worth was measured in their propensity to do this work –very much as an economic asset. Children who didn’t do their part were treated as a legal offender and could be sentenced to public punishment. The Father instilled fear, discipline and a strong hand on the child, while the mother listened to his will. In the catholic realm though, outside of the Protestant/Puritan realm things were slightly different. Original sin was expunged through baptism and the sacraments, so harsh physical punishment wasn’t as necessary. Parents generally showed affection to their children and they were given playmates. Still the dominant philosophy was that of the Puritans. Children held no special value and they were raised to be hardworking, god fearing citizens.

The next biggest change took place in the view of the mother as a moraler of sorts, for the middle class urban parent. Parents wanted to prolong child hood and again believed children were innocent. They used psychological discipline to as opposed to external discipline to shape their children. Mother’s had an important role in “Socializing the republic’s future citizens” (29). Women were educated in this role of protecting kids from the outside world, and this was the creation of the cult of domesticity –or strong separation between home and work, prevalent in the Victorian era. The mother’s role became important in the home, so she no longer was expected to work outside of it. All of her praise came from raising a good family and good citizens. Her affections were necessary for this to happen. The child’s angelic conscious was molded by the mother, and while the father was still the moral authority, the mother’s rule was very much more valued. Of course this only worked for middle class women who could afford to stay home and have housekeepers. Their love, nurture, and material acquisition kept children in line –poorer children had no such incentive. Their mothers worked long hours as house keepers and maids, and could only rely on external discipline to keep their kids in line. They didn’t have a clean, warm, and happy home to persuade their kids to stay in school and not earn money for the family. Also, Hays notes at this time, that there was very much a paradox between middle class values and lower class values. It is claimed that children of the middle class are raised to be independent while working class children are trained in obedience. While really, it’s the poor kids that are left on the streets to work and fend for them, while the rich kids were taken care of by domestics and their mothers. It was easy for the middle class women to talk about reform, when they had the economic materials to stay home and only worry about their house.

During the end of the 19^th century, a prevailing “doctor knows best” theory of mothering was put in place. The mother no longer knew what was best for her child, they had to listen to expert advice. They were told to schedule their children, and start potty training as soon as possible. Once again the child was full of dangerous impulses –no longer pure. Mothers were told to let their kids cry it out and not overburden them with affection as was their way; children were to be rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad. At the same time though, there was an increase of the importance of children in the eyes of their parents. They were once again innocent, compulsory schooling was enacted, as well as less harsh juvenile punishments. In this era, the government and experts tried to fix all family problems, including poverty. They tried to educate mothers and children to serve the nation’s greatness. Once again, the cult of domesticity came into play, ‘protecting’ mothers from working and allowing them to perfect mothering to a science. Focus was put into the scientific categories of emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development. Of course this was economically unsound, but allowed for less competition in the work force for men. It wasn’t until the next era, the permissive era, that the idea of mothers working and her values of the family came into play.

The permissive era is the era of intense mothering that Hays discusses, which began in the 1930s but still exists today. The goal is nurturing the child, but not on the adult’s schedule, instead, according to the needs and wants of the child. The child sets its feeding, sleeping, and changing schedule, not at the mother’s convenience. The child’s desires and fulfillment is most important, as well as preserving the child’s innocence, affection, purity and goodness. The demonic drives of children are considered natural and they are let be as apart of a necessary growing process, they are harmless if you will. Parents follow manuals and hope to establish a strong bond with their children to help in their cognitive development. Of course it is important that mothers didn’t over burden affection or under burden. Either is cause for psychological damage.

This idea of intense mothering is pervasive today. It says, according to Hays: “The model of intensive mothering tells us that children are innocent and priceless, that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers and that it should be centered on children’s needs, with methods that are informed by experts, labor-intensive, and costly. This, we are told, is the best model, largely because it is what children need and deserve” (21). This certainly reminds me of mothering techniques I’ve observed my whole life. I was not personally a victim of intensive mothering, but several of my friends from high school and college were and are today. They call their kids 4 times a day, they know about in explicit detail every assignment, every relationship, every drink, and experience their kids have ever had. And these friends of mine, upon going to college, find it nearly impossible to act independently of them. I swear sometimes I find them calling their mom’s to tell them they’re going to the bathroom. I think a good deal of space on the part of the mother, like my mom gave me because she worked all the time, allows for the child to foster and develop their sense of independence. The more you baby a child, the harder it is going to be to let go for both of them. I also find this is primarily amongst white, middle to upper class families, whose mothers usually stay home and have too much time on their hands. I’m not saying that it’s bad for women to stay home, but I often find it leads to this intense mothering, where the child has no freedom. It’s unfortunate, because it’s raising a generation of dependent cry babies, who turn to mommy and daddy the minute something goes wrong.

2.) In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?

Crittenden make a few main points that indicate that mother’s are not valued highly enough for the amount of work they do in the home each day. She states that 2/3s of the nations wealth is created by human capital, which is developed by mothers. Mothers are then, if you will, the major producers in our economy. She claims that all of the hype around praising mothers is just hot air, they are still devalued and treated as sub-humans who do nothing but watch soap operas all day. She sites a few examples of legal cases in which women are actually penalized for choosing to be the primary caretaker of her children. One such example is of a woman in Massachusetts named Joanna Upton, who was a single mother working as a store manager who refused to work over time because then no one would be there to supervise her children. She sued the company for wrongful dismissal after being fired, and lost the case because an employee at ill will can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. There is no policy in place dealing with a parent’s responsibility to first care for his/her children. Crittenden sites a few examples of how the US is at war with itself over policies and our actual values. Most work places are inflexible, making it nearly impossible for women not to quit once they have children. There is resulting loss in income, and increase in the gap between what men and women make, and also between what mothers and single women make. For a college educated women, this can be up to 1 million dollars in lost profit. She states secondly, that marriage is still not an equal institution in 47 of 50 states. Women who stay home are not entitled to half the property before or after divorce. They are given no money except for what the judge allows as child support. Thirdly, the government doesn’t include “unpaid care of family dependents” as work, in its social policies (like social security benefits and pensions). A mother is thus not eligible for major insurance and protection programs, and is only offered welfare as a security blanket. She states that because of this, motherhood is the single greatest cause of poverty in old age. Even those women who work at schools and pre-schools are paid so little, because their work is considered babysitting. Crittendon calls for mass recognition of all the work women put into their homes and children, beyond salaries for stay at home moms. Women inevitable are punished no matter what they choose. If they work they deny themselves the most important thing they have –their children, and if they stay home they receive no benefits to help their children or themselves and are devalued in society as useless. She says: “if human abilities are the ultimate fount of economic progress, as many economists now agree, and if those abilities are nurtured (or stunted) in the early years, then mothers and other care givers of the young are the most important producers in the economy. They do have, literally, the most important job in the world” (11).

Her research and points seem very valid and reputable. Crittenden sites that her book is based on five years of hard research in various disciplines. She has personal experience as both the single working women (and married) who shuns mothers for doing nothing and staying home, and also a women who took a break from her career to care for her infant, the most important thing that has ever happened to her. I agree with much of what she is saying, and it is unfair that women don’t get paid for being mothers. Mothering is extremely important and it is undervalued in our society. But on the same token, she gives no credit to those who keep their careers and are still mothers. These women do twice as much, and still earn an income. I’m not underestimating what a woman does at home, but similar to what I stated in the last article, I also think that many women who stay home to care full time for their children become overbearing mothers and allow their kids absolutely no breathing room. They have little to focus their energy on than their children. Under this guise, shouldn’t women who work really be paid triple the amount that anyone else gets paid, since they take on the position of father bread-winner and mother nurturer? My own mother works long hours, travels several times a month, and has a 2 hour commute each day. When she comes home she still has to worry that my sister has been fed, that she’s bathed, done her homework, while packing lunches for the next day, signing permission slips and all of these things mothers day. I do believe that some reform needs to be made in this respect. Women are given no credit for all the hard work they do. They’re expected to perform these functions out of marital love, but I don’t’ really see how things can change. There’s no right answer to this problem. An improvement would be universal health care and child care so that no matter what path women choose, they are protected. Otherwise, it would be impractical and nearly impossible to pay house wives. How could such a price be put on house work? Until people’s attitudes change, nothing is going to happen. Women are undervalued by men AND themselves. We have to work together to create a new philosophy before any woman is REALLY respected for all she does.

3.) According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"?

Collins article gives an interesting spin to black motherhood and feminism. She explains that feminist view points and view points on black mothering in general come from white men or white women who hope to create tracks away from family life and towards independent careers. She discusses how important and how highly esteemed mothers are in African American culture, but she also thinks a lot of this comes from black men who believe their mother’s are super strong women who do everything out of maternal love and selflessness. In the same way, these men then undervalue their wives and the mother’s of their children. Collins states: “In general, African-American women need a revitalized Black feminist analysis of motherhood that debunks the image of “happy slave,” whether the White-male-created “matriarch” or the Black-male-perpetuated “super strong Black mother” (176). She explains how there are two contradictory view points on motherhood in the black community. Some believe motherhood is a burdensome task that stifles creativity and others believe it is a “base for self-actualization, status in the black community, and a catalyst for social activism” (176). In this way, black women have two types of mothering: The mothering of their blood related offspring, and something called other-mothering. Of course biological mothers are expected to take care of their children, but due to the unique dynamic of many African American communities, there is the availability of other mothering. This means that someone else, other then a mother or father, takes over the roll and responsibility of caring for a child. This can be aiding in child care, like a neighbor, friend or close relative watching and supervising a child while parents are at work, or in a sense of informal adoption. What makes this system different from the white middle class version of child care is that these “other mothers” treat these children as if they were their own. They love them as their own child, feed the, clothe them, and also discipline as their own. There is no sense in the African American community of children as private property –everyone is in a sense responsible for the well being of children. Many mothers also rely on grandparents for the explicit care of their children, usually because they are retired and have time to watch and love the kid. Others include ‘fictive kin’, which is equivalent to a family friend who takes over the nurturing of a child. One specific story cited, discusses how a woman’s mother took in a child as her own when she was growing up. When this mother’s own child was dealing with the death of her grandmother (the woman who took the child in), this woman (the one taken in) helped the child deal with the loss. She was taking over the responsibility of love and support and passing it on to another needy person. Another interesting thing Collins discusses is the idea of women choosing other mothering over biological mothering. This usually happens in cases when women become pregnant before their ready or have children they don’t want. They choose to give their children away to other mothers who are more prepared to care for them. When they are then in turn ready to take on the care of a child, they become an “other mother” for someone else’s child, or several other children.

These different types of mothering are intricately related to the idea of black women as symbols of power. Collins touches on the fact that feminists believe mothering or maternal politics are an immature form of political activism, but that this idea raises questions for motherhood as a symbol of power. She explains that this might be an empowering technique for black women, encouraging them to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise take. For example, one woman who became divorced and was forced to move back to the unsafe streets of Detroit. A boy had held a gun to her son’s head but she refused to move because she wanted to stay and fight. Collins explains how motherhood politicized her. One writer Lisa Jones explains how her mother, who was white, fought to defend her mixed race daughter. She says: “Motherhood has been more than a domestic chore or emotional bond for my mother. It’s a political vocation- one she’s taken seriously enough to go up against the world for” (194). Mothers have to fight to keep their children alive physically, sometimes at the expense of their emotional health. I think that it’s a tough world, and black mothers have their job cut out for them in trying to raise good sons and daughters.

4.) According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?

This was a very interesting article for me to read. It’s really easy as a middle to upper class, college educated female to look down upon poor girls who get pregnant. It seems impractical, immoral, and an exacerbation of an already bad situation. But after reading Edin and Kefalas’ article, I have a whole new appreciation for the childbearing norms of poor women. In general, according to a study of 161 poor white, African American, and Puerto Rican teenage mothers, this demographic prefers to have children before marriage. The main subject of the article is a girl Jen who got pregnant at 15 with her 20 year old boyfriend. Her boyfriend Rick said he wanted to have a child with her, and he convinced her he loved her. He probably just didn’t want her to leave him. He was in and out of jail, doing drugs, selling them, and drinking a lot- clearly not made out to be a father. Jen claims that having her son Collin was the best thing she could have ever done. She’s the only one of her siblings to go back to school, about to graduate with a GED or a plan to go to college and get a good job. She’s working 10 hours 4 days a week while taking classes nights and weekends. Everything she and her son have she has paid for herself. If she didn’t have her son she would have no love or affection, due to the very unstable romantic relationships many poor teen mothers have. Her son provides her with his love and gives her something to live and come home for each day. Jen insists that marriage is in her future, like most of these women interviewed. They are waiting to be come financially independent, have a house, and a stable job before they get married, so that if it ends in divorce, as many marriages do, they will have a crutch. Jen explains how she doesn’t want to rely on him (being her husband or boyfriend) but wants her son to rely on her, as it should be. Relationships like Jens are usually full of mistrust due to chronic violence and infidelity, drug and alcohol abuse, criminal activity, and threat of imprisonment. This does not make for a reliable future husband. Also, many women in Jen’s situation believe that having a child out of wedlock is much worse then getting divorced. Jen wants to have a nice wedding and a secure future before walking down the aisle. She thinks marriage is about love and commitment, her son is just putting her on the right path. Of course she admits that her life would probably be easier without her son, but at the same time, she probably wouldn’t have cleaned up if it wasn’t for him. Edin and Kefalas explain that: “Their children, far from being liabilities, provide crucial social-psychological resources- a strong sense of purpose and a profound source of intimacy” (22). I think this is very important; and while teen pregnancy seems to be nothing to be proud of, I suppose if it’s putting young girls on the right path and giving them something to live for then it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Childbearing and Childrearing

Questions:
1.) According to Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, what are the reasons why some prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife? What is your opinion about the best setting for giving birth?

This article provides a valid argument for why home-birth is a safe alternative to hospital birth along with providing points for each side. There are many reasons though, why some women prefer to use a mid-wife in the birth of the child as opposed to a physician in a hospital. Hafner-Eaton and Pierce both suggest that "the allowance of the home as medically acceptable and legal birth setting, and reimbursement of this lower cost option through private and public health insurers," (813) is becoming a more common option among new parents. One other common reason for the chance to midwifery is the "increase in obstetrical attempts to manage or augment childbirth in a "medicalized manner"(814), or in other words take away from a very special and private matter. The article also suggests that in no way is it clear that change to physician and hospital primary care birth is safer then midwifery. There is no evidence to support that physical science aids in natural birth. Many studies also find that countries in Europe, who use midwives in nearly 75% of births, have a 60% lower infant mortality rate then in the United States. Hospitals and physicians are more like to use episiotomy, lithotomy position (laying horizontal with legs in the air), artificial rupture of membranes, continuous external fetal heart monitering, pernieal shaving, cesarean section delivery, induction or augmentation of labor if contractions are not regular enough for convenience, and forceps or vacuum devices to remove the fetus. Many of these processes are known for slowing the labor process and making it more painful -thus requiring the use of drugs. Also, a cesarean section is done in about 24% of the cases in hospitals. Many other risks are also associated with these "rushed" practices, including fetal distress, prolapsed cord, and intrauterine infection. Studies suggest that home deliver is just as safe as hospital birth, usually less intense, and with fewer cesarean sections. Midwives as a group home to more wholly treat the psychological and physical needs of the mother. They view birth as natural and normal, and are simply there to teach women to give birth, not deliver babies. They believe that giving birth in a familiar setting like the home certainly decreases chance of discomfort and risk.
I think this article provides a very convincing argument for the use of mid-wifery in birth. It seems like a safe and accepted alternative for parents who can't afford hefty hospital bills, wish to give birth in a more natural way, and want more control over a very important event. Personally, I think my faith still lies in professional care. I would feel more safe knowing that if something went wrong, I would already be in a hospital and thus could be cared for immediately. There is comfort in that. I also think I would prefer to use pain killing drugs while giving birth. All in all, I do believe that home-birth is safe. If it seems that it will be an easy birth with few complications, I see no reason not to try it. Women gave birth for years without hospitals and doctors, so it must be a fine practice. Now we have a better concept of sanitary conditions and antibiotics, so home birth seems even safer.

2.) How did the legal ties between parents and children change over time? How did the adoption laws changed? Historically, what was the purpose of formal adoptions?

Recently, there has been a trend towards giving emancipation to an adult child when they reach a certain age. This means they have no duty to obey their parents or care for them in old age. Frequently, many of these duties are absorbed by the state, like social security, old age homes, medicare, and even education for children. A long time ago, children were under their parents supervision pretty much until they died. Only young children are to be cared for by their parents. They must feed them, dress them, and take care of their well being. Of course if there is abuse in the family, the state steps in as loco-parentis and takes them out of their home and puts them in a better place. Friedman explains that: "The state can take a child away from the family; but it does so for the most part reluctantly, and only in extreme cases" (273). The government can't really tell a parent how to raise their kids, and family life (even in its changing scope) is protected. In the twentieth century, adoption became more of a medium for parents who didn't want their kids, to give them up. People were no longer dying at birth, or too poor to keep them, or stigmatized for getting pregnant while not married. But even today, things have changed again. Adoption is now in high demand due to decline in population. Parents are jumping through hoops and paying a lot of money to adopt, where as in the past many women were paying people to take their babies. Also, adopting children of other races is no longer illegal or considered immoral.
Adoption laws have also changed a lot over time. At one time, no child could be legally adopted in England, and it wasn't until 1926 when the Adoption of Children Act was put in place by Parliament. Ancient French law had two forms of adoption: Simple and Full. Simple adoption really meant the adoption of any person for the reason of carrying on a name or inheritance. Full adoption is more similar to the way we view adoption today. Young children were adopted to childless parents. In fact, up until 1976, only parents without children could adopt kids. In many cases, people under 50 or people with children could not adopt legally, because they were supposed to have their own children. Clearly this is not the case now. Similar trends were seen in the US. The first real adoption law wasn't seen until 1851 in Mass. Originally illegal or informal adoptions could be seen in the form of apprentice ship-where a young child lived in another families home to learn a trade. Also many children were adopted for inheritance purposes. Massachusetts was the first state to enact formal procedures for adoption. By the end of the 19th century, adoption was universally recognized in the US. In the past, adoption was very much a contract, like selling corn or wheat. Finally in 1917 in Missouri, adoption took on the light that what was important was the well being of the child. The parents had to be good people and were responsible for the well being and welfare of the child. Still though in the past, parents could back out after a few years. Some laws said adopted children could inherit from parents, some couldn't. Today, adopted children are just like blood related children, unless there is a will that states otherwise. Today, adoption laws give rights to the birth mother and demand her consent. Also in the past, boarding schools were created in the US to assimilate black or native children to become more white and forget their roots.
There were many reasons for adoption in the past. One of the main reasons was that it was a way to make sure a family with no blood children would not die out. Some adopted to make sure their family name was carried on or for passing on inheritances. Many adoptions were down to legitimize illegitimate children (fathers took these kids in) and give them the same rights as full blood children. It was very convenient for families with farms or large pieces of land. They could make sure their land was kept after death. Many times children were adopted because parents were too poor to take care of them, young teens got pregnant and were socially stigmatized and thus were forced to give up their babies. Also, death was very common for mothers, especially without. Of course many children were brought out to the countryside to live on farms, by the state, and of course were treated like servants and slaves. They were just a form of cheap labor.
Friedman has offered an interesting social analysis of adoption and how it's changed. I was surprised to learn the different things I did about how underground and wrong adoption was in the past. It's interesting to know how now people are literally doing all they can to adopt. This seems like a good thing to me, because there are so many kids who need homes and so many parents who want kids and can't have them. Adoption is a great alternative to this -getting kids on the right track.

3.) According to Sharon Hays, what are the conservative and liberal views of welfare? What are the main differences between the requirements introduced by the welfare reform of 1996 and the earlier welfare policies? What are the two contradictory visions represented in the welfare reform? What does the welfare reform tell us about the values of our society?

