-__4'Q_-A' ~-..7 . .x/ LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKIIII IlllllllllllWillIllllllllllllllllllllllllllill 3 1293 02050 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled SOCIAL REPRODUCTION MATERNAL EMPLOYMENT AND RURAL RESIDEKICE: PLACE MATTERS presented by Cynthia B. Struthers has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in M 3. ¢/'/1<(/~L/// ///duction on their own or their children’s behalf. Employment and family life make peting demands on parents. Women’s greater investments in marriage and parenting 3 these demands especially great for women (see Thompson and Walker 1989). The movement of women into the labor market is the product of a number of ”'5 that has little to do with increasing the status of women and everything to do with hanged global economy. Women are entering the labor market because they 10 represent a reserve army of labor that is needed by companies to cut labor costs. Changing technologies allow women the opportunity to enter jobs that previously required greater strength and were occupied by men. Women are entering the labor market at the same time men are facing increasing unemployment. But women are being paid less and have less security in these jobs than when men primarily filled them (Amott 1993). These factors suggest that women face job insecurity even as they increase their production efforts. History has shown that a changing economy not only impacts men and women’s production but the relative contributions they make to the family as well (Cowan 1987). Second wave feminist theorists emphasized the positive effects of employment for women but are now more critically examining women’s employment. The important point is that maternal employment can have positive and negative impacts on women and their families. Overwhelmingly the expanding service economy has women performing work for pay that is similar to the unpaid work they do within the home. The conundrum of an expanding service economy for women is that it increases their production at the same time it increases their need for goods and services a service economy offers (J. Smith 1987). Stagnate wages and inflation has required that women work outside the home in order to maintain their household standard of living (Baca Zinn and Eitzen 1993). The benefits for women of entering the labor market vary by social class with those households with higher incomes improve the most by adding another earner. The movement of married women and women with children into the labor market are not a new or even phenomenon for women across racial or ethnic, or class categories. Poor and lower class women of African-American, Japanese, Mexican and white-ethnic ll descent have long histories of paid employment which differ in important ways from women in the middle class (Glenn 1992, Kessler-Harris 1982). White, middle-class feminists have been slow to acknowledge these differences (Baca Zinn, Cannon, Higginbotham and Dill 1986). The impact of the expanding service sector on rural women is not adequately revealed when broad changes in the economy are discussed. Rural counties with growing service economies also have growing populations (Johnson and Beale 1995). But not all service jobs are created equal. Service jobs in nonmetropolitan areas tend to be in back- office facilities in producer services. Production in these jobs “tends to be routinized, labor intensive, and poorly compensated” (Kassab 1997:645). Rural residents that work in consumer services tend to be concentrated in retailing. Retailing and low level manufacturing jobs consistently have high numbers of female employees. Within service industries wages are bifurcated and rural areas have lower paying service jobs than urban areas (Kassab 1997). The farm crisis increased the movement of farmwomen into the labor market to levels similar to rural non-farm and urban women. Rural women are concentrated in traditionally female occupations. Rural women also have difficulty finding stable and well paying jobs that match their education and skills. Poor women in rural areas are similar to other women because of limited job opportunities, low wages, and job instability. One big difference however is that the rural poor overall are more likely to be employed more regularly than the urban poor are and yet they remain poor (Haney 1997). The wages of rural mothers are unlikely to move their family out of 12 poverty. Given the types of jobs rural women have it is difficult to increase household incomes in substantial ways.1 My research contributes to the feminist literature regarding women’s production and social reproduction a number of ways. 1) I look specifically at how paid employment impacts the organization of social reproduction. 2) I focus on a population of women that has been largely ignored by feminist researchers. 3) I examine social reproduction at a time in which large numbers of women are working and have been working for some time. In addition I examine a population of rural women that has been largely overlooked in the rural literature as well. To-date there has been little research on the impact of the farm crisis on rural no-farm families. The Changing Economy: Social Reproduction Time spent in employment reduces the time parents can be home. This dynamic raises questions about how mothers allocate their time and energies. Mothers must make childcare arrangements that vary based on the number and ages of children they have and whether another adult is available in the household. The preference for family members to care for children increases the amount of shift work that parents are doing and can increase father’s participation in social reproduction (Presser 1986, 1988). The contradictions between paid employment and family has been made more clearly in the literature emphasizing men’s increased involvement in family life. One study finds that men increase their involvement in family life when their attempts at breadwinning are thwarted or they opt out of demanding occupations and jobs (Gerson 1993). This ' There are a number of books that look solely at nual poverty (Duncan 1992, RSS Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty 1993). Falk and Lyson (1993) look specifically at the under development of rural regions and particular counties. 13 research highlights the inherent difficulty in trying to combine paid employment with family life. Studies of rural childcare reveal that low-income rural families have a hard time finding childcare and that childcare is expensive. Rural residents are more likely to say they prefer family home care rather than childcare centers. There are however fewer childcare centers in rural areas and those that form to provide services to low-income residents are available in more populated parts of rural counties. When rural parents seek seasonal or temporary care they find it is not available when needed, it costs too much, and it is too far away. Rural mothers are more likely to rely on people they know when seeking childcare. Relatives are more likely to care for children 2 and under and older children are more likely to have care outside the home. Rural women tend to rely on caregivers for longer hours and over longer periods of time than urban women do (Atkinson 1994). As women have moved into the labor market their role as provider has been increasingly acknowledged (Hood 1983) however adding provider to their list of expected tasks has done little to reduce their responsibility for home and family (Hochschild 1992). My research examines how women prioritize their time and what aspects of social reproduction are most important to them when they work outside the home. If time spent in production reduces time available for social reproduction we need to know what women are doing to maintain family life of a daily basis. Does maternal employment help women meet their family’s basic needs, increase their standard or living, and what are the trade-offs they make? I also want to know whether women feel they are providing for the daily care and socialization of their children. 14 Changing Patterns of Marriage and Childbearing Women’s paid work is changing in response to economic forces and family life is changing in response to more paid employment. Age at first marriage has increased for both men and women, the number of children within households has decreased, and women are living longer resulting in fewer years spent in childrearing (Hartmann 1987). In addition, more women and men are living independently of family and outside of marriage for more sustained periods than ever before. For younger men and women this reflects time away at college and in jobs or careers prior to marriage, and for older women and men independent living is a result of divorce, separation, or personal choice. A growing number of men and women are choosing not to marry but they may choose to live in non-marital households (Goldschieder and Waite 1991). Traditional marriage with a sex-based division of labor has become an “option” rather than a cultural imperative. Studies find that most men and women do eventually chose to marry and though fertility has been declining overall, when cohort fertility is examined, the fertility rate is just under 2.0 for whites, and slightly greater than 2.0 for non-whites. Though women are bearing fewer children most women will choose to have children rather than remain childless (Cherlin 1992). Divorce and increased fertility among never-married women have resulted in the increased visibility and the number of family forms that vary from the nuclear form.2 The percentage of children under the age of 18 not living with both biological parents increased from 33 percent in 1981 to 43 percent in 1993. Estimates are that half of all 2 The nuclear form is an image of American families that has been perpetuated in the media and public discourse. A nuclear family is a unit that is separate from society and independent of other kin. A nuclear family is composed of a mother. father, and their children. Production and social reproduction within a nuclear family exhibits a sex-based division of labor (Baca Zinn and Eitzen 1993: 14-15). 15 dren today will spend some time in a single-parent family (Zill and Nord 1994:6). re women are heads of households and the sole support of their dependent children. men are more likely to be parenting alone with fewer financial resources available to household. Changes in family formation among the white population increasingly (e white household patterns similar to those among racial-ethnic households and ecially African-American families (Baca Zinn 1991). Racial-ethnic family theorists it that white, middle-class formation was historically precipitated and supported by ticular social and economic practices that advantaged this form while denying other lal-ethic groups the same opportunities (Dill 1988). Important differences exist between rural and urban family patterns. Married .ples with children remain the most common household form in rural areas (Hennon Brubaker 1988). Overall regions dependent on natural resources and with large lority populations are found to have persistent pockets of rural poverty. Poor rural lilies often consist of two-parent, married couples with one or more employed adults he household (Bryant and Davis-Gines 1997). Rural women tend to marry at a .nger age and have slightly more children than their urban cohorts (McLaughlin, hter, and Johnston 1993). Rural household patterns are becoming increasingly similar lrban patterns (Lichter and Eggebeen 1992). The number of female-headed households ural areas is growing. They exhibit two of the same demographic variables as urban lseholds, specifically racial-ethnic parentage and/or poverty (Garrett, Ng’andu, and ron 1992). These factors significantly affect the life chances of those who reside in m (McLaughlin and Sachs 1988). If two-parent rural families are more likely to be 16 or than single-parent families are twice disadvantaged. Even slightly larger families :an limited resources need to be stretched further. Changing fertility and marriage patterns are evident throughout Western lustrialized societies. What makes the United States distinct is the lack of government licy or support of families. Parents are expected to meet their families wants and needs thout overt and explicit support from employers or the government. Though vemmental agencies do intervene in family matters in cases of abuse, neglect, and indonment and social welfare programs have been developed to provide support to the lSt vulnerable. The current political climate is actually retreating from the provision of afety net for families and is increasing the burden of production and social iroduction for all families (Hewlett and West 1996). These trends and the farm crisis ve accelerated the ghettoization of the rural Midwest (Davidson 1990). As the government retreats from providing social support to vulnerable pulations theorists define the current stage of capitalism as “advanced >letarianization” or a phase of commodification and total dependence on production as : only way to meet a family’s basic needs. In the current phase of global capitalism lividuals lose complete access to “visible means of production” (Gimenez 1990231). In lition, as women increase their paid employment they lose the skills and the time :essary to increase their domestic labor to provide for their families (J. Smith 1987). , women in rural areas move into the labor market they too lose the time and may not velop the skills farmwomen had to turn available resources into family consumable oducts. 17 Economic restructuring, government retreat, and changing marriage and family terns make the study of social reproduction especially timely. My research illustrates t beliefs about the nuclear family form and the ability of families to provide for mselves is especially problematic for rural non-farm women. Beliefs about a family’s lity to be independent and self-supporting through hard work have been particularly mg among rural residents. And even though these beliefs rest more on myth than Jal historic patterns (Coontz 1992) they do carry important weight among rural .dents in the Midwest (Davidson 1990). ;ial Reproduction and Parenting In order to understand women’s continued commitment to family life we need to mine an aspect of social reproduction that requires both their physical presence and/or terial support. Most research about social reproduction to-date separates tasks ociated with the care of the home i.e., housework from the care associated with ldren i.e., childcare. Making a distinction between these aspects of social reproduction rtificial and negates the fact that raising a child from infancy to adulthood requires h. Emphasis on tasks associated with housework suggests that participation in social roduction stops when women work outside the home. An emphasis only on childcare gests that the physical, social, and emotional needs of a child can be met without also lntaining a physical dwelling or providing food and clothing. A contribution of my research to the existing literature on social reproduction is to k at parenting as an aspect of social reproduction that requires housework and ldcare. Because the tasks and activities of social reproduction have been largely risible there has been a tendency to exclude or compartmentalize the work. The 18 istruction of family life is not a simple task and because social reproduction does not form to the clearly defined parameters of production it is necessary to examine an >ect of this work that transcends the boundaries of home. I am choosing to focus :cifically on women’s perception of themselves as parents and the tasks and activities :y associate with that work. Asking women about their role as parents allows them to draw from a wide range activities they feel are important when raising children. Examining what women say )ut their role as parents also gets to the heart of the debate about commitment to .rriage and family life in the United States. The focus on parenting is made rsciously to emphasize the overlap that exists between production and social ll‘OdUCtiOfl and the ranges of activities women must engage in order to provide for )endent children. Men do engage in social reproduction and there is a burgeoning field literature that emphasizes their participation in family life (Gerson 1993, Coltrane 96). However men have been more reluctant to increase their time in housework and gage in many of the tasks associated with the care of the home. One important rtribution of feminism to the study of social reproduction and production is uncovering : gendered nature of the organization of the work (F erree 1990). It is at this historic period that beliefs about family life and rural areas are recially polarized and contradictory. On the right, politicians and some academics :ry the demise of family and frame debates about contemporary family life in the .ited States in terms of lost values and moral decline. On the left, there is broad :eptance that “family” and a commitment to forming and maintaining families remains 1 there are many different kinds of families and not a singular correct form. There is 19 however widespread agreement that the changes have taken place in the economy and marriage and family formation leave women and children vulnerable to a variety of social ills. By examining production and social reproduction within a rural context I hope to gain a more complete understanding of contemporary family life in a particular place. Research Questions Specific research questions to be addressed are as follows. 1) Are feminist and public/political discourses evident in women’s accounts of their roles social reproduction? 2) What is the local discourse about gender roles and the status of children’s lives and family life in the county? Because feminism has ofien been blamed for the movement of women into the labor market it makes sense to examine the impact of feminist theories on rural women. Also because public discourse and the agrarian ideology stress independence and the responsibility of individuals for their children it is important to examine evidence of these discourses on women. Answering these questions allows me to compare and contrast the discourse of rural non-farm women to these formal discourses. Once the above questions have been addressed a foundation is established to uncover new or different understandings of social reproduction for women. In chapter 6, I look more specifically at what is important to women about social reproduction. The research questions I examine are as follows. 3) How do women understand and articulate their participation in social reproduction? 4) What primacy do women place on their role as parents? 5) How does maternal employment shape or reorganize social reproduction? These questions are examined for evidence of differences by social class and other variables such as marital status. Answering these questions can enhance our understanding of social reproduction at the household level 20 and mother’s commitment to parenting and/or production. In addition I will show how production shapes social reproduction and how social reproduction shapes production for rural non-farm women. A final research question is, 6) Does living in a rural place shape social reproduction in particular ways? This question requires that I examine the impact rural residence has on production and social reproduction and the implications of this for family life. To answer this question I will look for evidence of the agrarian ideology in the local discourse and women’s comments about rural residence. I also examine whether the agrarian ideology shapes women’s expectations of family life in this rural county. Understanding how place matters leads to a greater understanding of rural residence as another system of inequality. This research project and the examination of these questions requires a review of the socialist feminist literature on social reproduction and the critique of this literature as it relates to contemporary family life. I also need to address the rural context by examining literature about rural areas and family life. In addition there are a number of other theoretical approaches that inform this project and that make it unique. One approach is to focus on family and rural areas as socially constructed. Not only do I only look at objective measures and family formation but the meaning that women attribute to their work and family life. A number of theoretical approaches are necessary to help me bridge theory with methods used in this research project. These approaches also aid in the operationalization and definition of concepts. In my research I seek to adopt a dialectic approach in order to explain more fully women’s continued commitment to marriage and family life. I seek to address topics of 21 omission in feminist theories of social reproduction by moving from the realm of the abstract to the experiences of ordinary women actively working and creating family life. Feminist theories have made important contributions to explaining the subordinated and secondary status of women in society. My contribution to feminist theory is to explain how restructuring specifically has had an impact on the social reproduction of rural women. And my research contributes to feminist research by illuminating the tasks and activities rural mothers believe are most important for their children and the positive impact their time social reproduction has for society. I am seeking to address gaps in our understanding of rural places and the families that live there by focusing specifically on non-farm women. Organization of the Dissertation Chapter 1 will include the statement of the research problem and a summary of the research questions. Chapter 2 includes a review of the pertinent literature and definitions of concepts used in the dissertation. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of the choice of methods I use for my analysis and my analytical strategy. This chapter also includes how variables in the household surveys and telephone survey are measured. Chapter 4 includes background information about the county under study and tables that describe the household characteristics of the women that participated in the face-to-face interviews and household surveys. I also included some household and demographic information about respondents that participated in the county telephone survey. Chapter 5 describes the formal discourses that could influence rural non-farm women’s views of production and social reproduction and a discourse of production and social reproduction 22 that emerges from their comments. Chapter 6 describes how women articulate and organize their social reproduction and it identifies the relational aspects of this work. I also discuss the intersections of social class and rural residence on production and social reproduction. In Chapter 7 I look at how the differential impact rural residence has on women and children and why the social context is important to understanding social reproduction. In Chapter 8 I summarize my findings, suggest weakness in method and interpretation, and suggest a future research agenda. 23 CHAPTER 2 Social Reproduction and Rural Family Life: A Review of the Literature Introduction: Discourse a3 Theory and Method There are a complexity of issues that surround women’s production and social reproduction in contemporary society. A theoretical and methodological device I will use in my research is to focus on discourses that shape our understanding of these social phenomena (D. Smith 1987a). It is essential to recognize that discourses operate at various levels with some discourses given more credence than others. In my research I examine different levels of discourse from the abstract, to the public, and to the ordinary. One level of abstract discourse has been the social-critical and feminist debates about processes that account for women’s secondary status in society. These theories have been used to increase the visibility of women and social reproduction as viable research topics and to challenge existing and male-centered understandings of social life (Glazer—Malbin 1979). They do inform our understanding of women’s lives but have not led to a greater understanding of the meaning of social reproduction for individual women. A goal of my research is to begin to reveal the meaning social reproduction has for the women. A second layer of discourse is the public and political debates over family values and the well being of family as an institution in society. Though academic influences are seen at this level this discourse takes place in the public policy realm. The public/political discourse is important because of the emphasis placed on women’s roles in social reproduction and production. One camp of the debate suggests women are failing to perform social reproduction when they work outside the home and that leaves children 24 and society vulnerable to a host of social problems. At the same time the retreat from providing social services to women with dependent children requires that women increase their time in paid employment. Public/political discourses are also important because of the impact they could have on rural residents’ beliefs about appropriate gender roles. One goal of my research is to see whether feminist and public/political discourses trickle down into the local and individual discourses. The local discourse is important to understanding what women believe is expected of them in their role as mothers by people in the surrounding community. Discourses can shape expectations they have of the county and the family life they expect to have because they live there. Family life and rural places are shrouded in myth. By looking at existing discourses about rural areas I hope to reveal both myths and realities about rural areas and the families that live there. Place matters if rural residents believe that rural areas are distinctively different from urban areas (Bell 1992). In this project I examine whether the local discourse of production and social reproduction shapes the behavior of local mothers. The local discourse is important because it may reflect the dominant discourse or it may reflect a discourse particular to local social context. Social context is important and studies illustrate the historical development of rural places has an important effect on rural residents life chances (Duncan and Lamborghini 1994, Duncan 1996). What people in the county believe are the norms regarding marriage and family formation and maternal employment could shape the opportunities and behaviors of rural non-farm women in positive or negative ways. Place matters because the resources available to individuals and their families vary from place to place. The local labor market shapes rural production and social 25 uction but this market is shaped by economic forces beyond the boundaries of the . Community studies show the lives of men and women in many rural counties are . by their ability to access jobs, opportunities, or resources elsewhere. There are nensions to this, some rural residents may be able to link up while others are not 3 more isolated a county is the less likely that links exist it and other places. Either eking resources elsewhere has an impact on local communities (Wilkinson 1991). Examining layers of discourse and the discourse of non-farm rural women can :e our understanding of contemporary family life. By examining the discourse of ry women we can see the impact of other discourses as well as an emerging rse of social reproduction and production. My research is an attempt to move fi'om tract to the ordinary to gain a better understanding of social reproduction at the [Old level. ist Theory and Practice Osmond and Thorne (1993) suggest that there is no singular feminist theory but are rather a wide range of perspectives that have often been in tension with one r” (p. 591). There are three themes that link feminist theories: “(the) emphasis l) on women and their experiences; (a) recognition that under existing social ements women are subordinated and oppressed; and a commitment to ending that subordination.” A fourth theme is the recognition that gender is an organizing lie of social life (Osmond and Thorne 1993 :592). Feminist perspectives have iced my choice of research subject that is I am interested in studying women and lIC, social reproduction, because I am interested in understanding women’s Jed commitment to marriage and family life. 26 If as the literature suggests women have more family and economic options than er before (Hartmann 1981), I have to ask why are they continuing to engage in social production. One possible explanation is that family life provides women with a sense satisfaction and a creative outlet that paid employment does not (Ribbens and Edwards 95. A reason to look specifically at social reproduction is to move away fi'om the rphasis placed on production and economic explanations for the whole of human perience (Milkman and Townsley 1994). Many theories of social reproduction posit at family work subordinates women and yet other theories suggest social reproduction ovide women a sense of fulfillment not measurable in economic terms. One critique of 3 feminist housework literature suggests that feminists have disparaged the work and 3 worker thus promoting an overwhelmingly negative view of contemporary family life .hlander and Bahr 1995). The power of this critique is the suggestion that feminist eorists have yet to uncover the importance of housework to women and society beyond contribution to capitalism. Feminist theories of social reproduction do consistently show that social production is gendered work (Berk 1985) and that women engage in more of it than 3n (Thompson and Walker 1989) even when they work outside the home (Hochschild 92). If women consistently engage in a disproportionate amount of social reproduction 3 must continue to ask why? The most basic explanation is that women bear children d men do not (Huber 1991). But there is also widespread agreement among thropologists that the care of babies and young children are vested in women beyond rat is biologically necessary in all known societies. Beyond biological imperatives it is >3ited that it is this gender-based division of labor that undergirds systems of gender 27 cation at home and the labor market (Chafetz 1991 :77). The social dimensions of nder division of labor are not revealed by the emphasis based on biology. Social luction is therefore a social construction and can be constructed in different ways so member of either sex can do it. It is however childbearing that necessarily and uniquely drives social luction. It is the processes of social reproduction that create families (DeVault In addition, having a baby separates the women from the girls and represents a passage into adulthood (F ernandez-Kelly 1994). Achieving the social status of r means that expectations and obligations are attached to the accompanying role. expectations of social reproduction require mental, manual, and emotional labor vestments in the care and socialization of children (Laslett and Brenner 1989). My 3h will expand the existing feminist literature of social reproduction by identifying macy women place on their role as mothers and the relational aspects of this work. identify expectations and obligations they have internalized and that explain their :ence in parenting. So far feminist theorizing on social reproduction has made the non-paid family 3f women visible and housework a viable research t0pic yet social reproduction rs ghettoized within the discipline of sociology (Stacey and Thorne 1985). The on paid employment as “work” negates and makes invisible women’s unpaid work : family and their contributions to other institutions (schools, hospitals, and the arts) gh their volunteer activities (Daniels 1987a, 1987b). Separating social reproduction iroduction perpetuated seeing social reproduction and production as separate and :tly different rather than overlapping realms of human experience. The focus on 28 ductive activity as “the” important and necessary work of society, made housework m trivial in comparison. Since women were largely responsible for social roduction it was theorized that this led to and perpetuated women’s oppression and ir secondary status in the labor market and society (Benston 1969, Cowan 1983 and L7, Dalla Costa 1972, Oakley 1974, and Smith 1987b) even though these theorists sgnize this work makes a vital contribution to society. Feminist theories sought to account for women’s subordinated status in society at the same time they failed to bridge the dichotomy that exists between work at home . in the labor market. Emphasizing social reproduction and the role of women in it :her reified the split between production and reproduction. In the current phase of italism however distinctions between the two are theorized to be meaningless (Glazer :7, 1993). Because both production and social reproduction require effort and must be lerstood as “work.” In addition both are co-opted by capitalist economic processes. corporations seek to cut production they increasingly pass many tasks on to women t they previously paid others to do. Because women believe they are doing this work family they fail to see how their social reproduction has increased. Women are refore engaging in an increased amount of unpaid labor in order to meet the needs of lr families (Glazer 1987, 1993). Feminist theorizing on social reproduction did illustrate that industrialization and anization increased the physical distance between the paid employment of men and men’s work within the home. Yet farm women and people in rural areas remained I 29 llved in domestic labor until fairly recently (Collins 1990).3 Men and women in rural 3 experience family work and paid employment differently than men and women in in areas. The white, urban, middle-class experience of family life and their work )ries are vastly different from racial-ethnic, working class women, and rural women. I have chosen to continue to focus primarily on rural women and their production social reproduction to emphasize women’s continued investment in family life. I eve we still need a better understanding of social reproduction. As a feminist archer I believe it is important and necessary to continue to focus on the activities of men.4 Socialist feminist researchers to date have failed to do a number of important gs that would increase what we know about social reproduction. In my research I am lg to address these failures by: l) Examining the dialectic and mutually reinforcing rre of production and reproduction. 2) Develop an understanding of family work in Linctions are made within the literature between the terms social reproduction, domestic labor, and ework. Collins (1990) defines domestic labor as both productive and reproductive activities that en, but especially rural women have engaged in. These types of activities could be keeping chickens garden and turning these into consumable forms for their families. Housework is defined and often rstood to be those tasks and activities that have become more highly technologized and more :sentative of the work of urban women (p. 3). Ferree (1990) defines housework as, a more limited 3 of tasks performed within white, urban middle-class households, primarily done by women. I tend lderstand and define social reproduction and housework in broad ways and use both to imply a wide 3 of tasks and activities involved in sustaining and maintaining a house and family members but :ially children. re is an increasing amount of literature that emphasizes men’s increasedinvolvement in and nitrnent to family work (Gerson 1993, Hood 1993, and Coltrane 1996). And though the importance of work to our increasing our understanding of family life in contemporary society I believe it is too 3r to shift our attention away from women and their continued involvement in maintaining family life. :hallenge to some post-modem discourses that suggest that a continued focus on gender is meaningless sock writes. Why is it that just at the moment when so many of us who have been silenced begin to md the right to name ourselves, to act as subjects rather than objects of history, that just then the ept of subjecthood becomes problematic? Just when we are forming our own theories about the world, rtainty emerges about whether the world can be theorized (1990:163-64). The shift to emphasizing ’s commitment to family life seems premature to me since we lack a comprehensive understanding of women experience this work. 30 non-economic terms. 3) Examine how participating in family work can be a creative rather than subordinating part of women’s lives. The Political @d Public Discourse of Social Reproduction: The Family Values Debaie Changing gender roles and concerns over the condition of family life in the United States results in a tremendous amount of media interest and political discussion. Seeking to understand contemporary gender roles in social reproduction and production force us to consider the impact of the family values debate on individuals. The family values debate has two sides. One side argues that family forms are changing in response to economic and other social forces but commitment to marriage and family life remain (Bane 1976, Stacey 1996). The other side argues that commitment to family life is declining resulting in a myriad of social problems. The inevitable outcome of declining commitment to family life is societal decline (Poponoe 1988). The family values debate can be understood as an organized conservative response to feminist activism of the 19703. Liberal feminism was encouraging women to enter the labor market and the labor market was expanding so they could enter. Because divorce rates and family forms were also changing, feminism and women’s paid employment became easy scapegoats for society’s ills. Just as research on abortion activism reveals wholly different approaches to defining the issues, literally from conception; there is little common ground found among family values debaters.’ The assumptions on which much of the family values debate rests are about family forms, the “naturalness” of a sex-based division of labor, and whether or not society is or is not in a state'of decline. The focus of the debate is largely on urban and white middle-class families though urban families of color are implicated in the debate and used as examples 31 of deviant family forms. Rural families are largely ignored except when farm families are elevated as the precursors of traditional families (Coontz 1992). The importance of the family values debate to my research is that it rests on a number of assumptions about social reproduction and production that conflict with each other. The reason the family values debate can be considered a public discourse is because public policies ofien rest on beliefs about what constitute proper family forms. On the one hand policies could be developed to support both men and women who want to parent. Universal programs and policies could be developed to support all family forms (Stacey 1996), or programs and policies could be introduced to encourage and protect nuclear families (Poponoe 1988). The family values debate continues because it is difficult to bridge the chasm that exists between the two sides. The Women’s Movement, a vastly changed economy, and the high rate of marital disruption in the US, has changed work and family patterns in ways that cannot be reversed (Coontz 1996). Maternal employment and marital disruption are most frequently identified as the cause of the declining conditions of women and children’s lives and many social problems that accompany these phenomenon (Dafoe Whitehead 1993). The family values debate reflects anxiety about the plight families and society. Awareness of the debate could increase insecurities about whether women are meeting their children’s needs if they work outside the home. The current economic and social reality of many peoples lives cannot be reconciled to the 19503 image of isolated nuclear families with a sex-based division of labor. Contemporary family life represents a new 5 For a comprehensive discussion of abortion activism in the United States see Luker (1984). 32 frontier with some researchers suggesting that we have entered a period of the post- modern family (Stacey 1991, 1996). The family values debate helps me define my research agenda because it raises the question of whether women are doing enough social reproduction if they work outside the home. Another question important to my research is what social reproduction are they doing? Given the competing demands placed on women in and outside the home the question becomes how do women prioritize and choose where to invest their energies. The importance of the family values debate to my research that it illustrates a dominant discourse about what families should be and it specifically links the success or failure of future generations to women’s investments in social reproduction. What the family values debate fails to address is how women understand and articulate their participation in social reproduction and what primacy they place on their roles as mothers. My research will reveal whether the discourse of family values impacts how women in this rural county talk about and understand their roles in production and social reproduction. The family values discourse could also impact the local discourse about gender roles and maternal employment. The Rural Context: Place Matters Lobao (1996) suggests that, “geographical space is the single element that has linked the diverse concerns of rural sociologists since our subfield’s inception” and “space as a concept has both particularistic and relational dimensions”(p. 77). My analysis will be based on data drawn from a particular county that has concrete political dimensions. Yet how people discuss their connection to this county is something that will require close examination of the data. The important question to answer is what 33 difference rural residence makes for mothers in the research county. I will examine the spatial and social context ofthe research county. Rural areas provide a unique setting for conducting social research because they provide a microcosm of social interaction between people and institutions that are more easily distinguished than in urban settings (Duncan 1996). But rural areas are also changing from areas previously dependent on single extractive industries (agriculture, fishing, forestry, or mining) to light manufacturing and service industries (Flora, Flora, Spears, and Swanson 1992). Community researchers believe rural areas are not becoming more like urban areas but are in a state of flux, rather than a period of transition suggesting the future or rural areas are particularly uncertain (Wilkinson 1991). Rural areas have consistently lagged behind urban areas in economic and social resources and the rural poverty literature suggests that they will continue to do so (RSS Task Force on Rural Poverty 1994). The rural literature suggests that rural families and households vary in important ways from urban families. Rural families are more likely to be white, two-parent households with at least one wage-earner (Hennon and Brubaker 1988). But family and household patterns in rural areas are increasingly similar to urban patterns in that marital disruption and single-parent families are becoming increasingly common and more women are working outside the home (Lichter and Eggebeen 1992). Farming families are still thought to differ in significant ways from other families. Farm families are more likely to be married couples with more children than urban families and conform to a sex- based division of labor (Salamon 1992). Rural economic development policies have rested on this view of farm families. Farm women are specifically sought to engage in 34 industrial homeworking so that they can combine their “traditional” responsibility for children and home while increasing household incomes to save family farms (Gringeri 1994). Tenants of a “lingering agrarian ideology” suggest beliefs about independence and self-sufficiency, traditional, nuclear families, and community support during times of crisis that are most applicable to Midwestern farm families. These beliefs are challenged by the growth of racial-ethnic and single-parent families in the Midwest (Naples 1994). Given the emphasis placed on marriage and a sex-based division of labor associated with farm families rural women have to rethink their expectations for work and family life. Restructuring and family disruption are forcing rural men and women into non-farm employment. These trends need to be considered along with the positive attributes people ascribe to rural places. Rural areas retain a positive image and are consistently rated more highly as desirable places to live than urban areas (Seebach 1992, Willits and Luloff 1995). For a rural researcher this subjective experience of rural areas has to be balanced against what is known about the lower amounts of social, economic, and political resources rural places can offer residents. Even as rural areas are beginning to be understood as something different from farming and agriculture, families and households have traditionally been a largely overlooked unit of analysis (Bokemeier 1997). My research seeks to clarify what rural mothers believe the differences are, that is, why they say they would rather raise their children here than in the suburbs or urban areas. In addition I move the focus of rural research from farm and agriculture to non-farm and service or industrial employment. My research seeks to expose lingering images of rural life with a contemporary picture of family life in rural areas. One part of the research problem is to 35 understand the difference that living in a rural area has women raising children. The other is to explain why living in a rural place is different from living in other places. To enhance the rural family literature I will examine whether feminist theory, the family values debate, or the agrarian ideology influence the local and individual discourse of social reproduction. I will also describe how rural women understand and articulate their participation in social reproduction in a particular rural county. And I will address whether living in this county shapes social reproduction in particular ways. Critical Theoryand the Multiple Contexts of Social Life Situating my study of social reproduction and family life within a rural county is true to Mills (1959/[1996]) dictum of the promise of sociology. Rural places provide a unique setting for establishing the multiple contexts of people’s lives. Women’s lives, family life, and rural areas have not been created and maintained in a vacuum. The literature regarding the economy, family life, and about rural areas shows many forces that actively shape everyday experiences. This study provides an excellent opportunity to examine both the history and biography of people and place. The changes taking place in family life and rural areas could be leading rural mothers to examine their private troubles increasingly as public issues which makes the emphasis on their paid employment important to understand social reproduction. The competing demands of production and social reproduction could lead women to question their roles in each. Due to their particular relationship to the means or production rural areas and rural residents constitute a distinct social class (Falk and Lyson 1993) My research should illustrate how or whether people articulate a distinctive class position because of rural residence. 36 Studies of rural turnaround illustrate that those rural counties closest to urban areas will continue to experience an influx of urban residents which suggests that people’s beliefs about rural areas may be changing. Those counties farthest away from urban areas are expected to continue to experience declining populations and will increasingly differ from rural counties closer to urban areas (Johnson 1993). Where a rural county is located will shape perceptions of rural residents in particular ways. Those counties closest to urban areas may bring urban expectations to rural areas but counties may be ill equipped to meet these growing needs. Two factors challenge important aspects of the agrarian ideal, the increased employment of women regardless of marital status or farm and non-farm residence, and the declining number of families actively farming. Rural residents’ sense of themselves as a class and their connections to the area may allow them to sustain traditional and agriculturally based understandings of their social world. Whether they can continue to sustain these beliefs in the face of the changes taking place in the economy and marriage and family life requires examination. The Social Construction of Reality Theories that posit that family life and rural are social creations are essential to understanding social reproduction and a sense of rural differentness. The social construction of family life is apparent in the work of DeVault (1987, 1991) and in how women construct caring work (Abel and Nelson 1990). Social reproduction is not just the activities in which women engage to procreate or recreate the class system but the is the creation of family. Family and family life are constructed at different levels. 37 In everyday life we refer to many objects, both tangible and intangible....They are objects for us because, as Durkheim said, we experience them as things. As parts of our experience, we take things to be somewhere outside the standpoint from which we refer to them, existing apart from our attention to them (Gubrium and Holstein 199026). The different levels of family construction are reflected in the discourses that surround them. The feminist theories, the family values debaters, and individuals construct families differently. Families are defined one way in the public realm but the families we construct differ in form and feeling. House, households, and homes are also socially constructed. “We speak and form opinions of house, home, and family...wherever domestic affairs are taken into account in making sense of oneself and one's ties to others” (Gubrium and Holstein 1990: 12). Analyzing how women describe their social reproduction provides a discourse for understanding more about their definitions of home and family life. Discourses contain ideas about domestic life (Gubrium and Holstein 1990213). Individual and public discourses also contain ideas about rural areas. Even if the difference between rural and urban areas is only "true in the mind," it is real in its consequences. Whatever the academic standing of the concepts such as community and the difference between country and city life, these ideas remain strongly held popular beliefs... I suggest that this fact in itself makes the rural-urban continuum. . .real (Bell 1992: 65-6). The rural literature reveals how farm and agricultural images of rural as pristine and untouched wilderness dominate urban residents views of rural areas and shapes development and public policy for these areas (Willits and Luloff 1995).“ Two forces are at work when we examine the social construction of rural places and the families that live there. People hold particular views about the places in which they live and they hold certain beliefs about family life. 6 What is good for farming has often been assumed to be good for rural areas. But the continued emphasis on rural as farm misinforrns public policy in many ways. leaving rural areas and families increasingly vulnerable (Browne et al., 1995). 38 My dissertation will contribute to the literature about the social construction of family life and rural areas in the following ways. I will examine the impact of formal discourses and the local discourses on rural mothers participation in social reproduction. I will identify ways these mothers’ discourses vary from dominant discourses of social reproduction. I will identify more clearly how rural women understand and articulate their investments in social reproduction. I will look at their expectations for family life in this rural area and the impact of rural residence on their employment and daily lives. Narrative Theory and Theories of Family Time Family work is different from paid work in important ways. Feminist research has found that too much focus on particular tasks and activities and the repetitive nature of the work removes the “joy” from it (DeVault 1987). Family time and the work performed on behalf of family needs to be seen in ways that are not linear or chronological. Patterns for a day’s activity do develop if women work outside the home but one does not stop being a parent even when engaged in paid work. Time and narrative can be linked to the analytical strategy that will be used in this research since part of the focus'is on how women construct family life. Asking women about the impact of employment on their social reproduction allows them the opportunity to tell a story about family life. “Even the simplest stories contain beginnings, middles, and ends” (Bridger (19942605). As women talk about their work and social reproduction a sequence of events should take place. Rather than asking women how much time a particular task or activity takes it is more important to me to understand how they organize their day and what they consider essential tasks to be the essential tasks of parenting. Family life is embedded within complex sets of social relations with other people and institutions. Social reproduction also does not conform to linear understandings of time. Family time needs to be understood as something that is shaped by, constrained by, and may overlap with other activities within the home and outside the home. 39 All families are interacting continuously with agents outside the home, whether it be through school, work, domestic labor, and related activities, such as access to public and commercial services or through leisure. The temporal demands made of family members by external agents, the relationship between the time frames of individuals and their social and professional trajectories...result in a complex and multifaceted patterning of time (Hantrais 19942608). Responsibility for the care of children does not end when their mothers are physically absent from them. We do not need to focus so much on how much time mothers spend in production or social reproduction but to understand that parenting and family life transcends linear understandings of time. Even preliminary review of the data reveals that mother’s paid employment conforms to linear patterns of time. Family life is constrained by the demands placed on parents by their employers. To understand family time we need to move beyond a linear understanding of it. Rosenau (1992) writes, The modern understanding of time is said to be oppressive, measuring and controlling one's activities....Linear time is viewed as offensively technical, rational, scientific, and hierarchical. Because modernity is excessively conscious of time, it somehow removes the joy from human existence (pp. 67-68). Employment is organized according to a modern understanding of time whereas family life transcends time. The data reveals that mothers alter and reorganize family life by letting some housework activity go undone in order to engage in spontaneous activity. Likewise children can make demands on their mothers even when they are sleeping. Narrative theory allows me to examine rural family life as it arises through the discourse that develops as women talk about their daily life. Listening to women describe their daily life and the emphasis they place on paid employment or social reproduction allows me examine the meaning that they attach to these activities. Meaning is defined as “...some kind of philosophical framework that provides us with explanations 40 of reality and helps us define our identity—so we glean a sense of who and what we are...” (Kantor and Lehr 1975:37). A purposeful identity is the primary target of the meaning dimension...For an individual, to have an identity means to have an integrated sense of direction and destination, an awareness of who one is what one would like to become (Kantor and Lehr 1975:51). Understanding meaning in this way is important to understanding women’s sense of themselves as mothers and/or workers. Understanding women’s sources of identity and meaning are important aspects of my research project because these appear to reflect commitment to employment and/or family life. A more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of work and family for women can only enhance our understanding of the relevance and impact of the family values debate. The relevance of rural sociology to the discipline of sociology and understanding rural in a highly urbanized world is the topic of much discussion among rural sociologists.7 The importance of these discussions for my work is in trying to determine where rural places and residents fit in what has been defined as an urban and modernized world. Though rural areas and the extractive industries situated there mechanized and adopted new technologies the areas did not become urbanized. In addition rural areas no longer depend on extractive or agriculturally based economies suggesting that they exist outside of the “modern” era. My point is that it is difficult to define with precision where rural areas are or have been when definitions of modern rest on assessing levels of urbanization and industrialization. Defining rural areas as being in flux rather than transition suggest that there is no clear pattern or trajectory for the future (Wilkinson 1991). Given the different investments in production and social reproduction among farm and urban and men and women in these places it makes sense to see non-farm rural women living in a state of 7 See Rural Sociology, Spring 1996 for a comprehensive discussion of issues surrounding the continued relevance of rural and rural sociology. 4l flux. They will not become farm women in the traditional sense and they are not living as urban women though it is possible to be hold urban ideals and live in the county. A study of Georgia farmers reveals that rural residents are not immune to consumerism and the impact of mass society on the countryside but that they cling to elements of farm life and beliefs about rural living that are important to them (Barlett 1993). The important point is that rural residence is on the one hand a rejection of urban living but not the adoption of farming either. Rural residents see living in rural places as a choice because they choose to remain in a rural area when other people are leaving or they choose to move there rather than remain in an urban area (F itchen 1991). Narrative theory is used to move our understanding of contemporary family life away from economic explanations of the social world. Different theories and methods allows me to examine how women understand and articulate their participation in social reproduction and how they organize this work in their own words. They allow me to explore the meaning of parenting for women. They allow me to see production and social reproduction as overlapping realms of women’s experience and how women actively construct their family life. These theories allow me examine how this rural county fits in a world dominated by urban expectations and myths about family life. Concepts Operationalizing concepts is more difficult in a project that examines the social construction of family life. The operationalization of concepts is also difficult when our definitions of family and rural are already imprecise. Yet concepts of family, social reproduction, and rural as defined elsewhere are important to my research. Indeed, the concept of family as, "a relatively permanent group of two or more people, who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and who usually live together, " is used to establish particular measures for deciding what are "families" and what are not (Macionis 42 1994:290). An understanding of the following concepts is important to establishing the foundation upon which my dissertation research rests. Discourse: “All that is written and spoken and all that invites dialogue or conversation. Discourse ‘even promotes its own reformulation’” (Agger 1990237 in Rosenau 1992zxi). Formal discourses about family, rural, and social reproduction are incorporated in this definition as is any discourse that emerges in comments made by mothers in the interviews. Family: Family can be understood as a social construct that arises out of the discourse that surrounds it; it implies domesticity, beliefs about the quality of social ties, feelings expressed for others, and/or contributions individuals make to a common good (Gubrium and Holstein 1990:13-14). The concept of family operates at different levels with public and academic definitions differing from how individuals define their family. The family values debate and feminist theorizing on “the family,” highlight the emotional and ideological baggage that surrounds this concept.8 Household: Household is about both place and people... Household is less a concrete place for family living than it is the idea that some place might be more or less homelike.... The household can be thought of as a locus of discovery for home life, more specifically for family life. It is a place where people believe family life might reside (Gubrium and Holstein, 1990). Understanding families and households as products of discourse allows us to look at the ideologies that shape women’s understanding of family life and how they describe their own families or households. Family and household are used interchangeably in this dissertation to refer to a particular respondent and references to her children, partner, and home. 3 Thorne (1992) describes how feminist definitions and theories of families differ from positivist definitions of “the family.” 43 . 1 (-1, / Parenting: A particular aspect of social reproduction that transcends the household and place of employment. Being a parent does not stop when one is physically absent from a child such as when a mother is at work. Likewise being a parent also requires the upkeep of a physical dwelling. Mother: A social status and the accompanying role with a culturally defined set of expectations and obligations for women who bear or adopt a child. Rural: “A place with a population or 2,500 or fewer.” (Rathge 1997). Rural places have or are thought to have particular social, cultural, and spatial dimensions. What make rural areas distinct from urban areas are the folk definitions that people use to describe them.9 My dissertation looks particularly at a nonmetropolitan, non- agriculturally dependent county in Michigan. Nonmetropolitan: A nonmetropolitan county is a county that does not contain a place with a minimum population of 50,000 (Rathge 1997). Rural and nonmetropolitan describe the rural school district and the county under study. Either concept can be used to define Research County, Michigan. '0 Cultural scripts: “messages from the culture about the ‘right way’ to be a mother” (Willard 19882225). A cultural script is, A rather specific cultural set of ideas about how events should take place so that members of that culture can be guided through major life events and changes... The script fiinctions as a map for people in a culture, helping to guide their choices (Willard 1988:226). The importance of the concept of cultural scripts is a way of establishing how formal discourses shape individuals understanding of what they do. Evidence of a script in the transcripts provides a mechanism for sorting and coding mother’s responses to interview questions. 