1. D' Emilio argues that the Puritans approach to sexual desire is not exactly the image that it is viewed as in today's society. He proves that although they garnered harsh laws and regulation of sexual behavior, this in no way meant that there were less instances of sexual encounters and acts of deviance. Since the family was the sole economic unit in colonial times, its stability and continuation was of utmost importance, making clear why the regulation of sexual behavior was such a public endeavor. Another prevalent attitude toward sexual deviance in colonial times was the reitegration of offenders into society after punishment.
The colonial approach to sexuality was the channeling of sexuality and desire to be appropriate only within the state of marriage and for the purpose of procreation. Through the observation of adult sexual behavior and church and state teachings and laws, children learned this to be true. Although outside of wedlock sexual behavior was not seen as acceptable, instances sodomy, buggery, adultery, and rape nontheless occured with seemingly relative frequency and were publicly dealt with.
The punishments for sexual deviance throughout the colonies took similar forms; the severity of punishment depending on the nature of the offense, gender, race, and social status of the offender. Punishment of a sexual offense could include whipping, fines, removal from occupation, public apalogy, or even the death penalty. The seriousness of the offense of sex out of wedlock varied. If the couple was engaged or was able to be married, then the offense was not taken seriously. In the case of adultery, women were more often punished than men because it was easier to identitfy their participation in the act for obvious reasons. Punishment for rape of a married woman or a man's daughter might result in the death penalty, unless the woman was not married, in which case the act might not even be viewed as rape. Adultery was punishable through whipping the women and the fining of men. Acts such as sodomy were punished also through these methods, and the reintegration into society as a trustworthy person was not unattainable. The punishments for white men who raped black women and black men who had sexual relations with white women were very different, revealing the racist attitudes already rising within the colonies. While a black man was often castrated for such an act, it became increasingly socially acceptable for a white male to rape a black servant or slave.
2. D'Emilio's argues that the structure of captalistic society and economy by nature breaks down the components that make family living neccessary and provides the ability for autonomous living. But, at the same time, capitalism needs workers for its labor force, and so perpetuates the attitudes of homophobia and heterosexism to force people into families and continue procreation.
His argument about gay identity and capitalism stems from this same idea that capitalism has allowed an increasingly autonomous life to be possible. He argues that unlike many gay rights activists during the sixties held, he believes that gays and lesbians have not always existed and will not neccessarily always exist, but are a direct result of capitalism. He gives the example that in colonial times, there was certainly homosexual activity, but no one of that time would have openly or secretly professed themselves to be of a gay identity. He argues that there was no "social space" for such a concept during that time period. A person at this time could not exist outside the family unit because it was the only means of economic survival. D'Emilio arguest that once this began to change, people became able to identitfy themselves through their differing sexual desires.
I think his argument is incredibly interesting and innovative. It takes a completely different look at the creation of sexuality, and while defending homosexuality, denying its inherent existence within certain members of society. I am unsure whether I can entirely agree or disagree with his thesis, but I think he is right to say that capitalism is a great contributor to the rising flourishment of gay life and culture.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
article review
1. "Flexible policies help mothers balance work, children"
Post and Courier
May 14, 2006
The article provided statistics about the numbers of mothers that work, citing government statistics as the source. It also used Working Mother Magazine as a source, which is a publication that annually rates the top 100 companies for working mothers. It relied on evidence of improvement because of the passage of the federal Family Medical Leave act. Most of the information about conditions that these companies provide that puts them on the list was provided by Carol Evans, publisher of Working Mother Magazine. The article also went in depth with one companies policies, along with a couple of anecdotes from women who had good experiences with taking leave and using flexible hours to their advantage.
The only real objective research done was the use of the governmental statistic, the exact source of it unclear. The rest of the information for the article was from Carol Evans and the "100 best" companies for working mothers list. This information seemed to be qualitative rather than quantitative. The article did not provide an ovewhelming amount of statistical evidence on the general trends of working mothers, but instead focuses on the companies that are making positive advances.
The ideology that seems to pervade this article is a feminist perspective, since it views in a positive light companies that make it easier for women to pursue a career. Also the dominant speaker, Carol Evans, also took this same perspective.
2. "BALANCING ACT: Mom's finding support online"
The San Francisco Chronicle
May 14, 2006
This article was not one based on statistics, but on following the creation of two blog sites for working mothers called momsrising.com and mommytrackd.com. It followed Jon Blades and Amy Keroes in their decisions leading to the making of the sites. From the discovery that there was no such sites out there, to the seeking of support of others to help in its creation. Carol Evans was again turned to for commentary and feedback on the sites.
