Understanding work and family through a gender lens

Abstract

Since gender change is reshaping work and family life, a gender lens is needed to understand work–family links and transformations. A gender lens enriches the study of work and family issues by prodding researchers to transcend gender stereotypes, to see gender as an institution, to recognize the multifaceted nature of recent social change, and to acknowledge the strengths and needs of diverse family forms. A gender framework also helps researchers focus on the link between individuals and institutions, the dynamics of social and individual change, and the structural and cultural tensions created by inconsistent change. This framework is illustrated with selected findings from my research on young women's and men's experiences growing up in diverse families and their emerging strategies for integrating family and work.

Etant donné que l'évolution du concept de différence sexuelle transforme actuellement vie professionnelle et vie de famille, un nouvel angle optique sur la question doit être utilisé pour comprendre les différents liens entre la sphère professionnelle et la sphère familiale ainsi que leurs transformations. Emprunter une telle optique enrichit l'études des problèmes professionnels et familiaux parce qu'elle incite les chercheurs à transcender les stéréotypes liés à cette différence des sexes, à considérer cette dernière comme une institution plutôt qu'un attribut individuel, à reconnaître les multiples aspects de cette récente évolution sociale et à admettre la force et les besoins de structures familiales différentes. Un tel cadre d'analyse aide aussi les chercheurs à se focaliser sur le lien entre individus et institutions, sur les dynamiques de transformations sociales et individuelle et sur les tensions structurelles et culturelles que crée cette transformation inégale. Ce nouveau cadre d'analyse se trouve ici présenté à travers une sélection de découvertes faites au cours de ma recherche actuelle qui porte sur les expériences d'hommes et de femmes élevés dans des familles atypiques et sur les stratégies identitaires que ces hommes et ces femmes ont adopté afin d'équilbrer vie de famille et vie professionnelle.

Keywords:

• gender
• work
• family
• children
• life course
• social change
• social policy

Notes

In the mid‐1950s, the paradigm of separate spheres gained ascendence when Talcott Parsons and Robert Bales (1955) argued that the breadwinner–homemaker family provided a way for women to specialize in the ‘expressive function’ of domestic caretaking while men specialized in the ‘instrumental function’ of supporting the household through paid work.

Although working‐class and poor women have always been employed outside the home in substantial numbers, the proportion of American women in the paid labour force only rose above 50 per cent, which might be considered a ‘tipping point’, in the 1970s. As the breadwinner–homemaker household began to erode as both a cultural ideal and a demographic reality, new paradigms emerged that focused on the links — and conflicts — between work institutions and family life as well as the ways work–family conflicts contributed to gender inequality. Epstein's (1970) study of the dilemmas facing professional women and Rapoport and Rapoport's (1976) study of dual‐earner families were among the first to point to the mounting challenges emerging as women joined the workforce in increasing numbers. An early example of the newly emerging ‘work–family’ paradigm, which focused on socially structured gender inequality, is Rosabeth Kanter's classic study, Men and women of the corporation (1977).

The term ‘gender’ has a long and complex history. Feminist sociologists, among others, generally use it to refer to the ways that inequalities and differences between women and men are institutionalized and socially and culturally constructed. The term serves as an alternative to the concept ‘sex’, which more directly refers to biological domains, and ‘sex roles’, which implies a functional analysis of ‘complementary’ social roles. (See, for example, Stacey and Thorne, 1985.)

Indeed, if gender equity issues were explicitly built into family research and social policy, as is commonly done in some European countries, then conceptions of family and child welfare could and would be considered in broader and more effective ways.

For simplicity's sake, this paper uses the term ‘work’ to refer to work performed for pay, even though unpaid domestic activities are surely a form of labour as well.

Frameworks that posit differences in women's and men's orientations toward caring for others and defining the self are especially likely to be found in psychological approaches, such as Carol Gilligan's argument that women share an ‘ethic of care’ in contrast to men's ‘ethic of rights’ (Gilligan, 1982).

Michael Kimmel (2000) presents a summary of findings about women's and men's overlapping curves. R. W. Connell (1995) provides an analysis of the variety of forms of ‘masculinities’ in the postmodern world, and Scott Coltrane (1996) details the variety of men's family strategies. My research also emphasizes the diversity of work and family strategies emerging among contemporary women and men (Gerson, 1985, 1993, 2001).

An example of the tendency to use social science to send a cautionary message to young women can be found in Sylvia Hewlett's recent book, Creating a life, which exaggerates the costs of work achievement to women (Hewlett, 2002). Another example is a recent, highly misleading article, entitled ‘Opt Out Revolution’, which proclaimed on the cover of the New York Times Magazine that women are ‘abandoning the climb and heading home’ (Belkin, 2003). In fact, women's ties to paid work are stronger than ever (see Gerson, 2003). Franke‐Ruta (2002) offers a telling critique of Hewlett's reasoning and statistical analysis.

For example, family‐friendly workplace policies that create ‘mommy tracks’ reinforce an unequal structure of parenting and assume that women alone should be asked to sacrifice career opportunities for parenting involvement.

See, for example, Williams (1999).

Moore, Chalk, Scarpa, and Vandiverre (2002) report good news about some aspects of family change, including rising closeness between parents and children.

Despite the continuing concern over working mothers, decades of research have failed to demonstrate any significant short‐ or long‐term harm to children. The quality of childcare arrangements, mothers' satisfaction with their situation, and fathers' involvement are far more important than a mother's work status (Harvey, 1999; Hoffman, 1987).

For a focus on the importance of marriage, see, for example, Blankenhorn (1994), Poponoe (1989), Poponoe, Elshtain, and Blankenhorn (1996), Waite (2000), and Waite and Gallagher (2000).

A recent cover of New York Magazine thus asks, ‘Who’s the Better Mom?' and refers to ‘the growing conflict … between working and stay‐at‐home mothers’ (Gardner, 2002). This putative conflict between employed and non‐employed mothers is rooted in social arrangements that leave both groups facing ‘damned‐if‐you‐do and damned‐if‐you‐don’t' dilemmas. Married working mothers are criticized for ‘neglecting’ their children, while the non‐employed are seen as ‘just a housewife’. Poor, single mothers, on the other hand, are forced by policies such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to seek a paid job despite a lack of childcare. Gerson (1985) and Hays (1997) discuss the structural roots of these cultural conflicts and contradictions.

A distinction can be made between taking a moral perspective — for example, asking how social institutions can provide the conditions for human liberty or social equality — and judging individual choices when these conditions are not available. Similarly, normative orientations, which refer to the values of social analysts, can be distinguished from explanatory frameworks, which provide the theoretical structure for explaining how and why social patterns emerge. Conservatives and liberals who disagree about the ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of specific work–family arrangements may not necessarily disagree about the causes or contours of these outcomes, although the language they use is likely to convey different moral concerns. See Acock and Demo (1994), Cancian (1987), Coontz (1997), Skolnick (1991), and Stacey (1990) for discussions of the politics of family change.

A historical perspective reminds us that social practices we now take for granted were once considered morally suspect. Across the political spectrum, for example, employed women have been criticized for hiring others to perform childcare and housework. Yet the ‘commodification’ of family work has a long social history, and many activities once performed at home are now performed in the marketplace with no social outcry. Few would argue, for example, that women should still produce clothing for their families. In the context of irreversible change, social policies that create fair work conditions for those who are paid to care for children are more likely to enhance social and individual welfare than chastising women for purchasing childcare services or precooked meals. (See Bergmann, 1987, and Helburn and Bergmann, 2002, for a defence of childcare and Crittenden, 2001, for a defence of the value of unpaid domestic work.)

For a life course perspective on work and family, see, especially, Moen (2003).

Anthony Giddens (1979) discusses how ‘structural contradictions’ provide a critical point for studying the relationship between action and structure.

See Epstein, Seron, Oglensky, and Saute (1998) and Williams (1999) for considerations of how contemporary ‘time norms’ create workplaces where less than full‐time (and overtime) workers are treated as ‘time deviants’.

Respondents were selected by a random sampling procedure from a range of urban and suburban neighbourhoods in the New York metropolitan area. Most were chosen as part of a larger study of the children of immigrants and native‐born Americans. To assure that the parents of my respondents had grown up amid the changing family circumstances of American society, my sample was drawn entirely from the native‐born group. To enlarge the number of respondents with a college education, I supplemented this sample with a smaller random selection of recent enrollees at a local college. The full sample includes respondents from a range of ethnic identifications (with 54 per cent non‐Hispanic White, 21 per cent Black, 18 per cent Hispanic, and 7 per cent Asian) and class backgrounds (with 43 per cent from middle‐ and upper‐middle‐class households, 42 per cent from working‐class homes, and 15 per cent from homes that hovered in or close to the poverty level). The average age is 24, and five per cent claim a lesbian or gay identity. See Mollenkopf, Kasinitz, and Waters (1997), for a description of the sampling techniques used in the Second Generation study.

Since the sample size is small, these percentages describe the sample breakdown but should not be interpreted as strictly representative.

These findings suggest that, despite significant ethnic and class differences, women and men across a range of backgrounds are developing some similarities in their work and family ideals. There is great variation, however, in the economic and cultural resources different groups possess to achieve these ideals.

Gornick and Myers (2001, 2003) place American work–family policies in cross‐national perspective and conclude that many European countries have done a much better job than the USA in creating policies that support ‘dual‐earner, dual‐caring families’. Williams (1999) considers the ways that American social policy can create a new ‘ideal worker’ model that does not presume full‐time and overtime commitment. Jacobs and Gerson (2004) show how and why American workers put in longer workweeks than their European peers and consider a range of policies to ease the time dilemmas facing contemporary American workers.

Kathleen Gerson, PhD is Professor and past Chair of Sociology at New York University Department of Sociology. Her major interests include gender, the family, work–family linkages, human development over the life course, social and individual change processes, qualitative research methods. Selected works include No man's land: Men's changing commitments to family and work (Basic Books, 1993); Hard choices: How women decide about work, career, and motherhood (University of California Press, 1985); and Networks and places: Social relations in the urban setting, with Claude S. Fischer (Free Press, 1977). Kathleen Gerson and Jerry Jacobs have co‐authored the book, The time divide: Work, family and gender inequality (Harvard University Press, 2004). Address: Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA.