212.

CHAPTER VIII

HOME-MAKING AND CHILD-REARING

"The sober comfort, all the peace which springs,

From the large aggregate of little things;

On these small cares of daughter,Wlfe or friend,

The almost sacred joys of home depend".

Hannah More.

•

Though it cannot be denied that the hours a

married working ~man spends in home-making or

house-work are far less than those put in by the •

non-working 'housewife, this chapter digs deeper into

th'e homemaking practices of married working women ,

and non-working house\.zl ves, in order to find in

what respect, and to what extent they differ in their

basic roles of home-making and child C8X~.

~ Needle s's to say, the amount of time spent in

house-keeping activities, ~onstitutes the essential •

differentia~i?g factor between the 2 groups. Other

areas looked into were: the type of food the families •

• in.the 2 groups lived on; the volume of house-work the

women in the 2 groups were used to before marriage,and " the difference, if any, brought about by their marriage •

•

213.

This has relevance to Michael P. F9garty and Othersl •

who 'pointed out-that among ;ther reasons that motivate • •

married women to pur~ue careers is the fact'of early

economic deprivation, which drives them towards a

goal of economic security. Or again, perhaps, if

•

the father in earlier life was found wanting in his

capacity of a breadvl1nner, or unstable in anyway, then

a sort of defence is built up by not relying on any

man for source of ' livelihood and at times, this feeling

is generalized into their own mari tal situation, even

though the husband is able to provide a comfortable , '.

living. Finally, they point out that when women are

used to :a:partirular standard of living before marriage, •

they choose to work after marriage, and if possible,

after the first child also, in order to maintain • •

that standard.

Further, an attempt was made to find, who held

the purse-strings in the two groups, the husband or • . -the wife or they shared it; and whether earning an

extra income affected the spending habi ts of the

housewife •

• #

1. Michael P. Fogarty, Rhona Rapoport and Robert Rapoport, Sex. Career and Family, 1971, p.368.

214.

, Lastly, the 'leading part taken in the arrange-• • •

ment .of !urni ture and the general decor of the home . in the .. tw5> groups w~ looked into • . -

'Regarding the second basic role of married •

~en, viz., child-rearing, the practices in the 2

"groups were unfolded by inquiring into: the person/s

wI. th whom the child/children spent most of their time; "-

the amount of time spent exclusively with their

child/children by?l'the mothers in the 2 groups and the

way in which this time was utilized; the SUpervision •

of their studies; the difference, if any, between their ,} . .,

own childhood and that of their child/children, the

question of discipline: what constitutes it and

whether it is affected in any way in the case of working

mothers. Here too, it would not be out of place to .... refer to P. Keiran on this topic. l She quotes Viola

Klein, who studied working mothers for more than 10

years, and pointed out: "If the gist of some 25

separate studies may briefly· be summed up in a

sentence~ it is, that maternal employment as i

such •

appears to be of no importance in the lives of •

children • Personal characteristics of the. mother, the • , nature of sUbstitute c are, social. class, urban rural

. differences~and such factors as to whether or not a

•

1. p. Keiran, HO\t Working Mothers Manage, 1970, p.52. I .~

•

215 •

•

mother enjoys her work, are each statistically •

more sf'gnificant than the simple dichotomy,working

- not working". It· will be seen how our responses

compare \\!i th the above finding.

_ HOME MAKING

In order to determine the food habits of

the 2 groups, the respondents were asked: '''Your

f8Jllily lives on food that is : (a) home-cooked by

you? (b) tinned or "instant"? (c) Ordered from

outside? (d) prepared by servants? (e) other

alternative, if any. The responses of the 2 groups

are tabulated below.

TABLE VIII.1 : SHOWING THE FOOD HABITS OF FAMILIES OF \() RKING MOTHERS .AND NON-WORKING HOUSEWIVES

TYPE OF MARRIED NON-WORKING FOOD EXEUu~IVES HOUSE~VES

a 22(44%) 36 (72%)

.. b 0 0

c l( 2%) 0 FREQUENCY OF

d 14(28%) 6 (12%) MeH RE§PONS~ Resp- Married Non-'

ad 6(12%) 6 (12%) onse Execu- WOrking

4( 8%) 0 tives House,:"

e' wives • c e 1( 2%) 0 a 3J 44

a~;b 0 1 ( 2%) b 0 1

ad c 2( 4%) . 0 c 4 0

ad e 0 1 ( 2%) d • 22 13

Total 50 50 e 5 J.

•

216.

The above table shows that in both groups

the majority of families (44% among the working •

wives' and 72% of housewives) depend on the ,rlfe

herself' -- working or non-working -- :for their

meals. No doubt, the percentage of housebound wives

is much more than that of the working wives, yet

the majority in both groups fall in the same

categoi'Y~ Also, this category, I ai, ",as found to

be the most frequently used category (eitller singly

or with anot..'ler), in both th.e groups. The notable

difference in the 2 groups lies in the fact that .. ,</hereas only 6, (12%) of families of non-working

house.nves depend entirely on servants for their

meals, more than double --- 28% of the families of

"TOrking wi ves had meals prepared .by servants •. But

taken in terms of frequency of occurrence, this

category was second largest in both groups.

Category 'b ' , i.e., "tinned or instant",

by itself, .!as notable by its complete absence in "

both groups, though together wi til category r a' ,it

appeared only once in the case of a non-"TOrking

housewife.

217.

Category 'c', "ordered from outside ll , was

not used at all by the house,dves, but stated

singly by one working wife; by another, in .,. •

combination with category Ie' which specified

"mother and servant"; and by t1QO (4%) other working .\

• • rives, toget':1er with categories 'a' and 'd', i.e'.,

themselves and servant.

The unspecified category Ie' was made use

of mainly by working wives, who stated it ei ther •

singly or together with amrther, e.g., 4 (8%) of them

stated it singly; 2 (4%) of ,:mom explained that

their meals were cooked by mo~~er; in the third

case by the mother-in-law, and in the fourth, an

aunt cooked for the family. One working wife (2%)

used this category jointly with category 'c' by

saying her family lived on food that was either

ordered from outside or cooked by the mother or

serv8nt.

One (2%) non-vrorking housewife clarified her

use of category Ie' by eXplaining that either she

herself or the servant cooked the daily mea.ls ,or

else, the family ate out.

218.

The 2 groups appear to be similar to the

extent that in both groups, categories 'a' and

'd' . , taken singly or in 'combination, appear to

rank first and second respectively. • •

.The next aspect of homemaking activity ~!" .. ;;-t I

tapped, lWas the volume of work the women in the

2 groups were used to, before their marriage, and in

their present position, i.e., after marriage. It

was asked of them: uBefore marriage, in your father's

house, you lived: (a) very comfortably, for there

were servants to work? (b) quite comfortably, as

there were some labour saving gadgets? (c) by

working hard, for there were neither servants nor ...

equipments to do the work? \I This was follo\."ed by

the question~ uIn your husband's home, your

housework is: (a) reduced to nothing? (b) considerablY

lessened because of servants/labour saving gadgets/ .

husband helping out? (c) increaSed very much rOT you

have to do everything yourself?U •

Their answers to the 2 queries are shown in

Table VIII.2 on the next page.

~ ,

TABLE VIII.2:': SHOWING THE EXTENT OF COMFORT ENJOYED BY MARRIED EXECUTIVES AND NON-WORKING HOUSEWIVES BEFORE AND AFTER MARRIAGE

I

MARRIED EXECUTIVES

EXTENT BEFORE AFTER MARRIAGE OF MARRIAGE a b (c d COMFORT • (s aJ.llfU

a 34 8 17 9 0 (68%) (24%)(50%)(26%)

b 14 2 10 1 1 (28%) (14%)(71%)(7%)(7%)

c 2 0 1 1 0 ( 4%) (50%)(50%)

TOTAL 10 200 11 1

@ In 16 cases out of 28, the husband helped in the housework(i.e., about 57%)· .

NON-WORKING HOUSEVIIVES

EXTENT BEFORE AFTER MARRIAGE OF MARRIAGE a b c d COMFORt ( samel

a 3J 2 20.7 1 (60%) . (7%) (67%)(2~J.(3%)

b 14 0 11 3 0 (28%) (- ) (79%)(21$)

c 6 0 4 2 0 (12%) ( 66%)(Jl%) • ,

TOTAL 2 35@ 12 1

@ In 29 cases ou t of 35, the husband helped in the housework (i.e., about 83%)

220.

Viewing Table VIII.2 as it stands, the

2 groups appear to follow an identical pattern,

i.e., in both groups, the highest number before

marriage (68% and 60%) are found in category t at:

lived very comfortably as ~lere were servants·to ,. work and next highest 28% in both groups in

cate gory I b I: quite comfortably as there ,.,ere some

labour-saving gadgets. Similarly, in both groups,

the largest number after marriage (50% and 67%)

fall into category Ib l : considerably lessened because

of servants/labour- saving gadgets/husband helping ou~,

and the second largest (26% and 25%) into categorylc l :

increased very much for you have to do everything

yourself.

Now taking the married executives separately,

it was found ~lat out of 34 (68%) who belonged to

category 'al before marriage, i.e., lived very

comfortably, only 8(24%) of these were found after

marriage to remain in the same position; 17 others

(50%) placed themselves in category Ib~, i.e.,

cons~derably improved, and out of these 17 (50%), •

it must be noted that 7 (41%) stated that their "lork

",as lessened due to servants and labour saving •

221.

gadgets, but specifically pointed out. that there

was no help from the husband. The remaining 9( 26%)

classed themselves in category lei after marriage,

i.e. their position worsened considerably.

Again, among the employed mothers, 14(28%)

placed themselves in category 'b'· before marriage

i. e., they lived qui te comfortably. However, after

marriage, 2 of these (14%) elevated themselves to

category 'a', representing a more comfortable

position, while 10 others (71%) remained in

category 'b' which again represents some imprOVement.

Here too, only 6 out of thes; 10 (60%) indicated

help from their husbands, besides servants and

labour-saving gadgets; the husbands of the remaining

4 (40%) offered no help in the house.

One married executive who belonged to category

'b' before marriage i.e. lived quite comfortably as

there vlere some labour saving gadgets put herself

in category 'c' after marriage: increased very much for

you h~ve to do everything y~elf, While another one

considered her position before and after marriage to

be quite equal.

222.

Two married executives (4%) placed

,themselves in category IC I before marriage,i.e.,

their positlonwas not comfortable. ~ter marriage,

while one o~ them (2%) improved her position and

pu t herself in ce.tegory I b l (wi thout the husbend

helping out), the other remained in category 'c'

which me~s her position worsened.

Coming to non-working housewives, we find

that out o~ 30 (60%) who put themselves in

category 'a' before marriage: very comfortably,

for there were serv.ants to work, only 2 ~7.%) put '.

themselves in category 'a': reduced: to nothing , .

~ter marriage also, ~Thile out of the rest, 20(67%)

placed themselves in category Ib l (with the husbend

helping out in 16 (80%) cases) ; 7 (23%) in

category 'c': increased very much end one (3%)

maintained status quo.

As in the case of married. executives, in this

group too, 14 (28%) housewives put themselves into

category 'b l before marriage. Out of these, none

were found in category 'a' : i.e. reduced to nothing,

~ter marrie.ge, while 11 (79%) of them placed

themselves in category fbI, which indicates an

223.

improvement in their position. It must be noted

that. there also, out of these 11 (79%), only

2 (18%) reported that their husbands did not help

out with the household chores, while 9 (82?&>

asserted that their husbends helped. Further, 3(21%)

housewi ves' posi tion worsened after marriage, for

they classed themsel \as in category 'c': increased

very much.

Six hoUse",ives (12%) belonged to category' c'

before marriage: by working hard for there were

neitiler servants nor equipments, but after marriage,

4 of them (66%) reported category 'b' (all asserting

that their husbands also helped in the housework).,

while 2 (33%) remained in category 'c', indicating

no improvement in their Dosition.

~ overall pictur~ of the 2 groups from

Table VlII.2 reveals that categories 'a' and 'b'

"mich represent comfort end category 'c' which

represents discomfort after marriage, are more or ~

less the same in the 2 g~OUps i.e., 38 (76%) married

executives and 37 (74%) housewi ves came under

categories 'a' or 'b', tnusindicating comfortable

lives. Again, 11 (22%) ~rking wives and 12 (24%)

. t

224 •

. housewives were found to f 2~1 under c~tegory I c I

atter marriage, indicating the presence of dis­

comfort in their lives. ~cordingly, the results

• indicate that none of the ree.sons of Michael

Fogarty and others, pointed out earlier, applY

to the working wives in our study •

• Ho,,,ever, a notable fact revealed through our

results is that more husbands of house,,,ives lend

a hand in the household chores (83%) than those

of working wives (57%). This will be discussed at

greater lengths in the next chapter.

Running a home, no doubt involves spending

money and therefore, in order to determine who

takes what financial decisions, our respondents were

asked: IbWlat financial decisions (any occasion

which calls for spending money) are taken by: (a) your

husband alone? (b) you alone? (c) both of you

together?

The following were the answel's .

as found ;in

Table VIII. 3.

225.

TABLE VIII.3 : SHO\>lING THE PATTERN OF FIN.ANCI.AL DECISION MAKING AHONG v/ORKING AND NON-WORKING WIVES.

• •

FINANCIAL DECISION lolARRIED NON-WORKING • TAKEN BY EXECUTIVES HOUSEWIVES

a 3 (6%) 3 ( 6%)

b 1 ( 2%) 2 ( 4%)

c 30 (60%) 41 (82%)

b c 0 1 ( e%)

abc 14 (28%) 3 ( 6%)

? 2 ( 4%) 0

TOTAL: 50 50

Th e re sul ts as per Table VI II. 3 sho\·, th at in

the majority of cases, working or non-working wives,

all financial decisions are taken by the husband

and wife jointly. This was more so in the case of

non-"lOr~ing \-li ves - 82% as against working wives

(60%). In both groups, in an equal number of cases

C3(6%) in eachJ, the financial decisions were

stated to be taken by the husband alone. This ap~s

to be a little surprising in the case of working wives,

who, earning an independent.income, may be expected

•

226.

to expend this with a certain amount of freedom.

On the other hand, in the case of one working wife

(2%) and two housewives (4%), the financial decisions

were taken exclusively by themselves: (one of ~hese

2 housev.d. ves had no choice,. as her husband, for

the most part,~,orked away from heime.) •

Although the number of men exclusively taking

financial decisions in the family is only slightly

greater than that compared to women who exclusively

take financip~ decisions, 6% as against 2% and 4%,

does this finding --~no matter how weak the evidence

~-'reaffirm the fact of male superiority?

A response which was typical in only one case

among housewives, was giVen in category fbI and tc',

i.e., financial decisions taken either by the wife

alone, or jointly.

Twenty-eight per cent of working wives and 6%

of housewives explained clearly that while some

financial decisions were taken by each spouse

independently, others needed their joint appro~

The majori ty of working Wi ve~ clarified further that

while the husband was free to use his earnings on •

227.

i terns of personal use, the wife looked after her

o~m personal needs and those of the household

or of the child/children. Major purchases or

investment of savings was decided by them

jointly.

,. The housewives who also reported categories

•

I a', 'b' and 'c', stated that while major purchases

and savings and planning for holidays was left

exclusi vely to the husbands, they alone were

responsible for the general household expenditure.

Decisions regarding·gifts and items relating to

the whole family, were taken jointly.

On the question of decorating the home ,the

respondents were asked J "Do you carry out your

own ideas on decorating your home? Or is it done. in

Joint consultation? Or is an expert called in every

time you wish to change the decor of your horne?tI ...

The answers of the 2 groups were similar in some • respects and different in others, as shown in

Table VlII.4.

228. •

TABLE VIII.4: SHOWING THE EXTENT OF INIDLVEMENT OF \o.ORKING AND NON-UORKING WIVES IN DECORATING THEIR HOMES

EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT

Own ideas

Husband's ideas

Joint consultation

Friends' and Expert's opinion

Whole family's opinion

In-laws decide ,

No. time or money for it

Can't tell

TOTAL

MARRIED EXECUTIVES

12 (24%) ~

2 ( 4%)

29 (58%)

3 ( 6%)

3 ( 6%)

o

o

1 ( 2%)

50

NON-WORKING HOUSEWIVES

10 (00%)

o :J7 (74%)

o

1 ( 2%)

1 ( 2%)

1 ( 2%)

o

50

The largest number of wives in both groups

decorate their homes in joint consultation \nth

their husbands, and more so the housewives (74%)

than the working vii ves (58%). -Main, more working

executives (24%) than housewives (20%) \vere found

to carry out their own ideas on doing up their

homes and this perhaps disproves the general

opinion that working women neglect their homes. The

229.

resul ts further sholved that in the case of

2 (4%) married executives, the decor of the

house was totally left to the husbands and 3 (6%)

others, discussed with friends or even consulted

an expert if they wished to change the decor of

their home. In the case of wives living in joint

families, it is understandable, that 3 (6%)

working and one (2%) non-working wives explained

that the gener8~ consensus of the whole family was

desirable before the home decor could be changed.

The l83t 3 single responses are not

significont as one housel.zL fe pointed out tpat her

housewas done up according to her in-laws' decisions,

while another asserted that she had neither time

nor money to spend on elaborate decorations. One

lrorking .Tife was unable to give any definite

anS1"er.

Qill.LD REMING

In order to understand the child care habits

of working and non-working ,,,i ves, let us first

-determine the number of children in the 2 groups,

whether of school going age or under 6 years.

TlIBLE VIII.5 . SHOioiIN G THE NUMBER OF CHIL DREN IN THE TIIO GROUPS • OF MARRIED EXECUTIVES AND NON-WORKING HOUSEWIVES

--NUMBER OF CHILDREN

~ '-GROUP

Iii :S (!) fI) fI)

M ~ ~~ Q) (!) ~ til (]) (]) <D(!) ~ ~ <l> (!) (!)

s:: <l> 0 ~ ~~ +> (!) ~>- '2>-0 ~ ~ tl :S:S ~ ~ z 0 0\0 :::>\0

•

Married 64% 36% Executives 19 14 14 2 1 52 1.7

(38%) (28%) (28%) ( 4%) (2%)

Non-working 0 14 23 12 1 100 2 75% ·25% Housewives (28%) (45 %) (24%) (2%)

231.

Table VIII. 5 sho\·1S that although the married

executives i.e., working wives apparently have fewer

children than the house,,,ives, on an average, the 2

groups are not very different. Again, agewise also,

in both. groups, the number of school-going children

i.e., children over 6 years, are far more than the

younger ones, below 6 years, who need relatively •

more looking after and it must be noted that this

number (children under 6), is considerably greater

among the working wives than among the housew. ves.

Now, having this overall picture of the

housewives, tQe working wives, their school-going

children, and other younger children who need

comparatively more intensive and almost constant

supervision, let us see how the children in the two

groups are managed i. e., where these children are,

most of the time; how much time their mothers

devote exclusively to them and how this time is

utilized; who is resp'onsible for helping them in the1r

studies. The working and non-working wives in our

study also pointed out differences between their own ,

childhood days and ways, and the upbringing pattern

of their children - whether it was better or worse,and

232.

if so, in what respects. The question of

discipline, so vitally essential in childhood,

was also considered, and finally,the much-argued

topic about whether the personal growth and

discipline in children of working mothers is

adversely, or otherwise in any way affected, W8$

discussed.

The first question our respondents were

asked was : "Your child/children is/are, most of

the time with: (a) you? (b) your mother/mother-in­

law? (c) an aunt or other relative? (d) servants?

(e) other children at a public creche? (f) any

other al ternati veil. The responses of the working

wives were many and varied as compared to the

housewives". This can be seen in Table VIII.6

belo"'l :

,

233.

TABLE VIII. 6: SHOWING THE RESPONSES OF WORKING AND NON-WORKING MOTHERS REGARDING WHERE THEIR CHILDREN ARE,}lOST OF THE TIME.

RESPONSE MARRIED NON-\'iORKING EXECUTIVES HOUSEWIVES

a 16% 88%

b 29% 0

c 0 0

d 19% 0

e 0 0

ad 7% 10% a b 3% 0

a c 0 2%

b c 3% 0

b d 7% 0

a b d 3% 0

b c d 3% 0

At Boarding school 3% 0

Grown; up, ther e- ~

fore independent 7% 0

Undoubtedly, "the children of non-working mothers

are more with their mothers (88%) than those of

working wives (16%), and this is as expected. But -'" "~

234.

here, it is important to see where the children

of the working mothers are, most of the time, if

not with themselves, and the answers show that

the majority of them, (29%) are with their

grandmothers, while another 19% are left with

servants. No working mother was found to leave

her Child/children with an annt or other re18.tive.

(Again, the fact that no working mother left

her child at a public creche implies one of two

things: perhaps the facility for such child care is

not available in our industries and if it does exist,

perhaps the efficiency or reliablli ty of such

agencies may not be popular or acceptable. Therefore, --

more study is needed regarding child-welfare ~

agencies for working mothers, before we can make any

definite conclusions as to why no working mother in

our study left her child at a public creche.

Further, the working mothers gave a variety

.of combination responses, the more common among them

beirig, "myself and a servant" and "grandmother and a . servant". Other infrequent responses given were: "myself

and grandmother", "grandmother and an aunt or other

relati ve", "myself, -graridmJOther and servant" and

"grandmother, a relative or serv:ant".

• .

•

235.

One working mother explained' that her

child was away at boarding school and therefore

the question of who she is with,' most of the time, • •

did not arise • •

It must be noted here, that the •

possible advantages of a boarding schoQl life on •

children of working mothers represent an avenue . . . .. well- .... ,orth exploring, for it could become the

. .' answer to many an employed mother's prayers

regarding the Upbringing of her children, provided •

the necessary adjustments are made on both sides •

• And finally, one working mother had no - , worries about her children, as they wer~ all grown

up and therefol~ did not need much supervision. , •

The importance of~ the physical presence of the

mother during childhood can n~ver be overemphasized,

and therefore our next query referred to the amount

of time our. respondents were eXclusively 1Ilith - &.. "'" >

their.children. The responses of the 2 groups were . -' . too' varied and are. therefore shown sep.arately in

Table VIII.7.

236.

TABLE VIII. 7 : SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF 'TUm SPENT BY WORKING lIND NON· WORKING ,lo10THERS ~CLUSI~Y WITH- THEIR CHILDREN -

EXEUUTlVES

" ... 1. All evening,after

work • . .

2. 1 to 2 hours a day - ~ • .

3. Morning and, evening

4. 3-4 hours a day

5. Very Ii tUe. • 6. Grown up, so on - their own

7. At boarding school

... . HOUSEWIVES . ,.

• ~ .

- ,1. All .01' most 'of 26 % .• 1?e time :t 32%

,... ...... -.~ . • 2. OVe!' 2 hours

26%··... a day 24% • ..

3. No fixed hours • 14%

4. Afternoon and' evening ... 10% - ....

3% -, '5. 1 .. 2 hours a day 10% -. ,

" ....

6. -Before and • after school

, ~

7. Depends on the - attention needed

.. 4%

',. , AS can be seen, a response like livery Ii tt1e ll

... . is typical only of. the working mothers, a1thoughit , . is a very low percent~e,while a response ·1 ike ,

.~ . ~

"all or most of the time" is 'not only restricted .to • ~ ,

" the group of !lou s ewi ves but is also the most frequently

given 'ref{) onse among' th~m.. Of course, this is ~ .

expe cted. £gain, it is evident .from the responses of' ,

. working wives, that they spend all the available ~ime

when they are not working, by being with their children,

'.

while the responses of the housewives appear more

casual - for being at home, they feel they are always

there to look after the needs of their children as

and when the occasion may arise.

'. Although the time spent by ",orking and

non-~/orking mothers exclusi velyfor their children, , . . ~

natural'ly varies among the~2 ,groups, the manner . in which this time is utilized ,~as' found to be

." much the same -- for.a mother is a mother still

even though she may be alvay from home much of

the time. In both groups, the responses weI'e IDOI'e

or less common viz., the time ",i th the children

was spent in : "playing with them", "helping them

with their studies", "taking them out for enjoyment

or relaxation", "looking after them, .generallY", •

and ,.men children were older, "discussing their

problems" or "discussing Iilchool events" •• From among

the working mothers, besides those stated,~BIDe

responses like, "just being with them ll , or "doing all

the things that the childl:"en particularly like

playing games they enjoy or cooking delicacies they

relish".

-.

238.

When it came to helping the children \ori th

their studies, the majo::ity of vlOrking mothers •

had private tutol'sto coach their children, and

the second largest nwnber studied on their own.

The-mother herself, or toge~~er with the fa~~er, ....

helping tile child/children in their homework, formed

the next category, while other single responses

showed the elder brother or the grandmother of

the child, helping out •

./Among the house.rives, more than 50% themselves

helped and personally supervised their children's

study, W:1ile in a few cases, the husbands also

helped. In only a negligible number was a tutor

appointed.

The point that was next touched upon was:

What difference, if any, was detected by our ,

respondents in the childhood ways and patterns of

their children today, as compared to their O\o/!l

) childhood, tilree or even four dac'ades ago? Is this • ..

change evidenced only among the children of working

mothers? Or is it generally pervaSive? .. An analysis of the responses of our working

• anf' non-working mothers reveals that many, if not all,

239.

of the differences indicated by the 2 groups, refer

to more or l~ss the same. changes, though of

course, not worded in identical terms, or stated

in the same order.. Rather than tabulate their

responses, in a set classification, let us discuss

each difference pointed out by the 2 groups,

individually, in their order of frequency of •

occurrence.

The Working wives noticed the following 6

differences.

(1) "Financially better; more comforts

and facili ties". This response is no doubt typic al

of this group only, and understandably so, ~Iith

the mother and father both e"arning, the child/

children naturally get a better deal, in the form

.'

of greater comforts. In earlier decades, ~he mother

contributing to the family income was a very

unusual fact.

(2) "More homevp rk from school, so that most

of the free time of the children is spent at it,

which in turn leads to a sort of alienation from

their friends". It must be l10ted that this point ,. was brought out by the housewives too, as shall be

. ,

seen;'1.ater.

240. - .

,. . (3) "More friendly relationship wi th

paz.ents". Main, this i'«ct was also pointed out by

the housewives. They al~ stated that "they found

their children more open and confiding wi th them

-- a si tuation, quite ral:'e, if not unhe ard of,

during their own childhood days.

(4) In this cate€ory were working wives, Who .....

found no difference at all bet"een their childhood

and that of their children. Also in this category,

were executives who stated the very obvious

difference .. viz~, that their children spent lesser

time .,ith their parents than they did with theirs.

This is typicaD¥ a change brought about by mothers

going out to work.

(5) "More lonely, since families today are

smaller"; "they have m.ore frJedom; Ibthey get more

attention from me, since I am more absent from them".

These comprised the fifth, difference given by the

working wives. The child being umore lonely" on . account of being the only child, was once again,

a response, common to both working and non-working

mothers. The third difference in this category is . evidently the outcome of the mother going out to

'-lork and therefore typioally belongs to this group

only.· ~

241.

(6) "Pampered by grandparentsII , IImore wi th.

servants ll , "better off generallyll, IIless healthy",

"more independent". This category, although the

last and least stated, points to differences

triggered off on account of the mother going out to

work, e.g., in order to make good the absence of

th~ mother, the grandparents tend to be extra-... generous with the children, and thus at times tend

to pamper and even spoil them. .!Again, the difference,

IImore with servants ll is self-evident, and needs no

fUrther explanation. "Better off generally", can

perhaps be explained by the fact of the working

mother providing those extra luxuries which children

of non-working mothers do not generally enjoy. These

children were found "less healthy", perhaps becaUSe

the working mother is not around to watch over them

as carefully as does, the full- time housewife • •

Finally, being on their own, much of the ..

time, the working mothers rightly indicated that their .

children ~Tere "more independent", than they were a:t

that age.

From all that is stated above, it can be Said

with reasonable freedom that quite a few of the

242.

differences which our working mothers quoted bet':reen

their own childhood and that of their children,

possibly spring from the tact of their going out to

work, e.g., differences Like "financially better

off", "more wi th servants" etc. Of coUrse, other

factors may also be responsible, for there ~ . , similar differences among children of nom-working

wives also.

Now let us examine the responses of housewives

regarding the difference :in their own and their

child's/children's childhood pattern :-

(1) "Greater parental attention, facili ties

and opportunities.

(2) "Better, though more difficult educational

methods", "More independent", "no difference".

(3) "Smaller families at present"; "children

enjoy greater freedom", "relationship bet"reen child

.and parents, more friendly". <'.

It can be seen that all the above-stated

differences were indicated by the working mothers also,

and therefore, to say that these differences arise from

the fact of mothers going out to work, can safely be

ruled out.

other differences pointed out by the

housewives were :

243.

(4) "Easier life ll ; "totally different life",

"they have learned the joys of sharing", "the

children lead a less outdoor life", and

(5)"They have fewer friends II , "they are

more self- confident", and "more mischievoLls lI •

The only notable point in the responses of

the 2 groups seemd to· be that the number of house­

wives who found "no difference tl between their

child/children's and their own childhood was greater

than those among the working ,dves, for the former

appeared under category 2, while the latter were

found in the fourth.

After viewing the differences as perceived

by our respondents in the childhood patterns of today

and those of a fe~T decades ago, OLlr respondents were

asked to cornmen t on whether they considered their own

childhood better or worse, and if so, in what

respects.

244.

(12%) Six working mothersLand 12 house~aves(24%)

stated that, their childhood was neither 'better',

nor '''TOrse', but just the same. Here too, twice

the number of housewives found no change in the

childhood pattern of today and that of 3 or 4

decades earlier. It is this fact that leads to

the important question that since more .vTOrking

mothers have indicated the stated changes, could

this change be the effect of change in ti1eir

o~m life pattern? Any answer in definite terms

is not possible from the present study, though

a possible relationship does suggest the

need for more intensive research into the type

and extent of each perceived change and-all

possible causative facto~ before any solid

conclusion can be laid down.

The responses of the remaining moti1ers who

stated that their childhood was better/worse,are -..

gi ven below :

l1ARRIED EXECUTIVES

Better bec~

1. Could confide in others.

2. Not much competition.

3: More scope for more activi ty.

4. Life easier in general.

5. More free time.

6. Better in every way.

7. Constant presence of mother.

8. Life more easy-going, heal thy.

•

9. Barents had no interests outside the home & spent more time in the family.

Wor'se because

1. More inhibited.

2. Less social life.

3. Brought up by rela­tives.

4. Gret'l up in a boarding school, therefore not much affection.

245.

NON-WOFKING HOUSEWIVES

Better because

~

1. More easy-going.

2. More playmates.

3. Parents were rich';no~l we are, middle- cl ass •

4. In terms of discipline. ~

5. EdUcation had more value.

6. Less competition,so more relaxed.

7. Things were cheaper •

8. More security and companionship in joint femilies.

9. Less worries,more outdoor life.

Worse because

1. Absence from parents.

2. Greater fea~ of children picking up bad habits.

3. Le~ger families, less attention.

4. Less communication between child and parents.

'. It is difficult to separate discipline from

child-~earing, for reaxing children implies instilling

246,

and fostering discipline in them. ~ccordingly, our

executives end housewives were asked, what quaJ.ities,

according to them, constituted a disciplined child,

and their answers were more or less similex; the

.,@xecutives used terms like; "obedience", "well-.• mannered/~rell-behaved", "responsible", "considerate",

truthful", while the housewives gave "obedience", •

"good manners and behaviour", "respectful", "loving", • "friendly", "polite" and "of good habits" •

• It was determine(j from the mothers themselves

whether their child/children were disciplined or not.

Their answers are given in Table VIII.8.

TABLE VIII. 8& SHOWl]\; G WHETHER OR NOT THE WORKING JlN) 1'101'1- \40RKING MOTHERS CONSIDERED THEIR CHILD/CHILDREN TO BE DISCIPLINED

RESPONSE -_._-Yes

No

MARRIED EXECUTIVES

31%

10%

Partly 7%

Child/ children too young to decide either way 10%

Can't say 42%

'. •

•

1'101'1- WORKING HOUSIDIIVES

68%

16%

16%

247.

This table sho"lS that more housewives than

~rorking mothers consider their children to be

disciplined. However, one must remember that this

constitutes their personal opinion and hmv far it

.is a fact, needs to be investigated. Again, the

majori ty of working mothers (42%) were unable to

decide either way, so that one is merely left to

guess what their recticence could mean for

reticence could be the result of a genuine inability

to decide one way or another or it could possibly

be the outcome of an attempt to ~dthhold some

incriminating evidence.

The last question dealt with is a much­

discussed topic: Whether disciplining a child,

is, in any way affected where a mother goes out

to work. Reactions of our working as well as

non-working mothers was soughtcadi their responses

are tabulated belo,,,. But these reactions must

be accepted with certain reservations,for no doubt,

the responses of each group will tend to be coloured and

by its Olm life-pattern,ian effort to defend it.

248.

TABLE VIII.9 : SHOWING THE REACTION OF WORKING AND NON-WORKING·MOTHERS TO WHETHER OUTSIDE WORK ADVERSELY AFFECTS CHILD DISCIPLINE

N.uiRRIED NON- WORKING REACTION EXECUTIVES HOUSEWIVES

Yes 31% 54%

No 29% 18%

Partly 8% 10%

Depends on the person looking atter the child

3% 4% in the mother l s absence

Depends on hours of work 2% and nature of job

No effect 2%

Undecided 29% 8%

Depends on individual cases, cannot generalize 2%

-0:

... .As the above table shows, the majodty of

worktng mothers (29$) indicate either that outside ...

wOrk has no adverse effect on the upbringing and

disciplining of children, or an equal number (29%) -If' .,. ...

were undecided about the issue. On the other hand,

•

the maj ority - 54% of housewives felt that outside •. ~.,)

work ~ have an adverse effect on child discipline.

249.

There were 2 types of responses on which the 2

groups were more or less in agreement: i.e., the

response "partly", which was given by 8% 'of

working and 10% of non-working mothers, and the

response that child discipHne being affected by

the mother going out to work depended lion the

mother-substitute". Other notable responses given· •

by the house",i ves were that: (1) this issue depends

also on the hours of work of the absent mother

as also the nature of her "lOrkj and (11) that

is the question is more personal and individual .;

so that generalisation cannot be adequate. This .. seems a very acceptable statement for irideed, 2

• mothers may agree verbally and in t..heory on what ~... .

:consti-tutes 'discipline', but in actu8~ practice,

their expectations may differ, 1tTith the result that .-

any "conclusion. based C.' ~ ;t

of much. value. ... -on such responses, would not be

Po