Sociologists Broadly Discuss Three Gender Ideologies

Sociologists Broadly Discuss Three Gender Ideologies That Drive Contem

Sociologists broadly discuss three gender ideologies that drive contemporary divisions of labor in the home: traditionalism, neotraditionalism, and egalitarianism. Traditionalists believe men should be responsible for earning income and women should be responsible for housework and childcare. They advocate for specialization: splitting unpaid and paid work so that each partner does more of one than the other. These traditional breadwinner/homemaker marriages are seen mostly at the highest and lowest family income levels. Neotraditionalists believe that a woman should be able to work if she desires, but only if it doesn’t interfere with her “real” duty to take care of her husband and children. These are breadwinner/superspouse marriages where breadwinners focus on work and their spouse both works and takes care of the home. Superspouses do most of the second shift and the majority of invisible work: the intellectual, mental, and emotional work of parenting and household maintenance. Egalitarians: Most men and women today are neither traditionalists nor neo-traditionalists; they’re egalitarians. They prefer relationships in which both partners do their fair share of breadwinning, housekeeping, and childrearing. Think back to your own childhood experience, keeping these ideologies in mind.

Paper For Above instruction

Reflecting on my own childhood, I recognize that my parents held distinct gender ideologies that influenced their division of labor and their relationship dynamics. My mother predominantly adopted an egalitarian approach, sharing household responsibilities and supporting my father’s work commitments. Conversely, my father tended toward traditional views, emphasizing the importance of his role as the primary breadwinner. Over time, their perspectives evolved, partly due to changing societal norms and their personal experiences. For example, my mother became more supportive of my father taking on more household tasks, recognizing the importance of shared responsibility, whereas my father progressively acknowledged the benefits of a more balanced division of labor, especially as his work hours increased. During their marriage, they negotiated their roles through consistent communication and mutual adjustment, though at times one parent’s preferences prevailed, especially when external stressors, like work demands, became intense. When they divorced and remarried, their new spouses’ gender ideologies differed. My mother remarried someone with more traditional views, emphasizing male breadwinning and female homemaking, while my father’s second wife embraced an egalitarian approach, aligning more closely with my mother’s initial beliefs. These shifts impacted the actual division of labor in each household, with my mother’s remarriage reinforcing traditional roles, whereas my father’s second marriage reflected a more shared approach. Therefore, the actual division often aligned with their respective ideologies, but external factors like employment and societal expectations also played significant roles.

Looking ahead, I desire an egalitarian relationship, where both partners contribute equally to earning, household chores, and childcare because I believe this fosters mutual respect, emotional intimacy, and shared responsibilities. Many individuals my age are likely to prefer similar egalitarian arrangements, influenced by contemporary gender norms and personal values emphasizing equality. Factors such as education level, exposure to diverse perspectives, and societal trends will shape these preferences. Understanding the fluidity of gender ideologies highlights the importance of flexibility and communication in building relationships that reflect personal values and societal realities. As society evolves, so do perceptions of gender roles, making it essential to critically assess and choose the ideology that best aligns with one’s own beliefs and circumstances.

References

• Wade, L., & Ferree, M. M. (2019). Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions. New York: WW Norton.
• Connell, R. W. (2005). Genders. Stanford University Press.
• Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
• Nash, J. (2014). Race, Gender, and the State. Routledge.
• West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.
• England, P. (2010). The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149–166.
• Silverstein, M., & Ruef, M. (2006). Housework: The Link Between Gender and Care. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(2), 57–70.
• Blair-Loy, M. (2003). Competing Devotions: Career and Family Help Professionals Color the Ideology of Commitment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(4), 398–435.
• Gutmann, A. (2007). Changing Minds and Endings, and the Politics of Family and Gender. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 15(4), 351–377.
• Sherif, N., & Deaux, K. (2001). When Gender Is Not Enough: The Impact of Multiple Social Identities and Social Context in Role Expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(2), 106–124.