In thinking about Linda Nicholson's closing statement that we must acknowledge,that "most of us are deviants" means recognizing that the distinction between "traditional" and "alternative" families no longer has meaning, I wonder how we can challenge ourselves to think of other problematic binaries and social dichotomies. We put the words "traditional" and "alternative" in quotation marks but why not "family." In thinking about the language we use, the question arises whether to shift the vocabulary altogether or re-interpret already existing definitions. I found Brooks' poem to be an almost painful cleavage to an ideal of familial love. Why is that the faint spec of life automatically means there is, or ought to be, a connection of love between mother and cell? Is Brooks not a victim of the constraints of familial definition?

The Facts of Fatherhood article and The Myth of a Traditional Family are especially interesting when read in comparison, or rather, in dialogue, with one another. In Laqueur's in-depth account of Mary and Jordhan's custody battle, the court is ultimately the institution holding the power to decide on a solution for this family. Yet, how can coherent laws be written to regulate custody when, as Nicholson points out, there is no such thing as a truly universal family form? The fact that these battles exist all, what does that say about the obsession with 'ownership' in American culture (as pointed out by Laquer's anecote about the Algonquin chief wondering why whites can only love their own biological children)? How do the arguments/complaints of these two authors see eye to eye, and how do they differ? Which one is more convincing?

Lacquer speaks to the emotional roots of parenting, rather than biology, and I think that this explains the judgment in the Mary and Jhordan case. The specifics about the need for the involvement of a physician in order to separate a woman from a donor is an attempt to cut off this emotional investment, and the confusion in the case arose from the failure of Mary to fully explain to Jhordan her intentions, leaving his name off of the birth certificate while saying she would "acknowledge" him as the father. I agree with Lacquer that is the emotional connections of parenting, rather than biology that matter. In fact, the biological argument itself is somewhat suspect: the hormones produced by childbearing that are supposed to bond a mother to her child can also result in postpartum depression and a complete rejection and hatred toward the child. Adrienne brings up an important point about the difficulty of making this emotional parenting legal, that is, bringing  it into family law. In the case of an abandoned child, I think that the law necessarily looks to biological parents in order to find someone to take responsibility for someone that cannot be responsible for themselves. However, I think that the legal system also needs to take into account emotional parents (or "psychological parents") in cases where that parents seeks continued custody or a relationship with a child, like the Lofton v. Fluoroy case. 

In Nicholson's article, she responds to the "anything goes" critique with a somewhat puzzling argument of intolerance: "but to say that [historically new family types usually occur for a reason] does not entail that tolerance is always warranted or warranted to include all specifics" (37). But if a family should be judged on whether it provides "economic and emotional sustenance to its members, given its resources," then it seems that the literal family type is irrelevant. So what kind of family structure would Nicholson not tolerate?

I really enjoyed reading Thomas Laqueur's article "The Facts of Fatherhood," as I felt it examined the issues of what it actually means to be a parent from and interesting and pertinent perspective, including issues facing surrogate mothers, gay families, and sperm donors in his discussion. The idea of paternal rights was particularly interesting to me and brought up many other questions about the extent to which fathers or other non birth giving parents should legally have a say in what happens to the child. I have heard the argument that fathers should have to give their consent before an abortion takes place, and I find this to be an interesting and risky debate. What do you all think?

Nicholson, pg28: "Whether a type of family provides economic and emotional sustenance to its members, with special attention to children......should constitute the primary criteria by which it is evaluated. The distinction between 'traditional' and 'alternative' families gets in the way of our being able to make such considered evaluations." One example of such an alternative family is homosexual couples which have an obstacle in that, "the same gender of adult partners makes gay and lesbian households appear different from heterosexual ones in visual terms" (pg36). How can we overcome such visual discrimination that hinders our overall evaluation of a family's functional ability? Is it possible?
I also found it refreshing to read an article by a man about the family and fatherhood (Laqueur).

The Facts of Fatherhood

Lacquer suggests that we "abandon the notion that biology--facts--will somehow provide the resolution," and, for the most part, I agree; after all, if biology were never ignored, then perhaps people who had given up their children for adoption would, somewhere down the line, be able to reclaim ownership of that child, despite the lack of any emotional connection. What, then is a parent? Because if we ignore biology, then how can child support be enforced in a case in which a struggling single mother cannot get the "father" or "man who impregnated her" to pay child support? If the notion of biology is abandoned, could this deadbeat get away with not paying child support, since he never acted as or felt like the father?