Conservatives believe those who receive welfare are "lazy, promiscuous, and pathologically dependent" (12). They believe that the system encourages bad values because it is overtly generous and that the incentives promote not working. Essentially, welfare worsens the poverty situation and increases the amount of people who are poor. Liberals on the other hand agree that the old system needed reform, but that welfare needs to provide better monetary support for the poor. The conservatives focus more on values, not on the economic hardships faced by those in perpetual debt.
The main controversy involved in welfare reform is whether self sufficiency or promotion of the traditional family form is more important. Welfare policy has always been connected to appropriate commitment to work. In the 19^th century, there was a difference made between those who deserved aid and those who didn’t, based on their ability to work. But not until today, did these values link to an underlying vision to keep children safe and provided for, via helping mothers keep families together. Laws in 1935, showed that if a father wasn’t there, the state would provide for the mother and child. By the 1960s, many women were staying home to care for their kids while welfare paid the bills. The drastic increase of women on welfare after this time perpetuated the implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act in the 1990s. There was a war on poverty as well as the creation of the National Welfare Rights Organization. Because of the rise of the poor and women on the welfare roll, in 1996, legislation was passed to create the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This changed welfare to a system in which women were forced to have a job, be looking for a job, or be trained for a job, while also implementing a time limit (2 or 5 years) that a person could be on welfare. They are expected to be fully self-sufficient after this time.
It seems that the new reforms send two different messages: one of self sufficiency and the liberal ideal of working to live, and the other that it is important to stay married or get married and have strong traditional family values. How can one do both? How can a single mom work to get out of poverty while also staying home to raise her kids? These are the contradictory visions seen in welfare reform. Hays gives two different names to these tracks: The Work Plan and the Family Plan. The Work Plan makes women work as a form of ‘rehabilitation’ for mothers, by turning them into self sufficient people and not merely just people who stay home and take care of their kids. In this plan there is subsidies for childcare and transportation, and incentive for women to be independent and free to make own choices. The Family Plan is just the opposite. This plan has work requirements as a punishment for divorce and or single mother hood. Women are to learn by working that they should have stayed married and controlled their ‘fertility’.
Hays touches on the fact that these opposing view points link to a larger ‘dichotomy’ of views that we share. She lists these as namely: “dependence vs. independence, paid work and care giving, competitive self-interest and obligations to others, the value of the work ethic and financial success versus the value of personal connection, familial bonding, and community ties” (20). In attempting to follow both sides of this issue, welfare helps and hurts us at the same time. There is no way to achieve both sides of the spectrum. Instead, it seems we need to find a way for these goals to mesh into one fluid value. Certainly we need to see what parts of welfare work now and keep them, while changing and adjusting those that are failures. We also need to not leave people out that need help, for this doesn’t solve anything. We need to make sure that if women are forced to work that their children are taken care of in proper institutions like preschools, not shoddy day-care centers that are unsafe. I also think welfare needs to promote education as a way out of poverty. There should be a way for basic meal, shelter, transportation, and child-care costs to be covered while a parent attends a college degree program during the day, or even night. Perhaps this even means earning a GRD if the person did not complete high school. Higher education is one of the best and only ways to get jobs that pay. At the same time, children are being provided for and are being put on the right track out of poverty by staying in school and being supervised. If our nation doesn’t star t to agree on at least one thing, that the nation’s poor need help, then we aren’t going to get anywhere fast.

4.) According to Block, Korteweg and Woodward, how do countries such as Norway understand poverty? And what is the prevailing theory of why poor people are poor in the United States? How does this theory operate as a self-fulfilling prophecy? According to the authors, what can we do to make American Dream more accessible to the poor?

This article offered some very important insight to the state of poverty today. It clearly attacked the way we view poverty in our country, and noted that people in the US are two times more likely to be born into poverty than other countries who view poverty not as the fault of the poor person, but of the society. Countries such as Norway for example believe poverty is caused by economic and structural factors, rather then bad and immoral behavior on the part of those in poverty. In fact, children in single mother households are about 4 times as likely to be in poverty in the US then in Norway. In these countries, they try to help those that are poor, not punish them for making bad choices they may or may not have put them there.
As previously touched on, the prevailing theory as to why people are poor in the US has to do with bad behavior. We believe that because of bad choices and mistakes people have made, they are themselves responsible for being poor and thus responsible for working to get out of poverty. We also hold that helping the poor (with government aid etc) actually hurts them and makes them more dependent on such aid. As we begin to realize the grave and desolate poverty that most people are in, we take away from public assistance. As the authors put it: “The consequence of reduced help is the assertions of welfare critics turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. They insist that immorality is the root caue of poverty. But when assistance becomes inadequate, the poor can no longer survive by obeying the rules; they are forced to break them. These infractions, in turn, become the necessary proof that “the poor” are truly intractable and that their desperate situations are rightly ignored” (14). People are perpetually pushed back into poverty as their aid is taken away and thus it seems that people’s assertions are correct. Welfare does promote indolence.
The authors explain how the war on “bed behavior” has really been a failure. Programs put in place to lower teen pregnancy, high school drop out rates, and drug addiction have done nothing to lessen these issues. In fact, these social problems have just become worse in the recent decades. Many of these programs are counterintuitive –in trying to end the things we believe cause poverty, those who need help are very much denied it. For example, when those convicted of drug crimes are refused aid and thus forced back into dealing drugs to live. Instead we put our blame on single mothers, who are given inadequate child care and thus cannot work the hours they need to survive. Or the opposite happens, and women are forced to work double shifts, and thus their children are left with inadequate supervision. This leads them to do the activities which once again perpetuate poverty. They are in a bind either way. The authors suggest that we have to persuade fellow citizens that a war on bad behavior isn’t the way to go and that in violates our society’s fundamental beliefs. Every child has equal chance of failure and success. We need new initiatives such as universal health care, higher education for qualified individuals, head start programs to make sure kids get enough education to go to college, and universal availability of high quality child care and preschool programs. We also need to ten-fold the amount of available affordable housing for the poor. Minimum wage needs to increase with inflation and tax programs could be put in place to provide the necessary money for people to pay for basic food and shelter. They also suggest a stable income floor so children stay out of poverty and eliminating the time limits for welfare. Many times, this forces single mothers to return to abusive boyfriends for support, once they find their 5 year limit is up and they still aren’t self-sufficient. Additionally, and a point I agree with the most, is that it is extremely important that we recognize education as work in the sense of welfare. It’s very difficult to get anywhere without a college education, or to get the kind of jobs required to move out of perpetual poverty. Thus women and men should have the ability to go to school and care for their children, while aid gives them enough money to survive. I think it’s important though that if time-limits are taken away, that some sort program is put in place to make sure that those receiving it are doing all they can (and also that they are given appropriate means to do so) to better their lives. This should include caring for children, working, going to school or any of the above.

5.) According to Clawson and Gerstel, how can we improve the child care system in the U.S.?

This article offers a profile of US childcare today before school age in comparison to European systems like France and Denmark. It seems that Clawson and Gerstel suggest that we reform our child care programs to more closely resemble these European models. He believes many lessons could be learned from taking ideas form those systems and adapting them to our own values and beliefs. First off, he believes all programs should be publicaly funded and available to all, regardless of income, race, if parents work, etc. This should either have no cost or the cost should be very low and very affordable just to keep programs running. The staff would be just as qualified and paid about just as much as regular public school teachers and the day would last as long as a regular school days with the option of extended care before and after school for working parents, at a low cost. The programs would be very high quality, but very expensive for the state. In the long run though, it seems that providing quality care for children will pay off more then cutting corners in the budget will. If the program is very good, then mostly all parents will take advantage of it and will support it highly. Of course we have to consider if we would want a more academic approach like France has –very much a pre-school, where kids learn and prepare for kindergarten or a system more like Denmark that fosters peer and social learning as opposed to academic learning. They don’t focus as much on student/adult ratio, and instead believe that kids need to work out their problems amongst themselves and their peers. Japan believes in very few adults to many kids, so as to create a program of selflessness where the kids get less attention. I very much think changes are necessary but believe the French model would be the most accepted in the US. It seems we put a lot of emphasis on education and preparation for learning in public school. While I think a good amount of playing is necessary, it would be easy to make activities fun and enjoyable while still teaching. Having universal service is the most important. All kids should have equal access to early start opportunities, and parents shouldn’t have to stay home because they can’t afford child care, or worse leave their kids unsupervised. Of course, France has all universal schooling, through university level. So it would be difficult to say how universal publicaly funded pre-school would fit into our scheme of public and private choice education in America. All of these things would have to be considered before any initiative could be enacted. I also assume many of these things are easier said then done. It might be very difficult for such an expensive plan to be accepted in the midst of war and international conflict.

1.) Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?

The gender perspective is the current and commonly held belief amongst most of the public and sociologists which describes patterns of domestic abuse. It states that misogynist men abuse women in order to maintain power and dominance in a relationship and that we live in a misogynist society that tolerate this type of behavior and blames the victim when she goes for help. Men also get away with this because many women never report these incidents to the police, which is just a circuitous problem without end. It's a mainly sexist theory. The violence perspective steers away from this view domestic abuse is a sexist/power struggle issue to a view that domestic abuse is really an issue of violence. This perspective is different because it states that most of these men who abuse their wives are girlfriends also have records of other criminal or abusive behavior. They are next sexist guys wanting to destroy women, rather they are just bad men wanting to do things that are very much against social convention -hit women.

