gender division of labour and...

Gender division of labour and professionalism

151

GGEENNDDEERR DDIIVVIISSIIOONN OOFF LLAABBOOUURR AANNDD PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALLIISSMM

7.1 Gender Division of Labour at Home 7.2 Laundry 7.3 House Care and Upkeep 7.4 Meals and Kitchen Clean Up 7.5 Economic Matters 7.6 Family Care 7.7 Gender Division of Labour in Family 7.8 Age 7.9 Type of Family 7.10 Number of Children 7.11 Educational Qualification of Spouse 7.12 Profession of Spouse 7.13 Working Hours in College 7.14 Job Satisfaction 7.15 Work Pressure 7.16 Professionalism 7.17 Conclusion

One problem for working women is the proverbial “second shift.”

Women often find themselves working double time to cook, clean, do

laundry and perform other household chores in addition to working full-

time outside the home. This additional workload leaves women who are

subject to it with virtually no free time -- a condition that leaves them

frazzled and exhausted and less able to compete effectively in the

workplace. Recent years have seen increased sociological attention focused

on trends in domestic labour patterns and the gender gap in men’s and

women’s contribution to child care and housework (Gershuny & Robinson,

1988; Shelton, 1992 ; Bittman, 1995 ; Bianchi., Milkie, & Sayer, 2000).

Chapter-7

152

The impetus for this increased attention stems, in part, from other trends

which focus attention on possible associated changes in the way men and

women organise their household responsibilities. These include the

increased participation of married women in paid employment, the decline

in levels of childbearing, the delay in entering a marital relationship, and

increasing divorce rates. The results of the research are far from clear-cut.

Most research tends to suggest that women’s hours on housework are

declining, but there are mixed views about whether men’s hours on

housework have changed.

This chapter focuses on examining whether the wife has a strong

investment in professional life, and how it affects the partners spending

their time working at home. Do these households deviate from the “norm”,

i.e. show evidence of a more egalitarian division of domestic labour, in the

sense that they share the time spent in household work more equally? Do

partners in that case do more household work than average, or do a larger

share of household work? Or does the household rather rely on an external

help? These are the questions that have been probed into to bring forth

fruitful answers.

Even though research indicates greater male involvement in domestic

responsibilities, gender remains the chief predictor of who performs household

chores (Baxter, 2002). In this study, the concern is on whether the responsibility

of the women at home is taking its toll on the professional investment of

teachers, chaining them to only a moderate level of professionalism.

7.1 Gender Division of Labour at Home

Attempting to explain why biological sex remains the primary

predictor of household labour allocation, gender theorists have suggested


153

that husbands and wives perform family work in ways that facilitate

culturally appropriate constructions of gender. This implies a role

differentiation of household tasks based on sex stereotyping. In this study,

analysis of five essential household tasks has been made in the context of

gender division of labour. They are-

a) Doing laundry

b) House care and upkeep

c) Meals and kitchen clean up

d) Economic matters

e) Family Care

The following summated scores were calculated for measuring

gender division of labour-

Summated Score Values and Categories of Gender Division of Labour

Table 7.1 Summated Score Values and categories of Gender Division of Labour

Score Category

Less than 62 Low

63-93 Moderate

94- 155 High

Source: Primary Data

Low score in gender division of labour means that wife does the

maximum household labour, while high score implies there is equal sharing

of household labour by the husband and wife. Moderate score shows a

greater involvement of husband in sharing of household tasks.

Chapter-7

154

Table 7.2 Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour Frequency Percent

Low 108 30.9

Moderate 229 65.4

High 13 3.7

Total 350 100


The Table 7.2 reveals that sixty five per cent of the respondents are in

the category of moderate level of gender division of labour at home. This

implies that a vast proportion of the household tasks are exclusively the

responsibility of the women. It is very disappointing to see that high level

of gender division of labour, where husbands and wives share the tasks

equally, amounts to a mere four per cent. It clearly entails the fact that the

tasks husbands and wives undertake in the household in an equitable

manner is negligible.

It would be fruitful to observe how these household tasks are carried

out by the members in the household of the respondents.

7.2 Laundry

The tasks analyzed under laundry were washing clothes, putting clean

clothes away and ironing clothes. The following figures depict the figures

as to who does the laundry in the homes of the respondents.


155

*WA= Wife always, H/W= Husband Wife equally, HA= Husband always, SE= Servant Source: Primary Data

Figure 7.1 Responsibility of Doing Laundry

The above data reveals that doing laundry is mainly the responsibility

of the wife (41%), followed by servants in the house (35%). Taking into the

patriarchal set-up of Kerala, it is not surprising that the responsibility

undertaken by the husband is very less (8%), as well as the equal sharing of

responsibility with regard to laundry is also very low (16%). Research has

long shown that the introduction of technology into the home through so-

called “labour saving devices” did not significantly reduce women’s time in

housework (Cowan, 1983). Even if there are washing machines, the allied

activities related to laundry is tedious and time consuming. The fact that

family laundry remains a domestic task today rather than a commercial

service industry is a significant socio-historical anomaly. If commercial

laundries had become popular and cheaper and more efficient in Kerala,

women could have been relieved of a considerable burden.

Chapter-7

156

7.3 House Care and Upkeep

The responsibilities analysed under House care and upkeep were outdoor

cleaning, household repairs, sweeping/grooming interior, cleaning bathroom,

dusting furniture, making beds and changing bed sheets and emptying garbage.


Figure 7.2 Responsibility of House Care and Upkeep

The figures disclose that house care and upkeep is mostly shouldered

by the servants(s) in the house (39%), followed by the wife (37%). The

tasks involved in house care and upkeep is dreary and time consuming.

Hence women have assigned those jobs to the servants, thus saving time to

some extent. Meanwhile, here also it is worth mentioning that the

contribution of husband to these activities is at minimal level (6%) and

equal sharing is also negligible (18%). This points out to the fact that being

female has remained the primary predictor of family work performance

(Coltrane, 2000 ; Shelton & John, 1996). This means that a traditional

ideology reinforces a division of labour in the home in which women


157

perform more of the work traditionally associated with being female (i.e.

housework, child care, and health care).

7.4 Meals and Kitchen Clean Up

The activities analysed under meals and kitchen clean up were

preparing meals, planning meals/ buying food, washing dishes and cleaning

stoves, counters and tables.


Figure 7.3 Responsibility of Meals and Kitchen Clean Up

The above figure is a striking example of a typical Kerala household

where the primary responsibility of all the errands associated with kitchen, are

centered on the wife. Sixty Two percent of the respondents confirmed the fact

that the role of husband in matters related to meals and kitchen clean is almost

negligible (1%), while that of the wife is very high (62%). The only

consolation is for those who have servants; they also share this everyday

responsibility (21%). One reason why the gender division still lingers in the

kitchen might have to do with a phenomenon what is dubbed as the "guilt-trip

casserole"(The New York Times, 2012). This new concept emphasizes the

Chapter-7

158

importance of ‘eating together’ for dinner to establish strong family bonds and

harmony. If such home cooked meals are not cooked by mothers, it gives them

a sense of guilt conscience. With numerous studies also suggesting family

dinners make for stronger families, and engenders healthy diet, the pressure to

serve up home-cooked meals has intensified. "Those expectations don't come

out of thin air," one of the respondent said during the interview, "They come

out of what's socially acceptable and how we grow up”. This suggests that

“guilt trip casserole” is embedded in social expectations and is obligatory for

women, whether they like it or not. As a corollary, majority of errands related

to kitchen, fall on the shoulders of women.

7.5 Economic Matters

The activities which were analysed under this heading were family

budgeting, paying bills, purchase of vegetables and groceries and making

major financial decisions like taking loans, buying a house, buying a car

etc.

*WA= Wife always, H/W= Husband Wife equally, HA= Husband always, OT= Others Source: Primary Data

Figure 7.4 Responsibility of Economic Matters


159

The statistics in the figure – 7.4. provide a totally different picture of

what has been seen with regard to division of labour so far. Here we see

that the decisions with regard to economic matters are done by the wife and

husband in an egalitarian manner (49%). The respondents being a well

educated category, is considered by their counterparts as apt and rational

decision makers. Hence their contribution to crucial economic matters at

home is noteworthy. We can also see that among some respondents,

decisions are made by grandparents or a member of extended family (14%).

It is also important to draw attention to the fact that, there are even families

where wife always make the decisions, even though the percentage is very

low (14%).

This inadvertently leads us to believe the assumption that income

confers power on people. Thus, in a household where women command

some income, it gives them some say in decision- making in their homes

(Ngome, 2003). The more educated and income generating a woman is, the

more likely it is she is going to venture into spheres traditionally considered

male areas.

7.6 Family Care

The activities which were selected under family care to analyse were

buying clothes for self and family members, making appointments with

doctor, taking children to doctor, staying with children when sick, caring

for family pets (if any), taking care of preschool children (if any), teaching,

helping and disciplining children, arranging for child care organizing

family recreation and entertainment, keeping in touch with relatives and

friends and caring for old people at home (if any).

