Mothering

Questions:1. According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17-20th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her? 3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"?4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?

1. According to Hays there were four historical stages of development for children. Puritan beliefs were part of the first stage. Children were expected to be disciplined and follow the Bible carefully. It was expected that the patriarch of the house discipline both children and mother. They would keep order and control in the house. Women at this time were considered overly emotional, thus men were needed to keep an even tempered outlook, with a swift hand and disciplining their children, mother’s stuck more to the moral aspect. For the middle-class urban mother the values of “childhood” were discovered. The child was considered an “innocent redeemer.” By the second half of the 19th century rearing was equal to mothering. Women slowly began to demonstrate a patriotic duty in their child’s rearing during George Washington’s era, as women hoped to raise a patriotic child. With the creation of the “Cult of Domesticity” (1848) women gained protection in their homes, and their focus on childrearing shifted to more of an emotional support system. Mother’s became the moral head of the household. By the end of the 19th century, scientific ideals became a part of parental ideas, giving mothers the feeling that science could answer questions and provide guidance. The shift in punishment returned soon after, middle class mother’s and immigrant mother’s seen as disciplinarians. Finally by the beginning of the 20th century, the importance of nurturing a child’s develop and less emphasis on strict parenting had returned.
Intensive mothering "tells us that children are innocent and priceless, that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers and that it should be centered on children's needs, with methods that are informed by experts, labor intensive, and costly" (21). Intensive mothering seems a little too extreme for me. I am a firm believer in a strong relationship with your mother. I feel that my mother has provided me with incredible opportunities and has definitely always stayed informed in terms of what the experts think. However, I do not think it is unique to the mother alone. I think the father should be equally involved and perhaps it should be renamed “intensive parenting.”

2. 2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?
While mothering, and stay at home mothers were once revered and respected, times have changed. Society no longer places the same appreciation on these kinds of mothers. For example people are often found questioning what it is that women do all day at home. They believe that it is an easy way out, a waste of a woman’s education and a less important job than a business related job. In addition, women who do work and are mother’s are often given the short end of the stick. Businesses and companies believe that women who are mother’s have less time, thus they are given fewer hours at work and at times less money. Legally speaking, mother’s have less economic rights as well. Crittenden points out the fact that "mothers in forty- seven of the fifty states” are without “unequivocal legal right to half of their family's asset," (6) Crittenden explains that the devaluation of mothers “permeates all institutions.” I completely agree with Crittenden in terms of the devaluation. I am lucky to have been raised by both parents. My mother worked as a teacher when I was little but took off some time when I was a baby. I had the best of both worlds. I have friends who have grown up with stay at home mothers and the amount of work they put in for their families is unparalleled. This devaluation is incredibly sad, I wish their was a way to change it.

3. 3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of "motherhood as a symbol of power"? Collins explains that there are generally two different types of mothering systems or ways in which black women tend to raise their children. The first is “blood mothering.” This is done by blood mothers, women who give birth and are biologically linked to the child or children are the primary caregivers. The second type is called “other mothering.” This means that children are raised by someone other than their biological mother, most commonly a grandmother, aunt or other relative. This idea of the bond between females, women and children relate to the notion of “motherhood as a symbol of power.” This link between females who instill morals and values in their children represents power of women, mothers and those that rear a child.

4. 4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?
Edin and Kefalas explain that “most poor unmarried mothers and fathers readily admit that baring children while poor is not the ideal way to do things.” Lots of women giving birth at young ages claim that they believe it is “fine” and “no one elses business.” Children often offer poor youth a sense of purpose and meaning to their lives. Women fear marriage because they do not like the idea of an equal partnership. They worry for what would happen if something went wrong as well as the economic state that they would could lose. It is not an easy decision for them to enter into marriage. Thus there has been a strong decline in marriage in impoverished areas. Edin and Kefalas believe that the best way for these women to gain a sense of purpose, stability and oneness with their lives is for them to get jobs. By supplying them with jobs they are able to become independent, financially secure and more stable in their lives and choices. I agree with this idea. Everyone needs to feel needed and important. With more jobs young mothers could gain this strength, independence and control back over their own lives.

Child Care

1. Hafner-Eaton and Pierce’s article describes the preference of some to give birth at home. The article explains that the risks of midwife births are not much different than a hospital birth. According to the article the supporters of this approach believe that giving birth is just another normal function of the body. They do not consider it any more of a big deal than say waking up or going to sleep. If there were to be any complication, they believe it is on account of the mother’s unstable emotional state. They believe that giving birth in an unfamiliar place such as a hospital, with an unfamiliar person, a doctor- are far more issues far more problematic and likely to cause problems for the baby. The midwife at home birth fosters a sense of security. Midwives policies is not to “deliver babies” but rather to teach the women “to give birth.” A much more non interventionist policy. In my own opinion, as a woman I would much rather give birth in a hospital. I know a few stories of women who have given birth at home, both they and their children are fine, but I personally would feel more comfortable and safer with the staff of a hospital nearby. If there were any complications I don’t really know how a midwife would handle it.

2. How did the legal ties between parents and children change over time? How did the adoption laws changed? Historically, what was the purpose of formal adoptions?
The legal ties between parents and children have changed significantly over time. The overall authority of the family has decreased in strength, although it is still strong. The state still has the right to take a child away from a family, but this happens reluctantly. There was once a time in which Native American children could be taken from their homes and sent to white families, this time is over. The government now recognizes that the parent’s rights to raise a child are sacred. The shapes of families have mostly changed, but have not been destroyed. Also the level of control that parents have over their children’s lives has also shifted, giving new shape to things. However, they still have a very strong impact on their children’s lives. The adoption laws have changed over time as well. Until 1926 in England no child could be legally adopted. In 1926 Parliament enacted the Adoption Children Act. Other European countries such as France place a great importance on blood related families. In 1851 the first modern adoption law was passed in the United States. Individual states followed suit and eventually the entire country looked to pass adoption laws. The laws were always based on the welfare of the child, but if the child were to become ill with a disease or sickness it was possible to annul the adoption. The issue of inheritance was one that shifted overtime as well. Adoption laws also are generally created to protect the rights of the birth mother and parents. Adoption has most recently evolved in reaction to changes in social norms and demography.

Violence

Questions:
1. Based on Felson's article, explain the gender perspective and the violence perspective to understanding violence against women. What evidence does Felson use to make his argument? What is your position regarding these two perspectives?
2. What is Jones's answer to the question posed in the title of her article, "Why Doesn't She Leave?" What is your opinion? Relate Jones's views to the gender vs violence debate described by Felson.
3. According to Ptacek, what are the denials and justifications that men use to explain their abusive behavior? What kind of contradictions can we see in the explanations offered by men? Relate Ptacek's findings to the gender vs violence debate.

1. The gender perspective as defined by Felson is that men who abuse women get away with it because the victims do not report the incident to the police. In general, when they do report it they in turn get blamed and they offender gets off. This is a very common outlook held by sociologists and general people of society as well.

The violence perspective is a newer view. This theory focuses more on the crime and violence specifically, not the gender of the offender or offended. This is Felson’s stance on gender and violence. He explains that a criminal is a criminal. If a man were to commit a crime of rape, then chances are he would be likely to commit other crimes as well, regardless of gender. He calls these men “bad guys” not sexist. The two sides disagree on whether wives would hit their husbands in the same way as men hit their wives. He proves that both men and women use physical force a the same rates. Women are more likely to be victims, because men have more force. Homicide research however, shows that women are more likely to kill their husbands than vice versa. He also points out that husbands are no more domineering than wives, the abuse usually occurs in troubled marriages. Cases of rape were also examined, finding that in general the encounters were ambiguous, women were not classifying the incidents properly.

I am not sure which side I agree with. I see good points coming from both sides. I do understand his point about men that commit rape to be criminals of all sorts of crimes, but I have to wonder what the opposite side is. Are there women that rape men? I think that the double standard also comes into play here. I don’t think that the violence perspective is completely right, there are definitely women who are battered because of their gender. I am torn, but probably lean more toward the gender perspective. However, each case should be analyzed separately.

2. This article compiles many different studies and interviews as well as media pieces that look at stories and incidents of women’s abuse. It shows media reactions as well public views. Jones brings up a really important question, why doesn’t the victim leave? This seems to be one that many people ask themselves and wonder. She seems to chastise and correct those that have this same question. She takes this article to set the record straight on the issue of female abuse and the impossibility of escaping. To so many it seems like such an obvious and simple solution to problems- just leave the situation and all will be well. However, Jones explains that it is not close to being a simple issue. For women it is more than just leaving and then becoming “free.” Women are linked to these men on so many levels. First of all, they are struck by such a paralyzing fear, that it is impossible for them to get away. They fear their death, they fear for the death of their children and they fear for their financial security and future. In comparing this article to Felson’s arguments, I would say that this article falls in the category of the gender perspective. It definitely puts women in the light of being somewhat dependent and controlled by the male based on their gender. After reading this article I agree with Jones. As a woman I would hope that if anyone I knew were in a situation like this, I would be able to leave—however, since I have never experienced anything like this, I would have no idea how I would react. I agree with Jones in that fear is so strong that it can truly hold you back.

3. This article analyzes a number of interviews with men who had battered women. Platcek gets to the root of these men’s “reasons.” He writes, “They tend to excuse themselves of full responsibility, and at the same time, they offer justifications for their abusiveness.” The most common excuse it that men claim to have “lost control.” The blame this loss of control on either drugs or alcohol or frustration of some kind. He continues, “Other possible responses include dependency, achievement, withdrawal and resignation, psychosomatic illness, drug or alcohol use, and constructive problem-solving.” They claimed that their violence was not done by choice but just a reaction and an outburst of uncontrollable rage. They also often equate a woman’s verbal aggressiveness to physical aggression. They claim that these violent occurrences happened at times when they were “out of their minds.” They didn’t intentionally do it, they had no actual control over their bodies and minds, nearly at a point of “rage blackouts.” These claims lean on Felson’s side of “violence perspective.” Men explain that their violence is unrelated to the fact that they are reacting to women, but rather the fact that they act violently for violence’s sake. However, when men abused women out of reaction to their “disobedience” this seemed to be more of a gender violence issue, based on women not obeying their male counterparts. Overall, both "types" of violence were seen.