The Effects of Mothers Working Outside the Home on their Children - Assignment Example

Dr. Philip Schumacher is interested in investigating the effects of mothers working outside the home on their children. For his sample, he gets all first graders in one elementary school. He divides them into three groups, depending on whether their mothers are home full-time, have part-time jobs, or work full-time outside of the home. He then compares the three groups on their IQ scores and on a measure of adjustment. He finds no significant differences among the three groups in IQ, but he does find that the children of full-time mothers score significantly lower than the other two groups on the measure of adjustment. He concludes that mothers full-time employment does indeed have negative effects on their children. a. Do a feminist analysis of gender bias in this research. The fact that a man orchestrated this study on the effects of maternal employment on children may have built-in gender bias in itself. The choice of topic Dr. Schumacher has chosen is in fact, interesting, however, it may raise the defensive walls of working mothers. If he has intentionally done the study to capture all mothers’ interest, then he may have already achieved success in that area. Had the results of the study been neutral, as in not implicating blame on maternal employment as having negative effects on children’s development, then the study would have been acceptable to feminists. However, the results yielded proved otherwise and triggers strong reactions from mothers concerned. The reasons for the possible adverse reactions this study may generate in working mothers is its implications that due to their employment, they are unsuccessful in their duty of raising their children well, hence these children develop adjustment difficulties. A lot of working mothers will beg to disagree. It is true that due to innate biological bonds, children share a special bond with their mothers that may be unique from the bond they share with their fathers. The enigma of the bond shared between mother and child has always been one topic of interest in feminist studies. One such celebrated study is by Harlow (as mentioned in Smith, 2006). His attachment experiment on baby rhesus monkeys preferring to snuggle up to an inanimate terry-cloth covered wire mesh mother over a wire mesh mother with flowing milk indicates that touch and warmth are considered more important than hunger satisfaction. Applied to humans, emotions and the attachment relationships are sought more than biological needs. This reality has made society expect mothers to be the prime caregivers of their children and home. However, the role of women has changed immensely from its traditional roots. A woman remains to be seen as the heart of the home, the primary nurturer of the family, the source of emotional support, however, she has evolved into something much more than a homemaker. Many critics claim, that in exerting all their efforts to advance themselves in the professional sphere, women become unable to perform successfully as mothers, wives and life partners. However, the latter are among primary duties of all women. Working mothers may take much of the blame when there is a cause of concern with regards to their child’s development. The study of Dr. Philip Schumacher which showed that children of full-time working mothers scored lower on the measure of adjustment and implies that mothers’ full time employment have negative effects on their children. What the study fails to take account is the effect of the father’s employment status and its effect on the children. How come women are held more accountable in the holistic development of children than men? Does this go back to the biological roots of maternal bonds earlier discussed, coupled with traditional roles society has placed on women? Whatever a woman decides with regards to how she would raise her children and perform her tasks as a worker in her employment should be respected by others, especially if she is conscientious in the carrying out all the responsibilities she has willingly or unwillingly accepted. In the same manner, a man should likewise be expected to uphold his duties as a member of the workforce, a provider for his family, a husband to his wife and a father to his children. b. Revise the research to meet the standards of gender fair research.   Traditionally, women have been assigned to care for her family and home while men were tasked to go out to seek livelihood for his family. Historically, the trend of women joining the work force was felt more strongly during war time. Historians have differing views of the changes women have undergone in the two world wars. Arthur Marwick’s stand is that the wars brought about women’s realizations of their rights and innate potentials that were put to the test when they were called out of their home duties and into the workforce. The opportunities available to women to experience an alternative role to the traditional one she has always been accustomed to broadened her horizons. This adventure outside her limited world opened her to options that were never considered in her traditional roles as wife, mother and homemaker. Marwick sees this as a positive development that benefited women. He sees it as emancipation from stereotypical views, perceptions and roles of women. Harold Smith, a revisionist historian begs to disagree. The changes brought about by war were mere disruptions in the flow of things. Experiencing work outside the home was a temporary and imperative diversion called for in the name of survival. It is indisputable that women’s roles had to be modified to cover a wider scope of responsibility, and with it may be some learning experiences and changes in attitude towards traditional sex roles. However, he believes that societal expectations of conforming to tradition held more power over the decision-making processes of women. Smith claims that a woman preferred to stay home to resume the performance of her home duties, which was a natural disposition for her. Penny Summerfield is another historian open to the views of both Marwick and Smith. Hers are likewise agreeable to them as she has tempered her beliefs to focus on the transformation of women. True, war may have shaken a woman up to the reality that she is capable of things beyond her imagination when she steps out of her comfort zone and foray into employment. She may feel thrilled at having survived the viciousness of war with her formidable spirit. However, she is also conscientious enough to know her limits and responsibilities. Top priority is still her duty to spouse and children. Such a multifaceted role is not to be undermined. A study by Dr. Philip Schumacher (as mentioned in Hyde, J., 2007) investigated the effects of mothers working outside the home on their children. His subjects included first graders grouped into three categories depending on the employment status of their mothers: whether their mothers were not employed and were full-time mothers; employed part time or employed on a full time basis. These children were compared on their IQ scores and measure of adjustment. The results of his study implied no significant difference in the IQ scores of the children however, the children of mothers employed full time fared lower on the measure of adjustment. A study by Figen Gürsoy and Müdriye Yildiz Biçakçi (2007) offers a different perspective. Their research indicates that the work status of mothers has a significant impact on the parental perception of their children, in particular how loving or punishing children perceive their mothers to be. “Children of working mothers view their parents as more loving and less punishing compared to children of nonworking mothers.” (p. 693). This may be due to the fact that since working mothers feel more guilty of the time spent apart from their children because of work, they are more bent on spending quality time with them with the limited time available, whereas full time mothers, who get to spend most of their time with their children may have the tendency to be more impatient with them. Moreover, In this study, it was hypothesized that the education level of working women may be higher than that of women who are not working, and thus that working women may have a broader perspective on society; also, it was predicted that working women would take care to spend higher quality time and establish a healthy relationship with their children. More educated women have a better understanding of child rearing as reported by current researches. Since working women have much responsibility on their hands, they learn to organize their time so as to include quality time with their children. A study by Starrels (1992) agrees with the previous study that children of working mothers had a more positive perception of their parents. However, Harvey (1999) warns that excessive attachment of the mother to work weakens communication with the child. Yet, this negative effect is cancelled out by the higher quality of care shown to the child by the working mother. This is supported by a study at the University of Texas at Austin, following mom-baby interactions and attachment. Results yielded from the study found that mothers’ personalities, beliefs and circumstances had more influence over bonding well with their babies than the sheer amount of time spent with them. References Gürsoy, F and Biçakçi, M., Y. (2007) “A Comparison Of Parental Attitude Perceptions In Children Of Working And Nonworking Mothers”, Social Behavior And Personality, 35(5), 693-706 Harriet J. Smith (2006) Parenting for Primates. Harvard University Press Harvey, E. (1999). “Do children lose when mothers work?” Worklife Report, 11, 9. Hyde, J. (2007) Half the Human Experience Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Marwick, A., (1990). War and Social Change in the Twentieth Century, 7th edit London: Macmillan Edu ltd, Smith, H., (1990) British Feminism in the Twentieth Century. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, Starrels, M. E. (1992) “Attitude similarity between mothers and children regarding maternal employment.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 102, 91-103. Summerfield, P. in Cosslett, T., Easton, A. & Summerfield, P.(1996) Women, Power and Resistance, Buckingham: Open University Press, “What Makes for Strong Bonds?” Scholastic Parent & Child September 2005 Read More