Family Meltdown: Why the Nuclear Family Is Not the Model for Women Leaders' Success

[Hexen]

http://www.alternet.org/world/156058/family_meltdown%3A_why_the_nuclear_family_is_not_t he_model_for_women_leaders%27_success_/

Well I always knew that the Nuclear Family system is wrong but what is the better alternative for 'family' especially in a Post-Revolutionary society?

[Book O'Dead]

http://www.alternet.org/world/156058/family_meltdown%3A_why_the_nuclear_family_is_not_t he_model_for_women_leaders%27_success_/

Well I always knew that the Nuclear Family system is wrong but what is the better alternative for 'family' especially in a Post-Revolutionary society?

Socialism wants a society WITHOUT leaders.

And if you start talking about how 'we gonna get from here to there without leaders shit', I will throw this eraser at your over-sized head!

[Hexen]

Socialism wants a society WITHOUT leaders.

And if you start talking about how 'we gonna get from here to there without leaders shit', I will throw this eraser at your over-sized head!

I know that socialism wants a society without leaders which is what I support but the rest I don't make out what your saying here.

[Prometeo liberado]

I know that socialism wants a society without leaders which is what I support but the rest I don't make out what your saying here.

He's saying you got a big nugget Hexen. To get back to the subject, I was under the assumption that the Nuclear Family was just a hoax. Bending the definition of "working" and what not.

Who threw that eraser goddamnit!

[electrostal]

Socialism doesn't "want" anything. Who says what socialism "wants"? Lol.
Also, why is nuclear family "wrong"? What kind of criticism is this?



Bending the definition of "working" and what not.
Capitalism is, of course, forcing masses of women into wage labor. Housekeeping and so on is slowly becoming not just the woman's responsibility.

[Book O'Dead]

He's saying you got a big nugget Hexen. To get back to the subject, I was under the assumption that the Nuclear Family was just a hoax. Bending the definition of "working" and what not.

Who threw that eraser goddamnit!

Personally I've never paid much attention to the notion. I always thought of the Jetson's whenever I saw the expression.

I scanned the article, though, and quickly realized that it was just another bourgeois apologia for why "working moms" are having it so difficult juggling work with their traditionally assigned roles as daddy's little housekeeper.

[Hexen]

Personally I've never paid much attention to the notion. I always thought of the Jetson's whenever I saw the expression.

I scanned the article, though, and quickly realized that it was just another bourgeois apologia for why "working moms" are having it so difficult juggling work with their traditionally assigned roles as daddy's little housekeeper.

Well seems like I didn't actually read the entire article but only the title which I thought it was Anti-Nuclear Family (well what I thought the Nuclear Family is the Post WWII Family model).

Oh well, I think it's time to debunk the article I guess.

[Prometeo liberado]

Hexen, Book O'Dead I suggest you both review the thread on "leaders". Maybe that will put an end to all this big headed eraser nonsense once and for all.

[¿Que?]

Well seems like I didn't actually read the entire article but only the title which I thought it was Anti-Nuclear Family (well what I thought the Nuclear Family is the Post WWII Family model).

Oh well, I think it's time to debunk the article I guess.
I thought it was a critique of the Nuclear Family, although I don't think it necessarily sees it as Anti-Nuclear Family. I think it is arguing that the nuclear family was a particular model for the family, that arose at a specific time in the women's movement. However, as more women entered the public sphere and gained positions of greater power, she argues that that model of family organization no longer works. She says that what is now necessary is an extended family, where the labor of the private sphere becomes more communitarian through the use of an extended family network.

It doesn't really challenge the gendered division of labor, I don't think, because it uses ideas like "the grandma effect" as evidence to bolster her argument. It doesn't really question how even in those extended family networks, the labor to maintain the private sphere is still often times divided by gender.