Anthony Egger
Family & Work Blog
Week 10
Jean Duncombe, “Whose Orgasm is this Anyway? ‘Sex Work’ in Long-term Heterosexual Couple Relationships
This article looks at heterosexual couples and examines the differences between each partners expectations and their actual sex lives. They ask whether like many other things in our world, sex has become a type of ‘work’ in order to bring their actions in line with their beliefs of how sex ought to be experienced. In this manner, people try to take control over their sex lives, and fit into a balance of power system between the sexes, system inevitably tilted towards men. These beliefs are not held by all, as there are those who feel equal in the act of sex. Because there is much disparity in these beliefs, the authors felt, and I agree that empirical evidence must be found.
Here in the data, there again were some disparities and seemingly paradoxical thought processes. Men wanted “a sexually experienced virgin,” while women wanted sensitivity while not being a ‘wimp’. However, both studies found that the goal of sex has become mutual orgasm, with a strong decline in women faking just to satisfy their partner. Also, it was found that with a longer marriage, the amount of sex declined, either due to habituation or a decline in time due to other familial responsibilities. Also, many sexual deficiencies are just merely covered up instead of delving into the real issues, either due to fear of vulnerability or an angry reaction. To help try and liven up their sex lives, some couples turn to the use of pornography or even increased masturbation. If these problems persist, then often a ‘brick-wall of resentment’ can be cast around both parties, and they can be led into affairs to satisfy their needs that are not being met in their marriage.
The main findings of the studies show that women now need less sex work to overcome their own inhibitions, and are also now less inclined to just do it on behalf of men. Especially early in a relationship, when there is still intense passion, the need for sex work is very small. As time passes though, more sex-work is necessary to maintain a relationship, as those with the greatest satisfaction are those that constantly work at it.
Jean Duncombe, “Stepford wives’ and hollow men?”
Their previous research emphasized that long-term relationships are often maintained through women doing “emotion work,” not only for themselves, but also for their “hollow” husbands. As I was reading that though, I thought that view was a bit stereotypical, a point they address in the next paragraph. They call for a greater analysis and clarification of the ‘emotion work’ dynamic, and how its interplay works among the sexes.
The original definition of emotion work put forth by Hochschild was the individual effort put forth by both sexes to manage their feelings and bring them in line with societal rules of how they should feel in certain situations. However, there are gender differences in the practice of this idea. One researcher found that in marriage, there is an emotional contract in which the woman is expected to nurture the man. As we have discussed earlier, women are also the ones who maintain emotional contact with the majority of relatives and friends on behalf of the couple. This view leaves out men’s emotional work, which is still present, but just differently focused than women’s. It was found that men’s form of emotional work, is to keep their difficult work problems away from the home sphere. There is also an interesting theory that men perform emotional work on themselves to resist becoming intimately emotionally involved. This only furthers the stereotype that men are emotionally hollow. I think it also oversimplifies a very complex dynamic, and this is one of the main criticisms of Hochschild’s theory. An attempt to clarify can be made through the generalized assertion that women become attuned to recognize the emotions and needs of others, and believe they should be served; whereas men are encouraged to pursue maturity and independence from feminine qualities. Again though, this psychodynamic model is too generalized I feel.
The best model presented I feel is the new hypothesis put forth by Hochschild. She claims that even though doing emotion work is still integrally linked with gender, a person’s feelings and actions can only be partially inferred from the gender ideology. Men and women may be made aware of the societal pressures to change according to their gender, but their decision to follow or not is more complex than just relating to their sex. This is shown well in the article through the narratives about real men and women and their own inner beliefs. They did not find anyone who specifically fit the ‘Stepford’ model that Hochschild first proposed, but there were ‘pseudo-stepford’ wives that shared a few of the main traits of the model.
In their conclusion, they acknowledge that many of the disagreements relating to gender differences in doing emotion work have come into fruition because of the ambiguous use of the concept. On the surface it may appear that men and women fall into these nice categories, yet there can be great variations.
Elizabeth Bernstein, “Sex Work for the Middle Classes”
This article looks at the relationship between the increase in the participation of sex work by middle class men and women and the more generalized patterns of economic restructuring, specifically the new technologies of sexual exchange. She notes that due to the gender discriminations in work practices, many equally qualified men and women have taken different routes to pay the bills. Many women have realized they could make more money as a stripper then on the lowest rung of the IT ladder, despite their college educations. These women form what the author entitles the “new petite bourgeoisie” which seeks its salvation via an “ethic of fun.” No longer is it just about the money and moving upward, but this new class truly garners fun, pleasure, and freedom as the highest goal. In this profession, the main goal is to gain independence. Most start off working for someone else, but desire to build up their own clientele base, and then if necessary hire their own men to serve as drivers or protection.
Also one of the major ways that middle class sex workers have been able to benefit is through the explosion of the internet. It has allowed for more autonomy, more safety, and greater profit capability. Through advertisements, women can present themselves in a manner they want and target the clientele they desire. There have also been new developments in “how-to” strategies and training programs to help new businesses. Due to the internet, sex has become more commercialized and efficient.
In an interesting comparison, the author looks at how men’s visits to strip clubs resemble a form of “postmodern touristic practice.” This means, that just like how many tourists go to other lands in search of authenticity, many patrons to strip clubs also place a premium on realness in their interactions. More and more, men desire the girl with the natural look. Women in the industry recognize this, and often delve into some type of acting.
The author also presented something that I had never considered before, that many sex workers place a premium on ensuring that their own labor felt meaningful to themselves. It makes sense that they, just like a worker in an office job, want self satisfaction for their work. So with the increasing in blogging, many of these women write about their exploits.
In her conclusion, she summarizes that due to this technologically driven economy that has driven up the cost of living while at the same time limited the occupations available, many educated, middle class women are turning to sex work. Beyond just this shift in occupation, these changes have also led to women restructuring their entire intimate lives, including their decision to delay marriage and having children. All of these connections make sense, but for one reason or another, I never really considered it before.
Elizabeth Bernstein, “What’s wrong with Prostitution?”
Two of the biggest debates over sexuality involve pornography and prostitution. While there are strong beliefs about both issues, Bernstein points out that there has been little empirical research done on contemporary prostitution. And because policy issues are at stake in the prostitution debate, this research is necessary. As it stands, many feminists believe that the criminalized state of and loose enforcement of rules regarding prostitution are unfair. Looking at this debate, Bernstein examined 18 months worth of field work data. She makes a good point that we cannot determine what is right or wrong with prostitution without understanding what it is first.
She begins to review the literature with first looking at the radical feminists against prostitution. They claim that through this exploitation of gender inequality and sexual objectification, women in all fields are subjectified. They argue that a man’s ability to seek out and purchase sexual serves is indicative of the thought process of men’s control over women. In the camp for pro-sex feminism, they believe that prostitution gives women the ultimate power. That they are rid of the hypocrisy, and get to have as much sex with men, as men do with women. However, as she points out, there is also a cultural and social meaning that must be understood in the determining of the appropriate responses.
An interesting fact, and one that most likely is directly correlated to the rise of the internet as an aid, is that only 20% of sex workers are street walkers. There are also three distinct classes of prostitutes in San Francisco, but what is true for all classes is that there is no other job they could have that would deliver even a similar wage. Prostitution also provides some of these women a sense of control that they might not have had due to their past life experiences. They now have the right to refuse to perform sex, and she has to use many of the same intuitions in choosing a client as she would a boyfriend. She next makes what I think is a bit of a stretch in comparing the pimp-prostitute relationship to a marriage. She also counters a common misnomer that pimps provide true protection for the girls, which often isn’t feasible. Many street walkers are still arrested on trumped up charges of jaywalking or public nuisance and then released after only a couple of hours in jail.
Bernstein talks about COYOTE, the national prostitutes’ rights organization, an organization that I had no idea existed. The main criticism of this group is that they are not true reflections of the poverty driven prostitutes, but white middle class women. They present an interesting dynamic in that they have been raised to be “good girls,” but they in choosing prostitution have gone into a “bad girl” category. But with these higher level prostitutes, there is a specific distinction between them and the street walkers. Often these women could find some other job as they are usually college educated. Another type of prostitution she examined is the sex for drugs paradigm. In this situation, many women have been “drugged” into prostitution as the only way of financing their habit. This is the most dangerous type of work, with many facing daily the fear of being raped or murdered.
As she showed, the term prostitution is too limiting, as there are many distinctions and classifications within that broad grouping. Each argument, either for or against prostitution has valid arguments, and its effects on women and society can be mixed, making it very difficult to completely quantify prostitution as a whole.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Week 9- Paid Carework
Anthony Egger
Family & Work Blog
Week 9- Paid Carework
Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, “Domestica” Chapters 1 & 2
In the first chapter of this book, entitled “New World Domestic Order,” Hondagneu-Sotelo makes the statement that without the labor of Latinos, many of the businesses and lifestyles in Los Angeles would be detrimentally altered. The book focuses specifically on the Latina women that work as housekeepers for affluent Los Angeles families. This is still a prominent position, because many of these families like the flexibility and control that having a personal caregiver provides. They are not responsible for getting their children to day care at a certain time, and can work longer hours without having to worry about where their kids are. This increased use of domestic work also coincides with the increased income separation between the classes, and the large concentration of Latina women in Los Angeles. Interesting to me was that while Mexican women have long lived in L.A. that women from Central America are more recently migrating there due to unrest at home.
