This blog is a foray into some of the most personal yet politically and socially controversial topics of our time: family. Through a sociological perspective, we explore questions concerning the definition, history and dynamics of the family in North America. Main topics and questions in this blog are guided by a graduate-level seminar in Sociology of the Family at McGill University taught by Professor Anna-Liisa Aunio.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Family Structures and Bonds

Risman’s look at single fathers represents a huge shift in thought for custody battles and gender role division.  Although her study focuses on divorced fathers, I think the conclusions drawn are important for even ‘intact’ families because of their implications for gender role divisions.  In concluding that single fathers adequately provide structural and emotional support for their children, one must question why this doesn’t come out in two-parent homes.  What is it about “intact” families that allow many fathers to shy away from traditionally female-mandated roles that they, as proven, are capable of fulfilling?  Her study essentially disproves any biological theories while questioning from where does this gender divide arise? 

Looking at the article by Furstenberg et al., I could not help to think of my own parent’s situation.  My mother paid off the last of my fathers’ student loans while her parents were supporting her.  But, both of them were just 23 when they were married and I was born when they were 29.  That seems almost inconceivable to me now.  But, this assumption of elongated childhood comes with so many social implications that I have to question just how positive the effects are.  On the one hand, elongated childhoods allow people to establish themselves and, often, not start their “adulthood” with large debts.  But, this puts huge burdens on their parents – the so-called “babygloomers” problem.  That’s a lot of pressure to put on the baby boomers generation who worked their way up by themselves into middle class affluence.  Although part of me wants to say that the baby boomers in fact created this problem themselves by allowing their children to be “coddled,” I wonder the correlation between this ‘new’ burden and the increased rate of marriage dissolution. 

I also questioned the socio-economic implications of allowing children to continue their education forever while being supported by their parents.  Furstenberg points out that there is a SES divide but how far does this schism enhance the split between the upper and lower class?  The suggestion to “Expand[ing] military and alternative national service programs” to help boost those who can’t afford higher education by “providing financial credit [for] those who serve their country” is almost offensive (Furstenberg et al, 41). To establish a society in which those who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds must first “earn” their way to upper education through the military is to create a society even further divided – why not direct that money directly into their education to provide cheaper schooling and increase the number of government subsidies to universities to allow all those that qualify a chance for education?

Turning to the Bengtson article, I was struck by the assumption that the elder generation, the grandmas and grandpas of today, were going to help their children raise their grandchildren.  After reading Hochschild’s article last week in which a grandmother was complaining of having her time commodified to help babysit, I found this assumption questionable.  Perhaps my feelings towards this are tainted by the distant relationship I had with my own grandparents who I only saw a few times per year, but why would grandparents (who have the choice) want to help raise their grandchildren after they’ve already raised their own kids?  This almost seems like a copping out on the parent’s part. 

Lastly, I raise issue with the selection process theory of divorce because of the implications it has for individuals who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions.  In granting them a scapegoat, proclaiming that they don’t have the “traits” for marriage, individuals are given an out that relies on “biology.” 

Q1: In Amato’s article, he discusses the reasons why “economic consequences of divorce are greater for women that for men,” such as interrupted work histories and wage discrimination (Amato, 1277).  Evaluate this statement in light of the shifting norm towards equal division of labor.  Further, do you think he would derive the same conclusions for a family with a stay at home dad or a family in which the mother is the main breadwinner?

Q2: The rectangularization of the North American population and the new life phase of early adulthood pose many problems for national social and economic welfare, especially for issues of social security and health care.  What do you think the government should do, if anything, to ease this future problem?

Q3: Using a life course perspective, do you think the elongation of adolescence as discussed in Furstenberg’s article will have positive or negative effects, and why, in later life stages?  

No comments:

Post a Comment