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. Sociologists such as new right thinkers argue that the Labour party has constructed a ‘nanny state’ which over-intervenes in personal living arrangements. The Labour party have constructed many laws beneficial for women in families as they have realised most families now rely of two
After this law there was an increase in lone parent families, cohabiting and even same sex couples, this was because it started to be more socially acceptable and married couples didn’t have to be forced into a relationship if they weren’t happy. However, The New Right did not like the idea of having lone parent families, they said that lone parents (mostly mothers) cannot discipline their children properly and are a burden on the welfare state as they need to claim benefits due to the fact that they are not working so they can’t support their children. Conservatives see marriage as the essential basis for creating a stable environment for bringing up children, so I don’t think that they are very happy with the fact that family diversity is such a big deal in our society nowadays as they have a very traditional view. Similarly to The New Right’s view, Chester in 1985 claimed that people aspire to be in a nuclear family because that is the way that most people in the UK have been brought up, he also claimed that most people live in a household headed by a married couple and will most likely be the head of a nuclear family in the future. He believes that the nuclear family is the ideal type of family where the husband is the breadwinner and the wife is the housewife
However new right theorists favour this sector as it saves moms for the state as they are hostile to state expenditure. The voluntary sector consists of organisations, usually charities which provide welfare and are set up to deal with social problems such as old age, poverty, homelessness or child abuse. Advantages of the voluntary sector are that it employs trained staff as well as volunteers, it is professionally organised, it reduces dependence on state funding as the sector's income does not come primarily from the state. One problem with the voluntary sector is that it's funding is not always guaranteed so it cannot always provide continuity of service. Market liberals support this type of provision because it reduces reliance on state funding and encourages individual responsibility and community
It’s beneficial as there are male and female role models available for the children, and it gives the parents more control of how their children are brought up. Another strength is that there’s less interference from wider family members however this can also be seen as a negative aspect, as other people are unaware of what’s happening and if there was any problems within the family and therefore it’s difficult to identify neglect. This also makes it difficult to seek professional help outside of the family. Another disadvantage of this privatised nuclear family is that children are only exposed to one set of values and so are influenced to become like their parents in the future as they have no exposure to other behaviours of different families. A criticism of this
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.
The fourth theme could be about how greedy it is for someone to ignore other person's needs or use other people to enrich their life, just like Pelayo and Elisenda; they use the old man to make money. Last but not least, the central idea could be a moral lesson for everyone and especially for children as the subtitle indicates, “A Tale for Children.” The moral lesson is not to mistreat or disrespect the elders because no matter what happens, they are still human beings with dignity. The other moral lesson is that children should not disobey their parents because if they do, they will be changed into a spider. In regards to characterization, the author describes the protagonist, who is an old man, as a very patient person in general; however, the old man also has some rage in him when the
These people just are different and have a different perspective of living habits than we have. They couldn’t be bad parents because bad parents wouldn’t care about their children, they wouldn’t keep them safe, nor would they be providing for them as much, if any, as how much good parents do. So again, i say yes the walls are good parents because they do what’s supposed to be done as a good parent, even though it’s a different
They believe, like conservatives and new rightist, that the nuclear family is the best form of socialisation and avoiding crime. Another right realist, Charles Murray, believes that the rising crime rates may be due to a rising ‘underclass’, those who are defined by deviant behaviour and fail to socialise their children properly. Right realists also think that the state plays a big part in the rates of crime. As people can rely on the state to provide them with money people are less encouraged to go out and work to earn their money, fathers no longer need to support their children as lone parents can live off benefits, therefore decreasing the rates of marriage and the amount of nuclear families which the right realists believe lacks
Clearly, this shows that studies prove that due to ‘mediocre’ parents having less involvement in their children’s social life, will lead their children to making immature decisions that they may regret. Amy Chua, like most Chinese parents, states “Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children's own desires and preferences.”(2011). This allows parents to become more involved and aware of what’s going on in the social lives of their children. In doing so, strict parents make sure they lead their children in the correct pathway in their social life in order to get a step closer to becoming successful. Most importantly, Chinese parents set
At this point, money will most likely become the main objective. Then benefits come into play, although they may support you, evidence has proven that becoming solely reliant of them is a step in the wrong direction. Linking to this is the fact that children who are in poverty will most likely use their parents as role models. There are many traps laid out for them which they must avoid but if they were to follow their parents’ footsteps, they would have no chance. They need motivation to make something of themselves which is currently