One Germany, Two Worlds of Housework? Examining Employed Single and Partnered Women in the Decade after Unification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do the different ideological legacies of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) result in persisting differences in women's housework in the unified Germany? In this paper, I examine the housework of employed German women, singles and as well as women with partners, in the decade after unification using data from the German Socioeconomic Panel (GSOEP). This comparison allows me to assess the role of regional differences in shaping women's housework, while further distinguishing between full-time and part-time workers. The study shows that women with partners do more housework than single women do, regardless of region of residence. Among singles, there are no East-West differences in either the level of housework or the mechanisms that shape it. However, among women with partners, West German women do significantly more housework. These differences are only in part explained by differential participation in full-time and part-time employment. East German women's individual earnings are less effective than West Germans' in reducing housework for both fulltime and part-time workers. Overall, the results of the study imply that the different ideological legacies FRG and the GDR do have a lasting impact on the housework of partnered women through family roles, while singles do not seem to be affected by any remaining differences in the socio-political context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".