Blog Entry 9 - 3/28/07

1. According to Hays, what were the four historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in the 17^th-20^th centuries? What is intensive mothering, and does this concept apply to your mother or mothers of your friends?

In the American colonies, the first stage of the historical development in parenting reflected the religiously grounded views of the Puritans, in which a young child was deliberately and carefully molded into an adult through religious training, physical punishment and work at an early age. It was important to raise children to be obedient contributors to the family economy. The fathers were the disciplinarians and moral advisors, while mothers took a secondary role, carrying out the fathers’ rules and keeping the children on the prescribed track. Although the Puritan model is considered central in American cultural development, it should be noted that other groups were more affectionate and permissive in child-rearing practices. For example, American Catholics did not agree with the notion of physical punishment because sins were believed to be taken care of through various sacraments; Southern children had servants, and slave women nurtured their children lovingly.

In the second stage, which occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, views of parenting for middle-class urban inhabitants changed significantly. As in Western Europe a century earlier, childhood was considered a valuable period of life and motherhood became increasingly valued. Affection toward children, preserving of childhood innocence, and use of psychology over physical discipline, became the norm. Evangelical preachers supported the idea that women and children within their home stood as a moral counterpart to the corruption of the outside world. Known as the “Domestic Code,” or a new ideology of domesticity, women were given responsibility for creating a more virtuous world. By the second half of the 19^th century, the terms child-rearing and mothering were one in the same. This period in American history corresponds to the expansion in capitalist markets which marked the physical separation of home and workplace. The rural population, as well as the poor and working-class population, was unable to incorporate the current views of mothering because parents needed children to work, and working mothers did not have time or money to devote to their offspring in order to protect their childhood innocence.

By the turn of the century, mothering was considered appropriate if it was guided by scientific experts. This third stage was marked by strict scheduling over motherly indulgence. In addition to scientific child-rearing, this era is characterized by compulsory education, child labor laws, the initiation of the Children’s Bureau, kindergarten and playground movements, and the establishment of juvenile courts and settlements houses. With the new education and labor laws in place, and loss of siblings as care-givers, working-class women also began to stay at home to nurture young children until they reached school age.

The fourth stage of historical development in child-rearing in America began in the 1930s and is known as the permissive era. Although the early 19^th century family was already child-centered, child-rearing was guided by parents in their interests for the good of the family and the nation. Raising children during this time period is geared toward the needs and wishes of the children. Money, time, and attention is given to the children solely for the sake of prolonging a child’s innocence and to facilitate his/her development according to individual needs rather than trying to mold him/her into a miniature adult according to the parent’s wishes.

The term intensive mothering refers to an historically constructed model of child rearing based on an acknowledgement that children are innocent and precious human beings who deserve to be raised primarily by their own mothers, who are affectionate and attuned to the needs of the child. Care is given according to experts’ recommendations, which is clearly labor-intensive and expensive. This concept applies to how my own mother raised my brother and me. We were welcomed into the world not as economic assets, but as individual human beings who deserved to be nurtured according to our specific needs, talents, and desires. My mother put her professional aspirations on hold in order to devote her full-time attention to us. Some of my friends’ mothers have done the same, while others resumed their work earlier than she did because of either a financial perspective or for self-fulfillment. Having our mother at home has provided stability to our family and has given us a sense of the priority of family over excess consumerism that an extra salary might provide.

2. In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her?

The main indicators that mothering is devalued in the U.S. are the inflexible workplaces, unequal financial partnerships of marriage, and questionable government social policies. When a mother applies for a job after raising a child, maternal care is considered “unskilled labor,” at best. Men and childless women equate staying at home to raise children with “doing nothing.” In addition to a mother’s work going unnoticed, it can hurt her job options in the future. A woman from New York was discouraged from mentioning her thirteen years of care of a disabled child because the potential employer would most likely hold it against her or find it irrelevant. Not only are the talents and arduous work of mothers conspicuously absent from economists’ calculations, they conclude that the mother’s human capital stock suffers from depreciation and results in atrophy when they are out of the workforce. Atrophy is primarily defined as “wasting away,” and I couldn’t imagine a stay-at-home mother losing work experience by raising a child. In Massachusetts, a single working mother working as a store manager was fired from her job because she refused to work overtime so she could be at home with her son. She sued the company but lost the suit because there is no public policy in MA dealing with a parent’s responsibility to care for his/her child. This situation could also apply to a single father, but perhaps he would be viewed by the public as taking over the job of a mother, and placed in an equally difficult position.

