Household Labor

Household Labor

During the evolution of sociology, or more specifically the evolution of cooperation, individuals seem to at one point or another compare their own efforts, pay-offs, and rewards to those of other people. In the article “Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay”, the comparison is with, as the title clearly states, monkeys! A nonhuman primate; the brown capuchin monkey; Cebus apella. This is what I find so unique about this article versus the other ones on the topic of household labor. It is always interesting when/how authors take a new perspective on a particular topic, just as Brosnan and Frans took this biosocial perspective on household labor. I do also very much like the title the authors chose for their scientific report, however I wonder how seriously it would be taken as the title seems like more of a newspaper headline..

This makes me think of philosophers such as Plato and Kant who believed in a rational basis for fair behaviour. I also think of the famous comment by Gordon Hewart in 1923: “it is of fundamental importance that justice not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

Questions:

1. What do you think of the chosen title for the article by Brosnan and Frans: “Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay”?
2. What was the division of household labor like in your home? Was there gender division?
3. Thinking about Hook’s article, what do you think about policy-makers promoting equal division of household labor for women?

Week 9: Household Labor

Week 9: Household Labor

When it comes to the issue of household labor, we are able to see that there is no clear-cut answer to who invests more in this. There are research results which point out that nowadays, more men are doing more than they used to while females are doing less than they used to. In addition, we are able to see a decline in stay-at-home mothers while there was an increase of stay-at-home fathers. However, even if there exists an increase (with the percentage itself is significant), the number of stay-at-home mothers was larger than that of the stay-at-home fathers. Through these results we are able to see that there still exists discrepancies in unpaid work.

In her article, Hook claims that men participate more in unpaid work across diverse countries while policies and practices may either hinder or facilitate men’s unpaid work (Hook, 656). Even if they do participate in more household labor, could we assume that they are of same value compared to the labor that women partake in the domestic sphere? Men tend to do the “temporary” jobs within the family (i.e. mowing the lawn, fixing the house, taking care of the children on the weekends, etc.) while women are involved with the “permanent” household labor (i.e. cooking, cleaning the house, doing the laundry, taking care of the kids, etc.). Even in two-job families, women tend to partake in the permanent aspect of unpaid work—a second shift—after coming home from work.

Hochschild’s article on gratitude was a very interesting read. The idea of tracing gratitude in terms of a moral frame of reference, pragmatic frame of reference, and a historical frame of reference is interesting and seems to make sense. The life course theory seems to mesh well with what Hochschild is claiming with regards to the idea of exchanging "gifts" and the ripple effects it has within the larger society.

Q1] Can we measure or quantify the value of household labor? Why or why not?

Q2] What are your thoughts on providing a type of wage for the “unpaid labor”? Do you think that as a policy, it would work out and perhaps reduce gender inequality within the domestic sphere?

Q3] After the Second Feminist Movement, many claim that there is this “stalled revolution” in which women are exposed to a daily grind of household labor, leisure gap, and time famine. What are your thoughts on this claim? Will women be able to pull themselves out of this stagnant state and achieve complete equality with regards to the public sphere as well as within the household?

Household Labor

A common issue in all the readings is the notion of traditional versus non-traditional gender roles, household division of labor and childcare. I found very interesting the case of Salvadoreans Carmen and Frank and what Hochschild writes as a possible explanation of their notion of gendered gifts: “They were recent immigrants in the diversity of San Francisco, and maybe roses and pie made them feel more American” (2003, p. 109). To what extent consumption patterns and the “American dream” shape family relationships and gender roles of immigrants? How do American media and pop culture consumed out of the United States shape family relationships and gender roles of those in the rest of the world? How are ideas of gender diffused with the globalized media and migration? Do you think that this has had a positive or negative effect in other societies?

I was glad that this set of readings included an international comparison and I really liked Jennifer Hook’s paper since I think that it is important to understand how individual and household level mechanisms are related to national level policies and employment practices. It is interesting to think not only about cross-country differences but also on period and cohort differences. I found very important the methodological implications of her study (Hook, 2006, p. 655): “a reliance on typologies may conflate disparate national characteristics and policies, lead to faulty conclusions, and obscure what aspects of context matter most, […] researchers should expand inquiry beyond couples, [… and…] researchers should not assume that the effects of basic demographic characteristics are stable across time and space because they vary as a function of contextual factors”.

Something I found interesting from the readings and responses of other classmates is the notion of courtship. Hochschild talks about the gifts associated to this initial stage of the relationship and I wonder how this initial courtship and romance period will influence later stages due to the relation between gifts, money and power imbalances. It is interesting that what is “accepted as the norm” is that it is the man who proposes to the woman and although the woman has the decision, her role is less proactive. In “traditional” positions, she is the one receiving flowers and chocolates. Could this be because “capuchin females pay closer attention than males to the value of “exchanged goods and services” (Brosnan and de Waal, 2003, p. 298). I wonder if there has been empirical research that compares gender roles and division of household labor in couples that have started with different types of courtship and where the woman has been the one that takes the initiative. Also, after watching the video posted I have to say I spent some time in YouTube watching other videos related to that one and found an interesting one on gender stereotypes in the media that you may want to check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nIXUjzyMe0&feature=related

Q1. How do you think that the focus of only couples on the papers we read are affected by what Jennifer Hook found out and her methodological implications? Do you agree with her that “what is particularly interesting about a general change among all men is that it suggests a different view of gender relations than argued in some cross-national work focused solely on power, bargaining, or divorce threat” (Hook, 2006, p. 655)?

Q2. Hochschild discusses the idea of “lucky women and unlucky men”. What do you think about this idea of luck versus what was expected? How do you think the early stages influence later possible power imbalances and women’s position in negotiating within the couple and deciding who will the lucky one be?

Q3. To what extent differences in the papers read are due to social class, ethnicity or religion? How are gender codes related to political views, for example? Do you see misleading conclusions of the papers after reading the methodological implications of Hook’s work?

Household Labour

After reading for this week, I took a little time to think about Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay… now what exactly was it doing there? On readings about dual-income parenting and sharing of household duties, where exactly did this fit in?

I think after doing this weeks’ readings the findings point to a gender discrepancy when it comes to housework, or unpaid labour. It seems that women are assumed to be doing the housework, unless a negotiation or shift has occurred. Take for example the fact from Jennifer Hook’s research that “for each percentage increase in national levels of married women’s employment, men’s unpaid work time increases by 0.5 minutes.” So, it follows that only when women are not at home, a negotiation or shift needs to be made.

Coltrane also mentions that in ¾ of the couples interviewed, the women performed the majority of the early infant care. Coltrane also stresses that almost all the fathers stressed that they had to learn how to nurture, as if they were starting from scratch, and it was something that did not come naturally to them. There was also the example in which the man would set the table, and clear it, but not to his wife’s liking, so she still essentially cleared the table. This was interpreted as men doing domestic work, yet the house is still evidently the domain of the woman.

So, why is gender a factor in housework? Why, in a sense, don’t married women reject unequal pay for domestic work?

1. Reading Hook’s article, I came across a few items that made me pause and think of explanations. First of all, she says that married men do more unpaid work than single men. Also, she said when men are NOT employed, they do 19 minutes less of unpaid work per day than do employed men? How does this work? Any ideas?

2. How do you interpret the Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay article? Do you think it's relatable to human actions?

3. After reading all of the readings, are you convinced by Risman and Johnson-Sumerford’s finding that gender equality can be found in the home?

Household Labor

This week I found the gendered division of household labor to focus more on the negotiation of the husband/father ideology than the changing expectations of the wife/mother.  As Hochschild mentions in The Economy of Gratitude, wives are constantly navigating married life in reaction to the expectations and demands of motherhood and wifehood.  Hochschild implies that these wives respond to the role of husband and the promotion of the role of father/husband in a similar way as previous generations.  This resulted in my wondering: is this gratitude lag time or simply a sustained power dynamic with a different name?  The suggestion that women will come to embody the same power position as men seems uncertain.  Further undermining this shift is the cultural significance of the male breadwinner depicted in Coltrane’s article: Coltrane emphasizes the tendency of households with egalitarian divisions of labor to reference time availability as more important than gender when determining labor assignment.  Is feminism rooted more in ideology or practice? 

If women must often rely on the changing practices of their male counterparts to alter labor divisions in marriage, than Hook is correct in asserting that policy-makers must evaluate which factors, although ideologically sound, provide females/wives/mothers with the greatest environment to promote egalitarian relations.  If ideology is mute when challenging the embedded attitudes and structural forces that influence both home and work experiences, then it becomes less important to change opinion and more beneficial to focus on structural/environmental change.  The role of feminism is an interesting one; even for families that espouse gender equity on the home front, feminism is still dismissed as radical ideology.

1. To what extent does the state replace the male breadwinner?  How are fathers/husbands released from familial responsibilities in the presence of generous social policies?  Is there a lag between the changing expectations of children and fathers as well?
2. Coltrane mentions that when parents have more equally divided child care children tend to discriminate less between parents.  Recalling previous articles on divorce outcomes, could it be that poorly invested parenting is more to blame for the negative effects of divorce than the change in household dynamic or composition?  Are there state policies that can alter this situation to promote greater parent-child bonds after divorce?  Would these policies encourage healthier parent-child relations within marriage as well?
3. It is interesting that men may cite the desire for emotional care associated with traditional marriage, yet omit the pressures from external forces to abide by traditional norms.  When couples are probed, these realities are revealed.  To what extent do external pressures shape personal relations?  In an earlier article on happiness in homosexual relationships, relationships are said to be happier when there exists a great acceptance of homosexual families/partners from friends and family.  How much do broader social contexts shape individual action with regards to the division of labor?  Is change hidden behind a traditionalist façade still valid?

Household Labor

The juxtaposition of emotions with divisions of labor left me thinking about two issues relevant to the readings: how does “love” interact with perceptions of household labor, and how do these perceptions apply to family structures outside of marriage and even beyond cohabiting couples? The former question came from a quote in the Hochschild essay. She describes one woman as stating, “If you help me at home I will feel grateful for that and love you” (115). This struck me as odd; is love reliant almost purely on this economy of gratitude? Increasingly we see couples living together before marriage (if marriage occurs at all), so is this exchange and division of labor not established before marriage? Does it change drastically with marriage (previous readings would indicate that marriages do enforce traditional gender roles more so than unconventional arrangements). Perhaps this change can be explained by an examination of life course, or more simply time. Marriages and relationships can extend for long periods of time and require constant negotiation on the part of both individuals, and understanding each others perceptions of gratitude are a part of that.

However, I wonder if this “economy of gratitude” extends just beyond couples to all kinds of familial relationships. Reading all these accounts of the divisions of labor and the integration of gender roles, I couldn’t help but think about the importance of these relations in two other kinds of relationships: roommates and larger families than parents and children living in the same house. Even though Americans and Canadians tend to hold individualism as an ideal, sharing living space is a reality for many more than just college students. A few examples we have discussed are the prevalence of children moving back home, living longer without bring married, and multiple families living in the same home to save money. From my experience living with three men for four years, I can say that most people expect I am fully responsible for cooking and cleaning, while in reality we have established a much more egalitarian division of labor based on the fact that we’re all decent human beings who care about each other. I wonder how gendered divisions of labor change for other unconventional yet prevalent family structures. In general, I feel that it is important to examine the division of labor in married couples, but equally as important to recognize that these are not the only structures in which people situate themselves, and perhaps seeing the married couple as the ideal perpetuates stigmas which harm all sorts of familial relationships.
1) Hochschild discusses that the economy of gratitude can be applied to lesbian and gay couples as well. Research on this differs, so does anyone know if “gendered” or unequal power relationships are a factor of earnings?
2) What other family structures could provide a more egalitarian division of household labor, and how can they be more institutionally recognized?
3) Is love purely a factor of the economy of gratitude?

Household Labor

When someone gives the gift of performing housework, it is normally interpreted as the worst gift any woman can receive. To be fair, I can understand how men believe that women should be appreciative of their help if it is not what the man usually does around the house. In reality it should not be considered a gift. According to Hochschild, “74% of mothers with children 6-17 are in paid work” and they are still doing the majority of the housework so, they are working two jobs. In our readings this week, Risman et al., Hook and Coltrane examine families who are equally sharing household needs. All three of these studies tended to focus on the idea of spouses relying on equal sharing of tasks, or in other words they had created a gender-neutral household, in which not all daily chores were the responsibility of the female. In fact it seems like the readings give us a glimpse into the world where a man is showing his ability to act as a woman and for that he is receiving extra credit, because traditionally it is not his job to perform these household tasks.

