Week 7 - Division of Unpaid Labor

Anthony Egger
Family & Work Blog
Week 7

Marjorie L Devault, Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life

There have been changes in the family-work dynamic in the last hundred years, but one of the most is in the aspect of housework. Now with new technological advances, housework has become much easier than in years past, but yet still many households struggle to get everything done. Devault is arguing that is because many of the definitions of housework are incomplete. One of the main issues examined is that of feeding, and how it while it still requires much time and energy it is different from paid work. There is a debate about whether feeding is a type of work or if it is done out of love. In many families, meal time is a disjointed process, with many children being fed alone for breakfast or lunch. With different work schedules for parents and increasingly busy schedules for kids, many mothers are trying increasingly hard to maintain some semblance of regular, special meal times together. I know that in my family, it was very difficult, but we always tried to have dinner together as much as possible growing up.
An added difficulty to this process is that many members in a family have specific preferences on what they would like to eat on a daily basis. Dealing with these differences and putting “acceptable” food on the table every day is a pressing chore for many women. Another issue that I had never even considered was that these meals needed to be culturally acceptable.
The way meals and meal time activities are handled differ at almost every household, but as she points out, talking is a major issue that unifies almost every family. Families that are usually too busy to notice each other use these times to communicate and bond with each other. In that regard, meals are really one of the last safe havens for true family development. However, setting up these regular set meal times is difficult, especially for parents that work.
After discussing all of the time and effort that goes into not only planning but actually executing a family meal, Devault makes a good point that this work is often seen as “invisible.” The people eating the meals do not see the process behind, but merely the food in front of them. As I have grown and started to have to plan and make meals myself, I really began to appreciate the work of my mom who despite her busy schedule had dinner made for us almost every night. Also as I just showed in my own example, this process of feeding is a very gendered ideal, and one that is very female driven. In many of my friends homes, this is the way that it goes, with the wife cooking the majority of the meals. In my house though, I think my parents have a nice balance where my mom cooks Monday through Thursday and my father handles the weekend cooking. This way both are involved and I think that it is a system that can work well.

Sanjiv Gupta, “Autonomy, Dependence, or Display. The Relationship Between Women’s Earnings and Housework.”

In this article, Gupta examines the relationship between women’s earnings and the amount of housework they do. From his research he determined his autonomy hypothesis, which states that a women’s amount of housework depends only on her earnings and not on that of her husband’s earnings, especially not in comparison to her husband’s earnings, which is the criteria basis for much of the previous research.
Gupta addresses some of the other theories, starting with the economic dependence model, which states that there is an inverse relationship between the partner’s share of income and their share of household tasks. The belief is that whoever is earning less is most likely working less and thus has more time to contribute at home. Another theory which is pretty self explanatory is the gender display argument, which merely reinforces old gender roles that men should be the primary earners while women should do housework. However, as Gupta shows, the research does not support either of these claims. He instead puts forth studies that show that the women’s earnings exert a greater influence on the amount of housework accomplished. Gupta’s main point is that the focus needs to be on women’s absolute earnings on not on their earnings relative to men. Following this pattern than shows that the ever popular gender display and economic dependence theories are wrong.
Gupta’s dependent variable was the absolute number of weekly housework hours, and the independent variable was the women’s labor market earnings. In his results, Gupta explains that women in the upper echelon of \ housework are doing on average around five times as many hours a week on housework than those in the bottom 10 percent. One of the most interesting findings of his work was that women’s educational levels played no role in their amount of housework, but that it was reduced for every added year of their husband’s education. I would only hypothesize that the more educated the husband was the more money he was making, and that possibly these wives had the opportunities to hire outside help to reduce the housework. Gupta is sure there is a link between housework and earnings, stating that between 1965 to 1995, women’s average earnings were nearly doubled, while their housework time was cut in half. However, this study is limited in that it cannot determine the mechanism behind this phenomenon. Though difficult to accomplish, a more experimental study, instead of one based on surveys, needs to be conducted to deduce a logical mechanism.

Arlie Hochschild, “The Second Shift, Chapter 4 : Joey’s Problem”

Hochschild writes this chapter as a little vignette about the lives of a married couple with a young boy who has a problem of going to sleep. This problem tires and keeps them up, but has also strained their relationship and sex life. Over the next few pages, it shows that Joey exhibits many signs of an Oedipal complex, having an inordinately strong connection to his mother and disregards to his father. Hochschild suggests another explanation for the struggles in their marriage though, and that is that Nancy is on her “second shift” at home, having to take care of the household chores and Joey, without much help from her husband Evan. Years before, Nancy even brought this issue of inequality in the sharing up to Evan, but he constantly made excuses and never lived up to his end of the martial agreement as Nancy saw fit. This was definitely a clashing of two different gender ideologies, with Nancy believing in having it all with the help of her husband, and Evan adhering to older ideals of women maintaining the housework. An interesting point I thought was that Evan felt he should stay away from the second shift work, because otherwise Nancy would dominate him and take advantage of the arrangement. After years of this fighting increasing, the possibility of separating came up and after that, Nancy realized she did not want to throw away her marriage so she accepted once again most of the roles of the second shift.
The made what looked like a compromise in that Nancy did the upstairs work and Evan the downstairs, but in reality this was far from equal with Nancy getting much more work. They tried to convince themselves this was working but really it just began to escalate tension, eventually leading to “Joey’s problem” and the issues with their sex life. Nancy tried to justified their arrangement to herself, like many women do in difficult relationships. Another interesting point I found from the Holt’s was the difference in their ideas of feeling loved. It was reported that Evan felt loved when they had sex, but that Nancy felt love when Evan did something that connected them like make dinner. Furthermore, no other man interviewed talked about a connection between love and housework.
In trying to make their whole situation work, Nancy tried to stop comparing her life and husband, but ultimately she believed that he should be compared and not to others with similar inequalities in their relationships, but to her ideal of sharing. In the same breath, Nancy began to agree with some of the views of herself, and tried to focus on the positives. She saw her control of the upstairs and her domain, and started referring to the things in them as “my.”
Ultimately, the Holt’s explained their problem with the second shift as a byproduct of their differing personalities. Evan claims he is lazy and Nancy is more compulsive and organized. They believed that this accounted for lack of and over doing of the second shift work. I disagree with that though because, from the account, it only seemed like Evan was conveniently lazy, and I know that I have done that on more than one occasion. The issue wasn’t their personalities, but rather their ideologies. It was especially tough for their generation, because they grew up and witnessed their parents most likely adhering to the breadwinner model, but then were expected to grow up and live differently. The idea of equality in a marriage is vital, and now with the confusion in roles and responsibilities I believe that these issues should be talked about and planned for before a couple enters in marriage and parenthood.

Christopher Carrington, “Domesticity and the Political Economy of Lesbigay Families.”

In his book, Carrington documented many issues regarding a very diverse sample of gay and lesbian families. In this particular chapter, he presents the myths and then the actual accounts of how these families divide work in and outside the home. Namely, that there is a myth of egalitarianism in these homosexual relationships, even though there is strong empirical evidence to the contrary. Carrington makes a good point in trying to explain this, believing that lesbigay families try to present themselves as following American culture, and that culture preaches the egalitarian family. The issue of gender roles is especially difficult in these families, and it is often manifested in compensating ways. For example, in one family, one woman did the majority of the housework because the other had a high end job. However, to compensate the high end job women wore very feminine clothing. Many of the same issues facing heterosexual couples over the “invisibility” of domestic work, and the anger that ensues when their work is ignored or equality is not in place can be found in lesbigay couples as well. The same is also true for wealthier couples, no matter their sexual preference, who purchase many of their domestic needs to increase equality in their relationship essentially through subtraction of work from one. \
Another similarity that I found interesting was in the majority of homosexual relationships, one person specializes in domesticity, and that the longer the relationship, the more the specialization crystallizes. This is usually determined by their breakdown in paid employment, with the one with the greatest opportunity for money making to pursue it vigorously, with the other taking up the domestic slack. I think this is just another offshoot of the breadwinner model, and I think that it can be difficult for a couple. To accommodate this specialization, many of these men and women are involved in less intense and more family-friendly jobs. It is important to note that from the interviews it can be seen that many of these people did not chose their role in domesticity out of choice, but because their partner has the better employed job or they have hit the proverbial glass ceiling in their job. They want to preserve their relationships, and though it may not be ideal, many feel that the process of specialization is the best option for this. On the other side of the specialization spectrum are those who gravitate toward paid work. Even though they often have to work long hours, they believe that is their best opportunity to support and provide for their family.
As with heterosexual relationships, lesbigay couples are both egalitarian and specialized. There is no one way that works best for every couple, and it is important to find the one that is right for your own situation. I really liked this article because of the combination of facts that were than supported by real interviews. It helped to provide some real support for what he was saying other than just boring statistics and charts.

Week 6 - The Time Bind

Anthony Egger
Family &vWork Blog
Week 6

The Time Bind

Suzanne Bianchi, “Maternal Employment and Time with Children”

In her article, Bianchi examines the seemingly paradoxical phenomena that despite the rapid rise in mother’s labor force participation, that their time with children has remained relatively stable. She finds this perplexing considering that now with women spending much more time in the workplace that they do not displace their time with their children. She brings up research that shows that family disruption can be negative for children, and that children suffer when men withdraw money from the family, yet there is no effect when women withdraw their time. In examining research from other developed nations, Bianchi realized that the way to examine this phenomenon needed to be shifted. To address these issues, she proposes some new answers.
She claims that we as a society had overestimated the actual maternal time spent with children in the past. Using empirical data, I found it interesting that there was virtually no change in the time mothers spent with children between 1920 and 1975, although it makes sense that while more time in 1975 was spent in outside work, in 1920, these women had to spend considerably much more time during household chores. She also points out that the most highly educated mothers spend more time in direct childcare, and this makes intrinsic sense, because usually these women, if they are working are in jobs with more flexibility. Overall though, mothers today reported as spending as much if not more time with their children than in the baby boom generation. In comparing working and non-working mothers, there is a difference in the overall amount of time spent with children, obviously favoring non-working mothers. However, in terms of direct childcare the difference between the two groups of women was very small. Also with the advances in technology, even with a mother working, a child can still feel somewhat connected to them and have the security of them “on call.”
She also says that we overestimate how much a mother’s outside work interferes with her time with children. For as dramatic a decrease in family time as there was a rise in women’s work, the children would have to be available to be with during all the hours mothers were working. This just simply is not plausible though, and children are often in school or otherwise engaged. The main importance is not whether or not mothers work, but rather what hours they commit to working, with most mothers choosing to work during the same time their children are occupied. Also employed mothers have been shown to slack off other aspects of their life like housework or sleep instead of cutting back on time with their children. Also there is an overestimate in how much time is required in investment for children. Now children at a very young age, often 3 or 4 years old are involved in some sort of preschool, and therefore from that point on are busy for substantially longer periods of time. So while mothers have been moving out of the home to work, so have their children to school or camps. Ironically, the extra mothers salary often helps to finance these extra activities for children displacement. A final factor in why children have not been adversely affected by increased mothers in the workforce, is a rise in father involvement or the neglect of the use of older daughters in child care.
Over the past hundred years there have been great changes in the world of women, especially in the work force, but ironically the time spent with children has remained relatively constant. This was not by accident, and must not be easy for some women who have to sacrifice certain things for their kids, but I do applaud those who commit and excel in this dual lifestyle.

Jerry Jacobs & Kathleen Gerson, “Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families?”

I thought the introduction to this article was one the best we have read. A great point was that the time spent at work sets a limit on the time left for other things, that working time should be the starting point for understanding family work issues. They first introduce two seemingly contradictory positions. The first is that today Americans are spending more time at work than ever before, and thus are producing a decline in leisure. Another thesis is that actually leisure time is increasing in this country. In their article, Jacobs and Gerson believe that these do not have to be mutually exclusive but instead can be woven together to both make sense.
In considering the overworked American hypothesis, it can be seen empirically that annual hours of paid work for both men and women has increased dramatically. However, this difference is attributed to an increase in the number of weeks worked per year, because the length of the average work week remains very stable. In examining the increased leisure hypothesis, it must be seen that more and more people are retiring at younger ages and that more people are remaining in school longer. Thus with these two groups in consideration, it can be seen that there is an increase in leisure time despite the average annual work increase. They stress that is important not to focus on the “average” American, but instead on the “averages.”
Another important factor in considering this question is to focus on dual earner families instead of on individuals. Today, more and more families are shifting to this dual earner model, and thus this has to be considered in the increase of work time. There is also a sharp growth in the working time concentrated by couples with the most education. Because these men and women are in the most influential positions, and are thus the most visible, it can account for the belief that there is a widespread increase in working time. In their research, they found that the increase in hours worked can be mainly attributed to an increase in workers age, education, job prestige, and a decrease in young children.
From their research, the main finding was that the majority of change in work habits is not a result of increased working time within particular family types, but rather is due to a change in family composition. The changes in individual working time are due to this transformation in families and gender relations. To solve this problem, the focus must not be on parents that work too much, but on the system and businesses that force them into it.

Arlie Hochschild, “The Time Bind” Chapters 14 & 15

In her book, Hochschild examines the work family practices of the company Amerco as they implement a new Work-Life Balance program. She argues that through this program, much of the family work issues should have been solved, but that the people in power didn’t want to act on it, and those that did want to act didn’t have the appropriate power. She makes a good point in saying that people “have the urge to spend more time on what they value most, and for what they are most valued.” This corresponds that people that are more valued at work, i.e. have a higher salary, spend more time there which is why their kids are in childcare the most. Many people feel a shift in that work is more like home because they are more appreciated there, and home is work because it is so draining. The appeal of the home as a main source of escape and relaxation has eluded many Americans. This “haven model” is fading quickly as is the “traditional” model of the exclusive male breadwinner. Replacing it is this reversal model in which work is winning out over home. She than talks about a “Taylorist” system based on efficiency and treating the workers like part of a machine. At Amerco, they try to stay away from this model at work and even offer different courses on how to manage work. However, there are no such retreats or assemblies on how to handle the home sphere. The workers see and appreciate that their company cares for them and thus are more inspired to work harder. But as these families spend more quality time at work, they have to Taylorize their families. Technology has helped this as now it is not necessary to have many homemaking skills, just the right appliances. Too often parents have to press for efficiency at home because they need to or even want to get to work. This efficiency process does help the parents, but it also can be protested strongly by children who want more time with their parents. Parents are then forced to hear and deal with these protests, which ultimately in this “third shift,” causes them more work than taking the appropriate time would have.
In Chapter 15, Hochschild looks at the possibility of evading this time bind. It is true that no one on their death bed says “I wish I had worked harder in the office.” Instead almost everyone wish they had more free time for leisure and family. She makes a good analogy of a worker taking out a “time loan” with their family. They use their time to work now, but promise to pay back the family with interest later. Often children are forced to left alone at home for at least some amount of time, with the justification that parents want their kids to become more independent. However, these kids have been shown to be three times as likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Many of these children are not prepared mentally or emotionally to be left alone, but yet parents believe it is their only option.
A second way that she discusses that the time bind can be evaded is simply to buy it. She than lists numerous companies specifically designed to do almost everything a person could need for a cost. These family services for hire allow the parents to become the managers of parenthood, but yet many mothers are appalled at the idea of having to buy themselves out essentially. There is a belief among these mothers that it is irresponsible and question why some women even had kids if they cannot personally be there to take care of them.
A third way is develop a potential self, a self that has imagined future possibilities of what we would do if we had the time. Now there are more promises of things to be done with family in the future than those things actually done. None of these ways are ideal, but the majority of parents are forced to utilize one or a combination to do what they believe is best for their careers and families.

Phyllis Moen & Patricia Roehling “The Career Mystique”

They begin off their book with a short story about Lisa and David, a couple who each wanted it all and yet found it too difficult to maintain. They talk about how in the 1950s, the main goal was to have a breadwinner family, whose husband was so successful that the wife did not have to work. However, despite the stereotype that these women were fully satisfied with marriage and motherhood as their lives, many longed for more. They felt it paradoxical that the American dream of anyone being able to be successful through hard work only applied if that anyone was a male. There was a “career mystique,” that if one worked hard in their prime years that they would be able to move up the corporate ladder. This career mystique would not have been possible though without the feminine mystique that kept women at home and maintaining the household. Understanding this, Betty Friedan wrote the book “The Feminine Mystique,” and it calls for the rejection of this ideal and to want to be equal to men. Because of the ideas in this book, it was completely acceptable for women like Lisa to want it all; career, marriage, and family.
Today the American dream ideal still is present, but there are cracks in it, and also still limitations for gender and race. But still the career mystique of working hard is present even though there are at present, few jobs that fit this model, and fewer families that can support it. With women feeling free from the feminine mystique, it is harder for anyone to fulfill the career mystique, because what was always taken for granted was that it require two people, one at work and one at home to be successful. The career mystique took off in the breadwinner age, and neither the former nor the latter fit in with today’s ideals. This trend is not unique to the United States, but also can be seen in major international powers like China. The goal to change this is to get rid of the lockstep idea, of school, work, retirement, and develop a new progressive idea. It is true that most Americans believe in having equal opportunities for men and women, but too often it is impossible for them to make it happen, even within their own lives.

Week 5- Childhood

Anthony Egger
Work & Family Blog
Week 5

Ellen Galinsky, “Children’s Perspectives of Employed Mothers and Fathers”

In this article, Galinsky interviews a number of working parents on different work and family issues and then compares it to what research on this topic says. The first question examined is if having an employed mother is good or bad for children. There is a public concern that a mother’s absence does cause harm. However when interviewed, the majority of working parents believe that a working mother can still have as good a relationship with her children. The data also shows that there are not any differences in the grades received by children of working or non working mothers. Instead it is the effect of the total family environment instead of the mothers working habits. I agree with this statement that even if a mother works, if they are warm and caring, they can still have a positive influence on their children.
The next topic examined is if it is mothering or fathering that is more important. While a mother’s work is often questioned as harmful, a father’s work is not. Half of the parents interviewed believed that the breadwinner model should be followed, which is a percentage that I thought was a bit high. But a very interesting fact was that 74% believed that children still can do well if those parental roles are reversed.
The third major issue was whether or not child care was a positive or negative for the children. The issue of child care is not in fact a negative in itself, but it can be a bad influence if the child care is of low quality. Contrary to some adverse beliefs, child care does not in fact supplant parental care.
The final issue tackled is that of whether it is quality or quantity time that is more important. The majority of working parents wished they had more time to spend with their children, but actually parents today are spending more time with their kids than a few years ago. It has been shown that if the relationship between a mother and a child is solid, that small separations are not detrimental.
Finally, Galinsky argues for the importance of asking the children about major issues. She feels that by not asking children they have missed many important insights in their lives. I agree with this view, that the best form of parenting involves and open and active communicative one with the children.

Frances Goldscheider, “Children’s Share in Household Tasks”

This article looks at how there is still a stiff division of gender based labor in household work. She makes an good point in that because boys have little responsibilities in the household, that they receive no preparation for household work later in life. Many parents though do believe that household work does build character and develop a sense of responsibility, however many children take relatively little responsibility for most household tasks. There is also a great difference in tasks by age and gender, with teenage girls taking on the most responsibility. There is also a difference in household tasks based on the different family structures.
It has been shown that families run by single mothers do in fact share more tasks with their children. Children of all ages in these types of families take on more responsibility in household tasks than comparable kids in two parent families. It is especially influential among boys and young men, who might be doing more chores to make up for their absent fathers. This situation is necessary to get by for these families, and in order to do it they must not abide by traditional gender roles. It was also found that in stepparent families, that each of the children do in fact do more work than in the traditional nuclear family. This article is pretty common sense, but it’s nice to see these assumptions backed up by empirical data.

Judith Harris, “How to Succeed in Childhood”

Harris begins her article by writing about some common assumptions about parenting. She than argues that what parents do has little bearing on how their children turn out, which I think is a pretty broad reaching statement. It is interesting though that the advice given to parents today is almost the exact opposite than the advice of being strict to your children given in the last century. Harris than delves into an analysis of the Freudian theory that children learn by identifying with their parents. She disagrees with this theory and makes a good point that by imitating their parents, children often get themselves into trouble. Instead, she argues that child is not trying to be an adult, but a successful child. To do this, a child must first learn to get along inside their own home, and then also and more importantly to get along with those outside of their home. Harris points out that these are two distinct processes and that though they believe they are all encompassing, that parents can only influence how their children behave at home. It is also quite a shock to parents that their children can behave in such different ways inside and then outside of the home. It is difficult for parents to accept that the outside world, and their children’s peers are a more influential group, and that many children take their self worth and knowledge from their roles in these groups. Also in referencing the famous Robbers Cave experiment, she highlights that when two differing groups are put together that it often ends in hostility, which can account for many child-adult conflicts. The use of groups is incredibly important in a child’s development, much more important than an individual parent. But that does not mean that a parent’s role is useless, as Harris wisely points out. I agree that an individual parent can be limited in her influence, but they can at the very least provide their kids with the right environments and peer groups from which to gain their insights about culture and life.

Viviana Zelizer, “From Useful to Useless and Back to Useful.”

Zelizer’s article addresses how the role of the child in an economic framework has changed throughout history. She examines how certain things which use to be social positives a hundred years ago, now are seen as social problems. In the nineteenth century, the child was seen as a useful tool to the family because they could work and help provide for the family. That view shifted in the twentieth century to where the children were seen as economically useless, but emotionally priceless. This was accomplished due to a rising in child labor laws and beliefs that children should be spared the hardships of working. She also looks into the issue of compensation of children, and how these “priceless” wonders are supposed to be suddenly given a price. There is argument that a job or an allowance should be used as an instructional device that teaches the children about proper spending and work habits, which is a view that I believe in. My parents always taught me and my siblings to have our own jobs, and because of that early training we are all now very fiscally responsible, a trait that I do not see in all of my peers. I think these jobs should be of a lesser variety though, and do not agree with the fact that 300,000 migrant children are at work in this country. Zelizer next transitions to an interesting point about the lack of child welfare support. It is commonly accepted that parents often over zealously spend on their own children, but at the same time are hesitant to contribute to public child welfare programs. I think this is because these parents only feel a true responsibility to their own kids, and think that someone else will help the others. To summarize, Zelizer looks at the varying beliefs on how to handle the issue of the economic worth of a child. I believe the best solution is that children should have some sort of consistent, yet not overbearing work which they are compensated fairly for. This system does instill valuable lessons in children, and teaches them first hand an appreciation for work and money.

Week 4 - Fathering

Anthony Egger
Family & Work Blog
Week 4

Fathering

Francine Deutsch, “Halving it All: The Mother and Mr. Mom”

Francine Deutsch wrote an entire book looking at the different dynamics between work and family, specifically looking at how they share tasks such as parenting. In this particular chapter, she looks at the group of families who have developed into “alternating-shift” couples. In these arrangements, the parents work alternating shifts so that when one is at work, the other is at home raising the children. This chapter helps to eliminate some of the stereotypes that blue collar fathers will not help with intricate processes of child rearing. Because as she shows, there is a revolution of parenting happening in these blue collar families as well.
Now, she is not claiming that these families are equal sharing families in terms of responsibility, because they are self admittedly not. However, the alternating shift fathers spent almost double the time solely caring for the children than their equally sharing counterpart fathers. This is because while they are caring for their kids, they are the only ones accountable and must do everything, which is a lot, for them. Many of these family dynamics are determined due to financial reasons. Either there is not enough money or the parents believe it is impractical to spend money on child care when they can work on a system like this. I have to wonder though, if this system of alternating shifts puts many strains on a marriage, because the parents rarely get to see each other either. Another reason is that many parents believe that their kids should be cared for exclusively by family. I feel the same belief that if given an opportunity, I would want my own kids to be raised and influenced by family as well. Many of these families would not have the means to send their children to upper level child care, and thus believe it is better to raise them themselves instead of subjecting them to lower care.
Later in the article, Deutsch does talk about the issue I raised earlier about this situation creating hardships in a marriage due to lack of time together. However, I find it very fascinating that many of these parents are willing to sacrifice a bit of their own happiness for that of their children, a fact that I admire. In order to accomplish this, these “real” men who work in blue collar jobs had to change and break away from the stereotypes. This can be difficult for many of these men, because they are acting in ways they have no experience or background to fall back upon. They are living unlike their own fathers and thus have to pave their own ways. I found it interesting though, that in interviewing these men, that some of them did realize that they had a responsibility to their family and that they were appreciative that their wives were willing to work to help provide for their family. Even though they feel like they have to pay back their wives for working by being there to raise the kids, they get to know their own children, which is a great gift in turn.
The fact that these men are changing is interesting, because there is still much more support for traditional gender roles in working class than middle class families. There are still these beliefs, but now it is not feasible. The men and even their wives, still acknowledge the man as the breadwinners in the family, and men fell obligated to provide for their families. Furthering this goal, is the idea that the mother is not gaining satisfaction from working, but rather is just doing it out of economic necessity, however untrue the first part of that statement might be. There are often differences in ideology between husband and wife about why the wife is working. Women sometimes like this role, because in financially strapped families they are not forced to make a difficult decision between their family and working. A third assumption that affects this type of family is that of the mother as still the primary parent, and person that needs to be there during the critical times. As the fathers still believe it is their duty to be the main breadwinner, these mothers still feel it is they job to be the top parent, because they are more nurturing than their husbands. They get disturbed if the fathers become too involved or depended on for child rearing. Men conform to this ideal as well, and still believe, most likely from their experiences with their own mothers, that mothers are the nurturing parent.
These new alternate shift families present an interesting alternative because they have multiple aspects of ideologies and practices. At one moment they are a family with a bread winner father and homemaker mother, and later that same day they have a working mother and stay at home father. Though this is the case in practicality, the belief in the first situation as the “right” one is still held, even though these families are much more egalitarian than they let on to believe.

