Readings:1. Arlie Russell Hochschild. 1990. 밓oey뭩 Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt.?Pp. 33-58 (Chapter 4) in The Second Shift. Avon Books.2. Joan Williams. 2000. 밒ntroduction?and 밒s Domesticity Dead? (Chapter 1).? Pp. 1-39 in Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press. 3. Christopher Carrington. 2002. 밆omesticity and the Political Economy of Lesbigay Families.?Pp. 82-107 in Families at Work: Expanding the Boundaries. Edited by Naomi Gerstel, Dan Clawson, and Robert Zussman. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Questions:1. Briefly explain the egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter. What is emotion work and how is it related to this myth? Compare Holts' situation with your observations on the division of labor in your family or those of your friends.
2. Explain the concept of the 밿deology of domesticity?described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.3. Explain Williams뭩 argument about sex discrimination and the 밼ree choice.?Do you agree with her? 4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?



Hochschild contends that the egalitarian myth that housework and childcare is shared equally is untrue. In her article, Nancy wants to share the ‘second shift’ between her husband, but finds that it was not equal and that the ‘upstairs-downstairs divison of housework’ was not fair. Nancy in the article is described as always growing resentful of her husband Evan, tired of having to do most of the domestic work and childcare, and more worried about divorce. Nancy always wanted to feel right about the situation and wanted to keep everything fine. This is described as emotional work and is related to this myth, because decided to accept an arrangement which she knew was unfair and did not relinquish her beliefs about fairness. Further, Nancy seemed to avoid all mental associations that reminded her of the unfair situation she was apart of; she had to keep believing that her situation of working toward equality was better than nothing. Hoschild’s argument that the egalitarian myth was false is in my experience with my family is true. Coming from an Asian background where women are expected to do all the domestic work, my mother even while working would do most of the housework and even though my father helped with chores such as mowing the grass, taking out the trash, washing dishes, my mom was responsible for the bulk of the work.
There is a demise of domesticity, or gender based system comprising of the organization of market and family work, in America; this is based on the ideal of a fulltime worker and marginalization of those unable to be fulltime workers. However, the ideology of domesticity still holds that men naturally belong in the market-based work because of their supposed ‘manly’ characteristics such as aggressiveness while women belong in the home because of their ‘natural’ inclination with the ethic of care. The ideology of domesticity establish therefore both breadwinner/ housewife roles by establishing norms that identified with performance of stereotypical gender characteristics. The three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society is that there is an impoverishment of women upon divorce and leads to the poverty of women and their children, minimization of fathers’ involvement with children which pressures them to perform as ideal workers, and relegation of child rearing to private sphere intimates that republic has no responsibility to play in raising children. I think this ideology of domesticity based on gender performance and characteristics existed in both hunter-gather societies and colonial America, however, it existed in different forms. In hunter-gather societies, women probably had more economic and politic leeway than in colonial America, because women during that time were in charge of the agriculture and provision of food. Further, in colonial America there was much more of traditional patriarchal society under which women had fewer rights and privileges as men and often the sole caregivers of home and family. However, women in both times were both the main domestic house and childcare giver.
William’s argument about sex discrimination and free choice contended that women throughout history had law, religious, and custom disadvantages. William argues that domesticity affected many aspects of work, including men’s ‘market’ status which affected their claims to familial and social dominance, anxiety became a permanent feature of masculinity. Further, William argues that the shift of women in the workforce still hasn’t changed domesticity and there is sex discrimination and a lack of free choice for women; domesticity created an ideal of a private sphere with selfless women and a public sphere for self-interest pursuing men. For example, in modern society at least two-thirds of the wage gap between men and women reflect the women’s load of family work. I agree with William to some extent, because it has been proven that women, even while working, still are responsible for most of the domestic housework and the notion of the double shift for women is still applicable. However, I also think that the situation is not as bad as William describes it; men are much more egalitarian when regarding housework and childcare.
According to Carrington, the household division of labor in lesbian-gay families compares to that in hetereosexual families, because it lacks in gender assigned responsibilities since the couples are of the same gender; thus, there are downsized families, paid work (instead of gender) has the greatest influence upon the division of domesticity in most lesbigay families, and there is more a prevalent and persistent commitment in portraying their relationship as egalitarian. The reasons for these differences according to Carrington are because gender is an important factor in domesticity. Carrington contends that practical economic concerns and occupational characteristics play the largest role in determining domesticity; thus, people in lesbigay relationships can make conscious choices domesticity albeit with economic and occupational realities.

1. John D묮milio and Estelle Freedman. 1997. 밊amily Life and the Regulation of Deviance.?Pp. 15-38 in Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.2. John D묮milio. 1983. 밅apitalism and Gay Identity.?Pp. 100-113 in Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. Edited by Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Tompson. New York: Monthly Review Press.

1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual 밺eviance?and what were the two main goals of regulating it? 2. D묮milio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?

Family living for the Puritans was one of an economic and social necessity. D’Emilio contends that sexual desire was a big aspect of marriage, family, and the community. However, he argues that the Puritan way of dealing with sexual predicaments are much more complicated and willing to forgive than most people think. Any sexual deviants, such as premarital sex, rape, self-gratification, ‘buggery’, had strictly enforced punishments and consequences from the Puritan community to emphasize and channel sexual desires solely toward marriage. Because the Puritans so clearly defied the norm of reproductive sexuality, the crimes of sodomy, buggery, and bestiality carried the death penalty. This ideal view of marital, reproductive sexuality was enforced all throughout colonial America. Furthermore, there were many ways for children and minors to learn about sexuality within the home and community; punishment for sexual deviance was made public through whippings, trials, etc, there was extensive involvement of community members, the homes that families shared were small and thus children could see or hear parents having intercourse, and there were also religious repression against sexual desires. The two main goals for regulating sexual desires and deviance helped to enforce the system of martial, reproductive sexuality and to maintain white dominance over blacks. Furthermore, these goals for sexual regulation implied the primary goal of producing legitimate children.

D'Emilio argues that the relationship of capitalism and the family is contradictory, because he argues that the onset of capitalism made the institution of family less of an economic and more a private, personal entity. Thus, there were more individual approaches within the lives of people as there became more economic and social independence. D'Emilio argues that capitalism has led to the separation of sexuality from procreation and sexual expression becomes more th realm of choice than necessity. Furthermore, its free labor system has allowed large numbers of men and women to organize politically on the basis of their gay identities and see themselves as a part of the community of similar men and women. This, in turn created more lesbian/ gay communities. Although I think this argument has some validity, because the rise of capitalism did emphasize the accrument of personal human capital and focused on individual growth. However, I don't believe that there is a strong correlation between the 'coming out' of gay/lesbian individuals because of the rise of capitalism. There have been more movements acceptance, morality, and liberal shifts over the past few decades, which I think may have been more direct and influential in gay idenity.