In Household Labor and the Routine Production of Gender, it is clear what happens when men no longer depend on the fact that a man's masculinity is dependent on not doing the things that mothers do. Men help to take on a portion of the female role and remove themselves for their responsibilities of a traditional father’s role of begetting, protecting and providing for children. Even in this study where much of the housework is divided between both spouses, women still laid claim over the household, maintaining a manager-helper relationship. It may also be observed that when men step out of their perceived, socially constructed role of father, they are given extra gratitude. Whereas when a woman performs these tasks, they are expected of her. All these studies show that we are (slowly) moving to a world that even monkeys can understand; a world in which women should not accept anything but equality through all aspects of their lives.

1. Hochschild describes gendered gifts as flowers from a man and food from a woman, what do you think would happen if a stay at home father was brought home flowers as a gift by his wife?

2. Is it possible for couples to truly share the housework, or is there always someone in charge? Is there always one persons expectations that are required to be met?

3. What is a power-balanced couple? Is it possible to have one, or does one person always hold more power? Do you consider your family gender neutral?

Household Labor

Around these times of the holidays, thoughts of presents and wrapping paper fill the air. But what about “giving” in another sense? What about the daily gifts of gratitude and appreciation? The articles this week focus on the exchange of the concrete gift of household labor juxtaposed by the intangible gift of emotional and caring attitudes. Risman et al., Hook and Coltrane examine the fluid definition of equal sharing of household needs. All three studies claimed to find families in which the relationship between the spouses was supposedly either gender-neutral or who relied on “equal sharing” of tasks. However, it would seem that each study places the father’s role in terms of his ability to “play mother,” to take on the role of the female in place of his father identity. One woman even laments that “nobody really understood that Jennifer had two mothers” (Coltrane, 476). In placing the role of the father in terms of the mother, fathers received extra credit, extra ‘gratitude,’ when they stepped outside their perceived, socially constructed role of father. Even as fathers took on the “mother role,” women still laid claim over the household, maintaining a manager-helper relationship. Yet, despite this increase of father involvement, Hochschild points to a “lag time” between women’s advancement in the public sphere and husband’s lack of household help and emotional support.

As women increasingly break the gender-proof “glass ceiling,” new studies look at the effect of women’s employment on family stability. As 25-year longitudinal study found that women who earned at least 60% of the family’s income were 38% more likely to get divorced in any year, with no regard to their socio-economic position (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/women_divorce_cur_SfyEHTdYT8khsy625mbJOL). As Hochschild explains in her essay, “Economy of Gratitude,” social and individual expectations of the role of the father as provider often lead to strain and distress within the family structure. Further strain is created by the multiple tensions arising around the ideal spousal arrangement between what both partners envision, the reality and their expectations, what Hochschild calls the “gratitude clash.” This “clash” can be seen in recent articles, such as http://www.huffingtonpost.com/juliette-frette/gender-equality-and-the-d_b_561724.html. Even popular media continues to perpetuate the separation of gendered spheres – just look at the Simpsons, Family Guy, or Everybody Loves Raymond. As women gain acceptance in the public sphere, miles ahead of their mother’s generation, the closing of the lag time gap will hopefully see the emergence of fathers placed in their own terms and roles bringing with it the possibility of a truly gender neutral relationship. Until then, maybe there’s hope - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raqNEIUVarI.

Work and Family

The readings this week discuss the relationship between the act of caring and the commercialization of family life.  Correll investigates the tendency for mothers and mothering to signify a lack of work-place competency.  While it is unclear the exact causes of this presumed incompetence (Correll speculates whether cultural values may play a large role), it is evident that mothers are not as valued as other workers.  It is ironic that this is the case: if mothers earn less due to compromised qualifications or abilities relating to motherhood, how is it that these same women are raised to a higher social standing than other individuals?  The iconic mother, upholding the values of a nation, can successfully rear future generations, yet cannot perform explicit workplace tasks efficiently and in a commited manner.  This paradox is evidently overlooked by those whose judgments promote the devaluing of employed mothers. 

