The Division of Household Labor

Carrington, Christopher. 2002. "Domesticity and the Political Economy of

Lesbigay Families." Pp. 82-107 in Families at Work: Expanding the
Boundaries. Edited by Naomi Gerstel, Dan Clawson, and Robert Zussman.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Christopher Carrington employed a mostly qualitative study of a non-random sampling of lesbigay couples in the Sanfrancisco Bay area. He attempted to create a sample that included couples of various socioeconomic statuses and racial backgrounds. In this study, Carrington examined some of the myths of equality surrounding lesbigay couples in our culture and compared them to actual findings of work-family balance and domestic sharing. He found quite a large disparity between the egalitarian myth and the actual lives of these couples. He believes that many of these couples strive to "present ourselves, and our communities, to the dominant culture in ideal terms" (83). In this article, Carrington examines the motivations of these couples to "portray their relationships in ideal terms both to themselves and to the outside world," as well as what factors actually influence the division of domestic duties within lesbigay couples (83).

It was very interesting to read Carrington's findings concerning the division of domestic duties. Much of the inequality experienced by heterosexual couples as far as domestic labor is often explained as being due to gender roles. When both members of the couple are the same gender, how do you decide who is responsible for what? When you look at these couples, you realize how arbitrary our gender roles are with regards to domestic duties - why are women expected to fulfill household obligations? When there are two men in a relationship, household duties still need to be done, so the reasons behind why one man takes more of these responsibilities than the other employ more practical reasoning. It is interesting to note that even in the absence of set gender roles, it seems that true equality with regards to household duties is rare and difficult to achieve. Carrington discusses the basic idea of equality and its meaning as compared to "fairness." What is deemed to be "fair" is not necessarily equal. In one example, a woman defended the unequal division of household labor in her household as nonetheless fair, "a defense premised on the difficulty and demands of her paid employment when compared with that of her partner" (84). Indeed, Carrington found that the division of household labor often related directly back to paid employment and each person's commitment level to their careers, as well as the type of careers they were involved in. Carrington found that many who were employed in more of the traditionally "feminine" spheres, such as teaching, nursing, social work, librarians, school counseling, etc. tended to be the members of the couple who took on the domestic work within the household. There may be several reasons for this. Typically jobs within these spheres feature more family-friendly attributes, such as a real 40-hour workweek (as opposed to as much as 60 for professional jobs), flexible leave, more vacation time, etc. all of which would leave the employee more time to commit to household responsibilities. One of the most interesting arguments in the article came from a couple that ended up breaking up because of the study. One man's argument was that his partner did more of the domestic work because that was his personal "interest," therefore not recognizing it as work at all and not respecting or appreciating the time and effort his partner put into their home. It is amazing to me that this man was able to truly believe that domestic duties were simply an "interest" or a hobby of some sort, rather than necessary to life. I would speculate that this man probably had a mother who took very good care of him and perhaps never had to stress about a balance between work and family - his every need was likely attended to, and he never was made to realize the amount of work that goes into making a home.

Ultimately, Carrington's study showed the egalitarian myth of equality within lesbigay couples to be just that - a myth. However, their practical separation concerning household versus economic duties within the couple does follow a progressive path. Whomever is more concerned with and committed to their career within the couple typically focuses on that while the other half works with the domestic front. Carrington talks about a gravitation towards domestic duties, rather than clear cut decisions about who will do what. Whatever seems to work the best with both of their schedules tends to determine the division of labor. Some even began to feel a sense of fulfillment from household duties and Carrington also notes that those who committed themselves full-time to the domestic sphere were often heavily involved in non-profit work as well. Discussion of the "glass-ceiling" for homosexuals of both gender also provided insight on why some chose not to throw themselves fully into their paid work - because they are not likely to reap the deserved benefits. For example, Brad discusses his switch from putting in crazy hours at work to a more practical schedule: "I realized I was not going to move up, not unless I went to another company. So I began to set some limits. I no longer go in on weekends, and I try to leave by 5:30 now. I do a lot more at home" (98). The practicality of arrangements within lesbigay couples does tend to break down gender roles (which clearly must be done either way in a couple of both the same gender) but does not necessarily create equality.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1990. "Joey's Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt."
Pp. 33-58 (Chapter 4) in The Second Shift. Avon Books.

In Chapter 4 of The Second Shift, Hochschild uses a case study of Nancy and Evan Holt to depict the emotional issues surrounding the division of household labor in contemporary middle-class families. It is clear that Nancy is in a much different mindset than her husband - who appears to be stuck in the ideals of a previous generation. Unfortunately, his prejudices are not uncommon. It is important to note that Nancy fears divorce more than Evan - she has every right to fear divorce more - she has a young child. While he is already essentially fully her responsibility, he will be even more so if she becomes a single mother. Nancy's personal beliefs and concern about her worth and being valued within the marriage are of utmost importance to her sense of identity - in the end she has to convince herself that it is equal (even when it is not) simply to maintain sanity and keep her marriage intact. It is truly very sad. "Joey's problem" = very interesting. she doesn't go into as much detail with it as I would have expected, considering the article is titled "Joey's Problem" but it does delve into an interesting discussion of power relations in sex and the fact that Evan feels cared about when they make love, and she feels cared about when he does his share of housework (which he never does, so having Joey in bed with them provides an excuse for her to withhold sex as well). The whole thing leads to unhealthy grappling for power within the relationship. This story made me really, really sad. It really speaks to the importance of having an understanding of these expectations before a marriage occurs.

