Sex Roles

, Volume 79, Issue 1–2, pp 36–49 | Cite as

Doing and Undoing Gender in Commuter Marriages

  • Danielle J. Lindemann
Original Article


Much recent literature has focused on how women and men “do” (and potentially “undo”) gender when juggling home and work responsibilities. Commuter marriages—in which dual-income professionals live apart due to the demands of their jobs—present a strategic context in which to investigate these gendered processes. Drawing upon theoretical work on doing and undoing gender, prior literature about gender dynamics at the nexus of home and work, and data from in-depth interviews with 97 other-sex commuter spouses, this analysis finds that in some ways these nontraditional arrangements are unique sites for undoing gender; yet, in other respects, standard gender roles are crystallized within these relationships. Specifically, for some women, these arrangements provide a respite from domestic demands, enabling them to function as hyper-productive, “masculinized” workers. However, commuter spouses also perform gender in ways that replicate the conventional gender structure. For example, living apart crystallizes many women’s roles as caregivers. These findings have implications for broader literature on gender, family, and work. They also have implications for counselors, institutional practices, and social policy; for instance, they caution against equating female autonomy with gender parity in making family policy.


Family Work-life balance Gender equality Commuter marriage 



The author wishes to thank Dan Cornfield, Elizabeth Long Lingo, Marta Murray-Close, Steven Tepper, Dana Britton, and the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. This project was funded in part by the Rutgers University Research Council and Lehigh University’s Paul J. Franz Award. All errors are the author’s own.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

To my knowledge, there are no potential conflicts of interest involved in this research.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

This study, which involved human participants, was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both Vanderbilt University and Rutgers University-New Brunswick.

Informed Consent

All participants in the study provided informed consent.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_852_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 26 kb)


