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?

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?

Week 8: Work and Family

After reading Hochschild’s article “Love and Gold”, I immediately thought about the SOS Children’s Villages. SOS Children’s Villages is an independent, non-governmental organization looking after children who are orphaned or at high-risk by providing homes and family-based care. There are numerous villages in different countries all over the world and basically a “mother” is brought into these villages to take care of up to 20 children each. One condition that exists for female volunteers is that they need to live at the village with their “new” family and if they have a family of their own outside of the village, they need to be ready to sever all ties with them—even with their own children. This could be seen as an extreme case of a “care drain”. In Hochschild’s article, we see women from the Third World coming to the First World to take care of someone else’s children (most of the times family who are better off than they are) and, in contrast, with the SOS Children’s Villages, we see First World women going to these secluded villages to take care of high risk children at the expense of never seeing their own children again. As we can see, this care drain is not a one-way phenomenon from the developing world to the developed world but rather a two-way phenomenon—happening at both end points.

In all the articles, there is a common theme of the “double bind”, especially for the women. There is this pressure for these career women to become both an ideal mother and an ideal worker. In Hochschild’s article “Emotional Geography”, she talks about how a certain corporation has different workplace accommodations to meet the needs of their workers. However, most of these accommodations do not include parenthood-related needs, which make it harder for women to cater to these male-orientated accommodations.

Q1) Do you believe that women do not feel any resentment towards their workplace environment, although it is largely catered towards the male workers? If not, could this be because female workers have internalized this male-oriented ideal worker model and they do not question it?

Q2) In the reading “Love and Gold”, Hochschild talks about the issue of sentiment (feeling of love and care) and commitment. What do you believe is more important for the family life—sentiment or commitment?

Q3) What are some patterns of sacredness in your family? Do you believe that there has been a shift within that pattern over the life

UCLA study: Lesbian parents are really good parents

I found a really interesting article which is closely related to the Stacey and Biblarz's article. UCLA's Williams Institute announced the end of their 24-year study on lesbian families this week.
Contrary to what most critics say, they reported that lesbian parents are good caregivers and that the parents sexual orientation did not influence the sexual orientation of their children. Here is the link of the article:
http://coloradoindependent.com/67189/ucla-study-lesbian-parents-are-really-good-parents
There is also a link on the site where you could download the original summary of the study.

You can also watch this 60-minute clip on the studies of gay and lesbian parents (which is also done by the UCLA's Williams Institute). It is long but it is very interesting! The clip is about the series of debates on extending marriage and adoption to same-sex couples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWmw40ks2yU

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend!

Week 6: Family Structures and Bonds

Week 6

After reading one of the Furstenberg et al article on the lengthening path to adulthood, I tried to come up with my own definition of adulthood. Although I am over the age of 21 and live away from home, I do not identify with the word “adult”. Perhaps the main reason is because I am still a student and possibly will be for another 2 to 3 years, especially since I am applying to graduate schools now. Would I be able to categorize myself as an adult after a complete education? Possibly. If I had a stable job and was able to become financially independent? I guess I am one of the 97% of people who answered that complete education and financial independence as being important factors to be considered as an adult. I agree with the claims that Furstenberg et al make in their article that there is a prolonged path to adulthood. As time passed, societies have given individuals even more freedom to do what they want while expecting us to meet all the demands and expectations that they have on the individuals. In order to survive individuals have to adjust and invest in more skills to achieve adulthood. This could and has greatly changed the structures of the family dynamics and the working-age population.

With regards to the Risman article, I agree that single dads are just as capable of taking care of their children as much as the mothers. In the cases of divorce, custody should be given to the parent that are more eligible and better at parenting-it should not be simply based on the society’s perceived notions on gender roles. The environment in which a child is raised up in should be taken into consideration rather than to judge the way one raises their own child(ren).

I also enjoyed reading the Bengston article. Families are not declining in importance in the American society but, rather, they are become even more diversified than it has ever been. If the parents are not able to provide care and support their children, the multigenerational bonds, that Bengston mentions, can take over and provide these types of care and love. This transitional period may bring confusion and anxiety but in the long run, it will be beneficial not just to the family members that are directly involved but the society as a whole.

Q1) With this lengthening path to adulthood, could there be a change, at the societal level, on the view of family and gender roles that are found within the domestic sphere?

Q2) In the modern society, do you think that the meeting of societal demands of investing in oneself plays a larger role in delaying marriage and having a family or is it the uncertainty of family life that one may have?

Q3) What are some policies that could be implemented to ease the way to adulthood for those who are not able to readily invest in themselves? By implementing policies, do you believe it will alleviate the anxieties that some individuals have with their uncertainty of family life and marriage?

Marriage, Cohabitation, and Parenthood

As the society changes, the individuals change as well. The change in the values of family led to different needs of individuals. In a world where change is constantly present, we need to be aware of the changes in ideals and values within the society.

As more women are going into the workforce, they manage their domestic sphere in a different way than those of the traditional women. They may have a career outside the house while partaking in all the domestic labor as well or they may choose to focus entirely on their work and find those who are capable of care and love to take over the private sphere. Does this mean that we should consider these “new-age” women as abnormal and unfeminine? No, they have different ideas of what a family should be and how they should invest in their partners and/or children. As Hochschild says, “a cycle is set in motion—as the family becomes more minimal, it turns to the market to add what it needs and, by doing so, becomes yet more minimal” (Hochschild, 37).

In addition, not all families today are based on marriage. Unions could be formed through cohabitation, divorce, or separation. The partners involved could either be heterosexual or homosexual. They could choose to have children or decide not to. Or those who want children but not a spouse/partner can choose to form a single-parent household. As we all know, there are different forms of households and families that stray away from the “normative, traditional” families. While there may exist some reluctance in recognizing all the different families and their different needs, we should not be so quick to condemn them. Society is made up of different, unique individuals who have their own definitions and values of what care, family, and love is. We should not hold on to past norms, just because they are “traditional”, but we should include and acknowledge all of these diverse values and ideas each modern individual have.

Q1) Do you believe that there will be stigmatizations on those who do not have the resources to meet their needs in the market while failing to do so within the family? Why?

Q2) In Patterson’s article, she looks at the unions of lesbian-gay families. With regards to Talcott Parsons, will children of same-sex families grow up to be “dysfunctional” adults, just because they may lack a role model in their families?

Q3) What are your opinions on the crime statistics which claim that children of single-parents or “broken families” have a greater chance of becoming juvenile delinquents?

SOCI 535 Research Paper Proposal

While there have been several researches done on the theme of “family of choice”, I believe that there is a lack of enthusiasm of the scholars on the issue of interracial families. There is a gradual shift in academics where scholars are paying more attention to divorced, single parent, lesbian/gay partnerships, cohabitation, and adoption. Compared to these topics, there is a dearth of interest of scholars on interracial unions and their significance/impact on society—they are cast away as secondary concentrations. Even if there is any attention paid to it, it is greatly restricted to looking at the so-called “Black-White” couples.

Interracial families are another component of the “family of choice” framework. I would like to look at how and if there are any conflicts on the emotional work/investment in families from different races. With different cultures and backgrounds, how can the parents/partners of these interracial unions agree on how to raise their children, divide emotional/care work, and division of labor within the family? In addition, children of interracial couples tend to have a harder time in developing their self-identities. Do they choose a certain racial identity from their parents? Do they create a new self-identity? Or do they think of their identity as fluid and flexible so they can adjust it in all situations? Can this journey to self-identification affect the society? If so, how? These are some of the questions I wish to look at and hopefully provide some answers.

Interracial families are highly significant to the sociology of the family as globalization is deeply embedded in all aspects of our personal lives. How these people of different backgrounds are able to form and keep this union stable might provide an insight to dealing with the highly diversified forms of families today.

