Homework and Domestic Work Author(s): Hilary Silver Source: Sociological Forum, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp.

181-204 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/684634 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 16:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.

http://www.jstor.org

Sociological Fonrm, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1993

Homework and Domestic Work1

Hilary Silver2

This study assesses two competing theories about the extent to which homework-paid work in the home-helps integratework and domestic roles for men and women. Contrastingmale and female homeworkers with their counterpartsworking outside the home, it supports some aspects of both the resource and role overload theories, but predominantly the role overload perspective. Homeworkers, especially in the working class, experience less interferencebetweenjob and family life, butperformmore houseworkand child care. Theyhave no more leisuretime nor greatermaritalsatisfaction than those working outside the home, but receive more family assistance with their paid jobs, suggestingthat they combine tasksfrom their 'first"and "secondshifts." Workingat home does not break down gender roles in domestic life. Despite time saved from commuting, male homeworkers perform no more housework than comparable men workingoutside the home. Thus, the gender division of unpaid household labor is not simply a matterof resourcesor spatial logistics.
KEY WORDS: homework; housework; child care; women and work.

INTRODUCTION Sociologists frequently assume that workplace and residence become spatially segregated in modern industrial societies. However, a small, perhaps growing segment of the work force combines paid and unpaid work in the home. Does the spatial integration of home and work make it easier to meet the dual demands of families and breadwinning, or add to tensions between domestic and economic spheres of life?
1An earlier version was presented at the meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society, Providence, Rhode Island, April 1991. 2Department of Sociology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912. 181
0884-8971/93/0600-0181$07.00/0 ? 1993 Plenum Publishing Corporation

182

Silver

Two dominant theories regarding the division of household labor suggest very different answers to these questions. One assumes women are largely confined to the domestic sphere and men to paid employment; the other emphasizes women's dual roles as homemakers and workers. The resource theory, as Pleck (1985) portrays it, builds on functionalist sociology, exchange theory, and the new home economics (Becker, 1976; Berk, 1980; Parsons and Bales, 1955). It treats the division of a household's total productive labor as a rational decision maximizing its collective efficiency and utility. Women's labor force participation is minimal or secondary to their domestic contributions. Under conditions favoring the earning potential of men, husbands exchange money or "instrumental" functions for wives' affection, household reproduction, and "expressive" functions. The role overload perspective, in contrast, draws on time use studies compatible with feminist critiques of the family division of labor (e.g., Meissner et al., 1975; Hartman, 1981; Sokoloff, 1980). As formulated by Pleck (1985:24), the role overload hypothesis holds that the division of family work in contemporary two-earner couples, deriving from traditional sex role ideology and husbands' low psychological involvement in the family, is inequitable, a source of conscious dissatisfaction to wives, and injurious to their well-being. For this hybrid feminist approach, norms and economic relations both contribute to the inequality of power between the sexes. Traditional gender ideology, by relegating women to domestic work, has favorable economic consequences for men both at home and in the labor market. Women are subjected to male domination in both public and private spheres; their "double day" overloads their time and energy. However, their disadvantage is reduced if traditional gender roles break down. Homework, especially by men, may have such an effect. Pleck (1985:152) found that employed wives do not suffer from role overload in terms of time demands, provided they work in typical women's jobs that are "considerably less substantial than their husbands' in terms of both the average number of hours worked per week as well as continuity over time." Working women reduce hours of housework, although there is some debate about how much men with working wives increase the time they spend on domestic chores (Spitze, 1988; Thompson and Walker, 1989). While traditional gender role values have little effect on family work, a demanding job in terms of hours reduces the time available for both men and women to do household work. Do these findings hold for homeworkers as well?

and Homework DomesticWork

183

Previous Conceptions of Homework The resource and role overload perspectives have their counterparts in approaches to the relationship of homework and family life. In brief, homework has been viewed, respectively, as flexible and "progressive"-a reorganization of work responding to social preferences and technological possibilities-or as inflexible and "oppressive"-a residue or resurgence of exploitative production practices. Both approaches assume that homeworkers are women, since the home is "their" domain. The conception of homework as progressive sees it as a strategy to flexibly combine work and domestic roles. For this reason, futurologists predicted homework would boom (Nilles, 1977; Toffler, 1980), although the trend has yet to materialize to any great extent (Horvath, 1986; Silver, 1989). The management literature frequently treats employers who allow staff to work at home as "enlightened," in contrast to those protecting traditional prerogatives and control. In responding to employees' needs for flexibility, managers benefit from homeworkers' increased productivity. Advocates of "telecommuting" argue that new technologies and the decentralization of production also make it possible to retain highly skilled employees who might otherwise quit to care for their families (Gordon, 1988; National Research Council, 1985; Olson, 1988; Ramsower, 1985). Thus, this approach concentrates on highly qualified professionals and managers. It is primarily the emphasis on the flexibility of homework from the workers' point of view that gives this approach its "progressive"cast. Homework should provide autonomy and control over work and freedom to balance it with family responsibilities, offering the "best of both worlds." Although enhanced leisure time saved from commuting is most frequently cited as an advantage of homework for men (Nilles, 1977; Pratt, 1984), the recent trendiness of "parenting"suggests homework might also encourage men to perform more household tasks and child care. Indeed, Toffler (1980) portrayed the "electronic cottage" as a place where the entire family works together. Yet in terms of objective gender relations, homework-and this approach to it-might not appear so progressive. Opponents of homework regulation have long argued that homework provides both a source of income and a buttress of "sacred motherhood" and "traditionalfamily values" (Boris, 1985). Indeed, some studies assert that female homeworkers have more conservative gender role attitudes and do not put careers before family (Nelson, 1988; Kraut 1989; Pratt, 1984). Other studies have found that

184

Silver

female homeworkers value the proximity of family members to their work (Beach, 1989; Benson, 1989; Kingston, 1983); consider it positive when their children assist them (Lozano, 1989:117-121); and receive help from husbands with household chores and child care, as well as work (Beach, 1989; Costello, 1988). Women's homework has long been embedded in a dense network of nuclear family, extended family, and community relations (Benson, 1989; Fernandez-Kelly and Garcia, 1989). Taken together, this approach offers what Kraut and Grambsch (1987) called an "optimistic" view of homework. It allows households to optimize economic and time resources of their members, especially women. Although traditional gender roles are frequently assumed necessary to sustain them, "family values" may also be maximized by fathers working at home. The "pessimistic"view of homework draws on the role overload theory and labor history (Boris and Daniels, 1989; Johnson and Johnson, 1982). It portrays homework as a form of exploitative sweating that ties women to the dual demands of family and employers, leaves them little free time, isolates them socially, and subjects them to their husbands' control (Allen and Wolkowitz, 1987; Beneria and Roldan, 1987; Leidner, 1987). Homework is sometimes portrayed as part of a growing, dependent "informal" sector of the capitalist economy in which "thirdworld" modes of production are imported, like the immigrant women favored for this work, to the first world (Morales, 1983; Portes and Sassen-Koob, 1987). This perspective stresses the payoffs of gender inequality to employers, rather than to households. Thus, research with this orientation frequently focuses on working-class women in the secondary labor market, holding subordinate industrial, service, and most recently, lower level white-collar positions. Lacking a spatial separation of public and private spheres, workingclass homeworkers are doubly disadvantaged. Employers pay low wages and poor benefits, save on overhead, and avoid unions. They may also benefit from the unpaid labor of other family members (e.g., Biggart, 1989; Lozano, 1989; Finch, 1983). In addition, husbands enjoy the fruits of an unequal division of domestic labor. Rather than enjoying greater flexibility, homeworking women have less free time. They discover the "relative inflexibility of both family members and ... management" (Costello, 1988:143). As Pennington and Westover put it, "The flexibility of homework is that it permits the worker to overwork, and to extend her working day well past what is considered reasonable and healthy" (1989:164). Studies taking this approach report that homeworkers want a clear distinction between paid and unpaid labor (Christensen, 1988; Nelson, 1988; Pratt, 1984). Working at home eliminates the boundary between work and family, so that women rarely have time or space to escape either

Homework and Domestic Work

185

(Costello, 1988). Although the use of outside child care may add considerably to their satisfaction with home-based work (Christensen, 1988), homeworking women feel guilty about the housekeeping they "let go" and experience conflict with husbands and children who compete for attention with their work (Costello, 1988; Kingston, 1983). Particularly pressed are self-employed homeworkers and those with insufficient time to complete their work while their families are out of the house (Costello, 1988; Nelson, 1988). Although most working mothers reduce their hours of housework, homeworkers may find it more difficult (Nelson, 1988). Indeed, one study (Kraut, 1989) reports that clerical homeworkers, who were predominantly married mothers of young children, did nine more hours of housework and child care a week than office workers, but had no more leisure time. They were also more likely to mix paid with domestic work during the day, and had less help with specific work and household tasks than office workers. Yet they reported less role conflict between work and family life and more social support. Previous exploratory studies of homework provide empirical support for some aspects of both these approaches. Nevertheless, contrary evidence is frequently subordinated to the conclusion that homework, overall, is either progressive or oppressive. Rather than trying to evaluate whether the consequences of homework are intrinsically positive or negative, this study concentrates on resolving contradictory empirical predictions of the resource and overload theories. By contrasting a nationally representative sample of homeworkers to on-site workers with the same job and personal characteristics, it assesses the domestic consequences of combining paid and unpaid work in the home.

Hypotheses The resource approach to work-family relations suggests that homeworkers should (1) hold more traditional gender role attitudes, (2) experience less tension between their work and family roles, (3) be more satisfied with their family lives, (4) have more time for unpaid domestic labor because they do not commute, and (5) receive more help from their families with domestic and paid work than those who do not work at home. They should conserve time and energy by successfully integrating spheres of social life that others keep separate. The role overload approach implies the reverse. In particular, homeworkers' time should be more committed than that of comparable on-site workers.3
3Although a preexisting "overload" may induce women to accept homework in the first place,

186

Silver

Both approaches assume homeworkers are predominantly women, but the evidence is that they are about equally divided by gender (Horvath, 1986; Kraut, 1988; Silver, 1989). Indeed, Olson's (1989) nonrandom sample of computer professionals who work at home was 84% male. The resource approach suggests that homeworking men may be more "liberated" in their family values, do more housework and child care, and experience less tension between work and family roles than men working away from home. In contrast, the role overload approach suggests that gender relations inside the household will not change simply because men do their paid work at home. Traditional gender attitudes will persist, with women performing the housework and child care while men are the primary breadwinners. The role overload approach predicts no differences in work/family tensions or satisfaction with family life between men working in and outside the home.

METHODS Data Most prior studies of homework and the family are exploratory. They draw on nonrandom samples, however large, contacted through the media, employers, or personal referrals (snowball sampling). Although these studies are a rich source of hypotheses, it is difficult to generalize from their conclusions. A possible reason for the contradictory perspectives on homework is that homeworkers are themselves heterogeneous and have diverse reasons for, and reactions to, doing homework. Virtually all samples of homeworkers have been limited in some way, whether to nonfarmers or rural workers, to white-collar, clerical, or home-based day care workers, to those with intact families or children, or most frequently, to women. These restrictions reflect either unfounded assumptions about who works at home and why, or a particular research interest, such as computer-based homework (National Research Council, 1985). Moreover, restricted samples tend to preclude important research questions regarding differences in motivation for homework by social class or occupation, gender, household structure, and so on. The greatest deficiency of most prior studies is the lack of a control group. The absence of a point of reference has not precluded such conthe QES only provides information on current domestic commitments. Thus, this study considers whether, once individuals are working in the home, role conflict and domestic time constraints are lower than those experienced by on-site workers.

