- ‘ " WWII“ 9"" ‘>““‘"< "III- .-.~
. . ‘15“ . “1‘ ‘11 a 'I .‘y. . . '7‘ . ":“I'bc ..w
. ?2&.1('-$f%$ III :I. In» I (I «I:

I 1.1111“ I.:‘Q.3‘..~ ‘q rfl R .4...
”2‘.“1111\1~'1¢\ H: 1|}. {£511 a . .-‘ .

.151“! II111‘1III11L11
? ‘I 15‘ I...' I'

    
   
  
   

   

   
 

  

”1

‘ng’g

*_
-.S
_ vol-n,
. .
h
-
o." .
‘.“
. "T
'5
O.
‘5'
_i.

4’] . :I‘ H \ .‘ ’ '. '3 n. ‘ ’8‘ -.\1.|;.”‘;[%' -::.:‘ .
1 {P .‘L‘ .1 'I | | ' ‘3:\| 1L.‘Td1+:;1‘1. m 1
‘ N *1 . 11 1 ' 1‘1 xix-{1111? t‘:

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
   
    
 
 
  
  
  
   

I ' mlo‘ 11 I
41 11 101-1311 11 1"11 111'} I
I‘to‘l .0 .I‘§.' N -' k
. “: “’15 *~ .d p. ‘ 51‘ Y t...
”I . 131W. '. .O: 'HIJ ' ”W .“J ‘ ’ x" i .
111 N 6‘ Hug II I ig' ,I‘AHA-YHI} ‘x . “
‘r‘L ‘ “'1.O.;I “" I. ‘;;;j€:'— “‘ " é‘fi’j‘ :*a.-". t‘. I %‘.. Q... ' I
“III ‘19.. 1..., 2m I . III-III “II ,. I I
.1I‘.11H ' ' 1. _ v . ‘. .

3‘ N".-I ‘£r.’1§..II1‘1'51I *1?" 191'1I'1X'1I'ff'3'“ "1 '.

III" III “I" In .‘f-f 15;“ I: §IIIW
t: . :51: - ' {1'33 ‘u

w“ "P ' 1113141" ’1‘" {51'3‘iirki‘a1ef ‘ "WI

11:- '1'”? E151“? ‘g‘k “If; “4.1.013; V‘éz’lfi 3511:: “113‘;ng ‘1 1

. 111I'1I‘LI‘IN" {I‘Li:.‘_.~1.'1.1 “1111111111 1111111111111! 1111111111111" 1111 11131: 11111111111111- 1.11111 11 11M“ {11:1}

.1 H'lfi'o-:‘- ”-1.“ ;.I:'::' ' .
11' M "4:3.13‘111‘1" 1¥\11L?lw5111111L1fi.A‘ .h ‘5‘ ~05: .Jctl {fit .

. M“ "I 1' 11 '1
I 11:1I'41I:‘ -'I".3:‘.:Q§:I$&J'1i"$‘ 44.11 -I 1111;: {$11-$14 11:1.
. "gran. 1:. 3': 3H.” {$411111}? a .'W1I‘|“Eu~.'%|?.é%
. 1‘. “(to 1.11% .I:H- 1 1 ‘1 1
. .: II. Aw .I Inf”? ‘I f" .II-r. "II

u o _ 'I. .. .. . d... I - ‘1')...1; ‘10“.
'If'. ‘. . ,11"' *1"?! :'I“.'1‘_I ‘1‘ ‘ .1:("(I\H;.1v‘z1u.. .
1 1lr1h 'l 1 1‘ L. [:I Iqt‘ 1"1-11‘ fidC‘f'.1;"!J?.‘:. 1‘!" 1% “55“,: E‘H' 1: - 1:1‘
IN}! I, I.» I .
1I'.
l

    

 
      

fl 0
I ’q ‘I' l'r—‘I'JN .I‘. \- 11:1:{k1‘v‘1111 Q1411Q111t'g.

I I
;.;._I..;I.I..I .
ll1l I

1 . :. I1I- 11"h_11’:.
I" '“l' I I _ .' ‘ l ..' 0
pl ' “i3.” . .1 I. (.10. 3“: ' tog. 1.1. 1.1 DJ. L g’ ”H ‘31‘;
n. I. I - ' I 1 . III | 5 I". 0 5.1151 hi.‘1.::'
1.; 1.11.1.5. ‘1’ _,-|’.I..~' I' '1—1.‘_11'.'- ' ‘1'? 113 ' '1111 N911¥11151 11111111111111.
1"; -.L- I 1.1 .
' '7'

 
      
     
       
 
 
       
  
   

 

. .IIIU! ' In. I q’ '11‘ . '5' I_ I‘I‘ hm .1111qafi‘
'1 1- [IT‘S' .ll. ‘11'1 .~.1' .‘n't 1". 1- :‘l .
11:] 1‘“: ‘1" ‘1' 'nl" ‘ .31.“. '5‘. .‘ H ' "I. .o:n.$‘ It‘ILo‘I' I, '1 :0; 3} “)6'1‘. 3-5;:
I 1 .. ’0‘} .. IL:I '::5L1.“' ' '» '(\-bl-1£‘1 [It .|I .ubl . 1 . . 1
.‘ \.YUL'ri H 1111111 .1'1151?‘ 1 1 6:1' \un .- 1' hr :41‘10 .i' ,';"l.1 1“: 1
J. 5.3.. . I ‘ '0' 1 n 01.1" I. 1‘. __ If, 43.”. +305}. . t'.l.'.. II.
011 ”‘1 .16'. ‘ :01 1‘1'fi' I" 1' 11. ‘1 "'1‘: ‘1 ”$10111“ “1 ‘ 1' .1“
1"111'3 ' -'.II:- Iv, I . ,g- {Ir-gva-IIIII. 3.3.5. I :1.
. u '._I1 17.21-1oa'1‘il11 ' 011'1I1” .1. I _'| 1' a ‘0 ‘3. 1 ' 1 '
'° I. '- ‘ 'If1.1-"IJ1'I‘I'T‘." ‘31”:1‘1 11’." Jl1|.1111111;11 F1111 1} .':F..'I"'d1"'\?~ 141':1.- u'. :.D 1111-11?” [13392]. Kai .' .-
. . _ _“.' | 1 . ' 1 s M. ' . .‘l “. .l ‘.. ‘ . .. '1‘.. VI
: ) ‘1‘ ’ "n ' I .41 l". 11‘ II‘ I ' ._.'. F1i;-1fiw “1‘ 1 .I chi oo"
‘.

-__._
-—‘

.I‘i'i-‘I . WI}. n. :2? g I.':'::’.\1}\1.1":':'1.‘ "1' -'
o '. I ‘ .. g '
”PH“ .1. .g‘ ‘11'1'01'" .. o

:1” 1' ‘1 1 ' 1 111"1'I’ It 1": I I II’. \I- 111! :11I
.‘5'~ ' . “IO. .‘l i":i{|‘l-1l'1d |"_1 .6 I11, «hlg I] If‘- 11"}...I.‘
“1% I” '1' ' «Iflffil‘: I.-"I-. .'I;'."I Ir" I‘M- ;~..' I

: 1111” 17‘I11::1"1:i1d 1 1 1111111.1'111fl1 I11<IJ~::I:1.-11IE

L'.|'.."lh‘h ”days-\ql.‘ ‘.
9'11? ' ‘ .1. 27V "1111111111!

|‘_
i

l I... .
I I. 1. '0 a l
' ._ ‘ - '1— *. ‘g ‘1' III*:.‘ :' ‘ | Q I" o. L. 1‘1Il .‘. elf" ”Ls , i .I 'h g 0. L‘.
h o ’ 1'11Qf‘11’LH1I." .1 11.131“ '%9 ‘0 LI”, 1.1. ”1”?!) .fi. . 111:. ‘1?! 1'1”:l1.1';' :4“. _ 1‘5; i‘L -.. :41 .
\ ‘ I . -

flfim-IG

' 0::

r
:1".

 

   

    

I?
In;
J...- '

l'.

d! ' II

WWDTWU . I .I'llr

-
i

 

 

Light? “2" h \Wm~:\x\il\\ :KTSH l‘ \Hgll‘“
\‘l \ \\\
Michigan Ste. ea 293 796 629
University

>:

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Blue Collar Families in the 1981-1983 Recession:
An Examination of Family and Gender in a Period
of Economic Decline

presented by

Judy R. Aulette

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. degree in Sociology

% W 434%

Major professor

Date May 6, 1986

 

MS U in an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

 

 

)V1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
“ your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

: , , 5
'P’ ‘uk 4 j l.r ..' ‘_,VJ

NOV 0 6 2009
llbubl

 

 

BLUE COLLAR FAMILIES IN THE 1981-1983 RECESSION:
AN EXAMINATION OF FAMILY AND GENDER IN A PERIOD

OF ECONOMIC DECLINE

3?

fiJudy Root Aulette

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology
1986

ABSTRACT
BLUE COLLAR FAMILIES IN THE 1981-1983 RECESSION:
AN EXAMINATION OF FAMILY AND GENDER IN A PERIOD
OF ECONOMIC DECLINE
BY

Judy Root Aulette

This study examines effects of the economic recession of 1981-83
on blue collar families in a small industrial city in Ohio. It focu-
ses on specific issues of family, and of gender, as systems of
authority and tradition that may be "shaken” during a period of eco-
nomic decline. Comparisons are made to research on families during
the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The study is based on closed-ended questionnaires given to 16”
couples, and on 22 in-depth interviews. The subjects of both
questionnaires and interviews were both husbands and wives in families
where either the man or the woman had been laid off from a blue-collar
Job. Comparisons are made between the questionnaire and interview
data, with a discussion of the development and utility of this blend
of methods.

The analysis is organized around six issues: labor force par-
ticipation, finances, economizing, organization of housework, family
decision-making, and ideas and opinions about gender equality. In
half of the families with husbands who had been laid off, wives
increased their labor force participation. The decision about whether
the wife would enter the labor market was affected by beliefs about

the "proper" allocation of domestic work and the roles of women and

Judy Root Aulette

men in paid labor. Family finances were more severely affected when a
husband was laid off than when a wife was laid off. However, women
spoke of the "hidden opportunity" of the husband's job loss; it
pushed wives into new experiences, sometimes bringing them greater
responsibility and authority in their families and communities.

Families used varied strategies to economize, both as an imme-
diate response to unemployment of a wage earner, and as a more gradual
response to the effects of the economic recession. Reducing the
number of meals at restaurants and the hiring of babysitters were the
most common methods of economizing. No one took in boarders or rela-
tives, a popular method of economizing during the 1930's.

Most of the unemployed men increased domestic work after their
layoff, although the change was usually slight. The employed wives of
these men continued to do much more housework than their husbands.
Women who were laid off slipped into the hosuewife role, not always
happily. The doing of housework became more egalitarian in families
where the man was laid off and less egalitarian in families where the
woman was laid off. In contrast, decision making was more egalitarian
in families where the wife had been laid off and less egalitarian in
families where the husband had been laid off. However, when asked
directly about changes in authority, most respondents said that
authority had passed from the laid off person to his or her spouse.
The interviewees had a wide variety of definitions of gender equality.
They tended toward greater support of equality for women since the

layoff, although some men thought their layoff was a result of affir-

Judy Root Aulette

mative action. Opinion polls in the 1930's indicate that people much

more clearly blamed working women for the high rates of unemployment.

In order to capture a full picture of the effects of the
recession on families, we need to conceptualize families as arenas
where there are both unity and conflicts of interests among members.
Theorists have tended to either emphasize the ways in which families
cooperate as a unit, 0R ways in which they are sites of inequality and
conflict. In the families in this study, both of these charac-
teristics are operating and were intensified by the economic hard

times.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my dissertation committee members at Michi-
gan State University, Marilyn Aronoff, William Ewens, Harry Perlstadt
and Barrie Thorne, for their assistance in the completion of this
dissertation. I would especially like to thank Professor Thorne her
support and guidance through the long and sometimes arduous process of
bringing this research from the first kernel of an idea to a completed
work.

From the Ohio State University at Lima, I would like to thank
Judy Von Blon for her assistance in preparing the proposal and
questionnaires. In addition, I would like to thank the students from
Ohio State University and Lima Technical College who collaborated with
me in the collection of data for this project. I would also like to
thank the many people in Lima, Ohio who so graciously allowed me into
their lives and provided me with the information that I have reported
and analyzed here.

I would like to thank Anna and Elizabeth fer helping me to keep
some balance in my life as a scholar and a person. Finally, I would
like to thank Albert as a colleague and a friend for his assistance

and support at every stage of this dissertation.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST or TABLES................................................. v
LIST or FIGURES................................................ vii
PREFACE........................................................ viii
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1

Family: an arena of gender politics...................... 3
The economic context..................................... A
Busting out in Lima, Ohio................................ 7
Specific issues.......................................... 9

2. LITERATUREOOOOOOODOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO11

Families during the Depression........................... 12
Post-depression research................................. 23
Families and economy..................................... 23
Relations within families................................ 29

3. METHODS........................................................ 36

Research Setting......................................... 36
Development and administration of the questionnaire...... 38
Questionnaires........................................... no
Administration of the questionnaire...................... “3
The sample population.................................... #6
Defense of the survey method and limitations on’
generalizing.......................................... 50
Personal interviews...................................... 53
The couples.............................................. 57
Data presentation........................................ 62
Blending methodologies................................... 63

u. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ECONOMY AND FAMILY.................... 70
Labor market participation............................... 71

Family financeSoocoo000.000.0000.000000000000000000000000 82
EconomizingOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 90

iii

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

Page

50 RfiULTS AND DISCUSSION: HOUSEWORKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI 98

Time spent on housework.................................. 99
Changes in housework since the layoff................... 103
The distribution of specific tasks...................... 110
Satisfaction............................................ 120
Reactions from others................................... 121

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: DECISION-MAKING AND IDEOLOGY......... 125
Decision-makingOOOO0.0.000...OOOOOOOOUIOOOCO00.0.0000... 125
Changes in authorityOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000IOOOOOOOOO..0... 135
GenderideOIOgieSOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOOOOO...0.0.000....01’40
Extenuating CircumstanceSOOOO0.00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1’49
7. SWARYANDCONCLUSIONSOOOOOOOOOOO00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.152
Everyday life in a recession............................ 153
Comparison to the Great Depression...................... 161
Unity and conflicts of interests in families............ 163
Dual nature or famiIYOO00000000000900000000000...coococo 171
APPENDIX A: OLD QUESTIONNAIRE...O...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 17”
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UNEMPLOYED PERSON.................. 178
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SPOUSE OF UNEMPLOYED PERSON........ 18A
APPENDIX D: RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT.......................... 190
APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH REPORT DONE BY STUDENTS...... 192

APPENDIX F: REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION OF SUBJECTS
IN THE RaEARCH...‘0.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000...... 193

BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...00.0.0.0...19”

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Comparison of research samples to census of Allen County,
Ohio, 1980.00.00.0000.0.000.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0 ”8

2. Questionnaire reponses: "Has your work changed since your
spouse was laid off?"..................................... 72

3. Occupations of interviewees at the time of the interview.... 76

A. Questionnaire responses: what is the unemployed person's
Spouse dOj-ng?000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 77

5. Questionnaire responses: "Who decides what job you should

take?"000.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOO...00.000000000000000..00... 81

6. Questionnaire responses: "How much has the layoff affected
your financeS?".OIOI...IOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.I.0.0.0.0... 83

7. Questionnaire responses: "How much money per week is
currently being brought into your household?"............. 90

8. Questionnaire responses: "In which of the fellowing ways
have you attempted to economize?"......................... 91

9. Questionnaire responses: "Has economizing created more
work and, if 30’ Who does it?"0000..OOIOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO 95

1o. Questionnaire responses: If more work is created,
Who does itOOOO00.0.00...IOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.000.... 95

11. Responses to interviews: "Has economizing created more
work and, if 80' Who does it?”OOOOOIOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0...O... 96

12. Questionnaire responses: average hours of housework on a
typicalweekdaYOOOO0.0000000000IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO100

13. Questionnaire responses: average hours of housework on a
typical weekday-spouse estimate compared to self report.. 101

1M. Questionnaire responses: "Have there been any changes in
who does the housework since you (or your spouse) was
laidOff?"000000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO0..103

V

Table

vi

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

Page

15. Questionnaire responses: If there has been a change in

l6.

l7.

18.

19.

20.

21.
22.
23.

2”.

25.

26.

27.

28.

housework, who is doing more work?....................... 10H

Responses to interviews: change in amount of housework done
by unemployed personOOOOOOOOOO0.000.000000000000000000000 105

Questionnaire responses: "Who does the housework?"........ 111
Questionnaire responses: "Considering the chores in your
household, do you feel your partner does his/her
fair Share?"000000000000000000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 116
Questionnaire responses: "Have arguments about housework
increased, decreased, or stayed the same since the

layOff?"oooooooo0.000000000000000oooooooooooooocoooooooo117

Questionnaire responses: "How much satisfaction do you get
from dOing housework?”00000000000000....000.000.00.00... 121

Questionnaire responses: Who makes decisions?............. 128
Questionnaire responses:"Who makes day-to-day decisions?". 132
Questionnaire responses: "Who makes big decisions?"....... 132

Questionnaire responses: "Do you think your authority has
become weaker or stronger since the layoff?"............ 136

Questionnaire responses: Do you think your authority
isStronger...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00IOOOOOOOOIOODOOOOIOOOO136

Questionnaire responses: "Do you think your role in the
family is more important, less important, or has remained
about the same Since the layorf?"000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 138

Questionnaire responses: percentage favoring equal rights
for womenoooo00000000000000.0000.0000000000900000000000. 1H1

Questionnaire responses: "Has your opinion of equal rights
changed since the layoff?".............................. 1H2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I. Questionnaire items illustrating the relationship between
the economy and the family................................ 71

2. Questionnaire items illustrating relationships within
familieSOOOOOOOO0.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 98

vii

PREFACE

The last few years have been a period of economic decline, espe-
cially in the industrial Midwest. During the years l981-198H, I lived
in a small industrial town in Ohio that was changed profoundly by the
recession. As I became close to many of the people in the town where
I lived, I realized that I was in the midst of a large "social experi-
ment" because of the recession, and I wanted to record its history.
Because the economic and social events were disconcerting and someti-
mes devastating to the subjects of this "experiment", I felt that the
events should be recorded and analyzed. My purpose is not only to
preserve the history, but also to learn something from the events so
that, possibly, something of benefit can come of the changes taking
place.

C. Wright Mills (l959:3) wrote that, "neither the life of an
individual nor the history of a society can be understood without
understanding both." This dissertation is an attempt to understand
both and to illuminate the connection between the economic decline
that has come to characterize the current history of our society, and
the lives of individuals who are living through these times. It is my
hope that the information in this dissertation can help us to
understand the effect of recession on human lives and thereby allow us
to more knowledgably determine the kinds of changes we would like to

see in our society and the best ways to implement those changes.
viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Since the middle of the 1970's the American economy has
experienced significant decline. After more than three decades of
expansion, every indicator of economic growth has begun to reverse.
Unemployment, inflation and fiscal crisis have increased. Real wages
have declined. Banks have closed and countries have defaulted on
loans. There is much debate about the cause, direction, and solution
to the economic crisis, but there is no doubt that the period of the
last decade is marked by serious and problematic changes in our econ-
omy.

An economic system is not an abstraction set apart from humans.
It is a social organization of people creating themselves as well as
the means to their survival.

"The mode of production must not be considered simply as being

the production of physical existence of individuals. Rather

it is a definite form of activity of the individuals expressing

their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individ-

uals express their life so they are. What they are therefore,
coincides with their production, both what they produce and how
they produce," (Marx and Engels, 1973:M2).
An economic crisis does not remain at the level of "things"-
wages, banks and money- but is a social crisis as well. If an econo-
mic system is an arrangement of many people working together to create

subsistence and self, a crisis in that economic system will not only

1

2
create a breach in our ability to produce and distribute commodities
like food and shelter, it will also create a crisis in our selves.
Such times call into question who we are and how we live.

The link between economic crisis and social crisis was observed
during the Great Depression of the 1930's in the United States.

"The depression of the early 1930's was like the explosion of a

bomb dropped in the midst of society. All the major institutions

such as government, family,church and school, were obviously
profoundly affected and the repercussions were so far reaching
that scarcely any type of human activity was untouched" (Stouffer
and Lazarsfeld, l937:v).

Stouffer and Lazarfeld also noted that during such a crisis fun-
damental ideas and patterns of behavior, particularly about main-
taining traditional relationships of power, are called into question.
We are forced to examine the way in which our social system is main-
tained when that system seems unable to justify itself.

"It may be that in the effort to adjust to the shock of

depression, war, or other dramatic crisis situations, change

itself becomes temporarily a habit. Certain traditional ideas
may have received a shock in the depression. The depression
stimulated an increasing questioning of the validity of authority

and tradition" (1937:”).

Questions begin to be asked that were not asked before- questions
about who we are and how we shall live. As scholars living through
similar times, our job is to identify the variety of answers to these
questions.

Stouffer and Lazarsfeld argue that all facets of society are
affected by an economic crisis. In this dissertation I focus on the
particular issues of family and gender as systems of authority and
tradition that may be "shaken" during a period of economic decline.

Zaretsky (1978:213) noted that "the problematic and difficult trade-

off between women and men in families tends to become unstuck during a

period of unemployment." In this dissertation I will look at proble-
matic and difficult trade-offs between women and men in families,
evidence that traditional trade-offs may becoming unstuck, and I will

examine the kinds of alternative trade-offs that are being created.

FAMILY: AN ARENA OF GENDER POLITICS

 

I have chosen families as the site at which to look for the
impact of economic recession. I made this choice, first, because in
our society families often mediate relationships of women's and men's
individual lives. Families are primary units of resource pooling.

For example, although it is individuals who are laid off, it is often
families that are called upon to reorganize in ways that can allow
individuals to survive (Morgan,l978; Kolko,l978). One cannot capture
a true picture of the hardship caused by recession without measuring
family unemployment rates and family wage decline, since multiple ear-
ners may buffer the effect on individuals who live in families (Watts
and Skidmore,l978). On the other hand, unemployment of one person may
affect many others if they are her/his dependents. Therefore, fami-
lies can interact with the economy as units tied as a whole through
wages. If the tie is broken by unemployment, the family as a whole is
affected. Although, as we shall see, this effect occurs in gender
stratified ways.

The second reason for choosing family as a site is because a
central concern of this research is the question of the political
relationship between women and men. It is in families where many of us

literally confront each other as woman and man. Those people who do

not literally confront a member of the other sex in their household,
are still defined by the ideology of intimate heterosexual rela-
tionships.
"Gender division of social production in capitalism cannot be
understood without reference to the organization of household and
the ideology of familialism. This area represents the primary
site of relations between women and men, of the construction of
gendered individuals and is closely related to the organization
of social production. The structure and ideology of family in
contemporary capitalism is surely the most salient issue for
any Marxist feminist approach to address" (Barrett, 198A:186).
Families are units tied to the economy as a whole, but they are
not homogeneous. They contain within themselves their own set of

relationships and both conflict and consensus of interests. One of

the major factors which makes families non-homogeneous is gender.

THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT

 

This research was carried out in the Midwest. In recent
years, the Midwest has been especially hard hit by economic crisis.
"The Midwest was once the bedrock of the wealth that made the United
States the envy of the world. Recovery will come to the rest of the
economy, but the Midwestern depression belt and other pockets of tra-
ditional industry will be 'left out'" (McGrath, 1983:29). The depar-
ture of industry from the Midwest to other states and other nations
and the automation of those industries that were left behind, have
created changes in the economy and especially in the number of jobs
that will undoubtedly have a very long term effect.

I collected the data for this dissertation during the 1981-1983

recession. This recession marked a culmination of a series of

recessions that characterized recent economic history. "Since 1969,
recoveries from each recession have generally been weaker and shorter
in duration than their predecessor" (Urquhart and Hewson, l983:3).
Following on the heels of the 1980 recession, the economy entered a
severe recession in 1981, and labor market conditions deteriorated
throughout the year. The recession of 1982 was unique because it was
the first time since 1920 that a second recession began so soon--l2
months after another one had ended (McGrath, 1983).

The major characteristic of the 1981-1983 recessions was the rise
in unemployment rates. During this time period the popular press was
filled with statistics describing the intensity of the recession. For
example: "The official rate of unemployment in Flint, Michigan is
2A.6% reflecting the loss of 20,000 jobs at General Motors. Hibbings,
Minnesota claims a rate of 28.h% but local officials privately put it
closer to 90%. Rockford, Illinois lost 17,000 jobs in manufacturing
in the last three years. The steel industry alone laid off 86,000
workers in the Monogahela Valley" (McGrath, 1983).

In 1980 a total of 21.” million U.S. workers experienced
unemployment (Terry, 1982). The unemployment rate was already high in
1981 and reached 10.8% by the end of 1982, higher than any time since
the Great Depression (Urquhart and Hewson, 1981). In addition, a
large proportion (22%) of those who were employed were only working
part time (Bednarik, 1983). For example, one report on auto workers
(Lansing State Journal, 1985) indicated that 21% of laid off workers
had found jobs, but they were part time, without benefits and averaged

$5.62 an hour.

The duration of unemployment for the individuals who were laid off
during this series of recessions was also unusually long. In 1979
the proportion of all jobless who had been unemployed more than 15
weeks was 33%. In 1980 that proportion rose to 91%. By 1985 in the
auto industry, the average worker had been laid off 66 weeks and 20%
of the laid off workers had been without work for two or more years

(Lansing State Journal, 1985). The situation has remained difficult.

 

In 1986 the government reported that of the 11.5 million workers who
lost their job because of plant shut downs from 1979 to 198“, no: had

not found new jobs (New York Times, 1986). People who have never been

 

called back after their layoff are called "job losers" in government
reports, and according to Urquhart and Hewson (1981) they accounted
for an extraordinary proportion in the 1981-1983 recession.

The problem of unemployment was not evenly distributed across the
economy. The large numbers of unemployed were concentrated in produc-
tion jobs in the industrial sector. "Housing, steel, and auto plus
the industries that supply these basic industries were in a prolonged
down turn spanning three years or more and bore the brunt of the job
out backs" (Urquhart and Hewson, 1981:13). The goods producing sector
represented 30% of jobs but accounted for 90% of the jobs lost in
1982. In 1980 one quarter of all blue collar workers experienced at
least one week of unemployment compared to one tenth of white collar
workers (Terry, 1982).

The buying power of people who were laid off during this period
was greatly reduced. The impact of unemployment on income was severe.
In 1980 the median income of persons who had experienced unemployment

was $A,OA6 or 38% of the median income of persons who had not been

unemployed in 1980. In addition to unemployment and declining income,
this time period was also marked by rising prices and high interest
rates. Inflation rose from 2% in the 1950's to 7.5% in the 1970's to
an unprecedented 10% in the early 1980's (Weiskopf, 1981). In his
wor on the social impact of economic decline, Caplowitz (1979) found
that inflation affected all groups adversely, but blue collar workers
were a particularly disadvantaged group.

The picture painted by these numbers is a grim one, particularly
for industrial workers in the Midwest United States. Lima, Ohio was
the site I chose to examine the experience of economic decline. Lima
is located in the Midwest. Its economy is dominated by manufacturing
in industries hardest hit by the recession. The people of this study

are blue collar families.

RUSTING OUT IN LIMA,OHIO

 

In the course of my work in Ohio as a university teacher, I met
many peOple who have been personally jolted by the economic recession.
As I will explain in more detail in my description of the setting in
the Methods Chapter of this dissertation, Lima is an industrial town,
where men and some of the women work, or more likely used to work, in
plants making cars, buses, trains, televisions and tractors. Many of
the women stayed home to raise families and/or have been employed in
one of the three large hospitals in town, or in some other pink collar
job.

During the 1981-1983 recession, industry in the area shut down,

moved out, automated and laid off at an alarming rate. Teledyne Steel

Scheller-Globe and Clark Equipment shut down in the late 1970's. In
1982, Westinghouse moved half of its plant to Mexico. Ford Motor Com-
pany retooled its engine plant, automating about 50% of its previously
manual production jobs in 1982. The unemployment rate at the time of
this research was officially 15% in Lima (Lima News, 1982).

A large proportion of my students were people who were scrambling
to obtain degrees in fields like nursing or computer programming in
hopes of getting a job. Previously, the men had counted on blue-
collar work, and until the recent recession many had lived fairly well
and securely. The older men worked in the plants; the younger men
planned to do as their fathers had done. Many of the women had pri-
marily relied on husbands for an income, and certainly did not plan to
become the only breadwinners in their family. The recession of
1981-1983 changed all that.

In very concrete ways the lives of the people I met in Lima
illustrated the increased questioning of authority and tradition to
which Stouffer and Lazarsfeld (1937) referred. A failure of the eco-
nomic system illustrated by layoffs, unpaid bills, lowered aspirations
and poverty existed side by side with a failure in the system of tra-
ditional gender relations which required men at work earning a family
wage and women at home. As I talked to the people, the question
which began to emerge was what would be the response of the people to
their altered circumstances? Would they respond by creating new ideas
and patterns of behavior? And, if so, what would those altered ideas

and activities look like?

SPECIFIC ISSUES

 

The empirical data collected for this dissertation are organized
around two specific issues. The first has to do with the effects of
economic decline on families as wholes. Within this topic, I examined
financial decline, labor force participation, and the substitution of
purchased goods and services with unpaid domestic labor (one aspect of
economizing). The second specific issue concerns the question of the
impact of economic decline on relationships between husbands and
wives, including the division of housework, control of decision
making, and ideologies about gender equality.

To persue these questions, I used a blend of survey research and
in-depth interviews. I relied on many people in the community to help
with collecting data. This was an important reflection of my desire
to make this research a cooperative effort between the researcher and
subjects.

In the next chapter I will review the literature on the effects
of the Great Depression on family and gender, and research since the
1930's on the themes which center this work: labor force par-
ticipation, wages, economizing, decision making, housework, and
gender ideologies. The third chapter describes the methods I used to
conduct the research and relationships between the questionnaire data
and the interviews. This is followed by three chapters describing the
results of my research and an analysis of the findings. These three
chapters are organized around 1) the impact of economic recession on
families as whole units, and 2) the impact of economic recession on

relationships between husbands and wives within families. The

10

concluding chapter summarizes the research and describes the way in
which the empirical data of this work can contribute to the theoreti-

cal conceptualization of family.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE

The "social experiment" of recession and its impact on families
has been conducted several times in the Twentieth Century, the most
notable of these being the Great Depression of the 1930's. During the
Depression there were a few sociologists who conducted research on
families, including: Angell, (1936), Bakke, (l9h0), Cavan and Ranck,
(1938), Komarovsky, (19MO), Pidgeon and Mettert(1939). More
recently, others, such as, Elder, (1974), Humphries, (1976), Kessler-
Harris, (1982), Milkman, (1976), Scharf, (l980),and Wandersee, (1981),
have used historical documents to re-examine gender and family during
the period of the Great Depression.

Because the Great Depression provides such a dramatic example and
perhaps a prototype of subsequent recessions, it is an appropriate
starting place for examining the questions of this dissertation. In
this chapter I will begin by reviewing the research on family during
the Depression, comparing that time to the present, and also noting
differences between the two eras. I will then review the literature
on the six issues around which I organized my research: labor force
participation, wages, housework, decision-making, economizing and
gender ideology.

ll

12

FAMILIES DURING THE DEPRESSION

 

Milkman's (1976) work on the social impact of the Great
Depression was especially important for the conceptualization of my
work. Writing in the 1970's, Milkman examined documents from the
1930's. From this historical information, she proposed a model
relating economic decline, family organization and gender. Her analy-
sis examined specifically the links among labor force participation,
domestic work, economizing and ideology about gender equality. Milk-
man's conceptualization of the importance of these particular issues
and the way in which they fit together were the basis of my choice of
issues to examine for data gathered during the recession of 1981-1983.

Milkman notes that women and men had different unemployment rates
during the Great Depression. Men were more likely to become
unemployed than women, because the occupations that were considered
women's work contracted less than those in which men were con-
centrated. However, this advantage for women narrowed as the
Depression progressed.

The Depression also affected the employment rates of women and
men differently. Many women who had previously not worked outside of
the home were drawn into the labor force in increasing numbers in the
1930's because, as their husbands were laid off, they sought paid
employment to compensate for their husband's loss of wages (Brown,
1929; Cavan and Ranck, 1938; Komarovsky, 19u0).

The net result was that the employment rates of women and men
became more similar. In addition, the Depression tended to draw

women into the labor force, or allow them to stay, at the same time as

13
men were being pushed out. This trend toward greater similarity for
women and men in terms of labor force participation is important to
the social construction of gender. The definition of "femininity"
becomes more similar to "masculinity" as both include the factor of
working outside of the home for wages. In addition, to these ideolo-
gical changes, participation in the labor force may also provide a
material basis for women to obtain greater equality to men. For these
reasons, the introduction of women into the paid labor force has been
argued to be a key to gender equality.

Another change that took place during the 1930's, because of
financial necessity, was the introduction of more widely accepted
birth control. "One of the most remarkable events during the
depression was the widespread acceptance by Roman Catholic leaders of
the safe period theory. The number of medically directed birth
control clinics rose from no to 288 between 1930 and 1936. The birth
rate declined" (Stouffer and Lazarsfeld, 1937:137). Freedom from
numerous pregnancies and large families has also been cited as an
important key to creating greater equality between women and men.
During the 1930's the situation seemed to have changed around the
questions of work and reproduction, in ways that could have allowed
for greater equality.

However, it was during this same period that public opinion about
the desirability of women working took a large step backward. In
contrast to the increased necessity of women working outside of the
home and their increased labor force participation, ideology about
women working actually became more conservative. Disapproval of

married women who worked for wages was especially fervent. Scharf

19

(1980) observed that the attack against women workers was two pronged.
Women workers were criticized for competing with those who had a
rightful claim to jobs. And working women were criticized for having
abrogated their domestic social responsibilities.

