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?

Household Labor

The juxtaposition of emotions with divisions of labor left me thinking about two issues relevant to the readings: how does “love” interact with perceptions of household labor, and how do these perceptions apply to family structures outside of marriage and even beyond cohabiting couples? The former question came from a quote in the Hochschild essay. She describes one woman as stating, “If you help me at home I will feel grateful for that and love you” (115). This struck me as odd; is love reliant almost purely on this economy of gratitude? Increasingly we see couples living together before marriage (if marriage occurs at all), so is this exchange and division of labor not established before marriage? Does it change drastically with marriage (previous readings would indicate that marriages do enforce traditional gender roles more so than unconventional arrangements). Perhaps this change can be explained by an examination of life course, or more simply time. Marriages and relationships can extend for long periods of time and require constant negotiation on the part of both individuals, and understanding each others perceptions of gratitude are a part of that.

However, I wonder if this “economy of gratitude” extends just beyond couples to all kinds of familial relationships. Reading all these accounts of the divisions of labor and the integration of gender roles, I couldn’t help but think about the importance of these relations in two other kinds of relationships: roommates and larger families than parents and children living in the same house. Even though Americans and Canadians tend to hold individualism as an ideal, sharing living space is a reality for many more than just college students. A few examples we have discussed are the prevalence of children moving back home, living longer without bring married, and multiple families living in the same home to save money. From my experience living with three men for four years, I can say that most people expect I am fully responsible for cooking and cleaning, while in reality we have established a much more egalitarian division of labor based on the fact that we’re all decent human beings who care about each other. I wonder how gendered divisions of labor change for other unconventional yet prevalent family structures. In general, I feel that it is important to examine the division of labor in married couples, but equally as important to recognize that these are not the only structures in which people situate themselves, and perhaps seeing the married couple as the ideal perpetuates stigmas which harm all sorts of familial relationships.
1) Hochschild discusses that the economy of gratitude can be applied to lesbian and gay couples as well. Research on this differs, so does anyone know if “gendered” or unequal power relationships are a factor of earnings?
2) What other family structures could provide a more egalitarian division of household labor, and how can they be more institutionally recognized?
3) Is love purely a factor of the economy of gratitude?

Work and Family

This week’s readings made me think of an article that was recently published in Slate magazine entitles “Going Dutch, Women in the Netherlands work less, have lesser titles and a big gender pay gap, and they love it” (found here: http://www.slate.com/id/2274736/). Only around 10% of Dutch women work full time; the majority work 25 hours or less, and are cited as spending their time taking care of families and “having fun”. The writer of the article discusses her opinion of work as an American women and speculates that perhaps we in North America have it all wrong. As Correll, Benard and Paik (2007) show, there is stigma surrounding motherhood that inhibits a mother’s advancement within the workplace, so is the attempt to shatter the glass ceiling just depriving us of unhappiness? This strikes me as a system that Hochschild would approve of, in that it raises the value of care from parents, rather than it being a “pass-on job” (196).

However, what this and many other articles leave out, or do not address enough, is that a woman’s need to work is largely affected by her socioeconomic status. As the article about Dutch women brings up, 25% could not financially support themselves, even with government help. This creates a culture of dependency on male partners, which as we have seen can have dangerous consequences for those in abusive relationships (although I do not know the statistics of this in the Netherlands). In addition, many women want to work more, but the government dictates that they are not allowed to take on more hours thereby creating difficulties for some women to make ends meet. However, this difference in class does not disappear when we look at women in America or Canada, so perhaps the Dutch really are onto something. Regardless of whether or not this seems like a good idea, it is important to challenge our notions of class and work.

1) Are there other approaches to reforming women’s place in the work world that are somewhere in between “trying to be a man” and accepting that work is a man’s world?

2) Is love really a zero sum game of affection? Hochschild brings up that some nannies love the child they watch more then their own children, but is this a transference of love, or perhaps a side effect of the expectation and roles played in the differing relationships one might have with a child they watch, and their own children?

3) Would Hochschild’s “solution” of valuing care really improve the situation of women who take on these jobs in foreign countries? Does it address the root of the problem she presents: the higher pay?

Children

This week we look at many challenges to the norm of the archetype of the middle class nuclear family, from same sex parents, to the role of children themselves. While all of the articles acknowledge the importance of recognizing differences and obstacles they give little to the discussion of the achievement of this restructuring. This week stresses the raising of children, and the different involvement of parents, and I wanted to bring up the Harlem Children’s Zone as an interesting example of an organization that is set on challenging and changing the divisions caused by socioeconomic class, race, and gender especially with regard to parenting and education. The organization was started by a man who grew up in Harlem, NY and managed to work his way to a middle class lifestyle. He said that when his wife became pregnant, he realized that one of the biggest differences between the parents in his suburb and those in Harlem was access to literature and ideas on “correct” parenting, ie predominantly middle class ideas on raising children, which I don’t say as a bad thing. He realized however, that education, for children and parents, had to be reconfigured at a structural level to have an effect. The group now works within a 97 block radius in New York, providing social services, “training” parents, and providing educational services from day care through college to strengthen individuals, family units and the community.

