- Unequal division of the "second shift" labor may be seen as fair because the partner doing less labor at home is doing more labor at the workplace. So, for instance, both parents may be putting in 80 hours a week in paid and unpaid labor, with the father putting in 60 hours at work and 20 at home, and the mother putting in 40 at work and 40 at home. (And of course, to be seen as fair, both partners must see this as acceptible.)
- Unequal division of labor at home may be seen as fair because the father makes more money than the mother, so that the value of the paid and unpaid labor equalizes. For instance, both parents maybe be putting in $100,000 worth of work, with the father's being split up $80,000/$20,000 (work/home) and the mother's split up $40,000/$40,000. (This brings up the complicated question of how to value unpaid labor.)
- Unequal division of labor at home may be seen as fair because it is a stable negotiated outcome and people tend to prefer what they have. This requires a little explanation. If we do a little game theory (sorry, I'll have to save the explanation of that for later), we might get a 1:2 division of labor (that is the father doing 1 hour to the mother's 2 hours) which represents an equilibrium outcome -- no unilateral change by either partner leads to a better outcome. Now, there may in fact be other stable outcomes out there (e.g. equal sharing or a 2:1 division of labor), but it is unclear to the parents how they would get to these outcomes, and as I said above, we tend to prefer what we have to what we don't have. Dan Gilbert talks about this in a video on Ted, and I'd like to find some other sources as well and to find out if there is any research justifying this assertion for non-material "possessions" (e.g. do we prefer situations we are in over situations that we are not in).
What is Transnational Feminism
1 year ago

No comments:
Post a Comment