Skip to main content

Gender Inequality in Housework Across 20 European Nations: Lessons from Gender Stratification Theories

Sex Roles volume 74, pages 495–511 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

The gendered division of housework is the linchpin in a broader system of gender inequality. Consistent with pioneering feminist theories of gender stratification, this cross-national study demonstrates this approach with multi-level models that consider individual as well as cultural and structural variables that are associated with the absolute time men and women spend doing housework. Building on research relating national gender ideology to the husband-wife shares of housework, this paper asks how gender ideology relates to the absolute amount of time that men and women spend doing housework. Complementing this cultural indicator, the paper introduces a previously neglected constraint on domestic practices, asking whether the quality of a country’s housing stock predicts weekly hours in housework. Drawing on 2012 International Social Survey Program data for 20 European countries, we study nationally representative samples totaling 7733 respondents who were ages 18–65 and legally married, cohabiting, or in civil partnerships. Even controlling for individual-level covariates, results confirm that men and women perform less housework in countries where public opinion supports gender equality. In countries with more substandard housing, however, women, but not men, spend more time in housework than they do elsewhere.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Aboim, S. (2010). Gender cultures and the division of labor in contemporary Europe: A cross-national perspective. European Sociological Review, 58, 171–196. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01899.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (1973). Women and social stratification: A case of intellectual sexism. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 936–945. doi:10.1086/225411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apparala, M. L., Reifman, A., & Munsch, J. (2003). Cross-national comparison of attitudes toward father’s and mother’s participation in household tasks and childcare. Sex Roles, 48, 189–203. doi:10.1023/A:1022865002992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., Hewitt, B., & Haynes, M. (2008). Life course transitions and housework: Marriage, parenthood, and time on housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 259–272. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00479.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, J. (2007). Gender attitudes and modernization processes. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 5–23. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–228. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, R. L. (1984). A general theory of gender stratification. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological theory (pp. 23–101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budig, M. (2004). Feminism and the family. In J. Scott, J. Treas, & M. Richards (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 416–434). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafetz, J. S. (1991). The gender division of labor and the reproduction of female disadvantage. In R. L. Blumberg (Ed.), Gender, family, and economy (pp. 74–94). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, M., & Grusky, D. B. (2004). Occupational ghettos: The worldwide segregation of women and men. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208–1233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01208.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, L. P. (2006). Policy, preferences and patriarchy: The division of domestic labor in East Germany, West Germany and the United States. Social Politics, 13, 1–27. doi:10.1093/sp/jxj005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, L. P. (2011). Gender-class equality in political economies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coverman, S. (1985). Explaining husband’s participation in domestic labor. The Sociological Quarterly, 26, 181–197. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985.tb00217.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. (2001). The influence of parental attitudes and behavior on children’s attitudes toward gender and household labor in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 111–122. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00111.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. (2005). Gender in cohabitation and marriage: The influence of gender ideology on housework allocation over the life course. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1037–1061. doi:10.1177/0192513X04273592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach, H. (2002). Gender ideologies, relative resources, and the division of housework in intimate relationships: A test of Hyman Rodman’s theory of resources in cultural context. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43, 45–64. doi:10.1177/002071520204300103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., Freedman-Doan, C., Frome, P., Jacobs, J., & Yoon, K. S. (2000). Gender-role socialization in the family: A longitudinal approach. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 333–360). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2012). EU statistics on income and living conditions. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data/database.

  • Evertsson, M. (2014). Gender ideology and the sharing of housework and child care in Sweden. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 927–949. doi:10.1177/0192513X14522239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review, 69, 751–767. doi:10.1177/000312240406900601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuwa, M., & Cohen, P. N. (2007). Housework and social policy. Social Science Research, 36, 512–530. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, A. H., Smeeding, T. M., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2004). Are parents investing less time in children? Trends in selected industrialized countries. Population and Development Review, 30, 647–672. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2004.00036.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist, C. (2005). The welfare state and the home: Regime differences in the domestic division of Labor. European Sociological Review, 21, 23–41. doi:10.1093/esr/jci002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist, C., & Cohen, P. (2011). Headed toward equality: Housework change in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 832–844. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00850.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gershuny, J., Godwin, M., & Jones, S. (1994). The domestic labour revolution: A process of lagged adaptation. In M. Anderson, F. Bechofer, & J. Gershuny (Eds.), The social and political economy of the household (pp. 151–197). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GESIS. (2012). International social survey programme. Retrieved from: http://www.gesis.org/en/issp/issp-home/.

  • Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Claiborne, C. B. (2006). Housing well-being: Developing and validating a measure. Social Indicators Research, 79, 503–541. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-5667-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haavio-Mannila, E., & Rotkirch, A. (2010). Sexuality and family formation. In S. Immerfall & G. Therborn (Eds.), Handbook of European societies: Social transformations in the 21st century (pp. 465–497). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, H. (1981). The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs, 6, 366–394. doi:10.1086/493813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heisig, J. P. (2011). Who does more housework: Rich or poor? A comparison of 33 countries. American Sociological Review, 76, 74–99. doi:10.1177/0003122410396194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. M. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214–1230. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00088.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hook, J. L. (2010). Gender inequality in the welfare state: Sex segregation in housework, 1965–2003. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1480–1523. doi:10.1086/651384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hook, J. L., & Wolfe, C. M. (2012). New fathers? Residential fathers’ time with children in four countries. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 415–450. doi:10.1177/0192513X11425779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, K., & Waerness, K. (2008). National context and spouse’s housework in 34 countries. European Sociological Review, 24, 97–113. doi:10.1093/esr/jcm037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63, 767–780. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9797-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesthaeghe, R., & Surkyn, J. (1988). Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review, 14(1), 1–45. doi:10.2307/1972499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodl, K. A., Gabb, B. S., & Combs, E. R. (1990). The importance of selected housing features at various stages of the life cycle. Lifestyles: Family and Economic Issues, 11, 383–395. doi:10.1007/BF00987347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannino, C. M., & Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Changing the division of household labor: A negotiated process between partners. Sex Roles, 56, 309–324. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9181-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, A. (2012). Women’s advantage in higher education: Towards understanding a global phenomenon. Sociology Compass, 6, 581–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. J. (2006). Working mothers and the welfare state: Religion and the politics of work-family policies in Europe and the U.S.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58, 303–328. doi:10.2307/2095903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfau-Effinger, B. (2010). Cultural and institutional contexts. In J. Treas & S. Drobnic (Eds.), Dividing the domestic: Men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective (pp. 125–146). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppanner, L. (2008). Fairness and housework: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 509–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppanner, L. (2010). Cross-national reports of housework: An investigation of the gender empowerment measure. Social Science Research, 39, 963–969. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender equality and welfare states. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, L. (2010). Trends in housework. In J. Treas & S. Drobnič (Eds.), Dividing the domestic: Men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective (pp. 19–38). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stier, H., Lewin-Epstein, N., & Braun, M. (2001). Welfare regimes, family-supportive policies, and women’s employment along the life course. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1731–1760. doi:10.1086/321302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, T., & Treas, J. (2013). Housework task hierarchies in 32 countries. European Sociological Review, 29, 780–791. doi:10.1093/esr/jcs057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex and power: Family in the world, l900-2000. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & de Ruijter, E. (2008). Earnings and expenditures on household services in married and cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(3), 796–805. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00522.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & Drobnič, S. (Eds.). (2010). Dividing the domestic: Men, women and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & Lui, J. (2013). Studying housework across nations. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 135–149. doi:10.1111/jftr.12006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & Tai, T. (2012). Apron strings of working mothers: Maternal employment and housework in cross-national perspective. Social Science Research, 41, 833–842. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.01.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., & Widmer, E. (2000). Married women’s employment over the life course: Attitudes in cross-national perspective. Social Forces, 79, 1409–1436. doi:10.1093/sf/78.4.1409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., Widmer, E. D., & Newcomb, R. (1998). Attitudes toward nonmarital sex in 24 countries. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 349–358. doi:10.1080/00224499809551953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treas, J., Lui, J., & Gubernskaya, Z. (2014). Attitudes on marriage and new relationships: Cross-national evidence on the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Demographic Research, 30, 1495–1526. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Lippe, T., Tijdens, K., & de Ruijter, E. (2004). Outsourcing of domestic tasks and time-saving effects. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 216–240. doi:10.1177/0192513X03257425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, L. J. (1979). Sex role socialization. Palo Alto: Mayfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of California-Irvine, Social Science Building 3151A, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

    Judith Treas

  2. Department of Sociology, National Taipei University, Social Science Building, No. 151 University Road, San Shia, Taipei, 237, Taiwan

    Tsuio Tai

Authors
  1. Judith Treas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tsuio Tai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Treas.

Ethics declarations

There are no potential conflicts of research. All protocols for ethical treatment of respondents were observed in the collection, archiving and analysis of survey data. Respondents provided informed consent.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4

Table 4 Individual and household characteristics: partnered women, ages 18–65, 20 countries
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Treas, J., Tai, T. Gender Inequality in Housework Across 20 European Nations: Lessons from Gender Stratification Theories. Sex Roles 74, 495–511 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0575-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0575-9

Keywords

  • Housework
  • Gender inequality
  • Housing quality
  • Attitudes
  • Feminist theory
  • Cross-national research