Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Class Question
In the study made by Baca Zinn, why do you think there was a sexual segregation in tasks such as decision making in martial roles/power between families with employed wives in contrast to those who were non-employed? Does employment really make that big of a difference in who makes the decisions? Do you agree or disagree with this logic? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh...and you can find this on page 26 on the bottom left. :)
ReplyDeleteMen have almost always been given the task (fairly or unfairly) of being the provider of the family. As such, they have always been in position of making all the decisions for the family because their argument was: "I'm bringing the money home. The same exact money that's used to pay for the house you live in, the food you eat, the clothes, and all the jewels you wear, so I'm making the decisions". When women starting to work, it was like they had acquired more power all of a sudden. Even though men were still expected to be the provider of the family, women weren't force to abide by the rules of their husbands, as they were financially able to support themselves. That's when we started to see a shift in the decision making process in couples. So to answer your question, in this society employment is synonymous of money which is synonymous itself of power, so who gets the money, gets the power. As power goes with decision making, if both parties get money, there is a share on who's making the decisions.
ReplyDeleteYes, usually the one with the power and the one who has the authority to make the decisions of the household is the man. However, Zinn mentions that in some Chicano families where the woman is the one who goes out and works is the one who makes most of the family decisions. This tells me that, as long as you are providing for your family, you have the right to call the shots, regardless of gender. Zinn also mentions how things were run in a typical chicano family where the wife would stay home and do house chores; she had little to no authority over her husband. The husband could do as he pleased.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of money as power which seems to obscure the gender hierarchy -man is in charge, and woman is his subordinate- is a very interesting one, especially as Marable and Espiritu's articles also allude/mention this phenomenon. Also another aspect to consider- we will discuss this in relation to Williams' article which we will discuss on April 27- if men can maintain their masculinity while working in 'feminine' professions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if money = power which is irrespective of gender, then is this the reason why, to this day, women make less than men do? In other words, are men afraid that if women make just as much or more money, this will complicate the gender hierarchy?
ReplyDelete