Childhood

Children’s Share in Household Tasks 

By Goldscheider and Waite

In Children’s Share in Household Tasks, Goldscheider and Waite investigate the role of children in the home, focusing on how much they participate in household work and on the nature of their participation.  The authors describe how current definition of childhood is one that stresses the need for a child’s preparation for adult roles in the workplace rather than at home.  Children therefore take little responsibility in household work.  In order to better understand the role of children in the home, Goldscheider and Waite examine the results from their study, National Longitudinal Studies (NLS) of Young Women and Mature Women.  In this study, women answered a variety of questions about household chores.  Overall, the study indicated that children contribute about 15 percent of the share of household work.  However, the participation of children in household work varies according to the family structure, type of task, and age and gender of the child

In two-parent household, Goldscheider and Waite found that teenage children partake in a greater amount of household work than do younger children.  Further, the study showed that females contribute an overwhelmingly greater amount than do their male counterparts.  In fact, according to the study, Girls between the ages of 12 and 18 do the greatest share of work among children.  Upon further investigation, Goldscheider and Waite found that girls generally take part in such household tasks as cooking and cleaning, while boys are more likely to contribute to yard work.  When asked why parents assign “chores” to their kids, the overwhelming response was in order for their children to develop a sense of responsibility. 

Goldscheider and Waite found very different responses among single-mother homes.  In these families, all members are expected to contribute a greater amount.  Boys, in particular, contribute a greater amount.  This is partly because these boys often take on the roles of the absent father.  But this phenomenon is also due to the fact that in these families, the allocation of the tasks is less gender-specific. 

            I found this reading very relevant.  While I have always been exposed to the division of household tasks according to gender, I had never been aware of it.  Because of my own experience, I have always thought of fathers and children as useless around the house. 

Children’s Perspective

By Ellen Galinsky 

In Children’s Perspective, Ellen Galinsky confronts the issues of work and family through the lens of her Ask the Children study, which provides data from employed parents and children.  In studying this data, Galinsky found disparity between public opinion and research findings.  There our four debates that, according to Galnisky, expose this disparity.

            The first of these debates is based on the question of whether it bad for a child to have an employed mother.  Galinsky found that 76% of employed parents are do not think that an emplyed mother is deleterious to a child’s development.  Most of the 24% who disagreed with the majority were fathers.  The data revealed a greater opposition of mother employment among families in which the wife was not employed, which implies that people are more likely to support their situation.  While the parents of this study contributed passionate and divergent responses regarding this issue, there was relative uniformity of answers among children with employed- and unemployed-mothers.  Galinsky concludes that a children are more likely to be attached to their mothers according to how warm and responsive their mothers are, not according to their mothers’ employment statuses. 

            Galinsky then turns the attention to fathers.  The effects of employed fathers on their children are rarely debated.  Rather, the concern focuses on the negative effects of unemployed fathers.  According to Galinsky, this is due to society’s gender expectations, which demand economic responsibility of fathers.  Just like her conclusion of employed mothers, Galinsky maintains that it is not so much the father’s status of employment that matters as it is his attention to his children. 

Next Galinsky addresses the heated debate about childcare.  Is it good or bad for children’s development? According to Galinsky, childcare is often bad for children, but it is not because it displaces parental care.  Rather, it is bad for children if the care is of low quality.  It is the wuality of the childcare that determines the nature of its impact and Galinsky believes that it is in society’s power to establish good quality childcare.

            Finally, Galinsky discusses the debate of quality versus quantity.  According to the children in the study, they do not yearn for more time with their parents.  Rather, the wish that their parents were not so stressed and exhausted.  It is therefore the quality of time the parents spend with their children that matters.

            Adding children’s perspectives to the work and family debates added a very personal and innocent angle to the debates.  On the one hand, I was weary to accept some of the responses, as I did not feel that children could objectively assess their situation.  But then, on the other hand, I guess no one can provide objectivity about his or her situations.  

Fathering

Lost Fathers

In “Lost Fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America,” Cynthia R. Daniels examines the roles Black fathers play in the sponsorship of marital fatherhood as the solution for children’s well being.  Daniels maintains that fatherlessness in America is identified as a Black trait and seen as a Black problem.  She points out that unwed White mothers are seen as a cultural or racial defect and they are shamed.  Black unwed mothers, on the other hand, are defined as a major social problem and the are blamed rather than shamed.  “Black fatherlessness,” Daniels says, “is understood as a symptom of rebellious Black mothering, a symptom that dooms Black people to ruin” (Daniels 148).  But according to Daniels the high occurrence of fatherlessness in the Black community is partly the result of different notions of child rearing.  Black women have a distinct idea of motherhood that consists of sharing the responsibilities of child rearing with other women in the community.  Furthermore, “many presumably ‘absent’ Black fathers actually play a important role in child rearing” (Daniels 153).  Therefore the condemnation many Black fathers have received comes not from his under involvement with his children, but rather from his marital and economic status. 

