Jackie Woods Fam and Work Blog 7
Hocschild’s “Joey’s Problem” follows a married couple, Nancy and Evan. The author pays particular attention to how they divide the household labor and what impact it has on their family life. Even though Nancy considers herself a feminist, she still finds herself working the dreaded “second shift”. She resented Evan for his lack of assistance with household tasks, but convinced herself that everything was fair (since Evan took care of the garage and therefore the upstairs was her domain). Their different expectations surrounding gender roles took a toll on their marriage, however. They are a prime example of the “stalled revolution” in household work.
The story of Nancy and Evan was very vividly relayed. It was quite refreshing to see how these gender-division issues play out in real life, not just from a statistical perspective. One thing that stuck out in my mind was how the author brought up Nancy and Evan’s relationships with their mothers as the most influential reason behind their respective views about housework (and their respective neuroses). As we have discussed in class, our culture today relies heavily on psychological theories that “blame the parent” for people’s problems. It is the go-to explanation for almost every personality problem. Since the mother is the parent that is more commonly considered the culprit, women feel even more pressure to intensively mother their children. This perpetuates the system of domesticity by keeping women feeling like they should be putting the most work into being the main caregiver.
In “Autonomy, Dependence, or Display?”, Gupta looks at the relationship between married women’s income and the amount of household work they do. He critiques the two existing explanations of the lack of correlation between women’s income and the division of labor: that wives are economically dependent on their husbands so feel obligated to do work for them, or that high-earning women feel the need to keep up on housework to confirm their femininity to themselves and their husbands. His study determined that women act as free economic agents based on their own income, and that higher earnings matter little in explaining the labor division.
I was rather confused by this article. I did not quite understand how Gupta used the point that there is little correlation between women’s income and household work to conclude that women are free economic agents based on their income. But, regardless, his critique of the two theories about labor-inequality was interesting. In my own personal life, I could see how the theory about doing housework to assert femininity could be legitimate. Women (my two student-athlete friends included) often do things here at college like bake cookies or clean the house and then say light-heartedly “I just wanted to feel all housewifey”. I know that these girls compete in college athletics, so often are insecure about being perceived as “girly” enough. Consequently, they overcompensate by doing ‘traditionally’ female things, like putting on lots of makeup after practice or baking things. A high-powered career can be considered similar to athletics in the sense that neither is considered an overwhelmingly “female” realm. So I imagine that women in both realms use similar coping mechanisms.
Carrington’s “Domesticity and the Political Economy of Lesbigay Families” consisted of personal interviews with lesbigay couples and the analysis of their household labor dynamics. Like many heterosexual couples, gay couples subscribe to the myth that everything is, and should be, egalitarian. But most modern relationships consist of a partner who is more domestically geared and one who is better described as a “breadwinner”. In lesbigay couples, the partner who has the less intensive (read: more ‘feminine”) job often shoulders more domestic responsibility. Carrington makes the point that lesbigay couples often find themselves falling into traditional domestic gender-roles.
The examples Carrington used of lesbigay couples struggling with the same issues as heterosexual couples demonstrated just how deeply we have internalized domestic gender roles. It is likely that these lesbigay people have internalized these ideas about domesticity and gender roles from their parents, since their parents were of the generation where that ideology prevailed. They revert back to the homemaker-breadwinner model even though they are both of the same gender. It would be interesting to see if these lesbigay couple’s children have the same notions about the division of household labor (that there is a domestic one and an earner one) and how it lines up to gender. If they do, despite being raised in a relatively egalitarian household, then it may warrant further investigation. Though, I don’t personally see how a household could get by without one partner being a little more domestic, though I understand the author’s point that it often perpetuates pseudo-gender stereotypes.
In “Doing Housework,” DerVault describes housework, particularly feeding, as something different than paid work. She explains that the process of meal-planning and meal-making is very involved, and is often looked upon as a labor of love. The meal-maker, usually the woman, tends to be deferent to other family members’ needs, tailoring it to their tastes and schedules and maybe even forgoing food her own food. DerVault ‘s purpose was to show that housework is complicated, necessary, and symbolic, not the busywork it is often portrayed as.
