Blog entry #12

Caring for our young: childcare in Europe and the United States
European countries, in general, are much more progressive in terms of government supported childcare than the United States. The quality of the care is also often better. The United States is increasingly realizing the importance of early childhood education, and many parents desire to enroll their children in preschool and want more places for their children to go (Clawson et. al 29). The United States government has realized that early childhood education and childcare is an important and good thing, however “…most attempts to improve US childcare are incremental, efforts to get a little more money here or there, with little consideration for what kind of system is being created” (Clawson et. al 30).
Most US parents struggle finding childcare. For 3 and 4 year old children with employed mothers, “…more than one out of eight are in three or more childcare arrangements, and almost half are in two or more arrangements…” (Clawson et. al 30). Parents have to constantly shift their children between caregivers and search for more childcare opportunities. In France, all children age 3 to 6 have a place in government sponsored childcare facilities, and many parents take advantage of this opportunity (Clawson et. al 30). The French system of childcare also integrates early education, as well as offering extra resources to specifically poor areas. The staff of childcare centers are also well-paid and educated, making it a much more desirable job than working at US childcare centers.
US childcare centers are expensive for parents. While some lower socioeconomic classes do receive financial assistance, it is minimal, and the government does not make up for the deficit. Quality of childcare is also quite diverse, depending on location, funding, and employees. The French childcare options are almost as expensive as those in the US, however parents do not pay, instead, the government does (Clawson et. al 31). Many Americans advocate adopting a French-like childcare system, especially because of its emphasis on early childhood education.
Another example of European childcare systems is Denmark. Danish childcare centers do not emphasize early childhood education like the French do. Danish childcare centers focus around social, unorganized times, with pedagogues, not teachers (Clawson et. al 32). This system also integrates all children 6 and under, unlike the French system which only applies to 3 to 6 year olds. And also, the Danish government run childcare options are only available to working parents (Clawson et. al 32). This system appeals to Americans who want their young children to be in a less structured, informal environment. This system stresses relaxation, socialization, and play. The pedagogues also, alternatively from teachers, act more as loving caregivers.
One major difference between most European childcare instead of US childcare, is that in the US caregivers are often paid low wages, have no special training, and are almost all women (Clawson et. al 33). They also often have lower staff-child ratios than European caregiving centers. However, it is debated whether the relationships children have with the caregivers or their peers is more important. Another striking difference is that although social expectations in the US often prompt mothers to stay at home, European companies usually offer more parental leave than US companies. Also, some European policies also cater to fathers’ paid leave, while few US policies do. The childcare system in the US does need modification, but parents and government must decide how to model and fund their new systems.

Developing Earner-Carer Policies in the US
The basis of this article is that government policies supporting childcare is possible in the US, based on what other countries have done. The US is far behind many European countries in terms of government sponsored childcare. This could be caused be several factors, including the decentralization of policy-making authority and hesitation of many Americans for the government to allow government to allocate resources for things that were traditionally private (Gornick 268). The US also differs from Europe and Canada in terms of racial and ethnic diversity of families. Many of these groups might be hostile to government intervention in childcare, traditionally believed to be private. Policies must include options for all Americans. These policies, the authors assert, are different from welfare. It is instead often known as a social provision (Gornick 270). The European policies, as stated in the above reading, often emphasize early childhood education, especially language education. The education also includes cultural learning, especially beneficial for children of immigrants, which is becoming a larger part of the population (Gornick 271).
One of the greatest barriers to government-sponsored childcare is that Americans often shy away from government intervention in personal lives. “…American parents want to be free to choose the type of care their child receives. The political pollster Ed Goeas, for example, observes that ‘people do believe that ‘It takes a village to raise a child,’ but they want a village that expresses the values and beliefs they have” (qtd. in Gornick 272). This supports the heterogeneity of beliefs in the US, and each family wants to raise their child within their own values. However, government-sponsored childcare does not mean families would be forced to use these options. Also, flexibility in the options can be included to cater to several types of families, especially because single parenthood is especially prevalent in the US (Gornick 274). However, the research believes policies for single and dual parent households are feasible. Provisions include regulating work time, leave time, and providing access to affordable housing and healthcare (Gornick 275). Another difference US parents have is many more are in low-wage jobs. Policies for these parents would be especially important, however care policies alone will not economically level these families with others.
Another question is how government assistance to families with children will affect child rates. “In the United States, critics suggest that generous social welfare policies could increase birthrates and decrease marriage rates…have had [a potential to have a] ‘pronatalist’ orientation” (Gornick et. al 280). Europeans are currently experiencing declining fertility rates, some to the point of concern. Some Americans, in contrast, believe these policies might lead to increased fertility. Others also believe policies might lead to higher rates of single motherhood, but this has not happened in the majority of European countries. Another concern is that these policies would increase unemployment rates and even weakens the economy (Gornick et. al 284). However, European policies do seem economically possible for the US.
Another part of the debate is whether care benefits should be at the state or national level. In European countries, the policies are nationally decided, while in the US most policies are currently state based. The states are also where the majority of moves for more government-sponsored childcare come from. These efforts could eventually become national programs or federal-state levels (Gornick et. al 287).
As explained previously, the greatest barrier to instituting European-like childcare options is that many Americans are hesitant to let the government into this part of their personal life. However, they are “…supportive of government programs that are constructed as enhancing opportunities or providing support to those who are gainfully employed…most American parents say they believe that government should be doing more to support working families” (Gornick et. al 289). This leads some to believe that government childcare would be well received be Americans, as long as they allow options. Another important barrier is that some men will be against this shift in gender roles and carework. Other studies, however, report fathers would like to spend more time at home but feel this is unsupported by employers and coworkers (Gornick et. al 292). Resistance towards changing policies could also come from employers, who will be unwilling to set out the public programs for families that are similar to European programs because of possible costs (Gornick et. al 294). However, European countries did not largely suffer from these policies. Also, this could be good for productivity, because workers will be happier and work harder if there work week is shortened. The highly gendered carework in the US is alarming, but now more women move into the labor force and struggle finding childcare. Although no European model of government is perfect, the US can adopt many strategies they use to improve current childcare options.

The Work and Family Handbook
This author also begins by asserting the US’s shortcomings in public policies for families. One particular area the US is behind in is family leave policies, because the US provides no law for parental leave with the birth of a newborn (Kelly 99), instead it is decided by companies. Some are provided with unpaid family leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act, but not all (Kelly 100). There are several restrictions workers must meet to be eligible for unpaid leave, and it is, as named, unpaid, therefore many people cannot afford to take time off. Many companies also do not comply to FMLA rules. This leads many women to take the parental leave, since it is unpaid and they often earn less than their husbands, so men usually cannot choose to take a leave from work (Kelly 101). For companies that provide some form of paid maternity leave, this solely applies to women. These laws, however, differ state by state.
European countries, by contrast, offer much more flexible family leave policies that are paid more than US employees. Each nation has its own laws about time of family leave, payment, and whether it can be for men, women, or both. Some countries go as far as to promote father’s parental leave by providing “individual, nontransferable leave benefits” (Kelly 103). And families do not have to worry about losing the immense amount of income that US couples worry about. Each country has its own laws, however, but all are considered more generous than US policies.
Asian countries have also been attempting to revise family leave policy and extend it to men as well. Currently, Japan and South Korea offer better family leave policies than the US (Kelly 104). These policies include large portion of wage retention, a specific amount off, and benefits for both men and women.
Currently, US parents must find their own childcare options. Although the US provides some support to the poorest families, it is far from enough. The benefits the neediest families receive include tax breaks, subsidized care, and welfare (Kelly 105). These options all keep the government removed from the childcare centers themselves, because Americans often fear governmental interference in their private lives. Therefore, tax deductions are often used because then the parents themselves choose how to spend that money on childcare. However, “tax breaks provide greater benefits to higher-income families than lower income families” (Kelly 106), so it often does not help those most in need. Another way the government tries to indirectly provide childcare is by encouraging employer-based childcare centers, and those employers receive tax credits. The state, not federal, governments are in charge of controlling the quality of childcare centers, which are low in comparison to other industrialized nations.
European countries usually offer childcare for children ages 3-schoolage. The government, ensuring high quality care, much more rigorously controls childcare. Several Asian countries also have more developed childcare systems, especially Japan.
Another way governments can help working families is by mandating lower-hour workweeks. Employers do not have to subscribe to any specific laws about limiting time at work, and do not protect against mandatory overtime (Kelly 109). Many workers feel pressured to work long hours to keep their jobs, and new parents want to prove their remaining dedication to work. Women are especially pressured to commit to more hours. Women who only have time for part time jobs have much lower wages (Kelly 110). Most other Western nations, by contrast, regulate work hours more rigorously. There is a hourly cap, including overtime, enforced by the European Union, as well as paid vacation time (Kelly 111).
Countries providing government care assistance can be classified into three groups, “a. whether their policies are available universally to all citizens or are targeted at specific groups of citizens, b. the generosity and quality of benefits provided, and c. the extend of ‘de-commoditfication’ or the degree to which ‘a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the [labor market]” (qtd. in Kelly 113). The policies vary based on the social beliefs and governmental roles of each country. Work-family policies have positive effects on women’s wages and encourages them to remain in the workforce, and regulation of part-time work pay and hours would also be beneficial for mothers.

Creating Gender Egalitarian Societies: An Agenda for Reform
Women and men are quickly approaching equally employment rates in many countries. This leads to shorter time at home for both men and women. Without an institutional reform, American parents are going to be spending less and less time with their children. The current policies also do not support gender egalitarianism. The traditional role, of male-breadwinner and female domestic worked, began to change after WWII (Gornick et al. 316). The rate of female employees has also grown in many European countries. However, social policies have been slow in catching up with the gender equality advancements in the workplace. Families experience a serious lack of time together, and parents scramble for childcare options. Children also suffer from parents’ long hours, “employment arrangements that great reduce parents’ time and attention for their children appear to pose the greatest risk for child well-being” (Gornick et. al 319). The interests of all family members, fathers, mothers, and children, must be considered while making social family-work policy changes. Most families lie somewhere on a spectrum of both parents employed full-time and neither parents employed (Gornick et. al 322), and the labor market must respond to their flexibly. The incentive for these changes should be higher than the employer-level, and similar to European models, be left to the government (Gornick et. al 323). The author believes that the best way to provide this is a combination of several elements that European countries feature: “paid family leave, regulation of working time, and early childhood education and care” (Gornick et. al 324). Leave policies should also be extended to both genders, including immediately following childbirth. Leave should also include full pay. Regulation of work time is also important so that both men and women can spend more time at home. However, questions about pay and hours also bring about a debate. Early childhood education is also important, which is why many European countries emphasize early childcare education, not daycare (Gornick et. al 326). This education must substitute for time that parents are at work.
Although each European countries’ laws differ, they all have in common maternity leave policies and benefits, gender neutral parental leaves, support gender equality in the home and workplace, provide work time regulations, and are financed through social insurance to help distribute and minimize costs (Gornick et. al 329). The Nordic countries are especially generous in terms of benefits and promoting gender equality (Gornick et. al 331).
The early childhood education in European countries also include publicly supported care for infants and toddlers, affordable early education around age 3, high-quality care centers, and knowledgeable employees (Gornick et. al 334). Although many Americans might shy away from public childcare centers because of government intervention in personal life, it has proved beneficial in many European countries and systems like this are possible in the US.

Blog entry #10

What’s wrong with prostitution?
This article is based on the author’s field study of San Francisco prostitutes. The author discusses three viewpoints on prostitution: radical feminist critiques of prostitution, pro-feminist defense of prostitution, and contextualized feminist approaches to the sex-work dichotomy (Bernstein 95).
The radical feminists’ critique of prostitution explains that is different from traditional wage labor because of the sexual objectification within the occupation. The sale of the body is different than the sale of any other commodity. It is not based on emotional work, merely sex work. Prostitution puts the male within a position of power, he is the one paying and therefore, controlling the woman for the time he is with her.
In defense of prostitution, some feminists say it actually puts women in power. They are free to express their sexuality, going against the traditional gender roles. Prostitution is often thought of as a last-resort option, these women are thought to not have another employment opportunities. While this is true for some of these women, there are ranges of women who become prostitutes. There are also moral stigmatisms that accompany sex-work.
The author found three classes of strippers in her study- upper, middle, and lower classes (Bernstein 102). Classes were determined by their race and physical appearance. The upper class prostitutes are better dressed, better looking, and might not be recognized by the majority of the public as sex-workers. The most important feature of prostitutes is that “… there is no other job at which they could make anywhere near a comparable wage” (Bernstein 104). Prostitution gives women sexual power; they can price themselves and pick and choose their customers. This is dependent on if these women work for themselves or a pimp, who otherwise determines wages. However, sometimes the relationship between pimp and prostitute is caring, and they both look out for each other. The women also face physical violence from their clients and pimps, but are often unable or discouraged to seek medical treatment because of possible law enforcement repercussions or lack of funds. The pimps protect women from other pimps, but not from their clients or the police. San Francisco police are rather liberal, often citing prostitutes with more petty crimes. COYOTE (Call Off Your Tired Ethics) is the national prostitutes’ rights organization founded in San Francisco (Bernstein 110). Most members of this organization are white, middle class, and educated, mostly prostitutes or exotic dancers. COYOTE uses the term sex-workers to avoid the negative connotations associated with prostitution. At one point in their lives, these women crossed a “good girl-bad girl” line, diverting from their upbringing and shedding traditional occupations (Bernstein 112). However, besides economic gain many sex-workers describe the enjoyment they receive from their sex-work occupations. These prostitutes are usually “professional sex-workers”, and not those walking the streets. These women usually meet criteria for avoiding degradation in their occupations, having “… control over their sexuality, meaningful consent, self management and promotion, and alternative life options” (Bernstein 114). Streetwalkers are more often “crack prostitutes”, working for drugs and living a lower-class lifestyle. They are often homeless and make significantly less money than professional sex-workers do. They have little or no options for other professions, and barely survive with the wages they earn.

Sex work for the middle classes
The author begins by citing the biggest obstacles to sex-work as shame and ignorance (Bernstein 474). Technology, mainly the Internet, has opened up a new frontier for sex-work. As cited in the above article, sex-work is not simply a lower-class occupation, many white, middle-class, educated women also participate in sex-work. Jobs for these women are often are to come by and do not pay as much as jobs in the sex-work industry. Sex-work jobs also often seem more excited than typical desk jobs. Women often view sex-work jobs as just a quick occupation when they need money, but remain in the industry because of the money and enjoyment they receive from their jobs. The majority of sex-workers are unmarried and without children, and have a freer and more experimental view of sex than most Americans (Bernstein 478). The success of any sex-worker depends on her built up list of clientele, which people can begin while working for an agency but then eventually work independently. Women are often economically exploited by their sex-work managers, so they desire to move away from them quickly.
The internet is one of the quickest ways for sex-workers to develop clientele. Women can post advertisements, pictures, videos, and more on the webpage to entice and contact clients. Women also organize meetings to discuss their sex-work, including safe sex practices, how to find safe clients, and other professional advice (Bernstein 481). Books and websites have also been dedicated to instructing sex-workers how to create and run their business.
Sex-work also requires certain boundaries. The commodity being sold is sex, not a personal relationship, so it is important to keep interpersonal connections separate from sex-work. However, for the customers, such as those in a strip club study, often find “realness” within interactions with strippers (Bernstein 484). These customers look for natural looking, outgoing women who are easy to talk to. Some of those sex-workers describe feigning loving relationships for their clients because they appreciate it more.

Who’s orgasm is this anyway?
Couples are constantly faced with desires from the outside world, making having a pure, monogamous relationship more difficult. Men are always referred to as unemotional, looking for sexual fulfillment in other women (Duncombe and Marsden 221). Sex-work is not only for prostitutes, but also has to occur within relationships. This exchange of resources between partners usually “… tends to be tilted towards men. Yet male actors do not invariably deploy their power, nor do women always defer…” (Duncombe and Marsden 222). There are several viewpoints on the source of sexual pleasure for women, all giving some degree of power to the men. Relationship satisfaction is hard to reach, especially because one study found most people constantly compare their own relationships to those within the media (Duncombe and Marsden 225), often creating impossible standards. Men were found to want their women to be slightly sexual assertive, while women enjoyed gentle sexual dominance of males. Other studies have also found that married couples sexual activity experiences a decline during the duration of the relationships (Duncombe and Marsden 225). Sex becomes a special occasion, not something frequent and important to the marriage. While each couple may blame it on different things, husbands and wives have both admitted to fault in their sexual relationships. Both partners also admitted a reluctance to discuss the problem.
This lack of sex leads partners to look outside of their relationship for sexual pleasure. These outlets include pornography, masturbation, and different sex techniques (Duncombe and Marsden 230). After emotional distance separates some couples, partners are unable to have sex with their partners. Celibacy sometimes also leads to affairs, where partners can find their sexual, and sometimes emotional satisfaction, elsewhere (Duncombe and Marsden 232). Women are more interested in mutual sexual satisfaction than men are often found to be. However, in time, women often lose their desire to perform sex work as well. Fantasy is also a part of sex-work for both partners, especially as time passes. However, sex-work does become work after the passage of time, and it is unkown how to keep authentic, real, and enjoyable sex in a long-term relationship.

‘Stepford Wives’ and ‘hollow men’?
there are gender differences in emotional work, most important are those concerning power (Duncombe and Marsden 212). Women often bear the burden of the emotional work, trying to promote communication, which is often how they achieve intimacy. This also extends further than just partner relationships, as women are usually responsible for the communication in all relationships. Men’s emotional work is seen in a different way, they usually respond that they do paid work for their family, not themselves, and many of them may think this shows their emotional ties (Duncombe and Marsden 214). They claim that with the birth of their children, they put more emotion work into the workplace. Instead of focusing emotions on their wives and children, men switch their focus to work. One problem people cite for emotion work is that overtime it becomes an obligation, sometimes people do not really care but simply perform the work because they feel they ought to (Duncombe and Marsden 215). People “perform” their gender by performing the carework associated with it. The authentic work usually has little emotional component. Men, especially, report a difficult time performing emotion work, and both genders report feeling pressured to perform different types of emotion work.

