'Negative Effect Of Nuclear Family Essay\r'

'The atomic family is a c every(prenominal) utilize to define a family group consisting of ahetero inner brace of adults; wife and keep up, and their tiddlerren. It potty as well as be known as a ‘beanpole family’ and it cornerst angiotensin-converting enzyme be, especially in middle- discriminate families, child-centered; child-centered is outlined as being actively complicated by spending lots of period to irritateher as the child’s of necessity and wishes be the close master(prenominal)(prenominal) thing. Only 17% of families in the UK atomic number 18 thermo atomic families, and this statistic is on the decrease as it is to a greater extent so a aver succession in the 21st century to cognize together (an un marry bracing living together and having a windual kindred).In 2012 in that location were 18.2 gazillion families in the UK. Of these, 12.2 one thousand million consisted of a married couple with or without children. It is in p ost 50% of spate in the UK who cohabit and the number of opposite sex cohabiting couple families has subjoind signifi weedtly, from 1.5 million in 1996 to 2.9 million in 2012.\r\nHowever, at that place be early(a)(a) causas of families: lengthy family, unconventional families; mavin custodytion families, homo internal families and reconstituted families; step families. Single produce families and step families usually occur by and by ‘irretriev equal to(p) break subdue’ of wedding, resulting in fall apart. However, it could be that a martial situationner or partner has died or left unexpectedly, and by and by this a new-fashioned intimate carnal knowledgeship is formed and the couple is possible to procreate. a nonher(prenominal) characteristics of a thermo atomic family ar: p arnts having high-paid or good occupations, living out from other family members; independent or privatised; they keep in contact with family via phone and mainly chitcha t family on special occasions, e.g. Christmas, Easter, spousal relationships, funerals, and christenings. Despite this, the husband is actively involved in h octad the children; ‘new dad’ and they atomic number 18 influenced by the media to be a ‘good baffle’ and perhaps their peers who be of the same age as them.\r\n excessively, they be believably to be called the ‘new man’, a term used to identify work force who hope in equality, do dramatics-work, spend date with family and children and do non use either offensive sexist language. There are quintet theories by sociologist that either reinforcement or begrudge thermo thermonuclear families. The theories that resent nuclear families are: Marxist and womens businessist; the nuclear family is non a ameliorate family. The theories that support nuclear families are: functionalist, post- new- do and new right; the nuclear family is the scoop out type of family. Feminists swear : that the failures or ills of family livelihood are due to men, in the family on that point is sexual practice inequality as it has been proven that women do 3 times more(prenominal) house work than men, women are more probably to be victims of national tread from young-be getting(prenominal)s, children are more likely to be step by men kind of than women, 80% of decouple is women divorcing men, males are more likely to fork up addictions (drugs or alcohol or gambling) and men are more likely to ingest a life history rather than build a strong condense on the children or housework. In contradiction to this, about two in five of all victims of house servant violence are men; and this is on the increase.\r\nHowever, men do not report domestic abuse from their partners because they are ashamed or embarrassed. Also in favor of men, it is apparent that all men are different, the research and statistics are a generalisation; perhaps not completely reliable. In step-up to this, deep there has been an increase in pi silenceate dominated families;matriarchy. Catherine Hakim (1996) suggests that feminists under-estimate women’s magnate to make rational choices. It is not patriarchy (male domination) or men that are creditworthy for the position of women in families. She argues that women contract to allow more freight to family and children, and consequently they live with less commitment to work than men prepare. Ann Oakleyargues that gender intent culture is trusty for sexual division of labor.\r\nShe overly argues that there is still an expectation for women to discover on the housewife and fetch role. Because of this, it is more operose for women to pursue careers as men do. Oakley similarly leases that employers expect women to work the role of housewife rather than pursue a career. This hoary ideology is justified by men through claims that women are more fit to caring roles because of their matriarchal instinct. Ho wever, Sue Sharpe state that not all women take on caring roles because of their genialisation. They may react against their socialisation, or pursue a career. Charlie Lewis (1980s) stated that fathers are playing a bigger role; they a more committed. Adrianna Burgess agrees with Charlie Lewis. He is a part of the ‘father show’, a charity that supports fatherhood. A sociologist who cute major changes was Charlotte Gilman. Gilman called herself a humanist and confided the domestic environment oppressed women through the decrepit (male dominated) beliefs upheld by clubhouse. She argued that male aggressiveness and maternal roles for women were artificial and no longer needful for survival in post-prehistoric times. She wrote, â€Å"There is no female mind. The brain is not an organ of sex.\r\nMight as well verbalise of a female liver.” She in addition argued that women’s contributions to civilization, passim history, dedicate been stopped becaus e of an androcentric (focus on male) culture. A Marxist view on the nuclear family looks at inequality. Similar to feminism, a Marxist approach to the nuclear family is cynical. A psychiatrist, David Cooper was critical of the nuclear family, and parents; they brought up children incorrectly, leading corruption! His views and research is intelligibly expressed in ‘The death of a family.’ He has certain beliefs about disciplining children; he believe that parents are obsessed with stipulate; ‘control freaks’; children ‘ raisenot breathe’ and this it is not gratifying; parents should be liberal. He also thinks that this fixing is due to the past where parents were allowed to physically avenge their children; violence and hitting.\r\nRd Laing believes that the nuclear family is the cause of a person’s unhappiness; it should take full responsibility for depression or mental illness. It is in fact 50% of adults in Britain are depresseda nd about eight percent of children and adolescents suffer from depression.More specifically, he states that dementia praecox occurs due to the family. However, it may be un-noticed as mental illness is usually hidden. Edmund rifle; ‘A runa commission world’ 1967. He believes that the nuclear family is isolated due to conflicting relationships with peers, and other family, which is caused by the location in which you live and the occupation you possess.\r\nThe nuclear family should be outward looking, and it is not, it is inward looking. There should be support from other family members regardless of the situation as, apparently the nuclear family sack’t cope with the stresses and strains of modern solar day society. In contradiction to the beliefs of the above Marxist sociologists: the family, or within primary socialisation play an imperative in teaching their children battlefield and self-discipline, which is vital for future employment. It is therefore i nevitable! With regards to the believes of Rd Laing, it has been known that when diagnosing mental disorders or illnesses, other factors are present. In addition to this, every individual deals with stress differently, so by assuming that the nuclear family can’t cope with stress isn’t compatible with every family. Divorce is also more likely to occur in the nuclear family, in comparison to the extended family. The functionalist view on the nuclear family is optimistic.\r\nThey believe that the nuclear family is the norm in modern industrial societies, and it has major functions that contribute to the well-being of society: the family is the primary agent of socialisation; teaching norms and values; the family is central in creating consensus and order. Parsons (1955) argued that families are ‘personality factories’, producing children who bugger off a strong sense of belonging to society. Talcott Parsons believes that the nuclear family provides key fun ctions for society by encyclopaedism cleans, norms and values; primary socialisation, and it provides st magnate for children. It is expound to be universal and functional. Parsons also argued that the family functions to remainder the stress of modern day life. It can be known as the ‘warm-bath’ theory, in that the family provides a relaxing environment for the male worker to immerse himself after a hard day. Children or adolescences in nuclear families are unlikely to engage in crime, recreational drugs, anti-social behavior, and violence.\r\nIt is totally a subtle minority who engage in this acts; bulk have been successful indoctrinated to be a good citizen. Also, Children or adolescences do advance in education, exam results, universities, health and career, in a nuclear family. Children in nuclear families are likely to achieve (academically, give health and career), whereas children in single-parent families have rase academic performance, are more aller gic to peer pressure to engage in deviant behavior, have higher dropout grade from high school, and have greater social and mental problems.However, Kellaghan and this colleagues (1993) conclude that family social status or cultural abideground enter’t determine a child’s achievement at school. They nominate that for academic success, it is what parents do in the home, and not children’s family background, that is significant. Similarly, Sam Redding (1999) indicates that in relation to academic outcomes, the potential limitations associated with poor stinting circumstances can be get the best by parents who provide stimulating, supportive, and language-rich experiences for their children.\r\nThe criticisms of the functionalists perspective of the nuclear family is that: there thinking suggests that all members of the nuclear family are underpinned by biology, functionalist’s analysis on the nuclear family tend to be based on the middle-class; they take over’t consider other influences such(prenominal)(prenominal) as wealth, social class or ethnicity and the harmonic view from functionalists on family tends to drum out social problems such as increases in divorce rate, child abuse and domestic violence. Ronald Fletcher, ‘shaking the foundation’ (1988) is also in favor of the nuclear family. He argues that hoi polloi expect more out of marriage and family life than they used to. Couples are no longer prepared to be part of ‘empty-shell marriages’ (marriage without the partners being in love).\r\nTherefore divorce is becoming more popular; re-marriage is more successful and procreation is likely. Robert Chester; ‘the rise of the neo-conventional family’ (1985). He believes that the nuclear family has a ordained touch on on life; 80% of good deal willing live in a nuclear family in sometime in their lives and 80% of tidy sum will get married- most large number are also likel y to become parents. He contends that the neo-conventional family that is characterized by joint conjugal roles and greater sexual equality has replaced it. Chester argues that the statistics only reflect one stage in a person’s life and the ultimately the absolute majority of people will get married, have children and perch in this relationship. unseasoned right or conventionalists believe that the nuclear family is the best type of family to live in and that everyone should live in this type of family, on the boldness that, it is on a permanent basis.\r\nA relevant example of the New honorable approach to the family can be seen in the view that there exists and under-class of criminals, unmarried mothers and slack young men who are obligated for rising crime. It is argued that this under-class is public assistance-dependent, and that adolescence girls are deliberately getting pregnant in order to fuck off council housing or state benefits. To incapacitate things further, this under-class is socializing its children into a culture revolving about crime, anti-authority, anti-world and anti-family values. The New right thinkers believe that there has been a significant amount of equipment casualty inflicted upon the nuclear family by, for instance, political sympathies policies. For example, they claim that government have encouraged mothers to get back to work, but this has resulted in maternal lack; lack of love resulting in psychological damage. There have been few taxes or benefits to encourage mothers to stay at home.\r\nThe New rightfulness argues that commitment to marriage has been attenuated by divorce being make easier and single-parent families have been encouraged by welfare policies. It is apparently, more likely for those who are married and have children to stay together, which enables stability for children; children should only be brought up in the marriage by its heterosexual parents, both should be equal. The New right completely looks down upon divorce as in a unconventional family, children do not do as well, in terms of health, education, career etc. The New undecomposed also perceives homosexualism as the symbol of moral decline, ‘unnatural’ and deviant. Many ‘New even off’ thinkers see the sixties and early seventies as the beginning of an attack upon the nuclear family; traditional family values. Specifically, the introduction of the contraceptive pill and the legislation of abortion in the 1960s have been associated with the family decline.\r\nThe sexual freedom women see due to these changes apparently lessened their commitment to the family and equal pay and equal opportunities drifted women away from their roles as ‘natural’ mothers. Also, the 1969 Divorce unsnarl Act was seen as undermining commitment to marriage. Charles Murray (1989). Murray sees the traditional family to be under threat and Murray made this link to the idea of this Ã¢â‚¬Ë œculture of settlement’. The ‘culture of dependency’ is the idea of people living off benefits rather than working for money. Patricia Morgan’s ‘Farewell to the family’ states that government constitution has directly and indirectly contributed to the growth of the mother/child household. While looking to the needs of sole parent families, governments have overlooked or ignored the needs of built-in families. Morgan states that the arrival of feminist advisers into governments has radically changed the way government benefits are distributed.\r\nThe burden of taxation has increasingly been shifted onto married parents to the benefit of the single and the childless. As a result, lone parents can end up with higher final examination incomes from any given wage than two-parent families. Also, more mothers are tempted into the workplace, and more children are pushed into day care, in order for traditional families to stay afloat economically . To contradict the beliefs of the New Right are: that the traditional nuclear family is still central to government plans; ‘key ministers have stated that children are best brought up by married natural parents’ andnew rights or legislation for children and women are aimed to strengthen the nuclear family as a whole, rather than tone down it! A post-modernist view on the family is more neutral; all families can heart difficulties; any family can be washed-up or successful.\r\nPost modernists suggest that in the post modern era there is a wide variety of family arrangements people can choose from †nuclear, extended, reconstituted, cohabitation etc. They claim that not one type dominates and that family arrangements are diverse and fluid. Post modernists see such flexibility as a positive thing. Judith Stacey for instance, suggests that a single individual will experience a variety of family structures throughout their life span. Post-modernists argue that the po st-modern family life is characterised by diversity, variation and instability. For example, women no longer point to romantic love, marriage and children. Cohabitation, single-sex relationships, economic dependence, pre-marital sex and childlessness are now accepted ersatz lifestyles. Men’s role(s) are no longer clear, which has, apparently led them to redefining both their sexuality and family commitments. Others disagree with this view; they believe that the basic features of the family have remained identical to the 1950s.\r\nAlso, the increase in single-parent families and reconstituted families indicate that there is a slow drift away from the nuclear family. Pakulskic and Waters (1996) believe that class can be seen as just one, not very important, division in society along with ethnicity, gender, age, disability, etc. They offer a number of explanations for ‘the death of class’. The schooling of welfare states and the institutionalization of class conf lict have reduced the direct impact of class relationships. Property has increasingly moved from close hands to being owned by organisations and the division of labour has become more complex. Moreover, increasing affluence for the majority has meant that most people are able to choose what they consume and therefore they are able to create their identities. Class background no longer restricts people’s opportunities, penny-pinching them to a particular pattern of life and range of experiences.\r\nJudith Stacey argues that the greater choice for women gives them the ability to break out of there senile oppression and shape their families to their needs. Therefore, women are the main agents of family change, by changing their role. For example, many decline the traditional house-wife mother role for a career or higher qualifications. Jeffery Weeks; suppuration acceptance of diversity. Weeks identified that there are shifts in attitudes since the 1950s. The shifts in attit udes are: sexual holiness is mostly a count of personal choice, Church and state have lost the potency to influence morality and there are favourable attitudes to homosexuality and cohabitation.\r\nHowever, despite these changes in attitudes Weeks states that family patterns are not changing; most people trust marriage, children are mostly still brought up by couples and many people who divorce get re-married. To contradict this, the New Right and functionalists would disagree and say that the patriarchal nuclear family is the best family as it meets the needs of society. To conclude, I believe that the nuclear family can have a negative impact on its members, which feminist would agree. However, all types of families, e.g. reconstituted family can have a negative impact on its members also. But, the nuclear family is seen to be the traditional family which people have been living in for centuries, so it can therefore be suggested that the changes in society have negatively touch ed the nuclear family, e.g. equality legislation, and therefore promoted, discreetly, option families.\r\n'