It is one day late, but it is done! I just had to post this considering the amount of time I spent on it over the past few days.
Understanding the Gender Housework Gap and Addressing the Challenges it Poses to Marital Satisfaction
The number of hours North American women spend in the paid workforce has risen substantially since the mid-twentieth century and yet the number of hours men spend on family work has only increased marginally. Hochschild (1989) so famously described this social phenomenon as “the second shift.” This essay will begin by touching upon the origin of “traditional” gender roles and the significance they would have upon women as they were compelled to move from the domestic sphere and into the marketplace by a variety of economic and social forces. The following discussion will evaluate the contributions and shortcomings of three sociological perspectives that strive to make sense of the gendered disparity of housework, and the strategies they offer to narrow the gap. This is an issue of great concern for many social researchers because perceptions of fairness and equity in the division of household labour are intrinsically linked with marital satisfaction (Saginak & Saginak, 2005). But despite universal agreement relating to the importance of healthy intimate relationships, the inherent complexity of this issue remains an obstacle standing in the way of scholarly consensus. Ultimately, this essay will argue that a multifaceted strategy embracing the suggestions of multiple theories, combined with a willingness to engage in new avenues of research, will be needed to adequately understand and address the challenges of the housework gap between the sexes and the challenges it poses to marital satisfaction.
Having a clear understanding of the origins of “traditional” gender roles is essential in order to conceptualize the disparity of housework between women and men. In pre-industrial society men and women participated as co-workers in an economy where the home was the basic unit of both consumption and production (McDaniel & Tepperman, 2004). In that context, husbands and wives were intrinsically linked with the realms of the home and the market. The coming of the Industrial Revolution would give rise to a dramatic shift in family life and in gender ideology. Coltrane and Adams (2001) directly associate the nineteenth-century “cult of domesticity” with the need for men to quell the threat of women entering the new and highly competitive labour market (p. 102). The domestic sphere became the woman’s place, just as the market was cast as the man’s domain. In practice, the ideal of “separate spheres” was only realized for a select group of women – predominantly in the middle classes – and yet it would have a profound impact upon how the majority of men and women would come to understand themselves, both as members of the family and society as a whole (Coltrane & Adams, 2001). “Traditional” gender roles were a nineteenth century social construction, but their influence did not end there. The social myth that unpaid household work is “natural” for women continued to dominate much of the twentieth century and it continues to have a lingering effect to this day (Erickson, 2005).
The increasing number of women entering the paid workforce in the 1960s directly challenged the assumptions associated with “separate spheres.” However, economic need increasingly won out over the desire to maintain “traditional” gender roles. While some women were seeking the benefits of personal satisfaction and fulfillment when the entered the marketplace, the new economic reality was such that the purchasing power of a single family income had diminished and for many families two incomes were needed to maintain the coveted middle class standard of living (Coltrane & Adams, 2001).
The number of women who made the shift to the marketplace was so significant that Hochschild (1989) describes it as “the basic social revolution of our time” (p. 239). In the 1950s it was twice as likely for a father to be the sole breadwinner for a family as it is today (Saginak & Saginak, 2005). The number of married women in the paid workforce nearly doubled as it rose from 31.9 percent in 1960 to 61.9 percent in 1997 (Coltrane & Adams, 2001). Today, fully 75 percent of mothers participate in the labour market and 50 percent of married couples with children are dual-income families (Saginak & Saginak, 2005). Consequently, families comprised of two wage earners have come to represent the typical North American domestic unit.
Not only does this dramatic shift have consequences for the economy, dynamics within the family have also been fundamentally altered. In 1965 women were averaging 30 hours of unpaid household labour per week, whereas their male counterparts did about 5 hours (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000). Over the course of the next three decades the average number of hours would steadily decrease for women stretching all the way down to 18 hours per week in 1995 (Bianchi et al., 2000). Meanwhile their participation in the labour market increased from below the 40 percent mark in the late 1960s to nearly 60 percent in the late 1990s (McDaniel & Tepperman, 2004). Throughout the same time period, the participation of men in the workforce dropped from about 79 to 76 percent while their contribution to family work increased from 5 hours to 10 hours (McDaniel & Tepperman, 2004; Bianchi et al., 2000).
