The politics of housework (or, housework as an Aphrodisiac)
(posted by Paige)
The AP came out with an article earlier this week called “Men Who Do Housework May Get More Sex”. It follows a recent report from the Council on Contemporary Families summarizing the changes that have (and haven’t) taken place on the
home front over the last several decades:
American men still don’t pull their weight when it comes to housework and childcare, but collectively they’re not the slackers they used to be. The average dad has gradually been getting better about picking himself up off the sofa and pitching in, according to a new report in which a psychologist suggests the payoff for doing more chores could be more sex.
We need a study to tell us this? It seems sort of obvious that a woman who has
just worked an eight hour shift, then cooked dinner, then washed, kissed, and read
to her kids (who are cranky and tired just because they can be), probably is not
going to be particularly turned on by the sight of her man if she comes back
downstairs to find him lounging on the couch when the kitchen sink is still filled with
dishes. Obviously he’ll look a whole lot better to her if his sleeves are rolled up and
he’s up to his elbows in soap suds. At least, it’s obvious to some of us.
I remember a couple years ago, I read an interview with Steven Rhoads, a politics professor at University of Virginia. The interview was about his new book: Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Here’s a little background information on Rhoads and the thesis of his book:
Rhoads, 66, is a rising star of the conservative movement, but he would tell you he’s the real feminist out there, not women who advocate for their sisters’
professional advancement and greater earning power. He argues that the
differences between men and women can be explained in biological terms—that hormones drive men to prefer competition and breadwinning and women to prefer nurturing relationships and housekeeping. What’s more, this biological explanation should underpin America’s public policy and cultural practice.
Basically, he thinks women should just stay home:
“Moms are happier when they don’t work. So are Dads. So are the kids. And studies, he says, prove it.”
Maybe women are happier when they don’t work, but maybe it has less to do with
their testosterone levels and more to do with the fact that they still have to
shoulder most of the housework and childcare responsibilities, and even though they
love both their work and their families, they are just bone tired trying to juggle it all. Just a possibility, and one that seems to get some support from the research cited
in this week’s AP article. If “men who do housework get more sex,” it’s probably
because their women are less sleep-deprived, over-worked, and pissed off than
they would be if they had to do it all themselves. In other words, they’re happier.
Given the latest stats from the labor department on women in the workforce, the article seems to be timely (or maybe just a little late):
Overall labor force participation rates will continue to rise among women and edge down among men between 1998 and 2008. As a result, women’s labor force growth should be faster than men’s—about half again as fast, in fact.
As more women are added to the labor force, their share will approach that of men. In 2008, women will make up about 48 percent of the labor force and men 52 percent. In 1988, the respective shares were 45 and 55 percent.
I haven’t read Rhoads book, but I think I’ll have to just to find out what exactly he
means when he says his theory of sex differences should “underpin America’s public
policy and cultural practice.” I’m guessing he’s not talking about workplace policies
which make allowances for maternity/paternity leave, or job shares and other ways
to offer flexibility to reliable workers. It’s funny, by asserting that women (with the
exception of those exposed to testosterone in utero) are biologically programmed to
want to be wives, mothers and homemakers, social conservatives feel they have a
platform from which to advocate for policies that “encourage” women to follow their
“natural” path. In contrast, by denying even the possibility that there may be a
genetic contribution to sexual orientation, they try to preserve their platform for
pushing anti-gay policies. As far as women and working are concerned,
conservatives like Rhoads offer this advice:
A woman who takes depositions at 6:00 p.m. makes neither herself nor her
husband happier. Stressed beyond reason, the woman is torn between her concern for her children and her desire to do her job well. Husbands see the anguish and at some primal level, an overstressed wife tells her husband that he is failing at being a good protector and provider. If women who are mothers, modern or not, want a happy marriage, they had better create for themselves a life that is not frazzled or their husbands will be as unhappy as they are.
Or, alternatively, their husbands can follow the lead of the men cited in the AP article and cheer they’re wives up by doing a load of laundry and a sink full of dishes. And who
knows, they might both go to bed happy.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:39 am
“by denying even the possibility that there may be a
genetic contribution to sexual orientation”
Do you mean biological contribution? I could be wrong about this, but my impression is that there is some evidence suggesting a biological influence over sexual orientation, but there is little or no evidence for a genetic influence. My understanding is that a female embryo exposed to androgens, or a male embryo that is not, has a higher likelihood of being gay. But the exposure, or lack thereof, to androgens may have biological causes that are not genetic. Perhaps something like an illness during the pregnancy could effect hormone levels? I’m just guessing.
Of course, this science contains large doses of speculation, and some reputable researchers are sckeptical.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:52 am
“they had better create for themselves a life that is not frazzled”
That is an odd bit of advice for Rhoads to give out. He seems to assume that a lot of women want to have frazzled lives. He seems to lack faith that maybe the women he addresses are doing the best they can to balance out multiple, competing demands on their time.
In another vein, I’m reminded of a recent post by Amanda Marcotte, where she complained about the advice that says women should quit their careers so they can focus on finding a man. And she points out that in her social circle every woman she knows both has a career and yet also finds time to date.
So many either/or presumptions when the reality of the situation allows for both.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:00 am
And she points out that in her social circle every woman she knows both has a career and yet also finds time to date.
Dating is one thing. Sustaining a marriage and raising children while pursuing a high-powered career, quite another.
Only really wealthy women can “have it all.” And with a nanny who is a perfect mom substitute.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:37 am
On the ‘gay gene’ debate:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
On the movement to disregard any possibility of a genetic aspect to homosexuality:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2
I personally doubt that one gene can explain something as complex and multi-faceted as sexuality. But still, the neo-conservatives won’t give an inch to the idea of a genetic or biological relationship to sexual orientation. Understandably, it would bring in the whole ‘problem of evil.’ God couldn’t possibly be responsible for something as ‘heathen’ as homosexuality .
March 9th, 2008 at 8:52 am
When we can’t have it all, we can still find solace in a little solidarity with our partners (the dishes/laundry/childcare/breadwinning can be a shared endeavor).
Having it all would be great, but is a pretty lofty goal for most of us.
Of course, this doesn’t apply to single parents, who really just have to be super-human (or else build community and a network of support for themselves).
Also, I am not in any way putting down those women that want to (and have the viable option to) be homemakers and mamas without the added stress of outside work. It would be great if more women actually did have a real choice in the matter. Most of the folks I know wouldn’t be able to pay the bills this way, a fact that Rhoads doesn’t really seem to get.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
OK, I may be a freak here, but I do more housework than my wife. Mostly because I’m a neat freak, so I prefer things done my way.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Well, I was married for 21 years to a gay man. He’s a better cook than I am, and decorates.
But cleaning? Uh, no. He hated that and it all fell to me, except for doing his laundry; he was protective of his clothing and felt only he could treat it with the loving care it required. But he did pitch in well with the babies, changing diapers, feeding at 2 a.m., and such.
All of which is to say, I don’t have the usual experience of sharing domestic chores with my husband that most women do. Dinner was often his purview — he rather insisted on it.
(If ex doesn’t have a “gay gene,” something sure as hell set his orientation in cement.)
March 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
@Mona,
Dating is one thing. Sustaining a marriage and raising children while pursuing a high-powered career, quite another.
Only really wealthy women can “have it all.” And with a nanny who is a perfect mom substitute.
More and more women are realizing that they can’t have it all, and the component that they’re dropping, especially here in Taiwan, is the marriage and children part.
Men can either pick up the slack, or there will just be fewer and fewer little kiddies around.
Birth rates just hit 1.1 children here in Taiwan.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Men can either pick up the slack, or there will just be fewer and fewer little kiddies around.
Not sure the problem is only, or even mostly, with the menfolk. A couple working full-time with 2-3 children are both generally exhausted all the time.
My son married a woman I adore. They both work demanding jobs, and between them have four children (my son, unusually, has full custody of my 2 grandsons). Their domestic division of labor is equal; he’s done tons to make that house energy-efficient and otherwise improved it. She does most but not all cooking and laundry — tho he irons his own shirts.
But they are so frenzied all the time, in large part because they also have a child-centered home. In addition to everything else, they try to get to every Little League game or swim meet. Homework completion is monitored.
When both parents work full-time, unless the family is wealthy enough for hired help (and I cook for them at least once a week and sometimes do a few loads of their laundry), life is hellishly frenetic.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:07 am
One can also point out (based on Mona’s comment) that the loss/destruction of extended family units/long term communities have a negative impact on the “cost” of raising a family. I can testify from personal experience that having a grandparent like Mona nearby, even doing that small amount (not denigrating Mona’s contribution in any way, but when viewed in the totality of raising a family…) of work is like mana from heaven. Of course, both my wife and I sacrificed in the career department so that we could live near family for precisely this reason.
Another aspect that I’ve run into lately is the lack of long term community. All of my wife’s and my own friends have scattered geographically. My kids love play dates with them, but it’s just a major production to arrange anymore. When I was a kid (back the last time there was stagflation in the air), my parents had long-term friends in the neighborhood that they could share time with. There’s a lot more to it than that, but I think you can point out a lot of places where the “cost” of raising a family has increased greatly in the last thirty years.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I’m with you, quasibill. While Rhoad’s (and others like him) believe the problem is the breakdown of the traditional family (aka mommy stays home/daddy brings home the bacon to a nice clean house), I think that much of the problem is the breakdown of extended family/community. I have many times thought of packing up the kids and moving closer to family. I want to work, I was raised to want to work, and also my kids depend on me building a career that will support us, but the reality of playing so many roles at once is far from satisfying. I’m thinking of putting an ad in the local paper for an honorary grandma (how much does one cost these days?).
