The idea of the “second shift” is one that mostly mothers experience in
a two working parent family. After a long hard day at work they come
home only to endure another shift of unpaid work, taking care of the
family. This shift usually takes up the rest of the day as women are
forced to balance cooking, cleaning, child care and many other tasks.
With limited time they feel overwhelmed and unappreciated as they
receive minimal help from their husbands. This causes stress on the
relationship, especially since at the root of this is an issue between
the ideologies of husband and wife. This is evident in the marriage of
Evan and Nancy Holt. She is forced to give up her idea of an equal
marriage in order to sustain it. Her husband didn’t think it was his
job to equally help out, convincer her that she was better suited for
the job. They ended up coming up with a system they thought was equal
in which he took care of the dog. It became his fetish since it was his
one responsibility. They had tried to implement other ways of sharing
the work but it never worked out. Nancy tried to hide her feelings of
“being taken advantage of” by staring to compare her work to other
mothers instead of her husband. This gave the illusion that things were
fair.
Homosexual families tend to follow similar patterns as heterosexual
ones, even though they try to portray their relationship as ideal both
to themselves and the outside world. Lesbigay families tend to describe
their relationship at egalitarian. Much of domesticity is invisible.
This sometimes causes resentment and anger between partners. Paid work
greatly determines the organization of domesticity. Wealthier lesbigay
often buy domesticity, which allows them to enhance their
egalitarianism within the relationship. The “Downsized family” also
sees egalitarianism. They tend to hire whatever domestic necessities
they need but it is very limited since they are rarely home. Sometimes
the terms fair and equal are misinterpreted. Some couples claim to have
equal responsibilities when one is specialized in paid-work and the
other domestically. What they really mean usually is that this is a
fair relationship. Practical economic concerns and occupational
characteristics play the largest role in determining who gravitates
towards domesticity involvement. Although not many, some people choose
to become more involved in family and domestic affairs. One reason for
this could be the “glass ceiling” effect lesbians and gays run into. On
a whole, those individuals who gravitate towards greater domestic
involvement than their partners often share common socioeconomic
characteristics. The usually share their lives with partners who earn
more, have greater career opportunities, work more hours, and work
outside the home. Many of the families interviewed for this study sort
and arrange domesticity differently, but equality is never really
reached even when they believe so.
The apparently routine work that supports a household is complex and
more meaningful than is typically acknowledged. There are complex
family relations involved that are difficult to put into texts and
articulate. This unpaid work is described as “something different than
work.” Love is a common element involved in household activities such
as preparing food. Meal time and feeding has been affected by changing
society. People eat less meals all togheer at home. Some of the causes
of this include increase in restaurant business and people working
farther away form home. Even so, many families make a special effort to
enjoy meals together, seeing it as quality family time. A lot of
planning goes into these meals, trying to determine what will satisfy
everyone. During actually dinner talk was a very important aspect for
many families. Behavior also must be monitored and controlled.
Professional households are more likely to work successfully at
arranging family means while single mothers were somewhat less likely
than married women to arrange regular meals together for their family.
Meal planning and other family management work is invisible. Practices
seem natural and therefore much credit is not given to it. There is
logic to the work women do, learned through experience and principles.
According to a National Survey of Families and Households, women’s
housework is affected only by their own earning, not by their husbands’
and not by their earnings compared to their husbands’. The findings
also suggest dependence of women’s absolute rather than relative
earnings. It suggests that married women have a substantial degree of
economic autonomy in the areas of domestic life for which they are
normatively responsible. Some women have a dependence on men because
they exchange their domestic labor in return for access to monetary
resources. Women whose earnings are greater than their husbands’ will
spend more time on housework than other women in order to affirm their
gender identities. The main theory is that women’s housework is
affected by their earnings compared to their husbands’ and their time
spent on domestic labor. My analysis also addresses another crucial gap
in the existing research, namely, its failure to account for the
relationship between women’s absolute and relative earnings. Research
has shown that married women with low earnings are more likely than
other women to have high relative earnings, that is, earnings compared
to their husbands.
