Feminist scholarships have faced several challenges that have affected family studies, and the solution has been wide research on the existing gender dynamics. Gender has gotten more attention in more diverse families and has been used as a measure of power and performance. Intersectional analysis has been used to show the relationships of power that helps in learning the dynamics of change in any given institution. Researchers have contributed a considerable amount of information in areas, including the idea of circuits in learning the care work. This article aims at showing the promising practices for the purpose of improving research carried out on gender and families. This should lead to solutions on factors causing the slow process of institutional change. The topic is not situated in a particular historical period as it gives general information on gender dynamics.
Gender can be viewed in a dynamic and multilevel way and hence the structure of families should also be analyzed from a different perspective. The author is against the functionalist assumptions made that any given family can be viewed as different modes of interaction. Each of the family members has a separate interest and carries out different roles to fill his place in the social order. He tries to show the connection between family studies and gender research, and how the two correlate. The author manages to highlight the connection by use of the half-empty, half full glass metaphor. He uses it to show gender how dynamics have responded to the challenges faced. This is when analyzing gender and viewing it from a significant social relationship point of view.
The level of fullness of the glass can be compared to the amount of empirical research on families with gender relations. This is unlike most families that use sex roles as their main analytic concept used to define the roles of women and men. It can be deduced that, at the micro level, there exists the dynamics of gender as performance and power, which has become a paramount concern. The level of emptiness of the glass is showed by the constant force of functionalism used to define a standard family that is normative. The difference in family structure is still considered using gender and deviance, and how they apply in an institution. This view is unlike looking at gender and deviance as an inequality that occurs in many institutions. There has been a recent connection between family diversity and the dynamics of change in many institutions. This is as well as the relationship between gender and other existing inequalities that are highlighted.
The author supports his argument with enough evidence, providing the necessary statistics and research where necessary. He also clearly states the difference between past research, and what he intends to do using his half full, half empty glass approach to gender dynamics. He suggests that the existing family studies have not fully included gender analyses. As a result, it has continuously placed many families in the ever changing world of political and economic scales. Challenges of gender relations and other inequalities are considered individual and sometimes as collective. Following lack of such a study, family change continues to be considered a crisis rather than a chance to challenge persistent structures based on societal inequalities. The author manages to present his case coherently, and with convincing explanations.