The chapters from Arlie Hochschild's The Second Shift were fascinating.  Reading the justifications of Carmen and Frank intrigued me:

"By discrediting cultural models of female assertion, by strictly confining her tendency to dominate to the 'female' sphere... by raising Frank above her--putting him on a pedestal--Carmen pursued submission as part of a traditional strategy.  She squelched her assertion outside the home; she actively magnified any feelings of dependence; these were the psychological moves that kept her soul in line with her strategy" (72-73).

It boggles my mind that Carmen would "actively [magnify] any feelings of dependence" in order uphold her ideals of what family life should be.  It makes sense, obviously, but it still fascinates me, and frustrates me that people are forced to go so far as to manipulate behavior in order to keep their familial ideals in tact.  With Carmen and Frank's situations, especially, the primary reason for their having to manipulate their behavior is economic.  How do we reconcile economic issues and familial ideals?  Is manipulating behavior in the manner Carmen did the only way? 

It was refreshing to me to read Laqueur's article. I think that it is important not only with respect to fatherhood and alternative motherhoods (lesbian non-birthmothers), but even to the parents of adopted children and to non-parent caregivers (grandparents who raise their grandchildren, etc.). My question is: why do you think people generally see mothers as more legitimate parents than fathers? Is it solely a societal idea, instilled into us by the patriarchal "father works, mother stays home and raises the children" 1950s normative family structure, out of which we still haven't been able to fully escape? Or is there something within our biology that is set to recognize the mother as the most important caregiver?

The Laqueur article brought into question many ideas about parenthood that Western society ften views as fact. For example, the concept of a mother's bond with her child being stronger than that of the father. He points out that even while this may be true, it is only so because of the labor the mother has to go through in order to give birth to a child. Additionally, he seems indignant that there is no recorded "history of fatherhood" and that there is no male equivalent of feminism to "spur the study of men." I take issue with this stance because as he even admits, men are those who have been responsible for the recording of history for so long. Therefore, if this is a complaint against women for stealing the historical spotlight from men, then it is completely out of place. Likewise, the complaint that women's bond with children is seen as stronger than a father's bond is also misappropriated because in both of these cases, the power to change this historical phenomenon is in the hands of men themselves.

Laqueur's article complicates the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood. I found it interesting that he considers fathers to be "ideas" and mothers to be "fact" (Laqueur 207) - yet in his article he discusses the case of Mary K. vs. Jhordan C. in which fatherhood is legally imposed upon a lesbian couple - despite the obvious construction of a two-parent family unit, the law insisted upon inserting the biological father into the equation. On one hand one could argue that the authorities probably preferred to have Jhordan pay for childcare rather than partition welfare funds to the couple. On the other hand it appears that fatherhood is far more concrete and "factual" than Laqueur presents (where a male is not already existing in the picture, which further complicates matters taking in gender and sexuality biases [Laqueur 215-6]). Although not explicitly addressed in this article, it seems to indicate that motherhood and fatherhood are no longer (never were?) set structures, but rather fluid social constructs that are influenced by politics, culture and economic class; this suspicion is confirmed in Nicholson's article as she evaluates different types of "alternative families" (Nicholson 35-37). It seems again to return to the concept of "self" and "other" - a need for possession (in this case of the child) and the distinction of male/female roles by the heterosexual majority. Since the family structure is the elemental unit from which society presumably developed, it is interesting to see that the "relationship" of family as the "parent" and society as the "child" is reversed and society is now shaping the families...

I was a bit surprised at the turn that Laquer's article, "The Facts of Fatherhood," took as it developed.  I suppose his look at the historical viewpoints of motherhood and fatherhood (and the transitions/changes both words/identities have endured) is extremely interesting in comparison to how the definitions of motherhood and fatherhood are viewed now (as expressed fairly clearly by Arlie Hochschild's anecdotal accounts in The Second Shift), yet I think he failed to make a very strong point about fatherhood and its meaning -- especially where he would like to see it, and how he would like other fathers to embody that position.  Maybe it was wrong of me to expect that from him, yet I do think -- after reading the Nicholson, Hochschild, and Laquer's readings (unfortunately, Brooks' poem doesn't really fit into my post), it seems obvious that this unsolved issue between traditional/alternative (right/wrong?) roles and structures truly needs to be addressed as we progress into the 21st century.  Why does the government refuse to recognize the changing shape of American families -- where does this implied need to hold on to the "traditional" family structure stem from?  How do we view and confront the definitions of father/motherhood so that individuals can truly embody the responsibilities as a professional and as a parent (equally?)?  Where is the space for -- as take from an extremely early reading this semester -- the "new man's movement," and how do we -- as a society -- encourage its development?

