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?