美國家庭的性別角色分工及其所致的不平等

摘 要：功能主義認為，家庭履行著確保社會及其個體生存的基本功能。在美國家庭中，性別角色是家庭成員勞動分工的依據，但是這種劃分使女性處在相對不利的地位。同時性別角色社會化使家庭內的分工及夫妻間的不平等的狀況延續下去。這種家庭內部的分工使女性一定程度上喪失了經濟獨立。但家庭本身并不一定孕育矛盾。只要依據性別角色所進行的嚴格分工不再控制人們的思想，家庭內部的經濟平等和夫妻平等是可以實現的。

Abstract:Family is， from the functionalist view， the institution where all the essential functions are performed to ensure the survival of the whole society and its individuals. Within American family， all the work is divided by sex roles. However， such division of labour renders women in an inferior position. Moreover， the socialization of sex roles reinforces the division of labour within the family， perpetuating the self-fulfilling prophecy of inequality between spouses. The economic dependency of women slows down their pursuit of equality， but family doesn’t intrinsically harbour the conflict. If the rigid division of labour based on sex roles relents its grip on people’s mind， economical codependency and equality can be achieved within family.

關鍵詞：家庭：美國婦女；性別角色；分工；不平等

Key words:family; American women; sex roles; division of work; inequality

[中圖分類號]：D081 [文獻標識碼]：A

[文章編號]：1002-2139(2012)-14-0202-02

1、Sex Roles in Economic Cooperation from the Functionalist Perspective and the Conflict Perspective

From the functionalist perspective， family is an institution that serves both the interests of the whole society and that of each individual. Within a family， each member plays his or her role to make the institution function to meet the needs of the society and the individuals. In American family， the rigid sex roles help divide the duties between husband and wife so each duty is assigned according to the different physical and psychological traits of men and women.

The division makes some sense， especially before industry society when a lot of work did require mammoth strength to finish， however it fails to stand up to scrutiny. Moreover， some feminists point out that the sex roles in the division of work lead men and women to stand in unequal positions where women have to rely solely on their husbands to get all the necessities in life while men enjoy the comfort provided by women， which is not strictly necessary to their survival. In a word， while the sex roles ensure the function of a family (not necessarily smoothly) and in a larger scope， the whole society， the division is not all that sensible， particularly in modern society and it puts women economically dependent， hence the inferior status to their husbands in a family in American society.

2、The Lesser Role Women Play in Economic Cooperation in American Family

From the conflict perspective， the division of work based on sex roles renders women in an inferior position. Some conflict theories have argued that the arrangement of family as an institution is designed to benefit some people more than others. In America， men seem to be the favoured party. The statement surely contains some element of truth， considering that husbands carry the main responsibility to provide for the whole family. With great responsibility comes great power. So in American family， the husband exerts authority， whether he seeks it or not. He is the source of income， so his job security and comfort should be the priorities in the family and even those insignificant decisions are subjected to overriding importance of the husband’s comfort. An in America， the wealth a family possessed is directly linked to the family’s status in society， which adds an extra edge to the husband’s claim of “the head of the family” as he is the main， if not the sole source of the income. So everything revolves around the needs of the husband and his career so the family can secure and still better， promote the income and the status.

Women’s dependent status in economy leaves them little choice but to step behind their husbands and if a divorce is obtained， they are more likely to face economic problems. So in a sense， the “feminization of poverty” stems mainly from women’s sex role in family.

3、Socialization of Sex Roles in American Family

For most individuals， family is the earliest and the most significant institution for socialization. A person cannot fully become a part of the society until he or she is socialized， namely the internalization of the values， norms， beliefs of the culture. The process， starting from the very beginning of one’s life will affect one’s thinking and behaviours for the long years ahead. In America， most infants are born to a family where the division of labour based on sex roles is clearly defined. The parents， having themselves grown up in such a family， often place their children under the influence of the stereotyped upbringing as well. It is from here that the rigid sex roles take root in the generations to come， making the division of labour and the subsequent inequality a self-fulfilling prophecy.【1】

Ever since the birth of a child， parents start the process of socialization. Sex-linked differences have been observed as early as six months since the birth. Baby girls are shown tender feelings while boys are expected to be relatively independent towards their mothers. And “in the first year or two， the parents reinforce those behaviours independent of any internal motives.【2】” Because mothers mostly stay at home and fathers are always away working， the division of labour is observed early in their socialization. Children can differentiate clearly between women’s work and men’s work and are aware of the authority is in the hands of their fathers who are the sole or main source of income. Throughout their school age， the rigid sex roles are reinforced both by their parents and by other influences outside the family. In “The Feminine Mystique” Betty Friedan was appalled to learn that college girls wouldn’t let themselves get interested in academic activities because they are considered unfeminine.【1】 Steeped in such culture， few women recognise the unfairness and even fewer can break the convention under the pressure of others’ opinion. No wonder it is suggested that the division of labour between men and women is the result of socialization， not biology. Thus it should be “Society is destiny” instead of Freud’s famous and influencial “Anatomy is destiny”.

In general， the socialization of sex roles reinforces and perpetuates the inequality between men and women， and instead of standing up against the simplified overgeneralization， women are taught to live up to the expectation labeled as women by society.

4、Conclusion

The division of labour in American family based on rigid sex roles， from the functionalist view， is key to the survival and function of the society and the individuals. However， the role assigned to women reduces their importance in the family. Still worse， the socialization of sex roles reinforces the disadvantaged place of women for generations to come， and nips any thought of breaking away from the stereotype in the bud. However， it does not necessarily mean， as some radical feminists suggest， that there is something wrong with the whole idea of family. Equality between husband and wife can be achieved by breaking the rigid stereotype of sex roles. The problem is that with the firm and prevailing belief of such division of labour， it is hard to discard the traditional ideas. Still， what with the increasing awareness of the unfairness and the unreasonableness in the division of labour， there is already a strong trend towards equality between spouses.

Notes:

【1】Barbara Sinclair Deckard，The Women’s Movement: Political， Socioeconomic， and Psychologocai Issues (1975: New York:Harper Row， 1975)， p. 27

【2】Susan Goldberg， Michael Lewis， “Play Behaviour in the Year-old Infant: Early Sex Differences，” Judith M. Bardwick， ed.， Readings on the Psychology of Women (Ney York: Harper Row， 1972)， pp. 30-33.

【3】Betty Friedan， The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell publishing co.， inc， 1956)， pp. 144-145

Bibliographies

[1]、Deckard， Barbara Sinclair， The Women’s Movement: Political， Socioeconomic， and Psychologocai Issues (1975: New York:Harper Row， 1975).

[2]、Goldberg， Susan， Lewis， Michael， “Play Behaviour in the Year-old Infant: Early Sex Differences，” Judith M. Bardwick， ed.， Readings on the Psychology of Women (Ney York: Harper Row， 1972).

[3]、Friedan， Betty， The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell publishing co.， inc， 1956)