blog 8

Uttal’s article described a study into why black and Mexican-American mothers utilize kin for childcare more than whites. Three theories exist already: that it’s due to cultural preference, it’s an adaptive response to structural constraint, or it’s a combination of structural and cultural reasons. Anglos tended to say kincare was inappropriate (since it imposed on their relatives and they didn’t want to owe them), but Mexican-Americans and black mothers said it was appropriate, though it wasn’t necessarily their first preference of child care. Mex-Americans saw it as providing their relatives with decent jobs. The study showed that people take the needs of their relatives into account, not just their own preferences.
I am glad that this article dug deeper into the question of why exactly non-whites tend use kincare and whites don’t. The difference is usually chalked up to vague “cultural differences” or generic “poverty.” But this study added a new dimension by suggesting that Mexican-Americans see kincare as a way of providing their relatives with jobs. This article also looked at the issue from a new perspective, acknowledging that people don’t just use relatives for their own purposes, but also take their relatives’ needs into account. However, the author is right in admitting that more research needs to be done on black family systems, since she was not able to provide much information.
“The Color of Family Ties” discussed how the media and policy makers focus mainly on the nuclear family, though black and Latinos have a more extended kin system. Whites tend to help relatives out financially and emotionally, but black/Latinos tend to help out with practical tasks. The authors suggest that it is class, rather than race, that determines how involved people are with their extended kin. Reliance on kin is related to a lack of marital ties, since marriage weakens extended ties. They suggest that social policies, like the FMLA, should acknowledge extended family ties.
I agree with the authors’ point that the use of extended kin systems correlates more to class than to race, though I’m sure cultural values have some impact. In my own experience, I have seen that working- or lower-class whites have similar extended kincare situations as lower- or working-class people of other ethnicities. It makes sense, since people with less resources and human capital have to rely on their extended family networks more to get help with necessary tasks like childcare and housing. Also, lower-class people are less likely to spend time giving their relatives emotional support if what they really need is immediate practical help, regardless of race.
In “Explaining the gender gap in help to parents,” Gerstel and Sarkisian seek to answer this question: to what extent are differences in job and employment responsible for women helping out elderly parents more than men? They suggest that higher wages correspond to less hours of helping, so men’s economic privilege means they help less. But men and women with the same job help about the same. Also, married people help parents less than single, because marriage eats up people’s time. Policy implications: stop decreasing public aid for elderly, since their children have less time/ability to help out.
The finding that men and women with similar jobs help out about the same amount calls the stereotype that women are naturally more caring into question. While men and women may care in different ways, such as doing different tasks or using different affection styles, they are equally likely to help out. I wonder if the reason that men and women care differently is in fact “natural” (as in evolutionary) or if it culturally constructed. It is probably a mixture of both. But at least literature like this acknowledges that men and women are both caring, provided they are economically/occupationally equal. As we get closer to gender equality in the job market, a transformation of ideas about caring will follow.
Di Leonardo’s article discussed the ‘work of kinship,’ the efforts that people, usually women, go to for the sake of maintaining extended family ties. It competes for women’s time, along with paid work, housework, and carework. As the home sphere separated from the work sphere, the women became responsible for the emotional/home labor. The author addressed the debate about whether women do it out of natural nurturance or did it unwillingly out of indirect coercion. But she maintains that kinwork is both labor and a form of emotional gratification, and that it’s nature will likely change along with residential patterns, the economy, technology, and gender roles.
This was perhaps my favorite article that we read all year. I had never heard that type of work labeled before, and I think the “work of kinship” is a fitting title. At least in my family, it is such a huge part of our daily life, and maintaining kinship ties really does take a lot of effort and time. But the author was also correct in saying it is unlike most other forms of work, because it is emotionally gratifying and practically useful. I also liked her moderate position on whether women do it out of nurturance or begrudging obligation. It can be both. I would love to see another, wider-scale study in a few decades to see how the work of kinship changes from generation to generation. It is likely that more men will get involved, though it would be quite interesting if that DIDN’T happen, even as gender roles get more egalitarian.