Feminist Perspectives on Family Care: Policies and Gender Justice

Gender & Society; Thousand Oaks; Feb 1997; Hill, Shirley A;

Volume: 11
Issue: 1
Start Page: 133-134
ISSN: 08912432
Subject Nonfiction
Terms: Feminism
Sexes
Caregivers
Families & family life
Abstract:
Hill reviews "Feminist Perspectives on Family Care: Policies and Gender Justice" by Nancy R. Hooyman and Judith Gonyea.
Full Text:
Copyright Sage Publications, Inc. Feb
1997
Feminist Perspectives on Family Care: Policies and Gender Justice. By Nancy R. Hooyman and Judith Gonyea. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
1995, 418 pp., $55.00 (cloth), $25.95 (paper).
In this modestly titled book, Hooyman and Gonyea give scholars and policy analysts a broad, detailed, and policy-oriented critique of
family caregiving. Gender is the center of their analysis, from demystifying current gender-neutral terms for caregivers to calling for gender
justice in public and private caregiving policies. Their analysis makes clear that women, rather than families, perform most unpaid
caregiving work and the demand on women to provide care for an increasing population of adult dependents constitutes an oppressive social
obligation and set of activities. Caregiving can be gratifying, but most researchers have provided extensive evidence of its negative impact
on the social, economic, and emotional well-being of caregivers. Overall, the average woman spends 33 percent of her life in the caregiving
role, with the obligation to care for dependents reinforcing the dependent status of women. Men are usually only marginally involved in
caregiving work, and even then a gender division of caregiving work prevails, with women performing the most repetitive and routine tasks.
Men define their caregiving roles more narrowly than do women, and, perhaps as a result, men experience less caregiver stress.
None of the hypotheses advanced to explain the gendered nature of caregiving (e.g., gender-role socialization, external resources, etc.) has
been strongly supported by empirical studies. Hooyman and Gonyea transcend these limited theories by showing how gendered caregiving
is woven into our most fundamental family, cultural, and political ideologies. Gendered caregiving is traced to the early 19th-century notion
of separate spheres, when the home was reconstructed as the loving, private sphere and caregiving was exalted as "women's mission to save
civilization" (p. 115). Yet, this unpaid caregiving work of women quickly became invisible and devalued, while the labor market work of
men garnered power, prestige, and economic affluence. Despite the devaluation of care work, strong familistic ideologies define the family
as a natural caregiving institution. Self-determination, privacy, and freedom from intrusion (p.111) are touted key family values, caring
about is confused with caring for, and family care is assumed to be better than institutional care. Familism reflects the broader cultural
ideology of individualism and independence that, as Hooyman and Gonyea point out, contradicts the realities of infirmity, disability, and
death (p. 108).
Cultural ideologies about families and individualism, though scarcely in touch with current transformations in marriage, gender roles, and
the economy, provide the context for a residual welfare system in which public services are seen as a needless drain on the economy and an
infringement on individual and family autonomy. And despite the demise in the breadwinner-homemaker family model, the massive entry
of women into the labor force, the growth of single-parent and alternative families, and the increase in low-paying jobs in the service sector
of the economy, families are seen as capable of providing long-term health care. This ideology has resulted in the passage of family
responsibility laws in 34 states and meager public support for family caregivers. Hooyman and Gonyea provide an extensive critique of
public policies and expenditures on caregiving, documenting vast inequities in government support given to caregiving families versus
health care institutions and the lack of any comprehensive long-term care system. They also examine family policies in the private sector,
noting that fewer than 1 percent of the 17 million U.S. businesses have instituted family-responsive policies. Many of those policies,
however, simply insure that family work does not interfere with labor market work.
Hooyman and Gonyea offer numerous suggestions for reorganizing caregiving based on feminist principles. They show the link between the
economic position of women and their caregiving responsibility and expose the gender consequences of seemingly gender-neutral policies.
The concept of gender justice is introduced and advocated as a strategy for making caregiving work an option and insuring that men and
women have the same opportunities to engage in family caregiving. Gender justice requires a broad reorganization of the workplace and
caregiving work. Employers would have to rethink the presumed boundaries between work and family, adopt a better work-family balance,
extend family-oriented resources, and promote the advancement of women and minorities into higher-level jobs.
Caregiving would have to be redefined as a public responsibility, and caregivers would have to be seen as making a worthwhile contribution
to society. And caregiver empowerment and compensation would have to be implemented if caregiving work is to be valued. This goal
could be achieved through the formation of a national caregiver alliance dedicated to political activism. All caregiving work should be paid
work; in fact, the notion that caring and giving are free could be abolished by adopting the concept of attendant care.
Hooyman and Gonyea have written one of the broadest critiques of family care available. It takes us beyond simplistic thinking about the
caregiving dilemma and tackles the tough issue of how to solve the gender inequities in caregiving work. And while their book focuses on
gender, it also gives a solid analysis of how race and class affect paid and unpaid caregiving work. The shortcomings of the book are some
redundancy in the arguments and the assumption that caregiving policies can be implemented with no consideration of economic realities.
Overall, the authors provide a thorough and useful book for those interested in families, the changing roles of women, and caregiving by
families and other institutions.
[Author note]
SHIRLEY A. HILL University of Kansas