Re: Nationalism is Always Gendered

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Correction re my original question: Someone *started* the use of the
slogan "family values," and he/she/it was not one of the millions who
now for various reasons accept it with various meanings. It was only
that initiator to whom I applied (no doubt sloppily) the "keep em etc."
So I can agree with everything Doug and Kathy have said. I would
still argue that the motives of that originating source were more
or less consciously malevolent, however described. No one talked
about family values in the 40s or 50s or even 60s. When did it
come into circulation?

Carrol

Katha Pollitt wrote:

> I agree that "family values" is not quite the same as "keep them
> barefoot and pregnant." As Doug points out, women are big customers for
> conservative family ideals. From women's point of view, I think "family
> values" often means: keep him sober and home.
>
> About Kris Luker -- I adore her, but i think in that book she fell for
> the pro-lifers a bit too much.  I've seen this in lots of anthro and
> sociological papproaches to the pro-lifers (Fay Ginzburg for ex). The
> sophisticated youngish woman academic who falls in love with the homy
> motherly por-lifers. Of her own side she's much more critical, because
> it's her world and she can see its flaws close up.
>    for instance, Luker is v sympathetic to the pro-lifers acceptance of
> lack of control.  But pro-lifers seek medical care as assiduously as
> everyone else.  A pregnancy must come to term -- but not a tumor.  they
> don't rely on god to pay their mortgage, either.
>
> katha