Obviously providing educational, after school, and health services is extremely important, but I found their emphasis on parenting really interesting and pertinent to this week. They provide a way to essentially “distill and distribute” the writing and ideas on the “best parenting” to those who do not have time or resources. By emphasizing involvement in children’s lives, broader communication, investment in education, and changing ideas of discipline, or just telling parents to use positive words with their children, the organization provides means of implementation for ideological change concerning parental involvement. However, the difficult part of this process is having parents realize that their life may not change; the work they are doing is for their children’s future which in a culture of individualism may not be fair. Of course, their methods are not perfect, but rising literacy and graduation rates from both high school and college attest to its effectiveness.

1. Do you think it is right for an organization to stress and provide means of implementation of “middle class values”?

2. Different kinds of communication are stressed in these articles. What are the class differences in techniques of communication- both in day-to-day life, and extended relationships with family members?

3. Can a parent control what is heard in eavesdropping? Does it take a complete change in attitudes to ensure it will not garner negative consequences?

Family Structures and Bonds

After reading the Furstenberg article, I immediately thought of one of the New York Times Magazine’s most popular articles from the year, “What is it About 20-Somethings?” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1282676491-3hvq0XR8G6jRKOF07o4s+w). The article explores the question of “why it is taking so long for 20-somethings to grow up” through considerations from developmental psychology to legal definitions of “adult”. When it came out the article was sent to me by a good number of my parent’s friends who still ask at every meeting if I “know what I want to do with myself”, as well as posted on numerous friend’s facebook walls and blogs as a sort of badge of honor- a way of saying, yes, I am one of these people that society does not appreciate. However, very few of my friends who are from the baby boomer generation have stayed at one job their entire life, or even remained in one field. While reading the articles from this week, I couldn’t help but wonder: is changing careers, partners, and many other parts of our life the norm? Even in the life course article the writers acknowledge that marriages are not static, so should we embrace values of stability in all areas of our life so sincerely? Certainly there are advantages reported on for stability, but as with many phenomena discussed in the readings and in class, I wonder how much of the anxiety and negative circumstances produced come from the discrepancy between societal expectations and reality.

Questions
1. What circumstances could affect the acceptance of children moving back home? ie. location, family socioeconomic status, job market competition. Will an increase in young adults returning home change societal values, and is there a difference between children moving home and children being supported by their parents but living elsewhere?

2. If minority groups tend to have closer family and intergenerational ties, will the life course change as drastically?

3. What different challenges do single fathers face than single mothers?

Marriage, Cohabitation, and Parenthood

This week we look at the controversial states of marriage, cohabitation and child rearing as they vary by geography and demographics. These readings ask us to consider the choices we make with regards to family and children, while taking our individual and societal context into account. More often than not these two are in conflict, and it is important to consider whether the resulting dissonance has a positive or negative effect on our lives and the lives of our family. For Canada and the United States, traditional marriage has been and continues to be the predominant social norm. The various legal rights and protections inherent in marriage are limited within cohabiting couples. In the United States, some states such as California provide cohabiting couples with almost equal protections as married couples, however other parts of the country limit the rights provided. In addition, the definition of “cohabitation” varies by state. In Canada there is less property right protection for cohabiting couples, however common-law marriages are available to straight and gay couples. Interestingly though, only a small percentage of Canadians qualify two married homosexual individuals with children as a family. (We will post the survey that discussed this shortly.)

In the United States, recent controversy over the definition and “protection” of marriage erupted onto the political field with a bid for same-sex marriage. While support for same-sex marriage seems to be growing, (according to CNN, 46% of the US now feels that the government should give legal recognition), the rhetoric is still not acceptable within politics. Neither President Barak Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two politicians lauded for their socially groundbreaking presidential campaigns, say that they support gay marriage (President Obama did support the overturn of Proposition 8 in California despite his lack of commitment to gay marriage).

Furthermore, the existence of cohabitation appears also to be in constant conflict with the institution of marriage: recent debates rage over the ideal family to raise children, the legitimacy of non-heterosexual marriage, and the rights of non-married family members to legal protection and support.

This week’s readings have demonstrated that lived realities may not coincide with ideology. Perceptions of ideal families, marriages, and ways of raising children are encoded in specific societal beliefs, and can severely affect the lives of those who deviate from those expectations. Universal rising cohabitation rates show us that change is occurring. The example of Quebec illustrates that an “avant-garde” life choice can become a stable norm when there is societal acceptance.

More and more people are making the conscious choice to cohabit, to be single mothers, to fight for the rights of gay and lesbian couples, but will this be enough to synthesize the realities and ideals of family life?

As Mannis states toward the end of “Single mothers by choice”,

“Most social institutions operate as if the traditional heterosexual, married, two-parent family is the only family form. This places burdens and stigma on nontraditional families. The dominant view supports the traditional family as ideal and the norm against which other families are compared. Other family structures are viewed as deficit models (Rice, 1994).”

Mannis, however, along with much of Western society, continues to base assertions of familial variability on the traditionally White, high-status normative family structure. In so doing, fails to fully acknowledge the societal differentiation between valued and non-valued groups. A reorganization of single mothers (or any other social group) across socioeconomic, racial, or geographical boundaries (artificial or otherwise) does not recognize the intersectionality of disempowerment. Indeed, the above statement takes on an ironic meaning considering the subjects of the article.

While many continue to challenge the two-parent, heterosexual family ideology, individuals who engage in non-traditional relationships adopt or retain highly traditional sexual roles (gay parents as disciplinarians, lesbians as nurturers, single mothers in need of children to mother). The evidence on cohabitation suggests that marriage no longer meets the needs of the post-modern family. As societal expectations and personal goals shape and shaped by the broader socio-political environment, many areas (Sweden, Quebec, to name but two) no longer seem to be compatible with traditional marriage. Take a look at these two articles on the changing nature of marriage and cohabitation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-minogue/traditional-marriage-and_b_191423.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/06/is-living-in-sin-still-bad-for-your-marriage.html?from=rss
As well as these:
A simple definition of marriage from our friendly neighborhood monsters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJvSzkVfRg
And this offensive yet effective video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

We look forward to reading your responses!

Paper Proposal

For this paper I would like to examine the role of the family in the prevention of HIV/AIDS in adolescents. Higher parental involvement correlates negatively with risk taking behaviors in adolescents, which includes less risky sexual behavior such as sex with fewer partners and a greater incidence of contraceptive use. Ecodevelopmental theory cites that this must include family involvement at an individual/intimate level, parental monitoring of interactions with peers, and parental involvement in school. It also acknowledges that macro factors such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and immigrant status have an effect on the rate of adolescent infection. However the theory does little to address the tensions between the micro level expectations and macro level patterns, and for that reason it remains incomplete. The micro level structures focuses mainly on an “ideal” of the middle class nuclear family, while Hispanic, Black, and those of a low socioeconomic status are overrepresented in the macro level structures. In addition, the majority of families affected by HIV/AIDS, particularly childhood and adolescent cases, are Black or Hispanic, single parent families, and of a lower socioeconomic status.

While studies necessitate a functionalist role of the family in health, variation among race, socioeconomic class, and changing family structures challenge and complicate this theory.

By looking at studies of family structure and involvement over ethnicity and socioeconomic class I would like to examine the correlation between greater parental involvement and rates of HIV/AIDS in adolescents. In addition, I would like to examine different types of family structures on rates of infection, and the effect of tension between micro and macro level effects on intimacy and care. The highest prevalence is currently among Black single-mother families, but can changing family structures affect infection rate? The micro level structures of involvement focus on the time spent on intimate relations and care, but I do not think that this can, or should, be prescribed only to the nuclear family.

Family and Intimacy

"Friends are the family that you choose" is a phrase that is central to the lives of many in terms of love and care. Of course, not all friends are “family”, and the transition from one to the other is an extremely powerful way to redefine a relationship. The rhetoric used in defining a non-blood relative as “family” is powerful, and as mentioned emphasizes the importance of the role of the family within society and individual life. This shift recalls Hochschild’s examination of contexts and measures of emotion. The “family” as those you care for and are most intimate with shapes the context of the individual’s perception of what they “should” feel, and what they really feel. Society, (excuse the broad term) dictates that we have a responsibility to care for family above all, therefore if friends fall into this category of care and intimacy, their grouping must be changed to relieve the dissonance.

Perhaps this idea of “friends as family” instead of a more fluid conception of friends found in Roseneil and Budgeon's work, emerges from a framework of the ideal of the nuclear family, or the family within commercial society, rather than families or individuals who find themselves already displaced from common societal definitions of the family. They discuss the occasional awkwardness of living in an intimate relationship that rests outside of conventional definitions; however, these arrangements still seem to allow for changes in definitions. Perhaps these social movements are key to dismantling the commercialization of the family.

1) How are actions and attitudes towards an individual changed when they become “family”? Has this changed over time? With different laws regarding families, divorce, and child rearing?

2) How is the shift towards intimacy with friends described by Roseneil and Budgeon a reversion to community based care? How is it different?

3) Is the commercialization of intimacy inherently “good” or “bad”?

