Is Men’s Share of Housework Reduced by ‘Gender Deviance Neutralization'? Evidence From Seven Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates a theory regarding the amount of housework carried out by men, called the ‘gender deviance neutralization’ hypothesis: men seem more resistant to doing housework, and women seem to do more housework than expected, if the wife earns more than her husband. It appears that attitudes to gender roles influence the behaviour of women and men, as regards housework. This paper studies time spent on housework by husbands and wives, using household surveys in seven countries: Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, India, Kenya, Nigeria, and UK. Previous evidence of a ‘curvilinear’ pattern is confirmed, which can be interpreted as support for the gender deviance neutralization hypothesis. An aspect of this paper is that ‘gender deviance neutralization’ seems more common in countries where it is rare for a woman to be the main earner – such as Egypt and India. In such traditional (gender-asymmetric) countries, men appear even more resistant to doing housework than in more modern (more gender-symmetrical) countries such as UK and Kenya. Domestic violence between husband and wife seems to be relevant to housework and women’s earnings. In some households, Gender-Based Violence (GBV) may be a response by a husband to his reduction in control over household decisions. There is some evidence that a husband’s alcohol consumption is related to the likelihood of GBV occurring in that household. Interactions between alcohol, domestic violence, and gender roles all seem to be inter-related with the distribution of housework between husband and wife.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".