Hondagneu-Sotelo makes a good point in that while domestic work is paid, it is often regarded as not true employment. One comment even said that “Maria was with me for eight years, but then she left to get a real job.” The theory behind this is domestic work is not regarded as real work because it takes place in a private home. Also, because many of these women are working with the employers children, they are hesitant to consider them as workers, but more as a part of their own family. And even though the affluent women acknowledge they would be lost without their domestic workers, they are hesitant to tell them personally. These positions are also very racially homogenous, with almost all held by “non-white” women. I know that my next door neighbors have three young children, and their nanny is indeed a Latina woman. This is a change from during the 1950s and 1960s when black women held the majority of these domestic positions. However, as blacks gained more rights, they gradually left the domestic sphere leaving an opening to be filled by Latina women. This was due in part to the increased immigration to the United States, and the apparent racial structures that developed as a result.
One of the most interesting parts of the article was the presentation of the fact that this trend of domestic work has not only occurred in the United States, but also in other developed nations. It is a global phenomenon that these domestic tasks are performed by women in the lower social classes. Domestic work also remains as an informal type of work in these countries. Hondagneu-Sotelo argues that in order to improve the conditions for these women, it must be recognized that this type of work is a form of real employment. There must be a uniform code of conduct and way of treatment put in place. Another negative effect that must be addressed, is that as these Latina women work to care for others children, they often have to neglect their own kids. There is no debate that there has been a rise in paid domestic work, but it is impossible to place just one single causal factor on it. Instead a myriad of factors have come into play to create the society we live in and the services we often take for granted.
In the second chapter, “Maid in L.A.,” Hondagneu-Sotelo interviews over one hundred Latina domestic workers to get a better glimpse at their lives. It was intriguing that most of the women who perform domestic work in this country had no previous history of doing it in their own countries. This is because the women who did the work back in their countries are too poor to emigrate to the U.S.
The first group Hondagneu-Sotelo examines is the live-in nannies and housekeepers. It was found that often these women lose a lot of sleep, because there is no clear delineation between when they working and when they off as they are always in the home. Also, many of these women want their employers to think highly of them, but often they are socially neglected. There is an issue of food as well, with these workers not really sure of their role in getting fed, and often having to spend their own small wages to just eat. Strangely I found, that women working for wealthier families were not afforded better wages than those of lesser means. Considering all of this, many of the women are repelled by live-in jobs. I can understand that, as anyone needs some semblance of a life away from work and some privacy, both luxuries not afforded to live-ins.
After initially experiencing the hardships of live-in work, many shift to a live-out role. This provides more of an employment feel, where they go to work in the morning, and are then able to leave and return to their own houses. Live-out nannies also make more money than live ins. These nannies are often hired for both childcare and housework, but they all placed more emphasis on looking after the children. Often they are shocked and appalled at the behavior these children show and ambivalence the parents show toward it. These nannies also face a difficult role though, as they want to provide a close relationship with the children, but do not want to make the parents jealous by “replacing” them. Many of these women like being close to children, and especially if they have their own, they might choose to do another job, like housecleaners.
Working as a housecleaner allowed women more flexibility and freedom to be the type of mother and wife they want to be. Working as housecleaners, these women can make almost double the hourly wage as in a factory. This form of domestic work is very similar to a vendor selling products to various customers Hondagneu-Sotelo says, and this is a great analogy. These women have a valuable service and they are able to work without being taken advantage of for a better wage.
There is a typical trajectory pattern that these different sub jobs follow. Usually when women first come to this country, they can work as live-ins. But after some time, they realize there is more freedom to live their new lives as live outs or housecleaners. With these higher wages and more flexibility, many of these women are now able to bring their own children to L.A. Hondagneu-Sotelo also lists many of the reasons for the increased immigration and use of Latina women for these jobs, but the one that caught my eye was that many preferred these women because they were unlikely to reveal the families secrets. Trust is a major issue in letting someone into your house and lives, and I think that it’s interesting that such a broad generalization is often made toward this type of women. I had never really thought about the different classes and types of work within the domestic work sphere, so I found this article really interesting.
Deanne Bonnar, “Place of Caregiving Work in Contemporary Societies”
She begins this article by addressing the issue that child care is being pushed to edge of parent’s responsibilities, and that to change this it will require major shifts in our world view. The devaluation of parenting is largely to the continued industrialization and a society focused on work. Also, with more women entering the work force, men have been hesitant to pick up the slack at home, so there has been a slip in the time spent on parenting. There has been a devaluation placed on caregiving work too, even though it can be seen that it is very absorptive work. Bonnar says that the feminists missed the issue when calling for the exclusive focus on employed work, because the focus should be on caregiving. This is difficult though, because nurturing is not a quantized thing that can be time organized easily. Due to this constriction, women, especially mothers with young children, are limited to lower paying and more flexible jobs. Most importantly though, Bonnar believes the issue lies with the fact that the private sector has not recognized “housework” as real work, so corporate policy has not been set toward improving personal caregiving.
