Robert Hauhart describes a survey that is used to illustrate how students in an online sociology course tend to learn about inequality in everyday life. The online course discussed personalizes key concepts found within Hoschild’s works on the ‘second shift’ of domestic labor, by asking students to connect these notions with their own experiences.

The article begins by providing data that states since the end of World War II the United States’ women’s labor force participation has exorbitantly increased. In 1949, 31 percent of American women were employed outside the home, by 1960 this figure increased to 38 percent, and by 2000 to 60 percent, and states this increase as substantial demographic and social change of the past century. The article also presented data stating that U.S. women spent 30 hours per week doing unpaid household work in 1965, which was more than six times the time spent by U.S. men (4.9 hours). By 1995 this gap had narrowed with women doing 17.5 hours of work each week and 10 hours of work each week.

The goals of the class survey used were to induce student’s recognition of the unequitable division of labor within today’s society as well as to increase their understandings of the patterned nature of societal inequality through the analysis of the gendered division of household labor in relation to other issues of gender inequality that may originate outside the home. Hauhart asked students to review a list of household tasks as well as to evaluate household members’ contribution to the performance of each task. Students were also asked to write about the ‘ideal’ level of contribution from each household member within their own household. Most of the responses received by students illustrated a continuing gap in performing household labor between sexes in heterosexual couple households. Although the age range of class members was between 18 and 43 between 2003 and 2004 and was distributed evenly over the range, there were not any apparent age related trends in either direction. Hauhart’s main points were that the unequal division of American household labor following World War II has continued to be a stubborn and problematic issue, and that the online course discussed was a legitimate method of educating students on this topic as well as intimately involving and engaging students with this issue by imploring students to relate their own personal experiences with the unequal division of labor to the class.

After the administration of the survey class members were asked to comment on their responses and those of their classmates. The responses tended to be varied and there was adamant discussion following. Generally speaking, the online course tended to spur the results desired by the author, which included results for the survey, as well as in depth discussion of the results. Hauhart stated that there were a multitude of chances to note the various topics of inequality as well as stratification within undergraduate sociology courses, and that he experienced problems conjuring meaningful discussion encouraging equal participation rates within class discussions and achieving student recognition of connection between unequal circumstances and the perpetual patterns of extant and widespread structured inequality. The author also illustrates that the survey results received were for teaching rather than scientific purposes. The use of surveys, journals, quizzes, and exercises were used to open discussion, introduce controversial ideas, and create a comfortable environment for investigating a comfortable setting to explore topics in depth within sociology classes is a common pedagogical. Hauhart demonstrates that the primary innovation offered is the translation of technique into online settings.

Hauharts main points were that the unequal division of American household labor following World War II has continued to be a stubborn and problematic issue. It seemed like he unnecessarily repeated some of his main arguments. As mentioned in the piece, the course only ‘briefly’ referenced Hoschild’s study of the ‘second shift’ phenomenon’, which made me consider whether student’s were able to adequately digest the various variables including types of household tasks completed (indoor, outdoor, as although it is a somewhat simple study. I also thought more information could have been gleaned regarding the division of labor results he received from his students. For instance the number of children could have been listed as well as if the household was dual earner, the racial makeup, SES status, as well as geographical location. These factors are all relatively easy to attain and would have added significant detail and deeper insight into why the reports of the gendered division of labor were reported the way they were. It also seemed as if the results of the survey could have been discussed in a bit more detail. I also thought the specific percentage breakdown of the household survey could have been discussed in more detail, as most seemed to be far from parity.

As for contributions to the sociology of gender I do not think it is adding much to the literature. The sample it uses to describe the division of household labor is relatively small (38 students) making it difficult to generalize to a wider population and its findings do not state anything that has not already been said from previous literature. Essentially I would call for richer or more detailed data, as well as a larger sample size to more accurately assess the quantity as well as quality of labor completed by members within households. Additionally, although the structure of the class exercise is relatively interesting and was adept at involving class members in a legitimate conversation about gender, this would be helpful to sociologists within the field of education. I am curious of how other factors such as age, race, class, sexual orientation, SES, occupational status, and educational background play a role in determining the division of household labor. I am interested in how these a combination of these various factors interact and how they determine the way in which couples divide labor within the household. An affluent straight white heterosexual couples may indeed divide household labor differently than an African-American lesbian couple who fall below the poverty line. I also think a richer description of the type of work done by various couples would be helpful for future research, as the amount of time spent on a task does not necessarily denote its level of difficulty, and a broad category such as yard work covers a variety of task difficulty from tractor lawn mowing to intensive gardening. I am also interested in what the ages of the children were for those students who completed housework, as knowing the exact age of a child would provide a better sense of what tasks it could complete.

Works Cited:

Hauhart, Robert C. 2007. “Teaching about Inequality in a Distance Education Course Unsing the Second Shift.” Teaching Sociology 35 (2): 174-183.