Matt Zeitlin on the Politics of Caregiving
Here’s an insightful note — with a graph!— from special guest Matt Zeitlin, a brilliant center-left blogger and, just as importantly, a young man who knows how to bowl.
Dana Goldstein wrote about some fascinating research showing that despite all the gains women have made in the work place since the 1970s, and a change in cultural expectations about child care, women still do fives times as much childcare than men. This research is the subject of Lisa Belkin’s New York Times Magazine article, and includes this one surprising finding:
Where the housework ratio is two to one, the wife-to-husband ratio for child care in the United States is close to five to one. As with housework, that ratio does not change as much as you would expect when you account for who brings home a paycheck. In a family where Mom stays home and Dad goes to work, she spends 15 hours a week caring for children and he spends 2. In families in which both parents are wage earners, Mom’s average drops to 11 and Dad’s goes up to 3. Lest you think this is at least a significant improvement over our parents and grandparents, not so fast. …
Back when women had to tend fires to cook and put clothes through the wringer and then onto the clothesline, they spent 50 hours a week on housework and men spent 20. (A ratio of 2.5 to 1.) And back in the 1950s, when no one was even bothering to measure how many hours men spent on child care because it was thought to be negligible, the average mother spent 12 to 15 hours caring for her children — the same as they spend today.
From a certain liberal, feminist perspective that I have a ton of sympathy with, and may well share, this is quite distressing news. There’s an argument to be made from straightforward gender egalitarianism that, ceteris paribus, child care ought to be split evenly. After all, men and women should be equal partners in a marriage, and surely basic egalitarianism ought to be modeled in the home, right? Also, from the perspective of enabling the flourishing of all people (which to me, is the central goal of liberalism) more egalitarianism in child care is incredibly important. Child care time directly trades off with other activities (work, self directed leisure time etc) that enable ones flourishing. You don’t have to be an arch Hirshmanite to see that child-care, especially the chores associated with it (which women do the overwhelming majority of) can sometimes inhibit flourishing, and more importantly, that a cultural norm which dictates that women do five times more child care likely inhibits the flourishing of all women, even if many of them “choose” to do it or think they are comfortable with it (I’m not implying false consciousness, so much as arguing that social norms can be injust on the whole even if they aren’t in their individual application). So, if we adopt methodological individualism and some basic liberal assumptions of egalitarianism (ones that could be found, behind, say a veil of ignorance) it becomes pretty clear that the child-care societal norm is wrong and we should try to make a new, more equitable norm.
But what about the children? John Podhoretz makes the good point that in discussions of gender egalitarianism in relationships, marriages and families, the benefit to the children of any arrangement isn’t always discussed (it is sometimes, and I don’t want to say that feminists/gender egalitarians are selfish children haters, but the Belkin piece itself is mostly concerned with the adults). So how should the children’s interests be evaluated. How much autonomy or potential flourishing should women give up for the sake of their kids?
(Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is some sort of trade-off). Many radical theorists, like Tufts literary theorist Lee Edelman, think that its this very obsession with “what’s best for the children” is is responsible for stultifying cultural norms that oppress all sorts of non-straight males. And even if there’s some sort of trade-off between gender egalitarianism and maximum benefit to the children, one could argue that justice and equality are supremely important, and that a society which requires women adopt unjust social norms in order to benefit children is not a just society. From the opposing perspective, a conservative could easily make the argument that the norms of child-raising are a classic example of the deeply embedded practices of a society that Rawlsian arguments about justice have no relevance to. No one is actually in the original position, they are in society and in their families and thus have certain ties and obligations that can’t be wished away for the sake of moral reasoning.
But even from the perspective of rights-based liberalism that holds justice at its highest value, one could make the argument that it’s the children’s interest which ought to be highest when discusses what the best norms are for child-rearing and family arrangements. The most obvious argument for putting children first is that they don’t choose to be in a familial relationship, while women, even if fairly strict patriarchal societal norms are in place, have much more freedom of action. Since children don’t make that choice, and using basic veil of ignorance assumptions, we should all assume that we could be children. So even if there’s a chance that we end up being an adult woman in this hypothetical society, at least then we’d have some choice about what type of familial arrangement to enter, if we’re a child however, it’s just a matter of dumb luck what type of familial arrangement we land in.
Of course, the best counter argument to this line of reasoning comes from Susan Moller Okin’s groundbreaking work Justice, Gender and the Family. The wikipedia summary just about nails it, saying “the family perpetuates gender inequalities throughout all of society, particularly because children acquire their values and ideas in the family’s sexist setting, then grow up to enact these ideas as adults. If a theory of justice is to be complete, Okin asserts that it must include women and it must address the gender inequalities she believes are prevalent in modern-day families.”
But even just assuming that we can have this debate within the libreral, Rawlisan framework is already conceding an awful lot. Rawls’ fanciful abstraction that is the original position makes sense for positing the justice of governmental institutions – after all, the individual is the basic subject of governmental institutions, so some abstract model of individual choice makes sense as a way of evaluating how just those institutions are. But it’s much harder to make that same argument about societal institutions or norms. While we very much “choose” what laws we have, we dont’ choose what the societally acceptable and promoted definition of a family is. Even if we can conclude that, as Moller argues, that our current set up is unjust, we can’t change the laws or constitution to amend it. Podhoretz is on to something when the says that familial behaviors are “deeply ingrained,” and thus are the exact types of norms that any conservative (and many liberals) would respect. But of course, I’d be neglectful if I didn’t mention the work of Stephanie Coontz, who argues in Marriage: A History (and more generally in all her work) that the status quo model of the family isn’t all that entrenched, and it’s actually a result of mass prosperity and American-Christian sexual mores, and is no more than 50 years old. So, a Coontzian would argue that we shouldn’t be afraid of altering existing norms in the name of justice because these norms aren’t all that entrenched.
So, in case you can’t tell, I don’t know exactly where I come down on this whole issue, except to say that I have varying sympathies with all four views on my 2×2 matrix of familial ethics.
Why would there be a tradeoff between gender equality and child welfare? Don’t you feel like you should at least offer some reason to entertain this idea, which on its face makes no sense, before launching into this extended discussion?
— Brendan · Jun 16, 06:31 PM · #
It seems to me that rights-based child-first rawlsian liberalism makes the most sense, followed by child-first conservatism. I still don’t really see how Olkin refutes the former. I mean, just because sexism is perpetuated through the family does not negate the possibility that a sexist arrangement is better for children. Now, I don’t actually know what is best for children, but I do know that children are first and foremost not property. Thus, if you so choose to set up some kind of family structure, it ought to take into primary consideration what is best for the child because the adoption of parenthood is a responsibility, not some inherent adult right or purchase. You are making the decision for the soon-to-be born child, and so it better be a fairly self-less decision. This is not so much Rawlsian as it is inherently liberal rights-based.
I think there is some darwinian basis for believing that our gender differences presuppose at least a bit of sexual inequality. After all, gender imbalances do seem to make a lot of sense when we’re talking about sexual attraction (ie. human mating rituals). In so much as conservatism applies, it is to argue not so much that the current family structure is a lasting human institution, but that an imbalanced arrangement between the genders may be inherently human. Given the imperfectability of human nature, we should preserve such arrangements as they are.
I’ll be very surprised if this made any sense.
— Doctor X · Jun 16, 06:32 PM · #
I’m with Brendan—you can’t just assume that a more gender-equitable distribution of childcare (independent of total time spent on childcare) would be harmful to children. Why would that be the case?
— Dan Miller · Jun 16, 07:24 PM · #
To be fair, he’s only assuming it “for the sake of argument.” But from where I’m sitting that makes almost as little sense as assuming for the sake of argument that household gender parity hurts endangered species, like manatees; I can’t think of any mechanism whereby it could, and there’s no evidence that it does, so why is there a conversation to be had? Why is the NYT article deficient for not addressing this imaginary problem?
— Brendan · Jun 16, 07:40 PM · #
Where is the discussion of innate biological differences between men and women? Men and women have very different interests and goals. That is going to impact on these kinds of issues, and you discuss none of it. Contra liberalism, men and women are not interchangable “individuals”.
What exactly is wrong with a man who is lukewarm about children, as many men are, saying to his wife, “Sure we can have kids, and I’m happy to pay for them, but I don’t want to do much of the day to day stuff”? He has no obligation to provide her children, so why shouldn’t they cut a deal. What happens if such deals are cut on a much more informal basis?
Any discussion of these kinds of issues without taking into account that in some ways men and women are very different will just make a hash of it, like this article.
— Thursday · Jun 16, 07:48 PM · #
Where you’re sitting is way out in left field.
— Adam Greenwood · Jun 16, 07:50 PM · #
I’d like to reiterate “Brendan · Jun 16, 03:40 PM”, adding only “Boosh!”
I really like that Thursday put the word obligation in italics.