DeVault, Marjorie L. 1987. "Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life."
Pp. 178-191 in Families and Work, edited by Naomi Gerstel and Hariett E.
Gross. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Throughout history and within essentially every culture that has ever been in existence, meals have represented more than just material sustenance. Meals represent bonding and social aspects of family and relationships. People come together around food - which is why almost every major holiday is commemorated with a feast. Devault speaks about the women who prepare most of these meals, whether on a daily basis or not, and their feelings towards this work. She uncovers the various types of emotion work involved in preparing meals for a family. A mother needs to know the tastes of all of her children and her husband and try to prepare meals that everyone will enjoy. Not to mention the need for certain food groups in meals, etc. Devault also notes that most women, while carefully considering everyone else's tastes, were careful not to give their own preferences any kind of special weight. Such an observation begs the question - why? Why are women not concerned with what they themselves would like to eat? It may go back to women's socialization to please others, or it may have more to do with cultural norms. I also found it interesting when she spoke of a man complaining that while the food was good, he did not want "breakfast for dinner," because his wife had cooked quiche. I found this interesting, because if the food was good, what does it matter? My mom used to make "breakfast dinners" all the time. Cultural scripts determine what kinds of food we eat and when. Another interesting discussion centered around family meal time conversation. As previously mentioned, many families use meal times to create social interaction and bonding. Unfortunately, at times it may be a little bit forced - Devault explains one woman's plan to get all of her kids to bring news articles to discuss at the dinner table. Assigning homework for family dinner is not the best way to get your kids to look forward to dinner. As per usual American style, the good idea was taken too far. Additionally, simply reiterating a news article to the family does not help parents get to know their kids better and learn their personalities, which should really be the primary objectives of bonding.

Quite a bit of work goes into preparing meals, not only the cooking itself. Devault explains that meal preparation falls under one of the many categories of "invisible work" within the home. Coordinating schedules, figuring out everyone's food preferences, and then trying to put together a good meal - or even several meals if everyone has very different tastes - takes a lot of energy. It is also interesting that women who were served meals by others spoke of "being spoiled," whereas for men having the luxury of a meal served to them is a given. Devault sums up her argument in her explanation, "when they (women) bring people together for meals, they are not only providing sustenance, but also producing family life itself" (188).

Gupta, Sanjiv. 2007. "Autonomy, Dependence, or Display? The
Relationship between Married Women's Earnings and Housework." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 69: 399-417.

Gupta's conclusion that women's housework burden is based on their own income and not that of their husbands is very interesting. The majority of women are classified according to their husbands' incomes and not their own. Their social class is typically determined by their husbands' occupation and many would assume that their amount of housework would be directly related to their husbands' working patterns. It is somewhat disheartening and somewhat reinforcing that women's housework is more closely related to their own paid work. The independence of the two factors (a husband's paid work and a woman's housework) is comforting in that it shows a certain level of separation, but also it shows that regardless of economic or working status, men really have very little to do with housework and childcare. The fact that women are clearly not "dependent" on their men is a very reassuring fact.

The Time Bind

Phyllis Moen and Patricia Roehling. 2004. Chapter 1 from The CareerMystique: Cracks in the American Dream. Rowman & Littlefield.

This article is excellent. Moen and Roehling discuss both the feminine mystique and the oft ignored “career mystique” and the issues they both cause in current American society. The image of the “ideal worker” has persisted into our current day and age where it truly does not belong. Moen and Roehling discuss how the career mystique was born of the feminine mystique because the ideal of a wife staying at home and working full-time within the home to take care of all of the care needs of the family allowed husbands to dedicate their entire lives to their work. They define the “career mystique” as “the expectation that employees will invest all their time, energy, and commitment throughout their “prime” adult years in their jobs, with the promise of moving up in seniority or ascending job ladders” (p. 5). There are many issues with this idea. First, while this “traditional” breadwinner model was truly only ever possible for the elite few, today with the breakdown of gender roles and ideals of equality, it becomes even more impossible. Most women and mothers are now in the workforce, and while in the workforce they are expected to commit to the same ideal worker mentality as their husbands. Neither husbands nor wives any longer have someone to back them up at home while they devote their time and energy to the workplace. Additionally, in today’s cutthroat capitalist environment and unstable economy, all of this hard work no longer even guarantees job security – much less a guarantee of rising in the ranks. The traditional breadwinner model, as Moen and Roehling point out, decouples paid work from the family sphere, therefore making it possible for companies to essentially ignore the fact that families exist and consider it a “private” matter, which also coincides with the American individualist ideals. The authors make an excellent point when they describe how work-family “balance” and even supposed “family-friendly” policies such as flex plans and child care are actually all about supporting work, not families. Childcare options allow parents to work longer hours and devote more of themselves to their jobs, not their families. And many workers even fear taking advantage of any family policies, such as maternal or paternal leave, available to them because they want to be seen as fully committed to their jobs. The authors explain, “the Faustian bargain of trading a lifetime of paid work for a lifetime of income security is probably gone forever” (p. 9). Therefore, workers must fight to keep their jobs, and any perceived falters can work against them. Rather than working against the impossible demands of the workplace, the authors suggest, “we view the metaphor of balance as a cultural convention reinforcing gender inequalities at work and at home, while failing to challenge the career mystique” (p.10). I also liked their description of jobs as “greedy” institutions, “assuming workers were able and willing to work long hours, to put in mandatory or “voluntary” overtime, to move for occupational advancement, to travel as needed, sometimes to work weekends, and, more recently, to work from home” (p. 11). My mother has had to do all of the above over the years in order to maintain her career and ensure she keeps her job. As Moen and Roehling also discuss, many workers are forced to take on the roles of other workers who have been laid off. My mother has been working as much as three jobs at one time. I do not understand how this kind of employee abuse is permissible, but I suppose it has a lot to do with the fact that employees in today’s workforce do not feel they can demand what they need from employers for fear of losing their jobs. As Moen and Roehling point out, smaller and smaller percentages of employees are unionized, and it seems that employees are disenfranchised and basically on their own. Technology has even worked against us in some ways by enabling workers to work all the time, anywhere. These issues can be explained using the idea of “structural lag,” which the authors define as a process “in which old customs and routines persist in the face of changing realities” (p. 23). American society in particular seems to have serious issues with structural lag. Americans continue to put in more hours than the rest of the advanced world and reap fewer benefits. My personal speculation is that this country was heavily based on ideals and our mindsets are very ingrained with the “American Dream” and ideas of individualism and hard work. Anything perceived as “help” or assistance of any kind is initially shunned as a threat to our independence as Americans. Therefore, we are very unwilling to accept structural change that challenges the status quo or insinuates in any way that Americans may need help. Until we question what Moen and Roehling term the “lockstep” career path or the “career mystique,” we are trapped in the impossible work-family “balance” and the time bind.

Hochschild, Arlie. 2001. Chapters 14 and 15 from The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. Holt Paperbacks.

Hochschild creates a brilliant in-depth analysis of the “time bind” in chapters 14 and 15 from her book. She delves deeply into the minds of workers as well as the structures surrounding them in order to more fully understand the ways in which the workplace is allowed to monopolize these people’s time and lives. The first thing she discusses is the fact that many workers may actually feel more comfortable in their workplace than in their home. In the workplace, people may feel more appreciated and more competent, and overall more valued. Studies show that workers “appreciate themselves more at work than at home,” which likely connects to the strong connection between identity and productivity and work (p. 200). The workplace reinforced these feelings with the “Total Quality” system, which Hochschild examines in the Amerco company. This system focuses on encouraging workers and making them feel (no matter where they are in the company) that they are important and have autonomy within the system and their work does matter. Through personal recognition (rather than money) employers motivate workers and try to keep them happy on the job. I found it very interesting that some of the criteria employees are judged on included items such as “seeks feedback on personal behaviors,” “senses changes in attention level and mood,” and “adapts personality to the situation and people involved” (p. 206). These criteria were things I had not expected to see on a corporate assessment because they are stereotypically “feminine” qualities and I wonder if the influx of women into the workplace has encouraged more of this type of assessment. Rather than a focus on competition and intensity, there seems to be an emphasis on teamwork. Hochschild points out that “the sense of being cared for encouraged workers to adopt a more personal orientation towards work time” and therefore become more committed and personally connected to their work, which would further point them towards a focus on work rather than family (p. 208). This more personalized attitude towards the workplace leads to a more structured and “efficient” model of running the household on limited time frames. Even “quality time” is now bracketed into a certain section of time during the day, and therefore often does not accomplish its purpose of “quality.” Hochschild makes an excellent point in her observation that the family is falling apart, with divorces and remarriages and second an third divorces, with little or no assistance towards maintaining the family. She explains, “large sums of money are spent to stage “commitment ceremonies” between the company and its workers whenever a “divorce” seems to threaten. But who rewards a difficult new kind of emotional work or watches for declining profit margins at home? Who calls for renewed vows of commitment there?” (p. 211). Work in the home is rarely as highly rewarded as work in the workplace, and therefore many people may feel more highly valued at work than they do in the home and may spend more time there as a result, despite the large amounts of guilt. So, Hochschild argues that while monetary issues and the fear of loss of employment are factors that keep workers from rebelling against norms (as Moen and Roehling state) it is also personal choice that keeps them in the workplace. Hochschild discusses the “cult of efficiency” within the home, where everything is downsized into the smallest possible piece of time, which is typically not ideal for children. Parents often discuss a desire for their children to be “independent” as reasoning for some of their methods. Hochschild says, “of a three-month-old child in nine-hour daycare, a father assured me, “I want him to be independent” (p. 228). In chapter 15, Hochschild examines some of the new approaches parents (particularly mothers) use to help them combine work and family. Most of these things are about outsourcing various pieces of the household responsibilities, such as using cleaning services and nannies, as well as more creative options. She uses the example of “home-cooked” meals delivered in Tupperware so they can easily be reheated and given to children without all of the hassle of cooking. The family I nannied for over the summer actually did do this. While I was available to make breakfast and lunch, perfectly portioned dinners were delivered in containers and kept in the fridge to be distributed throughout the week. The idea of a child needing to be “independent” and the minimization of a child’s needs are in direct opposition to the “intensive mothering” model. It is interesting to see how the idea and value of children changes with the needs of the marketplace. She also brings up summer camp and other similar organizations that parents can utilize for childcare and claim are helping their children. One of the mothers I babysit for sent her daughter to sleep-away camp for almost the entire summer, and then gave me a whole speech about how “good it was for her.” As far as paying for errands, just last week I was paid to pick up a grandmother at her hotel and drive her and her granddaughter around so they could have quality time and go out to lunch – while the mother was at work. Hochschild describes, “the time-starved mother is being forced more and more to choose between being a parent and buying a commodified version of parenthood from someone else” (p. 232).

I love her discussion of the idea of the split identity of parents – the “actual selves” of the parents and the “potential selves.” My mother absolutely has done this our entire lives and continues to do it today. It is a never-ending, “if I had the time I would…” fill-in-the-blank. She always harbored intense guilt about never being around, though as a single mother she had no choice but to work. Many Amerco parents spoke of “going places and doing things ‘when the children are older’” (p. 237). My mother did this, and now we are older, and we still have done none of the things she spoke of. It really is sad. So many people are living one life, while secretly wishing they were living another.

Again, most of these issues tie back to the ultimate problem of the ideal worker in American society. The ideal worker does not make a good parent.

Bianchi, Suzanne. 2000. "Maternal Employment and Time with Children: Dramatic Change or Surprising Continuity?" Demography 37: 401-414.

Suzanne Bianchi essentially makes the opposite argument to the previous articles. She argues that while women have entered the workplace, their overall parenting time has not decreased and has had very little negative impact on children. She concludes, “that mothers’ time and attention to children has been far more constant over the past few decades (and that the gap between employed and nonemployed mothers regarding time with children is far smaller) than we might have expected, given the increase in women’s labor force participation” (p. 412). I feel that her argument, while substantially supported by numbers and research, does contain quite a few holes, and is also somewhat vague. She explains that we have overestimated how much time stay-at-home moms actually spent directly parenting their children and argues that working mothers spend a similar amount of time parenting. She strips down parenting to the direct act of spending time with the child while doing no other activity. I believe she severely underestimates the value of the parent’s simple presence. Of course, the quality of the time and the parenting is of extreme importance as well, but I do believe she discounts the value of simply having a mother present with their child, and “there for” their children, in the physical sense of support as well as the psychological. Additionally, some of the studies she uses in this article actually work against her argument. For example, “Bryant and Zick acknowledge that employment outside the home reduces time spent caring for children, other things being equal” (p. 404) therefore suggesting a direct correlation between employment and a decrease in time caring for children. However, it is true that Bianchi’s main argument does deal more with the significance of that decrease in time with children rather than lack of it altogether. I also am not sure I agree with or can connect with her argument. Having my mother working full-time (granted, she was a single mother, which does change the picture) absolutely took away from my time with her. My precious little time with her also was not quality time because we were constantly in a rush to get somewhere and she was always tired, stressed, and usually angry. I would argue that this absolutely impacts a child because a child is very sensitive to the moods of a parent. A stressed parent will often cause a child to stress. Bianchi throws together a lot of numbers from various studies, but all of these numbers come to different conclusions that do not always support her argument, making it all the more vague. However, she does have an advantage over the other articles in that she takes into account part-time work. The previous articles mostly discuss dual-earning, full-time parents. She also brings up good points surrounding kids’ time in school and the small amount of time in which they are actually “available” to be parented. She also brings fathers into the argument, claiming that working mothers allow more time for fathering to come into the picture, which I believe everyone would view as a positive development. Overall, while I don’t fully agree with her argument, Bianchi brings some new perspectives to the surface and adds to the work-family discussion. I somewhat dislike her argument primarily because it will not assist in any way with the battle with the workplace for family time and the breaking down of the “ideal worker” mentality.

Jacobs, Jerry and Kathleen Gerson. 2001. "Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families: Explaining Trends in Work, Leisure and Family Time." Work and Occupations 28: 40-63.

The beginning of this article had me questioning its relevance with its discussion of “leisure time” and its insinuating argument that Americans now have more leisure time, which would be an argument I would take issue with. However, the focus of the article seemed to switch dramatically as it delved into the research, and the conclusions were actually very significant. Jacobs and Gerson explain their findings that it is not necessarily an increase of the total hours worked that has created this work-family crisis in America, but the changing composition of families and the dramatic rise of dual-earner couples. The authors compare the hours worked as well as other factors between households in 1970 and households in 1997. They found differences in individual work hours to be within a few hours – about 3 hours’ increase – but this was not the significant finding. Their observation of gender differences in hours worked, and especially in hours worked depending on the number of children, was very important. Men with more children tended to work more than their childless counterparts and women with more children tended to work less. However, again, the difference in actual time worked per individual was only a difference of a few hours. The authors note, “that changes in the working time of individual workers cannot explain the rise of family time deficits. Rather, these changes stem from a transformation in family composition and gender relations” (p. 60). It is also alarming to note the increase in the number of households with dual-earner couples who work 100+ hours per week – even when they have children. These couples are mostly highly educated and involved in powerful careers. Unfortunately, this is another example of the way in which the ideal worker mentality rules the lives of Americans. These people would not be at their level of success if they did not put in such ridiculous time commitments. Jacobs’ and Gerson’s conclusion that “the amount of flexibility on the job, and not just the total number of hours, needs to be considered” as well as their belief that “the time has come to create a more flexible and family-supportive workplace, including more options for reducing working time” are both constructive solutions to the problem of work-family balance in the U.S. While I do believe that the outrageous hours worked are problematic, the authors do make a good point that the underlying problem is more about flexibility and accounting for the fact that workers do have families and children and other responsibilities to consider. However, policies can be put in place, but they will not be properly utilized until Americans are able to transform their mindset. Current policies are rarely taken advantage of by Americans because they fear the loss of their jobs or the implication that they are not ideal workers. We need to change our mentality before structural changes are effective.

Side note:

In my research I would like to explore not only the need for paid maternal leave, but perhaps whether or not women would take full advantage of it in the U.S. or if they would still fear not being viewed as equals in the workforce or getting behind on their work.

The Roles of Childhood

Frances K. Goldschneider and Linda J. Waite. 2001. “Children’s Share in Household Tasks.” In Shifting the Center: Understanding Contemporary Families, 2nd ed. Edited by Susan J. Ferguson. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

