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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)