FAMILIES ARE CHANGING

Types of family
traditional family - unconventional family - nuclear family extended family - blended family - single parent family international family
- single sex family - close knit family
Families are changing so must politics
The state needs to define its role in supporting the family in the face of social changes
For an institution whose death has been so widely and frequently predicted, the family is displaying
an extraordinary resilience, ingenuity and a capacity to modernise for the sake of its own survival.
Last week, for instance, the government revealed its controversial gay marriage bill, permitting same
sex couples to say "I do". A historic event. The family is nothing if not wedded to metamorphosis.
The practices and philosophy of parenthood are adjusting as rapidly. Last week, the Office for
National Statistics revealed a significant increase in women becoming mothers in their 40s while
"stay at home" fathers now amount to 10% of full-time carers. Whether this growth is a matter of
choice or of necessity dictated by unemployment or cost of childcare or both, what is lagging
desperately behind is the ability of the modern state to define what role it should play in supporting
the family faced with this accelerating social change. What kind of ethos will most effectively shape
family policy in the 21st century?
From the 20th century on, the state has had a permanent seat at the family table while never properly
clarifying what its role should be. Nanny? In loco parentis? The right can view the state as an
intruder. The left can expect the state to be a protector against the family's worst excesses. In 1998,
for the first time, government tried to carve a middle path. In a green paper, Supporting Families, a
Labour government promised advice, a reduction in child poverty, a better balance between work and
home, and a pledge to tackle domestic violence, truancy and school-age pregnancy. In some areas,
it made headway, in child poverty and teenage pregnancy, for instance. In others, it failed, in part
because of two major weaknesses, which continue to dog family policy today.
The first is to do with paid work and "light touch" timidity towards those in business and industry who
refuse to modernise their attitudes about the kind of workplace arrangements they encourage and the
impact they have on family life. Since the 80s too little has changed. Fathers are still written off if
they seek shorter hours, while women could be sacked in pregnancy. Companies such as the
National Grid, Barclays and BT manage to flourish while moulding work to family life, so why not
others?
Today, the mosaic that is family life has never been richer or more diverse. It includes, for instance,
mothers who have never lived with the father of their child; septuagenarians newly divorced after 40
years of marriage; gay parents; teenage dads shamefully ignored by services; cohabiting stepfamilies
born of love but mourning loss, and sixtysomethings with teenage children and the demands of their
own parents, potential centenarians.
In 1977,the American writer Christopher Lasch wrote: "The modern world intrudes at every point
the sanctity of the home is a sham in a world dominated by giant corporations and by the apparatus
of mass promotion the same forces that have impoverished work and civic life invade the private
realm and its last stranglehold, the family." The miracle is, that no matter what its make-up, however
inadequate the support, the family resists and lives on. Given the right tools, it can even thrive.
(adapted from The Guardian
policy)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/27/observer-editorial-osborne-family-

Discuss the following questions with a partner:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of traditional families?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of traditional family roles?
Do you or any of friends have unconventional families?
Are you close to your extended family?
To what extent can you rely on your extended family?

Roles in the family:

homemaker, housewife, the heart of the family, househusband, stay
at home mum/ dad, breadwinner, provider, leader, wears the
trousers, rules the roost,
father figure, role model, the black sheep, the apple of my eye

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Explain why.

People should get married before they have children.

Your family should support you no matter what.
Theres a black sheep in every family.
One parent should stay at home and look after the
children.
Bad behaviour in schools is being fuelled by
'overindulgent' parents who don't know how to say
no to their children.
Divorce is damaging to children.
Marriage is outdated.
Spanish families are very close knit.

Children are likely to have the same political views as

their parents.
You family is your social safety net.
You can never be lonely if you have a large family.
Parents should lead by example.
A step-parent has an impossible job.
Its healthy for families to argue.
The disintegration of the traditional family has led to
many societal problems.
Household tasks should be shared equally between
husband and wife.
Parents raise sons and daughters differently.