Example+wiki+post+2

Family: "From Changing American Families"

One of the things I find very peculiar is about this article is the way Aulette addresses the different types of families within America. She began with an assessment of the wealthy upper class, which doesn't seem too provocative but rather typical dismissive about the way the class behaves within itself and among others. Then she went into the middle class with a little more depth, focusing on money and general social behavior. Then she brought up the differences between the black middle class and the white middle class. I think it's weird for her to do that when discussing the middle class but not the upper class; and even later on, when discussing the working class to bring up immigrant families but not to have done so for the middle and upper classes. I mean, really, is there no black people in the upper class, or immigrants for that matter? What about in the middle class; are there no families from immigrant groups that are part of the middle class? It reflects poorly onto the auther when a writing that wishes to "examine the way in which class, race, and gender create different experiences within families (64)" fails to do so in entirety. The way Aulette does discuss the different families in America struck me as though there was a second message. Aulette went into, what I would consider, quite a bit of detail in the lives of black and latino families and about the family customs of minority groups, which gave a sense of liveliness. On the other hand, Aulette failed to go into much of any detail about white customs; the way her article is written even suggests that white families are very isolationist and out for money, putting them all into the prudish mindset of the upper class, without actually being there. This creates a mental image that all the white families are just prideful and boring, and I know they aren't. Aulette mentioned that within the minority families swapping and community raising a child are not uncommon, but doesn't make much mention to anything of the sort in white families. This strikes me as a bit of an oversight, considering I know people who are godparents and are what Aulette would consider "middle class".

Another thing I think was interesting was the discussion about relocationg and immigration for middle class and immigrant families respectively. When discussing the middle class relocation, I think it's fairly obvious that anyone who hasn't agreed to the move will be affected in some way or another: friends are lost, communities need to be relearned, and it goes against what people are programed for, routine. However, in this light, I think it's unfair that Aulette notes the wife's distress about a move when the husband relocates, but not a husband's distress when the wife relocates. "Almost half the men in one survey said that family ties pose no obstacle to their possible relocation (68)." This sentence makes it appear that the husband is more uncaring and willing to sacrifice, but if the man plays the breadwinner role in the family, his job would be to look after the family's main need: money. So it would make sense that the "man will follow his wife only if she earns 25 percent to 40 percent more than he does (68)." What happens in this scenario is the that the wife is the breadwinner, making the husband take the role that the wife stereotypically plays. So, if the husband feels the same unwilled breaking of routine that the wife would typically face and the child face nonetheless. I think the reason for the percentage needed before being okay with the move is simply the number that determines who is the breadwinner. If the wife and the husband make generally the same amount of money, then there wouldn't be an urgent need to accept a relocation job, which often come with more money, no matter who the breadwinner is. This scenarion, however, does not work in the case of the other relocation Aulette touches upon: immigration. I thought the results of immigration, specifically the pre-1965 immigration from Mexico, were extremely interesting for, if nothing else, proving the cliché "you only understand a person when you walk a mile in their shoes" since the families that immigrated prior to 1965 "were strikingly more egaltarian than the post-1965 households (70)."

"Working couples marry for love (70)." If I could quote the entire section, I would, but I think this sentence gives enough strength. I think this section really shows a lot about this particular text. When compared with latter statements of how the upper and middles classes treat marriage and love, it shows what Aulette is trying to do to the definitions of social class. Although she alludes to the classes' existence to different amounts of money, the way breaks down the social behavior of a class seems to say that a person's class is based on how they behave. Sure, there are different behaviors that belong to each class specifically, but I don't know that there's enough to warrant a behavioral-class system. Reason one is, again, where do the other non-white groups fall into since Aulette clearly shows that they do not conform to white class social behaviors? Surely these groups belong to more than just the "other" or "working class" label. Reason two, especially in the marriage and love category, it seems, with the description of all the other groups and their behaviors, that the white working class is the most proletarian of the groups; they're off in their own little world trying to just live while everyone else has their act together and knows how to play the game. The women in the minority groups Aulette discussed did not seem to find "their dreams dissapointed [and] felt somehow that their men had betrayed the promise implicit in their union (70)." I think ultimately, Aulette did a fine job informing on how families run in low-income black neighborhoods and nicely addressed other minorities in less depth, but she failed to really discuss how the family changed and the way social class affects both the "macro" and "micro" aspects of a group's social life.