“I wonder what he’s saying”: Investigating domestic discourse in young cohabitating...

JaneMaree Maher and Andrew Singleton

"I Wonder What He's Saying": Investigating Domestic Discourse in

Young Cohabitating Heterosexual Couples

The gendered division of domestic labor has proven of significant interest to scholars and social policy analysts seeking to understand how changing employment patterns are inter- acting with domestic work and constructing domestic life in contemporary Western societ- ies. This article reports on the use of narrative methods to examine domestic labor in heterosexual couples. The study entitled Whose Turn to Cook? Domesticity and Gen X revealed the disjunctions between what women and men say and what their descriptions reveal that they do. It demonstrated that young women in heterosexual cohabitating couples do more but they also worry more about how their domestic lives appear and what it suggests about them and their male partners. The usefulness and importance of the narrative method of this study is evident as the data gathered here reveals complexity that would not have been apparent in survey or short answer data, even if couple responses had been compared. While both partners often talked of shared domestic burdens, it was plain that women bore the burden of domestic work and also the burden of the myths of shared involvement that are current in contemporary Western accounts of domestic labor.

In Wes te rn countr ies , chang ing e m p l o y m e n t pat terns, c h a n g i n g cohab i t a t i on

patterns, and cha l l enges to gende r s te reo types have lead to an expec ta t ion that the

gende red d iv is ion o f domes t i c labor w o u l d b reak down , as these change s i m p a c t e d

on wha t w o m e n and men did in the domes t i c sphere. M a n y studies in teres ted in the

gende r gap in domes t i c labor have focused on ana lyz ing and/or p red ic t ing rates o f

change th rough the use o f t ime diaries and su rvey data. This article repor ts on the

examina t i on o f y o u n g he terosexual coup le s ' expe r i ences o f and v iews abou t d o m e s -

tic labor, us ing narra t ive me thods to ga ther data. Our s tudy o f y o u n g coup le s and

domes t i c w o r k ent i t led Whose Turn to Cook? Domestici ty and Gen X was d e s i g n e d

to explore h o w y o u n g couples are do ing and ta lk ing abou t domes t i c work . In par-

JaneMaree Maher, Ph.D., and Andrew Singleton, Ph.D., teach and research in the School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Maher's research interests include femi- nist theories of embodiment and women's work. Singleton's current research activity includes: the men's movement in Australia, men's self-help literature, and a nationwide study of youth spirituality.

60 Gender Issues / Winter 2003

ticular, the narrative method, which focused on gathering a daily account of domestic work undertaken by each partner as well as asking direct questions about views

on domestic work, revealed the disjunctions between what women and men say they do and what their descriptions reveal that they do. It demonstrated that young

women in heterosexual cohabitating couples do more but they also worry more about how their domestic lives appear and what it suggests about them and their male

partners. The usefulness and importance of the narrative method in examining domestic labor is evident as the daily stories of domest ic i ty--Who made the beds?

Who dressed the children?--were counterposed with the views expressed by each partner in the couples. The complexity and contradictions that were evident in these

accounts would not have been apparent in survey or short answer data, even if couple responses had been compared. In initial answers, both partners often presented an

account of shared activities and mutual thought for domestic burdens. When they described what they did in their domestic week, these answers reflecting mutual responsibility and attention were undermined. When the comparison of narrative

material and direct answers was done, it was apparent that the "sharing" of the domestic burden was notional rather than actual and it was also apparent that women

cared much more about domestic work and about the myths of sharing it that are current in contemporary Western images of domestic labor.

Section One of this article examines current research on domestic labor and situates our study of domestic labor in relation to existing research work. Section

Two details the methodology adopted. Section Three demonstrates how the narrative method proved a valuable tool to reveal and examine the nature of women's

greater activity in the domestic sphere despite assertions of their relative disinterest in and freedom from domestic burdens. The narrative method offered the opportu-

nity to read male informants' statements about their domestic work against the detail and knowledge they demonstrated of the domestic work undertaken in their

homes. In concluding, we argue that these findings indicate the need to adopt a broad range of data-gathering techniques to explore how domestic work is being

done in heterosexual cohabitating couples, as what women and men say they do may not reflect what they do or what their domestic tasks mean for them.

Domestic work and the new generation

Jane Pilcher (2000) writes that "research evidence on family life in the 1960s and early 1970s seemed to suggest that j ointness and equality characterized, or would

shortly characterize, the way in which paid and household work was divided between heterosexual couples" (772). Ongoing research in the decades following identified multiple issues that need to be considered in understanding the gendered divi-

JaneMaree Maher and Andrew Singleton 61

sion of domestic labor and rates and meaning of change (Sullivan, 2000: 438). Sig- nificant attention has been given to gathering statistical data on the gender gap in domestic labor and gender issues in reporting which sometimes result in over and under-reporting, or the differential valuing of the respective contributions of both female and male informants (Dempsey, 1999; Kamo, 2000; Press and Townsley, 1998; Wilkee, Ferree and Ratcliff 1998). Although the instruments used to understand the division of labor have developed and changed, and ascertaining the best way to measure rates of change has provoked much debate, most studies in the past two decades have indicated that the division of domestic work between men and women has not shifted as much as changing employment patterns would have suggested it should (Baxter, 2002; Leonard, 2001: 69; Baxter and Western, 1998, Brines, 1994; Oakley, 2002, Sanchez and Thomson, 1997; Benjamin and Sullivan, 1996). In seeking to explore and understand the patterns of change in domestic work in contemporary Western contexts, it has also been noted that this research needs to be augmented by closer attention to how couples describe domestic activity and its importance (Sullivan, 2000: 453). Some disjunctions have been identified between time use evidence and "people's professed experience" (Sullivan and Gershuny, 1997: 343). Thus, gathering narrative data from couples on the activities, meaning and value of domestic work offers an important avenue for understanding the meaning of equity in domestic labor, as well as impediments to its achievement.

