« Working Group | Main | New Polls »

Equals

18 Jun 2008 11:11 am

It seems to me that, as a professional blogger, it's pretty likely that were I to have children I would have a more flexible work schedule than my wife and wind up shouldering more responsibility than is customary for most men. As such, I read Lisa Belkin's article on couples who try to share parenting duty equally (the piece also presents the staggering inequities in current household burdens) with a great deal of interest.

Reading it, one thing that comes through is that equality isn't necessarily a very practical arrangement. A lot of things in life reward the division of labor, and the neotraditional arrangement in which one partner works to maximize career success and does domestic obligations on the side while the other partner treats domestic obligations as the fixed point and earns money around that commitment is in many ways a more efficient way of organizing a household than is strict equality. But of course thanks to entrenched tradition and social expectations, we all know that the "one partner" is a man and the "other partner" is a woman.

One could, however, easily imagine an alternate reality in which the society as a whole featured more-or-less equal sharing of domestic tasks between men and women without it being the case that most individual couples share things precisely equally. And, indeed, according to Belkin "who does what, lesbian couples say, is instead determined by personality and logistics" rather than either pre-existing gender stereotypes (obviously a non-starter) or by a 50-50 rule. Still, the evidence from gay and lesbian couples does suggest that despite some specialization, you tend to get closer to 50-50 than heterosexuals do:

Lesbian couples also have a more equal division of housework. Rothblum found that it is only heterosexual mothers who do the lion’s share of housework for the family each week — between 11 and 20 hours for her survey respondents. Lesbian parents, gay parents and heterosexual fathers all look the same on paper when it comes to cooking and cleaning — they all report doing between 6 and 10 hours a week.

Among other things, that result suggests a certain amount of "leveling down" in terms of housecleaning in gay couples with both partners acting more like a heterosexual man than like a straight woman. Meanwhile, as you see throughout the piece it's difficult for any one couple to decide it's going to unilaterally change how the world works -- part-time work is hard to come by in a lot of fields. This is, presumably, something that will have to change if more couples try to share their responsibilities more equitably. In general, it seems that everyone who has kids would have an easier time dealing with their family responsibilities if we took Ezra Klein's advice and mandated more vacation days.

Alternatively, the fewer children people have, the less domestic work there is to do. For a while now, the trend has been for the number of kids born to adjust to the economic demands for full-time work. We could, conceivably, adopt policies that aim in the other direction, but I haven't seen much indication that anyone in politics really wants to go that way.

Share This

Comments (56)

Sure, blame the straight women, Yglesias.

Attempting a 50/50 split in domestic duties should be flagged the same way hippogriffs were on ancient maps.

You're assuming that you'll be a professional blogger forever. Marry a nice doctor and stay home with the kids, dude. You can blog in between shuttling the kids to school and soccer practice.

I know a gay, civil-unioned couple who seem to divide it up more or less equally. However, they do have disagreements about whose turn it is take out the rubbish, do the dishes, etc, and these disagreements sometimes devolve into the sort of casual violence you often see with young brothers or college roommates. Pretty hilarious to watch, really.

Do the same-sex households have lower standards than the straight women do (and thus don't have to spend as much time on housework), or it is just that straight men make more of a mess than anyone else (so the straight women have to spend more time cleaning up after them)?

Don't forget the primary reason families may endeavor to share parenting duties: the welfare of the child. Arguably, the child benefits by having more of both parents around rather than an unknown ("childcaring") third party. That benefit may be hard to quantify, but should be factored in when analyzing why families make such choices.

Anyone else suspect that women just work harder period? I mean my dad works hard but my mom just doesn't stop. I get the sense that may not be too unusual. The other thing about this - pointed at by the levelling down phenomenon - is that some people see work around the house where others don't - I would be curious to know whether this has a gender slant, which I would suspect it does. Again anecdotally, the moment my mom has a free day she decides that some floor needs tiles instead of a carpet or something. She can relax and read for like a half-hour and then she has to start a new project.

I should have said "are harder workers period."

the neotraditional arrangement in which one partner works to maximize career success and does domestic obligations on the side while the other partner treats domestic obligations as the fixed point and earns money around that commitment is in many ways a more efficient way of organizing a household than is strict equality.

Um, how does "neotraditional" differ from "traditional" other than sounding more pretentious?

J

In general, it seems that everyone who has kids would have an easier time dealing with their family responsibilities if we took Ezra Klein's advice and mandated more vacation days.

As if people want to spend their vacation days doing housework. Get real!

In any case, I am always skeptical when people cite these studies showing that women do more housework - sure, that's true, but only because they do far less outside-the-house-work. As I recall from a thread on this topic a year or two ago, studies show that, when you add together outside work and housework, men perform more aggregate work more than women, and women have more leisure time than men. What we really need is for women to work more - either in the house or outside of the house, I don't care which - so as to equalize the amount of leisure time between the two sexes.

You should put these posts in a time capsule for when you actually do have kids. They'll provide you with a good laugh over how naive you were then to advise other as if you knew what you were talking about.

In general, it seems that everyone who has kids would have an easier time dealing with their family responsibilities if we took Ezra Klein's advice and mandated more vacation days.

This is insane. I can't wait until Matt has small kids, and starts dreading every weekend, Holiday, and vacation day. I can't tell you how many times I've uttered the phrase "Thank God its Monday" to myself.

Universal health care will make it easier for firms to offer part-time work, and easier for individuals to take it. It could go a long way toward making it easier for couples each to work part-time.

So how do cleaners factor in here?

Al;
The Belkin article looks at studies which factor in whether both parents work outside the home (WOH), the mom WOH FT and dad stays home, or the dad WOH and mom stays home. Even when Mom is WOH and dad is SAH, the mom is doing much more of the housework than the dad does in the traditional "dad WOH/Mom SAH"

Plural of anecdote is not data, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, among my pier group (mid-30 to 40 professionals in DC), the wives don't do shit. Not one cooks, cleans, or manages household finances. The ones who are at home and who have nannies and mades literally have nothing to do. The ones who work outside the office pretty frequently use the trump card "motherhood is so hard" to not do anything at home in the evening, leaving any cooking, cleaning, and putting kids to bed to the dads. And we put up with it because we've been taught that being a mom sucks.

I figure this division of labor isn't true for the population as a whole, but I see it everyday of my life here in D.C. (By the way, my wife cooks and I clean, and we do a pretty good job of sharing kid-related responsibilities, so I don't so much have a beef.)

Do you really think that mandating more vacation won't have adverse disemployment effects? I think it's pretty safe to say that those who lose their jobs as a result would rather have the job and less vacation.

On the other hand, I'm more than happy to have employers compete on vacation policies, and there's some evidence (first-year law associates bargaining on work-life balance rather than salary, etc.) that this is happening. (Speaking personally, in my recent job search, I opted for one job over another for a lot of small reasons, one of which was five weeks vacation versus three.) But no thanks to a mandate.

Alternatively, the fewer children people have, the less domestic work there is to do.

On the margin this is probably true, but there are pretty massive economies of scale to having multiple children.

The primary cultural war to be fought here involves creating a prevailing expectation that every full-time worker deserves to have the opportunity to create a livable work/family balance in their lives. We're talking a 40-hour workweek here. Too many jobs have ballooned absurdly beyond that, and moreover expect employees to be essentially on call 24/7.

Some people will always super-achieve (or do so until they start a family), working 80 or 100-hour weeks or whatever. And they should be free to do so. But no job should require that kind of time commitment a priori--and the effort to create or maintain such a condition should be recognized as an insane and abusive employment practice.

Unfortunately, many, many prestige jobs in our culture are anti-family and coerce people (mostly men) to be absent parents. That should be ruled clearly out of bounds.

Sorry, "peer group," not "pier group."

bottomofthe9th, see, the crucial point--the fulcrum--is the prevailing expectation. The sweet spot is to allow people to work as much as they want while mandating that not everybody has to work more than they can possibly do without hurting their families and human relationships. No doubt that's not an easy spot to find, policy-wise--but it definitely rules out just allowing employers to make up shit as they go along about what they expect of people. Once upon a time there were labor laws that changed the prevailing culture. And unions that fought for livable job definitions.

Unfortunately, many, many prestige jobs in our culture are anti-family and coerce people (mostly men) to be absent parents. That should be ruled clearly out of bounds.

I guess the next time you need emergency surgery, "oh well the surgeon has put in his 40 hours this week, sorry about that"

The sweet spot is to allow people to work as much as they want while mandating that not everybody has to work more than they can possibly do without hurting their families and human relationships.

Why not allow each individual to determine what that is? 80 hrs/wk may be just fine for a 30 yr old single guy. Or possibly somebody with a family, but this ensures his wife stays at home with the kids and they go to good schools instead of both working, hiring daycare and sending their kids to bad public schools. If your job starts to make demands you don't want to fill, then it's time to get a new job.

Al | June 18, 2008 12:05 PM,
Many of these studies do include professional work too. Here's a study of faculty at all 10 University of California campuses

http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/babies%20matterII.pdf
Look at Figure 7 on page 6.

You'll see that when work and caregiving are added up, women with children work an average of 100 hours/week while men with children work on average 90 hours/week.

As for the larger point, the goal is each person devoting an equal number of hours to the type of work they want to do and an equal number of hours doing the types of things neither wants to do. This could result in having a stay-at-home parent or people trying to hold two full time jobs and splitting caregiving evenly. At this point (and if you read the Belkin article), this isn't currently the case.

Unfortunately, many, many prestige jobs in our culture are anti-family and coerce people (mostly men) to be absent parents. That should be ruled clearly out of bounds.

I guess the next time you need emergency surgery, "oh well the surgeon has put in his 40 hours this week, sorry about that"

That's a ridiculous argument, and you know it. Rotating calls, for example, may mean some doctors spend less time with their kids one weekend a month, but it means all the doctors can have some time with their patients. Just because you're in a 24/7 field doesn't and shouldn't mean each individual has to work 24/7.

Many of these studies do include professional work too. Here's a study of faculty at all 10 University of California campuses

Of course a study of professors is hardly representative. The interesting thing to me in that study is that unmarried men and women do almost the exact same amount of preofessional work and housework. We know that's not true for the population at large.

"Just another guy" must live in some other part of DC than I do. All of his male friends seriously do the cooking, dishes, lunch making, bathing and bedtime routines every single night while their work outside the home wives lounge around in the evenings? Where can I sign up for that?

Most of my peers (typically 30s-40s, dual income, 2 young kids not in school yet) feature either a more or less egalitarian split or (more often) a mom who does more childcare/housework in the evenings and weekends. The only families I know where the dad does more are families where the mom works outside the home and the dad is at home or working very part time.

Jim W. made me laugh. I have also welcomed Monday more than once. Young kids are exhausting. When they are toddlers you literally can not take your eyes off them or they will put their head in the toilet, put things up their nose, put your cell phone in the dog's water dish, etc. The easiest gig is to be a stay at home parent of kids who are already in school (or rich enough to stay home and have a nanny.) When kids are under the age of 5 they are just a huge amount of work, whether you are a stay at home parent or a work outside the home parent.

It seems to me that, as a professional blogger, it's pretty likely that were I to have children I would have a more flexible work schedule than my wife and wind up shouldering more responsibility than is customary for most men
================================================

It seems to me that you ought to write about things you really know something about.

I'll repeat my earlier advice to MY. Quit your job and move to any state west of the Appalachians and east of California. Work in a private sector job for five years minimum, then come back and make these grand pronouncements about what life is like in this country. Getting married and having kids while doing this wouldn't hurt either.

The US isn't like Boston/NY/DC in spite of those whines of "we're real Americans, too."

You'll see that when work and caregiving are added up, women with children work an average of 100 hours/week while men with children work on average 90 hours/week.

Men do many things that aren't generally considered housework, caregiving or a job. Besides a study of tenure track professors at UC schools is hardly indicative of the population as a whole.

For Campesino, I am genuinely curious how work-life balance is different in the interior/heartland of the country than it is on the coasts? Salaries are obviously higher on the coasts but so is the cost of living.

