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