For Parsons, the principal purpose for this division of roles can be regarded as an essential element of maintaining society. He separated the complementary qualities of the male and the female and distinguished that: the female role is expressive and the male role is instrumental. (Haralambos, 2000, page 132)
This female expressive role provides affection and emotional support to all within the nuclear family, this contributes to the stabilisation of adult mental well-being and the socialisation of children into their expected gender roles, thus producing a predominantly male workforce and the next generation of competent mothers. The female also has the responsibility of balancing her roles of wife and mother. Thus appearing to the children as asexual and to the adult male as desirable. Too much in either direction could result in a non-balanced family – disrupting the functional nature of such. The female is therefore an expression of the instrumental male, working intrinsically together, both equally important in their clearly defined roles. (Parsons, 1949 pages 189-201)
As such, these definite roles automatically disable the chance of competition between the male and female in the occupational system, which could subsequently create divisions or tension within the marriage. The nuclear family share the status and prestige, which derives from the male’s occupational position and the female subsequently, gains status from her equally important role within the family. Parsons based his assumptions on American society; however, he believes that his analysis can be generalised to most western societies. (Parsons, 1949 pages 189-201)
This study highlights the importance of the family with regards to its purpose of maintaining the stability of its members and therefore maintaining stability amid society. Parsons study shows the importance of the socialisation of children and young adults. It also displays the family as a positive and diverse institution that can adapt to meet the needs of society.
However, Parsons study fails to recognise its overall focus on ‘white’ middle class American families and therefore it offers no insight into families belonging to other classes or ethnicity. Parson’s study on families implies that it can be transferred to most industrialised societies – however, industrialised societies vary in their cultures and so this could be difficult to ascertain. Parson’s study was carried out in 1949, and this factor must be recognised as a negative aspect, as society and the family has changed significantly over the past 50 years. In this respect Parson’s theory display’s an ideological view of the family and does not take into account any of its negative characteristics. In addition Parson’s did not consider the importance of the extended family and dismissed their value in contributing to the nuclear families stabilization. Since Parson’s study in 1949, the family has significantly changed with some or most relying on the extended family for such things as childcare or simply emotional support.
In contrast to the functionalist view is that of the feminist perspective. Feminism began to develop in the late 19th century as the result of women’s exclusion from voting in an alleged democratic society. As feminism progressed throughout the 20th century, attention became increasingly focused on the significant gender inequalities, which continued to exist in modern society; consequently many feminist approaches have derived from this. The three principal feminist perspectives to emerge during the 1960’s were; Marxist and socialist feminism, radical feminism and liberal feminism each with a different explanation and solution for this inequality. (Studying Human Society the sociological approach, page 120 handout)
Marxist and socialist feminism are considered to have similar basic principles, which can be summarised as the belief that capitalism is the basis of women’s subordination within society. They maintain that men benefit through capitalism, however it is the capitalists who stand gain the most through women’s unpaid work as mothers (socialisation) and housewives (enabling men to work efficiently). Marxist feminists believe that communist revolution is the solution to this inequality; whereas socialist feminists are more inclined to believe that equality for women will eventually prevail within the existing capitalist system as a result of democracy. (Haralambos, 2000, page 137)
Radical feminism argues that the cause of women’s exploitation is men and the relentless monopoly that men have over society. Radical feminists view the family as an institution of oppression, which continues to mould women into men’s ideological perception of what women should be. Typically, radical feminists believe that revolution is the way to eradicate male domination in society. Some radical feminists would argue that any support from men is contradictory to their principles and therefore do not accept any assistance from men in their quest for equality. Some extreme radical feminists would even suggest that lesbians are the only genuine feminists as they are completely independent from men. (Haralambos, 2000, page 136)
