During the industrial revolution men became increasingly identified with the public world of production and wage labour. While women were confined to the private sphere of consumption and the home. This is where conjugal roles come in; these are roles played by the husband or boyfriend and wife or girlfriend in a married or cohobating couple. The item suggests that some sociologists see the family as a march of progress where as others see it as unequal and patriarchal.
Functionalists, like Talcott Parsons, saw the division of labour as biological and he claimed that they were beneficial to the family and wider society. Elizabeth Bott named the divisions through ‘joint and segregated conjugal roles’. The joint roles were more common amongst middle class and young families, these roles were joint. Whereas the segregated roles were more common amongst working class, these roles were divided. Parsons named these gender roles as expressive and instrumental functions which become clearer during the industrialisation. The husband performs the instrumental function, in being the ‘breadwinner’ of the family to provide financial support, and the wife performs the expressive function, in being the housewife. Parsons reckons that these functions are natural and they benefited the whole family. This view was also supported by the New Rights. However, this view has been criticized as it is traditional and that in the modern family these roles are fading. Therefore, this proves that in society today, the functionalist’s views are seen as insignificant as it fails to represent the gender roles in the family today.
Additionally, item A suggests that ‘women’s increase participation in paid work outside the home’. This view is reinforced by many sociologist, such as Wilmot and Young, who put forward that the family is becoming more symmetrical and egalitarian through the march of progress. This suggests that the gender roles and relationships are becoming more equal. They see the family life today as gradually improving for all its members and becoming more democratic. They also suggest that there has been a long-term trend moving away from the segregated conjugal roles and a shift towards the joint conjugal roles. They say the reason for this increase is due to more women are in paid work, so they are less dependent on their extended kin and husbands for financial support. This also supports the reason for the decline in marriage and increase in divorce; since the 1920’s marriage has been at its lowest. Jonathan Gershuny agrees with Willmott and Young and says that wives who work full-time have less time to do housework. This is supported by his statistic, 83% when not working and 73% when full-time. He explains that this is a cultural lag and that we are slowly adapting towards women working full time. This is also backed up by the item which states ‘men are more willing to do housework than they were in the past’. By the change of position for women, it has meant that men are now more responsible for different household tasks therefore suggesting that the gender roles in the modern family are becoming more equal.
On the other hand, feminist, such as Ann Oakley, have criticised the functionalist and March of progress view and describes the family as patriarchal (male dominated). Oakley rejects the March of progress view as she states that it over exaggerates the amount of work men actually do in the house. Oakley says that gender roles are still unequal in the modern family because although men are ‘helping’, it is still the women’s primary role. However, this can be seen as that women do not let men do certain tasks, such as washing, because they may mess up the jobs and it is easier for the wives to do them. Moreover, in her study she found that only 15% of men, in families today, participate in domestic labour, which clearly shows that gender roles and relationships are still unequal. Similarly, Mary Boulton backs up Oakley’s study as she found that fewer than 20% of husbands help with childcare, again showing a lack of equality. Feminists express the view that the joint conjugal roles, which functionalist suggested, are not joint but impaired women, they believe that equality does not exist amongst gender roles and relationships.
Furthermore, the item suggests the feminist view that ‘there are major inequalities of power and control in modern family relationships’. Barrett and McIntosh suggest that men gain far more from women’s domestic work than they give back in financial support; which often comes with ‘strings attached’. Money management amongst family often favours men; research shows that resources are not shared and women’s needs are often ignored, despite the family being dual-earners. This is due to the fact that women are statically paid less than men, which is caused by inequality and patriarchy in wider society. This is further explained by feminists Pahl and Vogler, who focus on the effects of decision making within the modern family through ideas of ‘pooling’ and ‘allowance system’. Pooling is when both partners have access to money and responsibility for expenditure (joint conjugal roles) which causes equality in relationships. However, allowance system is the idea that men give a budget for the family’s needs and any extra goes to the man, which cause patriarchy in relationships. Pahl and Vogler found that 31% of families use the pooling system, which helps to prove the family is becoming more egalitarian, yet there is still evidence that men usually handle the financial decisions, creating inequality in the family. Edgell also agrees with this, as he says that male economic power still exists and women have less of a say. Therefore, it is obvious that gender roles and relationships are not becoming more egalitarian as inequality and patriarchy in pay and decision making still exist.
The inequality in power has led to domestic violence which clearly suggests the evidence in which family is still unequal. Radical Feminists Millet and Firestone use domestic violence as a way to show that society is still patriarchal and that men oppress women. Dobash and Dobash suggest that marriage legitimates violence and abuse. According to Mirrlees-Black 1-in-4 women are assaulted in their lifetime, which is evidence to show that there is no sign of equality in the relationships of the modern family. However, Wilkinson disagrees with feminists and says that social inequality has caused this problem and not patriarchy. Families with more economic concern and stress are more likely to have domestic conflict; creating an unequal and unstable relationship. Likewise, radical feminist ignore that men also can be the victims in domestic abuse. For example, Mirrlees-Black shows that 1-in-7 men have been assaulted, which therefore suggests that gender roles and relationships are not equal because gender divisions and relationship issues occur.
To conclude, the view that gender roles and relationships have become more equal in modern family life is to some level, generalised and exaggerated. This is because it depends on the family type to decide on what roles are played amongst the family, for example, in the same sex family gender roles are unlikely to occur due to the fact they are not divided by gender. Although there is evidence to suggest that the symmetrical family exists and the family is becoming egalitarian, there is still evidence to prove that the functionalist view of division of labour occurs.