Gendered Pressures: Divergent Experiences Linked to Housework Time Among Partnered Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Western countries, men’s and women’s unpaid labor time has converged in recent decades, promising gender equality. Nevertheless, a stubborn gap remains. We extend our understanding of the “stalled revolution” by examining gender differences not only in hours but in everyday experiences linked to housework time. We argue that the felt pressures linked to household tasks are a key gendered quality associated with daily domestic work, particularly given the cultural weight and responsibility of housework for women. With time diaries from the 2015 Canadian General Social Survey (GSS), we examine housework time among different-sex partnered women and men aged 25–64 years (N = 6,850). We assess whether more housework time is associated with time pressures—feeling rushed, stressed, trapped, and unaccomplished in one’s daily goals—and whether this differs by gender. As expected, women do more housework than men; and more daily housework is generally associated with greater pressures. Results show a gender divergence in the relationship between hours and two forms of pressure. For women, housework time is associated with feeling stressed, whereas for men it is not. In contrast, housework time is associated with feeling unaccomplished more so for men than for women. Thus, in addition to gender differences in the amount of time spent on unpaid work, there is an experiential gender gap. The association of more housework time with feeling unaccomplished for men but not women portends a continued cultural mismatch between masculinity and domestic labor. Examining divergent qualities of domestic labor engagement extends knowledge of the stalled gender revolution.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".