Liberal feminism is possibly the least controversial feminist approach as its principles and objectives are substantially less revolutionary than other feminist perspectives. Liberal feminism considers gender inequalities as harmful to both men and (primarily) women as a result of the gender role socialisation process. Men are denied the opportunity to form intimate bonds with their children and women are denied access to high-status employment. Liberal feminists do not advocate revolution and are therefore prepared to work within the existing social structure. Liberal feminists believe that equality can be achieved through the democratic system and the alteration of societies stereotypical perceptions of the traditional ‘masculine’ ‘feminine’ roles portrayed by the mass media as natural. (Haralambos, 2000, page 137-8)
Feminists from all approaches agree that women throughout history have been and continue to be discriminated against as a result of their biological sex, which is considered to pre-determine gender. Feminists maintain that gender is socially created and should not necessarily coincide with the biological sex of an individual. (Studying Human Society the sociological approach, page 120 handout)
Dobash and Dobash from a Radical feminist/social action perspective describe the family in a far darker light than that of the functionalist perspective. Their study in 1980, of “Violence Against Wives”, reviewed the common viewpoint that the family offers a secure environment for adults and children. Dobash and Dobash suggested that in reality the family is more likely inflict pain and emotional stress onto its members than any other external group. (Handout, informal interviews, page 35)
Dobash and Dobash endeavoured to analyse the phenomenon of domestic violence; with specific reference to the violence women endure after marriage. Their method of study focused on the historical analysis of this issue, which they believed to extend a significant insight in to the explanation for modern male domination over women. Their study intended to discover if the cultural beliefs held by modern society contributed to the maintenance of domestic violence. A pilot study was conducted to ascertain if their original impressions of the basis of domestic violence was accurate. (Marsh, 1998, page 210)
An extensive study was then devised, which incorporated 109 interviews of women, aged 16 - 60, 67 of which were residents of a refuge for battered women. All participants were willing to talk in depth regarding their experience of domestic violence. Using both orientated and open-ended questions, the interviews were typically conducted by female researchers who unintentially, during the process of the study, became affiliated with the participants – this had the added advantage of producing both superior qualitative and quantitative data as a result of the bond between interviewer and interviewee. (Handout, informal interviews, page 36)
For most women (77%) involved in the study, violence in the early stages of the relationship was not an issue. 41% of the women at the refuge had suffered violence within 6 months of their wedding. Where pre-marriage conflict did exist, it was typically a product of the male’s sexual jealousy and the women perceived this rage as a display of commitment and love. During the courtship process, the male’s possessiveness increased and consequently the development of the woman becoming the mans ‘possession’ began to transpire. (http://www.homestead.com/rouncefield/files/as_soc_family_11.htm)
The first violent attack most commonly occurred after marriage, with 23% having endured violence pre-marriage, was again typically the product of the male’s sexual jealousy or conflicting ideas over the wife’s obligations towards the male. The first attack was usually a single blow resulting in minor physical injury, with both parties feeling ‘ashamed, shocked and guilty’. The women would not automatically blame the male, but would instead examine their own behaviour – possibly in an attempt to rationalize the situation, by giving it an explanation, which would make it exempt from punishment. Only 24% of women responded with violence themselves. The man would typically be apologetic and promise it would not occur again. However, the violence usually significantly increased after the first attack, with women suffering far more extensive damage to their person during abuse, which was reported from 45 minuets to 5 hours at a time. (http://www.homestead.com/rouncefield/files/as_soc_family_11.htm)
One woman described her first encounter of domestic violence as having occurred whilst she and her partner had friends over. The women in the group were deeply affected by the violence they were witness to, however she described the men as “not really bothered”. To some extent the men must have perceived this violent behaviour as normal and had become desensitised to situations like this. The men in the group did however ask their friend to stop, but this did not deter him. The family and relationships are perceived as a private realm, with outside intervention uninvited. Even in these disturbing circumstances it would be difficult to predict a woman’s reaction if her partner was challenged by an outsider: her loyalties might still remain with her husband or partner. (Handout, informal interviews, page 37)
The reasons that women stay in these abusive relationships are indicative of the unequal nature of modern society. The financial difficulties for women on becoming independent with 2 or 3 children can seem unbearable and unmanageable. For example, the male in the relationship will very rarely become sole beneficiary of the children – which leaves him able to work in full time employment. Women on the other hand, are bound by the conventions and responsibilities of being selfless mother.
Women often stayed in the relationship because of the children (keeping the family together), but left the relationship for the same reason (detrimental for the children). Low-self esteem, brought by the consistency of emotional abuse, often gives women a distorted view of themselves whereby they presume that they are worthless; this ensures the feeling of predetermined failure if they leave. (Handout, informal interviews, page 36)
Dobash and Dobash argue that historically via legal, literary and religious writings, women have always been documented as ‘mothers’ ‘wives’ or ‘daughters’ and that as such, have never been extended the opportunity to become a significant individual in their own right. For example, in Leviticus, God told Moses that a man is worth 50 sheikels and a woman worth 30. Women were traditionally denied the opportunity to read, write and participate in politics. They have been portrayed as insignificant throughout history, and as a result gain prestige, not by their own achievements, but rather from the male figure, to which they are affiliated. Therefore, women have had little choice but to enter marriage and become the property of their husband. This process is still evident today, as after marriage a woman will assume her husbands name. (Marsh, 1998, page 210)
Society has preserved this traditional attitude by ensuring the socialisation process persuades women to perform accordingly – promoting and accepting and their predetermined roles, as devoted wife and selfless mother. As such, escalating any further up the ‘food chain’ presents significant problems for a woman and would be perceived as unsuitable behaviour - especially if she has children. As many women themselves are opposed to women working after having children. Women have been and continue to be, weighed down by the socially constructed obligation to serve men first and foremost. Women, therefore become dependant on their roles as ‘wife and mother’ for recognition as an individual. (Marsh, 1998, page 212)
Dobash and Dobash suggest that living in this restricted environment can produce a segregation process where by the woman becomes distanced from society and increasingly dependent on the male and in turn isolated in the home where she assumes her position of ‘underdog’. The socialisation process has enabled male domination to exist in modern society, as the traditional definition of masculinity (superior, strong and dominant) continues to be portrayed by the family and throughout the various social institutions as natural. (Handout, informal interviews, page 35)
Dobash and Dobash insist that regardless of changes in law, pertaining to the illegality of domestic violence, society continues to promote male domination and patriarchal ideals within the family. It is from the imposition of male authority and the oppression of women that violence against women has been allowed to materialise and be maintained. (Handout, informal interviews, page 35)
Dobash and Dobash offer a significant insight into the disturbing reality of domestic violence and its well-documented ideological and cultural history. Their study illustrates the control men have possessed both historically and in modern day society over women and the way in which this power can be exploited, whether it is emotionally, physically, sexually or with regards to career opportunities and wages. This study provides an explanation for the causes of woman’s subordination, which as a result leaves them dependent and vulnerable to abuse at the hands of their husbands. This study also provides an opportunity to present the graphic details of the violence women endure after marriage and the causes of women’s independence and identity deteriorating after marriage.
The constraints of this study can be detailed as the limitations on financial contributions, and the time-consuming nature of this study, as such, fewer interviews could be implemented. The small-scale nature of this investigation makes generalisations problematic and in turn makes statistics difficult to produce. In addition, limitation of access to police and court documentation could present significant problems in detailing an accurate quantitative statistical estimate on domestic abuse. The phenomenon of domestic violence is more often unreported and therefore undocumented, which assumes the possibility that there are many more women in society undergoing this traumatic experience in silence.
Liberal feminist Ann Oakley’s 1979 study “From Here to Maternity” was aimed at discovering women’s experiences of becoming a mother. As such, Oakley’s interest extended into the full implications for women after childbirth, incorporating the discrimination women suffer within society as a result of having children. Oakley suggested that in modern society, it is motherhood as opposed to marriage, which illustrates to a woman the prejudice she will endure as a result of her gender. As such Oakley chose to analyse all aspects of women’s lives prior to and succeeding childbirth. (Dunsmuir, 1991, page 30)
Oakley’s study derived from her own personal experience of becoming a mother and the realisation that the common ‘mythical’ perception pertaining to motherhood did not apply to her. Oakley’s experience of motherhood was in direct opposition to her preconceived ideas of fulfilment and contentment upon becoming a mother. As a result of her inability to conform to her expected role, Oakley became influenced by depression and developed resentment towards her husband, because his freedom appeared to remain intact. In an attempt to regain her identity, Oakley began her research into housewives and discovered that her feelings of isolation, oppression and depression were not restricted to her alone and that these feelings have been and continues to be common to many women in modern industrialised society. (Dunsmuir, 1991, page 30)
Oakley admits that at times during the study her role as researcher was compromised by human emotions. However, for Oakley this was not an indication of failure but rather, it legitimised her principles for the effective conducting of interviews. For Oakley, interviewing is a two way process which involves a diversity that is disallowed by the traditional/masculine paradigms. Oakley suggests that interviewing should not be confined to the rigidity and the hierarchical nature of the traditional method and that it is impossible for feminist interviewers to gain an understanding of women’s subjective experiences under these conditions. She emphasised this point, by highlighting the discussions and information gained from the questions that were ‘asked back’ and stated that the theory and application of traditional interviewing do not coincide. Oakley therefore attempted to establish an underlying principle of personal involvement and always ensured that she answered questions that her participants asked. (Roberts, 1981, page 31)
The women in Oakley’s study related to her on a level that they obviously found hard to reach with their own medical practitioner. The questions that participants asked Oakley were mostly with regards to seeking medical information – information that the women should have felt comfortable asking their assigned doctor. The hierarchical relationship that exists between doctor and patient can often be regarded as too intimidating for the patient to ask questions that might be perceived by the doctor as ‘silly’. As such the women didn’t seem to have a full understanding of what would actually happen to them throughout the procedure of giving birth or in anti-natal and pre-natal care. (Roberts, 1981, page 42)
In this respect the women were not in control of their own fate or body and the ‘professionals’ had control over both. For example, one woman who was interested in having a natural childbirth, was informed by her doctor that this was ‘for animals’. One hospital even had a policy of administering epidurals to all women during childbirth. Thus, the ‘professionals’ viewed the women as items on a factory production line and dealt with the pain of childbirth in a pragmatic manner. As Oakley stated “women are seen not only as passive patients but in a mechanistic way as manipulable reproductive machines” (http://www.annoakley.co.uk/aQuotes.html)
The women seemed to have no choice in what procedures where infringed upon them, however class differentials affected the amount of questions that were asked with regards to medical procedures and general information: middle class women were more likely to ask questions and were less likely to be intimidated by professionals. (Roberts, 1981, page 46)
Participants for the study were selected from a London hospital, in which Oakley had spent 6 months observing women who were experiencing the process of becoming a mother. Oakley’s method was to informally interview 66 ‘first time’ mothers-to-be, who were all booked to give birth in the same hospital and all from the same cultural background. By minimising the study to 66 women, Oakley was able to form close relationships with the interviewees and was present at 6 of the births. Interviews lasted on average 2.36 hours, ensuring a vast amount of qualitative information produced from her participants - a larger scale study could have prevented this. However as a result of the small -scale nature of this study, these results could not be generalised. (Dunsmuir, 1991, page 31)
The results were as Oakley had surmised, with 70% of the women involved in the study, confirming that upon holding their baby for the first time; were not particularly interested. This would coincide with Oakley’s argument that women are not inherently maternal and that whatever mothering skills they acquire are a result of a learning process and assistance from the indoctrinated idea that they are supposed to be good mothers. Oakley stated that “Women’s domesticity is a circle of learnt deprivation and induced subjugation: a circle decisively centred on family life” ()
Oakley reported, that one mother had suggested that she was shocked at her own reaction upon the birth of her child and had felt “completely numbed”. This illustrates the frequency of these emotions for first-time mothers and the lack of truth in the legacy of childbirth: bonding instincts are natural for and inherent to women. However, this detachment could be due to the fact that after giving birth women are tired, in pain, emotional and drained from the whole experience. (Dunsmuir, 1991, page 33)
The negative aspects of this study are illustrated in the sample selected for study as Oakley herself explained that if she had included women from ethnic backgrounds this would have been an entirely separate study. In this respect her findings cannot be generalised to all cultures. In addition her study was conducted from one hospital and subsequently the findings for other hospitals could have been different. The relationships with Oakley’s interviewees were formed over a long period of time, on average 26 weeks before delivery of the baby, and 20 weeks after, this caused time and monetary consummation for the collection of qualitative data and can be viewed as a constraint to this study. Oakley’s close relationships with her interviewees in conjunction with her own personal experiences on giving birth, could also have led to bias findings and conclusions. Giving birth is a traumatic, painful experience for women and as such, could cause women to enter a state of shock – their feelings and emotions directly after the birth of their first child could be caused or confused by tiredness, drugs or pain.
Anna Pollert’s 1981 study of “Girls, Wives and Factory Lives”, from a Marxist feminist perspective, incorporated Methodology which, implements a strategic process for collecting and analysing data. Pollert attempted to establish women’s experience in the labour workforce, specifically women who worked in manual and non-skilled occupations. Pollert aimed to discover what type of environment and atmosphere the women were exposed to, and attempted to identify the qualitative differences between male and the female experiences in the work place in relation to women’s subordination. Pollert was also interested in the women’s background, private lives, and how marriage and family life influence women at work. (Marsh, 1998, page 346)
Pollert’s study was based on informal tape-recorded interviews, incorporating open-ended questions and overt observation of all generations of the women working at the Bristol tobacco factory during 1972. Pollert was denied the opportunity to work in the factory as a covert researcher but realised this would have been impractical due to the nature of the job requirements, and working there would have restricted her movement round the factory and access to all groups of women within. Pollert had been allowed to carry out her research on the condition that the women’s work was not interrupted; as such she was unable to interview women privately and had to conduct interviews as the women worked. (Marsh, 1998, page 347)
Pollert was initially intimidated at the thought of entering the factory shop floor as a middle class woman and emphasised the main differences between herself and the women as her middle class accent and the fact that she had not come to work there. During her first encounter on the shop floor, the women greeted her with “hostility suspicion and cruelty”, which was not helped by the management who had failed to pass on a letter informing the women of the reason for the interviews. This illustrates the lack of respect displayed by the management towards the women working at the factory as they were merely instructed to cooperate with their visitor. As such Pollert spent some time explaining her motives, which dispersed some suspicion, which transformed into curiosity and disbelief that factory women would be of interest to anybody. (Marsh, 1998, page 346)
Pollert insisted that being a woman was vital to her study. With regards to the relationships formed between herself and the women, she suggested that her womanhood aided the barriers to be lowered, which allowed the women to be natural whilst in her company. (Marsh, 1998, page 348)
Most of the younger women worked in the labour demanding, weighing and packing departments. However there was a distinction between the ‘hand packers’ and the ‘machine weighers’ both of which differed in their views of factory life; the machine room offering a more rowdy, supportive atmosphere as opposed to the packing room which was quite and the girls within were alleged to ‘take their work too seriously’. The women’s performance rates were monitored throughout each day and failure to reach targets resulted in wage reduction or lack of bonus.
The stripping department offered less noise, and was mainly populated with the older women. However fingers were easily ‘cut, calloused and bent’ and dust from the machines was thick and all too easily inhaled. Pollert described the women’s intimacy with each other as having derived through ‘years of shared experience’ and that the women supported each other in both work and domestic related matters.
The spinning room demanded so much intense concentration from the women, that Pollert was denied access as the women could not talk and maintain performance targets at the same time. The spinning room was the most skilled job within the factory; however it paid no different than any other task. (O’Donnell, 1988, page 273)
Pollert discovered that a coping mechanism had been devised by the women in order to deal with the monotony and pressure of the work, which one woman described as a ‘slave camp’. This release or transportation from reality came in the form of humour, imagination, daydreaming, skiving and friendships. Boredom induced petty squabbles, which some of the women (self professed) instigated to relive themselves from the tediousness of the day. (O’Donnell, 1988, page 271)
Pollert insisted that women working in factories such as this one are faced with ‘double subordination’, as they are both working class and female, thus women are confronted with additional controlling methods used by men as a tool of oppression. Patronising gestures, such as touching the women’s hands or shoulders whilst they worked, illustrate male dominance and their powerful controlling position. Female sexuality was highlighted and mocked and sexist remarks were common towards the women as a result of the so-called ‘childish behaviour’, thus the management and trade unionists alike perceived their humour as childish and the women were dealt with in a sexually demeaning manner. The women’s retaliation in joining in on the sexist remarks can also be viewed as a way to relive boredom.
Pollert suggested that men were far more likely to reach managerial positions - the women in the factory were never listened to by the trade unionists and as such felt ‘silly’ to even consider attending a union meeting. One manager considered himself to understand and know the women well and explained, in an un-shameful manner that, “they’re in a fools paradise”.
The women were aware of the inequality - some didn’t seem to mind or went along in order to please – this could be a product of their successful socialisation into accepting their underdog position in society. However some were resentful as one woman stated “I’d like to see the manager on a weighing machine for a week”, thus she surmised that he would be unwilling to entertain or unable to manage such a task. (O’Donnell, 1988, page 274)
Pollert offers a significant insight into the conditions that working class women are affected by when entering the industrial realm. She highlights the contradictions of modern society such as lower pay for women who achieve the same standard of work as men and who work equally as hard - if not more so than men. She illustrates the inequality, oppression and subordination endured by women as a class. Also highlighted by Pollert is the coping mechanism devised subconsciously by the women to enable them to continue working in such a mind numbing occupation. From a Marxist perspective this can be perceived as a product of the capitalist environment in which, neither males or specifically females are allowed to reach their true potential and are obstructed by their need for money in order to survive in the capitalist ‘rat race’. Pollert also pointed out the lack of value that the women had placed on themselves and the illusion that getting married would relieve them from their situation.
The constraints of this study can be viewed as Pollert’s middle class background, as her perceptions of factory life could be tainted by her own set of values and norms from her middle class culture, which are inclined to vary throughout different classes. Situations, which were perceived as unacceptable by Pollert, may be understood and accepted by women from the working class background and this could induce an ideological bias from the researcher.
Limitations were set by management as to who Pollert was allowed to interview and the questions that Pollert could ask the women who were allowed to be interviewed. Also under scrutiny would be the fact that only one factory, one class and one ethnicity were researched and this could present a problem when attempting to generalise the researchers findings.
In conclusion, it would appear that gender does not automatically coincide with the biological sex of an individual. Displaying the traditional ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ characteristics of the male or female sex may be biological as the functionalists would suggest, but could have been created and reinforced via the socialisation process and with interaction in society as an adult. A significant portion of any individual’s behaviour may be socially constructed which also pertains to the gender aspect of behaviour and therefore it is difficult to interpret – even in infancy – whether girls are naturally caring, considerate or emotional and boys inherently, active, unemotional and rational. The unequal nature of modern society continues to hold the male sex and gender characteristics in a superior light and until society changes to recognise and alter this perception, both males and females may continue to live in conflict, with neither given the opportunity to truly explore themselves and open up the possibilities of self-actualisation. Both men and women are confined to the rigidity of traditional Western culture, which imposes its guidelines upon society denying both the chance to test the ‘greener grass’. When evaluating the theories, which attempt to ascertain the essence of gender; a collaboration of all theories should be taken into consideration to extend a fuller more balanced conclusion.
Bibliography
Moore, S. Chapman, S. Aiken, D. Sociology for AS-Level, Collins, 2001.
Sociology B, Sex and Gender Handout.
Haralambos, M. Holborn, M. Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 5th edition, Collins, 2000.
Theoretical Perspectives Handout.
Parsons, T. The Family: Its Function and Destiny, Harper and Row, 1949.
The Development of the Modern Family, Chapter 3 Handout.
Studying Human Society – the Sociological Approach Handout.
Method C, Informal Interviews. Dobash and Dobash: Violence Against Wives 1980, Handout.
http://www.homestead.com/rouncefield/files/as_soc_family_11.htm
Dunsmuir, A. Williams, L. How to do Social Research, Collins Educational, London, 1991.
Roberts, H. Doing Feminist Research, Routledge, 1981.
Marsh, I. et al, Classic and Contemporary Readings in Sociology, Longman, Harlow, 1998.
O’Donnell, M. New Introductory Road in Sociology, Nelson 2nd edition, 1988.
Sociology
Gender
Jennifer Thomson
Tutor: John Gray