Week 10: Family Politics and Policy

In today’s world, even though the structure of the family have become even more diverse, the laws pertaining to the family is still lagging behind and exclude many of the new forms of family unions. Skinner and Kohler’s article on the parental rights that are based on the “exclusivity” basis clearly depicts the exclusion of stepparents, grandparents, and same-sex parents with regards to the custody over children. The solution, that Skinner and Kohler mentioned, may possibly be basing the custody on the best interests of the child—not by biological parental rights.

In contrast, through Kiernan’s article, we are able to see that in European countries, the policy and political discussion are more about issues concerning how best to support families, particularly in their endeavors to raise children regardless of the marital status of their parents (Kiernan, 980). In Europe, policy makers (on family matters) de-emphasized the “exclusivity” laws within the family. How is it possible for the European countries move on to embrace the different forms of families and concentrate on supporting the diverse individuals that make up the family while in the United States, the politics and policies of the family still concern themselves solely on the “traditional values”?

After reading Hochschild’s article, I felt depressed. She claims that today, with the regards to care, we are living the cold modern model of care. She assumes that women are the sole capable being to provide care to their children, which further frustrates matters. In addition, she emphasizes the relation between money and fathers with respect to the issue of care. If she is correct in providing this relationship, there is a commodifying of care (as we have mentioned in class numerous times) and that men show their “care” through the amount of the money they provide for their children.

Q1] Would eliminating the exclusivity clause as a basis for parent-child relationships work? What potential problems could arise from this elimination?

Q2]Are biological ties more important when it comes to parental rights and the custody of children? Why do you think that governments and policy makers emphasize these biological ties, even when it may not necessarily for the best interest of the children?

Q3]In present times, in your opinion, is there this sense of the de-romanticization of childhood happening with regards to care?

On Politics, Policy and Sociology in the Family

It is an unwritten rule in sociology courses on issues such as the family (or perhaps any specialization within the discipline, for that matter) to end the semester with readings and discussion of politics and public policy.  Tacitly, by doing this, we suggest that sociological knowledge ought to lead to social change—“philosophers,” as Marx dismissively declared, “have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it” (Theses on Feuerbach, thesis 11); we suggest, as well, that you are, in fact, free to define who you want to be and how you want to live your life, regardless of all of those messy social forces that seem to define everyone else.  The direct admission of this might go something like:  “I know that it seems as though everything we have covered over the course of this semester either explicitly or implicitly communicates how much our lives are conditioned by social forces and determined by institutions outside of our control, but, in reality, you can change things.  You can have agency.  Oh, and what of those really depressing statistics on your chances of success in relationships, including marriage, divorce, etc.?  Nah, they don’t apply to you now, because you have knowledge.  So cheer up, be empowered, you can do it!”  In this, we are perhaps practicing the “power” (i.e. delusion) of positive thinking which Barbara Ehrenreich finds so frustrating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

In fact, following Ehrenreich, it is perhaps our stubborn blindness to the real risks of intimacy and family life in the name of optimism (read: romance, love, etc.) which leaves us powerless to address change.  

In this week’s readings, therefore, I embraced the caution of realism.  These readings focus on the pressures of navigating messy institutions and policies that do not easily translate into the manifold dialects of our intimate relationships.  Comparative lessons from Europe and the United States demonstrate differences in social patterns even as they suggest that the state’s struggle to adjust to family diversification is common.  Interestingly, a few pages ripped from the headlines are most apt in drawing distinctions and sparking discussion.  First, from the society pages:  “Eric” and “Lola”, who after a 10-year relationship, three kids, and lots of drama, called it quits in Quebec in 2001.  As “de-facto” partners, however, Quebec policy stipulates that Eric has a financial responsibility to his kids after the separation but not to their mother.  If they had been married, it would have been a different story.  While the case seems headed to the Supreme Court, it highlights the significance of contracts and the legal (unromantic) issues of family support that so few expect to encounter:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Ruling+will+impact+common+couples/3781254/story.html

In another case, Alberta just passed legislation to render parenting relationships to children born with assistance from reproductive technologies more easily recognizable to existing law and thus assure child support responsibilities:

http://www.canadaviews.ca/2010/11/26/albertas-family-law-statutes-amended-to-promote-well-being-of-children/

In both of these circumstances, the cool modern approach points us in the direction of caution, even as most of us so carelessly cast it aside in the name of romance or love.  In facing intransigent or uncertain institutions with a clear head, however, it seems we can develop strategies for resilience that improve our chances for success.  Think gender flexibility = agency, I suppose.  Thus, as we end the semester on the heels of cautious optimism, let’s think clearly about the risks and rewards of family life in all its messy incarnations.  What questions should we ask?  Here are two suggestions to start:

1.        What rights and responsibilities do intimate partners have to one another?  What rights and responsibilities do they have to one another if they have children?  How should these change (if at all) in the aftermath of a break-up?  Most importantly, what role does the state have in assuring that these rights and responsibilities are respected?