Mothers who choose to put their careers aside to provide care to their children suffer later in life. The Social Security estimate of retirement income is significantly lower for women who became homemakers compared to single working women. No compensation is given during the years spent caregiving, which can result in a substantial reduction in retirement income. In addition, a mother in Maryland with a problem-child elected to quit her full-time job to spend more time with her family. Her request for child support from the father to keep her son in private school was denied because the judge determined a mother working only part-time is “a luxury that our world does not permit.” As a result of these policies, mothers’ face a profound financial penalty if they choose to spend a large amount of time with their family. I agree that our economy doesn’t allow mothers the financial freedom they deserve, but I feel that others do not look down upon stay-at-home mothers as much as Crittenden claims. My mother stopped teaching when I was born and is only now starting to work again. I couldn’t imagine growing up any other way and I feel that in many cases working mothers don’t look down upon stay-at-home mothers, but wish they had the ability to take the time off, as well.

3. According to Collins, what are the two types of mothering that Black women tend to do? How are these related to the notion of “motherhood as a symbol of power”?

Collins explains that the concept of motherhood has had tremendous significance in the mind-sets of African Americans through the ages, that mothers are typically exalted by sons, and that mothers make pronounced efforts to raise daughters who are independent, assertive, and have a sense of self-worth. The two types of mothering discussed in the article are blood-mothering of one’s own biological children, and even more importantly, other-mothering of relatives’ children or other community children in need. The other-mother tradition serves as an invaluable support system in problem communities. These women feel a strong sense of kinship with the entire African-American community and willingly give of themselves in order to provide children with the physical and emotional support necessary for a better chance at a respectable future than perhaps was the case for their parents and grandparents. In addition to the individual aspect, the other-mothering practice provides a bond between African-American women and promotes a feeling of unity that assists in moving communities forward where there is societal oppression and lack of opportunity for its members. Motherhood for many women exemplifies hope and gives a sense of individual empowerment to women. A natural child often gives a young mother purpose to her life, while informally adopting a child is proof that there is bonding and commitment to one’s people in a broader sense that often leads to political activism, a constructive approach toward instituting change for the better.

4. According to Edin and Kefalas, what are the poor women's attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing, and what can the society do to help these women get out of poverty? What is your opinion?

Poor women believe a marriage is truly a lifelong bond and consider divorce a greater evil than an out-of-wedlock birth. The new young mothers believe they have to test the relationship over a period of 3-5 years before marrying their boyfriends. Although a sharp decline in marriage is seen in impoverished urban areas, young mothers have not given up on marriage, but are waiting in hope of creating a “white picket fence” lifestyle. These women do not wish to get married until they can afford such things as a modest home, a car, some savings, and a decent wedding. Additionally, young mothers wish to be able to attain these goals for themselves and do not want to rely on their future husband’s finances in case of divorce. These goals have proven to be increasingly elusive and a decline in marriage has followed.

Poor inner city teenage girls value children highly and believe they are ready for the demanding task of raising a child at a young age. These young mothers express gratitude for having a child and most believe their lives would have continued to spiral out of control without one. Jen, a young mother in Philadelphia, was sure she would still be depressed, drinking, and doing drugs if her son hadn’t come along. Many of her friends had either died from drug overdoses or ended up in jail while she has gotten her life on track and intends to go to college. She believes that without her child, her life would have never turned around, and for many other poor mothers, children offer “a strong sense of purpose and a profound source of intimacy.” I had never thought about this side of the argument and I think Jen makes a good point, though not all poor mothers are like Jen. Many lack the ambition to succeed and continue to abuse drugs even after the child is born.

Promoting marriage among the poor is one way to fight the war on poverty, but this will be a difficult task because of the stigma associated with divorce. In order to work with the well developed sub-culture of these poor areas, small changes will have to be made over time. Instead of young women spending their money on drugs and alcohol, a program should be implemented to help invest or protect the money they have, thereby building a foundation on which a family can grow. Poor mothers must have access to jobs which will lead to financial independence, complementing the belief that they should be able to support their children themselves.