The research done for the story on the two websites seemed to be trusworthy. The creators of both sites were interviewed. The story did seem thoroughly researched, and even included a visual description of the sites created.
Again, the ideology of this article was very pro-working mother. It was a promotion of an outlet were working mothers can speak about their similar experiences, seek advice, and support.
3. "Working and Stay at Home Moms: What's your Monetary Value?"
The washingtonpost.com
May 5, 2006
The article was a question and ansnwer session based on the release of what a "stay at home mom's" salary should look like. Bill Coleman, the Senior VP of salary.com, came up with a salary of 134,000 per year for stay at home moms, and 86,000 for working mothers. There were a number of questions on how he came up with these numbers, especially regarding how to figure in overtime hours. He counted overtime hours, assuming that the mother's worked a total of 70 hours per week at the same job, not a number of different jobs. The article provided Coleman's credentials as a compensation and benefits consultant. While his method of assessing the salary seemed sound, the controversy lay in the debate over whether it is a proper assessment to begin to make when compared with other lifestyles and situations that include similiar work with no specualtion over the need for compensation evaluation.
I am unsure of the methods used to assess the outcome of the salaries that Coleman came up with, but his expertise and manner of methodical explanation to questions about overtime ect. makes me think his number is trustworthy from a purely objective standpoint.
There is not one definite perspective that can be illicited from the quantification of the work of a stay at home mother. I believe it was intended to be taken from a feminist perspective of supporting and legitimizing the work of women in the household, but some women and men took offense saying that it demeaned those who work as well as take care of children. The purpose of such a study is not clear cut.
4. "Deciphering the 'mommy wars'"
CNN.com
April 21, 2006
THis article provided a synthesis of the most current voices in the debate over the lifestyles of stay at home mothers versus working mothers. It provided some statistical anaylisis on the nubmers of women working with children and without from the Census Bureau. The article used quotes and information form Joanne Brundage, who founded the organization Mothers and More, which supports working mothers in balancing their home and professional lives.
THe article does give a source for the statistics used, as well as quote the reliable Carol Evans from Working Mother magazine. It presented a few different perspectives from the stay at home supporters and from the working mother perspectives, making it a fairly balanced article.
The article seemed to lean toward the ideology supporting the working mother by pointing out the inconsistencies in Flanagan's argument for the stay at home mother's lifestyle. Still, I think it did a good job of remaining objective, while explaining the two perspectives on the debate.
5. " Women expect to keep working, excel"
Japan Times
McClatchy Tribune- Business News
January 4, 2007
This article explained the situation of working mothers in Japan, and how the countries general lack of faith in the working mother is perilous to its economic growth. It cited statistics from the Japan Research Institute, the internal affairs ministry, and government budget plans that support creating more daycare facilities in the work place. There was also an act passed that mandates any company with more than 300 employees to draft a plan with numerical goals for child-rearing support. The suppression of women in the home becoming detrimental to the economy, the government is quickly looking for ways to reverse this stereotype of mothers in the work force.
This article relied heavily on statistics to expand upon its main argument. They all seemed to stem from legtimate sources. The article seemed to be indicting Japan's population for looking down upon working mother's and praising the government's efforts to proactively jumpstart the trend of working mothers.
There are two main controversies surrounding the issue of working mothers. The first is whether it is right for a mother to work, therefore disabling her from spending more time with her kids. The second debate is between working mothers and non-working mothers, and the guilt that is induced between the two groups. Working mothers feel the guilt of not spending the maximum amount of time with their children, and stay at home mothers often feel that they are being told their life's occupation is meaningless and boring. This debate is interesting because there is no clear cut feminist outlook on the issue. Some feminists believe that it is very important to validate and legitimize the stay at home mother's work as quantifiable while other feminists believe that it is important to integrate women into the work-force and expect men to begin to share the work-load of raising children and household chores. I think the authors' perspectives must have in some way influenced their reporting on the topic, even in the facts they chose to represent the arguments of the two different sides. All of the articles to me seemed to air on the side of the feminist perspective except for the article on the salary of a stay at home mom. I believe that my own bias towards the stance of the articles also shades my reading of them.
I think the trustworthiness of articles concerning the family cannot be taken lightly. Because the family is such a contoversial issue, it is my belief that all writing on it will have some sort of agenda. It cannot simply be an objectively reported news story. I think media coverage of family issues tends to polarize people's views into two camps, both of which in some way indict women for their role as house-wife or as working mother. This brings to light the greater issue of biased reporting of women in the media, which is prevalent in many other aspects of media coverage besides issues of the family.
-Jackie Hubbell
Post and Courier
May 14, 2006
The article provided statistics about the numbers of mothers that work, citing government statistics as the source. It also used Working Mother Magazine as a source, which is a publication that annually rates the top 100 companies for working mothers. It relied on evidence of improvement because of the passage of the federal Family Medical Leave act. Most of the information about conditions that these companies provide that puts them on the list was provided by Carol Evans, publisher of Working Mother Magazine. The article also went in depth with one companies policies, along with a couple of anecdotes from women who had good experiences with taking leave and using flexible hours to their advantage.
The only real objective research done was the use of the governmental statistic, the exact source of it unclear. The rest of the information for the article was from Carol Evans and the "100 best" companies for working mothers list. This information seemed to be qualitative rather than quantitative. The article did not provide an ovewhelming amount of statistical evidence on the general trends of working mothers, but instead focuses on the companies that are making positive advances.
The ideology that seems to pervade this article is a feminist perspective, since it views in a positive light companies that make it easier for women to pursue a career. Also the dominant speaker, Carol Evans, also took this same perspective.
2. "BALANCING ACT: Mom's finding support online"
The San Francisco Chronicle
May 14, 2006
This article was not one based on statistics, but on following the creation of two blog sites for working mothers called momsrising.com and mommytrackd.com. It followed Jon Blades and Amy Keroes in their decisions leading to the making of the sites. From the discovery that there was no such sites out there, to the seeking of support of others to help in its creation. Carol Evans was again turned to for commentary and feedback on the sites.
The research done for the story on the two websites seemed to be trusworthy. The creators of both sites were interviewed. The story did seem thoroughly researched, and even included a visual description of the sites created.
Again, the ideology of this article was very pro-working mother. It was a promotion of an outlet were working mothers can speak about their similar experiences, seek advice, and support.
3. "Working and Stay at Home Moms: What's your Monetary Value?"
The washingtonpost.com
May 5, 2006
The article was a question and ansnwer session based on the release of what a "stay at home mom's" salary should look like. Bill Coleman, the Senior VP of salary.com, came up with a salary of 134,000 per year for stay at home moms, and 86,000 for working mothers. There were a number of questions on how he came up with these numbers, especially regarding how to figure in overtime hours. He counted overtime hours, assuming that the mother's worked a total of 70 hours per week at the same job, not a number of different jobs. The article provided Coleman's credentials as a compensation and benefits consultant. While his method of assessing the salary seemed sound, the controversy lay in the debate over whether it is a proper assessment to begin to make when compared with other lifestyles and situations that include similiar work with no specualtion over the need for compensation evaluation.
I am unsure of the methods used to assess the outcome of the salaries that Coleman came up with, but his expertise and manner of methodical explanation to questions about overtime ect. makes me think his number is trustworthy from a purely objective standpoint.
There is not one definite perspective that can be illicited from the quantification of the work of a stay at home mother. I believe it was intended to be taken from a feminist perspective of supporting and legitimizing the work of women in the household, but some women and men took offense saying that it demeaned those who work as well as take care of children. The purpose of such a study is not clear cut.
4. "Deciphering the 'mommy wars'"
CNN.com
April 21, 2006
THis article provided a synthesis of the most current voices in the debate over the lifestyles of stay at home mothers versus working mothers. It provided some statistical anaylisis on the nubmers of women working with children and without from the Census Bureau. The article used quotes and information form Joanne Brundage, who founded the organization Mothers and More, which supports working mothers in balancing their home and professional lives.
THe article does give a source for the statistics used, as well as quote the reliable Carol Evans from Working Mother magazine. It presented a few different perspectives from the stay at home supporters and from the working mother perspectives, making it a fairly balanced article.
The article seemed to lean toward the ideology supporting the working mother by pointing out the inconsistencies in Flanagan's argument for the stay at home mother's lifestyle. Still, I think it did a good job of remaining objective, while explaining the two perspectives on the debate.
5. " Women expect to keep working, excel"
Japan Times
McClatchy Tribune- Business News
January 4, 2007
This article explained the situation of working mothers in Japan, and how the countries general lack of faith in the working mother is perilous to its economic growth. It cited statistics from the Japan Research Institute, the internal affairs ministry, and government budget plans that support creating more daycare facilities in the work place. There was also an act passed that mandates any company with more than 300 employees to draft a plan with numerical goals for child-rearing support. The suppression of women in the home becoming detrimental to the economy, the government is quickly looking for ways to reverse this stereotype of mothers in the work force.
