November 17th Class

“Whose Orgasm is this Anyway? ‘Sex Work’ in Long-term Heterosexual Couple Relationships” by Jean Duncombe and Dennis Marsden

The authors of this reading are talking about sex work in relationships. The reading asserts that individuals (mostly females) must take part in sex work in order for both parties to be happy. Women tend to seek out the emotional connection with the male in order to get that connection, but sex is a male-dominated activity where the female orgasm is no longer seen by men as necessary.

The authors talk about how there is a sex work involved in marriage. “The dominant male pays no attention to his partner’s sexual needs. (p. 223) That is to say that men are concerned with their own gratification rather than that of their partners as well. It is a one-sided activity where the woman participates in order to keep the men happy. Men must be willing to help a woman achieve orgasm during sex because sex today involves “male domination.” (p. 223) But on some level, women have the power. The article talks about a sexual need for a woman which puts the power in the hands of the woman. Some men feel vulnerable because of their desire for a woman and her control over the sex in the sense that she must agree. Many men also was a “sexually-experienced virgin” which is the idea that a woman is good in bed, yet no discussion of past sexual relationships or experience. (p. 225)

Some couples feel that it is necessary to add outside factors such as pornography, experimentation and masturbation in order to achieve sexual pleasure. Some relationships get into the habit of sex or a certain routine. In order to make sex more interesting, some people (men more than women) bring in pornography into the bedroom in order to get their wives sexually aroused. That is to say that men are completing a form of sex work by displacing their responsibility to perform sex work and physically please their wives, by using porn. This can be a turn on or a turn off depending on the relationship and the stage to which this relationship has progressed. Many individuals must also masturbate because of the lack of sexual satisfaction in their relationships. Some men said that it was better to do this than cheat on their wives.

One woman commented saying that there was a “brick wall.” This wall is that there is a certain level of resentment in her because of her sexual activity with her husband. Her relationship was disappointing physically and emotionally. Some couples turn to periods of celibacy or affairs in order to attempt to fix their own sexual frustrations.

In my opinion, I think that a relationship is about give and take. In order for both individuals to be happy, there needs to be a balance. If one person is achieving orgasm, there is no reason for the other person not to. Sex tends to be male dominated, but that does not mean that it cannot be fun and enjoyable for both parties. But in order to ensure this, both individuals in the relationship need to be open about discussion of their problems or frustrations which will lead to a better relationship. Nowadays sex is so present in the media and all around us, there should no longer be a stigma when talking about sex openly.

“‘Stepford wives’ and ‘hollow men’?”

by Jean Duncombe and Dennis Marsden

This reading deals with the emotion work done by men and women in the realm of marriage. There is the idea that many women become “Stepford wives” meaning that they tend to learn to tend to whatever the family needs or the needs of their husbands without really being aware that they are losing sight of what they personally want or need. Men are usually seen as being emotionless and not prone to doing emotion work as it is associated with what women tend to do around the home and pertaining to children and family.

This article talks about how both individuals need to manage how they feel as to how they think they “ought” to feel. (p. 212) Men are seen as being masculine “characteristically in the role of looking tough and being control.” (p. 213) That is to say that men tend to stay away from talking about their feelings and performing emotion work. “In their couple relationships, women say they try to make men talk openly about their feelings and confront their problems partly for men’s own peace of mind but also to promote the sense of intimacy they themselves value.” (p. 213) This shows that more women tend to value that intimate emotional connection that the “hollow” man.

Men do complete emotion work even though they are seen as “emotionally remote.” (p. 214) They tend to think of themselves in one was as being tough and masculine so when their ideals are violated (as given in the example of the man who could not achieve an erection in bed) they tend to try and sort out emotional problems within their own heads. That is to say that men’s emotion work takes on a role within the individual, meaning that men fix their own emotion problems through self-examination. These efforts are often supported by the women in their relationships.

The author also discusses the idea of the loss of authenticity. That is to say that many individuals forego their own emotional authenticity by giving in to what others want and changing themselves in order to perform this emotion work. This is shown in the idea of “flip-syndrome” where individuals shave a certain surface ideology but underneath feel something completely different about the emotion work that they perform.

In my opinion, I think compromising self and changing are what is entailed in a relationship and especially in creating a family. When dealing with my girlfriend, for example, she expects me to feel a certain way or say how I feel. And she is a very emotional person, as she loves to talk about her feelings. I, on the other hand, hate it, but will compromise for her in order to make sure that she is happy. I think that emotion work is part of a the compromise that individuals must have in order to ensure that both individuals in a couple are happy.

“What’s Wrong with Prostitution? What’s Right with Sex Work? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labor” by Elizabeth Bernstein

This article puts into question what exactly is wrong with prostitution and what are various views of hoe certain groups of individuals view prostitution. Most feminists call for a change in the laws regarding prostitution and deem them to be “unsatisfactory.” (p. 92) This study also stems from the fieldwork that the author completed in San Francisco working with prostitutes to uncover what she was researching.

The author asserts that many individuals do not really know what prostitution really is. It is something that is not really well understood since it is seen as a taboo in our society, many people do not want to get too close to it in order to study what it is like for these men and women that take part in it. She also covers a couple different perspectives on prostitution. The first is the radical feminist that says that “sexuality is at the root of all forms of gender inequality and sexual objectification is key to women’s subjection.” (p. 96) Women are being objectified during prostitution and this perpetuates the inequality that we see mirrored in our society. Pro-Sex Feminists see this as just “sex work.” This means that individuals should be seen as any other workers. They should be allowed to sell their bodies in whatever way they deem necessary.

The author then compares the different ‘classes’ of prostitutes. That is to say that there is a hierarchy in the world of prostitution which dictates where you stand in order to find work, what you wear, who you report to and how much you get paid. In the high-class area, women could potentially make hundreds of dollars a night due to the clientele that they interact with. On the other hand, the less high-class prostitutes are working in shadier areas for far less money. They go to jail often, they risk being beaten or hurt physically, they get paid little in comparison and do not have the protection of anyone. These prostitutes tend to be teens through their thirties but most only work for a couple of years at a time.

COYOTE is a group of individuals fighting for the rights of prostitutes. Though the majority of these individuals are not streetwalkers and claim that they would never partake in such an activity, they do not represent all prostitutes. They tend to be dancers, masseuses, escorts, exotic dancers, etc. The group itself calls for separating themselves form the stigma that is associated with this type of work and changing the name from prostitute to “sex worker” which has certain implications about it. The term sex worker seeks to make it seem like a more legitimate job. These individuals claim to be empowered and pleasured by their sexual activities. Also, the members of COYOTE are not exactly what you would think they would be. Many are college graduates or educated in some way, yet they chose this lifestyle.

The final form of prostitution that is covered in this article is the idea of exchanging drugs for sex. Many of these women are vulnerable individuals that depend on the drugs that they need. They know that the chance of them being raped or murdered is there, but yet, they go about their business because they need the drugs.

In my opinion, I think prostitution can be a very destructive and dangerous occupation. And though it is stigmatized and there are certain implications that people tend to associate with the prostitute, I really do not understand why the government can illegalize it for the sole reason that it is their own bodies and people can do with them what they want. That being said, if it were to be legalized, I think that model somewhat like that in Amsterdam would be necessary where prostitutes are drug-tested every week and there are certain criteria for being one.

“Sex Work for the Middle Classes”

by Elizabeth Bernstein

This article deals with the idea as to why are middle class women now participating in sex work. In order to answer this question, the author talks about postindustrial society. Women are often discriminated against for certain jobs that their male counterparts receive with similar education. There is inherent inequality in the United States in the job market between genders and middle class white women may see this an opportunity to get more money. There is high pay in the sex industry but there are stigmas attached to this kind of work.

The reading notes the experiences of many individuals who chose to enter into sex work. Many of which chose it for monetary reasons as their jobs were not paying enough money. Surprising to me though, many of the women were well-educated. This shows that sex work is not only a job of the poor, drug-addicted woman, but that many individuals from various socioeconomic backgrounds can now participate in this kind of work. It pertains to the new petite bourgeoisie which was a term coined be Bourdieu who came up with the idea of cultural and social capita.

The internet and new technology has been able to foster relationships between different sex workers. It can act as a way for sex workers to advertise what they do while sharing experiences with other sex workers. It acts a system of support for sex workers while connecting each other to one another in order to help foster their business and build up their clientele.

There have also been attempts to make the job seem more professional. Groups of individuals that try to do this make sure that they go over certain things such as protection and safe-sex methods, different ideas on how to go about business, and other lectures to make their work seem more legitimate. Though for the most part this work is illegal, they try to legitimize their own work and bring meaning to something with such a stigma by bringing a professional aspect to the work itself.

Also, the last section is about the idea of an attempt on the part of sex workers as well as their clientele to foster real relationships while performing the act. One prostitute talks about how she refuses to do certain things which in turn empowers her by only having clients that perform the way she wants to. In turn, that empowers her because she is equally as pleasured by the sex as she is.

In my opinion, I think this phenomenon is not that strange. Most individuals want to get as much out of what they do as possible. These individuals can have autonomy (or not) depending on if they want to find their own clientele, they can perform in the manner in which they choose, they report to no one, and they get paid relatively high pay in exchange for these sexual acts. The price they pay is one full of stigma and one full of low-status, which has individuals may look down on sex work in this way. These individuals are taking advantage of what they have in order to economically benefit themselves.

November 10th Class

Doméstica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence

by Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo

Chapter 1: New World Domestic Order

This reading talks about domestic work in the United States and the immigrant population that is employed to complete these tasks. Nowadays, more women are working outside of the home and many women work longer as well. So what were once seen as tasks performed by women, are now being handed over to immigrant domestic workers in exchange for pay. These arrangements ensure that children get the care they need and parents do not have to worry about picking up their children, rushing to get them after work, etc.

Many immigrants, especially Latinos, flock to the United States (especially the Los Angeles area) in order to be paid domestic workers. It has become so ingrained in Los Angeles culture that, “For the masses of affluent professionals and corporate managers in Los Angeles, relying on Latino immigrant workers has become almost a social obligation.” (p. 7) But this is not the first time individuals have flocked for paid care work in the United States. For example, the Bracero program from 1942 to 1964 gave contracts to Latinos to work in agriculture in the United States. (p. 7)

There are many things associated with paid care work performed by Latino immigrants. First of all, it has a certain stigma to it, and low-status associated with the job. Not only this, but a lot of the things domestic workers do “are associated with women’s “natural” expressions of love for their families.” (p. 9) This means that it is seen as women’s work and thus justifies low pay since these women are naturally inclined to complete these tasks.

Even employers and employees alike have a strange relationship caused by this low status and low wage job. Employers tend to “go to great lengths to minimize personal interactions with their nanny/housekeeper and housecleaners.” (p. 11) This is true even though workers want interaction and recognition. (p. 11) Even though this is true, many employers “are enormously appreciative of what their Latina domestic workers do for them.” (p. 11-12) This relationship is often associated with racial and gendered inequalities. Also, legal status plays a lot into this by changing bargaining power on the part of employees. If an employee is an illegal immigrant, then they are easily exploited by their employers by threat of deportation.

These roles of domestic workers has changed over the last few decades. Black women predominantly completed these tasks up until the 1970s. “In Los Angeles, for example, the percentage of African American women working as domestics in private households fell from 35 percent to 4 percent from 1970 to 1990, while foreign-born Latinas increased their representation from 9 percent to 68 percent.” (p. 17) Globalization has increased immigration and stereotypes around this work and Latina women. “Stereotypical images of Latinas as innately warm, loving and caring certainly round out this picture. Yet on the other hand, the status of these Latinas as immigrants today serves to legitimize their social, economic and political subordination […]” (p. 18)

The movement of work from individuals in the family to others (paid domestic workers) has created other inequalities. “By subcontracting to private domestic workers, these women purchase release from their gender subordination in the home, effectively transferring their domestic responsibilities to other women who are distinct and subordinate by race and class, and now also made subordinate through language, nationality, and citizenship status.” (p. 22-23)

In my opinion, this work has a number of inequalities associated with it and it is an unfortunate reality for these Latina women. The inequalities of gender and race that we see from day to day in the United States are amplified by the subordination of their citizenship and legal status, as well as their poor social class. It is an unfortunate reality that these women are subjected to such stereotyping and few job opportunities. But on the other hand, it does benefit the women and families by providing money to send back to families. It is somewhat a double-edged sword, separation from their families and their subordination provides funds that are necessary from their families, and if they stayed back home, they would be close to their families, but they would be lacking the funds to support them.

Chapter 2: Maid in L.A.

This reading goes through a few different kinds of domestic paid care work. The first of three types is live-in nanny position. Many of the women that were interviewed experienced vast amount of inequality. They experienced feelings that their employers treated them “with very little consideration, very little respect.” (p. 31) Not only this, but many felt that due to long hours, around the clock demands, and feelings as being an outsider really alienated them They could never feel comfortable in their live-in situation. With low-wages, often times a lack of providing food (which happens to be a source of feelings of alienation) and the long hours, many of these nannies felt that they were being exploited.

The live-out nanny situation is somewhat different than the live-in situation. Many women like this job for many reasons such as: the restricted hours, the ability to communicate with friends and family, to live on their own rather than being restricted by the family that they work for, and the option to take ESL classes. This outside life has other benefits as well. Overall, these women make more money on average, for less hours of work, than the live-in nannies.

Many of these nannies form certain relationships with the children that they take care of. Especially when dealing with unruly children, many of these nannies were appalled by what they saw. For example, many nannies experienced disrespect from the children like kicking, biting, hair pulling, and pranks. And many of the families did not reprimand their children for this type of behavior, but rather, they laughed or looked past it. “Nanny/housekeepers blame permissive and neglectful parents, who they feel don’t spend enough time with their own children, for the children’s unruly behavior and for teen drug use.” (p. 42) But the positive aspects of having an affectionate job for someone you care about can “make it possible for them to do their job by making it rewarding.” (p. 42-43)

Housecleaners were the last example of domestic paid work in this chapter. These women are able to have a very normal family life. Not only that, but they tend to make more money than the other two types of work. Also, many women like this kind of work because they are “not solely dependent for their livelihood by one boss whom they see every single day.” (p. 46) This breaks of the monotony of living in a home or doing the same tasks day to day and week to week.

Also the type of job mandates certain things about the women’s lives. For example, being a live-in nanny makes it harder to have a family life. The author notes, “Among those I surveyed, about 45 percent of the women doing day were married, but only 13 percent of live-ins were married.” (p. 49) “Their subminimum wages and long hours make it impossible for many live-in workers to bring their children to Los Angeles; other live-ins are young women who do not have children of their own.” (p. 50) This makes it really hard because it distances mothers and children by country. This is the idea of transnational motherhood.

One thing I thought that was very interesting from this reading was the last section on “Narratives of Racial Preferences.” It was found that both employer and employee both have preferences for what nationalities that they want to work with or work for. Many of these stereotypes were learned by the immigrant women that came to the United States in order to do paid care work. Similarly, employers have the same stereotypes of women that they are willing to hire for their jobs. For example, many people say that Latina women are very caring and nurturing naturally. Also, “Employers may also prefer to hire Latina nannies, as research conducted by Julia Wrigley suggests, because they view them as more submissive than whites.” (p. 56) I find these blatant stereotypes kind of ridiculous. It is funny how aware individuals can be and still perpetuate these kind of ideas of how certain races act and portray themselves. It is so deeply ingrained in our system, that foreigners can sense the hierarchies and racial inequalities that are present in our society.

“The Place of Caregiving Work in Contemporary Societies”

by Deanne Bonnar

This reading focuses on the problems of care work and focuses on possible solutions to the inequalities of this care work. Much of the inequality we see in this type of work comes from the market economy’s focus on production of goods. This has led to many individuals overlooking the idea that women used to produce individuals and families prior to their entrance into the labor force. Often times, “Human care has been looked at as love, duty, or biological destiny, but not as work.” (p. 193) This is part of the reason why many do not associate this with paid work, and why inequalities still exist.

Throughout the world, there are many inequalities for women when compared to their male counterparts. “A United Nations group found that women are one-third of the world’s formal labor force and do four-fifths of all informal work, but receive only 10 percent of the world’s income and own less than 1 percent of the world’s property.” (p. 193) This is a horrendous statistic by showing that inequality between men and women is rampant. Women are expected to do more of the household tasks and thus must dedicate more house to work (this work including the unpaid domestic work). Paid employment, in fact, adds to this pressure by minimizing the amount of time women have for leisure and adding to their hours of work after they return home from their paid jobs. “Joann Vanek reports that whereas nonemployed married women work 56 hours a week, employed wives 71 hours, and employed mothers of young children 80 hours, their husbands average 65 hours.” (p. 193)

According to a study done, “the industry has claimed that a homemaker’s work is worth between $10 thousand and $40 thousand a year.” (p. 194) So why is this work so undervalued? Many people do not understand the nature of the work and how much is actually put into work like this. Not only this, but women can so choose to have jobs that are less restrictive on their home lives in order to complete these tasks. Also, “homemaker activity has been labeled “housework,” it has not been considered important for market sector work to be modified to meet the requirements of domestic sector work.” (p. 197)

In other countries, there have been attempts to come up with solutions to these issues. For example, “In Sweden, China and Cuba, the official policy that males must share the housework has been extremely hard to enforce.” (p. 198) The Swedish government has acknowledged that this housework is the responsibility of both the male and female counterparts in the relationship, yet how can this even be enforced? Females would have to violate their traditional roles as homemakers which is deeply rooted in many societies and try to get their husbands to participate in something that has long been associated with women’s work.

The author of this has come up with a few options in order to change this. The first is “a system of guaranteed parental leave that permits extended care after birth and occasional leave for childhood emergencies […]” (p. 200) This would entail individuals who have family emergencies regarding their children and the elderly members of their families to have the right to leave work or get parental leave in order to care for those that need it. The second solution was an idea proposed by David Gil called ““Parent’s Wages” [... which] suggests paying wages to parents in relation to the time they devote to child care work or gainful employment respectively.” (p. 201) The third solution would be to change Social Security in order to support “day care, a network of family resource centers, and training programs for parenting and other caregiving skills.” (p. 203)

In my opinion, the change needs to come from a deep societal perspective. Individuals need to change their views on appropriate gender roles and need to come to realize that this work is the responsibility of both individuals. Once upon a time, it was more clear cut, women would work inside the home while men work outside the home. Now that both genders are outside the home, it is time to start sharing the housework as well. This change can only happen over time and I do not believe it is anything that legislation can really change.

“The “Nanny” Question in Feminism”

by Joan C. Tronto

This article discusses the problem of nannies and caregivers as well as parents as a problem of feminists that need to understand the social implications of these positions in order to fully understand what is going on.

Mothers do not have many options when it comes to child care. They can either hire a nanny, babysitter or au pair, bring their child to a neighbor or family member or take their child to a day care center. But the concern of most parents is that they want their children to be raised in the way that they want their children to be raised and that they get the attention they need. This stems from the intensive mothering perspective of raising a child.

Domestic service is a greatly unequal and unjust job. “Because domestic service takes place in a private home, it is often not regarded as employment at all.” (p. 37) This job is unlike any other. Instead of producing goods, you are nurturing a child and instead of doing it outside of the home, the job takes place inside of the home. That is to say that many people see this as not having good status as a job. Domestic workers can also feel oppressed by their employers. They are expected to convey the values that the employers want which may violate what they believe as people.

Domestic workers get paid low wages. Their main problem with their own jobs, according to the reading, is lack of “sufficient respect and dignity.” (p. 38) They want their jobs to be recognized as something respectable, as something they can be proud of. Raising children is not an easy task and thus, must be treated as an important job. They bond and form relationships with the individuals they take care of, yet are often times still seen as outsiders due to the nature of their employment.

The hiring parents also have their own conflicts with hiring these individuals to work for their families. All the relations between employer and employee are normally designated to women. Women are in charge of the “hiring, firing, and supervising the domestic help.” (p. 39) Also, they may be aware of the pay that they give to the workers in insufficient and can be a source of guilt.

Finally, the children that are involved in this care work relationship are often raised with conflicting values. They are raised by these individuals which represent one point of view, one socioeconomic background and cultural understanding but being raised in a completely different setting. “Children may come to expect that other people, regardless of their connection to them, will always be available to meet their needs. They may come to treat people as merely means, and not as ends in themselves.” (p. 40) These children may take advantage of the people around them or be “more completely immersed into a racist culture.” (p. 40)

One of the main reasons for hiring domestic care workers is the level of control that individuals have over how their children are raised. When it comes to day care centers, parents want to make sure that their children are receiving enough attention. “Hiring a nanny is a way for parents to try to keep control of their children’s sense of their needs.” (p. 45)

Finally, the author poses some solutions to the “Nanny Question.” One simple solution, would be to impose labor laws including “minimum wages and social security benefits.” (p. 47) Another example of a solution would be government funding for day care centers that would provide families with ways to care for their children without having to hire domestic care workers. And finally, “rethinking the balance between work and life, determining how everyone can be properly cared for in a way that exploits no caregivers in particular, is the most profound challenge that remains.” (p. 48)

I agree with the idea that we need to come with at the very least, a system of protection for these paid care workers. They are exploited due to racial and gendered beliefs of a woman’s and immigrant’s place in society. These women come to the United States in order to send money back home for their children. Minimum wage laws, as well as worker’s laws should be implored to ensure the rights of these individuals are met. It tends to be hard since some of these workers are not legal citizens, but if government agencies helped to give contracts or visas to these women, the situation may be different.

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.