Abstract
The gendered division of domestic labor has been widely studied over the last three decades. However, older adults’ contribution to housework, especially in patriarchal communities in the Middle East, has been largely overlooked. This article examined the participation of older members of the household in domestic labor in three communities in the outskirts of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. Drawing on a sample of 2,797 households, the results revealed that three salient factors seemed to have the major impact on older adults’ participation in domestic labor; these were the presence of adult women (18–59 years old) in the household, the marital status and age of older adults. Older men’s participation in domestic labor was much lower than that of older women, suggesting that a gender divide exists among older adults in the patriarchal setting of the study. Housework remains feminized in the later stage of life.
Keywords: Older adults, Domestic labor, Housework, Patriarchy, Beirut, Lebanon
Introduction
The gender theory on the division of domestic labor among household members has been widely argued by scholars (Demo and Acock 1993; Shelton and John 1996; Twiggs et al. 1999; Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane 2000; Evertsson and Nermo 2004; Erickson 2005; Essex and Hong 2005). It stipulates that gender dictates adults’ contribution to domestic labor, whereby women perform most of the work in the household while men have the primary responsibility for earning in paid labor. Although men’s participation in domestic labor has increased in recent years, household work is still seen as a “female-normative” and paid labor as a “male-normative” (Demo and Acock 1993; Shelton and John 1996; Twiggs et al. 1999; Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane 2000; Evertsson and Nermo 2004; Cast and Bird 2005). Hence, gender-based inequality has been ascribed a great impact on the division of domestic labor among household members (Greenstein 1996; Coltrane 2000; Essex and Hong 2005).
Research in Western societies showed an increasing awareness of egalitarianism in aging couples which, to a certain extent, narrows the gap between women’s and men’s share of domestic labor (Dorfman 1992, 2003; Vinick and Ekerdt 1992; Ward 1993; Szinovacz 2000). As people become older, their goals and expectations change and they become less interested in their work roles since they are retired; they seek companionship and rely more on their spouse, and are usually more driven by affective bonds (Zube 1982). They are also more likely to stay at home where most of their daily activities are performed (Oswald 1998; Baltes et al. 1990). It has been suggested that this transformation in older adulthood has lead to more household equity and sharing (Zube 1982; Ward 1993). Therefore men assume a ‘helping role’ and women play an increased managerial role whereby they exert power and self-confidence given that they are better versed in performing household tasks (Zube 1982).
On the other hand, it has been proposed that the gendered division of domestic labor persists after retirement age; and the primary responsibility for housework remains a female normative among the older population (Robinson and Spitze 1992; Ghysels 2000; Essex and Hong 2005).
In general, research on the division of domestic labor has mainly focused on adult couples of working age. The division of housework among older adults has not been given as much attention. Older adults have been mainly studied as people who require care rather than as active contributors to domestic labor (Finley 1989; Soldo and Wolf 1994; Walker et al. 1995; Couch et al. 1999). This dearth of research on older adults’ involvement in domestic labor especially pertains to non-Western patriarchal societies where patriarchy is based on gender and age hierarchy. In these societies, men, the breadwinners, and older adults have authority or power over women, the homemakers, and younger adults (Joseph 1993, 1996).
Our research examined the participation of older adults in domestic labor in three urban communities in the outskirts of Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. It is unique in addressing the salient factors, in particular gender, that contribute to the participation of older adults in domestic labor in patriarchal communities of the Middle East.
Methods
Setting
The study was carried out by the Faculty of Health Sciences at the American University of Beirut in Hay el Sellom, Nabaa and Burj Barajneh camp in the outskirts of metropolitan Beirut in 2002. The three communities are characterized by poor housing conditions and a rural–urban influx. A large proportion of the study population was displaced during the Lebanese civil war (1975–1990) and is relatively poor with an average yearly income of around US$ 5,460 compared to a national average of US$ 12,300 according to the latest figure published by the Lebanese Central Administration of Statistics (CAS 1998). Unlike what is usually observed in more affluent Lebanese households, employing domestic helpers is a rare practice in the study communities, considering the relatively poor economic conditions. Therefore, the division of domestic labor is a family issue in our sample.
Sample
A cross-sectional survey based on a two-stage probability sample was carried out. Interviews using a structured household questionnaire were carried out with a proxy respondent in 2,797 households where 12,788 subjects resided. An adult (or older adult) member in each household was interviewed to obtain information on all household members. As the study sample was large, we relied on a proxy respondent for feasibility purposes; the interviewers were instructed to interview one of the available adult (or older adult) members of the household with whom communication was feasible. The head of the household or his/her spouse was the proxy respondent in 87% of the households. The overall response rate was 88.3%. The University Institutional Research Board approved the study. All respondents were informed of the objective of the study and oral consent was obtained.
The sample in this article was limited to individuals aged 60+ years at the time of the data collection. A total of 980 individuals, residing in 744 households, were eligible for inclusion in the study; they represented 7.7% of the overall study population. Three cases were excluded due to missing data, and a total of 977 individuals were included in the analysis.
More than 50% of older adults in the study sample reside in Nabaa. The age pattern for older men and women is almost the same with almost two-third of the male population clustering in the first two age groups (60–64 and 65–69) versus 59% of women. The majority (78.9%) of older adults reside in households with 2–6 members while only 13.2% live in households with 7 members or more. The percent of older women who live alone is higher than that of older men (11.2 vs. 4%); this may be partially attributed to the age gap between spouses and the longer life expectancy for women compared to men. Most of the households with older adult members have one older adult. While 88.3% of older men are married, the percentage drops to 44.6 for older women; on the other hand, 48% of older women are widowed and the percentage drops to 9.7 for older men. The marital status of the older adults reflects the age gap between spouses where one can expect high percentage of widowed women and high percentage of married men. Also, older men re-marry more than older women.
The majority of older adults had no education; illiteracy was high in this population. In general older women were less educated, and were less involved in paid work the week prior to the survey than older men (5.2 vs. 28.6%).
More than two thirds of older adults had one or more chronic diseases; the presence was higher among older women than older men (77.2 vs. 62.8). In contrast, the presence of disability was low (5.5%), and older men had higher rates of disability than older women (7.3 vs. 4%). Some 35% of older adults lived in households with no adult women (27.9% older men and 41.1% older women). With respect to their position as head of household, 89.6% of older men were head of their household versus only 33% older women (see Table 1).
Table 1.
Socio-demographic characteristics of older adults by sex, Urban Health Survey 2002
| Sex | Total (n = 977) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men (n = 452) | Women (n = 525) | |||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Age group | ||||||
| 60–64 | 171 | 37.8 | 176 | 33.5 | 347 | 35.5 |
| 65–69 | 122 | 27.0 | 134 | 25.5 | 256 | 26.2 |
| 70–74 | 76 | 16.8 | 109 | 20.8 | 185 | 18.9 |
| 75–79 | 49 | 10.8 | 63 | 12.0 | 112 | 11.5 |
| 80+ | 34 | 7.5 | 43 | 8.2 | 77 | 7.9 |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single | 7 | 1.5 | 26 | 5.0 | 33 | 3.4 |
| Married | 399 | 88.3 | 234 | 44.6 | 633 | 64.8 |
| Widowed | 44 | 9.7 | 252 | 48.0 | 296 | 30.3 |
| Divorced/separated | 2 | 0.4 | 13 | 2.5 | 15 | 1.5 |
| Educational level | ||||||
| None | 300 | 69.0 | 462 | 89.5 | 762 | 80.1 |
| Elementary | 97 | 22.3 | 46 | 8.9 | 143 | 15.0 |
| Inter/vocational | 20 | 4.6 | 6 | 1.2 | 26 | 2.7 |
| Secondary+ | 18 | 4.1 | 2 | 0.4 | 20 | 2.1 |
| Literacy (read & write) | 293 | 64.8 | 119 | 22.7 | 412 | 42.2 |
| Paid work last week | 129 | 28.6 | 27 | 5.2 | 156 | 16.0 |
| Head of household | 405 | 89.6 | 173 | 33.0 | 578 | 59.2 |
| Proxy respondent | 118 | 26.1 | 256 | 48.8 | 374 | 38.3 |
| Presence of chronic disease | 282 | 62.8 | 404 | 77.2 | 686 | 70.6 |
| Presence of disability | 33 | 7.3 | 21 | 4.0 | 54 | 5.5 |
| Number of household members | ||||||
| 1 | 18 | 4.0 | 59 | 11.2 | 77 | 7.9 |
| 2–6 | 368 | 81.4 | 403 | 76.8 | 771 | 78.9 |
| 7+ | 66 | 14.6 | 63 | 12.0 | 129 | 13.2 |
| Number of older adults per household | ||||||
| 1 | 226 | 50.0 | 288 | 54.9 | 514 | 52.6 |
| 2 | 223 | 49.3 | 231 | 44.0 | 454 | 46.5 |
| 3 | 3 | 0.7 | 6 | 1.1 | 9 | 0.9 |
| Number of adult women (18–59 years) per household | ||||||
| 0 | 126 | 27.9 | 216 | 41.1 | 342 | 35.0 |
| 1 | 173 | 38.3 | 205 | 39.0 | 378 | 38.7 |
| 2 | 96 | 21.2 | 77 | 14.7 | 173 | 17.7 |
| 3–5 | 57 | 12.6 | 27 | 5.1 | 84 | 8.6 |
| Community | ||||||
| Hay el Sellom | 83 | 18.4 | 85 | 16.2 | 168 | 17.2 |
| Nabaa | 235 | 52.0 | 283 | 53.9 | 518 | 53.0 |
| Burj Barajneh camp | 134 | 29.6 | 157 | 29.9 | 291 | 29.8 |
Measures
Data on household members included information on socio-demographic characteristics, health status, and participation in domestic labor.
