here is a mini-paper i wrote for sociology of the family last night. there's just something about a picture of a naked woman wearing a blonde wig and star sunglasses... you don't expect to have that pop onto your screen and scroll down to read the implications of the good provider role in modern (white middle class) society, do you?
The role of the �good provider� has been a basic tenet of the familial structure throughout the history of mankind. It has shifted form, but not function, and is considered a fundamental because of the necessary services it provides: food, shelter, shelter, clothing, and the economic livelihood of the family all hinge on the ability of the provider to adequately perform his duty. The good provider has morphed genders throughout the centuries, mostly due to shifts within society motivated by economic advancement or changes within society about what was of value economically; however, it is traditionally associated with men. Women may have provided as much as (and during many periods of history, moreso than) men, but because society is rooted in largely patriarchal soil, the man is largely credited for the fruits of the collective family�s labor. He has been viewed as the head of the household, and therefore it�s provider. This train of thought was deeply embedded into society with the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution, which required men to adopt a work environment outside the home. That environment was the sole source of monetary sustenance, and ensured that the man would bear the burden (and wield the power) of being the only producer of economic profit within the family. The sociological ripple effect of the Industrial Revolution, and it�s prominent placement of men firmly in the role of the �good provider�, resulted in a myriad of problems arising within both genders, and a series of adaptations and advancements as well.
Both men and women�s social view of marriage was intensely altered. Women�s main concern when searching for a suitable mate would now be finding a man who would take care of them, and provide financial security. If a man was gentle and kind, it was an added bonus, not a requirement of any sort. Men focused on finding a woman who would dutifully maintain a tasteful domestic existence. Separate working environments kept emotional satisfaction and gratification a minimal priority for both sexes. Viewed in a more positive light: marriage was simplified, in the sense that intimacy was not considered a necessary obligation.
A man began to directly associate his self worth, and his sense of success and failure, with his performance at his workplace. He devoted much of his time to providing not only the bare essentials, but as much luxury as he could afford to heap upon his family. In this way, he displayed his breadwinning status to the rest of society. The roles of husband, father, and community participant were also associated with his ability to provide; if he failed as a provider, he failed (to various extents) to fulfill his duties in almost every other aspect of society. Though the burden of complete financial dependency was placed squarely on the man�s shoulders, most families would struggle mightily to ensure that the woman didn�t enter the labor force, so as to not let on to �the world� that the husband in question could not perform his sociological duties adequately. A dual-income household was further evidence to the man that he had failed to live up to his duties as such, and was a cause of great esteem issues within his psyche.
If, however, a man managed to successfully navigate the breadwinner course, he derived a sense of pride and strength from his achievements, in direct proportion to how much he managed to achieve. He had the power to control the family�s standard of living; every material asset they possessed was a physical manifestation of that power. Acceptance and a high status among his peers was also bestowed upon the good provider, and his stability within those perks was a given, as long as he sustained his success in his chosen career.
The good provider role also produced a spectrum of psychological and actual responses from the men that were expected to acquiesce to it. The spectrum ran the gambit mentally, as evidenced by the growing feeling of resentment towards the financial obligations that were his alone to bear, and towards the family that was completely dependant upon his ability to excel in that area (the �old ball and chain� mentality), to an exhibition of extreme dominance within household affairs (men that dictated every move the family was allowed to make, down to the exact food that could be purchased at the grocery store, and the like). In actuality, those ideologies were given life in the personas of the hobo/tramp and the extreme overachiever, respectively.
Women also suffered under this �brave new world�, most notably due to their complete loss of financial independence and status within the household. Psychologically, women were raised believing the best thing that they could achieve in life was a husband who was successful, and a domestic existence that was exemplary in competition with their peers. Their self worth was measured by their ability to keep a harmonious household. The women of affluent providers became a sort of �economic parasite�; left with meager options towards self-advancement, and fur coats or dinette sets instead of emotional satiation from her husband, she developed a propensity towards overspending, laziness, and pill or alcohol addiction. Wives of underachievers were left with the options of joining the labor force, much to the embarrassment and chagrin of the husband and the unspoken degradation of their peers, or scrounging silently, hoping to make ends meet. In some cases, these women were completely abandoned, leaving the community to care for them.
During the sixties and seventies, a dramatic change occurred in the way that men viewed their familial existence. They began to see the home as inundated with burdens and restrictions, and in turn, women began indirectly pressuring their husbands to succeed in their stead, since they were not afforded the opportunity to. Women started joining the labor force in unprecedented numbers, and the addition of expected responsibilities, including shared household duties and emotional obligations, proved too much for the endurance of the traditional male centered �good provider� role. Divorce rates began climbing steadily, and single family households and financially independent spouses began to enter the sociological mainstream. In nineteen-eighty the Census Bureau officially ended the male good provider�s reign, by declaring that it would no longer assume that the male was the head of the household.
Though the good provider as a strictly male dominated position was embraced by society for the comparatively brief period of a century and a half, it became the defining fixture of the economically viable family. The singular designation of the male providing monetary livelihood proved to possess more difficulties than solaces, hence its inevitable demise. Unfortunately, society has yet to produce a worthy substitute that is accepted among the masses.
anyone still around? anyone? bueller?
2:25 p.m. - 2001-09-27
Recent entries:
cliffhanger - 2005-11-12
Mary - 2005-02-08
Border - 2004-07-26
Propaganda - 2004-02-20
Lifer - 2003-12-05
My profile
Archives
Notes
Diaryland
Random
RSS
others:
dlove
barbylon
cockywrds
dearcynthia
brotherjacob
nevarren
girlhero
thenshesaid
trythisfix
tomfoolery
trhdes
queenkelly
epiphany
trillion