The Division of Household Labor

Carrington, Christopher. 2002. "Domesticity and the Political Economy of

Lesbigay Families." Pp. 82-107 in Families at Work: Expanding the
Boundaries. Edited by Naomi Gerstel, Dan Clawson, and Robert Zussman.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Christopher Carrington employed a mostly qualitative study of a non-random sampling of lesbigay couples in the Sanfrancisco Bay area. He attempted to create a sample that included couples of various socioeconomic statuses and racial backgrounds. In this study, Carrington examined some of the myths of equality surrounding lesbigay couples in our culture and compared them to actual findings of work-family balance and domestic sharing. He found quite a large disparity between the egalitarian myth and the actual lives of these couples. He believes that many of these couples strive to "present ourselves, and our communities, to the dominant culture in ideal terms" (83). In this article, Carrington examines the motivations of these couples to "portray their relationships in ideal terms both to themselves and to the outside world," as well as what factors actually influence the division of domestic duties within lesbigay couples (83).

It was very interesting to read Carrington's findings concerning the division of domestic duties. Much of the inequality experienced by heterosexual couples as far as domestic labor is often explained as being due to gender roles. When both members of the couple are the same gender, how do you decide who is responsible for what? When you look at these couples, you realize how arbitrary our gender roles are with regards to domestic duties - why are women expected to fulfill household obligations? When there are two men in a relationship, household duties still need to be done, so the reasons behind why one man takes more of these responsibilities than the other employ more practical reasoning. It is interesting to note that even in the absence of set gender roles, it seems that true equality with regards to household duties is rare and difficult to achieve. Carrington discusses the basic idea of equality and its meaning as compared to "fairness." What is deemed to be "fair" is not necessarily equal. In one example, a woman defended the unequal division of household labor in her household as nonetheless fair, "a defense premised on the difficulty and demands of her paid employment when compared with that of her partner" (84). Indeed, Carrington found that the division of household labor often related directly back to paid employment and each person's commitment level to their careers, as well as the type of careers they were involved in. Carrington found that many who were employed in more of the traditionally "feminine" spheres, such as teaching, nursing, social work, librarians, school counseling, etc. tended to be the members of the couple who took on the domestic work within the household. There may be several reasons for this. Typically jobs within these spheres feature more family-friendly attributes, such as a real 40-hour workweek (as opposed to as much as 60 for professional jobs), flexible leave, more vacation time, etc. all of which would leave the employee more time to commit to household responsibilities. One of the most interesting arguments in the article came from a couple that ended up breaking up because of the study. One man's argument was that his partner did more of the domestic work because that was his personal "interest," therefore not recognizing it as work at all and not respecting or appreciating the time and effort his partner put into their home. It is amazing to me that this man was able to truly believe that domestic duties were simply an "interest" or a hobby of some sort, rather than necessary to life. I would speculate that this man probably had a mother who took very good care of him and perhaps never had to stress about a balance between work and family - his every need was likely attended to, and he never was made to realize the amount of work that goes into making a home.

Ultimately, Carrington's study showed the egalitarian myth of equality within lesbigay couples to be just that - a myth. However, their practical separation concerning household versus economic duties within the couple does follow a progressive path. Whomever is more concerned with and committed to their career within the couple typically focuses on that while the other half works with the domestic front. Carrington talks about a gravitation towards domestic duties, rather than clear cut decisions about who will do what. Whatever seems to work the best with both of their schedules tends to determine the division of labor. Some even began to feel a sense of fulfillment from household duties and Carrington also notes that those who committed themselves full-time to the domestic sphere were often heavily involved in non-profit work as well. Discussion of the "glass-ceiling" for homosexuals of both gender also provided insight on why some chose not to throw themselves fully into their paid work - because they are not likely to reap the deserved benefits. For example, Brad discusses his switch from putting in crazy hours at work to a more practical schedule: "I realized I was not going to move up, not unless I went to another company. So I began to set some limits. I no longer go in on weekends, and I try to leave by 5:30 now. I do a lot more at home" (98). The practicality of arrangements within lesbigay couples does tend to break down gender roles (which clearly must be done either way in a couple of both the same gender) but does not necessarily create equality.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1990. "Joey's Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt."
Pp. 33-58 (Chapter 4) in The Second Shift. Avon Books.

In Chapter 4 of The Second Shift, Hochschild uses a case study of Nancy and Evan Holt to depict the emotional issues surrounding the division of household labor in contemporary middle-class families. It is clear that Nancy is in a much different mindset than her husband - who appears to be stuck in the ideals of a previous generation. Unfortunately, his prejudices are not uncommon. It is important to note that Nancy fears divorce more than Evan - she has every right to fear divorce more - she has a young child. While he is already essentially fully her responsibility, he will be even more so if she becomes a single mother. Nancy's personal beliefs and concern about her worth and being valued within the marriage are of utmost importance to her sense of identity - in the end she has to convince herself that it is equal (even when it is not) simply to maintain sanity and keep her marriage intact. It is truly very sad. "Joey's problem" = very interesting. she doesn't go into as much detail with it as I would have expected, considering the article is titled "Joey's Problem" but it does delve into an interesting discussion of power relations in sex and the fact that Evan feels cared about when they make love, and she feels cared about when he does his share of housework (which he never does, so having Joey in bed with them provides an excuse for her to withhold sex as well). The whole thing leads to unhealthy grappling for power within the relationship. This story made me really, really sad. It really speaks to the importance of having an understanding of these expectations before a marriage occurs.

DeVault, Marjorie L. 1987. "Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life."
Pp. 178-191 in Families and Work, edited by Naomi Gerstel and Hariett E.
Gross. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Throughout history and within essentially every culture that has ever been in existence, meals have represented more than just material sustenance. Meals represent bonding and social aspects of family and relationships. People come together around food - which is why almost every major holiday is commemorated with a feast. Devault speaks about the women who prepare most of these meals, whether on a daily basis or not, and their feelings towards this work. She uncovers the various types of emotion work involved in preparing meals for a family. A mother needs to know the tastes of all of her children and her husband and try to prepare meals that everyone will enjoy. Not to mention the need for certain food groups in meals, etc. Devault also notes that most women, while carefully considering everyone else's tastes, were careful not to give their own preferences any kind of special weight. Such an observation begs the question - why? Why are women not concerned with what they themselves would like to eat? It may go back to women's socialization to please others, or it may have more to do with cultural norms. I also found it interesting when she spoke of a man complaining that while the food was good, he did not want "breakfast for dinner," because his wife had cooked quiche. I found this interesting, because if the food was good, what does it matter? My mom used to make "breakfast dinners" all the time. Cultural scripts determine what kinds of food we eat and when. Another interesting discussion centered around family meal time conversation. As previously mentioned, many families use meal times to create social interaction and bonding. Unfortunately, at times it may be a little bit forced - Devault explains one woman's plan to get all of her kids to bring news articles to discuss at the dinner table. Assigning homework for family dinner is not the best way to get your kids to look forward to dinner. As per usual American style, the good idea was taken too far. Additionally, simply reiterating a news article to the family does not help parents get to know their kids better and learn their personalities, which should really be the primary objectives of bonding.

Quite a bit of work goes into preparing meals, not only the cooking itself. Devault explains that meal preparation falls under one of the many categories of "invisible work" within the home. Coordinating schedules, figuring out everyone's food preferences, and then trying to put together a good meal - or even several meals if everyone has very different tastes - takes a lot of energy. It is also interesting that women who were served meals by others spoke of "being spoiled," whereas for men having the luxury of a meal served to them is a given. Devault sums up her argument in her explanation, "when they (women) bring people together for meals, they are not only providing sustenance, but also producing family life itself" (188).

Gupta, Sanjiv. 2007. "Autonomy, Dependence, or Display? The
Relationship between Married Women's Earnings and Housework." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 69: 399-417.

Gupta's conclusion that women's housework burden is based on their own income and not that of their husbands is very interesting. The majority of women are classified according to their husbands' incomes and not their own. Their social class is typically determined by their husbands' occupation and many would assume that their amount of housework would be directly related to their husbands' working patterns. It is somewhat disheartening and somewhat reinforcing that women's housework is more closely related to their own paid work. The independence of the two factors (a husband's paid work and a woman's housework) is comforting in that it shows a certain level of separation, but also it shows that regardless of economic or working status, men really have very little to do with housework and childcare. The fact that women are clearly not "dependent" on their men is a very reassuring fact.