Domesticity

Megan Lynch
Marriage and Fam Blog
1. Briefly explain the egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter. What is emotion work and how is it related to this myth? Compare Holts' situation with your observations on the division of labor in your family or those of your friends.
Hochschild documents a very interesting case in her chapter. She describes a family called the Holt family. Both mother and father are employed and have a young son Joey. Nancy, the mom hopes to have a family and a career, balancing both of these “spheres” with her husband. Her husband Evan, makes more than 2/3 of the family’s income and believes that the time he should spend on “domestic activity” is less than the amount his wife feels is appropriate. It is a constant battle for the two of them. One that leaves Nancy feeling less important, making her feel as though her time is of less merit and value than her husbands. Also, because of Nancy’s constant and strong connection with her son, her husband Evan has a weaker relationship with his son. Nancy wants an egalitarian marriage, however she is constantly racked with feels of resentment and irritation with her husband. Nancy wants to exist in a household in which housework, cooking, and child raising duties are equally shared and balanced between husband and wife. The article points out observations of the Holt’s neighbors, seeing Nancy as working as much as a single mother. As a result, it seems as though Nancy works “two shifts.” She and her husband work the first shift from 8am-6pm and then she begins her second shift upon her arrival at home. Nancy grows frustrated with her lack of “leisure time” and her husband’s abundance of it. Nancy tries to instate a sort of schedule, to make their household duties fairer. However, Evan eventually slacks off and avoids them, getting angrier with his wife’s suggestions. This led to “emotional jabs.” Nancy commented on her husband’s lack of concern with domestic life, and became enraged at any comment he would make about her own work around the house. Nancy’s own personal fear of becoming like her mother, a woman who had little independence and was forced to concentrate solely on her place in the home daunted her. On the same token her husband fears a lack of control over his wife, and a seemingly unequal balance at their at home culture. The problem becomes a “push and pull” situation and eventually both feel that they are taken advantage of in one way or another. The problem sadly becomes a “family myth.” Eventually Nancy begins to avoid the problem and rationalizes the problem at hand. She tells herself that they have worked it out, separating their spheres into an upstairs/downstairs world. This “family myth” of equality is rationalized to avoid divorce and more conflict. Nancy, still however resents the divided labor but emotionally she can’t take the burden of it. She still works the two shifts, the first in the career field the second in her home as well as the emotional work of raising a son and caring for his needs. She resigns herself to believing that everything is okay, what Hochschild describes as “emotion work” in which she works hard at feeling “the right feeling she wants to feel to make and keep everything fine,” (46). She continues with this denial, and eventually is forced to reduce her own time at work- becoming more and more resentful. I found this article very interesting. I definitely recognized similar characteristics in families I know. However, I must admit that I am very lucky to come from a different type of home. I believe that my parents truly have an egalitarian marriage. I don’t think that it is a myth at all. I believe that it is possible, because I have seen it in action. My mother and father both work and yet have both equally been involved in raising me and my sister Kelly. My dad will go grocery shopping, clean the house, do the dishes and run errands. In fact, there are times when my dad does more stuff around the house than my mom does. If that is the case then my mom will make up for in another aspect. They never complain or argue about it. I strive to have a marriage like this as well. I know it is possible, as long as both parties are willing to cooperate.

2. Explain the concept of the “ideology of domesticity” described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.
Williams introduction sets the stage for her full article that follows. She begins by supplying the reader with a definition of the “ideology of domesticity.” This ideology stems back to a time in which men and women’s roles were separated and decided by their gender. It was believed that men belonged in the market because of their innate sense of rivalry with others and serve as the “breadwinner of the family.” For women, believed to be of a more emotional and morally suited personality, it was idealized that they find their “work” in the home; raising the children and tending to relationships and housework. This was believed and held as a standard for decades. In fact, a recent poll was taken of today’s society and about 2/3 of the population are still in accord with this ideology. Unfortunately, this ideology has a negative impact on today’s society. It affects single mothers, divorced mothers and married mothers. It is difficult to live as a women in today’s society as they are divided into two categories, “mommy” and “other.” Domesticity is not by any means extinct in today’s society, it is slightly changed but largely still supported by people. Williams states the three constraints, “Divorce is a well-known linked…with domesticity’s system of providing for children’s care by marginalizing their caregivers…Second by minimizing father’s involvement…Third, domesticity takes a toll on men by pressuring them to perform as ideal workers in an age when that often requires long hours of work,” (3-4).
I believe that the ideology of domesticity definitely was in existence for the hunters and gatherers as well as the colonial Americans. From the movies and articles we watched it was evident that men and women had specific jobs or roles which were expected of them in society. The men had their distinct duty, to hunt and gather and take care of supporting the needs of the family- needs such as food and shelter. However, the women were expected to raise the children and take care of their futures. The family structures remained the same generation after generation. It was a male dominant society, although everyone’s labor was valued. For example, the groom is expected to hunt for bride’s parents and women in general produce more food 60-80% of the supply. Both men and women are involved in the building of huts and fires and getting water. Children have more responsibility in this time, and they are forced to grow up faster. In colonial America it was slightly different. There was a division of labor between the sexes but in general all work was done in or near the home. There is a shift in the idea of marriage, it becomes a focus of the community as a whole. For example, there is a night courtship in which men and women are separated in different barns. There is definitely a distinction of domesticity in colonial times. Men would have jobs, work as apprentices and tend to their land. Women would assist, but in lesser extent. They would be involved in domestic work such as cleaning and cooking.

3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
Williams discusses the idea of “choice rhetoric” and free choice in her article. She says, “If women were to choose the same work patterns as men then they could and would evener more skilled occupations, and the male-female wage gap would be substantially more reduced.” Women are discriminated against all the time. Williams believes that courts use discrimination and argument that women “lack interest” in what have been accepted as male positions. She however believes that women’s roles at home should have no affect on their job work. She believes that by women using “free choice” as a means of feeling discriminated is only valid if women actually make this choice. She describes situations of the “ideal workers” talking about a time when both parents remained at home and then explains the transition into women in the workfield. She talks about a time when women were defined “by their inferiority” and hierarchy within the family existed. She then segue ways into the feminist era in which women challenged their roles as domestics in the 1960s, hoping to gain equal access in the job market. She also explains about the expectations of men in terms of supporter and breadwinner. I think that the argument is valid. It is extremely difficult for women to go against the norm and not experience challenges and hindrances. She writes, “choice concerns the everyday process of making decisions within constraints. Discrimination involves a value judgment that the constraints society imposes are inconsistent with its commitment to equality,” (37). I agree with Williams when she talks about how easy it is to get sucked back into “default mode.” I think in order to promote change and improvement people have to become and stay active. Choice rhetoric forces women to decide whether they want to remain as ideal workers or ideal mothers. I don’t think this is fair at all and I think in order for discrimination to stop women need to start going against the norm and following what they desire.

4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?
Carrington’s article describes situations in lesbigay families and compares them to heterosexual ones. Carrington uses interviews and studies in order to get a grasp on numbers and societal patterns. He discusses the common myth that lesbigay families are representations of egalitarianism. Because of stereotypes and societal expectations lesbigay families are often expected to show a different pattern or standard. However, Carrington points out that lesbigay and heterosexual families are faced with many of the same issues and problems. For lesbigay families there is often a blurred line, failing to make a distinction between “what they consider equal and what they consider fair,” (83). Both types of families struggle to find equal and fair balance between both parents. For lesbigay families it is especially difficult because of gender roles. For example for lesbians it is often difficult to find a balance between paid work and identity. “In a number of lesbian families…compensation comes in the form of personal appearance and fashion.” I think he states his explanation of invisible domesticity well when he explains, “First as previously suggested, they do it to avoid the stigma associated with violating gender expectations. Second, and perhaps more significantly, they do it to avoid conflicts and to preserve relationships existing in a broader socioeconomic context that does not enable families to actually produce much equality,” (88). It is clear that families struggle with similar issues despite what type of relationship they are in. No matter how one looks at it there are always issues of gender imbalance and balance that couples must tend it. While one would assume that the balance would be better in lesbigay families because of their “equalness” in gender, it is clearly not the case since it is nearly impossible for both sides to participate in a completely egalitarian manner. Carrington explains that it is nearly impossible for the primary breadwinner of the family to not feel some sort of need for control. There is still a sense of tradition that looms in all families, homosexual and heterosexual.

Marriage Debates

Stephanie Coontz’s article discusses the evolution of marriage and relationships. She brings up the ways in which the necessity for marriage has changed as well as the role of parents in children’s lives. She then goes on to explain women’s changing role in marriage and the decrease in their domesticity and increase in involvement in the workforce. She also talks about “No-Fault” divorce and its present impact as well as changing environments for children including unwed mothers and single parents.
Marriage as an institution is defined by the Council on Families in America as a lifelong commitment to the “institutional expression of commitment and obligation to others in order to regulate sexuality, male-female relations, economic distribution and child rearing.” Scientists believe that the institution stems from “a well-understood set of obligations and rights,” which originate from laws, legality, formality and tradition. Marriage as an institution is a legal and distinct establishment and relationship. There are many indicators of the deinstitutionalization of marriage however. These reasons include an increase in single parent homes, an increase in independent living outside of a family environment, an increase in cohabitation, an increase in women working, and a change in the role of marriage. With an increase in women’s careers, women are needing marriage less and less for financial support. Marriage is no longer seen as a need but as an option. This option lacks its old formality with a rise in unmarried couples having children and living together, as well as an increased divorce rate and increase in single mothers.
The article by Gertsel and Sarkisian and Harris discusses the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. In the Gertsel and Sarkisian article, marriage is described as being a way out of poverty and a chance for single mothers to force unmarried fathers into responsibility. Marriage is also a form of protection against murder, suicide and problems in the world. It was once believed that marriage was more beneficial to men than women, but today it seems as though the benefits are equal. The downside or critique of marriage is a decrease in family involvement with those such as siblings and parents, once a child is married. Marriage also causes a decrease in socilialization with neighbors and friends. Marriage also takes on a “greedy” side. It causes people to give a great deal of their emotion, time and energy. It requires expensive rituals such as engagement parties, weddings, and honeymoons. It also often requires the help of other family members to help support and pay for education and living expenses of couples who are first married.
According to Brown, there are many reasons why people cohabit. The effects of cohabitation are

Sex and Gender

According to Risman and Schwartz article, what are the main trends in sexual activity among teens? How do the authors explain these trends? According to England and Thomas, what are the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college students? What gender differences are documented in both of these articles? Compare these authors' observations to your own high school and college experiences.

Risman and Schwartz present a lot of statistical analysis in their article. According to their article, the United States in general believes in decreasing sexual activity among teens. It seems that today there is a new conservatism that applies “only to boys” and a “great deal of evidence shows that teens continue to be sexually active.” It seems there is a decrease from 54.1 percent to 48.4 percent of teens ages 15 to 17 involved in sexual intercourse. The trend however seems to show that overall there is a significantly less number of teen pregnancy and abortions. Teens seem to be engaging in safer sex, and thus the birth rate among teens has fallen steadily. There also seems to be an increase in oral sex among teens, making it less “real” than intercourse, and more common than in the past. By age twenty 9/10 Americans have had intercourse. The idea of casual sex is also decreasing.
The declines have many explanations. Risman writes, “The success of abstinence education, the positive effect of comprehensive sex education, the cultural backlash against the sexual revolution, or the fear of disease (or some combination of these factors) account for the decline. Sex education helps to move back the age of first intercourse, as well as abstinence pledges. They also believe that youths have seen what their parents generation experienced with divorce, disease and status loss for women. Overall it looks like “responsible sex rather than postponed sex” is the trend.
Separating the data by gender it appears as though the number of high school males rather than girls that choose to remain virgins has dramatically increased. The gaps between men and women who are virgins is closing, making the numbers nearly the same. Women now have a greater influence in relationships, making safe sex decisions. The trend seems to point that most males first encounter with sex is in a relationship. It is women who insist of condoms and birth control methods. American culture is highly sexualized.
According to England and Thomas, the main trends in romantic and sexual behavior among college student is less dating and more “hooking up.” The “date” as a activity is nearly dissolved. Today college students are involved in hooking up, a casual sexual encounter of some kind. There is usual some sort of alcoholic influence behind it as well. This sometimes leads to dating or a relationship, but not always. It appears that those actually going out on dates, are people that are already in relationships. Dates used to be used as a way to get to know one another better, but with a greater understanding between the genders this is not as needed. In terms of gender, it seems to be the trend that it is the woman that initiates “the talk” between her and the man. She must bring up the question of relationship, because men tend to avoid it. In addition, women more commonly look to hooking up as a way of finding a prospective boyfriend while boys look to it for more of a pleasure source.
Both articles discussed the idea of a sexual double standard. Despite the increase in female empowerment on the work force, women are still judged based on their sexual activity. If a man has had many intimate encounters it is seen as the norm, however if a women is seen as promiscuous she is considered a slut. Despite the improving status between women and men, there is still a great less expected of men in terms of self control. It also seems that women have internalized different values than men, hoping that a hook up could lead to something more.
I think both of these articles have valid points. I find them fascinating to analyze, because as a female on a college campus I am around this all day long. I agree with the fact that the date is nearly ancient, and that hooking up is the norm. I think this is a sad fact and would love it to be changed around somewhat. I also agree that in terms of gender there is a great gap. Women who have been with many men, and whose private lives are made known are definitely regarded as “sluts.” I went to an all girls high school and women were taught caution and about relationships. I am not really as attuned to the male version. Men may be interested in them for the hook up, but not for a relationship. I also think that as a woman in today’s society it is very difficult. Women are forced to make choices and decisions that men would never have to deal with today.

