Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Giessen]On: 30 October 2014, At: 03:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK
Feminist EconomicsPublication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfec20
Student AttitudesToward Roles ofWomen and Men: Is theEgalitarian HouseholdImminent?Marianne A. Ferber & Lauren YoungPublished online: 20 Jan 2011.
To cite this article: Marianne A. Ferber & Lauren Young (1997)Student Attitudes Toward Roles of Women and Men: Is the EgalitarianHousehold Imminent?, Feminist Economics, 3:1, 65-83, DOI:10.1080/135457097338816
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135457097338816
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views
of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
65
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD ROLES
OF WOMEN AND MEN: IS THE
EGALITARIAN HOUSEHOLD IMMINENT?
Marianne A. FerberUniversity of Illinois
Lauren YoungMercer Management Consulting
ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes the results of a survey of a sample of U.S. undergraduatestudents concerning their attitudes toward the roles of women and men in thelabor market and in the home. We asked students about their attitudes andexpectations because their attitudes may be expected to in� uence behaviorover time. We found that both women and men held very egalitarian attitudes,which portends well for increasing gender equality. We also found evidence,however, that their answers did not always coincide with their intentions, sug-gesting that to some extent the opinions they expressed represent what theybelieved they ought to say rather than their real opinions.
KEYWORDSSex roles, norms, expectations, housework
How do college students in the U.S. feel about sex roles? This paper focuseson the results of a survey of a sample of U.S. undergraduate students con-cerning their attitudes toward the roles of women and men in the labormarket and in the home. Learning more about people’s views is importantbecause, although mainstream economists emphasize the role of rationalchoices, behavior tends to be constrained by beliefs about what is or shouldbe normal. Some sociologists even speak of “normative imperatives”(Arland Thornton 1989: 889). Others make the more modest claim that tra-ditional beliefs serve to reinforce the tendency of people to maintain habit-ual practices (Michael Anderson, Frank Bechhofer and Jonathan Gershuny1994), and conclude that there is “lagged adaptation” ( Jonathan Gershuny,Michael Godwin and Sally Jones 1994). Learning more about the opinionsof college students is important because it is the highly educated who have
Feminist Economics 3(1), 1997, 65–83 1354–5701 © IAFFE 1997
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
been at the forefront of changing sex-role attitudes (Frances Goldscheiderand Linda Waite 1991).
BACKGRO UND
The issue we are concerned with is that, although the labor force partici-pation of women in the United States rose rapidly after 1950, there appearedto be virtually no change for about twenty-� ve years in men’s participationin homemaking, and there have been only slight changes since 1975(Jonathan Gershuny and John Robinson 1988). Housework and child carecontinued to be viewed as woman’s responsibility whether or not she alsohad a paid job. As a result, while employed wives spent considerably fewerhours on housework than full-time homemakers – according to a numberof studies in the late 1970s, on average about twenty-six hours compared to� fty-two hours a week – they nonetheless had far less leisure time than theirhusbands, who devoted only about eleven hours a week to housework(Martin Meissner et al. 1975; Kathryn Walker and Margaret Woods 1976;William Gauger and Kathryn Walker 1973; William Gauger and KathrynWalker 1980).1 Not surprisingly, the causes and consequences of thisunequal sharing of housework and market work emerged as a central issuein discussions of women’s continued low status in industrialized societies(Glenna Spitze 1986). The consequences of women’s heavy “householdresponsibilities” have been extensively explored in the literature by psy-chologists, sociologists and economists. They frequently include unequaldistribution of leisure and hence psychological stress experienced by womenas a result of what is termed role overload. They also include discontinuouslabor force participation, as well as less than full-time, full-year employment,which in turn have contributed to women’s low status in the labor market.In this study, however, the focus is not on consequences of unequal sharingof household responsibilities, but on changing attitudes toward sharing.
A variety of explanations have been offered for the traditional division oflabor. One that gained considerable prominence is resource theory, initiallyproposed by Robert Blood and David Wolfe (1960). This theory focuses onthe importance of accumulated resources of a spouse as the source of powerwithin a marriage, which is likely to be used to make the other partner domore of the housework.2 More recently, Gary Becker’s (1973, 1974, 1991)“new home economics” has come to the fore. It is based on the assumptionthat the adult members of a family allocate tasks according to comparativeadvantage,3 and thus maximize everyone’s well-being.4 These, and othermodern theories, are essentially instrumental, i.e. they assume that labor isdivided in a way that will achieve particular goals, and have discarded theunrealistic earlier view that the gender division of responsibilities is biologi-cally determined. Their assumption that decisions concerning this divisionof labor are entirely rational has not, however, gone unchallenged.
ARTICL ES
66
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
As Michael Geerken and Walter Gove (1983) suggest, the allocation oftasks within the family is likely to be an attempt to maximize “utility,”broadly defined, taking into account the husband’s and the wife’sresources, but may also take into account the social environment, whichspecifically includes beliefs about the appropriate sexual division of labor.Many other researchers are also ready to accept the importance ofresources and/or of comparative advantage, but in addition emphasizethe part played by socialization and sex role attitudes (Sarah Berk 1985;Rae Blumberg 1991; Joan Huber and Glenna Spitze 1983; Carolyn Perruci,Harry Potter and Deborah Rhoads 1978; Catherine Ross 1987; Scott Southand Glenna Spitze 1994; Rebecca Stafford, Elaine Backman and PamelaDibona 1977). Similarly, Shelley Phipps and Peter Burton (1995) point tothe importance of social/institutional factors. Further evidence thatgender role attitudes tend to play a part is provided by the substantiallymore equal sharing of housework among gay and lesbian couples (PhilipBlumstein and Pepper Schwartz 1983; Marieka Klawitter 1995; LawrenceKurdek 1993; Kathryn Larson 1992; South and Spitze 1994). Some criticsgo so far as to argue that in light of the unequal distribution of work andleisure, it has become “intellectually untenable to view the husband’slimited family role as the result of an equitable exchange betweenhusband and wife based on their having different resources” ( JosephPleck 1985).5
A reasonable interpretation of the dissonance between rationality andtraditional norms is that norms, although themselves shaped by objectiveconditions, are resistant to change and linger long after they have outlivedtheir usefulness. Or, as Ralph Smith (1979) argues, stereotypes that areoften initially based on facts are seldom revised as quickly as the factschange. Hence, we conclude that radical transformations in the economyprovided impetus for changes in people’s behavior, but a stubbornly per-sistent gender role ideology, shaped in earlier days, tended to inhibit theneeded adjustments. The reason is that most people most of the time actin conformity with their conception of what behavior is normal for, andexpected by members of their group (Anderson, Bechhofer and Gershuny1994).6 Resistance to change is likely to be all the greater because men havea stake in preserving the status quo within the family. They have much togain when their wives enter the labor market and bring home a pay check,but many may see little to gain by doing a larger share of the housework.Gradually, however, some of them may see that they would earn more good-will from their partner. Also, as organized groups agitate for change, andas individual nonconformists are increasingly willing to deviate from tra-ditional norms, it becomes easier for others to do so as well. Thus, eventu-ally, norms may be expected to change, and this in turn should makefurther changes in behavior easier.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
Evolution of women’s roles
It is not dif� cult to understand how the traditional view of women as home-makers became established.7 True, in pre-industrial, agricultural economiesboth women’s and men’s work centered in and around the home, the familywas the economic unit and women as well as men worked in the family enter-prise.8 At the same time, however, families were large and life expectancywas short. Most women were pregnant or nursing virtually all of their adultlives, and therefore tied largely to the homestead and its immediate vicinity,where they baked the bread, spun the cloth and raised much of the foodconsumed by the family.9 In other words, they were responsible for thehousework, although these women were also full-� edged economic partnerswho worked on farms and in shops, frequently took in boarders, and amongthe poorest often did paid homework as well. With the coming of the indus-trial revolution, however, men increasingly worked in factory or of� ce awayfrom home, and the work of middle-class wives came to be entirely con� nedto the household, except for volunteer work, particularly common amongthose af� uent enough to have hired household help. It was then that theview of women as consumers rather than producers came into full � ower asthe “cult of true womanhood” (Barbara Welter 1978). It is well known, ofcourse, that poor women in the U.S., particularly African-Americans andimmigrants, frequently did work for pay in addition to taking care of theirown households, but this was generally regarded as a necessary evil, and mostof these overworked women understandably aspired to achieving themiddle-class “housewife” status.
Thus the domestic sphere was, more than ever, viewed as women’sresponsibility (Nancy Chodorow 1978). At the same time, with the growthof the money economy housework was relegated to low status, and womencame to be seen as dependents rather than partners. Hired householdworkers as well as those who performed work previously done in the house-hold, from laundresses and short-order cooks to those who cared for infantsand children, were among the least well-paid members of the labor force,as they continue to be to this day. Another symptom of the low esteem inwhich housework has been held is the scant attention it has received fromsocial scientists; for a long time, economists ignored it entirely.10 They notonly failed to include the value of housework done by family members incalculations of gross domestic product, but frequently failed to acknow-ledge this omission;11 U.S. statisticians have not taken the value of house-work into account when calculating the poverty line for a family; nor havethey studied the working conditions of paid domestic workers, although thiswas at one time one of the leading occupations for African-Americanwomen. Similarly, as Huber and Spitze (1983) point out, sociologistspreferred to study the attitudes, values and daily activities of autoworkers,skid-row bums, medical students and soldiers. They also note that not a
ARTICL ES
68
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
single entry in the 1968 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences refersto housework.
Recent developments in the United States
It is not surprising, then, that men were less than eager to participate morefully in what were seen to be unimportant, not to say demeaning, activities.There may also be other reasons why most women as well as men, tend toprefer market work to housework, except for child care (Thomas Juster1985); much of it tends to be repetitive (furniture needs to be dusted and� oors swept again and again), it often shows few long-term results (even themost elaborate meal is consumed in one sitting), and it is performed in iso-lation from other adults. Clinging to the traditional notion that this iswomen’s work was an easy way for men to justify their resistance to doingmore of these chores.12 It is more surprising that, for a long time, manywomen also tended to accept this view, or at least resigned themselves to it.
John Robinson (1977) found that in 1965–66 only 19 percent and in 1973only 23 percent of women said that they would like their husbands to helpmore with housework.13 Pleck (1985) reports that in 1970 between only 30and 35 percent (depending on level of education) of a national sample ofboth men and women thought men should do more housework, that in1974 only between 30 and 35 percent of young people thought willingnessto do housework was an important quality for a man, and that in a localsample from the state of Washington in 1976, no more than 2 percent ofeither men or women thought that husbands and wives should be equallyresponsible for housework. With the growing feminist movement of the1970s, however, women came to aspire to more egalitarian arrangements.While recent surveys (e.g. Beth Willinger 1993) still show that men are morereluctant to accept a larger role for themselves in the household than theyare to accept women’s greater role in the labor market, it appears thateventually they are not likely to be entirely immune to women’s demandsfor justice (William Goode 1992).14
This willingness to recognize that women’s claims are reasonable maywell help to explain why there has �nally been a perceptible shift inopinions over the last twenty years. Numerous surveys indicate that anincreasing proportion of both men and women tend to believe husbandsshould do a larger share of housework and child care, and there is con-siderable evidence that this trend has been greatest among the young andthe highly educated (Goode 1992; Huber and Spitze 1983). Whether oneshares Goode’s view that this has been a surprisingly marked change in atti-tudes, or shares the frustration of many feminist writers because thechanges have been so modest, is really a question of seeing the glass as halffull or half empty. In any case, although it must be recognized that a changein attitudes is not necessarily tantamount to changing behavior, husbands
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
may be expected to gradually become less resistant to greater participationin homemaking.15
The evidence is less than overwhelming, but at least small changes in thedivision of household work became apparent during the late 1970s (Pleck1985).16 According to one report, men spent only about 17 percent of theirtotal work time on housework in the 1960s, and for over a decade thereappeared to be virtually no change in that proportion; by the mid-1980s ithad, however, risen to 30 percent (United Nations 1991). This does amountto a perceptible increase, even taking into account that it was in part causedby a decline in the number of hours men spent in the labor market. Simi-larly, the ratio of time men spent on housework as compared to women roseduring this period. In 1987, among those working in the labor force, menspent 57 percent as much time on domestic chores as women, compared to46 percent in 1975 (Beth Shelton 1992), albeit much of the larger ratio wasdue to women doing less household work when they entered the labormarket, rather than by men doing a great deal more of it (see, for instance,Arlie Hochschild 1989; Huber and Spitze 1983).17 Also, according to Robin-son (1988) and Pleck (1988), by the 1980s the total amount of work womenand men did, paid and unpaid, was about the same. Overall, then, there isevidence of change, but it is equally clear that there is a need for consider-ably more change if something approximating real equality is to be achieved.
THE SURVEY
The sample
In order to learn to what extent the views of the young and highly educatedtoday differ from those that were accepted by the general population ofearlier years, we conducted a survey of undergraduates at Harvard Uni-versity. As noted earlier, examining the views of a group of college studentsis instructive not only because a large proportion of young people in theUnited States go to college, and because a disproportionately large numberof women who have attended college will enter the labor market.18 As men-tioned previously, college students have also been in the vanguard of changeconcerning sex-role attitudes in the U.S.19 It should be noted, of course, thatHarvard students are not representative of all college students in thecountry, because they are considerably more likely to come from wealthyfamilies and hence, undoubtedly, also expect to be in a very high-incomebracket after they set up their own households. This must be kept in mindwhen interpreting their answers to questions concerning the sharing ofhomemaking responsibilities, because they would also be expected to antici-pate purchasing many goods and services less af� uent women and menproduce themselves. The sample is, nonetheless, a useful one because it isrepresentative of an in� uential segment of the college population.20
ARTICL ES
70
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
The first step in this survey was to distribute approximately 300 ques-tionnaires at one of the university residence halls during the spring semes-ter of 1993–94. We expected that this approach would enable us to reacha representative cross-section of students in various majors.21 The responserate of 43 percent did not, however, provide a large enough sample.22
Therefore, we distributed 140 additional questionnaires in a large inter-mediate undergraduate microeconomics class, because we expected, as itturned out correctly, that the students would be willing to fill them outand return them. In this manner we obtained a total sample of 268,although we must note that not all respondents answered all the questions,so that the total number of responses for individual questions is somewhatlower.
As Table 1 shows, the sample obtained is reasonably representative ofHarvard undergraduates. The proportions of men and women are virtuallyidentical,23 but this is somewhat less true for the various racial and ethnicgroups. Most notably, there is a larger proportion of Asian and Paci�cIslander Americans in the sample, and a smaller proportion of individualswho failed to provide information concerning their race/ethnicity.24 BecauseHarvard does not keep data on students’ religion, we have this informationonly for the sample. The distribution of majors would not be expected to berepresentative. Because 48 percent of the respondents were students in aneconomics class, as many as 42 percent of the men and 27 percent of thewomen were economics majors.25 Other majors that require some economicsbackground are likely to be over-represented to some extent as well.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
71
Table 1 Demographic data, Harvard students 1994–95, and the sample
Harvard students SampleN = 6,643 N = 268(%) (%)
Men 56.3 56.9Women 43.7 43.1
African-American 7.7 7.6Asian-Paci� c-American 18.9 27.5Hispanic-American 6.9 8.7Caucasian-American 44.7 43.1Native American 0.6 0.0Noncitizens 6.9 9.8Unknown 14.3 3.2
Protestant 28.3Roman Catholic, other Christian 28.4Jewish 10.4Other religions 7.1None 22.4Unknown 3.4
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
As would be expected, the sample is far less representative of the totalpopulation of the country.26 As is true for all of higher education, Ameri-cans of African, Hispanic and Native American ancestry are under-repre-sented relative to their proportion in the population, while the opposite istrue for Americans of Asian and Paci� c Islander ancestry. Among religiousgroups, Jews constitute a substantially larger proportion in our sample thanin the population, as do those who claimed no denomination. Differencesbetween the sample and the population are particularly large when it comesto occupations of their parents. Fully 78 percent of the respondents’fathers, and 75 percent of their mothers who were in the labor force, wereexecutives or professionals, while this is true of only 26 percent of all menand 26 percent of all women who are in the labor force.
It is also interesting to note that there are some differences in the employ-ment status of the parents of the men and women in our sample.27 While74 percent of the fathers of the men are executives and professionals, the� gure for the fathers of women is even higher at 81 percent, suggesting thatit is mainly the very well-to-do who send not only their sons but their daugh-ters to the most expensive schools. Similarly, 54 percent of the mothers ofthe men were in these two occupational categories, compared to 61 percentof the mothers of the women. Further, these data, as well as the fact that 77percent of the mothers of the women and only 70 percent of the mothersof the men are in the labor force, are also consistent with the notion thatmothers play a part as role models for their daughters.28
Our survey focused on the students’ views about appropriate sharing ofhousehold and market work among men and women. This was notintended to imply that all the respondents would or should anticipatehaving heterosexual relationships; rather we wanted everyone’s opinion ofwhat the division of labor among such couples ought to be.29 We then wenton to ask questions concerning their own expectations for labor force par-ticipation and sharing household work, both when young children are andare not present in the household. We also asked about their mother’s laborforce participation, and their mother’s and father’s occupation. In additionto these questions, we obtained the usual classifying information, includingsex, race and ethnicity, religion and country of origin, as well as their yearin college, and their college major.
Attitudes and expectations of the students
The most striking aspect of our �ndings can be summed up very simply: alarge majority of both men and women profess to have very egalitarian atti-tudes. First, 83 percent of women and 81 percent of men agreed that bothhusband and wife should be employed full-time when there are no pre-school children in the household; as few as 4 percent of women and 9percent of men speci� cally thought that only the husband should be
ARTICL ES
72
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
employed full-time. While as many as 89 percent of men and 81 percent ofwomen thought that only one partner should be employed full-time whenthere are pre-school children present, a far smaller number, 18 percent ofwomen and 28 percent of men, speci� cally thought that the wife should bethe one to work less than full-time.30 Second, as seen in Table 2, both menand women expect to do almost equal amounts of housework, and thinkthat approximately equal sharing is fair. Furthermore, when asked howmuch housework and child care each should do when only one of the part-ners works for pay full-time, the answer is not very different, whether it isthe wife or the husband who works full-time. Finally, women as well as menexpect to spend virtually all of the next thirty years in the labor market, onaverage 29.3 years and 29.9 years respectively, albeit the amount of timewomen expect to be employed part-time is signi� cantly greater, 6.9 years ascompared to only 2.7 years for men.31
Even so, some other � ndings are also worth noting. Although for themost part the differences in expectations between women and men whenboth partners are employed full-time are quite minor,32 they are consist-ently in the traditional direction, and are statistically signi�cant in all casesat the 1 percent level, except for the amount of housework they expect todo when there are young children in the household. Furthermore, in allthe instances (not only those shown in Table 2, but also in all others),women expect to do at least slightly more household work than do menunder comparable circumstances. However, counter to the usual belief thatmen are more willing to spend time with children than on householdchores, the differences are somewhat larger for child care. This may beexplained by the emphasis in our questionnaire on pre-school children; itis entirely likely that men are more inclined to help children with schoolwork and to participate in scouting activities than they are to feed or bathean infant. To the extent this is true, it would also explain why a somewhatlarger proportion of these men with otherwise very egalitarian views believethat it is the wife who should be employed less than full-time when thereare pre-school children in the household. In addition, one reason why alarger proportion of women than men prefer for both partners to beemployed full-time when there are pre-school children in the householdmay be that these women suspect that they would be the ones who wouldend up being the part-time employees.
Finally, another consistent pattern of differences is that in all cases men,on average, plan to do a slightly smaller proportion of housework and toprovide slightly less child care than they consider fair, while the opposite istrue for women. We had been concerned, when developing the question-naire, that the respondents would be reluctant to give different answers tothese two sets of questions, and in fact the divergence between theirresponses is not very large. Nonetheless, the existence of even a smalldivergence suggests that at least some of these students themselves still
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
expect their behavior to be somewhat more traditional than their attitudesare, and con�rms the lingering in� uence of tradition even among youngand highly educated people.
Further examination of the data raises a more troublesome question.Economists are notoriously suspicious of putting credence in what peoplesay, as opposed to what they do. The data in Table 3 suggest that in thisinstance the suspicion is justi� ed, at least as far as the men in our sampleare concerned. While women’s plans for years of full-time employment are,
ARTICL ES
74
Table 2 What percent of work students expect to do, what they consider fair
Men Women
Percent of housework the respondents expect to dowhen both partners are employed full-time, and there are no pre-school children in the household 47.2 55.5
Percent of housework the respondents considertheir fair share when both partners are employedfull-time, and there are no pre-school children inthe household 48.2 50.9
Percent of housework the respondents expect to dowhen both partners are employed full-time, andthere are pre-school children in the household 49.6 52.0
Percent of housework the respondents considertheir fair share when both partners are employedfull-time, and there are no pre-school children inthe household 50.9 47.5
Percent of child care the respondents expect to dowhen both partners are employed full-time, andthere are pre-school children in the household 44.8 59.5
Percent of child care the respondents considertheir fair share when both partners are employedfull-time, and there are pre-school children in thehousehold 45.4 52.8
Percent of housework the respondents expect to dowhen only the husband is employed full-time, andthere are no pre-school children in the household 29.9 70.1
Percent of housework the respondents expect to dowhen only the wife is employed full-time, and thereare no pre-school children in the household 68.7 30.7
Percent of child care the respondents expect to dowhen only the husband is employed full-time, andthere are pre-school children in the household 31.1 67.1
Percent of child care the respondents expect to dowhen only the wife is employed full-time, and thereare pre-school children in the household 63.7 35.6
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
on the whole, consistent with their stated preferences for full-time employ-ment,33 men expect to be employed full-time virtually all of the thirty yearsafter leaving school, regardless of their stated preferences about onepartner working only part-time.34 Further, those who prefer for only onepartner to be employed part-time, but claim that it could be either one,expect to be employed for marginally more years than those who prefer thatboth partners be employed full-time.35 Because of these inconsistenciesamong the responses of male respondents to different questions, we con-clude that it would clearly be a mistake to accept the answers to this surveyentirely at face value.36 On the other hand, as already noted in the intro-duction, it is signi� cant that these students overwhelmingly at least believethat they ought to give very egalitarian answers. We shall return to this issueonce more in the concluding section.
Rational decision-making
We argued earlier that the division of household responsibilities is likely tobe at least to some extent based on tradition, rather than merely deter-mined by rational decision-making. Further analysis of the responses to thissurvey suggests that in fact decisions concerning how many years to workfor pay full-time or part-time are not necessarily based on rational calcu-lation. When asked how many years they expected to be employed full-time,and how many years part-time, 146 of the men and 110 of the women
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
75
Table 3 Number of years men and women expect to work full-time during thethirty years after leaving school by attitude toward full-time employment ofhusband and wife
Number of years expect to beemployed full-time—————————————Men N Women N
When there are no pre-school childrenpresent, it is preferable:(a) for both parents to be employed full-time 27.3 121 23.3 90(b) for only one to work full-time, either one 28.1 13 16.9 15(c) for only the husband to be employed
full-time 27.4 14 22.5 4(d) for only the wife to be employed full-time 17.5 2
When there are pre-school children present,it is preferable:(a) for both parents to be employed full-time 26.9 16 27.4 19(b) for only one to work full-time, either one 27.1 87 21.9 72(c) for only the husband to be employed
full-time 27.9 44 18.2 18(d) for only the wife to be employed full-time 23.8 4 30.0 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
responded. When they were asked, however, how much less they expectedto earn after returning to their job full-time if they had dropped out of thelabor market, or had been employed only part-time for ten years, no morethan eighty-eight men and � fty-four women were willing to answer thesequestions; all the others responded “don’t know.” The large number ofstudents who were not willing to answer such a dif� cult question is not sur-prising, but it does suggest that the decision how many years to work forpay full-time, part-time, or not at all, is not based on calculations ofexpected costs and bene� ts of each alternative.
The answers of the relatively few students who were willing to provide therequested estimates also are instructive. Women expected their subsequentearnings to be reduced by 64 percent if they dropped out of the labormarket for ten years, while men expected their earnings to be reduced byonly 44 percent. Similarly, women expected to earn 48 percent less afterbeing employed part-time for ten years, while men anticipated earning only33 percent less. These answers might lead one to believe that women wouldplan to work full-time for more years than men, because they expect to losemore by temporarily dropping out of the labor force or by working part-time for some years. We know, however, that the opposite is the case. Also,to the extent that even among college students women continue to be some-what more likely than men to enter traditionally female occupations, theirexpectations that women are likely to suffer greater penalties for disconti-nuity are contrary to the hypothesis that male occupations carry greaterpenalties for labor force interruptions than do traditionally female occu-pations (Solomon Polachek 1981).37
There is also one notable inconsistency in men’s answers that raises somequestion about their forthrightness and/or whether their decisions arebased on rational calculation. Virtually all the men in our sample areopposed to both parents working full-time when there are pre-school chil-dren in the family and also strongly disagree that the one to work less thanfull-time should necessarily be the woman. Nonetheless, in the vast majorityof cases they expect to work full-time during the thirty years after they leaveschool. This might be rational if all of them expect to earn more than theirpartners, even if they were both in the labor market continuously. It couldthen be argued that as a matter of principle they believe either partner couldremain in the labor market full-time, but that it should be the one whoseearnings are greater. Of course, that raises the interesting question whetherit is still rational for all men to expect to earn more than their partners.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The sample used in this research was clearly not chosen because it is rep-resentative of the general population, or even all college students but, asnoted earlier, it does represent a rather in� uential segment of U.S. society.
ARTICL ES
76
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
Further, we asked students about their attitudes and expectations notbecause they are likely to coincide entirely with their actual behavior, butrather because evidence from previous research suggests that attitudes doin� uence behavior over time.38 Evidence from our own sample that themothers of these young women are disproportionately represented in thelabor force, and that the daughters of employed women plan to spendsomewhat more time in the labor market than do those whose mothers arefull-time homemakers, further suggests that the attitudes and behavior ofparents in� uence their children as well. Hence, it is all the more plausibleto conclude that the very egalitarian views expressed by these studentsthemselves portend well for the future.39
It would, however, be a mistake to assume that this means the arrival ofthe millennium is imminent. Therefore, several cautionary commentsmade earlier deserve to be emphasized once more. First, this sample is notrepresentative of the whole population. Second, it would be unrealistic tooverlook the possibility that the answers the respondents gave to someextent represent what they thought they ought to say, rather than what theyreally think. Last, but not least, even their own answers suggest that actionswill not always coincide with their intentions.
Marianne A. Ferber, Department of Economics, University of Illinois,Champaign, IL 61820 USA
e-mail: [email protected] Young, Mercer Management Consulting, New York, New York
201 West 72nd Street, New York, NY 10023 USAe-mail: lauren [email protected]
ACKNO WLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Radcliffe College for its support of this projectthrough the Radcliffe Partners Program, and the Radcliffe Public PolicyInstitute for making its facilities available.
NOTES1 It should be noted that even the most carefully collected data on household work
are not expected to be entirely reliable. Not only are people’s memories imper-fect, but their estimates may be in� uenced by their desire to live up to their ownbeliefs of what they ought to be doing. For obvious reasons, surveys which relyon reports of one spouse about time spent by the other spouse are likely to beeven less accurate. See, for instance, Anthony Astrachan (1986) and Sarah Berk(1985) for a fuller explanation of these problems.
2 Among others who hold similar views are Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz(1991); Julia Ericksen, William Yancey and Eugene Ericksen (1979); Jan Pahl(1990).
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
3 The simplest case for Becker’s model can be made when each has an absoluteadvantage in one sphere; for instance, A can earn $10 an hour in the market andproduce a meal at home in one hour that is worth $8, while B would earn $7 anhour in the market and can produce a meal at home in an hour that is worth $8.However, given the assumptions in this model, it will still pay to specialize whenone has an absolute advantage in both spheres. If the situation for A is the sameas described above, but B would earn only $4 in the market and produce a mealat home that is worth $5, it is still most ef� cient for A to be in the labor market,and for B to stay home and cook the meal. For a fuller explanation and a cri-tique of this model see, for instance, Francine Blau and Marianne Ferber (1992:36–48).
