Nuclear Family

1. What kind of clash between beliefs and practices does Hansen describe? How is it related to the ideology of SNAF? What role do structures of work and school play in creating this clash?
2. According to Sarkisian, Gerena, and Gerstel, what are the ethnic differences in extended family integration? What accounts for these differences?

1. Hansen describes a clash between beliefs and practices. Hansen explains in the article that the “internal household practice of interdependence counters the hegemonic ideology of individualism.” Hansen explains how the American ideal often focuses on the importance of individual achievement and success, making family interdependence seem rather difficult. However, since children are in such need of help from others the idea of the “individual” is somewhat lost or blurred. In fact, the family is the only place in which interdependence and reliance on others is deemed as acceptable. The article then discusses the idea of the typical American family, more specifically SNAF. SNAF stands for Standard North American Family this ideology implies a hetereosexual parents that raise their children to follow the same values, culture, religion and other ideologies of the family.

Hansen views the structures of work and school as very intertwined. As is becoming more and more common today, both mothers and fathers are involved in the workforce. With both parents working childcare and day care programs have become increasingly important. Parents look for afterschool programs for their children, thus making parent and child time more difficult to coordinate. Hansen categorizes this need for outside help as “reliance on networks.” It is nearly impossible for the family or the parents to function independently and without the support of outside help. Especially when it comes to child rearing and education.

2. According to Sarkisian, Gerena and Gerstel there are many ethnic differences in extended family integration. For Latinos/as there seems to be a greater focus on kinship. This is known as familialism. It is more common that Latino families’ living situations include their more distant relatives and extended family, than for white families. White families tend to be comprised more of the immediate family while the Latino/a families are larger and more extended. White families tend to be connected more through financial support while Latino/a families had more “instrumental help.” These differences occur for many reasons, including difference in education and financial background. There is also somewhat of a varying definition of the nuclear family. The ability for a family to remain or become very extended is very dependent on the economic factors and stability of the family. In addition to familisim, there is also gender roles and religious involvement that play large roles in the formation of the family. The Latino/a culture is run by very patriarchal system known as machismo. This makes the families very male dominated and controlled. Finally, for Latino/a families religion is more than just an experience it is a tradition and a all encompassing part of their lives. These three selected issues greatly lead to the differences in the extended family.

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.

Domesticity

Megan Lynch
Marriage and Fam Blog
1. Briefly explain the egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter. What is emotion work and how is it related to this myth? Compare Holts' situation with your observations on the division of labor in your family or those of your friends.
Hochschild documents a very interesting case in her chapter. She describes a family called the Holt family. Both mother and father are employed and have a young son Joey. Nancy, the mom hopes to have a family and a career, balancing both of these “spheres” with her husband. Her husband Evan, makes more than 2/3 of the family’s income and believes that the time he should spend on “domestic activity” is less than the amount his wife feels is appropriate. It is a constant battle for the two of them. One that leaves Nancy feeling less important, making her feel as though her time is of less merit and value than her husbands. Also, because of Nancy’s constant and strong connection with her son, her husband Evan has a weaker relationship with his son. Nancy wants an egalitarian marriage, however she is constantly racked with feels of resentment and irritation with her husband. Nancy wants to exist in a household in which housework, cooking, and child raising duties are equally shared and balanced between husband and wife. The article points out observations of the Holt’s neighbors, seeing Nancy as working as much as a single mother. As a result, it seems as though Nancy works “two shifts.” She and her husband work the first shift from 8am-6pm and then she begins her second shift upon her arrival at home. Nancy grows frustrated with her lack of “leisure time” and her husband’s abundance of it. Nancy tries to instate a sort of schedule, to make their household duties fairer. However, Evan eventually slacks off and avoids them, getting angrier with his wife’s suggestions. This led to “emotional jabs.” Nancy commented on her husband’s lack of concern with domestic life, and became enraged at any comment he would make about her own work around the house. Nancy’s own personal fear of becoming like her mother, a woman who had little independence and was forced to concentrate solely on her place in the home daunted her. On the same token her husband fears a lack of control over his wife, and a seemingly unequal balance at their at home culture. The problem becomes a “push and pull” situation and eventually both feel that they are taken advantage of in one way or another. The problem sadly becomes a “family myth.” Eventually Nancy begins to avoid the problem and rationalizes the problem at hand. She tells herself that they have worked it out, separating their spheres into an upstairs/downstairs world. This “family myth” of equality is rationalized to avoid divorce and more conflict. Nancy, still however resents the divided labor but emotionally she can’t take the burden of it. She still works the two shifts, the first in the career field the second in her home as well as the emotional work of raising a son and caring for his needs. She resigns herself to believing that everything is okay, what Hochschild describes as “emotion work” in which she works hard at feeling “the right feeling she wants to feel to make and keep everything fine,” (46). She continues with this denial, and eventually is forced to reduce her own time at work- becoming more and more resentful. I found this article very interesting. I definitely recognized similar characteristics in families I know. However, I must admit that I am very lucky to come from a different type of home. I believe that my parents truly have an egalitarian marriage. I don’t think that it is a myth at all. I believe that it is possible, because I have seen it in action. My mother and father both work and yet have both equally been involved in raising me and my sister Kelly. My dad will go grocery shopping, clean the house, do the dishes and run errands. In fact, there are times when my dad does more stuff around the house than my mom does. If that is the case then my mom will make up for in another aspect. They never complain or argue about it. I strive to have a marriage like this as well. I know it is possible, as long as both parties are willing to cooperate.

2. Explain the concept of the “ideology of domesticity” described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.
Williams introduction sets the stage for her full article that follows. She begins by supplying the reader with a definition of the “ideology of domesticity.” This ideology stems back to a time in which men and women’s roles were separated and decided by their gender. It was believed that men belonged in the market because of their innate sense of rivalry with others and serve as the “breadwinner of the family.” For women, believed to be of a more emotional and morally suited personality, it was idealized that they find their “work” in the home; raising the children and tending to relationships and housework. This was believed and held as a standard for decades. In fact, a recent poll was taken of today’s society and about 2/3 of the population are still in accord with this ideology. Unfortunately, this ideology has a negative impact on today’s society. It affects single mothers, divorced mothers and married mothers. It is difficult to live as a women in today’s society as they are divided into two categories, “mommy” and “other.” Domesticity is not by any means extinct in today’s society, it is slightly changed but largely still supported by people. Williams states the three constraints, “Divorce is a well-known linked…with domesticity’s system of providing for children’s care by marginalizing their caregivers…Second by minimizing father’s involvement…Third, domesticity takes a toll on men by pressuring them to perform as ideal workers in an age when that often requires long hours of work,” (3-4).
I believe that the ideology of domesticity definitely was in existence for the hunters and gatherers as well as the colonial Americans. From the movies and articles we watched it was evident that men and women had specific jobs or roles which were expected of them in society. The men had their distinct duty, to hunt and gather and take care of supporting the needs of the family- needs such as food and shelter. However, the women were expected to raise the children and take care of their futures. The family structures remained the same generation after generation. It was a male dominant society, although everyone’s labor was valued. For example, the groom is expected to hunt for bride’s parents and women in general produce more food 60-80% of the supply. Both men and women are involved in the building of huts and fires and getting water. Children have more responsibility in this time, and they are forced to grow up faster. In colonial America it was slightly different. There was a division of labor between the sexes but in general all work was done in or near the home. There is a shift in the idea of marriage, it becomes a focus of the community as a whole. For example, there is a night courtship in which men and women are separated in different barns. There is definitely a distinction of domesticity in colonial times. Men would have jobs, work as apprentices and tend to their land. Women would assist, but in lesser extent. They would be involved in domestic work such as cleaning and cooking.

