In today’s capitalist society social reproduction is needed to ensure that there is a new generation of workers to replace older workers as they retire. Social reproduction has been the way of reproduction throughout history, to have children to replace both parents to ensure population growth and to build a new generation of labourers. Social reproduction is still a part of today’s world and is achieved many different ways. Teaching the next generation how to be part of the workplace can be learned in the home through the family roles and out in the world through institutions like school and peers. This gives the next generation lessons on how they will be treated when they are older, ranking them through grades in school and creating class …show more content…
Armstrong (1990), would also include the nuclear family ideal in describing social reproduction, given that the women would aid in childbearing and domestic household work, while the male breadwinner would provide an income for the family. Armstrong (1990), states that the nuclear family is essential in the social reproduction process as it creates a new labour force. Social reproduction is proved to work best in a patriarchal society as women are expected to stay home while their husbands are in the labour force. Armstrong (1990), would state that the male breadwinner is needed to provide income, clothing, shelter and food to thus have the means to start creating a family for social reproduction. Social reproduction is highly praised in a capitalist economy, as employers are not paying any money to provide the next generation of workers, women have been doing it at no cost for all these years. The domestic work provided by women like raising children and looking after the household, creating no surplus value and this is often ignored (Federici, 2012). Therefore, social reproduction can be considered the norm in society and is not considered an issue in a capitalist society, as it provides the next labour force at no …show more content…
Women in the labour market are constantly not considered to be equal to their male counterparts, as seen by the ongoing wage gap between men and women. This major social problem has been rooted back to when women first entered the workforce, leaving the household behind. Gaskell (1991), states that clerical work was once considered a highly profound occupation until it became a job for women, then the skill involved instantly became devalued. Social reproduction enforces the idea that women should stay in the home taking care of the domestic responsibilities in the home, so when women entered the workplace their jobs often replicated domestic work. Federici (2012), acknowledges that Karl Marx believed that the man provides greatly for the family, yet ignoring the reproductive and domestic work of a woman. As time went on it became no longer feasibly possible for only one breadwinner and women became more prevalent in the workplace as two incomes were now needed (Brenner, 2000). Brenner (2000, p. 308) states, “male dominance continues, because feminism has been signally unable to win significant changes in the organization of social reproduction”. This quote thus proving that the idea of social reproduction still exists in the fact that women are still seen as caregivers and expected in the
Preventing poverty and improving the school system can help prevent class reproduction, but Macleod argues that, "what is required is the creation of a truly open society--a society where the life chances of those at the bottom are not radically different from those at the top and where wealth is distributed more equitably" (260). Until structural inequality is eliminated, wealth is more evenly distributed, and discrimination between classes ends, social reproduction will be to well known by society.
She argues that men have professions and other duties that focus their minds and help to develop reason “whilst women, on the contrary, have no other scheme to sharpen their faculties” (Wollstonecraft 2004, 77). Women spend most of their time tending to the house and their beauty because that is what they are taught to focus on, in order to get the most out of their life. During their upbringing children are taught to follow the actions of those that share the same gender as them. This causes drastic differences between the sexes because there is no opportunity to overlap the characteristics of the two genders to create a more coherent and equal society. In relation to that, Marx states that all citizens, no matter their status, should have the right to private property and freedom to do as they wish with the labor they produce. Marx (1988, 81) believes “private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself.” The deprivation of the laborers from control of their own products causes their alienation not only from the products but also the rest of society, which ultimately creates an unstable form of community. This instability will eventually
A woman in the workplace was common but they did not receive the pay they deserved. Often, a woman’s job was the same as the previous male, but they did these jobs for 53% of the male’s pay. (Tolman) Eventually many woman and men went on strike demanding equal pay.
Women throughout history have been considered to have an active role in the family life as the caretakers, while the men are considered the “breadwinners” of the family. However, a few women still have had to provide for their families throughout the years and as a result have sought employment in industries that “were highly segregated by sex” (Goldin 87). Women employm...
In the 1890s, female factory workers were seen as a serious economic and social threat. Because women generally worked at the bottom of the pay scale, the theory was that they depressed the overall pay scale for all workers (Kessler-Harris 98). Many solutions were suggested at this time that all revolved around the idea of these women getting marriedóthe idea being that a married woman would not work for wages. Although this idea seems ludicrous from a modern perspective, it should be noted that t...
This paper explores the nuclear family within the context of the sociology of gender. Michael Kimmel and Jacqueline Holler (2011) indicatethat conservative social groups such as REAL Women of Canada define the nuclear family in terms of the 1950s gender norms reflected in popular television shows such as of Leave it to Beaver(Kimmel & Holler, p. 141).In this type of traditional family dad goes out to work to support the family and mom stays home to watch the children and take care of the home. Kimmel and Holler reference the view that the nuclear family involves “a legal lifelong sexually exclusive, heterosexual monogamous marriage, based on affection and companionship, in which there is a sharp division of labour with the female as full time housewife and the male as primary provider and ultimate authority” (Kimmel & Holler, p. 141). Atraditional or nuclearfamily such as that described by Kimmel and Holler is typically made up of the father,the mother and atleast one child. The relationship between the man and the woman is heterosexual, they are legally married and their children are ideally produced through sexual union rather than adoption (Class Notes, 01/28/14).
Warren Farrell is a well educated man who focuses his attention on gender. In his essay “Men as Success Objects,” he writes about gender roles in male-female relationships. He begins, “for thousands of years, marriages were about economic security and survival” (Farrell 185). The key word in that statement is were. This implies the fact that marriage has changed in the last century. He relates the fact that post 1950s, marriage was more about what the male and female were getting out of the relationship rather than just the security of being married. Divorce rates grew and added to the tension of which gender held the supremacy and which role the individuals were supposed to accept. “Inequality in the workplace” covered up all of the conflicts involved with the “inequality in the homeplace”(Farrell). Farrell brings to attention all ...
The workplace became masculinized, and the home feminized. By the separation of the masculine and feminine spheres that had been promoted, men and women now lived in separate worlds. By the turn of the twentieth century, men realized that their exclusion from the domestic sphere was, in fact, harmful to them: It left men “unable to experience the love, nurture and repose that the home supposedly represented” (Kimmel 158). Men were also worried at the “feminization” that potentially threatened their sons: men feared that women, who had the main responsibility for the upbringing of the children, would make the sons into
Fraternization in the workplace is often not thought of as an ethical issue; however, in some cases it may be. Fraternization, according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as spending time with a person in a way that may be considered inappropriate. There are many reasons that fraternizing is believed to exist. One reason for that is working long hours and being at work with coworkers more than at home with family. Dating in the workplace does not always cause problems, but it can lead to distraactions for those involved and for those on the outside fo the relationship.
In 1994 Kenrick introduced “Parental Investment Theory”. He claimed society is organised so that women are protected and remain faithful, ensuring men are able to impart their genes to future generations. This also allows for women to be selective to ensure their partner provides food, shelter and other basic human necessities.
“Women’s movement spoke of moral purity, whereas feminists emphasized rights and self-development” (Norton et al. 555). Although feminists took a more demanding and formidable approach to achieve their goals, they still held on to the gentler side of their sexuality. “Charlotte Perkins Gilman, author of Women and Economics (1898) is a major figure and one of the most influential feminists in this social evolution. She argued that roles as domestic servants have become obsolete” (Norton et al. 555). However, without the cult of domesticity, men would not have been able to attain the wealth they have. “Gilman stated that the labor of women in the house, certainly, enables men to produce more wealth that they otherwise could; and in this way women are economic factors in society” (Gilman 13). Men’s authoritative attitudes however, hinder women’s opportunity to receive economic independence. As a result, Gilman emphasized that women who are seen as property of men and obliged to perform domestic duties without getting paid for it, must be economically independent. Women and Economics gained popularity for the new term “feminism” as Gilman further called for women to earn their economic independence within the male dominated
Is the exploitation of women in the home through an unfair division of labor a result of the beginnings of capitalism? Is this exploitation in the home a cause of other inequalities, mainly those in the wage labor market? Is capitalism bolstered by already existing patriarchal social relations, or is capitalism continuing to reinforce patriarchal systems? Finally is it possible to liberate women and reach true equality in our current capitalist economy? These are the main questions I will examine throughout my paper.
It is, therefore, natural for most companies to think that women cannot be as capable as men in terms of assuming strenuous or challenging positions because women, by default, become less participatory and more vulnerable when they start to have family and children. Apparently, this situation has led to various gender discriminations in the labor market. In conclusion, although the roles of men and women have radically changed over the turn of the century, it is still inevitable to have various gender-related occupational differences because the social and biological roles of women and men do not really change. Society still perceives women as the home makers and men as the earners, and this perception alone defines the differing roles of men and women in the labor market.
Before the Feminist movement, women were stay at home moms and rarely left the house. They were not independent at all. Times have changed and women are now as strong and independent as men. It brought women out of the household, and into the workforce, changing the economy greatly. On the other hand, there are still anti-feminist, such as Phyllis Schlafly, who believe women don’t need equal pay, that they should be dependent on men. She recently argued, “Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don 't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate. ... Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate”,
Women’s subordination within the labour market is seen by Marxist feminists as suiting the needs of capitalism as women are considered a ‘reserve army of labour’ as they are a more disposable part of the workforce. According to Beechey (1986) women are a cheap ‘reserve army of labour’ that are brought in during economic booms but then thrown out during slumps. Women are often not members of trade unions and are prepared to work for less money as their wage could be a second income. This benefits capitalism as a group of unemployed people looking for work creates competition and exploitation. Employers are given an advantage which allows them to reduce wages and increase the rate of exploitation. Benston (1972) supports this as women are used to benefitting the operation of the capitalist economy by carrying out unprepared work in the home. This proves that patriarchy dominates women which leads to women’s subordination. Hartmann (1981) believes that patriarchy and the economy both play a crucial role in explaining and understanding gender inequality. Historically, men have controlled women especially by control of labour power. This can come through legislation that operates economically to the benefit of men, for example Maternity and Paternity Rights. This proves that patriarchy and economics together explains gender inequality. However, Walby (1986) argues that women staying at home can actually harm capitalism because if women were to compete for jobs with men this would lower wages and increase profits. Women who earn also have superior spending power which would boost the economy and benefit