The Relevance of Gender in the Care of Elders: Assumptions and Realities

Intergenerational Bonds in Old Age

Global ageing brought about by falling fertility and rising longevity worldwide has a sweeping social, cultural and economic impact, in particular on the provision of elder care (Jackson & Howe, 2008). With the entry of more women into the paid labour force and uniform governmental retreat from care of the aged over the last few decades (Grigoryeva, 2017), it has become an increasingly demanding task for governments to address elder care issues and for individuals to take care of the well-being of their elderly parents and close (elderly) relatives.

In developing countries where resources are limited, it is not surprising that adult children are crucial for the provision of elder care as in China (Whyte, 2003; Xie & Zhu, 2009; Zeng, Brasher, Gu, & Vaupel, 2016) and India (Seth, 2010; Dhar, 2012). Yet, research has found that more than 90 per cent of elders in the USA too rely on unpaid family assistance alone or on government welfare measures (Johnson & Wiener, 2006). Though such care may not always include personal assistance in cooking, feeding, cleaning and helping with their toilet, even constantly looking after the financial and medical problems of elderly parents can be laborious, time consuming and involve some sacrifices. Elder care creates a moral dilemma for adult children in countries like the USA where individualism is nourished in childhood, but also where altruism and sacrifices are demanded in the caregiving of the dependent elderly–a role reversal for which they have not been trained (Grigoryeva, 2017). But in older more traditional societies such as India and China, adult children are expected to take care of their elders in old age. However, influenced by the West, in India the rise of individualism appears to result in avoidant behaviour typified by a tendency of some adult children to evade any elder caregiving responsibility (Dhar, 2012); and in China, coupled with the one-child policy, there has been a nationwide lament that the parents of the first one-child generation would be the last to practise filial piety (S. Li, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2017). The change in ideology and values is, thus, an issue that needs to be addressed in relation to elder care in conservative societies. Indifference to or neglect of elders in the family sounds an alarm bell, alerting us to the need to reconsider the principles per se by which we bring up children and the moral foundations that we lay in them.

Responsibility for others as a moral value lies at the core of this ideological clash. Researchers have found that caregiving responsibilities, formerly regarded as a ‘labour of love’ or even a ‘prison of love’, may have a substantially negative impact on adult children, even affecting their mental health (Levesque, Cossetle, & Laurin, 1995; McKinlay, Crawford, & Tennstedt, 1995), physical health and mortality (Folbre, 2012), quality of their marriage and other family relationships (Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010), time and income (Bookman & Kimbrel, 2011), and finances (Colello, 2007). At the same time, a strong sense of gratification and satisfaction, an intrinsic emotional reward, have also clearly been observed in adult children caring for their frail elderly parents (Folbre, 2012; Noonan, Tennstedt, & Rebelsky, 1996; Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). Sometimes, economic benefits such as an inheritance from elderly parents may form an incentive (Zelizer, 2000).

A swing of the pendulum from ‘burden’ to ’benefit’ is dependent on ‘a close loving caregiver–care receiver relationship’ (Braithwaite, 2000, p. 706). A warm intergenerational bond has been identified as positively related to the well-being of both adult children and elderly parents in numerous studies in Confucian-influenced countries and regions, such as China (Shi, 2009; Zeng, Brasher, et al., 2016), Taiwan (Tsao & Yeh, 2014; K. Yeh & Tsao, 2014), Hong Kong (Ho, 1996; Wong & Chau, 2006), Japan (Long & Harris, 2000; Nakane & Farevaag, 2003), and also in other cultures such as India (Dhar, 2012) and Turkey (Kagitcibasi & Ataca, 2015), and Western countries such as the USA (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991) and the Netherlands (Merz, Consedine, Schulze, & Schuengel, 2009). Riley said that ‘a parent–child bond must be earned—created and recreated by family members over their lives’ (1983, p. 439), which begs the question of how a parent–child bond should be developed.

In this article, I first review gender roles of children in childhood and elder care; then I examine evidence that underpins the conventional view of gender trumping an intergenerational bond and identify five issues arising from it. Next I shift my attention from gender to housework, which practically sets boys and girls apart in childhood as they are socialized differently and discuss its relationship with the development of domestic/familial responsibility in theoretical perspective; I follow this up by elaborating on the significance of familial love in such a relationship. Finally, I discuss the implications of what the data reveal.

Gender Roles, Child Development and Elder Care

Gender roles are defined by the sociocultural norms of a society over time (Eagly, 1987) and many gendered differences are not biologically determined but socially shaped by cultural conditioning (Mead, 1963). Societies are fraught with gender stereotypes.

In childhood, boys are expected to be independent, task-oriented and dominant, while girls are expected to fulfil domestic responsibilities and are trained to be caring and nurturing. Thus, certain types of work, such as intermittent maintenance jobs, are delegated to boys, while the biggest chunk, in fact an overwhelming proportion of domestic labour, cooking and cleaning, and helping with childcare is the lot of girls (Witt, 1997). As a result, it has been found that daughters are much more engaged in household chores than sons across cultures (Benin & Edward, 1990; Blair, 1992; Goodnow, 1988; Ho, 1993; Seymour, 1988).

Despite the contributions that daughters make to the family, sons are preferred in many countries, such as China (Arnold & Zhaoxiang, 1986; Banister, 2004), India (Dhar, 2012; Echávarri & Ezcurra, 2010; Seth, 2010) and some Eastern European countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (Guilmoto & Duthé, 2013). Apart from ancestor worship and the family lineage, one of the main reasons behind son preference is the thought of elder care; as the old Chinese sayings go ‘having a son (rather than a daughter) prevents difficulties in old age’, whereas ‘a married-out daughter is like sloshed-out water’ who becomes a member of her husband’s family. In a multi-child family with limited resources, this mentality leads to sons being provided with better living conditions and study support, while daughters are required to engage in family chores and childcare of their younger siblings.

It is the social and cultural norm in most countries that immediate family members are responsible for elder caregiving (Rossi & Rossi, 1990) with financial support being provided by the sons, but practical and emotional support expected to be provided by the daughters (Miller & Cafasso, 1992; Willyard, Miller, Shoemaker, & Addison, 2008). However, studies show mixed results in terms of financial support. For example, in China, some studies found that both daughters and sons provided financial assistance (Luo & Zhan, 2012), married daughters often provided amounts equivalent to (Whyte, 2003) or even greater than sons (Xie & Zhu, 2009), though the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) ¹ showed that 91 per cent more financial support came from sons than daughters in rural areas and 31 per cent more in urban areas of China (Zeng, George, Sereny, et al. 2016). In an investigation in USA, Chelsey and Poppie found that ‘there are no gender differences in levels of unpaid task assistance or financial assistance to parents or in-laws’ (2009, p. 247).

Unlike financial support for elderly parents, when it comes to practical and emotional support, all the available studies have presented a very clear scenario of the stronger affective bond that adult daughters have with elderly parents and also the better practical care they provide for them than their adult sons. The CLHLS ironically found that ‘older parents enjoy greater filial piety from and better relationships with daughters than sons and surprisingly more profound in rural areas than urban areas, while son-preference is much more prevalent among rural residents’ (Zeng, George, et al., 2016, p. 244). This finding has been corroborated by other studies in China (Shi, 2009; Zhang & Wang, 2010), Taiwan (K. H. Yeh, 2009), and Hong Kong (Ho, 1993; Ng, Phillips, & Lee, 2002). In India, despite divergences in elder care in urban, small town, rural and tribal areas and differences in care given by family members or domestic helpers in different sociocultural contexts, one fact is constant: strong son preference prevails (Kakar & Kakar, 2007; Roland, 1988; Saraswathi, 1999, 2003; Saraswathi & Pai, 1997; Trawick, 1990; Uberoi, 1993, 2003, 2006), with one study finding that adult sons tended to shun elder care responsibility whereas adult daughters’ willingness to provide care was declined by elderly parents (Dhar, 2012). Evidence of a strong bond between adult daughters and elderly parents has also been found in Turkey (Kagitcibasi & Ataca, 2015), the Netherlands (Van Groenou & Knipscheer, 1999), and the USA (Chesley & Poppie, 2009).

To be more specific about the gendered nature of care giving, in the analysis of a large national dataset in the USA, Grigoryeva found that ‘women provide as much care as they can, whereas men provide as little parent care as they can, regardless of other factors (such as employment, work hours, marital status, children, geographic proximity and economic resources)’ (2014, p. 23). A survey of 1,449 cases in the USA revealed that adult sons participated in elder care only when mandated by kinship obligations (Szinovacz & Davey, 2008). A study of 2,214 UK couples also showed that adult sons tend to bargain about their parent care (Henz, 2010). Matthews (2002) further explained that daughters offer unsolicited help and try to anticipate and address parents’ needs in advance, while sons only respond to parents’ requests for assistance; and also, daughters expect parents to depend on them, while sons foster parents’ self-sufficiency and autonomy. Abel (1991) also noted that daughters assume a more encompassing approach, advancing the overall quality of their parents’ lives and coordinate and even actually persuade adult sons (their brothers) into elder caregiving. Adult sons tend to conceive parent care as more of a job, a job to be dodged if possible (Ungerson, 1987). Therefore, it was concluded by all these scholars that care is ‘quintessentially female identified’ (England, 2005, p. 383) and women are better ‘natural’ caregivers (Cancian & Oliker, 2000). A woman is considered as socialized to be nurturing, family oriented (Rossi & Rossi, 1990), ‘a kin-keeper all her life’ (Gerstel & Gallagher, 2001, pp. 213–214).

The issues of gender differences in child socialization and elder care are linked, and further beg the question: ‘Do men and women therefore love differently?’

Do Men and Women Love their Parents Differently?

The Mars–Venus stereotype contains perhaps the most common belief that men and women love differently, arising from the bestseller book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, which claims that ‘[n]ot only do men and women communicate differently, but they think, feel, perceive, react, respond, love, need and appreciate differently’ (Gray, 1992, p. 5). This view has penetrated mainstream thought and culture (Schoenfeld, Bredow, & Huston, 2012). The stereotype is underpinned by two theoretical perspectives: sociostructural and evolutionary. Sociostructural theorists hold that gender differences in behaviour result from social power differences (Eagly & Wood, 1999; W. Wood & Eagly, 2002), which determine that men are dominant, assertive and work-oriented, and women are caring, emotionally expressive and familyoriented (Bakan, 1966; Spence & Buckner, 2000). Evolutionary theory posits that gender differences are biologically induced (Buss, 1988), that men are thought to have evolved dominant, competitive tendencies, whereas women, given their caregiving responsibilities and need for men’s provision, have evolved to be more nurturing and emotionally responsive (Schoenfeld et al., 2012, p. 1397).

However, the theoretical framework of the Mars–Venus stereotype received relatively little empirical support in terms of love. There are some consistent differences between men and women found in empirical studies; for instance, men and women may have opposite patterns with men tending to fall in love more quickly (e.g., Brantley, Knox, & Zusman, 2002) and holding more romanticized beliefs about love than women (Sprecher & Metts, 1999), while women value the emotional facets more than the sexual (Schmitt, Youn, Bond, et al. 2009). Cancian (1986), among others (Noller, 1996; J. T. Wood & Inman, 1993) identified the activity-oriented manifestations of love in men, that is, in showing love by doing housework, initiating sex, or spending free time with his partner, whereas a woman may show her love by sharing her feelings or giving hugs and kisses. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the empirical research suggests that there aren’t too many substantial differences between men and women on the whole, in which both genders were equally likely to show love through affection (Schoenfeld et al., 2012) and gender differences in experiencing and showing love don’t hold up in large measure (Fehr, 2006). ‘Men’s and women’s love is not differentially tied to how affectionate they are’ (Schoenfeld et al., 2012, p. 1406).

Accordingly, it can be said that men are equally capable of having and displaying affection for their parents as women are. More importantly, according to the aforementioned point made by Cancian and others, men appear to be more inclined to show affection through engaging themselves in housework than women, which may further suggest that sons could play an equal if not a larger role than daughters in parent care of which housework forms a major component.

Is Caregiving a Female Chore?

Men’s willingness to perform household tasks for their parents contradicts the assumption and conviction that caregiving is ‘quintessentially female identified’ (England, 2005, p. 383). By delving into the evidence that underpins the gender stereotype in parent care, the present article identifies some imperceptible loopholes that are contradictory to this stereotype and can hardly be explained away. In what follows, five issues will be elaborated.

First of all, gender difference has been found to be irrelevant in the care siblings give their parents. Willyard et al. (2008) found that although most of the primary caregivers were daughters, they received only circumscribed or sporadic support from their siblings regardless of gender difference, who tend to offload elder care responsibility onto the primary caregiver and make excuses for their negligent behaviour. Merrill found that ‘one adult child tends to take primary responsibility’ (p. 399) who overwhelmingly receives little or no help from siblings of either gender. The latter were not reliable or consistent in assisting with parent care. This suggests that gender plays no role in sibling assistance in parent care.

Second, according to the latent kin matrix theory that caregiving responsibilities in families are assigned in a series order, the eldest child in a family is more likely to be the primary caregiver regardless of gender (Riley, 1983). Since the eldest child is most likely to be the one who provides the most domestic labour and even looks after younger siblings, Suitor and Pillemer reported that ‘last-born adult children were substantially more likely to be named as those to whom their mothers were most emotionally close, and firstborn children were most likely to be chosen as those to whom their mothers would turn in crises or when facing personal problems’ (2007, p. 49). In other words, the youngest child is more of a care receiver, whereas the eldest child, regardless of gender, is most likely to be a caregiver. Matthews and Rosner (1988) also found in their investigation that it is the eldest child, regardless of gender, who holds the highest responsibility for parent caregiving. This indicates that it is the sibling who was burdened most with domestic responsibilities in childhood who becomes a caregiver (most likely the eldest one), independent of gender.

Third, women provide no more or perhaps even less affective elder care than men in looking after parents-in-law. With no blood linkage (Deborah M. Merrill, 1993) and reciprocity for past care (Grigoryeva, 2014), children-in-law are loosely bounded by a lower level of filial responsibility (Rossi & Rossi, 1990). It has been found in the USA that daughters-in-law and sons-in-law play minor roles (Grigoryeva, 2017; Shuey & Hardy, 2003), while in the UK, compared to sons, daughters-in-law are not involved at all in parent care (Henz, 2009). This suggests that more than gender, it is affection, intergenerational affection developed throughout childhood, that plays an important role in the provision of elder care. But in China the CLHLS results (Zeng et al., 2016) showed that sons-in-law perform better than daughters-in-law in providing affective comfort and daily care for their spouses’ parents; parents-in-law in China expressed 13 per cent more satisfaction with the care provided by their sons-in-law than that provided by their daughters-in-law. Perhaps because there are fewer expectations of sons- and daughters-in-law, when they do give a little care it is appreciated disproportionately. This evidence does suggest that men can indeed sometimes provide better affective care than women or that gender may not be the determining factor in elder care.

Fourth, the trend in recent decades towards a narrowing gender gap in housework and child care (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000; Sayer, 2005) but not in elder care (Grigoryeva, 2017) raises the question whether tasks are still gender based in families in some societies. Over the last decades, with more men involved in housework and child care in Western societies, there has been a change in the emotional expression of fatherhood through activities such as cooking breakfast, packing lunch boxes for children, taking them to after-school classes and sport activities (Bronstein & Cowan, 1988; Coltrane, 1997; Marsiglio, Amato, Day, et al. 2000). It has been found in Western societies that ‘men who loved their partners more performed a greater percentage of their daily housework, whereas women’s tendency to complete household tasks with their husbands was unrelated to how much they loved their partners’(Schoenfeld et al., 2012, p. 1403).

If men can take up ‘female tasks’ in their homes, we may ask: what makes men in general shy away from moral responsibility and showing affection for their elderly parents in various ways including helping them in daily tasks? What inhibits them from showing their parents the same moral responsibility and affection that they have for their children and wives? Gender is certainly not the answer to this question.

Last but not least, a stronger parent–child bond (unrelated to gender) is more likely to be observed in working-class families and among non-whites (African, Asian and Hispanic Americans). Merrill (1996) noted that sibling assistance was more often seen to occur in working-class rather than in middle-class families, and other scholars (Bookman & Kimbrel, 2011; Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004; Shuey & Hardy, 2003) also found a stronger sense of family obligation among non-whites (African, Asian and Hispanic Americans). In these families, the researchers found that there was an emphasis on family responsibilities, the need to help one another and provide parent care while simultaneously coping with poverty and discrimination in the world outside.

Eyetsemitan (2000) pointed out that ‘the care of elderly parents, a long-term commitment, should be viewed from a developmental perspective, beginning from childhood’ (p. 281). Given the fact that chores are, practically considered a major construct to distinguish the home roles of a daughter and a son, especially in lower income families which have limited resources, the question to be asked could be whether it is the distribution of such chores that plays a critical role in an adult son or daughter’s sense of responsibility for elder care without necessarily having reference to gender.

Chores and Family Responsibility

A large body of literature has investigated the benefits and risks of parents engaging children in chores. Although there is a risk of conflict between parents and adolescents which could be the result of lax and inconsistent supervision and inappropriate workload (Rende, 2015), it has been well established by a large body of studies that the performance of chores has a number of benefits for child development, ranging from enhancing interpersonal skills and a sense of responsibility (Rogoff, 2003; White & Brinkerhoff, 1981; Whiting, Whiting, & Longabaugh, 1975; Wingard, 2006), to learning empathy (Grusec, Goodnow, & Cohen, 1996; Rende & Prosek, 2015), educational attainment and career success (Smith, 1969; Wilcox, 2011). In particular, it has been highlighted that ‘children’s routine at home enables not only social but also moral responsibility’(Ochs & Izquierdo, 2009, p. 391). It has been found that housework as part of family care (contrary to self-care) on a routine basis positively correlates with concern for family members (Grusec et al., 1996). Although extensive research has been carried out on housework, there is no single study that explores the mechanism for the development of family responsibility by engaging children in chores. What follows attempts to fill this gap tentatively.

Responsibility refers to the requirement that children share age-appropriate domestic labour with their parents, such as tidying, cleaning, cooking, looking after younger siblings and so on. A sense of responsibility for certain tasks performed regularly helps children develop a mentality that, in the world, there are no rights and benefits without obligations attached, and it also helps them to develop gratitude for parental care and support received (S. Li, 2016a, 2016b, 2017).

That a sense of responsibility is learned in childhood through the performance of chores is based on two strands of relevant psychological theories. First, given that human beings are inherently predisposed to self-interest (Hume, 1960; Kohlberg, 1964; Maslow, 1943), Kohlberg’s moral development theory (Kohlberg, 1984) holds that one’s moral development is neither inborn nor a function of growing up; moral thinking does not naturally or necessarily lead to moral behaviour. In other words, people may talk about morals and still not follow the moral precepts they tout, reluctant to pay the costs in terms of time, energy, finance and the expenditure of similar resources. What stands in the way of one’s moral development is a massive obstacle—self-interest inherent in human nature. Hoffman’s internalization theory (1975; 1994) identified the means to overcome this obstacle: internalization of moral norms during childhood through affect and induction into countless disciplining acts over time. This ultimately leads to an emotionally charged moral knowledge structure that generates the empathic and guilty feelings in the child in the event of failing to comply with the moral norm. Hoffman’s internalization is achieved through a process of habituation, which also echoes Aristotle’s thought on human development that ‘none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature … rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit’ (1994 [4th century BCE], p. 26) and that ‘teaching is futile before good habits are already in place’ (Curzer, 2002, p. 145).

Hoffman’s process of internalization is defined in three dimensions: familial love, moral reasoning and discipline. Among these dimensions, the role of discipline is highly emphasized by Hoffman and endorsed by many other scholars (L. W. Hoffman, Rosen, & Lippitt, 1960; Martin L Hoffman, 1960). For example, Blustein said, ‘Discipline is essential here, it must gradually shift from its position of outward authority to an inner position of self-control’ (1982, p. 127). Li’s empirical study (2016d) also revealed that discipline plays a role twice as important as familial love and moral reasoning.

Chores, characterized by hardship and tedium, are a perfect means for the inculcation of moral reasoning, and especially discipline, in the development of responsibility for the welfare of other family members. First of all, moral reasoning is embedded in an age-appropriate share of laborious chores in the natural course of life; the lesson is that there are no rights in the world without obligations attached to them and that one’s rights should be earned by a corresponding fulfilment of one’s obligations. Hardship and tedium in daily housework routines also act as a great vehicle of discipline to help subjugate children’s selfish and hedonistic inclinations and mould the habit of taking responsibility for other family members. Such everyday family practices help achieve the purpose of ‘sobering children into the social fact that growing up means that obligation precedes pleasure’ (Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik, 2007, p. 9). And to develop this habit, there is no better time than childhood (Aristotle, 1976 [ca. 350 bce]). Therefore, engaging children in routine chores throughout childhood provides a powerful means to internalize a sense of family responsibility in children’s psyche. For the success of such internalization, chores need to be assigned in concert with familial love.

There is no denying that social conventions play a significant role in moral growth in children (Keller, 2007; Turiel, 1983). Ethnographic evidence demonstrates that vast individual, familial and group differences exist within India (Chaudhary, 2007, 2011, 2017; Chaudhary & Keller, 2017; Chaudhary & Valsiner, 2018), but common to all there is a duty-based moral code of dharma in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, decreeing that individual rights are typically subordinated to duties (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1990). In such a sociocultural context, dharma becomes the intrinsic motivation for children to identify with adults in their social and work activities through guided participation such as observation and modelling of skills (Rogoff, Mistry, Göncü, et al. 1993), and a child can then be in a favourable position to grow and evolve as a moral being across the life course.

Familial Love and Responsibility

Familial love is the prerequisite for strong family bonds. Familial love refers to parental love and the love of grandparents and other family members who care for children when their parents are away working in other places or countries. According to the attachment theory (Ainsworth, 1961, 1967, 1969, 1989; Bowlby, 1965, 1969, 1982; Brenning, Soenens, Braet, et al., 2012; Steele & Steele, 2013), parental love is the source of almost all positive emotions such as empathy, joy, gratitude and trust. Lack of parental love may have serious ill-effects on a child’s personality development and various aspects of mental health, possibly resulting in depression, violence and even crime (Maccoby, Martin, & Hetheringon, 1983). A good number of studies in different sociocultural contexts (Chaudhary, 2007, 2011, 2017; Chaudhary & Keller, 2017; Chaudhary & Valsiner, 2018; Hrdy, 2009; Kurtz, 1992; Rockwell, 2006; Roland, 2005) also reveal how significant allo-parental care (‘allo-’, a learned borrowed word from the Greek, meaning ‘other than’ for such kin members as grandparents and members of the extended family) is in promoting child survival and healthy growth. Consequently, without the existence of familial love—the source of moral virtues—there will be no possibility for children to reciprocate parental love.

Familial love as the source of children’s gratitude interacts with allotted chores in the development of a sense of responsibility. Li’s investigation of 589 high school students found that chores, based on reasoning and as a disciplinary process to subjugate the human tendency to self-interest, help children to forge a strong parent–child relationship (S. Li, 2016a, 2017). Without familial love, children will perceive themselves as being exploited as cheap labour (UNICEF/Asselin, 2016), whereas, overindulging children without demanding that they experience the hardship and tedium of chores results in spoiled and ungrateful children (Diekman, 2007; Du, He, & Xu, 2010; Gao, 2015; Huang, 2011; L. Li, 2014; S. Li, 2016b; McCready, 2015). The importance of the combination of love (more generic but arising from familial love) and chores is even found in the longest longitudinal study of humans ever conducted (Harvard’s Grant Study) on the makings of a successful and happy life (Lythcott-Haims, 2015).

In sum, familial love and chores are fundamental elements for the development of familial responsibility, which lays the solid groundwork for forging a strong parent–child bond, with familial love being the source of children’s gratitude and transforming into mutual love between parents and children.

Conclusion, Implication and Future Research

Changes noted over a wide sample of countries suggest that gender stereotypes are gradually weakening and that erosion of firm gender roles appears to be increasing worldwide in various social contexts with findings that cut across and neutralize stereotypes. For instance, the eldest child is usually found to be the primary caregiver whether a son or a daughter, siblings tend to sidestep their filial responsibilities regardless of gender, sons-in-law show better affective care than daughters-in-law and so on. Yet, existing evidence supports the belief based on gender stereotypes that women more than men, are implicated in the care of elders despite the narrowing gender gap in childcare and housework in changing patriarchal societies. Further, intergenerational bonds in families are stronger in families of lower socio-economic status while better off sons for instance try to dodge their responsibilities towards their elderly parents notwithstanding sharing housework and childcare with their spouses and having less objections to the same, showing that the narrowing gender gap in these areas is not reflected in elder care involving similar tasks. Could this be because boys are given less caregiving roles and household tasks in childhood, rendering women closer to parents and more willing to take on the task of taking care of parents as a result of the discriminatory practice of burdening them with chores when they were young? In poorer families such bonds are closer and caregiving roles are taken on by adult children, sons as well as daughters, much more willingly and conscientiously. Poverty, lower class status and possibly discrimination in the wider society tend to deepen familial bonds through sharing of chores and the need for solidarity.

Given the discriminatory distribution of chores for daughters and for sons in childhood, this article has adopted the developmental approach to look at chores that children perform in childhood through the prism of Kohlberg’s moral development theory and Hoffman’s internalization theory. Three dimensions have been identified in the development of familial responsibility: familial love, moral reasoning and discipline. Then, correlations between chores, familial love and home responsibility have been discussed and explored. Finally, the conclusion has been drawn that it may be the discipline and sense of responsibility that flow from the performance of chores in childhood rather than gender that play a vital role in developing a strong parent–child bond leading to affectionate care of elders in later life.

With global ageing and fertility decline, the need for elder care will increase relative to childcare (Bookman & Kimbrel, 2011; Folbre, 2012). Few researchers have either cast doubt on the gender stereotype in elder care, or linked elder care to childcare, two activities that are often seen as separate spheres of human endeavour. This paper has attempted to link the two, thereby, opening up for future research, empirical studies dealing with specific hypotheses and themes such as the following:

Adult sons who are engaged in chores in childhood feel more obliged to make sacrifices for elderly parents than adult sons and daughters who do not;