Breaking down the question
The verb comment invites an analytical discussion rather than mere description. The key phrase is social and cultural determinants — the examiner wants you to argue that the division of tasks between men and women is shaped by society and culture, not fixed by biology. An implicit contrast with the biological-determinist view frames the whole answer.
Sexual division of labour refers to the systematic allocation of different tasks, roles and spheres to men and women — men typically to productive, public and paid work, women to reproductive, domestic and unpaid work. Your task is to explain what social and cultural forces produce and sustain this allocation.
How to approach it
Open by defining the term and rejecting biological determinism, citing cross-cultural variation. Then organise the body around distinct determinants — socialisation and gender roles, patriarchal ideology, the public-private divide, kinship and marriage norms, religion and custom, and economic structure. Close with a brief evaluative note on rigidity and change. Ground the argument in feminist theory throughout. Our note on patriarchy, entitlements and the sexual division of labour develops these determinants.
Model answer
The sexual division of labour is the social allocation of work by sex — the assignment of men to productive, public and remunerated activity and of women to reproductive, domestic and unpaid activity. Although often justified as natural, sociologists insist that it is overwhelmingly a social and cultural construction. Ann Oakley's cross-cultural evidence showed that the tasks deemed masculine in one society are frequently feminine in another, demonstrating that biology sets no fixed division and that the pattern is learned rather than given.
The first and most basic determinant is gender socialisation. From childhood, families, schools, peer groups and the media train girls and boys into contrasting roles, teaching girls nurturance and domesticity and boys assertion and provision. These internalised roles come to feel natural and reproduce the division across generations. Talcott Parsons theorised this as the wife's expressive and the husband's instrumental role within the family, though feminists reject his functional justification.
A second determinant is patriarchal ideology. Sylvia Walby analysed patriarchy as a system of interlocking structures, including household production and paid work, that subordinates women and confines them to devalued domestic labour. The ideology that a woman's primary place is the home naturalises her exclusion from valued public work and her responsibility for care.
Third is the public-private divide. Culture assigns men the public world of politics, market and authority, and women the private world of the household, so that women's work is rendered invisible and unwaged even when arduous. Fourth, kinship and marriage norms reinforce the division: patrilocal residence, dowry, the ideal of the devoted wife and the expectation of childbearing bind women to domestic roles and restrict their mobility and autonomy. Fifth, religion and customary codes prescribe gendered duties and often sanctify female seclusion and modesty, giving the division a sacred authority. Finally, the economic structure interacts with these forces, channelling women into low-paid, insecure and home-based work that mirrors their domestic role.
These determinants are mutually reinforcing, which explains the persistence of the division. Yet it is not immutable. Education, the entry of women into the paid workforce, feminist mobilisation and legal reform have begun to unsettle it, though the double burden of paid and unpaid work shows how deeply the cultural expectation of female domesticity endures.
Examiner's perspective
For fourteen marks the examiner rewards a clear thesis — that the sexual division of labour is socially and culturally, not biologically, determined — supported by named determinants. A high-scoring script moves systematically through socialisation, patriarchy, the public-private divide and kinship norms, each briefly explained.
Anchoring the argument in Oakley, Walby and a critical use of Parsons demonstrates theoretical command, while the cross-cultural point disposes of biological determinism economically. A short evaluative close on persistence and change, in precise British spelling, secures the higher band without exceeding the word limit.