Gender Roles

Using material from Item 2B and elsewhere, assess the view that gender roles and relationships have become more equal in modern family life. (24 marks)

Firstly, the item suggests that ‘a number of changes have taken place in gender roles and relationships within families.’ There are a number of sociological perspectives which agree with this statement and also various approaches that criticise the nature of these changes. They argue whether they have created greater equality within modern family life or whether this statement is simply exaggerated. This essay will assess these views and will conclude whether gender roles and relationships have in reality, become more equal in modern family life.

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. Yet, this ideology has been criticised as being too traditional by post-modern theorists who suggest that equality within the family is evident and that this ‘norm’ of gender roles is diminishing. Therefore, in terms of society today, the old functionalist view seems insignificant as it fails to represent modern family life.

Furthermore, the item suggests that ‘changing attitudes to gender roles and increased participation by women in the labour market have led to more equality in modern family life.’ This view is highly supported by many sociologists like Young and Willmott who suggest that the family is becoming more symmetrical and therefore, is in fact becoming more egalitarian via a ‘march of progress.’ They suggest that the family is gradually improving in terms of equality as there has been a trend away from segregated conjugal roles and more of a shift towards joint ones. This they argue is due to major social changes in that women are more financially dependant with employment opportunities and so there is less of a need to rely on extended kin. This is further explained by Gershuny who suggests that because women have these employment opportunities, they are more likely to do less domestic work. This is shown by the item as it suggests that ‘men were making more of an effort to do housework when their wives were in full-time employment.’ By this change of position for women, it has meant that men are now more responsible for different household tasks therefore suggesting that equality within modern family life is evident and so this view seems correct. He emphasises the change in social values as a reason for this which is also supported by Sullivan’s study (2000) which found an increase in equal division of labour. This supports Young and Willmott’s ‘march of progress’ view that conjugal roles are becoming more symmetrical; thus suggesting that the view of equal gender roles and relationships is likely. Also, due to post-modern society, there are better living conditions compared to those during industrialisation and so this has drawn the men back into the family and thus has enabled them to help with housework and childcare as well as providing leisure time; enhancing equality in relationships. The introduction of new technology has also inspired this symmetrical family as it has reduced the domestic labour role for women and so has led to greater joint conjugal roles. This is described by Silver and Schor as ‘the commercialisation of housework.’
They suggest that with the introduction of technological devices like the microwave, the housewife role has diminished and therefore has reduced the amount of labour. Also, with women more likely having some form of employment; they can afford to buy these items thus enhancing equality.
This view seems highly appropriate concerning modern family life as this is how society is presented today. The social changes have meant that equality is becoming evident and so the statement seems highly likely.
However, during their studies in Bethnal Green, Young and Willmott found that these changes were most common amongst those who were more affluent; this being the middle classes due to their ability to have geographical and social mobility. However, their ‘March of progress’ approach suggests that it will not be long before the working-classes see more equality within modern family life therefore suggesting that this view of equality is justified and positive concerning families within modern society.

On the other hand, the functionalist view of equality in modern family life has been highly criticised particularly by feminists like Ann Oakley (1974). Oakley rejects the ‘March of progress’ view described by Young and Willmott as she suggests that this is simply exaggerated as we still live in a patriarchal society where women do most of the housework. She suggested that the methodology used by Young and Willmott was hardly convincing as their questions lacked in detail. In Oakley’s research, she found only 15% of husbands had a high participation in housework, showing how the statement is flawed as this clearly does not show evidence of equality in relationships and gender roles. Similarly, Mary Boulton also argues that Young and Willmott exaggerated the husband’s contribution as she found fewer than 20% of men had a role in childcare; again showing a lack of equality. This is supported by social polices like custody laws as due to the social construction of the woman’s role in society, most cases are in favour of women receiving the childcare responsibility which still shows how unequal modern family life is because this expectation still exists; oppressing women. Despite Gershuny suggesting that paid work entitled equality for women, Oakley suggested that this was only an extension of the housewife role. Therefore, unlike Parsons claim of a ‘natural’ role, feminists argue that this was socially constructed to enforce dependence on men which became worse with industrialisation as it forced women to stay within the home. Thus, it is clear that joint conjugal roles are not as ‘joint’ as functionalists initially suggested they were as the social changes have only exacerbated the role of women suggesting this so called equality does not exist.
In addition, other feminists like Elsa Ferri and Kate Smith (1996) suggest that the changed position of women in terms of employment has only created a dual burden as they now have to undertake paid work as well as the unpaid housewife role.
Ferri and Smith suggest that unlike Gershuny, increased employment has had little impact of the domestic labour as fewer than 4% of families had a father responsible for childcare. Therefore, women still remain responsible for the children as well as their employment responsibility; clearly suggesting that modern family life is not as equal as it seems. The dual burden is also supported by Dunscombe and Marsden’s theory of a triple burden in that women are expected to do the double shift of housework and paid work but also the caring of the emotional welfare of the family. This clearly disputes Gershuny’s idea that women are more equal due to employment as the triple burden means that they in fact gain more responsibilities than losing them. This is also supported by the radical feminist idea of ‘gender scripts’ in that there are expected norms in terms of gender roles and so patriarchal relationships are inevitable. Therefore, they suggest that equality without burdens will only be reached through same-sex relationships as this eliminates the ‘gender script’ idea. Thus, this enhances the inequality of the family, and suggests that the view that gender roles and relationships are becoming more equal is in fact incorrect as the
inevitability of patriarchal relationships means that equality cannot be established.