Week 4: Family, Attachment, and Intimacy

Week 4: Family, Attachment, and Intimacy

Whether it is a consequence or cause, it is of no dispute that in the contemporary world, there exists the diversification of families. In order to meet the diversified needs of these new forms of families, it is only logical to come up with alternatives that satisfy these needs. With more women entering the workforce and the increase in the breaking up of families (due to different reasons), there exists alternative care, intimacy, and emotional work. To make sense of all of this, it is insufficient to look at these alternatives by the heteronormative framework—the “normative nuclear family” model—and ineffectual in explaining the how and why of diversification of care and intimacy. How are we to take into account single parent households, families with no children, cohabiting partners, or those in homosexual relationships? In this aspect, Roseneil and Budgeon’s critique of the heteronormative framework, in regards to the family, care, and intimacy aspects, is quite intriguing. It is interesting to look at the different case studies of Karen and Polly, Dale, and Eleanor and through them, as the authors point out, we are able to see that the concept of love, intimacy, and care are fluid and highly flexible to fit into all situations. For those who are not committed to a “nuclear” family, they tend to turn to friendship—practices of care and support happening away from the (hetero)sexual partnerships. Along with the “decentring” of sexual relationships, the interchangability of lover/partner and friend is very informative.

With the ever-changing definition and formation of families and emotional work, we need to look at these diversifications and alternatives as they are. We should not become fixated in trying to explain the “broken down” families and the interchangeability of lover/friend, care, love, and intimacy by the heteronormative framework for it will only hinder us from fully understanding these new phenomenons.

Q1] Hochschild mentions the commercialization of the intimate life. With regards to this, is emotional investment towards the family a mode of production or consumption? Is the emotional investment towards the spouse/partner different than that of the one towards the children (in the sense of whether it being a mode of production or consumption)?

Q2] The transformation and fluidity of intimacy that Roseneil and Budgeon mention in their work brings about intriguing issues to surface. Can we come up with a concrete definition of “stability” with regards to the diversification of care, intimacy, and love? Can we give a definitive answer to as which form of “family of choice” can provide the most stability to those involved?

Q3] Is the concept of care, intimacy, and love all just a symbolic norm to allow for our society to fully function? Or is it a biochemical reaction where some have the potential to become a loving and caring individual while others have no sense of intimacy whatsoever and is incapable of love?

Week 3: Feminism and Care Perspectives

Week 3:

Hochschild’s article Gender Codes and the Play of Irony was a very interesting read. The emphasis on gender codes reminded me of the Intro Women’s Studies class that I took this past summer. In the lecture we talked how the changing gender codes are a paradox to what the feminist movement actually stood for. Instead of reaching a stage of egalitarianism, the striving to have more rights as men in the public sphere tends to lead to a more stigmatization of women. Women who are fighting for more equality, in my perspective, argue that they want what men have rather than to what women want. It seems to me that, to them, egalitarianism equals to a more masculine identity. For example, if we look at the chart of Gender Codes in the book (Hochschild, 49), in the modern codes we are able to see a pattern of subtle masculinity taking place. A career-woman look consists of business suits in subdued “male” colors and short hair while women should use male vocabulary in order to be taken seriously at work. Perhaps in their minds, achieving equality with men means becoming a man themselves. However, wanting equal rights should not equate as having to become an exact replica of the counterpart. I believe that this will only to further division along the gender lines and further stigmatize the female “domesticity” roles and male “aggressive/career” roles. Hochschild argues that we could either hold on or let go of these advices through irony. I do not see how this is possible when the society imposes upon us to take on these gender codes either traditional or modern.

Can this be a driving factor for a mother waning their daughter(s) to go out to the public sphere and have a career-oriented life? This relates back to what Hochschild wrote in her introduction chapter. She writes how even though her mother was a good mother, she had never seen her mother to be genuinely happy in her domestic/caretaker role. As a result, Hochschild claims that she “developed the simple, mistaken, idea that staying home to care for children was sad and going to work was happy” (Hochschild, 5). This idea that care does not necessarily bring about joy is new to me. In fact, I do not believe that I have ever though of it. I have never noticed my mom being ever being unsatisfied with her primary role as a mother/wife/care-taker. After becoming a professional artist in her early 40s, I have never seen my mom being overjoyed that she had a career outside the domestic sphere. She seemed to enjoy her different roles within the different spheres and she was able to balance it very well. If Parsons were here, he would be terribly surprised to find out that our family was not a dysfunctional one (since my mom was not a “traditional”/exclusive homemaker in his eyes)—rather I was brought up in a stable, loving, and functional family. Has this shaped my (future) career life or my perspective on care? I do not think so.

Q1) Is it possible to just let go of these gender codes imposed upon us by the society?

Q2) Is it possible to want equal rights as men without taking on a subdued form of a masculine identity?

Q3) Do you believe that “female depressive solution” affects the way one sees her own future (career-wise) or perspective on the domestic sphere?

Structural Functionalism, New Home Economics, Life Course, and Biosocial Perspectives

It was interesting reading about the different theories behind the formation of the family. I agree with earlier posts that Parsons’ article falls short in providing a conclusive view on the separate roles of men and women. I strongly disagree with his argument that the characterization of male youth culture involves a strong emphasis on “having fun” and on achievement/competition while the female youth culture seemed to only involve an emphasis on qualities of attractiveness. I believe that Parsons’ “swell guy”/”glamour girl” pattern highly stigmatizes female roles while upholding their male counterparts role. I also cannot clearly understand his statement claiming that these sexually polarized roles are “complementary, both emphasizing certain features of a total personality in terms of the direct expression of certain values rather than of instrumental significance” (Parsons, 607). Parsons claim that a woman’s fundamental status and function is of the “domestic” pattern—a supporting figure for her husband and children—is of a highly restrictive nature. If Parson were to update his article, how stunned he would be to see how different the world turned out to be today!

The neoclassical micro-economic analysis of the family was very interesting and I agree with Ben-Porath in that Becker’s cumulative work is very important. This economic approach holds true even more so in modern days. The allocation of time, human capital, and wages does play an important part in the formation of the family.

The family development and life course perspectives seem to explain the transformation in the traditional to the modern family, unlike the other perspectives, by looking at the family structures according to the different life stages. It seems to be a more comprehensive and historical outlook on the family. Booth, Carver, and Granger’s article on the biosocial perspectives on the family was also interesting—the linking of science and social aspects was very new.

Individually, these theories are, in some ways, incomplete. However, if we look at these theories as one, they will be to complement each other perhaps provide a comprehensive outlook on the family.

1) Parson argues that since the father plays the instrumental role in the family, he is seldom at home with his family. This in turn results in many of the masculine functions to be abstract and of intangible character, unable to provide a meaningful role model for boys. Do you agree with this statement? If so, can this statement explain why this may lead to the alleged instabilities related with dysfunctional families/children?

2) What are your opinions on the treatment of altruism? How does the distributional conflict within the family affect the family utility function?

3) Why is it important to look at the transformation from the traditional to the modern family in the historical context? Would it not suffice to look at the theories that can be best applied to the modern context to explain some of the social problems happening in the family setting? Of what use is it to look at the different life stages?

Reading Commentary and Questions Week 1

In “ American Family Decline: 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal” Popenoe, in my opinion, falls short in making his argument stick. To begin with, his definition of the ‘family’ is not at all inclusive of the different family types that exist in the modern world. Popenoe does try to include different types of families (single-parent families, stepfamilies, non-married and homosexual couples) but he does not include group of kin that consist of an adult and a non-dependent person (for example, co-habitors who both have jobs but with no child). I agree with Stacey in that the term ‘family’ is an ideological, symbolic construct that has a history and politics rather than an institution (Stacey, 545). There is no universal definition and because of this, there are bound to be numerous disagreements.

In addition to this, throughout his article, Popenoe mentions the detrimental effects that this “decline” of family has on children but he falls short in providing conclusive evidence in backing up his argument. Just as Glenn argues, Popenoe is over-generalizing and making assumptions, which result in ambiguousness. Rather than looking at the present state of the family in the eyes of modern times, Popenoe looks at it through the 1950s perspective (which he admits himself is an abnormal period of family stability). In order to fully understand the state of the family, we must look at the societal, economic, and political changes that happened in relation to the changes in the family structure. As the societal norms and expectations change over time, it is no surprise that the family is changing in order to meet these new expectations. In relation to this, the term “decline” (which Popenoe uses throughout his article) has a negative connotation while the current changes in family does not necessarily equate to disadvantages.

Discussion questions:

1. Is it truly impossible to come up with a universal definition of the family? Is this because we tend to see this term more as a social construct rather than as an institution?

2. In your opinion, are children from broken families (non-traditional nuclear families) more prone to disadvantages? In addition, is there any conclusive (official) data in which this statement can be supported?

3. In his response to the other responses on his article, Popenoe mentions the issue of political correctness. Is political correctness relevant to the “decline” of the family?