The division of labour by sex

From “The two income family” by Lynda L Holmstrom 1972 pp 60

Sociologist has long attributed the stratification system based on sex as a form of social inequality by which he males are assigned the position of prestige, while the females the domestic ones. Very often, we witness that our society pays lip service to parenthood and domestic duties, but places a much higher value on occupational achievement. Under such social contracture, it has become a hegemony that males are assigned to the more prestigious activities- career and the women- less prestigious- home and family.

This statement says nothing about whether the activities are satisfying or enjoyable, but only refers to one way that they are ranked in our society.

William Goode has made analogies between women- the low –ranking sex- and people in other low-ranking categories. Looking at the division of labour in numerous societies, he notes that whatever the strictly male activities are, they are defined as being more honorific. This, he suggests, is similar to racial and caste restrictions. “The low-ranking race, caste, or sex is defined as not being able to do certain types of prestigious work, but it is also considered a violation of propriety if they do it. Obviously, if women really cannot do various kinds of male tasks, no moral or ethical prohibition would be necessary to keep them from it.”

The instrumental-expressive theory views that there is a difference between the roles of the sexes: Men have “instrumental (task-oriented) roles and women have “socio-emotional” ones. The shortcomings of his view become apparent when one compares it with the facts of everyday life. For example, a man even thought he may only shuffle paper in a humdrum, bureaucratic, office job, is still said to be performing an instrumental role. A housewife, even she may spend her day marketing, cleaning house, fulfilling civic responsibilities, is not given credit for performing an instrumental roles. These social theorists deprecate women’s work and fail to see the real differentiate roles of the sexes in our society.

A close look suggests the real difference is between higher-status vs. lower status tasks, or between more socially-value vs. less socially-valued activities.

The women movement towards paid labour force has been seen a social revolution challenging the social customs based on male fraternity and leaving a void, unsolved contest ground at home.


The coping strategies for the two income family:

1. Husband to help. In most of professional couples with children, husbands do give considerable helps with childcare
2. Modified work schedule, it is commonly for wives rather than husband at certain of time to make an official arrangement with their employers. It is incidentally childrearing far more than childbearing poses difficulties for the women’s careers.
Though the pregnancy and child bearing attest to a biological difference between the sexes, child rearing has been socially allocated to women and is thus more amenable to change. It is thus important to emphasize that the biological division of labour was much less of a career handicap for women than was the socially defined division of labour between the sexes.
3. The hired help, though the two income families are financially able to hire help in doing childrearing duties and other domestic tasks, it is not uncommon for professional women find difficult to have a “suitable” helper.

Intensive mothering ideology and childrearing ideology have become prevailing in contemporary societies.