I agree that it is sort of funny to listen to people who don't have kids pontificate about how they will balance things when they have them. But I am glad Matt started this thread. The NYT Magazine article on equally shared parenting was very interesting.

You'll see that when work and caregiving are added up, women with children work an average of 100 hours/week while men with children work on average 90 hours/week.

Men do many things that aren't generally considered housework, caregiving or a job. Besides a study of tenure track professors at UC schools is hardly indicative of the population as a whole.

it's pretty likely that were I to have children I would have a more flexible work schedule than my wife

You're going to get married? Old-fashioned.

The US isn't like Boston/NY/DC in spite of those whines of "we're real Americans, too."

I'd be fascinated to hear how all those true Americans in the heartland differ from us godless heathens in terms of their approaches to housework. I'm sure you have reams of data to share with us...just as soon as you pull it out of your ass.

Jim W. made me laugh. I have also welcomed Monday more than once. Young kids are exhausting. When they are toddlers you literally can not take your eyes off them or they will put their head in the toilet, put things up their nose, put your cell phone in the dog's water dish, etc. The easiest gig is to be a stay at home parent of kids who are already in school (or rich enough to stay home and have a nanny.) When kids are under the age of 5 they are just a huge amount of work, whether you are a stay at home parent or a work outside the home parent.

Right. My wife stays home with our toddler, and as soon as I get home, that's it. Given what it's like when I'm primary caregiver on evenings and weekends, I can barely imagine doing it for 9 hours straight.

The idea of working at home while simultaneously raising a preschooler strikes me as delusional. Can you imagine what this blog would be like if MY were busy with a toddler? Think it's kind of slapdash and scattershot now? "Where the hell did I find that link? It was five minutes ago, what happened to my brain? Oh Jesus, he's trying to climb in the fishtank again. Screw it, I'm hitting 'post'."

For Campesino, I am genuinely curious how work-life balance is different in the interior/heartland of the country than it is on the coasts? Salaries are obviously higher on the coasts but so is the cost of living.

I agree that it is sort of funny to listen to people who don't have kids pontificate about how they will balance things when they have them. But I am glad Matt started this thread. The NYT Magazine article on equally shared parenting was very interesting.


Posted by KCN | June 18, 2008 2:19 PM
=================================================

Work-life balance - I wouldn't say there are so many differences between the areas.
=================================================
I agree that it is sort of funny to listen to people who don't have kids pontificate about how they will balance things when they have them.
================================================

I was going from that particular example to my more general statement on Matt's embarrassing ignorance of the rest of the country.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/socal_tragedy.php

Like this one where he shows he has no clue about what the weather is like in southern California and the Southwest. If the weather was nice when he was there for a visit it must be nice all the time!

It seems to me that you ought to write about things you really know something about.

Which is exactly what he was doing-- pointing out that in his case as a professional blogger, he can foresee a specific future.

If he said, "Well, if I had a 9-5 job, I would do X," your complaint would be valid, but he did not. He pointed out that his own experience was such that the issue of more egalitarian living patterns for couples were particularly relevant for him.

That's a ridiculous argument, and you know it.

Not really all that ridiculous when your argument is to have the government set what that "magical set-point of work/life is" The problem with the government setting it, is that there may be a case where you absolutely need a surgeon, but they are on a government mandated home break. I say that employees in high prestige jobs certainly have enough clout with their employers to achieve the work/life balance that they want.

The idea of working at home while simultaneously raising a preschooler strikes me as delusional. Can you imagine what this blog would be like if MY were busy with a toddler? Think it's kind of slapdash and scattershot now? "Where the hell did I find that link? It was five minutes ago, what happened to my brain? Oh Jesus, he's trying to climb in the fishtank again. Screw it, I'm hitting 'post'."


Posted by Chilly | June 18, 2008 2:42 PM

=================================================

Amen!

DeGroot? ThirdPath? Is this part of the Dharma Initiative?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_Initiative

Al,
Note that the figure 7 chart listed above was men and women with and without children (it didn't consider marital status). Many of those people are probably single.

To Al and Jordan, I know the UC faculty study isn't representative of the entire population, but Al (and others here) seemed to imply that there's not much hard data on this topic. I wanted to include one piece of hard data. If you want to search, studies like this exist for many other professions. I'd be very surprised if the end result is the total number of hours women with children work is much less than the total number of hours men work for other professions too.

This is "how many angels dancing on the head of a pin..."

First, you all should try to remember that gender stereotypes are social, not biological, constructs. If you think men vacuum less, or women are more inclined to give baths or whatever, you are being seduced by false and unhelpful stereotypes.

Secondly, in every family I know of the decisions around splitting, primary/secondary, etc. are 90% driven by economics -- which spouse can better afford to do more (if either one can!).

These discussions are fodder for the NY Times cafeteria and have little relevance elsewhere. For most families, both parents have no choice but to work, and to work where and when their employer needs them. The childcare/housework is sorted out in the wake of that. Most people can't "choose" to focus more on their career...

This is "how many angels dancing on the head of a pin..."

First, you all should try to remember that gender stereotypes are social, not biological, constructs. If you think men vacuum less, or women are more inclined to give baths or whatever, you are being seduced by false and unhelpful stereotypes.

Secondly, in every family I know of the decisions around splitting, primary/secondary, etc. are 90% driven by economics -- which spouse can better afford to do more (if either one can!).

These discussions are fodder for the NY Times cafeteria and have little relevance elsewhere. For most families, both parents have no choice but to work, and to work where and when their employer needs them. The childcare/housework is sorted out in the wake of that. Most people can't "choose" to focus more on their career...

This is "how many angels dancing on the head of a pin..."

First, you all should try to remember that gender stereotypes are social, not biological, constructs. If you think men vacuum less, or women are more inclined to give baths or whatever, you are being seduced by false and unhelpful stereotypes.

Secondly, in every family I know of the decisions around splitting, primary/secondary, etc. are 90% driven by economics -- which spouse can better afford to do more (if either one can!).

These discussions are fodder for the NY Times cafeteria and have little relevance elsewhere. For most families, both parents have no choice but to work, and to work where and when their employer needs them. The childcare/housework is sorted out in the wake of that. Most people can't "choose" to focus more on their career...

First, you all should try to remember that gender stereotypes are social, not biological, constructs
================================================

Obviously. That's why men are so good at breast feeding

DeGroot? ThirdPath? Is this part of the Dharma Initiative?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_Initiative

Actually Campesino,
Men can breast feed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation
You can do other searches if you don't trust the wikipedia article.
Men are born with all the appropriate tissue and with the right hormones through artificial or natural means, they can lactate and breast feed.

Not that I buy the "sex differences are a PURELY social construct," but breastfeeding is a bad example.

DeGroot? ThirdPath? Is this part of the Dharma Initiative?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_Initiative

One aspect of this issue that no one seems to be mentioning is how traditional gender roles disadvantage women and children following a divorce. The old system assumed women didn't work and needed to be protected. The current system assumes women will work and don't really need any protection. However, a woman who's put her career on the back burner to raise children is at major risk from these assumptions: her earning power and her knowledge and understanding of how the outside world works have both been curtailed. The latter makes her potentially vulnerable to her more worldly-wise soon-to-be ex, who also has more resources to hire lawyers. The result is the often-reported finding that, on average, mens' standard of living improves after divorce, while womens' and childrens' often declines, sometimes sharply. I choose not to have children, and part of the reason for my decision was that I didn't want to leave myself vulnerable to these social and economic forces.

Putting this post together with MY's earlier one on keeping surnames after marriage, I wonder if Matt has something - a very progressive something - on his mind...

Trad division of labor theory need not apply...child rearing is not compensated in any meaningful way (falling instead under the loose category 'someone's gotta do it'), and no one specializes in it to any appreciable degree, as it is impossible on several levels (so says this work-at-home father of two, 5 and 7).

There are both econs of scale ('many hands making lighter work', lessons learned, etc.) when it comes to having more than a couple of kids.

All the rest of the 'typing' discussed above can go out of the window. The desire for children is a trick played on you by your brain and the culture...see Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness for some soft science backing this up. As self-replicating organisms, cultures are robust, and will have their way with you.