2.       What explains the persistent gap between peoples’ expectations and experiences of family life?  How might the law or expectations change to better suit the needs of family members?

Please label your post "Family Politics and Policy"

Thank you!

Household Labor

Household Labor

During the evolution of sociology, or more specifically the evolution of cooperation, individuals seem to at one point or another compare their own efforts, pay-offs, and rewards to those of other people. In the article “Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay”, the comparison is with, as the title clearly states, monkeys! A nonhuman primate; the brown capuchin monkey; Cebus apella. This is what I find so unique about this article versus the other ones on the topic of household labor. It is always interesting when/how authors take a new perspective on a particular topic, just as Brosnan and Frans took this biosocial perspective on household labor. I do also very much like the title the authors chose for their scientific report, however I wonder how seriously it would be taken as the title seems like more of a newspaper headline..

This makes me think of philosophers such as Plato and Kant who believed in a rational basis for fair behaviour. I also think of the famous comment by Gordon Hewart in 1923: “it is of fundamental importance that justice not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

Questions:

1. What do you think of the chosen title for the article by Brosnan and Frans: “Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay”?
2. What was the division of household labor like in your home? Was there gender division?
3. Thinking about Hook’s article, what do you think about policy-makers promoting equal division of household labor for women?

Week 9: Household Labor

Week 9: Household Labor

When it comes to the issue of household labor, we are able to see that there is no clear-cut answer to who invests more in this. There are research results which point out that nowadays, more men are doing more than they used to while females are doing less than they used to. In addition, we are able to see a decline in stay-at-home mothers while there was an increase of stay-at-home fathers. However, even if there exists an increase (with the percentage itself is significant), the number of stay-at-home mothers was larger than that of the stay-at-home fathers. Through these results we are able to see that there still exists discrepancies in unpaid work.

In her article, Hook claims that men participate more in unpaid work across diverse countries while policies and practices may either hinder or facilitate men’s unpaid work (Hook, 656). Even if they do participate in more household labor, could we assume that they are of same value compared to the labor that women partake in the domestic sphere? Men tend to do the “temporary” jobs within the family (i.e. mowing the lawn, fixing the house, taking care of the children on the weekends, etc.) while women are involved with the “permanent” household labor (i.e. cooking, cleaning the house, doing the laundry, taking care of the kids, etc.). Even in two-job families, women tend to partake in the permanent aspect of unpaid work—a second shift—after coming home from work.

Hochschild’s article on gratitude was a very interesting read. The idea of tracing gratitude in terms of a moral frame of reference, pragmatic frame of reference, and a historical frame of reference is interesting and seems to make sense. The life course theory seems to mesh well with what Hochschild is claiming with regards to the idea of exchanging "gifts" and the ripple effects it has within the larger society.

Q1] Can we measure or quantify the value of household labor? Why or why not?

Q2] What are your thoughts on providing a type of wage for the “unpaid labor”? Do you think that as a policy, it would work out and perhaps reduce gender inequality within the domestic sphere?

Q3] After the Second Feminist Movement, many claim that there is this “stalled revolution” in which women are exposed to a daily grind of household labor, leisure gap, and time famine. What are your thoughts on this claim? Will women be able to pull themselves out of this stagnant state and achieve complete equality with regards to the public sphere as well as within the household?

Household Labor

A common issue in all the readings is the notion of traditional versus non-traditional gender roles, household division of labor and childcare. I found very interesting the case of Salvadoreans Carmen and Frank and what Hochschild writes as a possible explanation of their notion of gendered gifts: “They were recent immigrants in the diversity of San Francisco, and maybe roses and pie made them feel more American” (2003, p. 109). To what extent consumption patterns and the “American dream” shape family relationships and gender roles of immigrants? How do American media and pop culture consumed out of the United States shape family relationships and gender roles of those in the rest of the world? How are ideas of gender diffused with the globalized media and migration? Do you think that this has had a positive or negative effect in other societies?

I was glad that this set of readings included an international comparison and I really liked Jennifer Hook’s paper since I think that it is important to understand how individual and household level mechanisms are related to national level policies and employment practices. It is interesting to think not only about cross-country differences but also on period and cohort differences. I found very important the methodological implications of her study (Hook, 2006, p. 655): “a reliance on typologies may conflate disparate national characteristics and policies, lead to faulty conclusions, and obscure what aspects of context matter most, […] researchers should expand inquiry beyond couples, [… and…] researchers should not assume that the effects of basic demographic characteristics are stable across time and space because they vary as a function of contextual factors”.

Something I found interesting from the readings and responses of other classmates is the notion of courtship. Hochschild talks about the gifts associated to this initial stage of the relationship and I wonder how this initial courtship and romance period will influence later stages due to the relation between gifts, money and power imbalances. It is interesting that what is “accepted as the norm” is that it is the man who proposes to the woman and although the woman has the decision, her role is less proactive. In “traditional” positions, she is the one receiving flowers and chocolates. Could this be because “capuchin females pay closer attention than males to the value of “exchanged goods and services” (Brosnan and de Waal, 2003, p. 298). I wonder if there has been empirical research that compares gender roles and division of household labor in couples that have started with different types of courtship and where the woman has been the one that takes the initiative. Also, after watching the video posted I have to say I spent some time in YouTube watching other videos related to that one and found an interesting one on gender stereotypes in the media that you may want to check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nIXUjzyMe0&feature=related

Q1. How do you think that the focus of only couples on the papers we read are affected by what Jennifer Hook found out and her methodological implications? Do you agree with her that “what is particularly interesting about a general change among all men is that it suggests a different view of gender relations than argued in some cross-national work focused solely on power, bargaining, or divorce threat” (Hook, 2006, p. 655)?

Q2. Hochschild discusses the idea of “lucky women and unlucky men”. What do you think about this idea of luck versus what was expected? How do you think the early stages influence later possible power imbalances and women’s position in negotiating within the couple and deciding who will the lucky one be?

Q3. To what extent differences in the papers read are due to social class, ethnicity or religion? How are gender codes related to political views, for example? Do you see misleading conclusions of the papers after reading the methodological implications of Hook’s work?

Household Labour

After reading for this week, I took a little time to think about Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay… now what exactly was it doing there? On readings about dual-income parenting and sharing of household duties, where exactly did this fit in?

I think after doing this weeks’ readings the findings point to a gender discrepancy when it comes to housework, or unpaid labour. It seems that women are assumed to be doing the housework, unless a negotiation or shift has occurred. Take for example the fact from Jennifer Hook’s research that “for each percentage increase in national levels of married women’s employment, men’s unpaid work time increases by 0.5 minutes.” So, it follows that only when women are not at home, a negotiation or shift needs to be made.

Coltrane also mentions that in ¾ of the couples interviewed, the women performed the majority of the early infant care. Coltrane also stresses that almost all the fathers stressed that they had to learn how to nurture, as if they were starting from scratch, and it was something that did not come naturally to them. There was also the example in which the man would set the table, and clear it, but not to his wife’s liking, so she still essentially cleared the table. This was interpreted as men doing domestic work, yet the house is still evidently the domain of the woman.

So, why is gender a factor in housework? Why, in a sense, don’t married women reject unequal pay for domestic work?

1. Reading Hook’s article, I came across a few items that made me pause and think of explanations. First of all, she says that married men do more unpaid work than single men. Also, she said when men are NOT employed, they do 19 minutes less of unpaid work per day than do employed men? How does this work? Any ideas?

2. How do you interpret the Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay article? Do you think it's relatable to human actions?

3. After reading all of the readings, are you convinced by Risman and Johnson-Sumerford’s finding that gender equality can be found in the home?

Household Labor

This week I found the gendered division of household labor to focus more on the negotiation of the husband/father ideology than the changing expectations of the wife/mother.  As Hochschild mentions in The Economy of Gratitude, wives are constantly navigating married life in reaction to the expectations and demands of motherhood and wifehood.  Hochschild implies that these wives respond to the role of husband and the promotion of the role of father/husband in a similar way as previous generations.  This resulted in my wondering: is this gratitude lag time or simply a sustained power dynamic with a different name?  The suggestion that women will come to embody the same power position as men seems uncertain.  Further undermining this shift is the cultural significance of the male breadwinner depicted in Coltrane’s article: Coltrane emphasizes the tendency of households with egalitarian divisions of labor to reference time availability as more important than gender when determining labor assignment.  Is feminism rooted more in ideology or practice? 

If women must often rely on the changing practices of their male counterparts to alter labor divisions in marriage, than Hook is correct in asserting that policy-makers must evaluate which factors, although ideologically sound, provide females/wives/mothers with the greatest environment to promote egalitarian relations.  If ideology is mute when challenging the embedded attitudes and structural forces that influence both home and work experiences, then it becomes less important to change opinion and more beneficial to focus on structural/environmental change.  The role of feminism is an interesting one; even for families that espouse gender equity on the home front, feminism is still dismissed as radical ideology.

1. To what extent does the state replace the male breadwinner?  How are fathers/husbands released from familial responsibilities in the presence of generous social policies?  Is there a lag between the changing expectations of children and fathers as well?
2. Coltrane mentions that when parents have more equally divided child care children tend to discriminate less between parents.  Recalling previous articles on divorce outcomes, could it be that poorly invested parenting is more to blame for the negative effects of divorce than the change in household dynamic or composition?  Are there state policies that can alter this situation to promote greater parent-child bonds after divorce?  Would these policies encourage healthier parent-child relations within marriage as well?
3. It is interesting that men may cite the desire for emotional care associated with traditional marriage, yet omit the pressures from external forces to abide by traditional norms.  When couples are probed, these realities are revealed.  To what extent do external pressures shape personal relations?  In an earlier article on happiness in homosexual relationships, relationships are said to be happier when there exists a great acceptance of homosexual families/partners from friends and family.  How much do broader social contexts shape individual action with regards to the division of labor?  Is change hidden behind a traditionalist façade still valid?