Civitas Blog

The conclusions were particularly note-worthy on the happiness of women who became full-time 'homemakers', or as they put it, where husbands and wives 'specialised.’(Specialisation didn’t necessarily mean the wife becoming the homemaker, however instances of the reverse were notably rare). The married women who lived in households with a complete domestic/employment division of labour, appeared to be considerably happier than those women living in households where this wasn't the case - especially once children came into the equation. As the authors say, this traditional division of labour is regarded as very conservative – and merely pointing out this observation is likely to draw accusations of seeking evidence to re-instate gendered roles in marriage. Aversion to this point being that exclusion from the labour force is necessarily a negative for women. But in fact, the realities of of many families' domestic arrangements make it not remotely surprising that full 'specialisation' was the preferable option for many wives - considering that women continue to do the majority of housework and caring, whether they work or not. (This might be particularly the case when their employment opportunities were unappealing - equating 'unappealing' with low pay and low reward, may also help explain why couples with large wage differences benefit disproportionately from specialisation and marriage). The authors drew a similar conclusion, attributing the comparative unhappiness of employed wives, to the stress of having the double burden of outside and domestic work. Tellingly, the men in specialised marriages were neither happier nor less happy than those in dual-income ones.

Although the study looks at the happiness of one particular country, the insight could perhaps be more widely applied. Namely, that in exactly the same way that we must not assume gendered divisions of labour in marriages, we also mustn’t assume that all wives, mothers in particular, are desperate to get back to their jobs. There is a stigma attached to women who stay at home to care for their children and work in the home. Even if they have chosen to. The word ‘housework’ has become almost derogatory. These women are either pitied, or frowned upon. However, whilst the problem is seen to be that non-participation in the paid labour force means non-participation in adult modern life, arguably the root of the problem is quite different. Because it is unpaid, domestic work has never been regarded as proper labour. (Something which those against women staying in the home would agree with). Thus rather than seeing the solution as ignoring domestic work, together with its still heavily gendered take-up, the more realistic strategy for greater equality would be to elevate its importance.

Policy in the UK currently does nothing for the domestic ‘worker’. Women, and men, are positively discouraged from working in the home. The economic necessity of getting them into the labour force has meant a further degrading of caring for one’s family, and investment solely into institutionalised childcare.

The trouble is that moves to facilitate equal opportunity between the sexes are often based on assumptions – and outcomes – which effectively perpetuate, rather than addressing, inequity. And let’s not be naïve about the motives behind government policy: the same principle which lay behind Thatcher’s desire to get women out of the labour force, lies behind Blair’s desire to get women into it – economics, not equality.