Topics and Issues Within the Family

This week’s readings each provided an interesting glimpse into the life of individual families.  Each challenges ideas regarding the responsibilities of parents and short- versus long-term health of the child.  In the Orellana article, children experience childhood differently, both as active and inactive participants in the mobile family unit.  The roles children occupy, as earners, networkers, or agents of personal desire, all stem from the opportunities awarded or asserted by themselves or their parents.  Children, in this article, do not exist within a “rights of the child” bubble, in which the quality of childhood is regulated heavily and must conform to Western cultural ideology.  It is interesting, therefore, that the focus on short-term sacrifices in favor of long-term goals (economic advancements, increased social standing, and cultural power both in “mother” country and abroad) challenges the coddling approach held to a high regard in the United States.

The Stacy and Biblarz article, rather than highlight the variation across ethnic groups, asserts that lesbigay families raise their children, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to embody distinct gender and sexuality positions.  While the article stresses the need for greater acknowledgement of the differences between (though not inferiority of) heterosexual and lesbigay children, I wonder if calling attention to such differences in itself challenges gender norms beyond the comfort of conservative society.  Despite the best intentions of the authors, the differences pointed out are the kinds of differences that traditional family values groups could manipulate in a way that undermines lesbigay rights.  It is likely that in this situation difference may actually equal harm, and therefore previous researchers, rather than acknowledge this difference as significant have chosen instead to downplay any variation in child outcomes.

1. Considering the propensity for difference in outcomes between children of lesbigay and heterosexual families (for example, the increased likelihood of lesbigay children to have sexual experiences with those of the same-sex), does it help or harm lesbigay families to emphasize the existence of different parenting outcomes?
2. What are your feelings with regards to Hochschild’s concept of eavesdropping?  As every (or almost every) child has eavesdropped, what is the awareness of the child in these situations?  Hochschild identifies issues, such as the desire for Janey’s mother to help her babysitter get a job at the company she works for, and Hunter’s grandmother’s strong emotional ties to childcare, which influence how children react to caregivers and the concept of care.  Is this awareness conscious or unconscious on the part of the child?
3. How does the role of the child in the Orellana article differ from the role of the child in previous readings?  For example, previous readings have focused on the need to maximize care for children, support children through rough adult periods, and to raise children in an emotionally healthy and economically stable way.  Do the families in Orellana’s article balance the needs of the child with the long-term needs of the family differently?