Division of Household Labor

Introduction to the Division of Household Labor Analysis

In same-sex couples, there are no biological differences that can guide to the sharing of household chores and questions arise regarding the significant importance of bargaining power, social institutional constraints, biological differences, and gender roles factors. Do couples of the same sex demonstrate sharing of household chores, and if so, who does what? This paper discusses the sharing of household labor in couples of the same sex. It discusses how the partners assign tasks, distribute their labor time among home and market (Bergmann, 1981). It also explains how the couple interacts with having a child.

  • Methodology. This study was undertaken through a review of secondary sources of information. The review of literature involved perusing through the records to gather information and facts about the division of households labor in same-sex relationships. The review process was a systematic procedure for identifying, analyzing, and deriving useful information from the existing literature.
  • Findings. Studies have demonstrated that same-sex couples tend to spread their household labor more equally than their heterosexual counterparts. Bell (1978) noted that work was an integral part of gay couples self-esteem. Gay men do not feel the responsibility to contribute financially to their partner. Gay couples favor their specified work rather than for either intended to realize the function of full-time homemaker.

Bell (1978) argues that sharing of labor in same-sex couple households results from lack of gender relations. He claims that there is no premise about the importance of one partner’s vocation in a same-sex partnership and if a difference emerges, it should be negotiated amongst them. They do not consider either job as of secondary importance. Same-sex couples benefit in this instance by being directed by neither gender nor institution.

Household chores include many and widely different repairs, cleaning, shopping, finances, child care, and cooking. Conflicts in preferences for executing the chores can lead to disputes ultimately, and the ability of a sharing of the task within the household that may or may not be adequate. Lesbian couples use preferences and relative advantages to lead their sharing of household chores. Both partners in lesbian couple work in the market for financial gain, and individually in household chores (Dunne, 1998a).


Using annotation of comparative advantage, Bergmann (1981) explicates the sexual sharing of task between women and men. The theory takes that since women biologically give birth to children, they will prefer to specialize in household tasks while men, with greater earning power, will specialize in the paid chores market. Specialty leads to the growth of relative advantages with women developing goods and services at home and men in the market. Hence, preferences and relative advantages results in a sexual sharing of chores between women and men. When trying to explain the sharing of chores in same-sex couples households, Becker directs to both the underlying biological differences amongst opposite sex and same-sex couples and some of the institutional restraints faced by same-sex couples (Bergmann, 1981). The simulation of a relative advantage is not applicable because same-sex couples have the same abilities and, therefore, cannot feat the balanced relative advantages existing amongst women and men (Blau & Kahn, 1994). Becker takes that because couples of the same sex cannot give birth to children, they will put less in marriage capital, and the union will be less stable.

Same sex couples would demonstrate a different way of sharing household chores than their counterpart opposite-sex couples, and this result from both the institutional and inherent differences of the economic, household theories. The same-sex couple has no genetic specialization that would result in relative merits at home (Dunne, 1998a). Neither partner in same-sex couples can automatically take the role of handling for the child since the couple cannot give birth their own child. Couples of the same sex are likely than the opposite sex couples, to make incomes ensuing in no bargaining merit for either mate, and with no differences in gender characters, they are unconvincing to trust on institutions to lead to the same-sex couple conclusions and, therefore, less probably to formulate a traditional sharing of a task at home (Blau & Kahn, 1994).

Order Now

In the price of institutional restraints, Becker directs to both the deficiency of lawful marriage agreements and favoritism faced by same-sex couples as further proves that they would have a less extensive sharing of chores than same-sex couples. Becker questions the property of lesbian and gay kinships because there is no legal binding agreement between the two involved. Same-sex unions can dissolve without legal antagonist or child support payments (Becker, 1981). The state of disgrace resulting from public abuse attached to homosexuality has increased the cost of the search to homophiles and, thereby, has lowered the information usable to them. These elements lead Becker to resolve that same-sex couples show a less extensive sharing of chores than same-sex marriages.

The bearing of children amongst the same-sex couple’s household may change the sharing of tasks and encourage specialty in different actions. Clunis & Green (1988) noted that increase in childbearing among same-sex couples maintain the equal sharing of tasks. The non-biologic mother leans to work more time in the task force and execute less child-care than the biologic mother. The impression within couples of the same sex that the two mates can work in the market alters if they have financial gain enough to cause the two remuneration earners unneeded (Dunne, 1998b). These conflicts could guide to power imbalances and, finally, an unequal sharing of tasks. It is also imaginable that changed magnitude risks, related to the deficiency of formal effectual contracts in same-sex relationships could magnify power divergences in clips of crisis.

One may question why it would be beneficial for same-sex couples to go toward the traditional sharing of chores. It would be valuable for same-sex partners to have the alternative, and to enable these alternative, heavier protections for the home specializing mate would be necessary. The availability of such an alternative would not be applicable for an entire lifetime but, would be beneficial to couples at various life levels, such as after adoption (Curry & Clifford, 1992). Institutional constraints seem to be a propelling factor in influencing the allocation of tasks and, therefore, their extension would afford the same-sex couples the range of alternatives available to the opposite sex couples.


Division of Household Labor in Same-Sex Couples with Dual Careers

Dual-career same-sex couples household (Cuvillier, 1971) refers to the household where both mates of the household follow careers, and their work entails a high degree of dedication and exceptional coaching with a continuous development trait involving rising degrees of duty. Dual career class attempts to incorporate the demand for two regular careers with household responsibilities. Dual career same-sex couples are presented with a challenge that may result in conflict and stress in the household.

Dual career same-sex couples with large differences in income are less likely to have bargaining power than same-sex couples. It endures to the reason that neither partner in same-sex couples would earn any bargaining power resulting in a sizeable classless sharing of tasks. With more experience, higher income, and education, historically, men had more bargaining power and unequal sharing of labor in homes than women who perform most of the housework. Blau et al. (1998) developed the bargaining model of household where couples discuss with one another so that they can reach an agreement in division of household chores.

Blau et al. (1998) structures of restraint bring several views of economic models of the household in order to extend realizing of the sexual sharing of chores. Nancy defines structures of restraint as sets of preferences, rules, and norms that authorize a given social group (Blumstein et al, 1983). Women perform the majority of the domestic duties in families may be as a result, to some compounding of these restraints. Social roles and traditions may strike women’s choices and preferences about careers and education, finally, shaping their chances. Lack of gender differentiation within same-sex couples would result in less of a conflict amongst the partners’ preferences, gender socialization, and finally the legal foundations each partner faces. This would result in a more classless sharing of chores in same-sex couples households, as opposed to the pattern demonstrated within opposite-sex couples households.

Jobs and Careers

Job and career involve waking up in the morning and going to work but there is a big deviation in the mentality of an individual holding a job and the mentality of an individual with a career. The deviation comes from how an individual looks at work and how much he/she likes doing the work. Job is something an individual does simply to earn money while a career refers to a series of connected employment chances. Job has a little impact on an individual’s future work life, while a career provides experience and learning to fuel individuals’ future. Also, a job offers few networking chances, but a career is loaded with them. When an individual works, he/she should do the minimum without irritating the person in charge of the job while individual is in a career, he/she goes the extra mile, doing tasks beyond individual minimum job description.


Same sex households appear to allocate their task in a way that is more classless than their opposite-sex counterparts. It is much rarer for same-sex couples to demonstrate a way in which one household member does for paid labor in the market while, the other performs unpaid labor at home (Cuvillier, 1979). It is as a result, to the fact that couples of the same sex do not formulate relative advantages based on biologic divergences, or divergences in social averages that lead opposite-sex couples to follow the traditional sharing of tasks. Couples of the same sex do not bear their own children, and are, hence, improbable to back the mother at home handling for her child.

Empirical grounds suggest that it may be true that couples of the same sex do demonstrate more classless sharing, and this may be the effect, not of relative advantage consequences but the effect of institutional restraints. Lack of access to benefits of domestic partnership, or legal marriage might lead couples of the same sex finding to the dangers related with a traditional sharing of task too voluminous. The current alterations in the institutional environment fronted by same-sex couples could lower these restraints (Cuvillier, 1979). Couples of the same sex are likely than opposite-sex couples to make incomes ensuing in no bargaining merit for either mate, and with no differences in gender characters, same-sex couples are unconvincing to trust institutions to lead to their conclusions and, therefore, less probably to formulate a traditional sharing of tasks about the house.