4 These views are shared by numerous “Chicago School” economists, representedparticularly in the pages of the Journal of Political Economy, but also by others, suchas George Farkas (1976).
5 Gary Becker’s model correctly predicts that the increase in women’s labor forceparticipation will not necessarily be accompanied by an increase in the amountof housework done by men, but his model sweeps under the rug the whole issueof unequal leisure time because it fails to distinguish between time spent onhousehold production as opposed to sleeping and relaxing.
6 Or, in other words, although behavior is not determined by belief systems, it is pro-foundly in�uenced by them (Michael Anderson, Frank Bechhofer and JonathanGershuny 1994).
7 Many detailed accounts are available of the developments that are brie� y sum-marized here, such as Karen Anderson (1988); also, Ernestine Friedl (1975) isone of the anthropologists who has long emphasized the importance of con-straints in shaping human organization.
8 The extent to which this must have been the case is suggested by the frequentinstances of widows who successfully continued to manage the family enterpriseafter the husband’s death.
9 Before the new process of sterilization made bottle feeding possible, nursing wascrucial to the survival of infants.
10 Margaret Reid’s (1934) pioneering work was for a long time entirely neglectedby economists, although she was soon adopted as one of the respected “mothers”of home economics.
11 Things have not changed much in this respect even today. Among nine best-selling introductory texts examined recently, several discuss gross domesticproduct without noting that nonmarket work is excluded; one brie� y mentionshousehold production under the heading of “leisure” (Marianne Ferber 1995).
12 There were, of course, attempts at rationalization. We are told, for instance, thatmen are not biologically equipped to nurture and feed infants because theycannot nurse them. Yet, as Joan Huber (1991) points out, men managed to adjustto � ying 30,000 feet above the ground, even though they lack wings.
13 The same survey showed that for African-American women the � gure in 1973 wasa substantially higher 37 percent. This may well be related to the fact that, in the1970s, they were somewhat more likely to be in the labor force, and considerablymore likely to work full-time than white women.
14 There has been speculation that this may have something to do with the fact thatone of the unique features of “the war between the sexes” is that men cohabitwith their “enemies.”
15 For example, Anthony Astrachan (1986), who conducted a small number of in-depth interviews, found that twenty-four of thirty-eight husbands claimed either
ARTICL ES
78
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
to be willing or obliged to do half of the housework, but when queried aboutactual tasks they performed, it became obvious that they did not live up to thisclaim. For evidence of greater participation in homemaking, see, for instance,Catherine Ross (1987).
16 In view of the growing interest in this subject, it is both surprising and very dis-couraging that far from having an increasing amount of data available in recentyears, no surveys have been done that equal the comprehensiveness or quality ofthe earlier ones.
17 It has been pointed out that with respect to child care, particularly, fathers mainlytend to take over when mothers are absent at work.
18 In 1994, only about 45 percent of women with less than four years of high school,but over 80 percent of college graduates, were in the labor market (U.S. Bureauof the Census, Statistical Abstract 1995).
19 While the purpose of this survey was to gather information, and every effort wasmade not to in� uence students’ opinions, it may also have had the salutary effectof encouraging the students who participated in it to think about issues theymight not otherwise have confronted as yet.
20 It would be most interesting if similar surveys were conducted recurrently in thefuture in order to track changes over time. We would be very happy to make ourquestionnaire available to anyone who might be interested.
21 The vast majority of Harvard undergraduates live in such residence halls; unlikestudents in sororities and fraternities, they do not appear to be segregated byrace, ethnicity, religion or major.
22 The response rate was lower than we had anticipated, probably because, as aresult of inevitable delays, the questionnaires were distributed two weeks before� nal examinations. On the other hand, this response rate is not out of line withmost similar surveys in recent years.
23 In fact, women constitute a substantially larger proportion of the respondentsfrom the dormitory, 70 out of a total of 129 (54 percent), no doubt because theyare more inclined to respond to surveys in general, and to surveys concerningfamily issues in particular. On the other hand, only 43 of the 139 respondents(31 percent) from the economics class are women.
24 In view of these two roughly offsetting differences, it appears likely that Asian-Americans were less reluctant to provide this information for us than forHarvard. Conversations with several Asian-American students suggested thattheir reluctance to � ll out the of� cial forms may be caused by self-consciousnessabout being members of a group that is substantially over-represented in highereducation, and particularly at highly ranked institutions.
25 As noted, a substantial majority of the respondents in the economics class weremen.
26 The data for the population are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureauof the Census, Statistical Abstract 1993.
27 These differences are suggestive, although the numbers in the sample are sosmall that in most instances the differences between men and women are not sta-tistically signi� cant.
28 One should not, however, make too much of this. Many young women whosemothers were full-time homemakers have made plans to enter the labor force.Thus, for instance, Kathleen Gerson (1985), using a sample of young womenbetween ages 27 and 37 who had either attended a community college in aworking-class community or a large four-year university in the San Francisco Bayarea, found that most of the daughters of mothers who had not been employed
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
and, interestingly, two-thirds of daughters who reported that their mothers wereemployed part-time but would have preferred to stay at home, also planned tobe in the labor force.
29 In fact, it would have been interesting to ask about plans for gay/lesbian relation-ships as well, but experience with a recent survey of university and college facultyin Illinois, where virtually no one answered in the af� rmative when askedwhether they ever had a same-sex partner, suggested that little information wouldbe obtained (Marianne Ferber and Jane Loeb forthcoming). It would, nonethe-less, be useful to add such a question in future surveys in order that no one feelexcluded, but also because it is to be hoped that over time increasingly morepeople will feel free to be more open about such relationships.