Furthermore, the item suggests that feminists ‘point to inequalities of power and control that persist in modern family relationships’ as a key reason for inequality; again challenging the statement. Allan suggests that ideological factors limit women’s power in that they are ‘disadvantaged from the start.’ This suggests that the family is always going to be founded on inequality; thus suggesting that the view of equality is limited. This is supported by Barrett and McIntosh who suggest that men gain far more from women’s domestic work than they give in financial support and that in turn this support often comes with ‘strings’ attached. Also, men are usually the ones who make decisions about finances despite some families being dual-earners. This is due to the fact that women are statistically still paid on average less than men; enhancing male economic power.
Therefore you can question the extent of equality in modern family life. Resources are also said to be shared unequally like Kempson’s (1994) study among low-income families. This leaves women in poverty and so restricts their power in the family; creating an atmosphere of inequality.
This is further explained by feminists Pahl and Vogler (1993) who focused on the effects of decision making within the family through ideas like ‘pooling’ and ‘allowance systems.’ They found a 31% increase in pooling where both partners have joint decision responsibility as well as a decline in allowance systems. However, it was still evident that men usually made huge financial decisions. Edgell also supports this as the levels of decision making are not equal due to the male economic power that still exists. Therefore, women have less say in the decisions and thus it is obvious that the view that gender roles and relationships are becoming more equal is incorrect as inequality in pay and decisions still exist.
Similarly, this inequality of power has led to domestic violence which clearly shows how inequality is evident in that relationships are being gender dominated.
Radical feminists like Millett and Firestone (1970) use domestic violence as a way to show that society is primarily founded on patriarchy and that men oppress and exploit women. They suggest that the inequality of power within the family maintains men’s power and so domestic violence is inevitable. Similarly, Dobash and Dobash suggest that marriage legitimises violence against women as it provides the male with power and the women with dependency, therefore evidently showing no signs of equality. Thus, this disputes the statement of gender roles and relationships becoming more equal with 1 in 4 women being assaulted in their lifetime according to Mirrlees-Black. However, Wilkinson (1996) suggests that social inequality, rather than patriarchy has caused this problem. He suggested that those families with more economic concerns are more likely to have domestic conflict due to increased amount of stress; creating an unstable relationship. This evidently shows how gender roles and relationships cannot be equal as the inequality within the family enables domestic violence. However, radical feminists suggest that Wilkinson does not explain why women are more likely to be victims rather than men. Likewise, radical feminists ignore the fact that men can be victims shown by Mirrlees-Black who found 1 in 7 men have been
assaulted. Therefore, the inequalities of power that exist within modern family life is evidence to suggest that the view that gender roles and relationships are becoming more equal is severely flawed as there are obvious gender divisions and relationship issues.

Ultimately, the view that gender roles and relationships have become more equal in modern family life is to some extent too generalised and exaggerated. This is because it depends on the family type as to what roles are played. For example, within same sex families, gender scripts most likely do not occur due to the fact that they are not divided by gender. Although there is evidence to suggest that Young and Willmott’s symmetrical family exists, it does not account for everybody in that it still supports the functionalist positive conventional view. Also, despite evident social changes to women’s positions within society, the fact that they still do not have equal pay thus less involvement in decision making shows that power still remains within the male role, proving the fact that it isn’t any more equal than it used to be as tasks are still divided by gender. Even with women working, there isn’t a huge drop in the amount of housework that they still have to provide. The dual/triple burdens prove that women are still expected to hold traditional norms and values; thus enhancing the inequality, disputing the statement. The factor of domestic violence shows just how extreme inequality can become and how clear some families are obviously not equal in terms of relationships. However, you could argue that the male role is providing more for the family in their increased participation with housework and childcare compared to beforehand suggesting greater equality. Yet, despite it being more equal, the ‘March of progress’ idea doesn’t tie in as it hasn’t become completely egalitarian. Therefore, the overwhelming evidence suggesting that equality doesn’t exist in modern family life through things like domestic violence, far outweighs the possibility of a more equal family life; thus suggesting that more social changes like complete equal pay are needed before gender roles and relationships become more equal.