Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Equity but not Equality: Commentary on Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard

  • Feminist Forum
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard (2010) review the research concerning the division of household labor that has been published between 2000 and 2009, with special emphasis placed on micro-level and macro-level perspectives and on methodological considerations. This commentary suggests that perceived fairness is an important factor that cannot be separated from the impact of division of household labor. Women perform the majority of household labor, yet the majority of both men and women view this unequal division to be fair. In the past, perceived fairness has been linked to both mental and relationship health. Perceived fairness is discussed from a micro-level and macro-level perspective and in terms of methodological considerations using research primarily published within the last decade.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 181–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botkin, D. R., Weeks, M. O. N., & Morris, J. E. (2000). Changing marriage role expectations: 1961–1996. Sex Roles, 42, 933–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, M., Lewin-Epstein, N., Stier, H., & Baumgärtner, M. K. (2008). Perceived equity in the gendered division of household labor. Journal of Marriage & Family, 70, 1145–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claffey, S. T., & Mickelson, K. D. (2009). Division of household labor and distress: The role of perceived fairness for employed mothers. Sex Roles, 60, 819–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review, 69, 751–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gager, C. T. (2008). What’s fair is fair? Role of justice in family labor allocation decisions. Marriage & Family Review, 44, 511–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gager, C. T., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2006). Distributive justice in the household: A comparison of alternative theoretical models. Marriage & Family Review, 40(2–3), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist, C. (2005). The welfare state and the home: Regime differences in domestic division of labour. European Sociological Review, 21, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T. (2009). National context, family satisfaction, and fairness in the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1039–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause or consequence of marital distress? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Gibson, R. H. (1982). Sex-role attitudes: 1972–1980. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 656–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Role. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9797-z.

  • Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and martial quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family, 6, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. The American Journal of Sociology, 100, 506–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordenmark, M., & Nyman, C. (2003). Fair or unfair? Perceived fairness of household division of labor and gender equality among women and men. The Swedish case. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 10, 181–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Labor. (2009). Quick stats on women workers, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm.

  • United States Department of Labor. (2010). Employment characteristics of families, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf.

  • Van Willigen, M., & Drentea, P. (2001). Benefits of equitable relationships: The impact of sense of fairness, household divisions of labor, and decision making power on perceived social support. Sex Roles, 44, 571–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1999). The intersection of time in activities and perceived unfairness in relation to psychological distress and marital quality. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61, 739–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuo, J., & Bian, Y. (2001). Gendered resources, division of housework, and perceived fairness-A case in Urban China. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1122–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon T. Claffey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Claffey, S.T., Manning, K.R. Equity but not Equality: Commentary on Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard. Sex Roles 63, 781–785 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9848-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9848-5

Keywords

Navigation