In 1965 women were averaging 6 times as many hours of unpaid household labour as men, by 1995 that gap narrowed to about twice as many hours (Bianchi et al., 2000). While this drop appears to be significant, closer examination reveals a less than equitable division of household labour between men and women. In addition to doing double the housework in 1995, there were 16 percent fewer women than men in the paid workforce (Bianchi et al., 2000; McDaniel & Tepperman, 2004). Bianchi et al. (2000) also argues that the decrease in the number of family work hours for women was exaggerated in part because they were having far fewer children in the 1990s than they were in the 1960s; thus, if birth rate would have stayed at the level it was in 1965 the volume of housework for women would have only decreased 6 hours. The disparity in housework becomes even more pronounced when the types of work done by men and women is closely examined (see below). Essentially, changes in the workplace during the later half of the twentieth century meant that women were doing significantly more paid work, and men had made only a slight increase in their participation with domestic tasks.
The time availability perspective is one of the social theories that strives to make sense of the disparity of housework between the sexes. This premise is based upon an egalitarian assumption that the division of household work will be rationally divided between the members of a household (Bianchi et al., 2000). At its most fundamental level, it asserts that the more hours a family member spends in the marketplace the fewer hours he or she will spend doing unpaid housework. There is one key piece of evidence supporting the time availability perspective: for both men and women, the number of hours in the paid workforce is inversely related to the number of hours spent on household activities (Erickson, 2005).
However, Erickson (2005) also reveals that even though the volume of housework decreases for working women, they still continue to bear the bulk of household responsibilities – regardless of the hours they spend in the labour market. Brines (1994) also found that unemployed men do very little housework, despite the amount of available time they have. The strongest critiques of the time availability hypothesis come from the proponents of the gender ideology perspective. The latter argues that involvement in household tasks is much more than a simple choice – it stems from the dynamics of deep power relationships (Bianchi et al., 2000). Furthermore, Bianchi et al. (2000) found that the variables of getting married, having children, and owning a home each significantly increased the volume of housework for women, but not for men. The abovementioned critiques also apply to Coverman’s (1985) research, but she does propose an interesting modification to this perspective. Coverman (1985) argues that in addition to the availability of time, demands must be placed upon men if they are going to respond by doing more housework. While the time availability perspective does provide some helpful insight into the division of household labour it falls short of exploring all the elements of this complex issue.
The personal resource theory proposes a more complex relationship between husbands and wives. The division of household labour is perceived to be a negotiated arrangement based upon power (Brines, 1994). Resources such as appearance, social status, education, and age can all bring power to a man or a woman within an intimate relationship; however, Brines (1994) argues that the most significant personal resource is income. Similarly, Becker (1981) suggests a personal resource perspective based upon microeconomic theory within the family. He argues that husbands and wives choose the roles that will be most efficient and productive for the family. Therefore, women’s “specialization” in childbearing leads them toward domestic roles, and men’s relative advantage in wage earning offers them higher “market efficiency” (Becker, 1981, pp. 16 & 23). In both variations the spouse with greater resources is able to “buy out” of household responsibilities (Erickson, 2005, p. 339).
According to personal resource theory, as women accumulate greater personal resources they will achieve increased power within their family structure – along with a smaller share of the domestic responsibility. Bianchi et al. (2000) confirms that the volume of housework for women with a college degree decreased by 2.01 hours per week and their husbands increased by an average of 2.02 hours (p. 216). However, even with this positive correlation between educational resources and a more egalitarian division of household labour, women are still averaging more housework than their husbands. Erickson (2005) also found that women who are economically dependent upon their husbands were more likely to take greater responsibility in childcare, whereas men who were economically dependent upon their wives would merely take an equal share of childcare and housework. Therefore, it is clear that personal resources determine the division of household labour to a certain extent, but the value of these resources seems to be applied differently for men than for women.
The gender ideology perspective is in many ways a response, by feminist scholars, to the shortcomings of the time availability and the personal resource perspectives to explain the lag in men’s domestic participation. Gender ideology proposes that the socialization of a person’s gender identity is the primary determinant the role she or he will take within the domestic realm (Coverman, 1985). This theory suggests that having a traditional gender ideology is directly proportional to size of the housework gap. The division of labour, from this perspective, is also linked with the expression of power in intimate relationships (Coltrane & Adams, 2001). Statistical evidence supports the assertion of gender ideology that many of the most undesirable household tasks bear the social classification of “women’s work.” In 1995 women were doing approximately double the amount of housework as their husbands, but when it came to the “core” household tasks – such as preparing and cleaning up after meals, housecleaning, and doing laundry – that disparity in creased anywhere between 3.8 to 9.5 times as many hours (Bianchi et al., 2000). Men tend to take responsibility for domestic tasks that are more enjoyable, less time consuming, and that have more flexible deadlines (Parkman, 2004). These responsibilities include outdoor chores, auto repairs, and paying bills (Bianchi et al., 2000). Coltrane and Adams (2001) further reinforce the thesis of gender ideology by providing evidence that men are more likely to view housework as being trivial, and that men tend to feel “entitled to relax after work and on the weekends” (p. 104).
The socialized gender identity of both women and men has an influence upon their willingness to engage in household tasks, but do egalitarian gender ideologies and increased levels of education directly translate into a decrease in the housework gap? Evidence shows that when either a man or a woman has an egalitarian gender ideology the wife will average about one less hour of housework per week; however, in neither case does this variable increase a man’s propensity to take an equal share of household responsibility (Bianchi et al., 2000). Erickson (2005) also found that a positive correlation between gender ideology and the volume of housework is only present with men who hold a traditional ideology. Regarding the influence of education upon the distribution of housework, men with college degrees did 2 more hours and women with college degrees did 1 less hour than those with a high school education or less (Bianchi et al., 2000). In the end, neither egalitarian ideologies nor increased education can be said to significantly narrow the gender housework gap. Therefore, gender ideology cannot be considered the definitive factor in shaping the division of household labour.
The insights gained from these sociological perspectives have value beyond scope of academic exercise: they offer potential strategies for deconstructing the dissatisfaction that is so often associated with “the second shift.” It is crucial for social researchers to move beyond merely explaining the disparity in division of housework because the perception of fairness this arena is a critical element of marital satisfaction (Saginak & Saginak, 2005). Whether or not the division of household labour is equal, it is critical for both women and men to perceive their share of the housework as fair. Currently this is not the case. With almost universal agreement, 89 percent of men feel as though the current division of domestic labour is fair – 55 percent of women have the same perception (Coltrane & Adams, 2001; Wilkie, Ferree, and Ratcliff, 1998). Improving the overall rate of marital satisfaction for women is more complex than simply compelling men to do more housework, as Wilkie et al. (1998) concluded, “men and women view marital satisfaction though a gendered lens” (p. 592). For instance, women are willing to do up to two-thirds of the housework before they feel the amount they are doing is unfair, whereas men perceive their share a unfair when it exceeds one-third of the whole (Coltrane & Adams, 2001). Providing strategies to raise the perception of fairness in the division of household labour among men – and especially women – should be one of the highest aims for social researchers in this field.
However, the inherent complexity of intimate relationships has hindered scholarly consensus relating to the causes of the gender housework gap. The vast array of variables that need to be considered when exploring this issue further complicates the matter. The time availability, personal resources, and gender ideology perspectives all provide windows of insight into this subject, but none of their theses can be definitively supported by statistical evidence. Therefore, new and creative avenues of research are needed within this field of study, both those that build upon existing perspectives and those that establish new foundations of inquiry.
In the meantime it is important to start putting the tools to use that current research has already provided: at the most fundamental level of the individual, in the family unit, in the workplace, and even at the level of government policy. The phenomenon of “the second shift” does not have to be accepted at face value and the myth of “traditional” gender roles does not have to be left standing. As Coverman (1985) suggested, demands for men to become more involved need to accompany the availability of time if they are going to engage level of domestic involvement that is perceived to be fairer in the eyes of women. It is important to empower women with greater personal resources through equal access to jobs and equitable pay scales. The government can lend further assistance to this matter by improving parental leave programs. In doing so the relative advantage of earning power that husband’s have over their wives would be reduced (Becker, 1981). Promoting education and an egalitarian gender ideology would provide yet another means of addressing the gender housework gap. The overall impact of these strategies will have the greatest potential if they are used in concert, rather than on their own. A multi-faceted approach, combined with insight gained from new avenues of research, will most adequately understand and address the challenges that the gendered housework gap poses to marital satisfaction.
References
Becker, G.S. (1981). A Treatise On The Family. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., & Robinson, J.P. (2000). Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Labor. Social Forces, 79, 191-228.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic Dependency, Gender, and the Division of Labor at Home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652-688.
Coltrane, S., & Adams, M. (2001). Men’s family work: Child-centered fathering and the sharing of domestic labor. In A. Sckolnick & J. Skolnick (Eds.), (pp. 101-114).
Coverman, S. (1985). Explaining Husbands’ Participation in Domestic Labor. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 81-97.
Erickson, R.J. (2005). Why Emotion Work Matters: Sex, Gender, and the Division of Household Labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 337-351.
Hochschild, R.A. (1989). The Second Shift: Inside the Two-Job Marriage. New York: Viking.
McDaniel, S.A., & Tepperman, L. (2004). Close Relations: An Introduction to the Sociology of Families, 2nd Edition. Toronto: Pearson.
Parkman, A.M. (2004). Bargaining Over Housework: The Frustrating Situation of Secondary Wage Earners. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 63, 765-794.
