Crittendon’s “The Price of Motherhood” discusses the ambivalence Americans have towards motherhood: it is glorified as the most important job in the world, yet it is still considered a non-productive, immaterial job. In our culture, work is that which produces capital. Since motherhood produces human capital (good workers and consumers for the future), she argues that mothers should get more concrete benefits. She suggests changing policies to reward mothers for their work by granting them income support (treating stay-at-home mothering like any other job) and not denying them benefits because they don’t hold a paying job. She says we should avoid “free-riding” on their labor.
The Budig article was a rather technical analysis of several studies on the wage penalty that seems to affect mothers. According to the article, mothers may take a earnings cut because they lose job experience, are less productive at work, take lower-paying jobs if they are more mother-friendly, or are discriminated against by employers. The conclusion was that mothers, especially married ones, take a 2/3 wage penalty, and earn less with each child. The article proposed the collectivization of child-care (everyone pays into it) as a solution to this problem.
The Budig and Crittendon articles brought up a similar point: American society puts mothers in a real bind. Women still feel like they as mothers should still be the main caregiver, and they feel responsible for creating the workers/people of the future. Yet they now must holdfull-time jobs at the same time. As of right now, a woman can’t give both tasks her all, even though they feel like they should. I agree will both authors suggestions that society give mothers more support by providing them with monetary benefits (like the English parental stipend, which gives parents a sum of money to help with childcare or expenses) and employers should make work more flexible to accommodate people’s family responsibilities. The collectivization of childcare seems like a good idea, especially if the state made it a priority to have quality child care. But Crittendon’s discussion of how mothers have the job of raising human capital so should be rewarded as if they did another job made me kind of sad; it just goes to show how capitalism and its emphasis on production, consumption, and efficiency has become more than just an economic system. It infiltrates how we view the individual as a person and hence how we set up our families. I guess that family and the economic system are always closely intertwined. It just seems sad that people value mothers for their ability to produce workers and consumers, and that it is so clearly all about the dollar bill.
The Rothman article was an interesting essay on how the patriarchal system and its emphasis on the genetic “seed” producing the child and the father owning “his” child has influenced our current notions of parenthood. Now that women are become more equal in status to men, they have adopted this notion of providing the seed to produce their “own” child. Women are gaining freedom, though still under the context of a male-created system of power and worldview. But with new reproductive technologies, like surrogate mothers and test tube fertilization, it is hard to determine who a child “belongs” to. Is it the genetic parent, or the person who raises and loves it? Nannies are the new mother in the sense that they are powerless and devalued, despite their responsibility. She suggests a new way of looking at childcare, that whoever is minding the child is not a replacement for a parent, but a parent in themselves and therefore has rights.
“Black Women and Motherhood” argues that, despite the glorification of the self-sacrificing mother by the black community (especially men), motherhood is still oppressive for black women in many respects. She discusses five themes that have persisted throughout the history of African-American mothering: women-centered kin networks and “othermothers” have always been responsible for childcare; mothers had to socialize daughters for survival, even if it meant teaching them to degrade themselves; the language of motherhood and family has been used in political activism; motherhood had been a symbol of power in the community; motherhood both empowers and oppresses black women, often because they have to mother in such terrible conditions. The author thinks that the verbal affirmations of mothers by their children are good, but they must be given more actual support by men and society at-large.
