Questions:
According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.
The first article by Barbara Risman and Pepper Schwartz dealt with a variety of issues in reference to teen sexuality habits. The main goal of the article was seemingly to dissuade the popular notion and current research that teens have become more sexually conservative unlike their parents in the last decade of the 20th century. Specific stats show that less teens between the ages of 15 and 17 have had sexual intercourse and the CDC discovered findings indicating that in the 90s less and less kids under the age of 18 are sexually active. In all categories, whites, blacks and Hispanics instances of sexual intercourse have dropped amongst teens. Also, teen pregnancy rates have dropped by 14%, which have lowered instances of abortion by 31%. There are a few possible reasons for this decline including the success of abstinence education, the positive effect of comprehensive sex education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, or the fear of disease. The authors seems to assert that abstinence only education is not in fact as effective as comprehensive sex education and that many statistics are misrepresented. It seems that one of the trends for teens and sex is that teens are having more responsible sex as opposed to sex later in life. Only about 25% of the decline of the pregnancy rate can be attributed to abstinence, while the other can be attributed to more efficient use of birth control. Other trends show that while boys rates of sexual activity have decreased before the age of 18 while girls have not. Another trend is that most boys have their first sexual experience in a relationship because girls now have more say in the relationship. If girls choose to wait until they are "dating" then boys must also, different from the past when most boys had their first sexual experience with a "slutty girl" so to speak outside of their social circle who probably had many similar encounters with other males. Girls are also more likely to insist on safer sex than boys because they have to deal with pregnancy. Another trend is that there is still a gender double standard. If a girl were to have too much sex or do "sexual things" with too many guys, she would still be labeled as a slut while a boy could more easily move from partner to partner and have sex outside of an established relationship. Also, research shows that many teens also participate in acts of oral sex, even before have sexual or vaginal intercourse. In fact, most do not consider oral sex as sex. Another finding shows that by the time women are 20, 9 out of 10 have had sex. Only 1 out of 4 for women and 1 out of 5 for men are still virgins by the time they reach their teens. It also seems that while approval of casual sex is down, the definition of a relationship has also become more "liberal" and thus what one defines as casual sex may be very different from generation to generation. Apparently no counterrevolution has taken place, buy only allowed for us to rethink how we think about sex. It is no longer seen as a means by which to reproduce inside marriage. The article suggests also that the reason why more teens are protecting themselves from STIs and pregnancy is a product of girls having more sexual freedom. Like stated above, because they restrict sex into a relationship, boys have less control of the sex and girls insist on protection.
A very interesting part of the article, and one which I agree with wholeheartedly is that all sources seem to denote teen sexuality as a social problem. All fail to recognize the fact that as adults have accepted sex outside of marriage as a pleasure activity that doesn't necessarily lead to marriage, teens are following suits. Teens do in fact have sexual desires and choose to act on them. Unfortunately, no amount of education and parental control is going to stop teens from having sex. It would be wiser to accept it as an occurrence and instead try to prevent the harmful side effects of sex. Sex isn't a necessarily a bad thing if teens have education about their actions. The authors suggest that this view point of negativity towards teen sex is possibly why such statistics are skewed in the media. The authors also suggest that if other writers on teen sex stated their views on the subject before continuing their dissertation. This is a very good point for I think it would clear up where the author is coming from before preventing statistical date to prove or refute otherwise. Also it's interesting to think about whether or not teen sex is pathological or natural. To me it seems like it is natural. For what other reasons would teen act on sexual urges for all of time? It's not like teens didn't engage in sex in the past, they just kept it more under wraps so the social stigma didn't label them. The authors suggest that all in all many statistics are misrepresented to show that teens are showing more conservatism when it comes to sex. The authors suggest that this is not in fact true but more availability of birth control, the change of the role of the girl in the relationship, sex education, the redefinition of the relationship, and more awareness of disease has led teens to have more responsible sex; necessarily lowering rates of teen pregnancy, STIs and abortion rates. Also, teens are acting in the same way adults have revolutionized their sexual activity: sex for pleasure in a relationship not for marriage. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Researches and social analysts are too narrow minded in reporting their findings about the instances of teen sex. We need to take a very different approach to the topic if we ever plan to make strides on preventing unwanted and unsafe outcomes of sex.
The second article, "The Decline of the Date and the Rise of the College Hook Up" by Paula England and Reuben J Thomas proposes a second interesting idea of the evolution of dating. Paula England is a professor of sociology who was presented with the idea that college students no longer date but rather "hook-up." She states that at first she was shocked by this finding, but after researching the topic with her doctoral student Thomas, she found that scope of college heterosexual relationships have very much changed. She points to the fact that generally college students hang out as an expression of interest or meet at a party, drink, and then "hook-up," which can be defined as anything from making out to having sex casually with someone who is not a boyfriend or girl friend. Sometimes this leads to a series of hook-ups which then potentially leads to exclusive hooking up, and then maybe to a relationship. This relationship would then be defined as dating. There is a commitment, and probable sex, and there wouldn't be "hooking up" with other people.
In a survey conducted at a medium sized private university on 615 students, over half of the students reported having been on 5 real dates or fewer (excluding dorm room or Greek events). 21% of men and 32% of women had been on no dates at all- a seemingly sad trend that further bolsters the theory of the rise of hookups and decline of dating as it was known in the past. England states that the hookup is necessarily like the dating of the past- it leads to relationships. After a period of this "casual sex" generally the girl initiates "the talk" which poses the question of whether or not the couple is ready to become exclusive and start dating. There is of course a stigma that woman are generally the ones who want a relationship and men are just in it for the sex. Woman feel weird about bringing up the relationship talk for fear of being labeled this way. Cultural barriers have been lifted, allowing for it to be OK for women to have multiple sexual partners before marrying. This is considered normal, to excessive sex could lead to being called a slut. Another interesting trend noted by England is that more men than women have orgasmed during a hookup. Also, more men think that their partners have orgasmed, when in fact there is a statistical gap in what the man and what the woman actually reports. This could be because woman are faking orgasms or men are not actually aware of what an orgasm is. The reasons stated for this disparity were stated as inability of men to perform cunnilingus, women faking orgasm, and less women being comfortable with receiving oral sex outside of a relationship. It seems more women are comfortable with giving then receiving oral sex. Where couples received oral sex, 49% it was mutual, 37% only the man received and 14% of the time the woman only received. The authors point to a variety of changes in the scope of American society that has lead to these changes. This is including but not limited to the legalization of the birth control pill in the 60s, the legalization of abortion (which allowed more women to engage in sexual activity without the fear of pregnancy), and of the course the advent of women's rights which has spilt over into all spheres of life. Oral sex is more prevalent outside of marriage and people are marrying later, perhaps leading to more sex before it. The general idea of the article though is to point out that the hookup is becoming the norm for college students and dating so to speak is out.
Both articles touch on gender roles a lot in their analysis. The second article discusses that with the advent of freedom for women comes actually more responsibility and social stigma. If a woman wants a relationship or especially one that doesn't involve sexual activity at first, the hookup culture prevents this. The double standard still exists in relation to sex, men's sexual pleasure takes priority and women are still labeled as sluts and whores if they engage in more sex than is the norm. Women also orgasm less which really hasn't made sexual freedom any better for them. The first article also touches on this gender analysis. Risman and Schwartz discuss that the changing scope of high school dating has led more girls to be in control and thus have more insistence upon proper pre-sex precautions (condom, birth control, etc). Both seem to agree that the changes in dating and in teen sex have something to do with the gender revolution and women's rights whether that be positive or negative.
As a female in college I can definitely speak from experience and agree with England's article. She very very accurately describes the scene of "dating" so to speak on college campuses. Every night when my friends and I go out we hope to get drunk and "hookup" with someone at a party. This either means make out with them or go back to their room and perhaps do something more. If not this, then at least get a guys number and hope that a hook up might happen in the future. In one instance, this has led to a relationship. In most of my other roommates attempts, this has lead to repeated failure and dejection. After hooking up casually for a few weeks or months all of my girl friends were hoping to have the talk with their 'partners' in order to make their relationship more official. 7 out of 8 times, the guy went running. England's findings were true, girls want relationships to form out of these hookups and guys generally don't -they want sex. Also, none of my friends relationships or my own have started with a date. It's hard to decide if this is a healthy thing or not, but it certainly has changed from in the past. High school was very similar, we hook up and rarely dated. Friends remained friends even with sex and the relationships that existed were far and few. Girls lost their virginitys mainly because they were long term dating an older more experienced guy who clearly pressured them into having sex -whether willingly or unwillingly.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Sunday, February 4, 2007
The first reading about sexual deviances was a very interesting one. The beginning of the article deals with the idea that colonial America stressed the importance of sex in marriage and in marriage only. They seemed to believe that it was ok to have sexual pleasure, and it was necessary to have sex period –and thus because sex was necessary for procreation, having children and sex for enjoyment went hand in hand. Sex outside of the marriage or before the marriage was not acceptable behavior. These acts included fornication, masturbation, sodomy, and buggery to name a few. Sex was an act to be shared by a man and his wife in the marriage bed. Children were taught and ingrained from a young age to believe that sex had its purpose to procreate, and anything outside of this was acceptable. Children were a desirable product of sex and were needed to keep a family going. Seemingly it was okay to have sexual desire, as long as it was channeled towards the marriage partner for the purpose of procreation. The Puritans in particular taught to channel sexual energy towards love for God and save just a little for marriage. They believed sex was virtually unclean and only acceptable to keep generations alive. Of course the Puritan approach was very much more conservative than in other areas. In the colonies in general, sexuality outside of marriage was punishable by execution, whipping or fines. Various standards existed for men and woman, race, and social standing, in terms of punishment. Kids were taught from a young age about sexuality. Many shared bedrooms or even beds with parents and thus witnessed sex first hand. Others were taught about it in church and by their parents. Obviously they knew that sex only had one purpose and was never to be experimented with. Colonial houses afforded little privacy to couples, thus almost anyone could here or see a couple “in the act.” In addition, as stated above, sexual promiscuity had heavy consequences for the parties involved. Sex outside of marriage, bastardy, and adultery were not tolerated. Though it seemed that if the “criminals” accepted the terms of their punishment and repented they were seamlessly reintegrated back into society. For example, Samuel Terry of Springfield who was a repeat sexual offender and yet was allowed to be a town constable. Similarly, couples who were courting with permission of the parents and got pregnant were generally forgiven if they repented, accepted punishment and married. The two main goals of regulating sexual deviance were to help enforce the system of marital, reproductive sexuality and to maintain white dominance over blacks. D'Emilio states that the court, church and community taught the socialization of youths and urged them to consider the appropriate place for sex -in marriage for children.
This reading was very interesting. It gave me a look at sexual life in Colonial American like I had never thought of it before. It certainly dispelled previous notions that all colonists were moral conservatives. To me it seems that peoples cravings were no different, but that moral standards stopped many from acting on such urges, especially with threat of punishment. I think the reading, while interesting, was sometimes hard to follow. It seems as if there were a lot of stories and random things thrown in full of repetition. The point is simple; sex was for marriage and marriage only otherwise there were consequences. Several pages were not needed to make this point. People were integrated into families to support each other economically. Thus children were a subset of this, and necessary to keep the family alive.
The second reading also offered an interesting view point on the development of gay society in our culture. D'Emilio believes that the rise of capitalism has created a society in which people are able to pursue their economic goals independent of a family and thus can pursue sexual goals independent of necessity. This in turn has propagated a culture in which people can engage in their homosexual urges and turn it into a lifestyle. Nuclear families are no longer needed as a basis for interdependence. People had to marry and have children because children were additional workers for the farm where food and clothing was produced. Children also cared for parents in their old age. When capitalism emerged, people began to leave the home to earn wages which wa in turn used to purchase food and clothing. Not as many things were made in the home anymore. He claims homosexual urges always existed, and documented several sources which confirmed these lewd findings in colonial times, but social construct didn’t allow for them to make a lifestyle of it. They didn't have the "social space" if you will to fully act on these desires. People needed the nuclear family and procreation to survive. It wasn’t until present times and the emergence of capitalism that people could pursue gains independently and support themselves. They could then also engage in sexual activity without the aim of procreation. A certain sexual identity was created that didn’t exist prior. Sex and economic self sufficiency are now able to travel in two separate spheres, and aren't reliant on one another. Thus he argues that just these urges existed, but not homosexuality as a lifestyle – not until present times. He claims that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory because capitalism is the force that has essentially weakened the bonds of the family economically (people no longer need the family to produce food to survive). At the same time he claims that the family creates feelings of love and affection that can't be found elsewhere (money doesn't satisfy emotions). The family is essentially a unit for support in the area of love.
This is an interesting argument but I’m not sure I buy it. I agree that capitalism certainly allowed for more and more people to live without marrying but I think homosexuality is homosexuality. If you had those urges in 1700 but didn’t act on them because society mandated that it was wrong, it is no different than today. Now though, it is socially acceptable to be gay and we can admit to it in the sense that we can live without a domestic partner. The author also states that the population of gays and lesbians has grown because of an example set. While this may be true in some respects, I’m more inclined to believe that more and more people are not inhibited from “coming out of the closet” so to speak because of the changing landscape of social stigmas. A gay individual, while perhaps not being able to recognize his/her differences in sexuality, would be wary to act upon his/her urges for fear of punishment, banishment, and inability to make a living. Now these social pressures don’t exist and thus more and more individuals identify themselves as gay. It’s the same idea of as the higher instances of divorce. There are more divorces, I believe, because it’s morally/socially acceptable to do so and woman can survive without the income of the man. Change has allowed for certain things to become more acceptable and thus more prevalent. The author doesn't really make clear what he's basing his argument on. While yes I would agree that there are exponentially more gay and lesbian people today, I think that is because we recognize it as a life style. If this is what D'Emilio is saying than I think he might be correct, but to say that less gay and lesbians existed in the 18th century for example is a statement that can't really be defended. There are no facts to support either argument -that there were less gays OR that there were the same amount but many didn't recognize their different feelings and act on them.
This reading was very interesting. It gave me a look at sexual life in Colonial American like I had never thought of it before. It certainly dispelled previous notions that all colonists were moral conservatives. To me it seems that peoples cravings were no different, but that moral standards stopped many from acting on such urges, especially with threat of punishment. I think the reading, while interesting, was sometimes hard to follow. It seems as if there were a lot of stories and random things thrown in full of repetition. The point is simple; sex was for marriage and marriage only otherwise there were consequences. Several pages were not needed to make this point. People were integrated into families to support each other economically. Thus children were a subset of this, and necessary to keep the family alive.
The second reading also offered an interesting view point on the development of gay society in our culture. D'Emilio believes that the rise of capitalism has created a society in which people are able to pursue their economic goals independent of a family and thus can pursue sexual goals independent of necessity. This in turn has propagated a culture in which people can engage in their homosexual urges and turn it into a lifestyle. Nuclear families are no longer needed as a basis for interdependence. People had to marry and have children because children were additional workers for the farm where food and clothing was produced. Children also cared for parents in their old age. When capitalism emerged, people began to leave the home to earn wages which wa in turn used to purchase food and clothing. Not as many things were made in the home anymore. He claims homosexual urges always existed, and documented several sources which confirmed these lewd findings in colonial times, but social construct didn’t allow for them to make a lifestyle of it. They didn't have the "social space" if you will to fully act on these desires. People needed the nuclear family and procreation to survive. It wasn’t until present times and the emergence of capitalism that people could pursue gains independently and support themselves. They could then also engage in sexual activity without the aim of procreation. A certain sexual identity was created that didn’t exist prior. Sex and economic self sufficiency are now able to travel in two separate spheres, and aren't reliant on one another. Thus he argues that just these urges existed, but not homosexuality as a lifestyle – not until present times. He claims that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory because capitalism is the force that has essentially weakened the bonds of the family economically (people no longer need the family to produce food to survive). At the same time he claims that the family creates feelings of love and affection that can't be found elsewhere (money doesn't satisfy emotions). The family is essentially a unit for support in the area of love.
This is an interesting argument but I’m not sure I buy it. I agree that capitalism certainly allowed for more and more people to live without marrying but I think homosexuality is homosexuality. If you had those urges in 1700 but didn’t act on them because society mandated that it was wrong, it is no different than today. Now though, it is socially acceptable to be gay and we can admit to it in the sense that we can live without a domestic partner. The author also states that the population of gays and lesbians has grown because of an example set. While this may be true in some respects, I’m more inclined to believe that more and more people are not inhibited from “coming out of the closet” so to speak because of the changing landscape of social stigmas. A gay individual, while perhaps not being able to recognize his/her differences in sexuality, would be wary to act upon his/her urges for fear of punishment, banishment, and inability to make a living. Now these social pressures don’t exist and thus more and more individuals identify themselves as gay. It’s the same idea of as the higher instances of divorce. There are more divorces, I believe, because it’s morally/socially acceptable to do so and woman can survive without the income of the man. Change has allowed for certain things to become more acceptable and thus more prevalent. The author doesn't really make clear what he's basing his argument on. While yes I would agree that there are exponentially more gay and lesbian people today, I think that is because we recognize it as a life style. If this is what D'Emilio is saying than I think he might be correct, but to say that less gay and lesbians existed in the 18th century for example is a statement that can't really be defended. There are no facts to support either argument -that there were less gays OR that there were the same amount but many didn't recognize their different feelings and act on them.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Learning to Adapt; As Two-Worker Families Have Become More Common, Co-op Preschools Have Had to Adjust
Wisconsin State Journal
Jessica Vanegeren
September 26, 2006
This article was about the changing scope of families and how that idea is affecting co-operative preschool. Co-op preschools are schools for children under the age of 5 or 6, created by parents with a common belief system of how to raise children. With their own backing and funds they start the preschool and elect a teacher to teach. The parents do all but the actual teaching, (ie. volunteering, cleaning, baking etc.) Because of the higher instance of two working parent households, this type of school is becoming a distant dream. It is more common now that these schools have optional parental involvement to allow for the parent to help out when they can and if they aren’t working. More and more parents are relying on day care or preschools with a day care option for they are not home to watch their children all day. The specific preschool in the article is the University Houses Preschool of Dane County, in Madison Wisconsin. The school is generally designed for faculty and staff of the school and their children. It’s located on campus and allows for easy access for the parents. This is one of 13 co-op preschools in the area. The idea is to create a home schooling type environment for the children where parents are present for aiding in the growing and nurturing. One particular preschool in Madison doesn’t have a day care license, thus children can only stay for up to 5 consecutive hours a day. This option becomes unsuitable for many working parents who need full day care options. Many parents of children who attend the school were interviewed and also the director of the school and executive director of a child care tracking organization in Madison. It seems like the concept is very good and all parties involved are working to keep it alive, while changing it slightly to fit the needs and demands of two working parent households. The statistics seem to come from reputable sources and fit general knowledge trends of the high instance of working mothers. It’s clear there are still parents out there though, that hope to be centered in their children’s lives while young, even if they hold a job. The article seems to show that despite the fact that more mothers are working outside of the home, they’re still just involved in their kids lives –and schools are changing to help meet these important needs.
Parents Can Learn How to Balance Work and Family Wisconsin State
JournalPR Newswire US
University of Chicago
February 3, 2006
This article was about how parents are learning to cope with the changes of the work place. It focused a lot on the increase of woman in the work force who attempt to balance family life without compromising career security. The article is a compilation effort of a study done at the University of Chicago about the effects of over working on family life. The statistics are credible, coming from senior social scientists and the director of the Center of Parents Children and Work (who also is the principal investigator for the new Data Research and Development Center at the National Opinion Research Center). The article suggests that spending time with kids and sharing chores will help bring the family closer together and create a positive family experience that can’t be duplicated elsewhere. This also helps to quell the stress of over working (upwards of 40 hours a week). The research finds that most adolescents are forgiving and understanding of their parents working more since generally they can physically take care of themselves, of course they still emotionally benefit greatly from family time. Younger children are less forgiving towards parents thus creating a high tension situation. In general, it seems that kids are also affected negatively when parents miss special events, not so much when they are just unavailable. The article also suggests that work places need to be more accommodating to families with children and not judge woman who are family oriented. Rearranging schedules in the work place seems to be a desirable option to aid working families. Kids still want to be with their parents and it seems that there is still really no solution to the complex problem of raising children and having a job. I believe that fact of the matter is, if a woman chooses to work she has the right too, even if she wants to have children. There’s no reason why a job should inhibit her from doing both, especially if two incomes are needed. Why should she have to compromise her career when a father is rarely expected to? Personally, I still feel that these articles which offer solutions don’t put any responsibility on the father to raise children. All people, situations, and children are different. Some adapt well to change others don’t, a mother working isn’t always a negative thing. I believe in many respects it motivates the children to work hard and succeed in all their endeavors, and the article touches on this. Over all though, the article does provide some useful tips for balance both work and home time –still no solution.
