Godly husbands and housework: A global examination of the association between religion and men’s housework participation

Abstract

French

In studies seeking to understand cultural and institutional influences on the division of domestic labor, religion has often been left out of the picture in favor of economic, gender and welfare state context. By examining men from 34 countries using 2012 International Social Survey (ISSP) data this study explores the ways in which religion is associated with men’s household labor participation. We utilize individual measures of religiosity as well as cultural zones based on religious and cultural similarity to analyze the effect of predominant religion and religious participation on men’s housework. Differences emerge between men by religious tradition, level of religious attendance, and across cultural zones. Contrary to expectations, we find increased religious participation at the individual and cultural zone levels associated with greater participation in some housework tasks and time spent on housework, though the findings show great variation by task and religious tradition. Our findings indicate two potential paths leading to men’s increased housework participation: a nonreligious, egalitarian one, and a religious, family-centered one.

Keywords

division of labor gender and family global/international housework religion

While men have increased their share of housework significantly over the past 50 years (Bianchi et al., 2012), discussions of a ‘stalled’ gender revolution (England, 2010) highlight continued inequality in the division of labor between heterosexual partners. Some even consider this as a sign of ‘the second half of the gender revolution’ (Bernhardt et al., 2008). Comparative research on housework has identified the complex structural and cultural factors that further our understanding of housework allocation processes (Fuwa, 2004; Fuwa and Cohen, 2007; Geist, 2005; Geist and Cohen, 2011; Ruppanner, 2009; Stier et al., 2001). However, the impact of religion on the domestic division of labor has not received much attention. At most, individuals’ religiosity has served as a proxy for traditional ideas about gender, and research has focused primarily on adherents of Western Christianity, especially Protestantism (Apparala et al., 2003; Bernhardt et al., 2008; Bianchi et al., 2012; Treas and Lui, 2013; Voicu et al., 2007).

The goal of this article is to explore how religion shapes men’s participation in housework at both the micro and macro levels. Aside from exploring differences in individual religious affiliation and participation, we are interested in the ways religion shapes societal norms and serves as the basis for distinctly gendered understandings of acceptable conduct regarding home and family care tasks net of individual characteristics. The focus on macro-level forces’ influences in the home is in line with the research that has examined the independent role of welfare states on housework (Geist, 2005).

Research on housework has often focused on women or couples. Our focus on men’s participation will examine a potential mechanism underlying the stall in the gender revolution: how religion functions at the individual and institutional levels to shape men’s understanding of their appropriate role in domestic labor among heterosexual couples. We examine men’s housework patterns throughout the world to better understand how and to what extent both individual religion and macro-level religious context influence men’s involvement in household chores and meal preparation. We introduce cultural zones as a novel way of exploring macro-level religious influence on men’s participation in housework (Cole, 2016) in an effort to show that religion’s influence goes far deeper than individual belief and affiliation; countries’ predominant faith traditions should be viewed as major sources of societal structure and culture norms which affect couples’ division of domestic labor (Stark and Finke, 2000).

Our study expands existing research in three crucial ways. First, we examine the role of religion in men’s housework performance. Second, we do so in a comparative perspective. Third, we use a novel conceptualization of religious context, that of cultural zones.

Below, we briefly summarize the importance of religion for understanding gendered family relations, and we outline dominant explanatory frameworks for the gendered division of labor alongside a discussion on the way religion is expected to shape domestic labor patterns.

Background

The influence of religion on gender and family

Religion is an underexplored sociocultural factor in explanations of differences in domestic labor participation between countries that possess similar welfare regimes and levels of development (Klingorová and Havlíček, 2015; Seguino, 2011; Voicu et al., 2009). This article will shed additional light on religion’s role in shaping men’s housework performance by examining data from countries representing a variety of religious traditions, including some whose residents primarily identify as non-religious.

Despite significant shifts away from participation in institutional religion in recent decades, religious collectivities remain strong sources of identity and provide important support for the development of individuals’ beliefs and values (Meintel, 2014; Pessi, 2013). Religion has historically been one of the strongest forces shaping the development and continuation of inegalitarian gender norms and family patterns (Kalmijn et al., 2003; Pankhurst and Houseknecht, 2000). All major world religions originated in patriarchal cultures and contain frameworks, hierarchies, doctrines, and practices that reflect these origins (Klingorová and Havlíček, 2015). While some denominations have opened their leadership ranks to women and revised or expanded upon teachings and doctrines that have historically excluded women from positions of power, others have remained true to their patriarchal past. After controlling for other possible factors, religious devoutness emerges as the primary factor in predicting traditional gender role ideation (Herzog and Bachman, 1982; Morgan, 1987).

The relationship between conservative religious affiliation and traditional gender attitudes has been studied extensively. Members of conservative Christian and orthodox Jewish denominations are more likely to espouse inegalitarian gender ideologies than their liberal and reform counterparts (Peek et al., 1991; Hardacre, 1993). Conservative Protestant denominations, from their pulpits as well as in their written works, promote traditional gender ideology, known as ‘complementarianism,’ and create religious cultures in which breadwinner/homemaker roles are imbued with divine significance (Ammons and Edgell, 2007; Read, 2003). Conservative religious women in the United States show lower levels of labor participation, earlier marriage, lower scores on measures of gender egalitarianism (Glass and Jacobs, 2005) and greater involvement in housework and child care (Ellison and Bartkowski, 2002).

Yet complementarian gender ideology and reduced male participation in household labor may not be directly linked. A number of conservative Christian organizations, as exemplified by the Promise Keepers, promote versions of masculinity which encourage men to spend more time in the home and develop qualities such as nurturance, cooperation, and expressiveness (Bloch, 2000; Ellison and Bartkowski, 2002; Glass and Jacobs, 2005). These organizations pointedly critique men who ignore their responsibilities at home, although these responsibilities center more around relationships than around participation in housework. Ammons and Edgell (2007) find that the activities these religious men engage in do not seem to include increased participation in tasks around the home. The effect of religiosity on housework participation is a central focus of this study.

