Pol 4973 Test I

Front 1

Locke's argument

Back 1

- Humans born free w/ natural rts;

- Consent=basis for political rule;

- Parents have limited authority over their children until they reach the age of reason;

- Marriage should be a voluntary contract b/t a man and women.

Front 2

Rawls' "Original Position"

Back 2

Thought experiment in which people are stripped of all their attributes (behind the 'veil of ignorance') in order to reduce human beings to their essence so as to organize society in a non-discriminatory manner.

Front 3

Rawls' Two Principles of Justice

Back 3

1. Each individual has right to the all basic liberties afforded to others.
2. Inequalities are tolerated only insofar as they:
a. work for everyone
b. are to the benefit of the least
well off.
c. each individual has an equal to climb the social ladder.

Front 4

Rawls' take on the Family

Back 4

Just families are essential to a just society because children first learn about respect, love, self-confidence from their parents, which are all traits essential to a just society.

Front 5

Okin and Kittay

Back 5

The family is a root cause of inequality because women generally do a disproportionate share of a house work and enjoy significantly less social freedoms i.e. work and pay.

Front 6

Okin's criticism of Rawls

Back 6

1. Sex isn't listed as a trait behind the veil of ignorance.
2. Use of masculine pronouns.
2. Rawls assumes SQ family relations are just.

Front 7

Okin's criticism of marriage

Back 7

1. Vulnerability by anticipation of marriage i.e. women place less emphasis on education and work b/c they believe they'll get married and the man will take of everything.
2. Vulnerability within marriage - women are more likely to accept primary caregiver responsibilities and make less money than their spouses; therefore, they have access to fewer resources and are more vulnerable to abuses.
3. Vulnerability by separation or divorce - because women often make career sacrifices in the interest of their marriage and family, they often have few options when the marriage dissolves.

Front 8

Okin's proposed governmental solutions

Back 8

1. Subsidized child care;
2. Education of children about dual caregiving and marraige realities.
3. Reform of divorce law to ensure both partners enjoy an equal QOL.

Front 9

Gornick & Meyer's three family policy goals

Back 9

1. Increase parents' time w/ their children;
2. Foster a work-family balance;
3. Promote gender equality in the labor force.

Front 10

Gornick & Meyer's policy reccomendations

Back 10

1. 6-month paid parenting leave;
2. 35 hour work week;
3. 4 weeks paid vacation;
4. Proportionate benefits to part-timers;
5. Government run childcare.

Front 11

Brighouse and Wright's three types of parental leave policies :

Back 11

1. Equality-impeding leaves e.g. mother-only leaves and unpaid leaves ;
2. Equality-enabling leaves e.g. paid parental leaves allocated to families ;
3. Equality-promoting leave e.g. contingency leave in which the mothers leave is dependent upon the length of the father's leave.

Front 12

Engster and Stensota's family policy regimes

Back 12

1. Social Democratic: support dual-earner families through generous paid parenting leaves and public childcare support.
2. 2. Conservative: provide families with generous cash and tax benefits, but less generous family leaves and childcare support.
3. 3. Liberal: provide comparatively little support to families; expect families to support themselves through the market or extended family relations.

Front 13

Engster and Stensota's measures of child well-being

Back 13

1. child poverty ;
2. child mortality ;
3. educational achievement and attainment.

Front 14

Engster and Stensota's results

Back 14

1) States that more generously support families with children generate better outcomes for children.
2) States that favor dual-earner families (i.e., maternal employment) generate better outcomes for children than states that favor more traditional male breadwinner / female caregiver families.
3) States that provide low levels of support to families with children generate the worst outcomes for children. Even if they do well in one dimension (e.g., mortality rates), they do poorly in the other dimensions.

Front 15

Munoz-Darde's two reasons to abolish the family

Back 15

1. sexism w/i the family ;
2. family impedes equality of opportunity.

Front 16

Munoz-Darde's two reasons to not abolish the family

Back 16

1. State run orphanages would over time treat children as material to be formed, which would inhibit individuality and childrens' sense of self-worth.
2. Private families foster diversity by raising children according to different cultures, religions, etc.

Front 17

Munoz-Darde's recommendations for "softening" the family

Back 17

1. The state should more actively protect individual rights within the family ;
2. The state should provide for the needs of individual family members ;
;
3. The state should abolish marriage.

Front 18

Brighouse and Swift's three interests to justify the family

Back 18

1) Children's interests i.e. children need a continuous, loving, intimate, and spontaneous relationship with a parent-like figure in order to develop their full emotional social capabilities.
2) Parents' interests i.e. parents enjoy a distinctively valuable relationship with their children that is unique among human relationships, and contributes (for many parents) to a meaningful life.

3) third-party interests.

Front 19

Brighouse and Swift's recommendations

Back 19

Parents should be given adequate space to engage in intimate and spontaneous activities with their children, but not send their children to expensive private schools, invest in trust funds, etc. because the later group of activities impede equality of opportunity.

Front 20

LaFollette's licensing criteria

Back 20

1. They are potentially dangerous to others;
2. They require a demonstrated competence for their safe performance;
3. There exists a reliable procedure for determining whether someone has the requisite competence to engage in the activity safely.

Front 21

LaFollette's answers to objections

Back 21

1. AT Parents have a right to raise their children - government can limit those rights to prevent harm.
2. AT Licensing too intrusive - not any more so than driver's licensing, and intrusion is nonetheless warranted.
3. AT Abuses - no more so than driver's licensing.

Front 22

Taylor

Back 22

Liberal antinomy - state should be neutral but it grants resources to families with children

Favors licensing (psychological and financial criteria) for parents to ease burden on the state and resolve liberal antinomy.

Licensing leads to better child care.

Front 23

Engster's 3 parenting regimes as a response to Taylor

Back 23

1. The private parenting model: individuals are free to have children and raise them as they wish (within reasonable limits), and are responsible for meeting the costs of childrearing by themselves.
2. Parental licensing schemes: the state regulates whether or not individuals can have and raise children. Parents are responsible (at least under Taylor's model) for the costs of childrearing.
3. Public parenting model: individuals are free to have children and riase them as they wish (within reasonable limits), but the costs of childrearing are publicly shared (family subside, public childcare, etc.).

Front 24

Engster's 3 reasons why parenting is different than mountain climbing as a response to Taylor

Back 24

1. Parenting is not as voluntary i.e. a lot of pregnancies are unplanned.
2. Children are a necessary public good
3. Children are moral beings.

Front 25

Engster's 3 arguments against parental licensing as a response to Taylor

Back 25

1. Time of the pregnancy hurts the women
2. Compliance leads to underground abortion.
3. Children would be taken away.

Front 26

Engster's public parenting model recommendation as a response to Taylor

Back 26

Engster argues that the best way to improve parenting and ensure that children are raised well is the public parenting model - i.e., paid parenting leaves, home care visits, public childcare, family cash or tax benefits, etc.

Front 27

Jones and Peterman's central thesis

Back 27

Family privacy has been eroded over the last half century by individual rights and individual privacy.

Front 28

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Back 28

Identified by Jones and Peterman as the case that represents a major shift from family privacy to individual privacy; the case struck down a Massachusetts law and made it a felony to distribute contraceptives to non-married persons.

Front 29

Other invalidated laws that represent an erosion of family privacy, as per Jones and Peterman

Back 29

Later cases (e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 1976) struck down laws:
1. That required spousal consent or notification before a woman could legally obtain an abortion;
2. That required minors to obtain parental consent before obtaining contraception or an abortion (229);
3. That recognized any kind of special rights or privileges for married couples, or allowed parental authority that departed from the state's understanding of the best interests of the child.

Front 30

Woodhouse's entity-based privacy.

Back 30

Woodhouse calls for a return of family privacy, but invokes an entity-based doctrine of family privacy based on caregiving relationships.

Woodhouse supports family benefits with oversight. She suggests that we should allow some loss of family privacy, and guard only against state violations of individual human dignity.

Front 31

Korbin's 3 levels of cultural context re: child abuse & neglect

Back 31

1. Cultural differences in child-rearing practices and beliefs;
2. Idiosyncratic departure from acceptable cultural patterns;
3. Societal abuse and neglect of children e.g. poverty and food scarcity.

Front 32

Renteln's thesis

Back 32

Renteln favors state intervention in life threatening cases i.e. neglect cases and abuse cases that cause irreparable harm in order to preserve choice for children.