Men spent more time working for pay and women spent more time on
domestic labor because they were better at doing it. Since men’s
earnings are higher on average than women’s, the economic dependence
hypothesis is a possible explanation for the gender gap in housework.
Partners with incomes that are unusually high or low for their
gender are predicted to compensate by exaggerating their
gender-normative housework performance. married women whose earnings
exceed their husbands’ will spend more time on domestic labor than
other women, and men whose earnings are unusually low compared to their
spouses’ are predicted to spent less time on housework than other men.
Analysis implies that married women may as well be single. Even though
the sharing of life experiences and resources characterize marriage, it
seems that women’s earnings matter more than their husbands’ to certain
outcomes within it. A study implies that women act as autonomous
economic agents in the domestic sphere to the extent made possible by
their own earnings. It is unknown exactly if the autonomous
relationship between married women’s earnings and their housework is a
sign of their freedom to make economic decisions that benefit them, or
of their inability to draw on their husbands’ earnings to reduce their
household labor.
I feel as if the issues faced by Nancy and Evan Holt are very common
among today’s families. Mothers are overworked and outwork their
husbands countless with little appreciation. I myself take for granted
my mother and all that she does for me and all six of us kids. This
includes preparing meals for all of us that we all will enjoy, which is
a nearly impossible task. Each one of us always wants to eat at
different times and different foods. We forget home is not a restaurant
as our mother tries to cater to our needs and wants. I remember trying
to cook over the summer for my family and realizing how difficult it
really is. The logistics of it were a lot harder than the physical
aspect of cooking. I swore to never do it again after having to plan,
prepare, serve, and clean up after just one evening’s meal. I don’t
know how my mother does it most nights for all of us. Even though we
try to eat together as much as possible, it is a rare occasion.
Somebody is always busy and unless it is a holiday or birthday it
rarely happens. My mother doesn’t like it when we eat with the TV on
because she wants us to be able to enjoy each other’s company.
I can see how gay couples would want to even more portray their
relationship as egalitarian. With already so much stigma on such
couples, it is natural for them to want to portray themselves as an
ideal couple. In my own experience, my gay brother and his partner have
separate, and maybe fair roles. My brother tends to be the more
domestic one since he likes to cook, and works less hours therefore
allowing him the time to do more domestic tasks.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The absent Black father epitomized the male component of family breakdown due to absent fathers. Many people tend to racialize the idea of fatherless towards Blacks. They have become the symbol of fatherlessness, even though this problem occurs in other races as well. This brands fatherlessness as a depraved condition, and offers a convenient explanation for Black people’s problems. For Black families, a female-headed household is more dominant than the nuclear-family model due to high rates of unwed mothers. There has been a negative connotation towards Black fathers for a while, ranging from them not having any positive effect on their children, to not being suitable mentors. There are a few societal forces that help discourage Black men’s family participation. Black single-mothers receive welfare benefits when they bare a child out of wedlock. The effects of racial repression such as high rates of unemployment and incarceration also help contribute to Black fathers’ absence. AFDC is likely to be paid to mothers, particularly Black mothers never married. The issue is not with a father not being nurturing or emotionally involved, but rather the expectation of marrying and remaining married to the mother. His economical and marital status is what is condemned. But, because marital breakdown is unlikely to be the cause of Black children’s poverty, marriage is unlikely to be the solution. In fact, it is racial inequality, not fatherlessness, that is leading to Black children’s’ deprivation. But the United States fails at constructing a system to help these people. Instead, they put blame on Black fathers, claiming it is the fault of their own bad habits, and not from unequal social structure.
