SOC3354f11

I will do this on a question-to-question basis.

1.  Looking back on old notes from the class, my three reasons for marriage are: 1-spend life with love, 2- permanence/stability, 3-romance/tradition.  The first is obvious: I want to get married to solidify my relationship with my significant other and spend the rest of my life growing old with them.  The second is about the idea of stability- not necessarily financial (I expect to be financially stable on my own).  Merely stability in general, with life crises and joys, to always have someone to share life with; although life and people will change, the permanence of a marriage vow will not (except in divorce, but let’s be romantic).  The third is mostly in reference to the wedding itself.  Yes, I am a girl so a wedding means a lot to me.  I think weddings are romantic; the ultimate symbol of your love and devotion to another person.

2.  The purpose of marriage is similar to the reasons I want to get married.  Though, on a broader scale, marriage is also for financial stability, due to an increased income, and a safe institution from which to raise children.

3. Answering this question will make me feel like a fourteen-year-old girl, but here goes… I will marry someone responsible, financially and personally.  Someone with plans, goals, and a determination to meet those goals.  Someone who is funny (obviously), sweet, caring, romantic, honest, faithful, and a little bit weird so we can have that much more in common.  He needs some type of higher education (after all, we learned about the importance of similar education in marriage) and needs to see the world in a way similar to mine.  Religion is not that important to me, so it would work best if it was not that important to him either.

4. My future family structure is still being decided.  I want to get married.  However, I either want zero or two kids.  Two kids would make my future family structure the same as my current one.

5. Again, depending on what I decide, my future family could reflect what I grew up in, or not. My parents are still married, and of course I hope this will be the case for me, but I do not think divorce is bad in all situations, and I would do it if it seemed necessary.

6. According to current statistics, I am about 50% likely to divorce.  But, in all honesty, I have no idea.  I would like to say I would not ever get a divorce, but of course there is no way to know that.  I know that I am not the type to give up, and I do well in committed relationships, so divorce would the be last alternative.

7. Love is the absolute most important part of a marriage.  Of course, it was not always like this, since marriages were used as political or financial pawns until quite recently.  But I would never marry for anything other than love.

8. This is a difficult question… I suppose I would remember that there are lulls in every relationship, and if you can work through it, things will get better.  Communication is the most important, but (close your eyes if you are easily offended) sex is important too, since many married men complain about sex often.  I might buy some sort of advice book, you know, “My Marriage is in a Lull” or something.  And I see no problem with couples therapy.

Finally, I would say that, unfortunately, personal decisions do not mean much on the greater scale of things.  Structure most definitely wins over agency.  When planning out a life-narrative, the stages and goals are nearly the same for everyone.  We have been conditioned to understand that certain things are expected of us, and we have worked those expectations into our personal goals.  Interestingly, although structure means more than agency, I do not think that agency is dead entirely.  While the “big picture” is set for us before birth, we have agency over the decisions leading up to that.  For example, we choose who we marry, where we work, whether we go to school and what we study, etc.  Although I have no evidence to back this up, I will say that those who do not follow structure seem to be less likely to be successful.  High school dropouts rarely achieve the same things as college graduates.  We are pushed into certain roles and narratives, but we do have the power to make decisions to the contrary.  There are people who willingly do not get married, or willingly do not have children, although that is what society has instilled.  For the most part, though, structure commands our narratives.  I know that it commands mine: I want to get married for the reasons everyone else wants to get married.  My agency comes in choosing my mate.  I do not know that I want to have kids (agency) but, if I do, I want two (structure).  Before this class, my narrative would have been the same, but I would have argued with you if you said that my narrative was just like everyone else’s, because structure demands it to be a certain way.  After this class, I can see that sociological patterns exist because of structure, and variations are due to the importance people give to agency.  Unfortunately for humans, who have a desire to be different, agency is limited.  However, this is fortunate for sociologists, who study the effects of structure.

This was definitely my favorite class this semester.  Actually, my favorite class of my college career.  I think we covered almost everything in the objectives, but I do have a few regrets…

1.  We never talked about gay marriage and families headed by gay/lesbian couples.  I do not think there would be an abundance of research on the subject, but it would have been interesting to learn.

2. Abortion.  I love controversy, probably because I debated all throughout high school, but it would have been interesting to see what different ideas and perspectives sociology could have brought into the mix.

3.  We looked at race differences, but not in specific reference to marriage or family decisions.  Are people of certain races more likely to wed young? More likely to divorce? More likely to have a certain number of kids? Etc.

Although I do not know if I want kids of my own, I enjoyed all of the forays into child rearing.  There are so many decisions, beginning with pregnancy I was unaware of.

All in all, I would (and have) recommend this class to friends.

So, I really had no idea there were so many decisions to make for rearing children.  The newest to me was co-sleeping.  I cannot say that I still fully understand the implications- i.e if that means while they are infants, or toddlers.  Co-sleeping with an infant sounds highly dangerous.  I have read studies that the human body can sense the baby, even while asleep, but it still seems too risky to try.  I am completely undecided on whether or not to let toddlers co-sleep, however.  Usually, from my understanding, the co-sleeping starts because of bad dreams or other night-time scares and becomes habitual.  I do not know if this is in the best interests of the parent or the child.  I feel like it would strain the parents relationship, because the only time they are alone together without kids has been interrupted.  I also wonder if that would be bad for the toddler, since it could increase dependency and possibly lead to more issues later, such as separation anxiety.  Of course, this is all speculation on my part.  I would like to study this more to help me make a decision if I have kids, but there is plenty of time for that.

I am for spanking as a form of discipline, as is my current boyfriend.  My parents spanked me, and his parents spanked him, and we both think we turned out better because of it.  It was interesting to learn that you have to have the right mindset before you spank a child: if you are angry, the spanking will have more negative implications that if it was a calm, purely disciplinary action.  I wonder if, sociologically speaking, children who were spanked are more likely to spank their children- I will certainly look that up at a time that is not in the middle of finals week.

After reading both sides of the argument, I am more undecided than I was before.  My family claims they “don’t believe in divorce” because it is an easy way out of unhappiness and such.  Apparently that has changed because both of my aunts have gotten divorces.  Which I fully support- both of their reasons were listed in the “non-negotiable” part of both essays.  I think that there is just too much research on both sides to say that one is always better than the other.  I do not think that “staying together for the kids” is necessarily he healthy choice.  Of course, kids want their parents together (usually) but an unhealthy relationship is worse for the kids to witness than a divorce where two people are happy afterwards.  However, I also believe that divorce is becoming too common because Americans are looking for the “quick fix”.  Couples should attend marriage counseling before filing for divorce; they need to at least try to work it out.  Divorce is traumatizing for kids, even if it is healthy and mutually respectful, and so all steps should be taken to prevent it.  That being said, there are marriages beyond repair.  Divorce is a good option, but it should be entered into with more caution than Americans are using.  I have always believed that divorce is bad, but also sometimes necessary.  Staying together for the kids is not a viable option if the relationship is too dysfunctional.

Very, very interesting.  I am still a bit confused about the exact defining measures of “the pecking order”, but I believe I have the gist.

I do not know if my family will fit the mold quite right, though.  After the first caller, Conley said something about being a hockey star born into a family of mathematicians, or vice-versa.  That is almost a perfect representation of my family.  My brother plays hockey, and both my parents are obsessed with hockey.  I absolutely hate it and do not play sports in general, so my value is not the same to my family.  I am the brainy child, but my brother is the sporty one.  My parents value education and have always pushed both of us into college and to get good grades, but when it comes to having “that little something extra”, I just do not make it.  Another way my family may not fit the mold is that one of my parents is a bit sexist… In that, this parent believes that women have “women’s work” and men have “men’s work” and there is not really any overlay between them- women cannot do everything men do, but men can do both.

Anyway, the distribution of resources is similar to what Conley noted.  My brother seems to get a bigger share of resources because my family is working class, and they believe that he will become a famous hockey player.  It could also be that I am now out of the house and he is still in high school.  There are only two children in my family, so the resources are less scarce, and there is no child that has to “fight” because they are in the middle.  I am four years older than my brother, but I am not quite sure how this gap affects “pecking order”.  I suppose it means that he will always have memories of getting the most resources, because I will have graduated college by the time he enters, so he will still receive support while I will not.  Gender differences… is tricky.  My parents have always told me to work at my goals, and never mentioned limitations to me based on my gender, but have made subtle suggestions about other women in general.  My brother and I are both skinny and the same color, so obesity and color are not a factor.  Genetics and environment is also tricky.  Since I am a college sophomore and my brother is a high school sophomore, I do not really know that I can accurately make assessments on success — we both still have not really achieved anything yet.

In regards to the panel of mothers:

I was not shocked about the time for labor, or the pain, or any other simple logistics of childbirth.  I was interested to learn about the limitations that insurance can place on pregnancy, and the care of the mothers while in the hospital.  I knew that home-births were rare, and I knew that insurance was involved, but I was intrigued to learn about how much insurance makes decisions for to-be parents.  For instance, the woman with the infant said she had to be induced because of insurance restrictions.  I knew childbirth was expensive, but ten grand seems a bit much, even for that.  I mean, what is the hospital really providing?  A bed for two or three nights, and medical help when the baby arrives?  And documentation and circumcision and whatever else.  But I do not see how that constitutes $10,000 worth.  My other concern was the lack of concern each of the women said the doctors paid to them.  They were not involved in any decision-making processes, and their demands were not even heard.  That just seems depressing.  Those babies the doctors are trying to deliver would not exist without those mothers- treat them with respect. Just because they are pregnant and used to people poking and prodding them, does not mean you can do whatever you wish without informing them.  I had never heard of a Doolah (dulah?) before and it seems like a good idea, but not something I would pay for.  I would have my husband be aware of my demands and vocalize them when I could not.

Finally, I was interested in the breast v. bottle issue.  I have read that pollution can “pollute” the breast milk of mothers, so I was concerned about how that would affect the infant.  It was good to hear that even with the pollution, the breast milk is still healthier for the child, though I will have to research this more if the time ever comes for me to have children.  If I had children, I have always thought I would want to breast feed- it is just more natural and helps the infant and mother bond, and helps prevent diseases and helps the infant develop better.

My cousin is getting married on December 3rd and I am a bridesmaid.  I just got back from the bachelorette party. (On a side note, Firefox is sexist, it told me “bachelorette” is not a word.) We (the bridesmaids) hosted a lingerie party for the bride Saturday afternoon, and went to Austin on Saturday night for the bachelorette.  To be fair, I think the lingerie party is creepy; especially since the bride is not my cousin, the groom is.  So, essentially, I had to buy underwear with the idea of her having sex with my cousin in them.  We went to sixth street in Austin and did a scavenger hunt involving several silly things.  I suppose the party was somewhat atypical, there were no phallic-shaped foods or toys anywhere and we never actually went into a club.  Anyway, throughout the course of all of these wedding festivities, I keep thinking about the traditions for weddings that we discussed in class quite a while ago.  I have bought my dress and helped the bride make decisions.  We had a bridal shower a few weeks ago, we had a lingerie party and a bachelorette this weekend.  They have planned the wedding venue and who is walking down the aisle with whom.  She is wearing a white dress, had her bridal portraits taken a few weeks ago.  There have been dress fittings and alterations, and lots of stress coming from the bride.  Of course, every wedding is different (colors, venue, theme, etc) but they all have most of the parts of the similarities we discussed in class.  This weekend, I was reminded of how structured a wedding really is. It still seems strange that this is happening so soon, I feel like time has flown by.  After the wedding, they are taking their honeymoon and coming back so the bride can finish school.  They want to have kids (four, actually) and have their lives follow the narrative from there.

Emerging Adulthood (EA) is classified by a sense of freedom, instability, and exploration.  Arnett, in his chapter on work, says that many EA’s will bounce from job to job (he calls these “McJobs”), temporarily, as they look for “a job that will make them ‘a better person’”.  EA’s are usually not stable in any sense: they are in a series of non-committed or short-term relationships as they look for their long-term partner, they still have some financial dependency upon their parents, particularly in this economy with the emergence of the “boomerang kids”.  They are college aged: past adolescence and the awkwardness of high school, but not necessarily adults- even by their own standards.  When interviewed, both Arnett and myself found that many EA’s answer the question “are you an adult” with a “maybe, a little, almost, sort of” type answer.  There is a nearly even four-way split between major ideas of religion in this age group: agnostic/atheist, Deist, liberal Christian and conservative Christian.  Nearly all EA’s do not attend church for a variety of reasons, but will most likely begin attending upon the arrival of their first child.

A narrative is a plan for a life.  The life pathway, if you will.  Usually, for American EA’s the narrative is: college, grad school, job, marriage, kids with some travel thrown in somewhere between college and marriage.  Of course, there are often deviations to this narrative, people may not attend college or grad school, or may “not believe in marriage”, not want kids, or even have kids and then enter marriage.  My narrative is: college, job, marriage with travel thrown in everywhere, before and after marriage.  Children are only a possibility, as is grad school, because I have not decided if I want either just yet.  This pattern of life (narrative) has proven to be relatively successful, and thus influences all Americans from an early age to have this plan for their EA years.  Because of the narrative, people are feeling less pressure to marry, as Arnett cited in his chapter on love and marriage, and finding more pressure to get an education.  EA’s feel little pressure to “settle down” in any sense of the phrase.  Arnett interviewed many EA’s who were in relationships certain to not lead to marriage, musicians with little financial stability, people in “McJobs” waiting for their lives to truly start.  EA’s do not see a pressure to being life as soon as they leave college any longer.  EA’s take years to “get to know themselves”, which is shown by an average marriage age of 28 for men and 26 for women.  The narrative change has been most significant on women; no longer do they go to a short term college to get married, or a short term job to get married.  Jobs are no longer a “means to an end” (the end being marriage).

I have found that my life narrative is shockingly ordinary in every respect.  Even my experience as an EA is in conformity with nearly every finding Arnett published.  Obviously, I am a college student.  I am here because society demands that I include this experience in my narrative in order to secure a good job.  I am studying subjects I am interested in, that reflect my skills and future plans.  The difference is that Arnett found that Hispanics and African-Americans had the hardest time financing college, and I am Caucasian and have had the most difficulty out of everyone that I know. I am working a “McJob” but also have a job that will help me in the future.  I am a service associate at a department store during the holidays, but during the school year, I have a management position at Penland Dining Hall.  My managerial job is helping build my resume so that I can help find a job that makes me feel… complete and worthwhile.  However, my job at the department store has no hopes of promotion, but I am only interested in the pay to meet my needs.  I am different from many EA’s in the love category, though.  I am in a serious relationship that will most likely result in marriage.  Many other EA’s are exploring their romantic options, but I have no need for that.  I do not want to wait until my late 20′s to get married (provided I am still in this relationship) I want to be married by 23.  I see no reason to wait longer than that: my life will be in order, or nearly in order and I am not worried that marriage will hold me back in anyway.  Arnett interviewed a male who said he wanted to wait to get married because it would limit him- if he wanted to go to Florida for a weekend, he would not be able to because of his commitment, but I do not see marriage that way- at least to my current boyfriend.  I do follow the findings for EA’s in relation to religion though.  My parents are both Christians, and as a small child I attended a non-denominational church (my parent’s followed the path of EA’s with children).  However, I began to question the groundings of the Bible and Christianity and now consider myself to be something more along the lines of a Deist.  I believe in a Higher Power, but I do not the the Christian interpretation of said Higher Power has it exactly right.  Arnett reported that many EA’s, after getting the freedom in college to choose for themselves, will explore different ideas of religion, and that is what I have done. My relationship with my parents also followed the descriptions of the EA’s.  The relationship becomes more of equals and less of parent-child.  Parents respect more and pry less, and conversations become more enjoyable, and “emerging adults may realize more than ever how much their parents mean to them.”  I have found this to be true in all accounts.

Generally, the end of EA-hood is marked by marriage and children.  This seems to be the pillar for personal independence and all-around “adulthood”. Adults are stable, independent, married, family-men/women (sometimes).  They have set their narrative to cruise-control, after having gone through the road under construction.  Adulthood is everything that EA-hood is not.

The “Feminine Mystique” is the “problem with no name” according to Friedan.  It is an ailment that cannot be explained by doctors, or even the women who suffer from it.  It would be described as a sense of loneliness, a feeling of a lack of achievement, discontentment.  The episode of Mad Men we watched in class showed many examples of the degradation of women and the effect of the “feminine mystique.”  The blonde wife had a problem that doctors said was not physical (her hands going numb).  All of the doctors said that the issue was psychological and encouraged her to see a psychiatrist to discuss her issues.  The “feminine mystique” became a physical manifestation that actually turned out to be quite dangerous.  She even sought confidence in the wife of her husband’s boss – the idea being that housewives all talked about the “feminine mystique” and found solace in the fact that they were not alone, although it did not work out that way for the blonde woman.  The secretary was suffering from a problem of the feminine mystique- being stuck in a pink-collar job. One of the men who works with her boss tells her there are “women copy-writes, you know?”.  She is a perfect portrayal of the expectation for women.  She is a secretary, very prim and proper, she blushes at the mention of sexual innuendos, and is sexually harassed multiple times throughout the episode.  She is not a housewife, and thus does not feel the “problem with no name”, but nonetheless, she portrays a woman suffering from similar injustices.  The blonde woman wants to see a psychiatrist, but cannot do so without her husbands permission, it seems.  She does not ask “do you think I need a psychiatrist” but “do I need a psychiatrist”, implying that her husband has the only say; that she has no opinions or ideas of her own.  Another interesting point for the feminine mystique for the blonde woman is the way her husband copes with her condition.  He asks all of the men he works with, and even the woman he is having an affair with “what women want” but does not take the time or care to ask his wife what she wants.  It is as if women have no say or personal opinions- everything they want is to be decided for the by their fathers or their husbands.  These are the broader, cultural implications associated with the feminine mystique.  The women pity the divorcee who is moving down the street, not because she had to go through a divorce, but because she no longer has a husband- the only thing that matters.  The feminine mystique is a reaction to the place of women in society.

I think that the feminine mystique affects women in a different way.  I do not think it is a unhappiness, or a lack of professional accomplishment.  I think that today’s version of the feminine mystique deals with juggling roles and the guilt associated with that.  Women have to work harder than men for professional success for cultural reasons and their expectations as mothers.  I think many successful women may feel guilt at neglected their maternal duties.  As a full-time working mother, they have less time to dote on their children, which may make them feel guilty as their children grow up.  Although in my experience full-time working mothers do a great job of balancing their duties, my mom has said that she feels guilty for not always being able to be around.  I think that the problem has changed into one involving role strain, now that women are working toward equality with men.

The gender dynamics of a marriage are so complex and fascinating that I like to talk about them with people outside of class.  My boss is engaged and last night at work I just started spouting off studies about marriage and how to fight properly and everything else that we have learned in class.  I am particularly interested in gender with regards to sociology, so I loved the beginning of the Feminine Mystique.  Betty Friedan found the “problem with no name” and linked it to nearly all housewives in the United States during the 50′s.  The article from Slate was defending Betty Friedan to modern feminists who blame Friedan for their current unhappiness.  They argue that they were happier when they did not have a choice to go to school or to be professionals, but as Friedan found, that was not true.  Women would suffer from internal depression- a sort of “well, this is it” feeling.  Which I can sympathize with; if I was nothing but a housewife, my life would feel empty too.  I have plans and goals and the only way for me to feel successful is by achieving or at least attempting to achieve those goals.  I could not sit in a house and cook and clean all day without feeling like something was missing.  Although, this does bring new complications to the table, as we discussed in class.  Women are having difficulties keeping all of their roles active.  It is relatively easy to adjust to being a wife and a worker, or a wife and a mother, but the combination of all three has proven stressful to modern day women. Women have to sacrifice a part of one of their roles (usually worker) to tend to the other roles.  I hope that one day the equality amongst the sexes will be so perfect that each side will sacrifice.  Women will be able to make more money and feel more contentment (due to a lack of stress), in addition to being happier with their spouse.

I would be interested to see the dynamics of a homosexual partnership with children.  How do they divide the labor in the house and with the children?  Does one partner give up more time at their job to tend to the needs of children?  If so, which partner?