3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
Williams discusses the idea of “choice rhetoric” and free choice in her article. She says, “If women were to choose the same work patterns as men then they could and would evener more skilled occupations, and the male-female wage gap would be substantially more reduced.” Women are discriminated against all the time. Williams believes that courts use discrimination and argument that women “lack interest” in what have been accepted as male positions. She however believes that women’s roles at home should have no affect on their job work. She believes that by women using “free choice” as a means of feeling discriminated is only valid if women actually make this choice. She describes situations of the “ideal workers” talking about a time when both parents remained at home and then explains the transition into women in the workfield. She talks about a time when women were defined “by their inferiority” and hierarchy within the family existed. She then segue ways into the feminist era in which women challenged their roles as domestics in the 1960s, hoping to gain equal access in the job market. She also explains about the expectations of men in terms of supporter and breadwinner. I think that the argument is valid. It is extremely difficult for women to go against the norm and not experience challenges and hindrances. She writes, “choice concerns the everyday process of making decisions within constraints. Discrimination involves a value judgment that the constraints society imposes are inconsistent with its commitment to equality,” (37). I agree with Williams when she talks about how easy it is to get sucked back into “default mode.” I think in order to promote change and improvement people have to become and stay active. Choice rhetoric forces women to decide whether they want to remain as ideal workers or ideal mothers. I don’t think this is fair at all and I think in order for discrimination to stop women need to start going against the norm and following what they desire.

4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?
Carrington’s article describes situations in lesbigay families and compares them to heterosexual ones. Carrington uses interviews and studies in order to get a grasp on numbers and societal patterns. He discusses the common myth that lesbigay families are representations of egalitarianism. Because of stereotypes and societal expectations lesbigay families are often expected to show a different pattern or standard. However, Carrington points out that lesbigay and heterosexual families are faced with many of the same issues and problems. For lesbigay families there is often a blurred line, failing to make a distinction between “what they consider equal and what they consider fair,” (83). Both types of families struggle to find equal and fair balance between both parents. For lesbigay families it is especially difficult because of gender roles. For example for lesbians it is often difficult to find a balance between paid work and identity. “In a number of lesbian families…compensation comes in the form of personal appearance and fashion.” I think he states his explanation of invisible domesticity well when he explains, “First as previously suggested, they do it to avoid the stigma associated with violating gender expectations. Second, and perhaps more significantly, they do it to avoid conflicts and to preserve relationships existing in a broader socioeconomic context that does not enable families to actually produce much equality,” (88). It is clear that families struggle with similar issues despite what type of relationship they are in. No matter how one looks at it there are always issues of gender imbalance and balance that couples must tend it. While one would assume that the balance would be better in lesbigay families because of their “equalness” in gender, it is clearly not the case since it is nearly impossible for both sides to participate in a completely egalitarian manner. Carrington explains that it is nearly impossible for the primary breadwinner of the family to not feel some sort of need for control. There is still a sense of tradition that looms in all families, homosexual and heterosexual.

Marriage Debates

Stephanie Coontz’s article discusses the evolution of marriage and relationships. She brings up the ways in which the necessity for marriage has changed as well as the role of parents in children’s lives. She then goes on to explain women’s changing role in marriage and the decrease in their domesticity and increase in involvement in the workforce. She also talks about “No-Fault” divorce and its present impact as well as changing environments for children including unwed mothers and single parents.
Marriage as an institution is defined by the Council on Families in America as a lifelong commitment to the “institutional expression of commitment and obligation to others in order to regulate sexuality, male-female relations, economic distribution and child rearing.” Scientists believe that the institution stems from “a well-understood set of obligations and rights,” which originate from laws, legality, formality and tradition. Marriage as an institution is a legal and distinct establishment and relationship. There are many indicators of the deinstitutionalization of marriage however. These reasons include an increase in single parent homes, an increase in independent living outside of a family environment, an increase in cohabitation, an increase in women working, and a change in the role of marriage. With an increase in women’s careers, women are needing marriage less and less for financial support. Marriage is no longer seen as a need but as an option. This option lacks its old formality with a rise in unmarried couples having children and living together, as well as an increased divorce rate and increase in single mothers.
The article by Gertsel and Sarkisian and Harris discusses the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. In the Gertsel and Sarkisian article, marriage is described as being a way out of poverty and a chance for single mothers to force unmarried fathers into responsibility. Marriage is also a form of protection against murder, suicide and problems in the world. It was once believed that marriage was more beneficial to men than women, but today it seems as though the benefits are equal. The downside or critique of marriage is a decrease in family involvement with those such as siblings and parents, once a child is married. Marriage also causes a decrease in socilialization with neighbors and friends. Marriage also takes on a “greedy” side. It causes people to give a great deal of their emotion, time and energy. It requires expensive rituals such as engagement parties, weddings, and honeymoons. It also often requires the help of other family members to help support and pay for education and living expenses of couples who are first married.
According to Brown, there are many reasons why people cohabit. The effects of cohabitation are

Sex and Gender

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.

Risman and Schwartz present a lot of statistical analysis in their article. According to their article, the United States in general believes in decreasing sexual activity among teens. It seems that today there is a new conservatism that applies “only to boys” and a “great deal of evidence shows that teens continue to be sexually active.” It seems there is a decrease from 54.1 percent to 48.4 percent of teens ages 15 to 17 involved in sexual intercourse. The trend however seems to show that overall there is a significantly less number of teen pregnancy and abortions. Teens seem to be engaging in safer sex, and thus the birth rate among teens has fallen steadily. There also seems to be an increase in oral sex among teens, making it less “real” than intercourse, and more common than in the past. By age twenty 9/10 Americans have had intercourse. The idea of casual sex is also decreasing.
The declines have many explanations. Risman writes, “The success of abstinence education, the positive effect of comprehensive sex education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, or the fear of disease (or some combination of these factors) account for the decline. Sex education helps to move back the age of first intercourse, as well as abstinence pledges. They also believe that youths have seen what their parents generation experienced with divorce, disease and status loss for women. Overall it looks like “responsible sex rather than postponed sex” is the trend.
Separating the data by gender it appears as though the number of high school males rather than girls that choose to remain virgins has dramatically increased. The gaps between men and women who are virgins is closing, making the numbers nearly the same. Women now have a greater influence in relationships, making safe sex decisions. The trend seems to point that most males first encounter with sex is in a relationship. It is women who insist of condoms and birth control methods. American culture is highly sexualized.
According to England and Thomas, the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college student is less dating and more “hooking up.” The “date” as a activity is nearly dissolved. Today college students are involved in hooking up, a casual sexual encounter of some kind. There is usual some sort of alcoholic influence behind it as well. This sometimes leads to dating or a relationship, but not always. It appears that those actually going out on dates, are people that are already in relationships. Dates used to be used as a way to get to know one another better, but with a greater understanding between the genders this is not as needed. In terms of gender, it seems to be the trend that it is the woman that initiates “the talk” between her and the man. She must bring up the question of relationship, because men tend to avoid it. In addition, women more commonly look to hooking up as a way of finding a prospective boyfriend while boys look to it for more of a pleasure source.
Both articles discussed the idea of a sexual double standard. Despite the increase in female empowerment on the work force, women are still judged based on their sexual activity. If a man has had many intimate encounters it is seen as the norm, however if a women is seen as promiscuous she is considered a slut. Despite the improving status between women and men, there is still a great less expected of men in terms of self control. It also seems that women have internalized different values than men, hoping that a hook up could lead to something more.
I think both of these articles have valid points. I find them fascinating to analyze, because as a female on a college campus I am around this all day long. I agree with the fact that the date is nearly ancient, and that hooking up is the norm. I think this is a sad fact and would love it to be changed around somewhat. I also agree that in terms of gender there is a great gap. Women who have been with many men, and whose private lives are made known are definitely regarded as “sluts.” I went to an all girls high school and women were taught caution and about relationships. I am not really as attuned to the male version. Men may be interested in them for the hook up, but not for a relationship. I also think that as a woman in today’s society it is very difficult. Women are forced to make choices and decisions that men would never have to deal with today.