9 Daniels (1987b) defines a folk concept as. “a commonsense notion of what [something] is” (p. 403). '0 The pseudonym of Research County is used throughout my dissertation in place of the actual county name. 44 CHAPTER 3 Methods and Analytical Strategy for the Research Project There are a number of strategies that 1 will employ as I examine the question of why women continue to engage in social reproduction. One strategy is to examine discourses about social reproduction and women’s roles in marriage and family life and determine whether these discourses impact how women describe their role as parents and mothers. The second strategy is to examine the impact paid employment has on their role as parents and how women organize social reproduction when they work outside the home. A third strategy is to examine the impact of rural residence on women’s production and social reproduction. An important goal of this project is to move our understanding of social reproduction from the abstract and theoretical realm to the realm of everyday life in order to gain a better understanding of how family life is socially constructed. Another goal is to begin to explain the meaning women attach to family life in contemporary society and to determine where and how mothers invest their energies. This study will use data from the Strategies for Rural Children and Families Research Project and documentary sources as appropriate. The Strategies for Rural Children and Families Research Project The Strategies for Rural Children and Families Research Project was a four-year interdisciplinary research project of a rural county in the Lower Peninsula of the State of Michigan. This Project began in 1993 and had a multi-methodological design that involved three phases of study. Phase One involved an assessment of the macro- 45 environment (community) using secondary data analysis, interviews with community knowledgeables, and focus groups with low-income mothers and social service providers. Phase Two involved an assessment of the microenvironment (families) using in-depth, face-to-face family interviews, a self-administered household survey, and a countywide telephone survey. Phase Three (in progress) draws together data from the previous phases to identify barriers to community, and institutional and family strategies to examine the impact of poverty on children. This research project was fiinded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station at Michigan State University, Project #3337. I began as a research assistant during Phase Two with the development of the household survey instrument and the face-to-face interview schedule. I conducted a third of the face-to-face family interviews but have access to all 30 original transcripts and coded interviews. Though funding for this project ended in June of 1997, this dissertation research continues Phase Three activities by analyzing and publishing findings based on the existing data. The qualitative data program used for coding and sorting of data from the face-to-face interviews is The Ethnograph. SPSS is being used in the analysis of the quantitative data gathered in the household surveys and the countywide telephone survey. A copy of the face-to—face interview schedule, the household survey, and the telephone survey are included in appendices A, B, and C, respectively. The research site for this project was a rural county in Michigan that has experienced economic decline and has a substantial number of residents living in poverty (Table 3.1). Data from the 1990 Census indicates that residents of the county had lower average incomes than residents of the State of Michigan and this was true for both 46 Table 3.1 Income and Poverty Data for Research County and the State of Michigan. Research County State of Michigan Description (1990) (1990) Average income of families $30,997 $41,609 with children Average income of married $36,442 $49,958 couple families Average income of female—headed $11,793 $15,419 families Percent of children under age 6 56.3% 54.1% with all custodial parents working Unemployment rate 6.8% 7.0% Children in poverty 24.9% 18.2% Under the age of 6 30.7% 21.8% Between 6—17 22.1% 16.4% Percent of children receiving 23.6% 21.2% food stamps+ Single female-headed families in poverty 64.7% 61.3% with children under age 5 only Single female-headed families in poverty 55.0% 48.1% with child under age 18 +Based on 1993 figures. married couples and single female-headed families. Child poverty for children less than 6 and between 6 and 17 years old is higher in Research County than the state. The percentage of the population living in rural areas in the county is higher than other counties in the state. An increased number of county residents are rural non-farm residents which means they are not actively engage in farming and/or their livelihood is not agriculture dependent. A growing population of non-farm rural residents reflects a trend consistent with other rural counties that are within commuting distance to metropolitan areas (Johnson and Beale 1995). Rural population growth reflects a number of different patterns. Broadly rural population growth reflects more rural residents staying in place and metropolitan residents moving to small towns and rural homes. Rural counties with growing populations tend to have growing service rather than agriculturally based economies. Rural population growth is affected by the type of economy and the populations moving in or out of the area. Patterns of migration into a rural county are important at the local level and reaction varies by the socioeconomic characteristics of new residents. One group are the children of current residents who are filling “good positions in local schools, agencies, and in businesses” (F itchen 1991 :91). These new residents have been successful elsewhere and tend to be educated and economically secure. The other returnees are from lower socioeconomic statuses. These new residents are less likely to have jobs or skills they can put to immediate use and may rely on social services (Fitchen 1991). What appears to draw both groups to rural areas are the presence of family and the desire to raise their children in a familiar setting. 48 In this county it was the presence of an increased number of low-income families that was raising concerns among local authorities. This population was thought to be transient, was placing increased demands on limited social services, and these children were thought to be unprepared to start school.1 To address these concerns community leaders in Research County identified children, youth, and family as priority issues and contacted the University about developing a research partnership. Community leaders consisted of county social service agency representatives, school district personnel, and county extension personnel. The University Research Team consisted of faculty and graduate students from the Departments of Sociology and Family and Child Ecology. Faculty members also had affiliation with the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. The research site for the face-to-face interviews and family survey was a small rural school district within the county. The school district actually spills over into two contiguous counties. The school district had a total population of 7,066 in 1990. Families were randomly drawn from a class list of second and third graders in the local school district. This was not however a random sample because we sought children whom had high or low reading scores and lived in families that were or had received social services. Community leaders consistently said they wanted research to focus on issues of school readiness and factors that might impact a child’s success in school. We focused on families with an eight to ten years old child because we were interested in how families ' Low-income mral residents even if they have connections to people in the area are seen as outsiders by higher status nual residents so various negative assumptions such as their permanence in the community are questioned (Fitchen 1991). Race. class, and gender have also been found to intersect when long-time residents of the Midwest look at newcomers in their communities. Mexican and Mexican Americans imigrants to rural Iowa and female-headed families are seen as undeserving and draining existing social services (Naples 1994). 49 change over the span of a child’s life and how the child’s experience of school had changed over a three-year period (first through third grade). The 1990 median household income for the county was $22,244 (as compared to the 1990 Michigan median household income of $3 1,020). In my analysis I use a household income of $25,000.00 as a proxy for the median county income. I hoped this amount would account for inflation since the 1990 Census and reflect the time of the family interviews in 1995. In addition using $25,000.00 allows me to make some comparisons between low and higher income households in the study. Overall nearly twenty percent of the households in Research County with children under 18 years old lived below the federal poverty level. The population of the county is racially homogenous. According to the 1990 Census of Population and Housing, 95.7% of the population of the county is white, non-Hispanic. Participants in the face-to-face interviews were also somewhat socioeconomically homogenous with most women and men working in blue collar and lower paying service occupations.2 Table 3.2 lists a family number, the occupation of the wife/mother and the husband/father if known. The occupational category was determined by looking at occupational category titles in the Public Use Microdata Samples, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Most of the face-to-face interviews were conducted in pe0ple’s homes though a couple of them took place at places of employment and in restaurants. The completed interview included comments by the interviewer describing the setting, characteristics of 2 Pseudonyms will be used when names are called for in my analysis. Pseudonyms have been assigned to each household and will be used as a way of organizing information in tables and attributing quotes to particular respondents. 50 Table 3.2 Occupational Classifications Used in 1990 Census of POpulation and Housing Categories for Family Interviews. Family # Female Male Incomes less than $25,000“ 3 NA sales occupation 5 service construction 8 stay at home mother machine Operator 11 machine Operator don't know 12 stay at home mother NA 13 machine Operator NA 14 administrative support don't know 16 stay at home laborer 18 service construction 21 stay at home construction 24 stay at home construction 25 machine Operator NA 27 stay at home transportation 28 stay at home machine Operator 29 service NA Incomes greater than $25000 1 professional specialty professional Specialty 2 stay at home repair 4 stay at home machine Operator 6 transportation repair 7 machine Operator machine operator 9 transportation transportation 10 service repair 15 administrative support repair 17 machine Operator unemployed 19 stay at home professional specialty 20 professional specialty construction 22 service construction 23 professional specialty technical 26 stay at home construction 30 service construction 51 the respondent, and their impression of the interview. Descriptions of the home or the Interview environment were provided in most cases. Respondents in the face-to-face interviews and household surveys lived in older model mobile homes or trailers or newer modular homes, and other single-family dwellings. These were older farmhouses to newer suburban style homes. The presence of mobile homes and clusters of mobile homes increased some resident’s sense of the transientness of lower-income residents. Yet assumptions about low-income residents are often incorrect especially about their connections to the county (F itchen 1991). Social class, length of residence, and number of moves were used as basic variables for coding and analyzing resident’s comments. As my research progressed marital status also became an important point of reference for sorting respondents’ comments. A Case Study This is an exploratory study of that examines social reproduction through the eyes of primarily lower-income women in a rural county. My research project is a case study of rural family life in one Michigan county. A case study approach is appropriate because my work is case specific, it is a “bounded system” (Stake 1996). Not only does the county have political and tenitorial boundaries but space such as this have “particular and relational dimensions” (Lobao 1996277). In my research I seek to describe what is particular about this county as a rural county. In addition I look at relational dimensions of the peOple who live in this place and their connections with other places beyond the county. 52 I will be developing a local discourse of social reproduction based on what residents of this county said in response to questions in the telephone survey and based on comments made by mothers in the face-to-face interviews. The telephone survey is a random sample of county residents drawn through random-digit-dialing. The face-to- face interviews and household surveys though not a random sample further enhance our understanding of social reproduction in the county. The face-to-face interviews and household surveys collected data primarily from lower income rural mothers. My research is both an intrinsic case study and an instrumental case study. An intrinsic case study is “undertaken because one wants better understanding of this particular case.” While in an instrumental case study, “a particular case is examined to provide insight into an issue or refinement of a theory” (Stake 1996:237). On the one hand, I am doing an intrinsic case study because I am seeking to examine perceptions of non-farm rural residents in the county in which they live. I want to understand why mothers say they prefer living in this county. 1 am also interested in enhancing existing feminist theories of social reproduction, which makes my research an instrumental case study. My conceptualization of case study reflects the understanding that a case study is an analysis of “social phenomena specific to time and place” (Ragin 199222) and, an examination of “a single social phenomenon or unit of analysis--for example, a particular community, organization, or small informal group” (Singleton, Straits, and Straits 1993:317). A case study of the county allows me to establish boundaries for the local context, the rural school district, and the families that are situated within it. The unit of analysis is the household. 53 Case study as method provides three advantages to studying social reproduction. It allows me to take into account the particular local context, to explore the perceptions and experiences of individuals in these areas (Naples 1994), and, case studies illuminate the diversity and complexity of family life. This is important because my research examines the layers of meaning that surround women’s lives in a rural place. Qualitative methods provide the opportunity to explore the perceptions and the experiences of individuals who have experienced either family changes or changes in employment brought on by shifts in the economy. Finally, case studies allow for the opportunity to examine the diversity and complexity of family life with the hope of gaining new insights and understandings. Cases enable us to see multiple levels of information, give us some access to the richness and depth that form family structure and process and any individual life history....Cases....enrich, any conclusions we wish to draw about the family now or in the firture, and they point us...to new ways of seeing and understanding families (Chodorow 19931462). Social reproduction is the construction of family life. Understanding how non-farm women organize production and social reproduction informs our understanding of contemporary family life in a rural county. Understanding social reproduction among these women also enhances our understanding of the tasks, activities, and relational aspects of this work. Because I focus on a single rural county generalizing to other families and other counties is limited. Case study as method has been criticized for lack of generalizability. Yet a case study approach is most appropriate to understanding social reproduction and the context of family life in a particular place. The value of focusing on a single county is that it can be used as a basis for fiiture comparison. I plan to describe the county in 54 appropriate detail suggesting “how the case is like, and not like other cases” so that comparison could be made in the future (Stake 19962240). As long as my description is complete it should be possible to make comparisons between this county and other counties. Rural counties and regions are not homogeneous. Other studies clearly show that farming and work and family strategies are different in the Midwest from the Mississippi Delta (Pfeffer and Gilbert 1989). Other studies illustrate how particular historical, social, and cultural beliefs and practices perpetuate poverty among rural Black women and their dependents in the South (Dill and Warner 1992). Place matters because regions differ just as one city will vary from another or neighborhoods within a city will vary. The differences found between places can be the result of a number of different factors. in my research I look specifically at what parents believe is distinctive and advantage of rural residence for them and their children. I ask parents specifically how this area compares with other places they have lived. If they have never lived outside the county I ask them why. In this way I can identify in what ways this place is important to them. Research illustrates that farm families are not immune from shifting cultural values as their communities move away from agricultural economic dependence. Yet farmers continue to place emphasis on farming as “a way of life” even as consumerism increases (Barlett 1993). Indeed farming as a common and shared way of life is very salient among farmers in rural communities (Garkovich, Bokemeier and Foote 1995). Studies of Midwest farm families (Salamon 1992) and Georgia farmers (Barlett 1993), and community studies (Hummon 1990) illustrate that farm and non-farm rural residents alike emphasize being closer to nature and an attachment to land that is impossible in 55 highly developed and densely populated areas. By examining what parents say about Research county I can gain a sense of what is important to rural residents and how their experience of rural life is similar to or different from respondents in other rural studies or how rural residence differs for rural non-farm families and farm families. The goal of this case study is to better understand rural family life in a county that is no longer agriculture dependent. Other rural county studies illustrate how rigidly stratified rural counties are and the foundations of that stratification (Dill and Williams 1992, Duncan 1996). In the county I studied, I find that many of the low-income mothers we talked to had only recently moved to the county this differs from studies of mral counties in Kentucky. There many low-income residents had been long-time residents. Their low education and training made it difficult for them to move elsewhere (Duncan 1992). What low-income residents of rural counties share is making do with low paying and part-time jobs in the service sector rather than higher paying manufacturing or jobs in highly technologized extractive industries. What rural areas share are histories of neglect and under development in comparison to urban areas (Falk and Lyson 1993). Stratification within the county and how this county varies from other counties is of interest in my research. A case study provides the opportunity to look at the particulars of stratification in this county and in what ways it is similar to or different from other rural places. Social class is not the only system of inequality that shapes families and job opportunities in rural counties. A Southern belief system of race, religion, and color mutually enforce the secondary status of Black women. The result of these systems of inequality is that rural Black women work in the lowest paying and worst jobs Southern 56 labor markets offer (Dill and Williams 1992). Race, ethnicity and differing historical legacies also shape the life chances of rural Black and Hispanic populations in Texas (Saenz and Thomas 1991). What residents in these counties and this Michigan county share is the desire to be self-sufficient and have jobs that pay enough to support a family. Being poor in a rural county is not about not wanting to work but of being unable to find jobs that raise a family out of poverty. Working hard and being independent is an important historical legacy on which many of our beliefs about rural areas and the people who live there rests (Coontz 1992, Naples 1994). Generalizability can be a limitation of doing a case study, yet there are ways to combine methods to check and recheck findings. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods of interview and survey, with focused and open-ended questions allows for the triangulation of data. “Triangulation has been generally considered a process of multiple perceptions to clarify meaning, verifying the repeatability of an observation” (Stake 1996:241). One way that triangulation is achieved in this project is looking at the perspectives of low-income mothers and a random sample of county residents. In some cases mothers and county residents were asked similar questions about household finances and opportunities in the county. Theory and method are triangulated as well in my research. Analyzing the impact of levels of discourses on other discourses is based in theory (Smith 1987a, Griffith 1995) but it is also a method for organizing and analyzing data. In my research I move from abstract theories of social reproduction to the social construction of family life within rural non-farm households. I am suggesting that abstract theories impact how mothers 57 understand their social reproduction. But I am also examining the process through which mothers come to a new or different understanding of social reproduction. Rural areas are not homogenous but they do share similar characteristics such as their historical dependence on a single extractive industry and economic and social disadvantage when compared to urban areas. In addition rural residents share a relationship to land or landscape, expectations about relationships and certain activities, low population density, and a sense of a buffer between themselves and their neighbors and their town or home from urban places (Fitchen 1991). The physical landscape, the presence of hunting and fishing, and low population density serve as objective reminders or ruralness, and there is also a “social/symbolic basis of rural identity (Fitchen 1991). Fitchen finds that rural resident’s cling to beliefs about community particular to the places in which they live. “If they cannot satisfactorily define what they mean by community, they nonetheless go about their business believing in its existence and certain of their own social existence within it” (19912253). Place matters precisely because of these subjective understandings of ruralness. But these subjective understandings need to be balanced against the objective conditions of rural residents’ lives. The data set available allows me to look at both the subjective and objective experience of life in this rural county through both interviews and surveys. I can look for consistencies and inconsistencies between what people say and what they do and what they say in the interviews with what they reported in a survey. This allows me to check and crosscheck what residents say about their lives. Theories of a rural-urban continuum are applicable because rural residents believe rural areas are different but also better than urban areas (Bell 1992). As a researcher it is 58 necessary to balance what I know about the economic, social, and political disadvantages of rural places with residents beliefs about the advantages for their children of living in this county. Other rural studies suggest ways to code and analyze my data. One strategy is to look at the comparisons mothers make between this place and other places they have lived. Another strategy is to look for reference to egalitarianism in the community or its opposite. Rural communities are also valued because they are good places for families and/or because people feel a connection to others who are like a family or their own extended kin. References to feeling safe are also important to feeling connected to the community and are positive reflections of the community as a good place to raise children. Another element of rural living is that living here represents a choice. On the one hand there are long-time residents that chose to stay and newer residents that chose to move here. Comments by mothers in this study could support or contradict the positive aspects of rural residence revealed in previous rural studies. Preliminary analysis of family interview data indicate that these rural mothers speak positively about this county and negatively about urban areas whether or not they have first hand experience of urban residence. In addition they overwhelmingly believe rural residence is better for their children and the county is a safe place. These rural mothers profess beliefs about the egalitarian nature of the community through their comments reveal powerfiil and negative views about welfare users in the county (Struthers and Bokemeier, forthcoming). Rather than being egalitarian this rural county shows evidence of social stratification that could have implications for rural family life. 59 vi: .u‘ Qualitative Methods An important goal of feminist research has been, .. 'To bring women in,‘ to find what had been ignored, censored, and suppressed, and to reveal both the diversity of actual women’s lives and the ideological mechanisms that have made so many of these lives invisible” (DeVault 1996:32). Feminist theory informs my use of methods because not only is my focus on women but their continued commitment to social reproduction. In this way we learn more about social reproduction but also the forces that liberate or constrain women. Using face-to-face interviews with an open-ended interview schedule allowed these mothers the opportunity to talk about their lives in ways that can increase our understanding of social reproduction. Their comments can also be compared and contrasted to existing theories of social reproduction, discourses of marriage and family, and other residents of the county. Ribbens and Edwards suggest that "the nature of the world of women's activities and involvement in domestic and family life remains poorly understood from the point of view of academic theorising and research" (1995:248). Their work reflects a commitment to the use of qualitative research in order to move away from "male-centred theories that had been developed in the public sphere of social experience" (p. 248). Further they argue that the subjective understanding of family life must be the starting point for understanding a part of the social world that has been largely invisible, hidden, and taken-for-granted (p. 250). In my research I should be able to identify the process through which a new or alternative discourse of social reproduction emerges. Though it can be instructive to know the amount of time that women (and men) engage in reproductive tasks or the tasks in which they engage, studies of that type do not 60 address the question of meaning. Early theorizing on social reproduction reflects attempts to fit women into existing paradigms without attempting to describe how family life could be explained in other ways. There is a tension that exists within the literature that will be addressed in my research. How do we move away from dualistic notions of production and social reproduction and yet gain a better understanding of social reproduction. By looking at production and social production as mutually dependent realms of women’s lives I hope to reveal how women see social reproduction is different. I expect that maternal employment makes the importance of social reproduction more salient to mothers. An emphasis of my research is to reveal whether “the private sphere” holds non-economic meanings for women. Qualitative methods are most appropriate for examining what women say about their social reproduction and why they live in a rural county. Qualitative methods share a number of “common threads.” One of these threads is that qualitative researchers “have traditionally tried to describe social life in ways that challenge popular understandings” (Gubrium and Holstein 1997:11). By examining the discourses that surround social reproduction I plan to further enhance our understanding of the tasks and activities in which women engage and the primacy they place on this work. My research will also reveal how rural non-farm women make sense of the competing demands placed on them by production and social reproduction. Qualitative methods allow researchers to better “...understand and document the organization of social life as it is practiced” (Gubrium and Holstein 1997:11). As practitioners of social reproduction women are in a unique place to discuss social reproduction. By asking women to talk about their child’s day I can gain an 61 understanding of the rhythms of family life. I can gain a better sense of the impact of other institutions and different schedules on the organization of social reproduction. As yet we still know little how social reproduction is organized when mothers work outside the home and qualitative methods are appropriate to, "seeing people as active agents of their affairs...how purposeful actors participate in, construct, deeply experience, or imagine their lives" (Gubrium and Holstein 1997: 12). As mothers describe social reproduction I can uncover the meaning and importance women attach to this role and how they purposefully organize and prioritize their activities. It is likely that women may share similar patterns of work and social reproduction. But it is also likely that some mothers will emphasize particular tasks and activities that are important to them or they believe are important for their child. The metaphor of a “crazy quilt” has been used as a way of making sense of women’s everyday coping strategies for meeting family needs (Balbo 1987). I look for ways women make do with the resources they have. Some women are working outside the home because they need employment in order to make ends meet. Other women are working outside the home to provide their families with extras. But women are also piecing together childcare arrangements while they work so their children’s needs are met. Another aspect of my research is to see how rural families are both isolated and connected to other families and institutions. Like a quilt is important to see how each individual piece is connected and or fits with the other pieces to form a completed project. In this case my analysis needs to look at these mothers’ sense of community or connections to others within the boundaries of the county. 62 I am looking for what they believe is important as they engage in social reproduction. I look for the relationships that exist within the family and between mothers and other social institutions so that production and social reproduction are achieved. I look for ways women pick and choose when to conform or reject expectations placed on them by others. Another strategy I use for organizing these women’s’ comments about social reproduction and the importance of this work is to look for evidence of the influence of cultural scripts (Willard 1988). Cultural scripts reflect both academic and public discourse about what a mother “should do.” They tend to emphasize that women are either selfless in their devotion to their children or selfish in their commitments to employment.3 These scripts are not absolute but tend to be the scripts most often used to describe mothering in the US. Women find however “their own words” for describing how they arrive at and make sense of their commitment to home and paid employment (Willard 1988). Gerson (1983) illustrates how women with orientations to work or motherhood came to be more invested in one or the other. In my research I look for evidence of scripts and how these mothers discuss their commitment to paid employment or to staying at home. It is possible for women to be more committed to work or home, committed to both, or committed to neither. I look specifically at how women assess their performance as wives and mothers and their ability to meet their families wants and needs whether or not they work outside the home. 3 Ferree (1987) has been critical of the use of middle-class professional women’s commitment to occupation rather than motherhood as the contemporary ideal. Working class women retain a much higher commitment to motherhood than to their jobs even though they are working for personal and financial [6350115. 63 Another way to examine women’s commitment to home and family is to look for evidence that women take into account not only their own needs but also the needs of others. Identifying either a selfless mother or selfish worker became an important coding strategy. Whether women place others needs first or combine others needs with their own becomes an important way to sort how they talk about what is important to them. Qualitative research methods will be used .to analyze the responses of twenty-nine women and two men4 who participated in face-to-face interviews and responded to questions in a family survey. The interview schedule and the family survey asked respondents to focus on the life of their 8-10 year old child. The emphasis placed on this child provided an important reference point both for mothers and for me as I began to analyze various aspects of the interviews. As a method asking mothers to focus on one of their children allowed them to reflect on the life of this child and describe the changes that had taken place within that time frame. The focus on children's lives in the county was of special importance to the whole project. Children are a particularly vulnerable and understudied population. Though the rural poverty research does look at households in which children are present and illustrates that children are more likely to be poor in rural counties, the context of children's lives and family life in general, has not been the focus of these studies. Rural children and their families are a largely neglected aspect of rural research (Bokemeier 1997). When seeking to find supportive documentation on rural childcare for my research " A total of thirty face-to-face interviews were conducted, twenty-eight of these were with the children’s’ mothers, one was with a single father and one a husband and wife jointly participated. In this case the father was identified as the primary respondent. In cases where I refer to parents I am referring to all respondents or responses from members of the thirty households. In cases where I refer to mothers 1 am referring specifically to the comments made by women in the study. 64 I found that this topic was not included in a number of otherwise comprehensive sourcebooks about rural life. Part of this project is to make rural children more visible. How mothers understand and address their children’s needs when they work is just as important as understanding social reproduction. It is not enough just to know whether mothers work outside the home but what they believe the consequences of their employment is for their children. Crosstabulations, Chi-square. and Correlations: Quantitative Methods Quantitative methods are appropriate and necessary for my research. Because this is an exploratory study of the county I rely primarily on basic tests of significance and examining measures of association between variables. In my research I am primarily interested in examining responses in the telephone survey about gender roles and residents’ perceptions of the quality of life in the county. Responses to specific questions in the telephone survey were compared by demographic variables of the respondent such as gender, age, education, and employment status, as well as, marital status, the presence of children under 18 in the household. In addition I examined whether this was a single or dual-earner household, length of residence, and number of moves over the last ten years. I also constructed a variable that combined marital status with the number of employed adults in the household. This variable helped me compare responses by whether households were composed of no working adults, single-earner and single-parent households, single-earner and two-adult households, and dual-earner households. Because my research is interested in the impact of maternal employment on social reproduction this variable proved to be useful. 65 Demographic variables used in the telephone survey were coded in the following ways. Children under 18 in the household, (0) = no children in household, (1) = children in household. Marital status, (1) = single, never married, (2) = widowed, (3) = separated or divorced, (4) = member of an unmarried couple, (5) = remarried, (6) = first marriage. Number of adults in household was based on the reported marital status and was coded, (1) = one adult, (2) = two adults. Employment status was coded, (1) = not currently employed, (2) work part-time or in school, (3) = work full-time. Length of commute to work (0) = works at home, (1) = less than 20 minutes, (2) = 21 to 40 minutes, (3) more than 41 minutes. Gender (1) = male, (2) = female. Ages of respondents were coded in ranges, (0) = 18-40 years old, (1) = 41-65 years old, (2) = 66 years old and older. Respondents’ education, (0) = less than high school, (1) = high school graduate, (2) = some college or tech school, (3) = college graduate, (4) = some graduate school or graduate degree. Length of residency, (0) = less than 5 years, (1) = 6 to 10 years, (2) = 11 to 15, (3) = 16 to 30, (4) = 30 + years in the area. Number of moves in the last 10 years, (0) = zero moves, (1) = 1 move, (2) = 2 moves, (3) = 3 moves, (4) = 4 moves, (5) = 5 or more moves. Income was initially coded in ranges, (0) = less than $14,999, (1) = $15,000-$24,999, (2) = $25,000-$34,999, (3) = $35,000-$49,999, (4) = $50,000-$69,999, (5) = greater than $70,000. These ranges were firrther collapsed in just two categories, (I) = less than $25,000, (2) = greater than $25,000. The number of incomes and number of adults in household variable was coded as, (0) = no income from employment with one or two adults in the household, (1) = one income, one adult household, (2) = one income, two adult household, (3) = two income, two adult households. 66 The telephone survey was conducted by the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Michigan State University, as part of the larger research project. The telephone survey consisted of a random sample of county residents that was drawn by random digit dialing. One drawback in using a telephone survey is you are unable to reach low-income residents that do not have private telephones. The completion rate for the telephone survey was 69.9% with a refusal rate of 28.2%. The average number of contacts needed to complete an interview was 4.28. The average length of the telephone interview was 20.52 minutes. I used responses to questions in the telephone survey to establish a local context. Respondents were asked to evaluate the well-being of children in the community, job opportunities, their own financial situation, the presence of family or relatives in the community and whether or not they had someone to contact in the event of an emergency (Appendix C). Responses to these questions were coded in the following way. The well being of children was coded as, (1) = worsened, (3) = stayed the same, (5) improved. Job opportunities in the county will (1) = go down, (3) = stay about the same, (5) = go up. Financially are you and your family (1) = worse off, (3) = about the same, (5) = better off. We also asked telephone respondents a series of questions about children and families in the community. Of particular importance to my analysis were questions about the division housework and paid employment, childcare, and perceptions of school readiness. The scale used for most questions in the survey was, (1) = strongly agree, (2) = somewhat agree, (3) = neither agree nor disagree, (4) = somewhat disagree, and (5) = strongly disagree. Responses to the question of whether children in the county were 67 ready to start school were coded in the following way, (1) = less likely, (3) = no change, (5) = more likely. The quality of education available in the county was coded as follows, (1) = poor, (2) = fair, (3) = good, (4) = very good, (5) = excellent. Coding for three additional questions about employment in the county does not conform to the above five-point scale. When asked their views about whether poor people worked or did not work, responses were coded, (l) = most are working, (2) = most are not working, (3) = about equal numbers are working and not working. Reasons for poverty were coded as follows, (1) = lack of effort, (5) = circumstances beyond people’s control. And finally, respondents were asked why women were working outside the home. Responses were coded as follows, (1) their family needs the money, (2) for personal satisfaction, (3) personal and economic reasons, and (7) some other reason, specified. Respondents were also asked a series of questions about potentially problematic aspects of rural residence such as access to medical care and social services, job opportunities, transportation, perceptions of crime and the like (Appendix C). Responses to these questions were coded as follows, (1) = serious problem, (2) = somewhat of a problem, (3) = not a problem at all Initially I used the chi-square test to test for independence in crosstabulations of two variables. Independent variables used were age, gender, employment status, and the like and dependent variables were answers to specific questions. The chi-square test of independence allowed me to conclude that two variables are not independent. In order to quantify the strength and nature of the relationship between variables I also computed measures of association. For those variables I used that were ordinal a positive value 68 indicated that the two variables increased together, while a negative value indicates that as one variable increased the other decreases. For nominal variables I calculated Cramer’s V as the measure of association and for ordinal variables I calculated Goodman and Kruskal’s Gamma. I also calculated correlations using the Pearson correlation coefficient to measure the strength of the linear association between two variables. I examined correlations between respondent variables and responses to questions and between responses to particular questions. For example, in one question we asked respondents if the strongly agree, somewhat agreed, neither agreed or disagreed, somewhat disagreed, or strongly disagreed that childcare was available in the county. I compared the amount of agreement on this question with the amount of agreement on another question that asked whether children under the age of three were not harmed by all day childcare. Using chi-square the answers were statistically significant at .000 and the measure of association was Cramer’s V = .266. The two variables are therefore not independent and the measure of association is weak to moderate. The correlation between the variables is .216 and is significant at p S .01. The relationship between these responses need to interpreted with caution given that 9 cells (3 6%) had expected counts of less than 5. Because I want to make some general comments about the county and the people who live there I need to compare responses to certain questions with others. Though the sample size in the household survey is small it is appropriate for an exploratory study of this type. I did look for correlations between demographic variables and mothers responses to a number of questions. Methodologically I did for two reasons; I wanted to check for consistency between what they told us in the interview about their household and finances and in the household survey. And I wanted to do some 69 comparisons between responses in the household survey to respondents in the telephone survey. My goal was to strengthen my findings about life in the county through consistency between data sets. Demographic variables used in the household survey were marital status, number of earners in the household, employment status, education, household income, and household incomes greater or less than $25,000. Marital status was coded, (1) = single, never married, (2) = widowed, (3) = separated or divorced, (4) = member of an unmarried couple, (5) = remarried, (6) = first marriage. Number of earners was coded, (0) = no employment, (1) = one earner, (2) two earner. Respondents’ employment status was coded as, (0) = unemployed, (1) = part-time, (2) = full-time. Education was coded as, (0) = less than high school, (1) = high school diploma, (2) = high school plus some additional training, (3) college degree. Household income was coded as follows, (I) = less than $5,000, (2) = $5,000-$10,000, (3) = $10,000-$15,000, (4) = $15,000-$20,000, (5) = $20,000-$25,000, (6) = $25,000-$30,000, (7) = $30,000-$3 5,000, (8) = $3 5,000-$40,000, (9) = $40,000-$45,000, and (10) = $45,000+. Questions regarding family finances were coded low to high to illustrate an improvement in economic circumstances. When asked if they were satisfied with their current financial situation, responses were coded as, (I) = not at all satisfied, (2) = not very satisfied, (3) = somewhat satisfied, (4) = very satisfied, (5) = extremely satisfied. When asked if their income was sufficient to meet their family’s wants and needs their responses were coded, (1) = cannot buy everything needed, (2) = can buy necessities, only, (3) = some but not all that we want, (4) = everything we want, (5) = everything we want and extras. Difficulty to pay monthly bills was coded, (l) = extremely difficult, (2) '70 = very difficult, (3) = somewhat difficult, (4) = slightly difficult, (5) = not at all difficult. When asked how their family finances has changed, responses were coded, (l) = much worse, (2) = same, (3) = better, (4) = much better. Responses to questions regarding the well being of children in the county were coded as, (l) = worsened, (3) = same, and (5) = improved. The scale used for questions regarding the frequency of participation in a particular activity with their child was, (1) = almost never, (2) = sometimes, (3) = often. Assessments of their ability to make decisions as a parent, their general parenting and their current relationship were coded on a five-point scale. (1) = Very dissatisfied, (2) = somewhat dissatisfied, (3) = neither, (4) = somewhat satisfied, (5) = very satisfied. Throughout my data analysis responses coded as “don’t know” were treated as missing and dropped from the analysis. The Data Set The interview protocol and survey reflect the collaboration of the entire research team. For the family interview stage of the project the team consisted of three faculty members and three research assistants. Two faculty members were from the Department of Family and Child Ecology, and one graduate student was from this department. The other graduate students were from the Department of Sociology working under the supervision of Dr. Janet Bokemeier. All team members contributed to producing the research instruments that would ultimately generate data relevant to the diverse research interests of the group. Each of the research assistants was responsible for setting up and conducting ten interviews. In some cases we accompanied each other on interviews and in other cases one of the principal investigators accompanied us to the interview. Barbara 71 Wells and I had primary responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the project and we coordinated the face-to-face interview process. Interviews were tape recorded verbatim and transcribed by the Michigan State University transcription services. Research assistants were responsible for cleaning, correcting, coding, and creating Ethnograph data files for each interview, which were then combined into a single data set. The telephone survey was developed by the research team. Questions were developed with the research interests of various members in mind. Some questions were drawn from the State of the State Survey given the overlapping interests of members of the research team with that project. I borrowed questions from the National Survey of Families and Households (1987) about attitudes of gender roles as they related to social reproduction and paid employment. County residents were asked in a number of ways to evaluate their quality of life in the county. The survey was conducted, coded and tabulated by the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University. Some additional cleaning and recoding of data was necessary to prepare the data for my research. ' ' Questions in the face-to-face interviews were open-ended but followed a structured format, all respondents were asked primarily the same questions and these were all asked in much the same order. The order of the questions and asking the same questions of each respondent allowed for easier coding and establishes a foundation of responses from which patterns could be drawn. Not all of the female respondents worked outside the home so part of the interview was altered to gain insight into what factors, personal, family, and community shaped their decision not to work outside the home. By 72 comparing responses by employment status if is possible to gauge whether women share similar views regarding social reproduction and parenting. Participants in the face-to-face interviews were asked to complete a self- administered questionnaire about their child’s life and their households. These household surveys were picked up and briefly reviewed at the time of the interview so that omissions could be addressed. One respondent lost the original survey and had to mail the completed survey after the interview. Responses to questions in the face-to-face interviews and family survey provided important clues for examining the telephone survey data. I could focus on questions and responses that coincided with my interests. Additionally the telephone survey had a broader range of respondents and sought opinions from parents and non-parents across a broader range of income and ages. The countywide telephone survey provided responses to a random digit dialed survey. Participants in the face-to-face interviews were not meant to be a representative sample of the county in that the focus of this phase of the project was lower-income households. This project was a pilot study that utilized both quantitative measures and qualitative methods. Though the qualitative data is of primary interest, the telephone survey provides important quantitative data about this county and perceptions of additional residents. The existing literature and the data gleaned from this study allow a multi-dimensional approach to understanding social reproduction and family life in rural areas. Understanding the interplay between the various discourse(s) within the data is eSpecially important to this project. Given the primary concern with how women in a particular location explain their participation in social reproduction and family life, qualitative data are most appropriate 73 to this approach. However since the context of women’s lives need to be established documentary sources are relevant to understanding the county as well. The local context can be established by looking at responses provided in a countywide telephone survey. Documentary sources of family life, rural areas, and social reproduction, family interviews and surveys and a countywide telephone survey provide a rich data set for the study of parenting and family life in this rural county. Analytical Strategy Levels of Discourse There are four levels of discourse that require examination. The first level is the academic discourse that shapes our understanding of social reproduction. The foundations of these discourses are seminal works by Engels and socialist feminist theorists of social reproduction. These theories suggest the need for a dialectic approach to understanding production and social reproduction to gain a comprehensive understanding of women’s experience. These theories repeatedly emphasize that women are oppressed by existing social arrangements. The metaphor of a bird cage describes women’s oppression in capitalist economic systems like the United States. If we examine only one wire we fail to see the entire cage (Frye 1983). By examining both production and social reproduction I plan to see not only the cage but also the door. The door is the creativity and resilience of women. I expect that women will be oppressed by the jobs in which they work but their individual discourse about family life will reflect less or no Oppression. Contributions I will make to existing theories of social reproduction are alternative understandings and non-oppressive aspects of women’s experience. Support 74 for and differences between that discourse on social reproduction will be compared to the experiential discourse provided by respondents in the face-to-face interviews and the family surveys. The next level of discourse is the cultural, historical, and ideological contexts that shape both our understandings of family life but especially family life in rural areas. This level includes some feminism, the family values debate, and elements of the agrarian ideology that shape perceptions of families and rural places. The first and second levels of discourse are established by looking at the existing literature. It is proposed that women’s perceptions of social reproduction reflect elements of the family values debate and the agrarian ideology. Specifically women will incorporate beliefs about independence and hard work, the traditional family, and community support in responses to questions about the county. The third level of discourse consists of localized knowledge. By localized knowledge I am referring to what county residents say about gender roles, child and family well-being, and the perceptions of the county overall. At this level face-to-face interviews and responses to questions in the telephone survey are examined.5 The telephone survey is used to develop a county specific context. By using the data collected in the telephone survey, the face-to-face interviews, and the family survey a sense of living in the county can be established. The local discourse could be shaped by the previous levels of discourse or it may deviate in important ways. The local discourse can shape what rural non-farm women say and do. 5 For an example of how the knowledge of local farmers is used to the construction of an alternative agriculture see Kloppenburg (1991). Though Kloppenburg uses local knowledge to deconstruct existing ways of understanding agricultural practices, I am using local knowledge to construct a local discourse about family and living in a rural county. 75 Gold (forthcoming) calls this the middle range context of people's lives. To examine the middle range it is necessary to look at the family as the unit of analysis but also how economic resources and decisions about work and family are gendered. Therefore I use questions from the telephone survey to examine beliefs about gender roles as they relate to production and social reproduction (Appendix D). In addition throughout my analysis I look for patterns of responses based on individual, household and employment variables. The presence of children in a household may be a constraining factor for women and not men (Gold, forthcoming). In the face-to—face interviews childcare and the presence of other family are considered as possible shapers of production and social reproduction and of having positive views of the county. It is proposed that the local context will impact these mothers’ perceptions of rural places and social reproduction. It is proposed that rural women are likely to see social reproduction as a natural extension of their roles as women in society because they live in an area that is believed to be more tradition oriented. The final level of analysis looks at how the discourse(s) about social reproduction differ from the economic and material explanations used to describe why individuals engage in paid employment. There is already ample evidence that racial-ethnic women (P. Collins 1990) and working class women (Ferree 1987) evaluate home work and paid 76 employment differently than white, middle-class women.6 My research should provide a discourse of social reproduction for rural non-farm women. Because many of these women or their husbands work in working class jobs there may be some support to existing studies on blue-collar women who value their role as mothers over their role as workers. The Qualitative Research Dilemma: Where to Start and What to Look At Understanding discourse as everything written and spoken would require copious examination of thirty interviews so 1 limited my analysis to particular coded segments. In keeping with the types of case study I am doing I have coded segments that describe the county and coded segments that will expand our knowledge about social reproduction. To understand and describe the county I used the following coded segments from the face-to-face interviews. In seeking to assess the quality of rural life we asked parents about their perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of living in the county, how this county compared to other places they had lived, and where they had grown up. In order to assess their own employment and employment in the county I looked at general references to employment, their work history, whether or not they did any moonlighting or additional work for pay, and references to being self-sufficient or independent. I also 6 Class differences in marriage and family patterns are apparent among women involved in the abortion debates. Among pro-life advocates there are fewer never-married women, and a lower number of divorced women. These women tend to marry younger and have a first child early in their marriage. They are also more likely to have 2-3 children. They are more likely to be Catholic and are less likely to work outside the home when married. If they do work they tend to be in traditional “female” occupations such as teachers, social workers, and nurses and be married to skilled or small businessmen with moderate incomes. Forty- four percent had incomes less than $20,000 at the time of the study. Among pro-choice advocates there is a higher percentage of never-married women and divorced women. Pro-choice women have relatively smaller families with 1-2 children. Pro-choice women are more likely to have no religious affiliation though they may have grown up in Protestant or Catholic homes. Pro-choice advocates tend to be college educated. If they work outside the home they have good salaries, and if married, are manied to men with good incomes. Women with higher education and who work outside the home are more likely to see childbearing as an option rather titan cultural imperative (Luker 1984). 77 looked at references made to the community generally and whether they believed the community presented obstacles to employment. When seeking to understand mothers commitment to and organization of social reproduction I also looked at particular coded segments. To gain a general sense of social reproduction I looked at segments where mothers described their child’s daily experiences on a recent day and prior to starting school. I also looked for references to routines. We also asked mothers abut things they had done to prepare their children for school. These were coded as parent involvement but we also had a code for general references to parenting and parenting strategies. Because I am trying to explain production and social reproduction as overlapping realms of women’s experience I also looked at the transcripts for evidence of home- family conflicts, work-family conflicts, and references to time scarcity and periods of stress. Both time scarcity and stress force women to reorganize and reevaluate their priorities and were important indicators of overlapping demands on women’s lives. An example of a home-family conflict would be evidence from the text of a conflict between schedules of family members. An example of a work-family conflict would be specific impacts of paid employment on family life such has having to work overtime, coordinating childcare, getting children to and from school or extracurricular activities. These segments reveal how employment shapes women’s investments in family life and the reverse. Together these coded segments provide a comprehensive view of the intersections and overlaps created by navigating between the institutions of family and the labor market. 78 Mothers were also asked whether they believed that family responsibilities or gender interfered with or presented obstacles to employment. These are areas where I expected women might talk about being oppressed revealing the impact of feminist discourse. I looked at segments of text where mothers had been asked to make assessments of their performance as mothers, wives, workers, and in meeting their family’s wants and needs. Regardless of everything else they told us I still wanted to know whether they assessed their performance positively or negatively and what they were proud of and what they would have liked to change. The coding strategy I developed consisted of four categories; confident, conflicted, both, or neither, though the neither category was later dropped. Confident mothers and wives described their performance in positive terms and they frequently made “I” statements. Conflicted mothers were unsure of their performance and expressed a sense of falling short or failing their children in some way. Mothers and wives that were both expressed past failures but an current sense of confidence in their ability to parent, partner, and meet their family’s wants and needs. I used household survey data to examine whether mothers were satisfied with their household finances, whether they felt their resources were sufficient to pay their monthly bills, and whether they had experienced improved or worsened household finances in the last couple of years. Married women enter paid employment to increase household incomes and return home to meet their family’s needs. Because factory work is largely inflexible it has consistently been difficult for mothers to combine with family life (Kessler—Harris 1982, Tilly and Scott 1989). An assessment of household finances can help support, clarify, or undermine women’s assessment of their ability to meet their 79 family’s wants and needs. But these questions also illustrate women’s subjective experience of family life. Many assumptions made about families and family life are class based. It is assumed that more money makes more satisfaction with family life or that there is a point where enough money is somehow enough. Instead of seeing family forms as different from one another some are seen as deviant. Social class is an important lens for examining responses to various questions in the interviews and surveys. From the telephone survey I selected questions that I believed would help establish the local discourse. These questions asked respondents about gender roles, child and family well being, and perceptions of the county. County residents had been asked a series of questions about whether particular aspects of rural life had a serious impact on their lives. These questions looked at their current relationship, housing, job and educational opportunities, health insurance, access to medical care, leisure activities and transportation. County residents had also been asked to assess their family finances and opportunities for job growth in the county. Responses to these questions were compared based on the age of the respondent, gender, residential mobility, length of residence, work status, number of earners and adults per household. These questions provide me with information about this particular county and the population that lives there. Taken together responses to questions in the face-to-face interviews, household surveys, and telephone survey provide a tremendous amount of information about family life in this rural county. 80 CHAPTER 4 Welcome to Research County A map of the county distributed by the Research County Parks, Research County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, and the Research County Area Chamber of Commerce asks a visitor to “Discover Leonard and Research County.” Visitors are told there are “six great parks, each very different from the next, (that) offer camping, fishing, festivals and a wonderful getaway!” To get to these parks there is one state highway that runs east to west. On the map it appears to run east to northeast around a number of small lakes. There is also one state highway that runs north to south. There are numerous two-lane roads upon which a visitor could travel. These two-lane roads are of various types, pavement, gravel, or “unimproved”. Leonard is the county seat and largest city in the county. Leonard has a population of 12,000 full-time residents. Leonard is located in the northwest quadrant of the county. It is situated near the interstate highway that runs north and south and links county residents to a much larger and highly urbanized area in the southwest part of the state, population 189,126. The Visitor’s Bureau promotes Research County to others by focusing on the number of lakes, the opportunity to go innertubing along the river, and the presence of the regional university. Advertisers use the county map to promote a party store, a restaurant offering “home cooked food”, a general store with everything from fishing bait and hunting supplies to ice cream and the Instant Lottery. Camping, fishing and hunting, and home cooked food are consistent with many of the activities rural and urban residents attribute to rural living (F itchen 1991, Willits and Luloff 1995). 81 Research County was settled in the mid-18003 because of the availability of forest to supply the expanding lumber industry. The presence of a major river provided access to the railroad. Agriculture developed as the lumber industry cleared the county of forest. Today only 4 percent of the working population 16 years or older work in agriculture, forestry, or fisheries. A little more than 66 percent of the population live in areas designated as rural.1 The largest employer in the county is State University and it is located in Leonard. According to information provide by the Business Development Center, there are 20 employers that make up the principal economic base of the county. The median size of these firms is 50 employees and the mean number of employees is approximately 170. The University employs over 1,600 people compared to 21 in the smaller firms included in the economic base. Most of the businesses listed are light manufacturing firms. In 1989, there were 229 retail establishments in the county, 23 wholesale establishments, and 16 general building contractors.2 Though some other firms make up the commercial base there are very few additional firms in the county. The number and types of employers shape the employment opportunities of county residents. The number of retail establishments illustrates the trend toward service jobs. There is however competition for these jobs between local residents and college students. Overall the employment and economic characteristics of the county are similar to those in other rural counties (see F indeis and Hsu 1997, Kassab 1997). There is a 74-bed hospital in the county and 2 extended care facilities. The nearest medical center is 65 miles away. According to 1990 housing information 69.9% ' See Chapter 1 for definition of mral residence or Rathge (1997). 2 Source: Research County, Michigan-Profile. http://multimagcom/county/mi 82 of all units in the county are owner occupied, while 31.1% are rentals. The number of rental units in the county is higher than other rural counties. The number of rental units in the area is likely a result of the presence the University. Data fiom a 1993 American Housing survey finds 80% of all rural housing units are owner occupied compared to just 59% in urban areas. Overall homeownership is higher in rural counties than urban counties however the condition of much rural housing is considered substandard (Sweaney and Meeks 1997). Only 50% of rural residents have access to municipal water and sewer systems. The cost of a clean and safe water supply and sewage disposal are a growing problem for many rural residents (Abdalla 1997). There is one commercial bus company that services the area but no rail traffic or ports. Though the population of the county is growing the county is experiencing economic decline. The current population of the county is 38,000. A substantial number of residents live in poverty. The 1990 Census data indicates that residents of the county had a much lower average income than residents of the State of Michigan. This is true for both married couples and single-female headed families. Though there are fewer children living in single-female headed families as a proportion of the county population, a higher number of them are poor in comparison to the rest of the state (Table 4.1). The percent of the population of the county that are high school graduates or higher is 77.7%, with 17.9% of residents possessing a bachelors degree or higher. The research site for the face-to-face interviews was a rural school district in the county that had 1,416 kindergarten through twelfth grade students in (1992-1993) and a staff of 67. The district includes two small villages, Woodville and Muskie, and the surrounding open country. The school district actually spills over into two contiguous 83 Table 4.1 Demographic Profile of Research County with Various Indicators of Child Well Being. (Source: Kids Count in Michigan 1993 Data Book) Research County State of Michigan Description (1990) (1990) Number of children under 18 8,183 2,458,765 years of age Number of children under the 4,577 1,394,801 age of 9 (56%) (57%) Children as a percent of the 21.9% 26.5% total population Minority children as a percent of 5.6% 23.8% the child pOpulation Percent of children under the age of 56.3% 54.1% 6 with all custodial parents working Children in poverty 24.9% 18.2% High school dropouts 2.3%++ 4.9%++ Births to teens with less than a high 10.8%@ 19.0%@ school education Percent of population living in mral 66.2% 29.4% area Percent of rural pOpulation engaged in 4.4% 4.4% farming ++Based on 1991-1992 school data. @Based on 1991 figures. Reflects the percent of females under age nineteen who had a child before finishing school. 84 rural counties. Many children in the district ride the bus 45 minutes at least once a day. Both mothers and school personnel told us that the district worked to shorten children’s total time on the bus by altering pick up and drop off arrangements. Children that had the longest ride in the morning were dropped off first in the afternoon. To save money and make efficient use of available buses, children kindergarten through high school are picked up and taken to school at the same time. The mean travel time to work for county residents is 18.9 minutes while the mean travel time for residents of Woodville is 30.3 minutes. Table 4.2 compares demographic and labor force statistics for these two villages with the county as a whole. In Muskie, there is a larger percentage of residents in the labor force especially women with children under the age of 6 at home. Table 4.3 provides respondent and household variables for the 31 parents3 that participated in the face—to-face interviews and provided household survey data. Seventy- six percent of the sample are living in married couple households, 8 of these households were remarried adults rather than couples in first marriages. The duration of current marriages ranged from half of a year to twenty years. Half of the households in the sample had incomes of $25,000 or less per year. Twenty-five thousand dollars is being used as a proxy for the median income for the county. Ten of the households with incomes of less than $25,000 had experienced some marital disruption. Households with lower incomes were chosen for interviews because we were also looking at how well children were performing in school. We were trying to determine if household composition or marital disruption effected success at school. We were also looking at the 3 Thirty households participated in the study. One interview included both husband and wife. 85 Table 4.2 County and Village Labor Force Participation, Percent Married Couple Households, Education, and Homeownership (in percentages). Description Research County Woodville Muskie All persons 16 and older 56.2 64.7 73.9 Males 59.6 76.5 85.5 Females 52.6 56.5 65 Working mothers with children 58.9 60.7 80 under age of 6 Working mothers with children 76.3 83.3 77.8 6—17 Education High school graduates or above 77.7 72.6 84.8 BA. or above 17.9 6.6 _ 6.3 Married couples 56 54.2 57.4 Owner occupied housing units 69.9 77.8 65.6 86 Table 4.3 Respondent and Household Variables Organized by Martial Status and Duration of Current Relationship. Duration of Number of Does mother Household income current children work outside greater or less Family # relationship at home the home than $25,000 First marriages 24 1 5 4 no less 18 4 2 yes less 27 6 4 no less 9 9 2 yes greater 17 9 4 yes greater 6 11 3 yes greater 30 1 1 2 yes greater 2 12 4 no greater 7 12 2 yes greater 15 12 2 yes greater 1 13 2 yes greater 10‘ 13 2 yes greater 11 13 2 yes less 28 14 1 no less 20 20 3 yes greater W 22 .5 1 yes greater 23 1.5 4 yes greater 5 3 2 yes less 21 3 4 no less 8 6 2 no less 4 10 3 no greater 19 11 3 no greater 16 12 2 no less Unmarried couples 14 ? 4 yes less" 26 ? 4 no greater Divorced, female—headed households 12 3 no less 13 ? 3 yes less 25 ? 2 yes less 29 ? 2 yes less Widowed, male—headed household 3‘ ? 1 yes less *Indicates discrepancy in reported income. “Indicates male respondent. 87 impact of social class and welfare receipt on school performance. Women and their children are more likely to suffer declining financial circumstances as a result of marital disruption and low wages (Zill and Nord 1994). Because Research County already lags behind other counties in the state on various social and economic indicators, the economic circumstances of women and children is important to my study. Table 4.4, summarizes the education and employment for mothers in the study (N=29). Respondents were sorted by occupational type. Respondent #30 owns and manages a pizza restaurant because she owns it rather than just manages it she was put in the Professional Occupations category. Though her education is lower than other women her household income is in the same range as others in the category. She actually has more in common with these higher income women than lower income women in the sample. Some mothers in the stay-at-home category said that being a mother was their occupation so these responses are listed in the occupation column. I have included the hourly wages these mothers reported so that comparisons could be made by education and job category. Table 4.5, provides information sorted by number of earners in the household and reported household incomes organized from low to higher incomes. Single-earner households are more likely to have incomes of less than $25,000 per year. Respondent #14, reported only her income on the survey though she is currently living as part of an unmarried couple. In the interview she said her boyfriend helps with the bills but we do not know what he does or how much he actually contributes to the household. His two daughters do however live in the household. From Table 4.5 some class distinctions can be drawn. Women with higher education have higher status jobs and are married to men 88 Table 4.4 Respondent's Education and Employment Organized by Occupation. Employment Occupation Hourly Family # Education Status (self-identified) Wage 1313352131.: 6 HS diploma full-time bus driver & $11.00 playground aide 7 HS diploma full—time factory worker $8.50 9 high school+ part-time bus driver $12.00 11 high school+ full-time machine Operator $6.25 13 less than HS full-time factory worker $7.19 17 less than HS full-time factory worker $10.00 25 less than HS full-time machine Operator $8.30 Service occupationa 5 HS diploma full-time waitress $3.18 10 high school+ part—time kitchen worker $6.00 18 HS diploma part-time E.M.I. aide $7.55 29 high school+ full-time cosmetologist $15.00 Pink Collar 14 high school+ full—time proof operator $6.00 15 high school+ full-time purchasing assistant $6.50 22 high school+ full—time court reporter per page Professional occupations 1 college degree part—time dietician * 20 college degree full-time school teacher $19.23 23 college degree part-time registered nurse $14.21 30 HS diploma full-time restaurant owner $6.00 fly at home mothers 2 high school+ student & homemaker 4 HS diploma mother 8 HS diploma none 12 high school+ none 16 HS diploma none 19 HS diploma none 21 HS diploma none 24 less than HS homemaker 26 less than HS none 27 less than HS homemaker 28 high school+ housewife 89 le 4.5 Occupations of Women and Men in Household Surveys. Household Women's Employment Men's Employment Income nily # Occupations Status Occupations Status (in thousands) income from paid employment 12 stay at home unemployed NA $10-15 gle—eamer households 3 NA price scanner part-time $10-15 13 factory full—time NA $10—15 16 stay at home casual labor part-time $10—15 25 factory full-time NA $10—15 29 cosmetologist full-time NA $10-15 21 stay at home general laborer $10-15 24 stay at home excavator full-time $15—20 27 stay at home garbage man full-time $15-20 8 stay at home factory full—time $20-25 28 stay at home factory full-time $20—25 19 stay at home electrical engineer full—time $25—30 26 stay at home construction full-time $25-30 2 stay at home mechanic full-time $30—35 17 factory full—time unemployed $30-3S" 4 stay at home printer full-time $40—45 _l—eamer households 14 proof operator full—time don't know part—time $10-15“ 5 waitress full-time lays cable full—time $20—25 1 1 factory full-time don't know full-time $20-25 18 E.M.I. aide part-time sets doublewides full-time $25-30 7 factory full-time factory full—time $25-30 22 court reporter full-time construction full-time $30-35 bus driver part-time supervisor full-time $35-40 15 purchasing full—time mechanic full-time $35-40 6 bus driver full-time mechanic full-time $40—45 1 dietitian part-time professor full-time $45+ 10 kitchen part—time phone company full-time $45+ 20 teacher full-time carpenter full-time $45+ 23 nurse part-time C.A. drafter full-time $45+ 30 restaurant full-time construction full-time $45+ ported household income is higher than hourly wages would indicate. [ember of unmarried couple. Reported household income reflects only respondent's income. 90 with higher education and higher status jobs. Three of the five women that work part- time have combined household incomes of $45,000. I have tried to organize these tables in meaningful ways for the types of comparisons I do in this analysis. Individual and household characteristics are helpful in describing the sample and drawing out patterns. There are other ways that the data could be sorted. Each table includes a family number so data can be compared across tables. Had I sorted simply by family number the patterns of work and marriage get lost. Because the project focused on households with at least one-child 8-10 years old the age of parents clustered within ten years of each other. Birth order, number and ages of other children in the household prove to be important shapers of family life. I have only included the number of children currently living in the household and not the total number of children born to each mother. A number of women did have their first child in their late teens and early twenties, which is consistent with the literature on rural childbearing (McLaughlin, Lichter, and Johnston 1993). At least two women had had their first child at 16. The percent of births to teens with less than a high school education was less for women in the county than the percent for the state (Table 4.1). Finally, Table 4.6, shows who participated in the countywide telephone survey and how this compares to select characteristics of respondents in the face-to-face interviews. Respondents to the telephone survey have higher educational attainment levels, are older, and are less likely to be working outside the home than parents in the face—to-face interviews. They are also likely to have higher incomes. 91 Table 4.6 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Respondents and Household Survey Respondents. of Telephone Survey Telephone Household Respondents Survey Survey 0 ' n '70 n Gender Male 41 122 6.5 2 Female 59 178 93.5 _2_9_ Total 300 31 Age 18—40 years old 36 107 87 27 41—65 years old 40 118 13 4 66 ears and older 24 ZO_ 0 __(_)__ otal 295 31 Education Less than high school 9 26 20 6 High school diploma 33 97 40 12 Hi school + 29 86 30 9 Co lege degree 16 49 10 3 Graduate school 13 __3_9_ 0 _0_ Total 297 30 Em lo ment (Bork full—time 43 124 46.5 14 Work part-time 15 44 16.5 5 Not currently working 42 123 37 _1_1_ Total 291 30 Time 3 cut commuting Wor 's at home 16 41 Less than 20 minutes 61 156 21—40 minutes 12 31 41 or more minutes 11 2_7 Total 255 Income in ranges Less than $14,999 14 37 23.5 7 $15,000-$24,999 19 48 26.5 8 $25,000—$34,999 20 51 20 6 $35,000—$49,999 22 56 13.5 4 $50,000—$69,999 14 37 16.5 5 $70,000 or more 11 2_9 _0_ Total 258 30 Marital status Married 59.5 176 50 15 Remarried 3 9 27 8 Unmarried couple 1 5 7 2 Divorced 10.5 31 13 4 Widowed 10 30 3 1 Sinlgle, never married 15 _45 0 _0_ otal 296 30 Households with or without children With 37 110 100 30 Without 63 189 0 Total 299 30 Number of working adults 1 or 2 adults, no employment 31 91 3.5 1 One adult, one income 18 53 13.8 4 Two adult, one income 21 61 33 10 Two adult, two income 30 fl 50 __1§_ Total 295 30 92 CHAPTER 5 Analyzing the Influence of Discourses of Production and Social Reproduction on Rural Non-farm Mothers Introduction In this chapter I will be looking at the impact of various discourses on women in Research County and for evidence of a discourse particular to women in this county. By particular, I mean only what these mothers say about their production and social reproduction. This emergent discourse could be similar to or different from other women in other rural counties and it may or may not reflect the dominant discourses I identity. The first research question to be addressed is whether feminist and public/political discourses are evident in rural women’s accounts of their role in social reproduction. I will primarily be focusing on the role of mother. The next question to be addressed is what is the local discourse of social reproduction. Specifically, I look at what county residents say about gender roles, children and family life in the county, and county life overall. The feminist and public/political discourse will be discussed in the first section of the chapter and will be followed by identifying and discussing the local discourse. And finally I will identify and discuss the discourses used by women in the face-to-face interviews. An important contribution of my research to the existing feminist and public/political discourses of social reproduction is examining social reproduction and production as overlapping realms of women’s experiences. Specifically, I am examining the social reproduction and production of women in blue-collar and service jobs or who 93 live in households with men who also work in blue-collar jobs (Tables 4.5). My research is focused on rural, blue-collar households and not farm families. Research on rural residents has focused almost exclusively on farm families (Salamon 1992, Barlett 1993) though notable exceptions exist especially when the focus is on rural poverty (Duncan 1996). Agricultural and mining counties have historically depended on a single extractive industry but are moving away from these economic bases. Agriculture and mining have changed considerably with mechanization and technological advances these changes have changed the labor markets of these counties (Flora, Flora, Spears, and Swanson 1992). What research on agriculturally dependent and mining counties illustrate and share are populations of rural poor who want to work and would like to be able to support their families. Employment in low paying jobs makes this difficult for rural residents. Rural non-farm residents tend to work in lower skill manufacturing and service occupations not wholly unlike many of their urban counterparts but rural industry tends to be peripheral to urban industry (Lobao 1992). A contribution of my research is to examine further the intersections of rural residence and social class. Rural residence can be seen as another system of inequality. Early feminist studies that sought to make women and social reproduction viable research topics examined social reproduction in isolation from production. Women and social reproduction had until this time been overlooked by the focus placed on men and production processes (Hartmann 1981). The goal was to emphasize women and their experiences and reveal an essential part of capitalist social relations. A number of factors make examining social reproduction in isolation from production untenable. The first are challenges by racial-ethnic feminist scholars to classed-based research conducted by 94 white, middle-class women on other white, middle-class women (Zinn et al., 1989). Racial-ethnic feminists have challenged theories that posit that the experience of white women of any class can be universalized to all women.1 Not only have academic and theoretical challenges been made that enhance our understanding of family life and employment but broad economic and social changes that have forced women across racial-ethnic and class statuses to enter the labor market and combine production and social reproduction. Even as more women are working their experiences of paid employment differ widely (Amott 1993). Given the changes taking place in the economy and family formation, it is necessary to examine if there are social and cultural shifts taking place in people’s understanding of social reproduction. The literature about the movement of women into the labor market gives us little sense of the cultural lag women might be experiencing as a result of adding paid employment to their family responsibilities.2 Social reproduction and paid employment are increasingly overlapping realms of most women’s experience. Therefore they should be most keenly aware of the contradictory and competing demands that doing both places on them. Asking women about their paid employment becomes an important vehicle for talking about social reproduction. ' The challenges made by racial-ethnic women to early feminist theorizing are now almost too numerous to mention. Most notable for the study of how historically middle-class white family formation differs from African-American, Mexican American, and Chinese is Dill 1989. For an example of how women’s paid employment differs particularly by race and class see Glenn 1992. 2 There are two notable exceptions to this. Rubin (1994) reexamines the experiences of working class women in her book Families on the Fault Line: America ’3 Working Class Speaks about the Family, The Economy, Race and Ethnicity. Hochschild (1989) examined women’s continued responsibility for social reproduction even as they entered the labor market and were working full-time. In 1997, Hochschild examines the ambivalence men and women have regarding production and social reproduction while working for a Fortune 500 company that sought to implement and develop “family friendly” policies. 95 The discourses to be discussed operate at different levels; academic, political/public, local, and individual. Individual discourses are examined as they reflect or diverge from the academic, political/public and local discourses. I am looking for the impact of formal discourses with which I am most familiar on women in Research County.3 A discourse analysis of these mothers’ comments allows me to examine the process through which a new discourse could emerge. The Feminist Discourse: Social Reproduction and Oppression This chapter is organized into sections in which I describe important tenets of existing discourses about social reproduction and how they apply to women’s role as parents and mothers. Early socialist feminist theories recognized that social reproduction is important to the maintenance of capitalist economic systems. Women’s participation in social reproduction rather than production left them outside the production nexus (see Benston 1969). Socialist feminist theories of social reproduction emphasized how their family responsibilities and the definition of themselves as housewives oppress women. These theories posited that entry into the labor market would alleviate women’s oppression (Oakley 1974). More recent studies that examine both women’s production and reproduction illustrate that women are disproportionately assigned to secondary status in the labor market (Amott 1993). These theories share a focus on the secondary status of women in society and focus on how women are oppressed but they focus exclusively on urban women and urban labor markets. When labor markets are compared it is found that rural labor markets are peripheral to urban markets (Lobao 1992). Rural residence needs therefore to be understood as another source of women’s oppression. 3 Discourse is defined in Chapter 1. 96 Socialist feminist theories have influenced my understanding of social reproduction and production, in part, because of the emphasis placed on oppression. Feminist theories have enhanced our understanding of women’s lives in capitalist and patriarchal societies and they have increased our knowledge about women’s family work in a society where it is easily dismissed and invisible even to those who do it (Daniels 1987). Feminist theory has been an important influence on my work because it attempts to bring together theory and practice to explain and improve the status of women in society. But feminist theory is also difficult to use, because there is no single theory. Feminist theory is a wide range of perspectives that are in tension with one another. There are, however, important themes that hold feminist perspectives together (Osmond & Thorne 1993). One of the most important themes is that gender is an organizing principle of social life. Feminist theories of social reproduction illustrate that social reproduction is gendered work and that the family is the site in which gender differences are reproduced (Berk 1985). Women and men experience marriage, paid employment, housework and childcare, and parenthood differently with social reproduction remaining primarily the work of women (Thompson and Walker 1989). DeVault (1996) has emphasized the need to bring women in and examine their lives and their experiences. Feminist theorizing has made important and necessary contributions to the discipline of sociology even as women’s issues remain ghettoized (Stacey and Thorne 1992). Feminist theorizing on housework and social reproduction has had a particular influence on family studies (Thompson and Walker 1995). Still we have yet to explain why women continue to marry, bear children and engage in social reproduction. 97 Because another theme of feminist theory is the emphasis placed on women and their experiences. There is no better way to “ bring women in” than to study how ordinary women experience social reproduction. Non-farm women are largely absent from the mral literature and rural women are absent from the social feminist literature. A final theme of feminist theorizing is a commitment to ending the unjust subordination of women. Without a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of marriage and family for women, we cannot seek to end any unjust subordination they experience because of their continued investment in social reproduction. My research seeks to examine the social reproduction and production of women who have been overlooked in both the feminist and rural literature. Existing feminist theories offer important cues for analyzing the discourses women use as they talk about production and social reproduction. These theories focus on either the conditions of the paid employment of women, on family work in which women disproportionately are engaged, or interpersonal dynamics between family members. The questions to be examined are whether paid employment, social reproduction or both are oppressive to women and whether oppression is revealed in their discourse. In addition, individual discourses of social reproduction can be analyzed for evidence of tasks performed primarily by women or primarily by men. Participation in both production and social reproduction raises issues of how women allocate time to these activities. In addition when women work outside the home they must arrange for the care of their children and other aspects of social reproduction as well. What mothers say about their childcare arrangements says a lot about their priorities and resources. Place matters if mothers’ childcare choices are constrained because of rural residence. 98 Maternal employment has been found to have different consequences for depression (Ross, Mirowsky, and Huber 1983), family relations (Spitze 1988), and the division of labor in two-earner marriages (F erree I991). Feminist theorizes posit that households are sites of conflict over production and redistribution issues (Hartmann 1981). These mothers’ discourses on social reproduction need to be examined for the impact employment has on family life and the implications of this for total life experience. Likewise, the impact of family life on their employment opportunities needs to be considered. Even with the emphasis feminism has placed on women and social reproduction that improve our understanding of the conditions of women’s lives these theories have their critics. Feminist theories of housework have been accused of disparaging the work and the worker, and are believed to lead to seeing investments in family life as a negative enterprise for women (Ahlander and Bahr 1995). In addition, socialist feminist theories of social reproduction have not been more widely accepted because they have often extolled the virtues of paid employment over family work, even as they acknowledge the need to better understand and elevate the work of women within the home. The blanket application of economic principles to social reproduction life hides the positive impact marriage and childbearing may have for women (Ribbens and Edwards 1992, Milkman and Townsley 1994). A focus on oppression and economic aspects of family life do not adequately describe the totality of women’s experience. Criticisms of existing feminist theor‘ies can be addressed by examining the impact formal discourses have on women and by revealing women’s subjective understanding of social reproduction. 99 Social reproduction is an important focus of women’s experience because they may be subordinated by family work and yet they are their own bosses within the home (Oakley 1974). If this is the case, family and social reproduction need to be understood as milieu over which women have control. It is therefore important to understand more completely why women continue to engage in social reproduction and the meaning the work has for them. The Discourse of Oppression: Work as Oppression One way to explore maternal employment, as a source of oppression is to examine the job women have and how they talk about their employment. The types and kinds of jobs that women have are important shapers of their family life. This is consistent with a Marxist position that class and ability to compete in the economy shapes people’s values rather than the other way around (Luker 1984). Thirteen women in the sample are working firll-time and five are working part-time (Table 4.4). Seven of the eighteen jobs held by women fall under the operators, fabricators, and laborers category used by the U. S. Census,4 three work in pink-collar jobs and four are in service occupations. Both the type of jobs women hold and their job histories illustrate that it would be difficult for most of these women to support themselves and their families on their wages alone. By examining their work histories I find most women have held a number of low Paying service sector or factory jobs. Their work histories also reveal periods of intermittent employment and unemployment, with some periods of unemployment filled With childbearing. A few women had experienced either a non-marital birth or divorce that forced them to rely on social welfare programs. Most of these rural non-farm women \ 4 . 19):;ch Use Microdata Samples. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Bureau of the Census, October 100 live in a tenuous financial situation that is shaped by their marital status, low wages, and the marginal social support available. Low paying jobs and lack of other employment opportunities are objective signs of women’s oppression in a rural labor market. One mother described moving from welfare to work as a process of reduced support as hours at work increased. ...As I was at my job longer and longer it got to the point where I didn’t need the assistance. Like when I first met my husband, I was still a single mom buying a house, raising 2 children on my own and the only thing, only help I was getting at the time was food stamps. I made enough money to pay my house payment and stuff like that but I didn’t make quite enough money to keep food, enough food in the house so I used that (food stamps), (and) Medicaid I used (#5). Even now her wages are wholly inadequate to support her family. Without social support this mother would have been unable to find or provide medical care or food for her children. Currently this mother is working 35 hours a week as a waitress for $3.18 per hour which would make her annual income $5,787.60 without tips. At the time of the interview both this mother and her husband work firll-time and have a combined income of $20,000-$25,000. The combined income of two full-time workers places this family below the median for the county, which was estimated at $25,599.’ Her experience of declining welfare support as paid employment increased indicates that she is expected to economically provide for her family. The objective reality is that her wages alone are not sufficient to do this. Marriage also did not increase her household income to the median for the county. Low wages in the county leave households with two working adults at an economic disadvantage. 5 Bureau of the Census. County Estimates for Median Household Income for Michigan: 1993. Table C93- 26. Released January 1998. http://www.state.mi.us/dmb/mic/source/econ/hhincome.hUn lOl Another indicator of women’s oppression in the labor market is that their job opportunities are an extension of their social reproductive labor (Amott 1993). Ten of eighteen women work in jobs in which they provide support services for or work primarily with other women and children (Table 4.4). The three more highly educated women in the sample work in occupations in which women are highly concentrated and they work with children and the sick. Overall, women in the sample are more likely to work in lower paying occupations than their husbands do (Table 4.5). These findings are consistent with other research that illustrates that women are disproportionately assigned to the care of children and the infirm (Cowan 1987). Restructuring of industries in rural areas has changed the gender composition of the rural labor force from men to women (Flora et a1. 1992). The inflexibility of hours required and the nature of the work have historically made factory work difficult to combine with social reproduction (Kessler-Harris 1982, Tilly and Scott 1987). Eight women talked about aspects of factory work that provide important cues to the quality of jobs that rural women occupy. Factory work in the county pays both men and women poorly. One mother said that, even though her husband was a foreman in a factory, their family qualified for the reduced price on school lunches. In this household the father was making $11.00 per hour and worked 47 hours per week.6 Within these rural families women in factory jobs make less per hour than their husbands illustrating further women’s Oppression in rural labor markets. ‘Families are eligible for reduced lunches if family income is 185% of the federal poverty line. If household income were figured by taking the hourly rate of $11.00 and multiplying it by 47 hours per week for 52 weeks household income would equal $26,884. One hundred and eighty-five percent of the poverty threshold for a family of four was $28,592 in 1995. Household income in the survey was reported as 320,000-325,000 for the previous year. 102 A distinguishing characteristic of working class employment is dependence on hourly wages (Rapp 1992). Most women and men in the sample were dependent on hourly wages though one mother was actually paid piece rates. Being paid by the hour makes juggling payments necessary if there are unexpected expenses or illness that interfere with working. Meeting social reproductive needs is compromised by low hourly wages and job insecurity as the following comments illustrate. Now this week we had to buy new winter coats. And I had been off a couple of days sick and my husband was off, because his back hurt. So that sort of made things a little tight. So like we put off the electric bill that was due this week, we’ll make (it) next week (#7). Low wage factory work is problematic for meeting both productive and social reproductive needs. Lack of job security leaves families financially vulnerable. One mother lost her job when she got sick and could not go to work. Another mother reported she had lost a previous job when her car broke down, and she could not get to work. If her car broke down now she said she would lose this job too. Transportation is an important problem for rural parents. There are few options for transportation other than having your own car. Obtaining a higher paying factory jobs often require that parents commute to another county. And though another mother said she had “loved” the hours of the factory job she had because she got home just as her children got home from school, she had gotten the 109 through a temporary agency. Once this assignment ended she was out of work until the next assignment. Factory work in rural areas is often temporary or of a seasonal nature which has an important impact on women and family life (Zavella 1987, Lamphere, Zavella, and Gonzales 1993). Most women with factory jobs called them “dead end” jobs, but they also acknowledged they were the only jobs they could find that 103 allowed them to support their families. This was especially true for women with less than a high school education. When compared to fast food restaurants or healthcare jobs, factory work paid rural women significantly more. Pink-collar work also made it difficult for women to support a family. One mother, a proof operator, said she wanted to do more at work, but could not unless she got a college degree. Her job had few benefits and her medical plan required that she pay for much of her children’s coverage. I wish I could get better medical but I make too much for Medicaid... I’m kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. There’s no chance for advancement. There are my normal raises. My job is boring (#14). Low level jobs in health care also paid poorly. Three mothers had worked as nurse aides and/or home healthcare aides, and though they reported they liked the work, all commented on how poorly they were paid. Even when women held both jobs at the same time they could not support their families. The types and quality of women’s jobs and the expense of paid employment had to be evaluated so that rural mothers would enter the labor market. Rural mothers do articulate the contradictions inherent in combining poor paying employment with social reproduction. I wouldn’t want to leave my kids with a babysitter, and see...if I went off to work how much money would I actually have to make to really say that I was bringing money into the home? If you go to work, there’s sometimes a different wardrobe you have to have. You’re going to have to have a good running vehicle, which I have, but the more you need to travel with it you’d need another car. See that was my whole thing. How much money would you bring home especially if I had 3 kids and had to have someone take care of the two boys when they came home? They couldn’t be here by themselves ‘til 5 o’clock. To me, the money was not as important as to stay home... I’ll do anything 1 have to just to stay home and be with the children. I was raised that way, and that’s the way I want my children to be raised (#4). 104 Women not only had to weigh the benefits and costs of working but when they did work they had to absorb the costs associated with rural residence and paid employment. Mothers who felt they had to work developed strategies for meeting their child’s childcare needs. One of these was working non-day shifts, especially nightshift. On the surface working “midnights” was one way to meet financial needs and still be home for their children. However when talking about working non-dayshifts, evidence of oppression became more acute. When I was working 3rd shift, I didn’t feel like I had any energy for anything... It was just trying to handle everything and get enough sleep and get the kids where they wanted to go. I just wasn’t getting enough sleep. I was getting omery and crabby and just meeting myself coming and going (#8). Attempts to combine full-time shifts and parenting stretched women to their physical and mental limits. What seemed like a reasonable solution to combining work and family left women frustrated. Though working a nightshift usually meant that childcare was available one mother still took her child to daycare so that she could sleep during the day. The presence of young children makes working different shifts only a partial solution to meeting productive and social reproductive responsibilities. Women who work do not appear to give up responsibility for social reproduction. In addition, children make demands on their mother’s time even when they needed sleep. Maternal employment is oppressive to rural non-farm women but social class and rural residence intersect in ways that intensify their oppression. Lower education levels and few skills have been found to prevent low-income rural residents from moving out of mral areas (Duncan 1992). Rural employment oppresses mothers in all the ways that jobs have been theorized as being oppressive to women. Rural women work in jobs in which women are highly concentrated they work in jobs that are concentrated in the 105 service sector, or in low level operative jobs. Rural women are paid less than men are. These factors are compounded by underdevelopment and peripheral status of rural places to urban places. This county simply does not offer women many alternatives in employment. Living in a rural county increases the costs of employment for rural mothers. The feminist discourse of oppression is evident when the objective characteristics of women’s jobs are examined and oppression is present in their comments about their employment or their decision not to work outside the home. The Burden of Parenting: Social Reproduction as a Source of Oppression Not all women in the sample work outside the home (Table 4.4). Women spoke highly about the quality of their work if they were home raising their children. One mother described being home with her kids the “ideal” job (#21). Another stay-at—home mother also said she had “no regrets” about remaining home with her children (#4). When this mother was asked what does not get done when time and energy are scarce, she said: You know, it will work out, it always does. Like (the) housework, because I stay home, this is my job, this is my life. No one else is going to do it. . .. A lot of people can’t be around kids and be understanding... It’s a hard life being here all day long and talking to kids and then when your husband comes home you have to share him with the kids and they all go to bed together, it’s like I’ve been with kids all day. I don’t see any big people. (But) this is what I do (#4). Her comments reveal positive aspects of social reproduction and it is work she organizes. She is confident that she will get the work done and she also says that not everyone can do what she does. But her comments also reveal that the work is hard and she is cut off from other adults. Though this mother does not see staying home as oppressive her comments reveal oppression consistent with other studies of housework (Dalla Costa 1972, Oakley 1974). Even when women engage only in social reproduction it is difficult 106 to get everything done. They are also isolated and confined to home due to the age and number of children they have and lack of or cost of transportation. Isolation can be acute in rural areas because open spaces separate families from neighbors. Many mothers in the face-to-face interviews said they took pride in their ability to raise their children. Paid work would get done and housework would get caught up but there is a general feeling a child cannot be ignored. Children placed immediate demands on their mothers and their needs could not be confined to a finite amount of time. A discourse of social reproduction for these mothers was that social reproduction is for and about caring for children. This was true regardless of marital or employment status. Most women in the sample would agree with a statement made by one mother that “family comes first” (#7). When women said family comes first they mean that their children’s needs receive priority over their own. Women will sacrifice and go without so that their children’s needs are met. When asked what they would do if money was short but their child really needed something, mothers made a number of similar sorts of comments. “We use bill money for it, or my husband works overtime...”(#2). “I think I would borrow the money from somebody, you know? If it’s something important that the children really needed, yes, I would borrow the money to do it” (#4). Their discourse reveals a primacy placed on the needs of their children and that they have to sacrifice their own needs so their children’s needs are met. Responsibility for parenting oppresses women in ways that men are not oppressed. A number of mothers said that they “made” their husbands place children’s needs above their own. 107 The presence of children requires that women reexamine their social reproduction priorities. This point was made especially salient in the comments of a mother who had an adopted child at home. I’ve found that mine and father’s priorities have changed a lot since Samantha moved in with us and we’ve adopted her. We don’t eat out like we used to. We used to eat out a lot, but we don’t do that (now) because ‘Samantha needs a new coat,’ ‘Samantha needs a pair of boots,’ ‘Samantha needs...’ So we’re going to buy her boots this week, we are not going to go to Pizza Hut (#28). Women in this sample are aware that as mothers they are expected to prioritize family needs and sacrifice where necessary to provide for their children. A recently divorced mother said, Sometimes you go without. I ask my ex-husband for as much help and stuff as he can give, but sometimes they just have to go without for a few weeks. Or we go without heat, for a week or something, because they have to have boots (#12). I work around them. If I cannot afford to pay it, one week, I figure a way and work around things so that I do get them paid. Like lunches and school clothes and things that need to be done, I do.... But I, as a mother, I let a lot of my stuff go for my children. Normal mothers do that (#13). Women juggle the bills and make choices about what is best. Husbands benefit from the social reproduction of their wives just as children do. (I am) proud of being able to take care and juggle everything that goes up. He (my husband) doesn’t have to worry about whether he is going to have any clean clothes in his closest; they are usually there. He doesn’t have to ask. Or is the dinner on or is there food in the house or are the kids clean or gone to the doctor. I seem to handle all of that (#1). Being married can be understood as source of oppression because women remain responsible for most social reproduction when they work outside the home. These mothers do not say that caring for their husbands, children or home is oppressive to them but they adopt a discourse of sacrifice. It is no small task to decide whether to buy boots 108 or pay for the heat. Sacrificing and doing without, or making do with limited resources or help, are signs of oppression within the home. Marital Status. Marital Disruption and Social Reproduction Regardless of their marital status women engage in a disproportionate amount of social reproduction. Yet women in rural areas often depend on their husbands, boyfriends, or the fathers of their children to help because they have few other options. This is a common strategy used by poor Black women in the rural South (Dill and Williams 1992). The presence of a husband or boyfriend can be an additional source of financial support for the household and a husband or boyfriend can provides additional sources of help as well. In-laws help mothers with various types of social reproduction with temporary childcare the most common type. During the study members of the fathers family were actively providing support to women and their children. In some cases in-law support continues after a divorce, while in other cases this support ends. When their marriages ended, a few of these mothers had to carry the entire burden of production and social reproduction. Divorced working mothers are most likely to feel overwhelmed by the competing demands placed on them as workers and parents. They spend their days juggling limited financial resources and time to both sets of responsibilities. Though some do receive child support from absent fathers, they have little respite from the day-to-day demands of raising children. Though some mothers said it is their children who sustain them when stress is greatest, it is also the presence of children that increase their stress and the demands on their time. Working to support their children keeps them working at jobs they do not like. Divorced women with children have fewer employment options then 109 their married counterparts. Women with working husbands can be more selective about the jobs they have than women who are the sole support of their family. Divorced or unmarried women with young children at home had to depend on social services rather than employment. Social services provide Medicaid, and staying at home relieved them of the need for childcare. Local social services were wholly inadequate for meeting all of their family’s needs however. The inadequacy of rural social services to meet family needs has been well—documented (Bokemeier and Garkovich 1993). Female-headed households are economically disadvantaged when compared to male-headed families, and two adult households. Both production and social reproduction demand incredible amounts of women’s time and energy, with single- mothers feeling especially burdened by these demands. Divorced mothers more than stay-at-home mothers are more likely to say that work and raising children is hard and that they have a difficult time meeting these demands. Divorced mothers are more likely to use a discourse of oppression when they talked about raising children by themselves and when they combine maternal employment with social reproduction. Feminist theories that posit women are oppressed by marriage and family life are supported rather than challenged by these women. Indeed because the work is undertaken on behalf of their families they are likely to see it as a sacrifice rather than oppression. Women’s family labor is easily co-opted under capitalist economic systems because they define it as important and necessary for their family (Glazer 1987, 1993). Women who had grown up with working mothers were less likely to the overlap between production and social reproduction as overwhelming. Likewise women who had had stay-at-home mothers and were home with their own children appeared to be 110 experiencing less conflict than mothers who had to work outside the home but wanted to be home. The Family Values Debates: Public and Political Discourse Regarding Social Reproduction and Women’s Roles within the Home and Society Discourses within the family values debate take two forms. One discourse is about the formation and appropriate composition of a family, and the other centers on appropriate roles for women. These discourses are often confused into a single discourse about family decline and social decay in contemporary society. The discourse of decay suggests that working mothers leave children vulnerable to a host of problems such as teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, single-parenthood, and the rejection and neglect of other family members (Dafoe Whitehead 1993). Other social problems are also blamed on working mothers such as increased child abuse, domestic violence, drug and alcohol addition, failing schools, poverty, and crime and violence (Skolnick 1996). The family values debate is not merely an academic debate about the status of family and women’s roles but how these discourses get used in political and public ways. One side of the debate champions sex-based divisions of labor where women are responsible for social reproduction while men are responsible for production. This side of the family values debate is a discourse of traditional families i.e., breadwinning fathers and stay-at- home mothers in stable and monogamous marriages. The other side of the debate posits that though women’s roles and family forms are changing, women and men remain committed to marriage and family life. In addition they find that family life provides an important source of satisfaction for women and men. Another current of the family in decline discourse is that our society emphasizes individual fulfillment and adult goals resulting in the neglect of collective goals and the needs of children. When women enter Ill the labor market they are placing their needs for self-fulfillment over that of their children and ultimately society (Poponoe 1988). More recent family research posits that families have always varied in form and the traditional form was never a cultural universal (Coontz 1992). A more contemporary view is that changes in work and family were inevitable but that family life will continue (Coontz 1994). This side believes that the discourse of family decline and social decay rests on an ahistorical understanding of family life in the United States and neglects significant changes in the economy since the end of World War II that lead to changing work and family roles (Coontz 1992; Stacey 1996). A changing economy and changing cultural attitudes and patterns of marriage and family life have increased women’s economic vulnerability. Women cannot depend on individual men or marriage to protect them and their children from financial hardship (Ehrenreich 1983). Marriage is unstable due to economic shifts and changing cultural attitudes. The result is women and children are economically vulnerable. Another way to understand the family values debate is to emphasize liberal versus conservative views of family. The liberal view is that marriage and family life has changed, and it is necessary to develop programs and policies that support these new families in their myriad of forms (Stacey 1996). The conservative view is that the family as an institution is in decline. In order for children to be well cared for, programs and policies need to bolster traditional marriage and family relations (Blankenhom 1990). The family values debate suggests that families are either traditional or not families at all. To see the impact of the family values debate on rural non-farm women I look at their martial status and employment. The conservative side of the family values 112 debate is also one a tenet of the agrarian ideology that is, rural families are nuclear with a sex-based division of labor. In this section I look at patterns of marriage and family formation. It is also instructive to look at for evidence of commitment to marriage and childbearing among these women. I examine first respondents’ marital and employment statuses, and their commitment to marriage and whether a sex-based division of labor exists. Marit_al Status and Family Formation in a Rural Michigan County Research on families illustrates that there are more married couples and fewer female-headed households in rural areas when compared to urban patterns (Hermon and Brubaker 1988). What is different between urban and rural cohorts of women is that rural women tend to marry at a younger age and have slightly more children than their urban counterparts (McLaughlin, Lichter, and Johnston 1993). On the surface the presence of more married couples and childbearing appears to reflect a commitment to traditional family forms. Marital status is important because it is often used as a variable for sorting data and making comparisons. But simply looking at the marital status respondents reported does not give a complete picture of their actual living arrangements. The marital status some mothers reported in the survey varied from what they told us in the face-to-face interviews. In one case a mother reported she was divorced but she was living with her boyfriend. Both are true but it is possible that the presence of a boyfriend makes her household situation more like a remarried household. In two cases women were separated from their husbands and in the process of divorce. One of these mothers 113 reported she was married in the survey.7 How mothers report marital status can create a very different picture of marital stability and instability, or commitment and non- commitment. Table 4.3 illustrates the number of women in first marriages and the duration of their marriages. Duration of first marriages varies from 1.5 to 20 years. Because we interviewed mothers with at least one 8-10 year old child in the household examining the duration of first marriages provided some interesting information. It became evident that as many as five children had been born prior to their mother’s first marriage. Eight to ten year old children became incorporated into step- or blended families when and if their mothers married or remarried. One mother in a second marriage had only two children from her current marriage. 13 this household like other remarried households or more like first marriages? If only Census categories for marital status were used, this sample would reveal a high percentage of “married” couples. What my research reveals is that marital status and childbearing among rural non-farm women varies considerably from the traditional form even though most respondents report they are married. Yet these women’s marriage patterns illustrate commitment to marriage, even as family forms and duration of relationships vary. This would be consistent with the optimist camp of the family values debate. In addition, respondents report that they are very satisfied with their current relationship (Table 5.1). If all two-adult households are examined 18 out of 20 report they are very satisfied. The data illustrate that married 7 How survey respondents report their marital status varies by the choices they are given. In the survey we asked respondents to indicate whether they were in a first marriage, remarried, divorced or separated, members of an unmarried couple, single and never married. or widowed. Census designations are single and never married, married, divorced or widowed. An underlying assumption of this research project was that family disruption might impact the well being of children in the county so we asked about a larger variety of marital statuses. 114 Table 5 .1 Marital Status and Satisfaction with Current Relationship from Household Survey (n=29). Satisfaction with Current Relationship Raw Numbers Somewhat Very Marital Status Other Satisfied Satisfied Total First marriages O 3 12 15 Remarriages 2 1 5 8 Unmarried couples 0 1 1 2 Divorced 2 0 1 3 Widowed _Q_ _0_ _L 4 Total 4 5 20 29 115 women are satisfied with their current relationships but the same data could be analyzed differently. The family decline camp of the family values debate could emphasize variations from the traditional model and conclude that marital disruption is common among rural residents. Family patterns among this sample represent both sides of the family values debate. Marriage is the most common marital status but half of the respondents in the face-to—face interviews have experienced some family disruption. In addition, some women in first marriages had at least one child outside of marriage. Being married does not illustrate blanket acceptance of a traditional pattern. But being married does seem to offer women and children some important advantages. Table 4.3 shows that first marriages of longer duration are made up of working mothers and in most cases these households have incomes greater than $25,000. The total number of children born to each woman in the study is different than the current number of children living in the household. Long married couples in first marriages tended to have only their biological children living at home but there are a few exceptions to this. Family #3 and family #28 had only one adopted child living at home at the time of the interview. Remarried couples had stepchildren and children from this marriage, as did unmarried couples with children. A few women were living with children fathered in a number of different relationships. Fourteen out of thirty households had 3 or more children currently at home suggesting that rural families are slightly larger than urban families. Examining current marital status illustrates a commitment to marriage and childbearing though not all respondents conform to a long- term, monogamous pattern. 116 Matgmal Employment, Marriage, and Sex-based Divisions of Limp; The family values discourse about maternal employment varies based on which camp you belong. Optimists see the positive impact of women’s employment on children by emphasizing the positive role modeling provided or they emphasis the increase in financial resources that are a result of women’s employment (Hartmann 1987). The pessimist discourse stresses the negative effects of mothers’ employment on children. The irony of the pessimist discourse is that without support policies for lower income families or assistance to women in the event of marital disruption, women must work for wages. Women’s employment is increasingly necessary across socioeconomic classes to maintain a particular standard of living (Baca Zinn and Eitzen 1993, Newman 1993). Those in the pessimist camp fail to recognize the class bias of their position against maternal employment. Racial-ethnic and working class women have longer and consistent patterns of paid employment than white, middle-class women (Glenn 1992, Rubin 1994). An irony inherent in the agrarian ideology about a maintaining a sex-based division of labor is that it also emphasizes independence through hard work. Women in female-headed households have a difficult time doing both. Changing marriage patterns could bring this contradiction to light.8 Awareness of the family values discourse could lead to one or more responses to maternal employment. 1) Women can combine production and social reproduction. 2) Maternal employment interferes with social reproduction. 3) Maternal employment could be accompanied by reorganizing or changing social reproduction. Women can simply decrease their time in social reproduction and do less or they can work to increase 8 The productive work of farm women and women farmers has always been overlooked because of the focus on men’s work and assumptions that all farmers are men (Sachs 1983). 117 male participation so that total time in social reproduction remains the same. Both the wife as co-provider literature (Hood 1983) and research on shift work (Presser 1986, 1988) illustrate conditions under which men increase their participation when their wives work outside the home. Other theories suggest that as men’s traditional bases of authority wane it is inevitable that they will increase their participation (Goode 1992). A study of commitment to work and family among middle and working class men in an urban sample found men fell into three categories. They remained committed to breadwinning, increase their commitment to family, or reject marriage and parenting responsibilities altogether (Gerson 1993). These studies suggest that men are capable and willing to increase their role in social reproduction, but they do so reluctantly. The patterns of marriage and employment in this sample fall somewhere in- between the polar opposite discourses of the family values debate. Table 5.2 shows the marital and employment status of mothers in the study. It illustrates that almost half of all women in first marriages are employed full-time. Two-thirds of the divorced women are also working full-time. What is most interesting is that remarried women are more likely to be unemployed. This is consistent with studies that show that traditional roles of work and family are likely in remarried couples if both spouses hold these values (Pyke 1994). Also women in remarriages will either stay-at-home or work outside the home due to a sense of entitlement, obligation, or gratitude (Pyke and Coltrane 1996). Of the eleven stay at home mothers, one reported she was unemployed but looking for work. Another mother is in school firll-time and planning to work once finished. Though the rest are home by “choice” a number of these mothers have physical or developmental 118 Table 5.2 Marital Status and Maternal Employment Among Rural Non—Farm Women (n=29) Marital Status Raw Numbers Employment First Status Marriages Remarriages Divorced Total Full—time 7 2 4 13 Part—time 4 1 0 5 Unemployed ___4__ __5_ _2_ _11__ Total 15 8 6 29 119 problems that prevent them from working. Most of stay at home mothers expressed interest in working outside the home. Most of the mothers in this sample worked outside the home prior to their 8-year- old child’s birth. Some of the mothers quit working when this child was born and have remained at home and had other children. Other mothers were out of work for a short time after the birth of the target child while others stayed home until this child started school. Therefore some women have only recently begun working, while some have continuous and lengthy work histories. Staying at home while children are young appears to reflect a commitment to raising children and a sex-based division of labor. Yet maternal employment does not necessarily reveal less commitment to raising children. These issues become an important focus of the discourse of social reproduction revealed in mother’s comments. Production is seen as part of their social reproduction responsibilities. Women who are in marriages of long duration and have continuous work histories would like to be home more with their children but they reject discourses that suggest they are neglecting their children by working outside the home. These rural non-farm women still support a sex-based division of labor within the home albeit with some modification. Women who work still in a disproportionate amount of social reproduction and they make all the arrangements for their child’s care. Working women depend on and include their husbands, as helpers in meeting the social reproduction required by children. Women that stay at home are responsible for all social reproduction. 120 In summary, my analysis reveals a commitment to marriage and to working outside the home. Some households conform to traditional marriages in that they are of long duration and consist of parents and their biological children but these families cannot maintain a sex-based division of productive labor. Some women have been in the labor market over most of the course of their child’s life. In other households mothers have remained out of the labor market because they have young children at home. These families conform to a traditional pattern with clear divisions between productive and reproductive work. It is the presence of young children that allows women to justify staying at home. The discourse of these women reveals pressure to work outside the home. Most mothers interviewed said they would enter the labor force once their youngest child was in school full-time. In many ways the mothers in this study reject the conservative discourse of the family values debate. Though a number of mothers said clearly that they felt they should be home with their children, most women in the study expect to work outside the home. Rather than a discourse of staying at home rural non-farm women use a discourse of providing for their families through paid employment. Only a few women in the study said that they had expected to be home full-time raising children and caring for their home. Reporting one’s marital status and number of children at home does not reveal the complexity of household arrangements found in the sample. Rural areas may have more married couples but that status hides considerable variation in childbearing and family formation. Still women in long and stable marriages believed this status us “unusual” in the county. Marriage appears to benefit rural women because the presence of a husband [21 provides contact with another adult and men provide emotional, financial and other support to women and their children. Two incomes will not necessarily raise families out of poverty. The Local Discourse and a Lingering Agrarian Ideology: Discourses about Gender Roles, Child Well Being, and Rural Areas In this section I describe a local discourse about social reproduction and maternal employment based on responses to questions asked of county residents in the telephone survey. Questions in the survey asked residents their opinions about gender roles, their assessment of child well being and family life in the county, and solicited general comments about the county as a place to live (Appendix D). The gender role questions are used to look for evidence of new family and work roles for men and women or cultural lag. Questions regarding child well being and family are intended to examine perceptions of county residents of how well or how poorly social reproduction is being performed. Responses to these questions suggest a number of possibilities. If county residents believe that women should not be working outside the home, there could be evidence that children in the county are not doing well. If respondents accept and acknowledge that women do work outside the home, I would expect they also believe men should be more involved in social reproduction. If the county is generally considered a good place to live, then I expect residents believe children and families are doing well. The local context needs to be examined for ways in which it shapes men’s and women’s lives differently. Among immigrant groups there are different conditions under 122 which women are expected to work outside the home and their opportunities are shaped by the local context (Gold, forthcoming). The agrarian ideology could shape how people respond to questions in the survey and influence the beliefs and practices of mothers in the county. The local context can liberate or constrain the opportunities of women in the local area and shape their views of employment and social reproduction. Perceptions of Children’s Lives An entire section of the telephone survey was devoted to asking county residents about children in the county and rural residence. A five point Lickert scale was used to measure agreement and disagreement with a series of statements about residents’ views about children’s lives, gender roles, and general perceptions of the county. Appendix D includes the total number of responses and the percent of respondents that agreed or disagreed with the statements. A number of questions used in the survey were developed to assess whether county residents believed children were socially and developmentally prepared to begin school.9 I am using questions about county schools and school readiness as a proxy for beliefs about child well being in the county. Overall, responses to the question of whether children are supervised after school and on weekends showed variance. Twenty-two percent of the sample strongly agreeing with the statement, 25% somewhat disagreed and 12% strongly disagree (Appendix D). Responses to this question suggest that the supervision of children during non-school hours could be something of a problem. Increased maternal employment, working a non- dayshifts, or weekends would mean that women are less likely to be available to supervise their children. When crosstabulations using the chi square test was examined 9 Boyer (1993) defines school readiness as demonstrated skills and abilities that indicate a child is ready to begin their formal education. 