Realsociology

A hyperreflexive blog focussing on critical sociology, infographics, Buddhism and extreme early retirement

Archive for the 'Family' Category

The rise of the yummy mummies, and why you shouldn’t tolerate them

Posted by Realsociology on 8th October 2014

The rise of the ‘yummy mummy’: popular conservativism and the neoliberal maternal in contemporary British culture

Jo Littler

This is a brief post summarising (much of it paraphrased) the above article,  which analyses the rise of the ‘yummy mummy’ – I’m not a huge fan of cultural studies, but I like this…. It’s helped me understand why I’m so intolerant of them, and why I’m right to be.

What is the yummy mummy?

In short, she is a white, thirty something in a position of privilege, shoring up the boundaries against the other side of the social divide (so-called ‘pramfaces’).

The yummy mummy, as constructed through autobiographical celebrity guidebooks and ‘henlit’ novels espouses a girlish, high consuming maternal ideal as a site of hyper-individualised pyschological ‘maturity’. ‘Successful’ maternal femininity in this context is often articulated by rejecting ‘environmentally-conscious’ behaviour – disavows wider structures of social political and ecological dependency in order for its conservative fantasy of autonomous, individualising retreatism to be maintained.

Whilst the characteristics of the yummy mummy might appear as changeable as her clothing, most often the term is used to symbolise a type of mother who is sexually attractive and well groomed, and who knows the importance of spending time on herself. She is, according to Liz Fraser’s book ‘The Yummy Mummy’s Survival Guide’ (2006) ‘the ultimate modern woman: someone who does not identify with the traditional, dowdy image of motherhood… who knows her Gap from her Gucci’.

There are various blogs and websites maintained by women ready to embrace the term, and is frequently used to describe glamourous celebrity mothers – books by Myleen Klass and Melanie Sykes are two well known examples in the UK.

Yummy mummys tend to think of themselves as exemplary successful individuals who are making the most of their lives and through their high-consumption lifestyles they demonstrate to the rest of us that it is possible to ‘have it all’ – the children, the job and the looks. Truly, they are (in their heads) the ultimate modern women.

However, just as with the yuppie, or the new man, the emergence of the yummy mummy can also be read as indivative of an underlying social crisis, in which case her emergence can tell us about how ideas of feminity and parenting are changing and about the times in which we are living….

Sexualisation -

Most obviously the yummy mummy positions the mother as a sexually desirable being. This is a substantial cultural shift – previously, mothers had been perceived as asexual.

For generations, patriarchal norms had typically constructed women as either Madonnas or Whores – either asexual Sacred Virgins or sexual beings deserving of brutalisation (hence witches being burnt at the stake) – It was precisely this myth of the asexual female which second wave Feminists such as Germaine Greer, Ann Oakly and Kate Millet criticised, (although little was said by any of them about the constructued asexuality of mothers in paprticular).

A brief history of motherhood in western cultures looks something life this (from Woodward 1997)

  • The 1950s domestic goddess – groomed yet chaste
  • The 1970s oppressed housewife – made-up and miserable
  • The 1980s working mother – powerful and besuited

Given this history, the yummy mummy’s positioing as desirable and sexually active might be regarded as emancipatory because now mothers themselves are encouraged to look hot, however, there are other ways of intererepting the yummy mummy – as outlined below…

A) As expressing a very limited (traditional) femininity and sexuality

Littler points to three limitations with the yummy mummy’s sexuality

Firstly, certain aspects of performance come to be expected – mothers are not just allowed to express their sexuality but are expected to express a particular kind of sexuality. Treatments like facials, for example, are now advised as necessary and routine. As minor UK celebrity (I love this description) Melanie Sykes tells us….

‘Being a gorgeous mum just takes a bit of imagination and more planning than it did before, but you  really have no exuse for sinking into frumption and blaming it on parenthood’

It is harder to imagine a clearer expression that this of how the onus, no matter the extent of resources or income, is on a self-governing subject to regulate herself. Such urgings are part of a wider canvas of neoliberal responsibilising through self-fashioning. In this context the yummy-mummy is an aspirational figure, with the specifics of how to become her outlined in various guidebooks suchaas The Fabulous Mum’s Handbook.

Second, sexuality is delimited because the preferred model of femininity is ultra-feminine – well-groomed, wearing fashionable clothes and being very slim. In other words, this is the extension of a fashion and beauty complext to the post-pregnant body.

Even the ‘slummy mummy’ still aspires to the yumm-mummy, the former being a Bridget-Jones type of mother – Still accepting the ideal, but endearing through her failure to live up to it. Both types (according to Mcrobbie) share in common a rejection of Feminism.

Third, the yummy mummy is more of a desired than a desiring object, although unlike with the pornoised MILF, there is something eerily infantile about the yummy mummy construction – part of the identity inolves a coming down to the level of the child and depoliticsing yourself, suggesting you are incapable of dealing with political issues, rather all you can do is consume.

(B) The yummy mummy as neoliberal agent (a social class based analysis)

In the UK there are generally two routes to motherhood, and there is now a signficant gulf between working class younger mothers who are demonised and middle class mothers in their 30s who are the ideal, and it is from this later type that the yummy mummy emerges.

The yummy-mummy is basically a high-consuming, stay at home mum drawn from the top 10% of society.  She does not think about the wider social context which affects all mothers, because she does not have to, and rather than doing politics she retreats from public life and and focuses on a very delimitted range of concerns – deciding what consumer-oriented activities her and her child should engage in. The message of the yummy mummy is clear – you have the power to solve your own problems, and the solution to these problems is conusme more – no need to get political.

The problem with this is that the very visiable yummy mummy construction ignores completely the wider structural context of motherhood and parenting….

This context is that neoliberal policies have reduced support for working mothers make it very hard for most mothers to stay at home for any length of time outside a year’s paid maternity leave – Working conditions remain very unflexible and radically unfriendly to families. On top of this there is still an expectation that the mother will be the ‘foundation parent’ (NB recent changes to paternity leave may help change this). This makes it very hard for parents (and especially women) to combine work and soical care in equitable and supportive fashion –

As a result the majority of mothers (say 90%) simply do not have the resources to be yummy mummys, only (say 10% do), and it is these 10% who get the air-time and get to publish books and tell the other 90% what they should be worrying about.

Thus in sociological terms the yummy mummy is a neoliberal agent whose function is to encourage individualisation and responsibilisation on the part of all mothers and to demonise mothers who are working class, in any way political and/ or do not subscribe to a tradtionally feminine (infantalised) sexuality.

C) – Finally, the yummy mummy is inherently anti-environmental

She is basically a pro-corporate consumer, and she has wider agency in encouraging and driving consumerism. In many contemporary novels, high end consumers are often contrasted against frugual-consumer mothers who are cast as freaks and social misfits.

It is not hard to see why the yummy-mummy is anti-environmental when you think that environmentalism is overtly political whereas the YM is high-consumption, individualistic and narcissistice.

In conclusion

This article has helped me understand my own high degree of irritation at yummy mummys and thier brats disturbing my peace and quiet in coffee shops around Reigate. Before reading this I was somewhat concerned that I should find this so annoying.

Now, however, I realise that I haven’t just been being irritated by the mums their brats, it must have been my unarticuclated subconscious telling me that these people are the shallow, selfish, narcissistic agents of neoliberalism.

In short, my peace in those coffee shops was being disturbed by the agents of everything that’s wrong with global politics, not to mention the reproduction of it at the level of the life-world.

Posted in Family, Feminism, Neoliberalism | No Comments »

Why does it cost so much to raise a child?

Posted by Realsociology on 4th October 2014

How much, on average, does it cost to raise a child?

It topped £225 000 in 2014, for the first 21 years of a child’s (/kidult’s) life, including university tuition fees. (No prizes for spotting the middle class bias in this analysis). The costs break down as follows:

  • £86 K – Childcare
  • £74K – Education (includes university fees)
  • £20K – Food
  • £17K – Holidays
  • £11K – Clothes
  • £10K – Hobbies
  • £7K – Leisure
  • £5K – Pocket Money

How does this compare historically?

To be honest, I spent several minutes digging around the net and couldn’t find anything specifically focussed on this relating to the UK, but I did find this infographic from the US…..

rising costs of kids USA

From my own experience in the UK, if I think back to my own childhood/ kidulthood (’73 -’94) the cost of raising moi would have been nowhere near £225K. The combined cost of childcare and education would have been precisely £0, I couldn’t comment on food, but the cost of everything else would have been about half of what it is in 2014. Then again I am proper working class roots, so I would have had below the average amount spent on me (and it never did me no harm!)

Why are parents spending more money on children today?

In this article Christopher Carr points out that we need to look at what exactly parents are spending more money on – He points out that relative expenditure on basic needs such as food and housing have decreased since the 1960s, and most of the increase is being spent on caring for children’s emotional and psychological needs – With the biggest areas of increased expenditure being on child care, education, and (in the US) health care, and to a lesser extent hobbies and leisure.

He interprets this as a positive trend – simply indicative of the average family being wealthier now than they were in the 1960s, able to invest money in their children’s well-being. He does, however, point out that poorer families still struggle to meet their children’s needs on low incomes and some of the health-care expenditure is being spent on managing new health problems amongst kids such as obesiety and range of emotional disorders, so this is good for most but certainly not for all.

Personally I don’t see this as a positive trend at all. This analysis misses out a number of underlying ‘structural’ changes which effect the cost of raising a child….

(1) Given that the largest expdenditure item is on childcare, the single most obvious trend which lies behind this is that today both parents work which means they have little option but to spend £86K on childcare.

(2) The changing nature of childhood – children grow up later, and parents increasingly think its normal to assist their children financially into their 20s, by paying for some of their children’s university tuition fees for example (of course the introduction of these fees is something which has itself raised the cost of raising a ‘child’).

Behind this second factor lie a number of other factors (which I’m not going into here) – Such as greater gender equality, social policies (or lack of them), rising norms of consumption, probably house-ownership, probably also the ageing population.

(3) Originally I thought this would be more signficant, but advertising to children and pester-power also contribute -  as parents feel the need to give into their children’s demands for unnecessary crap. However, given that the major expenditure areas are on childcare and education, and only a measly £30K on leisure etc., this only makes up a relatively small part of overall expenditure on children. However, for lower income families, this kind of figure will serve to ‘lock them in’ to the system for a couple more years at least.

(4) Finally, you might like to consider whether the colonisation of the lifeworld of today’s love-struck couples have anything to do with the rising costs of childcare – It could be that today’s 20 somethings have been socialised into a historically unusual high-consumption norm – so they spend a fortune on keeping their relationship going (holidays/ home-decor/ 2 cars/ shopping trips/ gifts/ days out) during their 20s, which pushes them into a situation where they have a relatively small deposit for their first house,  and so require a large mortgage, with the attendant massive interest payments over 25 years, and it is this in turn that causes number one above – both partners needing to work – in order to maintain this high-consumption lifestyle which they then go on to socialise their children into.

In Conclusion…

If you’re a parent reading this I suggest that you grow up yourself (in the spiritual sense of the word) and stop buying crap you don’t need. If you’re a child, ditto. Instead, try and find ways of being happy/ constructing an identity (if you must do this) which are not rooted in uncessary consumption, ultimately you’ll end up being much less shallow and much more interesting.

Finally – Here’s a nice alternative parenting style - which avoids spending shed loads of money on them. Or you could just not have kids, and save yourself £225K, not to mention the planet.

Posted in Childhood, Family, Sociological Theory | No Comments »

For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until one of us decides that we should part

Posted by Realsociology on 23rd August 2014

After a year’s break I’ve now got the time to start blogging again…. here goes…

Lots of useful ideas in this 30 minute Thinking Allowed podcast on Love, which focusses on the idea of lifelong love and its relationship to marriage…

Just a few of the key points made throughout the programme (NB this is from memory)…

While the feeling of being ‘in love’ might be the same in all socieities, our ideas and expectations surrounding this emotion, and especially its relationship to marriage are shaped by the society in which we live, so yes, even elements of love are socially constructed! To my mind the key point of the podcast is that we now have higher expectations of marriage than ever before in history – The norm today is to see marriage as primarily about love and passion, as a sort of constant high of mutual emotional fulfilment and not primarily about duty.

To illustrate this all we need do is go back a hundred years or so and look at Britain and France – Marriage was much more of a practical arrangement – It wasn’t based on choice, your family had much more of a say in who you got married to, it wasn’t based on finding a person you have a special emotional connection with,  it was based on financial necessity (for women especially) and carrying on the family name. Historically, in this context, people had very low expectations of marriage in terms of love – marriage was about duty, not about ‘passion’.

Today (obviously) most of us expect to have a choice over who we get married to, and the norm is that marriage is about an emotional-connection (love) at least as much as duty. The downside of this is that we expect more than ever of our marriage partners. The person we commit to as a life-long love partner is expected to be a superb lover, devoted parent, attentive counsellor… and there is an expectation that the passion is to be kept alive throughout the relationship. There is an incredible pressure put on ‘that one special person’ to meet the emotional needs of the other (and the children) in today’s marriages.

Of course these high expectations of marriage do not live up to the mundane-reality of married life, which goes some way towards explaining the high divorce rate (as well as the number of extra-marital affairs).

According to Giddens this is all just part and parcel of living in a late-modern society characterised by reflexivity and greater gender equality – Today the normal relationship is what Giddens calls a pure-relationship – a relationship which is ‘internally referential and therefore ‘exists solely for whatever rewards that relationship as such can deliver’ (Giddens, 1991). Unlike in the past, the point of a relationship is not something which roots us in our community, or embeds us into society, or connects us to our god, the point of a relationship is to further our own lives for our own sakes. The result of this is that relationships simply last as long as they work for both partners – unlike in the past there is no other reason to keep the relationship going once it has stopped being fulfilling for both partners. 

According to Giddens there is nothing wrong with having high expectations of marriage and then moving on – this is simply the way modern ‘pure relationships’ are -  we pair up with someone, maybe get married, it lasts a decade or so, and then we move onto the next person, it is all just part of the ‘democratisation of daily-life’, and part of what he calls ‘confluent love’ – which, unlike ‘romantic love’ in modern society is based on finding that special relationship, rather than finding that special person, and to assist in this relationship we have (probably thousands, I haven’t counted) relationship and sex guides, and various marriage and divorce counsellors/ lawyers which have emerged to help us navigate through these occassional transitions in our personal lives.

From Giddens’ point of view it seems as if most people going into a marriage for the long-term are kidding themselves, and that the correct attitude to marriage in late-modern society should not be ‘until death do us part’ it should be ‘until one of us simply decides that we should part’.

On a practical and moral level I’ve no problem with this scenario – I think Giddens is simply describing the most appropriate type of relationship/ marriage (described variously as the pure relationship/ confluent love/ serial monogamy) which fits in with a late-modern society characterised by dual-careerism, near gender-equality and the eroding of traditional norms of masculinity and feminity – but I do see two potential problems with Giddens’ easy acceptance of this type of relationship – Firstly, this would be all well and good if people were honest about it – I don’t think people think of themselves as  being in ‘confluent love’ or in a ‘pure relationship’, and I’m sure people don’t talk about their own relationships in these terms (of course Giddens would probably just say this needs to evolve), and secondly (which is pointed out in the podcast – this type of serially monogomous relationship-lifestyle seems wonderfully applicable to kid-free cosmpolitans, but maybe it’s not so great when kids are involved, and long-term relationships do have this strong tendency to end up with kids being produced.

There was more to the podcast than this, but I’ll leave it there for now…..

Love  and  marriage

Related texts

  • The English in Love: The Intimate Story of an Emotional Revolution Claire Langhamer by Claire Langhamer.

  • Love: An Unromantic Discussion by Mary Evans

  • The Transformation of Intimacy – Anthony Giddens

Posted in Family | No Comments »

All I want before Christmas is hours of low grade revision fun with Wordle

Posted by Realsociology on 11th December 2012

I just discovered Wordle – And created this ‘Worlde’ of some of the concepts relevant to the perspectives topic within the SCLY1 module on The Family.

A handy ‘revision’ idea might be  to get students to type in concepts to for particular topics to Wordle and then print/ publish them.

This won’t, in itself, test any of those higher oder skills necessary in Sociology, but it’s quite a cool means to get students to copy things out without thinking. And leet’s face it, this late on in the term, are any of us really capabable of anything else.

Obviously there’s a lot you could do to build on this…. but I’ll let you ponder that for yourselfs.

Posted in Family | No Comments »

Ralph Lauren and the commericalisation of childhood

Posted by Realsociology on 14th May 2011

The most appalling example of a firm commercialising childhood to date – Ralph Lauren’s storybook featuring children dressed in its expensive clothing. Another reason why I’m glad I’m not and willl never be a parent.

The text below is taken from ‘The Week’

As if the commercialisation of childhood wasn’t bad enough – here comes a new horror – the first ever shoppable children’s storybook. Produced by Ralph Lauren, The RL Gang: A Magically Magnificent School Adventure is a 32-page volume aimed at pre-school children. It follows the adventures of eight ‘impossibly cute’ classmates with namesl like Wilow, Hudson and River, all dressed in the retailer’s Polo range. In the online video version you can take time out to look in ‘Oliver’s closet’ and buy his Fair Isle cashmere sweater ($75) or Nantucket red chino shorts ($29.95). It’s billed as an innovative way for parents and children to explore style, literature and digital technology together. The truth, of course, is that it’s just an attempt to use children’s natural love of stories to make profit for RL. Lets hope conusmers reject this aweful attempt by RL to colonise their lifeworlds – that would truley be a happy ending.

 

Incidentally, the online version is narrated by Uma Thurman – the fact that she claims to be a Buddhist and yet makes cash out of something that encourages parents and children to consume shit they don’t need together just goes to show how totally out of touch with reality celebrities are.

Posted in Childhood, Family | No Comments »

The best revision techniques – AS Sociology

Posted by Realsociology on 12th January 2011

Just a few last minute reminders for AS Sociology students – for the exam this Friday I recommend the following two most excellent revision techniques

Firstly, you should make sure you can answer a 24 mark question on each of the following topic areas – you should be able to use concepts (sociology words), research studies and statistics where appropriate, and be analytical and evaluative.

  1. - Couples (equality in relationships)
  2. - Childhood – the way its constructed, whether things are getting bad/ worse. whether it’s disappearing
  3. - The perspectives on the family – (focussing on the nuclear family) – Functionalism/ Marxism/ Feminism/ The New Right/ Postmodernism and also Giddens/ Beck
  4. - Demography – the causes and consequences of falling birth and death rates and
  5. - Changing family patterns – reasons for and consequences of changes in divorce, marriage, cohabitation and childbirth.
  6. - Family diversity – how family life is becoming more diverse and perspectives on increasing family diversity.
  7. - Social Policy and the Family – examples of how the government can influence family life and perspectives on this.

Secondly, and related to the first thing, you should focus on learning the ‘model essay plans’ I’ve given you for each of the above areas – you can tweak the plan to fit the actual essay in the exam - test yourself constantly over the next 36 hours – make sure you know the content of each topic area as well as the general structure of the essay you are likely to get.

You may get a ‘hybrid’ essay question that asks you to voer two topic areas in one question – in which case keep an eye on the clock and adapt.

The time for gimmicky learning is over, you must now force yourself to learn the information for the exam in the format of the exam- you must be able to write for one solid hour – don’t think too hard when in the exam either - quickly plan out what knowledge is relevant to the question and then regurgitate all the cocepts/ theories and research studies you know and relate them to the specific question, and evaluate constantly (which mainly means criticising)

I’m not going to wish you good luck – luck only benefits students who are ill prepared – when, for example, the two out seven topics they have happened to revise come up – in fact I hope students playing that sort of game are positively unlucky and fail so I don’t have to deal with them next year. This way justice is done and it makes my life easier – and who doesn’t love the two birds one stone thing.

If you are prepared – then luck is irrelevant.

