Feminism and Care Perspectives

The clip by Kimmel brings to my mind two main issues: the first recalls the readings of the first week (Popenoe, Stacey, Glenn, Cowan, Cortez, Coontz, Hochschild) and the locational assumptions; and the second, the importance of variation with regards to marital realities.  Hochschild details an account of her mother’s depressive state during her childhood: the stereotypically bored housewife, keeping herself occupied while her husband is out supporting the family.  While her memories are an assault to the 1950s ideal traditional family, her reality is but one of many possible realities.  For the record, Hochschild makes sure to include the love and affection her parents feel for one-another, and the altruistic intent behind her father’s role as breadwinner.  However, the unseen variation in the “ideal” nuclear family comes to life through Pyke’s analysis of working-class and professional-class masculinity.  What Pyke in effect reveals, without delving into racial stigmatization, is the variation in familial realities; the home life members of the ideal family create and experience is not given mention by the authors of the first week’s readings.  Indeed, it seems that physical, emotional, and substance abuses are often part and parcel with traditional marriage.  The articles for this week have been a reminder of the racial and class expectations behind the previous readings assumptions regarding traditional marriage, while challenging my own tendency to rely on “gender role” theories when making sense of traditional marriage structures.

For this week I have three critical questions:

1.       I found myself confronting my own gendered family assumptions while reading Ferree’s article.  Using the idea of “’family’ against ‘feminism’”, to what extent are traditional gender roles defended by female family members?  Do you believe that mothers willing to take on additional work to  defend/assert their roles as mothers?

2.       Again, Ferree mentions how certain sociologists are questioning the assertion that children of gay and lesbian parents are “not different” in favor of acknowledging the need to challenge gender norms.  Is this a self-condemning act?  Is it dangerous for gay and lesbian families to assert that their children are acting as agents of social change and challengers of the social norm?

3.       Finally, to what extent are females responsible for reproducing traditional gender norms?  What would it take for wives/female mates to feel that egalitarianism does not threaten their marriage or that demanding equality at home is worth the risk (of divorce, abuse, etc.)?