Teaching and Learning Guide for: Fairness and Power in Family Organization

Psychologists are increasingly interested in the life cycle as the unit for study and in such questions as whether adult development, like child development, is to be perceived as a succession of stages. A stage theory of adult life seems oversimplified for several reasons. First, the timing of life events is becoming less regular, age is losing its customary social meanings, and the trends are toward the fluid life cycle and an age-irrelevant society. Second, the psychological themes and preoccupations reported by young, middle-aged, and older persons are recurrent ones that appear and reappear in new forms and do not follow in a single fixed order. Third, intrapsychic changes occur slowly with age and not in stepwise fashion. These factors may have implications for the psychiatrist who, in helping the patient make a meaningful life story from a life history, deals always with issues of time, timing, and aging.

ment in the two-parent family, American Psycholo gist, 44, 283-292 (1989). 11. J. Aldous, Ed., The impact of workplace family policies, journal of Family Issues, 17(4) (1990). 12. L.A. Gilbert, Men in Dual-Career Families: Current Realities and Future Prospects (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1985); M.M. Ferr?e, The gender di vision of labor in two-earner marriages, journal of Family Issues, 12, 158-180 (1991). 13. J.H. Pleck, Working Wives/Working Hus bands (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1985); L. Thomp son, Family work: Women's sense of fairness, jour nal of Family Issues, 12, 181-196(1991). 14. L.A. Gilbert, Sharing It All: The Rewards and Struggles of Two-Career Families (Plenum Press, New York, 1988); L. Thompson and A.J. Walker, Women and men in marriage, work, and parent hood, journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845 872 (1989). Recommended Reading

This article focuses on the division of housework and parental tasks within partnerships. Taking as a basis established theoretical explanations of the influence of time budgets as well as resource and power relationships within partnerships, on the one hand, and normative orientations on the other, the interaction of these influencing factors of the division of domestic tasks on the basis of the first wave of the “Generations and Gender Survey” (2005) is subjected to an empirical examination. The analytical and empirical distinction that is made between routine housework and parental tasks is essential here, given that both dimensions of the division of domestic tasks follow different mechanisms with regard to certain aspects. The available results show that women continue to take on the lion’s share of routine housework and parental tasks today. It was not possible to document an egalitarian division of tasks within partnerships in any of the groups observed. A tendency towards an equal sharing of everyday housework was recorded most commonly when no children were living in the household, when the partnership had not yet been in existence so long, when the woman was highly committed to work and made a corresponding contribution towards the household income, as well as where the partners had egalitarian ideas with regard to gender roles. By contrast, the number of children and the time spent living together tell us little with regard to the sharing of parental dren tasks within a partnership. A balanced division of tasks in this field was most commonly achieved in non-marital co-habitation, if the woman was highly committed to work, and among women and men who held modern ideas when it comes to roles. It is revealed as a whole that none of the established theories is able by itself to comprehensively explain the division of tasks within partnerships.

This article uses data from couples in 29 nations to investigate the associations between household divisions of labor, perceptions of housework fairness, and frequency of housework disagreement. We extend previous studies by hypothesizing that perceptions of fairness mediate the relationship between household division of labor and housework disagreement. We also hypothesize that the association between perceptions of fairness and housework disagreement will be stronger for women than men and will be influenced by both individual characteristics and macro-level context. The results support our hypotheses, showing that individuals’ relative resources and macro-level factors such as the female–male earned income ratio strengthen the relationship between perceptions of fairness and housework disagreement. We conclude that relative economic resources between genders at the micro- and macro-level shape the extent to which subjective perceptions of fairness are associated with housework disagreement.

This paper investigates husbands' and wives' perceptions of fairness of the domestic division of labour. Using data from a recent national Australian survey, the paper shows that 59 per cent of women report that the division of labour in the home is fair even though they also report responsibility for the bulk of the work. On the other hand, 68 per cent of men report that the division of household labour is fair. Drawing on Thompson's distributive justice framework, the paper analyses the factors underlying these patterns in relation to perceptions of fairness of childcare and housework. The results show that, for both men and women, the key factor determining perceptions of fairness is the division of tasks between men and women. The amount of time spent on domestic labour is also significant, but is less important than who does what around the home. There is little support for other hypotheses relating to gender role attitudes, time spent in paid work and financial power. The conclusion examines these findings in light of the distributive justice framework and considers their implications for understanding perceptions of fairness in households.

This paper investigates husbands' and wives' perceptions of fairness of the domestic division of labour. Using data from a recent national Australian survey, the paper shows that 59 per cent of women report that the division of labour in the home is fair even though they also report responsibility for the bulk of the work. On the other hand, 68 per cent of men report that the division of household labour is fair. Drawing on Thompson's distributive justice framework, the paper analyses the factors underlying these patterns in relation to perceptions of fairness of childcare and housework. The results show that, for both men and women, the key factor determining perceptions of fairness is the division of tasks between men and women. The amount of time spent on domestic labour is also significant, but is less important than who does what around the home. There is little support for other hypotheses relating to gender role attitudes, time spent in paid work and financial power. The conclusion examines these findings in light of the distributive justice framework and considers their implications for understanding perceptions of fairness in households.

An attempt is made to summarize key results from a recently concluded project examining continuity and change in one particular dimension of family life in one particular city in the mid-1990s, along with selected comparisons with the same aspect of family life in urban Taiwan. The similarities and differences in urban family patterns in the 1990s are analysed in two ethnically Chinese societies that originally followed quite different development paths, the closed-door revolutionary socialism of the PRC and the market capitalism of Taiwan.

The influx of married women into the labor force has made dual-earner couples the norm rather than the exception. In 1960, 30.5% of married women were in the labor force; in 1989 nearly 58% were employed, the majority working full-time (U.S. Department of the Census, 1991). In contrast to this change in family work roles, research suggests that at least one characteristic of family life has remained quite stable--the division of household labor. Even when both spouses are employed full-time, wives continue to perform the majority of household an inequity which has sparked considerable interest on the part of family scholars (Berk, 1985; Pleck, 1985). Much research on the division of household labor has documented gender differences in ideas and values surrounding housework, and has examined differences in how the division of family work relates to women's and men's views of their marriage (reviewed in Thompson & Walker, 1989). More recently, Thompson (1991) has proposed that to truly understand the division of family labor and its consequences, more attention must be paid to women's and men's sense of fairness about family work. She suggests that understanding gender-specific beliefs about family work and fairness will shed greater light on how the division of labor affects marriages. Although gender has been examined extensively as it relates to issues surrounding family work, less attention has been paid to social class and the way it too may serve to socialize expectations about marriage and the fairness of the distribution of family work. Research by Ferree (1987, 1990) and Komarovsky (1962) would suggest that social class may, in fact, moderate the linkages between the household division of labor, spouses' perceptions of equity, and the marital relationship in dual-earner families. This study examines how both the division of household labor in dual-earner families and perceptions of its fairness relate to marital conflict and satisfaction. This relationship is examined separately within gender and social class groups. In doing so, we hypothesize that the relationships among dimensions of marriage, the division of labor, and perceptions of equity, will not only be different for husbands and wives, but also different for those in a working-class versus a middle-class context. This research also provides us with the opportunity to test some of Thompson's speculations regarding fairness by explicitly examining the linkages between the division of labor and equity and, in turn, examining how these two factors affect women's and men's assessments of their marriages. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF INEQUITY IN HOUSEHOLD WORK Although the question of how women's employment affects the household division of labor has been addressed by many researchers (see Spitze, 1988, for a review); the answer remains ambiguous. For example, research has shown that husbands of employed wives do not spend significantly more time in housework than husbands of nonemployed women (Ferber, 1982). Pleck (1985), however, suggests that men's involvement is slowly increasing, with a greater rise in child-related tasks versus household work. A consistent trend in this literature shows that women continue to spend the majority of their time in feminine tasks, tasks that, unlike traditionally masculine chores, lack a defined time frame, allow little discretion for when the task needs to be done, and lack a leisure component (Thompson & Walker, 1989). With regard to income, some have found that relative shares of housework are related to husbands' and wives' earnings (Berk & Berk, 1978; Maret & Finlay, 1984); however, other researchers report no relationship between spouses' income level and the division of labor (Berardo, Shehan, & Leslie, 1987). Using a slightly different approach, Ross (1987) found that the difference between spouses' earnings was related to the division of household labor. …

This study used a sample of 121 employed, married (or cohabitating) mothers with a high socioeconomic status (SES) primarily from the Midwest United States to examine the relationship between division of household labor, perceived fairness, and distress. Due to inconsistent findings in prior literature, perceived fairness was examined as both a mediator and moderator between division of household labor and distress. Analyses indicated that perceived fairness played a mediating (but not moderating) role, suggesting that an individual’s perceptions of fairness are one mechanism by which division of household labor influences marital and personal distress in married individuals. Post hoc analyses also indicated that increased marital distress may explain the link between perceived unfairness and personal distress. Although results must be interpreted with caution due to the selectivity of the sample, the present study provides additional support for the importance of perceived fairness in the link between division of household labor and distress.

In this chapter we review research on the division of household labor and its consequences. The review summarizes research focused on issues of measurement, including research on methods of gathering data on housework time and time use in general and discussions of various ways to operationalize the division of household labor. Some attention is paid to historical and theoretical work on housework and women's responsibility for it in particular, followed by a more detailed discussion of current empirical approaches to explaining the division of household labor as well as criticisms of these approaches. Finally, we review research that examines the consequences of the division of household labor, focusing on those studies that examine its impact on labor force participation and wages, marital and family satisfaction, psychological well-being, and perceptions of fairness.

Although the last decade of research on families has contributed enormously to our understanding of diversity in family structures and the relationship of family units to various other aspects of social life, it has, it seems to me, generally failed to identify and address sources of conflict within family life. Thus, the usefulness of this research for understanding women's situation has been particularly limited. The persistence and resilience of family forms in the midst of general social change, often forcefully documented in this research, have certainly helped to goad us, as feminists, to consider what women's interests may be in the mainte-

Introduction: Epidemiological studies have only recently begun to address the consequences of unpaid family work (ie., housework and child rearing) for mental health. Although research is suggestive of an association between the division of unpaid family work and psychological health, especially for women, additional research is required to clarify the conditions under which such a relationship holds. The purpose of the present study was to examine more nuanced relationships between the division of family work and psychological distress by disaggregating the family work construct according to type (housework/child rearing), control over scheduling, and evaluations of fairness. Methods:Analysis of data obtained from a cross-sectional telephone survey conducted in a Canadian city. Analyses were based on 293 employed parents (182 mothers and 111 fathers), with at least one preschool child, living in dual-earner households. Several multiple linear regression models were estimated with psychological distress as the outcome, adjusting for confounders.Results:For mothers, more perceived time spent in child rearing (particularly primary child care) and high-schedule-control housework tasks (e.g. yard work) relative to one’s partner, were associated with greater distress. For fathers, perceived unfairness in the division of housework and child rearing were associated with greater distress.Conclusion:Although methodological limitations temper firm conclusions, these results suggest that the gendered nature of household work has implications for the psychological well-being of both mothers and fathers of preschool children in dual-earner households. However, more longitudinal research and the development of theoretically-informed measures of family work are needed to advance the field.

Under what circumstances will married women perceive inequalities in the division of household labor as unfair? This research develops and tests a model based on relative deprivation theory that suggests that gender ideology functions as a moderator variable in a process through which inequalities in the division of household labor come to be seen as inequities. Using data from the National Survey of Families and Households, three empirical tests of the model provide evidence that inequalities in the division of household labor are more strongly related to perceptions of inequity for egalitarian than for traditional wives, and that perceptions of inequity are more strongly related to perceived quality of the marital relationship for egalitarian than for traditional wives. The findings suggest that researchers studying the division of household labor need to shift their focus away from analyses of objective inequalities and toward the study of perceived inequity.

This study uses data from married women in 30 nations to examine justice processes involving perceptions of fairness of the division of household labor and satisfaction with family life. Relative deprivation theory suggests that national context—operationalized here as nation‐level gender equity—might serve as a comparative referent used by married women when making determinations of the fairness of the division of household labor. Multilevel analyses confirm that the effect of inequalities in the division of household labor on perceptions of fairness is moderated by national context, as is the effect of perceptions of fairness on satisfaction with family life. The effects are strongest in nations with high levels of gender equity, confirming two hypotheses suggested by relative deprivation theory.

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe New Scholarship: Review EssaysHouseworkNona Glazer-MalbinNona Glazer-Malbin Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Signs Volume 1, Number 4Summer, 1976 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/493308 Views: 79Total views on this site Citations: 27Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1976 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Ildikó Dén-Nagy Social Theories and Whole Personhood During the COVID-19 Pandemic, (May 2022): 22–42.https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-2364-6.ch002Rosemary A. Joyce Wealth, Women’s Labour, and Forms of Value: Thinking from the Study of Ancestral Central America, (Jun 2021): 35–53.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72539-6_3Jussara dos Santos Raxlen, Rachel Sherman Labor, Lifestyle, and the “Ladies Who Lunch”: Work and Worth Among Elite STAY-AT-HOME Mothers, (Oct 2020): 195–220.https://doi.org/10.1108/S0277-283320200000034012Dr. Annie Tubadji, Professor Joachim Mo, Masood Gheasi, Peter Nijkamp, Piet Rietveld A study on undocumented migrant workers in the Dutch household sector, International Journal of Manpower 35, no.1/21/2 (May 2014): 103–117.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2013-0196Joyce Chan Wai-man Female University Students Dreaming of Becoming Housewives, (Sep 2012): 169–190.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0266-4_10Judith Grant Gender and Marx's radical humanism in the economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844, Rethinking Marxism 17, no.11 (Jan 2005): 59–77.https://doi.org/10.1080/0893569052000312908Orna Blumen GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE JOURNEY TO WORK, Urban Geography 15, no.33 (May 2013): 223–245.https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.15.3.223 References, (Jan 2010).https://doi.org/10.4324/NOE0415083348.bmatt2Deborah D. Godwin Spouses' time allocation to household work: A review and critique, Lifestyles Family and Economic Issues 12, no.33 (Jan 1991): 253–294.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988673NONA Y. GLAZER THE HOME AS WORKSHOP:, Gender & Society 4, no.44 (Dec 1990): 479–499.https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004004004Janeen Baxter Domestic Labour: Issues and Studies, Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work 3, no.11 (Feb 2016): 112–145.https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.1990.11673901Jacqueline J. Goodnow, Susan Delaney Children's household work: Task differences, styles of assignment, and links to family relationships, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 10, no.22 (Apr 1989): 209–226.https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(89)90005-1Louise Johnson Making space for women: Feminist critiques and reformulations of the spatial disciplines, Australian Feminist Studies 4, no.99 (Mar 1989): 31–50.https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.1989.9961633Richard Swedberg Women in the Economy, Current Sociology 35, no.11 (Mar 1987): 65–77.https://doi.org/10.1177/001139287035001009Chaya S. Piotrkowski, Robert N. Rapoport, Rhona Rapoport Families and Work, (Jan 1987): 251–283.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7151-3_10Peggy J. Ross A commentary on research on American farmwomen, Agriculture and Human Values 2, no.11 (Dec 1985): 19–30.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01534988Aisla Thomson, Margrit Eichler The Impact of Labor Force Attachment on Political Participation, International Political Science Review 6, no.33 (Jul 1985): 367–381.https://doi.org/10.1177/019251218500600310ALEXIS J. WALKER, LINDA THOMPSON Feminism and Family Studies, Journal of Family Issues 5, no.44 (Jun 2016): 545–570.https://doi.org/10.1177/019251384005004010 Carmi Schooler , Joanne Miller , Karen A. Miller , and Carol N. Richtand Work for the Household: Its Nature and Consequences for Husbands and Wives, American Journal of Sociology 90, no.11 (Oct 2015): 97–124.https://doi.org/10.1086/228049Dana V. Hiller Power dependence and division of family work, Sex Roles 10, no.11-1211-12 (Jun 1984): 1003–1019.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288521Nona Y. Glazer Servants to Capital: Unpaid Domestic Labor and Paid Work, Review of Radical Political Economics 16, no.11 (Aug 2016): 60–87.https://doi.org/10.1177/048661348401600106 Joseph J. Valadez , and Rémi Clignet Household Work as an Ordeal: Culture of Standards Versus Standardization of Culture, American Journal of Sociology 89, no.44 (Oct 2015): 812–835.https://doi.org/10.1086/227945Neal Krause Conflicting sex-role expectations, housework dissatisfaction, and depressive symptoms among full-time housewives, Sex Roles 9, no.1111 (Nov 1983): 1115–1125.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289920Carolyn K Falkowski, William W Falk Homemaking as an occupational plan: Evidence from a national longitudinal study, Journal of Vocational Behavior 22, no.22 (Apr 1983): 227–242.https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90029-5Nona Glazer Overworking the working woman: the double day in a mass magazine, Women's Studies International Quarterly 3, no.11 (Jan 1980): 79–93.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-0685(80)92675-5Christine Bose Technology and changes in the division of labor in the American home, Women's Studies International Quarterly 2, no.33 (Jan 1979): 295–304.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-0685(79)91500-8Seena B. Kohl Women's participation in the North American family farm, Women's Studies International Quarterly 1, no.11 (Jan 1978): 47–54.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-0685(78)90345-7