Question (as a verb or a command)

"There is no single simplistic premise to uncover or expose. There are numerous unexamined rules, values, and premises originating from multiple sources that create and/or maintain an error of conceptualization."

"Without a struggle to break out of our usual modes of thinking and acting, it is quite difficult to understand how or why this might not be the problem to address."

"There is no way out of this bind until one alters or questions what appears to be the 'given.' Ignoring, failing to accept, or changing the assumption...might lead one to the solution..."

"One must instead ask what the rules, assumptions, or premises of the game are. Now seen from outside the system, the solution requires a change of the premises, rules, or assumptions governing the system as a whole."

(From Justice, values and social science: Unexamined premises, Seidman, 1986)

If caseloads or ratios increase, then do we continue to expect the same from ourselves? Do we continue to use the same models of service or work? If so, at what cost? How long before we accumulate debt that adds to our long-standing deficit?

How do we do more with less? Without a change in expectations or resources, where will this lead?

If change is constant and guaranteed, then do our thoughts, expectations, paradigms, actions, and resources respond accordingly? Do we respond with flexibility or rigidity? How does each feel?

As women entered the workforce in greater numbers, the workload at home remained constant. Women agreed to take on more wage-earning responsibility for the family without a resulting shift in household responsibilities and created the phenomenon of the Second Shift.

Was it created because women didn't question it? Sometimes women complied with implicit or explicit rules/expectations - You wanted to work outside the home, now you deal with doing both - like punishment. Gaining power comes with a price. Why would women believe this? Why would women agree to this? Why wouldn't women negotiate a better contract, if you will? An older married woman in one of my Women's Issues in Social Work course stated proudly that she was able to do both without any problem. I wondered, out loud, why would she would want to?

And where do men stand with all of this? They get a break in wage earning responsibilities, but does this feel like help or intrusion on their turf? If they "went along with it," do they feel more put out than grateful? In which case, do they feel that "agreeing to this" (passive activity and maybe easier) means that they do not feel compelled to take on more duties around the home (active and more work)? You can't make me do more just because you want to do more. Or, if you choose to take on more, then don't expect me to do the same. Does doing more around the house mean a loss of power for men? Does it mean a loss of power for women - their traditional domain? Have we even thought about it? Or do we just perpetuate behavior that we learned long ago? Is this behavior still relevant and beneficial? How do these conversations or non-conversations between partners go?

For students in my Women's Issues in Social Work courses over the years, it seemed that experiences from their families of origin shaped their behavior and expectations in this regard. This seemed to be the case for both men and women, regardless of racial and ethnic group or country of origin. That is, both males and females raised by single mothers got used to helping with household chores. In two-parent families, if children were all female or all male, then gender roles regarding chores were also egalitarian. It seemed that in two-parent families with mixed gender children, traditional roles, behaviors and expectations were most likely cultivated.

It really is okay to question and wonder. What develops may be a better paradigm, a better contract, a better fit between who we are and what we have in the here and now - as opposed to then and there. In between, there may be difficult conversations. Are we afraid of those conversations? If so, what has made us afraid? Are those risks still relevant? If they are, what is the worst thing that can happen? If the worst thing does happen, how will you deal with it? Are we more comfortable (regardless of the price) with what we know, then what we can't imagine? One thing that makes us, as human beings, different than animals, according to Harvard professor of psychology, Daniel Gilbert, is the capacity to imagine the future. Play with your imagination. What kind of juicy future can you envision - replete with vivid details? Can you begin to take the baby steps toward it? If not, what happens to your dreams deferred? Does the feeling you get when you picture your miraculous future inspire you to move? Are you afraid and motivated? That's how it starts. What's next?