I have a feeling this assignment about "Middle Adulthood Relationships" was designed with the “traditional” college student (recent high school graduate) in mind. It has been many moons since my high school graduation and I am closer to the “middle age” category than I would like to admit. While for most students completing this assignment, parents would fall into the category of the middle adulthood range, my parents have already passed this mark, so yippee for me, I get to answer this assignment about my friends instead of my parents!
What characterizes my relationships with individuals in middle adulthood (40-60 yrs old)?
Friendship is what characterizes my relationships with those in middle adulthood. Most of my friends at this point in my life fall slightly below or right inside the lower limit of the middle adulthood age range.
What is the nature of your interactions?
The answer to this question can be pulled directly from our textbook. The nature of my interactions with this group is to help each other in our endeavors towards, “Expanding personal and social involvement and responsibility; reaching and maintaining satisfaction in a career, and assisting the next generation in becoming competent, mature individuals.”
The vast majority of my social set is comprised of parents with children in similar stages as mine. We all try to help each other in any way we can, and have fun through this journey of life together. It is a hard job to be a parent, and I am glad I have friends to encourage me, laugh with me, cry with me, and advise me. I have a few very close friends who I depend on a lot for advice and I don’t know what I’d do without them!
On what things do you see eye-to-eye? Where do you disagree?
I see eye to eye with my friends on what I consider my core values, or what I view as most important to have in myself and find in others with whom I choose to spend time. These values are honesty, kindness, dependability, a strong work ethic, determination, curiosity, a sense of humor, playfulness, adventure, and a positive outlook on life. Where we may disagree falls along the dividing line of politics, but I love them anyway.
How effective is your communication with one another?
Since I am by nature a direct, in your face kind of person, communicating doesn’t seem to be an issue for me. With my set of close friends particularly, I am able to talk about personal, intimate parts of my life. This ability is fostered by the knowledge that there is an understanding of trust and care in the way we treat each other. I am so glad to be past the stage of life where friends more often than not turned out to be “frenemies”. Relational drama is SO overrated.
What things do you wish they could or would try to understand?
I really can’t think of anything besides politics for the answer to this question. But I am not going to hold my breath that anyone will change their views to match mine. Every single one of my friends is very smart, and thus they have their reasoning for their political beliefs, so I respect that and generally don’t even bring the topic up.
What would make your relationships better and closer?
The quality of all relationships is determined by the time and effort put into maintaining them. So, it stands to reason that more time together would enhance our friendships, but we are all very busy, so making more time for each other isn’t easy. Besides, I am very satisfied with all of my friendships as they currently stand. I am very fortunate to have the friends I have, I appreciate them all immensely.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Kindergarten Boot Camp
While likely unable to verbalize the fact, at the age of five children learn that there is no room for child directed spontaneity or creative suggestion in the American school classroom. The primary purpose of kindergarten is to teach children the student role, consisting of conforming, lining up, following directions, not interrupting, etc. The teacher in Gracey’s article, Kindergarten as Boot Camp, Edith Kerr, provided a clear example of how well intentioned, ill trained teachers systematically eliminate the spontaneous interests and observations of students. Kerr repeatedly ignored the children in such attempts and refused to deviate from the structured lesson plan. Having children learn the student role is positive to an extent. It obviously benefits the management of behavior in the classroom, which makes the teacher’s job easier. Additionally, as a part of American society, we must all follow basic rules and submit to different forms of authority. Thus, learning how to follow directions and behave appropriately in the classroom helps prepare children for the everyday societal interaction they will encounter in the future.
A negative aspect to the traditional student role is the child’s indoctrination to following unvaried routines and responding "mindlessly" to cues. The traditional student role does not allow for self regulated learning, which keeps the child from being an integral part of their own learning experience. A better approach is to teach the student role from a social constructivist model of teaching. This complex model of teaching and learning values both child-initiated and teacher-initiated learning experiences and interactions. “This view sees learning as social in origin and transferred through the mediation of cultural tools (e.g. language, books, symbols) to the individual where the learning is internalized in thought." [1] This type of learning approach allows for the child to express individuality, encourages creativity and has been proven very effective, which begs the question as to why this approach is not more widely used.
2. Should American women continue to give birth in the lithotomic position? If yes, why? If no, why not?
A perfect example of social conditioning is the American practice of using the prone lithotomic position for labor and delivery in childbirth. Even though studies have shown that giving birth in the upright position as opposed to the traditional American lithotomic position, makes for a delivery experience where the mother has more ease in pushing, less pain during pushing, fewer backaches, shorter second stages, and fewer perineal tears, the lithotomic position continues to dominate in the delivery room. The only benefit of the lithotomic position seems to be convenience for the attending physician, because it provides a good position for examination. The upright birthing position has also been proven safer for the baby, as evidenced by fewer forceps deliveries, higher levels of oxygen in the umbilical cord and higher Apgar scores. There are no known adverse effects from delivering in the upright position. Since logically it serves both mother and child better to give birth in the upright position, it appears that America continues the practice of labor and delivery in the lithotomic position largely as tradition. It is time to change the socialization of American childbirth. I find it a sad statement, but I suppose celebrities will need to set the example since fascination and emulation of all that is Hollywood appears to enthrall the majority of Americans.
