Why an old sociological theory is driving today’s culture wars on X

Spend any time on X, and a familiar argument appears again and again. Society is supposedly “falling apart” because women are not marrying, not having children, not submitting, or not staying in their “natural role”. Influencers promote rigid ideas of family life under banners like tradition, masculinity, or family values. Some go further, claiming that a husband should lead, decide, and even have authority over a woman’s body.

These ideas feel modern, but they are not. They are rooted in an old sociological theory known as functionalism.

Functionalism emerged in the mid-twentieth century and argued that the nuclear family, comprising a married man, a married woman, and their children, was the natural foundation of social stability. While often presented as neutral and scientific, the theory rests on deeply gendered assumptions that normalise women’s subordination and frame inequality as necessary.

Understanding functionalism helps explain why these arguments feel so familiar and why they are resurfacing so forcefully in today’s culture wars.

Functionalism explained simply

Functionalism views society as a system composed of distinct parts, much like a machine. Each part has a job to do. If every part performs its function properly, society runs smoothly.

Institutions such as education, religion, the legal system, and the family are judged by how well they maintain order and stability, not by whether they are fair to individuals. Inequality is often viewed as a useful or even necessary means of keeping society functioning (Durkheim, 1895).

When applied to family life, this way of thinking prioritises order over equality.

Parsons, gender roles, and the nuclear family

The most influential functionalist thinker on the family was Talcott Parsons, writing in the 1950s. Parsons argued that the nuclear family was best suited to modern industrial society because it performed two key functions.

First, it socialised children by teaching them shared values.
Second, it stabilised adults emotionally, especially men.

Parsons believed this worked best when men and women had clearly defined roles. Men were expected to be breadwinners and authority figures. Women were expected to provide emotional support, childcare, and domestic labour. He called these the instrumental role for men and the expressive role for women (Parsons and Bales, 1955).

Crucially, this division was described as natural and efficient, not as a result of unequal laws, limited opportunities for women, or social pressure.

The “warm bath” idea and emotional labour

One of the most revealing aspects of Parsons’ theory is what later became known as the warm bath theory. The family was described as a place where a man returns after work to recover from stress. His wife’s role was to absorb his frustration, soothe his emotions, and restore him so he could continue working productively.

In simple terms, male stress mattered. Female exhaustion did not.

Women’s emotional labour was treated as natural, unpaid, and unlimited. Their own ambitions, mental health, or dissatisfaction were not part of the analysis. As feminist sociologist Ann Oakley later argued, this was ideology presented as explanation (Oakley, 1974).

Why feminists call this misogyny

Feminist sociologists have long criticised functionalism for ignoring power and inequality. Ann Oakley argued that Parsons confused ideology with explanation, treating traditional gender roles as natural rather than socially constructed (Oakley, 1974). Christine Delphy and Diana Leonard argued that marriage operates as a system of economic exploitation, where women provide unpaid labour that benefits men materially and socially (Delphy and Leonard, 1992).

Functionalism does not describe this as exploitation. It describes it as a function.

By framing women’s dependence and sacrifice as socially necessary, the theory removes them from political critique. Inequality becomes harmony. Subordination becomes contribution.

It is important to note that Parsons was writing at a time when women had limited access to paid work, lacked equal pay, and were often financially dependent on husbands. Functionalism treated these historically specific conditions as universal and timeless.

That is misogyny presented as social science.

A balanced view: how functionalists defend the model

Supporters of functionalism argue that it should be judged by its concern for stability rather than equality. From this perspective, clear roles reduce conflict, provide predictability, and help children develop secure identities.

Functionalists would argue that rapid changes to family structures can produce uncertainty and social strain, particularly for children. From their viewpoint, the expressive role assigned to women is not inferior, but socially valuable.

This defence explains why functionalism appealed to policymakers in the post war period. However, critics argue that valuing stability above autonomy inevitably protects those who benefit most from existing hierarchies.

Why these ideas are resurfacing on X

Functionalist thinking is clearly visible in today’s online culture wars. On X, influencers promote a return to “traditional” family life where men lead and women submit. In some posts, women’s bodies, sexuality, and reproductive choices are openly described as belonging to husbands.

These narratives mirror functionalist assumptions almost exactly.

Men are framed as providers whose stress must be managed.
Women are framed as emotional, sexual, and reproductive resources.
Female autonomy is framed as selfishness or social decay.

What is new is not the ideology, but the platform. X rewards polarising content, moral certainty, and outrage. Old patriarchal ideas are repackaged as lifestyle advice and amplified at scale.

From family stability to control over women’s bodies

The shift from “women should emotionally support men” to “women’s bodies belong to their husbands” is not a leap. It is a straight line.

If women exist to stabilise men emotionally, then their sexuality, fertility, and labour can be framed as obligations rather than choices. This logic underpins both anti-abortion rhetoric and the long history of denying marital rape

Historically, marital rape was not recognised because marriage was seen as a social contract in which women’s consent was assumed to be permanent. Functionalist ideas helped normalise this by prioritising family stability over women’s bodily autonomy.

The theory does not promote violence directly, but it creates a blind spot where women’s consent disappears.

Why this still matters

These ideas shape attitudes towards consent, reproduction, domestic labour, and women’s independence. They legitimise coercion by calling it tradition and silence women by calling autonomy selfish.

Functionalism reminds us that sociological theories are not neutral. They reflect the values and power structures of the societies in which they are produced.

Final reflection

The nuclear family was never simply about stability. It was about control.

What we are seeing on X today is the revival of functionalist logic, amplified by algorithms and culture war economics. Understanding that history gives us the tools to challenge it.

When you see claims that women’s submission is “natural”, “traditional”, or “necessary for society”, ask who benefits from that stability, and who pays the cost.

Stability built on women’s submission is not stability. It is inequality made comfortable.

If this resonates, share it, challenge it, and question the ideas being sold as common sense. Social order should never require women’s obedience.

---

Further reading and sources

Ging, D. (2019) ‘Alphas, betas, and incels’, Men and Masculinities

Parsons, T. and Bales, R.F. (1955) Family, Socialization and Interaction Process

Oakley, A. (1974) The Sociology of Housework

Delphy, C. and Leonard, D. (1992) Familiar Exploitation

Durkheim, E. (1895) The Rules of Sociological Method