September 29th Class

“The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued”

by Ann Crittenden

The introduction of this book reveals the point that author is trying to convey is writing this book: the idea that a woman’s work in the home and childrearing has two sides, one that is revered and valued and the other that is seen as negative. That is to say that a caregiver’s work is something that is not paid work and often times, it is not even recognized as being a job. Yet, how women raise the young and see after children is seen as something necessary and valuable socially.

“The job of making a home for a child and developing his or her capabilities is often equated with “doing nothing.” (p. 2) This is the idea that a women’s work, though not a job related to monetary compensation, that it is in fact not a job. And it is not only adults that think this, but “Even our children have absorbed the cultural message that mothers have no stature. A friend of mine gave up a job she loved as the head of a publishing house in order to raise her daughter. One day, when she corrected the girl, the child snapped, ‘Why should I listen to you? You’re just a housewife.’” (p. 3) This story shows how ingrained the idea that a caregiver’s work is seen as not work by all parts of society.

Not only this, but it can been seen as a lack of a job and negative towards future employment opportunities. “‘[Moreover] during periods of non-participation, the human capital stock suffers from additional depreciation due to a lack of maintenance.’” (p. 4) That is to say that a woman’s economic value is depreciated the more time she spends at home with her children. The job is an integral part of the future of our society, yet it is seen as being of the least importance even though, “almost 100 percent of the primary caregivers of young children are still women.” (p. 7)

One statistic that really stood out to me was the fact that if a mother’s work was paid, then she should be earning anywhere from $100,000 to around $500,000 for the work she does. That is a well paying job and the amount of work that a woman normally has to complete is a lot, yet, society does not see it as being of value. The author of the book comments on the difficulty of motherhood by saying, “Being a good-enough mother, I found, took more patience and inner strength – not to mention intelligence, skill, wisdom, and love – than my previous life ever demanded.” (p. 11)

There is no doubt in my mind that raising a child must be difficult, but I feel like it is an outdated practice. Most families that I know of that have two parents under the same roof, have two incomes. Not only that, but they share a good deal of the work inside and outside of the home. This may be a product of the very liberal community that I am from, but sharing housework and doing outside work is still doable. That being said, for a woman that does take care of children, though it is a risk especially with the high divorce rates of modern society, must be rewarding for the number of hours put in. I also do not think that women should be paid for this, but I do agree with the idea that society should recognize it as a legitimate job.

“The Wage Penalty for Motherhood”

by Michelle Budig and Paula England

This study is trying to explain the relationship between motherhood and low wages. It uses five explanations to describe why mothers tend to get lower wages due to childrearing. The five reasons are:

“First, many women spend time at home caring for children, interrupting their job experience, or at least interrupting full-time employment. Second, mothers may trade off higher wages for “mother friendly” jobs that are easier to combine with parenting. Third, mothers may earn less because the needs of their children leave them exhausted or distracted at working, making them less productive. Fourth, employers may discriminate against mothers. Finally, perhaps the association is not really a penalty resulting from motherhood and its consequences at all. (p. 204)

The idea of human capital is an integral part of understanding lower wages due to lack of job experience. People accumulate human capital or a kind of social worth by working and participating in the labor force. This is the idea that “experience and seniority have positive returns because they involve on-the-job training that makes workers more productive.” (p. 205) That is to say, women who take time off of being employed to take care of their children have less job experience and do not move up in the ranks of a job quickly. Also, experience is linked to productivity, because experience brings practice and more knowledge of the job and without this experience, a worker cannot be more productive; the more productive a worker is the more he/she gets paid.

Many mothers also opt to be a part of “‘mother-friendly’” jobs. (p. 207) That is to say, jobs that have “flexible hours, few demands for travel or weekend or evening work, on-site day care, or availability of a phone to check on children.” (p. 207) Another characteristic of the “‘mother-friendly’” job is the ability to work part-time. These jobs are in exchange for the possibility of a more demanding, full-time job.

Another idea behind this is that employers discriminate against women because of their “motherhood status.” (p. 208) Motherhood has the potential to be very demanding if the woman in a family has to take primary responsibility for the child. Women use sick days at work to take care of children, or they need to be able to be in contact with school or after schools or babysitters, etc. This can take a lot away from a person’s job experience. And, as we talked about before, the ideal worker is one that has no distractions from the job at hand and can commit completely to over-time, late hours, and long days.

From the study that the two authors completed, they determined that a “wage penalty for motherhood of approximately 7 percent per child among young American women.” (p. 219) Not only this but, “Roughly one-third of the penalty is explained by years of past job experience and seniority, including whether past work was part time.” (p. 219) The rest of the two-thirds remains without taking into account part-time past job experience. And in order to be more accurate, in the future, they would need more research on job characteristics especially jobs that are cohesive with a demanding parenting experience.

In my opinion, taking time off of work is hard and does take a lot away from a woman’s job experience which today is a way to get ahead in our society: to get more and more job experience and move up in the ranks. But I do believe that there are ways to work around having to take time off of work and still get job experience. Even I think that individuals such as males can take time off work too, so the blow is not just focused on a woman. Many families nowadays need two incomes to stay afloat especially due to the state of the current economy. So, having two working individuals, though it may take away from parenting, in many cases, is a necessity anyway.

“Black Women and Motherhood”

by Patricia Hill Collins

There are certain images that are associated with black motherhood. For example, the image of the “superstrong Black mother.” (p. 174) These images are of strong black women that devote all their time to raising children. This image is even evident in the praise that many black men give to their mothers as being strong individuals that raised them. But there are other images as well. For example, the images of “the mammy, the matriarch and the welfare mother” are designed to “oppress” black women. (p. 176)

Also, there is the idea of different types of mothers in the black community. For example, bloodmothers are mothers that give birth to their children, but an idea central in the black community is that of what the author calls, “othermothers.” (p. 178) Othermothers are individuals (usually with ties of kinship) that help the bloodmother to raise her children. These people can be cousins, aunts, siblings, grandparents or even friends within the black community. And this idea of othermothers is very integral to the rearing of black children, according to the author. For example, “Children orphaned by sale or death of parents under slavery, children conceived through rape, children of young mothers, children born into extreme poverty or to alcoholic or drug-addicted mothers, or children who for other reasons cannot remain with their bloodmothers have all been supported by othermothers…” (p. 180)

Also, a controversial idea is the idea of sexual politics in being a black mother. “Mothers have ensured their daughters’ physical survival, but at the high cost of their emotional subordination.” (p. 183) That is to say that, “African-American mothers place a strong emphasis on protection, either by trying to shield their daughters as long as possible from the penalties attached to their derogated status or by teaching them skills of independence and self-reliance so that they will be able to protect themselves.” (p. 186)

Also, the idea of othermothers even stems from the extended family to the community as well. “These women not only feel accountable to their own kin, they experience a bond with all of the Black community’s children.” (p. 189) Many black women become “schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, and librarians[… and also] political and social leaders.” (p. 190) These ideas of community bonding not only extends from the family, but to the community as a whole.

Even though black motherhood here is seen as a source of empowerment and community building, but it can also been as a source of pain and troubles. Many black women especially those women from poorer communities cannot support children. On page 196, there was the story of the mother who has gotten pregnant and tried to take care of the situation herself and ended up killing herself with turpentine. This is an example of how mothering can be burdensome and how many poor families have no other way to get around it, especially in a community that has pronatalist values.

All these ideas on black community and mothering are something that many not only be innate in the black community. I come from an area in Cambridge where the Hispanic community is very strong. And when I was younger, many times my grandmother or aunt or uncle would take care of my sister and I. This many not be something just particular to the black community, but it may be indicative of a minority community in the United States. I feel like especially when your family is from another country, then all your family that is from there but in the local vicinity, the bonds you form with your kin can be really strong.

