Edited by author 04-08-2002 10:43 AM
    Thus far I am really enjoying this class; especially getting to watch reruns of Leave To Beaver! As I mentioned in class, I have always received a hidden lesson from this show. I always liked Eddie Haskel and his care-free attiude, and the way he always picked on 'the Beav'.
    As for the book; I do feel Stephanie Coontz is a bit biased in her writing. However, I think she really wants to point out to us that things were not as 'peachy' as we thought them to be in the 50's and early 60's. I have to admit, I was taken in by the 50's carefee lifestyle and portrals of the typical American Family as dipicted by the Clevers and Nelsons.
   I found myself wishing I belonged to a family like that, as mine was far from inviting. So, it did help me to make comparisons, and gave me a basis as to how a family should be, and it also gave me some morals that I would have not gained if left to my parents. You might say that the Clevers and Nelsons were the "Sesame Street' of my generation.

Howdy! Since I was not able to come to class on Thursday & from the view of others postings, I am assuming that we are discussing what we have thought of the book up to this point. So far I am truly enjoying the book, much more so than I thought that I would. I think the reason for this is Stephanie Coontz feminine view. I know, its not the best because its biased. However, I have personally always enjoyed women's studies classes, so this is right up my alley. I also have liked the fact how she has tied the media into so much of how the family is perceived. Especially in the 1950s. "Leave it to Beaver" & "Ozzie & Harriet" I am a telecommunications major so I always discussing how media affects people's lives...whether we want it to or not. Coontz just proves this fact over and over again. So in conclusion, I'm really enjoying this class, I'm looking forward to finding out more & am quite happy with the fact that I was able to get on the website!! Have a great day!

In class thursday, we briefly discussed how Judith Stacey's tone in the reading affected the reader. Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the Kenneth Randall lecture. After two hours of Philosophy lecture, I was able to attentively analyse Mr. Randall's position on the subjects upon which he spoke. I came to this conclusion: I can't decide.

The difference between the way Kenneth Randall presented arguments and the way Judith Stacey presented arguments lies in the manner in which the both apply personal opinion. Kenneth Randall states facts, both pro and con, and allows his audience to side with which ever side they feel represents their own views. Judith Stacey, on the other hand, presents an argument accompanied by persuasive statements and personal opinions to assist in the persuasion of her audience.

Judith Stacey's argumentive approach seems to amplify whatever view the reader/audience already holds on the subject. If one believes that the idea of the American Family is not fading into time, then her arguments can seem insulting and lead to that person to remain steadfast in their thoughts. On the other hand, if you can sympathize with her arguments, it is much easier to become a strong supporter of the views that she prescribes.

Edited by author 04-05-2002 11:52 PM
 I feel kind of like the token guy as far as the posts go this week because I am the only one to post so far, but I suppose that I shall simply be forced to suffer the slings and arrows of the rest of the class without too much hesitation.

 I do believe that the author is biased in her presentation of material and reference, but that is to be expected since very few people can argue a point about which they feel passion without coloring it one way or the other. It does not affect the overall work so long as the reader remembers to think for themselves based on available information and not just follow any one author or resource blindly if it is possible to do otherwise.

 As far as women’s roles in society go, there is a great deal of variation even in this country, let alone in others. Even in this area, they run the gamut from women being respected in the job and scholastic fields to some of them, whether it is by their family, faith, or other source, being expected to stay at home to care for the children. There is never really going to be any one system which will ever become the “norm” but that is also to be expected, because we, as people, exhibit great differences from individual to individual which is a given from the very definition of the word. Life is a very diverse thing, and it warrants consideration that culture is simply a way of dealing with the life which is thrust upon us in a manner which makes some sort of sense at the time, so cultures are going to tend to be just as diverse as life itself.

 On a side note, in response to the comment of life after children being poopy diapers, laundry, cooking, cleaning, and ironing, life in the world is generally all of those things, with the exception of the poopy diapers, in addition to what we do as a living and whatever social life we manage to eek out even without children. I know several couples who do not send their children to day care and still manage to work and maintain a reasonable household. It is possible, it just takes more work, but then anything any of us tries to do takes work...

I am enjoying the class so far. I think this is a great twist on English. Does the author, Stephanie Coontz, argue the American family from a feminist point of view? Yes, certainly she does. How can she not?? I am also a feminist so I understand her arguing the women's view point. I think that maybe there were women and still are women that are happy being stay at home moms and wives. But I personally think that she argues the 1950's stereotype vs. 1950's realistic women very accurately. For myself I don't forsee being a mother at all. But I am sure one day it may happen and at that point I do feel a parent should stay at home and raise the children rather than a string of daycare providers. However, I am sure that a life of poopy dipers, laundry, cooking, cleaning, and ironing will be a huge disappointment. I think that if my husband came home telling stories of the office and my children describing their days at school would make me depressed because all i could say is that my highlight of the day was watching days of our lives and ironing. Well now that I am off the wall and didn't even argue my point of why Coontz is right in arguing the feminist thought, I should go. Maybe I will argue this point some other time. WOMEN O+ Be loud, Be dangerous, Let Our Voice Be Heard~!

Hello. Well, first of all I really enjoy this book we're reading. However, probably because Stephanie Coontz is a woman, the book does tend to focus mostly on women's issues. It very evedent. I even noticed it while reading; before the question was brought up in class. I also believe that much of what I've read is good. However, interestingly, this is one topic that noone in this entire world could write about without out being biased in some way, whether they realize it or not. Everyone has a different view on life and even an open-minded person who researches a lot of things still can't possibly get everything right; there are too many angles that need viewed.
I have enjoyed the sitcoms we have watched. My own personal opinion is that they are a great way to escape reality, which we all need to do sometimes. However, it is so easy to want to believe it could be real just because it's so nice. From there, it becomes easy to forget that it isn't real and that's where people can get into trouble. Well, that's my take on it. Have a great weekend everyone!

First, I want to say that the messages I've read so far are very astute in their ideas. As for me, I would like to address the third question about geographical and cultural areas wanting to deny women educational and job opportunities. In Afghanistan today, after the Taliban has had its regime overthrown somewhat, women there are now able to go back to work as they did before. They now have a choice to work or not, whether they have children or not. It seemed that most of the working women did indeed have children and seemed perfectly capable of doing both, and doing them well. Job opportunities are more scarce there than here, but hopefully that will change with time and outside influences, including media and other countries. Another area that I think prefers their women to remain inside the home, is the Amish. Basically, their culture is farm-oriented and most women have children and stay at home. Very few, if any, work in any assigned and/or paid job. Many times I've been there and the women who do work usually do so by making quilts, clothing, or food to sell in the markets. To most of us this seems backward, but not so if you look at it as most Americans did in the wonderful 50s. Stay-at-home moms were the norm, as in my family. My father would have been abhorred if my mother had insisted she wanted to work. Traditional, not necessarily. But that's another story. Suffice to say that my outlook about working moms differed because I WAS a working mom, and managed to do everything necessary to see to the welfare of my children. Should women have their rights violated by refusing education or job opportunities? Over my dead body! And hopefully many of you feel the same. It IS a fine line though, juggling both motherhood and career, but I think we as a society of working women have shown powerfully that we are quite capable of handling both successfully.

The sitcom from this week Leave It to Beaver, I found interesting. Watching the Cleaver parents sitting that closely on the sofa reading books I found funny. They seemed to be in their own little worlds until they were interrupted by Eddie. And then Mrs. Haskel didn't even have a magazine, she was sitting there knitting I think, while her husband read the newspaper. They were sitting away from each other, as if the other person was not in the room. It was also interesting that the Cleavers had dinner as a family with discussion. Most families that I know do not have dinner at the same time, let again together. The interaction between the parents and children and the interaction between Beaver and Wally seemed to be real, as opposed to the interaction between the Keatings of last weeks' sitcom.

I believe that Stephanie Coontz's gender does, indeed, affect the way she approaches her material. It seems as though she adresses her audience from a slant or persoanl bias. Her use of facts and statistics seem critically chosen to support this personal view. Many subsections of the chapters we've read and discussed thus far focus on women's experiences. She emphasizes women's roles during the Victorian period, employment opportunities for women, women's content or lack thereof in typical mommie roles, and a myriad of other engendered concepts. Whether or not this puts a dent in her credibility or strenghthens her argument, I am not sure. I continue to read, however, with a heightened awareness of the author's perspective.

On page 41 in The Way We Never Were, the author quotes Daveid Blankenhorn as saying, "employed women do not a family make..." and he goes on to differentiate between the individualistic goals associated with the workplace as opposed to the collective goals of the family. Although I agree with his differentiation of goals, I disagree with his statement that working women "do not a family make." My personal experience was one of a working father and a stay at home mother, but I do not consider my family any better or worse than those of my friends whose mothers worked, or those who lived with only one parent. Generalizations are dangerous when one is trying to describe such vast number of people. Everyone's own personal family experience will differ from another's. There will be good and bad in every experience, and depending upon an individual's personality, values, and environment, as well as other factors will determine whether or not they experienced their family to be a supportive unit. I don't think you pinpoint one aspect-whether or not a mother stayed at home with her children or she worked-as the determining factor of the satisfaction of family life. There is an endless amount of factors involved in the relationships among one's family.

In class yesterday, some further thought questions were put on the board. I would like to address the third question about how since women's rights are widely accepted today, only a tiny minority of Americans feel that women should be denied educational and job opportunities because of their family responsibilities. I feel that this should not be this way. A women can go to work or school and still have family responsibilities at the same time. Also, I feel that the way society is today, most men are either taking over the family responsiblity or at least helping out with the responsibilities.