123 however were no statistically significant differences in responses found among county residents based on their employment status, income, marital status, age, or gender. County residents overwhelmingly agree that limiting the time families receive welfare will improve children's lives, with 36% strongly agreeing with the statement and 32% somewhat agreeing. ’0 The rural literature illustrates that rural residents hold conflicting views of welfare use. They believe welfare can be used to save farms and temporarily to support families faced with difficult circumstances but they oppose welfare receipt among groups they consider undeserving particularly single women with children and peOple of color (Naples 1994). Welfare reform legislation was pending at the time of the research project, so a discourse of declining state support and increased female employment was probably familiar to residents. Women in the face—to-face interviews frequently voiced a belief in the importance of working and modeling this positive behavior for their children. Moving low-income mothers from welfare to work means that they would be less available to supervise their children. Views on welfare and supervision illustrate conundrums for women posited in the agrarian ideology and family values debate. Women are held responsible for providing and being home with their children. When mothers work they must find childcare. Considerable variation existed among county residents as to whether plenty of “quality” daycare was available in the community. Table 5.3 summarizes the percent that agree or disagree with the statement. It also summarizes how responses vary by a number of household and employment '0 Welfare use and perceived welfare abuse had surfaced in the face-to-face interviews as a way of distinguishing good families from problem families. Welfare use relates in important ways to discourses surrounding maternal employment and the agrarian ideology. Welfare use in the county was discussed briefly in Chapter 4 and will be discussed in more depth as it relates to the agrarian ideology in Chapter 6. 124 Table 5 .3 Perceptions of Availability of Quality Day Care by Number of Eamers and Number of Adults in Household, Presence Of Children Under the Age of 18, Employment Status Of Respondent, and Age. Neither Strongly Somewhat Agree or Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Percentages Nincome*" No income, one or two 36.2 27.5 14.5 7.2 14.5 adult household (69) 1 income, one adult (45) 22.2 37.8 4.4 28.9 6.7 1 income, two adult (50) 18 34 4 26 18 2 income, two adult (78) 17.9 21.8 6.6 22.3 18.2 Adults in household" 1 adult (84) 28.6 34.5 9.5 17.9 9.5 2 adult (159) 21.5 25.8 5 24.5 23.3 Children under 18 in household* NO children (149) 25.5 32.2 9.4 19.5 13.4 Children (97) 21.6 22.7 4.1 25.8 25.8 Employment status” Full-time (105) 24.8 23.8 5.7 24.8 21 Part—time (38) 7.9 36.8 0 34.2 21.1 Not working (95) - 31.6 29.5 12.6 12.6 13.7 Aggltlk 18-40 (92) 22.8 25 3.3 27.2 21.7 41-65 (96) 20.8 28.1 6.3 25 19.8 66+ (54) 31.5 33.3 16.7 7.4 11.1 Quality day care 24.3 28.3 7.3 27.7 22.3 Total (247) ‘Ps.05. "Ps.01. ***Ps.001. 125 variables. Residents that were not working, had no children under 18 at home and those over the age of 66 were most likely to strongly agree and somewhat agree that quality childcare was available locally. Those respondents working full-time were equally divided across responses, while those working part-time were more likely to somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with the statement. Working part-time could therefore be a way to fill the gap created by lack of quality care. Working residents would be more aware of the problems associated with finding quality day care than non-working residents are. In addition working mothers might use available childcare because they have to, and still not rate its quality as high. I learned more about the quality and availability of childcare in the county from mothers in the face-to—face interviews. They suggest that quality daycare is had to find and what care is available is expensive. When county residents were asked whether they agreed with the statement that children under the age of three are not harmed by all-day childcare they were less likely to strongly agree (Appendix D). Though county residents believe quality day care is available they are less likely to believe young children are not harmed by it (Table 5.4). Responses varied significantly based on whether this was a one- or two-adult household and a variable constructed that combined number of adults at home with employment status. Thirty-six percent of the one income, two adult households somewhat disagreed with the statement and thirty-one percent strongly disagreed with the statement. This household type would appear to conform most to the belief that young children are harmed by non-parent care. One-earner, two adult households conform most closely to the traditional model of a male breadwinner and stay-at-home mother. Though it is impossible to make definitive statements about childcare in the county from these two 126 Table 5.4 Perceptions of Whether Children Under Three are not Harmed by All Day Childcare by Belief that Quality Childcare is Available, Number of Adults in Household, and Number of Eamers by Number of Adults in Household. Not Harmed by All Day Child Care Percentages Neither Strongly Somewhat Agree or Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Adults in household“ 1 adult (91) 24.2 27.5 8.8 20.9 18.7 2 adults (165) 9.7 27.9 5.5 32.1 24.8 Nincome“ No income, one or 20.5 28.8 12.3 17.8 20.5 two adult (73) 1 income, one adult (49) 24.5 28.6 4.1 26.5 16.3 1 income, two adult (52) 3.8 25 3.8 36.5 30.8 2 income, two adult (81) 11.1 28.4 4.9 33.3 22.2 Total (260) 14.6 28.1 7.3 27.7 22.3 *Ps.05. 127 questions, responses indicate that working respondents are more critical of existing services and more likely to believe that young children could be harmed by day care. Households with two incomes and single-heads of households are most likely to face the conundrum of combining paid employment and finding adequate childcare. The difference is that one-income single adult households would want to believe that their children are well cared for in their absence. The interviews reveal that working mothers looked long and hard to find someone they trusted to provide childcare and most mothers used other family members of friends. County residents overwhelmingly believed that children need to be read to at least thirty minutes a day in order to be ready to start school (Appendix D). Sixty-six percent of all respondents strongly agreed with the statement and another 27% somewhat agreed. The local discourse reveals that reading to children is important to their being ready to start school. Reading was an important focus of the research project, and one example of social reproductive work in which mothers engaged. Studies of schools in Canada indicate that school personnel expect mothers to help their children with schoolwork and that women were aware of these expectations (Griffith 1995). The belief that reading is an important way of preparing children for school reflects the influence of discourses of education and child development on women. F ifty-eight percent of the county residents surveyed also believed children were more likely to be ready to start school now than ten years ago (Appendix D). Gender was the only variable in which statistical significance was found among responses to this statement (Table 5.5). Responses to these questions illustrate broad agreement that 128 Table 5.5 Perceptions of Whether Children in the Research County are Ready to Start School. More Likely No Change Less Likely Percentages Gender“ Men (102) 53 23.5 23.5 Women (153) 62 10 28 Total (255) 58.4 15.3 26.3 *Ps.05. 129 children need to be read to, and most residents believe children are ready for school. The local discourse appears to reflect a fairly positive view of school readiness. Still, twenty-six percent of the county respondents feel children are less likely to be ready to start school than ten years ago. This suggests that some residents believe changes have taken place that has resulted in a decline in school readiness. More analysis would be required to reveal and understand the discourse regarding children’s school readiness and their well being in the county but this theme will be discussed throughout my dissertation. These responses provide an important reference points for looking at reading as part of women’s social reproduction responsibilities and the demands placed on women when they combined maternal employment with raising children. Correlations between responses to these items about child well being were not particularly high, though some of them were significant at p 5 .01 and p _<_ .05 (Table 5.6). But agreeing or disagreeing to a few statements about child well being does not provide a complete picture of children’s lives in the county. It does raise some issues about maternal employment and social reproduction. Residents seem to believe that children are receiving adequate supervision, but they also believe that limiting welfare will improve children’s lives a situation. This would actually result in less supervision of children by their mothers. County residents also believe children should be read to indicating an expectation that someone is available to do this. When questions about childcare are examined the respondents most likely to believe quality care is available are 66 years old and older or unemployed. Those most likely to only somewhat agree that quality care is available are in one income, one adult households and those who work part-time. Responses to the question of whether children are not harmed by daycare are 130 Ace—HTS :52 mod 2: an “:35:me mm “56586 coon—oboe 28.80% .Aoozfiimv .26— 86 65 am Emommnwmw a :56on6 533280 :oflmom: 83 :3. m8- So. MS. as. S. a: 5:258 9 338m 83 48. L2. 08.- m2. m: R...“ 2333 as: 83 :5”. tome :oNNr R3 8...” 83388 56:5 83 team. that a; :3. 28 do 3:20 83 tea..- m3 23m ages: 88am 83 m: SH 85... 5.. seam coho—EU 08:03 vommtuasm 030 we mac—HEEL _oonom .D.m :32 o. omom :85 22230 .0325 88me 8“ Seam .aomue 35.8 fiaoam a ween =03 EEO 823288 3.. ”Ba. 131 consistent with the above. Two adult households are more likely to disagree that quality care is available and are less convinced children are not harmed by daycare. County perceptions vary based on those categories that might require care and those without first hand knowledge of combining work and family. Gender Roles Gender role questions were selected because they examine whether respondents believe men and women are responsible for providing for their families through paid employment. These questions ask why women work outside the home, and whether social reproductive work such as childcare, cooking, and laundry should be shared if men and women work full-time (Appendix D). Variation among responses was most obvious when people were asked if it was better for men to earn the main living and women take care of home and family. Twenty-nine percent of the county residents sampled strongly agreed with the statement, 25% somewhat agreed, 19% somewhat disagreed, and 20% strongly disagreed (Table 5.7). Variation among response categories made comparisons by household and employment variables possible. When responses were compared by employment status, respondents who worked full-time and part-time were most likely to strongly disagree. In households with one or two adults but no one working outside the home, 45% strongly agreed that men should provide the main living and women should care for home and family. Thirty-six percent of the one income, two adult households also strongly agreed with the statement. The category most likely to strongly disagree were respondents in one income, one adult households. If one income, one adult households consist of women raising children it is likely they are sole providers for their families, and therefore strongly disagree that men must 132 Table 5.7 Percent that Agree or Disagree that a Man Should Earn Main Living and a Woman Should Take of the Home by Employment Status, Earners and Number of Adults per Household, and Re3ponses to Whether Women Should be Responsible for Providing. Male Main Living Percentages Neither Strongly Somewhat Agree or Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Employment status" * * Full-time (123) 16.3 26.8 4.1 26.8 26 Part—time (44) 15.9 22.7 13.6 20.5 27.3 Not employed (120) 45 24.2 8.3 10. 12.5 Nincome*** No income, 1 or 2 44.9 27 7.9 7.9 12.4 adults (89) 1 income, one adult (53) 11.3 28.3 9.4 18.9 32.1 1 income, two adult (59) 35.6 16.9 5.1 20.3 22 2 income, two adult (90) 16.7 27.8 5.6 31.1 18.9 Ag§*** 18-40 (105) 15.2 24.8 4.8 28.6 26.7 41-65 (117) 24.8 27.4 6.8 19.7 21.4 66+ (69) 56.5 21.7 10.1 4.3 7.2 Total (287) 28.7 25 7.1 19.3 18.9 ***Ps.001. 133 provide. If, however, one income, two adult households are composed of working men and stay-at-home mothers it is reasonable that they would agree that men should provide. Given that 22% of this category strongly disagree, though, suggests some movement away from male providing and women’s responsibility for home and family. Beliefs about gender roles appear to be slower to change than forces that have lead women to work outside the home. Responses from residents in two—income, two adult households reflect ambivalence about either male providing or women’s responsibility for home and family. Comments by mothers in the face-to-face interviews lead me to believe they are responsible for social reproduction even when they work outside the home. And although some husbands make little more than their working wives do, it is still possible to adhere to traditional notions about male providing. Studies of social reproduction illustrate that men benefit from the social reproduction of their wives (Hartmann 1981) and that men are reluctant to give up their “right” to their labor (Goode 1992). Since younger respondents were less likely to strongly agree with the statement this suggests some shift in men’s sense of entitlement to women’s labor at home. Beliefs about male breadwinners and women’s responsibility for home and family are changing, but they appear to be changing more in the area of providing than home and family care.11 When asked if women have as much responsibility as men to provide financially, 54% strongly agreed and 32% somewhat agreed. Because of the large number of respondents that agreed with the statement cells sizes were too small to make meaningful comparisons by different variables. Widespread agreement that women are responsible ” Hochschild (1989) refers to this as the “stalled revolution." 134 for providing is consistent with the belief that welfare should be limited. It is also consistent with responses made to the question about why women work outside the home. When asked whether they thought the main reason most women work outside the home was to support their families or for personal satisfaction, 66.3% responded it was because their families need the money. Only 11% said women work solely for personal satisfaction. The local discourse reflects a clear trend of moving women toward a provider role. Given the emphasis placed on marriage rather than single-motherhood and welfare use this is not surprising. Residents in this county believe women should work outside the home. County residents were also asked whether housework should be shared if men and women work firll-time. Eighty-five percent of all county respondents sampled strongly agreed with this statement, and another 11% somewhat agreed. This overwhelming response to the belief in sharing household tasks requires additional discussion. Table 5.8 provides the correlations that exist between responses to the gender role questions. There is a positive and significant correlation between responses to questions about women as providers and whether or not household work should be shared (r = .325, p = .01). F iffy—eight percent of those respondents that strongly agreed household tasks should be shared also strongly agreed women have a responsibility to provide financially for their families. Responses to these questions indicate not only the expectation that women will work outside the home, but also that a more equitable sharing of household tasks is expected. The local discourse is therefore consistent with studies that show there is an expectation by men and women that men should increase their time in social reproduction when women work outside the home. But research illustrates that men have as yet are 135 Table 5.8 Correlations Between Gender Roles Questions and Responses (n=300). Male Women Share Mean SD. Provider Provide Chores Male Provider 2.77 1.53 1.000 Women Provide 1.75 1.07 -.246* * 1.000 Share Chores 1.23 .67 —. I 11 .325 * * 1.00 "Pearson correlation coefficient is significant at 0.01 level (2—tailed). 136 only marginally increasing their time in social reproduction (Pleck 1984). Without additional research it is impossible to know about the actual distribution of social reproduction within households in the county but mothers’ comments in the face-to-face interviews provide some insight. For the most part mothers in the study appeared to do most of the regular housekeeping and child related care. My research reveals a local discourse that clearly expects women to work outside the home and tacit movement away from a sex-based division of labor within the home. These responses reflect beliefs about single-parent families, welfare receipt, and the current economics of family life. There are still remnants of tradition that support male privilege in the county. It is however important that respondents believe that men should make more money than women because this continues to undermine women’s efforts to support their families. The local discourse places demands on women that oppress them, which is consistent with the feminist literature. It also reflects both sides of the family values debate. Women and men believe women should work outside the home but women are still held accountable for social reproduction in ways men are not. County Resources and Attributes In this section I examine briefly residents’ beliefs about Research County as a place to live (Appendix D). Other questions about respondents’ experiences of living in the county will be discussed in depth in Chapter 7. These questions simply ask residents about some general perceptions they have about the county. Residents believe that the well being of children has improved (51%), while 29% believe the well being of children has stayed the same over the last five years. Thirty-seven percent of respondents believe job opportunities will stay the same, while 55% percent believe they will go up. Only 137 12% percent of residents rate the quality of education as excellent but 32% rate it very good and 28% as good. When combined these responses account for 72% of all responses. Table 5.9 lists the correlations that exist among the responses. A few of these are significant but the correlations are not particularly high. Positive beliefs about children’s lives are correlated with positive beliefs about the quality of the local schools. Taken together these responses reflect positive views about child well being in the county. What is most interesting is that thirty percent of county residents believe that life in the county has remained pretty much the same and that job opportunities are likely to remain the same. Though county residents seem to be fairly positive about a number of things they do not appear to be particularly optimistic about the fiJture. Given the changes taking place in rural economic bases, and a history of neglect and unevendevelopment it is unlikely many rural counties will prosper. This is especially likely if economic growth continues to depend on the continued growth of the service sector. In Chapter 7, I discuss how perceptions of rural residence vary between long-time and older residents and younger residents. An Emerging Discourse of Production and Social Reproduction Among Rural Women The formal and local discourses suggest a number of themes for organizing the emerging discourse of women in this rural county. The themes center on providing, mothering, and what I call the new traditional marriage. Though the objective data show that engaging in production and social reproduction oppresses women, these mothers are committed to providing for and raising their children. Women do benefit personally and 138 Table 5.9 Correlations Table of General Evaluation of Research County (n=300). Job Child Quality Family Mean SD. Opportunities Well Being Education in Area Job opportunities 3.94 1.27 1.000 Child well being 3.62 1.57 .185" 1.00 Quality education 3.22 1.10 .135* .386” 1.000 Family in area 2.55 1.95 —.038 .071 .031 1.00 "Pearson correlation coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Pearson correlation coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level (2—tailed). 139 economically from working outside the home. Commitment is one way to examine the emerging discourse of production and social reproduction of rural non-farm women. Another way to examine the emerging discourse is how women articulate the messages they receive and how they reduce any conflict they experience trying to reconcile conflicting messages. The dominant and local discourses of production and reproduction place competing demands on women. One message they receive is that they should be working to provide for children and they should be home caring for them. If they do work the local discourse suggests that quality care is available but that young children could be harmed by it. Another message they receive is that though they are expected to provide for their family, it is better if men earn more. And though respondents overwhelmingly believe that women work because they need to and housework should be shared, there is little evidence of equal sharing of social reproduction. Women as Providers and Good Workers Though mothers said they have a difficult time supporting themselves and their children on their wages they believe they should work to provide for their children. Their productive work is an important vehicle for increasing household income and meeting material aspects of social reproduction. Regardless of the quality of the jobs or the low wages they are paid these mothers describe themselves as good and valuable workers. These mothers talked about having reputations as good workers that allowed them to return to jobs they had quit. Women talked about having the ability to learn new skills and be able to move up to other jobs. Being a good worker and a goodprovider were importance sources of pride. Jobs provide women with a sense of legitimacy that they 140 lack when they stayed at home. Paid employment also separates mothers from women who sit at home and collect welfare. This distinction is especially important among rural residents where welfare use is stigmatized (Rank and Hirsch] 1988). My research illustrates that even if the conditions of their jobs oppress them women gain self-esteem and respect by working outside the home. Their comments also reflect beliefs in working hard. Working hard is consistent with tenets of the agrarian ideology. Working makes women visible and provides important validation. One mother said she was proud that she was the only one in her family that could hold a job. Another mother was proud of her ability to support her family while her husband was unemployed. “I’m proud that I’m not sitting home collecting (welfare), I’m proud of myself for going out there and working for my family” (#17). Another mother, who was not currently working said, “I’m proud, you know, when I have a job outside the home. I do good work. The pay wasn’t good, but I did a good job” (#26). Even if the quality of the jobs is low, women are proud of their ability to do the jobs. Women asserted themselves on the job so that their employers had to recognize their responsibilities as mothers. One mother, a waitress, said a positive aspect of her job was the hours. She told her employer that she did not want to work nights, because she wanted to be home with her husband and children (#5). Another mother said she had quit a number jobs when they prevented her from being home with her family. At one time she had worked as a waitress and told her employer she was willing to work one weekend a month but she did not want to work more than that because it would interfere with her family time. When her employer began scheduling her weekend after weekend she quit. 141 These examples provide concrete evidence of women trying to get their employers to take their role as mothers seriously. One mother began to say she “lucked out” by getting the jobs she had because she worked the same hours as her children. “I really lucked out with my job. (No) I don’t feel I luck out, I feel I earned it because I do work hard and I take pride in my work and stuff like that” (#6). She recognized her value as an employee and the value of this job because it allowed her more time at home with her children. As these women articulate a discourse of being a good worker, they also demand that others acknowledge their roles as mothers. Women remain committed to family even as their paid employment increases. Even as women articulate a discourse of being good and valuable employees they also articulate a belief that their children need them more than an employer does. The belief that their children need their care is combined with concerns they have about finding adequate and appropriate childcare. One mother said she has started her kids in school early “just for the help of childcare” (#5). Not only was childcare expensive, but arrangements could breakdown at the last minute. Losing a babysitter created a crisis for rural mothers. Concerns about childcare and the characteristics of rural labor market influenced whether mothers worked or not. I’m in a situation at this point where actually if I went to work it would do more damage than it would good because it would be more money going out instead of money coming in because daycare is so high. I know there’s help out there with daycare but still, it really wouldn’t be worth me working at this point... Once she’s in school, the three other ones can still watch after her and each other... Or if I end up working midnights then I know she’s taken care of during the day because she will be in school (#21). 142 Combining paid employment and social reproduction requires balancing competing demands. When women were able to make good childcare arrangements it relieves them of the guilt they felt about working outside the home. I’ve been really fortunate. I’ve had the same babysitter for 14 years with all three of my children and she’s been wonderful and I’ve recommended her to lots and lots of other teachers. I should get a commission for all the people I send her. I know that (childcare) is a real problem and I wouldn’t feel good about working outside the home if I didn’t have someone like that. She’s like a second mother to my kids... (#20). Paid employment also provides women with a discourse for evaluating their social reproduction. Women are not only proud of being good workers but they are also proud of being good mothers. Good Mothers The family values debate reveals two dominant scripts for women in the United States. One script is that women are altruistic and selfless mothers and the other that working women are selfish and career driven who focus solely on their own goals and achievements. Other scripts are also possible but these two have been examined in others studies (Willard 1988). What 1 find, is that the mral mothers adopt aspects of both these scripts. They retain a high commitment to home and family, even as they work outside the home. And these women express a selfless devotion to their children. They continue to engage in a disproportionate share of social reproduction as evidence of their selflessness. These mothers have adopted the mothering script that places their children’s needs above their own. They justify their paid employment by defining it as a vehicle for meeting their children’s material wants and needs. Though a few mothers said they worked because 143 they wanted to they were not selfishly devoted to their jobs. Caring for their children was far more important to these women than the jobs they had. An interesting consequence of paid employment is that mothers describe their performance at home in similar ways to which they describe their role as providers. I’m proud you know when I have a job outside the home. I do good work. I’m a good worker, a good hard worker outside of the home and inside the home. I can be proud of keeping a neat home and clean kids and that’s pretty hard to do (#24). Working outside the home provides women with a discourse for evaluating their performance at home. Women describe their social reproduction as work because they know it requires their sustained time and effort. Keeping a neat home and clean kids also means that social reproduction can conform to standards of cleanliness. Paid employment allows women the opportunity to judge the quality and benefits of their social reproduction to the quality and benefits of the jobs available. The discourse of being a good mother illustrates an awareness of how important their time in social reproduction is to their children’s welfare. 1 think the more time you spend with your children and the (more). . .you. . .see what their life is like. (The more) you try to get involved with your children, I think the better the kid is. Because if you totally ignore your kid...they seem to be (raising) themselves (#13). Women in this sample believe their physical presence is important to their children so they develop strategies to reduce the burden of their paid employment on their children and spend time with them. I try to keep him on a schedule so that he knows what to expect and what’s coming. We usually get to spend some free time together at night. He likes that, (to) be able to have time alone with me (#1 1). Being a good mother requires as much physical presence as possible and a commitment to their children rather than employment. For some women there were few benefits that 144 employment offered that could make up for their absence. “To me, the money wasn’t as important as to say home with the children. Because I feel I gave my children a lot by staying home...” (#4). Women must be on the “job” at home or social reproduction does not get done. This understanding of being a good mother explains why time in social reproduction does not decrease dramatically when women work outside the home. The discourse of being a good mother reveals a connection with their children that cannot be defined with economic language. Mothers believe they know their child better than any one else can, and that they know what is best for them. Though there are limits to what interviews can reveal about people’s motives and behaviors, it is impossible to deny the depth with which women care about their children. These women are aware of the cultural expectations placed on them as workers and mothers, but they also decide how they will respond to them. Where these women are breaking from tradition is that they expect to work and they involve their husbands in social reproduction. My research reveals that even though their commitment to social reproduction is strong, women’s expectations about the division of labor and how they organize social reproduction is changing. The “New” Trtfiitional MtaLiaga The emerging discourse of social reproduction suggests that women are not absorbing all of the social reproduction required of a household. Husbands are expected to “help” with the social reproduction required by children. Comments made about their husbands’ participation in social reproduction supports the theory that the presence of a husband still adds to the amount of time that women spend in housework (Hartmann 1931). 145 The emerging discourse of social reproduction in rural non-farm households reveals an expectation that husbands will be involved fathers. Rural mothers depend on their husbands to help with social reproduction. Some fathers regularly get their children off to school, and a couple of them have jobs that allow them to be home if a child is ill. Seven women reported that their husbands regularly provide childcare and six help with the housework. Husbands help with picking up and vacuuming but they “don’t do dishes.” They are also expected to do social reproduction if they are unemployed. Now he was off from work for quite awhile and just myself worked. And he would take care of the children (and) if I had to go somewhere he takes care of them. He even helps me with the housework. He doesn’t do dishes yet, but the helps me with the housework (#7). In another family, a father is expected to care for his daughter because his work schedule allows it. “My daughter goes to school Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and my husband keeps her in the morning on Tuesday and Thursdays which helps out a great deal” (#11). The mothers most likely to enlist their husband in social reproduction are also the women that reported the most continuous work histories. The emerging discourse still holds mothers responsible for social reproduction, but husbands are regular helpers. Men in dual-eamer households are incorporated into the routines of family life established by their working wives. Fathers’ involvement in social reproduction could be a fiinction of consciously adopting a more active role in social reproduction or they are more involved because of the absence of other care providers in the county. Fathers’ involvement in social reproduction is however clearly a reflection of their wives’ time in production. Husbands’ involvement in social reproduction supports one theory about “new” families rather than a return to traditional families (Goldschieder and Waite 1991). 146 Theories of new families suggest that the future distribution of social reproduction is based on women’s expectations of marriage and family that are shaped by their family of origin, their mother’s employment, their experience of living independently and/or their own employment prior to marriage. Their findings suggest that women will choose to marry if their partner shares their orientation to childbearing and beliefs about the paid employment of women. Those women in the sample who sought traditional arrangements were more likely to have more traditional marriages. But those women that wanted to be married and have children, and work outside the home appeared to have found men who shared this orientation. An important finding of my analysis is that husbands cannot depend on having a stay-at-home wife once children start school. Rural non-farm women expect to work outside the home. Once women enter the labor market social reproduction is renegotiated. Retaining responsibility for social reproduction can be overwhelming for women, especially if they are working outside the home. One mother said, I’m the heavy. I make all the decisions. He leaves the decision making up to me as far as what bills need to be paid and when, what to do with the girls, how we deal with them, and how we deal with the boys... Decisions as far as what the kids can participate in, it’s all left up to me (#14). In one household another mother told us her husband was older “and he makes all the decisions.” But later in the interview this mother said she was the one that actually manages the household finances and pays all the bills (#27). Women begin to sound more like home managers and forewomen. Though there are non-economic qualities and benefits to social reproduction, social reproduction is increasingly a job that requires managing so that tasks and activities are clone. 147 Retaining responsibility for social reproduction conforms to traditional expectations of women but rural mothers also lack alternatives to their time in social reproduction. The discourse of the new traditional marriage represents a high commitment to children, maternal employment, and efforts to enlist husbands into social reproduction. Women on farms were often pulled into productive activity when hired workers were few in rural non-farm households men are being pulled into social reproduction. The rural literature reveals that rural counties with growing service sectors have growing populations (Johnson and Beale 1995). Since women are more likely to be pulled into service sector jobs we could see even more maternal employment in rural areas and more male involvement in social reproduction. My research reveals that the rural labor markets do oppress women. Combining production and social reproduction is difficult for women. The local discourse reveals that women are expected to work to support their families. This is consistent with beliefs about independence and the work ethic expected of rural residents. But childcare is difficult to find and local care is expensive so there is an economic burden women must assume if they work outside the home. Women with low paying jobs have a difficult time meeting the expenses associated with employment. My research shows that women are successfully combining production and social reproduction. Rural women do not appear to be neglecting their children when they work outside the home. 148 CHAPTER 6 Social Reproduction: What’s Important, Why It’s Important and the Impact of Maternal Employment Introduction In the last chapter I identified specific discourses that shape women's understanding of their role as workers and mothers, and a discourse of production and social reproduction among these rural mothers. In this chapter I examine specific tasks and activities that these rural mothers say are part of their social reproductive work, and why they are important to them and their children. By doing this, I expect to enhance our understanding of the social reproduction of women living in a rural county. Secondly, I examine more thoroughly the primacy women place on their role as mothers. This is done to examine women’s commitment to parenting, and challenge discourses that suggest commitment to childrearing and marriage is declining. In this chapter three research questions will be addressed. 1) How do women understand and articulate their participation in social reproduction? 2) What primacy do women place on their role as parents? 3) How does maternal employment shape social reproduction, and how does social reproduction shape employment? I will begin with the question of how women articulate their participation in social reproduction. A section that looks at maternal employment will follow this. The final section of the chapter will discuss in more detail the primacy that mothers place on their role as parents. Social Reproduction: Creating and Maintaining Family Life in a Rural County In this section I look specifically at what mothers believe is important to their child’s development. I also examine sources of stress for women as they engage in social production. I am particularly interested in how women prioritize the tasks and activities of social reproduction. Family formation is an important shaper of social reproduction. The age and number of children within the household effect the tasks of social reproduction. 149 Having mothers focus on their 8-10 year old child established a reference point for organizing responses. In some cases the focus child was the oldest, in other cases they were the youngest, and in two cases they were the only children in the household. The presence of young, non—school aged siblings had important implications for mothers paid employment and social reproduction at the time of the interview. What’s Important? Examining what mothers believed were important aspects of social reproduction came from looking at the routines of their child’s day, both currently and prior to their starting school. Parents were also asked what they thought was important to their child’s development. Twenty-seven different things were identified as being important to children’s development. A number of mothers said the same things were most important. Some respondents, however, gave multiple responses to the question but most identified one or two things they believed were most important (Appendix E). Most of the things mothers believed were important could be placed under three broad categories of social reproduction. I define them as, family ties, public relations, and mastery. None of these items directly relate to meeting their children’s basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing but they prepare children to transition out of the family and into relationships with other people and institutions. In other words, mothers do not identify their cooking, cleaning, doing laundry or paid employment as essential to the grth and development of their children. Yet, housework activities such as cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry and the time spend in these activities have often been the focus of previous studies. And though these women do articulate a discourse of providing, providing is not the essence of their parenting experience. A contribution of my research to the literature is to move beyond housework to understand different aspects of social reproduction. Family Ties By family ties I refer to tasks and activities of social reproduction that nurture a sense of connection within the family. Social reproduction can therefore be seen as 150 establishing what Cooley (1909) defined as primary groups. Primary groups are defined as, “a group characterized by intimate, long-term, face-to-face association and cooperation” (Henslin 19952152). Establishing a sense of family ties in their children is very important to mothers. Ten mothers said that what really matters is that their children have a sense of family, and also that they experience “together time.” Mothers wanted their children to feel connected to them and to each other. Together time also refers to periods of time when all family members were together. As illustrated in the previous chapter physical presence is important to these mothers’ sense of themselves as good mothers. Family ties depended on having family time. Without family time children would not learn things that mothers considered being essential skills. Family time is important to establishing connections between family members and facilitating other social successes. Spending the quality time with them. I think he got more because he was the first child, my parents were around... The middle one, he's struggling a little bit and he didn't get all that one-on-one because ma and dad got sick (#4). As a parent, (I feel) it is being able to spend time, you know, quality time with 'em, like reading or watching a TV program together. Or doing things like with Girl Scouts. . .being with 'em (#16). Another important dimension of family ties was the importance of routines that lead children to feelings of stability, security, and love. Our dinner time routine I don't think is very good. I think they aren't learning their manners as well because we aren't sitting down as a family and not having that family time but we do have it later in the evening. We sit around and read so that kind of makes up for it (#2). I think stability for one. I think the kids, once they get into a routine, it is, you know, they know it's time for bed, it's time to get a bath... we are having supper at this time... They just know there's certain things they can do and it's easier for them too (#9). Stability is a lot of it, they need a lot of stability in their life, consistency, direction, guidance. Knowing what’s right and wrong and making the right choices (#14). 151 I always want my kids to know that I love them. Even when I'm mad at them (#15). Routines allow kids a sense of order so that they know what to expect. Routines provide mothers and children with a sense of connection. Mothers create the daily routines that they believe are important for their children and these routines establish family time. But family time is shaped by other social institutions. Both the school day and the paid employment of women and men are rigidly structured in ways that social reproduction is not. When women work outside the home and when children enter the school system established routines of social reproduction are disrupted. Maternal employment especially reduces the time that women can invest in creating family ties. The burden of coordinating schedules for all family members, establishing household routines, and nurturing family ties falls to mothers. A largely overlooked aspect of social reproduction is that women nurture these important family connections. These working mothers do not appear to be neglecting their children by working for pay indeed they work at home to maintain family time. Public Relations Routines help to establish the stable and secure environment that mothers believe their children need. Family ties include particular sets of expectations as well. A number of mothers stressed that children need to learn to be responsible and they learn responsibility within the home. I like them to learn the responsibility that everything isn't given to them without them having to do something in return. It is a little hard for them to understand... but I explain why it has to be done because they always ask why do I have to do it (#7). I think you've got to teach a kid to be responsible which comes with her chores. As they get older they get chores and the older they get the more responsible their chores are. And I think that teaches them responsibility and dependability and to help out the family and that we work as a group together (#8). 152 Responsibility at home spills into relationships beyond the home. Public relations reflect things that parents believe will facilitate their child’s interactions with other people. Learning and using public relations skills is important because a child’s behavior is a reflection of their mother’s investment of time in social reproduction. A child’s behavior in public reflects on their mother’s parenting and on the family. The emphasis placed on teaching their children “people skills” seems to be a direct response to those that suggest women are not training their children for the future. These women are aware that how their children “turn out” is a reflection on them as mothers. Under public relations I put specific references mothers made to be dependable, playing with others, caring for others, and knowing right from wrong. These things all shape children in positive ways. They are important so that people have a favorable perception of the child. They also establish a pattern of behavior expected at school and work. Another important aspect of social reproduction is to help children develop relationships and connections with others inside and outside the home. Mothers believe their children learn to be responsible and dependable by engaging in chores for the family. When children help with social reproduction, they are learning skills that will also used outside the home as the child matures, enters school and jobs. Engaging in chores is also consistent with perceptions people have of rural living. Living in a rural area provides a unique setting, in some ways, for engaging in chores involving animals and working outdoors. These rural families have pets and space for them that they would not have in most urban areas. Mothers believe having pets and having their children learn to care for them establishes a work ethic consistent with living with beliefs about farming communities. Public relations skills are important in a number of ways. They are most important so that a child’s public behavior is a positive reflection of their mother. These women appear to judge other parents by how well their children behave in and they are aware that other parents judge them as well. Even though rural families live in a more isolated setting 153 they all dependent on the same institutions, which actually increases their visibility. Because there are fewer people in rural areas rural mothers are more aware of the judgements made of them by others. Some rural communities are highly stratified and the family name you bear shapes your life chances (Duncan 1992, Duncan and Lamborghini 1994).1 Though rural communities are believed to be more egalitarian the reality is that inequalities do exist and people hold negative opinions of others not like themselves (Struthers and Bokemeier, forthcoming). m In the category of mastery I grouped a number of things that indicate the importance of developing a particular skill that would be necessary later in life. One parent mentioned that she wanted her daughter to develop what she called “basic skills,” while other parents stressed particular skills they wanted their children to have. Preschool was one thing mothers frequently mentioned as important for preparing their children for school. I put preschool in this category, because mothers said that they started their child in preschool to develop social skills or give their child an educational edge. Because of the education component preschool is seen as different from organized childcare. I also put reading under the mastery category. One mother said that parents in rural areas need to work at exposing their children to activities and experiences beyond the local area. She believed that in order to be prepared for life beyond the confines of the local community children needed to learn about aspects of urban life. You don’t have the cultural activities that you might have in a bigger city as far as plays and special field trips at school, you know. We’re just real limited for that kind of thing. And so I feel like the parent’s job is bigger in that area. You have to ' There are a number of studies that illustrate how visible people are that do not fit normative patterns of behavior in rural areas. Naples (1994) examines who Iowans define the deserving from the undeserving poor. And how single-women with children and Mexican and Mexican-American workers are seen as outsiders. Rank and Hirsch] (1992) show how stigma is attached to welfare use in rural areas so that even when people are eligible for services they will not apply. Lack of anonymity prevents rural women from seeking domestic violence services (Bogal-Allbritten 1997). 154 expose your child to more things. . .. You really have to make an effort. I’ve talked to children that don’t really know what a mall is, haven’t been to a large city, (and) don’t know what a subway is. Things like that they need to know about and unless you make those special trips for your children they don’t hear about it, they don’t know about it” (#20). Parents wanted their children to gain a sense of mastery over things in preparation for life on their own, and some parents were aware that their children might not always live in this county. From these comments it is clear that the area lacks activities and opportunities that urban areas offer. Because rural areas lack cultural activities rural residence increases the social reproductive labor required of women. Women have to work to expose their children to urban life and urban experiences if they believe this is important to their child’s development. Rural women also have to work harder so that their children have the opportunity to play with other children. Neighbors are not right next door. Rural mothers believe that rural residence provides their children with space to play safely outside and that it creates a buffer between their children and other children. Space has to be overcome so children can play with other children or take advantage of cultural activities (Struthers and Bokemeier, forthcoming). Parents believe that there are many positive benefits of rural areas for their children but there are also costs associated with trying to tap into resources beyond the local community. Sparsely populated areas do offer residents particular benefits but overcoming distance within sparsely populated areas and between sparsely populated and densely populated areas is costly (Castle 1991). Rural parents have to absorb these costs if they want their children to be involved in things not available locally. Rural mothers are committed to social reproduction that is preparing their children to relate well with others and to enter the school system and employment. But rural mothers also need to be responsible for anticipating other skills and experiences their children might need. Living in rural county increases social reproductive labor if mothers must prepare their children to live outside the area as well as within it. This suggests that rural areas lack certain things that children need if they move outside the community. 155 One reason rural areas are neglected politically and economically is because they have always been defined by their absence as in, anything that is not urban is rural. Rural institutions therefore do not receive the same attention or resources as urban institutions. Another dynamic of being defined, as a residual category is that urban imagery dominates our perceptions and expectations (Fitchen 1991). Urban parents would not have any reason to prepare their children to live in a rural place. Co—opting Social Reproduction An additional way to examine what was important to parents was to have them look at a list in the household survey of common activities that they might do with a school-aged child (Appendix B). Parents were asked to judge how often during the past year that they did these things with their child (Table 6.1). The things mothers said they did most often with their school aged child were chores, watching television, and talking to their child about what happened at school. Seventeen parents said they often read to their child, and eleven reported they sometimes do this activity. Parents were least likely to talk with their child’s friends and only sometimes talked to their child’s friend’s parents. Doing chores together, watching television, and talking to their sons and daughters about their day is consistent with the emphasis parents placed on spending time with their children. They reflect time spent time with their child engaged in social reproductive activity and teaching them about family life. They are also ways that parents can physically spend time with their children. Mothers also are involved in teaching their child new activities such as games, sports, or hobbies. When asked to identify the most important activity from this list, nine parents said reading to their child (Table 6.2). Eight parents responded that some activity not on the list was “most important”, but these activities were not specified. Six parents believed that asking their child about what happened at school was most important and 4 believed that teaching their child games or sports was most important. Only one parent said that doing chores together was the most important activity for a parent to do with their child. 156 Table 6.1 Frequency that Parents Report They Participate in Activities with Their Child (n=30). Frequency of Participation Raw Numbers Never Sometimes Often Activity Mean SD. (1) (2) (3) Discuss school 2.87 3.5 0 4 26 Watch TV together 2.80 .48 1 4 25 Do chores 2.60 .62 2 8 20 Read to child 2.55 .57 1 11 17 Teach child games 2.47 .57 1 14 15 Write notes to teacher 2.25 .52 1 19 8 Take field trips 2.17 .65 4 17 9 Talk to child's 2.13 .68 5 16 9 friend's parents Talk to child's friends 1.97 .81 10 11 9 Color with child 1.93 .52 5 22 3 157 Though a number of mothers and children do chores together this is not the most important activity a parent could do with their child. The activities that mothers indicated were most important established connections between parent and child and the child and the school system. When asked what activity parents “enjoyed” doing the most with their child, six parents said that they enjoyed teaching their children games or sports and eight parents specified a particular activity that they enjoyed doing with their child (Table 6.3). These were particular outdoor activities such as fishing, horseback riding, baseball, swimming, roller-skating, camping, and bow hunting. Parents also mentioned gardening and yardwork. Indoor activities included doing handicrafts and cooking. Though many of the specified activities could be included in the more general list these things apparently had particular meaning for the parent. An interesting finding of my research is that only three parents said that they enjoyed reading with their child the most, and only two said they enjoyed watching television, even though these were the activities most often done. Reading with a child reflects an expectation placed on mothers to help their child succeed in school. Television watching gives both mothers and children a respite from work and school, and if nothing else allows them to sit down together. These activities were not how these mothers said they wanted to invest their time and energy. Another interesting finding is that many of the activities mothers reported they enjoyed doing were seasonal, and reflect a break from the regular routine of work and school. An important finding of my research is that many of these activities are consistent with living in rural areas and are mentioned as a positive reason for being in a rural place. Even though rural areas are deficient in certain things, they do offer many activities that can only be done in sparsely populated areas. Most of them are also fairly inexpensive things to do reflecting the limited resources available to some rural families. Social reproduction in a rural county includes teaching children a variety of skills. As important 158 Table 6.2 Most Important Activity from List in Household Survey (n=29). Activity Frequency Percent Read to child 9 31.0 Other activity, unspecified 8 27.6 Discuss school 6 20.7 Teach child games 4 13.8 Do chores together 1 3.4 Other activity, specified __1__ _33_ Total 29 100.0 Table 6.3 Activity Parents Report They Enjoy Doing the Most (n=28). Activity Frequency Percent Other activity, specified 8 28.6 Teach child games 6 21.4 Read to child 3 10.7 Color with child 3 10.7 Do chores 2 7.1 Watch TV together 2 7.1 Take field trips 2 7.1 Talk about school 1 3.6 Other activity, unspecified __1_ i6_ Total 28 100.0 159 as routines are to combining production and social reproduction, parents welcome having a break from them. These activities allow time to establish family ties and connections between mothers and their children in creative ways. Though it is impossible to generalize these responses to other rural places, they offer insight into the social reproduction of rural women. Playing outside, hunting, and camping are attributes of rural areas that other rural resident’s value (Hummon 1990, Fitchen 1991). Things that parents believed were important to their child's development required time and personal attention. Reading to a child takes time, and those that stressed its importance said they made the time to read to them. Not only is the child being prepared for school but also parent to child time is established through this ritual. Many of things mentioned require that mothers make and take the time to teach their children important things related to school preparation. Mothers are nurturing complex sets of social behaviors and skills; attributes some people claim children lack. Women’s time in social reproduction at home is co-opted by the school system. Family time overall is cut short by the spent in work. It is little wonder women welcome a break from these activities. The things they enjoy the most seem to offer this opportunity. Mothers appear to be making the time to teach their children many things. And though mothers are teaching their children how to do housework there seems to be some ambivalence about these activities. These rural mothers understand their participation in social reproduction in the following ways. They are keenly aware of the expectations that other individuals and institutions place on them. They are aware of behaviors and obligations that accompany their role as parents and mothers. These expectations and behaviors are indicated in comments they made about what was important to their child’s development. These mothers say they are teaching their children family ties, public relations skills, and skills necessary for educational success when they can. But women in this sample emphasized that the essential work of social reproduction is establishing loving and stable 160 relationships. These aspects of social reproduction are more important than housework or paid employment to mothers. These mothers are aware of the expectation they will be involved in their child’s formal schooling. This afforded mothers the opportunity to sit and read with their children but this cuts into time available for other activities. School preparation is therefore an additional demand placed on mother’s available time. Since time in social reproduction is already cut short by employment, social reproduction becomes more routinized. I gained a sense of the order of the day from the questions we asked but not how women prioritize tasks like cooking, cleaning, and laundry. Overall though mothers prioritize their day to meet their children’s many needs as best they could. As time in social reproduction becomes more rigidly organized women appear to welcome breaks in the established routine. The activities that women enjoyed doing the most had little to do with housework or school preparation. Women liked activities related to the outdoors. They liked going camping and horseback riding and teaching their children games and sports. These activities are consistent with desirable characteristics of rural places. Rural residence allows families to get away fi'om the stress and pressure of work and social reproduction within the boundaries of the local county. Maternal Employment or Not and Social Reproduction Inside the Pressure Cooker We Call “Home”: ng Children Engaging in social reproduction is complicated by maternal employment. In this section I examine conflicts that develop within the home and between the home and employment, so I can uncover how they overlap. I also examine the priority placed on production and/or social reproduction when time is scarce and during periods of stress. Understanding the primacy placed on social reproduction requires that I examine how women prioritize competing demands. Working mothers need to assess what is most important to them, and what receives priority when time is short and demands are great. 