Several sources note the strength of the expression of these
criticisms. For example, a 1936 Gallup Poll, indicated that 82% of
Americans polled felt that married women whose husbands worked should

not earn money (Gallup, 1936). Good Housekeeping (Halle, 1932)

 

reported that many of the thousands of letters that piled high in the
offices of the emergency unemployment relief committees suggested the
elimination of the woman worker as a means of ending the unemployment
distress. New York Assemblyman Arthur Schwartz, among others,
announced that "the employment of married women was reprehensible" and
admonished our federal, state and local goverments "to cooperate to
remove these undeserving parasites" (Scharf,1980:h05).

The criticisms of wage-earning women did not remain as only opin-
ions. Many states reactivated laws which dismissed female civil ser-
vants when they married. In 1932, the marital status clause, known
as 213 in the Economy Act, provided that when reducing personnel in
any branch of civil service, married persons must first be dismissed
(Parkhurst, 1935:7fl2). The National Education Association found in
1931 in 1500 city school systems that 77% refused to hire married
women as teachers and 63% discharged women who married (Stouffer and
Lazarsfeld, 1937;37). In some cases the dismissals did not wait for
legal sanction. "In 1925, without legal sanction, married women were
dismissed from the Federal Bureau of Printing and Engraving" (Scharf,

1980;U5).

15

The critical opinion polls and the legislation punishing women
who worked for wages is especially striking when contrasted to the
expectations for the future that early feminists had projected in the
decades prior to the 1930's. Since the turn of the century, signifi-
cant economic progress had been made, suffrage had been won, and the
socially emancipated flapper was the woman of the 20's decade (Chafe,
1972). However, by 1935 Genevieve Parkhurst was asking "Is Feminism
Dead?" She wrote, "In 1920 it looked as if the first paragraph of a
happy ending to the century long struggle for equal suffrage had been
written, (but) during the past 15 years women in our western world had
lost more than they gained; that indeed, instead of having progressed
they had retrogressed legally, politically, and economically"
(Parkhurst, 1935:736).

She further notes that this link between economic decline and the
degradation of women occured not just in the United States, but
throughout the world. "In all other occidental nations, women have
taken their losses in varying degrees, German womanhood being the
greatest losers. That this is so is all the more startling, since for
twelve years before the rise of Hitler the German women were the mar-
vel of the feminist estate. In Britain it was declared that if all
women were put in their place there would be no unemployment
situation" (Parkhurst, 1935:737).

The impact of these regressive changes on the women of the
Depression era is obvious. Scharf (1980:6A) argues that loss may have
been more long term than is first apparent. "The loss of the right to
gainfu1 employment for women was short termed as the war occurred with

its labor shortage. Of a more lasting impact was the erosion of femi-

16

nist rhetoric and thought. By the time the employment of married
women burgeoned during and after World War II, a positive ideology
encouraging personal and occupational progress and equality had
vanished, a casualty of the depression decade."

In spite of the opinion polls and legislation, women continued to
enter the labor force. "The total female labor participation rate
rose in the period from 1930 to 1990 more than any previous decade in
the twentieth century" (Milkman, 1976:80). Married women increased
their labor ferce participation by 50% in the decade, while their num-
bers in the population increased by only 15% (Bolin, 1978).

Although the ideology did not prevent women from entering the
labor force, it did diffuse people's discontent away from the economic
system and toward women. Prescriptions for domestic bliss and family
stability were only a few steps removed from more hyperbolic pleas for
social and political order based on traditional family structure and
roles (Scharf, 1980). Scharf (1980:193) quotes Florence Birmingham
scolding "Working wives are deserters from their post of duty, the
home, which in the American system of government is the only unit of
society on which the country depends for existence." It appears that
in the 1930's the critical questioning of the system of government
that Stouffer and Lazarsfeld (1937) described was deflected to
changing the institution of family. As the economic and political
system became less able to justify itself, criticism was transferred
to the family; the deterioration of one system of authority and tradi-
tion (the economy) was blamed on the deterioration of another system
of authority and tradition (the family). And, the deterioration of

the family was blamed on women.

17

Milkman also describes the impact of the Depression on unpaid
domestic work. She observed that not only did women increase their
work load by entering the paid labor force and take the blame for a
failure in the economy, they also took up the slack in the economy by
increasing their work load in the unpaid labor force in a struggle to
make ends meet. Many women managed to approximate their family's
standard of living despite lowered income by substituting their own
labor for goods and services they had previously purchased in the
market place.

During this time there was also a revival of domestic industry
such as taking in laundry and selling baked goods. In this way women
further buffered the economic impact of depression by turning their
unpaid domestic skills into cottage industries. Stouffer and Lazars-
feld (1937:37) estimated that three million families took in lodgers
in 1930.

As another example of the increased burden of work for women,
Milkman argues that women's role as nurturer and psychological and
emotional center of the family was undoubtedly intensified as the hus-
band lost the basis of his identity. The need for a "personal life"
that Zaretsky (1976) argued was characteristic of capitalism,
apparently was intensified by economic distress.

Interestingly, changes that demanded an increased contribution
from women to their families were not perceived as an intensification
of the exploitation of women's labor. Instead, the changes were per-
ceived as women capturing control over family activities and power
over family members. There was much criticism of women and concern for

the husband who was no longer able to contribute in a proper manner to

18

his family. The changes that took place which increased wive's par-
ticipation in both paid and unpaid work were understood as a loss of
authority for men.

This problem of loss of authority of unemployed men, captured the
attention of most of the small number of sociological writers who exa-
mined family during the Great Depression. For example, a central
issue of Komarovsky's work (19H0) during this period was determining
the basis of authority of men in families and how that authority was
affected by unemployment. Komarovsky cited several reasons why men's
unemployment creates a loss of authority for men in families. First
she argued that if the husband's claim to authority is based upon his
ability to support his wife, then unemployment will undermine it.
Komarovsky also argued that the increased presence of the husband in
the home might diminish his authority. Finally, she wrote that per-
sonality changes might occur in the unemployed husband that result in
a loss of authority.

Komarovsky and another sociologist of the era, Bakke (1990),
found that gender interferes with families making a decision to
respond to economic crisis in a way that would benefit the family as a
whole. One example of this concern is the allocation of housework.
Although it would "make sense" for the unemployed man to do more
housework, "the husband picks a few strongholds and does not yield
power within them. Frequently his stronghold is housework. Housework
is so closely identified with women's role, performing it is a symbol
of degradation." (Komarovsky, 19A0:AA). Instead of housework becoming
a place to be productive and contributing for an unemployed man, it

became one more challenge to his proper place. Therefore, moving from

19

the position of being without a role to being a househusband was
experienced as a loss and not as a gain.

Bakke who studied the distribution of domestic work found pat-
terns similar to those in Komarovsky's research. He found that
housework remained women's work even when men were unemployed and
women were in the labor force.

"The chief change comes when the wife tries her hand at gainful

employment. Her activities take her time away from domestic

duties making it necessary for her to place those duties on other
members of the household, usually this means children...There is
some difference of opinion as to whether unemployment resulted
in a greater amount of domestic work on the part of the
husband...In many cases the hold of custom is strong. Both
husband and wife feel that any thorough redistribution of
domestic duties is somehow not proper procedure." (Bakke,
19H0:182)

Beyer (1931) found that other female relatives helped working women

with housework, especially with childcare.

Bakke (19u0:178) emphasized the impropriety of men doing domestic
work by commenting on the psychological state a man must be in to suc-
cumb to doing women's work. "The change wrought in him is evidenced by
the fact he submitted to his wife's insistence that he help with
scrubbing floors and doing the wash (though he still refused to hang
out clothes, an activity in which he would be seen)."

Bakke (19h0:128) describes the flow of events as proceeding from
the layoff of the man to his emotional decline, resulting in his
involvement in housework, and finally, as in the following case, to
the domination of the entire family by the wife.

"Unemployment presented a necessity which freed the mother from

the bondage of cultural standards which had here to fore held

some of her abilities in check. Mr. Milano pushed aside in the

dynamic processes of family fUnctioning was a sorry figure. His
unemployment pushed into the position of open leadership in

20

family affairs, the one person competent to fulfil the obliga-

tions of leadership-Mrs. Milano."

Not only does the husband lose his breadwinning role, he also
eventually becomes so disheartened he gives up his parental role as
well.

"The wife assumed a greater degree of responsibility for manage-

ment and for distribution of the available income. The husband

considerably discouraged and tired out by his search for work,
usually takes this excuse to withdraw from his parental respon-
sibilities in other respects so that decisions as to the activi-
ties of the several members of the family customarily descend on
the mother also" (Bakke, 1990:18fl).

Finally, Bakke (19uo;202) says that the control over family that
the wives had gained was inflated by the economic situation.
"Decisions which are taken for granted when the husband is earning
normally are raised to large proportions when the husband is out of
work. For example, the family must carefully decide which doctor to
go to or whether to cash in the insurance policy."

Scharf (1980:1A2) argues that that the transference of respon-
sibilities occurred without the conscious manipulation or even appro-
val of wives. "Studies indicate the lengths to which women regardless
of social class carried attempts to mitigate the effect of the changed
status (woman as primary breadwinner) on their husbands. With few
exceptions, those wives who assumed new work roles within the tradi-
tional family framework exhibited little desire to usurp positions of
authority." Her description is quite different from the one Bakke
gives of the tyrannical wife.

In any event, it is clear that a decision to divide work more
evenly, which seems more rational given the need to increase domestic

work because of economizing, and the husband's lack of other oppor-

tunities to contribute to the family, ran counter to the social

21

construction of gender during the 1930's. The power of men relative
to women and ideas about what is appropriate for women and men to do
created a barrier to making a decision to redistribute domestic work
in a less gender stereotyped manner.

Another example of this conflict between the needs of the family
as a whole and the need to maintain gender stratification within fami-
lies is illustrated by the problem of replacing the unemployed hus-
band's wages by having wives enter the labor market. Komarovsky's
sample only included families where both the husband and wife were not
employed, because the families she interviewed came from relief rolls.
Bakke, however, looked at families where the man had been laid off,
and his wife was in the labor force. In his research, he found that
families faced two serious problems when the man was unemployed. One
was the adjustment to the financial loss. The other, equally impor-
tant problem, was deciding whether the wife should enter the labor
market. Here again gender ideologies interfered with making a
decision that would be rational for the family as a whole.

Research on families during the Great Depression suggests some
interesting lessons for our times. However, it is important to note
that there are some critical differences between the two eras. First,
there are many more women now in the labor market and much more legi-
timation of their presence. Work for women is no longer seen as an
option but as a right (Scanzoni, 1978). Families are, therefore, more
resilient because they have an experienced "secondary" earner. On the
other hand, families are less resilient in situations of unemployment,

because they already depend on two incomes (Chase, 1979).

22

Second, the possibility of economizing by substituting domestic
labor for market labor is different now than in the 1930's. There are
many more items now purchased in the market which could be made at
home. But it is doubtful whether it would really be cheaper to do
so. For example, it is probably cheaper to purchase second hand or
even new, low quality clothes than it is to buy yard goods and pat-
terns (Milkman, 1976). Brown (1982) also shows that compared with the
1930's, a higher percentage of household income is now spent on
housing and fuel, items that are not replacable by domestic labor.

Third, there is the question of the strength of feminist ideology
and the impact of the women's movement. Both of these would seem to
be rather impressive in our times. Their tenacity in a declining eco-
nomy is yet to be seen.

In sum, observers of the Depression found that economic decline
did have an impact on family organization and gender relations. In
addition they found that gender ideologies and the gender stratified
way in which families are organized, "interfered" with the response of
families to economic distress. Women's work increased both in the
paid labor force, and in the home. Men's work declined in the paid
labor force, but it is unclear whether men increased their par-
ticipation in domestic work. It is clear that they did not greatly
increase their domestic work. Several authors describe how men lost
authority in families. In contrast to these changes in activities and
authority which seemed to diminish gender inequality, ideology about

gender equality regressed dramatically.

23

POST DEPRESSION RESEARCH

 

Since the Great Depression there have been eight major recessions
(Baxter, 1982). There has been little research examining the
questions delineated by Milkman as they have developed through every
subsequent recession. Increasingly, scholars are beginning to look at
the social impact of the recessions of the past decade (Aldous, 1983;
Ferman and Blehar, 1983; Moen, 1979; 1983; Nowak and Snyder, 1985;
Rosen, 1982; Snyder and Nowak, 1983; 1984; Willson, 1985). In addi-
tion, since the Depression several researchers have looked at the
issues in Milkman's work, but only as they existed abstracted from
economic change. The next section of this chapter is a history of the
literature on the questions outlined by Milkman: women's labor force
participation, ideologies about equality, economizing, and authority

within families as measured by housework and decision making.

FAMILIES AND ECONOMY

 

How do families as distinctive units relate to the economy? Spe-
cifically, what are the implications for dynamics of labor force par-
ticipation rates, wages, and economizing? Labor force participation
is the placing of a family member into the economy. Wages are the
monies flowing from the economy into the family in exchange for labor
fbrce participation. To complete the cycle, wages should then be used
to purchase goods and services from the market. During a period of
economic difficulty economizing is a special form of consumption that
reduces purchases from the market and substitutes as much as possible

with goods produced in the home.

2D

In this research, unemployment was designated as the sign of eco-
nomic decline within individual families. Therefore, each of the three
issues were examined relative to the unemployment of a major bread-
winner in a blue-collar family. For example, I did not examine labor
force participation in isolation, but rather, labor force participation
rates of husbands and wives were examined given the layoff of their
spouse.

One hundred and fifty years ago the family wage was established,
pulling women and children out of the labor force and creating a wage
for married men which would supposedly allow them to support their
families (Humphries, 1977; Pinchbeck, 1969; U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1975). The family wage has increasingly become inadequate, and women
have steadily been brought back into the labor force (Matthaie, 1980).
Ninety percent of women will work outside of their home sometime in
their lives, and the proportion of women now in the labor force is
over 50% (Antos,Wesley and Triplett, 1979). Of the 13.8 million
people added to the work force in the 1970's, two thirds were women
(Guzzardi, 1980). The exclusion of women from wage labor was never
complete (Kessler-Harris, 1982), but a sign of our times is the ever
increasing numbers of women moving into paid jobs (Ferber, 1982).

The labor force participation rate of husbands may have an impor-
tant effect on their wives' movement into the labor force. There is
evidence that a substantial number of women enter the labor force as a
direct result of their husbands being laid off (Burgess and Kingston,
1979; Caplowitz, 1979). Although women may enter the labor force
because their husband becomes unemployed, research indicates that

there is not a simple cause and effect relationship. Ideas about

25

women's place and the inability to replace the domestic work of the
wife may interfere (Rank, 1982; Blackwelder, 1978). There is no
research on whether husbands increase their labor force participation
when their wives are laid off.

The labor force participation rate of men in the U.S. in this
century has remained higher than women's. However, men's par—
ticipation rates have steadily declined during this time period, while
women's have steadily increased. (The reasons men's rates have
increased include an aging population with an earlier age of retire-
ment and a greater number of adult men in school.) For example, be-
tween 1997 and 1980, men's participation rates declined from 86.8%
to 78%. During that same period women's rates went from 31.8% to
51.N% (Berch, l982:5). Therefore, one obvious reason why women may be
more likely then men to enter the labor force when their spouses are
laid off is because wives are more likely to be outside of the labor
force at the time of the layoff.

One of the interesting aspects of the current economic situation
in the Midwest in terms of labor force participation, is the differen-
tial impact of unemployment on women and men. In the Midwest, jobs
in manufacturing have been the first to disappear, and in some areas
they have traditionally been men's work. At the same time, work in
the service sector has been female dominated, and has been much less

affected by the recession (Terry, 1982; Urquhart, 1981; Wall Street

 

Journal, 1983). For example, nationwide in 1983 the unemployment rate
in manufacturing and construction was 20.3%. In wholesale and retail
trade it was 10.9%, and in finance and service it was 7.7% (Monthly

Labor Review, 1983). As a result, the unemployment rate for men rose

 

26

above the unemployment rate for women. It is important to note,
however, that there may be higher rates of "hidden unemployment" for
women than for men (Blau, 198”).

Traditionally, women have had a higher rate of unemployment.
However, in 1982 the unemployment rate for men was 9.8% and 8.N% for

women (Monthly Labor Review, 1983). This is a historically unique

 

situation, although it was noted previously during the Great

Depression in the 1930's (Monthly Labor Review, 193“; Stouffer and

 

Lazarsfeld, 1937), and during the 1979-1975 recession (Women's Work
Project, 1978). In sum, throughout this century women have entered
the labor market in greater and greater numbers, especially during
periods of economic contraction.

The theoretical importance of the relationship between recession
and women's labor force participation rates is described by Willson
(1985). Several authors (Benston, 1969; Ferber and Lowry, 1976) have
described women as a reserve army of labor. This theory claims that
women are brought into the labor market when labor shortages occur and
are pushed out as unemployment rises. As Willson notes, the rela-
tionship is actually the reverse.

Wages is a second issue within the question of the relationship
of family to the economy during a period of recession. Between 1972
and 1981 the purchasing power of the average worker's earnings
declined by 16%. The standard of living was lower in 1981 than it

was in 1956 (Monthly Labor Review, 1983). These numbers include only

 

the wages of people who are working. Therefore, people who are
unemployed are trying to exist on unemployment benefits or welfare

during a time when all wages are declining and prices are rising.

27

Obviously, when there is no breadwinner in the household, income and
purchasing power are drastically reduced. Even when a secondary
breadwinner is laid off, the household is negatively affected.

In the case where the major breadwinner is a man, and his income is
lost because of unemployment, and his wife either enters or remains in
the labor market, the problem of reduced income is present because of
the inequality of women's wages. Women's wages continue to hover at
about 60% of men's (U.S. Department of Labor, 1980). Therefore, if a
wife enters the labor market to replace her husband as a family bread-
winner, the question of unemployment is resolved, but the question of
financial distress is not.

Economizing or replacing purchased market labor with domestic
labor is the third topic addressed within the question of the rela-
tionship of families as wholes to the economy. The trend in the last
century has been to move many tasks from unpaid domestic production to
the paid labor market (Brown, 1982; Ehrenreich and English, 1978;
Reilly, 1983; Zaretsky, 1976). There is some evidence that this trend
is reversed during recessions as families attempt to economize

(Advertising Age, 1979; Diggs, 1982; New York Times, 1977; Reilly,

 

 

1983; Stover, 1975; Strober and Weinberg,l980; Stouffer and Lazars-
feld, 1937; Stowell, 1979).

Caplowitz (1979) divided economizing strategies into three cate-
gories: bargain hunting, self reliance and sharing. Sharing is
illustrated by what is popularly referred to as "doubling up". Over
the past century there has been a trend toward smaller numbers of
people in households because of a decline in the number of non-kin

sharing homes with nuclear families (Laslett, 1978). Recently, some

28

researchers have found an increase in multiple generation or multiple

family households (Angel and Tienda, 1982; Christian Science Monitor,

 

1983; Thornton, 1981). The significance of this in terms of total
numbers is not clear. Statistics indicate that, on the average, the
number of persons per household has actually decreased from 3.3 in
1970 to 2.8 in 1980 (Dunn,l983). This is not just a result of a
falling birth rate, but of an apparent change in household types from
husband-wife households to single parent and "non family" households,
which is the reverse of a trend toward "doubling up". However, it is
important to note that the statistics in these reports only give
averages. It may, therefore, be possible that both trends are
occurring depending on the social class of the respondents.

There are two factors which discourage "doubling up". Unlike
the Depression era, many people today live in small urban apartments.
The sharing of living quarters that may have been possible in the
rural enviroment of the 1930's would be much more difficult now. In
addition, recent changes in government subsidies, specifically food
stamp rules may discourage doubling up. The number of food stamps
allowable is reduced for people living with others (U.S. Senate
Hearings, 1982). Other examples of sharing which Caplowitz (1979)
feund in his work, are lending and borrowing money, exchanging baby-
sitting and repairs.

A second area of economizing is what Caplowitz refers to as "self
reliance" or cutting back on purchased commodities and replacing them
with one's own labor. After several years of increased use, com-
modites like frozen foods have declined in sales in recent years

(Reilly, 1983; Stowell, 1979 Strober and Weinberg, 1980). Another

29

example of self reliance is gardening (Diggs, 1982). One witness at
the U.S. Senate Hearings (1982) on unemployment among auto workers
stated that his family of five could survive on $135 worth of food
stamps per month only because his wife gardened and canned and he
hunted.

Gardiner (1975) argues that during periods of high levels of
female employment there is an increased use of convenience foods,
restaurants, launderies and the like. Land (1978) adds that cuts in
social spending which characterize recessions, also increase domestic
work. During the recession of 1981-1983, female employment was
increasing, but money available to purchase convenience foods, eat in
restaurants, or send one's laundry out became more scarce. In a period
of economic decline, the way in which the labor market is sex-
segregated and the way in which domestic work is allocated may inten-
sify women's work both inside and outside of the home, while men's

productive activities diminish.

RELATIONS WITHIN FAMILIES

 

How are authority or power expressed in activities such as the
assignment of domestic work and decision making and beliefs about the
ideal construction of gender? As noted above observers of the
Depression era were impressed with the changes in authority that took
place during that period. There are many arenas in which marital
power is exercised. Decision making is one that has been especially
popular in sociological literature. More recently, Hartmann (1981)

has argued that housework is a key site of the power struggles between

3O

husbands and wives. Ideologies about gender, and especially, opinions
of the proper role for wives is a third arena of power examined in
this dissertation.

In this research 1 obtained information on family decision making
from self reports. Self reports about decision making in families is
a common technique for gathering data, perhaps the most common in
sociological research. "Decision making outcomes continues to be the
primary indicator of marital power" (McDonald,l980:8N6). However,
McDonald points out that there are several unresolved problems with
this method. First of all, power may be a multidimensional phenomenon
(Cromwell and Olson, 1975). Secondly, it may be the process of the
interaction of the various dimensions that should be the focus of our
inquiry, if we want to capture the reality of marital power. For
example, Scanzoni (1979) suggests that we look at processes rather
than assume that marital power and decision making are static pheno-
mena. This would allow us to examine factors such as "1) who controls
the definition of the family situation which determines the range of
relevant decisions, 2) who decides which decisions are to be
confronted and which are not, and 3) in the case of delegated
authority, who decides which individual will implement the final deci-
sion" (McDonald, 1980:8fl9). Safilios-Rothschild (1976) refers to
these as orchestration and implementation powers.

These kinds of complexities are not captured by reports of deci-
sion making outcome. From such reports, researchers find only who is
most likely to make certain kinds of decisions. Although such out-
comes may indicate the amount of power or control a family member has,

the route to that decision is lost.

31

McDonald (1980:895) points out another problem with self reports
of decision making outcomes. Although the technique is understandably
attractive, because of the ease with which data may be gathered, it
may be inadequate. "The difficulty with self reports is that while
the individual is able to report what decisions have been made, they
have difficulty determining who has made them. Thus, many self report
measures may be tapping perceived authority or ideals of authority
rather than actual power."

Still another problem is inconsistency within households in the
perceptions of spouses. A considerable amount of research has relied
exclusively on wive's responses (Bokemeier and Monroe, 1983).
However, it is becoming more accepted that the generalizability of
wive's-only reports is questionable. Although we may have made
progress in acknowledging inconsistency within households, we still
have no idea which report (if any) reflects the reality.

A final problem with self reports of decision making outcome is
that they do not address the question of power resources, that is,
what gives individuals within families the power to control,
orchestrate or implement decisions. Several sources of power have
been suggested. Most frequently economic sources are cited (Blood and
Wolf, 1960). Others have suggested that there may also be normative
and non-economic components. These include, for example, cultural
definitions of who has authority (McDonald, 1980), the level of com-
mitment to the relationship (Safilios-Rothschild, 1976), and personal
resources (Bacharach and Lawler, 1976; Heer, 1963; Waller and Hill,
1951). Fully aware of these difficulties, I have used self reports on

decision making outcome in the survey questionnaire portion of this

32

research. Some sense of the complexities behind decision making out-
comes were obtained through the interviews. In addition, in both the
questionnaires and in the interviews, I obtained information on deci-
sion making from both the husband and wife in each couple. In
reporting the data, I have contrasted the two points of view--hus-
bands' and wive's--and have discussed the differences I found.

The second arena of gender relationships in families examined in
this research is housework. Hartmann (1981) has argued that men main-
tain control over women by controlling women's labor. This is
expressed within households by women doing more housework than men.
The unequal distribution of housework that characterizes most families
is both, a sign of, and a technique for maintaining, male dominance
within families. Not all researchers have agreed with this concep-
tualization of housework. Berk (1980) observes that in Blood and
Wolf's (1960) work, they assume that doing housework is a result of
greater resources. Those members of a family who have more leisure
time and more skills in domestic work do more housework.

Citing several researchers (Morgan, 1978; Szalai et al., 1972;
Walker and Woods, 1976), Hartmann makes the following conclusions:

"First the majority of time spent on housework is spent by women.

Second, the wife is largely responsible for childcare. Third the

woman who works for wages finds her husband spends very little

more time on housework than the husband of the woman who is not a

wage worker. Fourth the wife spends perhaps eight hours a week

on account of the husband. Fifth the wife spends on average a

minimum of A0 hours per week maintaining a house if she does not

work for wages and 30 hours if she does."

Others (Blood and Wolf, 1960; Lopata, 1971; Meissner et al., 1975)
add that the actual tasks done by men during the time they do spend

on housework is different than the tasks done by women. In addition,

33

if domestic work is redistributed, children are more likely to take up
the slack than are husbands (Hedges and Barnett, 1972).

Beer (1983) points out that, in spite of these general tendencies
in the division of domestic labor, there is a great deal of variation
among households. Sources of variation include the size of the
family, the amount of time between marriage and the birth of the first
child, and the amount of time between the births of children
(Campbell, 1970).

An important question that emerges is: Have changes in the
distribution of housework occurred? Pleck (1979:288) argues that
although the increments are small, men may have in recent years,
increased their family work. Furthermore, he states that the pace may
be slow, but "change in this magnitude at the national level represent
a substantial phenomenon." Hartmann (1981) has criticized Pleck's
position. She claims that the methodology of the research on which he
bases his argument, consisted of self reported estimates of time spent
on housework instead of time diaries.

Hartmann, in addition states that there is a tension produced as
women attempt to get out of the house and into decent jobs, while
their time is demanded in domestic work. "We must hope that the new
equilibrium (of the double shift for women) will prove unstable, since
without question it creates a situation in which a woman's work day is
longer than when she served as a full time houseworker, the male as
breadwinner" (Hartmann, 1981:381).

In sum, there are two major points made by the literature on
housework that are pertinent to this dissertation. First, if doing

less housework is an indication of power, men are clearly in a domi-

34

nant position. Second, changes in women's labor force participation
may undermine gender inequality, but they have not eliminated it.

Ideologies of gender is a third dimension of marital power
explored in this research. There is a popular notion that public
opinion has become more supportive of equality for women in recent
years. The research on ideas about equality show a trend toward
greater support of equality for women in both their public role and in
terms of private relationships (Acock and Edwards, 1982; Campbell,
1978; Gallup, 1982; McBroom, 1984; Scanzoni and Fox, 1980). Hartmann
(1981:388) writes that this arena--ideas about inequality--is impor-
tant because, in order for changes to come about in gender relations,
a change in consciousness needs to occur. "The question of whether
people are aware is important because the first step in the struggle
is awareness."

I examined ideology for changes resulting from economic decline.
In addition, I noted the impact of gender ideology on families'
responses to economic decline. Much of the literature on this
question conceptualizes gender ideology as primarily a cause in the
system of gender inequality. For example, Acock and Edward (1982)
argue that sex role attitudes explain income inequity in the labor
market. Others have argued that ideology has an impact on the divi-
sion of labor in families ( Bird et.al., 1984; Perucci, 1978; Sean-
zoni, 1978; Stafford, 1980).

In summary, women have continued to enter the labor force in ever
increasing numbers, while men's labor force participation rates have
declined slightly. Wages rose until the 1970's and, since then, have

declined. Women's wages have consistently been much lower than men's.

35

The substitution of market labor for domestic labor has been asso-

ciated with the entrance of women into the labor market. Within fami-

lies, decision making has been a primary arena of gender politics in

sociological literature; decision making appears to have become more

egalitarian. Most researchers report that ideologies about gender

have become more egalitarian and that housework remains women's work.
In the next chapter I will describe the methodology I used to

examine each of these issues in the recession of 1981-1983.

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This investigation into the effects of unemployment on families
made use of a blend of both survey research and personal, in-depth
interviews. The many different aspects of this research, including
the idea itself and the investigative techniques, came together
rapidly as I, literally, moved into the research setting. In this
section, I will discuss in detail, 1) the research setting, 2) the
development and administration of the questionnaires, 3) the sample
population, 4) the survey method, 5) the personal interviews, 6) the
relationship between the two types of methods, and 7) data presen-

tation.

RESEARCH SETTING

 

In 1981, I came to live in Lima, Ohio to work in the Sociology
Department of a branch of Ohio State University. Lima is a small
(population 50,000) industrial city surrounded by farm lands and small
rural towns. Lima is comprised primarily of two distinct social
classes. Most people are working class, employed or previously
employed in the many factories in town. At the upper end of this
class is a small number of people who work at large unionized plants,

36

37
such as Ford. At the lower end are the unemployed and poor. The
second social class is a small number of people who are upper middle
class, and are employed as professionals and business people. At the
upper end of this group are physicians and medium size business
owners, for example, owners of car dealerships. At the lower end of
this group are teachers, social workers, and registered nurses. In
addition to a marked segregation by class, many of the people have
lived in Lima (or the area) for a long time, and I perceived the com-
munity to be relatively closed to newcomers.

Because of my occupation I became part of the small elite upper
middle class. This fact and my newness segregated me from the working
class people in the city who made up a substantial number of my stu-
dents. I found myself in the peculiar position of being separate in
many ways from my students and the working class community, while at
the same time I was constantly in contact with them as a teacher. My
peculiar position placed me at the edges of a community of people who,
I was to discover, were passing through an important social transition
because of changes in the economy.

Partly, perhaps, because I was an outsider, and undoubtedly
because I am a trained sociologist, I was able to see the impact of
the recession on the working class in a way that was not immediately
apparent to the insiders. My students and other members of the com-
munity whom I met were aware, of course, of the experience and their
feelings about the economic and social changes taking place. But,
they did not connect their experiences and feelings--their
biographies-~with a larger picture of history. This Millsian connec-

tion was to become our project. C.Wright Mills (1958), in his essay

38

on the purpose of sociology, called for sociologists to examine the
relationship between biography and history. He explained that as
people live their own individual biographies, they also live the
history of the society in which they find themselves. These two
evolving stories--individual biography and social history--are
intrinsically tied together, although most people are unaware of their
connection. It is the task of sociologists to illuminate the connec-
tion between them and to make partcipants aware of the link.

My students, as insiders, were to become my allies in the com-
munity. As I will describe later, part of the data of this work came
from 328 questionnaires administered by my students. In addition,
through their own analysis of the data they collected, and through
informal discussions of the project, students helped me to formulate
and clarify the issues of the research.

The idea of organizing and supervising students as data collec-
tors in their own community on questions of economic decline and
family, is not a new one. Angell (1936) had his students interview
subjects (their own families) during the Great Depression. Their
research remains a classic and one of few collections done during that

momentous, but largely undocumented, era.

DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

After having informal discussions with my students about their
lives and community and, after having read Milkman's(1976) description
of the 1930's, I set out to develop a questionnaire to examine the

impact of economic decline on family relationships. I divided the

39

questionnaire into eight sections: l)demographic information on sub-
jects, 2) employment history and family finances, 3) housework, 4)
decision making, 5) economizing, 6) opinions, 7) expectations for the
future, and 8) characteristics of the interviewer.

There were eight issues examined in the questionnaire, although I
describe only six in this dissertation. The six issues were organized
around the following questions: 1) changes in labor market par-
ticipation of spouses when a husband or wife is laid off, 2) the
effect of unemployment on family finances, 3) changes in the alloca-
tion of housework and childcare when a husband or wife is laid off, 4)
decision making in families, 5) strategies for economizing during
economic decline, and 6) gender ideologies in families where a hus-
band or wife has been laid off.

A pilot study was conducted in the fall of 1983. As part of the
requirements of the course, students in my Introductory Sociology
class administered a questionnaire (see Appendix A) to a married
couple of their choosing (see Appendix D for description of the
assignment). After collecting data, students assembled themselves
into groups of five or six and summarized and analyzed the data they
had collected. They also critiqued the questionnaire and the methodo-
logy of the research (see Appendix E for description of report
assignment).

Based on their written critiques, their description of problems
encountered during the pilot study, and a meeting with my dissertation
committee, the questionnaire was revised (see Appendix B and C for
revised questionnaires). The revised questionnaire was then admi-

nistered by students in my Introductory Sociology courses in the

40

Winter and Spring quarters of 1983 to both husbands and wives in 164
couples. (Actually they were administered to a slightly larger number
of people, but some questionnaire could not be used because of faulty
subject selection or questionnaire administration.) The data from
these 328 revised questionnaires are reported in this dissertation.

They are referred to as the questionnaires (as opposed to the

 

interviews). They are summarized in tables in the next three chapters.

 

The questionnaires used in this research are original, but are

based on several sources. From Blumstein and Schwartz's Study of Ameri-

 

can Couples (1983) comes the wording of the questions on housework,

 

decision making and impact of lay-off on finances. This format was
suggested by committee member, Harry Perlstadt, and was one of several
changes from the original pilot survey. The questions on economizing

are from Caplowitz's (1979) Making Ends Meet. The question of how

 

would you ideally divide up housework and work outside the home was
suggested by committee chair, Barrie Thorne. Students suggested that
there be two distinct questionnaires--one for the unemployed person

and one for the spouse.

QUESTIONNAIRES

 

The fbllowing is a description of the questionnaires and some of
the problems and successes observed during its administration.
(Please see Appendix B and C for a copy of the questionnaires
themselves.) There are two forms of the questionnaire. The first is
fer the person who has been defined as unemployed, and the other is

for his or her spouse. These two are essentially the same except for

41

the specific wording which is appropriate for an unemployed person or
his/her spouse.

The first section of the questionnaire asks demographic infor-
mation on the subject, such as age and members of the household. Sex
and employment status are two important characteristics by which the
data are categorized. I compared the responses of the unemployed per-
son to his/her spouse. And, I divided unemployed people and their
spouses into men and women. Therefore, nearly all of the tables are
divided into four categories: unemployed man, his wife; unemployed
woman, her husband.

The second section of the questionnaire covers employment history
and finances. A problem in this section was the question of income,
about which many students felt uncomfortable asking and which some
respondents declined to answer. The normal reticence about revealing
income in American society may have been exaggerated by the finan-
cially difficult situation in which many of these people found them-
selves. The average income for the families was slightly over $5000 a
year, and the average household size was four people. This is well
below poverty. Answering this question not only was revealing what is
commonly felt to be private information, but also an admission of
poverty. The questions which dealt with the amount of money earned by
family members and with the impact of unemployment on family finances
proved to be quite interesting because of the influence of gender, and
are fUrther discussed in the next chapters.

The third section was on the division of housework among family
members. The first two parts of this section distinguish between

weekdays and weekends because research (Meissner, 1980; Robinson,

42

1972) indicates that weekends are frequently a time of intense
housework as a means of 'catching up' for working women. However, the
question on the number of hours spent on housework on weekends was
unclear. Some people thought it meant hours per two days; others
thought it meant hours per day.

Question 11 specifies tasks and proved to be an efficient format
for obtaining information, except for one problem - it is not detailed
enough for households where children take a lot of responsibility for
housework. The questionnaire allows people to respond to questions
about who does the housework by saying "the children do it." However,
the proportion of the work done by children is not recorded. The
question of the effect of economic decline on children in families is
an area of great interest that was not covered in this research. (See
White and Brinkerhoff, 1981) for a discussion of the importance of
children in household work.)

Question 12 was problematic. I was trying to determine if people
divided up housework based on patterns they had learned as children,
because someone with authority within the household dictated that it
be divided that way, or based on individual talent or preference.

Most people responded too vaguely to reveal any pattern. The
question apparently was not clear enough and perhaps should have been
closed-ended with a set of my speculative options as choices.

Question 18, which asked people how they would ideally divide
wage labor and domestic work with their spouse, was also unclear.

Many people responded, "The way it is now" when in fact their

answers to other questions indicated their distress about the layoff

43

and the current division of work and housework. Here, I was looking
fer people to say they preferred either a traditional
male-breadwinner/female-houseworker arrangement or some alternative.
I was especially interested to see if there was some kind difference
in response to this question between women and men.

It was difficult to ask unemployed people questions 22 and 23 on
loss of authority because, as I explain in more detail in the chapter
on results, there is some real sadness being felt about change that is
elicted by these questions. The fifth section of the questionnaire is
on economizing. The sixth section is on opinions. This section was
surprisingly problematic. First of all, people's ideas about
equality, at least when elicited by these questions, were narrow and
superficial. Secondly, many peeple were unwilling to even give their
opinions. These questions, more than any others were not answered by
some subjects. The last two sections were on subjects' expectations
for the future and characteristics of the student interviewer. These

two sections are not reported in this dissertation.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

 

About halfway through their Introductory Sociology course, stu-
dents were given the research assignment for this project. Each stu-
dent received two questionnaires, one for an unemployed person and one
for his or her spouse, a description of the assignment and a statement
to be read to subjects explaining the project and guaranteeing their

anonymity.

44

In describing the assignment, I focused on three issues: the
importance of the project, the option for non-participation and
finding suitable subjects. First of all, I explained to students what
the project meant in terms of my career. I then pointed out to them
how it was an opportunity for them to participate in recording a
piece of history of their community. Next, I explained that they
could substitute another assignment if they would rather not be
involved in the project. Finally, I discussed the problem of finding
suitable subjects. There were two basic criteria for being a suitable
subject: 1) the two subjects must be a couple living together as hus-
band and wife, and 2) at least one of the subjects must have been laid
off from a blue collar job and be unemployed at the time of the inter-
view.

The major purpose of discussing these three issues was to assure
the validity of the data. In all survey research an underlying
problem is "are the subjects telling the truth?" In this project I
was also concerned about insuring that students were telling the
truth. I feel that they were. In addition to discussing the above
issues, I used additional techniques for insuring quality data. Stu-
dents wrote reports on their findings in small groups. The problem of
good data became their problem as well. They seemed to police the
members of their group. For example, in a small number of cases stu-
dents infbrmed me that they believed another student's questionnaire
was falsified. I did not use those suspect questionnaires in this
report.

Another set of concerns in the administration of the question-

naires was obtaining two separate questionnaires from one household.

45

All individuals in the questionnaire group (and in the interviews)
were questioned separately. Subjects were guaranteed anonymity even
from their husband or wife. Logistically arranging two separate
meetings was sometimes difficult. In addition, even with private
meetings, people were very curious about and conscious of what they
imagined would be the responses of their spouse. In other words,
although their responses were not effected by what their spouses
really said, their responses may have been effected by what they
thought their spouses had said. For example, subjects would say, "Now
I know my husband (or wife) will say differently, but the truth of the
matter is that this is the way things get done around here..."
Finally, in reference to the issue of separate interviews, the
two sets of answers to the questionnaires obtained from one household
were always different. The direction and variation of response is
reported for some questions in the next chapter. Jessie Bernard
(1972) was one of the first to recognize the phenomenon of two
marriages. She argued that each marriage actually consisted of two
marriages--the husband's and the wife's. Each spouse attached his/her
own subjective meaning to the experience of the relationship. It was
anticipated in this research that there would be two sets of respon-
ses. This anticipation, however, does not allow for any better
understanding of "the truth". This characteristic of the data indica-
tes the need to do time studies and participant observation of family

life as well as questionnaires and interviews.

46

THE SAMPLE POPULATION

 

The subjects chosen by students were mostly family, friends, and
neighbors. However, some found subjects through their church, union,
or workplace. The number of subjects who were known closely by stu-
dents is an indicator of their position as inside allies in this pro-
ject. Table l is a summary of demographic characteristics of the
people who responded to the students' questionnaires, the interview
subjects and the 1980 United States Census. The census data give the
mean age of people living in Allen County, which includes Lima, bet-
ween the ages of 18 and 65 (the working population). The ages of the
three groups are fairly similar. The interview subjects are the
youngest, and this younger age may really be a better average for the
population of families with a breadwinner who was laid off from pro-
duction work. The census data may include retired blue collar
workers, because production workers with UAW contracts frequently take
retirement at an age earlier than 65. Therefore, the average age of
the potentially unemployed would be slightly younger.

The number of children in the home as well as the total number of
people living in homes are very similar for the general population and
the questionnaire group. The interviews were done with people from
slightly larger families. Race is clearly the biggest discrepancy
among groups. Among all married couples in Allen County, 17.5% are
Black, but none of the questionnaire respondents (nor the interview
subjects) were Black. Overall, except for the question of race, these

comparisons strengthen the argument that the sample was probably

47

representative. The problem of representativeness is further addressed
in the next section of this chapter.

Two other problems lay with the selection of subjects. The two
criteria were that the questionnaires must be given to two people
living together as husband and wife, and at least one must be
unemployed. It was surprisingly difficult to define "unemployed".

The problem of definition of unemployment may have important implica-
tions for the conceptualization of economic trends. My interest was
in examining how economic decline affected families. I projected that
many families in an industrial midwestern city would have one adult
who had been laid off and was now unemployed. However, in many house-
holds, the person who had been laid off was not entirely without
employment. For example, in seeking subjects my students and I came
across the following kinds of unemployed people: a man who worked for
Ford and became laid off, but now works a few hours a month doing
maintenance for the school system; a woman who was laid off from a job
at a local plant and has since received a real estate license and
makes about $100 a month showing houses; a woman whose plant shut
down, and now babysits and does the neighbor's hair for money. Two
other variables that confounded this issue were the varying amount of
time since the layoff and the varying amount of income due to
unemployment benefits and sub-pay. So, for example, the woman who
went from a production job to doing the neighbor's hair may have been
more affected by economic decline than the person who was now entirely
unemployed, but who was still receiving unemployment and sub-benefits.

In these cases I decided who was unemployed by examining each

situation and declaring that a significant downward trend in work and

48

Table 1. Comparison of research samples to census of
Allen County, Ohio, 1980.

 

 

 

US Subjects of Subjects of
Census Questionnaires Interviews
Mean Age
Women 38 35 29
Men 37 36 32

Marital Status of Persons Over 15

 

Single 23%
Married 64% 100% 100%
Separated 1%
Widowed 8%
Divorced 6%

Mean Number of Children in Home for Married Couples
2 2 3
Mean Number of People Living in Home (Greater than 2)
3.5 3.2 5

Race Among Married Couples

 

17.5% Black 0% Black 0% Black

Occupation

 

Bluecollar 39% 100% 100%

 

income was "unemployment." All of the above examples were approved as
suitable subjects. The issue of defining unemployment has a much

greater importance to the central conceptions of this work, not to

49

mention public-policy, than choosing subjects. It indicates that
researchers and policy makers need to examine economic decline, not as
a sharply delineated event in the lives of individuals and com-
munities, but as a gradual sinking process. We perhaps need to look
at not just unemployment trends as a sign of economic recession, but
employment trends as well. The economic situation is characterized by
runaway shops and high unemployment. It is also characterized by
changes in employment from secure well paid work to insecure, low-pay,
temporary jobs. Although I had anticipated this kind of trend within
households, I had not considered it in terms of individuals' work
histories. That is, one of the effects I anticipated was that if one
person in a family were laid off, another person would enter the labor
market at a lower paid job. I neglected to consider that the person
who was laid off might also re-enter the labor market at a lower paid
job.

The other critieria for choosing subjects was that they be
married couples. This may have created a bias that was important to
the findings. These couples may be unique in some ways because they
were married rather than divorced. For example, one of the major fin-
dings discussed in the Chapter 5 is that arguments over the division
of domestic labor escalated in households where the man was laid off.
Questions such as these may have been affected by limiting the subject

population to currently married people.

50

DEFENSE OF THE SURVEY METHOD AND LIMITATIONS ON GENERALIZING

 

The subjects who responded to questionnaires were not randomly
chosen. Therefore, it is not proper to say that the findings are
representative of anything except this particular group. Neverthe-
less, the data provide an interesting landmark in the process of
looking at major social transitions. In addition, because of the
relatively large sample from a restricted and relatively small popula-
tion, the findings undoubtedly represent trends among substantial sec-
tors of the population. Table 1 seems to strengthen the argument that
my sample was representative.

The problem of non-randomness was not one that I have dismissed
lightly. I considered trying to obtain a statistically representative
sample. However, the difficulties in doing so seemed insurmountable
in terms of time and money. Therefore, I decided that the importance
of the investigation into the issue outweighed the importance of the
research being the final definitive statement.

One of the reasons I became interested in this issue was that, in
Lima and in other communities like Lima, the people seemed to be
"falling through the cracks." At a United States Senate hearing(l982)
a UAW representative stated,

"Nobody knows what is happening to these people. There is no

list of laid off industrial workers in the Midwest. Once they

use up their unemployment benefits they are not even counted as
unemployed. If their spouses manage to keep the family off
welfare the government has no idea who they are. Once they leave
thztgompany and the union, their name is dropped from those

The only way, then, to select a representive sample was to sample the

entire population and then select out for the criteria of "laid off

51

from blue collar work and married." This would be a difficult task
without the proper connections and funding. I made the choice that
the most meaningful information would be obtained by a less rigorously
selected but larger and more intensively questioned subject group.

The only other alternative was to delay the work until a research team
could be organized and funding assured. It seemed to me that I had a
unique opportunity, because I was one of very few able to conduct any
research in this area of the country. Finally, there are several
respected pieces of research that have recently been done on questions
like those examined in this dissertation that have used non-random
samples for their work (Hood, 1983; Beer, 1983; Rubin, 1976).

Rubin (1976:14) defends her non-random research "sample" by
arguing that there are different and equally valuable contributions
made by various methodologies. There is a missing element in quan-
titative studies in spite of their careful sampling techniques. "They
tell us nothing of the experience of the flesh and blood women and men
who make up the numbers. This is not a failure of those studies.

They are not designed to do so. Therefore, we also need social
science that is so designed." My work was designed to capture an
important moment in history with a combination of qualitative methods
through the interviews and a large sample from a relatively small
area. Hood (1983) defends her research by warning readers that
generalizability should not be done without qualification. In this
chapter I have compared my "sample" with census data in order to give
the reader a basis of comparison and a criterion for assessing the

generalizability of the information and its limitations.

52

Using students as an avenue to select subjects was determined to be
the best option of the various alternatives. This method provided an
efficient way of obtaining relatively large numbers of respondents.

In addition to efficiency and large number, a strength of this alter-
native is that it allowed collaboration of many people--students and
their subjects--from the community being investigated. As I have
suggested and will develop further in this paper, many students, them-
selves members of the working class community that was being so in-
tensely effected by the economic recession, remained isolated from
researchers like myself who were interested in examining and publi-
cizing their plight. Recently, an Italian sociologist, Ferrarotti
(1981) has for both political and scholarly reasons tried to organize
his research in this kind of "cooperative mode." He refers to the
technique as "conricera", that is, research with the people.

In spite of the breadth of information and the benefits of colla-
boration, there are some specific flaws in the data that are imme-
diately discernible. Most important is the factor of race. Lima has
a relatively large proportion of Black residents. The census reports
that of all married couples in Allen County, 17.5% are Black.

However, only a handful of OSU-Lima students are Black. The fact that
nearly all of my students were white and that our society is socially
segregated by race resulted in there being no subjects of this study
who were Black. The question of variation by race is of course

central to research on family and economy.

53

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS

 

The second data set consists of twenty two in-depth interviews
which I personally conducted in the spring of 1984. The interviewees
were eleven married couples who were living together at the time of
the interview. In nine of the couples the husband had been laid off
from a blue collar job. In two of the couples the wife, as opposed to
the husband, had been laid off from a blue collar job. Each interview
took from two to three hours. I interviewed husbands and wives
separately. During the interviews I took notes, and all but four were
recorded and transcribed. The couples who were interviewed were
people I had met informally or who were suggested by friends or other
interviewees. All but one couple were initially contacted through the
wife, who then asked her husband if he would be part of the research.
Arrangements for the interviews were made by phone or mail if they had
no phone. All of the interviews took place at the subject's home
except for one couple who chose to meet me at my office.

When I arrived at the home of the couple to be interviewed, I
explained that I needed to do the interviews separately with the wife
or the husband. They, then, decided who should go first. I chatted
for a brief time about themselves, their house and their children.
Then I explained to them what the research was about and why I doing
it. In keeping with the ethics of informed consent, I gave them a
copy of the statement approved by the Human Subjects Committee at
Michigan State University (see Appendix F). Finally, I asked them if
I could record our conversation. All of those I asked agreed to be

recorded. I used the revised questionnaire as a guideline for the

54

interviews. I began by asking them the first few items on the
questionnnaire: their age, household members, and length of marriage.
The next topic was their work and history and the specifics of their
latest layoff. Then, I asked them about the five topics in the
questionnaire: housework, decision making, economizing, opinions
about gender equality and their future. For some people, I had only
to mention the topic and they responded by talking about nearly every
issue of importance to me. For others, we stuck quite closely to the
questionnaire because they were less articulate about the issues and
needed more specific questions. I also asked them to clarify their
answers and to give examples of situations providing information that
was not obtained with the straight questionnaires.

Some of the interviewees had given a lot of thought to the
questions I raised. Most, however, had not apparently thought about
the issues before I brought them up. All of the people were polite
and tried to give clear answers. However, the women seemed to be more
enthusiastic about discussing these issues and "getting their stories
out." The men seemed less interested (perhaps a little puzzled by
some of the topics) and their interviews were much shorter. This dif-
ference may have been because the women were the ones who originally
agreed to be interviewed. Second, the interviewer was a woman.

Third, women are more willing to self-disclose. Finally, it may have
been because several of the topics of discussion were "women's issues",
fOr example, housework, family life. The men seemed to warm up more
when the topics came closer to their turf, for example, home repair

projects.

55

It is also interesting to note the role of the interviewer and
interviewee here. Oakley (1981) comments that in much research the
interviewer constantly actively constructs the respondent as passive.
The interviewer controls the situation by seeking out the respondent,
creating and asking the questions and deciding when the questions have
been answered. Oakley is critical of this relationship and has worked
on alternative approaches. Nevertheless, it exists even among those
who are trying to be less manipulative in their research methods. In
my research, in half of the interviews a woman interviewer was acti-
vely and continually constructing the male respondent as passive. In
particular, on the questions about losing power as a result of the
layoff both the interviewer and the respondents were uncomfortable.

Oakley has also noted that women respondents being interviewed by
women may be especially responsive for three reasons. First, they are
more used to official intrusion into their lives by, for example, doc-
tors and social workers. Second, an interview conducted in an infor-
mal way in their own home can easily take on the character of an inti-
mate conversation among women. Finally, she suggests that the isola-
tion of many women in their homes creates loneliness that may make
them more accepting of the interviewer just as a diversion and an
opportunity for an adult conversation.

Oakley (1981) has, fUrthermore, reflected on the ease of inter-
viewing women as not only an opportunity for good data collection, but
also a possibly exploitative situation because of the greater vulnera-
bility of women interviewees. She describes how the situation of
women interviewing women can take on the appearance of an intimate,

sharing talk. This means that much information is disclosed to the

56

interviewer which would not be available to a more formal questioner.
The data collected are richer. However, it is also of a more private
nature placing the subject in a more exposed position. Therefore, my
attempts to be more egalitarian may have actually made the subjects
more vulnerable to my invasion into their lives.

The problem of vulnerability made interviewing the most difficult
part of the research project for me. I felt that I was prying into
people's lives, and I had nothing to offer them in return. I believe
that the work benefits the subjects because it can perhaps draw
attention to their problems, and because it at least records their
history. However, those benefits seemed to me to be abstract ones to
the specific people who invited a stranger into their homes and
answered questions about their personal lives.

Although the research situation does have these kinds of problems
in terms of potential exploitation, it is possible that subjects par-
ticipate in research for reasons they perceived to be to their own
advantage. Perhaps the participation of people in my interviews was
not based on naivete or vulnerability; perhaps they could understand
the benefit of "telling their stories" better than I knew.

My ambivalence, based on the concern mentioned above, was
reflected in a confusion I felt between conversation and interviewing.
For example, I sometimes shared my thoughts on the issues because it
made me feel less of an intruder and more reciprocal. I was trying to
set up a more mutual and equal relationship between us. This may have
put people more at ease, but it may also have biased their answers.

(I would argue, however, that their answers were undoubtedly affected

anyway by what they thought my opinions might be on the different

57

topics.) Finally, in interviewing I had the problem of being unable
to challenge people on their answers even if they contradicted their
previous answers. This problem would probably have been at least

partly alleviated if I had done more than one interview per subject.

THE COUPLES

 

The following is a brief introduction to the couples who par-
ticipated in the interviews. The names are fictitious. The surnames
are similar in terms of ethnicity to the real names.

1) Amy and Art Miller have been married for thirteen years and
they have two children. Art worked for 18 years in skilled trades in
a large plant in town that made farm machinery. He had been laid off
for three years at the time of the interview. His job paid very well.
Amy had stayed home through most of their marriage, and they had a
very traditional division of labor in their family. They also were
relatively affluent. They told me how their children took piano
lessons, they could buy an RV when they wanted and they had bought
their own home. Shortly before Art was laid off, Amy took a job in
the school system as a teacher's aide. The pay was low, but she
enjoyed the work. Since Art was laid off, their financial situation
has plummeted. However, according to Amy, even more difficult than
the money problems is the problem with Art's ego which has been
crushed. She has, in her words, " become the strength of the family"
- managing finances, dealing with the welfare office, arranging garage
sales and becoming the main breadwinner. He wants to move south to

get work. She doesn't want to leave her family and friends in Ohio.

58

2) Betty and Bob Johnson have been married for seven years and
have two children of their own and two children from his previous
marriage to Betty's sister. Bob had a semi-skilled but relatively
well paid job at Ford for 15 years. At the time of the interview he
had been laid off for six months. Betty has not worked outside the
home since they were married "because Bob won't let her." Betty is
from a very poor family, and is worried about their future "because
she knows what its like to be poor and it isn't fun." Bob is less
concerned. He is still drawing sub-pay and unemployment which brings
him about 85% of his previous earning. He also plans to become an
independent trucker and is buying a truck.

3) Candy and Chuck Evans have been married for three years and
have two small children. A year ago he was laid off from his work in
construction as a carpenter and had decided to go back to school to
become a nurse. Candy had worked as a clerical and at several
unskilled jobs before she became pregnant, but quit work to take care
of the babies. They are currently living on ADC. Chuck sees his
layoff as not just a negative event, but as an opportunity, since he
likes working in the health care field better than carpentry. Chuck
and Candy are concerned about creating an egalitarian relationship,
particularly in terms of sharing childcare.

4) Denise and Doug Engels have been married for ten years and
have two children. When they were first married, Doug was making good
money at Ford and, in their own words, they were "having a ball."
When Doug was first laid off three years ago, they thought he would be
called back and enjoyed his time off as a vacation. However, he has

not been called back and their economic situation has become very bad-

59

to the point where they often get food from relatives as their only
way to survive. They are now living on ADC and Denise is going to
school to get a nursing degree. Doug takes care of the home and the
kids. They have both changed their ideas and their activities as a
kind of rational response to the situation. However, the change has
not been easy, and they both are still uneasy and unsettled.

5) Ginger and George Fitzgerald have been married for fourteen
years and have four children. Ginger is Candy's sister (of Candy and
Chuck). They also have another one of Ginger's sisters, who is
currently unemployed, living with them. George had worked for ten
years for a tire company that went bankrupt seven months ago, leaving
him very abruptly without a job, in fact, without his last two
paychecks. Ginger had worked on and off throughout their marriage in
seasonal unskilled production at a popsicle factory. She had also
done some part-time maid work. Since George was laid off, Ginger has
begun working fulltime with quite a bit of overtime at the popsicle
factory, and he stays home with her sister to run the house. They seem
to enjoy their new responsibilities except for the poverty. Ginger
especially loves her work and is doing well.

6) Heather and Hank Gates have been married 19 years and have
four children. Hank was laid off from his job as a welder nine months
ago and, since then, discovered he had become disabled because of his
work. Although he could probably get similar work at lower pay in a
smaller non-union shop, he cannot work because of his disability.
Heather also worked in unskilled production in a small shop and had
been laid off. Heather has become, in her words, "a Jill of all

trades." She baby sits, does hair, bakes cakes, makes ceramics and

6O

jewelry and occasionally fills in for an answering service. Heather
and Hank seem to be determined to maintain a very traditional image of
their relationship which contrasts sharply in some with ways with the
reality of their lives.

7) Julie and John Rogers have been married for nine years and
have one child. John is a salesman. He likes his work, but it
doesn't pay well. Julie is the unemployed person in this couple. She
had done semi-skilled work at a large plant, making good money until a
year ago. Julie welcomed her layoff because she wanted to return to
school to earn a degree in order to obtain white collar work. Because
she receives GI benefits as a student, their combined income since her
layoff remains above poverty level. However, relative to her previous
pay there has been a severe drop in their life style. Julie and John
spend a lot of time trying to maintain an egalitarian relationship.
Julie feels the strain of the main breadwinner role in addition to
her role as wife, mother and student. Since our interview, I have
learned that Julie reluctantly quit school when she was called back to
her old job. She said, "We needed the money. Maybe later I can quit
and get my degree."

8) Lisa and Larry Adams have been married for fourteen years and
have two children. Larry had been laid off a year ago from his job of
ten years at Libby's Canning plant. Lisa has worked on and off in
sales and at unskilled production work. She is currently working as a
janitor. Lisa is especially concerned with thriftiness, cutting cor-
ners and making do. Larry fills his time with working on their house
and working on cars for fun and, also, to supplement their income.

After some struggle, they have in their words, "reversed roles." He

61

has taken over most of the housework while she works outside the home.
Her income is not good, but they are still living on savings and he
expects to go back to work soon. Larry and Lisa are Bob and Betty
Johnson's neighbors.

9) Rick and Rita Degraff have been married for ten years and have
three children. Rick has had unsteady work in factories throughout
their marriage, so this was "just another layoff." However, although
layoffs are not unusual for Rick, their financial situation is espe-
cially bad because they have never been able to get ahead. Rita has
been a housewife since she married Rick at the age of fifteen. Their
relationship is very traditional. He is especially unable to do
"women's work." Interestingly, he feels bad about not helping her at
home, but says, "I just can't do it." She also feels that domestic
work is really her responsibility. However, her ideas about a tradi-
tional division of labor are strained when he is home without work and
she continues to do her housework.

10) Sara and Sam Wilson have been married for fourteen years and
have five children. He had worked in semi-skilled production work
until he was laid off two years ago. She has worked as a nurse's
aide and is currently working part-time as a swim instructor and
selling cosmetics. Their relationship is relatively egalitarian in
terms of dividing up housework, although she is also the only one
working outside of the home now. Sara feels ambivalent about her new
role. On the one hand she worries that her role in the family has
diminished, but she is clearly excited about her work outside the

home. She described plans to increase her hours and open her own

62

business. Sam is not happy staying home with the children and
housework.

ll) Valerie and Vince Turner have been married for six years and
have three children. She is the unemployed person in this couple.
She had worked in skilled trades at Ford until ten months ago. He is
a butcher and works fulltime, but is looking for a better paying job.
In addition to the loss of income that resulted from her being laid
off, Valerie lost their only medical insurance. Two of their children
have chronic health problems that require frequent hospitalization.
Although this is the most salient issue in her layoff, they also
expressed some relief in her being able to stay home as a full time
housewife. Vince is especially in favor of having Valerie continue to
stay home if he can get a better job. Valerie would prefer to get her

old job back, but likes the time to get her work done at home.

DATA PRESENTATION

 

The data from the questionnaires are presented in tables giving
percentages of the total number (n) responding to the various
questions. There were 164 couples in this group; 135 were couples
where the husband had been laid off from a blue collar job. Twenty
nine were couples where the wife had been laid off from a blue collar
job. On most questions respondents were grouped into four categories:
unemployed man, his wife, unemployed woman, her husband. The sta-
tistics are only descriptive and do not give levels of significance.
This is because the "sample" is not random, so the concept of signifi-

cance is meaningless.

63

The data from the interviews are reported by quotations from the
respondents, and in a few cases in tables that are labeled "Interviews".
There were twenty two in-depth interviews of 11 couples. Two were
couples where the woman had been laid off. Nine were couples were the

man had been laid off from blue collar work.

BLENDING METHODOLOGIES

 

In his examination of the history of sociology, Sieber (1972:1335)
describes "the historical anatagonisms between the proponents of
qualitative fieldwork and of survey research." He characterizes the
classic debate between Becker and Geer (1957) and Trow (1957) as the
extreme point of the polemic. Becker and Geer (1957:28) professed the
superiority of field research: "The most complete form of the sociolo-
gical datum, after all is the form in which the participant observer
gathers it; an observation of some special event, the events which
precede and follow it, and the explanations and meaning by par-
ticipants and spectators, before, during and after its occurrence.
Such a datum gives us more information about the event under study
than data gathered by any other sociological method. Participant
observation can thus provide us with a yardstick against which to
measure the completeness of data gathered in other ways."

Trow criticized this position by arguing that we need different
methods for different questions. There were others during this period
who took a much stronger position, arguing the superiority of scien-
tific survey methods for all sociological research (Lundberg, 1961).

Zelditch (1962) continued in the tradition of Trow by agreeing that

64

there was room within the discipline for different methods, and pro-
posed a system for determining which among the methods of survey, par-
ticipant observation and interviewing, was most appropriate for
various types of questions.

Sieber concludes his history of the debate by going one step
further. He advocates the integration of the two methods. He argues
that it is unnecessary to use one method 25 another. Instead we
should use combinations of techniques. The integration of methods
will bring us both quantitative (literally more information) and
qualitative (from the synthesis created) benefits. Lever (1981) in
much more recent work describes an example of this synthesis in her
work on multiple methods. She argues that multiple methods not only
validate (or invalidate) each other as Webb (1966) contends. Lever
says the divergence sometimes found in multiple methods is a source of
information itself. For example, if people say one thing in response
to a survey but do another in field observation, this divergence could
be used by the researcher to illuminate the difference between what
peOple think they should do and what they are able to do. In this
way, in the synthesis--at the intersection of the two methods--we
find a source of information that is not available from either of the
methods alone.

Sieber carefully outlines the contributions fieldwork can make to
surveys and the contribution surveys can make to fieldwork within the
same project. The contributions field work can make to surveys
include locating the collective for sampling that can best maximize
advantages for a comparative study. In addition, field work can help

to create the most effective questionnaire able to capture the atten-

65

tion of subjects, motivate them to respond and be understood in the
way the researcher intends. Finally, field work can assist in the
analysis and interpretation of data in seven possible ways: 1)
theoretical structure, 2) validation, 3) interpretation, 4) construc-
tion of indices, 5) external validation, 6) case studies, and 7)
clarification.

Sieber also describes how surveys can contribute to field work.
Surveys can provide a statistical profile of populations to aid in the
selection of informants and identify the representativeness or
unrepresentativeness of cases. This is particularly helpful in order
to prevent the "pitfall of the elite bias"-the tendency for fieldwork
researchers to gravitate to a particular strata of informants, espe-
cially those at the top of an institution or community. Finally,
Sieber describes four ways in which survey research helps us to
understand field observations. Surveys can correct the holistic
fallacy, which is the tendency to try to find congruency in the whole
situation being observed, when in fact there are real incongruent fac-
tors. Survey data can buttress the generality of a single (or small
number of) observation. Questions can be generated from serendipitous
survey findings that may then be examined in the field.

I would like to comment briefly on the actual development of my
methodology. It might be expected that I was aware of all of the
above theoretical issues and simply applied them to my research
interests. It did not happen this way. When I first came to Lima, I
actually began to do an informal and largely undocumented version of
participant observation. As a newcomer and an outsider I was not

trying to do sociological research, but was trying to understand the

66

community and my role as a teacher and political activist within it.
Out of the observations I made as a participant in the community and
through some self reflection, I developed a questionnaire for my par-
ticular research interests; it was subsequently administered and
revised by interactions with my students and additional observations.
After being revised, the questionnaire was administered, with my stu-
dents as data collectors, to a large number of respondents. Next I
decided that the research required interviews where I could discuss
the issues in a more structured and conscious manner, than in my
informal interactions with students and other people in the community.

I thought the surveys would add breadth to the project, so that I
could make a stronger argument about the representativeness of the
data. In addition, the responses to the questionaires were limited
and easy to summarize in order to readily see similarities, differen-
ces and trends. I thought the interviews would allow the people to
speak in their own words about the issues, and in turn, allow me to
obtain information and worlds of meaning not previously known to me
and, therefore, not accessible through the questionnaire I had
designed. In other words, I thought the interviews would give me more
of an insider's view. Moreover, the interviews would be useful to
clarify the responses to the survey and would offer possible ways to
analyze the survey data.

The entire project then, was really composed of participant
observation (undocumented), surveys and interviews all weaving in and
out for three years. My conscious conceptualization of the project
during the time I lived in Lima was much more limited. Only after I

had been involved in the research for three years, when I began to

67

reflect on my research and write my dissertation, did it occur to me
that my research reached beyond the boundaries I thought it had.

This oversight stems from an incorrect definition of "the field".
Schatzman and Strauss (1973:2) argue, "going into the field some-
times conjures up images of sharply circumscribed territories and
exquisite control over a multitude of variables... the field
researcher understands his field--whatever its substance--is con-
tinuous with other fields and is bound up with them in various ways."
My definition of "the field" was one of a sharply circumscribed terri-
tory into which my students and I would enter as researchers at spe-
cified times. As I now reflect on my work, "the field" could more
accurately be described as the social context of many of my interac-
tions with relatives, friends, neighbors and respondents to the
questionnaires and interviews. I am not trying to argue here that my
informal observations as a participant in the community fit the much
more rigorous definitions of that term as it is properly used in the
discipline of sociology. I am, however, arguing that these undocu-
mented, informal interactions and observations affected my thinking as
I began to analyze the data I had collected from the questionnaires
and interviews. And, I regret that I did not define "the field" more
broadly and that I did not methodically record my observations over
the three years I lived as a participant in the community I studied.

As it turns out, in my work, I had used several of Sieber's ideas.
He suggests that field methods (here I am stretching the definition of
field methods to include open-ended interviews as well as the undocu-
mented informal observations I described above) can help to find a

representative sample. From my informal observations of the rela-

68

tionship of Ohio State University to the community, I noted that the
university is embedded in the community. It is a commuter school in a
small city in an isolated agricultural area two hours from Toledo,
Columbus and Dayton. The students are very much representative of
their community. Many of my students were non-traditional and, there-
fore, represented a wider range in terms of age, marital status, and
employment that is sometimes true of college students. In addition,
many of my students were women and men who had been laid off from
industrial jobs in town. These facts led me to believe that they had
access to or were themselves the population I was interested in exam-
ining for my research on the effects of economic recession on blue
collar families.

Another way in which field methods contributed to the subsequent
development of the survey was by actually creating the central
question of the research. The focus of the work on the questions of
family and gender was only partly influenced by my own concerns, which
I brought with me to Ohio. Part of my decision to do research on
these issues was based on my observation that these were issues
discussed by people in the community. As Sieber suggests, I used my
qualitative observations to create a project that I felt would capture
the interest and support of the subjects.

More consciously, I used the interviews to assist in the analysis
and interpretation of the data. In several places in the following
chapters I point out how the interviews clarified, validated or
"corrected" the survey results. For example, I note the complexity

hidden beneath the numbers in several of the questions.

69

As Sieber has shown, surveys can also aid field research. The
questionnaire data help to support the generalizabilty of the inter-
views. At several points in the next chapters I note the contrast
between the interviews and the questionnaires and the possible
unrepresentativeness of certain cases. Finally, the questionnaires
pointed out a serendipitous finding that should be followed up. The
differences in the impact of unemployment on families was very dif-
ferent depending upon whether it was the wife or the husband who had
been laid off. This was not evident in the interviews because the

number of couples in which a wife had been laid off was too small.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ECONOMY AND FAMILY

This chapter examines changes in the relationship between the
economy and the family during a period of economic decline. The
various questions which illustrate this relationship are given in
Figure 1. The tOpics within this section include 1) workers flowing
from families into the economy (labor), 2) money flowing from the eco-
nomy to families (finances), and 3) services and commodites flowing
from the economy to families (economizing).

The remainder of the data reflect changes in relationships within
families. This includes questions about housework, decision making
and ideas about equality for women. The data from these questions are
reported in Chapters 5 and 6.

Chapters Four, Five, and Six report responses to the
questionnaires and the interviews. The questionnaire data are reported
in tables, and the interviews are reported primarily in the form of
quotes. However, there also some tables which summarize the inter-
views, and these will be labeled as such. In addition, patterns I
observed in the interview data are reported and analyzed in these

chapters.

70

ECONOMY

Figure l.

71

FAMILY
Labor
"What changes have taken place in labor
force participation of family members
since the layoff?"

Finances
"How much money is being brought in by
family members?"
"How severe have cuts in income been since
the layoff?"

Economizing
"How have you economized?"
(ie., replaced goods and services purchased
previously in the market with goods and
services produced in the home)

Questionnaire items illustrating relationships between
the economy and the family.

LABOR MARKET PARTICIPATION

 

Table 2 summarizes responses to the question "Has your work

changed since your spouse was laid off?" The questionnaire responses

are divided in two categories: wife of laid off man and husband of

laid off woman. The largest number of people in both categories said

there had been no change.

Fifty percent of the women who were married

to men who had been laid off said their activity in the labor force

had not changed. Seventy five percent of the men who were married to

women who had been laid off said their activity in the labor force had

not changed.

The response "no change" may hide the possibility that an attempt

was made to find work or increase hours, but that it was unsuccessful.

For example, in the interviews Lisa Adams and Betty Johnson answered

this question "no change" because there was currently no change.

72

However, both had previously tried to change their position in the
labor market, but were unsuccessful.

"I looked for more work, but you can't get much overtime there.
If they did, I took it. I'm still hoping for full time."
Lisa Adams

"I just couldn't do it out there (at the college). There was no
one to watch the kids. I have a hard time getting a babysitter
for four kids. There aint nobody wants to watch four kids."
Betty Johnson.

Table 2. Questionnaire responses:
"Has your work changed since your spouse was laid off?"

 

 

 

WIFE OF HUSBAND OF
UNEMPLOYED MAN UNEMPLOYED WOMAN
No change 50.0% 75.0%
Took a new job 17.2% 15.3%
Working more hours 16.4% 16.0%
Went back to school 6.7% 3.6%
Looking for work 14.2% 7.1%
Other 7.5% 3.6%
n: 135 n=28

 

These two quotes illustrate two themes that develop throughout
the research. One is the importance of the sequencing of events and
the point in that sequence at which the families found themselves at
the time of the research. Betty Johnson's husband was still drawing
unemployment and Lisa Adams' husband still had savings and both men
were optimistic about being called back. They were at a relatively
early stage in unemployment and this may have influenced their respon-
ses to the layoff. Other researchers have noted the importance of the

sequencing of events after a layoff. For example, Ferman and Blehar

73

(1972) distinguish among seven types of unemployed men in terms of
their place in this process.

The second theme is the way in which the social construction of
gender affects responses to the layoff. Betty Johnson's comment
illustrates this theme. Betty's husband is unemployed and home full
time. Therefore, although she doesn't verbalize it, her inability to
find a baby sitter is a problem because her husband does not babysit.
Her response to his layoff is controlled by the social construction of
gender which discourages men from taking over domestic work and the
inability of women to work outside the home and fulfill their obliga-
tion as wives. Lisa Adams's comment also reflects this theme. Women
are more likely to be part-time workers in our economic system.
Therefore, her inability to alter her participation in the labor
market may be because she is a woman and is more likely to be "stuck”
in part time work even though she would like to have a full time job.

Another kind of change that may have been registered as "no
change" was when there was change in the perception of the labor
market activity in spite of no change in the actual activity. For
example, Amy Miller explained that she had had a job as a teacher's
aide before her husband was laid off, mostly, as she put it, to get
her out of the house. Her conscious commitment to the work, as well
as its importance in her husband's eyes, increased greatly after his
layoff because it was their only source of income other than welfare
after his unemployment benefits ran out.

"I started work just before he was laid off. I wanted to get out

of the house. The income is a lot more important to me now. In

the beginning I didn't care, but everything's changed--not just
the money. I am the strong one now." Amy Miller

7”

It is also interesting to note that Amy perceives this as not
just a change in her responsibilities within the family, but as a
change in her relationship to her husband; that is, she is not just
doing different things she has a different position relative to her
husband. The way she expresses the change indicates a sense that
authority has somehow passed from her husband into her hands. Their
relationship was previously dominated by Art but now she is the
"strong one". Komarovsky, (19u0) and Bakke (19u0) observed changes in
authority within the family as an important effect of the Great
Depression. I will further elaborate on the question of changes in
authority in the next chapter.

An interesting process described in the interviews was the
decision to take a job or look for work. Denise decided to return to
school to get a degree in nursing after her husband was laid off from
Ford. She explained how she decided to make the change from a full
time housewife to nursing student.

"The worst thing about it was the depression. It got so I

resented him, but then I thought 'what am I doing about the

situation?‘ That's when I decided to go back to school. I

would not have gone back to school otherwise. It was a blessing

in a way. I enjoyed being at home. I felt only I could take

care of the kids. When I first got married it was great. He

made the money; I spent it. Now the kids don't need me as much

as I thought. I see now where I would want to go back to school."

Denise Engels

A theme in Denise's comment is the juxtaposing of opportunity and
necessity in her decision to take a job. The necessity of someone
getting work in the family and the inability of her husband to do so,
forced Denise to re-evaluate her beliefs about mothering. Although

she infers that she would probably have wanted to enter the labor

force after her children were a little older, the economic crisis at

75

least speeded up her transition and perhaps even allowed it since she
said "I would not have gone back to school otherwise."

This theme of hidden opportunity in crisis was reflected in other
interviews with women who went to work or to school to prepare for
work when their husbands became unemployed.

(going to work)"was the best step I ever took, not just due to

the fact that he was laid off right after, but because I went

to work...Since I've started working everything has changed. I

almost see myself growing past him. I have become independent."

Amy Miller

"I do enjoy working... the people, and like I said the money

isn't good good, you know, but its pretty good and the respon-

sibility, you know, that I can do something and I am important."

Ginger Fitzgerald

"I wanted to have a job and help out until he got back to work,

but now I would really like to have an aquatic school of my own."

Sara Wilson

Heather Gates was the only one in the interviews in the category
of having a husband who was laid off while she was in the labor force
who did not say she welcomed the opportunity of working for wages.
(See Table 3 for a summary of the occupational status of the people in
the interviews.) However, even she implied that she found some
pleasure in working outside the home in her enthusiastic description
of the jobs she had. She talked at length about all of her various
jobs and who she had met and what she had learned from her work. But
her assessment of the situation was that it was mostly necessity. And

when asked directly if she liked to work outside the home she said:

"I do a lot for the lady down the street I'd rather be doing my
own. I think, God I wish I were doing my own." Heather Gates

Table fl summarizes the responses from the questionnaires on the
issue of the current work of the spouse of the laid off person. The

data are divided into two categories: wives of men who had been laid

76

off and husbands of women who had been laid off. Table 2 indicated
that on the questionnaires, 50% of the women respondents said there
had been no change in their position in the labor market as a result
of their husband's layoff. In contrast 75% of the men who were married
to laid off women said there had been no change in their labor force
participation as a result of the wife's layoff. Table A provides one
possible explanation for this difference. As shown in Table A, 86% of
the husbands of women who had been laid off were working full time.

In families where the man had been laid off, only ”3% of the wives
were working full time. There appears to be more untapped potential
among wives than among husbands in terms of the possibility of

entering the labor market.

Table 3. Occupations of interviewees at the time of the interview

 

 

Unemployed men with wives who were employed
or in school preparing for employment

 

 

Miller,Art.........Clark Equipment Amy.......Teacher's Aide

Engels,Doug........Ford Denise....Nursing student
Fitzgerald,George..Tire Co. Ginger....Production work
Gates, Hank........welder Heather...Beautician, Baby-

sitter,Cleaning Lady
Hilson,Sam.........Scheller-Globe Sara......Life Guard,Avon Lady
Adams,Larry........Libby's Lisa......Janitor

Unemployed men with wives who are housewives

 

Evans,Chuck........Carpenter Candy

Johnson,Bob........Ford Betty

Degraff,Rick.......Unskilled Rita
Production

Unemployed women with employed husbands

 

Rogers,Julie.......Tank Plant John......Delivery and Sales
Turner,Valerie.....Ford Vince.....Butcher

77

Table u. Questionnaire responses:
What is the unemployed person's spouse doing?

 

 

"What is the wife of the "What is the husband of the
laid off man doing now?" laid off woman doing now?"
works full time ”3.3% 85.7%
works part time 19.1% 3.6%
Housewife 35.1% 0 %
Unemployed 2.2% 10.7%

n=131l 11:28

 

An important missing question is "why did you (the spouse) not
seek full time work?" Although this question was not directly asked
in the interviews, people discussed the ways in which they had made
the decision for the spouse to enter the labor force or to stay at
home. In their discussions there appeared to be three reasons why the
spouse did or did not attempt to enter the labor force: the husband
decided, it was a mutual decision, it was beyond the couples control.

The Johnsons and the Degraffs were two families where the
husband had been laid off and the wife was not in the labor force.
The women did not seek work after his layoff. Their comments indicate
that the reason the wives did not enter the labor force was that the
husbands had decided that the woman should not seek work outside the
home.

"Bob don't want me to get a job period. He says it will mess up

his income tax. When the kids get older most definitely I'll be

getting a job. I don't like staying at home. I like being around
people. See there's really not much of anybody here (in the
neighborhood). Everybody on this road works. I see these peOple

very little. I don't like being by myself. I like lots of
people all of the time." Betty Johnson

78

"I would just prefer to have me working and my wife doing the
housework. I don't feel a woman should have to work for a living
if I can make ends meet." Rick Degraff

"Rick's just used to me being around the house. He says he don't
want me to work." Rita Degraff

Chuck and Candy Evans illustrate a second reason why a spouse might
not enter the labor force. Their comments suggest they made a joint
decision that Candy would stay home after Chuck had been laid off.
Their responses to why Candy stayed home were similar. Both claimed
that they believed that children are best cared for by their mothers
and since their children were young, Candy should stay home to take
care of them.

"I wanted to quit. I told Chuck which he agrees, I want to stay

home with the kids- not to leave them with a baby sitter." Candy

Evans

The underlying reason that Candy, Rita and Betty did not seek
employment after their husbands were laid off may have been the same.
All three families had young children and the wives' labor at home may
have been espcially difficult to replace. However, there is a dif-
ference in the way in which the decision was reached. Chuck and Candy
Evan's decision was reached mutually. Rick Degraff and Bob Johnson
decided in their families.

A third reason was illustrated by the Millers, Engels, and
Wilsons. In these families the wife was working or had gone back to
school because it was necessary, although neither husbands or wives
were entirely happy about the decision. The decison was explained as
a result of the situation which necessitated that the wife enter the
labor market and which was beyond their control and their ability to

express their real preference. The Millers, Engels and Wilsons had

79

made non-traditional decisions in spite of their traditional ideas
about women working outside of the home.

"It bothered me more (going to school while he stayed home)
because I felt my job was in the kitchen and in the home. But
I felt like while he was unemployed I had to. It all came down
to money." Denise Engels

"I've always been a good provider, a family man; I don't drink.
But now its a whole different ball game. If you have any respect
it gets to you. But if I'm not making money she has to." Doug
Engels

"Maybe its the way I was brought up. I'm still a little old-
fashioned. Women should be home. Its a 25 hour a day job. We
need her pay. But I wasn't raised like that." Art Miller

"Its probably depressing not working and knowing I'm working. A
lot of problems stem from him not working. More than just a lack
of money, I've become independent (working outside of the home).
He's threatened. I don't feel threatened. But he feels
threatened about breaking up our marriage." Amy Miller
"My one problem is the children. I'd rather I'd never have a
babysitter. I'd like it so I only worked the hours they were in
school. I think he felt, in fact he said, I was trying to compete
with him because I wanted to have a job and help out until he was
back to work." Sara Wilson
"I prefer she would have a larger share of housework. She should
do 70% and me 30%. She would work part time during the
children's school hours...Sometimes we argue. I feel she is
pushing a role change that I wasn't ready to accept." Sam Wilson
These quotes reflect a similarity in terms of having made a
decision for a wife to work and not feeling entirely comfortable with
that decision. However, there are several different reasons given for
why the decision was a difficult one to make. Denise Engel's and Art
Miller's explanation is based on beliefs, that is, they feel that it
is not quite right for married women to work. The other explanation
are more explicitly political. Doug Engels', Amy Miller's, Sara and

Sam Wilson's statements reflect a concern for the political rela-

tionship between themselves and their spouses. And, in particular,

80

they reflect a concern for the change in this political relationship
that seems to be related to the change in the division of labor.

It is also interesting in looking at these comments to recall
from above that the women in these couples also had noted that, in
spite of the difficulty of stepping outside their traditional "role",
they had eventually come to see it as a positive step. The men do not
convey that kind of feeling. For the men, the decision for the wives
to work outside of the home while the husbands stayed home was dif-
ficult and remained problematic.

One comment made in the interviews illustrated another issue
related to the question of married women working outside of the home.
Lisa and Larry Adams made the decision to allow Lisa to work outside
of the home, but her husband retained the right to limit her job
options. Her comment illustrates a mixture of ideology, control and
objective facts that create the decision for a woman to take a job
outside of the home. We see here the idea that it is legitimate for a
husband to decide about his wife's work outside of the home. We also,
see his authority in being able to implement that power through the
acceptance of his word by the wife; we also see the objective basis of
his authority, that is, a rational choice about the danger of one par-
ticular job.

"He doesn't want me to work in a gas station. Its too dangerous.

I worked in a station where a guy got killed and he did make me

quit that one." Lisa Adams

On the questionnaires there were a series of questions on deci-
sion making that are reviewed in Chapter 5. However, one question is
appropriate here, and that is "who decides what job you should take?"

Each respondent was asked this question and asked to indicate how much

81

influence his/her spouse would have on the decision on a scale from 1
to 9. For example, an unemployed man would be asked who decides what
job he should take. If he answered 1 that would mean that he made the
deicision entirely on his own, and if he answered 9 it would mean that
his wife made the decision entirely for him about what job he should
take. Table 5 shows the average response to this question for each of
the four categories: unemployed man, his wife, unemployed woman, her

husband.

Table 5. Questionnaire responses:
"Who decides what job you should take?"

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her
Man Wife Woman Husband
Average responses
on a scale from 1 2.1 5.7 3.1 3.6
to 9, where 1 means
you decide and a 9 n=l34 n=28
means your spouse
decides.

 

Table 5 indicates that, on the average, the wives of laid off men
were most likely to be influenced in their decision about what job
they should take. Laid off men were least likely to be influenced by
their wives. In families where the woman had been laid off, both she
and her husband were a little more likely to think their spouse had an
influence on what job they should take than men in families where the

husband had been laid off.

82

In sum, then, almost half the wives of unemployed men were likely
to change their position in the labor force. When a woman is laid off
her husband is likely to change his position in the labor force only
25% the time. Based on the information from the interviews there is a
complexity behind the apparently large number of spouses who say there
has been no change in labor force participation. "No change" is
interpreted differently in different situations and there are a
variety of reasons for why changes in a spouse's labor force par-

ticipation rate did or did not take place.

FAMILY FINANCES

 

How did layoff affect family finances? Wages generated in the
labor market and brought into households constitute a major tie be-
tween the economy and families. A layoff creates a break in that
tie. However, once again we will see that the break is not a simple
event, but is experienced in a variety of ways. Table 6 shows the
average responses given by the questionnaire group to the question
"How much has the layoff affected your finances?" Respondents were
asked to answer on a scale from 1 to 9 where a l meant not very much
and a 9 meant severely. Once again in order to compare responses, the
people who answered the questionnaire have been divided into the four
categories: unemployed man, his wife, unemployed woman, her husband.

Table 6 indicates that, first, in families where the man was laid
off the layoff was perceived to have had a bigger effect on finances

than in families where a woman had been laid off. Second, within

83

families the laid off person (both men and women) perceived the finan-

cial loss as more significant than did her/his spouse.

Table 6. Questionnaire responses:
"How much has the layoff affected your finances?"

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her

Man Wife Woman. Husband
Average 7.0 ”.1 A.” 2.5
responses on
a scale from n=l3H n=28
1 to 9.

A 1 means not
very much.

A 9 means
severely

 

In the interviews there were a variety of responses to the
question of changes in finances since the layoff. Some people com-
mented on the heavy impact it had had on their life style. They
emphasized the contrast between their lives before and after the
layoff. Their description of the transition emphasizes the dramatic
difference in their lives since the layoff. Before the layoff,
spending money and buying some of the luxuries of life was a major
part of their lives. Now they are concerned about the barest necessi-
ties. The comments also reveal some embarrassment about their
situation. They feel ashamed at the welfare office, in front of their
parents, and their friends. They lost, not just the "things," but a
whole life style and a source of pride and identity.

"Now I'm beginning to see how people feel when they're on

welfare. We ran out of unemployment and our savings. Its not

easy for others, but its especially hard for us because we're
not used to it. We have to live on ADC but we're criticized

8H

for having life insurance and a van. I've never had to deal with
this. They try to embarrass you. They make you feel guilty
because we're not totally impoverished, like our daughter takes
piano lessons. All of her friends are from families with good
incomes. Its hard for her to continue friendships." Amy Miller

"A job is my biggest goal now. I used to have a goal to have so
many thousand dollars. But now I just want a job." Art Miller

"When Jeff was at Ford's and the kids were little, my biggest
highlight was going groceries. It was my time out. After the
money quit coming in he did it (the grocery shopping). I hated
to leave behind the things I wanted. His parents used to send
home food, you know when we went there for dinner. I always
hated it like they were treating us like kids. Now we take
anything anyone would offer." Denise Engels

"When I got laid off it was supposed to be temporary. Because of
taxes we actually made more for a year on unemployment. We had a
ball, being off and making good money. We was always on the run.
Now we mainly stay home to save on gas. She makes a list and we

take one trip a week into Lima." Doug Engels

"It (the financial situation) became difficult because I wanted
to give the kids pizza sometimes and it got so I'd order it and
duck out to get it before he realized what I had done." Sara
Wilson

"We used to visit a lot, but that's changed. As the money dried
up its hard to have people over because we couldn't afford pop
and snacks." Sam Wilson

"Its a big change because the money was so good you wouldn't
believe it. We bought two cars. One a really nice fancy one and
a king size bed. We had savings. We didn't go crazy but it was
nice." Julie Rogers

"Sally really needs to work. When she isn't working we have no
hospitalization, because my job doesn't provide benefits. Our
two kids are in and out of the hospital a lot. Our bills are
over $H000." Vince Turner

"To me its affected it severely. To Bob, he could care less.
He's one who don't worry about anything, but I worry more than
he does because I think of the four kids. And I'm from a poorer
background you know. My idea of security is somebody with a job
with money coming in from week to week, and unemployment doesn't
last forever." Betty Johnson

There were some people in the interviews who said they did not

feel as dramatic a difference in their situation after the layoff.

85

Bob Johnson and John Rogers were examples of those who felt relatively
unscathed financially. Their comments reflect an interesting dif-
ference of opinion within households, because their wives (Julie and
Betty) said that the economic impact of the layoff was significant.

Their comments also point to an important factor that was not
systematically explored in this research; that is the length of time
since the layoff and the sequencing of events. Art Miller, Sam Wilson
and Doug Engels had used up their unemployment benefits, while John
Roger's wife and Bob Johnson were still receiving some. In addition,
John was quite sure that his wife would be called back to work soon.
Bob was in the process of buying a truck and starting a new career as
an independent trucker.

"Her getting laid off hasn't really changed that much around

here. It's not like she's unemployed or something with her going

to school and money coming in." John Rogers

"It always affects you a little bit, regardless if you're

unemployed. With me I get my unemployment plus sub pay with

it. It isn't near as bad. I'm pretty close to what I was

making--right around 85%. It comes down to where you are still

losing ground but you're just not losing it quite as fast as you

would a been." Bob Johnson

These two examples present an interesting contrast. In Betty and
Bob Johnson's case, the spouse of the unemployed person was more
impressed with the financial loss of the layoff. In Julie and Joh
Roger's case the spouse was less impressed. Julie and John are con-
sistent with the average findings on the questionnaire. But perhaps
those averages hide this kind of variation.

Larry Adams, like John Rogers and Bob Johnson, thought the layoff

was not devastating. Larry still had some savings from his severance

pay and expected to be called back soon. Once again, it is the timing

86

of the interview plus the access the family has to other resources
that makes the critical difference in their perception of the impact
the layoff has on the family's financial situaiotn. Lisa Adams agreed
the layoff was not devastating, although she seemed a little more con-

cerned.

"We had to cut back but not on necessities. Like I had to get
ride of my motorcycle. One thing that helped us there was I got
a good chunk of severance pay. Without that we would have been
in a lot worse shape." Larry Adams

"Unemployment (benefits) paid all of the bills. Where as when he
was working we had money extra to go places and to do things.
With unemployment we never have any left, like you know going to
the show or something. Mine (my checks) does the groceries. I
buy all the groceries with my check. When he worked he paid all
the bills and I paid the groceries. We divided it up kind of.
That aint very good even. My checks aren't very big and that's
about all I can buy." Lisa Adams

Before I began this research I had conceptualized the break be-
tween work/affluence and unemployment/poverty as being very sharp. I
discovered that recession is more likely to be experienced as a slow
sinking--what some have called "rusting out". The line is obscured in
some cases by programs like unemployment benefits and sub pay.

Ferman and Blehar (1983:590) discovered this in their work on
unemployment in Detroit.

"We began thinking that the actual episode of job loss was the

big trauma; but we were dead wrong. What we're finding is that

job loss in many cases is only mildly traumatic compared to what
fOllows--searching for a new job, dashing of hopes that the old
employer will call again, being rebuffed by new prospective
employers. These are the events that try the patience and sanity
of most workers."

For others the line is obscured in another way, because even when

they are working their pay is so low, relative to their family's size,

that poverty is always with them.

87

"We've always been pretty much the same because he never has made
that much, and as the family increased, he wasn't making any
more." Ginger Fitzgerald

"He's laid off, on and off every year. We never have our bills
paid off." Rita Degraff

"If I can just get a job that I won't be laid off through the
winter I'll be satisfied." Rick Degraff

Candy Evans felt the impact was severe, but she also felt there
were some advantages to poverty.
"I'd like to make about $150 a week, but on ADC we only get $390
a month and our rent is $375, and then we have our gas and
electric. So everything is really short around here. My sister's
working and if we don't have money for diapers she helps out.
But I think both of us being unemployed right now - I think not
having that money brought us closer together.(Interviewer:"Not
having money or having the time together?") "Not having the
money and having the time. As a matter of fact I told Chuck I
don't ever want that much money because you fight more. It
seemed that way when I was still getting money from my pregnancy
leave and he was working. We fought more about what we wanted to
buy and stuff and now its just for necessities.I think we get
along better. In a way I like it this way." Candy Evans
Others were not as enthusiastic about the poverty, but also saw
advantages that counteracted the financial loss. Earlier, I described
the way in which wives of men who had been laid off explained the hid-
den opportunity for them in the layoff. In the following comments we
see men and women who have been laid off cite opportunities as well.
Valerie Turner and Julie Rogers were both laid off from well paid pro-
duction jobs. However, they describe how their layoff was positive in
some way. In Valerie's case, she welcomes the relief from the "double
shift" that is especially difficult for her because her children
aren't well. Julie and the men describe the layoff as an opportunity
to participate in activities they enjoy and are not able to do when

they are working full time. When I began this project I thought that

the impact of unemployment might have a different effect on husbands

88

and wives. For example, in the family of a laid off man, I thought
that the layoff might be experienced as bad for the family as a whole
and bad for the man, but that it might be an good in some ways for the
wife. From the comments below, we see that although my speculation
was valid, the experience is not as simple as I had anticipated.
"We really need the money I make, but with three babies its kind
of a relief to have time for them. The two little ones are sick

a lot of the time." Valerie Turner

"I think being laid off hasn't been too bad because I really
wanted to go back to school." Julie

"I haven't been looking that hard because I'm getting unemploy-
ment and plus I want to get this place fixed up so I don't have
to worry about it." George Fitzgerald

"I didn't like being a carpenter. I wanted to quit. I like

health care work better. If I wasn't laid off I wouldn't have

gone back to school." Chuck Evans

"No I didn't like it (working at the job from which he was laid

off.) I hated it out there. God, she can tell you that I hated

working out there." Bob Johnson

Explanations for the variation in perceptions of the impact of
unemployment on family finances fall into two categories. One cate-
gory includes objective differences among families. For example the
length of time of the layoff, whether sub-benefits, unemployment and
savings were available, and what the difference was in pre and post-
layoff household income.

The second category includes subjective reasons, for example,
definitions of poverty. When asked to describe the impact of the
layoff on family finances, respondents answered within the context of
their definition of poverty. Some people felt the effects more,

because they defined themselves as poor when they were unable to do

the things they had been able to do previously. For example, above in

89

the discussions of the impact, some people spoke of R.V.'s, enter—
taining and owning two cars. For others, who had never been able to
do those things, poverty was defined in a more minimal way. No one
could be said to have had an extravagant perception of poverty.
However, there was a range of definitions.

Table 7 summarizes the questionnaire responses to the question of
how much money was being brought into the household currently. It
shows that there were differences between households where the man was
laid off and those where the woman had been laid off. Families where
the woman was laid off averaged $51 more a week than families where
the man had been laid off. We could speculate that, because women
earn less, the difference between post and pre layoff income was
larger when the husband was laid off. A critical piece of information
that was not obtained in this research was the pre-layoff income of
the households.

Nowak and Snyder (1983; 198A; 1985) have compared the experience
of women and men who lost their jobs in plant closings. They found
that women were less able to find jobs after their layoff than men
were, and if women did find work, they were more poorly paid. The
economic effect of the layoff was more damaging for women than for
men. My work suggests that families are especially important to women
as buffers against economic decline. Families where the man was laid
off had lower average incomes than families where the woman was laid
off. Therefore, it is actually more advantageous economically, for
married women to be laid off themselves rather than to have their hus-
bands be laid off. This is especially interesting when we recall the

"hidden opportunities" described by the women in families where their

9O

husbands were laid off and they entered the labor force. Economic
decline exacerbates both wives' dependence on and independence from

their husbands.

Table 7. Questionnaire responses; "How much money per week is
currently being brought into your household?"

 

 

 

 

Unemployed man's Unemployed woman's
family family
husband $121 husband $185
wife 56 n=135 wife M6 n=28
other 13 other 10
total 190 total 2H1

Average amounts.

 

ECONOMIZING

 

How did unemployment affect spending patterns? Did unemployment
increase the replacement of labor purchased in the market in the form
of commodities and services with labor performed in the home? In
response to the questionnaire, many people said they had used various
strategies for economizing. Table 8 summarizes these responses to the
questionnaires. In Table 8 the option "fewer meals in restaurants"
shows that at least 86% of the families had used at least one of the
methods listed. Fewer meals at restaurants was the favorite way of
economizing, followed by doing one's own car maintenance, using a wood
stove or putting in insulation, canning and freezing, gardening, fewer

babysitters, selling items and sewing.

91

Table 8. Questionnaire responses:
"In which of the following ways have you attempted
to economize?"

 

 

others moving in...........0% Gardening..........fl2%
fewer restaurant meals....86% Fewer babysitters..fl0%
own car maintenance.......63% Sold Items.........35%
wood stove or insulation..58% Sewing.............25%
canning and freezing......fl6% Other.............. %

This table includes the percentage of all respondents to the question-
naire who answered yes to having done any of the above listed as a
strategy to economize since the layoff of themselves or their spouse.

 

Only one category was not used--"others moving in with you or you
with them". This is very different from the observations of econo-
mizing in the 1930's (Milkman, 1976; Stouffer and Lazarsfeld, 1937).
In the interviews, three familes had "extra" people living with them,
but the doubling up was for the other person and was not a means of
cutting costs for themselves. However, their sharing their house may
have been a way of creating some possible future security like that
described in Stacks' (1970) work. It is possible that this option
was an especially inefficient one for the sample I chose to interview;
because they were married with children, it would have been quite
problematic for them to find someone with whom they could live. On
the other hand, because they had found quarters for their relatively
large families, some were able to take in others.

"Her sister stays with us but its pretty much just to help her

out until she gets on her feet. Chris (the sister) and I share

the work around the house. We don't get no money for it."

George Fitzgerald

"Before, his mother lived with us for a while but it really
didn't help us that much." Candy Evans

92

"Carol and her kids moved in as a favor to her when she was
evicted." Betty Johnson

The people in the interviews also mentioned gardening and canning
as strategies for economizing. Once again the fluidity of the line
between employed and unemployed was illustrated by their comments.

Many had gardened and canned as an economizing strategy before the

layo ff.

"I got this from my mom. My mom canned everything. If you stop
and think, it costs you $1 for a can of tomato juice, but if you
grow them you can get 5 or 6 quarts from a plant. That's saving
you money." George Fitzgerald

"We always had a garden. That's nothing new. But we save a lot
of money from it in the summer." Chuck Evans

"We've always gardened as an economizing thing. I've always
pinched pennies even when he worked." Rita Degraff

Selling things was another economizing measure mentioned in the
interviews. Bob and Betty Johnson raised corn and hogs as an unsuc-

cessful attempt to make money.

"The land is rented, its bartered. I just butcher them a hog and
a half for a year. I only have about 6 acres I fool around with.
That should be enough to feed my hogs." Bob Johnson

Larry Adams had expanded a method of economizing into a side

business-~doing car repairs.

"I do a lot of car maintenance. I don't usually charge friends.
But when I got laid off I started charging people for it because
they started coming all the time. They'd say "you're home.
You've got all of the time in the world. It got to where every
day they were coming. I just started charging. It was getting
to be ridiculous. My brother would bring over people I didn't
even know. I still didn't charge hardly anything. I went from
free to $5 to $10." Larry Adams

One method of economizing, that was not on the questionnaire but

was brought up in the interviews, was careful grocery shopping.

93

"We eat more one dish meals, pizza, chili. I pretty much on the
groceries try to stretch every dollar. He likes canned peaches
but we can't afford that any more. I have to shop around, buy
generics and coupons." Rita Degraff

"I enjoy economizing by using coupons because I enjoy seeing
how much money I can save. Its like my hobby. I enjoy seeing
how much money I can get back on refunds and sometimes you can
get items back. I keep records of it to see how much I get back
in a year." Lisa Adams

Finally, considering the question of substituting domestic labor
for market labor, every man who was interviewed, except Bob Johnson,
spontaneously brought up the topic of home improvement projects he was
working on since he was laid off.

"I do all the repair work. We had a plumber in once. I had to
fix it after he left. I tell her the materials I'll work with
like I won't work with wallpaper. We're pretty compatible
though...I don't clean the bathroom. I remodeled it though."
Larry Adams

"I built these cupboards since I was laid off. It was kind of a
deal with the landlord where he reduced our rent." Chuck Evans

"I do odd jobs and also fix things around the house instead of
having maintenance agreements." Art Miller

"I thought, since I did all the repair work, that it should equal
out. If I'm going to share housework, she should share repair
work. The only thing I could get her to do is the attic and the
car...Women always leave you in the middle of a job." Doug
Engels

"She arranges for repairs unless I can do it. I'm a pretty good
handy man. She complains I work on cars even with a bad back."
Hank Gates

"This place needs a lot done to it. You can see the dry wall out
there (waiting to be hung). I've got a lot to do before I go
back." George Fitzgerald

"At first I did a lot of repairs around the house. But the
materials cost, so now I'm doing less." Vince Turner

There was an underlying implication in the discussions of the
unemployed men about home and car maintenance and repair. It seemed

that this work was an important part of their defining themselves and

9M

their contribution to the family. Sara Wilson was the only person who
explicitly articulated this feeling.

"There was a gradual change (he began taking the kids out more) as

the money dried up and he couldn't feel as important doing major

repairs at home." Sara Wilson

Betty and Bob Johnson represented an interesting difference from
the other couples on the question of repair work. All of the other men
seemed to feel that repair work around the house was good way of main-
taining their masculinity during the layoff. Bob felt that any work
around the house was for women. When asked about whether he ever
worked on repair projects around the house he said,

"I don't give a damn what color the house is." Bob Johnson

Betty Johnson discussed her home maintenance work with much the

same enthusiasm that many of the male interviewees did.

"I hung all this paneling in here. It don't look like it. But
I've fixed this place up a lot." Betty Johnson

On the questionnaire I asked if economizing created more work,
and, if so, who was doing it. Table 9 gives a summary of the respon-
ses to this item on the questionnaires. Table 10 gives a summary of
responses to this question in the interviews. Table 9 shows that in
more than half of the families, economizing had created more work. In
the families where the man had been laid off, he and his wife thought
it had created more work about 60% of the time. In families where
the woman had been laid off, 56% of the laid off women thought it had
created more work, but their husbands were likely to think economizing

had created more work only ”8% of the time.

95

Table 9. Questionnaire responses:
"Has economizing created more work, and, if so, who does it?"

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her
Man Wife Woman Husband
No extra work ”1% ”2% ””% 52%
Yes,we share it 22% 27% 22% 22%
she does it 8% 19% 30% 19%
he does it 29% 13% 9% 7%
n=l35 n=28

 

Table 10 further elaborates on this question, showing only the
responses of those who thought there was more work. Looking across
the table we see that among those people who thought economizing
created extra work, the laid—off person is more likely to say "I do
the extra work." Looking down the table we see that among laid-off
persons, little difference exists between women and men reporting
doing extra work, but among spouses of laid-off people, wives are more
likely to report doing extra work than husbands are.

Table 10. Questionnaire reponses:
"If more work is created, who does it?"

 

 

Percent responding "I do the extra work"

Laid-off person Spouse of laid-off person
Men ”9% (80) 15% (13)
Women 53% (15) 33% (80)

 

96

The interviews, which are summarized in Table 11, show a similar
pattern. However, during the interviews it was apparent that people
had not given this question much thought, except for the issue of home
improvement which they perceived as a dramatic change. For example,
on the more mundane tasks, such as cooking or childcare, people
claimed they had increased economizing (fewer meals at restaurants and
fewer babysitters), but when asked if anyone were doing extra work,
they said no. It is impossible to know how the respondents to the
questionnaire were interpreting this question. Did they note only big
changes like home repair or did they include day to day tasks like

cooking and childcare, or both or neither?

Table 11. Response to Interviews:
"Has economizing created more work and if so who does it?"

 

 

UNEMPLOYED MANAWIFE UNEMPLOYED WOMAN-HUSBAND

 

 

No extra work 2 6 l 1
Yes, we share it 1 l 0 0
she does it 0 l 1 1

he does it 6 l O 0

n=9 n=9 n=2 n=2

 

The responses to the questions about economizing reveal, not
surprisingly, that people were trying a variety of methods to econo-

mize. However, change is more difficult to see, since many people

97

were economizing before the layoff. In addition, it appears that much
domestic work is poorly delineated; there is no job description or
production control. Changes slip in without any agreement as to what
exactly has taken place. In the next Chapter I will elaborate on both
the problem of describing housework and of perceiving changes in
responsibility for doing it.

In this Chapter, I have described the way in which the layoff of
a breadwinner, has affected the families in this study. I can argue
that there has, in fact, been an impact. However, the effect contains
both positive and negative elements with a variety of perceptions and
experiences by the members of the households. Moreover, there is a
fluidity in the lives of the people studied that indicates that econo-
mic decline is a long term process with effects, and the development
of strategies to deal with those effects, reaching beyond the signifi-

cant event of the layoff.

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: HOUSEWORK

The last chapter reported the effects of the economic recession
on families as units. Although, as I have noted, the impact was some-
times differently experienced and perceived by husbands and wives. In
the next two chapters, I will describe how economic recession has
affected relationships between husbands and wives within families.
These chapters are organized around housework, decision making, and
ideas about and opinions of gender equality. Figure 2 illustrates the

specific issues to be discussed in the next two chapters.

Women ' - Men

 

Who does the housework?
Who makes decisions?

What is your opinion of
equal rights for women?

Figure 2. Questionnaire items illustrating
relationships within families
The question of housework is divided into several sub-categories,
including: time spent, changes since the layoff, distribution of spe-
cific tasks, satisfaction, arguments and reactions from family and

friends to changes in the division of labor. For each of these

98

99

issues, I will report the data obtained from the questionnaires and
discuss the findings. Then I will describe the interviews responses
to these questions and show the ways in which the two sets of infor-

mation fit together.

TIME SPENT ON HOUSEWORK

 

The data in Table 12 summarizes the responses to the question-
naires. The data are divided into several categories. The average
number of hours of housework is reported for unemployed men and
unemployed women. Beneath each of these two, I have broken down the
responses for various kinds of spouses. This allows us to compare,
for example, the number of hours of housework of housewives who are
married to unemployed men (6.1) with the number of hours of housework
of women who are employed fu11 time and are married to unemployed men
(3.”). Table 12 shows that women do more housework than men do, and
that women employed outside of the home do less housework than women
who are in the home. These findings are consistent with all of the
major research on housework (Hedges and Barnett, 1972; Walker and
Woods, 1976). In addition, Table 12 shows that the range of hours of
housework is much greater for women than it is for men, which is also
consistent with the literature (Berk and Berk, 1979; Walker and Woods,
1976). Finally, they show that unemployed men do only slightly more
hours of work on the average than men who are employed full time.

The contrast shown in Table 12 between the number of hours worked
by women who did not work outside of the home and the hours worked by

other women is an example of a phenomenon described by Friedan (1963)

100

in her classic book, The Feminine Mystique. She explained that

 

housework tended to expand to fill the time available. Two people in
the interviews described their experience with the change in the
amount of time spent on housework in their own household.

"When I started it took about three hours, but now its up to 6 or
7 hours, because after a while it got to be a drag. But I still
clean house better than she did. Everytime I clean I pull out
all the furniture. But I see why she didn't because after a
while you get tired of pulling everything out." Doug Engels

"Once you do it over and over, it takes you longer because you
dread getting out and doing it. I suppose he works about ” or 5
hours a day and then bitches the other 3 or ” hours because the
kids tear it up." Lisa Adams

Table 12. Questionnaire responses:
Average hours of housework on a typical weekday.

 

 

Hours n
Unemployed Man 1.” 135
His wife who was:
a housewife 6.1 ”7
unemployed 10.0 3
employed part time 3.” 26
employed fhll time 2.6 59
Unemployed Woman 3.7 28

Her husband who was:

unemployed 2.0 3
employed part time 2.0 l
employed full time 1.2 2”

These numbers are self reports

 

101

Since these are self reports, we would expect them to be inflated.
However, Table 13 shows that the unemployed men slightly underesti-
mated their hours of housework compared to what their wives said their
husbands were doing. This is similar to Berk and Berk's (1979) fin-
dings. The inflation of self reports is more likely to occur when the
work is gender stereotyped.

One problem with the estimate of time spent on housework is that
there could be a distinction made between childcare and housework
(Olson, 1979; 1981) but this was not specified in the questionnaire.
In response to the question about time spent doing housework, some
people included childcare in their estimates; others may not have
included childcare. Also, apart from definitions of housework (that
is, if it included childcare or not) the presence and ages of children
in the home may have been an important factor in determining the
amount of time spent on housework. Berk (1980) argues that the two
greatest determinants of hours of housework for women is labor force
participation and and the number of children in the home. Furthermore,
she explains that children in the home increase the hours of work in

the home for everyone, but the increase is especially true for women.

Table 13. Questionnaire responses:
average hours of housework on a typical weekday-
spouse estimate compared to self report

 

 

Unemployed Men's Self Report 1.” Hours n=135
His Wife's Estimate of His Hours 1.5
Wive's of Unemployed Men Self Report ”.1 n=28

Unemployed Men's Estimate of Wives Hours 3.6

102

Her arguments are illustrated in comments made by Rita Degraff
and Chuck Evans both of whom have small children. They answered the
question about how much time was spent on housework by saying it took
almost all of the waking hours in a day. This kind of distinction
between childcare and other kinds of housework was not made in the
questionnaire data.

"If you include kids, I guess (I spend) all day. I get up at 7

and I go to bed at 10 or 11. I guess about 12 or 15 hours."

Rita Degraff

"She takes care of the kids all day, maybe 15 hours. Except when
I'm here she will hand them to me." Chuck Evans

Subjects were also asked to estimate the hours they spent on
housework on weekends. These data from the questionnaires are not
reported because there was some confusion over whether the question
referred to the number of hours in two days or in one day of the
weekend. The question about weekend work was asked because the
literature (Meissner, 1977; Robinson, 1977; Szalai et al., 1972)
reports that working women "catch up" on "their" housework on
weekends. Amy Miller and Heather Gates, who both worked outside of
the home during the week, were representative in this respect.

"On weekends we both do a lot more housework because I'm home.

I'm here working and he feels more content working with me than

working alone." Amy Miller

"I get spurts of energy on the weekends or at night, and clean,

sometimes late at night. It's got to be done. The kids just

surface clean all week." Heather Gates
In contrast, Betty Johnson, who was a full time housewife, did not
work weekends.

"On the weekends, I don't do any housework. Well I told Bob when

we got married he was always working five days and he always had
the weekend off. I said,'If you don't work, I don't work

103

either.' I mean personally I don't like the stuff myself, but you
have to do it. But the weekends are made for fun. That's the
only time the whole family is together. So, I view the weekend
as party time. Anything besides housework." Betty Johnson

CHANGES IN HOUSEWORK SINCE THE LAYOFF

 

Table 1” summarizes questionnaire response to the issue of
changes in housework since the layoff. Table 1” shows that in fami-
lies where the man was laid off, about half of the time there was no
change and about half of the time the man was doing more. In the
families where the woman was laid off, both husbands (68%) and wives
(57%) were more likely to feel that there had been no change than in
families where the man had been laid off. This was especially true of
the husbands of women who had been laid off. Wives in the families
where the woman had been laid off were most likely to think there had

been no change.

Table l”. Questionnaire responses:
"Have there been any changes in who does the housework
since you (or your spouse) were laid off?"

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her

Man Wife Woman Husband
No ”8% ”7% 57% 68%
Yes, Man does more 51% ”7% ”% 0%
Yes, Woman does more 0% 1% 32% 16%
Other 1% 1% 6% 1”%

n 135 135 28 28

 

10”

Table 15. Questionnaire responses:
If there has been a change in housework,
who is doing more work?

 

 

Percent saying unemployed person does more

Laid-off person Spouse of laid-off person
Men 100% (135) 96% (129)
Women 76% (21) 53% (15)

 

Table 15 shows who people thought were doing more housework, if
they thought there had been a change in the distribution of housework.
In families where the husband had been laid off, all of the husbands
and almost all of the wives (96%) thought the men were doing more
housework. In families where the wife had been laid off, the majority
of husbands (53%) and wives (76%) said the women were doing more
housework. However they were less in agreement with each other than
the husbands and wives in families where the man had been laid off and
less likely to think the laid off person was doing more.

On the questionnaires, if respondents said there had been a
change in the distribution of housework they were asked to explain
what kind of change had taken place. Comments on the questionnaires
show a large range of definitions of what is "more". For example, one
man said, "Yes, I'm doing more. I cook my own lunch." Another said,
"Yes, I occasionally dust and run the sweeper." At the other extreme,
were responses like, "Yes, I do a lot more" and "I do it all now."

Most were like the first two examples, describing themselves as

105

helping a little more or doing some specific task they hadn't done
previously. In the interviews, all of the unemployed people were
doing more around the house, except one man, Rick Degraff. However,
there was a wide range of change described in the interviews. Table
16 shows four kinds of changes in the distribution of housework, found

among the interviews, and the people who fit into each category.

Table 16. Response to the interviews:
Change in the amount of housework done by unemployed person
(according to unemployed person)

 

 

Doing it all..........Doug Engels, George Fitzgerald, Larry Adams,
Julie Rogers, Valerie Turner

Doing much more.......Art Miller, Chuck Evans, Sam Wilson
Doing a little more...Hank Gates, Bob Johnson

Doing no more.........Rick Degraff

 

Denise Engels, Ginger Fitzgerald, and Lisa Adams described the
change that took place which transferred all of the responsibility for
housework into the hands of their laid-off husbands.

"He does almost all of it. I am gone in the morning until 2:30
and then work on homework until dinner. Somebody has to get the
kids off and do dishes, and then he got to where he did laundry.
He got real good at baking cakes because he wanted it and I
wasn't home. He's exceptional. He never threw it in my face."
Denise Engels

"It depends on who is working the most. The other one does the
most around the house. Like when he was working and I was laid
off, I did it all. I don't do housework right now because I'm
working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week." Ginger Fitzgerald

over

This

106

"He always has helped in the housework and cooking and things,
when he felt like it. I mean he didn't do it all the time. I
mean once a week or so. And then when he was laid off, he did
everything. And then I helped when I felt like it. I went and
changed the role. Like on weekends I would help, but I didn't do
much through the week. He had to clean and do the work." Lisa
Adams

The women who had been laid off had also, in their opinion taken
all of the housework.

"We used to share more. Now, I almost do it all, because I'm
home all the time. I have more time. Sometimes I do things I
didn't have time fer before." Valerie Turner

change was especially troublesome to Julie Roger who said,

"When I worked, we had a cleaning lady. Now we can't afford it.
He knows I'm doing more, but he doesn't initiate change. A few
times I have been able to talk about it (my doing all the
housework) but its hard to do. There've been times I would be
standing out there at 9:30 doing dishes and I'd be thinking,
'that sucks', you know. And I worry too about how it looks to
Mary (her daughter) and what image that gives to Mary. You know,
that bothers me." Julie Roger

Julie's husband, however, was not as sure that she was doing more

housework. When asked if he thought that Julie was doing more

housework now, he said,

left

"No, not really. I don't know. We've had discussions about it
from time to time about things she wants me to do." John Roger

Other unemployed men were doing significantly more, but much was

for their wives to do. The question was not as settled an issue

as it was for the Adams, Engels and Fitzgeralds.

"Yes, Sam does more housework. Before , he did major tasks like
painting and re-modeling. I did general cleaning. Now, he does
a lot more of my chores, but a lot of time he would be here and
I would be gone and come home tired and the work wouldn't be
done." Sara Wilson

"We didn't have a formal agreement. Since I wasn't working I
told her I would do the chores she would normally do during the
hours she worked. She didn't continue to do her fair share.
She works part time and she could have continued to do her fair
share. When I worked 12 hours I still pitched in." Sam Wilson

 

“r

107

"He helps me but he is not a house person. He's been gone a lot
during the day in the two years he's been laid off. He's off
doing for others, but what about me? I found myself thanking
him for running the vacuum." Amy Miller

"I help my wife. I don't know, I wash dishes and maybe later I

will sweep. But, I don't know. I'm not being a male chauvenist,

but I don't like to schedule. I should, to help her out, because
she is out making a living and I'm not. Even when I was working,

I thought you girls had a lot to do." Art Miller

"I used to do most of the cleaning, and I always used to bitch

about that. We do half and half most of the time. Chuck will

say 'Take the kids someplace and I'll straighten up the house

for you.' Sometimes he'll take them, (the kids) although he

can only handle one at a time If I leave both of them at home,

forget it because my house will get so tore up." Candy Evans

In these comments, it is assumed that housework is really the
wife's job. Sara Wilson refers to "my work", although her husband is
unemployed and she is working outside of the home. Sam Wilson refers
to "the jobs she would normally do." Amy Miller thanks her husband
for doing the housework. Art Miller says "I help her out." Chuck
Evans says "I'll straighten it for you." For each of these people and
their spouses, it is perceived as being "rational", but still
unsettling, for men to do the housework. And, even if its not
consciously perceived as being unsettling, the housework remains the
wife's responsibility in their use of language. The importance of the
distinction between "helping" and "taking responsibility" was noted by
Oakley (197”).

It is also interesting to note the problem of skill in the com-
ments by Amy Miller and Candy Evans. Amy explains that part of the
reason Art does not do much housework is because he is not a "home
person". Candy says that Chuck can not do two things at once--

childcare and housework. These comments are reminiscent of the

classic piece on housework by Mainardi, "The Politics of Housework"

108

(1970) which describes the interactions between husbands and wives and
the rationalizations used by men for why they can not do the
housework.
A third category of change was where the unemployed person was
doing a little more housework.
"Cooking is all. He don't do much housework. Outside he works
on cars. He put in a kerosene heater. But, no, not a real
change." Heather Gates
"Betty does all the housework. I take care of the kids, as far
as that goes. When I'm home, if she wants to go somewhere, I
watch the kids. It's just second nature you know." Bob Johnson
"No, not when it came to around the house. Now in the barn, he
does do all that. He does all the feeding and stuff. He does

everything in the barn. When he is working, I feed them (the
hogs)." Betty Johnson

Although Bob says there has been no change, Betty's perception
is that he is doing more--not really "housework" but he has taken over
some of her farm work. This is in contrast to Julie and John Roger
above. In the Roger's family, the woman had been laid off and she was
unhappy about what she perceived to be a significant increase in her
responsibility for housework. Her husband, however, said he didn't
notice much change.

Rita and Rick Degraff were the only couple in the interviews to
report that there had been no change in the amount of work Rick did
around the house. In Rick and Rita's case, Rick uses the question of
skill, mentioned by Amy Miller and Candy Evans as limitations to the
amount of housework their husbands do, to explain why he does not par-
ticipate in housework at all.

"No, I don't know how to do housework. I wish Rita didn't have

to do as much as she does. I wish I could do more, but I just
don't feel right." Rick Degraff

109

"I don't think much has changed as far as that goes, because I'm

still here doing all the things I had to do before." Rita Degraff

For most couples interviewed, uncomfortable changes had taken
place. Even in the households where the men had taken over much of
the housework, things remained unsettled. Only in the case of Ginger
and George Fitzgerald was the "role reversal" smooth. Denise Engels,
Lisa Adams, and Amy Miller described the struggle that took place in
their household in order to redivide the housework after changes took
place in the division of wage labor. Each of these women had entered
or remained in the labor force after their husbands had been laid off.
Since the time of the layoff, their husbands had begun to do more of
the housework. However, they all explain that this transition had not
been an easy one and was initated by the wife after she was faced with
doing both work inside of the home and outside, while her unemployed
husband did neither.

Each of these cases is also somewhat different in the way in
which the process took place. In Denise Engel's case, her husband
Doug, has taken over all of the work, but this seems to be partly
expressed as a sign of defeat on his part. Lisa Adams' husband Larry,
has also taken over all of the work, but their agreement seems to be
more mutually acceptable. Larry Adams had also not been laid off as
long as Doug Engels had and was quite sure of being called back. Doug
had been laid off fer three years and did not have much hope for
getting his job back. Denise and Doug's hopes were pinned to her
obtaining work after she completed her nursing degree. In other

words, the resignation with which Denise's husband had taken over the

110

housework may have been related to his perception that the arrangement
was more long termed than Larry Adam's perception.

"It (the fact that Doug was doing more housework) came out of
arguments. I would come home and he was still sitting where I
left him in the morning. Then I would get mad. He would over-do
and then I'd say,'you don't have to do that much.'" Denise Engels

"Because I didn't think it was fair that I had to go out and work
and he got to sit around and do nothing and I still had to clean,
clean, clean. I felt like he had to get up and clean. I told
him I didn't think it was fair and he got to cleaning everything.
If he was going to be home, then he could just do it. I mean we
really didn't argue or nothing. I just told him the way I felt
about it, and he pretty much agreed. It went on for a month
after he got laid off. I sat down and said 'Hey, this is the

way I feel,‘ and he agreed. So that's why he took over
everything." Lisa Adams

Art Miller had increased his participation in housework.
However, the increase was not as much as Amy would like and their
struggle was much less resolved than it was for the Engels and Adams.
Amy and Art Miller's situation was quite similar to Doug and Denise
Engels's. Both men had been laid off for three years with little hope
of returning to their old jobs. However, in contrast to Doug's accep-
tance of housework, Art and Amy maintained a battle over it. Rather
than Art accepting housewifery, Amy seems to have resigned herself to
accept his way of doing (or not doing) the work.

"In the beginning, I came home to French toast for dinner. He's

learning things he didn't know. It's not easy to keep house.

One problem I have is accepting his way of doing things. He does

the laundry now, but he's ruined a lot of clothes. I put dinner

in the slow cooker, because his idea of dinner is not my idea of
dinner." Amy Miller

THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIC TASKS

 

The third issue within the topic of housework is the division of

specific tasks. Table 17 summarizes the responses to the questionnaires

111

Table 17. Who does the housework?

 

 

Self reports by: Unemployed His Unemployed Her
Man(n=135) Wife Woman (n:28)Husband

 

Driving the car when we
are going somewhere in

town together 8.0 7.7 6.” 6.6
Repairing things around

the house 7.5 7.2 6.1 7.2
Taking care of the lawn 7.7 6.1 ”.7 6.9
Making arrangements to

have repairs done 6.” 5.7 ”.8 5.”
Taking out the trash 6.9 ”.9 ”.5 7.1
Punishing the children ”.1 ”.1 3.1 5.”
Playing with the children 6.2 3.6 3.5 5.”
Take children to appoint-

ments and activities 5.5 3.1 2.6 ”.8
Vacuuming the carpet 3.2 2.8 2.5 3.2
Doing the dishes 3.5 2.8 2.9 3.2
Caring for the pets 6.6 2.7 3.2 7.9
Grocery shopping 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7
Cooking breakfast ”.1 2.5 3.1 3.9
Cooking the evening meal 2.6 2.” 2.7 2.”
Doing the laundry 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.9
Cleaning the bathroom 2.7 1.8 2.3 2.3
Doing the ironing ”.5 1.3 2.3 3.8

Respondents were asked to estimate who was more likely to do
specific tasks on a scale from 1 to 9 (average responses shown.)
A 1 means the wife does it all of the time.

A 9 means the husband does it all of the time.

A 5 means the task is shared about equally.

Res

11‘

112
Respondents were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 9 who was more
likely to do the specific tasks listed in Table 17. A 1 means that
the wife performed the task all of the time. A 9 means that the hus-
band performed the task all of the time. A 5 means that the task was
shared about equally between husbands and wives. Table 17 has the
average responses given for each task within each of the categories of
respondents: unemployed man, his wife, unemployed woman, her husband.

Unemployed men, on the average, indicated that they were more
likely to do the following tasks than were their wives: driving the
car (8), Making repairs around the home (7.5), caring for the lawn
(7.7), taking out the trash (6.9), caring for pets (6.6), making
repair arrangements (6.”), playing with the children (6.2), taking
children to activities and appointments (5.5). The responses of the
unemployed men indicated that they felt that all of the other tasks
listed were more likely to be done by their wives. The wives of the
unemployed men said they felt that their husbands were more likely to
drive the car (7.7), do repairs (7.2), take care of the lawn (6.1),
and make arrangements for repairs (5.7). The wives felt that all
other tasks were more likely to be done by themselves.

In couples where the woman was laid off, the wives ranked driving
the car (6.”) and household repairs (6.1) as the only tasks more
likely to be done by their husbands. All other tasks, they felt were
more likely to be done by themselves. The husbands in these couples
ranked caring for pets (7.9), making repairs (7.2), taking out the
trash (7.1), mowing the lawn (6.9), driving the car, making repairs
arrangements (5.”), punishing the children (5.”), and playing with the

children (5.”), as tasks they were more likely to do.

113

Men are likely to say they are doing more tasks than their wives
think they are; women think they are doing more. Unemployed men claim
that they do more on 8 of the 17 tasks; their wives say only ” of 17.
Unemployed women claim that their husbands do more on only 2 of the 17
tasks; their husbands claim they do more on 8 of them.

The tendency was for all respondents to think that the men were
doing more jobs that were outside and involved maintenance. Men also
thought they were more likely to do those tasks that involved
children, although their wives did not agree. Both women and men
respondents, felt women were more likely to do jobs dealing with
feeding people and cleaning. Jobs that are clearly identified as
housework are most likely to be identified as women's work. Other
domestic work is more likely to be shared with men.

It is difficult to explain the basis of this assignment of tasks.
Meissner (1977) characterized the types of housework in which men par-
ticipated as those tasks with clear and identifiable boundaries, the
greatest discretion on how and when to perform them, and having a
greater leisure component. This characterization fits my findings.
Repairs and yardwork are clearly definable and could be done at
variable times, unlike for example, cooking meals. Playing with
children has a clear leisure component. However, Meissner's model is
only partially satisfactory. Doing the laundry and ironing and
cleaning the bathroom are jobs that can be done with a great deal of
discretion in terms of how and when to complete them and these are the
women's jobs.

Berk and Berk (1979) have suggested that husbands do housework

when their wives are unavailable. This implies that those tasks which

11”

are most discretionary in terms of when they can be perfbrmed are
likely to be women's work. Clearly, there is some missing element in
both Berk and Berk's and Meissner's explanation for why tasks are
divided in the manner in which they are.

The people in the interviews offered suggestions for why they
thought housework was divided in a particular way. One kind of answer
to why jobs were assigned in the way in which they were was that the
husband and wife did what they were best at.

"Because it's her job. I don't know how to do housework. Rita

gets mad at me for not doing more with the kids. I don't feel

a man should have to do that (housework). My mother helps her

out." Rick Degraff

"Who does what best has a lot to do with it." John Roger

Others thought it was a result of socialization within their
families. Julie Roger and Art Miller explained how the way which
housework was divided in their homes was a result of the way in which
they were raised.

"There's a time I think he did a lot more than he does now, like

when Mary was first born. But it seems, since we've been back

here (in his hometown) he's more traditional in terms of what he
does, and maybe it's just being around your family. We're all
real busy. We don't see each other so much. But I don't know.

It's really changed since we've been here. John's a father in

a lot of respects like his father, because that's how he learned.

And I think that has a lot to do with how we divide up housework

tasks because it's sort of like what you've learned from your

parents." Julie Roger

"Maybe it was the way I was brought up. I should be out making

a living, and she would be at home. I'm still a little old

fashioned but the woman should be at home." Art Miller

On the other hand, Larry Adams and George Fitzgerald said they
had responded to their families' ways of dividing work by being dif-

ferent. They were questioned about why they took so much respon-

sibility for housework.

115

"A lot of it had to do with her brother. He's a chauvenist pig.

He works part time and doesn't do any housework. I've always

had a different attitude." Larry Adams

"When my dad was home, he didn't do anything around the house.

He just wouldn't do it. If he went out in the kitchen to get

a cup of coffee and reached in the silverware drawer, and there

was a dirty spoon, he'd throw them all in the sink. That's just

the way he was." George Fitzgerald

Julie Roger and Sam Wilson suggested that having children might
also affect whether people maintained a gender stereotyped division
of labor.

"Sometimes I worry about the kids, especially my son because of

the role reversal. I want him to know what it would be like with

a father who works." Sam Wilson

"But I think when you have kids, it sort of locks you into roles

more so than if you didn't have them. I think you go back to

traditional things. You know, you hear yourself saying something
and you think 'Oh, I sound just like mom.'" Julie Roger

The fourth issue within the topic of housework was the question
of whether people felt their spouse was doing his/her fair share.
Table 18 summarizes the responses to the questionnaires on this
question. Table 18 shows that wives thought their husbands did
slightly less than their fair share. Husbands thought their wives did
more than their fair share. Everyone seemed to acknowledge that the
division of labor is unjust.

Table 19 indicates that the injustices may be more deeply felt
that was apparent in Table 18. Table 19 summarizes the responses to
the question about changes in the number of arguments over housework
since the layoff. Table 19 shows that in about ”0% of the families a

change had taken place in the number of arguments since the layoff.

In the families where the man was laid off arguments were likely to

116

have increased, while in families where the woman had been laid off
arguments were likely to have decreased.

This difference illustrates the impact of gender on "rational"
decisions. When a person is laid off from a job, and therefore, is
spending more time at home, it would be rational for him or her to
take more responsibility for housework. However gender ideologies
interfere with a new division of labor. In the case of the man being
laid off, he does not increase his participation in housework so that
it is more fairly distributed, and this becomes a source of arguments.
In the case of the woman being laid off, even though she is perceived
to be doing more than her fair share, the new division is not proble-
matic (as measured by the perceived change in the number of arguments)

because it does not challenge a traditional definition of gender.

Table 18. Questionnaire responses:
"Considering the chores in your household, do you feel your
partner does his/her fair share?"

 

 

 

Average
Response n
Unemployed Man 3.” 13”
His Wife 5.8 13”
Unemployed Woman 5.2 28
Her Husband 3.7 28

Repondents were asked to respond on a scale from 1 to 9.

A 1 means their spouse does much more than his/her fair share.
A 9 means their spouse does much less than his/her fair share.
A 5 means their spouse does exactly his/her fair share.

117

Martin and Wallace (198”:2”7) found in their research on women
who were laid off, that only 17% said that unemployment had caused an
increase in tension in the family. Seven percent said there was an
increase and that it was due to the loss of income and the woman's own
depression. Sixty three percent of the women who had been laid off
mentioned at least one advantage their family derived from their being
laid off. With few exceptions, the advantages related to a higher
standard of home comfort. Both Martin and Wallace's work and my
research indicates that the layoff of a woman is advantageous in some
ways to the maintenance of the family as a whole, although it is not

advantageous to the woman.

Table 19. Questionnaire responses:
"Have arguments about housework increased, decreased,
or stayed the same since the layoff?"

 

 

 

Increased* Decreased Stayed the Same n

Unemployed Man 35% 8% 57% 135
His Wife 37% 7% 56% 135
Unemployed Woman 7% 30% 63% 28
Her Husband ”% 36% 60% 28

 

It was noted above that in the interviews several people in fami-
lies where the man had been laid off, spoke of arguments, especially,
soon after the layoff. Some of them also described the way in which

they were resolved (at least to some extent) by a redivision of labor.

118

However, for others, the arguments continued. The Degraffs, Johnsons,
and Millers are families where the man was laid off. In each case
arguments have increased, because the husband and wife have
conflicting ideas about what changes should take place in the division
of domestic work. The comments also indicate that more arguments may
be the only change that occurs, that is, arguments may increase,
bringing with them no changes in the division of work. Hartmann
(1981) suggested that an unequal division of housework could put
pressure on households, thereby eventually creating changes in who
does the housework. These comments indicate that arguments can result
from an unequal division of work, but those arguments may not
necessarily lead to a more equitable arrangement.

"We fight a lot about it. I mean I always end up doing it
whether I want to or not." Rita Degraff

"It increased because I felt like since he is laid off and he is
doing absolutely nothing, then he should help. He disagreed. I
can't tell you what he really said." Betty Johnson

(We argue) "Constantly, but I win." Bob Johnson

"Increased a little. I'm home more than she is. There's more of
a demand on me. Oh, like sometimes the laundry will pile up and
she will mention it. But she's pretty understanding. If she
tells me I have to, then I don't. It's just like love; you can't
demand it. She don't demand and I don't either." Art Miller

"We argue a lot more. I don't know where it's going to end. I
know we're not going to split up." Amy Miller

Not all of the couples with a laid off husband experienced an
increase in arguments. In one of the interviews a man explains how
arguments actually decreased in his house since his layoff.

"We argue more when we're both working. We think the other should
be doing it." George Fitzgerald

119

Another contrast to the questionnaire results, was illustrated by
a couple in the interviews. The wife had been laid off, and there
were more arguments over the housework.

(Arguments have)"increased because there is more to do, since we
don't have a maid any more." John Roger

"We argue about that regularly. There's a time when I think he

did a lot more than he does now. And I don't know. I've given

it a lot of thought. I think we should discuss it and divide

it up more evenly you know, and really make that effort. He

knows I'm doing more, but I probably wouldn't want to change if

I was on that side of things." Julie Roger
Vince Turner's comment was more consistent with the questionnaires.

"If I can make it I hope Valerie can stay home. We really need

the money but things are a lot better around here without her

working." Vince Turner

The question of standards was an issue that was not formally exa-
mined in this research. Standards of housework is an important con-
sideration, because the amount of work actually done is a result of
not only how the work is divided, but what is required. For example,
in a household that has low standards, even if one person was doing
most of the work, he or she might be doing less work than in a house-
hold where work is divided more evenly but standards are very high.
Standards may also have an impact on arguments. More arguments might
be related to higher standards, even when the work is shared. In
addition, if a woman and a man have different standards, arguments
might increase.

Another factor within the issue of arguments over housework is
the question of interference. Even in households where women wanted
their husbands to participate more in housework, they sometimes

resented his "interference". Which, once again, points to the assump-

tion that the housework is hers.

120

"The weekend's a hassle. I was home in my kitchen. But now it's
his territory too. I wanted him to do it when I wanted him to do
it." Denise Engels

"I can get more done when he's not around. He's in my way."
Heather Gates

"We argue like about--well, we knew the kids would be gone during
the summer, and he wanted to get them involved in ball teams
(whose schedules run from spring through summer), and I told him
it was stupid to go ahead and pay the money when they would be
leaving half way through. He did it anyway. He was home and he
had more time to do it (both overrule her and take the kids to
practice)." Betty Johnson

SATISFACTION

 

The next topic was the amount of satisfaction people derived from
housework. Table 20 summarizes the questionnaire responses to the
question of how much satisfaction people derived from doing housework.
Respondents were asked how much satisfaction they derived from doing
housework on a scale from 1 to 9. A 1 means she or he felt very
dissatisfied. A 9 means she or he felt very satisfied. Laid off men
responded on the average 6.2; their wives responded with ”.6. In
couples where the woman had been laid off, the husbands responded with
6.3 and the wives with a ”.3.

Women in both situations (married to a person who had been laid
off or laid off themselves) were less satisfied, on the average, than
their husbands were. In the interviews, comments by Betty and Bob
Johnson were an illustration of the articulation of the relationship
between being dissatisfied with housework and being the one respon-
sible for it, or being rela tively satisified with housework and not

being the one with the greater responsibility for doing it.

121

"Give me a 9. I do not like housework." Betty Johnson

"I get a lot of satisfaction, because I just say (to her) 'go
baby go'." Bob Johnson

The interviews also revealed variation on this question. For
example, Candy Evan's husband had been laid off, and although they
shared housework more than Bob and Betty Johnson, Candy did more than
Chuck. However, she said that she derived a lot of satisfaction from
housework.

"I like to have my own house and stay home decorating my house

and taking care of my kids. A normal family, what I consider a
normal family." Candy Evans

Table 20. Questionnaire responses:
"How much satisfaction do you get from doing housework?"

 

 

 

Average
Response n
Unemployed man 6.2 135
his wife ”.6
Unemployed woman ”.3 28
her husband 6.3

These are average responses given to the question for each category
A 1 means very dissatisfied.
A 9 means very satisfied.

 

REACTIONS FROM OTHERS

 

The last issue within the topic of housework is the reponse of
family or friends to changes in the division of labor in families

where the man had been laid off. Table 16 shows there were 6 men who

122

had been laid off and now were doing more housework: Doug Engels,
Larry Adams, George Fitzgerald, Art Miller, Chuck Evans and Sam
Wilson. Larry was the only one who had not felt that he had been cri-
ticized for changes in the division of labor in his family.

"No, not as I know of. They knew my opinion. Maybe they didn't
want to say anything to me." Larry Adams

In all of the other couples in this category, there was a perception
by the husband, wife or both, that there had been some criticism of
them. Doug Engels was the only one who seems to have changed his
behavior in response to the criticism.
"When he started doing laundry and hanging the clothes outside,
some of the neighbors teased him. He may have cared deep down
inside but he didn't care. He felt, 'piss on them'. But he
doesn't hang clothes out any more." Denise Engels
George Fitzgerald says that he has not experienced any criticism.
However, his wife disagrees, and recounts an incident where he was

criticized for his doing "women's work."

"They better never, because I really don't care." George
Fitzgerald

"No some guys used to make fun of him learning to bake. But
eventually they had to learn, because more women are being
hired because more women will take a minimum wage job." Ginger
Fitzgerald

Sam Wilson cites his parents as the source of the criticism. The

others said the source of the criticism was friends.

"Yes, because neither of our parents had experienced a layoff to
this degree." Sam Wilson

Art and Amy Miller's comments indicate that their perception of the
initial source of the criticism may actually be Art. He may or may
not have been criticized by others, but it is his self criticism that

seems to be most evident.

123

"Not to me. But I get the feeling they think I'm a lazy bum.

It's not because I don't want a job because I do." Art Miller

"I've heard jokes. He starts it. Most people are supportive,

because so many are unemployed. There aren't too many jokes.

He initiates it. He'll say when we visit people and start to

get ready to go home, 'Amy has to get up early and go to work.

Somebody has to.'" Amy Miller

In summary, the layoff of a man creates both tensions over a
traditional division of labor and changes, for some couples, in the
way in which work is divided. In families where the woman is laid
off, the woman seems to slip back into traditional patterns. The
interviews suggest that the situation within the household is more
problematic and complex than the questionnaires show. This section,
particularly the interviews, illustrates how difficult it is to sum-
marize the experience of people; there are a great variety of percep-
tions, experiences, and responses to those experiences.

This kind of variablility and complexity contrasts with the
research of people like Jane Hood (1983). In a study of two-job
families, Hood traces the process of husbands and wives renegotiating
their relationship when the wife enters the labor market. Her work
conceptualizes the process as one which tends toward the re-
establishment of an equilibrium, and is more or less successfully
accomplished by various couples depending on factors like the husband
and wife's commitment to the relationship or their ability to nego-
tiate. An alternative conceptualization of the process would argue
that the variability and complexity is not a sign of the failure of
some couples to re-establish "equilibrium", but an indication that

families are sites of fundamental contradictions between husbands and

wives and that the tensions are exacerbated by unsettling changes in

12”

the social context in which the families are embedded. This contrast
between these two models and the way in which my research fits into
the models is further developed in Chapter 6 where I summarize all of

the findings and draw conclusions from the work.

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: DECISION MAKING AND IDEOLOGY

In this Chapter, I continue the discussion of the results of this
research from the questionnaires and interviews. The first section is
a description and analysis of the questions on decision making. Deci-
sion making was examined as an arena of conflict for husbands and
wives. The second section of this chapter examines the question of
gender ideologies. It includes reports of questionnaire and interview
responses to the question about equality for women. I also discuss
the importance of taking a phenomenological approach, examining not
just opinions on one particular question, but the reflection of ideas

about gender as they occur throughout the research.

DECISION MAKING

 

The first major topic in this chapter is decision making. A
series of questions examine who makes decisions about certain issues;
major and day to day decisions are included. In addition, I will
report more direct changes that took place in authority and the impor-
tance of husbands' and wive's roles in families since the layoff.

Table 21 summarizes the responses to the questionnaires. It
shows a series of specific decisions. Respondents were asked to

125

126

estimate who had the most influence over each decision on a scale from
1 to 9. A 1 means that the woman had all the influence over the deci-
sion. A 9 means the man had all the influence over the decision. A 5
means there was about equal influence on the decision by the husband
and wife. In the following paragraphs I have allowed a range of ”.7
to 5.3 to indicate "about equal influence."

In families where the man was unemployed, the husband said he had
more influence on decisions about which car to buy (6.5), and where to
live (5.”). He said that he and his wife had about equal say about
where to go out to eat (5.1), how to discipline the children (”.8),
where to go on vacation (”.7), and where to go for an evening (”.7).
He indicated, on the average, that all other decisions were more
likely to be made by his wife. His wife on the average, said he had
more influence on decisions about whether to move (6.7), what car to
buy (6.7), where to live (5.7), when to go out to eat (5.7), and where
to go on vacation (5.6). She felt they had about equal say on where
to go for an evening (5.3), how to discipline the children (5.2), and
whom to have over (5.1). She felt she had the most influence on how
to decorate (3.2), how much to spend on groceries (3.6), and what gro-
ceries to buy (3.8).

In families where the woman was laid off, the husband thought on
the average, that he was more likely to influence only what car to buy
(6.0) and where to go on vacation (6.0). He said he had equal
influence on where to live (5.0), where to go out to eat (5.0), and
how to discipline the children (5.0). On all other decisions he felt
his wife had the most influence. She thought her husband was most

influential on whether to move (5.7). She thought they had about

127

equal say on what car to buy (5.2), where to vacation (5.2), where to
live (5.1), and where to go out for an evening (5.1). She felt she
was more influential on all other decisions.

The unemployed men thought they had more influence in 2 of 11 of
the specific decision areas. Their wives thought that the men had
more influence in 5 of the areas. In the families where the woman was
laid off, both she and her husband thought she had more influence in 5
of the 11 areas. The differences in the perception by husbands and
wives in the families where the man had been laid off, could be
interpreted in several ways. It might mean that men are willing to be
more egalitarian in their relationships than women will let them.
Perhaps it is women who are primarily responsible for maintaining
gender inequality in marriages. Another explanation is that women
have a more realistic perception of the relationship. Perhaps women
know where they have control and where they don't, while men have a
more idealistic and unrealistic perception of the relationship.

The interviews provided a more complex picture of decision making.
First of all, during the interviews it was my observation that people
were really unaware of who made decisions or how decisions were made
in their families. Although they could be persuaded to give an
answer, their discussions would sometimes contrast with their answers.
For example, in response to the question about who would decide which
car to buy, Julie Roger said they would share that decision. However,
later, in an unrelated conversation, she described a real situation
where they had purchased a car which she felt was entirely too expen-

sive, but which her husband wanted.

128

Table 21. Questionnaire responses:
Who makes decisions?

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her

Man (n=135) Wife Woman(n=28) Husband
Whether to move 5.1 6.7 5.7 ”.2
What car to buy 6.5 6.7 5.2 6.0
Where to live 5.” 5.7 5.1 5.0
Where to vacation ”.7 5.6 5.2 6.0
When to go out to eat 5.1 5.7 ”.6 5.0
Where to go for an evening ”.7 5.3 5.1 ”.2
How to discipline the kids ”.8 5.2 ”.0 5.0
Whom to have over ”.6 5.1 ”.9 ”.5
How much $$ on groceries 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.8
How to decorate 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.2
What groceries to buy 3.5 3.8 3.1 3.8

These are the average responses given by each category of response
Repondents were asked to answer on a scale from 1 to 9.
A 1 means the wife has all of the influence on the decision.
A 9 means the husband has all of the influence on the decision.
A 5 means they have equal influence on the decision.

 

Descriptions of whom to have over to visit provide another
example of a hidden complexity behind the numbers. Respondents
answered the question about this decision on the questionnaire by
saying that it was either shared or the woman had slightly more
influence than her husband. However, in the interviews it appeared

that there are two somewhat contradictory factors in this decision.

129

First the woman was the social organizer. Second, her husband held a
kind of veto power limiting possible guests. Betty Johnson, Rita
Degraff, Heather Gates and Bob Johnson, described how the wives are
the ones who make social arrangements, and, in that sense, control
decisions about whom to have over. However, their decision is limited
by restrictions imposed by their husbands.

"Friendwise, I'm the one that does all the inviting. Now he

doesn't keep me from having my family come over, but he tells

me if he prefers they didn't." Rita Degraff

Bob has no friends. Most of the people he has I've brought into

the house. He doesn't associate with a lot of people." Betty

Johnson

"If it were up to him, nobody (would visit). Usually I invite
people He forbids certain people in my family." Heather Gates

"I don't tell nobody to come over. I have no friends."
Interviewer:ls there anybody you think shouldn't come over?
"Her family. They usually cost me a package of meat or
something." Bob Johnson
George Fitzgerald and Candy Evans describe how the husband's veto is
imposed. In George's case, he just avoids the social event. Chuck

Evans is more aggressive in his control of whom to have over.

"She has all the influence. But if I don't like somebody I just
stay away." George Fitzgerald

"Sometimes with certain people, Chuck'll tell me he doesn't want
to see certain people because he thinks they're a bad influence.
But when they come to the door, he is too soft hearted. He
expects me to tell them." Candy Evans
Sam Wilson described another source of control of the decision of whom
to have over. He said that since he had been laid off and they were
unable to really entertain by having something to eat or being able to
participate in any activity that required money, their social activi-

ties had declined. In his case the decision of whom to have over was

made by the economic crisis.

130

Buying groceries was another issue in which the interviews pro-
vided a more complex picture than the questionnaires. In the
questionnaires, all of the respondents said, on the average, that the
woman was likely to have more influence on how much money to spend on
groceries and which groceries to buy. However, in the interviews,
when probed about these questions, people indicated that food pre-
ferences of family members and budgets, which women did not control,
set the limitations within which she made her decisions.

"Well I always do the grocery shopping, but there's things I
don't buy because he doesn't like them." Lisa Adams

"I decide what groceries to buy. He gives me a budget of $100 a
week. I keep telling him I want a raise." Rita Degraff

In addition, husbands may be making decisions within limitations
set by circumstances over which they have no control. Money sets
limits on how much as well as what will be purchased.

"She decides. I give her $100. I give her all I can give her."
Rick Degraff

Outside influences were also suggested as the ultimate decision
makers by others in the interviews, particularly around the questions
of taking a job or moving.

"We were actually discussing that (moving). Actually,if it were

to come to that, it wouldn't be our decision. It would be where

he could get a job." Lisa Adams

"The Huntington Bank would decide that. She would move in a

minute, but we haven't got enough money to get out of the

county." Bob Johnson

Also, although one could interpret control of decision making as
an indication of power, Amy Miller and Sara Wilson said it could also

indicate that the woman (or the man) was stuck with the job of deci-

sion making.

131

"I'm the one who figures up all of the bills. I decide which
bills to pay. He doesn't want the responsibility. He hides
beneath me. It's caused arguments. He sees me growing past

him, but he doesn't want the responsibility." Amy Miller

"We had to buy a new car a while ago. I had to arrange

everything. He went along, but I had to decide. I had to do all

the work." Sara Wilson

The questionnaires also asked people who, in general, made day to
day decisions and who made big decisions. Table 22 summarizes the
responses to the questionnaires about who makes day to day decisions.
Table 22 indicates that, in families where the man had been laid off,
almost half of the men (”2%) thought they had the most influence on
day to day decisions. Twenty nine percent of the men in those couples
thought day to day decisions were shared, and 28% thought their wives
had the last say in day to day decisions. The wives of men who had
been laid off were most likely to say the men had the last word in day
to day decisions (”0%), followed by themselves (3”%) and equally
shared (26%).

In families where the woman had been laid off, people answered
quite differently. She was most likely to think that she had the last
say on day to day decisions (”5%), followed by it was equal (31%), and
her husband had the most say (2”%). Her husband was most likely to say
it was equal (37%), followed by his wife had the most say (33%), and
himself (30%).

Table 23 shows responses to the questionnaire on the question of
who, in general, has the most influence on big decisions. In couples
where the man was laid off, the husband was most likely to say he had

the most influence (66%), followed by it was equal (27%). Only 6% of

these men thought their wives had the last word on big decisions. The

132

wives of men who had been laid off agreed most frequently that their

husband had the last word on big decisions (6”%), followed by it was

equal (27%), and only 9% said they had the last word on big decisions.

Table 22. Questionnaire responses:
Who makes day to day decisions?

 

 

Unemployed His
Man (n=135) Wife

Unemployed Her
Woman (n:28)Husband

 

 

Husband is most likely ”2% ”0% 2”% 30%
Wife is most likely 28% 3”% ”5% 33%
It's about equal 29% 26% 31% 37%
Table 23. Questionnaire responses:

Who makes big decisions?

 

 

Unemployed His
Man (n=135) Wife

Unemployed Her
Woman (n:28)Husband

 

Husband is most likely 66% 6”%
Wife is most likely 6% 9%
It's about equal 27% 27%

”1% 50%
2n; 1”:
36% 36%

 

In couples where the woman had been laid off, the wife was also

most likely to say her husband had the final word in big decisions

(”1%). However, this percentage is much smaller than for husbands

and wives in families where the man had been laid off. Women who had

133

been laid off were almost as likely to think big decisions were
handled about equally (36%). Twenty four percent of the women who had
been laid off thought they had the final say on big decisions. The
husbands of women who had been laid off were most likely to say they
had the last word on big decisions (50%), followed by it was equal
(36%), and their wives had the last word (l”%).

These findings support research on marital power that correlates
power in marriage to working for wages. Furthermore, these data indi-
cate that the relationship between earning money and having more "say"
creates marital relationships that are retained even after the woman
(or man) leaves the labor market. More egalitarian decision making
may be one reflection of marital relationships that allow wives to
work outside of the home. Or, egalitarian decision making may be a
result of women having worked outside of the home, and is retained
even after she is laid off.

In summary, the questionnaire results on decision making show that
couples where the woman had been laid off have a more egalitarian per-
ception of their decision making than couples where the man had been
laid off. Within couples, men thought men had more control over deci-
sions than their wives thought men had. All respondents, on the
average, thought women had more control over day to day decisions than
women had over big decsions. They also all thought, on the average,
that men had more to say than women did over both kinds of decisions.

These data on decision making contrast with the findings on
housework. The data on housework indicate that there had been a
change in the direction of greater equality for women in families

where the man had been laid off, and a change toward less equality in

13”

the families where the women had been laid off. On questions about
decision making there appears to be greater equality among families
where the woman had been laid off.

There are several possible explanations. First, it might mean
that families, where the man was a breadwinner and his wife either a
housewife or a secondary earner, were more "male dominated" before the
layoff, so that even when change occurred toward greater equality in
the distribution of housework, he remained much more likely to dom-
inate in decision making. In contrast, in families where the woman
had been working full time, a pattern of equality had been established
which remained in terms of decision making in spite of the fact that
her activities had become more traditional.

A second explanation is that the loss of the breadwinner role for
men created a gap that could be filled with a greater degree of
control over decisions. Komarovsky (19”0) found that when men were
laid off from their jobs and lost their economic importance as bread-
winners, they sometimes "staked out" another area in which to claim
"authority." The data from my work suggests that decision making was
an area in which unemployed men made a claim to authority. In fami-
lies where the woman had been laid off, she too may be "staking a
claim" to her authority. However, her spouse is less likely to share
her view of her control over decision making.

Thus far we have looked at two arenas of power in families--
housework and decision making. Changes in the division of housework
indicate a transfer of power from the person who is laid off to his or
her spouse. On the question of decision making I did not look at

change since the layoff. The average pattern during the layoff indi-

135

cates that laid off men have more control over decision making than
their wives do and more control over decision making, relative to

their wives, than husbands of wives who had been laid off.

CHANGES IN AUTHORITY

 

The next two questions address more directly the perception of
the transfer of power since the layoff. First, respondents were asked
if they thought they had lost authority in the family since the
layoff. Table 2” summarizes the responses to the questionnaires.
Table 2” indicates that in families where the husband was laid off,
almost half of the men thought there had been no change. Thirty six
percent thought there had been a change and his authority was weaker.
Seventeen percent of the men thought their authority was stronger.

His wife was most likely to say her authority had become stronger
(”3%), followed by no change (”2%), and her authority had become
weaker (16%).

In couples where the woman had been laid off, the man was most
likely to say there had been no change (”6%), followed by his
authority was stronger (35%), and his authority was weaker (19%). The
wife who had been laid off was most likely to say there had been no
change (”6%), followed by her authority was stronger (29%), and her
authority was weaker (25%).

About half of the respondents felt there had been a transfer of
authority. In families where the man had been laid off, if they felt
there had been a change, both husbands and wives had a sense that

authority had somehow passed from the husband to the wife. Table 25

136

further highlights this point. Table 25 shows the responses of those
people who thought there had been a change which made their power
stronger. Wives of laid off men were most likely to think their power
had become stronger. Laid off men were least likely to think their

power had become stronger.

Table 2”. Questionnaire responses:
Do you think your authority has become weaker
or stronger since the layoff?

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her

Man (n=135) Wife Woman (n:28)Husband
Weaker 36% 16% 25% 19%
Stayed the Same ”6% ”2% ”6% ”6%
Stronger 17% ”3% 29% 35%

 

Table 25. Questionnaire responses:
Do you think your authority is stronger?

 

 

Percent responding "My power has become stronger."

Laid-off person Spouse of laid off person
Men 17% (135) 35% (28)
Women 29% (28) ”3% (135)

 

In the questions on decision making I did not ask specifically

about changes since the layoff. I asked people various questions

 

137

while they or their spouse were laid off, but the questions themselves
did not explicitly say "since the layoff what kinds of changes have
taken place in decision making?" In contrast, the questions on
authority specifically asked about changes "since the layoff". The
difference between the responses given to the questions on decision
making and the responses given to the question on authority may be a
result of this methodoligical difference. Perhaps when people were
asked about decision making and the question was not put into a time
context, they answered by describing decision making as it existed
throughout their marriage or over the past few years. The answers to
the question of authority described the situation since the layoff.
The contrast in the results in these two sections indicates that men
who have been laid off have had a great deal of authority (as measured
by decision making) but since their layoff they have felt a large
decline in their authority.

Respondents were also asked if they thought there had been
changes in the importance of their role in their family since the
layoff. The answers to this question for the questionnaires are sum-
marized in Table 26. Table 26 shows that in couples where the man was
laid off he most often felt the importance of his role in the family
had remained the same (63%), followed by it was more important (20%),
and it was less important (16%). The wives in these couples were most
likely to think their role had become more important (60%), followed
by it had remained the same (3”%), and it had become less important
(6%). My intention in asking this question was to see if unemployed
people who were staying at home and perhaps participating in more

domestic work, felt they had gained some importance to their family.

138

Table 26 shows that most men did not think their role was more impor-

tant since they were home more.

Table 26. Questionnaire responses:
Do you think your role in the family is more important, less
important, or has remained about the same since the layoff?

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her

Man n=l35 Wife Woman n:28 Husband
More important 20% 60% 36% ”2%
Less important 16% 6% 11% 12%
Stayed the same 63% 3”% 5”% ”6%

 

In couples where the woman had been laid off, her husband was
most likely to say there had been no change in the importance of his
role in the family (”6%), followed by his role had gained importance
(”2%), and his role had lost importance (12%). The laid off wives
were most likely to say there had been no change (5”%), followed by
her role was more important (36%), and her role was less important
(11%).

There were a variety of answers to these questions in the inter-
views. George Fitzgerald, a man who had been laid off, thought his
time with the family made him more important.

"I haven't looked too hard for work because I like to be around

the house more, especially with the kids. I was working 16 to

18 hour days. I told her 'it's your turn now.' I stayed away

too long. Our oldest son has a lot of problems Ginger can't

handle. I'm better with him. You know he needs someone on him
all the time." George Fitzgerald

139

Art Miller thought the time with the kids was important, but not
nearly as important as him having a paid job.

"If you can speak about anything being good about being laid off

it's nice to be with the kids, but I would rather be supporting

them. I'm mostly dead weight. I'd like to feel important but

I can't. I'm not the only one in the boat, but that's beside
the point." Art Miller

Art's wife Amy said he spent more time with the kids, but because
he had become so demoralized, her role in the family had actually
become more important.

"We argue about his discontent and feeling worthless. We were

all raised to think the primary goal in a man's life is to

support his family and also not to cry. I tell him he should.

I like to think I'm a comfort. I tell the kids things will be

better when he gets back to work. He spends more time with the

kids. I guess you could say he's become a bigger part of their
lives, like the cub scouts. He's got to know his kids because he

took over things I used to do. But the kids lean on me more for
major decisions." Amy Miller

Sam Wilson also described the relationship between his demorali-
zation and the loss of his importance that he felt within his family.

"Financially my role is a lot less important. I abdicated my

authority because I'm not working. My family doesn't have to

meet my time pressures." Sam Wilson

Julie Roger, a woman who had been laid off, concurred with Sam

Wilson and Art Miller, although less emotionally.

"I think I feel funny not bringing in any money. It's not fair.
I feel more right to some say if I'm bringing in money." Julie
Roger

Heather Gates thought there had been no change.

"No, he's still the boss." Heather Gates

Lisa Miller said although activities had changed, authority and
the importance of their rolenin the family had not.

"I don't think we did much different before. He just does more
housework since he's laid off." Lisa Adams

l”0

Denise Engels, the wife of a man who had been laid off said she
felt she had lost importance to the family since her husband's layoff.

"Because I backed out. I was going to school and I left every-
thing to him." Denise Engels

GENDER IDEOLOGIES

 

The third major arena of gender relations examined in this
research is ideology about equality for women. First, I will report
the findings from the questionnaire and discuss the conceptual
problems with this section of the questionnaire. Second, I will
report the discussions about gender inequality in the interviews, and
contrast them with the data from the questionnaires.

On the questionnaires I asked three questions: How do you define
equal rights for women? What is your opinion of equal rights for
women? Have your opinions on this issue changed since you (or your
spouse) were laid off? All of the respondents to the questionnaires
said that they defined equal rights for women as primarily an economic
question. They mentioned issues like equal pay, equal work, equal job
opportunities and equal benefits. I had hoped to tap a more general
opinion of gender relations since I was interested in examining the
broad issue of gender inequality. However, using the term "equal
rights" made the question too narrow. It was fortunate that I did ask
respondents how they defined equal rights, since their comments
alerted me to the narrowness of their definition when responding to

the question about their opinions of equal rights. Anyway, neither

l”l

question was particularly useful in examining people's ideas about

gender inequality.

Table 27. Questionnaire responses:
Percentage favoring equal rights for women

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her
Man(n=135) Wife Woman (n:28)Husband
Strongly or moderately
favor equal rights for
women 69% 5”% ”3% 52%

 

Table 27 is a summary of the questionnaire responses to the
question of whether they favored equal rights for women. It shows
that more men than women favor equal rights which is consistent with
the national polls. It also shows that laid-off women and their hus-
bands are less likely to favor equal rights than are laid-off men and
their wives. This contrast between families where the man had been
laid off and families where the woman had been laid off is surprising.
On the other two issues relating to gender relations--housework and
decision making--families where the woman had been laid off were more
egalitarian than families where the man had been laid off. Women who
had been laid off did fewer hours of housework than women who were
married to men who had been laid off. And women who had been laid off
were perceived by both themselves and their husbands to have more
power in decision making relative to their husbands than women who

were married to men who had been laid off. This contrast between opi-

l”2

nions about equal rights for women, and housework and decision making,
is another indication of the inadequacy of the set of questions on

equal rights for tapping opinions about gender inequality.

Table 28. Questionnaire responses:
"Has your opinion of equal rights changed since the layoff?"

 

 

 

Unemployed His Unemployed Her
Man (n=135) Wife Woman (n:28)Husband
Opinion has changed 10% 7% l”% 0%

 

Table 28 is a summary of responses to the question of whether
opinions about equal rights have changed since the layoff. Table 28
shows a relatively small number of respondents indicating that their
opinion of equal rights for women had changed since the layoff. This
question should have had an immediate follow-up question of how had
their opinion changed if it had changed. Unfortunately, this infor-
mation was not collected on the questionnaires.

In contrast to the questionnaires, the interviews provided a much
clearer and more elaborate response to the question of ideas about
gender inequality and changes in those ideas since the layoff. The
people who were interviewed also tended toward defining equality for
women in terms of economic issues. However, they mentioned other
issues, as well as explaining their diverse opinions.

Candy Evans said she thought equal pay was the only legitimate

claim to equal rights that women have.

1”3

"I still think it is a man's world, but if a woman can do the

same job as a man- I do not feel that a woman really is equal,

but if she can do the same job, then I feel she should get paid

for it." Candy Evans

Lisa Adams, Valerie Turner, and Amy Miller do not share Candy's
opinion that this is a man's world but they are critical of people who
claim equality in other arenas besides economic equality. This is
interesting if we recall their discussion of housework. In the sec-
tion on housework, these women described the struggle that went on in
their homes when their husbands were laid off. They had insisted
that their husbands do more of an equal share of the housework. In
those discussions, these women were quite firm in their arguments that
their husbands should do more; they thought that there should be more
equality in terms of the division of domestic work. However, when I
used the words equal rights, they limited their discussion to economic
issues.

"If you're doing the same job as a man you should get paid the

same. If you want to go into everday life like opening doors for

women, they can open their own doors. That stuff's out. The

main thing is jobs. It should be paid the same." Lisa Adams

"I agree with the equal pay, women doing the same job and getting

the same breaks--but I think some of the issues they're fighting

for are silly. I really don't follow it (what the women's move-

ment is doing)." Valerie Turner

"A lot of it (equal rights for women) I agree with. But it seems

that some of them are going overboard. I agree with equal pay

though." Amy Miller

Denise Engels and Sara Wilsons also defined equal rights as an
economic issue, and were the most supportive without qualification.

(to me equal rights means)"that I could find a job with the same

benefits even if the pay isn't as good. I feel like without me

being able to get hospitalization on my job, things are really
bad." Sara Wilson

1m:

"Mainly its just equal pay. It's ok. If I work I should get the
same pay." Denise Engels

Others had a more general definition of equality which included
not just economic equality, but a factor of power or "say", and they
had different opinions about whether this was good or not.

"I don't see why it can't be equal all the way. If they can

stand up and do jobs like a man they should be treated the same."

Valerie Turner

"I don't care for it. Men shouldn't have a lot more rights, but

I don't think women should wear the pants in the family. Men

should wear the pants in the family. Men should have more to say

because he is supposed to be the breadwinner." Heather Gates

Heather Gates' comment is particularly interesting because she
is married to a man who has been laid off and is not likely to go back
to work. She is the breadwinner in her family.

Rick Degraff and Ginger Fitzgerald both said equality referred to
what women and men did, not to what they earned. However, they had

very different of opinions on that question.

"Equal rights means women can do anything a man can do. I don't
feel a woman should have to work for a living." Rick Degraff

"Well for me, the way I look at it, I think anyone, man or woman,
can do any job they want to do and don't think just because they
are a woman they shouldn't be given a chance to do it. Like at
work, I have to lift and put machines together-~lift a hopper up
on a machine. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I can't do
it. I don't like to told just because I'm a woman I can't do
stuff. That'll get me hotter faster than anything." Ginger
Fitzgerald
Julie Roger and Betty Johnson thought equality should include
domestic issues. Julie was employed in production work and had been
laid off. Betty has always been a housewife and is married to a man
who had been laid off. In some ways these two women are quite dif-

ferent. However, it is not surprising that they both brought up

housework as an issue when asked about equality for women. Julie is

l”5

troubled to be slipping into the housewife role after having been the
main breadwinner in the family. In previous comments she described
her concern about this and her attempts to create a more egalitarian
situation in her family since she was laid off. Before she was laid
off her pay was high enough for her to afford a maid, and when she was
laid off she could no longer afford it; so most of the housework
became her responsibility. Betty has always taken all the respon-
sibility for housework, and she described this as relatively fair when
her husband was working. When he became unemployed, however, her per-
ception was that the deal they had made had been altered and he really
should take more responsibility for housework. In both cases, these
women discovered that housework was their responsibility no matter
what else was going on in their family. Even when Betty's husband was
no longer doing "his job", she was still responsible for nearly all of
the housework. Julie had to either earn enough to hire a maid to do
"her work", or she had to do it herself.

"You know, I don't know but talking about equal rights and
women's rights, we always concentrate on women in the work place.
But I think about women in the home as well. I think women need
to get a little more credit for what they do, you know, as far as
they say childcare is so important and it's such an important
part of our culture and our society and motherhood and things.
But I've always wondered if it's so damn important, why aren't
more men involved in it. You know it makes you wonder. They say
one thing and yet if you are a mother you get about zero status.
Really, I mean you can be a mom or you can be a person." Julie
Roger

"I don't consider it equality I consider it justice. I just
think it's--to me they're equal anyway and even though you got
this big fight and I know that women don't get paid as much as
men and stuff like that. But I believe there's no difference
because I believe with training a woman can do as much as man
can. And as far as around the house, I've always thought he
should help me around the house. I mean the kids are just as
much his as mine. Half the dirty dishes, half the dirty clothes
are his, you know. Two people live in the same house together.
Two people should share it." Betty Johnson

l”6

Another theme in the interviews was support for equal rights
while adding a qualifier that women must earn those rights.

"Women should have equal rights, but they should make an equal
contribution for those rights. I think equal rights means equal
responsibility. A lot of women don't realize this." Sam Wilson

"They're going too far. They have a right to equal pay but not
more of a right to a job than I do. I don't feel they should be
pushed in just because you are a woman. It should be fair. Now
it's being pushed." Art Miller

"Yeah, I aint too hep on it. A woman should get equal pay for
doing the same job a man does. The problem is, though, that if

a woman can't do a job a man does, she still demands equal pay,
if you know what I mean. I don't mind women working around me.
It don't bother me. I just get tired of hearing--1ike if there
was a man sitting here typing and making $”0,000 and there's a
woman sitting here doing the same job as him making $20,000 I
think she ought to make just as much as him or cut his pay. But
if I got a job out there at Ford--say I worked there for 10 years
doing the same job for 10 years--I worked my way up to this job
and I started out doing every god damned rotten job there is, and
I worked my way up to this job and was setting there doing it and
all of a sudden they hired this woman in and she can't do the job
down there, but she could do my plush little job, that I worked
my way up to, and they take me off. That aint right." Bob
Johnson

Another man had a comment on a equal rights and affirmative
action.

"I do support it, but I don't go for women getting jobs just

because they're a woman. But that's (reverse descrimination)

because men have been in charge for so long. That's why things

are screwed up. Maybe women should be in charge. Women are more

logical. They say women are more emotional, but I don't buy

that." Chuck Evans

The question of changes in opinion of equal rights since the
layoff brought an equally diverse number of answers. Some people said
they had become more strongly against equality for women since the
layoff. Art Miller, Candy Evans, and Larry Adams explained that the

situation of high unemployment rates in general and of their own (or

their spouse's) layoff had caused them to become more critical of equal

l”7

rights for women. These three people seemed to blame the entrance of
women into the labor market and affirmative action, at least partly,
for their job loss.

"People should get jobs on qualifications, not on sex and race
and it is that way (in favor of women and minorities). I'm
strongly against that. This may be an especially sore spot
because I lost my job." Art Miller

"There's lots of people out of jobs now and there's lots of fami-
lies and I feel in some of these jobs if women, say if a woman is
married, if she didn't have the job, well there'd be a lot of
other men that are married who have a job. I think it would
solve a lot of problems. Really like if I had a job that was
paying me about the same as Chuck and there was a man out there
that was married and didn't have a job and had kids, I feel that
if I wasn't there he could have that job if he could do the work.
I'm against women's rights really except for some divorced women.
There are some divorced women out there. If the woman had the
job and is raising a family on her own I feel she should do it.
But if she is married, I can't see two of them working if some
people don't have a job. Unless its just to take a minimum wage
job like a waitress." Candy Evans

"Equal rights has been used against me because I was the wrong

sex and color. But I've worked alongside of women. I guess I'm

temporarily hostile. But it isn't the woman's fault it's

politics." Larry Adams

However, not everyone blamed their job loss on women. Some of
the people in the interviews said their opinions had become more
favorable towards equal rights for women since the layoff. For
example, Denise Engels had gone back to school when her husband was
laid off. She was surprised and disturbed by the way in which she was
treated at the university. Although she felt that her occupation of
housewife and her age made her a responsible adult, the university
treated her like a child.

"Yes, because when I got my grant to go back to school, they had

to talk to my husband. That kind of upset me. They told me lots

of kids come in for loans without their parents knowing about it.

But I'm a mother with two kids. That should show I'm
responsible." Denise Engels

l”8

Sara Wilson, Amy Miller and Rick Degraff said that they felt that
the economic inequality of women was a contributor to their family's
poverty. However, Amy and Sara are women who are the primary bread-
winners for their families since their husband were laid off. Rick's
opinion of equality was hypothetical because he would not allow his
wife to work.