A new style of parenting has started to emerge in which parents alternate work shifts in order to take care of the children. This is predominating in blue-collar families with dual-earning couples. While mothers are working, fathers are home acting as “Mr. Moms” since they do motherly work but are not mothers. Over 10 million workers in the US work evening, night, or rotating shift while the other parent works a noonday shift. This allows for parental caretaking. Despite the fact that some fathers in this system don’t do as much as the mothers at home, they spend on average 28.5 hours a week in solo care of their children. They usually work the early and night shift at home, putting the children to bed. Money is the main reason for dual-parenting. It is a lot cheaper to take care of your children yourself. Others mentioned the idea that children should only be cared for by family. The system of shift working between parents may be good for the children, but causes hardships in the relationship of the parents. They sacrifice their own relationship and time together in order to be with their children. This can cause tension between the family. In most families, the man in an alternation-shift family is still recognized as the breadwinner. Sometimes he had to work as many as double the hours in order to earn more than his wife. His job was usually put ahead of hers too. In contrast, the mother is still seen as the number-one parent. They tailor their work life so they can be with the children at times they define as key times. They also claim that they are still the center of emotional life in the family and that they should be.
There has been observation of change and lack there of in men’s lives regarding family. The decline of the male as primary breadwinner is the most apparent aspect of change. This is no longer the predominate household model. Only about a third of Americans still depend solely or primarily on a male breadwinner. This has led to many men searching for other ways to show manhood and masculinity. Men’s participation in family involvement has not risen proportionally to women’s involvement in paid work. Men are also resisting marriage more and living on their own. A gender gap in domestic work exits, but men’s domestic participation has increase slowly. Men, in general, have increased help in child-rearing by spending more time with children. Some of men show resistance to equality in the family, while others are turning away from the family altogether. Even if a man doesn’t help out equally in the home, more and more are feeling they should be.
The decline of the male breadwinner model has caused confusion and discomfort, calling into question beliefs regarding manhood and masculinity. In the past, economic comfort coincided with being a “man.” Today, it is harder for men to justify their power as new relationships form in the home with women and children. They are now considered in some theories to be in “no man’s land.” Men are participating more in child-rearing, especially after a second marriage. Childhood has played a large role in the way men turn out. How they evaluate, respond and resolve conflicts established in childhood depends on experiences encountered later in life. As a whole, men are starting to reject work achievements and find more gratification in relationships with nurture and intimacy. The word “masculine” typically has been associated with independence, rationality, and aggression. A new vision of manhood has emerged focusing on interdependence and emotional openness. It rejects the views that manhood is the opposite of womanhood. Male dominance is still prevalent. This ties in with patriarch, which focuses on how institutional arrangements bestow power and privilege on men and how they behave as a group to perpetuate these advantages. The workplace allows for males to avoid domestic work. Men also have social political and economic advantages just because they are men. But changes are seen in the recent years in favor of women’s rights, employment opportunities, and women’s independence. Men’s dominance is now being challenge. Over the last several decades, men have seen economic security and entitlements decrease. The job market has changed along with wages. Committed employment among women has also risen. They are going into many managerial positions once dominated by men. This has allowed mens freedom to not feel economically responsible for a woman, and also gives a woman more leverage in a relationship. There is also a rise of alternatives to permanent marriage. Partnerships, divorce, remarriage, cohabitation outside marriage, and permanent singlehood have all grown in popularity. Men have been freed from the obligation to maintain a lifelong economic and emotional commitment to one woman, and women have more discretion about marriage as well. This has caused a bigger distinction between marriage and parenting. It is more common to be a parent, yet not be married. Some men have retained patriarchal control in traditional households while others haven’t.
I feel as if the model of “Mr. Mom” is becoming very common and more accepted throughout society today. Media has made light of this term in hit songs and tv shows. There is a country song by LoneStar called “Mr. Mom” in which the dad loses his job and therefore the mother goes to work while the dad stays home. He thinks it is going to be fun and easy doing nothing but comes to realize the job entails more than he imagine. He ends up wanting to go back to work in the end because being the role of mom is a lot harder than he originally thought. In the popular show “Desperate Housewives” one of the characters ends up being a “stay-at-home dad” because he loses his job, forcing his wife to go back to work. In both forms of media, the idea of men helping out more in the home, so much so they act like the mom is seen positively. In the past, this might be looked down upon and a man would not be considered masculine.
