"In the race against time, parents often inadvertently cut back on children's needs as well. For one thing, they cut corners in physical care. One working mother commented: "Do kids have to take a bath every night? We bathe Jeremy every other night and then otherwise wash his face and hands. Sort of sponge him off. He's surviving." Another mother questioned a child's need to change clothes every day: "Why can't kids wear the same pants three or four days in a row? When I was a girl, I had to change into fresh clothes every day, and my favorite clothes went by so quickly."
--Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Second Shift (Penguin, 2003), p. 206
i re-read this passage this morning and something about it really sticks in my craw. my pencil-written margin question is "who defines needs?" i can see her making this point to emphasize that parents see their own busy work/home schedules as interfering with an important aspect of child care, but my read is that the moms she's quoting here don't seem to think that every-other-day baths and re-wearing the same (presumably un-filthy) clothes are sacrifices of their child's "needs." neither do i. we do the same things in our house. maybe that's why this stood out to me ("hey hochschild, don't judge me for letting my daughter wear the same jeans three days in a row!")
it's a small point, but in hochschild's astute account of how american working families negotiate gender ideologies and divide up domestic responsibilities, i was a bit taken aback by the idea of some kind of universal, static parenting standard creeping into her analysis. an imagined sharon hays debates arlie hochschild in my mind--"this is intensive mothering she's talking about here! moms can never do enough or get it just right, can we?"
i think the core of my complaint and unease is the use of the word "needs" here. when it comes to child rearing, it's easy to say that children have needs, but when you get down to it, they're difficult to define or operationalize. they've certainly changed a lot over time (see, especially, rima apple's work). i think everyone agrees that kids need love, but we could talk for days about what that means, right? granted, love is a complex concept to pin down. but what about those more pedestrian aspects of parenting that reflect loving care? is a daily bath a need? what about 5 servings of (organic?) fruits and vegetables? being read to? primary care from a parent? 30 minutes of vigorous physical activity? in various arenas, i've seen/heard all of these labeled as "what children need."
can we give all of these things every day?
if we accept all of these as "needs" do we set ourselves up to be failures as mothers in our own minds?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree - needs are a difficult concept. And then socio-economic classes come into play. For the most part, people might agree that children "need" their own room - but what if the parents simply can't afford that?
I do think parents who are aware of these questions and asking about them are on the right path. And what one person considers an absolute need, another might not. Is soccer practice an absolute need? -rachel
my kids get baths every other day for sure. every day seems like overkill, unless they've smeared yogurt in their hair. and i wear the same pair of jeans every day, sometimes for a week (unless, again, i smear yogurt on myself). i think that parenthood is definitely about juggling and, quite simply, following your instincts about what your children "need."
on another note, given your reading interests lately, have you read "the maternal is political?" i sent my copy to samantha. i think you'd love it.
Post a Comment