Data from an Australian national survey (1996 to 1997) are used to examine domestic labor patterns among de facto and married men and women. The results show that women spend more time on housework and do a greater proportion of housework than men. However, the patterns are most traditional among married men and women. Women in de facto relationships spend less time doing housework and do a smaller proportion of indoor activities than married women. Men in de facto relationships do a larger proportion of indoor activities and a lower proportion of outdoor tasks than married men. The data also show that couples who have cohabited prior to marriage have more egalitarian divisions of labor than those who have not cohabited prior to marriage. This article concludes by arguing that the incompleteness of the de facto relationship provides a period of relative freedom in which to negotiate more equal roles.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1998). Australian social trends 1998 (Catalogue No. 4102.0). Canberra, Australia: Author.
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1999). Australian social trends 1999 (Catalogue No. 4102.0). Canberra, Australia: Author.
3.
Batalova, J. A., & Cohen, P. (2002). Premarital cohabitation and housework: Couples in cross-national perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(3), 743-755.
4.
Baxter, J. (1992). Power, attitudes and time: The domestic division of labour. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 23(2), 165-182.
5.
Baxter, J. (1993). Work at home: The domestic division of labour. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
6.
Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory. New York: Plenum.
7.
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191-228.
8.
Blair, S. L., & Lichter, D. T. (1991). Measuring the division of household: Gender segregation of housework among American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 91-113.
9.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652-688.
10.
Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 333-355.
11.
Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts. Population Studies, 54(1), 29-41.
12.
Bumpass, L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26, 615-626.
13.
Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 634-650.
14.
Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74(2), 609-634.
15.
Coverman, S. (1985). Explaining husbands’ participation in domestic labor. Sociological Quarterly, 26(1), 81-97.
16.
De Vaus, D., & Wolcott, I. (1997). Australian family profiles. Social and demographic profiles. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
17.
Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866-884.
18.
Glezer, H. (1997). Cohabitation and marriage relationships in the 1990s. Family Matters, 47, 5-9.
19.
Gupta, S. (1999). The effects of transitions in marital status on men’s performance of housework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 700-711.
20.
Ishii-Kuntz, M., & Coltrane, S. (1992). Remarriage, step parenting, and household labor. Journal of Family Issues, 13(2), 215-233.
21.
Kiernan, K. (2000). European perspectives on union formation. In L. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind. Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 40-58). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
22.
Pleck, J. H. (1985). Working wives/working husbands. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Pyke, K., & Coltrane, S. (1996). Entitlement, obligation, and gratitude in family work. Journal of Family Issues, 17(1), 60-82.
24.
Raley, R. K. (2000). Recent trends and differentials in marriage and cohabitation: The United States. In L. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind. Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 19-39). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
25.
Ross, C. (1987). The division of labor at home. Social Forces, 65(3), 816-833.
26.
Shelton, B. A. (1992). Women, men and time: Gender differences in paid work, housework, and leisure. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
27.
Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1993). Does marital status make a difference? Housework among married and cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 14(3), 401-420.
28.
South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review, 59(3), 327-347.
29.
Stafford, R., Backman, E., & Dibona, P. (1977). The division of labor among cohabiting and married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 43-57.
30.
Sullivan, O. (1997). The division of housework among ‘remarried’couples. Journal of Family Issues, 18(2), 205-224.
31.
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work. Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12(2), 181-196.
32.
Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at work. London: Polity.
33.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.
34.
Western, M., & Baxter, J. (2001). The links between paid and unpaid work: Australia and Sweden in the 1980s and 1990s. In J. Baxter & M. Western (Eds.), Reconfigurations of class and gender (pp. 81-104). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
