The development of society

[azekeil]

Sparked off by libellum's post, I thought I'd try to put down my thoughts on the development of society.

Now, generalising a lot and skipping the details, western society has historically been ordered around a family unit, which comprises of: a breadwinner, a homecarer and children. The role of homecarer has traditionally been the woman's. As feanelwa has been pointing out, women are now seen as capable breadwinners, but this leaves a dilemma: who is the homecarer?

My view is that there has been a steady erosion of the value and importance in being a homecarer. (My view may well be biased through my life experience - feel free to discuss *grin*.) So, although a lot of thought and effort has gone in to equal rights for women, I don't feel that anywhere near that amount of thought has gone into what the foundations of western society - the family unit - should look like now the position of breadwinner is arguably seen as more desirable than that of homecarer.

What are the implications for society? I think we've already seen a number of impacts as a result: increase in 'latch-key' kids, increase in the time children spend away from their parents, possibly even the increase in relationship breakdowns and single parent families can be attributed to this fundamental shift in attitudes.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am all for equal rights. But I do think that there is a tremendous impact on families due to this fundamental shift in attitudes - one that has not to date been sufficiently thought about or tackled.

Opinions? Do you see things the same way? If so, do you have any suggestions for fixing it? If you don't, how do you see things?

Comments

[ev1ldonut.livejournal.com]

An interesting point, one I suppose I've been aware of and just never really thought about...

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Um. Have I? Gosh. I hadn't noticed that was the point I was making, although it's a point I've been generally making since I started saying "I want to be a ... when I grow up".

Whatelse. Hm.

I'm not sure whether we need to readdress the importance of the two roles; I think the way of the future will be to stop separating them as two different things at all. There are a growing number of people reassessing the importance of the home life, and a lot of people saying a lot of things about childcare being different from other tasks in life in terms of who can/should do it. I think everything's changing, and the gender aspect of the home/work dichotomy is just a part - a large part, but not the whole.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I'd love to share your optimistic view, but unhappily I think those who simply accept what is 'the norm' without challenging the assumptions they will make will continue to suffer as a result. ghostpaw's response highlights the fact that this social situation has come about as a direct result of capitalism.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Ahh, but "the norm" is the thing that is changing - or can be made to appear that it is changing if the right people say the right thing in the right place at the right time.

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

Well, you know how I feel about this as do most people who know anything about me will be quite aware of my priorites.

For anyone who doesn't, I am currently an extremely happy housewife and I think my role as such is incredibly important. In providing the care of the home I enable my partner to earn more money in his job as he doesn't have to spend time doing the daily tasks and thereby I earn my own keep.
For us it is not that one job is more important than another, it is that both need to be done and people should play to thier strengths and I am exceptionally good at keeping house and he is very good at his job so I stay home and he earns the money.

In an ideal world I would be very happy staying in this role if I was to have children and would take immense pleasure in doing so.
Personally I would want any children of mine to have me around (poor then eh ;p) and I would want to be around them. I do think it would be important to their development but also it would be what would make me happy.
I don't really think it is fair to make generalised statments about the future of society as a whole based on whether the parents are at home or not. I would consider a happy home to be far more fundemantal, staying home would make me happy and therfore I would (hope) to be more able to provide a happy life for my children. If that didn't make a person happy then staying home could potentially damaging to a family.

Getting back to your original point, I do think it is something people care less and lesss about; who makes the house a home?
People spend their lives working to have things like a good place to live annd then spend no time living in it to be able to pay for it. Its huge question of priorities in general, not just relating to a future generation.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I haven't time to reply to this properly right now, but I think you're right: it's a wider problem than just family life. More later.

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

*ggl* I shall await your reply with baited breath

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I think perhaps half of the reason is the cost of living here, as I outlined to ghostpaw here. I may make another post attempting to summarise everyone's thoughts :)

[ghostpaw.livejournal.com]

I agree with you entirely that the role of homecarer has been massively devalued in Western society, but I think this is as much a function of free-market capitalism so much as 'fault' of feminism. See, a homecarer is economically neutral, as they do not generate income nor, generally, do they have the power to spend said income. For free-market capitalism, where every thing and everyone is a commodity, this is a Bad Thing, as it is seen as 'wasted' commodity. Consequently, it is in the interests of the economy, via governing bodies, to discourage this 'wastage' and encourage everyone back into the workplace. The feminist principal of a woman's right to work and equal wage is a reaction to this, and a tacit admition that in the current system the only way to achieve social equality is via economic equality.

There are also, unfortunatly, still prevailing Patriachal attitudes in Western society that traditionally-female roles are of less value than traditionally male ones, because females are of less value than males. Which is nonsensical when you look at it logically, but these attitudes have about 2000 years of ingraining (I blame Plato) wash out. Incidentally, by 'Patriachal', I don't mean 'Men', I mean 'a social hierachy that places the male breadwinner archetype at the top'.

So how to get around it? There are two things that spring to mind, and neither of them are quick fixes. In the long run, I believe what we really need is a new socio-economic model that does not veiw everything as simply a comodity to be bought and sold, and the only 'value' as capital gain. I don't know how one achieves this on a large scale, I'm afraid. Individual shifts in value are vital though, and for individuals to realise that children will do better with a parent's attention than with the latest flat-screen telly/ fortnight in Florida/ whatever money is supposed to be buying. Most of us live well above our needs, let alone our comfort zones, so would it truly bancrupt most (middle class) families for one parent to go part time at least?

Also, and I'm sure you'll see this one, we need to reject this whole silly idea of binary gender identity, and with it the 'lessness' of traditionally feminine behaviour/ roles. It needs to become socially acceptable for men to become house-husbands, if that's how the dynamic of their relationship works out, and not be seen as 'emasculated' or 'lazy'. And for that matter, a large proportion of men need to get it out of their heads that homecaring is 'beneath' them.

Anyways, this could turn into something of an essay, so I'll leave it at that. I'd be happy to discuss, but I'm off to Scotland tomorrow and probably won't have web access for a good week.

Personally, I think homecarer is probably the most useful and constructive role in society. Unfortunatly, I have the maternal instincts of a hamster (argh! stress! eat young!), so if D and I did ever sprog it's pretty much agreed that he'll work from home and I'll keep my regular job. He'd be a great dad anyway ;)

[sepheri.livejournal.com]

Wow! You've totally nailed it there.

Its interesting that I have a good friend who is convinced that my current lifestyle of homemaker is in some way bad and wrong. I couldn't work out what bothered him about it so much and when I questioned him the only response I got was the typical assumption that I spend my days watching day time televison and I am just too lazy to get a job. It took me a while to realise that it is actually his capitalist sensiblity that I am offending by not directly earning money, he sees me as a drain on the country and therfore himself. There is no talking to him, he is dead set on the idea that I am lazy and calling him a capitalist did not go down well though it seems obvious to me now that this is the crux of the matter.

Its likely to be easy to convince the rest of society of their error either.
Ok, I'm not currently dedicating my time to bringing up the next generation but I am working very hard for the benefit of myself and man which enables him to work harder at his job which is far better paid than anything I could get therefore the capitalist ideals are ultimately fullfulled anyway even though they (or at least my friend) don't seem to be able to appreciate that fact.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Perhaps half of the reason people have been pushed more and more down this route is because of the cost of living in this country is climbing steadily all the time (no I don't have anything other than perceptions to back this up). It would be an interesting exercise to study something like American culture, where most of the other influencing factors are pretty much the same as in Britain, but the cost of living is significantly lower.

I think there have been a number of reactions in men to equality - from embracing, to resisting, to asserting their masculinity. I think society is in for an interesting ride as the status quo is upset and changed. Equally, younger women have displayed a number of reactions to this too - typically the same range of reactions that men have displayed - including 'ladette' behaviour - as traditional gender distinction is being blurred.

Unfortunately I think the general population perhaps does not have the intelligence or foresight to sit down and actually think consciously about their reactions to these changes - instinct will fight intelligence for their reaction.

Finally, the thought of you and D having children strikes me as a very serene and wonderful thought :)

[bluecassandra.livejournal.com]

I'm totally with you on the idea that capitalism means that the value of people gets defined by their income, and that this is whats behind the push to get everyone into work - there's this hilariuos thing happening these days in family work where we send mothers to train to be childcare workers. They then stick their kids in childcare so that they can go out to work . . . as childcarers. As far as I can see the only reason behind this is to reduce the unemployment figures and keep the money going round and round.

But, any profession that becomes female dominated loses status and gets reduced wages. All of the caring professions are badly paid, stupid hours, and poor working conditions. That would surely imply that something more complex than simply breadwinner=good and unpaid homecarer=bad is going on?

[gerald_duck]

If you're prepared to be fairly slipshod about it homecaring needn't take much time; when one lives alone, it can't, really.

It's much easier for a couple both having careers to run a home together than for someone to run a home by themself.

I think the actual issue is kids: who spends how much time looking after them? And here, yes, I think people spend less time on their children than they used to, and yes, this is a pity.

All people who want to interact with the children as parents should be there at least some of the time; beyond that I think who takes what share of the burden (if burden it be) is a matter for individual couples to decide.

There's nothing wrong with a family being based around a monogamous heterosexual marriage where the man has a career and the woman keeps the home and looks after the children… provided that's what everyone really wants, rather than the rôles imposed on them by society.

Suggestions for fixing things? People should take parenting seriously, think about what they really want from life, talk.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I guess people need to challenge the assumptions, certainly.

[diffrentcolours]

I think it's part of a larger symptom of a general breakdown of relations in society. It used to be that people were geographically destined to be close to their families and didn't move around much so they got to know their neighbours, and this is much less the case.

I still like the idea of living in small communities of three or four families, and sharing the responsibilities of providing for the community through employment, farming, childraising, homecaring and so on.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I do as well; we're actually practising that (on the smallest possible scale) now.

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

I think I'd like to see it as perfectly acceptable for women to have it all. It's entirely possible, with a decently accommodating job, for a woman to be both home-carer and high-powered professional career-woman. You just need to be able to juggle a lot of balls and keep up the pressure. :)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

But why? Isn't the pressure precisely what's caused a lot of recent problems? Should value be placed in a slower pace of life, with one breadwinner and one homecarer?

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

If you can afford it, then sure. Most people can't. To have the life that most people want to have, there have to be two breadwinners. To change that, you need to prevent people's natural greed, which I think is an ask too far. :)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Alright - then why should the life that most people want take two breadwinners? Isn't that just wrong? I would dearly like to see the 'stats' of life in similar societies where the cost of living is significantly lower, such as America.

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

It probably shouldn't, but as it happens it does. It's not really one of those things that can be changed. I suppose it depends on the kind of people and the things they want though. I know me and the bloke couldn't afford to have bought our own place if we weren't both out and earning money. As things stand at the moment, we couldn't afford kids as well - we'd have to work all the hours [insert choice of deity here] sent just to break even. I doubt we'd be the only people in the same situation, and it's not really greed in our case, just a desire to have a basic standard of living.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Well, exactly. And it can be changed - for a start you can choose to live in a country where the cost of living is not abhorrent. I for one am aiming towards if not that, then achieving the slower life as a long-term goal.

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

I could do that, but I like England. I know from experience that living elsewhere isn't as rosy as it sounds. :)

A slower life sounds grand, but I think I'd miss the hectic pace in some ways. Maybe I'm just too driven for my own good. :)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Now, yes. But even now I can see the benefit of a slower life, which is why I'm aiming to be able to give myself the option. Which nicely brings me on to my most recent post :)