“Women as Fathers: Motherhood and Child Care under a Modified Patriarchy”

by Barbara Katz Rothman

This reading talks about the ties between mothers and fathers and their young. There used to be a system of patriarchy where the father was the main caregiver, but nowadays there has been a shift from a father figure to a mother as the primary caregiver. In today’s world, “women are said to own their babies, have “rights” to them, just as men do: based on their seed.” (p. 91) But the relationships between mother and child are not just genetic. But instead, “The parent-child relationship is invested with social and legal rights and claims that are not recognized, in patriarchal societies, in any other genetic relationship, because that genetic connection was the basis for men’s control over the children of women.” (p. 93) That is to say that there is more than just genetic ties that connect parents, especially mothers, to their children.

The reading also states that “For men, what makes the child his is his seed. For women, what makes the child ours is the nurturance, the work of our bodies.” (p. 96) That is to say that men have rights to their children for the sole fact that they passed on genetic material whereas women are the caregivers of the children and thus form that bond. A bond between mother and child is usually very strong and through her nurturance of that child, a woman has rights to it.

Not only this, but when dealing with caregivers, many mothers usually want their child to identify with them rather than the person taking care of them. For example, many women hire babysitters or nannies to take care of the children when the parents cannot. But “The mother wants the child to identify with her, not the caregiver.” (p. 99) But whether that relationship is mother to child or caregiver to child, “The emotional work of mothers done without pay, or the emotional work of hired caregivers done for a salary, is a more intense version of the flight attendant’s work, with the similar goal of creating a state of mind in others – just that sense of being safe and cared for.” (p. 101)

In my opinion, the bond between parent and child does not need to even be genetic, but it is the bond created with the person that raises you. Families today are not just families created by two individuals having a child, there is adoption or individuals that live with extended families, so the face of parenting is very different and the person one identifies as their “parents” may not be their parents genetically. Also, I think the work of caregivers should receive more credit. They are taking care for children for their parents. Their parents are passing on their responsibilities for rearing their child to someone else, in essence, they are paying for someone to take their place.

September 22nd Class

Unbending gender: why family and work conflict and what to do about it

By Joan Williams

Introduction

The introduction really focuses on what the book will discuss: the balance between family life and market work. The author notes, “Domesticity is a gender system comprising most centrally of both the particular organization of market work and family work…” (p. 1) This idea of domesticity stems from two ideas: one being the “organization of market work around the ideal of a worker who works full time and overtime and takes little or no time off for childbearing or child rearing,” and that the “system pf providing for caregiving [functions] by marginalizing the caregivers, thereby cutting them off from most of the social roles that offer responsibility and authority.” (p. 1) That is to say that domesticity and the modern age creates a system where individuals have to work in order to be seen as upstanding members of society while at the same time a person (most likely a woman) who needs to rear her children needs to balance a full time job and childrearing which in itself can be a full time job.

The traditional family system is full of inequalities. The male breadwinner figure has a right to his own assets because he earns the money, but yet, both the male breadwinner and the female homemaker are functioning as part of the same family unity and working to produce a family but yet, the male is seen as the power figure. Not only that, but there is inequality in the pay men and women receive. According to the text, “mothers who work full time earn only sixty cents for every dollar earned by full-time fathers.” (p. 2) That is to say that there is less value in the work done by women outside of the home which is a product of a society that encourages women to take over the role of childrearing.

This book also focuses on three ideas on how to change the system we all currently live in. There is a focus on what the author calls “reconstructive feminism” which calls for “eliminating the ideal-worker norm in market work; the second calls for eliminating the ideal-worker norm in family entitlements. The third calls for changing the ways we talk about gender.” (p. 4) Through these things, the author believes that the system could be changed so as not to be so biased towards the work that each gender is assigned by the traditional family model.

Today there are many different kinds of families that are evolving and the traditional family model does not really stand any more. These old ways of thinking need to be changed because it is unfair to ask a woman to balance childrearing as well as a full time job outside of the home. Most families nowadays (especially those of the middle classes as well as the lower classes) depend heavily on have two incomes provided by both parents, and if the responsibilities around the house as well as outside are not shared than it makes for an unequal balance between men and women.

Chapter 1: Is Domesticity Dead?

This chapter starts off with the story of the Fallows family. The mother and wife of the family has given up her professional career in order to stay at home with her child. Her husband was very absent during her pregnancy and rarely around to see the sons. His job made them relocate their home and they even had to work around the father’s schedule in order to see one another. The father then decided that he did not see his children enough so he worked from home and ended up staying up late in the night just so that he could see his children a couple times a day like when they got home from school, for breakfast and before bed. They both sacrificed, yet the wife of the family has been subjugated to more sacrifice seeing as she gave up her career to rear her children, yet her husband has gone ahead with his career that greatly affected their family dynamic.

There has also been a long tradition of submissiveness on the part of women as part of the family dynamic. Traditionally, women worked indoors “and were responsible for providing fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and fowl.” and “Men were responsible for providing grain, fuel,, and permanent structures such as houses, barns, and sheds… (p. 20) Not only this, but there was not just the immediate family present in the farming homes, but rather servants, and other family members as well. “A father’s authority over his family, servants, and apprentices was simply one link in what early commentators called the ‘Great Chain of Being,’ the line of authority descending from God.” (p. 21) This means that fathers had a power over their families that no one could break due to its link with God. Even in the “the marriage ceremony [that] required that women promise to obey their husbands.” (p. 22) Women were seen as being submissive and inferior to their husbands in every way.

“According to historian Robert Griswold, “Despite men’s differences, breadwinning has remained the great unifying element in fathers’ lives. Its obligation bind men across the boundaries of color and class and shape their sense of self, manhood and gender.” (p. 25) That is to say that many men equate being manly to being the head of the household or being the primary breadwinner in the family. This is especially evident in household with rich men where their job requires them to be out of the home a lot. This gives the opportunity for the wife to stay home and work because a dual income is not necessary. This is even evident in poorer communities where “lacking access to the breadwinner role, these men often define masculinity more in terms of sexual performance and displays of toughness rather than in terms of work success.” (p. 28) Men feel that they need to perform for their wives and families in the workplace and will try and do so at any cost which puts the pressure on men to have upstanding jobs or at least one that can support his family.

Nowadays, many women believe that they should have all the time they need in order to dedicate that time to their family. “A 1995 study found that 88 percent of women surveyed believed it was their primary responsibility to take care of the family.” (p. 31) Many women also do not want strangers taking care of their children, yet children go to school and get taken care of by individuals that the parents do not know but yet they fully trust them. Not only this, but women have become the family members that pass on the family values to the children. “Much of what mothers do is designed to preserve and pass on what has been called the family’s social capital…” (p. 36)

In my opinion, yes it is true that many women do a lot around the house, but that is not to say that men do not play their role. Just because the model of the traditional breadwinner is most common, that doesn’t mean that men do not have an active role in their children’s lives. My father has always been to school functions of mine, and has been around the house just as much as my mother has. And I even have friends whose fathers stayed home while they were young and mothers had successful careers outside of the home. This could be a product of the liberal community in which I was raised (Cambridge, Massachusetts) but the traditional role is not the only role. And I believe that when I have a family some day, I personally want to be involved in the lives of my children and not outside of the home and working constantly just to have a large paycheck.

The Cultural Contraditions of Mothering

By Sharon Hays

From Rods to Reasoning: The Historical Construction of Intensive Mothering

This reading talks about the shifts in perspectives on how to rear your children throughout the last couple of centuries. During the Middle Ages, “Adults found children demonic, animalistic, ill-formed, and physically fragile.” (p. 22) This means that their parenting methods mirrored these beliefs. Also, very strict practices were put into play, especially when considering disciplinging children. “When small children were not being fed, drugged, whipped, or tosses, they were often simply ignored.” (p. 23) They treated children like they were not human, until their economic value could then be realized. “Very young children were therefore ignored as much as possible until they appeared more adultlike in behavior.” (p. 24)