Feminism and Care Perspectives

In her introduction, Hochschild discusses addressing the question, “why do we care?”. I believe that it is equally as important to ask, “why do some people not care for families?”. As mentioned in class, it is not necessarily deviations from the traditional family structure that create problems for children or spouses, but rather neglect, lack of social support, or abuse from a family member, and the effect these relationships can have on an individual or society when institutionalized, (I'm not talking about divorce or people who choose not to have children). As discussed by Ferree, this can be viewed in terms of both locational and relational intersectionality. Locationally, this is partially addressed by Pyke’s discussion of masculinities and Hoshschild’s take on balancing femininities. We can examine why men and women act a certain way by viewing their place within these somewhat set expectations of men and women. Expectations placed upon men within society tends to separate them into upper-class ideologies in which the man can solely provide for the family, and working-class tendencies which can result in abusive or domineering “male” tendencies due to pressures to achieve this expected economic masculinity. However it is equally important to realize that we create these enduring expectations, and to examine where they come from.

I think what is left out of these discussions is the truly intersectional nature of the individual. Expectations and norms from society and the groups we belong to shape us all, however no two individuals experiences can be derived from generalizations regarding groups, simply because there are too many complex and competing ideas. It is important to examine the individual when looking at families that did “not work”. This makes policy creation harder, however as brought up by Pyke, policy is already established on a somewhat faulty basis of the traditional family, and should be rearranged.

Questions:

1. In last weeks class we discussed life courses and institutionalized gender norms. Do both kinds of masculinities (working and upper class) discussed in Ferree’s article fit in with the life course approach? If not, how does is differ for these two groups? What other factors could influence the differences between masculinities?
2. Ferre touches on race in discussing masculinities yet focuses on white middle class men. Can “cultural differences” create different expectations on working and upper class men of different races? Do the same class divisions hold as much weight when other factors are introduced?
3. We see how inequalities become normalized through advertising, social expectations and policy. What changes could be made to promote gender equalities? What about policies regarding the family (and care) specifically?

Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

After considering the diverse strategies presented in these articles, I began to ask what the point of all these approaches were. To me it seems two-fold: personal development and policy. One part of sociological research is an attempt to explain individual behavior, and even justify it in accordance with greater observed trends. The other is, as Ben-Porath discusses, an appeal to policy makers. Many of the articles discussed the importance of social welfare. However research on all types of the family is necessary to understand how this should be implemented- should there be more support for single mothers? Should more money be provided during the first year of childbirth?

As necessary as this is for policy, there are two glaring problems. First, all the research presented in these studies is retrospective, and leads to the formation of policies which are reactionary rather than preventative. When looking at life-courses, biosocial, or economic approaches to family research, we observe trends and general effects of history, which show that the family is pretty constantly in flux. There are general life changes that all these theories address (marriage, having children, etc), but if attitudes towards divorce, marriage, and even the age of undergoing puberty is changing, how can we predict future trends? In addition, questions of “should” imply that there is a correct way the family and “life courses” need to develop. These articles skim over the studies used, and don’t release demographic information on their participants, making me wonder how applicable they are to the general population.

Questions:

1. What assumptions do the writers make in assuming the way a family “should” develop?
2. Did you find that your personal feelings and biases affected your readings of these articles? If so, what were they?
3. Are there other factors that could explain the biological approach to family development?

Is the family in decline?

One theme that threads through these very different opinions and approaches to the “family wars” is the inevitability and sometimes dangerous nature of individual opinions in social research and policy formation. However the different approaches presented, from Popenoe’s “traditional definition” and correlational studies to Coontz’s historical examination, illustrate the importance of considering multiple definitions and research methods to attempt to gain a broader picture. This highlights an issue that I imagine will reoccur though our studies of the family: reconciling the practicality of limited definitions and personal views with attaining a multidisciplinary, global, and hopefully more “complete” research.

These reading also made me think of the prominent American rhetoric to “protect the children and family”. On one side, this greatly influences political policy regarding controversial issues such as abortion and pornography, while governmental social programs like the “No Child Left Behind” program, which uses much of the same rhetoric, remains chronically under funded. I agree with Hochschild that more social programs are needed, not just because the institution of the family is in “decline”, but to create stronger versions of what we already see as important socializing forces, such as education. In America there is a strong stigma around government intervention, however the unique social times that Coontz addresses calls for an acceptance of greater social programs (both for the family and outside of it), and with this a change in what the family represents in society. Canada is leading the way somewhat with greater parental leave, child services, and health care, and America could use this as an example for institutional and cultural reform.

Questions:

1. Can there ever be one coherent definition of the family? What are the drawbacks and benefits of creating this definition? How has globalization affected research surrounding this definition?
2. Has any society reached Stacey’s state of the “post modern family”? Is it attainable in our current political and cultural climate?
3. How does the need to reconcile individual family structure with societal expectations of the family affect individual happiness? Familial happiness? Is there even a need?