11/20/2008

Nicholson's The Myth of the Tradition Family goes over the historical factors that created and consolidated the idea of a "traditional family". Thomas Lacquer, on the other hand, proposes abandoning biology as the determinant of assigning parental roles and rights. How would the application of his argument affect/fight against the racial, social, and economic implications embedded into the idea of a "traditional family" that she discusses? Is his suggestion a potential solution to the notion of an "alternative" family or "deviant" life against which Nicolson battles? If so, would it eradicate the "traditional v. alternative" constructs altogether or do we need more in order to accomplish this?

Something I found very interesting was the hypocracy outlined by Linda Nicholson in "The Myth of a Traditional Family". Nicholson draws a parallel between the formulation of a "traditional family" and the emergene of deviant families i.e. single parent homes, homosexual relationships etc.  She discusses the boom during the postwar period as a catalyst for family not only being defined as a mother, father and child but also for "alternative families" as well--"Such family types are no more 'alternative' to what had preceded them than had been the 1950's type to its historical predecessors". She goes on to discuss how the definition of a "traditional family" has changed from the pre-industrial era to now. Something I kept pondering through the text, however, is how can society hold such stringent ideas of what composes a family when the idea itself has changed so many times?

In reading Arlie Hochschild’s “The Second Shift,” I was made very aware of the idea of “shame” that Nicholson brings up very explicitly in her essay. Hochschild’s concept of the “myth” and the “gender strategy” are perfect examples of how families deal with the shame they feel for not being normal families (i.e woman stays at home and rears the children and man is the breadwinner). All of the couples operate out of some sort of fear: fear of losing your spouse, fear of ending up like your mother, and a general fear of judgment from people who can see that you do not conform to your gender roles. When I was first reading about Carmen and Frank, I found myself casting incredibly harsh judgments on Carmen for wanting to be a subordinate, domesticated housewife. And I realized that I’m just as much a victim to the “myth of the traditional family” as anyone else. My parents are both professional career people; for me, this is the norm. I think that Nicholson’s definition of the “traditional” family isn’t as concrete as she makes it out to be, but I definitely understand her point of how powerfully it dictates our relationships. Hochschild’s profiles of the various couples confirms this, in showing that the most effective way to deal with slight deviations from the traditional family is to come up with a strategy, or a manipulation tactic. But I suppose, in reading the Nicholson article, I felt some sort of hope that this notion of tradition is flexible and capable of reformation. If working wives and mothers used to be considered “alternative,” then we’ve definitely made strides. It makes me think that 50 years from now, someone in this same gender studies class is going to be reading about how same-sex marriage used to be non-normal…hopefully! But it all brings me back to something we’ve been talking about all semester, which is this idea that even if we are redefining “norms,” we are still acknowledge that some things are right and some things are wrong. We are still acknowledging that some people just don’t fit. So, I ask in response to Nicholson’s idea of evaluation, why evaluate at all? Wouldn’t this help to truly alleviate the dichotomy between “traditional” and “alternative”?

Event

One more Monday night event:

November 24th

Brooks Parlor 6-7:30

Women in the Workforce: Discussion with Congresswoman Carolyn B. Mahoney

6:30-7:30

I was happy to see the piece on fatherhood by Thomas W. Laqueur. How can one discuss motherhood and family without discussing fatherhood as well? Laqueur points to the fact that like the notion of the traditional family, the notions of mother and father are historically and culturally constructed 'facts.' Laqueur speaks of facts as "shifting sands" upon which ideas are built and consequently, moral codes and even law. 

I am satisfied with the way that the writers wrote with deep senses of historicity this week. Laqueur is also interested in the mistaken senses of ownership that 'parents' are compelled to feel. He sites the Algonquin chief who found it so puzzling that whites could apparently only love 'their' children, i.e., that only individual ownership entailed caring and affection." (208 Laqueur is presenting this as a polemic, that much too much emphasis is placed on 'owning' chromosomes and likenesses. But how much detachment or alienation from this matter is too much? Its a thin line.

Event

For those in class who were looking for an event in the rest of the semester that is not on a Tuesday/Thursday night, there is a lecture this Monday at 6 in 304 Barnard Hall. 

I can't figure out how to copy and paste here, but information is available at www.barnard.edu/bcrw/events.htm. 

"To Recross the Atlantic": Diasporic Art History and the Dialogic Imagination

Kobena Mercer

Monday 11/17 6:00 pm 

Reception to Follow 

Held Auditorium 304 Barnard Hall