Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:31:25.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Cares for the Family?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Hilary Land
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Britain has never had a set of policies explicitly labelled ‘family policies’, most if not all social policies are implicitly family policies because they are based on certain assumptions about the nature of relationships between the sexes and the generations. By careful examination of the detail of the legislation and administrative rules, together with the way in which services are allocated and used, it is possible to expose these assumptions and show that they are not only consistent between policies but very persistent over time. This paper first examines the assumptions concerning the division of unpaid labour within the family whereby women care for the young, the sick and the old and for able-bodied adult men (their husbands). The examples are selected from a variety of income maintenance systems and services for children, the old and the disabled. Particular attention is focused on the extent to which it is recognized that women are at the same time workers in the labour market and unpaid domestic workers in the home. The second part of the paper analyses the impact on their participation and opportunities in the labour market of the ideology which accords to women the primary responsibilities for caring for other members of their family. The perpetuation of such an ideology favours the interests of men and frequently the interests of the economically powerful, but it is not assumed that these interests always coincide.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1978 , pp. 257 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 House of Lords Debates, Vol. 371, col. 1,260.

2 Ibid. col. 1,361.

3 Eversley, D., ‘Demographic Change and the Demand for Housing’, in M. Buxton and E. Craven, The Uncertain Future, Centre for Studies in Social Policy, London, 1976, p. 32.Google Scholar

4 Hunt, A., The Home Help Service in England and Wales, Government Social Survey, HMSO, London, 1970, p. 424.Google Scholar

5 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS), The General Household Survey, 1973, HMSO, London, 1976, p. 135.Google Scholar

6 Marshall, A., Elements of Economics of Industry, third edition, Macmillan, London, 1901, p. 342.Google Scholar

7 OPCS, 1971 Census, HMSO, London, 1971Google Scholar – household composition tables: 10 per cent sample, Table 50.

8 Hamill, L., Wives as Sole and Joint Breadwinners, unpublished paper given to the Social Science Research Council Social Security Workshop, 1977.Google Scholar

9 Quoted from the Department of the Environment's second Inner Area study in P. Willmott, ‘The Role of the Family’, in Buxton and Craven, op. cit. p. 53.

10 Supplementary Benefits Commission (SBC), Annual Report 1976, Cmnd 6910, HMSO, London, 1977, p. 46.Google Scholar

11 See Martin, J. and Morgan, D., Prolonged Sickness and the Return to Work, OPCS, HMSO, London, 1975.Google Scholar

12 See Land, H., ‘The Myth of the Male Breadwinner’, New Society, 29:2 (1975), 71–3.Google Scholar

13 Orwell, G., The Road to Wigart Pier, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1937, p. 72.Google Scholar

14 Departmental Committee on Sickness Benefit Claims under the Insurance Act, appointed in September 1913.

15 Sickness Benefit Claims Committee, Report and Minutes of Evidence, Cd 7688, Vol. 1, HMSO, London, 1914, p. 4.Google Scholar

16 Ibid. Vol. 3, p. 311.

17 Ibid. Vol. 2, p. 435.

18 Ibid. Vol. i, p. 2.

19 Medical Evidence for Social Security Purposes, DHSS, London, 1976, p. 3.Google Scholar

20 Personal communication from Stanley Orme, Minister of Social Security, to Tunnard, Jo, 26 October 1977.Google Scholar

21 Hunt, A., A Survey of Women's Employment, OPCS, HMSO, London, 1968, p. 176.Google Scholar

22 House of Commons Debates, Vol. 941, col. 453.

23 SBC, Policy Guidelines, para. A3,011 (my italics).

24 Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income 1951–5, Evidence, Vol. 4, HMSO, London, 1953, p. 55.Google Scholar

25 Ibid. Vol. 3, p. 18.

26 House of Commons Debates, Vol. 621, col. 1,558.

27 Shanas, E., Townsend, P., Wedderbum, D., Friis, H., Milnøj, P. and Stewhouwer, J., The Old in Three Industrial Societies, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1968, p. 112.Google Scholar

28 Ibid. p. 178.

29 Ibid. p. 61.

30 Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress, Cd 4499, Vol. 3, HMSO, London, 1909, p. 259Google Scholar, quoted by Moroney, R. in The Family and the State, Longman, London, 1976Google Scholar. He makes no comment on the differences between men and women.

31 Plowden, B., ‘Low Cost Day Care Facilities and the Part Which is Being and Can be Played by Voluntary Organisations’, in Low Cost Day Provision for the Under Fives, DHSS, London, 1976, p. 17.Google Scholar

32 Moss, P., ‘The Current Situation’, in Fonda, N. and Moss, P. (eds), Mothers in Employment, Institute of Education, London, 1976, p. 24.Google Scholar

33 Tizard, J., ‘Effects of Day Care on Young Children’Google Scholar, in Fonda and Moss, op. cit. p. 67 (my italics).

34 Children and Their Primary Schools (Plowden Report), Central Advisory Council for Education, Vol. 1, HMSO, London, 1965, p. 127.Google Scholar

35 Ibid.

36 Ferguson, S. and Fitzgerald, K., Studies in the Social Services, HMSO, London, 1954, p. 211 (my italics).Google Scholar

37 Royal Institute of Great Britain, The Nation's Larder, George Bell and Sons, London, 1940, p. 95Google Scholar. This was a series of lectures given at the Royal Institute in the summer of 1940. Contributors included Lord Woolton, Minister of Food, John Boyd-Orr and Professor Mottram.

38 Worswick, P., ‘The Stability and Flexibility of Full Employment’, in Balogh, T. (ed.), Economics of Full Employment, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1947, p. 60.Google Scholar

39 I am indebted to Diana Barker for first pointing this out to me.

40 Ferge, Z., ‘The Relation between Paid and Unpaid Working Women’, Labor and Society, April 1976, p. 46.Google Scholar

41 Ibid. p. 47 (my italics).

42 There have been a few recent studies. See for example Cohen, G., Absentee Husbands in Spiralist Families, mimeograph, Civil Service College, London, 1975.Google Scholar

43 Army Welfare Inquiry Committee Report, Appendix C, HMSO, London, 1976.Google Scholar

44 Central Statistical Office, Social Trends, no. 6, HMSO, London, 1976, p. 80.Google Scholar

45 Williams, G., Residential Staffing, Allen and Unwin, London, 1967, p. 149.Google Scholar

46 Quoted in Coussins, F., The Equality Report, National Council for Civil Liberties, London, 1977. p. 47.Google Scholar

47 Williams, op. cit.

48 Ibid.

49 Mitchell, H., The Hard Way Up, Virago, London, 1977, p. 113.Google Scholar

50 Beveridge, W., Voluntary Action, Allen and Unwin, London, 1947, p. 264.Google Scholar

51 Ibid. p. 275.

52 See for example Department of Employment, Gazette, , January 1974, p. 9.Google Scholar

53 OPCS, The General Household Survey, 1974, HMSO, London, 1977, p. 84.Google Scholar

54 Hunt, , The Home Help Service in England and Wales, p. 191.Google Scholar

55 Leibowitz, A., ‘Women's Work in the Home’, in Lloyd, C. (ed.), Sex Discrimination and the Division of Labour, Columbia University Press, New York, 1975, p. 223.Google Scholar

56 Ibid. p. 230.

57 Willmott, P. and Young, M., The Symmetrical Family, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1973, p. 112.Google Scholar

58 Boulding, E., ‘Familial Constraints on Women's Work Roles’, in M. Blaxall and B. Reagan, Women and the Workplace, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976, p. 112.Google Scholar

59 Leibowitz, op. cit. p. 239.

60 Hunt, , A Survey of Women's Employment, Vol. 2, p. 205.Google Scholar

61 Ibid. p. 52.

62 Ibid. p. 164.

63 Ibid. p. 180.

64 Hunt, A., Management Attitudes and Practices Towards Women at Work, OPCS, HMSO, London, 1975, p. 14.Google Scholar

65 Ibid.

66 Department of Employment, op. cit. p. 9.

67 See for example Wilding, P. and George, V., Motherless Families, Routledge and Kega Paul, London, 1970.Google Scholar

68 Neimi, B., ‘Geographic Immobility and Labour Force Mobility: A Study of Female Unemployment’Google Scholar, in Lloyd, op. cit. p. 76.

69 OPCS, The General Household Survey, 1973, p. 119.Google Scholar

70 Neimi, op. cit. p. 86.

71 Report of the Royal Commission on Equal Fay, Cmd 6937, HMSO, London, 1944, p. 191 (my italics).Google Scholar

72 Quoted in Scott, H., Women and Socialism: Experiences from Eastern Europe, Allison and Busby, London, 1976, p. 199.Google Scholar