The Marital Construction of Gender through Work and Family Decisions: A Qualitative
Analysis
Author(s): Anisa M. Zvonkovic, Kathleen M. Greaves, Cynthia J. Schmiege and Leslie D.
Hall
Source: Journal of Marriage and Family , Feb., 1996, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 91100
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/353379
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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANISA M. ZVONKOVIC, KATHLEEN M. GREAVES, CYNTHIA J. SCHMIEGE, AND LESLIE D. HALL
Oregon State University
The Marital Construction of Gender Through Work
and Family Decisions: A Qualitative Analysis
In examining factors relating to how married
couples make work and family decisions, we dis-
couples' construction of gender in their interpersonal lives and how that construction impacts the
process of decision making. Through qualitative
analysis, we illuminate how important the couples' own construction of gender and their marqualitatively analyzed longitudinal data gathered riages is in explaining the decisions they make
from 61 couples who made a work and family de- and the ways those decisions change or cement
cision. Husbands and wives provided information their ideas about gender and about marriage.
concerning their marriages in general and their Thus, this research is aimed at providing a more
work and family decision-making process in par- complete understanding of why couples make the
ticular. We took a feminist critical stance on what decisions they do regarding work and family.
couples considered as they faced the decision,
How is it that couples continue to make decisions
and how their considerations were related to asthat, from an economic standpoint, simultaneouspects of their relationship.
ly disadvantage women and overburden men?
The answer to this question points to how decisions that couples make about work and family
covered that gender and marriages are constructed and, in turn, reconstructed through the decisions couples make about work and family. We
The focus of this article is to illuminate how mar-
ried couples construct gender and their marriages
through their decisions concerning work and fam-
perpetuate patriarchy.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
ily. Building on decision-making research and
feminist critiques of marital roles, we scrutinize
work and family decisions. We show how interpersonal processes-those underlying and emer-
The Gender Perspective and
Construction of Marriage
gent patterns of interaction in intimate relation-
The gender perspective sees gender as produced
in everyday activities (Ferree, 1990; West & Zimmerman, 1987). Rather than describing gender as
an individual property based on biology, the genDepartment of Human Development and Family Sciences, der perspective focuses on how people in their in-
ships-are experienced in ways that reflect the
Milam Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
97331.
teractions with others come to perceive each other
and each other's behaviors as gender appropriate
or inappropriate. Stemming from symbolic interaction theory, the gender perspective views inter-
Key Words: gender perspective, marital decision making,
qualitative methods, work andfamily.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (February 1996): 91-100
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
91
92
Journal of Marriage and the Family
actants as striving to create meaning out of their
that result in both adults participating in the paid
behaviors and the behaviors of others. Through
this active process of deriving meaning from interaction, the behaviors of men and women are
seen as diametrically different (West & Zimmerman, 1987).
work force (see reviews by Menaghan & Parcel,
1990; Spitze, 1988; Thompson & Walker, 1989).
Few studies have asked both partners about work
and family decision making. Literature on work
and family decisions has focused on women and
Particularly important for the study of married
has considered issues such as women's decisions
couples making decisions, gender is socially conabout paid work and their family responsibilities
structed and embedded in social contexts and pro(see Thompson & Walker, 1989, for a review).
cesses through a system of boundaries that help to
The ways that couples go about making work and
define what is appropriate for each gender, and
family decisions for men's jobs have not been
through self-concepts, beliefs, and expectations
clearly understood. Analyzing work and family
for behavior (Potuchek, 1992; Risman &
decisions more broadly allows differences beSchwartz, 1989; Thompson, 1993). Seen in this
tween decisions about men's jobs and decisions
light, the ways that couples make work and famiabout women's jobs to stand out.
ly decisions and the outcomes of those decisions
Scanzoni and his colleagues (Scanzoni &
Polonko, 1980; Scanzoni & Szinovacz, 1980)
have implications for how gender and marriages
are constructed for individual couples and for have
the called attention to the context and the prolarger society. Rather than surmising that married
cess in which decisions are made. From our perwomen are forced into unrewarding jobs andspective,
are
the gendered context of decisions needs
constrained by their family obligations, the gento be explored because it may explain why the
of the decisions are different for husder perspective suggests a deeper look into outcomes
the
processes through which couples make the decibands and wives. A qualitative approach may enable researchers to address and understand decisions that result in women's economic marginalization and women's "second shift" in the housesions the way couples themselves conceptualize
hold (Hochschild, 1989).
them. Also, a qualitative longitudinal approach
What sorts of marital behaviors are gendered?can be useful for obtaining information about the
In terms of responsibility, we know that men typimarried couple's perceptions of their process over
cally have responsibility for breadwinning;broad spans of time, rather than just one particuwomen typically bear responsibility for home
lar discussion or decision-making episode. Using
care, including housework, dependent care, and
inductive, qualitative methods, we pursued the
attentive care and emotional labor (Hood, 1983;question of how couples make decisions concernThompson, 1993). From a gender perspective, ing work and family.
Potuchek (1992) suggests that these responsibilities are not passively stepped into by spouses;
METHOD
rather, role taking and role making are negotiated
and renegotiated throughout marital interaction as
Participants were 61 married couples who had
an "active and contentious" process of constructfaced important work and family decisions in the
ing gender boundaries (p. 557). Our research reprevious 6 months. They were recruited to particiveals how underlying ideas about being male or
pate in the study through articles published in
female and about gender in marriage influence
local newspapers throughout the state and articles
how work and family decisions are made and how
released by the university news service. The coucouples adjust to decisions.
ples called the research office, and staff determined whether they were eligible and ascertained
that both spouses would be considering the same
Work and Family Decisions
decision. Differing perspectives between spouses
on the reasons for the decision and on different
In the United States, with the volatility in employment of all workers (documented by Duncan
aspects of the decision were important to us, but it
in 1984) and with the number of married women
was necessary that they consider the same deciin the labor force continuing to increase (U.S. Busion in order for these differing perspectives to
reau of the Census, 1990), more couples than ever
have meaning.
before are making decisions about work and fam- For the first wave of data collection in the
ily. Quantitative research has shown that many
spring of 1990, husbands and wives separately
couples are making work and family decisionscompleted a mailed questionnaire with quantita-
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gender Construction and Work Decisions
93
As suggested by Rosenblatt and Fischer
tive and qualitative sections. Quantitative mea-
sures included marital satisfaction, decision satis- (1993), the early stages of our qualitative data
faction, work satisfaction, gender ideology, andanalysis involved "intense analysis," the "creation
stress. Qualitative sections asked respondents to of typologies, " and "some sort of formal coding
describe briefly the outcome of the decision, to and counting" (p. 172). We took each couple's incomment on previous decisions they may have formation through a systematic process of analymade (including previous work and family deci- sis, noting in particular what their decision was,
sions), and to describe how the current decision how they perceived the decision, and any statemay have been similar or different from previousments they made concerning male, female, and
decisions. The questions to which respondents parenting roles.
could write open-ended responses are in the ApRespondents varied in socioeconomic class, in
pendix.
educational level, and in family stage. Couples
During the follow-up data collection about a
had been married an average of 11 years. The median level of education for husbands was a colyear and a half later, husband and wife respondents from 44 couples (n = 88) participated in
lege degree, and for wives was some college. The
separate, open-ended telephone interviews conmedian yearly couple income was $42,000. There
cerning their previous work and family decision.
was quite a bit of variation in income, with more
Two couples refused to be re-interviewed, and
than 10% of the couples reporting couple income
one couple had divorced. The other 14 couples
of less than $20,000. Most couples (73%) had dehad moved without forwarding addresses. The de-
cisions they made, such as family moves, may
have made them hard to locate. These 20 to 30-
pendent children living in their homes, but some
were older couples whose children lived indepen-
dently. Another variable was what decision was
minute follow-up interviews were predominantly
being considered: the husband's work, the wife's
qualitative, and included questions concerningwork, or both.
new work and family decisions that had come up,
attitudes about work and family decisions such as
the one they had made, and more. The Appendix
contains the specific questions asked during these
RESULTS
Examining Gender and Marriages Through
interviews. During the interviews, we also were
Work and Family Decisions
updated on any changes in their work status, educational level, and family size. The qualitativeUndergirding marital partners' perceptions of the
analyses to follow capitalize on all of the data, inwork and family decision they faced were their
cluding all respondents to the Time 1 question-attitudes and beliefs about gender in marriage.
naire, using the written comments from the Time
While few respondents referred directly to these
1 questionnaires and-for the 44 couples who reconcepts, attitudes about gender in marriage
sponded at Time 2-the transcripts from the tele-leaked out to influence the process of decision
phone interviews. Respondents typically gavemaking in pervasive ways. The marital partners'
lengthy descriptions, providing more information
expectations of each other and of their relationthan the questions directly addressed. In general,
ship were a part of their gendered experience and,
thus, needed to be considered to understand their
facts related to the work-family decision (what
the decision was, what each partner wanted, what
decisions. The following sections detail the reathe outcome was) were gathered at Time 1. The
sons given for their decisions and information
Time 2 information reflected more of the process
about their marriage relationships, in general, that
of decision making that partners recalled retroimpacted the decision.
spectively and their current thoughts and feelings
regarding the process.
Types of Decisions and the Reasonsfor Them
One of the strengths of our longitudinal design
was the ability to see what the respondents' work
Table 1 shows the types of decisions couples
and family situations were like 11/2 years after
faced. The table divides the decisions according
they initially told us about their decision. Weto whether they concerned the husband, the wife,
were able to gather respondents' perspectives on
or both, and provides an indication of how the detheir work and family decisions and their marcision related to changes in work hours. The
riages well after the initial decision, rather than
largest number of couples (36) were making decionly in the heat of decision making.
sions concerning the wife's work. These deci-
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94
Journal of Marriage and the Family
TABLE 1. TYPES OF WORK DECISIONS
Whose Decision Change in Paid Work Hours Reason n
Husband
(19)
Decrease Quit job or retire 4
No change in work hours (15)
Major career change 6
Family move 5
Change job or shift 4
Wife
(36)
Increase
(15)
Children
older
3
Professional reasons 5
Financial
Other
Decrease
reasons
reasons
3
4
(16)
Younger children 12
Other
No
Couple
Change
No
sions
were
the
ples)
or
job
4
5
Change
(8)
Both changing jobs and moving 4
Other
about
reasons
Change
reasons
4
way they
construct women'sdivided
obligations to their
fairly
evenly
in
families. The asymmetry in
how married
couples
increasing
her
work
h
think about
men's versus
women's workhours
decidecreasing
her
work
(
wife
demonstrates
the functioning
of the provider
For 19 couples, sions
the
work
and
fam
role in how couples makejob.
decisions. There
concerned the husband's
Couples the
who were decision
considering a job change
ples who articulated
as a
sion,
affecting
for the husband,spouse
even when he lostpredom
his job and the
neither
Table 1 also shows the dominant reasons
family was confronting economic adversity, did
not discuss
the wife becoming the breadwinner.
given for the work change. It is clear from
the
table that the reasons differ according to whether
Such couples resisted-in fact, never acknowlthe decision concerned the husband's or the
edged-decisions to switch breadwinning responwife's work. When the decisions were about the
sibilities. Their lack of attention to this option illustrates their construction of gender in marriage.
husband, they typically did not relate to changes
in work hours, but rather to job changes. When
They did not believe that wives could or should
the decisions were about the wife's work, they
be primary providers, even temporarily. Because
they did not believe this, it was not a possibility
were primarily about changes in work hours, not
about switching jobs. For women, family andfor them. Also, because they did not conceptualize alternatives to the male-as-provider pattern,
work decisions were related to family constraints
their experiences did not challenge their attitudes,
(having a young child) and opportunities (having
and, thus, their traditional ideas about gender in
older children). In fact, age of children was a reason for 15 of the work and family decisions conmarriage were sustained.
cerning women's jobs, yet age of children was In the written Time 1 questionnaire, responnot mentioned at all as a reason for men's deci-
dents were asked what they wanted and what they
sions.
thought their spouse wanted as outcomes of the
The connection between paid work and gendered marital expectations and behavior is differ-
decision. From this, we were able to compare
what respondents believed their spouse's wish
ent for men and women (Thompson & Walker, was with what the spouse actually wrote. We
1989). As previous literature has described, men's found that when the decision concerned the huspaid work supports the way they have constructed band's job (n = 19), both spouses seemed to know
their marriages and their obligations as primary what their partner wanted in terms of the workproviders in the marriage (Hood, 1983; Potuchek, family decision. Seventy percent of wives accu1992). Men and women do not assume that paid rately stated what their husband wanted. Furtherwork will naturally or automatically support the more, both spouses tended to want the same out-
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gender Construction and Work Decisions
95
come (71%) from the decision when the decision
ended, and then she found "replacement work."
She had no idea that he did not consider her jobs
was about the husband's job. When the decision
and her decisions about her jobs as important as
concerned the wife's job (n = 36), 47% of couples
wanted the same outcome, and just under halfshe considered them.
(49%) knew what the other partner wanted.
If the partners believed women should be at
Being clear about their views of the decisionhome with children and the couple had children,
was typical of a couple when the decision con-then how did they justify deciding that the
woman would go to work? One of the most ingecerned the husband's job. We found two separate
processes at work for husband's work decisions.
nious solutions to this apparent conflict between
In part, these decisions were considered more im-attitudes and work-force behavior was described
portant, given that usually men's employment
by one wife who perceived that all of the jobs she
had held were, in fact, direct extensions of her
was perceived as primary for these couples. Also,
the men involved themselves in the decision
primary responsibilities as homemaker and mothabout their own work, whereas they could be
er.byWhile she worked part-time as substitute for
standers or even be unaware of the decision when
the school system, she saw that job as a way to
it did not involve their own employment. In onebecome more knowledgeable and involved in her
couple, the husband resigned his job with nochildren's schooling. She was currently working
prospects; the wife had as much to say about this part-time for an architect, and she perceived this
decision as did the husband. Their stories were rejob as a way to gain useful skills for a home remarkably consistent. In this couple, the husbandmodeling project she wanted to start. She did not
had earned more money than the wife, so it is evi-change her ideas about the appropriateness of
dent that the decision was considered highly im-women's work outside the home, nor did she
change the internal marital dynamics of her fami-
portant for them.
Couples' lack of agreement concerning deci- ly. Instead, she bolstered her own beliefs and her
sions about wives' work occurs, we found, in part husband's beliefs that women are skilled with
because husbands and wives were often ambiva-
children and in creative work. Several of the
lent about wives' participation in the work force.
mothers in the sample were providing child care
Some of our respondents admitted this ambivain their own homes while they cared for their own
children and did household work. It was considlence. One husband reported: "She . .. has more
conflict within herself as to what she really wants
ered acceptable to get paid for these jobs, tradi-
to be doing-whether she really does want tionally
to
considered "women's" work and "home"
work part-time." When couples did not share the
work, not because they changed their ideas about
same perspective on the decision, they could disthe acceptability of women working for pay, but
because the skills involved were traditional.
agree about the reasons for the decision and what
the dimensions of the decision should be. Several
Our analysis of the ways work and family dehusbands made comments like this: "She went to
cisions are different when they concern husbands'
or wives' work (or both) illuminates how the culwork. It was her choice. She arranged day care."
This man's wife felt very constrained by the limtural and immediate context of decision making,
its she reported the husband had set for her work
as identified by Scanzoni and Szinovacz (1980),
participation: "My job had to be part-time. The
is important to recognize. Rather than assuming
hours had to coincide with the children's school
that married couples face all work and family deand day care ... I pay so much money out just tocisions in the same way, we compared across difbe able to work ... I'm not sure it's worth the efferent types of decisions and found gender imporfort . .." (respondent's emphasis). Clearly he did tant in two ways. First, how marital partners connot perceive that their pattern of family work ceptualized the decision allowed different types
should change, and they both seemed to agree of decisions to be worthy of consideration based
that the children's day care arrangements and ex- on their construction of gender in marriage. Secpenses were her responsibility.
ond, gender was important in the extent to which
Another couple presented a dramatic case of couples agreed with each other. We found that
differing perspectives on the decision about the agreeing with each other sustained their construcwife's work. The wife enjoyed her temporary job tions of gender in marriage, leading to a takenand discussed its beneficial effects on her and on
for-granted mentality that prevented them from
her marriage, yet the husband merely viewed her exposure to circumstances that might have posed
job history as a series of temporary jobs that challenges to their constructions of gender. The
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
96
Journal of Marriage and the Family
larger cultural context in which paid work and
family circumstances operate carries different
meanings for men and women. By including
construct gender in their marriage, though they
may also cement a premature construction based
on opinions held years before they were enacted.
men's and women's work decisions in the same
As one wife put it: "My husband knew before we
were married that I wanted to be home with the
study, the problematic nature (for most couples)
of women's work decisions stood out in comparichildren when they were small. He was very supson to men's work decisions.
portive and in agreement." Another wife, also reporting on early discussions of work and family
issues, illustrated an alternative balance of work
Interpersonal Processes: From
and family. To a great extent, each marital partner
Consensus to Contention
in this couple altered their paid work shifts
In accounting for how couples confront decisions,
around the other's. "Before ever having children,
it is important to acknowledge the processes
my husband and I agreed strongly that he or I
through which the couple interacts (Kelley et would
al.,
be the sole caregivers for our children. Al1983). The relationship can be an important conmost exclusively that has been the case. When
text for decisions about work and family. Nearly
one of us was working, the other was home caring
all respondents referred to some aspect of their for
re-the children."
lationship to explain how they made this decision,If a couple enjoyed a history of closeness, we
saw that decisions about the wife's work could
even though we had no specific question designed
to elicit these qualities.
unfold in a way that benefited the wife's viewpoint. In these cases, the husband was likely to
Issues of consensus. A dominant theme describlisten to the wife's preferences for employment,
ing the interpersonal processes of the couples was
and the decision they reached could, consequentconsensus. Couples told us they agreed aboutly, start their redefinition of her role in breadwinmany things, that they worked together on their
ning and their expectations for each person's redecisions and their marriages, and that they were,
sponsibilities for breadwinning. We saw some evon the whole, satisfied with their work and family
idence for this process from five husbands of
decisions and their marriages. As one wife exwives contemplating changes in their work. These
men made statements such as: "I wanted what she
plained: "We have common goals.... We discuss
pros and cons .... We generally agree." Manywanted"
of
(n = 3), "I wanted my wife to make the
decision that was best for her," and "I wanted her
our respondents spontaneously described their
typical communication style as open; 11 couples
to do what she wanted regarding the job opportutalked explicitly about their styles of communicanity." The willingness of these men to go along
tion, about how they openly express feelings and
with their wives' decisions about jobs was notework together. Six respondents referred to shared
worthy, but such men (n = 5) were a minority in
values in their family that eased their decisionthe group dealing with wives' decisions (n = 36).
making processes. Six couples explicitly identiThese data illuminate how interpersonal processfied themselves as "a team," referring both es
tocreate and modify marital partners' attitudes
sharing values and goals, as well as to a sense and
of experiences of gender (Ferree, 1990; Pocohesion and a willingness to consider the good
tuchek, 1992; Thompson, 1992; West & Zimmer1987).
of the entire family. "We work real well as man,
a
team .... We have learned very well what each
other does and can and cannot do." One husband
Contention underlying consensus. On the surface,
talked about how limited time and money made aitcouple often articulated that their decision was
necessary for the couple to pull together: "We
"joint" or "mutual." This surface explanation conhave to work as a team, or we are not going trasts
to with the data, in which (a) 23 couples difmake it."
fered in what they wanted to happen and (b) the
Consensus, the couples reported, often came decision enacted more often reflected what the
about through discussion. Some couples revealed husband wanted to happen (15 couples) than what
that they had discussed their goals, attitudes, and the wife wanted to happen (3 couples). The revalues even before they were married, so that all maining couples' resolutions were not purely
subsequent decision making was based on these what either spouse wanted. This pattern is consisearlier, shared understandings. These discussions tent with the pattern uncovered by Sexton and
have a value in clarifying how the couple will Perlman (1989), who found that respondents re-
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gender Construction and Work Decisions
97
ported equal power when asked about power With one exception, wives who stated that
they wanted their husbands' support did not have
globally. However, measures of what couples actually did to influence each other revealed in-husbands who stated that they would provide supequities in power.
port. Describing a decision about her promotion,
The picture of couples with similar values, one wife said she wanted "his support during the
working together, openly expressing opinions,
hiring process . . . and at the job." The husband
and making decisions together belies the fact that
said he wanted "my wife to make the decision
their decisions more often were enacted according
that would be best for her and the family." In anto the husbands' preferences. The outcome of other case, the wife said she wanted "support and
these decisions seemed to be forged through aencouragement from my family. .. [and] responprocess identified by Kompter (1989) as "appar-sibilities delegated to ease my workload at
ent consensus," occurring among couples who behome." The husband, however, said they both
lieve they are in agreement about an issue andwanted extra money.
who believe this agreement reflects mere com- It seems that at least these wives wanted the
monsense, when, in fact, their beliefs are based
joint and mutual decision-making process to conon male power and privilege. These beliefs, thus,
tinue into a mutual resolution after the decision,
reinforce the status quo in marriages and makeand wanted a pattern of husband support that they
did not seem to receive. This also illustrates how
such arrangements seem inevitable, natural, and
immutable.
difficult it must be to enact a pattern of husband
Decisions about work and family among our support for wives' work decisions that impact the
respondents with preschool children illustrate this family. Few husbands recognized that their wives
notion. In our study, 43% of the couples had wanted support; fewer still discussed providing
young children (5 years old or younger). All of
these couples mentioned concerns about making
arrangements for the care of their children. Yet
only one couple solved their perceived problem
that support. In such an atmosphere, it is easy to
see why decisions about work rarely change how
partners regard or enact gender in marriages.
Contention surrounding the construction of genof having a child in day care by the husband der in marriage does not have to be active. Paschoosing to leave the paid labor force. In this par- sive contention on the part of these husbands,
ticular situation, the couple discovered that their after the apparently consensual decision occurs,
child's day care provider was "doing drugs." The can be very effective.
crisis nature of their decision and the fact that the
How can couples sustain the belief that deciwife had a professional position in the medical sions are made together while the husbands more
field that provided a salary of over $35,000 led often get their way? Many respondents explained
them to choose this option. Few couples men- that "whoever feels more strongly" about a decitioned the pattern of the husband being responsi- sion or "whoever expresses strong feelings" had
ble for child care as even a possibility for them. more of a say in the decision, rather than saying
Their construction of gender in marriage, we be- the husband got his way. The literature on wives'
lieve, prevented them from considering this possi- attentiveness (Luxton, 1980; Thompson, 1991)
bility. The outcome of decisions concerning care could be relevant here. Wives may believe that
of preschool children and of wives' reducing or compliance with decisions is a sign of their affeccurtailing employment opportunites contributes to tion for their spouses. Thorne (1982) characterconstructing gender in marriage.
izes family life as a tangle of love and dominaThose wives who attempted to alter the ways
tion. In this way, interpersonal processes of domigender was constructed in their marriages met
nance and similarity can interact with traditional
with passivity, if not opposition, from their husideas about gender in marriage. We found this inbands. In seven couples contemplating decisions
teraction usually facilitated a positive perception
about wives' work, we found that what the wives
of the decision and of the marriage in general. For
wanted from the decision was their husbands' supthe couples in this study, the perception of simiport. We found it interesting that men did not state
larity generally reinforced a male-dominated patthis as their wish, perhaps because wifely support
tern, an insidious one in a sense, because when
is taken for granted. For example, in a couple in
couples shared similarity and apparent consensus,
which the wife was going to continue her educathey did not openly discuss their ideas about gention and reduce her work hours, she stated: "I
der in marriage.
wanted my husband's support. It's a long-term
goal, and I need his strength and encouragement."
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98
Journal of Marriage and the Family
Active contention. Though our couples rarely
teraction" (Potuchek, 1992, p. 557). We should
identified power issues that affected their decision
making, we saw that underlying power properties
strongly affected how they perceived their work
note that in one case, the husband had been given
an ultimatum by the wife to stop doing work he
enjoyed and start being a breadwinner. Both partners spoke openly about the direct power mechanics involved in the ultimatum, about how she
and family situations and their decision-making
style. In this way, our observations about the cou-
ples were compatible with "hidden power," described by Komter (1989). One wife described
would have divorced him if he hadn't changed occupations. It seems that even in this case the genhow she and her husband made decisions in this
der boundaries were contested and eventually reway: "We usually talk and come to full agreesolved. Here, the decision-making process and the
ment, or I give in and do what he wants on ... serious
[a]
nature of the possible consequences al-
majority of things. I love him, and minor dislowed the couple to reconstruct gender in their
agreements are a part of life." Another wife, when
marriage, in this case along more traditional lines.
our data illustrate how the conseasked to clarify her previous characterization Ultimately,
of
their decision making as "pretty equal," said:
quences of the decision-making process could
"Well, we just kind of talk about it, and then what
serve to solidify, or challenge, and potentially rehe decides-okay, just a sec-okay, we just kind
construct ideas of gender in marriage.
of talk about it, and then we just think of which
one-what is going to be better for both of us,
and that is our decision." Both of these wives
CONCLUSIONS
seemed to be justifying their husbands' unspoken
The ways couples constructed gender in their
power in decision making by focusing more
on
marriages
permeated their decisions. Because
the big picture.
husbands and wives in our sample varied in the
A few couples spoke directly about power.
extent to which they saw wives as economic
These partners tended to be in unhappy marriages
providers, they constructed the wives' roles as
or in marriages that had endured dissatisfying
participants in the paid work force within a contimes. On the quantitative scale of marital satisfactext of situational constraints and opportunities.
tion, these wives' marital satisfaction scores were
Work decisions can be seen in this way as active
below the mean. They spoke of previous decisions
processes of constructing gender (West & Zimthat had been made by only one partner, typically
merman, 1987), as marital partners ponder work
the more powerful husband. Often these wives
possibilities and family consequences in terms of
told us how the legacy of domination left them
gender appropriateness. In looking at the types of
decisions made and the reasons for the decisions,
feeling this particular work and family decision
could not be resolved in an open and fair manner.
we saw variability in how couples constructed the
As one wife put it: "Usually my husband makes
meaning of women's and men's jobs, their family
the 'big' decisions. I guess ... he thinks it's responsibilities,
his
and how the process itself affectplace to be the boss... . . Usually, I'm not even
ed inparticipants and their ideologies.
formed of a decision until after he's made it for
Interpersonal processes set a context in which
us." This wife, when provided a space to record marital partners might embrace or discourage
her job title, wrote: "Housewife/ mommy," and inwork patterns that challenge their views of gender
the blank next to "Kind of Work," wrote: "Te- in marriages. Generally, interpersonal processes
dious!" She also described herself as "your basic experienced as positive by marital partners tended
co-dependent." Another wife, describing the deci- to reinforce (and be reinforced by) traditional culsion made for her to remain working part-timetural norms. The open expression of feelings and
though she wanted to quit, said: "This time Ithe joint and mutual decision-making process that
couldn't do that [quit] partly because of bills andwere mentioned happily by respondents can be
partly because my husband was of a different viewed with a more jaundiced eye. The outcomes
opinion.... Sometimes now I think if I were to goof this equal process tended, nevertheless, to
back to work full-time, it would be so that he favor men. These outcomes, therefore, can serve
didn't have so much control in our family." Thisto further marginalize women economically, parwife's marital satisfaction score, on the quantita-ticularly when their full participation in the labor
tive scale, averaged 2 out of 7 (with 1 being veryforce is handicapped by household responsibilidissatisfied). The wife's feelings of discontent and ties that may be performed as symbols of love
frustration illustrate the "active and contentious
(Thompson, 1993). The theme of women desiring
construction of gender boundaries in everyday in- their husbands' support for their decisions and its
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gender Construction and Work Decisions
consequences belies the little support husbands
expressed. Power was only directly identified by
respondents in unhappy marriages, by partners
who were actively contesting gender in marriage.
Our showing how these interpersonal processes
that functioned to contest gender influenced work
and family decisions expands the concept of decision context that is already in the literature (Godwin & Scanzoni, 1989; Scanzoni & Polonko,
99
norms and the structure of the gendered, paid
work force. By using the gender perspective, we
showed how the decisions many couples made
typically did not blaze new trails, but rather kept
to a more traditional path. We showed how these
decisions can be understood (and justified by the
marital partners themselves) based on the dynamics of the marital couple's relationship, their involvement in paid work, and their attitudes about
1980; Scanzoni & Szinovacz, 1980).
gender in marriage.
Our qualitative data from couples showed with
We acknowledge that our study is limited, particularly by the study participants residing in
depth how these decisions are evaluated and ensmall towns where the choice of work opportuni- acted inside the couple. When a couple makes a
ties are very different than in large metropolitan work-family decision that, to some extent, limits
or restricts the wife's paid work, even if this deciareas. Furthermore, our couples were more advantaged than average in terms of education and sion is viewed as temporary and is made for reaincome. Though it might seem that this group
sons other than conformity to traditional attitudes,
would be more egalitarian in decision making
the enactment of this decision can serve to sweep
than other couples, our study demonstrated that the couple along in a sea of traditional cultural attheir agreement and consensus often occurred
titudes and gendered work force realities. Focuswith a great deal of underlying contention. In
ing on the internal relationship processes that
studies of egalitarian marriages, participants have occur within the forces of the larger society, this
nominated themselves as egalitarian (Blaisure &
article has shown why marital partners construct
gender in marriage as they do. We look forward
Allen, 1995; Schwartz, 1994). These studies
found fewer than half of the couples who believed to future research that will pursue the answer to
they were egalitarian truly shared responsibility questions such as how internal relationship profor their families. In the present study, examining cesses can enable marital couples to enact lasting
married couples who did not claim egalitarianism work-family solutions that are not in consonance
allowed us to illuminate the underlying dynamics with traditional expectations, and how couples
that exist, even in this sample of marriages in can construct gender in marriages in a way that
which one might anticipate finding egalitarianism can change the larger society.
and freedom.
Our study considered only work and family
decisions, and, without careful analysis, our findings should not be applied to other types of decisions. For example, certain interpersonal processes emerged as couples made the decisions we examined. The particular processes that emerged as
important might differ depending on the type of
decision, but we would expect that aspects of
consensus and aspects of contention would exist
regardless of the decision. When looking at work
decisions, it is particularly easy to see how the
NOTE
A previous version of this article was presented at the
Pre-Conference on Theory Construction and Research
Methodology, National Council on Family Relations annual meeting, November 1993, in Baltimore, Maryland.
Research was funded by the Agriculture Experiment
Station, regional project W-167: Work, Families, and
Stress. The authors wish to thank Stephen Marks, Edith
Lewis, Leslie Richards, Alexis Walker, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. We are grateful to Rende Martin,
Kimberli Wicks Freilinger, and Mary Traeger for their
outcome of the decision can lead to a confirmaassistance in interviewing the study participants. Requests for reprints or additional information should be
tion or a reconstruction of gender in the marriage.
directed to the first author at Department of Human DeHowever, any major decision that involves convelopment and Family Sciences, Milam Hall, Oregon
siderable time and energy from one or both of the
State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
married pair could also lead to reconstruction of
gender.
REFERENCES
In the microstructural relationship processes
that couples go through as they make work and
Blaisure, K. R., & Allen, K. R. (1995). Feminists and
the ideology and practice of marital quality. Journal
family decisions, couples generally tended to conof Marriage and the Family, 57, 5-19.
struct gender in their marriages in traditional
ways, and the internal relationship processes were Duncan, G. J. (1984). Years of poverty, years of plenty:
most often in consonance with traditional cultural
The changing economic fortunes of American work-
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100
Journal of Marriage and the Family
ers and families. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Ferree, M. M. (1990). Feminism and family research.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866-884.
Godwin, D., & Scanzoni, J. (1989). Couple consensus
during marital joint decision making: A context, pro-
cess, and outcome model. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 51, 943-956.
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.
Scanzoni, J., & Polonko, K. (1980). A conceptual approach to explicit marital negotiation. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 42, 31-44.
Scanzoni, J., & Szinovacz, M. (1980). Family decision
making: A developmental sex role model. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between
equals really works. New York: Free Press.
Sexton, C. S., & Perlman, D. (1989). Couples' career
Hood, J. C. (1983). Becoming a two job family. New
orientation, gender role orientation, and perceived eq-
uity as determinants of marital power. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 51, 933-941.
Spitze, G. (1988). Women's employment and family reKelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey,
lations: A review. Journal of Marriage and the FamiJ. H., Huston, T. L., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., &
Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. San Franly, 50, 595-618.
cisco: W. H. Freeman.
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women's sense of
Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Genderfairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181-196.
Thompson, L. (1992). Feminist methodology of family
& Society, 3, 187-216.
Luxton M. (1980). More than a labour of love: Threestudies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 3generations of women's work in the home. Toronto: 18.
Women's Press.
Thompson, L. (1993). Conceptualizing gender in marMenaghan, E., & Parcel, T. (1990). Parental employ- riage: The case of marital care. Journal of Marriage
ment and family life: Research in the 1980s. Journal and the Family, 55, 557-569.
Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in famiof Marriage and the Family, 52, 1079-1098.
Potuchek, J. L. (1992). Employed wives' orientations to lies: Women and men in marriage, work, and parentbreadwinning: A gender theory analysis. Journal ofhood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845872.
Marriage and the Family, 54, 548-558.
Thorne, B. (1982). Feminist rethinking of the family: An
Risman, B., & Schwartz, P. (1989). Being gendered: A
microstructural view of intimate relationships. In overview. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), RethinkB. Risman & P. Schwartz, (Eds.), Gender in intimate ing the family: Some feminist questions (pp. 1-24).
relationships: A microstructural approach (pp. 1-9). New York: Longman.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Statistical abstract
Rosenblatt, P. C., & Fischer, L. R. (1993). Qualitative of the United States: 1990 (110th edition). Washingfamily research. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender.
(Eds.), Sourcebook offamily theories and methods: A Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.
York: Praeger.
contextual approach (pp. 167-194). New York:
Plenum Press.
APPENDIX
TIME 1 QUALITATIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS
1. What did you want to happen regarding this decision?
2. What did you think your marital partner wanted to happen?
3. Now we'll be asking you how the decision ended. Briefly, describe in your own words what the outcome of the decision
was.
4. Have you made a work-family decision other than the one you described? If so, in what way
ent/similar from the one you described?
5. Do you think that the way you've handled this work-family decision is typical of how you
other types of decisions? If so, how so? If not, how is it different?
6. Is there anything else about your work-family decision that you think is important to understan
TIME 2 QUALITATIVE TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Is your 1990 decision still being considered? If so, please explain. Why is the 1990 decision impo
2. Is there another or a different decision being considered also or instead? If yes, what is it?
3. Last time, we asked you a number of questions about the work-family decision you were consid
we want to ask you to tell us in your own words how the decision came to be enacted.
4. How long did it take to make the 1990 decision?
5. Some couples feel this issue is one that is really only one person's business, while other couples
they both need to consider. How do you feel?
6. Now I would like to ask you to tell me if either you or your spouse had primarily responsibilit
Tell us about that.
7. Did you or your spouse have primary responsibility for dealing with the effect of the decision? How? Tell us about that.
8. In general, some couples have a system in which one person gathers information, but both have input. Others divide up
information gathering. How do you work on information gathering and input?
9. How does this system work for you? Well? Not so well?
10. What has been the impact of the decision you made/were making in 1990 on the family?
11. How have things changed as a result of the decision?
This content downloaded from
69.237.22.180 on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:07:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms