The Construction of Gender Among Working-Class Cohabiting Couples

Abstract

Utilizing three typologies that emerged from the data, we examine how 30 working-class cohabiting couples construct gender through paid and domestic labor. Contesting couples contain at least one partner, usually the woman, who attempts to construct more egalitarian arrangements. In Conventional and Counter-Conventional couples, neither partner is actively contesting their gendered arrangements. Among Conventional couples each partner adheres to a traditional division of labor. Normative gender arrangements are upended in Contesting and Counter-Conventional couples when the female partner resists financial dependence on her male partner or if or the male partner does not earn enough income to provide even for himself. Nevertheless, institutionalized gender roles appear deeply entrenched among the working-class cohabitors in this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For additional information on sample selection, please see (Miller and Sassler 2010; Sassler and Miller 2011b).

  2. 2.

    For further information on the ways that couples in this sample adapted their divisions of labor in response to parenthood, see (Miller and Sassler 2010).

References

  1. Aronson, Pamela. 2003. Feminists or ‘postfeminists’?: Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender and Society 17(5): 903–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bianchi, Suzanne M., Melissa A. Milkie, Liana C. Sayer, and John P. Robinson. 2000. Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces 79(1): 191–228.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bolzendahl, Catherine, and Daniel Myers. 2004. Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces 83(2): 759–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bratter, Jenifer, and Rosalind King. 2008. ‘But will it last?’ Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations 57(2): 160–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brines, Julie. 1994. Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. The American Journal of Sociology 100(3): 652–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brines, Julie, and Kara Joyner. 1999. The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review 64(3): 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burawoy, Michael. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16(1): 4–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chandra, Anjani, Gladys M. Martinez, William D. Mosher, Joyce C. Abma, and Jo Jones. 2005. Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 national survey of family growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 23.

  9. Charmaz, Kathy. 1983. The grounded theory method: An explanation and interpretation. In Contemporary field research, ed. R. Emerson, 109–126. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cherlin, Andrew. 2004. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(4): 848–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciabattari, Teresa. 2004. Cohabitation and housework: The effects on marital intentions. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(1): 118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Clarkberg, Martin, Russell Stolzenberg, and Linda Waite. 1995. Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces 74(2): 609–632.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Coltrane, Scott. 1996. Family man. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cunningham, Mick. 2007. Influences of women’s employment on the gendered division of household labor over the life course: Evidence from a 31-year panel study. Journal of Family Issues 28(3): 422–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Ruijter, Esther, Judith Treas, and Phillip Cohen. 2005. Outsourcing the gender factory: Living arrangements and service expenditures on female and male tasks. Social Forces 84(1): 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deutsch, Francine. 1999. Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Deutsch, Francine. 2007. Undoing gender. Gender and Society 21(1): 106–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ferree, Martha Marx. 1990. Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and Family 52(4): 866–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gerson, Kathleen. 1993. No man’s land: Men’s changing commitments to work and family. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gerson, Kathleen. 2009. The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America. Oxford University Press.

  21. Greenstein, Theodore. 1996. Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces 74(3): 1029–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hertz, Rosanna. 1995. Separate but simultaneous interviewing of husbands and wives: Making sense of their stories. Qualitative Inquiry 1(4): 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1989. The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 2001. Domestica: Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the shadows of affluence. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. John, Daphne, Beth Ann Shelton, and Kristen Luschen. 1995. Race, ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of fairness. Journal of Family Issues 16(3): 357–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kennedy, Sheela, and Larry Bumpass. 2008. Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research 19: 1663–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kroska, Amy. 2008. Examining husband-wife differences in the meaning of family financial support. Sociological Perspectives 51(1): 63–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lavee, Yoav, and Ruth Katz. 2002. Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family 64(1): 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2004. Gender as a social institution. Social Forces 82(4): 1249–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McCabe, Janice. 2005. What’s in a label? The relationship between feminist self-identification and ‘feminist’ attitudes among US women and men. Gender and Society 19(4): 480–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Miller, Amanda, and Sharon Sassler. 2010. Stability and change in the division of labor among cohabiting couples. Sociological Forum 25(4): 677–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller, Amanda, Sharon Sassler, and Dela Kusi-Appouh. 2011. The specter of divorce: Views from working and middle class cohabitors. Family Relations 60(5): 602–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Orrange, Robert M. 2002. Aspiring law and business professionals’ orientations to work and family life. Journal of Family Issues 23(2): 287–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Potuchek, Jean. 1997. Who supports the family? Gender and breadwinning in dual-earner marriages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Shelley J. Correll. 2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender and Society 18(4): 510–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Risman, Barbara. 1998. Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Risman, Barbara. 2009. From doing to undoing: Gender as we know it. Gender and Society 23(1): 81–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rubin, Lillian. 1976. Worlds of pain: Life in the working class family. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rubin, Lillian. 1994. Families on the fault line: America’s working class speaks about the family, the economy, race, and ethnicity. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sanchez, Laura, and Emily Kane. 1996. Women’s and men’s constructions of perceptions of housework fairness. Journal of Family Issues 17(3): 358–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sassler, Sharon. 2004. The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family 66(2): 491–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sassler, Sharon, and Frances Goldscheider. 2004. Revisiting Jane Austen’s theory of marriage timing: Union formation among American men in the late 20th century. Journal of Family Issues 25(2): 139–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sassler, Sharon, and Kara Joyner. 2011. Social exchange and the progression of sexual relationships in emerging adulthood. Social Forces 90(1): 223–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sassler, Sharon, and Amanda Miller. 2011a. Class differences in cohabitation processes. Family Relations 60(2): 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sassler, Sharon, and Amanda Miller. 2011b. Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues 32(4): 482–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shelton, Beth, and Daphne John. 1993. Does marital status make a difference? Housework among married and cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Issues 14(3): 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. South, Scott, and Glenna Spitze. 1994. Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review 59(3): 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliette Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sullivan, Oriel. 2011. An end to gender display through the performance of housework? A review and reassessment of the quantitative literature using insights from the qualitative literature. Journal of Family Theory and Review 3(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sullivan, Oriel, and Scott Coltrane. 2008. Men’s changing contribution to housework and childcare. Discussion Paper on Changing Family Roles, Briefing paper prepared for the 11th Annual Conference of the Council on Contemporary Families, April 25–26, 2008, available at http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&ext=menshousework.

  52. Sum, Andrew, Ishwar Khatiwada, Joseph McLaughlin, and Sheila Palma. 2011. No country for young men: Declining labor market prospects for low-skilled men in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 635(1): 24–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Thornton, Arland, and Linda Young-DeMarco. 2001. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family 63(4): 1009–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tichenor, Veronica. 2005. Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles 53(3): 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. West, Candice, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and Society 1(2): 125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Jayne Miller.

Additional information

The authors would like to thank Sarah Favinger for her assistance in collecting the data and Betty Menaghan, Liana Sayer, and Townsand Price-Spratlen for their comments on earlier drafts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, A.J., Sassler, S. The Construction of Gender Among Working-Class Cohabiting Couples. Qual Sociol 35, 427–446 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-012-9234-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cohabitation
  • Gender roles
  • Housework
  • Paid work
  • Working class