Interesting social observation.

[LadyPeter]

I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here. Just wanted to post about something I've observed for the last 6 months or so, and see if anyone knows what I'm talking about?

My midwife and hospital are extremely popular for childbirth in our area, so they have tons of patients from all different economic and educational backgrounds. From my time in the waiting room, I've noticed something really strange.

It seems like the working class (and lower) moms in the waiting rooms smile at their children a lot less, use harsher tones, or generally ignore them and treat them like nuisances. They talk on their cell phones, and generally only acknowledge their kids to swat at them or yell. While the middle class (and higher) moms tend to interact, cuddle, teach, bring books and toys, etc.

I have no idea why this would be, but it seems pretty consistent. I imagine the lower class moms are more stressed all the time about money, etc. and maybe they have less support from partners and family? That's total speculation, though. It may even be stereotyping, which I don't want to do.

But it makes me sad. It seems like those children who are interacted with and taught kindly would naturally go on to be happier, more productive adults...thus perpetuating a cycle of success for the successful ones, and failure for the rest.

Am I just misreading social cues, or is this a real thing?

[pb&j]

It's true that parents with lots of job/money/housing stress are at a disadvantage.

But good (and bad) parents occur at every point on the socioeconomic spectrum.

[boolady]

How do you know the socioeconomic status of the other patients in the waiting room? Are you basing this on appearance, dress, or some other factor?

[MissyAg94]

I think we tend to view our own class with a less critical eye than we do others. Believe me, I know plenty of middle/upper middle class moms who are not kind to or engaged with their children.

[wellyes]

That has not been my observation.

[justlearning]

FWIW, I have noticed many moms lately in our middle to upper-middle class area spending a lot of time texting while with their kids out in public instead of interacting with the kids.

[Gena]

How do you know who is working class (or lower) and who is middle class (or higher)? How are you defining these terms?



But good (and bad) parents occur at every point on the socioeconomic spectrum.

I agree with this.

[LadyPeter]

How do you know the socioeconomic status of the other patients in the waiting room? Are you basing this on appearance, dress, or some other factor?

Well, yes. I was basing it on the appearance of the mothers and children, and their voices and general demeanor. I heard one mom on her cell, talking in her gruff smoker's voice, about how she needed to "get this crotch critter out" so she could drink. Not an absolute indicator of social class, but one can guess. And I've definitely seen middle class moms be disengaged as well. This isn't an absolute decree...just a sort of general observation.

And it could be isolated to the mothers in my midwife's practice! I hope it is. In this office, it's just a little too consistent not to notice.

[chottumommy]

I have definitely noticed the differences in parenting style but not sure if it is to do with socio-economic status. I think there are mothers who put an effort into parenting and some mothers who donot. Ofcourse stresses in life affect parenting but I think it is more to do with whether you're prepared for parenthood or not.

[Green_Tea]

How do you know the socioeconomic status of the other patients in the waiting room? Are you basing this on appearance, dress, or some other factor?

I wondered the same thing.

[ett]

I have definitely noticed the differences in parenting style but not sure if it is to do with socio-economic status. I think there are mothers who put an effort into parenting and some mothers who donot.

:yeahthat: I have friends who are very involved with their kids and interact/play with them a lot and others who don't spend as much time getting down on the floor and playing with them. Some kids are better at entertaining themselves while others need more one on one time. But they're still good parents - just different parenting styles. Honestly, sometimes in the doctor's waiting room, I'm not having too much interactions with my kids either because I'm tired. I just try to make sure the kids behave and not get into trouble. :)

[hillview]

Yikes I am not at all down with this concept. I think everyone has different parenting skills at all ends of the socio economic range and on any given day might demonstrate that differently. In addition I am not at all ok with judging someone's skill or financial situation in a waiting room (and hope they are not doing this to me either).

:grouphug: since you asked :)
/hillary

[Gena]

I heard one mom on her cell, talking in her gruff smoker's voice, about how she needed to "get this crotch critter out" so she could drink. Not an absolute indicator of social class, but one can guess.

Why?

Because only mothers of a certain social class smoke?

Because only mothers of a certain social class miss being able to have a drink during pregnancy? Or only mothers of a certain social class express the desire to have a drink when they are having a rough day? (A lot of us here joke about wine bottles and twisty straws...)

Because only mothers of a certain social class refer to their children in less than flattering ways, either because they are crass or becuase they have an odd sense of humor?

It's hard to really understand someone else's situation from a brief glimpse you get in a waiting room.

[crispychicky]

This reminded me of a show I heard on npr about the Harlem's Children Zone and Geoffry Canada.

HCZ is designed to help break the poverty cycle by following kids from pre-natal care through college. One thing they do is teach the parents how to raise their kids. They studied the differences between the upbringing of kids who went to college and those from poorer families who usually dropped out of high school. I forget all the differences, but some of them included reading at least once a day to your child, giving positive feedback (the poorer kids heard something like 20x more negative things a day from their parents than the successful kids), how to sucessfully discipline, etc. It was really interesting. I never thought that there was that much difference in how kids were raised or realized how much of an impact it could have on their futures.

So, there is some truth to it. And, as PPs have pointed out, there are individual exceptions to every rule.

[LadyPeter]

Crispy Chicky, was that the story about the "Baby Colleges"? I vaguely remember this but couldn't find enough details to locate the story.

[crispychicky]

Crispy Chicky, was that the story about the "Baby Colleges"? I vaguely remember this but couldn't find enough details to locate the story.

Yes! I think that was it!

[american_mama]

Well, I will go out on a limb and say I have often observed the same thing. Flog me now. Indeed I may be wrong about the parent's "class" background. Indeed there are good and bad parents at all ends of the economic spectrum. Indeed I am biased in favor of parents most like me.

On the plus side, I often think that children raised with more harshness are often better behaved in public.... things like standing by their parent in line, being quiet, stopping whatever they are doing if their parent says stop, etc. I have envied that many times. I also think kids raised in that way question adults less, which can be good in terms of making adults feel respected, not seeming fresh, etc.

Just today I was thinking about a tangent to this (adult social class/job and attitude towards your boss). I was thinking that not rocking the boat, or even kissing up, is important if you are in a very replaceable job. You do what it takes to survive. If you as a parent think your life and possibly your child's has necessitated a lot of accepting the pecking order, you might naturally teach your child to respect and accept that pecking order in order to thrive within it. Or if you think your child will experience a lot of harshness or unfairness in life, you may be a bit harsher on them to prepare them.

I remember reading about this in sociology class in college, so I did some googling. I didn't find exactly what I expected, but it appears that parenting style and social class is a ripe topic for academic research. Here is an excerpt from the online Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development about the how authoritative parenting style orrelates with better child outcomes (as opposed to authoritarian or permissive), http://www.enfant-encyclopedie.com/Pages/PDF/BornsteinANGxp.pdf:

"Even though these kinds of results appear to be robust, their applicability across cultures and environments is questionable. Many studies focus on white, middle-class children and families, but children with different ethnic/racial/cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds may fare better under different types of guidance. .. While some research has suggested that more authoritarian parenting styles may be necessary in high-risk areas (neighborhoods), other research has shown continued benefits of authoritative parenting.

... It is difficulty to escape social pressures that judge some parenting styles to be better, usually those that reflect the dominant culture. Authoritarian parenting, which is generally linked to less positive child social outcomes, tends to be more prevalent among ethnic minorities. In Asian ethnic families, authoritarian parenting is linked to positive social outcomes and academic success, due in part to parenting goals and training specific to Asian-origin families."

Here is an article that gets a little closer to answering why parenting styles may differ by class: http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/ndarling/lab/psychbull.pdf. I only read the first page, but found it interesting.

[Karinyc]

I don't want to speak on behalf of the OP, but I think she's aware that it's only an observation and a broad generalization. I've worked for over 14 years with parents from broad socioeconomic backgrounds, and yes, I can attest to her comments about gruff (to say the least) parenting "styles". Sadly, I've seen a lot of neglect and rough treatment of youth. For many parents it's a tragic cycle. I do believe socioeconomics variables factor into the equation. From my experience, financial difficulties, poor education, lack of support from family & community, lack of resources, and abuse (from partners/family) all can lead to detrimental behavior in parenting. Obviously, not every individual that encounters these circumstances fall into the category of poor parenting. I know many exemplary single teen moms. I also know many young adults who have come from these backgrounds and have perservered and are well-adjusted and happy. I think that families on the lower socioeconomic rung are more at risk. And I say this as someone with personal experience.

At times, you can't help but shake your head & hurt a little for the kids on the receiving end (no matter what their background is).To the OP, FWIW, I really didn't get a judgemental tone from your post. You're just sharing your thoughts.

[american_mama]

>> about how she needed to "get this crotch critter out" so she could drink

While that would probably appall me to hear in public, I think that would be a very funny expression and rationale in a private conversation. "Crotch critter" is a new one to me; it seems deliberately offensive and therefore funny, like "rug rat." But not for public conversation and definitely not in the midwife's office!

[Karinyc]

On the plus side, I often think that children raised with more harshness are often better behaved in public.... things like standing by their parent in line, being quiet, stopping whatever they are doing if their parent says stop, etc. I have envied that many times. I also think kids raised in that way question adults less, which can be good in terms of making adults feel respected, not seeming fresh, etc.

Not necessarily. Maybe in public with the parent/guardian...but not in social settings without those individuals. There are two factors that always stand out to me of kids that've been raised/treated with more harshness....fear and anger. They always react to some challenging (or not so challenging) situation with (extreme) fear and/or anger. I think a lot of people mistake fear for respect ...

[weech]

I have to agree as well, based on personal experience. My extended family happens to be in a different socioeconomic class than me (and the one I was raised in) and I am always appalled by how they raise their children. They constantly talk to their children like they're animals, don't pay attention to them, give "beatings," etc. My baby shower was book-themed (because I'm a librarian!) and everyone was supposed to bring their favorite children's book. My entire extended family refused because "books are stupid."

These are my family members and I love them dearly, but I've seen this happen my entire life. I will never, EVER let my grandmother babysit my son because of how she would treat him (she regularly babysits my cousin's kids). None of them really mean any harm, it's just the style they grew up with and are now using with their own kids.

That said, there are always exceptions!

[Aarohismom]

Honestly, sometimes in the doctor's waiting room, I'm not having too much interactions with my kids either because I'm tired. I just try to make sure the kids behave and not get into trouble. :)
:yeahthat:

[american_mama]

>> It seems like those children who are interacted with and taught kindly would naturally go on to be happier, more productive adults...thus perpetuating a cycle of success for the successful ones, and failure for the rest.

That is my goal, both for parenting behavior and end results for my children. But I can spin it differently:

What if you think that your child's personal happiness, now or later, just doesn't matter that much? Your goal might not be to raise happy children, but responsible, obedient ones who get good jobs, live close to home, take care of you their parent in old age, and the heck with whether that makes them happy or not.

What if you raise your child in an environment that is very un-safe? Your child's safety might rely very heavily on them being obedient... not going into X drawer of the house, not talking loud if X is home and drunk, staying away from X corner, coming in at X time at night. What if you think the people around your child demonstrate too much pursuit of happiness, too much leniency? You might go the opposite extreme, and your child might thrive and arrive at a happy medium.

Just two examples. I don't think all parents have the same expectations for their kids. And I think you can sometimes get positive results with children from completely divergent methods.

[DrSally]

I agree that there are bad/good parenting practices on every part of the socioeconomic spectrum. I don't think the OP was making absolute, blanket statements, just a trend she's observed. There is research to suggest that in times of resource scarcity, mothers (I'm sorry, I can't remember if this was with chimps or humans or both) are more likely to behave in ways that promote insecure attachment (dismissive, harsh, etc). Insecure attachment is also related to less optimal parenting styles (authoritarian or permissive), where as secure attachment is related to the more desired authoritative parenting styles, like American Mama described. These are just things that come to the top of my head, so I don't have citations or anything. I've seen amazingly loving, attentive parents with very little money and dismissive harsh parents with a lot of money, so I don't think this is a rule of thumb, but maybe a weak trend?

[maestramommy]

Originally Posted by american_mama http://www.windsorpeak.com/vbulletin/images/buttons2/viewpost.gif (http://www.windsorpeak.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2847208#post2847208)
On the plus side, I often think that children raised with more harshness are often better behaved in public.... things like standing by their parent in line, being quiet, stopping whatever they are doing if their parent says stop, etc. I have envied that many times. I also think kids raised in that way question adults less, which can be good in terms of making adults feel respected, not seeming fresh, etc.



Not necessarily. Maybe in public with the parent/guardian...but not in social settings without those individuals. There are two factors that always stand out to me of kids that've been raised/treated with more harshness....fear and anger. They always react to some challenging (or not so challenging) situation with (extreme) fear and/or anger. I think a lot of people mistake fear for respect ...

Well, as someone who was raised in an authoritative environment, I would say both of these sentiments are true, although it's not as simple as the statements. I did/do not always react to a challenging situation with fear or anger, not even most of the time. However, I would say that in the past I did tend to avoid certain challenging situations. Probably my upbringing made me less likely to try new/different things. I probably also had trouble thinking for myself as a tween and teen. And I didn't feel a fully sense of autonomy until I got married. Other people who grew up as I did may have had different outcomes of course. A lot of it probably depends on the personality of the individual.

My parents were VERY strict with us growing up, some might say harsh. But NEVER in public. Because they were too afraid of embarrassing themselves in such a manner. But I would also say that my siblings and I were extremely well behaved in almost all public situations, with or without parents, including school, for the same reason. We didn't want to embarrass ourselves in front of a lot of people.

[luckytwenty]

When my youngest was a baby, I lived in a city where one street was ghetto, the next was all upscale brownstones, and we went to a pediatrician who saw kids from all walks of life--and I have to say, I don't think the OP's generalization was completely bogus. Of course moms of all backgrounds can be either kind and loving or rude and brusque, but there was a lot more smoking, cursing, spanking and even orange soda in baby bottles among the moms who were very young (teens) and stressed and clearly not educated or well to do. I often heard moms tell toddlers to shut the F up, and the amount of smacking going on still makes me cringe when I think about it.

Now OF COURSE not all the moms were like that. And OF COURSE I also know several moms who are quite wealthy who act like their kids are a nuisance and that life would be so much easier if only they didn't have children. And while they know better than to tell a child to shut the F up, a disgusted look of disapproval can be just as damaging.

But in any case, I agree with the OP that it's a sad cycle. Someone who is stressed, overwhelmed and not emotionally prepared for parenting has lower odds of being the kind of warm, nurturing parent than a 30-40 something Ivy League grad who spent a fortune on several rounds of IVF to finally get a child she treasures, applied her years of education to pregnancy and parenting by reading every book and website available in English, and just has the wherewithall to make her kid(s) her top priority emotionally and financially. Two extreme ends of the spectrum, yes, but I don't think the OP is being unfair about this, and indeed, it's really an upsetting cycle.

[egoldber]

I grew up where the OP describes as her location, so I have no trouble imagining exactly what she is describing.


Your goal might not be to raise happy children, but responsible, obedient ones who get good jobs, live close to home, take care of you their parent in old age, and the heck with whether that makes them happy or not.

What if you raise your child in an environment that is very un-safe? Your child's safety might rely very heavily on them being obedient... not going into X drawer of the house, not talking loud if X is home and drunk, staying away from X corner, coming in at X time at night.

I think this is an excellent descriptor of my own upbringing and what I see being played out in my extended family. My mother to this day just cannot imagine that there are jobs where you are free to essentially come and go as you please, that disagreeing with colleagues is actually considered a good thing and where a sense of independence and autonomy are valued. We were raised to be strictly obedient in part to protect us from my father's anger. But also because both my parents sincerely believed that this was how you had to behave in order to be successful.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

But in any case, I agree with the OP that it's a sad cycle. Someone who is stressed, overwhelmed and not emotionally prepared for parenting has lower odds of being the kind of warm, nurturing parent than a 30-40 something Ivy League grad who spent a fortune on several rounds of IVF to finally get a child she treasures, applied her years of education to pregnancy and parenting by reading every book and website available in English, and just has the wherewithall to make her kid(s) her top priority emotionally and financially. Two extreme ends of the spectrum, yes, but I don't think the OP is being unfair about this, and indeed, it's really an upsetting cycle.

:yeahthat:

i have to agree. it's a sad cycle. and it's not really about socioeconomic status per se, but more with education level & maturity. parents who are educated and emotionally prepared to have kids have a greater chance of being able to nurture & provide for their kids than those who are not.

of course, i don't think u can always assume a random person's education level just by looking at them. but i get what the OP means. i hate it when in certain neighborhoods or in certain places (Social Security office, DMV office, on public transportation, etc) i am subjected to watching parents practically beat and swear at their young children in public. i mean, if they do that in public, i can't imagine what they do in private at home.

[Minnifer]

This reminds me, a while back I read a fascinating book called Limbo: Blue Collar Roots, White Collar Dreams. It's about the generation that moves between their blue collar/working class parents/families and the white collar world and the disconnect they can often feel between the two worlds. I recall a lot of discussion around the differences in how kids are brought up - for example, "The parent who stresses obedience over curiosity is championing the values of the working class, and helping to keep their kids in it." (to the parent, not a bad thing). I do think there can be differences in child rearing depending on socioeconomic status but I don't think it's necessarily fair to judge that from the prism of a different group - some of these posts are coming across to me as rather elitist and condescending (as in, oh the poor downtrodden masses and their woeful parenting skills).

[weech]

This reminds me, a while back I read a fascinating book called Limbo: Blue Collar Roots, White Collar Dreams. It's about the generation that moves between their blue collar/working class parents/families and the white collar world and the disconnect they can often feel between the two worlds. I recall a lot of discussion around the differences in how kids are brought up - for example, "The parent who stresses obedience over curiosity is championing the values of the working class, and helping to keep their kids in it." (to the parent, not a bad thing). I do think there can be differences in child rearing depending on socioeconomic status but I don't think it's necessarily fair to judge that from the prism of a different group - some of these posts are coming across to me as rather elitist and condescending (as in, oh the poor downtrodden masses and their woeful parenting skills).

That sounds very interesting! Very similar to my situation with my family... the disconnect can be huge at times and sometimes causes problems with our relationships.

[Minnifer]

That sounds very interesting! Very similar to my situation with my family... the disconnect can be huge at times and sometimes causes problems with our relationships.

It was - I would totally recommend it! It explained so much of what I had felt/experienced growing up and in my life - was really helpful!

[boltfam]

It's true that parents with lots of job/money/housing stress are at a disadvantage.

But good (and bad) parents occur at every point on the socioeconomic spectrum.

:yeahthat: Well said.

[maestramommy]

This reminds me, a while back I read a fascinating book called Limbo: Blue Collar Roots, White Collar Dreams. It's about the generation that moves between their blue collar/working class parents/families and the white collar world and the disconnect they can often feel between the two worlds. I recall a lot of discussion around the differences in how kids are brought up - for example, "The parent who stresses obedience over curiosity is championing the values of the working class, and helping to keep their kids in it." (to the parent, not a bad thing). I do think there can be differences in child rearing depending on socioeconomic status but I don't think it's necessarily fair to judge that from the prism of a different group - some of these posts are coming across to me as rather elitist and condescending (as in, oh the poor downtrodden masses and their woeful parenting skills).

I would also posit that these values are common in other cultures and families who are NOT working class, and whose parents have no desire to see their kids end up in working class.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I went on job interviews as a nanny in the SFBA, and let me say plenty of the upper middle class and up mothers living in 5 million dollar homes wanted FULL-TIME nannies so they could shop, play tennis and lunch with friends. After a few of those interviews I told my agency no non-working "SAHM", they straight up made me very annoyed. It seemed like the kids were like little trophies they would take off shelves to dust and look at, but VERY little interaction.

There are good and bad people at all levels.

[luckytwenty]

I went on job interviews as a nanny in the SFBA, and let me say plenty of the upper middle class and up mothers living in 5 million dollar homes wanted FULL-TIME nannies so they could shop, play tennis and lunch with friends. After a few of those interviews I told my agency no non-working "SAHM", they straight up made me very annoyed. It seemed like the kids were like little trophies they would take off shelves to dust and look at, but VERY little interaction.

There are good and bad people at all levels.

I agree, and I know women like that. I do think that people can be crappy parents in more than one way, though. And I do find it a bit less forgivable when someone comes from a culture where it's hard not to trip over all the info on "how to be a good parent" out there and they would just rather go shopping than when someone doesn't have the luxury to make "creating a nurturing environment" a priority because safety/getting food on the table are so much more pressing. It worries me when I see a baby in the front seat on someone's lap or a 12 month old drinking soda, but I also think it can be just as bad, if not worse, to grow up being financially spoiled but emotionally deprived.

[MamaSnoo]

I think it is really hard to assess a parenting or child-parent relationship in a brief period of time in a setting like a Dr. office waiting room. Going to the Dr. is stressful for many people, and that may affect their behavior. Some people (across socioeconomic strata, IMO) view drs. as authority figures and worry that if their kids are disruptive at the doctors, it will reflect poorly on the parents.

I also think it can be hard to tell someone's SES by their appearance only. There are certainly days when I am well groomed and look like the upper-middle class person that I am. There are other days when I might run into target in old sweats, a torn t-shirt, with wet hair from swim class, and my SES might not be so obvious. Until a few month ago, I drove a 10 year old car with a few good size dents in it; it certainly did not reflect the stereotype for my SES.

Plus, kids are variable. I am sure there have been times when DD has been exceptionally trying in a public place (I am thinking back to our last Ikea trip) where I have appeared harsh to an outsider. Even really good parents get frustrated sometimes with young kids. I am not trying to justify slapping or cussing at toddlers by any means...I just wanted to point out that it is hard to judge the balance of a given parent-child relationship on 1 observation.

I am fortunate to know plenty of people across the spectrum of SES, and I have observed (what I considered) good and bad parenting techniques across the board. I am suspicous that our parenting skills reflect more on the ways that we were parented, than on our SES. Not that we always mirror our own parents, but that we are seriously influenced by our own parents (i.e., I do it like that because my mom did, or I want to be like my mom when she...., or I do not want to.....because my mom did and it was hurtful to me, etc).

I think I am rambling...so I will stop.

[KHF]

Not sure what part of KY the OP is in, but in my area I have definitely noticed this. As with anything else, there are exceptions, but sadly it is very obvious where I am. I have also seen the trophy child example from a PP though, where the very well-off have dispatched their children to the care of others to play tennis, golf, etc. all day, every day.

Though, since I WOH, I'm sure some people think I do that as well. My evenings and weekends are devoted to family time though.

[daisymommy]

I think the whole thing is a tangled web.

A family background of not finishing school, leads to low paying jobs, possibly working 2 or more jobs, not getting to see your kids, they're being raised by someone else so you can work, not getting a higher education usually corresponds with not reading a stack of the latest parenting books and research articles on the web. Also, if this is how the last several generations of your family was as well, you have no model for how to do things differently, how to raise your kids differently, and how to do better. It's just "normal" for you. And thus the cycle continues.

It's very sad, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[twowhat?]

I've noticed this too. Most often late at night at Walmart, when parents are dragging their overtired babies and toddlers to get groceries, trying to make them drink a bottle of soda, or yelling or beating to get them to stop crying, etc. I get the PPs who say it's unfair to judge socioeconomic status from appearance...but at the same time it's sort of something that I can't help doing, especially when I compare my Walmart trips during the workday to my Walmart trips at night. The people in the store at those times are like apples and oranges.

And yeah, I think it's sad that it's a vicious cycle. My mom says she has to keep crackers in her classroom, for the pre-K kids who get sent to school with no breakfast. That's right. They go to school hungry. On a regular basis:(

[smilequeen]

I don't think this is way off base either. I do think that social research proves the basic theory here. Of COURSE there are many exceptions, but this is the basic trend, although I do think things are based more on education level/stress level than straight up socioeconomic status. I spent many years working with primarily low income children. I saw A LOT of very very sad situations in that time. I also saw a decent number of awesome loving parents. The number of sad situations was extremely high compared to the time I spent working in a high end practice though.

[Sillygirl]

I think it's a pretty accurate generalization. I think it's "Freakonomics" that quotes studies of parents from different socioeconomic backgrounds and how they interact with their children. Poorer children are exposed to a LOT less language at home, by almost an order of magnitude. It's thought to be a large factor in the achievement gap.

I think we don't do anyone any favors by instantly dismissing generalizations based on class. Neither is it right to assume that a generalization holds true for every single member of that class. But without looking frankly into root causes, we'll never be able to make any changes.

[dcmom2b3]

I think this is a complicated question, one that I'm not qualified to answer. OP, I would, however, ask you to consider whether your sample is skewed in favor of your observations of the middle class.

If I may indulge in generalizations: "middle" class mom at a midwife says to me "progressive, attachment-parenting committed, dubious of the medical industial complex" mom. You know, like us here. :D

I daresay there's a whole lot of middle and upper SES moms who you're not seeing, and whose parenting styles aren't up for public scrutiny, by you, or by anyone (and by their absence, forming the basis for our shared generalizations) simply because they don't have to parent in public. They're not travelling via public transit, can afford sitters/nannies for OB/midwife appts, errands, tennis, what-have-you.

It's a matter of degree, for sure, but with that much information missing, I'd be wary of drawing conclusions.

[Katigre]

It is well-documented that parenting styles and approaches to children are different between socio-economic statuses (obviously there are exceptions - but what is important to remember when discussion social trends and sociology is that it is the study of GROUPS, not individuals). The American idea that we're a classless society or that there aren't divisions between people is popular but untrue. Not every group in the US has the same values toward parenting or parents the same - that's not discriminatory, sociologists have been studying it for decades.

One book on the topic that I recently read is this: Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life (http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Childhoods-Class-Race-Family/dp/0520239504/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284079856&sr=8-1) I highly recommend reading it. She emphasizes that all the parents she studied loved their children, wished them well, wanted them to succeed - it's not a matter of intent but rather tools, values and practice that led to differences in how children are raised and their educational/social outcomes (the focus of the book). The author proposes that there are two broad approaches to parenting that divide between poor/working class and middle/upper middle class. Each approach has both advantages and disadvantages for the children - she doesn't judge one as superior and one as inferior which I appreciated.

1. Natural Development: Lower SES approach. Children's basic needs (food/clothes/shelter/medical care) are the parents' responsibility. Actively engaging in the child's personal play, intentionally fostering cognitive development, etc... are not a core part of parenting. Kids are responsible for their own play and their own entertainment. Pro's: Closer kin ties, less stress on children (none of the 'hurried/anxious/overscheduled child' syndrome), more freedom for children. Con's: Less parental involvement which has negative consequences for education - parents see a divide between professionals (doctors, teachers, 'the establishment') and themselves and don't navigate the system as equals to those in charge. Children don't have as many skills for navigating middle class norms (which are the norms for much of our society so it makes things more challenging for them as adults).

2. Concerted Cultivation: The middle/upper middle class approach - reads the 'experts', tries to make sure their children's emotional/cognitive/intellectual needs are met as equally as their physical needs. Takes on responsibility for much more of the child's experiences in life (middle class parents enroll their children in activities for their 'social life' and to give them a head start in sports/education/music/art. Lower SES parents view those as largely unnecessary, children's social time is spent playing with friends/family nearby instead and is not managed by adults in the same way at all). Pro's: Prepared for college and professional jobs, lots of enriching experiences, educational advantages, parental involvement in their lives. Con's: Entitlement issues, low ties to extended family, stressed children who are in too many activities, not as much autonomy to choose their own leisure time, may be micromanaged by parents.

I am middle/upper middle class with a high degree of education, high literacy, and a professional job. I live in a poor/working class neighborhood (88% of the students at our local elementary school are low income, 66% are from non-English speaking homes where many parents do not have a high school diploma, and there is quite a bit of Section 8 housing in our neighborhood). I don't know anyone else in my neighborhood who has attended college, they work hard but do manual labor or service industry professions. I love our neighborhood - the families are great, the neighbors are kind, it's a good place to live :).

We have two libraries in our district. One that encompasses many neighborhoods like mine and has a mix of different ethnicities and social classes utilizing its services, and the other is in a middle/upper middle class area that is almost exclusively white. When I go to the middle/upper middle class region library, I am always shocked at the difference in parenting approach between the two social groups - it is very VERY obvious the class differences (even though all the parents are loving and caring - they're bringing their kids to the library to play). The middle class parents are always talking with their children, interacting with them as equal people, intentionally cultivating their play and observations and relationships. It is an approach that I have never, ever seen a family in my neighborhood take - though they are dedicated, involved, loving parents. The amount of verbal interaction middle class parents engage in without thinking is not present in the lower SES homes simply because the PARENTS do not have the vocabulary and verbal skills themselves to pass them on to their children (or wouldn't consider it one of the most important things to focus on). My neighbors are great parents, very loving, but their conversations with their girls are instructions and responses, not long conversations about the girls' observations/thoughts/feelings/experiences like I have in my home with my children.

The biggest divide seems to be over language and education - simply put, middle class and upper middle class parents typically have vocabularies that are much MUCH larger than poor/working class parents which leads to a more verbal parenting style - this is one big reason (IMO) that middle/upper middle class parents are the least likely to use corporal punishment (both b/c they value verbal negotiating and teach it to their children, and also because they tend to rely on 'expert opinions' on what is beneficial/harmful to children and currently that says to avoid physical discipline). The educational differences are also significant in ramification for approach to these issues (why do I instinctively think that consulting a book or article by an 'expert' is a reasonable way to figure out how to parent? why do my neighbors have very few books in their home and I have hundreds? Why do people I know of lower SES comment on my DS's 'large vocabulary' and act as if it is something unusual while my friends who are middle/upper SES have never commented on it?

So yes I think your observations are valid and it goes back to different factors that affect people's view of children/parenting and also their own set of skills and abilities. And IMO it is also pretty easy to identify people's Socio-Economic Status (social class) through observation and conversation - overhearing a few conversations (the amount of grammar errors in spoken speech along with word choices in speech), physical appearance (clothing/fashion accessories/hair style/teeth appearance (straight vs. crooked? any missing? metal work vs. tooth-colored work in front?)), demeanor when interacting with office staff, what the children are wearing/eating/drinking, and even the baby accessories they use all help to identify what background someone is from. (I have a bit of a sociology background and am a dedicated people-watcher so I can't really imagine how it would be possible to mix up different SES given a chance to observe, maybe also because I live and work with different SES groups).

[JBaxter]

I know exactly what the OP is talking about. Any given time I go to the peds office the same thing occurs. My OBs dont take any type of medical cards so everyone there is middle-ish class

[Karinyc]

I think we don't do anyone any favors by instantly dismissing generalizations based on class. Neither is it right to assume that a generalization holds true for every single member of that class. But without looking frankly into root causes, we'll never be able to make any changes.

A huge :yeahthat:

[resipsaloquitur]

:yeahthat:
I think it's a pretty accurate generalization. I think it's "Freakonomics" that quotes studies of parents from different socioeconomic backgrounds and how they interact with their children. Poorer children are exposed to a LOT less language at home, by almost an order of magnitude. It's thought to be a large factor in the achievement gap.

I think we don't do anyone any favors by instantly dismissing generalizations based on class. Neither is it right to assume that a generalization holds true for every single member of that class. But without looking frankly into root causes, we'll never be able to make any changes.

:yeahthat:

[Sillygirl]

Katigre, thank you for typing all that out. It was very interesting to read and I appreciate the sociology mini-lesson. Great post!

[Gena]

It is well-documented that parenting styles and approaches to children are different between socio-economic statuses (obviously there are exceptions - but what is important to remember when discussion social trends and sociology is that it is the study of GROUPS, not individuals.

That is correct, sociology is the study of groups not individuals. And it is true that different groups have different values and different ways of parenting. But you cannot take general findings about differences in groups and apply them to individuals with whom you have minimal contact and minimal knowledge of their specific circumstances, such as indivuals in a waiting room. This is where the problem lies.


(I have a bit of a sociology background and am a dedicated people-watcher so I can't really imagine how it would be possible to mix up different SES given a chance to observe, maybe also because I live and work with different SES groups).

I have a bit of a sociology background as well (a bachelors degree and some post-graduate work - I "dropped out" of my PhD program when I realized that many of my professors were largely removed from the society they were studying). I disagree with the idea that you can be certain of someone's social class just by observation.

Social class is an artificial construct with several different models. Even if you look at just the empirical approaches to class (i.e. leave aside the analytical models of Marx, Weber, and others), there is still no consensus of where one class ends and another begins. Some models only consider income and education; others include job function, level of autonomy, and amount of liesure time as well as other factors. And many models have gaps in their descriptions of the classes, so individuals may not fall squarely into one class or another.

Additionally, class is fluid. We are currently in an uncertain economy. Families who have been "middle class" may find themselves with a slashed income due to job loss, debt crisis, or other financial problems. The traditional "American Dream" is that through hard work and opportunity you can climb up the class structure. This was never really accurate. But right now the reality is that many families find themselves sliding down that structure instead. The well-educated parent with good teeth, grammar skills, and nice clothes may now be shopping at the thrift store, receiving unemployment, visiting the local food pantry, and stressed out about the bills that are piling up.

So no, I do not think that you can determine a person's SES just though casual observation. Of course the idea that America is a classless society is untrue, but so is the idea that social classes are easily determined.

[Katigre]

there is still no consensus of where one class ends and another begins. Some models only consider income and education; others include job function, level of autonomy, and amount of liesure time as well as other factors. And many models have gaps in their descriptions of the classes, so individuals may not fall squarely into one class or another.
Right. No disagreement there - IMO there is a social spectrum rather than black and white lines dividing sharp categories, and how you demarcate those categories can differ a bit according to the criteria used (the things that you listed). But I think that when you have observations of multiple types of information and behaviors about a person it is possible to group them (the info/behaviors) into one category (or to say "these aspects remind of of X category though those aspects are more Z category).

I don't think the OP was judging based on one office visit, but rather over time being in the same waiting room with lots of people she's observing certain categories of parenting behavior that go with certain other patterns of behavior/dress/speech and is trying to see how/if they fit together - and I would make the case that they often (not always) do. I didn't read her as wanting to peg a particular person as 'low SES = bad parenting' but rather asking if the GROUP of people she is observing on a regular basis has some common factors in terms of approach to child rearing and I would argue that this is the case - not 100% for each person, not 100% for each family, but overall trends in different social groups that have been observed and documented over time in our society.


Additionally, class is fluid.
Absolutely - both my familly and DH's family attest to that as they have moved from working class to middle class in the course of a single generation. I don't think anyone would argue that 'upbringing is destiny' or that we have a rigid caste system in the US - I certainly don't believe that. But that being said - I think it is still possible to categorize patterns of social behavior and such, otherwise there would be no point to studying these things IMO.

[dms619]

I grew up in the suburbs of NYC in an upper middle class area. My parents worked hard and we were raised without any "wants", more or less.

I'm now running our family business. Our receptionist (age 42) grew up in the neighborhood (Brooklyn, NY), had her first child at 15, dropped out of high school had her second DS at 22. Different dads, basically no support, never really traveled outside of her neighborhood, doesn't drive, younger son has ADD (have heard her refer to him as so "f'ing stupid") and he has been left back twice. Older son just got out of the military and is sleeping on her couch (with his girlfriend).

Appalled, right?

Well I used to think so. But she grew up in the projects. Mother was a drug addict, father died in prison. She was one of five children - twins died in a apt fire and one died of "crib death". Her surviving brother is a drug addict.

You know what....she's come a long way from where she started. She got a GED, earned a BS from a local community college, raised both of her kids w/o any help or public assistance.

I could see her in that waiting room.....and make the same conclusions. You never know.

[Katigre]

I grew up in the suburbs of NYC in an upper middle class area. My parents worked hard and we were raised without any "wants", more or less.

I'm now running our family business. Our receptionist (age 42) grew up in the neighborhood (Brooklyn, NY), had her first child at 15, dropped out of high school had her second DS at 22. Different dads, basically no support, never really traveled outside of her neighborhood, doesn't drive, younger son has ADD (have heard her refer to him as so "f'ing stupid") and he has been left back twice. Older son just got out of the military and is sleeping on her couch (with his girlfriend).

Appalled, right?

Well I used to think so. But she grew up in the projects. Mother was a drug addict, father died in prison. She was one of five children - twins died in a apt fire and one died of "crib death". Her surviving brother is a drug addict.

You know what....she's come a long way from where she started. She got a GED, earned a BS from a local community college, raised both of her kids w/o any help or public assistance.

I could see her in that waiting room.....and make the same conclusions. You never know.
The conclusion that she was of lower SES? That would be accurate based on what you wrote - and is not a value judgment of how much she has overcome and the good things she is doing with her life.

[Gena]

The conclusion that she was of lower SES? That would be accurate based on what you wrote.

Not necessarily.

The lady in question has a college degree and a pink collar/office job. Based on these facts many SES models would place her in the range of middle class rather than working class. Therefore, if you are going to differentiate parenting styles on the basis of "working class or lower" and "middle class or higher" (as the OP wrote), she would appear to not fit the pattern described in the literature.

[Katigre]

Not necessarily.

The lady in question has a college degree and a pink collar/office job. Based on these facts many SES models would place her in the range of middle class rather than working class. Therefore, if you are going to differentiate parenting styles on the basis of "working class or lower" and "middle class or higher" (as the OP wrote), she would appear to not fit the pattern described in the literature.
Disagree, I think you're splitting hairs here. When we're talking about evaluating socio-economic status we're talking about many facets of someone's life experience.

No one would take just the two limited questions you asked and make a judgement without qualifications. 'Do they have a college degree?' Yes (as if this is an equivalent middle class experience across the board without taking into account the manner in which it was earned and how the participant experienced it).

* My upper-middle class experience - high school diploma, parents (with college degrees) paid into a college fund that covered 4 years of private college from age 18-22, I earned a partial scholarship through academic merit, worked on campus to have spending money but had no financial worries. Degree resulted in employment as an educator (I work in the ABE department of our local community college which houses the GED and adult ESL divisions). The balance of my college fund was mine upon graduation which meant no debt and a nice nest egg for saving for the future.

* DH's upwardly mobile working class experience - high school diploma, parents (without college degrees) wanted their child to attend college but had limited knowledge of how higher educations worked, limited financial support and no college fund. DH had to figure it out as he went along, finances were a constant struggle, DH split his time between community and 4 year college while working the night shift at a gas station (incredibly stressful, ended up taking longer to graduate because of it, graduated with some student loan debt). His college experience ultimately resulted in a professional job as a computer administrator.

* My mom's working class experience - high school diploma, no one in her family had ever attended college (father was a machinist at a factory, mother was a typist before becoming a SAHM in the 1950's). Mom never planned to go to college until a high school boyfriend encouraged her and helped her apply, she was only able to attend college because she received a scholarship that paid her tuition as long as she got a degree in Special Education and taught in the state for several years after graduating. While there she also met and married my dad (raised upper middle class). Her parents were happy for her to go to college but couldn't provide financial support and it wasn't an expectation that she had to go - and if she had not received that scholarship she could not have gone. She didn't have freedom to choose her major due to the scholarship constraints and graduated with some student loan debt.

* dms619's receptionist's upwardly mobile from poverty to working class experience: Dropped out of high school, went back and earned her GED, worked her way through community college on her own as an adult while single parenting. Her degree helped her secure a job as a receptionist for a family business.

Ultimately for all four of us a college degree brought about greater economic opportunities, but the process of earning it definitely reflects different social experiences born out of different SES statuses of our families of origin that we carried on into our own lives.

'What type of work do they do?' (and at what age). Receptionist is categorized as a 'low-status' professional level job anyway (pink collar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink-collar_worker) (wiki article), as Gena labeled it.) - typically not held by people who are highly trained/highly skilled, and someone who is older and holds that position (vs. someone just out of school) is even more likely to not have as much professional experience.

Even with the two narrow conditions you specified, her experiences are more working class and not middle class which would place her into a lower SES category. [Which again, is not a value judgment of her as a person, her work ethic, her character, etc... It's a description of social groupings and their characteristics]

[Minnifer]

Even with the two narrow conditions you specified, her experiences are more working class and not middle class which would place her into a lower SES category.

Wait, when did working class become automatically distinct from middle class? For example, many would consider police officers working class/blue collar (my father was one), but often still solidly middle class (our family was). To me the former term relates to the type of work that is done and to some degree the educational requirements to do it, and the latter to earnings, lifestyle, etc.

[Katigre]

Wait, when did working class become automatically distinct from middle class? For example, many would consider police officers working class/blue collar (my father was one), but often still solidly middle class (our family was), in terms of earnings, lifestyle, etc.
That's why I believe that it's a continuum vs. absolute black and white distinctions. Classes blend into each other as you move across the spectrum. DH was raised straddling both working and middle class (his parents approached parenting from a hybrid model of the two categories I described on the previous page). Many families have characteristics of multiple classes (like yours above) which is why Gena mentioned that classifying isn't an exact science - depends on the criteria that you use. I agree with that.

But there are also limits - I don't think you'd argue that growing up your experience was upper middle class, I would not argue that my growing up experience was working class, and my point with the receptionist example was that I don't see any way to say "her life experience and current status is middle class" even though she has a community college degree and works in an office (since those two characteristics can be found in both the working and middle class).

(And on that note I'm going to finish watching Top Chef's Finale and depart from this thread, I don't want to derail the thread anymore than I already have). :)

[LadyPeter]

Wow, thanks to everyone for their really intelligent, thoughtful contributions! I appreciate those who were able to understand the intent of my question, no matter how clumsily I may have phrased it. :grouphug:

[Gena]

Disagree, I think you're splitting hairs here. When we're talking about evaluating socio-economic status we're talking about many facets of someone's life experience.

No one would take just the two limited questions you asked and make a judgement without qualifications.

It's not splitting hairs. It's a point about the limitiations of SES categories as a research tool. It's also a difference bewteen qualitave and quantitative research methods.

In qualitative research you can take a person's whole life experience and family history into account. You can look at these facets in detail and approach SES as a continuum. With this approach it's easier to place the lady in question in the "working class" category, but probably more appropriate to view her as the cusp between working class and lower middle class.

In quanitiative research you look at the hard facts like income, education level, job classification and SES is characterized as discrete categories. In this case, the receptionist is likely to be placed in the middle class or lower middle class category (depending on the model used and her income level). When sociologists who study large populations determine SES, they use a quanitiative model. For example, if researchers want to study the SES distribution of a metropolitan area, they are going to use quantitative data. They are not going to take the social history of everyone in the area.

Both qualitiative and quanitiative research have advantages and disadvantages. Qualitative research lets you get a fuller picture of an individual, but the scope is more limited. Quantitative research can look at a larger population with a broader range, but gives you less detail and you miss the fine distinctions between cases.

Qualitative data is great for illustrating concepts, but it is not conclusive to a larger population. The book you cited earlier is a good example. It's an ethnography of 12 families. This a very limited population, but allows for indepth study. However, I do think it's problematic that the author uses these 12 cases as a basis for arguing that there are 2 parenting styles in America and these are differentiated by social class. What works well as an illustration does not suffice as a broad generalization.



And IMO it is also pretty easy to identify people's Socio-Economic Status (social class) through observation and conversation

But you've just said that SES is a function of multi-faceted life experience. So no, you cannot identify someone'e SES through casual conversation. Maybe you're good at guessing it. Maybe you're 90% accurate. But you will never know if a specific individual is in the 10% you are wrong about. You cannot take generalizations of group phenomena and think that gives you insight into a specific individual (or even several specific indivduals) you observe in the waiting room, the supermarket, the park or wherever.

[sste]

I haven't had time to read all responses but I think to the extent you are talking about level of education there is in fact data suggesting that more educated people (hs graduates and even more so college graduates) interact with children in a more open-ended, illustrative, teaching manner rather than a more directive manner. As a *generalization* that holds true when you average many parents in these different groups.

But, I would be surprised if that was affected by actual dollars and cents earned per year (income) except to the extent that a parent was not receiving breaks, support, etc.

I also agree with dcmom that upper middle class parents get to parent in private. I know for myself I have a REAL problem with always trying to multi-task when I am with DS or "move him onto the next thing." In fact, I love going out in public with him because it removes me from my home/home office and forces me to just concentrate on DS. I am super-affectionate and interactive with DS in public because I love the experience of having my focus just be on him- - undoubtedly I appear a better parent than I actually am.