Everybody has a certain standard idea of how each gender should be viewed by the eyes of the world. Everybody has that one particular person or particular couple that sets those standard ideas for them. I have a particular couple that helps set my standards for femininity and masculinity. This couple happens to be my own grandparents. As expected, they are indeed old-fashioned; however, they also have a heavy touch of the new era of family relations that is lived by society today. That is the basic backbone of an impeccable standard for the concepts of masculinity and femininity. I consider to be genuinely close to my grandparents throughout my years of growing up. They have been a part of my life ever since I could remember. They were considered …show more content…
I consider my parents unbalanced due to the fact that my mother does a whole lot more than she should. Granted, my father has a well paying job, though it seems like that’s all he does compared to my mother. She, on the other hand, also has a decent paying job, but does everything around the house along with anything and everything for my younger brother and I. Frequently, I catch her doing yard work while my father is taking a nap on the living room couch. My mother never gets a break and my father doesn’t seem to mind that she does a lot of additional work. Their relationship isn’t the healthiest due to their lack of equality in the roles of masculinity and femininity. My grandparents’ way of using these gender roles is an equilibrium between the ancient era and the ultramodern era. This equilibrium doesn’t let the past slip away and become completely …show more content…
This certain condition she discusses throughout her essay is known as nostalgia. In her following essay she states the following quote, “People today understandably feel that their lives are out of balance, but they yearn for something totally new; a more equal distribution of work, family, and community time for both men and women, children and adults.” (Coontz 33). This particular quote is referring back to, of course the 1950s, or any other time before the 21st century. Back then, these gender roles of a married couple were significantly different due to the females having the role of the “housewife” and the males having the role of doing all the work that earns the money. Now, the female role involves having a paying job as plenteously as the male and isn’t all alone when it comes to cooking, cleaning around the house, or taking care of each child present. The modern generation does seem like the preferable option, however, the past should never be
May begins by exploring the origins of this "domestic containment" in the 30's and 40's. During the Depression, she argues, two different views of the family competed -- one with two breadwinners who shared tasks and the other with spouses whose roles were sharply differentiated. Yet, despite the many single women glamorized in popular culture of the 1930's, families ultimately came to choose the latter option. Why? For one, according to May, for all its affirmation of the emancipation of women, Hollywood fell short of pointing the way toward a restructured family that would incorporate independent women. (May p.42) Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday and Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind, for example, are both forced to choose between independence and a happy domestic life - the two cannot be squared. For another, New Deal programs aimed to raise the male employment level, which often meant doing nothing for female employment. And, finally, as historian Ruth Milkman has also noted, the g...
A typical afternoon consists of my dad laying on the couch from a long day at work, and my mom in the kitchen, preparing dinner. Although we live in an era that has predominantly nullified sex-specific social norms, a difference in gender roles still exists within households. What exactly are gender roles? They are fixed, gender specific expectations, established, in this case, among families. These roles of what should socially be considered masculine and feminine have existed throughout many centuries. A particular issue regarding gender roles is, do gender roles in households ultimately affect both the physical and mental development of a child? With thorough research and observations conducted by, Jacquelynne S. Eccles, Janis E. Jacobs,
The world was a very different place sixty years ago. The men came home from the war to take back the work force from the women and sent the women back into the home to follow traditional domestic roles. All aspects of life had to be cookie cutter perfect, to include the gender roles. The roles of both genders have been portrayed by the BBC Television show, Call the Midwife, as they use to be in the 1950’s. The men were the breadwinners of their family by working arduous hours, protect their family and home, and have zero contact with feminine things and activities; the women were expected to get married early, always look their best, and never indulge in their aspirations for a career outside of the home unless they were single.
In the article, “American Marriage in Transition”, Andrew Cherlin, a specialist in the sociology of families and public policy, writes about the changing division of labor in the latter part of the 20th century when he mentions “The distinct roles of homemaker and breadwinner were fading as more married women entered the paid labor force. Looking into the future, I thought that perhaps and equitable division of household labor might become institutionalized” (46). Cherlin puts it perfectly when he describes previous roles of a married couple and being the homemaker and the breadwinner. While women took care of their homes and made sure everything ran smoothly, men went out to earn money in order to put food on the table. These were the ways of the early 1900s. Cherlin goes on to mention how these roles were beginning to fade over time as more women left their homes to pursue jobs. As this trend has been present for nearly 100 years, Cherlin believes that it will continue on until the workforce is split as close to 50/50 as it can get. Cherlin goes on the speak about how designated roles are no longer relevant as when he states “Men do somewhat more housework than they used to do, but there is wide variation, and each couple must work out their own arrangement without clear guidelines” (46). In the early 20th century, men were expected to work and women were expected to take care of the home. These expectations were the basic guidelines that society had set for married couple. As Cherlin observes, these guidelines have slowly began to fade as men and women are no longer thought to have designated roles. Families have become more diverse in the sense that they can arrange their family roles without societal expectations and pressures getting in the way. This giant shift that took place throughout the
The social perception of women has drastically changed since the 1950’s. The social role of women during the 1950’s was restrictive and repressed in many ways. Society during that time placed high importance on expectations of behavior in the way women conducted themselves in home life as well as in public. At home the wife was tasked with the role of being an obedient wife, caring mother, and homemaker. Women publicly were expected to form groups and bond over tea with a slice of cake. All the while government was pushing this idealize roll for women in a society “dominated” by men. However, during this time a percentage of women were finding their way into the work force of men. “Women were searching their places in a society led by men;
In his novel Our Kids, Robert Putnam speaks on about how the 1970’s brought a change in family structures. The family structure of two strong parents and stigma against wedlock births and pre-marital sex quickly began to fade. Birth control and the feminist revolution contributed to these rapid changes. Women began to work and were “in part, freed from patriarchal norms” (Putnam 62). Rather than conforming the female gender role and staying home, having children, and putting food on the table, women actually started to become a part of the economy. They were not as focused on the idea of marriage and finding an economically stable husband to provide for them. The decrease in family structure quickly began to affect opportunity inequality among individuals. Those children with “neo-traditional” marriages are more like to receive a college degree rather than those without. Having a lower-income family reduces educational opportunities children have. While a child from a two-income family may attend a private school with resources that assist them in getting into ivy league schools, a kid from a single parent family may have to attend a public school where there is not even access to a computer lab or extracurricular activities. The lack of education these kids have contributes to their lack of opportunity to receive a college degree. Normally, a college degree allows individuals to receive a higher income than those who just have a high-school diploma. They simply are not exposed to the resources to succeed. This contributes to the inequality of opportunity, and ultimately, the inequality of income. Not only does the structure of family affect the outcome of children, but also the style of
Warren Farrell is a well educated man who focuses his attention on gender. In his essay “Men as Success Objects,” he writes about gender roles in male-female relationships. He begins, “for thousands of years, marriages were about economic security and survival” (Farrell 185). The key word in that statement is were. This implies the fact that marriage has changed in the last century. He relates the fact that post 1950s, marriage was more about what the male and female were getting out of the relationship rather than just the security of being married. Divorce rates grew and added to the tension of which gender held the supremacy and which role the individuals were supposed to accept. “Inequality in the workplace” covered up all of the conflicts involved with the “inequality in the homeplace”(Farrell). Farrell brings to attention all ...
However, social conditions made it less feasible for families to live this way. As the 1960s approached and consumption was in high demand, women were yet again, forced to join the work force; but only a quarter of the women joined the workforce, whereas in the 1990s about “two-thirds of women who had children were in the work force (Coontz 55). Coontz (1997) explains how by 1973, “real wages were falling for young families, and by the late 1970s, government effectiveness had decreased (Coontz 54). It was because of economic factors that the nuclear bread-winning family could only be a lifestyle a few can afford. Nonetheless, women joining the workforce created a new understanding of women-hood, changed women’s status in society, and created conflict within the household. Women did not have the time to complete all the household tasks which contributed to the increased divorce rates, but left women happier due to the fact that they had that ultimate
We, as Americans, have come towards the concept of equality in relationships. Male dominant relationships were common throughout the forties and fifties in the United States. Women were deemed as housewives, whose job was to clean and have dinner ready for their husband's return from work. Imagining women in that type of status is difficult to do in society. Families are not a place for tyranny.
Comparing its structure and function as it was in 1960 with what it had become in 1990 can highlight the dramatic changes in the American family. Until 1960 most Americans shared a common set of beliefs about family life; family should consist of a husband and wife living together with their children. The father should be the head of the family, earn the family's income, and give his name to his wife and children. The mother's main tasks were to support and enable her husband's goals, guide her children's development, look after the home, and set a moral tone for the family. Marriage was an enduring obligation for better or worse and this was due much to a conscious effort to maintain strong ties with children. The husband and wife jointly coped with stresses. As parents, they had an overriding responsibility for the well being of their children during the early years-until their children entered school, they were almost solely responsible. Even later, it was the parents who had the primary duty of guiding their children's education and discipline. Of course, even in 1960, families recognized the difficulty of converting these ideals into reality. Still, they devoted immense effort to approximating them in practice. As it turned out, the mother, who worked only minimally--was the parent most frequently successful in spending the most time with her children. Consequently, youngsters were almost always around a parental figure -- they were well-disciplined and often very close with the maternal parent who cooked for them, played with them, and saw them off to and home from school each day.
As mentioned before, sociologists Coontz and Hochschild further elaborate upon Parsons and Bales’ concepts of the American family, but they mostly critique the idea of the male-breadwinner family. One of the main arguments Coontz and Hochschild present is the decline of the male-breadwinner family due to the economic changes of the United States and the arising social norms of consumerism. Because Parsons and Bales never considered how the changes throughout society would affect family, they believed the male-breadwinner family would continue to be a functional type of family for everyone. However, within her text, “What We Really Miss about the 1950s,” Coontz specifically discusses the major expense of keeping mothers at home as consumption norms...
Based on history and socially constructed gender roles, women are inferior to males in their private lives. Gender roles include; women clean, cook, take care of the kids, do the house chores, while men work, pay for everything, and expect to be taken care of by their woman. Hughes, Krahn and Lowe (2011) argue that a woman 's domestic responsibilities, along with raising children, limit the woman 's availability for paid work, which leaves the woman financially dependent. They continue to explain consequences, including a "double day" of paid and unpaid work. (p. 179). Women who work a double day would work during the day and then as described by Hughes, Krahn and Lowe (2011) "some women return home to cook, clean, shop and look after their children" (p. 180). If you think to around the times of agriculture, the gender roles for that period would require males, harvesting crops, planting the seeds, basically doing the farm work. Women, on the other hand, looked after all of the domestic duties including; caring for children, tending livestock, making clothes, keeping the home clean, etc. (Krahn, Lowe and Hughes, 2011. pp. 170-171). Back then, that was the woman 's full-time job, be a parent, a wife and keep the home in order. However, even today women are still expected to take care of the home, but now they are also expected to work full time. McRae (2003) suggests that, to understand the choices various women make for
One of the reasons why divorce rates are high now, is because women are economically independent because they are educated. They did used to earn in the past, but now they have control over their income and they don’t put up with things like men abusing them or domestic violence; this shows that women have become stronger economically and emotionally as compared to how they were in the past. Those who criticize women for working and not spending time with their children, Coontz states that, “Kids do better when their mothers are happy with their lives.” (Coontze98). Men have changed as well; men didn’t used to think that children were their responsibility.
During World War II, a lot of America women became Rosy the Riveter. When the war ended and the men returned home, they wanted to return to the traditional ways but many women did not want to give up their jobs and the supply of money they were making. This created a huge shift in the role of women in society that is still taking effect today (Griffiths et al., 2015). The traditional gender roles are still believed to work by some functionalists (Shepard, 1993). Famed sociologists Talcott Parsons and Robert Bales believed that “Families… require one adult in an ‘instrumental’ role and another adult in an ‘expressive’ role. The husband-father, who usually assumes the instrumental role, is responsible for family in the occupational, political, and economic situations. In preforming the expressive role, the wife-mother is concerned with maintaining relationships within the family, taking care of children, and providing emotional security for all family members”(pg. 300). Even though this may have worked at one time, many sociologists do not believe with Parsons and Bales; they think that modern society treats people not based on their role, but their abilities. Many sociologists believe that the functionalist perspective is outdated and only explains how gender roles came to be, not what they
When it comes to family roles, some people have only a few and some may have a slew. I, for instance, only have two roles. These roles came to me when I was about fifteen years old, when I was just starting high school. I would consider me as the youth leader and motivator in my family. These roles allow me to interact with my family to a great extent and more importantly pay attention to my elder relatives when they have something to say. By generating a youth leader and motivator role, it makes me eager to assimilate the family history the elders in my family give me.