This article called attention to the hard work that goes into housework. So often, full-time workers see themselves as working “harder” than homemakers. This article proves that “hard” is such a relative distinction, it is difficult to really say who puts more effort into their respective tasks. I think that full-time workers may feel they work harder because they have less flexibility and less control over their workplace than homemakers. But, homemakers actually have to keep a lot of “rules” (albeit informal ones) in mind when they work to do things like create meals. This article just goes to show how housework is something different than paid work, so it is very difficult to compare.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Work and Family Response 5
In her article, Frances Goldsheider determined that household tasks are gender-differentiated, and hence perpetuate the unequal division of labor between men and women. Though kids don’t do that many chores, older children tend to get more involved in household work. Teenage girls take on a lot more than boys, though teenage boys do a substantial amount if they live with a single mother. Tasks are generally allocated based on traditional gender roles (girls do laundry, boys do yardwork), though boys with single mothers learn how to do traditionally female tasks as well. Interestingly, both boys and girls living with stepfathers do more work than their two-parent counterparts.
Ellen Galinsky asked children what they thought about their mothers working. She hoped to add children’s input to some of the current debates surrounding this issue. She concluded that most children don’t mind their mothers working. Kids want to spend more time with their fathers. Child care is good for kids, unless it is low-quality. Also, she determined that kids would rather spend fewer hours with their parents if they are not stressed and tired than spend more time with grouchy parents. She said that we as a society should help mother find a middle ground, since working and parenting does not have to be an “either-or” situation. She also thinks it is vital to get kids’ input on these types of issues.
In “How to Succeed in Childhood”, Judith Harris questions whether the emphasis on parents modeling and instilling values is really necessary. She says that a “successful” child is really just learning what different behaviors they need to adopt to be accepted at home or at school or with their peers. She argues that most socialization occurs with peers, and that children’s groups/cliques are how they truly learn their own identity. The purpose of her article, she says, is to take some of the burden off parents.
Zelizer traces the changing notions of children’s economic usefulness. She outlines some of the current debates going on about whether children should work, and whether it should be for pay. The image of the child as “priceless” is changing, as people see t hem as obstacles to career success or encourage them to act like adults too early. Also, as more mothers work outside the home, it is becoming more necessary for kids to help out around the house. Consequently, people argue that children should do more work in the home, though there is debate over whether they should be paid. She points out that attitudes about children’s money will have to change if they begin to take a larger part in work, whether in our outside the home.
I liked the Goldsheider and Galinsky articles because they provided a factual (statistical) background to the debates around these issues. Though surveys don’t tell the whole story, they help set up the framework for studying topics further. Both articles also resonated with me because of my own personal history. When Galinsky stated that children would rather spend less time with their parents if it meant that they were less stressed and tired, I was reminded that I often felt like that as a child. Both my parents worked very long hours, and would often be grouchy and exhausted on weeknights. I remember thinking that I would rather only see them on weekends, because that is when they were happy and we had fun. Also, I agree with Goldsheider that tasks are gender-differentiated. While this may sometimes be appropriate (like if teenage boys lift heavy objects instead of girls), it doesn’t have to be as divided as it is. I have noticed that many males in my generation do know how to do “feminine” household tasks, especially if their parents were egalitarian/progressive, but most still are a little shaky. In fact, many girls are shaky on them too. As Zelizer reiterates, people our age, on average, did not grow up doing that many household chores. If we did, they were pretty light ones. As Zelizer implied, this is rather counterintuitive. Since our mothers are working and our parents have less time than ever before to do housework, wouldn’t it make sense that children helped out more? However, our notion that childhood is a time for play and study, not work, prevents parents from delegating too many tasks to their children. It is almost as if parents want children to spend time preparing for the workforce so that they will be so successful they will not need to do their own housework. Housework is becoming less and less valued, so now kids are being taught that it is something that they should avoid. But, Harris would argue, it is not what parents are teaching their kids about the value of housework that will shape their attitudes about it, but rather their peer groups.
