Child-Centeredness

1. Sharon Hays. 1996. “From Rods to Reasoning.” Pp. 19-50 in The Cultural Contradictions of Mothering. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2. Ann Crittenden. 2001. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-12 in The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. New York: Metropolitan Books.
3. Patricia Hill Collins. 2000. “Black Women and Motherhood.” Pp. 173-200 in Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
4. Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Unmarried with Children. Contexts, 4, 2, 16-22.


According to Hays, the first historical stage of development of appropriate mothering in America occurred in the late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century, and can be described through the Puritan community. Here, the term that can be used to describe childcare is "Spare the rod, spoil the child" (Hayes, 27) meaning that discipline, physical punishment, and religious instruction were what could mold the child into a religious, obedient person. They believed that children were born sinful, and that it had to be literally beaten out of them. During this time, children were also seen as economic assets, in that as soon as they could handle it they would participate in family chores and duties. The Bible was the main tool in raising the children, and would be used as a form of early child-rearing manual.
And while this was not the only view present at the end of the 18th century, the Puritans view is the one most widely accepted with the child acting as an object with no special value; they were just another member of the family to make an active contribution.
The second stage happened during the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-centuries, and was characterized by the growing value of childhood, as well as the new mothering where nurturewas a key element in raising a child. Here children were seen as being born innocent and pure, and the mother's main role was to raise future model citizens. Taking this into consideration, the mother's role took on a whole new level of importance; and only she could fulfill her duty. There began to be a line of things especially directed towards children, such as books, toys, and games in order to help preserve their innocence.
In this phase, children were kept in the house, as opposed to going out to work in order to help support the family. Another big change was the use of discipline; it moves away from physical violence to "forms that relied on the withdrawal of love to instill self-control" (Hays, 31). The mother is a constant example for how the child should act, and should thus conduct herself in a virtuous manner. Here, being a successful mother and wife was the highest form of accomplishment, where women really had a chance to prove themselves to society.
The third stage occurred in the nineteenth-century, and yet was almost fake. Here, childcare was still highly valued, and expected of mothers; but if families had money, child-rearing would be an undertaking of a nurse, or a maid, or a housekeeper. Women of wealth often hired other lower class women and children to do their "dirty work" for them, while still maintaining control by constantly monitoring the care provided by these other women. This created a paradox in that it gave middle-class children the love and care that they needed but from the wrong person; and then left another whole group of children motherless, to fend for themselves without a warm and nurturing home to come to at the end of the day. And yet all the while as, "Middle-class women had managed to portray themselves as reasonable, pure, and virtuous, working-class women continued to be publicly understood as foolish, immodest, and devious" (Hays, 37).
The last stage is embodied by science, and was called the progressive era; child-rearing became viewed as something that you could learn how to do from a manual, and you were only equipped to do it if you were educated by the experts. In this phase, days were regulated with strict schedules, letting the child fend for himself (meaning cry it out without receiving any comfort from the mother, or anyone else). In essence, children were reared with behavioral techniques that would mold them into proper human beings.
With this stage came the development of many child rearing manuals, governmental acts, child labor laws, and the creation of kindergarten among other things. Thus, the rights of a child were recognized, and they were valued as beings with worth and value. Additionally, their deaths became sentimentalized, when in the past it had been seen as just a part of life.
We are now in the Permissive Era, where the child shapes the parent and governs how he or she will be treated. All of family time and resources are put back into the child, changing life drastically from what it was in the past.
Intensive mothering is a, "historically constructed cultural model for appropriate child care" (Hays, 21), and is a construct that changes with time. Taken in terms of today, I honestly don't know if this concept applies to my mother and her friends. If I look at things through the lens of the Permissive Era, my mom is an intensive mother in that she always put me and my sisters at the center of her world, by doing things such as waiting to start attending college until I(the youngest child) was old enough to go to school, and she could attend at night while our dad was home. She did not, however, let us rule over her as the article presents children during this time. There was regulation of time and energy, and there was discipline enacted when needed. In that way, I feel as though she used techniques from across history, using what she thought was appropriate at different times.

According to Crittenden, there are three main indicators that mothering is devalued in the U.S. The first is referred to as professional marginalization; meaning that while child-rearing is like having several jobs at once, including housekeeper, bill payer, driver, cook, and mother, it is treated as if stay at home mom's do nothing all day except watch soap operas. Choosing to be a stay at home mother is often looked at as the easy way out, because the mother could not make it in the man's world, the business world. Stay at home mothers are also offered no type of compensation for all the work they do, and are looked at as dependent upon their husband for income. It has been decided in studies that if the work a stay at home mother does was examined in terms of wages, she would be earning at least 100,000 a year.
A second indicator is a loss of status, connecting to the view that people dismiss mothering, as, "The job of making a home for a child and developing his or her capabilities is often equated with 'doing nothing'" (Crittenden, 2). Deciding to not participate in the workplace after so much has been accomplished in the woman's movement is like denying your right as a women, according to many. It is a acceptance of a lower position in the totem pole of the economy, because being a journalist or a business woman is so much more esteemed than being "just a housewife" (Crittenden, 3).
The last indicator is that among women and children, there is an increased risk of poverty. This is because women are stuck in a catch 22; they are ingrained with the idea that they are the ones that should stay at home and raise their children, and yet if they are put into a situation where there is no male to be the primary breadwinner, they are then forced to. Because the woman is a dependent in the relationship, she cannot earn social security, earn unemployment insurance, or workman's compensation (Crittenden, 6). Welfare is often the only solution, which has been proven to be ineffective at best.
Women are also often penalized for deciding to take time off from work for being a mother, because it took away precious time to hone skills necessary to "get ahead".
I do agree with Crittenden that motherhood is devalued, by everyone that is not a mother. Those in the workplace think she is taking the easy way out; those growing into adulthood, like myself, often think that she is not living to her full potential by not taking advantage of being able to do whatever she wants. I struggle with this often, and am not looking forward to having to decide what to do once I have a baby; because I want to be able to stay home with my children while they are young, but I also know that this might not be possible whether it be because of the career I choose, or the economic position of me and my husband.

According to Collins, one type of mothering is to treat it as a burden that "stifles their creativity, exploits their labor, and makes them partners in their own oppression" (Collins, 176). This connects to the fact that being a Black mother has all the implications of motherhood, which are heavy in and of themselves; and the fact that they have to deal with issues of race, poverty, discrimination, and struggle while raising these small innocent children to handle the same things. Here, the symbol of motherhood as power is too much for women to handle, because they often feel like they cannot take it all.
The second type of mothering, can be described as "a base for self-actualization, status in the Black community, and a catalyst for social activism" (Collins, 176). Here, they use their power to show all they can do to lift up their children, friends, and kin, to improve life for those around them. Women use their power in multiple ways; they teach their daughters how to protect themselves using the authority and experience they have to show them; they take in disadvantaged children to provide a roof over their head that they might not otherwise get; and they are active in the community. Here, Black women are forced to take a stand against the stereotype dragged against them that they are bad mothers, and help those in need to raise a new generation of strong fighters. It can also give the mother's themselves a sense of purpose, as Collins points out that "Motherhood can serve as a site where Black women express and learn the power of self-definition, the importance of valuing and respecting ourselves, the necessity of self-reliance and independence, and a belief in Black women's empowerment" (Collins, 176).

According to Edin and Kefelas, poor women's attitudes on having a child are often that it is a saving grace, because it gives them purpose to their chaos driven lives. The children provide intimacy and companionship that many of these women have never experienced, perhaps because their families were not emotionally available, or their partners were away due to jail time. Marriage, contrary to the norm in today's society, usually comes after the birth of women's children in poor situations. This is because having a baby is often the first step, something that cannot be prevented when on the fast track relationships that are so common among poor youth. Marriage, however, is an incredibly important decision that determines the course of one's life, so it cannot be entered into quickly. Divorce continues to hold a heavy stigma among this group, so many women are looking for men that can be mature, supportive spouses to participate both in a relationship with his wife, and with his children, owing to the fact that, "Poor women do not reject marriage; they revere it" (Edin and Kefelas, 21).
To help these women get out of poverty, our society can do a number of things. It could create positions in the workplace that could allow these women to earn money to become self-sufficient, and improve the quality of childcare to make life easier. It also might be wise for us today to rethink what it means to be successful, and the "right way" to go about things; maybe then these women might have a little more hope in that what they are doing is not wrong.
I have a really hard time thinking about situations such as these, with girls of only 15 going out with men so much older than they are, and falling into the trap of getting pregnant. I feel as though there is so much behind this trend of problems caused by today's society that needs to be reexamined from the very framework of our laws and ideals. If these people were not living in such extreme poverty while a minuscule percentage of the population control a majority of the wealth, then they would not be so frustrated and hopeless about the course of their lives. Then parents would be more responsive and watchful of their children, making sure they do not get into things such as drugs, alcohol, and sexual relations at ages entirely too young. Then these women, who are smart and determined enough to build a life for themselves (even if it is somewhat backward) would not have to start from scratch as they do now, and do things such as, "find a diamond in the rough" (Edin and Kefelas, 20).