Social Policy - International

Gornick, Janet C. and Marcia K. Meyers. Chapter 9 ("Developing
Earner-Carer Policies in the United States") from Families That Work:
Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. Russell Sage.

Gornick and Meyers examined policies in other industrialized countries and concluded "that government policies that support parents in their earning and caring roles are institutionally and economically feasible." They examine some of the claims (or excuses) concerning why Americans feel they cannot institute similar supportive policies. The extent of racial, ethnic, and national diversity in the U.S. is one thing that differs greatly from other industrialized countries. Therefore, excuse #1 is "The United States is too diverse to support inclusive policies." One of the most consistent features of European models of policies is inclusiveness - and the racism in the U.S. makes this difficult. When Americans feel that a policy is benefitting minorities or immigrants, there is likely to be resistance. However, the authors do not believe that this is an insurmountable barrier to creating supportive policies. Policies that support dual-earning families with children to care for are not considered "welfare" in the American sense. The authors point out, "policies that support parents in their dual roles are deeply consonant with the American values of personal responsibility to both paid work and the family." They point to the success of social security benefits as an example. While the homogeneity of many European countries does help their programs, the authors explain that many European countries also have high rates of immigration and this does not prevent their inclusive policies. The rise of immigration has caused political strain for some European countries, but, as Gornick explains, "the basic structures and functions of the social welfare states remains strong in the face of growing population diversity in part because their inclusive structures create broad political support."

The next American issue to be dealt with is our strong beliefs in individual choice. In the area of family policy, American parents often prefer to make their own choices and solve work-family issues in ways that are functional for their families personally, rather than overarching structural solutions. Parents want to be free to choose the type of care their children receive. My personal belief is that parents often fail to recognize that most work-family policies will simply offer more options for parents and not necessarily force them to use any particular solution. Gornick points out that European policies do allow parents to tailor the options to their individual preferences and what works for their families. Gornick also makes an excellent point in her explanation of the actual constraints of American "choice." The "choice" Americans do have is likely to be severely constrained by economic and other circumstances. As a result, Americans have limited options and do not necessarily retain the "choice" they would hope to have.

The prevalence of single parenthood in the U.S. introduces another issue because the needs of single parents are so unique. Some argue that it is impossible to implement work-family policies that will address the needs of both two parent and single parent families, but Gornick points out that "the European experience suggests otherwise." She points out some of the weaknesses of our current welfare system and the fact that welfare reform has failed to address quality of life issues with the American poor. She explains that the fact that Europeans provide basic supports - such as healthcare and affordable childcare - makes it a lot easier to aid the poor because at least their basic needs are already being met.

The argument that social programs have unintended consequences for fertility cannot be supported by any evidence. Americans are, of course, concerned that helping single parent families will undermine the nuclear family structure and that birthrates will raise and marriage rates fall.

Finally, the state-based system rather than national system that the U.S. operates on impedes the implementation of federal policies. However, there are ways of incorporating state autonomy with federal guidelines and funds to allocate towards work-family policies.

I believe that the primary block to generous work-family policy in the U.S. is the American mindset and the belief that family issues are personal and not societal. Rugged individualism is the prevailing mentality and people do not want to accept any form of "help," "charity," or aid of any kind. Until this mentality can be broken down in favor of practical solutions to nationwide issues, we will not see any real change.

Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers. 2008. "Creating Gender
Egalitarian Societies: An Agenda for Reform." Politics and Society
36:313-349.

In this article, Gornick and Meyers provide an outline for a different structure of society that allows for parents to be successfully employed as well as successful parents who are given enough time to spend with their children and to adequately care for children. Through work-family policy changes in the areas of family leave, working-time regulations, and provisions for early childhood care and education, the authors attempt to present a new model of the working family.

Their "Real Utopia" of the "dual-earner/dual-caregiver" system is a very gender equal system, with women and men expected to work as well as provide care equally. The authors describe how the problems of work-family balance have been increasing over the years, particularly with the increasing divorce rate and the rise of single-parent families, along with the increasing numbers of women entering the workforce and dual-earner families becoming the norm. While the problem has been increasing, social policy to address these issues has been incomplete and has been lagging behind. This has created essentially a crisis for American families. Additionally, men have not picked up the slack as much as necessary and many have stubbornly tried to conform to breadwinner roles where this system no longer exists or is functional. Parents' time crunch has also been impacting children. Women are often not able to sufficiently breastfeed their children and school-age children with parents with exorbitant work hours show more developmental issues, poorer academic performance, and more behavioral issues.

The authors suggest a system in which the state will support both parental and nonparental care of children - allowing parents the choice and "socializing the costs of caring for children and equalizing access to quality care across families of different means." State participation is key, as the authors explain, "the earner-caregiver society requires that the state take an active role in protecting parents' rights to have time for caregiving without undue economic sacrifice and in assuring that families have access to affordable, high-quality substitute child care." As far as the family leave piece, the authors propose that each parent be given six months of fully paid leave following childbirth or the adoption of a child. They propose that this leave be flexible and can be taken in increments over a period of several years as it is convenient for the parents. Both mother and father have the same leave and men are encouraged to take leave and be involved with their children. The regulation of working time would include a change in the standard workweek and mandatory minimums as far as paid days off, etc. The authors suggest a standard workweek of 35 to 39 hours, which is already the number of hours in place for many European countries. Americans are known to work upwards of 50 hours per week, with the "standard" workweek being 40 hours. The authors also advocate protections against compulsory overtime and other employer abuses. Finally, public financing of early childhood care and education that is high-quality is necessary to this system. This care must be available in the same high level of quality to all children regardless of socioeconomic status. Parents should also be given choices as far as childcare and have childcare available through multiple venues. Additionally, childcare hours would be matched with parents' work hours. The authors go on to discuss the ways in which similar social policies operate in other countries.

Gornick is right in her statement that this idea is extremely utopian. The strong emphasis on gender equality is refreshing, but also perhaps not realistic. Additionally, many Americans would be uncomfortable with the government being involved so directly in their lives - regulating their work habits and childcare options, etc. Perhaps if there were more state control people would feel better about it, but any functional work-family policies will require a lot of support from Americans in order to pass through Congress. Unfortunately, it seems that at this time we do not have that strong platform of support. However, through spreading awareness and ideas about programs such as these, we have the potential to bring people together under an issue that impacts most of us at some point in our lives.

Kelly, Erin. 2006. "Work-Family Policies: The United States in
International Perspective." In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E.E. Kossek and S.
Sweet (eds.), The Work and Family Handbook. Lawrence Erlbaum.

In this article, Kelly makes an important connection between public work-family policies in the U.S. and specific employers' work-family policies. Unsurprisingly, she finds that those who fare well in the market system also fare far better in work-family options. Those involved in professional careers tend to have more paid days off, more generous family leave, and more flexibility in their schedules to respond to family needs. Those with lower paid jobs tend to have stricter schedules, fewer options as far as work-family policy, and in general have more trouble and less support when it comes to resolving work-family conflicts. Unfortunately, she also finds that among those who are offered these options through their employers, many are afraid to take advantage of them for fear of compromising their career paths. Americans never want to be viewed as not dedicated enough to their work and commitment to work is a beneficial quality in the eyes of employers. Kelly cites the study we read last week concerning the wage penalty for mothers who take advantage of work-family policies in their workplaces. All of this creates substantial roadblocks for improvements in American public policy. Those who are offered policies through their workplace may not feel the need to lobby for national changes because these options are available to them (whether or not they actually feel comfortable taking advantage of them is another story) and those who do not have these options available through their employers are likely to lack the time, resources, and clout to advocate for their needs. This places the U.S. in somewhat of a deadlocked position. We do need work-family policies, but we do not have enough of the right people fighting for them.

Her comparison to international policies was very shocking. Our lack of resources for our children is truly upsetting. As I have maintained in past responses, it is difficult to translate European policy into the American context because of our vastly different set of ideologies. Our country was based on people trying to break free and start on their own. The independent mindsets of our founding fathers have persisted through the generations and impact our though processes today. We can only hope that future generations will be more open to change rather than afraid of "socialism" or of "too much" governmental intervention.

Clawson, Dan and Naomi Gerstel. 2002. "Caring For Young Children: What
the U.S. Can Learn from Some European Examples." Contexts, v. 4: pp. 28-35.

In this excellent article, Clawson asks some important questions concerning childcare, the focus of childcare (educational versus free play), and the national values of individual countries. In his comparison of U.S. childcare and education systems versus the French system, he brings to light some series failings on the part of the U.S. The French early childcare system is free, optional, and available to all children from age 3 to age 6. The focus of these programs is education and the teachers all have masters degrees. Good food is provided and the kids learn and play in a supportive and safe environment. The adult-child ratio is definitely greater than private childcare arrangements, but this affords children an opportunity to develop social skills and to learn to play well and share with others. While the French system is certainly more expensive, the government takes on the cost and it is free to parents - whereas Americans spend roughly the same amount per child (around $5,000) but the cost falls directly to the parents. France spends about 1% of its GDP on these programs. If the U.S. were to do the same, we would have about $100 billion per year to devote to our children. The French model would also fit the U.S. priority of education. The U.S. government would be more likely to spend money on such programs if the goals were clearly educationally based rather than childcare based - and the American public would probably be more approving, considering we already have a public school system.

The Danish system places more of an emphasis on children's play and "being a kid." Clawson suggests that this model might be appealing to certain U.S. parents who would prefer to allow their child to play and to have a childhood. He explains that particularly families of color might value this form of childcare. Danish parents also contribute about 1/5 of the cost of this program, and it is only available to working parents - as its focus is childcare and not education. I could see Americans liking a program like this, but I am not sure it is as practical as the French program for the U.S. simply because I do not see Americans being as supportive of something that is simply blatant, publicly funded childcare.

European models tend to have more of a focus on child-child interaction rather than child-adult interaction. U.S. parents seem to prefer a one-on-one child to adult caretaking model - essentially a mother substitute model. European countries emphasize the benefits of children working and playing together and resolving conflicts on their own. I would agree with the European perspective here, because social skills are one of the most important developmental aspects for children and will greatly increase their later successes.

With the American valuing of the mothering model, you would expect mothers to have generous leaves in order to care for children, which is simply not the case. All European countries have far more comprehensive and generous leave plans for parents than the U.S.

Additionally, Americans are chronically overworked. On average, Americans put in 300 more hours per year than their French counterparts, and 400 more hours per year than the Swedish. That difference in the number of work hours is absolutely crazy and says a lot about American values.

The low quality of care in the U.S., the lack of governmental support, and the value placed on intensive mothering all contribute to the chronic care crisis in America. The author points out that while implementing some of these policies might be expensive in the short run, valuing our children will be more beneficial in the long run, and cheaper as well when you take into account potential declines in crime, juvenile programs, etc.

Overall, the U.S. has a fragmented and ineffective system of childcare. We need to rethink our approach to childcare issues and examine foreign systems that have been successful in order to come up with a more effective plan that will aid U.S. families.

Welfare and Work-Family Policies - US

Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. “The Welfare Debate: Who Pays for Procreation?” Pp. 202-228 and 243-245 in Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. NY: Pantheon Books.

In this article, Roberts discusses welfare, welfare reform, and the ways in which welfare is viewed by the U.S. as a whole. She argues that many of the issues welfare recipients face such as strong negative social stigma, reproductive controls, etc. stem directly from racism. She maintains that as soon as welfare switched from being viewed as the problem of the "worthy white widow" to the "Black welfare queen," welfare was forever changed and the resulting stigmas and policy limitations are a result of systemic U.S. racism.

Clinton's welfare reform law, enacted in 1996, changed welfare in the U.S. from the policies enacted under the Social Security Act of 1935. The new policies were unfortunately due almost entirely to a mostly false negative image of welfare that the American public had internalized since the Reagan administration. The new law gives states increased authority over welfare spending - they are given a lump sum by the government and given almost no incentives to increase welfare spending, only incentives to get higher percentages into paid work. The new law includes a lifetime limit of 5 years to any family and heads of households must get a job within two years. Additionally, women previously were able to stay home with their children until age six - this was reduced to age three, and in some states it was pushed all the way to age one, so anyone without a brand new infant must be in the workforce. Roberts argues that these changes are a result of welfare taking on a new social role. It was no longer seen as charity or as assistance for struggling families, but rather seen as a "means of modifying poor people' behavior" because the believe has become that their poverty is their own fault. Roberts points out that America's welfare system "has always stood out among Western nations for its stinginess and limited social programs" and that the system has systemically excluded Black people for the majority of its existence. Roberts discusses three prevalent myths about welfare that inform the current welfare program and cause much miscommunication and misunderstanding of welfare recipients: welfare induces childbirth, welfare causes dependency, and marriage can end children's poverty.

The first myth, that welfare induces childbirth, has extremely broad cultural implications, especially when considering the proposed solutions to this myth. Many support forced sterilization, forcing women on long-term birth control methods such as Norplant, or implementing child-cap laws, which has already occurred in the state of New Jersey. The belief that welfare mothers simply have more children in order to rack up more benefits is absolutely ludicrous. The meager dollar increase per month is not at all worth having another child and will in no way pay for everything necessary to take care of another child - it will simply decrease the amount of money available per household member and stretch a poor family's resources even thinner. Roberts explains, "many studies have found no causal relationship between welfare benefits and childbearing" and, in fact, mothers suffer a financial loss every time a child is added to a family. Additionally, this issue raises the question - is procreation a privilege of the middle and upper classes? Is procreation only an option for those who can afford it? And, can policies such as these be considered a form of eugenics? Studies have shown that minority women are far more likely to be asked to use long-term birth control or sterilization methods than white women. The social stigma of the minority welfare mother may impact the likelihood that people will support such methods included in welfare policies because of racism. In fact, the majority of welfare mothers are white. And it is my personal belief that anyone who should choose to bring a child into the world should be allowed to. I believe that laws such as child-caps, etc. will only increase abortions and are very contradictory to the values our country claims to hold.

The second myth, welfare causes dependency, brings up some interesting ideas. Roberts explains, "mothers who receive welfare are thought to teach their children a life of dependency by undermining their children's motivation to support themselves." However, there is no similar social stigma for lifelong dependency on things such as inherited wealth, or even other governmental supports such as life insurance proceeds, agricultural subsidies, social security benefits, etc. Roberts argues that this is because of the groups of people these various systems are perceived to benefit. Single mothers are considered different than widows because "the needs and rights of women and children are determined not by universal standards but by the nature of their prior relationship to a man." This is an issue of patriarchy as well as racism, because, again, welfare is perceived as assisting mostly minorities. In fact, most welfare recipients do not remain on welfare for more than two years and mostly use it while their children are young in order to care for them. Unfortunately, the system of welfare now makes it far more difficult for these people to pull themselves out of poverty by flinging them into minimum wage jobs with little opportunity for promotion. The perception of welfare recipients as "lazy" and dependent is extremely inaccurate. Many women with full-time jobs still live in poverty. The wage inadequacies and the unavailability of jobs makes supporting a family very difficult - particularly when trying to live off of a single mother's income.

The final myth, that marriage can end children's poverty, is outright ridiculous and is one of the best examples of the current welfare system's attempt to modify poor people's behavior as a way of remedying their poverty. Roberts points out, "just as marital breakdown is unlikely to be the cause of Black mothers' poverty, so marriage is unlikely to be the solution." Bush has poured millions of dollars into a "marriage promotion act" within the welfare system, attempting to impart the supposedly "better" traditional middle class values of marriage and family on the belief it is "better for children," failing to see the alternative systems of child-rearing already in place in poor communities. The communal raising of children and "othermother" systems have been extremely helpful for poor families raising children. Promoting marriage between two people who make only minimum wage is very unlikely to pull them out of poverty. The idea of the independent, nuclear family simply does not work within a poor community. It takes more people pulling together to pool resources and raise children. Additionally, child support collection from minimum wage fathers will not aid their children's poverty. Roberts views marriage promotion as an attempt to "penalize single, rebellious Black mothers."

Finally, Roberts conducts an in-depth discussion of the issue of privacy within the welfare system and the violation of recipients' basic rights as Americans. She explains:

'One of Americans' most cherished freedoms is the right to keep government agents out of their homes. The police must obtain a search warrant to inspect even the homes of suspected criminals. Yet the court has ruled that welfare workers can demand home entry as a condition of welfare eligibility; there is no need to get judicial approval even when an applicant protests the home inspection."

Through welfare rules such as this, as well as mandated paternity proceedings, severely interfere with the recipients' right to privacy. Women are even forced to discuss their sex life and sexual activities in order to receive welfare for their children. Value judgments are placed on these women from the moment they walk in the door and they are made to feel shameful for who they are - regardless of their situation. Roberts' concluding argument is that "white Americans have resisted the expansion of welfare precisely because of its benefit to Blacks" and she argues that America's inadequate welfare system stems directly from "a racist unwillingness to include Blacks as full citizens."

Sharon Hays. 2003. “Money and Morality." Pp. 9-24 in Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Has welfare reform been a positive change? According to Sharon Hays, the overall national reply has been, yes. She explains that a nation's laws reflect a nation's values, and Clinton's welfare reform law is no exception. The 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" "provides a reflected image of American culture and reinforces a system of beliefs about how all of us should behave." There is a strong relationship between a nation's laws and more widespread cultural norms, beliefs, and values. Hays argues that "The Personal Responsibility Act can ultimately be understood as a social experiment in legislating family values and the work ethic." By forcing welfare recipients into paid work, any kind of paid work, welfare reform has shown an increase in the number of recipients in the workforce. However, there has been almost no examination of the quality of life with this paid work and with the extreme restrictions on the length of time one can be on welfare, it is difficult to determine whether or not people are coming off of welfare because they have alleviated their poverty or because they were forced off the rolls. American ideals of individualism, hard work, and stigma against perceived dependency all factored into this new law.

From the very beginnings of welfare, people have made distinctions between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. The changing vision of the family has changed the definitions of those who are considered worthy and those who are not. Originally, for single mothers, the state stepped into the "father-breadwinner" role and became the support system so that "good" mothers could remain at home, raise their children, and maintain the traditional family structure. Now, women are expected to work. One of the claims is that women are now considered competent enough to be responsible for their own breadwinning, so the fact that they are expected to work while on welfare should be considered positive for women's liberation, because they are given the same expectations as a man. However, a lot of the reforms still encourage marriage as the ideal and discourage single mothering of any kind, which is again reinforcing "traditional" values. In this view, women are forced into poorly paid work if they do not comply with certain value standards. According to Hays, there are two different ways of viewing this plan that cause it to be acceptable in the minds of people with very different mindsets. These two distinct and contradictory views of work and family life can be found in her two definitions: "The Work Plan" and "The Family Plan."

According to the "work plan," work requirements are a way of rehabilitating mothers. Hays explains that, in this view, work is "transforming women who would otherwise 'merely' stay at home and care for their children into women who are self-sufficient, independent, productive members of society." The "family plan," on the other hand, views work requirements as a way of punishing mothers for their failure to get married and stay married. Hays explains, "work requirements will teach women a lesson; they'll come to know better than to get divorced or have children out of wedlock. They will learn their duty is to control their fertility, to get married, to stay married, and to dedicate themselves to the care of others." She points out it is almost similar to arguments among feminists about whether to stress women's independence or valorize women's caregiving.

Essentially, depending on one's angle of vision, welfare reform can be seen as, "a valorization of independence, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic, as well as the promotion of a certain form of gender equality," OR "it can serve as a condemnation of single parenting, a codification of the appropriate preeminence of lasting family ties and the commitment to others, and a reaffirmation that a woman's place is in the home." It is easy to see two opposing views being able to agree on this reform because of the different ways in which the work requirements can be viewed. Unfortunately, in practice, welfare reform needs to be reexamined, because while the theories seem appealing, actual quality of life needs to be considered and whether or not these policies are actually able to pull people out of poverty.

Glass, Jennifer. 2004. “Blessing or Curse? Work-Family Policies and Mothers’ Wage Growth Over Time.” Work and Occupations 31:367-394.

Jennifer Glass conducts research on mothers' wage growth over time and the impact of the use of work-family policies on their wages. She hopes to discover whether or not family-friendly policies actually aid mothers' success in the labor market and whether or not their use might impede career progress. These are important questions because many employees fear that taking advantage of work-family policies will hinder their job mobility and wages. Mothers have shown the slowest wage growth over time. Women without children now make almost as much as similarly situated men, but women with children earn roughly one half as much as men with similar qualifications. Many argue that this is a result of mothers' decisions - decisions to work fewer hours, etc. but it is difficult to determine how much actual 'choice' goes into these decisions. Additionally, studies show that lack of workplace flexibility actually makes mothers less productive at work because they are more preoccupied and stressed, so it is beneficial for employers to provide work-family policies.

Glass followed a group of 195 working mothers from their pregnancies through the time when their children were about 6 or 7. She studied their wage growth over time and looked at the family policies available at their workplaces and whether or not they took advantage of them. She identifies four major policies that mothers may take advantage of: Child care assistance, reduced work hours, flexible schedule, and working from home. Work at home and reduced hours showed significant and negative effects on wage growth over time. Unexpectedly, so did the use of child care assistance. The use of child care assistance had a smaller impact and was only among those who remained continuously with the same employer. Use of scheduled flexibility showed no significant impact, and Glass found that often women were able to informally rearrange work without penalty rather than setting up specific flextime plans.

Glass concludes that employers want employees continuously available for work, as most employees expect. Those who used policies that cut down on "face time" in the workplace (working from home or reducing hours) lost the most in wages. This may be because this signals weaker commitment and dedication to the workplace. Unfortunately, Glass was forced to conclude that, in fact, family-friendly policies do NOT increase mothers' success in the labor market, and, as many fear, their use may in fact impede their progress.

Gerstel, Naomi and Dan Clawson. 2001. “Unions’ Responses to Family Concerns.” Social Problems 48(2):277-298.

Gerstel and Clawson examine the responses of various unions to family concerns in the workplace. In doing so, they hoped to bring further attention to class differences or similarities in family needs. The authors explain that analyzing work-family issues through unions "reinvigorates the class component" because work-family needs and policies are so often focused at the professional level and tend to ignore blue-collar families. The authors identified four factors that impact work-family focus in unions: member expectations, gender of members, gender of leaders, and union strength. Overall, they found that members tend not to expect or demand much as far as work-family policies - their focus tends to be on wages, healthcare, and pension. However, the authors also believe that this may be because many workers to not view it as appropriate to demand help from their employers for family issues (which are considered private in individualistic America) but when union leaders push for these benefits and get them, members are very pleased. The gender of members absolutely makes a difference because unions made up primarily of men, who typically are not expected to take responsibility for childcare and family issues, are less likely to push for family-friendly policies. The authors explain that "family caregiving is considered a woman's responsibility," but that single fathers also strongly back the issue, which is interesting because when they become the primary caretakers, all of a sudden, men "get it" and begin lobbying for family issues. The gender of leadership is also extremely important. When there is a female leader, there is likely to be more discussion of work-family policies and when a woman leader lobbies for these policies, they are more likely to be implemented. As previously mentioned, members may not feel they have a right to demand such policies, but when a female leader steps up and fights for them, they do tend to be pleased with the results. Union strength is of extreme importance to negotiating any position with employers. One union explained it only won paid family leave in locals where worker retention was important. Ultimately, employers need to be shown some benefit for their bottom line in order to implement any new policies. Therefore, employers may grant benefits they believe to be inexpensive, but are reluctant to do anything that could cost a significant amount of money.

The authors identified the most important work-family issues for those interviewed: alternative work schedules, childcare, and family leave. Alternative work schedules are a touchy issue for unions, particularly when it comes to overtime and mandated overtime. Overtime hours can be very difficult for those with family responsibilities, but at the same time, many people need the extra money and do not want unions pressuring employers to cut down on overtime. Additionally, flextime is a tough concept because flextime plans often simply end up making workers work overtime without paying them the extra money. Childcare is also tough, because employees tend to prefer informal arrangements such as babysitters or family members caring for children rather than dropping them off at a child-care center or having them at an on-site childcare center. The most popular form of childcare assistance is informal subsidies, where the parents are granted a certain amount of money per month for childcare and they can use it to pay anyone other than their spouse (aunt, mother-in-law, babysitter, etc.) to care for children. Unfortunately, this is also a more expensive form of childcare assistance because of the vast amount of employees that would make use of it, so most employers do not want it. Finally, family leaves are the most widely supported overall because no matter what, man or woman, parent or not, most people at some point are going to need some kind of family leave. One of the primary responsibilities of unions has become the enforcement of the FMLA for employees - often employers either do not understand or choose to ignore the new rules.

In conclusion, the authors found that there is no overall "union position" on work-family policies and there is much variation across unions and even across union locals. They explain, "unions have the potential to serve as social movement entrepreneurs, mobilizing resources that could make work-family issues a priority in the populations that have been least able to win benefits." They believe that one of the primary issues may be the fact that employees do not feel entitled to demand family-friendly policies (which may have to do with class and different senses of entitlement), but when leaders are proactive in demanding family-friendly policies, workers do tend to benefit.

Burkett, Elinor. 2000. “Unequal Work for Unequal Pay” (Chapter 1) from The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless. Free Press.

Elinor Burkett presents an interesting perspective in this article. We have focused a lot on families and parents with children dealing with workplace issues, but childless workers have not often been considered. Burkett points out that only one-third of the workforce has children under the age of 18. She goes through an extensive examination of Corporate America and their new obsession with being "family-friendly" (though it really still doesn't seem like it). She makes a good point in her explanation of benefits and how family benefits do not benefit two-thirds of the workforce. On a daily basis, it is also interesting to look at worker relations and non-parents constantly having to work late to help out parents so they can shuttle kids around or make it to a soccer game, etc. Burkett explains, "single and childless employees feel discriminated against because they can't take advantage of benefits created for the family." It is tough at times to connect with the article when many of the (clearly bitter) non-parent employees are referring to parents as "breeders" and claiming they are "punished for not squirting out spawn." I am not entirely sure that I want to have children someday, but I am certainly not going to judge those who do, and I believe that we should assist parents who are trying to support their families and be good employees at the same time.

However, Burkett brings up a very good question: should men and women who have taken the detour of children be as far along as those who haven't? Shouldn't those who have sacrificed children in order to focus on work and move up the ranks be justly rewarded for their hard work? It is tough. Because we have so many complaints nowadays that having children blocks you from moving up the career ladder. But, having children does take away some of your focus from your career, so is this actually what is fair? My only issue with this is that I believe that this primarily impacts women. Studies have even shown that men who are fathers may actually make more money than childless men. It is women who are punished for having children. I found Purnick's speech to college grads very interesting. She is right. It is sad, but she is right. However, I do agree with Kaus' critique that she did not fully identify this struggle as a women's issue - because it is a women's issue. There is an unlevel playing field between working dads and working moms.

I do agree with some of Burkett's critique and I think that the value of company benefits should be considered and redistributed in other options that can be utilized by those employees without young children - some kind of college benefits for older kids would be extremely helpful to my parents. This alternative point of view is important to examine and I am very glad we had to read this article.

Emotion Work and Sex Work

Duncombe, J. and Marsden, D. 1998. "Stepford Wives and Hollow Men? Doing
Emotion Work, Doing Gender and Authenticity in Heterosexual
Relationships." Pp. 209-224 in Gillian Bendelow and Simon Johnson
Williams (Eds.), Emotions in Social Life: Critical Themes and
Contemporary Issues. New York: Routledge.

