Essay on The Comparative Advantage of Sexual Divisions of Labor

”since the beginning of civilization, in every known society, governments have recognized a marriage between a man and a woman because it provides the next generation outstanding citizens and is the only means of melding two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole” (Kaufman 164).

Social reproduction refers to the continuous intergenerational physically and emotionally exhausting household labour that is needed to maintain life (Trotz, lecture, Jan 13, 2016). This kind of labour though is considered to be a woman’s duty. Since an economic activity happens where there is a market, social reproduction is not considered as one as it doesn’t have a visible market. Even though, it doesn’t have market value, domestic work greatly contribute to the economy (Waring, 2013). Since this work is done in homes and by women who are usually marginalized, it remains invisible and thus not considered for pay. This kind of work depends on the traditional division of labour in which women are seen as housewives while men, breadwinners. Thus, the gendering of social reproduction is a result of “doing gender,” where women’s abilities to be mothers are naturalized (Coltrane, 1989); in other words, women are made to fit into the simplistic “domestic = family = heterosexual woman = care and love” equation (Manalansan & Martin, 2008, p.2), while any man who does the caring work in a family is feminized and considered a lesser man (Coltrane, 1989).Thus, a woman’s femininity depends on her motherhood while a man’s masculinity depends on “not doing mother’s work” (Coltrane, 1989, p.473).

Dating back throughout history woman were often considered to be too soft or docile to work. In the early 1800’s, as well as the 1950’s, it was thought that woman should not only be pure in heart, mind and body, but that they should be submissive to their husbands and not work outside the home, this was known as the Cult of Domesticity (Keister & Southgate, Inequality: a contemporary approach to race, class and gender, 2012, p. 228).

Although females had push into the right direction, they still did face some adversity. “Many fully employed women defined themseleves as ‘homemakers’, outside the sphere of wage work” (Abelson, 117). This shows that even with all these changes for the better women did not shy away from their traditional roots.

Foremost, the familial image has undertaken significant changes in regards to the ‘breadwinner’ and ‘homemaker’ roles within the family. In the latter of the 20th century, women’s participation in the labour force had been very little to non-existent, primarily because time allocations had been perceived as gender specific, that is, men were seen as the ‘breadwinner’, while women were viewed as the ‘homemaker’ (Seltzer, Bachrach, Bianchi, Bledsoe, Casper, Chase-Lansdale, Diprete, Hotz, Morgan, Sanders, & Thomas, 2005, pp.20). The ‘breadwinner’ role was to secure financial stability, while the

The Home became the refuge of social fundamentalism and family, as the family developed from an economic cog, to a private piece of domesticity. “The Suburb Reader” by Becky M. Nicolaides, and Andrew Wiese describes the role of women in this divide, “Men came to inhabit the world of work, while women became managers of the

Sociologists have extensively studied the gender gap within the STEM field, while most theorists focus on gender socialization to explain this phenomenon, recently there has been a push to emphasize a more intersectional approach. As stated earlier gender socialization is “ the process of learning the social expectations and attitudes associated with one’s sex” (Chegg). It is built into our culture and it shapes how our society acts. Charlotte Perkins Gilman was a prominent writer who is now seen as a sociologist, who focused in on traditional gender roles and the effect they have on society. Her work Women and Economics looks at how women’s roles in society are not seen as valuable or economically beneficial to society. She states, “Economic progress, however is almost exclusively masculine” (Gilman 1898: 200). As well as stating, “ The male human being is thousands of years in advance of the female in economic status” (Gilman 1898: 200). These quotes show that men are and have been superior to women in an economic stance. Gilman also touched on the idea that, “the labor now performed by the men could not be performed by the women without generations of effort and adaptation” (Gilman 1898: 200). Meaning that even if women were to take over men’s jobs, they would need a lot of time and change to achieve the productivity that men can achieve. This all stems from the ideas that women are not to be working in male dominated jobs, they should be cooking and cleaning. These

In this paper, I will demonstrate, with the use of examples, that the causal factors which keep women of our society from progressing nearly as much in their professions as men is that the labor distribution in the family household has not made any significant changes in past years. I argue that, in the long term, Kay and Shipman are

From the early 19th century to now, there have been dramatic changes that altered the outlook on the way women of different class, ethnic background and status completed their form of housework. To identify the differences and similarities of the conditions and the type of work the working class housewives and the middle class suburban housewives did, I will first define what housework is. In addition, I will then further list out the most common forms of domestic labour which women were expected to do as well as the type of changes which occurred from the 1930s to the 1960s and finally to the 1970s.

It is difficult to examine the question of the division of labor within the household in Malthus’ writings as it seems to be entirely outside the scope of his work. Though his conclusions are predicated on the relationship between men and women, from reading his writing one has the distinct impression that women are not really a factor. In spite of this, an examination of the implications inherent in Malthus’ analysis is revealing of some basic assumptions he makes regarding the economic role of women. With particular regard to the question of agency within the marriage, Malthus’ arguments and conclusions are in opposition to the arguments put forth by

Women’s unpaid labor in maintains a systems of oppression in many ways. In Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee’s Women’s Voices Feminist Visions unpaid labor done by many women is, “undervalued as women’s formal productive paid labor in the workforce is prioritized” (Shaw & Lee, 2015, 471). Shaw and Lee are saying that women work at home is devalued because it is viewed as informal and as work that is done out of love or is natural work. Since the work being done is viewed as natural work, it further reinforces gender stereotypes by stating that women are supposed to do the household work which is deemed more as feminine. This thought process follows patriarchal thinking, where women are expected to do the

Gender roles is a very controversial topic in today’s society, especially when it comes to working. 100 years ago, in Europe, women were working long hours in factories. Women also worked as nurses, cleaned wealthy people 's homes, and were craftswomen. Meanwhile, 100 years ago in the United States women were expected to stay home and take care of the family/home, while the men went out and worked an average of ten hours a day for six days a week, compared to the traditional five day weeks and 8 hour days.

Conventionally, females played a very insignificant role in the paid work force of a society as many times they were expected to be home taking care of their family. Their roles at home can often include grocery shopping, meeting all the needs of her children and husband. As time moved on, our society became more accepted of sharing housework between the couples, but even so, the traditionally more feminine housework such as cooking, caring for sick children, and shopping for the entire family are mostly done by the females of the house. It is argued in a research journal Work and Occupations (Witkowski & Leicht, 1995) that in an average North American family, females take on roughly three-quarters of the housework. Even though we are in a democratic society, parenting roles in the household are assigned based on gender rather than in a democratic fashion (Winslow-Bowe, 2009). Because of the many responsibilities and obligations that are associated with the female gender, their career paths are eventually affected for the worse. According to Statistics Canada (2001), for every dollar a man earns, a single woman earns 93 cents and a married woman earns 69 cents. These statistics

Over the past century, women in numerous dissimilar cultures have become increasingly agitated at the value placed by the government in promoting traditional patriarchal lifestyles. This focus on men being the breadwinners of their family outside of the house so that it becomes difficult for women to succeed outside domestic life is a spark of controversy. In many cases, it has led to an intense examination of policy changes, or lack thereof, by governments in response to a collective women’s’ voice within their respective countries, in their quest for equality in the home and workplace. Responses to gender gap problems don’t have the same solutions around the world however. Through the “The Political Economy of Gender” by Iversen and Rosenbluth the effect modern movements have on women’s beliefs can be examined through Albert Hirschman’s ideas of “voice and exit” and further applied to situations such as those examined in “Exit, voice, and family policy in Japan” by Leonard Schoppa.

This economic contribution, argues Baxter (2002:406) essentially translates to an increase in bargaining power within the household, which is actualised by decreased involvement in domestic duties. Curtis (1986:180, as cited in Brines, 1994:657) suggests that the power differential occurs because women are expecting an ‘unspecified benefaction’ to be decided, and provided by their partners at a future date. This use of housework as a ‘social exchange’ (Brines, 1994:657) is problematic, in that the amount of accumulated housework performed by a wife outweighs the monetary benefit provided to the household by the husband (Sullivan, 2000:442).