Finding Balence

Arlie Russell Hochschild’s chapter titled ‘Joey’s Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt’,
sheds light on the myth of being an egalitarian. Hochschild elaborates on this myth by explaining that Nancy halt, “wants a similar balance of spheres and equal power (pg.34).” She goes onto state, “Nancy began her marriage hoping that she and Evan would base their identities in both their parenthood and their careers, but clearly tilted toward parenthood and. Evan felt it was fine for Nancy to have a career, if she could handle the family too (pg. 34).” The idea of handling both a career and family is then discussed when Nancy explains that she feels she almost has to beg to have a little help. She uses the example of setting the kitchen table for dinner as an example and talks about the emotions involved. “I hate to ask; why should I ask? It’s begging (pg.34).” The balance between emotion and work is presented through this example and is later expanded when the topic of the love life between Nancy and Evan is brought up as well as putting their son Joey to bed. It is made clear that Joey does not go to bed easily and that Evan has a difficult time and passes on the responsibility to Nancy. After a long day Nancy will at times give in and allow Joey to sleep in their room. “It is part of their current arrangement that putting Joey to bed is ‘Nancy’s Job’ (pg.34).” In terms of love making, Nancy explains, “sex seems like more work….the Holts consider their fatigue and impoverished sex life as a result of Joey’s problem (pg. 34).” These issues are related to the myth because while Nancy wants equal power and similar balance, it is not the case because Evan expects her to take care of the family.
When I think of my own family, there is a similarity to Nancy and Evan. My mother had a career and then would take care of my brother and I when I got home. When it came to doing dishes, setting the table, or giving my brother and I bath, it was always my mother, my father would be there to ‘supervise’ per se. Even today at the age of 21, and my brother at 26, my mom is still doing the second shift that is discussed. My father has never held my mother back in terms of perusing her career as long as our family was taken care of. Luckily for myself and my mother, she was able to have both a career and take care of the family even though I am sure it was extremely difficult.
Joan Williams’ article focused on domesticity. Domesticity is defined as “a gender system comprising most centrally of both the particular organization of market work and family work that arose around 1780 and the gender norms that justify, sustain, and reproduce the organization (pg.1).” She goes onto explain that it has two defining characteristics, one being the ideal worker and its market world and then other a worker who does not take time out to raise a family. Williams explains, “the ideology of domesticity held that men ‘naturally’ belong in the market because they are competitive and aggressive; women being in the home because of their ‘natural’ focus on relationships, children, and an ethic of care (pg.1).” Constraints include minimizing father’s involvement, pressures on men to perform as ideal workers, as well as areas of live unrelated to gender. In hunter and gathers society, I believe everyone played a role and had a job to fulfill so it was unrelated to gender. Example, everyone collected food and contributed to the family. However, I also believe that there is pressure on men to be an ideal worker because it is they that the everyone turns to. Things were slightly different in colonial society. Although each member of the family had a job to do, it was the men who had pressure on them to be an ideal worker because they were the main provider for the family. For example, men were seen as superior and his wife would refer to him as ‘sir’.
Williams makes some fascinating arguments about sex discrimination and ‘free choice’. “if women were to choose the same work patterns as men then they could and would enter more skilled occupations, and the male-female wage gap would be substantially reduced. To the extent that sex differences in labor force participation patterns are not themselves caused by discrimination, sex difference in occupations and wages are thus the result of free choice made by men and women (pg. 14).” Another expert, Vicki Shultz has documented “that courts in sex discrimination cases often accept the argument that women ‘lack interest’ in traditionally male positions. Shultz has argued persuasively that women’s choice are framed by the actions of their employers, since most ordinary women do not spend time trying to get jobs for which women are never hired (pg. 14).” I found the most fascinating part of the article to be about free choice. Williams states, “acknowledging the impact of the second shift makes women vulnerable only if one accepts the claim that women’s ‘choice’ to marginalize precludes discrimination. ‘Choice’ is only a defense against discrimination if women’s marginalization is freely chosen in the same sense that some people choose Mars Bars over Baby Ruths (pg.15).” I agree with her argument because I believe women feel they have to choose between both a career and a family. I like to believe that I will be different and will be able to have both and be very successful at both but I am sure with time things could change. It is a decision every woman with a career and a family makes and it has been brought down to the level of this or that, just like the candy bar metaphor. Williams makes some brilliant points and brings some fascinating ideas to the table.
Carrington explores the breaking up of duties in homosexual couples. He created a study and stated, “most participants in this study, when asked to describe in general terms how they divide up household responsibilities in their relationship, relied upon the language of egalitarianism. Typical responses included, ‘Oh, I would say it’s 50-50 around here’, or ‘we pretty much share all of the responsibilities’ or ‘everyone does their fair share’, or ‘its pretty even’. These perceptions persist even in the face of obvious empirical observations to the contrary. Many lesbigay family members fail to make much of a distinction between what they consider equal and what they consider fair. The blurring of these two quite distinct matters is necessary to maintaining the myth of egalitarianism (pg.83).” However, what Carrington found was quite different. He uses the example of a deaf lesbian couple used in the study and “the inequality in the division of work was apparent to the three of us (pg.84).” In his conclusion Carrington states, “True equality, measured with a plumb line, eludes many of these families, but that has little to do with the families per se, and much more to do with the character and quality of employment opportunities that avail themselves to these families. If the reality is that only one member of the family can make money in a fulfilling way, then lesbigay families adjust to that reality (pg.106).” There is not much difference between lesigay families and heterosexual families.