gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 1/9
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Marriage and Family.
http://www.jstor.org
Gender and Family Work in One-Parent HouseholdsAuthor(s): Leslie D. Hall, Alexis J. Walker and Alan C. AcockSource: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp. 685-692Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353923Accessed: 29-05-2015 17:09 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 2/9
LESLIE .
HALL,
ALEXIS .
WALKER,
NDALANC. ACOCK
Oregon
State
University
Gender
and
Family
Work
in One-ParentHouseholds
We
compared
mothers
(n
=
1,433)
and
fathers
(n
=
128)
in
one-parent families from
the
1987-88 National
Survey of
Families
and House-
holds on time
spent
with children
and
in house-
hold work.
Using gender
and
microstructural
the-
ories,
we
hypothesized
that,
compared
with
moth-
ers,
fathers
would
spend
less time
in
private
talks
and more time
in
play
with
children,
and less
time
in
"feminine"
and more time
in "masculine"
household
tasks.
We
analyzed
the data
using
lin-
ear
regression
models,
controlling for
sociode-
mographic
covariates.
Our
findings
support
our
hypotheses and are consistent with gender and
microstructural theories
indicating
that
parenting
behavior
is
gendered.
One-parent
families,
headed
by
an unmarried res-
idential mother or father who lives with one or
more children under the
age
of
18,
are
increasing-
ly
common
(Bumpass
&
Sweet,
1989;
U.S.
Bu-
reau of
the
Census,
1993).
Much as been written
about these
families,
but there has been little em-
pirical
attention to how
they
handle
household
work. Single parenting might be particularlydiffi-
cult
for fathers who are unaccustomed
to the
full
burden
of
family
labor
(Fassinger,
1989).
In
mar-
ried-couple
families,
mothers do the bulk
of
fami-
ly
work,
in
terms
of
both care of children and
Human
Development
and
Family
Sciences,
322
Milam
Hall,
Oregon
State
University,
Corvallis,
OR
97331-5102.
Key
Words:
fathers,
gender,
household
labor,
mothers,
one-
parentfamilies,
parenting, single-parentfamilies.
household tasks
(Acock
&
Demo,
1994).
Who
does that work when the father is the
only
adult in
the
household? Do
single
fathers assume
all re-
sponsibility
for
children themselves?
Do
single
fathers
do the same household tasks that
single
mothers do?
THEORETICAL
ERSPECTIVES
No
matter what
the
family
structure,
there are so-
cially
constructed
expectations
for each
family
member.
Gender
theory suggests
that
gender
is
the primary predictor of individual behavior in
families,
because families
and
other social struc-
tures transmit
advantages according
to
gender
(Ferree,
1990).
As
women
and
men
are
catego-
rized and
stratified,
and
their
similarities down-
played,
roles and behaviors
are
given "gendered
meanings"
(Ferree,
1990,
p.
105).
The
power
that
men have over women
in
society
is reflected at
home,
which is
why
women do more
family
work
than
men,
and
why
women
do
more menial tasks
and
men do more
interesting
ones.
Family
work is
also
seen
as a
way
for
women,
but
not
men,
to ex-
press love. In part, women and men "do gender"
through
the
way they conceptualize family
work,
responding
to
their
own and
societal
expectations
(West
&
Zimmerman,
1987).
Societal
expectations
are relevant
in
one-par-
ent
households,
too. We
may
expect
single
moth-
ers to
keep
a cleaner house than
single
fathers,
and
single
fathers who
keep
a
clean house
may
be
applauded
for
it in
a
way
that
single
mothers
are
not. Gender
theory,
however,
does not
suggest
Journal of
Marriage
and
the
Family
57
(August
1995):
685-692 685
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 3/9
Journal
of
Marriage
and the
Family
that
single
fathers will be unable to meet
their
children's
needs.
Instead,
it
argues
that
they
will
parent
in a
gendered way;
that
is,
single
fathers
will meet their children's needs, but they will do
so
differently
than
single
mothers.
Because
of the
low
status
of
family
work
and
its
identification
with
women,
fathers
will
probably
do
less
than
mothers,
and fathers will do different kinds of
family
work than
mothers do.
Additionally,
fol-
lowing gender
theory,
fathers will
emphasize
play
over
caregiving
activities
when
interacting
with
children,
but
mothers
will
do
the
reverse
(Fassinger,
1993; Lamb,
1986).
A
variation on
gender theory
is
microstruc-
turalism
(Risman, 1987).
Although many
individ-
ualist theories attribute
gendered
parenting
behav-
ior to
personality
differences between
mothers
and
fathers,
microstructural
heory suggests
varia-
tions in
parenting may
be
explained by
other vari-
ables such as
social
class. Risman
(1987)
noted
that "microstructural
theory
in
its most
extreme
manifestation
would
suggest
that
identical behav-
ioral
expectations
and identical
socially
structured
opportunities
would
produce
identical behaviors
in men
and
women"
(pp.
8-9).
Therefore,
mi-
crostructuralism
would
predict
that
single
moth-
ers and single fathers would not differ in meeting
the demands of
caring
for
children,
if
they
were
similar
in
other
ways.
FAMILY
WORK
What is
known about
family
work in
one-parent
families comes
primarily
from
studies
of
small,
voluntary samples,
with
most
information
based
on
data from
single
mothers. A
review of
studies
on
single
fathers with
custody
found
that
fathers
had warm
relationships
with their
children
and
had some knowledge of their development
(Guttman,
1989).
Risman and
Park
(1988)
found
that
single
fathers
centered their
home
lives
around
their
children. On
average,
fathers did
household tasks
with
them,
were
involved
with
them in
leisure
and
play,
took them
on
outings,
and
played
sports
with
them.
Fathers
felt affec-
tionate toward
their
children
and
reported
that
their
children
disclosed their
feelings
to
them,
re-
flecting private
talks.
Thus,
fathers
were
involved
with
their
children
and cared
for them.
This
study,
too,
was
based
on a
nonrepresentative
sample.
A
great
deal of what is known about
family
work
comes
from
studies of
two-parent
families.
This
literature
may
suggest potential
differences
between
single
mothers
and
single
fathers. In
two-parent
households,
mothers
spend
much
more time with
children than fathers
do
(e.g.,
see
Coverman &
Sheley,
1986).
Mothers
spend
a
greater proportion of their time meeting chil-
dren's
practical
needs,
and fathers
spend
a
greater
proportion
of their time
playing
with
children
(Lamb,
1986).
Fathers meet their children's
needs
when mothers are
unavailable, however,
as
would
be
posited
by
microstructural
theory.
For
exam-
ple,
when mothers
are
working
for
pay
in
the
evening,
fathers are at home
taking
care of
their
children
(Nock
&
Kingston,
1988; Presser,
1986,
1988).
For both wives
and
husbands,
the
greater
the
number
of
hours
spent
in
paid
work,
the
smaller
the number of hours
spent
in
family
work
(Cover-
man &
Sheley,
1986).
Regardless
of
employment
hours,
however,
women still do
considerably
more
family
work than men
(Kamo, 1988).
They
also assume
major responsibility
for
"feminine"
tasks-that
is,
tasks that are done
repeatedly
and
at
specific
times,
such as
cooking
and
laundry.
Men do more
"masculine"
tasks-that
is,
tasks
usually
done
at one's convenience and often
in-
volving
some
leisure,
such as household
repairs
and car
washing
(Berk, 1985).
Consistent
with
gender theory, we expect that single mothers will
spend
more
time
than
single
fathers in
feminine
tasks,
and
that fathers will
spend
more time than
mothers in masculine tasks. In
other
words,
in
one-parent
families,
fathers
will
spend
consider-
able time in
household
labor,
but
less
time
than
mothers.
COVARIATES
One-parent
families
vary by gender,
race, income,
and other
demographic
variables.
Most of
these
families are headed by women; no more than 4%
of
African
American,
Hispanic,
and
non-Hispanic
White
families are headed
by
men
(U.S.
Bureau
of the
Census,
1993).
In
comparison
with
single
mothers,
single
fathers have smaller
families and
older
children
(Norton
&
Glick,
1986).
Mothers
are less
likely
than fathers
to have
boys
only
and
more
likely
to
have
girls
only (Meyer
&
Garasky,
1993),
and,
on
average,
mothers have
less
educa-
tion and
are
younger
than
fathers
(Norton
&
Glick,
1986).
As
well,
mothers have
approximate-
ly
half
the
median
family
income of
fathers
(Nor-
ton &
Glick,
1986).
To
address
our research
questions,
we em-
ployed
linear
regression
covariance
models
with
parents' gender
as the
grouping
variable.
Because
686
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 4/9
Gender
and
Family
Work
income,
employment
hours,
race or
ethnicity, age,
and education level
of
parents,
and
age,
gender,
and
number
of
children,
differ in
single-mother
and single-father families, and may be related to
time
spent
in
family
work,
we controlled
for
these
variables
in
our
analyses.