Homework and Domestic Work

187

clusions as "overall, homeworkers display more power to remold and recast work demands to fit family needs than do conventionally employed workers" (Beach, 1989:138). With exceptions (Heck, 1989; Horvath, 1986; Kraut, 1988; Olson, 1989; Silver, 1989), homeworkers are rarely contrasted with those working away from home. This study addresses these deficiencies. It is based on a nationally representative sample of the American labor force, the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey (QES), which identifies men and women who work in their home as well as outside it, their household structures, domestic life, and employment characteristics (Quinn and Staines, 1979). The survey is representative of those 16 years of age or older currently employed for 20 or more hours a week. It consists of 968 men and 547 women whose average age is 38 years. This data set is not ideal. Collecting new data on a phenomenon as infrequent as homework has always been difficult. If exploratory studies looked for homeworkers where their preconceptions led them, more systematic studies must rely on large samples in order to find sufficient numbers of homeworkers. Even then, one is constrained by the phrasing of survey questions designed with particular emphases in mind. The QES is no exception. The advantage of the survey is the great detail with which it describes paid and domestic work conditions, and attitudes toward work and family, as well as providing demographic and household information. It is well suited to the research questions at hand. Operationalizing Homework Any study of homework must first resolve a number of conceptual issues before operationalizing the notion. Defining homework can seem especially problematic given the controversy over the economic status of housework (e.g., Hartmann, 1981). The conventional definition of work, however, is that it is financially compensated. Another definitional problem has to do with what constitutes a "job." Many would-be entrepreneurs engage in hobbies or avocations that may eventually earn money but are conducted before or after paid work hours. A related issue is whether only one's primaryjob, or "moonlighting"as well, should count as work at home. If homework is "oppressive," it may reflect efforts to supplement another low-paid job performed outside the home. The QES provides complete information solely for respondents' primary job, and it is on this basis that we define homeworkers. We can control for holding a second paid job, for the QES did ask about the amount of time devoted to second jobs, although the location is not specified. Homeworkers generally spend about the same

188

Silver

amountof time on a secondjob as on-siteworkers,and moonlighting constitutes about one-thirdof total weeklywork hours for both groups.Howdevote almosttwice as muchof theirwork time ever, female homeworkers to second jobs as male homeworkers, and are more likely to moonlight than on-site women workers(see Table I). It has been arguedthat full-time"primary" homeworkers differ draones in terms of socioeconomic maticallyfrom part-time"supplemental" benefits from workingat home, and reasons for doing so characteristics, homeworkers more likely to are (Kraut,1988; Ramsower,1985). Primary work at home in order to mesh desiresfor independence with familyand work obligations.Thus, they are the appropriate focus of this study.

Table I. Logistic Regression Coefficients on Probability of Working Mainly at Home Total Sex (1 = Male) Years worked since 16 (age) Years of School Completed Self-employed Race Disabled Working class Farmer Hours worked Has second job Metropolitan area resident Married No. children under 6 years No. children 6 to 12 years Spouse works Gender roles attitudec Working mother attitude' Core sectorc Union member Firm size Intercept -1.655b .049b .095
2.373b

Women -.059 .931b 6.349b 9.029 .762 2.493 .457 .000 2.852a -.491 .758 .705 -1.522 .216 1.575b 1.592a -1.631 -7.289 -.091 -39.612

Men .108b .080 1.083a -.061 -.225 -9.266 3.012b .005b 1.119 -.840 -.965 .395 .014 -.956 -.068 .048 1.090 -.955 -.001 -9.138

.162 .406 -.902a 2.384b .002 1.046b -.451 .101 .451 -.400 -.534 .316a .198 .084 -1.358 -.001 -8.221

p < .10. bp < .05. CTraditionalgender roles aptitudes are measured by the extent of agreement on a 5-point scale (1: strong disagreement;5: strongagreement)with the statement "It is much better for everyone if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children." Traditional attitudes towards working mothers refer to the extent of agreement with the statement "A mother who works outside the home can have just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work." This scale also runs from (1) strong disagreement to (5) strong agreement; thus, a lower value on this variable indicates greater traditionalism. See Tolbert et al. (1980) for the core-periphery industrial classification.

Homework and Domestic Work Table II. Who Works at Home? Quality of Employment Survey "How often do you do work at home that is part of your job?" % Total Never work at home Rarely work at home A few times a year About once a month Frequently work at home About once a week More than once a week Mainly work at home Professional/managerial Working-class N of homeworkers Total N 57.4 15.6 9.9 5.7 23.3 7.7 15.6 3.7 (44) (11) (55) 1499 % Men 54.3 16.2 10.7 5.5 25.5 8.6 16.9 4.0 (36) (2) (38) 959 % Women 63.0 14.4 8.3 6.1 19.4 6.1 13.3 3.1 (8) (9) (17) 540

189

The QES asked "How often do you do work at home that is part of your job?" and offered six alternatives: never; a few times a year; about once a month; about once a week; more than once a week; and work mainly at home (Table II).4 This study defines homeworkers as those who "mainly" work at home, contrasting them with workers in the other categories.5 Of the 1499 people responding to the place of work question, 55 reported working mainly at home-3.7% of the QES sample. This estimate is very close to those reported by other nationally representative homeworker surveys (Horvath, 1986; Silver, 1989). Similarly, the QES yields a profile of homeworker characteristics, reported in Table I, that accords with prior studies (Horvath, 1986; Heck, 1989; Kraut, 1988).

4The QES also asked those who work sometimes but not mainly at home: "is it usually because you want to, because you have to in order to keep up on your job, or because you are asked to by others?" Those who rarely work at home are more likely to do so because they want to or were asked to than those who work at home more frequently. A majority of those who work at home at least once a week have to in order to keep up on their jobs, although about half want to work at home as well. Although there is no data on the motives of primary homeworkers, this finding suggests that the degree of "flexibility"homework offers does differ to the extent that workers can choose to vary their place of work. 5Although working at home at least once a week might be a good definition of "supplemental" homeworking, job conditions reported by these workers probably refer to their on-site workplaces. As in prior studies, QES respondents working "mainly" at home differed from those doing so at least once a week. The latter are disproportionately in professional and managerial occupations, strongly committed to their work, and spend very long hours on the job.

190

Silver

Variable Measures The dependent variables in this study refer to aspects of domestic life, including job-family interference, satisfaction with family life, hours of housework, child care, leisure, and family assistance with one's job. Each is discussed as the results are presented. Continuous or ordinal dependent variables are analyzed with ordinary least squares regression6 and categorical ones with logistic regression. The effect of homework on family-relatedvariables, by sex and household type, is assessed with a dummy variable for working mainly at home. Because the "oppressive"perspective on homework expects the exploitation of female homeworkers to be greatest among those in industrial, service, sales, and clerical occupations (Beach, 1989; Fernandez-Kelly and Garcia, 1989; National Research Council, 1985; Portes and Sassen-Koob, 1987), an interaction term for being a working-class homeworker was also examined.7 These variables are hypothesized to affect domestic work and other aspects of family life over and above two sets of control variables. The first set of controls is derived from a preliminary logistic regression analysis predicting the probability of working at home with a variety of personal and job characteristics suggested as important in the literature (Table I). Significant determinants of working at home are held constant in the equations in order to distinguish the effects of homeworkper se from those of causes or correlates of homework. They include the following: sex; years of work since age 16; years of school completed; self-employment; hours worked per week; moonlighting; farming; working-class occupations; and as the resource theory would predict, "traditional" attitudes toward gender roles and working mothers.8
6The analysis of ordinal dependent variables with ordinary least squares regression is controversial (see Winship and Mare, 1984). Therefore, the equations were reestimated with polychotomous logistic regression, and the results were substantially the same. However, ordinary least squares estimators are preferable to maximum likelihood coefficients when small samples are involved (see Wonnacott and Wonnacott, 1970:399). See also Blalock (1972:164, 293-294) on significance tests with small samples. 7I refer to them as "working-class"homeworkers for ease of exposition, although they might as meaningfully be labeled "less skilled" or "secondary labor market" occupations. Analysis showed they differ from professional and managerial homeworkers, the focus of the "optimistic," high-technology perspective on homework, in terms of supervision, autonomy, and other job-related indicators of social class. Yet homeworkers, especially men, are significantly less likely to be in working-class occupations than on-site workers. Thus, any working-class homeworker effects are gender specific. However, all of the reported effects of being a working-class homeworker were found among homeworkers in general, before the interaction term was added to the equation. 8Farming is usually considered a preindustrial occupation, and many farm workers are self-employed, rather than wage workers. Therefore, this occupation is controlled separately. Forty-four percent of the male homeworkers are farmers. The correlation between

Homework and Domestic Work

191

The second set of controlvariablesconsistsof factorsshownin prior studies to influence domestic work (see Berk, 1980; Blumstein, and and Schwartz1991;Coverman Shelley,1986;Hochschild,1989;Ross, 1987; the Voydanoff,1988). These includehouseholdstructure, relativefinancial power of the spouses, and as above, sex, gender ideology, and hours of maritalstatus,havinga workrefersto workers' work.Householdstructure ing spouse, and the numberof childrenunder 5 and between 6 and 12

Table III. Understandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Degree of Work-Family Interference A. By sex Total Homeworker Working class * Homeworker Sex (1 = male) Working class Farmer Self-employed Years worked since 16 (age) Years of school completed Hours worked Has second job Gender roles attitudes Working mother attitude Annual earnings Spouse's annual earnings Married No. children under 6 years No. children 6 to 12 years Spouse works Intercept R2 (adjusted) -.113 -.755a -.190 .005 -.328 -.149 -.008b -.009" .001 .002b .017 -.008 -.005 .000005a -.00001b -.092 .043 .110b .141a 1.390 .11 B. By Family type Parents Homeworker Working class * Homeworker (Covariates not shown) < .10. bp < .05 .301 -1.540b Married -.121 -.024 Married Parents .298 -1.559b Women .934a -1.616b .002 -.424a .0007 .007 .003b -.002 -.016 -.038 -.0000003 .000007 -.132 .134 .208b .186 1.228 .11 Men -.347 .004 -.0096 -.136 .003 .002b .013 -.009 .006 .000005 -.00001b -.243 .008 .075a .125 1.438 .11

self-employment and farming is .34, high but hardly synonymous with entrepreneurship. Years of work since the age of 16 is strongly correlated with age, precluding the entry of the latter into the regression equations. After this correction, there is no evidence of multicolinearity. See notes to Table I for definitions of traditional gender roles attitudes.

192

Silver

years of age. The relative power of the spouses in the household is measured by the workers' own and their spouses' annual earnings (Blumstein and Schwartz, 1991).

ANALYSIS

The Integration of Separate Spheres? Resource theory and the "progressive"view of homework credit the spatial integration of workplace and residence with helping workers balance their public and private lives and move flexibly between paid and unpaid work. If this is true, one would expect homeworkers to experience less conflict between their work and family roles. The overload hypothesis and "oppressive" approach to homework imply the opposite. The QES asked respondents about the extent to which their job and family life interfere with each other. Table III presents the results of the regression on this 4-point scale ranging from not at all to not too much to somewhat to a lot. It shows that working-class homeworkers, regardless of family type, report significantly less job-family interference than those working outside the home. Insofar as working-class women are concerned, these results appear to support resource theory as against the overload hypothesis. Indeed, the very homeworkers whom the latter most expects to find homework oppressive appear to perceive fewer tensions between their dual roles. Working-class jobs outside the home offer less autonomy and flexibility than on-site professional and managerial work. They often have fixed hours, prohibit personal phone calls or brief absences from the job, and are closely supervised. On a 5-point job "autonomy" scale measuring such items as control over work speed, co-workers, and break times (Quinn and Staines, 1979:194-195), men and women in working-class jobs score lower than those in professional and managerial occupations. But working-class homeworkers report much greater autonomy than on-site working-class men and women. Working-class women averaged a score of 3.3, compared to 3.9 among professional and managerial women, but working-class homeworking women averaged 4.3 out of a maximum score of 5. Thus, homework may offer domestic benefits exclusively to those in inflexible jobs. Voydanoff (1988) previously found that longer work hours, more young children, and such job characteristics as autonomy influence workfamily interference. This study confirms these effects. Yet over and above these factors, performing work and family duties in the same location ap-

Homework and Domestic Work

193

pears to reduce the conflict between these roles for those in the working class. While male homeworkers do not differ from on-site working men in their perception of role conflict, female homeworkers in professional and managerial jobs experience significantly more tension between their work and family roles than do comparable on-site workers. This suggests that the overload hypothesis does apply to homeworking women in demanding, time-consuming jobs. Furthermore, subjective assessments of job-family interference do not necessarily reflect behavior. Although female working-class homeworkers may perceive little conflict between work and home life, they may actually spend as much time in both paid and unpaid work as their on-site counterparts. Indeed, in analyses not presented here but available from the author on request, homeworkers, whatever their occupation and gender, had no more leisure time than those working outside the home, suggesting that these two groups make different adjustments between paid and unpaid work. Nor were male and female homeworkers more likely to be satisfied with their marriages or families, or to value family as the most important thing in life, than were on-site workers. And they found it no easier to take time off during the work day to take care of personal or family matters. These findings appear to contradict the "progressive,"resource perspective on homework. To adjudicate between these theories, it is necessary to go beyond attitudes and assess the effects of homework on actual domestic behavior.

Housework If working-class homeworkers do not have any more free time than on-site workers and yet feel less conflict between their work and family, this may be because they find it easier to fulfill domestic responsibilities. By eliminating the journey to work, working at home may free up time, as resource theory suggests. Yet these hours may be filled with "second shift" duties and result in overload. Do homeworkers spend more time on household chores than their on-site counterparts? To test this possibility, I analyzed the following QES question: "on the average, on days when you're working, about how much time do you spend on home chores-things like cooking, cleaning, repairs, shopping, yardwork, and keeping track of money and bills?" An analysis of variance in housework hours, by gender, class, and place of work, indicates that women perform an average of 2.8 hours of household chores on workdays,

194

Silver

Table IV. Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Workday Daily Hours of Housework (x 10)a A. By household type Total Homeworker Working class * Homeworker Sex (1 = male) Working class Farmer Self-employed Hours worked Hours commuting Years worked since 16 (age) Years of school completed Has second job Gender roles attitude Working mother attitude Annual earnings Spouse's annual earnings Married No. children under 6 years No. children 6 to 12 years Spouse works Intercept R2 (adjusted) 1.258 18.826c -13.232C 2.500C 3.889 -3.069C -.015C -.217c -.020 -.053 -1.007 .486 -.107 -.00003 .O001 .670 1.469c 1.096c 3.448c 29.150 .28 Parents -1.071 19.016c -22.047C .746 5.918 -3.848b -.023C -.041 -.092 .123 -1.057 .454 -.508 .00004 .00007 3.670 1.035 .640 1.859 38.414 .43 Married 1.841 17.470c -18.964c 2.034b 3.621 -2.662b -.020C -.084 -.015 .114 -1.638 .372 -.392 -.00000 .00005 1.846c 1.025b 2.348c 35.232 .40 Married Parents -.079 16.828c -23.212c 1.044 5.441 -3.658b -.024C -.014 -.076 .134 -1.506 .384 -.586 .00006 .00006 1.495b .555 1.779 42.834 .46

B. Controlling for homework. gender interaction (same controls as above) Male Working class Homeworker Working class * Homeworker Male * Homeworker -13.185c 2.499c 3.240 14.929c -2.683 -21.928c .797 2.931 15.185b -6.027 -18.887c 2.039b 4.830 14.602b -3.876 -22.968C 1.128 7.396 9.620 -10.286

homeworkers spend aHoursmetricis two digit. For example,25 = 2.5 hours.Working-class as on more hourson housework nonworkdays well. significantly
bp < .10. Cp < .05.

significantly more than the 1.2 hours devoted by men. However, the gender gap is even greater among homeworkers: female homeworkers average 3.5 hours, while homeworking men put in only 0.8 hours a day. Distinguishing women homeworkers by social class further pinpoints the source of this difference. Professional and managerial women homeworkers do average slightly more housework (2.6 hours) than their on-site counterparts (2.5 hours). But in contrast with the 2.9 hours of household chores performed on workdays by on-site working-class women, women working at home in

Homework and DomesticWork

195

working-class jobs perform an average of 4.4 hours a day. Such a large difference is difficult to attribute to chance.9 Second, workday hours of housework were regressed on commuting time (assigning homeworkers a value of zero), significant predictors of homework, and factors known to affect domestic work. The results in Table IV confirm prior findings. Other things being equal, women spend 1-2 more hours in housework on workdays than do men, and their domestic work time rises with parenthood. Housework rises significantly with the number of young children and a working spouse. Those in working-class occupations spend more time on chores, while the self-employed spend less. The longer one's paid work hours, wherever one works, the fewer one's hours of housework. Other things being equal, professional and managerial homeworkers do no more household chores than comparable on-site workers. However, working-class homeworkers, most of whom are women, spend about twice as much time a day on housework, even on workdays, than on-site workers. Evaluating the equation to control for confounding factors, we see that the mean professional or managerial on-site worker spends 1.6 hours on housework on workdays. The comparable homeworker spends 1.7 hours. Working-class on-site workers average 1.8 hours, but working-class homeworkers devote, on average, a whopping 3.7 hours to household chores on workdays. These effects hold among the entire labor force, working parents, and married workers. Moreover, working-class female homeworkers do not do more housework because they save time that others spend commuting. Time spent in the journey to work does indeed cut into domestic chores, but the negative effect is statistically insignificant. To what extent do male homeworkers increase their domestic contributions? An interaction term for being a male homeworker has a negative but nonsignificant impact and reduces the working-class homeworker effect by mere minutes.10As the analysis of variance also demonstrated, working at home does not "liberate" men to do more housework.

Child Care One might expect homework to have a similar effect on time spent in child care. The QES asked working parents "on the average, on days
9Outliers are not responsible for this or the child care effects. For example, only 1 homeworker, but 23 on-site workers, report 8 hours or more of daily housework. 1?See Table III(B). In the housework and child care analyses, an interaction term between gender and homework was entered into the equations for each family type, instead of analyzing men and women separately by household structure, in order to conserve space.

196

Silver

when you're working, about how much time do you spend taking care of or doing things with your child(ren)?" Again, the analysis of variance results are striking. In general, women spend twice as much time on workdays with their children as men (3.5 vs. 1.8 hours). But female homeworkers spend 4.5 hours a day with their children, compared to only 2.0 hours among male homeworkers. Thus, the latter do spend slightly more time on child care than male on-site workers, but much less than their female coun-

Table V. Unstandardized Daily Hours of RegressionCoefficients Predicting Workday ChildCare (x 10)a A. By familytype All parents Homeworker Workingclass * Homeworker Workingclass Farmer Self-employed Hoursworked Hours commuting Yearsworkedsince 16 (age) Years of school completed Has secondjob Genderroles attitudes Workingmotherattitude Annualearnings Spouse'sannualearnings Married No. childrenunder6 years No. children6 to 12 years Spouseworks Intercept R2 (adjusted)
Sex (1 = male)

-1.604 19.160c
-8.336c

Marriedparents -2.097 20.117c

-9.260c

.448 9.709b 4.386b -.039c -.044 -.315c .075 -2.507 .954 .991 -.0001 -.00004 -4.098 2.384c .034 2.884 46.114 .269

-.219 8.961 3.706 -.035c -.050 -.291c -.187 -1.293 1.232b .865 -.00006 -.00004 2.737c .183 3.298 42.559 .250

B. Controlling homework. genderinteraction for (same controlsas above) All parents

Male -9.852-

Marriedparents
-9.U93c

Workingclass Homeworker Workingclass * Homeworker Male * Homeworker

.512 5.238 12.898 -9.852

-.162 3.007 15.195 -7.024

aSee Table II. Spouse'schild care hoursonly askedof married parentswith workingspouse. on There is no significant effect of homework childcare hourson nonworking days. bp < .10.
Cp < .05.

Homework and Domestic Work

197

terparts. Professional and managerialwomen homeworkers devote the same amount of time (3.3 hours) to child care as their on-site counterparts. The source of the high average among female homeworkers is the working-class women, who report 5.4 hours of child care on workdays, 2 hours more than on-site working class women. The difference persists after control variables are added (Table V). As in the case of housework, professional and managerial homeworkers do not differ from those working in these occupations on site; if anything, they do less child care. But other things being equal, working-class homeworkers, most of whom are women, devote about 2 additional hours per workday to child care than do comparable on-site workers. This effect falls below statistical significance when controlling for male homeworkers. Not only do fathers in general spend less time with their children, but, other things being equal, so do fathers working at home. Although this coefficient is not significant, its negative sign is consistent with the housework findings: spatial proximity does not increase men's domestic contributions. As expected, the time parents spend on child care increases with the number of preschool children, but not with the number of children older than 5. It also declines with the worker's age (years worked). While selfemployment reduces housework hours, it increases child care hours, suggesting that children may accompany parents to work in small family businesses. As is true of housework, the longer one's work hours, the less time spent in child care. This relationship is particularlytrue among fathers, as indicated by a significant interaction effect between gender and work hours (not shown). But this variable had no impact on the working-class homeworker effect on child care hours, as most of these homeworkers are women. The time-use results support overload theory more than resource theHomeworkers, especially women in working-class occupations, spend ory. more time on domestic chores and child care than comparable on-site workers, holding their work hours and commuting time constant. How can this be, given that they report as much free time as those working outside the home?

Family Assistance with the Job One possibility is that they receive help. For example, assistance with child care may be forthcoming from someone other than one's spouse. Yet a logistic regression on the use of nonparental child care arrangements revealed no homework effect. Questions about nonparental child care ar-

198

Silver

Table VI. Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Family Assistance with Job (1: Never; 5: More than once a week) A. By sex Total Homeworker Working class * Homeworker Working class Farmer Self-employed Sex (1 = male) Years worked since 16 (age) Years of school completed Hours worked Has second job Gender roles Working mother attitude Annual earnings Spouse's annual earnings Married No. children under 6 years No. children 6 to 12 years Spouse works Intercept R2 (adjuested) 1.169" -.048 -.115 .355 1.469" .082 -.005 .058' .002a -.112 -.040 -.017 -.000009b -.000001 .071 -.104" -.054 .084 .418 .33 Women 1.119b .087 -.270 1.432b .003 .077b .002" -.025 -.015 -.079 -.000006 .000001 -.212 -.074 .049 .270 .273 .34 Men 1.153b -.051 .377 1.491b -.008a .054b .002b -.140 -.052 .004 -.000009b -.000009 .757 -.130a -.092a .064 -.017 .32

B. By family type (same controls as above) Married Parents Homeworker Working class * Homeworker p < .10.
bp < .05. 1.000b

Married parents .989b -.036

-.026

1.167b -.033

rangements were asked of dual-earner households only. The probability of using child care increased with the number of preschool age children, and declined with the workers's own income and traditional gender role attitudes. Contrary to some studies (Christensen, 1988), homeworkers are no more likely to use paid or family day care than comparable on-site workers. However, if no help with housework or child care is forthcoming, there is another alternative: Assistance with one's paid work. Above, it was reported that self-employed workers reduce their housework hours and increase their time in child care. A similar mechanism may be operating among homeworkers. In effect, homeworkers whose families assist them with their job may consider themselves to be accomplishing two things at once. This hypothesis is consistent with one aspect of the overload hypothesis: rather than cutting into leisure or sleep, homeworkers' longer "dual day" may reflect a "speedup" on the "second shift" (Hochschild, 1989:8-9)-t hat is,

Homework and Domestic Work

199

unit" of they do both paid and unpaidwork duringthe same "accounting time. Indeed, there is evidencethat on average,women reportdoing three domestic tasks at a time (Berheide, 1984; Thompson and Walker, 1989:855). To illustrate,consider the effect of homeworkon family assistance with thingsthat are partof one'sjob, a variableavailable workersliving for with a familymemberover age 12. TableVI demonstrates that,other things all homeworkers,whatever their social class or household being equal, structure,receive family assistancewith their jobs much more frequently than on-site workers.While havingyoungchildrenreducesfamilyaid, having more teenage childrentends to increaseit, althoughnot significantly. Gender exhibits a meaningful,though statistically nonsignificant pattern: marriedwomen receiveless familyhelp with theirjobs, while marriedmen receive more. In sum, homeworkis a familyaffair.Homeworkers may accomplish more domesticworkper hourof paidworkwithoutdiminishing theirleisure time because their families,especiallyolder children,help with their paid jobs. CONCLUSION In the 1930s,social reformers "commercializes arguedthat homework the home," turning bedrooms into workspacesand young children into workers.The consequence the "demoralization the home as the famwas of shelter from the stress and strain of the outside world" (Belville, ily 1935:33). Only by abolishinghomeworkwould the separation of social spheresbe complete.Opponentsof homework regulationalso appealedto but argued,in contrast,that some women had to work to family values, supporttheir childrenas well as care for them at home (Boris, 1985). Tois day, as before, homework at the centerof a debate over the relationship between socialspheresandwomen'sproperrole in them.Whatis the effect of men and women workingat home on familylife? And does the spatial integrationof paid and unpaidwork confirmthe expectationsof resource theory or the overloadhypothesis? The attitudinalfindingsare mixed.Homeworkers, especiallywomen, hold more traditional genderrole and parentingattitudes,and the perception of conflictbetweenjob and familyis significantly lower amongworkthan it is amongcomparable womenwho go out to ing-classhomeworkers work. These findingssupportresourcetheory and the "progressive" perIn and homeworkspectiveon homework. contrast, professional managerial with ing women experiencemore tensionbetweenthese roles,in conformity

200

Silver

the overload thesis. Moreover, homework has little effect on subjective assessments of one's personal life. Homeworkers are no more satisfied with their marriages or family lives than are on-site workers. As for time use, the findings are more consistent with overload theory. Other things being equal, working-class women homeworkers spend more time on housework and child care than do their on-site counterparts. While resource theory suggests that homeworkers-both male and female-should accomplish more domestic work because they avoid a journey to work, commuting time did not account for homework's effect on the length of the dual day. The role overload hypothesis suggests an alternative reason for working-class women homeworkers' greater domestic contribution. Although homeworkers sacrifice no more free time than do equally hard-working onsite workers, they appear to do more than one thing at a time. In support of this explanation, it was found that homeworkers-whatever their occupations, gender, or family type-receive more assistance with their jobs from other members of their households. Without reducing their hours in paid work or leisure, they marginally increase their time in domestic labor by working with their families. Help from family members may also explain why working-class homeworkers perceive less conflict between their job and family roles. Some may find these results consistent with Toffler's (1980) vision of the homeworkers "electronic cottage" and the family's integration of separate spheres. Family assistance may express solidarity and responsibility on the part of older children, as well as enhance homeworkers' productivity and the household's earnings. But from the overload perspective, help from family members may augment employers' profits or a self-employed husband's control over family labor, making it possible to have two or more workers for the price of one (Finch, 1983; Lozano, 1989; Biggart, 1989). If this is so, homeworkers' families are exploited on the job even if the dual days of homeworkers themselves are no more significantly overloaded. Homeworkers' speedup occurs in their paid work as much as it does in their domestic duties. Furthermore, family assistance with homework may have troubling policy implications. When the Department of Labor recently lifted its ban on industrial homework (Iverson, 1988; duRivage and Jacobs, 1989; Herod, 1991), it may have insufficiently considered that child labor violations may result from homeworkers' attempts to balance paid and unpaid roles (see Kilbor, 1990, 1989). Homework is not only a women's issue. Although a majority of homeworkers are male, working at home has little effect on men's gender role

Homework and Domestic Work

201

or to attitudes,perceptionsof work-familyinterference, contributions domestic work. The resourcetheoryimpliesthat men workingat home, like those in preindustrial times, no longer face the physicalbarrierto particiand and pation in housework parenting, shouldhave more free time, saved from commuting, do householdchores.Yet the resultssupportthe overto load hypothesisthat-based on the assumption persistently of unequalgender relations-expects no increasein male homeworkers' in participation domestic labor. Men workingat home, whatevertheir occupations,spend no more time in houseworkor child care than men workingelsewhere. Yet male homeworkers more familyassistance with enjoysignificantly their job than do men workingon-site. In their case, there is little doubt that gender inequalityin the labormarketand in the familyreinforceeach other.When men workat home, so, mostlikely,do theirwivesand children without paid compensation. Not all homeworkers marriedor have children.Time spent in are domesticlaboris itself a functionof householdsize and structure. whatYet ever one's familytype,gendercontinuesto determine who performs unpaid domesticwork. this Furthermore, gender inequalitypersistsregardlessof workplace. This studysuggeststhat the separation spheresis not a spatialor logistic of matter, as the resource approachimplies.Whereverjobs are performed, they connect individualsto social institutionsthat take little account of workers'familyand privatelives, to the particular of disadvantage women. womenhomeworkers less tensionbetween Althoughworking-class perceive their dual roles, they do so in partbecausetheir familiesjoin in theirjobs. Whether other familymembersperceivetension between their home life and this indirectconnectionwith homeworkers' employmentis a question for future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is gratefulfor the very helpful commentsof FrancesK. Goldscheiderand Greg Elliott.
REFERENCES
Allen, Sheila and Carol Wolkowitz 1987 Homeworking: Myths and Realities. London: McMillan. Beach, Betty 1989 Integrating Work and Family: The Home-Working Family. Albany: SUNY Press.

202 Becker, Gary 1976 The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Belville, Catherine 1935 The Commercialization of the Home through Industrial Home Work. Bulletin no. 135, Women's Bureau, U.S. of Labor. Department Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Beneria, Lourdes and Martha Roldan 1987 The Crossroads of Class and Gender: Industrial Homework, Subcontracting, and Household Dynamics in Mexico City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Benson, Sue Porter 1989 "Women, work and the family economy: Industrial homework in Rhode Island in 1934." In Eileen Boris and Cynthia Daniels (eds.), and Homework: Historical Contemporary Perspectives on Paid Labor at Home: 53-74. Urbana: Illinois University Press. Berk, Richard A 1980 "The new home economics: An agenda for sociological research." In Sarah F. Berk (ed.), Women and Household Labor: 113-148. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berheide, Catherine 1984 "Women's work in the home: Seems like old times." In Beth B. Hess and Harvin B. Sussman (eds.), Women and the Family: Two Decades of Change: 37-55. New York: Haworth Press. Biggart, Nicole Woolsey 1989 Charismatic Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blalock, Hubert 1972 Social Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Blumstein, Philip and Pepper Schwartz 1991 "Money and ideology: Their impact on power and the division of household labor." In Rae Lesser Blumberg (ed.), Gender, Family, and Economy: The Triple Overlap: 261-288. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Boris, Eileen 1985 "Regulating industrial homework: The triumph of 'sacred motherhood."'