Measures of socio-demographic variables
The variables of interest were age, gender, marital status, educational level, economic activity, community or place of residence (Hay el Sellom, Nabaa, and Burj Barajneh Camp), headship of household (yes/no), number of adult women (18–59 years old) in the household (zero, one, and two or more), number of older adults in the household (one vs. two or three) presence of disability, and presence of chronic disease (see Table 1).
June 1st, 2002 was used as the reference date to calculate the age of all individuals in the study. Older adults were classified as members aged 60 and above and categorized into 5-year-age groups. Marital status was classified as single, married, widowed, and divorced/separated. Completed years of education for the older adults were also classified into four categories: none, elementary, intermediate/vocational and secondary and above. Literacy was selected to represent educational background since the educational attainment of this group was very low. We measured economic activity of household members by asking standard questions about labor force participation (in or out of labor force) as recommended by the international labor organization (ILO 1983). For every member of the household aged 15 years or older, we asked if he/she worked for a wage (cash or in-kind) in part-time or full-time work for 1 h or more in the previous week. Using a checklist, the proxy respondent reported on all types of disability and chronic illness among household members.
Measures of domestic labor
Similar to what has been published in previous studies, domestic labor was measured in terms of type of tasks traditionally performed by men and women (Twiggs et al. 1999; Coltrane 2000; Greenstein 2000). A proxy respondent was asked to assess the contribution of all household members, aged 5 years and above, to domestic labor during a normal week (Habib et al. 2005). Domestic labor was divided into five main categories, these were: (1) core household tasks, (2) financial management, (3) home management, (4) home maintenance, and (5) care giving (Habib et al. 2006). The core household tasks included specific chores that dealt with cleaning (rooms, kitchen, bathroom), food preparation/cooking, washing clothes, and ironing. Financial management tasks included managing payments (bills and debts) and household expenses. Home management included the responsibility for purchasing service water, drinking water, heating supplies, and purchasing home needs and personal items. Home repair, car maintenance and car washing (if applicable) were grouped under the home maintenance category. And last, care giving tasks included caring for children (0–14 years), disabled, and sick members of the household; transport-related tasks (dropping off/picking up and accompanying members of the household); and school related tasks (minding school issues and assisting with homework) (see Table 2). Similar tasks have been used in a number of other studies on domestic labor (Coltrane 2000; Erickson 2005). Tasks related to provision of care for older adults were excluded from the analysis since nearly 70% of households (514) in our study sample had only one older member residing in the household.
Table 2.
Weights of household tasks, Urban Health Survey 2002
| Weight | Maximum scores | |
|---|---|---|
| Core household tasks | 48.0 | |
| Cleaning rooms | 8 | |
| Cleaning kitchen | 8 | |
| Cleaning bathrooms | 8 | |
| Laundry—washing clothes | 4 | |
| Laundry—ironing | 4 | |
| Meals—washing dishes | 8 | |
| Meals—food preparation | 8 | |
| Care giving | 42.5 | |
| Care for children | 8 | |
| Care for disabled | 8 | |
| Care for sick members | 8 | |
| Transport—dropping off, picking up members | 8 | |
| Transport—accompanying other members | 2 | |
| School—minding school issues | 0.5 | |
| School—assisting with homework | 8 | |
| Financial management | 2.5 | |
| Payment of bills and debts | 0.5 | |
| Managing household expenses | 2 | |
| Home management | 9.0 | |
| Shopping for home needs | 4 | |
| Buying service water | 2 | |
| Buying drinking water | 2 | |
| Buying heating supply | 0.5 | |
| Purchasing personal items | 0.5 | |
| Maintenance | 1.5 | |
| Household repair | 0.5 | |
| Car maintenance | 0.5 | |
| Car wash | 0.5 | |
| Total | 103.5 | |
Contribution to household tasks was measured using a four-point Likert scale: 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = most of the time and 3 = always. The frequency distribution of the sample indicated that the largest proportion of responses were in the first and the last categories (never or always). Therefore, responses were summarized in a binary outcome with ‘always and most of the times’ = 1 and ‘never and sometimes’ = 0. A composite index that summarized the level of involvement in household tasks was developed. A simple mathematical addition was used to calculate this index by summing up individual responses (0, 1). The minimum possible value of this index is zero for those who did not contribute to any household task, while the maximum possible value is 24 for those who were involved in all tasks. However, a simple summation of all individual household tasks ignores the frequency of performing these tasks which varies with task and culture. For instance, while cleaning chores are usually performed on a daily basis, payment of bills is a monthly activity in the Lebanese context. Therefore, household tasks were given weights based on the usual frequency a task is performed. The relative value of the weight given for each task was determined by a rapid interview in some households that were randomly selected in the study communities (see Table 2 for a full list of variables and their associated weights). Weighted value of involvement in each task was computed by multiplying the involvement in the task by its weight. For example, if cleaning of bathrooms is always performed by an individual (i.e. it is allocated a number three on the scale of involvement), then three is multiplied by eight (since cleaning of bathrooms is a task done four or more times a week) to give 24 a weighted value of involvement. A mean weighted value of involvement was computed for each of the five categories of household tasks by summing up the weighted value of involvement in all tasks in each category. An overall composite score (ie., the dependent variable) was computed by summing up all 24 tasks across the five categories with a minimum of zero and a maximum of 103.5 (see Table 2).
Statistical analysis
The analysis was four fold using the statistical package for social science (SPSS) Version 11.00 (SPSS 2003). First, descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis were used to explore the participation of older adults in household labor, and study the extent to which the gender theory of division of labor explained older adults’ participation in housework. Second, the mean weighted value of older adult’s involvement for each of the categories of household tasks, and the composite index for all household tasks were analysed by gender in five age groups (60–64, 65–69, 70–74, 75–79 and 80+) (see Table 3). Third, we studied the mean weighted value of involvement in household tasks by several personal and household factors, known to influence participation in housework, such as marital status, number of household members, involvement in paid work, presence of chronic disease and others (see Table 4). The association between the overall housework involvement, measured by the composite index, and the independent variables was assessed using two linear regression models, one for men and one for women, since the effect of these factors varies by gender (see Table 5). The size of the household was correlated with the number of adult women in the household, and hence was excluded from the two linear models. The statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
Table 3.
Mean weighted value of older adults’ involvement in household tasks by age group and sex, Urban Health Survey 2002
| Maximum possible | Age group | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60–64 | 65–69 | 70–74 | 75–79 | 80+ | |||
| Core household tasks | |||||||
| Men | 48 | 1.66 | 1.57 | 2.11 | 1.31 | 4.59 | 1.89 |
| Women | 48 | 32.02 | 27.37 | 21.39 | 14.03 | 10.42 | 24.70 |
| Care giving | |||||||
| Men | 42.5 | 9.20 | 7.55 | 8.66 | 7.63 | 6.35 | 8.28 |
| Women | 42.5 | 9.48 | 8.24 | 7.30 | 5.75 | 4.70 | 7.87 |
| Financial management | |||||||
| Men | 2.5 | 0.87 | 0.70 | 0.68 | 0.85 | 0.69 | 0.78 |
| Women | 2.5 | 1.68 | 1.27 | 1.11 | 0.94 | 0.81 | 1.30 |
| Home management | |||||||
| Men | 9 | 1.91 | 1.48 | 1.89 | 2.08 | 1.16 | 1.75 |
| Women | 9 | 3.62 | 2.54 | 2.42 | 1.52 | 1.12 | 2.64 |
| Maintenance | |||||||
| Men | 1.5 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.24 |
| Women | 1.5 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| Composite indexa | |||||||
| Men | 103.5 | 13.98 | 11.54 | 13.51 | 12.01 | 12.84 | 12.94 |
| Women | 103.5 | 46.86 | 39.44 | 32.27 | 22.24 | 17.07 | 36.54 |
| Total number | |||||||
| Men | 171 | 122 | 76 | 49 | 34 | 452 | |
| Women | 176 | 134 | 109 | 63 | 43 | 525 | |
a Summation of the five categories of household tasks
Table 4.
Mean weighted value of older adults’ involvement in household tasks by selected variables and sex, Urban Health Survey 2002
| Sex | ||
|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 14.9 | 35.5 |
| Married | 12.3 | 44.7 |
| Widowed | 19.3 | 29.1 |
| Divorced/separated | 3.5 | 35.2 |
| Educational level | ||
| None | 11.9 | 36.0 |
| Elementary | 14.4 | 44.6 |
| Inter/vocational | 17.8 | 46.5 |
| Secondary+ | 20.1 | 63.3 |
| Literacy | ||
| Illiterate | 11.2 | 35.4 |
| Literate (read & write) | 13.9 | 40.5 |
| Paid work last week | ||
| Yes | 14.1 | 39.1 |
| No | 12.5 | 36.3 |
| Head of household | ||
| Not a head | 6.8 | 36.3 |
| Head | 13.7 | 37.1 |
| Presence of chronic disease | ||
| Yes | 12.5 | 34.7 |
| No | 13.5 | 42.8 |
| Presence of disability | ||
| Yes | 7.5 | 25.3 |
| No | 13.4 | 37.0 |
| Number of household members | ||
| 1 | 25.8 | 44.3 |
| 2–6 | 12.5 | 37.4 |
| 7+ | 11.9 | 23.6 |
| Number of older adults per household | ||
| 1 | 14.1 | 31.3 |
| 2 | 11.9 | 43.7 |
| 3 | 5.0 | 14.3 |
| Number of adult women (18–59 years) per household | ||
| 0 | 15.8 | 49.4 |
| 1 | 12.6 | 27.4 |
| 2 | 11.0 | 32.8 |
| 3–5 | 10.8 | 13.7 |
| Community | ||
| Hay el Sellom | 15.9 | 32.9 |
| Nabaa | 12.8 | 40.9 |
| Burj Barajneh camp | 11.4 | 30.6 |
Table 5.
Linear regression models for composite index of participation in domestic labor by sex, Urban Health Survey 2002
| Independent variables | Coefficients | |
|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | |
| Standardized coefficient (β) | Standardized coefficient (β) | |
| Age (60–64 years) | ||
| 65–69 years | −0.065 | −0.124** |
| 70–74 years | −0.024 | −0.171*** |
| 75–79 years | −0.034 | −0.262*** |
| 80+ | −0.235*** | |
| Marital status (Not Married) | ||
| Currently Married | −0.180** | 0.330*** |
| Literacy (Illiterate) | ||
| Literate | 0.108* | −0.049 |
| Paid work last week (No) | ||
| Yes | 0.030 | −0.014 |
| Head of household (No) | ||
| Head | 0.173*** | 0.109* |
| Presence of disability (No) | ||
| Yes | −0.092* | −0.047 |
| Presence of chronic disease (No) | ||
| Yes | −0.009 | −0.107** |
| Number of older adults (1) | ||
| Number of older adults (2–3) | −0.080 | −0.125 |
| Adult woman (Zero) | ||
| Number of adult women (1) | −0.162** | −0.384*** |
| Number of adult women (2+) | −0.242*** | −0.325*** |
| Community (BBC) | ||
| Nabaa | 0.085 | 0.223*** |
| Hayessullum | 0.210*** | 0.073 |
| Constant | 14.475*** | 49.687*** |
| R 2 | 0.144 | 0.386 |
| F Ratio | 4.868*** | 21.229*** |
Coefficient significant at: * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001
Reference category is given in parentheses
Results
Older adults’ involvement in domestic labor
Our descriptive results showed that housework remains a female normative at older age. Older women were much more involved in ‘core household tasks’ with an average of 24.70 compared to only 1.89 scores for older men (see Table 3). The gap between older men’s and older women’s involvement in ‘care giving’ tasks was narrow, with both older men and women showing a low involvement. This may be partly attributed to the type of tasks included in this category such as care for sick members in the household, dropping and picking up members of the household, and minding children’s school issues. People’s contribution to these tasks naturally drops with age. Older women seemed to manage household-related financial affairs more than older men did, with older women scoring 1.30 out of 2.5 in the ‘financial management’ category and older men scoring 0.78. While men in general look after payment of bills and debts, women are responsible for the more frequently performed tasks of managing household expenses (Shelton and John 1996; Greenstein 1996; Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane 2000; Essex and Hong 2005).
The results indicated that older women were more involved in ‘home management’ than older men (2.64 vs. 1.75). Szinovacz (1992) argued that older women strive to experience a managerial role after long years of being in a second-class position compared to men who are seen as the “boss” of the family. Accordingly, full responsibility over household affairs serves as an instrument to practice a leadership role and gain inherent satisfaction by perceiving their performance in the household domain as self-worth (Thompson and Walker 1989; Szinovacz 1992).
On the other hand, older men did more ‘maintenance’ tasks than older women (0.24 versus 0.03 out of a maximum possible score of 1.5). This finding largely echoed what has been previously published on men’s dominance of household maintenance chores (Coltrane 2000).
The overall composite index of household tasks for older women is three-times that of older men (36.54 vs. 12.94 scores). Older women’s involvement in household tasks decreased with age; the composite index value is 46.86 in the age group 60–64 years and decreased to 17.07 in the age group 80+ years.
Factors affecting older adults’ involvement in domestic labor
Married older women had the highest scores of involvement in domestic labor (44.7) followed by single women (35.5); on the other hand, the highest score for older men was among those who were widowed (19.3 sores) (see Table 4). The score for involvement in household tasks was consistently higher for older women than older men across all study variables (see Table 4). Similar to what has been previously published on the effect of household size on older adults’ contribution to domestic labor (Stone and Kemper 1990), our results showed that older women were less involved in household tasks in larger households (score = 23.6 in households with 7+ members, while score = 37.4 in households with 2–6 members). The higher the educational level of older men and women, the higher was their participation in household tasks. While older men and women with no education scored 11.9 and 36, respectively, the highest level of participation in household tasks was among those who completed their secondary education or more, with a score of 20.1 for older men and 63.3 for older women.
The results of the two regression models, one for older men and another for older women, are presented in Table 5. The explanatory power of the models, measured by the coefficient of determination (R 2), indicated that the study variables explained 38.6% of the variation in domestic labor among older women, and 14.4% among older men.
Age was a significant determinant of involvement in household tasks for older women but not for older men. The contribution of older women to household work decreased with age. While being married increased older women’s involvement in household tasks, it decreased older men’s participation. Literate older men were more involved in household tasks than those who were illiterate. This variable was not significant for older women.
Besides age, the presence of one or more adult women (18–59 years old) in the household was highly significant (P < 0.001) in decreasing older men’s and older women’s participation in household tasks. In the study context, tradition and social ties dictate that adult women take care of children and older adults (Joseph 1996).
Health status and disability have been reported to affect older adults’ participation in housework (Robinson and Spitze 1992). Generally, healthier older adults contribute more to housework than those with a chronic disease or disability. Our data showed that the presence of a chronic illness reduced the contribution of both older men and women to household tasks. However, the effect of chronic illnesses was significant only on older women’s contribution (P < 0.01). A weak relationship between the presence of illness and men’s participation in domestic labor has also been reported in the literature (Essex and Hong 2005). Similarly, the presence of disability reduced the contribution of both older men and women to household tasks, but the effect was significant only on older men’s contribution (P < 0.05) (see Table 5). In other words, disability seemed to be more incapacitating on older men’s contribution to housework than the presence of a chronic disease, while the reverse is true for older women. It is worth noting that more than two-third of older adults in the study population had one or more chronic illnesses, while only 5.5% had a disability.
Headship of the household significantly increased contribution of both older men and women to household tasks. Being involved in paid work and the ‘number of older adults in the household’ were not significant determinants of involvement in housework neither for older men nor older women.
In general, older men’s participation in household tasks was much lower than that of older women in the three study communities, and housework remained feminized in the later stages of life. It has been argued that in some cases, women recognize their husbands’ participation in household tasks as interference into their domain (Hill and Dorfman 1982) and against their expectations leading to dissatisfaction (Brubaker and Hennon 1982; Brubaker 1985) and unfavorable equity (Schafer and Keith 1981). Our study could not demonstrate or disprove these propositions, which may be addressed through qualitative research.
Discussion
In this article, we explored factors affecting older adults’ participation in housework in communities on the outskirts of Beirut, Lebanon. We found that the level of older women’s participation in housework was higher than that of older men. Our findings were consistent with the International literature suggesting that the primary responsibility for housework among older adults remains a female issue across various cultures (Gibson 1996; Dorfman and Heckert 1988; Keith and Wacker 1990; Dorfman 1992; Robinson and Spitze 1992; Beales 2000; Coltrane 2000; Ghysels 2000; Essex and Hong 2005).
Three salient factors seemed to have a major impact on older adults’ contribution to housework; these were the presence of one or more adult women living in the household, marital status and age of the older adult.
Given the patriarchal context of the study communities, adult women (18–59 years old) are likely to take over most of the housework responsibilities, relieving other family members. In general, older adults expect to be served by adult women living in the same household (Joseph and Stork 1993). This pattern persists in Lebanon, a country characterized by strong social affective ties and connectivity, features that are often fragile in industrialized countries (Joseph 1993; Sibai et al. 2004).
Marital status was an important determinant of performing household tasks among older adults, in that being married meant less involvement for older men and more involvement for older women. Our findings demonstrate a gender divide of housework among older adults and concur with the gender theory regarding the uneven distribution of domestic labor between men and women (Szinovacz 1989; Bianchi et al. 2000; Coltrane 2000).
In general, as age increased, older adults’ contribution to household tasks decreased irrespective of gender. This finding may be related to a decrease in older adults’ fitness with age. However, the decrease in older women’s contribution to household tasks across all age groups was significant for older women but not for older men for whom the variation was minimal.
Age was a major determinant of older women’s involvement in household tasks. Older women were more involved in domestic activities than older men and this gender gap was high.
A notable strength of this research was its contribution to the literature on older adults’ participation in domestic labor in a Middle Eastern patriarchal context. However, our study has some important limitations. The findings are specific to older adults residing in three underserved communities on the outskirts of Beirut and may not reflect older adults’ involvement in household tasks in more affluent communities. The cross-sectional nature of the study hampered the interpretation of direction of effects. Data were collected using a proxy respondent from the household to provide information on all members of the household. Only 38% of older adults in the study sample were proxy respondents and provided their personal information. Other members of the household may have limited knowledge concerning older members’ activities and practices.
The measures used to capture domestic labor did not assess the time consumed in performing housework; instead a scale that ranged from ‘never’ to ‘always’ was used. However, we believe that measuring the time spent in performing household tasks would not add much to answering the objective of this article.
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust, Mellon and Ford Foundations.
References
- Baltes MM, Wahl HW, Schmid-Furstoss U. The daily life of the elderly at home: activity patterns, personal control, and functional health. J Gerontol. 1990;45:173–179. doi: 10.1093/geronj/45.4.p173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beales S. Why we should invest in older women and men: the experience of Help Age International. Gend Dev. 2000;8(2):9–18. doi: 10.1080/741923631. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bianchi SM, Melissa MA, Sayer LC, Robinson JP. Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Soc Forces. 2000;79:91–228. doi: 10.2307/2675569. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Brubaker TH. Responsibility for household tasks: a look at golden anniversary couples aged 75 years and older. In: Peterson WA, Quadagno J, editors. Social bonds in later life. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1985. pp. 27–36. [Google Scholar]
- Brubaker TH, Hennon CB. Responsibility for household tasks: comparing dual-earner and dual-retired marriages. In: Szinovacz M, editor. Women’s retirement. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1982. pp. 205–219. [Google Scholar]
- CAS (1998) Central Administration of Statistics (February). Etudes statistiques: Conditions de vie des ménages en 1997 (Etudes Statistiques No. 9). Beirut: Publications de L’Administration Centrale de la Statistique
- Cast AD, Bird SR. Participation in household and paid labor: effects on perceptions of role-taking ability. Soc Psychol Q. 2005;68:143–159. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Coltrane S. Research on household labor: modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. J Marriage Fam. 2000;62:1208–1233. [Google Scholar]
- Couch KA, Daly MC, Wolf DA. Time? Money? Both? The allocation of resources to older parents. Demography. 1999;36:219–232. doi: 10.2307/2648110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Demo DH, Acock AC. Family diversity and the division of domestic labor: how much have things really changed. Fam Relat. 1993;42:323–331. doi: 10.2307/585562. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Dorfman L. Couples in retirement: Division of household labor. In: Szinovacz M, Ekerdt D, Vinick B, editors. Families and retirement. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1992. pp. 159–173. [Google Scholar]
- Dorfman L. Retirement and family relationships: an opportunity in later life. Generations. 2003;xxvi:74–79. [Google Scholar]
- Dorfman L, Heckert D. Egalitarianism in retired rural couples: household tasks, decision making, and leisure activities. Fam Relat. 1988;37:73–78. doi: 10.2307/584433. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Erickson RJ. Why emotion work matters: sex, gender, and the division of household labor. J Marriage Fam. 2005;67:337–351. [Google Scholar]
- Essex EL, Hong J. Older care giving parents: division of household labor, marital satisfaction, and caregiver burden. Fam Relat. 2005;54:448–460. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00330.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Evertsson M, Nermo N. Dependence within families and the division of labor: comparing Sweden and the United States. J Marriage Fam. 2004;66:1272–1286. [Google Scholar]
- Finley NJ. Theories of family labor as applied to gender differences in caregiving for elderly parents. J Marriage Fam. 1989;51:79–86. doi: 10.2307/352370. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Gibson D. Broken down by age and gender: “the problem of Old Women” redefined. Gend Soc. 1996;10(4):433–448. doi: 10.1177/089124396010004005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Greenstein TN. Husband’s participation in domestic labor: interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. J Marriage Fam. 1996;58:585–595. doi: 10.2307/353719. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Greenstein TN. Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor at home: a replication and extension. J Marriage Fam. 2000;62:322–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00322.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ghysels . Influence of family type on work in Denmark, Belgium and Spain. In: Harvey CDH, editor. Walking a tightrope: meeting the challenges of work and family. Aldershots: Ashgate; 2000. pp. 43–67. [Google Scholar]
- Habib RR, Nuwayhid I, Merhi M, Myntti C (2005) Gendered division of household responsibilities in the urban outskirts of Beirut. In: Proceedings of the IV International Congress on Women Work & Health, New Delhi, 27–30 November, p 74
- Habib RR, Nuwayhid I, Yeretzian JS (2006) Paid work and domestic labor in disadvantaged communities on the outskirts of Beirut, Lebanon. Sex Roles (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Hill EA, Dorfman LT. Reaction of housewives to the retirement of their husbands. Fam Relat. 1982;31:195–200. doi: 10.2307/584397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- International Labor Organization Resolution concerning statistics of the economically active population, employment and underemployment. Bull Labor Stat. 1983;3:IX–XV. [Google Scholar]
- Joseph S. Connectivity and patriarchy among urban working-class Arab families in lebanon. Ethos. 1993;21:452–484. [Google Scholar]
- Joseph S. Patriarchy and development in the Arab world. Gend Dev. 1996;4:14–19. doi: 10.1080/741922010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Joseph S, Stork J. Gender and civil society: an interview with Suad Joseph. Middle East Rep. 1993;183:22–26. doi: 10.2307/3012573. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Keith P, Wacker R. Sex roles in the older family. In: Brubaker T, editor. Family relationships in later life. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1990. pp. 115–141. [Google Scholar]
- Oswald F. Housing among the elderly: conceptual remarks and empirical data on “place attachment”. In: Wahl HW, Lehr U, editors. Elderly adults and their environments (N 4) Heidelberg: DZFA; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson J, Spitze G. Whistle while you work? The effect of household task performance on women’s and men’s well-being. Soc Sci Q. 1992;73:844–861. [Google Scholar]
- Schafer RB, Keith PM. Equity in marital roles across the family life cycle. J Marriage Fam. 1981;43:359–367. doi: 10.2307/351387. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Shelton BA, John D. The division of household labor. Annu Rev Sociol. 1996;22:299–322. [Google Scholar]
- Sibai MA, Sen K, Baydoun M, Saxena P. Population and ageing in Lebanon: current status, future prospects and implications for policy. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(3):219–225. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Soldo BJ, Wolf DA. Married women’s allocation of time to employment and care of elderly parents. J Hum Resour. 1994;29:1259–1276. doi: 10.2307/146140. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- SPSS (2003) Statistical package for social science. Version 11.0
- Stone RI, Kemper P. Spouses and children of disabled older adults: how large a constituency for long-term care reform? Milbank Q. 1990;67:485–506. doi: 10.2307/3350224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Szinovacz M. Retirement, couples, and household work. In: Bahr SJ, Peterson ET, editors. Aging and the family. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1989. pp. 33–58. [Google Scholar]
- Szinovacz M. Is housework good for retirees? Fam Relat. 1992;41:230–238. doi: 10.2307/584838. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Szinovacz ME. Changes in housework after retirement: a panel analysis. J Marriage Fam. 2000;62:78–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00078.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Thompson L, Walker AJ. Gender and families in marriage, work, and parenthood. J Marriage Fam. 1989;52:845–871. [Google Scholar]
- Twiggs JE, Mcquillan J, Ferree MM. Meaning and measurement: reconceptualizing measures of the division of household labor. J Marriage Fam. 1999;61:712–724. doi: 10.2307/353572. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Vinick B, Ekerdt D. Couples view retirement activities: expectations versus experience. In: Szinovacz M, Ekerdt D, Vinick B, editors. Family and retirement. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1992. pp. 129–144. [Google Scholar]
- Walker A, Pratt C, Eddy L. Informal caregiving to aging family members: a critical review. Fam Relat. 1995;44:402–411. doi: 10.2307/584996. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ward RA. Marital happiness and household equity in later life. J Marriage Fam. 1993;55:427–438. [Google Scholar]
- Zube M. Changing behavior and outlook of aging men and women: implications for marriage in the middle and later years. Fam Relat. 1982;31:147–156. doi: 10.2307/584213. [DOI] [Google Scholar]