Initially, within the modernity period, functionalists like Parsons (1955), saw a biological division of labour which he claimed were beneficial to the family and thus wider society. Elizabeth Bott (1957) categorised these divisions through ‘joint and segregated conjugal roles.’ These suggested whether within a marriage, the roles of the family were shared or divided. Parsons viewed these gender roles as being segregated through expressive and instrumental functions which were formed following industrialisation as there became a clear division between the private sphere at home, and the public sphere at work. This meant that gender roles were unequal in that the husband had to perform the instrumental function in being the ‘breadwinner’ by providing financial stability, and the wife had to perform the expressive function in socialising the children, caring for the emotional welfare of the family and providing a housewife role. He suggested that these differences were ‘natural’ and thus benefitted the family as a whole; also supported by new-right thinkers.
Anne Oakley argues that we still live in a patriarchal (male dominated) society, and therefore women occupy a subordinate and dependant role within the family and wider society. Overall it could therefore be argued that rather than partners becoming more equal, women now have to carry a ‘dual burden’, whereby she is responsible for two jobs of unpaid or paid labour. Factors such as patriarchy and conforming to a gender script will lead to these divisions. It could be argued that the money management within a family has an effect on the
Radical feminists such as Dobash and Dobash also disagree with Willmott and Young’s theory that the family is symmetrical. They believe there are inequalities in the power relations between men and women so they see family
This was introduced by the Labour party, who Lewis argues have taken on the idea of ‘social investment in children’ seriously and have realised family forms are changing. The Labour party have introduced a number of laws, attempting to strengthen the family unit. They were mainly concerned on helping the social and economic position of women, for example, marital rape was made illegal in 1991 by the Labour party. The rights of children have also been improved by the labour party due to the children’s act of 1989. New right thinkers however; believe that these laws undermine the traditional male dominance in families, but many believe these new policies for women and children strengthen the family rather than weaken it.
Body Paragraph # 2 Topic Sentence: There are differences in the three sociological theories of the family institution. Supporting Evidence: The conflict theory for the family does not believe in the myth that families are always harmonious but instead, believe that the family can deal with differences, change and conflict (Plunket, 2011). The functionalism theory for the family believes that the basic function for the nuclear family is that it fulfills four basic functions for society: the sexual, reproductive, economic and education functions ( Unknown, 2010). The interactionism looks at the ways that a family creates and re-creates themselves every day. This view looks at how the family unit is built through their interactions (Jacobsen,etc.
Stereotypically, men are the masters and women are housewives. This is discrimination to the other sex because they basically see them as slaves, but with better treatment. Unlimited power is unacceptable for women because the men take advantage of this power and use it in many ways. For example, wars, ruling, and even in the household to their wives. Education is needed weather you’re a male or female because gender doesn’t play the role in the education life.
Functionalist Parsons believes that instability is created with diversity and the nuclear family is a lot more predictable and therefore practical family structure. New Right sociologist Murray believes that benefits given to diverse families such as lone parent families are harmful to the nuclear family and he believes that it encourages irresponsibility and laziness. This view is criticised by the Labour view as they believe that benefits help those in poverty and encourage family diversity as people should be able to live how they choose. The New Labour has nothing against the nuclear family but does believe that people should be able to live in different family structures and they should be supported in doing so. Also post modernists believe that the nuclear family is no longer dominant and people now live in a society where they make their own decisions and every family is different in structure as peopled live with freedom and they don’t have to follow convention.
Plainsong and the Idea of Family In Plainsong, Kent Haruf introduces us to two families that do not conform to the definition of family that Americans have decided is the “norm” in our society. Haruf rebels against the “ideal” family that is normally written about in stories and shown on television. Plainsong makes a statement against the typical 20th Century American viewpoint on families, showing that family does not just mean a mother, father and children. It shows us that family is formed not just by blood, but the people who actually love you unconditionally as a family member should. Our society is built up on many different types of families, “including two-parent families, one-parent families, cohabitating couples, gay and
The Domestic Division of Labour refers to the roles that men and women play in relation to housework, childcare and paid work. Parsons (1995) argues that in a traditional nuclear family the roles of husband and wife are segregated, in his view the husband plays an instrumental role geared towards achieving success at work so he can provide financially, being the breadwinner. The woman has an expressive role geared towards primary socialisation of children and meeting the emotional needs. Parsons said that these roles made things ‘nice and functional’ for society. He also argued division of labour is based on biological differences between men and women, as women are naturally suited towards nurturing role and men to a powerful role.
According to Potts & Short (1999) the core social arrangement within the institution of the family is the marital relationship. The right to engage in sexual activity is a defining characteristic of marriage in all cultures; at the same time, marriage limits sexuality, separating the couple from all other sexually active adults in the society. The aim of this investigation is to compare and contrast western culture with developing countries. Within this investigation, an analysis of cultural restrictions and oppressive regulation influence sexuality of the population. I also aim to touch on the subgroups of love and marriage in a variation of cultural constructs.