Silver Journal of American History 71:745-763. Boris, Eileen and Cynthia Daniels, eds. Historical and 1989 Homework: Contemporary Perspectives on Paid Labor at Home. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Christensen, Kathleen 1988 Women and Home-Based Work: The Unspoken Contract. New York: Henry Holt. Costello, Cynthia 1988 "Clerical home-based work: A case study of work and family." In Kathleen E. Christensen (ed.), The New Era of Home-Based Work: Directions and Policies: 135-145. Boulder, CO: Westview. Coverman, Shelley and Joseph Shelley 1986 "Change in men's housework and child-care time, 1965-1975," Journal of Marriage and the Family 48:413-422. duRivage, Virginia and David Jacobs 1989 "Home-based work: Labor's choices." In Eileen Boris and Cynthia Daniels (eds.), Homework: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Paid Labor at Home: 258-271. Urbana: Illinois University Press. Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia and Anna M. Garcia 1989 "Hispanic women and homework: Women in the informal economy of Miami and Los Angeles." In Eileen Boris and Cynthia Daniels (eds.), and Historical Homework: Contemporary Perspectives on Paid Labor at Home: 165-182. Urbana: Illinois University Press. Finch, Janet 1983 Married to the Job. Boston: Unwin Hymer. Gordon, Gil 1988 "Corporate hiring practices for telecommuting homeworkers." In Kathleen E. Christensen (ed.), The New Era of Home-Based Work: Directions and Policies: 65-78. Boulder, CO: Westview. Hartmann, Heidi 1981 "The family as the locus of gender, class and political struggle: The Signs example of housework." 6:366-394.

Homework and Domestic Work Heck, Ramona 1989 "A profile of home-based workers." Human Ecology Forum 16:15-18. Herod, Andrew 1991 "Homework and the fragmentation of space: Challenges for the labor movement." Geoforum 22: 173-183. Hochschild, Arlie Shift. 1989 The Second Berkeley: University of California Press. Horvath, Francis W. 1986 "Work at home: New findings from the current population survey." Monthly Labor Review November: 31-35. Iverson, Kristine 1988 "The government's role in regulating home employment." In Kathleen E. Christensen (ed.), The New Era of Home-Based Work: Directions and Policies: 149-156. Boulder, CO: Westview. Johnson, Laura and Robert Johnson 1982 The Seam Allowance: Industrial Home Sewing in Canada. Toronto: Women's Educational Press. Kilborn, Peter 1989 "Playing games with child labor laws: When work fills a child's hours." New York Times December 10: 1, 46. 1990 "Child labor law violators sought in nationwide raids." New York Times March 15: A14. Kingston, Jane 1983 "Telecommuting: Its impact on the home." In Howard Blasbury (ed.), The World of Work: 287-300. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society. Kraut, Robert E. 1988 "Homework: What is it and who does it?" In Kathleen E. Christensen (ed.), The New Era of Home-Based Work: Directions and Policies: 30-48. Boulder, CO: Westview. 1989 "Telecommuting: The trade-offs of home of work." Journal Communication 39: 19-47. Kraut, Robert E. and Patricia Grambsch 1987 "Home-Based white collar employment: Lessons from the 1980 Census." Social Forces 66: 410-426. Leidner, Robin 1987 "Home work: A study in the interaction of work and family organization." In Ida Harper Simpson and Richard L. Simpson (eds.),

203 Research in the Sociology of Work, Vol. 4: High Tech Work: 69-94. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lozano, Beverly Force: Work Invisible 1989 The Transforming Business with Outside and Home-Based Workers. New York: Free Press. Meissner, M. E., S. Humphries, S. Meis, and W. Scheu 1975 "No exit for wives: Sexual division of of labor and the cumulation household demands." Review of Canadian Sociology and Anthropology 12: 424-439. Morales, Rebecca 1983 "Cold solder on a hot stove." In Jan Zimmerman (ed.), The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow. New York: Praeger. National Research Council 1985 Office Work Stations in the Home. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nelson, Margaret K. 1988 "Providing family day care: An analysis of home-based work." Social Problems 35: 78-94. Nilles, Jack 1977 The Telecommunication/Transportation Tradeoff.New York:John Wiley & Sons. Olson, Margrethe H. culture and the 1988 "Corporate homeworker." In Kathleen E. Christensen (ed.), The New Era of Home-Based Work: Directions and Policies: 126-134. Boulder, CO: Westview. 1989 "Organizational barriers to professional telework." In Eileen Boris and Cynthia Daniels (eds.), Homework: Historical and Contemporary Perspective on Paid Labor at Home: 215-230. Urbana: Illinois University Press. Parsons, Talcott and R F. Bales 1955 Family, Socialization and Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pennington, Shelley and Belinda Westover 1989 A Hidden Workforce: Homeworkers in England, 1850-1985. London: Macmillan. Pleck, Joseph 1985 Working Wives/Working Husbands. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

204

Silver
Sokoloff, Natalie J.

Ross, Catherine E. Silver, Hilary

and Saskia Sassen-Koob Portes,Alejandro 1987 "Making underground: it Comparative material on the informal sector in westernmarket economies." American Journalof Sociology93: 30-61. Pratt, Joanne H. 1984 "Home teleworking:A study of its pioneers."TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change25: 1-14. Quinn, RobertP. and GrahamL. Staines 1979 The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Ramsower, ReaganMays 1985 Telecommuting:The Organizational and Behavioral at Effectsof Working Home. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganResearchPress. 1987 "The division of labor at home." Social Forces 65: 816-833.

Spitze, Glenna

1980 Between Money and Love: The Dialectics of Women's Home and MarketWork.New York:Praeger.

Thompson, Linda and Alexis Walker

1988 "Women's employment and family relations: A review." Journal of and Marriage the Family50: 595-618. in Womenand men 1989 "Gender families: in marriage, work, and parenthood." Journalof Marriageand the Family 51: 845-871. 1980 The ThirdWave.New York:Bantam.

Toffler, Alvin

Tolbert, Charles, Patrick Horan, and E. M. Beck

Voydanoff, Patricia

1980 "The structure of economic AmericanJournalof segmentation." Sociology85: 1095-1116. 1988 "Work role characteristics, family structuredemands, and work/family and conflict." Journalof Marriage the Family50: 749-761.

1989 "The demand for homework: Evidence from the U.S. Census."In Eileen Boris and Cynthia Daniels Winship, Christopher and Robert D. Mare (eds.), Homework: Historical and 1984 "Regression models with ordinal variables." American Sociological ContemporaryPerspectiveson Paid Review 49: 512-525. Labor at Home: 103-129. Urbana: IllinoisUniversity Press. Wonnacott, Ronald J. and Thomas H.
Wonnacott

New York:John Wiley 1970 Econometrics. & Sons.