This article relied heavily on statistics to expand upon its main argument. They all seemed to stem from legtimate sources. The article seemed to be indicting Japan's population for looking down upon working mother's and praising the government's efforts to proactively jumpstart the trend of working mothers.
There are two main controversies surrounding the issue of working mothers. The first is whether it is right for a mother to work, therefore disabling her from spending more time with her kids. The second debate is between working mothers and non-working mothers, and the guilt that is induced between the two groups. Working mothers feel the guilt of not spending the maximum amount of time with their children, and stay at home mothers often feel that they are being told their life's occupation is meaningless and boring. This debate is interesting because there is no clear cut feminist outlook on the issue. Some feminists believe that it is very important to validate and legitimize the stay at home mother's work as quantifiable while other feminists believe that it is important to integrate women into the work-force and expect men to begin to share the work-load of raising children and household chores. I think the authors' perspectives must have in some way influenced their reporting on the topic, even in the facts they chose to represent the arguments of the two different sides. All of the articles to me seemed to air on the side of the feminist perspective except for the article on the salary of a stay at home mom. I believe that my own bias towards the stance of the articles also shades my reading of them.
I think the trustworthiness of articles concerning the family cannot be taken lightly. Because the family is such a contoversial issue, it is my belief that all writing on it will have some sort of agenda. It cannot simply be an objectively reported news story. I think media coverage of family issues tends to polarize people's views into two camps, both of which in some way indict women for their role as house-wife or as working mother. This brings to light the greater issue of biased reporting of women in the media, which is prevalent in many other aspects of media coverage besides issues of the family.
-Jackie Hubbell
Sunday, January 21, 2007
David Popenoe: American Family Decline
David Popenoe's argument for the decline of American families is based on the assertion that the domestic group that he defines as family is failing in performing the primary functions of procreation and socialization of children. He defines a family as consiting of at least one adult and one dependent person, but througout the article continues to revert back to a much more conventional construction of family than this looser definition allows. He cites three broad societal indicators as proof of his thesis. First, he speaks of the decreasing number of children in families. He says that although decline in population is not an imminent problem, this trend displays the sentiment among many adults that they do not value having a family as a lifestyle that will "fulfill their major values." In addition to this trend he correlates the increase in divorces as an indication of a decline in the value of family. He points to the fact that women are increasingly economically independent and therefore able to divorce, as welll as the dissolution of the idea of "separate spheres" of work for the male and the female: the wife at home and the husband as the bread-winner. He points out that regardless of the fact that this decline is seen in the eyes of feminists as a gain in equality for women, it does not change the fact that it is as main cause of the breaking up of the nuclear family unit. He brings up that people feel less inclined to marry or live in situations other than a family of kin. After listing these as the main factors of decline, he concludes that the source of these trends of decline in family values as springing from the "me-centered" culture that has emerged over the past couple of decades. He attempts to disclaim the word "decline" as one that connotes negative changes by making a distinction between family in the traditional form and family as an institution. He ends with the foreboding message that the decline of the family in this age is unique because while the family can be said to have been in decline since its beginnings, it is now in its final stage with the breaking up of the essential family unit of mother, father, and child.
I felt Popenoe's thesis and arugment on the whole to be extremely vague and obtuse. It seemed that he came at the issue through a very narrow track of research that did not take into account other societal problems that contribute to divorce and other reasons he cites for the decline of family values. Although he wrote in a disclaimer saying that decline does not neccessarily mean negative change, I found his incessant claim that women breaking out of the traditional role of housewife is the cause of decline to be sexist. I also did not understand why at some points in the article he began to cite statistics for black and white American families separately. Does this mean that that the rest of the statistics without parenthesis after giving the black family data were based only on white families? He did not give a reason for making this distinction and did not comment on what these differences might indicate. Another statement he made that I questioned was the fact that children are only a minor inhibitor of divorce, although more so when children are male than female. I was unsure of how to intepret this statement, and I think its inclusion proves that he needed to pay much more attention to gender inequality in the formation of his argument. I disagree with his implicit assertion that marriage as a voluntary relationship with the purpose of self-fulfillment brings about the demise of family values, because I believe that striving to be a person with self-esteem and a feeling of fulfillment does not exclude but incorporates the idea of family is a healthier way of viewing within our society than simply as a structure for procreation.
After reading Popenoe's article, I was glad to read Philip Cowan's criticism, because I think he was able to break down with great precision the weaknesses of Popenoe's argument and analysis. First of all, I think his statement that "corrleation does not establish proof of causation" is a perfect way to describe the faults of Popenoe's paper. He never explains, as Cowan rightly puts it, exactly how "inevitiably deleterious" these changes in the family are on its members. Cowan not only criticizes Popenoe, but all those who studied family to break free from the mode of simply predicting the deterioration of certain aspects of the family, and instead focus on why they are happening and how to prevent and alleviate them.
Judith Stacey's response to Popenoe's article was also helpful in understanding some of the assumptions he made within his article that are not facts to be taken for granted. She takes a decidely feminist perspective in her defense of her own statements on the family. She comes to the defense of women, who are blamed by Popenoe for the rise in divorce, by pointing out that there larger issues at stake for women such as lower wages, and single-parenting while working are the real problems that women face although Popenoe seems to view divorce as the greatest of these evils. She points out that Popenoe does not think about what an egalitarian family set up might look like and how it would function within society.
In this debate, I do not agree that the American family is in decline and in danger of soon becoming a non-existent entity within our societal structure, but that the feminist ideals of equality are pushing the family to take a new shape. This may leave the family, specifically the mother, in a strained situation, but I believe it is a necessary and inevitable change. Before reading the article I had thought that it was going to be about the isolation of each individual family member within the home because of technolog that allows greater autonomy, but obviously this was not the argument Popenoe meant to make. I would agree with a disintegration of family on this front, but not in the way that Popenoe assessed the problem.
-Jackie Hubbell
I felt Popenoe's thesis and arugment on the whole to be extremely vague and obtuse. It seemed that he came at the issue through a very narrow track of research that did not take into account other societal problems that contribute to divorce and other reasons he cites for the decline of family values. Although he wrote in a disclaimer saying that decline does not neccessarily mean negative change, I found his incessant claim that women breaking out of the traditional role of housewife is the cause of decline to be sexist. I also did not understand why at some points in the article he began to cite statistics for black and white American families separately. Does this mean that that the rest of the statistics without parenthesis after giving the black family data were based only on white families? He did not give a reason for making this distinction and did not comment on what these differences might indicate. Another statement he made that I questioned was the fact that children are only a minor inhibitor of divorce, although more so when children are male than female. I was unsure of how to intepret this statement, and I think its inclusion proves that he needed to pay much more attention to gender inequality in the formation of his argument. I disagree with his implicit assertion that marriage as a voluntary relationship with the purpose of self-fulfillment brings about the demise of family values, because I believe that striving to be a person with self-esteem and a feeling of fulfillment does not exclude but incorporates the idea of family is a healthier way of viewing within our society than simply as a structure for procreation.
After reading Popenoe's article, I was glad to read Philip Cowan's criticism, because I think he was able to break down with great precision the weaknesses of Popenoe's argument and analysis. First of all, I think his statement that "corrleation does not establish proof of causation" is a perfect way to describe the faults of Popenoe's paper. He never explains, as Cowan rightly puts it, exactly how "inevitiably deleterious" these changes in the family are on its members. Cowan not only criticizes Popenoe, but all those who studied family to break free from the mode of simply predicting the deterioration of certain aspects of the family, and instead focus on why they are happening and how to prevent and alleviate them.
Judith Stacey's response to Popenoe's article was also helpful in understanding some of the assumptions he made within his article that are not facts to be taken for granted. She takes a decidely feminist perspective in her defense of her own statements on the family. She comes to the defense of women, who are blamed by Popenoe for the rise in divorce, by pointing out that there larger issues at stake for women such as lower wages, and single-parenting while working are the real problems that women face although Popenoe seems to view divorce as the greatest of these evils. She points out that Popenoe does not think about what an egalitarian family set up might look like and how it would function within society.
In this debate, I do not agree that the American family is in decline and in danger of soon becoming a non-existent entity within our societal structure, but that the feminist ideals of equality are pushing the family to take a new shape. This may leave the family, specifically the mother, in a strained situation, but I believe it is a necessary and inevitable change. Before reading the article I had thought that it was going to be about the isolation of each individual family member within the home because of technolog that allows greater autonomy, but obviously this was not the argument Popenoe meant to make. I would agree with a disintegration of family on this front, but not in the way that Popenoe assessed the problem.
-Jackie Hubbell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)