Michelle's Blog

Before taking this class, I hadn’t put much thought in the idea of structure vs agency or the ways society can shape and influence one’s decisions. When asked at the beginning of class reasons for getting married, I saw patterns in our responses. My reasoning for marriage was companionship, children, and love I suppose. Now, from a sociological mind perspective, could I say my reasonings behind this were determined by social structure or agency? In my opinion, as we are raised in this society, we are taught that marriage is the societal norm. It could be described as one’s ultimate goal (after getting an education and landing a career). So, from day one, my reasonings for marriage, are still the same but I now can see from a sociological mind set why it is I feel inclined to do so rather than being oblivious to how society can play such an important role on one’s decisions.

The purpose of marriage can also be related to my reasons on why I want to get married. I feel the purpose is to find someone who you may be compatible with to establish a special connection. Marriage should be about love and romance. Having children is also another reason many marry to continue the lineage. It’s amazing how as we talked throughout the semester, so many marriages are not for those reasons. In certain societies there are arranged marriages, and often times in ours, there’s marriages based off financial stability. This can be a direct example of society’s structure rather than agency in determining one’s opinions on the purpose of marriage. At the beginning, my understanding in the purpose of marriage is find a companion who you love, and have children. I’ve never really looked at it from a financial standpoint because I plan to be successful on my own. Now, my reasoning for this are still quite the same but I can walk away knowing that our society has many ways to shape why we think marriage may be purposeful. From an agency standpoint, I’d say there are common reasons our society wants to marry but I now feel I can chose on my own the reasons I feel it is meaningful.

When asking why type of person I would marry in the beginning of class, I’d probably answer with physical traits as well as a few others. For example, someone taller than me, has the same religious beliefs, someone stable, responsible,caring, family oriented, and has goals for themselves. After going through the lectures strictly on partners, I’ve found that although those are more of my own personal choices, there are many other determining factors. We watched a video that explained instinctively how we choose a mate. It was amazing to find out how certain aspects such as tone of voice, height, body odor, financial stability(which is obvious) can make someone more attractive. Although these are physical reasons, I was very unaware it can be related to the agency aspect. This video showed those were more personal decisions than society influencing us because it was instinctual. On a different spectrum, we went over how partner selection is homogamous. Most people pair within their own group. Usually you’ll pair with someone within 2-3 years of your age, most are in the same social class. How can one in a higher social class seem to function and fit in with one in a low social class? (t’s possibly but not as common). Usually males are older, 94% of people marry within the same race, and propinquity(physical nearness) is another aspect that is common. Religion is also another area some people use to find a mate. It’s amazing because before this class, I listed only one of these homogamous traits. The rest were all physical. Social structure has a vast influence on one’s mate selection. Without being aware, we make decisions that can be seen as a norm in society.

Although I’m still extremely young for children, I’ve always thought I wanted 3 or 4. My reasonings behind this is because I have 3 siblings and I love that my family is big. (To me at least). I couldn’t imagine not having siblings and I would want my children to have the same experience. This would be an example of agency because it’s my own personal decision but also my family is what influenced me. After this class and learning the background information on financial aspects and the whole Pecking Order idea, I have changed to only wanting two children. It’s seems much more reasonable especially with now having a more open mind set to the attention and resources my future children would get. It was more limited for my family because there were more children.

My family I hope is different than the one I come out of. Although my parents divorced which means I’m more likely to divorce, I refuse to allow myself to be a statistic. Structure in society feel it is normal for divorced children to end up being divorced themselves. I feel agency can come into the picture here because now I am more aware and knowledgeable of the meanings behind my own decisions in marriage and factors that can lead up to divorce. I know it is not bad in all situations but I hope my family in the future does not have to be a true result of some statistics that society has determined.

I’d say I’m probably about 50% likely to divorce, maybe a little more due to current statistics. Coming from a divorced family and seeing the results in me and my siblings lives, I started off against it and still feel that way. I will say however I can no walk away with knowing that when we started, I thought the divorce rates were increasing when in reality they are plateauing. I also can say I am more open minded to people who divorce rather than thinking they didn’t “try hard enough.” I know if some circumstances, it is a danger to continue in a marriage because of abuse or whatever else but I’ve learned sometimes one has to look at what is better for their well being and if kids are involved, for their children too.