March 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
As quasibill says, “my own friends have scattered geographically”. It’s curious that studies show people report being happier when they have strong local friendships/social networks/communities, and yet they make decisions that cause them to scatter. On the one hand, it seems reasonable to assume that economic conditions pressure people to make the decisions they do, yet on the other hand, satisfying those economic pressures should show up the plus side of people’s reported happiness, yet that doesn’t seem to happen. I mean, if friends make us happy, but making money makes us even more happy, then it would make sense for people to move across the country for a good job, even if that means abandoning our friends. But people should then report themselves as happy, not unhappy. Yet if the opposite is true, if friends make us more happy than money, then people shouldn’t move around as much as they seem to. There is a mismatch, somewhere.
I suspect there is a kind of a “tragedy of the commons” thing at work here - people make decisions that are individually rational, but the collective result makes everyone less happy. And the reason for the mismatch between the individual decision and the collective result, as near as I can figure, is the fact that no one owns a friendship. Unlike a marriage, we all grow up understanding that a friendship is a relatively transitory thing - not to be counted upon, not to be invested in. Very few people would plan their life around a friendship the way most people plan their life around a marriage.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Jackson,
I’m not sure I’d call it a tragedy of the commons, which tends to be an overused concept by libertarians, but there is definitely an issue that escapes Chicago school style cost/benefit analysis.
While this is probably too complex of a subject to address in comments, I’d posit that the problem arises from the fact that our culture (uh-oh, there’s that c-word!) has devolved to the point where we generally celebrate the fact that we are all just passive consumers, and no longer view ourselves as active, productive, morally independent entities. People tend to discount those values in their lives that don’t have dollar signs attached to them, while overvaluing material possessions.
I’ll put a little more personal flavor to this - the decision my wife and I made to sacrifice our careers was not met with the greatest support from our parents or our friends. We still get a fair amount of grief from certain quarters, and our friends just shake their heads when we talk about some of the freedom our choice has given us, lifestyle wise, when they complain about how frenetic and unhappy their lives are. (but they sure have more electronic gew-gaws from China than we do!)
In the modern U.S., there is tremendous social pressure to “live the good life”. In contrast, there is little support to live *a*good life, in the sense of being a balanced, moral human being. Why this is so is a complicated question, but I”m of the opinion that the state has only helped accelerate this harmful trend (to take an example, the national highway system definitely created an economic system that encouraged the scattering of local communities).
March 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I can testify from personal experience that having a grandparent like Mona nearby, even doing that small amount (not denigrating Mona’s contribution in any way, but when viewed in the totality of raising a family…) of work is like mana from heaven.
And not to glorify myself, but I do more than that because I love them all so dearly and want to. Baby-sitting or taking the boys to a movie on a Sunday afternoon both so that I can enjoy them, and so that son and wife can have some precious time alone. If my weird work schedule allows it, I pick up sick grandkids from school, and stay with them when I can.
I never had that when raising my kids. While I lived in the same city as my ex-in-laws, the sick bitch who gave birth to my former husband refused to help me because I was in school, and she thought it was immoral for a mother to do that. My folks had moved to another state.
I stay right here, even with the sucky economy where I am, because my son and grandkids — their whole Brady Bunch family — are the most important things to me.
Truly, the loss of the extended-family is a huge part of the problem for today’s parents. And also, when I’m in my dotage and need help, I know my son won’t shove me alone is some nursing home and forget I exist. Being part of their lives would preclude that, tho that isn’t why I do it.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Mona -
Glorify yourself as much as possible. More people need to understand the value of what you do, even though there are no $$$ attached. People need to start remembering that families and communities do provide value to the individuals in them, because the next few years are probably going to get ugly on the standard of living front.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I agree, quasibill. Mona, if you ever want to trade in the lovely western climate for 100 degrees in the shade Virginia, we’d love to have you as an honorary grandmother. I can hardly imagine what a relief it would be to have help on sick days/teacher conference days, MLK day, mama’s got final exam days, etc. Before I had kids, I prided myself on my independence…now I have to use restraint daily not to over-exploit the generosity of friends. Your son’s family is lucky to have you. That said, I am lucky to have very supportive parents, but having settled a twelve hour drive away from them, I can’t exactly drop off the kids when school closes over a centimeter of snow (which it does here, southern state that it is).