Blog entry #9

The Place of Caregiving Work in Contemporary Societies
Caregiving often does not get the time and attention paid to it that it once did. Men and women both share caregiving roles, although women alone have been responsible for the physical care and reproduction. This has never been viewed as work, instead as a loving and nurturing task. Women are responsible for four-fifths of unpaid work, as well as one-third of paid work, however only receive 105 of the world’s income (Bonnar). Both paid and unpaid work of women is often undervalued. The early feminist movement represented the desire of women to do paid work and be more valued. However, employment often added more stress to women’s lives, because they now faced work outside and inside the home. The literature on housework is varied. Many studies examined the economic value of housework, estimating that homemakers are worth about ten thousand to forty thousand a year (Bonnar). Other studies, instead, trivialized housework and devalued it.
Housework is composed of domestic tasks and child rearing. It also requires care of the worker. There is a distinction between housework and caregiving, but housework is usually done out of care. Caregiving, however, is the more important of the two. Many people do caregiving, but it is important to have some constant people. Employed mothers, in order to do their caregiving, have even more planning to do because they need to schedule out their time for caregiving. Mothers hold the purchasing power for household products and also what their children buy.
The author designates four reasons why the detailing the thought going into caregiving is important. These reasons include that the nature of the work is usually not completely understood, that it is not possible to outsource all the caregiving tasks, that the workplace is often not conducive to caregivers, and finally because the market sector and domestic sector are not compatible. Working mothers have a small range of jobs to pick from, because most are not flexible to caregiving chores. Because of the little value of caregiving, it is often “squeezed for many people to the edges of available time and energy (Bonnar 197).
Internationally, women remain the primary caregivers. Although more women work for wages now, they are still responsible for most of the domestic tasks. Also, the jobs usually held by women are not as high paying as those held by men. Socialist countries, such as Sweden, are one of the more gender-neutral countries today, and it is the stance of the government that “…every individual, regardless of sex, shall have the same responsibility for child upbringing and housework” (qtd. in Bonnar 198). However, there is still a significant wage difference between men and women, which makes it more fiscally responsible for the woman to do most childcare tasks. Women’s jobs also often require less skill and are socially undervalued.
Women often desire wage jobs, but tradition and policy have made carework unpaid. Therefore, the carework and parenting becomes undervalued and pushed secondary to paid work. Societies emphasis on material wealth makes unpaid work underappreciated. For women to be more productive in the workplace the hours a job demands must lessen and also be more flexible for family emergencies, since it is usually the mother responsible for those situations.
Another option, instead of making paid work more flexible, is to make domestic work paid work. The government would then pay wages for domestic labor on an hourly rate. Another option is to pay caregivers, those responsible for the physical well being of other humans. People would be paid depending on the age, physical conditions (mental illness, handicapped, etc), and number of people they are responsible for.
The prospect of waging caregivers is often met with opposition. Feminists often believe it will further force women back into the home. However, men could also choose to do caregiver work instead of getting a job outside the home. Others cite that caregiving should be done out of love, not for wages.

New World Domestic Order
Latino and Latina immigrants perform a large portion of the Los Angeles domestic work. The services they perform are widespread and inexpensive, even though they are labor-intensive and difficult tasks for the workers. Instead of domestic labor outsourcing decreasing lately, as predicted, it has instead expanded, especially Mexican and Central American women as housekeepers and nannies (Hondagneu-Sotelo).
Many of these women in performing paid domestic labor are married and with children. Therefore, these women are responsible for taking care of their own home and children as well as others. Nannies are perceived as more caring and nurturing then the daycares, when children can get lost in the crowd. Also, nannies can mold around parents’ schedules, unlike daycares. These nannies are also usually responsible for housekeeping tasks. These jobs are often underpaid, even though pay inequality was predicted to lessen after World War II (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Los Angeles is one of the cities with the most Mexican and Central American women employed in these domestic labor tasks. Domestic laborers are also a sign of prestige for the residents of Los Angeles. “… in Los Angeles’ suburban landscape, gardeners and domestic workers proliferate… twice as many gardeners and domestic workers were working in Los Angeles in 1990 as in 1980” (Hondagneu-Sotelo 7). While Mexicans have always had a large presence in Los Angeles, Central American immigrants have experienced a large influx lately. Domestic labor is often looked down upon by those who perform it and those who pay for it, “… this occupation is often not recognized as employment because it takes place in a private home” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Also, domestic labor is traditionally preformed out of love, and because of its emotional component, not recognized as paid labor.
Perhaps more importantly than the domestic laborers themselves not seeing their work as legitimate, the employers often do not believe themselves to be employers (Hondagneu-Sotelo). They sometimes call their laborers “part of the family”, but there is still a tension because of being paid. Employers treating their domestic employees as workers “… encourage the domestic employees to work harder and longer, and simultaneously allow employers to experience personal recognition and validation of themselves as kind, superior, and altruistic. Maternalism is thus an important mechanism of employer power” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Especially as nannies, the employers create emotional ties with the families they work for and therefore are more likely to let themselves be exploited by their employers.
However, lately this dual-sided emotional connection has become mostly the desire of the employees to be closer to their employers. “They want social recognition and appreciation for who they are and what they do…” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). The employers, however, are often reluctant to discuss their employees. It is a luxury that often goes unnoticed and is not discussed. The employees also devalue their work, admitting to not aspiring to it. However, “… they are extremely proud of what their earnings enable them to accomplish for their families” (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Also, labor regulations for domestic work are virtually unknown by anyone.
Primarily those of lower socioeconomic status have always done domestic work, however, both American-born white women and immigrants preformed it. However, lately solely immigrant workers or nonwhites have preformed it. Black women have predominantly preformed the domestic labor in the South, but now has shifted to Mexican or Central Americans, especially in the Southwest states, such as California. This is due to the high rates of immigration, as well as the rise of racialized xenophobia (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Mexican and Central American women are often forced into the dead end domestic labor jobs, and portrayed as lazy or unmotivated, but often they just have no other opportunities. The racialization of domestic work is present in most developed countries around the world. Globally, paid domestic work has led to three factors- paid domestic work is usually preformed by people who leave their own homes to do it, it draws women who were of high status in their own countries away, and international migration of women laborers. One thing that sets apart the United States from other countries is there is no official government policy to contract foreign domestic laborers (Hondagneu-Sotelo). In the United States, domestic work is informal and done with little government regulation.
Domestic labor remains, in large, a woman’s task. Even when people outsource domestic work, women are in charge of the hiring. While outsourcing domestic tasks as well as quicker and simpler ways to perform domestic tasks have cut down on number of hours worked, it is still the women that perform the majority of the tasks. The women are usually responsible for organizing their children’s lives as well, and due the majority of child rearing. However, when a woman performs paid work as a nanny or housekeeper, that diminishes the time they can spend with their own family. They spend time, instead, connecting with the family they work for and building emotional ties with them. These domestic laborers fit into three categories- live-in nanny/housekeepers, live-out nanny/housekeeper, and housecleaner (Hondagneu-Sotelo).

Maid in L.A.
Although Latina immigrants often work in low-paying domestic once they move to the United States, they usually were not domestic workers in their previous homes. Because it does require some money to move to a new country, people must have some money. Live-in nanny jobs are especially convenient for those who do not have enough money to get a place of their own when they first come to the United States. The employers of domestic workers often do not acknowledge the previous jobs or education their employees had, instead treating them with little respect. Privacy is also difficult for live-in nannies; even those that have their own room still must share common space with their employers. The line between work and home life also becomes incredibly blurred for these employees; especially those who are on call during the night or live in a room with a child. Along with room, live-in nannies are usually provided board, but this is somewhat ambiguous, and employees often feel uncomfortable expressing their food preferences and when they want to eat their meals. Some women also say there are designated foods only for the family, and are left with scarce options. Although many of the families employing domestic laborers are in the upper class, they still grossly underpay their employees. The time constraints also keep the workers from their families for days at a time. Live-in nanny jobs, because of the reasons listen above, are the least desired of the domestic jobs. Mostly, people who have not been in the country long enough to afford room and board for themselves, and are somewhat forced into the position.
Live-out nanny jobs follow a much more rigid schedule than live-in nanny jobs, but are nonetheless demanding. The work and home are truly separate for these employees, and they can designate time for their own families. They still develop strong loving bonds with some of the children they care for, however. Many of the responsibilities include picking up children from school and various activities, as well as food preparation for the children. Some parents who use live-out nannies hire help so they can both work, however one nanny expressed, “La Americana is very selfish, she only thinks about herself. They prefer not to be with their children, as they find it’s much easier to pay someone to do that” (Hondagneu-Sotelo 40). Some nannies believe they are hired just so that mothers do not need to spend more time with their children, and this way they can decide how often they interact with their children. These parents also rarely discipline their children, and hostility is often taken out on nannies. Disciplining is hard for nannies to do, the way Latina culture disciplines varies from the traditional American way, and discipline is often reserved by the parents. Sometimes, however, the children only listen to their nannies, as they spend most time with them. This respect for the nanny sometimes makes parents jealous that their children may love their nannies more than them. The nannies often feel similar affection for the children, which can strain their own family ties.
Housecleaners are the least involved of the domestic laborers. Housecleaners usually split their week between working at the homes of several families. These women report that the hours are convenient to being with their families and feel that they still spend a good amount of time with their families. One woman interviewed states that housecleaning was easier than many of the other job options for one with her qualifications, and pays more than other jobs. Usually housecleaners had been living in the United States for a while, often previously working as a live-in or live-out nanny, and usually have children of their own as well. One of the hardest parts of housecleaning is finding enough work, because these women have to find multiple families to hire them. When they do not have enough families for a week, they have to find alternative means of earning money that week. Overall, the housecleaning jobs are those taken by the people who have been in the United States for longer, and these people receive significant more wages than some of the other domestic laborers do. They also work the most desirable hours and have the most time available to spend with their families. Live-in nanny jobs often separate families, making mothers only see their children once a week or simply having to mail home their wages. The mothers who send their families home checks for their domestic work are common, and this is known as “transnational motherhood” (Hondagneu-Sotelo).
While nonwhites have traditionally preformed domestic work, there is a disproportionate number of Central American employees (Hondagneu-Sotelo). Los Angeles especially has a large amount of Central American domestic workers, because of both its location and the patterns and traditions that kept Central American workers in domestic labor force. When first moving to the United States, women look to their social contacts for opportunities for work, usually domestic labor. These jobs often also provide a place to live, and women often see these jobs as an easy option. Cultural forces, such as the low marriage rate in Central America, lead women to migrate because they might not have a family, and if they do, then they often must leave as the sole breadwinners of their families, and send their money back. There are a multitude of reasons families prefer Latina domestic employees, mostly that they trust Latinas to keep family secrets of what they might see while working in the house. They are also viewed as more submissive and servile. Ironically, women who employee domestic workers identify their heritage as clean and hygienic, but do not perform the cleaning themselves. Some employees also display racist attitudes towards their employers. Stereotypes are applied and quickly learned for domestic employers, as well as employees.

The “Nanny” Question in Feminism
The great accomplishment of moving women out of the home and allowing them into the workplace was vital part of the feminist movement. However, this leaves the question of what to do with children whose mothers leave for the workplace. Partners can use a rotating schedule, or professional daycare or nanny services. This author also asserts that live-in, full time nannying is the most difficult of all domestic jobs.
The author deciphers several differences between hiring domestic laborers and purchasing labor and services. These include that the house setting, in private, is often not thought of as employment, because the relationships between domestic laborer and employer and more intimate than in market relationships, and that the product of domestic labor is often a relationship between caregiver and children (Tronto). He also mentions three perspectives of the employees, the first of which is the worker.
Domestic workers are paid low wages, especially when they are live-in nannies. However, the most important thing to the workers is not the wages, however it is “… that they are not accorded sufficient respect and dignity. From the standpoint of workers, the moral stress of being a domestic worker is great” (Tronto 38). Workers are forced to act in the manner that their employer believes desirable and acceptable, and people lose their own values and self worth then. There are few laws to ensure welfare of domestic laborers, and those that do exist are rarely enforced. Caring for children and the elderly is undervalued in the United States, unlike most other cultures. However, the unique bond that develops between caregivers and children makes it difficult for women to leave their jobs as domestic laborers. The employee holds very little power over their position, instead the employer, usually the wife and mother, is in control of the relationship the caregiver has with children and the family. The mother holds all control over the relationship, and can demand her caregiver acts a certain way. This can make the mother act in a tyrannical way, or feel guilty for the low wages and hardships of the job she inflicts upon the worker (Tronto).
Having a nanny and multiple caregivers can be both beneficial and harmful for children. Having a nanny around, meeting children’s needs, may make children believe adults will always be there to cater to their needs (Tronto). However, caregivers are important source of love and intimacy for children. Also, caregivers are usually a different race than the children they care for, which might provoke racial stereotyping by children.
For many families, having a nanny is a status symbol. Upper class mothers are expected to outsource at least some domestic tasks to domestic laborers. Mothers are also urged to outsource many of the childrearing tasks to professionals- children are encouraged to participate in many activities, keeping them largely out of the home. However, parents are often skeptical of large daycare or childcare establishments, so they instead turn to nannies. Therefore, parents alleviate guilt in hiring domestic laborers by believing they are doing it for the good of their children.
The concept of intensive mothering has made it so no matter how much time mothers spend with their children and how much time they allocate for other caregivers, they still do not feel they provide their children with adequate hours of caregiving. For feminists, there is also no solution for what to do with children when their mothers go off toe be a part of the labor force.

Blog entry #8

Using Kin for Child Care
Since the 1960s, childcare by non-parent relatives has steadily decreased overall (Uttal). This study examines the differences in non-parent childcare between races. Although many report that they would like to have childcare by relatives, not many do. Overall, most studies previously done report that African Americans and Hispanics use extended kin for childcare more than White families (Uttal). Historically, Whites have emphasized a nuclear family more than other races, which treat the family as more of the extended unit.
Three main theories have been proposed to explain the racial differences between extended family caregiving, including cultural explanation, structural explanation, and integrative explanation (Uttal). Typically, economic status has little effect. Culturally, nonwhite families have closer kin ties, and geographically it is easier for them to care for family. However, there are many other factors previous research has also found.
For the study, the researcher did interviews with employed mothers with one or more non-school aged children over 2 years. Included were African Americans, Anglo Americans, and Mexicans. Only three of these mothers expressed a desire to use extended kin to care for their children. The six mothers that did use extended kin care had tried but failed to search for other alternatives first. One important difference was that Anglo Americans resisted offers from family to be caregivers, while the other two groups did not. Anglo Americans cited kin care as an imposition on their family, that they did not want to owe their family anything, and that they wanted to instill their own values in their children, not their parents’ (Utaal). Mexican Americans viewed extended kin care as giving family members employment and that, as their relatives, the caregivers wanted to spend time with the children regardless. Mexican and African Americans are more likely to view extended kin caregivers as acceptable, although Anglo Americans also use extended kin caregivers, but just do not reference it as desirable.

The Color of Family Ties
Blacks and Latinos are more likely to live with, near, or visit relatives than Whites (Gerstel et. al). With monetary and emotional needs, White families are more giving, however, with practical needs, including childcare, Black and Latino relatives are found more helpful. In all racial groups, it is women that are more likely to provide their families with emotional support than men. This study, in contrast to the previous, names socioeconomic status as a more important indicator of using extended kin caregivers than historical and cultural differences. Although cultural values do exist, the socioeconomic status is more important. Blacks and Latinos tend to have less income than Whites and live closer to the poverty line, giving them less time and money to perform or outsource childcare. While Whites can give monetary help to family, minorities instead exchange domestic and childcare favors.
Another factor influencing minorities’ reliance on extended kin care is lower marriage rates. Instead of husbands, mothers turn to other family members for help with children. The low marriage rates could be due to the low socioeconomic statuses of many minority men (Gerstel et. al). pro-marriage government and workplace policies make it difficult for minority single parents.

Explaining the Gender Gap in Help to Parents
As seen in previously read literature, teenage girls and boys begin falling into their sex roles within their household chores while still living with their parents. The reason as to the early genderizing of household tasks, however, is debated. Employment is an equalizing factor for women’s hours spent on domestic tasks, but employed and unemployed men are often found to do similar amounts of housework. This supports that it is not about time worked or money earned, however it is simply based on gender. However, these findings were not similar for all studies preformed. This study focused on further examining this gender gap.
This study examines help given to parents and parents-in-law, given in hours per week. Age, race, education, health, and martial status are also measured and used as controls. Geographic distance from parents, parents’ health, and financial status were also controlled.
Women are found to give significantly more help to parents than men, however when employment status was considered it was not found to be significant. However, when both partners are employed the gender gap does not lessen, women still giving more help than men. Women were also usually found to work less and be paid less than men. Not surprisingly, higher wages are associated with giving less help. However, self-employment is found to be associated with giving less help as well (Sarkisian et. al).
This study’s findings support the traditional gender gap. While employed men and women are somewhat equal in providing help, this is not true when women are not employed. Women also cited caring for parents more important than men did, which suggests more emotional ties with parents for women. However, there is not one clear answer why women are more likely to help parents than men.

The Female World of Cards and Holidays
The author outlines two theoretical trends responsible for the changing view of women’s work. First, the recognition of women’s unpaid home and family work as important, and secondly, the importance of women within the family (di Leonardo). However, it is not just women’s importance within the household that should be recognized. They are largely responsible for keeping and nurturing extended kin ties for their entire family. Women are often the one sending cards and giving relatives phone calls, not men or children. While kin ties are just as important to men, they do not take responsibility for them. Young women today, while much more active in paid work, still work to maintain kin ties. Women are responsible, and always have been, for family gatherings. They also are often responsible to settle disputes among family members (di Leonardo).
Even when women do not want to be responsible for kin ties, they are often pressured into it because society views it as women’s work. Also, it is important for the happiness of a family for someone to keep in charge of the extended kin’s social schedule and provide opportunities for meetings. Di Leonardo believes this form of kinship, scheduling holidays and events together, is mainly American. The cultural and religious background of families also influences how much women are expected to do with extended kin. Families also share some sort of resources, depending on their economic status, with one another. The women are responsible for these offerings. Extended kin responsibilities are also unique because they exist in all economic classes, there is no way to outsource them completely like housework or childcare. Also, women are supposed to want to keep these ties for their families and are guilted into the roles. So, women accept these roles as they do many of their other unpaid work roles, as a part of their nurturing and emotional nature that men do not possess.

Blog entry #7

The Division of Domestic Labor in Lesbigay Family
Many lesbian women express their concern that they do not do enough domestic work around the house. One of the lesbian couples interviewed expressed that they still take on certain gender roles, one being more gender neutral and another with a more feminine side. They also bring to the domestic realm certain things associated with the gender they take upon. As many wives of straight men express, a gay man also expressed the wish to be more appreciated for their domestic contributions to the household, and the reluctance their partners have towards doing domestic chores. Another man expressed that since he bought the house, he feels his partner should be responsible for upkeep. Roughly 25% of the homosexual couples interviewed were found to share the domestic tasks equally (Carrington). Of the middle and upper class couples interviewed, many outsourced and paid for domestic tasks. The domestic workers were mostly of a minority race and paid low rates (Carrington).
Many of the couples interviewed, both male and female, worked in traditionally female jobs. These jobs are more accommodating to family life. Also, the lack of children for many couples or few children allow for more time for oneself. However, still in homosexual couples 75% report that one partner is seen as responsible for the domestic duties (Carrington). Usually, this partner is the one with the lower paying job and less opportunity for economic advancement. One woman expressed her happiness after she left her 60 hour a week job for a true full time, 40 hour a week position, because she was able to work with her partner on domestic chores and had time to learn how to take care of a home and nurture a relationship.
Partners who forgo traditional careers to stay at home find other things to occupy their time with, especially because not many have children. One man interviewed used the skills he got from his career to volunteer instead, so he could have more time at home. Other times, partners do not make the choice to stay at home but simply do not have a chance for job advancement, and spend more time at home. Some people interviewed that they do feel discriminated against at their jobs because of their sexual orientation, especially the jobs at the more traditional, larger corporations.
Just like with heterosexual couples, the couples interviewed usually had to make compromises in the workplace to keep their home and domestic life alive. Also, some interviewed expressed the workplace as a sanctuary and place to relax, away from the demands of family life.

Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life
This study was based on interviews of 30 urban families. Most women do not describe domestic work as the work they did in an office (Gerstel and Gross). Some describe doing domestic chores as love, while others describe it as obligatory. Especially for meal preparation, mothers see it as very important because meals are often the only time their whole family is together. Still, women must fit these meals around their husband and children’s schedules. Women also spend a large amount of time planning their mealtime, fitting the food to each individual’s preferences. Meals must also be healthy, since parents do not always see what their children eat at school. Food can also be a way of teaching culture and history to children.
Conversation is also important during meal times. Mothers try to get their children to discuss their days or things going on by dedicating this specific time to talk. This is also a time to learn manners and polite conversation, so that children are prepared to have meals in public. Not surprisingly, single mothers arrange less meals than married women do. Perhaps simply because they are not around during mealtime, or if they are they are too exhausted from their workday (Gerstel and Gross).
Many people do not view feeding as work. Since it is essential to life, there is no choice to do it or not. However, many mothers go above and beyond simply feeding their families at mealtime. Considering health, the family’s schedule, and preferences, are all things that go into planning a meal.

Autonomy, Dependence, or Display?
This study examines effects on women’s housework. The author argues that it is not how much their husband’s earn that influences women’s housework, but their own earnings. The economic exchange theory asserts that whichever partner earns less money makes up for this by spending more time on housework. However, the researcher proposes an alternate hypothesis, as described earlier. In terms of childcare, one previous researcher found the more women earn, the more likely they are to outsource childcare. Men’s earnings, however, do not have as much of an effect on domestic and childcare duties- this is the hypothesis the researcher proposes. The researcher looked at correlations between women’s hours working in the home and their earnings, as well as their partner’s. The research somewhat supported the hypothesis, that as women’s earnings increase, their time spent on domestic tasks decreases. Ironically, hours spent at work are not associated with time spent on domestic chores, for the husband nor wife. Since husband’s earnings have no impact on time spent at home, these findings might be in support of the economic exchange theory, high earning women do not feel the need to contribute as much a home. It could also mean that they can afford to outsource domestic duties.

Joey’s Problem
This chapter is about a 4-year old boy, Joey, and how his parents raise him and work full time jobs. The wife, Nancy, expresses her desire for a true egalitarian marriage, but that still takes work. Evan and Nancy’s marriage is also complicated because their son cannot fall asleep until about midnight, and Nancy has to take care of most of the bedtime activities. This is reflective of their life in general, because Joey is always expressing a preference for his mother. Evan, however, does not see this as a problem, playing the type of the strong and silent father. While Nancy works with Joey, Evan is busy doing his own thing downstairs, making it so that they have little time together at night after work without Joey.
Even though Nancy and Evan try to have an egalitarian marriage, it is far from it. The researcher found Nancy is responsible for 80% of housework and 90% of childcare (Hochschild). Even their son Joey echoed those sentiments, saying his mom does the housework. Nancy tried making schedules for household tasks, but Evan did not follow them. As Nancy tried to remind Evan, he got upset and did not do the tasks, and with Nancy refusing to do them as well, the household fell apart. Nancy does desire to do housework, but she also wants Evan to desire to help out as well, and both to appreciate each other for what they bring to their careers and their homes. Evan, however, did not understand why her choice to have a career meant he needed to be more domestically involved. Neither of them wanted to cut back to part-time work, even though Evan asked Nancy. When these problems became unbearable, Nancy succeeded and gave into being more domestically involved. They tried to split tasks half and half, but to no avail. Evan expressed his dislike for chores, and Nancy accepted them. Evan picked a few things to help out with around the house, as “token” second shift work, so he still felt he was contributing, which many men do (Hochschild). Nancy cited “fairness” as an important component to love and marriage, while Evan did not. Men often compare themselves to other husbands, thinking they do more than Husband X does, so their wives should be satisfied with their contributions. Men look around and decide on how much they domestic work they will do as according to others. This perpetuates the gender division within the home. Nancy, however, did not view this as fair, but gave up on the notion of fairness citing the existence of her marriage was more important. Both partners settled and compromised for their marriage, but Nancy did a lot more than Evan.

Blog entry #6

Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families?
Many of today’s jobs are able to be taken home- which makes parents spend even more time working, even if they are not at work. However, the author states there is a conflicting viewpoint that some people believe leisure time has increased recently. One common research method includes time-diaries, where people are asked to explain their days and how they spend their time. According to time diaries form the early 1960s, leisure time increased for many people. People are spending less time working, because they go to school longer and retire earlier, but perhaps they make up with that lost time by working more hours while they are actually in the workforce. Women in the workforce have drastically increased since the end of WWII. The reported hours of housework have declined, as more women are in the workforce.
Single parent households, usually run by women, face the most time constraints, followed by dual earning couples. The number of children most people have has also decreased, allowing parents to spend more time outside of the home because they have less to take care of. Dual earning families have increased from 35.9% to 59%, making dual worker families the majority (Jacobs and Gerson). Dual earner families were also the group that saw the biggest increase in hours worked per week. However, studies that we read last week reported that children care less about the quantity of time with their parents then the quality of the time. When parents are overworked though, the quantity of time goes down but sometimes the quality does as well since the parents are tired while at home from working such long hours. Education level has also led to longer workweeks, especially for women. The most worrisome statistics are those about dual earner families that work a combined 100 hours a week or more, as the proportion of these couples is rising. That accounts for an incredible amount of time spent away from the home, whether the parents are working at the same time or split shifts of who is working when.
The workplace is becoming more competitive, and mothers and fathers alike need to balance their work and family lives, but many jobs do not make this easy for them.

The Career Mystique
Companies place demands on their employees that are not conducive to having a family. Children are seen as a burden to a worker, so couples such as Lisa and David began to work even longer hours after the birth of their child to show their continued dedication to their jobs. These people define success as having it all- happy marriage, children, and a successful career. This differs greatly from the 1950s perfect family, which was a career successful man and a supportive and loving wife at home. Women began to express unhappiness with this ideal, however, and more women looked for fulfillment outside of the home. This was the thought behind Betty Friedan’s book, “The Feminine Mystique”. This gave a voice to women unfulfilled with a life completely locked in the house.
The division of who is more valued in the family reinforces the gender division, men’s superiority and value triumphs over women. Working men bring home a paycheck, while women’s work is usually unnoticed. Careers and children can be compatible, but many companies make it hard and while parents need the money and benefits a career provides to be a good parent, they then lose out on spending time with the family they work so hard to support. Women spend less and less time at home when their children are first born, as Lisa did, because of the concern that their employer will punish them for time spent outside of the home. Longer life spans means many people will eventually need to care for their parents, as well as their children and possibly grandchildren or extended kin. The classic question arises though- is it better to work so you can afford getting them care from others, or is it better to sacrifice your career to be with them?
Retirement begins much earlier now and is often encouraged by the time people are in their 50s, making it even more important for people to make money while they have their full-time jobs. Also, the rising cost of college, and graduate school for many as well, often leaves people in debt when they first enter the workforce. In the 1980s and 1990s, companies began to understand the importance of helping their employees find a balance of work and family. Usually these work-family problems are faced by women, because men are still usually seen as the breadwinners and women are more likely to make sacrifices in the workplace in order to keep their family happy.

The Time Bind- Chapters 14 and 15
The desire of spending more time with family is an opinion often cited by many working parents. However, they are often not able to spend less time working because of the financial needs of their family. Parents with the highest incomes are usually those that have their children in daycare the most, suggesting that high paying jobs are those that demand extraordinary amounts of time from their employees. 89% of employees reported they feel they suffer form a time famine- and also that this effects time with their family. Some parents also reported feelings of guilt for not spending enough time with their families. Surprisingly, some workers said they feel more at home and appreciated in the workplace then in their actual home. Only 51% stated feeling most relaxed in their home. Many parents go home stressed after a day of work and spend their time at home worrying about their responsibilities. Often upper and middle class answer feeling more relaxed at work than home, and those with less desirable jobs see the home as where they are happiest. In the middle of this spectrum lie those who are not relaxed at their home or work. Corporations, such as Amerco, try to make their employees feel at home- offering casual dress days and company-sponsored social events to make their employees more relaxed and willing to spend large portions of time away from their family. These companies encourage their workers to dedicate themselves to their company the same way they would dedicate themselves to their families. Divorce and remarriage also make people seek relaxing environments outside of the house. Some stepparents cite resentment and anger expressed by the stepchildren, so they find solace at work.
Many parents try to fight the time bind by allocating certain hours that is time with the children and time with their spouse when they are at home. This way they can know that they will be with all of their family at some point during the day. However, it is also important for entire family to spend time together, and for children to see their parents together. Shorter mealtimes illustrate how pressed employees are for time. While at work, they often eat while still doing work. At home, quick meals are the preference, because people have no time to cook. Fewer families have mealtime together now, and that results in a lot less time spent together as a family. The children of these overworked parents express anger when their parents are not able to commit time to them. Also, some children are too young to understand that the parents need to have specific times set up to be with their children, and the children want to be on a different schedule. Parents often resort to buying affection from their children- they want to show them their love, but do not have the time to instead try to make up for their lack of presence with gifts. This guilt of spending less time with families also showed itself when Amerco employees were asked how often they leave children home alone- many more men answered yes than women, perhaps because women feel guilty admitting they leave their children home alone. One mother expressed hopes that this leads her child to be more independent, but also worried that it makes them feel lonely. This mother admits she could afford after-school care for her child, but she is 10 years old and the mother believes she should be able to be on her own at that age. There are many publications helping both children and parents feel more comfortable and safe by leaving children home alone, these stress safety and household rules of how to spend time alone. Many parents worry their kids will watch too much TV or neglect obligations if they are not around to remind them, yet knowing to do these tasks themselves is the independence parents want their kids to learn. For those parents who choose day care or after school programs, they expect the programs to make their lives easier. Many daycare centers make hot dinners for children to bring home, while others provide athletics and other activities for the children to travel to. Most parents interviewed did experience this “time bind” even though there are several options for childcare, some parents just do not feel they do enough for their children.

Maternal Employment and Time with Children
The author states that the most dramatic change in families in the past century has been the number of women entering the workforce, followed by the number of divorced and single parent households. However, some sociologists believe that the lack of maternal presence leads to antisocial behavior, as how learned in the previous article, these children often are left home alone after or before schooldays. However, before the entrance of women into the workplace there is no way to know how much time they were spending with their children. Even without a job, many mothers still spent time away from home during the days. The migration of women to the workplace also put more responsibility on the fathers, and generally, fathers today are more active in their children’s’ lives then before. The smaller families of today also allow parents to spend more time with their children individually, instead of always having to care for many children at once. As noted before, nonemployed mothers do not necessarily spend more time with their children. A study found that most of the time nonemployed mothers spent with their children was not directly interacting with the children, rather doing other household chores such as cooking or cleaning. However, in general, number of hours performing housework has decreased for both working and nonworking mothers, but it is unknown if this time is spent interacting with their children or doing personal activities. Mothers also balance work and family by taking time off when children are first born, and when they do return to the labor force, not working as many hours as they previously had.
A large number of both employed and unemployed parents have entering children into a preschool or educational program as earlier as age three, a jump from 10% of children in the 1950s were in these programs while now 50% are. This way parents know their children are getting social interactions with other children while an adult is still present. Employed and unemployed mothers struggle to find a balance for raising their children, even with the large options of childcare available parents express a desire for more time with their children.

Blog entry #5

Children’s Share in Household Tasks
Similar to adult life when women are responsible for most of the household tasks, girls usually participate more in household tasks than their brothers do. Girls are taught roles within the home, as well as prepared for entering the workforce and higher education in school. Boys, however, do not get any teaching in domestic tasks, and are only prepared to enter the workforce. However, with the increased importance placed on schoolwork and preparation for higher education, children spend less time on schoolwork. Most parents place little stress on preparing their children to be in the workforce, and do not view chores are a necessity. In rural areas, children share more in household tasks than in urban areas. This is often because in rural homes, there is more land and bigger homes to be responsible for. The study reveals that children only participate in certain household tasks, but in some tasks such as “… washing the dishes and for cleaning the house… [children] are taking more than a quarter of the responsibility for these tasks (and more than their fathers do)” (Goldscheider et. al 811). As children grow older, they participate less in household tasks, explaining that they and their parents want them to focus on their studies. When children are older, one role they take on, if needed, is taking care of younger siblings. Teenage years are often when boys begin to participate less in household tasks, and girls begin to participate much more. Thus, in the teenage years is when the sex roles begin to develop and there is a sharp distinction between the two genders.
Female-run, single parent, households have substantially less financial income, because the women are responsible for both the paid and unpaid work. Because of this, children are often needed more within the household. It is unknown, however, if boys or girls pickup more of these extra tasks within the household. We assume that both boys and girls work within the household. Research suggests that in single-parent households, parents and their children have more of a partnership because of this share in household tasks (Goldscheider et. al 815). Teenage boys often participate in the typically male tasks, such as yard work and maintenance, but in single-parent households they often pickup other tasks as well. Adult girls take on an incredible amount of work in single parent households, and this and the role of males suggests single-parent households are much different than married households.
Next the author investigates stepparent families. Families with biological mothers and stepfather see children doing an increased amount of housework than in traditional families, perhaps because children were used to doing increased amounts of work from when their mother was single. Stepdaughters often do increased amount of work than the boys in the family.

How to Succeed in Childhood
The author asserts that in her book, she found substantial evidence that ways of parenting is not responsible for differences among children (Harris). Throughout history, ways of child rearing have changed but children themselves have not changed drastically. Children often imitate their parents, but that is not how parents want their children to act. Parents want their children to act like children. Harris cities two main goals for children- getting along with their parents and siblings, and getting along with other members of society, most importantly, in their own generation. Children also need to learn how to separate their relationships with different types of people, which will help them understand how to act appropriately in different relationships. Children are able to separate relationships and places, and often act very different when at a different place or with different people. Humans have always functioned in groups, beginning with hunter-gatherer societies. Now, however, humans interact with many more different groups than before, and need to learn how to act appropriately within each group. The problem with groups is that when one group meets another they often react with hostility. “The mere division into two groups tends to make each group see the other as different from itself in an unfavorable way, and that makes its members want to be different from the other group” (Harrison). This is not to say, however, that there are not differences within groups, people want to be individuals within the groups they belong to. From this, Harrison concludes that this is often why teenagers and young adults rebel- they want to be different from the adult group. Harrison asserts that the most influential group is the peer group, not the parents. Children learn culture and behaviors through their peer group, not parents.

From Work-Family Balance to Work-Family Interaction
Almost all parents in dual-earning families somewhat or strongly agree that mothers who work can have just as good of a relationship with their children as mothers at home can, but fewer men agreed with this statement than women did. The researcher gave children a questionnaire to “grade” their parents’ parenting skills, and found no difference between the grades of families with working mothers versus non working mothers, as well as between mothers that work full time versus part time (Galinsky 222). The important factor is not how often the child is mothered, but instead how well they are mothered when their mother is around. Half of employed parents agree to the statement “It is much better for everyone involved if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children” (Galinsky 224). This concludes that a father’s employment is extremely important to the family, more so than the mother’s possible employment. However, fathers also agree that children would do well if they were the main caregivers, not the mothers. Once again, similar to the importance of the mother, the factor is not if the father works or not, it is how well he fathers when he is in the child’s life. When researching childcare providers other than the parents, the researcher found that children do not find these people as parent replacements, rather as extended family. However, that is only true if the childcare provided is of good quality. The above three conclusions of the importance of mothers, fathers, and other caregivers lead to the conclusion that the quality of the time spent with a child is as important as the quantity. While many parents feel stressed for time in today’s society, it is important for them to know that factor.

Blog entry #4

Lost Fathers
Black women are often seen as the strong, independent heads of households. This is female headed household is the historical arrangement within Black families. The number of single-mother households in White families, however, has also been growing in the past 40 years. However, in Black families, the single mothers are looked down at, and the fathers are distant or nonexistent figures. In the United States, the family is seen as the base of morality and children are seen as a representation of their family, so the degenerative conditions of Black families can be blamed for the problems within communities.
Historically, Black men have had little role in their children’s lives. During slavery fathers were barely present, White slave owners had more influence on the children then their own fathers did. Fathers often worked away from the home, while mothers had more time to spend with their children. Presently, Black men are still not thought of as appropriate role models for their children. In the media Black men are portrayed as gangsters and thugs, living in a world of drugs and violence. Women are only sexual objects and families and children are nonexistent. Black fathers are looked down on by all of American society and deemed unfit parents. Black men’s joblessness is another reason women act as heads of house, and those who are able to get a job often are out of the home working long hours and under paying jobs, so are still absent from the family. Also, a disproportional number of Black fathers end up in jail, promoting the stereotypes the media perpetuate. Federal laws are often tougher on Black men, especially when crimes involve drugs, and post-imprisonment it is nearly impossible for them to find employment (Roberts 150).
The absent Black father provides a model for the good father as well. This also makes Black mothers seen as the breadwinners and the single parent, so they often spend time out of the home. Never married or divorced parents receive significantly less welfare than widowed parents, which puts many single-mother families below the poverty line. Black mothers and extended family raise children within a community setting, making it financially and socially easier to raise children.
The fact that many Black men are not able to financially support their family is the biggest factor that makes them a failure as a father. Black fathers are not able to be breadwinners. Lately, the government has been changing welfare policies that took fathers out of the home and trying to let them spend more time within the household if they are married- however single Black mothers are penalized under these welfare laws. Child support cannot be collected from unemployed or imprisoned fathers; so single mothers often cannot collect it. This system of welfare does not help single mothers become financially independent; instead it forces them into marriage. The institutional systems within our government do not currently allow for flourishing Black families.

Having it All: The Mother and Mr. Mom
Blue-collar fathers are becoming more important within their children’s lives. Especially when parents alternate work shifts, fathers are often at home with their children alone for a large portion of the day, especially if their children are too young for school. These fathers not only take care of some of the childrearing, they also perform other domestic duties throughout the household. Alternating shifts are also a good way to save money of childcare; they can save daycare, nanny, and afterschool program money by splitting the childcare responsibilities. The parents interviewed also state their fears of letting others care for their children, and express happiness and comfort that they are able to be home to keep their children home and safe. Parents are also able to raise their children according to their own values and morals by avoiding using daycare. Working alternating shifts and sharing childcare responsibilities, while letting children spend more time with their parents, prevents husbands and wives from spending time together. They often only share time late at night, after both working and taking care of children all day. The fathers interviewed express their willingness to do “women’s work” in the home, because it makes their wives and children happy and keeps the family together. These men significantly value the work their wives do, especially once they themselves do the work their wives do at home. Even in alternating shift families, the ideal vision of the male breadwinner persists. Women still see their work as secondary to the family’s needs, and men’s first responsibility is their wage-earning job. Both partners in alternating shift families express gratitude to get fulfillment outside of the home and in their workplace. By having responsibilities at work and at home, people feel more fulfilled and happy to return to their families. Women interviewed, however, express fewer fulfillment from their wage-earning jobs than their male counterparts do. The women are happier with their roles at the home, but understand they need to supplement it with a wage earning. Women are still seen as the main parent and the emotional and moral source of the family. Gender roles and domestic ideals are still traditional, even in these alternating shift families. However, these ideologies are slowly shifting to more equal roles. Women are becoming more equal with their husbands as they earn a salary and also as the men begin to understand the hard work they do within the home.

Blog entry #3

The Price of Motherhood: Introduction
This author argues mothers’ value to American society, why it is underappreciated, and how it compares to the work other people do. The author defines mothering as “… selfless service to another. We don’t owe Mother for her gifts; she owes us” (Critterdon 1). Mothering is a woman completely giving herself to a baby, loving and nurturing the child while expecting nothing in return. The author then explains how many people in today’s society, even children and women, undervalue motherhood. Critterdon admits that before she had a child, she didn’t understand how someone could give up a well-paid, highly sought-after job for a baby. Although motherhood is seen as a part of American society, it is not economically valuable. Critterdon also points out several lawsuits in which taking time off to raise a child was punished by courts and companies, and outlines ways in which the government devalues mothers. The inflexible workplaces would rather hire a man or single woman than have to make allowances for a mother, even if she was a good worker. The author sites that this “… ‘mommy tax’, is typically more than $1 million for a college-educated American woman” (Critterdon 5). Also, after a divorce a non-working mother is usually not compensated by her ex-husband for her years of child rearing. Finally, the government does not provide any financial security for mothers, only welfare. The author asserts that many feminists are also reluctant to value women’s work at home, as she herself did. Another group against paid for mothers are social conservatives, although they want the mother’s to stay at home they do not want to give monetary benefits to them for their work. If all the mothers were to quit their childrearing duties, the economy would greatly suffer, especially considering the hours of unpaid housework represent at least half the hours worked by Americans (Critterdon 8). The families and economy heavily rely on mother’s unpaid labor. The economic solution to this problem is unknown is unknown by the author, but the most important thing is for people to appreciate and value the work of mothers. Mothers’, however, do not do their job to seek approval or validation from others, nor even economic value. As stated in the beginning of the introduction, mothers’ do their job because of their selflessness and love. However, women should not be questioned as to why they chose to be a mother, or devalued by society. They are producing society.

Women as Fathers
This article defines biological parents, and compares it to the act of actual parenting. It also debates the roles of caregivers and importance of non-parent care in a child’s life. Historically, children have mostly been seen as product of the man- women was just a small part in creating the children. The American patriarchal system is based on connection through blood- seen as coming form the father. The author asserts that while the genetic connection is seen as through the father, the emotional and social connection is seen through the mother. An interesting point was that parent-children and full siblings have the same amount of genetic similarities as each other. What makes the parent-child relationships so special is the nurturing factor, the unconditional love, which are present more so than in most other relationships in a child’s life. The parent-child relationship is also unique in terms of its legal definition; parents have special rights over their children and their lives. The new technology and ways to procreate raise the age-old question of nature versus nurture, and who the parent of a child is. As discussed by the author, however, a child makes a special bond with those who care for them day-to-day; there is no evidence she brings up besides genetic material that ties a child to their biological parents. The most interesting point the author makes lies in how men and women differ in their opinion of how they are a parent- “For men, what makes the child his is his seed. For women, what makes the child ours is the nurturance, the work of our bodies” (Rothman 96). The act of nurturing a child begins with pregnancy itself, and mothers carry out that act for the rest of their lives. But with mother substitutes such as nannies, daycare and preschool providers, and housekeepers, mothers need to find new ways to assert their control over their children, even when they are not there. It is difficult for a mother to put her children in someone else’s care, so they follow instructions from many experts. The most important advice is “making sure that she is doing things ‘your way’” (qtd. in Rothman 98). This means a mother making sure she is still in charge of the child rearing even while she is not there. One problem childcare providers face is that they usually are lower class, working for upper-class families, while their children are left at home because they cannot afford care for their own children. So the problem of childcare is not only monetary, but also emotionally- who is there to care for your children when you are not there? Mothers don’t always have the ability or desire to be with their children all the time, but the author argues there needs to be more options for childcare. Perhaps back to the time of hunter-gatherer societies, when women worked collectively to raise their children, so that mothers can work together. The problem is both monetary and social value of the work of childcare givers and parents themselves.

Black Women and Motherhood
African-American mothers have historically held much power in the family, due to the fact that fathers were often absent. However, before the 1970s there is little information on black families, as most studies focused on white, middle class families. Mothers have always been especially praised in the Black community, even though they often have to spend time outside of the home to do work in order to provide for their family. Black men often pressure women to have more children, even though they know their children will be born into poverty. Domesticity in the United States is historically seen as something for White women, therefore Black women become subordinate and ignored when studying domesticity. Black women’s view of motherhood is diverse within the community, some see themselves forced into a motherhood role while others see it as a chance to exercise their power and influence the future of society. The author cites five themes that have characterized Black motherhood, that were sustained by “…slavery, Southern rural life, and class-stratified, racially segregated neighborhoods” (Collins 177). These characteristics were present during the migration of Blacks that followed the post-WWII era. There have been enduring needs and hardships that Black women have faced throughout history, which have been unable to be cured. The author asserts that even though the father’s as often absent, the women are an important figure despite the father’s absence. Unlike White families, Black families have kin ties through the mother. Black families often have to rely on family or community members for childcare; especially important to Black families is the role of Grandmothers as childcare providers. The author calls this “othermother”, where women in their extended family or community raise children other than their own. Often times the “othermothers” are themselves young children, learning how to become a mother early on in their lives. Young males sometimes also are in charge of watching over children, but this is only if they are not working yet. The concept of othermothers began during slavery, while Black women helped to take care of each other’s children while the other parents would be working. Even during the 1980s, when drugs and violent were rampant in Black urban communities, othermothers still existed. However, as time goes on the concept of othermothers is fading, as more women are forced into the labor market and Black children are left to care for themselves. It is important for women to teach their daughters to learn domestic work at a young age, as they often have to support themselves and enter the workforce at a young age. The domestic work they often perform is not paid well, and also comes with a risk of sexual harassment from their White male employers. Black mothers encourage their daughters to be strong and independent, so they can strive for more than their mother’s had. Black mothers are often portrayed as strict and serious, rarely showing their love for their children. This stereotype is perhaps because of Black mother’s desire to have their children be more successful in life than they were, as the mother’s always push them to do more. Othermothers now also act as social activists for their community, working to ensure a positive future for the children within the community. Motherhood is a symbol of power within the African American community, those women who are trusted to be othermothers have immense social power and influence within their community. Repeated unwanted pregnancies, often while Black women are still young, puts a strain on them at early ages to start raising a family and leave the workplace. The author does not discuss any birth control education within black communities, and states abortion was frowned upon. Before legalized abortion, many Black women died from illegal abortions. Mothering is an empowering experience for Black women, whether they are biological mothers or otherwise, and gives women to influence the future of their community.

The Wage Penalty for Motherhood
The authors begin by questioning if mother’s low wages are a spurious or casual act. The authors then cite several possible reasons that mother’s earn less than other women- “…having children causes [women] to (1) lose job experience, (2) be less productive at work, (3) trade off higher wages for mother-friendly jobs, or (4) be discriminated against by employers” (Budig et. al 204). However, perhaps the most important correlation is the fact that career ambitions and advances in the workplace discourage most women to have children. Mother’s are seen to be a burden in the workplace, because things at home take time and effort that would otherwise be focused in the workplace. Mothers earn lower wages in the immediate moment, but lose money in the long term, by having decreased pensions and retirement money. The authors assert that most of us are “’free riders’ on [mother’s] labor” (Budig et. al 205), because we will grow up to work with their children, and we benefit from mothers’ good child rearing skills. Well-raised children make better citizens, and everyone who interacts with them benefits from positive child rearing from their mothers. Most studies have found an immediate wage penalty between 4-6% for women with one child (Budig et. al 206), but this is thought to increase overtime and significantly with more children. The human capital theory asserts that women are paid less because they are seen not to work as hard in the workplace, since they instead save energy for work in the home. Even though there have been no studies directly researching productivity of mothers vs. non mothers, or mothers vs. men, although in a 1988 Bielby and Bielby study women reported putting in slightly more effort in the workplace (Budig et. al 207). Another opinion on why mother’s earn less, is that mothers often take less demanding, more “mother friendly” jobs, which usually earn less because they are less demanding. Some employers also may refuse to hire mother’s, which is not simply sex discrimination, but discrimination between women who are and are not mothers. Law prohibits both sex and race discrimination, and this includes discriminating against mothers. Opposite from causal effects, spurious theory suggests that women do not earn less because they have children, these women are usually under educated or do not aspire to a career. But this does not explain why women keep earning less as they have more children. In the study conducted, in the categories of never-married women, married women, and divorced women, childless women earned more. Married mothers, the study shows, experience the highest wage penalty. However, it is also close to the penalty that divorced women experience. The study concludes that there is “… a wage penalty for motherhood of approximately 7 percent per child among young American women” (Budig et. al 218). The study finds a smaller wage penalty for Black and Latina women only for second and third children. The authors conclude that child rearing deserves public support, because all of society benefits from well-raised children. The government and public should try to socialize some of the costs of child rearing and help provide economic support so mother’s can do their best while raising children.

Blog entry #2

Families in the US Chapter 26
This article describes the history of fathers in the US. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, fathers stayed close to their families, often working at a farm at home or close to home. This gave them the opportunity to be a fundamental part of their children’s lives. Perhaps their most important role was providing a moral guidance for their children, which wives’ couldn’t deliver because of their “emotional” behavior. This teaching of right and wrong was especially important to sons’. In the early nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, industrialization brought fathers out of the home. Mothers began to be responsible for the children, and for providing them with the moral and religious guidance fathers previously had. Although the father was still the ultimate authority, he had less direct influence and contact with his family then before. This absence of fathers was seen in all economic classes, but according to the Middletown study, business class mothers expressed more acceptance of the absentee father than working class families did (Pleck 355). From 1940-1965, fathers remained absentee, but became a “sex role model”- mothers were believed to have too much involvement in their children’s lives so their roles scaled back as well. World War II brought men out of the home to fight, and women out of the home to work. Sons were now looking to their fathers on how to act like their gender, and this influence worked on girls too, to see what not to do.
Today, the father remains the distant breadwinner figure. However, father’s influences are growing, in response to women working away from home more and the continued desire to be a “sex role model” for children. There is more desire from father’s now to be more present, even though the distant breadwinner role is most dominant. Issues in the workplace, such as maternity vs. paternity leaves, illustrate this tension. Although industrialization took men out of their homes and gave responsibility to women, men and women now fight against this tradition. The importance of a father figure is known, but often fathers can seem too busy with their breadwinner role to work on their parenting. The social structures within the workplace and government, as well as our media, continue to promote the role of father as breadwinner. Although there is a struggle against this notion, father’s still have their main role in the family outside of the home- economic support.

Unbending gender Introduction and Chapter 1
Like in the previous article, this article asserts that historically there are two parents- the absent economic provider and the busy caretaker of home and children. These roles have traditionally been for men and women, respectively. Men who work the longest hours are often seen as the best types of fathers, providing the most economic stability for their families. Although women’s pay rates are rising, mothers’, the author asserts, are not. This makes parenthood extremely difficult for the single mother. After divorce, men maintain the role of breadwinner, but often solely for themselves or a new family then, leaving women to provide economic support and parenting. Policies in the workplace only perpetuate the separate domestic and labor circles of men and women. The definition of a good worker and of a good mother, the author argues, make it so women have to choose between the two roles. For mothers to be ideal workers, these assumptions have to change. The author also stresses two important types of nontraditional families, the unmarried parents and gay parents.
Many women claim to make the “choice” to be at home with their children and give up jobs, but the low wages and public policy that doesn’t help their cases might have more of an effect on this choice then often discussed. In the article, one working mom explains that while she was as good of a worker as she good be, the constraints that she experienced as a working mom prevented her from performing many tasks at the office. The mothers have to compromise their time at work, because fathers usually either cannot or don’t want to. The mother also describes the guilt she would feel for being an absentee parent, and the importance of having at least one parent in the household. Fathers have always been seen as the ultimate source of authority, guidance, and force within the families, women too often being emotionally erratic and unable to provide their children with the stability they need. Men’s competitive nature also makes them more suited to the workplace, while at home mothers attempt equality. Fathers try to pass down their traits to sons, while sons constantly compete for fathers’ attention. This need for fathers to succeed at their jobs places stress on them and keeps them away from their families. Mothers in the workforce take the masculinity away from their husbands, especially if they were earning more than their husbands- but this rarely happens. And women who see themselves mainly as family caretakers want to make their husbands happy. The choice of motherhood is almost nonexistent- and the choice for fathers as breadwinners must follow from the mothers’ choice.

From Rods to Reasoning, Chapter 2
This author begins with asserting there is no primitive connection between a mother and her child- it is a construct within our society, just as all societies have constructed parenthood. The author begins with dealing with the notion of the “evil infant”, seen as reeking havoc on the peaceful household and demanding their mothers’ time. In the past, raising children was often, if the family can afford it, given out to other caretakers, until the child has reached an age where they can be of value to the family. For colonial families, the main goal was instructing and raising the child within the guidelines of the Puritan religion. The fathers were in charge of instructing both their wives and children how to act within the religious code. Children were rewarded through hard work, and started working with the family as soon as they were old enough. By the middle of the eighteenth century, motherhood started to develop into what it is today- the mothers desire to raise their children, nurturing them to grow while the father seldom provided orders. Since the father no longer provided moral guidance, the women and children retreated into the home to save themselves from the worlds’ evils. It became the mothers’ task to provide moral guidance as well as love and affection to her children within the home. During the nineteenth century, however, servants and other women working for families held a majority of the responsibility for raising children. While the mother stayed home and kept an air of comfort and safety within the home, they didn’t spend the majority of their time with their family. The women who cared for others’ children, however, were not able to spend the same time with their own family, so the working class children often grew up with both parents being absent. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, doctors and others started publishing work about how to raise a child, so that mothers could be trained and then take care of the child themselves. Similar to methods of teaching how to raise children today, these doctors published several studies based on their scientific findings after observing mothers and children. While reforms to family life were made during the nineteenth century, while they benefited middle class families, working class families had a difficult time keeping a family together. With child labor laws, families couldn’t send their children to work and the mother had to stay home as well, making the father the sole income provider. By the 1940s, with many husbands out of the house in the war effort, mothering once again became about love and affection, unlike when servants cared for the children. But this was a sensitive issue, especially because women didn’t want to smother their male children, who weren’t supposed to show the affection women did. After the war, most women returned home and families once again operated as always, the father and breadwinner out at work, mother and children at home.