Some of the major issues Bonnar sees are that caregiving has always been unwaged, and there have no policies to enable men to effectively do caregiving. There should not be a focus on increased material wealth if it is at the expense of human quality of life. The issue of the time-money trade off must be addressed, as the current system of work does not fit with a parents schedule. She suggests extended and required parental leave after a birth, which in other countries like Sweden has proven incredibly effective. The second option is to develop some sort of a “Parent’s Wage,” that appropriately compensates paying wages to parents in relation to their time spend in child care work. I personally think this is the more unrealistic option of the two. However, it is a progressive thought, and maybe that is what needs to be done to fix this problem.
Joan Tronto, “The Nanny Question in Feminism”
The feminist movement fought for women to gain their appropriate place in the work force, but now that they have it, who is supposed to look after their children? This article examines the morality of using nannies or other options for parents in two career households. It specifically looks at two of the groups that Hondagneu-Sotelo examined, live in help and those in a full time employed capacity. She believes that the upper echelon of society using these women like this creates problems for the entire society.
Tronto believes there are inherent differences in hiring someone for domestic help and just purchasing goods on the open market. This is because first off, these women are people and they develop relationships, and secondly the sphere in which they work is the home, a place very different from the market world. These women are often paid terribly low wages, and they must work incredibly hard to constantly prove their worth. Many must be separated from their own families to work the hours necessary to make a living wage.
In my opinion, the most influential consequences are those that are bestowed upon the children in these situations. Tronto believes that it instills in them a false sense that someone else, no matter their relationship to them, will always be there to meet their needs. It also encourages them to treat people as a means to an end. However despite all of these reasons creating an unjust practice, the role of domestic work is increasing.
One interesting view I had never considered, was that many of these high power women, believe they are doing the best thing for their children by hiring these nannies. They know they cannot be there personally, but they want their children to have the maternal characteristics necessary. Also, they believe that their children are better off in their own houses, because it can provide a more stimulating environment. In my own research, I have found that the house can be almost as twice as important in development, so these women’s thoughts might not be too far off base.
Tronto also acknowledges that while the upper middle class women hiring these domestic workers are mainly to blame, the feminists must take some responsibility. Because they were so focused on gaining work, they forgot to address the issue of who would care for the children. Tronto proposes some solutions though, stating with the providing of publically supported child care facilities. Also there must be a rethinking of the process of work and family, and developing a system in which no caregivers are exploited.
Family & Work Blog
Week 9- Paid Carework
Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, “Domestica” Chapters 1 & 2
In the first chapter of this book, entitled “New World Domestic Order,” Hondagneu-Sotelo makes the statement that without the labor of Latinos, many of the businesses and lifestyles in Los Angeles would be detrimentally altered. The book focuses specifically on the Latina women that work as housekeepers for affluent Los Angeles families. This is still a prominent position, because many of these families like the flexibility and control that having a personal caregiver provides. They are not responsible for getting their children to day care at a certain time, and can work longer hours without having to worry about where their kids are. This increased use of domestic work also coincides with the increased income separation between the classes, and the large concentration of Latina women in Los Angeles. Interesting to me was that while Mexican women have long lived in L.A. that women from Central America are more recently migrating there due to unrest at home.
Hondagneu-Sotelo makes a good point in that while domestic work is paid, it is often regarded as not true employment. One comment even said that “Maria was with me for eight years, but then she left to get a real job.” The theory behind this is domestic work is not regarded as real work because it takes place in a private home. Also, because many of these women are working with the employers children, they are hesitant to consider them as workers, but more as a part of their own family. And even though the affluent women acknowledge they would be lost without their domestic workers, they are hesitant to tell them personally. These positions are also very racially homogenous, with almost all held by “non-white” women. I know that my next door neighbors have three young children, and their nanny is indeed a Latina woman. This is a change from during the 1950s and 1960s when black women held the majority of these domestic positions. However, as blacks gained more rights, they gradually left the domestic sphere leaving an opening to be filled by Latina women. This was due in part to the increased immigration to the United States, and the apparent racial structures that developed as a result.
One of the most interesting parts of the article was the presentation of the fact that this trend of domestic work has not only occurred in the United States, but also in other developed nations. It is a global phenomenon that these domestic tasks are performed by women in the lower social classes. Domestic work also remains as an informal type of work in these countries. Hondagneu-Sotelo argues that in order to improve the conditions for these women, it must be recognized that this type of work is a form of real employment. There must be a uniform code of conduct and way of treatment put in place. Another negative effect that must be addressed, is that as these Latina women work to care for others children, they often have to neglect their own kids. There is no debate that there has been a rise in paid domestic work, but it is impossible to place just one single causal factor on it. Instead a myriad of factors have come into play to create the society we live in and the services we often take for granted.
In the second chapter, “Maid in L.A.,” Hondagneu-Sotelo interviews over one hundred Latina domestic workers to get a better glimpse at their lives. It was intriguing that most of the women who perform domestic work in this country had no previous history of doing it in their own countries. This is because the women who did the work back in their countries are too poor to emigrate to the U.S.
