Gendered Equity? Comparing Explanations of Women's Satisfaction with the Domestic Division of Labour

Abstract

Although research in both Britain and the US shows that, in general, wives do by far the largest proportion of domestic work, even where they are employed full time (Berk, 1985; Coverman 1983; Geerken and Gove 1983; Gershuny et al. 1986; Pleck 1985; Robinson 1980; Warde and Hetherington 1993), research also suggests that only a minority see this situation as unfair (Barnett and Baruch 1987; Benin and Agostinelli 1988; DeMaris and Longmore 1996; Hill and Scanzoni 1982; Layte 1996; Lennon and Rosenfield 1994; Pleck 1985; Rosen 1987; Yogev 1981). How do we explain the paradox of contributions being known to be unequal but not seen as inequitable? Two theoretical explanations have been put forward. The first from a 'resource bargaining', or social exchange perspective (Blood and Wolfe 1960; Heer 1963; Hiller 1981; Safilios-Rothschild 1970; Thibaut and Kelley 1959) views the division of domestic labour as part of an exchange relationship where power derived from 'resources' dictates outcomes and one's sense of equity. The second using what has come to be termed 'symbolic exchange' (Berk 1980, 1985; Coltrane 1989; West and Zimmerman 1987) views partners' gender ideologies as more important in defining the perceived equity of outcomes. Whereas social exchange theory views the process through which domestic work is divided in terms of gender-neutral economic or quasi-economic exchange (Brines 1993: 303), symbolic exchange theory views the division of domestic work as a form of cultural as well as economic production that has a definite gendered logic.