Occupational Sex Composition and Gendered Housework Performance: Compensation or Conventionality?
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12381 |
| Author | Elizabeth Aura McClintock |
| Date | 01 April 2017 |
| Published date | 01 April 2017 |
E A MC University of Notre Dame
Occupational Sex Composition and Gendered
Housework Performance: Compensation or
Conventionality?
This article examines the association between
occupational sex composition and house-
work, considering total housework time, time
on male-typed and female-typed tasks, and
the percent of total time spent on male and
female tasks. Previous research examining
male- and female-typed chores independent of
total housework suggests that couples compen-
sate for gender-atypical employment through
gender-typical housework performance, but this
analysis of the National Survey of Families and
Households (1992–1994) and the American
Time Use Survey (2003–2013) demonstrates
that assuming a quadratic association and
failing to contextualize gendered housework
performance within total housework perfor-
mance obscures the true relationship between
occupation and housework. In fact, women and
men in gender-atypical occupations perform a
more gender-atypical combination of chores.
The inuence of gender deviance neutralization
in the housework literature may overshadow
alternative explanations and model specica-
tions. In particular, by assuming a quadratic
association, researchers may impose, rather
than test, gender deviance neutralization.
Department of Sociology, Universityof Notre Dame, 810
Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556 (emcclint@nd.edu).
This article was edited by Jennifer Glass.
Key Words: dual-earner, gender, housework, occupation,
occupational sex segregation,quantitative methodology.
I examine the association between occupational
sex composition (the proportion of women and
men in an occupation) and housework perfor-
mance, considering total housework time, time
on male-typed and female-typed tasks inde-
pendently, and the share of total time spent on
male-typed and on female-typed tasks. Previous
research using a quadratic specication of occu-
pational sex composition to predict the hours
of male- and of female-typed chores provides
evidence of gender deviance neutralization
(Schneider, 2012). That is, women and men
appear to compensate for men’s employment
in gender-atypical occupations through more
gender-typical housework performance (e.g.,
a man in a predominately female occupation
would do more male chores). I extend prior
research by considering the robustness of prior
ndings to (a) alternative functional specica-
tions of occupational sex composition and (b)
alternative measures of housework, including
gendered housework tasks as a share of total
housework time.
In the broader housework literature, support
for gender deviance neutralization generally
relies on quadratic specications, but such
models are problematic because of paramet-
ric inexibility and disregard of data sparsity
(Gupta & Ash, 2008). Indeed, I nd that
support for gender deviance neutralization
is not robust to alternative model specica-
tions. Instead, individuals employed in more
gender-atypical occupations perform more
gender-atypical tasks. In fact, it is the higher
Journal of Marriage and Family 79 (April 2017): 475–510 475
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12381
476 Journal of Marriage and Family
levels of female-typed housework among work-
ers (male and female) in predominately female
jobs and the higher levels of male-typed house-
work among workers in predominately male
jobs that drives a nonlinear relationship and, in
some cases, results in a statistically signicant
quadratic term. This association is evident for
hours of male and female housework consid-
ered individually, but it is especially striking
when considering male and female chores as
percentages of total housework. Thus, avoiding
a quadratic specication entirely eliminates
evidence of gender deviance neutralization,
and contextualizing gender-typed chores within
overall housework performance further claries
the actual association.
Generally, my results suggest that the theo-
retical prominence of gender deviance neutral-
ization in the housework literature may induce
researchers to discount alternative theories and
thus to overlook alternative specications of
independent and dependent variables. Insofar as
sociology is a theory-driven discipline, this has
broad relevance beyond the housework litera-
ture, building on recent studies that demonstrate
how researchers’ assumptions of a giventheoret-
ical explanation may obscure alternative expla-
nations and foster equally myopic statistical
models (McClintock, 2014; Rosenfeld, 2005).
Moreover, this article makes important method-
ological contributions, adding to the literature
problematizing quadratic methods of modeling
nonlinear associations and demonstrating the
sensitivity of results to alternative measures of
housework—total hours, time on gendered tasks,
and gendered tasks as percentages of total house-
work time.
B: T P
E F
Gender Performance
Men in predominately female occupations
are evaluated as inadequately “performing”
masculinity through employment (Badgett
& Folbre, 2003; Harding, 2007; Heilman &
Wallen, 2010; Robinson, Hall, & Hockey,
2011; Williams, 1989, 1995, 1992). If the men
themselves perceive their jobs as undermining
their masculinity, they might offset a failed
gender performance at work through gender
deviance neutralization in another domain,
such as by reducing time on female-typed or
increasing time on male-typed tasks (Brines,
1994; Schneider, 2012). Womenworking in pre-
dominately male occupations might experience
a similar sense of failed gender performance
and compensate by doing more female-typed
housework or less male-typed housework than
they otherwise would, but men are penalized
more than women for transgressing gender
boundaries (England, 2010), perhaps because
masculinity is harder to earn and more impor-
tant to prove than femininity (Bittman, England,
Sayer, Folbre, & Matheson, 2003; Brines, 1994).
If gender-atypical employment threatens fem-
ininity less than masculinity, gender deviance
neutralization is more likely for men.
In fact, prior research suggests that couples
use gendered housework performance to com-
pensate for men’s gender-atypical occupations.
Specically, Schneider (2012) used the gen-
der composition of spouses’ occupations to
predict their time spent in gender-typed house-
hold work, modeling nonlinearity in the effect
of occupational sex composition by includ-
ing rst-order and second-order (quadratic or
“squared”) terms for the percentage of women
in an occupation. He found that when compared
with working in gender-balanced occupations,
when husbands work in predominately female
or in predominately male occupations, the
husbands spend more time on male house-
hold tasks and their wives spend more time
on female tasks. Thus, both spouses do more
gender-typical housework when he works in
a gender-atypical occupation. Schneider inter-
preted this as evidence that men and women
both use housework to compensate for men’s
gender-atypical occupation. (According to
these results, women and men also do more
gender-typical housework when he works in a
gender-typical occupation, a pattern that cannot
be explained by gender deviance neutraliza-
tion.) In addition, Schneider also found that
women who work in gender-atypical occupa-
tions perform more female-typed housework
than women in gender-mixed occupations; he
interpreted this as evidence that women also
use housework to compensate for their own
gender-atypical occupation. (By these results,
however, women also do more gender-typical
housework when working in gender-typical
occupations.)
It is not clear from this research whether men
in predominately female occupations spend
more time on male household tasks simply
Occupational Sex Composition and Gendered Housework 477
because they spend more time on all house-
hold tasks (including neutral and female-typed
tasks) or whether the men are increasing their
relative time on male tasks as a share of their
total housework hours. Although not attaining
statistical signicance, the coefcients on the
rst- and second-order terms of occupational
sex composition suggest that men working in
predominately female occupations might also
spend more time on female-typed housework.
This effect might be statistically signicant if
the quadratic term were removed—as functions
of the same variable, the rst- and second-order
terms are very highly correlated, as are their
estimated effects, inating standard errors. If
men (or women) truly use housework to offset
a gender-atypical job, this should be reected
in their performance of male and female tasks
in absolute terms and as a percentage of total
housework hours. Moreover, these associations
should be robust to alternative methods of
modeling (potential) nonlinearity.
Although I argue that gendered task perfor-
mance should be viewed within the context of
total housework time, Schneider (2012) is inno-
vative in distinguishing male- and female-typed
tasks and in focusing on occupation. Prior stud-
ies have generally considered total housework
hours and husband’s share of couple income,
proposing that men compensate for earning less
than their wives by doing less total house-
work than the men would otherwise do (if they
earned the same as their wives). There has been
some support for this perspective (Bittman et al.,
2003; Brines, 1994; Evertsson & Nermo, 2004;
Greenstein, 2000; Schneider, 2011, 2012), but
also many disconrming ndings (Gupta, 2006,
2007; Gupta & Ash, 2008; Killewald & Gough,
2010). If Schneider is right that the gendering
of tasks is critical, these inconsistent ndings
may result in part from the mixed nature of
housework—that is, some tasks are female typed
and others are male typed, so individuals might
perform gender by altering which tasks they per-
form, with or without changing their total house-
work hours. In fact, partnered individuals may
meet less resistance from their spouse if they
trade chores rather than reduce their total hours.
Given these considerations, I follow the majority
of prior research in examining total housework,
but I also examine gender-typed tasks measured
in absolute terms and contextualized as a share
of total housework. For a summary of these argu-
ments, please see Table 1.
Still, whether one considers total house-
work time or gendered task performance, it is
debatable whether men (or women) would com-
pensate for gender-atypical employment through
housework. Although society and sociologists
problematize men’s employment in predomi-
nately female jobs, men who enter “female”
jobs might not perceive their jobs as a threat
to their broader masculinity or might not value
conventional masculinity. Also, men in pre-
dominately female occupations are privileged
over their female coworkers (Williams, 1995,
1992), potentially negating the emasculating
aspects of such jobs. Even if men do experience
predominately female jobs as threatening val-
ued masculinity, exaggeratedly gender-typical
housework performance might not offset a failed
gender performance at work if employment and
housework represent separate and nonsubsti-
tutable gendered domains. A similar argument
applies to relative earnings—couples in which
the wife outearns the husband may not nd
this arrangement problematic (but see Bertrand,
Kamenica, & Pan, 2015); if they do, it might not
be rectiable through housework.
Dependency
Another popular perspective on housework time
argues that whichever partner is most depen-
dent on the relationship has the weakest bar-
gaining position and will therefore do more
housework than he or she otherwise would.
Prior research has focused on economic depen-
dency, proposing that the partner with higher
income will enjoy greater power to negotiate a
favorable division of household labor (Bittman
et al., 2003; Brines, 1994; Evertsson & Nermo,
2007; Parkman, 2004). Dependency,however, is
not only nancial. Badgett and Folbre (2003)
nd that individuals in gender-atypical occupa-
tions are perceived as less desirable partners;
if so, they would have less attractive options
for repartnering were the current union to dis-
solve. Insofar as the spouse with less favor-
able options outside the relationship is depen-
dent on that relationship (Lundberg & Pollak,
1996), individuals in gender-atypical occupa-
tions would do more total housework than they
otherwise would, and their spouses might do less
housework. (It is unclear howdependency would
alter the gendered composition of tasks.) Any
association between occupation and housework
would be absent for single individuals; therefore,
To continue reading
Request your trial