Events such as the 1944 education act. This was an important historical event in the liberation of women. From then on people of all backgrounds were allowed to attend university. Also in the late 1960’s the beginnings of women overturning the image of the traditional housewife could be seen. These groundbreaking events were taking place at the time of public dissent against nuclear weapons and anti war demonstrations. Women also demanded changes of their own outside established framework. Feminists, originally a voice from the middle classes that now act as a voice for the mass population of women, have had a significant role to play in shaping today’s acceptance of non-stereotypical gender roles in society. Contemporary society has opened up many traditionally male dominated occupations for women, even giving birth to the new phenomenon of househusbands.
To illustrate this point a recent survey asked the opinion of women from various ages ranging from 17 to 87, their opinion on role reversal. Qualitative data was collected from 3 generations of the same family (mother, daughter and grandchild). The study carried out by Pilcher (1998) found that older women tended to give hostile accounts of role reversal, seeing it as a violation of traditional gender roles. However women of younger age groups tended to give more sympathetic accounts, where role reversal was seen as acceptable, according to particular circumstances faced by individuals.
(Page, 3)
Househusbands may be a rare phenomenon, but perhaps on a symbolical level they challenge established ideology, where men are regarded as ‘naturally’ breadwinners, and woman are considered biologically programmed for childbearing and related domestic work. One other important point that Pilcher’s survey dose highlight is also societies changing attitudes from that of previous generations.
When such theories such as Talcott Parsons (1949), as cited by O’Donnell (1992), functionalist explanation of gender roles were formed. His theory was based less on a biological foundation, as he saw the division of labour of sexes as a functional one in context to a capitalist society. In which women played the nurturing role and men doing tasks involving strength as a mater of practicality. The functionalist ideology that is reliant on structure in society, inseparable and based around the traditional family unit and designed on the basis of the woman staying at home will inevitably cease to function in a contemporary society. As the structure of the labour market has changed, in particular the decline of industry and manual labour (predominately male).
The division of labour on the basis of practicality was a system created in history as a result of industrialisation but is now regarded as natural. The traditional family unit was designed for an industry that no longer exists.
However parsons did recognise that women may not be fulfilled as housewives. In the late nineteen forties he wrote, “any attempt to force or persuade an overwhelming majority of American women to accept a role of pure an virtuous domesticity alone is probably doomed to failure”(O’Donnell, 1992, p.169).
A view shared by Marxist-Feminists in particular Juliet Mitchell (1971), cited by O’Donnell (1992), she regards a woman’s oppression within the family and economic production as closely related. Women’s lack of power in the economic sphere is ‘explained’ in capitalist society by the supposed ‘need’ for them to be housewives. Other feminists suggest that the division of labour in the household is the foundation where inequalities suffered by woman in other areas of societies is based. Subsequently the gender division of labour reinforces the notion that woman are ‘naturally’ good at certain types of work and thus builds the foundation for segregation in the labour market.
(Page, 4)
Undoubtedly as the historical evidence shows contemporary society has changed woman’s expectations. The uncertainty about security of marriage and a need for self-sufficiency, also society’s mutable standards of gender roles have contributed to the large percentage of the labour market represented by women. This is illustrated by the EOC in a recent occupational survey (2001), that shows 45% of women in self-employment in the age group of 16 and over. However this dose not present a true picture of segregation as it stands at the present time. Suzanne Franks stated that “…According to every measurement of pay, age group, and comparable education qualification, women earn less then men…” (Observer, 10.01.99). This inequality Reflects the remnants of the industrialisation age, where men were paid a family wage reinforcing the concept of gender roles in view of woman’s dependence. We also know from the evidence that vertical segregation exists in traditional male domains of managers, senior officials and skilled trades. This is graphically demonstrated by a recent employment by occupation survey by the EOC (2001). Women are over represented in lower levels and under represented in the higher status positions. Furthermore the recent changes in demand, such as the rise of the service sector and part time work mainly constituted of women, since it is the only way woman can incorporate private roles with out employing domestic help. Thus contributing to the recent rise of woman in employment, as illustrated by the EOC analysis of part time employees (2001). Supply however is affected by women bearing children, prejudice and the fact that some areas of occupation are more open to change then others. As depicted by the EOC (1990), cited in (Taylor et al.2000, p135). The surveys show the varied distribution of occupations, such as the primary sector (agriculture, mining, and construction industry), that are predominantly male oriented and represent horizontal segregation. In parliament also the same trend is shown. In a recent House of Commons information bulletin showed figures for the number of MP’s in the U.K in the year (2002), a total of 18% of MP’s were women.
All biological explanations in general and in particular (Goldburg 1979, cited by, Taylor, Richardson, Yeo, Marsh, Trobe, Pilkington, 2000), who didn’t base his theories just on biological determinism. He argued that the hormone testosterone in men has produced a strong inclination towards dominance and caused the vertical segregation in parliament and high status occupations. Not necessarily due to superior abilities, but originates from a greater conviction to achieve power and domination. Feminists however would view this fact in light of patriarchal ideology where men use ‘natural’ arguments to justify male privileges and the social disadvantage of women would be disregarded as ‘natural’. An appropriate point made by Terry Leahy (1999), cited in Madeleine leonerd (2000), who implied neither natural division or resorted to biological explanations to explain differences in gender. He stated, “It is not males as a biological category that oppress women but as a socially constructed gender group since it is as a socially constructed gender group that men can have ‘an interest’ in oppressing women.” (p.28). Thus reconstructing historical patriarchal ideology.
(Page.5)
also of, differences.
since education is usualy necesary for employment in higher status occupations. Gender has always been an issue in education, as statistics from higher education statistics agency (1998 – 1999) shows. The findings mirror the occupational surveys in that there is a significant gap in traditionally male dominated fields. However, women constitute a small majority total in all full time subjects. This recent trend is also reflected in examination results for GCSE’s for the same year. Girls consistently do better then boys in all subjects. Although as data from DFEE (1997), cited Mitsos and Browne (1998) illustrated that subject choice is still affected by gender. Biological explanations would not go far in explaining why girls do better then boys at school. The argument was used in earlier years that because girls matured earlier then boys they do better in earlier years of education. However there would be little support for the biological outlook in this case as it fails to explain why girls are now overtaking boys 16 – 18 and rapidly closing the gap at higher education suggests social influences. Crompton and Sanderson (1990), cited in (Taylor et al, 2000), concluded that if the current trend in education continued it would help break down occupational segregation, and the various occupational sectors of men and women would increasingly interact. One point that feminists have to consider is that if gender role differences in education continue females would be the dominant sex. The current gender research in education as to why boys are doing better then girls would be turned upside-down. The reasons for boys under achievement can be attributed to the evidence given in relation to the decline in traditional male jobs and the rise in women’s expectations. Also economic and political changes have all contributed to an identity crisis for men, this insecurity is consequently reflected in boys’ underachievement at school. Alsoas is more suited to girls in that it places more emphasis on reading and writing. concentrate mainly on course work, reading and writing which would in turn exaggerate girls’ strengths as the context of the syllabus is more suited to girls. Hence Research carried out by Mitsos and Browne (1998), cited in the sociology review (Sep, 1998, p27), found the main reason why boys underachieve in English is because boys saw the subject as a ‘feminine’. Other influences such as boy’s pear group culture is more strongly anti academic and a greater number of female teachers as role models especially in primary schools.
(Page, 6)
indisputable in such. A. The equal opportunities commission according to Franks calculated that, “…according to the trends of the past 20 years, it will take at least another 45 years before women achieve equal pay…”(Observer, 10, 01,99). Whereas women should be achieving positions in society that co-ordinates with their educational achievements. Inasmuch as girlsa Yet tevidencereality that traditional subjects at university in the hierarchies of the professional sector are today as they have always been, predominantly male dominated. Notwithstanding the erosion of male dominance in the working classes largely due to the decline of industry. have areas,d.Possibly cultural explanations (feminists) tend to be women and those arguing the case for . Such as Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Max Weber (1864-1920), cited in O’Donnell (1992). They both epitomised the social stratification and differentiation theories. Their view was that society is divided into hierarchically ordered layers and institutions. The most basic of which is the family unit organised to produce and rear children, However, as Leonard (2000) likewise stated “… that gender is also produced and reproduced within the household…” cited in the sociology Review (Nov 2000, p28). Perhaps in order to understand gender socialisation and it’s relevance to society we have to look even deeper in to how children are brought up and gain a sense of themselves as male and female. Perry and Bussey (1993), cited in Atkinston (1994), social learning theorist states that children learn through observation and adopt gender roles from parents and society. Thus it is feasible to conclude that if a culture becomes less ideologically sex typed then children will become less sex typed in their gender role behaviour. Which in turn they carry through with them into the world of education and work, thus changing contemporary society.
Perry and Bussey 1994 social learning theory in psychology contrast to psychoanalytic theory, which reflects biological determinists in sociology in that ‘anatomy is destiny’. Social learning theorist state that children learn through observation and adopt gender roles
Regardless of what changes are to take place in the future we know from the evidence that men still dominate in traditional fields in both education and workBibliography
Atkinson, L (1994), Introduction to Psychology 11th edition, United States of America: Ted Buchholz.
Franks, S (1996, JAN 10), ‘Having None of It: Women, Men and a Future of Work’. The Observer.
Great Britain, EOC, Office for National Statistics (2001). Employment by occupation. (Employees and self-employed aged 16 and over)
Great Britain, EOC. Office for National Statistics (2001). Occupational Segregation. (Employees and self-employed aged 16 or over).
Great Britain, Higher Education Statistics Agency (1998/99). Students in Higher Education Institutions. (First degree undergraduates).
Great Britain, EOC. Office of National Statistics (2001). Part Time Employees. (Aged 16 and over).
Leonard, M (Nov 2000). Back to the future? The Domestic Division of Labour. The Sociology Review, (p26)
Leonard, M (Nov 2000). Back to the future? The Domestic Division of Labour. The Sociology Review, (p28)
McGinley, I (2001), About Gender [Online]. Available: , [Accessed:2002,oct, 10].
Mitsos, E & Browne, K (1998). Gender Differences in education. The underachievement of boys. The Sociology Review, (Sep, 1998, p27)
O’Donell, M (1992), A New Introduction to Sociology, China: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd (1992)
Piltcher, J (1998): Gender matters? Women talking about role reversal [Online]
Available: , [Accessed: 2002, Oct,10]
Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A, Marsh, I. Trobe, K. Pilcinton, and A. (2000) Sociology in focus, Bath: The Bath Press
United Kingdom, House of commons weekly information bulletin. (Jan 12, 2002).
Members of Parliament.