Oh and you only answer the section on the family – five questions in total – three short answer questions and the two essays worth 24 marks each

Posted in Family | No Comments »

Social Policy and the family revision

Posted by Realsociology on 10th January 2011

A quick revision video

Three things to note..

1. It’s a first attempt at xtranormal – so I haven’t gone to town on the custom animation

2. This seems to contradict the ’rant against edutainment’ made about three blogs ago

3. I have no idea if it’s affect or effect – frankly I don’t care, whatever one you use the meaning is still clear…

Posted in Family | No Comments »

Who does the housework? Some relatively recent research on the domestic division of labour

Posted by Realsociology on 22nd December 2010

Who does the housework and childcare – men or women?

This is a classic question for the AS Family module, below are a few updates of survey data and a few pointers at the end to get some analysis marks in the exam.
Oh and shame on the timeservers who write the main AS level textbooks using all of that hideous dated material from the 1970s – 90s – all of this material is available if you just dig online for an hour.

There is evidence that gender roles in the family continue to move towards greater equality 

• According to the British Social Attitudes survey (2007/8) in 1989, 1/3rd of men and ¼ of women thought that it was “a man’s job to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family. Only 15 years later, in 2006 only 1/5 men and 1/6 women agreed with the statement.
The Fatherhood Institute certainly thinks there have been major moves to more equal gender roles within the family

 
• The time spent by British men on domestic work rose from 90 minutes per day in the 1960s to 148 minutes per day by 2004; while women’s dropped from 369 minutes to 280 minutes during the same period (Kan et al, 2009).

• British fathers’ care of infants and young children rose 800% between 1975 and 1997, from 15 minutes to two hours on the average working day – at double the rate of mothers’ (Fisher et al., 1999) despite the fact that over this period fathers’ time spent at work was also increasing (Gray, 2006).
It is worth reading this document that compares survey data on housework (where you ask questions like ‘how many hours per week do you think you spend doing the washing up…) with the more accurate (valid method) of keeping diary data (where you get men and women to actually note down what they do each week) – the authors found that, guess what, men are more likely to over-estimate the amount of housework they do in relation to women.
The document also argues that survey data on ‘who does the childcare’ is an invalid measurement of equality in domestic roles for various reasons.

 

Evidence that gender roles are not equal yet!

According to the couple connection who summarise data from this – Crompton, R. & Lyonette, C. (2008). Who does the housework? The division of labour within the home. In Park, A. et al., British Social Attitudes: The 24th Report 2007/2008. London: Sage.

• On average, women spend over 2 hours and 30 minutes a day doing housework: cooking, washing up, cleaning and ironing- 1 hour and 30 minutes more than men. Both sexes spend similar lengths of time gardening or looking after pets. DIY and car maintenance are the only household chores that men, in general, spend more time on than women.

• Overall men have an extra half hour of free time each day than women.

• The time spent with children is spent in different ways. Women spend around two hours on housework while with their children, compared with 1 hour and 20 minutes spent by men. In contrast, men spend around 1 hour and 20 minutes watching TV in the company of their children, compared with around 50 minutes by women. In other words, men may be doing a greater amount of childcare in the past – but this translates into watching TV with the kids, while a woman doing childcare translates into doing housework while watching the kids.

Breene and Cook studied surveyed attitudes to traditional gender roles in 22 different European Countries and found there were more. They found that that about 1/4 men (who they called hardliners) would rather get divorced than see their wife in a ‘breadwinner role’ while only 1/8 men would be happy adjusting to their wife being the main breadwinner. (These are very rough estimates from me, and there are wide variations across countries!)

• Finally, one third of the population still think that there are problems with both couples working… In 2006, 41% of men and 29% of women agreed that a pre-school child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works.

Posted in Family | No Comments »

SCLY1 AS Sociology of the family

Posted by Realsociology on 22nd December 2010

SCLY1  AS Sociology of The Family – Easy to understand breakdown of what we teach

Hi, it’s occured to me that we really don’t cover that much material in this module. Despite the main text books over convoluting a lot of the stuff – I think all that we cover boils down to the following 7 key questions (ok and sub questions)

Topic 1 – Domestic roles.

The General Trend here is that men and women have become more equal in their domestic roles and relationships are generally characterised by more negotiation and discussion (reflexivity)

Key questions –

  • To what extent is this true of modern relationships? Are there contradictory examples if you look at different generations/ social classes and ethnic groups?
  • If you believe this is there is a general trend towards gender equality, what factors have lead to this change and what is the relative importance of each factor?
  • What do the different sociological perspectives say about these

Topic 2 – Marriage, Co-habitation and Divorce

The general trend here is that there has been a long term decline in the rate of Marriage and a corresponding increase in cohabitation. The divorce rate has increased overall – especially rapidly after the 1969 divorce act, although it has been declining since 2006.

Key Questions

  • What are the reasons for these changes, and what is the relative importance of each.
  • What are the consequences of these changes (relates to topic 3)
  • What do different sociological perspectives think about the decline in marriage and increase in divorce?

Topic 3 – The decline of the traditional Nuclear Family and increasing in diversity in families and households –

The general trend here is that there families and households are characterised by more diversity in the following ways –

  • There are more reconstituted families (step families)
  • There are more single parent families
  • There are more single person households
  • There are more visible and legally recognised same sex relationships
  • There is greater ethnic diversity
  • There is greater generational diversity (as people live longer)

Key Questions

  • What are the reasons for these changes, and what is the relative importance of each reason for each change (relates to topic 2!)
  • What are the consequences of these changes
  • What do different sociological perspectives think about the decline in marriage and increase in divorce?

Topic 4 – perspectives on the extended and nuclear family in historical context

The general trend is that European societies use to have more extended families, however, with industrialisation; the nuclear family came to be the dominant family form. However, since the 1970s, the nuclear family appears to be in decline.

Key questions/ perspectives

  • Assess the Functionalist/ Marxist/ Feminist/ Postmodernist/ Late Modernist view on the role and functions of the nuclear family in society.

Topic 5 – Childhood.

The general trend here is that family life and society in general has become more child centred, and children’s lives are more regulated, although some would argue that childhood is now disappearing.

Key questions

  • Examine the ways in which childhood is socially constructed
  • Assess the view that children are better off today than in the past, now that their lives are more regulated by adults.
  • Assess the view that childhood is disappearing.

Topic 6. Demography

The general trend is that birth and death rates have both decreased and net migration to the UK has increased steadily in recent years.

Key questions

  • Why are the birth and death rates decreasing?
  • What are the causes and consequences of immigration/ emigration?

Topic 7. The family and social policy

Here we examine different perspectives on how the government should influence family life through policy

Key questions

  • Examine the relationship between social policy and any of the following – gender equality in the family, the role of children in the family, marriage/ divorce, family diversity, the place of children in the family.
  • Examine different sociological perspectives on social policy.

See this site for revision aids

Posted in Family | No Comments »

Kirsty and Phil’s unrealistic christmas

Posted by Realsociology on 15th December 2010

kirstie-phil-christmas-lgNow after everything I’ve said about the Marxist view of the family not being especially relevant anymore up pop this obnoxious pair of petit-bourgeois media lovies to prove me wrong.

In the show this utterly detestable pair demonstrate how much money you could be spending this Christmas – typically visiting some upmarket gift shops and food stalls to purchase a bewildering array of non-necesseties to make that ‘speical day’ extra special.

How utterly bourgois this is – this kind of month long ‘make everything yourself build up’ is great if you happen to be earning £200 000 a year (just an estimate) as a TV presenter – then you’ve got the time and the money to invest.

For the average person, however,  all this show is going to do is enhance the sense of relative deprivation about how poor their own Christmas is by comparison and encourage them to put even more money on their credit card.

There’s even something hyper-real about this show – I’m sure they alter the colour filters on the cameras to give it that extra reddy-warm Christmas feel – if you know what I mean.

Now my advice is to pick up the remote – switch off the TV – stand up – go over to said TV – unplug – period – now welcome to YOUR reality. And if you must celebrate christmas, don’t over consume, it really won’t do anything to give you or anyone else meaningful, lasting, deep-rooted happiness.

Posted in Family, Sociology on TV | No Comments »