Social Policy

Caring for Our Young

This article discusses the state of paid childcare in America. Compared to French childcare services, the United States seems inferior. Observations include a better-stocked library and a more mature style of table manners. How the children are kept in day care service may have far reaching implications. Questions of whether childcare should more play-centric or more education-centric are considered.
It is a struggle in the US to find childcare. Families rely on outside services, especially daycare centers in a growing number. Many families also use the help of relatives. In France, almost 100% of the parents enroll their children into the public system of daycare, which is not mandatory and is considered as part of children’s early education. In France, extra assistance would be provided to a region rather than singling out individual families as in the US.
In a country like Denmark, childcare is different than France. The emphasis is not on an early education. Adults are there to supervise the children while they play and do not insert them into it.
The United States operates on a mother-replacement model of childcare. If the state wishes to replace the current methods, than they may want to use Denmark as an example. Family leave for both parents may want to be implemented in US legislature.
The article comes off as kind of critical and negative towards the United States’ daycare system. I was put in a private daycare at a Protestant church, and that was pretty good. A state run day care that is affordable to all people would be great and I think it would be beneficial to look to Europe’s methods in order to improve our own.

Work-Family Policies: The United States in International Perspective

Social Policy in the United States

The Welfare Debate: Who Pays for Procreation?
This article concerns the United States' welfare policy and its relationship to the black community. President Clinton signed a welfare reform law that changed welfare. It put some unfavorable regulations on it such as a limit of 5 years to any family. Since then, welfare has taken on a new role in society. It seen more as away of modifying the way of life of the poor. A stereotype persists that the majority of welfare recipients are black.
Welfare had always bent towards the favoritism of whites.



Money and Morality

Blessing or Curse? Work-Family Policies and
Mothers' Wage Growth Over Time

Unions' Responses to Family
Concerns

Unequal Work for Unequal Pay

Sex Work

What's Wrong with Prostitution?

This article explores prostitution. It tries to define prostitution and sex-work. Prostitution is seen as one of the most pathetic and horrid professions to go into. The author exclusively explores female prostitution, specifically inside of San Francisco. There are a variety of opinion prostitution culture. Some hate it, find it demeaning to women, etc. Some believe it should be legalized, destigmatized, supporting the benefits it has towards female empowerment
The author organizes the opinions on prostitution into three groupings: radical feminist critiques, pro-sex defenses, and contextual feminist approaches. The radical feminists are highly critical of prostitution. In their eyes it is demeaning towards women and continues the inequality in gender structures between man and woman. The pro-sex defenses come most from organizations such as COYOTE, comprised mainly of white, middle class, educated, sex workers who argue of its empowering abilities, and fight for its legality. They only represent a small minority and do not include in this the lower class who are uneducated, abused, and addicted to drugs, which are side effects of hookerdom and the structures that are put around it. There are middle ground views that see both the positives and negatives of prostitution. The author does not feel that prostitution will exist in the post-patriarchal society she hopes to one day live in.
The article explores many opinions, both positive and negative on prostitution. It did nothing to sway my opinion that prostitution as a profession should be wiped out. Pro-sex workers are kidding themselves to think what they are doing is good for society. They will just go on to create girls who dream of one day becoming hookers and that will lead some into becoming crack-addicted street walkers. I don't share the authors optimism with a post-patriarchal future. Inequality will come out of that and with a different kind of prostitution.

Whose Orgasm is this Anyway?

The author explores the sex lives of heterosexual married couples. There is much expectation regarding sex life compared to actual reality. What are the differences between fantasy expectation and reality?
Emphasis is put on emotion work, usually controlled by the woman. Sex expectations developed in the media have led to an increase in the concealment of actual sexual satisfaction, such as when the woman fakes an orgasm.
Sex work is normally defined as prostitution. Some argue that sex work is involved in marriage, in that you have work to please your partner. This usually described with regards to patriarchal views of sex structure. However, sex practice is more subjective with each couple. the author discusses how individuals are influenced by changing discourse of heterosex.
There's a feminist school of thought out there that decries the normal heterosexual relationship for its phallocentic nature. Women are more encouraged now to seek out their own sexual pleasure. Some feel that male dominance is necessary for heterosexual sex ethics and some women even feel empowered by it. who is doing more sex work in a heterosexual couple varies.
The main desire when it comes to sexual gratification, is a mutual orgasm. This not always possible. Sex dynamics change in heterosexual married couples. Sex activity wanes as they grow older and a desire for their former passion lingers. some couples have difficulty staying faithful, resort to pornography or masturbation, or come to terms with lack of sexual pleasure. Some are completely fine with out it.
This article depresses me as a heterosexual male. Is this the future? Not on my watch! I think maybe the happiest couples are the ones who don't make sex the centerpiece of their relationships. I blame the media. I agree with ideal of the mutual orgasm, but am realistic about it. I think maybe our culture is a little oversexed.

Stepford Wives and Hollow Men

Emotion work is a large part of marriage. Men are often not very good with this aspect. Women usually do the brunt of the emotion work. This may cause tensions and difficulties of communication in the family unit. Men and women also belong to separate genders and need to perform the correct roles and emotion work falls along these lines.
Emotion deals with how partners control their emotion for the sake of the other. Feminist scholars have argued that the way we go about emotion work is a side effect of male dominance of a relationship. Although people refer to men as hollow, it is mre than likely that they focus their emotional energies towards other matters like or instead on the husband-wife relationship. They don't want to appear vulnerable and worry the woman.
The emotion workers of the relationship don't want to come off as inauthentic, with good reason because no one likes a phony. A lot of strength emotion work is put into dealing with your other and you come as less than authentic. There are competing ideologies telling you how to behave. Women are often doing the emotion work and this drains them emotionally. They keep on such an even keel and may regress to a state soulless pleasantness that can be compared to the sci-fi cult classic "The Stepford Wives."
Yeah, emotions. Man and woman have emotions and they must keep them in check for each other. I agree with the chapter. I find nothing at fault. Woman are sometimes stretched all the way with their emotion work to the point them become stressed and robotic. Man is taught not express the emotions and may come off as distance. The problem will probably never go away, only return to us in different forms.

Sex Work for Middle Classes

This article deals with sex work among members of the middle class. You'd think being educated and more privileged would steer them away from sex work, but here we are. Middle class women have found a way to compartmentalize and create a logic that allows them to perform sexual services for a living, with out concern. One of the one's I read about used to be a preschool teacher. She said it was the perfect training for her later sex work.
The sex work is not just confined to street walking. It can involve phone sex, massage, call girl stuff, etc. Thanks to increase in technology advances, the sex workers can forgo the use of a pimp and self-promote themselves using the I Internet. It apparently pays well. Women may find it less offensive than working at a fast food restaurant. They can get hundreds of dollars for providing sexual favors.
If I sound critical of this practice, it's because I am. C'mon. Sex work is not something that's okay. I think class people have this romantic notion of being able raise their life status. They are not too far off from a life of luxury that the upper class enjoys. The dream is to earn a great living doing something easy, which I think sex is as people are naturally equipped to perform such acts. Turning it into as business seems to depreciate its value in society. It seems dehumanizing to put a price tag on the most human of acts. Well, OK, animals do sex as well. Maybe, natural. It's wrong to put a price tag on the most natural of acts. Sex is kind of like a game of roulette. If something goes wrong, something bad happens, like unwanted pregnancy or STI. You're kidding yourself if you think by regulating sex you can control outcomes. Too many variables.

Child Care?

Domestica!

Two chapters in the book Domestica have been read. This book goes into the topic of hired child care and housekeeping workers, focused on the Latina community in Los Angeles. The author is not fan of this system: Suburban, middle-class white women commanding lower class Latina to do their motherly duties for them. It's not entirely the Whites' fault. Growths in employment of women, the underdeveloped nature of American day care, the middle class prejudice towards day care centers, and the influx of Mexican/Latina immigrants factor into the rise of hired domestic workers. It seems to support inequality.
Paid domestic work is being racialized. It can be seen in our pop culture. Housekeepers are always Latina in movies and TV. It is a reflection of reality, while at the same time a reinforcement of a stereotype.
The author distiguishes the main types of Latina-oriented, paid domestic care work notiable in Los Angeles. Live-in nanny/housekeeper live within the household. Some are even on call 24/7 to obey the every command of their employer. She lives with one family and her primary responsibilities are taking care of the children and the upkeep of the homestead, jobs traditionally done by the mother. Live out nanny/housekeeper works multiple days a week. She takes care of the children and the house and then goes home to her own place and does the same. Housecleaners work a number of different houses, taking care of their upkeep and does not usually deal with the children. These women in Los Angeles deal with varying levels of satisfaction on the job. There may be cases of racism or isolation from employer.
This reading illuminated to me specific examples of the lives of Latina housekeepers. I wish the author didn't just focus on LA. I feel that perpetuates the superiority of California-based culture by focusing on it. I'm sure there are cases out there where the domestic workers are actually benefited from the relationship they have with their employment. The impact of nannies on the betterment of otherwise neglected children should not be overlooked.

Nanny Question in Feminism

People are hiring domestic servants to accomplish their child care work. This practice, according to the author, is unjust and furthers social inequality.
The inequality is a consequence of a number of factors. These include greater freedom of women to become professional, increase in social and economic inequality between households, and finding childcare arrangements a concern for working mothers.
New, "two-career households" with both partners committing to outside careers have arisen and will resort to hiring people to help raise children. These hired outside helpers include domestic servants, domestic workers, and nannies.
When the wealthy of society hire domestic servants, it results in injustice for individuals and society. Inequality is associated with the increase of domestic servants.
A tyranny is created among the employing parents. The household is different from the goods market and should not be treated similarly. There three perspectives on the matter of nannying: workers, employing parents, and children. The worker may feel alienated from self-values and sense of worth, leave behind her own family, but may appreciate their work. The employing parents, usually the mother, can be either an ally to the help or a competitor for the value she has in her child's life. The children may treat people like means instead of ends, but exposed to diversity and social interaction.

I believe the author is mostly correct in her assumptions. The service of nannying may very well provide a valuable service, but also may reinforce inequality. My main concern with nannying is having the child develop too strong a relationship with the nanny over the mother or father. But this may be necessary if the child is neglected by the parent. The article seemed to gloss over the benefits of nannies, but it was more about exposing the silent consequences of the practice.

Parental Leave and Child Care

A number of forces have made care giving undervalued. These include the development of industrialization and wage economics whose definition of work is centered on the production and servicing goods. Feminist theory has also devalued homework as woman's work and valued activities outside the home.
The definition of work is usually centered around the production and servicing of goods. Women who do care giving are put at an economic disadvantage due to this definition. Paid employment compresses homemaking labor into the leisure hours. The emphasis of labor has been placed on jobs outside of the home and should be oriented as so the home labor is considered of greater importance.
Home activity is squeezed to the edges of time and energy. Failure to make time for children and parenting may result in great stress in the parents and children. The care of people is not equal to the care of marketable goods.
How can this be improved? Maybe, shortening the work day, modifying time and wage?

Care giving work is not well respected in society according to the author and I agree. Care giving is considered lower than outside the home, paid work. People, women specifically, are growing to resent this role and neglect or hire others to do it, while they pursue outside home work. So, I agree with this article. Child care, parent care, family care, person care should elevated more in the public eye, not looked down upon because it is more necessary and fulfilling than A LOT OF THE OTHER JUNK OUT THERE PEOPLE MAKE MONEY OFF OF, LIKE THOSE SOUL-SELLING BUSINESSMEN/WOMEN.

Extended Kin Ties

Using Kin Ties for Child Care

The author of this research examines the the economics of the relationships among persons and their extended kin, not immediate family units. There are difference's in the kin relations of White Americans and minorities. The individual needs of the family play a important role in the family ties. Socio-economic status greatly effects the needs of families.
Child care is important and who takes care of the child factors greatly in his development. Their is a diminishing use in relatives taking care of the children, and more reliance on paid services. The rate of relative care is higher for Black and Hispanic families than White families. This however, is not immediately tied to cultural differences. Socio-economic factors are more important in the use of relatives vs. a paid service
This makes sense. Having been exposed to working class poor, middle class, and upper class lifestyles, I have seen the differences in action. It's unfortunate. Wish we could all be closer to our kin. More money, means more work, and less for others. Easier to just rely on a service. Plus, you have probably moved away from most of your kin, so it leaves out that option. The poorer you are they closer you stay to home.

The Color of Family Ties

This article focuses on the differences in family ties based on skin color. Again, white vs. black and Hispanic. Black/latino are more likely to have closer ties to extended kin. It is stated that Whites on average are more financially well off, and this factors in to family ties. In all colors, men are less involved with family than women.
The author finds that social class rather than color and culture plays a larger role in family relations. For example, whites in the poor class live similarly to black/latino in the poor class. All live closer to family and rely on them for help. However, we should denigrate or glorify the poor for their lifestyle. It's not their choice and is not necessarily better or worse than other classes. Social policies help to create the inequalities.

When I went on Appalachiathis summer, we volunteered in a predominantly Black, poor community. There was white family. I saw no difference in how either race lived. So, from what I observed, the socio-economic situation is the determinant factor in how they relate to others in their lives rather than perceived cultural prejudice.

Explaining the Gender Gap in Help to Parents

This research article goes into the subject of why adult daughters spend more time giving assistance to their parents than their sons. Nurturing elements of life are usually seen in the light of effeminacy. HOW MUCH OF THE DIFFERENCE CAN BE EXPLAINED BY SOCIAL STRUCTURE? Employment and job characteristics are factors in explaining the gender gap.
Paid employment can explain part of this factor. On average, women work less hours than men. They can devote more time to non-work related activities. There have been a number of studies made about this showing varying results.
The study finds that the gender gap is not that significant and it is decreasing. Employment status has been a factor in decreasing the gender gap.
Hard to argue science, so I won't. I agree with article. When my dad lost his job, I noticed that he became more active in connections with his parents and was also especially helpful taking care of my mother's parents when they fell ill. So, employment's a factor. I do howver think biology and culture play a large role. Women are naturally more equipped for nurturing roles in the family. Psychologically they have more empathy and are more motivated to help parents.

The Female World of Cards and Holidays

Women send out more cards than men. Wives often send the Christmas cards to her husbands kin. My mom does. Hope my wife does to make it easier for me, ha ha ha. Women are also more active in forming family events and celebrations, parties, etc. They just seem to care more. Maybe it's a psych thing?
Or maybe its social? Back in the day, maintenance of family life was set up as a girl thing and this way of thinking sspread through society like the Swine flu. A positive swine flu, in a way, but not exactly an egalitarian one. I mean, positive family relations are a good thing and someone's got to do them. Why not women?
The maintenance of family kin life is an uncredited form of women's work. It shown that if a woman/mother figure is absent in the family, extended kin ties falter. The men have less motivation.
Kin work has positives and negatives. Positives: fosters love, extra help, memories, happiness. Negatives: time-consuming, difficult, unnoticed, unappreciated. I think as men and women differences decrease then more men will take part in this. I don't necessarily know if that's a good thing. From what I have seen, women are much better at this and maybe we shouldn't fudge it. I mean if all differences between genders dissolve, how can we tell what is what? Is this inevitable? Should we be concerned?

Divison of Unpaid Labor

The Second Shift: Joey’s Problem

The Holts’ have a Joey problem. No, not a baby kangaroo. Joey is their son. Joey is not going to bed at a healthy hour and he is not very attached to his father. Both parents hesitate to acknowledge this as a huge problem because they figure that little boys are normally more attached to their mothers. This Joey problem may be the result of how Mr. and Mrs. Holt divide unpaid household labor.
The author divides the parents’ labor into two shifts. The first shift is the paid work they perform to maintain their lifestyle. The second shift is the unpaid labor they perform to take care of the house and their son. Surprise, surprise: the mother unit performs more housework and family care than the father. The mother taking care of household duties and father doing little to no household/family duties is rooted in the gender ideologies imprinted on them from childhood.
Nancy Holt would like Evan Holt to take more responsibilities to have equal sharing of duties in the household. Evan convinced her to work half as much to pick up the slack at home. This can be viewed as Nancy giving in to decrease tension in the marriage. The Holts now divide the work by upstairs and downstairs, which sounds equal, but results in Evan only really taking care of the dog and garage, while Nancy doing most parenting and household duties. This was all to keep up the appearance of a “family myth” while not being equal or helpful to create a family atmosphere. The struggle between husband and wife continued to manifest itself in the hardship of putting Joey to bed.
Nancy went out her way to schedule her life and leisure so as not to compare her life and work to her husband’s. This was to decrease tension between them to maintain a face value of family life. She now compares her life to other woman instead to avoid resentment. Equality in her marriage and family life is so important to Nancy that she twisted her own perceptions in order to be at peace with her life situation, even though it has little overall. It is unequal, but she not miserable about it.
This example of family life can viewed out in the real world so I agree with the author. It’s unfortunate. We as a society value equality, however, when we really look into it, there is a lot less equality in our lives than we are led to believe by greeting cards and TV, etc. The chapter shows what one would go through to settle into their situations even if they are less than ideal. Not that that’s a bad thing. I feel the author paints it in a more negative light than it should be. It more seems like a regular function of our humanity to think our way through a situation that is troubling until we are okay with it. It would be nice to see the father as a more active participant in the life of the child. That seems like a necessary duty that the father owes to the child to maintain a healthier lifestyle and upbringing for him or her, of course there are exceptions to this rule.

The Division of Domestic Labor in Lesbigay Families

Lesbian and gay couples do not include members of both sexes in the domestic union, so they do not necessarily fall into the common gender roles. However, like heterosexual couples, one partner usually takes care of more household chores than the other. In the media, a myth has been created portraying the homosexual couples as a more progressive, egalitarian union not weighed by the sexism that may arise from heterosexuality. Unique situations, such as extreme wealth or poverty, are more determinant in equality of division of household labor than gender.
In lesbigay families, it is not uncommon to find that the partners work in sectors that would normally be considered female-oriented careers, such as teaching or nursing. However, many do strive for successful careers in law or business that may fall into the male-dominated sector. The one who puts more hours towards his/her career takes care of the house less. The division of labor is not equal. This leads to all sorts of tensions in the families. Homosexuals are trying to prove to the world that they can be just as good or better than the heterosexual couples, however they are faced with basically the same difficulties.
I’m not an expert on lesbigay culture. From what the article tells me, their situation is not different from the heterosexual couples. Division of house labor is unequal no matter what the gender is. Career choices seem to pay a larger role than gender. Or maybe gay couples, despite being the same sex, have on female-oriented partner and one male-oriented partner, gender-wise, and play out those gender roles according to what society has laid out for those gender roles. I wish the author had interviewed and discussed lesbigay that were raising children. Just a romantic couple does not seem to constitute a family to me.

Doing Housework

Housework is not the same as paid work. You don’t get paid! Unless you’re a maid and that’s your career! But we’re talking here about heterosexual, married couples with outside careers and inside the house family and homestead related tasks that are unpaid. However, despite the division, we apply terminology for outside work to household work, which limits the perception of it.
Work in the household is more complex than it appears and much of it invisible to the person due to the language we use and of course cultural perceptions. Feeding, for example, is not really perceived as work despite it actually being a lengthy process. The mother spends time, thought, and effort in order to prepare a meal that will nutritionally satisfy her family and also appeal to their own personal tastes. The mealtime also is important in establishing a family dynamic. This invisible work leads to harmony and the family which spreads out into the community.
I agree with the author. Meal preparation is tricky, time-consuming, hard, and underappreciated. Mothers, usually, put a lot effort into it and don’t realize that it’s work. Which may be a good, because if they viewed it as work they may get frustrated over the lack of appreciation an create tension in the family. This invisible work may not seem as work to the parents because they see it more as coming from love instead of duty.

Autonomy, Dependence, or Display?

The author feels that the prevailing views on the relationship between earnings and housework are defective. Women’s earning capacity is more central to their housework than their husbands. Does is it bring more stress or does it help ease the load? Women with higher earnings than husbands will spend more time on housework and men with lower earnings than wife will spend even less time on housework, possibly reinforce the gender stereotypes and maintain their femininity or masculinity respectively. Women’s earnings matter more than husband’s in relation to housework according to these findings.
The author uses research and very dry statistics in order to show that women’s earnings matter more than husband’s in relation to housework according to these findings. It makes sense. Women are in most cases in control of the housework. Their money would more likely than not be applied to that, while husband may take of bills and buy HDTVs, etc. Though I’m not entirely convinced. There are probably exceptions to this rule, where the gender roles are reversed, etc.

Time Bind

Overworked Individuals or Overworked Families

This article discusses the topic of the amount of time people spend at work. It seems that adults in today's world are working more hours than they used to, but this is more due to working more weeks per year instead of more hours per week. Americans may not be as overworked as public consciousness assumes. Leisure time and work time are both increasing.