In Talcott Parsons functionalist model of the family there is a clear division of labour between the two spouse, ‘Instrumental’ and ‘Expressive’ roles.. Talcott Parsons states that the husband has an instrumental role, geared towards achieving success at work so that he can provide for the family financial, he is the breadwinner. The wife however has an expressive role, geared towards primary socialisation of the children and meeting the family’s emotional needs. The wife is seen as the homemaker, full time housewife rather than a wage earner. Although some politicians and the New right share this view with Talcott Parsons, others have criticised Parsons for e.g. Michael Young and Peter Wilmott (1962) who argue that men are now taking a greater share of domestic tasks and more wives are becoming wage earners.
I am not sure whether it is a necessity for us as a society to be aware of how we socialize children in regards to gender. While there may be some benefit to sticking to strict gender role stereotypes (like providing a sense of security, confident decision making), there are also costs involved with sticking to gender role stereotypes. These costs include limiting opportunities for both boys and girls, ignoring talent, and encouraging unfairness in our society. Females can get a lower income when it comes to certain jobs compared to men. Parents who believe in gender roles are more likely to share this attitude in their children.
Q. Assess the view that gender roles and relationships have become more equal in modern family life. (24 marks) The view that gender roles and relationships have become more equal is the idea that the family is more symmetrical than before, this is where men and women share the roles they do in the home. This view is held by many sociologists, for example Young & Willmot and Gershundy. However there are also a lot of sociologists who think that they have not become more equal in modern family life, for example, Parsons and Ann Oakley. Parsons argues that the division of labour is beneficiary to the family and society.
Do Married Parents Provide a Higher Quality of Life for Their Children? By Elizabeth King University of Mary Washington Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….………..1 Intro……………………………………………………………………………………….………2 Literature Survey………………………………………………………………….……………..3 Theory……………………………………………………………………………….……………4 Empirical…………………………………………………………………………………………5 Results…………………………………………………………………………….………………7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….………………….8 Reference List……………………………………………………………………………………9 Abstract The paper asks the question: Do the children of married parents have a higher quality of life than the children of unmarried parents? It is proposed that married parents do provide a higher quality of life due to the ability to better provide capital and time to invest into the child also saying that this aspect provides the child with a better cognitive output. This study improves upon earlier research by comparing bot married and unmarried couples. This study also uses new data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
Everyone has an opinion and different beliefs on almost every topic, in which one of the most controversial topics is adoption. In adoption, people believe that race matters due to their ethical or cultural beliefs; however race does not matter because every child needs a loving home. Additionally, studies of multiracial families show that kids are more aware of their culture, as well as they are more like the community around them, then their ethnic background. There are many adoption agencies, and others with the beliefs that kids need to be with parents of the same ethnicity because it would provide the child with more cultural awareness, as well as it would prevent children from the danger and backlash they might get from others. In
They believe it carries out a number of essential functions, both for individuals and for society as a whole. In particular, the family is viewed as the most important agent for maintaining stability, producing the next generation, and carrying out primary socialisation. However, other sociologists suggest that the functionalist view paints a picture that is too rosy. For example, Marxist and Feminist sociologists argue that it ignores the more negative aspects of the family life; other sociologists argue that the functionalist view does not take enough account of family variation and change. 1.
However, many people are firm believers in lone parenting as it can result in advantages for children who are raised by single parents and therefore support the idea that the government should look after them by taxing other people. The government should not look after lone-parent families by taxing other people as it is ultimately the lone-parent’s decision to have a child and therefore they should have the independence whilst being financially secure in order to successfully raise a child without risking their wellbeing, along with this idea it could be argued that providing them welfare provides an incentive for their irresponsible actions. However, it could be argued that the lone-parent did not intend to have a child. This is supported by the fact that 92% claim not to have become pregnant deliberately and it is an unforgiving society which punishes them and their children by refusing to give them state benefits as a result not receiving funding and help of the government can be suggested as unjust. As a result this idea would be supported be Liberal Feminists because a key belief is equality and so all children raised by lone parents should have support.
These stratifications go unnoticed by most as we as a people accept our gender roles. Because society accepts these roles change is very difficult to manage. That is why such a difference between men and women exist. In families one can observe obvious gender roles in homes and marriages as domestic needs ensue. In the article, The Second Shift, the author describes a married couple who try to split their duties equally.
Firstly, they might have financial crisis due to which they might had opted for working .Secondly, what is the use if the women is well educated and they are making themselves locked behind the doors and living only for the family. Some people think that they should come out of the well and see the world and impart their knowledge to others and make them enlightened. Thirdly, people think in a broader sense they can know that women should not only shape up the family but also the nation, for which both women and men should play constructively to prosper the world. However, I believe that women are the person who is next to god in this heavenly world. They are the person who takes care of their children and shape their children's future and reproduce the perfect citizens of our world.
Parsons said that these roles made things ‘nice and functional’. He also said that men and women were biologically suited to these roles so it was only natural for men to be the breadwinners and women are the stay at home wives. This is a very traditional view. However, the march of progress can easily criticise this view; the idea that everything is getting better and that roles between men and women are becoming more equal. The future foundation (2002) supports the march of progress and found that 75% of women do less domestic chores than their mothers and 60% or men claim they do more domestic chores than their fathers.