👨 Fewer fixed scripts
In a traditional nuclear family the roles were often fixed by gender. In many other family types there is no obvious script, so partners have to work out who does what.
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseIn an earlier lesson you met conjugal roles, the roles of partners in a couple. You also met segregated roles, where partners do different jobs, and joint roles, where partners share them. This lesson looks at how those roles have changed in many societies, and asks how far the change is real.
Key terms:
Families are now more varied than they once were: lone-parent, reconstituted, cohabiting and same-sex couple families, as well as nuclear and extended ones. Diversity matters for roles.
In a traditional nuclear family the roles were often fixed by gender. In many other family types there is no obvious script, so partners have to work out who does what.
A lone parent has to do both the earning and the caring. Roles that used to be split between two people are combined in one.
So diversity weakens the idea that a man must be the breadwinner and a woman the homemaker.
Sharing the cooking: the symmetrical family has partners whose roles are similar, with both working and both helping at home
Many sociologists argue that, in many societies, couples have moved from segregated roles towards joint roles. Willmott and Young described the symmetrical family in their research on family life in and around London. They saw couples becoming more home-centred, with both partners working and sharing household jobs.
They suggested several reasons:
More women go out to work, so they are less likely to accept doing all the housework.
Washing machines and other labour-saving devices cut the time housework takes, so it is easier to share.
Couples who live away from their wider family rely more on each other, so they share more.
In a dual worker family both partners earn. This is common in many societies today. Because both bring in money, it is harder to argue that the man should be the only breadwinner. The couple is more likely to share the money, the decisions and the housework.
Priya and Dan both work full time. They take turns to cook, and each does the school run on two days a week. This is a dual worker family with joint conjugal roles. If they also spend most of their free time together at home, it is close to Willmott and Young's symmetrical family.
Squeezed in the middle: the sandwich generation cares for their own children and their ageing parents at once
People now often have children later and live longer. As a result, some adults find themselves "sandwiched" between two generations: their children, who still need care, and their parents, who need help as they age. They are pivoting between the two.
This puts extra pressure on the middle generation's time and money. It can also change conjugal roles, because the couple must decide who looks after which relative.
Evidence is mixed, so you need both sides.
A balanced view is that roles have become more equal, but not fully equal.
Do not say that all families are symmetrical. Willmott and Young described a trend, not every family. Also do not say that nothing has changed. The best answers give evidence for and against, then reach a conclusion.
(a) Define the term dual worker family. [2 marks]
(c) Explain three reasons why conjugal roles have become more joint in some societies. [6 marks]
(a) A family in which both partners are in paid work (1), so both bring in an income (1).
(c) First, more women now go out to work, so they are less willing to do all the housework alone (1) and the couple shares jobs instead (1). Second, labour-saving technology such as washing machines makes housework quicker (1), so it is easier for both partners to take a share (1). Third, couples who live away from the wider family rely more on each other (1), so they share the housework and childcare between them (1).
For a "three reasons" question, give each reason its own sentence, then add a short explanation of why it matters. Each reason is worth 2 marks, so one reason alone earns only a third of the marks.