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 17th and 18th 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 17th and early 18th 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 18th and early 19th 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 19th to mid-20th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment