| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
It is not only financial pressures that women and couples have come to endure. The onset of a number of social dilemmas and problems can be traced back to confusion and a lack of guidance over social responsibilities, although liberal individualists may interpret such shortcomings as welcome freedom. Men and women may lead independent, indeed irresponsible, lives but the birth of a child brings with it a shared responsibility that needs to be managed. Working parents have a limited amount of time with their children, an issue of considerable regret as surveys indicatexiii and there is confusion over responsibilities towards children in respect of time, commitment, values, and whether or not to divide or share tasks between couples. While women increasingly confront the assumption that they are primarily responsible for the care of children, it appears that the popular perception among men is that they are not.xiv Some couples may share responsibilities but the numbers of single parent families are rising, as are children available for adoption, teenage pregnancies, abortions, and 'unintended' births. The impact has been to burden parents with numerous social and financial dilemmas and to burden society with the impact of their inevitable mistakes.
A Great Disruption?
In his book 'The Great Disruption', Francis Fukuyama points to the, "…negative social trends, which together reflect a weakening of social bonds and common values in Western societies…" understanding the causes of which he dedicates a book. He contends that the onset of service based industries and the independence provided by the invention of oral contraceptives in the 60s and 70s unleashed women to the labour markets, a trend which has subsequently compromised traditional family structures. The breakdown in family structures and the loss of 'social capital' in the west he asserts, has subsequently created crime, insecurity and moral decline. But the technological advances which delivered the computer and the pill were not the cause of women entering employment; but rather tools for advocates of women's liberation, as the Economist magazine points out.xv It is ironic, that while heralding the triumph of liberal democracies in 'The End of History and the Last Man', Fukuyama admits that individualism (which consequently led to the basis of feminism) now compromises social stability: "The tendency of contemporary liberal democracies to fall prey to excessive individualism is perhaps their greatest long-term vulnerability and is particularly visible in the most individualistic of all democracies, the United States".xvi
This increasing confusion over social responsibility has prompted some to attempt to identify the most appropriate social setting for children, families and society as a whole. Indeed, none other than Jack Straw, when he was British home secretary, wrote in his introduction to 'Supporting Families': "The evidence is that children are best brought up where you have two natural parents and it is more likely to be a stable family if they are married. It plainly makes sense for the government to do what it can to strengthen the institution of marriage", a view fought vociferously by radical feminists in his own party.xvii But promoting 'stable' family structures in the context of expanding dual income families, as women seek empowerment in the labour markets, and the costs of childcare, is fraught with dilemmas, complications, and apparent paradoxes.
The heart of the problem in the current framework lies in the paradox created by trading-off liberal individualism and the need for social cohesion; liberating women from traditional family settings and the need for stable homes; challenging men's monopoly on earnings and the disadvantage created by women's child-bearing nature; seeking equality with men and appropriating for human differences. The logic of each creates an impasse.
Roles & Responsibilities
Western societies have increasingly rejected the notion of different roles and responsibilities between men and women to handle their increasing social dilemmas, as part of a social construct of gender and a disadvantageous division of labour. However, the questioning of social construct, both social roles and policy, by feminist thinkers has largely been to undermine historically western assumptions about women. No right to vote; to own property or to dispose of income as one wishes; denied access to education and work; considered meaningless in political and intellectual circles; regarded as inferior to men-all these describe the condition of women in European history. It seems appropriate to undermine these assumptions, indeed to reject them, as it does challenge this subjugated feminine construct. But it would be short-sighted to reject all beliefs about social relationships between men and women on the back of European experience and the roles it appropriated its women.
From the discussion on managing differences, it appears that even after deconstructing social roles and constructs, the reality of men and women lead us back to conclude that some social system is needed to regulate their relationships, to prevent subjugation, abuse of rights and manage disputes between them. A framework is needed to articulate responsibilities and rights that men, women and children have towards each other. Thus, should we reject the notion of a 'social construct' per se, or specifically those false 'social constructs' that lead to the subjugation of either sex?
But in a secular framework, an answer is difficult as it is trapped in gender polarisation. Either it is men that decide roles and responsibilities, or women. Whoever decides, they will fuel accusations of bias, preference, and privilege towards the deciding sex, by strengthening either patriarchy or matriarchy. In the development of the debate in the West these are the accusations that arguably rendered the appropriation of roles irrelevant in the first place.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 2 3 4 5 6 >
Page 4 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
