From: uunet!cmcl2!panix.com!jk@ncar.ucar.EDU (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: reverence for women
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:01:30 GMT

tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:

[I had written:]

>>And what would the mechanism be for coordinating things, so that all
>>the things that have to be done (like child-rearing) get done? In
>>the absence of traditional arrangements .  .  .  the two mechanisms
>>that come to mind are the market and the state.

>I find the whole idea of ENSURING *anything* pretty much meaningless,
>unless you're into social welfare.

You're right that strictly speaking (I wasn't speaking strictly) not
much can be ensured.  As I see it, the issue is what features society
might have that would lead people to do reliably and well the things
that must be done if they are to lead good lives.  One of those
things, of course, is caring for children.

Like most people, I'm into social welfare in the sense of wanting to
live in a society in which people generally live good lives.  I also
think it's worthwhile to think about what social arrangements are
likely to aid that goal.

>And why do you think only of the state or marketplace as
>"alternatives"? Don't you think the parents themselves would be
>interested in the care of their children?

Parents -- especially mothers -- have a natural inclination to look
after their children.  But what people do isn't a simple response to
natural inclinations.  People are heavily influenced by circumstances
that have to do with the social setting in which they act -- what they
have been brought up to expect, what they see people around them
doing, what other people expect of them, what is easiest or most
advantageous for them.  It was those circumstances with which I was
concerned.

It would be good if social circumstances led people to take care of
children well.  The obvious ways in which social circumstances can
combine to bring about that or any other result are through (1) a
system of informal standards that develops over time and by which
people feel bound (tradition), (2) people pursuing their own goals in
a system that permits them to make whatever agreements with each other
they like (the market) or (3) rules adopted and enforced by the
government.  So if tradition goes, that leaves the marketplace or the
state as the factor that establishes the social setting in which
people are acting (and which will strongly influence what people do).

>What about the fact that *right* now in the US, the "traditional
>family" DOES NOT EXIST? There are more alternative families, from
>single-parent to step families, even same-sex parents, than there are
>"nuclear families," let alone nuclear families with mom at home and
>dad at work.

You seem to be saying that the number of households in which children
are living with both natural parents is smaller than the number in
which children are not living with both natural parents.  I don't
think that's true.  On a related point, I recall seeing figures
showing that most mothers of preschool children do not work full-time,
and that most of the mothers who do say they would prefer not to.  If
I'm right, the traditional family is not as dead as you say.

>You seem to be saying, "Oh well, couples don't really know each other
>-- just use these stereotyped roles to stay happy." I'd really rather
>learn more about the person I'm living with.

I don't object to two hearts beating as one, but I would prefer a
system that works even when two hearts don't beat as one.  What seems
to be needed in order to raise children well is for mothers and
fathers to have stable relationships in which they can work together
in a reasonably pleasant way.  Clear responsibilities within the
relationship makes it more likely that will come about.

Also, I don't see how clearly-defined responsibilities make it more
difficult for the parties to a relationship to get to know each other.
On the contrary -- if nothing is fixed and everything is subject to
negotiation people tend to trust each other less than when it's clear
how everything stands.  That's the way things are in other situations,
so why not in marriage?

>Do you really think that in the absence of a "stereotyped family"
>that people would be completely unable to come up with satisfactory
>alternatives?

Some would, many wouldn't.  Whatever the goal and whatever the
circumstances, many people get by very well and most get by after a
fashion.  My point is that in the absence of something like the
traditional family the circumstances would be much less favorable to
raising children well.  Some people would, of course, triumph over
circumstances.

>Do you think that the increased tension understandably accompanying
>this is due to some inherent trouble with moving away from a "good"
>paradigm, or the natural confusion over having two co-existing
>paradigms?

Mainly the former.  It seems to me that the old paradigm
systematically leads people to act in ways that on the whole promote
good childrearing and the new paradigm doesn't.

>Why couldn't a set of expectations that a couple would decide for
>themselves what worked best for them, which would not necessarily be
>the best for another couple, be just as useful a set of
>"stereotypes"?  If everyone went into a relationship with that
>expectation, why would there be any trouble?

The more abstract expectations are the less content they have, and
therefore the less effect they can have on what people do.  How could
the expectation that people will do what seems good to them guide
people in any way?  (Apart from making it advisable for them to be
cautious in dealing with each other.)

>It is further my contention that some paradigms are more fair than
>others, and indeed subsume others.  In the second set of expectations I
>described, it would be perfectly possible to have a family organized
>along the same lines as results from the "traditional" expectations.

I agree that some paradigms lead to unfairness.  If the paradigm for
relations between the sexes is that whatever the parties agree to is
OK I would expect a great deal of unfairness to result.  Some people
are much better at bargaining than others, some people are gifted
manipulators, some people talk impressively when things are going
their way but don't come through when things get tough.  In a
free-for-all I would expect such people to do much better (quite
unfairly) than they would if there were definite rules for how men and
women should treat each other.

As you say, it would be possible for a traditional family to coexist
with your second set of expectations.  The odds would be against it,
though.  For a traditional family to work, each spouse has to be able
to assume that the other will carry out his side of the bargain.  For
example, the wife has to be able to assume that her husband will
continue to support her and the children even if (for example) she's
not as pretty as she used to be and he meets someone new.  That might
not be a smart assumption if the idea is that whatever people agree to
goes and if (as I think would be the case) the agreements men and
women make with each other wouldn't be easily enforceable if one party
got tired of the arrangement.

--
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.