Blog 9 - 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? (2.) In Crittenden's view, what are the main indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States? Do you agree with her? (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"? (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?

The four main historical stages of development in the cultural notions of appropriate mothering in America in 17 – 20^th centuries were the pre-revolutionary era (late 17^th /early 18^th century), ‘Cult of Domesticity’ era (late 18^thth century), Progressive Era (late 19^th century) and the Permissive Era (early – mid 20^th century). /early 19
During the first historical stages there was a prevalent belief that childhood was a special and distinct stage; “it was the stage when the child needed to be ‘redeemed’ through strict discipline, molded by means of physical punishment, religious instruction, and participation in work life” (27). Women and mothers did not have an active role in the child’s rearing because women were thought to be “particularly susceptible to ‘passions’ and ‘affections,’ and given to ‘indulgence’ and ‘excessive fondness’” (27). As a result the child rearing depended more on the authority of the church, the community, and the male head of the household.
Notions of appropriate motherhood took a turn however during the late 18^th early 19^th century. The mother was no longer seen as a passive figure but rather the main overseer of childrearing. Fathers stepped aside as mothers assumed their new role of shepherdesses “leading their flocks on the path of righteousness” (30). There was also an evident explosion of domestic novels and child rearing manuals directed at mothers rather than at fathers or parents. Overall, “child-rearing came to be understood as a task that was best done primarily by the individual mother – without reliance on servants, older children, or other women. The mother was instructed to bring all her knowledge, religious devotion, and loving capacities to bear on the task, and she was urged to be consistently affectionate, constantly watchful of her own behavior, and extremely careful in guiding the child” (33).
During the period known as the “Progressive Era,” at the end of the 19^th century, “a mother’s instincts, virtue, and affection were no longer considered sufficient to ensure proper child rearing; she now had to be ‘scientifically’ trained” as a result of the growing belief in child-rearing as a science (39). Many psychologists of this period believed that “women in general and mothers in particular were irrational and emotional, but they also implied that, with careful expert guidance, it might be possible to educate them” (40). During this period, a mother was expected “to know all the latest information on physical, emotional, and cognitive development. She had to keep a tight rein on displays of affection in order to do her job properly. And she had to be objective, detached, and insightful in responding to her child’s needs” (44).
The final stage in the development of appropriate mothering, Hays points out, is known as the “Permissive Era”. During this particular period a mother’s love and affection was again emphasized; warning mothers that “unvarying obedience is not desirable and training should not come too early or be too strict” (45). Although, this era seems to be similar to the second stage of appropriate mothering development, it was not until the ‘permissive era’ that “child rearing became child-centered in the sense of being explicitly determined by the needs and desires of the children” (45).
Intensive mothering is a historically constructed cultural model for appropriate child care (21). This particular model “tell 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” (21). I believe that parts of this particular model apply both to my mother and the mothers of my friends. I think that all mothers, especially in the United States, have been either consciously or unconsciously affected by this particular parenting model to some degree. I know that my Mom definitely read the available literature on child-rearing around the time my three other sisters and I were born and probably adopted some of the methods that were suggested.

In Ann Crittenden’s view there are many indicators that mothering is devalued in the United States. Although many people say that child-rearing is the most important job in the world, the majority of society believes otherwise. There is a prevalent belief in our society that if women choose to stay home and raise their children instead of working a full time job they are labeled as being lazy and people who sit around all day doing nothing.
It is evident “across the board, individuals who assume the role of nurturer are punished and discouraged from performing the very tasks that everyone agrees are essential” (5). For example, many inflexible workplaces guarantee that women will have to cut back on, if not quit, their employment once they have children. “The result is a lost of income that produces a bigger wage gap between mothers and childless women than the wage gap between young men and women” (5).
Another indicator of the de-valuing of motherhood is the fact that marriage is still not an equal financial partnership. “Mothers in 47 of the 50 states do not have unequivocal legal right to half of the family’s assets” (6). Furthermore, “a family’s primary caregiver is not considered a full productive citizen, eligible in her own right for the major social insurance programs” (6). The only safety net for a caregiver who loses her source of support is welfare, and even that is no longer assured. Overall, it is evident that there is a huge economic burden placed on mother’s who choose to spend any serious amount of time with their children.
I fully agree with Crittenden’s argument. It again emphasizes the huge contradiction in our society between the equal importance placed on family and work. While the future of the world depends on women procreating as well as performing adequate child-rearing our society seems to dismiss this notion in all institutions. I heartily agree with Crittenden when she writes, “what is needed is across-the-board recognition – in the workplace, in the family, in the law, and in social policy – that someone has to do the necessary work of raising children and sustaining families, and that the reward for such vital work should not be professional marginalization, a loss of status, and an increased risk of poverty” (10).

According to Edin and Kefalas, in their article Unmarried with Children, the poor women’s attitudes on and experiences with marriage and childbearing are contrary to what the majority of people would think.
First, the stigma of a failed marriage is far worse than an out-of-wedlock birth. “Poor women do not reject marriage; they revere it. It is the conviction that marriage is forever that makes them think that divorce is worse than having a baby outside marriage” (22). Poor women are not willing to make promises they are not sure they can keep. Poor women also do not want to rush into marriage because, “like their elite counterparts, disadvantaged women set a high financial bar for marriage” (18). They are not content to rely on a man’s earnings; instead, they insist of being economically ‘set’ in their own right before taking marriage vows. Economic independence provides a kind of insurance against a marriage gone bad.
Secondly, although most people would think that when poor women were asked about what their life would be like without children they would express regret over foregone opportunities for school and careers; however, many poor women believed that having children saved them. For most poor women there was a prevalent belief that their children gave their life purpose, a purpose that was lacking in their previous life: “children are far from being liabilities, instead they provide crucial social-psychological resources – a strong sense of purpose and a profound source of intimacy” for their poor mothers (19). Edin and Kefalas also note that “until poor young women have more access to jobs that lead to financial independence the poor will continue to have children far sooner than most Americans think they should, while still defying marriage” (22).