October 27th Class

The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home by Arlie Hochschild

Chapter 4: Joey’s Problem: Nancy and Evan Holt

This reading follows the marriage of Nancy and Evan Holt and their problems obtaining equality around the home. Nancy and Evan Holt have a child named Joey who is very attached to his mother. Because of this, Nancy is more heavily involved in the taking care of her child than her husband, Evan. Even though both individuals have full time jobs, Nancy takes more responsibility around the house and with their child than Evan does.

Nancy feels that she does so much around the house and all she wants is equality in her marriage. Equality to her meant that, since they both work outside the home that they should both share the responsibilities around the house (meaning sharing the childcare of Joey and the housework). She wants this being a modern day woman and having a fear of slaving over her husband much like her mother had for her father. But Nancy never gets what she wants because Evan has a more “traditional” view. Evan poses the question to the author, “Why should her personal decision to work outside the home require him to do more inside it?” (p. 40) This implies that Evan’s belief is that Nancy, being his wife, should be responsible for the housework and that she does not need to work. He does not acknowledge the fact that Nancy is proud of the work she does and proud of how she got to where she is. She says, “Work is important to me. I worked hard to get my MSW. Why should I give it up?” (p. 41)

They come to a “solution” that helps Nancy cope with the lack of work that Evan does around the house. They decide that Nancy will take care of the upstairs of the home, meaning the childcare and the physical house itself, and Evan will take care of the downstairs, which involves the garage, and the dog. By splitting it up with the upstairs-downstairs terminology, it helps ease Nancy’s mind that what they are doing is equal when, in fact, it is not. But in order to see this as fair, Nancy needed to change her thought process. “She decided to try not to resent Evan.” (p. 45) She often used the terminology that everything was “fine” and “fair.”

In addition to this, she stopped comparing Evan to other men that did more around the house. For example, Bill Beaumont, a neighbor that lived two doors down, willingly did half the housework without having to be asked. This egalitarian view of how to run a home was seen by Evan as being an exception. In turn, Nancy decided to stop comparing her husband to others and appreciate him for everything that he did do. Instead of addressing what was really bothering her, the lack of work being produced by her husband, she focused on what he did do, like taking care of the downstairs.

In my opinion, this situation is really unfortunate. It is unfair to Nancy to have a husband that does not want to commit to things like chores around the house or even taking care of their child. Clearly, they both had different expectations of what their marriage would be like and in order to compensate for the lack of willingness to compromise, Nancy decides to take on the workload. This is unfair to her and really rude and inconsiderate of her husband, Evan. In my household, my father always took his part in the housework. Both being working parents, my parents would come home at the same time, usually take the time to talk to my sister and I and ask about our days, someone would clean up around the house, and the other would cook dinner. It was never unequal in that respect. Most of my friends families were like this as well which is why I find it strange that many men are not willing to compromise. I was raised with the mentality that if the work involves everyone in the family unit that everyone should take their part in finishing it. This is why I believe that what Nancy Holt is asking of her husband is not only fair but how a family should be run.

“Doing Housework: Feeding and Family Life” by Marjorie L. Devault

This reading talks about housework, particularly feeding the family as not being seen as work like paid work is. Clearly, feeding other individuals in the family unit takes time, preparation and skill (much like a job) yet it is seen more as a wife’s duty to her husband or children rather than a job. One woman said, “‘I like to cook for him. That’s what a wife is for, right?’“ (p. 179) Not only this, but there is a certain level of commitment to one’s family that has one woman associating the process of feeding her family with love.

Also, nowadays, many families struggle to even meet to eat together. A couple of generations ago, many families would eat three meals together because there were few other places to eat. But nowadays “new products incorporate much of the work of food processing formerly done at home, and the growth of the restaurant trade and the tremendous expansion of fast-food franchising provide new options for purchasing meals.” (p. 181) New food options takes away from families eating together. Also, with the business of everyone’s lives nowadays whether that is school, work, or other activities, families struggle to meet even for one meal a day.

The planning of meals themselves can be a difficult task. When planning a meal, someone must take into consideration the likes and dislikes of the rest of the family (usually compromising what they want for what the rest of the family prefers). Also, variety is key in meals, but at the same time, many people that prepare the meals usually pick things that were successful in the past. Also, a lot goes into planning meals in the sense of time and place. Every family differs, but many families have a certain set of patterns involving time and table etiquette. That is to say that certain families always meet for dinner, others do not, and on top of it when they do meet, there are a certain set of rules, like everyone talks or people report about their days.

Much of this work is seen as “invisible work” as much of the household tasks are. (p. 188) It takes a lot of consideration and a lot of planning in order to plan meals and feel families. People’s tastes must be considered and time must be taken to prepare meals and coordinate the whole event. Women mainly do this work and though not seen as work, can be a very difficult task.

In my family, the cooking was always done equally. My mother would cook one night, and then my father would cook another. When my sister and I got older, she would cook from time to time (as she never took to cooking meals, but rather preferred bake) and I would cook as well. I think its surprising the number of people my age that have no idea how to cook for themselves, and its amazing to me how they have lasted so long. For example, my roommates wanted to have a roommate dinner together, so one Friday we got together and decided to cook together. My roommate, that wouldn’t know how to cook to save his life was asking me questions in the kitchen such as “where do we keep the pans” or “if I need a napkin where would that be?” I was amazed that living in the room for almost two months now and he has no idea where anything is, let alone how to cook for himself. Also, not having a meal plan and having to cook for myself really has made me appreciate completing the task. It takes a lot of effort to cook and a lot of planning, so I agree with much of what this reading said on that matter.

“Domesticity and the Political Economy of Lesbigay Families” by Christopher Carrington

This reading focuses on the domesticity of lesbian and gay couples. The author of the study conducted interviews with 108 people (52 families) and though he did not have a random sample, got a range of socio-economic backgrounds. He even lived in the houses of 8 of the couples for a week in order to observe their day-to-day activities.

There is a “myth” in most of these couples that the domestic work around the house is “egalitarian.” (p. 83) That is to say that most couples believe that the work is generally shared evenly, though the author found this to not be true when observation and interviews were conducted in more depth. The author states, “Many lesbigay family members fail to make much of a distinction between what they consider equal and what they consider fair.” (p. 83)

The author found that the level of participation that lesbian and gay family members contribute depends a lot on their commitment to their paid work outside of the home. “For lesbians, the capacity of domesticity to construct gender carries important consequences for partners whose paid-work obligation prevent them from engaging in much domesticity.” (p. 85) That is to say that, lesbians, who are women and seen by society as expected to take part in the domestic chores around the house have a certain balance to consider. Many lesbians who have a career that takes up a lot of time, have trouble balancing this gender expectation with their paid jobs. Not only this, but domestic work is often seen as a way to preserve a relationship with a balance between both individuals in the relationship. “First, as previously suggested, they do it to avoid the stigma associated with violating gender expectations. Second, and perhaps more significantly, they do it to avoid conflicts and to preserve relationships existing in broader socioeconomic context that does not enable families to actually produce much equality.” (p. 88)

But according to his study, “A minority of lesbigay families do achieve a rough equivalence in the distribution of domestic work, even using a broad and inclusive conception of domesticity. Rough 25% (13) of the families I studied approach this rough parity.” (p. 89) That is to say that there is little actual equality in the domestic work in lesbigay couples even though the majority states that there is equality. Many wealthier families even use their wealth to hire “an army of low-paid workers without fringe benefits who provide much of the domestic labor.” (p. 89) Those people that can afford it, pay for their domestic work to be completed by other individuals.

Also, many families where their jobs are seen as female-oriented jobs, have more egalitarian patterns than others. For example, social work, teaching, librarians, etc. have more egalitarian relationships than other families with a different job dynamic. In some situations though, “one person specializes in domesticity…” (p. 91) “For instance, only among families together longer than 9 years (21 families), and mostly earning higher incomes, do I find someone working part-time by choice in order to handle domestic activities (seven families), or someone engaging in homemaking full-time (three families).” (p. 91)

There is also disproportionate number of hours shared of domestic work where couples have inequality with their professions. For example, “when they are in relationships with individuals in professional, managerial, or executive positions,” many share the work differently, meaning someone takes more of the responsibility around the house. (p. 93) And it is important to note that “Few individuals actually choose, in a particularly conscious manner, to become more involved in family affairs.” (p. 96)

“Finally, another dynamic bolstering active participation in domesticity springs from efforts to preserve a cherished relationship.” (p. 99) This means that in order to preserve the relationship, many will take part in domestic chores in order to ensure that their relationship is equal inside and outside of the home. “True equality[…] eludes many of these families, but that has little to do with the families per se, and much more to do with the character and quality of employment opportunities that avail themselves to these families.” (p. 106)

In my opinion, I think it is interesting to see how gender dynamics really play into how these lesbian and gay couples treat the domestic work. The balance (of lack thereof) between straight couples stems from a breadwinner model, yet these families have to face a different gender-related struggle because both members expected to share the domestic work are of the same sex. That is to say that the breadwinner model has little to do with these couples, yet the inequality persists. Jobs really play a large role in this inequality and it really does have a negative impact on these couples. The struggle to balance family life, paid work and domestic work is one that is hard for any couple, yet plays an interesting dynamic in these lesbian and gay couples.

“Autonomy, Dependence, or Display? The Relationship Between Married Women’s Earning and Housework” by Sanjiv Gupta

This study examines a woman’s amount of work and income and how that relates to how much housework she does around the house whether she is single or married. “Although it has been amply documented that the daily work of providing nutrition, clean clothing, and a sanitary environment to members of heterosexual households is done largely by women, the relationship between married women’s earning and their time spent on housework is not well understood.” (p. 399) That is to say that the author acknowledges that women do take the brunt of the housework on their shoulders, but the relationship between what they earn in terms of paid work outside of the home and how much time they spend on housework is not understood.

The study found that “Women whose earnings exceed their husbands’ will spend more time on housework than other women in order to affirm their gender identities in the face of their gender-atypical relative incomes.” (p. 400) This means that women who earn more than their husbands (which is not as atypical for a married women) will attempt to compensate for the gender role that society expects of her (as a homemaker) by doing more around the house. These women break off from the idea of the breadwinner model, where the male earns more and the female takes care of the home sphere by compensating for the housework by adding to their overall workload.

The author states, “The allocation of housework depends on the distribution of marital power, which in turn depends on the relative economic resources of the partners.” (p. 401) That is to say that housework is determined by how much one earns outside of the home. We have learned this not to be true because many women still work inside and outside of the home in a relationship that is not egalitarian with the housework. The author also states, “Given that men’s earnings are higher on average than women’s, the economic dependence hypothesis is a plausible explanation for the gender gap in housework.” (p. 401) That means that since men (on average) earn more than women, that these women compensate for this by doing more around the house.

An interesting point brought up to the author is the idea that” women’s earnings matter more than their husbands’ to expenditures related to household labor and child care.” (p. 402) This means that women spend more of their money on what is to be done around the house than men, which shows more inequality when it comes to the housework. Women are not only completing what needs to be done around the house but they are spending their own resources to accomplish it. This means that “women’s earnings exert a greater influence than their husbands’ on outcomes in the areas of domestic life for which women bear primary responsibility.” (p. 403)

This study found that “Women whose earnings substantially exceed their husbands’ are predicted to spend more time on housework than other women.” (p. 408) Also the study found that, “neither married women’s nor their husbands’ employment hours are associated with women’s housework time. In a sample of all married women, however, women’s employment hours have the expected negative effect on their housework time, so that the absence of an effect ere appears to be consequence of the restriction of the sample to women working full time.” (p. 409)

In the conclusion, the author states, “Despite the sharing of life experiences and resources that characterize marriage, it appears that women’s earnings mater more than their husbands’ to certain outcomes within it.” (p. 415) In my opinion, I think that it is strange that society’s values have such a hold on women that they must take part in the inequality of the housework. That is to say that women spend more time and their own resources on the maintenance of the home sphere, yet, men are not expected to contribute as much to the housework (apparently physically nor economically) even though they reap the benefits of the marriage through their wives. My question is: how are men spending their money for their home and do they contribute something else other than money for the benefit of their homes?