Why Do Women Still Do Most of the Housework Even in Those Households Where Both Partners Are in Full-Time Employement?

Topic: Why do women still do most of the housework even in those households where both partners are in full-time employment?
Alexandra Fletcher

Submitted as a Introduction to Sociology Date Due: 9th May 2011 Tutor: Dr. Danika Benison
The rights of women have changed dramatically since the 1950’s. It began with obtaining the right to vote in 1908 and since then Governments have enacted Equal Employment Opportunity Acts and Anti- Discrimination laws to protect women against gender discrimination. With all these official rights one would think that equality between men and women had arrived or at the very least was not far off. But the private domestic homes of couples has shown that, despite these advances, little has changed in the division of labour between men and women. Sociological studies have shown that women in couples in Australia still do the lion’s share of the housework. Data collected from an Australian survey in 1992 found that married women employed on a full time basis (30 hours or more per week) had an average workload of 59.5 hours per week and that the average workload of married men was 57 hours per week (Bittman & Wajcman 2004). This is occurring despite their contribution as co-providers economically in the relationship. This essay will analyse some of the reasons that women still do most of the housework even in those households where both partners are in full time employment.

To understand the reasons behind the apparent division of labour between men and women in the domestic home it is imperative to address its historical beginnings. The industrial revolution changed the meaning of work for everyone. Traditional agricultural work structures were replaced by a wage labour system that measured the value of work through remuneration. The type of work that existed in offices and factories became the primary domain of the male. Subsequently, the unpaid domestic work became the domain of women. Not only was there a division of labour but the creation of a value perception towards paid and unpaid work. Women’s domestic work was valued as a lesser contribution due to its inability to yield revenue in a society that now focused on remuneration. Currently, we can see in modern households of dual income couples that women are not only doing more of the household chores but they feel more responsible for the home maintenance (Horschild, 1989). It seems that the perception of the home as the woman’s domain still exists and can explain partly why women are still burdened with the “double shift”. Additionally, the attitude towards work value can further explain men’s level of contribution in domestic unpaid work. To explore this further we must examine how these attitudes have shaped men’s and women’s identities.

In numerous studies on women’s feelings towards housework there is a prevailing sense of responsibility towards domestic tasks (Dempsey 2000; Helms, Walls, Crouter & McHale 2010; Horschild 1989). One reason for this comes from the cultural construction that homemaking and caring for others represents women’s femininity (Dempsey 2001). This creates a psychological emotional tie to domestic work that contributes to the persistence of it being seen as women’s work. This attitude is not only perpetrated by men but by women themselves who struggle to hold on to their identities without it. Berheide (1984) stated that “household work is an occupation where work and family roles are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable” (Dempsey 2001). One needs only look to the post-feminist backlash towards the ‘Superwoman’ construct that was created as a result of the Feminist movement in the 70’s. This aspiration saw woman juggling and accepting their double workload as they pushed out into the paid workforce in order to escape their “imposed” domestic domain. The stamina and endurance that was required to maintain this “double shift” and sense of equitableness became too hard for women to manage. As a result, women began claiming back their right (from themselves) to be at home and remain in the very domain they were trying to escape. This response implies significantly that women feel much more comfortable in identifying themselves within this domain. What is really lacking in this identity struggle is that in order to have a sense of equitableness between genders there needs to be a shift in attitude on both sides. The feminist movement in the 70’s failed to address the importance of men to change respectively in order for a successful transition. This has notably been referred to as the main contributor of a “stalled gender revolution” (Hochschild 2003). However, making men more responsible may be easier said than done.

One significant study undertaken by Kenneth C. Dempsey (2000) attempted to explore the interpersonal power exercised by wives and husbands in negotiations over the division of housework. He identified key power processes that each gender uses and his findings revealed a significant attitude of male resistance in changing the division of labour. He explains that men use their definitional power, which is the ability to prescribe the norms, ideals and values that regulate relationships, in negotiations over housework. For example, men either ignored their wives’ requests for help or begrudgingly assisted whist making it clear that the job was not theirs and his help shouldn’t be taken for granted. They also argued that women were naturally better at housekeeping and caring for children. This attitude can be attributed to a learned helplessness that men have cultivated as part of their detachment from the domestic domain. (Caro & Fox 2008) However when properly addressed it is simply not that case that men are incapable or not adequate enough to manage or undertake domestic tasks. Another power strategy utilised to keep the status quo is exercising resource power. Valued resources such as material goods, status-conferring jobs and personal autonomy (Chafetz 1988 cited in Dempsey 2000) are more easily accessible to a male, and even though wives are members of the paid workforce their economic resource is considered to be supplementary to the males. This perception of value legitimises males not contributing to domestic work and enables them to reinstate their right to leisure time. Women’s restricted access to resources that men enjoy is indicative of a broader institutionalised system that maintains the traditional beliefs in the division of labour.

Helene Couprie (2007), an economist, believes that the persistence of gender inequality in the public sphere may explain the persistence of gender inequality in the private sphere. She states that ‘The quickest way to improve the situation at home would be for women to gain equality at work in terms of pay and opportunities.” She suggests that the focus of women’s skills going into housework may explain why they accumulate less skills on the labour market and this puts women immediately on the back foot. Additionally, the majority of employees working part-time, casual or as contract workers are women. (Caro & Fox 2008) This is a non-choice when dual income couples have children and women are effectively forced to relegate themselves into these jobs. This is largely due to the gender pay gap, which means that the woman would on average be earning less than the man, and therefore their jobs become the easier one to sacrifice. These structural factors reinforce the gender division of labour.

An identifiable problem with the unequal division of labour still existing is ironically through the mixed messages that women project in society. It is common for women to want men to share the household work whilst also holding the belief that they are superior at it or that, despite the fact they contribute to the economic resource in the home, the man is more entitled to leisure time because of his work (Dempsey 2000). This confused state of women has allowed for men to assert their superior power in keeping the status quo. These two factors combined together have kept the revolution stalled and the unequal division of labour still omnipotent. Women need to disassociate their identity from only being mothers and primary housekeepers and start seeing they are and can be more than just that (Dempsey 2001). Once this psychologically tie is severed, it will help women to assert to have more equality in the home. Conversely, men also must realize that learned helplessness is not a reason to not contribute an equal share in the domestic duties. And a wife or partner who has less resentment towards him will ultimately benefit their relationship.

References

Bittman, M & Wajcman J 2004, ‘The Rush Hours: The quality of leisure time and gender equity’, in N Fobre & M Bittman (eds), Family Time: The social organization of care, Routledge, London, pp. 171-193.

Caro, J & Fox, C 2008, The F word: how we learned to swear by feminism, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney.

Couprie, H 2007, ‘ Time Allocation within the Family: Welfare implications of life in a couple’, Economic Journal (January 2007).

Dempsey, KC 2000, ‘Men and Women’s Power Relationships and the Persisting Inequitable Division of Housework’, Journal of Family Studies, vol.6, no.1, pp. 7-24.

Dempsey, KC 2001, ‘Feelings About Housework: Understanding gender differences’, Journal of Family Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141-159.

Helms, HM, Walls JK, Crouter AC & McHale SM 2010, ‘Provider Role Attitudes, Marital Satisfaction, Role Overload, and Houswork: A dyadic approach’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 568-577.

Hochschild, A & Machung, A 1989, The Second Shift, Viking Penguin, USA.

Hochschild, A 2003, The Commercialization of Intimate Life: Notes from home and work, University of California Press, Berkley, USA.

References: Bittman, M & Wajcman J 2004, ‘The Rush Hours: The quality of leisure time and gender equity’, in N Fobre & M Bittman (eds), Family Time: The social organization of care, Routledge, London, pp. 171-193. Caro, J & Fox, C 2008, The F word: how we learned to swear by feminism, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney. Couprie, H 2007, ‘ Time Allocation within the Family: Welfare implications of life in a couple’, Economic Journal (January 2007). Dempsey, KC 2000, ‘Men and Women’s Power Relationships and the Persisting Inequitable Division of Housework’, Journal of Family Studies, vol.6, no.1, pp. 7-24. Dempsey, KC 2001, ‘Feelings About Housework: Understanding gender differences’, Journal of Family Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141-159. Helms, HM, Walls JK, Crouter AC & McHale SM 2010, ‘Provider Role Attitudes, Marital Satisfaction, Role Overload, and Houswork: A dyadic approach’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 568-577. Hochschild, A & Machung, A 1989, The Second Shift, Viking Penguin, USA. Hochschild, A 2003, The Commercialization of Intimate Life: Notes from home and work, University of California Press, Berkley, USA.