Home  ›  It's All in the Family Patricia Collins Summary

It's All in the Family Patricia Collins Summary

Written By Sunday 6 March 2022 Add Comment Edit

This afternoon, I picked upwards a book on Barbara Kruger, an artist that I wrote nigh in a weblog post earlier this week, from the local library. It's crawly! (Thank you AMP for suggesting that I wait at her stuff). As I was watching women's volleyball on the Olympics, I constitute this epitome, a mag comprehend she did in 1992:

It'south from 1992 and all about family values rhetoric. Cool. I don't have time to read the Newsweek article right now, so I'thou just posting it hither, along with a few other links I plant related to this prototype:

Newsweek article
MoMA on image
Fine art; Barbara Kruger: Embrace Girl

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

THE Course: CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST DEBATES (GWSS 3004)

First, a little background. Since I came to the U of M in the fall 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 popular feminist bug, such as: reproductive rights, equality in the workplace, and family-as-patriarchal-institution. I chose readings that complicated their ideas about debate as existence for or against an issue (as in the example 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 (between career and stay-at-home moms) and the rejection of the Family equally an oppressive, patriarchal institution to explore how our agreement of the family unit in the early on 21st century is dominated by the family values rhetoric of the Christian right. We traced the history of "family values" rhetoric and then explored means to rethink and reclaim feminist (and queer) families and values. As I taught the course, 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 result involves a mash-upwardly of my lectures from Leap 2010 and Jump 2011 (also cheque out my syllabus for spring 2010 and my syllabus and reading schedule for spring 2011):

Historical Background

The essays that we read for this unitare all responding to a particular moment within American popular/political culture when rhetoric nearly family unit values was frequently used to critique feminism and to position feminists as against the family and family unit values. See my timeline for some full general dates related to our discussion.

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

The feminist agenda is not nearly equal rights for women. Information technology is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to exit their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

*Note: When I originally posted this entry earlier today, I indicated that the Robertson quotation came from the 1992 Commonwealth Convention. After further research, I determined that this was non the case (see hither for more information).

Another notable (and perhaps the virtually pop) example of connecting feminism/feminist goals with the erosion of the family and its values is Dan Quayle's (in)famous comments well-nigh the fictional graphic symbol, Murphy Brown in May of 1992:

It doesn't aid matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown — a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman — mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child lonely, and calling information technology just another `lifestyle choice'. I know it is non fashionable to talk about moral values, but we need to do it. Even though our cultural leaders in Hollywood, network TV, the national newspapers routinely jeer at them, I think that virtually of us in this room know that some things are good, and other things are wrong. Now it'southward time to brand the discussion public.

— Vice President Dan Quayle addressing the Commonwealth Gild of San Francisco and criticizing White potato Brown's determination to be a unmarried (highly successful) mother, 5/19/92.

[Annotation: I created an in-class exercise with these above quotations in which students spent almost 5-10 minutes gratuitous-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 values? If and so, how?

Of import to note is that Quayle's comments on Murphy Chocolate-brown are part of a larger speech in which he claims that i of the principal causes of the LA riots (which happened in the summer of 1992 correct afterward the constabulary who vanquish Rodney Male monarch were found not guilty) is the erosion of traditional family unit values. (Equally I will discuss afterwards, discussions of the erosion of family and family values by the correct is often linked to racist rhetoric and the demonizing/pathologizing of black mothers and families). Here is a transcript of the entire speech communication and a news prune with an extract from the speech:

As an aside: Did you watch the entire prune? What practise you lot brand of the juxtaposition, by the newscasters, of the clip about Dan Quayle and his clarification of Murphy Brown equally mocking the importance of fathers with the clip virtually Robert Reed (Mr. Brady) and the revelation that he had died of AIDS and not cancer? Is this just coincidence that 1 clip leads to the adjacent? 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 most "correct and wrong"? But, why is feminism such a threat? Why does feminists' desire to work for an equal rights amendment (Robertson) or a feminist's selection to be an unwed mother (Quayle) arm-twist such extreme responses? What anxieties/fears near white masculinity do these feminists claims tap into (see Chloe's post for more on this)?

In her essay, "Information technology's All in the Family unit," Patricia Hill Collins focuses her attention on "the family" office of family unit values by exploring "how vi dimensions of the traditional family unit 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 example–to be critically enlightened how they use/invoke  'family.' For more on this commodity, check out my chart and notes for information technology.

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

In bringing all of these readings together, I want united states of america 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 near values (and morality) so exclusively linked with one particular vision/version of the family?
  • What differences practice you meet between the phrases "family values" and "families values"?

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

EXERCISE: Reflecting on family

WHAT IS THE Family IN "Family unit VALUES"?
Cartoon upon the readings from the by two weeks, our discussions (in form and on the blogs), and your own observations, write downwardly some thoughts on these dissimilar aspects of the "family."

PATRIARCHAL
 WHITE
 Center-CLASS
 CAPITALIST
 HETEROSEXUAL
 NUCLEAR
 "NATURAL"

My vi year old girl Rosie created and posted the in a higher place sign on our door a few weeks ago. Information technology's in opposition to the proposed Minnesota Marriage subpoena. Rosie passionately believes that you should be able to mary [sic] who you desire. Aye, she's awesome.

Yesterday, every bit I was looking through various sources on virtue ethics, I came beyond a volume that I checked out of the U of Minnesota library years agone: Bill Bennet'sThe Book 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 equally I was reading and writing about Peter Sagal'sThe Book of Vice.

Since first mentioning this book on my blog, I've thought well-nigh creating some sort of response and/or alternative to Bennet's call for and list of virtues. My own children'southward book of virtues? A critical essay dissecting the problems with Bennet's approach? An edited collection with essays on diverse feminist (and queer) virtues? Yep. I've tentatively (and rather vaguely) imagined all of these approaches. But, since I've been too busy teaching and researching and writing other things (and trying to raise ii immature kids while struggling to cope with my mom's diagnosis and so death from pancreatic cancer), I oasis't had enough time to follow through on any of these (rather aggressive) plans. Instead, over the past three years, I've sprinkled in random musing virtually these virtues into my blog posts.Notation: I promise to cull this blog sometime shortly and collect many of those musings.I've also made family values, which Bennet usesThe Book of Virtues to promote, a frequent teaching topic for one of the classes that I've taught many times for the U of Yard Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies Department.

Inspired past my revisiting of Bennet's introduction to the book, this week I'm working on collecting and archiving some of my past class summaries from my lecture notes, handouts and class blogs on family values in my feminist debates class.As I've mentioned in other web log posts, I'm in the process of migrating my textile from my U of G blogs and archiving my pedagogy resources.I hope to post them in a ridiculously long blog entry by the end of the week.

For now, I want to offer up a question that makes me curious. In the introduction, Bennett argues that his book is a  "'how to' book for moral literacy" that tin can provide kids with valuable resources for how to develop a moral/good/beauteous character. His vision of moral literacy includes the following character traits:

Cocky-Discipline
Compassion
Responsibleness
Friendship
Work
Courage
Perseverance
Honesty
Loyalty
Faith

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

Terminal dark @room34 and I live-tweeted ii more Brady Agglomeration episodes:

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

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

Feminism in "Vote for Brady"

Only a few episodes ago, in "A Clubhouse is Not a Habitation," the boxing of sexes betwixt 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 brand whatever claims about being more than qualified because he is a male child and Marcia doesn't argue for equality because she'due south a girl. It's equally if all of the conflict and feminist rabble-rousing from "A clubhouse is non a domicile," which aired on Oct 31, 1969 (less than two months before "Vote for Brady" aired on Dec 12, 1969), never happened. I'm not really surprised, but I still think it'south worth noting how and when the Brady girls ignore/invoke feminist ethics. Ignoring the feminist ideals of equality, women's rights and deserving to accept and practice everything that boys can that she spouted two months earlier, Carol (somewhat passively) encourages Marcia to give up and allow Greg win the ballot:

Religion in the Brady Bunch

In "The Vox of Christmas," Ballad is planning to sing at church on Christmas Day. Everyone is devastated (yep, it's Brady drama of the highest club!) when she loses her voice. Every bit I was watching the episode I was struck by how rarely church is mentioned on the Brady Agglomeration. I tweeted:


I'm pretty sure this is the simply episode in which they go to church. This makes me curious about how religion gets represented in sitcoms (in the 70s and at present). The Bradys are considered past many to be a "family unit values" family unit. How does organized religion fit/fail to fit into their world view and daily practices? In what other ways do they stand for their faith or spirituality (my BA is in organized religion and I'chiliad really interested in how religion gets represented in pop culture and gets constrained by limited/narrow/rigid understandings of organized religion and spirituality in the family values rhetoric of the Christian right)? I recall I might have to make a special annotation of the Brady's expressions of faith. For case, do they ever pray before bed? Interesting to note: Cindy is peculiarly upset by Carol'south 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 vocalisation dorsum.

Concluding night, STA and I live-tweeted two more than episodes of The Brady Bunch, Flavor 1. Hither are the tweets archived on Storify:

A Clubhouse is not a Home (6)
Kitty Karry-all is Missing (seven)

Both were memorable episodes, introducing some themes that will be repeated again and over again…and again throughout all five seasons. For example, the Kitty Behave-all episode is a not bad illustration of how easily and cruelly the kids turn on each other and how effectively they regulate and discipline each other. Equally I live-tweet the series, this is one theme that I'one thousand specially interested in tracking, especially how information technology relates to the particular brand of family values that the Brady's practice and promote.

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

the right to off-white handling for girls/women


and the girls fifty-fifty protest their diff handling with lookout signs.

Wow. I'm not sure what they're doing with feminism in this episode (well, I remember I know, merely…)

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

In a very early episode, the Brady girls demand equal admission 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 point, even so, is not actually to build a clubhouse, just to do such a poor job that Mike and the boys will accept compassion 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, fifty-fifty as The Brady Bunch draws upon feminist principles/slogans, it does and so in a way that undercuts them. The girls will attempt anything to get access to their own space; 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 piece of work for them. Do I agree with this assessment? Hmm…not certain, withal.

milleragescits.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "It's All in the Family Patricia Collins Summary"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel