Transcript for:
Overview of AQA A-Level Sociology Families

Hi everyone, welcome back. Today we'll be looking at AQA Alevel sociology, family and households. I'm just going to start off by giving my usual disclaimer that I'm not an educated professional. I'm just a year 13 student who is going to be sitting my exam next week actually paper two and I'm just doing this as part of my own revision. But I thought it'd be helpful for other people, you know, just as a quick recap before the exam. Uh but let's just get right into it. Okay, so as we can see here, families and households is a topic on paper, too. And it is in fact an optional topic. So not everyone has to do it, but I feel like quite a lot of people do, including myself. But that it's three questions, which is two 10 markers and one 20 marker, which is a total of 40 marks, which is worth half of your paper, too. Then the other half would be the other option that you do. So I do media but I know quite a lot of people do beliefs. So that will be the other half of the paper. So this is taken from the AQA spec of what they say students should know to be able to like answer the exam questions efficiently and succeed and whatnot. But just to make it easier, you can pause there if you'd like to read the whole thing, but to make it easier, I've broken it down into topics. And this is the order that I'm going to discuss them. So we're going to start off with sociological perspectives and theories. So that's your functionalism, new right, feminism, Marxism, postwomanism, and then we'll be moving on to division of labor, marriage and divorce, family diversity, social policy, childhood, family demographics, and then finally migration. So starting off with functionalism, what is a family? So here we have Murdoch and he said that the family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes and at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship and one or more children either their own or adopted the sexually cohabitant adults. The nuclear family. So Murdoch studied 250 societies and claimed that the nuclear family was universal. A nuclear family refers to a two generational family with a man and a woman and their own or adopted children. and he said that the nuclear family has four main functions. And here we've got the acronym here of SEA. So we're going to break that down. So the S stands for sex. So the stable satisfaction of the human sex drive. E for education, educational transmission of norms and values. The other E for economic, meeting the economic needs of the family. And finally R, the reproduction of the next generation. So if we were to critique Murdoch's ideas in the nuclear family, we can say that we can meet the different aspects of sea outside the traditional family. So for example, reproduction that can be met through the NHS and IVF. Uh finances can be met through the welfare state such as child benefit for additional support and education can be provided with early years interventions such as sure start centers which you'll remember from paperwork. And the dark side of the family isn't necessarily stable with that. One quarter of women face domestic abuse. And approximately a woman is murdered on average every 2 and 1/2 days by a current or former partner. Showing obviously that the family isn't this rose tinted perspective it's made out to be. The dark side of the family refers to the negative experiences of family members within the family including sexual assault, physical assault, emotional manipulation, coercive control and as well as financial abuse. He assumes that the nuclear family is the best type of family to the ignorance of other types. So for example, we have extended being poor single parent families generational etc. We'll go to more of these later, but he's basically saying that this family type is, you know, the best one for everyone, but it's not a one-size fit all. Like different family structures can work differently and benefit other families in certain ways. So, now that we've looked at families, what actually is a household? So, a household is different from a family as it can include individuals living alone, for example, because of choice, bereiement, or being divorced. Alternatively, a household can refer to a group of people with a common goal or goals living together without necessarily being related, married or committed to each other. So an example of this would be student accommodation/houses. So there with the goal of you know going to university, getting a higher education, further going on to a high status job, they share that common value together. Next up we have Parson's opinions on the family. As you know, Parsons loves to slip his opinion in everywhere he can, and he's got it into the family. So, he says that the family can perform many functions. The functions of the family change to fit the needs of society, which is known as functional fit theory. Functional fit theory suggests that the family adapts and changes to meet the needs of a society at a particular stage of development. For example, during the agricultural revolution, the family were an extended multigenerational family that supported each other internally. So, you know, the family would like help look after each other. They'd make their own food, things like that. As members of society began to move into cities for work opportunities during the industrial revolution, there was an increase in the nuclear family. This was since family members such as grandparents were usually left behind due to their lack of geographical mobility. Traditionally the father would go to work in the factories whilst the mother stayed at home and raised the next generation of workers and parsons adding on to Murdoch he said that there were two more main functions of the family those being primary socialization and the stabilization of adult personalities. The stabilization of adult personalities refers to the idea that families, particularly in the nuclear family structure, provide emotional support and stability for adults, helping them cope with the stresses of work and life. And this links on to Parson's idea of the warm bath theory, which was the idea that when a man came home from a hard day at work, he could relax into his family like a warm bath and it could take away the stress and refresh him for the next day at work. So if he's had a bad day, he can like right, you know, he comes home, his tea's on the table, his wife's done all the cooking, she's got him a nice bath ready. It's just like soaking in both metaphorically and literally like within the routine of it all. And then Parsons talks about expressive and instrumental roles. So he says that men and women's roles in society are biologically determined. Uh so the husband takes an instrumental role and achieves success at work and financially supports the family by and he does DIY and provides discipline things like that. Whereas the wife will take the expressive role which has nurturing caring uh characteristics for the children looking after the house cooking and cleaning the domestic chores things like that. So we can go on to critique Parson's theories on the family saying that corporal punishment which is physical can have a negative impact on children's well-being. So that fathering disciplinary role isn't necessarily you know beneficial for the family. Changes in the law have encouraged more women into the workplace and into male dominated industries through legislation such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act and the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. So more women are being empowered out of their expressive role and traditionally instrumental work. Uh men are equally as capable of looking after children. So you know men can be expressive too. And women are also equally as capable as disciplining their children as a man would. And women can compensate for less physicality by using tools to help them in meltdown industries and tasks within the home. So, you know, before like before it was like machinery and things like that. Like it is a biological fact that men are more likely to be stronger than women like on average. But now that's not as much as an excuse anymore because we have tools to like assist our needs and things like that. So for our next sociological perspective, we have the new right. So who are the new right? The new right include politicians, sociologists, and researchers who advocate for the nuclear family and traditional values. They support conventional gender roles with men as a breadwinner and women responsible for child care and houseware. They argue that the breakdown of the nuclear family hinders adequate socialization, warning that single parent families lack strong male role models leading to delinquency and antisocial behavior. They stress individual responsibility for children and oppose state welfare. Uh citing welfare dependency and the emergence of the underclass which is identified by Charles Murray. Uh while feminists view law parent families as a symbol of female empowerment, the new right see them as everything wrong with society. And this leads on to Patricia Morgan's quote that single parent families breed delinquents. So as we've just established there, the new right hold very strong views on single parent families and have a strong disliking towards them. But we want to look at what actually is the problem with the new rights ideas on single mothers and you know why are they wrong and this is due to the fact that single mothers are someone to blame and this links to the idea of moral panics and fog devils. So if you study media like myself, this is like the synoptic element of how both the topics tie over. But moral panics basically refers to how the media pushes the narrative. So you know, right-wing newspapers might push this narrative of single mothers actually causing delinquency and being wrong with society forming like state dependency and things like that where actually when we look at these statistics here, that narrative isn't true. They're just pushing a idea for someone to blame. And linking on to that, approximately only 1% of single parents in the UK are teenagers, which I'm sure that many people are surprised by because there's just this huge narrative of like, you know, oh, single parent teenagers, you know, like everything wrong with society, but actually the average age for a single parent is 39. So that just completely disproves that idea. And most single mothers are actually impaired work. And one quarter of family, one quarter of families are actually headed by a single parent. And children are just as capable as being happy in a single parent family as they would be say the nuclear family or if not more likely to be more happy as they don't have you know arguments within the home and things like that. So this is linking to what I've said there. The media also plays a role in the representation of single parent families fulfilling the negative narrative pushed by traditional new right ideologies on the family. For example, single parent families are demonstrated as being argumentative, dysfunctional, chaotic, stressful, etc. However, single parent families are more likely to be the opposite escaping toxic relationships like I've just discussed there. So, discussing the new right further, the new right supports the familial ideology. This is the way in which the media promotes the nuclear family or what can be known as serial packet families. So what that basically refers to if you don't know that term is that if you look at more traditional adverts say you know if they're promoting like cereal for example there's like traditionally like a family you know sat around the breakfast table and it be the mom the dad and the two children that is your serial packet family like the nuclear family. It's how advertisements push that. And another example of that we can use is the fairy liquid advertisements. So you know if you look at ones from like the 50s 60s7s or even the modern ones. So the one in the right it was actually from the early 2010s I believe and it was actually a band advertisement. Um it was basically like it showed the mother and traditional expressive roles and the father and instrumental roles and things like that. So that's why it was deemed controversial. In both the new and old adverts, the boy and the girl were being socialized into their gender norms, expressive instrumental. In both videos, women were seen washing up. In the more recent video, the man could be seen sat down reading the newspaper, which could also link to the functionalist warm bath fairy. Like if you want to watch that advert, if you just type in a YouTube like fairy liquid band advert, like it will come up. So we're now going to go on to critique the new right and actually say are the new right actually right. So Patricia Morgan with her famous quote of single parent families breed delinquents arguably she could be correct since over 50% of the UK prisoners have been through the care system showing you know the elements of a dysfunctional family and how that can shape a person's behaviors and habits and go on to commit crime. Um, Patricia Morgan further said, "As marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, this reinforces the irrelevance of marriage to parenthood. But does this necessarily lead to inade inadequate gender role socialization? Like can, you know, for example, like two men not raise a girl into her expected roles or can two women not raise a boy correctly?" Like, of course they can. like you know there's it's just illogical to think that way. Um here we have Michael Portal. I don't know if I'm saying that right. Uh teenage pregnancies often lead to a whole life of state dependency. The teenage mother is rarely able to gain a full education or develop a career. But then again linking back to earlier only 1% of single mothers are actually teenagers. So this is just pro further promoting that moral panic and the fork devil of single mothers. And then Michael Howard says, "We must emphasize our belief that the two traditional two parent family is the best. The best for the parents, best for society, and above all, best for the children." But then linking to the dark side of the family, what about women and children who are trapped in toxic households and also it excludes other types of family structures that are deemed beneficial, who can, you know, capably raise a family just as a nuclear family would. And also the two Michaels take a male perspective. So basically, you know, they're speaking on behalf of single mothers, but they will never be a single mother. They are blinded by their own priv privileged positions in society as you know, middle class white males. And you know, we can't generalize the experience of all women. So our next topic is feminism and we're going to look at their outlook on the family. So feminists all claim that family life can be and has been far more beneficial to men than women and that the family is central in the process of gendered socialization and that the family works in the interests of the patriarchy. So how are children socializing to gender roles? Well, one way is through canalization which refers to the process by which parents and society direct children towards the specific behaviors and interests that are deemed gender appropriate. This involves channeling boys and girls into towards different toys, activities and roles from a young age, reinforcing traditional gender norms and expectations. So, for example, you know, girls are taught to play with like baby dolls, you know, like toy kitchens. I know I had one. I used to love it. And then boys, you know, it's like cars, building blocks, things like that. And then the other way is through verbal oper verbal appellation which refers to the way individuals are addressed or referred to using language that often reflects and reinforces societal expect expectations and norms. It involves using specific words, phrases or terms to describe or categorize someone often with a gendered or stereotypical emphasis. So the example I always use in like you know exam questions and things like that is if a boy does something you know a bit what's the word like destructive should we say it's just oh you know boys will be boys. It's just kind of brushed off as like yeah that's what that's what young boys do you know. So another point is that feminists argue that women gain less social economic and cultural capital in the family. So women tend to have a narrow social circle compared to a man without expressive responsibilities. For example, the work circle may be limited preventing progression up the career ladder. Their friendship groups focus on reinforcing the expressive role by behaviors such as sharing childare and parenting tips. And if we look at the social aspect of it, you know, men might go, for example, like I I call it like a golf club culture, you know, like there's that figure of men where like they'll all go down together as part of the work or they might go to the pub or things like that cuz they don't have the parenting responsibilities and then you know they might be able to negotiate things with like the boss or things like that which can you know increase their like say up the career ladder which women wouldn't have the same opportunities for that. Um, for economic, women are more likely to work part-time or not at all due to performing their expressive role. Historically, women could also not inherit wealth. And for cultural capital, women from marginalized group including working class and underclasses as well as BAM so black Asian minority ethnic may not know how the British welfare system and slash or the education system works putting not only themselves but also their children at a disadvantage. Another point is that women take an unfair proportion of the mundane and repetitive housework tasks as well as taking responsibility for the emotional well-being of family members which is known as a triple shift and I'll discuss this more later when we do the division of labor that'll be coming soon. Uh women have little control or power in relation to decision making money and other areas of family life. For example, the mans the husband may have more control over cars, holidays, pets, phones, pocket money allowances, and things like that. Also, when a father does participate in the expressive role, he is more likely to be recognized for his efforts deeming him as an incredible father or husband as this behavior is atypical for men. So, you know, like say if like you're out in the supermarket and you see the dad doing the shopping with his child, you might be like, "Oh, he's such a good dad." You know, like isn't he amazing? But like if a woman was doing the same thing, would she receive that same amount of like credit? Probably not because it's just expected. And then our next point is that some feminists argue that is inevitable that women will experience abuse and exploitation in the family. On average, police in England and Wales receive over 100 calls relating to abuse every hour. In 2018, only 18% of victims reported the abuse to the police. So you know this numbers that's only 100 but that only represents 18% of women. So technically that 100 calls should be a lot higher. And here we have Fran Ansley who is a Marxist feminist. Her famous quote of women are the takers of which can be used as an A3 or critique of the warm bath theory. So Ansley argues women are takers of from husbands who are frustrated by their lack of power and status in the workplace. At home, men have an environment in which they can be in control of. So you know, at work, they might feel powerless, but when they come home, they are the ones in charge. They can boss their wives around rather than them being bossed around. And for our last little bit of feminism, we're going to look at the four different types of feminists and what they say about the family. So liberal feminists are concerned with campaigning against sex discrimination and for equal rights and opportunities for women. They achieve this via legislation which is also known as social policy. So examples of these is the 1967 abortion act, the 1970 equal pay act and the 1975 sex discrimination act. Liberal feminists do not believe that full gender equality has been achieved yet arguing is a gradual process which is known as a mark of progress. However, other feminists criticize liberal feminists arguing that they failed to challenge the underlying causes of women's oppression only dealing with the symptoms that is too peacemeal. So basically, you know, yes, we do have the laws and implementations to help support women. However, is it taking too long? You know, is the progress not quick enough? And we can also argue that social policies can be revoked at any time. So you know for example if we look at America their abortion rights are being revoked like as we speak it's an ongoing debate. So yes we do have implementation of social policy which is helpful but we can also have our rights taken away from us. Marxist feminists so Marxist feminists argue the main cause of women's oppression in the family is not men but it's actually capitalism. Women's oppression performs several role several functions sorry for capitalism. So women produce the next labor force and women act as a reserve army of cheap labor and again linking to Fran Ansley women absorb anger from men. But a critique of this is that Marxist feminists are too capitalist focalist too capitalist focused sorry which means they overlook women's oppression because of the patriarch. you know, they're blaming it all on capitalism. They're actually ignoring to an extent of how a woman's and a man's experience within the family differs. Next, we have radical feminism. So, radical feminists argue that all societies have been founded on patriarchy, which means ruled by men. The key division in society is between men and women, and they believe that men are the enemy. They're the source of women's oppression and exploitation. The family and marriage are the key institutions and patriarchal society. Men benefit from women's unpaid domestic labor and their sexual services. Radical feminists argue for separatism and political lesbianism. Gria says that all female or matrioal households are an alternative to the heterosexual families. So you know radical feminists believe that men uh sorry women are literally sleeping with the enemy that is men. So they should you know seek all female so that's a political lesbianism or just like a single parent m local household or ether headed by a woman. Uh however somerville would argue that radical feminists fail to recognize the improvement of women's position society. Also some women want heterosexual relationships. So, who actually are radical feminists to deny what a woman wants? You know, they're about, yeah, women this, that, but if a woman generally wants to be in a heterosexual relationship with a man, what right do they have to say, actually, no, you can't do that cuz you're going to be oppressed. If that's how a woman feels empowered, then that's how she feels empowered. And then finally, we have difference feminism. So, difference feminists argue that we cannot generalize women's experiences. This is since they vary due to a woman's class, sexuality, ethnicity, etc. Women are not a homogeneous group. So, for example, viewing the family as negative rejects black women's experiences, which they view the family positively as a source of support and resistance against racism. And it can be argued, however, that they neglect the fact that women do have shared experiences. Creating subcategories arguably dilutes the resistance. So if all women work together, you know, and say, "Right, fight the patriarchy, whatnot, we're oppressed by men." But by breaking it down into, you know, the categories of class, sexuality, ethnicity, it weakens the argument and it's posing women against each other rather than attacking upwards towards the societal structures of, you know, the patriarchy. So our next sociological perspective is Marxism. So Alfuza said that the family is a way to maintain and reinforce a set of ideas which in turn maintains capitalist society which is known as the ideological state apparatus. So basically this is the idea that the family is one of those institutions that helps you know maintain capitalist ideology. Mark says that women in capitalist families are commodities which you know they're owned by men like how a man would own a property. And Engel says that marriage and inheritance rules ensured that the ruling classes stayed powerful and wealthy as the wealth of the capitalism passed through the male line to the sun which is known as primogenature. So that's you know like through inheritance and things like that. Marriage within a monogous nuclear family which means like you know one partner was a way to ensure that wealth was kept in certain families maintaining the power of the wealthy few. And you have to remember Markx and Engles were speaking you know from the 19th century. So just bear that in mind. Uh a commodity is a good or product of a market or exchange value. According to this, women can still be considered commodity in contemporary society. For example, cooking, cleaning, and even prostitution are all paid services that a woman does for free at home as part of her dual burden/ triple shift. However, in the UK, we have inheritance tax of 40% over the threshold of £325,000. This dilutes the boogeoisi power as this money is then used to fund public services promoting socioeconomic welfare for the proletariat. So zeretski says that the family supports capitalism by providing unpaid labor reproducing a labor force and being a unit of consumption. The children use pester power to persuade their parents to buy goods to which overall supports a bgeois. Zetski also claims that the family cushions the pressure of capitalism, allowing individuals to express their frustrations with capitalism in non-threatening ways. This generates force consciousness within the working class, meaning that they are less likely to unite and recognize their inequalities and exploitation, meaning, you know, they're less likely to overthrow capitalism, let's say. For example, supermarkets. This is the pesta power. Supermarkets are designed in a way that facilitates pester power with essential items such as bread and milk being placed at the back of the store, forcing you to walk past other items such as sweets which are placed at children's eye levels at checkouts promoting further consumption. So, you know, you say you want a parent has to take a child shopping, they have to walk all the way back to the shop, you know, past all the enticing things, children's magazines, the toy oil, all things like that to reach the essentials. And then when if you manage to dodge all of that, they go, "No, you're not having that." When you get to the till and you start unpacking your shopping, they have all the sweets, you know, like on the sides. So, you know, pastor power at its finest. Uh this the state ensures that families consume through laws and policies. For example, providing families with benefits provide the welfare state through child benefit, tax credits, maternity pay, etc. And this provides the family with a basic income that can be spent which overall boosts the economy but also the profit to the bis. So you know if you had no money you wouldn't be able to spend and put that back into society. If they give you a little bit of money you can buy things with that which you know helps boost it all. And what is wrong with Marxism? The nuclear family is no longer dominant. Today it makes up approximately 50% of family types. Uh the emphasis on class inequality also ignores gender inequality. The primary function of the family is to serve men, not capitalism. That's accord feminists. Functionalists argue that Marxists ignore the very real benefits of the family to all of its members. So for example, the family provides primary socialization, teaching the next generation norms and values of society. The family provides emotional support. Their parents can also act as informal, capable guardians, teaching their children, you know, how to start a trouble law. You know, what behaviors socially acceptable, what's not, things like that to make society orderly. But, you know, if we didn't have a family, would we have that unit to do that? So, moving on, we're going to start off with a post structuralist perspective. So, post structuralists like Dunelot and Fuko argue that we should look at family in terms of how it is controlled and monitored by the state. For example, the family is monitored by the state through health visits. They visit family homes proceed in the first few weeks after birth. They monitor the baby's weight and provide critiques to the parents habits, routines such as feeding. And then we also have educational professionals who are professionals such as attendance officers who monitor students attendance and can slash will invite parents into school for meetings or even carry out home visits for students not attending school. I remember once I was off because I think I had like tons of lighters or something and I remember the attendance officers came around by house like like that is actually a thing to do for people who don't know. So surveillance refers to observing people's behavior with the aim to change it to the desired behavior for those who don't know. And a critique of these is that the agents are important in meeting the needs of family members. So for example, a health visitor is important because it ensures that the baby has a good start to life. They aren't disadvantaged. And educational professionals are good as they ensure that pupils can achieve the highest grades to help them enter high status in paying jobs you know because you need the qualifications to get into these jobs. So by being school it increases your chances of actually getting the qualifications in the first place. Then we have postmodernism. So sociologists influenced by interactionist and postmodernist perspectives reject the structural view. They argue that structural theories ignore the fact that we have the choice in creating our family relationships. We must focus on the meanings its member gives to the relationships and situations. And we must not take for granted the structural functions of the family. Individuals have free will which is agency allowing them to choose the types of families they create. We even increasingly pick a mix society. sets apart, you know, you can pick parts of a family structure that you like to create your ultimate ideal family type basically. So, for example, a mother can choose to be a single mother by divorcing her husband as it be more beneficial for the family for both herself and her children. She is empowered by doing this and she's also able to escape a toxic household. This is identified as a micro bottomup social action approach. So for you don't for those who don't know micro refers to small bottom up. It's rather you know the social action perspective. So you're taking your own agency your own actions to do something. You're not being structurally determined. So imagine I'm doing a little claw you know like a like a claw machine. That would be the top down where bottom up you're like clawing up. You're fighting your own way should you say. However, this would be criticized by the new right as they believe single parent families are everything wrong with society believing that only those in nuclear family can reach their full potential of happiness discouraging this way of life. Next we have the personal life perspective. So the personal life perspective also takes a wider view of relationships than just traditional family relationships based on blood or marriage ties. So these are the different types. So, we have relationship with friends, fictive kin, uh relationships with dead relatives, relationships with pets, and gay and lesbian chosen couples. I'll let you read through this just, you know, make this video a little bit quicker cuz I'm kind of waffling a bit at this point. And the strength of this is that by focusing on people's meanings, the personal life perspective draws our attention to a range of other personal or intimate relationships that are important to people even though they may not be deemed as a conventionally traditional family. Like it's not the norm. Like you wouldn't think of these necessarily. They're a bit more an out of the box concept. And another key part of our postmodern society is donor conceived children which was talked about by smart nquivist. I actually don't know. Uh so they focus on social relationships and are often more significant than genetic ties in defining family life. They argue that family structures are increasingly diverse and fluid, aligning with postmodern views that reject fixed definitions of family, emphasizing individual choice and negotiated relationships, which is evident in donor conceived families, where parents and children construct their own meanings of kinship. Postmodern theory suggests that tra traditional family structures are breaking down and being replaced by personal relationships. Smart argues that family life is shaped by social connections rather than biological determinism. reinforcing postmodernist ideas. However, this perspective may overlook structural factors like class, ethnicity, and gender which still shape family experiences. Evaluating postmodernism. So, the strength is that it shows how people construct or create their families and the relationships within. The variety of personal life perspectives show that rebelling against structural norms helps to change society and people's lives for better. And it also challenges the functionalist assumption that all members benefit from the family and their relationships within. The weakness is that it takes too wide a view to be able to establish social facts and laws of human behavior. It overlooks the very real impacts of structural families such as poverty. It neglects that many people in diverse family types want to live in a nuclear family or recreate it. It also ignores how blood and DNA ties are still important. If the technology allowed for both couples in a same sex relation to make to parent a child biologically, most would take it. So our next topic is a division of labor. So B says there are two types of condal roles. So separated roles are whereby the male and female have separate roles. So that's the expressive and instrumental whereby their leisure time is also separate. Joint conjugal roles are where couples share domestic tasks and spend an increasing amount of time on leisure together. Wilmont and Young carried out a research in Ben Ben Bethno Green London and found that roles were in fact segregated and some of the things I identified was that men are primary wage earners. So they're the bread winner. Men dominate decision maker and exercised discipline. Men spent leisure time with other men beyond the family and women are relying on husband husband's income sorry and women had limited decision making and women often experienced domestic violence from more physically powerful husbands. So this has touched on what we said earlier and then in the 1970s Wilton Young did some follow-up research which was known as the march of progress and this found that there was a long-term trend away from segregated conjugal roles and in fact a move towards joint conjugal roles making what is known as a symmetrical family. This is since women now go to work however it can be quite is it just part-time work. Men now help with the housework and child care and couples spend leisure time together more increasingly. So what societal changes actually cause this to happen? So one of those being the mass building of council houses which basically meant that the extended families were reduced which also reduces the support provided by extended family members meaning that couples had to rely on each other more for their domestic roles you know like the help like cleaning things like that. Women in the workplace also rapidly increased and they were fulfilling the instrumental role increasingly and it helped increase the household's income and this was alongside the invention of white goods. So you know like fridges, cookers, things like that. That's like with your white goods which reduced the domestic workload and entice men into house work cuz like oh we got this new gadget to help us rather you know being like on your hands and knees scrubbing the floors you know things like that. men are like, you know what, we've got this new gadget. I might actually help out now. And also access to contraception, which was in 1967, which meant that women can control their bodies, and this was helpful as it could prevent unwanted pregnancies that had previously placed women into the expressive role. However, we can critique Wilmont and Young by Anna Oakley's the sociology of housework study. So this was one year after Wilmer and Young did their study. So anor Oakley found that within a sample of four year housewives that only 15% of husband had high level of participation in the housework and those who did participate left 70% of the women feeling dissatisfied with the condition of the housework. So you know yeah they might have cleaned the floor but they didn't do it very well. And many of the housewives also reported feeling lonely due to social isolation. And Oakley said what people say is more egalitarian than what they do. So they know the men deem themselves as more helpful than they actually are. And some more stats to support this is Craig in 2007 said that women do 50 to 66% more domestic work than a man. And conjugal roles are more equal at first a relationship. So, say when a couple's cohabiting and they aren't married yet, they might be more likely to share, you know, the labor load, but when they get married, that's pushed more on towards the woman. Uh, Momset in 2014 said that 81% of women said that they were soul organizer of emotion work which links to the triple shift. Uh, BBC Chaw Wars 2014 found that twothirds of young women admit to regular arguments over housework with their partners and the standard of domestic work is less when done by a man. Uh, Diman Thompson 2013 said that only onetenth of men do more housework than a woman. So from this we can conclude that the modern man is in fact a myth. And linking to what we've just said there are men becoming more active in the home. Well, arguably they can be. So eight times more child care per day since the 1970s. They provide 25% more child care during the week and 33% more during the weekend. And 25% of take emergency time off work, you know, when needed for when the children are like ill, all those emergencies, things like that. It can be argued that they not become more active as men engage in child care alongside their mothers. Women spend more time on the practical things, you know, like the actual physical domestic chores. Whereas men spend more time more enjoyable activities like playing or like things like that. So on the weekend they might say, "Right, well we're going to go do this." And be like, "Oh yeah, well I want to do that cuz that's fun." But if they had to watch the children at home, they might be less likely to do that because they aren't getting a you know personal gain out of it. So next we've got Edgel who conducted research on decision making in families particularly focus on power dynamics between husbands and wives. His work critics a symmetrical family consent proposed by Wilmont and Young arguing that power imbalances persist. His key findings include husbands either decide a loan or have a veto. Spacey like they have power over a decision. When it comes to very important decisions such as a change or a job or moving to a new house, decisions are usually join with the wife wife really acting alone when it comes to important decisions such as a child's education or a holiday. And decisions are mostly the wife when it comes to those that are less important such as a choice of home decor, what a child's going to wear or buying new clothes for them or food purchases. And several follow-up research projects have found little differences in contemporary society compared to back then as men justify making the most important decisions with their instrumental role. So we've touched on this already a little bit, but we have John Marson's emotion work. So they argue that domestic roles ignore the importance of emotion work. This emotion work helps to sustain the family unit and yet is rarely recognized. Women work a triple shift of paid work, unpaid domestic work and emotion work. For example, planning and organizing social events, physical, you know, things such as hugs or verbal support, which is like declarations of love, you know, show the child that they're there for them. Buying presents and cards. uh smoothing over arguments, maintaining the relationship between father and children and rewarding achievements such as you know at school or sports. This impacts the women since they don't receive gratitude for emotion work whereas men do like we touched on earlier when a father you know like takes his child to the shop which can be known as daddy daycare. Uh women are more likely to be unhappy in marriage. They express emotional loneliness, more than three times more likely than a man to to strongly want a divorce, and they are less likely than a divorce man to want to remarry. Men are net beneficiaries of marriage where women are net losses. So, you know, men have more to gain from being married where arguably women have less to gain from being married. And then our last part of the division of labor is gender scripts coined by Dun. So gender script refers to traditional gender norms and expectations associated with heterosexual couples. These match the expectations of a patriarchal society. John studied 37 cohabiting lesbian couples and these gender scripts are more symmetrical with equal importance to carers and ch child