Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Accueil / Patricia Hill Collins It's All in the Family Summary

Patricia Hill Collins It's All in the Family Summary

Enregistrer un commentaire

This afternoon, I picked up a book on Barbara Kruger, an artist that I wrote about in a blog postal service earlier this calendar week, from the local library. Information technology's awesome! (Cheers AMP for suggesting that I look at her stuff). As I was watching women'due south volleyball on the Olympics, I found this paradigm, a magazine cover she did in 1992:

It'south from 1992 and all nearly family values rhetoric. Cool. I don't have time to read the Newsweek article correct now, so I'chiliad only posting it here, along with a few other links I found related to this image:

Newsweek commodity
MoMA on paradigm
Art; Barbara Kruger: Cover Girl

The following is part one of my serial on family unit values from my feminist debates form.

THE Grade: CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST DEBATES (GWSS 3004)

Kickoff, a petty background. Since I came to the U of G in the autumn of 2006, I've taught a course on contemporary feminist debates five times. Each time I taught it, I aimed to trouble students' assumptions about what was at stake with some pop feminist problems, such as: reproductive rights, equality in the workplace, and family-equally-patriarchal-institution. I chose readings that complicated their ideas about debate every bit being for or confronting an result (as in the instance of pro-choice/pro-life) and worked to get them to recognize what J Butler describes as the "irrepressible complexity" of who and what feminism is.

For our unit on feminist family values, I selected readings that went beyond the typical "mommy wars" debate (betwixt career and stay-at-abode moms) and the rejection of the Family equally an oppressive, patriarchal institution to explore how our understanding of the family in the early 21st century is dominated past the family values rhetoric of the Christian right. We traced the history of "family unit values" rhetoric and so explored ways to rethink and reclaim feminist (and queer) families and values. As I taught the class, my readings and topics for this section evolved with my increased interest in queer feminism.

Starting with my spring 2010 version of this form, I posted lecture notes on the blog. The post-obit summary of the issue involves a mash-up of my lectures from Spring 2010 and Spring 2011 (also check out my syllabus for jump 2010 and my syllabus and reading schedule for bound 2011):

Historical Background

The essays that we read for this unit of measurementare all responding to a particular moment within American pop/political civilisation when rhetoric about family values was frequently used to critique feminism and to position feminists as against the family and family values. Run across my timeline for some full general dates related to our discussion.

One ofttimes-cited instance of connecting the promotion of family values with the critiquing of feminism is Pat Robertson'due south remarks in a 1992 alphabetic character opposing Iowa'southward equal rights initiative*:

The feminist agenda is non about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy commercialism, and become lesbians.

*Note: When I originally posted this entry earlier today, I indicated that the Robertson quotation came from the 1992 Republic Convention. Subsequently further enquiry, I determined that this was non the case (see here for more data).

Some other notable (and maybe the most popular) example of connecting feminism/feminist goals with the erosion of the family unit and its values is Dan Quayle'southward (in)famous comments about the fictional graphic symbol, Murphy Brown in May of 1992:

It doesn't help matters when prime time Television receiver has Irish potato Chocolate-brown — a graphic symbol who supposedly epitomizes today'south intelligent, highly paid, professional woman — mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child lone, and calling it just some other `lifestyle pick'. I know information technology is not fashionable to talk nigh moral values, simply we need to do it. Even though our cultural leaders in Hollywood, network TV, the national newspapers routinely jeer at them, I recall that about of united states of america in this room know that some things are expert, and other things are wrong. Now it'southward time to make the discussion public.

— Vice President Dan Quayle addressing the Republic Club of San Francisco and criticizing Potato Dark-brown'due south decision to be a unmarried (highly successful) mother, v/xix/92.

[Annotation: I created an in-class practice with these above quotations in which students spent about 5-10 minutes free-writing some responses to my questions about them: Is feminism necessarily counter to family values? To morality? Is it possible to redefine the family and family unit values? If and so, how?

Of import to annotation is that Quayle's comments on Murphy Brown are part of a larger speech in which he claims that one of the primary causes of the LA riots (which happened in the summer of 1992 right after the police who beat Rodney Rex were plant not guilty) is the erosion of traditional family values. (As I volition discuss later, discussions of the erosion of family and family unit values by the right is ofttimes linked to racist rhetoric and the demonizing/pathologizing of black mothers and families). Here is a transcript of the unabridged voice communication and a news prune with an excerpt from the speech:

As an bated: Did you watch the entire prune? What practice you brand of the juxtaposition, past the newscasters, of the clip about Dan Quayle and his description of Irish potato Brown as mocking the importance of fathers with the clip about Robert Reed (Mr. Brady) and the revelation that he had died of AIDS and not cancer? Is this merely coincidence that one clip leads to the side by side? Or, is some connection being encouraged in the viewer?

It would seem that for both Robertson and Quayle, feminism poses a serious threat to the family and its values nearly "right and incorrect"? But, why is feminism such a threat? Why does feminists' desire to piece of work for an equal rights amendment (Robertson) or a feminist'due south option to exist an unwed mother (Quayle) elicit such extreme responses? What anxieties/fears nearly white masculinity practise these feminists claims tap into (see Chloe's post for more than on this)?

In her essay, "It'south All in the Family unit," Patricia Hill Collins focuses her attention on "the family unit" part of family values by exploring "how six dimensions of the traditional family ideal construct intersections of gender, race, and nation (63) and produce/reinforce gender/race/nation hierarchies. She argues that it is crucial for organizations –feminist or Black Nationalist, for instance–to be critically aware how they utilise/invoke  'family unit.' For more than on this commodity, check out my chart and notes for it.

In their various contributions to the Feminist Family Values Forum, Lloyd, Jimenez, Steinem and Davis focus much of their attention on the "values" function of family values. Indeed, the purpose of the forum was to bring a wide range of women together to talk about what values actually mean and what values feminists want to embrace and promote. See some of my notes for these readings (along with readings past K Pardo and V Lehr).

In bringing all of these readings together, I want us to be curious most:

  • What are families? What are their values?
  • Is feminism bad for families and their values?
  • What sort of values do feminists promote?
  • What does it hateful to value something?
  • Why is language nigh values (and morality) so exclusively linked with one detail vision/version of the family?
  • What differences do you come across betwixt the phrases "family values" and "families values"?

READINGS
a. Selections from Feminist Family unit Values
b. Lehr, Valerie. "Social Problems and Family Ideology"
c. Pardo, Mary. "Mexican American Women Grassroots Community Activists: 'Mothers of East Los Angeles'"
d. Collins, Patricia Colina. "Information technology's All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race and Nation"
e. Henry, Astrid. Non my Female parent's Sister (see ch one for background on tardily 80s/early 90s backlash confronting feminism)

Practise: Reflecting on family

WHAT IS THE Family unit IN "Family unit VALUES"?
Cartoon upon the readings from the past 2 weeks, our discussions (in class and on the blogs), and your own observations, write down some thoughts on these different aspects of the "family."

PATRIARCHAL
 WHITE
 Centre-CLASS
 Capitalist
 HETEROSEXUAL
 NUCLEAR
 "NATURAL"

My 6 year old daughter Rosie created and posted the to a higher place sign on our door a few weeks ago. It's in opposition to the proposed Minnesota Wedlock amendment. Rosie passionately believes that you should be able to mary [sic] who y'all want. Yep, she's awesome.

Yesterday, as I was looking through various sources on virtue ethics, I came beyond a book that I checked out of the U of Minnesota library years ago: Bill Bennet'southThe Volume of Virtues. In fact, I checked this book out around the same time that I started this blog.I know this because I remember checking it out every bit I was reading and writing near Peter Sagal'southThe Book of Vice.

Since first mentioning this book on my blog, I've thought almost creating some sort of response and/or alternative to Bennet's call for and list of virtues. My own children's book of virtues? A critical essay dissecting the problems with Bennet's approach? An edited drove with essays on various feminist (and queer) virtues? Yep. I've tentatively (and rather vaguely) imagined all of these approaches. But, since I've been as well busy educational activity and researching and writing other things (and trying to raise two immature kids while struggling to cope with my mom's diagnosis and so expiry from pancreatic cancer), I oasis't had enough time to follow through on whatsoever of these (rather ambitious) plans. Instead, over the past iii years, I've sprinkled in random musing about these virtues into my blog posts.Note: I promise to cull this blog quondam soon and collect many of those musings.I've too made family values, which Bennet usesThe Volume of Virtues to promote, a frequent pedagogy topic for one of the classes that I've taught many times for the U of M Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies Section.

Inspired by my revisiting of Bennet's introduction to the book, this week I'thou working on collecting and archiving some of my past class summaries from my lecture notes, handouts and form blogs on family values in my feminist debates course.As I've mentioned in other blog posts, I'k in the process of migrating my textile from my U of M blogs and archiving my instruction resource.I hope to mail service them in a ridiculously long blog entry by the finish of the week.

For now, I desire to offering upwardly a question that makes me curious. In the introduction, Bennett argues that his volume is a  "'how to' book for moral literacy" that tin provide kids with valuable resource for how to develop a moral/good/admirable character. His vision of moral literacy includes the following grapheme traits:

Cocky-Bailiwick
Compassion
Responsibility
Friendship
Work
Courage
Perseverance
Honesty
Loyalty
Faith

Question: What traits do you think are necessary for moral literacy?

