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.