Need to edit paper

pxcbxnxnn
timer Asked: Feb 27th, 2016

Question Description

Attached is the paper that needs to be edited as well as an article that needs to be referenced. when I accept your bid I will send you the feedback from my teacher that needs edited.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running Head: JOURNAL ON FAMILY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE Journal on Family and Social Structure You’re Name Institutional Affiliation Submission Date 1 JOURNAL ON FAMILY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 2 The idea of family social structure can be characterized as a family's subjective comprehension of reality in light of shared convictions and encounters that decide how individuals interact and identify with one another and the world outside the family unit. All through my childhood my family had two identities: a public identity that was molded by societal desires and standards, and a private identity that was administered by the special needs and issues that plagued our family life. From a public perspective, my family was a low-income family that consist of my Dad, my Mom, my two younger brothers and myself. We lived in an apartment in a struggling neighborhood that was full of extra-curricular illegal activity. Our private identity, portrayed by dysfunctional behaviors and interactions that happened between different individuals within our family, recounted an altogether different story. In fact, many did not know that both my parents struggled with drug addiction and that our home consist of many conflicts that turned into abusive encounters. The structure of my family taking into account examples of communications, subsystems, and boundaries is vital in comprehending the elements inside of my family origin. My Dad worked long hours as a car lot attendant for a rental car agency, where he began selling drugs to make ends meet from our family. My Mom was a stay at home Mom that struggled with a drug addiction and would occasionally baby sit some neighbors kids to supplement her addiction. Both my brothers are younger than me. One oldest younger brother was very sensitive to what was going on in our home but kept himself busy with school activities and football. Whereas, my youngest brother was still too young to truly understand what was going on around him but he was and continues to be a funny kid. JOURNAL ON FAMILY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 3 As the oldest child, I assumed the part of the gatekeeper within my family unit. My objective as the gatekeeper was to utilize my wit and goofiness to help my family come back to a condition of homeostasis by facilitating the relief of tension and restoring quiet and peace inside of the family. However, over time this had become impossible and I ended up living with my Granny. Culture and ethnicity also played an integral role in my family identity and dynamics. My Dad in Hawaiian, Chinese and Portuguese and my Mom is Hawaiian, Greek and Italian; however, the Hawaiian culture was by far the culture that my parents instilled in us. My parents or I should say my Granny emphasized trust, respect, and commitment within the family unit, but they all also introduced American language, food, celebrations, and values including a focus on individuality, privacy, and achievement. In 1992, our family would forever change. My Dad left our home with no former notification or dialog and petitioned for a divorce from my mom. His sudden and unforeseen takeoff from our home left every relative battling with sentiments of stun, perplexity, scorn, indignation, and uneasiness. The introductory period of the divorce procedure is distinguished as the most unpleasant time for a family because of the adjustments in family structure as an aftereffect of the nonattendance of a parent, and consequent weights and requests for relatives to tackle new roles and obligations. The stressor confronting my family was the detachment, and consequent divorce, of my parents which left the family in a condition of trouble and fundamentally changed our family identity, structure, dynamics, and functioning. My Dad's nonattendance brought about noteworthy money related hardship for the family, which constrained my Mom to enter the workforce and tackle the new and unfamiliar part of monetary supplier. The obligation and JOURNAL ON FAMILY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 4 requests of this new role influenced my mom's capacity to keep up her parental figure part inside of the family unit. As a result of my parents’ divorce, I turned to drugs myself to help cope with this tragic event in my life and I ended up moving out of the house and in with friends. I was no longer the gatekeeper of my family. My brothers had then taken on new roles and responsibilities within the family. Culture additionally affected my family's impression of the divorce and capacity to adapt to the transition. The disintegration of a marriage and family is not all acknowledged inside of the Hawaiian culture because of the solid accentuation on family association and commitment. Truth be told, families that experience divorce are frequently disgraced and excluded by more distant family just like the case in our family structure. My maternal grandparents communicated hatred and dissatisfaction in my Mom's powerlessness to rescue her marriage and family, which created more pressure inside our family. My parent's divorce was a sudden occasion that fundamentally expanded the level of anxiety inside of my family and added to changes in family identity, structure, roles, and connections. Cultural impacts additionally added to a negative evaluation of the circumstances. My family's negative impression of the divorce brought about sentiments of misery and sadness as opposed to an accentuation on critical thinking, problem-solving and growth. This negative recognition altogether repressed our capacity to adaptively cope with the transition and related stressors. My family was then able to rearrange structure and roles, however lacked attachment and dependability. JOURNAL ON FAMILY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE 5 The Way We Weren’t: The Myth and Reality of the “Traditional” Family Stephanie Coontz COLONIAL FAMILIES American families always have been diverse, and the male breadwinner-female homemaker, nuclear ideal that most people associate with “the” traditional family has predominated for only a small portion of our history. In colonial America, several types of families coexisted or competed. Native American kinship systems subordinated the nuclear family to a much larger network of marital alliances and kin obligations, ensuring that no single family was forced to go it alone. Wealthy settler families from Europe, by contrast, formed independent households that pulled in labor from poorer neighbors and relatives, building their extended family solidarities on