Gender Equality and Experiences of Family Life

Segregated conjugal roles are roles in which partners have clearly separate tasks: the man is typically the breadwinner who works outside the home, while the woman does the housework and childcare, and they often have separate leisure time (Bott).

Joint conjugal roles are roles in which partners share tasks: they share the housework, childcare and decision-making, and tend to spend their leisure time together.

Way 1 — more women in paid work. Far more women now have paid jobs, creating dual-earner households. This makes roles more equal because women contribute financially and are no longer fully dependent on a male breadwinner, so financial decisions are more likely to be shared. Sue Sharpe's research showed girls' aspirations shifting from 'love and marriage' towards 'careers and independence', reflecting this change.

Way 2 — more sharing of housework and decisions. Young and Willmott argued the modern family has become 'symmetrical', with men doing more housework and childcare and couples making more decisions jointly than in the past. This makes roles more equal because tasks once seen as 'women's work' are increasingly shared, and the strict division between breadwinner and homemaker has weakened.

The feminist view of conjugal roles, associated with Oakley, argues that despite the appearance of sharing, roles remain unequal: women still do most housework and childcare and carry a 'dual burden', and Duncombe and Marsden added a 'triple shift' of paid work, domestic work and emotion work.

Strengths. It is well supported by evidence — Oakley showed Young and Willmott had exaggerated 'symmetry', and studies of decision-making (Edgell, where men make the big decisions) and money management (Pahl and Vogler) confirm men often hold more power. It also exposes the hidden, unpaid 'emotion work' women do, which other views ignore, and it explains why 'equality' can be more image than reality.

Limitations. The 'march of progress' view (Young and Willmott) shows roles HAVE become more equal — many men today do far more childcare than their fathers, so the feminist view can understate real change, a point even liberal feminists accept. Some feminist research is now dated, and difference feminists argue it over-generalises, ignoring how class and ethnicity shape family life differently.

Overall, the feminist view is a powerful and evidence-based account of continued inequality and unequal power, but it can underplay the genuine progress towards more shared roles — so the truth lies between the two: more equal, but not equal.

This view can be explained through the 'march of progress' argument associated with Young and Willmott and with liberal feminism, which holds that family roles have steadily moved towards equality.

First, conjugal roles have shifted from segregated to joint (Bott). In the past men were breadwinners and women homemakers with separate tasks, but today men do more housework and childcare and couples increasingly share decisions and leisure time. Young and Willmott described this modern arrangement as the 'symmetrical family', in which the roles of partners are similar and balanced.

Second, this is linked to wider social changes. Far more women are now in paid work, creating dual-earner households in which women contribute financially and are less dependent on men. Smaller families and higher living standards have also reduced the burden of domestic work. Sue Sharpe's research showed that girls' aspirations changed from prioritising 'love, marriage and children' to prioritising 'careers and independence', reflecting and reinforcing women's changing role.

For supporters of this view, then, the combination of joint roles, dual incomes and changing attitudes means the strict gender division of the past has broken down, so family roles have become much more equal.

Several arguments challenge the claim that family roles have become equal.

First, Oakley showed the 'symmetrical family' was exaggerated. Young and Willmott counted a man who helped with housework once a week as 'sharing', a very low bar. Oakley's own research found only a minority of husbands had high participation in housework or childcare, so most domestic work still falls to women.

Second, women carry a dual burden and even a triple shift. Most women now do paid work AND the bulk of housework and childcare. Duncombe and Marsden argued women also perform 'emotion work' — managing the family's feelings — on top of the other two, a triple shift that is rarely shared and that the 'equal roles' view ignores.

Third, power and decision-making remain unequal. Edgell found men tend to make the important decisions (such as finances and moving house) while women make the day-to-day ones, and Pahl and Vogler showed men often control household money. Equality of tasks is not the same as equality of power.

Finally, domestic violence is the starkest evidence of inequality. Radical feminists and Dobash and Dobash's research see domestic violence as an expression of patriarchal power within the family. If roles were truly equal, such systematic abuse of women would not persist. Family roles have therefore become more shared, but not equal.

Conjugal roles are the roles played by partners in a relationship, and a central debate in the sociology of the family is whether these roles have become equal. The 'march of progress' view argues they have, while feminists argue that beneath the appearance of sharing, inequality persists. This essay outlines both sides and argues that, although roles have become markedly more shared, they have not become genuinely equal.

The case that roles have become equal. Young and Willmott argued that family roles have moved from the segregated pattern described by Bott — separate breadwinner and homemaker roles — towards joint roles, producing what they called the 'symmetrical family'. Roles are not identical but similar and balanced: men do more housework and childcare, women go out to work, and decisions and leisure are increasingly shared. This is driven by real social change: far more women are in paid work, families are smaller, living standards are higher, and attitudes have shifted, as Sue Sharpe showed when girls' priorities moved from marriage to careers. Liberal feminists support this optimistic 'march of progress', seeing inequality as gradually declining.

The case that roles remain unequal. Feminists reject this picture. Oakley criticised Young and Willmott for exaggerating symmetry, pointing out that they counted even minimal male help as 'sharing'; her own research found most housework and childcare still fell to women. The concept of the dual burden captures how women now do paid work AND the bulk of domestic work, and Duncombe and Marsden's triple shift adds a third layer: emotion work, the largely invisible labour of managing the family's feelings, also studied by Hochschild and almost always done by women.

Power as well as tasks. Inequality is not only about chores but about power. Edgell found men tend to make the important, infrequent decisions while women make the everyday ones, and Pahl and Vogler showed that money management often leaves men in control. At its most serious, radical feminists and Dobash and Dobash see domestic violence as an expression of patriarchal power within the family — clear evidence that family life can be deeply unequal and harmful for women. Marxist feminists add that women's domestic role also serves capitalism (Benston, Ansley), so the inequality has structural causes.

Evaluation. The march-of-progress view is not wrong that change has occurred: many men today genuinely do more at home than their fathers did, and the dual-earner household is now normal. But the evidence suggests this change is uneven and incomplete. The crucial distinction is between 'helping' and 'sharing responsibility': women typically retain overall responsibility for the household (the 'mental load'), even where individual tasks are shared. Feminist research can be criticised as dated and, as difference feminists note, as over-generalising across class and ethnicity — but the core finding of unequal responsibility, power and emotion work has proved robust.

Conclusion. Conjugal roles have clearly become more equal than in the past: the rigid breadwinner-homemaker division has broken down. However, equality of some tasks is not the same as equality of responsibility, emotion work or power, all of which still favour men. The most convincing judgement is therefore that roles have become more equal without becoming equal — the 'march of progress' captures the direction of change, but the feminist critique captures how far there still is to go.