Importance of love. It’s funny because in class when we listed reasons for the importance of marriage, we didn’t directly say love. THey were more of financial, child bearing, companionship, expanding lineage, etc. Love is and should be the most important. How can a couple make things work and have companionship if they were in love? It used to be that back in the day, people married for arranged or political reasons. Sometimes because of financial stability. This still happens in many societies today. Mainly different countries but that is an example of how the structure of ones society can determine someone’s opinion on marriage. Today, although out society is outrageous and so many people marry to benefit themselves, or fame, or whatever else, I think from an agency standpoint love is the most vital and crucial thing a marriage must have. Without love, my future relationships will become a downward spiral into nothing but meaningless things.

Hmm this last question allows you to really think. I feel that marraiges or relationships in general take a lot of work. (As i’m sure everyone feels that way) It’s not about a person catering to you hand and foot and benefitting on you in general. It’s more of working to help each other. I think that in focusing on long term goals personally, communication is key. Without communication, conflict occurs. I also believe that premarital counseling is important. You can’t expect to jump right into a marriage and things be all amazing. It takes time and effort to understand that your partner has differences and works in ways not always similar to you and it is vital to learn these things so little conflicts don’t turn into hatred and anger. I also think that it’s important to constantly try and make each other happy. It’s so easy in relationships to let work, education, children, to get in the way and become a distraction. It’s important to consistently work to make your partner happy and them do the same for you. The last thing I think that is one of the most important is putting God first in any relationship I’m in. I think it’s vital that my partner feels the same way. Conflict problems will still arise but being able to solve them with the same underlying idea and using your faith and religion to get through it is critical to me. There has to be some type of structure and this is something very important.

Overall, looking back on this class I have learned much more than I expected. I have never been in a more interesting class. i enjoyed our discussions and I often shared what we learned with friends and family. I’m and happy to say that I have a better understanding on what is it that can structure our decisions and opinions. It is important to be aware of societal influences and also the agency behind making your own decisions. I have a more open mind set to things that will pertain to my future and decisions that I make. Thanks Ashley for being a professor who makes class interesting and meaningful!

It was interesting that we ended class talking about Polyamory. I actually just finished turning in a paper for Ethics about polygamy and its all mind boggling to me. When talking about Polyamory, on a personal stance, I’m not sure how people can have multiple intimate partners. I liked how a classmate said that it seems to her to be a situation similar to friends with benefits. I can completely see that. In the video we watched, the couple was talking about how it first started because one felt that they were bored with their sex life. I really don’t know how the other person felt that was alright. I couldn’t imagine being with someone and having to share them with someone else. When thinking about it, I suppose a large number of people in America feel negatively about polygamy and polyamory because in our society today, (or in the last few generations) it isn’t common or the social norm for people to have multiple partners. If people do, usually its not publicized. It’s a “norm” for people to get married to one partner. Not only do polygamists or polyamorists get ostracized, gay individuals do as well because that’s not what people in America are used to. It’s amazing how society can shape one’s decisions or character. From a young age we become familiar with a family usually consisting of a husband and wife. Anything other than that seems strange or unfamiliar. This is an example of how our society can be so influential and can shape our decisions. When the interview was shown with the news reporter and that man regarding his book, I was surprised at his stance on the controversial topic. His explanation of our origins and how humans began relationships with multiple partners definitely seemed odd. If this is true, I wonder when society took a shift and became monogamous? He explained that its not normal to feel as if we are inclined to be with more than one person. Since we began that way, it makes sense (In his point of view). I know society has a huge impact on how people determine and decide multiple things but especially being a girl, I really don’t understand this whole polygamy and polyamorous thing. It’s amazing how although these topics are still present, it’s not commonly heard of or displayed. As I was doing my paper on polygamy, I thought the majority of people who participated in this multiple parter aspect didn’t exist much anymore. I now know it’s right under our noses and happening more than we think.

Divorce is something that I have told myself I would never do. I come from a divorced family and growing up there were times that I wished I had both parents around to make things much easier. I didn’t enjoy having to spend every other weekend with the opposite parent and having holidays split. I had friends whose parents were still together and I felt envious of them. As I have gotten older, the envy began to go away because I realized that my parents reasoning for divorce was best for us kids in the long run. When I was younger they hid the arguing and all that was going on very well. I was 10 at the time and it wasn’t until I got older that I began to realize the reasonings behind my mother’s decision. After reading the articles, “Should Unhappy Couples Stay Together for the Sake of Their Children?” I noticed that one cannot simply answer with a yes or no response when talking about beliefs in divorce. There is much more that comes along with the reasons why someone may be looking to a divorce. In the article by Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser, she answer “yes” to unhappy couples staying together for the children. Her reasoning was based upon the idea of parents trying to work things out rather than just giving up. Divorce seems acceptable if the reasons are that of physical or emotional abuse, which in turn can have a dysfunctional effect on children. But overall, married couples should work to save their marriage. If it is something counseling may solve, it could be better for the children to have both parents in their lives. From experience, if counseling would of been something that worked for my family, it would’ve been wonderful for my brother to have a father figure in his life during those vital teenage years. I can tell that he didn’t have that. Both parents are important in raising a child. Especially because the role each plays is different and useful in various ways. Lara Riscol on the contrasting side of this article believes that you should NOT stay together for the sake of your children. She makes very valid points in her argument. If a couple is miserable and staying together for the sake of the children, the children are able to notice that. She gives an example of couples who sleep in separate rooms and the children become dysfunctional. Parents are often looked at as role models to a child. If a child is being raised in an environment that is unhappy, they grow up believing that that is how a marriage and family should be. (Not in all cases but often times their definition of a happy marriage may be skewed.) Staying together for the sake of the kids when your marriage is simply dysfunctional and all that ca be done to fix it hasn’t helped, it seems as if the best thing to do for your children is to get out. It would be worse growing up in an environment full of negativity. It would have an astonishing effect on that child.

I liked in these articles that it mentioned, “a good divorce is much like a good marriage.” It takes work but in the end, could be beneficial if there are children involved. The first few years of my parents divorce were no fun. They didn’t like speaking much and if they did it wasn’t always the best. After time went on, they began to realize that what was best for us was having a relationship where they got along. Now, although there are some holidays we are unable to have together, my dad is able to spend time with us Christmas morning at my mom’s house and come to any and all important events in our lives. My parents are friends and talk often. My mom is remarried but that doesn’t change the relationship my parents have when it concerns us kids. I couldn’t imagine having to deal with them not wanting to be around each other and not talking. Especially when pivotal events are occurring in both mine and my brother’s lives. Overall, my opinions regarding divorced have definitely changed. Although I still don’t believe in it, I am able to have a more open mindset and realize that if that were to happen, viewing things in what is best for your children may be a more appropriate action to take on the topic.

When we first began talking about birth order and the common characteristics that can be associated with first, middle, and last born children, I felt it was pretty accurate when taking my own family into account. There were some characteristics that differed but for the most part it seemed true. After listening to Dalton Conley’s interview and discussing “The Pecking Order,” my standpoint on the subject began to change. The viewpoint as mentioned by Conley regarding birth order is overrated. Determining sibling differences in a family has less to do with birth order and more to do with individual factors that may have an impact. In my family I have an older sister who is 27, I’m the middle child so she is 6 years older than me, and then my younger brother and I are 18 months apart (He’s 20). Conley expresses a number of factors that seem important to discuss in regards to my own family.

Distribution of resources among children is one of the factors Conley discusses. This factor is something I have seen among my siblings and I. When my sister was younger, my mom was on her own. It wasn’t until she turned four that my mom remarried. Income was hard to come by. My sister at the time got all of the attention being the only child. My mom worked two jobs and still tried juggling school. Two years after she married she quit school and I came along. Not long after I was born my brother followed. You can imagine with my mother quitting school and now having three children she had to make ends meet. Although my father was in the picture and there were two incomes, it was still touch to provide for us. My sister no longer got all of the attention. Growing up my parents managed to make ends meet but we didn’t have an elaborate childhood of fancy vacations and private schooling. We all went to public school. It wasn’t until I was about 14 and my sister was already moved out before my mom got a new job which resulted in many changes. (My parents had divorced when I was 10, so my mom was on her own at this time.) My brother and I were still living at home when we began taking yearly vacations and trips. As the years went by we began traveling more. My mom’s jobs got better and she was able to get me a car. My sister wasn’t as fortunate when she was my age because money was an issue then. She paid for most of the things she had while I was given my car. My brother eventually got a car as well. Still to this day we hear about how she was treated unfairly when she was a child because she wasn’t able to experience that type of living my brother and I had. I will say in respect to my mom, my sister had a child when she was fifteen, so the resources that were available at the time obviously went to helping her with that. Her having a child forced her to grow up as well and even though my mom helped support her, my sisters decision to become a mom so early resulted in her having to miss out on a lot of things.(Which she blames my mom for). She had to pay for her college through loans while although I take out loans as well, my mom helps me out much more than she did my sister. The resource factor is still important in this circumstance because my mom makes much more money now than she did when my sister was in college which worked in my benefit but her becoming a mom also played a big role. Conley points out how socioeconomic status is a huge aspect in sibling differences and that is definitely prevalent in my family. He also mentioned the idea of the “Cinderella Order” which seemed to fit my sister in regard to the distribution of resources.

Impact of family size is a factor that demonstrates families who have a greater number of children seem to benefit less. Conley explains that resources among silblings in accordance to parents can be represented as a pie. Each child has a piece of the pie. The fewer children a family has, the bigger piece of a pie that child gets. The more children, the smaller the piece. It is harder for parents to spend time and money with three children than with only one. One of our classmates who is an only child explained that growing up she spent a lot of time with her parents and was able to get really anything. When I was growing up I spent alot of time with my brother since we were so close in age. We shared most of same interests(when comparing children and adults) and didn’t find spending time with our parents fun. As a middle child I really don’t remember ever spending time with just my parents. It wasn’t until after I was in high school when I got the chance to have one on one time. Also, this might seem confusing but my mom just remarried and now we have added two more siblings to the family, one is 16 and the other is 13. It was already hard to be able to go on vacation and have my mom pay for three children but now five is much more difficult. As you see the family get bigger it definitely limits the things you can do. Even though my mom and now step dad together make good money, it’s still hard to do certain things when taking five children into account.

Spacing and number of years between children is seen mainly between my sister. As mentioned above she is 6 years older than me and 7 older than my brother. With there being a big gap, my brother and I were able to experience many of the same things growing up. My sister on the other hand was on a different page. With her being the first born, parenting techniques were obviously different. By the time my brother came along my mom was much more laid back. With my sister being so much older she was treated differently in various ways. I like the example a classmate gave about when they come home from college they automatically get front seat when riding in the car because they are the oldest. That’s the same situation in my family. There was no argument, my sister always had front but my brother and I always had to fight about it. With her being the first born, she had more rules than we did growing up. Although my mom enforced certain things such as curfew and all, she was more strict on my sister. Since there was a gap, you can see a big difference in historical time from my sisters childhood and us. She didn’t get a cell phone for a long time. She actually had a pager when she was probably 14. I had a phone at that age and my brother got one when he was 12 or 13. So historical time definitely plays a role in the number of years between children.

Gender differences is a factor seen obviously between the girls and my brother. My sister and I were always expected to make good grades. If they fell below a B we would be grounded. With my brother  that was not as big of an issue. If he passed my parents were happy. It’s almost as if social norms hold females to a higher standard than males because males can get by and succeed by playing sports or just being a male. Females are looked at as needed to make good grades to succeed. My mom placed much more emphasis on my sister and I in school than my brother. We both actually went to college whereas my brother hasn’t quite gotten around to it. Gender plays a huge role in sibling differences because females seem expected to achieve in different ways than males.

Impact of birth order is one that was discussed and is seen in various ways throughout my siblings and I. They say that first born children have characteristics of ambition, and Type A personalities. They are often perfectionists and responsible. This is partially true for my sister who was first born but differs in many ways too. She was responsible and had a type A personality but one thing Conley spoke about was that these individuals are at times socially awkward. My older sister is definitely not that. She is very outgoing and a huge people person. This would show that there must be other factors than birth order that have to do with characteristics she possesses. I am the middle and although I do posses characteristics such as people pleasing, mediator, neglect, I became the oldest at 12 once my sister moved out. This definitely shows a relation in number of years between siblings and characteristics among birth order. With becoming the oldest I possessed more first born characteristics than my oldest sister. I am definitely more ambitious in the idea that although she went to college she hasn’t finished and I’m further off in my education than she was. She tends to bounce around from job to job while I know exactly what it is I want to do and don’t want too much change. My brother being the last born and youngest does posses most traits of that birth order. He is creative, funny, rebellious, and lazy. Although these characteristics seem mostly true for my family, there were many circumstances that defy our differences rather than birth order alone. As Conley mentioned birth order is “overrated.”

In conclusion, the differences among siblings have a variety of factors that can come along with it. Conley mentioned families with more money have less disparity while families with less money have more disparity. The reasoning behind this? Simply the idea of the factors mentioned above. Distribution of resources is slim when there isn’t much money involved and at times parents can be seen to put more effort into providing an education for the child who has more potential to succeed. For example, although now my family is better off than when I was younger, we definitely can’t afford to send everyone to private school. I was fortunate enough to come to Baylor and because my parents know that I am more ambitious and willing to succeed they found ways to make it work. My oldest sister didn’t get that opportunity because of money and a few other circumstances and my mother has made it apparent that she wouldn’t send my brother to a four year school because he simply doesn’t care enough about school to try to succeed. Therefore, the most effort is being used to help me through school. At times my siblings get upset because I have a better opportunity to succeed then they do or did but if my families money was unlimited, they might of gotten a better chance to attend a school like me. Since that is not the issue, it definitely can cause disparity among my siblings and I. Before exploring this issue, I hadn’t given much thought about birth order or other factors relating to sibling differences. The interview with Dr. Conley and our discussion has shown me the different ways siblings can be treated not by their birth order characteristics but by a number of different factors. Distribution of resources may result by a parents socioeconomic status changing between children, impact of the family size and gender also have a lot of determination on sibling differences. One of the main points I carried away from this was the idea that the fewer children one has, the more resources the parents are able to give. Income also played a huge role in determining sibling differences but it was interesting to learn about differences resulting from factors other than the social norm of birth order.

The last few classes that we have spent learning about the different qualities between birth order has really intrigued me. We have found that within our society today there are certain qualities that may be relevant to the first, middle, and last born child. Qualities among first born children have been seen as ambitious, type A, perfectionists, responsible, etc. In my own personal situation, I find this interesting because I have a an older sister and there’s a six year age difference between us. When I was younger she had most of these qualities. She did well in school and always had her head on straight, so to speak. My mom always talked about how she made such good grades and yeah. Basically she was implementing that my brother and I should take after her. At the time, him and I both didn’t care too much about school. I didn’t try as hard as she did. The qualities for a middle child, which was my role, (mediator, neglected, “awk” people pleasing) were definitely some that I possessed. I was always trying to make my siblings happy, and if we ever fought, I usually was the one to fix things. That happened to change when my sister moved out. I was about 12 when she left home so I had a decent amount of time taking over the role of the oldest sibling. It’s crazy to think that now I can say I have almost all of the qualities as the first born child. I am a perfectionist, definitely have a type A personality, and being in college at Baylor I’d say explains the ambition that I have to succeed. With that being said, I still have some qualities as the middle child but its interesting how the roles can change. My brother on the other hand definitely has qualities of the last born. Common descriptions we discussed for this child were laziness, rebellious, spoiled, creative, funny, outgoing, etc. Without a doubt he possesses every one of those.

Although in my situation, the qualities found from society regarding birth order seemed to match up, there are situations where this may not always occur. We discussed in class that sometimes, children may possess qualities that have less to do with birth order and more to do with conditions of parental roles. For example, the talents of one child as opposed to another could be a factor in which parents place certain emphasis on them. There were examples given in class where one sibling was older and possessed  more of the qualities of the last born but because he was good at sports, and because the idea of possibly getting a scholarship for college was in the picture, the parent didn’t place much emphasis on him being responsible and ambitious regarding school. That in turn resulted in the second or middle child feeling as if they needed to take on the role of the first born because the emphasis of succeeding in school to help pay for college was greater. There are many other situations where this could occur. Age of parents when they had first child as opposed to second or third, gender of child, historical time, and SES changes are a few examples. I found it interesting how these different changes within society and parental roles could effect the qualities of ones birth order.

I really enjoyed our mom panel we had in class on Monday. At first I figured that most of what would be discussed would seem familiar to me. I have an older sister who had my niece when I was 10 so I thought I new a decent amount about child birth. Boy, I was wrong. I guess since it occurred for me at the YOUNG age of 10, the more in depth details weren’t completely discussed.

Before Monday, If one were to ask me my thoughts regarding an epidural, I probably would of said without question, I would favor getting one. I mean who in the world wants to be in that much pain if there were something created that could at least help a little bit? The funny thing is, with me being uneducated about the side effects and questions regarding it being the safer or ‘better’ option, it would seem reasonable to jump straight to an idea of an epidural. After the discussion and hearing how some of the mothers decided on having one while others didn’t, it definitely left me with room to think about that decision when my time for childbirth comes.

Another area that I feel was greatly enunciated was the idea that you should vocalize in depth what is it that you want out of your childbirth experience. It was explained that one of the more surprising things about childbirth was the number of people in the room. I’ve never really thought about that. They may have student observers, a number of different nurses, and doctors coming in and out. If you don’t want that many people in the room you need to vocalize that. It also seemed important for a woman to have some type of advocate through out their pregnancy and delivery. At times the doctor may not listen to your wishes because during labor, your mind may be “foggy” (as one of the moms explained) because of the pain so having someone there to discuss what it is you want is a good idea. The thought of a doula could be necessary if one so chooses.

One last thing that I thought was relevant was the explanation of how hospitals may do things to your child without your consent. An example was how after the baby is delivered, it may be taken to get circumcised or whatever else and at that point the baby may be formula fed. If a mother does not want her baby to be formula fed, it would be beneficial to know that that is something to discuss with your doctor. It’s interesting to me how today, some doctors may do what they think is best rather than discussing it first with the mother. Overall, I thought the mom panel was very informative and fascinating. I enjoyed all of the information that they were able to give us. It definitely served as an insight for me on what it is I should think about before childbirth.

I’ve always heard that parents should not co-sleep with their babies. My mom actually told me of a story where a mother fell asleep and rolled over on her child, suffocating it. Maybe the article was the story or something similar? She told me this when I was probably in middle school so this may be more common then I think. Who knows, but since then I’ve always thought how terrible it would be if that happened. I can’t imagine how that mother felt when she woke. I wouldn’t want to take the chance but then again, I’m sure no parent thinks they are going to fall asleep while breastfeeding and wake up to their infant no longer breathing. In the article by Barbara King, she separates co-sleeping into two different terms. Beforehand I thought co-sleeping only meant in the same bed. She explained that sharing a room and sharing a bed are two different things. Sharing a room can be beneficial because it allows the parent/s to closely monitor the child without the risk of rolling over on the child if he/she were sleeping in the bed. Although it mentions skin-to-skin contact being an “evolutionary heritage” it is not worth the risk of losing one’s child. I have a cousin who keeps her newborn’s crib in her room. This makes sense and can serve as an example of co-sleeping in the idea of being in the same room but not the same bed. I find myself asking if this happened often back before cribs were invented. I’m sure in the old days they may have had make shift baby beds but for some reason I would think babies slept more with their parents. If so, I wonder if the whole rolling over on your child was common and we just weren’t aware about it. I guess it’s a question I’d have to explore but it seemed interesting.  Overall, it seems important that people are aware of what may result when co-sleeping in the same bed occurs. And that co-sleeping doesn’t always refer to being in the same bed. It can also refer to co-sleeping in the same room.

Emerging adulthood, as Arnett had stated, is the period between adolescence and young adulthood. EA usually occurs between the ages of 18 to mid-twenties. Arnett gives five main characteristics to explain the idea of emerging adulthood. The first characteristic is the age of identity explorations, where people explore different possibilities for their lives, especially love and work. This is the period where exploration identity is and EA’s best opportunity because they are more independent of their parents. Love and work are emphasized most because during this period EA’s jump back and forth from jobs and also “test the waters” in relationships to see what it is they want long-term. The second is the age of instability. This characteristic shows that with the explorations of emerging adults, the constant shifting in love and work make their lives very unstable. During this time EA’s usually are moving around a lot, being in college causing instability in home life. The term “Boomerang Kids” is the idea that EA’s after a few years on their own, move back home with parents also making their lives unstable. The third characteristic is the self-focused age. EA is the area in ones life that is the most self focused. EA’s decide for themselves their personal responsibility. They lack accountability because they are only accountable for themselves. The fourth characteristic is the age of feeling in-between, which is the stage of being neither an adolescence nor adult. EA’s are on their way to adulthood but not quite there. There are three criteria most people think of achieving adulthood: accept responsibility for yourself, make independent decisions, and become financially independent. EA’s have usually met the first two parts of criteria but during this period, they are not usually financially independent, making it a period of ‘feeling in-between.’ The last characteristic is the age of possibilities. This is where many different ideas for your future remain open but the direction in life hasn’t been decided for certain. In this age, many have left home but are still uncommitted. Arnett’s explanations of these five characteristics help define the meaning of emerging adulthood.

A narrative is a plan for one’s life. Usually most narratives, (when looking at EA’s) is college, grad school or going right into a career, marriage, children, and occasional pleasures such as vacationing/traveling. Sometimes the narrative doesn’t always follow that exact order as some people may have to skip college and go right into working or they may have children before marriage. Generally speaking though, a narrative usually follows the above standard. When we were asked the question in class, “where do you see yourself 10 years from now?” It allowed me to look at my own narrative. I’m obviously already in the college stage, but following that I would say I plan to attend dental school, hopefully travel a bit before I have to actually settle down with my career, then marriage and possibly children after. Since this class has pointed out that I’ in the emerging adult stage of my life, I’m sure since it’s a stage of instability and changes, my narrative might possibly change but for now, this is the plan.

The idea of a narrative in my life is very similar to the explanation that Arnett has given. His idea of an emerging adult seems extremely accurate to people ranging from 18-mid twenties.  When taking myself into perspective, I currently am in college and have changed my major twice. (Which would be an example of the age of instability) I currently work but I am not working towards my career. More of a way for extra money to pay bills, etc. Since I’ve been 18 I have had three different jobs so the “McJobs” idea is definitely relevant to me. The cultural narrative seems right on target. Being in college is practically a must in our society so that we can graduate and land a career. Without that sheet of paper these days, it’s almost hopeless. The cultural narrative of our society is very similar to what Arnett has defined as a narrative and his characteristics of an emerging adult can demonstrate for people going through that period what it is they should expect during these years.

Arnett discusses a number of areas on which change occurs in the emerging adulthood stage of life. One of those is ‘A new relationship with parents.’ He explains that during this stage, the relationship between you and your parents becomes more as friends and “near-equals.” This is very true in my life. Although I got along with my parents growing up, it wasn’t until I moved away from home that my parents, especially my mom, became more like best friends. I think the idea of moving away and not being able to see someone as much allows a person to want to be closer. Also, the freedom of space and ability to make your own choices is a factor that helps. Another area is marriage. EA’s is a time where young people become more accepting to staying with one person for long and are more capable of “enduring intimacy.” EA is the stage for people to find just exactly what their looking for by trial and error. I find it interesting though that today, rather than feeling as if you have to settle down early, women are having careers and focusing on other things than what they did in the mid nineteen fifties. I guess you could say that my life might match closely to Arnett’s idea of marriage. Right now I am in a relationship but personally I am nowhere near ready to settle down. I definitely agree with being in a long-term relationship. I’d rather do that or be in no relationship than jump back and forth to news ones often.

As briefly mentioned above about college, Arnett’s view is that these days you have to have college in order to get a good job in American society. Arnett explained how 2/3 of American emerging adults enter college right out of high school. That is true in my situation. It wasn’t even a thought to take a break or skip college for me. Something that is different in my situation is that Arnett mentions college being financially easier for white and Asian American people. I can see how that may be true but personally, I didn’t have any money saved up for college. Luckily for some odd reason I got financial aid but the amount of loans I have to take out is outrageous. (I’m not sure why I even go to Baylor!) Although I don’t have to worry about paying my loans back until after I graduate, it’ll eventually catch up and be a huge financial problem.  A fourth pillar of identity that Arnett points out is that of religion. During the years of emerging adulthood, the freedom of developing an ideology and world view becomes much easier as you no longer have your parents there to force anything upon you. In this stage of life, it is a crucial time for developing world and religious views. My religious life is slighty similar to how Arnett explains it. Growing up we attended a Baptist church. After my parents divorced, we quit going as much. Once I entered my first year of college I chose on my own to attend a non-denominational church and after I was saved, I’ve considered myself a Christian. My parents have now joined in going to church again as well but it was during the beginning of my emerging adulthood years that I came to develop my religious views. Actually after explaining it, I suppose my personal situation is very similar to how Arnett describes it.

In the end, the idea of “emerging adulthood” really showed and explained a lot of things I wasn’t completely aware of.  Arnett’s explanation served to show that I fit perfectly in his description of an emerging adult. Looking at the EA narrative and one that I’ve planned for myself has helped in giving me a new perspective on where it is that I may be going and the idea that if changes do occur, it’s not always bad; just a part of this stage in life. Now I can leave with a better understand of myself as a emerging adult and prepare for the days when I finally reach adulthood!

After reading the chapter on child rearing and social class I wasn’t too surprised about social class determining if one would go to college or make something more of themselves. What did surprise me though was how one’s social class can have such great differences in child rearing. I should probably discuss a little further what it is that stood out to me in this reading.

Usually I don’t think about social class that often. Especially the child rearing aspect. Lareau gave an explanation and clarified the differences in which child rearing comes into play within social classes. ‘Concerted Cultivation’ was related to middle-class families and explained as parents fostering and assessing their children’s talents, opinions, and skills. They frequently intervened on their child’s behalf, made deliberate efforts to stimulate’s children’s development and to cultivate their cognitive and social skills. Children in middle-class families often participated in a number or organizations. They spent a lot of time with adults and as Lareau pointed out, it benefited them greatly because they were able to talk with adults and figure out ways to “act on their own behalf to gain advantages.” After reading this about middle-class families, it makes sense that this is how Lareau associated it. Parents within those families push their children so they may excel. In this social class, it is reasonable to think from a very young age that college is in your future. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. The working and lower class households are slightly different.

Lareau associated the term ‘accomplishment of natural growth’ with working and lower-class families. The child rearing ideas within this logic views children’s development as “unfolding spontaneously, as long as they were provided with comfort, food, shelter, and other basic support.” Parents organized their child’s lives so that they spent time around the home and playing with siblings, or cousins. Family was emphasized more as the children in this study and social class spent a vast amount of time with their family rather than being involved in particular activities. These children also didn’t have the benefits of being able to participate in extracurricular activities if they wanted to. Their resources were slim. A positive aspect in this social class was that children had more “autonomy” and leisure time than those who were more structured and always busy in middle-class families. But that could also work against them.

The idea of these two logic’s within social classes made me actually stop and think of instances where in my personal life I could relate in understanding her view. It makes complete sense that families that have more resources, such as middle-class, involve their children in more to help in development and child rearing. Yes, their lives may be structured and busy but it allows the children in this social class to feel as if they have a sense of worth and may have more encouragement in striving toward their future. The idea of college is obvious, not one to even question. In lower class families, children are still fully capable of having encouragement and worth but from experience, I know individuals, even in my own family, who have been told that college isn’t really an option unless they work for it. At times I’ve heard conversations where that child has to help the family by working and bringing in money to pay for bills and etc. So the idea of striving toward something else may not always be there if one is raised in a lower class family. Again I’m not saying that you can’t get an education and you aren’t at all motivated if your in a lower social class because there are many of people who have come out of their tough situations and made something of themselves but it is definitely harder than those who have been fed the information all of their lives about having to go to college and their parents having the money to help pay for it.

In conclusion, I definitely didn’t think this would come out to being so long! But, I believe that Lareau’s reading is pretty accurate in the idea that middle-class people have child rearing ideas that encourage their children to go after what they want rather than sitting back and feeling a sense of powerlessness and frustration.

As we’ve read the first chapter in The Feminine Mystique and watched an episode Mad Men it has demonstrated the idea of what the feminine mystique reallys means. In the first part of chapter one, it explains that a sense of dissatisfaction and yearning in women’s lives became overpowering in the middle of the twentith century. Women’s roles were expected of being a housewife and nothing else. At the end of the 1950′s there was an increase in women who began marrying young and whose only goal was to find a husband and have children. The ideal picture and goal during this time was to get married, live in a nice surburban home, and raise children. It was “unfeminine” to want something more than the housewife role. After WWII, this phenomenon, known as the mystique of feminine fulliment, became “the cherished and self-perpetuating core of contemporary American culture.” Millions of women lived their lives as the surburban housewife. This idea which is seen the the feminine mystique was also displayed in the episode of Man Men. Betty was a housewife who had a working husband and two kids. From the outside her life looked like the typical one of many women during the 1950′s and one that could be envied. Her husband worked while she stayed home and tended to her home and children. She had everything women wanted during that time. The problem came when she realized a sense of unsatisfaction a void that wasn’t being fulled by anything. This situation was also similar to the chapter in that man women began to suffer from the “problem that had no name”. Women felt as if they had no purpose other than tending to their children and home. They felt as if there was a huge void in their lives that wasn’t being filled. Many went into depression. Betty in the Mad Men episode decided to see a psychiatrist, which in that time was looked upon as unfeminine and a disgrace. She hoped to find the answer to the void she had been feeling. Later in the episode her husband called the psychiatrist to see his response to her visit and he said that she was “anxious”. After thinking about the end of the episode and the doctors response to that I realized that Betty was anxious for something other than the life she was living. There can be similarites in this situation and those of many other women that were explained within  the first chapter of our reading. Women were anxious because as explained above they were tired of living their day to day lives as housewives and feeling as if their life was meaningless.

I think that after watching the episode of Mad Men and reading the chapter in The Feminine Mystique, we can see that there is significance in the phenomenon. Our culture had engraved the ideas that a life known as the “feminine mystique” was one that should be envied and one that many saught out to have.  It was looked at as the ideal lifestyle that would achieve women’s happiness. Ideas to marry, have children, live in an ideal home, and be the caretaker of all of those things is something that was seen to be the ultimate success. This phenomenon made a huge impact in the women of the mid twentith century. It affected the decision of women all over America. Marriage and a family became more important than an education and career. A dramatic impact change the culture of women and was eventually followed by the feeling of dissatisfaction that altered this phenomenon greatly. After feeling as if the housewife role was the only true success, dissatisfaction in this idea began to reshape America’s idea of women and obtaining life as a housewife. I think that after women began to feel as if their lives were meaningless, it started a change. Women’s idea of success and happiness today is much different than it was in the 1950′s. I can’t speak for everyone but there is a greater number of women who receive education and have the idea of a career being more important. I do think that the feminine mystique idea still affects women today. I hear of plenty of women whose goal it is to become a housewife. They only want to get married and have children. Many go to school just to meet a husband and dont expect to take their education any further than simply graduating. But in conclustion I believe that we have come much further in the belief that the ideal life of a woman is not only to settle down and become a housewife. It is no longer looked at as “unfeminine” to get an education and have a career for a woman, rather something that women can be praised for.