Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Megst;[url="tel:55679501")
    55679501[/url]]Does the phrase 'power relationships' essentially mean it's an essa about the domestic division of labour?
    yes and the conjugal roles
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tj789)
    HELP! sTUCK ON THIS QUESTION!

    Asses sociological explanations on the changing position of children

    Asses?? This is more of an examine question how can you argue for an against?!
    For - Laws against child labour, compulsory schooling specialises in young, the family is child centred (March of Progress) e.g Aries.
    Against - Laws just control children, Adults control children, Childhood is still bad in third world countries etc, Childhood it toxic according to Sue Palmer.
    Sorry thats brief, being lazy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC777)
    For - Laws against child labour, compulsory schooling specialises in young, the family is child centred (March of Progress) e.g Aries.
    Against - Laws just control children, Adults control children, Childhood is still bad in third world countries etc, Childhood it toxic according to Sue Palmer.
    Sorry thats brief, being lazy.
    But isnt it explanations so they are asking WHY its changed not its impact??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tj789)
    HELP! sTUCK ON THIS QUESTION!

    Asses sociological explanations on the changing position of children

    Asses?? This is more of an examine question how can you argue for an against?!
    Hmm, maybe you'd assess it with whether the change in position was good or bad? And add in bits of theory. Or actually, maybe its better to assess the point you're making with childhood in other parts of the world and other cultures.

    1) Longer length of childhood - before children would work on farms from young ages, now children don't have to work until they've finished school/education till 16.

    CRIT: This change in position is not the case for children in the Samoan Village where Holmes found that you could never be 'too young' to do a task, even if it's dangerous or physically different.

    2) Decrease in family size - couples only have one or two children now (average 1.8) so focus their love, attention and money onto them.

    CRIT: Italians/Irish tend to have very large families
    A child costs £50,000 to raise

    3) Children are much safer - changes in legislation i.e. laws restricting child labour, 1989 Children Act which protected children who suffered abuse and harm

    CRIT: Not the case in Ik tribe in Uganda, where children from the age of 3 are left on their own to fend for themselves. Could also criticise saying law doesn't necessarily protect children completley - ChildLine get 20,000 calls a year from children experiencing sexual/physical abuse


    You could then talk about some theory

    4) Functionalists: March of Progress (Willmot and Young) means childrens position have gradually improved overtime (give some examples, i.e. free school, child centered, better infant mortality rate)

    CRIT: Postmodernists may disagreee; Postman says childhood is dissappearing due to a rise in children commiting crime, increased sexual activity amongst children, drug/alcohol abuse in children, etc.

    Marxists also talk about how children have become consumers (i.e. pester power)

    Maybe talk about inequalities amongst children that exist today i.e. gender equalities; boys allowed to go out late at night, cycle on roads, use bus, etc but not girls

    Could talk about inequalties between adults and children i.e. adults control childrens bodies (how to sit, walk, what to wear, hairstyles), or adults control childrens resources (child benefit goes to parent rather than child)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Now im confused what's the difference between examine and assess
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Hersh_K)
    Hmm, maybe you'd assess it with whether the change in position was good or bad? And add in bits of theory. Or actually, maybe its better to assess the point you're making with childhood in other parts of the world and other cultures.

    1) Longer length of childhood - before children would work on farms from young ages, now children don't have to work until they've finished school/education till 16.

    CRIT: This change in position is not the case for children in the Samoan Village where Holmes found that you could never be 'too young' to do a task, even if it's dangerous or physically different.

    2) Decrease in family size - couples only have one or two children now (average 1.8) so focus their love, attention and money onto them.

    CRIT: Italians/Irish tend to have very large families
    A child costs £50,000 to raise

    3) Children are much safer - changes in legislation i.e. laws restricting child labour, 1989 Children Act which protected children who suffered abuse and harm

    CRIT: Not the case in Ik tribe in Uganda, where children from the age of 3 are left on their own to fend for themselves. Could also criticise saying law doesn't necessarily protect children completley - ChildLine get 20,000 calls a year from children experiencing sexual/physical abuse


    You could then talk about some theory

    4) Functionalists: March of Progress (Willmot and Young) means childrens position have gradually improved overtime (give some examples, i.e. free school, child centered, better infant mortality rate)

    CRIT: Postmodernists may disagreee; Postman says childhood is dissappearing due to a rise in children commiting crime, increased sexual activity amongst children, drug/alcohol abuse in children, etc.

    Marxists also talk about how children have become consumers (i.e. pester power)
    For your first point, hasn't the compulsory schooling age risen to 18? Might aswell give up to date laws

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thecatwithnohat)
    For your first point, hasn't the compulsory schooling age risen to 18? Might aswell give up to date laws

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Has it? I thought it was something like, you can leave school but you have to take up some form of training or apprenticeship. Idk, they probably won't get fussed over that if its changed recently
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC777)
    Now im confused what's the difference between examine and assess
    Examine is A01 heavy - so you just gotta list and explain loads of points, with some evaluation/criticisms. I'd say 5/6 paragraphs.

    Assess requires lots more AO2. I'd say maybe 4/5 big paragraphs with lots of criticisms, evaluation, etc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can I please have some feedback for this practice essay? (sorry there are so many typos)

    Examine the ways in which social polices influence families and households


    The traditional family structure is nuclear- a two generational family made up of parents and their dependent children. Diversity in families refers to their structures. Society has seen an increase in alternative structures, particularly in the last 40 years. Social policies play a big role in this as they can encourage or prevent specific family type forming.

    One social policy that has significantly impacted on diversity is the de-criminalisation of homosexuality in 1967. This has allowed same-sex couples to openly co-habit. Stonewall estimate that 5-7% of cohabiting couples are same-sex. Due to the discretion of same sex relationships prior to de-criminalisation it is impossible to see the true extent of increase in this type of family and household. The 1997 labour government implemented a policy allowing cohabiting couples -including same sex- to adopt. Under the conservative/Liberal democrat coalition government in 2014, same-sex couples were given equal marriage status, allowing them to be acknowledged by law as married and benefit from married couples tax allowance. However, these incentives for married couples also prevent diversity in heterosexual relationships. Feminists such as Land argue that social policies assume all families are patriarchal and nuclear- preventing equal incentives for single parent households or cohabiting couples. Drew identifies this as familistic gender regimes

    However, it could be argued that changes in divorce law have had a bigger impact. Divorce law has made divorce easier to obtain. Statistic show that 40% of married couples divorce. Iin 1921, women were allowed to apply for divorce, prior to this only men could. Today, 70% of divorces are filed by women. The ground for divorce were widened in 1971 to cover 'irretrievable breakdown' of marriage. This meant that divorce was becoming more common and as Goody and Mitchell note, 'normalised'. The result of these changes in divorce law is an increase in single parent families. 90% are matrifocal (headed by a female). Feminists argue that although divorce is a good thing as it promotes women's independence, state policies reinforce gender scripts and assume that it is the mother who must fulfill the expressive role. This can be seen in policies such as Child tax credits being paid to the mother, longer paid maternity leave that paternity, and fathers often being denied custody. These creates a self fulfilling prophesy.The increase in single parent households as a result of divorce law also creates an increase in one person households- mainly inhabited by divorced men under 65. However, functionalists argue that single parent households and one person households just show a 'snapshot' in time and that these are not permanent family types. Many divorcees remarry. This is refered to as serial monogomy. Functionalist Chester argues that the main type of family diversity created by social policies is within the nuclear family. Discrimination law and equal pay laws ( more recently reformed to the combined Equal pay and the equality act 2010) enable women to take on a shared breadwinner role. He calls this the neo conventional family



    Murray argues from a New Right perspective that social policies do have effect of family structure, but this is a negative thing. He argues that the welfare state gives single mothers ( who are now more commonly never marries rather than divorced) a 'perverse incentive' creating a dependency culture that 'inadequately socialise' their children and produce a cycle of single parent families. Murray encourages social policies that don't undermine the self-sufficiency of the nuclear family, and prevents absent fathers, such as the Child Support Act
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BOWE)
    Can I please have some feedback for this practice essay? (sorry there are so many typos)

    Examine the ways in which social polices influence families and households


    The traditional family structure is nuclear- a two generational family made up of parents and their dependent children. Diversity in families refers to their structures. Society has seen an increase in alternative structures, particularly in the last 40 years. Social policies play a big role in this as they can encourage or prevent specific family type forming.

    One social policy that has significantly impacted on diversity is the de-criminalisation of homosexuality in 1967. This has allowed same-sex couples to openly co-habit. Stonewall estimate that 5-7% of cohabiting couples are same-sex. Due to the discretion of same sex relationships prior to de-criminalisation it is impossible to see the true extent of increase in this type of family and household. The 1997 labour government implemented a policy allowing cohabiting couples -including same sex- to adopt. Under the conservative/Liberal democrat coalition government in 2014, same-sex couples were given equal marriage status, allowing them to be acknowledged by law as married and benefit from married couples tax allowance. However, these incentives for married couples also prevent diversity in heterosexual relationships. Feminists such as Land argue that social policies assume all families are patriarchal and nuclear- preventing equal incentives for single parent households or cohabiting couples. Drew identifies this as familistic gender regimes

    However, it could be argued that changes in divorce law have had a bigger impact. Divorce law has made divorce easier to obtain. Statistic show that 40% of married couples divorce. Iin 1921, women were allowed to apply for divorce, prior to this only men could. Today, 70% of divorces are filed by women. The ground for divorce were widened in 1971 to cover 'irretrievable breakdown' of marriage. This meant that divorce was becoming more common and as Goody and Mitchell note, 'normalised'. The result of these changes in divorce law is an increase in single parent families. 90% are matrifocal (headed by a female). Feminists argue that although divorce is a good thing as it promotes women's independence, state policies reinforce gender scripts and assume that it is the mother who must fulfill the expressive role. This can be seen in policies such as Child tax credits being paid to the mother, longer paid maternity leave that paternity, and fathers often being denied custody. These creates a self fulfilling prophesy.The increase in single parent households as a result of divorce law also creates an increase in one person households- mainly inhabited by divorced men under 65. However, functionalists argue that single parent households and one person households just show a 'snapshot' in time and that these are not permanent family types. Many divorcees remarry. This is refered to as serial monogomy. Functionalist Chester argues that the main type of family diversity created by social policies is within the nuclear family. Discrimination law and equal pay laws ( more recently reformed to the combined Equal pay and the equality act 2010) enable women to take on a shared breadwinner role. He calls this the neo conventional family



    Murray argues from a New Right perspective that social policies do have effect of family structure, but this is a negative thing. He argues that the welfare state gives single mothers ( who are now more commonly never marries rather than divorced) a 'perverse incentive' creating a dependency culture that 'inadequately socialise' their children and produce a cycle of single parent families. Murray encourages social policies that don't undermine the self-sufficiency of the nuclear family, and prevents absent fathers, such as the Child Support Act





    its really good, I'd say an A. But I think the conclusion could be better.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amelia4_xo)
    its really good, I'd say an A. But I think the conclusion could be better.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Thank you for having a look! Are there any points you would have added/ not included? I ran out of time before doing a conclusion so in the real exam I should probably write a bit less so I can conclude
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BOWE)
    Thank you for having a look! Are there any points you would have added/ not included? I ran out of time before doing a conclusion so in the real exam I should probably write a bit less so I can conclude
    Its grear
    can yoy write all that in an hour?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    I am incredibly nervous, good luck all!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Good luck everybody!!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    Just finished the exam, it as a lovely paper! I got to the social policy one and panicked, only mentioned TWO (New right and new Labour, I didn't compare any GAH) out of the four perspectives and simply listed laws and spoke about how these specific laws affect families in general e.g. gay marriage, child abuse Etc. Is that okay? :cry2:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Damn, I was lucky as hell. I forgot completely about social policies until I checked this site in the morning, revised it and did pretty well in the exam. Wrote about 5 sides, just wrote everything I knew about both the topics in the essays that were at least somewhat relevant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For childhood i did 3 for its disappeared (Palmer, Gittens & Phillips) and 3 against the claim that its disappeared (Shorter Jenks, Aries) but they werent direct criticisms in the sense that they criticised what they said but didnt address it idk how to explain ssdahgshdgsdhkgkhjgs

    But lovely paper and TSR predictions on point lool
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was totally ****ed up.
    Feeling unwell before the exam
    Forgot all the sociologists' name


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For social policies I did functionalist view, new right view and feminist view and in that include like welfare benefits, maternity leave, divorce reform act, child benefit etc and then did a paragraph on civil partnership act, gay marriage and adoption laws saying they create equality? Was it right to include the perspectives like that?

    And for childhood I did a paragraph on it disappearing and included postman and Palmer, and criticised it saying about globalisation briefly, and then a paragraph on how it is stricter with parental controls etc and I wrote about march of progress view but I can't remember where I wrote it or what I wrote now!
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about your A-level results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.