evolving toward independence (?): long-term changes in canadian elderly women’s residential...
TRANSCRIPT
Evolving toward independence (?): Long-term changes in Canadian elderly women’s residential
patterns, 1852-1911
Lisa Dillon, PRDH, Université de Montréal
Literature & Project
Canada: elderly in institutions; community studies; co-residential patterns 1871 & 1901; prolonged co-residence dependent kids with elderly compared to U.S.
U.S.: Recent publications on sharp decline in intergenerational co-residence, opportunities for kids, declining patriarchal power
Role of elderly women in transformation of intergenerational relations between 19th & 20th centuries less understood than that of men
Previous lack of a continuous census data series for Canada to study long-term change
Canadian historical census data series
New census data sources for Canada permitting us to construct a data series, à la IPUMS
So far, 1852, (not yet 1861), 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911
1921, 1931, 1941, 1951 now available at research data sources (analysis to come soon)
U. of York, U. of Victoria, U. of Ottawa, U. de Montréal, U of Guelph, Memorial U. of Nfld, U du Québec à TR, U of Toronto, U of Alberta, U. Laval, + U du Québec à Chic., McGill U., & NAPP (MPC, U of Minn.) & Stats Can & LAC
Hypotheses Over time: increasing % head; decreasing %
parent; increasing diversity of living arrangements
Headship & age: Negative Headship & living in Ontario: Positive Headship & Canadian-Catholic: Negative ***Associations themselves not as interesting
as the periodization of change + whether the strength of these associations are constant over time
Change over time?
1852 1871 1881 1891 1901 19110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 1: Percent distribution of women 65+ by hou-sehold status and year, 1852-1911 CanadaAll other (including other
nonrelative)Boarder, lodger, tenant, no childrenServant or labourerOther relativeSibling/sib-in-law of household headWidowed parent or parent-in-law of household head*Head of household, children presentHead of household, no children presentMarried parent or parent-in-law of household headSpouse of household head, no children present
Spouse of head no kids
Head no kidsHead, with kids
Spouse of head with kids
• 1852: Ontario & Québec only; 1871: ON, QC, NS & NB only
• 1852: dwelling level only ; 1881 : household level only• 1852, 1871 & 1881: relationship to head inferred
(conservative vs liberal estimates of co-residence?) ; 1891, 1901 & 1911: original question; 1852: family member/non-member question
Comparability of data across time ??
Parent/parent-in-law of head
1852 dw 1871 dw 1881 hh 1891 dw 1901 dw 1911 dw0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% Distribution widowed/never-married women 65+
by dwelling headship & province, 1852-1911 Canada
New Brunswick Nova Scotia PEI
Quebec Ontario Manitoba
British Columbia
• Shift to dwelling head, for comparability (except 1881)• Note: % of wid/nev-marr 65+hh heads who also
headed the dwelling: 1911:94%; 1901:96%; 1891:94%; 1871:82% (!)
• 1871 Quebec: 36% are hh heads but only 27% dwelling heads
• Nature of dwelling complexity changes (related to unrelated?)
• (in 1852, manual inspection does not « create » many more aged female heads…; large families often interrelated…)
Ont
QC
NB, NS, QC, Man
Ont elderly women consistentlyheading dwellings in high(est) %’s
hh
Bivariate analysis, dwelling heads, 1852 & 1911 contrasted
+ young-old + widowed (not single+
No servant present) + Rural non-farm + Protestant born in
Scotland; by 1911 Protestant
+ Occupation listed or « rentière/bourgeois/ income »
(1852: no meaningful pattern re: dwelling type construction)
Widows/Nev Marr 65+ Women: Dwelling Head 1852 1911All 15 3165-69 19 3870-74 16 3175-80 13 2780+ 10 21Widowed 18 33Never Married 4 18
Young-old relative gains;
closing gap
between widowed
& nev married
Table 6: Logistic regression on the probability of heading a household
by select characteristics, widows & never-married women aged 65+ years,
1852 & 1911 Ontario & Québec Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
1852 & 19111852 & 1911 1852 only 1911 only
Exp (B) Sig Exp (B) SigExp (B) Sig Exp (B) Sig
1852 0.44 0 0.584 0 1911 1 1
Quebec residence 0.6980.00
1 0.8120.38
2 0.6610.00
1Ontario residence 1 1 1 Never married .275 0 .149 0 .312 0Widowed 1 1 1 65-69 1 1 1
70-74 0.702 0 0.8360.35
7 0.667 0
75-80 0.615 0 0.6780.09
2 0.595 080+ 0.433 0 0.429 0 0.428 0
Covariates: age, marital status, religion&birthplace, rural-urban-farm status, province, occupation or “rentière”, servants present
covariates only partially explain ↑ prov’l
diff
↑age diff
↓marst
Table 6: Logistic regression on the probability of heading a household
by select characteristics, widows & never-married women aged 65+ years,
1852 & 1911 Ontario & Québec
