The New Right Perspective and Feminism on the Family

The new right perspective on the family is that the traditional family setup- the nuclear family- is the way forward for society as they believe it is the natural and most efficient way of preserving and continuing society.
Supporters of the also believe that the 'traditional family' is the norm, but this is an untrue statement which is not backed up by evidence as less than 20% of families in Britain have a male parent who works; a female parent who is a housewife and children.
I think that although this family setup of the nuclear family clearly worked in the past, it is but that- the past. It is clear nowadays that this family type is not the only one which functions well. I am a prime example, I lived in a nuclear family for roughly the first 12 years of my life, then my parents separated, got divorced and remarried. I believe that this was a positive thing as it created a better atmosphere in my home life and has therefore made me a stronger and more well-rounded person.

As for feminism in the family, in the past, women were seen as dependant on the husbands, and I suppose this is true. Their job was to look after the house and children. This all changed during the war when the women had to take on what were seen as the men's jobs and realised that they should be able to do this all the time. Women grew in confidence and then voiced their opinions arising the idea of feminism.
I would say that I agree that men and women should be treated equally at home and espacially in the work industry, but I do not agree with radical feminism. Radical feminists believe that the family is a way of dominating women as this is a man's world. I think there is a chance that this may have happened in the past but I strongly believe that this plays no part in society today as women are nowhere near being dominated by males. Evidence to prove this for example is that the number of househusbands has risen dramatically, but this does not mean that the wife dominates the husband.
I personally feel that equality is very important, especially in a family situation but I also think that some feminist views are too negative and that feminists themselves are only focussing on the bad points and not taking into consideration the major changes that have taken place in the last Century. Therefore, I believe that all views should be taken into account but that society should meet halfway and not take things to extremes.

Families have little purpose nowadays

The statement 'families have little purpose nowadays' can be viewed in different ways, as some people may believe that they have no family. They do not mean that do not have a relative of any kind, they mean that from their personal experiences at home and in their lives that they feel as if there is nobody to relate to in a familial way. I think that such experiences could shape individual's perceptions and views on the family. For example, if someone was brought up in a lone-parent household but their parent did not like to spend time with them or regretted having the child, this can cause the child to try to learn how to take care of themselves resulting in them not being able to trust or rely on anyone in later life meaning they may not feel the need to have a family. Another point is that this example is quite a recent situation as single-parent or divorced parents is a very recent thing, therefore, a few generations ago, family was held as a huge priority as it may have been all they had. Women would not have been going out to work and therefore depended on the husband provide for her and their family. Also, back then, families were much bigger and therefore the family was a very important thing.
On the 0ther hand, I personally believe that the family plays the biggest influential role in a person's life, as child behaviour is shaped through the people who are closest to them which tends to be the family. I think that families have the obligation to try to influence a child into being a well-rounded individual with good values. I also think it can be said that alot of abuse cases are committed because individuals have not been shown the same amount of love as others have and therefore they may not feel an emotional connection to other people as they have copied a bad example in their lives. In this case, I can see why people would doubt that family is a positive thing, but I believe that the family has many purposes like, shaping behaviour, providing the child with care and more inportantly, showing a child how to love. Therefore, although types of family and perceptions have changed in recent times, I think that the vital reasons of having a family are still very much the same.

Am I a Structuralist?

The two types of structural theories are: functionalist theories and conflict theories. The first meaning that everything you as a person are has been shaped by primary and secondary structures such as, family, church and education; whereas, the second, conflict theories mean that a person has a family and has been educated to contribute to the economy.
I personally believe I am not a structuralist, however, I can understand such theories and I can see they play a small part in building a society. I agree that such structures as family and education can shape an individuals behaviour and influence their actions and maybe even their outlook and thoughts on certain issues.
When referring to conflict theories, I have to say that I disagree with theorists such as Marx, as I do not believe that we are brought into the world to be trained in education just to be workers in a long line of production. I can see that there is conflict in the world on many issues but I do not think that this makes up a society. I strongly believe that the problem with conflict theories is that individual interaction is not taken into account.
Therefore, I think if I had to choose to agree with one type of structural theory I would tend to agree with the thought that we are defined through our interactions as human beings, so this means I would call myself a consensus structuralist.

Identity

I believe that identity is a very apparent thing in today's society as in the last few decades, people have begun to break the mould and try to be different from who they may be expected to be, and be who they want to be. At one point in time, this would have seemed like rebellious behaviour and people probably would have frowned upon it, but nowadays as society is growing and developing, this may just be seen as someone being themselves.
What I mean when I say 'identity' is the appearance and impression someone gets of another person. You could look at it as if there are 2 different typesd of identites: one being an identity you have been born with and therefor cannot change; and the other being identities which people have chosen to be related with to be percieved how they wish.
1. Identities which you are born with could be as obvious as being male or female. Another very strong, apparent identity is nationality. Unfortunately in the past, such a simple identity which nobody can change has led to huge disasters, such as the slavery of black people and the holocaust during WW2. I believe that over time people's views on such delicate issues as racism have really changed due to the development of society. Although there are still racists in the world, the common view is that every human being is equal and identities count for nothing.
2. Also, as society has changed, it has also relaxed and therefore people have started to choose their own identites, but I also believe that, in particular, teenagers sometimes feel they need to take on a different identity to who they really are so they feel like they fit in and do not stand out. I truly think this is an important issue as although people are more confident in being themselves since, say a fifty years ago, some still feel they need to pretend who they are.
As for me, I am happy with my identity and I believe I try not to conform and be someone I do not wish to be. I do not believe in confirming. I am a very sociable person and do not have a group identity, I do not like only one type of music, I do not try to look like anyone else and I do not wish to be anyone else. I am happy with my identity and intend to keep it that way!

Schemes- they are all a bunch of wasters

I think that the statement "People who live in schemes are all a bunch of wasters" is unfair as this is just an assumption and can be considered as stereotipical. I think that people who say that "schemes are full of pregnant teenagers, unemployed and semi-literate thugs on benefits" are wrong as they have not taken into account how these people ended up in this position. There are many factors which can contribute to this, such as, being born into a family of low class with little money or even unemployment which could have been passed down from generation to generation, and therefore they are victims of poverty by their own families. Also, just because people live on schemes does not necessarily mean that they can not achieve well in all areas of life and that they can not be bothered to work, it is most likely that there was a time of high unemployment and teenage pregnancies which were recoreded in a particular place but I cannot say what relation this has to the rest of the UK, and this could have therefore participated in creating this stereotype.
On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that the rate of unemployment is rising as benefits are now easier to obtain due to government laws and entitlement to benefits and unemployment is now being passed through generations of families, as it can be said that people learn their social behaviour from their parents and this has a very strong influence on the child. This can be the same for teenage pregnancy as sex at a young age and before marriage is far more popular and accepted in society compared with previous generations so there is a higher chance of young women becoming pregnant. However I can not comment on the link between high teenage pregancies and unemployment in schemes as I have no statistical evidence, only theories.

Status

Personally, things which have been ascribed to me are those that I have had no choice in: such as being Scottish, white and of a certain class and being female,but some could argue that female attibutes are achieved, for example, my level of knowledge and ability to understand others in society. For me, a thing I can think of that is achieved is being a school pupil as I have personally made the choice to return to school to complete my sixth year.

A certain status which can be either ascribed or achieved is a social class as some people are born into families of a lower class and are therefore more likely to underachieve at school due to the imitation of parents and peers who did not achieve much at school and therefore did not get well paid jobs so cannot afford for the child to go to university. This can cause the child to underachieve as they feel there is no point in doing well at school if they cannot use these grades to get anywhere career-wise. Whereas, this can also be described as achieved as students can choose to take advantage of the free school system and try to achieve the best grades possible and it is true that people do not necessarily need to go to university to get a well paid job.

I also think that 'norms' are an important thing to recognise when thinking about status as it is true that people of certain classes act in ways which are seen as the normal way to act and in the way that is most accepted, but the norm can differ from class to class and also in different situations. For example, it is seen as the norm to wear ball gowns at a very formal event but it would not be the norm to wear a ball gown to go to the supermarket to do the shopping. Also, it can be said that the norm changes in different situations as there is a certain way in which people act, for example, at an informal party, but they would not normally act in such a way in a school setting rather than a party situation.