Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Role bargaining : a means of adaptation to strain within dual work families Humphreys, Elizabeth W. 1974

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 H84.pdf [ 9.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093046.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093046-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093046-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093046-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093046-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093046-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093046-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093046-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093046.ris

Full Text

ROLE BARGAINING: A MEANS OF ADAPTATION TO STRAIN WITHIN DUAL WORK FAMILIES by E l i z a b e t h W. Humphreys B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the department of ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia J u l y 1974 In p resent ing t h i s thes is in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t he requirements an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t the L i b r a r y sha l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission for ex tens ive copying o f t h i s t h e s i f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department by h is r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i of t h i s thes is f o r f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be al lowed wi thout my w r i t t e n permiss ion . Department of 4\ „ c v ^ - ^ - x cv~-V> S o i - < \ q The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT i i I t i s g e n e r a l l y recognized t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e s t r a i n e x i s t s i n women's dua l r o l e of housewife and wage earner. The concern o f t h i s t h e s i s i s to provide a d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s of t h i s s t r a i n and determine the extent to which husbands and wives r e d i s t r i b u t e t h e i r f a m i l y r o l e s i n response to such s t r a i n . A major focus i s the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of d u a l work spouses t o the performance of household t a s k s , under varying degrees of s t ra i n. Two sources of data were u t i l i z e d : time-budget data f o r 389 couples and i n t e r v i e w data f o r 10 couples. The a n a l y s i s of the time-budget data i n d i c a t e s t h a t the husbands' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n household tasks i s to a l a r g e extent independent of the demands pl a c e d upon t h e i r wives. The q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s suggests that wives with paying jobs adapt to the demands of the job and the f a m i l y by a l t e r i n g the p r i o r i t i e s of t h e i r r o l e of wife, mother, and employee, r a t h e r than b a r g a i n i n g with t h e i r husband over o b l i g a t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . i i i Table of Contents Introduction .................1 Chapter I. Theoretical Framework ........................ 4 Chapter I I . Review Of The Literature .....................15 Chapter I I I . Methodology ..................................27 I. Quantitative Analysis 27 A. Description Of The Sample 31 B. A Demographic P r o f i l e Of The Survey Sample ......,,.31 II . Qualitative Analysis 36 A. The Construction Of The Interview Guide .....,,.,,.,38 B. C r i t e r i a For Selection Of The Sample ..,.,.........,39 C. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Of The Interview Sample .............41 D. Collection Of The Interview Data .....42 Chapter IV. Tha Division Of Housework Between Spouses .......47 I. The A l l o c a t i o n Of Housework Between Spouses .......47 II . The Wifes Employment And Division Of Housework ....51 I I I . The Wifes Hours Spent At Her Job 54 IV. The Occupational Status Of Spouses ................57 V. The Day Of The Week ...............................61 VI. The Spouses Relative Income .63 VII. The Husbands Education ............................ 66 VIII. The Number Of Children 67 IX. Age Of The Youngest Child ..70 X. Conclusion .,.,.....,.,,,.....,,,...73 Chapter V. Discussion Of Spouses Division Of Labour .,,......75 I. Case 1:The Housewife And The Telephone Repair Man ..77 II. Case 2:The Nurse And The Lawyer ...,...........,.,.,85 I I I . Case 3:Tha Keypunch Operator And Machine Operator ..93 Chapter VI. A Qualitative Analysis Of The Division Of Labour 100 I. Theoretical Orientation .............100 II. A n a l y t i c a l Dimensions ............................. 102 III. Motivational Syndromes .103 IV. Role Expectations 107 V. Role Strain ..119 A. Sources Of Strain ...,...,.....,.........,.,..,....,119 B. Pressures To F u l f i l Role Obligations ..121 VI. Role Bargaining 121 VII. The Price Of The Role Bargain ...,..,,.......,129 Conclusion .............................................133 I. Discussion Of The Research Findings ..,.....,...,,,133 II . Limitations Of The Research Inquiry .....137 II I . Suggestions For Further Research ..................139 Bibliography 142 Appendix I. Interview Summaries ...................159 I. Wives Not Employed:Husbands Employed ...............159 II. Hives Employed Part Time:Husbands Employed .........159 I I I . Wives Employed F u l l Time:Husbands Employed ..,..,...159 LIST OF TABLES V Table I Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of the age of spouses, by sex ..........32 Table I I Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l attainment, by sex. ....33 Table I I I Labour f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n , by sex ..34 Table IV Labour f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s , by age and sex ....34 Table V Women's labour f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s , by the wife's employment and her husband's income ..........35 Table VI Table VIIA Table VIIB Table V I I I Table IX Table X Table XI Table XII Women's labour f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s , by the wife's employment and the age of her c h i l d r e n . ..36 Percent of husbands and wives p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n household tasks and the amount of time spent i n these t a s k s , during a workday. .....49 Percent of husbands and wives p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n household tasks and the amount of time spent i n these t a s k s , during a weekend day < 50 Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by wives' employment, during a seven day week ........52 Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework when wives are employed a t a job p a r t time and f u l l time, during a seven day week .56 Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by the spouses' o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , during a seven day week. ............. 59 Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by the spouses' o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , during a seven day week. 60 Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by wives' employment and by the day of the week 62 v i Table XIII Husbands' and wives* c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by wives* employment and by the wife's income r e l a t i v e to her husband's, during a seven day week .65 Table XIV Husbands' and wives* c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by wives' employment and by the husband's education, during a seven day week. ..66 Table XV Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by wives' employment and by the presence of c h i l d r e n , during a seven day week 69 Table XVI Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by wives' employment and by the number of c h i l d r e n , during a seven day week ....70 Table XVII Husbands' and wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n s to housework by wives' employment and the age of the youngest c h i l d , during a seven day week ....72 V l l ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to thank Dr. Martin Meissner for the encouragement, stimulation, and constructive c r i t i c i s m he provided i n the writing of thi s thesis. I also benefited from the h e l p f u l suggestions offered by Dr. Tissa Fernando, Dr. Blanca Muratorio, and Dr. Pat Marchak. Dr. Michael Ames offered both encouragement and in s p i r a t i o n i n conducting the interviews and analyzing the subsequent data. Jack Scheu and Scott Meis were of pa r t i c u l a r assistance i n preparing the time budget data for analysis. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my respondents for th e i r descriptions and insights into the world of work. 1 INTRODUCTION During the past decade there has been a rapid increase i n both the number and percentage of women simultaneously assuming the r o l e s of wife and wage earner. This phenomenon has raised a number of t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l questions concerning the r e l a t i o n between t h i s s t r u c t u r a l change and other areas of behavior. The f a c t that among women in the labour force i n Canada, the proportion married has increased from thirteen per cent in 1961 to nineteen per cent in 1971 (Department of Labour:1971) has le d , to some speculation as to the consequences. For example, some researchers have suggested that the increasing employment of women, after marriage, i s a development of such significance that i t requires the rethinking of our educational and family systems (Komarovsky,1973; Ostry,1968). Others dismiss the employment of women as of l i t t l e consequence, primarily because the type of occupation taken i s not seen as being i n competition with the men as p r i n c i p a l income earner and head of the family (Zeldich, 1968). These and other attempts to id e n t i f y the consequences of the employment of women at paying jobs remain speculative, however, i n the absence of systematic studies of the actual conseguences. The impact of the employment of married women on the family can best be determined by an empirical analysis of 2 s p e c i f i c problems. This thesis has selected the d i v i s i o n of household tasks, as a means of discovering some of the consequences of the dual r o l e of housewife and wage earner. At a general l e v e l t h i s thesis seeks to contribute to the development of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n theory by c l a r i f y i n g some aspects of the relationship between the occupational structure and the family structure in an urban-industrial society. Although i t i s generally recognized that considerable s t r a i n e x i s t s i n women's roles i n the urban setting, the description and analysis of t h i s phenomenon remains to be developed (Komarovsky, 1959:508). The s p e c i f i c concern of t h i s study, therefore, rests with the d i v i s i o n of household tasks as a means of resolving c o n f l i c t or s t r a i n created by the occupational and family systems. Empirically, the focus of t h i s research i s the r e l a t i v e contributions of dual work spouses 1 to the performance and al l o c a t i o n of household tasks, under varying conditions of r o l e s t r a i n . The o v e r a l l purpose of t h i s research, then, i s to analyze role change, within the family setting, which has resulted from the increasing occupational a c t i v i t y of women. This problem 1 A dual work household i s defined as those households i n which husband and wife are engaged i n both domestic and occupational a c t i v i t i e s (Turner,1971). This term i s not meant to imply, however, that the wife who i s a "housewife" does not work. 3 w i l l be d e a l t with i n terms of the extent to which dual work spouses i n c r e a s i n g l y r e d e f i n e and r e d i s t r i b u t e t h e i r f a m i l y r o l e s . As a general premise t h i s t h e s i s accepts t h a t : "Our c u l t u r e i s f u l l of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s with regard to women's r o l e s , t h a t new s o c i a l goals have emerged without the p a r a l l e l development of s o c i a l machinery f o r t h e i r attainment, that norms e x i s t which are no longer f u n c t i o n a l l y appropriate to the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s to which they apply# that the same s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s are subject to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l codes, that behavior patterns u s e f u l at some stage become d y s f u n c t i o n a l at another...." (Komarovsky,1959:291). 4 CHAPTER I THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In many non-industrial s o c i e t i e s there appears to be l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of occupational and domestic organizations. The workplace and the homestead are often i n the same location and have the same inhabitants. This lack of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between homestead and workplace has important consequences for s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . " I t means that what i s being s t r a t i f i e d i s not a series of autonomous occupational categories and organizations, but rather a series of domestic and other kinship units whose economic functions are but one among a number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on the basis of which (an individual's) r e l a t i v e s o c i a l standing i s determined" (Fallers,1966:143). I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , however, brought about the transfer of specialized occupations from the context of kin groups to f a c t o r i e s based on bureaucratic vp ri ncipie s« i t heralded the separation of role occupant and occupational r o l e i n that "the preponderant c r i t e r i a for determining occupations would be 'performance q u a l i t i e s ' ; and that economic rewards and s o c i a l mobility would constitute the p r i n c i p l e standards of worth or status of any given r o l e " (Gould,1971:14). For members of such a society, then, t h i s constitutes the " s e t t i n g " into which they are born and to which they must adapt. The economic functions of the family were affected by i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n as a consequence of three forces 5 (Klein,1963:24-34). F i r s t , the centre of production was shifted from the household to the factory. Second, i n d i v i d u a l workers were employed rather than entire f a m i l i e s . F i n a l l y , industry began to supply an increasing number of services as well as goods, formerly provided by the family. Engels, i n discussing the consequences of t h i s t r a n s i t i o n for the r o l e of women, stated that i t was concomitant to i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n that: "Household management l o s t i t s public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became head servant, excluded from par t i c i p a t i o n i n s o c i a l production.... The modern in d i v i d u a l family i s founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife....in the great majority of cases today...the husband i s obliged to earn a l i v i n g and support his family, and that in i t s e l f gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for spacial l e g a l t i t l e s and pr i v i l e g e s " (Engels, 1973:73) . In Problems of L i f a ^ Trotsky also discussed the consequence of the separation of work from the family, for the status of women. "Unless there i s actual equality of husband and wife i n the family ...we cannot speak seriously of the i r equality in s o c i a l work or even i n p o l i t i c s . As long as woman i s chained to her housework . , . a l l her chances of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l l i f e are cut down to the extreme" (Trotsky, 1924: 48). Both Engels and Trotsky recognized that, with the separation of work and the family, women's place was seen to be i n the home. Sinca economic rewards constituted the p r i n c i p l e standard of worth of many positions, women were c a t e g o r i c a l l y located in a status i n f e r i o r to men. A basic assumption of many the o r i s t s concerned with s o c i a l 6 s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , however, i s that the family i s a unit of evaluation within the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system. For example, Parsons has noted that: MThe family i s e s s e n t i a l l y a unit of diffuse solidary. Its members must, therefore, to a fundamental degree share a common status i n the larger system; which means that they must, i n spite of the i r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n by sex and age, be evaluated i n certain respects as equals" (1966:116-117). Watson and Barth have, i n fact, documented the agreement among theo r i s t s of "the fundamental necessity for the family to be a unit of equivalent evaluation in order to f u l f i l l i t s functions of status evaluation, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and self-maintenance" (Watson and Barth,1964:11). Further, they note that although t h i s postulate appears to be useful i n s t r a t i f i c a t i o n theory, i t s empirical v a l i d i t y i s questionable. During the past decade there has been a substantial increase i n both the number and percentage of women i n the labour f o r c e 1 i n Canada. One consequence of th i s phenomenon appears to be the extensive role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of spouses within both the occupational and family structures (Watson and Barth, 1964:13). For the purposes of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n analysis the nuclear family can, therefore, no longer be assumed to be a 1 During the decade 1961 to '1971, the female labour force in Canada increased by 62.8%, representing an addition of 1,092,000 women into the paid labour force (Department of Labour,1971). 7 solidary unit of equivalent rank i n the system of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . It i s neither adequate nor useful to assume that women have no relevant role i n s t r a t i f i c a t i o n processes independent of their family role. It w i l l be argued here that one of the consequences of r o l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of spouses within dual work families i s that the wife often experiences considerable role s t r a i n . Bole s t r a i n in t h i s context i s defined as a condition in which sets of expectations for the role partners, that i s spouses, c o n f l i c t with one another. The spouses are involved in e s s e n t i a l l y three role systems— the work system of each spouse and the family system which they s h a r e — with each system making d i f f e r e n t demands according to the position of the role in° the system (Rapoport and Rapoport,1969:5). Consideration w i l l now be given to sources of ro l e s t r a i n within these three systems. In t h i s context, role s t r a i n i s introduced into the dual work family for two related reasons. One reason i s the fact that the wife operates i n two di f f e r e n t a c t i v i t y systems, those of occupations and of fa m i l i e s , whose claims on time a l l o c a t i o n are incompatible without a restructuring of the demands of one or other system. A second, and related, reason for s t r a i n i s the fact that the values underlying the demands of these two systems are contradictory: women who work away from home are expected to be committed to the i r jobs " j u s t l i k e men," while they are required 8 to give p r i o r i t y to t h e i r family (Coser and Rokoff,1971:535). Incompatible expectations are therefore often assigned to women's status in the dual work family. Men, on the other hand, are not seen to experience role s t r a i n , although they operate i n both a c t i v i t y systems, they give p r i o r i t y to their work. Both sources of s t r a i n , however, point to a fundamental c o n f l i c t between family and occupational roles. As Fuch notes, " t h i s i s the situa t i o n where the r e a l claims of di f f e r e n t roles are i n contradiction to each other and there appear to be 'disturbances of the expectation system' (Parsons,1951) not only of the r o l e c a r r i e r but also of the role partners" (1971:497-4 98) . As an i l l u s t r a t i o n for the preceding discussion, role s t r a i n may occur when there i s an incompatibility between the amount of time husbands and wives must spend in the occupational and household spheres. The wife may be employed i n an occupation demanding more time than her husband's and yet the c u l t u r a l mandate dictates that she also assume the time consuming position of the housewife while her husband assumes the less time consuming position of "breadwinner". This condition r e s u l t s in sets of expectations which c o n f l i c t with one another. Women are unable to give p r i o r i t y to both t h e i r family and t h e i r work away from home. These women must therefore redefine their p r i o r i t i e s and schedule t h e i r time accordingly. 9 For the moment consider the reduction of role s t r a i n as a l l o c a t i v e or economic i n form. Role r e l a t i o n s between spouses can therefore be seen as, in Goode's terms, "a sequence of *role bargains*, and as a continuing process of selection among alter n a t i v e role behaviors, i n which each (spouse) seeks to reduce his (or her) role s t r a i n " (1960:483). The relationship betwaen the husband and wife can be viewed, then, as a bargaining process, a consequence of each spouse having li m i t e d resources to allocate among alternative ends. The performances which the i n d i v i d u a l can exact from the spouse are what he or she gets i n exchange. "Bargaining may seem l i k e a cruel word to apply to the deliberations of members of the - intimate family relationship. But bargaining i s simply a general term for any interaction i n which concessions that one member makes to another are expected to be reciprocated i n some manner, so that over the long run the s a c r i f i c e s of each w i l l balance out" (Turner, 1970: 1 06) . In the context of role bargaining the wife's paid employment can be considered as a resource which gives her leverage i n increasing her own status i n the family and in decreasing the t r a d i t i o n a l inequality and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of sex roles within the family structure. Each dual work couple s t r i k e s a ser i e s of r o l e bargains to reduce or otherwise deal with the s t r a i n s and dilemmas they experience (Rapoport and Rapoport,1969:7). Taken together, these role bargains may form new relationships which are more collaborative or cooperative in nature. 10 Before proceeding with t h i s discussion, i t i s important to consider the re l a t i o n s h i p between role concepts and the study of behavior. Empirically, t h i s thesis i s limited to the study of a c t i v i t i e s which occur within the family setting. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the focus i s upon individuals* regular p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n that setting as a regular seguence of da i l y a c t i v i t i e s . Some of these a c t i v i t i e s bring the i n d i v i d u a l into face-to-face in t e r a c t i o n with others f o r the performance of a single j o i n t a c t i v i t y — w h a t might be called, in Goffman's (1961) terms, a "situated a c t i v i t y system". When the a c t i v i t i e s within t h i s situated system are repeated with any frequency, f a i r l y well-developed situated roles emerge. "Action comes to be divided into manageable bundles, each a set of acts that can be compatibly performed by a single participant (or spouse)" (Goffman,1961 :96). In addition to t h i s role formation "there i s a tendency for role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to occur, so that the package of a c t i v i t y that the members of one cla s s of participants perform (for example, wives) i s di f f e r e n t from, though dependent on, the set performed by members of another category. A situated r o l e , then, i s a bundle of a c t i v i t i e s v i s i b l y performed before a set of others and v i s i b l y meshed into the a c t i v i t y these others perform" (Goffman, 1961 :96) . When considering the d i v i s i o n of household tasks as a mechanism by which role s t r a i n i s reduced i n dual work families, 11 thera are e s s e n t i a l l y three techniques through which t h i s i s accomplished: s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , delegation, and extension of tasks (Goode,1960: 486). There are two dimensions of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n which are of concern to t h i s study. One dimension concerns the necessity of performing the task, according to i t s contribution to the subsistence of the family. Tasks may be defined, therafore, as necessary or discretionary. Secondly, tasks may be speci a l i z e d according to a sex-role dimension. A second technique for reducing r o l e s t r a i n i s accomplished through the delegation of a greater number of tasks to other membars of the family. This delegation of tasks serves to reduce the s t r a i n experienced by women operating in two a c t i v i t y systams, occupational and family, whose claims on time a l l o c a t i o n are often incompatible. F i n a l l y , role s t r a i n may be reduced by extending the amount of time allocated to either the occupational or family system to such a degree that the demands of the two a c t i v i t y systems are no longer contradictory. That i s , the wife may reject the valuas associated with one or other system either by being committed to her work "j u s t l i k e men" or to her family "just l i k e women". It i s es s e n t i a l to note, however, that these techniques for reducing role s t r a i n are both determined and limited by the larger s t r u c t u r a l context within which such decisions are made. It i s this context which determines whether "the husband and 12 wife may or must bargain f r e e l y , to either*s disadvantage, or to what extent either can or must remain in an advantageous or costly bargaining position" (Goode,1960:490) . The s o c i a l structure therefore constrains the degree to which the spouses may manipulate t h e i r respective role systems. To be more s p e c i f i c : "There are fundamental differences between the dynamics of power in a c o l l e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n and the power of one i n d i v i d u a l over another. The weakness of the iso l a t e d subordinate l i m i t s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of his (or her) disapproval of the superior. Yet i f a number of subordinates protest the unfair exercise of power, t h i s has far-reaching implications for development in the s o c i a l structure" (Blau, 1964:23-24) . To the extent that large numbers of women might come to define their current s i t u a t i o n as an unjust one, fundamental and f a r -reaching changes in marriage would come about. In summary, women1s increasing p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the labour force s i g n i f i e s a basic change in the female sex-role ideology 1. That i s , the addition of the wage earner role to the role of the housewife requires a major change in her family r o l e . I t i s 1 I t i s important to note that i t i s well recognized that "no role exists without a paired r e c i p r o c a l role which i s part of a d i f f e r e n t position" (Bates,1956:317). Therefore, a change in the female sex-role d e f i n i t i o n w i l l inevitably be paralleled by a related change in the male sex-role d e f i n i t i o n . 13 assumed that the occupational role i s r i g i d and therefore w i l l modify her family role more than the reverse. This thesis w i l l examine the proposition that the incompatibility of being both workar and housewife i s c r u c i a l for the rel a t i o n s h i p between the employment status of spouses and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks, i n dual work families. The s p e c i f i c question to be addressed i n t h i s thesis i s : What are the consequences for the a l l o c a t i o n of household tasks i f spouses occupy occupational positions which require varying amounts of time commitment? In t h i s context, the d i v i s i o n of household tasks w i l l be considered as a mechanism of adaptation to the role s t r a i n experienced by the wife i n a dual work family. Household tasks, then, are what bargaining between spouses i s about. When a wife takes a paying job she necessarily spends more time working than the f u l l - t i m e housewife. As suggested e a r l i e r , the wives who operate in these two a c t i v i t y systems, occupational and household, would fi n d the claims of each on time a l l o c a t i o n to be incompatible. The degree of incompatibility would of course depend on such contextual variables as the age and number of children, and the day of the week. For example, the wife with no children would have r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e housework and consequently i s not l i k e l y to experience much s t r a i n with the additional demands of a paying jobs. In contrast, the wife with a young c h i l d i n addition to a 14 job, would experience considerable s t r a i n as a r e s u l t of the incompatible claims on her time. The general question to be addressed i s how does the wife with a paying job manage to meet the competing demands of both the job and the family, and to what extent does the husband f a c i l i t a t e t h i s process? One means of reducing the wife's demands i s to r e d i s t r i b u t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r household tasks. I t seems reasonable, then, that the wife with a paying job would decrease her contribution to housework and the husband would increase h i s contribution. Chapter IV considers both the extent to which husbands increase t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n housework and the degree to which wives are able to adjust their participaton, i n response to increasing demands placed on the wives. Chapters V and VI are concerned with the spouses* perceptions of the s t r a i n which ari s e s when they both have paying jobs, and how the wife or couple manage t h i s s t r a i n . In p a r t i c u l a r , how i s the d i v i s i o n of labour realized between spouses i n order to minimize s t r a i n ? 15 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE During the past twenty years several research studies have investigated the ef f e c t of women's employment on the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between spouses. The concern of t h i s chapter i s to place the t h e o r e t i c a l framework delineated i n Chapter I into both the the o r e t i c a l and empirical context from which i t arose. Therefore, no attempt w i l l be made to provide an extensive review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Rather, the focus i s to consider research studies which were d i r e c t l y related to the formulation of the the o r e t i c a l and empirical concerns discussed i n the previous chapter. From a the o r e t i c a l perspective the research studies to date have basically assumed one of three theore t i c a l approaches: exchange, a v a i l a b i l i t y , and family developmental theory. Heer(1958) was perhaps the primary exponent of exchange theory. According to t h i s position, the balance of power between spouses i s related to the comparative value of the resources obtained in an exchange outside the marital re l a t i o n s h i p . In other words, the more resources a person i s contributing to the marriage, the more that person stands to gain from an alternative r e l a t i o n s h i p . Therefore, the more power that person w i l l be able to exercise within the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p . Since women with paying jobs contribute more resources to the marriage than women without such jobs, the d i v i s i o n of household tasks in 16 these families would be more equalitarian. A v a i l a b i l i t y theory i s a t h e o r e t i c a l approach which i s perhaps best represented by Blood and Hamblin (1958). This position suggests that families d i f f e r in t h e i r d i v i s i o n of labour according to the r e l a t i v e a v a i l a b i l i t y of either spouse to accomplish any given household task. Blood and Wolfe (1960) c l e a r l y state t h i s t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l position, f o r example, when they argue that "the more available a spouse i s to perform family tasks, the more tasks the spouse i s l i k e l y to perform"(57-58) . The d i v i s i o n of labour i s therefore determined by the comparitive resourcefulness of the two spouses in i accomplishing the necessary household tasks. F i n a l l y , there exists an approach known as the family devalopmental theory. E s s e n t i a l l y t h i s theory i s i d e n t i c a l to a v a i l a b i l i t y theory except that i t puts t h i s theory in a time perspective over the couples l i f e cycle. That i s , as Silverman and H i l l have previously noted: "Family developmental theory suggests that the changes which occur i n family s i z e , i n age-composition of members, and i n husband-father involvement i n the occupational structure over the l i f e span of the family w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the role content of the wife-mother and husband-father positions" (1967:357). I t i s the position of t h i s thesis that these three t h e o r e t i c a l approaches are inadequate i n their a b i l i t y to explain and predict the d i v i s i o n of household tasks. The major reason for t h i s inadequacy i s that they begin with the 17 i n d i v i d u a l spouses and t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l resources, and expectations. On the basis of t h i s premise they then suggest that the f i n a l behavior patterns adopted w i l l r e s u l t from the int e r a c t i o n between the in t e r e s t s of the spouses. These t h e o r e t i c a l positions have assumed then that the control of competence and resources occurs i n individual couples by chance rather than being s t r u c t u r a l l y predetermined i n favour of the male. The approach t h i s thesis assumes, then, i s that "the di s t r i b u t i o n of tasks i s not an interpersonal a f f a i r but a class a f f a i r . . . . Women are s t r u c t u r a l l y deprived of egual opportunities to develop t h e i r c a pacities, resources, and competition with males" (Gi l l e s p i e , 1972: 127-128). To date there have been several empirical research studies d i r e c t l y related to the topic of t h i s thesis. The f i r s t such study was that conducted by K l i g l e r . K l i g l e r attempted to "explore the ef f e c t s of gainful employment of married women ... on family behavior and conceptions of husband and wife r o l e s " (1954:9). Consequently K l i g l e r developed two hypotheses: 1. "As role-performance amoung members within an i n s t i t u t i o n becomes more similar, t h e i r roles tend to be redefined accordingly"(1954:15). 2. "Changes i n ... rol e performance, and changes in ... r o l e d e f i n i t i o n i n response to changing conditions tend to occur at di f f e r e n t rates. This discrepancy ... tends to 18 cause role c o n f l i c t " (1954:15). In order to test these two hypotheses K l i g l e r interviewed the husband and wife i n 100 non-randomly selected New York City f a m i l i e s with one or more children thirteen years of age or l e s s . On the basis of t h i s sample K l i g l e r concluded that "working wife" families are more equalitarian than "non-working wife" families and that they are less d i f f e r e n t i n the area of authority or decision making than in other areas of household a c t i v i t y . One of the main weaknesses of t h i s study stems from the gross categories into which role performances are c l a s s i f i e d . That i s , the respondent i s asked whether a given task i s performed by one of the following: the wife only; the wife mainly/husband helps; the husband and wife equally; the husband mainly/wife helps; the husband only. I t would seem that there would need to be much more refinement in the measurement of task performance before beginning to conclude that there i s more equality i n the d i v i s i o n of labour in dual work fam i l i e s than i n other families. Elizabeth Bott, as the r e s u l t of an intensive interview with 20 urban families i n London, advanced the hypothesis that: "The degree of segregation i n the r o l e - r e l a t i o n s h i p of the husband and wife varies d i r e c t l y with the connectedness of the family»s s o c i a l network" (1957:60) . The degree of segregation of conjugal roles i s defined as "the 19 r e l a t i v e balance between complementary and independent a c t i v i t i e s on the one hand, and j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s on the other" (1957:55). The connectedness of networks i s defined as "the extent to which the people known by a family know and meet one another independently of the family" (1957: 59). The hypothesis stated above was advanced by Bott on the basis of two research findings. The f i r s t finding was that i f spouses are in close i n t e r a c t i o n with a network of friends and r e l a t i v e s , that network provides an e f f e c t i v e reference group which exerts pressure on i t * s members to follow t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s . Secondly, frequent intimate i n t e r a c t i o n with kin and friends outside the conjugal group provides some of the services and emotional needs of spouses so that they are l e s s dependent on each other and in t e r a c t l e s s i n t e n s i v e l y with each other. To summarize, Bott's (1957) research findings suggest that "the more connected the network, the more segregation between the roles of the husband and wife and conversely, the more dispersed the network, the l e s s segregation between the roles of husband and wife" (pp.67). Turner has suggested that there are considerable d i f f i c u l t i e s in rigorously defining and operationalizing Bott's concepts (1967:121-122). Consequently, although studies have provided some support for Bott's hypothesis i t i s evident that a di f f e r e n t and perhaps somewhat more complex approach i s needed. Blood and Hamblin attempted to test some hypotheses 20 regarding "the effects of the wife's employment on the power rel a t i o n s h i p s between the husband and wife as shown i n marital attitudes and behavior" (1958:347). The hypothesis which they tested which i s of primary concern here i s that "the husband dominated family becomes more equalitarian as a res u l t of the wife's employment outside the home" (1958:348). In an attempt to test t h i s hypothesis a quota sample of 160 Michigan families was selected. On the basis of t h e i r study. Blood and Hamblin found that "husbands of working wives , on the average, do a greater proportion of housework than husbands of housewives" (1958:351). F i n a l l y , they concluded that the working wife family "appears t y p i c a l l y ... to arrange the d i v i s i o n of labour in the home on the ... a v a i l a b i l i t y of the two partners to perform the tasks" (1958:352). There are two problems of research method in th i s study. The data consist of spouse's estimates of how many hours a week they spend i n each of twelve household tasks. Blood and Hamblin give no i n d i c a t i o n , however, as to the r e l i a b i l i t y of the women respondent's ,estimates , of the husband's task performance or the v a l i d i t y of th e i r own selection of twelve tasks as representative of the ov e r a l l d i v i s i o n of labour i n the household. k second, and perhaps more c r u c i a l point, stems from the f a c t that Blood and Hamblin establish that the husbands of wives with jobs, as compared to the husbands of wives without jobs, do 21 a greater Proportion of the housework but they do not provide evidence that these husbands also do a greater amount of housa work. Hoffman, i n 1960, conducted a study which i n i t ' s ent i r e t y was of a much broader scope than that of Blood and Hamblin's (1958). In r e l a t i o n to the d i v i s i o n of household tasks, however, i t ' s focus was very similar. Treating the wife's employment as the independent variable , t h i s study attempted to analyze i t ' s e f f e c t s on the spouses' r e l a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household tasks. The hypothesis was advanced that the employment of the wife outside the home would function to decrease her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n household tasks and to increase that of her husband's (1960:27). To test t h i s hypothesis, Hoffman u t i l i z e d a non-random sample of 324 families i n Detroit, Michigan. The data were coll e c t e d by asking elementary school chldren and t h e i r mothers "who does" certain household tasks. On the basis of these data, Hoffman found that employed women participated less and their husbands participated more i n s a l l areas of family a c t i v i t y . As with Blood and Hamblin (1958), however, Hoffman did not establish t h i s finding i n terms of the t o t a l amount of time spent i n housework by either spouse. Clearly the husbands of working wives may proportionately perform more of the household tasks simply as a function of the working wife reducing the amount of time she spends performing household tasks, thereby reducing the t o t a l amount of housework 22 performed. In 1960 Blood and Wolfe designed a study to ascertain the determinants of the d i v i s i o n of labour between spouses, within the family setting. For t h i s purpose a multi-stage probability sample of 731 Detroit f a m i l i e s was u t i l i z e d . An index of the spouses' o v e r a l l d i v i s i o n of labour consisted of the following eight tasks: household repairs, lawn mowing, snow shovelling, household accounts, grocery shopping, preparing husband's breakfast, straightening up the l i v i n g room f o r company, and evening dishes. On the basis of interviewing the wife i n each of the sample f a m i l i e s . Blood and Wolfe found that the husbands i n dual work families do "help" perform more household tasks. The authors conclude that "the extra pressure on husbands of working wives causes them to help th e i r wives out more with feminine tasks at the same time that they do more of the i r own tasks" (1960: 63). Unfortunately, i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to accept the v a l i d i t y of these r e s u l t s as the index through which they arrived at these findings has two major f a u l t s : (1) within the index a l l tasks are given equal weight even though i t i s obvious that not a l l of the tasks have the same degree of importance for family l i f e ; (2) some of the tasks in the index require da i l y enactment while others require monthly, or yearly enactment. The eight tasks i n the index do not have the same importance and frequency 23 Although Blood and Wolfe claim that these tasks are "representative" of a l l household tasks, i t i s evident that they are not. Generally the tasks l i s t e d i n the index have a very discretionary nature and o v e r a l l constitute a small proportion of the t o t a l amount of time spent i n performing household tasks (Meis and Scheu,1973). These eight tasks are not , as Blood and Wolfe lead us to believe, equivalent units of evaluation nor representative of household tasks i n general. In 1971 Michel designed a research study to determine the relati o n s h i p between the wife's employment and the r o l e performance and goal attainment of the couple. For t h i s purpose a s t r a t i f i e d random sample of 450 Parisian women was selected. One of the s p e c i f i c concerns of t h i s study was to determine the e f f e c t of women working at a paying job on the d i v i s i o n of household tasks. To t h i s end a household task performance score was calculated on the basis of time spent i n each of nine tasks: small repairs, cleaning and straightening the household, buying clothes, washing dishes, washing f l o o r s , income tax returns, grocery shopping, and writing family l e t t e r s . The wives were asked, with regard to each of these tasks, whether they perform them more often, as often, or less often than t h e i r husband. On the basis of t h i s task performance score Michel found two s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s : 1. "More husbands help their wives to perform the 24 housework i n working wives* families than i n housewives*, and i n the former families there are more husbands performing domestic tasks t r a d i t i o n a l l y attributed to women and more women doing tasks t r a d i t i o n a l l y attributed to men" (1971: 62) . 2. "More working wives* families than housewives' fa m i l i e s are characterized by an absence of sex-role s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n performing household tasks: fewer women in the working wives* families perform s p e c i f i c household tasks and there are fewer s p e c i f i c tasks assigned to the husbands" (1971: 63). Michel, therefore, concluded that the wife's employment i s correlated with more equalitarian behavior patterns between spouses*. There are major weaknesses i n Michel's study. The f i r s t i s the researcher's assumption that the nine household tasks selected to measure role performance are i n some sense "representative" of a l l household tasks. On the basis of the information provided by Meis and Scheu,1973), these tasks would appear not to represent, either in time or i n nature, the o v e r a l l spectrum of household tasks. The second weakness arises from the measure of task performance, that i s , does the wife perform the task more often, as often, or less often than her husband? This measure allows f o r only gross generalizations on the part of the respondent (wife) with no opportunity to qualify her response. 25 From a methodological perspective, then, before accepting Michel's hypothesis that "the structure of couples with wives employed i s more equalitarian than the structure of couples where the wife i s not employed" (1971 : 5 5 ) , much further research i s required. These six empirical studies exhibit, then, e s s e n t i a l l y three important methodological problems. F i r s t of a l l , as was previously mentioned, no attempt has been made to determine the "representativeness" of the tasks chosen to measure o v e r a l l task performance. In terms of the data provided by Meis and Scheu(1973), the tasks selected in these studies would not appear to represent household tasks i n general. Secondly, the ordinal measurement of task performance only allows one to make inferences with regard to the r e l a t i v e ££2£2£fi2S °f tasks performed by either spouse. C l e a r l y t h i s information i s required but i t i s also necessary to determine task performance in terms of the actual amount of time spent in these tasks. Otherwise, the researcher i s unable to explain a s h i f t i n the r e l a t i v e proportion of tasks performed by the husband, f o r example. This s h i f t might r e s u l t from an increase i n the husband's task performance, a decrease i n the wife's performance, or a combination of both. F i n a l l y , i t i s an interesting f a c t that fathers are r a r e l y interviewed when couples are studied. For example, i n several 26 research reports surveyed by LeMasters (1972), 2295 mothers were questioned about their parental r o l e — but not one father was interviewed! As LeMasters notes: "One can only conclude that students of parent roles either do not consider fathers worth studying or else they assume that mothers can report accurately what fathers think and do. Either assumption i s open to debate" (1972: 117). As a consequence of these three weaknesses, i t i s necessary to question the v a l i d i t y of the research finding of these studies. Chapter III represents an attempt to design a research study that overcomes these d i f f i c u l t i e s . 27 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY I t i s assumed here that h i s t o r i c a l forces have generated basic inconsistencies between the norms which apply to women's role within the family and the norms of achievement within the larger society. These inconsistencies and the i r consequences, persistence and meaning can be pursued in two analyses: a quantitative analysis of time-budget data and a q u a l i t a t i v e analysis of interview data. The methods of these two types of analysis are discussed i n Sections I. and II. of t h i s chapter. I. 2MEiiNative Analysis:. i The general problem to be considered i n t h i s analysis i s to what extent do husbands increase the amount of time spent in housework and to what degree are wives able to adjust t h e i r contribution, i n response to increasing demands placed on wives? For the purposes of analysis the wife's employment w i l l be defined as the independent variable. Two dimensions of t h i s variable w i l l be considered: hours of paid employment (full-time or part-time), and type of employment (professional or non-professional) . The d i v i s i o n of household tasks, the dependent variable, 28 has two major dimensions: hours of work and work s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . Work s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s measured i n hours spent in obligatory as compared to discretionary tasks. In the study of time a l l o c a t i o n to household tasks i t i s important to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between obligatory and discretionary tasks. Obligatory tasks are regularly performed, and necessary to the family's subsistence. Discretionary tasks are i r r e g u l a r l y performed, and not as essential to the family's subsistence. I t i s expected that the more time the wife spends i n a paying job, the less time she w i l l be able to spend i n household tasks. This decrease presumably would be greater i n the discretionary tasks as they are le s s necessary to the maintenance of the household. In response to the wife decreasing her contribution to housework i t i s anticipated that the husband w i l l increase his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these tasks. In previous studies, four variables had a s i g n i f i c a n t a f f e c t on the d i v i s i o n of labour between spouses: the day of the week, the education of the spouses, the stage in the family l i f e c y cle, and the income of the spouses. The e f f e c t of these variables w i l l therefore be s t a t i s t i c a l l y controlled throughout the analysis. The f i r s t control variable to be considered i s the period of the week i n which the household task i s performed. For the 29 purpose of analysis the d i s t i n c t i o n i s made only between a Workday (Monday to Friday) and a Weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). This variable i s l i k e l y to af f e c t the d i v i s i o n of household tasks in that, unlike a Workday, a Weekend day provides the spouses with p o t e n t i a l l y equivalent time periods to a l l o c a t e to tasks, regardless of the spouses' occupational positions. It i s therefore predicted that the relationship between the wife's r e l a t i v e time commitment to work and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks would be stronger during a Workday than a Weekend day. The second control variable i s the husband's l e v e l of education. others have argued that the university-educated husband would have a more favorable attitude towards his wife's dual role than less educated husbands (Poloma and Garland,1971; Holmstrom,1970). This attitude then, would presumably direct these husbands to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a larger proportion of the household tasks and thereby reduce the wife's r e l a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s a c t i v i t y . The t h i r d variable, the stage in the family l i f e cycle, i s l i k e l y to a f f e c t the relationship stated i n the hypotheses in that: (1) young children increase the amount of housework, but having one's oldest c h i l d near adulthood provides potential assistance with the housework (Bossard and B e l l , 1956) and (2) the greater the number of c h i l d r e n , the greater the amount of time necessary to devote to household tasks. However, t h i s i s 30 not a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . Presumably there i s a threshold at which an increase i n the number of children produces no s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the amount of time necessary to devote to household tasks. The stage i n the family l i f e cycle can be seen, then, to modify the mother's r e l a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household tasks and thereby a l t e r the d i v i s i o n of labour between between the spouses. The f i n a l control variable, the r e l a t i v e income of the spouses, i s hypothesized to a f f e c t the relationship between the wife's time commitment to paid work and her r e l a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household tasks. Studies of power rel a t i o n s between husbands and wives have demonstrated, the wife's earning power i s a d e f i n i t e factor i n s h i f t i n g the balance of power away from the husband (Blood and Wolfe,1960; Heer,1957). For example, i t has been noted that "when the wife's income i s greater than her husband's, the husband's role i n the family i s c l e a r l y threatened" (Poloma and Garland, 1971:756). On the basis of such research studies i t i s expected that (1) when the wife's income i s less than or equal to her husband's, the husband w i l l increase his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n household tasks, and (2) when the wife's income i s greater than her husband's, the husband w i l l decrease his part i c i p a t i o n i n household tasks i n an attempt to reassert his masculine id e n t i t y (Coser,1971:182; Bakke, 1940: 109-293) . 31 ks. P_sscription of the Sample The sample f o r the quantitative, or time budget analysis consists of 128 dual work couples and 269 couples i n which only the husband i s employed. The data were gathered i n interviews of married couples in Greater Vancouver , conducted by the Urban Studies Project (Gray, Scheu, Keis and S t o r r i e , 1972). Couples to be interviewed were selected on the basis of a "multi-stage, purposive, s t r a t i f i e d , unequal cluster, random sampling frame" (Scheu and Meis, 1973). To t h i s end, eight areas of Greater Vancouver were selected according to socio-economic status and stage in family l i f e cycle. k t o t a l of 822 interviews were conducted i n these eight areas , for an average of about 100 per area. Both spouses were interviewed, P-i. h Demographic P r o f i l e of the Survey Sample The purpose of t h i s section i s to provide a simple description of some of the important demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the time budget survey sample. In providing such a p r o f i l e the following four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are seen to be of primary concern: age, sex, educational attainment,, and labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Table I provides a description of the sample i n terms of 32 the age of the husbands and wives. Although the age di s t r i b u t i o n s are simi l a r for males and females, as i s expected, the mean age for the men (45 years) i s greater than that of the women (42 years) . Table I Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of the age of spouses by sex. Males Females Age <25 years 5.2 8.3 25-34 years 16.8 20.6 35-44 years 29.5 28.3 45-54 years 27.4 30.5 55-64 years 19.8 10.6 65+ years 1.4 1.2 (N=389) (N=389) As Table II suggests, d i s t i n c t differences i n educational attainment between the women and the men. Thirty-two per cent of the men had some university training while only 18$ of the women had th i s l e v e l of education. Further, 26% of the men had only completed high school as compared to 45% of the women. I t > i s important to note that r e l a t i v e to the Canadian population, the survey sample over-represents those i n d i v i d u a l s with at least some university education. In the Census of 1961 only 6.1% of the Canadian population had th i s l e v e l of education. 33 Table II Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of educational attainment by sex. Highest Level of Schooling Attained Grade 8 or Less Grade 9 to 11 High School Completed Some University University Degree Males 12. 1 30.6 25.7 13.4 18. 3 (N=389) Females 9.5 27.0 45.5 11.3 6.7 (N=389) With regard to labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates, the difference between male and female p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s more than just a difference in degree, as revealed in Table I I I . Men and women, i n addition, have t h e i r own age d i s t r i b u t i o n . Labour Canada (1971) reports that the age group of maximum pa r t i c i p a t i o n i s younger for females than for males. In addition, female rates drop o f f very sharply while those for males continue at a f a i r l y high l e v e l u n t i l the 45-55 year age group, afte r which the decline becomes increasingly greater. Relative to the equivalent set of figures for the Canadian population, the sample over-represents women with jobs who are 45 to 54 years of age and under-represents women of le s s than 34 years (see Table IV). Table III Labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n , by sex. Bales Females El£loy.nie£t Status Hot Employed 2.1 67.6 Employed 97.9 32.4 (N=389) (N=389) Table IV Labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates, by age and sex. Males Females Age <25 years 2.7 13.3 25-34 years 16.2 17.1 35-44 years 29.7 26.7 45-54 years 26.2 3 2 * 7 55-64 years 23.8 10.9 65+ years 1*1 °«9 (N=366) (H = 128) 35 Two s i g n i f i c a n t factors when considering the employment status of married women are the income of her husband and the age of her children. Table V indicates that there i s a strong, po s i t i v e relationship between whether the wife has paid employment and her husband's income. Further, as Table VI i l l u s t r a t e s , those women with children less than s i x years of age were unlikely to be employed, with the probability increasing as the i r children aged. Table V Women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates, by the wife's hours i n paid employment and her husband's income. Husband's Income J i n thousandsl <6~~§rlQ IQrJn ~3iJ-1§~ I I I " Wife'.s Hours In Paid"Employment Ho Paying Job <35 hours 35-42.5 hours 4 2.5+ hours 71 21 7 0 58 13 20 9 68 85 96 10 12 4 14 0 0 7 2 0 (N=28) (N=170) (N=190) (N = 80) (N=88) 36 Table VI women's labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates, by the wife's hours i n paid employment and the age of her children. Wif ej.s Hours In Paid Employment kSL§. 21. Children <6 years 6-J_8 years 18.+ years No Paying Job 88 75 54 <35 hours 5 10 17 35-42.5 hours 5 10 17 42.5+ hours 2 5 12 (N=122) (N=294) (N=164) 11^ Qualitative Analysis^ The necessity for a q u a l i t a t i v e form of analysis was prompted by the r e a l i z a t i o n that d i s t i n c t i o n s can be made between role s t r a i n that i s perceived as opposed to unperceived, and legitimate as opposed to i l l e g i t i m a t e (Gross et al.,1960b). I t i s of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s analysis to determine the spouses' perceptions of the dilemmas which a r i s e when they are both employed, to what extent these dilemmas r e s u l t in role s t r a i n for the wife, or interpersonal role s t r a i n for the couple, and how the wife and couple manage t h i s s t r a i n . If work in the domestic sphere and work i n the occupational sphere are both seen as necessary to the family's existence, the question arises as to how the d i v i s i o n of labour i s r e a l i z e d between the spouses' i n order to minimize perceived role s t r a i n . 37 Further, what are the c r i t e r i a upon which t h i s d i v i s i o n of labour i s based and why does the couple use these p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i a . Due to the nature of these questions i t was f e l t that the type of information required from the couple could best be gleened i n an interview. The choice between alternative techniques of interviewing involves such important issues of methodology as decisions about the type of information required, and the kind of analysis to which that information w i l l be subjected. Recognizing the d e f i c i e n c i e s of either the extremely structured interview or the informal interview in which the shape and form i s determined by the respondent, t h i s study w i l l rely on the 'focused interview'(Merton,1946). The focused interview has a f i x e d framework of questions, yet allows the interviewer f l e x i b i l i t y within i t . The main value of t h i s type of interview, as Berton (1946) suggests, i s that i t gives the respondent the opportunity to express himself or herself on matters of s i g n i f i c a n c e to him (or her) rather than those presumed important to the interviewer. Since the aim of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r research was p r i n c i p a l l y to discover the respondents' own perceptions o f . t h e i r s i t u a t i o n , the choice of interviewing technique was made i n favour of a r e l a t i v e l y unstructured interview involving the f l e x i b l e use of the schedule. 38 hs. The Construction of the Interview Guide The aim of the interview was two-fold. One aim was to analyse the spouses* perception of the dilemmas which arise when they are both employed, the s t r a i n s imposed by these dilemmas, and how the couple manages them. The second aim was to determine the elements i n the family s i t u a t i o n which make i t possible for a woman to work and at the same time to reconcile i t with her family l i f e . In order to translate these aims into a series of questions an interview guide was constructed which broke the subject down into three general areas, namely: A. General Background of Spouses B. Work A c t i v i t y of Spouses C. Family A c t i v i t y of Spouses For each of these general topics there was a l i s t of information required from each respondent. Rather than asking the same question of each respondent and hoping i t would have the same meaning, the interviewer formulated the classes of information of i nterest and hoped that they were formulated i n such a way that they had the same meaning for each respondent. There are two important assumptions, however, underlying t h i s type of interview (Holmstrom,1972:187). F i r s t , i f the meaning of the questions i s to be standardized, then the researcher must be free to adapt the wording. Second, there i s 39 no fixed sequence of questions which w i l l be s a t i s f a c t o r y to a l l respondents; the most e f f e c t i v e sequence i s one determined by the respondents readiness and willingness to discuss t o p i c s . As Holmstrom( 1972) has previously noted: "These assumptions are contrary...to those underlying schedule standardized interviews where i t i s believed that the stimulus for each respondent must be i d e n t i c a l ; that to be an i d e n t i c a l stimulus, the question must be worded i d e n t i c a l l y each time i t i s presented; and that since a l l previous parts of the interview are part of the stimulus context, the sequence of questions must be identical"(1972:187). B. C r i t e r i a for Selection of the Samgle In s e l e c t i n g the couples to be interviewed, there were three c r i t e r i a of concern: 1. marital status 2. stage in the family l i f e cycle 3. type of occupation For the purposes of analysis, only those couples who were married, occupying the same domicile, and who had at least one ch i l d residing at home were considered i n t h i s study. Of these couples, only those who f e l l into one of the following six occupational categories were included i n the sample: 40 Husband ££2l§§§i2Ii3l Non-Prof essional £E2J®§§i2£iI Wife Non-Professional No Paying Job Due to resource l i m i t a t i o n s only two couples per category were interviewed. As Glaser and Strauss (1967) have previously noted, i t i s important to minimize differences between comparison groups i n that " t h i s helps to establish a d e f i n i t e set of conditions under which a (conceptual) category e x i s t s , either to a particular degree or as a t y p e — which i n turn establishes a probability for t h e o r e t i c a l prediction" (1967:56). Therefore, one of the couples selected, within each category, had at l e a s t one c h i l d l e s s than six years of age. The second couple*s children were a l l older than six years. The profession/non-professional d i s t i n c t i o n was of concern i n that the professional occupation has at least two important , and to some extent unique, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F i r s t of a l l , the professional occupation requires a considerable time commitment, in terms of the length of training required to f u l f i l the requirements of such a position. These positions therefore possess considerable salience for the occupant, r e l a t i v e to that 41 experienced by the occupant of a non-professional position {Rapoport and Rapoport,1965). Secondly, as compared to the non-professional, for the professional work commitments have p r i o r i t y over family commitments. For example, a doctor , dentist, lawyer, or professor i s , to some extent, always "on c a l l " . Working hours are never as c l e a r l y delineated as 9:00 to 5:00. In the case of the business executive he or she i s expected to attend business meetings, business dinners and so forth regardless of the day of the week or the time of the day. Since the p r i o r i t y of work schedules exercises the most tangible influence over family l i f e (Turner,1970:263) i t was expected that the professional/non-professional d i s t i n c t i o n would be of importance in determining these p r i o r i t i e s . S i ItSBiificat-iort of the Interview Sample Since the sample l i s t s f o r the time budget study (Urban Studies Project, 1971) were available to the researcher, t h i s provided for the p o s s i b i l i t y of interviewing couples for whom there already existed considerable demographic data and, of course, time budget information. The combination of such quantitative and q u a l i t a t i v e data i s unique i n the substantive area of study and i t was therefore anticipated that a comparison of these data would be informative from both a the o r e t i c a l and 42 empirical perspective. The actual sample of couples to be interviewed i n t h i s study was chosen according to the following procedure. The time budget sample l i s t was broken down, according to the c r i t e r i a outlined i n Section B f into ten subsamples. Every f i f t h name in the subsample was then selected and a l l couples who no longer resided i n Greater Vancouver were eliminated. From the f i n a l " s election l i s t s " couples were chosen in an attempt to provide v a r i a t i o n i n the socio-economic status within the sample. Potential respondents were then contacted by telephone. The purpose of the study was explained and an interview arranged. The interviews were scheduled over a one month period. 2 i £2ii6£ti2£ 2 l the Interview Data The couples were interviewed in t h e i r own homes at a time which was most convenient to them. A l l of the interviews were eventually scheduled in the evening. The husband and wife were interviewed separately, in most cases i n both time and space, with most interviews taking between one and one quarter to one and a half hours to complete. A l l of the interviews were taped with the researcher's assurance that the data would be presented i n an anonymous fashion. For t h i s reason, a l l names referred to in discussions of the interviews are pseudonyms. Since an interview i s a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n , i t i s appropriate 43 to consider the interview as a s o c i a l event. The respondent's perception of t h i s event was c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d by the fact that both the house and the couple appeared as though they were expecting "company". The house inevitably looked as though i t had just been t i d i e d up and the husband and wife generally appeared "dressed up". Further, refreshments were always served in f i n e china, c r y s t a l or such, regardless of the s o c i a l status of the respondents. Given t h i s s o c i a l setting, consideration w i l l now be directed towards a discussion of those status c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the interviewer which appeared to have some influence on the respondents. The interviewer could be described as a young, female graduate student with a middle cl a s s background. Since the interviewer was i n most cases ten to f i f t e e n years younger than the respondents, they frequently suggested that they were i n a diff e r e n t generation. That i s , although they claimed that t h e i r attitudes might appear "old fashioned" to young people they were quite legitimate among the i r peers. The fact that the interviewer was female also seemed to have some influence during the interview. F i r s t of a l l , the wives assumed that since the the interviewer was a woman, in some sense she "knew" how a household operates. This was very evident i n that often the wife would complete a discussion of her household routine, for example, with the phrase "you know". Further, the wives generally responded to questions concerning 44 their husband's contribution to household tasks with gestures which indicated that i t was "obvious" and the question was unnecessary. The husbands, on the other hand, i n many instances assumed that the interviewer had l i t t l e or no knowledge of the "working world". Consequently, the men often described th e i r work i n very simple terms. Further, the husbands frequently related to the interviewer their l a t e s t success at the i r work. C l e a r l y t h i s was s a t i s f y i n g to the men as the interviewer was, i n the i r eyes, not i n a position to evaluate t h e i r "success". Consequently, the interviewer was i n Bernard's (19 73) terms, forced to perform a "stroking f u n c t i o n " 1 . The husband's c l e a r l y found t h i s to be a s a t i s f y i n g arrangement as they spent approximately ten or f i f t e e n minutes discussing t h i s aspect of their work. I t i s inter e s t i n g to note that although the husbands f e l t that questions regarding t h e i r work were quite legitimate, questions concerning t h e i r household work were often seen as both inappropriate and i n some sense i l l e g i t i m a t e . When asked whether they had any household chores the i n i t i a l response was 1 A stroking function i s defined as a "supportive... emotional-expressive act. Whatever i t i s cal l e d , the behavior i s archetypically 'feminine'" (Bernard,1971:89) 45 often "what?" or some variation thereof. The husbands were frequently asked to elaborate on t h e i r description of t h e i r household chores as t h e i r answer was often a vague reference to "outdoor work". The interviewer was given the impression that such an elaboration was an unnecessary request since i t was assumed that the interviewer knew what the term meant. From the interviewer's perspective the f a c t that she had a middle class background and had had l i t t l e i n t e r a c t i o n with working class couples was an important consideration in the interviewing of such couples. The major d i f f i c u l t i e s rested with the fact that these couples appeared to conceptualize and analyze phenomena i n a manner unfamiliar to the interviewer. With regard to conceptualization, f o r example, these couples appeared to be very "present minded". This meant that they were unable to respond to questions regarding hypothetical situations other than to say "unless you're faced with a s i t u a t i o n you can't answer the question". This response forced the interviewer to rephrase the question such that i t presented a " r e a l " s i t u a t i o n to the respondent. Of course t h i s "present minded" attitude tended to r e s t r i c t any serious discussion of a possible change in the ro l e s of men and women. As one husband succinctly stated: "If my wife wanted change I'd have to think about i t , but there's no point thinking about something that may or may not happen". A second d i f f i c u l t y arose when the working class couples were asked to explain a given phenomenon such as why they consider themselves to be a "breadwinner" or a "homemaker". I n i t i a l l y the explanation was that "that i s just the way society works". On being pressed to elaborate on t h i s explanation the response quickly became "there are too many circumstances to look at there" or "that's too hard to think about". I t was often d i f f i c u l t for the interviewer to accept the fact that they didn't want to or were unable to provide a more "reasonable" answer; that they themselves considered that to be a "reasonable" answer. This resulted i n the same questions being asked several d i f f e r e n t ways and the end r e s u l t always being the same--they had given a "reasonable" answer to the question the f i r s t time i t was asked. 47 CHAPTER IV AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS~OF THE WIEE_AND~THE~ DIVISION OF~HOUSEHOLD TASKS^ The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to consider the consequences of women working at a paying job on the husband's and wive's contributions to housework. I t i s expected that the more time the wife spends i n a paying job, the less time she w i l l be able to spend i n household tasks. This decrease would presumably be greater i n discretionary, as compared to obligatory tasks, as they are l e s s necessary to household maintenance. In response to the wife decreasing her contribution to housework i t i s anticipated that the husband w i l l increase his p a r t i c i p a t i o n in housework. I t i s expected that the rel a t i o n s h i p between the wife's employment and the spouses' contributions to housework i s modified by the day of the week, the husband's education, the r e l a t i v e income of the spouses, and the stage i n the family l i f e cycle. The ef f e c t of these variables i s discussed i n Sections V. to IX. I t A general discussion of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of household tasks between husband's and wive's. Before considering the consequences of women's paid employment on the husbands' and wives* contributions to household tasks, l e t us f i r s t attend to a general description of the d i v i s i o n of tasks between the spouses. Tables VIIA and VIIB 48 describe the percent of husbands and wives par t i c i p a t i n g i n household tasks and the mean hours spent engaged i n such a c t i v i t i e s during a workday and a weekend day. These data c l e a r l y indicate differences between husbands and wives. During the workday only 40% of the husbands participate in any household a c t i v i t i e s and only 53% do so on the weekend. In comparison, 97% of the wives p a r t i c i p a t e i n household a c t i v i t i e s on any given day of the week. Those husbands who do p a r t i c i p a t e i n household a c t i v i t i e s generally spend most of th e i r time i n discretionary, as opposed to obligatory household tasks: repair and maintenance a c t i v i t i e s dominate their schedules. The wives, on the other hand, spend most of their time doing obligatory housework: cooking and house cleaning are the major such tasks. During the weekend, as compared to the workday, the husbands tend to increase their p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n household tasks. They spend, on the average, 28 more minutes in obligatory housework and 50 more minutes i n discretionary housework. The wives, on the other hand, generally spend l e s s time doing housework on the weekend than they do during the workdays. They decrease the amount of time spent i n obligatory time by 1 hour and 20 minutes. On the basis of a week, however, the husbands spend approximately 4 hours i n obligatory housework while their wives spend 27 hours. With regard to discretionary housework, the husbands spend approximately 5 hours i n these tasks. Their TABLE V I I A : P e r c e n t o f h u s b a n d s and w i v e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n h o u s e h o l d t a s k s and t h e amount o f t i m e s p e n t i n t h e s e t a s k s d u r i n g a w o r k d a y . PERCENT H usbands HOURS WORKDAY Wives Husbands 13 9 5 16 1 8 40 0 5 23 13 3 38 86 75 46 54 35 36 97 25 10 3 0 6 1 55 0 .07 0 . 0 9 0 .07 0 . 16 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 4 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 2 0 . 24 0 . 1 0 0 . 4 8 Wives 1.19 1.19 0 . 2 4 0 . 7 5 48 50 4 . 3 5 0 . 4 8 0 . 0 8 0 . 2 4 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 1 0 . 8 7 OBLIGATORY HOUSE WORK DISCR ETIONARY HOUSE WORK C o o k i n g House C l e a n i n g K i t c h e n C l e a n - U p Reg u l a r S h o p p i n g L a u n d r y C h i l d Care T o t a l I r r e g u l a r S h o p p i n g I r r e g u l a r P u r c h a s e s Sundry S e r v i c e s R e p a i r 6 M a i n t e n a n c e B u i l d i n g T o t a l TABLE V I I B : P e r c e n t o f h u s b a n d s and w i v e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n h o u s e h o l d t a s k s and t h e amount o f t i m e s p e n t i n t h e s e t a s k s d u r i n g a weekend day . WEEKEND PERCENT HOURS Husbands Wives Husbands Wives | i _ _ „ _ , , 4- — T I | OBLIGATORY 1 | | | [ | HOUSE WORK | C o o k i n g | 17 | 76 I 0 .14 I 1.00 | House C l e a n i n g | 21 | 61 I 0 . 3 5 | 0 . 9 4 | K i t c h e n C l e a n - U p | 9 I 40 I 0 . 0 7 | 0 . 2 6 | | R e g u l a r S h o p p i n g | 12 | 14 | 0 . 1 3 | 0 . 1 8 | L a u n d r y | 1 | 20 | 0 . 0 2 | 0 . 2 3 | | C h i l d Care 1 18 | 33 I 0 . 2 1 ' | 0 . 4 0 | T o t a l ! 52 | 95 I 0 . 9 2 | 3 .0 1 | DISCRETIONARY ] • 1 J i i | HOUSEWORK | I r r e g u l a r S h o p p i n g i 1 | 22 I 0 . 0 4 | 0 . 3 4 1 I r r e g u l a r P u r c h a s e s i 8 I 6 . | 0 .06 | 0 . 0 6 | S u n d r y S e r v i c e s i 29 | 22 I 0 . 3 2 | 0 . 2 7 | R e p a i r 5 M a i n t e n a n c e i 23 | 6 I 0 . 6 6 | 0 . 0 9 | B u i l d i n g 6 I 2 | 0 . 2 4 | 0 . 0 4 i ; | T o t a l . : J _L 53 | 46 1 1.32 | X 1_ 0 . 8 0 J o 51 wives spend about 6 hours i n discretionary household tasks. These data c l e a r l y indicate, then, that women are primarily responsible for the household maintenance and, on the average, spend about 34 hours per week engaged i n housework a c t i v i t i e s . When a l l work time i s combined, i . e., time for paid employment and housework, the sample c e r t a i n l y r e f l e c t s an image of a work oriented society. The average work week for the men was 57 hours and for the women i t was 51 hours. In families with no children i t was a somewhat shorter work week, but even then i t was 59 hours for women with paying jobs, 42 hours for f u l l time housewives, and 56 hours for men. As the following discussion demonstrates, i t i s c l e a r l y the women, however, who pay the most in time when they are employed outside the home. LL±. The consequences of women working at a paying job on the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between husbands and wives. Having considered the general pattern of the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between spouses, l e t us now consider the consequences of the wives taking a paying job. Table VIII presents a c t i v i t y data for households i n which both spouses have paid employment and those in which only the husband had paid employment. This table c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s that the wife's paying job has very l i t t l e consequence on her husband's contribution to 1 — TABLE V I I I : H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' e m p l o y m e n t , d u r i n g a c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o h o u s e w o r k , by w i v e s ' s e v e n day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . W i f e Employed Wi fe Not Employed D i f f e r e n c e | . i | . . . i i | HUSBAND 1 4 . 1 1 1 3 . 9 2 | + 0 . 1 9 | OBLIGATORY HOUSEWORK | WIFE | DIFFERENCE 17 .85 - 13 .74 | 3 2 . 5 4 | I - 2 8 . 6 2 | - 1 4 . 6 9 | | HUSBAND ! 4 . 7 6 1 3 . 9 1 | + 0 . 8 5 | DISCRETIONARY HOUSEWORK | WIFE | DIFFERENCE ; 3 . 0 8 + 1 .68 I 6 . 9 3 | | - 3 . 0 2 | - 3 . 8 5 | | HUSBAND 5 8 . 20 l 5 7 . 8 3 | + 0 . 3 7 | TOTAL WORK LOAD | WIFE | DIFFERENCE 1 6 2 . 5 9 - 4 . 3 9 I 4 6 . 27 | | + 1 1 . 5 6 | + 1 6 . 3 2 | I — J J _ i 1/1 ro 53 housework. In f a c t , when the wife has a paying job her husband increases his p a r t i c i p a t i o n in obligatory housework by only 11 minutes and i n discretionary housework by only 51 minutes. The wives with paying jobs, however, spend 14 hours and 41 minutes l e s s i n obligatory housework as well as 3 hours and 51 minutes less i n discretionary housework than the wives who work f u l l time as housewives. Nevertheless, the wives with paying jobs spend approximately 13 hours and 44 minutes more in obligatory housework than do husbands with paying jobs. It appears that there i s very l i t t l e difference i n the time that husband's contribute to housework whether or not th e i r wives have a paying job. This picture i s incomplete, however, as women tend to take paid employment at those times when the workload at home i s r e l a t i v e l y l i g h t . Whether or not the wives in the sample were employed at a paying job, and the number of hours they worked at the job, are clos e l y related to the presence of children and the age of the youngest c h i l d (see Chapter I I I , Section I ) . While 32% of the women i n the sample were i n the labour force, t h i s figure was much higher i n households with no children or teenage children. The influence of these factors on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of household tasks i s considered in Sections VII to IX. of this chapter. In summary, Table VIII indicates that: 1. Whether or not the wife has a paying job has l i t t l e consequence for the husband's contribution to 54 house work; 2. The wife with a paying job d r a s t i c a l l y reduces the amount of time she spends doing housework, r e l a t i v e to that of the f u l l - t i m e housewife; 3. The wife with a paying job spends 16 hours and 19 minutes more time working than the f u l l time housewife and 4 hours and 18 minutes more than the husband with a paying job: her t o t a l work load i s 62 hours and 35 minutes. III., The consequences of women working f u l l time and part time at paying jobs, on the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between spouses. It was e a r l i e r suggested that the average t o t a l work loads 1 f o r husbands and wives was heavy. Now l e t us determine whether the amount of time the wife spends at a paying job has any effect on the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between spouses. Table IX presents a c t i v i t y data for households i n which the wife works at a paying job on a part time basis (less than 35 hours a week) or on a f u l l time basis (more than 35 hours a week). [ 1 The t o t a l work load includes job time, necessary t r a v e l , obligatory housework, and discretionary housework. 55 The data i n Table IX indicate that when the wife works at her job f u l l time as opposed to part time, she decreases the amount of time she spends doing obligatory housework by about 8 hours while her husband decreases his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n obligatory tasks by 30 minutes and increases h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n discretionary housework by 2 hours. As a consequence, when the wife works at a paying job on a f u l l time, as opposed to part time basis, the husband's t o t a l work load decreases by 1 hour and the wife's increases by 3 hours. The data presented i n Table IX indicate, then, that as the wife increases the amount of time she spends i n a paying job her husband s l i g h t l y increases his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n discretionary household tasks and she d r a s t i c a l l y reduces the amount of time she spends in obligatory housework. When the wife has a f u l l -time paying job, her t o t a l workload i s 7 hours greater than her husband's. In comparison, when the wife has a part time paying job, her t o t a l workload i s only 2 hours greater than her husbands. Nevertheless, these differences are primarily a consequence of the fact that the t o t a l workload of the wife with a f u l l time job i s 4 hours greater than that of the wife with a part time job, not because of any substantial s h i f t s i n the husband's t o t a l workload. In summary, the husband's t o t a l work load varied l i t t l e whether or not the wife worked at her job part time or f u l l time. The wife's t o t a l work load, however, was consistently heavier when she was employed f u l l time rather TABLE I X : H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework when w i v e s a r e employed a t a p a y i n g j o b , p a r t t i m e and f u l l t i m e , d u r i n g a seven day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . Wi fe Employed F u l l Time 3.82 11. 16 - 10.34 5.73 3.60 +2.13 58.22 65. 12 - 6 . 9 0 Wife E mployed P a r t Time D i f f e r e n c e 4.33 22.85 -18.52 3.60 3. 44 • 0. 16 59.48 61.36 - 1.88 - 0.51 - 8.69 + 2.13 + 0.16 - 1 . 26 + 3.76 OBLIGATORY HOUSE WORK DISCRETIONARY HOUSEWORK TOTAL WORK LOAD HUSBAND WIFE DIFFERENCE HUSBAND WIFE DIFFERENCE HUSBAND WIFE DIFFERENCE 57 than part time at a paying job. ly.*. T n e consequences of the occupational status of the spouses on the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between the spouses. Professional occupations demand more of a time commitment of the occupant than the non-professional occupation. Consequently i t was expected that when the wife i s employed in a professional occupation, as compared to a non-professional occupation, her husband w i l l increase his pa r t i c i p a t i o n in housework and she w i l l decrease her p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Tables X and XI summarize the rel a t i o n s h i p between the spouses* occupational status and their contributions to household tasks. Table X describes the d i s t r i b u t i o n of household tasks when the husbands have a professional occupation and the wives had either a professional or a non-professional occupation. When the wife i s i n a professional occupation her husband increases p a r t i c i p a t i o n in obligatory housework (+3 hours 52 minutes), decreases p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n discretionary housework (-7 hours 2 minutes), and his t o t a l workload decreases (-10 hours 46 minutes). In comparision the professionally employed wife spends less time i n obligatory housework (- 38 minutes), more time i n discretionary housework (+3 hours 59 minutes) and her t o t a l workload increases (+3 hours 38 minutes) r e l a t i v e to the wife i n a non-professional occupation. 58 Table XI describes the d i v i s i o n of household tasks when the husband i s employed i n a non-professional occupation and the wife i s employed i n either a professional or a non-professional occupation. These data indicate that when the wife has a professional occupation, the husbands spend more time i n obligatory housework (+4 hours 16 minutes), discretionary housework (+2 hours 10 minutes), and in th e i r t o t a l workload (•••10 hours 17 minutes). In contrast, the wives spend le s s time i n obligatory housework (-5 hours 5 minutes), more time in discretionary housework (+6 hours 25 minutes), and th e i r t o t a l workload increases ( + 10 hours 50 minutes) r e l a t i v e to the wives with non-professional jobs. In summary. Tables X and XI indicate that when the wife i s employed i n a professional, as compared to a non-professional occupation, she decreases her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n obligatory tasks, increases p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n discretionary tasks and conseguently her t o t a l workload increases. This pattern i s stronger when her husband i s employed i n a non- professional rather than a professional occupation. To some extent t h i s may r e f l e c t the fa c t that the wife of a husband i n a non-professional occupation generally spends more time doing housework than the wife of a husband i n a professional occupation. The husband's response to his wife being employed in a professional, as opposed to a non-professional occupation, d i f f e r s according to the husband's occupational status. If the TABLE X: H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework by t h e s p o u s e s ' o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , d u r i n g a s e v e n day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . HUSBAND: PBOFESSIONAL 71 W i f e W i f e D i f f e r e n c e | P r o f e s s i o n a l N o n - P r o f e s s i o n a l i 4. | HUSBAND | 5.11 1.25 | + 3.86 OBLIGATORY 1 1 I HOUSEWORK | WIFE I 11.66 12.29 ' | - 0.63 | | DIFFERENCE I - 6.55 -11.00 | | HUSBAND I 0.58 I 7.62 | -7.04 | DISCRETIONARY I | I HOUSEWORK | WIFE I 6.57 2.58 i + 3.99 | DIFFERENCE | -5.99 + 5.04 | | HUSBAND | 18.78 59.54 | -10.76 TOTAL WORK I 1 | LOAD | WIFE I 67.17 I 63.53 | + 3.64 | DIFFERENCE 1 -18.39 | - 3.99 | i—_______— a_ _ 1 ID | TABLE X I : H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , d u r i n g a seven housework day week t y ( i n t h e s p o u s e s ' mean h o u r s ) . HUSBAND: NON-PROFESSIONAL W i f e P r o f e s s i o n a l W i f e N o n - P r o f e s s i o n a l . • • -j j D i f f e r e n c e | i i t ! | HUSBAND | 8.06 1 3.79 | + 4.27 | | OBLIGATORY | HOUSEWORK | WIFE | DIFFERENCE | 12.13 I - 4.07 | 17.22 | | -13.43 | - 5.09 | | HUSBAND I 7.31 I 5.14 . | +2.17 | i DISCRETIONARY | HOUSEWORK | WIFE | DIFFERENCE | 8.11 I - .80 I 1.69 | I +3.45 | +6.42 | | HUSBAND | 66.84 | 56.53 | +10.28 | j TOTAL WORK | LOAD | WIFE | DIFFERENCE | 73.33 | - 6.49 I 62.50 | 1 " 5.97 | +10.83 | [ 61 wife i s employed i n a professional occupation, the husbands increase t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in obligatory housework, regardless of t h e i r own occupational status. Further, professionally employed husbands decrease the amount of time spent in discretionary tasks while the non-professionally employed husbands increase the amount of time they spend in such tasks. F i n a l l y , the husbands in professional occupations decrease t h e i r t o t a l workload while the husband i n non-professional occupations increase t h e i r t o t a l workload, when t h e i r wife works i n a professional occupation. Vj_ The e f f e c t of the day of the week on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of household tasks between husbands and wives. I t was predicted that the day of the week i n which the household task i s performed w i l l a f f e c t the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between spouses. That i s , unlike a workday, a weekend day provides the spouses with p o t e n t i a l l y equivalent time periods to allocat e to tasks, regardless of t h e i r employment status. It was therefore predicted that the relationship between the employment status of the wife and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks would be stronger during a workday than a weekend day. As i s v i s i b l e in Table XII, the workday/weekend d i s t i n c t i o n has a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the rel a t i o n s h i p between the husband*s contributions to housework and the wife's employment TABLE X I I : . H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework by w i v e s ' e m p l o y m e n t , by t h e day o f t h e week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . DAY OF THE WEEK r 1 Weekend Workday D i f f e r e n c e j | HUSBAND w i f e employed 1 o • 95 I 0 . 4 1 | + 0 . 54 | | w i f e n o t employed 1 o . 9 2 ) 0 . 4 7 I + 0 . 45 | OBLIGATORY | | I HOUSEWORK j WIFE w i f e employed | 3 .23 | 2 . 5 6 | + 0 . 67 I w i f e n o t employed 1 2 . 9 0 | 5 . 2 3 j - 2 . 33 | | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed 1 " 2 .28 I - 2 . 15 | w i f e n o t employed 1 -1 . 98 | - 4 . 7 6 | ! . 3 0 | + 2 . 6 1 I | HUSBAND w i f e employed | 1 . 11 I 0. 60 J + 0 . 81 | | w i f e n o t employed | 1 . 2 7 | 0 . 4 3 I + 0 . 84 | DISCRETIONARY | | I HOUSE WORK | WIFE w i f e employed . 6 8 | 0 . 4 3 | + 0 . 25 | w i f e n o t employed I o . 86 | 1.08 I - 0 . 22 | | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed I +o . 7 3 | + C.17 j | w i f e n o t employed I +o . 4 1 | - 0 . 6 5 I ! I +o . 3 2 | + 0 . 8 3 | HUSBAND w i f e employed I 3 . 8 2 | 9 .83 | - 6 . 01 I j w i f e n o t employed | 3 .53 | 9 . 9 9 | - 6 . 46 | TOTAL WORK | | | LOAD | WIFE w i f e employed | 5 .34 I 1 0 . 1 1 | - 4 . 77 | | w i f e n o t employed I 4 .48 | 7 . 3 9 - 2 . 91 | | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed I " 1 . 5 2 | - 0 . 28 \ w i f e n o t employed I - 0 . . 95 | | - 0 . 5 7 | l L + 2 . 6 0 - 2 . 8 8 J 63 status. During the weekend husbands spend about 2 hours le s s doing obligatory housework than t h e i r wives, regardless of whether the wives have a paying job. During the week, however, the husbands of wives with paying jobs spend 2 hours less in these tasks, and the husbands of f u l l - t i m e housewives spend 5 hours less. On the weekend, as compared to the workday, the husbands incraase t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n obligatory tasks by approximately 30 minutes and increase their p a r t i c i p a t i o n in discretionary tasks by approximately 50 minutes. In comparision, the relationship between the wife's contribution to housework and her employment status varies according to the day of the week. Regardless of th e i r employment status, women do approximately the same amount of housework on the weekend. During the workday, however, the wife with a paying job spends 2 hours 10 minutes l e s s time doing obligatory housework than does the f u l l time housewife. VI.. The e f f e c t of the spouses* r e l a t i v e income on husbands* and wives' contributions to household tasks. It was i n t i t i a l l y expected that (1) when the wife's income i s l e s s than or equal to her husband's, the husband w i l l spend more time doing housework than when his wife's income i s greater than h i s . Table XIII c l e a r l y indicates that t h i s i s , in fact, the case. The wife's income has l i t t l e consequence on the 64 husband's pa r t i c i p a t i o n i n obligatory tasks. Nevertheless, the husbands whose wives have a greater income than themselves spend much less time i n discretionary tasks (- 4 hours) than the husbands whose wives have the same or le s s income than themselves. However, when the wife's income i s greater than her husband's the wife with a paying job decreases the amount of time spent i n obligatory tasks (- 2 hours) and i n discretionary tasks (- 1 hour) VII.. The e f f e c t of the husband's education on the husband's and wive's contributions to household tasks. It was expected that the husband's educational attainment would have a positive effect on the relationship between the wife's employment status and the spouses' contributions to household tasks. Table XIV demonstrates that the husband's education i n fact has a negative influence on the spouses' contributions. The husband's education has l i t t l e e f f e c t on the husband's contributions to household tasks. The trend, however, i s that the husbands with some university education spend less time in household tasks than husbands with less education, regardless of the wife's employment status. The husband's education has more of an effect on the amount of time the wife spends on household tasks. The wives of university educated husbands spend about 1 hour less in obligatory and in discretionary tasks than wives TABLE X I I I : H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework by w i v e s ' emp loymen t and by t h e w i f e ' s i ncome r e l a t i v e t o h e r h u s b a n d ' s , d u r i n g a s e v e n day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . WIFE'S INCOME More Than Less t h a n D i f f e r e n c e H u s b a n d ' s H u s b a n d ' s h + _ HUSBAND wife employed 1 3.69 | 3 . 8 8 I - 0 . 1 9 1 1 wife not employed | | 4 . 0 8 I. I OBLIGATORY | 1 1 I | HOUSEWORK | WIFE wife employed I 17 .09 | 19 .25 I - 2 . 1 6 1 ! wife not employed ,' | 3 2 . 4 2 | I I DIFFERENCE wife employed I - 1 3 . 4 0 | - 1 5 . 3 7 - ] i i wife not employed | | - 2 8 . 3 4 | + 1 2 . 9 7 ] HUSBAND wife employed I 0 .94 | 5. 23 I - 4 . 2 9 i i wife not employed | | 3 . 9 1 I | DISCRETIONARY | | | I | HOUSEWORK | WIFE wife employed I 2.38 | 3 . 3 7 I - 0 . 9 9 j | ! wife not employed I I 7. 32 I I I j DIFFERENCE wife employed I - 1 . 4 4 | + 1.86 t ' i i wife not employed | | - 3 . 41 | ! ! + 5. 27 I I HUSBAND wife employed | 56 .83 | 5 8 . 3 2 I - 1 . 4 9 i i wife not employed | | 5 7 . 9 2 | TOTAL WORK | | j 1 LOAD | WIFE wife employed I 6 0 . 9 1 | 6 2 . 03 1 -1-12 1 ! wife not employed J J 4 6 . 4 4 ! ' • I 1 1 DIFFERENCE - wife employed I - 4 . 0 8 | - 3 . 7 1 I 1 1 wife not employed | | +11.48 i i 1 1 I I -"15719 . 1 | TABLE X I V : H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework by w i v e s * emp loymen t and by t h e h u s b a n d ' s e d u c a t i o n , d u r i n g a seven day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . HUSBAND'S EDUCATION Some No D i f f e r e n c e ._ 1 .. U n i v e r s i t y U n i v e r s i t y 1 HUSBAND w i f e employed ___________ _|._ __ __ ___|__ 1 3 . 4 3 | 3 . 9 4 | - 0 . 5 1 | w i f e n o t employed I 3 . 5 5 | 4 . 2 2 | - 0 . 6 7 OBLIGATORY | I | j HOUSE WORK | WIFE w i f e employed I 1 7 . 4 0 | 19 .28 | - 1 . 8 8 j w i f e n o t emp loyed I 3 1 . 7 0 | 3 2 . 7 1 | - 1.01 | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed | - 1 3 . 9 7 | - 1 5 . 3 4 | 1 w i f e n o t employed | - 2 8 . 1 5 | - 2 8 . 4 9 | I +T4~7l8 | + 13.T5 | HUSBAND w i f e employed I 4 . 7 8 | 4 . 6 7 | + 0 . 1 1 | w i f e n o t emp loyed I 3 . 8 9 | 3 .96 | - 0 . 0 7 DISCRETIONARY | | | t HOUSEWORK | WIFE w i f e employed I 2 . 3 3 | 3 . 4 2 | - 1.09 w i f e n o t employed I 6 . 1 8 | 7 .55 | - 1 . 3 7 | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed I + 2 . 4 5 | + 1.25 | i w i f e n o t employed | - 2 . 2 9 1 - 3 . 5 9 | j I + 4 . 7 4 | + 4 . 8 4 | ] HUSBAND w i f e employed | 5 6 . 5 0 | 5 8 . 4 5 | - 1 . 9 5 i w i f e n o t employed I 5 6 . 8 6 | 5 8 . 5 3 | - 1 . 6 7 TOTAL WORK i i 1 LOAD i WIFE w i f e employed | 5 9 . 6 2 | 6 2 . 3 1 | - 2 . 6 9 j w i f e n o t employed I 4 4 . 8 1 | 4 7 . 0 6 | - 2 . 2 5 | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed I - 3 . 1 2 | - 3 . 8 6 | i w i f e n o t employed | +12 .05 | + 11 .47 | j I - 1 5 . 1 7 | - T 5 . 3 3 | _ ____ 1 I 67 without such educated husbands. The influence of the husband's education, however, i s independent of the wife's employment status. VIII.. The ef f e c t of the number of children i n the household on the husband's and wive's contributions to housework. The question of concern i n t h i s section i s to what extent does the number of children i n the household influence the relat i o n s h i p between the wife's employment status and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between the spouses'. I t was expected that, as the number of children increase, the t o t a l amount of time spent i n housework a c t i v i t i e s would increase. The husbands of wives with paying jobs would consequently increase the amount of time spent i n these tasks. The data presented i n Table XV indicate that the amount of time the wife spends in housework i s greater when there are children regardless of whether or not she has paid employment. However, those wives with paying jobs consistently spent 10 to 12 hours less i n obligatory housework than did the f u l l time housewife, independent of the presence of children. In households i n which there were children, employed wives had about a 63 hour work week as compare to a s l i g h t l y shorter work week (59 hours) i f there were no children (see Table XVI) . As i s v i s i b l e i n Tables XV and XVI, the presence of 68 children i n the household increases the husband's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n obligatory housework by about 2 hours and decreases his pa r t i c i p a t i o n i n discretionary tasks by about 1 hour, when there are children, the husband's t o t a l workload i s approximately 5 hours longer than when there are no children i n the household. His t o t a l workload i s , however, the same regardless of whether or not his wife has a paying job. Nevertheless, although the presence of children e f f e c t s the spouses' contributions, the number of children has l i t t l e impact on the husband's contribution to household tasks (see Table XV). To summarize: 1. The presence of children increases the amount of time both husbands and wives spend i n household tasks. 2. The presence of children has r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e influence on the husband's contributions to household tasks, independent of whether the wives have paying jobs. 3. The presence of children has a strong, positive effect on the wife's contributions to obligatory housework. This effect i s stronger for the f u l l - t i m e housewife than the wife with a paying job. IX.. The effect of the age of the youngest c h i l d i n the household on the husband's and wive's contributions to household tasks. TABLE XV: H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework by w i v e s ' e m p l o y m e n t and by t h e p r e s e n c e o f c h i l d r e n , d u r i n g a s e v e n day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . PRESENCE OF CHILDREN' r 1 Presence Absence D i f f e r e n c e OBLIGATORY HOUSEWORK | HUSBAND I WIFE w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed w i f e employed w i f e n o t emp loyed I 4 . 6 6 | | 6 . 1 6 | | 2 6 . 5 6 | | 4 0 . 7 8 | 2 . 6 0 3 . 7 0 13 .63 2 3 . 9 4 | + 2 . 0 6 | + 2 . 4 6 I +12.93 | + 1 6 . 8 4 | DIFFERENCE - L . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . w i f e employed w i f e n o t emp loyed | -21 .90 | I - 3 4 . 6 2 | I +12 .72 | - 1 1 . 0 3 - 2 0 . 2 0 + 9 . 1 7 i DISCRETIONARY HOUSEWORK | HUSBAND | WIFE w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed I 4 . 9 2 | 1 3 .37 | I 4 . 9 9 | I 5 . 4 6 | 3 .97 5 .02 2 .64 9.01 I + 0 . 9 5 I - 1 . 6 5 I + 2 . 3 5 I - 3 . 5 5 I DIFFERENCE w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t employed 1 - 0 . 0 7 | I - 2 . 0 9 | I + 2702 | • 1. 33 - 3 .99 + 5 .32 TOTAL WORK LOAD | HUSBAND | WIFE w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t employed | 6 0 . 3 0 | I 6 0 . 7 9 | I 6 3 . 4 2 | I 5 2 . 8 3 | 5 5. 5.4 5 5 . 7 9 5 9 . 3 0 4 1. 67 I + 4 . 7 6 | + 5 . 0 0 | + 4 . 1 2 | + 1 1 . 1 6 | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed 1 -3 . 12 | I + 7 .96 | I - 1 T . 0 9 | - 3 . 7 6 + 14. 12 - 1 7 . 8 8 r TABLE X V I : H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework by w i v e s ' emp loymen t and by t h e number o f c h i l d r e n d u r i n g a seven day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) . NUMBER OF CHILDREN OBLIGATORY HOUSEWORK DISCRETIONARY HOUSEWORK T O T A L WORK L O A D HUSBAND WIFE DIFFERENCE HUSBAND WIFE DIFFERENCE HUSBAND WIFE DIFFERENCE w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e e m p l o y e d w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e e m p l o y e d w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t e m p l o y e d no c h i l d r e n 1 c h i l d 2 c h i l d r e n | , . — — — ———1. >3 c h i l d r e n 2 . 6 8 | 4 . 6 3 — 1 .«•-.- — — — ——— | I 5. 19 | 5 . 3 0 3 . 66 | 3 . 1 0 I 4 .06 | 4 . 26 13 .49 I 19 .14 | 2 0 . 6 5 | 2 2 . 6 8 2 3 . 8 4 | 3 2 . 7 9 | 34 .97 | 35 ' .01 - 1 0 . 8 1 I - 1 4 . 5 1 I - 1 5 . 4 6 | - 1 7 . 3 8 - 2 0 . 1 8 | - 2 9 . 6 9 | - 3 0 . 9 1 | - 3 0 . 7 5 + 9. 37 | + 1 5 . 1 8 | +T5 .45 | + 13737 4 . 3 1 I 5 .53 I 6 .40 | 2 . 38 4 . 6 1 I 3 .87 | 3 .25 | 4 . 2 2 2 .44 I 5 .04 1 1-92 | 4 . 2 2 9 . 0 1 I 9 . 3 2 t " . 7 6 | 7 . 0 3 + 1 .87 | +0 .49 I +4 .48 | - 1 . 8 4 - 4 . 4 0 . | - 5 . 4 5 1 - 1 . 5 1 | - 2 . 8 1 • + 6727 I + 5 . 9 4 | + 5 . 9 9 | + 3797 5 6 . 3 4 | 5 9 . 3 1 | 6 0 . 7 8 | 5 7 . 3 6 5 5 . 0 8 | 5 4 . 8 5 I 58 .35 | 6 0 . 1 4 5 9 . 0 3 | 6 7 . 0 0 | 64 .74 | 6 2 . 7 6 4 2 . 11 | 4 7 . 4 6 I 4 5 . 1 3 | 4 9 . 4 8 • - 2 . 6 9 | - 7 . 6 9 I - 3 . 9 6 | - 5 . 4 0 + 1 2 . 9 7 | + 7 . 3 9 | +13 .22 | + 1 0 . 6 6 - 1 5 . 6 6 | - 1 5 . 0 8 1 - 1 7 . 1 8 | - 1 6 . 0 6 •«4 O 71 The concern of thi s section i s to determine i f the age of the youngest c h i l d has any ef f e c t on the relat i o n s h i p between the wife's employment status and the spouses 1 contributions to household tasks. Since time spent i n housework i s l i k e l y to be greater when the children are young, i t was expected that the husbands of wives with a paying job would increase the amount of time they spend in these tasks. Table XVII indicates that when the youngest c h i l d i s les s than six years old both spouses devote more time to housework than when the c h i l d i s older. The husbands increase t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n obligatory tasks by about 2 hours and the wives by about 8 hours. With regard to the spouses' t o t a l workload, in households i n which the youngest c h i l d was less than s i x years of age, wives with a paying job had a 63 hour work week as compared to a somewhat shorter work week (62 hours) i f the youngest c h i l d was older than six years of age. Their husbands' t o t a l workload was about 3 hours greater when there was a pre-school c h i l d in the household and the wife had a paying job. When the wife did not have a paying job they increased th e i r t o t a l workload by about 4 hours. Therefore, although there were r e l a t i v e l y few mothers with a pre-school c h i l d , those who were employed at a paying job did receive more help from t h e i r husbands than the wives with no paying job. 1 TABLE X V I I : H u s b a n d s ' and w i v e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o housework by w i v e s ' emp loyment and by t h e age o f t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d , d u r i n g a seven day week ( i n mean h o u r s ) AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD r — — — — — —— < 6 Years > 6 Years D i f f e r e n c e | i | OBLIGATORY | HOUSEWORK | HUSBAND | WIFE w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed 1 6 . 27 | 1 6 . 1 9 | I 2 5 . 8 7 | I 3 9 . 5 6 | 3 . 9 2 | 3 . 3 8 | 17 .84 | 2 9 . 0 9 | + 2 . 3 5 | + 3 . 1 1 | + 8 . 0 3 | + 1 0 . 4 7 | | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed I - 1 9 . 6 0 | I - 3 1 . 0 7 | I + 1 3 . 4 7 | - 1 3 . 9 2 | - 2 5 . 7 1 | + 1 1 . 7 9 | i | DISCRETIONARY | HOUSEWORK | HUSBAND | WIFE w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t employed w i f e employed w i f e n o t emp loyed I 9 . 4 5 | I 4 - 8 1 | I *».57 | I 6 .14 | 5 . 0 7 | 4 . 7 1 | 3 . 0 6 | 7 . 6 4 | ••' "• •" • '—1 + 4 . 3 8 | + 0 . 1 0 | + 1 . 5 1 | - 1 . 5 0 | | DIFFERENCE w i f e employed w i f e n o t employed I + 4 . 8 8 | I -lull I I + 6 . 2 1 | + 2 . 0 7 | - 2 ^ 9 3 | + 5 . 0 0 | . _ _., j TOTAL WORK LOAD HUSBAND WIFE DIFFERENCE w i f e employed w i f e n o t emp loyed w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t employed w i f e emp loyed w i f e n o t employed 5 7 . 5 5 6 0 . 7 4 6 2 . 8 0 5 2 . 5 1 - 5 . 2 5 + 8.23 rl3748 5 4 . 7 6 5 6 . 31 6 1.86 4 3 . 7 6 - 7 . 10 + 12.. 55 r T 9 . 6 5 + 2 . 7 9 + 4 . 4 3 + 0 . 9 4 + 8 . 7 5 In summary, the data i n Table XVII indicates that: 1. The presence of a pre-school c h i l d increases the amount of time both husbands and wives spend i n household tasks. 2. The presence of a pre-school c h i l d has a positive ef f e c t on the husband's contributions to obligatory tasks. This e f f e c t , however, i s independent of the wife's employment status. 3. The presence of a pre-school c h i l d has a positive effect on the husband's contributions to discretionary tasks. This e f f e c t i s stronger when the i r wives are employed at a paying job. 4. The presence of a pre-school c h i l d has a strong postive e f f e c t on the wife's contributions to obligatory housework, p a r t i c u l a r i t y that of the wife with a paying job. X. Conclusion The time budget data c l e a r l y indicate that the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for providing services for the family rests with the wife and mother. In spite of considerable discussion i n the media of changes i n the roles of men and women, there i s evidence of much inequality i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of housework r e s p o n s i b i l i t y between the spouses. The data show quite unequivocably that variations i n the husband's contribution to housework are not related to the employment status of the wife. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , despite the increased burden placed on women who, for example, are employed at a paying job and have pre-school children, the husbands f a i l to a l t e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y their p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n housework. When the wife with a paying job was a mother of a pre-school c h i l d , her t o t a l work week averaged about 63 hours, compared to 57 hours f o r her husband. The time budget data indicate, then, a gross inequality in the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between husbands and wives. The next two chapters of t h i s thesis w i l l consider the spouses' evaluation of the dilemmas which aris e when both husband and wife are employed at a paying job, to what extent these dilemmas resu l t i n s t r a i n f o r the wife and/or the couple, and how the couple manages t h i s s t r a i n . 75 CHAPTER V HUSBANDS.1 AND WIVESJ_ PERCEPTIOHS AND EVALUATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF LABOUR BETWEEN-THE SPOUSES~ The findings reported i n the preceding chapter indicate that men generally spend l i t t l e time doing housework and that t h i s contribution i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y altered by whether or not their wife i s employed i n the labour force. In other words, the time-budget data indicate that the women's employment status has l i t t l e impact on the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between the husband and wife. * In order to obtain some understanding of spouses' perceptions and evaluations of t h i s phenomena, ten married couples were interviewed, each separately. For the purpose of presentation, the data from these interviews w i l l be included in t h i s thesis i n the form of summaries.. Since the presentation of summaries necessitates s e l e c t i o n , c r i t e r i a w i l l be discussed according to which data were included i n the summaries. The summaries provide information related to four areas in the couple's l i f e : t heir background, t h e i r occupational and domestic a c t i v i t i e s , and t h e i r ideology of sex roles. The background information includes the age and sex of family members, length of marriage, occupations of the couple's parents, and the occupations of the husband and wife. In 76 addition to t h i s basic information any further background information which either spouse deemed as relevant to explanations of his or her behavior or attitudes were also included i n the summary. With regard to the occupational sphere, the information presented for husbands i s to some extent d i f f e r e n t from that of their wives. Included are the reasons why the wife does or does not work i n a paid job, whether the presence or absence of children i s a condition, the spouses' description and evaluation of t h e i r own occupation and, i n the case of the husband, his description and evaluation of his wife's occupation. The information concerning the domestic sphere deals with the question of how r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for household tasks are allocated, and why they are allocated i n t h i s manner. The summaries also include a more general statement of how the husband and wife perceive t h e i r role i n the family and in society at large. Three interviews are presented i n t h i s chapter as i l l u s t r a t i o n s and the remaining seven interviews are included in Appendix I. The summaries presented i n the following pages are i l l u s t r a t i v e of couples of which the husband i s employed f u l l -time and the wife i s not employed (Case 1), the wife i s employed on a part-time basis (Case 2), and the wife i s employed f u l l time (Case 3) . 77 I s . Case XL The Housewife and The Telepjhone Repair Man Mr. and Mrs. Linton have been married for twelve years. This was the second marriage f o r both of them. Mr. Linton i s forty-three years old and Mrs. Linton i s t h i r t y - f o u r . They have four children, three sons and one daughter. The sons are sixteen, eleven, and f i v e years old and the daughter i s fourteen years old. The family resides in a very small, d i l a p i t a t e d home located i n Burnaby Central. Both Mr. And Mrs. Linton were born and raised in Vancouver. Mr. Linton»s father worked as a farmer and his mother as a housewife. Mrs. Linton's parents both were employed; her father as a butcher and her mother as a cleaning lady. For the past twenty years Mr. Linton has been employed as an i n s t a l l e r - repairman for B.C. Telephone. Mrs. Linton has worked as a housewife for the past ten years. Housewife^ Mrs. Linton Mrs. Linton was married when she was seventeen years old. She worked f o r the following four years as a shorthand stenographer in an attempt to support her husband and t h e i r two children. At the age of twenty-three Mrs. Linton was divorced 78 and within the year married to Mr. Linton. Since that time she has worked as a housewife. The reason why Mrs. Linton has not taken a job i n the labour force i s that she doesn't think that women should work unless that have to for f i n a n c i a l reasons. To quote Mrs. Linton: "I don't believe i n mothers working when they have young children. As a matter of fact I don't believe in mothers working when they've got older children at home, i f i t ' s going to c o n f l i c t with the hours the kids are at home and create problems. No matter how old the kids are they need the mother in the home." Mrs. Linton f e e l s that being a housewife i s a "thankless job". Housework i s a drudgery, something one does over and over again only to have the family undo i t . She describes her position as "just l i k e being in prison". She was quite confident that i f she weren't the type of person who had a s o c i a l l i f e , she'd go mad. When they grow up, i t seems to Mrs. Linton, men are always thinking about th e i r future i n the "working world". Women, on the other hand, see marriage as an end-all. However, "when you get married you r e a l i z e i t i s n ' t the end-all. The kids grow up and there you are". Mr. Linton, she f e e l s , leads an independent l i f e , so i t i s up to her to lead her own l i f e . This necessitates "having the resources to make a l i f e for (herself)". For t h i s reason, Mrs. Linton has been working for the past f i v e years at completing her grade twelve education. 79 Mrs. Linton has experienced considerable stress as a consequence of t r y i n g to upgrade her education. In her view, Mr. Linton's attitude has been one of the major contributors to her s t r e s s . "He resents the time which I don't spend in the house. Actually, to be quite honest, I think he would l i k e me to be a f u l l - t i m e housekeeper and forget any other thoughts I might have i n my head except devoting myself e n t i r e l y to the house and to him...,He's sort of l i k e the warden around here. He checks things out to see what has been done and what hasn't been done, rather that showing an i n t e r e s t i n the family as people. I get i n a panic about getting the housework done by the time he gets home." A second major contributor to the stress experienced by Mrs. Linton was the fact that she found she has " l i t t l e time else for doing housework, doing homework, running off to night school, and s e l l i n g Avon products". As a r e s u l t , she says, " I just run through the house as fast as I can". This was acceptable to her as, from her point of view, "the house w i l l always be here so, as long as things are sanitary I don't make a big deal about i t " . Her husband, however, seems to hold a d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n as to what constitutes "necessary" housework. This i s a point of considerable antagonism between Mr. and Mrs. Linton. She doesn't f e e l that she has the time to do anything other than what she considers to be the most necessary housework and Mr. Linton finds t h i s to be t o t a l l y unacceptable. Since Mrs. Linton has just completed grade twelve, she now 80 plans to take a two year nursing program. Nevertheless, i n Mrs. Linton's mind "that's going to be a r e a l l j big undertaking and I've s t i l l got a l o t to think about. I r e a l l y don't know i f I can handle i t " . She anticipates at least two major d i f f i c u l t i e s . F i r s t of a l l , she doesn't f e e l that she can ask her husband for the t u i t i o n fee. (This i s why she i s s e l l i n g Avon produ c t s — t o save money f o r her tuition.) She senses that her husband " i s n ' t happy about her going going to school", and she doesn't know i f he even has the money. Secondly, Mrs. Linton i s vary unsure how she w i l l be able to take the nursing course and run the home. Her husband w i l l not do housework and the children are too busy to help. Besides, in her opinion, "I can't expect the children to f i l l my shoes, and their schooling i s more important at t h i s stage i n the game. As far as the kids go, I wouldn't s a c r i f i c e t h e i r rearing f o r my education or for my future. I would care for th e i r needs f i r s t . " Mrs. Linton c l e a r l y f e e l s the housework to be her re s p o n s i b i l i t y . This i s because "my husband's working and I'm not, therefore, while he's bringing i n the income c e r t a i n l y i t ' s my place to keep our dwelling up to par". Mrs. Linton stated that although her husband "absolutely refused to help with the housawork" the children do help her on occasion. They do not help very much, but she sees t h i s as reasonable since, as she says, "I didn't want my kids to have to go to school a l l day and 81 then come home and work for me". Nevertheless, she mentioned that she wished her daughter would just help her without being asked. When she does ask the children to help, they complain and she i s too t i r e d to argue. "I fin d the l i n e of lea s t resistance i s ju s t to do i t myself." Mrs. Linton has given consideration to taking a job in the labour force but has rejected that notion. The following statement i s perhaps most i l l u s t r a t i v e of her attitude towards t h i s matter: " I f I had a choice, which I do rig h t now, of going out to work for luxuries or staying at home and being a good mother to my kids, I would much rather be a good mother to my kids! Material things aren't as important as r a i s i n g children properly." When asked to consider the relat i o n s h i p between the amount of time the wife spends working at her job and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of household tasks between husbands and wives, Mrs. Linton responded: "I think i f a wife i s working f u l l - t i m e then d e f i n i t e l y they should both share the housework i f they're both enjoying the money and i f t h i s i s what the husband wants too. I f the husband has said 'Look I don't want you to work' and she just goes out and works anyway, she's doing that on her own. If he's bringing i n s u f f i c i e n t income then she should have to make sure she gets her work done!" If she were working, Mrs. Linton f e e l s , she would f a l l into the l a t t e r category. That i s , her husband would not approve of her working, she would not need to work for f i n a n c i a l reasons, and consequently she would "have to make sure she gets her work dona". Mrs. Linton appeared to have given consideration to 82 thesa " f a c t s " and concluded that, at the moment at lea s t , she does not f e e l that she could cope with the added r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of a job i n the labour force. The Telephone Repairman:. Mr._ Linton As a long-time employee of the telephone company Mr. Linton has become d i s s a t i s f i e d with h i s work. Although he considers himself to be a "craftsman" he feels that the "young kids today have l o s t t h e i r pride and sense of accomplishment in the job". Mr. Linton would l i k e to quit his job but he i s too old and he does not have another trade. Mr. Linton i s happy that his wife i s a housewife as he "doesn't think that women should work unless they have to". After a l l , he says, "there's nothing worse than coming home at night and having to cook your own supper!" Besides t h i s , in his opinion i t i s important for the mother to be at home i f there i s a young c h i l d i n the family as " t h e i r personality i s formed when they're small" and the children get lonely. Mr. Linton was asked how he would f e e l i f his wife took a job when the children were a l l i n school. He was rather adamant i n his reply: "I'd want her home when the kids come home from school or at least when I get home from work. I'm sure as h e l l not cooking my own supper! I didn't get married 83 fo r that!!" Since Mrs. Linton i s considering training as a nurse Mr. Linton was asked how he f e l t about t h i s . Although he noted that " i f she wants to work, that's her perogative" he had a rather negative attitude towards i t . B a s i c a l l y t h i s was i n response to the hours she would be working rather that the fact of her working. As he says, " H e l l , she'd s t a r t working night s h i f t or a s i x o'clock s h i f t . I'd come home and nobody would be here. No, I don't agree with i t myself!" Mr. Linton considers his housework r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to be the "outside work". This includes gardening, painting, building, and general maintenance. When asked whether he did any "inside housework" he responded that "There's no way I'm going to do i t ! I've got four kids and a wife!" In Mr. Linton's opinion housework i s his wife's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . He works a l l day and he does not want to come home at night and vacuum or wash dishes. I f his wife were working, Mr. Linton suggested that he s t i l l wouldn't help her because she wouldn't "need" to work and she would have four children to help her anyway. More generally, Mr. Linton f e e l s that "womens place i s in the home". "In a sense, that was what they were put on earth f o r , bearing children and caring for them. The majority of women, that's what they're adapted to. They have the patience and the know how." 84 In the "working world" Mr. Linton distinguishes between men's jobs and women's jobs and i s very much opposed to women "taking over" men's jobs. For example, he doesn't f e e l that i t i s "proper" for a woman to climb a telephone pole. Mr. Linton noted, however, that there are a number of jobs i n the telephone repair shop which women can do. He describes these jobs i n the following terms: "There are a l o t of jobs i n the repair shop that are so damn monotonous that the men don't want them so the g i r l s do it....women are better at these sorts of jobs. They have more patience and are more conscientious. " 85 H i . !_<_.§§• 2.1 The Nurse and The Lawyer Mr. and Mrs. Ervine have been married for twenty years, Mr. Ervine i s forty-nine years old and his wife i s forty-three. There are three children i n the family, two daughters and one son. The children are aged nineteen, seventeen, and f i f t e e n respectively. The family resides in a luxurious home i n a secluded area of West Vancouver. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ervine were raised on the P r a i r i e s . Mr. Ervine 1s father worked as a re a l t o r and his mother as a housewife. Mrs. Ervine's mother also worked as a housewife and her father as manager of a clothing store. Mr. Ervine has been employed as a lawyer for the past twenty-one years. Although Mrs. Ervine has just quit her job, she has worked for the past four years as a nurse-receptionist i n a doctor's o f f i c e . This was a part-time job i n which she worked an average of about three days per week. The Hurse: MrSj_ Ervine Mrs. Ervine was married, worked f u l l - t i m e as a nurse for two years and then with the b i r t h of her f i r s t c h i l d , quit her job and worked as a f u l l - t i m e housewife for the next sixteen years. Four years ago Mrs. Ervine decided to work as a nurse 86 again, t h i s time on a part-time basis. She has worked as a nurse-receptionist i n a doctor's o f f i c e , three days a week, f o r the past four years. She had just quit t h i s job two months before the interview. Mrs. Ervine explained why she went back to nursing a f t e r being out of the labour force f o r sixteen years. "I f e l t unsure and was lacking confidence. I had to prove i t to myself that I could do something other than be around the house, take courses, or things l i k e t h i s . . . to prove that I was marketable. I'm not sure now that I should worry about that (laughter). I'm inc l i n e d to think that to be a f u l l y developed person you can r e a l l y be a going concern as a housewife and as a female person not i n the marketplace...." She also f e l t that she had been doing much volunteer work, and that she might as well be paid for her time. Although Mrs. Ervine described her job as "stimulating", she was not s a t i s f i e d with her working conditions. One reason was that her work was not f l e x i b l e — " y o u can't arrange i t around your own needs and i n t e r e s t s " . Whenever the family was free to do something, she was the one who was busy. Her work therefore became "a dividing thing i n the family". The second reason why she quit her job was that she just didn't have "the energy to carry two jobs". That i s , "when I was working I just hated coming home to cooking, to dishes, to cleaning, and a l l the rest". In general she f e l t "trapped" in her work, to the extent that she "couldn't concentrate on the houss or anything i n i t . . . . " 87 Mrs. Ervine provided the following description of the circumstances i n her family at the time at which she a c t u a l l y did quit her job. "I think my husband came to resent my working. I think i t was when I was working, going to college, and my sister-in-law came to v i s i t . I got upset and couldn't cope with a l l three at once. He just suddenly withdrew his support (laughter), emotional or otherwise. I was l e f t to understand that i f I wanted to get myself into t h i s s i t u a t i o n I'd have to cope with i t or get myself out of i t (laughter). That was the point at which I decided to get myself out of i t (laughter). Up u n t i l then he had been kind of neutral. That was quite a traumatic experience." When asked i f she had considered working when the children were younger, Mrs. Ervine said that she c e r t a i n l y had not. In her view, mothers and children have a great deal to learn from one a n o t h e r — " i t ' s part of a growing experience. If you missed out on i t you've missed out on something that's very important!" Although Mrs. Ervine hated the "drudgery housework" she was not unhappy being a housewife. The advantages, as she sees them, are that "you're not doing the same thing a l l the time. To me thi s makes l i f e more intere s t i n g than having to do certain routine things a l l the time". As a housewife, however, Mrs. Ervine feels that she experiences " a l l of the pressures that women have on them to be everything—to work, to go to college, to be a craftsman, to be a clubswoman and so on". Her ambivalence i s i l l u s t r a t e d in the following quotation: "I was always able to see a l l the great things that people did, but I never saw the corners they cut i n order to be able to do these things.... It*s an / 88 inadequate f e e l i n g , you know. Everyone else i s doing i t much better and they're just such r e a l stars. You know the kind of fee l i n g (laughter). Everyone gets those fe e l i n g s , don't they?" As a housewife Mrs. Ervine describes herself as a "p e r f e c t i o n i s t " . However, she doesn't f e e l that she has a household routine. She says that she i s t o t a l l y unorganized—"a h i t and miss sort of person". Mrs. Ervine gets up at eight, has breakfast and does the dishes. . She then has a bath and "gets dressed for the day". After that point there i s no routine apart from the fac t that she does try to complete her housework by the weekend. Mrs. Ervine f e e l s that her family does help her out with the housework, p a r t i c u l a r l y her daughters. They do the laundry, help with the cooking, clean t h e i r own rooms and tidy up around the house. Her son helps his Dad i n the yard, takes the garbage out and i s expected to help with the dishes every night. He often does not do the dishes, however, as he has to play hockey, soccer, or the l i k e . Mr. Ervine "pitches i n " with the dishes, pays the b i l l s , and works around the yard. Nevertheless, "he never does as much as I want him to do" (laughter). She complained that Mr, Ervine "doesn't help me with the yard enough and things that are heavy that I r e a l l y can't do . I'm r e a l l y i r a t e about i t ! " Mrs. Ervine expected him to do these things because her father had done them—"it was part of being man of the house", Mr. 89 Ervine's father, however, "never l i f t e d a finger at home". She does not think that her husband r e a l i z e s that, i f you do not do i t yourself, you have to hire somebody to do i t . Mrs. Ervine does not expect her husband to do very much of the housework because she i s not employed. If she were working and she "had to work" she would expect her husband to share the housework. Mrs. Ervine did not f e e l , i f she were working for s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t , that she could ask him to help her with the housework. As she says, "I spend a f a i r amount of my day seeking f u l f i l m e n t even i f I'm not working, so working i s n ' t a dif f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n i n that case". To the question of the roles of men and women i n t h i s society, Mrs. Ervine's opinion was that the man should be the "breadwinner" and the woman the "homemaker". This, she fe e l s , i s a consequence of the b i o l o g i c a l differences between the sexes. "Women have the potential to be a relaxed, nurturing i n d i v i d u a l . A man has the potential of being a driving, manipulating person. The mixing up of these roles would blunt t h i s p o t e n t i a l . " In her own case Mrs. Ervine f e e l s more "comfortable" as a homemaker. It i s her position that she could not cope with working at a job and r a i s i n g a family. As she says, "I'd be doing a shoddy job one way or other and I f e e l , for myself, more comfortable i n the house". Besides t h i s , "with the interruption of having babies and r a i s i n g them, you haven't got the long-term 90 application to a job that would r e a l l y make for a competent professional person". Although Mrs. Ervine f e e l s that "the wife's role i s as important as the man's," she said that she used to f e e l rather i n f e r i o r . When asked why she f e l t i n f e r i o r she responded: "Women f e e l inadequate...because so much i s geared to money. She's got to f i n d other s a t i s f a c t i o n s i f she's going to be a housewife. She's probably better o f f to fi n d them and to explore her p o s s i b i l i t i e s than she i s to work for a d o l l a r . . . . " The _awyer]_ Mr.. Ervine As a lawyer working i n c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n , Mr. Ervine finds his job to be extremely i n t e r e s t i n g . He works under considerable pressure but he enjoys this aspect of the job and i n f a c t has sought i t out. Although he generally works from nine to f i v e , at least one night a week he works " u n t i l a l l hours", generally before a t r i a l . When asked how he f e l t about h i s wife working away from home, Mr. Ervine responded, " i f women want to work, i t ' s up to them, as long as they can handle what's on at home". He further q u a l i f i e d t h i s statement with the remark that "unless the woman i s miserable at home and i f there's enough money coming into the house, i t ' s probably better for the woman to stay at home and 91 look a f t e r the kids". Mr. Ervine's view of his wife holding a job i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the following quote: "When the wife was bored I was a l l for her going to work. Everytime she gets bored, I t e l l her to go to work (laughter). The alt e r n a t i v e i s always there. I have no objections to i t i f she f e e l s happier there." Mr. Ervine has what he c a l l s a "pet theory" as to what would give housewives the fu l f i l m e n t they lack. Each husband would hire h i s neighbour's wife as a housekeeper. The husbands would pay the wives a good wage and the women would f e e l as though they were working. Hr. Ervine believes t h i s to be a "Utopian" suggestion but fe e l s that " i t ' s worth a thought". With regard to women's p r i o r i t i e s , Mr. Ervine's attitude i s that t h e i r f i r s t p r i o r i t y should be the family. The reason f o r t h i s i s that "women are brought up to be good mothers while men have been educated so that they can earn more than a woman. It i s therefore economically smarter for men to work than f o r a woman to do so". I f for some reason the man cannot work then of course the woman should "take over". Mr. Ervine views household chores to some extent as a family r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Everyone i s responsible for looking after t h e i r own rooms, cleaning t h e i r own mess, making their bed and putting d i r t y laundry in the laundry bag. "Everyone" does not seem to include Mr. Ervine however, as he has none of these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . In addition to these general tasks, his daughters help with the dishes, the vacuum cleaning and the 92 cooking. His son presses his pants, empties out waste baskets, takes out the garbage, and does such "outside chores" as mowing the lawn, cleaning gutters, gardening and such. Mr. Ervine's opinion i s that boys should learn how to do " t r a d i t i o n a l l y male jobs" — those things which require " b u l l strength". He also believes that his son should learn the basic chores inside the house so that he could survive while "batching". Nevertheless he also noted that "a boy shouldn't be confined to the house". Following t h i s statement, Mr. Ervine's seventeen year old daughter interrupted the interview with the comment: "I don't think a woman should be confined to the house either. I hate i t ! I'd much rather work out i n the yard for the weekend than be i n s i d e , because i t gives me a headache!" Mr. Ervine r e p l i e d : "Then you should get your work finished inside and then come outside (laughter) ." Mr. Ervine mentioned that while Mrs. Ervine was working as a nurse he made the children do more housework. However, he did not do any more housework himself. When asked about the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for housework when both husband and wife have ful l - t i m e jobs, Mr. Ervine f e l t that i t depended on the pressures on them. More s p e c i f i c a l l y : " I f the guy comes home completely beat because he's got a job of much more pressure and his wife has a job because she's bored with the housework, t h i s gives her a l i f t and she's more up to do the housework." 93 III;. Case 3_x The Keypunch Operator and The Machine Operator Mr. and Mrs. Kelly are i n their mid-thirties and have been "happily married" for the past nine years. This i s Mrs. K e l l y ' s second marriage. The Kelly's have three children, one son and two daughters, aged eleven, eight, and three years respectively. The family presently resides i n a very small, run-down home i n the east end of Vancouver. Mr. Kelly was born and raised i n Vancouver. Mrs. Kelly was born i n Austria and at the age of nine years immigrated to Vancouver with her parents. Both Mr. and Mrs. Kelly have working class backgrounds. Mr. Kelly's father i s a laborer and his mother a housewife. Mrs. Kelly's parents both work as furniture f i n i s h e r s . It i s important to note that neither Mr. or Mrs. Kelly have had much formal education. Mr. Kelly spent seven years i n elementary school and Mrs. Kelly spent one year in high school. Mr. Kelly f e e l s that for a l l intents and purposes he i s i l l i t e r a t e . Mr. Kelly presently i s employed as a machine operator for a canning company. He has worked at t h i s company for two months. Mrs. Kelly works as a keypunch operator, six hours a day, f i v e days a week. She works the night s h i f t and has been doing so for the past fourteen months. 94 The Keypunch Operator:. K r s i Kelly Mrs. Kelly has had to go to work, fo r the past fourteen months, i n an attempt to help support the family. She works as a keypunch operator from six to twelve i n the evening, f i v e days a week. Mrs. Kelly "detests" working i n general and her job in p a r t i c u l a r . She d i s l i k e s her job as a keypunch operator because there i s always work to be done. The work i s never completed so that there i s no time to s o c i a l i z e with her fellow workers. Further, the work i s "so boring!" She f e e l s that "to go down there (to work) i s my prison". It i s working i n general which Mrs. Kelly d i s l i k e s . One of the reasons i s that she does not think that mothers should work i f i t i s not necessary. She observed, however, that she i s "s t a r t i n g to be a dying breed as far as wanting to stay home with the kids". Mrs. Kelly f e e l s very g u i l t y about leaving her children i n order to go to work, and t h i s i s only lessened by the fact that she has to go to work—"it's not a question of wanting to". She describes her g u i l t i n the following terms: "My g u i l t i s working at me i n that I could be at work but I'm so glad to be here. You're working against yourself. I'm torn two ways—for having gone to work and I f e e l I've missed a year in the kids' l i f e . " 95 A second source of g u i l t arises from the fact that her husband i s working at a "steady job" now and she could possibly quit her job. However, i f she works a l i t t l e longer they would be able to save enough money f o r a "rainy day". Although she senses that i t bothers her husband that she continues to work she i s anxious about q u i t t i n g . Mrs. Kelly i s reluctant to indicate t h i s to her husband as " t h i s i s sort of t e l l i n g him that I don't think you're going to make enough". Mrs. Kelly has found that apart from fe e l i n g g u i l t y about working at her job, she i s unable to complete her housework. In fact, she noted "my house has never been t h i s bad before. I find I just can't get anything done. Most of the time I'm t i r e d and just can't get going i n the morning". When asked how she manages the housework, the children and her job, she responded that she just did "whatever needs to be done the worst around the house". As a consequence "something has to give and i n my case i t ' s my sleep. That builds up and I f i n d that af t e r fourteen months you get worn out. I'm just t i r e d . I get a maximum of six hours of sleep a night". Although she had considered working at a job during the day, she had rejected the idea as i t would have meant she'd have had to send her youngest daughter to a day-care centre. Since she works i n the evening her husband acts as the babysitter. Besides, "(my daughter) i s awfully sensitive and i t wouldn't be good f o r her to be put out". 96 Mrs. Kelly's day i s usually spent in the following fashion. At 7:45 she gets up and gets the family up. She then makes breakfast, packs her husband's lunch, sends the children to school and her husband to work. By 8:30 she "grabs a cup of coffee and then I'm on the run". Dishes are washed, beds are made and the laundry i s started. She "just gets started" and i t ' s noon and time to make lunch. As soon as the children are back at school she puts her youngest daughter to bed. Mrs. Kelly then t r i e s to spend the next f o r t y - f i v e minutes getting ready to go to work. By 3:00 her husband i s home and that's the end of her "working day". She then talks to Mr. Kelly while preparing dinner. Mrs. Kelly leaves for work at U:30 and doesn't return u n t i l about 12:30 that evening. Before going to bed she spends about an hour "tidying up". Having described her household routine, Mrs. Kelly remarked: "You'll f i n d there i s n ' t much le i s u r e time but I suppose I'm a slow worker. I'm always being pushed for time from the time I get up!" Although Mrs. Kelly "detests" her job as a keypunch operator, she does enjoy being a housewife. When commenting on her household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s she said that: "This i s my job. I t ' s sort of the thing that I'm running. I sort of enjoy the thought that I'm home with the kids and doing my thing and that I'm finished doing i t when my husband gets home...then we can enjoy each other as a family." Because she's working her husband "helps her out" by doing the dishes and taking care of the children. As well as t h i s he 97 looks a f t e r the "outside work". Generally, Mrs. Kelly l i k e s her husband to be the "breadwinner" and herself to be the "homemaker". When asked why she preferred t h i s role she responded i n the following fashion: " I t s u i t s me a l o t better. He's appreciated my helping him but he prefers me here at home. For instance he l i k e s me doing the dishes while he reads the paper...then he doesn't have to think about them. I prefer to be at home doing the dishes than going down to the prison...." The Machine Operator:. _.£•. Kelly Because of Mr. Kelly's poor educational background he has worked at a multitude of laboring jobs over the past f i f t e e n years. He presently i s working as a machine operator i n a canning company. He describes t h i s work i n the following terms: "Where I'm working now an i d i o t could do the job. You work behind the machine and the machine t e l l s you what to do. You can get lazy r e a l quick. Right now I'm too old to s t a r t fooling around with anything else so I ' l l stay where I am." Mr. Kelly f e e l s that although his wife has had to work to help him along he doesn't l i k e his wife to work. His general attitude i s that once a woman wants to get married and have children "that's their job!" They've committed themselves to bring the c h i l d up " r i g h t " . The daycare centre or th e i r 98 neighbor i s n ' t committed but the wife i s . "As long as the husband i s making enough money to keep them going then the wife ought to do her job!" In the case of his wife working " i t ' s just to help me out. Mow she's going to quit because she doesn't f e e l well and I think I can make enough money just to get by with. I f she wants to continue, she continues without my help. I would be very unhappy!" Even though Mr. Kelly f e e l s that "women are more capable of looking aft e r children than men are" he doesn't mind looking after the children while his wife goes to work. However, he noted that i t was s t a r t i n g to bother him somewhat. What disturbs him i s that: "I come home and I may be t i r e d and just want to lay down and catch a l i t t l e (sleep) but you can't do i t with three kids around". In Mr. Kelly's opinion he does "quite a b i t of housework". Generally he does the "heavy" work and she does the " l i g h t " work. The "heavy" work consists of scrubbing the walls and f l o o r s , painting, mowing the lawn, and gardening. Sometimes he resents the fact that he has to do t h i s work. He describes t h i s f e e l i n g i n the following terms: "I think—why the h e l l do I have to scrub these bloody walls any she couldn't get up on a step ladder and do the same bloody thing! My Dad never did i t . Why the h e l l do I have to do them?" He concluded that he did them because his wife didn't have the 99 time and he wanted to help her out. Mr. Kelly pointed out, however, that he chose to help her but that she couldn't make him do i t . When asked why t h i s was the case he replied, "There i s n ' t any weapon a woman can use. A woman can't hurt me". Mr. Kelly suggested that he would be w i l l i n g to do more housework but that his wife usually had i t done by the time he got home from work. Also, his wife seems to want to do some household tasks herself. For instance, Mr. Kelly stated that he didn't know how to work the washing machine. His wife does a l l the washing, on a da i l y basis, and "won't l e t (him) get near the machine. She says 'It's my machine and you leave i t alone". As a general view of the role of husband and wife Mr. Kelly f e l t that i t was his job to be the breadwinner and his wife's job to be the homemaker. He was of the opinion that these were their "proper" jobs as "man i s the strongest of the sexes". Mr. Kelly then observed, " i t would make me f e e l l e s s of a man i f my wife were the breadwinner". 100 CHAPTER VI A QUALITATIVE AN AL? SIS OF THE DIVISION OF LABOUR Il2iiIlli_Sn2BANDS_AND~WI VES l i Iil§2£§ti2Si Qrientation: An Approach To C o n f l i c t Marital s t a b i l i t y i s not incompatible with the presence of c o n f l i c t and disorder. Lewis (1967) and LeMasters (1959) have demonstrated that equilibrium or harmony i s not necessary for the continuation or s t a b i l i t y of families. The interviews presented i n t h i s thesis suggest that couples experience considerable c o n f l i c t , both personal and interpersonal, with regard to the d i v i s i o n of labour between the spouses. Consideration w i l l be given to why c o n f l i c t between the spouses* occurs and when and under what conditions. For the purpose of analysis i t i s useful to view the husband-wife re l a t i o n s h i p as "a system of c o n f l i c t management" (Sprey, 1969 :700). This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s seen as placing the spouses i n a continual confrontation, a confrontation between i n d i v i d u a l s with c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s in their common s i t u a t i o n . The marital relationship can therefore be described as meeting "the contradictory yet i n t e r r e l a t e d needs and designs of men (and women)" (Horowitz,1967:268). If we consider, as does Bernard (1973), that the positions of husbands and wives are analogous to that of players i n a 101 game, then the nature of th e i r c o n f l i c t of intere s t can be seen to change i n accordance with the s o c i e t a l d e f i n i t i o n of the game (Spray,1969). In a marriage, c o n f l i c t i n g interests and al l i a n c e s of common purpose contend. "The family process i s perceived as an ongoing peace-making e f f o r t which may result i n a negotiated order, a state of a f f a i r s which remains..,open to continuous re-negotiation" (Sprey,1969:702). Any manifestation of family harmony i s seen as an instance of successful c o n f l i c t management, not c o n f l i c t resolution. Consideration should be given, therefore, to the question of how couples manage to l i v e with c o n f l i c t . One implication of viewing the marital relationship within a c o n f l i c t framework i s that marital harmony i s considered as problematic rather than a normal state of a f f a i r s . Attention i s given to the q u e s t i o n — How i s the orderly cooperation between husbands and wives possible? The key concept in the explanation of t h e i r behavior i s cooperation rather than adjustment, accomodation, or consensus. Cooperation i s defined as "the settlement of problems in terms which make possible the continuation of differences and aven fundamental disagreements" (Horowitz,1967:278). Accordingly, cooperation does not require a t t i t u d i n a l s i m i l a r i t y or value consensus between husbands and wives. What i s required, however, i s a set of shared, mutually understood procedural rules. A l l possible areas of difference or agreement 102 are thus conceived as properties of a s i t u a t i o n to be confronted and are t h e o r e t i c a l l y relevant only to the extent that they influence the process of cooperation. II A n a l y t i c a l Dimensions The analysis of the process of c o n f l i c t management within households, i n conjunction with the d i v i s i o n of labour between husbands and wives, i s the concern of t h i s chapter. In considering t h i s process the following a n a l y t i c a l dimensions w i l l be considered: motivational syndromes, role expectations, personal and interpersonal s t r a i n , and role bargaining. Motivational syndromes are the wives' motives for taking a paying job and the husbands motives' for making i t possible, or i n some cases allowing her, to take an additional job. Role expectations are examined with regard to husband's and wife's expectations of t h e i r own behavior and that of t h e i r spouse's, within the household sphere. Consideration w i l l also be given to the values underlying these expectations. The third dimension, personal and interpersonal s t r a i n , addresses three questions. F i r s t l y , what are the dilemmas faced by either the wife or the couple as a consequence of her employment status? Secondly, what are the s t r a i n s imposed by these dilemmas? F i n a l l y , how does the wife or the couple manage 103 t h i s strain? The fourth and f i n a l dimension i s that of role bargaining. This process i s examined i n terms of how cooperation i s attained by both the husband and wife, i n attempting to order or a l l o c a t e the claims of the d i f f e r e n t r o l e expectations to which the wife with a paying- job i s subject; those of wife, mother, and employee. i l l 5,2J=3:3ii^ i2Sal Syndromes This section w i l l concern i t s e l f with two questions: what are the women's motives for taking a paying job and what are the men's motives f o r making i t possible for t h e i r wives to take an additional job? In considering such motives i t i s important to understand that the following discussion deals only with motives as they were stated by the respondents. Clearly, then, these motives are manifest rather than latent i n the minds of the respondents. The wives were asked why they had decided to take a paying job. They t y p i c a l l y responded with two such reasons: f i n a n c i a l necessity and s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t . Two of the wives indicated that their primary reason for taking a paying job was the family's f i n a n c i a l needs. Five of the wives suggested that they had taken a job for th e i r s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t . 104 The two wives reportedly working at a job because of the family's f i n a n c i a l needs had two dif f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of "necessity". In one instance necessity meant that the wife i s working at a job in an attempt to maintain the family's standard of l i v i n g . In the second, the wife i s working at a job i n order f o r the family to survive without receiving welfare. Since f i v e of the wives described th e i r reason for taking a paying job as s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t , i t i s important to consider th e i r circumstances. The following quotations are descriptive of their situation previous to taking a paying job: "I f e l t unsure and was lacking confidence. I had to prove i t to myself that I could do something other than be around the house, take courses, or things l i k e t h i s . . . to prove that I was marketable" (Mrs. Ervine) "I was a l i t t l e bored with housework and as the children get older and go their separate ways you find you need something extra to do... a l i t t l e diversion" (Mrs. Innis) "After fourteen years of being a housewife I was bored and depressed. I went back to work to get back i n the swing of things" (Mrs. Mills) "I wanted to get out of the house, f e e l independent, and of course the extra money i s nice too" (Mrs. Gable) The circumstances i n which these women f e l t they required a sense of s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t could be summarized as follows: 1. A l l of their children were attending school, 2. The women were bored with the routine of housework and wished for some diversion, 3. The women d i s l i k e d the s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n of being a housewife, J 105 4. The women expressed a desire to become somewhat independent of both the home and t h e i r family. Given these circumstances the f i v e wives decided to enter the paid labour force and, with the exception of one wife, to work at a job on a part-time basis. The reason these women gave f o r accepting a part-time position was that they "needed" to be at home by the time the children returned from school. The wife who had a fu l l - t i m e job explained that her son had a paper route and did not ar r i v e home u n t i l she finished working at the bank. Consideration w i l l now be given to the three wives who worked f u l l - t i m e as housewives. Why did they not take a paying job? Two of the wives suggested that they did not wish to take an a d d i t i o n a l job as t h e i r youngest c h i l d was either not yet in school or was i n school for only part of the day. They f e l t that i t was important to be home with th e i r c h i l d r e n ; that their children "needed" them. Both of these mothers suggested that they would consider working at a paying job, on a part-time basis, once a l l of their children were i n school. The t h i r d f u l l - t i m e housewife was Mrs. Brown. She had no young children at home and expressed no desire to work at a paying job. Since her husband's income was f a i r l y substantial, she had become involved i n many " s o c i a l " a c t i v i t i e s and spent much of her time painting. She f e l t no need to take a paying jot either f or f i n a n c i a l reasons or for reasons of s e l f -f u l f i l m e n t . 106 Before proceeding with t h i s discussion, i t i s important to recognize that the reasons of f i n a n c i a l necessity and s e l f -f u l f i l m e n t are not mutually exclusive. For example, although Ers. Gable primarily wanted to get out of the house and f e e l iindependent, "the extra money i s nice too". Mrs. Ryan, on the other hand, has a job primarily because the family needs her income to maintain i t ' s standard of l i v i n g . Nevertheless, she was happy to take a job as she was bored as a housewife and "happy to escape to work". The question which t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n raises i s why do so few wives describe their primary reason for taking a paying job as being f i n a n c i a l in nature? Let us f i r s t consider the husband's evaluation of the i r wife's income. "I suppose my wife's income helps out but I don't know how much she makes or what she does with i t . . . and I don't want to know!" (Mr. Gable) "(My wife's income) doesn't mean anything because i t ' s so l i t t l e . I t o l d her to put i t away into a l i t t l e account, do whatever you want with i t " (Mr. Innis) "I can provide a reasonably good income while my wife can provide the f r i l l s " (Mr. Mill s ) The husbands c l e a r l y regard th e i r wives' income as r e l a t i v e l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n comparison to the i r own, and only of value i n so f a r as i t contributes to expenditures which are described either as "extras" or " f r i l l s " . If the wives state that the reason why they took a paying job was primarily the income, then the husband's negative evaluation of her income b e l i t t l e s her status. I f , on the other hand, the wife asserts that her 107 primary reason for taking a job was a need f o r s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t , then the husband's negative evaluation of her income i s of r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e consequence. Having described the reasons given by the wives for wanting or for avoiding taking a job i n addition to housework, consideration w i l l now be given to their husbands' attitudes toward t h i s decision. Apart from Mr. Kelly, who suggested that he would not allow his wife to work at a job other than because the family needed the money, a l l of the other husbands agreed to their wives working at a job for reasons of their s e l f -f u l f i l m e n t , as long as the wife met the following requirements: 1. She does not work u n t i l the children are past f i v e years of age, 2. She i s home from work by the time the children have returned from school, 3. The family does not " s u f f e r " as a consequence of her working at a job ( i . e., she does not take her f r u s t r a t i o n s out on the family and she i s able to manage her household chores). A l l of the wives who were working at a paying job accepted th e i r husband's requirements as legitimate and scheduled their job hours accordingly. The wives who were unable to meet these requirements did not have an addi t i o n a l job. I R o l e Ex£ectations The questions of how, why, and to whom work i s allocated i n \ 108 the household i s the concern of t h i s section. Since a couple must necessarily accomplish a minimum amount of work within both the occupational and household spheres, an important a l l o c a t i v e function operates in these areas: the a l l o c a t i o n of human c a p a b i l i t i e s and resources. one of the ways i n which t h i s a l l o c a t i o n i s accomplished i s through regulating in d i v i d u a l s * occupancy of. roles by defining sex as the c r i t e r i o n of e l i g i b i l i t y . The operation of such an a l l o c a t i v e function i s well demonstrated i n the labour force. The Department of Labour (1971) reports that forty-seven percent of a l l women i n the labour force are concentrated i n the service industry, in comparison to f i v e percent i n public administration. The question to be considered i s how, and to what extent, does the a l l o c a t i o n of roles according to sex operate i n the household in determining what work i s to be performed and by whom. Further, for the purpose of analysis, a d i s t i n c t i o n should be drawn between legitimate and i l l e g i t i m a t e role expectations i n conjunction with the a l l o c a t i o n of roles in the d i v i s i o n of labour within the household. Consideration w i l l now be given to the relationship between the employment status of the wife and the expectations of both spouses* with regard to the d i v i s i o n of labour within the household. When wives did not have a paying job, i t was c l e a r from the interviews that the spouses considered the women to be responsible for caring for the children and for most of the 109 housework. The husbands were responsible for providing income for the family and for such "outside chores" as lawn mowing, gardening, and building. Although both husbands and wives hold these expectations of one anothers behavior, generally the men allocate the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and the women merely accept them. For example, the husbands stated that: "Housework's my wife's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I work a l l day and I don't want to come home at night and vacuum or wash dishes" (Mr. Linton) "I t ' s a woman's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to show t h e i r children the way of l i f e " (Mr. Brown) "Once a woman wants to get married and have children then that's her job! As long as the husband i s making enough money to keep them going then the wife ought to do her job!" (Mr. Kelly) The wives, on the other hand, seemed not to define th e i r household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s but to accept their husbands expectations as legitimate. "I'm home and there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to handle (the housework)" (Mrs. Slade) "There's no reason for him to be doing housework... he doesn't have to help" (Mrs. Brown) Those women who had a part-time job were considered by themselves and their husbands to be responsible for tending to the children ( i . e., they were to be home when the children returned from school), and for most of the housework. Responsibility for the household chores, then, remained much the same as i n the families where the wife did not have a paying 110 "The housework i s toy r e s p o n s i b i l i t y unless someone came i n and took over" (Mrs. Gable) "If a woman has to work, then the husband and wife should share the housework but i f i t i s n ' t necessary.,. then she should consider looking a f t e r the house f i r s t ! The man has to work to keep the house going" (Mr. Gable) Although both husbands and wives express general agreement i n t h e i r expectations as to the d i v i s i o n of labour between them, the wives suggest that t h e i r husbands should do more housework. "My husband and sons should do more housework.... I t shouldn't be a l l my job... i t should be shared a l i t t l e more" (Mrs. Gable) "He never does as much as I want him to do. He doesn't help me with the yard enough and things that are heavy that I r e a l l y can't do" (Mrs. Ervine) F i n a l l y , the expectations of women with f u l l - t i m e jobs d i f f e r e d according to th e i r motive f o r taking the job. Those women who were working at a paying job because of the family's f i n a n c i a l need were expected by their husbands and themselves to ensure that the children were being properly cared for and, i n the case of other housework, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was shared between the spouses. "Because I have to work, my husband helps me a l o t with the housework" (Mrs. Ryan) "My husband helps me out by taking care of the children while I'm at work" (Mrs. Kelly) "I do quite a b i t of housework because my wife doesn't have the time and I want to help her out" (Mr. Kelly) The women who worked at a paying job for reasons of their s e l f 111 f u l f i l m e n t , however, retained e s s e n t i a l l y the same household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as the housewives or the women who were employed at a job on a part-time basis. I t i s now important to attend to the reasoning or the logic underlying these role expectations of husbands and wives. E s s e n t i a l l y a l l the respondents a r t i c u l a t e d t h i s reasoning in the following fashion: "I think i f a wife i s working f u l l - t i m e that d e f i n i t e l y they should both share the housework...if they're both enjoying the benefits and i f t h i s i s what the husband wants too. I f the husband has said to the woman—'now look, I don't want you to work' and she just up and goes out and works anyway, then she's just doing t h i s on her own. If he's bringing in s u f f i c i e n t income then she should have to make sure she gets her work done." Both spouses' agreed that the wife i s responsible for the housework unless the wife i s employed at a paying job because of the family's f i n a n c i a l needs. In th i s case housework i s expected to be a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The following discussion w i l l attempt to explain the means by which these r o l e expectations gain legitimacy and therefore effectiveness i n the control of the couple's behavior within the household s e t t i n g . The consensus was that the male role was that of "breadwinner" and the female r o l e that of "homemaker". The explanation the men offered for t h i s d i v i s i o n of labour was that women are more "capable" of r a i s i n g children and maintaining a home. This, many observed to be a " b i o l o g i c a l f a c t " . "Women have more emotion than men and therefore are better able to look a f t e r the child r e n " (Mr. Brown) 112 " I f you go right back to biology, that's (the women's) role i n l i f e , to look after t h e i r c h i l d r e n " (Mr. Innis) The second explanation for the b e l i e f that men and women are more "capable" in these d i f f e r e n t spheres, rests with t r a d i t i o n . Mr. Cave noted f o r example that: " I t probably goes back to the days when the man was the hunter. He went out and k i l l e d the beast and then came back and to l e his wife to skin i t . The man has always been the provider and the woman has been protected because she's the creator and the mother of the t r i b e . She produces and nurtures the young." The t h i r d explanation which was offered for the di f f e r e n t c a p a b i l i t i e s of men and women was based on the assumption that men are more capable than women of earning money i n the labour force. "(A man's) more capable of demanding a higher wage and getting i t than a woman would be" (Mr. Brown) "Women are brought up to be good mothers while men have been educated so that they can earn more than a woman. I t i s therefore economically smarter f o r men to work than for a woman to do so" (Mr. Ervine) The women agreed with the men that the male role was that of "breadwinner" and the female role that of "homemaker". The women's explanations for t h i s d i v i s i o n of labour were a l l based on the underlying assumption that they were more capable than the men of r a i s i n g children and that t h i s was th e i r primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in l i f e . The following statements are i l l u s t r a t i v e of the women's attitude towards t h i s d i v i s i o n of labour. "With the interruption of having babies and r a i s i n g 113 them, you haven't got the long term application to a job that would r e a l l y make f o r a competent, professional person" (Mrs. Ervine) "To me, maintaining a home i s n ' t as important as working, but working i s n ' t as important as the family" (Mrs. Gable) "A woman couldn't go out and take a man's r o l e i n l i f e because she doesn't get the salary to begin with. Besides, a woman's f i r s t aim i n l i f e i s to look a f t e r her children properly and bring them up to the best of her a b i l i t y " (Mrs. Mills) When considering the a l l o c a t i o n of human ca p a b i l i t e s within either the occupational or household sphere, i t i s clear from the preceding discussion that the c r i t e r i o n for a l l o c a t i n g to men the role of "breadwinner" and to women the role of "homemaker" i s a s c r i p t i o n rather than achievement. Husbands and wives do not consider which of the two are more capable of providing for or caring for the family. Rather, women as a class are assumed to be more capable mothers and homemakers and men to be more capable breadwinners. Within the household setting both husbands and wives accord p r i o r i t y to perceived male-female att r i b u t e s rather than th e i r actual or potential pe rf ormances. With regard to the occupational sphere, men are assumed to be more capable breadwinners. That i s , men are assumed to be able to earn more money than'a woman. Given t h i s assumption, consider the following statement: "I don't think women (on the end of a jackhammer) are capable of producing the same as a man i s . They can do i t but they can't produce as much as a man could so they should get paid accordingly" (Mr. M i l l s ) 114 I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h i s sexist attitude which, when held by those i n positions of power in the occupational sphere, has the consaguence of relegating women to lower-income occupational positions than men. A second basis of the spouses* r o l e expectations concerns the husbands' and wives* perspectives as to whose in t e r e s t s should be given f i r s t p r i o r i t y i n the d i v i s i o n of labour. Should the spouse give p r i o r i t y to his or her private interests or the c o l l e c t i v e i n t e r e s t of the household of which he or she i s a member? These two perspectives are c l e a r l y evident in the husband's and wife's views of the i r family roles. The wife, for example, i s obligated to give f i r s t p r i o r i t y to the family, rather than herself as an i n d i v i d u a l . "My wife's f i r s t p r i o r i t y should be the family and the house as long as I'm able to provide for the family" (Mr. Slade) " I f women want to work i t ' s up to them as long as they can handle what's on at home" (Mr. Ervine) " I f you are working and you have a family, i t ' s a l r i g h t as long as no one i s suffering as a consequence" (Mrs. Brown) In other words, the wife i s to give f i r s t p r i o r i t y to the family but i f she can work at a paying job and the family does not suffer as a consequence, then her job can become a second p r i o r i t y . The wife's job i s considered by the respondents to be in her i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s rather than those of the family. 115 Consequently, although Mrs. M i l l s was "just a plain old housewife f o r fourteen years" and was "bored to death at home" both she and her husband f e l t that her "place" was i n the home caring f o r the i r son. The interviews suggest* then, that the woman's paid job tends to be regarded as a "private i n t e r e s t " unless she i s working at the job because the family i s i n f i n a n c i a l need. In the case of the men, however, his paying job i s always regarded as of c o l l e c t i v e interest. He i s "providing fo r the family". I t i s i n t h i s regard that Mr. Gable stated: " I t i s n ' t necessary for (my wife) to work i n the f i r s t place. She's doing t h i s f o r herself and to s a t i s f y herself, where the man has to work to keep the house going." The f a c t that the wife's paying job i s generally considered to represent her "private i n t e r e s t s " and the husband's job, the inte r e s t s of the c o l l e c t i v i t y or household, has had serious repercussions for women employed i n the labour force. For example, many of the women found that "work i s not f l e x i b l e , you can't arrange i t around your needs and in t e r e s t s or those of the family". Because work at a paying job i s not f l e x i b l e the women who had jobs were forced to structure t h e i r household obligations around those of th e i r job. This s i t u a t i o n resulted in the wives experiencing considerable s t r a i n as i s described in Section V. With regard to household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , the man's "outside chores" and l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t i e s are generally seen as complementary to his job and an earned right. The husbands 116 argue that they work a l l day at their job and they are not prepared to come home t i r e d and have to wash the dishes, vacuum clean, and so fo r t h . They do accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for such discretionary a c t i v i t i e s , however, as "outside chores". Their wives are not attributed such r i g h t s . One husband described his rationale for t h i s d i v i s i o n of labour i n the following terms: " I f the guy comes home completely beat because he's got a job of much more pressure and his wife has a job because she's bored with housework, t h i s gives her a l i f t and she »s more up to do the housework" (Mr. Ervine) On the basis of such reasoning, wives are allocated the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the "inside chores" regardless of whether they have a paying job. These chores are not, as i n the husband's case, complementary to the i r jobs and has the consequence of producing considerable str a i n for the wife (cf. Section V). Norms, which alloca t e labour on the basis of sex, enable the spouses to distinguish between legitimate and i l l e g i t i m a t e role expectations. A legitimate expectation i s such that the spouse f e e l s that others have a right to hold t h i s expectation. An i l l e g i t i m a t e expectation i s , of course, that which the spouse f e e l s others do not have a r i g h t to hold. A legitimate expectation may be regarded then as a perceived obligation and an i l l e g i t i m a t e expectation as a perceived pressure. This d i s t i n c t i o n i s c l e a r l y a very important consideration 117 with regard to the respondents' perceptions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the employment status of the wife and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between the spouses. If the wife i s employed at a paying job on a f u l l time basis and she i s working at t h i s job because of the family's f i n a n c i a l needs, then both spouses consider that i t i s legitimate that the housework be shared. If , on the other hand, the wife i s employed at a paying job and she i s working at t h i s job for reasons of her s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t , neither she nor her husband f e e l that i t i s legitimate to expect him to increase his p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household tasks. If marriage i s considered as a contract, i t i s clear from the interviews that the husbands are obligated to provide income for the family and the wives are to provide services for the husband. One husband ar t i c u l a t e d t h i s contract in the following terms: "A woman looks after the home and the children and the man provides her with nice clothes, food, and a place to sleep" (Mr. Cave) Or more generally: "My wife's f i r s t p r i o r i t y should be the family and the home as long as I'm able to provide f o r the family" (Mr. Innis) Further, i t i s important to recognize that the wife's services are to be provided by her and not a reasonable fa s c i m i l e . Mr. Kelly i l l u s t r a t e s the nature of his wife's contract when he stated that: "Once you say you want to get married and have kids, remember, that's your job! You've committed yourself to bring that c h i l d up r i g h t . The day-care centre or 118 your neighbor aren't committed but you are!" Given the nature of t h i s contract, what are the consequences i f one or other spouse i s unable to f u l f i l his or her obligations? If the husband i s unable to provide s u f f i c i e n t income for the family and the wife needs to work at a paying job out of f i n a n c i a l necessity, then "the husband and wife should share the housework". I f , however, the wife chooses to become employed at a job and i s unable to provide the necessary services, then " i t doesn't seem reasonable that her husband should help her... he might just f e e l that i f that's what she wants to do, then s h e ' l l just have to cope with i t herself". These expectations are c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d by the following statement: "When I was working...I got upset and couldn't cope. (My husband) just suddenly withdrew his support, emotional or otherwise. I was l e f t to understand that i f I wanted to get myself into t h i s s i t u a t i o n I'd have to cope with i t or get myself out of i t " (Mrs. Ervine) It appears, then, that i f either spouse i s unable to f u l f i l the requirements of the marriage contract because of health reasons or factors external to themselves, i t i s considered a legitimate expectation that the spouses' help one another out. If , however, the husband chooses to become unemployed or the wife chooses to become employed at a paying job and therefore are unable to meet t h e i r contractual obligations, i t i s not considered a legitimate expectation that the husband and wife w i l l a s s i s t each other i n t h e i r family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . This 119 s i t u a t i o n gives r i s e , then to the phenomenon of role s t r a i n . 1± S 2 l i S t r a i n T h e Experience of the Wife with a Paying Job hs. Sources of Strain A wife experiences s t r a i n when she i s confronted with incompatible expectations. In the interviews, the wives with paying jobs i d e n t i f i e d three causes of role s t r a i n : work overload; c o n f l i c t within themselves as to whether they are good mothers; and c o n f l i c t s between obligations to their husbands and their employers. Work overload was c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d as a major cause of s t r a i n . This s t r a i n was a consequence of the husbands and wives expectation that the housework i s the wife's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , while the wife with a paying job did not have enough time to f u l f i l t h i s expectation. Consequently, when the wives are working at a paying job and i n the home, they are often unable to maintain the home the way they l i k e i t . "My house has never been t h i s bad before. I f i n d I just can't get anything done. Most of the time I'm ti r e d and just can't get going i n the morning" (Mrs. Kelly) Wives who are able to manage t h e i r household chores describe their experience in the following terms: "I come home from work fe e l i n g t i r e d and hating the thought of cooking, cleaning, washing dishes and so f o r t h " (Mrs. Ervine) 120 "I f e e l l i k e a workhorse. I just work from dawn to dusk" (Mrs. Cave) A second cause of s t r a i n i s the incompatibility of wanting to be both a a good empoyee at a job and a good mother at home. Mrs. Ryan, for example, f e l t g u i l t y about the children coming home from school and her being unable to be home to greet them. Mrs. M i l l s also f e l t very g u i l t y about leaving her son during the day and taking a paying job. In fact, she stayed home f o r several years when she would have preferred to have a job, to ensure that she was not depriving her son of anything. This source of s t r a i n was perhaps best a r t i c u l a t e d by Mrs. Linton: "If I had a choice, which I do r i g h t now, of going out to work for luxuries or staying at home and being a good mother to my kids, I would much rather be a good mother to my kids" A l l of the women f e l t that when the children are of pre-school age, i t i s not possible to be both a good mother to th e i r children and work at a paying job. "I f you're going to get married and raise a family then that's your f i r s t aim i n l i f e — t o look after them properly and bring them up to the best of your a b i l i t y I don't think you can do that i f you're working" (Mrs Mills) Mrs. Kelly, for example, f e l t the incompatibility of these two rol e s . As the mother of a three-year old daughter she was required to work at a job because of the family's f i n a n c i a l needs. She experienced much g u i l t at "depriving (her daughter) of the love and af f e c t i o n she needs". 121 F i n a l l y , some of the wives experienced s t r a i n as a consequence of the c o n f l i c t i n g expectations of their husband and t h e i r employer. In the case of Mrs. Ervine, for example, her employer considered her to be, in a sense, "on c a l l " . That i s , she was expected to work at her job extra days in the event of i l l n e s s i n the o f f i c e , s t a f f holidays or the l i k e . Her husband and family, however, expected her to be free during the Easter holidays, for example, and her employer expected her to be available for work at the o f f i c e . Mrs. Ervine therefore experienced considerable s t r a i n . Mrs. Innis also experienced such s t r a i n , when, because of her employer's i l l n e s s , she was expected to work at her job f u l l time rather that part time for a two week period. Because of t h i s obligation she f e l t considerable stress as she was unable to f u l f i l her husband's expectations or her obligations as a wife, i n assuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the housework. B t Pressures to F u l f i l Role Obligations Having considered the major sources of s t r a i n experienced by wives working at a paying job, l e t us now attend to a description of the pressures to f u l f i l the c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e obigations described above. A major source of pressure i s the fact that both the husbands and wives are s o c i a l i z e d to have emotional commitments to t h e i r "appropriate" r o l e s . For example, Mr. Kelly noted that: " I t would make me f e e l less of a 122 man i f my wife became the breadwinner". As Beauvoir (1953) suggests: "Women endeavor.,, to give some i n d i v i d u a l i t y to t h e i r work and to make i t seem essential...."(pg.428). Mrs. Cave, for example, suggested that i f she were working at her job f u l l time she would not wish her husband to provide any further assistance with the housework. The reason f o r t h i s was that "a man probably couldn't do anything that would s u i t me anyhow. I'd probably just go around and do things over which would c e r t a i n l y discourage anyone from doing very much housework". Mrs. Kelly does not wish her husband to help with either the laundry or the ironing. As Mr. Kelly observes, "she won't l e t me even get near the washing machine. She says ' i t ' s my machine and you leave i t alone*" Mrs. M i l l s suggested that although her son made his bed occasionally, she actually prefered that he didn't, as "he doesn't make i t properly...". I t seems that i f the spouses' define the relationship by a d i v i s i o n of labour based on sex, a taking over by the husband or wife of the other's a c t i v i t i e s threatens their relationship. It i s important to recognize that both the husbands and wives have become emotionally committed to t h e i r "appropriate" roles and that these commitments are transmitted to t h e i r children. For example, Mrs. Slade expects that her three-year old daughter w i l l be more interested i n "helping out in the kitchen as she gets older" than i n mowing the lawn. Mr. Slade 123 remarked that: "The boys c e r t a i n l y aren't volunteering to do much housework around here. They'd much rather be playing sports. (My daughter) would be more i n c l i n e d to be i n the kitchen trying to bake a cake" It i s no accident that the Brown's daughter i s "house conscious" and t h e i r son i s "just the opposite". Housework i s communicated as a c r a f t , and parents condition young g i r l s into i t s mysteries. A second means by which the women are pressured to f u l f i l their husbands' expectations i s by their husbands, i n some sense, demanding norm conformity. That i s , when an element of the wife's s t r a i n i s on the l e v e l of role expectations which are c o n f l i c t i n g (wife-mother and wage earner) and one set of expectations i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d (wife-mother), i t means that the husband can claim that his expectations of h i s wife are legitimate and therefore perceived by his wife as obligations to be f u l f i l e d . For example, both Mrs. Ervine and Mrs. Innis reached a point i n their paying jobs where they could not f u l f i l t heir obligations as both wife-mother and wage earner. It was under these circumstances that both of th e i r husbands simply withdrew t h e i r support f o r their wives as wage earners. It was not necessary f o r the husbands to t e l l t h e i r wives to quit t h e i r job. The wives were f u l l y aware of the legitimacy of t h e i r husband's claim that i f they were unable to cope with the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of th e i r work then they were to 124 give up the i r job. V I R o l e Bargaining Role bargaining i s defined as "a process of selection of role behaviors in which each i n d i v i d u a l seeks to reduce (his or her... s t r a i n " (Goode,1960:483). The wife with a paying job may reduce her s t r a i n by adjusting the demands made on her. Primarily t h i s i s accomplished through ordering or a l l o c a t i n g the claims of the di f f e r e n t role expectations to which she i s subject. Ordering may occur on the basis of p r i o r i t y scales, i n time and space, by r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , or by a d i s t r i b u t i o n of tasks among household members. The r o l e bargain may be compared to that of an economic decision (Goode,1960), that i s , the a l l o c a t i o n of scarce resources among alternative ends. In attempting to reduce her s t r a i n i t i s i n the wife's i n t e r e s t to demand as much as she can and perform as l i t t l e . Since t h i s i s also true for others, there are l i m i t s on the gains she can make. Further, as Turner(1970) reports, " i n several studies (of role bargaining) the subjects have been unwilling to exploit advantageous bargaining positions to the f u l l . Bargaining i s normally tempered by a concern with equity" (pg. 107)., One means of reducing the s t r a i n of incompatible demands in the occupational and household spheres i s by the wife lessening 1 2 5 the i n t e n s i t y of her involvement in the occupational sphere. Several of the wives with part-time jobs gave as one of the reasons why they worked part time rather than f u l l time that they were able to be home when the children returned from school. These women maintained that since they were working at their paying job only on a part time basis that t h e i r family was their f i r s t p r i o r i t y . Consequently by working at a part time job the wives were able to meet both t h e i r husbands and employers expectations. A second means by which wives with jobs attempted to reduce their s t r a i n was to insulate t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s from their family such that they did not disrupt the routine of t h e i r husbands in par t i c u l a r and other household members i n general. Many of these wives suggested that they attempted to arrange t h e i r working hours so that they would leave f o r the i r job after t h e i r children l e f t for school, and the i r husband for his job, and would return home before the children returned from school. They were able to work i n the paid labour force, complete t h e i r housework before th e i r husband returned from his job, and be present when the children needed them. As one wife observed: "This way the family doesn't suffer as a consequence of my working". The fact that the wife's paying job does not disrupt the household routine was i n some cases a condition which had to be met before the wife could take a job. For example, Mr. Innis 126 remarked to his wife: "Once the job s t a r t s to develop the stresses and stra i n s , i t ' s not worth i t anymore". In the same vein, Mr. Linton's view was that he would want his wife home when the children came home from school or at least by the time he got home as he "sure as h e l l wasn't cooking (his) own supper!" A t h i r d technique for reducing s t r a i n i s for the wife to make clear to her husband that the demands of the job and family are incompatible. It then becomes the task of the couple rather than just the wife to manage the c o n f l i c t i n g demands. This technique i s c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d i n the case of Mrs. Ervine. Mrs. Ervine was unable to cope with the s t r a i n of working at a paying job and working at home. She made the problem clear to her husband, and her husband consequently withdrew his support of her working at a paying job, and she quit the job. Mrs. Innis experienced the same type of stress when she was required to work at her job f u l l time f o r a two week period. She expressed to her husband an i n a b i l i t y to cope with t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Since the s i t u a t i o n was temporary, the couple managed to reduce her s t r a i n by Mr. Innis spending more time helping her with the housework. However, a l l of the husbands suggested that i f t h e i r wives were unable to cope with the demands of th e i r job and t h e i r family they should quit t h e i r job. This position i s well i l l u s t r a t e d by the following statement by Mr. Innis regarding 127 his wife's job: "Once the job sta r t s to develop the stresses and str a i n s i t ' s not worth i t anymore. You've l o s t your sense of d i r e c t i o n ! " The fourth technigue f o r reducing s t r a i n i s ra t i o n a l i z a t i o n . I t i s primarily employed where there i s some recognition by one or other spouse of the c o n f l i c t i n g norms for women i n the occupational and household spheres. I t might be argued that i t i s a prevailing value i n Canada that an indi v i d u a l ' s position and rewards i n the occupational sphere are to be determined according to competence and achievement, rather than such ascribed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as race, age, or sex. Although t h i s doctrine i s to some extent an a c t u a l i t y within the occupational or public sphere, i t i s c l e a r l y not an a c t u a l i t y i n the household or private sphere where rewards are allocated according to sex. As Haavio-Manila (1967) suggests, " o f f i c i a l norms demanding equality of the sexes are better followed in public than i n private l i f e , where neither formal nor informal sanctions, except those of the family can be applied" (pg.578) The rationale underlying the regulation of a c t i v i t i e s within the private sphere i s best i l l u s t r a t e d by the husbands' explanations for why men are "breadwinners" and wives "homemakers". Most husbands suggested that t h i s difference i s necessary and due to b i o l o g i c a l differences between men and women. Following are examples of such explanations: "I think a woman i s b i o l o g i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . For one thing the majority of women have greater sympathy and 128 empathy with children" (Mr. Cave) "If you go right back to biology, that's (women's) ro l e in l i f e . . . to look a f t e r children. This i s true i n a l l areas of animal l i f e . . . , t h e wife i s more capable of handling children" (Mr. Innis) "In a sense that's what women were put on earth for, bearing children and caring for them. The majority of women, that's what they're adapted to. They have the patience and know-how" (Mr. Linton) It i s i n the context of such " b i o l o g i c a l explanations" for the d i v i s i o n of labour between husbands and wives that Rowbotham {1973) suggests: "At any given time, the more powerful side w i l l create an ideology suitable to help maintain i t s position and to make this position acceptable to the weaker one. In t h i s ideology the differentness of the weaker one w i l l be interpreted as i n f e r i o r i t y , and i t w i l l be proven that these differences are unchangeable, basic, or God's w i l l . It i s the function of such an ideology to deny or conceal the existence of a struggle" (pg.116). The men construct an "everyday e t h i c " or rationale by which the a c t u a l i t y of sex d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n within the household sphere i s legitimated. This everyday ethic serves, then, to reduce s t r a i n r e s u l t i n g from the incompatibility of an o f f i c i a l doctrine of the equality between the sexes and the a c t u a l i t y of inequality in the roles of husbands and wives i n the household. The f i n a l means of reducing s t r a i n i s the delegation of household tasks. When the wife experiences work overload, she could, under some conditions, attempt to delegate household tasks. However, the interviews suggest that one such condition i n delegating tasks to children, for example, i s that the 129 children are w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e . If they are unwilling to help with the chores, the mothers observe, "the l i n e of l e a s t resistence i s just to do i t myself" (Mrs. Linton). As Mrs. Gable noted, " i t ' s easier just to do i t (yourself) instead of putting the pressure on". The mothers who were employed at a paying job for reasons of th e i r s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t did not f e e l that they were in a position to pressure their children into helping them with the housework. It was only when the wife had a job because of the family's f i n a n c i a l need that these demands were conceived as legitimate and therefore enforcable. The same condition i s i n e f f e c t when the wives consider delegating household tasks to t h e i r husbands. That i s , " i f a woman has to work then the husband and wife should share the housework but i f i t i s n ' t necessary for her to work she should consider looking a f t e r the house f i r s t ! " The rationale of such an attitude i s perhaps best i l l u s t r a t e d by the following remark of Mr. Cave: "If you have a ... job to do, i t should be the male that goes out and does i t . When he comes home from doing that... job there's a clean bed, a nice meal and a nice chair to s i t i n . What the h e l l — y o u can't have that i f your wife's out doing the same thing as you!" n i . J_f_tj§£li_.ation of the Price of the Role Bargain It i s clear from the preceding discussion that the process of role bargaining between husbands and wives i s , i n most 130 instances, highlighted by asymmetry. Bernard (1973) has described such relations i n the following terms: "Game theory has taught us that both parties can lose; or that one can win and others can lose....In our own society the loser i s most l i k e l y to be a woman. Losing, in fac t , i s written into her role s c r i p t ; she has a stroke d e f i c i t : * Women... are enjoined to give out more strokes than they receive by the dictates of th e i r r o l e as women. The inst r u c t i o n to give more strokes than they receive and to be w i l l i n g to s e t t l e for t h i s d i s p a r i t y are e s s e n t i a l l y aspects of women's l i f e s c r i p t s ' (Wyckoff,1971). In t h i s 'stroke economy* women may win an occasional b a t t l e . . . but they lose the wars"(pg.18). As i l l u s t r a t e d in Section VI, wives consistently make disadvantageous bargains with t h e i r husbands. This i s a consequence of the fact that "women are s t r u c t u r a l l y deprived of equal opportunities to develop t h e i r capacities, resources, and competition with males" (Gillespie,1972:127-128). The s t r a i n s inherent i n the role of married women working at paid jobs may be eased or i n t e n s i f i e d by in d i v i d u a l idiosyncracies, and altered i n emphasis by i n d i v i d u a l economic resources, but t h i s s t r a i n exists as a s o c i a l f a c t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , although women were oppressed before captialism, "the organization of production within capitalism creates a separate and segmented v i s i o n of l i f e which continually r e s t r i c t s consciousness of alt e r n a t i v e s " (Rowbotham, 1973: 57). However, as Rowntree and Rowntree (1970) point out: "Women do not play a peripheral r o l e i n the labour force, and the numbers of women working outside the home are growing very s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The sense i n which women's role i n the labour force i s peripheral i s that women's position i n the family i s used to 131 f a c i l i t a t e the use of women as a reserve army of labour, to pay women half what men are paid, but (the work of women) i s peripheral neither to the women's l i v e s not to the c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s " (Morton,1972:52). The concept of "women's work" i s only spuriously r a t i o n a l and i s i n r e a l i t y a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the existing inequality of s o c i a l power. Consequently, "natural" female att r i b u t e s are not "valued" monetarily, although other factors such as physical weakness are subtracted from the "value" of female workers in the occupational sphere (Rowbotham,1973:85). Therefore, Mr. M i l l s suggests that a woman on the end of a jackhammer can't produce as much as a man and should be paid accordingly. On the other hand, as Mr. Linton notes, "there are many (low paying) jobs i n the (telephone) repair shop that are so damn monotonous that the men don't want them so the g i r l s do it....women are better at these sorts of jobs. They have more patience and are more conscientious". In most contexts of s o c i a l inequality: "Equity s t r a i n s are evident... and involve questions of "proper" rewards to the right people.... Such st r a i n s are l i k e l y to produce changes, and i n some situations a possible change may be towards equality. In most situations the more l i k e l y change i s toward a restructuring of access, attributes and rewards" (Moore, 1970: 400) . The interviews presented in t h i s thesis provide l i t t l e evidence of change i n the asymmetrical relationship between husbands and wives, as a consequence of womens paid employment. The pote n t i a l for change, however, does e x i s t . Rowbotham (1973) describes such potential i n the following terms: I 132 "The oppressed without hope are mysteriously quiet. When the conception of change i s beyond the l i m i t s of the possible, there are no words to a r t i c u l a t e discontent so i t i s sometimes held not to exist. This mistaken b e l i e f arises because we can only grasp si l e n c e in the* moment in which i t i s breaking. The sound of silence breaking makes us understand what we could not hear before" (pg.29). 133 CONCLUSION I i Discussion of the Research Findings The analysis of the time budget data generally indicated that the husband's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n household tasks was to a large extent independent of the demands placed upon his wife. This was most c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d by the fact that on the average the husbands of wives with a paying job spent only 11 minutes more per week doing obligatory housework than the husbands of f u l l time housewives. Further, the average t o t a l work load of the wives with a paying job i s 4 hours and 22 minutes longer than their husbands'. These wives, then, appear to a l t e r t h e i r behavior to adapt to job and family obligations, but their husbands appear to do l i t t l e to f a c t i l i t a t e t h i s adaptation. The r e s u l t s of the q u a l i t a t i v e analysis provide some c l a r i f i c a t i o n of these findings. The wives with paying jobs adapt to the demands of their job and t h e i r family i n most instances by a l t e r i n g t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s i n t h e i r roles as wife, mother, and employee, rather than bargaining with their husband over obligations or r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The only condition under which the claims made by the spouse's are seen as legitimate i s when the husband i s unable to provide f o r the family and the 134 wife i s forced to become employed at a job for reasons of the family's f i n a n c i a l needs. A review of the research studies dealing with the relat i o n s h i p between the wife's employment status and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks generally indicated findings quite to the contrary of those presented here. Studies conducted by Blood and Wolfe (1960), Heer(1958), Hoff man (1960) , DeBie et al.(1968) and Lamouse (1969) a l l conclude that i f the wife has a paying job, the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between the spouses i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e g a l i t a r i a n than i f the wife i s a f u l l -time housewife. The question to consider, then, i s why are the findings of these studies contradictory to those of t h i s research study? B a s i c a l l y , these differences seem to be primarily a function of the methods employed. None of the previous studies u t i l i z e d time budget data to test their hypotheses and lacked the precision afforded by t h i s type of data. As indicated in Chapter II the techniques which were employed are i n many instances unsound. There has been to date only one time-budget study designed to examine the relationship between the wife's employment status and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks. This study, conducted by K.Walker, provides support for the findings reported here. Although Walker (1970B.) only distinguishes between wives with and without a paying job, she found that: 135 "The men*s workweek... was amazingly similar whether or not the wife was employed. It was consistently lower than the wife's i n employed wife households and consistently s l i g h t l y higher than the wife's time i n non-employed households" (pg.7). This thesis has c l a r i f i e d Walker's (1970B.) findings by introducing the ef f e c t of the wife's motive for her employment status, and by distinguishing between wives who are employed at a job f u l l - t i m e and part-time, and i n professional and non-professional occupations. Although q u a l i t a t i v e research has previously been conducted i n t h i s area, i t was primarily concerned with married professional women and th e i r husbands. A consistent finding in these studies has been that these women view t h e i r career as secondary to t h e i r husband and th e i r children and subordinate to their husband's career (Poloma and Garland,1970; Arreger,1966; Hubback, 1957; Lopata,1968). The interview data presented in Chapter IV and Appendix I indicate that t h i s attitude i s not r e s t r i c t e d to professional women but i s t y p i c a l of a l l the women interviewed, regardless of whether or not they had a professional occupation. In view of the previous research, then, the findings reported i n t h i s thesis are informative both from a t h e o r e t i c a l and methodological perspective. Theoretically, the findings indicate that the d i v i s i o n of labour between the spouses w i l l be most e g a l i t a r i a n when the wife's motive fo r working at a job i s defined as " f i n a n c i a l need". More generally, the findings 136 suggest the need for a broader t h e o r e t i c a l framework than has been presented in either previous research studies or i n t h i s thesis. A model which attempts to predict the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between spouses simply on the basis of the wife's employment status i s inadequate. As t h i s research demonstrated, the delegation of household tasks i s but one technique f o r reducing the wife's role s t r a i n ; several techniques e x i s t . This research determined at least one major condition under which task delegation occurs, i . e.,the wife's employment motive, but the interview data indicate the need to describe the conditions under which other forms of role bargaining occur. In i t s methods, t h i s research i l l u s t r a t e s the advantages of employing both quantitative and q u a l i t a t i v e data i n considering the research problem at hand. The use of quantitative data permitted the testing of the hypotheses stated i n Chapter I and the generalization of the findings. The q u a l i t a t i v e data, provide a h o l i s t i c assessment of the process by which the wife manages to work at a job and at home. Consequently the quantitative data were employed for hypothesis testing and the q u a l i t a t i v e data were primarily employed for the purposes of hypothesis generating. Before proceeding with suggestions as to the d i r e c t i o n of further research i t i s important to c l a r i f y the l i m i t a t i o n s , both t h e o r e t i c a l and empirical, of t h i s research inquiry. 137 ILs. Limitations of the Research Inquiry One of the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s research was that the t h e o r e t i c a l framework has proven i t s e l f to be too narrowly defined. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the q u a l i t a t i v e data suggest that the delegation of household tasks i s but one technique by which wives with paid employment might attempt to reduce t h e i r role s t r a i n . The t h e o r e t i c a l framework, delineated i n Chapter I, does not take these other techniques into account. The framework should therefore be broadened to include consideration of the conditions under which r o l e s t r a i n i s reduced by the techniques discussed i n Chapter VI (pp.123-129). Due to the rather narrow scope of the t h e o r e t i c a l framework the time budget analysis and, to a lesser extent the q u a l i t a t i v e analysis, r e f l e c t t h i s constraint. For example, considerable time during the interviews was appropriated to a discussion of the spouse's attitude and behavior with regard N to the performance of household tasks as a means of adaptation to s t r a i n . Although th i s information i s both necessary and f r u i t f u l , i t would be informative to gather further information on other means of adapting to t h i s s t r a i n . Some of these were dicussed during the interviews but c l e a r l y much more information i s required. From a methodological perspective, i t was unfortunate that the survey did not include questions regarding the wife's motive 138 for being employed, the spouses* perception of t h e i r family obigations, household tasks, and so f o r t h . This i s , of course, a consequence of the f a c t that these data were not o r i g i n a l l y c o l l e c t e d for the purpose of t h i s study. A second l i m i t a t i o n exists i n that conceptually i t was sometimes d i f f i c u l t to categorize household a c t i v i t i e s as, say work or l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s . That i s , gardening, building, sewing and baking and the l i k e reguire some assessment of the respondents* perception of the nature of the a c t i v i t y before i t can be accurately c l a s s i f i e d . One further l i m i t a t i o n of the quantitative analysis, however, i s that i t considers only the wife's employment status as an independent variable. Since many married women contribute a substantial amount of time working f o r volunteer organizations i t would be of considerable i n t e r e s t to consider t h i s a c t i v i t y as unpaid work. An important constraint i n the analysis of the qual i t a t i v e data was the fact that there were not enough couples i n the three categories: f u l l - t i m e housewives, part-time employee, f u l l - t i m e employee. For example, the three couples i n the interview sample where both the husband and wife were employed at a job on a f u l l - t i m e basis, did not provide s u f f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o n on such important contextual variables as stage in family l i f e cycle, stage i n occupational career and so f o r t h . Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to estimate the exact number of couples 139 required to obtain such va r i a t i o n i t i s cle a r that three i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . I l l s.Ma®Jl£i2!i§ f2£ Further Research On the basis of t h i s research i t would seem that any further research in t h i s substantive area would be improved i f the family was conceptualized as an open rather than a closed system. The t h e o r e t i c a l framework described i n Chapter I could be described as a closed system. That i s , at a general l e v e l the focus i s on the relationship of the wife's employment status and the d i v i s i o n of labour between the spouses', within the household. Exogenous variables such as stage i n the family l i f e cycle are introduced not as explanatory but as control variables for t e s t i n g for spurious associations. Therefore the empirical analysis consisted of (1) the observation of the relat i o n s h i p between the wife's employment status and the spouses' d i v i s i o n of household tasks and (2) elaboration according to categories of the control variables. This procedure of elaboration allows the researcher to observe, for example, class differences but not to explain them. Thus such an approach provides positive evidence of certain relationships but does not contribute to causal explanations regarding how and why the variables are related. As an alternative to the closed system approach the 140 findings of t h i s research indicate that i t might be more f r u i t f u l to u t i l i z e an open system approach. That i s , propositions would be derived from loose conceptual frameworks that consider the family in r e l a t i o n to some broader frameworks of society. For example, an examination of the relationship between economic development, ideologies of the position of women, employment status of wives and e g a l i t a r i a n marriage i s i l l u s t r a t i v e of such an approach. As compared to the closed system approach, the open system approach allows for more p o s s i b i l i t i e s for inference and causal explanations. A major advantage of the open system approach i s that i t takes into account c i r c u l a r or feedback a f f e c t s within the system. The family can therefore be considered as both a dependent and independent variable. There i s no lack of discussion of the consequences of s o c i a l change on the family. However, there i s l i t t l e i nvestigation of the influences of the family i t s e l f on the process of change. An open system approach would allow consideration of both these processes of change. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n terms of the theoret i c a l framework delineated i n Chapter I, i t would allow the researcher to consider the d i v i s i o n of labour between the sexes within the occupational sphere and i t ' s impact on t h e i r d i v i s i o n of labour within the household sphere and vice versa. At a more general l e v e l , the open system approach permits the consideration of such variables as l e v e l of economic development and p o l i t i c a l 141 ideology regarding the organization of production, insofar as they influence the d i v i s i o n of labour between men and women. It seems that much further research needs to be done i n t h i s substantive area and an open system approach w i l l prove to be the most informative means of approaching i t . BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, M. 1971 Sociology of the Family . Baltimore: Penguin looks Inc. Archibald, K. 1970 Sex and the Public Service. Ottawa: Queen's Printer Bakke, E.W. 1940 Citizens Without Work.. New Haven: Yale University Press Babchuk. N and A. Bates 1963 "The primary r e l a t i o n s of middle-class couples: A study i n male dominance," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 28:377-384 Bailyn, L. 1971 "Career and family orientations of husbands and wives i n r e l a t i o n to marital happiness," in A.Theodore (ed.) The Professional Woman .Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Co. Baker, E.F. 1964 Technology and woman^s work.. New York: Columbia University Press Bardal, M. S. et. a l . 1956 "The married woman i n employment: An exploratory study of how her employment af f e c t s the woman and her relati o n s h i p with her family and the community," M. S. W. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia Barth, E. A. and W. B. Watson 1967 "Social s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and the family i n mass society," Social Forces 45:392-402 Bates, F. L. 1956 "P o s i t i o n , role and status: Reformulation of concepts," S o c i a l Forces 34:313-321 Bebbington, A. C. 1973 "The function of stress i n the establishment of the dual-career family," Journal of Marriage and the Family 35:530-537 B e l l , N. W. and E. F. Vogel 1968 A Modern Introduction to the Familv. New York: Free Press Benston, M. 1969 "The p o l i t i c a l economy of women's l i b e r a t i o n , " Monthly Review September Bernard, J . 1971a "The paradox of the happy marriage," i n V.Gornick and B.Moran (eds.) Woman in Sexist Society. New York: Basic Books Inc.,pp.145-"162 1971b Women and the Public Interest. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton Inc. 1973 "My four revolutions: An autobiographical history of the ASA," in J.Huber(ed.) Changing Women i n a Changing Society^ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 11-29 Berraman, G.D. 1962 "Behind many masks," Bobbs-Merrill Reprint A-393 1-24 Blau, P, M. 1964 Exchange and Power i n Social L i f e._ New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Blood,R. 1963 "The measurement and bases of family power: A rejoinder," Marriage and Family L i v i n g 25:475-478 Blood, R. 0. and R. L. Hamblin 1958 "The ef f e c t of the wife's employment on the family power structure," S o c i a l Forces 36:348-362 Blood, R. and D. Wolfe 1960 Husbands and Wives., The Free Press of Glencoe ~ Bossard, J . H. S. 1 950 Ritual and Family Living.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Bossard, J.H.S. And E.S.Boll 1956 The Large Family System.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Bott, E. 1957 Family and S o c i a l Networks.. London: Tavistock Publications Boulding, K. E. 1966 " C o n f l i c t management as a learning process," i n A.DeReuck and J.Knight (eds.) C o n f l i c t i n Society^ Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Co,, pp. 2 36-24 8 Bowan, E. 1973 "Further implications of c u l t u r a l surgengy and sex dominance," American Anthropologist 75:176-183 Burr, W. B. 1970 "Role t r a n s i t i o n s : A reformulation of theory," Journal of Marriage and the Family 32:407-416 1973 Theory Construction and the Sociology of the Family. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons Caplow, T. 1954 The Sociology of Work^ Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Carisse, C. 1969 "Orientations c u l t u r e l l e s dans les marriages entre Canadiens francais et Canadiens anglais," Sociologie et Societes 8:39-52 Chapin, F,S. And H. C, Hightower 1966 Household A c t i v i t y Systems-- A P i l o t IHZesiiaaiion^ I n s t i t u t e for Research i n the Social Sciences Chodorow, N. 1971 "Being and doing: A c r o s s - c u l t u r a l examination of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of males and females," i n Gornick,V. And B. Moran (eds.) Woman in Sexist Society New York: Basic Books Inc., pp.259-291 Christensen, E. 1971 "Household employment: Restructuring the occupation," Issues i n I n d u s t r i a l Society 2:47-57 Clarkson, F. 1970 E. et a l , "Family s i z e and sex role stereotypes," Science pp.390-392 145 Coser, R. L. 1961 "Insulation from observability and types of s o c i a l conformity," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 26:2 8-39 19 64 The Family.: It»s Structure and Functions^ New York! St. Martin's Press 1966 "Role distance, s o c i o l o g i c a l ambivalence and t r a n s i t i o n a l status systems," American Journal of Sociology 72:173-187 Coser, R. L. and C. Rokoff 1971 "Women i n the occupational world: S o c i a l disruption and c o n f l i c t , " S o c i a l Forces 18:535-554 C o t t r e l l , L.S. 1942 "The adjustment of the in d i v i d u a l to his age and sex r o l e s , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 7:617-620 DeBeauvoir, S. 1953 The Second Sex.. New York: Bantam Books De Bie, P. et a l . 1968 La Dyade Conjugale.. Bruselles: Les Editions Vie Ouvriere Department of Labour 1971 Women i n the Labour Force.. Ottawa: Labour Canada D r e i t z e l , H. P. (ed.) 1972 Family A Marriage^ and the Struggle of the Sexes^ New""York: The MacMillan Company Dyer, W. G. 1956 "The interlocking of work and family s o c i a l systems among lower occupational f a m i l i e s , " S o c i a l Forces 34:230-233 1958a "The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of egualitarian family norms," Marriage and Family. Living 20:53-58 1958b "Some trends i n two-income middle-class urban f a m i l i e s , " The Southwestern S o c i a l Science Quarterly 39:125-132 146 Elder, R. A. 1949 " T r a d i t i o n a l and developmental concepts of fatherhood," Marriage and Family L i v i n g 11:98-103 Engels, F. 1973 The Origin of the Family^. Private Property^ and the State^ New York: The Pathfinder Press Epstein, C, 1970 "Encountering the male establishment: Sex status l i m i t s on women i n the professions," American Journal of Sociology 75:965-982 Etzkowitz, H. 1971 "The male s i s t e r s : Sexual segregation of labor in society," Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:431-435 F a l l a r s , L.A. 1966 " S o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and economic processes," i n R.Bendix and S.Lipset (eds) Class^ Status*, and Power. New York: The Free Press Fogarty, M. , I. Allen and P. Watlers 1971 Women i n Top Jobs._ London: George Allen and Unwin Fogarty, M. et. a l . 1971 Sex x Career x and Family. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications Franklyn, C. W. and L. R. Walum 1972 "Toward a paradigm of substructural r e l a t i o n s , " Phylon 33:242-253 Fuchs, R. 1971 "Different meaning of employment fo r women," Human Relations 24:495-499 Gage, M. 1960 "The workload and i t s value f o r f i f t y homemakers, Tompkins County, New York," Ph.D. Dissertation Cornell University Gavron, H. 1966 The Captive Wife: C o n f l i c t s of Housebound lot-herSi London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 147 Getzels, J . W. and E. G. Guba 1954 "Role, r o l e c o n f l i c t , and effectiveness," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 19:164-175 G i l l e s p i e , D.L. 1972 "Who has the power? The marital struggle," i n H.Dreitzel (ed) Family x Marriage^ and the Struggle of the Sexes. New York: The Macmillan Company ~ Ginzberg, E. and A. Yohalem 1971 Corporate Lib^ Women^s Challenge to {iSMa^ISBia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Glasar, B. And A. Strauss 1965 "Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underlying q u a l i t a t i v e research," American Behavioral S c i e n t i s t 8:5-11 Glazer-Halbin, N. and H. Y. Waehrer (eds.) 1972 Woman in a Han-Made World. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company Goffman, G. 1961 Encounter^ New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Sold, M. and C. Slater 1958 " O f f i c e , factory, s t o r e — and family: A study of integration s e t t i n g , " American So c i o l o g i c a l Review 23:64-74 Goode, W. J. 1960a. "Norm commitment and conformity to r o l e -status obligations," American Journal of Sociology 66:246-258 1960b. "A theory of role s t r a i n , " American So c i o l o g i c a l Review 25:483-496 1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns^ New York: The Free Press 1964 The Family.. Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall Gordon,L. and B.Levin 1969 "Some conseguences of the 5-day week i n s o c i a l and daily l i f e i n large and small c i t i e s , " Soviet Sociology , Spring Gould, H. 148 1971 "Caste and c l a s s : A comparative view," Addison-Wesley Modular 11:1-24 Reading:Addison-Wesley Gross,N. et a l . 1 958 l2.£io£<__.i2B_i i S l 2 l _ - Analysis^ Studies of the School Su£§rtendency Role^ New York:Wiley G ullahorn,J.T. 1956 "Measuring role c o n f l i c t , " American Journal of Sociology 61:229-303 Haavio-Mannila, E. 1967 "Sex d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in role expectations and performance," Journal of Marriage and the Familyj, 29:568-578 1971 "Convergences between East and West: Tradition and modernity i n sex roles i n Sweden, Finland and the Soviet Union," Acta Sociologica 14:120-124 Harrison,E. 1964 "The working woman: barriers i n employment," Public M2i£i§i£§£i2£ 24: 78-85 Haug,M.R. 1973 "Soc i a l class measurement and women's occupational r o l e s , " S o c i a l Forces^ 52: 85-97 Heer,D. 1958 "Dominance and the working wife," S o c i a l Forces x 36:341-347 Heiskanen, V.S. And E. Haavio-Mannila 1967 "The position of women i n society: Formal ideology vs. everyday ethic," S o c i a l Science Information 6:169-188 ~ Herbst,P.G 1952 "The measurement of family r e l a t i o n s , " Human Eisi§f._2£_.i 5:3-35 Hoffman,L.W. 1960 "Effe c t s of the employment of mothers on parental power r e l a t i o n s and the d i v i s i o n of household tasks," Marriage and the Family 22:27-35 1963 "Mother's employment at work and e f f e c t s on the c h i l d , " i n F.I.Nye and L.W.Hoffman, The 149 Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand McNally~pp7 95-105 Holmstrom,L.L. 1970 "Intertwining career patterns of husbands and wives in cer t a i n profession," Ph.D. Dissertation, Brandeis University 1973 "Women's career patterns: Appearance and r e a l i t y , " Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors 36:76-81 Horowitz, I.L. 1967 "Consensus, c o n f l i c t , and cooperation," i n N.J. Demerath and R.A. Paterson (eds.) System x Change x and C o n f l i c t . New York: The Free Press Hu ber, J . 1973 Hughas,E. 1945 Jacob son,A.H. 1952 Ka ley, M.l 1971 Changing Women in a Changing Society., Chicago: University of Chicago Press "Dilemmas and contradictions of status," American Journal of Sociology^ 50:353-359 " C o n f l i c t of attitudes toward the roles of the husband and wife i n marriage," American _.2£i2l2.ai£ai Review^ 17:146-150 "Attitudes toward the dual role of the married professional woman ," American Psychologist^ 26:301-306 Kharchev, A, 1971 and S.Golod "The two roles of Russian working women i n an urban area," i n A. Michel (ed.) I<_J__.i2 Issues of Employed Women i n Europe and America. L e i d e n : B r i l l Kirkpatrick, C. 1936 "The measurement of e t h i c a l consistency i n marriage," International Journal of Ethics 46:444-460 Klein, V. 1963 " I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and the changing role of women," Current Sociology 12:24-34 150 Kliger ,D. S. 1954 "The effects of the employment of married women on husband and wife roles," unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University Knudsen,D. 1969 "The declining status of women: Popular myths and the f a i l u r e of f u n c t i o n a l i s t thought," S o c i a l Forces^ 48:183-193 Koraarovsky,M. 1959 "Functional analysis of sex r o l e s , " American So c i o l o g i c a l Review, 15:508-516 19 64 Blue-Collar Marriage.. New York: Random House 1973 "Cultural contradictions and sex r o l e s , " i n J. Huber (ed.) Changing Women in a Changing Society.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 111-122 Konig,R. 1956 "Changes i n the Western family," Proceedings of the Third World Congress of Sociology 4763-64 Kotlain, A. 1971 " T e r r i t o r i a l problems r e l a t i n g to the structure of employment i n terms of sex," Problems of Economics L 14:56-74 Krech, H.S. 1965 "Housewife and woman? The best of both worlds?" In S. Farber (ed.) Man and C i v i l i z a t i o n ^ The Family^s Search for Survival New York: McGraw—Hill Labarge,M.W. et a l . 1971 Cultural Tradition and P o l i t i c a l History of Women in Canada, Studies of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada Lamouse,A.. 1969 "Family r o l e s of women: A German example," Journal of Marriage and the Family*. 31: 145-152 ~" Laulicht, J. 1955 "Role c o n f l i c t , the pattern variable theory and scalogram analysis," Social forces*. 33:250-254 Leach,E. 1968 A Runaway Morld^ Oxford: Oxford University Press LeMasters,E. E. 1959 "Holy deadlock: A study of unsuccessful marriages," S o c i o l o g i c a l Quarterly 21:86-91 1972 "The passing of the dominant husband-father," i n H.Dreitzel (ed.) Family^ Warriage^ and the Struggle of the Sexes. New York7~MacMillan~Co77pp.107-120 Lewis,0. 1949 "Husbands and wives i n a Mexican v i l l a g e : A study i n role c o n f l i c t , " American ASthro£ologist x 51:602-610 1967 La Vi.da.j_ New York: Random House Lifton,R.J. 1964 The Women i n AmericaBoston:Beacon Press Lopata,H.Z. 1971 0<_f_J_£ation__ House wife__ New York: Oxford University Press Love joy, D.D. 1961 "College student conceptions of the roles of the husband and wife i n family decision making," The Coordinator^ 9:43-46 Lupri, E. 1969 "Contemporary authority patterns i n the West Germany family: a study i n cross-national v a l i d a t i o n , " Journal of Marriage and the Family__ 3 1: 134-144 McClelland,D.C. et. a l . 1953 The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton,Century, Crofts McNally,G.B. 1968 "Symposium: Women i n the labour force," I n d u s t r i a l Relations^ 7:215-219 Maccoby, E. E. 1966 The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press ~ 152 Mahajan, A. 1966 "Women's two r o l e s : A study of tole c o n f l i c t , " Indian Journal of So c i a l Work 26:377-380 Handel, W. M. 1971 "Soviet women in the work force and professions," American Behavioral S c i e n t i s t 15:255-284 Martin,W.T. And D.L.Poston 1972 "The occupational composition of white females: Sexism, racism and occupational d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , " S o c i a l Forces 50:349-355 Head, M. 1967 "The l i f e cycle and i t s variations: The d i v i s i o n of rol e s , " Daedalus 96:871-875 1970 "Beyond the household," Dialogue 3:3-10 Meis, S, And J. Scheu 1973 " A l l i n a day's work," presented at the meetings of the Canadian Anthropology and Sociology Association, Kingston, Ontario (May 28-31) M eltz,N.M. 1966 "The female worker: Occupational trends i n Canada," i n Changing Patterns i n Women's Employment. Ottawa: Canada Department of Labour ~ Merton,R.K. 1956 The Focused Interview^ Glencoe: The Free Press 1957 "The rol e set: Problems in s o c i o l o g i c a l theory," B r i t i s h Journal of Sociology 8:106-120 1968 S o c i a l Theory and Soc i a l Structure. New York: The Free Press Michaelson,E. and W.Goldschmidt 1972 "Female roles and male dominance among peasants," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 27:330-352 Michel,A. 153 1971 Family Issues of Employed Women i n Europe and America., Leiden: E.J. B r i l l Mihovilovic,M.A. 1972 "Analysis of some factors which have influence on time-budgets of employed and unemployed women," Unpublished Manuscript, presented at the meetings of the International S o c i o l o g i c a l Association, Bruxelles, May 1972 Hillman,M. 1971 "Observations on sex-role research," Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:772-776~ M i t c h e l l , J . 1966 "Women: The longest revolution," New Left Review Vol.40 ~ Moore, W.E. 1970 "But some are more equal than others," i n M.Turnin(ed.) Readings on Soc i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o j u Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall ,pp7394-400 Morton,P. 1970 "A woman's work i s never done. Notes on the family under capitalism," Women Unite.. Toronto: Canadian Womens Educational Press Motz, A. B. 1950 "Conceptions of marital roles of status groups," Journal of Marriage and the Family 12:136-141 Murdock,G.P. 1937 "Comparative data on the di v i s i o n of labor by sex," Social Forces 15:551-553 Myrdal,A. and V.Klein 1956 Woman^s Two Roles^. Home and Work.. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul Ogburn,W.F. and M.F.Nirakoff 1955 Technology and the Changing Family.. Houghton: M i f f l i n Oppenheimer, V. K. 1973 "Demographic influences on female employment and the status of women," American Journal of Sociology 78:946-961 154 Ostry,S. 1968 The Female Worker i n Canada. Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s Papenek, H. , 1971 "Purdah i n Pakistan: Seclusion and modern occupations for women," Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:517-530 1973 "Men, women, and work: Reflections on the two person career," American Journal of Sociology 78:852-872 Parsons, T. And R. Bales 1955 Family^ S o c i a l i z a t i o n and I n t e r a c t i o n Process^ Glencoe: Free Press Parsons, T. et a l . 1951 Toward a General Theory of Action^ New York: Harper and Row Piotrowski,J. 1971 "The employment of married women and the changing sex roles i n Poland," i n A.Michel Family Issues of Employed Women in Europe and America... L e i d e n : B r i l l Poloma,M.M. and T.N.Garland 1971 "The myth of the e g a l i t a r i a n family: Fa m i l i a l roles and the professionally employed wife," i n A.Theodore (ed. ) The Professional Women. Cambridge: Schenkman, pp774?-761 Powell,K.S. 1961 "Maternal employment i n r e l a t i o n to family l i f e , " Marriage and Family l i v i n g 23:350-355 Rapoport,R. and R.Rapoport 1965 "Work and family i n contemporary society," American Soci o l o g i c a l Review 30:381-394 1969 "The dual career family," Human Relations 22:3-30 1971 "Early and l a t e r experiences as determinants of adult behavior: Married women's family and career patterns," B r i t i s h Journal of Sociology 22:16-30 Rodgers,R. H. 155 1964 "Toward a theory of family development," Journal of Marriage and the Family 26:262-____ Rod man,H. 1967 "Marital power i n France, Greece, Yugoslavia, and the United States: A cross-national discussion," Journal of Marriage and the Family 29:320-324 Rowbotham,S. 1972 WomenA Resistance and Revolution^ London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press 1973 Woman^s Consciousness*. Man^s World.. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Inc. Rowntree,M. And J.Rowntree 1970 "More on the p o l i t i c a l economy of women," Monthly Review (January) Scanzoni,j. 1972 Sexual Bargaining^ Power P o l i t i c s in the American Marriage i Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l Scheff, T.J. 1968 "Negotiating r e a l i t y : Notes on power i n the assessment of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , " S o c i a l Problems 16:7-10 Schuster, A. 1971 "Womens rol e i n the Soviet Union: Ideology and r e a l i t y , " The Russian Review 30:260-267 Silverman,W. and R . H i l l 1967 "Task a l l o c a t i o n in marriage in the United States and Belgium," Journal of Marriage and Family Living 29:353-359 Somerville,R. 1971 "The urban working woman i n the U.S.S.R.: An h i s t o r i c a l overview," i n A.Michel (ed.) Family Issues i n Europe and America;. L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l ~ ~ Speigel,J.P. 1957 "The resolution of ro l e c o n f l i c t within the family," Psychiatry 20:1- 16 Speigel,J. 1968 Working Mothers.. A Selected Annotated 156 BibjLiogra.£h2__ Washington: Business and Professional Bomen's Foundation 1969 Sex Role J_oncep_ts__ How Women and Men see Themselves and Each Other.. Washington: Business and Professional Women's Foundation Sprey, J . 1969 "The family as a system i n c o n f l i c t , " Journal of Marriage and the Family 31:699-706™ Steward, G.H. and R.C.Williamson 1970 Sex Roles i n Changing Society. New York: Random House Stoetzel,J. 1948 "One etude du budget-temps de l a femme dans le s agglomerations urbaines," Population 1:47-62 Sttlte-Heiskanen, V. And E. Haavio-Mannila 1967 "The position of women i n society: Formal ideology vs. everyday ethic," S o c i a l Sciences Information 6:169-188 Stouffer,S. A. 1949 "An analysis of c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l norms," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 14:707-717 Stouffer,S.A. and J.Toby 1951 "Role c o n f l i c t and personality," American Journal of Sociology 56:395-406 ~ ~ Szalai,A. 1966 "Trends i n comparative time-budget research," The American Behavioral S c i e n t i s t 9:3-8 Szalai,A. et a l . 1966 "The multinational comparative time-budget research project," The American Behavioral S c i e n t i s t 10:1-31 ~ " Iharp,R.G. 1963 "Dimensions of marriage r o l e s , " Marriage and Family Living 25:3 89-4 04 Theodore,A. 1971 The Professional Woman. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Company 157 Trotsky, L, 1924 Problems of Life.. London Trottier,M. And R.Mayer 1965 "Images of the French-Canadian woman," Les Cahiers du Droit 7:343-353 Turner,C. 1971 "Conjugal roles and s o c i a l networks re-examined," i n M. Anderson (ed.) Sociology of the Family. Baltimore:Penguin Books, pp. 233-246 Turner,R.H. 1970 Odry,J.R. 1965 Family Interaction.. New York: Wiley and M.Hall "Marital r o l e segregation and s o c i a l networks in middle-class, middle-aged couples," Journal of Marriage and the Family 27:392-395 Walker,K.E. 1969 1970a. 1970b. 1973a. 1973b. Watson,W.B. 1964 "Time spent in housework by homemakers," Family Economics Review September pp.5-6 "How much help f o r working mothers? The children's r o l e . " Human Ecology Forum 2:13-15 "Time spent by husbands i n household work," Family Economics Review June pp.8-11 "Economic discrimination and household work," Human Ecology Forum 4:21-23 "Commentary on 'Women's l i b , sex role development, and children's play,* " Medical Aspects of Sexuality 7:5-32 and E.A.Barth "Questionable assumptions in the theory of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , " P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 7:10-16 Wilensky, H. L. 1968 Yanowitch, M. 1963 "Women's work: Economic growth, ideology, structure," I n d u s t r i a l Relations 7:235-248 "Soviet patterns of time use and concepts of l e i s u r e , " Soviet Studies 1:17-37 Yorburg, B. 158 1973 The Changing Family^ New York: Columbia University Press Zeldich,M. 1955 "Role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n the nuclear family: A comparative study," i n T.Parsons and R.F.Bales £amily tSocialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe: Free Press,pp.307-351 1 159 appendix I Interview Summaries I i Wives Not Employed^ Husbands Employed Full-time "She can never f i n d salvation i n her work i t s e l f ; i t keeps her busy but i t does not j u s t i f y her existence, for her j u s t i f i c a t i o n rests with free p e r s o n a l i t i e s other than her own. Shut up i n the home, woman cannot establish her existence, she lacks the means requisite for s e l f - a f f i r m a t i o n as an i n d i v i d u a l ; and i n consequence her i n d i v i d u a l i t y i s not given recognition." (Beauvoir,1953:496) Case Hi The Housewife and The Transportation Manager Mr. and Mrs. Slade have been "happily married" for f i f t e e n years. They have three children: two sons aged fourteen and eleven years and one daughter aged seven years. Both Mr. and Mrs. Slade are t h i r t y - f i v e years old. They presently reside i n a pleasant suburban home located i n Richmond. Mr. and Mrs, Slade were brought up on the Canadian praries. Mr. Slade*s father was a farmer and his mother a housewife. In Mrs. Slade*s family both parents were employed. Her father was a piano tuner and her mother was a secretary. Mr. Slade has worked for eighteen years with the transport d i v i s i o n of a railway. He has been manager of the d i v i s i o n f o r six years. Mrs. Slade has worked as a housewife 0 for f i f t e e n years with the exception of a b r i e f period aft e r she was f i r s t married when she was employed as a medical stenographer, on a 160 part-time basis. The Ho use wife 2. Mr s^ Slade When Mrs. Slade was f i r s t married she worked as a medical stenographer on Friday and Saturday. She enjoyed t h i s job and f e l t that "going to work was l i k e an outing". She worked hard at t h i s job, but i t was a change from housework. " I t was a treat for me", Mrs. Slade had taken t h i s position because she and her husband had needed the money. As soon as she became pregnant, however, she quit her job and has not been employed since. Mrs, Slade doesn't work outside the home because " i t ' s important to be home with the children when they need me and there aren't that many free hours l e f t " . Even though her children are in school she f e e l s that "they need you more when they come home...they need to know you're there". Mrs. Slade observed that she seems to be getting busier as her children get older as "the children's a c t i v i t i e s involve you too". Mrs. Slade was opposed to women taking a paying job when they have children unless the women need the money. In her opinion, " i f you see children on the street you can almost t e l l the ones who don't have their mothers at home .. . t h e i r behavior i s n ' t the same and they have more problems at school". Although Mrs. Slade l i k e d being a housewife she remarked that "you need another outlet besides... otherwise i t can get a 161 b i t d u l l a f t e r awhile". She didn't f e e l that i t was good to be in the house a l l the time but at the same time didn't f e e l that she was able to get out very much. This was i n part a consequence of the fac t that " f i n a n c i a l l y (she f e l t ) there're too many other expenses for (her) to join a bowling league". Mrs. Slade stated that although she always had something to occupy her time that " i t ' s nice to get out once i n a while, something you kind of miss i f you're a housewife". She has very few friends because she doesn't get too much of a chance to meet other people. Her chil d r e n , however, are good "companions". Describing herself as a "fussy housekeeper" Mrs. Slade says, "I can't stand the house i f i t i s n ' t just r i g h t ! " As a consequence of t h i s attitude she has her days "mapped out". Generally, at 6:30 am. she gets up, makes breakfast f o r her husband and packs his lunch. At 7:15 the children are up and she prepares t h e i r breakfast. By 8:45 she's ready to " s t a r t i n " . She does the dishes, s t a r t s the laundry, makes the beds and either vacuums or dusts. In no time i t ' s noon and she begins to prepare the children's lunch. By the time the children leave and she's t i d i e d up from lunch her daughter i s home from school. Mrs. Slade spends some time talking to her daughter and then t r i e s to f i n i s h her cleaning. No sooner does she get started than i t ' s 4:00 and time to put dinner on. By 7:00 the family has fini s h e d dinner and she has a chance to read the newspaper. F i n a l l y she does the dinner dishes, puts her daughter to bed and then her 162 work day i s finished . Mrs. Slade f e e l s that the housework i s her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as, i n her words, "I'm home and there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to handle i t " . Her husband has no regular chores although he does some "outside chores" such as mowing the lawn, gardening and such. In Mrs. Slade's opinion her husband does his " f a i r share" of the housework because " i f a woman i s n ' t in a r e a l career i t ' s a bit much for him to do as much as his wife... besides, a l o t of men might not l i k e that". Mrs. Slade's sons are responsible for helping their Dad with the yard, making t h e i r beds, and looking aft e r their rooms, although Mrs. Slade's daughter i s "too young to have chores", Mrs. Slade expects that "she'd probably be more interested in helping out i n the kitchen as she gets older. I don't suppose she'd do the lawns (laughter)". Mrs. Slade believes her f i r s t p r i o r i t y i n l i f e should be her family because she loves them. She emphatically stated that: "I want and should be a mother f i r s t ! " The Manager^ Mr t Slade Mr. Slade has worked with the railway for eighteen years. He i s manager of a transportation d i v i s i o n and finds that most of h i s time i s spent i n administrative duties. He describes his 163 work as "hectic, challenging and f r u s t r a t i n g " . He f e e l s that the reward of his work i s not money but rather "getting s a t i s f a c t i o n out of the work". Mr. Slade prefers his wife not to have a job for two main reasons. F i r s t of a l l , the children need someone at home; "they get into enough trouble with us at home". Besides, "I've thought at times when the kids were hurt, i t would be pretty frightening for the kids not to have t h e i r mother to turn to". Secondly, "(my wife) would be doing housework on evenings and weekends..., I wouldn't l i k e that". Mr. Slade's attitude toward his wife working away from home was perhaps best i l l u s t r a t e d when he said: "I wouldn't stand i n her way i f that's what she wanted to do but fortunately for me she doesn't want to do that..,.My wife's f i r s t p r i o r i t y should be the family and the home as long as I'm able to provide for the family." When asked how he f e l t about his wife being a housewife, Mr. Slade responded that "my wife takes a l o t of pride i n being a housewife. I get after her sometimes that she's overdoing i t " . He i s pleased however that she does take pride i n "looking after us as a family and maintaining a home". Mr. Slade noted that there are times when she gets t i r e d of i t and has a "shut-in" f e e l i n g but "that's pretty natural". Mr. Slade considers that his household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s include "painting, f i x i n g things, building, and outdoor work". 164 He suggested that he didn't have a l o t of household chores but that "the wife does housework during the week and i t ' s not l e f t to the weekend". Mr. Slade was asked why he f e l t that he was responsible for providing for the home and his wife for maintaining i t . He responded as follows: "In ninety-nine percent of a l l cases men wouldn't be as good cooks, sewers ( s i c ) , or (be able) to take care of children day after day the way a woman can....Women are able to show more love, a f f e c t i o n and understanding of children than men can." He was unsure of why t h i s was the case but f e l t that perhaps i t st a r t s in childhood. He offered the example of his own family where "the boys c e r t a i n a l l y aren't volunteering to do much housework around here. They'd much rather be playing sports. (My daughter) would be more in c l i n e d to be i n the kitchen trying to help mix a cake.,.. This i s just the way i t i s " . I t should be noted i n closing that Mr. Slade sees himself as a "family man". He considers that: "I might devote more time to my job but I've made an agreement with myself that I have other r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . That job i s n ' t everything!" In fact, Mr. Slade spends much of his l e i s u r e time coaching his sons i n sports a c t i v i t i e s or other family-oriented a c t i v i t i e s . 165 Case 5__ The Housewife and The Insurance Broker Mr. and Mrs. Brown have been married f o r twenty-one years. They are both i n their mid-forties and have two children, a daughter and a son aged twenty and sixteen years respectively. Both husband and wife describe t h e i r family as a happy family. The Brown's reside i n a spacious, expensively decorated home in West Vancouver. Mr. and Mrs. Brown come from very similar family backgrounds. They were both born and raised i n Vancouver, th e i r mothers both were employed as stenographers and their fathers as salesmen. Mr. Brown's father sold r e a l estate and Mrs. Brown's father sold men's clo t h i n g . Mr. Brown has worked in the insurance business f o r the l a s t twenty-five years. Presently he i s an insurance broker and part-owner of an insurance agency. This has been a very lucrative enterprise for Mr. Brown. Mrs. Brown has been employed only once since she has been married. Five years ago she worked part-time, for a three year period, as a teachers aid i n a high school. She quit t h i s job and has been working as a fu l l - t i m e housewife ever since. The Housewife: Mrs. Brown 166 Mrs. Brown was married for sixteen years before she re-entered the labour force as a teachers aid. She took t h i s job, on a part-time basis, because her husband had just taken a new job, they had moved into a new house and she wanted to buy some new furniture and other "luxuries" for the house. The children were i n school when she accepted the job and i t was for t h i s reason that she arranged to work from 10:00 to 3:00: she wished to be home when the children arrived home from school. Although Mrs. Brown enjoyed her job, she quit a f t e r three years when they no longer needed the money for "extras". Mrs. Brown's attitude towards women working i s that " i f you are working and you have a family, i t ' s a l r i g h t as long as no one i s suffering as a consequence". It i s f o r t h i s reason that she f e l t obliged to arrange her working hours around her family. Mrs. Brown i s of the firm opinion that women who have preschool-age children "shouldn't work unless they have to for f i n a n c i a l reasons!" If these women want to work because they are not happy or contented " i t ' s t h e i r own f a u l t . . . because being a mother i s what you make i t " . Mrs. Brown says that she rarely gets bored or frustrated except on the weekends when everyone troops back and forth over the kitchen f l o o r . Generally, however, she summarizes her fee l i n g s as, "I'm r e a l l y happy. It's not a d i f f i c u l t l i f e at a l l . " 167 When Mrs. Brown was working at her job she found that her husband did not provide any extra help with the housework. She explains that "there was no reason for him to help because I was always home when he was home. If I had come home at the same time as him I think i t would have been a nuisance f o r him. Supper would be just beginning..,." Now that she no longer i s employed she f e e l s that "there's no reason for him to be doing housework although sometimes he helps dry the dishes for no reason. He doesn't have to". Mrs. Brown's attitude i s that her husband should not have to do housework when she i s not working. She i s of the opinion that housework i s "womens work", but also has the following general rule about to the housework: "I never say he has to help me with the chores. I f I can help him I do. I f I can't do something, he helps me. I think we get along f a i r l y well." Mrs. Brown mentioned that her husband does a considerable amount of gardening and "outdoor work" but l i t t l e "indoor work". Generally, however, she found that the more she did around the house the less he did. For example, she says, "I started painting the inside of the house and then I couldn't get him to do i t because I had done i t before". Having discovered that t h i s was the case she started doing l e s s and l e s s outdoor work. As she predicted, her husband started to increase his a c t i v i t y outside. 168 Mrs. Brown suggested that she was a " p e r f e c t i o n i s t " when i t comes to housekeeping and consequently i s very g r a t e f u l that her daughter has been so helpful around the house. Since she described her daughter as always "fussing about" i t would seem however, that she would just as soon the daughter did a l i t t l e l e s s i n the way of housework. As a matter of fact, she never asks either her son or daughter to help her as she fe e l s the housework to be her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Mrs. Brown now spends a considerable amount of time in sports a c t i v i t i e s and i n sketching. Since these a c t i v i t i e s provide her with " s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t " and her husband i s earning a "reasonable" income she does not anticipate that in the future she w i l l seek employment. The Insurance Broker: Mr.. Brown Mr. Brown has worked very hard i n the past f i v e years to make his insurance agency f i n a n c i a l l y sound. This has been very time consuming but the business i s now f i n a n c i a l l y successful. Just before Mr. Brown became part-owner of the insurance agency, his wife began to work as "she wanted some money for furnishing the house. I t wasn't a case of her wanting something to do". Two years l a t e r Mrs. Brown quit her job as a teacher's aid. Mr. Brown has found that since his wife stopped working, she i s more relaxed and the atmosphere around the home i s more 169 relaxed. Mr. Brown expressed h i s views on h i s wife taking a paying job, as follows: '•Being old fashioned, I think a woman's place i s i n the home... p a r t i c u l a r i l y i f there are young children. I think mother should be at home because I think the role of father or husband i s breadwinner. Generally speaking, he's more capable of demanding a higher wage and getting i t than a woman would be." He f e e l s that his wife's place i s i n the home because "women have more emotion than men and therefore are better able to look after the children". As evidence of t h i s he suggested that in his own home " i f we had any big problems we always went to Dad and i f you had a smashed finger you went to Mother". Mr. Brown expressed the b e l i e f that women should only work i f they have to work for f i n a n c i a l reasons. Apart from the fact that " i t i s a woman's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to show the i r children the way of l i f e " , " i f women work because they want to work they may be depriving someone who needs a job of a job". Mr. Brown f e e l s that the housewife and the breadwinner make an equal contribution to society but the housewife makes her contribution through r a i s i n g responsible children. For t h i s reason, he i s very much opposed to the use of daycare centres unless the women "have" to work. Mr. Brown was asked whether he was responsible for any household chores. His response was that when he was f i r s t married he peeled the vegetables and helped to wash the f l o o r s . 170 After the b i r t h of their f i r s t c h i l d his wife did most of the housework because she was home a l l day. When she started working at a job again he f e l t they a l l pitched i n . Now that his wife does not work she does most of the housework as " i t ' s her job i f she's home". Mr. Brown observed that " t h i s was a gradual change as we upgraded houses and the children did more...,It wasn't a conscious change, just that the circumstances changed". Mr. Brown fe e l s that he doesn't r e a l l y do too much housework as " i t ' s quite an easy house to keep clean". He does do such outdoor work as cutting the lawns, outside painting, repair work, and a considerable amount of gardening. Mr. Brown noted that his children are very helpful to his wife. He describes his daughter as being very "house conscious" and fast i d i o u s about house cleaning. His son i s "just the opposite (laughter) !" Nevertheless his son helps in the garden, takes the garbage out, and brings i n wood for the f i r e p l a c e . 171 H i . Wives Employed Part-time2. Husbands Employed Full-time "What makes the l o t of the wife-servant ungrateful i s the d i v i s i o n of labour which dooms her completely to the general and the i n e s s e n t i a l . Dwelling- place and food are useful for l i f e but give i t no significance: the immediate goals of the housekeeper are only means, not true ends." (DeBeauvoir, 1953:428) Case 6 T h e Switchboard Operator and The F o r k l i f t Driver Mr. and Mrs. Gable have been married for almost twenty-five years. Mr. Gable i s f i f t y - f o u r years old and Mrs. Gable i s forty-seven. They have three'children, a l l sons, aged twenty-two, nineteen, and thirteen. The youngest c h i l d i s a foster c h i l d . The family resides in a small, rather neglected house located i n the east end of Vancouver. Mr. Gable was born i n England and immigrated to Canada as a young c h i l d . . Mrs. Gable was born and raised i n Saskatchewan. Both have come from families i n which the mothers occupation was housewife. Mr. Gable's father was employed as a bartender and Mrs. Gable's father as a police o f f i c e r . Mr. Gable has worked for the past nine years as a f o r k l i f t driver i n a warehouse. Mrs. Gable has worked two days a week, for the past eight years, as a switchboard operator i n a department store. The Switchboard O p e r a t o r M r s . Gable 172 Mrs. Gable stopped working at her job shortly after she was married and did not resume employment u n t i l seventeen years l a t e r . She took a part-time position as a switchboard operator i n a large department store. The reason why she wanted to take a job was that she wanted to "get out of the house, f e e l independent, and of course the extra money i s nice too". This money i s used, however, only for the purposes of holidays and "extras". Hrs. Gable enjoys her job very much. The aspects of her job which she p a r t i c u l a r i l y enjoys are the in t e r e s t i n g people working with her, the presence of young students, and the fact that she has an opportunity to t r a i n people. Although she i s happy with her job she does not wish to work more than sixteen hours a week u n t i l her youngest son i s "a l i t t l e older". This son i s a foster son and she f e e l s that she should not keep him unless she i s prepared to spend some time with him. Besides t h i s , Hrs. Gable would not want to work on a f u l l - t i m e basis becuse of health reasons and the fact that she does not f e e l she could manage the house and a job. Mrs. Gable f e e l s that housework i s her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y "unless someone came in and took over". She noted however, that sometimes she gets a "helping hand" from her family. Nevertheless, she i s of the opinion that: "My husband and sons should do more housework although i f i t i s n ' t done ri g h t away i t ' s easier to do i t myself. I t ' s always been that I've just taken over and gone and done i t myself instead of putting the 173 pressure on. I t ' s not worth getting too frustrated about." Mrs. Gable f e l t that she had started out her marriage thinking the housework was her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but the more she thinks about i t the more she thinks " i t shouldn't be a l l my job... i t should be shared a l i t t l e more". In fact, i t i s Mrs. Gable's view that "a l o t of my generation were brainwashed into thinking that's your r o l e and you did i t and put up with i t " . In her own home, for example, her mother did a l l the housework. Her father did "the odd pancake bake" but had no household chores other than maintenance a c t i v i t i e s . Mrs. Gable does not believe that there w i l l be any change in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of household tasks i n her family as her sons and her husband are not w i l l i n g to do any more chores. "They're set i n a pattern and I'm not the type to pressure". Presently her husband does housework " i f he knows I'm pressed f o r time". Otherwise he does not have any household chores, although on occasion he vacuum cleans, paints, wallpapers, and cooks the odd meal (primarily Sunday breakfast). He and the children share the task of looking after such "outside work" as gardening, mowing the lawn, cleaning the roof and the l i k e . Mrs. Gable does not f e e l that she presently has much d i f f i c u l t y in managing her job and her home. On the two days when she works at her job she does not do any housework and has prepared supper, so that the children just have to put i t in the 174 oven. In Mrs. Gable's view, "maintaining a home i s n ' t as important as working, but working i s n ' t as important as the family". The F o r k l i f t Driver:. Mr.. Gable Mr. Gable has driven a f o r k l i f t i n a warehouse for the past nine years. He describes t h i s as "menial work" and does not enjoy i t . Although he d i s l i k e s h i s job he does not f e e l that he can guit i n that he i s f i f t y - f o u r years old and "nobody's going to hire me!" He described his wife's job as a "pastime" and noted that she r e a l l y enjoys her work. He observed that " i f she didn't work she'd have to do something to keep her busy". Although he supposed that his wife's income "helped out" he does not know how much she makes or what she does with i t . He made clear that he did not want to know anything about her income. Mr. Gable was very s a t i s f i e d with his wife working two days a week and would not wish her to work any more than three days a week, i n the future. I f she worked more than that, he explained, she would get too t i r e d and this.would make him unhappy. More generally, Mr. Gable's view was that women should not work f u l l -time " u n t i l the children are at least sixteen years old". The reason for t h i s i s that "the woman i s needed more at home as 175 everything i s based around the mother. Fathers can't tend to children the way mothers can". Mr. Gable has no "household duties" as he i s not too "fussy" about housework. Apart from t h i s , his wife can prepare a better meal than he can and he cannot understand the laundry machine. Besides, "she does the housework when I'm not home.,, she has everything done". He did mention, that " i f I have to do i t , I ' l l do i t ! " When asked when he f e l t he had to do i t he replied that he "only does i t when the wife i s pressed for t ime". Mr. Gable i s of the firm opinion that: " I f a woman has to work, then the husband and wife should share the housework, but i f i t i s n ' t necessary for her to work then she should consider looking after the house f i r s t ! " In the case of his wife, he f e e l s that " i t i s n ' t necessary for her to work i n the f i r s t place. She's doing t h i s for herself and to s a t i s f y herself, where the man has to work to keep the house going". More generally his attitude i s that a woman's f i r s t p r i o r i t y should be the family and her second p r i o r i t y her job. "That's the way things stand today and that's the way I was brought up!" His mother never had a job; his father brought in the money. "We just do i t a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t . " When Mr. Gable was asked whether he f e l t that there was any p o s s i b i l i t y of change i n the a l l o c a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in the family he responded i n the following fashion: "We've been doing i t th i s way for twenty-five years and there's not much chance of change....If my wife wanted change I'd have to think about i t but there's no point in thinking about something that may or may not happen." 