Re: "Family values"

[Celia Winkler <cwinkler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, I usually put it in terms of "women's well-being" or "women's
situation."  That's what I get for writing when tired.  It is precisely the
situation of the "most vulnerable" (to use the language of Swedish policy
makers in teh early 1960s) that is the most important.

It is a complicated argument that involves discussion of universal vs.
selective benefits, the "post-modern irony" of the WalMartization and what
some call the "Toyotaization" (just-in-time production, hiring, etc.) of
society, the "two-thirds/one-third" society, and the complex nature of
choice...

I had a student tell me the other day that now that she was graduating and
in the "real world," she didn't have time for all these academic concerns
that we had the luxury of discussing.  Are my concerns that the situation
of the "most vulnerable," that is, the woman in the lowest stratum of our
society, are attended to?  That she is given the same luxury of choosing
her partners and her living situation given to the most well-off woman?  I
have worked with enough abused women, enough women miserable in
economically dependent relationships, enough older women deserted by kin
and state alike, that to me economic independence or what Orloff called
"autonomy" is a most pressing issue.  I do not think ANY benefits should be
tied to family status.  (Well, that might be one or two, but none that come
to mind immediately.)   Even concerning parental leave, I think there may
be situations where a roommate might be the most appropriate person to take
leave to care for an infant.

At 12:00 PM 5/20/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>
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