Felson believes strongly in the violence perspective. He states that in a recent dating survey frequency of violence is equal amongst men and women but women are more likely victims because of the degree of physical force used by men (they are inherintly bigger and stronger). Men are 8 times more likely to commit violence than women and no more likely to hit their spouses. The only reason why they are less likely to hit their wives is due to what Felson refers to as the chivalry norm -where men would never hit women. Research also shows that women are more likely to provoke violence (John Archer) but only use self-defense when violence increases. Women are more likely to kill in self-defense but only 10 percent of murders by women on their husbands are in self-defense The kill their husbands for the same reason men kill women and other men. It just shows that women are less violent then men overall, tahts why they have a greater frequency of killing in self-defense. A survey done by the National Violence Against Women shows that women are just as likely to be controlling as husbands, perhaps even more so. Husbands have a greater tendency to use violence though to get their away -again suggesting that men are more violent, and not necessarily so towards women. Only the most serious of violence is committed by husbands hoping to dominate, but in general research suggests that controlling husbands are unlikely to commit serious violence. The ambiguity of coercion and consent in rape cases is also very vague (many women state there was a misunderstanding and they knew the man) thus making specific cases that men are trying to control women is difficult. Generally men just want sex, not to control. Women happen to be the way they can get sex, thus Jensen states it's not a hatred towards women but a need to fulfill sexual desire. Research also finds that men with more traditional views of gender roles are less likely to commit assault towards women then those with more liberal views. Men who generally assault women and commit rape have similar attitudes towards women as other offenders. They are just criminals, not focusing on violence towards women. In general, the methods that men use are important, not their motives. They are not trying to hurt or control women in particular, they are just using violence that is specific to their nature.

I think that both perspectives are very plausible and that Felson makes a good argument for the violence perspective. It does seem that men who abuse their wives/girlfriends generally also have other criminal records. It's the same idea of selectivity -bad men are bad men and don't decide to become good when it comes to their 'woman'. While Felson states that men with more traditional views of gender role commit less violence towards women, I still believe that there are men out there who get a high off of control and know that they can manipulate women because they are generally more vulnerable. Whether this is sexism or not is difficult for me to decide, I guess it has more to do with the specific person. He also makes a good point at the end of the article, that while equality under the law is important, it does not take into consideration the physical and mental differences of males and females. Also just social conventions that mandate that women are more dependent on men -making it very difficult for women to avoid these abusive situations. I think men who abuse women should be treated differently then visa versa because it's more of a problem and women are naturally smaller and less able to defend themselves.

2.) What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.

Jones doesn't believe that this is a real question to so speak. When someone hears of a battered wife incident of abuse etc. they don't ask what was wrong with the man, why he did such a thing, or if he was put away. Instead they immediately ask, "Why didn't she leave?". Jones states that in asking this question we are immediately making a judgment and placing the blame on the victim -it was her fault she stayed and took the abuse or it was her fault that it happened. Doesn't anyone every stop to think that perhaps she did try to leave? Like Tracey Thurman of Connecticut whose husband was put in jail put also was put up for parole. She explains her reasoning for not leaving. Why should she leave? This is her home, the place she grew up, and where her social network and support group are located. As the victim, why should she be made to get up and start a new life? She knows that even if she leaves, he will probably find her and she will forever live in fear. Who wants to live that way? Similarly, Karen Straw did get up in leave. Her husband found her in and broke into her hotel room while raping her at knife point. Fortunately she was able to kill him self defense. What did leaving get her? A dead husband and a second degree murder charge, not exactly a desirable state to be in. Women go through great lengths to defend themselves, they file lawsuits, call the police, escape to women's shelters and yet women like Straw and Madelyn Diaz are still left with one option -murder. They did all the books told them to do, and absolutely no protection was given to them. In asking why did they not leave, we assume the women has done absolutely nothing and has completely control over her safety. Clearly if she had control, she would have never been abused in the first place. Instead psychologists, therapists, sociologists and the works attempt to explain why women don't leave. They say it's helplessness or dependency. We come up with excuses instead of questioning the system that failed them. Karen Straw did walk away and she was still not safe. It wasn't a personality defect that put her in the position she was in, it was an abusive man and a faulty criminal justice system. Leaving clearly doesn't solve the problem, men always come back for more. I agree with Jones whole-heartedly. She makes a lot of good points in her argument. It's so easy for society to blame the victim, or anyone but ourselves. I have to admit that while I was reading this article, or while hearing the millions of other battered wife tales I sit there thinking -well I'd never get myself into that situation, I'm too smart for that. And while maybe it's true that some women have more trouble picking out bad seeds, or detecting a problem before it develops into violence, spousal abuse can happen to anyone. It's very easy to get into the trap of saying oh it won't happen again. I would imagine it's much harder than people think to leave the man you fell in love with because he lost his temper once and slapped you. Instead we sit back and saw it will never happen to us and that the women should have left. But clearly men come back for more, many cases are never tried, and they get off for what they've done. It's unbelievable but true. We truly overlook the fact that most women do what they're supposed to in abusive situations and yet they still aren't helped. They are abused again, they kill in self defense, they commit suicide, or worse -they are killed by their abusers. The real question we need to ask is not "why didn't she leave" but how can we help and prevent future beatings. We also spend millions of tax dollars each year studying the victims. We attempt to categorize victims into certain types of personality groups -low self-esteem, dependency, low socioeconomic background etc. What no one is realizing is that ANYONE can be a victim of abuse, it doesn't matter who they are or what they are like. It's the abusers we should be studying and the methods we have in place to prevent violence and protect battered women.

This article touches on a lot of issues identified in Felsen's gender vs. violence perspective. I think Jones would agree that society mainly sees abuse as a sexist problem. These husbands hate women and thus abuse and victimize them brutally. We then put the blame on the women who doesn't leave the abusive situation -another sexist view. It makes the abuse her fault, as if she could and has control of the situation. The violence perspective comes into play as well though, certainly Jones identifies many violent men who have a tendency towards crime. She wouldn't disagree with this. She merely sees women as a main victim of this outlet because they are present in these men's lives. Also, women are definitely more abused in the sense that men are stronger and can easily over take them (regardless of the frequency of violence on either side). Our criminal justice system still protects the man and by not acting suggests that spousal abuse is OK.

3.) According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.

Ptacek explains that: "While on the whole, the batterers' accounts consist of more excuses than justifications, most men use both verbal strategies in an attempt to neutralize their behavior. They tend to excuse themselves of full responsibility, and at the same time, they offer justifications for their abusiveness" (141). This in turn offers inconsistencies in the responses of the men. The first type of face-saving tactic used is the idea of denial or excuse, which is complete denial of responsibility and voluntary behavior. The most common example of this is 'appeal to loss of control.' Most commonly wife beaters attributed alcohol or drugs to their impairment and thus inability to act rationally. Another excuse is a build up of frustration that that essentially is a catalyst for a violent outburst that renders the abuser out of control. Interestingly enough, aggression is only one of many responses to pent up frustration. Others include dependency, achievement, withdrawal and resignation, psychosomatic illness, drug or alcohol use, and constructive problem solving. Still the violence is very selective, only with a wife or girlfriend. The second main category of denial is victim blaming. Usually the wrongness of violence is realized by the abuser but they do not accept responsibility, claiming they were provoked by the woman. This can be either physically or verbally, but either way the men seem to think that their violence isn't wrong even though it was in response to abuse they deem as wrong. Clearly verbal aggression is not the same physical aggression. His behavior is justified, hers is not -male superiority.

Examples of justification for behavior are different than denial. The batterer denies wrongdoing, believing what he did was deserved. The first category of justification is denial of injury. In these cases the men minimized injury or inflicted damage, claimed exaggeration on the part of the women or used a euphemism to describe violence. Also many deny that their wives were frightened or scared of them or claim that women bruise easily. This is merely an example of finding fault with the woman. This is the second category of justification. Men claim their beatings were acceptable because their wives/girlfriends weren't respective, good cooks, motivated in bed, taking care of the children, or being faithful. Thus they had to be put in their place through the use of violence.

There are many contradictions offered in the testimonies of the men. Mainly this fails into the idea that men try to state that they had complete loss of control perhaps due to drugs, or perhaps because of frustration but then in the same tirade they try to say that their wife deserved what she got because she provoked him. Thus in the same face-saving account they say they had no control over what they did, but at the same time were voluntarily responding to deserved punishment for the wife. How can one act out of "blind rage" while at the same time claim that his wife deserved what she got? As Ptacek puts it, these men go from: "denying responsibility, to seemingly accepting responsibility while minimizing the wrongness, to denying responsibility again" (149).

I think Ptacek's findings also feed into both the gender and violence perspectives of abuse. I highlighted instances of both in my reading. One example I found was in the frustration-aggression excuse. Ptacek found that there are multiple ways to respond to frustration of which I've enumerated above. Of the sample of men, most must have responded in more ways than violence. Their violence is selective in nature. 39% of these men said their frustration led to violence only because their wives or girlfriends were there. 33% stated similarly that it lead to violence in the presence of their partners, children, and mothers. Only 28% said men were violent both within and outside the family. Thus only 28% of these men reported following the violence perspective -they are violent any way. The rest support the gender theory that men are only pushing their violence towards their female spouse -perhaps suggesting that they are violent only towards women and hoping to gain control. Another example of the violence theory from Ptacek's study is that one of the men who had committed violent acts on a female had also been arrested five or six times for assault and battery on men. This man was clearly violent all around. Physical abuse on his wife was just one example of this and not necessarily concluding hatred of women. An example of the gender theory is seen in this man's account on his wife not being faithful and respectful. He said: "I don't know if I demanded respect as a person or a husband or anything like that, but..."; "I'm the man of the house"; "the first time I was acting like a man and I got it." Then Ptacek continues to explain: "There is a sentiment here about the way that women should behave when they're sexually involved with a man, whether married or unmarried." Clearly in this situation there is a hatred towards women or a need to put them in their place and control them. This is clearly the gender perspective, these men want to be violent towards their wives, not necessarily others. All in all both examples of gender and violence perspective are prevalent, but it seems the gender perspective shows up in greater frequency. Less of these men seem to be violent all around, but rather mostly towards their female partners.

I think that Ptacek's study is very interesting. He certainly presented it in a fair and clear light -giving all of his biases and explaining the study carefully and step by step. I think it's helpful to hear these words from the wife beaters, but I think it would be more helpful to have specific female accounts lined up next to the male accounts for comparison. Of course both instances will contain biases, most likely the female would try to over-play for sympathy and to plead her case better while the man would try to understate to save face. Either way I would like to see where inconsistencies arise and even more so where accordance is drawn. Still, seeing this from a male's perspective gets us thinking more about the root of the problem and draws us away from the victim blaming the Jone's discusses in her article, and thus, is very important.