I found this article quite informative. It is rare that the literature about feminism and family issues explicitly addresses cultural differences. Many articles mention cultural differences, but most do not concentrate exclusively on minority culture unless they are comparing it to the mainstream. It is important to acknowledge that other cultures, such as African Americans, can have totally different ideas and experiences of mothering, even though they mother in a culture that has very different notions. Understanding how a culture does something so essential as mothering/parenting is helpful because policymakers hopefully will take the differences into account when designing plans. It is always a shame when a policy doesn’t take into account how a group of people traditionally do things, like the system of “othermothering”, so they essentially force the minority to conform to their notions of how things should be. For example, the othermothering structure may begin to dissipate because it is not legally recognized as a parent-child relationship. This connects to what Rothman brings up about our society’s emphasis on genetic parentage. Though I think her theory was at times extreme (she seemed to be stretching the facts a little bit to fit the ideology), it was certainly an interesting take on our current notions of parenthood and how it connects to the patriarchal system. I can think of a lot of examples of how women becoming equal means taking on traditionally masculine roles (such as taking on “masculine” traits in the workplace). If you looked at everything through a gender-power lens, it makes sense that now hired nannies are equivalent to “mothers”, the powerless ones. But I do think there is something to be said for the instinctual connection that exists between genetic parent and child. To my knowledge, no society exists where the raising of children is completely collectivized such that nobody cares who is genetically related to whom. I think a society like that would go against our basic biology, though I agree that things are changing. As more and more families are organized in ways other than genetically, policy must change to recognize these relationships. People are starting to be more open to the group-raising of children. But I don’t think genetics will or should seize to matter at all, like she seems to suggest.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
blog 2
The selections from Joan Williams’ “Unbending Gender” discuss the rise of “domesticity” and the “breadwinner system.” Domesticity (work and home are both physically and characteristically separate) is the prevailing system in the U.S. today. The rhetoric has three main tenets: employers have a right to “ideal” workers who will not be compromised by family responsibilities, men are required to be full-time ideal workers, and mothers should be fully available to tend to the physical and emotional needs of their children. Williams argues that it caused, and now perpetuates, many of the gender problems that exist today, since only full-time workers who can give their all to the job (usually men) are considered valuable and successful. Women now have to work outside the home, but also feel they should be there for their kids. They are presented with a “choice”: be either a worker or a mom. But, most have to be both. Williams thinks that this system hurts all members of the family by stretching them too thin and restricting them to roles that might not be the best for their particular situation.
I had never heard our current work/family system referred to as “domesticity.” But I am glad that there is a name for it. I definitely agree with William’s argument that this system of domesticity, with its sharp distinction between work and home, hurts all members of the family. It puts so much pressure on both genders to stick to their role and stick to it well: men have to work 40+ hours a week, women have to have parenting as their main concern, even if they are working an additional job. Many men are all but excluded from parenting, and many women are all but excluded from workplace success. Why can’t both genders take part in both the economic and domestic sides of life? As Williams points out, it is not as if this breadwinner system is the “natural” way to go about things. For centuries, work and home were intertwined, with both men and women sharing the burdens of raising and supporting a family. Now masculinity is associated with being a workaholic at your job. As women strive to gain equality in the workplace, many have adopted these workaholic traits to be taken seriously at their professions. At the same time they are expected to give their job 100%, they are expected to give their family 100%. The math just doesn’t work out. At some point, I would like to read the rest of Williams’ book to see what alternatives she offers to this clearly flawed system of domesticity.
In “From Rods to Reason,” Sharon Hays traces the historical development of attitudes towards child-rearing. She focuses mainly on middle-class white families, but acknowledges the differences among working-class and other ethnic populations. Throughout the article, she uses a “shepherd, sheepdog, sheep” metaphor to illustrate the roles of the father, mother, and children (respectively). Parenting styles transformed throughout the centuries as attitudes towards childhood changed and the breadwinner system came into prominence (mother’s took over almost all of the child-rearing). She follows these developments through to today, where the permissive style dominates and parents look to experts like Doctor Spock to tell them how to raise their child properly.
“American Fathering from a Historical Perspective” by Joseph Pleck follows the changing role of fathers in the family throughout the decades. Up until the 19th century, the father was the “moral overseer” of the family and was responsible for guiding the children and wife in worldly affairs. From the early 19th to the mid-20th centuries, when work and home spheres became separate, the father became the “distant breadwinner” who earned the money but spent little time with the children. During this phase, the father also became idealized as the model of masculinity for his children, teaching his sons how to be men. Today, the breadwinner model still dominates, though Pleck acknowledges that a “New Father” is emerging, who involves himself more with the day-to-day aspects of childrearing.
Like the other authors we read this week, Sharon Hays and Joseph Pleck laid a great historical groundwork for the study of work and family. The history of work/family issues isn’t just interesting to learn about; it helps us better understand what is going on today. As they both demonstrated in their articles, styles of parenting and running families have changed pretty drastically in the last few centuries. They can be broken down into distinct stages. But these stages didn’t just happen out of nowhere. As with most social trends, they developed on top of one another. For example, the “new father” of today, with his involved style of parenting, is a direct reaction to the breadwinner system. Many men did not like how absent their workaholic fathers were when they were young, so now they are very present in their children’s lives. The passive parenting method, which dictates that children should be allowed to develop relatively unhindered by parental restrictions, didn’t just show up out of nowhere. As Hays said, parents have been getting gradually less authoritarian ever since the 17th century, when the notion of the child as an innocent came into fashion. When studying today’s society, it is so helpful to look at in historical context, to better understand where we are today. Also, I liked how both Hays and Pleck acknowledged that the childrearing trends varied (and still vary) between classes and ethnic groups.
I had never heard our current work/family system referred to as “domesticity.” But I am glad that there is a name for it. I definitely agree with William’s argument that this system of domesticity, with its sharp distinction between work and home, hurts all members of the family. It puts so much pressure on both genders to stick to their role and stick to it well: men have to work 40+ hours a week, women have to have parenting as their main concern, even if they are working an additional job. Many men are all but excluded from parenting, and many women are all but excluded from workplace success. Why can’t both genders take part in both the economic and domestic sides of life? As Williams points out, it is not as if this breadwinner system is the “natural” way to go about things. For centuries, work and home were intertwined, with both men and women sharing the burdens of raising and supporting a family. Now masculinity is associated with being a workaholic at your job. As women strive to gain equality in the workplace, many have adopted these workaholic traits to be taken seriously at their professions. At the same time they are expected to give their job 100%, they are expected to give their family 100%. The math just doesn’t work out. At some point, I would like to read the rest of Williams’ book to see what alternatives she offers to this clearly flawed system of domesticity.
In “From Rods to Reason,” Sharon Hays traces the historical development of attitudes towards child-rearing. She focuses mainly on middle-class white families, but acknowledges the differences among working-class and other ethnic populations. Throughout the article, she uses a “shepherd, sheepdog, sheep” metaphor to illustrate the roles of the father, mother, and children (respectively). Parenting styles transformed throughout the centuries as attitudes towards childhood changed and the breadwinner system came into prominence (mother’s took over almost all of the child-rearing). She follows these developments through to today, where the permissive style dominates and parents look to experts like Doctor Spock to tell them how to raise their child properly.
“American Fathering from a Historical Perspective” by Joseph Pleck follows the changing role of fathers in the family throughout the decades. Up until the 19th century, the father was the “moral overseer” of the family and was responsible for guiding the children and wife in worldly affairs. From the early 19th to the mid-20th centuries, when work and home spheres became separate, the father became the “distant breadwinner” who earned the money but spent little time with the children. During this phase, the father also became idealized as the model of masculinity for his children, teaching his sons how to be men. Today, the breadwinner model still dominates, though Pleck acknowledges that a “New Father” is emerging, who involves himself more with the day-to-day aspects of childrearing.
Like the other authors we read this week, Sharon Hays and Joseph Pleck laid a great historical groundwork for the study of work and family. The history of work/family issues isn’t just interesting to learn about; it helps us better understand what is going on today. As they both demonstrated in their articles, styles of parenting and running families have changed pretty drastically in the last few centuries. They can be broken down into distinct stages. But these stages didn’t just happen out of nowhere. As with most social trends, they developed on top of one another. For example, the “new father” of today, with his involved style of parenting, is a direct reaction to the breadwinner system. Many men did not like how absent their workaholic fathers were when they were young, so now they are very present in their children’s lives. The passive parenting method, which dictates that children should be allowed to develop relatively unhindered by parental restrictions, didn’t just show up out of nowhere. As Hays said, parents have been getting gradually less authoritarian ever since the 17th century, when the notion of the child as an innocent came into fashion. When studying today’s society, it is so helpful to look at in historical context, to better understand where we are today. Also, I liked how both Hays and Pleck acknowledged that the childrearing trends varied (and still vary) between classes and ethnic groups.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Historical Perspectives
Chapter 4 of Feminism, Children, and the New Families begins by stating a well-known fact: married American women under the age of 60 are entering the workforce at higher and higher rates and will likely match the rates of working husbands soon. The author attributes this shift in part to the physical separation of the home and work spheres that occurred during the Industrial Revolution, breaking down the true division of labor between husband and wife. In its place, the “breadwinner” system emerged, where the husband goes out to earn money and the wife tends to domestic chores and childrearing. This system became deeply embedded in our culture and laws, until recently, when women began to leave the home to take outside employment. Postponed marriage (to avoid financial burden of supporting a stay-at-home wife), couples having less children (women had time to work), and people living longer (women had many years after their kids left home to work) all contributed to the disintegration of the breadwinner. The article then goes on to predict that law and morality will change to facilitate a greater connection between work and family, counter-acting the jarring separation that exists between the two today.
