'The Family Is an Ideological Construction That Perpetuates Patriarchy. Discuss.\r'

'The family is a repressive and ideological construction that perpetuates patriarchy. Discuss. Families could be described as unitary of the most primary grades of tender organisation. Look almost anywhere in the world and you will find some form of family unit. This has happened arguably through and through and through reproduction, humans select drives and internal take which result in the creation of a new aliveness, which to begin with, is completely helpless and restricted for a long period of time. The family is almost world(a); the further exception to this would be communes.\r\nFunctionalists agree that the family is a primary social organisation and that it does serve the theatrical lineawork forcet of integrating further generations into association with cultural determine and norms. Functionalists believe that the family carry out the role of socialisation, which is the guts of most societies. This leads to an efficient economy and social order. Functionali sts plead that the family satisfies the basic physical and emotional needs of humans. Murdock (1949) claimed that the family performs four basic run fors in all societies; versed, reproductive, educational, and frugal.\r\nHe believed that no early(a) institution matches the efficiency of the nu unclutter family and because contributes to its universality. Talcott Parsons argued that primary socialisation of youngsterren and the stabilization of the adult person-to-personities were creation to the family in all societies, non just Ameri green goddess. in that location be criticisms of the practicableists lot on the family. Functionalism ignores alternative family structures, and ignores functional alternatives to the family. farther to this Marxist, Feminists, and Post Modern Sociologists do not accept that the family performs particular functions on its experience in isolation of new(prenominal) institutions.\r\nMarxists say that the family is a study prop for the capitalist economy. They believe that women reproduce afterlife generations of workers alongside providing unpaid domestic fatigue. Women be really much seen as servants to capitalism. Traditionally they stay at home and encourage children to study and enter employment. Further to this families are the central units of consumption in advance(a) societies. We buy houses, cars, material possessions, and holidays. Zaretsky (1976) argues that in modern capitalist society the family creates the illusion that the private life of the family bum be separated from other aspects of life manage economy.\r\nHe believed that the family cannot provide for the psychological and individualized needs of individuals. It cushions the deeds of capitalism on individuals while perpetuating the system. that this cannot compensate for the general alienation and insufficiency of extent produced by capitalism. Modern Marxist accounts of the family emphasise not only its structural features, but similarly its function in socialising children into the ideology of society. Marxists believe that this is evidently a way of continuing the narrow standards of capitalism.\r\nWhere functionalists standardised Murdock and Parsons see this socialisation process in the family as a healthy adjustment to the surrounding social familys, the Marxist tends to see it as the manipulation of the child’s personality to ensure that it remains in line with the social and sparing system. The family is both the institutional and psychological model for social organisation associated with an mismatched distribution of wealth and power and the domination of one section of society by another. Marxism offers an explanation for the using of women by men.\r\nThis is that the family affords opportunities for men to compensate for their real lack of power in capitalist society by exercising domination over their home plates and their female partners. The role of the male in the family disg uises the exploitative nature of the economic system as a whole. Marxists recognise the dupeisation of women in marriage and family life but emphasises the relationship between capitalism and the family rather than the family’s effect on women. Feminism stresses the exploitation of women as a key feature of family life. Feminism has had the most modulate on the study of the family since the 1960’s.\r\nThey are passing sarcastic of the family and emphasize the harmful effects of family life upon women. It is argued that through the production of parturiency power the family produces and rears cheap labour at minimal costs to capitalists, as detailspring as acting as an emotional birth, absorb frustrations of working in the capitalist system, in that locationfore cut down the revolutionary potential. Radical feminists describe the family as an economic system characterised by the domination and exploitation of women by men. It typically features a male head of househ sure-enough(a) who has ultimate control of family resources and is the final decision-maker.\r\nWomen fasten on by far the greater responsibility for household tasks as unpaid labourers, provide sexualityual services for the head of household and bear and rear his children. In addition, they assume the overwhelming share of tasks like caring for old and disabled family members. The contributions made by women to family life are thus far greater than those made by men. Even where the woman happens to be the ‘breadwinner’ she bears a disproportional burden of housekeeping and is responsible for providing emotional support to the male head of the family.\r\nThere is a fair deal of common ground among feminists, though the ideology is characterised by disagreement, but most feminists agree that sexual in equality is not simply natural, it is in like manner highly political. Female oppression races in all walks of life, including teach in the family, the resul t of stereotyping. So the traditional give between ‘public man and ‘private woman is unacceptable. Gender is a significant social aspect, like class, race or religion. It is caused by patriarchy, the dominance of men over women in a relationship of power.\r\nThe dominance of men in the family symbolises male supremacy in all other institutions. Sex and gender should not be confused. Biologically, only women can be mothers, but they don’t have to accept the responsibilities of mother tinder †nurturing, educating and raising children by devoting themselves to home and family. Sex refers to unavoidable biological differences; gender, on the other hand, is a cultural term and refers to the antithetical roles that society gives to men and women. The overall goal of womens lib is the overthrow of patriarchy and the ending of sexist oppression.\r\n cock-a-hoop feminists place the emphasis upon legal and political equality for women. They have pursued an equal rig hts agenda, and generally in a very(prenominal) pragmatic way. They want women to be able to compete on equal wrong with men in every area of public life; there is no question of women macrocosm superior or entitled to favourable treatment. therefrom the stress is on female emancipation, equal rights and opportunities. collectivist feminists argue that these equal rights mean little unless women also enjoy social equality. This means that they address issues such(prenominal) as the ownership of property, the differences in pay and mployment opportunities for men and women, and the distinction between wages labour and unwaged labour for women. So ‘difference is linked to patriarchy, seeing it as a manifestation of oppression and subordination. Radical feminists believe ‘the personal is the political. They are primarily c at a timerned with equality in family and personal life. Equality must therefore operate with consider to childcare and other domestic responsibili ties, as well as with respect to control of ones own body, and individual sexual expression and fulfilment.\r\nThe stress is to a greater extent on difference than on equality †the very idea of equality is misguided since it implies that women would then be ‘male identified in that they define their goals in wrong of what men are or what men have. Women should rather recognise and celebrate the distinctive features of the female sex; the stress is on womens liberation. Clearly, if feminists wish to make unchangeable long-term changes with respect to the position of women in this society they face the challenge of creating new values with respect to gender and passing these values on to their children.\r\n plainly it is not so clear what the values are that feminists would wish to pass on to their children. An easy process would be to say general ideas of gender equality. save the deeper we probe, the more complex this issue becomes. What are the specific values tha t feminists wish to pass on to their children or so the structure of the family? Are feminists willing to say that the oppositeness is patriarchy? And if so, what exactly does this mean, both as a theoretical and a practical matter? The watchword â€Å"family” covers such a broad spectrum of different things, and is victim to cultural relativity.\r\nI would say that the nuclear family was unimpeachably an ideological construction. Ann Oakley (1982) said that the conventional family is nuclear families unruffled of legally married couples, voluntarily choosing the parent hood of one or more children. I speak out Oakley’s idea of the family is very ideological. Leach (1967) called this the â€Å" food grain packet” image of the family. Advertisers cling mercilessly to family tomography for selling all kinds of products. The constant use of women in adverts for cleaning products is a good example of repression.\r\nAdverts much show fathers coming home from work to a beautiful wife, immaculate home, well behaved children, and a affable meal on the table. I think this view is archaic in many senses, but also rings very true in millions of households today. both(prenominal) women aspire to this dream; we all know that life isn’t quite like the adverts, the problem macrocosm that we don’t find that out boulder clay afterwards! The family is to some extent a repressive and ideological construction, but as long as there is male dominance in other social institutions, this will continue. I would say that the family isn’t as repressive today as it once was.\r\nIn most modern societies, women can have children and have a career, although this is still somewhat of a blurry area with negative stigma. Further to this there has been a sharp rise in the exit of single parent families, which are predominantly headed by women. I do believe the family is ideological; it can’t always be as clear cut because people face d ifferent personal circumstances. Households will continue to be male predominate for hundreds of years to come, men are seen as more economically valuable than women, and this can be seen in salary differences.\r\nUntil the world and media extinguish the onslaught of family propaganda through the media, our children, and perhaps even our children’s children will gravel up with the notion of a patriarchal society. References 1. Sociology Themes & Perspectives (seventh edition) Haralambos & Holborn 2. www. sociology. org. uk 3. Psychology- The acquisition of mind and behaviour Richard Gross 4. www. wikipedia. co. uk 5. Class Notes 6. http://www. educationforum. co. uk/sociology_2/FamilyDiversitycauses. htm\r\n'