More on the Gendered Division of Household Labor: A Response to Commentators

More on the Gendered Division of Household Labor: A Response to Commentators This article is a response to the commentaries made regarding our original article (Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard 2010), which reviewed the state of research on the division of household labor and summarized the main theoretical perspectives used to explain why women continue to complete the larger share of household tasks. In the following pages, we underline how the commentators were helpful in identifying some limitations of the current research on the allocation of household labor and in suggesting relevant paths for future studies. We discuss points on which the commentators agree, such as the need to achieve a better understanding of all forms of inequalities, and points on which they disagree, such as the way researchers should proceed when studying the impact of national context. We also reply to each individual commentary. In response to Coltrane (2010), we discuss the causal loops that exist between gender inequalities in the private and public spheres. We agree with Davis (2010) who proposed that studying the question from other angles could help understand why household labor continues to be divided along gendered lines. We add to Claffey and Manning’s discussion (2010) of the paradox which stems from the fact that couples often perceive an objectively unequal division of household labor as fair to both partners. In conclusion, we take the opportunity to address additional issues related to the division of household labor. For instance, from a clinical psychology standpoint, we discuss how couples who strive to achieve a more egalitarian division of household labor do so. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sex Roles Springer Journals

More on the Gendered Division of Household Labor: A Response to Commentators

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/more-on-the-gendered-division-of-household-labor-a-response-to-k10ANHnoY2
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Subject
Psychology; Gender Studies; Sociology, general; Medicine/Public Health, general
ISSN
0360-0025
eISSN
1573-2762
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11199-010-9885-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article is a response to the commentaries made regarding our original article (Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard 2010), which reviewed the state of research on the division of household labor and summarized the main theoretical perspectives used to explain why women continue to complete the larger share of household tasks. In the following pages, we underline how the commentators were helpful in identifying some limitations of the current research on the allocation of household labor and in suggesting relevant paths for future studies. We discuss points on which the commentators agree, such as the need to achieve a better understanding of all forms of inequalities, and points on which they disagree, such as the way researchers should proceed when studying the impact of national context. We also reply to each individual commentary. In response to Coltrane (2010), we discuss the causal loops that exist between gender inequalities in the private and public spheres. We agree with Davis (2010) who proposed that studying the question from other angles could help understand why household labor continues to be divided along gendered lines. We add to Claffey and Manning’s discussion (2010) of the paradox which stems from the fact that couples often perceive an objectively unequal division of household labor as fair to both partners. In conclusion, we take the opportunity to address additional issues related to the division of household labor. For instance, from a clinical psychology standpoint, we discuss how couples who strive to achieve a more egalitarian division of household labor do so.

Journal

Sex RolesSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 11, 2010

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off