Final dark @room34 and I live-tweeted 2 more Brady Bunch episodes:

Vote for Brady (11)
The Vocalisation of Christmas (12)

Here are some things that were particularly striking (in 2 episodes that weren't that memorable):

Feminism in "Vote for Brady"

But a few episodes ago, in "A Clubhouse is Not a Home," the battle of sexes between Mike/Greg/Peter/Bobby and Carol/Marcia/January/Cindy (where does Alice fit into this?) explicitly drew upon feminist language and thought(l)s. In "A Vote for Brady," the disharmonize betwixt Greg and Marcia has nothing to do with their gender representations. Greg doesn't make any claims almost being more qualified because he is a boy and Marcia doesn't contend for equality considering she's a girl. Information technology'south as if all of the conflict and feminist rabble-rousing from "A clubhouse is non a home," which aired on Oct 31, 1969 (less than ii months earlier "Vote for Brady" aired on Dec 12, 1969), never happened. I'm non really surprised, merely I nonetheless think it's worth noting how and when the Brady girls ignore/invoke feminist ideals. Ignoring the feminist ideals of equality, women'south rights and deserving to accept and exercise everything that boys can that she spouted two months earlier, Ballad (somewhat passively) encourages Marcia to give up and let Greg win the election:

Organized religion in the Brady Bunch

In "The Voice of Christmas," Ballad is planning to sing at church on Christmas Day. Anybody is devastated (yes, information technology's Brady drama of the highest guild!) when she loses her vox. As I was watching the episode I was struck by how rarely church building is mentioned on the Brady Bunch. I tweeted:


I'one thousand pretty sure this is the only episode in which they go to church. This makes me curious about how organized religion gets represented in sitcoms (in the 70s and now). The Bradys are considered by many to exist a "family values" family. How does organized religion fit/fail to fit into their world view and daily practices? In what other means exercise they represent their organized religion or spirituality (my BA is in faith and I'thou really interested in how religion gets represented in popular culture and gets constrained by express/narrow/rigid understandings of religion and spirituality in the family values rhetoric of the Christian right)? I think I might have to make a special annotation of the Brady's expressions of organized religion. For example, do they ever pray before bed? Interesting to note: Cindy is particularly upset by Carol's inability to sing. Who does she turn to? Santa Claus (not God…no tear-filled prayers for her). I'm pretty sure none of the kids say any prayers for Mom to get her vocalism back.

Last night, STA and I live-tweeted ii more episodes of The Brady Bunch, Season 1. Here are the tweets archived on Storify:

A Clubhouse is not a Dwelling (half dozen)
Kitty Karry-all is Missing (7)

Both were memorable episodes, introducing some themes that volition be repeated once again and again…and again throughout all five seasons. For case, the Kitty Carry-all episode is a nifty illustration of how easily and cruelly the kids turn on each other and how effectively they regulate and discipline each other. Every bit I live-tweet the series, this is one theme that I'm particularly interested in tracking, peculiarly how information technology relates to the particular brand of family values that the Brady'south practice and promote.

Another important theme is the repeated reference to feminism and feminist principles. "A Clubhouse is not a Home" is the first explicit reference to feminism. They mention the demand for equality,

the right to fair treatment for girls/women


and the girls even protest their unequal treatment with picket signs.

Wow. I'm non sure what they're doing with feminism in this episode (well, I think I know, merely…)

I want to revisit Mimi Marinucci's great article on the Brady Bunch, "Television, Generation 10, and Third Moving ridge Feminism: A Contextual Analysis of the Brady Bunch" in order to put their mention of feminism in this episode into the larger context of the entire series and its relationship to 1970s culture. Briefly, here's Marinucci'south summary of the episode:

In a very early episode, the Brady girls need equal access to the Brady boys' clubhouse (''A Clubhouse Is Non a Home''). When Mike and the boys exclude them, Carol decides that the girls should begin building a clubhouse of their own. The indicate, however, is not actually to build a clubhouse, but to practice such a poor job that Mike and the boys will have pity and build it for them. The scheme works, and Mike sends the girls to fetch lemonade while he and the boys get to work.

What she seems to be getting at with her description is that, even equally The Brady Bunch draws upon feminist principles/slogans, it does so in a way that undercuts them. The girls will endeavor anything to go access to their own infinite; they'll spout "feminist principles" that they don't really believe in or understand or pretend to be incompetent in order to trick the boys into doing the work for them. Do I concord with this cess? Hmm…not sure, notwithstanding.

scottforlanstry.blogspot.com

Source: https://trouble.room34.com/archives/tag/family-values

Ces posts pourraient vous intéresser

Enregistrer un commentaire for "Patricia Hill Collins It's All in the Family Summary"