Extending theoretical explanations for gendered divisions of care during the COVID‐19 pandemic

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES Journal of Marriage and Family Pub Date : 2023-11-21 DOI:10.1111/jomf.12950
Stéfanie André, Chantal Remery, M. Yerkes
{"title":"Extending theoretical explanations for gendered divisions of care during the COVID‐19 pandemic","authors":"Stéfanie André, Chantal Remery, M. Yerkes","doi":"10.1111/jomf.12950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article extends pre‐pandemic theories, empirically testing the salience of pandemic‐based absolute and relative resources and time availability mechanisms for understanding gendered divisions of childcare across the COVID‐19 pandemic.Multiple cross‐sectional studies have examined gender differences in pandemic divisions of childcare, yet few longitudinal studies exist, particularly using pandemic‐specific theoretical mechanisms.The authors used five waves (six data points, April 2020–November 2021) of probability‐based longitudinal data from the Netherlands to estimate fixed‐effects regression models (person‐wave data; 2165 mothers and 1839 fathers) to analyze the division of childcare.Essential occupation was associated with a relative decrease in childcare tasks for mothers but not fathers. Mothers whose partner worked in an essential occupation experienced a relative increase in childcare tasks. Time availability also mattered; primarily for fathers. Working from home was associated with a relative increase in father's involvement in childcare, whereas an increase in work hours was associated with a decrease. Unemployment affected mothers only and was associated with an increase in relative childcare.Having an essential occupation potentially functioned as a new resource for some mothers to bargain for more gender‐egalitarian divisions of care but also reaffirmed the relative importance of men's paid employment over that of women's in shaping divisions of care. Time availability played a role in divisions of care during the pandemic, but mostly for fathers.The findings extend traditional resources and time availability theories to explain pandemic‐based gender differences in the division of care across the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":48440,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marriage and Family","volume":"10 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marriage and Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12950","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article extends pre‐pandemic theories, empirically testing the salience of pandemic‐based absolute and relative resources and time availability mechanisms for understanding gendered divisions of childcare across the COVID‐19 pandemic.Multiple cross‐sectional studies have examined gender differences in pandemic divisions of childcare, yet few longitudinal studies exist, particularly using pandemic‐specific theoretical mechanisms.The authors used five waves (six data points, April 2020–November 2021) of probability‐based longitudinal data from the Netherlands to estimate fixed‐effects regression models (person‐wave data; 2165 mothers and 1839 fathers) to analyze the division of childcare.Essential occupation was associated with a relative decrease in childcare tasks for mothers but not fathers. Mothers whose partner worked in an essential occupation experienced a relative increase in childcare tasks. Time availability also mattered; primarily for fathers. Working from home was associated with a relative increase in father's involvement in childcare, whereas an increase in work hours was associated with a decrease. Unemployment affected mothers only and was associated with an increase in relative childcare.Having an essential occupation potentially functioned as a new resource for some mothers to bargain for more gender‐egalitarian divisions of care but also reaffirmed the relative importance of men's paid employment over that of women's in shaping divisions of care. Time availability played a role in divisions of care during the pandemic, but mostly for fathers.The findings extend traditional resources and time availability theories to explain pandemic‐based gender differences in the division of care across the pandemic.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
扩展 COVID-19 大流行期间性别护理分工的理论解释
本文扩展了大流行前的理论,实证检验了基于大流行的绝对和相对资源及时间可用性机制的显著性,以理解 COVID-19 大流行中育儿方面的性别划分。多项横断面研究考察了大流行中育儿划分方面的性别差异,但纵向研究很少,特别是使用大流行特定理论机制的纵向研究。作者利用来自荷兰的五波(六个数据点,2020 年 4 月至 2021 年 11 月)基于概率的纵向数据来估计固定效应回归模型(人-波数据;2165 名母亲和 1839 名父亲),以分析育儿分工。如果母亲的伴侣从事基本职业,则母亲的育儿任务会相对增加。时间可用性也很重要,主要是对父亲而言。在家工作与父亲参与育儿的相对增加有关,而工作时间的增加与父亲参与育儿的相对减少有关。失业只影响到母亲,并且与相对育儿时间的增加有关。拥有一份重要的职业可能会成为一些母亲讨价还价的新资源,以争取更多的性别平等的育儿分工,但也再次证实了在形成育儿分工方面,男性的有偿就业比女性的有偿就业相对重要。研究结果扩展了传统的资源和时间可用性理论,以解释大流行病期间基于性别的照料分工差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years, Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) has been a leading research journal in the family field. JMF features original research and theory, research interpretation and reviews, and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families.In 2009, an institutional subscription to Journal of Marriage and Family includes a subscription to Family Relations and Journal of Family Theory & Review.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Introduction to mid-decade Special Issue on Theory and Methods The ties that bind: Questions for studying families in neighborhood contexts Issue Information Looking beyond marital status: What we can learn from relationship status measures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1