John D'Emilio Articles

The article on family life during colonial times focused the sexual expectations of the time. It explained what sexual relations were meant for and what acts were regarded as illegal and unlawful. It also attempted to provide insights into people’s lives as it explained excerpts from letters and accounts of experiences. The overall consensus and strong focus for the Puritans and colonists was that sex was meant for reproductive purposes only. It was supposed to take part only after a couple was married, and for the sole purpose of creating a family. Sex to satisfy desire, especially outside of marriage was forbidden. The article also discussed sexual deviance. This included acts of bestiality, sodomy, rape, and premarital sex. The colonists used God and the church as well as the law to fight the deviance. The level of punishment varied from crime to crime. It could range from paying a fine to death. The article states that woman is more likely to be out of control with lust and passion than men are. Thus they are constantly taught to refocus on the church. There were few books written on the topics, however Puritans wrote about suppression of lust and desire. Relationships were not based on love. The duty of sex was to increase the population, not for self fulfillment. For women and men who committed crimes of premarital sex they community offered a chance for repentance through confession. In cases like this they were eventually allowed to marry and their sins were forgiven. Regulation of these laws was enforced by courts, judges and community members who observed and commented as well. There were also Morality Acts or laws which served to control and regulate. People learned about sexuality as children by growing up in small homes. The church and the court were two of the most important models of sexual standards. The main goals of regulation were to keep sex for the purpose of procreation and to keep it only between married couples. I found the article to be incredibly interesting. One would imagine that during this time period people were incredibly perfect and solemn and holy, however it was not the case. Some of the descriptions of behavior I found disturbing but I was interested in reading about old customs and situations that people dealt with. It is also interesting to compare it sexual regulation in today’s society. Although there is less of a focus on procreation as the main goal, many of the standards are not that different.

D’Emilio explains that the family definition of the past was one that focused on the family working as a unit in order to produce something of some kind. For example a farming family would all work together in order to grow crops and food that would then be used for survival. Family was a way of combining labor efforts for the benefits of the family. Parents needed the help of their children in order to survive. However, as capitalism increased and people began working as “free laborers” then the shift happened. “The family was no longer an independent unit of production.” Economy was no longer household based. The “family” shifted from the family as an institution of survival and dependence to a unit based on “personal” lives and emotionally stimulating relationships. I understand that the capitalist nature of the society does not go with the old definition of a family, but I think that the definition of a family is changing directly with what today’s society calls for. I think that family as a nurturing support system is more beneficial in this capitalist world.
D’Emilio also writes about how gay identity stemmed from capitalism. He explained that before capitalism homosexuality was not really an option because people needed to marry and produce in order to survive. They needed to have children that would be able to work with them. However, once wage labor spread people began to have “social space” and were able to pursue their own desires. He writes, “Instead of as parts on an interdependent family unit, it was possible for homosexual desire to coalesce into a personal identity- and identity based on the ability to remain outside the heterosexual family and to construct a personal life based on the attraction to one’s own sex.” From this grew support groups, night lives and networks. I understand his belief that gay identity grew from capitalism, but I am not sure that I agree completely. I don’t think that it came up because people had the chance to explore desire; I think that perhaps it was able to become more prominent because people were less restrained. I believe that it was always there but perhaps repressed. Capitalism gave them the ability to be independent, not necessarily homosexual- but merely themselves.