UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Housework : here today and here tomorrow McCaughey, Catherine 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1993_spring_mccaughey_catherine.pdf [ 3.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086134.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086134-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086134-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086134-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086134-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086134-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086134-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086134-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086134.ris

Full Text

HOUSEWORK: HERE TODAY AND HERE TOMORROWbyCATHERINE McCAUGHEYB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Anthropology and Sociology)We accept this thesis as conformingTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1993© Catherine McCaughey, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department of Anthropology and SociologyThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate PfP'R \^.gg / 51 ..‘7)DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACT OF THESISHOUSEWORK: HERE TODAY AND HERE TOMORROWby CATHERINE McCAUGHEYThis thesis tests two competing hypothesis: 'adaptivepartnership, and 'dependent labour'. It endeavors todetermine which hypothesis best explains time budget data onthe division of housework. The data was gathered from 6484married respondents in the Canadian General Social Survey of1986. It is examined for the effects of gender, employment,and the presence or absence of a child under 12. The datawas also used to replicate a study of Vancouver couples from1971. The effects on time use of these factors was thencompared for the two studies. The data was then examinedfor the effects of age, education, and income on houseworktime use. Male homemaker's and female homemaker's houseworktimes were compared to determine if their time allocationwas similar.The study found that being female and having a smallchild increased housework time. Employment decreased timewomen spent in housework but their total workload hoursincreased because of their combined housework and paid worktimes. Total work times were greater in 1986 than in 1971.Women's weekly workload hours were only slightly higher thanmen's in 1986, a change from 1971. Women in 1986 spentmuch longer in housework time than men but men had longerpaid work weeks.i iThe 'dependent labour' theory was consistent with thefindings that women spent much more time in housework andless time in paid employment than men. The 'adaptivepartnership' hypothesis did not explain why men and women'swork weeks are similar but women spent much longer times inhousework.Education and income did not show an effect on men'shousework time. Women's housework time increased slightly• with the increase of education and income, a resultconfounded with their participation rates in paidemployment. For both men and women work hours increasedaround the child rearing years in the family life cycle.The data for male homemakers show they allocatehousework time in much the same way as women homemakersalthough their total housework times are slightly less.iiiTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract^ iiTable of Contents^ ivList of Tables vList of Figures^ viAcknowledgement viiChapter One^Introduction^ 1Comparing Theories^ 3Characteristics of Work^8The Concepts of 'roles' and'cumulation of demands' 11Chapter Two^Review of Pertinent Studies^14Chapter Three^Method and Results^ 26Method^ 26Results 28Participation Rates 37Chapter Four^Replicating the Earlier Study^42Time Use 1971-1986^ 451971 Results^ 491986 Results 50Comparing the Effects^51Chapter Five^Age, Income and Education^53Chapter Six Male Homemakers^ 60Chapter Seven^Conclusion 65Bibliography 69Appendix A^1986 Canadian General SocialSurvey Revised Activity Categories 75ivLIST OF TABLESVTable 1Table 2Table 3Table 4Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Time budget Hours by Gender, Employmentand Child Under 12 (mean hours per day)Weekday Work Hours by Gender, Employmentand Child Under 12 (mean hours per day)Weekend Work Hours by Gender, Employmentand Child Under 12 (mean hours per day)Women's Housework Hours by Gender,Job Hours and Child Under 12 (mean hoursper day)Men's Housework Hours by Gender, JobHours and Child Under 12 (mean hours perday)Percentage Reporting Housework Tasksby Gender and Child Under 12Percentage Reporting Housework Tasks bySex and Job HoursComparison of 1971 and 1986 Weekly WorkHoursHousework Hours For Homemakers by ChildUnder 12 (mean hours per day)303434363638394461LIST OF FIGURESviFigure 1^Comparison of Housework Hours1986 and 1971Figure 2^Housework Hours by Gender andFigure 3^Housework Hours by Gender andIncomeFigure 4^Housework Hours by Gender andIncomeFigure 5^Housework Hours by Gender andBetween48Age^54Household54Personal57Education 57ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI wish to thank Dr. Meissner for the generous gift ofhis time and expertise. Without his help this thesis wouldnot have been written. Thank you also to Virginia Appellwho filled the gaps in my knowledge of library proceduresand personal word processing. And thanks most especially toLiam, Tamara, and Adrian who supported me unfailinglythrough my years at school.vii1CHAPTER 1^INTRODUCTIONThere are two theories of the division of houseworkbetween husbands and wives, the 'adaptive partnership'theory and the 'dependent labour' theory (Meissner et al.1975:424) Meissner et al.(1975) examined which of these twohypotheses fit best with the time use data gathered in 1971from 340 married couples in Vancouver. Household demandsaccumulate with the addition of young children and paidemployment. The dependent labour theory hypothesis suggeststhat women increase their total workload to accomplish adouble day of paid work and housework duties because oftheir dependent financial status in the home, a conditionthat coincides with the findings. The findings did notcoincide with the adaptive partnership hypothesis whichsuggests that as women's burden increases men accommodatethe increased demands by increasing their housework times.During the intervening years a common perceptiondeveloped that housework arrangements between employed wivesand husbands have changed. In this study I hope toreplicate the 1971 study as far as possible to determine ifmen and women have altered the time they spend in houseworkand paid employment, and to determine if the dependentlabour theory is supported by these data or whether adifferent picture of the division of housework is reflectedin the time use data. This study will accomplish severalthings in relation to these theories.In the first chapter, I will compare these two theoriesto establish the theoretical framework for this study. Iwill examine how the characteristics of housework itself areunderstood, valued and approached differently by men andwomen and suggest how these differences may affect thedivision of housework. I will also discuss two commonanalytical concepts used with time budgets, 'roles' and the'cumulation of demands'.In chapter 2, I will review the pertinent literature onstudies about men's and women's total time use and focusparticularly on their total workload time and its effects onthe division of housework at home.Chapter 3 will focus on the data from time budgetsgathered in the Canadian 1986 General Social Survey fromover 6000 women and men. I will analyze the effects ofemployment and the presence of children under twelve yearsold on the division of housework and ascertain which of thetwo theories is most compatible with the data.In chapter 4, I will use the data from the 1986 GSS toreplicate as far as possible the study done in 1971 byMeissner, Humphreys, Meis and Scheu (1975).In chapter 5, I will analyze the effects of income,age, and education on the participation rates and the timespent by men and women in housework.In chapter 6, I will introduce a new category of datafrom the 1986 GSS, the time budget information from male2homemakers, and analyze their household time use. In thiscontext I will discuss the indivisibility of housework.Chapter 7 contains the conclusions from this study.Comparing TheoriesThe concept of 'adaptive partnership' occurs in severaltheories such as the new home economics, resource theory,balance of power theory, and normative roles theory. Itsuggests that women who participate in paid employment willnot have to carry the entire burden of houseworkresponsibilities but will be able to negotiate a sharingarrangement with their spouses.In the new home economics, Berk and Berk (1979) suggestthat husbands and wives maximize the utility of their workefforts. Women who participate in paid work will getassistance with housework to the extent that the couples'combined efforts maximize their production in the public andprivate spheres to result in the greatest returns for theirfamilies. When women participate in paid work, thehousework is divided between spouses so it will be done inthe most efficient manner.Blood and Wolfe's (1960) resource theory suggests thatthose who bring a resource to the household are responsiblefor doing the resource related job. Resources are countedas skills and education which relate to the job market. Menhave more economic resources which results in theirresponsibility to participate in paid work. Women stay home3and take care of domestic production because they feelgrateful or indebted to their husband for his greatereconomic contribution to the marriage. Women who areemployed outside the home, however, make enough of aneconomic contribution so that the housework responsibilitiesmust be shared between husband and wife.Balance of power theories, such as that of Young andWillmott (1973), suggest that women who work only in thehome do not make a significant economic contribution andtherefore have little power within the marriage. They takeon housework because they have no choice. Women who workfor pay, however, increase their bargaining power in themarriage. They can renegotiate their contribution ofdomestic labour as their husband's relative bargaining powerdeclines. Housework is renegotiated to an equitable splitameliorating the double burden the wife takes on when sheadds paid job responsibilities to her duties as wife and, inmany cases, mother. The new balance of power and resultingtask equity leads to the development of the 'symmetricalfamily'.Scanzoni (1978) argues that the division of houseworkand paid employment is based on social norms which lead tosocially sanctioned rights and responsibilities. Paidemployment is a responsibility for men and is therefore asocially enforced and rewarded activity for them.Housework, conversely, is a duty for women and carries withit the same rewards and sanctions. However, as women turn4more and more to paid work it takes on a dimension ofresponsibility for them, making it a socially enforcedactivity protected from the incursion on women's time byother duties such as housework. Housework then becomes theless important but still necessary activity which is dividedbetween spouses so it can be completed satisfactorily.The 'adaptive partnership' hypothesis suggests elementssuch as social expectations or greater economic returns keepmen responsible for paid employment and reinforce women'ssegregation in the home. Women's diminished power, theirlack of resources, the maximization of productive behaviour,and social norms keep them dependent in the household.Once, however, they are able to escape their segregatedposition in the household, to join the ranks of paidemployees, their diminished and dependent position iselevated to a level on which they can negotiate or share thehousehold burden with their spouses.The burden of housework will continue to rest largelyon women's shoulders where it would normatively seem tobelong as long as women remain dependent on their husbandsfor financial support. However, the division of houseworkchanges, becoming equitable, when women take on theresponsibility of paid work.The 'dependent labour' theory is based on theassumptions that marriage, kinship relations, the unequalsocial value of women's and men's efforts, differences innorms and expectations, and different relations to the means5of production by gender, keep women's household labourdependent regardless of their participation in paid work.Meissner et al.(1975) argue that despite women'sincreased participation in paid work they remain almostsolely responsible for housework. Employed, married womentake on a 'double day' when they take a paid job becausethey shoulder both the burden of their employment and theirprevious household responsibilities. Women's work istrivialized and their efforts are devalued both in the homeand in the work place resulting in limited remuneration forjobs and a lack of recognition for their work efforts athome. They cannot make enough money to support themselvesand their children and they therefore remain financiallydependent on their husbands. This dependent positioninsures that housework and child care continue to be done bywomen.Housework is women's work and their responsibility, butmen do not consider it to be serious work. Men's houseworkis 'help' and not usually their duty, except for a selectgroup of 'masculine' chores. Child care, for example, is afemale duty. Men 'baby-sit' their own children as if theirchildren were only a temporary responsibility for them.Married women's social position is also dependent ontheir husband's social status (Meissner et al., 1975). Theydo not have an independent social standing. For marriedwomen who works for pay their income can improve or 'help'the family's financial position but unlike a husband's6earnings it does not have an independent force indetermining the family's social position. Married women areassumed to work for entertainment, personal fulfillment, asa break from their primary household duties, to supplementthe family income, or to earn a bit of spending money forthemselves.Men have the dominant position in marriage. If a manis present in a household he is the socially acknowledgedhead of the family. Men have the dominant legal position inmarriage. Other institutions also value men more highlythan they value women. Men and women are often treateddifferently in paid employment. Men get higher pay, moreeducational opportunities, training, and promotionopportunities.Men have the ability to place social value on workactivities. They view their own activities as moreimportant while they value women's activities as lessimportant. Men's primary social responsibility is to beemployed. Married women's primary responsibility is totheir husbands and children and a paid job comes a distantsecond. They cannot value their own efforts but must acceptmen's evaluation of their work.In sum, these factors keep women's position in the homedependent on men. Women's work is not as valuable as men'sas a result of these conditions. They are, therefore, paidless and cannot make enough money in paid employment tosupport themselves and their children adequately. These7conditions force them to remain married dependents. Theinability to gain financial independence means they must besupported, and their place in the home, doing housework andchild care, is permanently established.Women who continue to marry accept their primary roleas housewives and mothers, and their ability to gainindependence or determine the social value of their ownefforts is severely limited. They continue to take onhousework as a primary responsibility while work for payremains secondary. Women's efforts to gain independence andin turn share their household duties with their husbandsremain thwarted even though they participate in paid work inincreasing numbers. Working for pay results in womenshouldering the double burden of a paid job and housework.The 'adaptive partnership' and 'dependent labour'theories are quite different and predict differentconsequences in the division of housework when women enterthe work force.Characteristics of WorkI now turn to the actual work that men and women do inthe home to examine how the characteristics of householdtasks might affect the division of housework betweenspouses.Work activities can be categorized by characteristicsinherent in each task. Tasks can be sorted by which of twoproperties they have in each of six dimensions. Tasks can8be 1) diffuse or specific, 2) obligatory or non-obligatory,3) co-operative or competitive, 4) hierarchical or unranked,5)immediately useful or for intrinsic value, 6) repetitive -based on continual demand, or non-repetitive based onpersonal discretion (Meissner 1977:174-176).Work in the first category is either diffuse or hasclear specifications and boundaries. If a task is boundedit is made up of specifically described actions which willresult in its completion. Many paid jobs have specific jobdescriptions entailing the steps an employee must take tocomplete the requirements. Some household tasks arespecific, like painting walls, but most housework is diffusein nature resulting in many and varied demands being made onthe worker. Service jobs and household tasks like childcare require the worker to respond to any demands when theyarise, no matter how inconvenient or incompatible they arewith what the worker is already doing.Obligation is a characteristic of work which clearlydivides tasks. Some work is done for the sake of the workitself while other work is done for the immediate use ofsomeone else. Much of housework is obligatory since itspurpose is to care for the needs of others. Some housework,however, is not obligatory such as mowing lawns or fixingthe car. There are some jobs which have an obligatorydimension such as teaching or nursing which are doneprimarily for others.9Much paid work is competitive whereas much housework iscooperative. In the work place, people strive to achieve ahigher level for themselves, often at the expense of others.In a household work is done for everyone's benefit and moreis achieved through cooperation than competition.Competition and cooperation are linked to thehierarchical structure of jobs. In the work place jobs areranked according to authority and rewards. Hierarchyengenders a competitive component of work since competitionis the most efficient way for the most competent workers torise to powerful and well-rewarded posts. In a householdthe jobs are unranked. Cooperation rather than competitioncorresponds more closely to housework.Some work is done for its intrinsic value. These jobsare done because the worker likes the job or the productthat is created by it. Other work is done because of itsimmediate use value, it is done for someone and to satisfyan immediate need.Tasks may be repetitive, based on an ongoing need forthe results to be produced. Such jobs as meal preparationfall into this category. Other work is less repetitive andis done based on the personal discretion of the worker.These jobs are done when the worker decides they should be.These six categories are linked according to similardimensions found in tasks. Jobs done to serve others oftenhave an obligatory and service dimension. They are done ondemand, are diffuse and unranked and done on a cooperative1 0basis. Other jobs that are done for their intrinsic valueare highly valued as work. They are often ranked, non-obligatory, discretionary, have clear specifications orboundaries, and are done on a competitive basis.Meissner (1977:176) argues that men form theirconception of what constitutes work from their jobexperiences in the workforce. Jobs that men do are mostoften bounded and with clear specifications. They are non-obligatory in nature, competitive, hierarchical, haveintrinsic value, and some of them have a discretionarycomponent. Many jobs that women do for pay, and houseworkin general, have the opposite components. They are serviceoriented, obligatory, cooperative, immediately useful,diffuse and unranked. Men's few housework duties generallyhave the same characteristics as their paid work.The Concepts of 'roles' and 'cumulation of demands'I now turn briefly to a discussion of two conceptualtools used to analyze the actual work that is done by womenand men in the home. Two ways of thinking about thedimensions of work in the household are 'roles' and'cumulation of demands'.'Roles' are social norms which create expectations ofbehavior in certain socially sanctioned ways. Theproscribed behaviour includes living up to responsibilitiesand carrying out tasks and duties associated with a role.11The 'bread winner' role involves income earning andsupporting the family. The 'homemaker' role entailshousehold tasks and 'parenting' entails child care tasksinvolving direct interaction with children. If someoneworks in more than one of these 'role' capacities at a timethey accumulate roles. Scanzoni (1978:52) argues for thedevelopment of role 'interchangeability'. He does not arguethat roles will be reshuffled or dissolved, or a change willoccur in the expectations about concomitant groups oftasks. He suggests that people will be able to freely takeon any of the 'bread winner', 'homemaker', or 'parent' rolesas the necessity arises. Each spouse would carry thecollective burden of responsibility for each of thesehousehold roles. Thus each spouse would have individualresponsibility for their own paid job 'role' but thehousehold and parent 'roles' would be shared equally betweenspouses. Presumably the available spouse would fill therequired 'housekeeper' or 'parent' role.Meissner et al. (1975:426) are critical of the conceptof roles because it overlooks the different time componentsof these roles. A limited number of tasks andresponsibilities which take place over a specific timeperiod make up the 'bread winner' role but the 'homemaker'role can entail an almost unlimited variety of tasks whichmake enormous time demands on the homemaker. A homemaker maybe called upon, for example, to care for elderly familymembers or invalids which could significantly increase12demands on time. Meissner et al., therefore, propose thealternative concept of 'cumulation of demands' which moreaccurately reflects the time demands that housework, childcare, and paid employment tasks can make on the homemaker'stime.'Cumulation of demands' signifies increased demands ontime use when women take on a paid job or have smallchildren. It focuses on the time women and men spend onhousehold tasks as it affects or is affected by the timethey spend in paid employment, or the number and ages ofchildren in the home. The underlying assumption is that asthe demands on women's time increase, the tasks thataccompany the 'homemaker' role can be divided betweenhusbands and wives to attain an equitable division of labourtime.In this chapter I have discussed the theoreticalframework for this paper by comparing the theory of adaptivepartnership and the theory of dependent labour. Thischapter also included a discussion of the varyingcharacteristics of actual housework tasks and the twoanalytical concepts of 'role' and 'cumulation of demands' asthey pertain to the division of housework time and tasks.1314CHAPTER 2^REVIEW OF PERTINENT STUDIESResearchers used many and varied methods to examine howpeople use time to do housework. They have asked whatfactors affect housework time use, and how or if they affectthe division of housework between spouses. Factors such asage, income, education, the number and ages of children, theemployment status of women, and the number of hours womenspend in paid labour affect housework time use of men andwomen.Researchers have used open-ended surveys,questionnaires, interviews, time budgets, and combinationsof these methods to collect data on housework. They havealso focused their data gathering efforts on singles, co-habiting and married couples, men and women who are marriedbut not to each other, just wives, couples married to eachother, all family members, or all family members with paidemployment. A brief literature review will discuss some ofthe methods and findings from these studies and theirrelative merits.Blood and Wolfe's (1960) work has been cited as thework that started researchers' questions about the ofdivision of housework. In 1955, they interviewed some 731urban and suburban housewives in and around Detroit and 178farm wives. They were concerned with task allocation in thehome and they found that when women worked outside the home,husbands shared more tasks, a finding commensurate with theexchange theory they espoused. Using a list of tasks, theyasked these women 'who did the jobs more often?' todetermine the housework split. The list of tasks was evenlybalanced between female gender-linked jobs such asstraightening the living room for company and male genderlinked jobs such as mowing the lawn (Blood and Wolfe,1960:47). These questions overlook the differences infrequency and length of time required to complete thesetasks.Since then there have been literally hundreds ofstudies about the division of housework between husbands andwives and how it affects or is affected by theirsatisfaction, personal power and paid employment, commitmentto marriage, or attitudes concerning women's place insociety. Many of these have combined various interviewingtechniques with time budget information.In 1970 Young and Willmott (1973) gathered time budgetdata from 411 subjects and found that men had an over-allworkload greater than women's and they 'helped' out withhousework half the time. They argued that as women workedfor pay more, the 'symmetrical family' would develop wherepeople would share the housework role. They made nodistinction for the number and ages of children in ahousehold which has subsequently been found as a majorfactor in household time use.Others did open-ended interviews. Lopata (1971) did 571open ended interviews to determine when, where, and under15what circumstances men participated in housework. Womenreported that some men 'helped' regularly while others only'helped' in emergencies. Oakley (1973) interviewed 40 Londonhousewives concerning their satisfaction and orientation tothe housewife role. In both cases only women's opinions weresolicited. Neither determined how much time was spent onthese tasks and how often they were done by either spouse.Scanzoni (1971) interviewed 3000 married women and menin 10 states to determine how attitudes of egalitarianismaffected the division of housework. He found that womennegotiated sharing more than men and that the primaryresponsibility for housework remains women's. 'Role modern'women, however, wished to share housework more than 'roletraditional' women.Huber and Spitze (1983) also asked men and women whowere married to each other to judge on a five point scalewho did a task most often. Their study focussed on how theavailability of time affects the housework participation.The commonly used five point scale concerning household taskparticipation is 1) wife always, 2) wife usually, 3) bothequally, 4) husbands usually and 5) husbands always.Scanzoni and Huber and Spitze improved on theirpredecessors by including men's and women's reports, andreports of men and women who were married to each other.Still the focus was not on the specific work but on howpeoples' attitudes and extenuating life circumstances affectthe division of housework. They found that housework was16primarily women's responsibility, but over time men haveincreased their relative share.In the interest of determining more accurate empiricalinformation, time budgets were gathered using a combined2000 to 3000 subjects each from twelve countries in 1965-66.Robinson, Converse and Szalai (1972:113-143) used theaggregated information for men and women and found that menspent more time than women in paid work everywhere.Employed women spent half as much time in housework as full-time housewives, about 2-3 hours less per day, but theircombined job and housework hours totaled about 2 more hoursof work per day than housewives and employed men everywhere.Employed women doubled their housework hours on days off tocomplete the necessary housework. They found that basichousework has an inelastic quality. As demands increased onwomen's time from the addition of paid work and smallchildren, women were forced to cut corners to complete thenecessities. They also found that a clear division ofhousework between the sexes existed everywhere, with thecore housework responsibilities being the women's. Menincreased their housework on days off by 3/4 of a hour.Robinson (1977), using the U.S. data from the twelvecountry study, found employed women spent twice as much timeon cooking, cleaning and laundry than employed men. Menshared shopping and child care, but half the time they spentwith children was play time. For women one tenth of thetime spent with children was in play (Robinson 1977:62-65).17Robinson (1980:61) compared the same 1965-66 data withdata from 700 female respondents from a follow up survey in1975. He found women's housework hours had declined by 6.6hours per week over the ten year period. He controlled forage, education, income, number of children and maritalstatus and found a reduction of 22 minutes per day, or 2.5hour per week in women's reported housework time. Thedecreased times occurred in shopping, regular cleaning andmaintenance and child care. He explained most of thedifference between the 6.6 and 2.5 hours of housework timearising from women's increased participation in paid workand the number of children. Robinson (1980:63) found thatdecreased housework hours could not be accounted for byhousehold technology.Walker and Woods (1976) improved on the aggregated datafor married men and women with information for both thehusband's and wive's housework hours. The wife did thereporting for all the members of the family. She filled outthe time budget reports and verified times with other familymembers before the final interview with the researcher. Thetime budget information was gathered in 1967-68 in Syracuse,New York, in three waves for a total of 2592 time budgets.Women's housework time was strongly affected by the presenceof a small child. As children's ages increased, houseworktimes decrease; this effect was stronger for women than formen. Employed women did an hour a day more housework thanhusbands when their job hours were from 15 - 29 hours per18week and two hours more per day when their job hoursexceeded thirty hours per week. Low family incomesincreased women's labour force participation. Employmentdecreased their housework hours. They found that men spentonly 1.6 hours per day on a few selected activities. Of thattime only about 6 minutes per day were spent on the regulardaily housework activities like meal preparation or housecleaning. Like many others, their time budget informationshowed that men's participation in the daily drudgery ofhousework was limited at best even when women worked for pay(Walker and Woods, 1976:44).Sanik (1981:178-180) replicated the Walker and Woodsstudy. In 1977 she also gathered data in Syracuse in threeseasonal waves from a stratified random sample of familieswith children registered by the public school system. Thehomemaker recorded activities for all other householdmembers. Sanik found that women had decreased the timespent in dishwashing, clothing care and physical care. Aschildren got older women's work decreased. Men's houseworktimes remained stable and they did not do laundry. However,as women's paid employment time increased their husband'sfood preparation and dish washing times decreased. The 1965-66 U.S. study (Robinson, 1977) was repeated in1975-76 (Hi11,1985). The followup study was designed to becompatible with the previous data. Each respondent fromthis national sample of people 18 years and over filled outfour time-budget diaries; one for each three month period19over a year for a total of two weekday diaries and one eachfor Saturday and Sunday, to capture seasonal changes in timeuse as well as workday and weekend differences. Data weregathered from the respondents and if the respondent wasmarried data were also gathered from their spouse. 1244subjects lasted through all four waves. The data were morecomplete than previous aggregated data for married men andwomen because it reflected time uses for couples married toeach other.Hill (1985:147), using the 1975 data, found thatmarried women averaged 3 - 18 more total work hours per weekthan married men with comparable job hours. Women did lesspaid work and more housework than men. Men did littlelaundry. Cooking, cleaning and child care work was done bywomen, whereas outdoor cleaning, repair and maintenance workwas done by men. Women's mean work hours are lower thanmen's because of their greater participation in part-timework.The effects of education, income, age, and life cycleare interesting to many time-use researchers. Rexroat andShehan (1987:740-743) used the data of the 1976 Panel ofIncome Dynamics from 1,618 couples to look at the effects ofthe life cycle on the division of housework. They foundthat men in the early stages of their careers spent moretime in housework than men at later stages. Women did muchmore housework and less paid work after they had children.They suggest that before there are children in the home20couples share housework with less regard for its gender-linked status whereas after children are born couplesobserve the gender-linked division of housework much moreclosely.Farkas (1976) used the data from a 1972 Panel Study ofIncome Dynamics to examine the effects of education andrelative wages on the division of housework. They arguedthat husband's and wive's share of housework is influencedby the relative difference between their wages. They foundsome support for this argument, but only minimally. Therewas stronger evidence that the education hypothesis wasvalid but not conclusively.Stafford and Duncan(1985) compared the U.S. data fromthe 1965-66 study and the 1975-76 follow up study. Theyfound that men in the later study did less paid work andmore housework than in the earlier study. They looked forthe effects of women's and men's education and wages on thedivision of housework. 16% of husbands in the later studyreported household responsibilities. Men at lower wagelevels reported spending more time in housework. As incomesincreased men's housework hours decreased. As women'seducation level increased their husband's houseworkincreased but this finding was mitigated by men's educationlevels. As men's education increased their household dutiesdecreased. The over-all percentage of men who reportedhousehold duties, however, remained quite small.21A third Ann Arbor study was done in 1981-82 to followthe 1975-76 study. The respondents and spouses from the1975-76 study were re-interviewed to explore how people'stime use changed longitudinally. The 1981-82 study did notreplace the cohort of respondents who were 18-25 in theearlier interviews. By the fourth wave of interviews, therewere 493 respondents and 376 spouses left in the study.Juster and Stafford (1985:515-518) found that men's marketwork went down by just over an hour and their houseworkincreased by 1 1/2 hours. Males did slightly more of thetasks linked to female responsibility, while women didsubstantially less. Women's housework hours declined byabout 1 1/2 hours while their paid work increased by aboutthe same amount. They suggest that some of this effect maybe because men and women in this study are older than in theprevious study.Robinson, Andreyenkov and Patrushev (1988) did a studyin 1986 in Pskov, Russia, and Jackson, U.S.A. two of thelocations in the 1965-66 twelve country study. The Pskovsample was over 2000 subjects between 18 and 65. In Jacksonthe sample was 844 subjects over 18. They found that womenspent less time in housework in both places than twentyyears ago. Men in the U.S.A. did more housework thanpreviously while men in the Soviet Union spent about thesame amount of time as twenty years ago. In Pskov employedwomen spent about twice as much time in housework asemployed men.22Central to this work, the study by Meissner et al.(1975) is discussed in depth in chapter 4 which deals withthe replication of that study. One contribution of this workwas that data were collected from both spouses in a coupleso the affect of the wife's paid work hours on her husband'shousework time use could be examined.A study by Douthitt (1989) was done as a replication ofMeissner et al.(1975). She used the Canadian National TimeBudget Study carried out between September and October 1981in 14 cities of people 15 years and older. Information wasgathered from the respondents about their own time use, andthe time use of other household members who participated inthe labour force.In the ten year comparison between the 1971 and 1981data, women's total workload times were the same but theirhousework times were slightly higher for married women inthe later study which, she suggests, may have been caused bydifferences in the operationalization of the two studies.Men's housework times were greater regardless of theirwives' employment status. The findings were consistent withMeissner et al. (1975) in the area of men's contributions tohousework on weekend versus week days. Men did significantlyless housework including meal preparation, chores or housecleaning, repairs and child care during the week than didtheir wives although their total times increased. Thegreatest increases in men's housework times were in mealpreparation and child care (Douthitt 1989:698-700).23Douthitt found the distribution of women's task timechanged. Meal preparation times and household chore timesdecreased, while shopping and child care times increased.She found that the distribution of men's housework tasks andtheir housework times changed.Men did more work on weekends, not week days, but theyspent that time with their children or in food preparationrather than their traditional 'masculine' chores. I willconsider these results further in chapter 4.This chapter has covered the relevant time budgetstudies. All the studies acknowledge that the responsibilityfor housework still rests with women. Men do relatively andabsolutely more housework than they did previously whilewomen's housework times have decreased. Women's and men'stotal workloads have drawn closer together overall, butthere are large discrepancies in findings concerning theamount of time men and women spend in housework, and thefactors that affect their work times.Time budget data given by women and men are animprovement over the subjective reports given inquestionnaires, open ended surveys, and interviews. Theyavoid researchers question biases such as lists of gender-liked activities which appear fairly balanced but overlooksubtantial differences in frequency and time allocation.Aggregated time use data for married men and women show bothrelative and absolute time use differences but data gathered24from both spouses in a couple show how the time use of onepartner affects the other's time use.Children's ages and women's employment have been shownto have a strong effect on housework time. The hours menand women work outside the home also affect housework time,while age, education and income have small effects onhousehold time use. Cross sectional studies andlongitudinal studies have shown some changes in time use.2526CHAPTER 3^METHOD AND RESULTSThis chapter will describe the method used in thisstudy and describe and analyze the findings from the 1986General Social Survey which are comparable to the Meissneret al. (1975) study. Combinations of gender, employmentstatus and the presence of children in the home are examinedto determine what, if any, effects they have on houseworktime use and the participation rates reported in houseworkcategories by men and women.MethodThis study is based on data gathered in the CanadianGeneral Social Survey of 1986. Telephone interviewers askedrespondents to describe their activities from 4:00 A.M. theprevious morning until 3:59 A.M. that morning. Therespondents gave an account of their first activity, whenthe activity began and ended, where they did it, and who ifanyone they were with at the time. If they did more thanone activity at a time they described the main activity.They were then asked to describe the next activity in thesame way, and so on, for the rest of the twenty-four hourperiod.The target population of the survey was all Canadiansover age 15 years except those in the Yukon and North WestTerritories or those who resided in institutions such ashospitals or prisons. A total of 12,500 households in tenprovinces were randomly selected using telephone numberbanks selection methods (Canadian General Social Survey,1986:7-10). They were contacted between October 25 andNovember 21, to set a prearranged date for the actualinterviews which took place between November 22 and December22, 1986. In total, 9946 households were contacted and ofthose 202 were refusals. This left a total of 9744 usabletime diaries. The data went through a number of weightingprocedures to balance out sampling and non-response ratesthat varied from province to province.Activities were coded into 95 categories. I inititallycollapsed these categories to correspond to the 33categories that Meissner et al.(1975) used in their study.There are two extra categories of travel in this study.Three task categories used by Meissner et al.(1975) aremissing from my analysis because the data in the 1986 studywere coded differently. The missing categories aremoonlighting, building, and outings. The categories ofgardening and pet care were combined with hobbies underactive leisure. Pet care was a "sundry service" in theMeissner et al. study while it appeared combined withgardening as regular domestic work in the 1986 GSS.Gardening was categorized as active leisure in Meissner etal. In all, this study ended with 30 distinct categories ofhousehold and paid employment activities. Appendix A showsthe revised time budget categories.27Although there were over 9000 time budgets completed, Ionly used data from the 6484 respondents who were marriedin the GSS to correspond to categories in Meissner et al.(1975).ResultsEight categories of 'cumulation of demands'werecreated from a combination of gender, employment, andchildren under the age of twelve in the home. Six of theseconditions (those roughly comparable to conditions inMeissner et al.) will be examined here. The other twoconditions - male homemakers with or without children undertwelve - will be examined in chapter 6.There were no data in the GSS regarding the employmentstatus of men's wives therefore it is not possible to pursuethe question of how women's paid employment affected theirhusband's housework time. Homemaker's volunteer work hourswere included with paid work in the coding.The job of homemaker is women's responsibility.Meissner et al.(1975) created a 'household demand' variableby combining the demands of housework, wife's employmentand the presence or absence of a child under 10 in the home.In this study a young child was under the age of 12. Thesedemands are ranked in this study to correspond with Meissneret al. (1975:432) as (1) wife full-time homemaker, no childunder 12, (2) wife full-time homemaker, child under 12,(3)wife employed, no child under 12, and (4) wife employed28child under 12. Young children do not constitute the samedemand as paid work on women's time because housework andchild care activities can be combined, while paid work isusually done outside the home and also requires some traveltime.For men, two conditions increase demands on their totalhousework time. They are (1) the addition of young childrenin the home and (2) his wife's paid employment. I canexamine the effect of children under 12 on the houseworktime of employed men.I can examine the effects on housework of employment intwo ways. Firstly, I will compare housework hours foremployed and unemployed women, and employed women and men,to examine their different housework time use. Secondly,employed men's and women's paid work time is categorized byjob hours per week into part-time, full-time or over-timehours. Each successive increase in employment hoursincreases time demands. Women's and men's time use for eachcomparable category of job hours are then compared.Activities are divided into four major groups: paidwork, housework, self-maintenance, and leisure. Table 1shows mean hours spent for each activity category in one dayfor women who are full-time homemakers and women and menwith paid employment. Each category of gender and employmentis divided by the presence or absence of children under 12.Homemakers, not surprisingly, spent the most time doinghousework. Homemakers without children under 12 spent as29Table 1. Time-Budget Hours by Gender, Employment & Childunder 12 (Mean hours per day)WOMEN^ MEN^With paid work^homemaker^with paid workChild under 12 Child under12 Child under 12No^Yes^No^Yes^No^YesJob 4.9 4.5 0.3 0.4 6.0 6.2Job-related 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3TOTAL JOB WORK 5.1 4.6 0.3 0.4 6.2 6.5TOTAL NEC TRAVEL 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.3Daily cooking 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.3 0.1 0.2House cleaning 0.5 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.1Kitchen washup 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1Regular Shopping 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4Laundry 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0Child care 0.2 1.1 0.3 2.4 0.0 0.7TOT REG HOUSEWORK 2.7 3.9 4.7 6.5 0.8 1.5Irreg food/clothes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Irreg purchases 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Sundry services 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1Repair, maint 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4TOTAL IRREG HWK 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6ALL HOUSEWORK 3.0 4.2 5.1 6.9 1.5 2.0WORKLOAD 9.3 9.9 6.2 8.2 8.9 9.8Sleep 8.0 8.0 8.7 8.3 7.9 7.7Personal care 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7Eating 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6TOT SELF-MAINT. 10.6 10.6 11.2 10.8 10.3 10.0Associations 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Church 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0Active sports 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3Hobbies, garden 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1TOT ACTIVE LSR 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6Visiting 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6Personal commun. 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2Parties, drinks 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2TOT SOCIABILITY 1.3 0.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0Drive, walk 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Public entertain 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1T.V.,^radio 1.5 1.5 2.6 1.9 2.3 2.0Reading 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3Relaxing 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2TOT ENTERTAINMENT 2.2 2.0 3.6 2.6 3.1 2.6ALL LEISURE TIME 4.1 3.5 6.5 5.0 4.7 4.2Total time budget 24.0 24.0 23.9 23.9 23.9 24.0(N) (823) (388) (891) (536) (1365) (811)Nec=necessary Tot=total Reg=regular Irreg=irregularhwk=housework maint=maintenance LSR=leisurecommun.=communication entertain=entertainment30much time in housework as employed women spent on theirjobs. Homemakers with children spent almost 2 more hours intotal housework than those without younger children. Evenwith children under 12, homemakers total workload was 1 to 3hours less per day than employed men and women.Employed women had the longest work day with or withoutyoung children. Their paid hours were 1 to 2 hours lessthan men's and their housework hours were 2 to 2.5 hoursless than full-time homemakers. Their total workload,combining housework and paid job hours was slightly higherthan men's.Women curb their paid activities to cope with the addeddemands from the presence of younger children at home.Employed women with a young child did half an hour less paidwork than those without and they spent over an hour more inhousework time.^Their total workload times were over halfan hour longer than employed women's without children and 13/4 hours longer than homemakers with children.Men's total work day was only slightly shorter thanwomen's. Men with small children spent an hour longer intheir over-all workload than men without but almost half ofthe extra time was spent in employment hours. Men withyoung children in the household did more paid work thanthose without possibly to help cope with the extra financialstrain of children or their wife's lost income.In non-work activities, homemakers spent the longesttime in all categories: self-maintenance, active leisure,31socializing, and entertainment activities. Homemakers witha young child spent about two hours longer in total worktime than homemakers without a young child which they madeup from decreased leisure times.Employed women and men had much less leisure time thanhousewives, but employed women both with and withoutchildren had over half an hour less total leisure than men.Employed men and women had over half an hour less leisuretime if there were children under 12 but employed women hadthe least amount of leisure time; between half and threequarters of an hour less than employed men. Although theeffects of young children are stronger for women than men itappears that adults divert personal and leisure time tointeracting with their younger children and/or coping withthe increased housework that younger children create.Employed women spent less time in housework and childcare but their over-all workload time was greater becausethe basic requirements of housework take up more time thanthey can afford to trim from their housework hours.Men with a younger child at home spent more totalhousework hours than men with no children. This extra timewas spent entirely in child care. Men respond to thepresence of young children by interacting with the childrenthemselves rather than doing more of the increased regularhousework tasks. Employed women with a young child spentmore time in child care as well as cooking, cleaning, and32laundry to do the extra necessary housework young childrencreate.Women who were full-time homemakers actually spentslightly less time cooking and house cleaning when youngerchildren are present They may cut back in some cleaning andcooking to increase their time spent in child care. Thissuggests there is a ceiling effect on housework times.Homemakers will adjust housework times down to meet theincreased time demands of small children. Employed womenwith a young child do more cooking and cleaning thanemployed women with no young children. Employed women havealready cut some corners in cooking, cleaning and laundry toaccommodate time demands of paid work. When younger childrenare present they must increase their housework times tocomplete the extra necessary work.Employed women do more than twice as much housework asemployed men both with and without younger children. Whentotal workload hours are multiplied by seven days women'sweekly workload is only about 1 to 1 1/2 hours longer thanmen's. One reason why over-all workloads appear similar isthat women work more in part time jobs than men. However,men and women who work comparable paid hours spent differentamounts of time in housework. This point will be addressedshortly.Not all the respondents of the 1986 GSS have weekendsoff from paid work although most probably did. Table 2 and3334Table 2.^Weekday Work Hours for Gender, Employment andChild under 12(mean hours per day)WOMEN^With paid work^homemakerChild under 12 Child under 12No^Yes^No^YesMENwith paid workChild under 12No^YesTOTAL JOB WORK 6.6 5.9 0.4 0.4 7.5 7.9NECESSARY TRAVEL 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.3Daily cooking 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.2House cleaning 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.1Kitchen washup 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1Regular shopping 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3Laundry 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0Child care 0.2 1.0 0.4 2.6 0.0 0.6TOTAL REG HOUSEWORK 2.4 3.5 5.1 7.1 0.7 1.2Irreg food/clothes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Irreg purchases 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0Sundry services 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Repair, maint. 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3TOTAL IRREG HWK 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4ALL HOUSEWORK 2.7 3.7 5.5 7.4 1.3 1.6WORKLOAD 10.4 10.9 6.8 6.7 10.0 10.8(N) (593) (272) (610) (376) (1029) (606)Table 3.^Weekend Hours by Gender, Employment and Childunder 12 (mean hours per day)WOMEN^MENWith paid work homemaker^with paid workchild under 12 child under 12 child under 12No^Yes^No^Yes^No^YesTOTAL JOB WORK 1.3 1.6 0.1 0.4 2.3 2.4NECESSARY TRAVEL 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.2Daily cooking 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.3House cleaning 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2Kitchen washup 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1Regular shopping 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6Laundry 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0Child care 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.9 0.1 1.1TOTAL REG HOUSEWORK 3.6 5.0 3.8 5.3 1.1 2.3Irreg food/clothes 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0Irreg purchases 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1Sundry services 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2Repair, maint. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.6TOTAL IRREG HWK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.9ALL HOUSEWORK 3.9 5.3 4.1 5.8 2.1 3.2WORKLOAD 6.3 7.6 5.1 7.1 5.6 6.8(N) (231) (115) (281) (160) (336) (205)Reg=regular irreg=irregular maint.=maintenance hwk=housework3 divide the time-budget housework hours into work days andweekend days to examine any differences in time use.Employed women spent 1 to 2 hours less on the jobduring weekdays than employed men but their total workloadtime is longer per day than men's.Homemakers spent some housework hours on the weekendbut less time than on weekdays. Women with paid jobs didabout an hour a day more housework on the weekends to catchup on chores missed because of fewer available houseworkhours during the week. Although men increase their houseworktimes on the weekends, their total contribution remainssmall relative to employed women's weekend housework time.The difference in men's and women's total weekly workloadcan be accounted for by the increased housework time womenspend on weekend days.Tables 4 and 5 compare housework hours for men andwomen whose paid work involves part-time, full-time, andover-time hours. Women spent 1 to 1 3/4 hours per day morein housework tasks than men at comparable employment hours.Women and men spent less time in each houseworkactivity as they spent more hours in paid employment. Menworking part-time hours did not use their extra availabletime for regular housework and spent only marginally moretime in repair and maintenance hours.Women spent between 6 1/2 and 10 1/2 hours more inhousework per week than men at equal employment levels withthe exception ofmen who worked over-time and had young3536Table 4.^Women's Housework Hours by Gender, Job Hours andChild under 12 (mean hours per day)PART^FULLTIME TIMEChild under 12^Child under 12No^Yes^No^YesChildNoOVERTIMEunder 12YesDaily cooking 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4House cleaning 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1Kitchen washup 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2Regular shopping 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3Laundry 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2Child care 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.6TOTAL REG HOUSEWORK 3.5 4.8 1.8 2.6 1.6 1.9Irreg food/clothes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Irreg purchase 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Sundry service 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Repair, maint. 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0TOTAL IRREG HWK 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1ALL HOUSEWORK 3.9 5.1 2.0 2.7 1.9 2.0(N) (445) (248) (273) (93) (106) (46)Table 5. Men's Housework Hours by Gender, Job Hours andChild under 12 (mean hours per day)PARTTIMEchild under 12No^YesFULLTIMEchild under 12No^YeschildNoOVERTIMEunder 12YesDaily cooking 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1House cleaning 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Kitchen washup 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0Regular shopping 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1Laundry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Child care 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4TOTAL REG HOUSEWORK1.2 2.4 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.7Irreg food/clothes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Irreg purchases 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sundry services 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0Repair, maint. 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2TOTAL IRREG HWK 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2ALL HOUSEWORK 2.5 3.4 0.9 1.5 0.6 0.9(N) (552) (308) (431) (247) (382) (652)Reg=regular irreg=irregular maint.=maintenance hwk=houseworktime in housework at each higher level of employment hoursbut their over-all workload was absolutely greater at eachsuccessive level of employment.Participation RatesVarious conditions such as young children, paid work,and paid employment hours may affect women's and men'sparticipation rates in housework tasks. Table 6 shows womenwith children under 12 have higher participation rates forall regular and irregular housework categories except repairand maintenance. Women's participation rates in cooking,house cleaning, kitchen washup and regular shopping werebetween 38% and 87% with or without a young child, whilemen's rates did not exceed 34% in any category except childcare for men with a young child at 48.7%. This was 35.2percentage points lower than women's participation rate withsmall children. All women's participation rates were muchhigher than men's in all regular housework categories.Participation rates for all irregular housework taskswere low. The rate for repair and maintenance was lower formen with small children than for men without a small child.Young children barely affected men's participation inregular housework tasks except for child care.Homemakers had a higher participation rate thanemployed women in every housework category. Yet employedwomen still engaged in regular housework at a high rate,from 76% who engaged in cooking to 21.5% who did laundry.3738Table 6.^Percentage Reporting Housework Tasks by Genderand Child under 12WOMEN^MENChild under 12^Child under 12Daily cooking 81.9 86.1 25.4 33.1House cleaning 51.7 58.0 10.1 9.6Kitchen washup 61.0 68.0 15.8 18.5Regular shopping 38.2 40.3 26.0 24.1Laundry 22.9 31.6 1.1 1.7Child care 14.3 83.9 4.6 48.7Irreg food/clothes 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.0Irregular purchases 7.0 8.7 6.9 4.7Sundry services 14.0 16.1 12.9 11.7Repair, maintenance 5.5 4.8 19.3 6.3(N) (2041) (1004) (2140) (938)irreg=irregularThey reported much higher participation rates in houseworkthan employed men who had participation rates of less than25% for all regular housework. One third as many working menreported cooking, less than 1% did laundry.Employment hours affected housework hours and they mayalso affect participation rates in regular housework. Table7 shows participation rates decrease consistently asemployment hours increase.Men with fewer paid hours of work spent only marginallymore time in housework than men with more job hours. Theyremain responsible for the gender-linked tasks of repair andmaintenance and spend time in these activities despite othertime pressures in the home. Even at the lowest levels ofjob hours when they had more time available they did not domuch regular housework.Men's participation rate in all household tasks wasbelow 31% and was generally lower at higher employmentTable 7. Percentage Reporting Housework Tasks by Sexand Job HoursPARTTIMEWOMENFULLTIMEOVERTIMEPARTTIMEMENFULLTIMEOVERTIMEDaily cooking 80.9 72.6 63.3 26.6 25.8 21.4House cleaning 48.8 25.2 21.5 11.7 5.7 4.2Kitchen washup 58.3 49.5 44.2 13.7 19.2 7.2Regular shopping 41.7 29.8 23.3 30.5 21.8 12.5Laundry 24.4 16.6 19.7 1.8 0.3 0.2Child care 37.6 28.7 34.7 23.6 21.8 14.6Irreg food/clothes 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0Irreg purchases 9.0 6.6 7.0 8.0 3.7 1.5Sundry services 16.1 12.1 9.2 17.2 7.7 5.8Repair, maint. 5.4 2.2 2.4 24.6 13.2 9.7(N) (639) (366) (152) (860) (678) (639)irreg=irregular maint.=maintenancehours. Only 23.6% of men who worked part-time job hoursparticipated in child care although that task categoryaccounted for their greatest housework times.With the exception of one or two regular houseworktasks men share under certain conditions, employed womenstill do most of the daily required housework. The additionof young children to a household increases the amount ofnecessary work. Men share in child care and regularshopping and do most of the maintenance and repair. They donot seem, however, to share much of the extra work relatedto young children. In fact, men did no laundry at all.Women respond to an increased workload by cuttingcorners on all activities to accomplish the necessary workwhereas men respond to extra demands and increased availabletime in a limited way choosing only certain tasks to 'helpout' with.39Women worked fewer job hours per week than men andfewer still when there were young children at home. Men,conversely, tended to work longer hours for pay when therewas a young child. The total workload of all employed womenand men is very close over a weekly period. Employed womenand men tend to spend more time in housework on the weekend.Young children in the household had a small effect onthe time men spent and participation rates in houseworkactivities. Women reported engaging in regular housework ata much higher rate than men. There were substantially morefemale respondents reporting housework activities in everycategory than men except in the category of repair andmaintenance.Men's housework time remains limited even in thetraditionally masculine areas of maintenance and repair andtheir participation rates are very low, much lower thanemployed women's participation any level. Even at part-timejob hours, men's participation rates and time expendituresin housework are small. Women spend large amounts of timeand participate at high rates in daily housework even whenthey are employed at overtime hours and have youngerchildren at home. The only area where men's participationrates and time spent are higher than women's is in thetraditionally male sphere of maintenance and repair. Evenwhen men reported their highest housework contributions,their participation rate and time spent are still much40smaller than women's regardless of how few paid hours theyworked.This chapter looked at the differences in housework andpaid work time for female homemakers and employed women andmen. Full-time homemakers spent more time in housework thanemployed men and women. Full-time homemakers and employedmen and women spent more housework time when there was achild under 12 in the home than in homes with no smallchild. Employed women had the longest total workload hours,about 1 to 1 1/2 hours per week more than employed men. Whenwomen and men involved in similar paid work hours houseworktimes were compared, employed women had the greatest overallworkload hours. They spent 6 to 10 hours longer in houseworkper week than men who worked equivalent job hours. Thisextra time was spent entirely in housework.Participation rates in all regular housework is highfor women in all conditions of employment and with orwithout a child present. Men's participation rates for allhousework, even the 'male' duties, are low.4142CHAPTER 4^REPLICATING THE EARLIER STUDYMeissner, Humpreys, Meis, and Scheu did an analysis oftime budget data gathered in 1971 from 340 couples in theVancouver Lower Mainland. In 1986, Statistics Canadacollected time budgets in a General Social Survey, making itpossible to replicate the previous study. Replicating theearlier study is important for three reasons: to retest theoriginal hypothesis, to determine if the national data havesimilar results, and to look for changes in time use whichmay have occurred over the 15 years between the studies.In this chapter, I will accomplish two things.Firstly, I will compare housework times in all regular andirregular categories for the two studies to determine ifaverage work times are the same or have changed over this 15year period, either from social changes or due todifferences between the national and localized data.Secondly, I will compare the effects of gender, a smallchild and employment on housework times for the 1971 and1986 studies, and then compare these same effects betweenthe two studies to determine any differences over theintervening years.The 1986 task categories were combined to correspond asclosely as possible to the task categories in the 1971study.The 1971 study included data about both spousesincluding their employment status. The 1986 data does notinclude this information. Therefore the question of how awife's employment affects her husband's housework timecannot be replicated.In the 1971 study, a 'household demand' variable wascreated as described in chapter 3. These variables wereranked from the lowest to the highest combined level ofhousehold time demands. They were ranked: 1)wife full-timehomemaker, no child under 10, 2)wife full-time homemaker andat least one child under 10, 3)wife and husband areemployed, no child under 10, and 4)wife and husbandemployed, at least one child under 10.'Young children' in the GSS were defined as being under12 years old, whereas children in the 1971 study weredefined as being under 10. Keeping in mind this caveat, thefour conditions of combined demand for women can bemaintained because their employment status is available. Itshould also be remembered that it is possible that all thewomen in the 1986 study may not have been married toemployed men, although most of them probably were.For men only two of the four categories are possible inthe 1986 data; the presence or absence of a small child.Replicating the 1971 study will determine the effectson women's housework hours of employment and small children,the effects on men's housework hours of small children, andany difference in these effects between the two studies.43Table 8. Comparison ofReghwkWOMEN1971 and1971Irr^Allhwk^hwk1986 Weekly Work Hours1986Work^Reg^Irr^Allload^hwk^hwk^hwkWorkloadNo job, no child 29.0 8.5 37.5 43.9 33.0 2.5 35.5 43.6No job,^child 37.7 5.2 42.9 49.0 45.8 2.5 48.3 57.4Job, no child 15.4 3.2 18.6 62.8 19.0 2.2 21.2 65.1Job,^child 24.7 3.5 28.2 66.0 27.6 1.6 29.2 69.3MENNo child 3.2 4.1 7.3 56.6 5.4 4.8 10.2 62.5Child 5.1 4.4 9.5 60.1 1 0.3 3.9 14.2 68.4Differences 1971-1986WOMENNo job, no child +4.0 -6.0 -2.0 -^.3No job, child +8.1 -2.7 +5.4 +8.4Job, no child +3.6 -1.0 +2.6 +2.3Job,^child +2.9 -1.9 +1.0 +3.3MENNo child +2.2 +^.7 +2.9 +5.9Child +5.2 -^.5 +4.7 +8.3Effects of employment,All housework1971^1986WOMEN*Effect ofyoung child, and genderWorkload1971^1986- employment -17.4^-16.0 +18.2 +18.1- child +^6.7^+10.6 +^4.5 +^9.4MENEffect of- child +^2.2^+^4.0 +^3.5 +^5.9Effect of beinga woman**- No child +11.3^+11.0 +^6.2 +^2.6- Child +18.7^+15.0 +^5.9 +^.9*weighted average differences**only for women and men with jobs in the labour force.reg=regular hwk=housework irr=irregular44Table 8 shows a comparison of 1971 and 1986 weekly workhours, and the effects of employment, a young child andgender on all housework and total workload times.Time use 1971-1986Higher total workload times and housework times werereported for every group in 1986 except full-time homemakerswith no children who had a slight reduction of about 18minutes per week. Every category reported higher regularhousework hours in 1986 than in 1971 ranging fromapproximately 3 to 8 hours per week. Irregular timesdeclined for all groups.Men's total workload times increased by almost 6 hourswith no child, to over 8 hours per week with a small child.Of that time, their total housework hours increased by 2.9and 4.7 hours respectively.Full-time housewives with a child reported 8.4 totalworkload hours more than in 1971 and 5.4 hours morehousework time. The extra three hours time may be adifference between the national and local sample, volunteeractivities, or an increase in travel times.Employed women with and without a young child reported3.3 and 2.3 hours more total workload hours respectively.Employed women with no young child make up the entireincrease in housework hours. Employed women with childrenspent one of their three extra hours in housework the restwas increased job hours.45Each category of women reported more total houseworkhours in 1986 than in 1971. The changes in housework timesoccurred in similar housework categories. Women reporteddecreased time in irregular housework. In regular houseworktask categories all groups of women reported increased timesin kitchen washup, regular shopping and child care. Evenwomen with no young children reported more child care timethan in 1971. Presumably the extra time comes from timespent with older children. Women in all groups alsoreported less time spent in house cleaning.Men with a small child in the 1986 study also reportedless time in irregular housework than in the earlier study.Only men with no small child reported more irregularhousework time. Men reported much more time spent in regularshopping and child care than previously. These twocategories of regular housework account for close to theirentire extra housework times. The rest of the increase intheir total workload hours was from reports of longer timesspent in paid work.These findings agree with those of Douthitt discussedin chapter 2. The housework times reported by allrespondents in the National Time Budget Study (1981) and the1986 GSS were both higher than those reported in 1971.Douthitt also found a similar distribution of tasks forwomen who also reported more time spent in shopping andchild care but less time spent in household chores (housecleaning) than in the 1971 study.46Douthitt found that men increased their time in childcare. She found reports of longer times in meal preparationfor men than in the 1971 study, but the 1986 data does notshow similar time increases.Robinson (1980) found that women reported less timespent in housework than previously. After controlling forage, education, income, number of children and maritalstatus, Robinson found women's reported housework times tobe less than earlier. The 1986 survey shows more time wasspent in housework than 15 years ago. Robinson also found areduction in child care time while the 1986 data show anincrease.1986 data show that times spent in regular shopping aremore for both men and women in almost all conditions ofemployment and child care demands. The change in shoppingtimes could be because of a change in the activity ofshopping which has occurred over the intervening years withthe advent of more shopping malls, and a possible increasein product consumption.When housework hours are compared between Meissner etal.(1975) and the 1986 GSS, women and men reported moretotal housework times in the later data. Figure 1 showsgreater housework times for all conditions of houseworkdemands except for homemakers who spent just slightly lesstime in overall housework than in 1971. Housework times aregreater but the distribution of time has changed with more47FIGURE 1 Comparison of Housework hours between 1986 and 197148El hours per week women 19860 hours per week women 1971A hours per week men 1971V hours per week men 198650^no child^young child^paid job no child^paid job childfour conditions of household demandstime being spent by everyone in child care, and less timebeing spent in house cleaning.1971 ResultsIn 1971, women's housework decreased by 17.4 hours perweek due to their paid employment, but their total workloadhours increased 18.2 hours.A small child in the home had the effect of increasingboth women's housework and total workload hours. Women'shousework times increased more than their total workloadhours.The effect of children on men's time was to increasetheir weekly housework by 2.2 hours and to increase theirtotal workload hours by 3.5 hours. The effect of a childwas to increase their employment hours by over an hour perweek.The effect of children increased both men's and women'stotal workload times but it had a much greater effect onwomen's housework times than on men's resulting in over 4.5hours difference per week.Being female had a very strong effect on both houseworkand total workload times. Women without children did 11.3hours per week more housework than men. Women with childrenspent 18.7 more hours per week in housework than their malecounterparts. Being female without a child resulted in anincreased total workload of 6.2 hours.49Each category of demands increased women's totalworkload, although employment decreased women's houseworkhours. Men's total workload and housework times increased asresult of young children in the home but by fewer hours thanwomen's.1986 ResultsIn 1986, women's housework hours decreased by 16hours per week due to their paid employment, but their totalworkload hours increased by 18.1 hours.A small child at home had the effect of increasing bothwomen's housework and total workload hours. The 1.2 hoursless increase in total workload time than housework time canbe accounted for by a shorter paid work day.A young child increased men's housework by 4 hours perweek and added 5.9 hours to their total workload.Young children increased women's housework and workloadtimes much more strongly than men's.Being female had the effect of increasing houseworkhours by 11 hours for women with no small children and 15hours for women with young children. But the effect ofbeing female was very low for total work load. Women withno child worked 2.6 hours more than men and only .9 hoursmore per week for women with a young child.Each category of demands increased women's totalworkload. Employment, however, had the effect of decreasinghousework hours per week. Children affected men's housework50and total workload hours but not as strongly as it affectedwomen's times.Comparing the EffectsOver the 15 year span between these two studies theeffect of working for pay has remained the same for employedwomen's total workload times. But housework times in 1986decreased less as a result of having a paid job thanpreviously, suggesting that their average paid hours havedeclined and they are spending more time in housework.Children also had the effect of increasing men'shousework and total work times in both studies. Men's totalworkload times increased by 2.4 hours in the later study,although their housework times only increased by 1.8 hours.Children also increase men's paid work times.Being female had a large effect on housework times inboth 1971 and 1986, but the effect was stronger for womenwith children in 1971 than in 1986. However, the effect ofbeing female on housework times remain very high.The effect of being female on total workload timehowever is much lower in 1986 than in 1971. Women with nochild only spent 2.6 total workload hours per week longerthan men with no children. Women with a small child workedan average of .9 total hours per week longer than men.This chapter shows that housework times and workloadtimes have increased between 1971 and 1986. Some of theincrease may be accounted for by the difference between the51localized and national sample. However, there was anincrease in child care by all groups. Women's houseworktime also increased in shopping and kitchen washup, but hasdecreased in house cleaning.Employment decreased women's housework and increasedtheir total work load in both 1971 and 1986. The presenceof a young children increased both women's and men'shousework and total workload hours in 1971 and 1986. Womenwith children spent more time in housework and totalworkload than men both in 1971 and 1986, but both categoriesof work hours were longer for men and women in the laterstudy.Being female in both studies increased women's houseworkhours and total workload hours. However, the effect wasmuch smaller for total work hours in the 1986 study than inthe 1971, study indicating that while women still spend muchmore time doing housework, men make up the difference inhours with a longer paid work week.Meissner et al.(1975) found that the dependent labourtheory was more consistent with their data while theadaptive partnership theory did not explain their findings.The findings in this study continue to be consistent withthe dependent labour theory. Women reported many more hoursof housework time than men even when they worked overtime inpaid jobs and had young children. Men however haveincreased their total work load so it is approachingwomen's.52CHAPTER 5 AGE, INCOME AND EDUCATIONSome studies discussed in chapter 2 argued that age,education, and income affect men's and women's houseworktime. The reasons given for this effect include newattitudes about housework among the young or well educated,or changes in the household balance of power caused by highpersonal or household incomes of men and women.Women's participation in paid labour has increasedwhich could result in a new division of housework amongyounger people whose attitudes and behaviour towards genderlinked housework has changed with women's increasedfinancial independence.Figure 2 shows the effect is not present. Women reportbetween 20 and 25 hours per week for all age categories,except for the oldest category of women who reported about15 hours of housework per week. There were only 9 cases inthis category, however, which probably accounts for the widefluctuation. Child care times increased markedly for womenbetween the ages of 25 and 34 during the child rearing yearsin the family life cycle.The data for men across all age groups shows a similarstability. Men at all ages spent a relatively small amountof time in housework, between 8 and 12.5 hours per week.Men reported spending the most time in regular shoppingwhich they spent about the same amount of time at all ages.Men of all ages reported they spent no time in laundry535 4tasks. During the child rearing years in the life cyclethey spent more time in child care. Men of all ages spentabout 2 hours in housework per day. Age had a minimaleffect on men's housework time use, which only increasedduring the child rearing years in the life cycle. There wasa corresponding effect in the women's data. Women do muchmore housework than men at every age.Results from the two categories of income and thecategory of education may show a decrease in housework hoursas income and education increase. However, these resultsmay be confounded with the effects of women's increasedparticipation in paid work at higher income and educationlevels.Women's participation in paid work increases theirhousehold income. A higher household income can affecthousework times because householders can hire help orpurchase time saving technologies for the home. Householdincome had some effect on the time women spent on housework.Figure 3 shows housework times for both men and women byhousehold income. The lowest household income group did nothave enough responses to give a meaningful picture so theyhave been left out of the analysis.The data show that women from all household incomegroups spent between 21 and 25 hours per week in houseworktasks. Women's housework hours declined slightly ashousehold incomes rose but this finding is confounded withthe effect of the greater work force participation of women55reflected in the higher total household income. The datashow that the percentage of women who work for pay increasesas household incomes increase. While women's housework hoursdecreased slightly with increased household incomes theirtotal workload hours probably show a corresponding increase.Men spent between 11 and 12 1/2 hours per week in totalhousework at all levels of household income. It had noclear effect on their housework times.Robinson (1980) found that superior technology did nothave an effect of reducing housework times. Women continueto spend large amounts of time daily despite different timesaving technologies available to the richer homes, or thepossible use of hired help. At the same time men spent thesame low amounts of time in housework regardless ofhousehold income.Personal income could affect the power balance in thehousehold leading to a change in the division of housework.The effect of personal incomes on household time use isshown in figure 4. Women spent less time in housework astheir reported personal incomes increase. Women with higherincomes report less time spent in all categories of regularhousework with two exceptions. At the highest income levelwomen reported six minutes per day more cooking and childcare. Women's low time expenditures in irregular houseworkcategories were not affected by personal income. Theseresults may be confounded with the effects of the number ofhours women work for pay. As their income increases,562520$40 and more$10 less than $20 $20 less than $40personal income in thousand dollarswomen's housework hours• men's housework hoursFIGURE 4 Housework Hours by Gender and Personal Income0 women's housework hours• men's housework hoursFIGURE 5 Housework Hours by Gender and Education3020151050 i I i I^Igrade 8 or lessgrade 9-10 grade 11-12some univicollcoll. diploma univ. degreelevel of education5715their hours of paid work probably increase which affectstheir available housework time.For men this effect is not seen. The more income menreported the fewer hours they reported in regular shoppingbut this effect was not evident in any other regularhousework activities.In all, women's total housework times increased astheir personal incomes decreased, from the lowest level ofincome at 4.2 hours per day to 2.7 hours at the highestincome level. Men, however, only reported a range of 12minutes difference across all four personal incomecategories.As education levels increase people's paid work andhousework times could change because of a shift in the powerbalance between spouses, or increased labour forceparticipation. Reported education levels did not have aparticular effect on housework time use in 1986. Figure 5shows housework time use for women and men at six levels ofeducation.Women's housework times only vary by a small amountacross all levels of educational attainment. At the highestlevels, they spend slightly less time in regular houseworkbut these results are confounded with their employmentstatus. There are no large effects educational attainmenton men's time use.Women housework times varied by 24 minutes per daybetween the lowest and highest level of education. Men58reported an 18 minute difference between the lowest andhighest levels.Age, household income, personal income, and educationshow practically no effect on men's housework time with thepossible exceptions of regular shopping, child care andrepair and maintenance. Women's education and personalincome affected housework time negatively.59CHAPTER 6 MALE HOMEMAKERSThe 1986 GSS data allowed for one further category ofrespondents by gender and employment status: malehomemakers. These were men who listed their primaryactivity as 'keeping house'. Analyzing this data isimportant for two reasons. Firstly, men's and women'shousework time use in the role of homemaker can be compared.Secondly, comparing household time use by male and femaleprimary homemakers shows how the role of homemaker is madeup of task activities that are not easily divisible.Throughout this paper I have shown that employed men'shousework times have remained substantially lower thanemployed women's and homemaker's housework times.The time spent in housework by male homemakers is muchhigher than their employed counterparts' and is very closeto the housework times of female homemakers. Table 9compares male and female homemaker's housework time use.Men homemakers reported substantial housework times.Men with no children reported 24 minutes per day less totalhousework time than women homemakers while those withchildren reported half an hour less total housework timethan their female counterparts. These differences in timeuse did not occur in any specific group of regular houseworkactivities but rather as small differences in each separategroup. Some of this variation in time use may be the resultof the small sample size for male homemakers, only 5460Table 9. Housework Hours for Homemakers by Child under 12(mean hours per day)MENChild underYes^No12^childYesWOMENunder 12NoTOTAL JOB WORK 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4NECESSARY TRAVEL 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9Daily cooking 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3House cleaning 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1Kitchen wash up 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5Regular shopping 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.8Laundry 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4Child care 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.4TOT REG HOUSEWORK4.3 5.6 4.7 6.5Irreg food/cloth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Irreg purchases 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1Sundry services 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2Repair, maint. 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1TOTAL IRREG HWK 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4ALL HOUSEWORK 4.7 6.4 5.1 6.9TOTAL WORKLOAD 6.1 8.1 6.2 8.2(N) (30) (24) (891) (536)respondents.Male homemakers make up a very small segment of theover-all sample. Like women, these men spend much of theirtime in cooking, house cleaning, shopping and child care,although their time in each category is slightly less thanwomen's. However, men continue to spend more time inmaintenance and repair than women.Comparing the total work load of male and femalehomemakers, men with and without younger children work onlysix minutes less per day than women in the same position.Participation rates are much the same for malehomemakers as well. Men reported slightly lower rates forcooking, cleaning, and regular shopping. Rates wereslightly higher for kitchen wash up and child care. The61only large difference in regular housework is an almost 18%lower participation rate in laundry. Participation rates ofboth men and women were low in irregular houseworkactivities, although men reported more time in sundryservices and, as expected, repair and maintenance. Thesemen's housework times fulfill the same daily family needs aswomen's housework.Employed men have reported more regular housework timesin shopping and child care than in the previous study buthave not reported more time in other housework tasks. Evenwhen they have a lot of hours available for houseworkbecause they work in paid labour part-time, they do notreport regular housework hours as substantially higher thanmen who are employed full time or overtime. Housework hasthe work characteristics that men do not regard as work. Menwho work for pay do little of the regular daily houseworkexcept shopping and child care. The jobs that make up thehomemaker role are not broken up and divided evenly betweenmen and women when time demands on the household increase.Men only spend large amounts of time in daily regularhousework when they accept the entire role.Employed men's participation in daily houseworkactivities would result in their efforts being devalued aswork because of the lower value and non-acceptance of thework characteristics of housework. Men who do not acceptthe entire homemaker role limit their housework times toselected activities with characteristics they accept as62work, or to child care which is a legitimated activity forfathers. Women's participation in paid employment would notencourage men to ignore their work biases and increase theirtime commitments to daily housework tasks.Men continue to do more repair and maintenance thanwomen because these tasks are male duties.^Male homemakerstake on both the homemaker duties and the male householdduties.The concept of an accumulation of demands suggeststhat, as time pressures mount on a household, work can bebroken down and shared out more equally between spouses butthe characteristics of this work and its acceptance by menas work makes housework resistant to a new non-gendereddivision as time demands increase.Male housework tasks like mowing the lawn or repairingthe car are much closer to work activities men accept andrecognize in the work place. Male household tasks are alsonot shared. Women's participation rates and time spent inthese tasks is very low. Male homemakers spent onlyslightly less time in these tasks than employed men. Menwho worked part-time did a great deal of repair andmaintenance but not a lot more housework than other employedmen. Men who accept the homemaker role accept dailyhousehold tasks as work, otherwise men resist regular dailyhousework activities even as household work demands build63Up.Comparing housework times of male and female homemakersshows that the time the homemaker spends in necessaryhousework is about the same regardless of the homemaker'sgender. But men who are employed resist sharing housework.64CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONThe problem of this study was two competing hypothesesabout the division of housework.^The adaptive partnershiptheory predicts that as greater demands are placed on thehousehold men will increases their housework to share theincreased workload with their wives. The dependent labourtheory predicts that, even though women work for pay, theyremain financially dependent and have a continuedresponsibility for housework duties. They take on a doubleday of paid work and housework. Because of this doubleresponsibility women are more likely to limit their paid jobto part-time hours. Employed women cut corners in houseworkto ensure the necessary daily work gets done.The results of this study are consistent with thedependent labour theory. Women in all categories of part-time, full-time, and over-time hours work 7 to 10 hours perweek longer in regular housework than men with similar jobhours. Although men's and women's total workload hours perweek differ by only 1.5 and 2 hours, men's regular houseworktime is much lower than women's. Most of men's time inregular daily housework is spent in child care and shopping,none of their time is spent in doing laundry. Men who hadyounger children did about an hour more total work per daythan men without, but half of that was done in their paidjobs. They reported more child care time than men with nosmall children but not more time in other daily housework65activities. Housework times were low for all employed men.Men spent a fair amount of time in the irregular anddiscretionary jobs of maintenance and repair which isnecessary work, but less pressing than seeing to meals forthe family if available work time is limited.Employed women reported fewer job hours than men butmuch higher regular daily housework times with or withoutsmall children. Employed women appear to restrict theiremployment hours and cut corners on their housework time tocope with the extra burden of work and small children.The women's 1986 GSS results are similar to theMeissner et al. (1975) earlier findings. Women in allconditions of accumulated demands, and at all levels of jobhours, spent more time in housework than men in similarconditions. Women and men reported longer total work hoursin 1986 than in 1971. All groups spent more time in childcare activities. All women reported less house cleaningtime. Employed women worked the same number of hours forpay but they reported longer housework hours. Irregularhousework hours were much less than previously reported byboth women and men.Men in 1986 also reported a longer work day made up ofmore time in paid employment and more time in housework.The bulk of their higher housework times were in child careactivities for both men with and without younger children,and in shopping.66These results remain consistent with the finding ofMeissner et al. and support the dependent labour theory.Women remain responsible for housework and spend far moretime doing it than men in all conditions of employment.The time budget data from 1986 showed no particulareffects of age, income, or education on men's housework timeuse. Their regular housework times were consistently lowerthan women's. Women's data showed an effect of educationand personal and household incomes. As their education andincome levels rose their housework times declined. Thiseffect is confounded with participation in paid work and thenumber of hours women worked in jobs.Male homemakers spend almost as much total houseworktime as their female counterparts. They spent slightly lesstime in regular housework activities but more time in theirregular activities of maintenance and repair than femalehomemakers. They spent as much time in maintenance andrepair as employed men. The actual characteristics of workand its perceived value to men makes it resistant to anequitable division when the accumulated demands on women'stime affects the completion of necessary housework.The distribution of task times is different. Every onereports spending more time with their children and inshopping than earlier. Women are doing less house cleaningand all respondents report less irregular housework time.The greatest time burden of housework still restssquarely on women, paid or not, with or without young67children. Despite changes in housework time use, women'sincreased total time demands have not been ameliorated. In1975 Meissner et al. found even with women's increasedparticipation in paid work there was "no exit for wives"from housework. This study finds similarly that, for women,housework is "here today and here tomorrow."68BIBLIOGRAPHYANDRE, R.1981^Homemakers: the Forgotten Workers. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.BERHEIDE, CATHERINE WHITE.1984^"Women's work in the home: seems like old times".in Beth B. Hess and Marvin B. Sussman (eds.)Women and the Family: Two Decades of Change.New York: Haworth Press: 37-55.BERK, RICHARD A. AND SARAH F. BERK.1979^Labor and Leisure At Home: Content andOrganization of the Household Day.Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.BERK, SARAH F.1985^The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work inAmerican Households. New York: Plenum Press.BLOOD, R.O. AND D.M. WOLFE.1960^Husbands and Wives: the Dynamics of MarriedLiving. Glencoe Ii.: Free Press.BURR, WESLEY, LOUIS AHERN, AND ELMER KNOWLES.1977^"An empirical test of Rodman's theory of resourcesin cultural context." Journal of Marriage and theFamily. 39: 505-514.CHAPIN, F. STUART.1974^Human Activity Patterns in the City: Things PeopleDo in Time and Space. New York: John Wiley andSons.CAPLOW, THEODORE.1954^The Sociology of Work. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press: 230-280.CONVERSE, PHILIP E.1972^"The implementation of the survey design" inAlexander Szalai (ed) The Use of Time: DailyActivities of Urban and Suburban Populationsin Twelve Countries." The Hague: Mouton: 43-68.DOUTHITT, ROBIN A.1989^"The division of labour within the home: havegender roles changed?" Sex Roles 20:693-704.EICHLER, MARGRIT.1977^"Women as personal dependents" in M. Stephenson(ed.) Women in Canada. Don Mills Ontario: GeneralPublishing Comp. Ltd.: 49-69.69ERICKSEN, J., W. YANCEY, AND E. ERICKSEN.1979^"The division of family roles." Journal ofMarriage and the Family. 41 (May): 301-312.FARKAS, G.1976^"Education, wage rates, and division of labourbetween husband and wife." Journal of Marriageand the Family. 38:3: 473-483.FERREE, MYRA MARX.1984^"The view from below: women's employment andgender equality in working class families".in Beth B. Hess and Marvin B. Sussman. (eds)Women and the Family: Two Decades of Change.New York: Haworth Press: 57-72.FOX, BONNIE J.1990^"Selling the mechanized household: 70 years of adsin 'Ladies Home Journal'" Gender and Society. 4:1(Mar.): 25-40FOX, BONNIE J., AND JOHN FOX.1987^"Occupational gender segregation of the Canadianlabour force 1931 - 1981". Canadian Review ofSociology and Anthropology vol. 24:3 (Aug):374-397.KREPS, JUANITA M. AND JOHN LEAPER.1976^"Home work, market work and the allocation oftime". in Juanita Kreps (ed) Women and theAmerican Economy: A Look to the 1980's.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.HALL, R. AND M. SCHROEDER1970^"Time spent on household tasks." Journal of HomeEconomics 62:(1): 23-29.HILL, MARTHA.1985^"Patterns of Time Use". in F. Thomas Juster andFrank P. Stafford (eds.) Time, Goods and Well-Being. Ann Arbor, Michigan:Institute for SocialResearch: University of Michigan. : 133-176.HOCHSCHILD, ARLEI.1989^The Second Shift: Working Parents and theRevolution at Home. New York: Viking Penguin Inc.HUBER, JOAN AND GLENNA SPITZE.1983^Sex Stratification: Children, Housework and Jobs.New York: Academic Press.70JUSTER F. THOMAS.1985^"The validity and quality of time use estimatesobtained from recall diaries" in F. Thomas Justerand Frank P. Stafford (eds.) Time, Goods, andWell-Being. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute ofSocial Research: University of Michigan.: 63-92.JUSTER, F. THOMAS.1985^"A note on recent changes in time use" in F.Thomas Juster and Frank P. Stafford (eds)Time, Goods and Well-Being. Ann Arbor, Michigan:Institute for Social Research: University ofMichigan.: 313-332.JUSTER, F. THOMAS AND FRANK P. STAFFORD.1985^"Description of available time use data bases."in F. Thomas Juster and Frank P. Stafford (eds)Time, Goods and Well-Being. Ann Arbor, Michigan:Institute for Social Research: University ofMichigan.: 515-518.LAMOUSE, A.1969^"Family roles of women: a German example."Journal of Marriage and the Family. 31: 145-152.LEIN, L.1979^"Male participation in the home: impact of socialsupports and breadwinners responsibility on theallocation of tasks." Family Coordinator. 28:3:489-496.LOPATA, H.1971^Occupation: Housewife. New York:Oxford Press.LUXTON, MEG.1986^"Two hands for the clock." in Meg Luxton andHarriet Rosenberg (ed) Through the Kitchen Window:The Politics of Home and Family. Toronto, Ontario:Garamond Press.: 17-36.MARCHAK, PATRICIA.1977^"The Canadian labour farce: jobs for women."in M. Stephenson (ed) Women in Canada. Don Mills,Ontario: General Publishing Ltd.: 148-159.MEISSNER, M., E. HUMPHREYS, S. MEIS AND W. SCHEU.1975^"No exit for wives: sexual division of labour andthe cummulation of household demands." Review ofCanadian Sociology and Anthropology 12 (Sept.):424-439.71MEISSNER, M.1977^"Sexual division of labour and inequality:labourand leisure." in M. Stephenson (ed) Women InCanada. Don Mills, Ontario: General PublishingLtd.: 160 - 180.MOORE, KRISTIN A. AND ISABEL V. SAWHILL.1976^"Implications of women's employment for home andfamily life." in Juanita Kreps (ed) Women andthe American Economy: A Look to the 1980's.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.:102-122.OAKLEY, A.1974^The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon.PLECK, JOSEPH.1977^"The work-family role system." Social Problems24: 417-427.REXROAT, C. AND C. SHEHAN.1987^"The family life cycle and spouses' time inhousework." Journal of Marriage and the Family49: (4): 737-750.ROBINSON, JOHN P., PHILIP E. CONVERSE, ALEXANDER SZALAI.1972^"Everyday life in twelve countries." inAlexander Szalai (ed) The Use of Time: DailyActivities of Urban and Suburban Populations inTwelve Countries. The Hague:Mouton.: 113-143.ROBINSON, JOHN P.1977^How Americans Use Time: A Social-PsychologicalAnalysis of Everyday Behavior. New York: Praeger.ROBINSON, JOHN P.1980^"Housework technology and household work."in S. F. Berk (ed) Women and Household Labour.Beverly Hills: Sage.: 53-68.ROBINSON, JOHN P.1985^"The validity and reliability of diaries versusalternative time use measures." in F. ThomasJuster and Frank P. Stafford (eds) Time, Goods,and Well-Being. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institutefor Social Research: University of Michigan.:33-62.ROBINSON, J. P., V.G. ANDREYEVKOV, AND V. PATRUSHEV.1988^The Rhythm of Everyday Life: How Soviet andAmerican Citizens Use Time. Boulder, Colorado:Westview Press.72ROWBOTHAM, SHEILA.1973^Woman's Consciousness, Man's World. PenguinBooks: Harmondsworth Middlesex England.SANIK, M.1981^"Division of household work: a decade comparison."Home Economics Research Journal. 10:(2): 175-180.SCANZONI, J.1978^Sex Roles, Women's Work, and Marital Conflict.Lexington, M.A.: Lexington Books.SCHEUCH, ERWIN K.1972^"The time budget interview." in Alexander Szalai(ed) The Use of Time: Daily Activities of Urbanand Suburban Populations in Twelve Countries.The Hague: Mouton.: 69-88.SILVERMAN, W., AND R. HILL.1967^"Task allocation in marriage in the United Statesand Belgium." Journal of Marriage and the Family.29: 353-359.SMITH, DOROTHY, E.1977^"Women, the family and corporate capitalism."in M. Stephenson (ed) Women in Canada. Don Mills,Ontario:General Publishing Ltd.: 17-48.STAFFORD, FRANK P. AND GREG J. DUNCAN1985^"The use of time and technology by household inthe United States." in F. Thomas Juster and FrankP. Stafford (eds) Time, Goods, and Well-Being.Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for SocialResearch: University of Michigan.: 245-288.STATISTICS CANADA.1986^CANADIAN GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEY - CYCLE 2Time Use, Social Mobility and Language Use:Public Use Micro Data File Documentation andUser's Guide. Statistics Canada: Ottawa.STONE, PHILIP J.1972^"The analysis of time budget data." in AlexanderSzalai (ed) The Use of Time: Daily Activities ofUrban and Suburban Populations in TwelveCountries. The Hague:Mouton.: 89-111.SZALAI, ALEXANDER.1972^"Design specifications for the surveys." inAlexander Szalai (ed) The Use of Time: DailyActivities of Urban and Suburban Populations inTwelve Countries. The Hague: Mouton.: 31-41.73VANEK, J.1974^"Time spent in housework." Scientific American.231:(5): 116-120.YOUNG, M. AND P. WILLMOTT1973^The Symmetrical Family. New York: Pantheon.WILLIAMS, COLIN, C.1988^Examining the Nature of Domestic Labour.Aldershot Hants, England: Gower7475APPENDIX A1986 CANADIAN GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEYREVISED ACTIVITY CATEGORIESJOB^ 01 WORK FOR PAY03 TRAVEL DURING WORKJOB RELATEDMOONLIGHTINGTOTAL JOB WORKTRAVEL TO WORKDOMESTIC TRAVELENTERTAINMENTTOTAL NECESSARY TRAVELDAILY COOKINGHOUSE CLEANINGKITCHEN WASH UPREGULAR SHOPPING02 EXTRA WORK/ OVERTIME /LOOKING FOR WORK04 WAITING/DELAYS AT WORK06 IDLE TIME BEFORE/AFTER07 COFFEE/OTHER BREAKS08 UNCODEABLE WORK ACTIVITIES01,02,03,04,06,07,0809 TO AND FROM WORK19 DOMESTIC29 CHILD CARE39 GOODS OR SERVICES49 PERSONAL59 EDUCATION69 ORGANIZATIONS79 ENTERTAINMENT89 SPORTS AND HOBBIES99 MEDIA OR COMMUNICATIONS09,19,29,39,49,59,69,79,89,9910 MEAL PREPARATION12 INDOOR CLEANING11 MEAL CLEAN UP30 EVERYDAY SHOPPINGFOOD, CLOTHING, GAS37 WAITING, QUEUING14 LAUNDRY, IRONING, FOLDING20 BABY CARE21 CHILD CARE22 HELPING, TEACHING, REPRIMANDING23 READING, TALKING (TO CHILDREN)24 PLAY WITH CHILDREN25 MEDICAL CARE28 OTHER CHILD CARE (UNPAIDBABYSITTING)LAUNDRYCHILD CARETOTAL REGULAR HOUSEWORK 10,11,12,14,20,21,22,23,24,25,28, 30,37IRREGULAR FOOD & CLOTHES 15 MENDING76IRREGULAR PURCHASESSUNDRY SERVICESREPAIR/MAINTENANCE31 SHOPPING FOR DURABLE GOODS(HOUSE AND CAR)32 PERSONAL CARE SERVICES (HAIRDRESSER)33 GOV'T AND FINANCIAL SERVICES35 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES(LAWYER)36 REPAIR SERVICES (CLEANINGAUTO, APPLIANCES)38 OTHER UNCODEABLE SERVICES18 OTHER UNCODEABLE ITEMS (BILLS)13 OUTDOOR CLEANING (SIDEWALKS,GARBAGE)16 HOME REPAIRS, MAINTENANCEBUILDINGTOTAL IRREG. HOUSEWORK^13,15,16,18,31,32,33,35,36,38 TOTAL HOUSEWORK HOURS^10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,20,21,22, 23,24,25,28,30,31,32,33,35,36,37, 38TOTAL WORKLOAD 01,02,03,04,06,07,08,09,10,11,12, 13,14,15,16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24, 25,28,29,30,31,32,33,35,36,37,38, 39,49,59,69,79,89,99  SLEEP^ 45 NIGHT SLEEP/ ESSENTIAL SLEEP46 INCIDENTAL SLEEP/ NAPSPERSONAL CAREEATING34 ADULT MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE(OUTSIDE HOME)40 WASHING, DRESSING,PACKING41 ADULT MEDICAL CARE (AT HOME)42 HELP AND PERSONAL CARE TO ADULTS48 OTHER PERSONAL CARE OR PRIVATEACTIVITIES05 MEALS, SNACKS (AT WORK)43 MEALS AT HOME,SNACKS,COFFEE44 RESTAURANT MEALS54 MEAL, SNACKS, COFFEE (AT SCHOOL)TOTAL SELF MAINTENANCE^05,34,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,48,54 ASSOCIATIONSCHURCH50 FULL TIME CLASSES51 OTHER CLASSES, PART TIME52 SPECIAL LECTURES:OCCASIONAL53 HOMEWORK: COURSE,CAREER,SELF DEVELOPMENT55 BREAKS OR WAITING FOR CLASSTO BEGIN58 OTHER UNCODEABLE STUDY60 PROFESSIONAL,UNION,GENERAL61 POLITICAL,CIVIC ACTIVITY62 CHILD, YOUTH, FAMILYORGANIZATION65 FRATERNAL, SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS66 VOLUNTEER WORK, HELPING68 OTHER UNCODEABLE STUDY63 RELIGIOUS MEETINGS,ORGANIZATIONS64 RELIGIOUS SERVICES/PRAYERREAD BIBLE77ACTIVE SPORTS^80 SPORTS, PHYSICAL EXERCISECOACHING81 HUNT, FISH, CAMP88 OTHER UNCODEABLE SPORT OROR ACTIVE LEISUREHOBBIES^ 17 GARDENING,PET CARE56 LEISURE AND SPECIAL INTERESTCLASSES83 HOBBIES84 DOMESTIC HOME CRAFTS85 MUSIC,THEATRE, DANCETOTAL ACTIVE LEISURE^17,50,51,52,53,55,56,58,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,68,80,81,83,84,85,88 VISITING^ 75 VISITS,ENTERTAINING FRIENDS/RELATIVESPERSONAL COMMUNICATION 95 TALKING, CONVERSATION, PHONE96 LETTERS AND MAILDRINK,PARTIES,DANCE,GAME 76 SOCIALIZING AT BARS/CLUBS78 OTHER SOCIAL GATHERINGS86 GAMES, CARDS, ARCADEOUTINGSTOTAL SOCIABILITYDRIVE OR WALK75,76,78,86,95,96 82 WALK, HIKE87 PLEASURE DRIVES, SIGHT SEEINGPUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT^70 SPORTS EVENTS71 POP MUSIC,FAIRS, CONCERTS72 MOVIES, FILMS73 OPERA, BALLET, DRAMA74 MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIESTELEVISION/RADIO 90 RADIO91 TELEVISION, RENTED MOVIES92 RECORDS, TAPES, LISTENING98 OTHER UNCODEABLE (MEDIAOR COMMUNICATION)READING^ 93 READING BOOKS, MAGAZINES94 READING NEWSPAPERSRELAXING 47 RELAXING, THINKINGTOTAL ENTERTAINMENT^47,70,71,72,73,74,82,87,90,91,92,93,94,98 TOTAL LEISURE TIMERESIDUAL CODES17,47,50,51,52„53,55,56,58,60,61, 62,63,64,65,66,68,70,71,72,73,74, 75,76,78,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87, 88,90,91,92,93,94,95196,98 26 MISSING TIME GAPS27 REFUSAL97 ACTIVITY NOT STATEDOVERALL TOTAL TIME BUDGET 1-97 EXCEPTING BLANK CATEGORIES57,67,7778

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086134/manifest

Comment

Related Items