Model 3 Model 4
1852 only 1911 only
Exp (B) Sig Exp (B) Sig
Protestant-England & Wales 1.195 0.687 1.545 0.024
Protestant-Scotland 2.377 0.01 2.443 0
Protestant-Ireland 1.796 0.11 1.885 0.002
Catholic-Ireland 0.838 0.688 2.463 0
Protestant-Canada 2.119 0.067 1.703 0
United States 1.733 0.082 1.487 0.181
Else 1.211 0.491 1.666 0.002
Catholic-Canada 1 1
Protestants definitively more likely to head; province remains significant
Table 6: Logistic regression on the probability of heading a household
by select characteristics, widows & never-married women aged 65+ years,
1852 & 1911 Ontario & Québec Model 3 Model 4 1852 only 1911 only
Exp (B) Sig Exp (B) Sig
Living in city 3,000+ persons 16.596 0 6.815 0Rural nonfarm 36.724 0 13.045 0Rural farm 1 1
Occupation 4.782 0 6.841 0
Rentière/Bourgoise 1.866 0.086 2.878 0No occupation 1 1
Servant(s) present 0.977 0.902 0.454 0No servant present 1 1
more headship across contexts
occupation/personal wealth more advantageous
? usually elite=headship
Conclusions The particular changes observed were not
unexpected, but what is new is understanding: the timing of change: much change happening
between 1852 & 1891 (?); the 1891 to 1911 period more stable
the intersection of changes: as more elderly women heading households, we also see: More empty-nests, decline of two parents with dependent kids Parent-in-law of head replacing parent of head (nature
of being parent changing) the continued regionality of these patterns
(Ontario vanguard?)
Importance of data series: periodizing headship increase ….? influence of Married Women’s Property
Acts which liberalized women’s investments & property ownership (P. Baskerville 2008)
1852 dw 1871 dw 1881 dw? 1891 dw 1901 dw 1911 dw0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% widowed/nev-married women 65+ heading dwellings, by province, 1852-1911 Canada
New BrunswickNova ScotiaPEIQuebecOntarioON
1884
NB 1877
NS 1884
PEI 1903
QC 1931…
“The 1880s legislation was most definitely facilitative and catalytic in effect. "
Elderly widows & single women, & dwelling headship: Relationship to other histories: Hastening of French-Canadian family life cycle (early
marriages) + Outmigration of French-Canadian youths to Montréal,
New England + early ages at marriage = French Canadian elderly women lose « window of
opportunity » for household headship 20th-century decline in intergenerational co-residence:
Children’s exits as much about escaping matriarchal rule as patriarchal rule
As much about women’s growing opportunities to self-finance household headship
Two complementary developments As much about competing cultural & regional norms (which
date back at least as far as 1852)
Table 1: Percent distribution of elderly women by relationship to dwelling/household head, women aged 65+
years, 1852 to 1911 Canada
ONTARIO & QUEBEC 1852 1871 1881 1891 1901 1911Head 10 20 20 18 20 19Spouse 27 38 33 35 35 30Parent or parent-in-law 36-46 38 33 30 32 29 Parent* 19 22 20 26 24 21 Parent-in-law (inferred)* 17-25 16 13 4 8 6Other Relatives 14-6 3 5 4 6 9Employees 2 1 0 2 2 2Other & indeterminate 12-11 1 8 12 5 11Total 3077 670 61803 3655 4624 5950
• 1852 question on household membership → min. and max. bounds
• 1871 & 1881 show max. bounds ; comparing maximum bounds suggests:1. Real ↓ in % living as parent of head, but timed
between 1852 & 18812. Post-1881 shift is from parent to parent-in-law (1891 to
1911 stats reliable)
1891 1901 19110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent distribution of women 65+ by household status and year, 1891-1911
Canada All other (including other nonrelative)
Servant or labourer
Boarder, lodger, tenant, no children
Other relative
Sibling/sib-in-law of household head
Widowed parent or parent-in-law of household head*
Married parent or parent-in-law of household head
Head of household, no children present
Head of household, children present
Spouse of household head, no children present
Spouse of household head, children present
• Little change over time ; directly comparable measures; subtle shifts
Changing destinies???
1852 1871 1881 1891 1901 19110%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 1: Percent distribution of women 65+ by household status and year, 1852-1911
Canada All other (including other nonrelative)Boarder, lodger, tenant, no childrenServant or labourerOther relativeSibling/sib-in-law of household headWidowed parent or parent-in-law of household head*Head of household, children presentHead of household, no children presentMarried parent or parent-in-law of household headSpouse of household head, no children presentSpouse of household head, children present
• Rise in % empty nest• Early rise in % heading households• Decline in % parent of head, from 44% to 32%• Rise in those living in « other » living arrangements
Empty nest
Head of household
Parent of household head