Parenting by Shift 'is Harming Children'
The Daily Mail
December 1, 2006
This article, while short, pointed out a few important things about the children of two working parents. It claims that while it is important that two parents work if need be, that there are harmful effects on the children who get passed back and forth from parent to parent while one is working and the other isn’t. The claim is that most children are missing out on the important bonding activities that take place with the whole family because one parent is forced to work antisocial hours so that one partner can be there all the time. For example, a mother is forced to work weekend and night time to make ends meet thus missing out on important family activity social times (baseball games and shows etc.) This article is based on the opinion of Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman of London. It may not be an accurate portrayal of life elsewhere. I am personally under the opinion that most people are working normal hours and relying on child care for their children when possible and not working opposing hours. This may just be a trend in the US where jobs are generally readily available. I can also only judge based on my surrounding and situation, where most people aren’t struggling to put food on the table. The article did make some valid points though, suggesting that jobs should allow for paid sick leave when children are ill so parents can stay home to watch their kids when they would generally be at school and also having better part time positions. It seems to be a pattern that many people agree that more and more parents need to work together to make ends meet but the problem of child care is having a negative effect on the children. The article even suggests that it would be better economically for parents to not marry and simply cohabitate and share responsibilities. I think these ideas make sense though it doesn’t explicitly explain what these negative effects on the children are and how that’s affecting their performance in school/work etc. A lot of these articles merely point out the fact that there is a problem but do little to offer advice or really analyze what this means for the plight of the two parent working household. Also, there are few positive effects given for two working parents, where children might actually benefit in having independence and being better able to leave home for college.
Put The Kids to Work
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
July 4, 2006
This article is merely an editorial about the plight of working parents. The author touches on a lot of points which I’ve brought up previously, how there are tons of articles and books out there on how to support a family. But few actually give any helpful advice that might really ameliorate the stress factors of overworked parents. The text does provide a perhaps practical and helpful piece of advice to parents. It suggests that parents should instill in their children a strong work ethic from the very start and stress that life isn’t a free ride. While not supported with specific statistics from any reputable source, the author explains that almost all children in Canada live without providing anything to their household. While it is true that kids should have time to play, do homework, participate in sports etc., they should also have chores to do. It would not be too much to ask for kids to take out the garbage, make their bed, cut the grass, and help with dinner. If kids just aided their parents a little, it would significantly cut out stress factors that working parents have to face when they return home each night from a long day at the office. I think this advice makes sense in the short run. It’s not a solution either, but it is sound advice to lessen the burden of much stressed adults. Helping out together I think would increase family bonding time for many families and instill important values in the children’s heads about working to live. Though it doesn’t say who the author is, it seems to be a parent who wishes that children would contribute more to family life, suggesting that parents shouldn’t be merely satisfied with their child cleaning up their room once a month. Things have changed, and children are no longer required to act as little parents when they reach a certain age, but a few chores wouldn’t kill anyone.
Day-care Dilemma
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
December 2, 2006 Saturday
Barbara Correra
This article offered a different perspective on the working parent dilemma- the need for day care. It discussed different family’s very different needs for child care. The article mentioned a few different categories of families, those with two parents who work because they need the money to make ends meet. Some work because they want to and don’t want to sacrifice their careers, while other mothers work to have extra money to go on nice vacations etc. Some mothers choose to stay home because their husband’s income can support the family and they believe being a stay home mom is the best option for children. Some parents like Erika Schickel, mother of two girls from Los Angeles, sent her daughters to day care when they were younger in order to have some free time to work on her career as an author. There are several statistics offered in the article of seemingly reputable sources. One states that more than 80 percent of parents said they used child care because they needed to work. This is based on a survey done by the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. This seems to suggest that finding someone to watch the kids is a big problem and the changing economics of the US is forcing most mothers to go to work. Another survey taken by the Urban Institute discovered that 73 percent of children under 5 with an employed parent were in an arrangement other than care by a parent. Again, further statistics that indicate that childcare of some sort is necessary while parents work. Many mothers do have to make the choice whether or not to pursue a career with young kids or stay home and watch them all day. Mothers interviewed indicated that whatever the choice, there seems to be inner turmoil, a “double-edged sword” if you will. It’s nice to have the extra money but it’s also difficult to feel guilty all the time while earning it. The crux of the article focuses on the idea that mothers should be able to choose what they feel is best for themselves and their family and that child care options should be readily available for mom’s who choose to work. I agree wholeheartedly with this for it’s important that society stress the importance of a work ethic and the woman’s right to choose and be happy.
Conclusion
Of all of these articles, though very different and dealing with different aspects of the two working parents crunch, are centered on one issue: the fact that more and more women are required to work for economic reasons and that leaves children without supervision. Different experts and citizens disagree over whether or not it’s ok for women to spend a large amount of time out of the house pursuing careers when they could be spending time with their children. I personally do not believe this is the issue. Women, like men, should have the right to do whatever it is they wish and have children. It’s perfectly natural to procreate and have a career, its part of life. The issue at hand is how we deal with the fact that children then need other forms of care. I think most can agree that parents are best suited to raise their children, but just because mom works doesn’t mean she doesn’t raise her kids. There is still as much love and care in a house with a working mom than in a house where the mom stays home. Personally, I have a mom who works a lot. Every moment I do get to spend with her then means that much more to me. I realize how important our time is together and I cherish it. She works hard to give us everything and I do what I can to make it easier on her (help out around the house, care for my sister etc.) We’ve always had a nanny to drive us around and make us dinner when were younger, and fortunately we had the means by which to pay for one. Many families of course are no this fortunate. They must rely on day care, other family members, after school programs, and neighbors to watch their children. I still stand by the fact though that this kids will grow up just as adjusted if not more so than kids whose mom’s stay home. They learn a sense of independence from parents which makes leaving the home when they go off to school or work that much easier. I think that it’s nearly impossible to be objective about this issue. It’s so hard to judge what’s best for kids when it’s something that’s so personal to each individual and each family. For some kids it can be argued that having a parent around all the time is the best answer, but I don’t think this is the case for all children. Kids need to be separated from their parents to learn valuable lessons about independence and self sufficiency. As long as parents (or caretakers) show love and affection for their children it seems they will turn out just fine. Experts can present as many statistics as possible, but no one statistic will satisfy the masses. Parents have to make the best informed decisions as possible when raising their children, and if that means both parents have to work to make ends meet, then so be it. A child is better off in day care and fed then at home with their mother and no food. We spend too much time worrying about what the popular press says and not enough time caring for our children’s well being. You do what you have to do to get by, and that’s the best anyone can ask for.
