GENDER ROLES IN FAMILY LIFE

Balswick, chapter 10
**Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart, Annelies Knoppers, Margaret L. Koch, Douglas
J. Schuurman, and Helen M. Sterk, After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender
Reconciliation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart. Gender and Grace: Love, Work & Parenting in a
Changing World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

*** "Perhaps no single facet of human behavior in the 20th century has more
influenced marriages and families than have changing gender roles" (Kenneth
Davidson and Nelwyn Moore, Marriage and Family: Change and Continuity 48).
"Years of struggle and conflict over new roles and new rules in the family
have taught us that changing who works inside the house, who outside, and
balancing those responsibilities more equitably is only part of the problem. . . .
The deeper issues lie in the struggle to change what happens inside
ourselves" (Lillian B. Rubin, qtd in Davidson/Moore 606 [no source is given by
D/M, but cf Rubins World of Pain: Life in the Working-Class Family, 1992,
which is cited in the suggestions for further reading for this chapter]).

WHAT GOES INTO MAKING GENDER?
(***see Lloyd Saxton [College of San Mateo], The Individual, Marriage, and the
Family. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1993)
Definition: Gender refers to the "socially learned behaviors and expectations
associated with being female or male" (Davidson/Moore Study Guide 16). Gender is the
concept of maleness or femaleness, or, as Davidson/Moore state, gender is "a
cultural and psychological concept reflecting ones subjective feelings of
femaleness or maleness. A persons sex, in contrast, is determined by biological
factors, genital organs, or genes. In other words, gender is constructed by
people, not by biology" (48). (Many scholars distinguish between sex, which refers to biological
differences between males and females, and gender, which refers to social and psychological
differences). Thus, gender raises the question, "what is maleness or femaleness?"

Three ingredients form gender, and these three are always inseparable (27):
1. BIOLOGY: the first answer most people would give to the question, "what is
maleness or femaleness?" is a biological/anatomical answer. This answer
recognizes the facts that:
---anatomical differences are the most visible gender differences
---we are made up of either XX or XY chromosomes.
Lisa Cahill notes that anatomical differences probably suggest deeper psychological
differences between men and women, since the different reproductive systems produce
different hormones. "The brain is influenced by hormones, so that it inclines the
individual toward certain behavioral characteristics. . ." ( Between the Sexes 91). For
example:
(1) For example, in most cultures--but not all--and at all ages, men tend to
be more aggressive than women, a factor related to male
hormones (Davidson/Moore 53, and see D/Ms description of Margaret
Meads work, in which she found some cultures in which aggressiveness
was opposite Western norms). Melvin Konners The Tangled Wing:
Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit (NY: Harper & Row, 1983)
cites examples of children whose mothers were given male hormones
during pregnancy to prevent miscarriages; these children scored
significantly higher on standard agression tests than did siblings who
were not exposed to the hormones (in Cahill 102, n. 13; see also David
Gelman et al, "Just How the Sexes Differ," Newsweek 18 May 1981: 73-74).
(2) men and women differ in cognition: men excel at spatial thinking,
women at verbal (Gelman cites 2 neuropsychologists at Stanford, Dianne
McGuinness and Karl Pribram). In her 1989 PhD dissertation at
Northwestern University, psychotherapist Charlotte Smith mapped brain
electrical activity and found that women and men process information in
different parts of the brain (males in the frontal cortex, females in the central
cortex; see Smith, Investigation of Brain Wave Symmetry: An EEG Imaging
Study Based on the Wakeful Dreaming Process [Evanston, IL: PhD diss,
Northwestern Univ, 1989; cited in James Ashbrook, "Different Voices,
Different Genes: Male and Female Created God Them," Christian
Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender, ed. Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth
Stuart, Eerdmans 96).
(3) Stanford neuropsychologists Dianne McGuinness and Karl Pribram list
several additional biologically-based differences between men and women:
---men are less sensitive to heat, but more to cold, than females
---females have better hearing, taste, and touch
---men have better daylight vision and poorer night vision than females
---men are more curious
---women are more attentive to people and social relationships
For the biological understanding of gender, it is important to note that for the first 6 weeks
both XX and XY embryos proceed along the same neutral path of sex development. During
this time the embryo has a pair of gonads which can develop into either male or female
organs; a tiny protrusion of tissue called the genital tubercle will develop into either a penis or
a clitoris, depending on the hormone mix (29-30).
***We should also note that sometimes the process goes awry--a male may
end up with an extra chromosome--XXY (Klinefelters syndrome); or, a female might
have only one X chromosome instead of two--XO(Turners syndrome); or, the
development of either male or female organs may be mixed, so that the child has
characteristics of both male and female (called ambivalence or hermaphroditism, which may
be complete [rare] or partial [pseudohermaphroditism], in which both male and female
genitalia are present but not necessary completely formed), or the sexual organs are not fully
developed as either male or female (absence of a vagina in females is seen in about 1:4000
females, for example; Pansky 286). See Ben Pansky, Review of Medical Embryology 280, for
examples.
NOTE: this has implications for theology. When the process goes awry, it pushes theology to its limits with the
question, "where was God in that process?" We do well to enlarge our theology to include the abnormal, not
just the normal. Cf Balswick 217.

2. GENDER ROLE SOCIALIZATION: "HOWEVER, AS IMPORTANT AS
IT IS, BIOLOGY ALONE DOES NOT DETERMINE MALENESS OR
FEMALENESS" (Saxton 27). "Evidence suggests that, although there are
some genetically determined sex differences, most are not innate but instead
have been learned through socialization" (Davidson/Moore 86).
Gender roles are "traits, behaviors, and attitudes socially prescribed for
women and men in a given culture" (Davidson/Moore 48). Gender roles
are "social scripts that define how males and females are supposed to
act" (Arlene Skolnick, The Intimate Environment: Exploring Marriage and the Family, 5th ed., 1992, 190).
"Gender role is everything a person does that indicates that he or she is a
male or female," (42), or, "the behavior one performs as an aspect of his or her
gender. It is NOT A BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE;rather, it varies to some
extent from society to society and within subsocieties of the society at
large. However, all known societies regard some behavior as more appropriate for
one gender than the other, and in all known societies males and females are
socialized differently" (27).
NOTE, for example, that homebuilders of the Pueblo Indians of the
Southwest were women. "This custom seemed surprising and
inappropriate to the early Spanish settlers, and some wished to change
it. But the natives proved resistant. If we compel any man to work
on building a house, wrote one of the priests, the women laugh at
him. . . and he runs away. . . [P]lastering has remained an important
activity for Indian women of the Southwest right up to the present
day" (John Demos, "The Tried and the True: Native American Women Confronting
Colonization," No Small Courage: A History of Women in the United States, ed. Nancy F.
Cott [NY: Oxford UP, 2000], 17).

WE WILL FOCUS OUR ATTENTION IN THIS UNIT HERE, ON
CHANGING GENDER ROLES.


Traditional Gender Traits and Roles:
(from a Gallup poll of personality characteristics associated with gender; see
Davidson/Moore)
Male
Agressive, active, competitive, strong,
courageous, rough, hence dominant
Reserved; emotionally distant
Non-nurturing
Logical, rational
Female
Passive, noncompetitive, quiet, gentle
Compliant, submissive
Emotional, easily having feelings hurt
Nurturing
Illogical, emotional

Why is this consideration of traditional gender traits and their changes
important for Christians?
Christian faith affirms that "all of life--not simply an isolated,
individualized, moral-spiritual part of it--is to be redeemed in
Christ" (After Eden xiv). What does it mean for our
understandings of gender roles to be redeemed in Christ?
the Balswicks point out that "our society is embroiled in debates
over what constitutes masculinity and femininity, and what the
appropriate roles are for each gender. This redefinition of gender
roles has caused disruption in the family" (187).
The Balswicks also note that "the Christian community is currently
far from united in its evaluation of the change in gender roles. Some
say that women should return to their rightful place in the home"--
because then we wouldnt have the disruption that we have seen in
recent decades. "In response [to the current gender redefinitions and
disruptions], some Christians have retreated out of fear to a
traditional patriarchal form of family life in which gender roles
are sharply separated. While it may be tempting to return to a time
that appears to have been less disruptive, this course of action offers
a false sense of comfort, for women had a very difficult life in the
past. Christians need to see the present disruption as an opportunity
to put in place a more biblically based form of family life" (Balswick
201).
what does it mean, then, for gender to be redeemed in Christ?
What does the biblical vision of shalom [not just peace,
but wholeness] mean when applied to gender?
For Christians, it means asking once again about
Gods intentions in creating humans as male and
female (Genesis 1), as well as being sensitive to the
fact "that social and cultural definitions have
expanded this distinction in ways that were not
intended by the Creator" (Balswick 188). Since God
created both male and female in his image and made
both co-stewards over creation (Genesis 1:26-31), what
does this mean for gender roles and relationships today?
For Christians it also means contrasting the traditional
masculine/feminine traits with the Christian traits that
Paul called for: "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
self-control" (Gal 5:22-23).

NOTE: CHILDREN BEGIN TO EMBRACE THESE GENDER-
ROLE STEREOTYPES BY AGE 4-5. Note, for example, a 1989
study of Michigan elementary and middle-school children (Office for Sex
Equity in Education, "Influence of Gender Role Socialization upon the
Perceptions of Children," [Michigan Dept of Education, Lansing, MI, 1989];
in After Eden 228-29). The children were asked to respond to this question, "If
you woke up tomorrow and discovered that you were the opposite gender, how
would your life be different?"
Boys, defining their lives as girls:
"I couldnt play any good sports and I wouldnt like any sports. All I could
do would be to go roller-skating and Id have to stay home."
"I wouldnt be able to play on the sports teams that I want to play like
football, baseball, and wrestling, sports that only men can handle."
"Because Im a war kind of person, I dont think I could join the Army,
Navy, or Air Force or Marines."
"Id be weak, a pansy, a wimp. All my friends would be little wimps."
Girls, defining their lives as boys:
"Id hunt and fish with my Dad; have to act macho. I couldnt really cry or
get upset, and Id have to act tough all the time."
"Id have to get the firewood; shoot hoops after breakfast; be picked to
demonstrate stuff, like in gym they get to show how to play a game."
"I would start drinking beer, sitting back and burping. Beat my wife up and
kick her out."

Note also how fluid our traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity
tend to be. "There are some men who are not interested in sports and who walk
away from or laugh at insults about their masculinity" (After Eden 227). There are
many men who are very nurturing. Are they masculine?
"There are some women who do not nurture, and others who are not even mothers"
(After Eden 227). Are they feminine?

3. GENDER IDENTITY: "ones sense of self as a male or female. Gender
identity is the core of ones self-image, or ones perception of oneself as a
unique individual. Gender identity, not biology, is the most important aspect of
gender. . . Whereas gender role is the outward expression of gender identity,
gender identity is the inward experience of gender role" (27).
SOCIETY DEFINES GENDER ROLES. THE INDIVIDUAL INDICATES
HIS/HER GENDER IDENTITY BY WHAT HE/SHE DOES.
Skolnick notes the publicized case of James Morris, "a distinguished British newspaperman
and writer of nonfiction books before he underwent a sex-change operation at the age of 46.
He was the most prominent person to have had such an operation [in 1974], and he seemed a
highly unlikely candidate for one. He had climbed Mount Everest, had served four years in the
army, and had married and become the father of five children. Yet since the age of 3, he had
felt that he really was a girl" (201).
See Primary Psychiatry 7 (June 2000): issue theme is gender identity
disorders.
Gender identity disorder: Dr. Barry Maletzky, clinical
professor of psychiatry in the Dept of Psychiatry at the Oregon
Health Sciences Univ in Portland, and chief of staff at Pacific
Gateway Hospital, and director of the Sexual Abuse Clinic in
Portland, states that "few disorders provoke more
astonishment and dispute, yet also offer the opportunity to
better understand the essence of gender and our
perceptions of it" ("Gender Identity Disorder: The Peculiar
Affliction," Primary Psychiatry 7 [June 2000]:49; note: the
theme of this issue of the journal is GID).

WHY GENDER ROLES ARE CHANGING (Balswick 188-89):
1. The realization that many of the traditional characteristics of "masculinity" and
"femininity" are culturally conditioned, not inherent in the composition of male
and female. The social sciences have demonstrated this.

2. The explosion of technological culture, which has placed more of a premium on
intellectual and interpersonal skills than on manual labor.
NOTE: on the issue of sex-based division of labor, note the difference
between the agrarian cultures of the past and modern culture fashioned
by industrialization and urbanization. "The womens movement argues
that conditions of modern life have removed most of the necessity for a
sex-based division of labor" (Leslie and Korman 15, n. 7).
***Hence the significance of this statement by Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of the
Presidents Council of Economic Advisers: "In the 19th century, the frontier
of America was moving from agriculture to manufacturing. Today the frontier
is going from manufacturing to services and technology. . . ." [quoted in John
Greenwald, "Where the Jobs Are," Time, January 20, 1997, 55]

3. The development of contraceptives [a particular feature of the explosion of technology],
which gave women freedom to plan for careers and family. Note Ann Marie
Cunninghams statement regarding the importance of the introduction of the Pill
in the 1960s:
"The Pill provoked profound social change. It helped lower the birth rate
and end Americas baby boom in 1964. It spurred sexual frankness and
experimentation. It allowed women to think seriously about careers
because they could postpone childbirth. And it sparked the feminist and
pro-choice movements; once women felt they were in charge of their own
bodies, they began to question the authority of their husbands, their bosses,
their doctors and their churches" ("The Pill Turns 30," San Francisco
Chronicle, "This World," July 15, 1990, p. 15; quoted in Saxton 153).
Anthropologist Joke Schrijvers notes that one way to evaluate the place of
women in a culture is to ask: To what extent do women have some control
over their own sexuality and fertility? (cited from a 1983 Dutch article by
Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, "The Imagination of Power and the Power of
Imagination," JSOT 44 [June 89]:76).

*** Family sociologist Arlene Skolnick suggests that social and cultural
transformations typically go through a series of stages. The first is a period of
individual and family stress that occurs because old understandings and
practices are disrupted long before new ones have taken shape."
"The second stage of transformation, Skolnick suggests, is one of public debate
and cultural struggle, as competing definitions of the problem are raised by
different groups. Political and social movements arise, attempting to hold back the
changes, push them in new directions, or shift their cost to someone else. This is
often. . . a period when the previous denial of new realities turns into a search for
scapegoats."
"Only after the two stages of personal distress and social conflict have been
worked through, Skolnick argues, does society reach a period of restabilization.
When people gain an understanding of why change is occurring and what parts of
it cannot be reversed, they begin to adapt their institutions, values, and cultural
norms to the new realities" (Coontz, Way We Really Are 110-11; see Skolnick,
"Changes of Heart: Family Dynamics in Historical Perspective," in Philip Cowan
et al., eds., Family, Self, and Society: Toward a New Agenda for Family
Research [Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993], 52-56).

WHY GENDER CONSIDERATIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO FAMILY
Note that this deals with "family values"
1. Because gender roles have been changing and continue to change at rapid pace.
***Balswicks: "In response, some Christians have retreated out of fear to a
traditional patriarchal form of family life in which gender roles are sharply
separated. While it may be tempting to return to a time that appears to
have been less disruptive, this course of action offers a false sense of
comfort, for women had a very difficult life in the past [note the parallel to
the Civil Rights Movement and the condition of minorities prior to
it]. Christians need to see the present disruption as an opportunity to put
in place a more biblically based form of family life" (201).
"Do you agree or disagree that it is much better for everyone involved if the
man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home
and the family?"
1977: 66% agree
1996: 38% agree
2003: 41% agree
Married households in which the wife is the primary wage-earner:
1981: 15.9%
1997: 25%
2002: 30%
54% of Americans know a couple where the woman is the primary wage
earner [60%+ of the family income] and the mans career is secondary
(Newsweek poll, 12 May 2003)
25% of respondents to the Newsweek poll (2003) believe it is generally "not
acceptable" for a wife to be the primary wage earner
34% of men say that if their wife earned more money, they would consider
quitting their job or cutting their hours (Newsweek poll 2003)
COONTZ: "WOMENS EXPECTATIONS OF BOTH MARRIAGE AND
WORK ARE UNLIKELY TO EVER BE THE SAME AS IN THE
PAST" (Really Are 31).

