From time to time, whenever I mention that we are studying children's views of their employed parents, parents inevitably respond, "I wonder what my children would say?"

Although many of us probably have not asked our own children, we are ready to listen. Over the years, pursuing issues of work and family life, I have seen an evolution in our interest in understanding social change. At different times, there is a "societal readiness" to take on certain issues. I believe that we are ready to listen because it is finally the right time. More important, we are ready to listen because we really do need to know.

Our attitudes as to whether or not mothers should work have changed over the past 30 years because of the ongoing national conversation in the United States about the role of mothers and fathers in work and family life. The inclusion of children, and their views of their working parents, is the logical next step in this dialogue.

Why do I call it a conversation? Because, essentially, the discussion about the changing roles of men and women has taken place in the public square. A controversial or tragic occurrence - a random act of violence, a polarizing study, a trial, a television documentary - invariably captures the public's attention because it brings to the fore an issue about which, frequently, we are ambivalent, and even strongly divided. This subject will be widely discussed, at home, at work, and at leisure. Bringing both children and parents into the picture moves us beyond a black-and-white point of view.

The Ongoing Debate

Is having a working mother good or bad for children? Can mothers who work have equally sound relationships with their children as mothers who are at home with their children full-time? In our Ask the Children study, we questioned a representative group of employed parents as to whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "A mother who works outside the home can have just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work." Overall, 76 percent of employed parents agreed "strongly," or "somewhat."

Of the remaining 24 percent, fathers are much more likely to disagree than mothers, particularly in single-earner households. Among dual-earner couples, there are no differences between fathers and mothers on the statement. As for employed mothers who are single parents, it isn't surprising that 90 percent support the statement.

The steady increase in the number of those who believe employed mothers can have as strong a bond with their children as at-home mothers is attributable, largely, to the gradual social and cultural change that ensued as women became more numerous in the workforce and as families have become more dependent on that second income.

"I've seen growth in [my daughter], and I think a lot of that has to do with my own growth," one working mother surveyed for the Ask the Children study noted. "And a lot of that growth has to do with the fact that I had that extension of my life into the world of working. I may have had other interests...had I not worked...but I think I gained more, and was able to give more to her, as a result of having that amount of independence in my own life."

"I think you can be just as good a parent working or staying at home," another parent suggested. "It depends on where the parent is coming from, and what her skills are."

Researchers have found instances in which a mother's employment had a negative impact on the bond with her child. But this was more likely to occur either in instances when the children received inferior child care, spent more than minimal amounts of time in child care, or experienced too frequent changes in the child care routine.

Within the public debate, however, these nuances tend to be dismissed by those who view maternal employment as an either/or proposition. If a mother works, it's either good or bad for her children. There are those, too, who will question women who choose to stay at home. If working doesn't harm children, then what's the justification for not doing so? At-home mothers say they know their full-time presence in the household has been good for their children, and typically, they are correct. So, too, are mothers who say their employment has benefited their offspring. Largely, the success or failure of one approach or the other depends on the people involved and the circumstances of their lives. What's right for one person may not be right for another. And the quality of caregiving and the individual child's experience within it go a long way toward determining the resulting impact.

As part of our involvement in this ongoing debate, we posed another question: "Is it much better for everyone involved if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and the children?" Fifty-one percent of employed parents polled "strongly" or "somewhat" agreed. Once more, employed fathers were more likely to agree than employed mothers, with the distinctions arising not in dual-earner families, but rather with working fathers whose spouses remained at home.

One wonders why there is such strong support for the traditional family at a time when fewer households fall into that pattern? Among married fathers in the labor force, the percentage with employed spouses rose from 49 percent in 1977 to 67 percent 30 years later.

I believe that the views of employed parents are complex - more so than those who would interpret the findings as a call for mothers to exit the workforce and return home realize. In fact, more than seven in 10 employed mothers and fathers agree that it would be okay for the woman to become the economic provider and the man to be the nurturer. Ultimately, most employed parents are not endorsing or rejecting the traditional family structure; rather, they simply yearn for a less stressful life.

Moving Beyond "Either/Or"

Until now, the language we have used to describe work and family life has also fallen into patterns of either/or - reflecting the notion that work and family are separate, non-overlapping worlds. This must change. As Rosalind Barnett, of Brandeis University, wrote in 1997, we must move beyond the concept of separate spheres toward understanding that work and family are inextricably interconnected, and that, in fact, multiple roles can energize, rather than deplete us.

There is also a misguided "either/or" notion regarding the balance of work and family. Balancing connotes a set of scales: If one side is up, the other must be down. The goal, as working parents typically see it, is to keep both sides even or equal. Although the notion of balance is correct in considering both work and family on the same continuum, the connections are more dynamic than balance implies. Both sides can be up or down. What works for one person does not necessarily work for another.

Finally, there is the concept of quality time versus quantity time. It implies that they are mutually exclusive. We have found, however, that one cannot separate the amount of time from what happens during that time.

And so we must come to the next step: asking the children. In doing so, not only are we able to see what we do in a new way; we also reframe the debate. From my many discussions with parents across the country, I believe we are ready to listen to children, and in doing so, to embrace a more accurate and more empowering view.

----------

Ellen Galinsky is co-founder and president of the Families and Work Institute, a New York City-based nonprofit center for research on the changing American family, workplace and community. She is the author of 20 books and reports, including Ask the Children: The Breakthrough Study that Reveals How to Succeed at Work and Parenting (Quill, 2000), from which this article is excerpted.

Back to top | Contents, U.S. Society & Values, January 2001 | IIP E-Journals | IIP Home