  1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158. Scholar
  2. Agar, M. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amato, P. R. (2007). Alone together: How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, E. A., & Spruill, J. W. (1993). The dual-career commuter family: A lifestyle on the move. Marriage & Family Review, 19, 131–147. Scholar
  5. Anderson, D. J., Binder, M., & Krause, K. (2002). The motherhood wage penalty: Which mothers pay it and why? The American Economic Review, 92, 354–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avellar, S., & Smock, P. J. (2003). Has the price of motherhood declined over time? A cross-cohort comparison of the motherhood wage penalty. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 597–607. Scholar
  7. Beasley, C., Brook, H., & Holmes, M. (2012). Heterosexuality in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Benard, S., Paik, I., & Correll, S. J. (2007). Cognitive bias and the motherhood penalty. Hastings Law Journal, 59, 1359–1387.Google Scholar
  9. Bergen, K. M. (2010a). Accounting for difference: Commuter wives and the master narrative of marriage. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 47–64. Scholar
  10. Bergen, K. M. (2010b). Negotiating a ‘questionable’ identity: Commuter wives and social networks. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 35–56. Scholar
  11. Bergen, K. M. (2014). Discourse dependence in the commuter family. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 211–228). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Bergen, K. M., Kirby, E., & McBride, M. C. (2007). “How do you get two houses cleaned?”: Accomplishing family caregiving in commuter marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 287–307. Scholar
  13. Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bianchi, S. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 705–725. Scholar
  15. 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. Scholar
  16. Bielby, W. T., & Bielby, D. D. (1992). I will follow him: Family ties, gender-role beliefs, and reluctance to relocate for a better job. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1241–1267. Scholar
  17. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652–688. Scholar
  18. Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bunker, B. B., Zubek, J. M., Vanderslice, V. J., & Rice, R. W. (1992). Quality of life in dual-career families: Commuting versus single-residence couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 399–407. Scholar
  20. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Cancian, F. M. (1990). Love in America: Gender and self-development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Clarke, M., Hyde, A., & Drennan, J. (2013). Professional identity in higher education. In B. M. Kehm & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (pp. 7–21). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cleveland, J. N., Fisher, G. G., & Sawyer, K. B. (2015). Work–life equality: The importance of a level playing field at home. In M. J. Mills (Ed.), Gender and the work-family experience (pp. 177–199). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  26. Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106–127. Scholar
  27. Deutsch, F. M., & Yao, B. (2014). Gender differences in faculty attrition in the USA. Community, Work & Family, 17, 392–408. Scholar
  28. Dilworth, J. E. L. (2004). Predictors of negative spillover from family to work. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 241–261. Scholar
  29. Duncan, S. (2015). Women’s agency in living apart together: Constraint, strategy and vulnerability. The Sociological Review, 63, 589–607. Scholar
  30. Gershuny, J. (2000). Changing times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gerson, K. (1985). Hard choices: How women decide about work, career, and motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gerstel, N. R. (1977). The feasibility of commuter marriage. In P. J. Stein, J. Richman, & N. Hannon (Eds.), The family: Functions, conflicts, and symbols (pp. 357–367). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  33. Gerstel, N. (1978). Commuter marriage (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  34. Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. E. (1982). Commuter marriages: A review. Marriage & Family Review, 5, 71–94. Scholar
  35. Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. E. (1984). Commuter marriage: A study of work and family. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  36. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  37. Govaerts, K., & Dixon, D. N. (1988). ‘…Until careers do us part’: Vocational and marital satisfaction in the dual-career commuter marriage. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 11, 265–281. Scholar
  38. Gross, H. E. (1980a). Couples who live apart: Time/place disjunctions and their consequences. Symbolic Interaction, 3, 69–82. Scholar
  39. Gross, H. E. (1980b). Dual-career couples who live apart: Two types. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 567–576. Scholar
  40. Harvey, M. G. (1995). The impact of dual-career families on international relocations. Human Resource Management Review, 5, 223–244. Scholar
  41. Heymann, J. (2000). The widening gap: Why America’s working families are in jeopardy and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Hochschild, A. R. (1990). The second shift. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  43. Holmes, M. (2004a). An equal distance? Individualisation, gender and intimacy in distance relationships. The Sociological Review, 52, 180–200. Scholar
  44. Holmes, M. (2004b). The precariousness of choice in the new sentimental order: A response to Bawin-Legros. Current Sociology, 52, 251–257. Scholar
  45. Holmes, M. (2014). Distance relationships: Intimacy and emotions amongst academics and their partners in dual-locations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Innstrand, S. T., Langballe, E. M., Falkum, E., Espnes, G. A., & Aasland, O. G. (2009). Gender-specific perceptions of four dimensions of the work/family interaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 402–416. Scholar
  47. Le Feuvre, N., & Roseneil, S. (2014). Entanglements of economic and intimate citizenship: Individualization and gender (in)equality in a changing Europe. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 21, 529–561. Scholar
  48. Levin, I. (2004). Living apart together: A new family form. Current Sociology, 52, 223–240. Scholar
  49. Levin, I., & Trost, J. (1999). Living apart together. Community, Work & Family, 2, 279–294. Scholar
  50. Linehan, M., & Walsh, J. S. (2001). Key issues in the senior female international career move: A qualitative study in a European context. British Journal of Management, 12, 85–95. Scholar
  51. Lips, H., & Lawson, K. (2009). Work values, gender, and expectations about work commitment and pay: Laying the groundwork for the “motherhood penalty”? Sex Roles, 61(9–10), 667–676. Scholar
  52. Livingston, B. A. (2014). Bargaining behind the scenes: Spousal negotiation, labor, and work–family burnout. Journal of Management, 40, 949–977. Scholar
  53. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lundberg, S., & Rose, E. (2000). Parenthood and the earnings of married men and women. Labour Economics, 7, 689–710. Scholar
  55. Lyssens-Danneboom, V., & Mortelmans, D. (2014). Living apart together and money: New partnerships, traditional gender roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 949–966. Scholar
  56. McBride, M. C., & Bergen, K. M. (2014). Voices surrounding a site of cultural struggle: Women in commuter marriages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 554–572. Scholar
  57. McFall, B. H., & Murray-Close, M. (2016). Moving out to move up: Dual-career migration and work–family tradeoffs. Economic Inquiry, 54, 44–62. Scholar
  58. McNulty, Y. (2012). ‘Being dumped in to sink or swim’: An empirical study of organizational support for the trailing spouse. Human Resource Development International, 15, 417–434. Scholar
  59. Mennino, S. F., Rubin, B. A., & Brayfield, A. (2005). Home-to-job and job-to-home spillover: The impact of company policies and workplace culture. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 107–135. Scholar
  60. Milkie, M. A., Raley, S. B., & Bianchi, S. M. (2009). Taking on the second shift: Time allocations and time pressures of US parents with preschoolers. Social Forces, 88, 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. (2009). Caregiving in the U.S., 2009. Bethesda, MD: National Alliance for Caregiving. Retrieved from
  62. Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Calendars and keys: The classification of ‘home’ and ‘work. Sociological Forum, 11, 563–582. Scholar
  63. Press, J. E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives’ and husbands’ housework reporting: Gender, class, and social desirability. Gender & Society, 12, 188–218. Scholar
  64. Pullen, A., & Knights, D. (2007). Editorial: Undoing gender: Organizing and disorganizing performance. Gender, Work & Organization, 14, 505–511. Scholar
  65. Raley, S., Bianchi, S. M., & Wang, W. (2012). When do fathers care? Mothers’ economic contribution and fathers’ involvement in child care. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 1422–1459. Scholar
  66. Rhodes, A. R. (2002). Long-distance relationships in dual-career commuter couples: A review of counseling issues. The Family Journal, 10, 398–404. Scholar
  67. Rindfuss, R. R., & Stephen, E. H. (1990). Marital noncohabitation: Separation does not make the heart grow fonder. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 259–270. Scholar
  68. Risman, B. (1998). Gender vertigo. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Risman, B. J. (2009). From doing to undoing: Gender as we know it. Gender & Society, 23, 81–84. Scholar
  70. Sayer, L. C. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social Forces, 84, 285–303. Scholar
  71. Shahnasarian, M. (1991). Job relocation and the trailing spouse. Journal of Career Development, 17, 179–184. Scholar
  72. Stoilova, M., Roseneil, S., Carter, J., Duncan, S., & Phillips, M. (2016). Constructions, reconstructions and deconstructions of ‘family’ amongst people who live apart together (LATs). The British Journal of Sociology, 68, 78–96. Scholar
  73. Sullivan, O. (2004). Changing gender practices within the household: A theoretical perspective. Gender & Society, 18, 207–222. Scholar
  74. Sullivan, O. (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, 1–13. Scholar
  75. Sullivan, O., & Gershuny, J. (2001). Cross-national changes in time-use: Some sociological (hi)stories re-examined. British Journal of Sociology, 52, 331–347. Scholar
  76. Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845–871. Scholar
  77. Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (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, 1009–1037. Scholar
  78. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Table 1. Time spent in primary activities (1) and the percent of married mothers and fathers who did the activities on an average day by employment status and age of youngest own household child, average for the combined years 2003–06. Retrieved from
  79. University of Michigan. (2008). Exactly how much housework does a husband create?
  80. Waldfogel, J. (1997). The effect of children on women’s wages. American Sociological Review, 62, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151. Scholar
  82. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society, 23, 112–122. Scholar
  83. Winfield, F. E. (1985). Commuter marriage; living together, apart. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Zvonkovic, A. M., Solomon, C. R., Humble, A. M., & Manoogian, M. (2005). Family work and relationships: Lessons from families of men whose jobs require travel. Family Relations, 54, 411–422. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations