AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

The organisation of modern families has changed over time, with men and women participating in paid work to provide for family. With both in paid work, who performs the unpaid work that sustains day-to-day living?  This research essay critically discusses the notion that men make significant contributions to childcare and other household duties. It will do this by first addressing a brief history of changes to the family organisation from pre-industrial to modern era and describes two dominant views. Secondly, it draws on statistics from America, New Zealand and OECD to argue the notion of men’s significant participation in unpaid work. Thirdly, there is a discussion on the practice of ‘doing gender’ which describes how men and women participate in gender roles influenced by society and reflect traditions of masculine and feminie behaviour. It will also discuss the power relations between men and women, which comes from inequalities of income, policy, tradition and attitudes.  Lastly, this essay highlights research that helps explain why men don’t participate as much as women in the task of unpaid work.

History and Two Views

The history of men’s involvement in family life has changed significantly over time, from the close family unit of production to the industrial age, where men left daily family life to seek wage labour (Hook 2006).  Hook (2006) describes how this led to separation of men’s and women’s labour: men as breadwinners, women the caregivers. The dominant role of breadwinner began to be challenged during the mid 20^th Century, where a “second transformation” within industrial societies took place - married women were leaving “the home to pursue waged work” (Hook 2006, p 1). Today the familiar family model features both men and women, working outside the home but, as Hook (2006) says, the change in family time for men, is under debate. Even though unpaid work time has increased for men, “it has not compensated for women’s decline nor reached parity with women’s time” (Hook 2006, p 1).

Craig (2016) describes two main views on how modern households manage paid and unpaid work. Firstly, the “gender convergence” view that there is a decrease in specialisation of activity between the sexes. Gender convergence assumed that as women entered the paid workforce, unpaid work of home would have naturally evened out between genders (Hook, 2006; Craig & Mullana, 2001). She says this view implies there is broad equality today between men and women and time spent in total productive and leisure time, suggesting that modern relationships are egalitarian. The oppositional view argues that while woman are becoming less specialised in the ways they allocate time, men specialise only in the paid market. However while women participate in paid work, they are also “retaining responsibility of the unpaid domestic work”, which indicates woman are in actual fact “working much more than their husbands” (Craig 2016 p 51).

Who’s doing the important work?

Everyday human existence requires the essentials of life reproduced by unpaid labour that feeds, clothes, shelters and cares for the family - and are “just as important to the maintenance of society as the productive work that occurs in the formal market economy” (Coltrane 2000, p. 1209). Coltrane (2000) analysed a broad range of American research using different methodology. He compared results from 1965-1985 and concludes men’s participation in unpaid work has doubled from two hours to approx four hours per week, while women during this time reduced the amount of hours from 24 to 16 hours per week.  In addition, other research showed a slight reduction in women’s contribution to housework from 1987-1988 to 1992-1993, while men’s increased gradually. However, while men’s “absolute hours of routine housework actually exceeded [the] decrease in women’s hours”, Coltrane concludes that as men were starting from such a “low level their contributions have not approached those of women. Because the average woman, still does about three times the amount of routine housework as the average man” (Coltrane, 2000, p.1211-1212). 

Statistics New Zealand’s (2006) overview stated that 98 percent of women performed unpaid work compared to 86 percent of men. The categories of unpaid work in the home - eg: cooking, cleaning, household repairs, and gardening - was performed by 89 percent of women compared to men at 82 percent. The report also stated that 35 percent of women engaged in the unpaid care of children with men sitting at 27 percent. By labour force status, 47 percent of women in part-time work were more inclined to care for a child within the home, compared to women in full-time work of 33 percent. Men in part-time work participated less in unpaid household work than men in full-time work. However, these trends of women’s unpaid participation are not unique geographically. An OECD (2014) report on unpaid care work and its affects on gender and labour outcomes overwhelmingly reiterate the large participation of unpaid work by women worldwide. The report states there is an unequal distribution of care responsibilities and women are disproportionately “spend[ing] two to 10 times more time on unpaid work care then men”(OECD 2014, p.1). The egalitarian view of the convergence theorist is challenged by such statistics. To understand why women experience such inequality of unpaid work and men’s lack of participation requires looking at the gender differences.

The assignment of gender and power relations

From birth, boys and girls are brought up and treated by family and society based on their gender. Maloney & Fenstermaker (2002) use the work of Butler (1997a) to illustrate that gender becomes a ritual performance and its powers “come from continual “re-iterated, re-citational and re-signification” (Maloney & Fenstermaker, 2002 p. 198). This is evident in the way children are ‘gendered’ from babies by parents and society. There are expected norms of how boys and girls are dressed, treated, parented, behave and the activities performed, that carry on into adulthood. West and Zimmerman (2002) say these “fundamental and enduring differences” support a division of labour between men’s and women’s work and differences in “feminine and masculine attitudes and behaviours that are prominent features of social organization” (West & Zimmerman 2002, p.5). They point out that gender is something people do, a role played out in private and public spheres that engages in manly or womanly activities, which are interactional and institutional in character. In addition, they argue gender differences are created between men and women that are not natural, essential or biological but constructed “to reinforce the essentialness of gender” (West & Zimmerman 2002, p.13). Gender then becomes a way of behaving and performing appropriately to the order and function of  “institutional arrangements that are based on sex category” (West & Zimmerman 2002, p.22).

Perhaps the home environment highlights the differences and performances of gender, mostly through the organisation of family – this is influenced by policies, tradition, attitudes and inequalities. Dermott (2008) reports in British homes, men still contribute larger proportions of income to family, approximately 67 percent. Even in cases of dual income couples, only a quarter show that women earn more than 45 percent of couples’ total income. He continues to explain the inequality this produces and women increasingly depend on their partner’s income, especially those with children. Women’s inability to contribute more paid work is due to shorter working hours to fit home life and lower pay structures. He concludes women who earn equal income to men are still disadvantaged due to shorter working hours (Dermott, 2008). Potential earning power becomes trump card in the negotiation of who stays home and allocation of unpaid work. Unequal labour markets restrict and influence women to specialise in unpaid work and men in paid work. They also affect “relative resources and household bargaining power, reinforcing attitudes about appropriate gender roles” (Craig and Mullana 2011, p. unknown). Words that reflect West and Zimmerman’s (2002) sentiments of ‘doing gender’ are tied to traditional expectations of gender performance.  Policies to do with work regulations and work/family policies leave expectations of unpaid work to women and reflect gender expectations. Hook (2006) explains work regulations may require long hours of the breadwinner, which puts them “in an advantaged bargaining position” and encourages traditional gender roles, while policy of parental leave aimed at and “used primarily by women” reinforces specialisation and adherence to traditional gender norms (Hook 2006, p. 643).

Why Men don’t

Research suggests society assumes men and women will behave, perform and participate in line with ideological gender norms formed from a young age (Bianchi & Milkie & Sayer & Robertson, 2016). It has also highlighted that state policy influences the decisions couples make around who performs unpaid work. To understand why men don’t participate in unpaid work perhaps requires some reflection into the past. Burgess (1997) provides a historical context of fatherhood from tribal times, where men were intentionally kept away from children for practical means. She says there was concern that if men became emotionally attached to their young, they would become ineffective in performing hard physical work and going to war. She continues by pointing out the role of sole family provider or breadwinner has been a key way of distancing fathers and children. Furthermore the ideology breadwinner is so entrenched that “unemployed men in a household where their female partner is employed may continue to identify with the breadwinner role” (Dermott 2008, p.34).

Further research suggests gender ideals are influenced and reinforced through various channels within media. Gauntlett (2002) discusses equality of men and women today. He says, “women have a formal right to do most things that a man can do” and both believe themselves to be equal within personal relationships. Yet as women reject old social norms and claim their rights, they continue to “do more housework than men” (p. 3-4). He suggests media plays a part in the reproduction of gender, as people consume hours of television, social media, surf internet, pass billboards, read magazines and watch movies in which gender ideologies feature.  Bartsch et al (2000) highlights media ideologies of gender in a study of 750 TV commercials. Women were twice as likely to feature in ads for domestic products and men twice as likely to appear in commercials for non-domestic products. Gauntlett (2002) claims it is inevitable people will be affected by these experiences, even if they think they are not paying attention. Perhaps Billig’s (1995) theory of banal nationalism illustrates this point best. Billig (1995) says ideals of nationalism - in this case gender - are flagged constantly in everyday life through media, but are not consciously recognised.

Finally, there is research that implies a tension within mothers where they “actively prevent fathers from doing more with children through gate-keeping and hampering [men’s] involvement”. It suggests women may do this to retain control of the home domain where they feel the most expert (Craig & Mullana 2011, p.unknown). Focusing on traditional gender roles, these perspectives claim housework tasks have different meaning and standards for men and women. The cleanliness of the home and children’s appearance is a reflection on a woman’s competence as a wife and mother, not her husband’s. Because of this, women may have high standards and are hesitant to relinquish control and trust their husband to perform housework and care tasks (Bianchi et al 2000). 

Conclusion

This essay has critically discussed the notion that fathers today are participating more in the unpaid work of childcare and housework duties. Firstly, research has highlighted that male participation has increased over time with women’s decreasing. This could be explained by the increase in maternal employment. However, because men’s participation was so much lower than women’s, their increased contributions is still nowhere near parity. Furthermore this evidence suggests that women who are participating in paid work are still continuing to do more of the unpaid work at home. The discussion of ‘doing gender’ highlighted the definitive roles of men and women. Assigned from childhood, these continue to influence gendered behaviours into adulthood that service ideologies of society and its institutional arrangements.  As a result of unequal pay, workplace and state policy, women experience inequality resulting in less power to negotiate unpaid work of the home and men as breadwinners still dominates the family organisation. Research suggested that history, the media and women’s inability to let men parent and participate in unpaid work could be barriers to men doing more at home.

Bibliography

Bartsch, R. A., Burnett, T., Diller, T. R., & Rankin-Williams, E. (2000). Gender representation in television commercials: Updating and update. Sex Roles, 43(9), 735-743. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/225369502?accountid=8424

Bianchi, S.M., Milkie, M.A., Sayer, L.C., & Robinson, J.P. (2000). Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Divison of Household Labor.  Social Forces (2000) 79 (1): 191-228. Retrieved from: http://sf.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/content/79/1/191.full.pdf+html

Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications

Burgess, A. (1997). Fatherhood Reclaimed: The Making of the Modern Father. London, United Kingdom: Random House.

Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Nov., 2000), pp. 1208-1233 Published by: National Council on Family Relations. Retrieved: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566732

Craig, L. (2016). Contemporary Motherhood : The Impact of Children on Adult Time. Abingdon, GB: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Craig, L. & Mullana, K. (2001). How Mothers and Fathers Share Childcare: A Cross-National Time-Use Comparison. American Sociological Review December 2011 vol. 76 no. 6 834-861. Retrieved from: http://asr.sagepub.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/content/76/6/834.full

Dermott, E, (2008). Intimate Fatherhood: A Sociological Analysis. Adingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Ferrant, G., Pesando, L.M., & Nowacka, K. (2014). Unpaid Care Work: The missing link in the analysis of gender gaps in labour outcomes. OECD Development Centre : Retrieved from:  https://www.oecd.org/dev/development-gender/Unpaid_care_work.pdf

Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, Gender and Identity, An Introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Hook, J.L. (2006). Care in Context: Men’s Unpaid Work in 20 Countries, 1965-2003. American Sociological Review 2006 Vol.71 no. 4 639-660 Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from: http://asr.sagepub.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/content/71/4/639.full.pdf+html

Maloney, M. & Fenstermaker, S. (2002). Peformance and Accomplishment: Reconciling Feminist Concepts of Gender. In S. Fentermaker & C. West (Eds), Doing Gender, Doing Difference: inequality, power and institutional change (pp. 189-204). New York: Routledge.

Statistics New Zealand. (2006). QuickStats About Unpaid Work. Retrieved September 21, 2016, From: http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/unpaid-work/unpaid-work-within-own-household.aspx

West, C. & Zimmerman, D.H. (2002). Doing Gender. In S. Fenstermaker & C. West (Eds), Doing Gender, Doing Difference: inequality, power and institutional change (pp. 3-23). New York: Routledge.