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.