In the 17^th and 18^th centuries, views of how to raise children started to change. For example, “the flogging of children was increasingly opposed, the words mama and papa were more commonly used, more and more mothers began to breast-feed their own infants…” (p. 25) Families started to show more loving qualities towards children. But also, in the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries, in New England, children were molded to be the way they were “by means of physical punishment, religious instruction, and participation in work life.” (p. 27) The child was taught to be religious, well mannered and also dedicate their life to working hard. But it is important to note that the father was still in charge of the family. “The mother’s task “was to keep the children in line; ultimately she obeyed the shepherd, and it was he who decided on the path and the destination of the flock.” (p. 28)

Later on, the concern with mothering changed from the negative aspect of childrearing to a “concern with childhood innocence and its preservation…” (p. 31) That is to say that “the good mother must not only lavish affection on the child; she must also be constantly vigilant in maintaining her own virtue and using the proper methods to instill like virtue in her child.” (p. 32) So the virtue of both mother and child was very important to these women and the proper methodology on how to raise children became a concern.

Many children had very different lives though. In the nineteenth century, many upper and middle-class families had servants to take care of the children. These children would be sheltered from the bad things that went on in the community but many poor families had children that would steal as well as work in order to provide the family with something to live off of. But, soon after, the creation of child labor laws stopped these practices and this put a strain on many lower class families because their children could no longer help provide for the family. There was also a push for domesticity, but in the lower classes, more than one income is necessary in order to stay afloat economically.

In my opinion, it is hard to be prepared for a child. One can read up on how to rear children as much as they want, but there may be no way to prepare other than mentally prepare yourself for long nights and what you think the appropriate methods of raising the child are. Experts can write books but its not books that will help the individual but rather it is personal experience that one must learn from.

Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity

By Joseph H. Pleck

Chapter 26: American Fathering in Historical Perspective

The role of the father in the 18^th and early 19^th centuries was to ensure that children received the moral teaching that only their father could provide. Women were seen as inferior and not as able to reason and thus men were put in charge of the moral and religious teaching of their children. “Fathers ought to concern themselves with the moral and religious education of the young. If literate himself, he should teach reading and writing. He was responsible for guiding his sons into a occupational “calling.” He played a key role in the courtship and marriage making of both his sons and daughters, by approving a proposed match and allotting family property to the couple.” (p. 352) That is to say that a father was in charge of educating his children with the principles that were dominant during this time frame.

This all started to change in the early 19^th to mid-20^th centuries. Women started to take on a more dominant role in childrearing because “Women’s “purity” elevated her above men, making her particularly suited for “rearing” the young.” (p. 353) Not only this, but ideas from famous individuals such as Sigmund Freud emphasized the relationship between child and mother shown in his idea of the Oedipal Complex. Also, industrialization brought work away from the home and to some other location, which made sure that the father was a more distant figure in the family, as he no longer worked at home, but worked away from the home. Thus once there is a lack of paternal presence, the mother takes over in the childrearing aspect of the family life. Although, “The father continued to set the official standard of morality and to be the final arbiter of family discipline, but he did so at more of a remove that before: He stepped in only when the mother’s delegated authority failed.” (p. 355)

From the time period between 1940 and 1965, men’s roles continued to change. The father was now encouraged to be a more prominent figure in the lives of his children. After World War II, many fathers did not return and the absence of a father figure affected many children. But there were concerns that fathers may get too involved in the lives of the children, which was the alleged problem with mothering at the time. Also, many women, once their husbands left for war, had to enter the workforce, so now you have dual incomes coming in and presumably, more shared responsibility around the house.

In today’s society, men are starting to take a more active role in the family life. There is this idea of “the new father.” The new father is “present at the birth; he is involved with his children as infants, not just when they are older; he participates in the actual day-to-day work of child care, and not just play; he is involved with his daughters as much as his sons.” (p. 358) That is to say that men are now working in the home more and not just outside of the home which challenges the male breadwinner model. Why this change? Well, “Wives are more often employed, and do less in the family when they are…” (p. 359) This means that since many women are now working outside of the home that the male figures must compensate for this and work harder in the home to make up the difference.

In my opinion, the historical traditions of men and women is so deeply rooted in our society that it will be hard to reach equality in the home between the genders. That is to say that, history has dictated how our lives have been run and the idea of the male breadwinner is so ingrained in our system that it would be hard to change. Many men refuse to work in the homes, but then again, there are many that actively participate in the home and child rearing practices. It really will take a lot to change the society in order to have equality in the home and outside as well, but from personal experience, I believe that many men are stepping up and helping out more in the house. Chances are women do more, but it is a change from not too long ago where women were responsible for the majority of what goes on in the household.

September 15th Class

From Marriage to the Market: The Transformation of Women’s Lives and Work

by Susan Thistle

Chapter 2: Support for Women’s Domestic Economy in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

This reading examines the differences between white women’s and African American women’s work in the United States during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is clear that both groups of women were responsible for certain tasks around the house but the situations that each group of women found themselves in differed especially with the changing of the economy. Both groups of women were expected to rear the children as well as take care of the household but over time the gender division of labor changed especially when women joined the workforce and started to get paid for work outside of the home.

In the 19^th century, white women “tended gardens and poultry, prepared meals, made and mended clothes, hauled water, stoked fires, and gave birth to, in 1800, an average of seven infants, raising roughly five to adulthood.” (p. 19) But as the economy started to change and there was a need for women to work in certain jobs such as the textile mills. Women also began to produce excess dairy products in order to sell them which fostered the creation of dairy maids, but as that seemed to be a potentially lucrative job men took over because “men kept control of any work that had the potential to make money.” Women were even seen as a necessity to take care of a husband and around the house and many men were encouraged to marry for this purpose. “Unmarried workers sharing living quarters often pooled their wages to keep one woman at home.” (p. 24) It was so important to these men that there was even a Supreme Court ruling that declared, “the need to protect women “from the greed as well as the passion of men,” [which] rules in favor of limiting women’s hours.” (p. 25)

African American women on the other hand had to endure much more. Especially during the times of slavery, many women had to endure a lot to rear their children and take care of their family and also endure the long hours that came along with being a slave. Unlike white women, however, “their long hours of work did not bring black women themselves increased wealth, but only greater hardship.” (p. 23) Also, during the 20^th century, when African American women started to enter the workforce, their wages were significantly less than those of their male counterparts and “the majority of black wives were not employed.” (p. 30)

The gender division of labor is a product of the society that the individuals are a part of and clearly, in the 19^th and 20^th centuries the tasks that women were responsible for around the house were very important to the people in the United States. But where did it change really? Nowadays, women are expected to work outside of the house as well as inside of the house and the amount of work that a woman has to do can sometimes greatly outweigh that of her male counterpart. Childrearing and taking care of a household are not paid work but are still work and many women who also do have families experience what sociologist Arlie Hochschild calls “the Second Shift” where women come home to a household and are expected to complete the tasks that women who did not do paid work used to do.

Chapter 3: The Breakdown of Women’s Domestic Economy after World War II

After World War II, there had been an increase in industrialization, which led to the mass production of certain products that made household work easier for women. These things such as washing machines refrigerators, and running water made it easier to complete the tasks that women would have to do themselves or by hand which thus saved time for the women in the post World War II era. Also many women (especially older women) that needed additional income because their husbands could not find work or to match a lifestyle that demanded more money led more women to enter the workforce and get paid work instead of just working in the home. Sociologist Joann Vanek saw a big difference between the work of unemployed and employed women; employed women reduced the amount of time that they spent doing household work but unemployed women managed to spend a large amount of time on household tasks which according to Vanek was due to these unemployed women “‘just’ keeping busy.” (p. 41)

Many women found it hard to balance both a home life as well as having a job. Many women, thus, chose to put their work on the backburner by choosing jobs close to home or by just being less involved in paid work if the family needs were high due to children. Not only this, but it was hard challenging the old ideas of the woman needs to stay home and be the homemaker while her husband is out of the house being the breadwinner.

Groups even started to come about that helped women challenge these roles and find jobs outside of the home. For example, the National Council of Negro Women and the National Organization for Women helped many to find jobs in an attempt to gain equality with their male counterparts. Many men even were opposed to the traditional roles of marriage. “By the mid-1970s, 60 percent of men saw marriage as restrictive.” (p. 47) Many men saw the traditional role of taking care of his wife for her whole life as being negative. And “the lessened economic necessity of marriage opened up a new possibility… By the mid-1960s, “love” had become one of the most important issues for male college students in choosing a wife.” (p. 47)

Even many college students started to form sexual relationships prior to marriage due to the sexual revolution. The creation of contraceptives and the changing of roles and focus of having emotional connection behind a relationship led to this change. Women and men were not in a relationship for the economic benefit but rather in it for more emotional reasons.

Even certain laws that stopped many married women such as the “marriage bar” were abolished and certain laws such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 were passed which helped women to gain some equality in the workplace (at least according to the law). Also, “In 1974, in Cleveland Board of Education v. La Fleur, the Supreme Court decided in favor of expectant mothers’ right to continue to work and collect pay.” (p. 53)

The changing of the economy really had an impact on how relationships were formed. It is interesting that something like the changing of roles in terms of paid work amongst the genders really affected how people acted towards one another. The ways that people functioned in society prior to this time was a woman was expected to work in the house and take care of the children where men were expected to work outside of the home to help financially support that same family. But the changing of women’s roles really helped to form the society that we live in today. Everything that our generation knows about relationships is a product of this change that has helped to form the people we are today. In my opinion, I think that it is better this way, marriage is no longer a binding contract and though divorce rates are higher than ever, for those relationships that do last and work well, it makes it more meaningful. In addition to this, I think that more legislation is needed to ensure that women receive equal pay. President Barack Obama passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act to supplement the Equal Pay Act of 1963, but still women do not receive the same pay for the same job. It may be a matter of a change in employers and the system, rather than passing more laws that cannot be enforced well.

Feminism, Children and the New Families

By Dornbusch and Strober

Wives and Work: A Theory of the Sex-Role Revolution and Its Consequences

Clearly over time, the dynamics between men and women surrounding work have changed. In “1890, only some 4.6% of wives were in the labor force… by 1985 it was well over half – 54.2%.” (p. 67) Something has clearly happened to change and the authors have broken it down to the breakdown of the breadwinner model or “traditional” roles played by men and women where the male is the breadwinner and the female is the homemaker.

Something interesting that popped out to me was, “we find that the wives most committed to the labor market are those in the prime reproductive stage.” (p. 69) This shows that the balance between work outside of the home and childrearing is no longer of concern and that does not stop women from entering into the workforce. This change is due to a number of factors.

People have always worked close to home. Women used to be hunters and gatherers and worked very close to the home because of having to take care of children all while men were out hunting, but the home became the “home base for food sharing and subsistence activities.” (p. 72) But more recently, the breadwinner system is collapsing. According to the reading, “The breadwinner system, by making domestic duties full-time occupation of the wife, was ideally suited to producing many children.” (p. 77) But “because of longer life and because of earlier termination of childbearing, a bride can expect to live about 33 years after her last child has left home. This means that many women have much more time than to just rear children, thus more are entering the workforce because there is now much more time to be lived past raising children due to the extension of the life expectancy.

One quote really sparked my interest was “As long as husband and wife are unequal in the labor market, they will be unequal at home; on the average, the one who contributes less in the labor market is expected to contribute more at home.” (p. 83) I think this is quite the statement because many women nowadays work the same jobs but overall there is still inequality in pay. That being said, many women then return home to work on domestic chores, many of which men do not complete. That being said, there is more work hours put in both at home and a comparable amount outside of the home that leaves the relationship unfavorable for the women. According to exchange theory, a relationship is only beneficial if the rewards greatly outweigh the costs of the relationship, so can this really be true? Many relationships are successful, yet they are not equal in terms of work outside of the home and inside as well.