I seem to recall from way back when in feminist theory class that Heidi Hartmann did a fair amount of research documenting the Second Shift, and that Al is totally wrong about the total amount of work done by the two genders.

The supposed gay control group in that article was pretty dumb (although the information taken on its own, and not just as a data point to measure against straight people, is very interesting). There's plenty to quibble with:

Excluding gay men and limiting to lesbians is a pretty weak move. The old joke about lesbians--what does a lesbian bring on a second date? A U-haul--is enough evidence that the priorities and social pressures in the lesbian community to be domesticized and carry the torch for marriage equality are big skew factors that aren't accounted for. And virtually every gay male couple I know ends up fighting about dishes and various other grimy domestic tasks. I think the difference has a lot to do with the fact that one group is already more pre-disposed to coupling and domesticity than either of the others.

It's unclear how kids are factoring into this comparison. Are we comparing lesbians with children to straights with children only or is there a disparity in terms of the kids per capita (and thus the amount of domestic work to do--which would explain the disparity in hours between straight couples and lesbians)? To the extent that lesbians have kids, that often means they have a good economic situation, as qualifying to adopt as a gay couple and in vitro are both steps that almost always require substantial amounts of money. Is there any domestic help performed by any third party for a fee (babysitter, maid, etc.) and how much? To the extent it's likely that more lesbians live in cities, this may also account for some of the discrepancies. Smaller space to clean; more places to socialize, thus less entertaining, etc.

About half of my closest friends are lesbians, so in my own social circle I observe it every day. These are the women who are most enthusiastic about marriage and domestic life of all of my friends--much more so than my straight female friends, who are very interested in weddings and babies, but not as much in what makes a marriage work or what the significance of having one's lifetime commitment recognized by your freinds, family and state, or the quantification of the benefits that such recognition bestows. Their commitment to their partner and the work required to maintain domestic harmony is tied up in a bunch of very strong personal feelings as well. Showing disapproving parents that their lifestyle is not just "a stage in college they never grew out of." Living up to history's burden as the generation that helped usher in all of these changes. And above all, having babies.

In literally every lesbian couple I know who has had a commitment ceremony of some kind (we're talking a sample size of close to 100 people) at least one partner wants to have kids in the next two years and more often than not, both partners do. This has several effects--1) it increases pressure to have a domestic space free of negative energy, as their is more risk (at least more perceived risk) that a baby could be taken away if the political winds change (especially true of my red state lesbian friends); 2) there is concern that the child will face discrimination, and that increases pressure to create an idyllic domestic space to counteract the negative messages the child will hear outside the home to reduce the child's anxiety; 3) at each practical step along the way, the battle feels like a Jackie Robinson type of burden and responsibility to bear (e.g. "I need to keep asking my employer for domestic partnership benefits and to cover my not-yet-adopted child for my own sake, but also to set the correct precedent for future gay employees at this company.") It's a different thing to not let one's eye wander or to think positively about cooperating on housework with one's partner if doing otherwise means letting all other gay Americans down.

For all of these women, the personal is absolutely political in all of these ways, so especially at this historic moment it's likely useful politically to have these comparisons, but not very meaningful statisically. I think it's better to just understand and accept lesbian relationships, gay male relationships and straight relationships as different and unique, without having to measure their relative success at certain domestic goals or whatever.

The supposed gay control group in that article was pretty dumb (although the information taken on its own, and not just as a data point to measure against straight people, is very interesting). There's plenty to quibble with:

Excluding gay men and limiting to lesbians is a pretty weak move. The old joke about lesbians--what does a lesbian bring on a second date? A U-haul--is enough evidence that the priorities and social pressures in the lesbian community to be domesticized and carry the torch for marriage equality are big skew factors that aren't accounted for. And virtually every gay male couple I know ends up fighting about dishes and various other grimy domestic tasks. I think the difference has a lot to do with the fact that one group is already more pre-disposed to coupling and domesticity than either of the others.

It's unclear how kids are factoring into this comparison. Are we comparing lesbians with children to straights with children only or is there a disparity in terms of the kids per capita (and thus the amount of domestic work to do--which would explain the disparity in hours between straight couples and lesbians)? To the extent that lesbians have kids, that often means they have a good economic situation, as qualifying to adopt as a gay couple and in vitro are both steps that almost always require substantial amounts of money. Is there any domestic help performed by any third party for a fee (babysitter, maid, etc.) and how much? To the extent it's likely that more lesbians live in cities, this may also account for some of the discrepancies. Smaller space to clean; more places to socialize, thus less entertaining, etc.

About half of my closest friends are lesbians, so in my own social circle I observe it every day. These are the women who are most enthusiastic about marriage and domestic life of all of my friends--much more so than my straight female friends, who are very interested in weddings and babies, but not as much in what makes a marriage work or what the significance of having one's lifetime commitment recognized by your freinds, family and state, or the quantification of the benefits that such recognition bestows. Their commitment to their partner and the work required to maintain domestic harmony is tied up in a bunch of very strong personal feelings as well. Showing disapproving parents that their lifestyle is not just "a stage in college they never grew out of." Living up to history's burden as the generation that helped usher in all of these changes. And above all, having babies.

In literally every lesbian couple I know who has had a commitment ceremony of some kind (we're talking a sample size of close to 100 people) at least one partner wants to have kids in the next two years and more often than not, both partners do. This has several effects--1) it increases pressure to have a domestic space free of negative energy, as their is more risk (at least more perceived risk) that a baby could be taken away if the political winds change (especially true of my red state lesbian friends); 2) there is concern that the child will face discrimination, and that increases pressure to create an idyllic domestic space to counteract the negative messages the child will hear outside the home to reduce the child's anxiety; 3) at each practical step along the way, the battle feels like a Jackie Robinson type of burden and responsibility to bear (e.g. "I need to keep asking my employer for domestic partnership benefits and to cover my not-yet-adopted child for my own sake, but also to set the correct precedent for future gay employees at this company.") It's a different thing to not let one's eye wander or to think positively about cooperating on housework with one's partner if doing otherwise means letting all other gay Americans down.

For all of these women, the personal is absolutely political in all of these ways, so especially at this historic moment it's likely useful politically to have these comparisons, but not very meaningful statisically. I think it's better to just understand and accept lesbian relationships, gay male relationships and straight relationships as different and unique, without having to measure their relative success at certain domestic goals or whatever.

Back before we had kids and when we had only one, hubbie and I would keep score--"I'm working harder," "It's your turn," etc. Now that we have a 2,4,6 and 8 year old, we're too damn busy to keep score and too tired to argue about it. We know which jobs we prefer or which ones fit our respective personalities best, and we do what we can. As it happens, these jobs are somewhat split down the traditional gender lines. But that's to be expected since I am the stay-at-home parent. Sure, there are days when I think, "He has no idea how much I do all day!" But even if he doesn't KNOW what I do, he certainly appreciates it...as I try to do with his contributions to our family. It's worked pretty well for us.

But I always tell friends who are quibbling with their spouses over the family work load that there is an easy solution to the problem: have another baby! Such arguments will soon seem like a luxury you used to have....

Jordan T--

Shit, you're right! We may need Jack Bauer on call to torture someone AT ANY TIME! Ergo, we all need beepers and to be on call 24/7. Excuse me for wanting to have a life! It's hopeless, I tell you! People MIGHT DIE! Idiot.

MSB;
point of clarification--most lesbians who bear children, unless they have fertility issues, are using in utero fertilization, not in vitro. In utero is basically the turkey-baster method and costs whatever the charges are to buy from a sperm bank (unless you have a donor who'll do it for free), plus (possibly) supervision of an MD. IVF (test-tube) is the one that's usually around $10K, and includes hormone treatments, egg harvesting, petri-dish fertilization, implantation, etc. Big difference, cost-wise--otherwise having children would be prohibitively expensive for the majority of lesbian couples.

Whoops, had facts re: in utero slightly wrong. Turkey baster is intracervical (ICI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization

But my point about cost differences btwn IVF and less invasive forms of AI remains.


Comments closed July 02, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.