"I work but the pay is low because teaching is women's domain. I

took a course on that last year. In the beginning I didn't care.

the income is more important to me now." Amy Miller

"Yes the extra money (if my wife worked) would help. But now its
impossible for her to work with the kids." Rick Degraff

"No, not that much except I was much more of a Pollyanna before.

My eyes have been opened more. I used to think, Oh, I could get

a job when I wanted. You know, women could get good jobs. But

now I don't know." Sara Wilson

Finally, there were those who explained why their opinions had
not changed recently. Bob and Betty Johnson had considered the possi-
bility that unemployment might be blamed on women. However, Betty
concluded that there were other factors that were more likely to be
the source of the problem. Bob did not suggest an alternative source
of the problem, but he was quite sure women were not kept on or

hired into his work while men were being laid off.

"No, because they were out the door before I was. No really,
it's a matter of seniority." Bob Johnson

"Hiring women didn't have anything to do with Bob getting laid
off. Bob got laid off because Ford sucks. It's because that
turkey up there--Caldwell or whatever his name is--wanted to
make $7.” million that year. I don't know. All I know is he
made a lot of money. They're always saying Ford made this much
profit." Betty Johnson

1”9

EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

 

In concluding this chapter I would like to comment on what I see
as extenuating circumstances. At the time of the interviews, several
of the couples had other factors in their lives, that created indivi-
dual differences in their experience of the layoff. I had identified
the layoff as a sharply discernible and critical event in people's
lives. However, in many cases the people seemed to focus in on other
issues, which they found at the time of the interview, to be more
salient.

Julie and John Roger had recently moved back from Germany, where
she had been stationed in the army, to his hometown. Julie spoke of
the newly re-established contact with his family as being at least as
important as her layoff to the division of labor in her home and her
opinion of the importance of equality for women.

Chuck and Candy Evans had two babies nine months apart. The
older child was one and a half and the younger one a few months old
when I interviewed them. Their new marriage and parenthood and the
physical demands of two babies occupied center stage for them.

Heather and Hank Gates found after his layoff that he was
seriously ill and would never be able to work again. His layoff and
the demand for a new definition of himself and their relationship was
compounded by the illness. This may have contributed to Heather's
insistence on conceptualizing their relationship in very traditional
terms, in spite of the fact that she was the major breadwinner. She

may have been trying to obscure his loss of a contributing role in the

150

family by maintaining the image that he was still at the head of the
family.

George and Ginger Fitzgerald had a son with some behavioral
problems and George's health was recently deteriorating. Both of
these influenced their feelings and activities in trying to deal with
his layoff and her entrance into full time work. In spite of the
similarity in some ways of their situation to Heather and Hank's,
Ginger and George seemed to be trying to recreate new roles for them-
selves.

Valerie and Vince Turner had three children, two of whom were
chronically ill. The economic and emotional pressure seemed to
overshadow her layoff. Her job as a mother was particularly important.
In contrast to Julie Roger who has been laid off and was troubled by
becoming a housewife, Valerie was at least ambivalent. She liked
working outside and she especially liked the money, but she also felt
it was important that she stay home with the children.

The layoff, the loss of income and changes in family life were
important events for the individuals in this research and their fami-
lies. However, they were embedded in a set of circumstances that
sometimes took precedence in their lives. Therefore, perhaps more
than revealing the results of unemployment, this data may instead
reflect the place of unemployment alongside everything else that goes
on in these people's lives.

In this chapter I have examined the ways in which a layoff of a
breadwinner affects relationships between husbands and wives. Two
arenas of gender relations were examined: decision making, and

ideology and opinions about equality for women. In families where the

151

man had been laid off, decision making was dominated more by husbands
than in families where the woman had been laid off. In both
situations men had more control over both day to day and big deci-
sions. The questions used to examine ideas and opinions about gender
inequality were not very efficient in the questionnaires because the
use of the words "equal rights for women" was too narrow. The inter-
views, however, provided a varied and provocative picture of ideas and

opinions about gender inequality.

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

I will conclude my work by describing four areas in which it
makes its most important contributions. The first contribution is the
empirical description and analysis of the everyday life of blue collar
families during a recession. These data are organized around the
questions of finances, labor force participation, economizing,
housework, decision making and ideology. Second, this research
contributes to our understanding of ways in which gender affects
people's experience of recession and unemployment. The data from the
questionnaires provide an opportunity to compare families where hus-
bands were laid off with families where wives were laid off. Third,
this dissertation provides an opportunity to compare experiences of
economic decline in the 1930's and the 1980's. Finally, my work
points to theoretical issues about our conceptualizations of family.
This research shows families operating simultaneously as arenas with
both a unity of interest and conflicts of interests. Economic decline
tends to intensify both of these characteristics. Based on these
insights, I suggest that we need to incorporate both characteristics,

and the tension betweeen them, into our conceptualization of family.

152

153

EVERYDAY LIFE IN A RECESSION

 

In an article on families and economic decline Voydanoff (198”)
remarked that work in this area is hindered by reliance on data
collected primarily during the 1930's. Scholars have increasingly
begun to gather information on the social impact of the recent
recessions (Aldous, 1983; Rosen, 1982; Snyder and Nowak, 1983; 198”;
1985; Willson, 1985). This dissertation provides further empirical
information about the human impact of economic decline in recent
years.

There are of course, many governmental and academic reports that
register the effect of recession through unemployment rates, numbers
of people living below the poverty level, and changes in median inco-
mes. In this dissertation, the statistics on unemployment, poverty
and labor market participation have been brought to life with the
stories of the people who participated in this study.

Gender was a critical factor in the picture created by the data
of everyday life for blue collar families in a recession. I used two
criteria for choosing subjects. One was that they be a married
couple. The other was that either the husband or the wife had been
laid off from a blue collar job. The gender of the person in the
family who had been laid off turned out to be critical. For several
questions the responses were completely opposite, depending on whether
it was the husband or the wife who had been laid off.

Snyder and Nowak (1983; 198”; 1985) have focused their work on
the differences in the experience of unemployment for men and women.

They argue that gender has been previously ignored in the literature

15”

on unemployment. Not only have researchers neglected to compare
unemployed women and men, they have ignored the experience of
unemployed women altogether. Snyder and Nowak have found that a large
proportion of unemployed blue collar workers in certain areas (their
work is in the milltowns of Pennsylvania) are women. In addition,
they have found a number of differences between the experience of
women who have been laid off and men who have been laid off. Their
research has examined issues such as re-employment, poverty and mental
health. My research investigated different topics but is similar in
its conclusion that there are large and important differences in the
impact of unemployment on women and men. My research also is dif-
ferent from Snyder and Nowak's, because I compared families where the
woman had been laid off to families where the man had been laid off.

I found differences in these two kinds of families in division of
housework, arguments, decision making and opinions about equal rights.
These differences are further described below in the summary of the
findings of this dissertation.

In the following section I will summarize the empirical findings
from Chapters ”, 5, and 6. In addition, I will draw attention to the
differences between families where the man was laid off and families
where the woman was laid off. I organized the research around six
issues: labor force participation, family finances and economizing
(these three are reported in Chapter ”), housework, which is reported
in Chapter 5 and decision making and ideas and opinions about gender
equality which are reported in Chapter 6.

The question of whether the layoff of one worker in a family

resulted in an increase in labor market participation for her/his

155

spouse was the first issue considered. Half of the wives said they
had changed their participation in the labor market when their hus-
bands were laid off. They had taken a new job, increased their hours
or returned to to school to prepare themselves for a job. Only one
quarter of the husbands of wives who had been laid off said they had
changed their participation. The in-depth interviews revealed that
there were probably even more attempts being made to find work or
training especially by wives, but many times these attempts were
unsuccessful.

The biggest explanation for the difference in the amount of
change in labor ferce participation following a spouse's layoff, is
that husbands of unemployed women were much more likely to already be
working full time than were wives of unemployed men, and, therefore,
could not increase their labor force participation. Wives of
unemployed men had more room for change since more than half of them
were full time housewives or working only part time. In spite of the
"room for change", the interviews also revealed that the decision for
s wife to enter the labor force was sometimes a difficult one to make
because of ideas about gender and the way in which domestic work was
divided which made women responsible for housework. There were
several reasons given for why couples made the decision to have the
woman enter the labor force or not. The interviewed couples were
influenced by economic considerations, ideologies of gender and by the
organization of decision making power in their household.

I also learned that some women whose husbands were laid off found
that this new impetus to enter the work force and the subsequent

change in their lives were positive ones. Although the unemployment

156

of their husbands was not something they wanted, its impact on their
lives was not all bad. A few men in the interviews also perceived a
positive side to their layoff, because it allowed them to leave jobs
they didn't like.

The impact of unemployment on family finances was the next issue
examined. In families where the man had been laid off, respondents
felt that unemployment had a bigger impact on family finances than in
families where the woman had been laid off. This is consistent with
the weekly incomes reported by the two family types. The average
weekly income of families where the wife had been laid off was $2”l,
and the average weekly income of families where the husband had been
laid off was $190. Within families, the unemployed person thought the
impact was more severe than his/her spouse did. The interviews
revealed that the impact of unemployment on family finances was
obscured in some cases by programs like unemployment compensation and
sub-pay. It was also observed that, not surprisingly, the length of
time since the layoff had a critical effect on how difficult family
finances had become. Finally, the way in which people in the inter-
views defined poverty determined their responses to the question of
how much effect unemployment had on the family's finances. For
example, people who defined poverty at a higher income level were more
impressed with the relative change in their family finances. Others
who conceptualization of poverty was more minimal did not perceive
their situation as dramatically different since the layoff. Defini-
tions of poverty appeared to be very different among the people who

were interviewed.

157

Economizing was the third issue examined. Eighty six percent of
the people who answered the questionnaire said they had tried at least
one method of economizing. Fewer meals at restaurants was the most
common economizing strategy. Other popular methods included doing
their own car maintenance and installing a wood stove or insulation.
The strategies to economize also seemed to serve a second purpose:
they were a way in which unemployed men could contribute to their
households. Especially in the interviews, economizing efforts by men,
like working on cars or doing home repairs, seemed to be a way of
maintaining a "breadwinner" image. Many men did these tasks as a way
of economizing, and both husbands and wives were especially aware of
the increase in this kind of work by laid off men. About half of the
respondents thought that economizing had not created extra work.

About one quarter thought there was extra work, and it was shared.
About one quarter thought the unemployed person was doing the extra
work. Although the unemployed woman's contribution to economizing was
noted in the questionnaires, it was not described as enthusiastically
in the interviews as were the economizing contribution of unemployed
men.

Many families economized before the layoff. Economizing, like
economic difficulty and increased labor force participation of women,
was increased by unemployment, but the break between unemployed and
employed was not as sharp as I had previously conceptualized it.
Unemployment was an important event, but the recession had affected
these families prior to the layoff.

The interviews revealed that many people were also affected by

what I call extenuating circumstances. These include health problems,

158

new babies, and moving to new homes near in-laws. The layoff, the
loss of income, and changes in family life were important in lives of
the people. However, the issues which I designated as critical were
embedded in a set of circumstances that sometimes took precedence in
their lives. This research suggests that unemployment is mediated and
intertwined with other circumstances.

The division of housework was the next issue I examined. I
discovered that in families where the man had been laid off, women
continued to do many more hours of housework, especially if the wife
was home full time. However, even in families where the wife was
working while her husband was laid off, women still did more housework
than their husbands did. In families where the woman had been laid
off, she did more housework than her husband did, but much less than
housewives who were married to unemployed men. These are all con-
sistent with the literature on the division of housework in families
where the husband or both the husband and wife are employed.

Although women were doing most of the housework, in about half of
the families where the man had been laid off, both husbands and wives
said that the husband had increased the amount of housework he did
compared to before he was laid off. The definition of "more housework"
ranged from cooking his own lunch to doing everything.

The interviews described struggles that were necessary to
increase the participation of unemployed men in domestic work. Both
husbands and wives agreed that women did more than their fair share.
In families where the man was laid off, this coincided with more argu-
ments about housework. In families where the woman had been laid off,

husbands and wives both thought that the wife was doing more than her

159

fair share, but this coincided with a reduction of arguments over
housework.

In the questionnaires, about one third of the wives who had been
laid off said they did more housework since they were laid off. But
only 16% of their husbands thought that their wives had increased the
amount of housework they had been doing before the lay off.

There was a difference not only in the amount of time spent on
housework between husbands and wives, but in the kinds of work per-
fOrmed. Men more often did jobs that were outside, involved main-
tenance, and those tasks that concerned children. Women were more
likely to do jobs dealing with feeding people and cleaning.

Decision making was the next issue examined. In families where
the man had been laid off, about two thirds of the people thought big
decisions were made by the husband. When asked about day to day deci-
sions, about ”0% thought the man was most likely to make these deci-
sions, and about one quarter thought they were made equally. In fami-
lies where the woman was laid off, the people, particularly wives, had
a more egalitarian perception of decision making. About half thought
the husband was the most likely to make big decisions. But when asked
about day to day decisions, one third of the husbands said they had
the most control, one third said their wives did, and about one third
said it was equal. Almost half of the laid off wives said they made
day to day decisions, and one quarter of the wives said their husbands
did.

I also collected information on specific kinds of decisions.
Although there were differences among the four categories (laid off

man, his wife, laid off woman, her husband), there was some basic

160

agreement about which decisions were more likely to be made by men and
which by women. Men tended to make decisions about whether to move,
what car to buy, and where to live. Women tended to make decisions
about what groceries to buy, how to decorate the home, and how much
money to spend on groceries.

Once again, the interviews revealed a hidden complexity. Some
decisions were claimed to be in the hands of the husbands, but were
perhaps really outside of the families' control. An example of this
is whether to move. People explained that they may be forced to move
in order to find work. Some decisions that were claimed to be in the
hands of the women were often limited by husbands. For example,
several women described themselves as most likely to decide whom to
have over to visit. However, they also noted that their husbands
would not allow certain people to visit.

When asked about changes in authority since the layoff, in fami-
lies where the man had been laid off, about half of the people thought
that there had been no change. However, more than a third thought the
husband had lost authority or the wife had gained authority since he
had been laid off. In families where the woman had been laid off,
about half thought there had been no change in authority. The women
who had been laid off were almost evenly divided about whether their
authority had diminished or increased. The husbands of women who had
been laid off either thought there had been no change, or that they
had gained in authority. The in-depth interviews showed an even
clearer relationship between layoff and loss of authority for both

husbands and wives.

161

Ideas and opinions about gender inequality was the last issue
examined. The majority of respondents to the question of whether they
favored equal rights said that they did. Most also said that they
defined equal rights for women as being primarily an economic
question. Very few said that their opinions had changed on this sub-
ject since the layoff. These questions were too narrow to provide
information on the general question of ideas and opinions about gender
inequality. The data from the in-depth interviews provided a much
more interesting picture.

In the interviews, people mostly defined equal rights for women
as an economic question. However, they mentioned several other issues
as important to the question of equality for women, including, power,
opportunity, and respect for "feminine" contributions like housework
and motherhood. The interviews also revealed a much richer picture of
what support for equality means. Many people said they supported
equality for women, but added qualifiers about what women need to do
in order to earn that equality. Some people described how their sup-
port of equality had diminished since they had been laid off, because
they felt affirmative action was part of the context of their layoff.
On the other hand, others said that their support had increased,
because they could see the advantage of raising women's wages in order

to improve their family's financial situation.

COMPARISON TO THE GREAT DEPRESSION

 

The patterns in this study closely resemble those in the data

collected during the 1930's. The quotes from the interviews in this

162

dissertation were sometimes almost exactly the same kinds of quotes or
descriptions of the same kinds of situations found in the research
done by Bakke (19”0) and Komarovsky (19”0). Komarovsky noted that
housework was an arena of struggle between unemployed men and their
wives. This was strongly supported in my work. Bakke describes the
problem of changes in authority in families where men were laid off.
This too was supported in my work.

I would like to review Milkman's (1976) research and point out
the comparisons that can be made between the two eras. Milkman
observed that the Depression tended to push women into the labor
market. This research also found this to be true. One important
observation that was not made by Milkman and other observers of the
1930's was that the impact of the layoff of a wife is quite different
than the layoff of a husband. This is because in the 1930's women
were much less likely to be employed than they are now. In addition,
the conceptualization of the labor force may not have included women.
Therefore, although there were women working, especially, for example,
minority women, their plight was not noticed.

Milkman also found that during the depression, domestic work was
increased as families attempted to economize, and that women tended to
do much of the extra work. In my research, economizing was not per-
ceived to have increased work for women alone. The people in the
interviews seemed to be more likely to notice and discuss the ways in
which men had increased their work in car and home repair as a method
of economizing. Taking in boarders or family as a method of econo-
mizing was popular in the 1930's, but was nearly non-existant among

the peOple in this research.

163

Milkman argued that ideology about equality deteriorated during
the Depression. This research shows that people have a very diverse
set of ideas about what equality is and whether their ideas had
changed during the recession. Perhaps there was a greater diversity
of opinion than Milkman acknowledged during the 1930's as well. Much
of the evidence cited by observers of the Depression era to support
the argument that people's opinion of equality for women had declined,
is based on opinons of whether married women should work for wages.
It is very clear that public opinion around this question was very
anti-feminist. However, we don't know why people held this opinion,
and we don't know what the people who were polled thought about other

issues relating to the question of equality for women.

UNITY AND CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS IN FAMILIES

 

This work raises theoretical issues about conceptualizations of
families. A diverse group of theorists, including functionalists,
exchange theorists, and Marxist feminists have emphasized the unity of
interests within families (Parsons, 1955; Nye, 1979; Humphries, 1977;
Elshtain, 1983; Currie, Dunn and Fogarty, 1980). These writers
describe families as systems that organize themselves to maintain
their unity and integrity in the face of change from the outside. A
central feature of their conceptualization is the belief that family
is a place in which all its individuals gain from being members, and,
therefore, seek ways to maintain the system. Although these theorists
understand the family to be internally differentiated by gender (as

well as by age), they argue that this creates an interdependence that

16”

makes c00peration and preservation of the family useful for the family
as a whole as well as for its individual members.

One of the most important contributions feminists have made in
recent years, is to critique the assumption that unity and cooperation
is basic to family structure (Thorne, 1982; Rapp, Ross and Bridenthal,
1979; Sokoloff, 1981). Theorists that have been especially interested
in critiquing this position include: Barrett and McIntosh, 1982;
Barrett, 198”; Hartmann, 1981; Washington Area Marxist Feminist Study
Group, 1980: Rich, 1980; Eisenstein, 1978; Beechey, 1978. They have
pointed out that families are not primarily entities, with a unity of
interests, but are sites of intense differences and conflicts. Femi-
nists have argued that families are entities primarily characterized
by conflicts of interests. These theorist have focused their work on
the ways in which the interests of family members conflict, and the
ways in which the system is maintained in spite of those conflicts of
interests.

In this section, I will review these two positions, and conclude
by showing how my research shows that families are sites of both unity
and conflicts of interests. Furthermore, I will argue that economic
decline appears to intensify both characteristics. I will suggest
that we should recognize both of these characteristics and focus our
attention on the tension between the two.

In 1958, George Homans first advanced his theory of social
exchange in his paper: "Social Behavior as Exchange". That was
fellowed by his book, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, in 1961,
in which he laid out the basic components of a theory of social

exchange. Burns (1973:188-189) describes the model of exchange

165

theory: "social interaction ... is an exchange of mutually rewarding
activities in which the receipt of a needed valuable (good or service)
is contingent on the supply of a favor or return (usually immediate)."

The use of social exhange theory to analyze families was intro-
duced by Nye (1976; 1979). When applied to marriage, exchange theory
presents a picture of unity. Husbands and wives enter the social
exchange with their resources: education, income, occupational
prestige, sexuality. An exchange is made, thereby creating a rela-
tionship. Safilios-Rothschild (1976) describes marriage itself as a
series of exchanges. The tendency within the system is toward stabi-
lity as exchanges are made. Changes outside of the family are
resolved within the family by altering the exchanges between the hus-
band and wife. Exchange theorists have been especially interested in
the impact of labor market changes that have altered the resources of
husbands and wives. For example, the trend of women entering the
labor force drastically alters wives' resources, and presumably would
demand equally drastic changes in the exchanges.

If we apply this model to the situation of marriages within the
economic context of recession, we would focus on the way in which eco-
nomic decline affects the family as a whole, and especially on the way
in which equilibrium of the system was re-established. Those families
that didn't re-establish equilibrium would be perceived as being dys-
functional. In popular culture, an example of this conceputalization
of family and its expectations about the impact of unemployment and
economic decline is the movie "Mr. Mom".

Feminists have developed their analysis of family alongside

exchange theorists throughout the 1970's. However, their concep-

166

tualization is a very different one. Feminists have emphasized the
power and conflict within marriages, and would argue that not only is
"dis-equilibrium" (using the exchange theorists term) an intrinsic
part of marriages, but perhaps its foundation. For feminist
theorists, families are heterogeneous systems, characterized by dif-
ferent and opposing interests and by internal heirarchies. Rather
than tending toward stability or equilibrium, they tend toward
conflict. Feminists would argue that our focus should be on the dif-
ferentiated experiences of husbands and wives and conflict between
them. Economic decline would be expected to have a different and more
severe impact on women than on men. Recession would be likely to
increase or at least to maintain gender inequality within families,
because women have less power and are, therefore, even more vulnerable
in a system when the resources become scarcer (Washington Area Marxist
Feminist Study Group, 1980).

This debate has really been at the heart of the feminist critique
of consensus theory. However, the theoretical picture is more complex
since a "family feud on the left" (Ehrenreich, 1982) has emerged in
which some socialist feminists have begun to argue that families are
primarily arenas with a unity of interests, and that leftists have
been politically and theoretically naiive to ignore that.

Jane Humphries (1977) is an example of a socialist feminist who
argues that we must begin to think more about the unity of interests
within families. In her work around the question of the persistance
of the working class, she claims that the tenacity of the working
class family is based on its usefulness not only to capitalists, but

also to working class families and working class men and women. The

167

working class family is functional for capitalists as a reproducer of
labor power. The working class family is also useful for working
class women and men as a means to survival within capitalism and a
vehicle for waging class struggle.

"Marxist analyses have generally failed to explain the per-

sistence of the working class family as a central feature of

capitalist social formation....The theme of this paper is that
the resilience of the family derives in part from workers'
defense of an institution which affects their standard of living,
class cohesion and ability to wage the class struggle...The
working class family has always resisted alternatives to the
family, recognizing in the erosion of traditional family struc-
tures an infringement of its standard of living and a deteriora-
tion in the position from which it engages in class struggle"

(Humphries, l977:2”1-2”5.)

In describing the battle for the family wage in turn of the cen-
tury Britain, Humphries admits that the fight for the family wage
included advocating forcing women out of jobs. For example, she
describes family wage advocates who supported the family wage because
it would push women out of the labor force. However, Humphries main-
tains that in the final analysis the family wage served to benefit
working class women. "Class action which tries to raise the price of
labor usually had beneficial effects, if not directly on women's
wages, then indirectly through increased family wages" (1977:253).

Humphries concludes (1977) that the working class family is at
least partly a result of a rational struggle for its preservation that
has been fought by working class people. Although differences within
families exist, that should not obscure our ability to see the value
of the integrity of the family.

Currie, Dunn and Fogarty (1980;27) concur with Humphries' analy-

sis in their assessment of family during the recession in contemporary

American society. Working class families "have always been a major

168

bulwark against the ravages of a market economy. Today they can
remain a key source of social support and economic well-being for
working people." Furthermore, the impact of the recession is
experienced as an attack on this "basic source of stability and
security." Currie, Dunn and Fogarty's essay reviews several of the
ways in which the working class family has been attacked by the
recession, and the ways in which the working class family has
responded to that attack, by placing more family members into the
labor market, economizing and sacrificing savings.

Barrett and McIntosh (1982) have criticized Humphries' position.
They argue that the contemporary family-household system is not a
system of equilibrium and stability with a unity of interests. It is
not a source of strength for the working class, especially not for
working class women. Families are "not only the central site of the
oppression of women, but an important organizing principle of the
(exploitative) relations of production of the social formation as a
whole" (Barrett,l98”:211). Therefore, in direct contrast to
Humphries, Barrett and Mcintosh argue that familes are not an impor-
tant means of survival, but instead central in perpetuating an
exploitative system. Working class women are doubly victims because
the maintenance of nuclear families helps to maintain an exploitative
class system and an oppressive sex/gender system both inside and out-
side families.

"The divisions of the labour force to which the relations of the

family household contribute are politically divisive for the

working class...Women's domestic labour in the home...tend(s) to

lower (the standard of living for the working class) by enabling

lower wage levels to be secured...The family-household system has

resulted in the 'double shift'...for many working class women. It

has proved oppressive for women living with men they have to be
dependent on" (Barrett, 198”: 218-21 .

169

This argument is a powerful one. However, when it is translated
into recommendations for political strategy it appears problematic.

"Should we argue that men should no longer support wives, that
pension schemes should not provide for widows, that divorced
women have no right to support from their ex-husbands? In the
long run undoubtedly we should. But in the present situation,

if women cannot escape the responsibility for housekeeping and
caring for children and, even if they do work outside the home,
can seldom earn as much as a man, then any proposals we make must
not be ones that would leave women without the little shred of
compensation they now have" (Barrett and McIntosh, 1982; 133).

What they describe as long term strategy is actually similar to
changes being brought by the economic crisis to the families in my
research. In families where the husband was laid off, the dependency
of women on men's wages was halted, and women sometimes described
this experience as a hidden opportunity. However, the layoff also
created poverty and increased work for women.

The work of Currie, Dunn and Fogarty and its subsequent critique
by the Washinton Area Marxist Feminist Study Group (WAMFSG) (1980)
provide another example of Marxist feminists debating whether families
should be perceived primarily in terms of a unity of interests or a
conflict of interests.

"Currie, Dunn and Fogarty see the working class family as a

mutual resource sharing unit with a communality of interests

among family members which has acted as a focus of resistance

to exploitatitve market relations under capitalism. The problem,

as they see it, is that under stagflation the family can no

longer function as a defense. But this is essentially a romantic

view of the family. It ignores the reality that family is a

central location for women's oppression, given its exploitation

of female labor power, women's economic dependence and male
control of female sexuality and reproductive power" (WAMFSG,

1980:107).

They also criticize Currie, Dunn and Fogarty's solution.
"As appealing as the family wage may be, it entails women's eco-

nomic dependence on men and therefore their subordination"
(1980:109).

170

Finally, WAMFSG conclude that it is the conflicts of interests of
families, not their unity of interests that should be our focus.

"The appeal of anti-feminism is men's desire to regain privelege

and women's fear that equal rights in law will mean the final

destruction of the supra-legal edifice of male moral obligation
through which so many of them hope to find security for them-

selves and their children" (1980:111).

Hartmann (1981) has also been involved in this debate, although
not directly in response to Humphries or Currie, Dunn, and Fogarty.
Her work predated theirs and was written as a critique of family
historians (Haraven, 1975; Laslett and Wall, 1972; Anderson, 1971;
Engels, 1958; Goode, 1963; Shorter, 1975; Lasch, 1977; Rossi, Kagen
and Haraven, 1978), a diverse group who have different and sometimes
contradictory interpretations. However, they "share a view (of fami-
ly) that assumes the unity of interests among family members; it
stresses the role of family as a unit and tends to downplay conflicts
or differences of interests among family members" (Hartmann,
1981:368).

Hartmann (1981:368) strongly disagrees with the
conceptualization. "I suggest that the underlying concept of the
family as an active agent with unified interests is erroneous and I
offer an alternative concept of family as a locus of struggle".
Furthermore, when families are affected by events from outside, hus-
bands and wives experience the event and react in different ways. "It
may be misleading to hold, as family historians often do, that 'the
family' resists or embraces capitalism, industrialization or the

state." Hartmann does not mention economic decline, but one could

easily add it to the list.

171

Hartmann (1981;37”) describes family as having a dual nature.
"Recent...family... research has contributed to my understanding of
the family as an embodiment of both unity and disunity." She explains
this apparant paradox as a result of interdependence.

"The family historians may not have been sensitive to power rela-
tions within the family, but they have focused on another aspect
of the same phenomenon--the interdependence of people within
households and their common stance as a household against the
incursion of forces that could alienate their resources or their
control over decision making. Although I have focused on the
potential fer conflict among family members, particularly between
men and women over housework, I want to point out that the same
division of labor that creates the basis for that conflict also
creates interdependence as a basis for family unity (Hartmann,
1981:393).

Interestingly, and I feel mistakenly, Hartmann ignores her
insight of the dual nature of family. Although she theoretically
acknowledges the dual nature of family, in her work she clearly empha-
sizes the primacy of the disunity of family relations to the exclu-
sion of considering its unity.

"Women and men are no less mutually dependent in the household

than are workers and capitalists, or slaves and slaveowners. In

environments that are fundamentally coercive (such as patriarchy
and capitalism) concepts of choice and adaptation are inevitably

flawed--as is the belief that workers and capitalists or men and
women have unified interests" (Hartmann, 1981:376).

DUAL NATURE OF FAMILY

 

May (1983:”00-”Ol) writes that the demand for the family wage was
based on two premises. "The first premise of demands for a family
wage promised one solution to inadequate wages and marginal
subsistence... The second premise of the family wage was that a male

should be the family breadwinner." May argues that Hartmann has

172

fecused on premise two, and Humphries has focused on premise one.
"Hartmann and Humphries each develop an analysis of family wage which
is partial and reductive...For Hartmann the patriarchal elements of
capitalism shape the wage demands so that the female subordination in
both the family and the work force becomes the central issue. In
Humphries' view, the working class response to new social relations of
production used traditional gender roles to gain wages in the interest
of the entire class, which included the interest of women" (May,
1983:”08). Rubin (1976:61) was also troubled by the "either/or"
quality of the debate around family. "Is it an institution of
oppression or the only place of refuge and belonging in an otherwise
frightening, alienating, and alienated world? From the outset it
seemed clear that questions which force such alternatives upon us
distort and simplify reality and deny the subjective experience of
most peOple who live in families."

My work reflects the same contradictory relationship between
unity and conflicts of interest. Economic decline and unemployment
was an attack on "the family" and was experienced as such. Families
as units feel strongly their dependence on the economic system and
their vulnerability to unemployment and financial stress. This tends
to intensify their shared interests in survival, causing them to pull
together. Economic decline and unemployment also intensified the
conflicts of interests in families. Economic crises tend to expose
conflicting interests: women are not paid as well as men and cannot
replace their husband's lost wages; women retain responsibility for
domestic work even though their husbands do not work outside of the

home; the basis of men's authority may disappear and husbands and

173

wives may sense some gain in authority by women, but his dominance
remains. During a period of economic crisis, gender inequality may
become a less important consideration, realtive to the needs of "the
family". However, gender divisions and asymmetries do not disappear
as people sink into economic depression. In fact, gender inequality
may actually become more pronounced.

There is always a strain between the two forces of unity and
disunity within families. Economic decline does not resolve this
contradiction, but intensifies it, making it more extreme and more
easily discernible. This research shows that a full picture of family
must include both of these dimensions, and the tension between the
two.

This research suggests some of the variety, complexity and
contradiction of family relations. Simplistic notions of families as

either arenas of unity or of conflicts of interests are not adequate.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

OLD QUESTIONNAIRE

This is the first questionnaire used for the pilot study. It was
distributed in the fall of 1982 and was subsequently critiqued by my
students and the members of my dissertation committee. I then revised
it creating the questionnaires in Appendices B and C. The data
gathered with the old questionnaire are not reported in this disser-

tation.

APPENDIX A

OLD QUESTIONNAIRE

 

How old are you?

How many people do you live with?
Who are they?
spouse
children (ages) 1 2 3
other adults

 

 

How long have you been laid off?

What kind of work have done in the last 10 years?

Do you expect to go back? when? where?

What does your spouse (or other adult in household) do?

unemployed former job How long unemployed
housewife
works full time or part time occupation

Has your spouse's work changed since your layoff?

took a new job

working more hours

went back to school to get a new or better job
looking for work

other changes

no change

About how much money does each of the people in your family bring
in every week?

you
spouse
other

About how much time (hours) do the people in your family spend doing
housework on a typical weekday? What about on the weekend?

you you

spouse spouse

children children

other other

17”

175

10. Who does the specific jobs around the house?

(NOTE TO THE INTERVIEWER: fill in the percentage of responsibility

if subject indicates there is sharing of these jobs. For example if

subject says we share the work ask about division by percentage,
e.g., "Do you do 1/2, 1/”, 3/”, 90%?"

who does the vacuuming and dusting

 

 

you
spouse
children
other
Who does the cooking yardwork
you you
spouse spouse
children children
other other
dishes childcare
you you
spouse spouse
children children
other other
pick up laundry
yoE— you
spouse spouse
children children
other other

11. Is the question of who should do the housework ever a problem
around your house? How?

12. Have arguments about housework increased or decreased since you
or your spouse) got laid off?

13. Have there been any changes in who does the housework since you
or your spouse) got laid off? What changes?

176

l”. The next set of questions has to do with how decisions are made in
your family. In each of the following cases, who would make the final
decisions: You, your spouse, about equal between you and your spouse,
someone else/decision is beyond family's control?

Who would make the decision about:

what job you should take

whether you should work outside the home
what car to buy

where to live

whether to buy life insurance or not
where to go on vacation

which Dr. to go to if someone gets sick
how to discipline the children

how much to spend on groceries

15. In general, who has the last word on day to day decisions?

16. Who has the last word on big decisions?

17. Do you think your authority has become weaker since you (or your
spouse) were laid off?

18. Do you think your role in the family is less important since you
or your spouse was laid off?

19. Has your layoff or the economic conditions in general, caused your
family to economize in any of the following ways?

others moved in with you or you with them
fewer meals in restaurants

less baby sitters

more sewing

more gardening

more canning

wood stove

other

20. Has this created more work around the house?

Who is doing the extra work?

