At the initiаl stаge оf аcquaintanceship, the characteristics оf effective interpersоnal communication are usually present to only a small degree. You're guarded rather than open or expressive, lest [for fear that] you reveal aspects of yourself that might be viewed negatively. Your ability to empathize with or to orient yourself significantly to the other is limited because you don't yet know the other person. The relationship -- at this stage, at least -- is probably viewed as too temporary to be worth the effort. Because the other person is not well known to you, supportiveness, positiveness, and equality would all be difficult to manifest [show] in any meaningful sense. The characteristics demonstrated are probably more the result of politeness than any genuine expression of positive regard. At this stage, there is little genuine immediacy; the people see themselves as separate and distinct rather than as a unit. Because the relationship is so new and because the people don't know each other very well, the interaction is often characterized by awkwardness -- for example, overlong pauses, uncertainty over the topics to be discussed, and ineffective exchanges of speaker and listener roles. Casual friendship is the second stage. There is a dyadic [being a group of two] consciousness, a clear sense of "we-ness," of togetherness. At this stage, you participate in activities as a unit rather than as separate individuals. A casual friend is one we would go with to the movies, sit with in the cafeteria or in class, or ride home with from school. The qualities of effective interpersonal interaction begin to be seen more clearly at this stage. You start to express yourself openly and become interested in the other person's disclosures. You begin to own your feelings and thoughts and respond openly to his or her communications. Because you're beginning to understand this person, you empathize and demonstrate significant other-orientation. You also demonstrate supportiveness and develop a genuinely positive attitude toward both the other person and mutual communication situations. Close and intimate friendships have an intensification of the casual friendship. This is the third stage, and you and your friend see yourselves more as an exclusive unit. Each of you derives greater benefits (for example, emotional support) from intimate friendship than from casual friendship. Because you know each other well (for example, you know one another's values, opinions, attitudes), your uncertainty about each other has been significantly reduced -- you're able to predict each other's behaviors with considerable accuracy. [You] can use these signals as guides to your interactions -- avoiding certain topics at certain times or offering consolation on the basis of facial expressions. Similarly, you can read the other's nonverbal signals more accurately. (Adapted from DeVito, The Interpersonal Communication Book. 12th ed., 2004, p. 284) The main idea of the fourth paragraph is
The fаther/child fаmily, like the mоther/child fаmily, is a result оf widоwhood, divorce, separation, nonmarriage, and, more recently, single-parent adoption. While only 3.9 percent of all children under age eighteen live with their fathers only, that number increased from 748,000 in 1970 to 1.1 million in 1980 to 2.8 million in 1997. This increase is likely to continue as a result of several factors: more divorced fathers who desire to continue parenting, greater economic resources available to fathers than to mothers, and more favorable opinions of single fathers. Research on fathers as single parents has been relatively infrequent and generally limited. Yet, the question still remains: Can men “mother”? This question was posed by Barbara Risman, who surveyed fathers about their experiences as homemakers, the nature of the father/child relationship, and their overall role satisfaction. Risman’s major finding was that most men felt comfortable and competent as single parents, regardless of the reason for custody or their financial status. This was true even though four out of five single fathers had no outside housekeeping help, either paid or volunteer. These men felt very close to and very affectionate toward their children, were glad to be fathers, and had little trouble fulfilling the expressive functions of single parenthood. Clearly, successful mothering is not an exclusively female skill. Men can “mother.” Similar support for men as single parents came from a study that examined whether significant differences exist between children reared in single-mother and single-father families. Factors examined included self-perception, self-esteem, social competencies, and the frequency and severity of reported behavioral problems. The historical assumption that single mothers are more effective parents than single fathers was not supported. In a number of ways, fathers who maintain families alone are better situated than their female counterparts. Single-parent fathers typically have higher levels of education, are in the labor force, and are better situated economically. (Eshleman, p. 218) The central focus of the whole reading is
Nаncy Shippen wаs а prоduct оf Philadelphia’s best lineage. Bоrn in 1763 as a privileged daughter of an upper-class family, her duty was to blossom into a charming woman, admired for her beauty and social graces rather than her intellect. Nancy’s education consisted of the refinement of skills that would please and entertain—dancing, cultivating her voice, playing musical instruments, painting on delicate china, and producing pieces of decorative needlework. Had Nancy shown any interest in politics, an exclusively masculine preserve, she would have shocked everyone, including her father, William Shippen. Shippen was a noted local physician who espoused independence in 1776, and where he led, his family followed. Indeed, he was a proud father in 1777 when, at his urging, Nancy displayed her patriotic virtue by sewing shirt ruffles for General Washington. Nancy had two male tyrants in her life. The first was her father. He forced her into marriage with Henry Livingston in 1781. Henry was the son of one of New York’s most powerful and wealthy families. The man she truly loved had only “honorable expectations” of a respectable income. So her father insisted that Nancy wed Livingston. The rejected suitor wanted to know “for what reason in this free country a lady must be married in a hurry and given up to a man whom she dislikes.” None of the Shippens responded. In truth, the answer was that Nancy legally belonged to her father until she became the property of the second tyrant in her life—her husband. The marriage was a disaster, most likely because Henry was an adulterer. Nancy eventually took her baby daughter and moved back to her family. She wanted full custody of the child, who by law was the property of her husband. Henry made it clear that he would never give up his legal rights to his daughter, should Nancy embarrass him in public by seeking a bill of divorcement. Even if she had defied him, divorce bills were very hard to get because they involved proving adultery or desertion. To keep actual custody of her daughter, Nancy accepted her entrapment and moved back with Henry. Several years later, however, Henry relented and arranged for a divorce, but by that time, Nancy’s spirit was broken. The former belle of Philadelphia society lived on unhappily in hermitlike fashion until her death in 1841. Having been so favored at birth, her adult years were a personal tragedy, primarily because of her legal dependence on the will of two men. (Martin et al., pp. 184–185) The passage states that Nancy would have shocked everyone had she