The model of the dual-shift parenting system is one that I have personally witnessed. I know a few families personally that operate this way. One family does this because they are not able to afford any other form of child-care. The mother, as with most, works in the evenings until midnight while the father works in the early morning until the evening. They seem to split tasks pretty equally. The children are very attached to both parents, especially the father. I believe this system really helps establish a good relationship between children and their father since he has to be a lot more involved. Another family I know which operates through a version of the dual-shift system does it not for financial reason but because they don’t want to put their children in day-care systems. They are firm believers of raising your own children and instilling your own values into them yourself. The mother is a nurse so she only works 3 days of the week to begin with. But when she does work, she either schedules weekends, (when her husband can take care of the children) or during the night shift (where the husband is also home).
A new style of parenting has started to emerge in which parents alternate work shifts in order to take care of the children. This is predominating in blue-collar families with dual-earning couples. While mothers are working, fathers are home acting as “Mr. Moms” since they do motherly work but are not mothers. Over 10 million workers in the US work evening, night, or rotating shift while the other parent works a noonday shift. This allows for parental caretaking. Despite the fact that some fathers in this system don’t do as much as the mothers at home, they spend on average 28.5 hours a week in solo care of their children. They usually work the early and night shift at home, putting the children to bed. Money is the main reason for dual-parenting. It is a lot cheaper to take care of your children yourself. Others mentioned the idea that children should only be cared for by family. The system of shift working between parents may be good for the children, but causes hardships in the relationship of the parents. They sacrifice their own relationship and time together in order to be with their children. This can cause tension between the family. In most families, the man in an alternation-shift family is still recognized as the breadwinner. Sometimes he had to work as many as double the hours in order to earn more than his wife. His job was usually put ahead of hers too. In contrast, the mother is still seen as the number-one parent. They tailor their work life so they can be with the children at times they define as key times. They also claim that they are still the center of emotional life in the family and that they should be.
There has been observation of change and lack there of in men’s lives regarding family. The decline of the male as primary breadwinner is the most apparent aspect of change. This is no longer the predominate household model. Only about a third of Americans still depend solely or primarily on a male breadwinner. This has led to many men searching for other ways to show manhood and masculinity. Men’s participation in family involvement has not risen proportionally to women’s involvement in paid work. Men are also resisting marriage more and living on their own. A gender gap in domestic work exits, but men’s domestic participation has increase slowly. Men, in general, have increased help in child-rearing by spending more time with children. Some of men show resistance to equality in the family, while others are turning away from the family altogether. Even if a man doesn’t help out equally in the home, more and more are feeling they should be.
The decline of the male breadwinner model has caused confusion and discomfort, calling into question beliefs regarding manhood and masculinity. In the past, economic comfort coincided with being a “man.” Today, it is harder for men to justify their power as new relationships form in the home with women and children. They are now considered in some theories to be in “no man’s land.” Men are participating more in child-rearing, especially after a second marriage. Childhood has played a large role in the way men turn out. How they evaluate, respond and resolve conflicts established in childhood depends on experiences encountered later in life. As a whole, men are starting to reject work achievements and find more gratification in relationships with nurture and intimacy. The word “masculine” typically has been associated with independence, rationality, and aggression. A new vision of manhood has emerged focusing on interdependence and emotional openness. It rejects the views that manhood is the opposite of womanhood. Male dominance is still prevalent. This ties in with patriarch, which focuses on how institutional arrangements bestow power and privilege on men and how they behave as a group to perpetuate these advantages. The workplace allows for males to avoid domestic work. Men also have social political and economic advantages just because they are men. But changes are seen in the recent years in favor of women’s rights, employment opportunities, and women’s independence. Men’s dominance is now being challenge. Over the last several decades, men have seen economic security and entitlements decrease. The job market has changed along with wages. Committed employment among women has also risen. They are going into many managerial positions once dominated by men. This has allowed mens freedom to not feel economically responsible for a woman, and also gives a woman more leverage in a relationship. There is also a rise of alternatives to permanent marriage. Partnerships, divorce, remarriage, cohabitation outside marriage, and permanent singlehood have all grown in popularity. Men have been freed from the obligation to maintain a lifelong economic and emotional commitment to one woman, and women have more discretion about marriage as well. This has caused a bigger distinction between marriage and parenting. It is more common to be a parent, yet not be married. Some men have retained patriarchal control in traditional households while others haven’t.
I feel as if the model of “Mr. Mom” is becoming very common and more accepted throughout society today. Media has made light of this term in hit songs and tv shows. There is a country song by LoneStar called “Mr. Mom” in which the dad loses his job and therefore the mother goes to work while the dad stays home. He thinks it is going to be fun and easy doing nothing but comes to realize the job entails more than he imagine. He ends up wanting to go back to work in the end because being the role of mom is a lot harder than he originally thought. In the popular show “Desperate Housewives” one of the characters ends up being a “stay-at-home dad” because he loses his job, forcing his wife to go back to work. In both forms of media, the idea of men helping out more in the home, so much so they act like the mom is seen positively. In the past, this might be looked down upon and a man would not be considered masculine.
The model of the dual-shift parenting system is one that I have personally witnessed. I know a few families personally that operate this way. One family does this because they are not able to afford any other form of child-care. The mother, as with most, works in the evenings until midnight while the father works in the early morning until the evening. They seem to split tasks pretty equally. The children are very attached to both parents, especially the father. I believe this system really helps establish a good relationship between children and their father since he has to be a lot more involved. Another family I know which operates through a version of the dual-shift system does it not for financial reason but because they don’t want to put their children in day-care systems. They are firm believers of raising your own children and instilling your own values into them yourself. The mother is a nurse so she only works 3 days of the week to begin with. But when she does work, she either schedules weekends, (when her husband can take care of the children) or during the night shift (where the husband is also home).
Sunday, September 27, 2009
mothering
Motherhood is in general more appreciated in the United States but there still lack of respect and tangible recognition. Child-raising is considered the most important job, yet care giving is not only rewarded, but actually penalized. American policy does not reflect its values regarding mother hood. Professional marginalization, a loss of status, and an increased risk of poverty are all some of the negative effects of motherhood.
One study assesses motherhood’s penalty due to mothers choosing or being confined to lower-paying,” mother-friendly” jobs. It also examines whether the motherhood’s penalty varies by marital status since growing number of mothers are single. Many women lose at lease some employment time to child-rearing. Some mothers take time out of employment and loss of work experience affects later wages.
According to human capital theory, losing job experience adversely affects mothers' wages because the mothers are less productive. More practiced workers are more productive, so they are paid more. Loss of job experience negatively affects mothers' wages because the mothers are considered less productive, although it is really other workers are able to be more productive.
One theory about mother’s less pay is because they accept “mother-friendly” jobs. These are able to pay less because they have friendly characteristics such as flexible hours, few demands for travel, and on-site day care. Another explanation is employer discrimination. It is possible that there is no causal effect of motherhood on wages, but rather that some of the same individual characteristics that cause lower earnings for mothers also lead to childbearing at higher rates. In a study between married and non-married mothers, working part- time reduces hourly pay. The penalty for having one child is small and none of it is explained by lost experience. Having a second child has a much larger implications. Women may be more likely to take a break from employment when there are two children at home because the cost of child-care is so high that earnings barely cover it. Marriage increases the child penalty. This suggests that the ratio of time and energy mothers allot to children verses jobs is affected by whether they have a source of financial support other than their own earnings. Husbands provide money that allows married mothers to focus more on their children than single women can. Or they share child-care responsibilities
African-American communities have been centered on the idea that “mothers should live lives of sacrifice has come to be seen as the norm.” For any given historical moment, Black women’s relationship with one another, children, community and self actually take depends on how their dialectical relationship between the severity of oppression facing African-American women and our actions in resisting that oppression is expressed. There are distinct conditions which fostered the appearance of distinctive Black women’s standpoint on mothering including: slavery, Southern rural life, class-stratified, racially segregated neighborhoods of earlier periods of urban Black migration. “Othermothers” are common in African-American communities. They are women who assist bloodmothers by sharing mothering responsibilities-traditionally have been central to the institution of Black motherhood. Extended families are very prevalent in Black families rooting from race, gender, and class oppression. Kin units tend to be woman-centered. It was common for girls to help raise and take care of younger siblings or neighbors children. Many mothers raised their daughters implying to notion that being a African-American female in the world makes for an up-hill battle in life. Motherhood can be invoked as a symbol of power by African-American women engaged in Black women’s work. Much of U.S. Black women’s status in African-American communities stems from their actions of mothering as community othermothers. “Strong Black Women” involvement in community work was an important basis within Black civil society. Protecting black children was a primary concern of African-American mothers. They are at risk for higher infant mortality, poor nutrition, inferior housing, AIDS, violence, and several other social problems.
Modern America still has aspects of a patriarchal system. An example of this is a strong pressure to give children their father’s surname. Although there have been several modifications to the more traditional patriarchal system, there is still a domination of children of women by men. Economic superiority and other privileges of a male-dominated social system make this possible. The idea of the “Genetic Tie” connecting parents to children gives them an equal amount of legal rights over the child. With value being placed on the see, the “real mother” and “real father” are the genetic parents. But with substitution being common today, we can choose a woman to substitute us in a pregnancy. From this arises the question of who is the mother: The one who nurtures it or the one who shares genes. This issue has been seen for a while since historically it has been asked. Women of privilege or wealth hire services of the poor and can buy some of the privileges of patriarchy. They can use bodies of poorer women to “bear offspring.” Today, we hire “substitute mothers.” Baby-sitters, day care, nannies take traditional tasks of mothers. This form of “mother” is highly devalued. Today this is an Oedipus-complex concerning child-care. Mothers seek out good child-care yet feel threatened by it at the same time. But the truth is, a relationship is definitely formed between a child and the person who takes care of him or her. Who is with that child should be thought of not as a substitute-someone else but as a first-person, one-on-one direct relationship to that childe. That position deserves respect and value.
Growing up with a “stay-at-home-mom” I’ve seen first hand the under appreciation of mothering. Child-care was never an option for my mother once all six of us kids (within an 8 year span) needed to be taken care of. It would not have been worth paid child-care for six kids and almost cheaper for my mom to stay at home. My mom went to college and had a career up until she had kids. Because my dad was able to support the family financially, she was able to stay home with us. We were lucky though because my dad still was able to be almost as involved as my mother since his job allowed him to be home with us more days than away.
It is not impossible to have a successful career and still raise kids. But it I not easy and it seems that you end up sacrificing one for the other in many cases. A woman without any children can work overtime and travel without having to worry about taking care of her children. This leads to steady promotions and career building. Yet when one has children, a woman usually can’t travel as much anymore, has to leave work by certain times, and cater to her children. I know many moms who use there sick days for their children and not for themselves. They don’t really have a choice, they need to take care of their kids but work usually doesn’t cater to the needs of employees children.
I found it surprising, yet understandable that a mother’s worth was so high. I can completely see how such a high price is reached, but it is something I don’t think many people really think about. It is so easy for mothers’ work to go unnoticed but they really do a lot. I know some moms who find their work at their jobs easier than work at home.
One study assesses motherhood’s penalty due to mothers choosing or being confined to lower-paying,” mother-friendly” jobs. It also examines whether the motherhood’s penalty varies by marital status since growing number of mothers are single. Many women lose at lease some employment time to child-rearing. Some mothers take time out of employment and loss of work experience affects later wages.
According to human capital theory, losing job experience adversely affects mothers' wages because the mothers are less productive. More practiced workers are more productive, so they are paid more. Loss of job experience negatively affects mothers' wages because the mothers are considered less productive, although it is really other workers are able to be more productive.
One theory about mother’s less pay is because they accept “mother-friendly” jobs. These are able to pay less because they have friendly characteristics such as flexible hours, few demands for travel, and on-site day care. Another explanation is employer discrimination. It is possible that there is no causal effect of motherhood on wages, but rather that some of the same individual characteristics that cause lower earnings for mothers also lead to childbearing at higher rates. In a study between married and non-married mothers, working part- time reduces hourly pay. The penalty for having one child is small and none of it is explained by lost experience. Having a second child has a much larger implications. Women may be more likely to take a break from employment when there are two children at home because the cost of child-care is so high that earnings barely cover it. Marriage increases the child penalty. This suggests that the ratio of time and energy mothers allot to children verses jobs is affected by whether they have a source of financial support other than their own earnings. Husbands provide money that allows married mothers to focus more on their children than single women can. Or they share child-care responsibilities
African-American communities have been centered on the idea that “mothers should live lives of sacrifice has come to be seen as the norm.” For any given historical moment, Black women’s relationship with one another, children, community and self actually take depends on how their dialectical relationship between the severity of oppression facing African-American women and our actions in resisting that oppression is expressed. There are distinct conditions which fostered the appearance of distinctive Black women’s standpoint on mothering including: slavery, Southern rural life, class-stratified, racially segregated neighborhoods of earlier periods of urban Black migration. “Othermothers” are common in African-American communities. They are women who assist bloodmothers by sharing mothering responsibilities-traditionally have been central to the institution of Black motherhood. Extended families are very prevalent in Black families rooting from race, gender, and class oppression. Kin units tend to be woman-centered. It was common for girls to help raise and take care of younger siblings or neighbors children. Many mothers raised their daughters implying to notion that being a African-American female in the world makes for an up-hill battle in life. Motherhood can be invoked as a symbol of power by African-American women engaged in Black women’s work. Much of U.S. Black women’s status in African-American communities stems from their actions of mothering as community othermothers. “Strong Black Women” involvement in community work was an important basis within Black civil society. Protecting black children was a primary concern of African-American mothers. They are at risk for higher infant mortality, poor nutrition, inferior housing, AIDS, violence, and several other social problems.
Modern America still has aspects of a patriarchal system. An example of this is a strong pressure to give children their father’s surname. Although there have been several modifications to the more traditional patriarchal system, there is still a domination of children of women by men. Economic superiority and other privileges of a male-dominated social system make this possible. The idea of the “Genetic Tie” connecting parents to children gives them an equal amount of legal rights over the child. With value being placed on the see, the “real mother” and “real father” are the genetic parents. But with substitution being common today, we can choose a woman to substitute us in a pregnancy. From this arises the question of who is the mother: The one who nurtures it or the one who shares genes. This issue has been seen for a while since historically it has been asked. Women of privilege or wealth hire services of the poor and can buy some of the privileges of patriarchy. They can use bodies of poorer women to “bear offspring.” Today, we hire “substitute mothers.” Baby-sitters, day care, nannies take traditional tasks of mothers. This form of “mother” is highly devalued. Today this is an Oedipus-complex concerning child-care. Mothers seek out good child-care yet feel threatened by it at the same time. But the truth is, a relationship is definitely formed between a child and the person who takes care of him or her. Who is with that child should be thought of not as a substitute-someone else but as a first-person, one-on-one direct relationship to that childe. That position deserves respect and value.
Growing up with a “stay-at-home-mom” I’ve seen first hand the under appreciation of mothering. Child-care was never an option for my mother once all six of us kids (within an 8 year span) needed to be taken care of. It would not have been worth paid child-care for six kids and almost cheaper for my mom to stay at home. My mom went to college and had a career up until she had kids. Because my dad was able to support the family financially, she was able to stay home with us. We were lucky though because my dad still was able to be almost as involved as my mother since his job allowed him to be home with us more days than away.
It is not impossible to have a successful career and still raise kids. But it I not easy and it seems that you end up sacrificing one for the other in many cases. A woman without any children can work overtime and travel without having to worry about taking care of her children. This leads to steady promotions and career building. Yet when one has children, a woman usually can’t travel as much anymore, has to leave work by certain times, and cater to her children. I know many moms who use there sick days for their children and not for themselves. They don’t really have a choice, they need to take care of their kids but work usually doesn’t cater to the needs of employees children.
I found it surprising, yet understandable that a mother’s worth was so high. I can completely see how such a high price is reached, but it is something I don’t think many people really think about. It is so easy for mothers’ work to go unnoticed but they really do a lot. I know some moms who find their work at their jobs easier than work at home.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
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 17th and 18th century
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
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.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Blog #1 Historical Perspective on Family and Work
The readings for this week look historically throughout the years at family and work, focusing mostly on women in the work force and marriage. In the past, generally women’s jobs tended to be centered on the household, whether it was manual labor for the household or raising children. Women’s roles became more involved in the market as commercial economy developed. Still, a division in of labor within the home was still prevalent and males tended to control capital and have the primary responsibility of the family. Women’s work at home was seen “necessary for survival” and took many hours to perform. After industrialization waged work became more available to women. The Industrial Revolution transformed domestic tasks into paid labor Even when “real” work was available to them, work at home was still necessary so it was like having two jobs.
In Chapter 2 of “From Marriage to the Market” a black female profession in the 1950s is quoted saying “I am a little fed up,” expressing resentment towards their husbands’ expectation of their domestic labor and having the notion that “woman is the homemaker and man is the breadwinner.” I completely sympathize with her resentment. There is no reason why those roles cannot be reversed and a man “stay at home.” I feel like today it is more common for a “stay a home dad” to exist, and for men to take over some of the domestic duties, especially with more woman at work. In my own experience, my father actually did just as many “domestic duties” as my mother, even though he worked and she didn’t (until she got a part-time job once all us kids were grown up.) My father cooked for us a lot more than my mother ever did, made us breakfast in the morning, and even prepared our lunches for school. My mom was responsible for many other things, but in general they tried to split the domestic duties since that wasn’t really my mom’s forte.
I thought that the statistics on a mother’s median age at last childbirth from Kingsley’s “Wives and Work” was surprising. More recently the age has been decreasing significantly, but the latest age of 27 (1950s) seems extremely young. I’m curious to know what the statistics are for today. I feel like the trend is no longer getting younger and the age is higher. Women seem to be getting married not quite as young as in the 1950s and therefore childbearing happens later.
In Chapter 2 of “From Marriage to the Market” a black female profession in the 1950s is quoted saying “I am a little fed up,” expressing resentment towards their husbands’ expectation of their domestic labor and having the notion that “woman is the homemaker and man is the breadwinner.” I completely sympathize with her resentment. There is no reason why those roles cannot be reversed and a man “stay at home.” I feel like today it is more common for a “stay a home dad” to exist, and for men to take over some of the domestic duties, especially with more woman at work. In my own experience, my father actually did just as many “domestic duties” as my mother, even though he worked and she didn’t (until she got a part-time job once all us kids were grown up.) My father cooked for us a lot more than my mother ever did, made us breakfast in the morning, and even prepared our lunches for school. My mom was responsible for many other things, but in general they tried to split the domestic duties since that wasn’t really my mom’s forte.
I thought that the statistics on a mother’s median age at last childbirth from Kingsley’s “Wives and Work” was surprising. More recently the age has been decreasing significantly, but the latest age of 27 (1950s) seems extremely young. I’m curious to know what the statistics are for today. I feel like the trend is no longer getting younger and the age is higher. Women seem to be getting married not quite as young as in the 1950s and therefore childbearing happens later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)