Wisconsin State Journal
Jessica Vanegeren
September 26, 2006
This article was about the changing scope of families and how that idea is affecting co-operative preschool. Co-op preschools are schools for children under the age of 5 or 6, created by parents with a common belief system of how to raise children. With their own backing and funds they start the preschool and elect a teacher to teach. The parents do all but the actual teaching, (ie. volunteering, cleaning, baking etc.) Because of the higher instance of two working parent households, this type of school is becoming a distant dream. It is more common now that these schools have optional parental involvement to allow for the parent to help out when they can and if they aren’t working. More and more parents are relying on day care or preschools with a day care option for they are not home to watch their children all day. The specific preschool in the article is the University Houses Preschool of Dane County, in Madison Wisconsin. The school is generally designed for faculty and staff of the school and their children. It’s located on campus and allows for easy access for the parents. This is one of 13 co-op preschools in the area. The idea is to create a home schooling type environment for the children where parents are present for aiding in the growing and nurturing. One particular preschool in Madison doesn’t have a day care license, thus children can only stay for up to 5 consecutive hours a day. This option becomes unsuitable for many working parents who need full day care options. Many parents of children who attend the school were interviewed and also the director of the school and executive director of a child care tracking organization in Madison. It seems like the concept is very good and all parties involved are working to keep it alive, while changing it slightly to fit the needs and demands of two working parent households. The statistics seem to come from reputable sources and fit general knowledge trends of the high instance of working mothers. It’s clear there are still parents out there though, that hope to be centered in their children’s lives while young, even if they hold a job. The article seems to show that despite the fact that more mothers are working outside of the home, they’re still just involved in their kids lives –and schools are changing to help meet these important needs.
Parents Can Learn How to Balance Work and Family Wisconsin State
JournalPR Newswire US
University of Chicago
February 3, 2006
This article was about how parents are learning to cope with the changes of the work place. It focused a lot on the increase of woman in the work force who attempt to balance family life without compromising career security. The article is a compilation effort of a study done at the University of Chicago about the effects of over working on family life. The statistics are credible, coming from senior social scientists and the director of the Center of Parents Children and Work (who also is the principal investigator for the new Data Research and Development Center at the National Opinion Research Center). The article suggests that spending time with kids and sharing chores will help bring the family closer together and create a positive family experience that can’t be duplicated elsewhere. This also helps to quell the stress of over working (upwards of 40 hours a week). The research finds that most adolescents are forgiving and understanding of their parents working more since generally they can physically take care of themselves, of course they still emotionally benefit greatly from family time. Younger children are less forgiving towards parents thus creating a high tension situation. In general, it seems that kids are also affected negatively when parents miss special events, not so much when they are just unavailable. The article also suggests that work places need to be more accommodating to families with children and not judge woman who are family oriented. Rearranging schedules in the work place seems to be a desirable option to aid working families. Kids still want to be with their parents and it seems that there is still really no solution to the complex problem of raising children and having a job. I believe that fact of the matter is, if a woman chooses to work she has the right too, even if she wants to have children. There’s no reason why a job should inhibit her from doing both, especially if two incomes are needed. Why should she have to compromise her career when a father is rarely expected to? Personally, I still feel that these articles which offer solutions don’t put any responsibility on the father to raise children. All people, situations, and children are different. Some adapt well to change others don’t, a mother working isn’t always a negative thing. I believe in many respects it motivates the children to work hard and succeed in all their endeavors, and the article touches on this. Over all though, the article does provide some useful tips for balance both work and home time –still no solution.
Parenting by Shift 'is Harming Children'
The Daily Mail
December 1, 2006
This article, while short, pointed out a few important things about the children of two working parents. It claims that while it is important that two parents work if need be, that there are harmful effects on the children who get passed back and forth from parent to parent while one is working and the other isn’t. The claim is that most children are missing out on the important bonding activities that take place with the whole family because one parent is forced to work antisocial hours so that one partner can be there all the time. For example, a mother is forced to work weekend and night time to make ends meet thus missing out on important family activity social times (baseball games and shows etc.) This article is based on the opinion of Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman of London. It may not be an accurate portrayal of life elsewhere. I am personally under the opinion that most people are working normal hours and relying on child care for their children when possible and not working opposing hours. This may just be a trend in the US where jobs are generally readily available. I can also only judge based on my surrounding and situation, where most people aren’t struggling to put food on the table. The article did make some valid points though, suggesting that jobs should allow for paid sick leave when children are ill so parents can stay home to watch their kids when they would generally be at school and also having better part time positions. It seems to be a pattern that many people agree that more and more parents need to work together to make ends meet but the problem of child care is having a negative effect on the children. The article even suggests that it would be better economically for parents to not marry and simply cohabitate and share responsibilities. I think these ideas make sense though it doesn’t explicitly explain what these negative effects on the children are and how that’s affecting their performance in school/work etc. A lot of these articles merely point out the fact that there is a problem but do little to offer advice or really analyze what this means for the plight of the two parent working household. Also, there are few positive effects given for two working parents, where children might actually benefit in having independence and being better able to leave home for college.
Put The Kids to Work
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
July 4, 2006
This article is merely an editorial about the plight of working parents. The author touches on a lot of points which I’ve brought up previously, how there are tons of articles and books out there on how to support a family. But few actually give any helpful advice that might really ameliorate the stress factors of overworked parents. The text does provide a perhaps practical and helpful piece of advice to parents. It suggests that parents should instill in their children a strong work ethic from the very start and stress that life isn’t a free ride. While not supported with specific statistics from any reputable source, the author explains that almost all children in Canada live without providing anything to their household. While it is true that kids should have time to play, do homework, participate in sports etc., they should also have chores to do. It would not be too much to ask for kids to take out the garbage, make their bed, cut the grass, and help with dinner. If kids just aided their parents a little, it would significantly cut out stress factors that working parents have to face when they return home each night from a long day at the office. I think this advice makes sense in the short run. It’s not a solution either, but it is sound advice to lessen the burden of much stressed adults. Helping out together I think would increase family bonding time for many families and instill important values in the children’s heads about working to live. Though it doesn’t say who the author is, it seems to be a parent who wishes that children would contribute more to family life, suggesting that parents shouldn’t be merely satisfied with their child cleaning up their room once a month. Things have changed, and children are no longer required to act as little parents when they reach a certain age, but a few chores wouldn’t kill anyone.
Day-care Dilemma
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
December 2, 2006 Saturday
Barbara Correra
This article offered a different perspective on the working parent dilemma- the need for day care. It discussed different family’s very different needs for child care. The article mentioned a few different categories of families, those with two parents who work because they need the money to make ends meet. Some work because they want to and don’t want to sacrifice their careers, while other mothers work to have extra money to go on nice vacations etc. Some mothers choose to stay home because their husband’s income can support the family and they believe being a stay home mom is the best option for children. Some parents like Erika Schickel, mother of two girls from Los Angeles, sent her daughters to day care when they were younger in order to have some free time to work on her career as an author. There are several statistics offered in the article of seemingly reputable sources. One states that more than 80 percent of parents said they used child care because they needed to work. This is based on a survey done by the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. This seems to suggest that finding someone to watch the kids is a big problem and the changing economics of the US is forcing most mothers to go to work. Another survey taken by the Urban Institute discovered that 73 percent of children under 5 with an employed parent were in an arrangement other than care by a parent. Again, further statistics that indicate that childcare of some sort is necessary while parents work. Many mothers do have to make the choice whether or not to pursue a career with young kids or stay home and watch them all day. Mothers interviewed indicated that whatever the choice, there seems to be inner turmoil, a “double-edged sword” if you will. It’s nice to have the extra money but it’s also difficult to feel guilty all the time while earning it. The crux of the article focuses on the idea that mothers should be able to choose what they feel is best for themselves and their family and that child care options should be readily available for mom’s who choose to work. I agree wholeheartedly with this for it’s important that society stress the importance of a work ethic and the woman’s right to choose and be happy.
Conclusion
Of all of these articles, though very different and dealing with different aspects of the two working parents crunch, are centered on one issue: the fact that more and more women are required to work for economic reasons and that leaves children without supervision. Different experts and citizens disagree over whether or not it’s ok for women to spend a large amount of time out of the house pursuing careers when they could be spending time with their children. I personally do not believe this is the issue. Women, like men, should have the right to do whatever it is they wish and have children. It’s perfectly natural to procreate and have a career, its part of life. The issue at hand is how we deal with the fact that children then need other forms of care. I think most can agree that parents are best suited to raise their children, but just because mom works doesn’t mean she doesn’t raise her kids. There is still as much love and care in a house with a working mom than in a house where the mom stays home. Personally, I have a mom who works a lot. Every moment I do get to spend with her then means that much more to me. I realize how important our time is together and I cherish it. She works hard to give us everything and I do what I can to make it easier on her (help out around the house, care for my sister etc.) We’ve always had a nanny to drive us around and make us dinner when were younger, and fortunately we had the means by which to pay for one. Many families of course are no this fortunate. They must rely on day care, other family members, after school programs, and neighbors to watch their children. I still stand by the fact though that this kids will grow up just as adjusted if not more so than kids whose mom’s stay home. They learn a sense of independence from parents which makes leaving the home when they go off to school or work that much easier. I think that it’s nearly impossible to be objective about this issue. It’s so hard to judge what’s best for kids when it’s something that’s so personal to each individual and each family. For some kids it can be argued that having a parent around all the time is the best answer, but I don’t think this is the case for all children. Kids need to be separated from their parents to learn valuable lessons about independence and self sufficiency. As long as parents (or caretakers) show love and affection for their children it seems they will turn out just fine. Experts can present as many statistics as possible, but no one statistic will satisfy the masses. Parents have to make the best informed decisions as possible when raising their children, and if that means both parents have to work to make ends meet, then so be it. A child is better off in day care and fed then at home with their mother and no food. We spend too much time worrying about what the popular press says and not enough time caring for our children’s well being. You do what you have to do to get by, and that’s the best anyone can ask for.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
David Popenoe's American Family Decline, 1960-1990 was a very interesting social commentary on the state of the American family and it's seeming breakdown into the bare essentials, mother, father and child. His essay discusses the inevitable change from the 1950's nuclear family that took on a very different shape and scope then families today. He cites changes of women's equality, working, and economic independence as one of the key reasons for the breakup of the family. His conclusion is that the continual breakup of this family will have detrimental consequences for the future and for the children of these families. He states that divorce is on the rise and that people don't value marriage and children as much as they once did due to "me-reasons" (people are more self-interested than they once were and aren't as likely to give up personal ambitions to support a family." Essentially he states that the main structures that hold a family together are being torn apart: procreation, socialization of children, affection, companionship, economic cooperation, and sexual regulation. He asserts that many of these structures have been better placed in different institutions (ie. education to the public school system and out of the home) but that it's leaving little left for the family and time together. His critics, Stacey and Cowan both seem to agree with his main statement that family is in decline but disagree about the details. Stacey who supports a seemingly more liberal approach to this idea says that his definition of a family doesn't allow room for change and seems to suggest that the changes are positive and are allowing for greater equality for women. She says that his evidence lacks proof and that he makes casual relationships between things that don't add up. Cowan also agrees that the American family is in decline but he states that Popenoe gives no advice on how to help it. He gives a lot of statistical facts that fail to appeal to any sort of sense and that he gives no sort of opinion on how to respond to these changes.
