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).

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

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

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

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.

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

Issues surrounding power inequalities in the workforce may be explained historically in terms of the arguments of socialist feminism. This ideology argues that since the control of material resources necessary for survival was largely outside the home historically, the location of women in the home became their source of dependence on men and their subordination to men. (Boyd 1997: 51) This argument appears to be more gender specific than other socialist theories such as Marxism, as it emphasizes that gender inequality reflects not only the type of economic system in place but also the power that men have within the household and the economy.

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.

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

Women’s work is still seen as that of ‘love labour’, that of working in the home raising a family and taking care of the housework without pay. Men on the other hand are seen as the breadwinners, their work is paid labour. Their job is to go out into paid employment and provide for their family.

Although the economic exchange model provides a historical account of why the gendered division of labour may have been an accepted part of life during a time when women’s workforce participation was considered unusual, it is not able to explain why a clear inequality persists in a time of more inclusive workplace involvement (Maher & Singleton, 2003:61). Evidence indicates that women who spend longer hours in paid employment do less unpaid domestic work, clearly owing to a reduction in the available time to perform such tasks (Baxter, 1992:16). The same does not hold true for men, however, with research indicating that less time spent in paid employment is correlated with a reduction in the amount of domestic work undertaken (Bittman et al., 2003:187). Shamir (1986, as cited in Baxter, 1992:403) argues that

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

However, intra-household relations are full of the ideology of love. Because of the constraints of patriarchal structure and gender asymmetry, these inequalities restrict women 's autonomous behavior, lead to a difficulty of judgment in the power of family and the impact of women 's wages.（Giddens，1979）My conclusion, however, is that new opportunities for women 's employment have led to a small

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.