Christine Carter’s work looked at the relationships between parenting, wealth, child well-being. She studied data from 20 interviews with families who had children between the ages of 11 and 17, this exploratory study theorized how work, family structure, and parenting ideologies shape parenting practices, and how children fare as a result. Parenting practices are influenced by two primary forces. First, parenting practices are influenced by economic and social circumstances. For most families, this means their jobs and family structures, the structural supports and constraints they face as they go about their daily lives. Second, parenting ideologies—what parents believe about their roles as parents—shape parenting practices. Her research found that when work becomes a dominant force in a parent’s life, the rhetoric of work “drifts” into family life undetected. Because economic rhetoric is often characterized by unemotional, achievement-oriented values, such rhetoric drift can be extremely detrimental to family life and the emotional lives of children. Some mothers who do paid work are rejecting the “second shift” that awaits them at home, and especially the emotional labor of parenting. This benefits them because in rejecting the second shift, they are also rejecting their age-old subordinate position in the family as the person who generally subordinates her own needs for those of others. Such mothers adopt a “masculine” parenting ideology, that of the material provider, rather than a more traditional ideology as emotional and symbolic maintainer of the family. But because children still have emotional, cultural, and symbolic needs (to feel that they are a part of a family, to know their larger place in the world, for example), this parenting ideology affects children adversely. Children who have a parent (or parents) who actively engage in the emotional labor of parenting are more likely to be healthy emotionally than those who do not.