Ellen Galinsky asked children what they thought about their mothers working. She hoped to add children’s input to some of the current debates surrounding this issue. She concluded that most children don’t mind their mothers working. Kids want to spend more time with their fathers. Child care is good for kids, unless it is low-quality. Also, she determined that kids would rather spend fewer hours with their parents if they are not stressed and tired than spend more time with grouchy parents. She said that we as a society should help mother find a middle ground, since working and parenting does not have to be an “either-or” situation. She also thinks it is vital to get kids’ input on these types of issues.
In “How to Succeed in Childhood”, Judith Harris questions whether the emphasis on parents modeling and instilling values is really necessary. She says that a “successful” child is really just learning what different behaviors they need to adopt to be accepted at home or at school or with their peers. She argues that most socialization occurs with peers, and that children’s groups/cliques are how they truly learn their own identity. The purpose of her article, she says, is to take some of the burden off parents.
Zelizer traces the changing notions of children’s economic usefulness. She outlines some of the current debates going on about whether children should work, and whether it should be for pay. The image of the child as “priceless” is changing, as people see t hem as obstacles to career success or encourage them to act like adults too early. Also, as more mothers work outside the home, it is becoming more necessary for kids to help out around the house. Consequently, people argue that children should do more work in the home, though there is debate over whether they should be paid. She points out that attitudes about children’s money will have to change if they begin to take a larger part in work, whether in our outside the home.
I liked the Goldsheider and Galinsky articles because they provided a factual (statistical) background to the debates around these issues. Though surveys don’t tell the whole story, they help set up the framework for studying topics further. Both articles also resonated with me because of my own personal history. When Galinsky stated that children would rather spend less time with their parents if it meant that they were less stressed and tired, I was reminded that I often felt like that as a child. Both my parents worked very long hours, and would often be grouchy and exhausted on weeknights. I remember thinking that I would rather only see them on weekends, because that is when they were happy and we had fun. Also, I agree with Goldsheider that tasks are gender-differentiated. While this may sometimes be appropriate (like if teenage boys lift heavy objects instead of girls), it doesn’t have to be as divided as it is. I have noticed that many males in my generation do know how to do “feminine” household tasks, especially if their parents were egalitarian/progressive, but most still are a little shaky. In fact, many girls are shaky on them too. As Zelizer reiterates, people our age, on average, did not grow up doing that many household chores. If we did, they were pretty light ones. As Zelizer implied, this is rather counterintuitive. Since our mothers are working and our parents have less time than ever before to do housework, wouldn’t it make sense that children helped out more? However, our notion that childhood is a time for play and study, not work, prevents parents from delegating too many tasks to their children. It is almost as if parents want children to spend time preparing for the workforce so that they will be so successful they will not need to do their own housework. Housework is becoming less and less valued, so now kids are being taught that it is something that they should avoid. But, Harris would argue, it is not what parents are teaching their kids about the value of housework that will shape their attitudes about it, but rather their peer groups.
Friday, October 2, 2009
work and family response 4
The Deutsch article talks about working-class couples who work on alternating shifts to avoid placing children in daycare. While the mothers are at work, many fathers have to take over the role of “Mr. Mom.” This goes against traditional notions of gender roles. Though these people, especially the men, cling to the values of the breadwinner system, their financial situations don’t allow them to live that way. Without aspiring to, these couples have adopted a more egalitarian division of labor, even when still subscribing to old-fashioned ideas of father as earner and mother as care-taker. She determines that many of these Mr. Moms would revert to traditional roles if they could afford it, though many of the wives enjoy having careers.
Dorothy Roberts argues that, contrary to popular belief, the poverty of black children is caused by racial oppression, not by their fathers being absent. Fatherlessness is a convenient excuse that dominant whites use to explain why many black families are living in poverty (it puts the onus on the black people themselves, not the system, for their troubles. She also speaks out against the policy of collecting child support for poor children in lieu of providing them welfare; since many black men are unemployed, their children would have more money coming to them if they received public assistance. People are so quick to judge the black family system as dysfunctional, she believes, since it is in contrast to the dominant white patriarchal image of a good father as a “married breadwinner.” (p. 152)
In Chapters 1 and 9 of No Man’s Land, Kathleen Gerson emphasizes that the modern reality that most men live does not match the dominant breadwinner image. Since women’s place has changed so much in recent decades, men find themselves redefining their roles too. Loss of men’s economic entitlement, the employment of women, and changes in family patterns have led to questions about what constitutes masculinity these days. If a man doesn’t necessarily run the house and win the bread, what does he do? Gerson’s research suggests that, though some men cling to the vestiges of patriarchy, many are abandoning the breadwinner system that they grew up in. A new image of father/husband as emotionally and practically involved in the family is emerging, albeit slowly.
I was glad that we did a chapter on men and fatherhood. Oftentimes, sociological literature concentrates on women’s issues. Though the study of women’s role in society is undeniably important, social changes affect men’s lives too. And since men’s lives are intertwined with those of women and children, it is a good idea to know how they as a gender are faring.
The Deutsch and Gerson articles talked about the changing roles of fathers, and to what extent they cling to or abandon the values of the breadwinner system. I think that 100 years from now, people in a history class are going to read their articles as primary sources, to learn about how things were back when we were making the transition from the “old” breadwinner system to the “new” egalitarian system. I think we are in the midst of a major sea change. As the economy changes, a new definition of family is emerging, along with entirely new gender roles. As the articles discuss, even people who want to cling to the traditional breadwinner family-organization are being forced to accept a more egalitarian way of life. Since children are being raised with their parents having a more egalitarian relationship, they will likely go onto model that when they start their own families. Many more children may even elect to remain unmarried, since divorce and nonmarraige among their parents today is so common. Roberts’ article also touched upon this generational influence: many black fathers are comfortable raising their children in “nontraditional” family units because that is how they were raised. Though none of these authors (except Roberts) explicitly call for policy reform, these articles demonstrate that the notion of the “proper” family is changing. So, policies are going to have to change with it.
Dorothy Roberts argues that, contrary to popular belief, the poverty of black children is caused by racial oppression, not by their fathers being absent. Fatherlessness is a convenient excuse that dominant whites use to explain why many black families are living in poverty (it puts the onus on the black people themselves, not the system, for their troubles. She also speaks out against the policy of collecting child support for poor children in lieu of providing them welfare; since many black men are unemployed, their children would have more money coming to them if they received public assistance. People are so quick to judge the black family system as dysfunctional, she believes, since it is in contrast to the dominant white patriarchal image of a good father as a “married breadwinner.” (p. 152)
In Chapters 1 and 9 of No Man’s Land, Kathleen Gerson emphasizes that the modern reality that most men live does not match the dominant breadwinner image. Since women’s place has changed so much in recent decades, men find themselves redefining their roles too. Loss of men’s economic entitlement, the employment of women, and changes in family patterns have led to questions about what constitutes masculinity these days. If a man doesn’t necessarily run the house and win the bread, what does he do? Gerson’s research suggests that, though some men cling to the vestiges of patriarchy, many are abandoning the breadwinner system that they grew up in. A new image of father/husband as emotionally and practically involved in the family is emerging, albeit slowly.
I was glad that we did a chapter on men and fatherhood. Oftentimes, sociological literature concentrates on women’s issues. Though the study of women’s role in society is undeniably important, social changes affect men’s lives too. And since men’s lives are intertwined with those of women and children, it is a good idea to know how they as a gender are faring.
The Deutsch and Gerson articles talked about the changing roles of fathers, and to what extent they cling to or abandon the values of the breadwinner system. I think that 100 years from now, people in a history class are going to read their articles as primary sources, to learn about how things were back when we were making the transition from the “old” breadwinner system to the “new” egalitarian system. I think we are in the midst of a major sea change. As the economy changes, a new definition of family is emerging, along with entirely new gender roles. As the articles discuss, even people who want to cling to the traditional breadwinner family-organization are being forced to accept a more egalitarian way of life. Since children are being raised with their parents having a more egalitarian relationship, they will likely go onto model that when they start their own families. Many more children may even elect to remain unmarried, since divorce and nonmarraige among their parents today is so common. Roberts’ article also touched upon this generational influence: many black fathers are comfortable raising their children in “nontraditional” family units because that is how they were raised. Though none of these authors (except Roberts) explicitly call for policy reform, these articles demonstrate that the notion of the “proper” family is changing. So, policies are going to have to change with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)