Chapter 2 of From Marriage to the Market addresses many of the same topics as the previous article, though it discusses African-American women’s experiences as well as whites’. Susan Thistle talks about the gradual disappearance of support for women’s domestic labor. During the late 19th century and early 20th, women were kept at home to do all the chores, which were very time consuming, while men went out of the home to earn wages. As women entered the workforce, employers used the excuse that they had to do all the chores in addition to work (which would prevent them from giving their full attention to the job) to avoid paying them full wages. Many white women avoided having to enter the workforce, but countless black women became responsible for both paid and domestic work. Though the breadwinner system persisted, the fundamental gender roles and tasks that kept it together were starting to fall apart.
Having set the stage, Thistle then goes on in Chapter 3 to talk about why married women entered the workforce in droves in the second half of the 20th century. Basically, she attributes it to the fact that domestic chores became easier, thanks to new technologies and the fact that women lives many years after their children left the house. Since women didn’t have to be working at chores all day, their husbands (and the state) did not want to have to support them sitting at home. Coupled with a growing sense of dissatisfaction with domestic life, since many of them were now educated, women got outside work. This shift had major implications for marriage and family life, as well as family law and the economy.
Though I found the Feminism article informative (I especially like how the authors pointed out that the breadwinner is not actually “traditional” as it is usually considered), I preferred the Thistle chapters. The Feminism article did a great job of discussing how the egalitarian system both reflected and influenced the changes in family/work patterns in the 20th century, but Thistle got a little more in-depth in her analysis. She approached a commonly-discussed issue from a different perspective: usually women’s entering the workforce is attributed simply to their desire for equality. But Thistle talked about the practical reasons for getting jobs. It just didn’t make sense for women to stay home all day anymore. I also think it was helpful that she tied in women’s new economic independence into the changes in sex and birth control, as well as gender roles. Our generation is dealing right now with confusions over gender roles (for example, who pays on a date?), and these two articles did a good job of explaining the factors that led to these ambiguities. I am very interested to hear what experts are predicting for the future of the work-family connection and how gender roles will play into it.
Chapter 2 of From Marriage to the Market addresses many of the same topics as the previous article, though it discusses African-American women’s experiences as well as whites’. Susan Thistle talks about the gradual disappearance of support for women’s domestic labor. During the late 19th century and early 20th, women were kept at home to do all the chores, which were very time consuming, while men went out of the home to earn wages. As women entered the workforce, employers used the excuse that they had to do all the chores in addition to work (which would prevent them from giving their full attention to the job) to avoid paying them full wages. Many white women avoided having to enter the workforce, but countless black women became responsible for both paid and domestic work. Though the breadwinner system persisted, the fundamental gender roles and tasks that kept it together were starting to fall apart.
Having set the stage, Thistle then goes on in Chapter 3 to talk about why married women entered the workforce in droves in the second half of the 20th century. Basically, she attributes it to the fact that domestic chores became easier, thanks to new technologies and the fact that women lives many years after their children left the house. Since women didn’t have to be working at chores all day, their husbands (and the state) did not want to have to support them sitting at home. Coupled with a growing sense of dissatisfaction with domestic life, since many of them were now educated, women got outside work. This shift had major implications for marriage and family life, as well as family law and the economy.
Though I found the Feminism article informative (I especially like how the authors pointed out that the breadwinner is not actually “traditional” as it is usually considered), I preferred the Thistle chapters. The Feminism article did a great job of discussing how the egalitarian system both reflected and influenced the changes in family/work patterns in the 20th century, but Thistle got a little more in-depth in her analysis. She approached a commonly-discussed issue from a different perspective: usually women’s entering the workforce is attributed simply to their desire for equality. But Thistle talked about the practical reasons for getting jobs. It just didn’t make sense for women to stay home all day anymore. I also think it was helpful that she tied in women’s new economic independence into the changes in sex and birth control, as well as gender roles. Our generation is dealing right now with confusions over gender roles (for example, who pays on a date?), and these two articles did a good job of explaining the factors that led to these ambiguities. I am very interested to hear what experts are predicting for the future of the work-family connection and how gender roles will play into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)