Role of men in the family

Great change in social ideology has taken place in the last thirty years. Up until the early 70s the role of the man in the family was clearly defined, both by religious and social institutions. The feminist movement brought about many changes, and the role of men became less clear. This swift shift gave rise to conflict within the family and the individual, and today it is still a matter of debate. This essay will conduct a comparative analysis the role of the man in the family. It will analyse differences in expectations and experience concerning this role, comparing my expectations and experience against those of Paul, a man thirty years older than me. The results of this analysis will show that there are significant differences between two individuals born thirty years apart, and that these differences stem from the individuals social context, that the early social models in which they developed shaped their expectation and influenced their experience.

To place Paul’s and my own life in context with his social environment it is important to introduce him and provide some details. Paul was born in 1946. He lived with his mother and father until their deaths at age of 22. He grew up in what would be described as a nuclear family. They were Catholic. His father fulfilled the role of breadwinner, while his mother fulfilled the role as homemaker. They owned their home, and had only the one child. Paul left school at fifteen and became a painter, a trade he worked in the rest of his working life. At the age of thirty, Paul met Beverly, a New Zealand immigrant, and mother of an adopted 6 year old daughter. Paul and Beverly conceived the first of two children in 1978. Paul and Beverly never married, and separated soon after the birth of their second child, in 1983. When those details are compared to my own there are notable differences. I was born in 1981 to a single mother. At the age of 31, I am single, I do not have any children, and both my parents are still alive. The difference in the details is obvious, but one must also consider the social context in which these details take place.

Paul’s view on the role of the men in the family was greatly shaped from his early life, the example set by his parents, and from the prevailing social ideology of the time (2013). Prior to the feminist movement of the 70’s the man’s role in the family was defined as provider and protector. In fact this role was proscribed by God, as described in The Marriage Education Course, 1958, in NSW, by the Oblate Catholic Centre, ‘man’s vocation in the world is to rule – First as master of the home, and then of society. It is to his care that God confides the two gentle beings, the mother and the child’ (Wearing, B. 1996: 118). This same ideology is echoed in the work of sociologists of the time, particularly Talcott Parsons, who described a functionalist system of nuclear family in two parts. Like the church’s definition, the male/husband is the ‘Instrumental’ leader, and the woman/wife the ‘expressive carer’. Furthermore, that any competition between these two systems would cause conflict and undermine family solidarity. ‘Families that did not fit this model such as the as the single parent families were considered deficient in some way’ (Wearing 1996: 119-120). Paul agreed that this was the model with which he grew up, and that in many ways this was his expectation of married life and his role within the family. ‘By the time I had my family things had changed a bit, it was still normal for the man to be the head of the household I guess, but it didn’t work out like that for me’ (2013). Paul’s expectations of family life and his role within it were similar to the experience of his earlier years; however, by the time he came to create his own family a new movement in ideology had developed, the feminist movement of the 70s. In this way, Paul was caught between two conflicting family ideologies.

Feminist theory challenged the traditional roles in the family, and that men should not only be the provider, but take an active role in the elements of homemaking.  This meant taking on the role of the carer, and being more emotional (Wearing 1996: 127). Berger (1979: 642), a psychologist of the time, expressed concern that this shift would create conflict.  Men are socially conditioned to believe that expressing emotion is unmanly. Failure is also considered unmanly. ‘As men seek to become more [nurturing] with their wives, their children, and themselves… they face dangerous consequences if they fail and also if they succeed’ (Berger 1979, 640). Meaning that if a man succeeds in becoming more nurturing he fails at being a man, and if a man fails at being nurturer he also fails to be a man through failure. When I asked Paul about his role in the family and how he felt about this changing social ideology, he responded in the affirmative, that being ‘the man of the family’, the way his father was, was no longer ‘so black and white. At the time when my kids were born I still felt unmanly to show them affection. That had become what was expected’ (2013). His experience however, turned out quite differently.  He and his partner split up, creating a single parent family. In line with what Berger had said at the time, Paul did feel guilty for having failed his family. There would certainly be many factors contributing to this experience, but it could be reasonably argued that one of the factors was the feminist shift in social ideology, and its effect on the role the man in the family. The shift had been at odds with Paul’s expectations.

Comparing Paul’s expectations and experiences to mine we see one primary difference. My expectations of the family are not in line with Parsens’ model of family because feminist theory was well established during my early years. Greater individualisation after the feminist movement gave rise to greater choice concerning how men fulfil their role. This new model of the family is often referred to as the post-familial (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 2002: 86). Growing up in this new social model, and being raised by a single mother, has produced different expectations.  In this post-familial model the family can take on many different forms and still be considered normative and not deficient, as Parsens would have commented. In my experience the family has been subject to De-patriarchalization, that is, the retreat of men’s leadership role within the family unit, and greater power and choice for each partner (Monnie 2013). Paul’s social models and early life experience were rooted in the patriarchal Parsens model. Our early social contexts are significantly different, and so our expectations and experience are also different. Modern definitions of men’s role within the family are no longer fixed; there is no clarity in its boundaries, only individual choice. It has been said ‘the second half of the 20th century “was the period of the most rapid and radical global change in the history of human gender and generational relations”’ (Monnie 2013). In the face of this rapid change a number of authors have offered their opinion on what it means to be a man in modern western society, and the man’s role within the family. Steve Biddulph (2010) in his best-selling book The New Manhood promotes a well-rounded man, who is a nurturer, provider and protector, a man who is a good role model for his children, and who is emotional and yet strong and masculine. But even his superman model comes under fire from feminists, claiming his views to be distasteful and misogynist, and rightly so in some instances (Pearce 2001: 9). While some have tried to pin down men’s role in the family, there is still no clear answer, only the choice of the individual to pick and choose and negotiate from various models.

The key differences found in this comparative study can be summarised thusly, that over a period of thirty year great social change has taken place concerning the role of the man within the family, in major part due to the feminist movement. The shift has been from Parsens’ model of the family, an essentially patriarchal system, to that of a post-familial and highly individualised system, one that is often not patriarchal. Paul was part of the Parsens’ model and so his expectations reflected its values. This was a time when the role of the man was quite certain. Paul’s experiences in his early life, the conflict, and feelings of guilt in later life can be, arguably, explained by this rapid shift in social ideology. For me, having grown up under different social ideology and in different circumstances, my expectations and experience are significantly different to Paul’s. My conflict would perhaps be the lack of certainty in this modern, highly individualised society. It will be interesting to see how the role of the men in the family will progress in the next 30 years.

References

Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002), ‘On the Way to a Post-familial Family: From a Community of Need to Elective Affinities’, Individualization, London, Polity: pp. 85-100.

Berger, M. (1979). ‘Men's New Family Roles: Some Implications for Therapists.’ The Family Coordinator 28 (4): 638-646.

Biddulph, S. (2010). ‘The New Manhood: The Handbook for a New Kind of Man.’ Sydney, Finch Publishing.

Monnier, C. (ed.)2013, ‘Family Systems in Global Times.’ Global Sociology, PDworks, https://globalsociology.pbworks.com/w/page/14711175/Family%20Systems%20i..., Accessed 18 January 2013

Pearce, S. (2001) ‘"Secret Men's Business": New Millennium Advice for Australian Boys.(portrayal of masculinity in the work of Australian authors)(Critical Essay).’ Mosaic 34 (2): 49.

Wearing, B. (1996) Gender : the pain and pleasure of difference. Melbourne, Longman Australia.