FREE ESSAY ON SOCIOLOGY: "THE FAMILY"

SOCIOLOGY: "THE FAMILY"

One of the main institutions in society is found within the household and is popularly
known as "The Family". It is here, in the family, where the commencement of society takes
place. It is amongst this unit that the origin of women's oppression began with the
constant power struggle between man and woman. With the "nuclear family" slowly being
thrown out the window and the new "dual-earner" family creeping in to takes it's place,
it's no wonder that women's positions have changed radically over the past one hundred
years. The key work here to this being position, because although women's position has
changed, their workload has not.
With this radical change many issues can be addressed, particularly, to the women's role
and how it has remained fairly constant over the years. A closer examination will look at
the development of gender inequality within the family as a result of the ever-changing
issue. A second issue that needs to be inspected is that the family roles have changed in
regards to family make-up as women have moved into the work force. This growing capital
effort to increase standards of living by pushing every family member into the paid
labour force has taken a toll on the family unit. The final issue that will be
investigated in this report is how the traditional sex roles have remained constant, even
with women's ever-changing family position over the years.
For decades, commencing back to the time when patriarchy was the "norm" and women were
their husband's property, men have oppressed women. This ideology of patriarchy existed
way before it was ever examined by sociologists and it was accepted as a natural or
biological way of living. It wasn't until the 1960's when feminist groups began to
explore patriarchy and at the same time began to exploit it, that patriarchy was
established. Feminists at that time, and even still today, believe that patriarchy
operates to achieve and maintain gender inequality and is the essential key to women's
present subordination. Not only does patriarchy exist in the pubic domain of the paid
labour force, but also in the private domain of the household, or better yet, the family.

With patriarchy by its side, gender inequality has developed into one of the biggest
controversies amongst sociologists, feminist groups, and women. In modern day society
women are working their way into the labour force, and "expanding their roles to include
working outside the home as well as being wives and mothers" (Kaufman, 1999, 440). As
women are moving into the paid labour force, they "continue to work longer hours than do
their husbands on household tasks, and there is little evidence that men's proportionate
share of the family work has changed much during the past decade or so" (Blair, 1991,
91). Although women are moving into the paid labour force at a fairly fast pace,
according to Kaufman, "men's involvement in domestic roles has increased but at a slower
pace than women's entrance into the labour market" (Kaufman, 1999, 440). Women's entrance
into the labour market evolved rather rapidly from approximately less than 30% in the
1960's to currently more than 45% of women are in the paid labour force" (Levin, class
note, Women's Studies). 
There are many reasons for the increase of women's labour force participation. The main
fact being that the North American standard of living has increased drastically in the
past decades, and that double-incomes are needed in order to survive. Along with the
increase in standard of living, divorce rates are increasing leaving women with children
to support on their own, and therefore, women must find outside work. There are also
fewer children to raise, therefore, women have more time to work and raise their
children. Also, there is a great change in societal attitudes that push women into the
work force. Finally, with pay equity policies having been established, it is much easier
for women to find work that will pay enough to support her and her family. 
Historical factors have weighed heavily on women's current status. In the nineteenth
century, attitudes toward women were very different to the present attitudes placed upon
them now. In the nineteenth century, there was a great need for women to work. Working
class women had jobs in clothing factories, or worked as seamstress. Their work was more
domestic-related. Middle class women were not expected to work. There were some jobs, but
they were very limited. Middle class women were more expected to teach, to support
themselves, until they found a husband. During this time there was a lower value place on
a women's work than that of a man's. Therefore, women were paid less to do the same work
as men were. This lower value on women's work accounted for androcentric biases, which
put men at a higher standing in their work. Men were often paid more for dangerous,
dirty, and physical work such as mining. On the contrary, women who worked, per say as
nurses whom also did heavy lifting and dirty work, were undervalued and underpaid. These
biases brought into play occupational segregation, which implied that men and women tend
to do different jobs because of their gender. According to Luhaorg and Zivian, "women
have remained concentrated in predominately female occupations, i.e., clerical, sales,
and service occupations,...while men enjoy a much more heterogeneous occupational
structure; no major occupational category being dominant" (Luhaorg, 1995, 608). 
Luckily for women, in the 1980's, federal law declared solutions to their two major
problems involving the work force. Pay equity was established to solve the problem of the
wage gap, which enforced that people who work the exact same jobs were to earn the exact
same pay. The second solution that was established by the government was employment
equity, which helped with occupational segregation and gave employers a set of strategies
to follow in order to provide women the same opportunities in the labour market as men. 
With these regulations set into place, women moved into the work force during the 1980's
at full force, and have continued to do so. Not only did this put pressure on the paid
labour force, but it also put pressure on the family unit. In order to carry out its
daily functions as a family, the modern family depends heavily on all the institutions of
a society for support. Where as in the past, the family was an independent unit that
depended on nothing and no one. 
With this in mind, the family and the "fact that the majority of families have both
spouses working outside the home means that dual-earners and dual-career families" are
becoming the norm in American society" (Mintz, 1996, 805). Indeed there are many positive
outcomes to having both spouses in the paid labour force, but at the same time there are
many "stresses for these families" (Mintz, 1996, 805). According to Mintz, "these
stresses usually revolve around balancing the demand of the paid labour and the demand of
the family labour" (Mintz, 1996, 805). 
Throughout the years, the family unit has changed drastically. With "dual earner"
families being the most popular types of families. Three types of "dual earner" family
ideologies were identified by Lye. Those three are the Traditional, Modern, and
Egalitarian. As the trend of double income family household increases, "the breakdown of
the traditional system" (Lye, 1993, 157) due to women entering the paid labour force has
had profound transformation with respect to family life and gender roles. 
The Traditional family as identified by Mintz and Mahalik is described briefly as
"marriage based on a form on benevolent male dominance couple with clearly specialized
roles that are assigned on the basis of gender" (Mintz and Mahalik, 1996, 806). To
further explain this, the traditional family is a women who identifies with her
activities at home and the man bases his identification on his paid work. Generally, the
wife is to have less power than her husband does in relation to all aspects of their
marriage. 
The second type of family, the Egalitarian Family, is described by Mintz and Mahalik as a
"rejection of both of these ideas" (Mintz & Mahalik, 1996, 806) referring to the
traditional family. Further explained, the Egalitarian Family is the husband and wife
identifying with the same sphere, home and work, or identifying with the same balance
between the two spheres of home and work. In this family relationship, the power amongst
both the man and the woman is to be distributed evenly, and the same value is to be held
upon both husband and wife's paid and unpaid work. 
The third type of family is the Modern Family. Mintz and Mahalik describe this type of
family as "representing a middle position within the marriage" (Mintz & Mahalik, 1996,
806). The modern family, also known as the transitional family, is further explained by a
wife who is to identify with activities both related to paid and unpaid labour, where as
the husband is to relate his identification to strictly his paid work.
With the explanation of these three types of families, it is easy to say that along with
the types of families changing, the roles of the family have also changed. Taking a
closer look at women's roles, and comparing them to men's roles, Lye said that "changing
family and gender role attitudes are indicative of a weakening of traditional normative
constraints that used to offer the well-defined adult roles of husband-father-breadwinner
and wife-mother-homemaker so that diverse range of adult roles are now acceptable and
coexist. Referring to the different types of families above, Lye clearly explains that it
is also possible to have many different types of family roles and expectations working
together in the same familial. Lye also believes that "the effects of men's and women's
attitudes vary according to their spouse's attitudes and to be greater where husbands and
wives disagree" (Lye 1993, 160). Therefore, men and women's roles strongly depend on the
expectations and attitudes that they have set in regards to family roles or gender roles.
"Having different views concerning family life reduces marital satisfaction of the
balancing" (Lye, 1993, 183). It is locating an equilibrium that couples find difficult to
do in regards to family life and gender roles.
Even today as women are entering the workforce, Kaufman found that "wives do four-fifths
of the cooking, laundry, and shopping as well as two-thirds of the child care, cleaning,
and dishwashing" (Kaufman, 1999, 440). For example, Blair & Lichter found that "wives
perform 96% of the cooking, 92% of the dishwashing, 90% of the vacuuming, 94% of the bed
making, and 94% of the diapering of children" (Blair, 1991, 93). At the other end of the
scale, Blair and Lichter found that "husbands performed 86% of household repairs, 80% of
the disciplining of children, 75% of the lawn mowing, and 77% of the snow shovelling"
(Blair, 1991, 93). 
These percentages seem rather irrelevant due to the fact that division of household
labour is much more than who does what. Blair and Lichter discuss three prominent
theories of the division of household labour. They are time availability, power theory,
and gender role. 
The theory of time availability relates to the fact that if a spouse is working full-time
outside the home, it is more difficult for he or she to perform the daily household
tasks. Blair and Lichter described this theory as "the partner with the most available
time presumably will assume the greatest share of household duties." Although this theory
seems irrelevant in the explanation of why men do less work in the household, it does not
explain why women are still doing the same amount even when she works the same hours as
her husband.
The power theory is a gender segregated theory that suggests that because women are of
lower status to their husband, in regards to paid labour force earnings, the men's paid
labour force job is more prestigious than his wife's. Blair and Lichter raise an issue
when they say that "family power, which is typically measured by the personal resource of
each spouse may also affect the allocation of domestic tasks by reinforcing traditional
assignments of tasks by gender" (Blair, 1991, 94). Although this theory does make sense,
family power is not always divided by who makes more money.
The third theory identified by Blair and Lichter is the gender role ideology, and the
fact that by nature women are socialised to perform related to tasks to their femininity,
as well as men are raised to perform related tasked to their masculinity. This theory is
more related to "traditional sex roles" of the expressive wife and the instrumental
husband. Blair and Lichter report that "females are more likely to be assigned to
traditional female orientated tasks, such as cleaning, washing, and cooking" (Blair,
1991, 94). Whereas men are more likely to perform male dominated tasks such as snow
shovelling, taking out the garbage, car repairs, lawn mowing, and household repairs. 
In addition to these three theories, the personal satisfaction that one receives from the
household labour can also be applied. It is expected that generally wives receive greater
satisfaction from particular household task performed, and according to Pittman's article
"about one third of men agreed that it was not their own household standards that were
being performed but indeed it was actually the standards of their wives" (Pittman et al.,
1999, 748). It is common knowledge that women care more about the physical appearance of
their household than men do. So therefore, it is probable that women are still doing a
majority of the domestic work on top of her paid work, because she is simply more
concerned with her home's appearance.
"Women, even those employed full time - continue to work longer hours than do their
husbands on household tasks" (Blair, 1991, 91). This is true even today, because they are
pressured by the traditional sex roles and attitudes that continue to reinforce the
conventional definition of men and women's work in today's society. Women have been
performing majority of household tasks for decades, and they will continue to do so until
domestic work becomes a paid labour.