Researchers have noted that more information is needed in order to expand the understanding of what religiously conservative men’s increased family involvement looks like in practice (Bartkowski and Xu, 2000), while a considerable body of literature has developed around the study of conservative religious women’s experiences juggling work and family obligations (Ellison and Bartkowski, 2002; Civettini and Glass, 2008; Ammons and Edgell, 2007). Existing work on religious men’s housework involvement is primarily focused on conservative or evangelical Protestants in the United States; Voicu et al.’s (2009) work in a European context is a notable exception.

This article recognizes the importance of studying men’s religiosity as a crucial factor in understanding the context within which couples structure their domestic division of labor arrangements. Half of the picture is left blank if only women’s religiosity is considered as a factor affecting couples’ housework, yet study after study has ignored men’s religiosity – their belief, belonging, and attendance – as a factor shaping their involvement in housework. Whether religiosity attenuates or increases this involvement is largely unknown.

Established determinants of the domestic division of labor

The gendered division of household labor remains an actively researched topic (Bianchi et al., 2000; Geist and Cohen, 2011; Singelmann et al., 1996). Three main areas of explanation have emerged in the micro-focused literature on household labor: ‘doing’ gender, time availability, and relative resources. The gender perspective on the division of household labor says that women and men ‘do’ gender when engaging in housework. The household chores they select and the amount of domestic work they participate in are part of a gendered performance which reinforce ideal notions of appropriate gendered behavior (Aassve et al., 2014; Bianchi et al., 2000; Greenstein, 2000; South and Spitze, 1994).

The time availability perspective focuses on how differences in men’s and women’s participation in paid work affect their contributions to housework. The greater the time spent in paid work, it is hypothesized, the less time spent on housework. Many studies find that the more hours women spend in paid labor, the fewer they spend engaged in household chores (Aassve et al., 2014; Knudsen and Wærness, 2007; Mannino and Deutsch, 2007; Pinto and Coltrane, 2009). Men’s share of household labor also rises when their partners enter the workforce, although not enough to fill the gap left by their wives’ decline in participation (Cunningham, 2007; Kroska, 2004; Noonan et al., 2007).

The relative resources perspective posits that the division of domestic tasks is heavily influenced by power dynamics within the household. Men’s breadwinner status has traditionally left women with less bargaining power in the realm of household duties (Acker, 1988; Brines, 1994; Lennon and Rosenfield, 1994; Sorensen and McLanahan, 1987). There exists a strong association between increased economic participation, relative earnings, and the development of egalitarian gender attitudes in women (Cunningham, 2007).

Men’s housework

In many regions of the world, men today perform a larger share of housework than their predecessors (Bernhardt et al., 2008; Bianchi et al., 2012; Moon and Shin, 2018; Treas and Lui, 2013). Despite this overall increase in domestic labor participation, the cross-national trend of male participation is neither continuous nor linear. Men in many Western nations have begun to close the gap with women in number of hours spent on domestic labor (Altintas and Sullivan, 2016; Bianchi et al., 2000; Treas and Lui, 2013), yet women’s share of domestic labor in the United States is still 1.6 times higher than men’s (Bianchi et al., 2012). Thus, despite a general movement towards greater equality in housework among Western couples, significant cross-national variations, as well as a distinct gender gap in men’s housework participation, remain (Altintas and Sullivan, 2016; Sayer, 2016).

As men are encouraged to assume more active roles in home and family care, the demands on their time grow (Kilkey and Perrons, 2010). Men today are increasingly expected to complete a greater number of tasks than their predecessors, including paid and unpaid work. Yet the types of household work traditionally marked as ‘masculine’ primarily consist of tasks that are not time-dependent, such as household maintenance, yard work, small repairs, and cosmetic improvements (Cancedda, 2001; Kilkey and Perrons, 2010). Therefore, the so-called ‘male time squeeze’ largely involves tasks that are much more amenable to outsourcing than those involved in the female time squeeze, which are performed on a routine, often daily basis (Blair and Lichter, 1991; Quadlin and Doan, 2018).

Comparative housework research

Contextual factors, beyond individual and couple characteristics, also play an important role in understanding housework patterns. In comparative studies of the domestic division of labor, a number of dimensions have been identified as relevant. Treas and Lui (2013) summarize that women’s empowerment and employment, the market for domestic labor, states and policy contexts, prevalent family patterns, and cultural influences matter. Research on the role of policy context, welfare state, or level of gender inequality typically encompasses several of these dimensional policy patterns and gender empowerment are linked to empowerment.

Cross-national differences in housework patterns remain pronounced (Geist and Cohen, 2011). Attempts to understand the link between culture and housework have been relatively scant, beyond studies that have used aggregate measures of attitudes as a proxy for culture. Gender specialization, gender equality, and socioeconomic inequality have emerged as essential factors in predicting the establishment of social norms involving housework participation (Treas and Lui, 2013). However, the influence of religion as a primary source of these norms has yet to receive its due in either the literature on housework participation or religion.

Research by Voicu et al. (2009) into housework division among European countries suggests that in predominantly Catholic and Orthodox countries, the domestic division of labor is less equal than in Protestant countries. Regional differences in religious culture and their impact on the division of household labor is one area in the complex nexus of structural, institutional, and cultural influences that has been understudied up to this point, and with which this article will engage.

Religion and national culture

Religion should be studied as a powerful organizing social force in order to better explain how countries’ dominant religious traditions have differentially shaped their cultures and institutions. One way of conceptualizing religion’s influence is through Cole’s (2016) schema of cultural zones. These cultural zones categorize countries by similarity of religious tradition and historical experience as well as geographical location. Building on earlier attempts at the construction of cultural zones (Huntington, 1997; Inglehart, 2010; Welzel, 2013), Cole’s zones take an empirical rather than purely historical approach to the assignment of countries into categories of primary religion by using data from the World Religion Dataset (Maoz and Henderson, 2013). By combining religion, level of development, and recognition of colonialism’s historical influence, cultural zones provide a hitherto unused schema through which to incorporate religion into the study of the division of household labor.

Based on existing research on religious participation and affiliation and differences explored across cultural zones, we posit the following hypotheses (net of other individual characteristics):

H1a: Increased religious participation by men will be associated with lower levels of involvement in housework.

H1b: Men’s participation in housework will vary across religious traditions, with those involved in conservative traditions (which emphasize traditional gender ideologies) reporting lower levels of household labor sharing.

H2a: Men’s participation in domestic labor will vary across cultural zones.

H2b: Based on existing research on contrasts between Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox countries, we expect that men in Western Protestant countries will be more involved with housework than those in other cultural zones.

Methods

Data

We use data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)’s module, ‘Changing Gender and Family Roles IV’ (ISSP Research Group, 2012). In the United States, the ISSP modules are attached to the General Social Survey (GSS). ISSP member nations now number over 60, but not all nations participate in every survey. The 2012 survey was administered in countries across Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Sample collection varies by nation and consists of simple random or stratified random samples (see ISSP [2012] for details on survey mode and sampling strategies). Participating countries represent varying levels of economic development, dominant religious traditions, and welfare state regimes. Our study focuses on men who live in households with a female partner, resulting in a sample size of 10,619 men from 34 countries where all key measures were included in the survey (See Table 1).

Table 1.

Cultural zone and frequency of countries (N=10619).

Buddhist	Japan	281	South Korea	349
Hindu	India	363
Israel	Israel	275
Latin American Catholic	Chile	240	Venezuela	187
	Argentina	170	Mexico	301
Nonreligious	Czech Republic	441	Russia	241
	Latvia	206
Nonwestern Protestant	South Africa	241
Orthodox	Bulgaria	249
Other Catholic	Philippines	399
Western Catholic	Hungary	263	Lithuania	223
	Belgium	559	Austria	186
	France	366	Canada	172
	Spain	707	Poland	244
	Switzerland	379	Ireland	232
	Netherlands	361	Slovakia	351
	Slovenia	296
	Croatia	241
Western Protestant	Germany	480	Finland	332
	Sweden	269	Norway	432
	Iceland	306

Note: No countries in this data set were included in the non-middle Eastern Islamic or Animist zones. We added Israel as a separate group since it is not included in the original categorization by Cole.

Dependent variable: Men’s housework

We focus on men’s share of regularly occurring household tasks as well as the time spent on housework. Participation in specific types of household labor is measured by the question, ‘In your household, who does the following things?’ Sub-questions are then asked about participation in laundry, grocery shopping, meal preparation, and household cleaning, with participants responding on a 6-point scale ranging from ‘Always me’ to ‘Always my spouse/partner.’ The response option ‘I pay someone to do this’ was re-coded as the equivalent of ‘About equal/both together.’ We also include a measure of the number of hours men report spending on hours per week (see Table 2). As with the division of labor, this is not a perfect measure, but we are confident that assessing both a relative measure and a time-based measure can give a good understanding about the association between religion and men’s housework.

Table 2.

Men’s participation in household labor (N=10619).

Housework Tasks	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Doing the Laundry	4.0	1.1	1	5
Shopping for Groceries	3.3	1.0	1	5
Preparing Meals	3.7	1.1	1	5
Household Cleaning	3.8	1.0	1	5
Housework Hours	10.7	11.0	0	84
	%			%
Doing the laundry		Shopping for groceries
Always me	0.05	Always me		0.06
Usually me	0.04	Usually me		0.09
About equal or both together	0.17	About equal or both together		0.46
Usually my spouse/partner	0.32	Usually my spouse/partner		0.24
Always my spouse/partner	0.43	Always my spouse/partner		0.15
Preparing meals		Household cleaning
Always me	0.05	Always me		0.03
Usually me	0.08	Usually me		0.04
About equal or both together	0.24	About equal		0.32
Usually my spouse/partner	0.34	Usually my spouse/partner		0.36
Always my spouse/partner	0.29	Always my spouse/partner		0.25

Key independent variables: Religion measures

Men’s religious affiliation is determined by the following question, with slight variations in wording across countries: ‘Do you belong to a religion?’ Religious involvement is measured by the question: ‘Apart from special occasions such as weddings, funerals, etc., how often do you attend religious services?’ Participants selected from a 1–8 scale, with (1) equaling ‘Never’ and (8) ‘Several times a week.’ This measure, while imperfect, shows men’s degree of participation in their religious community, as well as a certain level of exposure to that religion’s beliefs and values (Ammons and Edgell, 2007). Thus, this measure of exposure and involvement is a good indicator of the degree to which men have internalized religious teachings and accept the worldview presented by their religious tradition (see Table 3 for descriptive statistics).

Table 3.

Household labor predictors: Religion indicators and controls (N=10,619).

Denomination	%		%
No religion	0.22	Islamic	0.03
Catholic	0.40	Buddhist	0.01
Protestant	0.19	Hindu	0.03
Orthodox	0.05	Other Asian religions	0.01
Other Christian	0.04	Other religions	0.01
Jewish	0.02
	Mean/%	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Frequency of attendance(1=Never – 8=Several times a week)	3.47	2.26	1	8
Controls
Hours worked/week	30.67	23.65	0	96
Relative resources
Male partner many more resources	0.13		0	1
Male partner more resources	0.57		0	1
All other arrangements	0.30		0	1
SES scale (self-assessed)	5.64	1.83	1	10
Gender attitudes	3.24	1.31	1	5
Highest degree achieved	%		%
No formal education	0.04	Post-secondary education	0.15
Primary education	0.06	Lower level tertiary education	0.15
Lower secondary education	0.24	Upper level tertiary education	0.13
Upper secondary education	0.23
Marital Status
Married	0.86	Unmarried	0.14
Age	51.41	15.10	18	95
Any children in household	.44		0	1

Note: Multivariate models presented in Table 4 include all control variables listed in Table 3.

Countries are grouped into cultural zones based on religious and cultural similarity and geographic proximity. We follow Cole’s (2016) categorization of countries in our sample, which consists of 12 distinct zones: Animist, Buddhist, Catholic (Latin American), Catholic (other), Catholic (Western), Confucian, Hindu, Islamic (Middle Eastern), Orthodox, Protestant (non-Western), and Protestant (Western). Although not included in Cole’s schema, our sample also includes Israel. We include Israel as a separate category because of its status as a unique religious and cultural civilization (Huntington, 1997). See Table 1 for a list of countries by zone.

Controls

We include controls to account for the three dominant approaches used in housework research. To assess time availability, we include a measure of average hours worked for pay per week. Individuals who are not working for pay were coded as working zero hours, with a maximum of 96 hours per week. For relative resources, we categorize respondents based on respondents’ and partners’ self-reported income: spouse has no income and the respondent is the sole provider; respondent’s income is much higher than spouse’s; and other, which includes the spouse being the sole provider and both partners contributing equally or neither partner reporting income. We also included a self-reported measure of socio-economic status on a 1–10 scale. Respondents are asked to situate themselves at the top (10) or the bottom (1) of their country’s economic strata. For the United States, this measure is not available. Instead, we calculate individuals’ decile placement in this country’s distributions for individual and household income, which we then use as a proxy of the self-reported socioeconomic status.

The extent to which individuals do gender is notoriously difficult to assess, but we include a measure that indicates adherence to traditional ideas about the division of labor between spouses in the labor market. Respondents are asked about their level of agreement with the statement ‘A man’s job is to earn money; a woman’s job is to look after the home and family.’ Higher values indicate a more gender equitable attitude. Additional controls include marital status, years of education, and age. Marital status is collapsed into a simplified binary measure distinguishing between currently married and not currently married. We include in this analysis only presumed heterosexual couples due to a lack of information and lack of theoretical context for men who live in couples with other men. For education, we use a measure that reflects the highest degree achieved (see Table 3 for details). Supplemental analyses also included an indicator for children living in the housework. The presence of children in the household was not associated with men’s share of housework.

Analytical approach

Our analyses were conducted in the statistical analysis program Stata

Analyses proceeded in three steps. We first establish a baseline model that accounts for the typical explanations of housework patterns: relative resources, time availability, and gender role attitudes. Second, we estimate models that further include individual-level measures of religion, religious identification, attendance at religious services, and both of those combined. Our third step considers a macro-level context and examines to what extent the context of cultural zones shape men’s housework both overall and net of individual characteristics. To reflect the cross-nationally cross-sectional nature of our data we estimate multilevel models to account for the fact that individual respondents are nested within countries (Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal, 2008). We estimated mixed effect ordered logistic regressions (melogit) for relative housework contribution and linear mixed models (mixed) for housework time. Descriptive statistics for all controls are included in Table 3.

Results

Baseline model

Our first multivariate model examines established predictors of the domestic division of labor. Table 4 demonstrates that long work hours are associated with lower levels of men’s involvement across all housework tasks, as well as shorter hours of housework. Compared to sole breadwinners, all other men share more equally and spend more time on housework. Where men see themselves relative to others in the stratification system is not associated with their participation in laundry and grocery shopping. Yet those who see themselves as higher in the societal hierarchy participate less in meal preparation and do less housework. Men who hold more egalitarian views about the division of paid labor between men and women share more equally in housework tasks, but attitudes are not associated with overall time spent on housework.

Table 4.

Individual level multivariate models – random effects ordinal logit (Models 1–4, odds ratios shown) and linear random effects model (Model 5).

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Variable	Laundry	Grocery shopping	Preparing meals	Household cleaning	Housework hours
Hours worked weekly	1.005***	1.009***	1.005***	1.009***	−0.043***
	−5.68	−9.565	−5.573	−9.173	(−8.065)
Relative resources (ref: respondent is sole provider)
Relative resources: income higher than spouse	0.899*	0.853***	0.775***	0.834***	0.802**
Relative resources: income higher than spouse	(−1.776)	(−2.670)	(−4.309)	(−3.098)	−2.448
Relative resources: other	0.601***	0.708***	0.489***	0.497***	2.276***
Relative resources: other	(−7.912)	(−5.364)	(−11.218)	(−10.950)	−6.449
Top-bottom self-placement	1.002	0.996	1.028**	0.984	−0.147**
Top-bottom self-placement	−0.161	(−0.342)	−2.487	(−1.371)	(−2.309)
Men’s job earn money, women’s job look after home	0.900***	0.940***	0.875***	0.843***	0.143
Men’s job earn money, women’s job look after home	(−6.173)	(−3.764)	(−8.089)	(−10.257)	−1.538
Education (ref: less than elementary school)
Primary school (elementary school)	1.186	1.334**	1.271*	0.994	−1.898***
Primary school (elementary school)	−1.384	−2.246	−1.946	(−0.048)	(−2.829)
Lower secondary	1.181	1.069	1.024	0.896	−0.411
Lower secondary	−1.523	−0.584	−0.222	(−0.989)	(−0.692)
Upper secondary	1.02	0.862	0.886	0.747***	−0.209
Upper secondary	−0.18	(−1.287)	(−1.087)	(−2.583)	(−0.345)
Post-secondary, non-tertiary	1.026	0.925	0.866	0.753**	−0.567
Post-secondary, non-tertiary	−0.22	(−0.646)	(−1.232)	(−2.392)	(−0.882)
Lower level tertiary, first stage	0.841	0.798*	0.776**	0.657***	−1.094*
Lower level tertiary, first stage	(−1.503)	(−1.878)	(−2.199)	(−3.581)	(−1.725)
Upper level tertiary (Master, Dr.)	0.759**	0.670***	0.742**	0.573***	−1.320**
Upper level tertiary (Master, Dr.)	(−2.297)	(−3.232)	(−2.497)	(−4.580)	(−1.996)
Marital status (ref: currently unmarried)	1.474***	1.272***	1.356***	1.293***	0.289
Marital status (ref: currently unmarried)	−6.945	−4.274	−5.503	−4.56	−0.906
Age of respondent	1.018***	1.006***	1.018***	1.010***	0.036***
Age of respondent	−10.136	−3.501	−10.775	−5.935	−3.776
Presence of children	1.04	0.993	1.057	1.025	0.473*
Presence of children	−0.867	(−0.170)	−1.279	−0.573	−1.889
Observations	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619
Number of groups	34	34	34	34	34

p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001.

Note: Random effects and cutoff points not shown.

There is also some evidence for variation by level of education. Compared to those without formal education, men with only primary education report less involvement in two out of the three housework tasks, but longer hours doing housework. Men with tertiary education report a more egalitarian division of labor, but also fewer hours doing housework. Men who are married share less in housework tasks, but do not differ in the amount of time they spend on housework tasks compared to their non-married counterparts. Older age is associated with a more traditional division of labor but also with slightly more time spent on housework. The presence of one or more children under the age of 18 is not associated with patterns of the division of labor, but with more time spent doing housework. These established predictors of housework time and tasks are included in all subsequent multivariate models. The effects remain virtually identical when we include religion measures, so we do not show them to keep tables more compact (full models available upon request).

Individual-level affiliation and attendance and housework participation

Next, we examine the association between men’s religious affiliation and housework patterns addressed in H1b. Table 5 shows that there is evidence that Catholic men, compared to non-religious men, report a more traditional division of labor net of all other individual level characteristics as described in Table 4 across 3 out of the 4 housework tasks. Hindu men and men who identity with ‘other’ Christian religions report less involvement in grocery shopping but do not differ on any of the other tasks. Muslim men report a more traditional division of labor for housecleaning and meal preparation. However, they are also less traditional than non-religious men concerning grocery shopping. Jewish men exhibit more equal sharing across three out of the four tasks we examine compared to men who are not part of any religious tradition. When we examine time spent on housework tasks (Model 5), Catholic men spend less time while Hindu men spend more time on household chores than non-religious men. No difference is evident for any of the other groups. Our findings provide no clear support for Hypothesis 1b across the board. The variation in housework performance across religious traditions does not follow a pattern that suggests that men from more conservative religious traditions are less involved.

Table 5.

Individual religious tradition and participation in housework-random effects ordinal logit (Models 1a–4a, odds ratios shown) and linear random effects model (Model 5a). All models include covariates from Table 4.

Variables (ref: Nonreligious)	Model 1a	Model 2a	Model 3a	Model 4a	Model 5a
Variables (ref: Nonreligious)	Laundry	Grocery Shopping	Preparing Meals	Household Cleaning	Housework hours
Catholic	1.024	1.128**	1.188***	1.141**	0.597*
Catholic	−0.406	−2.171	−3.082	−2.393	−1.877
Protestant	1.016	1.042	1.092	1.048	0.049
Protestant	−0.237	−0.63	−1.352	−0.712	−0.13
Orthodox	0.852	0.909	1.212	1.001	0.961
Orthodox	(−1.329)	(−0.822)	−1.613	−0.009	−1.447
Other Christian religions	1.072	1.207*	1.177	0.994	0.298
Other Christian religions	−0.629	−1.699	−1.491	(−0.058)	−0.479
Jewish	0.381***	0.766	0.500***	0.415***	−1.934
Jewish	(−3.600)	(−1.134)	(−2.678)	(−3.599)	(−1.379)
Islamic	1.005	0.671***	1.522***	1.490***	−0.956
Islamic	−0.039	(−3.023)	−3.189	−2.987	(−1.294)
Buddhist	1.354	1.079	1.272	1.248	−0.944
Buddhist	−1.349	−0.369	−1.12	−1.061	(−0.821)
Hindu	0.878	1.784**	1.432	1.077	2.800**
Hindu	(−0.535)	−2.451	−1.492	−0.328	−2.157
Other Asian religions	1.139	0.497	1.042	1.404	1.605
Other Asian religions	−0.182	(−1.066)	−0.065	−0.54	−0.431
Other religions	0.854	0.813	0.774	1.04	−0.503
Other religions	(−0.821)	(−1.028)	(−1.335)	−0.201	(−0.460)
Observations	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619
Number of groups	34	34	34	34	34

p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001.

Note: random effects and cutoff points not shown.

When we consider men’s attendance of religious services and address H1a (see Table 6), we find that compared to men who never attend any religious services, those who attend sporadically to occasionally regularly report a more traditional division of labor for grocery shopping, meal preparation, and cleaning, and limited evidence that they may do less housework overall (among those who attend services once per month). However, men who attend religious services weekly share more in laundry tasks and report significantly longer housework hours. This set of findings support H1a to the extent that some participation in religious services may be associated with lower levels of housework involvement (especially if we do not account for men’s religious tradition). However, our finding that high levels of participation are associated with both evidence of equal sharing and more reported time for housework is in direct contradiction to H1a.

Table 6.

Attendance at religious services and participation in housework-random effects ordinal logit (Models 1b–4b, odds ratios shown) and linear random effects model (Model 5b). All models include covariates from Table 4.

Variables	Model 1b	Model 2b	Model 3b	Model 4b	Model 5b
Variables	Laundry	Shopping for groceries	Preparing meals	Household cleaning	Housework hours
Attendance
Less than 1x a year	0.965	1.063	1.110*	1.09	−0.461
Less than 1x a year	(−0.579)	−1.012	−1.725	−1.423	(−1.333)
1x a year	0.943	1.126*	1.098	1.023	−0.439
1x a year	(−0.868)	−1.787	−1.421	−0.351	(−1.166)
Several times a year	0.998	1.176***	1.172***	1.138**	0.284
Several times a year	(−0.032)	−2.936	−2.882	−2.329	−0.902
1x a month	1.032	1.015	1.105	1.049	0.674*
1x a month	−0.468	−0.225	−1.507	−0.718	−1.791
Once a week	0.880**	0.952	1.032	0.897*	1.872***
Once a week	(−2.012)	(−0.791)	−0.513	(−1.754)	−5.332
Observations	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619
Number of groups	34	34	34	34	34

p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001.

Note: random effects and cutoff points not shown.

The findings remain similar when we include both religious tradition and attendance of religious services in Table 7, although they weaken somewhat. The religious tradition differences remain similar for Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu men, but become weaker for Catholics. The evidence that occasional attendance of religious services is associated with a more traditional division of labor is considerably weakened, but the findings continue to suggest that men who attend religious services every week share more equally in at least laundry tasks and spend more time overall doing housework (a figure illustrating the predictions for hours spent on housework by attendance, denomination, and cultural zones is available upon request).

Table 7.

Religious tradition and attendance-random effects ordinal logit (Models 1c–4c, odds ratios shown) and linear random effects model (Model 5c). All models include covariates from Table 4.

Variables	Model 1c	Model 2c	Model 3c	Model 4c	Model 5c
Variables	Laundry	Shopping for groceries	Preparing meals	Household cleaning	Housework hours
Catholic	1.049	1.093	1.158**	1.146**	0.314
Catholic	−0.736	−1.412	−2.344	−2.197	−0.879
Protestant	1.052	1.018	1.073	1.06	−0.277
Protestant	−0.701	−0.253	−1.005	−0.834	(−0.686)
Orthodox	0.869	0.869	1.172	0.991	0.907
Orthodox	(−1.134)	(−1.191)	−1.301	(−0.078)	−1.335
Other Christian religions	1.128	1.203	1.176	1.041	−0.339
Other Christian religions	−1.056	−1.621	−1.443	−0.351	(−0.529)
Jewish	0.390***	0.752	0.491***	0.425***	−2.236
Jewish	(−3.499)	(−1.206)	(−2.738)	(−3.497)	(−1.604)
Islamic	1.065	0.668***	1.520***	1.585***	−1.737**
Islamic	−0.454	(−2.955)	−3.074	−3.341	(−2.278)
Buddhist	1.35	1.055	1.256	1.235	−1.151
Buddhist	−1.336	−0.26	−1.06	−1.012	(−1.001)
Hindu	0.879	1.719**	1.368	1.062	2.672**
Hindu	(−0.525)	−2.284	−1.291	−0.264	−2.06
Other Asian religions	1.14	0.492	1.022	1.393	1.324
Other Asian religions	−0.184	(−1.085)	−0.034	−0.527	−0.356
Other religions	0.882	0.811	0.77	1.074	−0.979
Other religions	(−0.649)	(−1.034)	(−1.354)	−0.363	(−0.890)
Attendance
Less than 1x a year	0.957	1.049	1.066	1.056	−0.525
Less than 1x a year	(−0.682)	−0.757	−1.019	−0.861	(−1.449)
1x a year	0.938	1.113	1.045	0.987	−0.512
1x a year	(−0.909)	−1.535	−0.634	(−0.188)	(−1.296)
Several times a year	0.984	1.152**	1.1	1.082	0.191
Several times a year	(−0.252)	−2.332	−1.57	−1.291	−0.552
1x a month	1.014	1	1.03	0.984	0.643
1x a month	−0.183	(−0.004)	−0.42	(−0.229)	−1.58
Once a week	0.853**	0.947	0.958	0.837***	1.992***
Once a week	(−2.280)	(−0.799)	(−0.637)	(−2.617)	−5.194
Observations	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619
Number of groups	34	34	34	34	34

p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001.

Note: Random effects and cutoff points not shown.

Cultural zones and housework participation

In the final set of models, we consider religion as a macro contextual measure through country-dominant religious traditions (see Table 8). We find support for H2a, as patterns of housework participation vary widely across cultural zones. There is at least partial evidence for H2b in that net of their individual characteristics, men in Nonwestern Protestant, Western and other Catholic countries, as well as men in Orthodox, Buddhist and nonreligious countries report a more traditional division of labor than men in Western Protestant nations. Men in India and Israel report both a more traditional and more egalitarian division of labor compared to Western Protestant men, depending on the task. As before, men in all Catholic countries, Hindu, and non-religious countries report more housework hours than men in Western Protestant countries net of a broad range of individual and household characteristics. Support for our basic hypothesis H2a of variation across cultural zones is clearly supported, but the different findings for the division of labor and the time spent on housework suggest that H2b is too simplistic.

Table 8.

Cultural zone effects – random effects ordinal logit (Models 1c–4c, odds ratios shown) and linear random effects model (Model 5c). All models include covariates shown in Table 4.

Variables (ref: Western Protestant)	Model 1d	Model 2d	Model 3d	Model 4d	Model 5d
Variables (ref: Western Protestant)	Laundry	Grocery shopping	Preparing meals	Household cleaning	Housework hours
Nonwestern Protestant	0.647	1.132	1.671*	0.953	3.533
Nonwestern Protestant	(−0.793)	−0.497	−1.78	(−0.183)	−1.479
Western Catholic	1.316	1.108	1.461***	1.449***	2.156**
Western Catholic	−1.113	−0.941	−2.978	−3.231	−2.015
Latin American Catholic	0.599	0.833	1.115	0.924	5.310***
Latin American Catholic	(−1.557)	(−1.186)	−0.623	(−0.494)	−3.698
Other Catholic	0.73	1.636**	0.661	1.137	8.478***
Other Catholic	(−0.577)	−2.02	(−1.472)	−0.506	−3.593
Orthodox	1.449	0.986	2.535***	1.954**	1.398
Orthodox	−0.675	(−0.058)	−3.232	−2.565	−0.586
Buddhist	1.519	2.612***	3.371***	1.718***	−2.392
Buddhist	−1.008	−5.199	−5.619	−2.773	(−1.334)
Hindu	0.169***	1.679**	0.262***	1.149	5.993**
Hindu	(−3.251)	−2.106	(−4.708)	−0.536	−2.532
Nonreligious	1.669	1.333*	2.180***	2.077***	4.922***
Nonreligious	−1.424	−1.784	−4.153	−4.304	−3.154
Israel	1.367	0.584**	2.013**	1.405	0.095
Israel	−0.569	(−2.169)	−2.437	−1.313	−0.04
Observations	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619	10,619
Number of groups	34	34	34	34	34

p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001.

Note: Random effects and cutoff points not shown.

Conclusion

How families divide up the work done within the home continues to be an area of active research as its implications reverberate throughout the social structure and touch on a variety of social scientific topics: the progress of the gender revolution, women’s gains in paid work, welfare state regimes’ attitudes and policies regarding gender equality, and religion’s influence on the state and the family. This study adds to the literature on men’s involvement in domestic labor by examining the effects of individual religious affiliation, attendance at religious services, and country-level religious context and includes a novel frame through which to view religion’s societal-level influence, the cultural zone schema. Support for the study’s hypotheses were mixed and several unexpected findings emerged. At the individual level we do find evidence for variation of men’s housework performance across religious traditions. While Catholic, Other Christian, Muslim, and Hindu men show more traditional patterns of division of labor on a number of tasks, when we add attendance at religious services, we find that the weekly attenders are more likely to participate in at least some household tasks and spend more hours per week on housework. A limitation of the data used in this study is its self-reported nature. While self-reported measures have been criticized due to their potential for subjectivity and social desirability, they often represent the best available data on individual behaviors.

What can we surmise from these findings? One possibility is that highly religious men are heeding the call from their leaders to become more involved in family life, including participation in household chores. Despite giving lip service to traditional gender ideology, many conservative couples exhibit a pragmatic egalitarianism that may lead to more equal sharing of household tasks (Gallagher and Smith, 1999). The exact nature of the tasks these religiously active men are engaged in is unclear. Religiously active men may also look different from less or non-religious men in their personalities and preferences, which may impact their housework participation; however, that is beyond the scope of this study. While this analysis does show some support for the notion that men are increasingly engaging in traditionally ‘feminine’ tasks, more research is needed to determine whether or not the majority of this extra time is indeed helping to lighten their partners’ gendered load.

We posit the emergence\ of two pathways toward greater equality in housework participation. Nonreligious men individually (though not in nonreligious countries) participate more in all types of domestic labor, likely due to acceptance of gender equitable attitudes among this group (Seguino, 2011). At the same time, men who are more actively religious appear to espouse attitudes that place a high value on home and family life, also leading to greater participation in housework. Whether a man values his partner’s equality and autonomy or feels God-given stewardship over his home and family, the outcome may be similar: greater sharing of household tasks and more hours spent in housework.

Our findings echo those from Voicu et al.’s (2009) exploration of religion and housework in a European context. Non-western Protestant, Western and other Catholic countries, Orthodox, Buddhist and nonreligious countries exhibit more traditional patterns of domestic labor. These findings speak to the influence of national religious culture on the development of gender attitudes. The conceptualization of appropriately gendered participation in household tasks is influenced by religious beliefs on the divine establishment of gender roles and who carries the primary responsibility for the home sphere (Bartkowski, 2001; Shah et al., 2016). However, our findings indicate that conservative religious membership and reduced housework participation do not enjoy a direct, linear relationship; rather, highly religious men may find themselves taking on a greater share of housework despite their feelings on the gendered nature of those tasks.

This article provides a foundation for further research into religion’s association with household labor. One avenue for further research involves addressing Protestant men’s housework participation cross-nationally, as there is a great deal of variation between Protestant traditions. Adding cultural zones to analyses focused on macro-level indicators of housework participation proved fruitful for this study and showed a great deal of variation across zones. Cultural zones should be explored as a complement to other macro level measures of housework participation such as welfare state regimes and measures of gender equality. Data sets with larger numbers of non-Christian religious affiliates are especially needed in establishing a thorough understanding of religion’s influence on men’s housework participation.

We draw two broad conclusions from our study. First, the association between religion and men’s housework performance is complex, and the findings about cross-national variation between religious traditions should be a starting point to examine how national-level religious culture shapes the gendered division of labor. While we hope that religion scholars will examine the domestic division of labor in more detail in future research, the second conclusion we draw from our study is that housework scholars should not assume that men’s religious identities and practices are simply interchangeable with attitudes about gender. Religion needs to be included more systematically in research on housework and couple relationships. By bridging these two bodies of work, greater insight can be gleaned into the cultural contexts within which couples develop notions of appropriate labor sharing both within and outside of the home.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Wade Cole and the editors and anonymous reviewers at Social Compass for comments on earlier drafts of this work.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Bethany GULL is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Utah. She studies identity and religion as they intersect with topics including gender and sexuality, housework participation, and social movements. Her recent research focuses on identity work and collective action mobilization among conservative religious disaffiliates.

Address: 380 S. 1530 E., Room 301, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.

Email: bethany.gull@soc.utah.edu

Claudia GEIST is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and the Division of Gender Studies at the University of Utah. She studies the intersection of gender, inequality, and family, examining topics ranging from the division of labor to the ways in which economic circumstances affect pregnancy intentions. Her recent work focuses the structural context of family planning and reproductive justice.

Address: 260 Central Campus Drive, Suite 4200, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.

Email: claudia.geist@soc.utah.edu

References

Aassve

Fuochi

Mencarini

(2014) Desperate housework: Relative resources, time availability, economic dependency, and gender ideology across Europe. Journal of Family Issues 35: 1000–1022.

Acker

(1988) Class, gender, and the relations of distribution. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 13: 473–497.

Altintas

Sullivan

(2016) Fifty years of change updated: Cross-national gender convergence in housework. Demographic Research 35: 455.

Ammons

Edgell

(2007) Religious influences on work–family trade-offs. Journal of Family Issues 28: 794–826.

Apparala

Reifman

Munsch

(2003) Cross-national comparison of attitudes toward fathers’ and mothers’ participation in household tasks and childcare. Sex Roles 48: 189-203.

Bartkowski

(2001) Remaking the godly marriage: Gender negotiation in evangelical families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bartkowski

(2000) Distant patriarchs or expressive dads? The discourse and practice of fathering in conservative Protestant families. The Sociological Quarterly 41: 465–485.

Bernhardt

Noack

Lyngstad

(2008) Shared housework in Norway and Sweden: Advancing the gender revolution. Journal of European Social Policy 18: 275–288.

Bianchi

Milkie

Sayer

, et al (2000) Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces 79: 191–228.

10.

Bianchi

Sayer

Milkie

, et al (2012) Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Social Forces 91: 55.

11.

Blair

Lichter

(1991) Measuring the division of household labor gender segregation of housework among American couples. Journal of Family Issues 12: 91–113.

12.

Bloch

(2000) The ew and improved Clint Eastwood: Change and persistence in promise keepers self-help literature. Sociology of Religion 61: 11–30.

13.

Brines

(1994) Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology 100: 652–688.

14.

Cancedda

(2001) Employment in household services, European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

15.

Civettini

Glass

(2008) The impact of religious conservatism on men’s work and family involvement. Gender & Society 22: 172–193.

16.

Cole

(2016) Human Rights and the Individual: Cross-Cultural Variation in Human Rights Scores, 1980 to 2010. Social Forces 95: 721–752.

17.

Cunningham

(2007) Influences of women’s employment on the gendered division of household labor over the life course: Evidence from a 31-year panel study. Journal of Family Issues 28: 422–444.

18.

Ellison

Bartkowski

(2002) Conservative Protestantism and the Division of Household Labor among Married Couples. Journal of Family Issues 23: 950–985.

19.

England

(2010) The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society 24: 149–166.

20.

Fuwa

(2004) Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review 69: 751–767.

21.

Fuwa

Cohen

(2007) Housework and social policy. Social science research 36: 512–530.

22.

Gallagher

Smith

(1999) Symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism: Contemporary evangelicals, families, and gender. Gender & Society 13: 211–233.

23.

Geist

(2005) The welfare state and the home: Regime differences in the domestic division of labour. European Sociological Review 21: 23–41.

24.

Geist

Cohen

(2011) Headed toward equality? Housework change in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family 73: 832–844.

25.

Glass

Jacobs

(2005) Childhood religious conservatism and adult attainment among black and white women. Social Forces 84: 555–579.

26.

Greenstein

(2000) Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and Family 62: 322–335.

27.

Hardacre

(1993) The impact of fundamentalisms on women, the family, and interpersonal relations. In Hardcare

Mendelsohn

Tehranian

(eds) Fundamentalisms and society: Reclaiming the sciences, the family, and education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 129–150.

28.

Herzog

Bachman

(1982) Sex role attitudes among high school seniors: views about work and family roles. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

29.

Huntington

(1997) The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New Delhi: Penguin Books.

30.

Inglehart

(2010) Mapping global values (2006). In: Lune

Pumar

Koppel

(eds) Perspectives in Social Research Methods and Analysis. A Reader for Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 203–219.

31.

ISSP Research Group (2012) International Social Survey Programme: Family and changing gender roles IV - ISSP 2012. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA3880 Data file Version 1.1.0.

32.

Kalmijn

(2003) Country differences in sex-role attitudes: Cultural and economic explanations. In: Arts

Halman

Hagenaars

(eds) The Cultural Diversity of European Unity: Findings, explanations an reflections from the European Values Study (6 ed). Leiden: Brill, 311–337.

33.

Kilkey

Perrons

(2010) Gendered Divisions in Domestic Work Time The rise of the (migrant) handyman phenomenon. Time & Society 19: 239–264.

34.

Klingorová

Havlíček

(2015) Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions. Moravian Geographical Reports 23: 2–11.

35.

Knudsen

Wærness

(2007) National context and spouses’ housework in 34 countries. European Sociological Review 24: 97–113.

36.

Kroska

(2004) Divisions of domestic work: Revising and expanding the theoretical explanations. Journal of Family Issues 25: 890–922.

37.

Lennon

Rosenfield

(1994) Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. American Journal of Sociology 100: 506–531.

38.

Mannino

Deutsch

(2007) Changing the division of household labor: A negotiated process between partners. Sex Roles 56: 309–324.

39.

Maoz

Henderson

(2013) The world religion dataset, 1945–2010: Logic, estimates, and trends. International Interactions 39: 265–291.

40.

Meintel

(2014) Religious collectivities in the era of individualization. Social Compass 61: 195–206.

41.

Moon

Shin

(2018) The return of superman? Individual and organizational predictors of men’s housework in South Korea. Journal of Family Issues 39(1): 180–208.

42.

Morgan

(1987) The impact of religion on gender-role attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly 11: 301–310.

43.

Noonan

Estes

Glass

(2007) Do workplace flexibility policies influence time spent in domestic labor? Journal of Family Issues 28: 263–288.

44.

Pankhurst

Houseknecht

(2000) Introduction: The religion-family linkage and social change. A neglected area of study. Family, religion, and social change in diverse societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–42.

45.

Peek

Lowe

Williams

(1991) Gender and God’s word: Another look at religious fundamentalism and sexism. Social Forces 69: 1205–1221.

46.

Pessi

(2013) Privatized religiosity revisited: Building an authenticity model of individual–church relations. Social compass 60: 3–21.

47.

Pinto

Coltrane

(2009) Divisions of labor in Mexican origin and Anglo families: Structure and culture. Sex Roles 60: 482–495.

48.

Quadlin

Doan

(2018) Sex-typed chores and the city: Gender, urbanicity, and housework. Gender & Society 32(6): 789–813.

49.

Rabe-Hesketh

Skrondal

(2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: STATA press.

50.

Read

JnG

(2003) The sources of gender role attitudes among Christian and Muslim Arab-American women. Sociology of Religion 64: 207–222.

51.

Ruppanner

(2009) Conflict and housework: Does country context matter? European Sociological Review 26(5): 557–570.

52.

Sayer

(2016) Trends in Women’s and Men’s time use, 1965–2012: back to the future? In: Mchale

King

Van Hook

Booth

(eds) Gender and couple relationships. Basel: Springer, 43–77.

53.

Seguino

(2011) Help or hindrance? Religion’s impact on gender inequality in attitudes and outcomes. World Development 39: 1308–1321.

54.

Shah

Bartkowski

(2016) Gendered God imagery and attitudes toward mothers’ labor force participation: Examining the transposable character of religious schemas. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 55: 540–557.

55.

Singelmann

Kamo

Acock

, et al (1996) Dual-earner families and the division of household labor: A comparative analysis of six industrial societies. Acta Demographica 1994–1996. Springer, 159–178.

56.

Sorensen

McLanahan

(1987) Married women’s economic dependency, 1940-1980. American Journal of Sociology 93: 659–687.

57.

South

Spitze

(1994) Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review 59(3): 327–347.

58.

Stark

Finke

(2000) Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.

59.

Stier

Lewin-Epstein

Braun

(2001) Welfare regimes, family-supportive policies, and women’s employment along the life-course. American Journal of Sociology 106: 1731–1760.

60.

Treas

Lui

(2013) Studying housework across nations. Journal of Family Theory & Review 5: 135–149.

61.

Voicu

Strapcova

(2007) Gendered housework. A cross-European analysis. Slovak Sociological Review 39: 502–521.

62.

Voicu

Strapcova

(2009) Housework and gender inequality in European countries. European Sociological Review. 25(3): 365–377.

63.

Welzel

(2013) Freedom rising: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.