Mothering/Motherhood

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

According to Sharon Hay’s Rods to Reasoning, there are four major periods in American history with very different philosophies on mothering. The first stage of this historical perspective, according to Hay’s, involves ignoring the child to a change on focusing on the innocent child. This was a common practice in Europe in the middle ages, where adults and educators believed children were demonic and had a propensity towards evil. There was something of a fear in children at the time. Parents used tight swaddling clothes to wrap the baby so that it didn’t eat its own limbs. Children were usually abandoned or left to someone else’s care if possible. Even the smallest tasks necessary for keeping the child alive were considered “an onerous task” (23). In this time period, children obeyed their father, who obeyed their king. The mother was just there to follow the father’s directions in rearing the child. Different children were treated differently as well, based on their potential for future earnings and success. By the ages of 6 or 7, children were fully expected to work or apprentice. And by even younger ages they were expected to help around the house, watch siblings etc. Though there was probably child affection, most didn’t seem to think it was worth sharing, especially because so many children didn’t make it to their teens. As children grew up, they were fully expected to support their parents in the same way they were supported. In the 17^thth centuries in Western Europe, this view changed a bit, generally among the bourgeoisie. Children were now seen as innocent and childhood was considered valuable and special. Harsh punishment like beating and flogging was decreased and parents started to protect their children from the outside dangers of the world. Children were to be taught reason, through strict discipline as children and through friendship as adults. They were to be shown affection and to be reared according to their inner nature. and 18

The next stage took place in the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries, but in New England. The style of mothering here was very much similar to the early middle ages of fear of children. They were swaddled and harshly disciplined, in order to loose their original sin and be redeemed. Child rearing was done through the father and through God. According to Hays: “It was only after the sinful child’s will had been quashed through the use of the rod that the child could be trained in appropriate obedience to God, parents, and work” (27). The children were subjected to hard work, and their worth was measured in their propensity to do this work –very much as an economic asset. Children who didn’t do their part were treated as a legal offender and could be sentenced to public punishment. The Father instilled fear, discipline and a strong hand on the child, while the mother listened to his will. In the catholic realm though, outside of the Protestant/Puritan realm things were slightly different. Original sin was expunged through baptism and the sacraments, so harsh physical punishment wasn’t as necessary. Parents generally showed affection to their children and they were given playmates. Still the dominant philosophy was that of the Puritans. Children held no special value and they were raised to be hardworking, god fearing citizens.

The next biggest change took place in the view of the mother as a moraler of sorts, for the middle class urban parent. Parents wanted to prolong child hood and again believed children were innocent. They used psychological discipline to as opposed to external discipline to shape their children. Mother’s had an important role in “Socializing the republic’s future citizens” (29). Women were educated in this role of protecting kids from the outside world, and this was the creation of the cult of domesticity –or strong separation between home and work, prevalent in the Victorian era. The mother’s role became important in the home, so she no longer was expected to work outside of it. All of her praise came from raising a good family and good citizens. Her affections were necessary for this to happen. The child’s angelic conscious was molded by the mother, and while the father was still the moral authority, the mother’s rule was very much more valued. Of course this only worked for middle class women who could afford to stay home and have housekeepers. Their love, nurture, and material acquisition kept children in line –poorer children had no such incentive. Their mothers worked long hours as house keepers and maids, and could only rely on external discipline to keep their kids in line. They didn’t have a clean, warm, and happy home to persuade their kids to stay in school and not earn money for the family. Also, Hays notes at this time, that there was very much a paradox between middle class values and lower class values. It is claimed that children of the middle class are raised to be independent while working class children are trained in obedience. While really, it’s the poor kids that are left on the streets to work and fend for them, while the rich kids were taken care of by domestics and their mothers. It was easy for the middle class women to talk about reform, when they had the economic materials to stay home and only worry about their house.

During the end of the 19^th century, a prevailing “doctor knows best” theory of mothering was put in place. The mother no longer knew what was best for her child, they had to listen to expert advice. They were told to schedule their children, and start potty training as soon as possible. Once again the child was full of dangerous impulses –no longer pure. Mothers were told to let their kids cry it out and not overburden them with affection as was their way; children were to be rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad. At the same time though, there was an increase of the importance of children in the eyes of their parents. They were once again innocent, compulsory schooling was enacted, as well as less harsh juvenile punishments. In this era, the government and experts tried to fix all family problems, including poverty. They tried to educate mothers and children to serve the nation’s greatness. Once again, the cult of domesticity came into play, ‘protecting’ mothers from working and allowing them to perfect mothering to a science. Focus was put into the scientific categories of emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development. Of course this was economically unsound, but allowed for less competition in the work force for men. It wasn’t until the next era, the permissive era, that the idea of mothers working and her values of the family came into play.

The permissive era is the era of intense mothering that Hays discusses, which began in the 1930s but still exists today. The goal is nurturing the child, but not on the adult’s schedule, instead, according to the needs and wants of the child. The child sets its feeding, sleeping, and changing schedule, not at the mother’s convenience. The child’s desires and fulfillment is most important, as well as preserving the child’s innocence, affection, purity and goodness. The demonic drives of children are considered natural and they are let be as apart of a necessary growing process, they are harmless if you will. Parents follow manuals and hope to establish a strong bond with their children to help in their cognitive development. Of course it is important that mothers didn’t over burden affection or under burden. Either is cause for psychological damage.

This idea of intense mothering is pervasive today. It says, according to Hays: “The model of intensive mothering tells us that children are innocent and priceless, that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers and that it should be centered on children’s needs, with methods that are informed by experts, labor-intensive, and costly. This, we are told, is the best model, largely because it is what children need and deserve” (21). This certainly reminds me of mothering techniques I’ve observed my whole life. I was not personally a victim of intensive mothering, but several of my friends from high school and college were and are today. They call their kids 4 times a day, they know about in explicit detail every assignment, every relationship, every drink, and experience their kids have ever had. And these friends of mine, upon going to college, find it nearly impossible to act independently of them. I swear sometimes I find them calling their mom’s to tell them they’re going to the bathroom. I think a good deal of space on the part of the mother, like my mom gave me because she worked all the time, allows for the child to foster and develop their sense of independence. The more you baby a child, the harder it is going to be to let go for both of them. I also find this is primarily amongst white, middle to upper class families, whose mothers usually stay home and have too much time on their hands. I’m not saying that it’s bad for women to stay home, but I often find it leads to this intense mothering, where the child has no freedom. It’s unfortunate, because it’s raising a generation of dependent cry babies, who turn to mommy and daddy the minute something goes wrong.

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

Crittenden make a few main points that indicate that mother’s are not valued highly enough for the amount of work they do in the home each day. She states that 2/3s of the nations wealth is created by human capital, which is developed by mothers. Mothers are then, if you will, the major producers in our economy. She claims that all of the hype around praising mothers is just hot air, they are still devalued and treated as sub-humans who do nothing but watch soap operas all day. She sites a few examples of legal cases in which women are actually penalized for choosing to be the primary caretaker of her children. One such example is of a woman in Massachusetts named Joanna Upton, who was a single mother working as a store manager who refused to work over time because then no one would be there to supervise her children. She sued the company for wrongful dismissal after being fired, and lost the case because an employee at ill will can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. There is no policy in place dealing with a parent’s responsibility to first care for his/her children. Crittenden sites a few examples of how the US is at war with itself over policies and our actual values. Most work places are inflexible, making it nearly impossible for women not to quit once they have children. There is resulting loss in income, and increase in the gap between what men and women make, and also between what mothers and single women make. For a college educated women, this can be up to 1 million dollars in lost profit. She states secondly, that marriage is still not an equal institution in 47 of 50 states. Women who stay home are not entitled to half the property before or after divorce. They are given no money except for what the judge allows as child support. Thirdly, the government doesn’t include “unpaid care of family dependents” as work, in its social policies (like social security benefits and pensions). A mother is thus not eligible for major insurance and protection programs, and is only offered welfare as a security blanket. She states that because of this, motherhood is the single greatest cause of poverty in old age. Even those women who work at schools and pre-schools are paid so little, because their work is considered babysitting. Crittendon calls for mass recognition of all the work women put into their homes and children, beyond salaries for stay at home moms. Women inevitable are punished no matter what they choose. If they work they deny themselves the most important thing they have –their children, and if they stay home they receive no benefits to help their children or themselves and are devalued in society as useless. She says: “if human abilities are the ultimate fount of economic progress, as many economists now agree, and if those abilities are nurtured (or stunted) in the early years, then mothers and other care givers of the young are the most important producers in the economy. They do have, literally, the most important job in the world” (11).

Her research and points seem very valid and reputable. Crittenden sites that her book is based on five years of hard research in various disciplines. She has personal experience as both the single working women (and married) who shuns mothers for doing nothing and staying home, and also a women who took a break from her career to care for her infant, the most important thing that has ever happened to her. I agree with much of what she is saying, and it is unfair that women don’t get paid for being mothers. Mothering is extremely important and it is undervalued in our society. But on the same token, she gives no credit to those who keep their careers and are still mothers. These women do twice as much, and still earn an income. I’m not underestimating what a woman does at home, but similar to what I stated in the last article, I also think that many women who stay home to care full time for their children become overbearing mothers and allow their kids absolutely no breathing room. They have little to focus their energy on than their children. Under this guise, shouldn’t women who work really be paid triple the amount that anyone else gets paid, since they take on the position of father bread-winner and mother nurturer? My own mother works long hours, travels several times a month, and has a 2 hour commute each day. When she comes home she still has to worry that my sister has been fed, that she’s bathed, done her homework, while packing lunches for the next day, signing permission slips and all of these things mothers day. I do believe that some reform needs to be made in this respect. Women are given no credit for all the hard work they do. They’re expected to perform these functions out of marital love, but I don’t’ really see how things can change. There’s no right answer to this problem. An improvement would be universal health care and child care so that no matter what path women choose, they are protected. Otherwise, it would be impractical and nearly impossible to pay house wives. How could such a price be put on house work? Until people’s attitudes change, nothing is going to happen. Women are undervalued by men AND themselves. We have to work together to create a new philosophy before any woman is REALLY respected for all she does.

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 article gives an interesting spin to black motherhood and feminism. She explains that feminist view points and view points on black mothering in general come from white men or white women who hope to create tracks away from family life and towards independent careers. She discusses how important and how highly esteemed mothers are in African American culture, but she also thinks a lot of this comes from black men who believe their mother’s are super strong women who do everything out of maternal love and selflessness. In the same way, these men then undervalue their wives and the mother’s of their children. Collins states: “In general, African-American women need a revitalized Black feminist analysis of motherhood that debunks the image of “happy slave,” whether the White-male-created “matriarch” or the Black-male-perpetuated “super strong Black mother” (176). She explains how there are two contradictory view points on motherhood in the black community. Some believe motherhood is a burdensome task that stifles creativity and others believe it is a “base for self-actualization, status in the black community, and a catalyst for social activism” (176). In this way, black women have two types of mothering: The mothering of their blood related offspring, and something called other-mothering. Of course biological mothers are expected to take care of their children, but due to the unique dynamic of many African American communities, there is the availability of other mothering. This means that someone else, other then a mother or father, takes over the roll and responsibility of caring for a child. This can be aiding in child care, like a neighbor, friend or close relative watching and supervising a child while parents are at work, or in a sense of informal adoption. What makes this system different from the white middle class version of child care is that these “other mothers” treat these children as if they were their own. They love them as their own child, feed the, clothe them, and also discipline as their own. There is no sense in the African American community of children as private property –everyone is in a sense responsible for the well being of children. Many mothers also rely on grandparents for the explicit care of their children, usually because they are retired and have time to watch and love the kid. Others include ‘fictive kin’, which is equivalent to a family friend who takes over the nurturing of a child. One specific story cited, discusses how a woman’s mother took in a child as her own when she was growing up. When this mother’s own child was dealing with the death of her grandmother (the woman who took the child in), this woman (the one taken in) helped the child deal with the loss. She was taking over the responsibility of love and support and passing it on to another needy person. Another interesting thing Collins discusses is the idea of women choosing other mothering over biological mothering. This usually happens in cases when women become pregnant before their ready or have children they don’t want. They choose to give their children away to other mothers who are more prepared to care for them. When they are then in turn ready to take on the care of a child, they become an “other mother” for someone else’s child, or several other children.

These different types of mothering are intricately related to the idea of black women as symbols of power. Collins touches on the fact that feminists believe mothering or maternal politics are an immature form of political activism, but that this idea raises questions for motherhood as a symbol of power. She explains that this might be an empowering technique for black women, encouraging them to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise take. For example, one woman who became divorced and was forced to move back to the unsafe streets of Detroit. A boy had held a gun to her son’s head but she refused to move because she wanted to stay and fight. Collins explains how motherhood politicized her. One writer Lisa Jones explains how her mother, who was white, fought to defend her mixed race daughter. She says: “Motherhood has been more than a domestic chore or emotional bond for my mother. It’s a political vocation- one she’s taken seriously enough to go up against the world for” (194). Mothers have to fight to keep their children alive physically, sometimes at the expense of their emotional health. I think that it’s a tough world, and black mothers have their job cut out for them in trying to raise good sons and daughters.

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?

This was a very interesting article for me to read. It’s really easy as a middle to upper class, college educated female to look down upon poor girls who get pregnant. It seems impractical, immoral, and an exacerbation of an already bad situation. But after reading Edin and Kefalas’ article, I have a whole new appreciation for the childbearing norms of poor women. In general, according to a study of 161 poor white, African American, and Puerto Rican teenage mothers, this demographic prefers to have children before marriage. The main subject of the article is a girl Jen who got pregnant at 15 with her 20 year old boyfriend. Her boyfriend Rick said he wanted to have a child with her, and he convinced her he loved her. He probably just didn’t want her to leave him. He was in and out of jail, doing drugs, selling them, and drinking a lot- clearly not made out to be a father. Jen claims that having her son Collin was the best thing she could have ever done. She’s the only one of her siblings to go back to school, about to graduate with a GED or a plan to go to college and get a good job. She’s working 10 hours 4 days a week while taking classes nights and weekends. Everything she and her son have she has paid for herself. If she didn’t have her son she would have no love or affection, due to the very unstable romantic relationships many poor teen mothers have. Her son provides her with his love and gives her something to live and come home for each day. Jen insists that marriage is in her future, like most of these women interviewed. They are waiting to be come financially independent, have a house, and a stable job before they get married, so that if it ends in divorce, as many marriages do, they will have a crutch. Jen explains how she doesn’t want to rely on him (being her husband or boyfriend) but wants her son to rely on her, as it should be. Relationships like Jens are usually full of mistrust due to chronic violence and infidelity, drug and alcohol abuse, criminal activity, and threat of imprisonment. This does not make for a reliable future husband. Also, many women in Jen’s situation believe that having a child out of wedlock is much worse then getting divorced. Jen wants to have a nice wedding and a secure future before walking down the aisle. She thinks marriage is about love and commitment, her son is just putting her on the right path. Of course she admits that her life would probably be easier without her son, but at the same time, she probably wouldn’t have cleaned up if it wasn’t for him. Edin and Kefalas explain that: “Their children, far from being liabilities, provide crucial social-psychological resources- a strong sense of purpose and a profound source of intimacy” (22). I think this is very important; and while teen pregnancy seems to be nothing to be proud of, I suppose if it’s putting young girls on the right path and giving them something to live for then it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.