A few pages into Parson’s, I was getting a little offended. Who was this guy saying, “the majority of married women, of course, are not employed…” Then I flipped to the front of the article and looked to the date, 1942. So these trends of the family and the sexes are almost 70 years old. What I was surprised about was how much was still applicable today. He states there is no difference in formal education, that it is not until the post-graduate level is reached do the sexes begin to differentiate. This is true today, how many women are go into the engineering program? As well, he mentions “girls are given a kind of protection and supervision by adults to which boys of the same age group are not subjected.” This definitely continues today. As well, there still exists a “youth culture” that elicits rebellion, as well as an idealized “swell guy/glamour girl.”
I found Becker’s mention of the quality of the child to be very interesting. Parent’s want quality children, not quantity. A quality child is in need of many resources (he mentions how expensive children are), which affects the amount of children one can raise. I see this as true today, and one of the explanations as to the decline in fertility. Parent’s want to provide the best they can for the children they have, which creates a quality child. Also fascinating of Becker is his ideas on monogamy and polygamy. I believe today that people date and mate with people like themselves, in the same socio-economic group, same ideals, and sometimes the same religion. This is similar to his idea that high-quality men and women mate with each other, and low-quality men and women mate with each other. It is interesting to hear about polygamy from an economic standpoint, my favourite explanation being that “several women can substitute for one high-quality woman.”
Although complicated, the bio-social perspective was enlightening. I never knew testosterone could affect how I choose a sexual partner, or how its level would affect how traditionally or non-traditionally I choose to live my life. However different these groups of theories are, I don’t see any of them as complete explanations to the family. They do however compliment each other, and together contribute to a greater understanding of family dynamic, roles, and relationships.
1. In Joan Aldous’ article, it states that the family development approach emphasizes a family as a unit of interdependent members. Does being a family necessitate being independent?
2. Is there any truth to Parson’s article in a 21st century world? What trends can you see that continue or do not continue into today’s family?
3. After reading the biosocial article, are you more apt to believe nature (the impact of genes, hormones on environment) or nurture (the impact of environment on genese and hormones)? Which one do you believe is more prevalent. (Keep in mind the example of the blank slate twins)
No comments:
Post a Comment