Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- 32 Gender, Gender Norms, and National Culture: Global Work–Family at Multiple Levels of Analysis
- 33 Fatherhood, Work, and Family across the Globe: A Review and Research Agenda
- 34 Crossover, Culture, and Dual-Earner Couples
- 35 Cultural Considerations in the Division of Labor
- 36 Affective Processes in the Work–Family Interface: Global Considerations
- 37 Implications of Work–Family Connections for Children’s Well-Being across the Globe
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
35 - Cultural Considerations in the Division of Labor
from Part VII - Family Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Overview
- Part II Assessing Cultural and Structural Differences
- Part III Methodological Considerations
- Part IV Review of Research in Regions across the Globe
- Part V Cultures within Cultures
- Part VI Organizational Perspectives
- Part VII Family Perspectives
- 32 Gender, Gender Norms, and National Culture: Global Work–Family at Multiple Levels of Analysis
- 33 Fatherhood, Work, and Family across the Globe: A Review and Research Agenda
- 34 Crossover, Culture, and Dual-Earner Couples
- 35 Cultural Considerations in the Division of Labor
- 36 Affective Processes in the Work–Family Interface: Global Considerations
- 37 Implications of Work–Family Connections for Children’s Well-Being across the Globe
- Part VIII Individual Perspectives
- Part IX Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
When we think about work and labor, the spotlight is usually on paid employment. But also essential is non-market, or unpaid, work: housework, home maintenance, and looking after children and elders as well as family members who are sick or have a disability. These latter activities are not rest or leisure. They are not hobbies. They are work. They require time and effort, they have productive outcomes, and they constrain time in other activities. Therefore, how market and non-market work is divided by gender is a critical social issue. This chapter examines what we have discovered over the past few decades about the ubiquity, variety, and malleability of gender division of paid and unpaid work. Drawing on comparative time use studies, it demonstrates how individual characteristics, family and workplace arrangements, national contexts, and government polices influence the gendered work and family care patterns that we observe.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface , pp. 646 - 660Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Altintas, E., & Sullivan, O. (2016). Fifty years of change updated: Cross-national gender convergence in housework. Demographic Research, 35(16), 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, J., & Gray, M. (2008). Work and family responsibilities through life. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.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(2), 259–272.Google Scholar
Begall, K., & Grunow, D. (2015). Labour force transitions around first childbirth in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 31(6), 697–712.Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00726.xGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, S., Milkie, M., Sayer, L., & Robinson, J. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191–228. doi: 10.1093/sf/79.1.191Google Scholar
Bittman, M., & Pixley, J. (1997). The Double Life of the Family. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Buckner, L., & Yeandle, S. (2007). Valuing Carers – calculating the value of unpaid care. Carers UK, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Bünning, M., & Pollmann-Schult, M. (2015). Family policies and fathers’ working hours: cross-national differences in the paternal labour supply. Work, Employment & Society, 30(2), 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caporaso, J. A., & Levinde, D. P. (1992). Theories of Political Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chesnais, J.-C. (1998). Below-replacement fertility in the European Union (EU-15): Facts and policies, 1960–1997. Review of Population and Social Policy, 7, 83–101.Google Scholar
Coltrane, S. (2007). Fatherhood, Gender and Work–Family Policies. Paper presented at the Real Utopias, The Havens Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Cooke, L. P., & Baxter, J. (2010). ‘Families’ in international context: Comparing institutional effects across Western societies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 516–536.Google Scholar
Craig, L., & Baxter, J. (2016). Domestic outsourcing, housework shares and subjective time pressure: gender differences in the correlates of hiring help. Social Indicators Research, 125(1), 271–288. doi: 10.1007/s11205-014-083-1Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1080/13545700701880999Google Scholar
Craig, L., & Brown, J. (2016). Feeling rushed: gendered time quality, work hours, work schedules and spousal crossover. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(1), 225–242. doi: online first 10.1111/jomf.12320Google Scholar
Craig, L., Brown, J., Strazdins, L., & Jun, J. (forthcoming). Gendered time symmetry and subjective time pressure in Australia, Finland and Korea. In Connelly, R. & Kongar, E. (Eds.), Gender and Time Use in a Global Context. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Craig, L., & Jenkins, B. (2015). Grandparents’ childcare in Australia: Gender differences in the correlates and outcomes of providing regular grandparent care while parents work. Community, Work & Family, 19(3), 281–301. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2015.1027176Google Scholar
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2009). The Policeman and the part-time sales assistant: Household labour supply, family time and subjective time pressure in Australia 1997–2006. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(4), 545–560.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2012). Lone and couple mothers’ childcare time within context in four countries. European Sociological Review, 28 (4), 512–526. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcr013Google Scholar
Craig, L., & Mullan, K. (2013). Parental leisure time: a gender comparison in five countries. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 20(3), 329–357. doi: 10.1093/sp/jxt002Google Scholar
Craig, L., Mullan, K., & Blaxland, M. (2010). Parenthood, policy and work–family time in Australia 1992–2006. Work, Employment and Society, 24(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1177/0950017012437006Google Scholar
Craig, L., Perales, P., Vidal Torre, S., & Baxter, J. (2016). Domestic outsourcing, housework and subjective time pressure: New insights from longitudinal data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(5), 1224–1236. doi: online first 10.1111/jomf.12321Google Scholar
Craig, L., & Powell, A. (2011). Nonstandard work schedules, work–family balance and the gendered division of childcare. Work, Employment and Society, 25(2), 274–291. doi: 10.1177/0950017011398894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, L., & Powell, A. (2012). Dual-earner parents’ work–family time: the effects of atypical work patterns and formal non-parental care. Journal of Population Research, 29 (3), 229–247. doi: 10.1007/s12546-012-9086-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, L., & Powell, A. (2013). Non-parental childcare, time pressure and the gendered division of paid work, domestic work and parental childcare. Community, Work and Family, 16(1), 100–119. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2012.722013Google Scholar
Craig, L., Powell, A., & Cortis, N. (2012). Self-employment, work–family time and the gender division of labour Work, Employment and Society, 26(5), 716. doi: 10.1177/0950017012451642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Laat, J., & Sevilla-Sanz, A. (2011). The fertility and women’s labor force participation puzzle in OECD countries: The role of men’s home production. Feminist Economics, 7(2), 87–119.Google Scholar
Duncan, S., & Edwards, R. (2003). State welfare regimes, mothers’ agencies and gendered moral rationalities. In Kollind, K. & Peterson, A. (Eds.), Thoughts on Family, Gender, Generation and Class. A Festschrift to Ulla Bjornberg (pp. 22–40). Gothenburg, Sweden: Sociology Institute, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
Edwards, P., & Wajcman, J. (2005). The Politics of Working Life: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, P., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Educational differences in U.S. parents’ time spent in child care: the role of culture and cross-spouse influence. Social Science Research, 42(4), 971–988.Google Scholar
Fineman, M. (2004). The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
Folbre, N. (1994a). Children as public goods. The American Economic Review, 84(1552), 86–90.Google Scholar
Folbre, N. (1994b). Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of Constraint. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Folbre, N. (2001). The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
Gershuny, J., & Sullivan, O. (2003). Time use, gender and public policy regimes. Social Politics, 10(2), 205–228.Google Scholar
Gornick, J., & Meyers, M. (2007). Further thoughts. In Wright, E. O. (Ed.), Real Utopias: Institutions for Gender Egalitarianism: Creating the Conditions for Egalitarian Dual Earner / Dual Caregiver Families. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Gornick, J., & Meyers, M. (Eds.). (2009). Gender Equality: Transforming Family Divisions of Labor (Vol. IV Real Utopias Project) London, UK: Verso.Google Scholar
Hobson, B., Olah, L., & Morrissens, A. (2006). The positive turn or birth-strikes? Sites of resistance to residual male breadwinner societies and to welfare state restructuring. Paper presented at the RC19 Meetings of the ISA Sept 2–5, Paris.Google Scholar
Hook, J. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 639–660.Google Scholar
Kalenkoski, C., & Foster, G. (2015). The Economics of Multitasking. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.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.Google Scholar
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2006). Employment and care: The policy problem, gender equality and the issue of choice. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 8(2), 103–114.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2009). Work–Family Balance, Gender and Policy. Cheltenham, UK, and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lohmann, H., & Zagel, H. (2015). Family policy in comparative perspective: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy, 28(1), 48–65.Google Scholar
Mattingly, M., & Bianchi, S. (2003). Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time: The U.S. experience. Social Forces, 81, 999–1030. doi: 10.1353/sof.2003.0036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.Google Scholar
OECD. (2016). Paid and unpaid work. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. www.oecd.org/gender/data/timespentinunpaidpaidandtotalworkbysex.htm.Google Scholar
Powell, A., & Craig, L. (2015). Gender differences in working at home and time use patterns: evidence from Australia. Work, Employment and Society, 29(4), 571–589. doi: 10.1177/0950017014568140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayer, L., England, P., Bittman, M., & Bianchi, S. (2009). How long is the second (plus first) shift? Gender differences in paid, unpaid, and total work time in Australia and the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 523–544.Google Scholar
Shaw, S. (2008). Family leisure and changing ideologies of parenthood. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 688–703.Google Scholar
Shockley, K., & Shen, W. (2016). Couple dynamics: Division of labor. In Allen, T. & Eby, L. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Work and Family. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigle-Rushton, W., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Motherhood and women’s earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European, and Nordic countries. Feminist Economics, 13(2), 55–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strazdins, L., & Loughrey, B. (2007). Too busy: Why time is a health and environmental problem. NSW Public Health Bulletin, 18(11–12), 219–221.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by