Family- Dare to change?

Mohamed Haikel Fansuri Bin Mohamed Latiff T3

HS103: Gender and family

Title: Family, Dare to change?

It is undeniable that many of the structures and traditional institutions that we once took for granted are in some level of transition. However perhaps it comes as a surprise that one of the most fundamental beliefs that we have been inculcated with for centuries is at the forefront of this change. The gender roles in society.

This is indeed a surprise for some sections of society who are still trying to come to terms with the idea of a changing gender role. The males in parts of society are still coming to terms with this fact and have been heavily affected by the transition. Hence we see a multitude of problems that have arisen from this change. There seems to be a societal lag between the new roles of women and the males who make up the other significant character in the society. But if as Scott Sernau suggests that the changing roles of family has been dominated by the rise of feminism as well as females asking for more responsibility and to be treated equally with men beginning form World War 2 onwards wouldn’t that mean that society would have had at least 50 years to adjust to the changing times?

If that is the case, then what is the reason behind the inertia? It appears as though it is not only males who are lagging behind in perceptions but also society as a whole that is lagging behind. The institutions of society do not facilitate this new drive by women. This multitude of lags has only been further exposed in the age of globalisation the impacts of which have made many groundbreaking changes to every institution in society. More importantly it is the family institution that has undergone an overhaul.

This inertia to adapt and change is best illustrated with family as a principle example. Since the era of industrialization women have begun to step out of her stereotyped family roles and had begun experimenting with earning and working outside the household. Although the earning potential of the women at this point was not essential in the context of the family economy it provided a chance for women to have a taste of things to come. This was further developed and capitalised on during the period of the war. The women were asked to perform male dominated duties to support the men to fight the war. Surely this mobilisation was orchestrated by an institution which saw the potential that women could bring. Perhaps the very institution that mobilised the women potential did not realise that this power once turned on could not be so easily turned off. As history has proven, women have grown in economic influence. More importantly they have begun to explore the same opportunities afforded to males.

Since then women’s impact has been undeniable, yet very little was done to ensure that their primary function which was to look after the family and household duties would be lightened or changed. I believe that the solutions afforded to families now such as day care and parental leave for fathers have been meant to complement the family institution which is no longer relevant in the new scheme of things. Hence problems such as the time bind as well as neglected children and divorces have begun to rise. The strain on the traditional family institution is becoming more apparent and unbearable. Therefore instead of trying to install as many crutches as possible to ensure that the institution is able to hobble along, perhaps it is time to consider a whole new system and institution which can manoeuvre better in this current climate.

This entirely new imstitution, as radical as it sounds, might offer some solutions to the problems of changing gender roles. It is obvious that gender roles will never be the same again and the stereotypes once afforded will continue to change. Hence perhaps we must look beyond the role of the family and question certain aspects of it that we have taken for granted. Consider for a moment the idea of the mother as the child bearer for instance, as we have recently seen, fertility rates are going down as women delay having children for work or decide not to have children altogether in favour of work, obviously the child does contribute positively or negatively to one's career. Judging by the trend however it would appear that negative is the current trend. Imagine if we could for an instant remove this long held stereotype that the women in the household must be the child bearer. Clearly the father cannot take over that responsibility but what if the child bearing can be outsourced somehow for a fee as it has already been practised in some places? Perhaps the developement of science or surrogate mothers might afford a reasonable answer. With this outsourcing both parents are free to concentrate on thier careers and not be burdened by the demands of the family. Especially when a child enters the fray there is a more pressing need for gender roles to be expressed. What if the child could be returned at a later age when he or she is able to take care of him or herself? Radical? Unemotional? perhaps. But for everyone to take part in gender equality and for eveyone to be able to overcome the new gender roles, perhaps such measures do not appear too cruel.

Perhaps it is when we throw out the old ideas and the old infrastructure of what the family institution use to be, the inertia and lag between the different genders would no longer play a paralysing role. It is at this point that families can begin to look at things in a different dimension. More importantly it could be the boost of energy that males require to come to terms with the new climate as well as the balance that is so desperately needed in the lives of married men and women in the world today.

I believe that this movement cannot be afforded by families alone, but the state has to play a more vital role in bringing forth this new change. Similar to 50 years ago when they utilized women to power the economy in the face of war and the absence of men, they must now find some way of finding a balance between the 2 forces in society. A new institution might just be the answer. But it is important to remember that flexibility and empowerment is a key component. The family itself must be put in charge and be able to decide what is best for its longevity.

Should a new institution be discovered or built the benefits would be vast. The problem of displacement, where men no longer have a role after their initial roles of being sole breadwinners has been taken away from them would cease to exist. Even the poverty might be limited. I believe that the results could be so positive it would affect the economy and businesses and the subsequent policies implemented by government. Perhaps then we would no longer see a world that is continually fragmenting and falling apart at its seams. The question now is, are we ready for such a change?