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.