I am more likely to agree with Stacey. I thought Popenoe's analysis lacked any type of substantial argument either way and sort of just proposed facts for the mere sake of proposing facts. I agree with her that the family is a lot more difficult to define now and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the traditional family is just something we created to feel emotional connection to another set of humans. It's not written in a textbook that a family consists of a mother, father, and child and that they have to live and support each other. This is a nice notion, and if it works it should continue to thrive, but it doesn't always and it's not something we should mold ourselves into for the sake of social convention. While I think the idea of family is important, because all humans need someone they can rely on to care for and love them. But this doesn't necessarily stem from a parent. Many times it doesn't. Often love and compassion is found from different sources entirely. Like Stacey states, we need to focus more on how to support the types of families that are emerging and not on preserving the traditional family --that isn't necessarily the best family structure.
I also agree with Cowan's observations. He states that Popenoe doesn't focus enough on consequences on the changing shape of the family on children. It could be for better or for worse, but Popenoe fails to adequately analyze these effects. I also believe that he doesn't really identify the positive aspects of the changing role of the family, --mother's working and becoming economically dependent. Cowan also brought up another good point, Popenoe fails to mention changes in technology and thought which have allowed for family planning, like of course birth control. It's entirely possible that families were so large in the 1950's because they need the kids to survive and support them in old age and additionally had no way in which to prevent more.
In conclusion, I agree most with Stacey's observations about the changing scope of the family and how we need to reevaluate our definition of what a family is before we start saying it's in decline. We need to figure out how to support the idea of a family that we have now instead of trying to recapture the past. Why should women stay in failed marriage just for the kids? That's illogical. Most likely the child will suffer greater consequences from living with unhappy parents then from seeing their parents separate. Also, many very responsible parents are single, gay, fathers etc. There is no reason to say why the biological nuclear family is the best.
I learned a lot about this argument but it's hard to draw any specific conclusions about the topic until you create a specific definition of the family in your head. Whether or not it is in decline is really irrelevant though, as long as people are growing up healthy and happy.
I am more likely to agree with Stacey. I thought Popenoe's analysis lacked any type of substantial argument either way and sort of just proposed facts for the mere sake of proposing facts. I agree with her that the family is a lot more difficult to define now and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the traditional family is just something we created to feel emotional connection to another set of humans. It's not written in a textbook that a family consists of a mother, father, and child and that they have to live and support each other. This is a nice notion, and if it works it should continue to thrive, but it doesn't always and it's not something we should mold ourselves into for the sake of social convention. While I think the idea of family is important, because all humans need someone they can rely on to care for and love them. But this doesn't necessarily stem from a parent. Many times it doesn't. Often love and compassion is found from different sources entirely. Like Stacey states, we need to focus more on how to support the types of families that are emerging and not on preserving the traditional family --that isn't necessarily the best family structure.
I also agree with Cowan's observations. He states that Popenoe doesn't focus enough on consequences on the changing shape of the family on children. It could be for better or for worse, but Popenoe fails to adequately analyze these effects. I also believe that he doesn't really identify the positive aspects of the changing role of the family, --mother's working and becoming economically dependent. Cowan also brought up another good point, Popenoe fails to mention changes in technology and thought which have allowed for family planning, like of course birth control. It's entirely possible that families were so large in the 1950's because they need the kids to survive and support them in old age and additionally had no way in which to prevent more.
In conclusion, I agree most with Stacey's observations about the changing scope of the family and how we need to reevaluate our definition of what a family is before we start saying it's in decline. We need to figure out how to support the idea of a family that we have now instead of trying to recapture the past. Why should women stay in failed marriage just for the kids? That's illogical. Most likely the child will suffer greater consequences from living with unhappy parents then from seeing their parents separate. Also, many very responsible parents are single, gay, fathers etc. There is no reason to say why the biological nuclear family is the best.
I learned a lot about this argument but it's hard to draw any specific conclusions about the topic until you create a specific definition of the family in your head. Whether or not it is in decline is really irrelevant though, as long as people are growing up healthy and happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)