— Mike · Jun 16, 08:01 PM · #
Thursday, you’ve changed the subject back to what’s good for parents. You’re wrong about that too, but the subject of this post is what’s good for children.
Does anyone have a serious point here that I’m missing? This is the most baffling American Scene post in a while, the more so for being from a “center left” dude.
— Brendan · Jun 16, 08:29 PM · #
I don’t know, Mr. Zeitlin. This is an impressive post, but I just don’t know.
You write, “Back when women had to tend fires to cook and put clothes through the wringer and then onto the clothesline, they spent 50 hours a week on housework and men spent 20.”
This is peripheral to your point, but I couldn’t help but think, playing Devil’s advocate:
Back when men had to break their backs, day in day out trying to feed and shelter their families, back when best case scenario for a wide swath of men was a secure soul-sucking job and enough savings, at the end of their short lives, to give their sons two-hundred dollars for passing Go and their daughters a dowry; back when worse case scenario was a sword or musket-round through the belly…
Also, you write: “There’s an argument to be made from straightforward gender egalitarianism that, ceteris paribus, child care ought to be split evenly.”
When defining ‘child-care’, how would you, or your referents, decide the following:
1. Person X negotiates and overcomes the external environment of the Family by acquiring means and maintaining a social niche.
2. Person Y uses those means to construct an ideal internal environment for the Children.
3. Person Y must also maintain, and maintain the morale, of Person X so that Person X continues doing that which is necessary and good.
4. Person X, in addition to maintaining and maintaining morale, must behave in such a way that the internal environment constructed by Person Y for the Children is not undermined or negated. And on and on…
It seems to me that ‘child-care’ must be conceptualized as an inside-outside (internal-external) duality, if our discussion is about time and opportunity cost. If, additionally, we begin to discuss quality and other factors, we are looking at a complex, multi-dimensional coordinate system in which Person Y and Person X — their respective labors, their resulting inputs — reside and fluctuate. Not easy, that.
In fact, to quote the operative, circumstances are even less simple than you think. What if, when deciding role distributions between the groups, we account for the mean, natural inclinations, if any, of Group X and Group Y? What if these mean inclinations underwrite natures that are better fitted, in general, for one particular role or the other? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to incorporate these inclinations into our model as weights and accents, without making them determinative? For instance, what if Group Y has natural communicative and emotional advantages which recommend Group Y, in general, to the Inside role? Even if Group X has no innate advantages to recommend them to the Outside role — its not clear whether X and Y are interchangeable, in general, on the Outside, but I’m assuming they are — wouldn’t it be wise to encourage Group Y, insofar as they are sitting on the fence, to adminster the Inside of the family and be the immediate, level one care-giver to the children?
Another fact we must keep in mind: dissolving the family only results in higher structure being necessary. Without the family — i.e. without an entity effectively staffed to maintain both internal and external order so that hardwon information can be passed to the next generation — or, alternatively, without a family-supplement that does the same, what results is fine-grained ethico-behavioral chaos, and its consequent, social disorder.
And this is just one view-point (i.e., Weltanschauung), one which carries more than a whiff of totalitarianism. The other side — i.e., arguments from Lebensanschauung — are as heteroglot as they are irrefutable.
— JA · Jun 16, 08:30 PM · #
“And let’s talk about child care vs. leisure. For women, these are two separate activities, but men have perfected a productivity enhancing technique called “multitasking.” Say a man is supposed to watch a child, but he also wants to watch a football game. Thanks to “multitasking,” this man can keep one eye on the football game, while at the same time keeping the other eye also on the football game. But in some remote sector of his brain he is vaguely aware that there is a child around somewhere, and if he hears anything suspicious, such as sirens or an explosion, he will respond immediately, unless it is a crucial third-down situation.”
—- Dave Barry
— Steve Sailer · Jun 16, 08:41 PM · #
A big reason women do more child care is because, on average, they like caring for children more. For many women, the years when their own children are small are the most satisfying of their lives.
Feminism is basically not about relations between women and men, it’s an organized attack by one group of women on another group of women in order to raise the social status of the first and lower the social status of the others.
— Steve Sailer · Jun 16, 08:49 PM · #
The hemming and hawing on this issue is clearly not a matter of unprincipled wishy-washiness and is instead caused by cogent arguments emanating from both sides of this debate. I do understand (and share to an extent) the desire for justice that is expressed. But, what is alluded to in the post, and not answered is that if we decided to “change” this societal norm, how would we? I don’t think it’s enough to simply say how one wouldn’t do it (i.e. by changing the constitution or what have you). Really, how could the change in societal norm possibly be accomplished?
The matter of choice in engaging in relationships is not a trivial one. If a group of women decided that they would not enter into a relationship unless child-rearing duties were equitable, and arguendo the majority of men don’t want this, the women that have made this choice have done nothing but simply to reduce their attractiveness as mates. Sure, they’d find some men willing to take that challenge, but their pickings would be slimmer unless a proportionate number of men decided they, too, wanted more equitable child-rearing responsibility.
It’s all well and good to “decide” that that should happen, but how would you “make” men and women make these choices spontaneously? Sure, you could launch some sort of PR-campaign, but who would pay for it? We already decided earlier in the post that government institutions are ill-suited to evaluating justice at anything but the individual level, so having the taxpayer pay for this PR campaign seems questionable. And besides, how effective would it really be? Did “Just say NO to drugs” work well? I’d say the number of people in prison on drug charges would beg to differ.
“Changing societal norms” is not something that is in any real sense controllable. Over time, more women have asked more responsibility of their men on child-rearing. Not all men have responded. The more women insist on more male responsibility, and the more men resist it, the more they make each other less attractive. As that impacts their social lives, they will adjust to the extent necessary to satisfy their relationship needs, and an equilibrium forms. That’s where we are. This is really a simple case of supply and demand for child-rearing responsibility. And any “justice”-seeker wanting to forcibly shift these supply and demand curves will be frustrated by their effort.
— John Bejarano · Jun 16, 09:11 PM · #
Brendan (and others): I’m not sure why you find it so hard to imagine possible mechanisms for gender imbalance in care-giving to improve the care given. It seems likely that a parent engaged in full-time child-care would become better at it than a parent doing half of the child care and spending half the time working. Call it a benefit of specialization, practice makes perfect, etc. A specializing care-providing parent would therefore provide better care two non-specializing parents devoting the same total time to child care.
In turn, a social norm in favor of mothers providing the bulk of care might well be the most efficient way to ensure that care is generally provided by one specializing parent (because individual parents negotiating things in a vacuum might be less likely to arrive at that arrangment).
That might be true or not, but it’s hardly out of the realm of possibility.
— Alex · Jun 16, 09:34 PM · #
If surveys show that women care for children significantly more than men, is it a plausible interpretation of the data to suggest that women may enjoy caring for children more than men? If surveys show that men are far more likely to watch sports or to perform routine automobile maintenance, then it is at least a plausible hypothesis that men like watching sports?
Is it reasonable to assume that the majority of women are so unable to control their situations that they are somehow trapped into child care? Could it be that women (for whatever reason) are more likely to choose child care? It seems to me that a lot of the outrage expressed over such statistics is expressed by people who are not representative of the statistics. I have no way of verifying that hypothesis (other than anecdotally, where it conforms with my experiences), but it would be useful to know how the genders feel about children ex ante, in media res, and ex post before deciding there is a problem. Either way, it is a bit patronizing towards women to suggest that they are incapable of choosing different partners/lifestyles to meet their preferences.
— kab · Jun 16, 10:06 PM · #
It would be helpful in deciding whether to read these lengthy comments if commenters began by noting how many years they’ve been married and how many kids they have just to indicate whether they have any real world experience.
— Steve Sailer · Jun 16, 11:34 PM · #
6 years, 2 kids.
— kab · Jun 16, 11:55 PM · #
Here’s a simple test: at a large social gathering, when somebody shows up with a tiny baby — not a smiling, laughing 8 month old, but wrinkled little 2 month old — what’s the sex ratio of the individuals who crowd around wanting to hold the baby? Ten to one female?
Honestly, does anybody over the age of 30 and who isn’t a lesbian take feminism seriously anymore?
— Steve Sailer · Jun 17, 12:24 AM · #
Alex,
You are arguing another point. Remember when people (many in these comments) use economic theory to model the family on a factory, citing Becker usually, the notion that the division of household labor is “efficient” means that it is optimized in regards to time and income. It has nothing to do with the quality of child care – in the same sense Adam Smith’s Pin Factory doesn’t make a better or worse quality pin, just more of them quicker. McDonald’s $1 menu gives you a pretty efficient hamburger, for instance. (Don’t worry, Becker had other equations for the “quality” of children a couple will invest towards.)
I really like this post, but it’s important to point out that Podhoretz and Zeitlin’s argument is predicated on the idea that an equal-sharing of child-rearing is likely a form of abuse/neglect/hurts-the-child, which is problematic assumption, no? It could be true, but I need more than an economic take, and given it’s rather ghastly implications, more than just a “for the sake of argument.”
SSailer – if everyone needed “real-world” experience to post comments/entries, the blogosphere would implode. Also – the real question is how many people gather around to change the baby’s diaper, not play peek-a-boo.
— Mike · Jun 17, 02:24 AM · #
Since women have had more certainty that a child is theirs and have performed most child care throughout human history, one might presume that evolution has selected for traits that make them better at child care. And in the real world that would seem to be the case. Really this should be obvious.
— Thursday · Jun 17, 02:42 AM · #
Mike,
Thanks for trying to help, but I actually wasn’t making an efficiency argument based on division of labor. I was making the far simpler point that people who do things all the time tend to get to be better at them than people do them sporadically. Now perhaps the difference between being a full-time care-giver and a half-time caregiver is inadequate to create meaningful distinction in the quality of care a parent provides. Or perhaps the quality of care from a single care-giver decreases due to fatigue after a certain point, rendering it a net detriment to the child. I don’t know. But I think the possibility that a single care-giver provides higher quality care due to greater experience can’t simply be rejected out of hand, as Brendan was implicity doing.
— Alex · Jun 17, 03:39 AM · #
Nice follow-up Alex – I see your point, though I still think it’s a problematic assumption (would it be ideal for a child never to interact with it’s father if there are increasing returns to specialization?). Thoughtful response though.
— Mike · Jun 17, 04:18 AM · #
Sailer observed: “when somebody shows up with a tiny baby — not a smiling, laughing 8 month old, but wrinkled little 2 month old — what’s the sex ratio of the individuals who crowd around wanting to hold the baby? Ten to one female?”
True. And when someone shows up at at a large social gathering with a handgun, the sex ratio of individuals who crowd around wanting to hold it are at least ten to one male.
— Carter · Jun 17, 04:24 AM · #
Steve, as it happens I am in my forties and not a lesbian and surpisingly believe in feminism. That’s because I am old enough to have seen women who had no choice but domestic drudgery and importantly little financial choices. Further, its not as if men are always reliable providers – its all very well to say that men will carry the burden of the external world for the family but this is not a certainty any woman can rely on and this is true then or now. As for childcare, I think the idea of equal participation in child care is based on the fact that a man need not be remote from his children and is more about the emancipation of men – indeed I know men who have excellent parenting skills. But of course any work that is non-monetary in nature or provides minimal wages has traditionally been for women, the lower classes et al which seems to persist to this day (like a working woman getting in a nanny).
As for the happiness of the child, how many children in extended families or traditional families grow up happy? Having children is important in any society but the equal welfare of all children hardly so. Then again, as I mentioned earlier in my post, people have forgotten what those old contsructs were in reality. All that’s left these days is some lazy justification of gender differences for banal stuff like women coo around babies and like shopping whilst men play with guns and watching sport ergo women want to grow babies whilst men are hard wired to avoid childcare.
— Shama · Jun 17, 06:54 AM · #
Is the “problem” here a) that child care is unevenly distributed within the family, b) that gender is predicative of any given parent’s child care hours, or c) that childcare is gender-skewed in the inter-household aggregate?
A world in which half the dads did all the work and half the moms did all the work would look, in the aggregate, just like one in which all couples split the work down the middle, but those two scenarios would be vastly different from one another, and probably have different implications for the models Matt presents.
While I can at least understand (if not share) the idea that gender shouldn’t be a predictor of how many hours of child care one performs (and that therefore a “fair” arrangement would show no gender skew in the aggregate), the goal of equalizing hours between spouses in the same family is crazy, especially as long as health care is shackled to full-time employment.
— Matt Frost · Jun 17, 02:24 PM · #
Don’t think it’s over just because your kids grow up! There’s another kind of caregiving coming your way, and women still outnumber men on this one too. It’s caring for your parents. Just the time you just about get your kids raised, dad has a heart attack, or mom gets cancer…
I do have to say that my husband was my partner. He took the financial/work brunt as I became my mother’s full-time caregiver (she had Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s) as well as picking my mom up off the floor, supporting me physically and emotionally. It really takes a partnership.
I’m just here to remind you—your caregiving days are far from over!
~Carol D. O’Dell
Author of Mothering Mother: A Daughter’s Humorous and Heartbreaking Memoir
available on Amazon
www.mothering-mother.com
— Carol O'Dell · Jun 18, 09:40 PM · #