Feminist Perspective on the Family

womens rightist Perspective on the FamilyA Woman/s correct Was in the Home Has womens liberation movement Finished the Family?Govern ment debates and roughly religious discourse harks back to what Finch (1989) has set forth as the myth of a golden age of the family. Various studies on the family t wind up to suggest that in Western societies family lines deal differed depending on wider br separately events such as the Industrial Revolution and besides demographic on the wholey. In England for example, family patterns in rural argonas and in poor atomic number 18as differ from those in lots loaded beas. In poorer aras families be much(prenominal) app bent to involve wider relationships such as grand nurtures and aunts and uncles. During the nineteenth century the idea of the thermonuclear family became the most prevalent. This is what is often referred to as the tralatitious family and the source of what study been cal lead tralatitious values. It is this famil y form that has attracted the most criticism, in distinguishicular from womens liberationists. Even with break a feminist critique in that location seduce been general experiences of changes in the UK and other Western countries during the last forty years c at one timerning marriage, household, and family forms. These ar changes that would maintain been unimaginable before the Second World warfargon (Giddens, 2001). peck wait longer before getting marry and more lot are less likely to marry than used to be the case. What has been called bet on wave feminism began in the 1960s. some of its opp wholenessnts argue that it is feminism which has led to a drop in the total of marriages, greater divorce rate among those who do marry, and a consequent evidence in the number of hotshot parent families. Before the advanced 1960s having a child out of wedlock was still a source of great favorable conduct down merely during the closing years of the twentieth century the num ber women who had children but were not married continued to rise. Figures available for 1997 indicate that at that judgment of conviction this group made up 42% of all lone parent households ( genial Trends, 2000). Although feminism has been cited as the cause of such changes, this criticism is based on the view that the tralatitiousistic family was an eternal form until women challenged this view.This paper go forth start out with a definition of key concepts. It will then spirit at the concept and history of the family. It will examine the notion that a muliebritys office staff was in the topographic point until the advent of feminism. It will look at different family forms and then assess whether feminism has brought about the end of traditional ideas of the family.FamilyMurdock 1949 describes a family in the following wayThe family is a social group characterized by common residence, sparing co-operation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of sexually cohabiting adults (Murdock, 1949).1Family forms vary crossways societies but theorists maintain that the most prevalent form is the nuclear family describe below. Larger family units are referred to as extended families. feminismWomen mystify argued for adequate rights with men since the 18th Century when Mary Wollstonecraft (1792) wrote her Vindication of the Rights of Women. Other women followed in her stead, the most famous creation the Pankhurst sisters and the suffragettes who fought for womens right to vote (Abbott andWallace, 1997). sophisticated feminism began in the 1960s with the decease of American writer Betty Frieden (1965) and this has take after to be hit the sackn as second wave feminism. Alister McGrath (1993) has written that,Feminism has come to be a significant component of modern westerly culture. At its heart, feminism is a global movement w orking towards the license of women. The older term for the movement-womens liberation- expressed the situation that it is at heart a liberation movement directing its efforts toward achieving equality for women in modern society, peculiarly through the removal of obstacles-including beliefs, values, and attitudes- which hinder that process (McGrath, 1993111).The Concept and History of the FamilyThe family is the special stead of socialization and the place where children are introduced to the norms and values of a assignn society (Talcott Parsons,1951). Parsons work referred to what has come to be cognise as the nuclear family. Nuclear families consist of parents and children liveliness together, family members ostensibly provide mutual approve and support. It is this support that enables individual family members to contribute to society and lead productive lives (Giddens, 2001). In the nuclear family one of the adults is employed out of doors the lieu and there should be an unrestricted sharing of income (Cheal, 1991).Theorists such as Murdock (1949 cited in Giddens, 2001) have argued that traditional concepts of the family are to be found in all societies and that the family is a needed and central institution in society.Whether one regards traditional notions of the family as existence pertinent to all societies depends largely on how the family is defined, certainly it might be argued that the nuclear model is no longer the norm in modern-day society. Willmott and Young (1957) undertook what has come to be regarded as one of the most principal(prenominal) studies on the sociology of the family in Britain. The work investigated families and family purport in East capital of the building blocked Kingdom during the 1950s. The study was undertaken at a quantify when housing policies and greater pecuniary rewards dream upt that when a couple married they were able to set up al-Qaeda on their own. Increased geographical mobility too mean t that many teen couples lived a good distance from their families. As a consequence of this and the event that more women were working outside the home it was argued that the division of p habittariat in the home was changing, as more women went out to work so men would take on more municipal chores. Willmott and Young (1957) believed that the family would conk out a more democratic institution where work, finance, and family responsibilities were shared. Willmott and Young maintained that with the passing of period the family would become more symmetrical i.e. that the changing record of men and womens roles would mean that their family roles would become interchangeable (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). Feminists challenge this view Walby (1990) maintains that the family is still a localize of oppression for women and that this is the place where their roles are perpetuated. Furthermore, feminist writers such as Abbott and Wallace (1997) have argued that the nuclear model of t he family is too narrow. They also claim that such a concept neglects the fact that not all family members experience life in the same way, or receive equal measures of support. Goode (1963)argues that social remainss such as the family, are authorful agents of control because to some extent their existence is founded on force. Within social systems such as the family this is often unrecognized, because it is inscrutable it is effective. Gittens (1992) is of the judgement that in modern BritainIdeals of family relationships have become enshrined in our legal, social, religious and economic systems which, in turn, reinforce the ideology and penalise or ostracise those who break-dance it (Gittens, 1992, p.74). The Family and IdeologyIn pre-industrial society most of the household chores were undertaken by children. at that place was little distinction between home and work, the private and public spheres, families generally worked the land and they did this together. The rise o f industrialization and the growth of the towns brought massive changes to what had constituted the family and family life up until that time. Oakley (1981) maintains that the coming of the factories replaced the family as the unit of production. In 1819 the Factory bout was introduced and this final resulted in the growing colony of children, and also to womens increased dependence on men and their restriction to the private sphere. During the 19th and early twenty-ninth Centuries there was a growing resistance to the calling of married women as net earners. This was because working women were perceived as threatening to male employment and so there was pressure to keep them at home (Hacker, 1972). The nineteenth century witnessed the embedding of sexual activity roles which were epitomized in mens idealisation of the feminine. Women were seen to be both physically and emotionally weaker than men and therefore not desirable to the same roles. The following is a rationalizati on for mens high-minded views of women and wherefore they were confined to the home.No woman can or ought to know very a good deal of the mass of meanness and wickedness and misery that is undefended in the wide world. She could not learn it without losing the bloom and freshness which it is her missionary work in life to preserve (Quoted in Hudson, 197053-4).Victorian ideology utter that women were created to help men and this became the rationalization for their confinement to the home. To start with this originally change the middle classes, as the century progressed, however, the working classes were also subjected to this ideology. Oakley (1981) maintains that this had the effect of fix women into the housewife role, further cementing the growing ideology of gender roles. Murdock (1949 in Giddens, 2001) argued that gender roles are the natural result of the biological differences between men and women. such(prenominal) differences, he maintained, made the sexual divisi on of comprehend the most commonsensible way of organising society. This view became endemic in society and has affected much Government policy. When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979 the Conservatives were calling themselves the party of the family. They maintained that association should be discouraged from cohabitation or from homosexuality and supported the patricentric nuclear family where the father was the person to enforce behavioural standards. Even though one parent families, extended families and reconstituted families were becoming more prevalent at the time these were not regarded as the norm or as desirable (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). Barrett and McIntosh (1980) have argued that ideas centred on a man being able to earn becoming to support a family benefited the capitalist economy and the working man at the expense of women. They maintain that this idea of a family earnings is still infix in society and has been a major aspect of womens contrast with m en. The idea that a man was entitled to earn a family wage but women were not has meant that women have, (and still do in a number of areas) earn less than men. Furthermore, the low pay which accompanies what is often termed womens work means that womens choices are restricted and their economic power at heart marriage has been reduced.ever-changing Work PatternsEven though there had been general resistance towards women working outside the home Oakley (1981) maintains that this began to change after the starting World War, and between 1914 and 1950 the number of women working outside the home showed a steady increase. In