¶ … Talcott Parsons' analysis U.S. sex roles 1940s essay, "Sex Roles Amer Parsons' essay "Sex Roles in the American Kinship Theory," analyzes the American social structure of the 1940's from several different perspectives. Specifically, the author examines societal structure from a familial or "kinship" (Parsons 1943:300) perspective, an occupational perspective and, finally from a perspective between the two sexes. The primary focus of his argument is that the unit of the family is the basic foundation of society but the effects of romantic relationships and occupational perceptions ultimately contribute to a "tension" (Parsons 1943:303) that is inherently manifested between the sexes. He largely bolsters this viewpoint with a functionalist perspective that was far from unique at the time, and which would have readily supplied a conflict theorist with the means to likely overturn his conclusions -- which partly explains later trends in gender relations.

The principle point of departure in this essay is that, after growing up with strong kinship ties to their nuclear families, individuals inevitably venture out on their own to begin romantic relationships that inevitably form the basis of new families. In this regards, marriage provides a means of "emancipation" (Parsons 1943:300) from one's own family and the right opportunity to begin a new one. Parsons (1943: 300) believes that one of the most vital components of adolescence is to provision an "intensification of the romantic love pattern." The establishment of a new family results in the typical gender roles of men as the proverbial breadwinner and women, even if they do have some sort of job, as a sort of domestic administrator. The truly interesting part of this essay, however, is the regard that Parsons (1943:301) sees for this vital split in roles assigned to each sex which he widely views as functional and concedes has "exceedingly important positive functional significance and is at the same time an important source of strain in relation to the patterning of sex roles."

Quite simply, the chief strength of this essay is the fact that the author has rooted the majority of his postulations on fundamentalist theory, of which Talcott's view was considered "extreme" (McLelland 2000) . For instance, he sees marriage as providing a critical foundation for the stability of individuals who are starting their own family (and therefore replacing the nuclear family in which they grew up). Additionally, he views the "occupational systems" (Parsons 1943:302) as a vital means of helping to assist with marriages and their solidarity. At the time of his writing, these occupational systems deferred to the male as the head of the household and rewarded him with the most financially advantageous positions. The author provides an incisive point of the functional nature of this aspect of the job market, which "eliminates any competitive status, especially as between husband and wife" (Parsons 1943: 302) and keeps the domains of the man and woman completely separated from one another. Parsons' functionalist view of what essentially is sexism in the workplace (particularly by contemporary standards) helps to provide a theoretical approach to what essentially amounts to chauvinism which, on a very basic level, helps to underpin such a stance.

Another strength of this article is the author's sheer honesty. There are a number of contradictions inherent in distinguishing between men and women and their occupational worth according to sex; to Parsons' credit, he is able to acknowledge these contradictions in a way that suggests he is providing an objective view of the sociological system of the sexes. The most glaring contradiction about the subordinate status automatically assigned to women because of their sex -- both from an occupational perspective and a general social one as well -- is the fact that, for the married man, what "makes his relation to the "woman he loves" the most important single thing in a man's life, is incompatible with the view that she is an inferior creature, fit only for dependency on him" (Parsons 1943: 303). Still, it is worth noting that this arbitrary role assigned to women (and to married women in particular) regarding their dependency upon men is due in large part to the way that society regards their occupational prowess. The general devaluation of women in the workplace relates to the lack of parity between them and men in the family structure, a fact that Parsons (1943:303) explains quite honestly by observing that "occupational status has tremendous...

In neither sphere are they regarded as equals to men.
Whereas Parsons ascribes a great deal of functionality in the inequitable treatment and esteem for men and women both in the workplace and in their marriage, the strength of his functional perspective is lessened somewhat by his acknowledgement that this inequity actually can produce a strain in a marriage. While on the one hand he should be lauded for admitting this limitation of the functionality of society's regard for the sex roles, this point does not actually buttress his functionalist perspective and in fact weakens it -- which is one of the drawbacks of the article. However, what is interesting about this assessment of Parsons' is the way that a conflict theorist would interpret these same phenomena and explain sex roles in the 1940s. The conflict theorist would find fertile grounds for the fact that conflict is oftentimes a constructive point for change by readily agreeing with Parsons about the lack of parity between men and women due to their occupational regard, and the fact that this valuation naturally extends itself into the sphere of family life. However, the conflict theorist would argue that there is nothing negative about these facts, and that they are instead vital points for effecting change in the roles of the sexes at the time.

In fact, someone who believes in conflict theory would take the inverse opinion of Parsons and his functionalist theory for most of the latter's salient points. Parsons (1943:302) propounded the fact that occupational perceptions of men and women -- in which men were the breadwinners and women, regardless of the fact if they did have a job, were simply the head of the household as a positive fact because there is a less "competition for status, especially as between husband and wife, which might be disruptive of the solidarity of marriage." Conflict theory, however, would purport the idea that conflict is desirable since it promotes change and can result in a sort of stasis that is difficult to achieve without it. This idea is referred to as an "evolutionary theory of conflict over the construction of culture" (MacDonald 2009:233). The conflict theorist would believe that occupational regard for women and men is a prime source of conflict, because it regulates women to positions that -- although they are different from those of men in that the former is domestic and the latter is professional -- are considered lesser than that of their male counterparts. Therefore, what Parsons believes is good about this point the conflict theorist would believe is not good, and likely posit the viewpoint that the differences in the occupations of a husband and a wife is an inherent source of conflict that requires some sort of a resolution.

More compelling still is the way in which Parsons theoretical ideas help to explain later trends in gender relations. Those trends, of course, involve the full emancipation of the woman to a status that not only includes her as one who can "hold property, make contracts, or sue in her own right" (Parsons 1943:302) but as one who is ultimately bereft of the sort of "dependency" that Parsons (Parsons 1943:303) has ascribed to her. One can argue that much like the way the conflict theorist would view Parsons' ideas, the author's ideas provided the impetus for a much closer degree of parity between the sexes in the years leading up to the 21st century. Gender relations in contemporary times include women in all sorts of places of employment -- including in management and in supervisory positions. Whereas during Parsons' time period women did not have careers even if they did have jobs (Parsons 1943:302), women can regularly have careers today. Some even choose to do so to the exclusion of their role as domestic administrators. One can trace all of these developments to Parsons' ideas that, sociologically as evinced in the spheres of occupations and in families, that there was an integral dichotomy between men and women. Women have taken great strides to ensure that they are no longer dependent on men; perhaps the most dramatic example of this fact is lesbianism. However, they had to actively pursue measures to ensure that there is more equality between them and men in the family and in…