By the term ‘symmetrical family’ they mean one in which the roles of husbands and wives, although not completely identical, are now much similar.
They argue that that this is because women now go out to work, although this may be part-time rather full-time, men now help with housework and childcare and couples now spend their leisure time together instead of separately with workmates or female relatives.
In their studies to support this view, they found that the symmetrical family was more common amongst younger couples, those who were geographically and socially isolated. For example, the young couples who moved away and were living at a distance from extended family and work mates were most likely to have a symmetrical relationship. Young and Wilmott see the rise of symmetrical nuclear family as the result of major social changes that have taken place during the last century. These include changes in woman’s position, including married women going out to work, geographical mobility, new technology and labour saving devices and higher standards of living.
These factors are inter-linked. For example, married women bring a 2nd wage in and this then raise the family’s standard of living. It also means that the couple can afford labour saving devices this then makes housework easier and encourages men to do it.
There is some support for Wilmott and young’s symmetrical theory view of the family by a sociologist called Gershuny, who analysed the amount of time spent by couples. He found that the proportion of housework performed by husbands has increased as wives have taken on more paid employment. Women still retain the primary responsibility for domestic labour, but men are slowly taking on more responsibility. He says wives who did not go to work did 83% of the housework and even wives who worked part-time still did 82%. Pahl’s study also confirmed this picture; the more hours a woman worked then the more domestic tasks was shared. Gershuny goes on to say that the explanation of the trend is that as children are socialised by families with greater equality then the ideal of equal division of labour within the home will increase as time goes on.
Another sociologist who also agrees with the view that the division of labour is becoming more equal is one called Silver and another one called Schor. They based their theory with more emphasis on economic factors. They stress the importance on housework becoming ‘commercialised’. Goods and services that housewives previously had to previously have to produce themselves are now mass- meals are now supplied by fast food restaurants and supermarkets. Freezers and microwaves ect all reduce the amount of domestic labour that needs to be done. The second factor is that because women are working that means they can afford to buy these goods.
As a result, silver and Schor argue, the burden of housework on women has decreased. Schor goes on further to say and make the claim that it has led to “the death of the housewife”.
However in criticism to the above points about the division of labour being equal within the home, to begin with the first challenge of Wilmott and Young’s findings would be that their research and assumptions of that they could posit a typical family structure on the basis of their small sample of white, metropolitan families and, second their use of the word “symmetry”.
Today, there is masses of sociological evidence which illustrates the diversity of modern family structures. Therefore, the idea of any family structure being typical does not accord with reality. The premise of symmetry was a mistaken one, as many argue, what Wilmott and Young took for symmetry in the 1970’s we take for inequality today.
In criticism to Gershuny’s theory is that British evidence is contradictory to his research and studies, as to whether unemployed husbands take over the domestic responsibilities from their employment wives.
In addition to that silver and Schor go to extremes by saying the housewife is dead thanks to labour saving devices, when in reality that is not true. This is because, as critics argue, for many poor women, buying expensive goods and services is not an option. Also, even if commercialisation has reduced the amount of housework to be done, this does don’t prove that couples are sharing the remaining chores equally.
Conversely many sociologists argue that the division of labour is still very much segregated and no where near equal.
Feminist sociologists reject Wilmott and young’s ‘march of progress’ view. They argue very little has changed; men and women remain unequal within the family and women still do most of the housework. They see inequality as stemming from the fact that the family and society are male dominated or patriarchal. Women occupy a subordinate and dependent role within the family and in wider society.
The most vociferous of the critics to challenge the idea of symmetry has been a feminist called Ann Oakley, who attacked the ‘symmetrists’ on the grounds of methodological sloppiness and ideological bias. Her work has become a classic critique. She argued although Wilmott and Young found that most of the husbands they interviewed ‘helped’ their wives at least once a week, this could include simply taking children for a walk or making breakfast on 1 occasion. For Oakley, this is hardly convincing evidence of symmetry.
In her own research on housewives, Oakley found some evidence of husbands helping in the home but no evidence of a trend towards symmetry. Only 15% of husbands had a high level of participation in housework and only 25% had a high level of participation in childcare.
In recent research that supports Oakley’s findings. Boulton founder even fewer than 20% husbands had major role in childcare. She argues that Young and Wilmott exaggerate men’s contribution by looking at the tasks involving childcare rather than responsibilities. Oakley even goes on to describe how the housewife role has become the dominate role for married women. So she believes we are far from becoming a more equal division laboured home.
Many feminists go on further to argue that, despite women working, there is little evidence of a ‘new man’ who does an equal share of domestic work. They argue that women have simply acquired a dual burden of paid work and unpaid housework. In the view of feminists, the family patriarchal: men benefit both from women’s earnings and from domestic labour.
Yet, other studies conducted of lesbian couples do show a more equal division of labour, even with both females take male and female roles upon themselves. They feel positive about each others careers, sharing household takes and childcare responsibilities in comparison to heterosexual relationships.
So in essence if we were to take the feminist perspective, there is no moving towards a more equal division of labour in the home. In fact, according to Boulton’s more recent research in the 1980’s males seem to be taking part in even less domestic tasks in comparison to when Oakley did her research in 1974. Oakley found 25% of husbands participated with childcare whilst later research by Boulton showed a decrease with less than 20% participating! So could we be moving away from an equal division of labour?
In conclusion, where does this leave the theory of the “symmetrical family”?
I believe that we are not moving to a more equal division of labour by which Wilmott and Young explain it by. If anything, I believe that we will be moving towards conjugal roles by how Gershuny explains it. Where families socialise their children within a more equal division of labour and then hopefully it becomes more equal as they grow up and start their family and so on. But in addition to that, I also believe that some women are still being oppressed and can not escape the “double shift” or the dominance of males as feminists argue.
If we were to adopt a postmodernism position, we would assert that traditional concepts such as ‘the family’ or ‘the symmetrical family are redundant. A sociologist called Stacey uses the term ‘post modern family’ to signal the contrasted, ambivalent and undecided character of contemporary gender and kinship arrangements.
It is no longer appropriate to use blanket concepts to describe sets of relationships which are inevitable fragile, based as they are upon the voluntary commitment of couples.
I believe that what is needed is a new sociology which examines the rich variety of family lives, relationships and identity; which encompasses an understanding of intimacy and emotion rather than simply producing a sterile analysis of roles and structures.