[1] Hedges, Helen. "Teaching in early childhood: Time to merge constructivist views so learning through play equals teaching through play." Australian Journal of Early Childhood 25.4 (Dec 2000): 16. Academic OneFile. Gale. Palm Beach State College, CCLA. 16 Nov. 2010
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=lincclin_pbcc
http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/start.do?prodId=AONE&userGroupName=lincclin_pbcc
Sexually Explicit Media Access...Abuse?
As discussed in the text, adolescents who watch or listened to sexually explicit media are more likely to engage in sexual activities. Should parents who allow their children to access such media be charged with emotional or psychological child abuse? Why or why not?
I think the answer to this question depends on the intent and specifications of each situation. The type of access and particular media involved should be considered as determining factors. If a parent provides or encourages viewing of sexually explicit material such as pornographic movies or magazines, then I would say yes, they should be charged with abuse. If a parent has a “Joy of Sex” book on their bedroom bookshelf, I don’t think it should warrant the same type of reaction. The definitions of access and media would need to be very well defined in order to answer this question. Think about the word access. Is it allowing an adolescent access to sexually explicit material by having a computer in the house that is not set up with parental blocks? Or what about giving them a cell phone without parental blocks? Is allowing an adolescent the freedom to spend their allowance on un-monitored purchases providing “access”? Now think about the term sexually explicit materials. Is allowing an adolescent the freedom to go to a museum or library that holds art in the form of nudes, providing access? The overarching issue in this situation is intent.
I think the answer to this question depends on the intent and specifications of each situation. The type of access and particular media involved should be considered as determining factors. If a parent provides or encourages viewing of sexually explicit material such as pornographic movies or magazines, then I would say yes, they should be charged with abuse. If a parent has a “Joy of Sex” book on their bedroom bookshelf, I don’t think it should warrant the same type of reaction. The definitions of access and media would need to be very well defined in order to answer this question. Think about the word access. Is it allowing an adolescent access to sexually explicit material by having a computer in the house that is not set up with parental blocks? Or what about giving them a cell phone without parental blocks? Is allowing an adolescent the freedom to spend their allowance on un-monitored purchases providing “access”? Now think about the term sexually explicit materials. Is allowing an adolescent the freedom to go to a museum or library that holds art in the form of nudes, providing access? The overarching issue in this situation is intent.
Religiosity
Why do you think that females show higher levels of religiosity than males?
I attempted to find a definitive factual answer as to the cause of the disproportionate level of religiosity attributed to the female sex. While I was able to find plenty of articles stating women are in fact more religious than men, only opinions as to the determining factor were offered. The fact that studies have shown women to have higher levels of religiosity does not necessarily indicate that women have more spiritual faith. Faith is one aspect of religiosity. Religiosity is defined as a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief (religious doctrine). So while women may be found to be more religious, it does not necessarily equate with men having less of a personal faith in a higher power. It is widely accepted that women are more social than men. It stands to reason then, that women have higher levels of religiosity, partly due to the social interaction that is part of organized religious activities. I asked some of my friends (religious and non-religious) what they thought of the assigned topic question. There seemed to be a consensus that women find it easier to rely on something other than their selves for strength. I personally think the characteristics of obedience and submissiveness that are part of the female socialization experience in America may also contribute to the statistical imbalance.
I attempted to find a definitive factual answer as to the cause of the disproportionate level of religiosity attributed to the female sex. While I was able to find plenty of articles stating women are in fact more religious than men, only opinions as to the determining factor were offered. The fact that studies have shown women to have higher levels of religiosity does not necessarily indicate that women have more spiritual faith. Faith is one aspect of religiosity. Religiosity is defined as a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief (religious doctrine). So while women may be found to be more religious, it does not necessarily equate with men having less of a personal faith in a higher power. It is widely accepted that women are more social than men. It stands to reason then, that women have higher levels of religiosity, partly due to the social interaction that is part of organized religious activities. I asked some of my friends (religious and non-religious) what they thought of the assigned topic question. There seemed to be a consensus that women find it easier to rely on something other than their selves for strength. I personally think the characteristics of obedience and submissiveness that are part of the female socialization experience in America may also contribute to the statistical imbalance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)