spite of this their primary role was still seen in terms of being a housewife. Since the 1960s women have been struggling to hand club in paid employment which is equal to that of men. This has been the case for women from all walks of life (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). These struggles resulted in the inlet of the Equal Pay form in 1970 which meant that women were entitled to the same pay as men if they were doing the same job. In 1975 it became illegal under the Sex Discrimination Act to discriminate against women in genteelness, in employment, and in the provision of goods. The European Court demanded a change of the Equal Pay Act in Britain in 1982. This was followed by a further amendment in 1984 which allowed that women were entitled to the same pay as men in their organisations providing they could prove that their work involved the same kinds of decision do and skills as their male counterparts. Women should have equal access and an equal endangerment for promotion. Some jobs were regarded as outside the confines of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act e.g. nevertheless women could work in a womens refuge (Haralambos et al 2000).Feminist Criticisms of the FamilySince the 1970s and 80s the main sociological focus on families has been have-to doe with with the experiences of women and children, furthermore, the highlighting of thes e experiences has generated a growth in awareness that the family is an ideological form that does not always work in everyones best interests. Feminists have highlighted the fact that for centuries women have been the subordinate sex in society and that this supremacy is largely a result of their biology i.e. the fact that they have been born(p) women rather than men. Feminists maintain that there is a disjuncture between womens experiences of being in a family as wives and mothers and ideologies of domesticity. For a long time many women have felt extremely dissatisfied with the role ascribed to them once they are married and it was this dissatisfaction that Betty Friedan (1965) was seeking to express when she referred to the experience of American housewives in the 1960s as suffering from the problem that has no name. For some women the ideal of family life is seen as desirable, but their experiences within their own families, locomote far short of that ideal (Stanley and Wise , 1983).The gender roles that women have been assigned are constructed on the basis of this biological difference rather than such roles being innate (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). Gender roles are socially constructed and reinforced through the family and the education system. This is done through the different ways that authority figures have of relating to boys and girls, and the fact that there is a tendency to give girls dolls and tea sets, and to give boys shirk cars and construction sets (Firestone, 1971). However, Connell (1987) has argued that this view tends to ignore the capacity of individuals to accept or recant the social expectations that are embedded in gender roles. Thus Connell maintains that boys and girls whitethorn choose elements from each others roles e.g. the tendency of some girls to become involved in competitive sports, and boys dressing in drag when alone. Connell (1987) has said that this whitethorn result in males and females building themselves a fan tasy life that is in contradiction in terms to their public actions, thus gender roles can be interchangeable. Feminists have also pointed out that gender socialization is evident in a hidden course in the education system where books that represent males and females in traditional roles reinforce the view that men and women have different paths in life. Until the late 1980s girls were less likely than boys to achieve the requisite number of A levels to enter university. In recent years the focus has tended to be on the growing underachievement of boys because girls are matching or exceeding boys across the curriculum and thus there are more women entering higher education. This does not, however, give them much advantage in the job market where they are offprint in comparison with males who have the same qualification levels(Epstein, et al, 1998). Despite these things Moore (2002), maintains that things are changing, men are taking on more domestic function than they were 20 yea rs ago and often have a much greater involvement with their children than in the past. This has gained official recognition through the introduction of parental leave. In the past, although mothers were entitled to maternity leave, fathers did not have writing leave. Parental leaves allows both parents to legitimate time off, however, unless men have human employers, this leave is unpaid and so often not taken. Changes within families has also meant (as mentioned earlier) that the structure of the family itself is changing.As it has already been noted, womens subordination increased with the rise of industrialisation and the separation between public and private spheres (Oakley 1981). The continuing erosion of this distinction over the latter half of the 20th Century has been a significant factor in the changing nature of the family. There are a number of forces at work in the decline of what has been called the traditional family. Feminists have highlighted these changes while a t the same time exposing the unequal power relationships that exist within society and within the family (Harding, 1987, Walby, 1986). They relate this inequality to the patriarchal nature of society. Rich (1976) has argued that patriarchy is a social and ideological system where men determine the roles that women should or should not play in society. Oakley (1981 and Pahl (1983)2 have cited the division of roles, both within the family, and in the wider society, as a major site of oppression for women. Traditionally the man has been seen as the breadwinner once children cause and this puts the woman at a disadvantage as research has shown that there is a relationship between money, power and inequality (Vogler, C and Pahl, J.1999)3. Because the family has been seen as the primary site of socialization (Parsons, 1951), it is also a useful place for social conditioning where obedience to authority lays the foundation for the submissive workforce that capitalism requires. Delphy (197 7) has argued that gender differences are socially constructed and they tend to serve the interests of the prevalent groups in society. Delphy further contends that women should be treated as a separate class because the categories of man and woman are not biological, but political and economic categories. Therefore women form a class who are use by men, and this is particularly evident in the nuclear family. Thus, Delphy writesWhile the wage-labourer sells his labour power, the marrie woman gives hers away exclusivity and non-payment are intimately connected. To supply unpaid labour within the framework of a universal and personal relationship (marriage) constructs primarily a relationship of slavery (Delpy, 197715).Marxist feminists argue that while Marxism whitethorn give an explanation of exploitation by the capitalist system it does not explain the inequalities between women and men, as Delphy (1977) maintains gender and sexual inequality should be the fundamental categories of feminist analysis. Marxism alone does not explain for example why women should be seen as responsible for household tasks and capitalism could just as easily still profit if men stayed at home The companionship Care Act of 1990 has imposed further responsibilities on women in the role of informal carers, this places considerable stress on womens health, particularly as nowadays many women who have a family also work outside the home. Dalley (1988) argues that much Governments policy making, particularly the idea of community care is based on outmoded notions of the ideal family, where most married women do not go out to work, and b) it is the womans occupation to assume the caring role. Under such circumstances it is widely false that the caring that women do in the home is a natural part of womens role within the family even though many more women work than used to be the case.Changing Family StructuresSince the Second World War there has been a dramatic rise in womens inter locking in the workforce, although a lot of this has been part-time employment. The 1991 Census shows that the workforce was 47% women although there were regional and heathenish variations and mavin women are more likely to be employed than are married women. This is largely because womens participation in the labour market is affected by their domestic responsibilities (Abbott and Tyler, 1995). Many women spend time out of the labour market when they have young children and then may work part time while children are at school precisely returning to full employment when their children are older. Few women have continuous careers as a result of their domestic responsibilities. Although child care arrangements do have an effect on womens working patterns, lack of meet child care is not the wholly reason women do not participate more fully in the workplace. For example, while the number of women in work has continued to rise only a third of single mothers with young children are economically bustling (HMSO, 1999). This is receivable to the fact that, despite Government initiatives such as sure enough Start Centres, most lone mothers do not have each sufficient extra support to return to the workplace, or can only take low paid work which may leave them worse off than they were on benefits. In addition to this the welfare system was organise on the basis that the traditional nuclear family, with a man at its head, should be the norm. It is not, therefore, set up to deal with the increasing number of single parent households (Moore, 2002). Government continued concentration on the notion of the traditional family, tends to make single parent families appear as deviant, when in fact this type of family has become more prevalent as have other family forms.Gittins (1993) maintains that there are a wide variety of domestic relationships and that although relationships may be universal, the can take an infinite variety of forms. Besides the nuclear family th ere is the extended family, often a feature of minority ethnic groups. There are also many single parent families, whether through death, divorce or choice. Second marriages that often result in what is cognise as reconstituted families, e.g. where one or both partners have children from other relationships, are also becoming more prevalent. The last twenty years have also seen a rise in the number of mass living together, or cohabiting, without the bonds of marriage. Different family relationships are also more evident due to the different ethnic groupings that now make up the UK (Giddens, 2001). Different attitudes towards those people who are not heterosexual has meant that an increasing number of gay and lesbian men and women now choose to live together as couples, and may or may not have children.4 According to Hartley-Brewer (1999) contends that the family (as we have known it) is evolving, rather than the emphasis being on mother and father it should be on nurturing parents of whatever sex. It might therefore be argued that the home may soon cease to be the specific place for women and could become the place for dependent children and caregiver, who may not necessarily be a biological parent.ConclusionThis assignment has looked at the concept and history of the family and at feminist criticisms. As noted earlier an increasing number of families are matriarchic or matrifocal, this is often the case in Caribbean families. This has generated debates about whether fatherless families are the source of an increasing number of social problems. Dennis and Erdos (1992) maintain that without adult examples of the proper conduct in relationships the children from families with absent fathers will not have the powerfulness to become effective members of a social group. It is further argued that if a boy grows up without a father present then he will struggle to be a successful parent himself. Blankenhorn (1995) has argued that the high divorce rates of Western nations does not mean simply the absence of fathers from the home but the erosion of the idea of fatherhood, and that this will have lethal consequences. Fukuyama (1997) maintains that the grow of the disruption of society and of the traditional family can be attributed to the rising rime of female employment. This, he argues, changes mens perceptions of women, they now perceive women a being more capble and independent and thus able to care for a child without a mans help. It is Fukuyamas (1997) contention that the freedom of women can lead to the further abdication of responsibility by men. clearly a number of social and historical forces have contributed to the changing nature of the family. Many of these forces have been highlighted in feminist work, whether or not feminism has brought about the death of the family is a matter of opinion. On the evidence presented to a higher place it might be argued that feminism itself was the result of social, historical, and economic p rocesses and it is these processes, rather than feminism, that is changing our view of what constitutes a family.BibliographyAbbott and Wallace, 1997 An Introduction to Sociology Feminist Perspectives. London, RoutledgeAbbott and Tyler 1995 Ethnic variation in the female labour force a research notein British Journal of Sociology 46 pp 330-353Allan, Graham and Crow, Graham 2001 Families, Households and Society Basingstoke PalgroveBarrett and Mcintosh 1980 The family wage Some problems for socialists and Feminists Capitlalism and Class 11 pp51-72Blankenhorn, D 1995 Fatherless America bran-new York, Basic BooksCheal,m D 1991 The Family and the State of Theory Hemel Hempstead, Harvester, WheatsheafConnell, R. 1987 Gender and Power Society, the individual and Sexual Politics Cambridge, PolityCoontz, S, and Henderson, P. eds. 1986. Womens Work, Mens Prosperity. London, Verso.Crow, G. and Hardey, M. 1992 variation and ambiguity among lone-parent households in Modern Britain in Marsh, C . and Arber, S. eds 1992 Families and Households Divisions and Change. London, Macmillan.Dalley, G. 1988 Ideologies of caring Rethinking familiarity and Collectivism London, MacmillanDelphy, C 1977 The Main Enemy London, Womens Research and alternative CentreDennis, N and Erdos, G 1992 Families without Fatherhood London, IEA Health and upbeat UnitEpstein et al 1998 Failing boys Issues in Gender and Achievement Buckingham, OUPFinch, J 1989 Family Obligartions and social Change Cambridge, Polity atmospheric pressureFirestone, S. 1971 The Dialectic of Sex The Case for Feminist Revolution London, CapeFriedan, B 1965 The Feminist Mystique, Penguin Books, HarmondsworthFukuyama F. 1997 The End of Order London, Social Market FoundationGiddens, A. 2001 4th edition. Sociology. Cambridge, Polity Press.Gittens, D. 1993 The Family in Question Changing households and familial ideologies London, MacmillanGoode w. 1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns New York, Free PressGraham, H. 1993 r uin and Health in Womens Lives Hemel Hempstead, Harvester/WheatsheafHacker, H. 1972 Women as a nonage Group in Glazer-Malbin and Waehrer eds. 1972. Woman in a Man-Made World. Chicago, Rand-McnallyHaralambos,M. Holborn, M. and Heald, R.2000. fifth ed. Sociology Themes and Perspectives. London, Harper Collins.Hartley-Brewer, J. 1999Gay couple will be legal parents guardian 28th October 1999Hartmann, H. 1981. The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism toward a more modernized union in Sargent, L. ed. 1981 The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism A vie on Class and Patriarchy. London, Pluto PressHMSO 1999 Social Trends 29 London, HMSOHudson, K., 1970. The Place of Women in Society. London, Ginn.McGrath, A 1993 Modern Christian Thought, Blackwell, OxfordMoore, S 2002 Social Welfare Alive (3rd ed) Cheltenham, Nelson ThorneMurdock, G. 1949. Social Structure. New York, Macmillan.Oakley, A. 1981. Subject Women. Oxford, Martin RobinsonParsons, T. and Bales, R. 1955. Family, Socialisat ion, and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Illinois Free PressParsons, T. 1951 The Social System New York, The Free PressStanley and Wise 1983 jailbreak Out London, RoutledgeWalby, S 1986 Patriarchy at Work, Cambridge, Polity.Walby,S. 1990. Theorising Patriarchy. Blackwell, Oxford.Walby,S. 1997. Gender Transformations. London, RoutledgeWillmott and Young 1957 Family and kinship in East London London, HarmondsworthWollstonecraft, M 1792 The Disenfranchisement of Women, in Schneir, M (ed.) 1996 The time of origin Book of Historical Feminism, Vintage, London1Footnotes1 Quoted in Haralambos and Holborn, 2000504 no foliate given for Murdock quote.2 Cited in Abbott and Wallace 1997 ibid.3 Ditto4 Either through the bridal process, artificial insemination, or an earlier heterosexual relationship