METHODS
Sample
We used
data
from the
National
Survey
of Fami-
lies and Households
(NSFH),
a
probability
sam-
ple
of
13,017
adults
aged
19
and older in the
United States who were
interviewed
in
person
in
1987-88. People in a number of categories were
double-sampled;
these included those
in
one-par-
ent
families,
African
Americans,
Puerto
Rican
Americans,
and
Mexican Americans.
The
re-
sponse
rate
was 74%
(Sweet,
Bumpass,
&
Call,
1988).
To
take
advantage
of
the
oversampling
of
one-parent
families,
we used
unweighted
data in
our
analyses.
We included
as
covariates,
how-
ever,
the
variables used
in the
oversample
design.
The
sample
consisted of
1,561
one-parent
families
in
which
the
respondent completed
the
main interview
and
was
(a)
separated,
divorced,
widowed,
or never
married,
(b)
currently living
with at least one child
aged
5
to
18
years
for a
minimum of 26 weeks in the last 12 months, and
(c)
not
currently residing
with a
spouse
or sexual
partner.
We eliminated
respondents
in households
whenever all children
were under
age
5 because
questions
pertaining
to interaction with children
were
different
in
this
subsample,
and
because
so
few
fathers
had
only
coresidential children
under
age
5 that
analyses
with them
and
comparable
mothers
would have been
inappropriate.
As ex-
pected,
most
(92%)
parents
were
mothers. Table
1
describes the marital
status,
race or
ethnicity,
employment
status,
and
other
characteristics
of
the parents in the
sample.
Table 2 describes char-
acteristics
of the
respondents'
children.
Mothers
were
younger
and
slightly
less
edu-
cated
than
fathers
(see
Table
1).
Mothers
reported
less
income
than
fathers-approximately
50%
or
less within each racial or
ethnic
group-whether
examined
by
mean or median
difference
tests.
Mothers
were more
likely
to have
been continu-
ously single
than
fathers,
and fathers were more
likely
to
have been
widowed. Mothers
and fathers
differed
by
race or
ethnicity.
More
mothers than
TABLE
1.
CHARACTERISTICSOF SINGLE MOTHERS AND
SINGLE
FATHERS
Mothers
Fathers
Mean or Mean or
t
ratio or
Variable
Percentage
n
Percentage
n
%2
Age
34.2
(8.4)
1,433
40.0
(8.2)
128 7.60***
Education
n
years
12.1
(2.4)
1,348
12.9
(2.8)
128
3.40***
Household
ncome
($1,000s)
13.0
(13.1)
1,431
29.2
(20.2)
128
12.68***
African
American 10.6
(9.9)
513 18.6
(9.5)
15
3.09**
White
15.6
(15.0)
749
31.6
(21.6)
102
9.48***
All
othersa
9.4
(9.6)
162
21.6
(8.8)
11
4.10***
Employment
hours
23.2
(21.0) 1,348
40.1
(19.2)
128 8.76***
Number n household 3.3 (1.3) 1,433 2.8 (0.9) 128 -4.25***
Maritalstatus
58.46***
Separated
20%
287 16% 20
Divorced
46%
653 61%
78
Widowed
7%
95 20% 25
Never married
28%
398 4% 5
Race/ethnicity
37.13***
Non-Hispanic
White
52%
749 80%
102
African
American
36%
515 12%
15
All
othersa
11%
162 9% 11
Employment
48.16***
Not
employed
40% 577
12%
15
Employed
part-timeb
8%
117
6% 7
Employed
full-timec
51%
732
83%
106
Note:
Standarddeviations are
shown
in
parentheses
ollowing
means.
aAll
others
ncludes
Hispanic
Americans,
American
Indians,
and
Asian Americans.
bl
to 29
hours
per
week.
C30
or more
hours
per
week.
*p<.05.
**p<.Ol.
***p<.001.
687
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 5/9
Journal
of Marriage
and the
Family
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICSOF CHILDREN IN SINGLE-MOTHER AND SINGLE-FATHER
FAMILIES
Mothers
Fathers
Variable
Percentage
n
Percentage
n
x2
Age
of
children
Any
child
< 5
37 530
13 17
29.16***
Any
child 5-11
52 743
40
51 6.78*
Any
child
12-18 48
694
61 78 7.35*
Gender
composition
6.09*
Boy(s)
only
33 372
44
42
Boy(s)/girl(s)
37 419 26
25
Girl(s)
only
30 335
30 28
Relationship
o
parenta
32.17**
Biological
99
1,417
92
118
Otherb
1 16
8
10
aDataabout
one residentialchild in
respondent's
amily
chosen
alphabetically.
bStep-,adopted, oster,
or
former
partner's
hildren.
*p < .05.
**p<.01.
***p
<
.001.
fathers
were African
American,
and more
fathers
than mothers were
non-Hispanic
White.
Mothers
were less
likely
than
fathers to be
employed,
and
they
worked
fewer
paid
hours
per
week
(M
=
23.2,
SD
=
21.0)
than
fathers
(M
=
40.1,
SD
=
19.2).
The
households
of mothers were
larger
than
those of fathers
(M
=
1.9
children,
SD
=
1
com-
pared
with M
=
1.5,
SD
=
0.7),
and their children
were
younger
(M
=
7.3
years,
SD
=
5.2
compared
with M
=
10,
SD
=
4.5).
More mothers
(37%)
than fathers
(13%)
had
a
residential child
aged
0
to
4
years.
Fathers were more
likely
to have
all
sons
than
mothers,
but mothers were more
likely
to have both
daughters
and
sons,
due
in
part
to fa-
thers
being
more
likely
to
have
only
one
child
(see
Table
2).
Nearly
all
had
biological
children.
Measures
of Dependent
Variables
The first set of dependent variables focused on
time
spent
with
children. The second set of de-
pendent
variables
focused
on
time
in
household
tasks.
Time with
children. Time with
children was
as-
sessed
using
four
self-report
items that asked
"How
often do
you
spend
time with
the children
in
the
following
activities?"
The
four items were:
(a)
in
leisure activities
away
from home
(picnics,
movies,
sports, etc.),
(b)
at home
working
on a
project
or
playing together,
(c)
having private
talks, or (d) helping with reading or homework.
Marsiglio
(1991)
defined
parents
in the first two
instances
as
being
in
a
playmate
role,
and
parents
in
the
second two
instances
as
participating
in ac-
tivities
that were less
play-like.
Answers
ranged
from never
or
rarely
(1)
to
almost
every
day
(6).
These
questions
were asked in homes of
respon-
dents with
at least
one
child
aged
5 to
18,
but
par-
ticipants
responded regarding
all of their
children.
Time with children was also assessed
by
two ad-
ditional
questions:
"How
many days
last
week
did
you
eat
breakfast
[dinner]
with at
least one
of
your
children?"
(Responses
were 0 to 7
days per
week.)
Time in household labor.
Time in
housework was
measured
by
a self-administered
questionnaire
in
which
respondents
estimated the
number
of hours
per
week
they normally
spent
in
household tasks.
The
nine
tasks
were
preparing
meals,
washing
dishes,
cleaning
house,
outdoor
tasks,
shopping,
washing
and
ironing
clothes,
auto
maintenance,
paying bills,
and
driving.
These nine
tasks
were
summed, yielding
the
total number
of
hours in
household tasks per week. In addition, hours in
feminine tasks
(preparing
meals,
washing
dishes,
cleaning
house,
and
washing/ironing),
masculine
tasks
(outdoor
tasks and auto
maintenance),
and
neutral
tasks
(shopping, paying bills,
and
driving)
were
summed;
the latter are not
consistently
asso-
ciated
with either women or
men
(e.g.,
Berk,
1985).
Respondents
with
missing
data
on all
tasks
were
omitted.
We
considered
two
ways
of
dealing
with
missing
data
for the
remaining
respondents.
In the first
approach,
we assumed
that
respondents
with missing data on any particular task did not
spend
any
time on that task.
In
the second
ap-
proach,
we
assigned
them the
average
time on that
task
by
gender.
The
first
approach may
underesti-
688
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 6/9
Gender and
Family
Work
mate,
and the second
approach may
overestimate,
the true time
spent.
The
correlations between the
two
approaches
were over
.90
for
feminine,
mas-
culine, neutral, and total household tasks. The re-
sults of the
regression analyses
were consistent
in
both
approaches.
Here,
for the sums of
feminine,
masculine, neutral,
and
total
tasks,
we
report
the
results
using
the second
approach;
that
is,
partici-
pants
who
responded
for
at least one
task within a
category,
but with
missing
data on one or
more
tasks,
were
given
the mean number
of hours on
that
task,
derived
separately by gender.
