November 3rd Class

Using Kin for Child Care: Embedment in the Socioeconomic Networks of Extended Families by Lynet Uttal

This study examines the differences between what Mexican Americans, African Americans and Whites use for child care and to what extent they use family members for this child care. There has been a change in child care. “Since 1958, the percentage of child care arrangements with relatives both inside and outside the child’s home made by employed mothers for their infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged child has halved[…]” (p. 845) Not only this, but “the use of family daycare homes and childcare centers has more than tripled[…]” (p. 845) These statistics show how much there is a need for child care and how much people rely on child care (especially mothers) for their young children.

Some people have a preference for relative care because it is “positively associated with caring for the belief that parents should be caring for their own children.” (p. 845) That is to say that many parents believe that they should be raised by themselves but when they fail to have the time to do so, many parents turn to their kin in order to fill that void.

There are three explanations that attempt to explain why White Americans are less likely to use relative care than Mexican American and African American families. There is the cultural explanation which comes from the idea that cultural tradition dictates that families are the appropriate form of child care when parents cannot be around. The structural explanation is the idea that it is used when money is hard to come by. Finally the integrative explanation is a combination of the two. But there are some problems with these models. “[C]ultural explanations have been criticized for failing to acknowledge that cultural practices may be adaptive responses to structural conditions, rather than real differences in cultural values.” (p. 847)

The major difference in race was the idea that some White mothers had that child care was an inappropriate task for relatives to take on. But “Relative care was used, even though it was not ideal because relatives made themselves available to provide child care, and this was true in all racial and ethnic groups.” (p. 851) The study showed that many African American and Mexican American family members were more willing than Anglo American families to help provide child care.

The study also uncovered an interesting factor. The idea that “the economic needs of those relatives who provide care and their lack of better formal labor market opportunities also contribute to why racial ethnic families continue to be entrenched in childcare arrangements made with relatives.” (p. 854) That is to say that individuals who leave their children with families members, are sometimes considering the job opportunities of the family members that provide that care. If they do not have good opportunities, then families will be willing to leave their children with them.

I find this last idea really interesting. I do not think I would consider the economic opportunities of the other individual. It popped out to me as being an interesting idea, but I wonder to what extent is this really happening. Do individuals provide these people with compensation or no? What exactly does this mean for those individuals providing the care of the children?

Explaining the Gender Gap in Help to Parents: The Importance of Employment

By Natalia Sarkisian and Naomi Gerstel

This study examines the relationship between employment and the amount of help that individuals give to their families, not necessarily pertaining to just within their households but also other kin. According to the study, “Women spend significantly more time giving help than do men.” (p. 431) That is to say that women are more likely to help than men, overall. And this may be “[b]ecause men are more likely to be employed and, when employed, to have more lucrative and time-consuming or satisfying jobs than women, their jobs pull or push them away from family responsibilities.” (p. 431) This study seeks to examine this idea and see if employment status really does have an effect on how much help males and females provide to their families.

The gender gap between help to families cannot be fully explained by employment. “Berk (1988) suggested that employed men’s housework differs little from that of nonemployed men, although both Brines (1994) and Greenstein (2000) argued that men without jobs do less domestic work.” (p. 432) According to the literature review, men do less domestic work overall and employment may play a large role in this. “[S]ome studies found that employment status and employment characteristics – in particular, time spent on the job – are closely tied to the provision of help; both having a job and working longer hours are associated with giving less help to parents.” (p. 433)

Certain characteristics were taken into account in this study. Race is am important variable to the study. “Research has suggested that African Americans, especially women, even when employed, are much more likely than Europ Americans to help their parents.” (p. 435) And another characteristic that is important to this study is marital status because “married daughters give less help to their parents than unmarried ones.” (p. 435)

The study found that “Women provide about 3.8 hours of help per week to parents and parents-in-law, whereas men provide about 3.0 hours.” (p. 440) This shows what seems to be a small discrepancy but is actually a significant amount of time. Women seem to help their families more, which may tie into the nurturing aspect that people tend to associate with women. “Brines (1994) and Greenstein (2000), for example, suggest that the differences in housework persist because of the different values and meanings of employment and family for women and men: For men, employment is the key marker for masculinity; for women, employment has assumed greater symbolic salience but has not displaced family obligations from the core of femininity.” (p. 445) That is to say that society views women one way (as being nurturing) thus these women fit into these roles.

The study shows that “The gender gap – not only in care provided in nuclear families but also in help within extended families – is still very much with us.” (p. 443) And they think these findings could be used to create policy that helps support these families that are struggling to take care of their kin.

I think this is interesting because I have never really considered the help that individuals give their families as work. It was always seen to me as an obligation, not something that could be empirically measured, but something that happened sporadically whenever need be. I think its interesting that women take on these roles to a greater extent than men do whether that is inside the home or outside. To me, that shows that the idea of a nurturing mother and woman is so deeply ingrained in our system, that some aspects of it are not even considered or looked at.

The Color of Family Ties: Race, Class, Gender and Extended Family Involvement

By Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian

This article talks asserts that Black and Latino/a families do not have weaker family ties than Whites but can have certain levels of support that White families usually not have. For example, “Minority individuals are more likely to live in extended family homes than Whites and in many ways more likely to help out their aging parents, grandparents, adult children, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles and other kin.” (p. 447) These minority individuals are more likely to be involved with extended kin than White families and this offers support (not necessarily economically in the form of money, but support in other areas).

A number of interesting statistics came from this article. For example, “42 percent of Blacks, and 37 percent of Latinos/as, but only 20 percent of Whites live with relatives.” (p. 447) Also, 76 percent of Blacks 71 percent of Latinos/as, but just 63 percent of Whites see their relatives once a week or more.” (p. 447) These statistics show that Black and Latino/a families are more closely oriented to their families geographically than Whites tend to be.

The authors found that “social class rather than culture is the key to understanding the differences in extended family ties and behaviors between Whites and ethnic minorities.” (p. 450) This means that social class is more prevalent than the traditions or cultural backgrounds of these minority groups. The close geographical locations of minority families helps these families to support each other in other ways because “Families of color are also much more likely than Whites to be below the official poverty line.” (p. 450) This means that many times minorities cannot support their families economically, but can provide other ways to show their ties. For example, when someone needs a ride to run errands or help with child care, minority families are more likely to be involved with this kind of support rather than Whites.

The authors also talk about social policy that affects poorer families. “For instance, the Family and Medical Leave act is an important social policy, but it only guarantees unpaid leave from jobs to provide care to spouses, children or elderly parents requiring medical attention.” (p. 452) The authors say that in order to give minority families help, this should be extended to all kin.

In my opinion, minority families are very supportive of each other. Coming from a Colombian father and a Filipina mother, I find that my family is readily available to help each other out in any way necessary. For example, when my Aunt had her first child, my grandmother and mother were readily available to take care of the child whenever she needed. Also, my family tends to live really close too. My grandmother and uncle live in the same house as us, and my Aunt lives across the same city. On my father’s side, the majority of them live close to each other in New York state. I found this article interesting because it helped to contextualize my own experience as a minority family member.

The Female World of Cards and Holidays: Women, Families, and the Work of Kinship

By Micaela di Leonardo

This reading focuses on the role of women in kin work which is work centered around the family and not in particular to domestic work that we have discussed in the past, but more related to the maintenance of kin relationships by the female member of a household. That is to say that women take on a more involved role than men when sending cards, letters, or even keeping in contact with not only family members but the family members of their spouse as well. This work is a primarily female task and is seen as gaining power in the household and a familial obligation that the woman takes over.

The author found some very interesting facts about this job that women take on. For example, “When couples divorced or mothers died, the work of kinship was left undone; when women entered into sanctioned sexual or marital relationship with men in these situations, they reconstituted the men’s kinship networks and organized gatherings and holiday celebrations.” (p. 443) That is to say that without a woman taking care of these tasks, men do not pick up the slack, but rather, they let those relationships wither. “Kin work, then, is like housework and child care: men in the aggregate do not do it.” (p. 443)

According to the article, women are more family oriented than men in the respect that they are more knowledgeable of not only their own kin, but also the kin of their spouse. “Women were also much more willing to discuss family feuds and crises and their own roles in them; men tended to repeat formulaic statements asserting family unity and respectability.” (p. 444) Women are more involved with their families, and are more detail oriented than men when it comes to knowing about families. One woman in the article even knew more about her spouse’s family than her spouse did. Women are also more geared to feeling that the closeness of a family is important. They want to maintain these ties and when they fail to do so there are emotional consequences. “They expressed guilt and defensiveness about this cutback process and, particularly, about their failures to keep families close through constant contact[…]” (p. 446)

The article also notes that this is not based on social class, economic status or race. Other researchers have found that women take on these responsibilities in many other cultures as well. It is based solely on gender. Women take on these responsibilities more than men do and the author asserts that this may be due to the inequality in the labor market. She states, “the domestic domain is not only an arena in which much unpaid labor must be undertaken but also a realm in which one may attempt to gain human satisfactions – and power – not available in the labor market.” (p. 451)

In my opinion, I find this an interesting concept. In my family, my mother does not do much of the housework but instead my father is the one that does it. But my mother is the one that takes on these kinship responsibilities. She is the one that invites family over for vacations or visits, organizes family dinners amongst everyone’s conflicting schedules and makes sure that we have family time together not only within our own personal family unit, but also with our kin outside of our household. She does not, however, take on this role with respect to my father’s family. She only does this for her own side of the family.

October 27th Class

The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home by Arlie Hochschild

Chapter 4: Joey’s Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt

This reading follows the marriage of Nancy and Evan Holt and their problems obtaining equality around the home. Nancy and Evan Holt have a child named Joey who is very attached to his mother. Because of this, Nancy is more heavily involved in the taking care of her child than her husband, Evan. Even though both individuals have full time jobs, Nancy takes more responsibility around the house and with their child than Evan does.

Nancy feels that she does so much around the house and all she wants is equality in her marriage. Equality to her meant that, since they both work outside the home that they should both share the responsibilities around the house (meaning sharing the childcare of Joey and the housework). She wants this being a modern day woman and having a fear of slaving over her husband much like her mother had for her father. But Nancy never gets what she wants because Evan has a more “traditional” view. Evan poses the question to the author, “Why should her personal decision to work outside the home require him to do more inside it?” (p. 40) This implies that Evan’s belief is that Nancy, being his wife, should be responsible for the housework and that she does not need to work. He does not acknowledge the fact that Nancy is proud of the work she does and proud of how she got to where she is. She says, “Work is important to me. I worked hard to get my MSW. Why should I give it up?” (p. 41)

They come to a “solution” that helps Nancy cope with the lack of work that Evan does around the house. They decide that Nancy will take care of the upstairs of the home, meaning the childcare and the physical house itself, and Evan will take care of the downstairs, which involves the garage, and the dog. By splitting it up with the upstairs-downstairs terminology, it helps ease Nancy’s mind that what they are doing is equal when, in fact, it is not. But in order to see this as fair, Nancy needed to change her thought process. “She decided to try not to resent Evan.” (p. 45) She often used the terminology that everything was “fine” and “fair.”

In addition to this, she stopped comparing Evan to other men that did more around the house. For example, Bill Beaumont, a neighbor that lived two doors down, willingly did half the housework without having to be asked. This egalitarian view of how to run a home was seen by Evan as being an exception. In turn, Nancy decided to stop comparing her husband to others and appreciate him for everything that he did do. Instead of addressing what was really bothering her, the lack of work being produced by her husband, she focused on what he did do, like taking care of the downstairs.

In my opinion, this situation is really unfortunate. It is unfair to Nancy to have a husband that does not want to commit to things like chores around the house or even taking care of their child. Clearly, they both had different expectations of what their marriage would be like and in order to compensate for the lack of willingness to compromise, Nancy decides to take on the workload. This is unfair to her and really rude and inconsiderate of her husband, Evan. In my household, my father always took his part in the housework. Both being working parents, my parents would come home at the same time, usually take the time to talk to my sister and I and ask about our days, someone would clean up around the house, and the other would cook dinner. It was never unequal in that respect. Most of my friends families were like this as well which is why I find it strange that many men are not willing to compromise. I was raised with the mentality that if the work involves everyone in the family unit that everyone should take their part in finishing it. This is why I believe that what Nancy Holt is asking of her husband is not only fair but how a family should be run.

“Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life” by Marjorie L. Devault

This reading talks about housework, particularly feeding the family as not being seen as work like paid work is. Clearly, feeding other individuals in the family unit takes time, preparation and skill (much like a job) yet it is seen more as a wife’s duty to her husband or children rather than a job. One woman said, “‘I like to cook for him. That’s what a wife is for, right?’“ (p. 179) Not only this, but there is a certain level of commitment to one’s family that has one woman associating the process of feeding her family with love.

Also, nowadays, many families struggle to even meet to eat together. A couple of generations ago, many families would eat three meals together because there were few other places to eat. But nowadays “new products incorporate much of the work of food processing formerly done at home, and the growth of the restaurant trade and the tremendous expansion of fast-food franchising provide new options for purchasing meals.” (p. 181) New food options takes away from families eating together. Also, with the business of everyone’s lives nowadays whether that is school, work, or other activities, families struggle to meet even for one meal a day.

The planning of meals themselves can be a difficult task. When planning a meal, someone must take into consideration the likes and dislikes of the rest of the family (usually compromising what they want for what the rest of the family prefers). Also, variety is key in meals, but at the same time, many people that prepare the meals usually pick things that were successful in the past. Also, a lot goes into planning meals in the sense of time and place. Every family differs, but many families have a certain set of patterns involving time and table etiquette. That is to say that certain families always meet for dinner, others do not, and on top of it when they do meet, there are a certain set of rules, like everyone talks or people report about their days.

Much of this work is seen as “invisible work” as much of the household tasks are. (p. 188) It takes a lot of consideration and a lot of planning in order to plan meals and feel families. People’s tastes must be considered and time must be taken to prepare meals and coordinate the whole event. Women mainly do this work and though not seen as work, can be a very difficult task.

In my family, the cooking was always done equally. My mother would cook one night, and then my father would cook another. When my sister and I got older, she would cook from time to time (as she never took to cooking meals, but rather preferred bake) and I would cook as well. I think its surprising the number of people my age that have no idea how to cook for themselves, and its amazing to me how they have lasted so long. For example, my roommates wanted to have a roommate dinner together, so one Friday we got together and decided to cook together. My roommate, that wouldn’t know how to cook to save his life was asking me questions in the kitchen such as “where do we keep the pans” or “if I need a napkin where would that be?” I was amazed that living in the room for almost two months now and he has no idea where anything is, let alone how to cook for himself. Also, not having a meal plan and having to cook for myself really has made me appreciate completing the task. It takes a lot of effort to cook and a lot of planning, so I agree with much of what this reading said on that matter.

“Domesticity and the Political Economy of Lesbigay Families” by Christopher Carrington

This reading focuses on the domesticity of lesbian and gay couples. The author of the study conducted interviews with 108 people (52 families) and though he did not have a random sample, got a range of socio-economic backgrounds. He even lived in the houses of 8 of the couples for a week in order to observe their day-to-day activities.

There is a “myth” in most of these couples that the domestic work around the house is “egalitarian.” (p. 83) That is to say that most couples believe that the work is generally shared evenly, though the author found this to not be true when observation and interviews were conducted in more depth. The author states, “Many lesbigay family members fail to make much of a distinction between what they consider equal and what they consider fair.” (p. 83)

The author found that the level of participation that lesbian and gay family members contribute depends a lot on their commitment to their paid work outside of the home. “For lesbians, the capacity of domesticity to construct gender carries important consequences for partners whose paid-work obligation prevent them from engaging in much domesticity.” (p. 85) That is to say that, lesbians, who are women and seen by society as expected to take part in the domestic chores around the house have a certain balance to consider. Many lesbians who have a career that takes up a lot of time, have trouble balancing this gender expectation with their paid jobs. Not only this, but domestic work is often seen as a way to preserve a relationship with a balance between both individuals in the relationship. “First, as previously suggested, they do it to avoid the stigma associated with violating gender expectations. Second, and perhaps more significantly, they do it to avoid conflicts and to preserve relationships existing in broader socioeconomic context that does not enable families to actually produce much equality.” (p. 88)

But according to his study, “A minority of lesbigay families do achieve a rough equivalence in the distribution of domestic work, even using a broad and inclusive conception of domesticity. Rough 25% (13) of the families I studied approach this rough parity.” (p. 89) That is to say that there is little actual equality in the domestic work in lesbigay couples even though the majority states that there is equality. Many wealthier families even use their wealth to hire “an army of low-paid workers without fringe benefits who provide much of the domestic labor.” (p. 89) Those people that can afford it, pay for their domestic work to be completed by other individuals.

Also, many families where their jobs are seen as female-oriented jobs, have more egalitarian patterns than others. For example, social work, teaching, librarians, etc. have more egalitarian relationships than other families with a different job dynamic. In some situations though, “one person specializes in domesticity…” (p. 91) “For instance, only among families together longer than 9 years (21 families), and mostly earning higher incomes, do I find someone working part-time by choice in order to handle domestic activities (seven families), or someone engaging in homemaking full-time (three families).” (p. 91)

There is also disproportionate number of hours shared of domestic work where couples have inequality with their professions. For example, “when they are in relationships with individuals in professional, managerial, or executive positions,” many share the work differently, meaning someone takes more of the responsibility around the house. (p. 93) And it is important to note that “Few individuals actually choose, in a particularly conscious manner, to become more involved in family affairs.” (p. 96)

“Finally, another dynamic bolstering active participation in domesticity springs from efforts to preserve a cherished relationship.” (p. 99) This means that in order to preserve the relationship, many will take part in domestic chores in order to ensure that their relationship is equal inside and outside of the home. “True equality[…] eludes many of these families, but that has little to do with the families per se, and much more to do with the character and quality of employment opportunities that avail themselves to these families.” (p. 106)

In my opinion, I think it is interesting to see how gender dynamics really play into how these lesbian and gay couples treat the domestic work. The balance (of lack thereof) between straight couples stems from a breadwinner model, yet these families have to face a different gender-related struggle because both members expected to share the domestic work are of the same sex. That is to say that the breadwinner model has little to do with these couples, yet the inequality persists. Jobs really play a large role in this inequality and it really does have a negative impact on these couples. The struggle to balance family life, paid work and domestic work is one that is hard for any couple, yet plays an interesting dynamic in these lesbian and gay couples.

“Autonomy, Dependence, or Display? The Relationship Between Married Women’s Earning and Housework” by Sanjiv Gupta

This study examines a woman’s amount of work and income and how that relates to how much housework she does around the house whether she is single or married. “Although it has been amply documented that the daily work of providing nutrition, clean clothing, and a sanitary environment to members of heterosexual households is done largely by women, the relationship between married women’s earning and their time spent on housework is not well understood.” (p. 399) That is to say that the author acknowledges that women do take the brunt of the housework on their shoulders, but the relationship between what they earn in terms of paid work outside of the home and how much time they spend on housework is not understood.

The study found that “Women whose earnings exceed their husbands’ will spend more time on housework than other women in order to affirm their gender identities in the face of their gender-atypical relative incomes.” (p. 400) This means that women who earn more than their husbands (which is not as atypical for a married women) will attempt to compensate for the gender role that society expects of her (as a homemaker) by doing more around the house. These women break off from the idea of the breadwinner model, where the male earns more and the female takes care of the home sphere by compensating for the housework by adding to their overall workload.

The author states, “The allocation of housework depends on the distribution of marital power, which in turn depends on the relative economic resources of the partners.” (p. 401) That is to say that housework is determined by how much one earns outside of the home. We have learned this not to be true because many women still work inside and outside of the home in a relationship that is not egalitarian with the housework. The author also states, “Given that men’s earnings are higher on average than women’s, the economic dependence hypothesis is a plausible explanation for the gender gap in housework.” (p. 401) That means that since men (on average) earn more than women, that these women compensate for this by doing more around the house.

An interesting point brought up to the author is the idea that” women’s earnings matter more than their husbands’ to expenditures related to household labor and child care.” (p. 402) This means that women spend more of their money on what is to be done around the house than men, which shows more inequality when it comes to the housework. Women are not only completing what needs to be done around the house but they are spending their own resources to accomplish it. This means that “women’s earnings exert a greater influence than their husbands’ on outcomes in the areas of domestic life for which women bear primary responsibility.” (p. 403)

This study found that “Women whose earnings substantially exceed their husbands’ are predicted to spend more time on housework than other women.” (p. 408) Also the study found that, “neither married women’s nor their husbands’ employment hours are associated with women’s housework time. In a sample of all married women, however, women’s employment hours have the expected negative effect on their housework time, so that the absence of an effect ere appears to be consequence of the restriction of the sample to women working full time.” (p. 409)

In the conclusion, the author states, “Despite the sharing of life experiences and resources that characterize marriage, it appears that women’s earnings mater more than their husbands’ to certain outcomes within it.” (p. 415) In my opinion, I think that it is strange that society’s values have such a hold on women that they must take part in the inequality of the housework. That is to say that women spend more time and their own resources on the maintenance of the home sphere, yet, men are not expected to contribute as much to the housework (apparently physically nor economically) even though they reap the benefits of the marriage through their wives. My question is: how are men spending their money for their home and do they contribute something else other than money for the benefit of their homes?

October 20th Class

“Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families?: Explianing Trends in Work, Leisure, and Family Time” by Jerry Jacobs and Kathleen Gerson

This reading discusses the idea that individuals may be experiencing an increase in the amount of time that they work every week and this is due to changing dynamics of the workforce. It takes into account many perspectives on the matter by examining what other sociologists have said and what research has already been done on the matter.

This reading asserts that “Too much time at work can undermine personal and family welfare, whereas too little time can endanger a family’s economic security and lowers its standards of living.” (p. 40) This means that the balance between work and family is very crucial and the general trend seems to be that many Americans are now working an increased number of hours to ensure that economic security. This alleged increase in hours means a “‘unexpected decline of leisure.’” (p.41) But this reading tries to argue that this may or may not be true.

According to the reading, Schor has uncovered that “women’s annual hours of paid work increased 305 hours between 1969 and 1987, whil emen’s annual total increased 98 hours during this period.” (p. 42) This is a lot, but the author of the study does not agree with the method that Schor arrived at this estimate. This author agrees with the statement that “people are not likely to know the amount of time they spend working in a given week and, given only a few seconds to think about the question, many are likely to give a very rough estimate of their work week,” (p. 43-44), thus making it not a reliable method of measurement.

But the author looks at the possible change in leisure time and alleged increase in average work time differently. There could be an increase in leisure time if you consider men that are retiring at earlier ages and people that postpone full-time jobs in order to continue schooling. These people tend to have more leisure than the average full-time worker. Also, by looking at the family dynamic, it is easier to see that the change in average work time between couples has not increased that much. “Dual earner couples and single-parent families are the groups most likely to feel squeezed between the demands and rewards of work and the needs of family life.” (p. 46) Thus, the author looks at dual earner couples. The results of study found that “The largest increase in working time occurred among dual-earner couples, who also constitute the fastest growing group. Husbands and wives in these marriages jointly devoted 81.3 hours per week in paid employment, up just more than 3 hours per week from 78.0 hours per week reported in 1970.” (p. 50) That is to say that the increase is not dramatic when looking at couples collectively. But looking at different types of couples means different results. For example, where both earners in the dual earner system are college graduates, there is a “3.8-hour-per-week increase in working time…” (p. 53)

It is important though to look at the big picture. “The arrival of children still tends to push men toward stronger work participation while pulling women toward somewhat less involvement, creating a larger gender gap in their levels of work commitment compared to childless couples.” (p. 58) This quote stood out to me because it makes it clear that gender roles that were once part of a past generation’s model of what a family should be are still affecting our generation today. People still feel compelled to fill these traditional roles even though many families now are dual earners rather than based on the breadwinner model. It is interesting to me to see that the past has such an influence even though we are part of a very changing world and society here in the United States.

The Career Mystique by Phyllis Moen

This reading begins with the profile of a couple named Lisa and David. Lisa and David are both individuals that worked outside of the home. But once their careers go too demanding and their home expectations became too much, their relationship was strained and it ended in divorce. They needed to support a lifestyle with a daughter and shared custody of that daughter but to do so, they needed to find a way to take care of her, which meant having more money, which meant a more demanding job.

This exemplifies exactly what the chapter in this book talks about. It talks about Betty Friedan and the feminine mystique which talks about the plagues of women under the rule of men in a society where women are encouraged to stay home and men are encouraged to provide for themselves as well as their families. This is then juxtaposed to the idea of the career mystique, which is “the expectation that employees will invest all their time, energy, and commitment through their “prime” adult years in their jobs with the promise of moving up in seniority or ascending job ladders.” (p. 5) That is to say that if individuals work hard, then they will get far. Through the idea of the feminine mystique, women decided that equality was to be measured by what a man had, a job outside of the home, which means that women then too wanted to work outside of the home and make money. “Many men and women are trying to follow the career mystique, working long hours at demanding jobs only to climb ladders that lead nowhere or else to find the promised ladders no longer exist.” (p. 7) This means that people are working harder and harder but no promotions or new jobs are being given to them. People are geared to working hard in order to succeed but the success associated with that hard work is no longer present.

There is also a changing workforce that has shaped the way we see work today. “At the beginning of the twentieth century, only one in five American women worked for pay. Today, fully three out of five women are employed.” (p. 13) That is to say that more and more women are working as men remain the workforce. This is mainly due to five historical changes that have facilitated this process.

The first change is the fact that “recent shifts in marital and educational paths now challenge conventional notions of the transition to adulthood.” (p. 16) That is to say that more adults are doing more schooling in order to attain these jobs. More schooling and delaying work via school means that there is a “blurred” line between youth and adulthood. (p. 16) The second trend is the idea that “there is a disconnect between the traditional (male) career mystique and the growing number of women in the workforce…” (p. 16) That is to say that there are no longer gender divides which make roles clear and both individuals in a family must now work outside of the home. The third trend, is globalization. There is an emphasis on productivity which means that “mergers and acquisitions” are “restructuring and downsizing” companies which means that more individuals are competing for these jobs. Fourthly, “the revolutions in longevity and retirement, which are challenging conventional notions of old age. The aging of the baby boom generation, record low fertility rates, and increasing life expectancy mean a graying workforce and growing retired force.” (p. 17) Finally, the old ideas of expectations of individuals still persis which leads to “gender discrimination.” (p. 17)

Nowadays, “there is no “normal” life path. Americans marry later or not at all, postpone parenthood, have fewer children (or none at all), move in and out of jobs, in and out of schooling, in and out of marriage or partnerships, and in and out of retirement.” (p. 18) This means that individuals are working longer in order to support a constant change in lifestyle. In my opinion, this constant change in lifestyle lacks the stability that the past generations had. People today are constantly working and trying to get ahead which takes away from the stability that was once associated with marriage and with having a family. This means that it puts strain on individuals to work longer in order to prepare themselves for a change in lifestyle. That is to say that individuals must work and try and obtain assets in order to have the security that individuals once had. This security is now economic in its nature meaning that individuals work harder to gain more money in order to support and changing lifestyle.

The Time Bind by Arlie Russell Hochschild

Chapter 14: The Third Shift

This reading discusses a company called Amerco, where the author conducted her research on managing family time and work outside of the home. Nowadays, work life is spilling over heavily into the home sphere. According to her research, “When asked, “Do you ever consider yourself a workaholic?” a third of fathers and a fifth of mothers answered yes.” (p. 199) That goes to show how much people are working and how aware of the strain that they are putting on themselves and their free time.

Another interesting idea is that many of the workers at this company “feel more “at home” at work” because “working parents feel more at home at work because they come to expect that emotional support with be readily available there.” (p. 200) That is to say that many people form bonds at work with individuals and a lot of their friends are situated in the work environment along with them. Also, they get rewarded for what they do around the office, instead of being rewarded for their “obligations” in the home.

There were four models that the author felt that most people fit into. The first model is the haven model where “work is a heartless world and family [is] still a haven.” (p. 202) That is to say that work is just work and family is still the emotional support and a separate sphere from the work environment. The next model, the traditional model, is where each gender has its own role that it is expected to complete. For example, the men work outside of the home and women (though most work outside of the home today) are expected to deal with the duties around the house as well. The third model, the no-job weak-family model is one that “neither work nor home has any strong attraction for the individual.” (p. 203) This model mostly pertains to those who cannot find a job or sustain a family. The final model, the work-family balance model is where “parents take advantage of family-friendly options at work and do not crave time on the job so much that they are tempted to steal it from time allotted to their children.” (p. 203) That is to say that work is not the most important and does not take away from family life.

The Amerco company uses something called the “Total Quality” method of work. This is where upper level managers and people in positions of power use positive reinforcement to help motivate individuals to work longer hours and to be more productive rather than using money which can discourage some workers who do not receive such benefits. This way, “The Total Quality worker is invited to feel committed to his company.” (p. 206) They even had this cult-like workshop where “workers inscribed their names on one of the immense red banners that hung at the cafeteria entrance” which was “to signifiy their new “commitment”” to Amerco. (p. 208)

The third shift, and title of this chapter is used to signify how individuals must work, come home and work and also work at home. That is to say that they must now manage what they have going on at home with their children which takes a lot of effort and can even feel like work. In my opinion, balancing work and family life must be an incredibly hard thing to do. Individuals must work in our capitalist society in order to be able to have families or in order to be able to take advantage of everything around them, travel, go on vacations, and buy things in addition to providing for their families. As a person who had two working parents, I never noticed how hard they work and they definitely were able to find a balance between working outside of the home and working in the home with my sister and myself. Its just a matter of working hard and having your priorities straight in order to raise the family that you chose to start and now must support.

Chapter 15: Ending the Time Bind

The same company is discussed in this chapter of the book where “Amerco parents applied themselves to evading the time bind and so avoided facing it.” (p. 220) That is to say that these parents, instead of trying to find a balance or working through it, just avoided the issue of finding a balance between family and work.

Many of these parents often have to leave their children home alone because they cannot stay home or leave work early in order to pick them up after school and take care of them. “Many parents in minimum wage jobs cannot afford to hire sitters or enroll their children in after-school programs. But at Amerco it was largely not the minimum wage parents who left their children home alone; they generally called on relatives or neighbors for help.” (p. 224) These parents just do not have the resources to send their children to an organized activity or they chose to justify it by saying “I want my child to be independent.” That is to say, that these parents help justify their leaving their children home alone by saying that they are using it as a parenting technique.

Also, many women are now seen as “a manager of parenthood, supervising and coordinating the outsourced pieces of familial life.” (p. 232) This means that women are normally in charge of rearing children. These same women also pay to have their children raised. The reading discusses many services that can deliver food, take care of your children, teach them during non-school hours, etc. And these mothers oversee the process of how their children are being raised. Whether that means choosing a summer camp or hiring someone to come decorate your child’s room, this means that people are paying to have their children watched over in more than just a babysitting type situation. Parents are now paying for their children to be reared.

Many parents also like to promise things about the future, or see things like they are changing by saying “if I had more time, I would have…” This is what the author calls the potential self. These parents focus on what they could do if they had more time instead of focusing on how they can change for the better. In my opinion, we all wish we had more time to do things, and it is nice to say, “If I had more time, I would…” but I am the type of person that believes if it is something that you really and truly want then it would be something you would get or at least work towards. It is kind of a croc saying that you would do something if you had more time. Instead of complaining fantasizing about your current situation, change it or alter it or work towards something better to improve it.

“Maternal Employment and Time with Children: Dramatic Change or Surprising Continuity?” by Suzanne Bianchi

This reading touches on the changes in time spent with children and the effect on children that is cause by a mother being a worker in the market force. This author argues that even though women are working outside of the home more, it “has been accomplished with relatively little consequence for children.” (p. 401) The argument against this is that a woman working outside of the home takes time away that used to be invested in children. The article then goes on a series of arguments as to what that argument really could be in an attempt to disprove this idea that a women working outside of the home has an effect on time spent with children.

“In the United States and other developed countries, women with fewer children are more likely to be employed; also, over the long term, women’s employment reduces fertility.” (p. 403) This means that women a woman’s job outside of the home has a direct impact on her home life and vice versa. According to Bryant and Zick, “mothers spent an average of 1.2 hours per day in care of family members in both the 1920s and 1970s.” (p. 404) This means that there has not been a dramatic change in number of hours women spend with their children from when the labor force did not have many women (in the 1920s) as to when women really were heavily involved in the market force 50 years later. I feel that people tend to realize that earlier in the twentieth century, women did many things around the house as well and not just reared their children.

The article brings up a good point as well. “[C]hildren would have to be virtually always available to be “invested in” when parents are working…” (p. 405) This means that children are not always around to spend time with their parents. Once children reach a certain age, much of their time is consumed by schooling, which is time that the parent would not have with the child anyway. This is true, but there has been a decline in the amount of time that women spend with their children before they reach school age. “women’s labor force rates certainly have risen dramatically in the past three decades, particularly for women in the most intensive childbearing and child-rearing years…” (p. 407) This means that more women with young children are still working outside of the home. Not only this, but having “More working mothers created demand for early education as part of childcare, for full-day kindergartens, and so forth.” (p. 409) This means that women working outside of the home have created a support system through the community that helps support the demands of the family as well as the demands of working outside of the home.

Men are also taking a more active role in childrearing than before. “Mounting evidence suggests that mothers, on average, have not reduced their time with children and that fathers, at least married fathers, have significantly increased the time they spend with children.” (p. 410) Men are more heavily involved with the rearing of the children now that women are out of the home and part of the labor force. “In 1965, fathers reported having children with them about half as often as did mothers. By 1998, fathers’ time with children was two-thirds that of mothers.” (p. 411) This is clear that there is an increase in an active parenting role by the father figure.

I found this article very interesting because when thinking about women working outside of the home, it never occurred to me that other factors have been involved in child rearing. What I mean by this is that it never really occurred to me that women may not be impacting their families by working outside of the home. They are relatively doing the same amount of work inside the home as decades earlier with the addition of a job outside of the home. That is something very commendable and quite the accomplishment for the female population that has children and works outside of the home.

October 13th Class

“Children’s Share in Household Tasks” by Frances K. Goldschneider and Linda J. Waite

This reading talks about family dynamics and how it impacts how children participate in household chores and work around the house. The breakdown that occurs as to how parents dictate who does what around the house ends up being dependent on the age of their children as well as the gender. For example, “Girls tend to spend about twice as much time on housework as their brothers, mirroring the different levels of contribution by their mothers and father.” (p. 809) That is to say that, age and sex dictate who does what around the house whether parents realize it or not or whether they are trying to raise their children in an egalitarian environment or not.

The trend generally is: “As children get older, they clearly become more involved in household chores, indoors and outdoors.” (p. 812) The assumption behind this is that with age comes more experience and knowledge and thus, children can be more useful and helpful around the home environment. It is clear that the teenage girls do more around the house than their male counterparts, but I found this particularly interesting. “[…Y]oung adult males contribute no more to housework than do preteen children, and substantially less than their sisters of the same age.” (p. 813) This must definitely add to the amount of work that those same males will do in their future households. Whether parents realize it or not, they are gearing their children to an unequal future with regards to sharing the housework. “This childhood socialization helps to reproduce the sex segregation of household labor found among husbands and wives. The family is a “gender factory.” (p. 813)

The type of family that we come from also has a correlation to how much work we do around the home. For example, mother-only families “share more overall and the they share more in every single task.” (p. 814) That is to say that children with families headed by a single mother figure do more around the house than families with two parental figures. Not only this but, “[Teenage boys do about twice as much yard work and home maintenance in families headed by their mother only than they do in two-parent families, they also do more grocery shopping, more cooking and more cleaning…” (p. 815) Not only this, but “young women take twice as much responsibility for housework…” (p. 816) The pressures of having a single mother who heads the family clearly puts more pressure on the children to do more work around the house to make up for whatever that paternal figure was going to assume had he been there.

Stepparent families are different as well. “[T]he increased involvement the children are likely to have experiences before the remarriage does not carry over[…]; perhaps the stepfather takes over many of their chores.” (p. 816) These children, though they do not do as much as their counterparts in families headed by just a mother figure, they still do a lot around the house. “Not only do stepfathers create “Cindarellas,” they seem to increase the household contribution of stepsons as well, so that both are involved in the “extra” work.” (p. 816) That is to say that both genders are more heavily involved in household tasks when a stepfather is concerned.

I believe that children should be involved in tasks around the house for the sheer fact that it is everyone’s responsibility to help around the house and be a productive member of a family. Not necessarily for character building, but just for the fact that someone else should not have to do everything to clean up after you or cook for you, etc. It is up to you to do whatever you can to the best of your ability. I find it particularly shocking though that parents tend to perpetuate the fact that women do more around the house by indoctrinating their children to do so. Whether they realize it or not, as a generation who will one day start families, I suppose that we must keep this in mind if anyone can hope to reach equality in its entirety.

“Children’s Perspectives of Employed Mothers and Fathers: Closing the Gap Between Public Debates and Research Findings” by Ellen Galinsky

This reading is based off of the survey that the author conducted called the “Ask the Children study.” This study interviewed children in their classrooms from the ages of 8-18 and came up with certain findings on parenthood and childhood.

Some interesting statistics came out of this study. For example, “Overall, 47.5% agree with the statement, “Mothers who really don’t need to earn money shouldn’t work,” compared with 97% who agree with that “it is OK for mothers to work if they really need the money.”” (p. 221) That is to say that almost half of parents think that mothers should only work if a second income is necessary. But this takes a step back to before the time women entered the labor force. Parents are fitting into the ideas of the traditional family model where a woman is obligated to stay home and rear the children and men are meant to leave the home in order to provide for that same family. But after asking the children themselves, the study came up with “what matters most is how children are mothered, particularly whether mothers are warm and responsive, firm yet caring, and whether the children are priorities in their mothers’ lives.” (p. 223)

There is an interesting relationship between mothers and fathers employment and their effect on their children. “Although mothers’ employment is seen as potentially harmful to children because it takes them away from their children, fathers’ employment is typically not questioned. In fact, it is fathers’ unemployment that is depicted as potentially harmful[…]” (p. 223) In addition to this children seem to want to have more time with their fathers than their mothers. “This study found that children are more likely to say that they have too little time with their fathers (35%) than their mothers (28%).” (p. 224)

Another interesting thing is that, “The majority of mothers and fathers in the Ask the Children study (53%) feel that they have too little time with their children.” (p. 227) The demands of work and working outside the home has begun to spill over into the home, but parents are spending just as much time comparatively with their children as parents of past generations. But this feeling stems from the idea that “the pace of work has quickened and become more demanding and this pressure spills over into home life.” (p. 229)

The study also came up with a number of surprising opinions from the children that participated in the study. Children are concerned about their parents’ stress,” “Children are worried about their parents,” “Children do not think that their parents like their jobs as much as parents do,” and “a number of children do not know too much about their parents’ – especially their Fathers’ – Jobs.” (pp. 232-233) That is to say that parents do not ask their children and do not realize that their children can worry about things like this as well. That is why the author asserts that parents should ask their children more about what they are feeling and thinking. “According to a 12-year-old-child: Listen. Listen to what your kids say, because you know, sometimes it’s very important. And sometimes a kids can have a great idea and it could even affect you. Because, you know, kids are people.” (p. 235)

In my opinion, I think asking your children what they think is important. As a child, I always had opinions on things or ideas but my parents would listen but would most likely blow it off. It is important because I feel like kids are getting smarter as the generations go on. There is more technology that gives children access to a wider range of information. So why not listen to your children? They might surprise you or even help you out. But I also feel that it is important to a child’s development to spend time with their parents so, this would help also to form a bond between parent and child.

“How to Succeed in Childhood” by Judith Rich Harris

This article was very interesting to me because it goes behind the idea that “parent’s don’t matter.” (p. 1) It also discusses how parenting has changed over time from the idea of “Too much attention and affection [that] were though to be bad for kids.
[But i]n those days, spanking was considered not just the parents’ right bit their duty.” (p. 1)

“According to Freudian theory, children learn right from wrong – that is, they learn to behave in ways their parents and their society deem acceptably – by identifying with their parents.” (p. 2) But according to the reading, this can be a confusing time for a child. They try to do things that their parents do or they try to imitate their parents but get in trouble for it. The example the author used was of Julia, a girl a little over two years of age, who tried to make scrambled eggs like her mother had done and imitated her mother reprimanding her while she made mistakes. The author then notes, Sure, children sometimes pretend to be adults. They also pretend to be horses and monsters and babies, but that doesn’t mean they aspire to be horses or monsters or babies[…] a child’s goal is to be a successful child.” (p. 2)

So what does it take to be a successful child according to the author? According to the author, a child has a couple of jobs. The first job is to “learn how to get along with her parents and siblings and to do the things that are expected of her at home.” (p. 2) But this can be hard because sometimes children have to balance an outside world that is very different than their home. For example, families of immigrants that move here have to be able to juggle the expectations of both cultures. Or something that their parents laugh about at home might not be accepted in the school setting.

In all cultures, children learn to associate with the group. For example, children up until the age of three in hunter and gatherer societies were coddled by their mother. Once the next child came along, that child was put in a group setting where the older children taught them the rules of the society. Another example of belonging to a group would be the Robber’s Cave Study. There were two groups of boys who were split up into “Rattlers” and “Eagles” and put on the same campgrounds unbeknownst to the other group. A certain group pride was formed when individuals from one group found out about the presence of the other. “Before long, the two groups were raiding each other’s cabins and filling socks with stones in preparation for retaliatory raids.” (p. 5) This sense of group identity happens amongst all age groups as well. Teenagers, for example, who resist adult rules, “develop a sense of community and group identity.” (p. 6)

Another point in the reading was the fact that in past cultures like that of the hunter-gatherer type, individuals were exposed to everything that was going on. “There was no privacy: everybody knew what everybody else was doing. Nowadays children can’t ordinarily watch their neighbors making love, having babies, fighting and dying, but they can watch these things happening on the television screen. Television has become their window on society…” (p. 7) That is to say that the media has helped to shape our perceptions of the society that we live in and how it should be.

I agree with the idea that the group dynamic is very important to the child. Everyone wants to be part of a group whether that is certain cliques on the playground or people you associate yourself with outside of the school setting. Even as adults, I think it is easier to get along with people that make you comfortable, most often people like yourself or from a similar background. For example, many of my friends at Boston College do not come from very wealthy families, and do not necessarily have a lot of money. This is similar to the situation that I grew up in and it make not be purposeful but that just may be the type of people that attract me, people similar to myself.

“From Useful to Useless and Back to Useful? Emerging Patterns in the Valuation of Children” by Viviana Zelizer

During the 1800s, the child was seen as someone that could produce something economically to help support the family. But since, there was been a change to the “twentieth-century economically useless but emotionally priceless child[…]” (p. 209) “The cultural legitimacy of the useful child was dominant in the nineteenth century while in the twentieth, the priceless child became the conventional norm.” (p. 214) That is to say that when labor laws came out and the idea that the child was being exploited along with the idea of having an actual childhood rather than working outside of the home came about, the child was deemed as useless for the job market.

“The labor market for most children, regardless of social class, is restricted to low-paying household chores, newspaper delivery, and occasional employment by neighbors to mow the lawn, shovel snow, or baby-sit.” (p. 215) Nowadays children cannot work except for the occasional task such as these.

A lot of controversy over whether a child should work comes from separating them from the adult world. According to Germaine Greer, “‘interpenetration between the worlds of the child and the adult’ as evidence of our profound antipathy to children: “At the heart of our insistence upon the child’s parasitic role in the family lurks the conviction that children must be banished from adult society. Babies ought not to be born before they have rooms of their own.” (p. 218) That is to say that children feed off of their parents and are not expected to give back.

“Most studies find, for instance, that despite the growing number of mothers in the labor force, and the increasing ideological approval of women’s market work, the household division of labor remains largely unchanged – traditionally age and sex-typed. Children and their fathers may “help out,” but for the most part, home duties remain a woman’s job.” (p. 224) That is to say that women take on most of the responsibility for jobs, in addition to growing percentages of women working outside of the home. These women are taking on a lot more by taking care of children as well as the house and a husband while juggling a paid job. So what do many parents do? They pay their children to do work around the house. “There is some indication that children themselves find a symbolic allowance too cheap for an inflationary economy.” (p. 226)

Ms. Berman said, “No child should expect monetary rewards for fulfilling his day-to-day obligations to his home and family.” (p. 227) I agree with this statement. There should be no incentive to do it for monetary reasons, but rather children should do it for the benefit of the whole family.

In my opinion, it is a child’s obligation to complete tasks around the house. I was expected to do it, and my sister was too. My parents never used the reasoning “Because it helps build character” or “Just because I said so,” it was just understood that everyone needed to do their part. It was also split very evenly between my sister and myself. She would wash the dishes one night and the same night I would dry them and put them away. Or she would do the sweep the floors and vacuum and I would clean the bathroom, then the next week we would switch. It was not something that we did for money, but our parents did a lot for us, so we knew it was the least we could do.

October 6th Class

“The Absent Black Father” by Dorothy Roberts

This reading deals with the idea of Black fatherhood and how it is associated with fatherless children. The reading states, “Fatherlessness is seen as a distinctly Black problem.” (p. 146) That is to say that being fatherless is a problem most heavily associated with the Black race. “This racial association automatically brands fatherlessness as a depraved condition, and it offers a convenient explanation for Black people’s problems.” (p. 146)

There are also many statistics that reinforce the idea of Black fatherlessness. More Black women than White women have children out of marriage. And more Black women head their households than white women do. That is to say that, there are more single Black mothers than White mothers. This violates what we have learned as being the traditional family model whereas the male is the breadwinner and the female is the caregiver. But many Black families happen to be low-income families. That means that this model was already challenged because both Black men and Black women need to work outside of the home in order to support a family. “The image of the Black matriarch similarly violated the ideal of the dependent mother. Black men also fail to fit the patriarchal model of the husband who sustains his family economically.” (p. 151)

A lot of this has to do with the images that Black men portray in our society today. “The Black men portrayed in the media and on the minds of many Americans today – gangster rappers, hustlers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, crack heads[…]” (p. 148) This negative image of the Black man does not help to form stable families or encourage Black men to head their households and being fathers to their children. “Black men represent all of the negative aspects of fatherlessness but none of the positive potential of fatherhood.” (p. 149)

Also, with the government this discrimination is also seen. Social security is given to families where wives and children have lost the father figure, but when the father figure is absent, families receive “Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits, which are both disparaged and meager.” (p. 152) This links back to the idea of a man having to economically support his wife and children. The idea of violating this “norm” violates everything that we know today as being an appropriate role of a father figure. “What condemns the absent Black father, then, is not his lack of involvement with his children but his marital and economic status. A good father is a married breadwinner.” (p. 154) But does this idea really fit with today’s world where no many families live up to the idea of the traditional family where there is a male, female, 2.5 children that live in a house behind a white picket fence?

This article really talks about a problem that we have in society. People tend to believe what they see in the media because as children the media really forms how we think since we are so heavily exposed to it. Children today seeing Black men as gangsters or rappers makes them believe that Black men are gangsters and rappers and not only do children of other races see that as a norm but Black children must also see that as being what they are expected to be. Being a minority myself, and having all these stereotypes thrown at me because of the color of my skin, I do not appreciate this kind of labeling. It is a shame today that in a world where racism has allegedly been dissolved that it can be ingrained in our system so heavily that people do not even realize when they have negative opinions about someone based on race. I know many Black families where the father is present and some where the father is not, but the families are still successful.

“Halving it All: The Mother and Mr. Mom” by Francine Deutsch

This article deals with the idea of couples that work on alternating shifts. That is to say that the men tend to work a morning shift and women tend to work a night shift. Clearly, that means that there two individuals in the family that work for money, but how does this change family dynamics?

In most of the families discussed, their main priority is taking care of their children. They come up with a number of reasons as to why they choose to do alternate shifts: the main reason being money, which is an issue with many families nowadays. These blue-collar families need two incomes to support their growing families. Other reasons as to why they do alternating shifts were they did not want anyone else taking care of their children or the lack of funds to pay for daycare. In one of my other classes we did this project where we had to research things such as jobs, daycare, transportation and housing from the perspective of an individual who works for minimum wage. In the Boston area, childcare for two children can be upwards of $3,000 a month if not more, which makes for a reasonable statement when said that there is not enough money for daycare.

In addition to jobs, most of these families have to make compromises in the home as well. Husbands will take over the household duties when women are not around or working. For example, when one spouse goes to work, the other has to cook and clean after the children. And many men in these situations do not feel as though they are doing women’s work but it is an obligation to their family that they must complete. That being said, many people still stick to traditional gender roles as breadwinner and caregiver. “Ironically, even though alternating-shift men have lower salaries and earn a lower proportion of the family income than their middle-class counterparts, both they and their wives readily invoke the father’s role as breadwinner.” (p. 125) That is to say that many men still feel the need to fit into that role. There was even one example of a family where the wife earned twice as much as the male, but he worked more than twice as many hours so that he could still fit that gender role as the breadwinner.

Mothers too try and fit these gender roles that are seen as traditional. “Mothers in the alternating-shift families are still regarded as the number-one parent, regardless of how much time fathers spend with their children.” (p. 129) These mothers fit into the role of caregiver regardless of the fact that they spend generally the same amount of hours with their children.

The idea of an alternating-shift is a good one for a family that holds true to the idea that want to take primary responsibility of raising their children and are willing to sacrifice time together to do so. That is to say, that it is clear these families care for their children. But it is kind of strange that these individuals still try and fit into their roles that are seen as traditional where the male is the breadwinner and the female is the caregiver. It shows how society holds true to these values and how deeply ingrained it is into our system.

“No Man’s Land” by Kathleen Gerson

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter tries to uncover the changing patterns in men’s behavior over the last several of decades. There are higher rates of women working out of the home than in previous years, and this changes the breadwinner model. Men are no longer seen as being the breadwinner, which was attributed to their masculinity yet traditional roles still persist. “The decline of the male as primary breadwinner is the most apparent aspect of change. Men who provide the sole or major economic support for their families have not disappeared, but as a group they no longer predominate and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.” (p. 5)

Men, on average, tend to work less in the home than their female counterparts, but there has been a change since past years. Men now work more in the home than previously, but women still take over the primary role as homemaker whether she is a full-time homemaker or has a job outside of the home. When adding up all the work one does during a year (including housework and childrearing), “men work an average of eighty-eight fewer hours a year than do women.” (p. 6) But men have improved around the home.

There is also a changing pattern of men’s lives and if and when they find a partner. “[M]ore men and women are postponing marriage, remaining permanently single, or getting divorced. Divorce rates double between 1950 and 1985, and even though they have declined slightly since then, they appear to be leveling off at a high rate.” (p. 6) More men and women postponing marriage with the combination of high divorce rates means that more men and women are not living together and creating sustaining families. This also adds to the changing role of men in and around the household. “Paradoxically, a pattern of involved fatherhood has emerged alongside this retreat from family commitment.” (p. 9)

These changing patterns in the lives of individuals really helps to emphasize how much our lives are changing and how the traditional role of men and women does not apply anymore. There is no way to say that a family is traditional or that certain individuals should fit into the roles that our society dictates for us. It is interesting to see how drastically family dynamics have changing in the last couple decades and what it will be when our generation has children.

Chapter 9: The Myth of Masculinity

The ideas of masculinity have changed now that gender roles are slowly changing due to a shift in family dynamics. Men and women move over different paths than they once did which adds to a changing family dynamic. That is to say that the circumstances for men and women are changing every day. For example, many people marry and remarry, starting more than one family, which leads to different involvement in the lives of their children. “Several men did not participate in rearing the children of a first marriage, but became intimately involved in caring for the children of a later marriage.” (p. 261)

This reading also challenges different ideas of masculinity. There is not one masculine personality that all men have innately and the idea of a culture of masculinity is slowly dwindling. “The notion of a “culture of masculinity” cannot explain men’s diverse paths and strategies, either.” (p. 263) That being said, the idea of male dominance is still standing. Men tend to dominate the positions of power even though nowadays they have to compete with women who demand equality. This is a large change from a couple of decades ago when men and women had completely separate spheres where the former was outside the home and the later was in the home. An example of this is the pay gap between men and women. “The pay gap between women and men continues, to be sure, but it has improved from about 63 percent in 1979 to about 72 percent in 1990.” (p. 271) This shows a clear discrepancy in the power that male individuals and female individuals hold.

Also changing relationships has changed the way people act. “The rise of fluid sexual and marital partnerships has similarly ambiguous implications for men’s choice. Divorce, remarriage, cohabitation out of marriage, serial monogamy, and permanent singlehood all have grown in popularity since the 1950s, when permanent marriage predominated.” (p. 272) That is to say that “The expansion of legitimate alternative to permanent marriage, like the rise in women’s economic resources, has given men new freedoms and confronted them with new constraints.” (p. 272)

In my opinion, I think the idea of masculinity does somewhat still exist but at this point is outdated. Being a male, I was never raised with the idea of equality between the genders because it was always something that I understood. It was never forced upon me that my gender was the stronger or better in any way, yet I still believe that there is a culture of masculinity. Being a strong individual, both in personality and physicality are something that I personally associate with being manly. This is funny because I would like to think that I am all for being equal with women. My girlfriend and I always share the bills when we go out, or we take turns, and I have never once thought that I had privilege over her because of my gender, yet some of the ideas of what I deem to be masculine still exist. Its interesting how the thoughts of past decades and generations still linger today for one reason or another.