Have Home-keeping Women a Full-Time Job?

PRIMARY in the investigation of the economic condition of any group of workers is the question of hours. How do the hours put in on the job by those engaged in household production compare with those of other workers? Are they overworked or underworked, or is their share of leisure about the same as that of others?

One of the first problems here is how to calculate the working hours of this group of workers. Is it the period from the beginning of their work in the morning to the time they stop at night? Is it the sum total of the time spent on various activities during the day? Is the time they are on call, free to read or carry on a limited number of similar activities but not to leave the house, to be included? Whatever be the decision on these points the activities of the homemaker as wife, mother and citizen must not be confused with her activities as a productive worker. If the foregoing are added in her case they must also be added in calculating the working hours of her husband or other gainfully employed person. Evidence that there is confusion on this point could easily be collected.

THE TWO GROUPS OF LEISURE-CLASS WOMEN

Every one who has studied the economic history of the family and noted the changes in household production has wondered whether even with its concentration in the hands of one person household production is still a full-time job. Some, especially those who have seen only the disappearance of the old tasks, have said that a new leisure class has been created consisting of those women whose sole share in production is the work they do for their families. Thus there are two classes of women enjoying a disproportionate amount of leisure, one, the women with servants to perform the household tasks, the other, the women whose tasks are so few and so light as to leave them with unoccupied time. The first group is by no means a new phenomenon. The "lady" who toiled not, who was the chief ornament of the home, has appeared in every civilization along with privilege and inequality. The exemption of the wives and daughters of the privileged classes from labor, the demand upon them for conspicuous consumption and the acquisition of various decorative and entertaining arts and graces are subjects of an elaborate literature. To what extent this "ideal of ladyhood" still persists and affects the behavior of the upper classes and those who accept the standards of the upper classes it would be difficult to estimate. Various influences are evidently working against it, but manifold evidences of its continued influence could be gathered. We have no exact knowledge of 'the size of the servant-keeping group. Relatively however it is not large. The percentage of families with such assistance is probably less than five.

The question that remains is, Have many women even without paid assistance only a part-time job and thus a larger amount of leisure than other able-bodied adults? Some who have answered this question in the affirmative have also said that it makes no difference how much leisure women have providing they use it well. The philosophy behind this position is not in harmony with that usually held today. Our ideal at least is no privileged class on the basis of sex or otherwise. It would not be well on many grounds to divide a society into a leisure and a working class on the basis of sex. Leisure time gives opportunity for non-economic activities and permits the free play of interests that can not be expressed in one's work. All groups, it would seem, should share in this opportunity. It can scarcely be argued with plausibilitiy that women should take over participation in religious, political, cultural and social activities for the family. One person can not assume another's responsibilities or acquire values of this sort for him.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

But what are the facts? Is household production today a part-time job? Until very recently there were no facts; there were merely statements of opinion. For example, in a recent article comes this: "The occupation of home-making and housekeeping is not a fulltime job for the woman of average health and energy. Especially in our urban communities, housekeeping has been reduced to a matter of, at most, half-time work." Many readers said, "That is not true," but in both cases opinion was based only upon personal observation.

In comparing the length of the working week of housewives with that of other workers certain considerations should be kept in mind. One is that the home-makers need spend no time going to or returning from their work. Another is that these figures include presumably the total time spent on all productive labor for themselves or their families. To make the 48-hour week of gainfully employed men and women strictly comparable any time the latter give to household production, caring for children, caring for fires and lawns, making household repairs, mending and so on should be added. Over against this should be set the fact that the housewife's average working time is the sum of her working periods during the day or week. Her daily average does not represent continuous working time broken only by lunch and one or two short rest periods. Rather it represents blocks of time, varying in length, spread from possibly 6 A.M. to 8 P.M. or even later if she is caring for an infant under one year. One clear disadvantage of the discontinuity of her working time is the resulting discontinuity of her leisure time. The uses of a half-hour or even an hour of leisure are limited. Furthermore her work is spread through seven days of the week. She seldom has a twenty-four-hour period completely free.

The conclusions that one may draw from the evidence available seem to be as follows. For the majority of women today homemaking is not a part-time job measured by the hours actually spent. If all worked with maximum efficiency and zeal, that is, if all possessed superior equipment, had knowledge of the "one best way" and a strong incentive to reduce working time it might be only a part-time job. But it is not on this basis that the hours of other workers are measured. It is also true that changes in standards of living might greatly reduce the time spent in housework. There is no doubt that time in the home and money on the market are both used for purposes that might be deemed unnecessary and undesirable.

Source: Economic Problems of the Family