Abstract
Japan is one of the most severely sex segregated societies of the advanced industrialized countries, where the household division of labor is extremely unevenly distributed between the sexes. Why do Japanese women accept such an unfair household division of labor? Building on Nakamura and Akiyoshi ([Plos One. 10(7): e0132608, 2015]. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132608), the authors use micro data to analyze perceptions of fairness among Japanese married women. Nakamura and Akiyoshi’s analysis demonstrates that knowing other people’s share of household chores (HHCs) strongly affects women’s sense of fairness, and subsequently even affects their sense of happiness, after taking into account their attitudes toward gender roles and other characteristics.
This chapter is a revised version of Nakamura and Akiyoshi (2015).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We would like to thank our editor Gill Steel and Greg Noble for the advice on this paragraph.
- 2.
Micro data gathers information from the individual respondents. Micro data is usually contrasted with macro data, which only has information on the group averages.
- 3.
Following previous studies, we actually tested four theories (economic resource theory, time constraint theory, gender value theory, and relative deprivation theory) (e.g., Fuwa and Tsutsui 2010). Economic resource theory hypothesizes that the division of household labor and the associated perception of fairness depend on the balance of economic resource of the spouses (Fuwa and Tsutsui 2010). A spouse with fewer economic resources (e.g., income) would do more household labor and find it fair (Blood and Wolfe 1960; Sanchez and Kane 1996). According to time constraint theory, the balance of available time of the spouses influences the division of housework. A spouse with more spare time would engage in more household labor and find the arrangement fair (Greenstein 1996). Alternatively, gender value theory emphasizes that a wife with traditional gender role values would do more household labor and find it fair. Finally, relative deprivation theory holds that the division of household labor is a function of wives’ comparative referents.
- 4.
The question was, “How did your parents divide household labor between them when you were twelve years old?” and asked respondents to answer the percentage of household share that her mother and her father completed. The percentage of mother’s share was used in the analysis.
- 5.
The question was, “How do couples in the general public, who have similar living conditions (e.g., work status, number of children) as yourself, divide the housework between wives and husbands? Please give us your rough estimate,” and asked respondents for the percentage of household work for the wife and the husband. The percentage for wife’s share was used in the analysis.
- 6.
The question was, “How do you divide the housework between you and your husband (or your live-in partner)?” and asked the respondent to answer the percentage of household share for herself and her husband/partner. The percentage for the respondent’s share was used in the analysis.
- 7.
Since the questionnaire failed to distinguish four-year colleges to six-year colleges, both types are coded as to have 16 years of education.
- 8.
Gender value was measured by the question, “It is better for a husband to work outside, and for a wife to take care of the family” asking respondents to rate on a five-point scale (1 = agree to 5 = disagree).
- 9.
The economic resource theory, the time constraint theory, and the gender value theory are also tested in this analysis, but this paper focuses on the relative deprivation theory. For more detailed discussion of other theories, refer to Nakamura & Akiyoshi (forthcoming).
- 10.
In statistical terminology, the “result” (in a causal relationship of “cause” and “result”) is called independent variables, and the “cause” is called independent variable.
- 11.
The wording of the question is, “Overall, would you say you are happy?” and it was asked in ten-point scale, ranging from 1 (very unhappy) to 10 (very happy).
References
Blood, R. O. J., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husband and wives: The dynamics of married living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Braun, M., Lewin-Epstein, N., Stier, H., & Baumgartner, M. (2008). Perceived equity in the gendered division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1145–1156.
Fuwa, M., & Tsutsui, J. (2010). A cross-national comparison of the perceived fairness of the division of household labor. Japanese Journal of Family Sociology, 22(1), 52–63.
Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(3), 585–595.
Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. The American Journal of Sociology, 199(2), 506–531.
Nakamura, N., & Akiyoshi, M. (2015, July 6). What determines the perception of fairness regarding household division of labor between spouses? PLos One, 10(7), e0132608. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132608
Sanchez, L., & Kane, E. W. (1996). Women’s and men’s constructions of perceptions of housework fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 358–387.
Statistics Bureau. (2011). Survey on time use and leisure activities. Retrieved from http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001044385&cycode=0
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nakamura, M., Akiyoshi, M. (2016). Who Does the Dishes? Fairness and Household Chores. In: Steel, G. (eds) Power in Contemporary Japan. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59193-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59193-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-60166-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59193-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)