Joan Williams discusses the idea of "domesticity" as a social structure used in the oppression of women. She points out that the economic and occupational disparities between men and women are often explained away as the results of women's "choices." Williams does an excellent job of deconstructing this assumption and revealing how little choice women actually have in the matter. She defines "domesticity" as "a gender system comprising most centrally of both the particular organization of market work and family work that arose around 1780, and the gender norms that justify, sustain, and reproduce that organization" (p. 1). The article discusses in depth the problem of the expectation of the "ideal worker" in our current market. Today's "ideal worker" is expected to dedicate exorbitant amounts of time to their job and the norm is not simply a forty hour workweek - it is a sixty to eighty hours and above. Ideal workers are expected to have the ability to put in overtime hours and almost never take time off for personal or family commitments. When explained in this way, it truly does unveil how ridiculous workplace demands have become in our current economy. Mothers can rarely commit to the position of the ideal worker because children are a huge time commitment in themselves. Mothers, therefore, "choose" not to take on the high pressure career paths. However, this begs the question, why is the same not required of fathers? And why are companies able to demand this amount of control over people's lives in the first place? Williams goes further in her questioning - wondering why there is so much focus on intensive mothering in our culture today. Many mothers speak about not wanting their children to be "raised by strangers," alluding to childcare workers. Williams questions this judgment, pointing out that the teachers in our school systems could just as easily be defined as "strangers" who are having a huge impact on children's lives. I understand her point, and I do agree that babysitters and other childcare workers can be very adequate for watching over children while parents work, but I also feel that there are a lot of benefits for children who have their own parents with them the majority of the time. This new theme of intensive mothering came into being following the advent of capitalism in the United States. Capitalism brought with it the American ideal of the "self-made man" and an end to the days of automatic status handed down by birthright. At this point, parents had to begin being concerned with educating their children so that they had the necessary abilities to maintain the lifestyle their parents gave them. This was a very good point, and one that hasn't been fully analyzed in other articles I've read in the past. At this point, she is somewhat debating with herself, because while she doesn't agree with certain mothers' condemnation of childcare services, she also understands why women want to be present to raise their children and ensure their future success. She does not believe women's lives should necessarily be framed around caregiving, but she sees the value of a mother being with her child. Once again, the question in the background is - what about the fathers? Is their presence not necessary as well? With fathers attempting to keep up with being the "ideal worker" and the breadwinner, their presence becomes scarce. Pleck later addresses some of these issues in his work, "American Fathering in Historical Perspectives."
Sharon Hays. 1996. "From Rods to Reasoning." Pp. 19-50 in The Cultural Contradictions of Mothering. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sharon Hays' essential point in her article "From Rods to Reasoning: The Historical Construction of Intensive Mothering" is just as the title suggests - that our idea of mothering is socially constructed. Hays delves into history and examines how society's idea of mothering morphed with the generations. She makes good points in her questioning of our current individualistic style of child-rearing. Throughout history, the well-known quote "it takes a village to raise a child" has been a more accurate description of family practice. The individual approach we now take is consistent with current American individualistic attitudes that have also prevented American politics from properly handling the work-family conflicts we now struggle with. She brings up the idea of older siblings caring for younger children and retirees being put to some kind of childcare work. One idea she brings to the table, which is something I had never considered or thought of, is staggered school schedules to allow older children to care for younger siblings. She discusses in depth the various ways in which society has viewed children over the generations. Children went from being an almost devil-like force to pure innocence that must be protected. She also argues against the legitimacy of the maternal instinct, claiming that women have not universally cared for their children in the same way we now see, and "wives were valued for their fertility but not for their child-rearing abilities" (p. 28). Some of her ideas were innovative, but she is also very long-winded and the article did drag on a bit as she went through every detail of changing child-rearing ideologies from focused affection to scientific child training and then back into intensive mothering. I found much of the article to be repetitive and much of the detail unnecessary and superfluous. She also discusses how the ideas of popular psychological thinkers, such as Freud and Erikson, impacted techniques. Hays claims the ideas of Spock have persisted into our current generation, with an emphasis on maternal affection and allowing "the child ample room to express its wants and needs" (p. 49). However, some do argue that Spock's approach produces spoiled children. Hays concludes that intensive mothering is still pervasive in American society, while at the same time more and more mothers are entering the workforce. As a result, "the cultural contradictions of motherhood are now more pronounced than ever before" (p. 50). Motherhood is difficult enough and the addition of unrealistic expectations and the fact that children are directly pitted against career in our current society make for a climate of pressure. Motherhood seems almost undesirable at this point, and, in fact, many women are choosing to wait far longer to have children or simply not have any children at all. This is a sad fact that women who may have wanted children find themselves unable because of the work-family conflicts in the United States. The notion of intensive mothering also often makes mothers feel inadequate, when in fact they are very good mothers.
Joseph H. Pleck. 1987. "American Fathering in Historical Perspective." Pp. 83-97 in Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. Edited by Michael S. Kimmel. Sage Publications.
"American Fathering in Historical Perspective" by Joseph H. Pleck makes some extremely salient points regarding fatherhood in our current day and age as well as some of the reasons why it has reached its current point. Fathers in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were the "moral overseers" of their families, and their duties to their children extended beyond the role of breadwinner that would overtake them in later generations. The father's responsibility was to "instruct children of both sexes what God as well as the world required of them" (p. 352). At this point, mothers were seen as unable to provide such guidance because of their "tendency to "indulge" or be excessively "fond" of their children" (p. 352). As ideas on mothers changed, the role of the father shifted accordingly. In the nineteenth century, the mother was seen as possessing some form of "purity" that the father did not have that made her better suited for child-rearing. Throughout the nineteenth century, Pleck documents the shift in parenting toward a greater role for the mother and a more distant and indirect role for the father. The changes made during the Industrial Revolution also made an impact on fathering because fathers began to work outside of the home and therefore were away from the children for greater and greater amounts of time, automatically making them more distant. As industry progressed, the workplace also tended to be further and further away from men's actual homes. My own father did not live with us, he actually lived about an hour away from me for most of my life. Distance plus his demanding work schedule prevented me from seeing him more than once or twice per month while I was growing up. He has since quit his job at the time-consuming law firm and has struck out on his own. He makes far less money, but he is able to be present as a father, and that means more to us and more to him than any job or paycheck ever would. The role of the breadwinner was also thrust upon the men around the same time, which put a lot of pressure on fathers, who felt they were responsible for supporting the entire family unit. Pleck discusses how "fathers lost touch with what was actually going on in the family" (p. 355) and although the father may still somewhat have been seen as the "head" of the family, his authority has severely waned. Pleck documents fathers who are upset with this distant role and wish they were able to spend more time with their children. He also discusses the rearing of young boys and the impact of having a distant father, which may lead the boys to struggle with their developing male identities. Finally, Pleck concludes that paternity leave and other father-friendly work policies need to be implemented. He points out that "policies to reduce work-family conflicts for fathers, evoke negative responses; not so much because of their actual cost, but because they so directly challenge the father-breadwinner model" (p. 360). Pleck explains that in actuality, father-friendly work policies are not overly expensive, and can actually be very beneficial to the company that employs them. All of this leads back to Williams' point in the first article, concerning the problem of the "ideal worker." This ludicrous corporate expectation must first be attacked and changed before any real help for the family can come. Until we challenge the "ideal worker," mothers will be unable to keep up with careers and fathers will be mostly absent in the lives of their wives and children. It seems that all of our conflicts involving cultural ideals and actual company and social policies are finally coming to a head. Change is arriving soon - it is imperative that the men and women of my generation make it clear that we value both family and work and demand change in social policies to reflect those values.
No comments:
Post a Comment