2. Gender stereotypes distort individual personalities and uniqueness. "One
problem with gender stereotypes is that, whenever rigid standards are applied to all
members of one sex, individual personalities can become distorted. Everyone is
expected to conform, regardless of individual differences or inclinations.
Furthermore, gender identity and gender-role stereotypes place serious limitations
on the relationships that people are capable of forming and on career or personal
achievements" (Mary Kay DeGenova and F. Philip Rice, Intimate Relationships,
Marriages & Families, 6th ed. [McGraw-Hill 2005] 65).
Gender stereotypes have even been found to be detrimental to health for some
individuals. Glenn Good and Laurie Mintz, professors in the Dept of Psychology
at the Univ of Missouri--Columbia, in a 1990 study, found a correlation between
conflict over traditional gender expectations and increased depression in men. See
"Gender Role Conflict and Depression in College Men: Evidence for Compounded
Risk," Journal of Counseling and Development 69.1 (1990): 17-21.
"Females are socialized to believe that the body is the ultimate expression of the
self" (Mary Kay DeGenova and F. Philip Rice, Intimate Relationships, Marriages
& Families, 6th ed. [McGraw-Hill 2005] 77).

3. Because of the heated emotions generated by this issue:
Stephanie Coontz argues that "when commentators lament the collapse of
traditional family commitments and values, they almost invariably mean
the uniquely female duties associated with the doctrine of separate
spheres for men and women" (The Way We Never Were 40-41). Womens
roles in the family "have historically mediated the worst effects of competition
and individualism in the larger society." Those who lament the collapse of
family commitments usually "do not envision any serious rethinking of the
individualistic, antisocial tendencies in our society, nor any ways of
broadening our sources of nurturance and mutual assistance." Rather, they
continue to seek ways in which women can continue to compensate for
individualism and mens failures (41).

4. Changing gender roles have placed impossible demands on many
women. "Many women experience contradictory expectations when they begin to
pursue professional careers or work full-time outside of the home" (Balswick 202).
Women have tried to do it all--career, marriage, and children--and found it
impossible under current societal structures.
Note the statistics regarding housework and working women:
Note these statistics published in The Gallup Poll Monthly 293 (Feb 1990)
regarding who performs all or most of selected household chores in the US
(chart is in Eshleman 114):
Household Chore Women Men
Doing laundry 79% 21%
Preparing meals 78% 22%
Grocery shopping 72% 26%
Cleaning house 69% 22%
Washing dishes 68% 31%
Caring for children 72% 12%
Disciplining/punishing
children
42% 28%
Working in the yard 21% 63%
Making minor home
repairs
16% 74%
See also Arlie Hochschild, The Second Shift (1989). More recently Scott
Coltrane has reported that "the average woman still does about three times
the amount of routine housework as the average man does" ("Research on
Household Labor," J of Marriage and the Family 62 [Nov 2000]: 1208--.
Coltranes article is a review of 200 studies done since 1989. Recent studies
continue to confirm that "women still spend significantly more time doing
housework and caring for children than do men" (Mary Kay DeGenova and F.
Philip Rice, Intimate Relationships, Marriages & Families, 6th ed [2005] 73).
COONTZ: "THERES NO NONSTRESSFUL WAY TO DIVIDE
THREE FULL-TIME JOBS BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUALS" (Really
Are 20).
"From a conflict and feminist perspective, housework serves as a prime
example of an unequal division of labor between men and women that
generates tension, conflict, and change"(Eshleman 114; see also Toni M.
Calasanti and Carol A. Bailey, "Gender Inequality and the Division of
Household Labor in the United States and Sweden: A Socialist-Feminist
Approach," Social Problems38 [Feb 91]:34-53).

GENDER ROLES, DIVISION OF LABOR, AND MARITAL
SATISFACTION
***Stevens, Daphne, Gary Kiger, and Pamela J. Riley. "Working Hard and
Hardly Working: Domestic Labor and Marital Satisfaction among Dual-Earner
Couples." J Marriage and the Family 63 (May 2001):514-526. [page numbers
below in [ ] refer to pages in the downloaded version of the article]
***Coltrane, Scott. "Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring
the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work." J Marriage and the
Family 62 (Nov 2000):1208--. Excellent review article of 200 studies
published since 1989.
Berardo, D. H., C. L. Shehan, and G. R. Leslie. "A Residue of Tradition: Jobs,
Careers, and Spouses Time in Housework." JMarrFam 49 (1987) 381-90.
Blumstein, Philip, and Pepper Schwartz. American Couples: Money, Work,
Sex. NY: Wm. Morrow and Co., 1983.
Ferree, M. M. "The Gender Division of Labor in Two-Earner Marriages." J of
Family Issues 12 (1991): 158-80.
Levant, R. F., S. C. Slattery, and J. E. Loiselle. "Fathers Involvement in
Housework and Child Care with School-age Daughters." Family Relations 36
(1987): 152-57.
Levine, J. A., and T. L. Pittinsky. Working Fathers: New Strategies for
Balancing Work and Family. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997.
Shelton, Beth Anne, and Daphne John. "The Division of Household
Labor." Annual Review of Sociology 22 (1996):299-322.
"As a topic worthy of serious academic study, housework came of age in
the 1990s" (Coltrane).
HOWEVER, focusing solely on the number of hours men and women spend on household
work is simplistic. Marital satisfaction is not dependent solely on the division of
household tasks.
Factors influencing time spent on housework:
(1) Economic dependency: the degree to which one partner is economically
dependent on the other.
in the traditional family, the fact that women did more
household labor was considered to be fair compensation
for the husbands work as "breadwinner."
we might imagine, then, that as wives earn more in jobs
outside the home, that husbands would take on a
proportionally greater share of housework. Sometimes
that is true, but that is not necessarily the case.
even men who earn less than their wives do not
typically take on more household work. It is
theorized that cultural expectations re.
masculinity/femininity cause them to shun
housework to protect/assert their threatened
masculinity (Stevens [3]).
among couples whose income in about equal,
men do only slightly more housework than men
who earn substantially more or less than their
wives (Stevens [3]). BUT COLTRANE FOUND THAT
"RESEARCH IN THE 1990S SUGGESTED THAT WHEN
RELATIVE EARNINGS BETWEEN HUSBANDS AND WIVES
ARE MORE EQUAL, THE RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF
HOUSEHOLD TASKS IS MORE BALANCED."
women reported spending an average of 15
hrs/wk on household tasks, men less than half that
(6.8 hrs) [these figures are for dual-earner
families]. "Women indicated less satisfaction with
this arrangement than men" (Stevens [6]).
Coltrane did find that "womens employment
hours have the strongest and most consistent
effects on womens absolute levels of
housework and mens share of housework.
Robinson and Godbey (1997) report
that employed women do one third less family
work than nonemployed women. With few
exceptions, dual-earner couples are found to share
more family work than male-only breadwinner
couples."
(2) Gender ideology: "men and women with traditional gender-role ideologies will
be more likely to have an unequal division of household labor and will be less
likely to perceive that inequality as unfair than couples with egalitarian gender-role
attitudes" (Stevens [3]).
"Psychological or socialization theories suggest that men and women with
traditional attitudes will share less housework, whereas men and women with
nontraditional attitudes will share more housework" (Coltrane).
***Women in the Stevens study indicated less
traditional gender ideology than men did [7]. Talk about
this before marriage!!
In addition, the number of hours she did household tasks
correlated with her marital satisfaction. "[T]he fewer
hours she spent on housework, the greater the reported
satisfaction" [7].
(3) Life-course factors: "transitions into marriage and childbearing are expected to
increase womens household labor more than mens" (Coltrane).
(4) Education: "In general, studies suggest that women with more education do less
housework" (Coltrane).
CONCLUSIONS:
(1) Stevens: "Both satisfaction with domestic-labor arrangements and the labor
itself are associated with marital satisfaction. Our findings are consistent with
earlier research that indicates couples do not need to share fifty-fifty to be satisfied
in their relationship (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). The crucial point is that they
are satisfied with their particular arrangement" [9].
Coltrane: "Most studies show that women who are employed longer hours, earn
more money, have more education, and endorse gender equity do less housework,
whereas men who are employed fewer hours, have more education, and endorse
gender equity do more of the housework. A preponderance of research also shows
that when husbands do more, wives are likely to evaluate the division of labor as
fair, which, in turn, is associated with various measures of positive marital
quality."
(2) Gender ideology tends to affect womens satisfaction with the relationship
more than mens.
Stevens found that "women are feeling some
resentment" about traditional cultural
expectations re. their household labor [10].

5. Traditional male gender roles caused problems for intimacy with the spouse:
The traditional male role: encouraged toughness ("real men dont cry"),
inexpressiveness (emotional aloofness), competitiveness, aggressiveness; he
was to be the breadwinner, and doing that successfully meant not having to
concern himself with emotive tasks.
Problems for intimacy: note the Balswicks quote (203) of Michael
McGills 1985 study, The McGill Report on Male Intimacy (NY: Harper &
Row): "Most wives live with and love men who are in some very
fundamental ways strangers to them--men who withhold themselves and, in
doing so, withhold their loving. These wives may be loved, but they do not
feel loved because they do not know their husbands."
They also cite Lillian Rubins assertion that for women intimacy means
sharing thoughts and feelings, while for men it means being in the same room.

6. Traditional male gender roles caused problems for relationships with children.
Note the lyrics to Reba McEntires "The Greatest Man I Never Knew":
The greatest man I never knew lived just down the hall,
and every day we said hello, but never touched at all.
He was in his paper, I was in my room;
How was I to know he thought I hung the moon?
The greatest man I never knew came home late every night;
he never had too much to say, too much was on his mind.
I never really knew him, oh now it seems so sad,
everything he gave to us took all he had.
Then the days turned into years and the memories to black and white;
he grew cold like an old winter wind blowing across my life.
The greatest words I never heard, I guess Ill never hear;
the man I thought could never die has been dead almost a year.
He was good at business, but there was business left to do;
he never said he loved me--guess he thought I knew.
7. Traditional male gender roles caused problems with relationships with other
men. McGills study found these to be shallow and superficial.
***The Balswicks conclude: "All this evidence should cause us to challenge
the traditional definition of manhood, which some misguided persons have
even labeled Christian. Hypermasculinity cripples men, preventing them
from establishing bonds of intimacy with their children, with their wives, and
with their male friends" (204).
THESE PROBLEMS HAVE LED TO THE BURGEONING MENS
MOVEMENTS, SUCH AS PROMISE KEEPERS AND OTHERS.

DUAL-WORKING and DUAL-CAREER MARRIAGES
See Coontz 65-67.
See Lucia Albino Gilbert, Two Careers/One Family, Sage Series on Close
Relationships (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 93.

Mothers in the Labor Force
Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; mid-1990s. See U. S. Dept. of
Labor, www.dol.gov. For statistics,
see http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/report/chapter3/main
.htm#chart3-3. I have not been able to find statistics more recent than 1998.
child < 6 years of age child 6-17
child
< 18
1955 18% 38% 27%
1965 25% 46% 35%
1975 39% 55% 47%
1980 47% 64% 57%
1985 53% 70% 62%
1990 58% 75% 67%
1995 62% 76% 70%
1998 65% 78% 72%

Women and Higher Education (for the following, see Gilbert 5)
1970: only 25% of American women aged 25-34 had any college
experience, compared with 35% of men the same age.
1985: 45% of women, 48% of men aged 25-34 had completed at least
one year of college; 22.5% of women and 25% of men had completed
4 or more years.
Note that every year since the 1981-82 school year there have
been more female college graduates than male (Information Please
Almanac 97 861; source: Dept of Education, Center for Education Statistics).

EFFECTS OF WORKING MOTHERS ON CHILDREN:
"It is unrealistic to argue that children will be unaffected when both parents work
outside the home in full-time careers, permitting only intermittent contact with
each other and their children. . . Therefore, the task is one of discerning not if there
are effects but what they are and seeking to maximize the positive effects and
minimize the negative ones" (Davidson/Moore 635).
NOTE: a working mother is not necessarily an inattentive mother, and a stay-
at-home mother is not necessarily an attentive mother.
1. The lack of negative effects: "All we know is that the school achievement, IQ
test scores, and emotional and social development of working mothers children
are every bit as good as that of children whose mothers do not work" (Sandra
Scarr, Mother Care/Other Care [NY: Basic, 1984], 25). Some studies have suggested lower
academic performance among children of working mothers, but their performance may not be due precisely to
the mothers employment, but may be affected by other variables such as amount of unsupervised time at
home, restrictions on TV, etc (Davidson/Moore 637).
"Recent research on the effects of maternal employment on infants and young
children has found few overall differences in childrens development or in
mother-child attachment and interaction. The experiences of children with working
mothers do not differ significantly from those of children with nonworking
mothers. Preschool boys and girls whose mothers are employed seem to adjust
better to school and to have broader sex-role concepts than those whose mothers
remain at home" (Harriet Mischel and Robert Fuhr, "Maternal Employment: Its
Psychological Effects on Children and Their Families," Feminism, Children, and
the New Families, ed. Sanford M. Dornbusch and Myra H. Strober [NY: Guilford
Press, 88], 202 [HQ 536 F45]).
2. "Both girls and boys develop less stereotypic gender-role attitudes, and girls
gain more self-confidence and independence of spirit" (Gilbert 94; so also
Davidson/Moore 635).
3. "Both boys [but see D/M below] and girls participate more in household work and
boys in less sex-segregated household work" (Gilbert 94).
"Female children of full-time employed mothers spend substantially more time than male
children doing housework, regardless of the type of chores. Adolescent daughters of mothers
employed full-time were found to spend 10 hours per week performing household chores,
while daughters of nonemployed mothers spent 8 hours. Interestingly, adolescent sons spent
only three hours doing household chores in employed-mother families but seven hours in
nonemployed-mother families. . . The reason for these substantial differences between female
and male children may be the emotional work required of mothers to monitor, coax, and praise
male children to push them to do household tasks. Busy working mothers may conclude that
the effort is not worth it, and do the tasks themselves" (Davidson/Moore 636).
4. Children report positive attitudes about their mothers employment, esp when
they perceive that their mothers are satisfied with their job and when the mothers
show interest in the child (Davidson/Moore 635).
5. Children who stay home alone report more negative feelings about their working
mother (Davidson/Moore 635, 640).

