It seems to me that we overlook the fact that a decline in real wages causes
it to be necessary for more than one person per family to work full-time,
unlike in the sixties. A family with basically absentee parents is not a
viable unit. Divorce comes from the American proclivity to change everything
except the way WE act.
MikeB
----------
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 1997 1:30 PM
From: PNFPNF@AOL.COM; paulh@cruzio.com
Subject: Re: Sixties' Counterculture
<SNIP>
If we learned anything in the '60s, it is the value of developing our
self-love and general capacity for caring and love for others through
exploring new forms of family/social structure (including adoption, by the
way - my above comment is NOT an objection to reaching out to genuinely needy
children, or to love beyond one's biological relatives!!!) We also learned,
I hope, not to let concepts like "family" be co-opted from us. This, not
"divorce", was my original point in this thread, by the way.
Paula Friedman
(2)
From: "Ron Jacobs" <rjacobs@thyme.uvm.edu>
In response to this ongoing conversation, let me recommend a couple
books by Stephanie Coontz-THE WAY WE NEVER WERE and her latest, THE
WAY WE REALLY ARE. These books discuss the reality of the modern
family and the misconceptions regarding the nuclear family as well as
the role of consumer capitalism in determining all of this. --
-
> From: PNFPNF@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 16:30:57 -0400 (EDT)
> To: sixties-l@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
> Cc: PNFPNF@aol.com, paulh@cruzio.com
> Subject: Re: Sixties' Counterculture
> Reply-to: sixties-l@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
> Gerry Higgins is, I think, correct in saying "not having a 'safe
> male' around" was not specific to the '60s (or its correlates) but
> common to all cultures/societies, as is clear through even a quick
> glance through anything from Adrienne Rich's "Of Woman Born" through
> whatsisname's "Kindness of Strangers" through many other texts,
> feminist or anthropological or whatever.
> What scares me is exactly the portrayal of the '60s as destroying
> "the
> family" that is - along with the portrayal of non-"intact" families
> as the root of every social evil - what the Right and even such
> so-called "center" politicians as the Clintons have been pushing for
> at least ten years, and which has led to such charmers as "welfare
> 'reform'" and the correlative push for a "uniform adoption code" to
> streamline redistribution of babies upward, to go along with
> redistribution upward of every other wealth, from income to health
> care.
> If we learned anything in the '60s, it is the value of developing
> our
> self-love and general capacity for caring and love for others
> through exploring new forms of family/social structure (including
> adoption, by the way - my above comment is NOT an objection to
> reaching out to genuinely needy children, or to love beyond one's
> biological relatives!!!) We also learned, I hope, not to let
> concepts like "family" be co-opted from us. This, not "divorce", was
> my original point in this thread, by the way.
> We need to hold onto our gains, not let the rhetoric pull them
> away. ...well, venceremos, Paula Friedman
Ron Jacobs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Lost my boots in transit, babe
Bailey/Howe Library,\\\\\\\\Pile of smoking leather
University of Vermont\\\\\\\\\\Nailed a retread to my feet
Reserve desk\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\And prayed for better weather...
rjacobs@thyme.uvm.edu\\\\\\\\-Robert Hunter/Jerry Garcia
Burlington,VT USA\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
http://moose.uvm.edu/~rjacobs/ronshome.html