As in many heterosexual relationships, the woman tends to assign duties and responsibilities. In the case of Bessy and Bart, each partner had specific household chores that they had done for many years. Bessy did the wash. Bart took the clothes out of the dryer and put them away. With the introduction of diapers and baby clothes into the equation, Bessy and Bart simply expanded their responsibilities in the same areas to accommodate the new demand. Bessy had more clothes to wash, and Bart had more clothes to dry and fold. As their daughter, Trudy, grew older, she was also assigned chores.
Other couples are not so sanguine about the assignment of duties and responsibilities; yet, if a couple is to establish viable norms for child-rearing or project-building, the increased pressures and work demands inside the relationship typically require that they establish firmer boundaries and clearer expectations. Whether raising children or building a project, a couple is clearly in a “business” and must establish business-like rules or they risk destruction of their relationship.
There seemed to be three essential ingredients in Glenda and Kurt’s relationship that enabled them to establish and maintain the role of Generativity One. First, they exhibited an accepting and generous attitude about competing relationships, possessiveness, and competition for attention when their child preferred the other parent in certain settings. Second, there was respect and affection about differences in their individual styles of childrearing. Third, there was a willingness on their part to perform non-traditional roles. We might all learn from the example set by Glenda and Kurt.
Surrogate Parenting: Generativity One Through Impacting the Lives of Children Outside One’s Family
Sometimes we try to have it all: children, a paying job, and some valued project on the side. In other cases, we try to make our project into a paying job by starting a business, turning a hobby into a business, or making our job more meaningful and enjoyable. In other instances, we make the hard decision to forego child-raising and instead invest our time, energy, and generativity in a special project that directly benefits children who are not “our own.” This apparently is the case with Oprah Winfrey, who made the difficult decision not to have children herself. Instead, as she has noted in many interviews, Oprah reframed her Generativity One pursuits by declaring that she would seek to care for all the children in the world rather than devote herself to raising her own biological children. Oprah Winfrey, of course, also has a huge project to run—namely her own massive media enterprise. That is enough to keep anyone fully occupied!
Then there are the less famous leaders in Nevada County, California, who participated in the Sage Leadership Project. They were all devoted to their community and many of them gained great generative satisfaction from working with children who were not their own. A second form of institution-based surrogate parenting is to be found in organizations that serve children who are struggling with the demands placed on them by society. This is the opposite of education. It is the side of isolation and, hopefully, remediation that unfortunately is often given more public attention than the preventive, educational side. Certainly, there are people who decide to engage in a project while also raising a family. These are the men and women who do try to have it all. The Emerging Sage leaders we interviewed often talked about the conflict and tensions inherent in their effort to be civically engaged while also raising children. We conclude this chapter by turning to these challenged men and women.