Variables Affecting Childrens Outcomes in Dual-Career Families:
"Maternal employment per se appears generally unrelated to child outcomes.
Instead maternal employment operates through its effects on the family
environment and the child-care arrangements, and these are moderated by parental
attitudes, family structure, workplace policies, and other relevant variables"
(Gilbert 93).
---parental attitudes: adults positive self-esteem and sense of
personhood affect parenting in a beneficial way.
---child-care arrangements: In fact, "when both parents of
preschoolers are employed, studies indicate that the combined time
fathers and mothers spend in direct interaction with their children is
about the same as for parents in which only one spouse is employed"
(Gilbert 95; see Sandra Scarr, Deborah Phillips, and Kathleen
McCartney, "Working Mothers and Their Families," American
Psychologist 44 [Nov 89]:1402-9).
---family structure, including the amount of the fathers contribution
to child-rearing: "Studies of children reared in dual-career families
indicate that respondents rated their families high in closeness"
(Gilbert 94; see L. W. Hoffman, "Effects of Maternal Employment in
the Two-Parent Family," American Psychologist 44 [89]:283-92;
see also S. Scarr et al in the same issue).
---workplace policies: "family-friendly" workplace policies are a
rather new phenomenon in America, thus having little historical
precedent to guide us. Gilbert reported in 93 that "in the past 2
years, about 300 companies have named work/family managers
specifically to handle models and guidelines for different programs as
well as to implement and monitor programs addressing the
balancingof work and family" (106; see A. Bennett, "Work-family
programs get their own managers," Wall Street Journal 14 April
92:B1). The Johnson and Johnson company is one of the
recognized leaders in providing innovative family policies (Gilbert
109).
NOTE: each year Working Mother magazine publishes
a list of the top 100 family-friendly companies in the
US, based on workplace policies. See the October 2005
issue, for example.
At the same time, some evidence suggests that
companies are becoming less family
friendly: "Corporate America harbors a dirty little
secret. People in human resources know it. So do a
lot of CEOs, although they dont dare discuss it.
Families are no longer a big plus for a corporation;
they are a big problem. . . . Its fine to have the
kids pictures on the desk--just dont let them cut
into your billable hours" (Betsy Morris, "Is Your
Family Wrecking Your Career?" Fortune 17 March
97:71-72).
NOTE: "Sweden pays parents 90% of their salaries for
one parent to take off nine months with a new infant. In
practice, 95% of the leave is taken by mothers, even
though there is an additional incentive for the parents to
share the leave time with the baby" (Sandra Scarr et al
1405, n. 2).
---flex time scheduling:
---telecommuting:
---job-sharing:
---family-care leave days; many men are using vacation or sick days to tend to
children (Gilbert 96).
---maternity and paternity leave:
---corporate-sponsored on-site day care; or, some companies provide financial
assistance to help parents pay for childcare (Gilbert 113)---telephone access: "in
the past employees were discouraged from receiving or making personal calls at
work. Employers now realize that telephone access to children reduces parents
stress and enhances parent-child relationships. Telephone access appears
particularly important for parents with school-age children in junior high and high
school who are not in after-school programs. . . ." (Gilbert 110).