“…variations in women's employment rates are crucially influenced by local social and institutional ideas about what men and women ought to do” (475)

Reference: Duncan, S., & Smith, D. (2002). Geographies of family formations: Spatial differences and gender cultures in Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(4), 471-493.

In this article, Duncan and Smith investigate the causes for the differences in relationship, family and work dynamics (with a focus on gender performances in particular) in various spatial regions throughout British households. Their intent is to determine why some areas subscribe to more traditional divisions of labour (male breadwinner, female homemaker) and relationship and/or family arrangements (such as with the nuclear family, including married parents and children) while others do not.

Similar to how I analyzed Federici’s book, for this article I have also broken down what I believed to be the most significant quotations and added commentary for any additional thought/question/connecting idea.

“…geographies of family formations have important implications for normative expectations, social behaviour and social policy” (471)

“This differentiation [between different European countries] within national social policy regimes supports Pfau-Effinger's argument that both variations in women's uptake of paid work, and the different availability of welfare services associated with these (public childcare etc.), result from differences in deep-seated and long-lasting gender cultures about the position of women in families, and how they should combine caring and economic work” (472)

This quotation reminds us that one of the major factors in the creation of policies is culture. Policies are bred as a result of the beliefs about how (in this case) a family should function and what is important that stem from dominant culture of the society.

Purpose of paper: “Our purpose in this paper is therefore to describe the nature and level of regional and local variations in family formations within one country, using Britain as an example” (473)

Even though they are using Britain as an example, British cultural practices are comparable to those in the West (which would be my focus). It is for this reason that I have selected this paper and think it will still be quite useful in my research.

“…we speculate as to how this family geography may be related to the existence of regional gender cultures” (473)

This quotation emphasizes the relationship that exists between “family geography” and gender cultures.

Methodology: “…the paper is based on 'extensive' research, where we use statistical data to describe overall patterns and distinguishing features in the British geography of family formation” (473)

“Most part-time paid work by partnered mothers in Britain…can be taken as an index of withdrawal from a paid worker role in that it is usually seen (by both partners) as supplementary to a caring role” (474)

Being a mother, homemaker and the primary source for nurturing overall is seen as the more important job for women to carry out regardless of having a part-time job. The part-time job is merely “supplementary,” a helpful add-on but not the woman’s main focus.

“…we do claim that, for most, part-time work indicates withdrawal from a worker role in a social and cultural sense. Partnered mothers who work full-time also usually carry out much more unpaid caring and domestic household work than male partner” (474)

“In some places mothers are generally seen as mothers caring for children at home, maybe with some part-time paid work when the children are at school. In other places mothers are seen as workers, where children are cared for by others in work hours” (475)

This really caught my attention! How women are labelled and perceived in society changes based on where they are from!

“This index sees the social response to childbirth, by couples, as a good indicator of the evaluation of the value of marriage in parenting, and, through this, as an indicator of how far parenting has become 'individualized' rather than 'conventional'. Cohabitation without marriage is now accepted, and practised - at least for a time - by most social groups and strata in Britain” (475)

In this example, Duncan and Smith acknowledge that we have made some social progress, but I’m not convinced. If I lived with a man, had a baby with him, and decided not to get married, I would probably spend the rest of my life answering the question, “why are you not married?” from my friends and family for the rest of my days! Even though common-law is now much more rampant in Western society, this does not mean that everyone is happy about it, or even accepting of it. I’m wondering what the differences would be for women compared to men in the decision to remain unmarried: how do people respond to women in this choice, and how do they respond to men? My hypothesis is that they would be very different, with the woman getting more questions concerning fears from family members about the well-being and stability of her children. I don’t have any support at present to back up this claim, but based on what I’ve learned so far, it doesn’t seem terribly far-fetched.

“Cohabiting outside marriage as a parent, although not generally seen as necessarily inferior, is less accepted and less practised than childless cohabitation” (476)

This quotation goes along well with my previous idea! Cohabitating unmarried people with children are less common than unmarried childless couples. Why is this the case? Why do people feel the need to get married when they have children? What do married parents add to a child’s life that unmarried parents cannot provide? I think it all goes back to social stigmas attached to unmarried parents. Also, for some reason people think they need a ceremony, a party and a piece of paper to be committed to another person and without it, that commitment is not as strong.

“For example, mothers in west inner London - a high status and economically buoyant area - may usually have full-time jobs, but they tend to stay within marriage as far as having children is concerned” (481)

What is the purpose of marriage in the context of a “high status and economically buoyant area”? Assuming that many of these women would be fine supporting themselves, I think this further proves my assertion that marriage is a social activity rather than an economic one. People do not want their children going to school and having to explain that their parents are not married!

“In contrast an 'adult worker' region shows low MEEs [ie. fewer instances of the traditional breadwinner-homemaker labour division], as well as generally lower FC [ie. “family conventionality,” which refers to the married couple with children as opposed to a cohabitating couple with children]  scores. This is composed of the working class, former cotton towns of east Lancashire. Here women were traditionally full-time workers in textile mills and had achieved greater social power in households, trade unions and in local politics by the 1930s” (484)

“…geographical differences in partnering and parenting practices, as indicated by the MEE [Motherhood Employment Effect, as described above], FC [Family Conventionality, also described above], TC [Traditional Household Index, which describes those who follow and neglect the social norm of the heterosexual couple with a dependent wife] and FR [Family Restructuring index, which measures ‘spatial patterns in departure from marriage as a partnering and parenting form’ (473)], are bound up with the history of gendered divisions of labour in the workplace and the household, and with current class, ethnic and religious distribution” (488)

This quotation highlights the various intersectionalities that come into play when analyzing gendered divisions of labour at home and in the workplace. In addition to intersectionalities of class, ethnicity and religion, Duncan and Smith also make note of the fact that history also plays a role in how these relationship and family dynamics function.

“Established patterns of gendered work would then set traditions in which later gendered divisions of labour would develop. For example, in areas where women had long been exploited as a supplementary and ill-paid labour force in agriculture (as in East Anglia) women would remain in similar status jobs even when, as in this example, such areas entered a boom based on services and high-tech manufacturing” (489)

Tradition plays a large role in the reproduction of gender roles. This statement works well with what I am interested in because tradition is a huge issue for me when it comes to my struggles as a vegetarian. I come from an Italian family and of course, meat is a huge part of the culture. My refusing to eat veal on a special occasion, in a way, is like breaking tradition. This deep-seated desire for people to conform to traditions (whether that’s for nostalgic reasons or just because it’s the only thing they know, I can only speculate) I believe is a massive detriment to enacting social change. It’s comfortable, and so people stick to what they know.

Important point: “It is not just spatial divisions of labour that define women's role, it is also people's own gendered expectations, negotiations and demands about what being a woman or a man is, and what they should do in consequence. These understandings are not only informed by current or past economic conditions in local labour markets, but also by other social relations in households, neighbourhoods and community networks” (489)

“…different countries and regions have established different trajectories as a consequence of the differing balance between alternative concepts of the normal and ideal family, and of what is 'the proper thing to do' as far as women and men, and in particular mothers and fathers, are concerned” (490)

“…more particularistic explanations of spatial differences in partnering and parenting practices can be related to the history of gendered divisions of labour in the workplace and the household, and linked to current class, ethnic and religious distribution” (490)

Overall, this article has served as a reminder that there are many different factors that contribute to how gender roles are carried out: the history of the region (which encompasses tradition) as well as intersections of class, race and religion all play a role in determining what men and women “ought to do” (475). It is also important to note that making generalizations is dangerous, and it is necessary to study a variety of geographical regions in order to avoid this pigeon-holing process.