            However, society continues to associate fatherlessness with the Black community because it is an easy explanation for Black people’s problems.  “Curing” fatherlessness, therefore, would an easy fix to their problem.  Daniels criticizes such policies as welfare and child support laws who maintain that goal.  She insists that “racial inequality—not fatherlessness—is the leading cause of Black children’s deprivation” (Daniels 157) and that “we cannot begin to judge Black fathers until we address the institutional forces that keep marriage a patriarchal system, devalue the work of child rearing, and deprive families of the social resources necessary to raise healthy children” (Daniels 158).

            At one point in this reading, Daniels tells us where the belief about the degenerate Black family as being the cause of Black people’s poverty comes from.  That information made me realize how much that belief, as ashamed as I am to admit it, has been ingrained in my own belief system.  Daniels made me realize that such a complex problem as poverty cannot be explained by such a simple situation as an “absent” father.  Further I believe he successfully conveyed the problem of broad cultural definitions of such personal things as family and parenthood.

Having It All: The Mother and Mr. Mom

In her book “Having it all: The Mother and Mr. Mom,” Francine Deutsch examines alternating-shift couple.  This group is comprised of blue-collar families in which the husbands and the wives work different shifts so as to share the responsibilities of caring for their children.  Deutsch identified two reasons for why these couples choose to alternate shifts.  The first was the issue of money.  since alternating shifters tend to have lower incomes, the shifts are necessary to the families’ economic wellbeing.  The second reason was the belief that family is the only group that should be taking care of children.  Deutsch identified a fear among these working-class couples that day care would stifle their ability to influence their kids with their own values.

Deutsch found that when middle-class families rejected day care, the mothers usually stayed home in order to ensure child care.  When working-class families rejected day care, however, the solution was for the father to forgo work time for the family.  This difference did not arise because working-class parents are revolting againt gender identities.  Rather, Deutsch that these blue-collar men still feel compelled to embody their traditional gender roles.  They still consider the domestic work they have taken on as women’s work, but they have accepted the work out of economic necessity.  The women from families also have not consciously separated themselves from their gender identities.  In fact Deutsch tells us that among these alternating-shifts families, the women are still seen as the primary caregivers. 

I thought it was really interesting that these alternating-shifts families established their family pattern according to traditional gender identities.  However, these very patterns ended up defying such identities.  I think the egalitarianism of these couples is truly impressive and I believe that families across all social classes would be better off adopting such a system.

 No Man’s Land

In her book “No Man’s Land,” Kathleen Gerson discusses the ongoing revolution taking place in the lives of modern day men.  In 1960, Gerson explains that ““the reigning ideology defined mature manhood almost exclusively in terms of achieving economic success and providing for wives and children” (Gerson 4).  However, since then, there has been a decline of men as the primary breadwinners.  Gerson explains that this decline has led to ambiguity about men’s identity and their proper place in society. In studying this phenomenon, Gerson focused on the differences among men, rather than the differences between men and women.  This is a necessary distinction, for according to Gerson the meaning of gender is undergoing a change and to understand this change requires an understanding of men’s perception.  Thus, she began her exploration by interviewing138 men chosen from alumni lists of a private university in New York and from a labor council’s lists of workers in order to chronicle the change and to better understand men’s behavior.  These men were between the ages of twenty-eight and forty-five and varied in their social background, though they were mostly non-Hispanic white.  In conducting the interviews, Gerson found that the difference contrasted less between the groups of middle-class and working-class men than within the groups, which contradicts reigning belief.

Gerson’s identifies several trends that comprise the change.  “Staled revolution,” she says is one that is comprised of men who refuse to partake in domestic work.  “Male rebels” is the trend of men choosing autonomy over marriage.  “Estranged dads,” Gerson states, are men who have families, but are absent from them.  Then there is the nurturing father, who is one who has accepted increased involvement in the domestic sphere.  These trends, Gerson argues, cannot be explained by either “masculine personality” or “cultural masculinity.”  The former implies that men have set psychological orientations that define them; this is inconsistent with the vast disparity found among the psychology of individual men.  Gerson explains that the latter explanation is a ““the cultural tradition that idealizes male flight from commitment is as old as American culture itself” (Gerson 263) and so it cannot account for the recent changes of patterns in men’s lives.  Further, Gerson maintains that this cultural tradition does not establish a definite behavioral outline.  Rather, Gerson outlines three social shifts that have largely contributed to the revolution: (1) the decline in men’s economic privilege, (2) the increasing attachment of women to employment, and (3) the growing presence of alternative options to marriage.  Gerson insists that neither the past nor “culture is…static, consistent, or determining” (Gerson 265) and so the roles that future men will play in society and their families is mostly indefinable.  

 

 

Women as Fathers

Women as Fathers: Motherhood and Child Care Under a Modified Patriarchy

By Barbara Katz Rothman

In “Under a Modified Patriarchy,” Barbara Katz Rothman presents the two types of kinship systems, each of which produce different ideas about a person’s identity.  The first of these systems is a patriarchal system in which a person’s identity is that which grows out of men’s seed.  The second system is a mother-based system in which “people are made of the care and nurturance that brings a baby forth into the world and turns the baby into a member of the society” (Rothman 90).  Rothman argues that our modern American kinship system is a bilateral one, meaning that the mother and father have equal claim over their children.  However, the definition of kin that characterizes our system is derived from the principles of the patriarchal system.  These patriarchal principles of kinship that saturate our current ideologies place all value in genetic ties, while denying the importance of all nurturance.

Today, genetic parenthood determines an individual’s identity and defines the parent-child relationship.  As such, this relationship, Rothman points out, is granted social and legal rights to which other genetic relationships are not privilege. Throughout her article, Rothman explores the implications of the long-standing practice of hiring mother-substitutes.  Rothman asserts that the way hired caregivers are treated, which is as disposable substitutes is deeply flawed. When the mother-substitutes do the nurturing tasks of mothering, the tasks are belittled.  However, when it is the mother completing these tasks, these tasks become treasured and idealized and are protected by the law.  Rather, Rothman insists that these caregivers must be given “legally recognized rights.  Someone who has been raising a child has moral rights invested in that child. At a minimum, we have to protect child-care workers from arbitrary firing, from loss of visitation rights to the children they raise, from having the relationship with the child used as a source of exploitation” (Rothman 103). 

In order to bring about a change, Rothman explains that we must change the system by which one person takes uses a portion of his or her salary in order to cover the salary of another.  This creates a class- and race-based pattern whereby the poor are hired to care for the children of the rich, while the children of the poor our often neglected.  Rothman believes that the solution to this problem would begin with monetary subsidies for childcare, which would mean that the costs for childcare would be a socially shared responsibility.  However, Rothman concludes that true change at can only be reached by rejecting the patriarchal definition that dictates our thought at a most fundamental level.

I found this article to be a very strange read because I felt that it shed a villainous light on m parents.  I could really relate to the discussion about caregivers as I always thought of my nanny in a motherly way.  However, I never thought about how my mother might feel about this.  I always thought of our relationship with Cathy as mutually beneficial; she took care of us and we assisted her, helping her get her citizenship.  Even though Cathy no longer works for us she still comes to us for support and we still go to her for support.  

The Price of Motherhood: Introduction

By  Anne Crittendon 

            In the introduction to her book, The Price of Motherhood, Anne Crittendon presents the problem of our society’s undervaluing of mother’s work at home.  She begins by discussing the venerated and mystified image the mother has incurred in our culture.  As Crittendon explains, however, this image provides mothers with no real compensation or insurance.  Rather, the economic view that childrearing deteriorates the caregivers use to society had saturated societal thought.  For this reason, caregiving is, in reality, penalize and often being a mother can turn into a handicap. 

Crittendon gives three examples to show that our society’s actions and policies conflict with its stated values.  The first of these examples is the uncompromising workplace, which forces women to decide between their careers and their children and creates an enormous gap between mothers and childless women.  The second example Crittendon cites is the unequal financial relationship hats develops that marriage creates.  Lastly, there is the fact that the family dependents who are devoting all their time to unpaid care receive no support, other welfare, if they lose their source of support.  This is because the government does not classify unpaid care as work.  The dependent caregiver, therefore, is not regarded as “a full productive citizen.” (pg 6).

            Society justifies its lack of compensation for mothers by maintaining that it is the women’s choice to have children.  Furthermore, it is in their nature to care for children and they do it out of love for their children.  But Crittendon argues that this does not justify the utter exploitation of the mother and devaluation of her work that our society has fostered.   

The Wage Penalty for Motherhood  

By Michelle J. Budig and Paula England

            In, “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood,” Michelle J. Budig and Paula England discuss how motherhood affects an employed woman’s wage, providing evidence of a wage penalty for mothers with children.  Budig and England describe four possible reasons that having children way lower a mother’s wage: (1) loss of job experience, (2) loss of productivity at work, (3) substitution of higher wages for mother-friendly jobs, and (4) employee discrimination.  However, all of these possible reasons are the effects of a greater issue, which is an indirect discrimination.  This issue, according to the authors, is that the demands and expectations of the workplace are incompatible with those of childrearing.

Budig and England explain that the mother is most often the one to pay almost all the cost of having children, while the rest of us are “‘free riders’ on their labor.”  In other words, everyone in society benefits from well raised children.  Past studies have found that part of the cost of motherhood is an immediate 4-6 percent wage penalty for women with one child.  However, this penalty has been shown to increase in the long-run and with additional children.  According to the human capital theory, this penalty can be explained by the fact that women conserve their energy for work in the home, which means that their work in the workplace suffers.  This inevitably leads to decreased wages.  Furthermore, because women are forced to divide their energy between the home and the workplace, they often choose less demanding, more “mother friendly” jobs once they have children.  There is the theory that it is not the effects of having children that lead to a decrease in wages among mothers, but rather it is that those women are less educated or have not pursued a career.  However, as Budig and England counter, this theory does not account for the fact that women’s wages continue to decline with the more children they have.

Finally, Budig and England conclude that young American mothers incur a wage penalty of roughly 7 percent per child.  They argue that one-third of this penalty is    produced by the fact that motherhood often leads to employment breaks and a decreased accumulation of years of experience and seniority.  They also found that a second child increases the wage penalty and that women who have never been married experience a lower child penalty than women who are married or divorced.  The authors believe that the rest of the penalty is brought about by a decreased productivity of mothers in the workplace as they spend more of their energy at home and by discrimination.  However, because social science research, as Budig and England explain, does not provide for a direct measure of either productivity or discrimination, it is unclear what causes the remaining motherhood penalty of 4 percent per child.  What is clear, Budig and Enlgand assert, is that childrearing receives little of the public support it deserves.  All sects of society benefit if the job is well done and so the authors believe that some of the costs of childrearing should be socialized in order to help the mother.

 Black Women and Motherhood

By Patricia Hill Collins

Patricia Hill Collins asserts that the African American mother has long been neglected in the feminist analysis.  Feminist work on motherhood during the 1970s and 1980s focused on the experience of White, middle-class women as mothers, failing to delineate how race and class affected the experience of motherhood. In the context of the African American communities, mothers are glorified and so sanctified that “the idea that mothers should live lives of sacrifice has come to be seen as the norm” (Christian 1985, 234).  However, despite their praise of their own mothers, Black men often neglect the mothers of their own children.  According to Collins, there are several aspects of the Black civil society that contribute to this model of Black motherhood.  To begin with, the Black community has long confronted racism by establishing an outwardly united front.  The community, particularly in the realm of motherhood, frowns upon any conflict or rebellion that threatens this front, as that is the apparent pillar of community and culture.  Furthermore, if Black women publicly criticize Black men, they experience harsh opposition in their community.  This stems from the idea that Black men are trying to protect Black womanhood and override the negative White male views with their own, positive ones.  Finally, Black women remain wary about U.S. feminism as it seems be comprised of a perceived Whiteness and antifamily politics.  Collins points out that with in the Black community, women hold varying stances on motherhood.  Some feel trapped and oppressed by it, while others feel that motherhood is a privilege from which they may grow.

Collins discusses the distinct practice of using what she calls “othermothers” that has developed in the Black community in order help with childrearing.  In this practice, the “bloodmothers,” or biological mothers, use extended kin or even “fictive kin” to help raise there kids.  Othermothers, therefore, form a women based set of networks that establish community-based childcare.  This practice began during slavery and has extended into present day, though the practice is dwindling.  In many instances othermothers are themselves children.  This follows the tradition of Black mothers training their daughter in domestic work from an early age.  This is to prepare them in supporting themselves.  Black mothers have thus developed a stereotype that is cold and unbending.  However, despite this stereotype, mothers hold a prominent place in Black society.  Today othermothers have used their social power and influence to begin trying to uplift their surroundings.   

 

 

American Fathering an Historical Perspective

In “American Fathering in Historical Perspective,” Joseph Pleck surveys the progression of the dominant images of fatherhood throughout U.S. history and how they provided a foundation for the father image today. He begins by studying the role of the father during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. While the mother undertook the majority of the caretaking, Pleck explains, it was the father who were believed that the father who was primarily responsible for the children. This belief originated from the idea that men possessed superior reason to that of women. Therefore, the children, who were viewed as naturally corrupt, required the reasonable and worldly influence of their father. As Pleck explainss, during the nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries mothers developed a more prominent role, while the father figure became increasingly more distant. This development, according to Pleck, was associated with an ideological shift in gender identities. Whereas the women had once been seen as illogical and foolish incapable of cultivating a child, she was now seen as nurturing and selfless. With this new identity, the mother was seen as the necessary nurturer. Pleck describes this shift as a product of industrialization when men’s work took them away from home. This geographical distance eventually translated into familial distance that weakened the father’s direct involvement in his child’s life. It was during this phenomenon that the idea of the father as the breadwinner occurred, an idea that said his role in the family was to mainly an outside economic one. In the years between 1940 and 1965, however, fathers were encouraged to reclaim an intimate and engaging role in the family. Pleck explains that this development was largely due to the fact that many fathers did not come home after World War II and it was believed that the absence of fathers had adverse effects on their children’s development. Furthermore, women’s new place in the workforce that began during the war demanded that the husband and wife share responsibilities. From this development evolved the rising image of the father today, which Pleck calls the “new father.” According to Pleck, “this new father differs from older images of involved fatherhood in several key respects: he is present at the birth; he is involved with his children as infants, not just when they are older; he participates in actual day-to-day work of child care...he is involved with his daughters as much as his sons.” (pg 358). I had never given much thought to the evolution of the father role, which proves that I am a product the dominant mother role. my mother never worked, nor did most of my contemporaries’ mothers work. So I saw a pretty uniform mother role. I never realized it until reading this article, but the same is not for the father role. While I have always seen the father as the breadwinner, I have also seen many different ways in which different fathers interact with their families. In my family, my father spent most of his time working and while his involvement in my dogs’ lives was the heaviest, he was equally involved in my brother’s life as he was in mine and my sister’s. He definitely made every effort to conform to the standards of the “new father,” and I saw the strain he experienced in trying to do so. But as he always said to me,“its not easy being perfect.”

From Rods to Reason

In “The Cultural Contradiction of Motherhood,” Sharon Hays explores the development in the ideologies of parenting. She begins by describing the prevailing views of child rearing in the Middle Ages. During this time children were seen as “‘gluttonous animals’ or as demons who attempted to drain their mother’s lifeblood as they bit at her breasts.” (pg 22). “When small children were not being fed, drugged, whipped or tossed, they were often simply ignored.” (pg23). Child rearing was not awarded any honor or status and it was for this reason that women, who “low on the scale of the great chain of being,” (pg 23) were the primary caregivers. Essentially children of the Middle Ages were ignored until they were able to contribute to the family’s wealth and status. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such views changed among Western European bourgeoisie and aristocracy. These groups began to cherish childhood. These families characterized children as possessing a certain innocence that the parents were required to protect. It was believed that childhood training, which included parental love, was of utmost importance in developing the child’s future character. the prevailing philosophies regarding parenting during this period were quite different among New England Puritans. While childhood was identified as a distinct stage in life, there was “no notion of childhood innocence, no protected place for children” (pg26). Rather, for these puritans, childhood was seen as a time to atone for natural sinfulness. During this time, Hays explains, the child was “consciously molded by means of physical punishment, religious instruction, and participation in work life.” (pg 27). While the New England mothers played an important role in raising their children, their role was likened to that of a sheepdog who keeps the sheep in line. But, just as the sheepdog must answer to the shepherd, so to did the wife have to obey her husband. Hays then goes on to explain how “by second half of the nineteenth century childrearing was synonymous with mothering” (pg 29) among the middle-class. From this environment arose the “cult of domesticity,” the “cult of true womanhood,” and the “Domestic Code,” which established women as the sole guiders of their children, eliminate the males role as the shepherd. The middle-class women worked to created an image for themselves as the “keepers of morality” who provided for the moral and emotional nourishment for their children and husbands and thereby helped fostered a more virtuous world. Physical discipline was abandoned for psychological discipline that was meant to inspire self-control. Hays is careful to point out that during this time “working-class women continued to be publicly understood as foolish, immodest, and devious.” (pg 37 Next, Hays discusses the brief period at the end of the nineteenth century in which by discussing our modern parental ideologies, which are the mother’s nurturing instincts were no longer believed to be adequate in raising a child. Instead, the opinion that raising a child is a scientific matter arose. However, the notions of childhood innocence and the adequacy of the mother’s nurturing instincts were soon restored. This restoration persisted into modern day, which, as Hays explains, is in the midst of an ideology of intensive mothering, in which children are endowed with an innocence that is to be protected from the market sphere. However, the context in which such notions are established is quite different than ever before. Hays concludes by discussing the contradiction of motherhood that arise from this context in which exist the new expectations of the working mother. I was not surprised to read about the varying views of children held by the periods discussed in article. Each view seemed to fit the stereotype that I have of their respective periods. I almost wanted to laugh in reading the about children in the Middle Ages. If nothing else I left this reading relieved that I missed growing up in the Middle Ages by a close couple hundred years. I found it fascinating how the image of the child evolved with and according to the image of the mother, and vice versa.

Is Domesticity Dead?

In the selected readings from Joan Williams’s “Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It,” Williams discusses the system of domesticity. She defines this system as “a gender system comprising most centrally of both the particular organization of market work and family work that arose around 1780, and the gender norms that justify, sustain, and reproduce that organization.” After defining domesticity, Williams studies its origins and explores its effects on society. In her introduction, Williams describes the two defining characteristics of domesticity as a gender system. The first is that as an organization of market work built upon an archetype of an ideal worker as one who works long hours that leave little time for caregiving. With such an organization, caregivers are unable to meet archetypal requirements of the worker. This leads to the second gender system distinction, which is that of marginalizing the caregiver. The system of domesticity must isolate the caregiver from “most of the social roles that offer responsibility and authority” (Pg 1) in order to ensure that the task of caregiving be carried out. Williams discusses how the role of the worker and that of the caregiver were delegated to each sex according to the gender identities that domesticity established. In establishing gender identities, gender character traits and personalities were assigned to each sex. For men, this character trait was natural competitiveness, which meant they were destined for market work, and for women it was selflessness, which made them naturally inclined for childrearing. In discussing the implications of domesticity, Williams spends much of chapter one refuting the argument she calls “choice rhetoric” that claims that no discrimination occurs if the woman chooses to be marginalized. Her claim is that in establishing the organization of market and family work, domesticity also creates social dynamics that force women into an arrangement of domesticity. In the context of domesticity, as Williams describes, there are three tenets that perpetuate the system; she compares these the context of these tenets to the context of the system of patriarch, which prevailed before the nineteenth century. The first of these tenets is that employers are entitled to ideal workers. The second is that men are entitled to be ideal workers. In the system of patriarchy, men defined themselves by their religious, political, and social roles as well as economic ones. However, in the shift to domesticity, men’s economic role became the primary definition of their worth. The last of these tenets is that “mothers should have ‘all the time in the world’ to give” (pg30). This arose from the creation of the symbolic world of domesticity, which painted the market realm as a cold and uncaring place full of strangers pursuing their own self-interests. Women, therefore, felt the need to care for their children on their own rather than commodifying that job by delegating it to the market realm. This tenet also arose with the arrival of the middle class as it ensured that mothers would develop the skills and middle-class virtues in their children. Williams concludes the chapter by asserting that the traditional arrangement of domesticity limits women to two options. The first is to devote themselves to market work and forgo the comforts of the family life market workingmen are granted. The alternative is to devote themselves to caregiving and forgo market work. Neither of these options, according to Williams, amount to equality. In reading this, I found myself supporting Williams’s arguments. It was fascinating how she described domesticity as a self-nourishing system. It creates the very stereotypes and organizations that sustain it, forcing both and men and women to unconsciously submit to it. I know that I am personally submerged in this organism of domesticity, though was not consciously aware of it before learning the term. This unconscious participation is said to be a choice, but as Williams explains it is not a choice. A choice is choosing between two candy bars. Being forced to accept your situation is not a choice, it is a necessity. I found the part about parents being terrified of allowing their kids to be raised by strangers. I was largely raised by a nanny, as were all the kids I knew. I do not have any negative feelings about this, I love my nanny as much as I love my mom as she treated me like her child. Furthermore, I don’t believe parents have to worry about their kids not learning their values. Parents can only do so much anyways, friends and their outside environment does the rest.