the backs of truncated families among indentured servants, slaves, and the poor. Even wealthy families, though, often were disrupted by death; a majority of colonial Americans probably spent some time in a step-family. Meanwhile, African Americans, denied the legal protection of marriage and parenthood, built extensive kinship networks and obligations through fictive kin ties, ritual co-parenting or godparenting, adoption of orphans, and complex naming patterns designed to preserve family links across space and time. The dominant family values of colonial days left no room for sentimentalizing childhood. Colonial mothers, for example, spent far less time doing child care than do modern working women, typically delegating this task to servants or older siblings. Among white families, patriarchal authority was so absolute that disobedience by wife or child was seen as a small form of treason, theoretically punishable by death, and family relations were based on power, not love. THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY FAMILY With the emergence of a wage-labor system and a national market in the first third of the nineteenth century, white middle-class families became less patriarchal and more child-centered. The ideal of the male breadwinner and the nurturing mother now appeared. But the emergence of domesticity for middle-class women and children depended on its absence among the immigrant, working class, and African American women or children who worked as servants, grew the cotton, or toiled in the textile mills to free middle-class wives from the chores that had occupied their time previously. Even in the minority of nineteenth-century families who could afford domesticity, though, emotional arrangements were quite different from nostalgic images of “traditional” families. Rigid insistence on separate spheres for men and women made male-female relations extremely stilted, so that women commonly turned to other women, not their husbands, for their most intimate relations. The idea that all of one’s passionate feelings should go toward a member of the opposite sex was a twentieth-century invention—closely associated with the emergence of a mass consumer society and promulgated by the very film industry that “traditionalists” now blame for undermining such values. EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY FAMILIES Throughout the nineteenth century, at least as much divergence and disruption in the experience of family life existed as does today, even though divorce and unwed motherhood were less common. Indeed, couples who marry today have a better chance of celebrating a fortieth wedding anniversary than at any previous time in history. The life cycles of nineteenth-century youth (in job entry, completion of schooling, age at marriage, and establishment of separate residence) were far more diverse than they became in the early twentieth-century. At the turn of the century a higher proportion of people remained single for their entire lives than at any period since. Not until the 1920s did a bare majority of children come to live in a male breadwinner-female homemaker family, and even at the height of this family form in the 1950s, only 60% of American children spent their entire childhoods in such a family. From about 1900 to the 1920s, the growth of mass production and emergence of a public policy aimed at establishing a family wage led to new ideas about family selfsufficiency, especially in the white middle class and a privileged sector of the working class. The resulting families lost their organic connection to intermediary units in society such as local shops, neighborhood work cultures and churches, ethnic associations, and mutual-aid organizations. As families related more directly to the state, the market, and the mass media, they also developed a new cult of privacy, along with heightened expectations about the family’s role in fostering individual fulfillment. New family values stressed the early independence of children and the romantic coupling of husband and wife, repudiating the intense same-sex ties and mother-infant bonding of earlier years as unhealthy. From this family we get the idea that women are sexual, that youth is attractive, and that marriage should be the center of our emotional fulfillment. Even aside from its lack of relevance to the lives of most immigrants, Mexican Americans, African Americans, rural families, and the urban poor, big contradictions existed between image and reality in the middle-class family ideal of the early twentieth century. This is the period when many Americans first accepted the idea that the family should be sacred from outside intervention; yet the development of the private, self-sufficient family depended on state intervention in the economy, government regulation of parent-child relations, and state-directed destruction of class and community institutions that hindered the development of family privacy. Acceptance of a youth and leisure culture sanctioned early marriage and raised expectations about the quality of married life, but also introduced new tensions between the generations and new conflicts between husband and wife over what were adequate levels of financial and emotional support. The nineteenth-century middleclass ideal of the family as a refuge from the world of work was surprisingly modest compared with emerging twentieth-century demands that the family provide a whole alternative world of satisfaction and intimacy to that of work and neighborhood. Where a family succeeded in doing so, people might find pleasures in the home never before imagined. But the new ideals also increased the possibilities for failure: America has had the highest divorce rate in the world since the turn of the century. In the 1920s, these contradictions created a sense of foreboding about “the future of the family” that was every bit as widespread and intense as today. Social scientists and popular commentators of the time hearkened back to the “good old days,” bemoaning the sexual revolution, the fragility of nuclear family ties, the cult of youthful romance, the decline of respect for grandparents, and the threat of the “New Woman.” But such criticism was sidetracked by the stock-market crash, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the advent of World War II. Domestic violence escalated during the Depression, while murder rates were as high in the 1930s as in the 1980s. Divorce rates fell, but desertion increased and fertility plummeted. The war stimulated a marriage boom, but by the late 1940s one in every three marriages was ending in divorce. THE 1950S FAMILY At the end of the 1940s, after the hardships of the Depression and war, many Americans revived the nuclear family ideals that had so disturbed commentators during the 1920s. The unprecedented postwar prosperity allowed young families to The Way We Weren’t 3 achieve consumer satisfactions and socioeconomic mobility that would have been inconceivable in earlier days. The 1950s family that resulted from these economic and cultural trends, however, was hardly “traditional.” Indeed it is best seen as a historical aberration. For the first time in 100 years, divorce rates dropped, fertility soared, the gap between men’s and women’s job and educational prospects widened (making middleclass women more dependent on marriage), and the age of marriage fell—to the point that teenage birth rates were almost double what they are today. Admirers of these very nontraditional 1950s family forms and values point out that household arrangements and gender roles were less diverse in the 1950s than today, and marriages more stable. But this was partly because diversity was ruthlessly suppressed and partly because economic and political support systems for socially-sanctioned families were far more generous than they are today. Real wages rose more in any single year of the 1950s than they did in the entire decade of the 1980s; the average thirty-year-old man could buy a medianpriced home on 15 to 18% of his income. The government funded public investment, home ownership, and job creation at a rate more than triple that of the past two decades, while 40% of young men were eligible for veteran’s benefits. Forming and maintaining families was far easier than it is today. Yet the stability of these 1950s families did not guarantee good outcomes for their members. Even though most births occurred within wedlock, almost a third of American children lived in poverty during the 1950s, a higher figure than today. More than 50% of black married-couple families were poor. Women were often refused the right to serve on juries, sign contracts, take out credit cards in their own names, or establish legal residence. Wife-battering rates were low, but that was because wifebeating was seldom counted as a crime. Most victims of incest, such as Miss America of 1958, kept the secret of their fathers’ abuse until the 1970s or 1980s, when the women’s movement became powerful enough to offer them the support denied them in the 1950s. THE POST-1950S FAMILY In the 1960s, the civil rights, antiwar, and women’s liberation movements exposed the racial, economic, and sexual injustices that had been papered over by the Ozzie and Harriet images on television. Their activism made older kinds of public and private oppression unacceptable and helped create the incomplete, flawed, but much-needed reforms of the Great Society. Contrary to the big lie of the past decade that such programs caused our current family dilemmas, those antipoverty and social justice reforms helped overcome many of the family problems that prevailed in the 1950s. In 1964, after 14 years of unrivaled family stability and economic prosperity, the poverty rate was still 19%; in 1969, after five years of civil rights activism, the rebirth of feminism, and the institution of nontraditional if relatively modest government welfare programs, it was down to 12%, a low that has not been seen again since the social welfare cutbacks began in the late 1970s. In 1965, 20% of American children still lived in poverty; within five years, that had fallen to 15%. Infant mortality was cut in half between 1965 and 1980. The gap in nutrition between low-income Americans and other Americans narrowed significantly, as a direct result of food stamp and school lunch programs. In 1963, 20% of Americans living below the poverty line had never been examined by a physician; by 1970 this was true of only 8% of the poor. Since 1973, however, real wages have been falling for most Americans. Attempts to counter this through tax revolts and spending freezes have led to drastic cutbacks in government investment programs. Corporations also spend far less on research and job creation than they did in the 1950s and 1960s, though the average compensation to executives has soared. The gap between rich and poor, according to the April 17, 1995, New York Times, is higher in the United States than in any other industrial nation. FAMILY STRESS These inequities are not driven by changes in family forms, contrary to ideologues who persist in confusing correlations with causes; but they certainly exacerbate such changes, and they tend to bring out the worst in all families. The result has been an accumulation of stresses on families, alongside some important expansions of personal options. Working couples with children try to balance three full-time jobs, as employers and schools cling to 4 The Way We Weren’t policies that assume every employee has a “wife” at home to take care of family matters. Divorce and remarriage have allowed many adults and children to escape from toxic family environments, yet our lack of social support networks and failure to forge new values for sustaining intergenerational obligations have let many children fall through the cracks in the process. Meanwhile, young people find it harder and harder to form or sustain families. According to an Associated Press report of April 25, 1995, the median income of men aged 25 to 34 fell by 26% between 1972 and 1994, while the proportion of such men with earnings below the poverty level for a family of four more than doubled to 32%. The figures are even worse for African American and Latino men. Poor individuals are twice as likely to divorce as more affluent ones, three to four times less likely to marry in the first place, and five to seven times more likely to have a child out of wedlock. As conservatives insist, there is a moral crisis as well as an economic one in modern America: a pervasive sense of social alienation, new levels of violence, and a decreasing willingness to make sacrifices for others. But romanticizing “traditional” families and gender roles will not produce the changes in job structures, work policies, child care, medical practice, educational preparation, political discourse, and gender inequities that would permit families to develop moral and ethical systems relevant to 1990s realities. America needs more than a revival of the narrow family obligations of the 1950s, whose (greatly exaggerated) protection for white, middle-class children was achieved only at tremendous cost to the women in those families and to all those who could not or would not aspire to the Ozzie and Harriet ideal. We need a concern for children that goes beyond the question of whether a mother is waiting with cookies when her kids come home from school. We need a moral language that allows us to address something besides people’s sexual habits. We need to build values and social institutions that can reconcile people’s needs for independence with their equally important rights to dependence, and surely we must reject older solutions that involved balancing these needs on the backs of women. We will not find our answers in nostalgia for a mythical “traditional family.”
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors