Blog #2

In William’s chapter and intro with regards to domesticity, she explains how it arose and how it has still is prevalent today. Before the age of domesticity, men and women commonly had different jobs/tasks but were considered of equal value. Childcare was seen as just something they both did. Domesticity is the gender system in which men belong in the market working and women belong in the home. Men belong in the market because of their dominant, aggressive and competative qualities while women possess sensitivity, gentleness, empathy, which best suits them to be in the home. There are a few basic parts of this traditional domesticity system that has carried over into current families. First is work’s demand of the “ideal-worker” with immunity to family work. One is expected to relocate if necessary, stay after hours, and be the perfect employee. Second is the husband’s right and duty to live up to being the “ideal-worker.” Even today it is still commonly expected for a man to live up to the idea of being an ideal worker in which employers demand. And last is the idea that a woman has duties to be the caregiver. Her life is supposed to evolve around her children and home. Williams used the example of the Fallows Family to show how the distribution of entitlements shifted from the language of status to emotion. It was traditional for men to be entitled to their wives services and to determine the family docile. This had gradually changed to and emotional language. Fallows stayed home with her son she claimed not because her husband told her to fulfill her own emotion needs. She made career sacrifices while her husband worked long hours. She battles to be the caregiver while he tries to balance family life and the pressures of being the ideal worker.

In Hay’s article “From Rods to Reasoning,” it describes the evolving act of child rearing. Child rearing first began after the middle ages, where children were not paid much attention to until they reached an older age around 6. A distinction arose in which determined appropriate behavior towards kids. In 17^th and 18^th century Europe they followed a more protective approach towards children. In New England, children were in a “redemption stage” in which harsh punishment, religious instruction and work life dominated. The 19^th Century is when “childhood” began to become important and motherhood was valorized. Child rearing and motherhood became synonymous. Morality was to be maintained by mothers since they were the primary child raisers. This was only possible with middle class families. Working class mothers were still seen as foolish, immodest, and devious. Towards the end of the 19^th century middle-class child-rearing began to include mother’s being scientifically trained. She needed to keep updated on the latest info on child development and practice methods suggested by experts. In early 20^th century mother’s goal was to nurture childrens' inherent goodness. Later on during the permissive era raising children was focused on the good of the children, not on the good of the family. Throughout WWII the ideology of intensive mothering persisted and has grown more extensive and elaborate even today. The paradox is that motherly love is necessity, but it is feared that mothers are being over protective, which is not good for children.

In Pleck’s chapter “American Fathering” he describes the changing role of fathers. This chapter analyzes the dominant images of fatherhood in earlier periods of US history and considers their impact today. In the 18^th and early 19^th century fathers had the greatest responsibility for and influence on their children. They were seen as the moral leaders and guided their children. In the early 19^th to mid 20^th century fathers were seen as distant breadwinners. Father’s had a less direct role as mothers’ role was increasing. Fathers worked and their wages made family consumption and security possible. In the mid 1900s fathers were sex role models. This was historically important as the first positive image of involved fatherhood to have significant impact on culture since the moral overseer model of the colonial period. The dominant father-breadwinner image still existed. The “new” more modern theory about fathers involves more involvement in the home.

With regards to the question “Is domesticity dead,” I would answer NO. From my own experience, I think it is still a very common system in place today in middle class homes. Most of my friends and the people I grew up with had stay-at-home mom’s and fathers who worked. Once children reached a certain age some mothers got part-time jobs, but most stayed at home to take care of children and the home. That is not to say that this is the case with every family because it certainly isn’t, but it definitely is not a dead practice.

The issue of child-care was brought up in one of the articles. It challenged the idea of keeping children with strangers while the parents work, claiming there was not much difference between leaving children at school. For me personally, I wouldn’t want to leave my children at day-care because I would want to spend that time with them as my mother did with me. If my husband and I were able to live off of one of our salaries, I’m sure one of us would stay home with them. I think that if you have kids you should spend as much time with them as possible. It is not that I don’t think other people would be competent in taking care of my kids, it is just something I would prefer be done by parents the majority of the time. I was lucky enough to have my mother stay at home with me all my life and have a father who’s career allowed him to have days off at a time to spend with me. Being a pilot, he only worked 10 days a month and was home the rest. This allowed my parents to split many of the “domestic tasks.” In many cases I would consider my father more domestic than my mother since he cooks more and likes to clean. My father always says he picked a good career because he was able to be home a lot. He was still able to be “an ideal worker” since his company did not demand him to work too many hours. Unfortunately other jobs do not provide the luxury of making it easy to balance work and family. It seems some jobs people are living to work, instead of working to live. Some companies are starting to realize this such as Google. They make hours extremely flexible and provide many other services in which makes it much easier for one to have a balanced lifestyle. They provide day-care in the office so you can see your children throughout the day. They also host family events and encourage a good family-work balance. They realize that this balance can still produce and efficient employee….and a happier one too.