Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 136, Issue 1, pp 269–281 | Cite as

Shares of Housework Between Mothers, Fathers and Young People: Routine and Non-routine Housework, Doing Housework for Oneself and Others

  • Lyn CraigEmail author
  • Abigail Powell
Article

Abstract

We use data from the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics time use survey to investigate shares of domestic work along two dimensions; routine and non-routine activities, and housework done for the whole household versus housework done for oneself only. We argue that the latter is an underutilised marker of responsibility for household management and serving others. Exploiting data from matched household members, we examine relative shares of fathers and mothers, and also of co-resident young people aged 15–34 (416 households), to include inputs from the younger generation as well as the parental couple. Mothers do the greatest share of routine housework and housework for others; parents are relatively equal in the shares of non-routine housework and housework done for themselves only. Young people take on a minimal share of total household work, particularly tasks done for others in the family. Parents’ employment configuration is associated with adjustments in shares between them, with no effect on children’s shares.

Keywords

Gender division of labor Housework shares Time use Co-resident young people 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Grant Nos. FT150100067, DP1093311.

References

  1. Baxter, J. (2002). Patterns of change and stability in the gender division of household labour in Australia, 1996–1997. Journal of Sociology, 38(4), 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann, B. (2005). The economic emergence of women (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, S., & Milkie, M. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 705–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchi, S., Robinson, J., & Milkie, M. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bonke, J. (2010). Children’s housework—Are girls more active than boys? Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 7(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1208–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connell, R. (2009). Accountable conduct: “Doing Gender” in transsexual and political retrospect. Gender and Society, 23(1), 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooke, L. P., & Baxter, J. (2010). ‘Families’ in international context: Comparing institutional effects across western societies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 516–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crabb, A. (2015). The wife drought. Sydney: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Craig, L., & Bittman, M. (2008). The effect of children on adults’ time-use: An analysis of the incremental time costs of children in Australia. Feminist Economics, 14(2), 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2010). Parenthood, gender and work-family time in USA, Australia, Italy, France and Denmark. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1344–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craig, L., Powell, A., & Brown, Judith. (2015). Co-resident parents and young people aged 15–34: Who does what housework? Social Indicators Research, 121(2), 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crompton, R., Brockmann, M., & Lyonette, C. (2005). Attitudes, women’s employment and the domestic division of labor: A cross-national analysis in two waves. Work, Employment and Society, 19(2), 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Vaus, D. (2004). Diversity and change in Australian families: Statistical profiles. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
  17. Dempsey, K. (2001). Women’s and men’s consciousness of shortcomings in marital relations, and of the need for change. Family Matters, 58(Autumn), 58–63.Google Scholar
  18. Deutsch, F. (2000). Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dribe, M., & Stanfors, M. (2009). Does parenthood strengthen a traditional household division of labor? Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. England, P. (2011). Reassessing the uneven gender revolution and its slowdown. Gender and Society, 25(1), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fineman, M. (2004). The autonomy myth: A theory of dependency. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  23. Folbre, N. (2001). The Invisible Heart: economics and family values. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review, 69(6), 751–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geist, C. (2005). The welfare state and the home: Regime differences in the domestic division of labor. European Sociological Review, 21(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gornick, J., & Meyers, M. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Gornick, J., & Meyers, M. (2004). Welfare regimes in relation to paid work and care. In J. Z. Giele & E. Holst (Eds.), Changing life patterns in western industrial societies (pp. 45–68). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Greenstein, T. (2000). Economic dependence, gender and the division of labor in the home. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hilbrecht, M., Zuzanek, J., & Mannell, R. C. (2008). Time use, time pressure and gendered behavior in early and late adolescence. Sex Roles, 58, 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hook, J. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hook, J. (2010). Gender inequality in the welfare state: sex segregation in housework, 196–2003. American Journal of Sociology, 115(5), 1480–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ironmonger, D. (2004). “Bringing up Betty and Bobby: The macro time dimensions of investment in the care and nurture of children. In N. Folbre & M. Bittman (Eds.), Family time: The social organisation of care (pp. 93–110). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Kloep, M., & Hendry, L. B. (2010). Letting go or holding on? Parents’ perceptions of their relationships with their children during emerging adulthood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 817–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahaffy, K. A. (2004). Gender, race, class, and the transition to adulthood: A critical review of the literature. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 9, 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattingly, M., & Sayer, L. (2006). Under pressure: Gender differences in the relationship between free time and feeling rushed. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68(1), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McMahon, A. (1999). Taking care of men: Sexual politics in the public mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchell, B. (2004). Home, but not alone: socio-cultural and economic aspects of Canadian young adults sharing parental households. Atlantis, 28(2), 115–125.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, P. (2005). Useful and priceless children in contemporary welfare states. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender State and Society, 12(1), 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitchell, B. (2006). The Boomerang age from childhood to adulthood: emergent trends and issues for aging families. Canadian Studies in Population, 33(2), 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Punch, S. (2001). Household division of labor: generation, gender, age, birth order and sibling composition. Work, Employment and Society, 15(4), 803–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ridgeway, C., & Correll, S. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender and Society, 18(4), 510–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Russell, G. (1987). Problems in role-reversed families. In Charlie Lewis & Margaret O’Brien (Eds.), Reassessing fatherhood: New observations on fathers and the modern family (pp. 161–179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Sayer, L. (2005). Gender, time and inequality: trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social Forces, 84(1), 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sayer, L., Bianchi, S., & Robinson, J. (2004). Are parents investing less in children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. American Journal of Sociology, 110(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strazdins, L., & Broom, D. (2004). Acts of love (and work) gender imbalance in emotional work and women’s psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 356–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sullivan, O. (1997). Time waits for no (wo)man: An investigation of the gendered experience of domestic time. Sociology, 31(2), 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society, 23(1), 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wight, V., Price, J., Bianchi, S., & Hunt, B. (2009). The time use of teenagers. Social Science Research, 38(4), 792–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Policy Research CentreUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Social ImpactSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations