Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1989, 13, 113-125. Printed in the United States of America.
GENDER DIVISION OF TASKS BY
PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN
Ailsa Burns and Ross Hornel
Macquarie University
The division of parenting tasks between wives and husbands was explored in a sample of 279 Australian families containing a 9-1 1-year-old
child, and the children’s performance of household tasks was compared
with their parents’ division of labor. Three parenting factors (domestic
care, leisure/enrichment, and psychological), and four child factors
(handyman, domestic, maturity, and babysitting) were obtained. Mothers
were more active than fathers on all three parenting factors, but significant differences were found between parents of differing SES and cultural
backgrounds. Among children, the greatest sex difference was found on
the handyman factor, where boys greatly outperformed girls. Boys’ performance on this factor was not related to parental division of labor or
social background, but girls’ performance was higher when they were
only children and when they lived in higher SES families. Girls outperformed boys on the domestic and maturity factors. Parenting style, SES,
and cultural background also were significantly related to these factor
scores. Apart from child’s sex, cultural background was the strongest
predictor of children’s task performance.
In Australia as in other industrialized countries there has been a movement
o f m ar r ied wome n i n t o th e workforce in recent decades. This has been
accompanied by growing assent t o the doctrine of sexual equality, by m e n
as w e l l as among women. N a ti o n a l surveys o f 25-34-year-olds conducted in
1972 a n d 1982 f o u n d large changes in the endorsement of such items as
“Im por t ant decisions should b e made by the h u s b a n d (endorsed by 43% of
This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Grants Scheme and by a
Macquarie University Research Grant. We are grateful to the Foundation of Child Development for permission to use questionnaire material, to Jacqueline Goodnow for valued advice,
to John P. Murray of Kansas State University who helped design the project, and to Susan
Cairns who acted as research assistant.
Requests for reprints should be sent to: Dr. A. Burns, School of Behavioural Sciences,
Macquarie University, N.S. W., Australia, 2109.
Published by Cambridge University Press 0361-6843/89 $5.00 + .OO
113
114
BURNSAND HOMEL
women in 1971, but only 17% in 1982) and “Whatever career a woman
may have, her most important role in life is still that of becoming a mother” (78% in 1971, but only 47% in 1982, at which time similar proportions
of men and women disagreed with this statement; Glezer, 1984). However,
the change in attitudes has not translated into great changes in behavior
within the home, where most families continue to adhere to the “traditional” division of labor, with women taking primary responsibility for household tasks (Adler, 1966; Clemenger, 1984; Harper & Richards, 1979; Oeser
& Hammond, 1954; Russell, 1983). The one domestic area that does seem
to have drawn greater paternal input is that of looking after children
(Harper & Richards, 1979; Russell, 1983).
How do parenting patterns affect children’s induction into the gendered
division of labor? This is the question addressed by the present study. In
line with the findings of Harper and Richards (1979) and of Russell (1983)
that fathers’ involvement is most likely to be in parenting rather than in
household work, we explored differences in the division of parenting tasks
between families and then asked whether these differences are reflected in
child behavior. As children do not of course engage in parenting behaviors
themselves, we looked at some everyday children’s tasks where a marked
gendered division of labor has been found from an early age (White &
Brinkerhoff, 1981; Zill & Peterson, 1982).
For the sake of clarity, the study is organized around three questions.
First, we asked which childrearing tasks Australian parents are most likely
to share, and which they are most likely to allocate to the male or female
parent. Second, we explored sociodemographic differences between families in terms of the ways in which they divide parenting tasks. Third, we
looked at children’s performance of sex-typed tasks and the extent to which
this is associated with family background and with parental division of
labor. Our general hypothesis is that some parents will be more traditional
than others and that patterns of greater and lesser sex typing will be
transmitted from one generation to the next.
It is expected that differences between parents in performance of parenting tasks will not be random. Research on sex roles has regularly revealed
that more egalitarianism is found among higher status parents, particularly when the mother is highly educated (Ericksen, Yancey, & Ericksen,
1979; Scanzoni & Szinovacz, 1980) or employed (Ericksen et al., 1979);
among younger parents (Geerken & Gove, 1983) and parents of larger
families (Brody & Steelman, 1985); and among those of certain cultural
backgrounds (Scanzoni & Szinovacz, 1980). These variables are accordingly included in the study, in the expectation that they may influence parenting behaviors as well as general sex roles. Cultural background is defined in
terms of country of origin (Australia has a large immigrant population).
There is some evidence that children’s task performance also varies with
family background. Zill and Peterson (1982) and White and Brinkerhoff
115
Gender Division of Tasks
(1981) reported sex-role variations that in some ways parallel those noted
for adults, in other ways not. Both sets of authors found that children of
more educated parents were less sex-stereotypedthan others, both in terms
of daughters’ engagement in male-typed tasks and of sons’ engagement in
female-typed tasks, but White and Brinkerhoff found that low-income
parents also made less distinction between boys’ and girls’ work. Maternal
employment and larger family size were also associated with more femaletyped tasks being done by both girls and boys.
However, neither study explored the association between the division of
labor practiced by particular parents and that practiced by their children.
It is therefore unclear whether, for example, the lessened sex-stereotyping
of the higher status children resulted from the models presented by parents
or from broader social influences. In the present study we explore this
issue, by ascertaining whether parenting division of labor has effects on
children over and above sociodemographic differences.
In addition, we take White and Brinkerhoff‘s (1981) point that there are
at least four classes of children’s task performance that can be affected
(girls’ performance of female-typed tasks, boys’ performance of femaletyped tasks, boys’ performance of male-typed tasks, and girls’ performance
of male-typed tasks) and that these need to be considered separately. Furthermore, we are aware that there may be cultural differences between
Australia and the United States in what are considered to be suitable tasks
for boys and girls. We accordingly make use of factor analysis to establish
groupings among 14 everyday tasks (washing dishes, going to the shops,
fixing things, etc.) and consider the performance of boys and girls separately on each of these groupings.
METHOD
Subjects
The data come from a larger study of families living in 18 suburbs of
Sydney, chosen to represent the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of the
population (Vinson & Homel, 1976). For the present analysis, single-parent families were excluded, giving a sample of 279 9-ll-year-olds (133 boys
and 146 girls) and their parents (or in some cases, stepparents, as all
married couples with responsibility for children were included). Within
the selected areas, children’s names were randomly selected from school
rolls, and notes sent home to parents inviting their participation. Interviews with children were conducted at school, and those with parents at
home, 2 to 8 weeks after the child had been interviewed. No more than one
child from any particular family was included in the sample.
116
BURNSAND HOMEL
Measures
Division of parenting labor. This variable was measured by a 5-point
Likert scale which asked parents to judge whether a task was done by
mother only or far more often, mother usually, mother and father about
equally often, father usually, or father only or far more often. The following parenting tasks were assessed: disciplining the children, transporting
them to sports activities and functions, comforting them when sick in the
night, seeing that children are clean and tidy, playing games with them,
buying books for them to read, getting their breakfast, organizing their
clothes, listening to them talk about the day’s activities, buying presents
for them and their friends, and taking them on outings. These items were
taken from the interview schedule developed by the New York Foundation
for Child Development (Lash & Sigal, 1976).
Children’s household task performance. Parents were asked whether
the child had done each of the following tasks by him or herself, without
anyone’s help: put batteries in a torch or toy; baked a cake or pie; built
something out of wood with real tools, like a hammer and saw; changed
sheets on a bed; cooked a complete meal for the family; ironed things;
made a model like a model car, boat, or airplane; painted some object
other than a picture; babysat; fixed a bicycle, truck, or roller skates; set the
time on a clock or watch; gone to the shops by him or herself; washed
dishes; or written a letter and posted it. These items also came from the
Foundation for Child Development interview schedule (Lash & Sigal,
1976; Zill & Peterson, 1984).
Demographic variables. Occupational status was scored in line with
Congalton’s 7-point scale of Australian occupations, with an additional
category for unemployed (Congalton, 1969). When both mother and father were employed, the higher status occupation was used (almost always
that of the father). Paternal and maternal education were included as
separate variables, using a 6-point scale. Family income was calculated by
dividing total income by the number of persons dependent on this income,
using a weighted formula developed by Saunders (1980). Mother’s employment status was classified as employed in the workforce (full- or part-time)
or not employed. Cultural background was collapsed into four categories:
AA (both parents native Australian born), NN (both parents born overseas
in a non-English speaking country), AN/NA (mixed marriage between an
Australian born and a non-English speaking born parent), and EE/E+
(one or both parents born in an overseas English-speaking country). Second generation immigrants where both were born in Australia were scored
as AA. Most of the NN families were of Mediterranean origin, Greek and
Greek-Cypriot in particular. Maternal age was scored as <30, 30-40, or
> 40, and family size as five categories (3-7 persons). Child’s age (9-11)
was treated as three categories, and child’s ordinal position as only, eldest,
117
Gender Division of Tasks
Table 1
Means,o standard deviations, and rotated factor solution*
for eleven parenting tasks
Factor Loadings
Parenting Task
Mean
SD
Care
2
Leisure
3
Psychological
Discipline
Drive
Comfort
Clean
Play
2.78
3.09
2.17
1.81
3.13
2.31
2.07
1.48
2.71
2.00
2.87
1.03
1.36
1.16
0.95
0.95
1.20
1.09
0.90
0.79
1.03
0.55
-
-
.73
-
.39
-
.48
.87
-
-
-
.39
.53
2.40
0.53
1
Books
Breakfast
Clothes
Listen
Gifts
Outings
Total
Cumulative variance (%)
ff
.34
.64
.84
’
-
-
-
-
.43
.46
-
.30
.52
.43
30
.74
44
.56
54
.55
-
-
Note: N = 279.
al=Mother only, S=Fatheronly.
bVarimax rotation, orthogonal. Only factors with eigenvalues greater than unity included.
second, or later born. In light of the sampling procedure adopted, area of
residence was also included, coded numerically as the SES level of the
suburb, using the formula devised by Vinson and Home1 (1976), which in
the present instance gave a range from very poor or “high r i s k (+3.63)to
very good or “low risk” (-2.06).
RESULTS
Division of Parenting Tasks
Table 1 contains mean values for the eleven parenting items and factor
analysis of the items. With an overall mean value of 2.4 (2=mothers mostly, 3=both parents about equaZZy) and SD of 0.53, mothers were clearly
carrying most responsibility for these children. Only on two items - playing with children and driving them to various activities - did the mean
score fall above 3 (i.e., toward the father does end of the scale), and then
only modestly (3.20, 3.14). Fathers were least likely to be involved in
organizing children’s clothing, and keeping them neat and clean.
The factor analysis describes three factors with eigenvalues greater than
unity. Within the general framework of greater mother than father respon-
118
BURNSA N D HOMEL
sibility for parenting tasks, the three factors represent three overlapping
sets of tasks. The first factor (representing 30% of the variance) is the most
stable (a=-74) and has its highest loadings on those tasks involving domestic care (cleaning, getting breakfast, organizing clothes). The second factor
has its highest loadings on leisurelenrichment tasks (buying books and
gifts, taking children on outings, driving them places, and playing with
them); and the third on discipline and listening to children. The mean
values for the items loading on each factor show that Factor 1 describes
those tasks in which fathers are least likely to be involved, and Factor 2
those in which they are the most likely. Factor 3 brings together what could
be considered the two most psychologically salient of the parenting tasks
measured.
Demographic Predictors of Division of Parenting Tasks
A multivariate analysis of twelve demographic variables against the parenting factors gave a highly significant result, A = .54, x2 (117)=158.58,
p = .006. Analyses of each predictor fitted independently against the three
factors indicated that cultural background and three measures of socioeconomic status (occupational status, mother’s education, and residential area) were significantly associated with parenting factors.
Cultural background, F (3, 275) =8.6, p = .OOO, r2= .086, occupational
status, F (7, 271)=2.78, p=.OOl, r2=.067, maternal education, F (5, 273)=
5.33, p=.OOO, r2=.089, and residential area, F (3, 275)=3.75, p=.02,
rz= .039, all correlated with Factor 2 (leisure/enrichment) scores, with
higher paternal involvement associated with lower SES. Thus fathers with
the lowest occupational and residential status were the most active in
Factor 2 tasks, as were those who were married to mothers who had
received only primary school education. Fathers of non-Anglo immigrant
background were also more involved in these tasks, in particular in buying
children gifts and transporting them to outings. Area also was related to
Factor 1 (domestic care) scores, F (3, 275)=3.2, p=.O3, r2=.034, but in
this case the pattern was less clear.