I found Duncombe and Marsden's article absolutely fascinating. It speaks to dynamics I have often observed in my mother's marriages but never quite been able to word properly. The article argues that it is primarily women who manage to keep marriages together by engaging in 'emotion work.' The overlying metaphor of the article is women as 'Stepford Wives' (engaging in acting to maintain a certain desired image) and men as 'hollow men,' who appear not to be capable of communication or emotion and often behave in a detached manner, making their wives feel they aren't really 'there.' The idea of the 'Stepford Wives' is defined as women losing awareness of their exploitation by doing emotion work on behalf of emotionally hollow men. I believe that one of the most important points here is that the women are engaging in emotion work on themselves as well as their husbands - they must also convince themselves that they are happy and they have good marriages. The article questions whether emotion work results in a loss of self-awareness and authenticity, which I would argue, it does. However, my question would be, is there really any other option? Is divorce the best idea? How do we fix this?

Hochschild's definition of emotion work is "the emotional effort made by individuals - both men and women - to 'manage' their feelings to bring them in line with the societal 'feeling rules' which prescribe how they 'ought' to feel in certain situations." Hochschild insists that there are differences in gender in emotion work which "embody the psychological effects of men having power and women not having power." Personally, while I do agree that there are likely gender differences in the emotion work, I am not sure if it has as much to do with the imbalance of power (though that does impact almost everything, so I'm sure it does have an effect) as with the specific roles and expectations of each gender's role. Of course, the roles are by definition imbalanced, but I would argue that both images put pressure on the man and the woman to conform and cause issues that way even more so than as far as issues of relative power. For example, men are socialized and taught that they are not supposed to express emotion and they must define themselves by their breadwinner role. They are also taught to avoid anything 'feminine' and may feel they are betraying their 'manliness' when they help with housework - which is not fair and creates imbalances of power and responsibility, but I believe it has more to do with the man trying to fulfill his own role rather than him trying to exert power over his wife.

The article discusses women's use of acting in this emotion work. This is something I have seen a great amount of in my own life. In order to convince herself and others that she has a happy and successful marriage, my mother (among many other women) acts as though she is perfectly happy - she smiles at him even when he is being a grouch or even when she herself is in a bad mood or having a bad day. She essentially denies any and all of his shortcomings to herself as well as to others. She values his activities and congratulates him on his activities. She acts as though everything he does is very important. He rarely, if ever, acknowledges her work outside the home as well as within it. If he does acknowledge that she does too much, he is yelling at us kids that we should be doing more to help her around the house (which, we should, but so should he). My mom definitely employs the 'mandatory smiling' the article discusses, the overvaluing of his activities, the attempts at physical affection with big hugs and kisses, and constantly acting. It has always really upset me, and I'm glad this article has addressed these issues.

The article discusses the "family myth" that many, many women live within. The myth is that they have a happy sharing couple life, which is sustained by women by “belittling their own input, reducing their husbands’ obligations to tiny symbolic tasks, becoming ‘supermoms’ who cope with jobs and the second shift, and (guiltily) lowering their standards of childcare and housework.” A major concern of all of these self-delusions is that eventually the real feelings are going to catch up with the ideological feelings, and when these feelings don't match up, a crisis of some sort may occur, or at the very least quite a bit of resentment is likely to surface. Mrs. Walker discusses some of the emotion work that she does:

“My husband can be a very sarcastic man…I find myself softening what he says, tidying it up and smiling to make it seem like a joke – which perhaps it is, but people can’t tell…it is important to me to be seen to be living with a decent man. In a funny way, I feel it would rub off on me if everyone thought he was awful.”

I think my mother does a lot of this as well with my step-dad. He can be inappropriate and rude, his road rage is horrific, and he has a bad tendency to swear a lot, which embarrasses my mother to no end. But she will refuse to admit a lot of these things. A lot of women had “mixed feelings” about their husbands, but would always claim things like “…but don’t think we’re not happy together, because we are.” Clearly, the image is very important. Mrs. Darnley, another example, essentially explains that she just avoids thinking about anything that is negative or unpleasant or would force her to admit certain realities in her life (like the fact of her husband's unpleasant personality). I believe this is a defense mechanism that many people use....my mother absolutely has used it for most of her life.

The article discusses the avoidance of self-reflection in emotion work. If these women admit to the realities of the extent of emotion work they are doing simply to keep their lives together, it would be a devastating realization. The authors talk about "self-loss" as a result of deep acting. I pray to God my life never gets to the point where I am afraid to engage in self-reflection because I'm afraid of what I will find.

Women go to great lengths in order to avoid conflict with their husbands and in order to sustain the image, 'we're ever do happy, really." This is a very sad reality and I found the close examination of personal relationships in this article to be very eye-opening. Any relationship involves a certain amount of work, but it is amazing to see the system of delusions these women must employ in order to convince themselves and others that they are happy with their lives.

How do we fix it?

Duncombe, J. and Marsden, D. 1996. "'Whose Orgasm is this Anyway? 'Sex
Work' in Long-term Heterosexual Couple Relationships', in J. Weeks and
J. Holland (eds) Sexual Cultures: Communities, Values and Intimacy, pp.
220-38. Houndmills, UK: MacMillan.

I found this article to be extremely depressing. I really and truly hope there are some long-term couples out there who have meaningful and fulfilling sex even after being together for a very long time. An excellent point was made in the very beginning of the article, in which the authors explain the issues with our current cultural beliefs involving relationships and 'soulmates' and finding our 'other half.' The search for self- fulfillment through another person really makes no sense. The way relationships are depicted in the media and common beliefs about relationships really set people up for unhealthy expectations.

The authors discuss a type of 'sex work' that is similar to emotion work. People engage in this work in order to try to bring their sex lives into line with their view of how sex 'ought' to be experienced or some sort of ideological version of sex. They found that, overall, people are very confused about their sex lives and sex in general. Even when describing what they felt they wanted, people articulated all kinds of discrepancies. Men seemed to want a 'sexually experienced virgin,' which is of course an oxymoron, and women said they wanted their men to be 'dominating, but in a gentle sort of way.' So, to me, one of the main problems seems to be that people do not know what they really want. Expectations about sex also likely confound the situation further.

In their examination of long-term relationships, the authors found the common issue of loss of passion and romance. However, at closer glance, women seemed to describe that the relationship was always sexually unfulfilling in some way. In the beginnings of relationships, women may "deep-act" and ignore any issues with the sex because the passion for each other is still there. Looking back at a later time, women are more likely to acknowledge that, in fact, it was never all that incredible. Open discussion about sex was often avoided in relationships because the two did not want to hurt each other. Additionally, men wanted to avoid looking or feeling vulnerable, and women often feared men's reactions and feared their anger. Many couples also experienced sexual issues after the birth of children.

There were some radical views explained in this article, including ideas that heterosexual sex is automatically about male domination and is really only engaged in by women as an exchange for something (money, stability, etc.). Some of these perspectives advocated celibacy.

I wondered about the lack of conversation in this article about sex as a way of connecting with someone, as a way of sharing love. The couples interviewed did not seem to discuss this much. There was a lot of talk about orgasms and what each person's orgasm means and issues with the necessity of using fantasy to reach orgasm, etc. so there was a lot about the physical realm of sex. But, I feel that the best sex is sex that combines the physical with the emotional and gives you a feeling of connectedness with someone else. Maybe this is representative of the idealized version of sex that they spoke of as essentially unrealistic and unattainable, but I like to think that hopefully someday even if I am married for a long time, I will still be able to have that kind of sex with my husband because (hopefully) I will still love him. This article was tough to read because it really was overwhelmingly negative and offered very little hope of a satisfying sex life with someone you love and have been with for years. The options seemed to be negotiated celibacy, unsatisfying sex and resentment, or affairs. Not great options.

The discussion of masturbation (particularly men's masturbation) and porn was very disturbing. Men described becoming accustomed to focusing on only pieces of a woman's body while masturbating and then found that when they actually had sex they did the same thing. One man described when he had sex with his wife, he was simply “going at this bum” and not really experiencing the activity with the whole person - he was more or less masturbating using his wife.

The article concludes with essentially an explanation of sex as becoming all about 'exchange value.' Everyone is out to get their own orgasm, but mutual orgasm is the ideal. I also take issue with this because while orgasms are great, I don't really see them as the entire point of sex. Sex can feel good either way, first of all, and second of all, it can also be about connecting with your partner and physically 'being one' with them. I know this sounds cheesy, but there is such a thing as romantic sex and making love. I think one of the first issues with all of this is that these people seem to have started seeing sex as simply a means to an orgasm, rather than seeing all of the other components.

I am not married, and my longest relationship was not incredibly long, but I really do hope that there is more out there than what has been described in this article. I have no doubt that all of these dynamics exist and are a big problem for many couples, but I do hope that there are also people on the other end of the spectrum - I wonder what the criteria was for those interviewed? Was it automatically geared towards couples with sexual issues? Or just any couples?

Ultimately, the article asks, is there any 'authentic' sex?

Bernstein, Elizabeth. 1999. "What's Wrong with Prostitution? What's Right with Sex Work? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labor." Hastings
Women's Law Journal 10:91-117.

Caregiving Work and Domestic Workers

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 2001. Chapters 1 and 2 from Doméstica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence. University of California Press.

The author points out the economic necessity of Latina workers in Los Angeles. The presence of these workers makes everything cheaper and allows people to live lavish lifestyles. Hondagneu-Sotelo discusses the importance of nannies and careworkers in the lives of the people of Los Angeles today. She mentions that many had predicted that by now the need for such assistance would be obsolete - why are they now more popular than ever? Extended family care is on the decline as grandmothers nowadays may be employed full time and more and more families are geographically separated. Parents still tend to prefer to have their kids cared for within their own home rather than at childcare centers, so nannies are the preferred option. Whether live-in or live-out, the author explains that the term "nanny" actually means "nanny/housekeeper," as far more than just childcare is typically expected of them. Parents get a two-for-one deal, with their nannies taking care of their kids and cleaning the house.

The author discusses why Los Angeles has one of the greatest concentrations of domestic paid work. Greater inequality tends to generate greater concentrations of paid domestic work, and L.A. also has large concentrations of Latina and Caribbean immigrant women. Mexican Americans have historically settled in L.A. in large numbers, but more recently Central Americans have been joining their ranks. The work available and the demand for female workers in the U.S. contributes to the problem of transnational mothering and the destruction of relationships and the breakdown of families. Mothers trying to be the best mothers they can may be forced to leave their children and go to the U.S. to make money to send home to their families. The author talks about the fact that previously it was mostly white middle to upper class families who employed these Latina workers, but now it is practically everyone. Latino working class neighborhoods will employ Latino gardeners to work on their yards, mothers who are nannying for upper class families may hire their own nanny for their children while they are gone, etc. The author points out that domestic work is not always recognized as legitimate employment, which is an issue for its workers. Even domestic workers themselves may not consider the work they do as "real" employment. This becomes a problem when domestic workers are not protected. There is little governmental supervision or protection for these workers. For undocumented workers, this may be helpful, but for everyone else it is downright dangerous. There are no unions organized to protect the rights of domestic workers and in America anything that goes on inside the home is considered to be "private." The work is not legitimized as real work because it is "women's" work and it is work that women must do regardless - it is considered work of love, not of real employment. The author also discusses how the domestic worker-employer relationship is often very awkward. Some employers feel embarrassed or guilty because these arrangements mimic master-servant arrangements in some ways, which is uncomfortable for Americans. However, she also points out some of the dangers of having a close relationship as well. Maternalism can be used as a mechanism of manipulation and employer power. When employers give gifts to their domestic workers, advice, clothing, etc. or make them feel that they are "one of the family," it encourages workers to do extra work, to stay later, to not complain, etc. Sometimes, as a result of discomfort and/or busy schedules, employers maintain very distant relationships with their domestic workers, which can be equally hurtful. While many domestic workers are not necessarily proud of their job title, they do take quite a bit of pride in the work that they do. When employers do not acknowledge the work that they do, workers may become depressed or feel undervalued. These women work hard and need to receive the recognition they deserve. I have witnessed various types of employer-domestic worker relationships. One of the families I babysit for has an excellent relationship with their cleaning lady, her name is Flavia, and they write her notes every morning she comes, give her gifts on holidays, and encourage her to bring her family with her when she works and to eat whatever she would like while she is working. They are a great family to work for - I work for them as well, of course, and they treat me incredibly well. On the opposite end of the spectrum, another family I babysit for barely ever comes into contact with their cleaning ladies. I do not even know their names, which makes me sad, but the language barrier is a bit tough sometimes. The poor girls are really skittish when they're at the house and clearly don't feel comfortable. At the end of the week, there is simply a check on the table or on the fridge for them - no note saying thank-you, nothing to say "good job!" or "we appreciate it!" I think I may write them a note next week.

The three primary types of workers, live-in nanny/housekeeper, live-out nanny/housekeeper, and housecleaner all have very different job descriptions and entail very different responsibilities and ways of life. Live-in nanny/housekeeper certainly seems to be the worst situation for a woman to be in. The pay is the lowest, the work essentially never stops, and the woman must walk on eggshells at all times because she is always a guest and is never in her own home. However, the author explains that often undocumented workers or women who just arrived may find this beneficial for them to settle in to American culture and have a place to live. Chapter Two describes the lives of several women employed in domestic work in order to illustrate the differences in their ways of life. Live-out nanny/housekeeper can work very well for some women, but also definitely includes the possibility of being taken advantage of. Housecleaners tend to have the best deal, making their own hours and mostly being left alone while they are working. It is important to note that none of these workers are properly protected - housecleaners working for larger cleaning services may only make $5 per hour. Additionally, the U.S. has a "laissez-faire" approach towards domestic workers and does not set up any kinds of contracts or interventions for them. Many live in fear of being arbitrarily fired or somehow punished.

Further notes:

- Domestic workers, while they do take pride in their work, do not like the title of "domestic worker" and do not want their daughters to be employed in the same occupation, and the younger ones hope to eventually get out of domestic work

Chapter 2:

- "being ignored devastated her"

- These women work hard and need to receive the recognition they deserve

- Live-in employees never feel at home, never have their own space, and are often on-call 24/7

- Some don't even have their own living quarters or have to share a room with children or are relegated to the laundry room

- No clear line between work and non-work time

Of the three main types, live-ins make the least (average per hour), then live-out nannies, and housecleaners really make the most money with the best hours (as long as they don't work for one of the service companies and they are able to make their own hours)

- it amazes me that people are able to treat people the way they do when they are living within their homes

- Author mentions that it is mostly women who just recently arrived in America or who are undocumented that end up in live-in work because it provides them with housing, allows them to become accustomed to the culture and the ways of life in America, and middle and upper class suburban neighborhoods are rarely raided by Immigration officials.

- It is far better for the family life of the women to live-out or to do housecleaning - if you have children you are able to care for them yourself and if you have other relationships, such as a husband or boyfriend, you can maintain those relationships

- It was absolutely amazing to see that live-ins hourly rates came out to be three or four dollars an hour.

Bonnar, Deanne. 1991. “The Place of Caregiving Work in Industrial Societies.” In J. Hyde and M.Essex (Eds.), Parental Leave and Child Care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Deanne Bonner makes some excellent points in this article. She points out the invisibility of carework in our society and yet its adjacent importance to the future of the world as a whole. Se explains, "enlarging the place for this vital human work will take more than tinkering with policy. It will require fundamental shifts in our world view and conscious struggle by people to redefine the terms of our collective life." I agree with her completely on this point. While progressive policies can and will make a difference in our current work-family imbalance, it will take more than policy alone. People must change the way they think about carework and about the people who provide carework in our society. She also discusses that carework has historically been seen as love or biological duty, but never real work. Women entering the paid workforce have found that they now have two jobs. Homemaking labor does not disappear with paid employment, but becomes compressed into the time that men consider "leisure." Bonnar explains that nonemployed married women work an average of 56 hours per week, employed wives 71 hours, and employed mothers of young children work an average of 80 hours per week. Meanwhile, all of their husbands work around 65 hours. These are signs of serious discrepancies in the amount of work men and women do. It is also interesting to note that their husbands all work around the same amount, regardless of the wives' increased labor.

Bonnar explains that we must realize the true value of home work. However, she points out that many studies that look at housework and attempt to quantify it and put a price on it or a wage, while well-intentioned, tend to underestimate the work by ignoring the most challenging parts - the intellectual, managerial, and psychological components. I love that Bonnar describes women not just as "cooks," but states that they should be looked at also with the labels of "judge," "negotiator," "family historian," "accountant," "philosopher," "lobbyist," "lawyer," "spiritual guide," "policewoman," "healer," and "counselor." I would argue also family Public Relations manager and Director of Communications (with other families, with extended family, etc.) My parents have certainly been all of these things to me, and more, and I believe they would both say that this has been their most challenging work of all. The psychological energy along with the physical energy required to run a household is often severely underestimated and ignored. Bonnar points out that even simply preparing food is a project requiring mental and physical work - the parent must know what each family member likes to eat, how they like it cooked, where the cheapest place to buy it is, perhaps their favorite brand, etc. As a result of everything mentioned above, Bonnar argues that you cannot quantify care work in the same way as household chores. For example, for most jobs it really doesn't matter if the person who does the job or specific task changes every week (dusting the table, putting things together on an assembly line, cleaning dishes, etc.) but, it matters A LOT to a child if the person who is providing their care changes on a daily or weekly basis. Therefore, Bonnar argues that human work and household work such as cleaning, cannot really be compared or lumped together and must be looked at somewhat separately. Even though some services within the home can be purchased and outsourced, the mental work and management that goes into everything - including organizing this outsourcing - still must be done, and is typically done by the woman.

In her discussion of women's paid work and the fact some women seem to choose to work in service areas or "feminized" work, Bonnar makes some good points. Aside from the oft-argued point that women are forced into these industries for a variety of reasons, including their increased flexibility so that women are able to do the care work they must do at home, Bonnar points out that it may be less mentally draining for them. Jobs in the service or caregiving sector often require some of the same managerial and emotional and psychological skills that home work does. It is less stressful when women do not have to constantly switch mental gears from work to home, or at least not as drastically. Additionally, the mental work in the paid job may help the mental work for the home job, or vice-versa - bringing skills from work to home and home to work. This is an important point to make, because even in Sweden, where they have made serious attempts to create equality in the workplace and the home for women, there is still a large income disparity and still women in many of the caretaking jobs.

Bonnar discusses the social value of "women's" work and explains, "the closer one comes to direct care, the less one earns." The most disturbing part of this is that most traditionally female jobs are rated lower socially than the title of "Dog Trainer" and people pay more for the care of their pets than they do for the care of their children. She points out that policy has been devoid of serious efforts to enable men to do more caregiving. Also, we very rarely look at the fact that while women are forced into home work, men are forced into market work. In the U.S. especially, we fail to provide adequate time for parenting in general, regardless of gender issues. The raised standard of living has made life better materially for many people, but has also reduced the capacity for people to care for one another. The focus on material wealth is downright disturbing. Bonnar explains the issue that the interrelatedness of human kind overall is becoming dependent on the marketplace, rather than community ties, which is a tragedy for human life overall.

Bonnar's solutions include rearranging the time demand of employment, providing adequate parental leave policies (including extended care after birth, leave for childcare emergencies, flextime arrangements, etc.), as well as suggesting a system for setting wages for human care work. Flextime arrangements seem to make a lot of sense, because they allow employees to set starting and stopping times for their work that coincide with childcare needs. Unfortunately, it is clear that mostly higher professional jobs would be providing this option, because if many other workplaces implemented it, everyone would be asking for all of the same times off and businesses that run from 9 am to 9 pm would not be able to function. She points out that the six-hour workday is being seriously considered in some other countries. I think that this would be excellent. The "ideal worker" mentality and the overworking that goes on in this economy is detrimental to people's lives everywhere and really must be challenged.

Bonnar suggests that we may be able to wage domestic work directly. She explains a few of the current plans for waging domestic work and argues her own plan. She believes that we should wage specifically caregivers, not just anyone doing housework because she argues for a distinct difference between the two responsibilities. She points out that caregiving responsibilities are not equal and should not be paid equally, so they should start out with a flat rate, adding increments according to the intensity of care. For example, infant care is more intense than the care of a ten-year-old, so as the child grows older, the pay increments will decrease. Unfortunately, the cost for such a program, because there are so many millions of people employed in unpaid care work, would be close to the defense budget in the U.S. Personally, I do not think that the U.S. would ever come anywhere close to such a policy, and I'm not sure I would agree with the policy myself. Some feminist arguments against such wage for carework policies maintain that such policies would reinforce gender roles and would add to women's isolation and loneliness within their separate spheres of home and might force women to stay in the home because now they can "afford" to, when they really don't want to. I feel that this may be correct, evidence from previous articles shows that women really do prefer to work outside the home, but many of their husbands claim that it is only because of financial necessity and if they were financially able, they would prefer to have their wives at home. The counter-argument claims that such policy would actually break down gender roles because the work would no longer be seen as "love" and would be seen as real work, so women could more freely choose not to do it and to choose other labor instead. I think that this argument completely ignores cultural norms that are not likely to change with the implementation of one policy. Though men are technically "forced" into market work, I believe that the way most men were raised and taught to connect their identity with paid work, I don't think many of them would be very willing to stay home with kids, even if it were to be paid.

Bonnar explains that half the world works for "love" and half the world works for money. As long as food costs money, this system does not work and something needs to be done about it. She also points out, "people need more than material well being to survive; they need personal human nurture." Industrialized nations are focused on maximizing material production as if that is the thing that matters most, when, in reality, it is not. On this, I completely agree. We need to look at what the world is focused on and ask ourselves if it is really what is most important to living a happy and healthy life.

Tronto, Joan, C. 2002. “The 'Nanny' Question in Feminism.” Hypatia 17(2): 34-51.

Joan Tronto discusses the idea of unintended consequences in the feminist movement concerning the changing family and the use of "domestic servants" for childcare work as more and more women are entering the workplace. She discusses the issue of responsibility when it comes to unintended consequences, which is always a difficult question. She questions the morality of our practices as they exist, arguing that the entire system is unjust. She points out the supposed feminist notion of sisterhood and support for all women. Does this idea hold true with our "domestic servant" system? To supplement her argument, Tronto examines the study we read earlier by Pirette Hondagneu-Sotelo. She argues that there have been two major unintended consequences of the feminist movement for women in the workplace:

1) greater social and economic inequality

2) greater demands for childcare

The social and economic inequality is a result of the newly created two-income households with two powerful incomes. The overwhelming presence of these households has increased the standard of living as well as the inequalities of these standards. Tronto argues that the feminist movement, "rearranged responsibilities in a way that undercuts feminist notions of justice."

Inequality is associated with increased use of domestic servants and the use of domestics has been on the rise in the past 20 years. The quote from an employer at the beginning of this section sums up many of the issues to be discussed. An employer whose nanny asked for a raise replied, "is money just really all that's important to you?" and told her to return all of the Christmas gifts they had given to her - that should suffice as her bonus. These women are not always considered to be "really" working, so the fact that they are working for money because they need money to survive is often overlooked. This example also illustrates the issue of intimate relationships and the fact that the household is different than the market. Purchasing commodities within the household is different than purchasing commodities in the market. The employer and employee are not on equal playing ground - they are not in a public place of work, they are in the employer's personal home. The level of control employers have over their domestic workers is very high, and often "emotionally and psychologically charged." The presence of personal relationships is also a very important part of the system. There are three perspectives of these relationships that form: the caregiver, the care-receiver, and the employer. The caregiver is in a tough place, because she needs to make a living, but she also comes to care about her charges and therefore is not in a good position to fight back or make demands, because any fight she puts up impacts her charges more immediately than her employer. The employer may see the nanny as either an ally or a threat - which makes a big impact on the employer-employee relationship. A mother could easily fire a nanny arbitrarily if she sees the worker as too much of a competition for children's affection. I think one of the most important points that Tronto brings up is the impact on the care-receiver, typically assumed to be the children. Children often develop very close relationships with their nannies, and these relationships have shown to be very positive for many kids in a lot of ways. However, we have to keep in mind that the home is the preparation for the world and look at all of the forces at work in a nanny situation. For example, what impact does it have on children to be in a household where one adult is so clearly subordinated to other adults? Particularly if the nanny is a minority, what does this say to children about minorities and race and ethnicity? Children may also become very used to the nanny being there just for them, solely to fulfill their needs, and may not see people as much as a means in themselves as a means to some ends. All of these relationships need to be examined and the example set for children must be the most positive possible.

Tronto explains, in detail, the reasons why many parents feel that hiring nannies is what is best for their child. The ideal of "intensive mothering" comes into play in a big way, because parents have the greatest control over what their kids are exposed to and what needs are met when they have a nanny in their home to whom they can give explicit instructions. "Good mothering" in today's day and age is "inevitably tied to children's success in the context of a highly competitive capitalist environment." Mothers want to do what will be best for their kids in order for their kids to succeed. Because this is seen as a moral undertaking, any attempts to do what is best for their kids (such as hiring a domestic worker, even at an unfair price) is automatically considered moral and needs no examination. Mothers will do what they feel is best for their children - even if that means taking advantage of a childcare worker. The capitalist system currently determines essentially every piece of all of our lives. The definition of good mothering and of what children need depends on the cultural ideology of the time - currently kids need whatever will make them competitive and successful in the harsh business world. Parents are justifiably anxious about their children's futures and future success. Therefore, the injustice of hiring domestic servants is "obscured by the ideological construction of intensive and competitive mothering."

From an economic standpoint, it needs to be pointed out that a domestic worker is only necessary and beneficial as long as it remains financially beneficial to have the mother working. If she is paying her domestic worker too close to what she herself makes, it no longer makes sense. For this reason, dramatically increasing the pay of domestic workers is not feasible, and remains unjust and exploitative in most cases.

As far as assessing responsibility for this problem, Tronto points out that according to the definition of justice, something is considered unjust if people directly benefit from harming others. Upper middle class working men and women benefit greatly from "hiring women to work as underpaid, exploited, domestic servants." It is essentially the exploitation of one woman in order to benefit another - the working woman is oppressing the domestic working woman in order to break her own oppression into gender roles. This does not fit the definition of sisterhood. Tronto points out the negative terms by which Friedan discusses housework - saying housework is best suited to 'feeble-minded girls' - what does this say about domestic servants? She argues that feminists should have seen these issues coming and they do hold some responsibility for these negative outcomes. Their movement focused mainly on white, middle and upper class women and their liberation and they didn't consider women of other classes and races nearly enough in their goals. Tronto refers to this as the "incomplete feminist revolution." I couldn't agree more, particularly Friedan's statements are rather disturbing. As one writer pointed out in her critique of Hillary Clinton's statement about not "baking cookies all day," if Hillary is not baking the cookies for the White House, some other woman is. If Hillary is not cleaning the White House, some other woman is. We need to value the work of all women and understand that it is serious work that must be done no matter what - and it will be done by a woman.

Tronto clearly ideologically supports the abolition of the "domestic servant" system, but more practically she argues that wages should be raised and working conditions made more standard. There should be more intervention on behalf of these hard working women. The U.S. should provide options in the form of public childcare facilities that are good and can be seen as real options - they should consider the needs of all different children from all different backgrounds.

Ultimately, we need to change the way we think - we can't be in constant competition like this, and parenting and the ideas and goals of parenting need to be reexamined.