|
|
Re: Truth, Knowledge, Power
Read, Dwight ANTHRO (Read@ANTHRO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU)
Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:34:00 PDT
Cahill replies:
"...is it better to start
by asking whether family breakdown is an outcome of a economy that requires
parents to work long hours, thereby reducing the time available for bonding
(and supervision)..."
It seems to me that not so long ago the argument was: Women have the right to
join the work force and not be "housewifes." Did two parent incomes arise
out of an economy that required long hours? Or does the shift in expectation
(women have teh same right to join the work force as do men) also lead to a
shift in expectations about life style which could only be supported with
both parents working?
"... and increasing the likelihood of (1) the need for
daycare, (2) higher stress levels in the home, and (3) subsequent family
violence. Finally, we have the question as to whether fining parents is a
realistic way of resolving these problems. "
Cahill suggests the causal argument: economy --> two parents have to work
long hours --> daycare --> stress --> family violence. In this scenario,
fining parents does not solve the problem as they are the "victims" (to use
Cahill's term).
There is a different scenario, which underlies what the newspaper article was
about: ? --> parents lose control of their children --> children lose respect
for authority/rules/guidelines --> delinquent behavior. The "?" is there to
leave open the matter of: Why do parents lose control of their children? THe
purpose of the "parent responsibility" laws is to try to change the "parents
lose control of their children" part of the scenario. "Either you control
your chilren or we will punish you", is the underling rationale. Where does
loss of control of children come from?
D. Read
READ@ANTHRO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU
|