Dorothy Roberts, “Absent Black Father”

In this article, Roberts looks at the issue of the absent father from the perspective that there is a cultural assumption that that father is indeed black. As she writes, “fatherlessness is a distinctly black problem.” By labeling it a black problem, it serves as an example of depravity and an explanation for Black people’s problems, along with a ringing endorsement for the father dominated family role whites usually accompanied. It is an assumption in this society that traditional black households are female headed, and there is new theory that black fatherlessness is a symptom of rebellious Black mothering. Roberts writes that because of the way black men are portrayed in the media, they are seen as not suitable role models for their children, and thus are never given the opportunity to be the heads of households. I think that is a bit of a stretch personally. I agree that the image of the black man presented in the media is a disparaging one, but that does not mean that black fathers are necessarily destined to be abandoning fathers.
Roberts also argues that there are many extraneous factors working to promote fatherlessness. First, there is the benefit of receiving welfare out of wedlock, and that in the black community, there is a more accepting view on unmarried fathers. Also because many black fathers are unable to provide financially for their children, it causes a great source of abandonment. And in an attempt to provide, many black men must turn to crime which subsequently explains the larger number of incarcerated black males.
The definition of “fatherless” is than defined that the parents are not married or can be used with “single motherhood.” I strongly disagree with this definition and know many fathers, both black and white, who are not married, but are intimately involved in their children’s lives. For me the definition of fatherless is a child who has no interaction with their father at all. Given this first definition, it is no surprise that “absent” black fathers have more contact and provide more informal support to their children than white absent fathers. However, black fathers get a bad reputation, because it is the formal support like money that our society focuses upon.
Roberts mainly believes that is the welfare system that is to blame. There is a belief that a good father is a breadwinning, economically providing one, and that is an ideal that many black men cannot live up to. For a long time, welfare was only granted to mothers that did not have a father in house, thus promoting black “fatherlessness.” However recently, the ideas have change and now new welfare programs are based on doling out rewards to those women who are married. There is also increased pressure to make sure that fathers are providing the appropriate child support. This is a good action, but even if the father has the best intentions, if he is unable to get a sustaining job he cannot pay his children’s mother. Roberts criticizes the welfare system now trying to promote a system of the traditional, father present family. She however believes that it is the racial injustices in place that are the main culprit. There is no excuse for fatherlessness in my mind, but Roberts does make some good points that before fixing the problem of absent fathers, the system that promotes it must be improved.

Kathleen Gerson, “Introduction” & “Myth of Masculinity”

In her book “No Man’s Land,” Gerson looks at the history of males roles in families, and how through the decades it has changed and left a confusing present picture. In the 1950s, the father as the breadwinner was the main idea, with women left to the sphere of homemaking. Since this inception and peak though, this idea has steadily declined in practice. Even in the 1960s, only 52% of families fit this mold. But it was not necessarily the men who have changed, but the women and their ideals. With this decline of the breadwinner model, there has also been some confusion about what a man’s true role is now. There has developed a discrepancy, because men’s move into family involvement has not matched women’s move into paid employment. Faced with this issue, man men and even women are now choosing alternative styles of living. With increases in postponing marriages, remaining single and divorce, there is less men involved and tied to parenthood and family. With this said, now more and more children are growing up without financial or even emotional support from their fathers. Many women do not receive the appropriate child support, and because women make substantially less than men, these single mother families are at a great disadvantage. However, while in the face of this uncertainty, some men run from their responsibility, some have increased their role in the family. There has been a slow increase in the involvement of men in domestic tasks. In a great point, Gerson writes “it is not a simple matter of things getting worse, better or staying the same – all three are happening at once.”
In her work, which I found interesting, she found no relationship between ethnic backgrounds and men’s choice about family and work. Also as in Deutsch’s article, she found that the idea of the macho, working class man who doesn’t participate in the home is misleading. She interviewed a wide variety of men and asked them about their family/work beliefs. A little more than a third saw themselves as the “primary” earner, consistent with the breadwinner model, and thus were opposed to working in a domestic capacity. They believed that their profession and providing money was their only job. Another third were not committed to parenting, either financially or emotionally. The final third, actually made a move toward increased family involvement.
A factor in Gerson’s analysis I liked, was that she intended to focus on the variations among men, not the differences between men and women. I think this is the right approach, because only by examining these intra-sex differences can we determine why there is such a distinct difference in men’s family and work beliefs. She looks at the issue of male power, how many individual men do not feel this power, and that the new system of equality may continue to erode this system of power. She looks to examine why these changes are occurring, and to get it from the perspectives of the males in both camps. A social and sexual revolution has been underway for a while, and though the changes have been well documented the rationale behind it has yet to.
In her ninth chapter, Gerson looks at the “myth of masculinity,” and how it affects the current situation. She asserts, and I agree with the fact that even though there may be some lingering beliefs about it, there will never be a majority return to the social situation where men were seen as sole providers in the breadwinner mold. From this emerged three different types of males, those who held onto the breadwinner role in a “stalled revolution” capacity, those “male rebels” who picked autonomy, and the increasing number of “involved fathers.” While it is clear that there are distinctions among these men, the reasoning behind their choices is debatable. There has been assumptions that “masculine personalities, a culture of masculinity, or male dominance” are the causal factors, but Gerson works to disprove each of these.
Gerson argues that simply arguing for a distinct “masculine personality” is very limiting and not plausible because of the diversity of men and that as a group, many men display many orientations that are typically considered feminine. There are still those who believe in the masculine stereotype, but it must be acknowledged that many men no longer conform to these views.
The next view is that there is a “culture of masculinity” in place in society that causes men’s behavior. Again this view is too short sighted, claiming that men have a unique and distinct cluster of views, beliefs, and behaviors that are truly masculine. These views usually focus on independence, aggression, and the suppression of emotions. These beliefs that lead to male flight from commitment from family are stemmed deep in our history and culture. This presents a contradiction from the American culture that cherishes the loner, and yet at the same time also the responsible, family provider. It is impossible for men to be both, and thus they have to make a choice. But like with almost any choice, there is never a one-to-one relationship between a person’s values and their actions. This leads to the perceived confusion amongst men, who feel they must not only live up to cultural ideals but also their personal ones, and usually must sacrifice one the former to achieve the latter.
As for the idea of male dominance, that is an idea that is fading rapidly in theory. In the past, men enjoyed advantages in the sphere of work that translated to advantages in the home. In this loop of causation, men were able to focus on work and avoid child work, with both actions being mutually beneficial to the other. However, in today’s world, there is no denying that male privilege is still apparent, there is now at least some opposition. Also, male dominance cannot account for the actions of all males, because this privilege is not spread equally across society. No longer are the freedoms that man men’s fathers enjoyed guaranteed, some abandon their roles in families while others remain indifferent or supportive. Some men support women working, because they themselves have suffered an erosion of their economic security. In the last twenty years, there has been a decline in men’s earnings, which has led to a rise in self employment and the loss of inherent working benefits. With this decline, and struggle to support ones self, the idea of supporting a family has become unattractive and much more difficult. As men’s employment continues to fall though, women’s has been on the rise. Now, women are no longer dependent on a husband to sustain themselves, and also since they are providing in the economic sphere have the power to influence male roles in the domestic one. Women are now going to college and staying in the work force longer, all leading to increased economic independence from men. However, a point that I never considered was that as women become more viable and self sustaining, it gives men less reason to stick around because they no longer feel financially responsible. On the other hand though, a women can also threaten to leave with her new freedom, and use this leverage to enact change in her husband’s behavior.
With the increased alternatives to marriage, there has been a new distinction between marriage and parenthood. Fatherhood is now a looser defined topic, and their roles are harder to determine. The changes have affected different men in different ways, but ultimately it comes down to men’s values and how important they are. For some, they believe that they are too good for, or not cut out for the responsibilities of marriage, but I think it is encouraging that an increasing number of men do in fact believe it is their duty to be committed to working in both spheres. Gerson aptly acknowledges that is almost impossible to generalize across the male race with all its differences, but she does know that some change is going to happen, and most likely it present both opportunities and dangers, leaving men with yet another choice.