177 Case Ji The Saleslady and The Policeman Mr. and Hrs. Innis have been married f o r twenty years and describe t h e i r marriage as a happy one. They have two children, both daughters, aged thirteen and nine. Both Mr. and Mrs. Innis are i n their early f o r t i e s . The family resides in a small, well maintained home located i n c e n t r a l Burnaby. Mr. and Mrs. Innis were both born and raised in Vancouver. Mr. Innis* father was employed as a miner and Mrs. Innis* father as a1 carpenter. Neither of t h e i r mothers were employed in the labour force. Mr. Innis* parents were both very i l l when he was a young boy and since he was an only c h i l d he was required to both work at home"and at a job at the age of fourteen. Mr. Innis i s presently employed as a police sergeant. He has been with the police force f o r twenty-two years. Mrs. Innis has been employed for three years as a saleslady i n a cardshop. She works at t h i s job four hours a day, two days a week. The Salesladyj. Mrgi Innis Mrs. Innis was married, worked fo r a few years, and then quit her job with the intention of r a i s i n g a family. She soon had two daughters and when the eldest was about three years old she 178 began to get involved with volunteer work. She f e l t that i t was a good outlet for her. It was something she was doing outside the home. Mrs. Innis found that since she was an outgoing sort of parson she quickly became overloaded with r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and they took too much of her time. As a r e s u l t she found the only way she could free herself was to say no to a l l of the organizations. Mrs. Innis then found that she had a few hours a week which she'd l i k e to spend outside the home. At this point she decided to go to work because she was "a l i t t l e bored with housework" and, "as the children get older and go t h e i r separate ways you f i n d you need something extra to do". Just by chance a friend offered her a job i n a card shop whera she could work 11:30 to 3:30 twice a week. Mrs. Innis f e l t that t h i s was a perfect s i t u a t i o n because i t wouldn't i n t e r f e r e with the children, she didn't want to work more than two days a week for three reasons: you get t i r e d , things get too neglected around the house, and the children don't l i k e i t . Mrs. Innis describes her " l i t t l e job" as fun. She enjoys the people she's with and the people she meets. Mrs. Innis keeps her income i n her own bank account. This money i s put towards the family vacation. As she says, " i t ' s not that you make a l o t of money but as you see your money grow and (realize) that i t can do something f o r the family, well I think i t ' s rather nice". The following statement i s perhaps most i l l u s t r a t i v e of her 179 attitude towards her job: "Right now the way I f e e l i s that I don't have to go to work so I t h i n k — I wanted to raise children so why not do i t . That's the best thing to do, but get a l i t t l e diversion in i t and i t ' s rather nice....I don't r e a l l y want to spend my time i n the outside world, my time i s r e a l l y best spent here." Mrs. Innis f e e l s that i n some respects she has changed over the years i n terms of where her values are placed. She f e e l s that "I look more now, not unto s e l f but outside of s e l f " . For example, she says that twenty years ago when they bought a new stove she was very excited. Now when they bought a new stove she thought she'd rather have done something else with the money, such as having a t r i p . When asked i f her job had any e f f e c t on her housework, Mrs. Innis observed that she did the same cleaning but that she didn't ask for the same perfection as she used to. For example, " i f there i s n ' t wax on my kitchen f l o o r , as long as i t ' s clean I don't mind. I don't need to have a high gloss on my kitchen f l o o r anymore". On the days when she works at her job her household routine assumes the following pattern. The family gets up, she prepares breakfast and gets the children off to school and her husband off to work. After making the beds and tid y i n g up she then goes to work. Having returned from work she talks to her daughters while preparing dinner. Her husband comes home and then they s i t down and have dinner. After dinner she washes the dishes and 180 then irons or sews while watching t e l e v i s i o n . Mrs. Innis f e e l s that her husband's chores are the lawns and painting. He used to help with the dishes but he got t i r e d of doing dishes and so he bought a dishwasher. Although he w i l l help her when asked she doesn't f e e l that she can ask him to help her with the laundry or the ironing as they're "fussy chores and (she) doesn't think men have the patience". When her husband does help her with her chores "most things he would do would be under my supervision. I'm the boss i n my kitchen and he's the helper". Generally, however, Mrs. Innis f e e l s that the housework balances out. Perhaps the balance does not rest i n the actual amount of time spent doing various chores however, as she noted that "my husband makes breakfast on Saturday and Sunday mornings.... that balances out f o r a l o t ! " At a more general l e v e l , Mrs. Innis' attitude i s that the husband's ro l e in the family i s that of the "provider". When asked why she f e l t t h i s way Mrs. Innis r e p l i e d : "I think i t ' s a throwback from when I was a c h i l d . Mother was a housewife. It's just the type of person I am. If just don't think I'm the strong one. (My husband) has the a b i l i t y to make the most money....I wouldn't want the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s outside the home. They'd always take you away from the children." The Policeman:, Hr__ Innis Mr. Innis became a policeman because his primary concern in 181 getting a job was the f a c t that i t offered security. Although he feels policework does offe r t h i s benefit he f i n d s his work to be very f r u s t r a t i n g . This i s primarily a consequence of the f a c t that: "I was and am ahead of my times i n terms of my thinking". He i s convinced that he saved the police department considerable funds i n t h e i r l a s t budget through his research e f f o r t s but that he hasn't received compensation for t h i s either i n terms of rank or money. This, of course, he f i n d s to be rather disconcerting, Mr. Innis was asked how he f e l t about his wife working. His attitude was that t h i s would teach h i s daughters s e l f reliance and that as long as his wife was back at home when the children returned from school i t wasn't a problem. He told his wife, however, that "whenever i t gets to the point that you're t i r e d and taking i t out on the family that's the end, you're q u i t t i n g ! " In f a c t Mr. Innis f e e l s t h i s s i t u a t i o n did occur when his wife was engaged i n volunteer work and t h i s i s why she had to quit these a c t i v i t i e s . In terms of his wife's income, Mr. Innis has taken the view that " i t doesn't mean anything because i t ' s so l i t t l e (laughter) . I told her to put i t away into a l i t t l e account, do whatever you want with i t " . When asked how he would f e e l about housewives receiving a salary he responded that he didn't f e e l that t h i s was necessary as "the housewife gets nice food, clothing, and a place to sleep. They've got a l l the comforts". Mr. Innis i s of the opinion that i t i s the mother's job to 182 be with her children when they're young. He thinks women are "coping out" i f they put th e i r children i n daycare centres and continue working. He fee l s t h i s way for the following reason: "If you go right back to biology, that's t h e i r role i n l i f e , to look after t h e i r children. This i s true i n a l l areas of animal l i f e . . . . I think a man could adjust i f he had to. I think, though, that you need the woman's touch somewhere along the l i n e i n r a i s i n g children. You can't deny that!" More generally, Mr. Innis' attitude i s that i f the family does not suffer from the woman working then the woman should have an outside interest. A man develops and grows i n his job and i f a man doesn't allow his wife to grow as well, then the breakups star t . For a two week period just previous to the interview, Mrs. Innis had worked f u l l - t i m e . This was a consequence of the store owner being i l l . This was a very upsetting experience for Mr. Innis. He f e l t his wife to be under a considerable amount of s t r a i n , to be t i r e d , and taking i t out on the family. The following quote i s most i l l u s t r a t i v e of his attitude toward t h i s s i t u a t i o n : "You stand back and say there's no way she's going to work steady i f t h i s i s what i t ' s going to do....when you (his wife) look at your position, what you have and what you can plan f o r . . . why did you go out the door in the f i r s t place? It wasn't the money. I t was just getting a break from housework to cut the boredom down a l i t t l e b i t and having a l i t t l e fun at i t and no stress or s t r a i n or nothing. Once the job st a r t s to develop the stresses and strai n s i t ' s not worth i t any more. You've l o s t your sense of d i r e c t i o n ! " As to the roles of husband and wife, Mr. Innis stated that 183 "there's no question that I have to provide for my f a m i l y . . , , i t ' s my duty." When asked why he thought t h i s way he responded that i t was just the way he had been brought up. His mother had never worked. His father had i t "just b u i l t into him" that he was the wage earner and that's i t ! Although Hr. Innis f e e l s he i s the breadwinner i n the family he i s quite prepared to help his wife with the housework. "As a man" what bothers him however, i s a steady dose of i t . When asked what i n pa r t i c u l a r bothered him he repl i e d that one thing was that he had to get the meals ready when his wife worked f u l l - t i m e . 184 3a ss 8: The Secretary-Treasurer and The President Mr. and Mrs. Cave have been married for twenty-nine years. They have four children, two of whom presently l i v e at home. The two children at home include a daughter aged seventeen years and a mentally retarded son aged fourteen years, Mr. and Mrs, Cave are i n their m i d - f i f t i e s . The family resides i n a rather small, yet well cared for home, located i n central Burnaby. Mr. Cave l i v e d the f i r s t twenty-eight years of his l i f e in England and then immigrated to Vancouver. Mrs. Cave has li v e d in Vancouver a l l her l i f e with the exception of a b r i e f stay in England. Mr. Cave came from what he describes as a "working cl a s s " background. His father worked i n a body shop and his mother was a housewife. Both of Mrs. Cave's parents were employed , her father ran a clothing store and her mother was a high school teacher. Mr. and Mrs. Cave are "partners" in an e l e c t r i c a l contracting firm. The firm has been established f o r twenty years. Mr. Cave i s President of the firm and Mrs. Cave i s Secretary-Treasurer. Mrs. Cave works from 10:00 to 4:00, f i v e days a week. The Secretary-Treasurer^ Mrs.. Cave 185 Mrs. Cave has been employed i n the family business for twenty years. She i s primarily responsible for a l l the accounting business i n the firm. She enjoys her work very much as she " l i k e s to be out with people and f e e l (she's) i n the stream of things". 1 When the business was f i r s t established, Mrs. Cave did not receive any salary. However, several years l a t e r an accountant suggested that i t might be to the i r advantage to divide up her husband's salary between them. This would then enable her to receive Canada Pension. Mrs. Cave uses her half of t h i s salary for "housekeeping and extras" while "clothing and house payments and that sort of thing comes out of (my husband's s a l a r y ) " . With regard to women working, Mrs. Cave f e e l s that "the mother should be home when the youngster comes home from school...They come home and they're just bursting with things to t e l l you...an hour or two l a t e r and i t ' s a l l worn o f f . . . . I think mother l i k e s to be needed (laughter)". When asked whether she had considered being a ful l - t i m e housewife, Mrs. Cave responded: "I'm the only one in t h i s area i n my age group, so for one thing i t would be l o n e l y . . . i t ' s just that I'm out of the habit. I can't even picture i t " . Aside from t h i s , she f e l t that her housework expands to f i l l the time avialable and i t i s not worth spending a great deal of time on housework. After a l l , "you clean the house one day and the next day you clean the house a l l over again. Housework i s just 186 something that has to be done!" Mrs. Cave was asked how she manages to work at a job, do the housework and look a f t e r the family. Her response was as follows: "I just muddle through. 1*10 not organized.... I try to get the housework done by the weekend but I don't usually succeed. There's always a l o t l e f t but i t doesn't r e a l l y worry me. When I die somebody else w i l l do i t , so why worry about i t . I t ' s always there." Mrs. Cave f e l t that she could give only a very general description of the household routine as she did not r e a l l y have a "routine". At 7:00 the family gets up, she makes breakfast, packs lunches and t r i e s to get her son ready f o r school. By 8:10 her children are off to school and she has time to prepare her own breakfast. After breakfast she cleans up the kitchen, makes the beds and prepares to go to work. Mrs. Cave then works from 10:00 to 4:00. After work she i s "on the run constantly". Dinner i s begun and then she does "whatever seems most urgent". This usually includes the laundry or the ironing. After dinner she does the dishes and then "that's i t for the day!" Mrs. Cave has some help from her children i n doing the housework. Her daughter "now and then does the vacuum cleaning, mows the lawns, and cleans her room. Her mentally retarded son helps set the table and stacks the dishwasher. Mrs. Cave only asks her children to help her i f she's "stuck" because she doesn't think " i t ' s natural for kids to hop up and do something around the house". 187 When asked why she f e l t the housework was her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Mrs. Cave stated that t h i s was the case because "my husband wouldn't do i t . . . , I t was just the way he was brought up". Besides, she noted, "my husband works longer hours and I don't think he should do too much. However, i f I were working f u l l - t i m e and I didn't get any help with the housework, I wouldn't be working f u l l - t i m e " . Having given t h i s matter some further thought Mrs. Cave observed that "a man couldn't do anything that would suit me anyway. I'd probably just go around and do things over.,.,this would c e r t a i n a l l y discourage anyone from doing f i f t y percent of the housework". For example, "I don't l i k e my husband butting in when I'm cooking. I'd rather do i t myself". Mr. Cave, who had just entered the room, quickly r e p l i e d , "Well don't complain when I won't go in the kitchen then!" The President:. Mr«_ Cave When Mr. Cave was f i r s t beginning the e l e c t r i c a l contracting firm i t was operated from the Cave's home. He was working very long days and consequently his wife started to help him out. "The wife was bored with housework a l l the time". The business quickly expanded and they were soon i n a position to locate the o f f i c e elsewhere, at t h i s point Mr. Cave assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the administrative aspects of the business. 188 Mrs. Cave was assigned the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for accounting. Mr. Cave does not a s s i s t her with t h i s task as, he says, "I was t o l d to gat my nose out of i t " . Mr. Cave was of the opinion that t h i s arrangement was convenient, "apart from the fa c t that i f she were a stranger I could f i r e her. It does lead to some c o n f l i c t . I don't need back-chat and people getting humorous when I'm busy....It works out to the degree that she cares about the business and that makes a difference!" When asked how he would f e e l about his wife working f u l l -time, Mr. Cave's attitude was that he would not want her to. He was concerned that she be home when t h e i r son returned from school as "children need t h e i r mothers at home". More generally, Mr. Cave expressed the following view on the r o l e of women: "I think a woman i s b i o l o g i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . For one thing the majority of women have greater sympathy and empathy with children. I think that's what they were r e a l l y put on earth for was the reproduction of the human race so t h i s should be th e i r major function. I think that women can teach men how to l i v e better. They can calm men down when they get upset....nevertheless, I don't say a woman's place i s i n the home. I just don't see why a woman should blacktop roads, for instance... not when there are able-bodied men that can do i t ! " Mr. Clarke's attitude i s that "women shouldn't have to do what men have to do for a l i v i n g . "There are other things she can do a h e l l of a l o t better!" For example, women are more 189 capable of doing housework and caring f o r children, It i s Mr. Cave's view that: "Women should complement rather than compete with men. If I'm capable of doing i t and i t f a l l s into the male sphere then why the h e l l should she have to do i t ? She should acknowledge the fact that he does i t better and l e t him do i t and vice-versa." In accordance with t h i s attitude, Mr. Cave does not f e e l that housework i s his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . His job i s to f i x things, b u i l d , and look after the gardens and the lawns. Generally, Mr. Cave suggests the following rationale for t h i s d i v i s i o n of labour: " I f you have a d i r t y job to do, i t should be the male that goes out and does i t . When he comes home from doing that d i r t y job there's a clean bed, a nice meal and a nice chair to s i t i n . What the h e l l — y o u can't have that i f your wife's out doing the same thing as you!" To an extent he feels that men are somewhat more fortunate than women. "The man can sort of shed the family i n the morning when he gets up and goes out to work and then put the family on again when he gets home. A woman can't do that and t h i s makes a difference". 190 III.. Wives Employed Full-time:. Husbands Employed Full-time Case 9:. The Bank T e l l e r and The Insurance Sales Representative Mr. and Mrs. Ryan have been married for twenty-four years. They are both i n t h e i r mid-forties and have four children, three daughters and one son. The daughters range i n age from sixteen to twenty-one years and the son i s fourteen years of age. The family resides in an upper middle c l a s s subdivision located on the North Shore. The Ryan's home looks somewhat run-down compared to those surrounding i t . Both Mr. and Mrs. Ryan were raised i n Manitoba. Mr. Ryan's father worked as a r e a l estate agent and h i s mother as a nurse. Mrs. Ryan's father worked as a banker and her mother as a housewife. Mr. Ryan has been employed as an insurance d i s t r i c t sales representative for the past eight years. On a f u l l - t i m e basis, Mrs. Ryan has worked as a counter clerk in a bank for three years. The Bank Teller.: Mrs.. Ryan Mrs. Ryan was married, worked i n a bank f o r three years. 191 worked as a housewife for eighteen years and then returned to the labour force as a bank t e l l e r , at the time she was hired at the bank she wasn't r e a l l y looking f o r a job but she ran into a fri e n d who was "desperate" for help. Mrs. Ryan's attitude was that t h i s was the only way she would have been hired after being a housewife f o r such a long time. She was happy to go to work as the children were getting older and the money was an important factor. Presently the family i s i n need of her income and in f a c t economically, Mrs. Ryan said, she just didn't know how they would survive i f she wasn't working. although Mrs. Ryan works i n the bank fu l l - t i m e , she f i n d s i t t i r i n g and would prefer to work part-time. Nevertheless she i s happy where she's working—"they're a congenial bunch and that makes up for a l o t ! " One aspect of her job which she p a r t i c u l a r i l y enjoys i s the f e e l i n g of independence which i t has given her. as she noted, "you're the lady i n the bank instead of John's wife, a l l of a sudden you're sort of a human being. In some ways i t ' s given me a l i t t l e more se l f confidence". The one aspect of being employed at a job which disturbed Mrs. Ryan was the f a c t the nobody i s home when the children return from school. "Ideally", she says, "I think i t would be best for the mother to be at home. Maybe I'm just being s e l f i s h but I much prefer being out i n the world. I t ' s made me much happier". The following i s perhaps most i l l u s t r a t i v e of Mrs. Ryan's attitude i n t h i s regard: 192 "When you f i r s t s t a r t out you think you're going to be such a good mother and somewhere along the l i n e i t just doesn't work out. Your wonderful theories just don't work out so well....I found that coping with a l l these d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s i s quite exhausting. They're at the age now where they a l l want to assert themselves. I'm quite happy to escape to work!" Before Mrs. Eyan started to work i n the bank she spent a considerable amount of time "coffee klatching" or pa r t i c i p a t i n g i n other s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Mrs. Byan described herself as "nevar what you might c a l l a good housekeeper. I just l e t things p i l e up". She didn't f e e l that i t was important to be " f a s t i d i o u s l y clean". as a housewife she just "sort of dragged around not accomplishing anything at a l l " . One of the b e n e f i c i a l aspects of working was that "at least you've got to get yourself going i n the morning". When asked how she manages her job at the bank, the children, and the housework, Mrs. Ryan rep l i e d that she just ignores a l o t of the housework she should be doing and, her husband helps her with the housework. She noted that the children also help on occasion but that they aren't consistent . Her view i s that they should help more but that " t h e y ' l l do anough housework when they are married". Her husband, on the other hand, i s a considerable help as he vacuum cleans, t i d i e s up, and often prepares meals. This was purely a voluntary e f f o r t on his part for which she was very gra t a f u l . She would never consider asking him to help with the housework unless she were "desperate". 193 Mrs. Ryan f e l t that she and her husband "shared" the housework. When asked why t h i s was the case she responded in the following fashion: " I f she's (the wife) i s working because she wants to, well I guess she r e a l l y couldn't expect her husband to help out too much. But i f they're depending on her salary for their standard of l i v i n g and her husband wants her to work then I think he should help.,If he s p e c i f i c a l l y doesn't want her to work and she i n s i s t s on i t , i t doesn't seem reasonable that he should help her. He might just f e e l that i f that's what she wants to do then s h e ' l l just have to cope with i t her s e l f . " Mrs. Ryan f e l t that in her own case, for f i n a n c i a l reasons she needed to work and, her husband was very much in favour of her working. "This i s probably why he helps me so much. I don't r e c a l l ever asking him to do i t . He just does i t " . Ike Insurance Sales Representative: Mr. Ryan Before summarizing t h i s interview i t i s important to note that Mr. Ryan was quite h o s t i l e to being interviewed. He f i r s t suggested that he didn't believe i n surveys. As the interview continued i t seemed that what he was h o s t i l e to was i n fact, what he deemed to be the "personal nature " of some of the questions being asked. That i s , Mr. Ryan had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y in answering questions which did not refer to his family in p a r t i c u l a r . For example, when asked what he f e l t to be the advantages or disadvantages of his wife working away from home, he responded that the question was "a b i t personal". When the 194 question was rephrased i n terms of women working, he responded with l i t t l e hesitation. Since Mrs. Ryan i s working i n order to "maintain the family's standard of l i v i n g " i t i s quite conceivable that Mr. Ryan f e l t threatened by the fact that he Si was being asked to a r t i c u l a t e and evaluate the consequences of t h i s situation on the family. Although Mr. Ryan did not wish h i s wife to work when the children were young (less than twelve years of age), he f e l t that "once they're older they can accept the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and that's good for them". When asked how he f e l t about his wife working he said that he thought that t h i s was fin e and, his wife enjoyed her work. Mr. Ryan's view as to why his wife had not chosen to go back to work in the bank e a r l i e r was that "she hadn't esp e c i a l l y wanted to and I don't think she realized that she could get a job (laughter) ". At the time when she did decide to go back to work "the kids were branching out and developing their own int e r e s t s and her need was for something to f i l l the emptiness". The benefit of t h i s s i t u a t i o n , as he saw i t , was that "she has more money, sees more people, and does things she might have hesitated to do before because of a lack of confidence". The following i l l u s t r a t e s Mr. Ryan's general attitude toward working women: "I t ' s a l r i g h t for a woman to work as long as the family doesn't suffer but the family should be her f i r s t p r i o r i t y . I f her (his wife) working was. 195 adversely a f f e c t i n g the family I don't think she should work." Although Mrs. Ryan works at the bank f u l l time, Mr. Ryan f e l t that she has had no more problem managing the housework than she had before she took the job. "The job hasn't had an appreciable a f f e c t , at any rate". In terms of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r housework, Mr. Ryan expressed the following opinion: "I don't think she should be obliged to do everything i n the house, es p e c i a l l y where there i s a family. I f there were just the two of us then I'd think I could have the outside work and she could have the inside work which she i s more adapted to than I am. " Since h i s wife has a job he finds that he cooks much more often that he used to. He also does the vacuum cleaning and the grocery shopping regularly, as well as the "outside chores" (lawn mowing, gardening, and such). Mr. Ryan never does the laundry or the ironing however. He stated rather firmly, "I just don't do i t that's a l l ! The g i r l s can do i t i f i t has to be done!" Mr. Ryan provided the following explanation for why he helped his wife with the housework: "I t r a v e l and when I get home I f e e l that I'd better s t a r t helping around here. When the kids were young and I'd be away for two to three weeks at a time, you f e e l g u i l t y . When four of them would be at her i t was very demanding for her." 196 Case 1(h The T e l l e r and The Accountant Mr. and Mrs. M i l l s have been married for twenty-four years. They are both i n their early f i f t i e s and have one son aged seventeen years. The M i l l s reside i n an expensively furnished home located in Shaugnessy. Both Mr. and Mrs. M i l l s were born i n Canada and have l i v e d i n Vancouver for over t h i r t y years. Mr. M i l l s father was employed as a policeman and Mrs. M i l l s father as a farmer. Both of their mothers worked as f u l l - time housewives. Mr. M i l l s i s an accountant. He has been an accounting manager and branch manager of an electronics firm for the past eight years. Mrs. M i l l s has been employed for the l a s t seven years as a bank t e l l e r . It i s a f u l l - t i m e job. The Teller:. Mrs.. Mi l i s o Mrs. M i l l s was married, worked for three years as a bank t e l l e r , guit her job when her son was born and "was just a plain old housewife for fourteen years" before she went back to work in the bank again. Although she was "bored to death at home" both she and her husband f e l t that her "place " was i n the home when th e i r son was s t i l l i n elementary school. After fourteen years of being a housewife Mrs. M i l l s was 197 bored and depressed. As a r e s u l t she went back to work "to get back i n the swing of things". She now f e e l s better mentally and physically. Mrs, M i l l s was quick to add, however, that, "I wouldn't be working i f I f e l t I was depriving (my son) of anything but so far everything has been going f i n e " . Mrs. M i l l s was not interested i n working part time. Her attitude was that " i t breaks up your day and I'm the kind of person that once they go out to work they don't f e e l l i k e s t a r t i n g i n and doing anything at home". She either wanted to work f u l l - t i m e or not to work at a l l . Mrs. M i l l s was asked how she managed to do the housework and to have a job at the same time. She r e p l i e d , "as far as my housawork goes, i t doesn't get that dusty or messy although I don't look aft e r i t as well as I used to. I keep i t presentable but I'm not as fussy as I used to be". She found that she was able to get the housework done i f she followed a routine. That i s , she gets up, has breakfast, and then leaves for work. The breakfast dishes are l e f t u n t i l supper time. Mrs. M i l l s then works at the bank from 9:00 to 5:00. As soon as she comes home from work she s t a r t s to cook dinner. After dinner she does the dishas and t i d i e s up. Monday night she does the laundry, Tuesday night the ironing, Wednesday night she relaxes, Thursday night the grocery shopping, Friday night she works at the bank, Saturday and Sunday she spends house cleaning. Although Mrs. M i l l s does almost a l l the housework herself. 198 her son and her husband do help out. Her son cuts the grass, does the dishes occasionally and makes his own bed i f she does not have time. Mrs. M i l l s added that she does not expect him to make i t and i n fac t would rather make i t herself because then i t i s made "properly". Mr. M i l l s helps with the lawns and the gardening and occasionally dries the dishes. He i s not expected to help too much, however, as he spends a great deal of time renovating the house. For instance, he spent three years completely remodelling the kitchen. Mrs. M i l l s does not f e e l that either her son or husband have helped her more since she has started working away from home but she says, "I fve had the help when I needed i t " . Mrs. M i l l s i s of the firm opinion that the man has to be the provider and the woman the homemaker. The reasoning behind t h i s opinion i s perhaps best i l l u s t r a t e d by the following quote: "A woman couldn't go out and take a man's ro l e i n l i f e because she doesn't get the salary to begin with.... also, I know I can quit my job anytime and I'm working with that attitude i n mind. I couldn't have that attitude i f I had to support a family. I think a woman's place i s i n the home with the children u n t i l the children are old enough and responsible enough that you can consider going to work." She recognizes that i t i s often very d i f f i c u l t for women to stay home with her c h i l d as she herself would have much rather gone out to work, but " i f you're going to get married and raise a family, then that's your f i r s t aim i n l i f e — t o look after them properly and bring them up to the best of your a b i l i t y " . In her opinion, a woman can't do that i f she's working. 199 The Accountant^. Mr.. M i l l s Mr. M i l l s i s very pleased that h i s wife has gone back to work. He f e l t that the fact that his wife was around the home a l l the time was "getting her down". Since she has gone back to work " i t ' s kept her occupied" and he feels t h e i r married l i f e has been happier as a r e s u l t . Besides, t h i s enables him to provide a reasonably good income while his wife can provide the " f r i l l s " . One of the consequences of her working however, has been that his wife has been unable to keep the house the way she would l i k e to. Mr. M i l l s says that he does not l i k e t h i s but " i t ' s not going to make me unhappy i f she doesn't do a few things". Mr. M i l l s does not believe that women should work when they have young children. In his opinion, the mother should be home when the children return from school. I f nobody i s home "who's going to make the home mean something to them?" When asked how his wife manages her job and the housework, Mr. M i l l s suggested that i t was not a problem as his wife i s an e f f i c i e n t person. He helps his wife, however, in so far as he "looks a f t e r the outside chores". Although he observed that he doesn't have any regular chores he attributes t h i s to the fact that his "hobby" i s puttering around the house". Mr. M i l l s f e e l s 200 that that i s where he spends most of his l e i s u r e time and so he does not have any regular chores. More generally, Mr. M i l l s ' view i s that i t i s his wife's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to see that the housework gets done "whether she brings someone i n to do i t or asks my son or I to do i t " . The following i l l u s t r a t e s his view of the d i v i s i o n of household tasks between he and his wife: " I t ' s her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y because i t ' s just accepted that she looks after that area (inside housework) .... i t ' s just the same as finances. I don't want to be bothered with i t and I think i t ' s good for her to do i t . . . . I t has to be someone's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and I guess i t just used to be hers when we got married. I suppose i t ' s the accepted thing." When asked whether he f e l t t h i s i s the way housework should be divided he responded, "I wouldn't want i t ! I ' l l say yes because i t doesn't i n t e r e s t me and women are more capable of doing i t . " In the "working world" Mr. M i l l s f e l t that perhaps the reverse situation existed. That i s , women are less capable of performing some jobs. He gave the following instance as an example: "I'm against seeing women on the end of a jackhammer. I don't think they are capable of producing the same as what a man i s . They can do i t but they can't produce as much as a man could so they should get paid accordingly." 

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.831.1-0093046/manifest

Comment

Related Items