Re: "Family values"

["Margaret M Gullette" <mgullette@xxxxxxx>]

Many thanks to Celia Winkler for the bibliography and ideas about the
limits of "family values" as rhetoric for forming coalitions to get
legislation. I think that your book's premise, "women's status in
society is dependent on how well they can live autonomously" is
interesting and worthwhile. It raises questions, though. Does
"women's status" get judged (and by whom?) on the status of the
working poor, or on the status of the best paid? Maybe women's
"status" is not the correct object, but women's (autonomous) standard
of living.
        I certainly didn't mean to tie arguments for ALL benefits to
family status.
            I take your point that the Swedish shorter work day (but
I think it should be week) should have been sold as a labor good as
well as family good. Here, if we had such a movement, it could be
sold as both, with an age angle: providing jobs for younger entrants
and for midlife workers who might otherwise  be downsized.
        Different rhetorics for different legislative situations,
perhaps.
        Thanks to Martha for her articulate way of arguing on behalf
of the pull of family rhetoric.
        Margaret


Resident Scholar, Women's Studies, Brandeis
e-mail: mgullette@xxxxxxx
617-965-2164
Home page:www.brandeis.edu/wmns/gullette.html

Declining to Decline judged "best feminist book on American popular
culture" (1998 Emily Toth Award)


-----Original Message-----
From: Celia Winkler <cwinkler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: A place for marxist-feminists to hang out
<M-Fem@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Nationalism is Always Gendered


>Sorry for the delay in responding to this.  Finals week and all
that.  I
>can think of some very good reasons why the left should not
appropriate the
>term "family values."  I would far prefer "child-friendly" "human
values"
>and so forth.
>
>First, there are a lot of people who do not fit the dominant view of
>family.  While it is possible to redefine terms in the popular
>consciousness (see Hobson and Lindholm's article in the 1997 Theory
and
>Society), it is quite difficult, and "family" is probably one of the
>hardest to redefine.  Redefining the term "family" has been a
project of
>the gay and lesbian movements, and the resistance to this has been,
as we
>are all aware, explicit and vehement.  In addition, not even the gay
and
>lesbian movements have been able to move very far from the
traditional
>nuclear family mold, even when the couple is same-sex.  While I
think it is
>important to eventually redefine the term, people cannot wait that
long to
>attain the necessary services.
>
>Second, in line with this, we need to begin thinking of individual
>entitlement to these benefits, rather than entitlement based on
status as a
>family member.  Tying benefits to family status is rife with
problems.  It
>puts too much onto families, so that divorce, death, domestic
violence and
>so forth can have effects beyond the emotional, and move into the
economic
>(which then exacerbates the emotional...)  Women's economic
independence is
>tied to their individual entitlement to benefits.  Sure, there are a
lot of
>good families out there, but there are also a lot of really awful
ones.
>
>See the 1988 article by Joan Acker for a critique of distribution of
these
>resources through family relations:  "Class, gender, and the
relations of
>distribution." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
13(3):473-498.
>
>
>The book I am currently writing takes as a major premise the notion
that
>women's status in society is dependent on how well they can live
>autonomously.  See Ann Shola Orloff's 1992 article for a discussion
of
>this:  "Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative
>Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States."  American
Sociological
>Review 58(3): 303-329.
>
>Some of the benefits you mention are troublesome, and if constructed
on the
>basis of a family structure, can have negative effects for women and
will
>not achieve the desired results.  Specifically, tax credits for
women
>helping family members at home are ONLY of any use to women
supported by a
>wage earner with a high wage.  What of the single woman caring for
an
>elderly mother?  By saying, "We have tax credits," the policy makers
can
>muffle demands for greater provision of in-home care by paid
providers.
>Both the adult daughter and the elderly mother are short-changed,
the adult
>daughter by an inability to attain adequate retirement provisions of
her
>own, and the elderly mother by possibly inadequate care by an
untrained and
>stressed-out caregiver.
>
>Paid parental leave is another sticky issue.  It has to be high
enough to
>provide a decent standard of living for the parent, but not so long
and
>expensive as to interfere with demands for quality and affordable
>childcare.  What about lost pension savings and social security
during the
>leave?  That has to be on the table.  How will it be paid for?  The
Swedish
>model of basing parental insurance on past earnings is problematic
for
>younger parents, but even that form of benefit is questionable in
the U.S.,
>specifically if informed by a "family values" argument.  More
likely, it
>would take the form of tax deductions (again useless for the sole
supporter).
>
>
>Sweden has had a mixed experience with shorter work days,
specifically
>because parents of young children have the right to work part-time
at
>part-time wages.  Again, who can afford to do that?  Who will do
that?
>Even in a nuclear family, it would tend to be the woman who works
the
>shorter day, exacerbating the already sex-segregated labor market.
The
>only good alternative is a *universal* shorter work day, for
everyone, not
>just parents.  Is it possible to put that in a "family values"
framework,
>or would the result be shorter days only for mothers?  Actually, I'm
>currently wrestling with the way that the Swedish policy makers in
the
>six-hour day debate wrestled with calling it "family policy" or
"labor
>policy."  The ultimate form of the "partial reform" was informed by
its
>location as a family policy issue.  It needed to be both.
>
>Another point--Anne Phillips makes the point that social solidarity
is not
>necessarily a product of family solidarity, and in fact, locating
>solidarity in family can have negative effects on social solidarity
by its
>very limited ambit.  I know that the argument for a left "family
values" is
>to take the idea of care into the public arena, but I'm not sure
that it


>>

>>>
>>>
>>
>Celia Winkler
>Sociology Department
>University of Montana
>Missoula, MT  59812-1047
>Office: (406) 243-5863
>Home: (406) 549-6285
>Fax:    (406) 243-5951
>cwinkler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>