Re: [Fwd: Re: "Family values"]

[Celia Winkler <cwinkler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:05 PM 5/26/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>                  One always over-emphasizes to emphasize, I suppose.
>I simply wanted to point out, to whoever believes that there are no
>or slight constraints on the decision to have children today (given
>all the changes Katha rightly mentions) that there are new
>constraints. ...

I agree in many respects--there are a really not a lot of good reproductive
choices.  But, damned if you do, damned if you don't.  There was a little
stir in our congressional campaigns this week when the incumbant accused
the challenger, an unmarried childless woman, of just not having the right
"Montana values."  This same guy was an avid supporter of the Contract on
America and welfare revisionism.
....
>        I suspect that Italy's negative birth rate has something to
>do with these new capitalist conditions of child-rearing. Sweden and
>Germany have generous programs for parents of new children. I can't
>imagine that the childfree there resent this; being "childfree" for
>those who identify with that condition, has its own rewards....

Keep in mind that Sweden is strongly pro-natalist (and a little shocked at
its current low birthrate) and western (now all) Germany has not exactly
been a haven for working moms, and also has low birthrates.  I have nothing
to back this up, but I got the sense in Sweden that it was expected that
everyone has children.  But this is more important--in Sweden, the strong
social policies that really help solo moms were constructed on two
principles: society's duty to *children* and women's economic independence,
in addition to traditional Social Democratic ideas about solidarity.

Returning to the original question about "family values" informing the
construction of social policy, I'd recommend taking a look at the comptime
legislation introduced by the Republicans in the last two sessions, and
again in this session.  The bills were all given names that priortized
"family values."  E.g. "The Family Friendly Workplace Act" and "Working
Families Flexibility Act."  The family rhetoric was a thin disguise over
plans to eliminate the overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, all in the name of the family.  I found it interesting that the
principal sponsor of the bills (Ballenger) had argued vehemently against
the Family and Medical Leave Act on the grounds that it would harm
business.  Also keep in mind that originally welfare deform was about
privileging marriage and punishing singleness, because "marriage is the
foundation of a successful society..."

>        As for praxis, today I lobbied at the request of CPPAX for
>three legislative items (sorry, Carroll): improvements in contingent
>work; improvements in welfare; a higher minimum wage. Two would help
>autonomous individuals and mothers; one mothers alone. I don't feel
>comfortable with an argument that I should have done only the two on
>behalf of autonomous individuals and not the other--which is one
>implication of the debate that has been going on here, although I'm

>sure no one meant that outcome.

I doubt that any of us--Carroll, Yoshie, Katha, or myself--would find fault
with your support of improvements in welfare.  In fact, I would venture to
say that we have all either written comparable letters or engaged in other
action in support of public assistance.  No, the problem lies in universal
policies that privilege marriage or exclude alternative family or living
relationships.  In addition, programs that support solo moms have
notoriously, over time, been subject to attack.  So, we have to use our
imagination and logic to come up with better ways of dealing with the
issue, and that means, as much as possible, creating policies that help
everyone, even the childless, and at the same time substantially improve
the well-being of solo moms and their children.  In that sense, minimum
wage and contingent work laws are just as much "solo mom friendly" as
welfare (if not moreso, because they lack the stigma and vulnerability to
attack historically characterizing welfare).  Welfare is still important,
but we should create the conditions where it is no longer necessary.  And
this may mean (and probably does mean) constructing conditions that help
even childless single people.


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