IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/femeco/v25y2019i3p23-47.html

What women want (their men to do): Housework and Satisfaction in Australian Households

Author

Listed:
  • Gigi Foster
  • Leslie S. Stratton

Abstract

The time allocated to household chores is substantial, with the burden falling disproportionately upon women. Social norms about how much housework men and women should do are likely to influence couples’ housework allocation decisions and satisfaction. Using Australian data spanning 2001–14, this study employs a two-stage estimation procedure to examine how deviations from housework norms relate to couples’ satisfaction. The study finds that satisfaction is negatively affected by predicted housework time and that women’s satisfaction, but not men’s, is robustly affected by their partners’ residual housework time. When he exceeds housework norms, she is happier with housework allocations, but less happy in broader dimensions. The study suggests several reasons for the results, including that housework is more salient in women’s lives than in men’s, that housework generally is not a preferred activity, and that some degree of gender-norm conformity in regard to housework can positively affect women’s life satisfaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Gigi Foster & Leslie S. Stratton, 2019. "What women want (their men to do): Housework and Satisfaction in Australian Households," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 23-47, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:25:y:2019:i:3:p:23-47
    DOI: 10.1080/13545701.2019.1609692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13545701.2019.1609692
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13545701.2019.1609692?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruna Moraes & Kamila Kolpashnikova, 2026. "Routine Housework Division and Satisfaction: Association with Gender and Retirement Status among Older Adults," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 182(2), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Gigi Foster & Leslie S. Stratton, 2021. "Does female breadwinning make partnerships less healthy or less stable?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(1), pages 63-96, January.
    3. Ervin, Jennifer & Churchill, Brendan & Ruppanner, Leah & King, Tania, 2025. "Unpaid labour and mental health–the role of perceived fairness and satisfaction in division amongst working-age adults; a longitudinal analysis using 18 waves of panel data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 384(C).
    4. Anna Gudrun Ragnarsdottir & Paul McNamee & Edward C. Norton & Thorhildur Olafsdottir & Tinna Laufey Asgeirsdottir, 2024. "The Division of Labour Within the Household and Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Marcén, Miriam & Morales, Marina, 2019. "Gender division of household labor: How does culture operate?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 373, Global Labor Organization (GLO).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:25:y:2019:i:3:p:23-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.