Some
respondents'
mean
family
work hours
were
improbably
high.
For
instance,
one
parent
reported
183 hours in household tasks
per
week,
an
average
of 26.1 hours each day. Such estimates
may represent
the
dovetailing
of household
tasks;
that
is,
more
than one task is
performed
simulta-
neously
(see
Berheide,
1984).
Other estimates
may
be due to inflated
reports.
To counteract
po-
tential
problems
due to
overestimates,
all
reports
beyond
2 standard deviations above the mean
were recoded to the mean number of hours
by
gender,
plus
2
standarddeviations.
Measures
of Independent
Variables
In
one-parent
families,
characteristics of the chil-
dren and
of
the
parent may
influence the amount
of time a
parent
spends
with children
and
in
household tasks. These variables were controlled
in
the
analyses.
The total number
of
children
aged
0 to 18 was
entered,
as well as the
presence
of
a
child
under the
age
of
5
(yes
=
1,
no
=
0).
Gender,
age,
and education
(in
years)
of
parent
were also
controlled. Race or
ethnicity
was measured with
two
dummy
variables,
one for
African Americans
and
the other for
Hispanics
and other
non-Whites;
non-Hispanic
White
parents
served
as
the
refer-
ence
group.
Preliminary analyses
show that
gen-
der composition, reflecting the presence of
daughters
and/or
sons in
each
family,
had
no in-
fluence,
so it was
dropped
from the final
analyses.
Number
of
employment
hours was measured con-
tinuously,
as
was
total
household
income,
includ-
ing
investments and dividends. Those
with
miss-
ing
data
on income were
assigned
the median in-
come for their
gender
and
employment
status: not
employed,
part-time
(1
to 29 hours
per
week),
or
full-time
(30
or
more
hours
per
week).
Analyses
We
wanted
to
estimate,
separately
for mothers
and
fathers,
the mean
value for
each of the
depen-
dent variables
of time
with
children
and time
in
household
labor. From the
SAS
general
linear
model
(GLM)
procedure,
we used the least
squares
means statement. In this
way,
we
could
test
for differences between the means
by gender
of
parent,
while
controlling
for other
important
variables
such as number of
children,
household
income,
and
children's
age.
The
GLM
procedure
provides estimates of the means for both mothers
and
fathers as if
they
were
equal
on all
eight
con-
trol variables.
In
this
way,
the
expected
value for
parents
of
each
gender
would be
the
estimated
mean
where the mother or father is
statistically
average
on
all
control variables
(Acock
&
Demo,
1994).
The first GLM series assessed the amount
of time mothers and fathers
spent
with
children
in
designated
activities;
the second assessed the
amount
of time mothers and fathers
spent
in
housework.
TABLE 3. TIME SPENT WITH CHILDREN BY SINGLE MOTHERS AND SINGLE FATHERS
Mothers
Fathers
Variable
Adjusted
Mean n
Adjusted
Mean
n
Time with
childrena
Leisure
away
from home
3.7
1,102
4.0* 111
Projects/play
n
home 4.4
1,103
4.4 111
Private
alks 4.7
1,066
4.3** 111
Help
with homework
4.4
1,103
4.2
111
Meals with
childrenb
Numberof breakfasts
3.5
1,044
3.8
107
Numberof dinners
5.5
1,034
5.2
105
Note: Least
squares
means
estimate the
adjusted
means
for
single
fathers and
single
mothers when
controlling
for the
numberof
children and the
presence
of
a
preschool
child
and
for
the
gender,
age,
education
evel,
household
income, race,
and
employment
statusof the
parent.
aMeasured n
a scale from
never
or
rarely
(1)
to almost
every day
(6).
bNumber
f
days
per
week.
*p<.05.
**p<.01.
689
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 7/9
Journal
of Marriage
and the
Family
TABLE 4. WEEKLY
HOUSEWORK HOURS
BY SINGLE MOTHERS
AND
SINGLE FATHERS
Mothers
Fathers
Variable
Adjusted
Mean n
Adjusted
Mean
n
Feminine tasks
Preparing
meals 10.5
1,283
8.4** 120
Washing
dishes 6.5
1,232
5.3*
115
Cleaning
house 8.2
1,252
5.6***
119
Laundry
4.4
1,271
3.1***
117
Total 29.8
1,306
22.5***
129
Masculine tasks
Outdoor
work 1.8
1,221
3.1*** 118
Maintaining
auto
0.5
1,250
1.3*** 122
Total 2.3
1,298
4.5***
123
Neutral asks
Shopping
3.4
1,279
3.2
124
Paying
bills 2.2
1,272
2.3
120
Driving 2.4 1,275 1.6* 122
Total
8.1
1,325
7.1
124
Total housework 40.3
1,341
34.2** 124
Note: Least
squares
means estimate the
adjusted
means
for
single
mothers and fathers when
controlling
for number
of
childrenand
presence
of
a
preschool
child and for
parent'sgender,
age,
education, ncome, race,
and
employment
hours.
