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.