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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)