Family Politics and Policy

While I disagreed with some of Barbara Ehrenreich’s logic, I agree with her point that much optimism is unfruitful. As we recognize the agency we have as educated individuals, I think it is important to see what we can do with that agency; what are the most effective way to change perceptions and laws regarding the family and gender roles? Why do some quests, such as increased paternal rights and gay marriage pan out, while the American government can take away support from women on welfare who have children? The answer, I think, is public outcry and mobilization.
When studying social movements, some main questions are how to get a multitude of people vocal about an issue, and in turn what should they specifically be vocal about. As we have discussed in class, there are two main approaches: attempting to change ideologies through a legal structure, and attempting to change society through ideologies. Unfortunately, the two do not coalesce very often and we have seen, especially through the studies of emotion work, that changing laws, social structure, and even ideologies may not entirely change the way individuals and societies construct the family and gender roles.
Here is an instance where I feel that (cautious) optimism is necessary for a few reasons. As we leave university, we are entering a world where gender roles in education and the job market are changing rapidly and in ways never seen before. Years of feminist activism has changed gender roles at least at the legal level, however many prejudices seem to be ingrained. So knowing what we know, do we take a realist approach and work within the society that we have? We see this approach in legal battles for gay marriage and paternal rights; both use more conventional means of social protest and mobilization tactics, and both have made legal headway. I think we see this approach in Denmark and the Netherlands as well. As mentioned in the readings, these countries do not ask what the best way to raise a family is, but rather how we can support families. Their system promotes one of the most supportive, and gender segregated, structures. So should we be realists and work within our framework, or optimists and try to find a different approach, one to change the core of ideologies. We certainly need optimism attack this process.
What I mean to say here is not that there is one right way to go about this, or that we should be aiming for a Marxist Utopia. But rather, a recognition that the sociology of the family is integrated with so many other fields, and to change ideologies we cannot address one area. (If you haven’t noticed) I’m really interested in mobilization tactics in the “post” movements that emphasize the individual, however I think one of the strongest barriers to these social movements is our societal belief of what a social movement should be, what a law should be, and what is appropriate to promote change. But to change ideologies, I think we need to look at the definitions we hold, and parse their interactions with each other and society. Perhaps the question should not be "How might the law or expectations change to better suit the needs of family members?", but what can we do to change the idea of a law in society?


1. Is there a way for the definition of the family to be less “exclusive” in policy? What services would need to be employed to take family law on a true case by case basis? What are the problems with this?
2. What issues around the family do you feel are powerful enough to mobilize around? Why are some addressed while others not? Do you think the most important issues are addressed through legal battles?
3. Do you find yourself to be an optimist? Realist? Pessimist? Something in between? What effect does this have on your view of the family? Do you think it changes over the life course, and why?