30 Interestingly, none of the women but two of the men said that the man shouldbe the one to stay home when there were pre-school children present (perhapsthey believe that men should take their turn at homemaking now). One mightbe inclined to suspect these men of not being serious, except that they also wereamong the extremely few men who indicated that they were planning to workfull-time considerably less than all of the thirty years after leaving school weinquired about.
31 It should be noted that, among this group of students, the high level of willing-ness of men to share housework and child care is likely to be based on theassumption that a good bit of it will be done by hired help, whether in their ownhome or in service establishments, such as restaurants, laundries and, mostimportantly, child care centers. Nor is this assumption unrealistic for thesestudents for, as previously noted, they are likely to have very high incomes after� nishing their education.
32 We did not ask about the degree of certainty of their expectations. However,David Maines and Monica Hardesty (1987) found that there was a substantiallylarger proportion of young women who were unsure of their plans. They alsowere far more likely to have thought that they might have problems in coordi-nating household responsibilities with paid work.
33 The one exception is that the four women who claim that only the husbandshould work full-time when there are no pre-school children present expect, onaverage, to be employed full-time for more years than do those who agree thateither one might work full-time; but results based on a sample of four cannot betaken too seriously.
34 Lest anyone think that this may be because many students do not plan to havefamilies, a survey of graduating seniors in the College of Commerce and Busi-ness Administration at the University of Illinois taken in 1987–88 showed that vir-tually all of them intended to get married, and that, on average, men intendedto have a slightly larger number of children than the 2.4 the women planned tohave (Francine Blau and Marianne Ferber 1991). There is no reason to believethat Harvard students would be very different in these respects.
35 It should be noted, once again, that the very small number of male students whostated a preference for the wife to be the one to be employed full-time whetherthere are pre-school children present or not, appear to be consistent, and planto be employed full-time for considerably fewer years.
36 There is no evidence to suggest that we need to be equally suspicious of theanswers the women give.
37 This hypothesis was � rst convincingly challenged by Paula England (1982).38 For instance, Jonathan Gershuny, Michael Godwin and Sally Jones (1994), as well
as a number of other researchers cited in the introduction to this paper.
ARTICL ES
80
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
39 Anyone who has ever worked with expectations and plans, for example KathleenGerson (1985) and Maines and Hardesty (1987), has pointed the extent to whichthis is the case.
REFERE NCES
Anderson, Karen. 1988. “A History of Women’s Work in the United States,” in AnnH. Stromberg and Shirley Harkess (eds.) Women Working. Theories and Facts in Per-spective, 2nd edn., pp. 25–41. Mountain View, CA: May� eld Publishing Company.
Anderson, Michael, Frank Bechhofer and Jonathan Gershuny. 1994. “Introduc-tion,” in Michael Anderson, Frank Bechhofer and Jonathan Gershuny (eds.) TheSocial and Political Economy of the Household, pp. 1–16. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Astrachan, Anthony. 1986. How Men Feel: Their Response to Women’s Demands for Equal-ity. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Becker, Gary S. 1973. “A Theory of Marriage: Part I.” Journal of Political Economy81(4): 813–46.
——. 1974. “A Theory of Marriage: Part II.” Journal of Political Economy 82(3):1063–93.
——. 1991. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,expanded new edition.
Berg, Sarah F. 1985. The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American House-holds. New York: Plenum Press.
Blau, Francine D. and Marianne A. Ferber. 1991. “Career Plans and Expectations ofYoung Women and Men: The Earnings Gap and Labor Force Participation.”Journal of Human Resources 26(4): 581–607.
—— and Marianne A. Ferber. 1992. The Economics of Women, Men, and Work. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blood, Robert O. and David M. Wolfe. 1960. Husbands and Wives. Glencoe, IL: FreePress.
Blumberg, Rae L. 1991. Gender, Family, and Economy. The Triple Overlap. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.
Blumstein, Philip and Pepper Schwartz. 1983. American Couples. New York: WilliamMorrow.
—— and Pepper Schwartz. 1991. “Money and Ideology: Their Impact on Power andthe Division of Household Labor,” in Rae L. Blumberg (ed.) Gender, Family, andthe Economy: The Triple Overlap, pp. 261–88. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brett, Annabelle. 1992. “Work Commitment among Educated Women: A Follow-UpStudy of the Radcliffe Class of 1969.” Ph.D. thesis, Harvard/Radcliffe.
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Motherhood: Psychoanalysis and the Soci-ology of Gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
England, Paula. 1982. “The Failure of Human Capital Theory to Explain Occu-pational Sex Segregation.” Journal of Human Resources 17(3): 358–80.
Ericksen, Julia A., William L. Yancey and Eugene P. Ericksen. 1979. “The Divisionof Family Roles.” Journal of Marriage and Family 41(2): 301–13.
Farkas, George. 1976. “Education, Wage Rates, and the Division of Labor BetweenHusband and Wife.” Journal of Marriage and Family 38(3): 473–83.
Ferber, Marianne A. 1995. “Gender and the Study of Economics: A Feminist Cri-tique.” American Economic Review 85(2): 357–61.
—— and Betty Kordick. 1978. “Sex Differentials in the Earnings of Ph.D.’s.” Indus-trial and Labor Relations Review 31(2): 227–38.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
81
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
—— and Jane W. Loeb. Forthcoming. “Introduction,” in Marianne A. Ferber andJane W. Loeb (eds.) Academic Couples: Problems and Promise. Champaign: Universityof Illinois Press.
Friedl, Ernestine. 1975. Women and Men, An Anthropologist’s View. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.
Gauger, William and Kathryn Walker. 1980. The Dollar Value of Housework. Infor-mation Bulletin 60, Ithaca: Cornell University, New York State College of HumanEcology.
Geerken, Michael and Walter R. Gove. 1983. At Home and at Work: The Family’s Allo-cation of Labor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gershuny, Jonathan and John P. Robinson. 1988. “Historical Changes in the House-hold Division of Labor.” Demography 25(4): 537–52.
——, Michael Godwin and Sally Jones. 1994. “The Domestic Labour Revolution: AProcess of Lagged Adaptation,” in Michael Anderson, Frank Bechhofer andJonathan Gershuny, The Social and Political Economy of the Household, pp. 151–97.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gerson, Kathleen. 1985. Hard Choices. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Goldscheider, Frances K. and Linda J. Waite. 1991. New Families, No Families? The
Transformation of the American Home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Goode, William J. 1992. “Why Men Resist,” in Barrie Thorne and Marilyn Yalom
(eds.) Rethinking the Family, pp. 131–47. New York: Longman.Hochschild, Arlie R. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home.
New York: Viking.Huber, Joan. 1991. “A Theory of Family, Economy, and Gender,” in Rae L. Blum-
berg (ed.) Gender, Family, and Economy. The Triple Overlap, pp. 35–51. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.
—— and Glenna Spitze. 1983. Sex Strati�cation: Children, Housework, and Jobs. NewYork: Academic Press.
Juster, F. Thomas. 1985. “Preferences for Work and Leisure,” in F. Thomas Justerand Frank P. Stafford (eds.) Time, Goods and Well-Being, pp. 333–51. Ann Arbor:Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Klawitter, Marieka M. 1995. “Did They Find Each Other or Create Each Other?Labor Market Linkages between Partners in Same-Sex and Different-SexCouples.” Paper presented at the Meeting of the Population Association ofAmerica, April.
Kurdek, Lawrence A. 1993. “The Allocation of Household Labor in Gay, Lesbian,and Heterosexual Married Couples.” Journal of Social Issues 49(3): 127–39.
Larson, Kathryn. 1992. “Economic Issues Facing Lesbian Households.” Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the International Association of Feminist Econ-omists, Washington, DC.
Maines, David R. and Monica J. Hardesty. 1987. “Temporality and Gender: YoungAdult’s Career and Family Plans.” Social Forces 65(1): 102–20.
Meissner, Martin E., E. W. Humphreys, S. M. Meiss and W. J. Scheu. 1975. “No Exitfor Wives: Sexual Division of Labour and the Cumulation of HouseholdDemands.” Canadian Review of Anthropology and Sociology 12(4): 424–59.
Pahl, Jan. 1990. “Household Spending, Personal Spending and the Control ofMoney in Marriage.” Sociology 24(1): 119–38.
Perruci, Carolyn, Harry R. Potter and Deborah C. Rhoads. 1978. “Determinants ofMale Family-Role Performance.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 3(1): 53–66.
Phipps, Shelley A. and Peter S. Burton. 1995. “Social/Institutional Variables andBehavior within Households: An Empirical Test using the Luxembourg IncomeStudy.” Feminist Economics 1(1): 151–74.
ARTICL ES
82
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
Pleck, Joseph H. 1985. Working Wives, Working Husbands. Beverly Hills, CA: NationalCouncil on Family Relations, Sage.
Polachek, Solomon W. 1981. “Occupational Self-Selection: A Human CapitalApproach to Sex Differences in Occupational Structure.” Review of Economics andStatistics 63(1): 451–70.
Reid, Margaret. 1934. Economics of Household Production. New York: Wiley.Robinson, John P. 1977. Changes in America’s Use of Time. Cleveland, OH: Com-
munications Research Center, Cleveland State University.——. 1988. “Who’s Doing the Housework?” American Demographics 10(12): 24–8, 63.Ross, Catherine E. 1987. “The Division of Labor at Home.” Social Forces 65(3):
816–33.Shelton, Beth A. 1992. Women, Men, and Time; Gender Differences in Paid Work, House-
work, and Leisure. New York: Greenwood Press.Smith, Ralph E. 1979. “The Movement of Women into the Labor Force,” in Ralph
E. Smith (ed.) The Subtle Revolution: Women at Work, pp. 1–29. Washington, DC:The Urban Institute.
South, Scott J. and Glenna Spitze. 1994. “Housework in Marital and NonmaritalHouseholds.” American Sociological Review 59(3): 329–47.
Spitze, Glenna D. 1986. “The Division of Task Responsibility in U.S. Households:Longitudinal Adjustments to Change.” Social Forces 64(33): 689–701.
Stafford, Rebecca, Elaine Backman and Pamela Dibona. 1977. “The Division ofLabor Among Cohabiting and Married Couples.” Journal of Marriage and Family39(2): 43–54.
Thornton, Arland. 1989. “Changing Attitudes toward Family Issues in the UnitedStates.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51(4): 873–93.
United Nations. 1991. The World’s Women, 1970–1990: Trends and Statistics. New York:United Nations.
Walker, Kathryn and William Gauger. 1973. The Dollar Value of Household Work, Infor-mation Bulletin No. 60. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, New York State College ofHuman Ecology.
—— and Margaret Woods. 1976. Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of FamilyGoods and Services. Washington, DC: American Home Economics Association.
Welter, Barbara. 1978. “The Cult of True Womanhood, 1820–1860,” in MichaelGordon (ed.) The American Family in Social–Historical Perspective, 2nd edn., NewYork: St. Martin’s Press.
Willinger, Beth. 1993. “Resistance to Change: College Men’s Attitudes Toward Workand Family in the 1980s,” in Jane C. Hood (ed.) Men, Work, and Family, pp. 108–30.Newbury Park: Sage.
STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD W OMEN AND MEN
83
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itaet
sbib
lioth
ek G
iess
en]
at 0
3:41
30
Oct
ober
201
4