Similarly, the ability of women to embody the qualities most often associated with the ideal Western mother is further marginalized by the removal of not only the individual, but the emotional demands of mothering from the domestic sphere and relocating these mothering qualities into the workplace.  Hochschild identifies two complementary mechanisms contributing to the devaluation of motherhood: first, the disenfranchisement of mothers, experienced in their separation from original families, and second, the reinsertion of these mothers into new families.  In these families, these mothers face a reality in which they are neither legitimate mothers nor official members.

For these readings I have three questions:

1. First: How well do the families in Becker’s article generalize to the broader population?  If the majority of the families studied were childless couples in their twenties or couples in their fifties or sixties whose children are young adults, how does this sample relate to families with small children, who must choose from a limited number repertoire of time-bind solutions?
2. Second: In what other ways does Western culture simultaneously idolize and demonize mothers?  Is it possible for equitably employed mothers to exist in this environment?  What policies would best promote this shift?
3. Third: What is the relationship between the “act” of emotion and the paid employment of nannies who embody the emotional work of caring?  If emotions are produced and reproduced, with individuals constantly legitimizing and undermining expected emotional behavior, to what extent is this occupation an extension of this expectation?    

Work and Family

After reading Hoschild’s Emotional Geography and the Flight of Capitalism, I immediately began relating it my family’s professional experience, which is actually completely different from Amerco. From personal experience, the companies and places of employment my family works at seems to be in a warm modern category. My mother works for IBM, as did my father when I was born, and she was able to take a year off when my sister and I were born, and then for the first three months back at work, she was able to work part-time. Although my father didn’t take parental leave, the benefits awarded to my mother seemed to remedy this. As well, after my parents got divorced, my mother was able to take on the added responsibility of being a single parent (with my father only having custody every Wednesday and other weekend) by switching to part time work. Once my sister and I were able to get to and from school on our own, my mother was able to work full-time yet again.

My step-brother actually shared parental leave with his wife, each of them taking six months after their son was born. As well, my step-sister, after taking her full year of maternity leave for each of her two sons (her husband is a professor, so he was able to be around a lot to help with the kids), she re-entered the workforce by job-sharing with another young mother.

My father’s common-law partner works at a company called Lexis Nexis, essentially a huge publishing company, and there are in place many family friendly policies. First of all, in the summer, every Friday ends at noon, to equal one half day off. However, if you do not want to take this half day off, you can bank them, essentially saving all the half Fridays from the summer, and take a week long vacation. Interestingly, this same company is an example of “the new company town” where the employees can socialize and utilize many services even within the same building. They have movie nights (where they supply the drinks and popcorn), catered breakfast every morning, and a masseuse that comes in each week.

In all of the cases depicted above were from dual earner couples, which most definitely do not fall into the work-as-home and home-as-work model. I’m not sure if it is my living experience that is out of the norm, or is it Amerco that is? I’m just finding Hoschild’s utilization of one major company to depict the need for more family friendly policies in America a little troubling. After reading Becker and Moen’s article, I find it frustrating that Hoschild would depict the dual-earner couple as cold and work-obsessed when that is not the majority case.

As well, I recently stumbled across an interesting article from the New York Times, called the Opt-Out Revolution, in which women with high levels of education, on a track to high status of employment, choose to opt-out of work in order to be a full time mother” http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazine/the-opt-out-revolution.html?pagewanted=all . It is definitely an interesting read, and gives some insight as to why mothers may be perceived as less committed to their jobs as depicted by the Motherhood penalty article.

1. Am I the only one who has experience a warm modern category? Or in your experience does the workforce fall into a cool modern or traditional stance? Which way should it be?

2. In Becker et al. it is stated that women often fulfill the job category and not the career category in a dual earning couple. How could you justify the work constraints put on women in a dual earning couple? Is the breadwinner ideology following yet again? Is this why in a career/job couple women are more likely to hold the job?

3. To play devil’s advocate, do you think women are more attached to their children and therefore are less committed to their profession? How does the motherhood penalty fit into professions where salaries are set based on seniority (e.g. lawyers and teachers)?

Work and Family

As the youngest of three children, I always had a nanny present during my childhood. My mother worked and needed help around the house, especially having three children under the age of seven. The nanny I remember best was Theresa. She came from the Philippines and had left a family behind. She was probably my nanny from the time I was three until I was about ten years old. I felt that she wasn’t just my nanny she was like one of my friends. Because of this I am definitely able to identify with Hochschild’s article Love and Gold. Theresa took on many of the traditional mother roles: cooking, cleaning, caring for my siblings and me, and helping with homework. She was not just hired help; she came to be part of our family and even started to call my grandmother Bubbie (Jewish word for grandmother). I now can see how these women, mentioned by Hochschild, transfer their love that they should have for their family back home to the family and children they are currently living with and caring for. It is hard to feel a connection with someone who you haven’t seen for five years, and don’t even know how they will react towards you when you see them next. These nannys see the children they take care of everyday and so they know that the love they feel for them is mutual.

In Scaling-Back: Dual-earner Couples’ Work-Family Strategies, strategies are mentioned in order to scale back on the amount of time couples work in order to spend more time with the family. In my family my father is a dentist and as his own boss he is able to make his own hours. For our family this means that he ends work at 2:00 pm on Wednesdays and 12:00 pm on Fridays. This meant that he was able to spend time with us when we got home from school when we were younger. This article was contradicted by Hochschild’s article entitled Emotional Geography which stated that many people enjoy spending time at work as oppose to being home. This is probably due to the differentiation in family dynamics, ie: that some people come home to a happy peaceful house and others come home to chaos. I’m sure those who come home to chaos would rather spend a few extra hours in a calm office environment daily.

1. Do you think that the increasing amount of hours spent at work leads to more marital affairs?

2. Do you think that statistics found in Getting A Job would deter a mother from entering the workforce? Is there the same amount of gender inequality when the top boss is a female?

3. Does scaling back always lead to more time spent with the family? Does it lead to resentment? Do you think a child can read into this, in terms of the eavesdropping child?

Work and Family

This week’s readings made me think of an article that was recently published in Slate magazine entitles “Going Dutch, Women in the Netherlands work less, have lesser titles and a big gender pay gap, and they love it” (found here: http://www.slate.com/id/2274736/). Only around 10% of Dutch women work full time; the majority work 25 hours or less, and are cited as spending their time taking care of families and “having fun”. The writer of the article discusses her opinion of work as an American women and speculates that perhaps we in North America have it all wrong. As Correll, Benard and Paik (2007) show, there is stigma surrounding motherhood that inhibits a mother’s advancement within the workplace, so is the attempt to shatter the glass ceiling just depriving us of unhappiness? This strikes me as a system that Hochschild would approve of, in that it raises the value of care from parents, rather than it being a “pass-on job” (196).

However, what this and many other articles leave out, or do not address enough, is that a woman’s need to work is largely affected by her socioeconomic status. As the article about Dutch women brings up, 25% could not financially support themselves, even with government help. This creates a culture of dependency on male partners, which as we have seen can have dangerous consequences for those in abusive relationships (although I do not know the statistics of this in the Netherlands). In addition, many women want to work more, but the government dictates that they are not allowed to take on more hours thereby creating difficulties for some women to make ends meet. However, this difference in class does not disappear when we look at women in America or Canada, so perhaps the Dutch really are onto something. Regardless of whether or not this seems like a good idea, it is important to challenge our notions of class and work.

1) Are there other approaches to reforming women’s place in the work world that are somewhere in between “trying to be a man” and accepting that work is a man’s world?

2) Is love really a zero sum game of affection? Hochschild brings up that some nannies love the child they watch more then their own children, but is this a transference of love, or perhaps a side effect of the expectation and roles played in the differing relationships one might have with a child they watch, and their own children?

3) Would Hochschild’s “solution” of valuing care really improve the situation of women who take on these jobs in foreign countries? Does it address the root of the problem she presents: the higher pay?

Week 8: Work and Family

After reading Hochschild’s article “Love and Gold”, I immediately thought about the SOS Children’s Villages. SOS Children’s Villages is an independent, non-governmental organization looking after children who are orphaned or at high-risk by providing homes and family-based care. There are numerous villages in different countries all over the world and basically a “mother” is brought into these villages to take care of up to 20 children each. One condition that exists for female volunteers is that they need to live at the village with their “new” family and if they have a family of their own outside of the village, they need to be ready to sever all ties with them—even with their own children. This could be seen as an extreme case of a “care drain”. In Hochschild’s article, we see women from the Third World coming to the First World to take care of someone else’s children (most of the times family who are better off than they are) and, in contrast, with the SOS Children’s Villages, we see First World women going to these secluded villages to take care of high risk children at the expense of never seeing their own children again. As we can see, this care drain is not a one-way phenomenon from the developing world to the developed world but rather a two-way phenomenon—happening at both end points.

In all the articles, there is a common theme of the “double bind”, especially for the women. There is this pressure for these career women to become both an ideal mother and an ideal worker. In Hochschild’s article “Emotional Geography”, she talks about how a certain corporation has different workplace accommodations to meet the needs of their workers. However, most of these accommodations do not include parenthood-related needs, which make it harder for women to cater to these male-orientated accommodations.

Q1) Do you believe that women do not feel any resentment towards their workplace environment, although it is largely catered towards the male workers? If not, could this be because female workers have internalized this male-oriented ideal worker model and they do not question it?

Q2) In the reading “Love and Gold”, Hochschild talks about the issue of sentiment (feeling of love and care) and commitment. What do you believe is more important for the family life—sentiment or commitment?

Q3) What are some patterns of sacredness in your family? Do you believe that there has been a shift within that pattern over the life

Work and Family

The reconciliation between work and family, the public and the private, is one that individuals are in a constant effort to balance their entire life, whether as a student, a spouse, or a parent.  This week's articles focus, however, on attempting to find this balance in the parent stage. 

I found Beck and Moen’s article on dual-earner couples interesting because of their seemingly paradoxical manner of presenting their conclusion.  Primarily, there is an underlying assumption that the family should take precedent over the workplace. While this is valid, it is also a privileged position from which to talk about such issues.  While they acknowledge that their sample was drawn from the white, middle-class, many of their conclusions – such as the need for balance – comes with an assumption of access to making demands of flexibility, of access to choosing less work hours, of access to deciding between a job and a career.   Other issues such as the gender divide are presented as almost inevitable although I did find it interesting how they noted the gendered difference in justifications for cutting back.  It will be interesting to see how this “professionalization of the discourse surrounding family life” will blend with increasing family-focused workspaces, the continual blurring of the private and the public (Becker, Moen, 1003). 

In reference to the pay gap between mothers and non-mothers, the so-called “motherhood penalty,” I found this contradictory to my initial thoughts when I started reading the article.  My instinct would say that there would be a preference to hire mothers because, if they have already had children, then they probably see a job fitting in with their commitment to their children.  I assumed they would have probably figured out, at least mentally, how they are going to maintain the work-family balance and are applying to the job because they feel they will be able to maximize their potential at both.  Non-mothers, on the other hand, have not yet experienced the responsibility of children.  Therefore, if they do have children in the future, there will be a larger visible shift in the balance.  While their study contradicts my initial instincts, I wonder how this “penalty” could be structurally de-sanctioned and less prejudiced. 

The contrasts Hochschild points to between Goffman and Freud in her piece “Working on Feeling” highlights the issue of contextualizing emotions and performance play.  Honestly, reading this piece, while many of the ideas may subconsciously hold true, made me a bit sad.  It is sad to think we don’t just feel emotions but rather manipulate them, forming them to the social conventions that we deem “correct.”  Although, reflexively, I understand how this interplay can be seen in everyday life, it is still disheartening to think that many social interactions (all which involve some sort of emotion, even an emotion of neutrality) are simply an expression of how the person thinks s/he should feel within that context.

In “Love and Gold” I found her observations of the global feminization of migration pointing to a trend that has long existed and rarely acknowledged.  When I was younger, my parents were struggling to start a business and yet hired a nanny from Barbados.  She brought me along with her everywhere – from the supermarket to the tattoo parlor – and I was later told that my parents (jokingly) were afraid I would adapt her accent.  This form of “outsourcing” and commodification of care puts parenthood within a global framework.  Although I don’t foresee any viable solutions to change the system, a system that is perpetuated by the increasing time bind of the workplace, I do like Hochschild’s suggestion that we “find ways to make it easier for migrating nannies to bring their children with them” (Hochschild 195).  This would relieve some of the tension and anguish of the nannies, and also expose the children of both nationalities to ideas of difference as well as help parents to reconcile these different notions and expressions of love.  The merging of the two cultures could become modeled more as a reciprocal exchange than an extractive abuse. 

Hochschild’s piece, “The Emotional Geography and the Flight Plan of Capitalism,” points to the growing discrepancy between time at work and time at home.  As companies increasingly make it easier, and more accommodating, to work more hours, the family sphere looks increasingly dismal in comparison.  While she points to many of the structural reasons behind this, such as increasing time bind issues and seemingly helpful yet restricted “family-friendly” measures, I wonder to the role of the individual in this situation.  An individual can only blame the institution for so long before some level of responsibility must be taken.  The parent’s quoted who say they find a safer haven in work, free from the dishes and their children, simply perpetuate this cycle instead of trying to create a safe space a home.  While this may not be that easy, it is certainly worth trying instead of running back to work.  Just as companies are adapting a “corporate strategy [for]… retaining valued workers,” so individuals need to devise strategies, such as insisting on shared domestic responsibilities, to retain family values (Hochschild 211).

Q1: Do you think there is such thing as a “genuine” emotion?  Do you think there is a difference between “genuine” emotions and an emotion expressed simply because it is deemed appropriate for that social situation? 

Q2: What do you think is the best strategy for reconciling this “extraction of love” from Third World to First World countries?  Do you see any benefits to this exchange? 

Q3: From where do you think this view of mothers as “incompetent” and “uncommitted” is derived?  As an increasing number of women “break” the “glass ceiling” do you think this discrimination and prejudice will lessen with time?  

Work and Family

The article I most identified with this week was “Love and Gold” by Hochschild as I have been a witness to this phenomena of women leaving their families and moving to a new country and looking after other peoples children in order to support the family that they have left behind. I babysit for a family in Westmount and have done so for about five years now and I am the only non-Philippine worker on the street they live on. All of these women have left their families although I do not think any of them have left their children behind and have gotten jobs taking care of other people’s children. I know they send home a significant amount of their salary home to their family and feel guilty that they do not visit more often. One such woman who I have gotten to know quite well only goes home every five years and was heartbroken when her mother was sick last winter and she could not afford to go home and help take care of her. I guess in a way these women could be viewed as domestic workers wifes because they complete all the domestic tasks that are traditionally performed by the wife. They cook, they clean, they take care of the children, help them with their homework and drop them off and pick them up from their activities. They form strong bonds with these children as the children spend most of their time with their nanny. One example of this bond was apparent when the boy that I babysit asked me if I spoke any languages other then English and French. When I responded no he sighed heavily and said he wanted to learn Filipino because all the boys had learned it from their nannies and he could not understand what they were saying during recess. I think this language acquisition by boys in grade one demonstrated who they spent the majority of their time with.

In the article, “Emotional Geography and the Flight Plan of Capitalism” I did not really find that all of the concepts applied to Canada. In my limited experience with men and women who chose to take parental leave after the birth of the child viewed it as their right and not as something that would hinder their career. I guess, it would depend on your career and the amount of stability you have in your job if you would feel comfortable requesting for the time off but I thought that in Canada people were understanding of someone wanting to take time off in order to spend time with their new family. This article also discussed the “Time-bind” syndrome that we discussed last class in which parents seem to prefer to stay at work then be with their family. But, this idea of parents choosing work over family was contradicted in the article by Becker, Edgell and Moen who found that parents were trying to scale back work hours in order to have more time with their family. I think these contradictory findings can be explained by the fact that each persons experiences with family and work differ which leads to different feelings of where a person would rather spend time. Also, Hochschild’s article only used data from one work environment so perhaps her findings are specific to those workers or people in the area where the company is located.

1) How would you define emotions? Do you agree more with the interactive or interactive account of emotions? Why?

2) At the end of the article, “Love and Gold” it was questioned how we could help stop the need for women to leave their families and take care of someone else’s children in order to provide for the family they have left behind. Do you think there is a way to put an end to this phenomena? Who else would take care of the children of women who have careers?

3) Do you think there is a difference between quantity of time and quality of time that a parent spends with a child? Do you think it is better for a parent to be at home when a child comes home from school and prepares dinners…etc but does not spend quality time with this child? Or would it be better for a child if a busy parent only spends an hour with the child every night but this time is spent doing quality activities?