Although child‘s sex was not a significant predictor when analyzed
against the parenting factors, it did discriminate in respect to one item,
play, F (1, 277)=8.84, p = .003, r2=.031, with fathers much more involved
when the target child was a boy. Mothers’ workforce participation, not a
significant predictor of any of the factors, was associated with fathers’
doing more listening to children, F (1, 277)=3.83, p=.05, r2=.014, and
more chauffeuring, F (1, 277)=6.17, p=.Ol, r2=.022.
Naturally, the various measures of socioeconomic status were correlated.
In addition, cultural background was associated with occupational status
and maternal education, due to the fact that most non-Anglo immigrants
were in low-skill jobs and the mothers in particular lacked education be-
Gender Division of Tasks
119
yond primary level. A series of multivariate linear models were accordingly
constructed with the three parenting factors as dependent variables, in
order to locate an adequate set of predictors. The best reduced model gave
an overall A value (variance left unexplained) of .74, the variables retained
being cultural background, A=.91, x 2 (9)=24.9, p=.002, and area of
residence, A = .93, x 2 (9)= 19.2, p = .03, with occupational status also marginally significant, A = .89, x2 (21) =31.1, p = .06. Thus although the socioeconomic variables and cultural background are intercorrelated, each independently predicted the way that parents divided up their labor.
Children’s Tasks
The proportions of children who had accomplished the various children’s
tasks ranged from 25% (cooked a complete meal for the family) to 93%
(replaced batteries). Sex differences on all but three items (setting the time,
babysitting, and cooking a meal) were significant beyond the .05 level. The
greatest differences occurred on making a model (79%of boys versus 33%
of girls), t (277)=9.10, p<.OOl; building something out of wood (81%,
33%),t (277)=9.54, p < .001; and fixing possessions like a bicycle (71%,
23%), t (277)=9.54, pC.001; ironing (86% of girls, 53% of boys),
t (277)=6.42, p<.OOl; and baking (57%,28%),t (277)=5.35,p<.OOl.
A factor analysis of the items gave four factors with eigenvalues greater
than unity. The first comprised “handyman” activities, the second “domestic” items, the third comprised “maturity”-related items, and the fourth
loaded on a single item, babysitting (Table 2).
Parenting and Children’s Task Performance
The association between parenting division of labor and children’s activities was very modest. Where fathers were more involved in leisurelenrichment tasks, daughters’ scores on the maturity factor were significantly
lower, F (1, 277) =4.43, p = .04, r2= .03. Fathers’ contribution to parenting
was not associated with boys’ performance of any of the tasks.
Sociodemographic Variables and Children’s Task Performance
Table 3 shows that parents’ cultural background, occupational status,
mother’s education and age, family size, and child’s age, sex, and ordinal
position all correlated with children’s task performance, with the strongest
predictor being the child’s sex.
Although sex differences on Factors 1, 2, and 3 were all highly significant, the greatest difference occurred on Factor 1 (the handyman scale),
F (1, 277) = 128.7, p = .OOO, r2= .317. Sex differences on the items compris-
BURNSAND HOMEL
120
Table 2
Rotated factor solution for children's household achievements"
Factor Loadings
Household Achievement
Bake cakelpie
Iron
Change beds
Cook meal
Wash dishes
Make model
Fix things
Paint things
Carpentry
Replace batteries
Set time
Shop alone
Write and post letter
Babysit
Cumulative variance (X)
Reliability CY
1
2
3
4
Handyman
Domestic
Maturity
Babysit
.66
.58
-
.78
.70
.78
.64
-
-83
.69
.84
.60
.75
.67
.57
30
.67
46
.53
45
.37
Note: N=279.
aVarimax rotation, orthogonal. Only factors with eigenvalues values greater than 1.O included.
ing this scale were strikingly larger than those on the domestic scale (Factor
2), F (I, 277) =38.05, p=.OOO, @=.121, paralleling the sex differences
noted above on the different items. Girls also outperformed boys on Factor
3 (maturity) scores, despite a lack of age difference between boys and girls
in thesample, F (1, 277)=10.87, p=.OOl, r2=.038.
Handyman factor. The boys' superiority on this factor was expected.
More interesting was the finding that none of the sociodemographic variables was related to the boys' performance of these tasks. In the same way
that the boys' performance was unrelated to paternal involvement in parenting tasks, it proved impervious also to the effects of social class, cultural
background, maternal employment, family size, and ordinal position.
Even the child's age (across the 9-11 year range) was not a significant
predictor.
By contrast, the background of girls did appear to be associated with
their acquisition of handyman skills. Those girls who lived in more advantaged areas, F (3, 142)=3.89, p=.Ol, r2=.076, those having more educated mothers, F (5,140)=2.98, p=.Ol, r2=.086, and those who were only
children, F (3, 142) =2.62, p=.05, r2=.052, outperformed other girls in
handyman skills. They still, however remained well below the perfor-
Note: The sample consisted of 133 males and 146 females
* p < . O 5 , **p<.Ol, ***p<.OOl.
-
-
-
-
5.2*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31.7***
-
-
4.9*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.5*
-
-
-
-
-
Girls
-
-
14.1***
2.8*
-
12.3***
Boys
-
2.7*
12.1*
-
9.4***
3.3*
-
9.3***
5.2*
Total
-
-
5.2*
-
-
3.9*
-
5.8*
-
Boys
-
-
3.0"
-
Girls
-
3.4**
3.8*
-
Total
Children's Household Achievement Factors
2
3
Domestic
Maturity
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6**
-
-
-
-
Total
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.6**
-
Girls
-
Boys
1
Handyman
-
-
-
-
Girls
-
-
-
-
Total
15.8** 12.4*** 13.6***
-
-
Boys
4
Babysit
Table 3
(expressed as percentage) for associations between family variables and children's tasks performance:
Total sample and by sex of child
Family
Occupation
Maternal education
Paternal education
Income
Area
Cultural background
Maternal employment
Maternal age
Family size
Parental division of labor
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Child
Age
Sex
Ordinal position
R2 values
122
BURNSAND HOMEL
mance level of the average boy. The mean score for daughters of the most
highly educated mothers was 3.0, compared with a mean of 4.1 for sons of
the least-educated mothers (which was the same as the average for all
boys). Daughters who were only children had a mean score of 3.2, compared to 2.4 for other girls. Girls from families of higher occupational
status and higher paternal education were slightly superior to other girls,
but these effects were not statistically significant. Older girls performed no
better than younger.
Domestic and maturity factors. Both girls’ and boys’ scores on Factors
2 and 3 were related to sociodemographic factors. Cultural background
proved the most powerful predictor, with sons in the non-Anglo families
far less likely than other boys to have accomplished domestic tasks,
F (3, 129)=7.07, p=.OOO, r2=.141, and somewhat less likely to have accomplished maturity tasks, F (3, 129)=2.66, p=.O5, r2=.058. The nonAnglo girls did not differ significantly from other girls on these factors, but
their scores were a little lower.
Two SES measures-occupational status, F (7, 271) =3.95, p = .001,
r2= ,093, and mother’s education, F (5, 273) =4.6, p = .01, r2= .052, -also
correlated with Factor 2 scores, with both sons and daughters (but particularly sons) of higher occupational status families and more highly educated
mothers having mastered more domestic tasks.
When mothers were in the workforce, both sons, F (1, 131)=3.75,
p=.05, r2=.028, and daughters, F (1, 144)=5.17, p=.03, r2=.035, had
achieved more domestic skills. The mean values, however, indicate that the
sex difference remained consistent across the two groups (means of 2.6 and
3.6 for sons and daughters of the employed mothers, compared with 2.2
and 3.1 for other sons and daughters).
A child’s age was correlated with both domestic, F (2, 276)=3.82,
p=.02, r2=.027, and maturity, scores F (2, 276)=4.81, p=.O1, r2=.034,
mainly because of improvement with age among the boys. Bearing in mind
that girls scored higher on these two factors, it appears that girls accomplish these tasks earlier than boys and show minimal gains across the 9-1 1
year range, whereas this age range is a “learning band” for boys. Boys’
acquisition of maturity skills was also accelerated by being a member of a
larger family, F (4, 128)=3.13, p=.02, r2=.039.
Babysitting. Factor 4, which included babysitting one’s own siblings,
was not associated with any of the above factors, except that the non-Anglo
girls were more likely than other girls to have experience in this regard,
F (3, 142)=3.86, p=.Ol, r2=.075. Most of the explained variance was
associated with being the eldest child, F (3, 275) =14.37, p=.OOO, r2= .136
for the total sample, and to a lesser extent with family size, F (4, 274) =
2.67, p=.04, r2= .038. These two variables were of course correlated, Cramer’s V= .63, p = .OOO.
123
Gender Division of Tasks
Relative Contribution of the Predictor Variables
In order to establish the relative influence of the various predictor variables, a series of multivariate linear models was estimated. None of the
parenting factors retained explanatory power over and above the effect of
demographic variables. Thus, the significant association between paternal
involvement in leisure/enrichment tasks and girls’ maturity scores was derived largely from variance shared with the demographic variables. It
proved necessary to retain six of these in the final reduced model. Total A
value (variance left unexplained) for the best final model was .30, with the
six significantly contributing factors being child’s sex, A = .51, x2 (4)= 175.7,
p = .OOO; child’s ordinal position, A= .83, x2 (12)=48.8, p = .OOO; mother’s
education, A=.86, x2 (20)=39.7, p = .005; cultural background, A= .88, x2
(12)=33.5, p=.OOl; child’s age, A=.92, x2 (8)=21.8, p=.003; and maternal
employment, A = .95, x2 (4)= 13.4, p = $005.
Thus child’s sex accounted for the greatest portion of the variance, and
socioeconomic status, cultural background, child’s ordinal position and
age, and maternal employment made independent contributions.
DISCUSSION
Parental division of labor showed only a limited relationship to children’s
gender division of labor. This was not because of lack of variability in
either measure. The variations were considerable, and were systematically
related to socioeconomic status, cultural background and some other variables. However, greater paternal input had no effect on boys’ achievement
of any of the tasks measured and a detrimental effect on the girls’ achievement of maturity skills. Closer inspection of the data explained this detrimental effect. It was paternal involvement in driving children to activities
and in purchasing gifts and books that proved principally responsible for
this effect on daughters. The protocols showed that in a number of these
families the mothers were unable to drive a car, or had little access to nonhousekeeping money, so that the daughters’ lesser possession of skills parallels that of the mothers. The fact that the effect disappeared when family
background variables were included indicates that these patterns were
class- and culture-linked. Thus we find no evidence that gender division of
parenting labor (in terms of the tasks measured) is related to children’s sextyping, over and above the effects of family background.
Family background, however, appears to be a significant predictor. At
least four aspects of family background were important. The first is social
status. Higher status parents had both daughters and sons with more maleand female-typed skills. Daughters from such families outperformed other
girls on both types of skilb, and sons outperformed other boys on the
domestic tasks. As these better-off families presumably had no greater need
of children’slabor than other families, parental values can be considered to
124
BURNSAND HOMEL
be the motive force here. Of all the status variables, mothers’ education
was the strongest predictor of children’s skills, suggesting that it is maternal values that are salient and that higher education leads mothers to value
the early acquisition of useful skills and to downplay sex differences.
The second aspect is seen in terms of the non-Anglo families, who practiced a sharper division of parenting tasks than did other families, with
mothers more involved in domestic tasks and fathers more involved in
leisure/enrichment tasks. These differences reflect the Mediterranean origins of the majority of non-Anglo families. Mediterranean immigrant
groups being generally considered to adhere to a more “patriarchal” life
style than the general Australian population (Storer, 1985). The belowaverage domestic and maturity competencies of the non-Anglo boys could
then result from a patriarchal cultural belief that these are not appropriate
for boys.
An alternative explanation comes from Goodnow, Knight, and Cashmore’s (1985) finding that non-Anglo mothers differed from Anglo-Australians in seeing no merit in children’s early acquisition of various skills
and behaviors. As these mothers saw it, their children would learn quickly
enough when the need arose, or the appropriate time arrived (“Time
enough later”). This explanation fits with the finding that the non-Anglo
girls also had somewhat less domestic and maturity skills than their samesex peers. We conclude that the non-Anglo families were implementing a
different set of values to Anglo parents, one that was grounded in a different theory of child behavior.
A third direction of influence comes from family needs. Maternal employment provides a clear example. When mothers were in the workforce,
both sons and daughters had mastered more domestic tasks, but other skills
were not affected. Another “needs” example is that of babysitting, where
family size and child’s ordinal position were the major predictors.
Finally, there is the interesting case of the elevated handyman scores of
the girls who were “only” children. It seems that these girls owed their
skills not so much to family values or family needs, but to the fact that they
were treated to some extent as surrogate sons. An example was the “only”
daughter - very close to her father and better-equipped with mechanical
and handyman than domestic skills - whose parents commented that, “It
would probably have been different if we’d had a boy as well.”
The effects of age also merit comment. On both the domestic and the
maturity tasks, where girls were more advanced, older boys outperformed
younger boys, but older girls did no better than younger girls. We interpret
this to mean that girls acquire a body of these competencies before age 9,
while age 9-11 is a learning band for boys. However, on the handyman
tasks age was not associated with boys’ or girls’ scores. Much of the boys’
learning had taken place by age 9; for girls it seems that learning comes at
a later age, or perhaps never. This raises the question of the relative value
of the different competencies to parents, sons, and daughters.
Gender Division of Tasks
125
Our children’s scores are strikingly similar to those reported by Zill and
Peterson (1982) in their large U.S. sample. Both show continuing very large
sex differences, with the greatest difference being in the acquisition of
handyman skills.
Feminists have stressed the importance of girls’ ability to do their own
maintenance jobs, as a source of empowerment, and an escape from dependency status (Barrett, 1980). Our findings lead us to conclude that
establishing the conditions under which girls do or do not learn these skills
constitutes the most important line of further inquiry.
REFERENCES
Adler, D. L. (1966).The contemporary Australian family. Human Relations, 19, 265-282.
Barrett, M. (1980). Women’s oppression today. London: Verso/NLB.
Brody, C. J., & Steelman, L. C. (1985). Sibling structure and parental sex-typingof children’s
household tasks. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 265-273.
Clemenger, J. (1984). Beyond the stereotypes. Melbourne: John Clemenger Pty.
Congalton, A. (1969). Status and prestige in Australia. Melbourne: Cheshire.
Ericksen, J. A., Yancey, W. L., & Ericksen, E. P. (1979). The division of family roles. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 41, 301-313.
Geerken, M., & Cove, W. R. (1983). At home and at work: The family’s allocation of labor.
London: Sage.
Glezer, H. (1984). Changes in marriage and sex role attitude among young married women:
1971-1982. Proceedings of the Australian Family Research Conference. Melbourne: Institute of Family Studies.
Goodnow, J. J., Knight, R., & Cashmore, J. (1985). Adult social cognition: Implications of
parents’ ideas for approaches to development. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Social Cognition:
Minnesota Symposium on Child Development (Vol. 18, pp. 287-324). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Harper, J., & Richards, L. (1979).M o t h and working mothers. Ringwood, Australia: Penguin.
Lash, T., & Sigal, H. (1976). State of the child: New York. New York: Foundation for Child
Development.
Oeser, O., & Hammond, S . (1954). Social structure and personality in a city. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Russell, G. (1983). The changing role of fathers? St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Saunders, P. (1980). The poverty line: Methodology and measurement. Kensington: University of New South Wales Social Research Centre.
Scanzoni, J,, & Szinovacz, M. (1980). Family decision-making: A developmental sex role
model. London: Sage.
Storer, D. (Ed.) (1985). Ethnic family values in Australia. Melbourne: Prentice-Hall.
Vinson, T., & Homel, R. (1976). Indicators of community wellbeing. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
White, L. K., & Brinkerhoff, D. B. (1981). The sexual division of labor: Evidence from
childhood. Social Forces, 60, 170-181.
Zill, N., & Peterson, J. L. (1982). Learning to do things without help. In L. M. Laosa & I. E.
Sigel (Eds.), Families as learning environments for children (pp. 211-243). New York:
Plenum.
First draft receiued: September 4 , 1987
Final draft received: March 23, 1988