THE SOCIOLOGY OF HOUSEWORK

Abstract

In general, in the family household, the relationship between men and women has changed over the past few years. It is presumed that women now are completely equal with men in terms of law and politics and that they have passed from properties of men, without their own status, to the right of legal people. It should be possible to draw certain conclusions about the existence of gender roles in the family by recognizing the existence of domestic work, power relations, etc. Housework is not seen as a work, but as an aspect of the "feminine role" in life. The study helps in understanding the ideological presumption that housework is "working women" while the division of work inside the house is "normal" and represents the raw "equality" between men and women (the male part of work outside the household being a "different but equal" one to provide for his wife and children). It is also obvious, however, that female domestic work experience (in terms of time spent and energy consumed) differs considerably among social groups. On the basis of the above arguments, this study, therefore, considers the sociology of housework to be an extremely important subject for the management of human and industrial relations. Instead of merely concentrating on the conceptualization of housework as a work and as an element of the feminine role within the family, the perspective of the study explores social literature evidence that offers content relevant to the discourse. This study is aimed at organizations and academicians who research the sociology of housework between the contemporary and conventional dimensions of housework.

Full text

1
Industrial Sociology, Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management. Fab Educational
Books, Fab Anieh House, Awka, Anambra State Nigeria. pp. 109-122. ISBN: 978-978-8554-05-9.
www.fabsedubooks.com
THE SOCIOLOGY OF HOUSEWORK
RASAK Bamidele Ph.D.
Department of Sociology
College of Business and Social Sciences
Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State
E-mail: delerasak@yahoo.co.uk, delerasak@gmail.com,
rasak.bamidele@lmu.edu.ng,
+2348034955615, +2347052087979
Abstract
In general in the family household the relationship between men and women has changed over the
past few years. It is presumed that women now are completely equal with men in terms of law and
politics and that they have passed from properties of men, without their own status, to the right of
legal people. It should be possible to draw certain conclusions about the existence of gender roles
in the family by recognizing the existence of domestic work, power relations, etc. Housework is
not seen as a work, but as an aspect of the “feminine role” in life. The study helps in understanding
the ideological presumption that housework is “working women” while the division of work inside
the house is "normal" and represents the raw “equality” between men and women (the male part
of work outside the household being a “different but equal” one to provide for his wife and
children). It is also obvious, however, that female domestic work experience (in terms of time
spent and energy consumed) differs considerably among social groups. On the basis of the above
arguments, this study therefore considers the sociology of housework to be an extremely important
subject for the management of human and industrial relations. Instead of merely concentrating on
the conceptualization of housework as a work and as an element of the feminine role within family,
the perspective of the study explores social literature evidence which offers content relevant to the
discourse. This study is aimed at organizations and academicians who research the sociology of
house work between the contemporary and conventional dimensions of housework.
Keyword: Sociology Housework, family household, women’s work, division of housework,
House chores
Introduction
For decades, Sociology Housework researchers have been subject to large-scale domestic
work (Naresh, 2007). Research primarily focuses on the question: how do men and women share
the average number of homework and the time required? Issues like the housework and gender-
based roles, economic efficiency, happiness, emotional well-being, and family tension, burden,
equality and conflict issues also increase researchers’ interest (Srivastava 1978; Berk 1985; Benin
& Agostinelli 1988; Broman 1988; Shelton 1990; Biernat & Wortman 1991; Erickson 1993; Lye
& Biblarz 1993; Mederer 1993; Kluwer, Heesink, & van de Vliert, 1996; Stohs, 1994). Throughout
the ages, domestic tasks have traditionally been part of the female role (Dube 1963; Haavio-
Mannila 1971).

2
These tasks create unending and monotonous productive service in the lives of women.
Women invest a large amount of time on these activities and job resources (Becker 1965; Szalai,
Converse, Feldheim, Scheuch, & Stone, 1972; Oakley 1974; Johnson 1975; Hawrylyshyn 1976;
Walker & Woods 1976; Gronau 1977; Robinson 1977; Murphy 1978; Berk & Berk 1979; Acharya
& Bennett 1981; Andorka & Falussy 1982; Nakanishi 1982). The results show that women’s
domestic work is necessary to meet the social and economic needs of the family and country.
In many cultures, the primary area of employment for women is the home (Blaxall &
Reagan 1976; Hauser & Featherman, 1977). Housework is also one of the key duties of those
women who work outside the home. (Dalla Costa & James 1975; Perry-Jenkins & Folk 1994;
Kluwer et al. 1996). They often handle the heaviness of the family and generate products and
service (Myrdal & Klein 1968; Rogers 1980), and men's co-operation is limited (Greenstein 1996).
Women are required to assume and provide services for their social and cultural domestic roles
(Epstein 1970; Stolte-Heiskanen 1971; Eagly 1987; Shelton and John 1993; Sidanius, Pratto, &
Rabinowitz, 1994).
Women still belong to the comparatively disadvantaged stratum, typically because of
domestic pressures, while modern societies offer the opportunity to enhance the interchangeability
of gender between the public and households (Scanzoni & Fox 1980). This indicates the idea of
women to conceptualize the role of women, fatherhood and motherhood in family life (Ramu,
1989). Research in the housework as such and the views of women regarding housework were not
especially important. This lack of interest in the housework and the above-mentioned issues
prompts the researcher to examine the sociology of housework and assess the role of gender in the
family.
Conceptualization of terms
In order to enhance the understanding of the sociology of housework, the following concepts were
reviewed:
Sociology of Housework
The Sociology of Housework and Housewives (Oakley, 1974a) was the first sociological
research to investigate housework as a workplace instead of just a task for women, using economic
methods to assess housework and compare it with other paying occupations. Study by British
sociologist Ann Oakley, carried out in the late 1960s, was an important research project in feminist
studies and in our perception of the social environment. Oakley stressed how social sciences
neglected work in the home and that there were then very few significant studies of work for
women. The study introduced the word 'gender' as we actually know it, which differentiates social
treatment between men and women and sex biology.

3
In this research, the borders between public and private were broken down and the
experiences of women in social theory included, with a lasting influence on academic thought,
political thought and the general public. Oakles (1974) argues that sexism against women is
axiomatic; that inequalities in gender are cultural; and that improvement in the status of women is
desirable. She discusses the invisibility of women and women’s problems both in society as a
whole and especially in the discipline of sociology. She believes that the patriarchy of culture is
expressed in sociological patriarchy. The empirical housework study of Oakley differed in two
respects from previous work.
First, it considered housework to be a task by itself and not an extension of the position of
women as wives or mothers. In so doing, the biological determinist presupposes that the
housework of women is a natural extension of their maternal role to women as reproducers and
carers. Secondly, through her study, Oakley aimed at explaining the situation of the housekeeper
and her housework attitude; at analyzing trends of satisfaction; and at proposing potential
explanations to explain the variations between the attitudes of housewives to the housework and
the housework situation. It offered a viewpoint of women in housework.
The condition of women in sociology and culture in general was even more subjective. The
study gives substance to the concept that girls have a socializing role for women, which
incorporates housekeeping and self-determination. The overall sexist paradigm impairs women’s
understanding of their subordinate and utilized position by mixing work with their own view of
themselves as women and mothers. ‘Personality roles’ appear to evolve as ‘housekeeping habits’
(Oakley, 1974a, p. 114). This philosophy is reflected in the self-discipline that many young girls
have forced upon themselves by motherly rituals and expectations.
The sociology of the material for the housework offers a female viewpoint on housework
that has so far been more or less overlooked but is also a political case driven by feminist ideals
that ‘liberates’ women from the systemic injustice to which they are subjected by the overarching
concept of domesticity. The introduction and review of women's feelings and attitudes towards
housework seeks to cast doubt on the dominant and omnipresent concept and introduce an action
plan. The philosophy of the sociology of housework is concerned with analyzing how anti-sexist
women are aware and recommending the best liberation strategies, and promoting the awareness
of the social and economic factors that form their social position and how this position might
potentially be changed (Oakley, 1974a, p. 190).
Masculinity and Femininity
The concepts of masculinity and femininity are not merely biological but also cultural
(Naresh, 2007). The man is typically given the male responsibility to provide his family with

4
complete financial support and protection. In his pursuit of personal needs and accomplishments,
he is dominant and strong. As an ideal husband he must be his wife and family's supporter,
guardian and benefactor. It must become warm and articulate in exchange for respect, affection,
deference and services in order to meet different needs. The concept of masculinity defines roles
for the male and female in the family. This governs their identification and describes household
activities. If a man somehow participates in female domestic activities such as cooking, washing
or floating, his men's masculinity becomes harmful. An ideal woman is supposed to fulfill her
husband’s personal needs and comfort under the principle of ‘true and devoted wife’ and ‘faithful
and committed to husband.’ This is complementary to male theories (Dube 1963; Altekar 1973;
Mies 1980; Ramu 1989).
Correspondingly, the concepts of masculinity and femininity define that man is the natural
master of the social order. On the other hand, by default, women are caring, obedient, submissive
and dependent. These role models, attitudes and appearances of men and women have their origins.
Regulation of housework by sex is responsible for expectations, values, attitudes and beliefs.
Housework is the work of women, whether educated or not. Men are not able to do homework
because of their profound education and early experience. Women generally claim that men are
not able to work at home because their mothers have not been preparing for such a job. In general,
women do their homework, the homework is a significant measure of progress as a woman, and
productivity as a housewife (Sharma 1986).
Division of Housework
There seems to be agreement on the presence of gendered distinctions across societies and
history (Albelda, 1986: Aliaga, 2006; Carrasca, Borderías & Torns, 2011; Crompton, Scott, &
Lyonette, 2010; National Institute of Statistics, 2015), between researchers across the various
academic disciplines (e.g. Anthropologists, Sociologists, Economists and Psychologists). Since
the seventies, literature on labour division has grown considerably and the findings are consistent:
women are doing more homework and child care than men (Fahlén 2016). However, explanations
of the gendered housework division diverge and can be separated into two which are, economic
and gender-based theoretical frameworks (Geist 2005; Greenstein 2000; Sayer 2010).
Economic explanations:
The professional human resources viewpoint (Becker 1993) presupposes that pay and
unpaid work is a fair collaboration system, based on the highest usefulness of the common good.
The lower-earned partner is expected to do more unpaid jobs, while the lower-earned partner
specializes in the labour market to increase household income (Coverman 1985; Spirit 2005; Gupta
2007). The time-availability method is a similar viewpoint. This is supposed to have been heavily

5
influenced by the time that these activities will spend for domestic work. The more hours spent on
work, the less time housework has been spent (Coverman 1985; Greenstein 2000; Sayer 2010).
Several studies have shown that, e.g. women working in full time across countries prefer to spend
less time at home. However the findings are lower for men (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer and Robinson,
(2000), Aassve, Fuochi, and Mencarini, 2014. Fuwa 2004).
On several fronts these opportunities were questioned. They are neutral in gender and see
households as a single entity that is homogeneous, with similar aims and desires among its
members, but which does not include power relations (Agarwal, 1997; Lundberg and Pollak,
1996). Second, it is difficult to distort the causes of the problem: because women spend less hours
on the job market, as they do most of their jobs, or since women spend less time on paid work
(Evertsson and Nermo 2007).
Thirdly, the approach illustrates household power relations and allocation of resources
between the partners through the household division (Bianchi et al, 2000; Brines, 1994; Coverman,
1985). The theory posit that the housework is unnecessary and the more resources a person has,
the more the ability to negotiate homework (Evertsson and Nermo 2004). The partners are
supposed to convert into improved bargaining power a relatively higher salary, learning and
occupational reputation (Bianchi et al. 2000).
The approach to coping with relative resources suggests that housework is more fairly
divided into couples with similar resources. Previous studies confirm that women appear to
minimize their time spent on housework as their income increases, but whatever plans they make,
they spend more time on housework than men (Aassve, Fuochi, and Mencarini 2014; Bittman,
England, Folbre, Sayer and Matheson, (2003); Brines 1994; Davis and Greenstein 2004; Evertsson
and Nermo 2007; Greenstein 2000; Killewald and Gough 2010). There is also evidence of a higher
degree of preparation for housework and childcare for educated men than for un-educated men
(Sullivan, Billari and Altintas 2014), and a lower preparation on housework for high-educated
women (Treas and Tai 2016).
Gender explanations:
There are various labels (Coltrane 2000), such as 'doing gender' or ‘gender show,’ which
define the gender perspective (Berk 1985; West and Zimmermann 1987). It is a symbolic
development of gender relations that is the fundamental principle (Berk 1985; West, Zimmermann
1987). It is supposed to be a way to guarantee the expected gendered behaviour and the concept of
gender relationships within the household (Coltrane 2000; Berk 1985; Bianchi et al. 2000; West
und Zimmermann 1987) and to influence people’s actions by others’ perceptions (Bittman et al.
2003). This is most noticeable in couples with children, with mothers working in housework and

6
child care appearing to be much longer than fathers (Craig and Mullan 2010). The gender
viewpoint was useful as an alternate reason for the gender separation of housework in households
where women still perform the majority of household work.
The two aim to counteract the unorthodox economic relationship between themselves and
a more traditional housework division (Bittman et al. 2003; Brines 1994; Evertsson and Nermo
2004; Vertstein 2000). The gender theory approach is a similar viewpoint. Gender ideologies
according to Greenstein (2000) are how people connect with intra-household positions: positions
that are typically gender-linked. These philosophies are displayed and demonstrated within the
household and within personal relationships. The theory is that the division of housework is the
product of the traditional beliefs between two people and that more balanced ideologies of gender
would contribute to a more equal division of housework (Greenstein 2000).
Roles segmentation of housework
Nearly all African cultures are strongly patriarchal, and men play most of the valued
positions. In the sense of home, the majority of homework is done by women (Olayinka, Jimi,
Ogbimi, 2016). This segmentation of roles begins very early from the moment a child comes into
being with the question, "Is it a boy or a girl? With consequences for social action (Gleitman,
Fridlund and Reisberg, 2000, Bem, 1993). According to Aina (1998), a patriarchal society with a
social stratification and gender separation structure offers material benefits for men while at the
same time severely restricting the role and activities of women (Olawoye, Omololu, Aderinto,
Adeyefa, Adeyemo, and Osotimehin, 2010, Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne and Fisher, 2008;
Beal, 1994).
Different researches have shown that the social inequalities that occur in cultures between
men and women reflect the roles played by both gender and the family as seen in feminized and
segmented child and household labour. Household work in Nigeria is commonly regarded as
women's and men’s duties. Kamo (2000) notes that men are known to overestimate their domestic
engagement in general because they do not actually participate in household work. Khawaja and
Habib (2007) noted that women whose husbands are most happy, who are mainly engaged in more
conventional roles but also take part in home work.
Generally speaking, husband, father males should provide their families with little gender
versatility in the performance of these positions as breadwinners and crucial ultimate decision-
makers in household society. Globalization, westernization and modernization are increasingly
challenging gender rigidity, but in African societies with separate positions historically allocated
to men and women the essence of transition remains extremely limited and largely undocumented
(Olutayo and Akanle, 2007, Olawoye, 2001, Davies and Banks, 1997, Karanja, 1983). In most

7
cases the husband alone agreed on the major problems of households, including domestic work,
and this arrangement would be acceptable for most respondents, not only the man, but also the
wife. Even in industrialized societies, the household division of labor is still distorted, and it has
been found that women are still predominantly responsible for housework and care for children
(Orloff, 2002).
According to Coltrane (2000), while women have recently declined the amount of time
they spend on household work, this reduction was incremental and not motivated by positive
economic shifts in the gender standard. Gender expectations that limit women to conventional
domestic roles are still defined because men who perform their household work are regarded as
female wrappers (Olawoye et al, 2010, Klumb, Hoppmann, and Landes, 2006). Men have been
socialized and pressurized upon to obey rules on how to think, feel and behave and men give
greater importance to institutional rights and rivalry while women value care and cooperative
relationships, even within their family structures (Gaspar and Klinke, 2009, Philaretou, 2001,
Coltrane, 2000, Connell, 1995, Pittman, 1993, Rodgers and White, 1993). While domestic labour
may be reduced in gender segmentations, in both traditional and Western societies women still do
the most part of home and unpaying family jobs.
Regarding determinants of husband participation in household labour, the study on
demand/responsiveness states that husband’s participation in household activities is larger due to
higher domestic tasks and higher capacity to satisfy these demands, especially in terms of available
time (Coverman, 1985). According to Presser (1994), husband’s domestic tasks decrease even as
hours are longer, as the number of children increases more. Transitions to cohabitation or marriage
and parenthood increase the hours of women’s homework, thus decreasing the amount of time that
men are spending on their homework.
Gupta, (1999); South and Spitze, (1994) and Rexroat and Sehan, (1987) studies indicates
that men who work in a household are choosing some particular family work, leaving some of
them to women and finding assistance for other women for the few men involved (South and
Spitze, 1994). Education, jobs (whether working or unemployed), earnings (income), professional
status and age are factors that generally decide the outcome of domestic and spousal negotiations
in general. (Akanle and Olutayo, 2012a Akanle, 2012b, Akanle and Olutayo, 2012b, Weiten and
Lloyd, 2003, DeMaris and Longmore 1996, Blood and Wolfe, 1960).
Gender role and its linkages with changes in family patterns
In the last few decades, significant attention has been focused on the transformation of
women's gender role and its ties to shifts in family dynamics (OLáh, Richters and Kotowskas,
2014). In socio-demography, the most frequently used approaches to address this relationship is

8
the theory of demographic transformation (Lesthaeghe, 1983; 2010; Van de Kaa, 1987:1996) as a
prominent example, which centered on the positions of social norms and ideation shifts. Moreover,
the current gender change in higher education, namely that women are now more than men in the
universities of Europe, and even more successfully graduating (Lutz et al., 2008; Vincent-Lancrin,
2008), has prompted some new methodological advances in family education research (Van Bavel,
2012).
The preference structure of women and men in sociology and economy has been argued in
the absence of gender role definition to encourage educational homogamy ("like marries"). Until
recently, however, the labour market and domestic practices were more or less gender-based,
making specializing in gender-specific issues a fundamental paradigm in micro-economics
(Becker, 1991). Good education has been especially important for men in a traditional marriage
market, as their income and professional reputation have largely influenced the socioeconomic
status of the family.
Therefore, women prefers men of high status (Kalmijn, 1991; Kalmijn, 1994; Blossfeld &
Timm, 2003; Blossfeld, 2009; Dykstra & Poortman, 2010). While men’s preference are unclear.
They are inclined, on the one hand, to prefer wives of the same education level as they are. On the
other hand, they prefer women who carry on the bulk of domestic duties and thus not too much to
invest in their career opportunities, in the sense of the conventional division of labour.
Thus, women prefer to marry up (hypergamy), while men are supposed to marry down
(hypogamy). This was confirmed by the empirical record (Kalmijn, 1991; Kalmijn, 1998;
Blossfeld & Timm, 2003; Schwartz & Mare, 2005; Blossfeld, 2009; Dykstra & Poortman, 2010).
This marriage pattern was until recently consistent with the distribution of educational levels by
gender. But in recent decades this has changed. Marriage also has become a less prevalent family
method, as new forms of living arrangements have been developed, in particular non-marital
coexistence. In recent cohorts, the latest gender disparity in education is incompatible with
conventional trends. Van Bavel (2012), it was proposed, in order to examine the effects of reversal
of gender discrimination in education.
Given the increasing importance of non-marital cohabitation and a growing proportion of
children being born outside marriage, the concept and idea of the "marriage squeeze" should be
broadened to include the effects of age-specific sex ratio imbalances on the "mating market" rather
than on the marriage market only. Education is also required in order to measure the marriage
squeeze in a more practical manner (Lutz, Goujon, and Doblhammer-Reiter, 1998). The increase
in higher education among women implies a rising education squeeze among women who want to
find a male partner with the same or higher level of educational achievement.

9
From a gender perspective and from a labour-sharing viewpoint, highly trained women
were argued to be less likely to establish partnerships because their education gave them the
freedom of human capital resources. They may also be less appealing to (some) men because they
are less likely to meet their householders' position standards. This is the classic explanation why
highly educated women predict lower marriage rates (Blossfeld, 2009). Similarly, poorly trained
and less well-off men would often have difficulties in finding enough women to establish a family
with who to be at or below the same level of education as themselves (van Bavel, 2012).
The new home economies are seen as a starting point in most research focusing on the
relationship between educational achievement and fertility (Becker, 1991; Cigno, 1994; Hotz,
Klerman, Willis, 1997). The microeconomic theory says that the costs of childbearing may rise as
women gain more education and access to better jobs in the labour market. This relates mainly to
opportunity costs, in the form of foregone profits, slower retention of human resources and a lack
of expertise as child-raising takes significant maternal time and can cause women to get away from
work. Studies on the salary penalty of the motherhood (Kühhirt & Ludwig, 2012; Gough &
Noonan, 2013) demonstrate the magnitude of opportunity costs.
The theory predicts that higher education would have fewer children than women who are
less well-educated, since former women are more likely to fail as far as their earning and job
prospects are concerned. Moreover, higher education includes a stronger preference for children's
quality, which is related to a rise in the spending of child human resources, further reducing
fertilization among highly educated children (Willis, 1973; Gustafsson and Kalwij, 2006). Highly
trained women are frequently treated from a narrowly diffusionist viewpoint as trendsetters for
family creation and partnerships (Salvini & Vignoli 2011).
Research has shown that a greater work-market engagement exposes higher education
women to a stronger labour-life conflict than their less skilled counterparts. For example, among
highly educated people there is the biggest difference between ideal and actual family sizes (Testa,
2012). If well-educated women are seen as trendsetters, their childlike actions can affect fertility
levels in other societies. Their actions may also be attributed to overall levels of fertility, which in
fact seems to be the case.
The overall fertility is relatively high in countries that have highly-trained women with
high progression to second birth, unlike in countries with low progression to second child among
those that are more-trained (Van Bavel & Rózaño-Putek, 2010). This means that better awareness
of variations in educational fertility will enhance our understanding of the variety of fertility
regimes in the contemporary world. As regards marital stability, it has been important for social
scientists to take part in increased participation by women in the labour force and to increase the

10
level of divorce. Economic marriage models believe that female occupations destabilize marital
relationships by putting the position of occupational specialization in one couple at risk (Becker,
Landes & Michael, 1977).
However, the negative effects of women jobs on marital stability have recently become
less evident, given the increased participation of women on the labuor market. In modern societies,
decisions to remain married are more dependent upon the nature of the marriage, and the
similarities of economic activities and interests will enhance spousal understanding (Jalovaara,
2002; Schoen, Astone, Rothert, Standish, & Kim, 2002; Sigle-Rushton, 2010; Simpson & England,
1981). In addition, a woman’s additional income contributes to improved standards of living and
is thus expected to cut marital pressures (Cherlin, 2000; Raz-Yurovich, 2012; Stevenson &
Wolfers, 2007). In the shifting of gender roles, too, men are left with a lower chance of finding a
wife who will be prepared to specialize in housework and who adhere to gendered family views
(Sigle-Rushton, 2010).
Transiting from Gender to parenthood
The “doing gender” approach is prevalent in the literature relating to the transition from
gender to parenthood (Olah, Richter and Kotowska, 2014). The concept of household members
doing gender while working at home and caring is based on the study by Fenstermaker Berk,
(1985). Proceedings are insightful when constructing, corroborating and restoring identities in
regard to the meanings agreed together. Performativity enables two polar genetic identities,
allowing even gender to be reconstructed to be produced and retained (Butler, 1990).
To do gender means to participate in conduct at gender risk (West & Zimmerman, 1987).
We are judged on the basis of gender in almost everything we do. In exchange, this also impacts
mothers and fathers’ social constructions. It is assumed that the good mother will obey the ethics
of what best serves the child and that the father would have greater room to fulfill individualistic
moral requirements (Ribbens McCarthy, Edwards, & Gillies, 2000). Hays (1996), for example,
colours the construction of the good mother.
The concepts of intense motherhood are established. Intensive child-centered mothering
means investing tremendous time, funding and energy in support of the child while sacrificing the
needs of one's own people. This does not mean that fatherhood philosophies do not have any effect
on standards about what is best for the child. In reality, the logical, aim-oriented father who brings
the bacon home isn't enough anymore. The strong dad must be eager to go to kindergarten today.
Hegemonic male masculinity is evolving and there are new fatherhood ideals emerging (Miller,
2011b).

11
The expectations for a good mother and a good father vary, however, not only over time,
but also across various social contexts. Being a good dad at work is sometimes different from being
a good dad at home. For instance, Ghanaian's good father isn't the same thing as Nigeria's good
father. In the belief that people are made fathers, we may understand. Paternity is bound by
institutions, legally incorporated, and politically formed (Hobson & Morgan 2002, p. 9). It's the
same for maternity. The analysis of gender inequality and its implications in the symbolic sense
of parenthood must take the variety and fluidity of philosophy of motherhood and fatherhood as
its starting point.
Indeed, in the public and the science debate regarding gender equity in family life, the
definition of ‘new parent’ became a critical problem (Lammi-Taskula, 2008; Merla, 2008; Doucet,
2009). But, despite the high ideals that Europeans hold for equal status and the greater participation
of fathers in childcare (Wall & Arnold, 2008; Höfner, Schadler & Richter, 2011), practice is
declining. So prevails the gender splitting of work among families. Western cultures typically
require a re-traditionalization of the gender role in the transition to parenthood (Merla 2008; Dribe
& Stanfors 2009; Katz-Wise, Priess & Hyde 2010). Rosi Braidotti called this phenomenon a
“schizoid double-pull” when categories are displaced and repaired at the same time (Braidotti
2006, p. 49).
Today's communities have a degree of gender equality as well as a focus on increased
gender segregation. Gender definitions may be transgressed and exacerbated at the same time. In
general discourses on parenthood, family policies, and actual behaviour, we can detect such
schizoids in transition to parenthood. Equality between partners is growing, for example by
dividing family work in a non-traditional manner. The transition to parenthood however generally
causes conventional gender positions to be reinforced. Intentionally, some couples carry on the
conventional position of gender, while many are shocked to see this restructuring (Deutsch, Kokot,
& Binder, 2007; Schadler 2012; Höfner, Schadler, & Richter, 2011). The ‘gender structure’ seems
a useful approach when exploring the link between policies of parental leave and gender equality,
more precisely, how policies of parental leave contribute to shape gender relations (Risman, 1998,
2004, 2011).
Gender structure is characterized as a multi-dimensional framework, which distinguishes
between women and men and which builds on that difference unequal social relations. It has three
levels of consequences: the interactional level, which includes various cultural values in the sense
of social interaction (laws, rules and ideological) and the individual one (men and women). This
has the following implications. At the institutional level, students maintain that arrangements for
parental leave are based on ideological perceptions about maternity and parenthood and help

12
establish what is perceived to be a standard or healthy family organization (Hojgaard, 1997;
Rostgaard, 2002).
On the engagement stage, paternal leave is expected to improve fathers’ engagement in the
short and long term with their children. The emphasis is on the diversity of experiences fathers
have had about the taking of leave and the solo care of the child, with the effect it has on their
identity as a parent (Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Trellu, 2007; 2010; Höfner, Schadler & Richter,
2011). The approval of leave may, in turn, be correlated with and replication of the challenge of
hegemonic masculinities. For negotiation of the tensions created by the challenge of gender roles,
men established various tactics and speeches, frequently transgressive as well as hegemonic
concepts (Merla, 2008).
De-traditionalizing gender relations of housework and family life
The idea of ‘blurring limits’ is often applied in literature dealing with reconciliation
between work and family life (Gottschall & Voß, 2003). It is intimately connected with the de-
traditionalization of gender relationships, which is the shifts in the definition of paid jobs. This
will further hinder gender relations, in particular as increasingly unsure occupation biographies for
men will cause more women to be breadwinner (Oppenheimer, 1997), as more insecure types of
work are seen and as male breadwinners are declining (Cranford, Vosko & Zukewich, 2003), this
challenges traditional power-and-money allocation in close links (Wimbauer, 2003; Ruiner,
Hirseland and Schneider, 2011: Lennon, Stewart & Ledermann, 2012).
The gendered division of childcare also faces rising maternal work. Although the rise in
mother jobs is projected to result in a greater sharing of childcare duties between mothers and
fathers (Bergmann, 2005), mothers expend more time than fathers on these tasks (Bianchi &
Milkie, 2010; Sayer & Gornick, 2011), although fathers are engaged more in healthcare activities
over the past decades than ever (Bianchi, Milkie, 2011). The issue of reconciliation between paid
work and family obligations is viewed differently by women and by men in the ‘doing gender’
approach (West & Zimmermann, 1987). For men, work should play their “providers” role in
accordance with popular social norms.
Women also face differences in time spent on paid jobs outside the home as social
standards typically assigned the role of the caregiver to the role of a family caregiver. The higher
the employment status, professional performance and the greater the share of a person’s household
incomes, the greater the negotiating power within a household as far as unpaid domestic work is
concerned, according to the principle of “relative wealth and trade power” (Lundberg & Pollak,
1996; Lunderg & Rose, 1999; Thomson, 1990). Thus, the positions are not only predetermined by
gender, but also highly affected by each partner’s relative income. Family management is an even

13
more complicated problem in increasingly common non-traditional family types, in particular
stepfamilies.
In order to research these diverse types of family (Morgan 1999; Smart 2000; Nelson
2006), the 'doing family' approach, which expands the 'doing gender' approach, is regarded as
useful. Like the ‘gender approach,’ the ‘family approach’ emphasizes the social framework of
family life. It reflects on how family lives in internal day-to-day routines, including activities and
time with kids, housework and external social activities, such as work and unattended events such
as child disease or regular business trips (Jurczyk, Schier, Szymenderski, Lange, & Voß, 2009). It
is believed that family life is more difficult for stepfamilies than for conventional nuclear families,
since their family network is much more complicated (inside and outside).
Though former partners live separately, for example, they can still be connected in many
ways; children whose parents live apart can move between their parents’ homes; (step)
grandparents might become crucial for creating families which manage everyday families. This
includes a closer investigation of “doing families” of certain multi-local family types to increase
non-traditional family constellations (Schier & Proske, 2010).
Conclusion
The sociological interest of this research is to look at the sociology of housework through
gender, as is primarily done in the field of housework. As several studies have shown, despite the
excitement shown by Evertsson 2006; Lewin-Epstein et al. 2006; Bianchi et al. 2000, the splitting
of domestic work between women and men has yet to meet the concept of fair treatment. The
majority of studies indicates that labour division is even more conventional. Accepting the
contradictions hindered any admission of feminist beliefs, as addressing the contradictions
demanded a critical view of the lives of women. Oakley (1974) argued in response that women
need awareness.
One of the many bores created by an overarching concern for men’s desires and practices
in the discipline can at least be bridged, if not filled. Things relating to women’s condition today
are now being debated openly and also openly. The appointment of women as domestic workers
both within and outside their homes and their evident preference for domesticity are currently the
systemic features of their general situation in nearly every society. There is, then, much to tell
about ‘oppression’ as well as ‘liberation’ for women in any study that explores women’s attitudes
towards house work.
In the final analysis, housework is planned as a task rather than as a component of the
female part of marriage. The definition of ‘housework satisfaction’ comes from the point of view
of homework, similar to the concept of job satisfaction in the jobs sector. Independence is the

14
housewife’s most respected element. ‘Being your own boss’ is a facet of the house work field that
compares favourably with jobs. The ability to speak to others while at work, have time to complete
tasks and the right environment or office facilities are requirements that foster a good attitude to
house work.

15
References
Aassve, A., Fuochi, G., and Mencarini, L. (2014). Desperate housework: Relative resources, time
availability, economic dependency, and gender ideology across Europe. Journal of Family
Issues 35(8): 1000‒1022.
Acharya, M. & Bennett, L. (1981). The Rural Women of Nepal: An Aggregate Analysis and
Summary of Eight Village Studies. The Status of Women in Nepal, vol. II, part 9.
Kathmandu: Tribhuban University.
Agarwal, B. (1997). ‘Bargaining’ and gender relations: Within and beyond the household.
Feminist Economics 3(1): 1‒51.
Aina, I. Olabisi. (1998). “Women, culture and Society” in Amadu Sesay and Adetanwa Odebiyi
(eds). Nigerian Women in Society and Development. Dokun Publishing House, Ibadan
Akanle, O. And Olutayo, A.O. (2012a).Women’s Right as the Missing Link in Poverty Eradication
in Nigeria. East African Journal of Human Rights. 18.1. Pp. 227-241.
Akanle, O. and Olutayo, A.O. (2012b). Ethnography of Kinship Constructions among International
Returnees in Nigeria: Proverbs as the Horses of Words. Journal of Anthropological
Research. 68.2. Pp. 249-272.
Albelda, R. P. (1986). Occupational segregation by race and gender, 1958- 1981. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 39, 404-411.
Aliaga, C. (2006). How is the time of women and men distributed in Europe? Statistics in Focus,
4, 1-11
Altekar, A. S. (1973). The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization: From Prehistoric Times to
the Present Day. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Andorka, R. & Falussy, B. (1982) "The Way of Life of the Hungarian Society on the Basis of the
Time Budget Survey of 1976-77" in Social Indicators Research, vol. 11, pp. 31-74.
Beal, C.R. (1994). Boys and Girls: The Development of Gender Roles. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Becker, G. S. (1965) "A Theory of the Allocation of Time" in the Economic Journal, vol. LXXV,
pp. 493-517.
Becker, G. S. (1991). A Treatise on the Family. Enlarged edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability.
Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1141-1188.
Becker, G.S. (1993). A treatise on the family (Enlarged edition). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual equality. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press
Benin, M. H. & Agostinelli, J. (1988) "Husbands' and Wives' Satisfaction with the Division of
Labor" in Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 50, pp. 349-361.
Bergmann, B. (2005). The Economic Emergence of Women, 2nd edition. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Berk, R. A. & Berk, S. F. (1979). Labor and Leisure at Home: Content and Organization of the
Household Day. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Berk, S. F. (1985). The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American Households.
New York: Plenum Press.
Berk, S.F. (1985). The gender factor. New York: Plenum Press
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is Anyone Doing the
Homework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191-
228.
Bianchi, S., & Milkie, M. (2010). Work and Family Research in the First Decade of the 21st
Century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 705-725.
Biehle, S. N., & Mickelson, K. D. (2012). First-Time Parents' Expectations about the Division of

16
Childcare and Play. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 36-45.
Biernat, M. & Wortman, C. B. (1991) "Sharing of Home Responsibilities between Professionally
Employed Women and Their Husbands" in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
vol. 60, pp. 844-860.
Bittman, M., England, P., Folbre, N., Sayer, L., and Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump
money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology 109(1):
186‒214.
Blaxall, M. & Reagan, B. (1976) (eds.) Women and the Workplace: The Implications of
Occupational Segregation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blood, R. O. and Wolfe, D. M. 1960. Husbands and Wives. New York: Free Press.
Blossfeld, H.-P. (2009). Educational assortative marriage in comparative perspective. Annual
Review of Sociology, 35, 513-530.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (2003). Whom Marries Whom? Educational Systems as Marriage
Markets in Modern Societies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Braidotti, R. (2006). Transpositions: On nomadic ethics. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press.
Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (1998). Masculinity and child care. The reconstruction of fathering.
The Sociological Review, 46(2), 293-314.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American
Journal of Sociology 100(3): 652‒688
Broman, C. L. (1988) "Household Work and Family Life Satisfaction of Blacks" in Journal of
Marriage and the Family, vol. 50, pp.743-748.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Carrasco, C., Borderías, C., & Torns, T. (Eds.) (2011). El trabajo de cuidados: historia, teoría y
políticas [The care work: History, theory and politics]. Madrid: Catarata.
Cherlin, A. (2000). Toward a new home socioeconomics of union formation. In L. J. Waite, C.
Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson & A. Thornton (Eds.), The Ties that Bind - Perspectives
on Marriage and Cohabitation (pp. 126-144). Hawthorne, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Cigno, A. (1994). Economics of the family. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social
embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208–1233.
Connell, R.W. and James W. Messerschmidt (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept. Gender & Society 19:829-59.
Coverman, S. (1985). Explaining husbands’ participation in domestic labor. The Sociological
Quarterly 26(1): 81‒97.
Craig, L. and Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work‒family time in the United States,
Australia, Italy, France and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family 72(5): 1344‒1361.
Craig, L., Mullan, K., & Blaxland, M. (2010). Parenthood, Policy and Work-Family Time in
Australia 1992–2006. Work, Employment and Society, 24(1), 1-19.
Cranford, C. J., Vosko, L. F., & Zukewich, N. (2003). The Gender of Precarious Employment in
Canada. Industrial Relations, 58(3), 454-482.
Crompton, R. (Ed.) (1999). Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment. The Decline of the
Male Breadwinner. Oxford University Press: New York.
Crompton, R., Scott, J., & C. Lyonnette, C. (Eds.) (2010). Gender inequalities in the 21st Century.
Aldershot: Edward Elgar
Dalla Costa, M. & James, S. (1975). The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community.
Bristol: Falling Wall Press.
Davies, B., and Banks, C. (1992). The gender trap: A feminist poststructuralist analysis of primary
School children's talk about gender. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 1-25.
Davis, S.N. and Greenstein, T.N. (2004). Cross-national variations in the division of household
labour. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(5): 1260‒1271.
DeMaris, A. and Longmore, M. A.1996.Ideology, Power, and Equity: Testing Competing

17
Explanations for the Perception of Fairness in Household Labor. Social Forces, 74 (3),
1043-1071.
Deutsch, F. M., Kokot, A. P., & Binder, K. S. (2007). College women's plans for different types
of egalitarian marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(4), 916-929.
Doucet, A. (2009). Dad and Baby in the First Year: Gendered Responsibilities and Embodiment.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624, 78– 98.
Dribe, M., & Stanfors, M. (2009). Does Parenthood Strengthen a Traditional Household Division
of Labor? Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 33- 45.
Dube, S. C. (1963) "Men's and Women's Roles in India: A Sociological Review" in Ward, B. E.
(ed), Women in the New Asia: The Changing Social Roles of Men and Women in South
and South-East Asia. Netherlands: UNESCO, pp. 174-203.
Dykstra, P.A., & Poortman, A-R. (2010). Economic resources and remaining single: trends over
time. European Sociological Review, 26(3), 277-290.
Eagly, A. H. (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social-role Interpretation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Epstein, C. F. (1970) Women's Place; Options and Limits in Professional Careers. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Erickson, R. J. (1993) "Reconceptualising Family Work: The Effect of Emotion Work on
Perception of Marital Quality" in Journal of Marriage and the Family vol. 55 pp. 888-900.
Evertsson, M. (2006) "The Reproduction of Gender: Housework and Attitudes towards Gender
Equality in the Home among Swedish Boys and Girls" in The British Journal of Sociology,
vol. 57, pp.415-436.
Evertsson, M. and Nermo, M. (2007). Changing resources and the division of housework: A
longitudinal study of Swedish couples. European Sociological Review 23(4): 455‒470.
Fahlén, S. (2016). Equality At Home-A Question Of Career? Housework, Norms, and Policies in
a European Comparative Perspective. Demographic Research, Vol. 35, (48), Pages
1411−1440
Fenstermaker Berk, S. (1985). The Gender Factory. The Apportionment of Work in American
Households. New York: Plenum Press.
Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22
countries. American Sociological Review 69(6): 751‒767.
Gaspar, S. and Klinke, M. 2009. Household division of labour among European mixed
partnerships, CIES e-Working Paper 78, CIES-Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016 7852
ISCTE-IUL, Lisboa.
Geist, C. (2005). The welfare state and the home: Regime differences in the domestic division of
labour. European Sociological Review 21(1): 23‒41.
Gleitman, H., Fridlund, A. J. and Reisberg, D. (2000). Basic Psychology. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton and Company, Inc.
Gottschall, K., & Voß, G. (2003). Entgrenzung von Arbeit und Leben. Zum Wandel der Beziehung
von Erwerbstätigkeit und Privatsphäre im Alltag. München, Mering: Hampp.
Gough, M., & Noonan, M. (2013). A review of the motherhood wage penalty in the United States.
Sociology Compass, 7(4), 328-342.
Greenstein, T. N. (1996) "Husbands' Participation in Domestic Labor: Interactive Effects of Wives'
and Husbands' Gender Ideologies" in Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 58, pp.
585-595.
Greenstein, T.N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A
replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and Family 62(2): 322‒ 335.
Gronau, R. (1977) "Leisure, Home Production, and Work — the Theory of the Allocation of Time
Revisited" in Journal of Political Economy, vol. 85, pp. 1099- 1123.
Gupta, S. (2007). Autonomy, dependence, or display? The relationship between married women’s
earnings and housework. Journal of Marriage and Family 69(2): 399‒ 417.

18
Gupta, S. (1999). The effects of marital status transitions on men’s housework performance.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 700–711.
Gustafsson, S., & Kalwij, A. (Eds.). (2006). Education and postponement of maternity: Economic
analyses for industrialized countries. Berlin: Springer.
Haavio-Mannila, E. (1971) "Convergences between East and West: Tradition and Modernity in
Sex Role in Sweden, Finland and the Soviet Union" in Acta Sociologica, vol. 14, pp.114-
125.
Hauser, R. M. & Featherman, D. L. (1977). The Process of Stratification: Trends and Analyses.
New York: Academic Press.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Hearn, J. (2002). Men, fathers and the state: national and global relations. In B. Hobson (Ed.),
Making Men into Fathers. Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, B., & Morgan, D. (2002). Introduction. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Making Men into Fathers.
Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Höfner, C., Schadler, C., & Richter, R. (2011). When Men Become Fathers: Men's Identity at the
Transition to Parenthood. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(5), 669-686, Special
Issue: Family Diversity and Gender.
Hojgaard, L. (1997). Working Fathers - Caught in the Web of the Symbolic Order of Gender. Acta
Sociologica, 40(3), 245-261.
Hotz, V.J., Klerman, J.A., Willis, R. (1997). The economics of fertility in developed countries. In
M. R. Rosenzweig & O. Stark (Eds.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Jalovaara, M. (2002). Socioeconomic differentials in divorce risk by duration of marriage.
Demographic Research, 7(16), 537-564.
Johansson, T., & Klinth, R. (2008). Caring Fathers: The Ideology of Gender Equality and
Masculine Positions. Men and Masculinities, 11, 42-62.
Johnson, A. (1975) "Time Allocation in a Machiguenga Community" in Ethnology, vol. 14, pp.
301-310.
Jurczyk, K., Schier, M., Szymenderski, P., Lange, A., & Voß, G. G. (2009). Entgrenzte Arbeit –
Entgrenzte Familie. Grenzmanagement im Alltag als neue Herausforderung. [Blurring
boundaries between work and family]. Berlin: edition sigma
Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status Homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 97(2),
496-523.
Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative Mating by Cultural and Economic Occupational Status. American
Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422-452.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395-421.
Kamo, Y. (2000). Assessing Discripancies in Husbands and Wives Reports on the Division of
Household. Social Sciences Research, pp. 29: 459- 476.
Karanja, Wambui Wa. (1983)). “Conjugal Decision-making: Some Data from Lagos” Pp. 236-241
in Male and Female in West Africa. By C. Oppong (ed.). London: George Allen and Unwin
Katz-Wise, S. L., Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-Role Attitudes and Behavior across
the Transition to Parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46(1).
Khawaja, K.J. and Habib, R.R. (2007). Husband involvement in Housework and women’s
Psychosocial Health: Findings from population-based study in Lebanon. American Journal
of Public Health. 97(5): 860- 866
Killewald, A. and Gough, M. (2010). Money isn’t everything: Wives’ earnings and housework
time. Social Science Research 39(6): 987‒1003.
Kiselica, M. S., Englar-Carlson, M., Horne, A. M., and Fisher, M. (2008)). A positive psychology

19
perspective on helping boys. In M. S. Kiselica, M. Englar-Carlson, A. M. Horne (Eds.),
counseling troubled boys: A guidebook for professionals. New York: Routledge/Taylor
and Francis Group. Pp. 31-48.
Klumb, P., Hoppmann, C., and Staats, M. (2006). Division of labor in German dual-earner
families: Testing Testing equity theoretical hypotheses. Journal of Marriage and Family,
68, 870 – 882.
Kluwer, E. S., Heesink, A. M. & van de Vliert, E. (1996) "Marital Conflict about the Division of
Household Labor and Paid Work" in Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 58, pp. 958-
969.
Kühhirt, M., & Ludwig, V. (2012). Domestic work and the wage penalty for motherhood in West
Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74(1), 186-200.
Lammi-Taskula, J. (2008). Doing fatherhood: Understanding the gendered use of parental leave in
Finland. Fathering, 6, 133-148.
Lennon, C. A., Stewart, A. L., & Ledermann, T. (2012). The role of power in intimate
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 95-114.
Lesthaeghe, R. (1983). A century of demographic and cultural change in Western Europe: An
exploration of underlying dimensions. Population and Development Review, 9(3), 411-
435.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the Second Demographic Transition. Population
and Development Review, 36(2), 211-251.
Lewin-Epstein, N., Stier, H. & Braun, M. (2006) "The Division of Household Labor in Germany
and Israel" in Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 68, pp. 1147-1164.
Lundberg, S. & Rose, E. (1999). The Determinants of Specialization within Marriage. Working
Papers UWEC-2005-07, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
Lundberg, S. and Pollak, R.A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives 10(4): 139‒158.
Lutz, W., Goujon, A., & Doblhammer-Reiter, G. (1998). Demographic dimensions in forecasting:
adding education to age and sex. Population and Development Review, 24 (Supplement),
42-58.
Lye, D. N. & Biblarz, T. J. (1993) "The Effects of Attitudes towards Family Life and Gender Roles
on Marital Satisfaction" in Journal of Family Issues, vol. 14, pp. 157-188.
Maetzke, M., & Osnter, I. (2010). Introduction. Change and continuity in recent family policies.
Journal of Europan Social Policy, 20(5), 387-398.
Mederer, H. J. (1993) "Division of Labor in Two-Earner Homes: Tasks Accomplishment versus
Household Management as Critical Variables in Perceptions about Family Work" in
Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 55, pp. 133-145.
Merla, L. (2008). Determinants, costs and meanings of Belgian stay-at-home fathers: An
international comparison. Fathering, 6, 113-123.
Mies, M. (1980) Indian Women and Patriarchy: Conflicts and Dilemmas of Students and Working
Women. New Delhi: Concept.
Miller, T. (2011b). Falling back into Gender? Men's Narratives and Practices around First-time
Fatherhood. Sociology, 45(6), 1094-1109.
Morgan, D. H. J. (1999). Risk and family practices: accounting for change and fluidity in family
life. In E.B. Silva & C. Smart (Eds.). The new family? (pp.13-30). London: Thousand Oaks
Sage Publications.
Murphy, M. (1978) "The Value of Non-Market Household Production: Opportunity Cost Versus
Market Cost Estimates" in the Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 24, pp. 243-255.
Myrdal, A. & Klein, V. (1968) Women's Two Roles Home and Work. London: Routledge and K.
Paul.
Nakanishi, N. (1982) A Report on the How-do-people-spend-their-time Survey. Tokyo: NHK,
Public Opinion Research Division.

20
Naresh C. S. (2007). The Culture of Women's Housework. A Case Study of Bihar, India Academic
Dissertation. University of Helsinki Department of Sociology. Helsinki University Printing
House Helsinki.
National Institute of Statistics (2015). Time employment, work-family balance in Women and Men
in Spain (pp. 1-7).
Nelson, M. (2006). Single Mothers “Do” Family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 781- 795.
Oakley, A. (1974). The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon Books/Random House.
Oláh, L. S., Richter, R. and Kotowska, I. E. (2014). The new roles of men and women and
implications for families and societies. State-of-the-art report to families and societies
working papers series. Changing families and sustainable societies: Policy contexts and
diversity over the life course and across generations.
Olawoye, J. E. 2001. Gender Socialization and Male Responsibility in Family: A Comparative
Analysis of Three Socio-Cultural Groups in Nigeria. Annals of the Social Science Academy
of Nigeria. No 13 (January-December), pp. 92-108.
Olawoye, Omololu, Aderinto, Adeyefa, Adeyemo, and Osotimehin, 2010. Social Construction of
Manhood in Nigeria: Implications for Male Responsibility in Reproductive Health. African
Population Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, Pp. 1-20.
Olayinka A., Jimi O. A., Ogbimi, A.O. (2016), Nigeria Men at Work Keep-Off: Male Roles and
household Chores in Nigeria. Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3).
Olutayo, A.O and Akanle O. (2007). Modernity, MacDonaldisation and Family Values in Nigeria.
The Nigerian Journal of Sociology and Anthropology. 5. Pp. 53-72.
Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997). Women's employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization
and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431-453.
Orloff, A. S. (2002). Women’s employment and welfare regimes: Globalization, export
Orientation and social policy in Europe and North America. Social Policy and
Development, Program Paper Number 12. United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development. Pp. 1 – 49.
Perry-Jenkins, M. & Folk, K. (1994) "Class, Couples, and Conflict: Effects of the Division of
Labor on Assessments of Marriage in Dual-Earner Families" in Journal of Marriage and
the Family, vol. 56, pp. 165-180.
Philaretou, A.G., and Allen, K.R. (2001). Reconstructing masculinity and sexuality. The Journal
of Men’s Studies, 9:3, 301-321.
Pittman, F. (1993). Man enough: Fathers, sons and the search for masculinity. New York, NY:
Putnam.
Plantin, L. (2001). Män, familjeliv och föräldraskap. Umeå: Boréa.
Presser, H. B. (1994). Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division of
household labor by gender. American Sociological Review 59 (3): 348-64.
Ramu, G. N. (1989) Women, Work and Marriage in Urban India: A Study of Dual- and Single-
Earner Couples. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Raz-Yurovich, L. (2012). Economic determinants of divorce among dual-earner couples: Jews in
Israel. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 1-27.
Rexroat, C. and Shehan, C. (1987)). The Family Life Cycle and Spouses' Time in Housework.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 49 (4), 737-750.
Ribbens McCarthy, J., Edwards, J. R., & Gillies, V. (2000). Moral Tales of the Child and the Adult:
Narratives of contemporary family lives under changing circumstances. Sociology, 34,
785-803.
Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism. Gender &
Society, 18(4), 429-450.
Risman, B. J. (2011). Gender as Structure or Trump Card? Journal of Family Theory & Review,

21
3, 18-22.
Robinson, J. P. (1977) How Americans Use Time: A Social-Psychological Analysis of Everyday
Behavior. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Rodgers, R. H., and White, J. M. (1993). Family Development Theory. In Sourcebook of Family
Theories and Methods, ed. P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Shumm, and S. Steinmetz.
New York: Plenum Press.
Rogers, B. (1980) The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies. New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Rostgaard, T. (2002). Setting time aside for the father: Father’s leave in Scandinavia. Community,
Work & Family, 5, 343-364.
Ruiner, C., Hirseland, A., & Schneider, W. (2011). Money and the dynamics of intimate
relationships. In R. Jallinoja & E. D. Widmer (Eds.). Families and kinship in contemporary
Europe. Rules and practices of relatedness (pp. 147-162). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Salvini, S., & Vignoli, D. (2011). Times change: Women’s and men’s marital disruption dynamics
in Italy during a time of social transformations, 1970–2003. Demographic Research 24(5),
145-174.
Sayer, L. C., & Gornick, J. (2011). Cross-National Variation in the Influence of Employment
Hours on Child Care Time. European Sociological Review, 28(4), 421-442.
Sayer, L.C. (2010). Trends in housework. In: Treas, J. and Drobnič, S. (eds.). Dividing the
domestic. Men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford:
Stanford University Press: 19‒38.
Scanzoni, J. H. & Fox, G. L. (1980) "Sex Roles, Family and Society: The Seventies and Beyond"
in Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 42, pp. 743-756.
Schadler, C. (2013). Vater, Mutter, Kind warden-eine posthumanistische Ethnographie der
Schwangerschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Schier, M., & Proske, A. (2010). One Child, Two Homes. How families succeed in reorganizing
daily life after a separation. DJI-Bulletin, Special English edition, 16-18.
Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Rothert, K., Standish, N. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2002). Women's
employment, marital happiness, and divorce. Social Forces, 81(2), 643-662.
Schwartz, C. R., & Mare, R. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to
2003. Demography, 42(4), 621-646.
Sharma, U. (1986) Women's Work, Class, and the Urban Household: A Study of Shimla, North
India. London: Tavistock Publications.
Shelton, B. A. & John, D. (1993) "Does Marital Status Make a Difference? Housework among
Married and Cohabiting Men and Women" in Journal of Family Issues, vol. 14, pp. 401-
420.
Shelton, B. A. (1990) "The Distribution of Household Tasks: Does Wife's Employment Status
Make a Difference?" in Journal of Family Issues, vol. 11, pp. 115-135.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. & Rabinowitz, J. L. (1994) "Gender, Ethnic Status, and Ideological
Asymmetry: A Social Dominance Interpretation" in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
vol. 25, pp. 194-216
Sigle-Rushton, W. (2010). Men's Unpaid Work and Divorce: Reassessing Specialization and Trade
in British Families. Feminist Economics, 16(2), 1-26.
Smart, C. (2000). Divorce and changing family practices in a post-traditional society. Moral
Decline or changes to moral practices? Family Matters, 56, 10-19.
South, S., and Spitze, G. (1994). Housework in marital and non-marital households. American
Sociological Review, 59, 327–347.
Srivastava, V. (1978) Employment of Educated Married Women in India: Its Causes and
Consequences. New Delhi: National.
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces.

22
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27-52.
Stohs, J. H. (1994) "Alternative Ethics in Employed Women's Household Labor" in Journal of
Family Issues, vol. 15, pp. 550-561.
Stolte-Heiskanen, V. (1971) "Sex Roles, Social Class and Political Consciousness" in Acta
Sociologica, vol. 14, pp. 83-95.
Sullivan, O., Billari, F.C., and Altintas, E. (2014). Fathers’ changing contributions to child care
and domestic work in very low–fertility countries: The effect of education. Journal of
Family Issues 35(8): 1048‒1065.
Szalai, A., Converse, P. E., Feldheim, P., Scheuch, E. K. & Stone, P. J. (1972) The Use of
Time: Daily Activities of Urban and Suburban Populations in Twelve Countries. The
Hague: Mouton.
Testa, M. R. (2012). Family sizes in Europe: Evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer survey.
European Demographic Research Papers No.2.
Thomson, E. (1990). Two into one: Structural models of couple behaviour. In C.W. Draper & A.C.
Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualisation, measurement and use. Newbury Park.
CA: Sage.
Treas, J. and Tai, T. (2016). Gender inequality in housework across 20 European nations: Lessons
from gender stratification theories. Sex Roles 74(11): 495‒511
Trellu, H. (2007). Recompositions et résistances de la masculinité et de la féminité, de la paternité
et de la maternité à l'épreuve du congé parental pris par les hommes en France. Recherches
sociologiques et anthropologiques, XXXVIII(2), 123-141.
Trellu, H. (2010). Expériences de pères en congé parental d'éducation. Recompositions de la
parentalité et du genre? (Ph.D.), Université de Bretagne Occidentale.
Van Bavel, J. (2012). The reversal of gender inequality in education, union formation and fertility
in Europe. Vienna Yearbook of population Research, 10, 127-154.
Van Bavel, J., & Rožanska-Putek, J. (2010). Second birth rates across Europe: interactions
between women’s level of education and child care enrolment. Vienna Yearbook of
Population Research, 8, 107-138
Van de Kaa, D. J. (1987). Europe’s Second Demographic Transition. Population Bulletin, 42(1),
1-59.
Van de Kaa, D. J. (1996). Anchored Narratives: The Story and Findings of Half a Century of
Research into the Determinants of Fertility. Population Studies, 50(3), 389-432.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2008). The Reversal of Gender Inequalities in Higher Education: an Ongoing
Trend. In OECD, Higher Education to 2030. Vol.1: Demography (pp. 265-298). Paris:
OECD.
Walker, K. E. & Woods, M. E. (1976) Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of Family
Goods and Services. Washington: Center for the Family of the American Home Economics
Association.
Wall, G., & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering: An exploration of the
contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender & Society, 21, 508-527.
Weiten, W. and Lloyd, A. M. (2003). Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment in the 21st
Century. (7th ed.). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
West C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151
Willis, R. J. A. (1973). New approach to the economic theory of fertility behaviour. Journal of
Political Economy, 81(2), 14-64.
Wimbauer, Ch. (2003). Geld und Liebe. Zur symbolischen Bedeutung von Geld in
Paarbeziehungen. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.