care. However, the partner with the greatest work commitment spent less time on domestic chores. This could suggest that perhaps it is capitalism that creates an asymmetrical family and not the patriarchy. C couples in both heterosexual and homosexual families will often make a rational choice in that the person who earned the most money can compensate for this by doing less unpaid domestic labor. Capitalist societies place high value and status on those with the greatest wealth. So, moving on to our next topic, we have marriage and divorce. I'm not going to read this out so you can pause the video. But, you know, we've got the little graph there to show you the trends of marriages and divorces over time. And this has been influenced by implementations of legislation such as the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. Again, I'll let you look at these. The Divorce Reform Act 1969, the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1985, and the Family Law Act 1996. So I'll just let you have a little look there just so you know speed up this video a bit. So after that we can see that marriage patterns have changed a lot but why actually is that? So we now have higher expectations of marriage. People are waiting longer to make sure that the partner they are with is suitable so they don't rush into this decision spending they spend longer to get to know their partners which is known as individualization. There's grown secular sec secularization. I can't say that sorry. Less people see cohabitation as wrong and less belief in religion means that less people feel the need that they need to get married. There's a growing divorce rate which can give people a fatalistic attitude and approximately one in two marriages end in divorce. And there's a change in social attitudes and reduce societal stigmas. So cohabitation is more accepted. And we know we can link this to the phrase of divancy drives change. So by more people not getting married, it helps change s attitudes about it. Uh births outside of marriage are more accepted and women who are not married are less looked down on. And also the changing ball of women in society. Women don't want to play the housewife role anymore and they won't settle for mediocre relationships. They also no longer they also no longer financially dependent on men and feminists would argue that marriage is a patriarchal institution. And then for evidence for the decline in marriage rates we have that single person households have increased by 500,000 from 2003 to 2013 because of more divorces and a rise in those over 65 living alone. And two of the biggest increases in household types has been single person households and lone parent households. Most lone parent households and metro focal which is headed by women that is 90%. And then cohabitation has doubled from 1996 to 2012 to 2.9 million couples and this number is still growing. So theoretical perspectives on the family. The new right would say that children brought up in a married nuclear family will be more rounded members of society due to the presence of both gender role models. Married nuclear families provide a better form of discipline for their children. Married couples are better able to financially support their child/children therefore not relying on the state. Functionalists say that marriage is the best foundation for the primary socialization of children. Married marriage relationship is a relief from the strain of everyday life resulting in a harmonious society. The family provides a relaxing environment for the male worker to immerse himself in after a hard day of work. Marxists said that the monogous nuclear family is essential because of the inheritance of private property. The main function of the married nuclear family is to distract the working class from the fact that they exploited by capitalism. Married nuclear families produce children. They become the workforce. Marriage benefits bourgeoisi socializing children to be obedient and passive. And feminists would say that men use marriage as an outlet for violence. Women are exploited and are expected to carry out domestic chores. Marriage benefits men more than it does women. So why is cohabiting increasing? While Shelton and John found that it was a rational choice for women to coit as cohabiting women were more equal in domestic labor which we said earlier. Beck said that we have become increasingly risk adverse and Chester says that cohabiting couples are on a try before you buy trial. 75% of cohabiting couples plan to marry. Women have a greater demand for marriage and no longer feel a sense of shame for being left on the shelf. They will postpone marriage until a suitable partner can be found. So there's no longer a shame of you know like a woman being single in her 30s. It's like so what you know it's my life. There are 2.9 million cohabiting couples in the UK. That is one in every eight couples and again dancy drives change and this is most common particularly under the age category of 35. But then we can also see that the divorce rates have decided to climb. But why is this? So because of cohabitation when people do marry they have had a trial run first so they are more likely to stay together. People marry later so settled in their lives and have done everything they want to as a single person. So the average age for getting married first time for a male is now 32 and 30 for a woman. Uh dual income families as women can work meaning that there is fewer financial stresses to argue about. people can't afford to get divorce. So the legal aid court which was introduced in the 40s I think it was was actually cut in 2013. So there's less support for people wanting to get divorce if they don't have the funds for it. And also there is more equality between men and women has created happier relationships. So people are less likely to divorce. So our next topic is family diversity. And we're going to start off by modernism which is around about the 1950s. So life was once predictable. Things were well structured and mapped out for us. We knew who we were and we had clear identities. We had firm beliefs about the nature of things for a rigid socialization process into class, gender, religious, and ethnic roles. So for example, if you're a woman, you follow this life plan. You give up paid work when you get married and you were to get married when you're in your early 20s and then you expected to have children. And this marriage was expected to be a heterosexual relationship also because gay marriage wasn't legal at the time. And also you had to meet your husband's needs. That was part of your job. However, a postmodernist society is now based on confusion, a lack of structure and incessive choice. So that basically means like too much. Our identities are not fixed. We live in a pick a mix society that is frag fragmented. You can create who you want to be. For example, the emergence of stay-at-home fathers. By this, they may engage in typical feminine expressive roles such as child care and grocery shopping. His wife may take a more instrumental role participating in domestic tasks such as DIY. And again, I'll let you have a little pause here for the different types of families. There are other family types. There's so many, but these are like the key ones. So, now we're going to look at giddens. So the individualization thesis refers to the process where the increase in rapidity of social change and greater uncertainty force individuals to spend more time and effort deciding on what choices to make in their daily lives. This has impacted the family as there is a greater family diversity, more more joint conjugal roles, more women in the paid instrumental role and smaller families as women are having fewer children. And then Kaden's also talked about confluent love which is individuals are now looking to create meaningful relationships that are based on love and respect. If a relationship is beneficial for the individuals, the relationship will continue and as soon as it is not beneficial, individuals will seek an alternative. This has impacted the family as there is an increase in cohabitation and single parent families. Also, we have a higher divorce rate in contemporary society. There is also growth in samesex marriage. Next, we have Beck and negotiated families. This is the idea that families do not follow traditional patterns anymore. Instead, families work on compromise based on the wishes of the members in that family. This is not simply a matter of freedom or choice. People are reflexive. They look at society and their personal decisions and are informed by what they see going on in society. This has impacted on the family since for example gender equality means that both partners must work and spend longer building careers which means the average person has less time to spend making a relationship work which means an increase in cohabitation decline in marriage and an increase in divorce. People have developed a risk consciousness. They see that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and so they are less willing to take the risk and get married. Evaluating postmodernism. So it recognizes that structures are not as powerful as they once were in shaping the family. It exaggerates the amount of choice on offer. Gay and Zbec are from the male. Given their privileged white male and middle class status, they ignore the reality that not everyone can choose their own family based on their gender or class background. Despite the diversity of family choice, the most people still harbor to the norm of the nuclear family. Next we have Chester and neoconventional families. So the new right and functionalists exaggerate the increase in family diversity. The major change has been a move from the nuclear family to a neoconventional family which simply means that both spouses go to work. The nuclear family is still the most desirable family type. However, many people move in and out of a family type but will always come back to a nuclear family. Many family types are still like the nuclear family. For example, reconstitute or stepparent families. Next we have Rockerport study and they suggested that there's five ways in which one family is now diverse. So we can use this little acronym of clocks to help us remember it. So a cultural difference in family types based on ethnicity or religion. For example, Chinese families are typically one child families. AfroCaribbean families are typically single parent. Uh L for life course. Different stages of life may have different divisions of labor or different family types. So, newly married couples are more likely to be equal and couples with children may impose a triple shift on women. O for organizational different divisions of labor within the home and impaired work. So, for example, symmetrical families, dual income or single parent. C for cohort, the differences in family lifestyles between generations such as divorce or symmetrical families are more likely in a modern family due to societal attitude changes. And finally, S for social class. The roles that partners adopt based on their social class. For example, roles are more equal in middle-class couples than workingclass couples. So the next topic is social policy. So what is social policy? A plan or action made by state agencies such as health, education, and welfare, which affects family life. Policies can be aimed directly at families such as laws on marriage, divorce, abortion, and contraception. And policies can also be indirectly have an impact upon the family. For example, compulsory education freed women from some aspects of their expertive role in the family and allow them to enter the world of paid labor. So looking at specific policies, we had the divorce reform act in 1969 which helped increase family diversity such as through single parent families, through constitute families and it also helped to empower women. And then the availability of contraception in 1967 helped to control fertility, reduce family size and fertility levels. And the legalization of samesex marriage in 2014, it helped increase family diversity. And also 15% of gay couples in the UK today are married. And then specific indirect policies refer to the compulsory education introduced in 1944 which was the start of the march of progress for women as it provided skills for future careers. The NHS introduced in 1948 which provided paid professional roles for women that empowered them instrumentally. So for example nursing and midwiffery used to be voluntary voluntary for women. So they wouldn't have got paid for that, but now they've got a legitimate form of like qualifications and skills, things like that. Uh benefits such as the welfare state increased single parent families, which you know isn't necessarily a bad thing. And and the instrumental needs were met by the states, you know, the finances, things like that. And also the Equal Pay Act, which allowed more women to again be instrumental. I'm going to do that thing again where I let you, you know, pause and read through it yourself. But extreme examples of family policy are China's one child policy which was between 1979 and 2015. And then we have communist Romania which was 1950s to the 1980s. And we also have Nazi Germany. So next we have what would functionalists say about family policy? Well, society is based on value consensus and policy helps institutions to meet their aims which is good for its members and why society which is known as the organic analogy which I touched on my theory video. Uh Fletcher argues policy on health, education and housing since the industrial revolution supports the family and perform its functions better and also the NHS helps families take care of sick members. However, not all family members benefit from social policy. Feminists argue that it reinforces the patriarchy. Maternity leave is more generous than paternity leave, for example. However, I think now it actually you can share it. I'm not too sure. Um, and then Marxists argue that the policies can be reversed protecting the interest of the bgeoisi that is they will pay less tax for example child benefit reduced to just two children. We can critique the new right views on family policy since new right policies are patriarchal and they ignore the dark side of the family. Cutting benefits would only drive more people into poverty not less creating further state dependency. The nuclear family is a social construct. Some policies exist protecting the nuclear family such as the married couple's tax allowance. And also women in the UK are more likely to have a baby over 40 under 20. Keenh moms are folk devils and the public are encouraged to blame them for social problems. And then for feminists, March of Progress feminists, which is liberal feminists, would argue that policy has made women's lives better. For example, the criminalization of marital rape in 1991. Uh the fact that lesbians are now able to get married, the legalization of sex marriage in 2014, and the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act have allowed women to escape their expressive role. However, family policies help reinforce a patriarchy. Tax and benefit policies assume that money is pulled within a family when in many cases men use money as a form of control. Laws around child care assume that women are more likely to work part-time or term time restricting their access to high paid jobs and career progression. And also care for the elderly is rationed in the UK assuming that mostly middle-class women will step in and provide care for not just their children but also their age and relatives for a free cost which is known as the pivot generation. Next we have Drew who uses the term gender regimes to describe how social policies at different countries can either encourage or discourage gender equality in the family. Familistic gender regimes refer to policies based on traditional divisions of labor whereas individ individualistic gender regimes refer to policies based on equality between sexes. So for example for individualistic we've got Sweden and familistic we've got the UK. So the UK is very you know it reinforces the instrumental and expressive roles and the gender inequality in a family whereas Sweden reinforces equality for both sexes. I'll let you pause and read for them again just you know shorten the video. And then one of the main social policies for family I'd suggest you become familiar with is the troubled families program of 2012. This was a direct social policy launched by the coalition government which was in power between 2010 and 2015. This program identified 120,000 troubled families in terms of high rates of children who truent antisocial behavior adults who have never or rarely worked domestic drug and alcohol abuse. Case workers work alongside the troubled families and offer support and guidance networking with health education and police professionals. This encouraged parents to carry out their traditional instrumental and expressive roles. It aimed to help tackle drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, and instilled discipline, a work ethic, and greater cooperation with other agencies in society. Young people were worked with in terms of health, well-being, education, and staying out of trouble. It helped to compensate for inadequate primalization in the family. The new right like this policy as it challenges the emergence of the underclass. They criticize absentee fathers and their failure to meet instrumental needs, blaming them for criminality which costs the UK economy around 9 billion pounds per year. They also criticize parents for not ensuring their children go to schools which leads to state dependency later in life. However, Marxists dislike the policy because it fails to recognize that poverty and unemployment is a structural issue and that many people do not choose to be unemployed. Post structuralists like Dunel are critical because they see the policy as an extreme example of state surveillance and what policy makers define as the most problematic members of society and also the policy fails to tackle the true cause of devian. And for our next topic, we have childhood. So childhood is socially constructed according to W. It is created and defined by society. It is not universal but it changes across time, place and culture. It is not natural and should be distinguished from biological immaturity. Pilchure said that childhood is categorized by separateness meaning that children live in separate and different lives than their parents and other old people. They are more vulnerable and need to be quarantined from the adult world. This is done so through education, films, exclusions from paid work and controls and technology such as you know like parental controls and codes for accessing things online. Uh we can critique this by saying that children are not a homogeneous group. These concepts apply to western societies like the UK and the USA not low-income countries or countries at war. For example, education is denied to girls in parts of the Middle East and Asia. Child soldiers are used in over 50 in over 50 countries. Sorry. Girls in Afghanistan are encouraged to get married and have children as soon after their first period. Then we have Aries and the idea that the invention of childhood. So Aries analyzed paintings and diaries of medieval life studying the roles of people and children within them. Childhood did not exist in the middle ages and their needs and expectations were not different to adults after we wanings. You know once can eat like normal foods and to move away from like milk and things like that. So they would start work at an early age. The law rarely distinguished between them and adults. Punishments were equally as severe and high infant mortality encouraged indifferences towards infants and children. Childhood alters to fit the needs of society. So childhood today has been lengthened so that children can acquire the skills in education to meet the needs of an advanced industrial society. And if you want to like analyze Aries methods, we can you know look at the practicality which is that it was a secondary data and it existed without the researchers involvement meaning it saves time and money. However, looking at paintings, it lacks fidelity cuz the picture relies on an individual's interpretation and you know a painting can be interpreted in different ways. So, everyone might not see the same things from it. And it also lacks reliability. Everyone's ideas are different. Therefore, it would not be possible to analyze the picture and get the same ideas or results as another person. So, what caused a change in position of children in the 19th and 20th centuries? So laws restricting child labor, compulsory schooling, child protection legislation, growth in the concept of children's rights, reduced family sizes and infant mortality, medical knowledge on child development, law specific to children and industrialization. Okay, so next we have Postman who argued is childhood disappearing. This is going to be really cringe, but a way I remember that it was Postman who said this. Like remember like the thing that the theorist said is more important than the theorist who said it. But if you do want to remember it, I always think of that song. You like, "Oh yeah, wait a minute, Mr. Postman." Cuz the postman's leaving like childhood. Childhood's leaving. And it was postman who said it. That's how I remember it. But anyways, cringe over. So childhood is disappearing at a rapid speed. For example, children have similar rights to parents. Disappearance of unsupervised activities. There is similarity in clothing of adults and children are carrying out adult crimes including murder. And a famous example of this is the murder of Jim Bulier by John Venibals and Robert Thompson uh which led to the age of criminal responsibility being lowered to the age of 10. And this helps show how childhood is constructed through political populism. So you know people were like oh this is outrageous you know there should be criminals blahy blah blah. So that's what led to the lowering of the criminality alleged at the age of 10 because of how old they were. TV has introduced children adult content without the need to be literate due to its visual nature. So in the 19th and 20th century, literate adults could restrict child information, a child's access to information to sex, violence, death, etc., which is no longer the case. This is known as information hierarchy. So for example, before children who couldn't read, you know, they wouldn't access this knowledge because they couldn't read it. Where now they don't have to be able to read because they can look at the content through a screen. A strength of Porsman's ideas is that it sees the importance of TV and unsupervised access to it. The emergence of internet and children's access to adult content further support the decline in childhood. However, Oppoy studied child's play and found little evidence of disappearance of childhood. Jinx argues that the cause is not information but decline in the traditional family. Parents in fragile relationships forge new relationships with children based on greater equality to compensate. Also, children have legal protections that support their innocence and need to be protected. And as society has changed, it can be argued that the family has became more child- centered. Children are more valued, better cared for, protected from harm, better educated, have more rights than ever before. For example, infant mortality today is 4 per 1,000 compared 150 per 1,000 in the 1900s. All children have a right to free education and healthcare until the age of 18. And another point is that children are the focal point of the family. For example, families spend an average £227,000 per child until the age of 21. Children have a great deal of emotional and educational investment. Parents have a high aspiration for children. The culture industry support this with lots of leisure and entertainment directed at children. However, Marxist specifically would say that childhood has been commodified for profit such as the building of soft play areas. You know, childhood has been created in order to generate more profit rather than actually, you know, focus on on a child's wellbeing. And then we have Palmer who discussed toxic childhoods saying that childhood today is in fact toxic. Rapid advances in technology and cultural change in the family and wider society has damaged children's physical, emotional and intellectual development. Technology and junk food is used to pacify children and to compensate for the lack of time parents can spend with their children. Children become more impulsive, self-obsessed, distractable, less able to learn and enjoy life. The number of children in care in the UK is 400,000 which equates to 3% of children. The number of children who die because of neglect or abuse each year is approximately 50. And the number of child victims of sexual abuse in 2019/20 was 74,000. However, this is deemed to be lower than the actual value as children may be like, you know, unaware that they were abused or, you know, they might be afraid to speak up, things like that. And then childhood can vary according to gender discrimination. So for example, boys are less likely to have a curfew than girls. Girls clothing and sexuality is more tightly controlled and children who are gay or trans are less able to explore their sexuality. And girls are more likely to complete domestic chores. They may have ethnic discrimination. uh the concept of isat whereby girls behavior is more tightly controlled because of honor that rests in the family. In extreme cases, this can lead to honor crimes and also class discrimination. 210,000 homeless children are in the UK today. They and if you're a part of a working-class background, you're four times more likely to suffer from behavioral disorder. You are more likely to be placed on the child protection register because of neglect and low birth weights leading to can lead to stunted growth and stunted intelligence. So next we have our second task topic which is family demographics. Demographics are quantifiable characteristics of a given population. Demographic analysis can cover whole societies or groups defined by criteria such as religion, ethnicity, class, and gender. The population of the UK has grown steadily from 38 million in 1901 to 64.1 million in 2013. Population predictions suggest that it will reach 70 million by 2027. I think currently it is 68. Don't quote me on it though. Should we be concerned about a population growth in the UK? Yes. Shortage and increased prices of housing. There's a shortage of good school places. There's potential food shortages, especially with our withdrawal from the EU, you know, with Brexit. There are lower wages with more competition because there's more people wanting jobs. The aging population leads to tax rises of fund services such as the NHS. There's a growth driven by young migrants, which can lead social unrest and competition over resources. No, we shouldn't be concerned because the most populous nation in Europe brings more political power such as the strength in numbers. Uh more skilled workers especially in the NHS. We have a youthful population for migration which can offset the challenges of an aging British population. Uh university sectors can thrive with young skilled educated adults. Multiculturalism can create a more tolerant society. So the total fertility rate, the total fertility rate is the average number of children a woman would have in her lifetime. The fertility rate in 1900 was 3.5. In 2000, the fertility rate dropped to 1.63. And today the fertility rate is 1.44, which is the lowest on record. Then we have the birth rate. So the crude birth rate is the number of babies born per 1,000 of the population. The number of births in 1900 was 1.1 million. In 2000 it was 630,000 and in 2024 the number of births was 9 591,000 sorry. So a strength of the birth rate I'm looking at it is that it is more useful measure than the number of births as it takes into consideration the overall population size and the reasons for changes in birth rate is access to abortion increasing creative singlehood rise of feminism declining infant mortality rate increased child- centeredness and increased expense of ch children. I'll let you pause and read them but a lot of it's just what we've already previously discussed. And then we have the death rate. So the death rate refers to the number of deaths per 1,000 of the total population. The death rate in 1900 was 19 and today is 9.9. However, the death rate is starting to rise again as people are living longer. If the population contains more older people compared to younger people, the death rate will rise because of older people are more likely to die. The death rate, however, has also fallen due to treatment of infections, infectious diseases, and medical improvements, improved nutrition, changes to smoking and diet, public health measures, and a decline in dangerous manual labor. However, women live on average four years longer than men. Life expectancy is 7 years less in the north and west of Britain. Unskilled and semi-skilled workers are three times more likely to die before retirement age than professionals. And those with disabilities live on average to 17 years less. So it's completely subjective based on the individual, you know. So it can't the death rate isn't homogeneous. Let's just put it that way. And then we have life expectancy. So the life expectancy refers to how long average a person born each year can be expected to live. Life expectancy in 1851 was 40 for males and 44 for females. And life expectancy today is 78 for males and 82 females. However, life expectancy can vary. For example, in terms of region. So, I worked mine out. Uh you can find it online. It was like in the place I found it was in the Guardian like in an article from a couple years ago. I had like a graph, but my life expectancy is estimated to be 79.7 years, which is lower than the national average. And that's taken into account for my gender. So I I'm a female and my region. I'm from Middlesbrough, which is in the northeast of England. So that has a lower life expectancy than the rest of the country. Then we have the aging population. The aging population refers to an increase in proportion of older people and a declining proportion of children rel relative to the overall population. This is because of falling death rates, falling birth rates and longer life expecties. Today, the ratio of economically active to inactive is 5 to 0.58. In 50 years time, the number of pensions 30% may be double the number of children 15% leaving a dependency ratio of 1 to 0.8. Trends the proportion of children has declined by 18% over the last 50 years. The proportion of older people, however, has increased by 29% over the last 50 years. In the last 10 years, the number of people over 80 has increased by 30%. And this group can be identified as the elderly elderly. And by the year 2,100 2100, I don't even know how he said that. So crazy. Imagine we may have over 1 million centarians, which is people over the age of 100 from 10,000 today. This is what Harper identifies as radical longevity. And Chambers questioned, "Are old people really a liability?" While older people are not a homogeneous group, their experiences of old age vary depend upon class, gender, ethnicity, location, and family support. Older people are active in family life as carers for their spouses, children, and grandchildren. 50% of older people report good health and 20% of those are in work. Older people also provide a source of income to their children and grandchildren. And many older people have high disposable incomes with good pensions with low or no rent on mortgage payments, which is referred to as the gray pound. So basically, they're able to put money into the economy because they've got less responsibilities. So they've got like basically play about money is what I'd call it. You know, they can buy nice things with it. So our final topic, and thanks to those who have got this far and sticking in with the video, I appreciate it. So migration is the movement of people in or out of a country. So immigration is in and immigration is out. I remember it by I for in E for exit but that's just you know personal personal preference. Uh it accounts for 43% of the growth of the population in the UK and natural increase accounts for the remaining 57% of the growth in the population. So now we're going to look at changes in immigration to the UK between 1900 and the 1990s. So in the first half of the 20th century, the main group of immigrants uh or migrants, sorry, included the Irish, which was mainly for economic reasons, Eastern and Central European Jews, who were often refugees fleeing persecution, you know, think of like World War II and all that stuff. uh people of British descent from the USA and Canada and very few immigrants were non-white at this time. uh between the 1950s and the 17s the '7s the main group of migrants included black immigrants from the Caribbean which began to arrive in the UK following followed during the 1960s and 1970s by South African immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and East African Asians from Kenya and Uganda. Since the late 1990s, the largest group of migrants have come from the EU. So, the French, Italian, and Spanish, and Eastern Europe, so the Polish, Latians, Lithuanians. However, since Brexit, which was 2020, it finalized 400,000 EU citizens have left the UK. So, factors affecting migration. Number one, globalization. Globalization refers to increasing connectedness of societies which was Gins who said that uh Britain's modern history involves migration through colonialism and the slave trade. So on the picture there you can see I've got a map of the world and the colors represent those that were occupied under the British Empire and I think it was actually like onethird of the world near enough which is crazy. Anyways the global media deregulation of financial markets the fall of communism in East Europe and the EU expansion has helped to increase migration. This means that we can travel around the world easily. Political blocks such as the EU help to ease the movement of people, goods and financial services such as banking and money. We have lost or we have transport and technology sorry which allows us to easily research locations and move people as well as money. This has ultimately increased migration to the point whereby net migration to the UK reached 500,000 in 2021. Net migration for those who don't know is basically you have your immigration rates and your immigration rates and you know say for example if you had you know x amount of people coming in x amount of people going out you minus them working them out and that's the number you get. So the net migration there it shows that more people were came into the UK than came out overall. So the population change was 500,000. Uh over over 250,000 migrants to the UK each year are overseas students attracted to our worldleading university sector. So you know students coming over might be attracted to like the likes of you know Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburgh things like that. A second factor we have is legislation and border controls. So since 1921 the UK and Ireland have shared a common travel area allowing for the free movement of people. The Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962 and 1968 limited immigration from the Caribbean and Asia. And from the 40s to the '7s, the people that immigrated from the Caribbean was known as the Windrush generation. You don't need to know that, but just a little fun fact. Um, Asylum Act 1999 made it hard to seek asylum in the UK. And then factor number three, we have push and pull factors. So push factors are negative issues in the country of origin. So where the person's originally from that force a person to leave that country. Pull factors are positive issues in the destination country. So the one that they're wanting to go to that attracts migrants to their destination country. So reasons for immigration push we have war, low employment, lack of safety, high crime, poverty, bullying and famine. And reasons for immigration. So the pull factor towards a country is higher wages, less crime, better services such as hospitals, political stab stability, higher employment, low risks of natural hazards and fertile land. Coin ident identified sorry three types of migration. The first being citizen migrants. So those are the ones with full citizen rights. For example, voting, access to benefits, etc. And since the 1970s, the UK state has made it harder for immigrants to acquire these rights. Then we have denism. Am I saying that right? I'm not sure. Sorry guys. Migrants. So these are privileged foreign nationals welcome by the estister such as billionaire oligarchs or highly paid employees of multinational companies. Then we have hellet migrants migrants sorry which is which they essentially are slaves and they are the most exploited group. States and employers regard them as disposable units of labor power and the reserve army of labor. They are found in unskilled, poorly paid work and include illegally trafficked workers and those legally tied to particular employees such as domestic servants. Historically, most migrants in the past were men. However, despite popular belief, today almost half of all global migrants are women. However, this is not necessarily empowering for women. Instead they're exploited for their gender role that is the expressive role that can be economically taken advantage of. Hutchild identified four main reasons for the feminization of migration. The first being the failure of the state to provide adequate child care. Second, Western men remain unwilling to perform domestic labor. Third, Western women have joined the labor force and are less willing or able to perform domestic labor. And fourth, the expansion of service occupations in western countries had led to an increased demand for female labors. So for example, you know, within healthcare, it's typically targeted, well, not targeted, but it's known as like a feminine job. So therefore, we need more feminine people who are willing to do that. Obviously, men can do it too, but it's, you know, generally, you know, the target audience is women for those roles. uh ultimately this has resulted in women from overseas coming over to the UK to help fill the void that was left behind as a result of UK women becoming more empowered entering you know instrumental roles b women so black Asian mind minority ethnic sorry for those who don't know must take on the expressive role and step in for the women who are able to be instrumental criticizing liberal feminists so liberal feminists are like yeah look there's change that change has shifted and it was most likely to be different. Feminists would say, well, how about the experience of bane women? This would support the Marxist feminist belief also that women are reserve army of labor. Women are now a reserve for not only men but also other women. So have cultural diversity of migration. So Richard Berthod's research into Asian families life uncovered the following findings. Asian families tend to live in nuclear families. However, around 33% of Asian families live in multigenerational extended families. They tend to have traditional family values and marriage is highly respected with little cohabitation or divorce and they tend to marry within their culture or religious groups. Females tend to be restricted to traditional roles and are encouraged to be segregated from men. Asian families feel obliged should look after their older kins, their older family members. That's why, you know, they're multigenerational extended families. Uh, Victor at Albert suggested that changes in attitude amongst young Asians to have an Americanized outlook, you know, like new ideas leaning away from traditional values. And then he also did research into African Caribbean families and uncovered the following that African caribbean families are less likely to be married than white families and mostly consist of one parent. Matriarchal families uh 60% of 20-year-old African African Caribbean mothers are single compared to only 11% of white counterparts. African Caribbean men are more likely to be unemployed than African Caribbean women. When the woman becomes pregnant, she would rather raise the child alone rather than having to look after both the father and the child. African Caribbean women are usually supported by fictive care and don't feel the need to stay with their father for support. You know, like their friends might help them, things like that. And then we have dual heritage or mixed race families in the UK. Uh, African Caribbeans are more likely than any other minority ethnic group to intermar. Only 25% of African Caribbean children live with with two black parents. In 14 years, the number of children of Caribbean heritage with one white parent has grown from 39% to 49%. Young people aged 18 years and under are six times more likely to mix race than people age 30 and over. However, we can't generalize this as only 11% of Indians and 4% of Pakistanis are in mixed race marriages. This could be due to a fear of stigma within their families or their like culturals and things like that. And then that finally brings us to the end of this video. So, I'm sorry that it's out late, but you know, there's still time before the exam. Uh, thank you for all the support on my other videos. And like usual, please leave feedback in the comments. And just to clarify before I do get comments, I will try do a video on media, but I can't make promises as the time is getting near. But I will definitely be doing a video for paper three, which is crime and devian. And there's also theories in that paper. But I've got also got my theories video already on my channel which you can check out. But again, thank you for all the support and I hope to see you again for another video.