In Whose Turn to Cook? we were particularly interested in how domestic work was imagined and articulated by young cohabiting couples, who are "distinct in having reached adulthood after 1975, thus benefiting from the sex equality legisla- tion of the 1970s and from a social climate in which women's equal rights in the workplace gained much more widespread acceptance than before" (Ginn, 2003: 494). We recruited in the twenty-five to thirty-five year age grouping, a generation that is commonly associated with less settled domestic environments, the deferral of "family life" and outsourcing of all kinds of domestic labor. The age demographic was influenced by a desire to focus on the post baby boomer generation rather than specifically contribute to literatures on Gen X. In the new configurations of self made possible by contraception, greater wage parity and employment opportunity between the sexes, and women's participation in higher education and paid work, what role did cooking, washing and composting play? And was this role different for young women and young men? In particular, we were interested to see how actively these couples negotiated sharing and how they discussed fairness and what they thought it meant. Wilkie, Ferree and Ratcliff (1998) have noted that it is rare that "respondents [are] asked directly whether the division of labor is fair" (579), and this study provided an important opportunity to do this and contrast it with the narrative accounts.


Methodology

Because we were interested in how domestic labor was being discussed and described by young couples, we decided to adopt a qualitative approach, using a

loose schedule of questions designed to elicit a narrative of daily, then weekly activities. Mishler (1986) has argued that narrative is a linguistic form through which

individuals order and represent the meaning of events and activities (106). By narrative, we mean the temporal ordering of events into a story (Ewick and Sibley 1995: 200; White, 1992: 80). Focusing on daily then weekly narratives, where information about domestic work and who did what emerged as part of the story of each day

enabled us to collect rich and less-mediated accounts of domestic work. When we asked direct questions about domestic work, almost all of the twenty-two couples we interviewed (forty four participants in total) indicated that the division of labor

was fair, even if it was not equal. Bittman and Pixley (1997) have characterized this phenomena as "pseudomutuality" (from Wynne), where the "respondents ... are eager to show the interviewer their knowledge of ... "egalitarian" ... community

standards" and to reflect that in their own lives (149). In contrast, the weekly narratives offered information on actual activities, demonstrated participants' relative

knowledge of household needs, and allowed for a comparison of tasks and accounts less influenced by the discourse of "fairness" that informed the direct responses. The temporal aspects of these narratives were also important, both in what was

recounted and in the time taken to tell, since they offered a useful additional layer to the data gathered. Those who were domestically active, women for the most part, offered a wealth of detail and extended narratives, while the stories of the less do-

mestically active tended to be more truncated and interrupted by reference to paid work responsibilities or outside commitments such as sport. Thus, the particular importance of narratives for this study was the opportunity it offered to compare dis-

courses of equity between couples with their material activities in the domestic sphere. The decision to interview each member of the couple separately was made on

the basis that we would gain a greater understanding of how domestic work was understood and gendered inside these relationships, if each participant presented

their own account and was asked to detail the tasks they undertook, without the intervention of the other partner. This procedure allowed for each informant to rep-

resent their own story of domesticity and attach their own meanings to the shared experience of domestic life (Riessman, 1993: 3). This strategy offered rich com- parative data. It also assisted in building the level of reflexivity in the phase of data interpretation, as the narratives of the female and male participants were initially

gathered by the researcher with a specific research interest in that area (Andrew Singleton works on male subjectivity and JaneMaree Maher is interested in the con-


struction of female identity particularly in relationship to motherhood), but then also read and analysed by the other researcher. This gendered division of interview labor on the basis of sex, adopted partially on the assumption that social stereotypes and expectations might facilitate the openness of informants in the interviews through a sense of some shared understandings, allowed for multiple interpretations of the data to be generated and then tested by the research team. Mauthner and Doucet (2003) have argued "most methods [of data analysis] continue to be presented as a series of neutral, mechanical and decontexualized procedures that are applied to the data and take place in a social vacuum" (414). This process of interpretation and re- interpretation meant that the issues of gender in the narratives were examined from a number of perspectives and the gendered assumptions of the research team were tested and extended in the interpretative process.

We allowed each interviewee to define what "domestic labor" meant to them. This was accomplished by asking for a description of daily domestic tasks from Monday onwards. We encouraged informants to include as much detail as they wanted to and to include all of those activities that they considered constituted domestic work. Thus, the definition varied across the sample, although all informants discussed cleaning, food preparation, washing, shopping, taking out garbage and household management tasks like bill paying. Gardening was often included, although equally often was identified as a pleasure. Child-caring activities appeared in most of the narratives of couples with children, although some informants were keen to distinguish relating to and caring for children from other forms of domestic labor. On occasion, we would ask about tasks like banking and household finances if they did not emerge in the weekly narratives, but for the most part, we encouraged informants to provide a step-by-step narrative through the use of very open-ended questions and by not interrupting or intervening to shape or direct narrative trajectories (see Riessman, 1993: 54).

The snowball recruitment method was adopted for the study after initial advertisements in e-mail forums did not generate a significant number of participants. This meant that all but three of the interviewed pairs, who had responded to the advertisements, were known to one of the two researchers in a non-professional context. The informants therefore had some insight into the domestic/personal circumstances of the researchers, which may have influenced what they revealed and said. This recruiting process, through the networks of the research team, meant that the sample shared key life experiences and trajectories. Most participants had, or were in process of gaining, tertiary degrees. All had participated in the workforce in white-collar occupations. All lived in suburbs that could be defined as middle class, although only half owned their homes in these areas. As Hochschild's (1989) study indicated, the impact of class and education on domestic work cannot be assumed,


although McMahon (1999) has argued that domestic work is "one of the few socio- logical phenomena" in which class and race are not critical for understanding (12;

see also Bittman and Pixley, 1997: 101). But this profile does offer important in- sights into the domestic practices of heterosexual couples where both partners are able to access paid work. In most cases the capacity to generate income was shared and relatively equal, even if not equally exercised.

The study was conducted in a six-month period from the end of 2000 until the middle of 2001. Most respondents came from metropolitan Melbourne with two

couples drawn from a large regional centre in Victoria. There were a substantial proportion with children (thirteen out of twenty-two couples) and a large number of

female partners who were pregnant (seven of twenty-two women). This was important, as there were a relatively high number of participants who were not currently in full time employment, reflecting choices about unpaid work and childcare. In the

cohort of female informants, there were part time paid employment options being taken up by women with children and women without children. Among the male informants, there were two students and one other whose primary labor was unpaid.

In two couples, each partner worked part time at a shared job. Of the women who had children, only two with school age children were in full time employment. Six-

teen couples were married and six were cohabiting. All of the six couples, except for one where the relationship was relatively new, were in long term committed relationships. The marital status of the partnership did not appear to make a significant

difference to domestic labor burdens as women carried the primary burden of domestic work in all but two relationships. As other studies have shown, the presence of children was more likely to impact on the domestic labor patterns, although our

findings indicate that this was primarily in the amount of domestic work that had to be done.

The life histories of participants were gathered as part of household narrative. As well providing the weekly narratives, participants were asked to describe who lived with them in their house, how domestic work got assigned, if that had changed

in the time they had lived together, if there was conflict, and whether there were experiences in their family of origin that influenced their domestic practice. Nearly all informants wanted a division of domestic labor different to that of their parents;

only two of the forty-four specifically indicated that their household of origin had functioned in a way that they would consider equitable and wanted to recreate. In one instance, being raised by a single mother was felt to have contributed to his

domestic competence and involvement by one male informant. But overall, these familial patterns and influences were present in the direct responses, but not present in any substantial degree in the narrative accounts of activity. The desire to be a

more "hands-on" father did not translate to greater awareness of the sum of daily


tasks required to get a child ready for kindergarten. Capacity to cook meals did not

necessarily include organizing washing and cleaning in tandem. The expressed wish of women to have active domestic partners unlike their own fathers did not mitigate against women applying their own standards of cleanliness and thus allowing tasks

to become theirs by default on this basis. It was an important aspect of this research that twenty-one of the twenty-two

interviews occurred in the couples' shared home. It allowed us to understand more fully participant descriptions of labor and activity i.e. the vacuuming of the living room. It also meant that couples were often "performing" their domesticity with us

as an audience. Putting children to bed, partner lateness to interviews, even how the interview spaces were assigned all formed part of the data collection process. Fe- male partners were interviewed in the kitchen on many occasions, "we'll go in here."

Sometimes this assignment of rooms was accompanied by wry comments about "women's domains," which reflects the impact of the decision to interview in

gendered pairs on the data gathering process. Whose Turn to Cook? was designed to focus on how our informants talked

about domestic work as well as what work was done, through the gathering of detailed narratives of daily activities. We did not seek specifically to measure the ac-

tual time and involvement as we focused on the meaning of domestic labor for each informant. But the study design meant that that we had the opportunity to consider assertions about domestic labor alongside daily accounts. In all narratives, explana-

tions, justifications and hesitations, as well as direct disagreement in the accounts of cohabitating couples were considered in order to develop a full sense of the role of domestic labor in each couple's relationship. This meant that we gained some in-

sight into the actual division of domestic labor although we have focused on its meaning and weight in this article. In general, the comparison of narrative accounts between couples revealed that women did more domestic work, even when they worked outside the home more than their male partner. They provided a level of

domestic detail that was not present in the accounts of the male informants, who often described their participation in responsive terms; "when she asks me, I .... "

These findings are similar to many others in the field (Baxter, 1993), but the particular study design here had the effect of emphasising discursive construction for each participant. They were always aware that in the room next door, or sometimes even

just across the room, their description of domestic labor was being tested and contested by their partner. A number of couples asked for "results" or at least to hear "back" how they had "performed." As we explained that this study would not enable direct comparisons, they expressed varying degrees of disappointment at being un-

able to check out the "accuracy" of their partner's narrative. While we did gain insight into who did what, we have focused on how they described who did what in


order to explore how discourses of fairness and equity are shaping domestic work,

but also shaping how it can be discussed and negotiated.

In the following section, we record the key issues that emerged from the narra-

tives generated in the study. We consider how the content of the narratives often

contradicted direct answers given to questions about domestic work. In particular,

direct answers to questions about the importance of domestic labor, conflict in the

relationship over domestic labor and the "equity" of the domestic burden are dis-

cussed. We argue that the narrative method proved particularly useful for revealing

dissonance in how informants initially represented their domestic labor and what

the narratives showed that they did. It also offered an insight into what we have

come to consider as a key domestic burden that was sex specific for the female

partner. This particular "domestic burden" was the requirement for the female part-

ners in these relationships to develop a narrative that satisfied contemporary expec-

tations of equity and shared domestic activity, thus diminishing their own contribu-

tion. In this domestic "activity" as in all the others, their male partners understood

their involvement as peripheral.

"Dusting in Dark Corners": Behind Narratives of Shared Domesticity

In the following analysis of the interview material, we focus on four key areas

included in the questions that offer the best reflection of the key findings that emerged

from this study. They are: the importance and value of domestic labor; conflict over

domestic labor; women as domestic directors, and "fairness." We examine direct

responses to questions and then contrast those answers with the narratives elicited

about daily tasks and further discussion with informants.

In response to initial questions about domestic labor, the overall concern of

both female and male informants was to minimize the significance of household

labor in their everyday lives. No couples talked of specific domestic standards as

being critical in how they planned their key activities. Rather, domestic labor was

presented as low on the list of priorities. The following comments reflect a sample of these responses.

"I try to avoid domestic labor if at all possible." Anita.

"We' re both very relaxed about housework." Ronelle.

"We probably just do things when they need to be done and when we can be bothered." Caroline.

"Yeah, just do it as the need arises." Mick.

Emma said, "this is going to be easy because there is no housework."


"A lot of stuff gets left undone and we are not too fussed about it." Phillipa.

In one couple only from the twenty-two interviewed, both partners begin their

answers by noting that importance of their routine tasks. The focus on the provision of food proved to be an exception, but fitted in with the overall focus on "necessary"

activities rather than domestic labor as a primary focus. Food was a necessity and

this distinguished it from dusting which only two female informants identified as a routine task. In addition, there was discussion by female and male participants of

cooking as a creative and pleasurable activity. Despite this consensus on household work being done only as absolutely nec-

essary, the detailed task descriptions revealed more complex evaluations of the importance of household labor. Jocelyn said she did housework only when "you can't

stand looking at it," but later indicated "there's nothing worse than people popping

in... and you're just not prepared." Anita's initial comments indicated a lack of com-

mitment to housework, as she said, "there is no set routine for domestic work, I guess. It just happens when it gets unbearable." But the weekly narrative she pre-

sented gives a highly organised account of domestic activity. Robin expressed the

dilemma in the following way when she said, "I think I would prefer not to care so

much and just be able to [say] 'I don't care' but I do, I do care." Similarly Anita demonstrated this feeling when she said, "I am not happy with what I do and how

the house looks." This comment indicated that the domestic burden rested heavily

on her, despite her initial statement of disinterest. In this later material, initial disavowals of domestic labor were undercut by

indications that it was an important aspect of life management. These comments came primarily from female participants, although nearly all participants expressed

concern about the tidiness of the living spaces. This pattern of greater attention by the female partners was apparent in the other areas we identified as important. In

two of the couples considered, it could be argued that the women in the partnership

actively assumed this greater responsibility, but in the rest of the couples, both partners described a shared domestic space and responsibility. Despite this, in the tran-

script material overall, questions about domestic work elicited much greater detail

from female participants than they did from male participants. The female narratives contained a greater number of tasks and clearer identification of who was actu-

ally doing which tasks. Male informant narratives were often characterized by a

lack of detail about domestic tasks actually undertaken and the use of the "we" pronoun to describe domestic work. This greater responsibility and involvement of

female partners was evident in each of the other three areas we considered.

While couples maintained there wasn't a formal process of assignment of do-

mestic tasks; that they were most often done together, later discussion showed the


female partner as more directive and more active (see also Allen and Hawkins , 1999).

They were the domest ic managers , and, as has been noted by Douce t and others

(Doucet , 2000; Leonard, 2001), cont inued to bear the responsibi l i ty for the house-

hold work. Doucet (2000) says

The story is told through more than two decades of international research findings on gender divisions of household labor which provides irrefutable evidence that women continue to take on most of the household's work and, more specifically, that they remain responsible for household life (165).

The fol lowing answers reflect this pattern.

Emma said, "I am the project manager .... I don't think he really notices [things like making beds and changing sheets]. It's just that I constantly keep the old mental shopping list."

"Together we probably do a major clean once a fortnight. Which basically involves me doing everything but the vacuuming." Linda.

"Yes, I am the prompt," said Justine, because "he is easily distracted."

"Because she is so, things have to be done and done right." Elliot.

"Because whenever I tell him it just goes in one ear and out the other, so it is me eventually." Elspeth. "I have to harass my husband to do it."

"I knew Anita had expectations and I figured they were reasonable expectations . . . . It's probably something I didn't put a whole lot of thought into." George.

"I have more of a mental note of when things were last done." Chloe.

Of ten the dist inction in the organisa t ion and a m o u n t o f l abor under taken

emerged in commen t s like the fol lowing. "1 think he really does enjoy cooking. I

think he real ly likes the sense of having produced someth ing ... and he talks about it

for days af terwards" said Dallas, al though she and her par tner had initially descr ibed

the cooking as a shared task. Later Dallas was unable to ident ify whether T o m hated

the ba th room because he "hadn ' t actually done it yet ," a l though they had l ived to-

gether for two months. She made this c o m m e n t but later asser ted that Tom "doesn ' t

want to be the kind of guy who doesn ' t know how to do stuff."

Mark said "I know that she real ly finds it a drag trying to come up with differ-

ent meals each night and stuff like that." In this commen t , it b ecomes clear that

cooking identified by his par tner Carol ine as a key task for a household with three

children is not, in fact, a shared task, a l though earlier answers had not revealed this.

Carol ine did not directly indicate that she got sick o f cooking and did not refer to the

amount of assistance Mark gave, but she acknowledged that t akeaway food was

very important in how she m anaged the demands o f her domes t ic and paid work.


On a number of occasions, female informants noted that the male partner had

been educated to know what needed to be done. "I have sort of trained him to a point

where he gets a bit frustrated when it is not tidy," said Robin. Linda indicated that

"he gets better and better at anticipating the things I need him to do."

The burden of socially appropriate roles formed a significant part of the do-

mestic landscape where comments from others; mothers, mothers-in-law, about

housekeeping standards were reported by a small number of the female participants

(four out of twenty two) but not at all by male participants. Indeed, one of the male

participants reported his mother's views in the following way, although he said he

did not agree with her. "My mother sat me down and gone, oh, you know that is

women's work, she should be looking after you, man," said Rhys.

For women, the comments were likely to focus on their failure to fulfil a tradi-

tional domestic role. Elspeth said her mother initially had doubts about her approach.

"Well my mother in the beginning because she is a typical Greek woman, she used

to think, oh my God he is ironing the shirts, she is not ironing the shirts." She did

note that her mother had become more admiring of her strategies as time passed.

Anita revealed that her mother had recently commented "poor George a few times."

Jeanette said, "Oh yes I have a far more (sic) level of anxiety if Justin's family

comes around, "and Linda said, "sometimes his mother will say to me things like ...

oh poor thing he has to do dishes. I think yes hello."

There are two possible explanations for this variability in the reporting of such

comments. Each bears out our central finding that domestic work is more critical to

female informants than to males. Either such comments were not made to male

participants because they were not seen as the appropriate person to direct such

comments towards or the male participants did not recall such comments even when

prompted since they were irrelevant to them. No female or male participant indi-

cated that media images formed part of their definition of domestic work or expec-

tations, but it was notable that women referred more often to the "new man" in their

responses, as in the following comment offered by Caroline. "You know you've got

this idea what a new age or generation X father would be like, well then I think he's

probably it." There were a substantial number of couples, both with and without children

whose initial decisions to assign and regulate household labor according to prin-

ciples of equity has altered across the intervening years of partnership. The reasons

offered for this generally related to work and the advent of children in the relation-

ship but were also related to competency and preference. The presence of an exter-

nal stereotype of the female partner as more adept and concerned about housework

was usually specifically denied by the couple; "No whirlpool mum fantasises that

are going on" (Justine), "I don't think there's stimulus for us to clean and do other


chores based on the outside world and its expectations of us" (Caroline), but there was a clear pattern of task division becoming more "traditional" as time progressed with the birth of a child often forming a key point of change in this area. This finding replicates many studies of domestic labor (Oakley, 2002; Sanchez and Thomp-

son, 1997), where the advent of the child reinstates or reinforces gendered divisions of domestic labor (see Sanchez, 1994: 545). Often, in the couples with children, tasks such as cooking and vacuuming undertaken by female partners were seen as a respite from child caring. This was description was present in the narratives of five

couples when they were compared. Questions about whether domestic labor produced conflict for the couple usu-

ally produced the response of none or only minimal, short-lived conflict. Yet, many of the narratives contained accounts of tension even when they were only partially articulated. Anita discussed conflict that was never verbalized. "But I can just tell when I 've just had it for the day and I haven't cleaned up and he comes home, I can

see that he doesn't ... it's not like he disapproves." Mark and Caroline indicated they were a "team" but Mark later said "the washing of clothes isn't strictly her domain but just that I never do it unfortunately for her which she's not too happy

about." Despite the fact that she "harassed" her husband, Elspeth considered that this was "not really" conflict about domestic labor. "I don't think we ever argued." Her partner Tobias echoed this view despite her highly directive role, when asked about conflict. "I don't think so," he replied although she might "banter" about his lack of household work.

The fairness question most often elicited the response that the division was fair and equitable in the relevant paid and unpaid work circumstances (see also Dempsey,

1999; 1997). Yet, these answers were often contradicted in other responses. Wilkee, Ferree and Ratcliff (1998) suggested that "researchers should not assume that individuals do a strict cost-benefit accounting in their relationships and that researchers

should pay more attention in future to questions of procedural justice in equity as- sessments" (591-592). (See also Kamo, 2000; Press and Townsley, 1998). Contrast- ing the direct answers with the narrative accounts of incidents and tasks offers an

opportunity to do this. In the following instances couples indicated labor divisions were fair, but then made the following remarks indicating that male needs for space and leisure were more valued in the couple.

