As I did for Families and Households, here's a master post for Education (AQA AS Sociology).
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 May 2015
Monday, 11 May 2015
AQA AS Sociology (Families and Households) Condensed
NotRebecca
5/11/2015 06:45:00 pm
Following yesterday's information overload, I thought I'd create a condensed, bullet point version of the families and households content...
Saturday, 9 May 2015
Sociology Master Post
NotRebecca
5/09/2015 01:30:00 pm
So uh with three days (!!) to go before my Sociology exam, I thought I'd try and create a 'master post', with all the main points from Unit 1 of AS Sociology (AQA). Just to prevent this clogging up the main page, click on if you're interested...
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Domestic Division of Labour
NotRebecca
3/17/2015 05:45:00 pm
Part two of my Sociology revision! Today, I'm looking at the domestic division of labour...
Let's start off with Oakley (1974), a fairly prominent feminist sociologist when it comes to the course we're doing. She said that the 'housewife role' was socially constructed, and began through industrialisation, when work was taken away from the home. Then, women started leaving the labour force to undertake housework and childcare, making men the sole breadwinners, and leaving them economically dependent. Hence, the housewife role was constructed. Oakley criticised Young & Willmott's findings, saying that it was exaggerated. Based on her own research, she concluded that husbands were helping with housework, but not in a way that made their role symmetrical to women. For example, only 25% had a high level of input in childcare, and this tended to be based around the 'good' aspects, like playing with the children. No smelly nappies here!! Boulton (1983) agreed with these findings, and reinforced the view that men helping with tasks here and there was not equal to the role women were taking.
Other theorists have seen a trend towards equality in recent years- for example, Gershuny (1994) found that married women in full time did less house work when compared to those in part-time or no work; Sullivan (2000) agreed with this.
Another way of looking at the issue is to take the studies done by Silver (1987) and Schor (1993), who said that economic and technological developments mean that there are affordable goods and services to help with housework. Therefore, there's less of a burden in this area. Schor even went so far as to call it the 'death of the housework role'. However, critics argue that such goods and services aren't an option for poorer women, and that the housework that remains is still divided unequally.
Though this trend towards equality is looked on positively by some, others see it as causing women to have a dual burden- they have to work and take care of the house/children. Ferri and Smith (1996) found that, though female employment has increased, they remain the primary carers, meaning that women go straight from work in the daytime to constant childcare in the evenings. Arber and Ginn (1995) said that this was worst for working class women, who couldn't afford the childcare that the middle class could. The idea of the dual burden can even be extended to include another element- emotion work, for example making sure that everyone in the house is mentally okay. Duncombe and Marsden (1995) said that women now have a triple shift- they have to do paid work, housework/childcare and emotion work.
As with many things going on in society, it can be difficult to assess things because so much of our lives are steeped in subtle tradition. In this case, the gender roles of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker are so ingrained into our minds and societies, that it's difficult to change them, or even to look beyond them. It could easily be argued that every relationship has someone who takes all the work- in most couples, it just happens to be the woman. However, Dunn (1999) studied lesbian couples, and found that these relationships tended to be more equal, including in terms of housework and childcare. This supports the view that women in heterosexual relationships do more housework not accidentally, but due to the ongoing impact of the patriarchy.
So yeah... Um, that's the domestic division of labour!!
Let's start off with Oakley (1974), a fairly prominent feminist sociologist when it comes to the course we're doing. She said that the 'housewife role' was socially constructed, and began through industrialisation, when work was taken away from the home. Then, women started leaving the labour force to undertake housework and childcare, making men the sole breadwinners, and leaving them economically dependent. Hence, the housewife role was constructed. Oakley criticised Young & Willmott's findings, saying that it was exaggerated. Based on her own research, she concluded that husbands were helping with housework, but not in a way that made their role symmetrical to women. For example, only 25% had a high level of input in childcare, and this tended to be based around the 'good' aspects, like playing with the children. No smelly nappies here!! Boulton (1983) agreed with these findings, and reinforced the view that men helping with tasks here and there was not equal to the role women were taking.
Other theorists have seen a trend towards equality in recent years- for example, Gershuny (1994) found that married women in full time did less house work when compared to those in part-time or no work; Sullivan (2000) agreed with this.
Another way of looking at the issue is to take the studies done by Silver (1987) and Schor (1993), who said that economic and technological developments mean that there are affordable goods and services to help with housework. Therefore, there's less of a burden in this area. Schor even went so far as to call it the 'death of the housework role'. However, critics argue that such goods and services aren't an option for poorer women, and that the housework that remains is still divided unequally.
Though this trend towards equality is looked on positively by some, others see it as causing women to have a dual burden- they have to work and take care of the house/children. Ferri and Smith (1996) found that, though female employment has increased, they remain the primary carers, meaning that women go straight from work in the daytime to constant childcare in the evenings. Arber and Ginn (1995) said that this was worst for working class women, who couldn't afford the childcare that the middle class could. The idea of the dual burden can even be extended to include another element- emotion work, for example making sure that everyone in the house is mentally okay. Duncombe and Marsden (1995) said that women now have a triple shift- they have to do paid work, housework/childcare and emotion work.
As with many things going on in society, it can be difficult to assess things because so much of our lives are steeped in subtle tradition. In this case, the gender roles of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker are so ingrained into our minds and societies, that it's difficult to change them, or even to look beyond them. It could easily be argued that every relationship has someone who takes all the work- in most couples, it just happens to be the woman. However, Dunn (1999) studied lesbian couples, and found that these relationships tended to be more equal, including in terms of housework and childcare. This supports the view that women in heterosexual relationships do more housework not accidentally, but due to the ongoing impact of the patriarchy.
So yeah... Um, that's the domestic division of labour!!
Saturday, 7 March 2015
Sociology: Couples
NotRebecca
3/07/2015 10:47:00 am
So um as I'm trying to do Sociology revision, I thought I'd share some Sociology stuff with everyone... Aren't you lucky!? Please note- this is Sociology, but it's also mixed with my views. This is how I'm revising. If you want an entirely fair, non-biased account, look elsewhere. That's not what I'm trying to provide. Enjoy :)
One of the main names when it comes to sociological perspectives on couples is Parsons (1955). He investigated the traditional nuclear family- a family in which there are a married couple and their dependent children. In this type of family, the husband performs the instrumental role and the wife the expressive role. In easier terms, that means that the husband goes out and works; the woman is left to look after the house. Parsons comes from a group of sociologists known as functionalists. This group tends to see society as being a bit like a machine with lots of cogs. For society to function properly, all of these individual cogs- such as education, and the family- must be doing their bit. Therefore, this theory states that the traditional nuclear family is a necessity for the rest of society to work. What's more, Parsons said that people are biologically predisposed to these roles- that is to say, that men are meant to go out and work, and women are meant to stay at home. Hmmm. I disagree, Parsons. I think that there's plenty of evidence of women being just as good at working, and men being just as good at staying at home. Or both. Or neither. What's more, when you relate something to biology, it means that it's a trait that will be found universally. However, that's not the case: there are many examples, both in our society and cross-culturally, where women and men are doing all sorts of roles. So there. Sure, the argument that, contextually- in the 1950s- this theory was pretty strong is still valid. In the 1950s, most of the couples in Britain and America probably did fit into the traditional nuclear framework. This doesn't make it a 'right' framework; the fact that we've (somewhat) moved away from it and society is still standing supports that. Moreoever, that doesn't mean that it's biologically intended either. Even in the 1950s, there were plenty of other cultures in which this pattern wasn't found. One of the biggest issues with dubbing something as biological/genetic is failing to remember that Britain and the US aren't the only countries in the world. Meh.
Moving on. Bott (1957) came up with two types of couple. The first has 'segregated conjugal roles'. This is similar to Parsons theory in that there is a male breadwinner and female homemaker. In addition, the couple spend their leisure time doing separate activities. However, Bott also came up with an alternative- 'joint conjugal roles', wherein the couple equally share household tasks, and their leisure time is spent together. Though an improvement on Parsons, as it allows for a family type different to the traditional (patriarchal) norm, it's still fairly limiting. What about couples who have a maid? Or couples who travel a lot, and struggle to spend leisure time together? Or- you could go on and on. Basically, it's better, but it's still attempting to fit couples into boxes. Not good.
Lastly, here come Young and Willmott (1973) with a different view again. They saw couples as having reached the 'symmetrical family'. Be warned: the name is deceiving. In Maths, we learned that 'symmetrical' means identical on both sides. What Young and Willmott mean is a family in which the roles are similar- so not symmetrical, but heigh ho, I guess they get creative licence and all that. Anyway, in this 'couple type', women work (either full or part time), and men help with housework and/or childcare. Their leisure time is spent together, and life is very home-centred. Young and Willmott have even looked at aspects of progression in their theory- they theorised that the symmetrical family had come about due to changes in women's position (meaning that women were more equal, so could work etc.), geographical mobility (allowing families to move and live their own lives, as well as meaning that couples might not live within easy distance of friends/family- so they have to rely on each other more), new technology (making housework easier) and higher standards of living (so the home is a nicer place around which to base your life). With this, Young and Willmott fit into the 'march of progress' view- the idea that the world is constantly improving. This is a much more optimistic view of couples. However, many feminist theorists feel that their findings are exaggerated, and that true equality- such as that suggested by Young and Willmott- is still a long way off. I agree with this; I think there's definitely still belief that women should be at home, and that men should be at work. Internalised sexism, y'all. Also, Young and Willmott still don't allow for couples that don't fit into the 'norm', and that irks me rather a lot.
I think maybe I've just confirmed myself as a really angry feminist? Whoops. But it's helped me revise, nd maybe it'll help someone else too. Obviously that's only a tiny fraction of sociological perspectives around couples, but that's all that the AQA AS level requires. So I'm done. Yay!! Now- off to get dressed, tidy my room and celebrate International Women's Day (a trifle early, but ah well).
One of the main names when it comes to sociological perspectives on couples is Parsons (1955). He investigated the traditional nuclear family- a family in which there are a married couple and their dependent children. In this type of family, the husband performs the instrumental role and the wife the expressive role. In easier terms, that means that the husband goes out and works; the woman is left to look after the house. Parsons comes from a group of sociologists known as functionalists. This group tends to see society as being a bit like a machine with lots of cogs. For society to function properly, all of these individual cogs- such as education, and the family- must be doing their bit. Therefore, this theory states that the traditional nuclear family is a necessity for the rest of society to work. What's more, Parsons said that people are biologically predisposed to these roles- that is to say, that men are meant to go out and work, and women are meant to stay at home. Hmmm. I disagree, Parsons. I think that there's plenty of evidence of women being just as good at working, and men being just as good at staying at home. Or both. Or neither. What's more, when you relate something to biology, it means that it's a trait that will be found universally. However, that's not the case: there are many examples, both in our society and cross-culturally, where women and men are doing all sorts of roles. So there. Sure, the argument that, contextually- in the 1950s- this theory was pretty strong is still valid. In the 1950s, most of the couples in Britain and America probably did fit into the traditional nuclear framework. This doesn't make it a 'right' framework; the fact that we've (somewhat) moved away from it and society is still standing supports that. Moreoever, that doesn't mean that it's biologically intended either. Even in the 1950s, there were plenty of other cultures in which this pattern wasn't found. One of the biggest issues with dubbing something as biological/genetic is failing to remember that Britain and the US aren't the only countries in the world. Meh.
Moving on. Bott (1957) came up with two types of couple. The first has 'segregated conjugal roles'. This is similar to Parsons theory in that there is a male breadwinner and female homemaker. In addition, the couple spend their leisure time doing separate activities. However, Bott also came up with an alternative- 'joint conjugal roles', wherein the couple equally share household tasks, and their leisure time is spent together. Though an improvement on Parsons, as it allows for a family type different to the traditional (patriarchal) norm, it's still fairly limiting. What about couples who have a maid? Or couples who travel a lot, and struggle to spend leisure time together? Or- you could go on and on. Basically, it's better, but it's still attempting to fit couples into boxes. Not good.
Lastly, here come Young and Willmott (1973) with a different view again. They saw couples as having reached the 'symmetrical family'. Be warned: the name is deceiving. In Maths, we learned that 'symmetrical' means identical on both sides. What Young and Willmott mean is a family in which the roles are similar- so not symmetrical, but heigh ho, I guess they get creative licence and all that. Anyway, in this 'couple type', women work (either full or part time), and men help with housework and/or childcare. Their leisure time is spent together, and life is very home-centred. Young and Willmott have even looked at aspects of progression in their theory- they theorised that the symmetrical family had come about due to changes in women's position (meaning that women were more equal, so could work etc.), geographical mobility (allowing families to move and live their own lives, as well as meaning that couples might not live within easy distance of friends/family- so they have to rely on each other more), new technology (making housework easier) and higher standards of living (so the home is a nicer place around which to base your life). With this, Young and Willmott fit into the 'march of progress' view- the idea that the world is constantly improving. This is a much more optimistic view of couples. However, many feminist theorists feel that their findings are exaggerated, and that true equality- such as that suggested by Young and Willmott- is still a long way off. I agree with this; I think there's definitely still belief that women should be at home, and that men should be at work. Internalised sexism, y'all. Also, Young and Willmott still don't allow for couples that don't fit into the 'norm', and that irks me rather a lot.
I think maybe I've just confirmed myself as a really angry feminist? Whoops. But it's helped me revise, nd maybe it'll help someone else too. Obviously that's only a tiny fraction of sociological perspectives around couples, but that's all that the AQA AS level requires. So I'm done. Yay!! Now- off to get dressed, tidy my room and celebrate International Women's Day (a trifle early, but ah well).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)