In the first line of the article, Goldschneider and Waite explain the basic issue with the current functioning of many American homes: “the home is not a very egalitarian place” (p. 809). Goldschneider and Waite conducted a study in order to determine the type of work (if any) children do within the home and also the differences in work along the lines of gender and age. They also looked at nontraditional family types, such as single parent homes and homes with step-parents, to look at some of the differences that may occur. Overall, “children take relatively little responsibility for most household tasks” (p. 811) but the differences they found as far as gender and the types of work performed were very interesting indeed. They found that girls aged twelve to eighteen are responsible for the largest amount of housework. Teenage sons do the smallest amount of housework, but when they do work around the house it is almost always yard work of some sort. Children’s chores are sharply gender-segregated. As Waite points out, “childhood socialization helps to reproduce the sex segregation of household labor found among husbands and wives. The family is a “gender factory” (p. 813). When boys do repairs and yard work while watching their sisters clean the house and cook, they will develop certain ideas about the way a home is supposed to be run. A prevailing theme in this article, which I happen to believe is their most important argument, is the fact that children learn their value systems and the symbolic importance of gender roles within the home. If they grow up in a home that is dramatically gender-segregated, they are going to learn that this is the proper way for the world to work. Men may not offer to help their wives with housework if they believe housework to be a “woman’s job” and ideas such as these block progress. Another interesting discovery in this study was the difference found in nontraditional families. These families were more likely to have more fluid ideas of gendered tasks and everyone seemed to pitch in more overall. The study explains that single mothers often develop a different kind of relationship with their children, one that centers more on partnership and shared responsibility for the running of the home. Coming from a household headed by a single mother, I believe I would tend to agree with this assessment. We all had to do all types of chores. And I also believe it was positive for my brothers to see my mother doing yard work and other "men's" work because it proves that even though she is a woman (and a tiny woman - 5 feet tall and about 100 pounds) she can do all of the same work that men can do. I think we all grew up knowing simply that the work needed to be done, not necessarily associating gender with any particular task. I was also fascinated by her observations of step-parent families. She explains that the presence of a step-father tends to create "Cinderellas" in older girls and they tend to do less work overall - including the care of small children that may be their own. I acquired a step-father quite a few years ago, and I am unsure of how it has changed my household participation. I think that children may be more likely to feel like a "guest" in their home when there is a step-parent present and therefore feel like they need to do more work to be a part of the household, but at the same time they may feel no ownership towards the household and therefore not be as willing to participate. All of the study's findings were extremely interesting, however, I think the primary point is that children should be participating more in household chores and helping mothers with their overload of responsibilities. Additionally, care needs to be taken to ensure that the chores are not gendered and everyone participates equally in everything. I plan to run my household in this manner someday, and I do hope it helps to break down traditional gender roles.

Harris, Judith Rich. 1999. “How to Succeed in Childhood.” The Wilson Quarterly, 23(1), p. 30-37.

While Goldschneider and Waite argue that parents and the household have a huge impact on children and the adults they become, Judith Harris argues the exact opposite point in her article, "How to Succeed in Childhood." Harris argues that parenting styles and the very idea of childhood have changed drastically over the past few centuries, but yet it has overall made very little difference in how children turn out. She discusses the socialization process and makes the argument that it is in fact peers and current culture that make the most important impacts on children - not parents. She argues that children adapt to whatever environment they are in at a given time, which is why so many parents of school troublemakers are surprised because their child is very calm and obedient in the home setting. She also discusses the ways in which the human mind likes to categorize and create groups. Along with creating groups, we create enemies of our groups. Harris explains, "when people are divided (or divide themselves) into two groups, hostility is one common result" and "if there aren't any differences (between the groups) to begin with, the members create them" (p. 5). I understand Harris' point and I can agree with some of her conclusions, however I am very skeptical of the idea that parents have little to no impact on their children. I do agree that the culture they grow up in is very instrumental in their development, but I would argue that parents have a substantial impact as well. She uses the argument that parenting styles have changed over the years but yet children are still growing into adults just the same, but I would point out that the culture has changed as well in many different ways. I tend to agree more with the Goldschneider and Waite article as far as gender socialization within the household and the impact of parents and family. I personally feel that my parents have made a difference in the person I have become. I think Harris doesn't focus enough on the fact that values are instilled within the household and children's first ideas of love, discipline, etc. are all from within their homes. Ultimately, parenting does make a difference.

Galinsky, Ellen. 2005. “Children’s Perspectives of Employed Mothers and Fathers: Closing the Gap between Public Debates and Research Findings.” From: Work-Family Balance to Work-Family Interaction: Changing the Metaphor, edited by Diane F. Halpern, and Susan Elaine Murphy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Galinsky's "Ask the Children" study is a very innovative research idea that focuses on the opinions of children and shows some of the differences between what parents think their children are thinking and what their children actually are thinking. Using a system they are familiar with, Galinsky asks the children to "grade" their parents on various criteria. One of her goals was to discover whether or not having a working mother impacts or upsets children. She finds, "there are no differences in the "grades" given by children who have employed mothers with those who have mothers at home full time" and, in fact, children were more likely to say they lacked time with their fathers (p. 222). She discovers it does not matter simply whether or not the mother works, but what matters most is "how children are mothered" (p. 223). One of the most interesting, and surprising, findings is that "between 9% and 43% of children do not see their mothers as parenting them very well (they give their mothers a C or lower" (p. 223). I was shocked by this statement. I have definitely been under the impression that most children absolutely adore their mothers. She also manages to ease some of parents' guilt concerning childcare, because she finds that childcare providers do not replace parents in any way and usually do not significantly impact the parent-child bond. Galinsky found a major discrepancy between what parents believe they need to give their children and what the children feel they need. Parents tended to focus on the need to spend more time with their children, but children expressed a desire for their parents to be less tired and stressed during the time they already spend together. Children didn't necessarily need a lot more time, but they did more quality in the time they have. She also discovered that children worry extensively about their parents and their parents' stress levels. Ultimately, she emphasizes that parents need to listen to their kids, because "kids are people" too.

Zelizer, Viviana. 1994. “From Useful to Useless and Back to Useful? Emerging Patterns in the Valuation of Children.” Chapter 7 from: Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. Princeton University Press.

Zelizer makes some interesting points in her article regarding the changing role and valuation of children in American society. She discusses children's switch to the role of "priceless innocence" and the "sacred child" that had to be protected, rather than simply a small adult who could be put to work. The idea of having a childhood is actually a relatively new phenomenon. In most cultures in the past, children worked right alongside their parents and were rarely coddled to the extent they are now. I believe one of her most important points is that "the sentimentalization of childhood too often stops at the family's doorstep" and we do not extend our love for children to other people's children - only our own. Americans are willing to spend absurd amounts of money on their children for frivolous items, but are very unwilling to give to social programs that support American children overall. As a result, public forms of child welfare lack the support they need to be effective. She also argues that in today's society children are "underemployed" and it would be beneficial to put them back to work. She explains that children, just as adults, need a sense of responsibility and a sense of worth and involvement in the needs of others. I agree with this argument, and while I certainly don't support children returning to sweatshops, I do think they could handle a bit more responsibility than they're given. Previous articles have discussed how little housework children do and the immense responsibility placed on overworked mothers. Children could definitely participate more in the household, however, Zelizer points out that this becomes an issue because then there is the question of whether or not to pay them for their work. Zelizer discusses children's relationship with money and argues that they should have some type of income. Personally, I am not sure I fully agree with this. I understand that society seems to have an issue with associating money with household work, which in turn devalues household work, and I do believe that this is a problem, but I think that as long as mothers are not paid, children do not need to be paid to take responsibility in the household. Having some money so they learn how much things cost and understand that you have to work for money are important lessons, but I am not sure I have as big of a problem with children's subordinate status in society. They are not adults and do not have the maturity level of adults, so, to me, it makes sense that they do not earn money in the same way adults do and do not take on the same level of responsibility. I also am not sure that children necessarily need to be economically useful. Nowadays, they are more of an economic liability. Zelizer makes some interesting points in her article, and it certainly gave me some things to think about.

Fathering and Fatherlessness

Dorothy Roberts. 1998. "The Absent Black Father." Pp. 145-161 in Lost Fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America. Edited by Cynthia R. Daniels. St. Martin's Press.

In Dorothy Roberts' article, "The Absent Black Father," she does an excellent job of revealing the ways in which race shapes the debate concerning absent fathers in America. Making Black men symbols of fatherlessness automatically brands it as a "depraved condition" and offers a convenient explanation for problems that plague Black communities. Rather than recognizing the institutionalized racism that contributes to the cycle of poverty in many Black communities and welfare policies that discourage fathers from staying in the home, popular ideas tend to blame the immorality of Black family structures. The individualistic American culture has a very strong component of self-blame, which is especially applied in the case of welfare benefits. Roberts points out that the pervasive matriarchal family structure in Black communities is also often blamed for the "pathology" of Black communities. Between racism and sexism, the Black community is severely marginalized. Roberts discusses the ways in which the welfare system has contributed over the years to pushing fathers out of the home and essentially creating this issue of "fatherlessness" and "the absent Black father." She explains, "many states granted aid only if a parent of the needy child was continually absent from the home, denying payments if the child's father or "substitute father" lived there" (p. 154). Laws such as these directly pushed fathers out of many poor homes that needed welfare benefits. While new welfare laws are working to reverse this trend, they are still not recognizing the root causes of poverty and fatherlessness. Penalizing poor mothers for not marrying is just as problematic. Ultimately, it is extremely unlikely that marriage or child support payments will eradicate the poverty of Black children. Also, many men being chased for child support will simply be paying most of the money back to the state to "repay" the welfare benefits that were given to their children in their supposed absence. Roberts explains that the assumption of the absent father is often inaccurate, "many presumably "absent" Black fathers actually play an important role in child rearing. Many Black men stay closely tied to their children even when they are not married to the mother or are unable to provide financial support....poor African-American, officially absent fathers actually had more contact with their children and gave them more informal support than did White, middle-class absent fathers" (p. 153). Many of these men do not want to abandon their children and do wish to be in their children's lives. They are "absent" because they are not recorded as paying child support. Child support can be nearly impossible for an unemployed or incarcerated man to pay. Mothers often try to protect the fathers of their children because they understand the difficulties they face. Unfortunately, the ways in which they have to go about protecting these men can be damaging for them - many women claim they do not know who the father of their child is in order to protect him. This claim lends further fuel to the stereotype fire surrounding the Black community. The extremely high rates of Black men in American jails also contributes to the issue of fatherlessness. Again, the cycle of poverty and institutionalized racism that is more likely to put Black men behind bars are largely to blame for this phenomenon - but Americans are very reluctant to admit to this. An incarcerated man cannot make money to support his children and even when he is released he is extremely unlikely to be able to get a decent job because of his record. Unemployment and frustrations as a result of unemployment often also lead to incarceration. All of these factors render many of these men unmarriageable in the eyes of mothers - leading back to the matriarchal system of child-rearing, including vast networks of "othermothering." The fact that women largely rule Black communities further stigmatizes them because of sexism. A system run by women must automatically be somehow diseased and wrong. Roberts concludes that "the correlation between race and poverty overshadows the correlation betweenfatherlessness and poverty" and "racial inequality - not fatherlessness - is the leading cause of Black children's deprivation. Pretending that Black poverty is the fault of absent Black fathers provides a defense against addressing America's institutionalized racism" (p. 157). It is extremely interesting to examine the differences between the way America views white, middle-class single mothers as compared to Black single mothers of any class. In fact, currently in the media there has been an outburst of celebrities having children - with or without fathers present. An unmarried and pregnant Kourtney Kardashian is all over the tabloids - painted in a mostly positive light concerning her illegitimate child. What is seen as a pathology within the Black community is glorified in the celebrity world. In reality, the fact of single mothering does not matter nearly as much as who the single mother herself is. Roberts final points, I believe, are extremely important ones to recognize. She explains that these stereotypes surrounding Black family structures "pretend that half of Black children are born into poverty because their fathers are not around, not because their fathers are jobless. It lets America off the hook for failing to construct a system of welfare (in the broad sense) that ensures the well-being of all its citizens" and (most importantly, in my opinion) "It is part of the age-old trick of convincing people that the problems of disempowered groups result from their own bad habits and not from an unequal social structure" (p. 158). This assertion, resulting from the myth of the American "self-made man" and the myth of the "American dream" will continue to plague our society and prevent us from any real, tangible change until we can move past it and understand it for what it is - a myth.

Francine Deutsch. 2002. "Halving it All: The Mother and Mr. Mom." Families at Work: Expanding the Boundaries. Edited by Naomi Gerstel, Dan Clawson, and Robert Zussman. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Francine Deutsch's study of double-earner couples, mostly involved in shift-work in order to split childcare responsibilities as evenly as possible, was extremely interesting in several important ways. She interviewed dual-earner couples who felt that their household responsibilities were evenly or almost evenly split. In her discussions with these couples, it was often very clear that while many working class shift-working couples did split responsibilities far more evenly than the average middle-class couple, most of these families still believed strongly in the "breadwinner" model and, regardless of actual income or hours worked, most still viewed the father as the "breadwinner" and the head of the household. I was intrigued by the way these couples behaved so progressively but still believed so strongly in these "traditional" family structure ideologies - particularly as compared to middle-class couples who may claim to be progressive but in actuality have a far more uneven splitting of responsibilities. Deutsch's study examined primarily dual-income working class couples who worked shift work and avoided paying for outside childcare. These couples all operated on different systems and it was fascinating to see the creative solutions they came up with. The fact that these men jokingly referred to themselves as "Mr. Mom" shows their feelings regarding the "women's work" that they do and the fact that they see it as strange or different that they (as men) are the ones doing it. These fathers are far more involved in their children's lives than many middle or upper class couples that employ the traditional "breadwinner" model or even dual earning couples who do not do shift-work and use outside childcare options. Deutsch points out that "on average, the alternating-shift fathers spent 28.5 hours a week in solo care of their children, as compared with the 14.5 hours spent by middle-class equally sharing fathers" (p. 116). In particular, these men were able to become far more in tune with their children's emotions and the details of their everyday lives. In one example, Deutsch explains how a father initially blows off his preteen daughter's issue with a friend at school, but then realizes she needs to talk about it and instead sits her down to discuss her feelings about the issue. These fathers are able to spend important time with their children that many more traditional "breadwinning" fathers miss out on. To me, this was a very important point. It was heartwarming to hear these fathers talk about their children and the deeper relationships they have been able to develop with them. The breadwinning model seems to have been very limiting as far as fathers spending quality time with children. All of this seems to go back to traditional gender stereotypes that assume fathers do not have the emotional capacity to properly raise children. Clearly, if fathers are given enough time with their children, they are able to develop strong relationships and become important sources of advice and comfort. It was also interesting to see the reasons these working class couples gave for avoiding outside childcare. The cost of childcare is clearly a huge problem for many families, but surprisingly the cost was not the primary reason most of these couples gave. There appeared to be a huge stigma against outside childcare and many parents expressed a lot of fear about leaving their children with someone else, one father explained, "I don't let people outside my family watch my kids...You don't know these other people...I'd just as soon take care of her than let some stranger take her" (p. 118). While there were some of the fears shared by the middle class as far as instilling values in their children, "I want her to learn from us," as one father states, there is also a lot of fear about inadequate childcare and children getting hurt while being watched by someone else. Deutsch notes that this also may be an issue of control for working class families. While most middle class families simply see daycare as a way to provide care for part of the day, working class families are more likely to feel that they are losing control of the way in which their child is raised. Essentially, one mother sums it up best, "we basically didn't trust anyone else" (p. 120). Deutsch finds that most of these couples, while behaving outside of traditional gender identities, are "clinging to gender identities" and "there is more support for traditional gender ideology within the working class than among more highly educated groups in the United States" (p. 125). Deutsch goes into depth with regards to these parents' views of gender identity. Deutsch notes that these families work hard to keep three traditional ideas intact: the father is the breadwinner, the mother does not derive a primary sense of identity from work (she works outside the home solely because of financial necessity), and the mother is the primary parent. These ideas are so firmly ingrained that one father describes that he worried, "if he did not succeed in conventional breadwinning terms, ultimately his son would be ashamed of him" (p. 125). These men derived a strong sense of identity from their created "breadwinner" roles and their self-esteem was strongly rooted in their idea that they are the ones providing for their family. Men who had been laid off claimed, "I am supposed to be the one to support my family," and, while laid off, "I had no self-esteem. I felt terrible about myself" (p. 125). I have definitely observed this sentiment in many of my friends' fathers and even in my own step-father while laid off from work. Many men equate their idea of success with the ability to support their family financially. However, most of the working class families in this study had mothers working equal, if not more, hours outside the home than the men, and sometimes these women actually made more money. Despite the actual monetary facts of the situation, Deutsch explains that "the parents stressed men's breadwinning roles by treating the father's job as the more important job in the family" (p. 126). I found it fascinating that it did not matter how much money the women actually made or how many hours they put in, it all depended on the way in which the family viewed the income. These families valued the idea that the man is the head of the household and went to great lengths to make it seem that way, "despite the woman's greater earning capacity in some families, men in the alternating-shift families are still recognized as the principle breadwinners" (p. 126). One family even had a woman who had the ability to bring in more money than her husband because she earned a higher hourly rate, but they instead had the man work more hours and keep her at home for more hours despite the fact that she could bring in more money had they switched and she worked her husband's hours. It is absolutely amazing how traditional gender ideologies controlled so many aspects of these families' lives.

One of the most interesting and simultaneously concerning aspects of the article for me was Deutsch's discussion of the men and women's feelings about the women working outside the home as well as the man and how they would feel if they were in a different financial position. The discrepancies between the husband's feelings and the wives' opinions were quite large. In essentially every one of the families, the husbands articulated their wishes for their wives to be able to stay at home full-time and the wives explained that they enjoyed their work outside the home and would like to stay employed even if their finances did not require it. Fortunately for them, most of these families will not have to make that decision and can continue pretending as they choose and these underlying conflicts will never have to come to the surface. Deutsch points out that "the economic necessity for two incomes allows the men to ignore other reasons that their wives work, reasons that would contradict their traditional ideas about family life" (p. 128). Fathers also seemed to hold strong beliefs concerning their wives' mothering skills and truly felt that their wives were the better parent. Many of these men at first were resistant to their equal roles and the fact that they had to do much of the "mother's work" such as baths and preparing meals, but ultimately most men enjoyed the extra time they were able to spend with their children and the closer relationships they developed with their children. This study shows many of the positive results of a more even distribution of work within a household, but it also shows just how pervasive and powerful traditional gender ideologies and stereotypes concerning traditional roles can be - even within a family that is acting in opposition to them. Deutsch's article brings up multiple questions concerning what is "fair" and what makes the most sense as far as solutions to some of these work-family issues facing Americans. More affordable childcare is often touted as a possible solution, but many of the families interviewed did not avoid childcare simply for financial reasons. This article left me with the question - are these families truly progressive? Is this the future of combining work and family? It was disappointing to me that these families were unable to see past gender stereotypes. I also wondered about their relationships with each other within their marriage, because it was clear that all of these arrangements were about finances and child-rearing - not spending time together as a couple and keeping romance in a marriage alive. While these families were inspirational in the sense that they showed the intense and emotional relationships that fathers are capable of having with children and that fathers are more than capable of helping with household work - I still do believe we have a long way to go and other solutions to the work-family disconnect need to be found.

Gerson, Kathleen. 1993. "Introduction" and "The Myth of Masculinity." No Man's Land, Ch. 1 & 9.

Kathleen Gerson sums up the most important point of her paper in her statement, "Just as changes in race relations involve whites as well as people of color and changes in class relations involve the economically privileged as well as the economically disadvantaged, a gender revolution must include men as well as women" (p. 4). She explains that as the economy and gender relations have changed throughout the years, "it is no longer clear what it means to be a man" (p. 5). She discusses how important it is to recognize the differences between men and their experiences rather than lumping them together as an overall group. For her study, she gathered together men from all different backgrounds and walks of life and who have ended up in many different positions with regards to family and work. Unfortunately, in the introduction and the chapter we were assigned, she does very little by ways of the actual results of these studies or of her interviews with these men. She provides more of an overview of the situations that men face and the importance of striking the delicate balance between "sympathetic understanding of the problems men face and appropriate awareness of their uses and misuses of power" (p. 12) because, in the end, men still are the most dominant and privileged group. However, she does make a good point that while "men as a group may possess disproportionate power and privilege...many individual men do not feel powerful" (p. 13). We saw a little bit of this in Deutsch's interviews with working class men who had been laid off. They derived most of their identity and self-esteem from their paid work, so without it they felt useless. Gerson points out that the multiplicity of roles available to men in today's world creates a lot of confusion for men. When they do not know "what it means to be a man" and there is no role laid out for them to fill, men's ideas of success can be confused and, at times, contradictory. As far as work, men are supposedly slowly being freed from their economic responsibility as primary breadwinner, which was a very constraining role for many men. Unfortunately, most men have not embraced the alternative increased responsibility for household work. So, as women enter the workplace, they still retain many of their household duties and are working serious overtime. Gerson claimed she found very little connections between class and gender role beliefs, though Deutsch's article might argue differently, and in the few quotes from interviews she did include, a man employed as a physician discussed his feeling of equality between men and women, while a man employed as a park maintenance worker explained, "my father ruled the house...my father answered to no one. The men were men in those days" (p. 259). While it may be a generalization, there does seem to be a bit of difference in opinion along class lines. Gerson also points out that "college-educated men were slightly more likely to develop an involved outlook" when it came to child-rearing (p. 261). She, however, very much emphasizes "how circumstances shape men's parental choices, either evoking or suppressing involvement" because the men she interviewed showed very little patterns as far as their parenting choices - some were more involved or less because of marital status, work situations, or any number of other personal circumstances that changed their parenting styles, even between their children from the same woman (p. 261). She also discusses men with a primary breadwinning outlook and their participation in the "stalled revolution"..."in which men remain aloof from domestic work even as women become increasingly involved in paid work" (p. 261). Gerson discusses masculine culture, male dominance, the male job crisis, the rise of committed employment among women, and the alternative lifestyles involving marriage and parenthood and how all of these factors impact men's life decisions. She makes some interesting arguments, particularly when pointing out some of the economic factors that have impacted the decline of the "breadwinning" model alongside the cultural factors. Unfortunately, her ultimate conclusions essentially point out the confusion all of this creates and does not suggest many constructive solutions. However, all of her data supports her primary point that men are in a tough place in our current society and as long as they remain in this position, it will be difficult for women to make strides without them. She also wants to hammer the point that every man (and every woman) is different and the circumstances of their own lives will be the strongest determinants of the direction in which their life goes. I do believe that this is important to keep in mind, because sociology can often be accused of generalizing in the interest of explaining certain phenomena. However, I also think it is important to look at some of the cultural and social backdrops of these individual situations and the way in which these situations are shaped as a result of social situations. For example, if we simply look at each individual man and his life decisions in the first article, "The Absent Black Father," we would fail to see the structural racial implications of an individual man's incarceration and subsequent absent fatherhood. As Marilyn Frye describes in her discussion of oppression, it is like looking at a bird cage. If you simply examine one singular bar on a bird cage, you will not understand how the bird cage works. You need to see how all of the bars interlock together to create the cage in order to understand how the cage traps the bird. Gerson's discussion of masculinity was informative and interesting, but I think that more of the book would need to be read in order to understand her argument.