Difference between revisions of "426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
I agree with Sarah. I think the statement that America "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values" was used by Mintz and Kellogg as a way to lend more relevancy to their work. -- Rebecca | I agree with Sarah. I think the statement that America "is a society without a clear unitary set of family ideals and values" was used by Mintz and Kellogg as a way to lend more relevancy to their work. -- Rebecca | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>On page xiii Mintz and Kellogg say that the expectation that "sex should be confined to marriage" used to be one of the givens for proper family life.</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>I wonder if they are claiming that the expectation has changed over the course of American history. Do people today really look differently on matters of extra-marital sex than people did hundreds of years ago? </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>I would guess that attitudes about pre-marital sex have not changed very much. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, parents are not happy about it, and the behavior is officially frowned upon). </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>I think attitudes about adultery have not changed very much either. (ie: everyone knows it happens a lot, people don't like being cheated on, and there is some legal recourse to punish an unfaithful spouse.)</p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p>The only real change that I can think of now is that there might be more laws in place concerning parental rights and responsibilities for children who were born outside of marriage. </p> -- Rebecca | ||
| + | |||
| + | Another thing that jumped out at me was this line from page xx: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Shorn of traditional educational and productive functions, the stability of today's families rests on the tenuous basis of affection, compatibility, and mutual interest." | ||
| + | |||
| + | This made me laugh because I totally take for granted that affection, compatibility, and mutual interest form a GREAT basis for a family unit. Certainly more so than being completely trapped in a marriage because you have a bunch of young children and no way to care for them without your spouse's help. I think that on this last page Mintz and Kellogg are assuming that stable=happy and unstable=unhappy. -- Rebecca | ||
| + | |||
| + | I’m just adding to the comments left by Ashley and Joyce. The authors do seem to highlight the negatives of transition. They touch on a ‘give and take’ relationship between progression and deterioration. On page xx the authors cite a decline in premature death, but a rise in divorce rates. Is every positive balanced by a negative? --Andrew | ||
| + | |||
| + | I respectfully disagree with Rebecca. I think that views on sex have changed. Of course parents frown upon premarital sex, but the media embraces it. It is part of our culture. Sex is everywhere. On T.V., in movies, books, and even on the radio (listen to any popular rap song). Sex is also in schools. Children are exposed to it in ‘sex ed.’ More people are o.k. with the notion of underage sex today than they were 300 years ago, or even 50 years ago. --Andrew | ||
| + | |||
| + | Andrew, I'd be willing to go as recent as ten or fifteen years ago. -Cash Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does anyone else think that maybe we are not shying away from so-called "traditional values," but merely letting these values evolve with the events and crises that arise with a changing society? As is explained on page xv, Alexis de Tocqueville viewed American family life as much different in 1831-1832 than that of the colonial family life. You have to figure that between the time the colonists hit America and the early 1830s, there had been major lifestyle changes. Quite simply, isn't it possible to evolve these societal norms into something more appropriate for the times? -Cash Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, if these ideas have been abandoned, not to say that there is anyone or anything to blame, but I think we can point to the publicizing of family as a main reason why. With reality shows, sitcoms and Dateline specials all focusing on the family (let's ignore the fact that I just used the phrase Focus On The Family, please), there is really no such thing as a private family life anymore. Sure, we can keep our deep family secrets, but let's face it, there's an awful lot that gets put into the open as well. -Cash Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | I feel that the point Mintz and Kellogg are trying to make in Domestic Revolutions is that the American family unit has slowly decayed and the identification of individual family members' independence has become more significant. The evolvement of the American family from the 17th century onward is due in part by the economic, social and technological changes over the years. If the role of the individual family member is more important, then is the 'proper family' of the 21st century one whose child is financially dependent once he/she graduates college? --Joe Cirenza | ||
| + | |||
| + | I feel that a combination of Mintz and Kellogg's characterization of the 17th century and 1950's family best describes my family. The Catholic tradition of my family has devoted "an increased shelter from the temptations and corruptions of the outside world" in the early years of my life. After becoming a teenager and into my early adult life, I feel that the connection between my family is more companionate, and that there has been a gradual increase in liberties. The role of individual importance as Mintz and Kellogg argue in the 20th and into the 21st century affects my family, in which I choose my own career path and live on my own. Yet despite the separating factors of the growth of the role of the individual, I think that the role of a member within my family still maintains the affection and close-knit connection of families from centuries past. Is then the role of religion the major factor that keeps families from evolving into the 20th century categorization of family by Mintz and Kellogg? --Joe Cirenza | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mintz and Kellogg describe contemporary society as grappling for a revised model of the ideal family since the traditional, highly collectivized form has deteriorated. As society becomes increasingly more individualistic through the advancement of capitalism, placing emphasis on the achievement and self-efficiency of the individual, the importance of self-reliance surfaces in the form of shifting notions of the ideal family. Individuals no longer feel empowered by expressing their identities as mere reflections of their larger family unit. Today, what once existed as the basis of personal strength and value has changed tremendously even throughout the past few decades; the chapter explains the modification of the ideal familial roles as a result of social, political, and economic change in the broader scope of society. In the past hierarchical family systems, one's duty to his or her family was crucial and the successful fulfillment of traditional gender roles established one's sense of self-worth. However, since the obligation of educating children and caring for one's elders has fallen upon society's larger institutions and the competitive and individualistic nature of our culture has become more pronounced, individuals no longer consider dependence on one's family as an expression of strength, but one of weakness and incompetence. -- Augusta | ||