161 My research shows it is during periods when time is short and the pressures great that the impact of work and family is most acute. Preschool Children Based on mothers references to home-family and work-family conflicts it was clear that their responses had to be broken into two categories. One category reflects when their 8 - 10 year old child was younger (pre-school), and the other category contains references to the present (now). Though the number of children and birth spacing varied within the sample many of these mothers appeared to plan their pregnancies close together. Mothers mentioned being overwhelmed by the care required of a baby or more than one toddler. Their sense of isolation was intensified by their husband’s absence during the day and how difficult it was to leave the house to do errands with small children. The overlap between production and social reproduction is most dramatic when children are infants or pre—schoolers because mothers are more conflicted about working outside the home. One mother said she “chose to stay home” while her children were small, but she said she was neglecting her career to do so. Once they were a little older she went back to work, but because of trouble finding acceptable childcare she quit again until both children were in school all day (#1). Though this mother felt pressure to keep her credentials up she was more concerned about the type of care her children would receive in her absence. She chose to stay home to care for children. Working a non-day shift was one strategy used to combine paid employment with social reproduction. When asked about childcare arrangements when her children were young one mother said that they were home with either “Dad or 1”. She said she worked a “graveyard” shift to make that possible. This couple had also worked together on a veal farm. While the children were very young they would simply bundle them up and take them to the barn with them but the hours required to do the job were strange and could not accommodate active toddlers. So they quit this job. Another mother who had relied on “grandma care” when her children were infants went through a number of other 162 babysitters while they were toddlers. Because of this she decided to quit working and stay home until both children were in school full-time. Two mothers worked out of their home in the hope they could better combine paid employment and social reproduction. This worked well for one mother, a hair stylist who was able to schedule appointments around some of her children’s activities. But the other mother, a court reporter, still needed help keeping her child occupied so she could work. Homeworking has been used as a development strategy in rural areas because it was seen as a way for women to combine social reproduction and increase household income. Industrial homeworking however, does not integrate productive activity with social reproduction, but becomes added to the day just as if mothers were physically absent (Gringeri 1994). The most frequently used strategy to reduce work and family conflict among these mothers was staying at home firll-time. A few women referred to raising their children and caring for home as “their job”. One mother called raising her adopted daughter “her purpose in life” (#28). Being at home allows these women a way to be satisfied with themselves and engaged in what they see as their primary responsibility. Saying that raising their children is a job provides them with some legitimacy. Raising children they believed required their effort and time just as paid employment would. Because of the emphasis placed on children being well-behaved mothers believed their efforts at home were well invested. Still, for many of stay-at-home mothers it was the ages and number of other children at home that kept them home. The cost and availability of childcare kept a number of women from working. Stay at home mothers that expressed interest in finding a job were only thinking about doing so once their youngest child entered school. Regardless of the extenuating circumstances and the difficulties of meeting their children’s basic needs stay-at-home mothers were pleased they could be home with their children. Staying at home allowed some women the opportunity to volunteer at school and participate in other school-related activities with their children. But the presence of babies 163 and toddlers prevented even stay-at-home mothers from being more involved in their older children’s activities. Transportation and childcare had to be found if rural mothers wanted to volunteer at school. The expectation that mothers will be involved in their children’s schooling does not take into account the problems of rural residence. As more rural mothers work outside the home childcare providers will remain in short supply and time will be short to volunteer at school. School Age Children: Add Paid Emloyment and Stir Home-family conflicts changed as children got older especially if a number of children are at home. Family schedules became more complicated with older children because children had to be in different places at different times. A number of women complained about the number of activities their school age children were involved in. Even if children were involved in only one activity, it increased stress and “feeling like a taxi service” (#1). The presence of older children increased the demands on mother’s available time. More children at home appear to increase time demands exponentially. An additional source of family conflict once children were older was the addition of maternal employment. School hours and extra-curricular activities conflicted with the hours mothers work. Scheduling became a headache but also an art for working mothers. Hours at work conflicted with school hours so a variety of arrangements were made to get their children to school. There is a constant tension for many of these mothers between the demands and needs of their children and their employment. When asked if their family responsibilities ever interfered with getting a good job one mother replied. I’ll say yeah. Family responsibility has. My family always comes first. I’d like to go to school... But as far as being able to go back now, really I can’t because I really can’t afford it. I can’t take a part-time job and go to school because I need a full-time job (#7). Later in the interview this mother said the following. I wish I didn’t have to work. But I suppose all housewives say that too.... That way I could spend more time, 1 could be more involved in school activities (#7). 164 Other women would like to be home, and most say they would like to be more involved in their children’s school activities but work interferes. Employment situations that caused stress in some families were workable solutions to work-family conflicts for other families. F lextime at work and shift work allowed some mothers and fathers to better balance work and family responsibilities. F lextime and shift work led fathers to being more involved in caring for their children. If fathers were home, no other care provider was necessary. For women who worked full-time their husband’s intermittent unemployment provided them with extra help especially if unemployment was seasonal. One husband who worked in construction was depended on to help with housework, cooking, and childcare during the winter. The most common indication of work-family conflicts for working mothers were statements that they were not involved in their children’s school activities. These women said they were unable to volunteer to be room mothers, go with their children on fieldtrips, or join the parent-teacher organization because they worked. Working mothers said that the only thing they were able to do was attend parent-teacher conferences. Working mothers simply said, “I don’t have the time” to be more involved in school. Working interferes with parents’ ability to get their children to things. The most common strategy to address this problem was simply to limit the number of activities a child could be in. But the expense of activities and the expense of getting their child to them were a problem for lower-income families. Though sports were largely seen as a positive outlet for kids and a good way of keeping them “out of trouble.” participation required the sustained effort of mothers. Low-income parents could not afford to have their children participate. As children got older, mothers generally required their children to help with social reproduction. Children helped with the laundry, caring for pets, setting the table, doing dishes, caring for their clothes, and general picking up. Husbands and fathers help too but mothers were responsible for coordinating these helpers. The comments of one couple 165 reflect important attempts to meet their own needs and to see that social reproduction was done. When asked if there was a time when they just did not seem to have enough time or energy, they responded. Mother: “No, not with both of us. When one of us is wore [sic] out, the other takes over... It doesn’t work when you try to do everything.” Father: “No. I try to do my share around here when I can. I do the housework some of the weekends she’s working. And when she gets tired of the kids, we go and do something, you know, both of us do stuff with them. Just try to leave time for the other one to get some of the stuff done they want to get done” (#10). Young Childrenéchool Age Children. and Rural Residence The biggest source of work-family conflict for working mothers was finding good and affordable childcare. Childcare is seen as being especially expensive in the area given the wages paid women. Transportation is also a problem for many rural parents. Public transportation is limited and the hours were not convenient for most mothers. Older model cars, two lane county roads, and the distance between home and employment were mentioned by a number of women as concerns they had about working. Working a day shift required mothers to run errands in the evenings and weekends, which cut into family time. Running errands, working, and raising children lead to feelings of stress and a sense of having too much to do and too little time. Most women in the sample said something about having to weigh the costs and benefits of taking a job with their family responsibilities. Taking a job would not improve household finances if nothing was left over after childcare and work related expenses. Women wanted jobs that allowed them to meet their responsibilities as parents and they genuinely wanted to be home with their children. Some mothers wanted to work days and others preferred to work evenings and weekends, because another parent could be home 166 to provide childcare. Three mothers had part-time jobs that provided good wages, benefits, and summers off. But part-time work was no solution for most of these women, because part-time work simply did not pay enough and the hours still did not allow them to be home with their children when they feel they need to be. My research indicates that rural women consistently place the demands of their children over their paid employment. Women are committed to raising their children and training them to assume adult roles. Their child and their child’s activities play a pivotal role in how work and family life are coordinated. Women who feel they have no choice but to work outside the home see their production as an extension of their social reproduction. These women limit their investment in paid employment because their jobs already limit the amount of time they have available. When home-family and work-family conflicts are too great many women return home. Women are most likely to do this when they have infants and young children. It was clear from these mothers’ comments that their husbands were less likely help with social reproduction when children are young. In the absence of alternatives to their care some mothers would rather be home than trying to juggle the competing demands of rural employment and social reproduction. Maternal Employment and Family Finances It is clear that mothers in this sample work because their family needs the money. It is less clear how social reproduction is accomplished when women work outside the home. In this section I examine whether maternal employment allows women to meet their family’s wants and needs. One caveat regarding maternal employment in the county that makes it different from other mral counties is that these mothers are competing with college students for jobs. This rural county is unique because of the presence of a regional 167 state university (Bokemeier 1996). Family responsibilities interfere with employment in ways that college schedules and lives do not. Responsibility for social reproduction and particular aspects of county life make maternal employment problematic. Family Finances and Financial Satisfaction: When is Enough Enoagh_? There were four questions regarding household finances included in the household survey. We asked respondents whether they were satisfied with their current financial situation, whether it was difficult to meet monthly bills, whether they felt their monthly income was enough to live on, and an overall assessment of changes in their finances in last three years (Appendix B). Responses to these four questions were highly correlated with one another in expected ways and in a positive direction (Table 6.4). Respondents who are most satisfied with their current financial situations also rate highly their ability to pay their monthly bills (r=.765, p=0.01). They are also more likely to indicate that their income allows them to afford everything they need and that the financial changes they have experienced in the last three years has been in a positive direction. Intuitively we would expect consistency between responses to these items. The coding of variables for this analysis is included in Chapter 3. Responses were coded in ascending order to reflect improving financial situation or increased satisfaction. However, all respondents do not report that they are satisfied with their financial situations. Consistent patterns of financial satisfaction are not revealed when I looked more carefully at the household surveys and interview transcripts. The household and employment characteristics of the dissatisfied need further discussion. The only consistent similarities among responses to these questions were among respondents that are not at all satisfied with their present financial situation. Each of these households had experienced 168 Anomfiimv .32 5d 2: .m =82:qu fl 820580 coca—oboe ceased: Ave—513 _O>o_ mod 65 an “53$:wa mm 286508 coca—oboe ceased. 83 4mm... 98. 35.- $7 8o. 0:. o2... owe. mom. «.4. S. x535 83 a. $8. 55.. .48. Mao. ST 08.- ms. R. o: 3:25 83 .33.. SH. mam. .33.. So. of. .83.. .8. one 88 83 team. to? :48. 32.. 3.2m. team. S. a: seams 8.: tea. its. :mem. tea. room. 3. 8m awe: 8A: :8». rams. .wwm. tan. 2: SH .85 83 3.80. :98. tags. w: anm FEB 83 tats. team. 83 SH 856 83 :08. om; Sm Sam: 83 men 8.0 .85 :: x59: 3.83 SB beams. awe: awed Euro 355 mesa: as m: ow =82 Aomuav mus—number ”negro—dam one 238.53 32.5» .3 mam warned 533me 28 corommmcmm 0885 £28833 Roamin— vo Bank 169 one major change that had had a negative impact on their household income. Death, divorce, and unemployment dramatically altered the financial situations of these households. In the household experiencing unemployment, the reported income was much higher than the others were ($30,000 to $35, 000 compared to $10,000-$15,000). Even though this respondent reported an income twice as much as the others, she is not at all satisfied with her financial situation. From the interview it was clear that she was dissatisfied because her husband was unemployed. She believed that she had a good job and told me she had always been able to make more money than her husband had. She was pleased that her job allowed her to support her family. Knowing however when enough income is enough is difficult to measure. Of the seventeen households in which respondents were either not very satisfied or only somewhat satisfied with their present financial situation six, are dual-earner households. Single-earner households report they are not at all satisfied, not very satisfied or only somewhat satisfied with their present financial situations (Table 6.5). Single- eamer status reflects greater dissatisfaction with one’s current financial situation. However, dual-eamer status does not necessarily lead to greater satisfaction, suggesting that the costs of dual-earning are high. Six dual-earner households say they can afford some of the things they want but not all the things they want. I have included in Table 5.5 only those responses that indicate residents cannot afford everything they want and those having a difficult time meeting basic needs. Even though many respondents indicate their overall financial situations have improved there is a discrepancy between improvement and satisfaction. This is most often the case for households with incomes less than $25,000 per year. Still, higher income 170 Table 6.5 Income Satisfaction and Financial Satisfaction and Family Financial Change. Financial Change over Family # Income Satisfaction last 3 yrs Cannot buy some necessities 3‘ $10,000—$15,000 not at all satisfied much worse Can meet necessities only 14‘ $10,000—$15,000 somewhat better 25‘ $10,000—$15,000 somewhat better 29‘ $10,000—$15,000 not very satisfied much worse 17‘ 330,000—335,000 not at all satisfied much worse 15 $35,000—S40,000 not very satisfied same Can afford some of the things we want, but not all we want 12“ $10,000—$15,000 not at all satisfied much worse 13‘ $10,000—$15,000 somewhat * 16‘ $10,000—S15,000 somewhat same 21‘ $15,000—$20,000 somewhat better 24‘ $15,000-$20,000 somewhat better 27‘ $15,000-$20,000 not very satisfied same 5 $20,000—$25,000 somewhat same 8‘ $20,000-$25,000 very satisfied better 11 $20,000—$25,000 not very satisfied better 28‘ $20,000-$25,000 somewhat better 7 $25,000—$30,000 somewhat better 19‘ $25,000-$30,000 somewhat much better 26‘ $25,000-$30,000 somewhat much better 2 $30,000-$35,000 very satisfied better 22 $30,000-$35,000 completely satisfied better 4‘ $40,000-$45,000 very satisfied better $40,000-$45,000 very satisfied better 23 $45,000 very satisfied better ‘Single-earner households. “Single mother, unemployed. 171 households report that they are only somewhat satisfied with their present financial situations. Achieving improved finances through maternal employment may impact family life in ways that lead to less satisfaction overall. I say this in part because mothers expressed far less satisfaction with their household finances in the interviews than their responses to the household surveys. Though rural residence is believed to allow families to live more simply, the economics of rural living makes this difficult. Mothers have to resolve what they really need from what they want. Correlations between answers to financial matters indicate important links between number of earners, income, ability to pay bills, and satisfaction. This information is not enough to know whether income is truly sufficient to meet a family’s wants and needs. Needs are generally understood to be the basics of food, shelter, and clothing, but these are defined difi‘erently. Wants and needs can become confused especially with the emphasis and plethora of consumer goods available in the United States. Rural mothers are aware of these distinctions. One mother talked about wanting to buy good quality jeans rather than “designer” jeans for her children. Sturdy and long lasting jeans are a need, while designer jeans are a want. What families want can differ widely. Statements from a few mothers indicate that this county does not afford residents all the activities and experiences that they feel their children “need.” As indicated in Chapter 4 the county lacks variety and a fill range of retail establishments. Meeting needs and wants is difficult in the immediate area. This is one area in which class differences between women in the sample became most apparent. Mothers with higher incomes were concerned that their children were cut off from cultural activities while low-income mothers were concerned 172 about meeting basic needs. It was low-income mothers who had to choose between buying winter coats or paying the electric bill on time. Meeting Family Wants and Needs Asking mothers to assess their ability to meet their family’s wants and needs is necessary for understanding the advantages and disadvantages of maternal employment. Paid employment does have a positive impact on household finances but it can interfere with providing for the non-economic needs of children. Mothers in the sample feel they can meet their families wants and needs either through paid employment or remaining at home. Mothers can be described as confidant, conflicted, both, or neither in their ability to meet their family’s wants and needs. Confidence or conflict can arise if women work outside the home, if they are combining paid employment and social reproduction, or if they stay at home. Eighteen of 28 mothers indicated that they were confident of their ability to meet their family’s wants and needs. Mothers made important distinctions between what is wanted and what is needed. “I think I’ve done pretty good. I don’t think they really want too much they don’t have or need anything and not be able to have it” (#18). “I think really well... (They) have all the important things they need and lots of things they want” (#20). The distinction made between wants and needs is made most saliently by this mother; “Their wants not very good, but their needs have pretty much always been met. They haven’t gone without shoes or clothes or anything” (#26). All mothers indicated that basic needs are being met. Some mothers prefaced their statements with “I think” and their responses ranged from saying, “I think I’ve always tried real hard...” (#2) to “I’ve done a pretty good job, I think so far” (#l7). These comments reflect the subjective 173 nature of the questions and the range of possible responses. As long as mothers felt their children were fed, clothed, and sheltered, mothers were confident in their ability to meet wants and needs. This was true for mothers in households with incomes less than $25,000 and those greater than $25,000. Conflicted mothers were more likely to express tensions between working and being good mothers. They rated their abilities to provide lower than the confident mothers did. Mothers that fell into the conflicted category either worked outside the home full-time or are stay-at-home mothers. None of the conflicted mothers worked part- time. A wide range of responses existed. Some recognized that they “have tried really hard” (#6, married & working full-time), while others failed to live up to their own expectations. My dad worked for the State of Michigan in the Highway Department as a Bridge and Road Inspector... He was the breadwinner and he made good money and he provided for us for every whim, need...we always had everything and I wish I could do it for them but I’m giving them as much as I possibly can (#14, divorced & working fiill-time). I could probably help out if 1 were to get a job... (but) l do quite a bit” (#16, married & stay-at-home mother). “Needswise, we do okay. Wants a lot of times we just have to tell the kids we can’t afford it... We don’t get a lot of wants” (#12, divorced & unemployed). Most responses reflect tacit recognition that contributing to household incomes is important. Those mothers who stay at home must manage what resources are available to meet their children’s needs. Providing for the social reproductive needs of their family if they do not work outside the home is still work with one mother emphasizing, “I do quite a bit” (#16). Other women are confident in meeting wants and needs because they are the one’s responsible for providing and they are able to do so without welfare. Overall changing economic and marital conditions of family life place women and their children in 174 vulnerable economic situations. This vulnerability is a function of the labor market and not a reflection of poor choices on the part of these women. An interesting finding is that mothers with household incomes greater than $25,000 were likely to be in first marriages and marriages of longer duration. Though they conform to normative standards of marriage and childbearing they are conflicted about their ability to meet their children’s wants and needs. For some of these women the source of their conflict are mistakes or hardships that happened early on in their children’s lives. These women carry these conflicts into the present when objective measures indicate that they are doing well in comparison to others in the area. This reflects the overwhelming sense of responsibility women feel for their children. One working mother said, “I’d say pretty good” at meeting her child’s wants and needs. When asked what she was especially proud of she responded, “(How) well my children do. The time that we spent with them like with schoolwork, reading. That makes me proud” (#7). It is investments in social reproduction that is most important and not the amount of money she brings in. Lean economic times also provide children with valuable lessons. I think we’ve done pretty good. There’s been a few times when it was tough and they were told ‘it’s going to be tough’ because I believe in being honest with my kids. ‘It’s going to be rough, we’re not going to have a lot of money but if you tough it out and we tough it out together, when the good times come we’ll all benefit from that to’ (#8, stay-at-home mother). Mothers who were confident in their ability to meet their family’s wants and needs had finances that may have improved, stayed the same, or declined over the last three years. The six confident respondents whose finances were the same or much worse believe they are meeting their child’s needs though not all their wants. Mothers use different criteria to evaluate how they are doing. What the qualitative data illustrate is that women do not evaluate their child’s or family’s wants and needs solely by economic measures. Throughout the interviews mothers talked about sacrificing so that their 175 children’s needs are met. One mother said, “that is what ‘normal’ mothers do” (#13). Women either absorb productive responsibilities in addition to their social reproduction, they make do with what they have, or they go without in order that children’s needs are met. In this section I have tried to determine when households have a sufficient income to meet basic wants and needs. I have also examined whether mother’s feel they are meeting their children’s wants and needs. What I find is that mothers with incomes of $25,000 are just as likely to be confident in their ability to provide as mothers with larger incomes. In addition it appears that women in households with incomes greater than $25,000 are conflicted about their ability to meet wants and needs. In an early paper I found that even though rural areas are assumed to be egalitarian class distinctions did exist and the poor are stigmatized indicating that social class does matter (Struthers and Bokemeier, forthcoming). In the interviews low-income mothers spoke of other low- income families that were either in the same situation they were in or worse. In comparison to those they knew were doing worse our respondents felt they were doing fine. Women with higher incomes may feel that their households are not doing as well relative to others. How you are doing depends on whom you compare yourself with. One mother said in the interviews that they moved to a rural county to get “back to the basics” (#15). This meant a simpler way of life. To achieve this however both this mother and her husband work outside the home and each commute 45 minutes to work. Another mother said she preferred the country because there was less emphasis placed on material things. But rural areas are still stratified by social class. Rural people live within their means because the areas they live do not offer them alternatives. Lower income residents are more likely to become trapped in rural places (Falk and Lyson 1993). Balancing Maternal Employment and Social Reproduction In this section I focus specifically on how maternal employment shapes family life and to a lesser degree how school schedules and mral residence complicate family life. All l76 twenty-nine mothers described the daily activities of their child. Of these 11 mothers specified that their child’s day began and ended at specific times. What I found remarkable about these schedules was the length and organization of the child’s day. This reflects parents’ work schedules or the need to ride a bus to school. The longest day began at 5:00am and ended with bedtime at 8:00pm for one child. Other children were more likely to get up between 6: 15-6130am and in bed by 8:00 or 8:30pm. The children whose day started the earliest reflect the work hours of their mothers. The child that was up at 5:00am was taken to a babysitter so that his/her mother could get to work. The babysitter feeds them breakfast, gives them baths, and gets them off to school. This sitter also engages in a number of other social reproductive tasks so that these children’s physical needs are cared for. This mother knew she had made a good set of arrangements for her children and that this particular sitter did far more for her children than she could expect elsewhere. Working mothers also mentioned that when they were not home in the morning fathers, older siblings, and grandparents make sure that children get the bus and go to school. One mother said she makes sure her boys are up before she leaves but that they fix their own breakfast and get dressed. She said her husband monitors their activities from the bedroom because he does not get home until 3:30am. How social reproduction is actually performed is still deeply gendered. Full-time employment spillovers into the aftemoon with many children go to a babysitter directly after school and remaining there until their mother can pick them up. Mothers with school district jobs say their jobs conform to their child’s schedules but they are still not always available after school. When their jobs require they drive for extra- curricular activities their children also go to babysitters. One child goes to a restaurant her mother owns and does her homework there after school. Once this is done she helps fill drinks and does little things around the restaurant. They go home together around 5:00pm. 177 Mothers specifically mentioned that having a routine kept everything running. This was true whether mothers worked outside the home or solely within it. One working mother of two talked about the daily routine this way, They have to pick out their cereal for the morning. Their clothes have to be laid out for school. They have to brush their teeth and make sure their homework is in the backpack. The basic things of getting around... We have set patterns. It’s like certain days I do things. It’s like I have patterns and 1 do ‘em week after week, and if I get thrown off, it throws me out of whack (#10). Mothers say that routines are good for children because it helps them know what to expect on any given day. Seven women actually described their child’s day by assigning particular activities to specific times of day. Maternal employment impacts family life because it forces a more rigid schedule of social reproduction. With only a limited number of hours to a day working mothers weave schedules and activities together. Maternal employment actually conflicts with the type of lifestyle that rural areas are thought to allow families and children. Rural areas are thought to be slower paced and more conducive for family life (Hummon 1990). Farm life as determined by the seasons and amount of daylight is characterized by periods of lots of activity during planting and harvest and slower periods especially during the winter. The farmer organized the work on the farm. Non-farm work has lead to a rigid organization of family and farm. When women are home fitll-time they organize the order and rhythm of the day. Now much of social reproduction is determined by the demands of their workday and their children’s schedules. This is not to say that farm production and social reproduction are disorganized or that routines are not established to get the work done. Off-farm and out of house work requires that men and women conform to work schedules determined by others. Since local employment is limited rural residents must add driving time to their work hours. Vacations and holidays allowed women the opportunity to break with the demands placed on them by employment. 178 lippfitg the Balance: When Maternal Employment is too Demanding The most significant way that social reproduction shapes women’s work histories is when childbearing leads them to quit a job. Of the twenty-nine mothers in this study twelve of them quit work when their 8—10 year old child was born and stayed out of the work force in most cases until the child started school. Women stayed home for reasons in addition to the birth of a child so a relationship between childbearing and staying home is not a simple one. Some of the women that said they stayed home when their child was born because they wanted to be home and just raise children. Other mothers had intermittent work patterns and would bear a child during periods of unemployment. Childbearing did not disrupt paid employment because they were already out of work. Low paying and service sector work provided little job security for women and little incentive to remain on a job once a child was born. Due to a change in management one mother was unable to return to her job with a hotel once her maternity leave was over. Low paying jobs also led women to quit and take other jobs. Mother reported that they looked long and hard to find positions that paid enough to live on. Mothers moved from one job to another in order to improve their pay or to work at places that allowed them to meet their responsibilities at home. Catastrophic events also lead women to quit work and stay home. Illness and hospitalization requires more social reproduction and impacts other aspects of family life. When asked about major changes that had taken place over the course of her child’s life she said trying to go back to work after the birth of a child was the big change. Probably the major one was my going back to work. That was a major concern. Because of the fact that I felt it was time for me to get back into my career a little bit, because I was not getting much out of staying home all the time with two little kids, it was driving me crazy... So I wanted to go back part-time. And we did this it was a major crisis because of the fact that good day care is very difficult around here to find. And good day care is even worse. So I went through, I worked for nine months part-time, which is two and a half days a week and I went through four different baby-sitters in that nine month period. And so I decided at that point in time that this is not worth it, the kids were having a hard time because they were 179 adjusting to new sitters all the time... And we decided it is not worth our sanity or the kids health to do this, so I quit working and stayed home again until they got into school so 1 could work around their schedules” (#1). The demands of social reproduction lead some women to seek employment out of the home but they still have to make sure that social reproduction gets done. Many times it is simply easier to stay home rather than try to coordinate paid employment, babysitters, and social reproduction. Social Class and Maternal Employment Most of the women that quit to stay home lived in households that had incomes above $25,000 a year. Of the twelve women who reported they had quit working to stay home with their children eight had household incomes greater than $25,000, four of these had incomes of $45,000 or more. Financially these families could afford to live on one income at least temporarily. When these women returned to work their household income increased in positive ways. Marital status also effects whether women work or stay at home. One mother, a proof operator, was married at the time she quit working to stay home. Her husband was working full-time so she worked part-time intermittently while her children were small to “help out” and to get out of the house. Now divorced and the sole support of her two children she has returned to work full-time. She cannot afford to stay home or work part-time but needs a full-time job with benefits in order to support her family (#14). Beliefs about the need for their physical presence, concerns about childcare, and the demands of social reproduction that infants place on women lead mothers to stay home. The work histories of eight mothers indicate no lengthy breaks in employment due to the birth of their 8-10 year old child. These women have what I described as a continuous work pattern. Though most of these women talked about having had more than one job during their child’s life their work history reflects moving from one job to another rather than periods unemployment. These women said they changed jobs to increase their income. All but one of these mothers was working full-time at the time of ISO the interview and seven of these women were currently married, most in first marriages. Household incomes for these families clustered between $20,000 - $40,000 a year. What is most interesting about the women with continuous work histories is the types of the work they do and the contribution their employment makes to maintain their family’s lifestyle. The households in which mothers have continuous work histories are solidly working class, which is consistent with the literature (Rubin 1994). Forsaking income even temporarily in these households would result in a lowered standard of living. Blue- collar work shapes the day-to-day and weekly finances of families. Class and Rural Residence Rural non-farm families share a similar social status with the urban working class. They appear to value marriage and an orientation to motherhood similar to urban working class women in that their commitment to motherhood is high (Luker 1984). They have adopted a provider role and define themselves as workers but they continue to define themselves as mothers like urban working class women (Rubin 1994). But rural labor markets are different from urban labor markets. Rates of rural employment and underemployment differ in important ways. Since 1982, unemployment has been higher in rural areas than urban areas. Rural areas also have lower rates of labor force participation. Like urban areas rural areas are losing manufacturing jobs and the jobs that are being created are in service industries. Unlike urban areas that have gained both low-wage and high-wage service jobs in finance, insurance, real estate and professional services, rural areas have historically and continue to lack high-wage service jobs. Rural residents are also more likely to be concentrated in fewer occupations than urban workers (Findeis and Hsu 1997). Because of differential access to input but particularly output markets mral industries have a difficult time providing competitive products (Castle 1991). Rural residents have a difficult time moving up or out of rural jobs and they lack skills to compete with better-educated workers elsewhere (Duncan 1992). Class and residence intersect in important ways that keep lower income residents trapped in rural areas. 181 How am 1 Doing? Rural Mothers’ Assessment of Their Performance as Parents Given all that has been said about what is important to mothers as parents and what they believe is important to their child’s development, this section looks specifically at how mothers assess their role performance. Mothers’ comments reflected: 1) confidence in their role performance, 2) conflict regarding their performance, 3) both confidence and conflict, or 4) neither. These same categories were used for their comments regarding their performance as wives and spouses. Twenty-eight respondents answered the question about their role as mothers. Sixteen of these were coded as confidentz, seven were conflicted, three responses showed both confidence and conflict, and two responses reflected neither. The neither response was dropped from my analysis. Some mothers made important references to specific problems in the past or present that led them to qualify their answers. Questions regarding their performance as mothers required that they reflect upon the life course of their 8-10 year old child. Their responses reflect how circumstances and demands of family life change over time. Mothers gained confidence in their abilities through practice and maturity. The following example illustrates this point. One mother said she was an alcoholic and that when her children were young she did not take very good care of them and could not put their needs above her own. Now that she was in recovery their needs came first and she expressed confidence in her mothering performance. Another mother I put in the both category was suffering from a debilitating condition that kept her confined to home. She made comparisons between her past involvement with her older children and her current non-involvement in her younger children’s activities. Though her overall assessment was positive, it bothered her terribly that she could not be more involved in her children’s lives. 2 This includes one father. 182 Confident responses are much like the following, “I think I’ve done a really good job at it” (#4). When asked what she was especially proud of this mother said, “The way my children have turned out, that when you take them out somewhere that the people don’t say, ‘oh no’ here comes Mrs. So and 80’s children” (#4). Confident mothers and fathers were proud of their children and how their children were turning out. These mothers frequently evaluated their success by referring to being able to take their children out in public. This public evaluation of their performance and that of their children’s behavior was very important. An important relational aspect of parenting is how others perceive children. Another indicator of their success as a parent was if their children would approach them with a problem, or come to them if they were in trouble. This seemed to validate them as good mothers and fathers in the eyes of their children. The two important relational aspects of their role as parents are how others evaluate their children and how their children evaluate them. Parenting is not just a parent to child set of relationships but a child to parent, and child to public set of relationships as well. A number of mothers made comparisons of themselves to others or broad statements about all women, all mothers, or all housewives. These references indicate an awareness of social and cultural expectations of them and a generalized understanding of women’s responsibility for social reproduction. Well, I think like all mothers there’s always stuff 1 could have done differently and better. I could have been more patient, I could have played with them more, all these things but I think overall, I did a good job (#2). I think okay. I’m still learning, I think as most parents do. You learn as you go. . .. You learn from your mistakes in life (and) that’s the same as raising children you learn, you know? (#5). When asked what she was particularly proud of, one mother said, “That I can handle it. . .. I’m a pretty good mom. I can be better. Everybody can be better. But there is no perfect 183 mom so I’m pretty good” (#24). Faced with a large number of tasks and expectations women feel they are good mothers. The following conflicted response begins fairly positively but then begins to reflect real doubts about her performance as a mother. I have my rocky points but I don’t think I’m too bad... I’m real hard at feeling that I deserve credit. I don’t know why but it’s just hard for me to look at things that way.... My kids actually deserve all the credit for putting up with me.... It’s been a rocky road... (#21). Another mother talked about being a “terrible” mother. There are mistakes I made and things that I’ve done that personally I feel I shouldn’t even have my kids. It was just immaturity...things that you are so ashamed that you’ve done. But you learn from them. (Things are) a lot different now because our family and our family life is everything (#15). Other than the earlier reference to mistakes she had made this mother was now overwhelmingly positive in her assessment of her marriage and family life. She commented frequently on her willingness to sacrifice for both her children and husband. There is no consistent pattern in childbearing that led to conflicted or confident responses. A few mothers that were conflicted about their performance had had children in their late teens or early twenties. Two women who had had their first child at 16 said they regretted dropping out of school but their assessment of their performance led to their being coded as confident mothers. One of these mothers said she had worked hard to be everything her own mother had not been. She was thrilled that her children could talk with her about anything. Two mothers that were very conflicted referred to a specific time when they were physically and emotionally unable to care for their children to the point that they temporarily left them. Years later these women continued to evaluate their performance in negative terms. A divorce or separation also affected how mothers evaluated their role performance. Divorced mothers were overwhelmed by the need to be both mothers and providers for their children, and it was the competing demands these roles placed on them 184 that caused conflict. One divorced mother was unemployed at the time of the interview and the burden of providing was particularly heavy. When asked how well she had done at being a good mother, her oldest daughter yelled from the bedroom “perfect!” Her response to this was, ‘Thank you. That’s the highest compliment you can give.’ I was going to say I really do try to be there. I try to listen to the kids. I try to ask them every night when they get home from school how was your day... Because I remember how rough it was in school... 1 want to try and make sure that the girls have a good day or if they don’t...that I know about it (#12). Comments made throughout this interview reflected a deep commitment on the part of this mother to her children. But there were also statements made throughout the interview about how difficult if was to maintain her home with the financial resources she had available. Though this mother believed that rural residence was good for her children and it provided a safe environment she was having a difficult time overcoming negative aspects of rural living. There were few local jobs, she had trouble finding regular and affordable childcare, and as a relatively new resident she had a limited social network to rely on. Her reliance on welfare increased her isolation in the county. My analysis of the interview transcripts reveal women largely confident in their role as mothers and the circumstances that lead to feelings of conflict. In the household survey mothers were asked to assess their decision making as a parent and their own general parenting. Parents were asked to assess their satisfaction on a five point scale from (1) very dissatisfied to (5) very satisfied (Chapter 3). Answers to the questions regarding decisions as a parent and general parenting were highly correlated (Table 6.6). Eleven parents were very satisfied and 14 of 29 parents said they were somewhat satisfied with their decision making. Eleven parents were very satisfied with their parenting in general and 13 were somewhat satisfied. Only two mothers indicated they were only somewhat dissatisfied with their decisions and only one was somewhat dissatisfied with 185 .325va :32 5d 8 EmoEcwE mm 2:22:08 coca—oboe season: 58:8va _o>o_ mod an unmomemm mm 8:33:08 coca—880 :ofimom... 83 5.8.- 88. 38.- 98.- So. 87 ca. mom. we. 8. x555 83 E. :88. 8o. woo... 8o. 8a.- EN. 8. o: :53 83 3.9.. Na. 8m. 9:. 82. .89.. 8. om; 26m 83 88.- war 88. :Sm. :38. 8. a: 5.58.. 83 .88. 85. 8o. 98. cm. :4. 2580 83 88. SN. Km. mm. :5. season 8.: .80 .33.. 8. mi. .550 83 :80. on; 88 mag: 83 $8. 8.0 .85 mm X535 :83 26m 558% Eve—£6 58809 5230 38qu .05 I: .D.m :82 .Aomnnv 83.823 :83 EB 2288: .3 wEEBmm 3850 EB wig—£2 .8339 Beam me 98:30qu 9c 3an 186 their parenting in general. Overall mothers believe they are good and capable parents and are satisfied with their ability to parent. I believe what feminist theorists have missed by focusing on parenting and home as oppression is the tie that exists between women and their children. Being responsible for the care of children and raising them can be oppressive, but it is also an accomplishment and source of affirmation. Women are aware of the cultural expectations placed on them as mothers and it is the presence of children in their lives that forces them to confront these. Most of these mothers are confident in their ability to parent. When mothers had to place their own needs above those of their children they believed they had failed as mothers. Women are aware of the responsibilities that being parent places on them. My research suggests that rural women are working hard to meet these expectations but they also organize and emphasis things that are important to them. My research illustrates that the burden of parenting is high for women and may be especially high because of the social context of rural communities. Rural residence creates a number of conundrums for rural mothers. Women are more isolated and yet visible especially if they require the help of formal social services. The physical buffer rural residence provides families provides a place to play but these wide open spaces need to be overcome to obtain support. Rural mothers have more autonomy on the one hand to raise their children and care for them home as they see fit but they are also keenly aware of the judgements other people make of them and their children. Women are oppressed by the social dynamics of rural places. For as much joy as their children provide them how their children “turn out” is the important reflection of their parenting. Rural Mothers’ Assessment of Their Performance as Wives A response that occurs frequently when rural women are asked about their role performance as wives is to say how long they have been married. Length of marriage was an indicator of their success and a source of pride. A long and stable marriage separated 187 good wives and mothers from others. One mother said, “I’ve been married 13 years and both my children are not illegitimate but legitimate. I’ve got the longest marriage and the only marriage (among my siblings) and I have two beautiful children” (#10b). Being long married and having legitimate children reflects recognition of the expectations of others and reflects both an awareness of the local context and public discourse about marriage and childbearing. Long and stable marriages provided women and children with more financial resources in many cases. Many of these households had incomes above $25,000. Stable marriages provided a more stable resource base and other security as well. Legitimacy helped to separate these women and their families from “welfare” mothers. Assessments of themselves as wives and partners reflected confidence, conflict, or a confident and conflicted assessment. Twenty-two women responded to the question about being a good wife. Fifteen gave confident responses, 3 conflicted responses and 4 fell into the confident and conflict category. Seven respondents gave what I saw as philosophical responses to this question. One woman said, “I’m loyal. . .. I’ve been a loyal wife. Marriage is up and down, things are good and things get tough but we’ve been married for almost twelve years and we’re still together” (#6). Other women said much the same thing that marriage was an up and down kind of venture. Confident responses to this question reflect a sense that women evaluate their performance based on what they think their husband expected. Given that roles are defined by their relational dimensions this makes sense. “I don’t know. You might want to ask my husband that one. I think I’ve done pretty good. I think I do what he expects me to do to keep him happy” (#8). Another woman said, “I think I’ve done pretty good... I like keeping the house halfways decent and dinner on the table” (#9). One woman said simply, “Good. I don’t think he has a problem with me” (#18). It did matter to women whether they thought their husbands would give them a good assessment. Confident respondents talked positively about the length of their marriages, and made comparisons to others in their families and the community at large. Public validation 188 was also important to being considered successful. What 1 find is that the women that were most confidant and content as wives had a sense that they and their husbands were raising children and creating family life as a team. They appeared to have a shared purpose, goals, and expectations of marriage and parenting. Okay. I do a fairly adequate job. My husband doesn’t expect me to be home at 5 o’clock every night and have dinner going but I think we have a good relationship of give and take as far as meeting the needs of our family (#20). One respondent described herself, as an “excellent” wife but that she found being a parent much tougher. “Being a wife was easy. Because you are at the same intellectual level. We dated a long time before we got married, so we knew each other well. It has just been real easy” (#1). When asked what she was particularly proud of this respondent said, “being able to take care and juggle everything that goes on. . .. And we are good friends, too.” (#1). In addition to feeling that her husband and children’s needs are being met this women felt that she had married someone that cares about her needs as well. A woman that I coded as confident and conflicted said, “Fairly good. I don’t complain too often. I go with the flow. I’m usually too tired to put up a fuss anyway” (#11). In comparison a conflicted woman said, I don’t think I am a very good wife. Because my husband always comes last. The longer we’ve been (together) the more children we’ve had and he doesn’t get my attention, my attention is last for him. And it can become difficult (#17). When asked what she would like to change if she could she said she would like to get a part-time job and that her husband could get a fiill-time job. This mother was currently the sole support of her family. She may not feel she is a good wife but she rated her ability to provide as high. Ten of fifteen women who were coded as confident in their role as wives were in first marriages and were working either part- or fiJll-time. The five other confident wives were remarried. Twelve of the fifteen women that were confident wives also said in the 189 family survey that they were very satisfied with their current relationship. The four wives that were categorized as confident and conflicted also said that they were very satisfied with their current relationships. There appears to be quite a bit of consistency between women’s confidence in their role as wives and their satisfaction with their current relationship. What these self-assessments reveal are women who are confident mothers and wives who are proud of their ability to handle their social reproductive responsibilities. Their responses also reveal a commitment to children and men in married relationships and these relationships sustain them when times are tough. These women are assuming responsibility for social reproduction when they have children and/or when they marry. Marriage and employment do not always provide them with steady and dependable sources of support for raising children in this rural county. Marriage can provide women with increased resources and support but if they are receiving social welfare, marriage would reduce the kinds of support they receive. Low waged work means that rural men have a difficult time supporting a wife and children. Most of these women however had chosen to marriage rather than remain single-parents. And though there is evidence of non-marital childbearing there is stigma attached to it. The issue is not just about whether commitment to marriage exists but under what circumstances it made sense to marry. African-American women are unlikely to marry due to the high amount of male unemployment (Wilson 1987). Underemployment among rural men means marriage may not lift a woman and her children out of poverty. 190 Wrapping Things Up: What’s Important, Relational Aspects of Social Reproduction, and Social Class Respondents say that being a mother is hard work and involves a number of tasks and a tremendous amount of energy. The burden of mothering can be oppressive to them but they are committed to the task. Becoming a good mother is also an individual process. Through trial and error many women in the sample gained confidence in their ability to be mothers. A number of them recognized that they might not measure up to the ideal but they do “pretty well” in comparison to others. Basically they are satisfied with their decision-making and they feel they are good parents. They measure their success in many ways but the most important thing is being able to handle social reproduction in the absence of financial resources and having open and caring relationships with their children. Success is measured by the favorable impressions people have of their children. But even in the absence of this, mothers want to believe that they are good mothers. In answer to the first research question of how mothers understand and articulate their role in social reproduction, women see themselves as teachers and foundation builders. Women work to create family ties that will provide their children with a sense of security and love. Secondly, women are bridge builders within the home and between the home and other social institutions. They seek to teach children the public relation skills . necessary to get along with others and to move from home to school and the workplace. When we observe the behavior of other children we believe some women are more successful than others are at teaching public relations. Children’s behavior in public is seen as a reflection of the parenting they receive but other factors such as welfare use are also used to evaluate women. The social context is important in this regard. What my analysis reveals is that these women are aware of norms regarding child behavior and they try to live up to them. Women also see themselves as facilitators of their child’s success and they know they are held responsible for their children’s failures. Women in the sample were aware 191 that they were supposed to be helping their child succeed in school. Social reproduction has expanded so those mothers must specifically prepare their child for the educational system. The relational aspects of social reproduction are mother to child, child to others, and family to other social institutions The expectations placed on mothers are many and they place competing demands on women. On the one hand women are expected to financially provide for their families, and they are also held responsible for social reproduction. Rural women work at balancing these competing demands. They sacrifice their personal and leisure time so that social reproduction gets done. Maintaining a family in a rural county requires a sustained investment of time and energy. Rural employment shapes social reproduction in a number of ways. One important way is that it forces a more rigid organization of family life. It also reduces the time and energy women have to invest in social reproduction. The workday of many rural residents is long because they do not work close to home but commute to jobs outside the county. If the costs of employment are too high women will quit jobs in order to stay home with their children. In the absence of alternatives to mother care women need to be home rather than working for pay. I find that the rural social context makes autonomy difficult. Low-income families especially single-parent families are highly visible. When children are not doing well at school their families are open to scrutiny. Low-income rural mothers have a difficult time living up to normative expectations of family life because they have a difficult time moving ahead economically. Sparsely populated areas create more isolation making it more difficult to develop a support network beyond those of similar economic status or who are not extended family members (Fitchen 1991). 192 CHAPTER 7 The Importance of Place: The Experiences of Rural Non-farm Mothers Introduction So far this analysis has centered on the discourses that surround social reproduction, how women understand this role, and how paid employment impacts social reproduction and the reverse. 1 have answered research questions about the influence formal and local discourses on rural non-farm women. When answering questions about maternal employment I illustrated problems rural mothers have when seeking to engage in production. In this chapter I specifically look more at how the rural social context shapes social reproduction. The research questions to be addressed in the chapter are: 1) Does living in this rural county shape social reproduction in particular ways? 2) Is the agrarian ideology evident in the local discourse and does it shape these mothers’ expectations about family life? 3) Does socioeconomic status shape perceptions of the county? I posit that where people live has an important impact on their ability to provide for their family and their relationship to the economy shapes social reproduction as well. Even though the economies of many rural counties are no longer agriculture dependent some rural counties are experiencing growing populations (Johnson 1993, Johnson and Beale 1995). This raises the question of what is good about mral residence especially for families that are raising children. Social historical studies illustrate that within rural farm households men and women engaged in both productive and social reproductive work so farm and family could survive (Cowan 1983 and 1987, Vanek 1984). Research illustrates that 193 technological advances were not evenly distributed between home and farm operation, and between rural and urban areas. Many rural areas were without electricity and running water for some time after urban areas had these things. As a result, rural women remained confined to home and farm long after men had begun reducing their family work and working in factories (Cowan 1983). This is not to say that rural women did not engage in production activities or farm work. Indeed women’s contributions and participation in farm production and as farmers has been largely overlooked (Sachs 1983, Haney and Knowles 1988). Other research illustrates that young unmarried women often worked off-farm because young men were still needed on the farm (Kessler-Harris 1982). Under capitalism, factory work among young women reflected both the needs to consolidate the traditional craftwork of women and to create uniform products under supervised conditions (Braverman 1974). Division between production and social reproduction are much more difficult to draw among farm families and we do not entirely know the influence this has on rural non-farm families. Technological advances within the home have not reduced the time stay-at-home mothers spend in housework (Vanek 1979, Strasser 1982). In fact consumerism and increasingly high standards for care of home and family have kept time spent in housework quite stable at 51-56 hours per week for non-employed women from the turn of the century through the 19505. Paid employment however reduces the time women spend in housework (Vanek 1979). The concept of “housework” emerged only as industrialization and urbanization advanced to encompass broad segments of the US. population and was used to describe the tasks and activities of women in white, middle- class households (Ferree 1990). Rural areas present different levels and mixes of 194 production and social reproduction than are apparent in the existing literature. The importance of this research is that I seek to identify and address these differences. The theoretical issues to be addressed in this chapter are, how is the social reproduction of non-farm women shaped by restructuring, why place matters, and how does social class shape perceptions of the county. The Importafnce of Pla_ca Where people live impacts where they work and where they live and work impacts how they engage in family life. Place becomes an important variable for examining social reproduction. Even though marriage and family trends and economic restructuring have increased similarities between rural and urban areas the rural literature abounds with theories of how rural places are marginalized in a highly urbanized and globalized world. The marginalized state of rural areas is a result of their peripheral but necessary relationship to core areas (Lobao 1990). Theories of uneven development suggest that rural residents constitute a particular class i.e., an awareness of their common and disadvantaged relationship to the means of production (Falk and Lyson 1993). If rural areas are marginalized and disadvantaged it is important to understand why parents would prefer to raise their children in these places rather than urban ones. Little of what we know about rural areas is based on first hand experience. Part of what we know is created in a vacuum because we live in a highly urbanized society and are bombarded with urban imagery. Rural areas have come to be seen and are even defined as everything urban areas are not that is, rural is a residual category (F itchen 1991). Being defined by what they are not makes understanding rural difficult. Lyson 195 and F alk (1993) describe rural regions and the people that live in them as “forgotten places.” Rural places are however real to the people that live in them. Bell (1992) suggests that theories of a rural-urban continuum are remain applicable not because rural areas are becoming more like urban areas but because the differences that exist between rural and urban areas are “real” in the minds of rural residents. What is important to my research is not just that urban and rural places are “different” but rural areas are seen as better. Aspects of rural living are therefore socially constructed and the beliefs that residents have can have important consequences for these areas. Rural and urban residents rate rural areas more highly than urban areas on a number of criteria (see Hummon 1990). But perceptions of rural living differ depending on whom you ask. Studies of Pennsylvania residents find that urban residents want to preserve the naturalness of rural places while rural residents seek economic development. Long-time rural residents see the need for development whereas urban residents do not (Willits and Luloff 1995). When asked to evaluate the quality of life of a place however respondents differ more significantly between rural residents than among mral and urban residents (Flora 1997). Studies also illustrate that competition exists between long-time rural residents and newcomers about resource use (Fitchen 1991). Federal mral development policies still tend to focus on farming related policy without acknowledging how many rural counties have shifted from medium sized family farms toward recreation, retirement, and other non-farm related economic activity (Browne et al., 1992, Johnson and Beale 1993). What is important to my research is how perceptions of rural places often remain steeped in agricultural imagery and beliefs about the past even as rural areas 196 are changing. What people believe is “true” about the places in which they live could be a powerful shaper of family life. I expect that women’s perceptions of their role in social reproduction will be related to images or beliefs they have about rural areas. This chapter is organized so that I discuss the benefits parents attribute to rural areas as a place to raise their children, the advantages and disadvantages of rural residence for working parents, and what I call the economics of rural residence. In the final section of the chapter I examine the difference that socioeconomic status makes in perceptions of the county. Social class could be an important variable for identifying who lives in the county, how long they have lived there, and their sense of connection to the area. In this section I compare the views of county residents to the responses of mothers in the face-to-face interviews. A strength of rural sociology has always been the spatial and bounded nature of the discipline (Lobao 1996). A case study of families in a rural county provides particular spatial dimensions for studying social reproduction. Rural areas provide a unique microcosm for the study of social phenomenon due to the dependence on local resources and isolation from other resources (Duncan 1996). How mothers talk about the advantages and disadvantages of living in the county should reflect both resources and lack of resources for family life. Social Reproduction: Parenting in a Rural County The Advantages and Disadvantages of RuLlResidence for Children "Place imagery" is an important indicator of the American way of life as a distinct and idealized way of life. Place imagery shapes people’s understanding of the 197 communities in which they live and becomes part of their identity and their sense of connection to a particular location (Hummon 1990). The outstanding mental pictures most people have of rural areas are agricultural images even though not all rural areas have agriculturally based economies. Rural industries have changed considerably with mechanization and the economy of the US. has shifted from manufacturing to services. Though both rural and urban areas are experiencing growth in services, rural area are gaining only low level and low paying service jobs (F indeis and Hsu 1997). Still, even when economic disadvantage is evident studies indicate that more Americans would like to live in a small town or rural place than currently do (Seebach 1992). People in small towns say they prefer the community in which they live to any other and ascribe more positive attributes to these communities than to urban areas (Hummon 1990). The power of place imagery is that it allows people to reconcile what they want to be true about the place where they live with the day-to-day activities required to sustain family life. Young families need to reconcile the competing demands of paid employment and family life in ways that older residents and households without children do not. In this section I examine what rural mothers said are the advantages of rural living for their children. What people say they prefer about small towns in other studies is instructive for my research. Rural residents described rural living as quiet, slower paced, and with a friendly ambiance. Rural areas are often described in terms of expected relationships in the community: neighborliness, mutual concern and willingness to help each other, everybody knows everybody, personal rather than impersonal relationships, safety and public order, no social barriers, and egalitarian in quality. Small towns were consistently 198 described as family oriented where parents feel they are able to control their child’s world due to the friendly atmosphere and scale of the place. The physical environment of rural places provides children the opportunity to play and explore out-of-doors because they are believed to be safer (Hummon 1990). Rural areas appear to offer an environment in which children’s physical and emotional needs are met and supportive relationships for family life exist. If these are truly the characteristics of Research County than it is little wonder that parents would choose to live here. Many of the positive characteristics found in other studies are reflected in the responses mothers made when asked about the advantages of living in a rural county. The interview transcripts reveal that mothers compared and contrasted raising their child in this county with their own experiences growing up in the county, growing up in another rural area, or prior urban residence. Mothers made comparisons between this county and other places they had lived. The most frequently mentioned advantage of living in a rural county was having a place for children to play and participate in outdoor activities. Mothers believed their children were able to live closer to nature and were surrounded with wildlife and that these were good experiences for children to have. These mothers believed they had control over their children’s lives and they believe it is safer. They said they worried less about their children than they would if they lived in an urban area. Some parents said they believed the pace of rural living was more natural and less stressful for family life. What this suggests is that the area offers a more wholesome environment in which social reproduction can take place. Mothers believe their children can and should play outside. Having a place to play also allows mothers the opportunity to teach their children 199 activities, games, and sports, things many of them said were enjoyable tasks of social reproduction. These mothers also appear to believe that the area is less stressful for their children. If this is true this means mothers would be relieved of tending to emotional problems brought on by more stressful environments. The Physical and Emotional Environment Parents’ responses to questions about the advantages or rural living reflect positive attributes of the area based in their belief that it is a farming community and that a country setting is inherently a good place to raise children. Rural areas not only provide spaces for their children to play and explore but human relations are thought to be more congenial in this area. This belief is captured in the following response. It’s nice out here. We seem to have closer neighborhoods, like the community type of thing. The only really difficult thing is to take the kids anywhere or any form of entertainment is a lot farther to go than in the city. But I think they use their imagination more, they learn to play more, they’re a lot more active, and they’re outside kids (#8). These comments reveal one of many inconsistencies rural residence presents to parents, having a sense of closeness and yet having to overcome distance. Mothers said that in rural areas children need to entertain themselves and learn to rely on their imagination rather than on ready-made entertainment. Rural residence can impact social reproduction in two ways; on the one hand, social reproduction is simpler for mothers because children entertain themselves. Or as mentioned previously it increases rural mothers’ time in social reproduction because they have to drive children to activities. If mothers want their children to be exposed to activities outside the local area they need to work even harder to do that. Living in an area with open country might 200 conjure up images or farms and farming but these wide-open spaces will need to be negotiated in order to connect up with other people and institutions. One mother also said she believed that children learned important values from living in a rural place. I feel living in the country is better for the kids because they’re not involved with a lot, they are separated. They have their friends but they’re not in like little groups where they can get into a lot of trouble and they learn basic values. The value of taking care of the animals and taking care of other things rather than being in a small apartment where they don’t have anything they feel responsible for (#9). Mothers frequently bracket their positive comments about the advantages of rural living to beliefs they have about urban areas. “Kids have a chance to run out and play and you don’t have to worry about them getting run over by cars or being shot” (#11). I like it because it seems like in the city you would have more competition on material possessions and what you wear. In the country there is some hillbillies and there is what you’d call regular people but I don’t think there is that much concern about that sort of thing. I just think that kids can get out and run and play and you can walk to the party store at night without having to be scared to death. You still have your concerns but I just think the kids need space and they need a place to play and run and the country to walk in (#22). The emphasis placed on the physical environment is important because parents feel it offers children opportunities and experiences they would not have if they lived in an urban place. But these comments reveal that parents want to instill particular values in their children. Rural residence is an attempt to keep one’s own children away from other people who are not like you. These mothers believe rural residence allows them to keep their children away from bad influences. Not only do parents believe they can keep their children separated from bad influences but that they have an opportunity to teach them good values. The values they wanted their children to have were a sense of responsibility 201 and how to live with what you have. Rural residence reduces options and mothers believe it reduces competing demands on resources and among activities. Rural = Farm = Community Spatial and quality of life issues are raised when parents and rural residents talk about the place where they live. Believing that rural areas are friendly and neighborly places where everybody knows everybody, provides a sense of smallness while at the same time allowing many rural families access to land in ways that would be impossible in the city. Five of thirty families in the face-to-face interviews lived on farms. Though none of these respondents were actively engaged in farming, a few did garden and saw this activity as consistent with living on a farm and in a farming community. When respondents talked about animals in the interviews they most often talked about dogs and cats as pets and assorted wild life, especially deer and pheasants rather than animals associated with farms such as cows, pigs, chickens, and the like. Watching deer and other creatures in their natural environment was important to mothers perceptions of this place as rural. One of their children’s regular chores was to feed their pets. This emphasis on chores and the care of animals set where they now lived apart from living in an urban area. It is also consistent with people’s expectations of farm living. Living in a house or mobile home in a rural county is different than living in an apartment, trailer park, or on a city block in an urban area. The difference is the land on which the house or trailer sits. Land creates a physical space between people. Mothers expressed freely and often a belief in the ruralness of the area because of land and the space it provides their family. 202 The good part about it is that we live in a farm community. The children are able to go out and play and (I do) not have to worry about where they are or what they are doing (#1). We like the country. There is not the hassle of all the people...right next door (#7). It was not important to these mothers that they farmed, only that farming existed in the area. Farming and the connections believed to exist between people in farming communities were very important to parents and an integral part of their place imagery. Agricultural images and beliefs about the quality of farming communities were very important to these mothers. My research reveals that the production and social reproduction of rural non-farm women is shaped by their desire to provide their children with a particular lifestyle. This lifestyle is in many ways consistent with the agrarian ideology. If however mothers want this lifestyle and to expose their children to other opportunities they have to increase their social reproduction. My research indicates that rural parents want to live in a rural county because they believe a rural environment is better for their children. Mothers want to have more control over they children and shape them according to their values. Rural residence appears to offer a unique setting for nurturing family ties. Rural parents appear to want to physically isolate their children though there are limits to being able to do this. Rug Community and Connections with Others In addition to appreciating the wide open spaces that rural residence provided their children, people professed a sense of community based on knowing everyone and being known. A sense of community and having the help and support of the community is an aspect of rural living reflected the agrarian ideology. Knowing people in the area increased parents’ sense that their children were safe and it also increases their sense that 203 11!: Mel 1th. titer they have support. Some mothers claimed to know everybody reflecting real and enduring relationships with other people in the area. A number of mothers indicated they had no real sense of connection to the community at all. The interviews reveal that most families were well integrated into the community and had help and support when needed. Most of the mothers in the interviews said they had family in the area or they had jobs with the school district or in local businesses that increased their own visibility and connections with others. Yet, 8 of 29 mothers said they had no friends, family, or connections to other people in the area. A number of respondents in the telephone survey also reported they had no friends or family in the county (Table 7.1). Seventy-three percent of telephone respondents who had not moved in the last ten years said they had family in the area. Sixty percent of the respondents who had moved three or more times in the last ten years said they did not have family in the area. Highly mobile individuals and families were less likely to have family support. Among telephone respondents’ marital status was found to be statistically significant when compared by having family in the area. County respondents who were married or had been married were more likely to report they had family in the area. Single, never married respondents and members of unmarried couples most often reported they had no family in the area. As discussed previously, the presence of a husband increases the number of family members mothers could seek assistance from. Mothers in the face-to-face interviews relied on husbands, in-laws, and former in-laws for help in social reproduction but family support could be tenuous. Divorce or separation often disrupted family support networks for rural mothers. Rural residence increased the isolation and burden of supporting children for single-mothers. 204 Table 7.1 Percent of County Residents with Family in the Area by Marital Status, Number of Moves, and Length of Residence. Presence of Family in Area Percentages No Yes Marital status“ Single (45) 62 38 Widowed (30) 27 73 Divorced (31) 39 61 Unmarried couples (5) 60 4O Remarried (9) 33.5 66.5 First marriages (176) 35 65 # of moves**"‘ 0 in last 10 years (146) 27 73 1 move (49) 41 59 2 moves (34) 44 56 3 or more (70) 60 40 Length of residency*** Less than 5 years (120) 54 46 5 to 10 (62) 34 66 11 to 15 (40) 27.5 72.5 16 to 30 (48) 27 73 30 + (260) _1__ 8_1 Total (300) 38.5 61.5 *Ps.05. ***Ps.001. 205 Some mothers that said they had few connections with others in the area had much more negative views of the county. My research shows that mothers who had no significant connections with the area shared similar socioeconomic characteristics. These mothers were either receiving social services or had previously received services, had experienced a divorce or recent marriage, or had moved four or more times over the course of their 8-10 year old child’s life. For these mothers rather than finding egalitarian relationships in the area they were cutoff from others in the county. Though rural mothers overall have fewer options to their own social reproduction, single-mothers appear to face even few social supports. These findings suggest that beliefs about egalitarian relationships in rural places need to be examined more carefirlly. Knowing everyone and being known can have negative as well as positive effects. Respondents’ sense of connection to others and the community varied among respondents. Having family in the community played an important part in helping working mothers fulfill their social reproduction responsibilities. Marital status and transience shaped having a dependable source of help and feeling connected to the community. Having a husband as a “helper” helped working mothers meet both their production and social reproduction responsibilities. Timgnd Energy The major disadvantage mothers mention about the county is the distance that needs to be overcome in order “to do anything” and the lack of local activities for their children. Some of the resources that mothers believed are lacking are characteristic of rural areas. And the bad part is the resources as far as not a lot to do. Being out in the country, they don’t have friends close to run across the road and play with, so 206 that’s probably the worst part of it. When you’re further away from a large city there is not as much available as a large city so cultural things you don’t have here either” (#1). (Sports) he loves ‘em and in a way, see up here though the way I look at it is what else is there for them to do? It’s not like they can just walk to the park or anything like that. . .. There’s just not as much to do as there is in the city. Once a year we’ll go up to the zoo. It’s not an easy thing to always just go out and do things (#4). I think there are some disadvantages. You don’t have the cultural activities that you might have in a bigger city as far as plays and special field trips at school. We’re just real limited for that kind of thing. . .. (#20). If children are to have these things their mothers must invest time and energy so this will happen. Rather than freeing women from social reproduction my research indicates that rural residence increases demands placed on mothers’ time and energy. Parents weigh the benefits of living in the area for their children against the costs that they accept by living here. The factor that seems to tip the balance for rural parents are beliefs about living in a farming area and the sense of community believed to exist there. What makes ruralness increasingly real to both urban and rural residents is the belief that society overall is in decline (Bell 1992). Rural residence is a rejection of urban areas, family breakdown and loss of community that is believed to be rampant in the city. Rural residence is easier however for those households that have more resources to begin with. Residents with higher incomes can absorb costs of rural residence and still access the resources available in urban places. This one advantage of living in Research County rather than counties further removed from urban areas. Rural areas are not free from urban influences. Mothers talked about the presence of gangs, and drugs and alcohol in the county, which increased their sense of danger and threatened the feeling of security they had hoped to attain by living in a rural county. 207 Parents are Split over the gravity of these problems. At one extreme, one mother believed that when people moved to rural areas they turned “a blind eye” to alcohol and drug use in the area. Since her husband was an ex-user she knew that “to this day he could go out in the community and find anything he wanted to buy” (#28). Other residents believed that even though alcohol and drug use was evident in the county it was less prevalent than it would be in an urban place. Most mothers believed this area, regardless of the problems that existed, were safer than where they had previously lived. But they also worked to distance themselves from people they believed abused drug and alcohol. Mothers believed alcohol and drug use was particularly high among welfare recipients. Urban problems had no place in most people's image of country living. Obstacles mothers repeatedly said they faced because they lived in the country were keeping their children occupied and jobs. I mean, it’s just hard, whenever they want to do something you do have to travel” (#4)- I think this is probably a little bit too rural for good jobs, because we are struggling for... good jobs (#12). I like it better in the country, but I find it is difficult to get to a place of employment or just get your kids anywhere. . (#17). For all the advantages rural areas offer their children to entertain themselves, rural mothers were not relieved of the task of keeping children occupied so that they stayed out of trouble. Social reproduction is shaped by physically having to transport children to activities and time is production is shaped by having to drive to get to work. Reliable transportation was essential to plugging kids into activities and getting parents to work. Reliable transportation is essential to meet the basics needs of families because shopping is difficult in this county. Though convenience stores and some fast- 208 food places are located at junctions with the interstate highway the selection of items is small and the cost is high. There is a Wal—Mart located in the county seat but shopping beyond that is limited in the county. Parents need to drive to other counties to meet needs or wants beyond what the Wal-Mart offers. Social service agencies were also some distance from where many of these mothers lived. Food programs that did help parents meet some of their children’s basic needs were available through the school district. A number of mothers talked about the value of the federal food programs in providing breakfast and lunch to their children or low-income children in the county. The school district could not meet many of the other needs of local children. Even though the school provided a free-tutoring program many children could not attend because their parents were unable to pick them up when it was over. The impact of rural residence on social reproduction is that it expands the time and energy that mothers need to invest. They need to figure drive time into meeting their children’s basic needs but their social needs as well. Living in a sparsely populated area makes connecting with other people and institutions difficult. Rural areas are also less likely to have a variety of services available. The school is an important connection between rural children and state and federal programs. Food programs help low-income families meet their children’s basic needs. The economics of family life in a rural county also begin to emerge when I examine what mothers said were the advantages and disadvantages of rural residence. Those parents that can afford reliable transportation have an easier and more dependable way of linking their children to resources within and outside the county. Mothers with 209 more resources expand and shape their social reproduction to meet a larger variety of their children’s wants and needs. Households with more resources can afford to combine what is good about rural areas with what is good about urban areas even if they do not want to live in an urban area. Spatial Issues: Production, Social Reproduction and Rural Living The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rqual Residence for Parents What People Do The comments made by mothers in the sample reflect beliefs about rural areas as distinct from urban areas. These beliefs are important because even as agriculture is declined this county is growing. This trend suggests that people are moving to mral areas for particular reasons. Rural populations are therefore made up of long-time residents and relative newcomers. Length of residence could affect how people evaluate the county. In the face-to-face interviews, fourteen respondents reported growing up in the research county, three said they grew up in another rural county, and thirteen said they grew up in urban areas. Twenty mothers said that they had lived in an urban area at some time. Prior urban residence proved to be a powerful motivator for moving to a rural county. One mother made this point quite clearly. I lived right in the heart of downtown. I was on one of the busier streets and to step out my front door you stepped in the street. When Jason was 2 years old and went in the street I said (to my husband), ‘I don’t care how, get me out of here. I don’t want to raise my son in the city.’ So we moved up here. Until we found property we could buy, we rented a house and then we found this place (#15). 210 Prior urban residence and an experience that placed her son at risk was an important motivator for moving to the country. None of the previously discussed advantages of rural living were mentioned when mothers talked about why they moved over the course of their child’s life. Mothers reported they moved for a number of pragmatic reasons. They moved because they were buying a home or at the other extreme because they needed to find other housing in a hurry. A frequently mentioned reason for moving was to live with or near someone. Moving to be near someone was often a way to gain financial assistance and support in caring for their children. Most often respondents moved to be near their parents or women moved to be near their boyfriends. Only eight families in the face-to- face interviews had lived in the same place for the entire 8-10 years of their child’s life. Seven families had moved four or more times and two children in the sample had been in foster care prior to being adopted into their family.1 Being adopted represented a move into a stable and more permanent environment than they had previously experienced. Many mothers reported that they had recently purchased a home. Moving to or within the county provided families the opportunity for homeownership that they may have lacked elsewhere. Eighty percent of all rural households own their own homes compared to only 59 percent of urban households. Fifteen percent of rural housing units are mobile homes compared to 2 percent of urban housing units (Sweaney and Meeks 1997:356-7). Mobile homes are one way that rural residents are able to afford and finance housing. Many of the families in the face-to-face interviews lived in mobile or modular homes. ' If these two cases are added to the seven households that had moved four or more moves it increases the percentage of frequent movers to 30%. 211 The opportunity to own a home in a rural county could be an important pull factor for parents. Yet, rural residents tend to face particular housing related problems. Housing regulations are less prevalent in rural areas and rural residents are more likely to suffer severe plumbing problems, heating problems, and upkeep problems. Rural renters and special groups such as the homeless, Native Americans, and migrant farm workers face more severe housing problems than other rural residents (Sweaney and Meeks 1997). Because of the deterioration of existing rural housing many rural residents suffer from near homelessness (F itchen 1991). They are near homeless because the dwelling they have is at risk of falling apart or they are behind on their rent and will need to find another place fairly quickly. A few mothers in the sample either knew someone or had had to find other housing themselves due to the above. Moving was frequent among some categories of respondents in the countywide telephone survey. F orty-one percent of all households in the telephone survey had lived in their current homes for less than five years and another twenty-one percent had lived in their homes six to ten years (Table 7.2). Eighteen to forty-year-olds were found to be most likely to move with seventy-five percent having moved at least once in the last 10 years. Eighteen to forty-year-olds are also most likely to move frequently (Table 7.3). Households with children were also more likely to move than households without children. Age and whether or not children live in the household were the only variables found to be statistically when compared to the number of moves in ten years. In this county young families and households with children are most likely to be mobile. Moving can benefit the maintenance of family life if it is the result of increased material and social resources and allows families to improved their living conditions. 212 Table 7.2 Length of Residence (Number of Years in Current Home) by Age, Presence of Children Under 18 in Household and Number of Eamers. Length of Residence Percentages Less than 6—10 11—15 16+ 5 Years Years Years Years Ag?" 18-40 years old (107) 65 18 14 3 41-65 years old (118) 31 26 13 30 66 years and older (68) 17.5 17.5 15 50 Children under 18 in household*** No children under 18 (186) 37 20.5 9 33.5 Children under 18 (109) 47 22 21 10 Number of incomes & number of adults in household+*** No income, one or two adults (88) 32 18 10 40 One income, one adult (52) 67 19 10 4 One income, two adults (61) 46 16 10 28 Two incomes, two adults (90) 31 27 21 21 Total (296) 40.5 21 13.5 25 +Based on marital status and number of earners in household. ***Ps.000. 213 Table 7.3 Number of Moves in the Last Ten Years by Age and Presence of Children Under 18 in Household. Number of Moves in the Last Ten Years Percentages 0 Moves 1 Move 2 Moves 3 Moves 4+ Moves Ag§*** 18—40 years old (107) 25 13 16 11 35 41-65 years old (118) 53 21 12 6 8 66 years and older (69) 75 15 3 4 3 Children under 18 in household" No children under 18 (188) 53 18.5 9.5 6 13 Children under 18 (110) 42 13 14.5 10 20.5 Total (299) 49 16.5 11.5 7 16 "*PSDOO. *Ps.05. 214 Homeownership is prevalent in the county with 82 percent of the telephone respondents indicating they owned or were buying their own home. The vast majority of these were single family dwellings. Economic resources are not equally distributed among rural residents. When telephone residents were asked whether they were financially better or worse off than they were a year ago, 39 percent believed they were better off while 43 percent believed they were about the same (Table 7.4). Telephone respondents who had lived in their current homes for less than five years were most likely to say they were financially better off. Nineteen percent of long-time residents, those in their homes 30 or more years said they were financially worse off. Sixty-nine percent of this group expected their family finances to remain the same. What is most interesting is the expectation by many county residents that their household finances will remain the same. This illustrates two very different dynamics of rural residence, older and long-time residents incomes will remain the same because they are likely to be living on fixed incomes. Younger residents are however just starting out. A number of mothers in the face-to-face interviews had said their finances had improved in the last three years so it is likely that younger residents would believe that their incomes would continue to grow. County residents with children were more likely to say that they were financially better off now than they were a year ago. A number of different factors can motivate people to move. Given the benefits that mothers in the face-to-face interviews believe rural residence provides their children it is a reasonable choice to move to a rural county. There is a point however when wages level out, children leave home, and people's financial situation plateaus or deteriorates. Purchasing a home, moving, and perceptions 215 Table 7.4 Family Finances by Length of Residence, Income, Presence of Children Under 18 in Household, Number of Moves in 10 Years, and Age. Question: Would you say that you and your family are better off or worse than you were a year ago? Family Finances Percentages Better Off About the Same Worse Off Length of residence" Less than 5 years (119) 50 36 14 6-10 years (59) 39 41 20 11—15 years (40) 35 45 20 16—30 years (48) 27 46 27 More than 30 years (26) 12 69 19 Annual income*** Less than $25,000 (85) 25 45 30.5 More than $25,000 (172) 53 37 10 Children under 18 in household* No children under 18 (186) 33 47 19 Children under 18 (109) 48 35 17 Number of moves“ 0 moves (145) 29 49 22 1 move (48) 44 46 10 2 moves (34) 50 35 15 3 moves (21) 43 43 14 4 moves (20) 60 10 30 5 or more moves (27) 48 41 11 _A—g§*** 18—40 years old (105) 52 31 17 41-65 years old (116) 38 42 20 66 years old or older (70) 19 61 20 Total (296) 38.5 43 18.5 ***Ps.000. *Ps.05. 216 of family finances provide some insight into the well being of families in the area. Though this leveling affect may be a function of changes over the family life course it does raise questions about job opportunities, wages, income levels and the ability of working parents to maintain their lifestyle and their ability to raise a family in the county. Moving to the Country: Jobs and Opportunities Given the predominately positive beliefs that people express about rural living it is reasonable to expect that mothers would have positive views of the county. However when mothers talked about the community they talked about practical concerns they had about meeting basic family needs. Their comments about production and social reproduction stand in stark contrast to their largely positive references to family finances and the opportunities they indicated were available in the county in the family surveys. Mothers comments in the interview reflect the problematic nature of having a good job and being able to meet their children’s basic needs in this place. Mothers frequently mentioned the lack of job opportunities and the type and quality of the jobs available. Local jobs are primarily in factories and the service sector. Overwhelmingly mothers said that there were few jobs locally and those that were available paid poorly. Factories in the countryside paid much less than factories in the county seat and a much larger urban area within commuting distance. Mothers believed that local employers deliberately keep wages low. Mothers also faced competition with local college students for available jobs. And mothers believed local employers were not interested in supporting local residents or the community. Rural factory work has very different impacts on family life depending on whether the worker is male or female. Two mothers who were the sole support of their 217 families believed that factory work was the only thing that kept them free from having to rely on welfare. Only well paying factory work allowed them to support their families but both of these women had to commute 30-45 minutes for these jobs. Residents with low educations whether male or female depended on factory work to provide for their families. One mother however said that poor paying factory work prevented the movement of men and their families to the area. This actually created a number of jobs for women in pink collar and health care jobs that required education beyond high school. These jobs were going unfilled because local women lacked the education and training to do them. In the absence of higher paying jobs both rural mothers and fathers must work outside the home. Given the lower than average income jobs afforded and the problematic nature of job opportunities in the county it makes sense to assess mothers’ views for potential job growth in the county. Though pessimism was expressed in the face-to-face interviews about what the community offered regarding jobs, when asked if job opportunities would be better or worse in the next 3 years, 66.7% of mothers said in the household surveys they believed they would be better. Telephone respondents were less optimistic, only 55% believed job opportunities in the county would go up in the next three years with income (Table 7.5). Low-income households were most likely to believe opportunities will stay the same or go down. Parents who can not afford to support their families on wages paid by local businesses commute to meet productive needs. Commuting increases the number of hours children need childcare outside of the school day. Working and commuting compresses the hours available for rural parents to invest in social reproduction. 218 Table 7.5 Job Opportunities by Income. Question: Do you expect job opportunities within commuting distance will . go up, will go down, or will stay the same as it was in the last twelve months? Job Opportunities Percentages Go Up Stay the Same Go Down By income” Less than $14,999 (35) 34.5 51.5 14 $15,000—$24,999 (47) 59.5 38.5 2 $25,000-$34,999 (48) 46 46 $35,000—$49,999 (54) 57 39 4 $50,000-$69,999 (37) 62 30 8 $70,000 or greater (29) 76 14 10 Total (288) 55 37.5 7.5 *Ps.05. 219 Working outside the local area is one important way that rural families differ from farm families of the past. Independent farms were centers of production and consumption, now rural production for many residents takes place outside the local area. In addition, many goods and services that have become commodified in urban areas that help women with social reproduction are largely absent from rural areas. Rural parents face long days trying to meet the production and social reproduction of their families and they have fewer supports and services to rely on. Moving to the County and Commuting to Work Commuting to an urban area for higher paying factory work was a largely accepted aspect of rural residence for mothers in the face-to-face interviews. Commuting needs to be incorporated into our understanding of mral growth and the problems associated with raising children and fulfilling social reproductive responsibilities in rural areas. Though mothers maintained positive views of why living in the area was good for their children, living in this county made combining production and social reproduction difficult. I found a job up here in Blanding and I’m now a purchasing assistant. I love being in the office but not all the clerical stuff. But the hours are 7:30 to 5:00 and it is 33 miles from here, so it is a 45 minute drive home (#15). For my husband, the most difficult thing is finding (a job) near home, that pays well enough to keep us where we need to be. He has to work in the city or else he won’t make enough money to support us, so the travel is difficult. He doesn’t enjoy driving back and forth every day. That’s about the hardest thing I think is finding something to do nearby (#2). Parents have to weigh whether the wages they make will offset the cost of the commute. Even if benefits outweigh the costs, the hours spent on the road decreased the amount of time parents can spend with their children. It was not uncommon for babysitters to feed children dinner or for families to eat in shifts. Sometimes mothers ate with their children 220 and other times they fed their children first and ate when their spouse got home from work. When asked who helped them when time was especially tight most mothers said that husbands helped with many of the day-to-day tasks of caring for a home and family. Mothers did the planning and coordinating of these arrangements even if their spouse was actively working to meet the social reproductive needs of the family. Commuting was just one more activity that needed to be added to the list of for meeting household responsibilities. I work in Adjacent County; it is a 40 to 45 minute drive, on back roads. . .. In this weather it is even longer. . .. You have a calendar with everything written on it. . .. I have to keep track of where we are supposed to be today (#1). (I spend) eight to ten hours a week sometimes I’d say driving, that’s a whole workday, so you’ve got to squeeze. You’ve got to find an extra day somewhere in your work time to squeeze all your wasted driving time. . .. I use the night to catch up (#22). Rural imagery shapes parents’ expectations of what rural areas should be like and they have specific expectations for the quality of life that they want for their children. Though mothers articulate many reasons why rural residence is “good” for their children, their daily lives suggest that time spent with them is limited. Though young families are largely optimistic about the future and moving to the county represents an improved set of economic circumstances these are offset by the costs associated with commuting. Lengthy commutes were not as prevalent among respondents in the telephone survey as they appeared to among the families in the face-to-face interviews. Overall time spent commuting is similar among urban and rural residents (Hennon & Brubaker 1988). What is different about the commute of rural residents is the physical landscape they drive through and the infrastructure of the counties in which they live. Rural areas have consistently lagged behind suburban and urban areas with the exception of the urban core/central city on a number of important social and economic 221 indicators. Physical evidence of the differences between where they work and where they live would appear to be quite pronounced for rural parents. Commuting could just reinforce beliefs they have about what is good about living in the country. Commuting represents a sacrifice of time and energy on the part of both mothers and fathers to provide children with the benefits of rural residence. Both production and social reproduction are complicated by rural residence and yet both are necessary to see that children’s needs are meet. These findings actually support theories that suggest that there are “real” consequences for rural areas based on residents’ perceptions (Bell 1992). As long as parents believe rural areas are better for their children they will continue to move further and fiirther from the city and commute. My findings support theories that posit that rural residents see themselves as a social class (Falk and Lyson 1993). Poor jobs and poor opportunities make it difficult to move up and out of rural places. Data from the telephone survey reveal a population aging in place and low-income population languishing in place. Life in rural counties will remain largely the same for some populations. In the current phase of capitalism there are few alternatives to waged work especially as more and more land is taken out of agricultural production to turn into subdivisions or create corporate farms (Collins and Gimenez 1990). Women are no longer able to economize, grow their own, or make do with what they have to work with within the home (J. Smith 1987). Combining maternal employment with non-farm rural residence leaves little time to engage in older modes of domestic labor. Rural non-farm residents are wholly dependent on wages for family survival. 222 The Economics of Rural Residence Welfare Use and the Irony of Rural Poverty Attitudes about individualism, independence, and self-sufficiency are associated with agricultural areas and are reflected in mother’s comments about welfare use and abuse in the county. Comments about welfare abuse surfaced when mothers talked about the community in the face-to-face interviews. We also asked mothers about pending welfare reform legislation and the changes they felt this would have on the county. Understanding parents’ perceptions of poverty and welfare use is one way to assess the quality of relationships among rural residents and the importance of class differences in the county. Research shows that race, class, and gender inequality are products of particular regional, social, and historical practices (Dill and Williams 1992). The social context of rural areas can reduce the class distinctions or intensify them with the end result being limiting the opportunities of some social categories or residents (Duncan and Lamborghini 1994). In this county there were pretty clear distinctions drawn between the poor and dependent and “middle-class” respondents.2 Awareness and empathy for people who were poor in the county was overshadowed by those respondents in the face-to-face interviews who believed that people on welfare were lazy, refused to work, and were just “sponging off the system” (#23). Welfare reform legislation that would require welfare recipients to work was seen by some mothers as ending an “easy way of life” for many county residents (#8). Working figured prominently into people's perception of self and others. 2 Rubin (1994) suggests that the middle-class is defined so broadly in the US. that whenever possible people will define themselves in this group rather than in the working or lower classes. 223 According to mothers in the face-to-face interviews welfare users were highly visible and were held in low esteem. The hostility expressed toward welfare mothers was palpable in the interviews. Among our respondents welfare recipients and non-users alike were frustrated by a system that perpetuated dependence while leaving families poor. Those without first hand experiences were most frustrated by the dependence they believed social services created and the slovenly behavior of welfare users. Mothers who had received assistance knew that poor paying jobs were not going to increase their family's standard of living. They did believe that having a job set an important example for their children. A mother who had previously been on assistance but was now working summed up the welfare versus low-paying job conundrum for low-income residents. Her comments reflect low-income mothers’ production and social reproduction dilemma. I’ve had so many people say, why don’t you quit and go on ADC (sic). It would probably be all right for my kids... I’d have more time to spend with them. But I don’t want them to learn that you can sit home and do nothing... I want them to know you have to work for what you get (#25). This respondent was currently making $10,000-$15,000 a year in a factory job. For low- income mothers the contradictory nature of working and raising children was especially great. Mothers who had depended on some form of assistance knew that what they received was inadequate to provide for their families. These mothers were also keenly aware that low paying jobs would prevent them from being able to meet their children’s basic needs. Getting off welfare meant they would lose childcare and health insurance. Welfare users were highly visible but the working poor seemed to disappear from view. Though mothers acknowledged that there was a lot of poverty in the area, it was difficult for them to reconcile how people could be working and remain poor. Mothers who were financially well off and settled in the area had little understanding that a poor paying job could not move a family out of poverty. A few of these mothers believed that women who received food stamps were able to feed their families better than they could. 224 All sorts of behavioral problems were attributed to children of welfare users and reflected negatively on their mothers’ ability to parent and control their own kids. Low-income households in the county seemed to be divided albeit unequally, between hard-living and settled-living families.3 Settled-living families in this sample are members of the rural working poor. Mothers’ comments supports research that finds stigma attached to welfare use in rural counties (Rank and Hirschl 1988, Naples 1994). Welfare use is the antithesis of working to support your family. Telephone respondents firmly believed that women should work to support their family and limiting welfare use was good for families. Welfare use contradicts beliefs held about independence and self-sufficiency expected of rural residents. My research illustrates that rural non-farm mothers support both the local discourse of providing and the agrarian ideology of hard work. Low incomes throughout the county prevented people from financially supporting local social service agencies such as the food pantry and local churches. Not only are services difficult to access but they are also lacking local support because residents cannot afford to contribute to them. Many mothers believed that welfare reform would mean that these agencies and extended family would be expected to support family members in need. The problem for rural families is that other family members are already stretched thin. When a divorced mother of three was asked if she had help and support when she needed it, she said, she believed help was available if she asked but that members of her family were actually more dependent on her. I’ve got my (ex-) husband’s family that would help me 100% but...I’ve been this independent person where I try my hardest to do stuff myself... I do ask people for favors...It’s been hard on me with all the stuff that’s been going on but I’m 3 See Rubin (1992/[1976]) for a more complete description. Settled-living primarily refers to those families that are relatively stable, have a sense of rootedness. and employment even though periods of unemployment and lay-offs occur. Hard-living refers to unstable family situations, violence, alcohol or drug use, and rootlessness. Today school personnel. psychologists. and other service professionals refer to hard-living families as "chaotic" families. 225 surviving... They depend on me more than I depend on them...and that’s hard (#13). She told me she had a sister-in—law who was having marital problems and they had talked about doubling up but given her own recent problems she felt having additional family members in her home was more than she could handle. Low incomes and poverty make meeting the social reproductive needs of a family difficult. The presence of poverty and low incomes challenges the positive beliefs that people have about raising children in a rural county. The presence of other family members though helps alleviate some of the burden. Many women had extended family that provided support and assistance to them. And their presence was an important reason why some mothers said they moved to the area. Virtually all respondents in the face-to-face interviews believed that working was better than not working and many believed that people on welfare just did not want to work. This view was also widely held by respondents in the telephone survey. Telephone respondents were asked two questions about poverty and welfare use in the county. These questions asked whether respondents believed poor people were working or not working and whether people were on welfare due to lack of effort or circumstances beyond their control. Fifty-two percent of the respondents in the countywide phone survey believed that most people who are poor were not working. When asked if most people were on welfare due to lack of effort or circumstances beyond their control, 62 percent believed pe0ple were on welfare due to lack of effort. Those respondents that believed that poor people were working were most likely to say people were poor due to circumstances beyond their control (Table 7.6). 226 Table 7.6 Perceptions of Welfare Use in the County by Perceptions About Poor People. Questions: In your Opinion, are most people on welfare because of lack of effort or because of circumstances beyond their control? Thinking about pe0ple who are "poor", would you say that most people who are poor are working or that most are not working? Perceptions of Welfare Use Percentages Lack of Circumstances Beyond Effort Their Own Control Total Perceptions about poor peOple and employment*** Most are working (86) 45 55 34 Most are not working (134) 75 25 52 About equal working 53 47 14 and not working (32) Total (265) 61.5 38.5 ** *Ps.000. 227 Different beliefs about why people were on welfare were varied and statistically significant by age, education, gender, and length of residence (Table 7.7). Though there was widespread agreement that people were on welfare due to lack of effort, 42 percent of those who believe people were on welfare due to circumstances beyond their control were between the ages of 41-65. Eighteen to forty years olds were the group most likely to say people were on welfare due to lack of effort. High school graduates were also far more likely to believe this. Respondents who had been in their current homes less than five years were most likely to say welfare use was due to lack of effort whereas long-time residents were more likely to believe people were on welfare due to circumstances beyond their control. The optimism that people start out with appears to be tempered over time and changing circumstances. Older residents seemed to have a better understanding that circumstances beyond their own control leave their families vulnerable to economic hardship. My findings support theories that suggest people with lower education and marginal employment judge the poor more harshly. Doing so allows them to separate themselves from those they see as losers (Sennett and Cobb 1973). Problems for Rural Residents raid Rural Families The issues surrounding production and social reproduction in a rural county are complex. My research shows that living in this rural county was more problematic for some residents than others. In the telephone survey county residents were asked a series of questions about problems they might face. We asked respondents about their marriage or current relationship, housing, fear of crime, education, job opportunities, access to medical care, control over everyday decisions, health insurance, transportation, social services, and recreation and leisure (Appendix C). The problems that residents believed 228 Table 7.7 Perceptions of Welfare Use in the County by Age, Education, and Length of Residence. Perceptions of Welfare Use Percentages Lack of Circumstances Beyond Effort Their Control Ag? 18-40 years old (99) 72 28 41-65 years old (97) 57 43 66 years old or older (65) 54 46 Resgondent's education“ Less than high school graduate (23) 43.5 56.5 High school graduate (87) 72 28 Some college (75) 63 37 College graduate (42) 57 43 Some graduate school or 47 53 graduate degree (36) Legah of residence” Less than 5 years (104) 68 32 6-10 years (57) 61 39 11-15 years (38) 74 26 16-30 years (40) 50 50 Over 30 years in area (23) 30 70 Total (265) 61.5 38.5 229 were most serious or somewhat serious for them were crime, job opportunities, lack of education, and access to medical care. Age was one variable that was consistently related to many of the problems listed (Table 7.8). Consistent with the existing literature answers to the question about crime was said to be more of a problem for older rural residents (Bachman 1992). Telephone respondents between the ages of 41-65 were more likely to see crime as somewhat of a problem while respondents 66 and older were more likely to say crime was a serious problem for them personally. Job opportunities however were seen as a serious problem by 23 percent of respondents 18-40 years old and somewhat a problem for 29 percent of them. Twenty-five percent of 41-65 year olds believed that job opportunities were somewhat of a problem. Families with children under the age of 18 were also most likely to say access to medical care was a serious problem. Families with household incomes reported lack of health insurance as a serious problem. Lack of job opportunities and health insurance appear to reflect the economic conditions under which many county residents live. Young married working parents are unlikely to be receiving any form of social services because of their marital status and their combined incomes make them ineligible for existing service. The stigma attached to welfare in rural areas could also be a contributing factor and would affect receipt even if families were eligible (Rank and Hirschl 1988). Young families with children are most likely to be living the consequences of a restructured economy (Zill and Nord 1994). The working poor regardless of age are also less likely to receive social services. Even though older residents are experiencing reduced finances and do not expect this situation to improve they are likely to be eligible to receive social security and Medicaid. 230 Table 7.8 Problem Areas for Rural Residents: Crime by Age, Job Opportunities by Age, Access to Medical Care by Presence of Children Under 18 Within the Home, and Lack of Health Insurance by Annual Income of Less than $25,000. Question: Are the following things a problem for you personally? Problems for Rural Residents Percentages Serious Somewhat of Not a Problem Problem 3 Problem at All Crime Ag§* 18-40 years old (107) 7.5 36 56 41—65 years old (118) 15 35 50 66 years old or older (70) 24 27 49 Total (300) 15 33 52 Job Opportunities Ag§* 18-40 years old (106) 23 29 48 41—65 years old (118) 13 25 63 66 years old or older (70) 13 14 73 Total (299) 16 24 60 Access to Medical Care Presence of children under 18 in household“ No children under 18 (188) 11 21 68 Children under 18 (110) 23 13.5 63.5 Total (299) 15.5 18.5 66 Lack of Health Insurance Annual income“ Less than $25,000 25 12 63 Greater than $25,000 11.5 12 76.5 Total (299) 17 11 72 *Ps.05. 231 In this section I have shown how difficult it can be for parents to meet their production and social reproduction responsibilities in this county. I have illustrated the conundrums that they face trying to work and engage in social reproduction. Mothers comments reveal a continued commitment to their children but also highlight where this county fails to live up to their expectations. One does not gain from parents’ comments an overwhelming sense of connections to the county. Working outside the home prevents parents from being involved in community or school events. Women that grew up in the county were far more likely to say positive things about the community than newcomers were. Differing marital and socioeconomic status prevents some families from feeling connected. Rural parents with higher incomes and more stability develop ways to reduce the dissonance between the daily reality of working and what they want for their children. Rural Residence: Nostalgia and Strong Families Nostalgia plays an important part in how rural parents reconciled living in this area. Parents were willing to absorb the physical and emotional burden of commuting, factory work, and long hours to provide what they believe is a better way of life for their children. Rural residence was important to establishing connections between family members. He wanted his children to develop a sense of connection with each other, which was something he felt he lacked growing up in the city. Living in a rural area creates an environment in which brothers and sisters had to play together. Playing together meant children were not playing with others unlike themselves. One-third of the women in the face-to-face interviews were not working outside the home at the time of the interview and eight of them were not seeking employment. They identified themselves as homemakers and their job as being mothers. Being a stay- 232 at-home mother allowed these women to reject the view that they had to work outside the home to have a job. Homemaking mothers believed living in a rural area gave them greater control over their children’s lives, because they knew where they were, what they were doing, and whom they were with. Rural living allowed them to keep their children separate from others and away from city influences. Five of eight of households with stay-at-home mothers had incomes less than $25,000 and four had incomes of $20,000 or less. Staying at home allowed these mothers to focus on social reproduction and it relieves them of having to find childcare and coordinate their employment and other family schedules. Women justified staying at home as a choice to invest in their children. Being a stay-at-home mother is consistent with the view of family assumed in the agrarian ideology. As long as they can meet most of their families wants and needs with their husband’s wages they are comfortable about being home. But working mothers also widely embraced the advantages of rural living for their children even though it increased the burden of working and engaging in social reproduction. Living Simply? Working mothers like stay-at-home mothers believed that rural residence was better for their children. One working mother said one advantage of living in a rural area was the belief that “material things don’t mean as much here” (#15). She also believed that most people in the area were “happy.” This respondent and her husband had moved to the county so that they could “get back to the basics” that she described as home, family, church, and community. To live here however this mother and her husband worked full-time jobs and both commuted forty-five minutes each way to work. They 233 also worked different shifts so that one parent was available most of the time while their two boys were home from school. Though this respondent believed living in the county provided her children with an environment she believed was more wholesome and simple she was working incredibly hard to make this happen. Another working mother shared much the same belief in the “simpler” lifestyle that a rural place could offer. In the city you’d have more competition on material possessions and what you wear (than) in the country... I don’t think it is as rigid as the city. I mean the teachers here don’t dress fantastic... It is just more what you just find in the country (#22). For this mother less emphasis on material things leveled out some of the inequities that existed between those with low incomes and higher incomes. But this mother was also part of a dual-earner household and worked filll-time. The belief that less emphasis on material things allowed for a simpler lifestyle was expressed in comments of many parents. Given that most mothers worked outside the home while remaining responsible for what happens within it forces us to ask, for whom is life simpler? Overwhelmingly mothers seemed to be saying life is simpler for their children in this rural county than it would be elsewhere. More than this however my research suggests that higher income rural parents are rejecting an urban lifestyle, at least in some ways. Higher income, two- earner households believe rural residence is good for their children but their employment behavior is more like dual-earner urban households. Higher income rural residents can absorb the costs of providing this environment for their children. Summary and Conclusions Contradictions exist between people’s beliefs about mral places and the realities of their daily lives. Mothers believed the benefits of raising children in this county outweighed raising them in the city. Living simply is a set of expectations that parents 234 have about living in rural areas but it is also a rejection of living in an urban area and trying to meet urban expectations of family life. Rural residence is not a less complicated way of life for working parents. These mothers may be reducing some of their time in social reproduction because they work outside the home but they are quite invested in social reproduction. Having a home in a rural area appears to be the embodiment of reestablishing a haven in a heartless world. Living in a rural county does shape social reproduction in particular ways. Social reproduction is about creating a veneer of traditional family life in an environment believed to be most supportive of traditional families. Rural residence creates a relatively isolated environment for parents to shape their children lives in what they believe are positive ways. These mothers want to control uncertainty by raising their children in areas they believed they know and understand and that a free of urban problems. They want to raise their children in areas that they think are economically homogenous and in a place where their values are shared. This rural county does not appear to offer a lot of alternatives to mother care so parents believe they can have more influence over their children’s lives. Respondents seek to reconcile their desire for more traditional household arrangements in a rural place where they still face the possibility of marital disruption, financial uncertainty, and employment. Rural residence practically guarantees that household incomes will be lower unless parents commute to other counties to work. Part of the allure of rural residence is simpler and more manageable sets of social relationships but this is more likely for households with more resources. Low-income parents take additional jobs, commute, and make a patchwork of arrangements to meet the needs of their children and to provide for them. Meeting a family's wants and needs requires both wages and reproductive work. The agrarian ideology is evident in the local discourse and in women’s expectations for family life. Mothers report in the face-to-face interviews that they are 235 married but families are not "nuclear" in the strictest application of this term. Marital disruption had occurred at some time within half of the families in the interviews. These rural children are living in family forms increasingly similar to their urban counterparts. Being married provides women with another adult to help with production and the social reproduction required by children. Marriage is one of the few alternatives available for help with social reproduction. Most mothers reported that they were well integrated into the community. But both the family interviews and telephone survey reveal that a significant number of county residents lack connections to others in the county. Those with few connections with others have moved frequently, experience marital disruption, or were poor. Socioeconomic status does shape perceptions of the county in different ways. Low income families are more likely to have more negative views of the county. Though all respondents believe that living in a rural areas has advantages for children. Lower income parents have a more difficult time linking up with other county residents and overcoming deficits the county had. Higher income mothers talked about activities and experiences the county lacked but they were also able to expose their children to these activities. Lower income families were more dependent on the resources the county could offer. 236 CHAPTER 8 Production, Social Reproduction, and Place: Rural Non-farm Families in A Michigan County In my research I have addressed a number of questions about the social reproduction and production of non-farm women living in a rural county in Michigan. My analysis required looking for evidence of feminist and public discourses in rural mothers’ comments about parenting in a rural county. I also constructed a local discourse about gender roles, maternal employment, and family life. This local discourse was examined for evidence of the agrarian ideology specifically as it related to traditional marriage and a sex-based division of labor with the home and labor market. Both the formal discourse and local discourse were found to be important shaping mechanisms for women’s accounts of their production and social reproduction. In addition I looked at how women understood and articulated their participation in social production particularly the primacy placed on their role as mothers and that tasks and activities that they felt were most important to their child’s development. Finally, I sought to explain how living in a rural county shaped production and social reproduction for these mothers. Summary of Findings Research Questions About Discourses The first research question I addressed was whether tenets of feminist discourse and the family values debate were evident in women’s discourses of production and social reproduction. My analysis finds that the types of jobs, the quality of jobs, and the wages paid women in this county reflect that they are oppressed within the labor market 237 and the rural labor market will allow them little opportunity to improve their overall economic situation. All of the working mothers in the sample work either in jobs with high concentrations of other women, they work with children or they have low skill jobs in factories. Because they live in a rural county with few other job opportunities they must commute to an urban area to make higher wages. When they work outside the home they absorb all the costs associated with working including the expense of childcare as well as travel and transportation cost. Being oppressed by the conditions of their employment cannot be confirsed with a lack of commitment to the labor market. These women were not committed to a particular job or employer but they were committed to the labor market because they were working to support their children. Most of these women expressed confidence in their ability to do the jobs they had and many have moved up and into other positions by increasing their skills. Their employment supports an important tenet of the agrarian ideology regarding working hard and working so their families were independent and self-sufficient. Comments made by mothers and survey respondents reflected a broad acceptance of women working outside the home even though they believed their investments in social reproduction were irreplaceable. A feminist discourse of oppression is also apparent in these women’s accounts of their social reproduction. These mothers talked about making sacrifices and going without so that their children’s wants and needs were meet. Working outside the home did not reduce their commitment to social reproduction in part because they lived in a rural area where they have few alternatives to their own social reproduction. Working mothers were able over time to make childcare arrangements that worked for them but 238 most had problems finding affordable and adequate care close to home. Finding childcare was most acute when children were infants and pre-schoolers. There were few restaurants or other amenities outside the more populated area of the county that provided working mothers with options to their own social reproduction. Responsibility for social reproduction limited women’s opportunities for furthering their education or changing jobs. Women in low-income households were especially constrained by their family responsibilities. They said they had to work full- time in order to make enough to support their families and therefore could not accept part-time employment or go back to school. This was true for female-headed households as well. In the absence of other financial resources to support their children women worked or relied on social welfare. I find that if mothers focus on family life as a burden it “takes the joy” out of the work which is a finding consistent with the research of DeVault (1987, 1991). A discourse of sacrifice makes working and going without a choice and it makes seeing social reproduction as oppression more difficult. Also because mothers had the power to pick and choose how they would organize social reproduction and what tasks and activities they would engage, social reproduction appeared to be less oppressive than their paid employment. Most working mothers believed that even though their jobs were physically demanding their jobs were not particularly challenging. Social reproduction was emotionally and mentally challenging and required more of their creativity than their jobs. A clearer discourse of oppression did appear when women talked about there being no relief from the day-to-day responsibility for parenting. The discourse of single- 239 mothers was most likely to reveal a sense of oppression. But working mothers also talked about being tired and feeling overwhelmed by the responsibilities they carried. There is also a discourse of choice when women are asked about the advantages of rural residence. Mothers say they choose to live here because they believe this area provides their children with a healthier and less stressfiil environment. Yet rural residence is also oppressive for women. Since wages are lower than urban areas two incomes are necessary for family survival. Two incomes do not guarantee a rural household a middle-class income or that it will lift a rural family out of poverty (Falk and Lyson 1993). Unmarried women with children cannot support themselves on their wages alone and there is stigma attached both to their marital status and to social services receipt. The local discourse is a discourse of providing. Women who cannot support their children are set apart from the rest of rural society. Women in the sample do gain a sense of accomplishment from working outside the home and from being considered good workers. Women apply this same validation to being good mothers. Women are aware that their children’s public performance was a reflection on them as good mothers. Women gain public approval for their social reproductive efforts when their children do well. Rural non-farm women have adopted a discourse of providing but also a discourse of being good mothers. Good mothers do not neglect social reproduction when they enter the labor market in fact they must do both. Mothers are held responsible for social reproduction in ways that fathers are not. This indicates an expectation that women remain responsible for social reproduction even as they add employment to their household responsibilities. 240 Social reproduction and its organization are determined by the presence of children in the home. Individual women emphasize different tasks and activities as being important. Even though husbands benefit from their wives social reproduction most of the tasks and activities that women described were related to the care of their children. Because mothers expect their husbands to be involved fathers there is some important movement away from a sex-based division of social reproductive labor. Women can command more involvement from men when they work outside the home and when other alternatives are lacking. Raising children in a rural place requires that both men and women work for pay and engage in social reproduction. In this way non-farm families are similar to farm families where men and women had complementary jobs in both production and social reproduction. The local discourse of child well being suggests that children in the county are doing pretty well. Local residents seem to believe they are supervised, that quality childcare is available, and the local schools are good. Though local residents still believe it is better if men make more money and women should care for home and family, they also believe women are responsible for providing. They say they believe that if both men and women work outside the home housework should be shared. Both the family surveys and participants in the telephone survey rate the county fairly high on opportunities and child well being but this optimism is tempered by beliefs that the county will remain largely the same in the future. Long-time residents and older residents expect that opportunities will remain largely the same. Though some of this is reflects a stage in their life course, part of this is reflects an awareness that this rural county offers limited opportunities. When mral areas 241 do grow the jobs that come pay low wages. Low incomes in rural areas mean local social services also have limited resources. The retreat from federal and state services means fewer resources for residents that are already economically vulnerable. In Research County service agencies are located in the county seat of Leonard. It is difficult for older residents and women with children to access these services. The nearest medical center is 65 miles away. Rural residence might be better for children in higher income households but the optimism of many families dissipates over time. Most women in the study were confident of their performances as wife and mother. Though time spent in production reduces time available for social reproduction women believe they are good mothers and are making the time to teach their children what they need to know. Working mothers are unwilling or unable to perform all tasks of social reproduction so they are enlisting the help of their husbands. There appears to be a real expectation that their husbands will help them care for their children though this can only be applied with any confidence to long and intact first marriages. The few mothers with stepchildren seemed to absorb the social reproduction necessary for their care but we have less of a sense of stepfather involvement in the target child’s life. Working mothers in the face-to-face interviews have adopted a new traditional marriage where they expect to work but they expect help with social reproduction. Because men are paid more for their jobs than women it makes economic sense for men to continue to work more and women to limit their working hours to care for their children. In the telephone survey younger respondents were more likely to believe that women should provide and housework should be shared illustrating an important cultural shift. Discourses on production and social reproduction varied among mothers in the 242 face-to-face interviews. Married mothers with lower education and household incomes less than $25,000 are more likely to be stay-at-home mothers. The mothers who stayed home were also most likely to have younger non-school aged children at home. These women justified staying at home by saying their children required their care. The discourse of women in the face-to-face interviews reveals remnants of tradition, oppression, and movement toward a new discourse of women’s roles in the labor force. There is really far less discourse to support new roles for men in production or social reproduction. My analysis supports the feminist literature that suggests that women are oppressed in the labor market and by their family responsibilities. I cannot explain their continued commitment to child rearing but 1 reveal aspects of social reproduction that are most important to mothers. Women can choose whether they define themselves as paid workers or mothers. They are good mothers if their time in social reproduction produces well-behaved children. Women are good wives and mothers as long as they maintain a clean home, a hot meal at dinner, and complete a myriad of asks associated with social reproduction. Working outside the home has had a powerfirl and positive affect on these women, because they know they can do the jobs that are required of them. They may work in bad jobs, but women believe they are good workers “in and outside the home”. My analysis also illustrates the power of the family values debates on women’s perceptions of themselves. They have not neglected their children as they have moved into the labor market but are working hard to raise their children at the same time. They accept the responsibility placed on them to care for their children. The local discourse provides a much more comprehensive understanding of gender roles than the family 243 values debate. Women are expected to be providers in rural areas in ways that urban, middle-class women have been relieved of this responsibility. This suggests that the family values debaters are unfamiliar with the particulars of family life in rural areas. Historically women in rural areas have had to work on and off farm. Today fewer family farms do not mean less work effort is required of rural women. Economic restructuring, the marginalization of rural labor markets, and the absence of alternatives to social reproduction requires that non-farm rural mothers work outside the home as they raise children Mt’s Imprflnt: Raising Children and FulfillingScLial Responsibilities These rural mothers were committed to establishing family ties, public relations skills, and aiding their children’s success in school. These women believed that they are responsible for establishing a healthy and supportive environment for their children so that their children feel loved and secure. If children feel loved and secure they can weather the demands placed on them by social institutions outside the family. On the surface the social reproduction in which women engaged had little to do with meeting the basic physical needs of their children. Mothers did not talk about cooking, cleaning, and clothing their children as being the most important tasks of social reproduction. What they did seem to be developing in children were skills necessary to succeed in school and ultimately paid employment of their own. As Engels had theorized, social reproduction is necessary so that firrther generations are prepared for production. Children not only needed to feel apart of the family but develop skills that facilitated other social relationships. Children needed to learn to be dependable and responsible. Mothers also invest time and energy in preparing their children for school. 244 These tasks and activities are important because they are a reflection of women’s investments in social reproduction. Mothers mentioned a number of expectations and obligations they felt were placed on them as mothers by the schools. But they have to pick and choose how they will invest their limited time. Mothers do not passively accept the recommendations school personnel and others place on them. Mothers were important advocates for their children especially at school. They said they were insisting their children got an education rather than being “pushed through” as they felt they had been. There is concern that the local area does not offer all the education resources or cultural activities that children will need in the future. Rural mothers cannot anticipate all the skills their children will need if they move elsewhere. A study of rural Kentucky counties finds that rural residents are ill prepared for urban labor markets do to lower education and training. They end up returning to rural areas because they cannot compete with urban residents (Duncan 1996). Women with lower education and skills themselves train their children with the skills they know. This could explain the emphasis placed on family relationships. But mothers also engage in a variety of activities that most people might not see as social reproduction. Mothers teach their children everything from bowhunting to swimming. Through these activities children learn important life skills and they serve as points of connection between parents and children. These activities can only take place during unstructured periods of time. More time in employment reduces time in these activities. Maternal employment has also forced a rigid organization of family life. Women still organize their own housework but they have few hours and often less energy to get the job done. Mothers mentioned that many of the activities they enjoyed the most 245 took place on vacations and “breaks” from normal routines. Many of the activities mentioned by parents as enjoyable are available because they live in a rural county. This research reveals that women are engaged in social reproduction that meets the day—to-day needs of their families. They are also intent on preparing their children for the future. Parents can only prepare their children for what they know. There is little evidence to suggest that low income parents can prepare their children for a vastly improved future. The county seems to be rigidly stratified between middle class, working class, and very low-income residents. Children in low—income households are more likely to be having trouble in school. Even when their mothers appear to be actively involved in preparing their children for school their children cannot overcome their economic disadvantage. Marital disruption meant that a number of children in the study have few financial resources to draw on, less family to draw on, and they will move more frequently than children with more resources will. My analysis reveals that women are committed to social reproduction and caring for their children. Mothers are devoted to their children and take seriously their responsibility for them. Yet mothers get little support for their efforts beyond the confines of their families. Mothers who are sole providers know they are not doing as well economically as their fathers did, and are not the stay-at-home mothers their own mothers were. They are living in a new social and economic reality that they are not entirely comfortable with. The Importance of Place Living in a rural county does shape social reproduction in particular ways. These women are oriented to a sex-based division of reproductive labor even though they want 246 their husband to be more involved in social reproduction. When rural women work outside the home social reproduction is constrained by lack of viable alternatives to their own investments of time and energy. Women do make choices about the activities in which they engage but raising children means there are some tasks that simply cannot be let go. Working mothers must make arrangements for their children’s care while they work. They often commute in order to make enough money to have land and a home in a rural place, which reduces the time they can physically be with their children. The agrarian ideology is evident in the local discourse and does shape women’s expectations of family life. They want their children to grow up in an atmosphere that they believe is more conducive to family life. They want to live around people who share their commitments to hard work and self-sufficiency. They want elements of traditional family life and they want to live in a community where they believe others would be available to help them in times of need. These mothers appear to live in a place where other mothers believe in the same things. Lack of resources and opportunities however make achieving this reality difficult. This rural county no longer has an economy solely based in agricultural and is beginning to look like many other rural counties that have a light industrial and service based economy. Rural residence represents a rejection of urban living and the desire for a simpler lifestyle for some respondents but maintaining this lifestyle is not simple for most rural parents. For low-income families there are problems associated with transportation and accessing available services. This analysis illustrates that rural residence can be understood as another system on inequality. Rural parents absorb the cost of living in these places. Given the deteriorating conditions of urban areas moving to the country appears to be a reasonable 247 strategy for families but rural men and women are in a marginalized economic position. Wages will continue to be low as more people move to rural areas to escape urban problems and as competition increases for the types of available jobs. If the area becomes too developed and too congested parents say they will move further out. Beliefs about the benefits of rural residence could prevent development efforts to improve county services. There is little evidence to suggest that rural labor markets will improve with the movement away from agriculture to recreation and retirement communities. The growth of recreation and retirement areas means service jobs rather than manufacturing will be the economic base for these counties. The populations of rural counties will change as well. Retirement areas will have older residents and young residents working to fill available jobs but will lack a population in the middle. Recreation areas bring young residents to work but there is a split between permanent and temporary residents resulting in cyclical employment. We still need a much more comprehensive understanding of rural population growth. Unanswered Questions and the Conundrums of Rural Preference Rural Preference and Social Class Mothers in this sample regardless of social class prefer rural residence for their children though they raise different concerns about rural living. Working class women are more concerned about the availability of local jobs and job instability than women with professional jobs are. All mothers are concerned about the cost of rural residence as far as the time and money required to involve their children in activities with other 248 children either in the county or outside the county. An added concern of rural residence for working class women is transportation. Rural residents are dependent on having their own transportation but if the cars of working class family's breakdown they may lose their jobs if they are unable to repair them or make other arrangements. Transportation and distance from home to work actually increase job instability for rural residents. Working class and middle class mothers differ on what they believe is important to their children's development. Middle class mothers were more likely to stress that the area lacks cultural activities while working class mothers were more concerned about being able to meet their child's basic needs. Low paying jobs meant working class women have to meet basic needs first. If there is income left over then they need to decide how this is allocated. Lower-income mothers talked about having to decide between shoes and heat or winter coats and paying the electric bill. Unexpected bills or emergencies disrupt existing strategies for meeting household expenses. Middle class mothers limit their children's activities so that they do not have to taxi them around; working class mothers have to decide whether they can afford to have their child involved in an activity. Working class mothers in this sample have no flexibility in the hours that they work so getting their children to and from school or extra-curricular activities is difficult. In many ways these class distinctions differ little from urban patterns. But social class and rural residence intersect in ways that guarantee little social mobility for residents. Low-income, long time and older residents expect that job opportunity and child well being in the county will remain largely the same. For low-income women in unstable or single-parent households their economic situation will deteriorate with any 249 further retreat from social welfare programs and divorce or separation. Because rural labor markets are characterized by low paying jobs and offer fewer types of jobs than urban areas mothers will go to work and still be unable to improve their household's standard of living. Rural mothers agreed that the benefit ofrural residence for their children was a safer environment. They wanted their children to be able to play outside, entertain themselves, and be able to explore on their own. Rural residence allowed children these opportunities in ways that urban areas could not. Mothers believed children faced particular hazards in urban areas such as, traffic and guns that they felt were not problems in this county. Rural mothers said they knew where their children were and whom they were with because they had to drive them to their friend's houses. But rural mothers are wary of strangers and people that are “different” from them. They feel they have reduced some of this uncertainty by moving to a rural area and they believe they can keep their children “separate” from others. Both middle-class and lower-income mothers wanted to live in rural areas to reduce what they saw as urban influences on their children's lives. These rural mothers wanted to live in an area with people they see as being much like themselves. I believe this reflects both myths people have about rural being farm and community, and a desire to separate themselves from people of color that they think are the source of urban . problems. In Iowa, it is the presence of a growing population of Mexican and Mexican- American families and female-headed households that forces long-time residents to define themselves as white, married, independent and hardworking (Naples 1994). This reflects and preserves dominant images most of us have about farmers as white, self- 250 sufficient, and part of communities of like-minded individuals. There is some basis for this; studies illustrate that a sense of connection does exist among farm families because they share an occupation and history (Bokemeier, Garkovich, and Foote 1996). Images of rural places as farm communities, increases the sense that white families will find others like themselves in rural areas. Home ownership may also play a part in choosing to move to a rural county because owning a house remains an important part of the American Dream. Rural residence may offer opportunities for home ownership to working class families that the urban working class lacks. Because the cost of housing is high there is more competition for available housing among the urban working class and the middle-class. Young middle-class families are more likely to be able to purchasing homes than working class families (Rubin 1994). Moving to the country may present the opportunity for home ownership because existing housing costs less and there are more single-family dwellings. The result is rural parents can provide a home and keep their children isolated from others at the same time. Losing a house in a rural area due to foreclosure may mean families have no other option but to double-up with other family. Low-income mothers in this sample rented housing other family members. In some cases, mothers moved back into their parent's homes when they could not afford housing or meet their children's basic needs. Middle-class households simply do not face the same housing problems as lower income families. Higher wages and increased job security provide middle-class households with the opportunity for home ownership and stability that lower income residents’ lack. 251 How Am I Doinfielf-Assessments and Class It is difficult for me to be critical of mothers' self-assessments of their performance in meeting wants and needs, and as mothers and wives. As a researcher that defines herself as a feminist and has matured in an academic atmosphere aware of the importance of social location I am hesitant to criticize what women say for fear it could be misunderstood by others. I do try to analyze what they say but I have come of age as a sociologist in an atmosphere that posits that families are “different” rather than deviant. Because there is no single feminist perspective I have been exposed not only to theories developed by women that share similar socioeconomic characteristics as myself but also to the challenges that have been made to these theories. I have wanted to be sensitive to other women’s voices and that may interfere with my ability to be critical. I know that gender is an organizing principle of social life but it is not the only organizing principle; race, class, age, and place of residence intersect to shape life chances differently. I know gender is not enough to understand how and why women construct family life like they do. Gender is not enough so that women can hear and understand the narratives of other women (Riessman 1991). It is possible that I did not pick up on or even ask the “right” questions or probe further when I should have. I think when researching issues of marriage and family life misunderstandings are likely because there is always a tension between what we think we should do and what we actually do. My research shows that the women in this sample are aware of cultural messages about the right way to be wives and mothers and now providers. Because women are aware of public sanctions they face if they are seen as “bad” mothers they may have been especially careful of what they told me as a researcher. What I do find is that women are 252 aware of the contractions they face trying to support their children in a society that gives lip service to family values but provides women and children with little physical, material, or emotional support. Women in this study put a positive spin on their ability to provide for their family's wants and needs even though the material conditions of their lives are very different. Women with very low-incomes stressed how hard they have tried to provide for their children's basic needs but even if they felt they failed at that, they said they could still meet their children’s emotional needs. Trying to provide may not be as good as providing, but making the effort was enough to allow them to define themselves as good mothers. Believing they were trying allowed them to separate themselves from other mothers they believed were not trying. Class is important in rural areas because rural residents do know which women are having children outside of marriage and who is collecting welfare. It is the presence of welfare mothers that makes working mothers look better and it separates women who say they are looking for work from those who are unwilling to work. The women we interviewed that were on welfare were critical of the system but still felt they were good mothers. Being on welfare allowed them to be physically present in their children's lives so they could do aspects of mothering that being home allowed. Women defined being home with their children as important to their child's development. Conflicted mothers were women that could not provide for their children in the same manner that their father's had provided for them. Women who could not provide for their children like their father's could, reflect an interesting dimension of social class brought on by restructuring and marital disruption. Women in blue-collar, pink-collar, or 253 services jobs and are the sole support of their families, cannot make as much money as their fathers did especially if they had grown up in a middle-class and married-couple household. Restructuring has resulted in lower standards of living in many middle-class households and for the working class (Newman 1993, Rubin 1994). Women in the sample with some education beyond high school were working in jobs that barely allow them to support their families. Rural mothers are likely to be underemployed and to remain so. Women evaluate their performance as mothers and their ability to meet their children's wants and needs either as providers or by their physical presence. Women who work but do not make enough to support their children are conflicted about their physical absence. This appeared to be most true for women who were divorced and now the primary support of their children. Women in households with less than $25,000 but who were married were more confident in their roles as mothers. These women fell into two categories, they were working and had husband helpers at home or they were homemakers with provider husbands. They were conforming to patterns of marriage and work and family consistent with the local context. Women and men were in traditional families or new traditional families. Marriage allowed a number of these mothers to combine employment with parenting in positive ways. As long as they had made childcare arrangements they were satisfied with and spent quality time with their children on weekends and in the evenings working women were good mothers. The most conflicted mothers were mothers who had abandoned their children, neglected them, or were unable to actively care for them in some way. These mothers talked as if they were still in need of atonement for past and present sins. It is impossible 254 to tell from the transcripts what event or events had led to their leaving their children. Their sin was failing to put their children's needs above their own. These accounts say something about the overwhelming sense of responsibility that women feel they have for their children. But class and race may play an important part in this evaluation of self and mothering. Studies that look at the effects of social class on family boundaries illustrate that among low-income and racial-ethnic families there is more shared responsibility for the care of children and family boundaries are more fluid. Mothers can leave their children in the care of others and do not face sanctions for it (Stack 1974). Families with more resources and more stability are more likely to conform to the nuclear and traditional form and they are more isolated. Parents in these homes are solely responsible for their children (Rapp 1992). In rural areas, families are not only more physically isolated but there is also an expectation that households are independent and self-sufficient. Women who leave their children have failed to meet community and societal norms. What is interesting is that even after women are back on their feet economically and emotionally they still carry this sense of failure. This could be a fimction of the lack of anonymity that rural areas allow women or the strength of messages white, working class, and middle- class women are entirely responsible for their children. Women in the sample believed they could meet and overcome the challenge of raising their children even when resources were few. The data shows that there are a lot of working class and lower income residents in the county. And though welfare users are disdained, working class mothers know a number of other mothers who are living under the same set of social and economic circumstances they are. There is a sense of class- 255 consciousness among working class rural residents about their shared circumstances. They work and want to be able to raise their children in an environment they feel is better for them. Hard work is nothing to be ashamed of and is encouraged by the historical and social context of rural places. Rural mothers rate their performance positively because they believe they are doing the best they can under the circumstances in which they live. FamilyFormation and Rural Residence I have tried to show in my discussion of the agrarian ideology and the family values debate the impact of focusing on a particular family form as a way of measuring good or bad families. A good family conforms to the traditional or nuclear form with a - stay-at-home mother and breadwinning father and their biological children. Census data has consistently shown that farm families in particular and rural households overall are composed of married couples with children and at least one wage earner (Hennon and Brubaker 1988). Being married at the time of a survey may not reveal the actual patterns of family formation or childbearing among rural residents. Though most of our residents were married not all marriages were of long duration. Marriage rates appeared to be especially high among telephone respondents. There were a number of mothers in the face-to-face interviews that had been married more than once. Some women in the smaller sample had had at least one child prior to marriage and a couple had two or more children by different men. In short, among the families in the face-to-face interviews almost half of all children had experienced some marital disruption or change in household composition over the course of 8-10 years. Rural areas do not appear to be free from the impact of forces that have changed marriage and family formation patterns in the rest of society. 256 Being married and in a relationship of long duration was however a source of pride for the women in them. Being married was a positive reflection on them as wives and mothers and it reflected positively on their children. It would be difficult to argue against the positive impact that being long married had on household incomes. Though some long married couples in first or subsequent marriages had incomes less than $25,000 most had incomes above $25,000. Women in these households tended to have more continuous work histories and they were more likely to say their husbands helped them with childcare and housework. Being marriage separated good rural mothers from bad rural mothers. Welfare use and single-parent status worked hand in hand to identify and define women and households that were dysfunctional. Welfare mothers were believed to keep having children to increase their welfare income and they had working boyfriends on the side that could support them but did not. Welfare mothers and their children lived outside the acceptable norms of rural society. Welfare use and out-of-wedlock childbearing are something of a scourge to what more settled rural residents believe is a wholesome atmosphere. Though clearly marital disruption was apparent in both samples it simply is not consistent with the marriage and family patterns believed to flourish in rural places. The few divorced women I talked to expressed concern about the impact the divorce or separation would have on their children's emotional well being but this seemed to be a short-term concern. If alcoholism or physical abuse had been a precipitating factor that led to a divorce mothers felt that their children were now better off than if they remained married. Mothers who had children by other men provided little specifics about why these relationships failed. If mothers felt they were in a stable relationship now they were not particularly concerned 257 about the impact of the absent father or the break up. One mother told us the biggest decision she had made over the course of her son's life was not letting him see his biological father. And though one mother complained that none of her children's fathers paid child support she did not believe the court would enforce the child support award she had been granted. The public censures that single-mothers experienced did not apply as rigidly to absent fathers. Economically single-mothers were not doing as well as their married counterparts and their children did experience more disruption overall. Contributions to Theory Feminist Theories of Social Reproduction My research supports feminist theories that posit that women are oppressed in the labor market and by their continued investment in social reproduction. Being responsible for family and placing family first means women were unable to increase their education to increase their job opportunities. In a rural area increased investments in education would not guarantee better jobs so there is less incentive to go to school. Rural women work in lower paid positions in labor markets that pay less and offer few opportunities than urban labor markets. The women in this study sought jobs that allowed them to combine paid employment with their family responsibilities which meant they would quit jobs and refuse overtime if employment interfered with family life. These women wanted their employers to acknowledge their family responsibilities. My research supports theories that suggest women are responsible for home especially when their children are young. Rural residence actually intensifies this responsibility because there are few options for non-mother care. What formal childcare 258 programs or centers are available tend to be more populated parts of rural counties. Rural mothers are more likely to depend on someone they know to provide childcare and they rely on family members and friends. I find that social reproduction is shaped by the economic and social milieu. In this county women are still held responsible for children and social reproduction in ways men are not and they are expected to be providers for their families as well. This seems to reflect the discourse of welfare reform and a discourse of hard work and independence attributed to farm work. Social reproduction is reorganized by maternal employment because women have fewer hours in which to complete tasks. Women do have control over how the work is done but less control over when it is done. These women believe they are preparing their children for the future and know they are expected to help their children succeed in school. I am unable to adequately explain women's commitment to marriage and social reproduction. But marriage does provide rural women with some important benefits. They do have another adult to share in raising children and their husband is expected to help with the housework as well. Marriage does in many cases provide extended family to help with social reproduction. Extended family was important to providing a sense of connection to the large community. What 1 do know is that the presence of a child requires that women assume responsibility and obligations for that child and it changes how she organizes her social reproduction. It also gives women a sense of meaning. A woman who had adopted a child made this point most clearly. This mother talked about how “her and father’s” priorities had changed now that Samantha had come to live with them. This mother said they did not eat out as much because Samantha needed shoes or 259 other things. Having a child at home also relieved her of feeling like she had to work outside the home in order to be doing something “important”. Having a child gave her, “a sense of purpose” (#28). My research shows that women gain strength and a sense of advocacy through parenting. Women are very aware that how their children behave in public and how they perform in school is a reflection of them as mothers. The demands place on women by the schools had to be coordinated with all the other tasks and activities of social reproduction. Another finding is that social reproduction becomes more rigidly scheduled when women work outside the home. It has to be organized or things women think are important do not get done. Women welcome a break from this rigid schedule and seek to engage in activities with their children that are consistent with rural living. Many of the activities mothers said they enjoyed the most took place outside. Contributions to Rural Theory My research supports theories that suggest rural residents have a particular relationship to the means of production. They see themselves as set apart from urban society. Rural parents say they are choosing to live in a rural area because they believe rural places offer a healthier environment for their children. The differences between rural and urban are real to rural residents. New residents appear to be reclaiming a particular life. They say they want to live more simply and in a place where material things "don't mean as much" (#15). Parents want more control over what their children have and whom they are with and they believe this is possible in rural places. Rural residence is a rejection of urban influences. Mothers generally believe that their children are safer here than they would be in an urban area. For the most part rural 260 parents believe that they are living in an area with people who share their values and perspectives but this is a very class based set of values. Some parents talked about moving even fithher out if too many people moved into this county. There was a real desire to separate their family from bad influences. Though I did not ask residents about race and ethnicity, I have a sense what many parents in this county want to do is remove themselves from people of color. Dominant urban images increase the sense that urban problems are really a problem of people of color. Recent events at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado and shootings in rural school districts illustrate violence by white, working class and middle-class children against their own so it may become increasingly difficult to believe that you can escape complex social problems. Moving to the country may parallel earlier migrations of white, middle and working class families to the suburbs. But it is an individual strategy without the infrastructural supports that made moving to the suburbs easier for families that wanted to escape the city. Serious social inequalities do exist in rural areas and between rural areas and urban places. It is hard for rural residents to reconcile inequality in places where they believe a strong work ethic still exists. There are lifestyle differences between the rural middle-class working class, and poor. Welfare use is highly incompatible with mral beliefs in hard work and independence. Rural residents believe women should work outside the home. Many of the families we interviewed are working poor. Their incomes fail consistently below the median for the county. Parents with more resources can live in a rural county and selectively expose their children to desirable aspects of urban living like museums and shopping. 261 Non-farm rural residents are likely to live and work in two separate places. It is increasingly likely that both mothers and fathers will be in the labor force. Total time available for social reproduction is reduced. Childcare is limited in this rural county and it is expensive because wages are low. Rural residents have to have dependable transportation in order to get to work. There are costs of distance that rural parents have to absorb just as rural industries must absorb in order to operate in rural places. There was a sense that local businesses were not interested in supporting local people and families. But rural industries are ill prepared to compete with urban industries. The growth of low paying service sector jobs will not increase the financial fortunes of rural families. Methodological Issues Triangulation of the data was possible given the different methodological approaches used. But there were inconsistencies between what mothers said in the interviews and what they reported in the household surveys. The surveys overall painted a more positive view of family life and rural residence than the interviews. The telephone survey did reveal that different categories of rural residents rate the county differently. Taken together I think I was able to gain a comprehensive understanding of aspects of life in Research County. We did not ask the right questions to know more specifically about commitment to marriage and childbearing. I was successful at identifying a discourse of social reproduction and showing how this discourse is shaped by rural residence. Rural mothers are constructing a family life that is consistent with the place in which they live. They 262 are working outside the home but they are also engaging in tasks and activities that reflect the areas in which they live. Social reproduction has to change to reflect an increase in time in production. Social reproduction is important to preparing children for the future. In order to address questions of commitment to marriage and childbearing I would have to ask women more specifically about when and why they get married. I would need to ask them to articulate the benefits they felt they received from marriage and whether their marriages were living up to their expectations. I also would need to look more critically at when and why women have children, how many they expected to have, and the number they have and how the day-to-day care of a child lives up to their expectations. I am interested in exploring fiirther the pressure women feel to have children and what the sources of these pressures are. It would be interesting to see how place impacts the pressure women feel to have children and the impact the presence of children has on their self-image. Even with the emphasis placed on social class in my analysis I do not feel I have adequately illustrated the different motivation working class and middle-class parents have for moving to the country. There were too few middle-class families in the sample to make meaningful comparisons. I think parents share similar concerns about finding adequate housing and how a rural environment provides positive benefits for their children. Working class and middle-class mothers did talk about the importance of other family members in their decisions to move to or stay in the county. The presence of kin and the amount of support rural mothers have was not adequately addressed in my analysis. It is clear that lower income mothers have few supports to draw on in Research 263 County. I do not know how these mothers chose Research County over other rural counties. Low-income children do appear to suffer disruption when their mothers move frequently and as they enter and exit relationships with a number of men. The benefits of rural residence for low-income children are difficult to see. My analysis does not adequately address the rejection of urban areas and urban influence and how race fits into parents decisions to move to the country. I think it is clear that parents believe rural areas are better than urban areas when raising children. It is hard to see whether they actually have any more influence over their children’s lives especially as they increase their time in paid employment. I would need to ask parents more specifically about the decisions they made to move to the county. I am convinced place matters because place differ on objective measurable criteria and the subjective beliefs people hold. Parents are actively constructing family life based on beliefs they have about rural areas and the resources they can access. 264 APPENDICES 265 Appendix A CHILDREN'S LIVES IN RURAL MICHIGAN 10/9/95 A. Quality of Rural Life 1 . Let's start by talking about this area as a place to raise children. Some peOple believe rural places are ideal, while others believe that there are real challenges for parenting in rural areas. What have you found to be good as well as difficult about raising children in rural Mecosta County? a. What is good about raising children in this area? b. Is there anything about this area that makes it hard to raise a child? c. How does this area compare with other places you have lived as far as being a place to raise children? d. Did you grew up here? If not, where? B. Child's Daily Experiences 1. Next we would like to know more about your child's everyday experiences. a. Tell me about a typical day for your child . . . i. For a recent day ii. How were your child's daily experiences different before he/she went to school? PROBES: ASK A PROBE ONLY IF NO RESPONSE TO ABOVE QUESTION What kinds of routines does your child have? For example: getting ready for school, going to bed, or at mealtime. What does your child do after school? What does you child enjoy doing? 266 2. As a parent and as you look back over these typical daily activities of your child...what do you think really matters as far as the development of your child is concerned? C. Health and Development 1. As a parent, you are aware of how your child grew and developed. You also are aware of how healthy your child was during that time. Please think for a minute about these things, for example, how your child learned to walk and talk and how he/she learned to express his/her feelings -- and, finally, think about any illnesses your child may have had during those early growing years. a. Please tell us your concerns and your feelings about your child's development, in general. b. Motor Skills Would you tell me about your child's learning to walk and later do other physical things? What do you remember about these things? PROBE: Did you have any concerns? What did you do about those concerns? c. Speech and Language Development Would you tell me about your child's learning to speak and pronounce sounds? What do you remember about these activities? PROBE: ASK A PROBE ONLY IF NO RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION. Did you have any concerns? For example, did your child speak earlier or later that other children of the same age? What did you do about those concerns? c. Emotional and Social Development (i) How has your child gotten along with other family members (his/her brothers and/or sisters, parents)? (ii) How does he/she get along with other kids? (iii) What does he/she do when he/she is playing by him/her self? 267 (iv) What is he/she like when he/she is playing with things, such as toys? School Readiness 1. Thinking back to your child's first day of school, was your child ready for school? a. Why or why not? 2. How do you think teachers know if a child is ready for first grade? 3. During your child's preschool years, did you do anything that you thought helped him/her prepare for school? a. What else might you have done? 4. Was the school helpful in your child's making the adjustment to going to school? School Experiences 1. How does your child feel about going to school? PROBES: ASK A PROBE ONLY IE NO RESPONSE TO ABOVE QUESTION ‘ Does he/she like his/her teacher? Any social problems? Have a special friend or friends at school? 2. Have your child's feelings about school changed? a. Are they getting better or worse? 3. How are you involved in your child's school? PROBES: ASK ONLY IF NO RESPONSE TO ABOVE QUESTION Class trips? Homeroom parent? Bringing treats? Supervising extra curricular events? IF THEY DO NOT MENTION MUCH INVOLVEMENT, ASK: 4. How do you find out about what is going on at school? 268 F. Time Scarcity and Decisions 1. Thinking back over your child's life, can you think ofany one time when the pressures of your time were especially great? a. A time when you just did not seem to have enough time or energy to go around? (1) Describe the specific event or events, which triggered this. (2) During this situation, what kinds of activities did you let go undone? (3) Did anyone help you around the house or with childcare? (a) Who? (b) What did they do to help? 2. In the years it has taken you to raise this child, what would you say has been the hardest decision you have had to make regarding this child? 3. How did things turn out? 4. What kind of a decision-maker would you say you are? C. Changes in Family/Household 1. In the lifetime of your child, have major events occurred that have really changed your family? 2. How did this event (or these events) effect your child? H. Social Support and Services 1. Most parents need to depend on their families or communities for help as they raise their children. As your child has been growing up, what help have you needed? Has it been available? PROBES: ASK A PROBE ONLY IF NO RESPONSE TO ABOVE QUESTIONS From your family or friends? From community programs or agencies? 269 EXAMPLES: Help with... INFORMATION or ADVICE MONEY FOOD LISTENING TO CONCERNS SOMEONE TO TALK TO TRANSPORTATION CHILD CARE ROLE MODEL FOR CHILD 2. What kinds of child care arrangements have you made while you child was growing up? a. Is making child care arrangements a problem? No. Yes. In what way(s)? 3. There is lots of talk about welfare reform. Do you think the welfare system is going to be changed? How? 4. How do you think it will (change) be different in your community? (How will your community respond?) 1. Economic and Employment 1. When a family has young children, there is often a struggle to make ends meet. Financially speaking, how do you feel about your ability to support a school-age child? (Think of all the costs associated with raising your child.) a. Do you ever find it difficult to pay for some of the things you feel your child should have? b. When you find it difficult to pay for child related expenses, what do you do? 2. When your child was a preschooler, was it easier or harder to financially support your child then it is now? 3. How about when your child was an infant? Was it easier or harder to financially support your child then than it is now? 270 4. Do you ever do any other work or jobs to help earn extra money...or to save money? For example, work such as raising your own food. 5. When you were growing up, what did your parents do for a living? a. Was your mother employed? Evaluating What's Important (for parents that are either currently employed or with substantial work experience). I'm going to read you a list of things that sometimes keep peOple from getting good jobs in their lives. 1. Please tell me if these things have been important in keeping you from getting really good jobs. a. How about family responsibilities? No Yes. In what ways have family responsibilities interfered with getting a good job? b. How about because you are a woman? No. Yes. In what way has being a woman interfered with getting a really good job? c. How about not having the right education or training? No. Yes. (i) Why didn't you get more education or training? You didn't have the chance? or because You didn't use the chances you had? or because The education and training wasn't available? 271 What about not having enough ability? No. Yes. What skills or abilities do you feel employers are looking for? How important has not trying hard enough been in keeping you from getting good jobs? What about not having the right connections with people (who are hiring) for good jobs? No. Yes. Are there any ways you could increase your connections with these people? What about living in this area? No. Yes. Is it because this is a rural community? J. Alternative Evaluating What’s Important (for parents not currently employed). 1. Do you expect to look for a job sometime in the future? If respondent answers “yes.” When rural parents decide to look for a job, they often find that getting a good job is a real challenge. When you decide to look for a job, what obstacles or challenges do you think you might face? a. b. c. DO you think family responsibilities will make it difficult for you to get a good job? Why or why not? Do you think that being a woman will make it harder? Do you think you have the right education and training for a good job? What skills or abilities do you think employers are looking for? Do you have connections with people who could help you get a goodjob? Will living in this area make it hard for you to get a good job? If yes, is it because this is a rural community? 272 If respondent answers “no.” a. b. How did you come to that decision? Do you think you have the skills to get a good job? Ask all respondents whether or not they are currently working or not working outside the home at the time of the interview. Now I would like to ask you some questions about how well you have dealt with different parts of your life, given the chances you have had. (Ask one or the other questions that follow given a positive or negative response to each item.) a. Given the chances you've had, how well have you done in the work or jobs you've had? __ Well. What are you especially proud of? __ Not well. What would you like to have changed? How well have you done at being a good friend - a person your friends can count on? __ Well. What are you especially proud of? __ Not well. What would you like to have changed? Given the chances you have had, how well have you done in taking care of your family's wants and needs? __ Well. What are you especially proud of? _______ Not well. What-would you like to have changed? If married or living with someone: How well have you done at being a good wife to your husband/husband to your wife? Well. What are you especially proud of? Not well. What would you like to have changed? 273 e. How well have you done at being a good mother/father to your children? Well. What are you especially proud of? Not well. What would you like to have changed? We have talked about some of the activities of your past and current life. Looking to the future, what are some of the things you especially look forward to for your child in the next few years? 274 Appendix B A Survey of Children’s Lives in Rural Michigan Sponsored by the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station The Status and Potential of Michigan Agriculture — Project #3349 275 THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR FAMILY STUDY. YOU WILL BE HELPING US LEARN MORE ABOUT THE EXPERIENCES OF RURAL CHILDREN IN MICHIGAN. OUR MAIN GOAL IS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT CHILDREN HPERIENCE IN WEIR DAY'TO'DAY LIVES. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO KNOW HON CHILDREN ARE INFLUENCED BY THINGS SUCH AS CHANGES IN RESIDENCE. FAMILY SIZE. HOW FAMILIES MAKE ENDS MEET. SCHOOL EXPERIENCES. AND HEALTH STATUS. FIRST. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO USUALLY LIVE WTIH YOU. PLEASE :TART WITH YOURSELF. FOR EACH PERSON. INDICATE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED THEIR SEX. BIRTHDATE. YEARS OF SCHOOLING COMPLETED. AND WHETHER THE PERSON LIVES WITH YOU. I . WHO LIVE: IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? SEX BIRTH YEARS OF LIVING AT (CIRCLE) DATE SCHOOL HOME? MONTH YEAR COMPLETED YE: OR NO A. YOU M F B. SPOUSE M F Y N OR PARTNER (IF ONE) NEXT. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTION: ABOUT YOUR W STARTING WITH THE OLDEST CHILD. PLEASE INDICATE :TEP-CHILD WITH ‘. Sat IRTH YEAR: OF LIVING AT (CIRCLE) ATE SCHOOL MONTH YEAR COMPLETED DID .< I ”2 Sn 2 O CHILD l CHILD 2 CHILD 3 CHILD 4 CHILD 5 CHILD 6 CHILD 7 CHILD 8 CHILD 9 CHILD IO rgpnnop 9 2323333333 "I'VITITITITI'IITITITI -<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-< 2222222222 ['3 IF MORE THAN 10 CHILDREN/:TEP-CHILDREN. PLEASE CHECK HERE ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADULT: AND/OR FAMILY MEMBER: UVING WTTH YOU? PLEASE COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW FOR EACH: SEX BIRTH YEAR: OF LIVING AT (CIRCLE) ' DATE SCHOOL HOME? MONTH YEAR COMPLETED YE: OR NO RELATIONSHIP (SUCH A: MOTHER. BROTHER. FRIEND. GRANDPARENT. ETC.) 3333 TITI'TITI 31.0.2.3 -<-<-<-< zzzz IFMORETHAN a OTHERADULTSORFAMILYMEMBERSPLEASEUSTONTHEBAC j Koemrsmca 276 WHAT IS YOUR 33:55:51 MARITAL STATUS? (CIRCLE ONLY ONE) A. FIRST MARRIAGE NUMBER OF YEAR: YOU HAVE BEEN MARRIED B. REMARRIED NUMBER OF YEARS IN CURRENT MARRIAGE C. SEPARATED D. WIDOWED E. DIVORCED F. MEMBER OF AN UNMARRIED COUPLE G. SINGLE. NEVER BEEN MARRIED H. OTHER: SPECIFY IF YOU ARE NOT CURRENTLY MARRIED OR REMARRIED. WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP STATUS AT THE PRESENT TIME? ARE YOU: (CIRCLE ONE) SERIOUSLY INVOLVED WITH SOMEONE AND LIVING TOGETHER? SERIOUSLY INVOLVED BUT NOT LIVING WITH SOMEONE? DATING? NOT SEEING ANYONE RIGHT NOW! .09.“? DO YOU LIVE ON A FARM? A. NO B. YES. LESS THAN TEN ACRES C. YES. MORE THAN TEN ACRES CHILDREN MAY CHANGE HOMES FOR SEVERAL REASONS. THEIR FAMILIES MAY MOVE. THEIR PARENT WITH CUSTODY CHANGES. OR THEIR FAMILY MAY BE LOOKING FOR BETTER SCHOOL: OR OTHER KINDS OF SERVICES. LIST THE PLACE: WHERE YOUR CHILD HA: UVED SINCE HE OR SHE WAS BORN. START BY LISTING THE PLACE WHERE YOU AND YOUR CHILD LIVE NOW. GIVE THE YEAR AND THE REASON YOUR CHILD MOVED TO THAT PLACE. THEN WORK BACKWARD. CITY/STATE YEAR REASON WHERE CHILD THE CHILD WHY CHILD MOVED W W 11:85 START WITH YOUR CURRENT HOME I . PREVIOUS HOME 2. 3. 4. 277 6. HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING? PLEASE CIRCLE THE CHOICE WHICH BEST DESCRIBES HOW SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED YOU ARE. VERY DISSATISFIED ....................... (VD) SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ................ (SD) NEITHER SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED .. (NSD) SOMEWHAT SATISFIED .................... (SS) VERY SATISFIED ........................... (VS) QUESTION DOESN'T APPLY To US ....... (NA) QUESTION RESPONSE A. THE AVAILABILITY OF AREA OR COMMUNmr PROGRAMS VD SD NVD SS VS NA 8. SOCIAL SUPPORT AGENCIES 8. PROGRAMS LIKE DSS. FOOD STAMPS. SECTION 8 HOUSING. MIC. WIC. ETC. VD SD NVD VS VS NA C. AREA OR COMMUNITY CHILD CARE SERVICES VD SD NVD VS VS NA D. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN GENERAL VD SD NVD VS VS NA E. THE PARENT-TEACHER ORGANIZATION VD SD NVD VS VS NA F. AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS VD SD NVD VS VS NA G. YOUR CHILD'S RELATIONSHIP WITH TEACHER: VD SD NVD VS VS NA H. YOUR CHILD'S RELATIONSHIP WITH PEER: AT SCHOOL VD SD NVD VS VS NA I. LAST YEAR'S TEACHER VD SD NVD V5 vs NA J. YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL PRINCIPAL VD SD NVD VS VS NA K. YOUR ABILITY TO DISCIPLINE CHILDREN VD SD NVD V5 vs NA L. YOUR CHILD'S ACCESS TO LEISURE TIME AC'nVTnE: VD SD NVD VS VS NA M. YOUR CHILD'S HEALTH CARE IN GENERAL VD SD NVD VS VS NA N. YOUR DECISIONS AS A PARENT VD SD NVD VS VS NA 0. YOUR OWN PARENTING IN GENERAL VD SD NVD V3 V8 NA P. YOUR MARRIAGE OR CURRENT RELATIONSHIP VD SD NSD VS VS NA 278 7A. A: PARENTS WE DO MANY THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. IN EVERYDAY LIFE WE MAKE CHOICES ABOUT HOW WE WILL SPEND TIME WITH OUR CHILDREN AND WHAT WE WILL DO WITH THEM. HOW OFTEN DURING THE PAST YEAR DID YOU DO THESE THINGS WITH YOUR CHILD? PLEASE SELECT ONE CHOICE FOR EACH ACTIVITY BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE Box. ACTIVITY ALMOST SOMETIMES OFTEN NEVER A. READ TO MY CHILD 8. DO CHORES TOGETHER WITH MY CHILD C. WATCH 1V WITH MY CHILD D. COLOR OR PAINT WITH MY CHILD E. TAKE MY CHILD ON ANY FIELD TRIPS F. TALK WITH MY CHILD ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT SCHOOL DURING THE DAY G. WRITE NOTES TO TEACHER H. TALK WITH MY CHILD'S FRIENDS I. TALK WITH MY CHILD'S FRIENDS' PARENT: J. TAUGHT MY CHILD NEW GAMES. SPORTS. HOBBIES OR WHATEVER 7B. PLEASE WRITE IN THE SPACE BELOW THE ACTIVITY LISTED ABOVE WHICH YOU THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT F'OR'A PARENT TO DO. IF THERE IS ANOTHER PARENTING ACTIVITY NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST ABOVE THAT YOU THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT PLEASE WRITE IT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BELOW. 279 7C. PLEASE WRITE IN THE SPACE BELOW THE ACTIVITY LISTED ABOVE WHICH YOU ENJOY DOING THE MOST. IF THERE IS ANOTHER PARENnNG ACTIVITY. NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST ABOVE. WHICH YOU ENJOY THE MOST. PLEASE WRITE IT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BELOW. 70. PLEASE WRITE IN THE SPACE BELOW THE ACTIVITY LISTED ABOVE WHICH YOU THINK IS THE HARDEST PART OF BEING A PARENT. IF THERE IS ANOTHER PARENTING ACTIVITY. NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST ABOVE. WHICH YOU THINK IS THE HARDEST PART OF BEING A PARENT. PLEASE WRITE IT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BELOW. 7E. HOW WOULD YOU GENERALLY DESCRIBE YOUR CHILD? PLEASE CIRCLE on: or m: S cucuces BELOW. I) EASY GOING Z) MOSTLY TRYING AND DIFFICULT 3) SOMETIMES DIFFICULT. BUT EVENTUALLY COOPERATIVE 280 8. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON PAGES 7 AND 8 WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWS ON PARENTING. THERE ARE NO “CORRECT" QR “RIGHT 5. WRONG“ ANSWERS. THE DIFFERENT CHOICES DESCRIBED IN EACH QUESTION ARE JUST DIFFERENT WAYS TO GO ABOUT THE TASK OF RAISING CHILDREN. IN ORDER TO MORE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWS ON PARENTING WE ARE ASKING YOU TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN A PARTICULAR WAY. FIRST - EACH QUESTION (I- I 0) HA: FOUR CHOICES (A-D). SELECT THE CHOICE (A-D) THAT You AS A PARENT. IN COMPARISON TO THE IO. GIVE THIS NEXT CHOICE A VALUE RANGING FROM 0 TO 9. A9 ISABOUTTHE :AMEASA IO. AVALUEGF 5 SAYS THATTHIS CHOICE HAPPENS ABOUT HALFAS OFTEN AS AVALUE OF IO. AVALUE OF I OR O I: ACHOICE THAT IS NOT LIKE YOU AS A PARENT. THIRD - CONTINUE ASSIGNING VALUES RANGING FROM 0 TO 9 FOR THE TWO REMAINING CHOICES. . I'D- OURI'H - MAKE SURE THAT FOR EACH QUESTION (I-IO) ALL 4 BOXES (A-D) ARE FILLED—IN AND THAT THE VALUE OF I0 I: USED ONLY ONCE PER QUESTION (I- I 0). THE VALUE: OF 0-9 MAY BE REPEATED ANY NUMBER OF TIMES. THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATES HOW WE WOULD UKE FOR YOU TO ANSWER THE PARENnNG QUESTIONS FOUND ON PAGES 7 AND 8. EXAMPLE AS A PARENT. HOW DO YOU GENERALLY COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR CHILDT VALUE A-NAMBCT.FACTUALMD‘THGISTHEIIMYTTIS'MANNER 7 B - IN A DIPLOMATIC. TACTFUL. AND ACCEPTING MANNER 3.3 C‘INAOUES‘TDNM. ENGAGING ANOCHALLENGNGMAMER Z 2 D -IN A HUMOROUS. WIT-TY AND FUNNY MANNER “'"PLEASENOmALLBOXBSMUSTBEFM-EDMOTHERECANBEONLYONEIO* “* PLEASE USE THIS WAY OF RECORDING YOUR ANSWERS FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES AS A PARENT. THANK YOUI W 281 I- HOW DO YOU GET YOUR CHILD TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE? VALUE A-MYCIIILDJUSTKNOWSWHATNEEDSTOGETDONESHOWTODOITWITHGUTDEINGTOLD B-BYTELLINGMYCHIuIWHATNEEDST-OGETDONEEHOWTODOIT C-MYCIIILDDGESWHATTHEYTHINKNEEDSTOGETDONESHOWTODGIT D’BYUSUSCUSSINCGACNEEINGWHATNEEDSTOGETDONEEHOWTODOIT 2 - HOW DO YOU GENERALLY SHOW YOUR CARE. LOVE. AFFECTION AND SUPPORT FOR YOUR CHILD? VALUE A . IN AN EMOTIONALLY SHARED. INTIMATE 8. EKPRESSIVE MANNER B-IIIAPRIVATE.FORMAL&RESERVEDMANNER C - III ASPDNTANEOUS. PLAYTUI. 5 INDIVIDUAquD MANNEII D-INAUNSPGKENMANNER-MYCHIIDJUSTIGIOWSTHATICARE 3 -ASAPARENT. WHATAREYGUTRYINGTOTEACHTOYGUR CHILD AS TO WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IN LIFE? VALUE A'MCARINGFORTOURFAHILY'MWHAT’S DESTFORYOURSEL’ B'VYOUWRIFICEGCAREFORYOURFMLY.YOURFANILYWILLWE‘ CANEFORYOU C’BYHAVING CONFIDENCE. PAWEGFAITHINTHE FAMILYWWILLTURNOUT FORTHEDESTFOREVERYONE D'BYMADAPTABLEANDWNGOURWENCES.NONATTERWIMTHAPPENSI MAFAHILYWECANDGWHATNEEDSTOIEDONEFORALLOFUS 4 - HOW DO YOU TEACH YOUR CHILD To MAKE SENSE GUT-OF-IJFE? Vm A-DYGETTINGIDEASFRGMOTHERSEDGINGWHATISPRACTICAL B'BYGENERALLYRELYINGONMVG‘THEIROWNDEAS C-BYInIIIGWHATHASPIIDVENOVBRTIMETODECORRECTEREUABLE D~BYGDSERVING CUSTENINGTHEYWILLCGNETOKNOWWHATMAKESSENSE 5 ' AS YOU GO ABOUT HELPING YOUR CHILD TO GROW UP. WHAT EMPHASIS DO YOU PLACE ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS? VALUE A‘THATHYCHILDCAN MAKESENSEGU‘PGF-IJFEINAN ACCURATEEREALISTICWAY B - THAT MY CHILD HAS A SENSE OF MEANING 8. PURPOSE IN UFE C-‘I'HATMYCHILD FEELSCAREDFOR.SUPPOITTEDANDUOVED O'THATMYCHILDKNOWSTHE “PORTANCEOFGE'TTING DONET‘HETHINGS INLIFE THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO GET DONE 282 6 - TIME CAN BE USED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. IN WHAT WAY DO YOU TEACH YOUR CHILD TO USE TIME? VALUE A - IN A FLEXIBLE MANNER 5. CAN BE CHANGED AS NEEDED B - IN A PLANNED. ORDERED AND SCHEDULED MANNER C ' IN A SPONTANEOUS MANNER 5 CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER COMES ALONG D - THEY JUST SEEM TO KNOW 8. UNDERSTAND NOW TO USE TIME BEST 7- HOW DO YOU HANDLE YOUR CHILD'S QUESTIONS AND IDEAs? VALUE A'NOWASARETOOSILLYORGTREHE. IT'SWTOMKANYOUESTIONS ORTOSAYANYTHING‘NOMATTERWHAT B-CERTAINTOPICSARE NARDLYEVERDISCUSSEDEQUESTIGNSARE oa-ECTEDTOBEASKEDINARESPECTFULMANNER C-WITHIN REASON. MOSTIDEASEQUESTIGNSAREOKTDDISCUSS. BUTDIFFERENCESaCGNI-UCTMUSTBE SETTLED D-THEREISNDREALREASGNGRNEEDTOASKQUESTIONSORTODISCUSS IDEAs-WEAILIDIOWEUNDERSTANDINTHESAMEWAY 8 - HOW HAVE YOU TAUGHT YOUR CHILD TO USE THEIR EFFORT 5. ENERGY AS THEY GO ABOUT LIFE? VALUE A ° IN A STEAOY. CONSISTENT AND CONSERVATIVE MANNER B-INADTNAINC.ENTHUSIASTICANDVIGOROUSMANNER C-IIIAPEACEFULCALMANDSERENEMANNER D-IIIAFLDBBLE.ADAPTIVEAND¢ASYGOINGMANNER 9 . WHAT HAVE YOU TAUGHT YOUR CHILD ABOUT THE VALUE OF POSSESSION: 8. BELGNGINGS? VALUE A'THNGSAREVALUEDIECAUSETHEFAANLYWORICHARDFORTHEN' THEYNAVEVALUE IECAUSEITTAICSEPTORTTOGETTHEM B -'I'NINGS AREN‘T WHAT'S REALLY II-IPGRTANTIN LIFE-IT’S MRIENCINGAND LIVING UFETHATISIMPOITTANT-THINGSGFTENJUSTGETINTHEWAY C-THINGSAREUSEFULINLIFE BECAUSEYOUCANUSETHEMTO GETOTHERTHINGSDONEETOMAKEUFEMGRECONVENIENT D -THINGS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSEOFTHEIR BEAUTY & MEANING - THEYSNOULD BE PROTECTEDEBEKEPTASPERFECTAS POSSIBLE IO - IN HELPING YOUR CHILD TO OROW‘UP. WHAT EMPHASIS HAVE PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS? VALUE A ' HOW TO REUTE TO THE WORLD OF MATERIAL POSSESSIONS G DELCNGINGS B‘THENEEDT‘OPUYEFFORTINTOWNATYOUDDSHOWDESYYODOIT C - THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME 8. HOW BEST TO USE IT D - THE IMPORTANCE OF QUESTIONS. IDEAS & INFORMATION IN LIFE 283 O .R. IMIG. IDBB TO HOUSEHOLD RESOURCES: EMPLOYMENT AND FAMILY INCOME BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RESOURCE PICTURE OF THE FAMILIES IN OUR STUDY WE NEED TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR FAMILY'S WORK AND INCOME. O. .IPI‘FPPP? x9..- IO. FIRST. WE WOULD LIKE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WORK: W. YES. EMPLOYED FULL-TIME...HOURS PER WEEK $ PER HOUR YES. EMPLOYED PART-TIME...HOURS PER WEEK $ PER HOUR UNEMPLOYED (IF SO. ARE YOU CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR WORK? - YES NO) STAY AT HOME FULL TIME RETIRED IN SCHOOL DISABLED DOES SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATE IN ANY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LOCAL. STATE OR FEDERAL)? YES NO ' DOES SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD RECEIVE CHILD SUPPORT OR ALIMONIfl YES No SELF EMPLOYED OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MAIN JOB IN THE LAST 2 YEARS? NO YES PLEASE GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE TYPE OF WORK YOU Do NOW. A. WHAT IS YOUR MAIN OCCUPATION OR JOB TITLE? B. WHATMQOFWORKDOYOUDO-THATIS.WHATAREYOURMAINDUTIESONTHEJOB? DOYOUHAVEANYQIflEflJOBSINADDITIONTOYOURMNNJOB? A. No B. YES -—> IF YES. WHAT IS YOURJOBTITLE? IF YOU HAVE A SPOUSE OR PARTNER. IS THAT PERSON EMPLOYED? W YES. EMPLOYED FULL-TIME...HGURS PER WEEK $PER HOUR YES. EMPLOYED PART-TIME...HGURS PER WEEK $PER HOUR UNEMPLOYED (IF SO. ARE THEY CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR WORK? YES NO STAYS AT HOME FULL TIME RETIRED IN SCHOOL DISABLED SELF EMPLOYED OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 7.1.0399??? HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR FAMILY‘S PRESENT FINANCIAL SITUATION? COMPLETELY VERY SOMEWHAT NOT VERY NOT AT ALL SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED 5 4 3 2 I 284 I 5. HOW DIFFICULT Is IT FOR YOUR FAMILY TO MEET THE MONTHLY BILLS? EXTREMELY VERY SOMEWHAT SLIGHTLY NOT AT ALL DIFFICULT DIFFICULT DIFFICULT DIFFICULT DIFFICULT 5 4 3 2 I IS. TO WHAT EXTENT IS YOUR INCOME TODAY ENOUGH FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY TO LIVE ON? CAN NOT BUY SOME NECEssmES CAN MEET NEGESSITIES ONLY CAN AFFORD SOME OF THE THINGS WE WANT. BUT NOT ALL WE WANT CAN AFFORD ABOUT EVERYTHING WE WANT CAN AFFORD ABOUT EVERYTHING WE WANT AND HAVE SOME LEFT OVER 9.0.0.“? I 7. THINKING ABOUT YOUR FAMILY'S OVERALL FINANCIAL CONDITION - WHAT YOU OWN. OWE. EARN. ARE ABLE TO BUY. AND SO ON - WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING 3:31 DESCRIBES ANY CHANGE IN YOUR OVERALL FINANCIAL CONDITION W A) MUCH WORSE B) WORSE D) SAME D) BETTER E) MUCH BETTER I DA. IF YOUR FINANCIAL CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED W PLEASE DESCRIBE THE CHANGE(S) BELOW. I88. IN YOUR OPINION. HAVE THE JOB OPPORTUNTTIES INCREASED OR DECREASE IN MECOSTA COUNTY DURING THE PAST 3 YEARS? (PLEASE CIRCLE) INCREASED DECREASED WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN? IBC. DO YOU THINK THATJOB OPPORTUNTTIES WILL BE BETTER OR WORSE IN MECOSTA COUNTY IN THE NEXT 3 YEARS? (PLEASE CIRCLE) BETTER WORSE PLEASE EXPLAIN. 285 I9. FOR EACH ITEM LISTED BELOW. THINK ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOUR FAMILY SPENDS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS Now LIVING IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD. W. HOW HAS THE AMOUNT YOU SPENT CHANGED? IN GENERAL. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE AMOUNT YOU SPEND TODAY IS: LOT NO LOT L£§§ L555. Cums; M935. M985 A. FOOD EATEN AT HOME I 2 3 4 5 B. F000 EATEN AWAY FROM HOME I 2 3 4 5 C. CLOTHING PURCHASES FOR YOU AND SPOUSE/PARTNER l 2 3 4 5 D. CLOTHING PURCHASES FOR YOUR CHILDREN I 2 3 4 5 E. CHILD CARE/BABY SITTING I 2 3 4 '5 F. MEDICAL CARE FOR YOU OR YOUR SPOUSE/PARTNER I 2 3 4 5 G. MEDICAL CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN I 2 3 4 5 H. DENTAL CARE FOR YOUR OR YOUR SPouselPARTNER I Z 3 4 5 I. DENTAL CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN I 2 3 4 5 .1. HEALTH INSURANCE I 2 3 4 5 K. TRANSPORTATION I 2 3 4 5 L. ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION I 2 3 4 5 M. OTHER (DESCRIBE I 2 3 4 5 20. PLEASE CHECK YOUR APPROXIMATE TOTAL FAMILY INCOME FOR l994. LESS THAN Ssooo _ $25,000-$30,000 _ $5000-$ I0.000 __ $30.000-$35.000 __ $ I0.000-$ I 5.000 _ $35.ooo-$40.ooo __ $ I 5,000-$20,000 _ $40.000-$45.000 __ $20.000-$25.000 _ GREATER THAN $45,000 __ 286 Appendix C Countywide Telephone Survey Script - Research County Parental Assessment July 17, 1996 I’d like to start by asking you a few questions about how things are going for Research County residents in general. Research County General Questions A1) Do you think the well being of children in your community has improved or worsened over the past five years? (Community is whatever it means to you, the community where you live and work.) <1> IMPROVED <3> STAYED THE SAME <5> WORSENED <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER A2) During the next three years, do you expect job opportunities within commuting distance (that is, in or around Research County) will go up, will go down, or will stay about the same as it was in the last 12 months? <1> GO UP <3> ABOUT THE SAME <5> GO DOWN <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER A3) Would you say that you (and your family living there) are better off or worse off financially than you were a year ago? <1> BETTER OFF <2> ABOUT THE SAL/IE WORSE OFF <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 287 A4) Which of the following best describes how well your income meets the needs and wants of you and your family. Would you say you can’t buy some necessities, you can meet necessities only, you can afford some of the things you want, but not all you want, about everything you want and have some lefi over. <1> CAN’T BUY SOME NECESSITIES <2> CAN MEET NECESSITIES ONLY <3> CAN AFFORD SOME OF THE THINGS WE WANT, BUT NOT ALL WE WANT <4> CAN AFFORD ABOUT EVERYTHING WE WANT <5> CAN AFFORD ABOUT EVERYTHING WE WANT AND HAVE SOME LEFT OVER <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Family Resources/Social Capital BI) 32) B3) Do you have close family or relatives who live nearby or in your community? <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER How often do you get together with other family members who do not live in the same home with you? Would you say every day, every few days, every few weeks, every few months, every year, or less than once a year? <1> EVERY DAY <2> EVERY FEW DAYS <3> EVERY FEW WEEKS <4> EVERY FEW MONTHS <5> EVERY YEAR <6> LESS THAN ONCE A YEAR <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Suppose in an emergency that you needed several hundred dollars, more than you had available or could borrow from a bank. Is there a friend or relative living nearby which you could call on to lend you money? <1> YES, FRIEND ONLY <2> YES, RELATIVE ONLY <5> YES, BOTH RELATIVE AND FRIEND <7> NO, NEITHER RELATIVE NOR FRIEND <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 288 B4) B5) Suppose there were a serious emergency in your household. Is there a friend or relative living nearby whom you could call on to spend a lot of time helping out? <1> YES, FRIEND ONLY <2> YES, RELATIVE ONLY <3> YES, BOTH RELATIVE AND FRIEND <4> NO, NEITHER RELATIVE NOR FRIEND <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER How ofien are you expected to help friends and relatives in serious family emergencies? Would you say often, occasionally, or almost never? <1> OFTEN <2> OCCASIONALLY <3> ALMOST NEVER <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED Next, I have a couple of question about the people who may live in your household. Members of Household C1) C2) C3) C3a) C3b) C3c) C3d) C3e) C30 Including yourself, how many individuals who are 18 years of age or older live in your household? <1> PERSON, ONLY RESPONDENT <2-10> ADULTS <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER How many of these adults are over 64 years of age? ADULTS 65+ <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER How many children younger than 18 live in your household? NONE <1-10> CHILDREN <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Starting with the oldest child (under the age of 18) what are their ages? What is the age of the second oldest child in your household? What is the age of the third oldest child in your household? What is the age of the fourth oldest child in your household? What is the age of the fifth oldest child in your household? What is the age of the sixth oldest child in your household? 289 C5) Are you currently married, divorced, widowed, member of an unmarried couple, or have you never been married? <1> MARRIED <2> DIVORCED <3> WIDOWED <4> MEMBER OF AN UNMARRIED COUPLE <5> SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED <8> OTHER (specify) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER C6) Are you currently a member of a step- or blended family household? <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER We are interested in learning about the different ways people earn their living. Employment D1) Are you currently working full-time, part-time, going to school, a homemaker or something else? <1> WORK FULL TIME <2> WORK PART TIME <3> WORK AND GO TO SCHOOL <4> IN THE ARMED FORCES <6> UNEMPLOYED or LAID OFF <7> RETIRED <8> SCHOOL <9> HOMEMAKER DISABLED OTHER (specify) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 290 D2) D3) D4) D5) D6) Is your spouse (or partner) currently working full-time, part-time, going to school, a homemaker or something else? <1> WORK FULL TIME <2> WORK PART TIME <3> WORK AND GO TO SCHOOL <4> IN THE ARMED FORCES <6> UNEMPLOYED or LAID OFF <7> RETIRED <8> SCHOOL <9> HOMEMAKER <10> DISABLED OTHER (specify) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED TO ANSWER Do you currently work for pay at more than one job? <1> YES <2> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER On average, how many hours per week do you work at your main job? HOURS PER WEEK <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER On average, how many hours per week do you work at any jobs other than your main job? HOURS PER WEEK <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER In your main (last) job, what kind of work do (did) you normally do? That is, what is (was) your job called? OCCUPATION (TYPE IN OCCUPATION TITLE AND NOTES) [specify] DO NOT KNOW <9998> REFUSED <9999> NEVER WORKED <9997> 291 D7) In your main job do you work for someone else, are you self-employed, or do you run a business from your home or work for pay out of your home? <1> YES, SELF EMPLOYED <2> YES, HOMEBASED BUSINESS <3> YES, WORK FROM HOME <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER D8) How long, in minutes, does it take you to get to work each day (at your main job)? WORKS AT HOME <1...98> 1 TO 98 MINUTES TO GET TO WORK <99> 99 MINUTES OR MORE TO GET TO WORK D9) For reasons such as sickness, unemployment, divorce, or retirement, many individuals receive one of the government-sponsored income supplements, such as Social Security, Supplementary Security Income, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment compensation or Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In the past twelve months, did you receive any of these types of income supplements? <1> YES <5> NO [if NO skip to qu] <8> DON’T KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER D9a) (In the past twelve months, did you receive. . . .) AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)? <1> YES <2> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER D9b) (In the past twelve months, did you receive. . . .) Social Security Income? <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER D9c) (In the past twelve months, did you receive. . . .) Supplementary Security Income? <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 292 D9d) (In the past twelve months, did you receive <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER D9e) (In the past twelve months, did you receive <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER D90 (1n the past twelve months, did you receive <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER . . . .) Food Stamps? . . . .) Unemployment Compensation? . . . .) Medicare or Medicaid? Next, I would like to read you a series of statements about children and families and have you tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each statement. People’s Perceptions of Children’s Lives in the County El) E2) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE Children in my community are closely supervised by their parents after school and on weekends. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE It is much better for everyone if the man earns the main living and the woman takes care of the home and family? (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REF USED/NO ANSWER 293 E3) - E4) 135) E6) Free or reduced cost lunches should be provided for poor children. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Limiting the amount of time families can receive welfare will improve children’s lives in this community. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER In today’s world, women have as much responsibility as men to provide financially for their families. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER There is plenty of quality day care for children in this community. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 294 E7) Children under three years old are not harmed by all-day childcare in a licensed center. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER E8) If a husband and wife both work full-time, they should share household tasks (child care, laundry, grocery shopping and making meals) equally. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Next we would like your views on what children need to be ready to start school. Once again, I’ll read you some statements and have you tell me to what extend you agree or disagree with that statement. E9) For children to be ready to start school, they must have immunizations. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 295 1510) E11) E12) 1313) For children to be ready to start school, they must be able to read. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER For children to be ready to start school, they must have had an annual physical exam (well baby checkups) each year with their doctor (or health care provider.) (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Children who attend a preschool or nursery school program are better prepared to start school? (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER On average, children should be read to at least thirty minutes a day to prepare them to start school. (Would you say you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?) <1> STRONGLY AGREE <2> SOMEWHAT AGREE <3> NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE <4> SOMEWHAT DISAGREE <5> STRONGLY DISAGREE <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REF USED/NO ANSWER 296 1314) 1315) E16) Today, would you say that children in Research County are more likely or less likely to be ready to start school than children were ten years ago? <1> MORE LIKELY <2> NO CHANGE <3> LESS LIKELY <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER How would you rate the quality of education of the public schools in your community? Would you say they are excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? <1> EXCELLENT <2> VERY GOOD <3> GOOD <4> FAIR <5> POOR <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER At what age do you think it is okay to leave a child home alone for a few hours, like after school? NEVER <1-17> YEARS OF AGE <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Next, I would like to ask you some questions about children and families of divorce. E17) Should the law be changed to make divorce more difficult to obtain if children are E18) involved? <1> YES <2> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REF USED/NO ANSWER Generally speaking, do you think that children in a single parent home are much worse off, somewhat worse off, as well off, somewhat better off, or much better off then children in a two-parent home? <1> MUCH WORSE OFF <2> SOMEWHAT WORSE OFF <3> AS WELL OFF <4> SOMEWHAT BETTER OFF <5> MUCH BETTER OFF <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 297 E19) When parents divorce, are their children much worse off, somewhat worse off, as well off, somewhat better off, or much better off than if the parents had remained married? <1> MUCH WORSE OFF <2> SOMEWHAT WORSE OFF <3> AS WELL OFF <4> SOMEWHAT BETTER OFF <5> MUCH BETTER OFF <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REF USED/NO ANSWER E20) When single parents remarry (or marry), are their children much worse off, somewhat worse off, as well off, somewhat better off, or much better off than they were as children in a single parent home? <1> MUCH WORSE OFF <2> SOMEWHAT WORSE OFF <3> AS WELL OFF <4> SOMEWHAT BETTER OFF MUCH BETTER OFF <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER E21) Are children in step- or blended families are much worse off, somewhat worse off, as well of, somewhat better off, or much better off than children living with both natural parents? <1> MUCH WORSE OFF <2> SOMEWHAT WORSE OFF <3> AS WELL OFF <4> SOMEWHAT BETTER OFF <5> MUCH BETTER OFF <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Now, I have a couple of questions about the economic status of some people. E22) Thinking about people who are “poor”, [live in poverty] would you say that most people who are poor are working or that most are not working? <1> MOST ARE WORKING <2> MOST ARE NOT WORKING <3> ABOUT EQUAL WORKING AND NOT WORKING <8> DON’T KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 298 E23) E24) In your opinion are most people on welfare because of lack of effort or because of circumstances beyond their control? <1> LACK OF EFFORT <5> CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THEIR CONTROL <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Do you think the main reason most women work outside the home is because they need the money to support their families or for personal satisfaction? <1> THEIR FAMILY NEEDS THE MONEY. <2> FOR PERSONAL SATISFACTION. <3> BOTH ECONOMIC AND PERSONAL REASONS. <5> OTHER <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Now I’m going to read you some questions about problems that people have mentioned to us. For each, would you tell me if it is a serious problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem at all for you personally. E25) E26) E27) Not having a satisfactory marriage or adult relationship. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally? <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Poor housing. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Fear of crime. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 299 E28) E29) E30) E31) E32) Not having enough education. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Not having enough job opportunities. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Not having enough medical care (locally) (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Not having control over everyday life decisions. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Not having health insurance. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 300 E33) Not having reliable transportation. (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER E34) The social services available (in your community?) (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER E35) Availability of recreation and leisure facilities (in your community?) (Is this a serious problem, somewhat of a problem or not a problem at all for you personally?) <1> SERIOUS PROBLEM <2> SOMEWHAT OF A PROBLEM <3> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL FOR YOU <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER E36) Over the past year have you volunteered to help others with any charitable, voluntary, or community organization? <1> YES <2> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Next, I would like to ask you some general questions about your current health. Current Health Status F 1) Would you say that in general your health is excellent, very good, good, fair or poor? <1> EXCELLENT <2> VERY GOOD <3> GOOD <4> FAIR <5> POOR <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 301 F2) F3) F4) Do you have a family doctor that you usually see when you need medical care? <1> YES <2> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER In the past year, have you ever not sought medical care even when you thought you needed it or when you thought you should? <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW In the past year, have you ever not sought medical care for your child (or children) even though you thought you should? <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW Next, we are interested in the different ideas people have in raising families. For the following questions, we will focus on children over the age of eight. I am going to read you some statements about different ways to raise children On a scale of 0 -10 where 0 means you dot agree at all with the statement and 10 means you agree completely with the statement, please rate the following statements. Parenting, Children, and Family Life G1) G2) For parents to get their children to do things around their home - such as clean their room, do school work, or go to bed, parents should let their children DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES AND DO WHAT MAKES SENSE TO THEM. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER For parents to get their children to do things around their home - such as clean their room, do school work, go to bed, parents, in most situations, SHOULD TELL THEIR CHILDREN WHAT TO DO. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of O to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 302 G3) G4) G5) G6) G7) Parents do not have to do anything special to get their children to do things around their home - because children JUST KNOW WHAT TO DO, IF THEY HAVE BEEN RAISED RIGHT. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of O to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REF USED/NO ANSWER For parents to get their children to do things around their home, the parents should DISCUSS WITH THEIR CHILDREN AND AGREE UPON WHAT TO DO AND WHEN TO DO IT. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Parents should show children their care and love for them IN AN EXPRESSIVE AND FEELING WAY. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Parents should show children their care and love for them IN A TRADITIONAL AND RESPECTFUL WAY. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATTNG <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Parents should show children their care and love for them IN A PLAYF UL AND SPONTANEOUS WAY How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 303 GS) G9) G10) G11) G12) Gl3) Parents should show children their care and love for them IN AN UNSPOKEN WAY - children WILL JUST KNOW that their parents care and love them. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER The most important thing for children to know is, THAT IN LIFE A PERSON NEEDS TO DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THEMSELVES. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER The most important for children to know is, TO SACRIFICE FOR YOUR FAMILY AND THEY WILL SACRIFICE FOR YOU. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATING ‘ <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER The most important for children to know is, TO GO WITH YOUR INSTINCTS AND EVERYTHING WILL WORK OUT FOR THE BEST. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER The most important for children to know is, TO STICK WITH IT, THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY TO MAKE THINGS WORK OUT. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of O to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REF USED/NO ANSWER Children make sense out of life by USING WHAT IS PRACTICAL How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REF USED/NO ANSWER 304 G14) G15) G16) G17) G18) G19) Children make sense out of life BY RELYING ON THEIR OWN IDEAS. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Children make sense out of life BY USING WHAT HAS PROVEN TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE BEFORE. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Children make sense out of life by GOING WITH WHAT THEY KNOW AND FEEL IS RIGHT. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of O to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER The most important thing for parents to emphasize in raising children is, HOW TO MAKE SENSE OUT-OF-LIFE. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of O to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER The most important thing for parents to emphasize in raising children is, HAVING A PURPOSE IN LIFE. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER The most important thing for parents to emphasize in raising children is, LOVING AND BEING LOVED. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of O to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 305 G20) The most important thing for parents to emphasize in raising children is,THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THINGS DONE. How much do you agree with this statement on a scale of 0 to 10, with ten meaning you agree completely and zero meaning you don’t agree at all? <0-10>RATING <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Finally, I have a few background questions. These are for statistical analysis purposes only. Demographic Data H1) Gender. <1> MALE <2> FEMALE H2) In what year were you born? 18 <95-99> YEAR 19 <00-94> YEAR DO NOT KNOW REFUSED H3) What is the highest level of education that you have completed? DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL <1-11> GRADE SCHOOL <12> HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR GED HOLDER <3-15> SOME COLLEGE (ONE TO THREE YEARS) <16> COLLEGE GRADUATE (FOUR YEARS) <17> SOME POST GRADUATE <18> GRADUATE DEGREE <20> TECHNICAL SCHOOL OR JUNIOR COLLEGE GRADUATE <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER HS) What is the highest level of education that your partner has completed? <0> DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL <1-ll> GRADE SCHOOL <12> HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR GED HOLDER <3-15> SOME COLLEGE (ONE TO THREE YEARS) <16> COLLEGE GRADUATE (FOUR YEARSO <17> SOME POST GRADUATE <18> GRADUATE DEGREE <20> TECHNICAL SCHOOL OR JUNIOR COLLEGE GRADUATE <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 306 H6) H7) H7a) H8) H9) H10) Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic background? Would you say Caucasian or White, African-American or Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native America, or Hispanic origin or descent? <1> CAUCASIAN OR WHITE <2> AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR BLACK <3> ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER <4> NATIVE AMERICAN <5> HISPANIC ORIGIN OR DESCENT (Spanish, Mexican, Puerto Rican or another Latin American background?) OTHER: SPECIFY [specify] <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED TO ANSWER Do you live on a farm? <1> YES <5> NO <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Is your farm less than ten acres or ten acres or larger? <1> LESS THAN 10 ACRES <5> MORE THAN 10 ACRES <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Do you rent or do you own your own home? <1> RENT <5> OWN (INCLUDES PAYING MORTGAGE CURRENTLY) <7> OTHER <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER How long have you lived in your current home (or apartment)? <0> LESS THAN ONE YEAR <1-9> YEARS <10-97> YEAR <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER How many times have you moved in the past ten years? <1-20> TIMES MOVED <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 307 H11) Do you currently life in a mobile home or trailer, a single-family house, a duplex INCI) INC2) inca) INC3) incb) or an apartment building or complex, or some other type of home? <1> MOBILE HOME OR TRAILER <2> SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE <3> DUPLEX <4> AN APARTMENT BUILDING OR COMPLEX <6> OTHER <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER To get a picture of people’s financial situations, we’d like to know the general range of incomes of all households we interview. This is for statistical analysis purposes and your answers will be kept strictly confidential. Now, thinking about your household’s total annual income from all sources (including your job), did your household receive $30,000 or more in 1995? <1> YES ($30,000 OR MORE) <5> NO (LESS THAT $30,000) <99> DO NOT KNOW <98> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $20,000 or more? <1> YES ($20,000 - 29,999) <5> NO (LESS THAT $20,000) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $25,000 or more? <1> YES ($25,000 -— 29,999) <5> NO (LESS THAN $25,000) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $10,000 or more? <1> YES ($10,000-l9,999) <5> NO (LESS THAN $10,000) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $15,000 or more? <1> YES ($15,000- 19,999) <5> NO (LESS THAN $15,000) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 308 INC4) INCS) incc) INC6) INC7) INC8) INC9) Was it $60,000 or more? <1> YES ($60,000 - 69,999) <5> NO (MORE THAN $30,000 LESS THAN $60,000) <98> DO NOT KNOW—NO OPINION <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $40,000 or more? <1> YES ($40,000 OR MORE) <5> NO ($30,000 - 39,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW-NO OPINION <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $35,000 or more? <1> YES ($35,000 - 39,999) <5> NO ($30,000 - 34,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $50,000 or more? <1> YES ($50,000 - 59,999) <5> NO ($40,000 - 49,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $80,000 or more? <1> YES ($80,000 OR MORE) <5> NO ($60,000 - 79,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/ NO ANSWER Was it $70,000 or more? <1> YES ($70,000 - 79,999) <5> NO ($60,000 - 69,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Was it $100,000 or more? <1> YES ($100,000 OR MORE) <2> NO ($80,000 - 99,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 309 NC 1 0) Was it $90,000 or more? <1> YES ($90,000 -99,9999) <5> NO ($80,000 - 89,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER NCl I) Was it $1 10,000 or more? <1> YES ($110,000 or MORE) <5> NO ($100,000 - 109,999) <98> DO NOT KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER H12) Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent or what? <1> REPUBLICAN <2> DEMOCRAT <3> INDEPENDENT <4> OTHER (specify) <8> DO NOT KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 310 Appendix D Local Discourse Regarding Children’s Lives, Gender Roles, and Perceptions Of the County by Percent Agree and Disagreeing - Percentages Children’s Lives Children in my community are closely supervised by their parents after school and on weekends. (n=280) Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree 0r Disagree Disagree Disagree 21.8 36.8 4.3 25 12.1 lives in this community. (n=281) Q:E4 Limiting the amount of time families can receive welfare will improve children’s Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree 01' Disagree Disagree Disagree 54.1 31.8 2.4 8.4 3.4 Q:E6 There is plery of quality day care for children in this community. (n=247) Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree or Disagree Disagree Disagree 24.3 28.3 7.3 21.9 18.2 center. (n=260) Q:E7 Children under three years old are not harmed by all day child care in a licensed Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree 0r Disagree Disagree Disagree 14.6 28.1 7.3 27.7 22.3 them to start school. (n=297) Q:E13 On average, children should be read to at least thirty minutes a day to prepare Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree 0r Disagree Disagree Disagree 65.7 26.9 2.7 3 .7 1 Q:E14 Today, would you say that children in the Research County are more likely or less likely to be ready to start school than children were ten years ago? (n=255) More No Less Likely Change Likely 58.4 15.3 26.3 311 Gender Roles takes care of the home and famil . (n=296) Q:E2 It is much better for everyone if the man earns the main living and the woman Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree 0r Disagree Disagree Disagree 28.7 25 7.1 19.3 19.9 financially for their families. (n=296) Q:ES In today’s world, women have as much responsibility as men to provide Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree or Disagree Disagree Disagree 54.1 31.8 2.4 8.4 3.4 Q:E8 If a husband and wife both work full-time, they should share household tasks (child care, laundry, grocery sho ping, and makin meals) equally. (n=299) Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree or Disagree Disagree Disagree 84.9 10.7 1.3 2 I Q:E24 Do you think the main reason most women work outside the home is because they need the money to support their families or for personal satisfaction? (n=299) Need the Personal Both Some Other Money Satisfaction Reason 66.6 1 1 21 .7 .7 312 Perceptions of the County Q:RAl Do you think the well being of children in your community has improved or worsened over the past five years? fl=240) Improved Stayed the Worsened Same 50.8 29.2 20 Q:RA2 During the next three years do you expect job opportunities within commuting distance (in or around the Research County) will go up, will go down, or will stay about the same as it was in the last 12 months? (n=288) Go Stay About Go Up the Same Down 54.9 3 7. 5 7.6 Q:B1 Do you have closely family or relatives who live nearby or in your community? (n=30(D Yes No 61.3 38.7 Q:E15 How would you rate the quality of education of the public schools in your community? Would you say they are excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? n=274) Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor 11.7 32.5 28.1 21.9 5.8 313 Appendix E List of What Mothers Identified as Being Important to Their 8-10 Year Old Child’s Development. Ranked by Number of Similar Responses. Number of Responses 10 5 Multiple Responses are Included. What’s Important? Family, together time Feeling stable and secure Routines Responsibility Respect for people and things Happy Dependability Independence Social development, playing with others That we love them Chores Knowing right from wrong Exposure to other things and places Knowing kid’s friends Flexibility Manners Feel needed Basic skills Attention Reading To care for other people Playing Spons Positive attitude Preschool Keeping her busy Education 314 BIBLIOGRAPHY 315 Bibliography Abdalla, Charles W. 1997. “Water Use.” Pp. 755-759 in The Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 2, Gary A. Goreham (ed.), Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, Inc. Abel, Emily and Margaret K. Nelson (eds) 1990. Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women's Lives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Agger, Ben. 1990. The Decline of Discourse: Reading, Writing, and Resistence in Postmodern Capitalism. New York: Falmer Press. Ahlander, Nancy Rollins and Kathleen Slaugh Bahr. 1995. “Beyond Drudgery, Power, and Equity: Toward and Expanded Discourse on the Moral Dimensions of Housework in Families.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:54-68. Amott, Teresa L. 1993. Caught in the Crisis: Women and the US. Economy Today. New York: Monthly Review Press. Atkinson, Alice M. 1994. “Rural and Urban Families’ Use of Child Care.” Family Relations (43):6-22. Baca Zinn, Maxine, Lynn Weber Cannon, Elizabeth Higginbotham, and Bonnie Thornton Dill. 1986. “The Costs of Exclusionary Practices in Women’s Studies.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11 (21): 290-302. Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1991. Family, Feminism, and Race in America. Pp. 119-133 in The Social Construction of Gender, J. Lorber and S. A. Farrell (Eds), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Baca Zinn, Maxine and D. Stanley Eitzen. 1993. Diversity in Families, Third Edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. Bachman, Ronet. 1992. “Crime in Nonmetropolitan America: A National Accounting of Trends, Incidence Rates and Idiosyncratic Vulnerabilities.” Rural Sociology 57 (4): 546-560. Balbo, Linda. 1987. “Crazy Quilts: Rethinking the Welfare State Debate from a Woman’s Point of View.” Pp. 45-71 in Women and the State, Anne Showstack Sassoon (Ed). London: Hutchinson. Bane, Mary Jo. 1976. Here to Stay. NY: Basic Books. 316 Barlett, Peggy. 1993. American Dreams, Rural Realities: Family Farms in Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Bell, Michael M. 1992. The Fruit of Difference: The Rural-Urban Continuum as a System of Identity. Rural Sociology 7 (1): 65-82. Beneria, Lourdes and Catharine R. Stimpson (Eds). 1987. Women, Households, and the Economy. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Benston, Marjorie. 1969. “The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation.” Monthly Review 21 (September): 13-27. Berk, Sarah Fenstermaker. 1985. The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenum Press. Blankenhom, David G. 1990. American Family Dilemmas. Pp. 3-25 In Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family. David G. Blankenhom, S. Bayme, J .B. Elshtain (Eds). Milwaukee, WI: Family Services of America. Bogal-Allbritten, Rosemarie. 1997. “Domestic Violence.” Pp. 196-199 in Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 1, Gary A. Goreham (ed.) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Bokemeier, Janet L. and Lorraine E. Garkovich. 1991. “Meeting Rural Family Needs.” Pp. 114-127 in Rural Policies for the 1990s, Cornelia Flora and J. Christensen (Eds). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bokemeier, Janet L. 1996. “Challenges in Meeting the Needs of Midwestern Poor Families.” Paper presentation at the Pathways from Poverty Conference, St. Louis, MO. Bokemeier, Janet L. 1997. "Rediscovering Families and Households: Restructuring Rural Society and Rural Sociology." Rural Sociology 62 (1)21-20. Boyer, E. 1993. “Ready to Learn: A Mandate for the Nation.” Young Children March:54- 57. Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Bridger, Jeffrey C. 1994. Time and Narrative. Pp. 605-606 in Encyclopedia of Time, S. Macey (Ed). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Brown, David and Mildred Warner. 1991. "Persistent Low-Income in Non-Metropolitan Areas in the United States: Some Conceptual Challenges for Development Policy." Policy Studies Journal 19 (2):22-41. 317 Browne, William P., Jerry R. Skees, Louis E. Swanson, Paul B. Thompson, and Laurian J. Unnevehr. 1992. Sacred Cows and Hot Potatoes: Agrarian Myths in Agricultural Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bryant, Carolyn J. and Jacqueline M. Davis-Gines. 1997. “Family.” Pp. 247-251 in the Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 1, Gary A. Goreham, (ed.) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, Inc. Castle, Emery N. 1991. “The Benefits of Space and the Cost of Distance.” Pp. 41-56 in The Future of Rural America: Anticipating Policies for Constructive Change, Kenneth M. Pigg (ed.) Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chafetz, Janet Saltzman. 1991. “The Gender Division of Labor and the Reproduction of Female Disadvantage: Toward and Integrated Theory.” Pp. 74-94 in Gender, Family, and Economy: The Triple Overlap, Rae Lesser Blumberg (ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Cherlin, Andrew. 1992. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chodorow, Nancy. 1993. “Perspectives of the Use of Case Studies: All it Takes is One.” Pp. 453-462 in Family, Self, and Society: Toward a New Agenda for Family Research, Philip A. Cowan, Dorothy Field, Donald A. Hansen, Arlene Skolnick, and Guy E. Swanson (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, Theodore F. 1993. "What Do Fathers Provide? Reconsidering the Economic and Nurturant Dimensions of Men as Parents." Pp. 1-22 in Men, Work, and Family, Jane C. Hood (Ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Collins, Jane L. 1990. "Unwaged Labor in Comparative Perspective: Recent Theories and Unanswered Questions." Pp. 3-24 in Work Without Wages: Comparative Studies of Domestic Labor and Self-Employment, Jane L. Collins and Martha Gimenez (Eds). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. “Work, Family, and Black Women’s Oppression.” Pp. 43-66 in Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. London: HarperCollins Academic. Coltrane, Scott. 1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. New York: Oxford University Press. Cooley, Charles Horton. 1909. Social Organization. New York: Scribner’s. Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were. New York: Basic Books. 318 Coontz, Stephanie. 1997. The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms with America’s Changing Families. New York: BasicBooks. Cowan, Ruth S. 1983. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. NY: BasicBooks. Cowan, Ruth S. 1987. "Women’s Work, Housework, and History: The Historical Roots of Inequality in Work-Force Participation." Pp. 164-177 in Families and Work, Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Engel Gross (Eds), Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Dalla Costa, Rosamaria. 1972. “Women and the Subversion of Community.” Radical America 6: 67-102. Daniels, Arlene K. 1987a. "Invisible Work." Social Problems 34: 403-415. Daniels, Arlene K. 1987b. "The Unpaid Work of Constructing Class and Community: Women Volunteer Leaders in Social Philanthropy." Pp. 220-235 in Families and Work, edited by Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Engel Gross. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Davidson, Osha Gray. 1990. Broken Heartland: The Rise of America’s Rural Ghetto. NY: Anchor Books. DeVault, Marjorie. 1987. Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life. Pp. 178-191 in Families and Work, Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Engel Gross (Eds), Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. DeVault, Marjorie. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DeVault, Marjorie L. 1996. Talking Back to Sociology: Distinctive Contributions of Feminist Methodology. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 29-50. Dill, Bonnie Thornton. 1988. "Our Mother's Grief: Racial Ethnic Women and the Maintenance of Families." Journal of Family History 13: 415-431. Dill, Bonnie Thornton and Bruce B. Williams. 1992. “Race, Gender, and Poverty in the Rural South: African American Single Mothers.” Pp. 97-109 in Rural Poverty in America, Cynthia M. Duncan (Ed.). NY: Auburn House. Dill, Bonnie Thornton, Maxine Baca Zinn, and Sandra Patton. 1993. “Feminism, Race and the Politics of Family Values.” Philosophy and Public Policy 12 (3): 13-18. Doucet, Andrea. 1995. “Gender Equality and Gender Differences in Household Work and Parenting.” Women’s Studies International Forum 18 (3): 271-284. 319 Duncan, Cynthia. 1992. “ Persistent Poverty in Appalachia: Scarce Work and Rigid Stratification.” Pp. 111-133 in Rural Poverty in America, Cynthia M. Duncan (ed.) Westport, CT: Auburn House. Duncan, Cynthia and Nita Lamborghini. 1994. “Poverty and Social Context in Remote Rural Communities.” Rural Sociology 59 (3): 437-461. Duncan, Cynthia. 1996. Understanding Persistent Poverty: Social Class Context in Rural Communities. Rural Sociology 61 (1): 103-124. Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1983. The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press. Ehrenreich, Barbara and Deirdre English. 1978. For Her Own Good: 150 Years of Expert Advise to Women. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday-Anchor. Engels, Frederick. 1973. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Eleanor Burke Leacock (ed). NY: International Publishers. Falk, William W. and Thomas A. Lyson. 1993. “Forgotten Places Redux.” Pp. 257-269 in Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America. Thomas A. Lyson and William W. Falk (eds). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Fernandez Kelly, M. Patricia. 1994. "Towanda's Triumph: Social and Cultural Capital in the Transition to Adulthood in the Urban Ghetto." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 18 (1): 88-212. Ferree, Myra Marx. 1987. "Family and Job for Working-Class Women: Gender and Class Systems Seen from Below." Pp. 289-301 in Families and Work, edited by Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Engel Gross. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Ferree, Myra M. 1990. "Beyond Separate Spheres: Feminism and Family Research." Journal of Marriage and the Family 52: 866-884. Ferree, Myra Marx. 1991. “The Gender Division of Labor in Two-Earner Marriages: Dimensions of Variability and Change.” Journal of Family Issues 12 (June): 158- 180. F indeis, Jill and Wan-Ling Hsu. 1997. “Employment.” Pp. 227-230 in The Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 1, Gary A. Goreham (ed), Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, Inc. F itchen, Janet. 1991. "People and Places: Demographic Change and Local Response." Pp. 85-87 in Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity and Survival in Rural America, edited by Janet F itchen. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Flora, Cornelia Butler. 1997. “Quality of Life.” Pp. 585-587 in The Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 2, Gary A Goreham (ed.) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, Inc. Flora, Cornelia, Jan Flora, Jacqueline Spears, and Louis Swanson. 1992. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Frye, Marilyn. 1983. “Oppression.” Pp. 1-16 in The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press. Garkovich, Lorraine, Janet L. Bokemeier, and Barbara F oote. 1995. Harvest of Hope: Family Farming/F arming Families. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Garrett, Patricia, Nicolas Ng’andu, and John Ferron. 1992. “Is Rural Residency a Risk Factor for Childhood Poverty?” Rural Sociology 59 (1): 63-83. Gerson, Kathleen. 1985. Hard Choices: How Women Decide About Work, Career, and Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gerson, Kathleen. 1993. No Man's Land: Men's Changing Commitment to Family and Work. New York: Basic Books. Gimenez, Martha. 1990. "The Dialectics of Waged and Unwaged Work." Pp. 25-45 in Work Without Wages: Comparative Studies of Domestic Labor and Self- Employment, Jane L. Collins and Martha Gimenez (Eds). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Glazer, Nona Y. 1987. "Servants to Capital: Unpaid Domestic Labor and Paid Work." Pp. 236-255 in Families and Work, Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Engel Gross (Eds). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Glazer, Nona Y. 1993. Women's Paid and Unpaid Work: The Work Transfer in Health Care and Retailing. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Glazer-Malbin, Nona. 1979. "Housework." Signs 1: 905-922. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1992. "From Servitude to Service Work: Historical Continuities in the Racial Division of Paid Reproductive Labor." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1811-43. Gold, Steven. Forthcoming. “Gender and Families in Ethnic Economic Life.” Goldschieder, Francis and Linda Waite. 1991. New Families, No Families: The Transformation of the American Home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 321 Goode, William J. 1992. “Why Men Resist.” Pp. 287-310 in Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions, Revised Edition, Barrie Thorne and Marilyn Yalom (Eds). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Griffith, Alison. 1995. “Mothering, Schooling, and Children’s Development.” Pp. 108- 121 in Knowledge, Experience, and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge. Marie Campbell and Ann Manicom (eds). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gringeri, Christine. 1994. Getting By: Women Homeworkers and Rural Economic Development. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas. Gubrium, Jaber F. 1988. “The Family as Project,” Sociological Review 36:273-295. Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein. 1990. What is Family? Mountain View, CA: Mayfreld Publishing Company. Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein. 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method. New York: Oxford. Haney, Wava G. 1997. “Rural Women.” Pp. 634-638 in Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 2, Gary A. Goreham (ed) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC- CLIO. Haney, Wava G. and Jane B. Knowles (eds) 1988. Women and Farming: Changing Roles and Changing Structures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hantrais, Linda. 1994. Time for the Family. Pp. 607-612 in Encyclopedia of Time, S. Macey (Ed). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Harris, Rosalind P., Jeffrey C. Bridger, Carolyn E. Sachs and Suzanne E. Tallichet. 1995. “Empowering Rural Sociology: Exploring and Linking Alternative Paradigms in Theory and Methodology.” Rural Sociology 60 (4): 585-606. Hart, John Fraser. 1995. “ ‘Rural’ and ‘Farm’ No Longer Mean the Same.” Pp. 63-76 in The changing American Countryside: Rural People and Places, Emery N. Castle (ed) Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Hartmann, Heidi. 1981. The Family as Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework." Signs 6: 366-394. Hartmann, Heidi. 1987. "Changes in Women's Economic and Family Roles in Post- World War 11 United States." Pp. 33-64 in Women, Households, and the Economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 322 Hartsock, Nancy. 1990. “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women?” Pp. 157-175 in Feminism/Postmodemism, Linda J. Nicholason (Ed). New York: Routledge. Hennon, Charles B. and Timothy H. Brubaker. 1988. “Rural Families: Characteristics and Conceptualization.” Pp. 1-9 in Families in Rural America: Stress, Adaptation, and Revitalization, Ramona Marotz, Charles Hennon, and Timothy Brubaker (Eds). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations. Henslin, James M. 1995. Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, Second Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann and Cornel West. 1998. The War Against Parents: What We Can Do for America’s Beleaguered Moms and Dads. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Hochschild, Arlie R. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Hochschild, Arlie and Anne Machung. 1992. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution of the Home. NY: Viking Press. Hood, Jane C. 1983. Becoming a Two-Job Family. NY: Praeger. Huber, Joan. 1991. A Theory of Family, Economy, and Gender." Pp. 35-51 in Gender Family, and the Economy: The Triple Overlap, edited by Rae Lesser Blumberg. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Hummon, David. 1990. Commonplaces: Community Ideology and Identity in American Culture. Albany, NY: S.U.N.Y. Press. Jensen, Leif and Marta Tienda. 1989. “Nonmetropolitan Minority Families in the United States: Trends in Racial and Ethnic Stratification.” Rural Sociology 54 (4): 509- 532. Johnson, Kenneth and Calvin L. Beale. I995. “The Rural Rebound: Revisited.” American Demographics (July): 46-54. Johnson, Kenneth M. 1993. “Demographic Change in Nonmetropolitan America, 1980 to 1990.” Rural Sociology 58 (3):347-365. Kantor, David and William Lehr. 1975. “Access and Target Dimensions.” Pp. 36-39 and 50-57 in Inside the Family, First Edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kassab, Cathy. 1997. “Services Industries.” Pp. 644-647 in Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People. Vol. 2, Gary A. Goreham (ed) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. 323 Kessler-Harris, Alice. 1982. Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States. NY: Oxford University Press. Lamphere, Lousie, Patricia Zavella, Felipe Gonzales with Peter Evans. 1993. Sunbelt Working Mothers: Reconciling Family and Factory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Laslett, Barbara and Johanna Brenner. 1989. "Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives." Annual Review of Sociology 15: 381-404. Lichter, Daniel and David J. Eggebeen. 1992. Child Poverty and the Changing Rural Family. Rural Sociology 57(2): 151-172. Lobao, Linda. 1990. “The Uneven Development of Farm and Inndustrial Structure.” Pp. 23-51 in Locality and Inequality: Farm and Industrial Structure. Albany, NY: S.U.N.Y. Press. Lobao, Linda. 1996. “A Sociology for the Periphery Versus a Peripheral Sociology: rural Sociology and the Dimension of Space.” Rural Sociology 61 (1): 77-102. Luker, Kristin. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lyson, Thomas and William Falk (eds). 1993. Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Macionis, John. 1994. Society: The Basics, Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Markusen, Ann. 1987. Regions: The Economics and Politics of Territory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefreld. McLaughlin, Diane K. and Carolyn Sachs. 1988. “Poverty in F emale-headed Households: Residential Differences.” Rural Sociology 53 (3): 287-306. McLaughlin, Diane K., Daniel T. Lichter and Gail M. Johnston. 1993. “Some Women Marry Young: Transitions to First Marriage in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas.” Journal of Marriage and Family 55 (November): 827-838. Milkman, Ruth and Eleanor Townsley. 1994. “Gender and The Economy.” Pp. 600-619 in Handbook of Economic Sociology, Neil A. Smelser and Richard Sweberg (Eds) New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Mills, C. Wright. 1959/[1996] “The Promise.” Pp. 1-7 in Mapping the Social Landscape, Susan Ferguson (Ed). Mountain View, CA: Mayfreld Publishing Co. 324 Naples, Nancy. 1994. Contradictions in Agrarian Ideology: Restructuring Gender, Race- Ethnicity, and Class. Rural Sociology 59 (I): 110-135. Newman, Katherine. 1993. Declining Fortunes: The Withering of the American Dream. NY: Basic Books. Oakley, Ann. 1974. The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon Books. Osmond, Marie Withers and Barrie Thorne. 1993. Feminist Theories: The Social Construction of Gender in Families and Society. Pp. 591-622 in Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach, Pauline G. Boss, William J. Doherty, Ralph LaRossa, Walter R. Schumm, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz (Eds). New York: Plenum Press. Pfeffer, Max J. and Jess Gilbert. 1991. “Gender and Off-F arm Employment in Two Farming Systems: Responses to Farm Crisis in the Combelt and the Mississippi Delta.” The Sociological Quarterly 32 (4): 593-610. Pleck, Joseph. 1984. "Men's Family Work: Three Perspectives and Some New Data." Pp. 232-241 in Work and Family: Changing Roles of Men and Women, Patricia Voydanoff (Ed). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. Poponoe, David. 1988. Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Presser, Harriet B. 1986. “Shift Work among American Women and Child Care.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (August):551-563. Presser, Harriet B. 1988. “Shift Work and Child Care among Young Dual-Eamer American Parents.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 50 (February): 133-148. Pyke, Karen D. 1994. “Women’s Employment as a Gift or Burden? Marital Power Across Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.” Gender & Society 8 (March): 73- 91. Pyke, Karen D. and Scott Coltrane. 1996. “Entitlement, Obligation, and Gratitude in Family Work.” Journal of Family Issues 17 (January): 60-82. RSS Task Force on Rural Poverty. 1994. "Poverty in Rural America: Trends and Demographic Characteristics." Pp. 20-38 in RSS Task Force on Rural Poverty, Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Ragin, Charles C. 1992. Introduction: Cases of “What is a Case?” Pp. 1-17 in What is a Case?: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (Eds). New York: Cambridge University Press. 325 Rank, Mark R. and Thomas A. Hirschl. 1988. “A Rural-Urban Comparison of Welfare Exits: The Importance of Population Density.” Rural Sociology 53 (2): 190-206. Rapp, Rayna. 1992. "Family and Class in Contemporary America: Notes toward an Understanding of Ideology." Pp. 49-70 in Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions, Revised Edition, Barrie Thorne and Marilyn Yalom (Eds). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Rathge, Ralph. 1997. “Rural Demography.” Pp. 626-629 in Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 2., G. Goreham (Ed). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Ribbens, Jane and Rosalind Edwards. 1995. “Introducing Qualitative Research on Women in Families and Households.” Women’s Studies International Forum 18 (3): 247-258. Riesmann, Catherine K. 1991. “When Gender is Not Enough: Women Interviewing Women.” Pp. 217-236 in The Social Construction of Gender, Judith Lorber and Susan A. Farrell (eds) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Rosenau, Pauline Marie. 1992. Post-Modemism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ross, Catherine E. 1987. “The Division of Labor at Home.” Social Forces 65:816-833. Ross, Catherine B, John Mirowsky, and Joan Huber. 1983. "Dividing Work, Sharing Work, and In-between: Marriage Patterns and Depression." American Sociological Review 48: 809-823. Rubin, Lillian. 1984. Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working Class Family. NY: BasicBooks. Rubin, Lillian. 1994. Families on the Fault Line: America's Working Class Speaks about the Family, the Economy, Race, and Ethnicity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Sachs, Carolyn E. 1983. The Invisible Farmers: Women in Agricultural Production. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld. Saenz, Rogelio and John K. Thomas. 1991. “Minority Poverty in Nonmetropolitan Texas.” Rural Sociology 56 (2): 204-223. Salamon, Sonya. 1992. Prairie Patrimony: Family, Farming, and Community in the Midwest. Chapel Hill, NC: the University of North Carolina Press. 326 Seebach, Michelle. 1992. "Small Towns have a Rosy Image." American Demographics 14 (10): 19. Sennett, Richard and Jonathon Cobb. 1973. The Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Vintage. Singleton, Royce A., Bruce C. Straits and Margaret Miller Straits. 1993. Approaches to Social Research, 2"d Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Skolnick, Arlene S. 1996. The Intimate Environment: Exploring Marriage and the Family, Sixth Edition. New York: Harper Collins, College Publishers. Smith, Dorothy E. 1987a. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Smith, Dorothy E. 1987b. “Women’s Inequality and the Family.” Pp. 23-54 in Families and Work, Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Engel Gross (eds) Philadelphia, PA; Temple University Press. Smith, Joan. 1987. "Transforming Households: Working-Class Women and Economic Crisis." Social Problems 34: 416-436. Spitze, Glenna. 1988. “Women’s Employment and Family Relations: A Review.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 50 (August): 595-618. Stacey, Judith. 1991. Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late Twentieth Century America. New York: Basic Books. Stacey, Judith. 1996. In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Family Values in the Postmodern Age. Boston: Beacon Press. Stacey, Judith and Barrie Thorne. 1985. The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology. Social Problems, 32 (4): 301-316. Stack, Carol B. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Stake, Robert. 1994. “Case Studies.” Pp. in Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strasser, Susan. 1982. Never Done: A History of American Housework. NY: Pantheon Books. Struthers, Cynthia B. and Janet J. Bokemeier, forthcoming. 327 Sweaney, Anne L. and Carol B. Meeks. 1997. “Housing.” Pp. 356-359 in The Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People, Vol. 1, Gary A. Goreham (ed), Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, Inc. Thompson, Linda. 1991. “Family Work: Women’s Sense of Fairness.” Journal of Family Issues 12 (June): 181-196. Thompson, Linda. 1992. “Feminist Methodology for Family Studies.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (February): 3-18. Thompson, Linda and Alexis J. Walker. 1989. “Gender in Families: Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and Parenthood.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:845- 871. Thompson, Linda and Alexis Walker. 1995. The Place of Feminism in Family Studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 (Nov): 847-865. Thorne, Barrie. 1992. "Feminism & the Family: Two Decades of Thought." Pp. 3-30 in Rethinking the Family, Revised Edition. Northeastern University Press. Tickamyer, Ann. 1993. Rural Myths, Rural Realities: Diversity and Change in Rural America for the 21” Century. Keynote Address NEC*TAS Rural Conference, Santa Fe, NM. Tilly, Louise A. and Joan W. Scott. 1989. Women, Work, and Family. NY: Routledge. Vanek, Joann. 1979. “Time Spent in Housework.” Pp. 499-506 in A Heritage of Her Own, Nancy F. Cott and Elizabeth H. Pleck (Eds) New York: Simon and Schuster. Vanek, Joann. 1980. “Work, Leisure, and Family Roles: Farm Households in the United States, 1920-1955.” Journal of Family History 5 (4): 422-430. Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. 1993. “Dan Quayle Was Right.” Atlantic Monthly (April): 47-84. Wilkinson, Kenneth P. 1991. “The Future of the Community in Rural Areas.” Pp. 73-89 in The Future of Rural America, Kenneth Pigg (Ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Willard, Ann. 1988. “Cultural Scripts for Mothering.” Pp. 225-243 in Mapping the Moral Domain. Carol Gilligan, Janie Victoria Ward, and Jill McLean Taylor with Betty Bardige (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Willits, Fern and AB. Luloff. 1995. "Urban Residents‘ Views of Rurality and Contacts with Rural Places." Rural Sociology 60 (3): 454-466. 328 Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Under Class, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Zavella, Patricia. 1987. Women’s Work and Chicano Families: Cannery Workers of the Santa Clara Valley. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Zill, Nicholas and Christine Winquist Nord. 1994. Running In Place: How American Families Are Faring In a Changing Economy and An Individualistic Society. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc. 329