*p<.05.
**p<.01.
***p
<.
001.
RESULTS
Mothers and fathers did not differ
in
the number
of breakfasts or dinners
per
week
they
ate with at
least one of their children.
Mothers and fathers
spent similar amounts of time with children in
other activities. Table
3 shows little difference be-
tween
mothers
and
fathers
in
mean time
spent
with
children when
controlling
for number of
children and the
presence
of a
preschool
child,
and for
parent's gender,
age,
employment
hours,
race, income,
and
education. There were
no
dif-
ferences between mothers and
fathers
on time
spent playing
and
in
home
projects
with
children,
or on time
spent helping
with homework or
read-
ing.
Fathers, however,
spent slightly
more
time
than mothers in
leisure activities
with children
away
from
home,
and mothers
spent slightly
more
time in
private
talks
with children.
Controlling
for
the
eight demographic
vari-
ables,
mothers and
fathers differed in
the time
spent
in
housework,
as
shown
in
Table 4. Moth-
ers
spent
more
time
than fathers in
each feminine
task,
and in
total feminine
tasks. On
average,
mothers
spent
29.8
hours and
fathers
spent
22.5
hours
per
week on feminine
tasks,
a difference of
more than 7
hours
per
week.
Fathers
spent
more time
than mothers in out-
door tasks, maintainingautos, and total masculine
tasks. On
average,
fathers
spent
4.5
hours and
mothers
spent
2.3 hours
per
week
on
masculine
tasks,
a
difference
of
2.2
hours.
Mothers,
howev-
er,
spent
more hours
driving
(adjusted
M
=
2.4)
than fathers
(adjusted
M
=
1.6).
There were
no
differences
between mothers and
fathers
on
time
spent shopping,
or
paying
bills,
or on the sum of
neutral tasks
(see
Table
4).
Overall,
mothers
(ad-
justed
M =
40.3
hours)
spent
6
more hours
per
week in housework than fathers
(adjusted
M =
34.2
hours).
DISCUSSION
Our
findings
are consistent with
gender
theory.
Women
spend
more time with
children,
compared
with
men,
in
ways
consistent with
mothering
(e.g.,
private
interaction)
and in feminine
house-
hold
tasks,
and men
spend
more time with chil-
dren in
ways
consistent
with
fathering
(e.g., play)
and in masculine household tasks. Family work in
one-parent
households,
like
family
work in
two-
parent
households,
is
gendered
(Acock
&
Demo,
1994;
Fassinger,
1993;
Lamb, 1986;
Marsiglio,
1991).
Mothers in
two-parent
families make vast-
ly greater
contributions to child
care
and
house-
work
than their
spouses,
in
part
because the sta-
tuses of
mothers and
fathers in
two-parent
fami-
lies
have
very
different
expectations.
From
microstructural
theory,
we
have
argued
that the roles
of
mothers and
fathers
in
one-parent
families have
similar
expectations,
as do those
of
mothers and fathers in two-parent families when
mothers are not
available.
Regardless
of
family
structure,
fathers do more
family
work when
mothers are not
around.
Nock
and
Kingston
690
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 8/9
Gender and
Family
Work
(1988),
as well
as
Presser
(1986, 1988),
demon-
strated this for
two-parent
families;
our data
demonstrate
this for
one-parent
families.
Togeth-
er, these studies suggest that the less mothers are
available,
the more
fathers
do.
Thus,
our
finding
that
single-parent
mothers and
fathers
are more
similar than the literature
reports
for
two-parent
mothers
and fathers is critical.
Spending
less time in
family
work
may
not
have
implications
for the
well-being
of children
or for
parent-child
relationships.
From our find-
ings,
we
may
conclude neither that
mothers
spend
too much time
doing family
work,
nor that fathers
spend
too little time.
We
may
conclude
only
that
the
meaning
and value
of
family
work are tied to
gender.
Erickson
(1993)
and others
(e.g.,
Hochschild, 1989;
West &
Zimmerman,
1987)
have
argued
that
being
the
caretaker of
family
members
is seen
by
women,
and more
broadly by
society,
as
something
women are
rather than
as
something
they
do.
Conversely,
caretaking
is
something
that
fathers,
even
single
fathers,
do
rather than
something
that
they
are. The
meaning
of the
activity
differs
by
virtue of the
gender
of
the
actor.
Consequently,
the
family
labor of
women and
men
both
shapes
and is
shaped by
so-
cial constructions of gender.
We draw attention to the fact that other
vari-
ables besides
gender
of
parent
influence time
spent
with children and in housework. Our
analy-
ses
control for a
large
number
of
these variables.
Younger
parents,
those
employed
fewer
hours,
and those with
younger
children
spend
more time
with
children. These attributes are more
descrip-
tive of
single
mothers than
single
fathers. Parents
with more
children,
those
with
younger
children,
and those
employed
fewer hours
spend
more time
in
housework.
Again,
these are attributes of
single
mothers. In general, then, by controlling for de-
mographic
variables,
we underestimate the time
that most
single
mothers
spend,
and overestimate
the time that most
single
fathers
spend,
both with
children
and
in
housework.
This
study
is limited
by
the use
of
relatively
narrow measures of
interaction with
children,
and
by
the exclusion
of measures of
responsibility
from
the assessments of
household labor.
These
limitations
are
offset
by
our
use
of
data from a
large-scale,
nationally representative survey.
A
further
advantage
of our
study
is that mothers
and
fathers
reported
on their own activities.
In
conclusion,
unlike
mothers
and
fathers in
two-parent
households,
mothers and fathers in
one-parent
households do
not differ
greatly
in
their interaction with children.
As in
two-parent
families, however,
household
work in
one-parent
families
is
highly
gendered.
NOTE
The
National
Survey
of Families and Households
was
funded
by
CPR-NICHHD Grant HD21009. NSFH was
designed
and carried out
by
the Center for
Demography
and
Ecology
at
the
University
of Wisconsin-Madison
under the direction
of
Larry Bumpass
and James Sweet.
We thank
Aphra
Katzev,
David
Allison,
Leslie
Richards,
and Sarah Satre
for their contributions to this
article.
Correspondence
concerning
this article
should
be
addressed
to Alexis Walker.
REFERENCES
Acock,
A.
C.,
&
Demo,
D. H.
(1994).
Family
diver-
sity
and
well-being. Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Berheide,
C. W.
(1984).
Women's work in
the
home: Seems
like old times.
In B. B.
Hess &
M. B.
Sussman
(Eds.),
Women and the
family:
Two decades
of
change
(pp.
37-55).
New
York:
Haworth
Press.
Berk,
S. F.
(1985).
The
gender
factory:
The
appor-
tionment
of
work in American households.
New York:
Plenum Press.
Bumpass,
L.
L.,
&
Sweet,
J. A.
(1989).
National
esti-
mates
of cohabitation.
Demography,
26,
615-625.
Coverman,
S.,
&
Sheley,
J. F.
(1986).
Change
in
men's housework and childcare time, 1965-1975. Jour-
nal
of Marriage
and the
Family,
48,
413-422.
Erickson,
R.
J.
(1993).
Reconceptualizing
family
work:
The
effect
of
emotion
work on
perceptions
of
marital
quality.
Journal
of Marriage
and
the
Family,
55,
888-900.
Fassinger,
P. A.
(1989).
The
impact
of
gender
and
past
marital
experiences
on
heading
a household alone.
In B.
J.
Risman & P. Schwartz
(Eds.),
Gender
in
inti-
mate
relationships:
A
microstructural
approach
(pp.
165-180).
Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Fassinger,
P. A.
(1993).
Meanings
of
housework for
single
fathers
and mothers:
Insights
into
gender inequal-
ity.
In J.
C. Hood
(Ed.),
Men, work,
andfamily
(pp.
195-
216). Newbury Park,
CA:
Sage.
Ferree,
M. M.
(1990).
Beyond separate
spheres:
Feminism and
family
research. Journal
of
Marriage
and
the
Family,
52,
866-884.
Guttman,
J.
(1989).
The
divorced
father: A review
of
the issues and the research. Journal
of Comparative
Family
Studies,
22,
247-261.
Hochschild,
A.
R.,
with
Machung,
A.
(1989).
The
second
shift.
New
York:
Viking.
Kamo,
Y.
(1988).
Determinants of
household divi-
sion of labor:
Resources,
power,
and
ideology.
Journal
of Family
Issues, 9,
177-200.
Lamb,
M.
E.
(1986).
The
changing
roles of
fathers.
In M.
E.
Lamb
(Ed.),
The
father's
role:
Applied per-
spectives
(pp.
3-27).
New York:
Wiley
& Sons.
Marsiglio, W. (1991). Paternalengagement activities
with
minor children. Journal
of
Marriage
and
the Fami-
ly,
53,
973-986.
691
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 gender and family work one parent houselods.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gender-and-family-work-one-parent-houselodspdf 9/9
Journal
of
Marriage
and the
Family
Meyer,
D.
R.,
&
Garasky,
S.
(1993).
Custodial
fa-
thers:
Myths,
realities,
and
child
support policy.
Journal
of Marriage
and the
Family,
55,
73-89.
Nock,
S.
L.,
&
Kingston,
P. W.
(1988).
Time
with
children: The
impact
of couples' work-time commit-
ment. Social
Forces,
67,
59-85.
Norton,
A.
J.,
&
Glick,
P. C.
(1986).
One-parent
families: A
social
and economic
profile.
Family
Rela-
tions,
35,
9-17.
Presser,
H. B.
(1986).
Shift
work
among
American
women and child care. Journal
of
Marriage
and
the
Family,
48,
551-563.
Presser,
H. B.
(1988).
Shift work and child care
among
young
dual-earner American
parents.
Journal
of
Marriage
and the
Family,
50,
133-148.
Risman,
B.
J.
(1987).
Intimate
relationships
from
a
microstructural
perspective:
Men who mother.
Gender
and
Society,
1,
6-32.
Risman,
B.
J.,
&
Park,
K.
(1988).
Just the two
of us:
Parent-childrelationships in one-parent homes. Journal
of
Marriage
and
the
Family,
50,
1049-1062.
Sweet, J.,
Bumpass,
L.,
&
Call,
V.
(1988).
The
de-
sign
and content
of
the National
Survey of
Families
and
Households
(Working Paper
NFSH-1).
Madison:
Uni-
versity
of
Wisconsin,
Center for
Demography
and
Ecol-
ogy.
West, C.,
&
Zimmerman,
D.
H.
(1987).
Doing
gen-
der. Gender and
Society,
1,
125-151.
U.S.
Bureau
of the Census.
(1993).
Statistical
ab-
stracts
of
the United States:
1993
(113th
ed.).
Washing-
ton,
DC:
Government
Printing
Office.
FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION
CURRICULUM
GUIDELINES
REVISED
AND
EXPANDED
Offers
guidelines
for
developing
or
assessing
family
life
education
programs
over
the
life
span.
A
must-have
for
anyone
involved in
family
life education
program
development
or
assessment.
Editor
David
J.
Bredehoft,
Ph.D.,
has
revised
and
expanded
the
contents
of
the
NCFR
Family
Life
Education
Curriculum
Guidelines
to include
a
number
of
excellent resources for
anyone
working
in
family
life
education.
Contents include:
University
and
College
Curriculum
Guidelines,
A
Framework
for
Life-Span Family Life Education, a
K-12
sexuality
curriculum
guide,
an
evaluation
guide,
a
parent
education
program
guide,
and
family
life education
references and
resources.
Price
to
be
announced.
Contact
the
NCFR
office
for
ordering
information.
National
Council on
Family
Relations
3989 Central
Ave.
N.E.,
#550
Minneapolis, MN 55421
(612)
781-9331
*
FAX
(612)
781-9348
E-mail:
Y o u
a n
H a v e
t A l l
W i t h
u d i o
T a p e s
Individual
Tapes
Only
$8.50
Take full advantage of the 1994 NCFR 56th
Annual
Conference
"Families and
Justice:
From
Neighborhoods
to Nations"
-
Nov. 8-
13,
1994,
Minneapolis,
MN.
Plenaries,
workshops,
Research
Updates
for
Practitioners,
Special
Panel on
Native
American
Families,
symposia
and
paper
sessions are
available on
high-quality
audio
cassettes.
Choose from over 80
recorded
sessions.
For
a
complete
listing
contact:
Custom
Audio
Tapes
888 Corporation Street
Bridgeport,
IL
62417
1-800-798-0986
I __ _ __ _
692
r I ?L 4v?
ii AI)Tr
III
This content downloaded from 132 248 9 8 on Fri 29 May 2015 17:09:32 UTC