Functionalism And Gender Inequality Essay

Functionalism has been criticised for supporting the misplacement of power throughout the classes. Critiques have questioned the necessity of class stratification for productive purposes. This stratification cannot act as an incentive because inequality is inherited, not earned (Wakeling, 2008). In order for inequality to be actually functional to society then there would have to be true free mobility between the social classes which we know is not true. The functionalist’s perspective of division between classes has also been criticised for perpetuating the position of the privileged elite who already hold power, prestige and money (Lockwood, 1956). Functionalists have a tendency to mistake the legitimisation employed by elites in society for social reality (Harré, 2002). The

On the other hand it is hardly functional for those who belong to the lower classes. This narrow focus prevents functionalism from addressing a number of critical issues of society, its focus is very conservative and has operated in support of the status quo and the dominant elites (Huaco, 1986)
It has been argued by many however that the first division of class in fact exists in the form of the division of labour between men and women. The functionalist view of gender inequality was most firmly expressed in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and was principally developed by Parsons’ model of the nuclear family (Smith and Ingoldsby, 2009). Parsons proposed that inequalities between genders existed because they offered an efficient way to create a division of labour, which works to maximise resources and efficiency (Savage, 1981). Women in almost every society globally primary responsibility are child rearing and the household. Some functionalists have explained this due to their biological role of pregnancy, child birth and breast feeding; similarly men traditionally were responsible for hunting because of their generally larger strength and