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.
No comments:
Post a Comment