Theoretical Perspectives of the Family

I was at first flabbergasted when reading Parson’s article. I could not believe what he was saying about the role of women and that men and women should be socialized into their roles better. Then, I looked at the date that this article was written in and it all made sense! This article definitely reflected the points of views of the roles of women and men in the 1940s but I believe these beliefs are no longer or I hope no longer reflected in our society. For example, Parson stated that, “only in very exceptional cases can an adult man be genuinely self-respecting and enjoy a respected status in the eyes of others if he does not "earn a living" in an approved occupational role” (1942, p.608). Although, I do agree it is still uncommon in our society for a man to stay home with the children and not leave the home in order to earn a salary it is becoming more and more “normal”. Especially, since with the technology we now have access to it is becoming easier for men to work at home and take care of the children. I think the main problem with Parson’s article is that it is just plain outdated. For example, it stated that, “the majority of married women, of course, are not employed, but even of those that are a very large proportion do not have jobs which are in basic competition for status with those of their husbands” (1942, p.608). Since this article was written, there has been s major shift in the work force in which females are now more employed and do have jobs that are often better then their male counterparts or husbands.

After having read Becker’s article I was still a little unclear as to what, “The Rotten Kid Theorem” was but I was intrigued. I looked it up on the internet now understand it as being a theory that says even a “rotten” kid who in other circumstances would take pleasure in hurting his siblings would not do so in fear that this type of behavior would make their parents unhappy and decrease the amount of money or presents they will receive. I do not think I agree with this theory because I do not think young children think this way. Perhaps, young adults who have a more complex understanding of money and a knowledge that their parents will give them or leave them money when they die but I do not believe younger children or even teenagers will not hurt their siblings in fear that they will be losing presents or money. I mean, most children and even teenagers take part in “horseplay” with their siblings on a daily basis and I am sure often hurt their siblings as a consequence.

I also enjoyed the biosocial perspective proposed by Booth, Carver and Douglas which explored the effect hormone levels have on men and women and subsequently the family. I found many points of this article to be quite interesting like the fact that there is a difference between the testosterone levels in single and married men. I had previously not taken into consideration the role that hormones plays in the selection of our mate, in our relationships and ultimately in marriages. I am not sure how scientifically proven the biosocial theory is but I thought it brought up a subject that I had not thought of before and in theory seems to make sense to me.

1) 1) After having read these four articles and learning about their theories concerning the family do you find one more appealing then the others? Is their one that you completely disagree with or agree with?

2) 2) In Parson’s article, he describes what he thought was the role of female and male in the 1940s. After having read this article do you think there is still any truth in what he was proposing as the roles men and women should play in society? Do you find in ways we still play these roles in today’s society? And, do you think if women and men did play their roles “better” there would be less strain and perhaps even divorce in our society?

3 3) In Ben-Porah’s article he claimed that when it comes to choosing one’s mate that high-quality men are most likely to be matched with high-quality women and low-quality women are most likely to be matched with low-quality men. What do you think of this statement?