Gendered Resources, Division of Housework, and Perceived Fairness-A Case in Urban China

Article excerpt

Drawing upon equity and gender theories, we investigate Chinese couples' perceived fairness of the wife's disproportionately heavy household responsibility. Data come from in-depth interviews with 39 married couples in Beijing during the summer of 1998. Although housework division remained unequal among dual-earner couples, the majority of wives and husbands saw it as fair. We explore the notion of gendered resources by examining husbands' and wives' opinions about both paid and domestic work. We find that husband's breadwinner role and wife's housekeeper role retain their primary place in the family and that gender-role expectations produce gendered resources to both wives and husbands. These expectations release both the husbands, who have fulfilled the provider role, from the obligation to share housework equally, and the wives, who combine paid and domestic work, from an equal responsibility of breadwinning. Therefore, the failure to bring adequate gendered resources to a marriage, rather than the unequal distribution of housework, causes a sense of unfairness.

Key Words: gendered resources, housework, perceived fairness, urban Chinese couples.

NOTE

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Chicago, August 1998. The project was partially supported by American Philosophical Society.

[Reference]

REFERENCES

[Reference]

Andors, P. (1983). The unfinished liberation of Chinese women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Beijing Municipal Statistical Bureau. (1999). Beijing statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistical Publishing House.

Bian, Y., Shu, X., & Logan, J. R. (2000). Wage and job inequalities in the working careers of men and women in Tianjin. In B. Entwisle & G. Henderson (Eds.), Redrawing boundaries: Gender, households, and work in China (pp. 111-133). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives. New York: Free Press.

Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and

[Reference]

the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652-688.

Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64, 333-355.

Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework, and gender equity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Curtis, R. E (1986). Household and family in theory of inequality. American Sociological Review, 51, 168183.

[Reference]

Daly, K. (1992). The fit between qualitative research and characteristics of families. In J. F Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 3-11). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

England, P, & Farkas, G. (1986). Households, employment, and gender: A social, economic and demographic view. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

England, P, & Kilbourne, B. S. (1990). Markets, marriages, and other mates: The problem of power. In R. Friedland & A. E Robertson (Eds.), Beyond the marketplace: Rethinking economy and society (pp. 163188). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Feng, L., Anderson, A., Wang, S., & Zhang, J. (1995). Research on marriage, family and women's status in Beijing. Beijing: Beijing Economic Institute.

Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866-884.

Ferree, M. M. (1991). The gender division of labor in two-earner marriages. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 158-179.

Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Viking Penguin.

Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind. New York: Metropolitan Books.

[Reference]

Humans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace. …