Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Maids in LA
The 2nd chapter of Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo's Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence, Hondagneu-Sotelo focused on three types of paid care work; live-in nanny work, live-out nanny work, and house-keeping. In this chapter, the author explains how this women were treated in these position through the thoughts of the people Latina workers in the care work position.
The "live-in" nannies expressed a strong feeling of alienation. The nannies interviewed shared a feeling of not being respected or treated well by the family that employed her. Many of the women would work long hours and perform task usually outside the realms of most job, but are barely acknowledged and are outcast in the home. Because of the bad treatment and exploitation of the nanny labor, the nanny is rarely in a good state when she is in her job. This becomes a problem because she is always at her job.
Experience is somewhat better in comparison to live-in nannies. Live-out nannies tend to make more money and have a richer social life. They were able to do their job and leave. They struck a better balance of separation of work and family time.
The one thing that stuck me in this chapter was their view on Americans when it came to family. Most thought American Families were selfish because they did not raise their children. The Latina maids understood when parents work excessively out of necessity but many of parents they worked for choose to work long hours. I think it is alarming when we as parents are not raising our children but if we want to live comfortably, can we choose to work less hours?
The "live-in" nannies expressed a strong feeling of alienation. The nannies interviewed shared a feeling of not being respected or treated well by the family that employed her. Many of the women would work long hours and perform task usually outside the realms of most job, but are barely acknowledged and are outcast in the home. Because of the bad treatment and exploitation of the nanny labor, the nanny is rarely in a good state when she is in her job. This becomes a problem because she is always at her job.
Experience is somewhat better in comparison to live-in nannies. Live-out nannies tend to make more money and have a richer social life. They were able to do their job and leave. They struck a better balance of separation of work and family time.
The one thing that stuck me in this chapter was their view on Americans when it came to family. Most thought American Families were selfish because they did not raise their children. The Latina maids understood when parents work excessively out of necessity but many of parents they worked for choose to work long hours. I think it is alarming when we as parents are not raising our children but if we want to live comfortably, can we choose to work less hours?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The New World Domestic Order
The New World Domestic Order focuses domestic work in the United States in relation to the immigrants who fill these positions. Since more women are working outside the home and working long hours, the house work is becoming a job for someone outside the family is being paid to do. Those who are employed are mainly immigrant women and their job consist of everything in the home short of giving birth. Paid domestic worker is a lucrative job for immigrant, especially Latinas, looking to come to United States and find employment. Paid domestic workers have become so popular that it is part of the upper and middle class family life style. These women are the backbone of successful families and their relationships are crucial in child raising.
Though there important role in the success of children and the adult that pay them, domestic paid workers are paid low wages and are stigmatized. Since these workers are working within the home, their job is seen as being unimportant. Only jobs that occurs in the public sphere is considered important and therefore deserve a high wage. Also, these workers are stigmatized as being illegal immigrants, stupid and therefore not worthy of not just high wages but respect.
Though this notion of childcare is not new in this country and traces back to slavery, its reoccurrance of is perpetuating racial, class, and gender dominance. We are holding a group of people to a job that is not providing social mobility and is just a form of servitude, in which, they get no real benefit. In reality, they are working for change and are losing time to provide for their own families.
Though this notion of childcare is not new in this country and traces back to slavery, its reoccurrance of is perpetuating racial, class, and gender dominance. We are holding a group of people to a job that is not providing social mobility and is just a form of servitude, in which, they get no real benefit. In reality, they are working for change and are losing time to provide for their own families.
Using Kin for Child Care
In Lynet Uttal article Using Kin for Child Care; Embedment of Socioeconomic Networks, she provided a new explanation for why mothers of color were more likely to use kin to help them raise their kids than white mothers. Uttal argued that structural, cultural and most importantly integrative explanations played a major role in why there were differences among childcare practices between families.
Cultural played a role in if families used their family members as a source of childcare or if they used an outside source. In a study conducted by Uttal showed that White women thought it would be inappropriate and even in some cases problematic if they used family members as childcare providers, whereas, African American and Mexican American that is was not problematic and they actually preferred it.
Although this information would support that cultural playing a major role, Uttal made it clear that structural limitations played a factor as well. Many mothers, even those who practiced childcare with family members, did not think it was the ideal childcare situation. In many cases, family members used as child care providers seen as last resorts because families could not afford anyone else.
The majority of White families did not use childcare because of financial limitations but because of guilt. White families believed that their family members would see the task of taking care of their children as a burden, and therefore did not want to put it on them. Because of their perception of children as being white families also felt like they were in debt to members who did help out with childcare. In an attempt to avoid owing a lot of favors, they did not ask family for their help in raising their children.
Another factor that was addressed in the White families decision to not use family members as child care providers was ideology. Many parents felt they held different expectations and child rearing philosophies than their parents and family members. They did not want to jepardize there child being exposed to things they disapproved. Many white families felt like they had more control over strangers than their parents and older relatives when it came down to requesting the child rear practice they preferred.
Overall, Uttal proved a great case of why the integration of cultural and structural relationship must be looked at when looking at who is caring for families children when the parent is not around.
Cultural played a role in if families used their family members as a source of childcare or if they used an outside source. In a study conducted by Uttal showed that White women thought it would be inappropriate and even in some cases problematic if they used family members as childcare providers, whereas, African American and Mexican American that is was not problematic and they actually preferred it.
Although this information would support that cultural playing a major role, Uttal made it clear that structural limitations played a factor as well. Many mothers, even those who practiced childcare with family members, did not think it was the ideal childcare situation. In many cases, family members used as child care providers seen as last resorts because families could not afford anyone else.
The majority of White families did not use childcare because of financial limitations but because of guilt. White families believed that their family members would see the task of taking care of their children as a burden, and therefore did not want to put it on them. Because of their perception of children as being white families also felt like they were in debt to members who did help out with childcare. In an attempt to avoid owing a lot of favors, they did not ask family for their help in raising their children.
Another factor that was addressed in the White families decision to not use family members as child care providers was ideology. Many parents felt they held different expectations and child rearing philosophies than their parents and family members. They did not want to jepardize there child being exposed to things they disapproved. Many white families felt like they had more control over strangers than their parents and older relatives when it came down to requesting the child rear practice they preferred.
Overall, Uttal proved a great case of why the integration of cultural and structural relationship must be looked at when looking at who is caring for families children when the parent is not around.
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Color of Family Ties
In the Color of Families Ties, Gerstel and Sarkisian attempt to examine extended families ties between different racial groups. They debunk the common claim that families of color are more dis-organized than White families, but rather extended families have different roles in the different family lives. Extended family role is to the provide the family with something it needs. While White families are more likely to receive emotional and financial support for their extended family, Black families' extended kin tend to provide more practical support to the families, such as babysitting and running errands. Because of the income gap between races, Black families tend to have less money to give and they have both parents in the household working. These families need more people helping with smaller task in order to provide for their family.
Gerstel and Sarkisian both make it clear that neither usage is inherently better than the other, but they do challenge that cultural heritages are the reason for these differences. Contrary to the popular belief, kinship ties have less to with culture and more to do with social economical status. Research proves that people that make the between me amount of income and has the same educational background tend to use kinship relationships in the same way no matter what their race they identified. This relationship SES and was even stronger between people of low-income, because they need the utilitarian help the most.
Though Gerstel and Sarkisian makes an great argument showing the correlation between kinship relationship and social class, they make it clear that SES is not the only deciding factor. The dynamics of families are never the same across the board and some situations call for more or less kinship support. However, the article clearly states that money matters is a major issue and that is the most practical place to begin.
Gerstel and Sarkisian both make it clear that neither usage is inherently better than the other, but they do challenge that cultural heritages are the reason for these differences. Contrary to the popular belief, kinship ties have less to with culture and more to do with social economical status. Research proves that people that make the between me amount of income and has the same educational background tend to use kinship relationships in the same way no matter what their race they identified. This relationship SES and was even stronger between people of low-income, because they need the utilitarian help the most.
Though Gerstel and Sarkisian makes an great argument showing the correlation between kinship relationship and social class, they make it clear that SES is not the only deciding factor. The dynamics of families are never the same across the board and some situations call for more or less kinship support. However, the article clearly states that money matters is a major issue and that is the most practical place to begin.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Explaining the Gender Gap in Help to Parents
Natalia Sarkisian Naomi Gerstel created three hypothesis about the gender gap in help to parents.
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Employment status reduces the gender gap in help given to parents with control for variables such as race, class, age, ect.
Hypothesis 2: Those employed in time consuming, lucrative, or satisfying job conditions provide less time helping their parents with less demanding, lucrative and satisfying jobs.
Hypothesis 3: Employment Status and characteristics including earnings, hours, schedules, self-employment, and job satisfaction are more strongly tied to parental assistance for women than for men.
Results
Hypothesis 1
The gender gap in help giving to parents is significant. Women provide an average of 3.8 hours a week to help parents and parent-in-laws, while men only help their parents 3 hours per week. Sarkisian and Gerstel also noticed men were more likely to be employed. They wanted to know if men and women employment difference account for the different amount of hours. Sarkisian and Gerstel found out that employment did make a difference. When marginal effects were controlled, employment status rendered the gender gap insignificant.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis two was confirmed on the same basis as the first hypothesis; employment drastically makes the difference between genders insignificant. Higher wages are associated with fewer hours of help in both gender groups, even if you are self-employed. The gender gap arises when discrimination based on sex is applied to women wages and job opportunities.
Hypothesis 3
Sarkinisian and Gerstel predicted that different processes would operate for women than for men. Although some controls that were placed had different relationship with men and women, employment did not change. They found no significant change between men and women relationship of employment status. This implies that men and women help is not dictated on their biological make up but more so on their opportunity to be employed.
Discussion Questions:
Why are structural Characteristics more successful in explaining the gender gap in the help to parents than in explaining the gender gaps in other sorts of family work?
Sarkisian and Gerstal claim that it might be possible that helping parents is less central to a gender performance. Helping your parents is not seen as a women job in the same way as taking care of children.
What are the causal processes underlying the relationship between employment characteristics and parental support?
There is no clears understanding in what direction this causation goes. It could be because people help their parents there is a wage penalty for both sexes. Another explanation could be that higher wages and self-employment of men and women produces opportunity cost of helping their parents.
Why are job hours, job schedules, and job satisfaction unrelated to helping parents for both genders and contribute very little to the gender gap?
Sarkisian and Gerstel suggest that these factor may lead to other structural factors. For example, if you do not like your job or schedule, you may quite your job and tend to your family more. Also, even though those conditions do not matter as much, other minor factors do, such as marriage, proximity, financial need. These factors are not directly related to employment that are shown to play a factor.
The Importance of the study
We are living in a country where two person incomes are needed for raising families and welfare is declining. Older citizens are losing benefits that support them after retirement and they are depending more and more on their children but more and more of their children are entering the labor force. As the gender gap continues to become more narrow, who is going to help our parents? Even more importantly, what is going to happen to the poorer families that can not afford elderly homes to compensate for their lack of time to help their parents?
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Employment status reduces the gender gap in help given to parents with control for variables such as race, class, age, ect.
Hypothesis 2: Those employed in time consuming, lucrative, or satisfying job conditions provide less time helping their parents with less demanding, lucrative and satisfying jobs.
Hypothesis 3: Employment Status and characteristics including earnings, hours, schedules, self-employment, and job satisfaction are more strongly tied to parental assistance for women than for men.
Results
Hypothesis 1
The gender gap in help giving to parents is significant. Women provide an average of 3.8 hours a week to help parents and parent-in-laws, while men only help their parents 3 hours per week. Sarkisian and Gerstel also noticed men were more likely to be employed. They wanted to know if men and women employment difference account for the different amount of hours. Sarkisian and Gerstel found out that employment did make a difference. When marginal effects were controlled, employment status rendered the gender gap insignificant.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis two was confirmed on the same basis as the first hypothesis; employment drastically makes the difference between genders insignificant. Higher wages are associated with fewer hours of help in both gender groups, even if you are self-employed. The gender gap arises when discrimination based on sex is applied to women wages and job opportunities.
Hypothesis 3
Sarkinisian and Gerstel predicted that different processes would operate for women than for men. Although some controls that were placed had different relationship with men and women, employment did not change. They found no significant change between men and women relationship of employment status. This implies that men and women help is not dictated on their biological make up but more so on their opportunity to be employed.
Discussion Questions:
Why are structural Characteristics more successful in explaining the gender gap in the help to parents than in explaining the gender gaps in other sorts of family work?
Sarkisian and Gerstal claim that it might be possible that helping parents is less central to a gender performance. Helping your parents is not seen as a women job in the same way as taking care of children.
What are the causal processes underlying the relationship between employment characteristics and parental support?
There is no clears understanding in what direction this causation goes. It could be because people help their parents there is a wage penalty for both sexes. Another explanation could be that higher wages and self-employment of men and women produces opportunity cost of helping their parents.
Why are job hours, job schedules, and job satisfaction unrelated to helping parents for both genders and contribute very little to the gender gap?
Sarkisian and Gerstel suggest that these factor may lead to other structural factors. For example, if you do not like your job or schedule, you may quite your job and tend to your family more. Also, even though those conditions do not matter as much, other minor factors do, such as marriage, proximity, financial need. These factors are not directly related to employment that are shown to play a factor.
The Importance of the study
We are living in a country where two person incomes are needed for raising families and welfare is declining. Older citizens are losing benefits that support them after retirement and they are depending more and more on their children but more and more of their children are entering the labor force. As the gender gap continues to become more narrow, who is going to help our parents? Even more importantly, what is going to happen to the poorer families that can not afford elderly homes to compensate for their lack of time to help their parents?
The Female World of Cards And Holidays
Two theoretical trends have been key in this reintrepretion of women's work and family domain. The first trend is the increased visibility of women's non-market activities such as house-work child care, and the caring for men as labor. Also another key trend that shifted the view of women work is their responsibility of maintaining kinship relationships unpaid job.
Many feminist interpreters have divergent views of which trend is more important; the labor or the kin-centered perspective. Kessler Harris suggest that women historically wanted higher paying jobs but because of sex discrimination, they could not receive them. On the contrary, Rosenberg argues that in the 19 century, women made a "women culture" cultivated through their social networks. This women culture is what makes women more bound to nurture rather than pursue high paid employment.
Micaela Di Leonardo introduces a new concept that combines both or these former polarizing arguments together. She creates theory of the work of kinship which both assist empirical feminist research on women, work, and family while also advancing the feminist theory in kinship.
Di Leonardo conducted research among Italian American community in Northern California observing the relationship between women's kinship and economic lives. Through her observation Di Leonardo was able to see that these women were involved in three types of work: house work and childcare, work in the labor market, and the work of kinship.
Kinship work refers to the maintenance, ritual celebrations, communication across different households. Women were the people in charge of maintaining family communication ties and also hosting events to bring different the non-nuclear family together. Men did little in helping in maintain kinship ties. Women mostly negotiated amongst themselves on where,when, and how they were going to get their families together.
As a result of the all women interactions in kinship relationships led to a hierarchy within the network. Depending on the task you performed dictated your power in the hierarchy; for example, if you had Christmas dinner at your house, you held an important role in the kinship network because Christmas (for most) is a major holiday. Acquiring large kinship roles made women feel good about themselves but also made women who did not have the positions feel guilty.
Di Leonardo, also argues that women seldom mention kinship being a major concern compared to housework, childcare, or waged labor because kinship responsibilities are unlabeled. Though kinship work competes with other types of labors women must do, many women feel it is the easiest to cut back on. However, women do not realize the guilt that comes with failing to keep kinship ties. This guilt usually kept wives from abandoning kinship relationships forcing them to lose something else, ie labor.
Though Di Leonardo researched a Italian American family, the states that these kinship ties occurs different groups also. Though the holidays families gather around and how they communicate with other kin may change, in all cases women are ones carrying it out. In fact, Di Leonardo claims that kinship work is a responsibility that is more universal than both labor work and childcare when compare across race, class, region, and generational lines.
The concept of kin work focuses on the unacknowledged responsibilities that is assigned to women in our modern society. Revealing this kinship labor can help dismantle this dichotomy of kinship or labor issues and show that they work hand and hand. Also until we try to address them both together, we can not solve the problem women encounter.
Before reading this article, I personally never thought about the responsibility of kinship maintenance. I also expect an grand thanksgiving but never realized how much work that day and days like it takes to coordinate relatives to come over for dinner. This definately opened and my eyes to a new privilege I have as a man.
Many feminist interpreters have divergent views of which trend is more important; the labor or the kin-centered perspective. Kessler Harris suggest that women historically wanted higher paying jobs but because of sex discrimination, they could not receive them. On the contrary, Rosenberg argues that in the 19 century, women made a "women culture" cultivated through their social networks. This women culture is what makes women more bound to nurture rather than pursue high paid employment.
Micaela Di Leonardo introduces a new concept that combines both or these former polarizing arguments together. She creates theory of the work of kinship which both assist empirical feminist research on women, work, and family while also advancing the feminist theory in kinship.
Di Leonardo conducted research among Italian American community in Northern California observing the relationship between women's kinship and economic lives. Through her observation Di Leonardo was able to see that these women were involved in three types of work: house work and childcare, work in the labor market, and the work of kinship.
Kinship work refers to the maintenance, ritual celebrations, communication across different households. Women were the people in charge of maintaining family communication ties and also hosting events to bring different the non-nuclear family together. Men did little in helping in maintain kinship ties. Women mostly negotiated amongst themselves on where,when, and how they were going to get their families together.
As a result of the all women interactions in kinship relationships led to a hierarchy within the network. Depending on the task you performed dictated your power in the hierarchy; for example, if you had Christmas dinner at your house, you held an important role in the kinship network because Christmas (for most) is a major holiday. Acquiring large kinship roles made women feel good about themselves but also made women who did not have the positions feel guilty.
Di Leonardo, also argues that women seldom mention kinship being a major concern compared to housework, childcare, or waged labor because kinship responsibilities are unlabeled. Though kinship work competes with other types of labors women must do, many women feel it is the easiest to cut back on. However, women do not realize the guilt that comes with failing to keep kinship ties. This guilt usually kept wives from abandoning kinship relationships forcing them to lose something else, ie labor.
Though Di Leonardo researched a Italian American family, the states that these kinship ties occurs different groups also. Though the holidays families gather around and how they communicate with other kin may change, in all cases women are ones carrying it out. In fact, Di Leonardo claims that kinship work is a responsibility that is more universal than both labor work and childcare when compare across race, class, region, and generational lines.
The concept of kin work focuses on the unacknowledged responsibilities that is assigned to women in our modern society. Revealing this kinship labor can help dismantle this dichotomy of kinship or labor issues and show that they work hand and hand. Also until we try to address them both together, we can not solve the problem women encounter.
Before reading this article, I personally never thought about the responsibility of kinship maintenance. I also expect an grand thanksgiving but never realized how much work that day and days like it takes to coordinate relatives to come over for dinner. This definately opened and my eyes to a new privilege I have as a man.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Evading the Time Bind
Due to long work days, duties of raising a family and responsibility of maintaining a home, parent are finding that there just is not enough time in a day. Families across the country are trying to figure out ways in which they can work, raise a family, and have a life. Horschild goes over the ways many people create more time for themselves.
Emotional Asceticism:
One way parents made more time for themselves was through self-care. Parents left their children at home alone for large periods of time during the day. Many fathers justified by stating it would make their children "tougher. " Some mothers agreed but felt guilty for actually doing it. Horschild believe a lot of women were reluctant. Though many may think these parents were leaving their children alone based on financial restraints, they were not. Many of the people who responded preferred to leave their kids home alone were men and women in managerial occupations. Parents coped with leaving their children alone at home by forcing themselves to feel like leaving them alone would make them independent. The benefit this gives to parents is that they cut time raising their children and have more time to focus on their work. This trend of leaving children is not an uncommon method to evade the time bind of being a working parent; 12 million children are left home alone while their parents are working.
Some psychotherapist promote the "self-care" and feed into justifying parents to do it. Many books put the responsibility on the children to free up time for parents. The book, "Teaching your child to be Home Alone. The book tells the children that they are not being considerate to their parents and that they should do more. Such books relieve the guilt parents feel when they leave their children home alone. One problem that parents overlook, however, is the danger children are in home alone. More than half of the children interviewed in the Horschild's study did not know how to react in an emergency.
Another way parents circumvent the time bind is through consumerism. Parents, especially mothers, are now "shopping for time." New products and concepts are being developed to extract less time from family life for a cost. Today, there are after school programs, camps, and even business that even bring kids lunch for breakfast. These consumer products takes the burden off the parents and gives them more time to work. The consequence of this is that mothers are now becoming the manger of parenthood instead of actual participants. Though many parents point fingers at parents who commodity their child rearing, most parents do it.
The last method Horschild talks about is the potential self. The potential self imagines what he/she could do if they had the time to do it. Parents split their identity into actual selves (what they do) and potential selves(what the would do). An example Horschild used in her research was father who told his daughter they would go on a camping trip. He bought the gear for the trip and always said they were going to go but never was able to get around to it. This putting off of events provides people with some closure. While thinking about it he feels good but the event never happens because it is always just an idea and never becomes a reality in the near future.
Time binding is definitely a issue in our society. We must find a way to slow down and really appreciate where we are and who is around us. Personally, I think we need to reconfigure how we work. Work is now leaving the office and is taking over most adults lives.
Emotional Asceticism:
One way parents made more time for themselves was through self-care. Parents left their children at home alone for large periods of time during the day. Many fathers justified by stating it would make their children "tougher. " Some mothers agreed but felt guilty for actually doing it. Horschild believe a lot of women were reluctant. Though many may think these parents were leaving their children alone based on financial restraints, they were not. Many of the people who responded preferred to leave their kids home alone were men and women in managerial occupations. Parents coped with leaving their children alone at home by forcing themselves to feel like leaving them alone would make them independent. The benefit this gives to parents is that they cut time raising their children and have more time to focus on their work. This trend of leaving children is not an uncommon method to evade the time bind of being a working parent; 12 million children are left home alone while their parents are working.
Some psychotherapist promote the "self-care" and feed into justifying parents to do it. Many books put the responsibility on the children to free up time for parents. The book, "Teaching your child to be Home Alone. The book tells the children that they are not being considerate to their parents and that they should do more. Such books relieve the guilt parents feel when they leave their children home alone. One problem that parents overlook, however, is the danger children are in home alone. More than half of the children interviewed in the Horschild's study did not know how to react in an emergency.
Another way parents circumvent the time bind is through consumerism. Parents, especially mothers, are now "shopping for time." New products and concepts are being developed to extract less time from family life for a cost. Today, there are after school programs, camps, and even business that even bring kids lunch for breakfast. These consumer products takes the burden off the parents and gives them more time to work. The consequence of this is that mothers are now becoming the manger of parenthood instead of actual participants. Though many parents point fingers at parents who commodity their child rearing, most parents do it.
The last method Horschild talks about is the potential self. The potential self imagines what he/she could do if they had the time to do it. Parents split their identity into actual selves (what they do) and potential selves(what the would do). An example Horschild used in her research was father who told his daughter they would go on a camping trip. He bought the gear for the trip and always said they were going to go but never was able to get around to it. This putting off of events provides people with some closure. While thinking about it he feels good but the event never happens because it is always just an idea and never becomes a reality in the near future.
Time binding is definitely a issue in our society. We must find a way to slow down and really appreciate where we are and who is around us. Personally, I think we need to reconfigure how we work. Work is now leaving the office and is taking over most adults lives.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Children Share in Households
Children work in the home:
In the United States their is an ambivalence in parent's feelings on children's role in the house-hold economy. Most parents see performing household work as a way to build character. Some see the "chores" as a way to prepare children for performance of household responsibilities they will need to do as adults. Other families want their children to have a responsibility to contribute to the household. Though all of the reasoning for having chores are different, many parents make house work optional and often pay their children to perform the tasks. Goldscheider argues the experiences children have in childhood and early adulthood are extremely important for family formation in the future. If children, particular boys are not being introduced task associated in the home, they will never value it and perform them when they become adults.
Children role in the household as of now is lacking more than men in the household. Men are increasing their responsibility in the household but children role has actually decrease in the past decades. Frances Goldscheider and Linda J. Waite in this chapter examine how much and under what family situation children share in house work.
How much do children share?
As mentioned earlier, children take relatively little responsibility for most house chores. Though kids do wash dishes and help clean the house, they do not do tasks like grocery shopping, childcare, laundry, cooking or any other labor intensive chores.
Which Children Share?
Children of different ages and sexes perform not only different types of chores but also different amounts. Children entering adulthood, on average, do not perform household task. Some parents believe that early adulthood is a stressful time for their kids due to the task of trying to find their careers. Teenagers help the family the most substantially in the household.
Families with teenage girls do the most household chores in the family. Girls are five times more likely to be contributing in the household and they spend the most time performing house work. Older daughters do groceries shopping, laundry, on top of the usual washing dishes, while older sons do almost nothing in the house.
Mother Only Families:
When the home do not take the form of the nuclear family, the sharing of household work shifts dramatically. Children who live in mother only families do nearly twice as much house work than two parent homes. Due to the stress of the mother having to provide financially and emotionally, children are much more likely to feel needed and more responsible for helping out. Older sons take over many of the roles of their absent father have in the house. Also boys in a single household are more likely to perform tasks that nuclear families older daughters would do usually perform. Older boys in single families homes wash dishes, cook, grocery shop as much as daughters in other homes.
Daughters in single family homes are the people who take on the most household task. They have double the responsibilities of daughter in a nuclear family. They do not only help in daily task, they take over whole tasks. For example, instead of helping their mother cook, they are in charge of feeding the family. Daughters take on these chores until they leave the house, even when they are young adults, they are contributing a lot to the family.
Stepparent Families:
Children who live in a stepparent family do more work than nuclear families but no where near the amount of work single parent children do. The reason children do not do as much work as single parent homes is because most children in stepparent homes experience single mother homes a shorter period of time in at a younger age. Step daughters are more likely to take the duties of childcare for younger siblings; however, similar to families nuclear families, once they become young adults they contribute little to the household.
Question:
In my eyes children should be doing a lot of work in the home. Of course academics are important, but why can our kids balance school with work? That is what are going to have to do in the real world.
In the United States their is an ambivalence in parent's feelings on children's role in the house-hold economy. Most parents see performing household work as a way to build character. Some see the "chores" as a way to prepare children for performance of household responsibilities they will need to do as adults. Other families want their children to have a responsibility to contribute to the household. Though all of the reasoning for having chores are different, many parents make house work optional and often pay their children to perform the tasks. Goldscheider argues the experiences children have in childhood and early adulthood are extremely important for family formation in the future. If children, particular boys are not being introduced task associated in the home, they will never value it and perform them when they become adults.
Children role in the household as of now is lacking more than men in the household. Men are increasing their responsibility in the household but children role has actually decrease in the past decades. Frances Goldscheider and Linda J. Waite in this chapter examine how much and under what family situation children share in house work.
How much do children share?
As mentioned earlier, children take relatively little responsibility for most house chores. Though kids do wash dishes and help clean the house, they do not do tasks like grocery shopping, childcare, laundry, cooking or any other labor intensive chores.
Which Children Share?
Children of different ages and sexes perform not only different types of chores but also different amounts. Children entering adulthood, on average, do not perform household task. Some parents believe that early adulthood is a stressful time for their kids due to the task of trying to find their careers. Teenagers help the family the most substantially in the household.
Families with teenage girls do the most household chores in the family. Girls are five times more likely to be contributing in the household and they spend the most time performing house work. Older daughters do groceries shopping, laundry, on top of the usual washing dishes, while older sons do almost nothing in the house.
Mother Only Families:
When the home do not take the form of the nuclear family, the sharing of household work shifts dramatically. Children who live in mother only families do nearly twice as much house work than two parent homes. Due to the stress of the mother having to provide financially and emotionally, children are much more likely to feel needed and more responsible for helping out. Older sons take over many of the roles of their absent father have in the house. Also boys in a single household are more likely to perform tasks that nuclear families older daughters would do usually perform. Older boys in single families homes wash dishes, cook, grocery shop as much as daughters in other homes.
Daughters in single family homes are the people who take on the most household task. They have double the responsibilities of daughter in a nuclear family. They do not only help in daily task, they take over whole tasks. For example, instead of helping their mother cook, they are in charge of feeding the family. Daughters take on these chores until they leave the house, even when they are young adults, they are contributing a lot to the family.
Stepparent Families:
Children who live in a stepparent family do more work than nuclear families but no where near the amount of work single parent children do. The reason children do not do as much work as single parent homes is because most children in stepparent homes experience single mother homes a shorter period of time in at a younger age. Step daughters are more likely to take the duties of childcare for younger siblings; however, similar to families nuclear families, once they become young adults they contribute little to the household.
Question:
In my eyes children should be doing a lot of work in the home. Of course academics are important, but why can our kids balance school with work? That is what are going to have to do in the real world.
Useful to Useless and Back to Useless
The 20th century economically useless, emotionally priceless child displaced the 19th century useful child. In this shift children world consisted of affection and educations, while work and profit were left out. Child work and child money became primarily defined as education. They were paid allowances not for a wage for their work, but to teach the children how to become a consumer. The home in the 20th century was thought of as a sentimental institution protecting the child from negativity of the industrial world. The value of the child started to increase in monetary value as the children economic value started to decline.
The worthless child is an example of the limits capitalism can have on a society. Citizens chose to spend more on their children and have their children be less of an economical benefit because they sacred values of society said it was wrong. Wrongful death awards, adoption, insurance markets are all markets shape with the assumption that children are worthless and need to be protected. These markets have no utilitarian value only a sentimental value, which means its value is made by the people of the time.
Even money in the household do not hold the same value it hold outside the home. Allowances are seen as symbolic wages for children to learn. Children are not working and getting a wage for how much work they do. The household is not even a place were real money is distributed. Wives do not get wages for their work in the house because society do not see the home as a commercial setting. This further tells us the money children are receiving as allowance is undesired.
From the Sacred Child to the Valuable Housechild:
This trend of creating a sacred child is currently being challenged by the ideology of the valuable house child. To due the influx of immigration, single families homes, and impoverished people, Americans are starting not to be able to afford their children not contributing anything. Without the support of the children, the family would not be able to function.
Another problem with the notion of the sacred child is the fact that parents see their children as sacred but other children as problems. Public programs of welfare, are not considered priorities in America. So underprivileged children have to work in order for their survival. The author argues for the sacred model to work, value of children need to transcend the boundaries of the individual homes.
An extreme of the current trend against the sacred child is the rise of adults not wanting kids. Many adults fear children and see them as obstacles to fulfillment in their career and relationships. This fear is also rushing these sacred kids out of their elements into a world where they were not prepared to enter. The new ideology is to get children out into adulthood as soon as possible. This rushing of adulthood is call the "Age of Preparation." The object is to expose children to adulthood experiences early. A side effect of the Age of Preparation is that children are having sex and using drugs at younger ages.
Another new way of think of children is going back to children being useful tools for the family. Psychologists support this view with evidence that economic dependency can be a pscholgically a hazard to kids. Being a useful child, you know exactly what your purpose is in the family and it gives you self worth. You self worth is dependent on you not your parents.
On the legal side of child labor legislation, many people are questioning the validity. The question, "Why should children be treated differently from adults in the area of employment?" some feel children should be back to the workforce.
A middle ground that some Americans are starting to uphold is having children more responsible in the household. Non-nuclear families are having their children taking over many of the household responsibilities while the mother provides the money for the home. This is becoming the alternative to keep the children out of the workforce but to be economically useful. Such duties like cooking, babysitting, and cleaning are done by the kids, leaving the mother with more time to make money.
The sacred child is in major questioning. In the current century, many new ideologies have sprung up challenging the sacred child and although it is the dominant ideology as of now, in the near future that may change. In my opinion, the system needs to change. Child working promotes maturity, supports the house, and makes them appreciate what they have in life. I feel we need to follow after the single family houses, because they got it right!
The worthless child is an example of the limits capitalism can have on a society. Citizens chose to spend more on their children and have their children be less of an economical benefit because they sacred values of society said it was wrong. Wrongful death awards, adoption, insurance markets are all markets shape with the assumption that children are worthless and need to be protected. These markets have no utilitarian value only a sentimental value, which means its value is made by the people of the time.
Even money in the household do not hold the same value it hold outside the home. Allowances are seen as symbolic wages for children to learn. Children are not working and getting a wage for how much work they do. The household is not even a place were real money is distributed. Wives do not get wages for their work in the house because society do not see the home as a commercial setting. This further tells us the money children are receiving as allowance is undesired.
From the Sacred Child to the Valuable Housechild:
This trend of creating a sacred child is currently being challenged by the ideology of the valuable house child. To due the influx of immigration, single families homes, and impoverished people, Americans are starting not to be able to afford their children not contributing anything. Without the support of the children, the family would not be able to function.
Another problem with the notion of the sacred child is the fact that parents see their children as sacred but other children as problems. Public programs of welfare, are not considered priorities in America. So underprivileged children have to work in order for their survival. The author argues for the sacred model to work, value of children need to transcend the boundaries of the individual homes.
An extreme of the current trend against the sacred child is the rise of adults not wanting kids. Many adults fear children and see them as obstacles to fulfillment in their career and relationships. This fear is also rushing these sacred kids out of their elements into a world where they were not prepared to enter. The new ideology is to get children out into adulthood as soon as possible. This rushing of adulthood is call the "Age of Preparation." The object is to expose children to adulthood experiences early. A side effect of the Age of Preparation is that children are having sex and using drugs at younger ages.
Another new way of think of children is going back to children being useful tools for the family. Psychologists support this view with evidence that economic dependency can be a pscholgically a hazard to kids. Being a useful child, you know exactly what your purpose is in the family and it gives you self worth. You self worth is dependent on you not your parents.
On the legal side of child labor legislation, many people are questioning the validity. The question, "Why should children be treated differently from adults in the area of employment?" some feel children should be back to the workforce.
A middle ground that some Americans are starting to uphold is having children more responsible in the household. Non-nuclear families are having their children taking over many of the household responsibilities while the mother provides the money for the home. This is becoming the alternative to keep the children out of the workforce but to be economically useful. Such duties like cooking, babysitting, and cleaning are done by the kids, leaving the mother with more time to make money.
The sacred child is in major questioning. In the current century, many new ideologies have sprung up challenging the sacred child and although it is the dominant ideology as of now, in the near future that may change. In my opinion, the system needs to change. Child working promotes maturity, supports the house, and makes them appreciate what they have in life. I feel we need to follow after the single family houses, because they got it right!
Children Perspective of Employment
This chapter, Ellen Galinsky compares and contrast what employed mothers and fathers say about the issue of work and family to empirical evidence of children. Her hope is to show gaps between the public debates and research findings.
Background
Galinsky drew mostly on the findings of a study of employed parents and children she conducted called Ask the Children study. It included a sample of 1, 023 children ranging from age 8 to 18 years old and they all were from diverse socio-economics and ethnic backgrounds. The study also included 605 employed parents with children.
Debate 1: Is Having an Employed Mother Good or Bad for Children?
Though most parents agreed that a mother with a job could have just as good of a relationship with their child compared to stay at home mother, a quarter of the parents surveyed were skeptical. Thirty percent of the fathers did not believe mothers in the workforce was ideal for raising children. Almost all parents agreed that it was fine if the mother had to work in order to keep the family financially stable but many felt when mothers did not need to work outside the home, they should not.
After surveying children of employed and non-employed parents about how they felt about mothers working, Galinsky came up with some surprising results. There was no difference in the results of employed and unemployed mothers. Children, especially infants, just wanted a warm and responsive mother regardless of her job status. The problem that children studied showed when the children graded both employed and unemployed mothers was that both mothers' grade were equally poor. 43% of children do not see their mothers as being good parents.
Debate 2: Is it Mothering of Fathering?
Are unemployed fathers particularly harmful for their children? More than half of employed parent felt that it was better for the family if the father earned the money while the mother stayed at home. 75% of men with unemployed wives supported the breadwinner theory. However contrary to what the parents thought, most children felt they had too little time with their fathers. 48% of the children do not feel like their fathers are raising them well.
Debate 3: Is Child Care Good or Bad for Children?
Many believe child care is bad because it shifts parental care from the parents to strangers. Parents feared turning their children over to people they did not know even if they were daycare professionals. Galinsky, found through literature that the fear was natural but child care did not supplant parent care. As long it was quality care, it could actually compliment parenting.
Debate 4: Is it Quality or Quantity time?
The majority of parents felt they had too little time with their child. Surprisingly, parents are spending more with their children now than twenty years ago. Mothers still spend the same amount with their children, while fathers are now spending much more time their kids than in the 1970s and 1980s. The reason for this stress over time may be because parents are now blurring the boundaries of work and the home. Since many people now bring their work home with them, they are likely to be working or stressing over work while being with their children. Most parents felt that their children wish to have more time with their parents, when in actuality the children just want their parents to be less stress.
Why these debates persist?
Much of the reason these debates still exist is because parents are assuming they know what their children want. Children are not being including in the discussion about them. Parents are having debates about their children well-being but they are arguing about issues that are not even relevant to what their children actually want. Children worry and stress about their parents. The way work affect parents' quality time with their children, affect their children. Parents must stop debating about working moms and dads, and start worrying about the time they actually spend with their children and what their children actually want.
Background
Galinsky drew mostly on the findings of a study of employed parents and children she conducted called Ask the Children study. It included a sample of 1, 023 children ranging from age 8 to 18 years old and they all were from diverse socio-economics and ethnic backgrounds. The study also included 605 employed parents with children.
Debate 1: Is Having an Employed Mother Good or Bad for Children?
Though most parents agreed that a mother with a job could have just as good of a relationship with their child compared to stay at home mother, a quarter of the parents surveyed were skeptical. Thirty percent of the fathers did not believe mothers in the workforce was ideal for raising children. Almost all parents agreed that it was fine if the mother had to work in order to keep the family financially stable but many felt when mothers did not need to work outside the home, they should not.
After surveying children of employed and non-employed parents about how they felt about mothers working, Galinsky came up with some surprising results. There was no difference in the results of employed and unemployed mothers. Children, especially infants, just wanted a warm and responsive mother regardless of her job status. The problem that children studied showed when the children graded both employed and unemployed mothers was that both mothers' grade were equally poor. 43% of children do not see their mothers as being good parents.
Debate 2: Is it Mothering of Fathering?
Are unemployed fathers particularly harmful for their children? More than half of employed parent felt that it was better for the family if the father earned the money while the mother stayed at home. 75% of men with unemployed wives supported the breadwinner theory. However contrary to what the parents thought, most children felt they had too little time with their fathers. 48% of the children do not feel like their fathers are raising them well.
Debate 3: Is Child Care Good or Bad for Children?
Many believe child care is bad because it shifts parental care from the parents to strangers. Parents feared turning their children over to people they did not know even if they were daycare professionals. Galinsky, found through literature that the fear was natural but child care did not supplant parent care. As long it was quality care, it could actually compliment parenting.
Debate 4: Is it Quality or Quantity time?
The majority of parents felt they had too little time with their child. Surprisingly, parents are spending more with their children now than twenty years ago. Mothers still spend the same amount with their children, while fathers are now spending much more time their kids than in the 1970s and 1980s. The reason for this stress over time may be because parents are now blurring the boundaries of work and the home. Since many people now bring their work home with them, they are likely to be working or stressing over work while being with their children. Most parents felt that their children wish to have more time with their parents, when in actuality the children just want their parents to be less stress.
Why these debates persist?
Much of the reason these debates still exist is because parents are assuming they know what their children want. Children are not being including in the discussion about them. Parents are having debates about their children well-being but they are arguing about issues that are not even relevant to what their children actually want. Children worry and stress about their parents. The way work affect parents' quality time with their children, affect their children. Parents must stop debating about working moms and dads, and start worrying about the time they actually spend with their children and what their children actually want.
How to Succeed in Childhood
Author Judith Harris suggest that parents play a minor role in socializing their children and that group socialization holds the majority of the power. She argues that books on nurturing are all based on cultural myths with no real substantial evidence. Her logic is that because adults are not nicer, less anxious, or even better citizens then the century before when they had polar opposite parental nurturing habits; individual parents must not play a big factor in the development of these qualities.
Harris combats the notion that children goal is to learn how to be a grown up through imitating their parents. Since children are constantly being reprehended for trying to act like adults it does not make sense for them to continue to try to be like their parent. Children are trying to be successful children. They have to learn how to get along with their family then they have to learn how to get along with members of their generation outside the home.
The two goals of being a successful child are independent of each other. Children learn thing in the settings they are presented and seldom use it out of contact. In a study, a baby with a depressed mother behaved in a subdue fashion when the mother was around but behaved normally with the mother was away. The study further proves that children home life and outside life can bring out two different sides of them.
Another example that parents have less to do with raising their children than the greater society is proving in immigrant families. At home, the children speak the native language to their parents and speak the dominant language everywhere else. It is not surprising that the children become better and more comfortable speaking the dominant language.
Harris argues the parent responsibility is a minor one compared to the historic role groups played in child rearing. Hunter-gatherer and tribal societies raise their child in groups and children become associated with a group identity. The idea of "are you with us or against us" touches the idea that groups bring values, concepts, and identities to an individual. The group loyalty is a lot strong than the ties of a few, even parents. The group kids run into is child and their "out group" is adult.The children base their qualities polar opposite of the adults. These qualities define both group's identity.
Children also make sub-groups when adults are not around to act as their foil. These divisions makes children compare themselves with their peers and help them define their identities even more. They determine if they are smart, fast, cute, and variety other traits by the children that are in their sub-group.
Now Harris does not say parents are completely useless, coalitions of parents pushing the same values and goals have powerful effects children. By making a coalition, kids are not only hearing the values of their parents in the home but outside by other adults in their lives. Also by stating that parents are not the main influence in their children lives, it makes parents feel less pressure raising their children and less guilty if they become a deviant in the eyes of society.
I completely agree that parents are not the major factor in raising children. My parents were very lax when it came to academics and I still perform above average. I think this article brings up a good point that we need raise our children in a community rather than a single home.
Harris combats the notion that children goal is to learn how to be a grown up through imitating their parents. Since children are constantly being reprehended for trying to act like adults it does not make sense for them to continue to try to be like their parent. Children are trying to be successful children. They have to learn how to get along with their family then they have to learn how to get along with members of their generation outside the home.
The two goals of being a successful child are independent of each other. Children learn thing in the settings they are presented and seldom use it out of contact. In a study, a baby with a depressed mother behaved in a subdue fashion when the mother was around but behaved normally with the mother was away. The study further proves that children home life and outside life can bring out two different sides of them.
Another example that parents have less to do with raising their children than the greater society is proving in immigrant families. At home, the children speak the native language to their parents and speak the dominant language everywhere else. It is not surprising that the children become better and more comfortable speaking the dominant language.
Harris argues the parent responsibility is a minor one compared to the historic role groups played in child rearing. Hunter-gatherer and tribal societies raise their child in groups and children become associated with a group identity. The idea of "are you with us or against us" touches the idea that groups bring values, concepts, and identities to an individual. The group loyalty is a lot strong than the ties of a few, even parents. The group kids run into is child and their "out group" is adult.The children base their qualities polar opposite of the adults. These qualities define both group's identity.
Children also make sub-groups when adults are not around to act as their foil. These divisions makes children compare themselves with their peers and help them define their identities even more. They determine if they are smart, fast, cute, and variety other traits by the children that are in their sub-group.
Now Harris does not say parents are completely useless, coalitions of parents pushing the same values and goals have powerful effects children. By making a coalition, kids are not only hearing the values of their parents in the home but outside by other adults in their lives. Also by stating that parents are not the main influence in their children lives, it makes parents feel less pressure raising their children and less guilty if they become a deviant in the eyes of society.
I completely agree that parents are not the major factor in raising children. My parents were very lax when it came to academics and I still perform above average. I think this article brings up a good point that we need raise our children in a community rather than a single home.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Halving it All
Fancine Duetsch interviewed dual-earner couples who had children ranging in age from babies to teenagers. Then stratifying the group into parents that equally shared their parenting responsibilities, groups that did not share parenting responsibilities, and lastly a group who alternated their responsibility. Her study was to see not only how people split their task but why? In chapter five she focuses on how the alternating shift couples divide parenting and their logic behind it.
Who are the alternative shift couples?
The alternate shift is predominately held by working class families. Alternative shift fathers' occupational positions were in fields such as; health care, fire fighters, delivery men. While their partners worked as nurses, secretaries, retail clerks and other service based jobs.
How Do Couples Alternate Shifts?
Usually one parent takes on an early work-shift while the other parents stays home and maintains the home, watch and feed the kids, and do all of the daily errand. Then when the afternoon working shift hits, they switch positions. The other partner cooks dinner, baths the kids, and put them to bed. The whole day the children are accounted for by at least one parent.
Though both parents are working inside and outside the home, it is rarely a completely egalitarian system. The fathers tend to work more hours outside the home while the mother spends more time in the house. In some cases, working class fathers only agree to care for the children and leave the house maintenance and cooking to the wife. The middle class family has a more 50 -50 relationship when it comes to raising the children, but because alternate shifters are with their children more than middle-class families, working-class fathers spend twice as much time with their children than middle class fathers.
Why do they do it?
Money is always a reason for why families are do the alternate shift. 80 percent of the couples mentioned money as playing a role for how they parent their kids. The alternate shifters had the lowest income out of the other group interviewed. Though they talked about money being an issue, their reasoning differed. Some people thought childcare was too costly. Since they did not have a lot of money, paying for childcare seemed impractical. Others parents felt it was their responsibility to raise their kids, not strangers. They heard so many stories about incidences occurring in day-cares that they do not want to risk their children lives.
The bad day-care experiences could be attributed to the fact that many of the day-care they can afford are low quality, which could lead to bad service. Also the better childcare institutions hold the values of the middle-class, which are not always in tune with that of the working class. Alternative shifter would rather dedicate their time providing for their child and raising them with their morals instead of someone else giving them a different set of values. Though this style of parenting hindered the actual time the parents had with each other, shifters felt it was necessary.
Maintaining an identity
Despite the actual dual inside and outside the home work from both sexes, men and women still hold their titles as breadwinners and caregivers. Fathers still feel it is their responsibility to work. Though they appreciated the new gifts of having meaningful relationships with their children, men in the study admitted to feeling more responsibility to work harder and provide for their family after have children. Men who did not work, felt useless even though they were raising their children. Women re-enforced the breadwinner theory by making it known that the father's job was the most important job in the household. The husband would usually work the more hours despite if they wife was paid at a higher rate.
Women in shifter relationships are still regarded to the primary parent, no matter how much the father does. They are still expected to do all house duties, men are still seen as additional help. These responsibilities in the home leaves the women in a tough position as a mother and a worker. Women like the idea of being their for their family but also really enjoyed working outside the home. One participant felt that having a job made her feel like whole person. Although their husbands wished they did not work, most women ideally preferred a part-time job.
Traditional Ideologies with Non-traditional Lives
To conclude, the alternative shifter is the most egalitarian type parenting presented in the study, but they still follow the ideology of domesticity. In order to keep their traditional views they link on to aspects of ideal positions in their ideology. Men hold on to their outside work, making it their most important activity, while mothers consider themselves the primary caregiver. Though they are not trying to end gender, they are opening gender barriers to respond to the realities of today's society.
Questions
Are the divorce rates higher for these shifters? The lack of time parents spend with each other must effect their relationship. Also, how much interaction does the child has with their parents together? I can not image a child learning how to have a healthy intimate relationship from their parents if he does not see them.
Who are the alternative shift couples?
The alternate shift is predominately held by working class families. Alternative shift fathers' occupational positions were in fields such as; health care, fire fighters, delivery men. While their partners worked as nurses, secretaries, retail clerks and other service based jobs.
How Do Couples Alternate Shifts?
Usually one parent takes on an early work-shift while the other parents stays home and maintains the home, watch and feed the kids, and do all of the daily errand. Then when the afternoon working shift hits, they switch positions. The other partner cooks dinner, baths the kids, and put them to bed. The whole day the children are accounted for by at least one parent.
Though both parents are working inside and outside the home, it is rarely a completely egalitarian system. The fathers tend to work more hours outside the home while the mother spends more time in the house. In some cases, working class fathers only agree to care for the children and leave the house maintenance and cooking to the wife. The middle class family has a more 50 -50 relationship when it comes to raising the children, but because alternate shifters are with their children more than middle-class families, working-class fathers spend twice as much time with their children than middle class fathers.
Why do they do it?
Money is always a reason for why families are do the alternate shift. 80 percent of the couples mentioned money as playing a role for how they parent their kids. The alternate shifters had the lowest income out of the other group interviewed. Though they talked about money being an issue, their reasoning differed. Some people thought childcare was too costly. Since they did not have a lot of money, paying for childcare seemed impractical. Others parents felt it was their responsibility to raise their kids, not strangers. They heard so many stories about incidences occurring in day-cares that they do not want to risk their children lives.
The bad day-care experiences could be attributed to the fact that many of the day-care they can afford are low quality, which could lead to bad service. Also the better childcare institutions hold the values of the middle-class, which are not always in tune with that of the working class. Alternative shifter would rather dedicate their time providing for their child and raising them with their morals instead of someone else giving them a different set of values. Though this style of parenting hindered the actual time the parents had with each other, shifters felt it was necessary.
Maintaining an identity
Despite the actual dual inside and outside the home work from both sexes, men and women still hold their titles as breadwinners and caregivers. Fathers still feel it is their responsibility to work. Though they appreciated the new gifts of having meaningful relationships with their children, men in the study admitted to feeling more responsibility to work harder and provide for their family after have children. Men who did not work, felt useless even though they were raising their children. Women re-enforced the breadwinner theory by making it known that the father's job was the most important job in the household. The husband would usually work the more hours despite if they wife was paid at a higher rate.
Women in shifter relationships are still regarded to the primary parent, no matter how much the father does. They are still expected to do all house duties, men are still seen as additional help. These responsibilities in the home leaves the women in a tough position as a mother and a worker. Women like the idea of being their for their family but also really enjoyed working outside the home. One participant felt that having a job made her feel like whole person. Although their husbands wished they did not work, most women ideally preferred a part-time job.
Traditional Ideologies with Non-traditional Lives
To conclude, the alternative shifter is the most egalitarian type parenting presented in the study, but they still follow the ideology of domesticity. In order to keep their traditional views they link on to aspects of ideal positions in their ideology. Men hold on to their outside work, making it their most important activity, while mothers consider themselves the primary caregiver. Though they are not trying to end gender, they are opening gender barriers to respond to the realities of today's society.
Questions
Are the divorce rates higher for these shifters? The lack of time parents spend with each other must effect their relationship. Also, how much interaction does the child has with their parents together? I can not image a child learning how to have a healthy intimate relationship from their parents if he does not see them.
The Myth of Masculinity
The decline of Male breadwinner has prompted confusion, leaving manhood and masculinity at a critical point of change. If men no longer hold their position as the dominant financial provider for his wife and child, what is his purpose in the home? What is a man? This unique shift has shaken the foundation of the patriarchal society we live and has left us with the opportunity to redefine masculinity.
Though men never had to worry about having both a family and a job, they did have to decide between being "free and having to share, between independence or interdependence, between privileged and equality (260)." Men had to make these choices but they did have some restraints. Work place opportunities, women relationships all played important roles in creating a more diverse male experience.
Men live very diverse lifestyles counter to the stereotypical breadwinner mold they are lumped into, even within an individual's own life time. Since men now move in and out of different family environments, they have the opportunity to change their roles from relationship to relationship. In today's society, men can divorce and remarry several times, having multiple families. Also, depending on a persons job, he could have more time to tend to his children or not. These circumstances and many other circumstance could make the man go against the breadwinner theory and explore other ways of living.
Many people try to say men are born with a masculine personality that is bestowed upon them by their father and in childhood. Gerson explains that this notion of the man personality is set as a child is completely false. Men evaluate, respond to and resolve problems they established in their childhood on the experiences they have in their adulthood. There are no shared complex psychological traits that predict the life choices of men.
Gerson also pointed out Masculine Culture and male dominance could account for the diversity of experiences
Though men never had to worry about having both a family and a job, they did have to decide between being "free and having to share, between independence or interdependence, between privileged and equality (260)." Men had to make these choices but they did have some restraints. Work place opportunities, women relationships all played important roles in creating a more diverse male experience.
Men live very diverse lifestyles counter to the stereotypical breadwinner mold they are lumped into, even within an individual's own life time. Since men now move in and out of different family environments, they have the opportunity to change their roles from relationship to relationship. In today's society, men can divorce and remarry several times, having multiple families. Also, depending on a persons job, he could have more time to tend to his children or not. These circumstances and many other circumstance could make the man go against the breadwinner theory and explore other ways of living.
Many people try to say men are born with a masculine personality that is bestowed upon them by their father and in childhood. Gerson explains that this notion of the man personality is set as a child is completely false. Men evaluate, respond to and resolve problems they established in their childhood on the experiences they have in their adulthood. There are no shared complex psychological traits that predict the life choices of men.
Gerson also pointed out Masculine Culture and male dominance could account for the diversity of experiences
The Absent Black Father
This chapter discusses the critical role that absent Black fathers play in the promotion of marital fatherhood as the panacea for children's need. Author, Dorthy Roberts clearly states that the chapter is not meant to answer whether fatherlessness causes poverty or effect children upbringing, but to address the fact not cause by family form but by racism and inequality.
In our culture fatherlessness is seen as a Black problem. Absent Black Fathers represent the "dangers of fathering uncivilized by marriage (146)." Black are used as a tool to explain what ever the general population needs to address at the moment. Absent fatherhood being placed on Black men functions to racially associate as not only a depraved state but also a way to distance itself from the problem of fatherlessness and blame it on Black people.
A female headed house-hold has been the dominant family arrangement for Black families but the trend is now starting to occur more in the white community. The idea of the nuclear family today is now starting to become a myth. Today there are more white single mothers than there are Black mother; however the stigma of single still remains with Black single mothers and Black absent fathers. Roberts argues that the stigma is still placed on Black people because female headed homes are still viewed as a Black cultural trait that is plaguing the structure of White families. Whites that fall into illegitimate families are judged only on an individual basis, no matter how frequent it occurs in the White community.
As a result of Fatherlessness being racialized, the Black single mothers were blamed for not having husbands and not helped. The non-nuclear family was the escape-goat to explain why Black people were not achieving success in America, rather than looking at institutional racism. Black women were seen as rebels for not following the patriarchal family structure and the reason for their poverty. What sociologist and other people at the time did not take in consideration was the high unemployment and incarceration rates that prevented Black women from marrying their children's fathers. In 1988 there were more Black women in the workforce than men and many men could not financially provide for their household. In 1994, there were eight Black men in jail for every White man that was imprisoned. These type of systemic problems are what restrain Black men from being active as they want in their family.
One reason Black men leave their positions in the household is because they can not live up to the breadwinning theory that White America idealizes. The breadwinning theory polarizes men and women work; men work in the public area while women care for the private sphere of the home. In a Black community, where mothers were working full time jobs and men could not find jobs, Black men were emasculated.
Labeling a child fatherless also gives a skew perception of the family arrangement. Fatherless is referred to a unmarried mother. Society does not quantify what the man contributes to their child emotionally, it only cares if the man is a husband, which means the problems linked with Fatherlessness are to be fixed simply by men marrying their child's mother. Welfare re-enforces this belief that marriage is the solution to poverty by making programs that praise the widow who was married by giving them more financial support than the mothers who never married. State welfare programs even created reform bills that would encourage these mothers to get married.
The problem with the overall forcing of marriage and also the laws created to receive the child support they neglect is racism and inequality. Black men are unemployed and poor. Their financial contributions does little to help with overall financial problems. Black women are likely to impoverish with or without a Black husband. Child support only helps 10 percent of the recipients rise above the poverty level because child support can not take something that someone does not have!
Some states even created a bridefare where they actually gave up monetary rewards for marrying. It allowed families to earn 150 percent more money over the poverty line. The purpose was to make lower-class women assimilate into a more middle-class lifestyle; however it over looked the important of a father as more than a money machine.
The welfare of single low-income women will remain to be a problem as long as Black women are seen as the sole beneficiaries of it and Black "anti-culture" of single family homes is perceived as the problem.
My question is have this stuff change in the more recent years with TANF?
In our culture fatherlessness is seen as a Black problem. Absent Black Fathers represent the "dangers of fathering uncivilized by marriage (146)." Black are used as a tool to explain what ever the general population needs to address at the moment. Absent fatherhood being placed on Black men functions to racially associate as not only a depraved state but also a way to distance itself from the problem of fatherlessness and blame it on Black people.
A female headed house-hold has been the dominant family arrangement for Black families but the trend is now starting to occur more in the white community. The idea of the nuclear family today is now starting to become a myth. Today there are more white single mothers than there are Black mother; however the stigma of single still remains with Black single mothers and Black absent fathers. Roberts argues that the stigma is still placed on Black people because female headed homes are still viewed as a Black cultural trait that is plaguing the structure of White families. Whites that fall into illegitimate families are judged only on an individual basis, no matter how frequent it occurs in the White community.
As a result of Fatherlessness being racialized, the Black single mothers were blamed for not having husbands and not helped. The non-nuclear family was the escape-goat to explain why Black people were not achieving success in America, rather than looking at institutional racism. Black women were seen as rebels for not following the patriarchal family structure and the reason for their poverty. What sociologist and other people at the time did not take in consideration was the high unemployment and incarceration rates that prevented Black women from marrying their children's fathers. In 1988 there were more Black women in the workforce than men and many men could not financially provide for their household. In 1994, there were eight Black men in jail for every White man that was imprisoned. These type of systemic problems are what restrain Black men from being active as they want in their family.
One reason Black men leave their positions in the household is because they can not live up to the breadwinning theory that White America idealizes. The breadwinning theory polarizes men and women work; men work in the public area while women care for the private sphere of the home. In a Black community, where mothers were working full time jobs and men could not find jobs, Black men were emasculated.
Labeling a child fatherless also gives a skew perception of the family arrangement. Fatherless is referred to a unmarried mother. Society does not quantify what the man contributes to their child emotionally, it only cares if the man is a husband, which means the problems linked with Fatherlessness are to be fixed simply by men marrying their child's mother. Welfare re-enforces this belief that marriage is the solution to poverty by making programs that praise the widow who was married by giving them more financial support than the mothers who never married. State welfare programs even created reform bills that would encourage these mothers to get married.
The problem with the overall forcing of marriage and also the laws created to receive the child support they neglect is racism and inequality. Black men are unemployed and poor. Their financial contributions does little to help with overall financial problems. Black women are likely to impoverish with or without a Black husband. Child support only helps 10 percent of the recipients rise above the poverty level because child support can not take something that someone does not have!
Some states even created a bridefare where they actually gave up monetary rewards for marrying. It allowed families to earn 150 percent more money over the poverty line. The purpose was to make lower-class women assimilate into a more middle-class lifestyle; however it over looked the important of a father as more than a money machine.
The welfare of single low-income women will remain to be a problem as long as Black women are seen as the sole beneficiaries of it and Black "anti-culture" of single family homes is perceived as the problem.
My question is have this stuff change in the more recent years with TANF?
Monday, September 21, 2009
American Fathering in Historical Perspective
In American Fathering in Historical Perspective, author Joseph Pleck shows the historical phases of the role of the father in American society. The chapter begins by exploring the Father's role in the 1700s and the 1800s. As mentioned in the previous blog, women in this era took on the responsibility of rearing their children; however after they were seven or eight they became the responsibility of the father. In year of the enlightened thinkers, men were seen as moral and rational, while women weren't. It was the man's duty to not only to train their sons in a trade but also make them rational and moral adults.
This father-children relationship started to shift with the raise of capitalism and industrialization. By the late 19th century, many men started to leave their home for work and be paid a wage for their labor. Wage labor meant the more hours you spent outside the home the more money you made for your family. As a bi-product of working outside the home for a wage, men involvement in their children lives became less and less direct, which resulted in the role shift from a emotional provider to a financial provider. Mother then took on the sole responsibility of the caregiver.
After huge portion of fathers not making it home from WW2, many people encourage fathers to become more than just a provider for their children. Husbands started to assist in raising the children from birth, and even maintaining the household. The range of responsibility grew even wider than pre-industrialization but it was not as big of a priority. The breadwinner mentality was still the dominant practice in American family households.
I think it is amazing how fast a society social norms can change. The very fact that father's roles has changed three times in America show that we have the power to change our current society. I wonder how President Barrack Obama's public relationship with his daughter going to change Americas perception of fatherhood now a days? Will it make being an active father more a norm?
This father-children relationship started to shift with the raise of capitalism and industrialization. By the late 19th century, many men started to leave their home for work and be paid a wage for their labor. Wage labor meant the more hours you spent outside the home the more money you made for your family. As a bi-product of working outside the home for a wage, men involvement in their children lives became less and less direct, which resulted in the role shift from a emotional provider to a financial provider. Mother then took on the sole responsibility of the caregiver.
After huge portion of fathers not making it home from WW2, many people encourage fathers to become more than just a provider for their children. Husbands started to assist in raising the children from birth, and even maintaining the household. The range of responsibility grew even wider than pre-industrialization but it was not as big of a priority. The breadwinner mentality was still the dominant practice in American family households.
I think it is amazing how fast a society social norms can change. The very fact that father's roles has changed three times in America show that we have the power to change our current society. I wonder how President Barrack Obama's public relationship with his daughter going to change Americas perception of fatherhood now a days? Will it make being an active father more a norm?
Dead Domesticity Cont.
One argument people use to dismiss domesticity is that women have the opportunity to do whatever job they want, they just choose less-skilled work. In Chapter One, of Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflicts and What to do about it, author, Joan Williams gives evidence that domesticity in America is still a live and kicking through practiced laws in the workforce. In the EEOC v Sears, Ruebuck Co., Sears was accused of discriminating against women when it came to high-paying commission work. EEOC argued that statistically men dominated the high payed position in Sears. Sears countered EEOC argument by stating women just were not interested in these high paid positions. In the end, the courts agreed with Sears and said EEOC needed to prove that women were actually interested. This case study shows that the judicial system believes women are not taking on high paid positions solely because of their preference rather than an effect of inequality in our country.
People who hold the belief that women are not taking higher-paid positions because of preference rarely look at the whole gender picture. Women responsibility in the home is an tremendous factor that keeps them out of higher paid jobs. Since they spend most, if not all, the time maintain the home and raising the children, two-thirds of the wage gap is based on women duties to the home and family. The very same domesticity that puts the responsibility of the home on women is the thing that is preventing them from excelling in the workforce.
Also, a huge portion of the gender-wage gap is out of the control of the actual women who "have the choice". The perception of an ideal-worker being a man prevents women of the opportunities for promotions or being hired, for that matter. In addition to the ideal worker belief, men are the people choosing who is being accepted in the workforce. Since men are suppose to be the breadwinner, they are more prone to give another man the positions over woman.
These two factors of home responsibilities and discrimination practices are what comprise our domesticity in America. We need to recognize the problem of gender and help solve it. One solution is to start putting responsibility of raising a family back on the men and women. If the norm that men were outside the home and women was in or around home was eliminated. We could actually balance out much of the duties that prohibits women from choosing to higher paid jobs by having the father more active in their children rearing and upbringing. What do you think?
People who hold the belief that women are not taking higher-paid positions because of preference rarely look at the whole gender picture. Women responsibility in the home is an tremendous factor that keeps them out of higher paid jobs. Since they spend most, if not all, the time maintain the home and raising the children, two-thirds of the wage gap is based on women duties to the home and family. The very same domesticity that puts the responsibility of the home on women is the thing that is preventing them from excelling in the workforce.
Also, a huge portion of the gender-wage gap is out of the control of the actual women who "have the choice". The perception of an ideal-worker being a man prevents women of the opportunities for promotions or being hired, for that matter. In addition to the ideal worker belief, men are the people choosing who is being accepted in the workforce. Since men are suppose to be the breadwinner, they are more prone to give another man the positions over woman.
These two factors of home responsibilities and discrimination practices are what comprise our domesticity in America. We need to recognize the problem of gender and help solve it. One solution is to start putting responsibility of raising a family back on the men and women. If the norm that men were outside the home and women was in or around home was eliminated. We could actually balance out much of the duties that prohibits women from choosing to higher paid jobs by having the father more active in their children rearing and upbringing. What do you think?
The Cultural Contradictions of Mothering
In "From Rods to Reason" author Sharon Hayes uses the history of childcare to show phases of women responsibility to the home. In the earlier centuries the perspectives on children changed significantly. Earlier societies child rearing was equated only with protecting children until they were able to survive on their own. By the age of seven they shared the burden of providing for their kin as much as their mother did. Once societies began to see children as mentally and emotionally underdeveloped kids rather than small adults, the mother role of nurturing became much more crucial. The mothers presence became more dominant while men started to work outside the home. While women developed as child-rearers, men took on a larger role outside the house. By the mid-1800s men gravitated towards working outside of the home. Men now became the major contributors of the financial stability of the home. This polarized system of men as the providers is known as the breadwinner system. The breadwinner system force men to financially support their family or to be seen as less of an man. This responsibility of the provider became tied with male masculinity just as child-rearing was to femininity and both of responsibilities were mutually exclusive to the gender group. Hays argues the effects of the breadwinner system still has its reminiscence in the today's society.
In my personal opinion, the breadwinner society is still very prevalent in our society. As an American male, I feel like I have to hold the burden of providing for my family in the future. Though, I expect that my wife will also be working (and probably making more money than i will), at the end of the day if we are struggling financially it is seen as my fault. On the other side of the spectrum, women are still viewed as being the nurturer. Such phrases like the "soccer mom" speak to the responsibility women have in the home; however, their burden is even greater now. Since an average family can not survive on one income, women now have to take on their motherly duties and work full time. Even though men should contribute in the home, it is still not a cultural or societal responsibility, leaving women with an uneven amount of work.
In my personal opinion, the breadwinner society is still very prevalent in our society. As an American male, I feel like I have to hold the burden of providing for my family in the future. Though, I expect that my wife will also be working (and probably making more money than i will), at the end of the day if we are struggling financially it is seen as my fault. On the other side of the spectrum, women are still viewed as being the nurturer. Such phrases like the "soccer mom" speak to the responsibility women have in the home; however, their burden is even greater now. Since an average family can not survive on one income, women now have to take on their motherly duties and work full time. Even though men should contribute in the home, it is still not a cultural or societal responsibility, leaving women with an uneven amount of work.
Is Domesiticty Dead?
The common perception is that Domesticity in the United States is over. Domesticity is a gender system comprising of organization of market work and family work and the gender norms that maintain and reproduce this organization. The American version of domesticity in 19th century was men worked outside the home, while women stayed at home to bear children and maintain the house.
Though in the 21st century, we have more women stepping outside the home and venturing into the work place, the belief of domesticity is still instilled in the American norm. In the work force, our ideal worker is someone who works full time, can take a lot of overtime hours and has little or no-time off for childbearing or rearing. Since most women rear children some time in their working lives, they are inherently excluded from becoming an ideal worker and as a result they have little success in gaining high professional positions.
The result of not being considered an ideal worker is drastic especially for single and divorced mothers. Since mothers are not seen as archetypal workers, they end up getting payed lower wages than men. Women were making forty percent less then men in wages for the same job. This has a devastating affect on mothers trying to lead their household. They simply can not afford it. Domesticity causes divorced and single mothers to live under the poverty lines and almost guarantees their children will have downward mobility in relations to their father's socio-economic status.
Another bi-product of domesticity is that it takes away the responsibility of the fathers to help child-rear. Due to their responsibility to the workforce, they are always out of the house and are not interacting with their children. Mothers spend three times as much time in face to face interaction with their children than men do. This lack of fathering is depriving children of male influences in their life.
The domesticity is huge problem in America; especially since we need two sources of income to raise a family. Since both parents are outside the home, many children are not being raised sufficiently by either parent and babysitters and other people are becoming the main influences in children lives. I feel parents are losing their connection with their children and losing their authority in their lives.
Though in the 21st century, we have more women stepping outside the home and venturing into the work place, the belief of domesticity is still instilled in the American norm. In the work force, our ideal worker is someone who works full time, can take a lot of overtime hours and has little or no-time off for childbearing or rearing. Since most women rear children some time in their working lives, they are inherently excluded from becoming an ideal worker and as a result they have little success in gaining high professional positions.
The result of not being considered an ideal worker is drastic especially for single and divorced mothers. Since mothers are not seen as archetypal workers, they end up getting payed lower wages than men. Women were making forty percent less then men in wages for the same job. This has a devastating affect on mothers trying to lead their household. They simply can not afford it. Domesticity causes divorced and single mothers to live under the poverty lines and almost guarantees their children will have downward mobility in relations to their father's socio-economic status.
Another bi-product of domesticity is that it takes away the responsibility of the fathers to help child-rear. Due to their responsibility to the workforce, they are always out of the house and are not interacting with their children. Mothers spend three times as much time in face to face interaction with their children than men do. This lack of fathering is depriving children of male influences in their life.
The domesticity is huge problem in America; especially since we need two sources of income to raise a family. Since both parents are outside the home, many children are not being raised sufficiently by either parent and babysitters and other people are becoming the main influences in children lives. I feel parents are losing their connection with their children and losing their authority in their lives.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Theory the Sex-Role Revolution
It is fascinating to see how fast gender roles have changes in the over 100 years. In the 1890 only 2% of married women worked outside the home and recently in 2006 there were 100% of married women in the workforce. Kingsley Davis believes their were many factors that played into this migration into the workforce.
One reason Davis claimed had an effect on women in the workforce was rise and fall of the Breadwinner system. In the breadwinning system, husbands provided income for the family while the wife tended to the home and children. This type of system made very distinct roles for women and men, not only figuratively but physically. Men actually spent their time working long hours away from home in cities to provide for their families, while women did everything in the home to make sure the family was functional. In the late 1900s, the median age of giving birth was 40 years old while the life expectancy was only 57 years old, which meant, wives actually spent their whole life rearing and raising children. This duty of rearing children made it virtually impossible for women to work outside the home for a long period of time (especially if their husbands were not raising their children).
By the 1940s, the breadwinner system started to crumble. The industrialization made a high demand for workers and women were now starting to have their last child in their late 20s. This newly freed time and demand made work more appealing. Also the new fear of divorce played push factor for women to start provide financial support for themselves.
My question is if this trend of migrating to the workforce and having a more egalitarian system occurred at a faster rate in the African American community than in the White community that this data is seem to refer? I know Black women needed to work to make a living wage for their family and also they were forced to work in earlier centuries because of slavery. Did this accelerate their sex-role revolution?
One reason Davis claimed had an effect on women in the workforce was rise and fall of the Breadwinner system. In the breadwinning system, husbands provided income for the family while the wife tended to the home and children. This type of system made very distinct roles for women and men, not only figuratively but physically. Men actually spent their time working long hours away from home in cities to provide for their families, while women did everything in the home to make sure the family was functional. In the late 1900s, the median age of giving birth was 40 years old while the life expectancy was only 57 years old, which meant, wives actually spent their whole life rearing and raising children. This duty of rearing children made it virtually impossible for women to work outside the home for a long period of time (especially if their husbands were not raising their children).
By the 1940s, the breadwinner system started to crumble. The industrialization made a high demand for workers and women were now starting to have their last child in their late 20s. This newly freed time and demand made work more appealing. Also the new fear of divorce played push factor for women to start provide financial support for themselves.
My question is if this trend of migrating to the workforce and having a more egalitarian system occurred at a faster rate in the African American community than in the White community that this data is seem to refer? I know Black women needed to work to make a living wage for their family and also they were forced to work in earlier centuries because of slavery. Did this accelerate their sex-role revolution?
Chapters 2, 3 from: From Marriage to the Market: The Transformation of Women’s Lives and Work.
Chapter 2 and 3 discussed the actual transition of women in the home to the workforce. They debunked the myth that industrialization, in this period of 1920s, actually made the work load for women lighter. Through these chapters, I learned that unemployed women in the 1960s actually spent an additional four on household chores than women in the 1920s. Though women were no longer doing strenuous chores such as collecting water from wells, or knitting and maintaining clothes in the 1960s, the emphasis was more on maintaining a clean home and nurturing, cultivating their children.
I think we can all agree that raising children in a safe and cultivating environment is important for a family and a society, but why did we take away the financial support for married women whom perform these acts? Divorce Law stripped ex-wife's of financial support from their ex-husband and added no-fault divorces, which made divorces more accessible and accepted. Do you think wives should receive compensation for the work they dedicate in the home?
I think we can all agree that raising children in a safe and cultivating environment is important for a family and a society, but why did we take away the financial support for married women whom perform these acts? Divorce Law stripped ex-wife's of financial support from their ex-husband and added no-fault divorces, which made divorces more accessible and accepted. Do you think wives should receive compensation for the work they dedicate in the home?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)