Life With Father and Other Tales of the Changing Family

No single central theme occupied the 16,000-plus delegates to this week’s 94th conference of the American Psychological Assn. There was none of the jelly-bean-counting, none of the frivolity, that has sometimes marked earlier gatherings of this vast organization of mental health professionals.

Politics seemed subdued. Even the mandatory protesters were few and relatively limited in energy.

Crowded, Busy Days

Rather, five days of dawn-to-dusk symposiums were generally crowded and characterized by a business-like atmosphere. People complained that there was no time to go to the zoo, just across the street. One fatigued observer was overheard likening the event to four years of college crammed into five days of seminars.

If so, one possible major subject was something this group continues to examine with seemingly tireless zeal. Viewed as a kind of bio-social phenomenon, the American family is apparently an issue destined for eternal analysis. So consuming has the topic become, so intertwined the roles of women and men, that one session even went so far as to urge the adoption of “a unique male pregnancy consciousness.”

But other meetings focused on less esoteric aspects of the family, vintage 1986. University of Virginia psychology professor Sandra Scarr, for example, filled an entire banquet hall with an address on child care that was as pragmatic as it was impassioned.

Anguish for Parents

Guilt, Scarr argued, has left countless parents anguishing over the appropriateness of delegating small children to the care of others.

“We have worries, guilts, concerns about what happens to our children when we ‘desert’ them,” said Scarr, the mother of four and author of a number of books and articles on the subject.

“But what cultural assumptions lead us to that kind of guilt?” Scarr asked. “What are women supposed to be in this society?

“We have used bonding arguments to make mothers feel guilty,” she said. “I think this assumption lingers in our hearts. But in fact there is some evidence that children with more than one primary adult attachment are more secure. Babies do not only not need an exclusive relationship with their mothers, but can benefit from attachment to others.”

In any case, Scarr said, “it is better for a child to be with a healthy, loving care-giver outside the home than with a depressed mother at home. Mothers who are not in the work force and wish they were constitute one of the most depressed groups in our society.”

As Scarr pointed out, as of 1985, about half the mothers of babies 1 year old or younger are in the work force. For those mothers, clearly, child care is no longer a matter of option. Said Scarr: “We can’t afford to take the view that a child needs a family member present at all times. That is impossible for half the children growing up today.”

Extensive research, however, Scarr said, “shows no evidence that high-quality” care away from the family “has any ill effect on children.”

Quality of Day Care

Certainly, Scarr said, “the quality of day care does make a difference, but so does the quality of home life.” For example, she said, “what is more disastrous for children” than spending time in the loving care of others is “living under continued conflict between the parents.”

In fact, she went on, “there has never been a society where mothers provide 100% of child care, and yet we have acted recently as if this were the ideal.” She paused. “It’s very peculiar.”

And in discussing the subject of caring for small children, Scarr said, many people tend to forget that “day care is not one thing. There are many settings, many qualities.” In the end, “the issue is the quality of care for the child, wherever it takes place.”

In terms of seeking out that optimal care situation for a child, Scarr had some advice for parents. “Licensed day care homes have been found to be better than unlicensed day care,” she said. “Some programs are highly structured, where the children are essentially marched through a rigid daily routine. At the other extreme is the unstructured situation, which is often chaotic.”

Between those two extremes, Scarr said, “There are obviously all kinds of arrangements. What is important is whether the child-rearing of the parents at home matches to some extent the child-rearing in the child-care center.”

Choosing a Facility

In choosing such a facility, Scarr advised, “The most important thing parents can do is to go in and observe. Do they feed and hold babies under 2? Do they talk to the babies as they feed them? Does the setting provide adequate rests and naps? Are the children kept reasonably clean? Are there enough toys? Books? Games?

“Is there adequate supervision?” Scarr continued. “Are there special toys for babies? Attention to safety? Is there space for individual and group choices? Is there a quiet time when they can sit in the corner on a pillow? Does the child have options of time alone? Is it attractively decorated from a child’s point of view? Do the care-givers supervise closely, but not intrusively? Do the care-givers use every opportunity to talk with the children?”

Finally, Scarr said, “one of the best things to look for: Look at the children. Do they appear to be happy?”

Not Competent Consumers

Unfortunately, she said, “Parents are not very competent consumers of child care.” Instructors at child care centers have told her on more than one occasion, Scarr said, that “Parents only ask three questions: “How much does it cost? Can I get my child in here? Can I drop him/her off tomorrow?”

With such an attitude they may fail to recognize, Scarr said, that “parents are of course the best eyes and ears for their own children. You need to visit, and you need to be an activist.”

One more assumption about child care that Scarr needed to confront was this: “There is no way this is a substitute for parental care. It’s a supplement.”

Given the realities of today’s work force, Scarr concluded, “the vast majority of the children in this generation are going to spend a good deal of their time in child care. With a few adjustments in our assumptions and a great deal more reality testing, I think we can work it out.”

Two weeks before he left for Washington, Ken Druck’s father succumbed to a long illness. His father’s death took on “radical new meaning” in that his assignment at the American Psychological Assn. meeting was to discuss the implications of father absenteeism.

Druck, a specialist in the psychology of men, contends that “we have grossly understudied the importance of the father/son relationship.”

In his seminars for grown-up men, Druck has them write their father’s name on the same tag they wear to identify themselves. The idea harks back to biblical times, he said, when “I would be Ken, son of Charles.”

The men talk about their fathers, discuss their relationships at home, swap stories about dads in general. “What we find out,” Druck said, “is that more than 95% of the men experience psychological or physical absenteeism in their fathers. Either their fathers were away on business, or they were away emotionally. The human side of Dad often was not available.”

The distancing meant they couldn’t turn to their fathers for answers to the intimate questions of life, Druck said: “Dad, what does it feel like to be with a woman? Do you like your job, Dad? Dad, what’s it like to be on your job for 40 years?”

As a result, Druck said, “in the absence of that, many of us turned to the media perception of men. We became John Wayne, or James Bond. There was not the reference group for us to know what it meant to be a man. We weren’t vulnerable in sharing with each other.”

Unfortunately, Druck said, recognizing the need for this relationship has not made every father’s son able to engage in it himself. “We talk a good game--’co-parenting,’ ‘sharing,’ and the like’--but many of us still are operating on the format that at some basic level the woman is emotionally responsible for the family. We don’t confront the double standards.”

At 8 o’clock on a Sunday morning, no one was expecting a huge crowd for this particular seminar. Given the topic, “Emerging Views of the Dual-Career Family,” no one should have been surprised either that those hardy souls who did make it to the meeting were almost entirely female.

Contrasting initially the notion of dual-career families with the concept of two-income families--”the difference,” said Jo-Ida Hansen of the University of Minnesota, “is career commitment.

“In the realm of research, we are in the very early stage of our knowledge about dual-career families.”

As an example of a scant-studied subject arising from the burgeoning of dual-career families, Hansen cited “the psychology of this phenomenon of commuter marriages. We have almost no information about them.”

Stressful, Complex

Counseling increasing numbers of men and women in dual-career marriages, Jim O’Neill of the University of Connecticut said he has found them to be “stressful, complex, and experiencing normative dilemmas.” Also, O’Neill said, “there are few guidelines to help these couples cope.”

“It is no secret,” Patricia Rozee-Koker of Indiana State University agreed, “that the multiple responsibilities of dual-career couples leave very little time for anything else. Because there is so little slack in this system, anything unexpected may cause conflicts.”

One thing Rozee-Koker stresses is the importance of social policies in the lives of dual-career families. “All of us are affected by social policies: income tax and child care, to name two,” Rozee-Koker said. Underlying these social policies, she said, “are values that strongly affect dual-career families.” That context may add hidden pressures to what may already be a simmering stewpot.

“To the extent that individuals remain unaware of the social context and how it relates to their lives,” Rozee-Koker said, “it will affect their well-being. They will be more likely to view their unhappiness as an internal thing, rather than looking at the broader picture, thus serving to maintain the stresses of the dual-career family.”

For example, after-school transportation may be looked at “as a personal problem--’they need to work out their schedule better,’ ” she said, “or it can be looked at as a community problem: People need to get together and organize better transportation.”

Not Easy Mix

“Seeking fulfilling careers and a stable family life isn’t easy,” said Diane Fishman, also of the University of Connecticut. “It’s almost impossible for two spouses to pursue two careers without bumping into each other.”

One major area of difficulty, Fishman said, is the dual-career family’s inevitable gender-role dilemma. “In order to make it work,” she said, “the dual-career family must deviate from traditional gender roles.”

There are other possible areas of friction: career transitions that may not coincide for a pair of working spouses; synchronizing work and education; varying degrees of career advancement; geographical decisions about careers. “These times of transition,” Fishman said, “are times of increased stress.”

Strongly committed to their careers, the partners in these dual-career families may exhibit exaggerated expectations for their marriages as well. Warned Fishman, “Superhuman strivings will only lead to frustration.”

Not Socialized

In that case, maybe reality at home simply hasn’t caught up with the reality in the work place, or vice versa. “Unfortunately,” Fishman said, “most dual-career couples are not socialized for the kind of equity a dual-career family necessitates. A loving, equitable marriage is vital.”

“We lull ourselves into thinking that a dual-career marriage is also a role-sharing marriage,” said Vanderbilt University’s Barbara Wallston. “That is not the case.”

Or, as baseball fan Hansen put it, “For me, the image of a good double-play combination comes to mind. The players at shortstop and second base may have very different personalities, but they’ve learned to work together as a team.”

Like the ballplayers, Hansen said, “the dual-career family has the potential of turning some important double plays.”