Chapter-7

160

*WA= Wife always, H/W= Husband Wife equally, HA= Husband always, SE= Servant, OT= Others Source: Primary Data

Figure 7.5 Responsibility with regard to Family Care

This is also a very encouraging representation of household division

of labour wherein it can be seen that the aspect of family care is shared

equally by husband and wife (42%). Family roles and expectations are shaped

by cultural values with varying degrees of prescriptive custom (Burr, Leigh,

Day, & Constantine, 1979). In a highly conventional society like Kerala, it is

anticipated that the family care, especially that of aged people and children, are

done with paramount consideration, and the accountability is

uncompromisingly shared by both the partners. However, the data also

expresses apprehension as it reveals that in many households this

responsibility is vested in the wife alone (30%), wherein the households in

which the husbands take the responsibility is very low (7%). Despite

continuing gender segregation in household labour, norms and behaviours are

being re-negotiated in some areas like family care, where husband is also

equally sharing the tasks. Although men are putting in more hours on these


161

tasks, responsibility for noticing when tasks should be performed or setting

standards for their performance are still most often assumed by wives.

7.7 Gender Division of Labour in Family

The overall statistics with reference to the analysis of the household

tasks of laundry, house care and upkeep, meals and kitchen clean up,

economic matters and family care is represented in Figure – 7.6.

WA= Wife always, H/W= Husband Wife equally, HA= Husband always, SE= Servant, OT= Others, NA= Not Applicable Source: Primary Data

Figure 7.6 Gender Division of Labour in Family

From the perspective of gender division of labour, the figures are quite

depressing, because it shows that the family responsibility is the primary

responsibility of women. Super (1980) has claimed that women are required to

perform an accumulation of disparate roles simultaneously, each one with its

unique pressures. This is clearly demonstrated in the data gathered from the

respondents, that a high imbalance of roles exists between husband and wife.

Chapter-7

162

The respondents are intricately entangled in their multiple roles

underlined by their traditional stereotypic images. Multiple role-playing has

been found to have both positive and negative effects on the mental health

and well-being of professional women. In certain instances, women with

multiple roles reported better physical and psychological health than

women with less role involvement. In other words, they cherished

motivational stimulation, self-esteem, a sense of control, physical stamina,

and bursts of energy. The data vividly demonstrates that men’s involvement

in family work (like doing household chores, caring for children, keeping

up relationships with kin and so on) has not kept pace with women’s

increasing commitment to paid employment. Some sociologists have

referred to this situation as a “stalled revolution”. (Hochschild & Machung,

1989).

The data also substantiate the findings of the study by Demo &

Acock (1993) in a paper titled ‘Family diversity and the division of

domestic labour: How much have things really changed?’, asserting that

mothers devote the vast proportion of time and labour on most household

chores. Domestic work by husbands (when present) is modest, and

household work by children is negligible. Previous research also

corroborates that the most important factor influencing the division of

domestic labour is gender, with women typically performing three fourths

of all housework (Berk , 1985 ; Huber & Spitze, 1983).

There is no mono-causal explanation for the unequal division of tasks

between men and women. We can use many perspectives to explain why

men monopolize higher paid positions and why women perform most

unpaid household labour. Such theories also predict the conditions under

which divisions of labour might change. The theories can be grouped into


163

four general categories according to the primary causal processes thought

to govern the sexual division of labour: nature, culture, economy, and

gender inequality.

Nature- Biological and religious arguments suggest that women are

physically or spiritually predisposed to take care of children and husbands;

housework is assumed to follow naturally from the nurturance of family

members. Similarly, functionalist theories suggest that the larger society

needs women to perform expressive roles in the family while men perform

instrumental roles connecting the family to outside institutions. However,

feminist critiques claim that these theories have flawed logic and methods,

and cite historical and cross-cultural variation to show that divisions of

labour are socially constructed (Thorne & Yalom, 1992). Only women can

bear and nurse children, but the gender of the people who cook or clean is

neither fixed nor preordained.

Culture- Theories that consider the division of labour to be culturally

fashioned tend to emphasize the importance of socialization and ideology.

Historical analyses of the ideal of separate spheres fall into this category, as

do cultural explanations that rely on rituals, customs, myths, and language

to explain divisions of labour. Socialization theories suggest that children

and adults acquire beliefs about appropriate roles for men and women, and

that they fashion their own family behaviours according to these gender

scripts (Bem, 1993). Some socio-cultural and psychological theories

suggest that exclusive mothering encourages girls to develop personalities

dependent on emotional connection, which, in turn, propels women into

domestic roles. Boys also grow up in the care of mothers, but in order to

establish a masculine identity, they reject things feminine, including

nurturance and domestic work (Chodorow, 1978).

Chapter-7

164

The basic idea in most cultural theories is that values and ideals shape

people's motivations and cause them to perform gender-typed activities.

Empirical tests of hypotheses derived from these theories yield mixed

results. Some researchers conclude that abstract beliefs about what men and

women "ought" to do are relatively inconsequential for actual behavior,

whereas others conclude that there is a consistent, though sometimes small,

increase in sharing when men and women believe that housework or

childcare should be shared (Coltrane , 2000).

Economy- Theories that consider the division of labour by gender to

be a practical response to economic conditions are diverse and plentiful.

New home economics theories suggest that women do the housework and

men monopolize paid work because labour specialization maximizes the

efficiency of the entire family unit. Women are assumed to have "tastes"

for doing housework, and their commitments to childbearing and child

rearing are seen as limiting their movement into the marketplace (Becker,

1981). Resource theories similarly assume that spouses make cost-benefit

calculations about housework and paid work using external indicators such

as education and income. Family work is treated as something to be

avoided, and women end up doing more of it because their time is worth

less on the economic market and because they have less marital power due

to lower earnings and education.

Educational differences between spouses are rarely associated with

divisions of labour, and men with more education often report doing more

housework, rather than less, as resource theories predict. Similarly, total

family earnings have little effect on how much housework men do, though

middle-class men talk more about the importance of sharing than working-

class men. Some studies show that spouses with more equal incomes—


165

usually in the working class—share more household labour, but women

still do more than men when they have similar jobs. Thus, relative earning

power is important, but there is no simple trade-off of wage work for

housework (Gerson, 1983 ; Thompson & Walker, 1989). Most studies find

that the number of hours spouses are employed is more important to the

division of household labour than simple earnings. Time demands and time

availability—labeled by researchers as practical considerations, demand-

response capability, or situational constraints—undergird most peoples'

decisions about allocating housework and childcare.

Gender inequality- The final set of theories also focuses on economic

power, but more emphasis is placed on conflict and gender inequality. Women

are compelled to perform household labour because economic market

inequities keep women's wages below those of men, effectively forcing

women to be men's domestic servants. Unlike the new home economics, these

theories do not assume a unity of husband's and wife's interests, and unlike

many resource theories, they do not posit all individuals as utility maximizes

with equal chances in a hypothetical free market. Other versions of theories in

this tradition suggest that social institutions like marriage, the legal system, the

media, and the educational system also help to perpetuate an unequal division

of labour in which women are forced to perform a "second shift" of domestic

labour when they hold paying jobs (Chafetz, 1990 ; Hochschild A. R., 1989).

Some versions draw on the same insights, but focus on the ways that the

performance of housework serves to demarcate men from women, keep

women dependent on men, and construct the meaning of gender in everyday

interaction (Berk, 1985 ; Coltrane , 1996).

The explanations may vary, but it is proven that family responsibility

is always ultimately on the shoulders of women.

Chapter-7

166

7.8 Age

Table 7.3 attempts to find out the relation between age of the respondents

and levels of gender division of labour.

Table 7.3 Age and Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour Age Low Moderate High

Total

<30

34 (31%)

72 (65.4%)

4 (3.6%)

110 (100%)

31 – 40 33 (25.6%)

92 (71.3%)

4 (3.1%)

129 (100%)

41 – 50 25 (33.8%)

46 (62.2%)

3 (4%)

74 (100%)

>51 16 (43.2%)

19 (51.4%)

2 (5.4%)

37 (100%)

Total 108 (30.9%)

229 (65.4%)

13 (3.7%)

350 (100%)


Table 7.3 also confirms the fact that respondents belonging to all age

categories reveal only low and moderate level of division of labour,

implying the reality that majority of household tasks are performed by

women themselves. It is surprising that even for respondents who are above

fifty one years of age; the state of affairs is no different, since fifty one per

cent of respondents in this category are showing only a moderate level of

gender division of labour. It bring into the limelight that throughout their

life time women are chained by the traditional bondage of socio-cultural

norms, no matter how resourceful they are. Numerous studies speak to the

continuing predominance of women in household responsibilities as the

division of domestic labour appears to remain more traditional than egalitarian,


167

even in “egalitarian” societies (Sanchez & Thomson, 1997 ; Diefenbach,

2002). Not only do women spend more time than their spouses on domestic

duties, traditionally female chores continue to be performed by wives (Bianchi ,

Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000 ; Sanchez & Kane, 1996).

7.9 Type of Family

Table 7.4 Type of Family and Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour Type of Family Low Moderate High

Total

Nuclear 76 (31.3%)

158 (65%)

9 (3.7%)

243 (100%)

Joint 28 (28.6%)

66 (67.3%)

4 (4%)

98 (100%)

Extended 4 (44.4%)

5 (55.6%)

0 -

9 (100%)

Total 108 (30.9%)

229 (65.4%)

13 (3.7%)

350 (100%)


The statistics in Table 7.4 shows that irrespective of their family type,

the housework done by men and women is not in an equitable manner.

Even in nuclear families, where there should be equal sharing of domestic

responsibilities, the trend is towards greater household liabilities in the

shoulders of women (65%). The case is no different in joint families

(67.3%) and extended families (55.6%). This reconfirms our belief in sex

stereotypes in households in Kerala. A cross-national study of developed

nations examining the participation of men in housework similarly found

that in spite of international variation, men tend to be less involved in

domestic chores than their spouses (Coltrane, 2000). For example in China,

Chapter-7

168

domestic duties have remained “overwhelmingly” a female responsibility

throughout the 1990s, with no indication of decrease (Chen, 2005).

Additionally, a study of twenty-four countries in different stages of

development found that women continue to perform more household labour

than a spouse regardless of outside employment status (Diefenbach, 2002 ;

Habib, Nuwayhid, & Yeretzian., 2006). This general trend is also seen among

Vietnamese, Japanese, Jewish, and Arab women (Teerawichitchainan, Knodel,

Loi, & Huy, 2009 ; Strober & Chan, 1998 ; Kulik & Rayyan, 2003) and

within traditional, transitional, and egalitarian societies (Diefenbach, 2002).

7.10 Number of Children

Table 7.5 Number of Children and Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour No. of Children Low Moderate High

Total

0 30

(44.8%) 32

(47.8%) 5

(7.5%) 67

(100%)

1 29

(24%) 91

(75.2%) 1

(0.8%) 121

(100%)

2 38

(27.1%) 95

(68%) 7

(5%) 140

(100%)

3 9

(45%) 11

(55%) 0 -

20 (100%)

>3 2

(100%) 0 -

0 -

2 (100%)

Total 108

(30.9%) 229

(65.4%) 13

(3.7%) 350

(100%)


Table 7.5 tells that the number of children does not affect the pattern

of gender division of labour in the family. Irrespective of the number of


169

children, majority of the respondents belong to the moderate level of

gender division of labour. The assumption that children affect only

“mothers and not fathers” time use also remains largely true (Harkness,

2005 ; Craig, 2006). Children create enormous needs, both a greater need

for income and greater domestic responsibilities. Ideally, both spouses must

take on new domestic responsibilities to achieve a balanced work-life

domain. However, studies have consistently found that mothers spend more

time than fathers in feeding, supervising, and caring for children, although

men have increased their time with children, especially in conventional

gender-typed activities like physical play (Parke, 1996). Effective parenting

also includes providing encouragement, meeting emotional needs,

anticipating problems, facilitating social and intellectual learning, and

enforcing discipline, activities for which mothers are primarily responsible.

Even if couples share housework before they have children, they often shift

to a more conventional gender-based allocation of chores when they

become parents (Cowan & Cowan, 2000). Table 7.6 corroborates these

studies as it points out that it is the wife who always remains responsible

for the household errands including the supreme accountability for the

children in the family.

The Table clearly substantiates the earlier studies that as the number

of children increases, husbands’ share of housework decreases even when

they do more hours because wives’ hours increase even more (Presser,

1994). Transitions into marriage and parenthood increase the women’s

housework hours, while declining the amount of time that men spend on

housework (Gupta , 1999 ; Rexroat & Shehan, 1987 ; South & Spitze,

1994).

Chapter-7

170

7.11 Educational Qualification of Spouse

Table 7.6 Educational Qualification of Spouse and Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour Education Qualification

of Spouse Low Moderate High

Total

Up to Graduation

23 (23.5%)

68 (69.4%)

7 (7.1%)

98 (100%)

Post Graduate and above

54 (32.7%)

108 (65.5%)

3 (1.8%)

165 (100%)

Professional Degrees

31 (35.6%)

53 (61%)

3 (3.4%)

87 (100%)

Total 108

(30.9%) 229

(65.4%) 13

(3.7%) 350

(100%)


When we analyse the figures in Table 7.6, we find that the moderate

level of gender division of labour is highest among respondents who have

spouses with degrees up to graduation (69.4%). It means in these

households, the major chunk of work is done by women, although some

assistance is given by husbands. Simultaneously, in households where the

spouses hold professional degrees, the husbands role in household scores in

minimal (35.6%). The figures in the above table can be explained by the

Relative Resources Theory. The relative resources theory refers to the

effect of spouses’ status or power in households on housework division. It

argues that the status or power of a spouse inside households may be

associated with his/her power in family decision-making, and such, affect

the division of household work. So the division of household labour reflects

husbands and wives’ differences in the power or status inside families

(South & Spitze, 1994). The data evidently demonstrates that spouse with


171

higher family power or status, which is commonly associated with

educational achievement, and occupational prestige or position, does less

housework.

7.12 Profession of Spouse

Table 7.7 Profession of Spouse and Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour Profession of Spouse

Low Moderate High

Total

Teacher-Government service

18 (47.3)

20 (52.6%)

0 -

38 (100%)

Teacher-Private Institutions

9 (39.1%)

13 (56.5%)

1 (4.3%)

23 (100%)

Other government Jobs

8 (25%)

54 (75%)

0 -

72 (100%)

Private Service 22 (29.7%)

50 (67.6%)

2 (2.7%)

74 (100%)

Business

12 (25.5%)

34 (72.3%)

1 (2.1%)

47 (100%)

Other Professionals 29 (30.2%)

58 (60.4%)

9 (9%)

96 (100%)

Total 108 (30.9%)

229 (65.4%)

13 (3.7%)

350 (100%)


The figures from Table 7.7 speaks out the fact that, however

professionally elevated the spouses are, the gender element in carrying out

the household tasks remain traditionally imprinted, where there is

negligible sharing of the errands. Table 7.7 shows that the lowest score in

gender division of labour is shown by the respondents’ spouses who are

engaged in government service as teachers (47.3%), and highest score in

Chapter-7

172

moderate gender division of labour is shown by respondents with spouses

who are engaged in government service (75%). This implies that even in

the case of respondents with professionally qualified spouses, the gender

roles remain customary. It corroborates the finding from earlier research

which states that the wife’s share of household income is negatively

associated with wife’s housework hours and positively associated with

husband’s hours (Bianchi , Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000 ; Hersch &

Stratton, 1994). If the husband made all the family's money, it was easy for

him to disclaim responsibility for household work. But, when women had

jobs, they had less time for child rearing and domestic chores such as

cleaning. Conversely, men lost their clear-cut justification for denying all

responsibility for these activities. Just like their husbands, working women

would hurry through breakfast to join the rush hour surge for another day of

work. They also came home tired at the end of the day. How could the

husband justify asking his wife to do most of the housework? The answer

lies in the perspective provided by Greenstien, who asserted that

“Traditional” woman’s marital quality does not suffer due to inequities

associated with the “second shift” because female responsibility for

household chores is consistent with her ideology” (Greenstein, 1996). The

traditional stereotypic images reinforce the encultured script through

centuries where women are obliged to assume all the household chores, no

matter whether they are earning members or not.


173

7.13 Working Hours in College

Table 7.8 Working Hours in College per Day and Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour Working Hours In College per day Low Moderate High

Total

5 24 (25.8%)

62 (66.7%)

7 (7.5%)

93 (100%)

6 41 (35.7%)

72 (62.6%)

2 (1.7%)

115 (100%)

7 29 (33.3%)

56 (64.3%)

2 (2.2%)

87 (100%)

8 9 (19.6%)

35 (76%)

2 (4.3%)

46 (100%)

9 3 (60%)

2 (40%)

0 -

5 (100%)

10 1 (100%)

0 -

0 -

1 (100%)

>10 1 (33.3%)

2 (66.7%)

0 -

3 (100%)

Total 108 (30.9%)

229 (65.4%)

13 (3.7%)

350 (100%)


The result of Table 7.8 substantiate illustrates that no matter how

much time women invest for professional duties, their household

responsibilities remain high. It also conveys the interesting information that

longer the hours spent in campus, greater the time spent on household

activities. For instance, the highest score in moderate level of gender

division of labour is shown by respondents who spent eight hours in the

campus (76%) and the lowest score is shown by respondents who spent ten

hours in the campus (100%). The relation is very conspicuous - if you come

Chapter-7

174

home after a long day in the campus, the support from the members in the

household reduces, because professional responsibilities of women are

often not considered vital in the eyes of other members; hence even after

coming home, women has to struggle to complete the household

responsibilities also to satisfy everyone in the family.

It is also seen from some of the studies that, while the total time spent

on housework has decreased due to paid employment of women, studies

examining the division of household labour repeatedly find that women do

more household work than men (Brines, 1994 ; Orbuch & Eyster, 1997 ;

Ross, 1987). Even in dual income families, wives have greater family

responsibilities (Presser, 1994).

7.14 Job Satisfaction

Table 7.9 Job Satisfaction and Levels of Gender Division of Labour

Gender Division of Labour Job Satisfaction Low Moderate High

Total

Highly Satisfied

54 (33.1%)

103 (63.1%)

6 (3.7%)

163 (100%)

Moderately Satisfied

50 (29.2%)

114 (66.7%)

7 (4%)

171 (100%)

Undecided 4 (28.6%)

10 (71.4%)

0 -

14 (100%)

Unsatisfied 0 -

2 (100%)

0 -

2 (100%)

Total 108 (30.9%)

229 (65.4%)

13 (3.7%)

350 (100%)



175

From the Table 7.9, it can be seen that, even those who are highly

satisfied in their job shows only moderate (63.1%) or low gender division

of labour (33.1%) , that is, husband’s role in the domestic activities remain

minimal. This once again brings to our notice that the professional domain

and the family domain remain as watertight compartments, wherein the

former requires constant resourcefulness and achievement orientation, the

latter is saturated with notions of traditional stereotypes with an ideology of

subordination and conformity to age old norms and values. It is found that

if husbands participated in some conventional female chores, preparing

meals, cleaning up after meals, cleaning the house or doing the laundry,

women were more satisfied than if their husbands did not participate in

these activities (Baxter & Western, 1998). This means that women enjoy

the participation of husbands in household chores, but they seldom get it.

Previous research by Lennon & Rosenfield (1994) also corroborates that a

large proportion of women perceive the domestic division of labour to be

fair even though they do the bulk of the work, irrespective of their

employment status. This pattern is consistent with the findings of other

studies (Blair & Johnson, 1992 ; Robinson & Spitze, 1992 ; Sanchez L. ,

1994; DeMaris & Longmore, 1996 ; Greenstein, 1996 ; Sanchez & Kane,

1996).

Chapter-7

176

7.15 Work Pressure

Table 7.10 Work Pressure and Levels of Gender Division of Labour.

Gender Division of Labour Response

Low Moderate High Total

Never

23 (34.3%)

41 (61.2%)

3 (4.5%)

67 (100%)

Rarely 28 (27.7%)

69 (68.3%)

4 (4%)

101 (100%)

Sometimes 46 (31.3%)

97 (66%)

4 (2.7%)

147 (100%)

Often 11 (31.4%)

22 (63%)

2 (5.7%)

35 (100%)

Total 108 (30.9%)

229 (65.4%)

13 (3.7%)

350 (100%)


The question that was asked was whether the respondents miss

quality time with family and friends because of work pressure. From the

Table 7.10, it is clear that the moderate gender division score is high for

those who said that rarely (68.3%) miss quality time at home because of

work pressure and low gender division score is highest (34.3%) for

respondents who said that they never miss quality time at home because of

work pressure. This means that even though the respondents’ social

relations remain in a comfortable level, their household commitments do

not vary. This is due to the fragmented leisure patterns available for

women because of their heavy investment in household duties. In the home,

one important characteristic of women’s work is that it cannot be

postponed, and as a result, women’s leisure time is more fragmented than

that of men (Frankenhaeuser, Lundberg, & Chesney, 1991). Moreover,


177

employment outside the home is an important source of social support and

self-esteem, and helps women to avoid social isolation in the home

(Romito, 1994 ; Razavi, 2000). Hence, women may not complain too

loudly that they are missing quality time at home because of the pressure of

work.

7.16 Professionalism

Table 7.11 Gender division of labour and Levels of Professionalism

Levels of Professionalism Gender Division of

Labour Moderate High

Total

Low 219

(95.6%) 10

(4.4%) 229

(100%)

Moderate 100

(92.6%) 8

(7.4%) 108

(100%)

High 12

(92.3%) 1

(7.7%) 13

(100%)

Total 331

(94.6%) 19

(5.4%) 350

(100%)

X2= 1.456(a); Degrees of Freedom =2; Level of Significance= 0.483 Source: Primary Data

The hypothesis that was created with regard to association between

gender division of labour at home and levels of professionalism was that

H5: ‘Gender Division of Labour at home does not have any relation with

levels of professionalism of married women teachers’

In Table 7.11 we can see that gender division of labour at home and

levels of professionalism remains as two distinct spheres in the lives of the

respondents. The respondents who are showing high score in gender

Chapter-7

178

division of labour at home, is showing the lowest score in moderate level of

professionalism (92.3%); whereas respondents who have low score in

gender division of labour, have high score in moderate level of

professionalism (95.6%). It seems that the achieved and ascribed roles of

these domains allows for no reconciliation whatsoever in the lives of these

women professionals. This is exclusively because of the conventional

imperatives thrust upon these women by the predominant patriarchal

system still widely prevalent in Kerala Society.

The division of labour in the home depends on resources, both in

relative and absolute terms. Women with greater job earnings, and

therefore higher shares of household income, are associated with a

propensity for a more egalitarian division of housework. However, this

relative equal sharing between partners is not due primarily to a higher

male participation in domestic activities, but mostly on account of a

decrease of time women spend on household chores by delegation of some

of the housework and childcare to others. In most cases, although part of

housework is commonly shared between spouses, especially young ones,

both partners seem to withdraw from specific household tasks such as

house cleaning or taking care of laundry. The socio-economic conditions of

couple-existence thus determines women’s share on domestic work. In

Table 7.11 also, we can see that, there is greater sharing of household

duties between husband and wife, but it has no significant impact on the

professionalism of the respondents. This can only mean that, the familial

sphere and work sphere remain as two distinct entities, guided by its own

inherent principles.

Gender role socialisation in childhood is a considerable variable

affecting housework allocation since parents’ early behaviours shape their


179

children’s adult lives (Cunningham, 2001). Therefore, previous research

has shown that women holding the most traditional gender ideology

perform more household chores, regardless their husbands’ gender ideology

(Greenstein, 1996). This finding strongly underlines the reason for

women’s greater involvement in domestic division of labour, which they

perceive as exclusively their liability and expect no one to share.

The level of significance was measured by using chi square test. Test

is significant at 5% (.05) level. The Calculated X2 for 2 degree of freedom

is 1.456 (a) and the p value is 0.483. Since p> .05, there is no significant

relation between Gender division of labour at home and professionalism of

married women teachers.

7.17 Conclusion

The analysis from this chapter clearly points out the fact that women

are disadvantaged in relation to household tasks. Women spent their time in

the least attractive household activities (e.g. Meal preparation, laundry,

washing dishes), and these activities are more subjected to the whims and

fancies of the family members. Whenever housework becomes necessary,

such as when children create additional work, it is women who have to find

time for it. Husbands’ tend not to respond to women’s constraints or to the

demands of the children. All pertinent studies point out that gender is the

most important aspect in the household division of tasks, and women invest

significantly more hours in household tasks than men. Women’s education

and employment is negatively associated with time spent on household

labour.

The respondents in this study fall into the category of traditional

households that follow the Kerala norm of maintaining gendered domains

Chapter-7

180

in the division of household labour. The wife is subservient and is

responsible for all the domestic tasks, while the husband is the patriarchal

disciplinarian and has the final say in the arena of critical decision making

in the family. Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen's view on gender inequality

needs special mention in this context. His work on the theory of the

household represents the household not as an undifferentiated unit, but as a

unit of cooperation as well as of inequality and internal discrimination. This

view really projects the true picture of woman in a typical Kerala

household.

The analysis of this section also brought forth the noteworthy aspect

of “leisure gap” for women. This means, the fact that women are spending

more time than men in household labour and they have less time for leisure

activities than men. The phenomenon of ‘stalled revolution’ is very evident

from the analysis- men’s involvement in family work (defined here as

doing household chores, caring for children, tending to other’s needs,

keeping up relationships with kin, and so on) has not kept pace with

women’s increasing commitment to their profession. The proverbial

‘paradigm shift’ has not taken place in the lives of married women

professionals, even in the postmodern 21st century.

The ultimate answer for this imbalanced juxtaposition of women

professionals lies in the need to change the distorted gender ideology which

gives predominance to male prerogatives than female. The patriarchal

ideology has to be remoulded to take into account the new roles of the

contemporary married professional women and integrate them into our

socio-cultural context.

….. …..

gender division of labour and...

Documents