Symmetrical Family

One approach that argues against the existence of a newly symmetrical family comes from examining the domestic division of labour in the home. The domestic division of labour approach to conjugal roles asks – who does what and how often? Ann Oakley carried out qualitative research into housework to uncover the extent to which housework was gendered. She found that whilst middle class husbands did participate in some aspects of domestic life their input was limited and the bulk of responsibility rested on the woman. Their working class counterparts fared worse. Working class men were less likely to participate in the home this could be argued to be a structural factor rather than down to attitudes. For example, it could be that women have the bulk of responsibility as they do not work as many hours as their husbands and so it is more practical for them to spend a higher proportion of their time on the domestic side of life. However, McKee and Bell found that unemployed men were not inclined to help out at home even when the female was the breadwinner and working outside of the home, it was not considered masculine to participate in the home in working class male culture. Furthermore, Yeandle argues that women now face a ‘double burden’ of responsibility for the household, including domestic chores, childrearing and emotional labour and contributing to the family budget by holding down a job. Rather than women’s time being freer to concentrate on career in fact women are having more strains on their time as they are never truly ‘off duty’ when in the home. Others, like Fiona Devine, point to changes in the domestic division of labour are more to do with financial necessity that out of some fundamental change to men’s or society’s attitudes.

The domestic division of labour approach does have its critics. Some claim that that this approach ignores any of the satisfaction that women may feel to keeping a home and being a mother. The view of married mothers as being downtrodden and oppressed overlooks their own interpretation of their social situation. Also, the tasks chosen for investigation by sociologists like Oakley may overlook tasks where men are more involved, like fixing the car, DIY and decorating for example and therefore be biased and invalid.

Another approach to assessing the symmetry of the family is to examine the division of decision making between husband and wife. Edgell looked at how middle class families negotiated decision making within the family. Women had the bulk of the decision making responsibilities for buying food, children’s clothing, decorating the home whereas men were mainly responsible for decisions about where and when to move home, holiday destinations and major purchases like cars. The men and women in the study believed that the men had responsibility for more important decisions for the family. Pahl also found there was a gendered responsibility for financial decisions where men ultimately benefited from the most power over decision making. The decision making approach fails to recognise the influences from wider society on the way decisions are made. For example, it could be that men make the decision about when and where to move because their job requires it. As it is more likely that men are better paid it is their job that is more likely to necessitate a move, therefore it makes sense that they would be more responsible for a decision like this. It is difficult to assess something that is as subtle as the power relationships in a family by simply asking who decides what.

Other evidence to support the view that the family is still patriarchal comes from the statutes, for example the propogation of male domination over finances by a collusive state in the form of the way benefit is calculated. Land highlighted the fact that men were considered as head of the household and so benefit was calculated in terms of their earnings and paid to them, bypassing the woman and legitimising her powerlessness. Although child benefit can be paid directly to women and there have been changes in legislation to protect women’s rights to financial autonomy. Women are socially dependent on men with many places being ‘no go zones’ for women alone, such as bars and nightclubs or social events. A lone woman would find it difficult to attend these without a male escort and is therefore dependent on the man for her social experiences (Allan, G. 1978). Women’s domestic labour and sacrifice often goes unnoticed and unpaid. Finch found that women were often expected to sacrifice their career for the sake of supporting and encouraging her husband’s, rather than the other way round. Many women married to successful men were part of his workforce, answering telephones, organising the diary and hosting events to help her husband’s career. This often goes unpaid or does not have any formal contracts or arrangements. Delphy and Leonard argued that the family unit is more like a business where all members of the family are working for the good of the male head of the household without any formal agreement of what they will be paid for their labour.

To conclude, there is evidence to support the claim that the family is becoming more symmetrical but that there is still some way to go before the symmetrical family described by Willmott and Young’s stage 3 family is the norm. Society continues to perpetuate patriarchy in its institutions and change to attitudes of both men and women takes times and continued effort. Symmetry is optimistic but there is now more of a positive involvement in the home by men than 30 years ago.