Breadwinner status and gender ideologies of men and women regarding family roles

被引:88
作者
Zuo, JP [1 ]
Tang, SM
机构
[1] St Cloud State Univ, Dept Sociol & Anthropol, St Cloud, MN 56301 USA
[2] Western Illinois Univ, Macomb, IL 61455 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2307/1389781
中图分类号
C91 [社会学];
学科分类号
030301 ; 1204 ;
摘要
Using a longitudinal national sample of married individuals, we examine changes in gender ideologies of married men and women regarding family roles, defined as wife's economic role, husband's and wife's provider role, and wife's maternal role. We also test two competing hypotheses: the threat hypothesis and the benefit hypothesis, which view the impact of women's employment on men's gender beliefs from different perspectives. Whereas the threat hypothesis asserts that women's sharing of the provider role with men may cause men to be resistant to the gender equality ideal for fear of losing their masculine identities and their wives' domestic services, the benefit hypothesis anticipates an ideological shift of men toward egalitarianism because men benefit materially from ther wives' financial contributions to the family. The empirical results suggest that both genders are moving in the direction of egalitarianism. Men of lower breadwinner status and women of higher status are less likely to hold conventional gender ideologies. Because the decline in men's breadwinner status tends to promote egalitarian ideology among men, the benefit hypothesis is supported.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 43
页数:15
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]  
ALWIN DF, 1992, EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICA, V0008
[2]  
[Anonymous], RACISM POLITICAL ACT
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1993, MARITAL INSTABILITY
[4]  
[Anonymous], NO MANS LAND
[5]  
[Anonymous], THEORIZING MASCULINI
[6]  
[Anonymous], CHANGING LIVES AM WO
[7]  
Bernard J., 1993, FAMILY TRANSITION, P117
[8]  
Bharat S, 1995, J COMP FAM STUD, V26, P371
[9]  
BOLLEN KA, STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS, P89
[10]   Family employment status and gender role attitudes - A comparison of women and men college graduates [J].
Cassidy, ML ;
Warren, BO .
GENDER & SOCIETY, 1996, 10 (03) :312-329