Some feminists believe that women in a housewife role can also provide an emotionally supportive retreat for males frustrated at their treatment in the workplace. However, lack of power at work may be made up for by exerting it upon the family. This may have negative consequences for women in the form of domestic violence.
Radical feminists have far more opinionated views. They believe that the nuclear family cemented the female role as a “mother-housewife”, allowing men to dominate paid work. They believe that male sand female s are socialized into ideals that are largely male based and support male superiority. The family is the main arena for transmitting this patriarchal ideology, through the socialization of children into gender roles. Such socialization encourages the notion that the sexual division of labour is “natural” that women are primarily sexual objects and mothers/housewives, and that violence against women is not a problem. Radical Feminist also see the family as key in maintaining male superiority.
Feminist information I received from the internet, published by someone with the name “Sadashivan” raises the following points:
- “First education she receives from her parents is to live with arguing (do as told) and keep the house in perfect maintenance. She receives discriminatory attitudes between herself and her brother having watched her parents socialize them into differing roles.
- Do women really need marriage? Marriage is social contract that legalizes the husband and family to keep women as slaves. For most present generation, women married life means depression, mental torture, self immolation, bride burning for want of more dowry,
- Is social independence of women, as of men, not the solution to human rights?
Many generations of women have been treated as property. Women were never treated as self-individuals in any civilization. Their independence was discouraged in almost all the civilizations and religions. Without women there would have no civilization, no religion, no societies and no men. Woman is earth, gives birth and nourishes till the boy becomes man. In this universe after helping woman (earth) to seeding, man’s role is finished woman performs rest of the role till the child is grown to be independent irrespective of boy or girl. For a woman, boys and girls are her children. A woman’s role is more important than that of men in the universe.”
On the whole, Feminists suggest that the family is a patriarchal institution which exploits and oppresses women. Radical Feminists are rather more opinionated in their views, but all believe that a marriage tag and being part of a family limits female opportunity, which in turn leads to a male dominant society.
Using material from item B and elsewhere, assess the view that the media and some politicians present an ideological view of the family.
For many years, debate about family life in the UK has been dominated by “an ideology of familism.” It is argued mainly by New Right and Functionalist sociologists that there is an “ideal family” which should have the following characteristics:
- It should be nuclear in structure (ie.based on father, mother and children)
- It should be based on marriage rather cohabitation.
- It should be heterosexual.
- Males should be the breadwinners and the disciplinarians, and females should primarily be responsible for child-care/housework. There is some acknowledgement of men “sharing” the latter.
This idealistic portrayal of the family is sometimes referred to as the “cereal packet family.” Cosequently, other family types are seen as “deviant” especially the one parent family. This ideology can also be seen in the media, epecially in advertising. It has had some influence on Government social policy, especially on taxation and social security systems.
We have to remember that the Functionalist ideal of the family is indeed idealistic! Functionalism is a structuralist theory. This means that it sees the individual as less important than the social structure or organization of society. It is a “top – down” theory that looks at society rather than the individuals within it. Therefore Functionalists have an ideal view of the family which they believe will benefit society the most.
Only recently have sociologists been looking at relationships between the family and social policy. As Graham Allan points out, Britain does not have a government ministry responsible for family affairs, and traditionally it has not had a specific package of government policies aimed at the family. Most European countries have both of these.
Sociologist Adrian Wilson gives a few examples of other societies and historical periods where the state has directly attempted to alter family life:
- In the USSR the post-revolutionary communist government of the 1920s took measures intended to weaken and ultimately destroy the family. Divorce and abortion were made much easier to obtain.
- In China, couples had to apply for permission to have more than one child, and there were penalties fore those who did not make their contribution to solving the problem of over population.
In Britain though, the family has usually been regarded as an area where it is inappropriate for the state to interfere much, since, as Allan puts it, “the state is concerned with regulation, control and coercion; the family is thought of as an area for love, intimacy and personal fulfillment.” In short, the family belongs to the private sphere, and should therefore, for the most part, be left alone. However, since the 1980s, British politicians of the major parties have increasingly seen fit to make tentative forays into commenting on and sometimes intervening in family life. Governments are doing this through taxation and introducing new social security systems and