21.

22.

23.

2”.

25.

26.

27.

177

Has your layoff caused you to share work or money with others?
For example, have you lent or borrowed money from relatives or friends?

Have you helped others more by baby sitting for them or helping them
with repairs?

Have they helped you in these ways?

Please explain.
How?
Who?

What is your opinion of women working outside of the home?

What does the phrase equal rights mean to you?

What is your opinion of equal rights for women?

Has your opinion on this subject changed since your layoff?

What would you like to be doing three years from now?

What do you expect to be doing three years from now?

FINAL NOTE TO INTERVIEWER:

1.

2.

What is the sex of the subject?

What is the race of the subject?

Was there anything about this subject or the conditions of the inter-
view which might be useful to know?

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR UNEMPLOYED PERSON

This is the questionnaire used to collect data for this disser-
tation. The data collected by this questionnaire are reported in Chap-
ters ”, 5 and 6 and are referred to as questionnaire responses in the
tables. This questionnaire is similar to the questionnaire in Appen-
dix C. It is designed for administration to the person in the couple
who had been laid off. The questionnaire in Appendix C is designed
for the spouse of the person who had been laid off. The questions are
the same. The difference is only in the way in which the questions

are phrased.

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE--FOR UNEMPLOYED PERSON

 

1. How old are you?
2. How many people do you live with?
Who are they?

Adults other than spouse
Children (ages)1 2 3 ” 5

 

 

3. How long have you been married?

EMPLOYMENT

 

”. What kind of work have you done in the past 10 years?
5. How long have you been laid off?
6. Do you expect to go back? When? Where?

7. What does your spouse do?
Unemployed Former job How long unemployed
housewife'_-- ——_—-
works full time or part time occupation

8. Has your spouse's work changed since your layoff?
took a new job
working more hours
went back to school to get a new or better job
looking for work
other changes
no change'

 

9. About how much money does each of the people in your family bring
in every week?
You
spouse

other
10. Has unemployment effected your family finances?

No, not much Yes, severely
1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 10

178

179

HOUSEWORK

11. About how much time do the people in your family spend doing
housework on a typical weekday?

You
spouse
children
other

 

What about on the weekend?
you
spouse
children
other

12. Certain household tasks are necessary to keep things running smoothly.
Who does each of these tasks more often, you or your partner?
X indicates that children do these tasks.

 

I we spouse
do share does

a.repairing things around

the house.............. 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
b.doing the dishes....... 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
c.cooking the breakfast.. 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
d.cooking the evening

meal................... 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
e.vacuuming the carpets.. 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
f.doing the laundry...... 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 9 X
g.making arrangements to

have repairs done around

the house...............1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
h.cleaning the bathroom...1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
i.caring for the pets.....1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
j.taking out the trash....1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
k.doing the grocery

shopping................1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
l.taking care of the lawn.1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
m.ironing my clothes......1 2 3 ” 5 6 8 9 X
n.driving the car when we

are going somewhere in

town together...........1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
o.punishing the children..1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X

p.taking the children to

their activities and

appointments............1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
q.playing with the

children................1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X

13. Why do you and your partner divide household tasks in the way in
which you have indicated?

130

1”.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

180

In general, how much satisfaction do you get from doing household
chores?

I don't do
Extremely Not at all household
satisfied satisfied chores
1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X

Considering the chores in your household, do you feel your
partner does (his) (her) "fair share"?

Much more exactly Much less

than their their than their
fair share fair share fair share
1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9

Is the question of who should do the housework ever a problem
around your house? How?

Have arguments about housework increased, decreased or stayed the
same since you got laid off?

Have their been any changes in who does the housework since you
were laid off? What changes?

If your family could live as you prefer, how would work and
housework be divided?

181

19. For each of the different decisions listed below, first tell us
(ON THE LEFT SIDE) who usually has the most influence.
(ON THE RIGHT SIDE) whether you feel this decision is a major or minor

one 0

Who Usually has the most influence?
1=I have all the influence
5=We have equal influence
9=My spouse has all the influence

I have We have Spouse

a.what groceries to
buy00000000000000001

h.how to decorate
our home...........1

c.where to go on a
vacation...........1

d.when to go out to

eat................1

e.whether to move to
another city, state
or country.........1

f.where to go out for
an evening.........1

g.whom to invite to
our home...........1

h.how to discipline
the children.......1

i.how much money to
spend on groceries.1

j.what car to buy....1

k.what job I should
takeOOOOOIOOOIOOOOO1

l.where to live......1

20. In general, who has the last word on day-to-day

all equal has all

2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9

2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9

2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9
2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9

21. Who has the last word on big decisions?

Very

Major

1 2

1 2

1 2

3

3

3

”

u

1 2 3 ”

5

5 6 7

6

decisions?

Then tell us

Major or minor decision?
1=a very major decision
9=a very minor decision

Very
Minor

8 9

8 9

182

22. Do you think your authority has become weaker or stronger since
you were laid off?

23. Do you think your role in the family is more or less important
since you were laid off, or has it stayed the same?

ECONOMIZING

 

2”. Has your layoff or the economic conditions in general caused your
family to economize in any of the following ways?

others moved in with you or you with them
fewer meals at restaurants

less babysitters

more sewing

more gardening

more canning or freezing

wood stove or kerosene stove or insulation
sold items

do own car maintenance

other*

 

 

 

25. Has this created more work around the house?
If so, who is doing the extra work?
26. Has your layoff cause you to share work or money with others?
borrowed or lent money
babysitting shared
repairs
other

OPINIONS

27. What does the phrase equal rights for women mean to you?

28. What is your opinion of equal rights for women?

29. Has your opinion on this subject changed since your layoff?

30. If you are an unemployed man and your wife is working,
has there been any reaction from your friends or family about
changing roles?

183

FUTURE

31. What would you like to be doing three years from now?

32.

What do you think you will be doing three years from now?

Final note to interviewer:

1.

2.

What is the sex of the subject?

What is the race of the subject?

Was there anything about this subject or the conditions of the
interview that might be useful to know?

What is your sex?

What is your age?

How well do you know the subject?

185
HOUSEWORK

11. About how much time do the people in your family spend doing
housework on a typical weekday?

You"
spouse
children
other

 

What about on the weekend?
you
spouse
children
other-*

12. Certain household tasks are necessary to keep things running smoothly.
Who does each of these tasks more often, you or your partner?
X indicates children do this task.

 

I we spouse
do share does

a.repairing things around

the house.............. 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
b.doing the dishes....... 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
c.cooking the breakfast.. 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
d.cooking the evening

meal................... 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
e.vacuuming the carpets.. 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
f.doing the laundry...... 1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
g.making arrangements to

have repairs done around

the house...............1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
h.cleaning the bathroom...1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
i.caring for the pets.....1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
j.taking out the trash....1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
k.doing the grocery

shopping................1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 9 X
l.taking care of the lawn.1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
m.ironing my clothes......1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 9 X
n.driving the car when we

are going somewhere in

town together...........1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
o.punishing the children..1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X

p.taking the children to

their activities and

appointments............1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X
q.playing with the

children................1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X

13. Why do you and your partner divide household tasks in the way in
which you have indicated?

13.

l”.

15.

16.

17.

18.

186

In general, how much satisfaction do you get from doing
household chores?

I don't do
Extremely Not at all household
satisfied satisfied chores
1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9 X

Considering the chores in your household, do you feel your
partner does (his) (her) "fair share"?

Much more exactly Much less

than their their than their
fair share fair share fair share
1 2 3 ” 5 6 7 8 9

Is the question of who should do the housework ever a problem
around your house? How?

Have arguments about housework increased, decreased or stayed the
same since your spouse was laid off?

Have their been any changes in who does the housework since your
spouse was laid off? What changes?

If your family could live as you prefer, how would work and
housework be divided?

187

19. For each of the different decisions listed below, first tell us
(ON THE LEFT SIDE) who usually has the most influence.
(ON THE RIGHT SIDE) whether you feel this decision is a major or minor

one 0

Who Usually has the most influence?
1=I have all the influence
5=We have equal influence
9=My spouse has all the influence

I have

a.what groceries to all

buy00000000000000001 2 3
h.how to decorate

our home...........1 2 3
c.where to go on a

vacation000000000001 2 3
d.when to go out to

eat00000000000000001 2 3
e.whether to move to

another city, state

or country.........1 2 3
f.where to go out for

an evening.........1 2 3
g.whom to invite to

our homeooooooooooo1 2 3
h.how to discipline

the children.......1 2 3
i.how much money to

spend on groceries.1 2 3
j.what car to buy....1 2 3
k.what job I should

take0000000000000001 2 3
l.where to live......1 2 3

20. In general, who has the last word on day-to-day

We have
equal
” 5 6

Spouse
has all
7 8 9

21. Who has the last word on big decisions?

Very
Major
1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

u

A

Major or minor
1=a very major
9=a very minor

5

Then tell us

decision?
decision
decision

6

7

1 2 3 ” 5 6 7

decisions?

Very
Minor
8 9

8 9

188

22. Do you think your authority has become weaker or stronger since
your spouse was laid off?

23. Do you think your role in the family is more or less important
since your spouse was laid off, or has it stayed the same?

ECONOMIZING

 

2”. Has your spouse's layoff or the economic conditions in general
caused your family to economize in any of the following ways?

others moved in with you or you with them
fewer meals at restaurants

less babysitters

more sewing

more gardening

more canning or freezing

wood stove or kerosene stove or insulation
sold items

do own car maintenance

other

 

25. Has this created more work around the house?
If so, who is doing the extra work?

26. Has your spouse's layoff cause you to share work or money with
others?

borrowed or lent money
babysitting shared
repairs
other

OPINIONS

27. What does the phrase equal rights for women mean to you?

28. What is your opinion of equal rights for women?

29. Has your opinion on this subject changed since your spouse's
layoff?

30. If you are married to an unemployed man and you are working,
has there been any reaction from your friends or family about
changing roles?

189

FUTURE

31. What would you like to be doing three years from now?

32.

What do you think you will be doing three years from now?

Final note to interviewer:

1.

2.

What is the sex of the subject?

What is the race of the subject?

Was there anything about this subject or the conditions of the
interview that might be useful to know?

What is your sex?
What is your age?

How well do you know the subject?

APPENDIX D

RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT

This is the assignment I gave to students describing the research
and the way in which I wanted them to find subjects. It also includes
some suggestions about how to administer the questionnaire. This

written description was discussed in class in detail.

APPENDIX D

RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT

One of the most important kinds of work sociologists are involved
in is the collection of information to support (or refute) the various
theories they have developed to explain social events. This assign-
ment will give you the opportunity to do your own sociological
research as well as to help me with my research. The recent economic
recession has had a profound effect on all of our lives, but it is
unclear exactly what that effect has been. In this assignment you
will be asked to administer a questionnaire to two subjects to find
out in concrete ways how the economic recession has affected families
where at least one person has been laid off. You must find two sub-
jects on your own. One subject must be a person who used to work at a
blue collar production job in one of the plants in the Lima area, eg.,
Clark, Ford, Scheller-Globe. The subject must be presently unemployed
and he or she must live in a household with his or her spouse. The
second subject must be the spouse of the person who has been laid off.
You must read the questions to those you interview--don't just give
the questionnaires to the subjects to fill out. Do not interview
anyone who has already been interviewed by another student in the
class. Write the name of the person on the questionnaire and be sure

to assure the person that their answers are confidential. We will be
190

191

discussing this assignment in class and you will be able to observe a
sample interview during class. You have the option of not par-
ticipating in this assignment. However, if you choose not to do an
interview you will have to complete an alternative assignment in order

to fulfill the requirements for this course.

APPENDIX E

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH REPORT DONE BY STUDENTS

This is the description of the format I asked students to follow
in reporting their research findings. After having administered the
questionnaires, they assembled themselves into small groups and sum-
marized and discussed their findings. They submitted written reports
on their summary and description. I used these reports as additional
sources of information in my analysis of the research. The reports
were also useful in ensuring good data since the problem of falsified
or incomplete data became the problem of the students in trying to

fulfill the assignment.

APPENDIX E

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH REPORT DONE BY STUDENTS

Research assignment

 

1. Name the people in your group.

2. Summarize the findings on all the questionnaires in your group.

Organize the findings around the following charts:

effect of layoff on spouse going back to work, increasing
hours, etc.

who does the housework

who makes decisions

attempts to economize

political opinions

ideal family organization

3. Select one of the charts
Discuss your findings

a. Describe the findings in detail. For example, describe
varieties of responses among the different interviewers.

b. Offer some explanations for your findings

”. Describe any problems you ran into while collecting data.

5. What other questions would be helpful on this questionnaire?

Each group should submit one paper with all of the questionnaires
attached. Each questionnaire should have the interviewers name on it.
You paper should be about 3 to 5 typewritten, double spaced pages.
Papers are due in class on Friday. There is a penalty for late
papers. Please submit them on time. If you need assistance, please
ask me.

192

APPENDIX F

REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION OF SUBJECTS IN THE RESEARCH

This is the statement given to prospective subjects for this
research. Students were required to give a copy of this to prospec-

tive subjects. I also gave copies to the people in the interviews.

APPENDIX F

REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION OF SUBJECTS IN THE RESEARCH

Statement to be given to prospective subjects for research project

I am a student at Michigan State University. As part of the
requirements for a PH.D. degree, I am doing research on how people's
family lives have been affected by the current recession. This pro-
ject is solely an individual one; I am not collecting information for
anyone else to use.

I'd like to ask you some questions about who you live with, who
does the housework and decision making in your family, ways you have
tried to economize lately and your opinions about equal rights for
women. I hope you will be able to answer all of the questions, but if
you want to discontinue the interview at any time or if there are a
few questions you would rather not answer, please just say so. The
questionnaire is purely voluntary; there is no penalty if you do not
wish to answer some questions or if you do not wish to participate at
all.

Your answers are strictly confidential and anonymous. There will
be no record kept of who you are, and when I write up my paper there
will be no identification of individual subjects.

Thank you for participating in this project. One of the reasons
I became interested in doing this research was because I feel that
working people in the United States are currently going through a very
important historical period. But very little record is being kept of
what is happening to the everyday person. I hope that the information
that you give me about your experience will be able to inform the
public about the needs of families during economic recessions. In
addition, it will serve as a record of the history of working Ameri-
cans in the 1980's.

If you are interested in the results of my research, please call
me.

Judy Aulette, phone:228-26”l, extension 368.

193

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acock, Alan and John Edwards
1982 "Egalitarian Sex Role Attitudes and Female Income,
Journal of Marriage and the Family, ””: 581-589

Advertising Age
1979 "Brands Switched When Mom Works," 50: 18-20.

Aldous, Joan
1983 "Hard Times and Families: Living Through Inflation and
Unemployment," paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association.

Anderson, Michael
1971 Family Structure in 19th Century Lancashire.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Angel, R. and M. Tienda
1982 "Determinants of Extended Household Structure: Cultural
Patterns or Economic Need?" American Journal of Sociology,
87: 1360—1383.

Angell, Robert
1936 The Family Encounters the Depression.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Antos, Joseph, Mellow Wesley and Jack Triplett
1979 "What is the Current Equivalent to Unemployment Rates of
the Past?" Monthly Labor Review, 102:36-”6.

Bacharach, S. and E. Lawler
1976 "The Perception of Power," Social Forces, 55: 123-13”

Bakke, Wight
l9”O Citizens Without Work.
New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Barrett, Michele
198” Women's Oppression Today.
London: Verso Editions.

Barrett, Michele and Mary MacIntosh
1982 The Anti-Social Family.
London:Verso Editions.

19”

195

Baxter, J.
1982 "Recession is Blowing Itself Out but Will Recovery be for
Real?" Iron Age, 225: 31-33.

Becker, Howard and Blanche Geer
1957 "Participant Observation and Interviewing: a Comparison,"
Human Organization, 16: 28-32.

Bednarik, Robert
1983 "Short Workweeks During Economic Downturns,"
Monthly Labor Review,108: 3.

Beechey, Veronica
1978 "Women and Production: a Critical Analysis of some
Sociological Theories of Women's Work," in A. Kuhn and
A. Wolpe, eds., Feminism and Materialism.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Beer, William
1983 Househusbands.
South Hadley, Massachusetts: Bergin Publishers.

Benston, Margaret
1969 "The Political Economy of Women's Liberation," Monthly
Review, 21: ”.

Berch, Bettina
1982 The Endless Day: The Political Economy of Women and Work.
New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

Berk, Richard and Sara Berk
1979 Labor and Leisure at Home: Content and Organization of the
Household Day. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.

Berk, Sarah
1980 The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American
Households. New York: Plenum Press.

Bernard, Jessie
1972 The Future of Marriage.
New York: World Publishing.

Beyer, Clara
1931 Children of Working Mothers in Philadelphia.
U.S. Children's Bureau, Publication No. 20”.

Bird, Gloria, Gerald Bird and Marguerite Scruggs
198” "Determinants of Task Sharing: a Study of Husbands and
Wives," Journal of Marriage and the Family, ”6: 3”5-355.

Blackwelder, Julia
1978 "Women in the Workforce: Atlanta, New Orleans and San
Antonio: 1930-19”0," Journal of Urban History, ”: 331-358.

196

Blau, Francine
198” "Women in the Labor Force: an Overview," in J. Freeman,
ed., Women: a Feminist Perspective, 3rd Edition.
Palo Alto, California: Mayfield.

Blood, R. and D. Wolf
1960 Husbands and Wives.
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Blumstein, Philip and Pepper Schwartz
1983 American Couples.
New York: William Morrow.

Bokemeier, Janet and Pamela Monroe
1983 "Continued Reliance on one Respondent in Family Decision
Making Studies:a Content Analysis," Journal of Marriage
and the Family, ”5: 6”5-652.

Bolin, Winifred

1978 "The Economics of the Middle Income Family: Working Women
During the Great Depression," Journal of American History,
65: 607”.

Brown, Emily
1929 "A Study of Two Groups of Denver Married Women Applying
for Jobs," U.S.Department of Labor, Women's Bureau,
Bulletin 77.

Brown, Vickery
1982 "Home Production for use in a Market Economy,"
in B. Thorne, ed., Rethinking the Family.
New York: Longman.

Burgess, Paul, and Jerry Kingston
1979 "Some in Families of Those Receiving Jobless Aid are
Forced to Seek Work," Monthly Labor Review, 102: ”5.

Burns,
1973 "A Structural Theory of Social Exchange,"
Acta Sociologica, 16: 188-208.

Campbell, E.
1978 "Equality by Default: Women in Dual Roles," Intellect,

Campbell, F.
1970 "Family Growth and Variation in Family Role Structure,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32: ”5-53.

Caplowitz, David
1979 Making Ends Meet.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

197

Cavan, Ruth and Katherine Ranck
1938 The Family and the Depression.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chafe, William
1972 The American Woman: Her Changing Social, Economic and
Political Roles 1920-1979.
London: Oxford University Press.

Chase, Marilyn
1979 "Working Couples Find They're Not Immune to Recession's
Effects," Wall Street Journal, August 2”.

Christian Science Monitor
1983 "Slack Economy Forces Young Couples to MOve in With
Parents," March 23.

Cromwell, R. and D. Olson
1975 Power in Families.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Currie, Elliott, Robert Dunn and David Fogarty

1980 "The New Immiseration," Socialist Review, 10: 7-31.
Diggs, J.
1982 "Recession makes Gardens Grow", U.S. News and World

Reports, 93: 7”-75.

Dunn, William
1983 "Family Households Decline in Detroit," Detroit News,
January 13.

Ehrenreich, Barbara
1982 "Family Feud on the Left," The Nation, 23”: 303-30”.

Ehrenreich, Barbara and Dierdre English
1978 For Her Own Good.
Garden City: Anchor.

Eisenstein, Zillah, ed.
1978 Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism
New York: Monthly Review Press.

Elder, Glen
197” Children of the Great Depression.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Elshtain, Jean
1983 "Feminism, Family and Community"
Dissent, 30: 103-109.

198

Engels, Frederick
1958 Conditions of the Working Class in England.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Ferber, Marianne
1982 "Women and Work: Issues of the Eighties,"
Signs, 8: 273-286.

Ferber, Marianne and Helen Lowry
1976 "Women: New Reserved Army of the Unemployed,"
Signs, 1: 213-232.

Ferman, Louis and Mary Blehar
1983 "Family Adjustments to Unemployment," in A. Skolnick and J.
Skolnick, eds., Family in Transition, ”th Ed.
Boston: Little Brown.

Ferrarotti, Franco
1981 Storia e Storia di Vita
Bari/RomazLaterza.

Friedan, Betty
1963 The Feminine Mystique.
New York: Dell.

Gardiner, Jean
1975 "Women's Domestic Labor," New Left Review, 89: ”7-58.

Goode, William
1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns.
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Guzzardi,
1980 "Introduction to the Issue," Fortune, February 11.

Halle, Rita
1932 "Do You Need your Job?", Good Housekeeping, September.

Haraven, Tamara
1975 "Family Time and Industrial Time: The Interaction Between
Family and Work in a Planned Corporation Town, l900-192”,"
Journal of Urban History, 1: 365-389.

Hartmann, Heidi
1981 "The Family as Locus of Gender, Class and Political
Struggle: The Example of Housework", Signs, 6: 360-39”.

Hedges, J. and J. Barnett
1972 "Working Women and the Division of Household Tasks,"
Monthly Labor Review, 95: 9-1”.

199

Heer, David
1963 "The Measurement of Bases of Family Power: an Overview,"
Marriage and Family Living, 25: 133-139.

Homans, George
1958 "Social Behavior as Exchange,"
American Journal of Sociology, 63: 597-606.

Homans, George
1961 Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, inc.

Hood, Jane
1983 Becoming a Two Job Family.
New York: Praeger.

Humphries, Jane
1977 "Class Struggle and the Persistance of the Working Class
Family," Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1: 2”l-258.

Humphries, Jane
1976 "Women: Scapegoats and Safety Valves in the Great
Depression," Radical Review of Political Economy,
8: 98-121.

Kessler-Harris, Alice
1982 Out to Work: a History of Wage Earning Women in the United
States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kolko, Gabriel
1978 "Working Wives: the Effects on the Structure of the
Working Class," Science and Society, ”2: 257-277.

Komarovsky, Mirra
l9”0 The Unemployed Man and His Family.
New York: Dryden Press.

Land, Hilary
1978 "Who Cares for the Family?", Journal of Social Policy,

Lansing State Journal
1985 "Unemployed Auto Workers Studied," March 27.

Lasch, Christopher
1977 Haven in a Heartless World.
New York: Basic Books.

Laslett, Barbara
1978 "Family Membership: Past and Present," Social Problems,
25: ”76-”90.

200

Laslett, Peter, and R. Wall
1972 Household and Family in Past Time.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lever,
1981 "Multiple Methods of Data Collection: a Note on
Divergence," Urban Life, 10:199-213.
Lima News
1982 "County's Jobless up to 15.8%," November 26.

Lopata, Helene
1971 Occupation Housewife.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Lundberg, George
1961 Can Science Save Us?
New York: David McKay.

Mainardi, Pat
1970 "The Politics of Housework" in R. Morgan, ed., Sisterhood
is Powerful. New York: Vintage Books.

Martin,Robert and Judith Wallace
198” Working Women in Recession: Employment, Redundancy, and
Unempoyment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Matthaei, Julie
1980 "Consequences of the Rise of the Two Earner Family: The
Breakdown of the Division of Labor," American Economic
Review, 70: 98-202.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels
1973 The German Ideology.
New York: International Publishers.

May, Martha
1982 "The Historical Problem of Family Wage: The Ford Motor
Company and the Five Dollar Day," Feminist Studies,
107: 399-”2”

May, Todd
1983 "Where the Jobs aren't: the Recession will go on and on
fer Blue Collar Workers," Fortune, 107: 25-26.

McBroom, William
198” "Changes in Sex Role Orientations: A Five Year
Longitudinal Comparison," Sex Roles, 11: 583-593.

201

McDonald, Gerald
1980 "Family Power: An Assessment of a Decade of Theory and
Research 1970-1979," Journal of Marriage and the Family,
”2: 8”1-85”.

McGrath, Peter, Richard Manning and John McCormick
1983 "Left Out," Newsweek, 101: 26-35.

Meissner, Martin
1977 "Sexual Division of Labor and Inequality: Labour and
Leisure," in M. Stephenson, ed., Women in Canada.
Toronto: Women's Educational Press.

Meissner, Martin, E. Humphries, S. Meis and W. Scheu
1975 "No Exit for Wives: Sexual Division of Labor and the
Culmination of Household Demands," Canadian Review of
Sociology and Anthropology, 12: ”2”-”29.

Milkman, Ruth

1976 "Women's Work and Economic Crisis: Some Lessons of the
Great Depression," Review of Radical Political Economy,
8: 73-97 0

Mills, c. Wright
1959 The Sociological Imagination.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Moen, Phyllis
1979 "Family Impacts of the 1975 Recession: Duration of
Unemployment," Journal of Marriage and the Family,
”1: 561-572.

Moen, Phyllis
1983 "Unemployment Policy and Families: Forecast for the
1980's," Journal of Marriage and the Family, ”2; 751-760.

Monthly Labor Review
193” "Unemployment Among Women During the Depression,"

38: 790-795.

Monthly Labor Review
1983 "Selected Unemployment Indicators," 105: 59.

Morgan, James
1978 "A Pot-Pourri of Data Gathered from Interviews with
Husbands and Wives," in G. Duncan and J. Morgan, eds.,
5000 American Families. Ann Arbor: UMISSR.

New York Times
1977 "Recession Changes Public's Food Choices," July 12.

New York Times
1986 "Millions are By-passed by Economic Recovery," March 16.

202

Nowak, Thomas and Kay Snyder
1985 "Surviving Job Loss: the Long Term Impact of Plant
Shutdowns," paper presented at the annual meetings of the
Society for the Study of Social Problems.

Nye, F. Ivan
1976 Role Structure and Analysis of the Family.
Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Nye, F. Ivan
1979 "Choice, Exchange and the Family," in W. Burr, R. Hill,
F. Nie and I. Reiss, eds., Contemporary Theories about
the Family, Volume 2. New York: McGraw Hill.

Oakley, Ann
197” The Sociology of Housework.
New York: Pantheon.

Oakley, Ann
1981 "Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms,"
in H. Roberts, ed., Doing Feminist Research. Boston:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Olson, J.T.
1979 "Role Conflict Between Housework and Childcare," Sociology
of Work and Occupations, 6:”30-”56.

Olson, J.T.
1981 "The Impact of Housework on Childcare in the Home" Family
Relations, 30: 75-81.

Parkhurst, Genevieve
1935 "Is Feminism Dead?" Harper's Magazine, l70:735-7”5.

Parsons, Talcott, et al.
1956 Family, Socialization and Interaction Process.
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Pidgeon, Mary and Margaret Mettert.
1939 Employed Women and Family Support.
U.S.Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, Bulletin 168.

Pinchbeck, Ivy
1969 Women Workers and the Industrial Revolution 1750-1850.
London: Frank Cass.

Pleck, Joseph
1979 "Men's Family Work: Three Perspectives and Some New Data,"
Family Coordinator, 28: ”81-”88.

Rank, Mark
1982 "Determinants of Conjugal Influence in Wife's Employment

Decision Making," Journal of Marriage and the Family,

203

Rapp, Rayna, Ellen Ross and Renate Bridenthal
1979 "Examining Family History,"
Feminist Studies, 5: l7”-l99.

Reilly, Michael
1983 "Working Wives and Convenience Consumption," Journal of
Consumer Research, 8: ”07-”18.

Rich, Adrienne
"Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existance" Signs,

5: 6”7.

Robinson, J.
1977 How Americans Use Time: a Social Psychological Analysis
New York: Praeger.

Rosen, Ellen
1982 "Hobson's Choice: Employment and Unemployment Among "Blue
Collar" Workers in New England," Final Report to the U.S.
Department of Labor and Training Administration, Social
Welfare Research Institute, (NTIS No. DLMA 21-25-79-19)

Rossi, Alice, Jerome Kagan and Tamara Haraven, eds.
1978 The Family.
New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Rubin, Gayle
1976 Worlds of Pain.
New York: Basic Books.

Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina
1976 "A Macro and Micro Examination of Family Power and Love:
an Exchange Model," Journal of Marriage and the Family,
37: 355-362.

Scanzoni, John
1978 Sex Roles, Women's Work and Marital Conflict.
Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Scanzoni, John
1979 "Social Processes and Power in Families," in W. Burr,
R. Hill, F. Nye and I. Reiss, eds., Contemporary Theories
About Families, Vol. 1. New York: Free Press.

Scanzoni, John and Greer Fox
1980 "Sex Roles, Family and Society: the Seventies and Beyond,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family, ”2: 7”3-756.

Scharf, Lois
1980 To Work and Wed: Employment, Feminism and the Depression.
Westport Connecticutt: Greenwood.

20”

Schatzman, Leonard and Murray Strauss
1973 Field Research Strategies for a Natural Sociology.
Englewoods Cliffs, New York.

Shorter, Edward
1975 The Making of the Modern Family.
New York: Basic Books

Sieber, Sam
1972 "The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods,"
American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1335-1359.

Snyder, Kay and Thomas Nowak
1983 "Sex Differences in the Impact of Plant Shutdown: The
Case of Robertshaw Controls" paper presented at the annual
.meetings of the American Sociological Association.

Snyder, Kay and Thomas Nowak
198” "Job Loss and Demoralization: Do Women Fare Better than
Men," International Journal of Mental Health, 13: 92-106.

Sokoloff, Natalie
1981 Between Love and Money: The Dialectics of Woman's Home and
Market Work. New York: Praeger.

Stack, Carol
1970 All Our Kin.
New York: Harper.

Stafford, Frank
1980 "Women's Use of Time Converging with Men's," Monthly Labor
Review, 101: 57-59.

Stouffer, Samuel and Paul Lazarsfeld
1937 Research Memorandum on Family in the Depression.
New York: Social Science Research Council.

Stover, Ed
1975 "Inflation and the Female Labor Force", Monthly Review,
26: 50-58 0

Stowell, Channing
1979 "Where, What and How we Eat," Advertising Age, 30:1.

Strober, Myra and Charles Weinberg
1980 "Strategies Used by Working and Nonworking Wives to Reduce
Time Pressure," Journal of Consumer Research, 6: 338-3”8.

Szalai, Alexander, P. Converse, P. Feldheim, E. Scheuch, and P. Stone
1972 The use of Time: Daily Activities of Urban and Suburban
Populations in Twelve Countries.
The Hague: Mouton.

205

Terry, S.
1982 "Unemployment and its Effect on Family Income in 1980,"
Monthly Labor Review, 105:35-”3.

Thorne, Barrie, with Marilyn Yalom, eds.
1982 Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions.
New York: Longman

Thornton, Jeannie
1981 "Why so many Families are Doubling Up," U.S. News and
World Reports, 90: 53-5”.

Trow, M.
1957 "Participant Observation and Interviewing: a Comparison,"
Human Organization, 16: 33-35.

U.S. Bureau of the Census
1975 Historical Statistics of the U.S.: Colonial Times to 1970,
Bicentennial Edition. Washington, D.C.: G.P.O.

U.S. Department of Labor
1980 Employment in Perspective: Working Women. Report 611.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Senate Hearings
1982 Employment and the American Auto Industry.
Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Employment and
Productivity, 97th Congress.

Urquhart, Michael
1981 "The Service Industry: Is it Recession Proof?" Monthly
Labor Review,103: 12-15.

Urquhart, Michael and Marillyn Hewson
1983 "Unemployment Continued to rise as Recession Deepened",
Monthly Labor Review, 107: 3-12.

Voydanoff, Patricia

198” "Unemployment: Family Strategies for Adaptation", in P.
Voydanoff, ed., Work and Family. Palo Alto, California:
Mayfield.
Walker, Kathryn and Margaret Woods
1976 Time Use: a Measure of Household Production of Family Goods
and Services. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics
Association.

Wall Street Journal
1983 "Nation's Chronic Nursing Shortage has eased: Hospital
Says Recession has been the Cure," January 17.

Waller, W. and R. Hill
1951 The Family: a Dynamic Interpretation.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

206

Wandersee, Winifred
1981 Women's Work and Family Values 1920-l9”0.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Washington Area Marxist Feminist Study Group
1980 "None Dare Call it Patriarchy," Socialist Review,
61: 105-111.

Watts, Harold and Felicity Skidmore
1978 The Implication of Changing Family Patterns and Behavior
for Labor Force and Hardship Measurement.
National Commmission on Employment and Unemployment
Statistics.

Webb, Eugene, Donald Campbell, Richard Schwartz, and Lee Sechrist
1966 Unobtrusive Measures: Non-reactive Research in the Social
Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Weisskopf, Thomas
1981 "The Current Economic Crisis in Historical Perspective,"
Socialist Review, 11: 9-53.

White, L. and D. Brinkerhoff
1981 "Children's Work in the Family: its Significance and
Meaning," Journal of Marriage and the Family, ”3: 789-798.

Willson, Kay
1985 The Impact of Economic Crisis on Women's Work in
Saskatchewan. unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Sociology,
Michigan State University. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univer-
sity Microfilms.

Women's Work Project
1978 "Women in Today's Economic Crisis" in Crisis Reader
Editorial Collective, ed., U.S. Capitalism in Crisis.
New York: Union of Radical Political Economy.

Zaretsky, Eli
1976 Capitalism, the Family and Personal Life.
New York, Harper.

Zaretsky, Eli
1978 "The Effect of the Economic Crisis on Family" in Crisis
Reader Editorial Collective, ed., U.S. Capitalism in
Crisis. New York: Union of Radical Political Economy.

Zelditch, M.
1972 "Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies,"
American Journal of Sociology, 67:566-576.

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293007966249