The first group Hondagneu-Sotelo examines is the live-in nannies and housekeepers. It was found that often these women lose a lot of sleep, because there is no clear delineation between when they working and when they off as they are always in the home. Also, many of these women want their employers to think highly of them, but often they are socially neglected. There is an issue of food as well, with these workers not really sure of their role in getting fed, and often having to spend their own small wages to just eat. Strangely I found, that women working for wealthier families were not afforded better wages than those of lesser means. Considering all of this, many of the women are repelled by live-in jobs. I can understand that, as anyone needs some semblance of a life away from work and some privacy, both luxuries not afforded to live-ins.
After initially experiencing the hardships of live-in work, many shift to a live-out role. This provides more of an employment feel, where they go to work in the morning, and are then able to leave and return to their own houses. Live-out nannies also make more money than live ins. These nannies are often hired for both childcare and housework, but they all placed more emphasis on looking after the children. Often they are shocked and appalled at the behavior these children show and ambivalence the parents show toward it. These nannies also face a difficult role though, as they want to provide a close relationship with the children, but do not want to make the parents jealous by “replacing” them. Many of these women like being close to children, and especially if they have their own, they might choose to do another job, like housecleaners.
Working as a housecleaner allowed women more flexibility and freedom to be the type of mother and wife they want to be. Working as housecleaners, these women can make almost double the hourly wage as in a factory. This form of domestic work is very similar to a vendor selling products to various customers Hondagneu-Sotelo says, and this is a great analogy. These women have a valuable service and they are able to work without being taken advantage of for a better wage.
There is a typical trajectory pattern that these different sub jobs follow. Usually when women first come to this country, they can work as live-ins. But after some time, they realize there is more freedom to live their new lives as live outs or housecleaners. With these higher wages and more flexibility, many of these women are now able to bring their own children to L.A. Hondagneu-Sotelo also lists many of the reasons for the increased immigration and use of Latina women for these jobs, but the one that caught my eye was that many preferred these women because they were unlikely to reveal the families secrets. Trust is a major issue in letting someone into your house and lives, and I think that it’s interesting that such a broad generalization is often made toward this type of women. I had never really thought about the different classes and types of work within the domestic work sphere, so I found this article really interesting.
Deanne Bonnar, “Place of Caregiving Work in Contemporary Societies”
She begins this article by addressing the issue that child care is being pushed to edge of parent’s responsibilities, and that to change this it will require major shifts in our world view. The devaluation of parenting is largely to the continued industrialization and a society focused on work. Also, with more women entering the work force, men have been hesitant to pick up the slack at home, so there has been a slip in the time spent on parenting. There has been a devaluation placed on caregiving work too, even though it can be seen that it is very absorptive work. Bonnar says that the feminists missed the issue when calling for the exclusive focus on employed work, because the focus should be on caregiving. This is difficult though, because nurturing is not a quantized thing that can be time organized easily. Due to this constriction, women, especially mothers with young children, are limited to lower paying and more flexible jobs. Most importantly though, Bonnar believes the issue lies with the fact that the private sector has not recognized “housework” as real work, so corporate policy has not been set toward improving personal caregiving.
Some of the major issues Bonnar sees are that caregiving has always been unwaged, and there have no policies to enable men to effectively do caregiving. There should not be a focus on increased material wealth if it is at the expense of human quality of life. The issue of the time-money trade off must be addressed, as the current system of work does not fit with a parents schedule. She suggests extended and required parental leave after a birth, which in other countries like Sweden has proven incredibly effective. The second option is to develop some sort of a “Parent’s Wage,” that appropriately compensates paying wages to parents in relation to their time spend in child care work. I personally think this is the more unrealistic option of the two. However, it is a progressive thought, and maybe that is what needs to be done to fix this problem.
Joan Tronto, “The Nanny Question in Feminism”
The feminist movement fought for women to gain their appropriate place in the work force, but now that they have it, who is supposed to look after their children? This article examines the morality of using nannies or other options for parents in two career households. It specifically looks at two of the groups that Hondagneu-Sotelo examined, live in help and those in a full time employed capacity. She believes that the upper echelon of society using these women like this creates problems for the entire society.
Tronto believes there are inherent differences in hiring someone for domestic help and just purchasing goods on the open market. This is because first off, these women are people and they develop relationships, and secondly the sphere in which they work is the home, a place very different from the market world. These women are often paid terribly low wages, and they must work incredibly hard to constantly prove their worth. Many must be separated from their own families to work the hours necessary to make a living wage.
In my opinion, the most influential consequences are those that are bestowed upon the children in these situations. Tronto believes that it instills in them a false sense that someone else, no matter their relationship to them, will always be there to meet their needs. It also encourages them to treat people as a means to an end. However despite all of these reasons creating an unjust practice, the role of domestic work is increasing.
One interesting view I had never considered, was that many of these high power women, believe they are doing the best thing for their children by hiring these nannies. They know they cannot be there personally, but they want their children to have the maternal characteristics necessary. Also, they believe that their children are better off in their own houses, because it can provide a more stimulating environment. In my own research, I have found that the house can be almost as twice as important in development, so these women’s thoughts might not be too far off base.
Tronto also acknowledges that while the upper middle class women hiring these domestic workers are mainly to blame, the feminists must take some responsibility. Because they were so focused on gaining work, they forgot to address the issue of who would care for the children. Tronto proposes some solutions though, stating with the providing of publically supported child care facilities. Also there must be a rethinking of the process of work and family, and developing a system in which no caregivers are exploited.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Week 8- Extended Kin Ties
Anthony Egger
Family & Work Blog
Week 8- Extended Kin Ties
Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian, “The Color of Family Ties”
In this article, Gerstel and Sarkisian attempt to examine the often overlooked extended kinship ties that are a part of many minority families. Through this examination, it can dispute the claim that these families are more “disorganized” than white families. They are arguing that just because members of a family don’t live together, that it doesn’t mean they aren’t just as willing to be supportive in their role. There are racial differences though, as white women are more likely to give and receive emotional support, while minority women are more likely to help their extended family members with more practical work like household duties and raising children. This is because in many minority families, the mother has to have a full time job to support the family, so she relies on others to help with many of the day to day intricacies. With this in mind, it is important not to only consider the nuclear family because it creates an unfair bias for families of color.
They make a good point, that either for the better or worse, family behaviors are often described and explained in terms of their cultural heritage. However, contrary to this myth, their research found that it was actually social class, not culture that best explained their differences in behaviors. They break it down even further to say that given the same amount of income and education, whites, blacks, and latinos all have similar patterns of involvement with extended families, with those on the lower end of the former, exhibiting greater use of the latter. Regardless of race, economic hardships bring forth the increased utilization of other extended family resources simply to get by. One of the most interesting points they made was how this reliance on kin selection actually could be a viable reason for the lower marital rates in disadvantaged families, because marriage actually diminishes ties to kin. The same level of help is not available to a married woman as it is to a single woman, most likely because people believe that the married women should have her husband to turn to for help.
They are sure to emphasize that while social class is an important variable, it is not sole causal factor. Many other aspects of life influence the amount of kin interactions. It is not just a simple “fix” of their alleged skewed family values. Instead a societal change must be undertaken to provide more sufficient support for poorer families so they are not so reliant on kin. Family connections are important, but they can not be the substitution for a flawed system. Family dynamics are shaped more than anything by economics and this is where the change needs to begin.
Micaela Di Leonardo, “The Female World of Cards and Holidays”
In recent history, there has been a reinterpretation of women’s work and family domain. The first reason for this is the rise in publicity of housework, child care, and other nonmarket activities that are construed as labor. The second is that women are the creators and maintainers of the kin network for families. Di Leonardo, believes that both the domestic network and the labor perspective need to be fused together in a new concept. From her research she found that women are involved in three tpes of work; domestic work, market work, and kinship work (which she describes as the organizing and executing family gatherings and connections via calls, letters, etc. Though I had never thought of this before, this is a very true sentiment, and that I know in my family, it is my mom who organizes all of our family vacations and kin interactions. So it makes sense that the sustaining of kin relationships relies on women. There is also a sense of guilt that women feel if these kin relationships falter. This added burden not fits on top of their work as a homemaker and in many cases a woman in the work force. It is definitely true in my experience that men do not work in this kinship realm any more than they do in the domestic sphere, however, there is not a movement for it either.
Examining this issue is especially interesting because it is not one defined by race or ethnicity, or even defined to certain social classes. Across all of those realms, kin work is still very gendered toward the feminine sphere. And while, rich women can get out of house or market work with their wealth, they are not able to avoid doing kin work. After the Industrial Revolution, when more families began to spread out, it was initially more difficult to maintain kinship ties, however with technology today it is very easy to have daily and even visual connections with family members all over the globe.
I thought this was a very well written article, about a topic that I had never really considered before, though it can be seen in my own life. I am always grateful to my mother for all she does in the domestic sphere taking care of us, but now I realize that I need to also thank her for maintaining the great relationships I have with my extended family as well.
Natalia Sarkisian & Naomi Gerstel, “Explaining the Gender Gap in Help to Parents”
It is a pretty commonly accepted idea that adult female children spend more time helping their parents than do their sons, but the mechanism for why this occurs has never really been examined. In this paper, Sarkisian and Gerstel attempt to figure out the reasoning behind this phenomenon. They specifically were examining if it could be explained by structural variation, i.e. the types of job men and women have. The belief is that because men are more likely to be employed and in higher positions, that their pull is more toward work than familial responsibilities. It holds than that when women and men are in the same employment conditions that the amount of help they give is also the same, a theory they also investigate.
In their literature review, they examine the work on the relationship between paid employment and gender gaps in family work. They specifically look at the issue of domestic work and on the research around helping kin. Previous research has shown a negative relationship between hours worked in an employed capacity and hours spent on housework. This is especially true for women; however this can not fully explain the gender gap. The next major issue they review is on whether the conditions of work play a factor in determining the gender gap. From their review, they found much disagreement and inconsistent finding on the link between working conditions and help to parents. This was due to non-uniform operational definitions, different analysis methods, and different populations and types of samples examined among all the studies.
One important characteristic found however is race, with African Americans much more likely than whites to help their parents. Also, in a logical conclusion, married women help their parents less than unmarried women. This is because married women have to of course focus on their own families, a daunting task on its own.
Their hypotheses were that employment status reduces the gander gap in help given to parents, however that those in jobs with typically male characteristics, have less time to help their parents. The final hypothesis is that employment status and characteristics are more strongly tied to parental assistance for women than men. They tested these hypotheses by analyzing data from the National Survey of Families and Households.
Their first major result was that there is in fact a gender gap between men and women in the amount of time they help their parents. They also found that having any type of job does reduce the gender gap. Their findings also illustrate that all things being equal, that employed men and employed women give equal amounts of help to parents and in-laws. All of these results support the idea of a structural model because the employment conditions operate in a similar fashion for both sexes. I agree with their claims that their findings have both theoretical and practical implications. With laws passed to make more reliance on family, it will further the family-work divide and especially place a problem on lower income families to not only support themselves, but also their own parents.
Lynet Uttal, “Using Kin for Child Care:Embedment of Socioeconomic Networks”
This article offers a new explanation for the reason minority mothers are more likely than white mothers to use kin to help raise their children. She proposes that the decision is not based solely on the needs of the individual family, but also in consideration of the economic needs of the members of their extended family.
She begins her article by highlighting that there is a noticeable decline in the use of relatives as the most common source of family care lately. Interestingly, the only type of relative care that has not decreased is care by fathers, possibly because it was never that high or important to begin with. Yet even though it is declining, parents still would prefer their children cared for by relatives, a belief I can understand and support. Another issue she illustrates is that the rate of relative care is higher for minority families than for white families. This is a fact that can contribute to racism, because as she points out the independent nuclear family is seen as the ideal.
There is a wide array of forces, both cultural and structural, which play a part in the decision on childcare arrangements. She gives a good example that many Latina mothers used childcare because they have a cultural belief in kin based care, and also a structural reason in having more family in close proximity. This runs contrary to the belief held by many Anglo American mothers who view kin-based child care as inappropriate and problematic. I think that this relates back to the idea that in many of these white communities, it might be seen as a sign of weakness if a woman can’t manage everything on her own. They also feel it is their responsibility and do not want to impose on their relatives, often vehemently opposing it unless it is truly the one and only last resort. This emphasizes one of her major points, that the race and ethnic differences are not in the actual use of kin based childcare, but rather in the idea and acceptance of doing it.
Family & Work Blog
Week 8- Extended Kin Ties
Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian, “The Color of Family Ties”
In this article, Gerstel and Sarkisian attempt to examine the often overlooked extended kinship ties that are a part of many minority families. Through this examination, it can dispute the claim that these families are more “disorganized” than white families. They are arguing that just because members of a family don’t live together, that it doesn’t mean they aren’t just as willing to be supportive in their role. There are racial differences though, as white women are more likely to give and receive emotional support, while minority women are more likely to help their extended family members with more practical work like household duties and raising children. This is because in many minority families, the mother has to have a full time job to support the family, so she relies on others to help with many of the day to day intricacies. With this in mind, it is important not to only consider the nuclear family because it creates an unfair bias for families of color.
They make a good point, that either for the better or worse, family behaviors are often described and explained in terms of their cultural heritage. However, contrary to this myth, their research found that it was actually social class, not culture that best explained their differences in behaviors. They break it down even further to say that given the same amount of income and education, whites, blacks, and latinos all have similar patterns of involvement with extended families, with those on the lower end of the former, exhibiting greater use of the latter. Regardless of race, economic hardships bring forth the increased utilization of other extended family resources simply to get by. One of the most interesting points they made was how this reliance on kin selection actually could be a viable reason for the lower marital rates in disadvantaged families, because marriage actually diminishes ties to kin. The same level of help is not available to a married woman as it is to a single woman, most likely because people believe that the married women should have her husband to turn to for help.
They are sure to emphasize that while social class is an important variable, it is not sole causal factor. Many other aspects of life influence the amount of kin interactions. It is not just a simple “fix” of their alleged skewed family values. Instead a societal change must be undertaken to provide more sufficient support for poorer families so they are not so reliant on kin. Family connections are important, but they can not be the substitution for a flawed system. Family dynamics are shaped more than anything by economics and this is where the change needs to begin.
Micaela Di Leonardo, “The Female World of Cards and Holidays”
In recent history, there has been a reinterpretation of women’s work and family domain. The first reason for this is the rise in publicity of housework, child care, and other nonmarket activities that are construed as labor. The second is that women are the creators and maintainers of the kin network for families. Di Leonardo, believes that both the domestic network and the labor perspective need to be fused together in a new concept. From her research she found that women are involved in three tpes of work; domestic work, market work, and kinship work (which she describes as the organizing and executing family gatherings and connections via calls, letters, etc. Though I had never thought of this before, this is a very true sentiment, and that I know in my family, it is my mom who organizes all of our family vacations and kin interactions. So it makes sense that the sustaining of kin relationships relies on women. There is also a sense of guilt that women feel if these kin relationships falter. This added burden not fits on top of their work as a homemaker and in many cases a woman in the work force. It is definitely true in my experience that men do not work in this kinship realm any more than they do in the domestic sphere, however, there is not a movement for it either.
Examining this issue is especially interesting because it is not one defined by race or ethnicity, or even defined to certain social classes. Across all of those realms, kin work is still very gendered toward the feminine sphere. And while, rich women can get out of house or market work with their wealth, they are not able to avoid doing kin work. After the Industrial Revolution, when more families began to spread out, it was initially more difficult to maintain kinship ties, however with technology today it is very easy to have daily and even visual connections with family members all over the globe.
I thought this was a very well written article, about a topic that I had never really considered before, though it can be seen in my own life. I am always grateful to my mother for all she does in the domestic sphere taking care of us, but now I realize that I need to also thank her for maintaining the great relationships I have with my extended family as well.
Natalia Sarkisian & Naomi Gerstel, “Explaining the Gender Gap in Help to Parents”
It is a pretty commonly accepted idea that adult female children spend more time helping their parents than do their sons, but the mechanism for why this occurs has never really been examined. In this paper, Sarkisian and Gerstel attempt to figure out the reasoning behind this phenomenon. They specifically were examining if it could be explained by structural variation, i.e. the types of job men and women have. The belief is that because men are more likely to be employed and in higher positions, that their pull is more toward work than familial responsibilities. It holds than that when women and men are in the same employment conditions that the amount of help they give is also the same, a theory they also investigate.
In their literature review, they examine the work on the relationship between paid employment and gender gaps in family work. They specifically look at the issue of domestic work and on the research around helping kin. Previous research has shown a negative relationship between hours worked in an employed capacity and hours spent on housework. This is especially true for women; however this can not fully explain the gender gap. The next major issue they review is on whether the conditions of work play a factor in determining the gender gap. From their review, they found much disagreement and inconsistent finding on the link between working conditions and help to parents. This was due to non-uniform operational definitions, different analysis methods, and different populations and types of samples examined among all the studies.
One important characteristic found however is race, with African Americans much more likely than whites to help their parents. Also, in a logical conclusion, married women help their parents less than unmarried women. This is because married women have to of course focus on their own families, a daunting task on its own.
Their hypotheses were that employment status reduces the gander gap in help given to parents, however that those in jobs with typically male characteristics, have less time to help their parents. The final hypothesis is that employment status and characteristics are more strongly tied to parental assistance for women than men. They tested these hypotheses by analyzing data from the National Survey of Families and Households.
Their first major result was that there is in fact a gender gap between men and women in the amount of time they help their parents. They also found that having any type of job does reduce the gender gap. Their findings also illustrate that all things being equal, that employed men and employed women give equal amounts of help to parents and in-laws. All of these results support the idea of a structural model because the employment conditions operate in a similar fashion for both sexes. I agree with their claims that their findings have both theoretical and practical implications. With laws passed to make more reliance on family, it will further the family-work divide and especially place a problem on lower income families to not only support themselves, but also their own parents.
Lynet Uttal, “Using Kin for Child Care:Embedment of Socioeconomic Networks”
This article offers a new explanation for the reason minority mothers are more likely than white mothers to use kin to help raise their children. She proposes that the decision is not based solely on the needs of the individual family, but also in consideration of the economic needs of the members of their extended family.
She begins her article by highlighting that there is a noticeable decline in the use of relatives as the most common source of family care lately. Interestingly, the only type of relative care that has not decreased is care by fathers, possibly because it was never that high or important to begin with. Yet even though it is declining, parents still would prefer their children cared for by relatives, a belief I can understand and support. Another issue she illustrates is that the rate of relative care is higher for minority families than for white families. This is a fact that can contribute to racism, because as she points out the independent nuclear family is seen as the ideal.
There is a wide array of forces, both cultural and structural, which play a part in the decision on childcare arrangements. She gives a good example that many Latina mothers used childcare because they have a cultural belief in kin based care, and also a structural reason in having more family in close proximity. This runs contrary to the belief held by many Anglo American mothers who view kin-based child care as inappropriate and problematic. I think that this relates back to the idea that in many of these white communities, it might be seen as a sign of weakness if a woman can’t manage everything on her own. They also feel it is their responsibility and do not want to impose on their relatives, often vehemently opposing it unless it is truly the one and only last resort. This emphasizes one of her major points, that the race and ethnic differences are not in the actual use of kin based childcare, but rather in the idea and acceptance of doing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)