Sociologists have long debated how domestic labour in the home is divided between men and women, and whether this has become more equal over time. Much of the debate centres on whether there has been a “march of progress” towards equality, or whether patriarchal structures continue to ensure that women take on the bulk of unpaid domestic work.
One of the earliest perspectives on this issue comes from functionalist sociology. Talcott Parsons (1955) argued that men and women perform different but complementary roles within the family. He suggested that men take on the instrumental role, being responsible for financial provision, while women perform the expressive role, providing care, emotional support and nurturing. Parsons claimed this division was natural, rooted in biological differences between men and women, and beneficial for the smooth functioning of the family. However, feminists have heavily criticised Parsons for reinforcing patriarchy by presenting women’s domestic role as natural rather than socially constructed, and for ignoring the ways in which women are disadvantaged by this division.
An alternative and more optimistic view came from Young and Wilmott (1973), who argued that family life had become increasingly symmetrical. Their research suggested that men were becoming more involved in housework and childcare, while couples were spending more leisure time together. They described this as evidence of a “march of progress” towards more equal roles within the family, particularly among younger, geographically mobile and middle-class families. This view presented the family as slowly evolving towards greater gender equality, although not all sociologists agreed.
Ann Oakley (1974) offered a strong feminist critique of Young and Wilmott’s claims. In her study of housework, she found that only 15% of husbands had a high level of participation in housework and only 25% in childcare. Oakley argued that men tended to “help” their wives rather than share household responsibilities equally, and that women continued to shoulder the main burden of domestic labour. Her research introduced the idea of the dual burden, where women are expected to manage both paid employment and unpaid domestic work. Oakley’s findings cast serious doubt on the march of progress thesis, highlighting that male involvement was far more limited than Young and Wilmott had suggested.
The theme of women carrying multiple roles was later developed by Arlie Hochschild (1990), who coined the concept of the “second shift”. She argued that women often returned home from paid employment only to face a second round of unpaid housework and childcare. Hochschild also identified what she called the “third shift” of emotional labour, where women are responsible for managing the feelings, relationships and well-being of family members. This illustrates how inequalities in domestic labour extend beyond physical tasks, encompassing less visible but equally demanding emotional responsibilities.
Some evidence does suggest gradual change. Jonathan Gershuny (1994) found that men were doing more housework when their wives were employed full-time, pointing to a trend towards greater equality. Gershuny’s research suggested that change was occurring over generations, with younger men more likely to share domestic responsibilities than older generations. He saw this as evidence of a slow but steady shift towards more egalitarian family life.
Further evidence of changing patterns was provided by Man Yee Kan (2001, 2008), who studied how factors such as education, income and class affect the division of domestic work. She found that while women continued to do more housework overall, the gap was narrowing. Younger couples and middle-class families were more likely to share responsibilities, and men tended to do more when their partners were well-educated and in well-paid jobs. Kan’s research therefore points to how wider social and economic factors influence the balance of domestic work.
The sociologist Anthony Giddens (1992) offered a broader theoretical explanation for these shifts. He argued that in late modern societies, relationships are increasingly based on what he called “pure relationships”, which are chosen freely and sustained by intimacy, negotiation and equality rather than by tradition or necessity. Giddens claimed that this creates the potential for more egalitarian domestic roles, particularly among couples who reject traditional norms. His argument is supported by research into same-sex couples. Gillian Dunne (1999) found that lesbian couples often had more equal divisions of labour, with household tasks shared more evenly. Dunne argued this was because they were free from heterosexual gender scripts that tend to push men and women into unequal roles. Her research highlights how traditional expectations, rather than biology, underpin much of the inequality in heterosexual households.
Despite evidence of change, a number of studies suggest that inequalities remain entrenched. For example, Ferri and Smith (1996) found that fewer than 4% of fathers took primary responsibility for childcare, while Dex and Ward (2007) showed that fathers who did engage with their children often confined themselves to “fun” activities rather than routine care such as feeding or cleaning. Similarly, Craig (2007) argued that women still performed the majority of unpaid work and that men only tended to become more involved after separation or divorce, when they had no partner to rely on.
Other sociologists have considered whether technological changes have reduced women’s domestic burden. Silver and Schor (1993) argued that the commercialisation of housework, through products such as microwaves, washing machines and ready-made meals, had helped to make domestic labour less time-consuming. This, they suggested, allowed for greater equality in the home. However, they also pointed out that such benefits are mainly available to middle-class families, while working-class women may not be able to afford labour-saving technology, meaning inequalities persist across social classes as well as between genders.
In conclusion, sociological research into the gendered division of labour paints a complex picture. Functionalist approaches such as Parsons’ have been criticised for naturalising traditional gender roles, while Young and Wilmott’s “march of progress” view has been challenged by Oakley and other feminists who highlight the persistence of inequality. Evidence from Gershuny, Kan and Giddens does suggest that domestic roles have become more equal, particularly among younger and middle-class couples, and among same-sex couples who are not bound by traditional gender expectations. However, the weight of evidence from Oakley, Hochschild, Ferri and Smith, and Craig demonstrates that women still tend to carry a dual or even triple burden, with routine domestic and emotional labour remaining highly gendered. The gendered division of labour, therefore, appears to be slowly shifting, but remains shaped by enduring patriarchal structures and inequalities.
A Powerpoint Presentation and other resources on this topic are available in links below:
The Sociology Guy 