"Creatively and emotionally and mentally she probably needs less space from the girls than I do." Mark then added "and she loves [it] like I do," referring to the care of the children, suggesting that this explained Caroline's greater involvement. Justine's partner Sean indicated that although a baby was coming " y o u have to have personal time for yourself . . . . I am going to set goals to ensure that I still have that once

the baby is born." Neither he nor his partner made reference to her needs in this area,


with Justine noting, "it is important that he has his swim and exercise which is good for him." Luke reflected that his partner Chloe used the baby's sleep time for household work, but he did not. "When he is asleep I tend to save that as my time." For Marcus, Lucy respected his work. "She makes a point to ... give me time to do it."

As the fairness narratives of couples often depended in large part on the division of paid and unpaid labor, it was interesting to note that in two of the instances where female partners clearly undertook a greater share of the domestic labor and a primary or at least equal share of the breadwinning labor, they minimized discus-

sion of their primary employment outside the home (see also Brennan et al, 2001). Marcus's narrative of the domestic week was punctuated by references to his occu-

pation. While Lucy noted that she was professionally employed fifteen hours a week and appeared, as Marcus's outside occupation was as a student, to be the primary breadwinner, she made only the briefest of references to the impact of her paid labor on her domestic work. This situation was also true for Caroline and Mark where

Mark's work was unpaid, but required considerably more resources in terms of time from the domestic unit. As Leonard (2001) has argued, the degree of autonomy women have to negotiate the burdens and decisions about combining their career and family continues is hotly contested by social science researchers in Western

contexts (68). The study on men's caregiving undertaken by Gerstel and Gallagher (2001) indicates that women are pivotal to what caregiving labor men do, and are more significant than individual relationships to the paid workforce with women

(see also Silver and Goldscheider, 1994). Our findings suggest that women adopt strategies to minimize these conflicts in the presentation of their domestic activity, sometimes by characterizing these divisions as related to aptitude (Magnusson, 2001:

6; see also Dempsey, 1999). This uneasiness over paid and unpaid labor was also evident in the following

disjunction between the accounts of Katy and Paul. Katy discussed her mutual decision with Paul to give their young daughter a primary caregiver and her activity in

that role. She expressed this as a conscious and negotiated position between them, talking of play programs and activities undertaken for development during the day

with their two-year old child. Paul said, "yes, I am sure she enjoys looking after our daughter...because she has the option to choose not to and go to work so I am guessing she enjoys that." (our emphasis).

When women had concerns about equity, they were hesitant to say this out-

right. Lucy, for example, began describing the typical domestic week of her partner Marcus by saying " h e tends t o , " . . , but broke off and said "well, it has been hard because for the last few months he has had, he has been studying and has been under

a lot of pressure." She then returned to "normally" as a way to describe domestic work where she continued, "he tends to get up very early ... so he is gone before we


wake up." Here, mother and child are "we," which indicates that Lucy was responsible for child and house. Some conflict about this labor division was apparent in

her comment that "having a boy I am very conscious about involving him in chores

now."

This reluctance to criticise was matched by a readiness to praise in the female

partners. Women were concerned to talk about the activities of their male partner in the most positive way possible even when it was plain that they were carrying a significantly heavier burden of domestic labor (See also Sanchez, 1994; Smith et al,

1998). The final interview question asked whether participants had anything to add. A significant number of female participants took the opportunity to say that their

partner was "pretty good" they thought or better than their fathers or brothers.

"In my imagination I sort of think that I've got a fairly extraordinary partner--I 'm only thinking from the images that I get from television about what men are like." Caroline.

"He is such a domestic goddess in a way." Jennifer.

"He's really very good." Anita.

"He's really good, like he baths her." Linda.

By contrast, in the full set of transcript materials, there were very limited spe-

cific positive references to the capacity or activity of female partners. The comment of Philip who noted that his partner "was a fantastic cook" was alone in its com- plimentary tone. Danny offered the apparently ironic comment "She is not a good housewife, I will just get rid of her," but his discussion of their domestic tasks rein-

forced his negative view of her activity in this domain and his partner Naomi reiter- ated "he feels that he does a lot more than I do." On the final questions asking

whether informants had anything to add, two male informants indicated their partners did more, but the others closed the interview at that time. None indicated that

they felt lucky in the competency of their female partner. One of the key findings in this study was that the female participants are carry-

ing the burden of negotiating the parameters of domestic labor. This echoes earlier

findings that women are responsible for domestic work and most intimately con- nected with it. But our findings extend this by arguing that the construction of ad- equate narratives of fairness is the responsibility of the women in the relationship.

And, further, that this burden is a heavy one where the expectation is that men and women will not be bound by traditional patterns of behaviour.

Oakley (2002), in Gender on Planet Earth: synthesises the multiple studies

carried out on domestic labor in the Western context between the 1960s and the late 1990s and contends that these show that men continue to do less than women in


almost every aspect of domestic work and that male patterns of involvement tend to

remain stable whatever women's involvement in paid work and child caring activi-

ties (91-92). She concludes that "what we have here is a negotiated consensual

myth according to which housework and childcare ought to be shared" (2002: 92).

This account of domestic activity mirrors that which we found, as the amalgamated

accounts of female and male participants in our study indicate that women continue

to shoulder most of the domestic burden with the consequent outcomes for career

and leisure. But there was the additional stress for the female participants of defend-

ing against images of themselves as downtrodden, old-fashioned or submissive. They

did not want to acknowledge that traditional images of the domestic labor as women's

work had relevance for them, It was often not clear for whom this defence against

domesticity was necessary, but the difficulty of discussing domestic work and ques-

tions of equity was prevalent in the narratives of female participants. Despite the

research design being clearly focused on both partners, women were often con-

cerned that the study was really designed to consider male contribution to house-

work. As indicated above, they often took the opportunity to praise or affirm the

domestic work of their male partners. This concern was most evident in the follow-

ing comment by Lucy. "I feel I should protect Marcus more .,. I wouldn ' t want to

give a bad opinion of Marcus." Rachel was evidently struggling with this issue when

she said, "we share the cooking. We decide what to cook and then I cook it."

In the transcript material, male informants express considerably less concern

and interest in how the domestic labor of their relationship is being interpreted.

Male informants were unable to identify issues or revealed their lack of involve-

ment in the following comments.

"When that doesn't fit in with what I am doing my partner does it." John.

"I feel bad about it but I just don't do it." Rhys.

"Fair share is interesting ... I think we have a pretty good arrangement. Not because I do less but I think it is fairly fair.'" Luke.

"We generally just do [the dishes] together, you know, well I am not going to do it on my own." Nick.

The assumption that the research was directed at assessing male contributions

to domestic labor therefore impacted much less on male informants than it did on

female informants. In the three informant couples that came from public advertise-

ment or e-mail list, the female partners organised the meetings. In two instances,

this was specifically framed as a tactic to think through or to get male partners

thinking through domestic labor and what appropriate roles or expectations were for


each of them. All of the comments cited above indicate that the female partners in these couples were concerned about the relevant cultural scenarios of domestic work, how they would appear, and importantly, how their partners would appear. Their comments were often directed to presenting an image of shared labor that reflected

both partners in a good light. Male informants, on the other hand, were much less engaged in presenting narratives that reflected new patterns of domestic labor, although they generally answered in the affirmative when asked if they were or wanted to be different from their fathers. The following comment by Robin reflects the

differing emphasis for male and female informants on the importance of domestic work - - "because I constantly think about it, because it impacts on my life so much."

Conclusions

Smith, Gager and Morgan (1998) argue that questioning fairness in the divi-

sion of domestic labor in the relationship may have broader implications for the whole relationship status (307). This was borne out for the women in this study, but not the male informants. Our findings revealed men's lesser involvement and in-

vestment in domestic labor, but their lack of concern about this aspect of their lives and relationships was also demonstrated. Women, on the other hand, were struggling with new discourses of equity that allowed little room for a full and frank consideration of why the domestic burden continued to be heavier for them. The

articulation of such anxieties, even in the relatively anonymous surrounds of the interview, proved a step many women were not willing to take. They seemed to struggle for the appropriate language to express their commitment to equitable labor

division, while obscuring the lack of practical effect this commitment had on their domestic burdens.

Our findings demonstrate the importance of narrative methods in researching

domestic labor and its complexities. As well as revealing the lesser amount of work done by male informants, the narratives revealed that male informants were significantly less concerned about rates of change and images of domestic fairness. Women

in these relationships were carrying the burden of gender stereotypes about domestic labor in much more telling and concrete ways than the male informants. They seemed unable to enter into critical dialogue with the division of labor or could only

talk about difficulties as minor or in the past. Female partners were likely to indicate that they were "lucky" or that they had met up with the "new man" with all that entailed. As Magnusson (2001) has argued, "men who share responsibility and housework are often seen as sacrificing something, giving something to their wives. The

wife is seen as gaining something" (7). This is echoed in the assertions found in our


study where men's greater needs for sport, creative work time and lesser capacity to

undertake the drudgery of domestic and/or childcare tasks were unquestioned by both partners. For the young women in this study, there was evidence that images of the new woman and the new man played a negative role in how they were able to

discuss the issues of domestic labor. The stereotype of "a shared burden" prevented accurate self-presentations for the female informants in this study. Images of women as "having it all" and not being bound by traditional roles seemed to influence how

these women were able to discuss the very real issues of equity that they were struggling with in the domestic sphere (See also Dempsey, 1997: 17). Geoff demonstrated some insight into the way these ongoing social formations could be impact- ing on women's ability to negotiate the nature and impact of their domestic work. "I

think it is easier for a man in some respects because you're not fighting against

stereotypes." While it is not new that women may feel satisfaction with an inequitable divi-

sion of domestic labor (Baxter and Western, 1998), the methodology utilised in this study offers a valuable opportunity to consider the burden that socially optimistic images of change in the domestic sphere are placing on women and how they articu-

late their domestic labor. Over-reporting or optimistic accounts of male involvement in domestic work were present in the direct answers of women to questions of fairness. But the narratives of daily life revealed a significant lack of involvement and concern on the part of most male partners. This generated tension in women's

narratives, as they recognized the dissonance between their visions or desires for shared domesticity and the daily reality of their greater burden. These findings suggest it is important to consider the additional pressure that upholding the myth of

domestic change may impose on women. They may fail to describe fully the extent to which they are being disadvantaged in the domestic sphere. Such findings indicate the importance of gathering extended accounts of domestic work through nar-

rative, which allow for clearer and fuller understandings of how the domestic burden is being distributed between women and men. In Whose Turn to Cook? these narratives enabled us to identify that the ways women and men describe domestic

work may be substantially influenced by prevailing social myths about how household labor should be divided and that this may limit women's ability to articulate their domestic burdens and negotiate for greater sharing in that sphere.

Notes

This research was supported by a grant from the Faculty of Arts at Monash University. We would like to thank the participants for their time and the three reviewers at Gender Issues who made very helpful suggestions on an earlier draft.


References

Allen, Sarah, and Alan Hawkins. 1999. "Maternal Gatekeeping: Mothers' Beliefs and Behaviors That Inhibit Greater Father Involvement in Family Work." Journal of Marriage and Family 61(1): 199-212

Baxter, Janeen. 2002. "Patterns of Change and Stability in the Gender Division of Household Labour in Australia, 1986-1997." Journal of Sociology 38(4): 399-424.

Baxter, Janeen and Mark Western. 1998. "Satisfaction with Housework: Examining the Paradox." Sociology 32(1): 101-131.

Bittman, Michael and Jocelyn Pixley. 1997. The Double Life of the Family: Myth, Hope and Experi- ence. St Leonard's, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Brennan, Robert, Rosalind Barnett and Karen Garies. 2001. "When She Earns More than He Does: A Longtitudinal Study of Dual-Earner Couples." Journal of Marriage and Family 63:168-182.

Brines, Julie. 1994. "Economic Dependency, Gender and the Division of Labour at Home." American Journal of Sociology 100(3): 652-688.

Dempsey, Ken. 1999. "Attempting to Explain Women's Perceptions of the Fairness of the Division of Housework." Journal of Family Studies 5(1): 3-24.

- - . 1997. "Women's Perceptions of Fairness and the Persistence of an Unequal Division of Housework." Family Matters 48: 15-19.

Doucet, Andrea. 2000. "There's a Huge Gulf Between Me as a Male Carer and Women: Gender, Domestic Responsibility, and the Community as an Institutional Arena." Community, Work & Family 3(1): 163-184.

Ewick, Patricia, and Susan Silbey. 1995. "Subversive Stories and Hegemonic Tales: Toward a Sociol- ogy of Narrative." Law and Society Review 29(2): 197-226.

Gerstel, Naomi and Sally Gallagher. 2001. "Men's Caregiving: Gender and the Contingent Character of Care," Gender and Society 15(2): 197-217.

Ginn, Jay. (2003). "Parenthood, Partnership Status and Pensions: Cohort Difference Among Women." Sociology 37(3): 493-510.

Kamo, Yoshinoro. 2000. " "He said, She Said": Assessing Discrepancies in Husbands' and Wives' Reports on the Division of Domestic Labour." Social Science Research 29: 459-476.

Leonard, Madeleine. 2001. "Old Wine in New Bottles? Women Working Inside and Outside the House- hold." Women ~ Studies International Forum 24( 1 ): 67-78.

McMahon, Anthony. 1999. Taking Care of Men: Sexual Politics in the Public Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Magnusson, Eva. 2001. "Heterosexual Couples Talking About and "Doing" Gender." NIKK magasin 3: 4-7.

Mauthner, Natasha and Andrea Doucet. 2003. "Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis." Sociology 37(3): 413-431.

Mishler, Elliot. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press.

Oakley, Ann. 2002. Gender and Planet Earth. Cambridge: Polity. Pilcher, Jane. 2000. "Review Article: Domestic Divisions of Labour in the Twentieth Century: 'Change

Slow-A-Coming'." Work Employment & Society 14(4): 771-780. Press, Julie and Eleanor Townsley. 1998. "Wives' and Husbands' Reporting: Gender, Class and So-

cial Desirability." Gender and Society 12(2): 188-218. Riessman, Catherine. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sanchez, Laura. 1994. "Gender, Labour Allocations, and the Psychology of Entitlement within the

Home." Social Forces 73(2): 533-553. Sanchez, Laura and Elizabeth Thomson. 1997. "Becoming Mothers and Fathers: Parenthood, Gender

and the Division of Labour." Gender and Society 11(6): 747-772. Silver, Hilary and Frances Goldscheider. (1994). "Flexible Work and Housework: Work and Family

Constraints on Women's Domestic Labour." Social Forces 72(4): 1103-1119. Smith, Herbert, Constance Gager, and Philip Morgan. 1998. "Identifying Fairness in Spouses: Evalu-

ation of Fairness in the Division of Household Labour." Social Science Research 27: 305-327.


Sullivan, Oriel. 2000. "The Division of Domestic Labour: Twenty Years of Change?" Sociology 34(3): 437-456.

Sullivan, Oriel and Jonathon Gershuny. 2001. "Cross-national Changes in Time-use: Some Socio- logical (Hi) Stories Re-examined." British Journal of Sociology 52(2): 331-347.

White, Michael. 1992. "Family Therapy Training and Supervision in a World of Experience and Narrative." In David Epston and Michael White (Eds.), Experience, Contradiction, Narrative and Imagination (pp. 75-95). South Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Wilke, Jane Riblett, Myra Marx Ferree, and Kathryn Ratcliff. 1998. "Gender and Fairness: Marital Satisfaction in Two-Earner Couples." Journal of Marriage 60: 577-594.

“I wonder what he’s saying”: Investigating domestic discourse in young cohabitating...

Documents

Transcript of “I wonder what he’s saying”: Investigating domestic discourse in young cohabitating...