Elizabeth Bott (1957) categorised distinguishes between the two types of conjugal roles; that is roles with marriage: joint and segregated conjugal roles. The segregated conjugal role is where the couple have separate roles, the male breadwinner and a female homemaker/carer, as in Parsons intstrumental and expressive roles. Joint conjugal roles are where the couple share tasks such as housework and childcare. As suggested in item 2b, changing attitudes to gender roles and increased participation by women in the labour market have led to more equality in modern family life. Young and Wilmott identify a pattern of segregated conjugal roles in their study of traditional working class extended families in the 1950s. Men were the breadwinners and they played very little part in home life. Women were full-time housewives with sole responsibility for housework and childcare. This is proving Elizabeth Bott's findings and is showing that gender roles have become more equal in modern family life.
Young and Willmott take a 'march of progress' view of the history of the family. They see family life as gradually improving for all its members, becoming more equal and democratic. They arhue that there has been a long-term trend away from segregated conjugal roles and towards joint conjugal roles and the 'symmetrical family'. In their study, Young and Willmott found that the symmetrical family was more common among younger couples, those who are geographically and socially isolated. The young couples who had moved away from Bethnal Green and were living at a distance from the extended family and workmates were more likely to have a symmetrical relationship. Young and Willmott see the rise of the symmetrical nuclear family as the result of major social changes that have taken place during the past century; changes in women's position, new technology and higher standards of living. The feminist Ann Oakley criticises Young and Willmott's view that the famiyl is now symmetrical. She argues that their claims are exaggerated. Although Young and Willmott found that most of the husbands they interviewed 'helped' their wives at least once a week, this could include making breakfast on one occasion. For Oakley, this is hardly convincing evidence of symmetry.
Feminists reject the march of progress view. They argue that little has changed, men and women remain uneuqual within the family and women still do most of the housework. They see this inequality as stemming from the fact that the family and society are male-dominated. Women occupy a subordinate and dependant role within the family and in wider society. Oakley describes how the housewife role has become the dominant role for married women. Industrialisation and the rise of factory production in the 19th Century led to the separation of paid work from the home. Although women had initially been part of the industrial labour force, they were gradually excluded from the workplace and confined to the home with sole responsibility for housework and childcare, whilst men became the sole breadwinners. This enforced women's economic dependance on men. In this way, the housewife's role was socially constructed, rather than being women's 'natural' role, as Parsons claims. In Oakley's view, even though the 20th century saw an increase in the numebr of married women working, the housewife role is still women's primary role. Also, women who work are concentrated in low-paid jobs that are often an extension of the housewife role, such as nursing or childcare. This is suggested in Item 2b, "feminists are much more cautious about drawing such a conclusion. They point to the inequalities of power and control that persist in modern family relationships." This, therefore, reinforces the idea that gender roles have changed a little over the years but it is not substantial.
Most of the women in Oakley's study in the 1970s were full-time housewives, but many mroe households now have a second income from the wife's full or part time work. Today, three quarters of married or cohabiting women in the UK are economically active, as against fewer than half in 1971. Some sociologists argue that women working full-time is leading to a more equal division of labour in the home. Jonathan Gershuny found that wives who worked full-time did less domestic work. Gershuny explained this trend towards greater equality in terms of a gradual change in values and parental role models. He argues that social values are gradually adapting to the fact that women are now working full-time. However, he found that even though men are now doing more housework, they still tend to take responsibility for different tasks. The views of Gershuny are optimistic ones, similar to Young and Willmott's 'march of progress' view that conjugal roles are becoming more symmetrical. Rosemary Cromptom accepts Gershuny's evidence. However, she explains it differently, as women's earning power increases relative to men's, so men do more in the home. However, earnings remain unequal, women's earnings are only about three quarters of that of mens. Cromptom concludes that as long as earnings remain unequal, so will the division of labour at home.
One reason why men often take a greater share of the family's resources is because they usually contribute more money, due to their higher earning. The feminist sociologists Jan Pahl and Carolyn Vogler focus on how each partner's contribution to family income affects decision-making within the family. They identify two main types of control over family income; pooling, where both partners have access to income and joint responsibility for expenditure, for example a joint bank account, and allowance system, where men give their wies an allowance out of which they have to budget to meet the family's needs, with the man retaining any surplus income for himself. Pahl and Vogler found that pooling was more common among couples where both partners work full-time. However, they found that even here, the men usually made the major financial decisions. This is supported by Irene Hardill's research. In her study of 30 dual-career professional couples, she found that the important decisions were usually taken either by the man alone or jointly and that his career normally took priority when deciding whether to move house for a new job. This supports Janet Finch's observation that women's lives tend to be structured around their husbands' careers. However, other feminists argue that inequalities in decision-making are not simply the result of inequalities in earnings. They argue that in patriarchal society, the cultural definition of men as decision-makers is deeply ingrained in both men and women and instilled through gender role socialisation. Decision-making is likely to remain unequal. This is suggesting that gender roles have not become more equal in modern family life.
The inequality of power and decision-making could be said to have led to domestic violence which shows that relationships are being gender dominated. There have been many interpretations as to reasons for domestic violence and who is to blame, for example domestic violence reflects gendered power differences and violence reflects disturbed interactional patterns between partners. Radical feminsts interpret findings such as those of Dobash and DObash as evidence of patriarchy. Kate Millett and Shulamith Firestone argue that all societies have been founded on patriarchy. They see the key division in society as that between men and women. Men are the enemy; they are the oppressors and exploiters of women. Radical feminists see the family and marriage as the key institutions in patriarchal society and the main source of women's oppression. Within the family, men dominate women through domestic violence or the threat of it. For radical feminists, widespread domestic violence is an inevitable feature of patriarchal society and serves to preserve the power that all men have over women. Furthermore, in their view, male domination of state institutions helps to explain the reluctance of the police and courts to deal effectively with cases of domestic violence. Radical feminists heplp to explain why most domestic violence is commited by men. They argue that violence against women is part of a patriarchal system that maintains men's power. They give a sociological explanation by linking patterns of domestic violence to dominant social norms about marriage. However, Elliot rejects the radical feminist claim that all men benefit from violence against women. Not all men are aggressive and most are opposed to domestic violence. However, Wilkinson suggests that social inequality, rather than patriarchy has caused this problem. He suggested that those families with economic problems are more likely to have domestic conflict due to increased amount of stress; creating an unstable relationship. This 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. This is showing that gender roles are extremely unequal.
Fatherhood has now become more equal as fathers are completing more childcare tasks and housework chores, and there is more call for social policies to encorporate men as parents as well as women, for example children's school reports to be sent to fathers as well as mothers. This is suggesting that gender roles and relationships are becoming more equal.
In conclusion, sociologists disagree as to whether couples are becoming more equal. Functionalists and the New Right argue for the necessity of segregated conjugal roles based on biological differences betweem the sexes. However, 'march of progress' sociologists argue that the family is becoming more symmetrical, with joint conjugal roles. Feminists disagree, arguing that men's contribution remain's minimal and women now shoulder a dual burden of paid and unpaid work, or even perform a triple shift that includes emotion work. COuiples remain unequal in terms of desicion making and control of resources. Men earn more and are more likely to take the major decisions. Radical feminists argue that domestic violence is an extreme form of patriarchal power over women. However, though most victims are female, not all women are equally at risk. There is alot of evidence suggesting that equality doesn’t exist in modern family life through things like domestic violence, and this far outweighs the possibility of a more equal family life; therefore suggesting that more social changes are needed before gender roles and relationships become more equal.