Childhood

There is an expectation that parents must exert themselves to the utmost to ensure that their children grow up to be successful. This has transformed the child into the “useless” model. There is still a division in household work between girls and boy, with most of it consumed by female children. Another trend is that children take relatively little responsibility for most household task, barely even 15% according to a study performed. Washing the dishes and cleaning the house are where children help out the most. Some responsibility is shared with children. Why is this so? Parents feel responsibility for investing their own time and money in their child’s future as long as they are home. Children’s age and gender help determine how they pitch in. As children get older, they become more involved. Girls share about 5 times more work than boys. Boys tend to cut lawns or do repairs while girls cook or clean. This helps reproduce sex segregation of household labor found among husbands and wives. This is not the case in single parent households. In this case, children share a lot more responsibility to help out the one parent. In mother-only families, daughters are the workhorses. They take on twice as much responsibility for household work than in a two-parent household. Boys’ work also increases. Overall, in every type of family, higher proportions of children living in mother-only families are contributing strongly to household chores, helping expose boy to household work.
In a study on mothers and fathers’ work on children, several questions were explored. The first focused around the idea of the effects of mothers at work on children. There is a theory that maternal employment causes harm. Fathers tend to think mothers cannot have a good relationship with children if they work. But according to children, it doesn’t matter whether a mother works or not. What really matters is how children are mothered. Warn and responsive, firm and caring characteristics are important. Ironically, it is father’s unemployment that is seen as a problem in society. The issue of child care arises when parents go to work. Many claim it is a bad thing. But it is not bad because it supplants parent care. It is only bad if the quality is bad, and neglect or abuse is present. In a study with The Families and Work Institute, it was found that dual-earner families are spending more time with their parents today than they did 20 years ago. Still, parents feel pressed for time. This had lead to the quality vs. quantity debate regarding time spend with children. Most parents think their kids want more time with them. Children, on the other hand wanted their parents to be less stressed and tire after work. Kids want more quality time with their parents. It is concluded that parents with good situations at work come home in better moods and with more energy for their children. The children develop well and this energy is reinvested back at work. It is important for there to be good communication between parents and their children. Parents need to ask their children’s opinion in order to benefit for everyone.
There are several different theories on child-rearing. Stemming from Freud, one idea is that children replicate their parents and become adults. Really, a child’s goal is to be a successful child. First they must learn how to get along with parents and siblings. Then the child must learn to get along with peers and do the things that are expected of him or her outside the home. Children keep each relationship in separate mental accounts. They learn separately how to behave at home and how to behave outside the home. This is because different behaviors are required. Our minds tend to categorize and put things and people into different groups. Children and teenagers associate themselves in certain groups. This helps explain why teens act out. They are not trying to act like grownups but differentiate themselves from them. As they grow up, it is the peers that help determine the outcome of a person, not necessarily parents, according to Judith Harris.
Throughout the years children have been valued very differently. In the 19th century children were useful but in the 20th century they were seen as economically useless but emotionally priceless. The sacred child prevailed where they were to be kept off the markets, useless but loving and off the streets supervised and protected. Economically they did work around the home for allowance. This work is first to train a child, not to help the parent. The usefulness of the work is not as important. The economic value of children was legitimately combined with sentimental worth, and the instrumental use of child money was acceptable. This sacred child model changed to the valuable household model. Priceless child model became the conventional norm in the 20th century. Since emotional and practical cost increase, children are being rushed out to soon into adult-like behavior. This theory supports the idea that the “Age of protection” is being replaced by the “Age of preparation” The world of children is changing and their household responsibilities are changing a lot due to the changing family structures and new ideologies.
I think while Judith Harris makes a good point, she is overlooking the impact family and parents have on children. While I agree peers have a great influence on you, I think she dismissed the power of family. In my own experiences, I see many ways in which my parents have and still influence me as a child and now as a young adult. I do some examples of what she described as people acting differently in and out of the home. I’m not sure how much this theory applies to me, but I have definitely seen this in several of my friends. It is almost as if they are two completely different people. I find people tend to act very differently in the home then at school, and when they are just hanging around with their peers. I think part of this is because when you’re with your parents, you act more how they want you to act. Children try to meet the expectations of their parents.
When I think of children today I see them more as “useless.” Growing up my siblings, friends and I had very little responsibilities. Occasionally my parents would ask me to help out with something but for the most part they took care of everything. As a kid they wanted me to go to school and study as they supported me. Most of my friends had very little responsibilities growing up as well. Our parents focused on helping us become successful and would sacrifice so much in order to make sure we got what we needed. Looking back, I realize how much they sacrificed for me. My siblings and I were always a priority for my parents.
I completely agree with the idea that children would rather have quality time with their parents instead of more time. Just because a parent is home with a child or even in the same room doesn’t mean they are spending quality time together. A parent can be physically present but not engaging. Good interaction between parent and child is essential to building a good relationship. This is what kids want. Sometimes I see parents try to make up quality time with material items. They think giving kids material things they want will help make up for time lost. In reality, most children would give back these gifts if it meant they could spend more time with their parents, especially those who are not present most of the time.